The Revolutions Need Revolutions

115250451_f8cb370389_b

John Dewy once said that, “Apparent contradictions always demand attention.” And we are seeing two apparent contradictions right now—one in Cuba, another in the US. Thus, they demand our attention. Early signs indicate that we may be witnessing shifts in state ideology, in these two respective countries. The interesting aspect in these two cases, though, is that leaders in either government don’t seem to pushing reforms because of moral epiphanies, but rather to maintain power and avoid mass dissent. Though, perhaps, the populations in both countries will monopolize on these transitory periods.

In Cuba, President Raul Castro called upon the Cuban population for “criticism”—something which is a blatant shift from Soviet policy of the past. Cuba’s economy has been in a shambles since its patron, the Soviet Union, collapsed twenty years ago. And as a result of Fidel’s political dogmatism, he largely refused to innovate ways to alleviate the economic suffering of everyday Cubans. But Raul Castro, now in office, has asked the “Local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution”—an organization whose initial role was to root out Cuban dissidents—to compile criticism on Cuba’s economic system, and on how to reform it.

Any move toward true democracy, and away from the authoritarian past, should be encouraged. Indeed, Raul has stated he does not wish to rule as dogmatically as his brother, which is a positive step forward. But many commentators have argued it a red herring, to say that this new step means one towards democracy in Cuba. Such a move appears to be done more out of necessity, to maintain social order and to tamp down on political disenchantment. After all, any changes to Cuba’s one-party system are removed from the discussion. What is being discussed, though, are reforms which sound less authoritarian in spirit: an expansion of independently-owned small businesses alongside the creation of worker-cooperatives—essentially a limited blend of capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism.

Meanwhile, in the U.S, similar discussions on reform are occurring. Progressive tax reform and, to a larger degree, universal health care debates have dominated the public discourse. Simmering on the backburners, too, are demands for education reform and the early murmurs of an anti-war debate—essentially, in this case, a limited blend of socialism and anti-imperialism.

In both cases—Cuba and the US—political leaders are doing what they always do, giving just enough reform to quiet down the “restless masses”, so to avoid the resurgence of social rebellion (which is like kryptonite to governments). In Cuba, Raul’s government is tightly controlling the recent opening of free speech. In the US, the American government is endlessly watering-down the needed universal reforms, to see what it can get away with, and what it cannot.

But history has showed political jockeying like this rarely works to quiet a population’s demands—not while people increasingly suffer as a result of government obstruction, not while the obstruction blocks basic human rights, like free speech or the right to life (access to health care). And not after the government’s initial compromise gives the population a new taste of progress. As time moves on, and progress does not continue, the “restless” will become forceful, more vocal. It is an inevitable matter of time.

Let’s clarify this issue further. Both Cuban and US governments seem to be playing from Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the handbook of modern governments on how to control their citizenry. Machiavelli advises that a government must be feared—thus its authority respected—by the people it controls. But a government must also be clever. It must make minor concessions to the masses, here and there, so the “fear” of government does not become the “hatred” of government. For hatred is always followed by dissent and potential rebellion.

So, what we will likely see in the coming years is an increase of compromises countered by dissent, countered by compromises, and so on. The historically interesting outcome of this will be the adoption of “non-soviet communist” reforms in Cuba, and the adoption “non-capitalist” reforms in the US. By the end of the 21^st century, capitalism will look less capitalistic; and Soviet communism less soviet communistic. This century, thus, will likely see the death of these two ideologies in their purest forms, as they blend further into each other—through attempts to correct their own internal contradictions and lack of freedoms, via innovative means—to avoid their own demise.

Cuban social worker, Ariel Dacal, recently said of his government that “The Cuban Revolution needs its own revolution”. His point is apt. The aim of revolution, ideally, is to dismantle what is tyrannical in government and replace it with more democratic laws and institutions.

The same may be said of America’s own revolutionary society today. Thomas Jefferson, himself, envisioned multiple American revolutions. Jefferson argued occasional revolution was the only means by which the people could maintain a system of just governance. And his prediction was largely correct, for a revolution need not mean a traditional armed conflict: It took the women’s suffrage “revolution” in the twenties, to get the women’s right to vote. It took the labor movement “revolution” in the thirties, to get human rights for workers. It took the civil rights “revolution” in the sixties, to end racial segregation. And it will take another revolution, to gain universal access to both healthcare and the American Dream, in the US.

It is an inevitable matter of time.

Stephen Dufrechou is a college professor in Memphis, TN. He is a regular contributor to News Junkie Post.