Cuba's largest newspaper publishes critical letters on economy
In recent months, Cuba's largest newspaper has published letters to the
editor on how to fix the nation's economy.
By JUAN O. TAMAYO
jtamayo@ElNuevoHerald.com
Many Cubans regard the Granma newspaper as a supremely boring propaganda
vehicle worthy of its status as the ``Official Organ of the Central
Committee of the Cuban Communist Party.''
Yet in recent months Granma has published a jarringly lively and often
critical set of letters to the editor on how to fix an economy ravaged
by decades of over-centralization, inefficiency and corruption.
``Let us all . . . push for new mechanisms, structures or whatever one
wants to call them. But let's do it without delay because tomorrow,
tomorrow could be too late,'' wrote J. Rodríguez Pérez.
But a shift toward capitalism, J.L. Marichal Castillo warned in another
letter, ``would no doubt generate another Revolution . . . but this time
instead of 20,000 dead it would cost hundreds of thousands.''
Raúl Castro opened the doors to the polemic when he called for a frank
debate of the shortcomings of Cuba's economy -- 95 percent controlled by
the government -- after replacing his ailing brother Fidel, who
disappeared from public view in 2006.
Academics, artists and others joined in with gusto, writing columns that
ranged from calls to ``democratize socialism'' to attacks on
``neo-stalinism.'' But the columns mostly appeared in specialized
journals or web pages where few average Cubans could read them.
Granma is Cuba's largest newspaper, however, with a circulation
estimated at 400,000, and the two pages it has devoted every Friday to
letters to the editor since March 2008 have drawn much attention.
Initially, most of the letters printed focused on mundane issues such as
gripes against neighbors' loud music, a shortage of sanitary napkins and
unruly pets.
But more recently they have focused on the market incentives -- some
call it ``privatization'' -- being considered as a fix for Cuba's
economy. They include turning over 30,000 state-run retail shops like
bakeries and cafeterias to employees or workers' cooperatives.
``To fail to recognize that we're in a critical situation is to stick
our heads in the sand. To . . . move toward fully capitalist formulas is
to betray a homeland that has cost so much blood, sweat and tears,''
wrote Marichal Castillo.
``We cannot conceive of cooperatives, associations or whatever they are
called, without rules that can swiftly `take out of circulation' those
who [engage in] unlawful or disproportionate enrichment or any other
negative social manifestation,'' he added.
A.J. Fernandez Alonso wrote that while he favored turning over the small
shops to employees, ``many people, with complete justification, are
terrified to say the word `privatization.' And the fear of someone
getting rich is latent.''
But most of the opinions have favored the ``privatization'' -- some with
daringly direct language -- although many of the writers tack on
seemingly obligatory language saying that they want to preserve Cuba's
``socialist system.''
``Competition and privatization, which so many criticize and fear, are
an engine driving good-quality services,'' wrote J.R. Cepero Donates.
``If my service is not good, I simply do not have a clientele, I do not
sell, and therefore, I do not earn the necessary income to make my
business profitable.''
``We must, without deviating from the socialist path, change everything
that needs to be changed in our economic reality,'' added Cepero, a
University of Havana student.
J. Miguel Valdés, a student at a Havana technical university, wrote that
all socialist systems ``must be dialectic and adapt to new conditions in
order to survive. It's useless to hold on to systems that perhaps worked
in past times, if they are inefficient today.''
``I reaffirm again the urgency of adopting measures to prolong our
socialism and the conquests that have cost the people so much to
achieve,'' he added.
Stronger still was J. Rodríguez Pérez, whose May 7 letter described the
two sides of the argument on economic reforms.
``On one side, recalcitrant defenders of a socialism that is dogmatic,
pure and hard, state-run, unmovable and with a lot of rhetoric . . .
pretty far from our daily reality. In sum, a socialism incapable of
recognizing that times have changed,'' he wrote.
``On the other, defenders . . . of a socialism that is dynamic,
changing, evolving like life itself . . . who tend to search for new
forms and methods, always within socialism, for [fixing] our old
deficiencies.''
But it was A. Ríos Hernández, who wrote one of the most scathing letters
to editors.
``I oppose those who defend . . . the production and organizational
schemes that have exhausted their role in history. For example, those
who believe that all [small shops] must be maintained at all costs
because that's socialism,'' he wrote. ``Lies. Socialism is the [state]
control over the means of production, but not all, only the main ones,
those that really define the economy of a country.''
``I disagree with those who believe socialism will collapse just because
a group of bricklayers form a cooperative to build a house, or a plumber
fixes a plugged drain or a mechanic fixes a car,'' he added.
``I disagree with those who believe that . . . any change will result in
[socialism's] destruction,,'' he added. ``It's the other way: The
socialism that does not change, that does not adapt to new situations,
is condemned to failure. Remember the socialism of [eastern] Europe.''
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/31/v-fullstory/1657514/cubas-largest-newspaper-publishes.html
No comments:
Post a Comment