A new path for Cuba
posei...@sympatico.ca
The stranglehold on the cubans and their creativity or their capabilities to
produce is what has to be blamed for the miseries and difficulties in the
areas of consumption and living conditions.
The main purpose of this stranglehold on the private iniciatives is due to
the fears by the tyranny of Kastro that this would repercute on his absolute
control and undermine his powers...
Once the cubans would be free to work and produce and make a living by
their own enterprises the tyrann can't claim anything on them or blackmail
them...or make them believe that all what they got is due to his own
programs and policies...
Brian Turner <myr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9VAt6.7145$wQ3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >[the author wrote] He said China and Vietnam face a >very different set
of
> challenges as they are "not >blockaded countries, not under such economic
> > war" from the United States.
>
> This is a cop out. Vietnam began their economic reforms in 1986, almost a
> decade before the embargo against them was removed. Rapid economic growth
> took off almost immediately. And anyway, Cuba have all of Latin America,
> Canada, Europe and Asia to export too. True, exporting to the US would be
> helpful, but there's no reason why Castro can't lift the straight-jacket
on
> both private and cooperative independent initiative.
>
> Cuba's education success is going to bite them, because what's the purpose
> of being educated if you don't have a chance to apply your knowledge in
> creative ways? Even state companies can be enlivened with some freedom
from
> the plan, especially with an educated population probably full of ideas
that
> they are holding back because either 1) no one will listen 2) they'd
labeled
> "anti" something and demoted or even persecuted.
>
>
posei...@sympatico.ca
Brian Turner
strict central planning, one cynical one not.
1-basically what you said, the old USSR way; i.e. keep everyone dependent on
the state for power reasons, as opposed to advocating central planning
because you genuinely believe it works better.
2-he doesn't think market socialism (large business publicly owned but
semi-autonomous and with some private investment, medium business municipal
or collective owned also w/ and w/out private investment, small business and
services privatized) is possible. There are some Stalinist types that
believe if you give an inch, the whole egalitarian ethic breaks down and
it's Guatemala overnight. Obviously I don't agree.
If you prefer junking the whole system instead of opening it up, than maybe
you should be glad he's a strict central planner, it may speed that process
up. I'm not Cuban or Cuban-American, so it's not my place to choose, but if
I were, my preference would be #2 (above).