At the beginning of the revolutionary process it was said that the means of production belonged to the workers and that the land belonged to those who worked it.
14ymedio, Ariel Hidalgo, Miami, 12 July 2025 — In 1988, when the collapse of the socialist camp and the failure of the model implemented by the communist parties were already visible, Francis Fukuyama drew attention with a dissertation which he later published in book form. The End of History? stated categorically that “the end point of the ideological evolution of humanity” had occurred, and that, except for capitalism, there was no “alternative political-economic structure” that could resolve fundamental human contradictions.
But two years later, three US airlines went out of business in the middle of labor conflicts, and in the following decade, a global economic crisis as severe as that of the Crash of 1929 broke out. Capitalism has an intrinsic contradiction between capitalists who pursue greater profits, and wage earners who desire better wages.
However, this model, even with its conflicts, has been able to sustain itself. This is not the case of centralized economies.
Why did countries in Eastern Europe like Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland rebel and break away from the socialist camp, with Soviet troops having to invade or threaten an invasion? They all ended up returning to a capitalist economy.
Why did the Soviet Union resort to a perestroika reform and then disintegrate, only to take each village on a path away from the ideals of the hammer and sickle?
Why did China and Vietnam have to abandon the intransigent fanaticism that kept them in poverty and then move closer to the West and implement free market elements?
Why did China and Vietnam have to abandon the intransigent fanaticism that kept them in poverty and then move closer to the West and implement free market elements?
And in return, why is it that a country like Cuba, which was the first sugar producer in the world; the third largest livestock-producing country of Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay; with the Cuban peso on par with the dollar; a per capita higher than countries like Spain, Austria and Japan; with more American immigrants than Cuban emigrants in the United States, is today the poorest country on the continent?
All these questions have an answer: because the model they shared, which some still maintain, is irrational and counterproductive for economic development. When the State absorbs all means of production, it is forced to generate a caste of thousands of officials that it can’t control and thus becomes a bureaucratic monster. In audits, words such as “missing” and “diversion of resources” are very common.
Since these officials are not the owners of these enterprises, they lack a real productive incentive, but they exploit them as if they were their own and waste the resources as if they were someone else’s. In technical terms, we could say that a contradiction is created between State ownership and the private appropriation by these officials. So you understand why Fidel Castro, already on the threshold of the end of his life, recognized: “The Cuban model doesn’t work, not even for Cubans.”
Who, then, are the only ones who really have a true productive interest in this model? Because, at most, there are only 20 or 30 people in the leadership of the Party-State, whereas in capitalism there are hundreds or thousands of people who have a real interest: the capitalists. This comparison is not mine; it comes from the liberals, in particular the late Cuban writer, Carlos Alberto Montaner.
If capitalism has an intrinsic contradiction between capitalists and wage earners, in these regimes of monopolistic State centralism there are two, because not only does the contradiction exist between the true owner, that is, the State, and the workers, but also the one generated between that State and its bureaucrats.
However, taking to its ultimate consequences the comparison of Montaner between that supposed socialism with only 20 or 30 interested in productivity and the hundreds or thousands of capitalism, we could ask: How will it be when this productive interest has millions, and there is not one or two internal contradictions, but none?
If capitalism has an intrinsic contradiction between capitalists and wage earners, in these regimes of State monopolistic centralism there are two
But… would such a society be possible?
Generally in a capitalist economy the result of the total value obtained in each production cycle can be divided into three parts:
– Productive capital, which is used to secure everything needed for the next cycle, such as raw materials, wages, wear and tear of labor instruments, and the surplus product that is reinvested to expand the value of the next cycle.
– Profit capital, the part devoted to covering all the private expenses of the capitalist.
– And taxes, for the maintenance of the collective needs of the whole community.
In an economy almost totally nationalized, there would be no capitalists, and there is supposed to be no profit capital, so we could say that the tax and this profit capital merge into one destination: the State, which supposedly represents the whole society.
At the beginning of the revolutionary process it was said that the means of production belonged to the workers and that the land belonged to those who worked it, phrases which were gradually replaced by another: “The property of all society.” Who represented that society? Well, the State. In practice, what was done was to replace the monopolies with a single one and the private landowners with an absolute one: that State, which concentrated 70 per cent of arable land in its hands.
Well, if the workers were the owners of the factories, that lucrative capital previously received by the capitalists should have been distributed among these workers, who should also have representatives in the administrations, something which can still be implemented in State enterprises.
If the farmers are to be the owners of the land, there should not be a monopoly that forces them to sell to the State at the price imposed by the State, since it is unusual for a buyer to force a seller to become an exclusive or main customer, with the price of the goods also imposed by force. This is called unfair treatment, and the result is the absence of a real productive stimulus. Here is the definition of monopoly given by Martí: “The monopoly is an implacable giant sitting at the gates of all the poor.”
If land is distributed with a guarantee that it will not then be expropriated, and farmers are given the freedom to sell their products to those they choose and at a price agreed between producer and buyer; if they are provided with farming implements, seeds, fertilizers and all other inputs, as well as agricultural transport so that the fruits do not rot in the fields, the markets will be filled with fruits and vegetables, which by their number will have an affordable price, and there will be no plate in any household that is empty at mealtime.
When the country claims to not have enough resources to provide every agricultural worker with all these means, we must answer them once and for all: “Liars!”
When the country claims to not have enough resources to provide every agricultural worker with all these means, we must answer them once and for all: “Liars!” Because less than 3% of the national budget is allocated to agriculture, while more than 30% is devoted to tourism, whose failure is increasingly evident by the decreasing number of visitors. Why? Because the network of luxury hotels, like isolated oases in the middle of a desert, belie that fantasy.
Any autonomous production practice, be it self-employment, independent cooperatives or self-management groups, where no one is exploited by other human beings, be they capitalists, State bureaucrats or other workers, is the third alternative.
What would Cuba be like with such a model in not many years? The consequences of these benefits would be not only for workers, but for society as a whole. Without exaggerating, the only problem we Cubans would have is that of the migratory waves, which instead of crossing the Rio Grande, would try to cross the Caribbean Sea to reach the Island.
Translated by Regina Anavy
____________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.