The Search for Alternatives to Neoliberalism in Latin America: Debates Among Left Liberals,

Orthodox Socialists, and Renovative Socialists

Reinventing Revolution: The Renovation of Left Discourse in Cuba and Mexico by Edward
McCaughan
Review by: Norma Stoltz Chinchilla
Social Justice, Vol. 26, No. 1 (75), Human Rights, Gender Politics & Postmodern Discourses
(Spring 1999), pp. 242-245
Published by: Social Justice/Global Options
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29767122 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 15:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.211 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Search forAlternatives to
Neoliberalism inLatinAmerica:
Debates Among Left Liberals, Orthodox
Socialists, and Renovative Socialists

Norma Stoltz Chinchilla

Edward McCaughan, Reinventing Revolution: The Renovation of Left Discourse in Cuba

and Mexico. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; 207 pages, ISBN: 0-8133-6907-X.

IN THE MIDST OF CLAIMS THAT HISTORY IS OVER, CAPITALISM IS TRIUMPHANT,

socialism is dead, and themarket is amagic bullet, Ed McCaughan has written

a stimulating and enlightening book on debates among leftintellectuals in two
importantLatin American countries, Cuba andMexico. Left movements in both
countries have "compositional integrityover time," are influencedby revolutionary
movements elsewhere, face serious conjunctural
and nationalist traditions,and, like left
crises and readjustments as a resultof globalization and the rapid decline of Soviet
socialism. McCaughan believes thata betterunderstanding of left liberal, orthodox
socialist, and renovative socialist ideas about the state,national sovereignty, social?
ism,democracy, market economies, and alternative economic models inCuba and
Mexico can contribute importantelements to the construction of a new paradigm,
with new strategiesforchange in theface of the serious crises faced by theprevious
dominant contenders, reformliberalism and orthodox (Soviet-influenced) socialism.
Through interviewswith 75 leftCuban and Mexican intellectuals, broadly
defined to include social movement activists and party cadre, as well as journalists,
researchers, and universityprofessors,McCaughan compares underlying assump?
tions about capitalist and socialistmodes of production, including basic definitions
and dynamics and short- and long-term strategies for change. The strengthand
influence of these threeparadigms are, of course, differentin each country due to
differenthistories and contemporarycontexts.Due toa varietyof factors?the Cuban
Revolution's lack ofLatin American counterparts (until theSandinista Revolution of
1979), Cuba's economic dependence on the Soviet Union, and itsproximity to a
hostile U.S. within the context of theCold War ? littlefertileground was created

Norma Stoltz Chinchilla is Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, California State
University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840.

242 Social Justice Vol. 26, No. 1

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.211 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alternatives toNeoliberalism inLatin America 243

historically for either liberal or renovative socialist thinking. Mexico has a strong
nationalist tradition.Whereas orthodox socialist thinkingremains strong inCuba,
especially in relation to thepolitical sphere, it is relativelyweak andmarginalized in
Mexico. Renovative socialist perspectives, however, aremuch strongerand more
influential inMexico (represented in political parties such as the Party of the
Democratic Revolution and theZapatista movement, among others) than theyare in
Cuba, where renovative thinkingis frequentlylooked upon with suspicion by those
who fearbeing pushed to themargins (to differentdegrees at different moments). In
both countries, economic liberalism is increasinglygaining a foothold in response to
powerful global economic forces and, in thecase ofCuba, thecollapse of economic
assistance and preferential tradingagreements with theSoviet bloc.
Orthodox ("statist") socialists inboth countries share a deep distrustof private
property,market relations, and "bourgeois" (formal)democracy. They define social?
ism primarily as the social ownership of most, or at least the largest,means of
production. Experimentation with market mechanisms and private or nonstate
(included cooperative) forms of property is viewed negatively and is blamed for
having unintentionallydestroyed theauthorityof theSoviet Communist Party under
perestroika, contributing to thedownfall of Soviet socialism.
Following theLeninist and Stalinist tradition,thestate is thefocal point of social
and collectivist ideals and the class nature of the state; the policies it advances,
particularly in relation to social equality, define thedegree of democracy. Participa?
tionof themasses inpolitical and social life is emphasized, butwithout reference to
the need for civil society's autonomy from state and the ruling party. Liberal
democracy is dismissed for its lack of emphasis on "the social"; political pluralism,
at least in thecase ofCuban orthodox socialists, is seen as "inevitably revolutionary"
(p. 50). The dictatorshipof theproletariat is equated with theprotectionof theinterests
of themajority and democratic centralism is seen as an importantcounterweight to
the problems of bureaucracy. Although some modifications of traditional views
(particularly on elections, formal democratic rights, and political pluralism) are
evident in thediscourse of orthodox socialists, thereis a reluctance to strayvery far
fromLeninist-Stalinist theoretical traditions.
At the other end of the spectrum, left liberals focus on the need to reform the
political system (or sometimesmerely thegovernment), but often ignore the social
and economic power relations deeply embedded within the state. InMexico, as in
SouthernCone nations thatare emerging from traumaticexperiences ofmilitary rule
and bloody repression of theLeft, leftliberals often "share with neoconservatives a
preoccupation with governability and 'pacted' transitions"(p. 58). Democratization
is defined in termsof procedural, juridical, and institutionalreformsthatencourage
citizen representation and participation in polities, including civil rights, fair elec?
tions, and "electoral competition forpower, with freechoice, fairness,and at least a
moderately level playing field," in thewords ofMexican political scientist Jorge
Castaneda (p. 59). Left liberalsdepend on "civil society" toadvance democratization

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.211 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 Stoltz Chinchilla

without seriously addressing therelationshipsof power thatrestrictpublic space and

access for some groups more than others.

In theeconomic sphere, faced with the twinpressures of globalization and U.S.

economic dominance, leftliberals feel thatthe laws of supply and demand have been
generalized under one world economy. Social justice, theyargue, cannot be achieved
withoutwealth. The only realistic and pragmatic course, under these circumstances,
is acceptance of certain economic "laws" aboutmarket competition, efficiency,and
growth. Left liberals resign themselves to the idea of subordinating politics to
economics, but in contrast toneoliberalism, theybelieve thatgreater social equality
can be pursued even while national economies are being reformed.The statemust
play a central role in thispursuit of social justice throughregulation,fiscal policies,
and income redistribution.Humane capitalism and "more meaningful" electoral
democracy is, inmis view, thebest Latin America can hope for.
Cuban andMexican renovators (which, in the lattercase, include socialists and
non-socialists) believe thatmarkets should notbe attributed metaphysical powers, but
also thatlessons from liberal andmarket-economy experiencesmust be given serious
consideration. Both liberals and orthodox socialists underestimate, they argue, the
extent towhich markets are deeply embedded in social relations.The market and the
stateare historical constructionswhose balance reflects thecorrelation of social and
political forces and the social pact operative in a given society at a given moment.
Renovative reformsor ideas thus take on differentformsor emphases,McCaughan
argues, in thecontext ofCuba's state-centeredsocialism and theneoliberal regimes
thatcharacterizemost of the restof Latin America:

Mexico's renovators have long-termvisions of a new socialist-oriented

world system,while engaging in thewearying daily struggles topreserve
what littleremains of a never generous, ThirdWorld welfare state,which
is increasingly whittled away by neoliberal restructuring.Meanwhile,
Cuban renovators tryto figureout how tofind a niche for theirnation in
today's brutal capitalistworld-system without subjecting theirsociety to a
process of desocialization and renewed class differentiation(p. 134).

Although ithas traditionallybeen heresy to say such things,Cuban renovators

point out thatmarket relations predate capitalism and are not inherentlyantisocial.
Neither is theuse ofmarkets incompatiblewith planning. In theview of one renovator,
socialism cannot eliminate themarket; it can only set its contours. In contrast to
economic liberals, Cuban renovatorswish to democratize the social and political
dimensions of the state's role in the economy by introducing,for example, nonstate
property forms such as cooperatives and genuine workers' control. For renovators,
multiple formsof propertyare compatible with planning; theformof property is not
as importantas the correlation of various formsof property. In thisview, issues of
genuine worker participation, autonomy, and control are a necessary corrective for
excessive Cuban statism.The worst thingabout a "statisized" economy, Cuban Juan

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.211 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alternatives toNeoliberalism inLatin America 245

Antonio Blanco tellsMcCaughan, is theabsence of collective creativityandwill (p.

136). The renovators' views on democratization, not themarket as such,make them
controversial in the Cuban context, where centralized state control has been a
consistent feature of theRevolution.
McCaughan's interviewswithMexican and Cuban leftistsare testimony to the
richness ofLatin American debates about alternatives tocapitalism and/or short-and
long-termresponses to globalization. Left Latin American intellectuals, likemany
ordinaryLatin Americans, have not "rolled over and played dead" in theface of global
change. In daily protests,big and small, as well as indebates in themedia, atpolitical
party and grass-roots organization meetings, and in academic conferences, old
assumptions are subject to challenge and new strategiesare embraced. The process
is one full of insightsand hope for all who believe in social justice.
As McCaughan would readily agree, however, challenges to traditional left
paradigms and theforgingof new ones are not limited toMexico and Cuba. As with
any good study,McCaughan's leaves the reader wanting to know more about
comparisons, for example, between theMexican and Cuban Left and those of the
Southern Cone (particularlyBrazil). In a similar fashion, those of us who have
followed thedevelopment of revolutionarymovements inCentral America cannot
help butwonder where theircontributions to a renovative socialist paradigm fit into
the discussion, particularly on questions such as challenges to orthodox socialist
definitionsof class, therelationof class togender, race/ethnicity,and,more recentiy,
sexual orientation, therole of culture and identityinpolitical struggles,therole of the
"vanguard parties" in relation to "mass" organizations, the importanceof pluralism
and cross-class alliances in the construction of democracy inside and outside the
movement, and thecontributionsof religiousworldviews and spirituallymotivated
activists to anti-systemicmovements. Although the latterthemeswere not intended
to be thefocus ofMcCaughan's comparisons, the fact thattheyemerged so visibly
within thecontext of theCentral American experience and (apparently) have been
less central toMexican and Cuban leftdiscussions is importanttounderstanding the
latter's contributions to a renovativeparadigm. Any futurestudythatbuilds upon this
pioneering work should consider deepening and extending the limitedcomparisons
inMcCaughan's discussion.
Although I remain unconvinced by the "world systems" framework the author
employs occasionally to frame his analysis? for example, Cuba's andMexico's
insertion into theworld system as semi-peripheral countries is one factor, among
?
others, used to explain why leftintellectuals in the two countries thinkas theydo
I believe McCaughan's book is a masterful contribution to the study of Latin
American socialmovements and political thought,as well as contemporaryintellectual
history.It is a book ofmajor importanceforeveryonewho nurturesa vision of humane
alternativesto capitalism.Despite thepotential complexity of its subject, thebook is
sufficientlywell writtenand interestingthatitcan and shouldbe readby broad sectorsof
thepublic, as well as by universitystudentsand professors interestedin social change.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.211 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions