Free Essays - International Relations Essays
The Socialist Inevitability Of The Cuban Revolution
Why did theCuban Revolution take a socialist form?
Table of contents:
A)Introduction;
B)Limitations of this study;
C)Analysis;
D)Conclusion.
A)Introduction: This paper analysesthe socialist dispensation of the Cuban Revolution. It proceeds on the premisethat the social, economic and political situation in the country in the yearsbefore the revolution engendered a strong feeling of revulsion towards thecapitalist system, which was the strongest reason for the rise of a revolutionarysocialist order. More specifically, it tries to understand why the revolution thatFidel Castro headed succeeded when an earlier attempt of more or less the samenature failed.
B)Limitations of this study: The terms'revolution' and 'revolutionary' are used to denote both the movement thatbrought the socialist government under Fidel Castro to power, and the visionand policy he had for his countrymen. However, this paper's purview precludesthe actions of the socialist government's policy once it came to power. Also, theclassification of socio-economic and political factors it makes as being behindthe rise of the socialist state are not too rigid; some of these factors areintertwined and do not fall under the heading exclusively. Finally, the termsrelating to communism and socialism are used synonymously and interchangeably,although there exist some differences in their outlooks.
C)Analysis: This section lists threefactors for the rise of a socialist revolution in Cuba: political factors, socio-economicfactors and the supplementary factor of Fidel Castro's ideology of hatred forthe American capitalist system behind the rise of the socialist revolution.
Political factors: Cuba was in the yearsfrom its independence from Spain in 1898, to the outbreak of the revolution in1953, a country that was almost totally dominated by America. (Horowitz, 2002)Like most other foreign powers before it, America, too had viewed Cuba forstrategic reasons; (Rabkin, 1991, p. 12)however, under the pretext of helping its neighbour gain independence from theimperialist power, what America did was to bully Cuba into submission ofAmerican doctrines. In effect, there was no respite for the ordinary Cubans fromforeign oppression: America at best replaced one form of tyranny with another-its own, perpetrated by combining the conflicting roles of liberator andoppressor. From the beginning, America, which insisted upon Spain to withdrawfrom Cuba, wanted the sole role for itself in Cuban internal affairs. If theSpanish had used Cuba as one of its outposts in the colonial era, America triedto expand its own brand of imperialism driven by capitalism and multinationalsusing Cuba as a gateway to enhance its interests in Latin America. This hadbuilt a groundswell of nationalist opinion against America, something that wasimbibed in the revolutionary leadership. (Horowitz, 2002)
Under the terms of the Platt Amendment, which defined relations betweenthe two countries, the US denied Cuba the most essential ingredient of anindependent nation, sovereignty. It arrogated full powers to intervenemilitarily at its will, which gave it the excuse to make full- scale military interventionsfour times -in 1906, 1912, 1917 and 1920. Though it was repealed in the wake ofthe installation of the government of the 1933-34 insurrection, and as part ofpresident Franklin Roosevelt's 'Good Neighbor' policy, these directinterventions left a mark in Cuban minds about American intentions. (Halperin, 1972, p. 5) Its policyof propping despots and turning a blind eye to the excesses of their regimes,so long as they carried out America's bidding was the most powerful reason forfostering a communist mindset among the Cubans. In the years of Americaninterference in the nation, two of the dictators it supported, Gerardo Machadofrom 1925 to 1933 and Fulgencio Batista, who ruled two terms from 1933-44 andfrom 1952-58, were particularly corrupt, whose policies drained the economy. (Liss, 1987, p. 105)
Socio-economic factors: Social andeconomic conditions in Cuba under America in the years leading to therevolution created a lopsidedness of the country in virtually all sectors: inthe year of the start of the revolution, 1953, barely 25 percent of thepopulation was literate, and the unemployment rate was about the same. This wasactually in a not-so-bad year, which meant that even in an average year, Cubanshad to go through difficult problems in their day-to-day life. This was areflection of the fact that its economy was in a state of decay, and wascrippled. Sugar, on which the economy was built, was such an important cropthat almost the entire economy was affected by it in one or another way,directly employing nearly a quarter of the labour force. The whole economy wasbuilt on very shaky foundations -sugar is a seasonal crop, which drew hundredsof thousands of workers into its fields and employed them during the harvestperiod, known in local parlance as zafra. This, however, was a period ofjust three or four months in the year. (Huberman & Sweezy,1960, p. 8) In Cuban eyes, America was culprit number one, and the solereason for this state of affairs. As the power that helped overthrow Spain, Americacame to totally dominate the Cuban economy. Its investment was in the region of$1.5 billion as early as 1929, and it controlled two-thirds of the sugar trade,the country's lifeblood. This was not all -it owned most of the country's publicutilities, and followed a policy of protecting big farmers at the expense ofthe smaller ones, while preventing technological improvisations and thecultivation of alternative cash crops. (Rabkin, 1991, pp. 14-16) Sugar yielddeclined considerably almost throughout the years of American intervention inthe economy, but industry employed hardly a seventh of the workforce. (Williams, 1962, p. 21)
Another extremely important factor added to the misery of the sugarindustry: most of the cultivable sugar farms had typically been divided intosmall and big ownerships. While the small owners had major difficulties inrunning their farms, the bigger ones were relatively more stable. Over a periodof time, the small landowners' plots were gobbled up by profit-hungrycapitalist corporations, mostly through fraudulent means. In the process, thesecapitalists also converted vast areas of mahogany, cedar and timber and broughtthose areas, too, under sugar cultivation. A telling commentary of how bigfarms hurt the economy that was almost totally sugar-oriented was the fact thatless than 0.1 percent of the total number of farms occupied one fifth of theland under sugar cultivation; a mere eight percent of the number of farms helda whopping 71 percent of the land that cultivated sugar, while just over threepercent of the land under sugar was distributed among small farms that variedin size between one and 25 acres each, in 1946. (Huberman & Sweezy,1960, p. 9) By 1955-56, 69 percent of the farms took 11 percent of the land,and well over 200,000 families depending on agriculture in this small country werewithout jobs. (Williams, 1962, p. 21)Yet another socio-historic factor was turning out to be a source of tensions-the Spanish, who had based their imperialism on economic exploitation, had importedBlack slaves into the country during their reign; the descendants of these slaves,called the mulatto, who had stayed back, were economically backward, andconstituted 27 percent of the population, and their discontent took the form ofoccasional race riots. (Wright, 2001, p. 6) Bythe 1950's, America took the most important decisions for the economy; theChinese and the Spaniards dominated the Cubans in whatever other sectors theywere left freedom in. (Meeks, 2001, p. 52) Thisclearly was enough evidence of how much capitalism metaphorically squeezed theeconomy like the sugarcane in its factories. All the factors for a revolutionwere staring in the face; if a revolution could take place, there was no doubtthat it had to be socialist, given the extent of hatred and aversion capitalismhad evoked in the country by virtually destroying its very economy.
It in fact, did happen: some analysts see the overthrow of the Machadoregime at the hands of the University of Havana professor, Grau San Martin andhis acolyte, the firebrand leftist revolutionary, Antonio Guiteras in 1933 asthe forerunner of Castro's rise to power; this government may have lasted notmore than a few months, but the fact that it was established at all goes on toprove the desire for a socialist dispensation in the Cuban society at thattime. Aggravating this were the machinations of the American administration,which engineered the overthrow of this regime, and its replacement, Batista,who despite having pursued economic policies that enhanced the standard ofliving of some people, was perceived as the most servile of all presidents to capitulateto American diktats. (Leonard, 2003)
The Castro factor: Even after the limitedsuccess of the socialist regime, socialism had never really disappeared fromCuban psyche -even from exile, San Martin had been articulating his ideals in Cubanminds. What actually finessed the rise of a socialist regime under Castro eventhough it was a desideratum for most oppressed Cubans was his deep-rooted hatredof capitalism, a trait in which he seemed to have outpaced even communism'sprophet. His utterance on one occasion perhaps throws some insight into theextent to which he despised capitalism: Karl Marx says in his CommunistManifesto that capitalism digs its own grave. But capitalism digs two graves--one for itself and the other for the society which comes after capitalism.What we must do is to fill in the hole quickly, so that the heritage ofcapitalism may not also destroy and bury socialism. (Liss, 1994, p. 47)
Cubans had rallied around the communist leadership of the 1930's. However,apart from the fact that it was the American designs that brought this down,there was another vital factor -it lacked a well-structured leadership. Castro,when he decided to launch his offensive, drew support from the most vitalsector of the nation -the countryside. It was this factor that was to turn outto be the major reason for his success. (Meeks, 2001, p. 52)Additionally, the former did not have a clear cut plan in place to replaceAmerican interference in the country. Thus, the field was open for a personwhose leadership could offer cohesiveness the earlier leadership was lackingin. None was suited for this rule better than Castro. At the time of hisascension, there was in effect a leadership vacuum from two standpoints -whilethe Batista regime was seen to be too pro-America, there was a lacuna at thetop in the socialist leadership, too. Despite being acutely aware of the factthat America's domination extended to areas other than sugar, by which they controlled90 percent of its mines and cattle ranches, 50 percent of the public railways, and25 percent of the bank accounts, [a]mong Cuba's significant radical politicalentities, only the Communist party talked about the need for systematicanalysis of Cuba's problems and scientific planning for their alleviation. (Liss, 1987, pp. 111-112)
D)Conclusion: As can be seen, a hostof factors existed prior to the takeover of the government by the socialists inCuba. In the backdrop of continued exploitation of the economy and thecountry's social structure at the hands of the capitalist system, it is onlynatural that a very strongly anti-American system had to occupy centre stage ofthe Cuban political system. In the circumstances, it may safely be said thatCastro only stepped in to fill up emptiness both in the political system andthe people's minds. It is difficult to imagine any other form of governmenttaking over Cuba in the era of Latin American resistance to American policy ingeneral and Cuba in particular at the height of the Cold War era.
References
Halperin, M. (1972), The Riseand Decline of Fidel Castro: An Essay in Contemporary History, Universityof California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Horowitz,I. L., (2002, Spring). One Hundred Years of Ambiguity: U.S.-Cuba Relations inthe 20th Century, The National Interest, p.58+. Retrieved December 6,2005, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com
Huberman, L., & Sweezy, P. M., 1960,Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution (2nd ed.), Monthly Review Press, New York.
Leonard,T. M., 2003, State and Revolution in Cuba: Mass Mobilization and PoliticalChange, 1920-1940, The Historian, Vol. 65, No.4, p.1018+. RetrievedDecember 6, 2005, from Questia database
Liss, S. B., 1987, Roots ofRevolution: Radical Thought in Cuba, University of Nebraska Press,Lincoln, NE.
Liss, S. B., 1994, Fidel!: Castro'sPolitical and Social Thought, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Meeks, B., 2001, CaribbeanRevolutions and Revolutionary Theory: An Assessment of Cuba, Nicaragua andGrenada, University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica.
Rabkin, R. P., 1991, CubanPolitics: The Revolutionary Experiment, Praeger Publishers, New York.
Williams, W. A., 1962, TheUnited States, Cuba, and Castro: An Essay on the Dynamics of Revolution and theDissolution of Empire, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Wright, T. C., 2001, LatinAmerica in the Era of the Cuban Revolution (Revised ed.)., PraegerPublishers, Westport, CT.
International-relations Essays - Find your free international-relations essays...
We have a large assortment of free international-relations essays available to use as research material. Visit our international-relations essays from our free essays section.
All of the essays in the Free Essays section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism!
