Cuba continues to decentralized agriculture [Archive]

RedSonRising

13th March 2014, 21:13

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/mar/11/cuba-agricultural-revolution-farmers

Viva la revolución: Cuban farmers re-gain control over land
As the state loosens its grip on food production, Cuban farmers and independent co-operatives will need support to help solve the country's agriculture crisis

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/25/1393345858370/Cuba-farmers--011.jpg

Last year, Cuba spent over $1.6bn (£1bn) on food imports, an unsustainable amount for an economy that has been struggling since the end of the cold war and the collapse of its trading partner, the Soviet Union, through which it also lost 80% of its pesticide and fertiliser imports.

Today, Cuba still imports about 60% of its domestic food requirement, making it highly vulnerable to price increases, changes in food supply and the impacts of natural disasters.

Since 2007, President Raul Castro, noting its connection with national security, has made food security a priority. State farms hold over 70% of Cuba's agricultural land; about 6.7m hectares. In 2007, 45% of this land was sitting idle. In 2008 Castro allowed private farmers and co-operatives to lease unused land with decentralised decision-making, and loosened regulations on farmers selling directly to consumers. Since 2010, Cubans with small garden plots, and small farmers, have been allowed to sell produce directly to consumers.

However, agriculture in Cuba remains in crisis. A government report issued in July 2013 showed that productivity had not increased. But there have been some successes and valuable lessons in the past few years that can help foreign aid organisations target resources and support.

Learning from successful co-operatives or farming initiatives is key, according to Christina Polzot, Cuban country representative for Care International.

"I think the greatest contribution is capacity building, especially as it relates to building management capacity at the local level," she said.

One successful example comes from Cuba's 'urban' agriculture. Urban farms are now thought to supply around 70% of fruits and vegetables consumed in cities such as Havana and Santa Clara. Vivero Alamar is an urban co-op just outside Havana that has sustained growth for 15 years. Co-op president Miguel Angel Salcines believes that the key to achieving food security in Cuba is to train agricultural workers with a 'vocation' for farming, and continuous upgrading of equipment.

The Cuban agricultural sector remains highly de-capitalised, but aid organisations can to some degree support it with agricultural materials and appropriate technologies. They can also boost the capacity of private farmers by training local farmers in sustainable agricultural practices, and helping co-ops develop modern business practices.

Canada, one of Cuba's biggest donors, provides technical training in planning, environmental sustainability, and also gender equality for effective management of farming. It also helped increase Cuba's forest cover by 1%, by planting 106,000 hectares of new seedlings.

Researchers can identify inefficiencies in the supply chain and where possible make recommendations.

Care in Canada also helped improve dairy production (pdf) – which has been a huge challenge for the country – by building and furnishing milk collection and conservation centres in co-ops, and advising on the supply chain. They also made infrastructure improvements for individual farms and created an exchange programme for Canadian and Cuban farmers.

In 2007, Castro had called the milk collection and distribution system "absurd" after finding that in Mantua in the west of Cuba, a few bottles of locally produced milk would make a long journey, but then return and be delivered to the house next door.

But Cuba has other challenges beyond the production system; it suffers from salinity, erosion, poor drainage, low fertility, acidity, low organic material content, poor retention of humidity, and desertification. One obstacle to increasing productivity has been a lack of knowledge among farmers about improving and conserving agricultural resources.

A pilot progamme implemented by Cuba's Soil Institute and supported by the United Nations Development Programme, to improve the conservation of soil, water and forest land, gives 35 agricultural units training, technical assistance, and supplies – targeted at their own specific challenges. It includes planting forest trees on farms, searching new sources of water; no-till farming; live barriers to erosion made of plants and rocks, and using organic fertilisers.

Aid organisations in the country should also support agricultural initiatives in Cuba's easternmost – and poorest – provinces, which are most vulnerable to coastal flooding.

Although the reform in agriculture has gone further than in many other sections of economic life, it may still be too early to gauge the effects. Polzot says it is possible that the reforms will increase autonomy because, for example, the more recent reforms have allowed private co-operatives to handle their own commercialisation.

But as yet, farmers are not allowed to import supplies or purchase produce at will. Armando Nova, a Cuban economist, suggested in a paper last year that the system would be more efficient if farmers did not have to wait for supplies to be assigned and delivered by the state; there are still delays in transport and a lot of spoilage.

There is concern among farmers that the government will at some point change its mind, scale back the reforms, and seize the land leased to farmers – and that it is unwilling to cede all control of the process.

In November 2013, the government issued a decree placing the management of food production entirely in non-state hands, to run experimentally in selected districts before going nationwide in 2015. For the moment, it seems the Cuban government is committed to its goal of putting Cuba on the road to food security. Aid organisations can help ensure that these initiatives are successful.
-----------------

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on this. The topic is obviously controversial, as some people consider Cuba to be outright state capitalist, others see it as a successful socialist state, others somewhere in between. There's a similar variety of opinions on Cuba's recent reforms; some see it as a strategic retreat in order to stimulate the economy in a period of economic crisis and isolation, others as full-blown privatization in disguise which will erase the gains of the Cuban revolution.

Personally, I see it as an evolution of the Cuban system. I believe that while Cuba has aspects of a state capitalist state (wage system, centralized bureaucracy, etc.), the workers do have a considerable measure of power and influence on municipal and state planning through teacher's federations and worker's unions and farmer representatives.

These farmlands are importantly not being given to single employers to profit from through exploited labor, but leased to individual farmers who work them themselves, or to cooperatives. This seems to me like the first time a traditional Leninist-style state-socialist model is decentralizing it's economic decision-making power and creating spaces for direct worker ownership. This seems starkly different to the measures which spelled the decline for other states of the 20th century which focused the notion of workers' power into seizing state control.

Anyways, please discuss.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

13th March 2014, 21:41

tallguy

13th March 2014, 21:53

A further capitulation and a return to more conventional capitalist methods. The Cuban state has failed and is reversing its positions to make up for its own incompetence in managing the situation.

Is there any move you Cuban apologists wouldn't accept as "strategic changes" and "modifications to preserve socialism"? They are just "decentralising the decisions" by allowing people to buy and sell houses and returning the agricultural system to a conventional peasant-model? Cuba is in a transition from a state-capitalist emulatory model to a conventional capitalist one.
The Cuban state has failed has it?

This is a country who despite having been subjected to a trade embargo for the last fifty years still manages to educate it citizen better and have a lower birth mortality rate than it's neighbour, one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet. The fact that Cuba has managed as well as it has given the various acts of war that have been waged against it by the USA is a measure of just how successful it has been.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

13th March 2014, 21:55

The Cuban state has failed has it?

This is a country who despite having been subjected to a trade embargo for the last fifty years still manages to educate it citizen better and have a lower birth mortality rate than it's neighbour, one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet. The fact that Cuba has managed as well as it has given the various acts of war that have been waged against it by the USA is a measure of just how successful it has been.

Yeah you're right, it has had a lot of success. But in regards to building socialism, it has failed. Sure, it's way better than a lot of other countries, but it hasn't come close to building socialism. There is no profit motive or class struggle in a socialist society, and they are striving towards that, not away.

tallguy

13th March 2014, 21:57

Yeah you're right, it has had a lot of success. But in regards to building socialism, it has failed. Sure, it's way better than a lot of other countries, but it hasn't come close to building socialism. There is no profit motive or class struggle in a socialist society, and they are striving towards that, not away.
Oh yeah, I agree. To the extent that they were at least facing in a socialist direction, if never reaching the destination, Raul Castro looks set to undo much of what was done and that is a desperate shame.

RedSonRising

13th March 2014, 22:10

tallguy

13th March 2014, 22:32

Criminalize Heterosexuality

13th March 2014, 23:50

Why can't people analyze this as anything beyond a foreshadowing of some capitalist liberalization process? Democratic workplace control is much more of a fundamental tenant of socialism than the abolition of personal (non-exploitative) profit and markets completely.

Except "democratic workplace control", "self-management" etc., which is to be distinguished from workers' control at the point of production, was only introduced into socialist circles by notorious revisionists - Tito, Pablo, Gomulka, and so on. Whereas the abolition of commodity production, which implies the abolition of market, is literally the definition of socialism, used by all anarchist and Marxist socialists.

FSL

13th March 2014, 23:53

What could be more key to preserving socialism than giving workers direct control over agriculture and ceding state power in order to address a serious food shortage? Is centralized state control the only way to empower the proletariat? History says not quite.

Why can't people analyze this as anything beyond a foreshadowing of some capitalist liberalization process? Democratic workplace control is much more of a fundamental tenant of socialism than the abolition of personal (non-exploitative) profit and markets completely.
In a socialist economy workers control the means of production through the plan that is discussed, modified and approved by them. That's how all the workers can control all of the economy. "Direct workers' control" is nothing, it's a play on words. It means a single company is ran just like capitalist companies are ran, it aims to reach an acceptable rate of profit and not to satisfy people's needs, its investment plan becomes accordingly erratic and in the end it's actually worse for productivity.

The sugar sector was one of the first to be remodeled, the ministry was scrapped and a holding company Azcuba was founded. The news aren't so good: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/cuba-sugar-idUSL1N0M10TP20140304

They're behind schedule and the production is more disorganized than ever. I remember that last year even though the weather conditions were great for high sugar yields, there was an increase in production but dissapointing compared to what they expected. Now, adverse weather conditions worsen the problems and more reforms (foreign investors) are being planned.

I don't think that getting foreign investors is always bad when a country is poor in machinery, the Soviet Union kept doing it well into the 30s. And I don't think that having collectives is bad in sectors where the property wasn't concentrated in a few hands (agriculture or parts of retail trade are like that in many countries).
But these changes in Cuba all taken together are certainly a step in the wrong direction. They didn't even work in China, they created a sub-class of people living in terrible conditions with almost no rights and most of the growth can be attributed to the dramatic increase in saving and investments (to levels never before seen anywhere) and a huge strain on the environment as trying to prevent population would increase the production costs for the companies there.

Cuba is much more like the Soviet Union than China, it tries to combine market reforms with maintaining an acceptable standard of living for all. This won't work and I hope Cubans won't start thinking that market, more market and nothing but the market is the way to go.
That would be a full blown humanitarian crisis, just like it was in Russia and the rest former socialist countries in the 90s.

tachosomoza

14th March 2014, 00:06

They might as well let La Cosa Nostra back in and drag one of Batista's grandkids out of cushy vacation land and plop them in the presidential palace.

RedSonRising

14th March 2014, 02:09

I don't have a problem with decentralised food production per-se. The problems arise when the profit motive is introduced. For someone to make a profit, someone else or something else has to incur a loss. It's at that point that all the shit starts.

You mean in terms of competition? Because in this case, there is no profit resulting from exploitation in the traditional sense. Profit in capitalism is derived from the extracted surplus value of a worker's labor, which the owner takes for himself while giving a fractional wage. That's not happening here.

Except "democratic workplace control", "self-management" etc., which is to be distinguished from workers' control at the point of production, was only introduced into socialist circles by notorious revisionists - Tito, Pablo, Gomulka, and so on. Whereas the abolition of commodity production, which implies the abolition of market, is literally the definition of socialism, used by all anarchist and Marxist socialists.

But Cuba is in no position to catapult itself from a worker's state into a stateless communist society. Production is not automated enough, sufficient enough, or safe enough to do evolve past the socialist stage described by Marx as preserving some aspects of the capitalist system (commodity production/sale, wage distribution, etc.).

Although if the state is ever to "wither away" to any extent, should it not be decentralizing decision-making and giving workers control over the means in a much more direct sense? An over emphasis on the state as a vehicle for proletarian emancipation has had mixed results in the 20th century. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that this isn't a sign of privatization down the line, why wouldn't this model-which is substantially helping the feeding of urban Cubans in a time of food shortage-serve as an opportunity to experiment with more localized forms of socialism which don't rely on a central plan?

In a socialist economy workers control the means of production through the plan that is discussed, modified and approved by them. That's how all the workers can control all of the economy. "Direct workers' control" is nothing, it's a play on words. It means a single company is ran just like capitalist companies are ran, it aims to reach an acceptable rate of profit and not to satisfy people's needs, its investment plan becomes accordingly erratic and in the end it's actually worse for productivity.

The sugar sector was one of the first to be remodeled, the ministry was scrapped and a holding company Azcuba was founded. The news aren't so good: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/cuba-sugar-idUSL1N0M10TP20140304

They're behind schedule and the production is more disorganized than ever. I remember that last year even though the weather conditions were great for high sugar yields, there was an increase in production but dissapointing compared to what they expected. Now, adverse weather conditions worsen the problems and more reforms (foreign investors) are being planned.

I understand the purpose of having a central plan with democratic input from all the workers, but a centralized state has many drawbacks, and provides many obstacles towards workers truly being free with respect to their time and labor. The centralized nature of the Cuban state is what has contributed to the political hegemony of the state, the restrictive top-down policies, the censorship, and possibly also the shortages. This ties into a broad argument of central planning as a tenant of socialism, but I'm more interested in talking about Cuba specifically, and talking to people there, it's clear the state as a single entity trying to encompass an entire country's needs through a multi-tiered democratic process is very difficult.

Thanks for the information on the sugar production, although the plan with respect to agriculture seems to be yielding the opposite results. More Cubans are fed and land that was otherwise unused is being utilized by workers who are yielding the fruits of their own labor. And they are not doing so unchecked and erratically on an unrestrained market, but are authorized and kept in check by the state.

I don't think that getting foreign investors is always bad when a country is poor in machinery, the Soviet Union kept doing it well into the 30s. And I don't think that having collectives is bad in sectors where the property wasn't concentrated in a few hands (agriculture or parts of retail trade are like that in many countries).
But these changes in Cuba all taken together are certainly a step in the wrong direction. They didn't even work in China, they created a sub-class of people living in terrible conditions with almost no rights and most of the growth can be attributed to the dramatic increase in saving and investments (to levels never before seen anywhere) and a huge strain on the environment as trying to prevent population would increase the production costs for the companies there.

Cuba is much more like the Soviet Union than China, it tries to combine market reforms with maintaining an acceptable standard of living for all. This won't work and I hope Cubans won't start thinking that market, more market and nothing but the market is the way to go.
That would be a full blown humanitarian crisis, just like it was in Russia and the rest former socialist countries in the 90s.

Foreign investors are another issue altogether. I agree with your sentiments overall; without setting clear boundaries, this could simply create a whole class of people alienated from their rights under the Cuban system and subject to the whims of foreign capital. This is a great concern of mine, but I've also noted that the Cuban populace is also hesitant to move completely towards market reforms. They're enticed by the opportunity to have access to better cars, cell phones, movie theaters, etc., but many are also aware that threats to their education, healthcare, rations, public lands, etc. can't be allowed to invade and disrupt the gains they've made.

I don't think we'll see the crisis we saw in Russia, as that was a complete abandonment and a bankruptcy of their social capital which left Eastern Europe in shambles.

They might as well let La Cosa Nostra back in and drag one of Batista's grandkids out of cushy vacation land and plop them in the presidential palace.

Could you be any more hyperbolic?

Dodo

14th March 2014, 04:14

Not that I am anti-Cuba or anything but,

What could be more key to preserving socialism than giving workers direct control over agriculture and ceding state power in order to address a serious food shortage? Is centralized state control the only way to empower the proletariat? History says not quite.

How is that different from independent peasant farming that has not been un-common at all in the world waaaaaaay before even Marx? I am not saying they are doing something wrong, what I am saying is independent peasantry(as opposed to slave, feudal serf,or hired-labor as rural proleteriat) is not a trait of socialism since ultimately their livelihoods depend on the market, their selling of their goods and exports.
Co-operatives and independent peasantry in my opinion is definetly something Cuba needs at this point, but it is not a socialist mode of production.
They need it the same way China and Vietnam needed them. To develop capitalism, in a less predatory fashion in their case.

La GuaneÃ±a

14th March 2014, 05:01

Ember Catching

14th March 2014, 07:04

What could be more key to preserving socialism than giving workers direct control over agriculture
Landed smallholders are not proletarian in any sense.

Democratic workplace control is much more of a fundamental tenant of socialism than the abolition of personal (non-exploitative) profit and markets completely.
As capitalist production is essentially the production of surplus-value, communism fundamentally entails the total destruction of the valorization process, to which the question of self-management and workplace democracy is—in and of itself—impertinent.

To preemptively answer a question, I don't think there's such a thing as socialist production coming in between capitalist and communist production, only a period of gradual deconstruction of capitalist production, which may cautiously be given the appellation "socialism."

RedSonRising

14th March 2014, 18:18

Not that I am anti-Cuba or anything but,

How is that different from independent peasant farming that has not been un-common at all in the world waaaaaaay before even Marx? I am not saying they are doing something wrong, what I am saying is independent peasantry(as opposed to slave, feudal serf,or hired-labor as rural proleteriat) is not a trait of socialism since ultimately their livelihoods depend on the market, their selling of their goods and exports.
Co-operatives and independent peasantry in my opinion is definetly something Cuba needs at this point, but it is not a socialist mode of production.
They need it the same way China and Vietnam needed them. To develop capitalism, in a less predatory fashion in their case.

I can see the parallels, but I'm hung up on the notion that state control is the only way for socialism to be achieved. Marx certainly had this in mind, but it's not the only way revolutionary anti-capitalists have organized production in a more democratic fashion. I think the existence of market dynamics does not automatically exclude an economy from being classed as socialist, if the workers are not exploited for a wage by a property-owning profiteer.

You don't really have to be much of a marxist to understand that this is shifting a large amount of people from the proletariat to the petit-bourgeoisie and what this implies...

I don't feel that's an accurate term, when the workers collectively own their businesses and are authorized/managed by the state. These aren't small business owners living in a capitalist market, they're workers who aren't divorced from their labor collectively owning the means by which they produce goods and sell them. A market exists, but not independent of the state which is composed of working class organs.

If anything i would call this market socialism (not at all the kind that China has).
Landed smallholders are not proletarian in any sense.

As capitalist production is essentially the production of surplus-value, communism fundamentally entails the total destruction of the valorization process, to which the question of workers' control is—in and of itself—impertinent.

But such an emphasis contradicts the fundamental notion that class struggle is at the heart of revolutionary socialism. Capitalism is more than the production of surplus-value, it's exploitative relations between property-less wage workers and profiteering owners. These cooperatives in no way divorce a worker from the fruits of their labor. They may operate outside of the democratic framework of the state, but it's not my understanding that the state has to own and control all property for workers to be liberated from capitalist exploitation.

To preemptively answer a question, I don't think there's such a thing as socialist production coming in between capitalist and communist production, only a period of gradual deconstruction of capitalist production, which may cautiously be given the appellation "socialism."

Fair enough.

Das war einmal

14th March 2014, 18:51

As far as I can see. This is a wise decree.
Since 2007, President Raul Castro, noting its connection with national security, has made food security a priority. State farms hold over 70% of Cuba's agricultural land; about 6.7m hectares. In 2007, 45% of this land was sitting idle. In 2008 Castro allowed private farmers and co-operatives to lease unused land with decentralised decision-making, and loosened regulations on farmers selling directly to consumers. Since 2010, Cubans with small garden plots, and small farmers, have been allowed to sell produce directly to consumers. 45% of the land is sitting idle is probably one of the biggest contributers of the food shortage. The state failed in making farmers feel responsible. This was also a big problem in the former GDR: lands were not worked and crops were not harvested because farmers didn't feel responsible (like they weren't harvesting because they were on vacation). In this regard: they are just as alienated of the production cycle as the western worker. They get paid regardless of the production results. They didn't realize that poor production would later bite them in the arse when the shelves were empty. It's good that the Cuban state instigates these NEP like policies.

Ember Catching

14th March 2014, 19:20

But such an emphasis contradicts the fundamental notion that class struggle is at the heart of revolutionary socialism.
Rejection of self-management and workplace democracy as components of the communist programme doesn't constitute repudiation of the fundamental position, in the revolutionary doctrine, of the struggle between classes over the fate of the extant relations of production.

Capitalism is more than the production of surplus-value, it's exploitative relations between property-less wage workers and profiteering owners.
Wage-labor presupposes capitalist production, not the other way around. Curiously, there is no room for the petit-bourgeoisie in your analysis — do they not participate in capitalism?

Dodo

14th March 2014, 20:39

I can see the parallels, but I'm hung up on the notion that state control is the only way for socialism to be achieved. Marx certainly had this in mind, but it's not the only way revolutionary anti-capitalists have organized production in a more democratic fashion. I think the existence of market dynamics does not automatically exclude an economy from being classed as socialist, if the workers are not exploited for a wage by a property-owning profiteer.

I am not suggesting state ownership or "collectivization". Socialist mode of production, according to its definition, has certain qualities. Means of production being socially owned, however people interpret that is something else. Independent peasantry on the other hand, is a pretty common phenomena, genereally WAY better than feudalism originated capitalist farming or massive industrial capitalist farming with hired labor.
Land-reforms of radical left movements throughout the cold war have always priotirized land-distribution to peasants to gain their support but once rule was established(funny enough, American-puppets also priotirized land-reforms to counter-communist resurgence among peasantry), the leadership turned against farmers by collectivizng and squeezing capital out of peasantry to built industry quickly. History has shown that this had been very ineffective in increasing productivity(Russia, China, Cuba everywhere)
China and Vietnam returned to independent peasant-coop farming(re-reformation, de-collectivization) which is capitalist but not as predatory as corporate-farming with hired labor.

It is however, not socialist. The means of production, the land is strictly owned by the individual and his family so that they invest there increasing producitivity for their own sake which is the whole point of independent-peasantry. And they love it. On the long-run though, this can lead to capital accumulation among peasantry turning them into large-land-owners.
And that is the contradiction of the private property.
In the beginning, it is pretty good for productivity increase and rural poverty allevation. So I back this Cuban thing actually.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

14th March 2014, 20:50

I think there should be more talk of the economic pressures which forced this decision. Particularly, the inability of the Cuban State to effectively distribute necessary goods like fertilizer. Without that, these kinds of decisions would not be made.

Except "democratic workplace control", "self-management" etc., which is to be distinguished from workers' control at the point of production, was only introduced into socialist circles by notorious revisionists - Tito, Pablo, Gomulka, and so on. Whereas the abolition of commodity production, which implies the abolition of market, is literally the definition of socialism, used by all anarchist and Marxist socialists.

Some kind of direct control of the workplace is not inconsistent with the abolition of exchange and capitalism.

In a socialist economy workers control the means of production through the plan that is discussed, modified and approved by them. That's how all the workers can control all of the economy. "Direct workers' control" is nothing, it's a play on words. It means a single company is ran just like capitalist companies are ran, it aims to reach an acceptable rate of profit and not to satisfy people's needs, its investment plan becomes accordingly erratic and in the end it's actually worse for productivity.

Cuba doesn't have a system right now where all workers control the whole economy either. Some (possibly corrupt and usually somewhat unaccountable) bureaucrat in Havana is doing that. Not to mention, the production is still put out in the market (international or domestic) by the state, supposedly on behalf of all citizens but hardly through the agency of the workers themselves.

Also as I responded to CH, some kind of delegation of control to the workplace is not inconsistent with common decision making. I'd go so far as to say that it is a critical way of delegating responsibility.

FSL

14th March 2014, 23:44

Cuba doesn't have a system right now where all workers control the whole economy either. Some (possibly corrupt and usually somewhat unaccountable) bureaucrat in Havana is doing that. Not to mention, the production is still put out in the market (international or domestic) by the state, supposedly on behalf of all citizens but hardly through the agency of the workers themselves.

Also as I responded to CH, some kind of delegation of control to the workplace is not inconsistent with common decision making. I'd go so far as to say that it is a critical way of delegating responsibility.

It's a bit weird then that this "corrupt bureaucrat" who controls the economy and generally makes things happen, puts himself out of power with reforms like this one. Then again, those bureaucrats did the same thing in the USSR too, so weird.

Now, I don't think that's the case and even if that were the case the Cubans should put him to prison and elect someone else, it's simple enough.
"Some kind of delegation" is too vague. Of course workers will try to be as efficient as they can and they're able to react to things as they happen. But delegating decisions involving prices, investment plans, making companies self-financed, this has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is about common ownership by the millions of workers, not a million common ownerships by small groups of 10 or 20 (or 100 or 1000 even). That's when you give markets and competition the upper hand.

adipocere

15th March 2014, 00:59

As far as I can see. This is a wise decree. 45% of the land is sitting idle is probably one of the biggest contributers of the food shortage. The state failed in making farmers feel responsible. This was also a big problem in the former GDR: lands were not worked and crops were not harvested because farmers didn't feel responsible (like they weren't harvesting because they were on vacation). In this regard: they are just as alienated of the production cycle as the western worker. They get paid regardless of the production results. They didn't realize that poor production would later bite them in the arse when the shelves were empty. It's good that the Cuban state instigates these NEP like policies.

That statement popped out at me in the article as well. I think it is important to consider that this is said with no explanation but with the insinuation that it is due to incompetence of the state. Later in the article it talks about acidification, desertification and so on which also begs the question of why the land is idle.
45% is a big number that is meaningless without context = weasel words

RedSonRising

15th March 2014, 02:54

Socialism is about common ownership by the millions of workers, not a million common ownerships by small groups of 10 or 20 (or 100 or 1000 even). That's when you give markets and competition the upper hand.

Must it be? Must it all revert to a state-controlled central plan? I don't believe the liberation of the proletariat must automatically subscribe itself to a state bureaucracy or hierarchy so completely. In fact I think to do so does the opposite .

Sea

15th March 2014, 03:50

Viv0a la revolución: Cuban farmers re-gain control over land
As the state loosens its grip on food production, Cuban farmers and independent co-operatives will need support to help solve the country's agriculture crisisIt should be really easy to see through this shitty rhetoric. It's being "decentralized" because it's going away from the state and to private companies. This is like how capitalism is freedom because it frees workers from having to run the factory!

To hell with Cuba and to hell with every capitalist state. Why these people are trying to sell off neoliberalism in Cuba with leftist rhetoric is beyond me.

RedSonRising

15th March 2014, 04:35

It should be really easy to see through this shitty rhetoric. It's being "decentralized" because it's going away from the state and to private companies.

This hasn't happened.

This is like how capitalism is freedom because it frees workers from having to run the factory!

To hell with Cuba and to hell with every capitalist state. Why these people are trying to sell off neoliberalism in Cuba with leftist rhetoric is beyond me.

Yes, to hell with all the revolutionary gains made by a mobilized working class & peasantry that freed itself from imperialism, because they established some worker co-ops that helped address a food shortage. Makes sense.

RedSonRising

15th March 2014, 04:38

That statement popped out at me in the article as well. I think it is important to consider that this is said with no explanation but with the insinuation that it is due to incompetence of the state. Later in the article it talks about acidification, desertification and so on which also begs the question of why the land is idle.
45% is a big number that is meaningless without context = weasel words

I saw a clip on this a few years ago (I forget what news site), and one farmer was the grandson of a farmer who owned the plot of land prior to the revolution. He said the state seized it, and that it simply went unused. I wouldn't be surprised if the state simply failed to adjust their plan properly.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

15th March 2014, 07:05

It's a bit weird then that this "corrupt bureaucrat" who controls the economy and generally makes things happen, puts himself out of power with reforms like this one. Then again, those bureaucrats did the same thing in the USSR too, so weird.

First, I didn't say all of them are corrupt, and there are probably many more corrupt than others. The problem is that there's no way to really hold them to account except for faith in the ability of revered leaders to do so.

It should be noted that many "corrupt bureaucrats" became businessmen. Unfortunately, I think too many old school "Marxist Leninists" have limited their analysis to what happened in the USSR to "Khrushchev and Gorbachev were revisionist".

Now, I don't think that's the case and even if that were the case the Cubans should put him to prison and elect someone else, it's simple enough.
"Some kind of delegation" is too vague. Of course workers will try to be as efficient as they can and they're able to react to things as they happen. But delegating decisions involving prices, investment plans, making companies self-financed, this has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is about common ownership by the millions of workers, not a million common ownerships by small groups of 10 or 20 (or 100 or 1000 even). That's when you give markets and competition the upper hand.

First, right now the State determines pricing, it's no more "communist" or "socialist" than what they're doing now.

Second, I don't think delegation only refers to pricing and investment plans. It could include ways of making the factory more efficient, or necessary reductions in production for reasons which central authority is unable to predict, or quick changes in distribution in the face of challenging circumstances. It has nothing to do with some Titoist cooperative.

FSL

15th March 2014, 15:31

Must it be? Must it all revert to a state-controlled central plan? I don't believe the liberation of the proletariat must automatically subscribe itself to a state bureaucracy or hierarchy so completely. In fact I think to do so does the opposite .

Yes, it must be. It's the only way to organize the economy so that it deals with its contradictions instead of strengthening them.

State bureaucracy had also ended up as an empty term, much like direct management. The people in the planning commitee are chosen and can be replaced and they do a rather uncreative "stats" job, the pre-plan they draw up is debated, improved and ratified by all of the workers.

There is no hierarchy and if there is it's the workers who are on top.
In any "direct management" scenario it's not the workers that end up deciding things but market forces.

In fact many of the reformers in the Soviet Union who wanted more "autonomy" for enterprises were economists, even working in the planning committee. Voznesensky and Lieberman come to mind. Who did these buraeucrats represent? Did they oh so kindly decided to give away to the workers the huge power they had ammased or were they merely representing their own stratum, that of the educated personel having a managerial role in the economy and who would be the main benefactors from such reforms?

And did in the end this autonomy result in the relative empowerment of these strata or did it not?

FSL

15th March 2014, 16:02

First, I didn't say all of them are corrupt, and there are probably many more corrupt than others. The problem is that there's no way to really hold them to account except for faith in the ability of revered leaders to do so.

It should be noted that many "corrupt bureaucrats" became businessmen. Unfortunately, I think too many old school "Marxist Leninists" have limited their analysis to what happened in the USSR to "Khrushchev and Gorbachev were revisionist".

First, right now the State determines pricing, it's no more "communist" or "socialist" than what they're doing now.

Second, I don't think delegation only refers to pricing and investment plans. It could include ways of making the factory more efficient, or necessary reductions in production for reasons which central authority is unable to predict, or quick changes in distribution in the face of challenging circumstances. It has nothing to do with some Titoist cooperative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Vekselberg
Not a party member, engineer, founded company during perestroika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)
Not a party member, mathematician, founded company during perestroika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
Chemical engineer, Komsomol member (at that time Komsomol had 20,000,000 members, practically everyone around 20), founded company during perestroika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Konanykhin
Engineer, not a party member, founded company during perestroika
http://www.forbes.com/profile/mikhail-fridman/
Graduate from Moscow's Institute of Steel and Alloys, not a party member, founded company during perestroika.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Potanin
Not a party member, studied international economic relations, founded company during perestroika
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/10/profile.gusinsky/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD
No mentions of him being a party member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Abramovich
Black market merchant, legitimized his business during perestroika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Prokhorov
Studied Finance, not a party member

So... where are the central committe members? Where are the polit bureau members? Where is the general secretary? Well, I know where he is. He's giving lectures to universities now that he can't get any ad gigs.

What are most oligarchs's origins in reality and not based on propaganda? Almost all have upper level education, were undoubtedly smart and apparently very very immoral. They all used the "opportunity" presented to them by perestroika and the reforms and cleared the bank so to speak. Abramovich seems the one off, he was involved in black market activities and had already accumulated some capital when the reforms in the 80s kicked in.
So who are the people that benefited from the reforms? Bureaucrats? No, it's people with upper level education employed in some sort of managerial position who knew how to grab what they could and those that were already involved with market activities, even before it was legal.

So don't tell me that my understanding of the nature of USSR's reforms is limited as I'm trying to make a class analysis of what happened when you rely on the bogus you hear from just about any rightist on how the Soviet Union was oppressive, the buraeucracy actually owned everything and were similar to royalty and then they ran away with all the wealth.
Little should it suprise someone that these views were first put forward by Trotsky and the some of his lesser followers. Rightists may not be good thinkers but they know who to copy. Kautsky and Trotsky have provided every argument they ever used.

The state doesn't determine prices, the state is a workers' state so the workers' should be the ones determining prices according to the plan they vote. If that's not what's happening, then that's what needs to happen.
Of course the workers will then try to put the plan in practice as best as they can. Stakhanovism was a movement with exactly this purpose and often the workers developed techniques that made for much faster and efficient production. Many factories made their own counter-plans setting higher targets if they felt they could achieve them.
That's not what these reforms are about. In fact reforms in the Soviet Union killed off any workers' initiative, companies were ran according to market rules and they can be very restrictive.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th March 2014, 16:53

Yes, to hell with all the revolutionary gains made by a mobilized working class & peasantry that freed itself from imperialism, because they established some worker co-ops that helped address a food shortage. Makes sense.

"Freed itself from imperialism"? What are you talking about? Cuba is at the behest of perhaps the most wide-ranging embargo ever seen. If the experience of Cuba shows us anything, it is that even a fairly strong state, with committed, intelligent leaders and the general support of the working class, cannot detach itself from the capitalist system. Cuba is a part of the capitalist system and its economy has been choked little by little over the past 20+ years.

Also, there is qualitatively no difference between worker co-ops in Cuba and in other countries such as Britain. But i'm sure you wouldn't be supporting the Co-operative organisation in Britain, so it's really rather hypocritical to support the same in Cuba.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

15th March 2014, 17:23

First, I never said "All Russian Oligarchs are former party members". I just said some bureaucrats were busy lining their pockets during and after the fall of the USSR. Additionally the oligarchs weren't the only ones who got rich after the fall of the USSR. They're just the ones who got richest. Some Oligarchs were quite close to party members too (Leonid Kuchma's son is apparently a big Ukrainian media magnate). Other members of the Nomenklatura just sold shares in the companies to the future oligarchs, and many former Communist Party members became leaders of market economies with more possibility of enrichment for instance, the Central Asian states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev) and Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heydar_Aliyev). Also, much privatization occurred post-1991, making continued opportunities of corruption for many former CPSU party members leaders. You're right that many at the top didn't become rich, but nobody is saying they did - those in the politburo were a tiny minority of the bureaucracy. Some did though - Aliyev WAS in the Politburo and made his famiy loads of money becoming Azerbaijan's de facto monarch (since taken over by his son)

Also, the speed and lack of planning of the collapse of the USSR probably inhibited many of the bureaucrats from benefiting from privatization as much as in places like China, where a slower and more planned process of privatization has become incredibly lucrative for party members.

If the workers, and not the bureaucrats, were really the ones empowered under the USSR, then why did so many workers turn out to support the disintegration of the USSR? Why did so few turn out to defend it? Why did they see the Soviet government as largely oppressive, and not one which stood for their economic interests? Why, after 1991, did the CPSU disintegrate into medium-sized opposition parties more notable for their appeals to Russian Nationalism and social conservatism than real worker's liberation? If the workers were the real power behind the throne, as it were, in the USSR, how could the bureaucrats have gotten away with ever instituting such anti-worker reforms?

The USSR was at heart a state capitalist economy, state capitalism is less efficient than a mixed economy, and therefore freer markets became the policy of the bureaucracy as a means of extracting value. Bureaucrats are alienated from workers, therefore alienated from the process of production on the ground and the economic interests of workers. This is why state decisionmaking did not reflect the interests of the working class and why the workers increasingly did not identify with the State which claimed to represent them. That is what happened in every single "Socialist" state that wasn't overthrown through foreign intervention or reactionary insurrection since 1917.

The state doesn't determine prices, the state is a workers' state so the workers' should be the ones determining prices according to the plan they vote. If that's not what's happening, then that's what needs to happen.The workers didn't run Gosplan, and even if they did, it's kind of hard to see how workers could, by voting, manage to plan the millions of decisions which would have to be made.

Of course the workers will then try to put the plan in practice as best as they can. Stakhanovism was a movement with exactly this purpose and often the workers developed techniques that made for much faster and efficient production. Many factories made their own counter-plans setting higher targets if they felt they could achieve them. Except that wasn't a plan decided by the workers, it was a plan decided by committees of bureaucrats.

Also I don't think a cult of hard workers is exactly a real kind of "worker's control" except insofar as extracting more labor from one or a small group of people.

That's not what these reforms are about. In fact reforms in the Soviet Union killed off any workers' initiative, companies were ran according to market rules and they can be very restrictive. The workers didn't have enough direct political empowerment before those reforms either.

RedSonRising

17th March 2014, 06:58

"Freed itself from imperialism"? What are you talking about? Cuba is at the behest of perhaps the most wide-ranging embargo ever seen. If the experience of Cuba shows us anything, it is that even a fairly strong state, with committed, intelligent leaders and the general support of the working class, cannot detach itself from the capitalist system. Cuba is a part of the capitalist system and its economy has been choked little by little over the past 20+ years.

Also, there is qualitatively no difference between worker co-ops in Cuba and in other countries such as Britain. But i'm sure you wouldn't be supporting the Co-operative organisation in Britain, so it's really rather hypocritical to support the same in Cuba.

Freed itself from imperialism in the sense that for the last 50+ years, there was no foreign bourgeoisie undemocratically exploiting Cuban labor. For the most part, anyways. Imperialism is still an enemy and of course Cuba has faced lots of struggles due to economic isolation as a result, but US capitalists were not owning Cuban land and exploiting Cuban labor any longer.

I would support co-ops in Britain so long as they were consciously building a working class movement to take power.

Also, thanks Sinister for pointing out what should be obvious critiques of a centralized state-controlled economy which quickly fell out of the hands of the working class, despite its many progressive gains.

FSL

17th March 2014, 13:24

First, I never said "All Russian Oligarchs are former party members". I just said some bureaucrats were busy lining their pockets during and after the fall of the USSR. Additionally the oligarchs weren't the only ones who got rich after the fall of the USSR. They're just the ones who got richest. Some Oligarchs were quite close to party members too (Leonid Kuchma's son is apparently a big Ukrainian media magnate). Other members of the Nomenklatura just sold shares in the companies to the future oligarchs, and many former Communist Party members became leaders of market economies with more possibility of enrichment for instance, the Central Asian states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev) and Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heydar_Aliyev). Also, much privatization occurred post-1991, making continued opportunities of corruption for many former CPSU party members leaders. You're right that many at the top didn't become rich, but nobody is saying they did - those in the politburo were a tiny minority of the bureaucracy. Some did though - Aliyev WAS in the Politburo and made his famiy loads of money becoming Azerbaijan's de facto monarch (since taken over by his son)

Also, the speed and lack of planning of the collapse of the USSR probably inhibited many of the bureaucrats from benefiting from privatization as much as in places like China, where a slower and more planned process of privatization has become incredibly lucrative for party members.
You said what you said and it was shown to be wrong. The "bureaucratic class" that "controlled all the wealth" was almost obliterated and Gorbachev, USSR's Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined was reduced to some embarassing ad gigs and university lectures like any person that used to be important.
That's how it is regarding the all powerful bureaucratic class. Now you may choose to ignore all the evidence and any attempt at a class analysis of what happened in the Soviet Union and keep repeating what any FOX news pundit would say. Which is what you probably will do but still I should try to stop you shouldn't I?

If the workers, and not the bureaucrats, were really the ones empowered under the USSR, then why did so many workers turn out to support the disintegration of the USSR? Why did so few turn out to defend it? Why did they see the Soviet government as largely oppressive, and not one which stood for their economic interests? Why, after 1991, did the CPSU disintegrate into medium-sized opposition parties more notable for their appeals to Russian Nationalism and social conservatism than real worker's liberation? If the workers were the real power behind the throne, as it were, in the USSR, how could the bureaucrats have gotten away with ever instituting such anti-worker reforms?

The USSR was at heart a state capitalist economy, state capitalism is less efficient than a mixed economy, and therefore freer markets became the policy of the bureaucracy as a means of extracting value. Bureaucrats are alienated from workers, therefore alienated from the process of production on the ground and the economic interests of workers. This is why state decisionmaking did not reflect the interests of the working class and why the workers increasingly did not identify with the State which claimed to represent them. That is what happened in every single "Socialist" state that wasn't overthrown through foreign intervention or reactionary insurrection since 1917.

The workers didn't run Gosplan, and even if they did, it's kind of hard to see how workers could, by voting, manage to plan the millions of decisions which would have to be made.

Except that wasn't a plan decided by the workers, it was a plan decided by committees of bureaucrats.

Also I don't think a cult of hard workers is exactly a real kind of "worker's control" except insofar as extracting more labor from one or a small group of people.

The workers didn't have enough direct political empowerment before those reforms either.
Most of the Soviet people voted against the dissolution. There were demostrations met with extreme state violence in 1993 in Russia and the majority of the people recognize ther lives have got worse.

But if rebelling was always so easy, capitalism wouldn't exist anymore. Each reform was "an effort to strengthen socialism", that's how they were introduced. How do people react to bourgeois politicians not fulfilling their promises?

About the "cult"of stakhanovism that was just about working harder (and making the bureaucracy richer... but then why did stakhanovism stop being promoted? Again, weird), read this: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1935/11/17.htm

But do try to read it to get a first hand view of the thing (and some nice anecdotes) right? Don't just dismiss it because it's not what you'd read in the Wall Street Journal or your average cliffite party.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th March 2014, 19:40

Freed itself from imperialism in the sense that for the last 50+ years, there was no foreign bourgeoisie undemocratically exploiting Cuban labor. For the most part, anyways. Imperialism is still an enemy and of course Cuba has faced lots of struggles due to economic isolation as a result, but US capitalists were not owning Cuban land and exploiting Cuban labor any longer.

Wrong. http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume2/lago.asp

Cuba has been attempting to attract foreign investment for over 30 years, and since the 1990s has basically prostituted parts of the country (such as the resort of Varadero) to foreign capital.

RedSonRising

18th March 2014, 22:59

Wrong. http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume2/lago.asp

Cuba has been attempting to attract foreign investment for over 30 years, and since the 1990s has basically prostituted parts of the country (such as the resort of Varadero) to foreign capital.

Most Cubans are not working for resorts in these areas, and US capital does not own and restrict 51% of Cuban land as it did prior to the revolution. "Completely free" was not what I meant; substantially liberated from is more appropriate.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th March 2014, 23:50

Most Cubans are not working for resorts in these areas, and US capital does not own and restrict 51% of Cuban land as it did prior to the revolution. "Completely free" was not what I meant; substantially liberated from is more appropriate.

What? Foreign capital is still making a profit off of the labour of ordinary Cubans. That is fact. It doesn't matter whether they are working in Varedero or Centro Havana, many Cubans are effectively in the employ of foreign capital.

I have no real axe to grind with Cuba, but let's call a spade a spade; it's a classic social democracy. It's a capitalist country in a capitalist world. In it exists currency, class and national borders. In it exists the exploitation of workers by capital for a wage. Only an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics, or a wilful ignorance of what revolutionary socialism actually is, would prevent you from seeing this.

RedSonRising

19th March 2014, 00:50

What? Foreign capital is still making a profit off of the labour of ordinary Cubans. That is fact. It doesn't matter whether they are working in Varedero or Centro Havana, many Cubans are effectively in the employ of foreign capital..

Did I say 0 Cubans suffered from imperialism? Did I deny the fact some Cubans work in tourism for foreign capital? No. Cuba is not more subject to foreign capital than it was before the revolutionary period. Its State is appeasing foreign capital, but not serving at its whim.

I have no real axe to grind with Cuba, but let's call a spade a spade; it's a classic social democracy. It's a capitalist country in a capitalist world. In it exists currency, class and national borders. In it exists the exploitation of workers by capital for a wage. Only an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics, or a wilful ignorance of what revolutionary socialism actually is, would prevent you from seeing this.

There is no domestic Cuban bourgeoisie, and while the State is centralized and more hierarchical than participatory, there are teacher federations and farmer's organizations and worker unions that are represented and participate in the state with respect to economic planning. This isn't Denmark where there's an oligarchy taxed to the extend social reforms benefit the general welfare of the country.

I would not call Cuba a perfect socialist model, but it is not by definition capitalist. On a spectrum, it's closer to state socialism than it is capitalism. Not closer to communism, as it does have a wage system and currency and borders, but reaching that standard is far off until revolution occurs in the rest of the world.

TheWannabeAnarchist

19th March 2014, 03:30

Whatever Cuba is, it is the least capitalist country on Earth. There are four countries in the world that state in their constitution that they are socialist: China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. China's a capitalist hell, Vietnam is a third-world capitalist hell, and North Korea is just a shithole.

I don't agree with everything Cuba's done. They ain't socialist, I know that. But what they've done is still amazing--they were founded hal a century ago, 90 miles away from the U.S., crippled by an embargo and demonized by foreign media, subject to constant attacks and attempted assassinations by America, and yet, somehow, they are still here.

If they think that decentralization of agriculture will increase productivity, so be it. They seem to have made a lot of correct moves over the years. Let them give this a try:laugh:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

19th March 2014, 07:45

Did I say 0 Cubans suffered from imperialism? Did I deny the fact some Cubans work in tourism for foreign capital? No. Cuba is not more subject to foreign capital than it was before the revolutionary period.

Yes, you said Cuba had freed itself from imperialism and cuban labour was not exploited by foreign (US) capital. Now you're backtracking.

Its State is appeasing foreign capital, but not serving at its whim.

And here we have the mental gymnastics. What does this even mean? Appeasing foreign capital? Appeasement doesn't tend to last 20-30 years. What you're talking about is the permanent return to capitalist norms; capital invests in cuban industry and makes a profit off of cuban labour. Capitalism. As I said before and i'll say again: call a spade a spade.

I would not call Cuba a perfect socialist model, but it is not by definition capitalist. On a spectrum, it's closer to state socialism than it is capitalism. Not closer to communism, as it does have a wage system and currency and borders, but reaching that standard is far off until revolution occurs in the rest of the world.

And again with the mental gymnastics. Inventing this term 'state socialist' to neatly define capitalist countries that you like, essentially. And why? Cuba is a nation-state, its medium of exchange (yes, exchange!) is money, it has a wages system, it has a working class that is exploited by capital and this situation is supported by a national government that is, as you say, largely dictatorial ('more hierarchical than participatory' in your flowery, apologist language!). Cuba is a capitalist country. It may have (or have had in the past) an over-bearing state, strong welfare and lots of red flags, but in no corner of the earth do these three things match any definition of socialism. That's just a fact. You are inventing some new kind of reformist, non-Marxian, anti-communist definition of socialism if you are deigning Cuba to be socialist. Sorry. That's just a fact, again.

RedSonRising

19th March 2014, 09:02

Yes, you said Cuba had freed itself from imperialism and cuban labour was not exploited by foreign (US) capital. Now you're backtracking.

I'm correcting myself with more precise language. The revolution has substantially reduced the harms of imperialism on the Cuban people.

And here we have the mental gymnastics. What does this even mean? Appeasing foreign capital? Appeasement doesn't tend to last 20-30 years. What you're talking about is the permanent return to capitalist norms; capital invests in cuban industry and makes a profit off of cuban labour. Capitalism. As I said before and i'll say again: call a spade a spade. .

Do a majority of the workforce work for a private owner of property who extracts surplus value of their labor? No.

And again with the mental gymnastics. Inventing this term 'state socialist' to neatly define capitalist countries that you like, essentially. And why? Cuba is a nation-state, its medium of exchange (yes, exchange!) is money, it has a wages system, it has a working class that is exploited by capital and this situation is supported by a national government that is, as you say, largely dictatorial ('more hierarchical than participatory' in your flowery, apologist language!). Cuba is a capitalist country. It may have (or have had in the past) an over-bearing state, strong welfare and lots of red flags, but in no corner of the earth do these three things match any definition of socialism. That's just a fact. You are inventing some new kind of reformist, non-Marxian, anti-communist definition of socialism if you are deigning Cuba to be socialist. Sorry. That's just a fact, again.

There's no domestic Cuban bourgeoisie. There's nothing "gymnastical" about that. There are zones were foreign capital exploit Cuban labor, but they do not characterize the entire economy.

I say more hierarchical than participatory because it's accurate. The Cuban state is centralized, but municipal decision-making and the organs which make up the state consisting of various sectors of working Cubans contribute to the planning of the economy, which the state-not some exploitative private property owners-controls.

The standard that you're holding Cuba to (borderless, stateless, without currency, without commodity production) describes a communist society which can only be achieved once revolution has spread throughout the globe. How on Earth could it be borderless when there are borders everywhere around it?

What I'm describing is a transition stage post-capitalism that Marx terms socialism, which he recognizes still retains features of capitalism until production and social organization becomes sufficient and autonomous enough that the state is no longer needed.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."

I'm not claiming Cuba is a perfectly preserved and safeguarded worker's state. But it's completely inaccurate to class Cuba with capitalist social democracies as if the majority of their economy consisted of a class system derived from private property, and ignore the long-established influence that the workers have had institutionally on the national economic plan.

Per Levy

19th March 2014, 11:05

Do a majority of the workforce work for a private owner of property who extracts surplus value of their labor? No.

does that matter? if the state takes over the majority of the industry while keeping the capitalist mode of production(wich cuba never done away with) it becomes the main exploiter of the workforce.

There's no domestic Cuban bourgeoisie. There's nothing "gymnastical" about that. There are zones were foreign capital exploit Cuban labor, but they do not characterize the entire economy.

you cant have a mixture between capitalism and socialism, its either one or the other and since the entire cuban industry is build upon the exploitation of the cuban workers it is capitalist.

The Cuban state is centralized, but municipal decision-making and the organs which make up the state consisting of various sectors of working Cubans contribute to the planning of the economy, which the state-not some exploitative private property owners-controls.

cause the state doesnt exploit the working class? do you even know what exploitation means?

What I'm describing is a transition stage post-capitalism that Marx terms socialism, which he recognizes still retains features of capitalism until production and social organization becomes sufficient and autonomous enough that the state is no longer needed.

no what you're describing is just another statecapitalist society that introduces more and more private capital in the economy. and please stop with the lie that marx ever said that socialism is something different then communism, he never did, for marx socialism and communism are the same things. the quotes even prove that, and the dictatorship of the proletariat just isnt socialism, that is lenins idea.

I'm not claiming Cuba is a perfectly preserved and safeguarded worker's state. But it's completely inaccurate to class Cuba with capitalist social democracies as if the majority of their economy consisted of a class system derived from private property, and ignore the long-established influence that the workers have had institutionally on the national economic plan.

what is a workers state? also cuba is a class system and it is capitalist.

FSL

19th March 2014, 15:02

the capitalist mode of production
You don't really understand what the "capitalist mode of production" is, what does socialism and communism entail and that different production modes can even be met in the same society simultaneously.

Sea

24th March 2014, 23:22

This hasn't happened.

Yes, to hell with all the revolutionary gains made by a mobilized working class & peasantry that freed itself from imperialism, because they established some worker co-ops that helped address a food shortage. Makes sense.Privatization has and continues to happen in Cuba.

I even heard on RHC that private companies were taking over some agricultural segments but that their focus "continues to be on socialism".

You think Cuba resisted imperialism? You better be kidding me. Sure, for a time, and then they were the poster child of Soviet imperialism. They were literally the puppet state of an imperialist superpower. Now, with the privatization happening there, they are succumbing to American imperialism. The Kims and Mugabe has a better record than the Castros for crying out loud.

RedSonRising

26th March 2014, 03:47

Privatization has and continues to happen in Cuba.

I even heard on RHC that private companies were taking over some agricultural segments but that their focus "continues to be on socialism".

You think Cuba resisted imperialism? You better be kidding me. Sure, for a time, and then they were the poster child of Soviet imperialism. They were literally the puppet state of an imperialist superpower. Now, with the privatization happening there, they are succumbing to American imperialism. The Kims and Mugabe has a better record than the Castros for crying out loud.

Source please, I've heard absolutely nothing about private enterprise with regards to agriculture, only tourist areas and the new Foreign Investment Zones.

You are grossly ignorant of Cuban history if you think Cuba was a puppet regime of the USSR. Cuba's peasantry and working class were mobilized completely independent of Soviet influence, and organized their structure without handing over their decision-making process to the USSR in any respect. They sent troops to Angola without even notifying the USSR, and when Guevara was still a statesman, visited and wrote in his diary that their attempts at building socialism would have to be distinct to the USSR in order to prevent replicating the privileged bureaucracy, and thought China's model had more potential. The USSR was not exploiting Cuban labor, they were purchasing their sugar and subsidizing them with basic goods, not acting as an imperialist superpower.

Any sort of privatization is happening at the hands of European investors, like Spanish and French hotel industries have been for the past decade, not US businessmen, who are just barely starting to ponder investing in Cuba with the obstacle of the embargo remaining. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th March 2014, 18:51

Any sort of privatization is happening at the hands of European investors, like Spanish and French hotel industries have been for the past decade, not US businessmen, who are just barely starting to ponder investing in Cuba with the obstacle of the embargo remaining.

And the cuban businessmen? What about them? What of the ones who own restaurants, and small businesses? What of the countless farms that remain family owned?

RedSonRising

26th March 2014, 19:55

And the cuban businessmen? What about them? What of the ones who own restaurants, and small businesses? What of the countless farms that remain family owned?

Business, mainly restaurants and farms, formerly controlled by the state are being handed over to cooperatives and families. I'm disagreeing with people calling it inherently capitalist because workers are not having their labor exploited for surplus value.

Cuba clearly has features of capitalism, as a stateless borderless wageless society without currency or commodity production describes the final stages of communism, which is not yet feasible. Most people simply see this as a slow return to capitalism, while I think there's a possibility it's actually a more strategic way to preserve socialism, since a centralized state plan is not the only way proletarian movements have attempted to organize. Cuba could simply allow domestic capitalists to own businesses and disenfranchise the rest of working Cubans, but they haven't.

Sea

27th March 2014, 04:34

Source please, I've heard absolutely nothing about private enterprise with regards to agriculture, only tourist areas and the new Foreign Investment Zones.

You are grossly ignorant of Cuban history if you think Cuba was a puppet regime of the USSR. Cuba's peasantry and working class were mobilized completely independent of Soviet influence, and organized their structure without handing over their decision-making process to the USSR in any respect. They sent troops to Angola without even notifying the USSR, and when Guevara was still a statesman, visited and wrote in his diary that their attempts at building socialism would have to be distinct to the USSR in order to prevent replicating the privileged bureaucracy, and thought China's model had more potential. The USSR was not exploiting Cuban labor, they were purchasing their sugar and subsidizing them with basic goods, not acting as an imperialist superpower.

Any sort of privatization is happening at the hands of European investors, like Spanish and French hotel industries have been for the past decade, not US businessmen, who are just barely starting to ponder investing in Cuba with the obstacle of the embargo remaining. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.Here is the RHC website:

http://www.radiohc.cu/en

You can listen to their old shows and news there in English and Spanish. I heard it on their radio broadcast and I can't be assed to look it up for you. If you think I'm lying, you do it. It was from a few months ago if that helps.

As to your second paragraph... source?

RedSonRising

27th March 2014, 09:21

Here is the RHC website:

http://www.radiohc.cu/en

You can listen to their old shows and news there in English and Spanish. I heard it on their radio broadcast and I can't be assed to look it up for you. If you think I'm lying, you do it. It was from a few months ago if that helps.

As to your second paragraph... source?

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply skeptical of the claim since up to now I've not read any evidence that domestic private ownership of productive capital with the exploitation of Cuban labor has been established.

My statements come from information littered between different biographies and books and articles, sorry I have no readily available source, but these are fairly commonly understood facts. Cuba's revolution fermented independent of Soviet influence, Cuba's decision to send troops to Angola was done without consultation of the USSR, and Guevara's diary includes passages reflecting on his trips to Russia.

RedSonRising

27th March 2014, 09:35

Update:

http://progresoweekly.us/investment-law-yes-cooperatives-foreign-capital/?utm_source=Investment+law&utm_campaign=Investment+law&utm_medium=email

Investment Law: Yes to cooperatives and foreign capital
http://progresoweekly.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cooperativas_agro-728x378-685x342.jpg

HAVANA, March 25 –(Progreso Weekly)– Non-state cooperatives may associate with foreign capital, the Cuban TV station announced on its noon newscast today. I leaped out of my chair and dove for the remote to boost the volume.

The announcer read the statement while the screen showed images of a meeting of members of the Judicial Committee of the Cuban Parliament with national journalists. The foreign press was not invited.

I wish I had been present when attorney José Luis Toledo Santander, chairman of the committee, spoke. But the audio carried only the announcer’s voice. No matter, the announcement allows me to meditate and write the first notes on a topic that I have followed since 2006.

The decision that the non-state cooperatives can associate with foreign capital has great significance. It can give momentum to the development of important sectors, such as agriculture, a sector where the reforms instituted have not achieved the desired results.

I mention agriculture because I’m one of those who believe that if the agriculture doesn’t take off, the entire project of economic renewal will be in jeopardy. In Cuba, we need food. To make the earth produce in an efficient manner can energize the rest of the economy.

Experts in the agricultural sector attribute the noncompliance with plans and aspirations to the lack of capital and adequate technology, among other factors. A recent example is the case of potato production, where, for many years now, it has become impossible to meet the least demands of the population.

The scant availability of the Cubans’ favorite tuber is due to, among other factors, the lack of capital to purchase in the world market the so-called “technological packages” needed, as well as the highest-quality seeds.

“That’s a simple example of what the announced measure can mean,” said Cuban professor and academician Armando Nova, an expert economist specializing in the farm sector, when I mentioned that concern.

“We need capital and technology and this measure will facilitate both,” Nova opines, and he adds that it can also stimulate “production for the export market” with the consequent flow of hard currency into the country.

As I listen to him, I think that the non-state producers own at this moment 1 million 200 thousand hectares of land out of the 1 million 600 thousand hectares distributed throughout the country. The Credit & Service Cooperatives (CSS) and the Farm Production Cooperatives (CPA), both of them private, are the country’s most productive.

The access to foreign capital would increase their output and propitiate a leap to second-grade cooperatives through the development of agricultural food-processing industry.

Now, we can only wait until March 29, when the new Law on Foreign Investments will be approved by the Cuban parliament. Also, and very important, we can only hope that its regulations will be agile and liberating, capable of encouraging investors. Otherwise, we’ll be looking at a brake law.

RedSonRising

27th March 2014, 09:36

Delete.

RedSonRising

27th March 2014, 09:37

More on the new Investment Law:

The new foreign-investment law, in brief
http://progresoweekly.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/flag_cuba-771x385-685x342.jpg

A briefing to journalists by Cuban government officials on the proposed changes to the Foreign Investment Law was held Tuesday (March 26) at the National Assembly building, where the bill will be brought up for approval next Saturday (March 29).

The main speakers were José Luis Toledo Santander, chairman of the Assembly’s committee on Constitutional and Judicial Affairs, and Deborah Rivas Saavedra, director general for investment at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Investment (MINCEX).

[For background, read "Regional assemblies debate..." in the March 18 issue of Progreso Weekly.]

What follows is an abridged translation to English of a summary made available to Progreso Weekly by a responsible source. A full version, in Spanish, can be found in Progreso Semanal.

Where and who?

Within Cuba’s national territory, the entities engaging in foreign investment will enjoy full legal protection and security.

As regards available areas for investment, all sectors are potential receptors except for the sectors of health and education to the population, and the military institutions, with the exception of their business systems.

Investment in real property and the purchase of property or other real rights will be permitted. The properties may be used for housing and buildings for private domicile or tourism; or used as homes or offices for legal foreign persons, or for the purpose of tourism development.

The investments may be made through the following modalities:

a) Mixed enterprise [joint venture];

b) International economic partnership contract (Risk contract for the exploration of nonrenewable natural resources; construction; agricultural production; construction and management of hotels; production or services and contracts for the procurement of national services.)

c) Enterprises with totally foreign capital.

Joint ventures may create offices, branches and subsidiaries both on Cuban territory and outside it, and may participate in entities abroad.

In the case of an enterprise with totally foreign capital, the investor exercises the management, enjoys all the rights and answers for all the obligations.

A foreign investor is understood to be the “natural or legal person with domicile and capital abroad who participates as a shareholder in a joint venture, or participates in an enterprise with totally foreign capital, or appears as a party in an international economic partnership contract.”

There is no distinction due to nationality or citizenship. Cubans who live outside the country may be contemplated in the category of “foreign investor.”

A national investor is the “legal person of Cuban nationality living in the national territory, who participates as a shareholder in a joint venture or is party to an international economic partnership contract.”

Cubans, as natural persons, may not be investors. Nor are individual, self-employed workers, who are not considered to be legal persons because there is no way to record private individual enterprises or partnerships. However, farm cooperatives, as legal persons, may be investors.

The entrance door

Authorization to engage in foreign investment will be granted regarding sector, modality and characteristics by the following State organizations:

• Council of State (when nonrenewable natural resources are explored or exploited, except under risk contracts of international economic partnership; when made for the management of public services such as transportation, communications, aqueducts, electricity, public works or exploitation of property in the public domain.)

• Council of Ministers (real estate development; enterprises with totally foreign capital; transfer of State property or other real rights on State property; international economic partnership risk contracts for the exploitation of nonrenewable natural resources and their production; takeover of a foreign enterprise that utilizes public capital; use of renewable sources of energy; entrepreneurial systems of the sectors of health care, education and the military institutions; other foreign investments that do not require the approval of the Council of State.)

• Chief of the State’s Central Administration

To set up a joint venture or a totally foreign capital venture, and to execute an international economic partnership contract, applicants must go to the Minister of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment.

Possibilities and rights

The collections and payments generated by the operation of joint ventures, national investors and foreign investors, according to the existing monetary regimen, are made through accounts in any bank in the national banking system. Investors will also have access to the financial institutions in this country.

Joint ventures and national investors who are party to international economic partnerships may open and operate accounts in freely convertible currency in foreign banks, with previous authorization from the Central Bank of Cuba.

The joint ventures, national and foreign investors who are party to international economic partnership contracts, and enterprises with totally foreign capital have the right to export and import directly everything they need for their purposes. They may also be authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment to create an economic stimulus fund for the Cuban workers and permanent foreign residents.

Industrial, tourism or other installations, or the land leased by state enterprises or other national organizations will be insured by the lessee to the benefit of the lessor.

Hiring of personnel

The Cuban or foreign personnel residing permanently in Cuba providing services in joint ventures, except as directors and managers, will be hired by an employment agency under the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment and will be authorized by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security.

Payment to the Cuban and foreign workers living permanently in Cuba will be made in Cuban pesos, although the funds of provenance must be acquired in freely convertible currency.

Special tax regimen for investors

Exempt from the payment of taxes on personal income are the foreign investors who are partners in joint ventures or partners in international economic association contracts (a union of national and foreign investors within the national territory for the production of goods, the provision of services, or both, for profit; this includes joint ventures and international economic association contracts) for the revenue obtained from dividends or business earnings.

An exemption will be granted from the payment of taxes on earnings, net earnings or other benefits suitable for reinvestment, in those cases where a competent authority approves the reinvestment of such earnings or benefits.

Exempt from the payment of taxes for the use of the labor force are the joint ventures and the national and foreign investors who are party to international economic partnership contracts.

Exempt from the payment of Customs fees are the joint ventures, national and foreign investors who are party to international economic partnership contracts, for the importation of equipment, machinery and other media during the investment process, in accordance with the rules of the Ministry of Finance and Prices.

Exempt from the payment of territorial taxes for the local development are the joint ventures, national and foreign investors who are party to international economic development contracts during the investment recovery period.

Excluded from this exemption are the national and foreign investors who are party to international economic partnership contracts who are involved in hotel management, products or services and the provision of professional services who pay taxes according to the Law on the Tax System and the regulations that complement it. Foreign investors are exempt from the taxes on sales and services.

The General Customs of the Republic may grant to natural and legal persons specific and special facilities regarding the formalities and the Customs regimen, in accordance with the existing legislation.

The Ministry of Finance and Prices [...] may grant total or partial exemptions, temporal or permanent, or grant other fiscal benefits in accordance with the existing tax law, to any of the modalities of foreign investment recognized by the law.

In the special development zones, the law will be applied with the adjustments provided by the special regulations dictated for them. Notwithstanding this, the special regimens granted in this law will apply to those investments when they result more beneficial.

The tax on earnings is paid by the joint ventures, the national investors and the foreign investors who are party to international economic partnership contracts. A new tax of 15 percent of the taxable net earning will be applied.

Joint ventures that are party to international economic partnership contracts will be exempt from the payment of taxes on earnings for a period of 8 years, starting from their constitution. The Council of Ministers may extend that period.