Relation to neo-Marxism
Introduction
The Cuban missile crisis marked one of the most turbulent times in our history. It was sparked by the deployment of nuclear missiles by the Soviet Union, in Cuba, in 1962. The world was on the brink of nuclear disaster.
This paper seeks to analyze the underlying reasons, the influence of neo-Marxism and its role in the development and exacerbation of the Cuban missile crisis.
What is neo-Marxism
Before we embark on the underlying causes of the Cuban missile crisis, it is important to understand the basic differences between tenets of old school Marxism and neo-Marxism – its evolution, historical impact and its widespread discourse among social intellectuals. Marxism is a theory or philosophy which has its roots in social disparity, labor alienation, economic reality and political history. Karl Marx was the proponent of this theory, in the mid 19th century. It is based on the understanding that economic factors are responsible for creating classes in society. These can be classified mainly as the capitalists, who own capital, wealth, besides other resources and the workers, or those who are employed by the capitalists, who struggle to earn their daily bread. Marx was interested in understanding what the relations are between these two classes, how future societies will evolve as a consequence of that and whether there is an alternative system that can help in producing a classless society. Marx was also concerned about how this evolving disparity will affect the future of the world and social relations (Ollman 2004).
Marx was influenced in a big way by the German philosopher, Hegel, and was interested in thinking about new ways in which our world could evolve, from a social and economic standpoint. While Hegel’s theory operated on ideas and thoughts, Marx was more interested in the concept of capitalism as it affects our daily lives. Karl Marx firmly believed that social conditions have a great effect on the development of human character and behavior.
Neo-Marxism evolved as a theory in the latter part of the 20th century, since the 1970’s and 80’s. Neo-Marxism is like an adjunct to Marxism and the neo-Marxists have used the basic tenets of Karl Marx’s philosophy and applied it to international relations and the state of the global social, cultural and economic factors. Neo-Marxist experts tend to believe that capitalism is what is forcing countries to be competitive and domineering (Lardbucket, 2012). Neo-Marxism therefore is like an extension of Marxism and is a combination of different approaches and ideas related to 20th century global realities. It finds application in many areas and is not a single restricted idea. Neo-Marxism has found applications in Psychology, crime, world affairs, conflicts and so on. Unlike the rigidity seen in classic Marxism, neo-Marxism fundamentally infuses elements of Marxism in to 20th century socio-cultural concepts (Exemplifier, n.d.).
Over the past few decades, we have seen capitalism change. But in the new globalized world and economic order, the relation and impact of capitalism on socialism has not changed. The disparity between the value created by labor forces and surplus value earned by capitalists is ever increasing. According to U.S Legal’s definition, “Neo-Marxism theory is an economic theory that the current world economic structure has been systematically implemented by use of a global class division with developing countries being exploited by industrialized nations (U.S. Legal, 2016). Neo-Marxism is therefore seen in an international and globalized context and compares the inequalities between the under developed and developed countries. Take the example of China. Though China did not embrace the classic Marxism-Leninism construct, it still practices Communism in a variant which can be called State sponsored capitalism, because of its desire to source raw materials and global markets for finished products.
Any form of neo-Marxism, which includes liberal commercialism as practiced by China, leads to classification of workers and their degradation, since capitalist forces will protect their own (Lardbucket, 2012). Many neo-Marxists argue that wars, global politics and conflicts emanate from some of the concepts of neo-Marxism. The U.S. for example has been known to support many dictatorships in its own capitalist interests. This has led to many conflicts and turbulence in the economic and socio-cultural mores of many countries. Some neo-Marxism experts believe that the Cold war, Gulf wars and other conflicts had its roots in commercial and capitalist interests. Capitalists profit from the use of two forms of social forces – labor power and mother earth. They choose to exploit both to gain more and more profits, leading to a vicious capitalist cycle which brings more harm than good, to society (Chambre 2014). The Neo-Marxist protagonists believe that development is highly connected with dependency and world systems theories. Some development theories derived from the neo-Marxist approach have their unique strengths. They underline some key aspects such as the reasons for underdevelopment being more to do with historical process and acknowledge the dependence between nations. It maintains that systems and institutions are in constant flux and the capitalist nations deliberately kept the third world in an under developed sate, since it had an abundance of raw materials, which the West needed to further their capitalist interests. (Exemplifier, n.d.).
Story of Cuba and Castro’s Neo-Marxist Ideology
Fidel Castro was born on August 13, 1926 in the village of Biran. He went to a Roman Catholic school and was a famed athlete at the university. He developed a keen interest in politics and joined the anti-corruption movement in 1947, organized by the Orthodox Party. He soon graduated and became a lawyer. He stood for elections to Cuba’s House of Representatives but Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, staged a coup and took over the country in March 1952.
Castro became a rebel with a cause and organized attacks on the army in 1953. He was sent to prison for 15 years but was soon released. He moved to Mexico and with the help of Che Guevara and his men, continued the struggle, till they launched a successful revolution (Logan 2015). The Cuban revolution in 1959 heralded the victory of the workers and oppressed people against capitalist forces. People embraced the new socialist policy and though this revolution was different, from the Russian or Chinese – it had one underlying commonality – the defeat of capitalist and imperialist forces of America. There is a lot of discourse and argument about the influence of Marxist policies on the Cuban revolution. It can be said that this is a mix of Marxism and Leninism (Taaffe 2000). On closer view, Castro did practice an extended form of Marxism which can be termed as neo-Marxism in today’s context and definition. Neo-Marxism, as practiced by Castro was unique, in the sense that it spoke against injustice of any form, not only economic but also social and political. This kind of liberalism was seen in France in the first half of the 19th century (McLellan et. al. 2014). From the very beginning Fidel Castro was influenced by Marxist ideologies, but in addition, he spoke against sectarianism and bureaucracy too. So, he not only understood the deep relationship of Marxism with the economy, but also other cultural factors in Cuba, which are the essence of neo-Marxism. This form of neo-Marxist ideology in Cuba took root easily, since it was a single-crop economy, had low levels of development – political and economic. The other factor – it displayed a rampant disdain of American imperialism and capitalism (Taaffe 2000).
End of World War 2
August 1945 witnessed the destruction of 2 Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nuclear holocaust was brought upon by America as a response to Japanese aggression and as a means to end the world war. Bombs equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT destroyed cities and vaporized people. The temperature at ground zero was 5400 degrees and more than 90% of the buildings in the cities were destroyed. Such was the destructive power of the atomic bombs.
In retaliation, the Russians also built their atom bomb in 1949 and a hydrogen bomb in 1955.
The world saw the emergence of a new destructive force that could annihilate all mankind in a matter of minutes. The balance of power between America, its NATO allies and the Soviet Union, was maintained by what military analysts called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The nuclear assets were supposed to act ‘deterrents’ to a real nuclear conflagration (Faulkner 2012).
Neo-Marxism and the origins of the Cuban missile crisis
The origins of the Cuban missile crisis can be seen in the practice of neo-Marxist ideology.
The application of neo-Marxist theory to Cuba reveals some interesting facts. The theory argues against the importance of economic factors in society. In the case of Cuba we see that its single product economy was actually increasing dependence on Soviet Union for its subsistence. So that is the weakness of the neo-Marxist theory; it gets refuted to some extent, since Cuba’s economy actually affected different aspects of its society. One key idea in neo-Marxism which applies to Cuba is the power of the ruling classes, who control the workers. This hegemony is clearly demonstrated in the pre and post revolution periods in Cuba, which Castro fought against. The strength in neo-Marxism lies in its ability to showcase and identify power groups in society and their ways of gaining control. This is the main reason for continuing inequality in many societies in the world. Castro’s neo-Marxist ideas also reflect expert thinking on the theory. The role of culture and ideology was clearly seen as a means to exploit the working classes in Cuba.
Cuba is a prime example of a country which tried to defy the neo-Marxist theory of dependency. Though the socialist revolution aimed to end dependency on other nations, the changes did not happen overnight. Cuba was almost a single product economy with the predominant production of cane sugar. It had to earn foreign exchange to survive and fund other sectors of the economy. Most of the imports were of industrial equipment, fuel and agro chemicals. Cuba began to gravitate towards the Soviet Union, as a result of Castro’s belief in his own neo-Marxist policies. The Soviets were paying 5.4 times more for Cuban sugar cane than the world market price, making Cuba really dependent on them (Keet, 2002). With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba managed to provide good education and healthcare to its poor citizens.
The Cuban missile crisis of 1962, heralded one of the most dangerous moments in modern history, where the world was on the brink of mass extinction. The use of thermonuclear weapons would have led to a loss of an estimated 200 million human lives. The missile crisis has its origins in the post World War 2 periods where America and the Soviets sought to dominate the world and maintained a fine balance of power. America controlled West Berlin and had missiles in Turkey and Italy, which was an irritant to the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet President thought of a clever plan to enhance geo political influence, by arming Cuba with R-12 and R-14 intermediate range nuclear missiles. The idea was to bring America to the bargaining table and push them to give up West Berlin and/or remove the missile bases in Turkey. The idea was not to initiate a nuclear war but to use this as a bargaining chip with the Americans. The Americans had an advantage over the Soviets in terms of the number of IRBMs, though, which was to America’s advantage. The origin of the missile crisis can also be attributed to the personalities of the two leaders at that time – President Kennedy and President Khrushchev. The construction of the Berlin wall and the Bay of Pigs disaster encouraged Khrushchev to sense weakness in the American Presidency.
The missile crisis has its origins in the post World War 2 periods where America and the Soviets sought to dominate the world and maintained a fine balance of power. One can clearly see that the sequence of events relate and bear relevance to the neo-Marxist theories of nations wanting to dominate each other in their own interests. Neo-Marxism, as practiced by Castro and his supporters was one of the main factors underlying the conflict and the Cuban missile crisis. America controlled West Berlin and had missiles in Turkey and Italy, which was an irritant to the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet President thought of a clever plan to enhance geo political influence, by arming Cuba with R-12 and R-14 intermediate range nuclear missiles. The idea was to bring America to the bargaining table and push them to give up West Berlin and/or remove the missile bases in Turkey. The idea was not to initiate a nuclear war but to use this as a bargaining chip with the Americans. The Americans had an advantage over the Soviets in terms of the number of IRBMs, though, which was to America’s advantage. The period, marked by military one-upmanship, ensured that Khrushchev could gamble once more with Cuba and win (Warner 2012). In October 1962, the Soviets began arming Cuba with nuclear missiles, a country within close range of the United States. In response President Kennedy reacted by putting all its missiles and forces on high alert. The missiles in Cuba were seen to be a clear and present danger to American geo political interests. America readied its forces and organized 100,000 men to invade Cuba. America was ready for a nuclear war, if the need arose.
The military thinking at the time was to go in for a full scale nuclear war against the Soviets, rather than six months after. The saber-rattling continued, and the world had not come this close to a nuclear holocaust after World War 2. In the last week of October 1962, Russia opted for peace and an agreement was reached between the U.S. and Russia (Faulkner 2012).
The Cuban missile crisis saw many twists and turns. From the day President Kennedy was informed of the deployment of Soviet missiles (October 16) to end of October, when peace was attained, the crisis had many dimensions. The first missiles started arriving in Cuba in September 1962. The Soviet plan was to keep all the deployments in secret till November 1962, when Khrushchev planned to go to Cuba and then negotiate with the Americans on Turkey and West Berlin, with what he thought was a strong hand.
An American U-2 bomber discovered the deployment of the missiles on October 14th. Since the secret was out, America had to react quickly and increase political and military pressure on the Soviets. America had many options to consider – from air strikes to a full invasion of Cuba. The Americans and Soviets had come to terms in handling Cuba. It was agreed that Russian missiles will be removed from Cuba and America will in turn remove its missiles from Turkey.
Although President Kennedy was praised for his tactful handling of the crisis by not approving an air strike but allowing a naval blockade, there are nay-sayers who argue that the crisis was averted by sheer luck more than anything else (Dobbs n.d.).
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can clearly see the linkages of the missile crisis to the neo-Marxist ideologies of Castro and Guevara, and the way they managed to gain power by embracing it. Neo-Marxism theory is clearly reflected by the dependency of Cuba on the Soviet Union and the lopsided power equation – between the powerful bureaucrats and poor workers. The poverty of the people, the oppressed labor class and the low economic development in Cuba, was also responsible for the support of Castro and his neo-Marxist ideologies.
References
Chambre H. 2014, ‘Marxism’, Brittanica, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from:
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism
Dobbs. n.d., ‘Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)’, The New York Times, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cuban_missile_crisis/index.html
Exemplifier. N.d., ‘Neo-Marxism and its relevance in the 21st century’, Exemplifier [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://exemplifier.org/?p=10
Faulkner N. 2012, ‘A Marxist History of the World part 91: The Cold War’ Counterfire, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.counterfire.org/articles/a-marxist-history-of-the-world/16006-a-marxist-history-of-the-world-part-91-the-cold-war
Keet M., 2002. ‘Neo-Marxist Dependency Theories’. Maria Keet, [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://www.meteck.org/dependency.html
Lardbucket., 2012. ‘Theories of International Relations’. Lardbucket, [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/a-primer-on-politics/s11-02-theories-of-international-rela.html
Logan B. 2015., ‘How Fidel Castro Rose To Power And Ruled Cuba For 5 Decades’, Business Insider, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.businessinsider.in/How-Fidel-Castro-Rose-To-Power-And-Ruled-Cuba-For-5-Decades/articleshow/45879762.cms
McLellan D., Chambre H., et. al., 2014, ‘Variants of Marxism – Marxism in Cuba’, Brittanica, [Online], 11 January 2016 from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Variants-of-Marxism
Ollman B. 2004, ‘Dialectical Marxism’, NYU, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from:
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php
Taaffe P. 2000, ‘Cuba – Socialism and Democracy’, Socialistworld, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cuintro.html
U.S. Legal. 2016. ‘Neo-Marxism Theory Law and Legal Definition’. U.S. Legal, [Online],
Retrieved 27January 2016 from: http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/neo-marxism-theory/
Warner G. 2012, ‘Gerald Warner: Castro and Marxism won most from the Cuban missile crisis’, The Scotsman, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-castro-and-marxism-won-most-from-the-cuban-missile-crisis-1-2576374
