Cuba embraces 2 free-market reforms

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

HAVANA – Cuba has issued a pair of surprising free-market decrees, allowing foreign investors to lease government land for up to 99 years — potentially touching off a golf-course building boom — and loosening state controls on commerce to let islanders grow and sell their own fruit and vegetables.

The moves, published into law in the Official Gazette on Thursday and Friday and effective immediately, are significant steps as President Raul Castro promises to scale back the communist state's control of the economy while attempting to generate new revenue for a government short on cash.

"These are part of the opening that the government wants to make given the country's situation," said Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a state-trained economist who is now an anti-communist dissident.

Cuba said it was modifying its property laws "with the aim of amplifying and facilitating" foreign investment in tourism, and that doing so would provide "better security and guarantees to the foreign investor."

A small army of investors in Canada, Europe and Asia have been waiting to crack the market for long-term tourism in Cuba, built on drawing well-heeled visitors who could live part-time on the island instead of just hitting the beach for a few days.

It may also help the country embrace golf tourism. Investment firms have for decades proposed building lavish 18-hole courses ringed by luxury housing under long-term government leases. Cuba currently has just two golf courses nationwide, but the Tourism Ministry has said it wants to build at least 10 more.

Endorsing 99-year property agreements might be a first step toward making some golf developments a reality, but also makes it easy to imagine a Cuban coastline dotted with timeshares, luxury villas and other hideaways that could serve as second homes.

Cuba has allowed leases of state land for up to 50 years with the option to extend them for an additional 25, but foreign investors had long pressed tourism officials to endorse 99-year lease deals to provide additional peace of mind to investors.

John Kavulich, a senior policy adviser for the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council in New York, said Mexico has used similar leaseholds to encourage foreign investment despite restrictions on non-Mexicans owning coastal property — but that Cuba's similarities with Mexico end there.

"I don't think it's going to open a floodgate. I think it may turn on a tap so that people know there's water," he said. "Certainly it's an improvement. However ... making one change isn't a panacea to solving the issues that companies have in evaluating their opportunities in Cuba."

The island's ever-weak economy has been rocked by the global financial crisis and a sustained drop in prices of the country's chief natural resources.

Cuban officials have tried before to balance their drive for an egalitarian society with an appeal to foreigners seeking to own a piece of paradise. Scrambling for revenue in the late 1990s, the government authorized private foreign ownership of posh apartments in Havana and even signed a $250 million deal for beachfront apartments and timeshares with a Canadian company.

Many of those projects stalled, however, failing to draw enough foreign investment. Meanwhile, some overseas businessmen bought Havana apartments but allowed Cubans to live in them — violating rules barring islanders from doing so. The government eventually bought out most of the residences it had hoped would be owned by foreigners.

The decree allowing expanded sale of farm products, meanwhile, could have far greater impact on ordinary Cubans. It authorizes them to produce their own agricultural goods — from melons to milk, on a small scale — and sell them from home or using special kiosks on their property.

The decree marked the first major expansion of self-employment since Castro said in an address before parliament Aug. 1 that the government would reduce state controls on small businesses — a big deal in a country where about 95 percent of people work for the state.

The new law allows Cubans to grow whatever they wish and sell it, but will require them to pay taxes on what they earn.

Chepe, who was jailed for his political beliefs in 2003 but later paroled for health reasons, said the decree would stamp out inefficiencies that plague the state farming system, calling it an "intelligent move."

"In Cuba, the problem has not only been production, but also distribution," he said.

Cubans already sell fruits, cuts of pork, cheese and other items on the sides of highways across the country, fleeing into the bushes whenever the police happen past. Friday's measure would legalize such practices, while ensuring the state takes a cut of the profits.

The new rules are consistent with other efforts by Castro's government, which has allowed minor free-market openings while also seeking to eliminate black-market income.

Authorities have moved to approve more licenses for private taxis while getting tough on unauthorized gypsy cabs. They also made it easier to get permits for home improvements and increased access to building materials, while more strictly enforcing prohibitions against illegal building.

[Lyev]

Are we seeing a capitalist restoration in the same nature as when events unfolded in the PRC? Or is it too early to tell yet? What do people think?

[The Vegan Marxist]

More like a Cuban NEP, given the economy will get no better if they continue to wait for the US to end the trade embargo.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

More like a Cuban NEP, given the economy will get no better if they continue to wait for the US to end the trade embargo.

Allowing golf-courses leased on 99 years is a good solution to the Cuban economic troubles. And allowing foreign tourist pigs to live in lavish luxury.

Sure is funny how things go.

[Soseloshvili]

Agreed. I can't see Cuba opening its doors to the Americans without a really good reason. The recent decline in the economy due to the bad harvest experienced last year might just be the reason, some investment of foreign capital might be a positive thing for Cuba. And mind you, it is still revolutionary. If they feel the Americans are growing too headstrong about their position in Cuba, they could just requisition the land like during the first Agrarian reform. I doubt the Cuban government would be hesitant about facing up to American imperialism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nothing Human Is Alien, it's clear that you're quick to try & demonize Cuba with the recent events taking place. Have you tried considering to merely keep an open mind about all this instead of using "capitalist" as a cuss word to whoever you disagree with?

[Kotze]

Depending on how inefficient Cuban food production has been organized so far (I lack detailed knowledge about that), the reforms relating to that might be justified. Is that golf thing true? There is absolutely no way to justify building 10 additional golf courses there.

A: Hey honey, let's travel to Cuba.
B: Fuck them, they only have 2 golf courses.
A: That's outdated information, they have 10.
B: Not enough.
A: Did I say 10, I mean 12.
B: Let's go to Cuba!

It's incredible how much space is wasted by Golf. Rich people can't stop ruining everything even in their free time.

"Golf is a bourgeois sport."
--Hugo Chávez (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/now-chavez-takes-a-swing-at-golf-1771183.html)

[DangerousMexican]

Well, this is it. The dream is dead.
There is honestly no other hope for our cause, for our ideal. It's over, we might as well face it.

[manic expression]

Oh, good. Today's defeatist anti-Cuban hit-piece is out.

This, like every other misleading article about Cuba, is nothing to get excited about. Tourism (foreign luxury tourism) has been a big part of the Cuban economy for awhile. The only sticking point is that everything goes through the state or with the state's approval, which sustains the socialist foundation of the country. So golf courses will be built. OK. Are Cuban workers now being exploited? Is generalized commodity production legal? No and no. Golf courses, like slightly more expensive cigarettes, does not determine the character of a country.

And on the new farming regulations...it's perfectly in line with the principles of socialism. It's small-scale farming, so if a family or such group makes the product, they can sell it. No exploitation, no capitalist mode of production...just labor.

I wonder what we'll read tomorrow...Cubans enjoy ballet, therefore Cuba is bourgeois! To the white flags, gentlemen! :rolleyes:
(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:%20leoHighlightsIFrameClose%28%29;)

(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

[meow]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/08/2010827233042361405.html
i was going to post this. i also will post http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11092876



Cuba's elderly will no longer be entitled to state-subsidised cigarettes, the government has said.
All Cubans 55 or older are allocated four packs of cigarettes a month for about 25% the normal price, but this privilege is being ended in September.
The measure is President Raul Castro's latest attempt to cut the communist state's spending.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Cuba's elderly will no longer be entitled to state-subsidised cigarettes, the government has said.
All Cubans 55 or older are allocated four packs of cigarettes a month for about 25% the normal price, but this privilege is being ended in September.
The measure is President Raul Castro's latest attempt to cut the communist state's spending.

Why should those 55 or older be smoking anyways? And we've already talked about this move on another thread. There's nothing wrong with this.

[fa2991]

It's a little troubling that "Cuba's NEP" is all about boosting bourgeois tourism. They need to develop other areas of their industry if they don't want to end up like most other Caribbean countries.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's a little troubling that "Cuba's NEP" is all about boosting bourgeois tourism. They need to develop other areas of their industry if they don't want to end up like most other Caribbean countries.

Do you have any ideas on how to do this? Apparently they're not just doing "tourism" either as you can see.

[Raúl Duke]

They cut vacations and honey-moons...

as you could see in the another thread, I find that development distressing.

If I were a Cuban living in Cuba, I surely want to have my paid vacations and honey-moon time. I would be pissed over the vacation time cuts.

The land lease reform is particularly also interesting and worrying development as well.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ I agree, but is a honeymoon & vacation the betterment of the struggle, or the betterment of one's self?

[Raúl Duke]

^ I agree, but is a honeymoon & vacation the betterment of the struggle, or the betterment of one's self?

If the struggle doesn't bring advantages (or power) to the people, than what's the point? In Cuba, Cubans as a people may (or may not) think of the abstraction "struggle" but its only relevant to them when it does something for them. When people talk about the revolution to Cuba and its arguable success (depending on what is defined as socialism or a socialist success) they bring up the benefits the struggle has brought to the Cuban populace. Rolling back of these benefits can than be arguably considered defeats, the kinds that would demoralize support from within.

They could save money by further depressing the wages of politicians or eliminating the politician's vacations, after all they are suppose to be made up of the most committed to the struggle.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If the struggle doesn't bring advantages (or power) to the people, than what's the point? In Cuba, Cubans as a people may (or may not) think of the abstraction "struggle" but its only relevant to them when it does something for them. When people talk about the revolution to Cuba and its arguable success (depending on what is defined as socialism or a socialist success) they bring up the benefits the struggle has brought to the Cuban populace. Rolling back of these benefits can than be arguably considered defeats, the kinds that would demoralize support from within.

They could save money by further depressing the wages of politicians or eliminating the politician's vacations, after all they are suppose to be made up of the most committed to the struggle.

Yes, the struggle is to bring advantages, but the economy is at a slip right now. It's not about making advancements, it's about keeping the economy alive in order for their to be any future chances of making said advancements.

[Magón]

Depending on how inefficient Cuban food production has been organized so far (I lack detailed knowledge about that), the reforms relating to that might be justified. Is that golf thing true? There is absolutely no way to justify building 10 additional golf courses there.

A: Hey honey, let's travel to Cuba.
B: Fuck them, they only have 2 golf courses.
A: That's outdated information, they have 10.
B: Not enough.
A: Did I say 10, I mean 12.
B: Let's go to Cuba!

It's incredible how much space is wasted by Golf. Rich people can't stop ruining everything even in their free time.

"Golf is a bourgeois sport."
--Hugo Chávez (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/now-chavez-takes-a-swing-at-golf-1771183.html)

I will say though, it is fun riding around on the golf carts and driving behind some guys about to hit and scream "FORE!" :lol:

[RedSonRising]

It's quite amazing Cuba has even survived being so economically isolated for so long, let alone maintain one of the most impressive political/economic models in the entire world. Countries like Puerto Rico or Haiti would have starved themselves dry decades ago being severed neo-colonies with their oppressive capitalist economies.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, until some ruling class starts exploiting workers differentiated into a socio-economically subordinated class, Cuba is fine. We may not want golf courses inside Cuba for the sake of tourists, but in this scenario revenue and material progress is far more important than a cultural distaste for bourgeois sports.

[Prairie Fire]

Manic Expression


Oh, good. Today's defeatist anti-Cuban hit-piece is out.


Empirical reality is anti-Cuban! Repeating the domestic policy decisions of the Cuban leadership is desertion! Critical Socialist socio-economic analysis of Cuba is treasonous!

I have a lot of older Soviet literature on my bookshelf that I picked up here and there, and therefore I've already heard this same song and dance before from all of the advocates of Perestroika .

In fact, that was a favourite tactic of the Communist Party of Canada during the cold war(and probably most other fraternal parties of the CPSU during that time period),
calling all socio-economic criticism (much of it quite valid) of the USSR from the ML left "Anti-Soviet".

No discussion about what the existing property relations were in the USSR at the time, no discussion about the class nature of the political structure, no discussion about why any-one should be pro-soviet... Just this bullying Sean Hannity-esque "You hate (insert name of country)" attempt to shut down the discussion.

The Marxist-Leninist left has heard this all before, numerous times. I have a Chinese economic textbook from the Dengist era, explaining how the "Special economic zones" were really a step along China's path towards realizing a classless society.Fast forward to China in 2010, sweatshops, the complete dismantling of the "Iron rice bowl", and the billionaires in the CCP.

These Cuban reforms are not an "NEP". They are not a creative adaptation of Marxism to Cuba's exceptional circumstances.

This is Perestroika.

It is not cowardly or "defeatist" to acknowledge this fact. We acknowledge it precisely because we are in staunch opposition to it.

"Defeatism" would be looking at the Cuban perestroika, saying "C'est la vie", and then intellectually rationalizing it as within the scope of socialist development and the arduous struggle towards the complete demise of class society.

"Defeatism" is accepting this restructuring with open arms.


This, like every other misleading article about Cuba, is nothing to get excited about. Tourism (foreign luxury tourism) has been a big part of the Cuban economy for awhile. The only sticking point is that everything goes through the state or with the state's approval, which sustains the socialist foundation of the country.

These ventures are being financed by private investors. Well, the only reason that private investors invest in anything is to make a return on that investment. As the leaseholders, these private investors will be hiring wage labourers and pocketing the surplus value and social product generated from these Cuban wage labourers and Cuba’s national assets. The silver lining that you cling to is that the Cuban state is going to get their cut, but the private sector will be getting the lions share. This is how finance capitalism works.
　
You say that these ventures will still be state owned in some sense; well, this is something that can easily be privatized. All it would take would be the final act of legislation to turn all public assets in Cuba into private ones. Inviting foreign imperialist bourgeoisie into your (nominally) socialist state starts the countdown for the inevitable removal of all obstacles to bourgeois privilege.

Also, tourism encourages small producer mentality in the population. Every Cuban realizes that there is more to be made selling nick nacks to gringos, then working in productive forces like agriculture and light industry.

Small producer mentality leads to the complete collapse of social production (why work in a cane field or factory, when you can make more money selling handicrafts by the hotels?), and it is proto-capitalism on the grass roots level, just waiting for the opportunity to expand and acquire more assets (which necessitates removing any vestiges of social property, and maybe even removing the Cuban leadership Yeltsin/Berisha style).


So golf courses will be built. OK. Are Cuban workers now being exploited?


If the surplus value that they generate is going back to the investors as “return”?
Yes, of course.


Is generalized commodity production legal?

In the realm of agriculture, yes. Growing produce for the purpose of selling it is commodity production.


Golf courses, like slightly more expensive cigarettes, does not determine the character of a country.

In and of themselves, no. However, you are speaking in terms of abstracts, and in doing so you are completely de-contextualizing the specifics of the situation at hand.

A golf course, in and of itself, does not alter the socio-economic relations that exist in a given country.

A golf course, leased by private investors, which generates a “return” on finance capital by appropriating the product of social labour, and which is limited to use as a playground for privileged foreigners… that does have an impact on the socio-economic relations that exist in a given country.

You reduce the situation to abstracts, because the specifics are too heinous to rationalize.


And on the new farming regulations...it's perfectly in line with the principles of socialism.

Erm, how so?

Which "socialism" embraces and encourages the perpetuation of the petty bourgeoisie? Maoism? Latter-day Soviet thesis's?


It's small-scale farming, so if a family or such group makes the product, they can sell it. No exploitation, no capitalist mode of production...just labor.


Small producers with individual holdings, who live by selling a surplus from the means of production that they own/possess, is embryonic class society, the proto-foundation of all capitalism.

I seem to recall watching a talk by some political leader (Avakian, I think,) a while back, and he was talking about the roots of class society in the division of labour, and how classes came into being in the first place.

Basically, the thesis goes that because of inequities in accumulated persynal wealth, some small producer families were able to get a leg up on their neighbours, were able to enlist these neighbours to perform tasks for them in exchange for their daily bread, expanded their means of production by acquiring more land/livestock/etc, and through this process the first societies of exploiters and exploited came into being, because eventually the most successful producers were able to enlist others to do their labour for them, and were able to squeeze out and absorb their neighbours.

Without question, that is exactly the turn of events that will occur in Cuba. Small producers will sell their surplus, and accumulate more capital because they are now allowed to sell the products of their own means of production, rather than being wage labourers. For this same reason, they will also be able to buy the commodities produced by other small producers, and their excess capital will allow them to hire proletarian farm hands.

All of this, plus it is my understanding that farming collectives are being turned into private plots. Well, that means that these private plots can change hands. As soon as drought hits, and crops fail, poorer small producers sell their land to more prosperous small producers, just to break even. Now landless, those same poor small producers become proletarians, and the more wealthy small producers end up hiring them on again to work all of the plots of land that they have acquired, and these same wealthy small producers pocket the surplus capital.

There is a reason that Marxism-Leninism advocates that the means of production, basically anything that can generate a surplus, be a public asset. If any small means of production (land, small workshop, a living space that can be rented out, etc) is held and operated privately, the owners of that means of production will accumulate more capital, use that capital to purchase more assets and hire proletarians, get a leg up on all of their neighbours, and basically the capitalist system begins anew.

The petty-bourgeoisie, the small producer, is the foundation of any class society and exploitation.


I wonder what we'll read tomorrow...Cubans enjoy ballet, therefore Cuba is bourgeois!

You are, by far, the undisputed king of strawmyn arguments on Revleft. I curtsey to you, good sir.

So, in this analogy, you are comparing an art form (which only has whatever class content is expressed in it’s narratives), to a definite situation of economic exploitation taking place in contemporary Cuba today.


To the white flags, gentlemen!

Opposing Perestroika is hardly surrender; collaborating with it, and rationalizing turning Cuba into Tijauna/Cabo san Lucas, is nothing less than shrugging as finance capital and the petty-bourgeoisification of the Cuban working class drags Cuba deeper into the abyss.
　
The Vegan Marxist:


Yes, the struggle is to bring advantages, but the economy is at a slip right now. It's not about making advancements, it's about keeping the economy alive in order for their to be any future chances of making said advancements.

This is always the trap. All capitalist restorations are always promoted as a “temporary measure” to get an economy back on track.

The Chinese “special economic zones” were needed to “Develop China’s productive forces” , for the good of socialism.

All Soviet literature from the Gorbachev era portrayed Perestroika as something that would ultimately aid Soviet socialism.
　
Now, many would ask me “Well, what would you do in their situation?”

To portray Cuba’s situation as being an unfortunate necessity is ahistorical. Cuba is in the situation that it is in today partially because they never industrialized fully when they had the chance, instead relying on the Soviet Union for the production of vital products, and relying on a cash crop economy.

Historically speaking, Cuba is reaping what they sow.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t have any sort of Hoxhaist revenge fantasy that I want to visit on Cuba or anything like that. I stand by Cuba’s sovereignty, and that is precisely why I see the American finance capital descending on the island and looking for a return on it’s investment (just like Soviet capital before them,), as being a fatal error, giving capitalist restoration a foot in the door.

I’m just saying that Cuba didn’t pursue all of their options (I would argue that it never had socialist property relations,), and they are paying the price for it now.

Even now they are not pursuing all of their options within the socialist realm. Consider the DPRK, which also is under economic embargo (and a much more thorough embargo than Cuba, too).

True that the DPRK is just as guilty of historical mistakes, just as guilty of allowing finance capitalists to exploit their population (Hyundai,etc), just as guilty of enshrining the role of the petty-bourgeoisie and encouraging their perpetuation, but the DPRK at least encouraged self sufficiency, and for that reason they are in a less precarious position than Cuba. They still possess heavy industry and means of production, and have even built a few new ones.

I’m not saying that the DPRK is a socialist state, or that it is a model. I’m simply using it to contrast with Cuba, to illustrate the Cuban leadership has not pursued all of their options available to them as a soveriegn state.

Most of the world except for the USA and their closest allies (many, like Palau and Samoa wouldn’t have anything to trade with Cuba anyways) trades with Cuba, and Cuba has oil rich Venezuela to the South as an ally.

They have cards in their deck that they have not played yet, so I refuse to accept that Perestroika is the only answer.
　
　

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ nice analysis.

[REDSOX]

No need to panic comrades!!! This is just another NEP type plan which because of the near collapse of the capitalist system has forced the cubans to suck with the devil. They did something similar in the 1990's called the Special Period where they legalised the doller, joint ventures with foreign capital, legalised self employment etc. After 2001 they began to rein these reforms in by getting rid of the doller, scaling back joint ventures with capital and not issuing licences for small businesses to open. We are back to the position where the cubans have to make concessions again thats all. I really would be concerned if they privatised large and middle sized companies, open up land to foreign ownership(not leasing) deregulating prices etc and if we see the emergence of a bourgeois class ie like China and Vietnam. Also comrades these changes like the changes in the 90's would have been discussed amongst the mass organisations as well as their leaders such as the CDR'S FMC CTC ETC. There is no other choice for Cuba given the position it is in, its either make hard choices or end up like North korea.

[meow]

Why should those 55 or older be smoking anyways? And we've already talked about this move on another thread. There's nothing wrong with this.
why should anyone smoke? i merely posted for interest. i past no value judgement. i neither said it good nor it bad.

on the general topic though. cuba managed all through bad time of 90s without external investment. why is suddenly they need it now?

because the govt is selling out the country. cuba is going to become just another capitalist shit hole. i suggest that Prairie Fire has a good analysis. though of course i dont agree 100%.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nothing Human Is Alien, it's clear that you're quick to try & demonize Cuba with the recent events taking place. Have you tried considering to merely keep an open mind about all this instead of using "capitalist" as a cuss word to whoever you disagree with?

What the fuck are you talking about? I've simply posted news articles, without adding anything of my own.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What the fuck are you talking about? I've simply posted news articles, without adding anything of my own.

I haven't seen you add anything dealing with Cuba that shows any light to their situation. So of course, I can only assume where your intentions pertain to.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There is no other choice for Cuba given the position it is in, its either make hard choices or end up like North korea.

Elaborate on this, would you?

"End up like North Korea"? In some aspects, North Korea is materially better off than Cuba is, and this is despite much harsher sanctions.

[manic expression]

Empirical reality is anti-Cuban! Repeating the domestic policy decisions of the Cuban leadership is desertion! Critical Socialist socio-economic analysis of Cuba is treasonous!
Or, making things up is anti-Cuban. These policies have nothing to do with "free market reforms", and any assertion that they do is not only misleading, it's slanderous. We've been hearing the same recycled garbage about Cuba's imminent "turn" for years, and yet here we are. That really speaks for itself.


No discussion about what the existing property relations were in the USSR at the time, no discussion about the class nature of the political structure,
A good thing, then, that I clearly discussed property relations of Cuba in my post.


The Marxist-Leninist left has heard this all before, numerous times. I have a Chinese economic textbook from the Dengist era, explaining how the "Special economic zones" were really a step along China's path towards realizing a classless society.Fast forward to China in 2010, sweatshops, the complete dismantling of the "Iron rice bowl", and the billionaires in the CCP.
:lol: Talk about sensationalism. If you are comparing small-scale farming that involves no exploitation of labor to the "special economic zones" in the PRC, you have no interest in the facts or reality. It's as simple as that.


This is Perestroika.
It's interesting that nowhere in your post do you come within touching distance of proving this, quantifying this or even defining this. This assertion of yours is nothing but hot air.


It is not cowardly or "defeatist" to acknowledge this fact. We acknowledge it precisely because we are in staunch opposition to it.
Don't be bashful, you're in "staunch opposition" to Cuban society as of 2002, 1992 and 1982...the Cuban workers are damned if they make reforms and damned if they don't, so why should your opinion on this hold any water?

And defeatism is claiming the Cuban Revolution is dead whenever the Cuban government makes a single change. But since you already oppose the Cuban Revolution, it's not as if your view on this hinges on the reality of the reforms, which you so labor to ignore.


These ventures are being financed by private investors.
So you're saying foreign involvement is impossible in a socialist economy?


You say that these ventures will still be state owned in some sense; well, this is something that can easily be privatized.
:lol: So you're saying that it is not private...but that it could be private. So it's NOT PRIVATE. Good to know you're on the same page with the facts for once.

By your reasoning, capitalism is socialism, because private industry could "easily be expropriated". Or feudalism is capitalism, because aristocratic/common property could "easily be subject to the market/enclosure".


Also, tourism encourages small producer mentality in the population.
So according to you, socialism shouldn't allow people outside the country from seeing the country. Some internationalist you are. :rolleyes:


If the surplus value that they generate is going back to the investors as “return”?
Yes, of course.
It's through the state, which means it's under the direct supervision and control of the Cuban workers.


In the realm of agriculture, yes. Growing produce for the purpose of selling it is commodity production.
Produce was grown for the purpose of selling in post-collectivization Soviet Union. You don't think agriculture of the kolkhoz magically appeared on people's plates, do you?


In and of themselves, no.
Exactly.


A golf course, leased by private investors, which generates a “return” on finance capital by appropriating the product of social labour, and which is limited to use as a playground for privileged foreigners… that does have an impact on the socio-economic relations that exist in a given country.
Again, under the direct control and supervision of the Cuban state, which means under the control of the Cuban workers. Nowhere have you shown that foreign investment is entirely incompatible with socialism, and only this would lend your argument any validity.


Which "socialism" embraces and encourages the perpetuation of the petty bourgeoisie? Maoism? Latter-day Soviet thesis's?
It's not a petty bourgeoisie, in any real sense, if it's not exploiting labor. So this is a strawman argument.


Small producers with individual holdings, who live by selling a surplus from the means of production that they own/possess, is embryonic class society, the proto-foundation of all capitalism.
First of all, socialism is class society, so no points to you there. Second, there is nothing in Marxism to oppose the selling of one's own labor. Marx specifically endorsed this as not being a target of expropriation in the Manifesto.


Basically, the thesis goes that because of inequities in accumulated persynal wealth, some small producer families were able to get a leg up on their neighbours, were able to enlist these neighbours to perform tasks for them in exchange for their daily bread, expanded their means of production by acquiring more land/livestock/etc, and through this process the first societies of exploiters and exploited came into being, because eventually the most successful producers were able to enlist others to do their labour for them, and were able to squeeze out and absorb their neighbours.

Without question, that is exactly the turn of events that will occur in Cuba.
So you're getting this crystal ball and tarot card set from Avakian. Makes sense. We don't have to imagine the future to get a grip on the situation, we need only look to the recent past: the fact is that anti-Cuban ideologues have been saying this for years, and none of their forecasts have had any accuracy. I'm more than justified in saying "wake me up when you have some credibility".


You are, by far, the undisputed king of strawmyn arguments on Revleft. I curtsey to you, good sir.
Your projection aside...would you curtsy to someone with facial hair? Hoxha would be most disappointed.


So, in this analogy, you are comparing an art form (which only has whatever class content is expressed in it’s narratives), to a definite situation of economic exploitation taking place in contemporary Cuba today.
I'm comparing an art form to a sport. If you lose your marbles over golf courses, perhaps you could be at least ideologically consistent in condemning ballet. And then your curtsy to me would be even more hypocritical.


Opposing Perestroika is hardly surrender;
But imagining Perestroika, where none exists, is. In fact, it's fully in line with the ugliest excesses of third-camp Trotskyism.


(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

[fa2991]

"End up like North Korea"? In some aspects, North Korea is materially better off than Cuba is, and this is despite much harsher sanctions.

What's your basis for that? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I do know that malnutrition in North Korea has caused mild eye problems to cause blindness to the point that they have to import doctors, whereas people actually go to Cuba for the superior eye surgery and general treatment... which inclines me to believe that Cuba is better off.

[RED DAVE]

Face it, Comrades, Cuban state capitalism is going the way of Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese state capitalism: private capitalism is imminent. The Cuban working class will get private capitalist owner/management instead of state capitalist owner/management.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh geez..not this "state-capitalism" bullshit again.

[RED DAVE]

Oh geez..not this "state-capitalism" bullshit again.Oh geez..what do you think they're doing: building socialism in one country?

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh geez..what do you think they're doing: building socialism in one country?

RED DAVE

More along the lines of upholding Socialism with the incapability of bringing forth much advancements, due to isolation from Capitalist powers. Your ISO-like lines of "State-Capitalism" (I say ISO-like since I am unsure whether you're part of the ISO or not) is, in my opinion, absolute bullshit, & thrown around this forum far too often.

[chegitz guevara]

Perhaps comrades have forgotten there is a world wide economic crisis, the depth of which we have not seen in three decades, and the length of which for seven decades.

I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, the crisis is affecting Cuba's economy as well, seeing as it is dependent on the imperialist world for ALL of its hard currency. Like Cuba, Florida is heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. We currently have an unemployment rate of over ten percent. Over 13% in Miami. We're part of a First World country. Cuba has little else to sell the world (sugar hasn't been a mainstay of the Cuban economy since the USSR fell).

Just a thought.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://hereishavana.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/the-greening-of-cuba/


Connor Gorry's take from her blog Here is Havana. She says Cuba needs the revenue but that it's still a contradiction.

[gorillafuck]

^ I agree, but is a honeymoon & vacation the betterment of the struggle, or the betterment of one's self?
People in Cuba think about things other than "the struggle". They don't spend day in day out debating the specifics of Marxist-Leninism. And honeymoons and vacations are very important things to them, like any people.

Not really a reflection on the Cuban state, but just a thought (particularly to those who think of Cubans as a populace who just think about revolution all day everyday).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What's your basis for that? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I do know that malnutrition in North Korea has caused mild eye problems to cause blindness to the point that they have to import doctors, whereas people actually go to Cuba for the superior eye surgery and general treatment... which inclines me to believe that Cuba is better off.

Not in terms of everything, certainly not as regards the food situation in general though. The housing standard in Cuba is somewhat lower than in North Korea however (there is a prevalence of old and decrepit housing in both places, but moreso in Cuba). The water sanitation infrastructure in Cuba has been getting worse in the last decade as well.

[Kassad]

Oh geez..what do you think they're doing: building socialism in one country?

RED DAVE

I'll be sure to tell the people in Cuba next time I visit to halt their defense of their socialist system because every other country in the world hasn't had a revolution yet. Hell, even I uphold permanent revolution, but I don't wag my finger at those attempting to liberate themselves from capitalism in the present.