Is Cuba Going to Join the World Economic System?
The Revolution Betrayed?
by Dr. K R Bolton
September 11, 2010
It seems that Marx got it a tad wrong when he saw the inexorable victory
of communism over the self-destruction of capitalism. It seems, however,
that Marxism itself contained the seeds of its own destruction and has
served as part of a dialectical process – for capitalism. This is
because Marxism sprang from the same zeitgeist as capitalism: that of
the 19th Century Manchester School of Economics. In fact, Marx conceded
something of the type when he stated that he supported Free Trade as
part of a dialectical process that would internationalize the productive
processes and the proletariat. As history has shown, including recent
history and that which is continuing to unfold before our eyes, there
has been a dialectical process at work, but the result has not been that
of socialism as a transitional phase towards communism, but rather as a
transitional phase towards capitalist globalization, with the
reanimation of the corpse of 19th Century English economics as the
global economic model.
As H G Wells observed when touring the young Soviet state at the time
that Washington Vanderlip was over their getting a Far Eastern
concession on behalf of a consortium of US big business:
Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big
business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper
road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.
From this dialectical viewpoint, Marxian revolution served to break
down traditional states, based on religion, aristocracy, and a peasant
economy; just as the Soros "color revolutions" serve the same purpose in
our own times. Socialist revolutions seem to have been a means of
radically and even violently imposing an industrial economic structure
upon societies that are viewed as anachronistic by international capitalism.
Most of the former communist states have succumbed to international
capitalism, with China serving as a model of what international
capitalism would like to achieve on a world scale: centralized economics
backed by draconian laws, police and guns; a definition that the Left
has historically and dogmatically applied to define "fascism."
As I have sought to show, even brave little Vietnam, having fought for
sovereignty – whether one calls it "communism" or "nationalism" is not
crucial – for literally centuries against colonial powers, including the
China, France and the USA – has now apparently succumbed to
international capital, and is as much part of the world economic system,
and its foundation in usury, as any Western state. As I have shown in
that article, Vietnam has opened its economy up to world capitalism, and
has embarked also on a course of debt-finance to the international
banking system. This article poses the question as to whether Cuba is
about to embark on the same course, and what the present strategy of
international capitalism is for Cuba.
Cuba on the Capitalist Path?
It now seems that with a string of former "socialist' states succumbing
to the "market economy" one of the last remnants of the socialist dream
– Cuba – is to go the same way. It seems plausible that the recent
interview by Castro with Atlantic Monthly journalist Jeffrey Goldberg is
a tentative move toward Cuba's expression of intent to dismantle its
sovereign economy, and to become a client state of the International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, and transnational corporations.
It is of interest that the ostensible reason that Castro requested an
interview with Goldberg was over the matter of Israel and the Cuban
statesman's joining the chorus of Western world leaders, Zionists and
their allies to castigate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for
"anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust denial." It is surely reasonable to
suppose that Castro thought the best way to ingratiate himself to the
USA in particular was to say something that would be pleasing to the
Zionists and their American underlings. Likewise, to offer what amounts
to an apology for his actions regarding the Cuban missile crisis amounts
to knee-bending penitence before the altar of the Yankee Dollar. Castro
could surely have indicated his intention for economic reform and for
entering the world economic system like Vietnam has done, without such a
dramatic act of groveling to Zion.
An article by Al Kamen in principal Establishment mouthpiece, The
Washington Post, states that Castro's comments to Goldberg that the
socialist economic model "doesn't even work for us anymore" in reaction
to a question about the old policy of spreading the socialist revolution
throughout Latin America, comes at a time when his brother Raul is
trying to push through reforms in the face of opposition with the
Communist Party. 
Kamen cites other sources as stating that what Raul is looking at is the
China model. Significantly Kamen describes the China model succinctly as
being: "Rampant capitalism in the economy, tight communist control of
the government." That is precisely the type of regime beloved by
Rockefeller, et al; precisely the type of regime that I believe has
always been intended as the end product of the capitalist dialectic.
Goldberg brought with him as his adviser to the interviewer his friend
Julia Sweig, "a leading Latin American scholar" at the Establishment
think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The background of Ms Sweig is of interest. She is "Nelson and David
Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for
Latin America Studies" at the CFR. The Council's policy of moving
towards Cuba might be compared to the long-term, gradual policy the CFR
pursued for the recognition of Mao's China in the face of public
opposition. The recognition of China was also preceded by apparently
minor events, such as the so-called "Ping Pong" diplomacy and gradually
increasing cultural exchanges. Sweig wrote a CFR study on Cuba, drawing
from Cuban archives including the personal archives of Castro, which
seems to have been intended to throw a positive light on the revolution
from a globalist Establishmentarian perspective, after years of
declaring Cuba to be a world pariah. It seems that now is the time
for Cuba to come into the "world community" from the Cold, by mutual
David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies
As one should expect, groundwork for a change in Cuba is being fostered
by Rockefeller interests in a manner typical of the way the plutocrats
work above and beyond the public posturing of politicians on the world
stage. Despite the decades' long economic sanctions on Cuba by US
administrations for e.g., University of Havana's Center for the Study of
the Cuban Economy works in partnership with a Rockefeller body, the
David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard,
studying ways by which the Cuban economy can be restructured for
integration into the world economy. A joint 2005 study was published by
the Rockefeller Center and distributed by Harvard University Press.
Entitled The Cuban Economy at the Start of the Twenty-First Century,
the Ford Foundation has assisted in the publication of a Spanish
edition. Castro should have shut the whole business down from the start
for the same reasons that some states have shut down the Soros
There are numerous ongoing programs initiated by the Rockefeller Centre
under a special "Cuban Studies Program" which, as is the practice of
the globalist elite, proceeds ahead regardless of petty politics.
DRCLAS was founded in 1994 to Neil L Rudenstine, then University
President, and David Rockefeller, who: "shared a sense that Harvard
should be intellectually poised to respond to real-world changes in the
Americas resulting from democratic transitions and economic
restructuring." Translated from globalist jargonese this means that
DRCLAS was established as yet another Rockefeller think tank to
formulate policy on how best to change the Continent in accordance with
the interests of world plutocracy. The advisory committee of DRCLAS
* Manuel Arango (Mexico), who is also director of the Institute of
the Americas, another plutocratic think tank set up in 1983 to promote
business relations throughout the Americas. Corporate backers include J
P Morgan, ExxonMobil, Enron South America, et al.
* Gustavo A. Cisneros (Venezuela), Chairman and CEO of Cisneros
Group of Companies. He is also on the board of advisors of the Museum of
Modern Art in New York, which happens to be a long time Rockefeller
family flagship, presently including David Rockefeller as Honorary
Chairman; David Rockefeller Jr. and Sharon Percy Rockefeller on the
board. Cisneros is also on the Council of Rockefeller University,
International Advisory Board of the CFR, etc.
* Peggy Dulany (USA), David Rockefeller's daughter; board of
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, etc.
* Israel Klabin (Brazil), one of the wealthy elite who compares
himself to the Rothschilds.
* Martha T Muse (USA) long-time member of the CFR.
* David Rockefeller.
It might well be asked whether the partnered think tank at Havana
University, under the nose of the Cuban Government, is a hotbed of
plutocratic subversion, where the future generation of leaders is being
trained under the influence of foreign academics sponsored by the
predictable network of oligarchs.
In a typically Cold War neo-con attack on Cuba, Dr Miguel A Faria
nonetheless made some interesting observations back in 2001, stating of
Cuba and the CFR that:
Out of the shadows, a little-known but powerful organization has stepped
out this new millennial year advocating a more accommodating stance with
the communist regime of Fidel Castro.
…In short, before we change our policy toward Cuba based on
sagacious-sounding CFR reports, we should stop to pause and consider
that these measures may not necessarily be in the best interest of the
Cuban people or intended to aid in a "transition to democracy," as sold
to us, but rather to advance chiefly the internationalist goal of this
organization. Nor does the interest of the American people often
coincide with those of this organization.
While Dr Faria patriotically suggested that any such reconciliation
between the USA and Cuba would strength the communist regime rather than
encourage openness and democracy, those who are not so enthusiastic
about the role and nature of the USA are more likely to conclude that
the closer one relates to America the nearer one gets to a pervasive
moral and cultural rot that will inevitably bring about the fall of a
state into the hands of the plutocratic elite that feeds on corruption.
Globalist Strategy for Latin America
The globalist agenda for Cuba has been set down for the Obama
Administration, in a report released by the Washington-based
Inter-American Dialogue in March 2009. The LA Progressive stated of the
Dialogue mission that spanned the Latin American region:
By far the most controversial relates to Cuba, which, the Dialogue
notes, "Washington's 50-year-old policy of isolating and sanctioning
Cuba has never accomplished much," adding that "there is no other issue
on which Washington is so out of step with the rest of the region.
Nothing would better demonstrate the new administration's intention to
dismantle the web of restrictions that the United States has imposed on
Cuba. A policy shift on Cuba, which carries great symbolic weight in the
region, would be a powerful signal that Washington will be more
responsible to Latin American views." It concludes by declaring that
"a democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S.
engagement, not a precondition."
The last sentence, citing the report makes it clear enough that the
agenda for such a "dialogue" if typically subversive. "Democratic
society" like Soros' "open society" is a euphemism for globalization and
the cultural and moral rot that goes with it.
The answer for Latin America's development is the globalist formula of
increasing the already disastrous incursions of the World Bank and IMF
in the region.
The report places the responsibility for the continued US embargo on
Cuba on the Cuban anti-Castro émigrés, but notes that it "is politically
weaker and more diverse than it once was."
Nor should there be much resistance to a US decision to stop trying to
block other nations and multinational institutions from doing business
with Cuba. Washington should simply cease its efforts to keep the OAS
and multilateral development banks from engaging Cuba and not intrude
into the diplomacy of such nations as Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Spain
that are strengthening their political and economic ties to Cuba.
Instead, the US should encourage such engagement as a means to
facilitate Cuba's successful reintegration into hemispheric affairs and
avoid its dependence on Venezuela and its allies.
This paragraph is very telling in regard to oligarchic strategy for
Latin America. Chavez's Venezuela "and its allies" affirms the aim of
isolating the "Bolivarian" hemispheric bloc forming around Venezuela
which has the potential to challenge American hegemony in a unipolar
The US members of the delegation include the predictable bunch
representing interests such as Goldman Sachs, Salomon Bros., CFR
(including Richard Haass, president of the CFR; until 2003 director of
policy panning for the US State Dept.), Bechtel Group; DRCLAS (Martha
Muse, CFR, see above), while the Latin American delegates include a fair
share of Leftists; i.e. another example of the quite frequent historical
phenomena of collusion between plutocrats and socialists.
What appears to be the current policy of the US ruling elite for Latin
America is to integrate Cuba into the world economy, much like Vietnam,
rendering it tame whilst simultaneously isolating Venezuela and
undermining the Bolivarian bloc.
 K R Bolton, "Socialism, Revolution, and Capitalist Dialectics,"
Foreign Policy Journal, May 4, 2010,
 Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975),
'Bourgeois and Proletarians,' p. 71. Also: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels,
"Speech on the question of free trade delivered to the Democratic
Association of Brussels at it public meeting of January 9, 1848",
Collected Works, Volume 6 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976).
 Bolton, FPJ, May 4, 2010, op.cit.
 Which can also be equated with the so-called Austrian and Chicago
 H G Wells, Russia in the Shadows, Chapter VII, 'The Envoy', 1920.
 Bolton, "Has Vietnam lost the struggle for freedom?," FPJ, June 10,
 Reuters, "Castro says Soviet-style communism unworkable," The
Dominion Post, September 10, 2010, B5, Wellington, New Zealand.
 Al Kamen, "Has Fidel Castro become a capitalist?, The Washington
Post, September 9, 2010.
 Jeffrey Goldberg, "Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us
Anymore'," The Atlantic, September 8, 2010,
 Bolton, "Sino-Soviet-US Relations, and the 1969 Nuclear Threat,"
FPJ, May 17, 2010,
 Julia E Sweig, Inside the Cuban Revolution (Harvard University
Press, 2002),"Overview," Council on Foreign Relations,
 Jorge Domínguez, Omar Everleny Pérez Villanueva and Lorena Barberia
(editors) The Cuban Economy at the Start of the Twenty-First Century
(Harvard University Press, 2005).
 David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard
University, "Cuban Studies Program,"
 "About DRCVLAS: Overview," http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/about/drclas
 "David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies", Source
 Dr Miguel A. Faria Jr., "Cuba and the Council on Foreign Relations,
" Newsmax, February 15, 2001,
 The Inter-American Dialogue, A Second Chance: US Policy in the
Americas, March 2009, p. 3.
 Don Bohning, "Will Obama be influenced by the Latest Big Task force
on Latin America?," LA Progressive, Match 25, 2009,
 A Second Chance: US Policy in the Americas, op.cit., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 9.
 Ibid., p. 10.
 Officially called "The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our
America' (ALBA) formed in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative
to the U.S.- backed "Free Trade Area of the Americas." By June 2009,
ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the
'Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America," and looks to Russia
as an ally.
K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research,
and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno.