A brief response to the exchanges between Nikolai S. Rozov and Bruce McFarling:
>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
>>>> My doubts and questions:
>>>> Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot'
>>>> struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL
>>>> the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917,
>>>> China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass
>>>> social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror.
>
> Bruce McFarling responded:
>>> I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading
>>> to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with
>>> consequences leading causes by that length of time. And
>>> there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as
>>> well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic
>>> growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica
>>> over this time.
I have to agree with Bruce that attributing Cuba's current poverty to
Castro's government is problematic at best, if not hard to sustain, as is
Nikolai's subsequent claim that the "communist isolate" strategy (when are
you arguing this strategy began, 1959?, 1961?, 1990/90?) guaranteed
"non-growth and stagnation".
The critical point is against who we are comparing the performance of this
country / its strategy. As Cuba experienced high rates of economic growth
through the 70s until the mid 1980s, and an accompanying rise in living
standards, consumption rates and numerous other social indicators, how many
other peripheral countries experienced comparatively disastrous results,
using very different development strategies?
I would have thought that WST makes this type of issue very clear. Cuba was
searching for alternative strategies, following the successful overthrow of
the Batista regime in 1959, precisely because of its own experience of
exploitation within the w-economy as a peripheral country, and ample
evidence from the Caribbean Central American region of the remote likelihood
of success if more moderate and conventional approaches were taken.
Cubans have indeed emerged a bit poorer and a bit healthier, as Bruce
pointed out. We could add a bit better educated, better housed, with a bit
more economic security... and I would argue under a government that is from
a bit *less* to a lot more authoritarian as compared to its region.
The results of this "communist isolate" strategy is that Cuba finds itself,
37 years later, facing many of the same problems - the need for capital,
technology and markets - as do its neighbours after attempts to secure these
with the support of 'world capital'.
Finally, I must again support Bruce's call:
> This was not an effort to split hairs. The question *does*
>presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank /
>TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong.
>Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing
>examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is
>arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC
>'development policy', or by working arounf it. The performance of African
>countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has
>over the years been abysmal. So, I'd like to see the specific argument
>that it *is* possible to raise the status of peripheral countries *with* the
>support of the IMF / World Bank / TNC's / etc, before looking that the
>(presently loaded) question of whether its possible without the support
>of these organizations.
>
The questions raised are absolutely crucial. It is precisely the abysmal
performance of other peripheral countries that help the Castro government
retain significant domestic support, despite its authoritarianism and the
past 6 years of severe crisis. The ambivalence of many people to the current
strategy of re-insertion into the w-economy using foreign investment, but to
date without seeking IMF / World Bank support, is indicative of this.
Options are limited, so I too look forward to Nikolai's specific argument.
Regards and in appreciation of the great reading / debate on the WSN,
Tom Griffiths, Newcastle,
edtgg@cc.newcastle.edu.au