Photo by Joe Mazzola/Flickr

The announcement of Cuba’s new package of economic transformations has generated intense debate both within Cuba and among supporters of the Revolution internationally. Some have expressed concern that aspects of the reforms represent a retreat toward capitalism, a weakening of socialist principles, or even a concession to the relentless pressure of US imperialism. Such concerns should not be dismissed. They arise from a genuine commitment to the principles that have defined the Cuban Revolution and an understandable apprehension about the dangers that accompany any expansion of market mechanisms.

Yet the starting point for any serious analysis must be reality. Cuba confronts one of the most severe economic crises in its contemporary history. This crisis is not the product of abstract policy failures alone, nor can it be understood apart from the unprecedented escalation of the US economic war against the island. Washington’s objective remains unchanged: to create such hardship, deprivation, and social dislocation that the Cuban people abandon their revolutionary project and surrender their sovereignty.

For more than six decades, successive US administrations have sought to achieve through economic warfare what they could not accomplish through invasion, sabotage, terrorism, diplomatic isolation, or political subversion: the destruction of the Cuban Revolution. The current phase of that assault has reached extraordinary levels. Cuba faces financial persecution, restrictions on fuel imports, obstacles to international banking transactions, sanctions against foreign investors, and a campaign explicitly designed to suffocate the country’s economy.

Under such circumstances, the Cuban revolutionary leadership could not simply stand still. To do nothing would itself have been a decision—a decision carrying potentially devastating consequences for the Cuban people and for the survival of the Revolution. As Cuban economists and policymakers have repeatedly noted, many of the measures now being implemented have been debated for decades. Indeed, part of the current crisis stems from reforms that were delayed, only partially implemented, or obstructed by institutional inertia. The cost of inaction has been enormous.

The question therefore is not whether changes were necessary. They were. The real question is what kind of changes are being implemented, under whose authority, and for what purpose.

Some critics view measures such as expanded foreign investment, modifications to foreign trade arrangements, greater flexibility for state enterprises, and new forms of financing as evidence of capitalist restoration.........

© Canadian Dimension