Legal Framework for the Enemy
Legal Framework for the Enemy / Cubanet, Miriam Celaya
Cubanet, Miriam Celaya, Havana, 2 June 2016 — The phrase uttered by
Castro I a few years ago, when he confessed that no one knew how to
build socialism, remains in the minds of many Cubans. Most of us,
stunned and unbelieving, wondered back then what they had been doing for
all previous decades, when the official discourse specifically
maintained that we were immersed in the construction of this idyllic
“society, qualitatively superior to capitalism”.
However, the successor to the throne, Castro II, apparently does believe
to know how socialism is built, not socialism as the soviet manuals
indicated, but something similar to it: a gestational namesake that, in
reality, would only be the consumption of the State capitalist monopoly,
the absolute eldest son of the Galician-Birán caste, his close followers
and their offspring.
In fact, the General has even calculated even how much “prep time” will
elapse until we can view this wonder: exactly 13 years, i.e. from the
year 2017, when the new National Plan for Economic and Social
Development (PNDES) will be defined and approved until 2030, when the
“successful” implementation of the Guidelines has fertilized the field
for “socialist development”. The PNDES is the complement and the tool of
the Conceptualization Project (PC), as discussed in a previous article.
Let the new bricklayers get ready, the ones that will stir together the
new mixture that the Castro regime brings us, if we assume the folly as
a certainty, the promised “socialism” could start to be built just 70
years after the takeover of power by the guerrillas who are still in the
warpath from the heights of comfort of the Palace of the Revolution, far
removed from ordinary people’s daily hardships.
Of course, we’re dealing with an amazing accumulation of chimeras. First
among them is the assumption that there are Cubans who are ready to read
and seriously analyze documents flowing from last April’s secret
conclave of the Druids. The other — no less dreamy — is that anyone
(including their own promoters) will take seriously the contents that
are summarized in them. And, finally, there is the alienation of the
ideal “model” from where we diverge to project the future of a country
that doesn’t even have a present, in which the predominant demographic
features are the low birth rate, the rapid aging of the population and
the unstoppable emigration abroad. It is unlikely that the ruling caste
will have enough slaves in the endowment to build another
“revolutionary” lie of such magnitude.
But it is not my intention to dwell on another analysis of senile —
though not naïve at all — utopias, but to focus on some shady elements
which, paradoxically, are part of a kind of glossary, presented under
the title Meaning Of Terms Used In Documents Presented At The Seventh
Congress Of The CCP, which establishes, in 33 categories, the new
battery of Castro concepts “over property and socialism,” so that the
most educated population on the planet might fully understand the scope
of such illustrious pages.
But, just like the bedsheet that’s too short to cover your toes, the
glossary in question does not mask the demons that the Castro regime is
trying to conjure. An example that jumps out is that the concept of
“private property” – acknowledged as one of the forms of property for
the Cuban Model (subsection d of point 120 PC) — is not included in the
list of glossed definitions for either document.
Instead, ersatz categories, such as Non-State Ownership, Personal
Property, or Common Proprietor of the Basic Means Of Production,
euphemisms intended to blend for the sake of a purported “common
interest” the rights of individuals to manage, control, inherit or
dispose of their property. In Cuba, such an interest has already be
determined by “the leading role of the socialist State in the economy”
and that stands for “State-owned” – the so-called “socialist property of
all the people” — in “the backbone of the entire system of property of
the socialist society”(point 123, PC).
This guiding character of the State, in turn, is strictly based on “the
principles of our socialism,” therefore the “projects of personal life,
family and collective” are also selected by free will and responsibility
“of each person, but within the political-ideological framework outlined
by the CCP, and, in any case, the individual and family projects can be
conceived “as counter or antagonistic towards the collectives.” In this
equation, “collectives” equals people-society and, especially, State.
Contradictorily, individuals or entities defined as “common owners” are
included among the “non-State forms” of property.
If the reader has not understood a thing, this is the purpose of the
official tabloid. I will simplify it to a minimum: the State (Castro and
his conga-line) is the representative of the people (everyone else who
is a native of Cuba) and as such, he is the one who controls everyone’s
property, including assets that presumably do not belong to the State.
As a corollary of this legal-theoretical aberration, the “people” own
everything but every day is more deprived in assets, capital and rights;
while the State collects and manages all the wealth and benefits of the
nominal owners, it establishes production strategies (although they not
produce anything) and it launches the legal and political order of the
Another notable omission in the glossary is the latest type of property
mentioned in section 120 of the CP, “property of mass political
organizations and other forms of association” – implicitly understood in
these institutions created by the government-State-party to ensure its
control of society, which fittingly overlaps within the generic concept
of “socialist civil society” (glossary term number 10).
Interestingly, unlike other forms of property, “political organizations
of the masses, social, and others …” (Sub-paragraph e, point 120 of the
PC) enjoy a special privilege, as these associations “have legal
personality and work in the established framework “(point 188 PC) and
“can receive State or other support, in the interest of the country’s
advancements and its well-being” (section 190 PC).
There is no need to be an accomplished analyst to discover the Castro
trick. When organizations created for the State’s own service — such as
the CDR, FMC, CTC, FEEM, FEU, OPC, UPEC, UNEAC* and a whole long list of
“foundations” defined as “socialist civil society” — are acknowledged as
“properties” with legal personality and independent from the State and
then the rights of these organizations are legitimized to receive “help”
(financing? donations?) from the State or from “others” (institutions,
organizations or other foreign actors?). This not only justifies the
permanence of a monstrous unproductive and parasitic institutional
structure within a country in debt and in perennial economic crisis, but
frees the State-Party-Government from the burden that support for them
implies, and in addition converts them into potential tax contributors
to the State itself.
Taking this analysis a step further, it is difficult not to relate the
category “socialist civil society” and the official recognition of the
form of ownership of ” political organizations of the masses, social,
and others …” — defined in the glossary as a “form of non-State
ownership” — with the easing measures dictated by the US government
regarding the approval of bank loans and other benefits for non-State
entrepreneurs. It would not be surprising if socialist civil society
becomes the entrepreneurs of the future. Suffice it to remember that the
origin of the capital of many of the tycoons of today’s Russia stems
from the workings of the institutions created by the Soviet State. If
this seems a bit twisted to the readers, be aware that, in effect, it is.
And since everything seems to be thought out, not by chance, concept
number 6 of the glossary (forms of non-State-owned property) literally
states in paragraph 4 that “the possibilities of different non-State
forms for the effective management and efficient use of resources” must
contribute “to the development of the national economy, instead of being
a burden to the socialist State.” That is, all must pay income taxes to
Obviously, regardless of the unworkable nature of almost all Castro
plans, we must not lose sight of the obvious intention of making a
comprehensive legal framework for the whole society, which is to be
favorable to its interests as a military and political enterprise. Such
a framework would cover both the minimum formal requirements to satisfy
legal scruples for the sake of appearances from abroad and to legitimize
the Castro transition to State capitalism disguised as socialism.
So it is that we finally know that, hereinafter, when the power elite
speaks of how to “construct socialism” it will actually be referring to
how to best consolidate the private emporium founded by the two most
illustrious sons of… Birán**.
There will be no shortage of those who think that this is causing too
much worry, that the absurdity of the official plans is, in itself, the
warranty of its failure. Those who think that way might be forgetting
how much damage it has caused us as a nation to underestimate the
mimetic and survival skills of the Castro regime. Personally, I agree
with those who believe that we would be better off if we kept our
enemies under close scrutiny, even if we are convinced that they are in
agony. And I don’t know anyone who is more deserving of the title of
enemies of the Cuban people than the Castro brothers.
*The acronyms stand for: CDR – Committees for the Defense of the
Revolution; FMC, Federation of Cuban Women; CTC, Cuban Workers Center;
FEEM, Federation of High School Students ; FEU, Federation of University
Students; OPC, Cuban Patriotic Organization; UPEC, Cuban Journalists
Union; UNEAC, Cuban Writers and Artists Union.
*The birthplace of Fidel and Raul Castro
Translated by Norma Whiting
Source: Legal Framework for the Enemy / Cubanet, Miriam Celaya –
Translating Cuba –