sam farber, road not taken

what happened in cuba is not just the outcome of backwardness. there were choices not made

political revolution, in which social revolutionary element deeply subdued-- more so than bolivia or mexico, actually

best example of this is the agrarian reform legislation, passed in may 1959. no attempt to forge a political platform and then pass the legislation; instead, to use prestige to present fait accompli

for two reasons:

1. maintain control over the mvmt

2. delay the opposition--not revealing a radical program to the US, etc. that has the price, of course, of building your base. you're building followers, not subject

why was it possible to push in a radical fashion?

one, the army had totally collapsed. even the revolutionary leadership were taken aback by this vaccum (this is important in mexico and bolivia)

two, the traditional political parties, including the opposition, were completely discredited.

three, the institutions of civil society that had strongly supported castro's movement were very weak (or had basically dissolved themselves). the MRC in urban area dissolved itself in Feb 1959, into the 26 July movement.

the choice that was eventually made--rather than building a rank and file organization--was a model 'from above'. there was an admittedly underdeveloped thrust towards something like this, that represents the road not taken

the late summer of 1959 that the decision to ally with the USSR and old Communists at home.

by 60s, the independent organizations of the black population, of the women's organizations, of the trade unions--all shut down. the unions especially had displayed tremendous effervescence--and elections were won by the July2 26 movement. but at the Congress post-Revolution, Castro intervened to give the Communists a stronger position than they otherwise had.

in short, Castro intervening in steps. creeping authoritarianism.

big question is why things developed in this way?

1. answer of Cuban right (S. Florida), and some liberals--revolution was a conspiracy. there was already a pact with the Old Communists, to take Cuba in a Soviet direction.

2. liberal and some Left view--the development of Cuba in a Soviet direction was a response to US foreign policy. it's true, of course, that the US went out to smash Cuba, once they figured out what was going on.

one of the implications of this position, of course, is that Cuban leaders were 'blank slates'--all they're doing is reacting to US policy. they had no autonomy

3. Farber position--in fact there were ideological wings in this movement. in the revolutionary movement that overthrew Batista, there were other political wings. a liberal wing--of the sort that took over in Bolivia and stunted the revolution. there was a radical Nationalist, non-Communist wing--a state of opinion that was significant, but not organized. then, there was the wing that was allied with the Old Communists, led by Raul and Che (Che only became a critic of the Soviet Union two years later. in the early 60s he developed his critique). and, in short, their victory over the other political wings was critical.