A reasonably readable article but you get the sense that not only is it a tad superficial but that it’s all been said before. Ok, Gorney adequately summarizes the new government policies that are being tentatively rolled out in Cuba and convincingly expresses both the enthusiasm and scepticism of the Cubans for these reforms. But what Gorney does not do, either because it’s not her brief or she simply hasn’t got the wherewithal to do so, is to put these new policies into some sort of theoretical perspective.

Unlike Gorney, I have been careful not to use the term ‘reform’ because for me a reform suggests a progressive movement forward and I am far from convinced that the new policies can be placed in that category. More accurately they might be described as a strategic retreat much along the lines of Lenin’s NEP in the 1920’s but as for being a progressive reform, this is most doubtful. Either way, what the article desperately needed is a discussion on three related philosophical points; firstly, what is the essence of communism; secondly, what are the material conditions for its realisation; and thirdly, what is the likely nature of the transition to its fruition?

First things first. What is the essence of communism as envisaged by its founding theoreticians? Well we could produce twenty volumes on this one and still have plenty of scope for a life-time of fierce controversy. But an initial common point of consensus might be found around the maxim: ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’. That seemingly neat and concise definition contains, of course, the best part of 150 years of heated polemics, but nevertheless it does cleverly encapsulate the guts of the matter.

A communist citizen will willingly perform to the maximum of their capacity for the collective good, and in return will receive that which is necessary to replicate and even improve their existing material and cultural standard of living. It would be an unspoken, unwritten pact between the individual and society, and it would transpire because it was the rational thing to do. The individual would fully appreciate that the skills, education and material security that they enjoyed were socially generated, and that irresponsible, egotistic individualism would ultimately harm the collective. It wouldn’t be paradise. The dialectic between the individual and the collective would endure indefinitely, but ensuing conflicts would be resolved rationally, collectively and amicably. As old conflicts were solved new contradictions would arise, but society would finally be mature enough to expect and embrace such contradictions. Humanity would have ended its pre-history of class division and tribalism and be speeding on its way to new adventures both here on earth and beyond.

That all sounds wonderfully appealing but, and here is the key ‘but’, what are the material conditions necessary to achieving such a cohesive and productive society? Marx was quite specific on this point; scarcity produces class divisions and war, and only material abundance on an international scale can provide the material conditions for communism to develop and prosper. Castro and Che should not be condemned for daring to take the communist road but their chances of success were severely limited given the appalling economic and cultural backwardness of both Cuba and South America generally. Add to that the existential hostility of US imperialism, and they really were on a hiding to nothing. The same could be said to be true of Russia and China. It would take the entire industrial and cultural might of the developed world to give an impoverished and exploited country like Cuba a fighting chance of creating Che’s ‘communist man’. As it turned out, the developed world set its face against Cuba from the outset and has maintained that hostility to this present day. Gorney hints at this but doesn’t elaborate.

So there we have it. Cuba, like a number of other nominally socialist countries, stuck in the paradox of wanting to move forward but the prevailing material conditions dragging them forever backwards; scarcity perpetually creating corruption, beuracracy and reaction. So what should Castro and Che have done? Sat back and waited for some future world revolution to propel Cuba forward? Definitely not. The expansion of the Soviet Bloc after the Second World War gave many the hope that a communist future might indeed be possible. What they didn’t factor in was that the same backwardness that plagued Cuba was also to ultimately undermine their Soviet benefactor. Socialism, let alone communism simply cannot flourish in conditions of scarcity and national isolation.

That brings us to our third theoretical consideration, the nature of the transition to communism. Here again Marx is able to provide some advice but unfortunately neither Che nor Castro heeded that advice. Rather than plunge directly into a communist mode of society, Marx suggested that the maxim for what might be a long historical transition would be best described as. ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their work’. Just a single tiny word change but the significance is massive. During the transition workers must still be motivated by self-interest. The harder and more productive you work, the greater the rewards should be. Simply extolling communist morality is a complete waste of time. The prevailing conditions of scarcity and national isolation will sooner or later dissipate any communistic fervour. ‘communist man’ will quickly revert back to self-interested man. Hence the never ending stream of migration from Cuba to Miami. Hence the black market. Hence the privileged status of the communist party members. Again Gorney only presents her readers with the bare, empirical facts. The reader is left to try and draw some theoretical conclusions. Most won’t bother. They’ll simply read the article, shake their head and move on.