Since the middle of 2010 the Cuban government launched economic measures aimed to improve its low productivity. They intend to ease the creation of small business and to fire half a million State employees. Is this the start of a sort of Cuban NEP? May this bring to the building of a middle class with its own political party? will this be managed without ceding power as in China or will it all end in a Stalinist blood bath as in Russia?
They didn’t give many clues about the details. Previous experience with self-employment in Cuba showed a lot of obstacles posed to people who ventured (we are talking of people doing TV repairs, selling pizza and such); from moral condemn, till drowning them with taxes, not allowing imports of inputs, etc. Other pragmatic questions are well delivered here.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church in Cuba tried to help with the social acceptance of those “entrepreneurs” with a suggestive stance: “Do not fear of riches”. I wonder if they discussed the theological basis for this; but -from the starting point of them- it seems early for this fear yet.
I think the mess of the “socialist” economy of Cuba could never be imagined by the old Karl Marx, who thought it as the arrival station of a developed Capitalism, not a bureaucratic all-encompassing State turned the main obstacle for the developing of the social forces. I wish luck for this beautiful and patient people who, for the most part, kept his loyalty to their hopes in the Revolution through 50 years of hardships.
GLORIA MUNDI 
Gustavo Rodriguez
September 11, 2011
You certainly went great lengths to downplay the political factor in the economic mess the country was taken in.
And the ” I wish luck for this beautiful and patient people who, for the most part, kept his loyalty to their hopes in the Revolution through 50 years of hardships.” part… I don’t know if to start laughing or crying.
Those beautiful people have been repressed or indoctrinated to the point of accepting everything thrown their way, with no place or civic frame to voice their opinions, bombarded every single minute of their lives with Castro’s visions of the world any given moment, putting emphasis in sometimes questionable Cuban economy triumphs while highlighting hell and disgrace in the outside world.
In that context, your choices are: patriotism out of ignorance or sheer cowardice at accepting Castro’s message.
As you see, in this regard, Cuba is no different than other countries.
Economic problems and shortfalls are not the worst thing that Cubans had to go through in the last 50 years.
“Beautiful and patient people”.
Come on!
Bob Row
September 11, 2011
Gustavo: I live in Argentina and know people who lived in Cuba for years working as journalism correspondents or because they married a Cuban, etc. I don’t like the way taken by Castro after the Russian Soviet model. But in my own account, the people want to improve from the lights and shadows of their present situation, not to go back to the previous situation.
Garrincha
September 12, 2011
You might be right.
But your answer had nothing to do with my comment.
Everybody wants to improve their economic standards, no matter where they live.
Bob Row
September 12, 2011
Yes, it had: …”not to go back to the previous situation”. But I may be wrong; people change their mood towards their rulers. Only, in Cuba we just can’t know until a political reform take place.
The Castro’s will die in due time but, until then, I don’t go into arguments of the kind I read at “El Heraldo de Miami” (I must illustrate Oppenheimer’s column for an Argentine daily).
Indoctrination has a role; universal access to health care has a role too (USA system is inconceivable here). People needs freedom to choice but needs social solidarity too. After the URSS, the life expectancy in Russia dropped by ten years or so. Democracy needs better publicity than that.
Garrincha
September 12, 2011
My point, again:
You totally downplayed the political factor in Cuba.
You chose to concentrate on the cosmetic reforms that Raúl ( a little less egocentric than Fidel) was willing to put into place just for the continuation of a political model of power, not for the well being of Cubans.
He knows he is the front page of an ideology that can’t show their Soviet funded successes of yore. so they need to do something and do it now.
When the Special Period ( a funny name for crisis, as you may concur) was at its peak, Fidel reluctantly allowed foreign tourism to expand, gays and religious people were accepted openly in the PCC and “trabajadores por cuenta propia” popped everywhere just to see their efforts clamped down by a state that gained some dough in a couple of years, like you correctly write in your article.
So desperate reforms to save the leader’s butt aren’t exactly new.
Reforms that were announced without much of a popular consultation.
Everything was presented shamelessly as an effort to save the Revolution, because the Revolution was good for the people of Cuba, not like that barbarian capitalism that was waiting in the wings to devour the country.
And somehow you are doing just the same more or less with that insistence of ignoring the political reasons behind the dire economic situations.
And your last paragraph pinpointing the flaws of capitalism with postcard style added nothing to the discussion and used the same kind of argument that served the D.O.R for years and years of downplayed indoctrination.
Whenever Fidel wanted to start a campaign to hide his government’s last economic pratfall, he used similar arguments, with the help of a bunch of right wing idiots in Miami that served well his purpose.
garrix (@garrix)
September 12, 2011
My point, again:
You totally downplayed the political factor in Cuba.
You chose to concentrate on the cosmetic reforms that Raúl ( a little less egocentric than Fidel) was willing to put into place just for the continuation of a political model of power, not for the well being of Cubans.
He knows he is the front page of an ideology that can’t show their Soviet funded successes of yore. so they need to do something and do it now.
When the Special Period ( a funny name for crisis, as you may concur) was at its peak, Fidel reluctantly allowed foreign tourism to expand, gays and religious people were accepted openly in the PCC and “trabajadores por cuenta propia” popped everywhere just to see their efforts clamped down by a state that gained some dough in a couple of years, like you correctly write in your article.
So desperate reforms to save the leader’s butt aren’t exactly new.
Reforms that were announced without much of a popular consultation.
Everything was presented shamelessly as an effort to save the Revolution, because the Revolution was good for the people of Cuba, not like that barbarian capitalism that was waiting in the wings to devour the country.
And somehow you are doing just the same more or less with that insistence of ignoring the political reasons behind the dire economic situations.
And your last paragraph pinpointing the flaws of capitalism with postcard style added nothing to the discussion and used the same kind of argument that served the D.O.R for years and years of downplayed indoctrination.
Whenever Fidel wanted to start a campaign to hide his government’s last economic pratfall, he used similar arguments, with the help of a bunch of right wing idiots in Miami that served well his purpose.
Bob Row
September 12, 2011
Dear Gustavo/Garrincha/Garrix: I don’t see nothing in this “political factor” you stress that can’t be seen in any other ruler motivations for taking economic reform measures; i.e. to save his butt. If your concern is with the lack of good faith towards the private “enterprises”, you may be right, but that’s not the point here. Argentina’s Kirchners’ government’ best measures were “borrowed” from their foes (to their outrage) in order to “save its butt”. The good news is it went well for the sake of the people.
I’m not informed about how this Cuban initiative went since I published this post. I doubt about such an established bureaucracy yielding its control. My personal interest is to explore the ways towards a mixed regime where private initiative can coexist with social solidarity; where you can see your creativity flourish without a savage, destructive capitalist “war” (I saw good pharmacy products sunk by powerful competitors).
I’m skeptic about the present regime in Cuba going this way, but I don’t think for Cubans to going back to become the “Casino island” again a good choice either.