[PEN-L:7941] Cuba
I, like many others on the list, were someone taken aback by Louis' outrageous reaction to what to me seemed to be a very important and interesting question posed by Peter. Nor did I take Peter's question to be some sort of Hayekian theoretical response to Louis narrative of events in Cuba, but rather a practical question, what was the role of central planning and the market in Cuban economy and how is the central planning function made operational. Indeed, for economists interested in policy in socialist, or potential socialist, economies, these are important issues that have been under debate for most of this century. While obviously, they have become more important since the demise of the Stalinist command system and the renewed interest in market socialism, they have been present since the debate over the NEP in the 1920s. I, for one, would like to see some debate on this issue -- and some description of the planning mechanism in Cuba -- preferably after the next week (as many people will have signed off for the holidays, including myself). In some of the discussions I have read recently, planning in a market socialist system should (an can?) only be indicative planning. Others, hold to the view that only the capital market need be comprehensively planned (a la Lange). As I understand what is happening in the foodmarkets of Cuba today, basic subsistence levels are planned and distributed outside of the market, surplus to these needs distributed by the market. In any case, I hope to visit Cuba in the relatively near future and wonder if anyone has any contacts among economists in or around Havana who speak English and might be will to spend a few hours with a visiting economist interested exactly in this issue -- how much market and how much plan, and how is plan implemented. Someone who wants to know (really Louis!) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:7944] Re: Re[2]: Re: Che and Cuba
A KARL CARLILE MESSAGE: KARL: Hi Bill BILL:that is the question. my bet is that central planning did not necessarily lead to any growth scenarios in cuba. its impact might have been more on equity and civilised interactions b/tw people. the multipliers coming from the strong USSR presence in the economy would have kicked irrespective of the type of allocation and distribution system. KARL: It is quixotic to suggest, as you do, that Cuba is a centrally plAnned economy and not a centrally planned economy. If the planning principle has been operating in Cuba then it follows that it regulates the economy and thereby the degree and quality of its economic growth, not outside contingencies. If the latter determine Cuban economic growth then it is the latter that regulate its economy (forgive the tautology). You cannot have your cake and eat it Bill. In short there is an irrationalist ideology underpinning your notions as expressed in this message of yours. Irrationalism is an invasive bourgeois ideology that has reached deep into the experience and praxis of the working class and in this way sustains its lack of revolutioanry political vision. Karl Carlile
[PEN-L:7943] Re: Brash self-promotion!
Recently Trond Andresen wrote: Among several things, we discuss the extreme gvt. surplus in the current Norwegian economy, and how the economics profession in Norway now is at work to explain that this money may not be used for the public good in Norway, but must be invested financially overseas; a "Kuwait syndrome". Comment: I understood -at least before the war with Iraq--Kuwait had a social safety net that would be the envy of most countries around the world. For example they had a first rate health care system available to all CITIZENS. However, most residents of Kuwait were not citizens e.g. Iraqi and Palenstinian guest workers; and the whole system depends upon the whims of a paternalistic and rich absolute ruler, but I would think that Kuwait is not the best example of overseas investment AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WELFARE STATE. Also, much of the surplus is squandered in lavish lifestyles as part of the global jet-set rather than in investment. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7940] Brash self-promotion!
On Dec 26., sometimes in the afternoon (possibly 5 PM??? - maybe someone on the list knows the exact hours of Doug's show?), WBAI Radio in N.Y. will air 25 (?) minutes with me, interviewed by Doug Henwood. The interview was taped while I visited N.Y. in the beginning of December. Among several things, we discuss the extreme gvt. surplus in the current Norwegian economy, and how the economics profession in Norway now is at work to explain that this money may not be used for the public good in Norway, but must be invested financially overseas; a "Kuwait syndrome". We also talk about national independence vs globalization, and about Norway, Sweden and the EU/Maastricht process, etc. Doug - who by now is away for holidays - also told me that the show will contain an interview with Harry Magdoff on globalization. And btw, Merry Holidays to all of you! Trond Andresen
[PEN-L:7942] socialism from below
Fikret Ceyhun writesI find comments about Che and his Cuban revolution as well as revolutions in other parts of the world are illuminating in general, but disengaged from reality. As if we are living in a different planet that is accidentally called "utopia." Can we bring our feet to touch the ground here? All third world revolutions are called socialist revolution from above. I would like to know a definition of socialist revolution from below. How is it made? Who makes it? To be socialism from below, it has to be the oppressed themselves who make it. The development of mass-democratic movements is the prelude; popular democratic insurrection may occur in the actual transition. Marx's CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE gives some ideas of how this would happen; of course, extending Marx's model from a single city (Paris and the Commune) to a whole country is pretty complicated. Are there blue-prints of it available somewhere? How is it supposed to happen? Since the development of socialism from below is a matter of collective and democratic learning-by-doing, any "blueprints" (such as William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE or Albert Hahnel's LOOKING FORWARD) are by necessity simply for debate and discussion. How they are put into practice depends on what people want. (BTW, I think this is one reason why Marx disdained blueprints.) Are we going to hold referendum for it? The referendum couldn't happen through the current capitalist "democracy," which has an extremely corrupt and biased mode of collective decision-making. It wouldn't be "we" (pen-l or leftist economists) who would hold any referenda, if there are to be any, or would ask the peasants to vote for revolution. The people themselves have to make that kind of decision. BTW, in great contrast to the norm of utopian novels, William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE has an interesting discussion of how a socialist revolution from below comes about and how it is organized. Among other things, the popular revolution is fought in opposition to the "state socialists," who seem to be social democrats. Are we going to ask peasants to vote for the revolution? It's an obvious problem that the vast majority of peasants wouldn't vote for any kind of revolution (or support it in other ways) beyond giving "land to the tiller" or endorsing some latter-day Napoleon III. That suggests something I already said: third-world revolutions are unlikely to be "from below." But strictly speaking, it is the people in those countries who must decide. To reiterate an important point: maybe revolution from below isn't feasible in many cases, but revolution from above, in which a small minority decides what is "good" for the people and then dictates to them (the kind of revolution more likely to occur in poor countries with lots of peasants) has a great tenddency to degenerate into a class society, what I call bureaucratic socialism (BS). Intelligent social-welfare programs easily become paternalism, while education can turn into propaganda. The rulers can get tired of fervor and start feathering their nests and their political allies' nests (what the Cubans call "sociolismo"). Even when avoiding such corruption, people like Mao can push silly and utopian schemes such as the Great Leap Forward or the Great Proletarian (sic) Cultural Revolution. As Plato asked, who guards the Guardians? Marx repeated this when he asked (in the 3rd thesis on Feuerbach) who educates the educators and pointed out that people like Robert Owen (Engels' example) were putting themselves above the oppressed, assuming that he (Owen) had no class or private interest of his own. I think it's also good to remember the slogan (from the liberal Lord Acton) that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutedly. Despite its source, socialists have to address that slogan. BTW, bureaucratic socialisms vary a lot. I'd say that the best (perhaps Cuba, Nicaragua) are the ones that are not imposed from the outside and have the greatest grass-roots popular involvement. (I would say that popular involvement in the Cuban revolution arose not from Castro's political principals but from the popular reaction to the Bay of Pigs. The people saved Castro's bacon and he gave something in return. The popular influence on the revolution declined, as the USSR and the Cuban elite used their power. The next uptick in popular power was after Castro's disastrous 10 million tons campaign, when he had to struggle to legitimate his regime. This didn't last very long, so now the country is being converted into state capitalism rather than moving toward socialism in response to the fall of the USSR.) The worst ones, e.g., Democratic (sic) Kampuchea under Pol Pot, have the least grass-roots democracy. Are we going to go to every factory to hold election? Are we looking for 51% approval in order to call it socialist
