Will Cuba restore capitalism AGAINST THE STREAM

Against The Stream · 2026-06-25

Core Argument¶

The central thesis is that the package of economic reforms approved by the Cuban National Assembly on 18 June 2026 represents not an incremental adjustment but a qualitative break: the restoration of capitalism and the effective end of the Cuban Revolution. The argument is that these measures go far beyond previous concessions to the market — such as the 2010–2011 lineamientos — and instead dismantle the planned economy entirely. The reforms are presented as a direct consequence of the near-total blockade imposed by the Trump administration since January 2026, orchestrated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which has methodically asphyxiated every source of foreign income and energy supply. However, the episode argues that the blockade is the immediate trigger, not the ultimate cause: the Cuban leadership had already been moving in this direction for years, and the reforms reflect a deeper political choice to abandon the revolutionary project in favour of a Chinese or Vietnamese model of state-managed capitalism.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis draws on classical Marxist distinctions between planned and capitalist economies. The key theoretical move is to insist that the difference is not one of degree but of kind: a planned economy organises production for social need, while a capitalist economy is driven by private profit, competition, and the imperative to accumulate. The episode invokes Marx’s understanding of capital’s internal logic — that capitalists are compelled to drive down wages, exploit labour, and expand or be destroyed by competition — to argue that once market mechanisms dominate, no amount of state ownership or progressive intent can control the outcome.

The discussion of the state draws on Lenin’s State and Revolution, particularly the four conditions for a genuine workers’ state: election and recall of officials, wages no higher than a skilled worker’s, universal participation in administration, and the arming of the people. This is used to critique the Cuban bureaucracy, which the episode argues has always been a bureaucratic workers’ state rather than a democratic one, and which now faces the prospect of becoming a capitalist state proper as economic power shifts to private hands.

The episode also engages with the historical experience of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the Soviet Union, arguing that the current Cuban reforms are not a NEP-style tactical retreat. Lenin’s NEP was explicitly presented as a temporary concession under extreme duress, accompanied by the strengthening of workers’ control and the promotion of world revolution. The Cuban reforms, by contrast, are presented as a permanent “perfection” of socialism, with no corresponding democratisation or internationalist turn.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The episode is anchored in a very specific conjuncture. The blockade imposed from January 2026 is described in granular detail: an oil blockade that cut 60% of Cuba’s fuel supply; secondary sanctions forcing Sherritt International, Visa, Mastercard, and multiple hotel chains to exit; the cancellation of medical aid agreements; and the targeting of the Mariel Harbour trade company. The result is 22-hour electricity cuts, early closure of the school year, suspension of non-emergency surgery, and a general economic collapse.

The geopolitical context is equally specific. The episode links the blockade directly to the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, which it treats as the final death blow to the Venezuelan revolution and the removal of Cuba’s last major ally. It situates the reforms within the broader failure of “multipolarity” as a strategy: Russia and China, both capitalist states, are advising privatisation, while the so-called progressive governments of Latin America — Mexico, Brazil, Colombia — have either collaborated with the blockade or remained silent.

The episode also notes the demographic and political shift within Cuba: the generation that remembers pre-revolutionary capitalism is dying out, while younger Cubans have known only decades of hardship under a bureaucratic regime that has lost legitimacy. This creates a situation where the material basis for popular resistance — the conquests of the revolution, such as free housing, healthcare, and education — is being dismantled, leaving the population with less to defend.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The episode deliberately leaves open the question of whether the reforms will actually be implemented, noting that US permission may still be required for foreign investment. It also leaves open the question of resistance: the episode references debates inside Cuba, particularly the work of the editorial collective Punto y Aparte and the economist Leu Mock, who argues for workers’ control as an alternative. These are threads that the RCI’s broader corpus develops further.

The episode explicitly references a 2010 article by Jorge Martin warning against the lineamientos, and Alan Woods’s interventions in Cuba arguing for workers’ democracy. It also points to earlier Against the Stream episodes on Venezuela, which analyse the Cuban bureaucracy’s role in advising Chavismo to go slow and accommodate capital. The study guide accompanying this episode is recommended for further reading, as is the report from Alan Woods’s trip to Cuba.

The argument about the impossibility of socialism in one country is a settled position of the RCI, developed extensively in their theoretical work and in other episodes. The episode ends by calling for the building of a revolutionary international as the only force that could have saved the Cuban revolution and can save future revolutions.

Connections¶

Lenin, State and Revolution — the theoretical basis for the critique of bureaucratic workers’ states and the four conditions for workers’ democracy.
Alan Woods, The Cuban Revolution: A Marxist Analysis — a key text in the RCI’s corpus on Cuba, referenced in the episode.
Jorge Martin, Cuba: The Restoration of Capitalism? — the 2010 article warning against the lineamientos.
Punto y Aparte (editorial collective) — Cuban communists whose articles are quoted in the episode, representing the internal debate.
Leu Mock, “Is There Another Alternative for Cuba?” — an article arguing for workers’ control, referenced directly.
Earlier Against the Stream episodes on Venezuela — for the analysis of Cuban advice to Chavismo.
Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed — the classic analysis of bureaucratic degeneration in a workers’ state, though not named in the episode, the framework is clearly present.

Key Quotes¶

“This package now, if taken as a whole, in my opinion means the end of the planned economy and the full restoration of capitalism.”
“The state at the end of the day is nothing but the coercive power of one class to control society. That class in capitalist society is a tiny minority of capitalists. A workers’ state is supposed to guard the interests of the vast majority. But if you have a majority capitalist economy, which side will the state take?”
“Lenin called the NEP a retreat. A massive concession. And the only reason why — and he pointed out that this was dangerous, that it had dangerous potential consequences. These measures were recognised as a step back and accompanied by two things: the strengthening of workers’ control and participation, and the promotion of world revolution. Here in Cuba you don’t see any of that.”
“The Cuban revolution cannot be faulted in terms of international solidarity. But international solidarity is not exactly the same as international proletarianism. One thing is solidarity, which is very good and welcome. The other thing is promoting revolution in other countries.”
“Solidarity with the Cuban revolution must be because it is part of what you are doing in your own country. You are fighting for revolution in your own country as well. And that is why you support the Cuban revolution.”