Raul Castro says Cubans must back "economic reforms"

[Kiev Communard]

Havana, Cuba (CNN) -- Cuban President Raul Castro told legislators Saturday that the country's economy would undergo significant change in the coming year, but added that the measures aimed to bolster socialism -- not make Cuba a capitalist nation.

Castro has begun a radical shakeup of the Soviet-style economic model, previously announcing the elimination of one million state jobs and the expansion of private businesses. Cuba's National Assembly tapped him as the Caribbean nation's president in 2008, ending nearly five decades of rule by his older brother Fidel Castro.

As part of the plan, Cubans are being allowed and even encouraged to go into business for themselves, working as barbers, plumbers and even birthday clowns as the government tries to boost productivity.

"The measures we are applying, and all of the changes that are necessary for the modernization of the economic model, are aimed at preserving socialism, strengthening it and making it truly irreversible," said Castro, according to a copy of his speech published by the state-run website Cubadebate.

Castro has called for debates across the country before April, when the Communist Party holds its first congress in almost 14 years at which they could approve his plan.

In the speech, he insisted there should no longer be a stigma attached to working in the private sector.

"Many Cubans confuse socialism with handouts and subsidies, equality with egalitarianism," said the president, who spoke at the close of the country's National Assembly in Havana, according to Cubadebate.

The government expects the Cuban economy to grow 3.1 percent next year, up from a projected 2.1 percent growth in 2010.

"We can assure you that, this time, there will be no going back." said Castro.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/12/18/cuba.castro.speech/index.html?hpt=T2



Well, provided that Castro movement was not even originally a Marxist-inspired one, this move is, apparently, one of the last steps before finally embracing "Chinese model", which is both disheartening - and rather stupid from Cuban bureaucracy. Do they genuinely believe that if they restore private property, the capitalists worldwide are going to embrace them? Most likely, such "change", which has nothing to do with socialism, will spell end both to Cuban model of state industrialism and the imminent fall of the current government in the long run. In any case, what do the others here think about it?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Well, provided that Castro movement was not even originally a Marxist-inspired one, this move is, apparently, one of the last steps before finally embracing "Chinese model", which is both disheartening - and rather stupid from Cuban bureaucracy. Do they genuinely believe that if they restore private property, the capitalists worldwide are going to embrace them? Most likely, such "change", which has nothing to do with socialism, will spell end both to Cuban model of state industrialism and the imminent fall of the current government in the long run. In any case, what do the others here think about it?

I don't think they are trying to win the embrace of global capitalists. They are still building ties with leaders in countries whose people are moving towards socialism: Venezuela and Bolivia. Also, we have to realize that this isn't the restoration of private property--private property has been in existence to a limited degree in Cuba, and similar reforms were in place during the "Special period" after the loss of their Soviet trading partner.

It is concerning that they are cutting so many jobs, but will the new private sector jobs be run the same way as in capitalist countries? I think in Cuba, where workers are accustomed to having a voice, they will not simply switch to wage slavery without a struggle--and this is being discussed at CP meetings, etc. And we have to remember that this is from CNN, a capitalist news source and they have been trying to paint the situation in Cuba as a failure of socialism for years.

In any case, for those of us who don't live in Cuba, the most important thing we can do for Cuba is spread socialist ideas and build struggles that challenge the rule of capitalism, racism, and imperialism so that they don't have to live isolated from the world economy, and realize that socialism can't truly exist by itself in one country.

[ed miliband]

"Many Cubans confuse socialism with handouts and subsidies, equality with egalitarianism," said the president, who spoke at the close of the country's National Assembly in Havana, according to Cubadebate.

Tighten your belts, proles, you're in for a bumpy ride.

[khad]

How many of you assholes ridiculed me and called me a liar a year and a half ago when I was warning everyone about Raul Castro and the Deng Xiaoping path? I am never going to let this go, because if anything it serves as an example of how the left continues to bury its head in its own ass and worship "heroes" in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Raul has always been a bastard fuck with suspected ties to organized crime and drug dealing (one of his underlings, a top general, was convicted and executed for that shit).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-goes-capitalist-t110435/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-abandons-equal-t115094/index.html

Yeah, real socialist, this motherfucker:


Cuba’s new president Raúl Castro, in an address to the National Assembly a few weeks ago, announced that “Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income.” Echoing capitalists, he went on to say that “egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy.”

[RadioRaheem84]

Well lets hope that Raul isn't the only one running that country.

I really just hope that they're trying to follow the Venezuelan model with private co-ops and communal councils, etc.

But so far, yeah, it does seem like he is Cuba's Deng.

[RadioRaheem84]

Raul has always been a bastard fuck with suspected ties to organized crime and drug dealing (one of his underlings, a top general, was convicted and executed for that shit).

Link?

[khad]

Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaldo_Ochoa
You can speculate how deep Raul was in all of this.

[RadioRaheem84]

egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy.”

Castro's been saying this stuff since the 80s.

In 1979 Raul was complaining about the lack of work discipline. How Cuban workers would work 4 hours at their day job, make a deal with the boss to leave early and go work another job for extra income. False reporting of hours worked or how much was produced in a day to not work the next day. A lot of people apparently, were gaming the system in order to do less work. Not to mention the stealing.

IDK, maybe this is a sign that the system was never really all that socialism to begin with or maybe there were a lot of workers that were taking advantage of the system in order to give the brunt of the work to others.

[khad]

In 1979 Raul was complaining about the lack of work discipline. How Cuban workers would work 4 hours at their day job, make a deal with the boss to leave early and go work another job for extra income. False reporting of hours worked or how much was produced in a day to not work the next day. A lot of people apparently, were gaming the system in order to do less work. Not to mention the stealing.
If workers cannot game the system at least a little bit, then it's not a humane or socialist system. In the late ussr, due to the lack of a labor market (and reserve army to discipline workers with) firms resorted to bribing their workers to stay with added benefits such as entertainments, day care, etc.

A socialist economic system will need to plan for these inefficiencies. You cannot treat people like machines.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaldo_Ochoa
You can speculate how deep Raul was in all of this.

Wait, how does this prove Raul was involved?

Is this a Reagan and Iran-Contra thing? He had to have known being in a high position of government?

[RadioRaheem84]

If workers cannot game the system at least a little bit, then it's not a humane or socialist system. In the late ussr, due to the lack of a labor market (and reserve army to discipline workers with) firms resorted to bribing their workers to stay with added benefits such as entertainments, day care, etc.

A socialist economic system will need to plan for these inefficiencies. You cannot treat people like machines.

Very well put. Then if gaming the system is a sign of a more humane system then Cuba must've been pretty damn humane considering all the complaints from every single book on Cuba on how "inefficient" worker discipline was before the Special Period (heck even today).

But a lot of Americans game the system here too, although to a less successful effect than in Cuba.

[khad]

Wait, how does this prove Raul was involved?

I said, "You can speculate how deep Raul was in all of this."

You can believe what you want to believe, the official story that Raul had nothing at all to do with the extralegal activities of his hand picked underling or that there was more involved. One thing's certain--Raul would have come out looking clean in the legal proceedings no matter what he did, no matter how deep he was or wasn't in.

[S.Artesian]

How many of you assholes ridiculed me and called me a liar a year and a half ago when I was warning everyone about Raul Castro and the Deng Xiaoping path? I am never going to let this go, because if anything it serves as an example of how the left continues to bury its head in its own ass and worship "heroes" in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Not me. I wasn't ridiculing anyone about that, because it seemed clear to me that Cuba was going to go down that path in some way shape or form, if it thought it could attract enough international capital to finance the transition.

I think the positive soundings for oil offshore, and the increased price for nickel makes Cuba a bit more attractive to international capital, and makes international capital a lot more attractive to the government.

I don't know about the drug bit. The story I heard in Cuba was that Ochoa was expected to arrange financial support for the Cuban division in Angola allied with the MPLA through "off balance-sheet" mechanisms and to do that got involved with money laundering for drug-dealers, although not actually engaging in the drug-dealing itself.

Of course, Raul was minister of defense at the time, wasn't he?

When the story started to leak out, etc etc etc Ochoa was put up against the wall.

Don't know if that corresponds with the wiki story as I never followed up on it.

Don't know if that's the true story either.


If workers cannot game the system at least a little bit, then it's not a humane or socialist system. In the late ussr, due to the lack of a labor market (and reserve army to discipline workers with) firms resorted to bribing their workers to stay with added benefits such as entertainments, day care, etc.


Got to say, I love this, and agree wholeheartedly. Got to be able to game the system a bit. That's where the creativity is.

[Obs]

Why didn't the CIA spend their money on killing this asshole?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not that I support any Deng turn here, but is it possible that Cuba is privatizing only to the extent of being compatible with Venezuela's "socialization" turn? That is, changing the economy for economic integration with Venezuela?

[Thirsty Crow]

Not that I support any Deng turn here, but is it possible that Cuba is privatizing only to the extent of being compatible with Venezuela's "socialization" turn? That is, changing the economy for economic integration with Venezuela?
Wishful thinking, unfortunately (for the Cuban workers)

[L.A.P.]

All I have to say about this is: GOD DAMN IT!

[Thirsty Crow]

All I have to say about this is: GOD DAMN IT!
All I have to say about it - fruits of "socialism in one country".

[RadioRaheem84]

Not that I support any Deng turn here, but is it possible that Cuba is privatizing only to the extent of being compatible with Venezuela's "socialization" turn? That is, changing the economy for economic integration with Venezuela?

This is exactly what I was thinking and what a Cuban Historian from the UK told me via email when questioned about the reforms.

I think, but more hope, that this is the transition Cuban leaders want.

[Thirsty Crow]

How would a growth in the Cuban private sector acoount for a rise in the "compatibility" with "Venezuela's 'socialization' turn"?

[Obs]

How would a growth in the Cuban private sector acoount for a rise in the "compatibility" with "Venezuela's 'socialization' turn"?
Well, it would mean that the two countries could synchronise their economical development.

Absolute bollocks, I say. But, y'know, that could be the reasoning behind it. If you squint.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, it would mean that the two countries could synchronise their economical development.

Absolute bollocks, I say. But, y'know, that could be the reasoning behind it. If you squint.

But still, I cannot begin to understand what does "synchronize" her entails, concretely.

But yeah, it seems like bollocks for sure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because Chavez doesn't intend to nationalize everything.

[Thirsty Crow]

Because Chavez doesn't intend to nationalize everything.

And how does the "synchronization" work when it comes to Cuban workers? Why would it be necessary from their point of view and what concrete consequences concerning class struggle and quality of life would this bring?

What I cannot grasp is the reasoning behind the priority of synchronization. What could its concrete consequences be?

[RadioRaheem84]

I want to remain positive about Cuba's reforms because of Venezuela and the possible growth of ALBA, but I just keep thinking about Russia, Vietnam and China's Dengist/Yeltsin reforms.

I really think that there is more evidence pointing to Cuba trying to be more like Venezuela and vice versa, both meeting somewhere in the middle.

ALBA will come into the picture.

I do not trust Raul but at the same time, Cuba is not a one man show.

[IronEastBloc]

All I have to say about it - fruits of "socialism in one country".

How can you blame this on "socialism in one country", genius? or is this just some trollish behavior on your part? aren't you going to bother to explain?

[KurtFF8]

We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these reforms as a simple following of the "Chinese model" http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/carrim191110.html

[Wanted Man]

We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these reforms as a simple following of the "Chinese model" http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/carrim191110.html

What is this analysis bullshit? I want my knee-jerk denunciations. Raul is an evil traitor! RAAAGEEE!!!

[S.Artesian]

This is exactly what I was thinking and what a Cuban Historian from the UK told me via email when questioned about the reforms.

I think, but more hope, that this is the transition Cuban leaders want.

Please, let's not deny what is right in front of our faces. Let's not engage in the sort of disavowal of reality that says, "oh these reforms are not the product of the reversals the proletariat has experienced on the world scale for the last twenty years."

Imposition of these types of "reforms" are to bring Cuba into closer "compliance" with the law of value working in the world markets. That's why the workers are going to be tossed out of their jobs, that's why private enterprise is being encouraged, and that's why Cuba is looking to capitalist countries for capitalist investment.

Venezuela is a capitalist country, with its economy hardly in the greatest shape. Bolivia is a capitalist country and is in no position to provide capital to Cuba in any way shape or form, being in part, too busy providing troops to the MINUSTAH occupation and subjugation of Haiti.

Pick another ALBA country and look at its economy, and its class configuration and tell me what exactly that country will be able to do to advance socialism?

The country that might be able to push some serious cash into Cuba is Brazil, but that cash would hardly be a "socialist embrace."

[Tatarin]

It was almost to be expected. There is no big ally since the Soviet Union left, and Venezuela and Bolivia are not the greatest candidates either. Exactly the same thing will happen in North Korea. Unless China turns to Maoism once more, or the USSR is resurrected, then we can only be looking at a capitalist future.

[gorillafuck]

I want to remain positive about Cuba's reforms because of Venezuela and the possible growth of ALBA, but I just keep thinking about Russia, Vietnam and China's Dengist/Yeltsin reforms.

I really think that there is more evidence pointing to Cuba trying to be more like Venezuela and vice versa, both meeting somewhere in the middle.
How can you be positive about Cuba taking rightward turns?

Some socialists are going to back everything that Cuba does until Cuba has had a counter-revolution, and even then they're going to place all of the blame on the United States and disregard all negative actions that Cuba took.

[RadioRaheem84]

How can you be positive about Cuba taking rightward turns?


Because I keep thinking that Venezuela and the other ALBA nations are not finished in their socialist projects.

I wouldn't applaud Cuba becoming a Venezuela now.

[theAnarch]

the situation in Cuba is dire

In order to gain the capital needed to buy raw materials without accsess to the largest market in the world Cuba has had to go into massive debt.

Dont wanna see Cuba follow a Dengist path. Then make the Revolution in your own countries.

[S.Artesian]

the situation in Cuba is dire

In order to gain the capital needed to buy raw materials without accsess to the largest market in the world Cuba has had to go into massive debt.

Dont wanna see Cuba follow a Dengist path. Then make the Revolution in your own countries.

I'm not sure about the debt part-- external debt for Cuba in 2007 was about 9 billion dollars, up from 2005's 6 billion, but below the 1999 peak of about 11 billion.

I don't think debt is driving this, as it did, say in Poland in the 1970s and 1980s.

[theAnarch]

Well then theres another US cabel lie.

But Debt or no debt the raw materials issue is severe....though its not as bad in the 90's long term shortages will strangle a revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

How many of you assholes ridiculed me and called me a liar a year and a half ago when I was warning everyone about Raul Castro and the Deng Xiaoping path? I am never going to let this go,

The fact you pulled a pearl out of your ass doesn't make you an oyster.

[KurtFF8]

And I still hold that it's too early to declare Cuba going down the Deng Xiaoping path.

[RED DAVE]

Not that I support any Deng turn here, but is it possible that Cuba is privatizing only to the extent of being compatible with Venezuela's "socialization" turn? That is, changing the economy for economic integration with Venezuela?Sure it is and one capitalist nation will integrate with another. Not much here to do with socialism.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

While it is clear it is a retreat, the evidence is not in yet as to whether it is a NEP type retreat or a Dengist type retreat.

[S.Artesian]

And I still hold that it's too early to declare Cuba going down the Deng Xiaoping path.


Sure, if we abstract this from everything that has occurred in the last 30 years, if we discard everything we know about world markets, sure it's too early.

Right. It's too early. And by the time those who aren't sure are, it's too late.

[KurtFF8]

Sure, if we abstract this from everything that has occurred in the last 30 years, if we discard everything we know about world markets, sure it's too early.

Right. It's too early. And by the time those who aren't sure are, it's too late.

The only abstraction going on is by those trying to equate the two paths. The way China made it to where it is today was because of the results of the Cultural Revolution, an internal party power struggle, and a sector of their Communist Party that wanted to align directly against the USSR.

None of these things happened in Cuba (and Cuba was even in the opposite socialist camp at the time). And the nature of the Cuban revolution and its progress being different, we can't take the reform of small businesses to allow folks to hire their families to be the same kind of capitalist development we see in China.

It's just too dissimilar to make that comparison . Now could that happen in Cuba? Of course it could. Can we say that this is happening as a result of this particular policy change? Personally, after reading everything on it that I have, I would say that conclusion is unfounded and is being made by those who have been trying to paint the Cuban revolution in a negative light already.

[S.Artesian]

The only abstraction going on is by those trying to equate the two paths. The way China made it to where it is today was because of the results of the Cultural Revolution, an internal party power struggle, and a sector of their Communist Party that wanted to align directly against the USSR.

And the internal party struggle was a reflection of what? Real contradictions in the economy? Real declining productivity in agriculture? Real inability to develop "capital intensive" industries?

The hostility to the USSR only gave the short-comings of the economic organization an acute manifestation, and provided an urgency to remedying the short-comings.


None of these things happened in Cuba (and Cuba was even in the opposite socialist camp at the time). And the nature of the Cuban revolution and its progress being different, we can't take the reform of small businesses to allow folks to hire their families to be the same kind of capitalist development we see in China.Well as a matter of fact, yes there is disagreement in the party in Cuba about the way forward, and there is still ongoing disagreement in the party in China as far gone as that situation is.

No, we can't take them as the same, Deng's 4 reforms, and Raul's "market measures." They don't have to be the same to represent the same pressures on the economy; the same problems of inadequate productivity and the need for greater sources of capital; the same inability to create enough disposable labor time, enough surplus labour time to tend to the expanding needs of the population.

So the Cuban government will "downsize" itself-- spinning off first it's workers, and then industries, and then entire sectors of the economy into private hands. And for those "private hands" to make any use of that industry, and those sectors, they are going to need the deep pockets of the world capital markets. That's what I think you'll see in the next go-round-- invitations to multinational corporations-- and not just in the tourism business-- but to "partner" and takeover production; to establish special-enterprise-zones; to create 2,3, many maquiladoras.

That's the scenario I see, based on the cuurent isolation of the Cuban revolution.

If you see a different scenario, tell me exactly how you see the "private sector" absorbing half a million employees in productive labor when the sector has no access to the ownership of the large scale means of production. You tell me how that labor-power gets absorbed by the private sector without driving down the wages of all workers.


It's just too dissimilar to make that comparison . Now could that happen in Cuba? Of course it could. Can we say that this is happening as a result of this particular policy change? Personally, after reading everything on it that I have, I would say that conclusion is unfounded and is being made by those who have been trying to paint the Cuban revolution in a negative light already.I'm not trying to paint the Cuban Revolution in a negative light. I have no need to do that, no desire to do that. I've worked in Cuba and I would love to say this isn't happening. But it would simply sound like Hudson in Aliens: "This ain't happenin' man. This ain't happenin' " when in fact it is.

[chegitz guevara]

A comrade from WWP, who is very pro-Cuba, tried to explain to me the rational behind the reforms. I have to be honest, it sounded like an explanation of why socialism can't work that I usually hear from the right-wingers, but this guy is so pro-Cuba that if the whole island decided to commit suicide, he'd justify it.

So, he says, part of the problem that Cuba has is that they educate everyone to the highest level of their ability. When these folks have degrees and what not, the state has to find them a job commensurate with their education, which has resulted in a very top heavy economic structure. Lot's of bosses, not enough workers and farmers. Part of the measures are to entice people to return to the land to farm (to which I replied, there aren't enough starving Haitians who would like to have land--to which he replies, there's enough Cubans to do all of Cuba's jobs--to which I think, and that's why they're having problems?). He says, all these managers are interfering with the workers' ability to do their jobs.

At the same time, workers are stealing supplies from work and selling them, clocking in to work, taking off and doing a black market job, and splitting their state job pay with their managers.

So these layoffs are about clearing out the dead wood. But, since it's being done in a top down, authoritarian way, it won't get rid of what seems to be the underlying problem, which is massive alienation and little worker control.

[Nolan]

Told you so.

-antirevisionists.

[chegitz guevara]

Even a broken clock is right once a day (twice if it's not on military time).

[Nolan]

Well if it's right all day it's not broken, is it?

[chegitz guevara]

You will excuse me if I'm, less than impressed by your record.

[RED DAVE]

The only abstraction going on is by those trying to equate the two paths. The way China made it to where it is today was because of the results of the Cultural Revolution, an internal party power struggle, and a sector of their Communist Party that wanted to align directly against the USSR.That's the Maoist apologia for the total failure of their "revolution." Another explanation is that, like Cuba's, it was doomed from the beginning by the Maoist policy of class collaboration, which permitted bourgeois elements to eventually triumph in the party and society.


None of these things happened in Cuba (and Cuba was even in the opposite socialist camp at the time). And the nature of the Cuban revolution and its progress being different, we can't take the reform of small businesses to allow folks to hire their families to be the same kind of capitalist development we see in China.Welcome to Fantasy Island! What do you think is going to happen as the preponderance of the profit-making sector of the economy shifts to first small and then large businesses?


It's just too dissimilar to make that comparison .Only if you don't understand state capitalism,.


Now could that happen in Cuba? Of course it could. Can we say that this is happening as a result of this particular policy change? Personally, after reading everything on it that I have, I would say that conclusion is unfounded and is being made by those who have been trying to paint the Cuban revolution in a negative light already.The paint is already there. All we are watching it do is dry. Cuba was never socialist: the workers never had control of the economy. It was state capitalist from the beginning with the party and the bureaucracy making economic decisions. What's happening is the inevitable course of state capitalism: a final development, as in the USSR, China, Vietnam and all of Eastern Europe, to private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[KurtFF8]

And the internal party struggle was a reflection of what? Real contradictions in the economy? Real declining productivity in agriculture? Real inability to develop "capital intensive" industries?

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean this "retreat" will go as far as China. At least I certainly hope it doesn't


The hostility to the USSR only gave the short-comings of the economic organization an acute manifestation, and provided an urgency to remedying the short-comings.

I don't know enough about this particular subject to talk about it.


Well as a matter of fact, yes there is disagreement in the party in Cuba about the way forward, and there is still ongoing disagreement in the party in China as far gone as that situation is.

Indeed, and I'm sure there are sectors of the Cuban party that want to go down the China path.


No, we can't take them as the same, Deng's 4 reforms, and Raul's "market measures." They don't have to be the same to represent the same pressures on the economy; the same problems of inadequate productivity and the need for greater sources of capital; the same inability to create enough disposable labor time, enough surplus labour time to tend to the expanding needs of the population.

Indeed, no one is saying that this is anything but a retreat. But it's not only that they are in different historical circumstances, but the scale of the introduction of markets is no where near the China path yet. Whether these Cuban reforms will lead to that is another question of course.

[KurtFF8]

That's the Maoist apologia for the total failure of their "revolution." Another explanation is that, like Cuba's, it was doomed from the beginning by the Maoist policy of class collaboration, which permitted bourgeois elements to eventually triumph in the party and society.

I was hardly being an apologist for the failure of the Cultural Revolution, and why would I as a non-Maoist be interested in making apologies for it?


Welcome to Fantasy Island! What do you think is going to happen as the preponderance of the profit-making sector of the economy shifts to first small and then large businesses?

If these reforms move onto a larger scale, then yes: Cuba will essentially have taken the Chinese path. But right now we're talking about small businesses and self employment, hardly the same thing as privatizing all of Cuba's economy.


Only if you don't understand state capitalism,.

If you've seen my other posts, I tend to argue against the theories of state capitalism as being quite shallow and non-Marxist as only one aspect of the economy is usually examined (e.g. "there are wages, capitalism has wages, it's capitalism" I know that's over simplistic but that's how a lot of state capitalist theories go)


The paint is already there. All we are watching it do is dry. Cuba was never socialist: the workers never had control of the economy. It was state capitalist from the beginning with the party and the bureaucracy making economic decisions. What's happening is the inevitable course of state capitalism: a final development, as in the USSR, China, Vietnam and all of Eastern Europe, to private capitalism.

I still don't see how it was "state capitalism" being as the capitalist class of Cuba fled after the revolution. The state took control over the economy and the workers own the state. There are various readings that demonstrate this:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/100401levins.php
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2633828

[S.Artesian]

I have to say that I myself don't buy the state capitalism assessment, and while I think I know where these "reforms" are going, I don't think it's quite accurate to represent these reforms as a simple continuity of state capitalism.

If we accept that the split, or the arguments in the bureaucracy represents more than simply splits in the bureaucracy, represents real conflicts in the economy, and different emerging, and existing, class interests-- then what is going on is more, much more, that "paint drying."

I think the arguments in the bureaucracy about the course to be taken indicate that the in reality, the bureaucracy is not a class, and that this struggle is just beginning. I'm not very optimistic of the outcome, absent a international socialist revolution, but this isn't paint drying.

[KurtFF8]

Indeed, and I don't want to come off as naive about what could happen, I'm quite well aware of the dangers presented by these reforms and what the outcome could be. I do want to maintain at least a little optimism though, seeing as it's certainly possible that these reforms won't result in a full restoration of capitalism or a "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"

[S.Artesian]

A comrade from WWP, who is very pro-Cuba, tried to explain to me the rational behind the reforms. I have to be honest, it sounded like an explanation of why socialism can't work that I usually hear from the right-wingers, but this guy is so pro-Cuba that if the whole island decided to commit suicide, he'd justify it.

So, he says, part of the problem that Cuba has is that they educate everyone to the highest level of their ability. When these folks have degrees and what not, the state has to find them a job commensurate with their education, which has resulted in a very top heavy economic structure. Lot's of bosses, not enough workers and farmers. Part of the measures are to entice people to return to the land to farm (to which I replied, there aren't enough starving Haitians who would like to have land--to which he replies, there's enough Cubans to do all of Cuba's jobs--to which I think, and that's why they're having problems?). He says, all these managers are interfering with the workers' ability to do their jobs.

At the same time, workers are stealing supplies from work and selling them, clocking in to work, taking off and doing a black market job, and splitting their state job pay with their managers.

So these layoffs are about clearing out the dead wood. But, since it's being done in a top down, authoritarian way, it won't get rid of what seems to be the underlying problem, which is massive alienation and little worker control.


"Dead wood"? That's what we call workers who see the access those with hard currency have to special stores, to imports? Dead wood? That's what you call those who teach physics at a university for $50 per month and see those who are lucky enough to work as waiters, porters, etc. at international hotels make that much in one night?

People are not wood. Those hustling to get a bit more material comfort are hardly dead.

The problem is not too much education of people, too much medical care, too much knowledge, and too few workers, too few farmers.

The problem is the overall low level of labor productivity due to the inability to access, support, and maintain the capital goods need to change that productivity.

For example? Railroads. For years prior to the special period, Cuba's motive power needs were satisfied by the fSU, which provide 3 to 5X the total motive power than was actually needed to move the tonnage-- if tracks had been upgraded, if signal systems modernized, if proper scheduling had been installed. But all that requires greater and greater amounts of "capital" expenditure. So Cuba made do with a surplus of locomotives, which even then weren't being utilized properly, and... weren't being maintained properly because Cuba didn't have the infrastructure to maintain all those locomotives.

So what happens? Cannibalization. When old locomotives start to break down, they get cannibalized for parts. The system doesn't change. So pretty soon, your surplus of locomotives becomes captured in a cycle of inefficient utilization, and is out of position for maintenance, and the surplus becomes a shortage.

The problem isn't too many workers, or too many workers on 6 hour shifts, or 4 hour shifts-- the problem is the economy can't reproduce itself efficiently enough.

Dead wood? Has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[The Author]

In the speech, he insisted there should no longer be a stigma attached to working in the private sector.

"Many Cubans confuse socialism with handouts and subsidies, equality with egalitarianism," said the president, who spoke at the close of the country's National Assembly in Havana, according to Cubadebate.

Well, fuck him. He wouldn't be saying that if he were working two jobs and trying to live from month to month. Normally I would expect this kind of talk from a liberal like Obama. But from him, that's disheartening, to put it mildly.


The government expects the Cuban economy to grow 3.1 percent next year, up from a projected 2.1 percent growth in 2010.

Yeah, "growth." Like Chinese "growth," where the numbers are good in the books, and the cities have big skyscrapers and the roads are filled with cars, but poverty and shoddy construction and despair are everywhere as well in this facade of "growth." Smoke and mirrors, all bullshit.


"We can assure you that, this time, there will be no going back." said Castro.

You should visit Eastern Europe or some shantytown suburb of China sometime, Raul. Failing that, visit Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic, or Haiti. Because that's where Cuba is going.



The problem is not too much education of people, too much medical care, too much knowledge, and too few workers, too few farmers.

The problem is the overall low level of labor productivity due to the inability to access, support, and maintain the capital goods need to change that productivity.

For example? Railroads. For years prior to the special period, Cuba's motive power needs were satisfied by the fSU, which provide 3 to 5X the total motive power than was actually needed to move the tonnage-- if tracks had been upgraded, if signal systems modernized, if proper scheduling had been installed. But all that requires greater and greater amounts of "capital" expenditure. So Cuba made do with a surplus of locomotives, which even then weren't being utilized properly, and... weren't being maintained properly because Cuba didn't have the infrastructure to maintain all those locomotives.

So what happens? Cannibalization. When old locomotives start to break down, they get cannibalized for parts. The system doesn't change. So pretty soon, your surplus of locomotives becomes captured in a cycle of inefficient utilization, and is out of position for maintenance, and the surplus becomes a shortage.

The problem isn't too many workers, or too many workers on 6 hour shifts, or 4 hour shifts-- the problem is the economy can't reproduce itself efficiently enough.

That's what really annoys me about Cuba. When they had the opportunity to better their infrastructure and plan their economy more efficiently, they squandered all of their resources and took too many shortcuts like these. Their economists had no inkling of what they were doing, no way to plan whatsoever. Now they come to a situation like this and they decide to take even more shortcuts. Just pisses me off.

[Burn A Flag]

Let's wait and see the effect these reforms actually have.

[RED DAVE]

Let's wait and see the effect these reforms actually have.That's like saying, "Let's waiting and see the effect of the rain before we build a roof.

RED DAVE

[KurtFF8]

Because there's no question this is actually a secret plot to privatize most of the rest of Cuba!

[RED DAVE]

Because there's no question this is actually a secret plot to privatize most of the rest of Cuba!It's not a matter of a secret plot. Unless, you accept the government's bullshit proclamations, it's plain to see what's happening. Small businesses will generate middle-sized businesses to provide them with services (deliveries or raw materials, etc.). Regardless of the sizes of the original businesses, economies of scale will produce larger and larger service provider and ... you get the picture. This is capitalism. It's like a virus. Once it gets into the system, it multiplies ad infinitum.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

It's not a matter of a secret plot. Unless, you accept the government's bullshit proclamations, it's plain to see what's happening. Small businesses will generate middle-sized businesses to provide them with services (deliveries or raw materials, etc.). Regardless of the sizes of the original businesses, economies of scale will produce larger and larger service provider and ... you get the picture. This is capitalism. It's like a virus. Once it gets into the system, it multiplies ad infinitum.

RED DAVE

But that isn't what's going to happen. There is not going to be an simple, organic transition from small to medium to large businesses. Didn't happen in the fSU that way. Hasn't happened in China that way.

Like a virus? We should be so lucky. More like malaria.

[chegitz guevara]

"Dead wood"? That's what we call workers who see the access those with hard currency have to special stores, to imports? Dead wood? That's what you call those who teach physics at a university for $50 per month and see those who are lucky enough to work as waiters, porters, etc. at international hotels make that much in one night?

People are not wood. Those hustling to get a bit more material comfort are hardly dead.

The problem is not too much education of people, too much medical care, too much knowledge, and too few workers, too few farmers.

The problem is the overall low level of labor productivity due to the inability to access, support, and maintain the capital goods need to change that productivity.

For example? Railroads. For years prior to the special period, Cuba's motive power needs were satisfied by the fSU, which provide 3 to 5X the total motive power than was actually needed to move the tonnage-- if tracks had been upgraded, if signal systems modernized, if proper scheduling had been installed. But all that requires greater and greater amounts of "capital" expenditure. So Cuba made do with a surplus of locomotives, which even then weren't being utilized properly, and... weren't being maintained properly because Cuba didn't have the infrastructure to maintain all those locomotives.

So what happens? Cannibalization. When old locomotives start to break down, they get cannibalized for parts. The system doesn't change. So pretty soon, your surplus of locomotives becomes captured in a cycle of inefficient utilization, and is out of position for maintenance, and the surplus becomes a shortage.

The problem isn't too many workers, or too many workers on 6 hour shifts, or 4 hour shifts-- the problem is the economy can't reproduce itself efficiently enough.

Dead wood? Has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You understand I'm paraphrasing someone else's argument. I believe I said it sounded like a crap argument.

[gorillafuck]

While it is clear it is a retreat, the evidence is not in yet as to whether it is a NEP type retreat or a Dengist type retreat.
The NEP didn't happen half a century after the Russian Revolution.

[S.Artesian]

You understand I'm paraphrasing someone else's argument. I believe I said it sounded like a crap argument.


Yes, I understand. It was a crap argument made by someone else. I simply wanted demonstrate how full of crap that argument is.

[KurtFF8]

The NEP didn't happen half a century after the Russian Revolution.

Well if the time frame is the issue, has the time between the Cuban Revolution and now been long enough for it to count as a Dengist type retreat?


Small businesses will generate middle-sized businesses to provide them with services (deliveries or raw materials, etc.). Regardless of the sizes of the original businesses, economies of scale will produce larger and larger service provider and ... you get the picture. This is capitalism. It's like a virus. Once it gets into the system, it multiplies ad infinitum.

I doubt that the scale of power is as much as you're giving credit for these small businesses. And for this to actually happen, the Cuban state would have to be completely compliant, along with the majority of folks who control the municipal and national assemblies (something I doubt would happen take some major effort by foreign capital)