Category: Pedro Campos

However, it is not possible to hide, behind the Cuban exodus, the fundamental problem in Cuba: the dissatisfaction of hundreds of thousands of Cubans with the economic and political situation in our country, which remains essentially unchanged thanks to decisions taken by the government — which has been in power for more than half a century – in the name of socialism, which has never existed.

No, we Cubans are not starving, because really there is no generalized crisis of that type in Cuba. Although for many nutrition is precarious, the fundamental appetite Cubans have is for rights and freedoms, for democracy, because the “dictatorship” – supposedly of the proletariat – established in Cuba and always led in the same direction by the Communist Party, continues to insist on its political and economic model of monopolistic State capitalism; by its nature anti-democratic, exclusive and retrograde.

Despite the public discourse of an “opening,” in reality economic activity outside the State is constantly limited by laws, regulations and provisions at all levels and by high direct and indirect taxes. Autonomous work, or self-employment, continues to be restricted to a group of activities and cannot be exercised by professionals in medicine or law, for example. To establish a cooperative requires permission from the Council of State.

But above all, State monopolies in domestic and foreign trade and the limited access to international communications networks, hinder non-State economic activity.

But what most oppresses Cubans, along with the daily problems of housing, transportation or poor-quality food, is the repressive philosophy of the State that impedes the freedom of expression, of association and elections, which obstructs any democratic alternation in power of forces and figures different from the governmental clan, forces and figures that could bring another focus to politics and get the country out of the stagnation in which it finds itself.

This is definitely a massive and flagrant violation of the civil, political, economic and social rights of the Cuban people, by a government that has spent more than half a century in power, with the methods and mechanisms to guarantee its indefinite existence. And this is the real cause of the exodus and of the current crisis.

It is true that the internal problems of Cubans must be resolved by Cubans ourselves, but when these problems affect other nations it is logical that they would take action in the matter and try to influence events through international means established by multilateral institutions recognized by the States.

The Central American community has met to discuss the crisis, but it should go beyond the legal and border problems involved and evaluate it in its entirety. The Inter-American system should also take action on the issue and the United Nations itself should involve itself, because as long as there is no resolution to the internal problems in Cuba, the system imposed by this “eternal Government” is going to continue to generate regional tensions related to immigration, be it in Central America, South America or the Straits of Florida.

Some believe that the current immigration crisis caused by the presence of thousands of Cubans in Central America is a land version of the Rafter Crisis of 1994. Any attempt to put a plug in the Cuban exodus across the continent could lead to a situation like that one, if democratic changes that loosen tensions do not come to pass in Cuba

It has not been the “blockade,” as the Government says, nor this “socialism,” as argued by those who believed there was such a thing, that have been causes of the disaster, but rather the Statist wage model imposed by those who capitalized on the 1959 triumph of the Revolution. Instead of restoring the 1940 Constitution and the democratic institutions which for which all the democratic political movements and all social sectors had fought for, the State assumed control of all large, medium and small enterprises, all private or associated property, domestic or foreign, and they continued to exploit wage-labor.

In the name of a democratic and popular revolution the government imposed a persona, authoritarian, anti-democratic dictatorship which they called “of the proletariat” where the proletarians continued to be proletarians (i.e. workers), deciding nothing and, what’s worse, being exploited.

In the name of a nonexistent socialism they also appropriated the Cuban labor force for half a century, of the humble and dispossessed in the name of whom they erected this economic and government system. And unbearably, they called this thing socialism!

If from the former owners of land, factories, businesses and real estate they took away their material property, from four generations of revolutionaries of all stripes they took away their lives, which were placed at the service of the state in the Armed Forces, the State Security services, diplomatic work, international missions, guards and demonstrations. There was a need to defend the state from so many arbitrarily generated enemies.

But this is not the time for blame. If I mention blame it is because it is incriminating that the main cause was an effect, albeit one that has also done so much damage to us, above all because it has served to justify such nonsense.

It is time now for solutions. How to resolve the problem? Many of us have raised this and even Raul Castro knows it and says so, but he is in no hurry: the productive forces need to be freed.

How? By democratizing the political and economic life of the country. It is necessary to destroy the obstacles, laws and regulations that prevent people from deploying their initiative; to eliminate every restriction that stands in the way of the private labor of doctors, nurses, dentists, lawyers, architects and other professionals. The restrictions on free cooperativism need to be eliminated. Dismantle the state business monopolies and the price controls on agricultural and industrial products. Allow Cubans to import whatever they wish, establish stores and factories, with simple import and sales taxes.

Involve workers in the direction, management and profits of state enterprises, allow autonomous companies to invest, buy and sell. Allow the broad development of SMEs of all types, be they of private or associated capital, supported by private or state capital. Allow Cubans living abroad to invest in the island, supporting their families and friends. Change the tax laws to stimulate production and services.

To change the Foreign Investment Law for a simple investment law for everyone, where you can engage in all the forms of production that reality demands, with freedom for unions and guarantees for the fair wages for the workers. To reduce the size of the state and its spending. To expand and free the internet allowing free trade and horizontal exchange of information of all kinds. The free market makes possible the development of free labor, whether individual or associated. Without these changes there is no socialism, sustainability nor prosperity.

And can these changes in the economy be made by an authoritarian elite that aspires to perpetuate itself in power and maintain political and economic control over society?

So far it has been proven that they can not. First – or in parallel – there must be a process of democratization of the political life, which in a climate of trust will allow other sectors, groups or visions to perform with a focus on democratizing the society. This implies freedom of expression, association and free elections so that all political and economic trends manifest themselves and interact democratically to work towards a new constitution and a new electoral law.

A genuine democracy must establish participatory budgets locally, so that taxes and budgets are controlled more by communities to strengthen their capacities and sustainable development and to ensure that all relevant laws are widely and horizontally discussed and that all of the are subject to referendum.

And without an internal “blockade,” even if the other persists, so that as Cubans we can see what we are capable of.

If the blockade-embargo were lifted and these obstacles continued, the State would swallow all the loans and only support unproductive state enterprises of interest to the elites to paternalistically continue to govern health and education at a low cost, a pittance for food on the ration book, and precarious levels of wages, pensions, housing support and transportation the majority.

But the bureaucracy does not want socialization nor democratization: they do not want to risk their power and privileges. The fear of losing power is the ultimate cause that prevents these changes. Please, do not frighten them even more. No one needs to be done away with. Do not forget “with all and for the good of all.”

Whoever helps empower the people, whoever helps improve the living conditions of the people, whoever helps people to be more free and able to decide their destinies, to let them be happy and prosperous, whoever would do more for the welfare of the people, would win the greatest popular support.

If we have the United States to thank for all this and the lifting of its “blockade”… you get the idea, reader.

Translator’s notes:
*The Cuban regime insists on calling the US embargo against Cuba “the blockade.”
**In this context “voluntarism” is relying on volunteer labor for major economic activities.

It is not possible to establish a dependency relationship between the narrow modifications introduced by Raul Castro and the Church’s influence in them, but it is undeniable that in recent years it has played some role in them. For some, it has been a simple screen, for others, something more.

But what nobody can dispute is Pope Francis’s role as a mediator in the reestablishment of relations between Cuba and the United States, one of the most significant political events so far this year and from which the Cuban people expect many good things.

This pope could well come to “take stock” of this event with which he will be historically linked. Not by pure chance is he going to the United States by way of Cuba.

The reconciliatory role of the church is undoubtedly clearly expressed there. We would also like his help in our internal reconciliation, that’s true.

Some opponents do not agree with the reestablishment of relations, as they reject all eventual conversation or dialog with the Cuban government. They could not share the reconciliation, the political dialog, the mercy and forgiveness promoted by the Catholic Church as a part of the social harmony. They also have a right to that.

Pope Francisco is in a better position to lobby for democratization in Cuba than are those who criticize him from the opposition

In this context reference should be made to the positions we are defending from a part of the Cuban democratic left. And the first point of a platform — “For a broad democratic movement of the Cuban democratic left” — offered by three groups who made the call, states:

“The creation of an atmosphere of collaboration and harmony leading to the establishment of an inclusive national dialogue and the recognition of fundamental freedoms; a new Constitution which is the fruit of the creation and collective and horizontal discussion of the Cuban people, and then approved in a referendum; a new democratic electoral law, and the establishment of a modern State of Law with full working and informative transparency, under popular control, with autonomous municipalities, participatory budgets at the different levels and laws that affect all citizens and is submitted to a referendum. Finally, a Democratic Republic based in humanism and solidarity, with full social justice, comprehensively governed by the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which we all have a part.”

From these positions we welcome everyone that supports the creation of this climate.

Does anyone doubt that Cuba today needs an atmosphere of collaboration and harmony that brings us this constructive dialog and the conditions for a broad process of democratization? Or does someone still believe that democratization can be achieved by other unrelated means?

Does anyone not want this process of democratization for Cuba?

And one might wonder who brings better conditions of influence to bring about the realization of this environment that almost all Cubans agree is needed. Figures like Pope Francis in his approach to the Cuban government, or those who, from the opposition, scorn and even try to ridicule the efforts of the Catholic Church and its personalities for trying to help, specifically, in the creation of this indispensable climate?

The answer is obvious, but it should be expressed: Pope Francis is in better position to influence conditions in favor of the democratization in Cuba, with his policy of approach to the government, than are those who criticize from the opposition.

That his action results in support for the continuation of the current authoritarian and intransigent State, or in a positive influence in favor of the gradual changes that the vast majority desire, is a question that in practice has already been demonstrated.

In politics everyone speaks and acts from their own position, but there are positions from which one can talk, discuss, negotiate and get results, and there are others that make that difficult or impossible, that alienate and divide.

“Participatory and democratic socialism contemplates many aspects coincide with the social doctrine of the Catholic Church”

Everyone is free to choose their political position, their actions, which is not the same as ideology, but don’t expect to reap the same fruits. There is not the same fertile ground everywhere, there is not the same irrigation, there is not the same sun and certainly there are not the same cultivators and harvesters.

Everyone can choose how they refer to the pope and his efforts in Cuba: everyone can reap what they sow.

From the positions of a participatory and democratic socialism, which contemplates many aspects that coincide with the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, we hope that the upcoming visit of Pope Francis can continue this climate of détente and harmony in our country that is conducive to other democratic developments for the good of all Cubans.

In fact, his coming is already contributing, with the government’s recent release of more than 3,500 prisoners sentenced for different crimes. Hopefully it will also stimulate changes in the laws will prevent so many imprisonments and so much arbitrariness.

Welcome to the key of the Gulf, Pope Francis. May you have a happy visit and may your expectations meet success.

Likewise, we can speak of a positive language and a negative language. When someone shows themselves to be in favor of something it can be heard by someone who doesn’t think the same and can find points of agreement. But if a person or group defines themselves as against such a thing, they may begin by saying, “I totally disagree with you,” “you are completely wrong,” “with you there is nothing to discuss.” In fact, it is assuming an attitude of opposition and confrontation that impedes approaching and interacting directly with regards to that thing or person.

For the anti’s, those who are against it, the solution is generally the elimination of the contrary, the adversary, and not in its assimilation, in its dissolution into something new and everything is subordinated to this elimination, especially the methods to achieve it.

When the goal is to do away with the contrary, the objective itself determines how to do it and compels the methods of suppression, the use of violence. Consequently, almost always it generates a natural force of reaction in the object to be suppressed; force that often is superior to what it is opposing and so send up defeating the anti.

The study of history shows that if indeed many changes were achieved through violence, in practice these changes were already being developed

The study of history shows that if, indeed, many changes were achieved through violence, in practice these changes come already developed and settled; only those interested in rapidly provoking them turn to violence to achieve their objectives and end up with the contrary.

History also teaches us that many of those violent changes were not strong and lasting precisely because they had been precipitated – still not having created the conditions adequate for their full development – and they can only be sustained by continued violence. When violence ceases to be exercised in such conditions, generally the changes are reversed. Ergo: changes imposed, changes reversed.

It is not taking an anti-Castro, anti-communist, counterrevolutionary position – or whatever you want to call it – for those interested in the democratization of Cuban society to pursue it. Between an anti-something position and democracy there are insurmountable contradictions, precisely because anti implies suppression and elimination and democracy is not about suppressions or exclusions, but about a coordination among positions, including contradictory ones, and about inclusions and taking into account the interests of everyone.

One of the great masters of Cuban diplomacy, Professor D’Estefano, who died years ago, in one of his lectures on negotiations back in the seventies, taught us his “theory of ham loaf.” In a negotiation you cannot get everything all at once, just line you can’t eat a ham loaf in one bite, but if you take it slice by slice, you can eat the whole thing.

In this democratization of Cuba, those who have tried to eat the entire ham loaf in one go have always fallen into a grave error that has led to failure. No, gentlemen. This has to be done step by step. Not “with many pauses and no hurry,” but with negotiations, making progress slowly, not imposing positions, much less trying to suppress contrary positions.

In this democratization of Cuba, those who have tried to eat the entire ham loaf in one go have always fallen into a grave error that has led to failure.

Democracy can also be reversible when it is imposed, when it has not been preceded by a process of social and economic education. This is what we have seen in many countries where governments come to power by democratic means and then act like others that came into power through violence and end up hijacking the power of the people for partisan ends or for elites.

It is time for those who consider themselves sincere fighters for democracy in Cuba to begin to act with more consequence, intelligence and wisdom, to think more about the way, the methods, to achieve their objectives, rather than continue to consider themselves opponents, anti’s, enemies of the established power and to seek its elimination, to look for ways to negotiate a process of democratization with it that is inclusive, something everyone can agree on.

But if it is assumed there will be no democracy if the Castro tyranny does not first come to an end, then there will be no negotiation, no agreement, no peace process, no achieving the desired democracy. Why see this objective as a precondition and not as a result, where everything will end up changing?

I offer these ideas not that many of us are trying to come to an agreement about how to advance the process of democratization in Cuba. If everyone interested in democracy on the island doesn’t learn these lessons of history, they may have to resign themselves to standing firm for 50 more years in their “anti-Castro positions.”

From the movement for democratic socialism, I support the idea of a dialog involving all Cubans, and also those interested within the government-party-state, without anyone dominating it, where we all work together for the democratization of Cuban society. And if someone wants to remain outside this process by their own choice, that will their responsibility.

Why see this objective as a precondition and not as a result, where everything will end up changing?

In this struggle for democratization, we subordinate many other parts of our program to this objective that we now consider primary and supreme. We hope that all those sincerely interested in this process consider this elementary principle of coordination.

And I emphasize “coordinate” because it is not the same “to coordinate,” “to come together” — said José Martí — maintaining our identity and seeking points in common, as to fuse homogeneously into something that will later only serve hegemonic groups and over the long term, because the internal contradictions are not adequately developed, and they try to cut it short “for the sake of unity.” Is it necessary to recall recent disappointments of our history in this sense?

For the sake of the efforts being that are being undertaken no one is trying to impose straitjackets; no one is trying to distort the meaning of the words. If we have problems with the language and semiotics, let us first agree on that and then discuss the issues. Negotiate, negotiate and negotiate is what we must do.

Recently the Roundtable of Democratic Action Unit (some of us preferred another name) was established in Havana, and in Puerto Rico an important meeting was held with many Cubans from inside and outside the island who are interested in achieving democracy in Cuba. In order for these coordination efforts to make a positive contribution to the process of democratization, we must take into account all these historical lessons.

For the most positive forces of the government-party-state to not see “the enemy” in these movements and look for ways for their involvement, the first thing is not to present ourselves as such and to take a proactive position.

The internal situation could be complicated by the resistance of the Government to recognize different thinking and its insistence on repressing its manifestations

And this process has been possible because of the need of the Cuban government to access international sources of financing, and the need of the United States to rebuild its relations with Latin America, affected precisely by the policy of isolating Cuba.

However, what we Cubans need most, we citizens, those below, those of us who could receive no benefit from these governmental rapprochements, is that the government of this country open itself to its people. Pope Francis might also contribute to this, although the force that he commands is more moral and human than economic.

In this regard, the Cuban Civil Society Open Forum wrote a letter to His Holiness, delivered personally to the Nunciature in Havana, in which they solicited his good offices to mediate between the Government and Cuban civil society and facilitate a dialog, as it did between the Cuban authorities and those of the United States.

Cuban society urgently needs this national dialog which different political and social forces have called for in recent years, as there is a difficult internal situation that, unfortunately, could be complicated by the resistance of the Government to recognize different thinking and its insistence on repressing its manifestations.

Today, officialdom continues making speeches and acting like a citadel under siege – “all dissent is treason” – while it is evident that the government politicians themselves are those who are preventing the democratization of society, the advance of the productive forces, and the development of the relations of free production, of a  character of self-management, that characterizes the new post-capitalist society, concomitant with the social doctrine of the Church.

Cuba could emerge strengthened as a nation, or it could lead to the consolidation of authoritarianism.

Cuba is living in a transcendental moment from the coincidence of important factors: the natural decline in the figures who have ruled the country for more than half a century; the failure of the statist wage model; the centralized form of political management; and the policy change toward Cuba of the Obama administration. From the combination of these factors, Cuba could emerge strengthened as a nation, or it could lead to the consolidation of authoritarianism.

Much depends on the people’s ability to achieve self-government and self-reliance, so it is of prime importance that the current Government, now open only to the proposals of the Communist Party, open itself to all ways of political thinking and of economic and social action.

If, as a consequence of the combination of these factors the monopolistic State capitalism emerges stronger, in alliance with foreign capital, the big winner will be the current militaristic authoritarianism, but at the eventual cost of a virtual economic and geopolitical annexation by the great neighbor to the north, which will be guarantor and financial motor of authoritarianism.

If the result is the advance of a process of democratization of politics and the socialization of the economy, the prosperity and well-being of all Cubans – and consequently the future of the nation – it would be guaranteed, aided by the new international situation.

The Pope could now contribute another grain of sand, or perhaps throw in a dose of sediment, to the good road of the Cuban nation and help all of us to understand the need for dialog and the politics of communal well-being supported by the social doctrine of the Church.

Welcome to Havana, Pope Francis.

No. Today the objective of the United States is not to “destroy the Revolution.” The “revolutionaries” in power have been changed with this, as Fidel Castro himself said on 5 November 02005 at the University of Havana. He and his group prevented, first, the triumph of the democratic revolution in 1959-1960 and later, in the name of the Revolution, Socialism and the working class have avoided the Socialist transformations.

In Cuba we’ve had neither a democratic revolution nor a socialist revolution.

In Cuba we’ve had neither a democratic revolution nor a socialist revolution.

The United States watched the transition of the centralized “socialist” economies in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam, to more or less free markets, in the hands of many of their own former leaders. Boris Yeltsin, former member of the Politburo of the USSR Communist Party, or Deng Xiaoping, also a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party in China, and others of a similar style.

With this disaster it became clear that “State Socialism” never ends, because its inconsistencies between socialist ends and capitalist measures (working for wages and the centralization of property), sooner or later, move the economy in a natural way toward private capitalism.

This is the result of not having socialized the economy nor democratized political power, i.e. delivered real power – economic and governance – to the workers and the people.

Previously, the objectives pursued by the United States in Cuba were to avoid the consolidation of a “socialist” regime, its eventual reversal and to avoid its spread in the region. But with the fall of international support the Castro regime fell into crisis, ending the export of the Revolution and no one on the continent is excited about following the Cuban model.

With these goals, without any invasion, and demonstrating the endogenous unviability of the Cuban State socialist model (neither socialist nor Cuban), the United States believed that its implosion would be the matter of a short time. It didn’t understand until today that, despite its inconsistencies and economic deficits, the “confrontation with imperialism,” the support from Venezuela, the hyper-exploitation of those who work for the State, the permanence of the historic leader and some populist measures brought certain reserves of time to the “Castro experiment.”

With the fall of international support the “Castro experiment” fell into crisis, ending the export of the Revolution and no one on the continent is excited about following the Cuban model

In parallel, starting from 1994, concern was growing among the American “establishment” over the complicated internal crisis that was generating another rafter migration crisis, converting Cuba into a failed state, and leading the United States to have to engage in some kind of intervention. This definitely put US strategic interests in the region at risk.

This was no longer defined by the Intelligence Community, as expressed by different representatives, when the transmission of power in Cuba from Fidel Castro to his brother became clear. They then specified that a government in military hands, like those of Raul Castro, suited their purposes of realizing a peaceful economic and political transition in Cuba.

It was at that time that the United States began to understand the political futility of the blockade-embargo and to delineate a new policy. Obama was not yet president.

Once power was transmitted to Raul, and with a different administration in Washington, a new intention became clearer: to help the General’s Government ease the internal economic situation to avoid this dangerous crisis and, of course, to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the “opening” for foreign capital and the established of all the ties and commitments permissible to be as close as possible to the Cuban government

And this is what, in the first instance, explains the policy change that had antecedents even in the Bush administration, when food imports were allowed and talks were held on commitments about migratory problems.

The policy change had a history even in the Bush administration, when food imports are allowed and talks on migration issues and commitments were made

Another key element in this new projection is that the unnecessary extension of the absurd blockade-embargo became a boomerang for US foreign policy, particularly in Latin America. Mending its relations with Cuba would seem to be a precondition to reverse this situation and create a more favorable environment for the expansion of political and economic relations in the region in the face of the Chinese and Russian offensive.

We must not forget that the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), with which the United States tried to create an economic zone on the continent to try to preserve the extra-continental competition, was sabotaged by the initiative of Fidel Castro with the support of Hugo Chavez.

With “normalization,” the United States aims to neutralize the extreme anti-imperialism of the “historic leadership,” which has brought it so many problems around the world.

Part of the new policy is the continuation of the Cuban Adjustment Act, a permanent escape valve for the dissatisfied, now with more opportunities to skip the country with the new migratory law; clearly there is a need to get the growing discontent — generated by the “update” itself — off the Island.

A sign of discontent? An old man in the neighborhood, 80 years old, loyal to Fidel, and upset because the ration book offers almost nothing, and his pension doesn’t stretch far enough, told me, “If Fidel knew that Raul took the food away from the people, he would have him shot. End of story.”

Certainly, a major relief would be political changes that ease the internal tensions. But the United States knows that this part is the responsibility of Cubans.

With the “normalization” US aims to neutralize the extreme anti-imperialism of the “historical leadership” which has brought it so many problems around the world

To the Stalinist extreme, deep in the structures of the Communist Party and for the purposes of its intransigent anti-imperialist image, it is not convenient to accept that the strategic objective of the United States in Cuba is the stability to avoid a crisis, nor that supporting Raul Castro’s government is a part of the tactic to accomplish that.

Such an approach would undermine the “confrontation with imperialism,” the Party’s propaganda and the philosophy of the “citadel under siege” that tries to justify the internal repression of the dissidence and those who think differently, as well as the democratic deficit of the “model” (a model of what should not be done in the name of socialism).

The real purpose of the “update” is no longer to build “socialism,” but to go from the monopolistic capitalism of the State to the restoration of private capitalism, but under the control of the senior bureaucracy in alliance with big foreign capital.

The lack of a solution to these problems has stalled the productive forces, the development of society, economic progress, modernity and improvements in the living conditions of the great majority of the population.

The solutions move to increase the participation of citizens in property, ownership of the results of their work, and decisions of all kinds: economic, political and social. Democratization of politics and socialization of the economy are also imposed.

But “state socialism” blocked these solutions, almost eliminating the small and medium proprietor, preventing the development of forms of free labor — unionized or otherwise — the free-management of production, the social economy, and restricting the democratic participation of citizens in political matters.

Now, with the normalization of relations with “the enemy,” there is no danger of military aggression, always used as a justification to postpone the empowerment of the people, and the Cuban government should not delay any further moving in this direction.

The solutions move to increase the participation of citizens in property, ownership of the results of their work, and decisions of all kinds

The return to power of groups of oligarchs allied to American capital would not resolve these contradictions – rather it would increase them – newly excluding workers and citizens in general from economic and political power, with concentrated ownership passing from the hands of the State to the huge capitalist entrepreneurs, and political power from the Communist Party to another party that could act at will without submitting itself to democracy.

The proposals made from the positions of Participatory and Democratic Socialism, since 1991 with the 4^th Cuban Communist Party Congress, raise the need to advance this process of democratization and socialization of politics and the economy. Traditional opposition sectors have also presented similar demands.

In 2006, networks of the international left published “Urging the Cuban Revolution to Advance Entrepreneurial and Social Self-management” and sent it to the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) and the Government. The following year, they published “15 Concrete Proposals to Revitalize Socialism in Cuba.” In 2008, we publicly presented the document “Cuba Needs A Participative and Democratic Socialism, Programmatic Proposals,” and with the view of the 6^th Congress of the PCC and the entire Cuban people, we announced our “Proposals to Advance Socialism In Cuba.” More recently, we published “14 Keys for the Padlocks that Depress the Cuban Economy.”

These and other documents of the broad democratic left argue the need to democratize the party and the society, free up self-employment and cooperatives, and especially to involve employees in the direction, management and profits of state enterprises, without ignoring the necessary spaces for state capital, domestic private capital, and foreign capital.

The neo-Stalinists have tried to prevent the people from having knowledge of these ideas and a part of the traditional opposition has tried to ignore them.

The “update of the model” did not resolve these conflicts — although it introduced dynamics and presented proposals concomitant with participative and democratic socialism — due to its limitations, state-centric origin, biased legislation and its application of the same traditional bureaucracy present in a State willing only to strengthen its total control and never disposed to transparently bend toward the essential.

In this scheme, the “update of the model” has not been able to accomplish substantial modifications in what continues to block the development of a socialized economy directly in the hands of the citizens.

The recent agreements between the governments of the United States and Cuba come when all the problems of Cuban society are aggravated and the insufficient “updating” is exhausted, unable to attenuate those problems.

The inability of the State-Government-Party to understand the urgent need to develop popular autonomous control of the economy and the political life of the country is worrying

Today, with the persistence of a high level of ownership concentration and centralization of decision-making and its respective mechanisms and laws, the economic and political structure of the country appears unprepared to absorb the impact represented by the new US policies.

The inability of the State-Government-Party to understand the urgent need to develop popular autonomous control of the economy and the political life of the country is worrying.

Bureaucratic obstructionism at all levels, at fault for the slow “updating of the model,” seems to be playing the same game with respect to the normalization of relations with the United States.

The democratic left is also concerned that the eventual increase in investment will be directed only to state enterprises, which will not resolve the already exposed internal contradictions of Cuban society and will lead to an alliance between monopolistic State capitalism and huge American capital which, logically, will results in greater exploitation of Cuban workers.

While there are American business sectors whose only interest is to do business in Cuba, the Obama administration is also interested in supporting “non-state” businesses, which they welcome.

The issues of democracy and human rights in the United States and Cuba are a matter for their people, not the governments of both countries, which should respect the Cuban people’s sovereignty and their capacity to decide their future. The role of the governments is to create conditions so that people can exercise their sovereignty.

Cuba should open a process of dialog and negotiations between all the visions and projects, political, social and economic, led by a new constituency, capable of harmonizing in democracy all the interests present in the country.

The enunciated American policies to economically and politically empower the citizens don’t hide their intentions to influence the internal politics of Cuba, which are being manipulated by the new-Stalinist mentality, the official press, the political structure and foreign “leftists,” like the “imperialist [intention] to overthrow the Revolution by other means.”

The US government may be making a mistake by stating that its new policy is designed to achieve the same strategic objectives of the previous failed

The US government could be making a mistake by stating that its new policy is intended to achieve the same strategic objectives as the prior, failed, policy. If the objectives continue to be to provoke political changes in Cuba, the American government should ask itself if it would like Cuba to propose the same objectives in its policies toward the United States.

The objectives of the new policy, if they don’t want it to backfire and be counterproductive, should be to live in peace with Cuba, to support its economic development and to facilitate, with the elimination of pressures on the Cuban government, the Cuban people being in a better condition to decide their destinies, without political changes imposed from outside.

For its part, the Cuban government must consider that methods (policies) must predominate over ends (strategy), so that the fact that the United States has changed its policy – from one of pressures and isolation to one of dialog and rapprochement – should influence what prevails in this latest approach.

There are those in the bureaucracy and in the opposition who believe that the problems of our country can only be resolved with the help of the United States. Those who think this way don’t seem to recognize the character of the internal contradictions nor their solutions, such that it will be difficult to find support for their plans among the great majority.

We appreciate the support of Obama and his administration for respect for the human rights of the Cuban people, and for their offer of assistance to non-state businesses and to facilitate people’s access to the Internet. But the democratization of the Cuban political system, the decision about the form of government, and the democratic election of our representatives, these are our tasks and the more the Cuban government feels that the United States is interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs, the more difficult is the situation of Cubans in Cuba and the more the current government will oppose this process.

The more the Cuban government feels that the United States is interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs, the more difficult is the situation of Cubans in Cuba

 Accelerating all the transformations toward a greater democratization and socialization of political and economic life should be the priority in order to cushion the impact of the new dynamics generated by the “normalization” and to guarantee that internal changes are driven by citizen empowerment and not by external forces. Something that appears to be impossible as long as the go-slow bureaucracy continues to have sufficient power to block the necessary transformations.

The difference between changes being promoted from within versus from outside could mark aspects of the independence and sovereignty that would appear in the future, sooner rather than later.

The current contradictions could exacerbated, rather than resolved, and the call for normalization of relations with the United States could stalemate or fail through not achieving the dynamics a new US policy could generate, and through lack of respect by both governments for the interests of the Cuban people who, in their vast majority welcome the normalization, but who also – for the most part – reject outside interference.

Apart from the narrow sectarian interests that may be hiding behind these visions, none of them seem to realize the full benefits of this event for the vast majority of the Cuban people, their democratic hopes, their creativity, their productive forces and especially for their sovereignty as authentic decision maker and executor of their own future.

Some time ago I wrote that if the solutions to the problems of the Cuban people are entrusted to the help and benevolence of the powerful northern neighbor it would mean handing over the country for a miserable pittance. To ignore the advantages of a constructive and peaceful relationship with the U.S., would condemn the nation “besieged citadel” to the mercy of nationalist opportunism of all kinds.

Move the country along the path between those positions from a major and growing participation of citizens in decisions of all kinds, in politics and in economics, is the key and, at the same time, the great challenge of the Cuban democratic left .

The “update of the model” promoted by the government of Raul Castro, ceding to cooperatives and self-employment a secondary space in the economy, giving priority to state enterprises and leaving unmet his own assertion that the State should not run enterprises, without understanding the significance of free labor, associated or not for socialism, and forgetting the initial objectives of this Revolution, which does not belong to them but to all the people, about the reestablishment of democracy.

If in parallel with the process of negotiations with the US and its participation in supporting the development of the economy there is not a deepening of the process of socialization of property through the extension of self-employment, small and medium enterprises of all types, cooperatives, and worker participation in management, administration and distribution of the profits of state enterprises, with democratization and diversification of institutions of political participation at all levels, Cuba runs the risk of moving from a monopoly decadent state capitalism, imposed in the name of a socialism that has ever existed, to a form of authoritarian State capitalism, controlled by a political-military elite in association with the great American capital.

We have to recognize the presidents of the United States and Cuba have taken this step to create primary conditions for a country better than has ever been possible. But let this opportunity opens the way to the Cuba “with all and for the good of all” that Martí dreamed of and for which several generations of Cubans fought for nearly two centuries, relying on the citizens themselves and their own intelligence.

This is the time for dialogue and consultation, prudential waiting and popular and democratic alliances working with the interests of the majority.

If Raul and his inner circle want to consolidate their position and bring the upgrade of the model  to fruition, they will have to remove all the obstacles imposed by the heavy burden of the old neo-Stalinist party bureaucracy that controls the mass organizations, electoral processes, local authorities and state enterprises, and seek an alliance with the workers and the middle classes, opening every possible space.

We must avoid foreign companies ending up investing only in cooperation with state enterprises, without real independence to contact for labor, without credit or possibilities to develop small and medium sized businesses, with private or associated capital.

In this sense, the Investment Law will be relaxed and become a simple law of businesses, so that Cuban capital sources of whatever dimension, inside the country and abroad, can deploy their initiatives.

The State has to open the possibilities for external and internal trade, as currently their control remains the main cause of high prices which prevents the lowering of the costs of input and of a wide range popular consumer goods, especially food.

Another aspect to immediately review is the tax law that continues to tax revenues, not profits — a factor limiting the expansion of emerging companies — and to eliminate all the paraphernalia of absurd permissions to open businesses and cooperatives, whether in services or production.

All the constructive and peaceful forces in the country should, within and outside the government, within and outside Cuba, set aside grudges and revenge and engage in a national dialogue that makes possible a shared path of national progress towards a new constitution, democratic in its content, and towards how to achieve it.

The upcoming elections to the National Assembly of People’s Power are moving forward. This is a good opportunity for the government to demonstrate its commitment to democracy, to end the legal repression of of the political activism of those who think differently, to facilitate the expansion of freedom of expression and association, and to make changes to the electoral law that enable more democratic forms of putting forward candidates, and direct elections of mayors, provincial governors and the President of the Republic.

The nation will move forward with everyone it it will never be. None of its parts is entitled to hijack the future for narrow interests.

From the defense of the positions of the Participatory and Democratic Socialism, we advocate consultation, dialogue, meeting, national reconciliation and prosperity for the Cuban people in an atmosphere of peace and democracy.

A better Cuba is more possible than ever. To achieve is it is the responsibility of all Cubans of goodwill.

16 January 2015