Cuba to cut one million public sector jobs

[Svoboda]

What happened to the socialist utopia?

Cuba to cut one million public sector jobs

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49087000/jpg/_49087940_49087939.jpg Cuba's government employs about 85% of the country's 5.1 million workers
Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees, to help revive the communist country's struggling economy.
The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers would lose their jobs - half of them by March next year.
Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.
Analysts say it is biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.
Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people.
As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.
"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.
"Job options will be increased and broadened with new forms of non-state employment, among them leasing land, co-operatives, and self-employment, absorbing hundreds of thousands of workers in the coming years," the statement added.
Free enterprise? To create jobs for the redundant workers, strict rules limiting private enterprise will be relaxed and many more licenses will be issued for people to become self-employed.
Private businesses will be allowed to employ staff for the first time.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48567000/jpg/_48567987_009907736-1.jpg President Raul Castro has said the state's role in the economy must shrink
The self-employed will have access to social security and will be able to open bank accounts and even borrow money to expand their businesses.
They will also have to pay tax on their profits and for each person they employ, something which could dramatically boost the government's income.
And they will be able to negotiate contracts to provide services to government departments.
A minority of Cuban workers already work for themselves, for example as hairdressers and taxi-drivers, or running small family restaurants.
There is also a thriving black economy, with many people working independently without proper permission from the state.
The BBC's Fernando Ravsberg in Havana says salaries in Cuba's state sector are so low that many employees could be better off working for themselves.
But he says not everyone has the skills and initiative necessary to be self-employed.
He adds that the government plan does not foresee any kind of advice being offered to people seeking to set up their own businesses.
Economic crisis President Raul Castro outlined some of the changes in a speech in August, saying the state's role in the economy had to be reduced.
"We have to end forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world where you can live without working," he said.
Cuba's state-run economy has been gripped by a severe crisis in the past two years that has forced it to cut imports.
It has suffered from a fall in the price for its main export, nickel, as well as a decline in tourism.
Growth has also been hampered by the 48-year US trade embargo.
Mr Castro became Cuba's leader when his brother, Fidel Castro, stepped aside because of ill-health in 2006.

[Dean]

Cuba's top-down approach to their economic organization has always hampered any "socialist" characterization of the regime. At best, they are social 'democracy,' though I don't know if their democratic system is worth any more or less than the other social democracies. Honestly, it seems marginally worse, though the fact that the government represents popular interests in its health care and education systems is worth noting.

[Nolan]

Same thing that's happening to all the capitalist ones.

[Victory]

Cuba never was a genuine Socialist society, nor did it ever pursue creating a genuine Socialist society.

[Conquer or Die]

It's somewhat of a damning indictment. Cuba's healthcare, education, and defense have all been vetted against capitalist options and have come out superior. The economy on the whole, however, has suffered significantly. Fidel recently came out saying that his economic planning ended up not working.

Cuba's attempt to split up its state owned farms to private owners probably was the best thing to do. Cuba could also stand to demilitarize itself. It's no longer America's public enemy.

[Conquer or Die]

Cuba never was a genuine Socialist society, nor did it ever pursue creating a genuine Socialist society.

Both are wrong; although it wasn't always proletarian driven and suffered enormous difficulty against the United States.

[AK]

@OP: Implying Cuba is a socialist utopia.

Both are wrong; although it wasn't always proletarian driven and suffered enormous difficulty against the United States.
No, the Cuban ruling class - like all ruling classes - has always made its own comfortable existence and hegemony over the lower classes its top priority. Cuba has always been a strange state-capitalist welfare state, albeit one in which the working class has a bit more say than in others.

[AK]

Fidel recently came out saying that his economic planning ended up not working.
Can OIers see other forums?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/castros-comments-expanded-t141476/index.html


Cuba could also stand to demilitarize itself. It's no longer America's public enemy.
If Cuba did that and believed that (!), it would play right into the hands of Bourgeois imperialism.*

* Of course, this does not mean I support Cuba. Just noting the potential terrible consequences.

[Conquer or Die]

No consistency on your part. Are you suggesting Cuba will end up like the Congo? Or will it end up like Chile?

[AK]

No consistency on your part. Are you suggesting Cuba will end up like the Congo? Or will it end up like Chile?
Not sure. But a military conflict is certain.

[Nolan]

It's somewhat of a damning indictment. Cuba's healthcare, education, and defense have all been vetted against capitalist options and have come out superior. The economy on the whole, however, has suffered significantly. Fidel recently came out saying that his economic planning ended up not working.

Cuba's attempt to split up its state owned farms to private owners probably was the best thing to do. Cuba could also stand to demilitarize itself. It's no longer America's public enemy.

Not to defend Castro or his model of state capitalism, but he didn't say that.

It's bad that speculation from the bourgeois media is so easily stuck in the minds of leftists and is so hard to get rid of despite evidence and clarifications to the contrary. It's part of the reason the left is in the state it is.

Witness the media frenzy over Chavez "claiming" that the US did the Haiti quake.

[Bud Struggle]

Well here is the analysis from the guy that Castro said the quote about the "Cuban model not working."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-anymore/62602/

I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Julia pointed out that one effect of such a sentiment might be to create space for his brother, Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy. Raul Castro is already loosening the state's hold on the economy. He recently announced, in fact, that small businesses can now operate and that foreign investors could now buy Cuban real estate. (The joke of this new announcement, of course, is that Americans are not allowed to invest in Cuba, not because of Cuban policy, but because of American policy. In other words, Cuba is beginning to adopt the sort of economic ideas that America has long-demanded it adopt, but Americans are not allowed to participate in this free-market experiment because of our government's hypocritical and stupidly self-defeating embargo policy. We'll regret this, of course, when Cubans partner with Europeans and Brazilians to buy up all the best hotels).

[Bud Struggle]

No consistency on your part. Are you suggesting Cuba will end up like the Congo? Or will it end up like Chile?

Cuba will end up like Miami.

[Dean]

It's somewhat of a damning indictment. Cuba's healthcare, education, and defense have all been vetted against capitalist options and have come out superior. The economy on the whole, however, has suffered significantly. Fidel recently came out saying that his economic planning ended up not working.
Castro later claimed otherwise:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201091320523592986.html

Fidel Castro made head-lines recently, when he told an American reporter that: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more."

Castro, 84, later confirmed he made the remark, but was amused to see it had been taken literally and said that he meant "exactly the opposite."

Furthermore, there are reasons for the economic failings of socialist regimes in the context of a global system of capitalist finance:

Actually, any equitable shift in the distribution of wealth will always cause a locality to experience capital flight, since greater equality translates to decreased profits. Any reasonable capitalist enterprise will place its capital and financial investment wherever it provides for the best returns. Shifting production from capitalist (profit-oriented development) to social models will cause a very explicit reduction in the investment viability of the location. Since it is capitalist enterprises which control the means of production, their flight means less production for socialist economies.

In other words, socialist policies often fail in a capitalist economy because capitalism is still the overarching managerial system.

There are real reasons why things happen. Mystifying them as if they were a simple ideal case of "people will always choose X" only serves to discredit you, and implies that you aren't serious about understanding the economic reality of the systems we're discussing.

[Conquer or Die]

Cuba will end up like Miami.

Which is sad in many ways. All they had to do was privatize the farms and local businesses under individual and independent union leadership. Party bureaucrats are going to rake in the cash when Pig firms from Western Europe wreck Cuba's natural beauty with their development plans.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Cuba's top-down approach to their economic organization has always hampered any "socialist" characterization of the regime.

Working class ownership of the means of production is valid whether it's "top-down" 'bottom-up" or side to side. Nothing hampers the charecterization of Cuba as a socialist economy as long as the state remains the governing body and maintains socialist production as the dominant form of production in Cuba. Your definition or socialism as "decentralized management" of the economy, and capitalism as "centralized management" are worthless, because it completely leaves out any mention of the class makeup of a given economy, nor how the surplus value of an economy is extracted and used.

Moves are being made towards less state ownership in Cuba. I realize this, and I know everyone will be quick to capitalize on this as a means of countering this argument--but the fact remains that co-ops and semi-privatizatized or privatized sections of the economy exist solely to maintain the socialist portions of the economy. What other way can Cuba's economy be propsperous enough to retain socialism than by trading with the rest of the world for goods that they cannot produce themselves? To do this, you need money. To get money, you need to cut down on spending and solve your revenue problem and boost productivity. Hopefully, these recent moves will do so. Unless these co-ops and private ventures eschew any plan and operate on unadulterated market mechanisms, capitalism cannot take hold as the dominant form of production. Thus socialism still remains the dominant relations to production, and as a result, this dominant form of economy structures the form and movement of the rest of the economy as a whole. Even if co-operative and privatized portions of the economy grow to a size that is larger than the state owned sectors--the inherent logic of the economic system as a whole is still governed by the socialist state, so it remains socialist.

Historical examples in support of such a concept can be found quite easily. For example the United States before 1860's is characterized as a capitalist economy, yet there were way more slaves, freeholders, and artisans than there were industrial wage workers and the southern economy likely generated more surplus value than in the north. The slave economy was certainly much larger and encompassed much more labor than the industrial economy. Yet the US is not charecterized as a slave society precisely because slavery existed to sustain the capitalist forms of economy in the north.

During the NEP, the Soviet state allowed private and state-subsidised companies to operate, but with restrictions from the state. This was done to reestablish their economy after the destruction witnessed during war, and clearly represented the very real phenomenon of private and state-capitalism in the Soviet Union as elaborated by Lenin in Tax In Kind.
However it was not the elements of the the vastly predominate form of economy (small commodity production, the peasantry) or of capitalism that held state power--it was the workers and their allied poor which held state power and thus the socialist forms of economy took the dominant position.

Besides, it was in the interest of socialism to develop state-capitalism in Russia and the other republics which eventually formed the Soviet Union. Just like it is in the interest for Cuba to have access to markets, capital, and new technology, in order to stay afloat as a whole.



At best, they are social 'democracy,' though I don't know if their democratic system is worth any more or less than the other social democracies. This is some idealism right here. There is no Cuban capitalist class which holds state power and extracts surplus value from workers. So "social democracy" (the kind of economy we see in northwestern europe) is about as applicable to Cuba as feudalism is.

On their democratic system, the system of mass meetings and (often non-partisan) elections in Cuba is much more democratic than any other system in the world; precisely because the working class is the ruling class.


Honestly, it seems marginally worse, though the fact that the government represents popular interests in its health care and education systems is worth noting.The fact that the government represents popular interests is worth nothing?


Cuba never was a genuine Socialist society, nor did it ever pursue creating a genuine Socialist society.

:lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Same thing that's happening to all the capitalist ones.

Layoffs in capitalist societies are not followed by re-allocation of labor. The government is supposed to find alternative jobs for them--any capitalist society would just leave them to fend for themselves. You have to agree with me here...regardless of how much you hate non-existant cuban "state-capitalists".

If you want to have a shot at a productive discussion--what would you say if I suggested that Cuba is trying to reorganize economy for the purpose of boosting productivity, and getting rid of wasteful enterprises by reallocating workers towards new enterprises? It is this phenomenon of wasteful government spending and maintaining of useless jobs and enterprises which largley led to the problems and eventually dissolution of socialism in former socialist states.



@OP: Implying Cuba is a socialist utopia.

No, the Cuban ruling class - like all ruling classes - has always made its own comfortable existence and hegemony over the lower classes its top priority.

Right now: demonstrate how workers maintain hegemony over other workers. Or better yet, have a go a demonstrating how the "Cuban ruling class", who I assume are made up of state officials in your version, extract surplus value from the working class?

The working clas is the ruling class in Cuba. 'Beaurucrats' or any government officials do not make up a class. The state is a tool for one class to institute its rule over society. Sorry.



Cuba has always been a strange state-capitalist welfare state, albeit one in which the working class has a bit more say than in others.Hahahaaha.



Cuba will end up like Miami.


Only in your dreams asshole. The people of Cuba will prevent that from happening, with the backing of their leaders or not.



Which is sad in many ways. All they had to do was privatize the farms and local businesses under individual and independent union leadership. Party bureaucrats are going to rake in the cash when Pig firms from Western Europe wreck Cuba's natural beauty with their development plans.

No party bureaucrats, unless they are corrupt, will be making any money from foreign ventures. If you think so, then you know nothing of Cuba or how capitalism works.




In other words, socialist policies often fail in a capitalist economy because capitalism is still the overarching managerial system.

Capitalism is not a managerial system. It is possible for a capitalist enterprise to exist as a centralized corporation, a franchised company, or even as an enterprise self-managed by it's workers.

"Socialist" policies fail in capitalist economies because such "policies" aren't socialist at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Moves are being made towards less state ownership in Cuba. I realize this, and I know everyone will be quick to capitalize on this as a means of countering this argument--but the fact remains that co-ops and semi-privatizatized or privatized sections of the economy exist solely to maintain the socialist portions of the economy. What other way can Cuba's economy be propsperous enough to retain socialism than by trading with the rest of the world for goods that they cannot produce themselves?

So you need a Capitalist segment of the ecomony to "finance" the Socialist side? I guess that's one way to maintain a Socialist country. :rolleyes:

[bailey_187]

So you need a Capitalist segment of the ecomony to "finance" the Socialist side? I guess that's one way to maintain a Socialist country. :rolleyes:

its not like capitalist states dont need a "socialist" sector to teach and give health care though isit?

[mykittyhasaboner]

So you need a Capitalist segment of the ecomony to "finance" the Socialist side? I guess that's one way to maintain a Socialist country. :rolleyes:

Not to "finance" it, but to have access to goods which they cannot produce themselves, to increase their industrial output and general productivity, and introduce newer technologies in their economy.

Cuba has no socialist world to trade with, and they are subjected to the world market like everyone else (meaning they feel the effects of economic crisis as well). Trade with the capitalist world means concessions. It's not something they can avoid and simply hope will blow over in the near future.

It would be better for Cuba to make money by foreign investment regulated by the state, like they have been doing for some time now, than to open their economy to unrestircted market mechanisms which could seriously threaten everything Cuba has that is worth fighting for.

I'm not saying that their plans to reduce state ownership will work the way they want to, we have to wait and see for that. I'm trying to distinguish the reality of the situation from idealists like yourself who really seem to misunderstand it. Implying that Cuba is run by "state-capitalists", or that universal healthcare and education mean nothing, is pretty riduculous.





its not like capitalist states dont need a "socialist" sector to teach and give health care though isit?

It's interesting that you mention that. The capitalist state cannot hope to survive with any legitmacy (or at all if you think about) if they do not proved basic education for their people. However it seems that the US has gone by for quite a long time without significant public healthcare that covers anything and is extended to the majority of the population.

The obvious difference being that Cuba's public sector is the dominant form of economy and sustains itself by Cuba's own domestic workforce; while the public sector of 'social democratic' capitalist states are "financed" by the success of the rest of their private economy.

[Dean]

Working class ownership of the means of production is valid whether it's "top-down" 'bottom-up" or side to side. Nothing hampers the charecterization of Cuba as a socialist economy as long as the state remains the governing body and maintains socialist production as the dominant form of production in Cuba. Your definition or socialism as "decentralized management" of the economy, and capitalism as "centralized management" are worthless, because it completely leaves out any mention of the class makeup of a given economy, nor how the surplus value of an economy is extracted and used.

Actually, it literally refers to the class makeup of society, since capitalism is a centralized system of management of economic resources which represents the interests of a minority. You might reject the characterization, but to put it in different (though basically similar words) capitalism is ownership over the means of production as capital by a minority business class. A number of definitions could be brought forward. But the fact of centralized management and limited representation of interests will still be there; it reflects the important economic traits of the capitalist model.

Worker control of the means of production is a decentralization of economic power. It is meaningless to discuss "worker control" if power is accumulated and not dispersed to the vast majority of society - that is the labor force at least.

That's not to say that centralization of such control is never a means to worker control. Indeed, a short transitional phase wherein a revolutionary apparatus seizes the means of production, and therefore accumulates and centralizes their management, is probably a necessity. But any workers' revolution, indeed any socialist economy, demands immediate redistribution of such power.

I can appreciate some of the aims and triumphs of the Cuban nation. It is very responsive to economic changes in its policy. They have always tried to improve the lot of their people.

But I haven't seen much evidence for the socialist character of the production side of things. Distribution seems more closely socialist-oriented, but we both know that distribution is a lot easier to reorganize than production.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I forgot about this thread..


Actually, it literally refers to the class makeup of society, since capitalism is a centralized system of management of economic resources which represents the interests of a minority. You might reject the characterization, but to put it in different (though basically similar words) capitalism is ownership over the means of production as capital by a minority business class. A number of definitions could be brought forward. But the fact of centralized management and limited representation of interests will still be there; it reflects the important economic traits of the capitalist model.

There is little room to argue with the notion that centralized management in the hands of capitalists is an important part of capitalism, since capitalism inevitably evolves into such a model. However the definition of capitalism as the private, centralized ownershipof the means of production is incorrect.

Capitalism is defined by the expansion of value for it's own sake, and that commodities, surplus, and labor time are all measured in value. The point is, that a completely decentralized economy, self managed by workers, like I think you are suggesting, would mimic capitalism if not outright restore the rule of capital.


Worker control of the means of production is a decentralization of economic power.You realize that complete decentralization of "economic power" is likely to lead to a market rather than a socialist/communist economy, right?


It is meaningless to discuss "worker control" if power is accumulated and not dispersed to the vast majority of society - that is the labor force at least.What do you mean by "dispersed"?



I can appreciate some of the aims and triumphs of the Cuban nation. It is very responsive to economic changes in its policy. They have always tried to improve the lot of their people.

But I haven't seen much evidence for the socialist character of the production side of things. Distribution seems more closely socialist-oriented, but we both know that distribution is a lot easier to reorganize than production.The dominant relations of production in Cuba cannot be anything besides socialist if the working class as a whole hires itself, produces value for itself and reinvests towards social programs, and distribution of value is done "according to one's work". This is process goes through the state of the working class, comrpised not only of directly elected representation in the National Assembly, but also through local elections and meetings in the Municipal and Provincial Assemblies and Local Assemblies of People's Power. In fact, the centralized political system in Cuba is more geographically decentralized or "dispersed" if you will, than you would think.

All of this is confirmed by what everyone will tell you about Cuba: the state pays their wages, wages are determined by the amount of value produced by workers, and not the market which is obviously not dominant in Cuba. Surplus goes towards public reinvestment--healthcare, education, etc.

There actually is a fair bit of evidence regarding Cuba's political system available for free:

The Myth of Cuban "Dictatorship" (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html)
A Contemperary Cuba Reader: Reinventing the Revolution (http://books.google.com/books?id=LjKoLe9jWKoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+contemporary+cuba+reader&source=bl&ots=TVxiAPgfVP&sig=kLV1UGBcJVxLGKR907igjTdWBV8&hl=en&ei=uyQFTPHZEoG0lQfghoXYBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Cuban Consitution (http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm)

Decentralization (self-employment, collective onwership) is a step behind from public ownership, and this accounts for another form of production which is compatible with socialist production. This form stems from Cuba's desire to cut down on wasteful spending and the unnecessary trouble of planning small enterprises. Semi-privatized or privatized enterprises exist solely in the context of Cuba's current situation in which they need to trade with the world market.

[ComradeMan]

The Cuban Revolution is not over yet, this is just the beginning of the second-phase.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wow, never expected to be in agreement with a commie in this. This is a step forward for sure!

No, it isn't. Collective ownership and self employment are not steps forward.

Certainly, the foreign concessions aren't either.

Basically, the Cuban economy is in retreat because they can't make money on the world market with a fully socialized economy, more specifically, one that lacks modern technology and needs to revitalize infrastructure in order to meet domestic demand and increase productivity. It's a smart move, but the Cuban government has to be careful not to give leeway for exploitative relationships to from within sectors of the economy producing for the international market. I think this retreat is temporary in nature, and is not reminiscent of Chinese or Vietnamese counterrevolutionary retreats.

Cuba is already starting to benefit from this move. For example, new mills under construction (http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2010/0913-cuba-produce-wheat-flour-needs.htm) will begin to produce all flour that Cuba needs--getting rid of part of their dependence on imports.



The Cuban Revolution is not over yet, this is just the beginning of the second-phase.

What do you mean by that?