Castro says communism doesn't work

[LionElJonson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_ ... del_castro

HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg's account.

Since stepping down from power in 2006, the ex-president has focused almost entirely on international affairs and said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother's toes.

Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro's invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran's nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen's food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.

President Raul Castro and others have instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and have warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.

Fidel Castro stepped down temporarily in July 2006 due to a serious illness that nearly killed him.

He resigned permanently two years later, but remains head of the Communist Party. After staying almost entirely out of the spotlight for four years, he re-emerged in July and now speaks frequently about international affairs. He has been warning for weeks of the threat of a nuclear war over Iran.

Castro's interview with Goldberg is the only one he has given to an American journalist since he left office.

About time, Castro.

[Gandalf]

No, he said that Cuba's system doesn't work, not that communism doesn't work.

[Vehrec]

Most of the reason Cuba's system doesn't work is probably because it's under Embargo from the US and you can't visit it freely. If there was a viable tourist economy in Cuba, they would probably have quite the sum of money to make communism work. After all, it's only a few hours from New York, perfect for a weekend Caribbean getaway. Not being able to trade with the richest nation in the world can screw you over, doubly so when your old pal leaves you hanging.

[Mayabird]

Actually...

Fidel Castro says his comment on Cuban model was misunderstood
From Shasta Darlington, CNN
September 10, 2010 9:02 p.m. EDT

Havana, Cuba (CNN) -- Former Cuban President Fidel Castro said Friday that he was misinterpreted when he recently told an American journalist that the Cuban model no longer works.

In a speech at the University of Havana that was then broadcast on Cuban TV, Castro said he meant "exactly the opposite" of what was understood by Jeffrey Goldberg, who was interviewing him for The Atlantic.

According to Goldberg, when he asked Castro during an interview last week if the Cuban model could be exported, the 84-year-old former leader answered: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment was widely interpreted as Castro's admission that the Soviet-style economic model he introduced after his revolution no longer works.

Goldberg wrote on The Atlantic's blog that he turned to Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Affairs, who was present at the interview, "to interpret this stunning statement for me."

"She said, 'He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under "the Cuban model" the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country,'" he wrote.

On Friday, Castro said he was correctly quoted, but that, "in reality, my answer meant exactly the opposite of what both American journalists interpreted regarding the Cuban model."

"My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system no longer works for the United States or the world," he said. "How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?" Castro called Goldberg "a great journalist."

"He does not invent phrases, he transfers them and interprets them," he said. "I await with interest his extensive article."

He told an audience that included some of his former soldiers who were there to mark the publication of his 608-page autobiography that the capitalist system "leads from crisis to crisis, each one more serious."

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe Castro had a Freudian slip or something. But the guy, as far as I know (which is little), doesn't seem like as big an asshole as the likes of Kim Jong Il and he seems not to be a deluded dick. He's the most successful and longest lived dictator/strongman/ruler/whatever ever, in spite of being right next to the USA and being the target of who knows how many attempts at assassination or destabilization. He might've been born in the sea, but he's no dummy. So yeah, he's probably fairly reasonable and shit.

[K. A. Pital]

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

Cuba and Belorussia maintained a good deal of Soviet-era mechanisms in their political and economic systems and weathered the transition better than Russia.

[Ford Prefect]

Sometimes, in wilder moments, I imagine that Cuba stubbornly maintains its Communist system purely to spite America.

[Jaepheth]

In related NEWS

Cuban Government Plans to Cut 500,000 Jobs by March
September 13, 2010, 5:03 PM EDT
More From Businessweek
Gold Rises on Bangladesh Purchase From IMF, Demand Speculation
Billionaire Prokhorov to Buy Potanin’s Stake in Open Investments
Russia Budget Deficit Widens to 645.8 Billion Rubles
Moscow’s Gorky Park May Get $1 Billion ‘Ideological’ Makeover
Alibaba Says It No Longer Needs Yahoo as Its Partner
Story Tools
e-mail this story print this story 0diggsdiggadd to Business Exchange By Blake Schmidt

(Adds plans for job creation in fourth paragraph.)

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Cuba’s government will cut more than 500,000 state jobs by March as part of a plan to reduce inefficiencies, the country’s largest union said in a statement.

The reductions are part of President Raul Castro’s goal of eliminating 1 million state jobs by 2015, according to the statement, which was published in state newspaper Granma and signed by the Central de Trabajadores de Cuba.

“Our state budget cannot continue maintaining business and services with inflated payrolls, with losses that weigh down the economy, or those that are counterproductive, generate bad habits and distort worker conduct,” the union said.

The government will increase private-sector job opportunities by allowing more Cubans to become self-employed and form independent cooperatives. The government will also increase private control of state land, businesses and infrastructure through long-term leases, the statement said.

President Raul Castro, 79, has initiated measures to open the economy since being handed power by his brother Fidel in 2008. The moves come as the economy suffers its worst slide since the former Soviet Union ended its support in the 1990s.

Fidel Castro told a U.S. journalist this month that Cuba’s economic system doesn’t work, a signal that the government is looking to private enterprise and foreign investment to bolster growth, said Julia Sweig, director for Latin American Studies at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.

‘Cuban Model’

“The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore,” Castro told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg after being asked if he believed it was something still worth exporting, according to a post Sept. 8 on The Atlantic magazine’s website.

Goldberg told reporters on a conference call today he didn’t have a chance to follow up on the question.

Two days after the publication, Castro said the comment was misinterpreted and he meant “exactly the opposite” of how it was understood. Castro may have been trying to make clear that reforms won’t include “importing Yankee-style capitalism lock, stock and barrel,” said Sweig, who accompanied Goldberg during his visit with Castro.

U.S. President Barack Obama in April eased travel restrictions to Cuba for Cuban-Americans and directed the U.S. government to allow companies to provide communications services to the island.

In August, the Cuban government loosened controls that prohibited Cubans from selling their own fruit and vegetables. It also eased property laws, extending lease periods to 99 years from 50 years for foreign investors in an effort to build up a tourism infrastructure and draw more visitors to the Caribbean island of 11.4 million people.

Cubans can now run private taxi companies, own mobile phones and operate their own barbershops and restaurants. The state still controls 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in addition to free rationed food staples and health care, and nearly free housing and transportation.

[Cecelia5578]

Didn't Cuba receive large subsidies from the USSR during the Cold War? I'd imagine that going away hurt the economy quite a bit.

[[R_H]]

Didn't Cuba receive large subsidies from the USSR during the Cold War? I'd imagine that going away hurt the economy quite a bit.

I believe they have a deal now with Venezuela, medical aid and personnel for oil.

[Skgoa]

Castro is right, the "cuban modell" doesn't work anymore. But that doesn't mean they are going to switch to the "american modell". (Thats why he says he was misinterpreted.)
There are many very healthy socialist states (e.g. Sweden), enacting reforms to get closer to their balance between (limited) market economy and socialist big government is very prudent IMHO. Didn't Cuba allow limited free trade recently?

[[R_H]]

Skgoa,

In August, the Cuban government loosened controls that prohibited Cubans from selling their own fruit and vegetables. It also eased property laws, extending lease periods to 99 years from 50 years for foreign investors in an effort to build up a tourism infrastructure and draw more visitors to the Caribbean island of 11.4 million people.

Cubans can now run private taxi companies, own mobile phones and operate their own barbershops and restaurants. The state still controls 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in addition to free rationed food staples and health care, and nearly free housing and transportation.

Kinda funny that Castro says it's not working anymore, then two days later says he meant exactly the opposite.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know that economic systems aren't a capitalism/communism bipole, right? Saying communism doesn't work in no way means you need a market economy instead.

[Einzige]

I have never, myself, understood lumping Castro in with the other Communist dic(k)tators. Castro's political career in Cuba began, not as a Communist ideologue, but as a populist-nationalist in an alliance of convenience with Cuba's Communists. As a matter of fact, Batista, the guy he led the revolution against, was initially closely allied with the Communists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Early_20th_century

Fulgencio Batista was democratically elected President in the elections of 1940 [39][40][41] and his administration carried out major social reforms. Several members of the Communist Party held office under his administration[42] and established numerous economic regulations and pro-union policies

Of course, it's convenient for America to forget that now, because RAWR COMMUNISM!!! (Oh, and also because we massively supported Batista in exchange for trade concessions that harmed Cuban interests in favor of American business.)

Long story short, Castro's rule became "Communist" only by an accident of history, chiefly that the United States wouldn't withdraw support from the Batista regime. I am not, by any means, pro-communist - in point of fact, I'm likely the most pro-capitalist poster here - and even I can say that we were in the wrong in Cuba, and have been for literally decades. It is unconscionable and worse to continue any sort of embargo against the Cuban people.

[[R_H]]

You know that economic systems aren't a capitalism/communism bipole, right? Saying communism doesn't work in no way means you need a market economy instead.

I was just commenting on how it was odd that he says it doesn't work, and then two days later he meant the complete opposite. If my post somehow implied what you mentioned, that was unintentional.

[Cycloneman]

Long story short, Castro's rule became "Communist" only by an accident of history, chiefly that the United States wouldn't withdraw support from the Batista regime. I am not, by any means, pro-communist - in point of fact, I'm likely the most pro-capitalist poster here - and even I can say that we were in the wrong in Cuba, and have been for literally decades. It is unconscionable and worse to continue any sort of embargo against the Cuban people.

The United States did stop supporting the Batista regime. When it fell, the USA thought Castro would probably be an okay (even great!) leader for the country. Then he started his populist moves like nationalizing US property, and the US went into crazy mode.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I have never, myself, understood lumping Castro in with the other Communist dic(k)tators. Castro's political career in Cuba began, not as a Communist ideologue, but as a populist-nationalist in an alliance of convenience with Cuba's Communists. As a matter of fact, Batista, the guy he led the revolution against, was initially closely allied with the Communists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Early_20th_century

Fulgencio Batista was democratically elected President in the elections of 1940 [39][40][41] and his administration carried out major social reforms. Several members of the Communist Party held office under his administration[42] and established numerous economic regulations and pro-union policies

Of course, it's convenient for America to forget that now, because RAWR COMMUNISM!!! (Oh, and also because we massively supported Batista in exchange for trade concessions that harmed Cuban interests in favor of American business.)

Long story short, Castro's rule became "Communist" only by an accident of history, chiefly that the United States wouldn't withdraw support from the Batista regime. I am not, by any means, pro-communist - in point of fact, I'm likely the most pro-capitalist poster here - and even I can say that we were in the wrong in Cuba, and have been for literally decades. It is unconscionable and worse to continue any sort of embargo against the Cuban people.

The U.S. quite literally refused to cooperate even with private Cuban enterprises because they were willing to process cheaper Soviet oil, and since they won't not allow themselves to be whores to American power politics, there was little choice than to nationalize them. Many kleptocrats and hacendados simply fled as well, and what was the Castro regime to do, leave the fields fallow and the factories empty?

Furthermore, the simple reality is the average Cuban is much better fed, better taken care of, and even at a lower risk of political murder than in many of our domains, such as El Salvador in the 1980s, Nicaragua in the 1980s, Guatemala forever, etc. Perhaps despite the fact that the Castro regime is a closed society and an autocratic state, that it is still accepted among the democratic left in Latin America is because contrary to American self-obsession, they admire him for shrugging off our exploitation for fifty years, despite our spiteful punishment of the Cuban nation through embargoes that serve no other function than to permit opportunities to bleat anti-Communist propaganda and so "freedom loving" politicians to pat themselves on the back. One may be free to wonder why no other advanced democratic industrial society takes our Cuban sadism seriously.

Here's some food for thought. If the Castro regime was removed or sidelined, and Cuba liberalized in terms of its electoral and institutional systems, but maintained a heavy state sector and price manipulation, at least on the level of Atlee's UK, would we be OMG YAY CUBAN FREEDOM?

What about if a new family of strongmen came to power, but they were much more Somoza than they were Castro. Which eventuality do you think would be greeted by more enthusiasm in Washington? The freedom of the average Cuban to exercise more influence and control over the circumstances of his or her life, or the freedom of the privileged Cuban to exploit his workers by driving them into desperate poverty, so the subsidiary he ran of an American enterprise was able to make the quarterly earnings rise?

[Guardsman Bass]

Here's some food for thought. If the Castro regime was removed or sidelined, and Cuba liberalized in terms of its electoral and institutional systems, but maintained a heavy state sector and price manipulation, at least on the level of Atlee's UK, would we be OMG YAY CUBAN FREEDOM?

We were on good terms with Mexico throughout most of the post-World War 2 PRI period, and into the present (where PEMEX is still wholly nationalized), so yes. Particularly since there's still a strong Cuban-American contingent in swing state Florida.

To be sure, we'd be pressuring them to allow outside investors and companies in, but A)we wouldn't be the only country doing that, and B)we do that with every country.

What about if a new family of strongmen came to power, but they were much more Somoza than they were Castro. Which eventuality do you think would be greeted by more enthusiasm in Washington? The freedom of the average Cuban to exercise more influence and control over the circumstances of his or her life, or the freedom of the privileged Cuban to exploit his workers by driving them into desperate poverty, so the subsidiary he ran of an American enterprise was able to make the quarterly earnings rise?

What's your point - that most Americans, and the American government, don't really care about Cuban freedom? Give yourself a medal for pointing out the obvious.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Here's some food for thought. If the Castro regime was removed or sidelined, and Cuba liberalized in terms of its electoral and institutional systems, but maintained a heavy state sector and price manipulation, at least on the level of Atlee's UK, would we be OMG YAY CUBAN FREEDOM?

We were on good terms with Mexico throughout most of the post-World War 2 PRI period, and into the present (where PEMEX is still wholly nationalized), so yes. Particularly since there's still a strong Cuban-American contingent in swing state Florida.

I live in Florida, and most of our exiles are pure sadists who do not harness their political power for any other purpose than to continue punishing and impoverishing Cuba, so excuse me if I would believe they a.) are so compassionate, b.) so influential over what our interests would be. Since an unfortunate surplus of our homegrown terrorists are Cuban exiles, so troublesome judges recommend their prosecution or expulsion due to the unacceptable public relations consequences of sheltering people who blow up Cuban airliners.

But I forgot, you're apologist for whatever neoliberal crap comes down the pipeline.

To be sure, we'd be pressuring them to allow outside investors and companies in, but A)we wouldn't be the only country doing that, and B)we do that with every country.

Oh, and what about Venezuela in 2002? We didn't encourage a coup?

What about if a new family of strongmen came to power, but they were much more Somoza than they were Castro. Which eventuality do you think would be greeted by more enthusiasm in Washington? The freedom of the average Cuban to exercise more influence and control over the circumstances of his or her life, or the freedom of the privileged Cuban to exploit his workers by driving them into desperate poverty, so the subsidiary he ran of an American enterprise was able to make the quarterly earnings rise?

What's your point - that most Americans, and the American government, don't really care about Cuban freedom? Give yourself a medal for pointing out the obvious.

The American people care much more about the dubiousness of the governments we support, and the craven imperial reason we do. They are far to the left of elites on these areas of policy, and almost always are.

[Iosef Cross]

Fidel wasn't an ideologically motivated dictator. He was a dictator that wanted financial assistance. The US supported Cuba's previous regime, and wouldn't support the men that destroyed that regime. So he called for Soviet assistance and adopted the Soviet inspired system on the island.

When the USSR fell the Soviet assistance vanished, as result they didn't need to maintain that system, some measures of economic liberalization were implemented, however the basic structure of the country was left unchanged. It is good for a dictatorship to have a great degree of direct control over the factors of production as they are excellent means to suppress dissidents.

[Iosef Cross]

You know that economic systems aren't a capitalism/communism bipole, right? Saying communism doesn't work in no way means you need a market economy instead.

Well...

You speak in the sense that there is a continuous line between total government ownership of the means of production and total private ownership. However, there is another sense in which the term can be understood.

Historically there have been two systems of organizing production, markets and self sufficiency. The first system is based on the use of exchange between different organizations, while the second system has self sufficient organizations. The classic case of the self sufficient system are the self sufficient farmers of medieval Europe or in modern Africa.

Socialism (some layman have the habit to call it "communism") can be understood as the application of the self sufficiency system to enormous scale. No country has ever utilized a pure socialist system (and probably never will). The "Cuban system" is not a classic case of a socialist system. It is a market economy with a very great deal of government control over certain sectors.

So, it is possible to change a system in the first meaning of the term, by for example privatizing state companies (which reduces the degree of state control of the means of production), while at the same time not changing the nature of the system by continuing to base it on the operation of markets to coordinate decentralized production decisions.

[K. A. Pital]

Socialism (some layman have the habit to call it "communism") can be understood as the application of the self sufficiency system to enormous scale.

I'm not sure socialism is in any way related to self-sufficiency (perhaps you wanted to use a different word?). There was no full autarky anywhere except perhaps, in a certain stage, in the DPRK (and we all know their system is not self-sufficient). No planned economy was ever fully self-sufficient (albeit if a world planned economy existed, it would certainly be self-sufficient, and I believe to a great degree the USA could become a self-sufficient planned economy during some stages of its development).

Neither are any organizations inside the socialist system self-sufficient - they all rely on planned transfer of funds, goods, and other stuff between organizations. If that planned transfer dries up or does not occur the organization in question collapses. Either you don't understand what you're talking about, or it's just your poor English again.

[Spoonist]

Socialism (some layman have the habit to call it "communism")

We have already covered this with you. Most of the world disagrees with your preference to use Socialism and Communism as interchangeable.

Socialism ...can be understood as the application of the self sufficiency system to enormous scale.

Care to quote a source for this? Are you mistakenly confusing it with anarcho-syndicalism?
I have certainly not heard about socialism striving for autarky. Instead we have plenty of evidence of the contrary where Socialism as a movement has tried to be a global movement or where it has tried to increase international ties/trade, not limit it.
The only reason some communist countries have been striving for a greater degree of self reliance is because of either boycot or war.
Care to point out a non-communist but still socialist governement that had policies for increased self reliance as part of their socialist agenda?

No country has ever utilized a pure socialist system (and probably never will).

By which definition of "pure" socialism? Because yours differ obviously from our definition, because given the european definition of socialism your statements makes no sense.

[Samuel]

I think Cross is mixing up the command economy and traditional economy. It is true no country has entirely eliminated the market, but most people don't mean that when they talk of socialism.

I have certainly not heard about socialism striving for autarky...Care to point out a non-communist but still socialist governement that had policies for increased self reliance as part of their socialist agenda?

Import substitution industrialization aimed for this. I'm not positive if any socialist nation embraced that policy or if they just aimed for heavy industry in general to industrialize.

[Spoonist]

Import substitution industrialization aimed for this. I'm not positive if any socialist nation embraced that policy or if they just aimed for heavy industry in general to industrialize.

Plenty of socialist (social democrat) governements relied on Keynesian economics which import substitution industrialization is derived from. However mostly ISI was implemented among anti-socialist governements.
Especially considering that Keynes himself was a member of the Liberal party, I think its safe to assume we can ignore it as a socialist agenda.
Unless of course we are talking about a different definition of socialism where Keynes would be included.