On 18 June 2026, the Cuban National Assembly unanimously approved a sweeping set of liberal economic reforms, comprising nearly 176 measures in total. These aim to revitalise the island’s economic activity – which has been severely weakened for years by the economic embargo and the reimposition of sanctions (particularly following the US government’s implementation of a total blockade earlier this year) and plagued by chronic shortages and power outages – by attracting foreign investors and strengthening the role of private enterprises and legal markets.⁽¹⁾

This reform, comparable to China’s 1978 economic reforms, has been portrayed in bourgeois media and think tanks as an "economic revolution" that would put an end to one of the world’s last remaining "socialist models" and symbolise the victory of capitalism over socialism.⁽²⁾ In reality, however, this is far from the case, as a simple examination of the facts will demonstrate.

A "return" to capitalism?

These reforms grant a leading role to private capital in the Cuban economy, transforming it from a still heavily state-controlled economy to a mixed economy, combining public enterprises, planning directives, cooperatives, and private companies, following the path taken by all the so-called "socialist" economies since the end of the Cold War⁽³⁾:

transformation of state-owned enterprises into commercial companies (joint-stock or equity-based); authorization of private enterprises with more than 100 employees; opening of the private sector to foreign capital; authorization of foreign currency accounts for individuals; opening of agriculture, tourism, the banking sector, and the foreign exchange market to private investment (domestic and foreign); possibility for Cubans to own multiple private enterprises and hold stakes in other companies; authorisation of wage negotiations within enterprises⁽⁴⁾

However major and ambitious they may be, these economic reforms do not fundamentally alter Cuba’s economic structure. First, because this reform is merely the continuation of a long series of economic reforms undertaken since the collapse of the Soviet Union (in 1994, 2008, or 2021, for instance) – reforms that already aimed to revitalise the Cuban economy by opening it up to private and foreign capital. Second, because the Cuban economy has always been a specific form of capitalism – state capitalism – which is simply another form of exploitation of the proletariat.⁽⁵⁾ As Friedrich Engels explained:

But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.

Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1877

Therein precisely lies the rub; for, so long as the propertied classes remain at the helm, nationalisation never abolishes exploitation but merely changes its form — in the French, American or Swiss republics no less than in monarchist Central, and despotic Eastern, Europe.

Letter from Engels to Max Oppenheim, 24 March 1891

State control of an economy does not strip it of its capitalist character: a state-capitalist economy – such as Cuba’s – remains driven by the profitability of state-owned enterprises; private capital and legal or semi-legal markets have existed since the advent of the Cuban Revolution;⁽⁶⁾ and enterprises are owned by a new bourgeoisie that continues to exploit and extract surplus-value from the wage labourers, who remain compelled to sell their labour-power. It is still an economy governed solely by the law of value, where products are destined for sale as commodities and money serves to measure national accounts and the profitability of enterprises.⁽⁷⁾ State-owned enterprises compete with one another to accumulate ever-increasing amounts of capital. One could attach the label "socialist" to the various market-based features of capitalism – "socialist" wage labour, "socialist" markets and commodities, "socialist" money, "socialist" capital – but this would not prevent these categories from existing in Cuba just as they do in any capitalist economy, nor would it prevent the exclusion of the workers from power, they who are unable to exercise any control over the administration and economy of a state that is alien to them.⁽⁸⁾ As we wrote as early as 1984, the Cuban economy – like all other pseudo-socialist economies – rests on the super-exploitation of workers:

Castro also introduced a social security law in 1962 but by 1969 only 6% of Cuban workers had fully qualified for all pension and social security benefits because this depended on a good work record. This was further tightened up in August 1969 by Law No. 225 which established work control cards for all workers. They record each worker's background, political activity and productivity. Without it you cannot work or receive a wage. In addition it is a crime not to work (under the 1971 “Ley contra la vagancia” or “Law Against Idleness'”) whilst increasingly labour is being militarised. Thus the tendency is to increase rather than decrease exploitation.⁽⁹⁾

This is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat: trade unions are entirely state-controlled; strikes are banned, and ringleaders are executed by firing squad or imprisoned in labour camps;⁽¹⁰⁾ the few mass organisations that exist at the local level are co-opted by the Party-State. It is worth recalling that it was Che Guevara himself – a romantic revolutionary and Third-Worldist – who, as Minister of Industry, instituted compulsory labour for the proletariat and declared in 1961 that "Cuban workers will have to get used to living in a collectivistic regime (!) and therefore cannot strike”.⁽¹¹⁾

Shortly after the revolution, between 1961 and 1964, the government established grievance committees within companies, posing as spaces for worker participation. Their members were elected by the workers, company management, and the Ministry of Labour, the latter of which nevertheless retained a veto over all decisions. While this system was supposed to channel demands, some committees sided with the workers against company management. This autonomy, admittedly limited, was quickly denounced by Che Guevara: any demand likely to hinder production constituted a "threat" to the Revolution.⁽¹²⁾

Trade unions were under no circumstances to become instruments for defending workers' rights or any kind of counter-power; they were to become instruments of discipline at the service of the State; they were ordered to transform themselves into mere relays of the government line. Che Guevara unambiguously summarised this concept by stating that the best union leader is “one who understands the revolutionary process completely, and who, analyzing it and understanding it in depth, will support the government and convince his comrades by explaining the reasons for the revolutionary measures”.⁽¹³⁾ In short, this is barracks capitalism, factory despotism aimed at increasing productivity by any means, a far cry from socialist collectivism in which production is planned according to needs and managed collectively by workers organised into councils.

While these various liberal economic reforms have not substantially altered the economic structure, they have nonetheless diminished the role of the Cuban welfare state, leading to a substantial increase in poverty and inequality.⁽¹⁴⁾ Raúl Castro thus declared in 2008 that “socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of incomes."

Only the far-left of capital – namely Trotskyists – views Cuba as a socialist economy or a "deformed workers' state." From the outset, the Cuban Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic, agrarian, and nationalist revolution. The goal was not to build socialism or communism, nor to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, but simply to somewhat rebalance the power dynamics between classes and states. The aim was to channel popular discontent with the Batista regime⁽¹⁵⁾ through the implementation of agrarian reform (expropriating large estates with compensation and redistributing private land to peasants) and the construction of a form of national capitalism (bringing major Cuban and foreign – particularly US – enterprises under state control). Shortly after seizing power, Castro declared: "I have clearly and definitely stated that we are not Communists … The gates are open for private investment that contributes to the development of Cuba." It was only after diplomatic relations with the US were severed – following the expropriation of US multinationals – that the Castro regime proudly and opportunistically proclaimed itself "communist" in order to secure subsidies and support from the Soviet Union and to fall under the sway of Soviet imperialism.⁽¹⁶⁾ During the 1962-1966 debates on the future of the Cuban economy, the pragmatic camp – advocating a transition via stages – was defeated by the idealist camp led by Che Guevara and backed by Fidel Castro, who promised an immediate transition to communism,⁽¹⁷⁾ even though the fundamental structure of Cuba’s economy remained unchanged (with material incentives and wage inequalities preserved).

True communism never existed in Cuba. The Cuban "communist" movement was born already Stalinised in 1925 and became an instrument of counter-revolution. In August 1933, when a general strike broke out against the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado, the Communist Party allied itself with the government, agreeing to call off the strike in exchange for its legalisation.⁽¹⁸⁾ In 1940, the Popular Socialist Party – the new name for the Cuban "communist" party – supported General Batista and joined his governing coalition of conservatives and liberals. It eventually aligned itself with the guerrilla struggle of the 26th of July Movement – which brought together bourgeois nationalists from the Orthodox Party and Stalinists – before dissolving into the single-party state. This marked a long trajectory of successive betrayals of the Cuban proletariat, left orphaned without its own class organisation.

A reform implemented under pressure from US imperialism

This economic reform is being implemented directly in the wake of the island's economic collapse. It follows pressure from the US administration to "modernise" the economy. The Trump administration’s objective is clear: ramp up economic pressure on the Cuban government until it relinquishes power. And should it fail to do so, a Venezuela-style scenario cannot be ruled out – namely, a military intervention aimed at overthrowing President Díaz-Canel and replacing him with one of their own pawns. The US government appears to have found their candidate: Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, the grandson of Raúl Castro – one of the key players of the reviled Castroist bourgeoisie.⁽¹⁹⁾ Like Maduro, the Cuban government seeks to come to terms with US imperialism and negotiate directly with it, appearing ready to accede to all its demands – up to a point. Initial meetings took place with the Trump administration in February to "resolve differences," and these discussions are ongoing. Bogged down in the conflict with Iran, the US administration does not appear willing, for the moment, to embark on a perilous new military venture, mindful of the humiliation of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet there is little doubt that the situation could evolve in the coming months – potentially toward such a scenario – as Cuba has returned to the forefront of the State Department’s concerns; the Department falsely accuses the country of a strategy to destabilise the US and deems its economic reforms "insufficient," given that they maintain the Party-State’s control.⁽²⁰⁾ The Trump administration seeks to step up its interventionism in its Latin American "backyard" in order to weaken its major economic rival, China, by targeting the latter's key regional allies – of which Cuba remains one of the last. Given the assertiveness of US imperialism and its projection of "hard power" across the globe, it is difficult to imagine the situation being resolved through mere diplomatic talks rather than the use of force.

The path to proletarian emancipation lies in marching over the corpse of Castroism

Both the US empire and the Castroist government are enemies of the working class. A government willing to starve a people for historically refusing to align with its demands can never be an ally of the exploited. It is a farce to claim that Castroism represents any sort of progress for the proletariat. Its economic model was viable only as long as it had the support of the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet collapse, Cuba has struggled to survive in the face of the economic embargo. However, its economic survival will come at the cost of rapidly accelerating liberalisation and the normalisation of relations with the US – all to the detriment of any improvement in workers' living conditions.

Cuba’s working class has long understood that this regime does not represent them. In 2021, massive protests erupted – primarily in the poorest neighbourhoods – against the Castroist regime, which is associated with hunger, deprivation, shortages of essentials (food, water, fuel, medicine), and power outages. Class repression was used to crush any spontaneous uprising.⁽²¹⁾ Even today, these protests recur, driven by the same slogan: "we are hungry!".⁽²²⁾ What is being voiced here is a demand for workers’ dignity – the right to live, not merely survive.

However, this spontaneous grassroots movement also has obvious limitations: the protesters believe the Castroist propaganda that equates the regime with communism, and, in their desire to oppose repression, they equate their rejection of the Castroist dictatorship with a rejection of communism. Yet, only by returning to the path of class struggle – against the pseudo-communist dictatorship of Castroism and against US imperialism – will Cuban workers be able to emancipate themselves once and for all from the slavery and deprivation they face on a daily basis.

The social revolution must necessarily step over the rotting corpses of the last vestiges of Stalinism to achieve its ultimate goal: proletarian emancipation. It must also be waged against the principal instigators of misery – namely, the US capitalists, who promise freedom and democracy only so long as it serves their interests. We can achieve this only through the autonomous and independent action of the working class – organised by its class Party and united with other contingents of the global proletariat – in opposition to both the "communist" and imperialist bourgeoisie. The future belongs everywhere to the working class as the only class struggling for the emancipation of humanity; for, like Lenin, we know that “capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.” (The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, 1913).

Notes:

Image: commons.wikimedia.org

(1) lemonde.fr

(2) iris-france.org

(3) China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea.

(4) lemonde.fr

(5) marxists.org

(6) In the 1980s, before the economic reforms, close to 10 % of those working in the Cuban economy were in the private sector. Cf. Cuba, Social Policy at a Crossroads: Maintaining Priorities, Transforming Practice An Oxfam America Report 2002, p. 27

(7) Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Cuban Studies n°16, 1986, University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 158-160

(8) “Che in power”, Socialist Standard, Number 1263, November 2009. See also leftcom.org

(9) From Workers Voice, paper of the Communist Workers’ Organisation (January 1984), quoted in: leftcom.org

(10) These camps – Military Units to Aid Production – interned counter-revolutionary elements who favoured a new regime subservient to US imperialism, but also homosexuals, Trotskyist political opponents, unproductive or habitually absent workers, strikers, and those considered at the time to be "anti-social" – that is, excluded from the labour market.

(11) Samuel Farber, Che Guevara. Ombres et lumières d'un révolutionnaire, Syllepse, 2017, p. 96

(12) ibid., p. 97

(13) Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, La Lune et le Caudillo, Gallimard / L'arpenteur, 1989, p. 383

(14) revista.drclas.harvard.edu et southampton.ac.uk

(15) Let’s not forget that while the 26th of July Movement called for a general strike on 1 January 1959 to support the overthrow of the Batista regime, it also called for a return to work that very same day so as not to "disrupt" production. The fact is, a workers' insurrection would not have been in its interests.

(16) The Soviet Union kept the Cuban economy dependent on the global market – particularly regarding the export-oriented sugar industry – to the detriment of food crops. Cf. leftcom.org

(17) Stalinist “communism” – that is, the complete state control of "socialist" production and profits.

(18) Bilan No. 17 – March–April 1935, Inter-imperialist struggles and class struggles in Latin America (continued and concluded).

(19) nouvelobs.com and lemonde.fr

(20) lemonde.fr and foreignpolicy.com

(21) leftcom.org and leftcom.org

(22) theguardian.com