Translation: Constitutional changes needed

Here, a Granma reader argues that Cuba's socialist Constitution needs to be amended in line with the transformation of Cuba's socialist-oriented economic model, in particular the legalisation of small private businesses. I commented on the need for such constitutional amendments in a May 2011 post. You can read an English translation of the Cuban Constitution here.  

The author says that legalising small private businesses is not a step towards socialism, but a necessary retreat in order to advance. The reference to Lenin recalls Lenin and Trotsky's New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia in the early 1920s, an experience that the architects of Cuba's new socialist economic model have no doubt studied in depth.

Much confusion has resulted from the word "socialism" being used interchangeably, in Cuba and elsewhere, to mean two very different things: a society in which the state, money and social classes have withered away — the communist society envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, conceivable only on a world scale — and a post-capitalist, communist-oriented society such as Cuba that is confined by international isolation to the beginnings of the transition from capitalism to communism. 

An example of such ambiguity can be seen in the letter below, in which the author states that "the employment of wage labour by individuals" contradicts "to some degree the socialist character of the socio-economic system." 

What is meant by the word "socialist" here?

If "socialist" is synonymous with communist society, then wage labour would indeed contradict the character of this mode of production. In such a society the distinction between labour and leisure would have been transcended, the compulsion to work giving way to free creative practice. The generalisation of automated production would make possible the satisfaction of the rational needs (which are not the same as the consumerist cravings stimulated by capitalism) of all members of society. There would be no need to ration access to goods and services via wages.

Cuba is light years from this lofty objective.

If by "socialist" is meant a communist-oriented society at the beginnings of the transitional epoch, such as Cuba today, then (as I argued in my previous post) the only absolute requirement with respect to property forms is that the "commanding heights" of the economy — large-scale industry in which labour is objectively socialised — are social property. Self-employment, small private businesses and cooperatives whose market relations are subordinated to central planning by the socialist state are in no way incompatible with such a society.

The Constitution and the updating of socialism 

By J. C. Mora Reyes, Granma letter, March 23, 2012

Translation: Marce Cameron

I’m one of the many who are grateful for this space for opinion and public debate, proof positive that all viewpoints are valued. Grateful that it exists and that diverse opinions can be expressed honestly, without any taboo topics, sparking the interest of the citizens regarding matters that concern everyone and that serve to spur participation as both a necessity and a right.

In this spirit I’d like to express an opinion on a question that is, in my view, of fundamental importance.

While modifications to the Constitution of the Republic are a recourse that should not be used excessively, there is no reason to not make such changes if they are necessary and feasible.

I offer by way of example certain measures, above all those related to the employment of wage labour by individuals, that contradict to some degree the socialist character of the socio-economic system. The Constitution prohibits, explicitly and categorically, exploitation (Articles 14 and 21, Paragraph 2), and for good reason. The inclusion of such a prohibition in the Constitution is not an error committed in the past, but an authentic expression of the new society to which we aspire but which lies beyond the realms of possibility in this historical moment – though other laws uphold indispensable worker’s rights, such as the minimum wage and retirement pensions on the basis of employer contributions.

It’s pointless, and doomed to failure from the outset, to try to argue that exploitation and socialism can be reconciled. The people’s intelligence, education and capacity for critical thought would not allow it. On the contrary, it will be readily understood if it is explained with complete honesty – proof of the respect that is always appreciated – that to legalise this kind of work, which is contrary to how we have conceived of it up to now, far from being an advance, as some claim, implies, as Lenin would say, a retreat to new positions from which to wage the revolutionary struggle, positions that are advantageous tactically and strategically in terms of the Revolution’s objectives.

The Constitution will have to be amended to address crucial questions such as those mentioned above, but in such a way as to leave room for retreat without abandoning the path of building socialism. Which, by the way, goes beyond simple declarations: we can declare ourselves to be loyally carrying on with socialist construction while making mistakes that lead to its demise, above all if we lack clarity on the scope of such fundamental issues which oblige us to seek solutions to economic problems today.

If we want to strengthen the institutionalism that is indispensable for the improvement and updating [of the socialist economic model], this must be done on the basis of the legality that flows from the Constitution. In other words, nothing must be done if the letter of the Constitution does not permit it, lest we undermine it or weaken its regulatory role in the legal, economic, political and social spheres, with the serious consequences this implies. We must be flexible in the search for the forms, ways, methods and procedures to implement what emanates from the Constitution, always within the limits it establishes.

Translation: Privileges to those who deserve them

A Cuban youth committed to the Revolution speaks his mind in this Granma letter to the editor. 

The emigration of disenchanted Cuban youth to countries such as the US, Spain (where youth unemployment hovers around 50%), Mexico and Ecuador seems to be one of the few remaining taboo topics in the Cuban press. 

Many seek higher salaries that would allow them to better support family in Cuba or abroad; some just want to experience more of the world than their Caribbean island and escape its economic hardships; others chase the "American Dream". Not all those who emigrate find what they're looking for, though some do. 

The exodus of highly educated youth is not only demoralising, it also has serious economic consequences despite the flow of remittances back to Cuba. Some of Cuba's best young minds in the technical sense are serving capitalist corporations in other countries rather than Cuba's socialist revolution.

The US government's infamous Cuban Adjustment Act aims to deprive Cuba of skilled workers by encouraging risky and illegal crossings of the Florida Straights in small craft, creating the propaganda spectacle of Cubans "fleeing the communist dictatorship". Any Cuban citizen who reaches the US coastline can stay and apply for US citizenship after a year.

Haitians and other Caribbean nationals who land on US shores without authorisation are sent back to where they came from.

A key objective of the "updating" of Cuba's socialist-oriented economic model, though not one that is explicitly stated in the Guidelines, is to make employment for skilled workers more rewarding in every sense, above all in terms of remuneration, so that, for example, a surgeon does not have to drive a taxi on the weekend to make ends meet. 

The dedication of such workers in the face of the hardships and privations of the Special Period is what has kept the Revolution afloat in the chilly waters of neoliberal globalisation. Behind the impressive statistics on health care and education are millions of committed human beings imbued with revolutionary spirit.

A substantial minority of Cubans think and act very differently, however, as illustrated in the candid vignette below. The struggle to renew Cuba's socialist project is the struggle of the former to prevail over the latter in the spheres of economics, ethics and ideology. The economy of the socialist-oriented Cuba that is emerging must "privilege those who really deserve it". 

Privileges to those who deserve them

Letter to the editor, Granma, March 2, 2012

Translation: Marce Cameron

I’m one of the many youths who is concerned about the future of their country. I feel proud of its gains and advances in various sectors, thanks to the socialism we’ve defended for 50 years. I consider it to be the most just country and socialism to be the most viable option for saving humanity.

But I’m also the first to acknowledge the mistakes we’ve make in its construction and improvement. With constructive criticism I open the door to the empty minds of those who care only about the good life and who salivate at the American Dream.

I once read a commentary by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro that contained a phrase which made an impression on me. From that time on I’ve carried it with me wherever I may go as a devastating weapon, firing it at point blank range at whoever dares to make a superficial criticism: “Anyone who wants more than what is indispensable in order to live is worth less as a human being.” Most people are speechless at such a magisterial phrase; life shows that this is how it is.

Recently I graduated from law school, and ever since I was a student I’ve read and analysed the letters pages of this newspaper, created so that the people could raise their problems and propose solutions. I’d like to take up an issue, one of many that concerns me and makes me feel uncomfortable: the wholesome recreation of young people, whether students or not, for an affordable and fair price.

For some years there was a scheme organised by the Union of Young Communists in which entry was granted to discos, cabaret tables, swimming pools and camping cabins at a price that, while it was out of reach of most parents, did make them more willing to fork out for it. They could give a treat to their son or daughter, but they’d have to earn it by getting good grades; this is something any honourable family educated by the Revolution should do without hesitation. However, it’s true that it didn’t work well, and neither should granting subsidies be a function of the organisation.

Today, these kinds of activities are organised in some educational institutions, but it’s still insufficient, given that it doesn’t meet the needs of all youth who need this type of entertainment. In addition, while the entry price may be affordable, the prices of drinks and food are unchanged. If you go to a disco, the entry price ranges from 2, 3, 5, 10 and up to 20 Cuban convertible pesos. What son or daughter of a worker or farmer with an average income, what intellectual or official in the armed forces or the police, could pay such a sum of money? The same is true of the products sold in these places.

I’m aware that the world finds itself in a deep economic-financial crisis and that our country is not unaffected by this, so we have to eliminate excessive wastage, superfluous spending and gratuities, among other problems that were addressed in the Sixth Communist Party Congress, but this doesn’t justify these unaffordable prices. Why the difference in prices between the products sold in the chain of convertible currency stores and those in the recreational venues previously referred to? Why double or triple the prices in convertible pesos if wages are static and most of the people who frequent them are young students? Are they higher quality products? We all know this isn’t the case, they say it’s because of the venue and what it offers. It seems to me this justification is for the rich in capitalist societies, and not for a young person of modest means born in a socialist Revolution who burns the midnight oil studying in order to be able to contribute to their country in the future, or he or she who makes sacrifices by working in any state sector that contributes to economic development and they just want to go out with their friends or their girlfriend or boyfriend.

I think that if one of these venues attracted 50, 100 or more people at an entry price of 2 convertible pesos and with reasonable prices for additional purchases, it would be able to cover its costs and contribute to tax revenues.

Despite the high prices you see many youth frequenting the best places and consuming large quantities of the aforementioned products as if they were sold in regular Cuban pesos. There’s no doubt that the great majority of them neither study nor work, they live off the black market which does so much harm to those who really strive to take the country forward. Those who sell their bodies or do all kinds of denigrating acts also abound, as do the kids of the new rich, and I ask myself: is it for them that these recreational venues exist? If so, it’s not in keeping with the truly revolutionary youth in which our top leaders have placed their trust. 

It’s hardly gratifying to arrive at work or school exhausted and see how in the corner of any square you meet a childhood playmate who spends the day lazing about, drinking beer, driving around and of course, entering and leaving nightclubs in the fanciest clothes and believing themselves to be the master of the universe. If you ask them what’s happening in Cuba or in the world, they tell you they couldn’t care less what’s going on, that they just want to leave the country, and other things I’m not going to repeat given their obscene and offensive content.

These and other related issues have been the subject of debate on various occasions by university students, revolutionaries, humble people, those willing to give their lives for the country and in honour of those youths that died throughout our history for the cause that the new generations enjoy today. Despite this, we lack things needed by young people that up to know only exist in dreams given the economic situation. If we oriented the social pyramid the way it should be we’d rescue ethical values and incentivise the importance of study and work, but for this we have to begin privileging those who really deserve it.

J. Martos Yapur

Translation: Morally unacceptable

Elsewhere it Latin America, where various forms of child labour are widespread, the sight of a child working in a family business would hardly raise eyebrows.

In my own country, Australia, there appears to be no minimum age for such child labour provided that it occurs outside school hours and doesn't affect the child's study. In the state of Victoria, "parents employing their children in a family business are not required to observe the general conditions of employment relating to age restrictions, hours of work or rest breaks" (source).

In Cuba, the school system strives not only for the rounded intellectual and physical development of children and adolescents, but for an appreciation of labour as both a right and a duty in a socialist-oriented society that aims to ultimately do away with the division — inherent in all forms of class society — between manual and intellectual labour.

Based on the ideas of national independence hero Jose Marti, as well as those of the Marxist tradition, a symbolic contribution to agricultural work in the countryside has been part of student life for decades. The sons and daughters of peasants, factory workers, administrators and government ministers work alongside each other harvesting potatoes and picking grapefruit. This, however, is education for working life rather than child labour.

In Cuba, all forms of child labour are prohibited. Hence the distress and moral outrage of the Granma reader in the letter below. In an interview published in the Spring 2010 edition of the International Journal of Cuban Health and Medicine's magazine MEDICC Review, UNICEF's Cuba representative, Spaniard Jose Juan Ortiz, commented:

I always say that applying the tenets of the [UN] Convention of the Rights of the Child isn't a question of resources, but rather one of political will. Cuba has demonstrated that a country doesn’t need to be rich to protect children’s rights. The Convention has been in place for 20 years and we’re still talking about hundreds of millions of children living in the street, not in school, or enslaved as labourers or sex workers, but not one of those children is Cuban and that’s due to the government’s political will to create a protective, rights-based environment. In Cuba, this protective environment is based in the family and the community, but extends to the provincial, national, and ultimately international level in cooperation with agencies like UNICEF. By guaranteeing social and community development, the Cuban government has shown the political will to provide for and protect children. This is also what has allowed Cuba to achieve health outcomes on par with the world’s most developed countries.

This Granma letter is notable not only for what it conveys about the sanctity of childhood in Cuba and the acute sensitivity of Cuba's revolutionaries in this regard. Also important is the fact that drawing attention to such a stain on the Revolution's pride in the national press is no longer considered taboo. Editorial policy is shifting from "don't talk about that, it will demoralise people and give the enemy a stick to beat us with", to "we must see things as they are, rather than as we'd like them to be."  

Morally unacceptable

By L. Martínez, Granma letter to the editor, December 2, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

I never thought I’d be writing about this, when the cornerstone of my discussions with my six year old daughter is the protection of childhood in our Cuba that, while imperfect, is the country that I want for her, her sister, their friends and their own children one day.

Last Sunday we went to the Coconut Island Park on the corner of 5th Avenue and 112 Street [in Havana]. It was very nice: not many people, not too hot, and with many of the rides in working order. We invited our little neighbour of the same age. Between his family and ours there are bonds of affectionate friendship, above all because the little boy is educated in the same values that we try to instill in our children. At the end of the visit, upon leaving the park, we froze at the sight: a child, no more than nine or 10 years old, selling toys, stickers, and all that plastic paraphernalia that is emerging in all the recreational centres where the parents go to drop off their kids. His stall was situated in front of the place where they do painted tattoos, just at the entrance/exit of the park, very visible.

On seeing his face as he talked prices and haggled with the buyers, a great fear came over me. The fear of losing the most precious thing we have for the sake of sending a message of openness and tolerance towards the new economic policy that we're getting used to. It’s impossible that those responsible for these establishments, the park supervisors and other authorities, are not aware of this. Later, I recalled that we’d seen him before, leading the ponies for children’s rides at Monte Barreto Park. At the time I didn’t think he was “working”, but that his family had let him do it for fun. Now I realise that it wasn't so; I should have said something there and then and I feel terrible for not having done so.

Who controls this? Who checks that the children of the parents who have these stalls aren't being made to work? I wish this didn’t happen! I hope it’s just an isolated case!

Not only because it’s a gross and serious violation of the law, but because it is morally unacceptable.

Translation: Cooperative bakeries debate continued

Before translating some materials on the November 10 housing reform that allows people to buy and sell their own homes, I though I’d share with readers this further contribution to the debate in the letters pages of Granma about whether or not local bakeries should be transformed from state enterprises into cooperatively managed enterprises.

This week the government published a decree law handing over the management of small barber and beautician salons with one to three seats to their workers, who will lease the premises from the municipal government. The workers will charge whatever the market will bear and pay taxes, retirement pension contributions and utility bills and be responsible for the upkeep of the premises. This follows a successful trial of the new approach in selected salons. I’ll post more details soon.

We have to make changes and not only in bakeries

By N. Paez del Amo, Granma letter to the editor, November 4, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Regarding the possible leasing of the bakeries, opinions are expressed that reject change on the basis of conservatism and the die-hard attachment to centralised schemas of management.

Let’s begin by clarifying that the cooperative forms of production and services are fully compatible with the socialist distribution principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their work”, nor is the concept of private property in and of itself at odds with the building of a more just world. The enormous difference between capitalism and socialism [i.e. the socialist-oriented society – translator’s note] lies not so much in the type of property but in who holds power, in whose hands are the fundamental means of production, as well as in the equality of opportunities and the more equitable distribution of wealth that this allows, which is the basis of its greater fairness.

I really cannot imagine workers stealing from themselves with impunity, as happens in the centralised system, in which many collude to swindle the socialist state and enrich themselves though the diversion of raw materials and other inputs that this state makes available to them. A large proportion of these materials and inputs end up on the black market to the detriment of the product on offer or the service provided. Often they end up in the hands of the self-employed who, in the absence of a wholesale supplies system, supply themselves through these “vendors”.

If all these bakeries (as well as retail trade in general) had to purchase in stores the raw materials and the goods they sell, create a product or provide a service of high quality that is capable of being sold in a competitive market governed by supply and demand (an economic law that is fully applicable under socialism despite our desires to the contrary) – as well as covering costs and paying state taxes, after which the earnings would be shared – I don’t believe any worker would be permitted to appropriate for their own personal benefit or waste what actually belongs, and not in an indirect form, to the whole collective. And if through their efforts they’re able to create wellbeing for others and also earn money through efficient management, such earnings that are the fruit of work and the satisfaction of the needs of the population would be welcome.

The Communist Party and the proletarian state, with their infrastructure and socialist institutions, will be there to protect the system and the people against all wrongdoing.

At the present level of social development, workers need the fruits of their effort and work to result in wellbeing for themselves and their family, which continues to be the basic unit of society. The population must see their daily labour translated into the satisfaction of their growing needs. This is the fundamental principle of socialism.

With paternalistic and egalitarian practices and the demonisation of mechanisms of proven effectiveness, we will not be able to break the inertia nor put an end to foot-dragging and bureaucracy, which like an invisible brake stops us advancing along the path set out by the Sixth Communist Party Congress and its Guidelines.

Translation: Cooperative bakeries debate

In the previous post I promised to also translate two earlier contributions to this debate in the letters pages of Granma. Here they are.

The leasing of bakeries: a different viewpoint 

J. Bernal Camero, Granma letter to the editor, October 7, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

I don’t think the idea of leasing the bakeries to the workers is wise. Nor do I believe it will eliminate theft.

It would seem that theft in the bakeries is generated by the nature of property. Private property has engendered every kind of theft and is the champion when it comes to the variety of methods employed, beginning with the most subtle of them all – the exploitation of man by man. There is theft in every kind of cooperative all over the world, including those based on families, and in every type of business. From ancient times to the present day there is theft and deception between buyers and sellers.

I interpret and understand the policy of leasing [small productive and service entities] to be aimed fundamentally at creating jobs and guaranteeing services or products that the state cannot adequately provide. But this is not the case with the network of bakeries that exist throughout the length and breadth of the country, in which the state has made numerous investments and has employed a sizeable number of workers in a stable manner.

The state has provided a basic nutritional necessity with imported flour even in the most difficult economic circumstances, among them this long Special Period, which I don’t know if anyone can tell us when it will end, considering the serious international crisis situation and that of the production and commercialisation of food in Cuba.

I don’t deny that we can study and get up and running non-state bakeries where it may be advisable for various reasons, and that this would benefit the state [by relieving it of a burden] and the consumers, but I am convinced that the production of bread in state enterprises, if we do it properly, may be better, more secure and more beneficial than other options.

Finally, if I were a baker I’d vigorously protest at the characterisation of thieves levelled against an economic sector which, like all sectors, needs to do better and has the potential to do so in the framework of socialist production. 

Let’s not be dazzled by production and services based on self-employment or other non-state forms, as we were dazzled in an earlier time by state production and socialism. Everything is going to require the intelligent improvement of our socialist society as a whole without despising small-producer property, leaseholders and others that integrate our economic system and the dedication and effort needed to advance systematically in the satisfaction of our material and spiritual necessities.*    

Bakery/cake shop mural, Old Havana, Cuba

More on the leasing of bakeries

O. D’Angelo Hernández, Granma letter to the editor, October 14, 2011-11-06

Translation: Marce Cameron (the Spanish text is here)

I’m going to refer to the interesting opinion expressed by J. Bernal Camero on the topic, published in the October 7 edition.

This is a very important issue whenever the forms of the leasing of service and other enterprises appear in the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the updating of the economic model, and it’s one of the measures about which little is known.

Camero’s starting point is the opinion of others that leasing is a solution to the theft of merchandise. I’m not going to refer to this controversial topic, though it could be said that a greater sense of responsibility towards the enterprise – encouraged by collective forms of property ownership or management (cooperative or communal management, etc.) that give the workers more of a stake in the results of work and in the growth of collective awareness, as well as the organised action of the consumers in this regard – could lead us towards possible solutions.

I support, resolutely, the promotion of the various forms of leasing, above all when they imply collective management by the workers that would facilitate the democratic mechanisms of election [of managers], the equitable distribution of the earnings and the social responsibility of the enterprise in question.

It would be possible to apply this in multiple production and service activities, on the basis of consultations with the workers and with the population.

I agree with Bernal Camero, however, that we would have to cautious in deciding which are the necessary sectors. In the case of the bakeries, whose production and price are subsidised by the state, I believe it would be impossible to offer the bread that is now available through the ration book if the bakeries were converted to other forms of enterprise management, given that any other form of production (cooperative, etc.) would necessitate making a profit on sales.

The possible bedazzlement alluded to by Camero towards other, non-state forms [of enterprise management] makes some sense if we see them, as has happened, as urgent measures to be generalised immediately. But one thing is certain: the state enterprise, in its current form, tends towards inertia and the “detachment” of the worker from the conditions and the results of their work. The hoped-for feeling of being a socialist proprietor that this form should generate is often not achieved due to top-down management and centralisation that is alien to the work collective.

I agree with the disproportionate emphasis on what can be achieved with self-employment, if it is seen as “the” solution; it could lead to greater individualism. Small [productive] property has its place in the economy but I’d bet on more socialised forms of property, even encouraging the partnership of the self-employed with their communities and with other forms of economic activity.

Forms of ownership and management that foster “the freely associated labour of socialism”, as Marx called it – which do not necessarily pass through the current form of the state enterprise without co-management or worker self-management – would be paths towards the creation of a democratic culture and a greater sense of collective and social responsibility. However, this cannot be implemented, in my opinion, as a top-down and generalised formula without taking into account the inclinations and the willingness of the workers and the specific conditions of each sector of production and services at a given time.

This would mean taking one step at a time, “without haste but without pause” [as Raul Castro has said], which would allow us to progress with an advanced form of social organisation, in which the intelligent combination of forms of property or management would spur social and economic development towards another conception of the socialism that we need. 

  

Translation: Property and socialism

This Granma letter to the editor illustrates the depth of some of the debate in the letters pages of the Friday edition of the paper. Here, a reader relates his experience as a Popular Council president in relation to state-owned and managed local bakeries. Many or all such bakeries are likely to become cooperatively managed enterprises, with the premises leased from the municipal government, as foreshadowed in the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines. 

The timeline for implementation is unclear. The government has yet to publish a decree law detailing the functioning of non-agricultural cooperatives. Also pending are bank loans for the non-state (self-employment, small businesses and cooperatives) sector. (Meanwhile, the big news is that this week the Cuban government approved the sale and purchase of homes. More on this in a future post.) 

The Popular Councils were set up on an experimental basis in 1988 and were generalised from 1991, acting as a level of local government intermediate between the municipality and the neighbourhood delegate. 

I'll translate some of the thread of this debate in Granma so you can get a sense of it, in particular the two previous letters mentioned by the author below.

Poster: "More discipline, productivity and efficiency"

Property and socialism: an inseparable binary

By J. P. García Brigos, Granma letter to the editor, October 28, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

The letter to the editor by J. Bernal Camero on October 7 about the bakeries and leasing has provoked others to write in with their opinions, such as those of D’Angelo Hernández published on Friday 14th. This motivates me to return to the issue which lies at the heart of the interesting exchange: property and socialist construction.

Perhaps many people think that the form of organising the production of our daily bread can be decided very simply. If we resort to the oft-repeated principle that socialism is “social ownership of the fundamental means of production”, they would surely not include the bakeries in this category. Moreover, it’s important that we ask ourselves again: What is social property?

I think that an indication of our lack of clarity on the content of socialist social property is precisely the constant theft in our [socialist state] entities, a phenomenon that is by no means limited to the bakeries: if socialist social property means that we’re all owners, it makes little sense that an owner would rob themselves.

It’s impossible in a letter to the editor to set out all the ideas that it is necessary to discuss regarding property in the building of socialism. There is a rich practical experience, accumulated during the more than 90 years that have elapsed since that glorious Russian October [Revolution of 1917]. There is a theoretical legacy that must begin with Marx, Engels and Lenin, without ignoring the subsequent ideas of partisans and enemies of socialism.

This is not about defending at all costs the state form of the organisation of property as we have known it up to now, nor the opposite tendency of viewing cooperatives and self-employment as the paradise that we need. Nor the “controlled” mix of forms and economic mechanisms that some put forward.

The socialist content of property is more than just the form of organisation of the economic-productive process; it’s not just how the economic entities are constituted in this or that juridical form. At the same time, it does not depend exclusively on what is done with the “fundamental” means of production, by which is usually meant the large or important productive and service activities. This case of the bakeries allows us to appreciate the complexities that must necessarily be considered regarding property, in order to be able to act consciously and effectively for its necessary socialist improvement. 

In such critical moments for our country as the years 1991-3, when this bread whose quality we continue to complain about was almost the only reliably available food in Cuban daily life, the municipality in which I live – where I was the president of the Popular Council and consequently a municipal government delegate for my immediate neighbourhood – was for many years exemplary in bread production. It wasn’t a “paradise”, but the quality was superior to that of others, working with the same supplies. Slumps in production were far less frequent and criminal acts were all but eliminated. 

These and other features characterised our UBIA (as the bread enterprise was then known by its initials – it was as state-run as it is today), and it achieved and maintained the status of vanguard enterprise. Our bakers were as Cuban and as working class as the others, they were neither “saints” nor “thieves”, the unfair generalisation that is made. Their salaries were no different to those in other municipalities, nor were they privileged in their working conditions. Accordingly, it might be asked: What differences can we identify in the functioning of this state enterprise during these years, which had a lot to do with its achievements? 

It goes without saying that when the presidents of the Popular Councils and the neighbourhood delegates got to know the bakers in the fulfilment of our functions, we kept an eye on things and we were demanding. Very much so, because at the time the Commander in Chief [Fidel Castro] had just proposed how he wanted the presidents of the Popular Councils in the City of Havana to act. But we also took part in work shifts with those in the “workshops” (the name given to the part of the bakery where the bread is made) and, without disregarding the fact that we carried out different functions in society to the bakers, we shared with them the experience of the productive process, and to a large extent even their lives, with their personal affairs.

In this municipality we also had in these years a director of the UBIA who, without having any prior involvement in the sector, within two months of his appointment (which many of us opposed on the basis of the “cadre policy”) was already known by his name and surname by all of the workers in his enterprise (note: all, not only those in the office). Day by day he became ever more aware of – and concerned about – their personal circumstances, as just another worker, without ceasing to be the director who was demanding when it came to results. Of course, he knew what was going on in all the local bakeries despite not even living in the municipality. But he wasn’t the only director: there was an active trade union, engaged with the workers, their lives, and with the progress and the results of the productive process; there were Communist Party and communist youth activists that were exemplary in everything, and with their example, with their political functions and as workers, their contribution was decisive.

I haven’t referred to an idyllic situation, a theoretical construct. I may have idealised something or other, but I believe that we can allow ourselves to do so when we refer to historical episodes that we lived through very intimately, as long as we don’t distort the essence of what transpired. It was a very real situation that was possible in very difficult times for our country. A state enterprise functioned well, without being perfect, in very complex circumstances for everyone [i.e. the harshest years of the post-Soviet “Special Period” crisis]. Why?

It’s worth reflecting on experiences such as this, because it’s not unique. An economic entity is not only a productive or service organisation that corresponds with certain legal criteria, to certain norms and economic-administrative mechanisms.

Let’s reflect on this so we don’t renounce the state enterprise, nor forget that it’s necessary to change the current situation, with other approaches; that we have to develop on the basis of our present realities. It’s important to be able to open up spaces in our society to other forms of organisation of production. But not “anything goes”, nor with controls that don’t always get to the bottom of it. It’s about reproducing socialism, which is a lot more than productivity and profitability and, above all, socialism is the only thing that will allow us to continue existing as a nation.

Translation: The right to express an opinion

Granma letter to the editor

Extend the right to express an opinion to daily life

By A. J. Perez Perez, August 5, 2011

Very important steps are being taken to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and to reaffirm its socialist character. Our top leaders have spoken about the need to do away with old formulas and prescriptions that hinder and weigh down the economy and life in general in the present circumstances. Despite the calls for change, we’re all aware of the meetings for the sake of meetings and the passivity of many functionaries, with most of the time spent listening to the same things that have been said before and hearing about the same unfulfilled commitments.

In his July 26 speech, compañero Vice President Jose Ramon Machado Ventura pointed out the need to eradicate these evils at once. Things are changing on our blockaded island and people feel it in the streets, though the pace of change may not be as rapid as we'd like or in the manner that many of us long for.

Our President Raul Castro was emphatic in stressing, in the Second Communist Party Central Committee Plenum held recently, that any disagreement within the Permanent Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines would be analysed rather than being tossed aside, thus ensuring a free discussion in which everyone can say what they think and want. As Raul said afterwards in the National Assembly this also applies to daily life in Cuba, so that Cubans may have a space in which to exercise their right to express an opinion in an appropriate manner and with due respect. 

I’m one of those who ask that our Round Table current affairs TV programme gives voice to opinions regarding national themes. There are people with a lot to say, with many ideas to contribute, who deserve to be heard and must be listened to. We mustn’t fear fair remarks or justified criticism, and if such criticism is constructive, educational and puts forward solutions then all the better.

I urge that we create a mechanism for delivering the population’s daily complaints of institutional abuse suffered at the hands of functionaries who occupy posts that were created to serve the people. Such a mechanism would deliver these complaints to every level as required and would be committed to nothing other than the truth and justice. Unfortunately, and I speak from personal experience, a large proportion of the complaints that are made are lost in complacency and indolence.

It’s infuriating and at the same time sad that cases published in the national press elicit a speedy response following their publication, despite the fact that those making the complaints went back and forth for months, and in some cases years, trying to get their problems resolved. Most of the time the higher-ups took note of these cases (which often waited on their own signature) only when the whole of Cuba knew about them. Unfortunately, there are many functionaries who cease to function when faced with problems whose resolution should be straightforward.

Everyone must contribute to what the country and the people need in these times. Everyone must be listened to. Sometimes, as Jose Marti said, trenches of ideas are worth more than trenches of stone.       

Translation: Granma letters to the editor

Translation: Marce Cameron

Readers and journalists

By J. Carreras Perez-Teran, May 27, 2011

I've been an avid reader of the letters section from the beginning [early 2008] and on several occasions I've written letters myself. Though my letters have never been selected for publication, I hope my proposals are considered in one way or another, I imagine it's not possible to publish every letter.

This time I'm writing to express my thoughts on the letters sent by other readers, specifically those published on May 20, 2011. These letters that contribute much to the defence of the conquests of socialism in Cuba, the struggle against bureaucracy and the evasive responses of some functionaries, denunciations of misdeeds, appeals for job creation [by further easing restrictions on self-employment — translator's note] and the substitution of imports, defending our culture and national identity. Most importantly they get to the point, they are concrete, without tedious and theoretical discourse. These letters reach the brain and the heart with the messages they contain.

It's noteworthy that the majority of the commentaries and news relating to Cuba that are published daily in Cuba are very far from being attractive and convincing to the readers. Many reflect a triumphal spirit that "everything's fine" and "the goals have been achieved". Few delve deeper into the causes of the problems and get to the heart of the matter.

Personally, I prefer to read the letters than the rest of the articles on national themes. And I ask myself: what is going on with our journalists? Can it be possible that the readers are better than the journalists when it comes to reflecting the national reality in the press? Don't they live in Cuba like the rest of us Cubans? Don't they suffer the same problems? Do they not have the same difficulties? Is there some kind of verbal or written "norm" that prevents journalists from publishing articles of the quality of the letters of readers?

It's time to make reality everything that has been said about the need for our press to change and move with the times, so that the articles of the journalists are as good as or better than the letters of readers.

* * *
Resellers are not self-employed workers

By S. I. Chavez Domínguez, May 20, 2011

I view as very positive and necessary the decision to allow self-employment within the framework of our socialist legality, since this is a source of income and legal employment that responds to the problems Cubans face that for various reasons the state cannot resolve.

In my opinion self-employment licenses must be granted to those who are capable of providing a service or product through their labour or their technical-professional expertise, or to those people who having obtained raw materials or a finished product are able to add value to increase its use value, for example someone who buys eggs and sells tortillas, someone who buys powdered cordial, adds sugar and ice then sells the drink, to which could be added an endless list of cases in which I consider it correct to grant a self-employment license.

What I don't understand is this: often I see people in the street with self-employment licenses that don't provide any kind of service to workers, on the contrary what they do is make the economic situation much more difficult for us, since these are people who create nothing nor do they provide any service or add value to any product, but are simply resellers and the only thing they add is price — and excessively — to the same products sold by the state in the network of [convertible peso] stores.

Why one must obtain a self-employment license to sell steel wool pads, pens, torch batteries, glasses, TV antennas, cigars, matches, stockings, drill bits, sandpaper, fluorescent tubes, energy saving light globes and a host of other products that would make an endless list, when the state sells these items in its chain of stores but at a much lower price than asked by these resellers who, I repeat, do not add any value but simply add to the price which we who live on our salaries must pay?

For example: the state sells a packet of four steel wool pads for 1 convertible peso (CUC), which are quickly bought up and hoarded by these self-employed people who later sell them for 10, 12 and up to 14 regular pesos each [1 CUC = 24 regular pesos], or on occasion at up to double the official price. I've seen packets of eight 1.5 volt batteries for 1 CUC, then later on I've needed two little batteries and have had to pay 10 regular pesos each. Examples abound.

These are not self-employed workers, they are unscrupulous resellers and stranglers of the economy of those who work. They take advantage of a license they've been given, with which they feel as if they have every right in the world to rip us off.

I don't believe this was the intention of our state in offering this new possibility, which if done properly will surely be another success of our Revolution.

Translation: Two Granma letters

Luis Sexto's commentary on bureaucratism, a translation of which I posted on January 18, dealt with the rationalisation of the state-sector workforce that is now underway and warned against the bureaucratic distortion of this process. The first Granma letter below takes issue with the decision to allow the director of an enterprise or entity to override the commission tasked with deciding which workers will remain in their jobs. It is another example of the Cuban press providing space for critical views.

The second letter comments on the proposal in the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines to empower the municipal Peoples Power administrations to levy taxes on state enterprises, cooperatives, small private businesses and the self-employed, making local governments less dependent on funding from the central state administration and giving them greater autonomy to set their own spending priorities. If this proposal is endorsed by the 6th Communist Party Congress in April and implemented, it would dismantle a pillar of the pervasive administrative "verticalism" that stunts the full flowering of Cuba's socialist democracy — to the degree that such a flowering is possible in conditions of imperialist blockade and encirclement.   

The only thing I disagree with

Granma letter published November 19, 2010

Translation: Marce Cameron

Regarding everything to do with the huge task that is upon us of reorganising the workforce [i.e. the rationalisation of the state-sector workforce], the only thing I disagree with is in Resolution 35 of the Ministry of Work and Social Security (MTSS), the part that empowers the director of an entity to impose their will over the proposal of the Commission of Experts.      

   

In the study of management techniques it is often shown, through practical exercises, that teamwork is more effective than an individual.  

I think that once the recommendations of the Commission of Experts has been handed down it would be correct, in cases where there director of an entity disagrees with the recommendations, to express their opinion before the Commission of Experts, which would then be obliged to re-evaluate its proposal taking into account these arguments.

We should remember the composition of this Commission: the administration, the trade union and outstanding workers selected by the work collective. This makes it difficult for the process to carry the seal of nepotism. On the contrary, what a director decides is going to be more nepotistic than not.

What weight will the opinion of the secretary of the trade union section have in a decision of the director that is supported by a resolution of the MTSS? None, in my opinion.      

J. R. Reynaldo Sanchez

Greater accountability through local administration

Granma letter published November 12, 2010

Translation: Marce Cameron

Spanish: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/cartas-direccion/cart-137.html

The decision to allow local governments to levy territorial taxes [on state enterprises based in the municipality] and collect taxes on self-employment is transcendental and a strategic advance.

The lack of a mechanism such as this has opened up a chasm between the individual interests of the neighbours and the interests of the locality; and even between the interests of the locality and the national interest one can perceive resignation and acts of pure administrative discipline when small solutions [to local problems] cannot be financed without national approval.

This has led to the flourishing of apathy and the loss of the sense of ownership of the localities, and is one of the causes of the degradation of the local environment by many citizens. The immediate surroundings, the apartment block, the public square, the marginal neighbourhood, the barrio are all victims of this aggressiveness.

This uncaring attitude has been imposing itself on our social representations and on the required popular participation, real and effective, of the residents.

We hope that the [administrative decentralisation foreshadowed in the Draft Guidelines] allows us to make full and just use of these financial resources in the base jurisdictions [i.e. the popular councils and the municipal assemblies of People's Power], or are the provincial authorities going to dictate to us so many prohibitions knowingly imposed out of fear that we can't administer ourselves properly in the municipalities?                                 

The point is that flowing from the implementation of this decision we could take timely action to confront problems in the community in the local jurisdictions [i.e. the popular councils] that constitute the municipal government, elevating with it the political consensus of the citizens and facilitating the mobilisation of the neighbours to carry out tactical tasks and those of daily communal life. It needs to be taken into account that "socialism won't fall from the sky because it has to be built from the ground up".    

By strengthening real and effective popular participation, the work of Popular Power [local government] could be multiplied several times. And the expansion of self-employment would be very educational for the citizens who would see their community grow through the contribution of their efforts.       

Translation: Enterprise, directors and workers

Here, a Granma reader proposes that workers be empowered to elect the directors of socialist state enterprises.

The enterprise, the directors and the workers

Granma letter published January 7, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

The year 2011 brings with it a central theme for all Cubans: the updating of our economic model. The reorganisation of the workforce and the discussion of the Draft [Economic and Social Policy] Guidelines prior to the 6th Communist Party Congress are tasks that cannot fail to concern and involve all Cubans.

According to what is projected in the Guidelines, the new socialist [state] enterprise will enjoy a certain administrative autonomy with regard to its working capital and investments, the creation of funds [for investments and worker incentives — translator's note], approval of its payroll and the prices of products and services; in addition to what is now the prerogative of the enterprise director, according to Article 8, Resolution 35/2010 of the Ministry of Work and Social Security (MTSS) on the determination of the workers to be retained and those to be laid off [in the rationalisation of the state-sector workforce], among other flexibilities.

It is also projected that the incomes of the workers in state enterprises be tied to the final results obtained, and that loss-making enterprises would be summonsed to a process of liquidation. However, there is a theme very closely related to this economic conception that is not found in the Draft Guidelines, regarding the cadres [i.e. enterprise directors] policy, other than the specifics of Guidelines 66 and 202.  

In my judgement it would be prudent to envisage the participation of the workers in the management of the socialist state enterprise through the election, ratification or replacement of the enterprise directors. [...] It would be beneficial to apply this policy at least for the election of the president of the enterprise directors, for the directors of the local units, directors of factories, divisions. 

Taking into account the shareholder character of the workers in the new conception of the socialist state enterprise, because although their participation in production and services is determined by the contribution they make with their intellectual and physical capabilities, their personal incomes and the survival of the enterprise [will] depend on their efforts and results.       

All this would imply a great responsibility and commitment from the directors to the work collective that elected them and the strengthening of the democratic character of our social system. It would elevate the sense of ownership and responsibility of the workers with regard to the resources placed at their disposal to achieve greater productive efficiency.       

In summary, if the workers, the legitimate owners of the means of production, must entrust their fate to the enterprise management, I think they should have the right to elect those they have confidence in.

E. Gonzalez Cruz

Granma letter: Objective vs. subjective debate

Previously I posted a translation of a letter to Granma titled "The objective and subjective factors". In this letter, A. Orama Munero argued that appeals to conscience alone would not solve Cuba's economic problems nor rescue socialist ethics. What is needed, among other things, is "an opening to the cooperative sector and small-scale private initiative".

He points out that objective factors — such as average salaries that are insufficient to cover all basic living expenses, thus compelling many Cubans to make ends meet by engaging in petty theft from the socialist state — condition people's ethical conduct. Put simply, if workers and their families can't live decently on their legitimate incomes then generalised petty corruption and the mentality that goes with it are inevitable. 

Orama Munero was responding to a letter in the previous Friday's edition of Granma, in which F. Fernando Gonzalez put forward more or less the opposite viewpoint. Since "the biggest problems continue to be in the conscience of people, in their conduct", he argues that the solution is to be more demanding and exert more control. "To privatise even the most insignificant branch of our economy would lead to the renunciation of socialism", he warns.

Here we see the two poles in the national debate over the future of Cuba's socialist project. What one side in the debate sees as the cause the other sees as a consequence, thus the solutions proposed run in opposite directions. One side equates the socialist-oriented society with state ownership and management of almost the entire economy; the other starts from the premise that the socialist state's ownership of large-scale productive property that is already objectively socialised is sufficient to keep the forces of capitalist restoration in check. 

The Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines — which reflect the majority (if not unanimous) opinion of the Communist Party leadership — are consistent with the views expressed by A. Orama Munero in his April 16 letter. 

We are affected more by subjective than objective questions

Granma letter, April 9, 2010

Translation: Marce Cameron 

A few days ago I had an experience that reminded me of the most recurring theme during recent weeks in the letters pages, the "privatisation" of some services, basically food services.

The experience referred to took place in the William Soler Hospital in the capital [Havana]. After two satisfactory consultations, with adequate attention to my children by specialists, including an orthopaedic doctor that does house calls without prior consultation and who treated us exquisitely, I went to the hospital pharmacy. There I was (with more than 30 other people) for an hour and three quarters in the sun because they wouldn't let anyone in. A single saleswoman came to the door, picked up the prescriptions, brought over the medications, walked back with the payment in hand and returned with the change, as if it were an odyssey — without Ulysses and nothing mythological, but all too real.

This is really at odds with the kind of institution and the quality of service that this centre provides. It was then that the debated theme of privatisation came to mind. If we want to resolve the problems of a service such as this, some would put forward the same solution as has been  suggested in these pages for gastronomy and other services. I respect all opinions, but this would be to fall into the old tale that call Cubans know well, that of wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water, only to end up with the same problem or worse.

To privatise even the most insignificant branch of our economy would lead to the renunciation of socialism. Remember the teachings of the Heroic Guerrilla [a reference to Ernesto "Che" Guevara] at the beginning of the 1960s, when our socialism was just an embryo with many ideas and little experience. Che told us that imperialism would give us nothing and furthermore, in his critical Notes on political economy, he doubted the success of the kolkhoz [cooperative farms] in the old USSR, starting from an apparently insignificant fact that was nevertheless a truism: in the kolkhoz property is private, individual, therefore this is not socialism but a hangover from capitalism.

The formula cannot be directed towards changing the system. The solution is to be found in people. Our Constitution establishes that we have a state of equal duties and rights. Experience teaches me that everyone takes advantage of their rights when we are aware of them, but we distance ourselves a lot from duties, both in recognising them and in acting accordingly.

Why not then, instead of thinking about and proposing to privatise services, or another variant [such as cooperatives] that would lead us to hand over the arms and flags of socialism — which in a constitutional referendum [in 1976] with the participation of everyone we agreed to establish as irrevocable — why don't we dedicate ourselves more to demanding that what is set down is complied with, among which are love of work, organisation and discipline? It is in people, in the human capital formed during 50 years, not only professionally but also as social beings, that the solutions are to be found. 

Let's not continue attacking consequences, let's look for the causes of problems and we'll realise that we are affected more by subjective that objective questions. The biggest problems continue to be in the conscience of people, in their conduct. If not, just compare the service of a cafeteria or restaurant in any of the two Havana provinces with those of Bayamo or Manzanillo [in eastern Cuba]. There there's no need to privatise, there is good quality, good service, a good menu, good prices and the workers there continue being Cubans and don't charge in convertible pesos.

F. Hernandez Gonzalez

Granma letter: Objective and subjective factors

Here is another letter from Granma. In my last post I said that a non-dogmatic application of the Marxist method is a striking feature of many such contributions. This is a good example. Here, the author responds to a previous contribution to the debate which I'll also translate and post so that readers can get a feel for the two poles in this debate. 

The letter below is representative of what could be called the critical renovationist current within the Cuban Revolution, which represents one pole in the national debate on the future of Cuba's socialist project. It is almost certainly written by a Communist Party member judging by its political clarity, but by no means all party members are part of this current of opinion (see Cuba's Socialist Renewal, p.10). It is interesting to note that the authors of such letters who are Communist Party members rarely identify themselves as such and that their official positions, if any, are only made explicit if this is relevant to the content of their contribution.   

Granma letter: The objective and subjective factors

April 16, 2010

Translation: Marce Cameron

I write this on the basis of the abundant opinions of compañeros that with the best intentions, and with the logical fear of losing our conquests and our socialism, propose subjective solutions, of proven ineffectiveness during the past 20 years, to objective problems which confront our economy and our socialism. I single out in particular the opinion of F. Hernandez Gonzalez: "We are affected more by subjective than objective questions”, published on April 9, in which a direct reference is made to the balance of these factors in the economy.

Firstly, I would like to explain that the objective factors are independent of people's consciousness, and the the subjective are inherent in the objective. I remember my political economy university professor stressing that in every moment the objective factors condition the subjective ones, in other words, “man thinks as he lives and does not live as he thinks”. This can be understood better with a practical example of a pharmacy or a workers dining hall that does not work as it should, or with a cadre that doesn't insist that they do what they are supposed to, or with the corrupt inspector who doesn't do his job; if we see these people superficially we see only the subjective factors inherent in each of them, their lack of morality and discipline, and we can form the impression that the solution involves only being demanding and asserting control, but then we would be ignoring the fact that all these people (and above all those that we must call to account) are affected by the same objective factors that condition their behaviour (the salary does not cover all necessities, the high prices, the house in which they live may be crumbling, the kids need shoes for school, etc).

In the present conditions we are all prone to fall into these weaknesses, or to not say anything when confronted with them, and those of us who do not feel the same way often swim against the current, and we do so because the objective factors favour precisely the contrary of what we propose and would wish for ourselves. This may not be a problem if this situation had not extended for the past 20 years [of the post-Soviet Special Period]. During all this time things have got worse, the negative phenomena have become more mainstream and people's consciousness has become accustomed to harbouring ideas contrary to the principles of socialism. Egotism has spread like the marabu weed [a thorny tropical shrub that infests vast areas of Cuba's agricultural lands], and every day political work or appeals to conscience lose more force. In other words, the objective factors are imposing themselves for the worse with regard to our social process, and only by confronting them directly will we save our socialism.

Only our state can influence these factors, counting on our support. The state must stimulate the productive forces, free itself from excessive responsibilities that it cannot bear [and] eliminate egalitarianism, among other things. None of these things will be able to be achieved solely with slogans and appeals to conscience. We must invigorate our economic model to save our social model.    

We are not talking about concessions to capitalism. The state must preserve its ownership of the fundamental means of production, the basic premise of socialism, but it must also allow an opening to the cooperative sector and small-scale private initiative. It will have to restore the role of wages, reduce [inflated] payrolls (which could be used to augment salaries), it must better distribute the productive forces towards the more productive sectors. Only afterwards, with the advances flowing from these measures, must it carry out a just redistribution via subsidies, such as the ration book, to those who really need them. After this the monetary duality [i.e. the existence of two currencies in Cuba] can be diminished gradually, along with economic growth (which is how it will be eliminated, and not by decree as some believe).

Lastly, speaking once again of subjective factors, I ask all the compañeros who fear these changes to support our government in this decisive epoch of our history. The committed revolutionaries must all be in the same trench and abandon all the fears and reservations which can be used to divide us and put the brakes on our process. The Revolution needs all of us.

A. Orama Munero