Manley and Bishop: The Tragedy of Leftist Reformism in the Caribbean

Tristan Scott 2T1
University of Toronto
FAS Human Geography, Geographic Information Systems, Environmental Studies

The Caribbean and Latin America has been
home to numerous leftist and populist political
experiments during the 20th century, most of
which have in turn experienced some level of
retaliation from the capitalist Global North.
Jamaica under Michael Manley and Grenada
under Maurice Bishop are two such examples,
and both can be evaluated for their choice in
pursuing relatively moderate, reformist
left-wing policies – neither of which perma-
nently dismantled capitalist institutions in their
respective states. Yet, both countries were
ultimately subject to destabilization efforts
from the capitalistic Global North, which
sought to maintain its political and economic
hold over the region. This paper examines
leftist reformist policies (as opposed to revolu-
tionary policies) in Jamaica, and Grenada, and
observes how even the most moderate econom-
ic policies looking to curb capitalism’s most
harmful negative externalities are still viewed
as a near-existential threat by institutions in the
Global North.

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Michael Manley,
Maurice Bishop, Caribbean

Socialism, Reform vs Revolu-
tion, Capitalism, Colonialism

B I O

Tristan Scott is a recent graduate from the University of Toronto, majoring in Human
Geography, Geographic Information Systems, and Environmental Studies. Tristan’s
academic interests include urban planning, data analytics, history, and political science,
particularly as it concerns the intricacies of left-wing politics and neoliberalism.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:44)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .73

C. B. Davies & M. Jardine, “Imperial Geographies and Caribbean Nationalism: At the border between ‘A Dying
Colonialism’ and U.S. Hegemony” (2003).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
F. Ambursley, “Jamaica: The Demise of ‘Democratic Socialism’”. New Left Review, 128 (1981), 76.

Introduction
As a historically colonized and racialized
region of the world, the Caribbean has
been subject to the influence of foreign
actors, particularly those residing in the
Global North. As the concepts of empire
and colonial rule became untenable in the
post-Second World War era, capitalism as
a means maintaining wealth accumulation
in the periphery rose to the forefront.
Through management infrastructures such
as the U.S-built and Global North-support-
ed Bretton Woods institutions, former
colonies such as those in the Caribbean
would have to take on liberal economic
policies such as structural adjustment
programmes, privatization, and initiate a
reduction of market regulations. If a
newly independent Caribbean state had
any hope of developing while also main-
taining cordial relations with the wealthy
Global North, they would have to sacrifice
any ideas of formulating alternative,
nation-specific forms of governance.

In addition, with the United States emerg-
ing as the hegemonic power of the West
after the Second World War, it was given
relatively free reign to impose its own
economic ideals over much of the Global
South. By extending the influence of
American monopolies, controlling supply
chains, wielding its advanced and mobile
army, and flooding the region with Ameri-
can products, the United States turned the
Caribbean and Latin America into its own
personal “backyard” – a region firmly in
its sphere of influence. With capital flows
replacing the territorial boundaries associ

ated with the empires of the past, the
United States successfully recreated a
form of economic imperialism in the
present.

Although world history is marked by
numerous violent and revolutionary
attempts at breaking the bonds presented
by political and economic colonialism, the
Caribbean has been noted for attempting
change via moderate reformist methods.
This paper will examine Jamaica under the
Michael Manley government and Grenada
under Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel
Movement, arguing that reformist methods
in the Global South, despite their tenden-
cies toward upholding capitalistic institu-
tions, are seen as being just as threatening
as their revolutionary counterparts in the
minds of Global North actors.

Jamaica Before and After Indepen-
dence: Alexander Bustamante and
the State
Jamaica prior to independence was
grappling with the final vestiges of overt
colonialism and was largely subject to the
influence on Alexander Bustamante.
According to Ambursley, the Bustamante
Industrial Trade Union (BITU), which
held control over much of Jamaican
industry after the Second World War, was
routed to defend the interests of both
British and American capitalists. Indeed,
it was under the management of Busta-
mante himself that the BITU threatened a
worker strike against Clement Atlee, then
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
who proposed nationalizing two of the

2
3
4
5

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:44)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .74

Ibid.
J.R. Mandle, Patterns of Caribbean Development: An Interpretive Essay on Economic Change (Routledge, 1982).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
F. Ambursley, “Jamaica: The Demise of ‘Democratic Socialism’”. New Left Review, 128 (1981): 76.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“Jamaica vs. the Transnationals: Battle Over Bauxite,” NACLA Report on the Americas, 12:3, (1978): 17-25,
Ibid

island’s sugar monopolies. Paired with the
influence of Bustamante, Jamaica’s path to
industrialization would be based upon the
policy of “industrialization by invitation”
(IDI), devised by St. Lucian economist W.
Arthur Lewis. Wanting to shift the Carib-
bean away from its primary export of
agriculture, Lewis called for creating an
economic atmosphere that was attractive
to foreign investment, therefore kickstart-
ing industrialization. Caribbean leaders
would be required to keep wages low to
entice existing companies. Lewis also
recommended the creation of a Caribbe-
an-wide Industrial Development Corpora-
tion and an Industrial Development Bank,
with the former providing investment to
the region while the latter offered loans to
companies. Lewis appeared to envision a
firmly capitalistic economic order for the
region, where industry and wealth provid-
ed by Europe and North America would
“trickle down” to locals.

With Caribbean governments tagging on
their own tax incentives for prospective
businesses, the region adopted IDI policies
across the 1950s. The process of industri-
alization was therefore attached to the
movements of foreign capitalists, who had
the space to operate across the Caribbean
virtually free of charge. It must be men-
tioned that the welfare of Caribbean
labourers goes unaddressed in Lewis’
policy. Attempts at improving the material
well-being of workers would therefore be
a secondary or nonexistent goal in the eyes

of capitalists such as Lewis and Bustaman-
te.

Michael Manley and the Liberation
of Jamaica via Reformist Means
With financial downturns and widening
wealth inequalities occurring throughout
the 1960s, Jamaica’s People’s National
Party under Michael Manley won the 1972
election. Manley adopted the phrases of
“Betta Mus Come” and “Power to the
People”, signalling that his party would be
adopting a populist edge in their manage-
ment of Jamaica. Initial social and
economic reforms included universal
secondary education, lifting bans on Black
Liberation and Marxist literature, and the
initiation of nationalization programmes.
Manley also announced his intentions to
renegotiate bauxite and alumina royalty
agreements with Canadian and American
corporations. In addition, a levy upon
bauxite was applied country-wide, raising
tax rates by 480% by 1975, amounting to a
total increase from $2.50 to $14.51 per
tonne. International goals included the
formation of the International Bauxite
Association, which would bring together
numerous Global South countries. Finally,
Manley voiced his support for Black
Liberation movements across the African
continent.

7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:44)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .75

C. Edie, “Domestic politics and external relations in Jamaica under Michael Manley, 1972–1980,” Studies in Comparative
International Development, 21(1), (2007): 1–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02717364
Democratic Socialists of America. (n.d.). What is Democratic Socialism? https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-
democratic-socialism/
M. Bolton, “‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism,” . The Political Quarterly, 91(2), (2020):
334–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12830
Democratic Socialists of America. (n.d.). What is Democratic Socialism? https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-
democratic-socialism/
G. Graham, Democratic Political Tragedy in the Postcolony: The Tragedy of Postcoloniality in Michael Manley’s Jamaica
and Nelson Mandela’s South Africa. (Routledge, 2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315444529
Ibid.
Ibid.

Topping off his shift away from the
capitalistic norms established by British
colonists and Bustamante, the PNP
published its “Thirteen Principles of
Democratic Socialism”. Manley particu-
larly noted that his democratic socialist
ideal for Jamaica “…was the philosophy
that best gives expression to the Christian
ideal of equality of all God’s children”.

As evidenced by the ambitious reforms of
the early 1970s, the Manley government
had the aim of redistributing wealth and
supporting liberation movements world-
wide, all of which fall in line with the
leftist goals advocated by the PNP’s
version of democratic socialism. However,
a question yet remains: did the goals of
Manley and the PNP truly fall within the
bounds of democratic socialism, and
perhaps most importantly, were they
conducive to eventually dismantling
capitalism in Jamaica?

Democratic Socialism and Social
Democracy
The Democratic Socialists of America
define democratic socialism as a system in
which “…the economy and society should
be run democratically – to meet public
needs, not to make profits for the few”.
Similarly, Bolton states that democratic
socialism looks to dismantle the concept
of private property while ensuring that
production is run democratically by

workers in an alliance with the state. As
such, the needs of workers and of society
at large, rather than those of a capitalist or
a group of shareholders, are to be empha-
sized and supported. As a form of social-
ism which depends upon democratic
consensus, democratic socialism is
opposed to state-based, centrally planned
forms of socialism, commonly found in
Marxist-Leninist communist states such as
the Soviet Union and Cuba during the 20th
and 21st centuries.

In detailing the erosion of democratic
socialism in Jamaica, Graham states that
Michael Manley’s reforms were firmly
moderate and non-revolutionary, with no
calls for seizing control over Jamaican
capital. Capitalism under the PNP would
instead seek to “domesticate” capitalism
through nationalization, the establishment
of welfare infrastructure, and the creation
of rural cooperatives. Manley looked to
forge a “third path” for Jamaica, one
which differed from both traditional
neocolonial models of capitalism and the
state-based Marxist-Leninist form of
communism. As such, it could be argued
that the form of democratic socialism
implemented by the Manley government
was instead a form of social democracy,
which calls for wealth redistribution,
social safety nets, and government
economic intervention as a means of
countering the often-harmful

21
22

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:44)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .76

A. Lavelle, The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. (Routledge, 2008)
Ibid.
Ibid.
F. Ambursley, “Jamaica: The Demise of ‘Democratic Socialism’”. New Left Review, 128 (1981): 76.
Ibid.
A. Lavelle, The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. (Routledge, 2008)
Ibid.
C. Edie, “Domestic politics and external relations in Jamaica under Michael Manley, 1972–1980,” Studies in
Comparative International Development, 21(1), (2007): 1–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02717364.
A. Lavelle, The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. (Routledge, 2008), 13.

consequences of capitalism and markets.
Capitalism as an economic system would
therefore not be overthrown, but instead
retooled to serve the needs of work-
ing-class Jamaicans. Therefore, there is no
indication that Manley’s form of “demo-
cratic socialism” would have ever brought
about the true diminishment of capitalism
and the onset of socialized control for
working class Jamaicans. Manley’s
methods were not truly “revolutionary” in
any meaning of the term – there would be
no violent overthrowing of Jamaica’s
economic order nor an ousting of Ameri-
can and Global North influence from the
island.

Additionally, citing the austerity measures
taken by France, Britain, Sweden, and
Germany, Lavelle states that social demo-
cratic governments ultimately capitulate to
capitalistic pressures, either from within
the government apparatus itself or from
capitalist influence elsewhere. Citing
Callinicos, Lavelle argues that social
democratic reforms are prone to signifi-
cant reactions from big business, including
capital flight, which can destabilize a
government. Such a point can be observed
in the eventual demise of the Manley
government and the reactionary responses
seen towards their bauxite levy, which
resulted in domestic business circles
moving their wealth abroad. As a result,
capital inflow as a measure of the island’s
GDP shrank from 9.7% to 0.9% as coun-
tries looked elsewhere for profit maximi-

zation. Additionally, the US moved to
support the political ambitions of the
liberal capitalist Jamaica Labour Party,
while American media initiated a smear
campaign against the Jamaican tourism
industry. By undercutting two of Jamai-
ca’s largest industries, tourism and mining,
the nation was left economically devastat-
ed.

Such an economic situation rendered
Manley’s reformist goals impossible to
meaningfully achieve. Lavelle notes that
within a functioning social democracy,
constant economic growth for financing its
robust social programs is an absolute
necessity. Therefore, social democrats and
reformist socialists such as Manley often
fall into a “catch-22”, where they attempt
to declaw capitalist institutions while
simultaneously attempting to maximize
the funds that can be siphoned from them.

Countries such as the European nations
analyzed by Lavelle or Jamaica under
future liberal capitalist politicians often
eventually end up sidelining social demo-
cratic reforms and choosing the opposing
path of neoliberalism: the promotion of a
strong free market via tax breaks, privat-
ization, and deregulation. The post-Man-
ley period, which saw the opposing
Jamaica Labour Party ascend to rule under
Edward Seaga, turn to the free market and
the Global North for fixing Jamaica’s
financial woes. Agreements were struck
with the International Monetary Fund,

27
28
29

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:45)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .77

D., Austin, “Vanguards and Masses: Global Lessons from the Grenada Revolution,” Learning From the Ground Up:
Global Perspectives on Social Movements and Knowledge Production. (2010): 175-191.
Ibid.
Ibid.
G.M. Telleria, “Vanguardism and the Vanguardist Organization: A Study of the Sandinista National Liberation Front and
its Rise to Power,” Latin American Policy, 8, (2017): 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12115
Ibid.
Ibid

regulations on companies were dimin-
ished, and austerity measures were intro-
duced, resulting in sizeable cuts to Jamai-
can social programs. Seaga’s neoliberal
goals aimed to create a “good business
climate” in Jamaica by any means neces-
sary, even if the result was a decline in
social well-being.

It can therefore be determined that Jamai-
can social democracy, or “democratic
socialism” as termed by Manley himself,
may have been doomed from the start, and
would not have eroded Jamaican capital-
ism. The structural problems inherent in
Jamaican social democracy were further
compounded by its position as an industri-
alizing, majority-black, and formerly
colonized state in the Global South.
Unlike the industrialized and often former-
ly imperialist nations of Europe and North
America, Jamaica lacked the international
prestige and leverage required to go
against British and American interests that
were intent on exploiting the country’s
resources and claiming most of its wealth.

By observing the problems associated with
social democracy, we see that the reformist
policies of the PNP may have ironically
moved Jamaica towards neoliberalism,
which would have ultimately served the
needs capitalists, given time. However,
sensing danger, domestic and foreign
actors quickly looked to dismantle Man-
ley’s relatively docile policies regardless.
It becomes clear that even a measured,
reform-based attempt at curbing the
negative externalities associated with

capitalism politics will result in significant
backlash from Global North actors.

Grenada’s New Jewel Movement:
Revolution via Reform
Manley’s attempt at achieving democratic
socialism via reformist means can be
contrasted with the New Jewel Movement
(NJM), a Marxist-Leninist organization
which overthrew the previous regime via
revolutionary means while maintaining
elements of capitalism during their rule.

Before the revolution, Eric Gairy served as
Prime Minister of Grenada. His reign was
noted as being rife with corruption,
electoral fraud, and the usage of a paramil-
itary force which terrorized political
threats and the island’s citizens. It must be
mentioned that the NJM, led by Maurice
Bishop, initially attempted to bring about a
leftist government via democratic means,
wishing to uphold the electoral institutions
that were, at least in theory, baked into the
fabric of the relatively new country. It was
only after multiple failed attempts at
unseating the incumbent Gairy that the
NJM turned towards vanguardism: where
a political party serves as a community’s
sole centralized backbone for driving class
struggle and a future revolution. Such
parties are tightly centralized, with mem-
bers required to strictly follow the party
resolutions. It was through such an
organizational model that the NJM under
Bishop was able to remain unified against
the increasingly brutal and erratic actions
taken by the Gairy government.

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:45)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .78

N., Phillip, “Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983,” Small Axe, 11(1), (2007): 39-66.
D., Austin, “Vanguards and Masses: Global Lessons from the Grenada Revolution,” Learning From the Ground Up:
Global Perspectives on Social Movements and Knowledge Production. (2010): 175-191.
R. Burtenshaw, Grenada’s Revolution at 40. Jacobin, February 9 2019).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/grenada-revolution-maurice-bishop-reagan
Marxists Internet Archive. (2018). “Stagism”. Encyclopedia of Marxism, 2019.
J. Brierley, “A Review of Development Strategies and Programmes of the People's Revolutionary Government in Grenada,
1979-83”. The Geographical Journal, 151(1), (1985): 40-52. doi:10.2307/633276
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

In addition, the NJM also focused their
efforts on uplifting the material and
political conditions affecting women
through the Progressive Women’s Associa-
tion (PWA). Although not initially viewing
their fight through a socialist lens, the
PWA advocated for employment opportu-
nities, improved working conditions, and
wages for women. Rather than purely
attaining change along economic lines,
Bishop acknowledged the identity-based
wants of the PWA and incorporated them
into the revolution. Looking to keep the
party strong, the PRG did not tolerate the
existence of multiple women’s liberation
groups, stating that a plurality could allow
for CIA and other negative infiltration that
could undermine the revolution.

The adoption of vanguardism in the
Grenadian contrast gave the NJM, and
eventually the People’s Revolutionary
Government (PRG), a thoroughly revolu-
tionary edge, which would eventually
allow for a liberated Grenada to be fully
unshackled from the racial and economic
bounds provided by capitalism and allow
for a transition to communism. It must be
noted that although the NJM considered
itself a Marxist and leftist political party, it
pursued a mixed economy, recognizing
that Grenada did not yet have the econom-
ic development required to fully bring
about communism . It can therefore be
argued that although the Gairy government
was overthrown through revolutionary
means, the transition to communism

would be done via reformist methods. As
such, Bishop’s government bears some
level of resemblance to Manley’s attempt
at implementing social democracy in
Jamaica. Although both countries in their
experimentations with leftist politics
ultimately kept their capitalist institutions
intact, the NJM did so within the context
of a centralized revolutionary government.
The Marxist-Leninist idea of “Stagism”
would evidently rule, where Grenada goes
through a capitalist-tolerant phase until the
economy was adequately developed and a
significant proportion of the population
was educated. Only then would full
worker control over the means of produc-
tion be viable without undermining the
well-being of the state.

In terms of agricultural developments,
Bishop’s goals appeared tied to improving
the material well-being of Grenadians at
the most basic level. Goals included
implementing price freezes upon staples
and increasing the consumption of local-
ly-grown products. According to Brierley,
economic policy was seen in the creation
of a “tri-sectoral” strategy, where Grena-
da’s public, private, and cooperative
sectors would work together towards
common goals. Although the PRG was
indeed left-wing, such an economic choice
resulted in private corporations remaining
firmly in place. To the astonishment of
observers, the PRG saw an unemployment
decrease from 49% before the revolution
to 14% by 1983. Furthermore, in contrast

41
42

43
44
45

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:45)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .79

to other nations in the Western Hemi-
sphere that saw declines during and after
the 1970s recession, the island saw levels
of sustained economic growth between the
years of between 1979 to 1983. However,
despite Grenada’s relatively capital-
ist-friendly approach, the United States
and surrounding Caribbean nations still
observed Bishop’s government as a threat
to neoliberal hegemony in the region,
resulting in an American-led invasion in
1983 and the toppling of the PRG.

Conclusion
In observing the similarities and differenc-
es between Jamaica under Michael
Manley and Grenada under Maurice
Bishop, we recognize that political devel-
opments in the Caribbean are largely tied
to the wants and whims of the Global
North, largely due to the region being part
of “America’s Backyard”. Although both
countries have attempted to implement
reformist methods that either would have
resulted in the maintaining of capitalism or
a gentle movement away from it, both saw
significant backlashes from Global North
actors. The US-led invasion of Grenada
and the economic troubles experienced by
the Jamaican PNP both acted as warnings
to Global South and Caribbean countries
during the late 20th century. Leftist
policies that erode the neoliberal capitalis-
tic hegemony will not be tolerated under
any circumstances. As of 2021, both
Jamaica and Grenada are managed by
conservative, centre-right governments
that adhere to the capitalistic policies
which their predecessors sought to
dismantle. For now, it appears as if the
economic preferences of the Global North
reign supreme across much of the Caribbe-
an. It remains to be seen if leftist political
forces can regain the level of prominence

they once held in decades past and once
again challenge the Global North for
regional sovereignty.

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:45)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .80

“Jamaica vs. the Transnationals: Battle Over Bauxite,” NACLA Report on the Americas,
12:3, (1978): 17-25.
Ambursley, F. “Jamaica: The Demise of ‘Democratic Socialism’”. New Left Review,
128 (1981): 76.
Austin, D. “Vanguards and Masses: Global Lessons from the Grenada Revolution,”
Learning From the Ground Up: Global Perspectives on Social Movements and
Knowledge Production. (2010): 175-191.
Bolton, M. “‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism,” . The Political
Quarterly, 91(2), (2020): 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12830
Brierley, J. “A Review of Development Strategies and Programmes of the People's
Revolutionary Government in Grenada, 1979-83”. The Geographical Journal, 151
(1), (1985): 40-52. doi:10.2307/633276
Burtenshaw, R. Grenada’s Revolution at 40. Jacobin, February 9 2019).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/grenada-revolution-maurice-bishop-reagan
Davies, C.B. & Jardine, M. Imperial Geographies and Caribbean Nationalism: At the
border between “A Dying Colonialism” and U.S. Hegemony (2003).
Democratic Socialists of America. (n.d.). What is Democratic Socialism?
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
Edie, C. “Domestic politics and external relations in Jamaica under Michael Manley,
1972–1980,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 21(1), (2007):
1–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02717364.
Graham, G. Democratic Political Tragedy in the Postcolony: The Tragedy of
Postcoloniality in Michael Manley’s Jamaica and Nelson Mandela’s South Africa.
(Routledge, 2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315444529
Lavelle, A. The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century.
(Routledge, 2008), 13.
Mandle, J.R. Patterns of Caribbean Development: An Interpretive Essay on Economic
Change (Routledge, 1982).
Marxists Internet Archive. (2018). “Stagism”. Encyclopedia of Marxism, 2019.
Phillip, N. (2007). “Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983,” Small Axe, 11(1),
(2007): 39-66.
Telleria, G.M. “Vanguardism and the Vanguardist Organization: A Study of the Sandinista
National Liberation Front and its Rise to Power,” Latin American Policy, 8, (2017):
27-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12115

Works Cited

(January 20, 2022 / 09:38:45)

122864-1b_CaribbeanQuilt_Vol7_rev.pdf .81