>Great question. I have wondered about this myself.
>
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> There's no question that imperialism was essential to the rise of
>> European capitalism. But what about its contribution to First World
>> wealth in the present? No doubt greater than zero, but how much? Does
>> anyone have any good ideas?
>>
>> Doug
>
>--
>
>Michael Perelman
It is the wrong question, however. In vulgar Marxist terms, notions of a
"contribution to First World wealth" would be paramount. However, even with
resources like oil, stagnation rather than outright theft is the main
problem. The USA simply can not permit any third world country to break
away. Nicaragua's GNP was equal to the amount of money spent on blue jeans
in the USA during the height of the contra war. We spent far more money on
destroying the country than would make sense economically. Some liberals
used this argument to question the "logic" of the war in Vietnam for that
matter. Generally speaking, the problem facing countries like Nigeria,
Brazil and the Philippines is underutilization of resources. As long as
capitalism prevails, this will remain true. Looking at Cuba, you can see an
almost pure version of this contradiction.
The Cuban economy was based on export agriculture. The main crop was sugar,
followed by tobacco, cattle and coffee. Agricultural resources were
underutilized. For the hacienda owner, this was no problem. It might mean
spending January through March in the US or Europe, shopping or attending
the opera. For the farm worker, this meant unemployment and suffering. In
1954, for instance, Cuba's 424,000 agricultural wage earners averaged only
123 days of work; farm owners, tenants and sharecroppers also fared poorly,
averaging only 135 days of employment.
Unemployment led to all sorts of hardship. 43% of the rural population was
illiterate. 60% lived in huts with earth floors and thatched roofs. 2/3
lived without running water and only 1 out of 14 families had electricity.
Daily nutrition was terrible. Only 4% of rural families ate meat regularly.
Most subsisted on rice, beans and root crops. Bad diet and housing caused
bad health. 13% of the population had a history of typhoid, 14%
tuberculosis and over 1/3 intestinal parasites.
The main cause of backwardness in the countryside was the cartel nature of
agriculture, particularly the sugar industry. A production quota was
assigned to each cane grower, based on figures originating from 1937. The
quota was divided into 2 export quotas, one for the US and one for the rest
of the world, and 1 quota for special reserves. The reserve quota was a
major problem since it caused over 1/5 of Cuban land to lay idle.
The quota system also fostered inefficiency and prevented the rational use
of agricultural resources. Primarily, it inflated costs and discouraged new
investments. Clearly, the goal of modernizing and rationalizing agriculture
was not "socialist". Any capitalist reformer could have taken a look at
Cuba and said that capitalism needed to be unleashed in order for the
economy to develop. The cartel structure should have been smashed and
productive agricultural practices encouraged.
It was actually Fulgencio Batista's desire to reform the Cuban economy
which motivated his seizure of power and many of his policies in the 1950s.
He created public "New Deal" types of agencies to foster agricultural
development. Included was the Agriculture and Industrial Development Bank,
organized in 1951 to provide cheap credit to Cuba's farmers and home
industry. The Cuban Bank for Foreign Commerce was established in 1954 in
order to finance Cuban exports, especially coffee.
These institutions and the rhetoric that accompanied their formation had an
unexpected impact on the consciousness of the Cuban people. They
conditioned the people to accept a more "activist" type of government and
raised expectations of rural society. It was this change in consciousness
that paved the way for the Cuban revolution, especially when Batista failed
to deliver what he had promised.
What accounted for this failure?
It can be primarily explained as the inability of capitalism to provide
rapid development in a neocolonial society, no matter what the intentions
are of reformist regimes. In Cuba, this meant that Batista could not break
the power of the cartels, which exercised political power. It also meant
that specialization in export commodities gave the Cuban economy a
distorted aspect. Land and labor were utilized poorly. A mixed agriculture
could lift the technical skills of the workforce. A plantation economy
based on sugar cane condemned rural Cuba to backwardness.
In addition to the straitjacket imposed on production by the Cuban
bourgeoisie, there was the additional penalty paid by Cuba's dependence on
the United States. The volume of sugar that entered the United States was
set by the US Congress and subject to the whims of the American economy.
Cuba needed economic independence but there was no motivation for the
native ruling classes to fight for it.
One other particular feature of the Cuban political economy which fueled
the revolutionary movement of the 1950s was the widespread corruption. The
excellent "Godfather Part II" dramatized this state of affairs and, if
anything, understated the degree of corruption. In higher circles of the
public economy, graft accounted for about 1/4 of state expenditures. A high
official of the Batista regime stated, "In the years preceding the
revolution, the average amount of graft in public works (alone) cost as
much as the works themselves." Corruption, it should be added, was wiped
out by the revolutionary government in a couple of months.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
