Louis Nevaer — In Cuba, ‘Creeping Capitalism’ Arrives

Capitalism has arrived: families are running small restaurants called paladares; people are renting out rooms in their homes to foreign tourists; artists are inviting buyers into their studios and homes; and entrepreneurs are providing goods and services as best they can to all manner of buyers.

The nature of creeping capitalism, however, is different in Cuba. Unlike Mexico which, after the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, quickly became a nation obsessed with American franchises, the lack of capital in Cuba makes that possibility less likely.
In Mexico, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and Costo seem to be everywhere.

In Cuba, on the other hand, by keeping multinationals out, there could be an opportunity for an organic, sustainable capitalism that may be healthier for the local economy. Within the next years there will be a dozen or so new coffee shops throughout Old Havana joining the ones now open—making Starbucks unnecessary.

This possibility is not wishful thinking, but very likely because of the nature of U.S.-Cuba relations: While full diplomatic relations have been reestablished, only the U.S. Congress can lift the embargo and currency controls remain in place. And Republicans are vowing to keep the punitive embargo in place.

That’s why neither McDonald’s nor Starbucks will be able to set up business in Havana in the near future.

The good news? The absence of multinationals allows individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to set up shop and flourish. Buenfil, who runs the Mexican restaurant, laughs at the prospect that Taco Bell could be competition any time soon. “I’m going to spoil Cubans into knowing what good Mexican food is, so if Taco Bell ever shows up, the only ones interested in them would be American tourists,” he said.

If what is happening in Havana is a “softer, kinder” form of capitalism, then it is in keeping with current thinking.

Pope Francis, two years ago, began to speak out against “savage capitalism,” a message he reinforced on his recent pilgrimage to South America where he called for a new world order.

But whether this kind of "humanistic" capitalism can be sustainable remains to be seen.

New America Media
In Cuba, ‘Creeping Capitalism’ Arrives
Louis Nevaer

Marx and Engels differentiated between the ownership class that did not work, the bourgeoisie, and workers who owned nothing and rented their labor for wages, the proletariat. The bourgeoisie strove to emulate the land titled, which meant the owners of land under feudalism, and they aspired to become rentiers living off the work of others similarly to the land titled living off the work of those who made their fields and pastures productive. 

Marx and Engels further differentiated the bourgeoisie into haute bourgeoisie, who were the owners of the means of product, hired labor, and were chiefly rentiers, and the petite bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production but either worked as trades people, craftspeople and shopkeepers, some perhaps a fews hands, but they were not employers that lived from economic rent extracted from others' work.

Marx and Engels did not view the petite bourgeoisie as a problem except to the degree that they had a tendency to emulate the haute bourgeoisie. As a result their economic and social interests included the expectation of potential accession to the haute bourgeoise as a privileged class. 

The fact that the petite bourgeoisie tended to identify with the haute bourgeoisie even though this was not in their long run interest in the view of Marx and Engels meant that they too presented a problem in the transition from capitalism to socialism that needed to be addressed.

However, if there were no haute bourgeoisie, then there would be nothing to aspire toward joining and emulating, so there would be no problem with owning limited means of production.

Cuba is now at this juncture, having eliminated its haute bourgeoisie but reviving a petite bourgeoisie. Thus, it is possible that socialism in the sense of people being prioritized over ownership might prevail. But that is unlikely to happen in a world that doesn't support this and with a next door neighbor working actively to "reform" it.

Somewhat ironically, it is also close to the libertarian view of competitive markets. Laissez-faire only works if there are many firms competing as essentially the same level so that economies of scale cannot lead to monopoly or oligopoly power.