That’s the headline on this article from St. Petersburg Times: “Cuba’s leaders see private farmers as key to saving socialism.” It is an interesting read, further documenting the failure of all forms of socialism. Someone in the White House should read this.
But is the notion itself absurd? The undoing of socialism is the solution being discussed here. The idea that this somehow saves socialism is about as silly as the idea of government stimulus saving capitalism.
{ 17 comments }
On the other hand, at least it’s a step forward in the right direction.
This is similar to when Bush abandoned the free market to save the free market.
“But the government recently began handing out idle state land to private farmers across the island in an effort to boost food production.”
Why was the land sitting idle? Perhaps the planners did not plan correctly?
“About 250,000 small family farms and 1,100 cooperatives till only about one-quarter of the land, yet still manage to outperform the state farms, producing almost 60 percent of crops and livestock, according to official figures.”
I am shocked, SHOCKED at this.
“Private farmers and cooperatives manage their own land but must sell part of their produce to the state at government prices, which are generally half the market value. Private farmers also lack direct access to equipment and tools, as well as fertilizer and pesticides, all controlled by the state.”
Thus, no true “privatization” will take place. They may be private farmers, but they still work for the state.
What a tremendous opportunity for American ag industry looking for sales and to invest. But I am sure that the embargo serves protectionist interests as well. Castro isn’t the only jerk in the way.
A parasite needs a host.
Cuban rulers rediscovered the New Economic Policy which saved newly communist Russia from starvation.
NEP 1921….
only about 90 behind… ¡Viva el Che!
It actually kind of makes sense in a twisted way. Marx defended capitalism as a means of getting society to move into socialism. Under his basic framework, this is just taking a step back to reload or something in order to re-attain that magical land of economic equality for all. Unfortunately, people don’t seem to want to admit that socialism requires this “reloading” from time to time because it is a failure as a system.
Truly baffling.
I think they are a group of people trying to a) maintain power in their hands b) increase wealth of their country. That’s why they are adopting free market [leaning] practices while covering it with maintained propaganda about successful movement towards past (socialistic) goals and so supporting their own existence.
Don’t be fooled by this, third world leaders from time to time pull these stunts in order to satisfy the opposition on the reasons why they aren’t following more libertarian or more free market policies.
Leaders want to remain in power, usually they achieve this by following an ideology, but if that ideology does not seem to work, they don’t hesitate to sell out the ideology and try something else temporarily(and later revert back).
Cuban leaders will privatized the farmers, choke the farmers or do American style damage to free market(by regulating it to death), and then claim ‘we tried free market comrades, it didn’t work out’.
Renegade,
“Leaders want to remain in power,”
Leaders in the USA too want to remain in power and sadly they are turning our country into a turd world nation to achieve this. (pun intended).
“‘we tried free market comrades, it didn’t work out’.”
Why can’t the free market defend itself against regulations and taxes ?
The free market is a big failure because it can’t defend it’s productivity against taxes, regulations and coercion.
It’s not just producing the wealth that is needed, it’s also defending it and this is where the free market has failed.
It’s shocking that free market capitalism has failed to defend itself.
What would be needed for the free market to defend itself ?
“What would be needed for the free market to defend itself ?”
Educated citizens? Some common sense in the skull would do no harm, either.
Which brings us back to the monopoly of school…
Kurt,
“What would be needed for the free market to defend itself ?”
I will answer my own question: we need transaction secrecy. Just like banking secrecy. We need a way for people to communicate and therefore transact without being traceable.
If you sell online, they can trace back your IP and your physical whereabouts. We need a content addressable internet as opposed to physical addressable internet. Right now, the internet is addressed by IP address, mac-address and provider’s account.
We need a decentralized internet where everybody can broadcast and receive communications without going through an internet service provider. We need telecommunications technologies that cannot be triangulated nor traced back.
That way, there would be freedom of speech and freedom of commerce.
It would not be perfect, there would still be physical stores, warehouses and factories that must abide by the rules and when orders ship online, physical addresses will still have to be communicated with one another.
But some terrain would be gained in favor of freedom of market.
“Which brings us back to the monopoly of school…”
From pre-school to high-school to college, students are being fed socialism from craddle to graduation.
By the time they have their Ph.D’s in liberal arts, social “science”, “macro” economics, accounting, law, they are all keynesians.
2nd Am, you are talking my language. Once you have a secure untraceable means of transaction, you could easily set up some form of tax evasion insurance network. This would provide the capital necessary for private property advocates to defend their property forcefully.
Some people can be convinced philosophically, but I think more can be convinced practically.
Bob,
“but I think more can be convinced practically.”
That’s what I think too. But the great difficulty is finding how to make philosophy practical.
I believe that libertarianism would be possible only in a highly advanced technological society. Some sort of “cybertarianism” where a cyber medium would hermetically insulate speech and transactions from outside regulations and taxations all while constantly arguing in favor of freedom.
Speaking of defending Capitalism…I’ve often thought of starting a business that was run entirely in a spirit of civil disobedience, running a business without seeking permission from or paying tribute to the state. It would be unincorporated. I would have no tax ID. I would pay my employees by depositing their wages into an offshore account and reporting nothing to the IRS, or I would pay them in cash, or perhaps gold and silver coins, as this brave gentleman did. All would be based on voluntary agreements with employees, who would be fully informed of what they were getting into before taking a job with the company. This would hopefully result in a culture of non-compliance with gov’t mandates amongst the employees, so if the State came knockin’ they’d find an office full of people unafraid. Who’s with me?
I thought It would not be perfect, there would soothe be sensual stores, warehouses and factories that must remain by the rules and when orders ship online, energetic addresses give ease know to be communicated with one other. I expect that libertarianism would be practical exclusive in a highly innovative technological elite. ——————- Sean
Comments on this entry are closed.