Communism and Sustainability

 

fidel1959

Of the many nations in the world only a small handful still consider themselves to be communist. China and Vietnam have markedly capitalist leanings, while the communist labels of Laos and North Korea are dubious, exhibiting many characteristics of military dictatorships. Only Cuba, the former Soviet ally and eternal pariah for the United States, still adheres to many of the tenets established by Marx and Engels in their investigation and pursuit of an enlightened utopian society. Since Fidel Castro and his fellow revolutionaries first raided the island in 1959, Cubans have seen their healthcare system become one of the finest in the world, yet still many subsist on food stamps to feed their families {1}. They have also seen their industrial composition morph from sugar export to beach tourism, and their environment has transitioned from pristine, to degraded, although now it is recovering. In fact Cuba is considered to be one of the only sustainable countries in the world {2}. In part, this is likely due to the United States embargo that affects almost every aspect of daily life in Cuba: the country has been unable to import pesticides or other agricultural products, so the majority of their farming is organic by necessity. In addition, the need to supplement their government food rations has driven Cubans to practice urban agriculture, thus reducing the average embedded carbon footprint of each meal. Perhaps the small scale of their island relative to such behemoth nations as China or Russia has altered the Cuban perspective. For example, by 1959 approximately 86% of the island had been deforested under the colonial powers and the dictator Fulgencio Bautista. Since then the national reforestation project has been repopulating trees. Every aspect of forestry became regulated with the passing of the National Forestry Act in 1998, and today 26.7% of the island is covered in forest, and increasing. The government currently employs over 40,000 people in forest-related work including park rangers, lumber industrialists, and university graduates {3}. Clearly a combination of economic and political factors have produced a uniquely Cuban sustainability paradigm.

Since the revolution, environmentalism has been at the forefront of Cuban domestic policy. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959 mandated environmental education and also appropriated privately owned plantation land to restore the forests, raising the ire of Cuba’s American trade partners {4}. In 1976 the National Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA) was established, and in 1981 Castro introduced Law 33, titled “The Environmental Protection and the Rational Use of Natural Resources” {5}. This admirable and pioneering commitment of Cuba’s government to environmentalism actually stems from the theoretical underpinnings of communism in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Among their dogmas on the subject from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx and Engels state that communism “… restores man’s intimate links to the land in a rational way, no longer mediated by serfdom, lordship, and an imbecile mystique of property. This is because the earth ceases to be an object of barter, and through free labour and free employment once again becomes authentic, personal property for man.”

Another passage from Marx’s Capital III that should be very resonant for environmentalists today is, “…from the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private ownership of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias (good heads of the household).”

Today, one of the great challenges facing the Cuban environment is the tourism industry. In 1992 the policies of the government regarding tourism became more open due to pressing economic concerns after the fall of the Soviet Union. The island has since faced an ever- increasing onslaught of tourists – mostly Canadian – accounting for approximately 30% of the annual GDP {6}. However, beach front resorts take a heavy toll on the ecosystem by negatively affecting ocean life, producing waste, and encouraging the burning of jet fuel. To address those issues that are directly under their control, the government passed laws in 2000 that implement controls on resort construction, including demanding environmental assessments {7}.

Since Fidel stepped down as president in 2008 and his brother Raul took over the position promising greater freedoms, there have been sweeping changes that have continued to open the Cuban economy. For example, new laws have been passed which enable Cubans to purchase property. They can also obtain travel visas significantly more easily and cheaply than in the past; and additionally in 2013 the dual currency system (one for tourists, one for citizens) was abolished {8}. However there are still many restrictions in Cuban society, not least of which is limited, censored and regulated internet access; and there persists a two-tier society where Cubans and tourists are treated unequally, although the situation has improved somewhat since Cubans were given the right to stay at their own hotels by law in 2008 {9}. In fact all indications point to Cuba soon rejoining the larger world. Even their old nemesis the Organization of American States voted to end the ban on Cuban membership from 1962, an offer swiftly rejected by Fidel {10}. It is likely his rejection was born of spite, although perhaps the organization’s stated goals of strengthening democracy and defending human rights are contrary to his wishes for Cuba. Equally possible is that the OAS-backed free trade zone for the Americas is not something that Fidel believes Cubans need, since the fragile economy would be changed dramatically. Indeed, it is possible that the environmentalist credo that has taken hold in Cuba will be uprooted immediately if the Caribbean island completely opens itself to capitalism.

Thus far, the decisions made by the government of Cuba when faced with economic hardships are contrary to those that nearly every other nation would make. When the Soviet Republic collapsed in 1991 and the aid imports stopped, this marked the beginning of the “Special Period” in Cuba’s history. Rather than crumble under tightened US sanctions, the government embraced the possibility of stimulating the economy through “green” initiatives. In 1992 Fidel Castro gave a speech at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit discussing concepts such as sustainable development and environmental protection. The next step was the creation of the new Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA), which began to assess the local environmental situation and make recommendations {11}. In parallel with the gradual opening of the island to tourism, a system of strict controls and regulations was put in place to mitigate environmental risks. However, without the USSR to supply Cuba with food and oil, Castro aligned himself with Venezuela and the radical socialist Hugo Chavez. One deal between Cuba and Venezuela saw an exchange of doctors for 100,000 barrels of oil per day {12}. Likely due to the inexpensiveness of oil, it took a relatively long time for Cuba to begin utilizing solar power. Finally in 2012 the first solar power plant opened in Cuba, and several more are planned to open soon {13}.

The portrait of Fidel Castro is certainly a complex one. His agenda was primarily to liberate his people from an oppressive dictator, but he promptly and comprehensively tied his rule to humanitarian and environmental policies. The question is now whether the concepts of communism and sustainability share a deep exchange of values both in theory and in practice. Certainly, the average McCarthyist would have lumped together the hippies and the commies and in California this would probably be accurate. However, by examining other modern communist nations such as China or the former Soviet Union, a rather different picture emerges. The Soviets were concerned primarily with the needs of their people rather than with the environment. Their economy was powered by exports of oil and munitions, and was the first example of a planned national economy. China on the other hand has long held manufacturing as the cornerstone of its economy, and today Chinese society is arguably communist in name only. When Chairman Mao founded the People’s Republic of China, options for citizens were limited to accepting communism or execution; but when Mao died, the political landscape changed to allow more freedom {14}. Land ownership became possible once more, and the government’s grasp on the economy loosened, becoming mixed rather than planned {15}. Both China and Russia are still governed by oligarchs in charge of enormous swaths of the national wealth, and both have mixed economies where the state has control of many of the largest companies. The leaders of these two giant Asian nations have strong nationalist tendencies, and are mostly interested in driving growth instead of protecting the environment. However, in November of this year China made a joint commitment with the United States to begin capping its greenhouse gas emissions, with a projected peak emission deadline of 2030 {16}. Additionally, the one-child policy adopted by China could be considered a sustainable initiative, though one born of necessity since during Mao’s rule, he encouraged multiple births per family, which resulted in millions of deaths from starvation {17}. These two cases serve to illustrate that not every communist is an environmentalist, and equally that not every communist behaves like one.

Another experiment in communism from the beginning of the 20th Century was the Israeli kibbutz (a communal farm), an early type of Zionist settlement. The first kibbutz was founded in 1909 along the principles of communism including shared wages and communal child rearing, and was intended to be a self-sustaining agrarian community. The early kibbutzim (plural of kibbutz) worked very hard to farm and build for themselves, but quickly realized the impracticalities associated with mere subsistence. The next logical step was for each kibbutz to specialize, and to share the products of its labor over a wider area; and soon a strong network of farming communities was formed. Some kibbutzim became very successful and during the 1970’s and 1980’s began restructuring from a wage sharing system to differential wages depending on individual roles on the farm, and letting members have private ownership of property {18}. These are referred to as a “renewing kibbutz”, and make up some 72% of the kibbutz population today. Therefore, while the majority of kibbutzim are no longer strictly communist, they still function as larger individuals within a cooperative system. In terms of sustainability this model enormously reduces dependence on imports and the embedded carbon footprint of transportation. The continuing specialization of kibbutzim has resulted in communities that function as autonomous corporations, and together account for 9% of the Israeli economy and 40% of Israeli agricultural production {19}. These communal farms and factories are often organic, local and self-sufficient within their relatively small geographic territory.

If there is a conclusion to be made from an analysis of the history of communism, it is that communism doesn’t work. At least not for long, and not in today’s fledgling globalized environment. More disturbing is that under practical, real world circumstances, it may take a dictatorship to instigate sustainable practices since the general consensus among politicians and economists is that the economy is more important than the environment. Environmentalism in a democracy is conceivable, but a majority of the population would need to vote for environmental reforms – a move often framed by its political opponents as a vote against progress. Indeed, from analyzing several lists tallying the most sustainable countries in the world, it appears that a nation’s progress in sustainable development is usually a function of geography. Examples of these nations include Iceland with its ample sources of geothermal energy, or Costa Rica with its abundant rainforests, or conversely Saudi Arabia and the United States with their oil wealth. Politics can have an effect, but often only in terms of stability. Whether ruled by democracy, communism, socialism or a monarchy, it seems that each country must identify those geographic traits that make it unique, and leverage them to achieve sustainability. Ultimately, the values of the government – whether upheld by an individual dictator or the combined will of the people – can make the process of reaching carbon neutrality easier or more difficult.

  1. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe482
  2. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf
  3. http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82743
  4. http://books.google.es/books?id=o2SFNdAiB7UC&pg=PA123&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  5. http://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822942917exr.pdf
  6. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/Cuba-ECONOMIC-SECTORS.html
  7. http://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822942917exr.pdf
  8. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24627620
  9. http://news.smh.com.au/world/cubans-allowed-to-stay-at-tourist-hotels-20080331-22qy.html
  10. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/04/content_11485277.htm
  11. http://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822942917exr.pdf
  12. http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/140601/en-tres-anos-se-transfirieron-a-cuba-18000-millones-de-dolares
  13. http://grist.org/news/cuba-is-finally-embracing-solar-power/
  14. http://books.google.es/books?id=Q6b0j1VINWgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  15. http://monthlyreview.org/books/pb1234/
  16. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
  17. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
  19. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/11/16/2003488628/2
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.