Log in

View Full Version : More and more Cuban state owned farms to be privatised



spartan
19th July 2008, 05:09
Cuba is to put more state-controlled farm land into private hands, in a move to increase the island's lagging food production.

Private farmers who do well will be able to increase their holdings by up to 99 acres (40 hectares) for a 10-year period that can be renewed.

Until now, private farmers have only been able to run small areas of land.

The BBC's Michael Voss, in Havana, says this is one of President Raul Castro's most significant reforms to date.

National security
President Castro, who took over from his ailing brother Fidel in February, considers reducing costly food imports as a matter of national security.

Since the 1959 revolution, some Cubans have been allowed to run small family farms. But most agriculture has been placed in the hands of large, state-owned enterprises.

Our correspondent says these have proved highly inefficient - half the land is unused and today Cuba imports more than half its needs. Rising world food prices will cost the country an extra $1bn this year.

The presidential decree was published in the country's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

In it, co-operatives are also allowed to add an unspecified amount of additional land for 25 years, with the possibility of renewing the lease.

Grants cannot be transferred or sold to third parties.

"The maximum to be handed over to individuals who do not hold land is 13.42 hectares (33 acres), and for those who hold lands, as owners or designated workers, the amount can rise as high as 40.26 hectares (99 acres)," the decree said.

"For various reasons there is a considerable percentage of state land sitting vacant, so it must be handed over to individuals or groups as owners or users, in an effort to increase production of food and reduce imports," it added.

The decree also said that farmers would have to pay taxes on their production, but it did not say how much.

The reform has been promised for some time by President Castro.

Since taking over the presidency, Raul Castro has signed the UN human rights accords and lifted restrictions on Cubans owning mobile phones and computers.

He has also announced that workers can earn productivity bonuses, doing away with the egalitarian concept that everyone must earn the same, our correspondent says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7514519.stm

Good or bad?

Red_or_Dead
19th July 2008, 05:21
Good or bad?

Well... Both, actualy. Imo, at least. They need to decrease their dependance on imported food, and this looks like a solution. Of course, seeing as how much state land is unused, I guess that straightening out the bureocracy to raise the efficency would be an even better solution, but then again, ever since Raul is in charge, Cuba is fast turning away from any socialism it ever had. That is the bad side of it, imo. Just another reform to bring Cuba closer to all-out capitalism.

Lost In Translation
19th July 2008, 05:31
Well... Both, actualy. Imo, at least. They need to decrease their dependance on imported food, and this looks like a solution. Of course, seeing as how much state land is unused, I guess that straightening out the bureocracy to raise the efficency would be an even better solution, but then again, ever since Raul is in charge, Cuba is fast turning away from any socialism it ever had. That is the bad side of it, imo. Just another reform to bring Cuba closer to all-out capitalism.
I agree with Red_or_Dead. It is a two sided argument. On the one hand, the economy would be stronger, and there would be more food (if they're not going to export it, that is). However, not only are they slowly losing grip of any socialist ties, the workers on the farm won't be much better off, maybe worse than they were.

This will help Cuba as a whole, but the living standards of a portion of the farmers would deteriorate, IMO.

Labor Shall Rule
19th July 2008, 07:21
Terrible news.

This means that firms from the E.U. will likely grab a hold of the hectares. The seeds of foreign-branded European capitalism are going to be planted on island soil. It's this today, and the total removal of barriers on capital tomorrow.

Comrade Vasilev
19th July 2008, 07:41
In a decade or two Cuba will be completely capitalist, and I would be willing to bet on that. It's a safe bet though, the jump from class collaborationist/nationalist revisionism to state capitalism isn't a big one.

lvl100
19th July 2008, 07:46
Well... Both, actualy. Imo, at least. They need to decrease their dependance on imported food, and this looks like a solution


On the one hand, the economy would be stronger, and there would be more food

So in order that a socialist economy to survive , it needs capitalism ?
Isnt something wrong in this picture ?

comrade stalin guevara
19th July 2008, 07:48
I origionaly thought the cuban revolution was going in a positive direction but with this latest news i am very concerend is this the truth?

Comrade Vasilev
19th July 2008, 07:50
So in order that a socialist economy to survive , it needs capitalism ?
Isnt something wrong in this picture ?
There sure is, the fact thing that today alot of pseudo-leftists purport 'non-socialist development' and thus they reject the thesis that capitalism is a decaying order which can only degenerate social and economic relations as it goes down in a ball of fire.

Ismail
19th July 2008, 08:06
"Capitalism sacrifices man, the Communist state sacrifices man. Our revolution is not red, but olive-green, the colour of the rebel army". ('Guia del Pensiamento politicoeconomico de Fidel' (Guide to the Politico-economic Thought of Fidel); Havana; 1959; p. 48).

Even if he changed his mind about Communism, keep in mind that he's like Ho Chi Minh, a red-tinted nationalist and anti-imperialist, but that's it.

Comrade Vasilev
19th July 2008, 08:16
"Capitalism sacrifices man, the Communist state sacrifices man. Our revolution is not red, but olive-green, the colour of the rebel army". ('Guia del Pensiamento politicoeconomico de Fidel' (Guide to the Politico-economic Thought of Fidel); Havana; 1959; p. 48).

Even if he changed his mind about Communism, keep in mind that he's like Ho Chi Minh, a red-tinted nationalist and anti-imperialist, but that's it.
Not to mention that he positively convinced the CIA Chief that he was a 'solid anti-communist fighter'...

Lost In Translation
19th July 2008, 18:52
So in order that a socialist economy to survive , it needs capitalism ?
Isnt something wrong in this picture ?
Yes, Comrade, there is something very wrong with that picture.

However, just because there's more food, doesn't mean there will be more food FOR THE PEOPLE. Most of it will likely go into exports. The economy would be stronger, but not much because the farms would get back more of the profits, and the owners become stinking rich, while the workers suffer.

ships-cat
19th July 2008, 19:26
I'm suprised nobody has analysed the implied question; "Why where the state-owned farms less efficient than privately owned farms" ?

Does this not call into question the credibility of the whole concept of the state owning the means of production ?

Meow Purr :)

Red_or_Dead
19th July 2008, 19:41
So in order that a socialist economy to survive , it needs capitalism ?
Isnt something wrong in this picture ?

Yes, it is wrong. Its wrong because you took one line from me, and the other from somebody else, and its out of context.

I said that it will provide more food, but weakening of the socialism is the down side.

lvl100
19th July 2008, 20:30
I'm suprised nobody has analysed the implied question; "Why where the state-owned farms less efficient than privately owned farms" ?

Does this not call into question the credibility of the whole concept of the state owning the means of production ?

Meow Purr :)

Altough, it may seems a slightly biased question and i will ignore the last sentence, but somehow Meow Purr `s first question has sense.

Maybe members with more experience will explain this.

We arent talking about a corporation capitalist here. ( big firms coming to buy land and bring capital) but about the same people who worked for the state and now work as owners.
Why is this method considered better than planned cooperative when (sorry for repeating myself) we talk about the same people with the same technology ?


@Red_or_Dead i didnt tried to bring a wrong sense to your post, it was only the first line that sounded odd for me. I agree with you on the second part.

BIG BROTHER
21st July 2008, 09:32
I'm suprised nobody has analysed the implied question; "Why where the state-owned farms less efficient than privately owned farms" ?

Does this not call into question the credibility of the whole concept of the state owning the means of production ?

Meow Purr :)

you mean workers, not the state. And depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer. Us Trotskyists basically argue that its the bureaucracy that controls in this case the land, not the actual workers.