Is Cuba Going to Join the World Economic System?

The Revolution Betrayed?

It seems that Marx got it a tad wrong when he saw the inexorable victory of communism over the self-destruction of capitalism. It seems, however, that Marxism itself contained the seeds of its own destruction and has served as part of a dialectical process – for capitalism.[1] This is because Marxism sprang from the same zeitgeist as capitalism: that of the 19^th Century Manchester School of Economics. In fact, Marx conceded something of the type when he stated that he supported Free Trade as part of a dialectical process that would internationalize the productive processes and the proletariat.[2] As history has shown, including recent history and that which is continuing to unfold before our eyes, there has been a dialectical process at work, but the result has not been that of socialism as a transitional phase towards communism, but rather as a transitional phase towards capitalist globalization,[3] with the reanimation of the corpse of 19^th Century English economics as the global economic model.[4]

As H G Wells observed when touring the young Soviet state at the time that Washington Vanderlip was over their getting a Far Eastern concession on behalf of a consortium of US big business:

Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.[5]

From this dialectical viewpoint, Marxian revolution served to break down traditional states, based on religion, aristocracy, and a peasant economy; just as the Soros “color revolutions” serve the same purpose in our own times. Socialist revolutions seem to have been a means of radically and even violently imposing an industrial economic structure upon societies that are viewed as anachronistic by international capitalism.

Most of the former communist states have succumbed to international capitalism, with China serving as a model of what international capitalism would like to achieve on a world scale: centralized economics backed by draconian laws, police and guns; a definition that the Left has historically and dogmatically applied to define “fascism.”

As I have sought to show, even brave little Vietnam, having fought for sovereignty – whether one calls it “communism” or “nationalism” is not crucial – for literally centuries against colonial powers, including the China, France and the USA – has now apparently succumbed to international capital, and is as much part of the world economic system, and its foundation in usury, as any Western state.[6] As I have shown in that article, Vietnam has opened its economy up to world capitalism, and has embarked also on a course of debt-finance to the international banking system. This article poses the question as to whether Cuba is about to embark on the same course, and what the present strategy of international capitalism is for Cuba.

Cuba on the Capitalist Path?

It now seems that with a string of former “socialist’ states succumbing to the “market economy” one of the last remnants of the socialist dream – Cuba – is to go the same way. It seems plausible that the recent interview by Castro with Atlantic Monthly journalist Jeffrey Goldberg is a tentative move toward Cuba’s expression of intent to dismantle its sovereign economy, and to become a client state of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and transnational corporations.

It is of interest that the ostensible reason that Castro requested an interview with Goldberg was over the matter of Israel and the Cuban statesman’s joining the chorus of Western world leaders, Zionists and their allies to castigate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust denial.”[7] It is surely reasonable to suppose that Castro thought the best way to ingratiate himself to the USA in particular was to say something that would be pleasing to the Zionists and their American underlings. Likewise, to offer what amounts to an apology for his actions regarding the Cuban missile crisis amounts to knee-bending penitence before the altar of the Yankee Dollar. Castro could surely have indicated his intention for economic reform and for entering the world economic system like Vietnam has done, without such a dramatic act of groveling to Zion.

An article by Al Kamen in principal Establishment mouthpiece, The Washington Post, states that Castro’s comments to Goldberg that the socialist economic model “doesn’t even work for us anymore” in reaction to a question about the old policy of spreading the socialist revolution throughout Latin America, comes at a time when his brother Raul is trying to push through reforms in the face of opposition with the Communist Party. [8]

Kamen cites other sources as stating that what Raul is looking at is the China model. Significantly Kamen describes the China model succinctly as being: “Rampant capitalism in the economy, tight communist control of the government.” That is precisely the type of regime beloved by Rockefeller, et al; precisely the type of regime that I believe has always been intended as the end product of the capitalist dialectic.

Goldberg brought with him as his adviser to the interviewer his friend Julia Sweig, “a leading Latin American scholar”[9] at the Establishment think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The background of Ms Sweig is of interest. She is “Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies” at the CFR. The Council’s policy of moving towards Cuba might be compared to the long-term, gradual policy the CFR pursued for the recognition of Mao’s China in the face of public opposition.[10] The recognition of China was also preceded by apparently minor events, such as the so-called “Ping Pong” diplomacy and gradually increasing cultural exchanges. Sweig wrote a CFR study on Cuba, drawing from Cuban archives including the personal archives of Castro, which seems to have been intended to throw a positive light on the revolution from a globalist Establishmentarian perspective, after years of declaring Cuba to be a world pariah.[11] It seems that now is the time for Cuba to come into the “world community” from the Cold, by mutual consent.

David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies

As one should expect, groundwork for a change in Cuba is being fostered by Rockefeller interests in a manner typical of the way the plutocrats work above and beyond the public posturing of politicians on the world stage. Despite the decades’ long economic sanctions on Cuba by US administrations for e.g., University of Havana’s Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy works in partnership with a Rockefeller body, the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard, studying ways by which the Cuban economy can be restructured for integration into the world economy. A joint 2005 study was published by the Rockefeller Center and distributed by Harvard University Press. Entitled The Cuban Economy at the Start of the Twenty-First Century,[12] the Ford Foundation has assisted in the publication of a Spanish edition. Castro should have shut the whole business down from the start for the same reasons that some states have shut down the Soros subversive networks.

There are numerous ongoing programs initiated by the Rockefeller Centre under a special “Cuban Studies Program”[13] which, as is the practice of the globalist elite, proceeds ahead regardless of petty politics.

DRCLAS was founded in 1994 to Neil L Rudenstine, then University President, and David Rockefeller, who: “shared a sense that Harvard should be intellectually poised to respond to real-world changes in the Americas resulting from democratic transitions and economic restructuring.”[14] Translated from globalist jargonese this means that DRCLAS was established as yet another Rockefeller think tank to formulate policy on how best to change the Continent in accordance with the interests of world plutocracy. The advisory committee of DRCLAS includes:

• Manuel Arango (Mexico), who is also director of the Institute of the Americas, another plutocratic think tank set up in 1983 to promote business relations throughout the Americas. Corporate backers include J P Morgan, ExxonMobil, Enron South America, et al.
• Gustavo A. Cisneros (Venezuela), Chairman and CEO of Cisneros Group of Companies. He is also on the board of advisors of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which happens to be a long time Rockefeller family flagship, presently including David Rockefeller as Honorary Chairman; David Rockefeller Jr. and Sharon Percy Rockefeller on the board. Cisneros is also on the Council of Rockefeller University, International Advisory Board of the CFR, etc.
• Peggy Dulany (USA), David Rockefeller’s daughter; board of Rockefeller Brothers Fund, etc.
• Israel Klabin (Brazil), one of the wealthy elite who compares himself to the Rothschilds.
• Martha T Muse (USA) long-time member of the CFR.
• David Rockefeller.[15]

It might well be asked whether the partnered think tank at Havana University, under the nose of the Cuban Government, is a hotbed of plutocratic subversion, where the future generation of leaders is being trained under the influence of foreign academics sponsored by the predictable network of oligarchs.

In a typically Cold War neo-con attack on Cuba, Dr Miguel A Faria nonetheless made some interesting observations back in 2001, stating of Cuba and the CFR that:

Out of the shadows, a little-known but powerful organization has stepped out this new millennial year advocating a more accommodating stance with the communist regime of Fidel Castro.[16]

…In short, before we change our policy toward Cuba based on sagacious-sounding CFR reports, we should stop to pause and consider that these measures may not necessarily be in the best interest of the Cuban people or intended to aid in a “transition to democracy,” as sold to us, but rather to advance chiefly the internationalist goal of this organization. Nor does the interest of the American people often coincide with those of this organization.

While Dr Faria patriotically suggested that any such reconciliation between the USA and Cuba would strength the communist regime rather than encourage openness and democracy, those who are not so enthusiastic about the role and nature of the USA are more likely to conclude that the closer one relates to America the nearer one gets to a pervasive moral and cultural rot that will inevitably bring about the fall of a state into the hands of the plutocratic elite that feeds on corruption.

Globalist Strategy for Latin America

The globalist agenda for Cuba has been set down for the Obama Administration, in a report released by the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue in March 2009. The LA Progressive stated of the Dialogue mission that spanned the Latin American region:

By far the most controversial relates to Cuba, which, the Dialogue notes, “Washington’s 50-year-old policy of isolating and sanctioning Cuba has never accomplished much,” adding that “there is no other issue on which Washington is so out of step with the rest of the region. Nothing would better demonstrate the new administration’s intention to dismantle the web of restrictions that the United States has imposed on Cuba. A policy shift on Cuba, which carries great symbolic weight in the region, would be a powerful signal that Washington will be more responsible to Latin American views.”[17] It concludes by declaring that “a democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a precondition.”[18]

The last sentence, citing the report makes it clear enough that the agenda for such a “dialogue” if typically subversive. “Democratic society” like Soros’ “open society” is a euphemism for globalization and the cultural and moral rot that goes with it.

The answer for Latin America’s development is the globalist formula of increasing the already disastrous incursions of the World Bank and IMF in the region.[19]

The report places the responsibility for the continued US embargo on Cuba on the Cuban anti-Castro émigrés, but notes that it “is politically weaker and more diverse than it once was.”[20]

Nor should there be much resistance to a US decision to stop trying to block other nations and multinational institutions from doing business with Cuba. Washington should simply cease its efforts to keep the OAS and multilateral development banks from engaging Cuba and not intrude into the diplomacy of such nations as Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Spain that are strengthening their political and economic ties to Cuba. Instead, the US should encourage such engagement as a means to facilitate Cuba’s successful reintegration into hemispheric affairs and avoid its dependence on Venezuela and its allies.[21]

This paragraph is very telling in regard to oligarchic strategy for Latin America. Chavez’s Venezuela “and its allies” affirms the aim of isolating the “Bolivarian” hemispheric bloc forming around Venezuela which has the potential to challenge American hegemony in a unipolar world.[22]

The US members of the delegation include the predictable bunch representing interests such as Goldman Sachs, Salomon Bros., CFR (including Richard Haass, president of the CFR; until 2003 director of policy panning for the US State Dept.), Bechtel Group; DRCLAS (Martha Muse, CFR, see above), while the Latin American delegates include a fair share of Leftists; i.e. another example of the quite frequent historical phenomena of collusion between plutocrats and socialists.

What appears to be the current policy of the US ruling elite for Latin America is to integrate Cuba into the world economy, much like Vietnam, rendering it tame whilst simultaneously isolating Venezuela and undermining the Bolivarian bloc.

Notes

[1] K R Bolton, “Socialism, Revolution, and Capitalist Dialectics,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 4, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/04/socialism-revolution-and-capitalist-dialectics/

[2] Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), ‘Bourgeois and Proletarians,’ p. 71. Also: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, “Speech on the question of free trade delivered to the Democratic Association of Brussels at it public meeting of January 9, 1848”, Collected Works, Volume 6 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976).

[3] Bolton, FPJ, May 4, 2010, op.cit.

[4] Which can also be equated with the  so-called Austrian and Chicago schools.

[5] H G Wells, Russia in the Shadows, Chapter VII, ‘The Envoy’, 1920. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602371h.html

[6] Bolton, “Has Vietnam lost the struggle for freedom?,” FPJ, June 10, 2010. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/10/has-vietnam-lost-the-struggle-for-freedom/all/1

[7] Reuters, “Castro says Soviet-style communism unworkable,” The Dominion Post, September 10, 2010, B5, Wellington, New Zealand.

[8] Al Kamen, “Has Fidel Castro become a capitalist?, The Washington Post, September 9, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090906407.html

[9] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Fidel: ‘Cuban Model Doesn’t Even Work For Us Anymore’,” The Atlantic, September 8, 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/

[10] Bolton, “Sino-Soviet-US Relations, and the 1969 Nuclear Threat,” FPJ, May 17, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/17/sino-soviet-us-relations-and-the-1969-nuclear-threat/all/1

[11] Julia E Sweig, Inside the Cuban Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2002),“Overview,” Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4591/inside_the_cuban_revolution.html

[12] Jorge Domínguez, Omar Everleny Pérez Villanueva and Lorena Barberia (editors) The Cuban Economy at the Start of the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press, 2005).

[13] David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University, “Cuban Studies Program,” http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/cuba/faculty/public_policy

[14] “About DRCVLAS: Overview,” http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/about/drclas

[15] “David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies”, Source Watch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Rockefeller_Center_for_Latin_American_Studies

[16] Dr Miguel A. Faria Jr., “Cuba and the Council on Foreign Relations, “ Newsmax, February 15, 2001, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/15/224945.shtml

[17] The Inter-American Dialogue, A Second Chance: US Policy in the Americas, March 2009, p. 3. http://www.thedialogue.org/uploads/2008_Sol_M__Linowitz_Forum/A_Second_Chance,_FINAL_to_post.pdf

[18] Don Bohning, “Will Obama be influenced by the Latest Big Task force on Latin America?,” LA Progressive, Match 25, 2009, http://www.laprogressive.com/political-issues/will-obama-be-influenced-by-the-latest-big-task-force-on-latin-america/

[19] A Second Chance: US Policy in the Americas, op.cit., p. 7.

[20] Ibid., p. 9.

[21] Ibid., p. 10.

[22] Officially called “The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America’ (ALBA) formed in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed “Free Trade Area of the Americas.” By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the ‘Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America,” and looks to Russia as an ally.