Their link is incorrect – Cuba can be subject to globalization without succumbing to neoliberalism. Even if industry investment increased, anti-neoliberal resistance would not be doomed.
Shreve, Executive Articles Editor at the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2012 [Heather, .D. Candidate, 2012, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, “Harmonization, But Not Homogenization:
The Case for Cuban Autonomy in Globalizing Economic Reforms”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Volume 19, Issue 1, Winter 2012]
Globalization in today's world no longer requires homogenization; Cuba does not need to either adopt a neoliberal or Maoist version of economics to globalize. Instead, it can remain Marxist-Leninist while entering into the global economy. Just as neoliberal policies are not the [End Page 386] only concept of globalization, as seen in China, so too Chinese Maoism is not the only alternative form of globalization. The fundamental differences between China and Cuba are vast—for example, the focus of the Cuban reform differs from that of the Chinese,131 the decision by Cuban officials to shun Chinese "market socialism"132 in favor of limited Communist reforms,133 and the histories and cultures of the two countries differ.134 Cuba presents a different story of globalization—one of a nation, rather than making an ideological change without regard to outside circumstances, instead shifting policies out of necessity and the need to survive in a changed world. Moreover, Cuba's story of globalization is one of a nation attempting to limit negative effects of globalization. Cuba, while symbolically isolated for the last sixty years, was not immune from globalization—the country's resistance wreaked havoc upon the economic and social growth of the nation. Instead, Cuba, as a global actor, reconfigures itself to retain power in its new model of global engagement. And yet, Cuba's decision to gradually reform economic policies is not made in isolation; while Raúl Castro certainly makes the decisions, many of these decisions have already been made for Cuba by a globalized world. Upon review, Cuba will retain its ideological goals without completely compromising or adhering to the other forms of governance—this is what globalization means, the permeation of even the most historically uncompromising country and the harmonization of certain key ideas and practices embraced by the rest of the world. Moreover, it shows that globalization does not stop with market-based or neoliberal governance; instead, as Deng Xiaoping stated, "[The] [m]arket can also serve socialism."135 Although Cuba certainly will stop [End Page 387] short of embracing market socialism, it is engaging economic globalization as a global actor.136 The state can carve out niches for globalization; however, the question remains how Cuba and other states can limit the undesirable aspects of globalization—here, the neoliberal parts—while benefitting from the harmonization of globalization.
And, removing Cuba from the list would not open it up to enough trade to trigger the link
Burns, Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, ’13 [Clif, U.S. May Be Considering Dropping Cuba from Terrorist Country List, Export Law Blog, Feb 21, http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/4732]
If you think that the removal of Cuba from the list will permit unlicensed exports of food, medicine and agricultural goods to Cuba, think again. Although section 7205 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”) does indeed impose a license requirement on shipments of these goods to state sponsors of terrorism, it also directly imposes that restriction onTSRA exports to Cuba. So a license will still be required even if Cuba is removed from the list. Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act prohibits granting licenses for the export of items on the United States Munitions List to state supporters of terrorism. So there is a theoretical possibility, I suppose, that if Cuba is removed from the list, the arms embargo against Cuba might also be lifted. Right. When pigs fly. Then we have Section 6(j) of the now-defunct Export Administration Act as allegedly extended in force by various executive orders. That provision requires that certain licenses for exports of goods on the Commerce Control List to state sponsors of terrorism be notified to Congress. Since licenses for CCL items are rarely granted in any event for Cuba, and seem unlikely to be granted even if Cuba is removed from the list, this doesn’t seem to an area in which Cuba’s removal would have much impact. In sum, removal of Cuba from the list seems largely symbolic and with little practical effect. At most, it could presage a liberalization of the embargo down the road, particularly if the current Cuban government gnaws on this bone a little rather than simply regarding it with disdain.
Link – AT: Reformism Bad
Their links are a fantasy. Actual movements against neoliberalism require pragmatic issues to organize around, not abstract revolutions.
David Harvey, Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2010 (The Enigma of Capital, and the crises of capitalism 224-228)
The co-revolutionary theory laid out earlier would suggest that there is no way that an anti -capitalist social order can be constructed without seizing state power, radically transforming it and reworking the constitutional and institutional framework that currently supports private property, the market system and endless capital accumulation. Inter-state competition and geoeconomic and geopolitical struggles over everything from trade and money to questions of hegemony are also either far too significant to be left to local social movements or cast aside as too big to contemplate. How the architecture of the state-finance nexus is to be reworked, along with the pressing question of the common measure of value given by money, cannot be ignored in the quest to construct alternatives to capitalist political economy. To ignore the state and the dynamics of the inter-state system is therefore a ridiculous idea for any anti-capitalist revolutionary movement to accept. The fourth broad trend is constituted by all the social movements that are not so much guided by any particular political philosophy or leanings but by the pragmatic need to resist displacement and dispossession (through gentrification, industrial development, dam construction, water privatisation, the dismantling of social services and public educational opportunities, or whatever). In this instance the focus on daily life in the city, town, village or wherever provides a material base for political organising against the threats that state policies and capitalist interests invariably pose to vulnerable populations. Again, there is a vast array of social movements of this sort, some of which can become radicalised over time as they come to realise more and more that the problems are systemic rather than particular and local. The bringing-together of such social movements into alliances on the land (like the landless movement in Brazil or peasants mobilising against land and resource grabs by capitalist corporations in India) or in urban contexts (the right to the city movements in Brazil and now the United States) suggest the way may be open to create broader alliances to discuss and confront the systemic forces that underpin the particularities of gentrification, dam construction, privatisation or whatever. Driven by pragmatism rather than by ideological preconceptions, these movements nevertheless can arrive at systemic understandings out of their own experience. To the degree that many of them exist in the same space, such as within the metropolis, they can (as supposedly happened with the factory workers in the early stages of the industrial revolution) make common cause and begin to forge, on the basis of their own experience, a consciousness of how capitalism works and what it is that might be done collectively. This is the terrain where the figure of the 'organic intellectual' leader, made so much of in the early twentieth -century Marxist writer Antonio Gramsd's work, the autodidact who comes to understand the world first hand through bitter experiences, but shapes his or her understanding of capitalism more generally, has a great deal to say. To listen to the peasant leaders of the MST in Brazil or the leaders of the anticorporate land grab movement in India is a privileged education. In this instance the task of the educated discontented is to magnify the subaltern voice so that attention can be paid to the circumstances of exploitation and repression and the answers that can be shaped into an anti-capitalist programme.