Castro's Comments expanded upon....no more fretting....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/10/fidel-castro-cuba-communist


What the statement really means is that he agrees with his brother that the way the Cuban system is currently configured has to change, but watch the space carefully – this does not automatically imply that free-market capitalism is the answer – far from it.


The government has recently handed out more than 2.5m acres of land to individuals and co-operatives, in order that they produce more food, and has accordingly loosened controls that prohibit Cubans from selling fruit and vegetables. In an effort to build a modern tourism infrastructure it has eased property laws to give lease periods of up to 99 years for foreign investors.


However, at the same time the government has announced that workers will be encouraged to take over the ownership of the companies in which they work. In a move that the government has actually called a deepening of socialism, the Cubans are about to launch what could potentially become the biggest co-operative project the world has ever seen.

:thumbup1:

[NecroCommie]

All good and encouraging news. Castro is still going old though, with that conspiracy nuttery and all.

BTW: The writer seems to have a very poor understanding of marxism, calling Cuba a full communist economy. Also, differentiating between co-operatives and communism reeks of ignorance.

[RedSonRising]

Not only is that relieving of any doubts and satisfyingly refuting of recent sensationalism- this sounds like an awesome exciting project the administration is planning for the future of the Cuban economy. Decentralizing production and maximizing efficiency through more cooperative management are two measures that would help the problems within Cuban society greatly.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Not only is that relieving of any doubts and satisfyingly refuting of recent sensationalism- this sounds like an awesome exciting project the administration is planning for the future of the Cuban economy. Decentralizing production and maximizing efficiency through more cooperative management are two measures that would help the problems within Cuban society greatly.
This remains to be seen. Historical examples of similar projects didn't work out too well either.

[L.A.P.]

Moving publicly owned companies into worker owned companies!?:drool: Cuba might be the only country achieve true communism or at least are making an actual effort. This is very exciting to hear after the Soviet Union fell, China gave up and bent down to capitalism, and North Korea turned into a military dictatorship Cuba is the one country that has truly stood up for it's own beliefs and created the best form of socialism. If they do achieve this goal of worker owned companies Cuba could actually be the first nation to fully follow through Marx's historical periodization,:thumbup::castro:

[Martin Blank]

This is actually not good, and I wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief if I were you. Moving from public ownership to co-operative ownership is actually a step backward. Establishing co-operatives is opening the door to private ownership (co-ops themselves being a form of private ownership), not a step forward to the abolition of ownership of the means of production. It sounds like Cuba is going backward toward "market socialism".

[Nolan]

Hey guys, just so you know, the "cooperative" shit is nothing new. It was part of perestroika.

[L.A.P.]

This is actually not good, and I wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief if I were you. Moving from public ownership to co-operative ownership is actually a step backward. Establishing co-operatives is opening the door to private ownership (co-ops themselves being a form of private ownership), not a step forward to the abolition of ownership of the means of production. It sounds like Cuba is going backward toward "market socialism".

Co-ops are definitely a step forward away from state ownership, you can't have the government decide everything.

[gorillafuck]

People are either too hyped up on talk of co-ops or immediately dismissing it as a perestroika type deal.

It depends how the co-ops function and interact with eachother to determine whether this is a step forward for socialism or not.

[ZeroNowhere]

Also, differentiating between co-operatives and communism reeks of ignorance.
Wait, what?

[Rakhmetov]

Those statements by
Castro should have been punctuated by a pinch of snuff just to piss off the Cuban exiles in South Florida and the thugs in D.C.

:D

[Martin Blank]

Co-ops are definitely a step forward away from state ownership, you can't have the government decide everything.

Not really. As has been pointed out, co-ops were part of the way that the ex-USSR (and the "people's democracies") began the process of dismantling their bureaucratic "socialism" in favor of "market socialism" and, eventually, market capitalism. And there is nothing in Castro's comments that point to a lessening of state management (or co-management) in these soon-to-be semi-privatized co-operatives. An advance would be abolishing any kind of ownership and ending state control/management in favor of direct workers' control. This is not an advance.

[NecroCommie]

Wait, what?
Well, lets face it. Communist economy is one type of co-operative based economy. Sure you can organize the co-operatives to be part of highly capitalist economy, but it still doesn't make communist economy any less based on worker co-operatives.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, whether those co-operatives can be turned into capitalist organizations or will remain and strengthen the Cuban workers will depend on the level of development of Cuban petty-bourgeoisie class. Historically, petty-bourgeoisie class in Cuba is not as strong as the imperialist first world countries or the USSR, PRC during the 90's and today.
Remember, that US don't want the flourish of capitalism in Cuba, it actually want it back as its colony. Therefore, the real enemy before the Cuban petty-bourgeoisie class (perhaps all of Latin America) and actually, it may sound ridiculous, but USA IS THE BIGGEST BARRIER BEFORE THE FLOURISH OF CAPITALISM IS CUBA AND OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES.
What USA really wants is the reign of comprador bourgeoisie rule in Cuba and other Latin American countries. But after years of revolution and having a comparatively respected position and honor throughout the world, I hope the Cuban working class wouldn't tolerate that. I have this little faith on them.

[RadioRaheem84]

I emailed the author of the article:


Thanks Radio,
Read this from Reuters three days ago.
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51339220100907
and this report that shows how they are working in agriculture:
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3071
I met some Cuban econmists in June who told me that the cooperative thing is goign to be expanded.
Steve

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is actually not good, and I wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief if I were you. Moving from public ownership to co-operative ownership is actually a step backward. Establishing co-operatives is opening the door to private ownership (co-ops themselves being a form of private ownership), not a step forward to the abolition of ownership of the means of production. It sounds like Cuba is going backward toward "market socialism".

But what if these coops operate on the basis of a common plan of theirs?

Oh, I forgot: that might still be a step backward.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Co-ops are definitely a step forward away from state ownership, you can't have the government decide everything.
not necessarily. the state is still necessary because without the revolutionary state, the revolution would crumble under the weight of american imperialism.

the co-ops could either lead to the expansion of bottom up governance with a central goal or to the grounding of capitalist reforms.

i dont know how strong trade is with ALBA nations but i can imagine it may lead to something possibly better than before the special period.

lenin had said something about being able to flex so as to not break. i cant remember the source, it may have been in TS&R.

so much to study :mad:

[pranabjyoti]

Comrades, we have all forgot the most important criteria, the rule of proletariat. Which way the co-ops will develop will depend on whether they will be controlled by workers i.e. proletariat or the petty-bourgeoisie. If the petty-bourgeoisie will be in charge, that will in future definitely turn towards capitalism. If the proletariat will be in charge, then it will certainly show us new form governance from lower level.

[Q]

Comrades, we have all forgot the most important criteria, the rule of proletariat. Which way the co-ops will develop will depend on whether they will be controlled by workers i.e. proletariat or the petty-bourgeoisie. If the petty-bourgeoisie will be in charge, that will in future definitely turn towards capitalism. If the proletariat will be in charge, then it will certainly show us new form governance from lower level.

Comrade, you are forgetting that economic relations dictate political outlook. I agree with Nick Rogers who recently argued against co-ops. I'll quote the relevant part as it hopefully explains why co-ops aren't a very bright idea:


The reference to [co-ops] reminds us that its ‘inter-enterprise market’ was subject to all the failings of fully capitalist markets: inflation, unemployment, failing enterprises. And such an economic system suffers an additional handicap: a disincentive at enterprise level to expand the workforce. A capitalist enterprise has an incentive to take on more workers if total value added will be increased by expanding production in this way. A workers’ cooperative will take on new members only if per capita value added is increased by doing so and the profit share of each worker is increased. This is a much higher hurdle.

In fact, the members of workers’ cooperative would be better off if they took on wage labourers, perhaps initially to meet temporary fluctuations in demand, rather than increasing the number of worker-owners. They would become collective capitalists. Such a trend would conflict with Paul’s law abolishing surplus value, but this consideration illustrates that the creation of workers’ cooperatives does not necessarily create a dynamic towards socialisation.
Source (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004066).

My emphasis.

[RadioRaheem84]

Interesting stuff, Q.

Let's veer the discussion into some of the pros and cons of co-ops.

Great start, Q.

[REDSOX]

Panic over comrades. Check the facts first please before reporting bourgeois mischiefmaking

[Jolly Red Giant]

Panic over comrades. Check the facts first please before reporting bourgeois mischiefmaking
Yes indeed it is - except for the workers who are being sacked without welfare payments.

Cuba will eliminate more than 500,000 state jobs over the next six months as part of a push to raise productivity in the communist-ruled island, the country's main labour organisation said on Monday.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Interesting stuff, Q.

Let's veer the discussion into some of the pros and cons of co-ops.

Great start, Q.

Like I said above, the key words are "common plan." The existence of such is good, and the non-existence of such is bad.

I tried to reply to a question on this outside the board, but the blog was closed. :(

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/69921

[REDSOX]

Listen the workers layed off will be employed elsewhere in self employment and tourism etc. No one will fend for themselves.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Listen the workers layed off will be employed elsewhere in self employment and tourism etc. No one will fend for themselves.
Given that the tourism industry has been in freefall for the past 18 months - I think that is a forlorn hope - and is Cuba going to have a million sefl-employed workers? doing what I wonder?

This is a disaster for the Cuban working class and a disaster for the Cuban planned economy. The bureaucracy appear to have nailed their colours to the mast and decided to go down the route of the re-establishment of the market. Hopefully the Cuban working class will move to mobilise for a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy and establish a democratically planned economy based on genuine workers democracy.