By Manuel Alberto Ramy
“We are dealing with a snake that bites its own tail.” The title of this article is taken from a sentence spoken by a young woman during a neighborhood meeting to discuss the Economic Guidelines with a view to the next congress of the Communist Party of Cuba.
I'm not going to start by the tail but will try to follow the order of those who commented on economic issues.
The meeting, held at 8 p.m. in the large entrance hall of a building in Havana, was presided over by three people who asked the attendees to submit written opinions, criticisms and proposals, to facilitate the work of the moderators. (The girl who gave me the idea for the title was one of those who gave their opinions).
The economy and changes that have been occurring and the proposals contained in the official document were the focus of attention and interventions.
“Proposals and opinions,” one moderator invited.
“I wish someone would explain to me why the government took it for granted that the economic system that will continue to guide us is the system of planned economy” as the guidelines say, asked a lady with a firm voice.
The decision “was not explained,” she said, and it was precisely “the system of planned economy – used here for over 50 years – that got us where we're at.”
Everyone watched the woman speaking. Many nodded to agree with her question.
A panel member replied that “planning will prevail, not the market,” but there will be an adequate mix of both.
Calmly, the woman said that planning and marketing, though different tools, are not mutually incompatible if we take into account the level in which they operate.
“There are several paths to socialism and we know what happened in the planned socialist field,” she said, adding that the authorities should plan at the level of macro-economics, “not at the level of big companies, because “that's where the productive forces are developed.”
Apparently, the woman is an economist. If she's not, she at least is well informed on the subject, thus capturing the audience's attention.
She concludes by citing the role of the market in China's socialist economy, where it has become an important factor in the engine of productive forces. The thrust of her argument is that without the potentiality of the productive forces “socialism is not possible.”
While a secretary takes notes, someone raises a hand. It is a 30-some-year-old woman who says she is a medical doctor. In measured tones, she broaches the issue of employment and wages. Hot topic.
“Now that the government has publicly accepted that wages are insufficient, why does it expect state workers to live with a price increase of over 100 percent in toiletries that are no longer sold via the [ration] book?”
The doctor said she was speaking about “essential products that are an important part of health maintenance,” such as soap, toothpaste and dish-washing liquid. She explained that her salary as a specialist is about 560 pesos and that her family numbers four. (Note to the reader: According to my calculations, a family like hers must now spend between 92 and 100 pesos, on the basis of the new prices of the products.)
“If there is no salary increase, that is unsustainable,” she said.
A man raises his hand. He must be about 60, fat rather than stout, wearing shorts, sweater and sandals. He is a prestigious and well-known neurologist who has frequently appeared on TV shows with large audiences. He supports his colleague and explains that professionals drop out of medicine “and teaching” precisely because wages and life do not match.
The man, who has devoted himself to training specialists and highly qualified nurses, sees how, because of the economic situation, “you find several of them working in paladares [private restaurants]” or some other independent activities because “they can earn 5 or 10 convertible pesos” a day.
"Many of the doctors who go on international missions do it not only out of solidarity, but because it is a way to make money” that has purchasing power, he added.
Obviously the issue of the relationship between wages and the cost of living is the focus of the dozens of attendees. The woman doctor phrased it in a way that was comfortable for the audience. She touched their pockets.
The woman who presided over the meeting, a relatively young woman, took the floor to respond.
“If the doctor finds it difficult to live on a physician's salary, imagine our situation. " But, he added, “the state cannot give what it hasn't.”
That's when the young woman asked to speak and, without an apple in her hand, brought the snake into the debate.
“So, we're looking at a snake biting its tail. But, while it is true that you cannot give what you don't have, in order to have you must begin by giving.”
“Material and intellectual values are not created out of nothing,” she went on. “You need to invest something in their creation; therefore you cannot approach this issue only from one end. And while it's true that at this time the State does not have sufficient means to maintain its large subsidies, it is also imperative not to lose sight of the fact that you advance and develop only through investments, whether in a material, educational or salary sense.”
How to stimulate labor when wages do not correspond to the cost of living? How to stimulate an economy that operates with two currencies, one of which (the convertible peso) is essential to meet one's needs, not luxuries?
Put simply, how to keep the snake from biting its tail is one of the great challenges of the actualization of the economy.
Other members of the Progreso Weekly team in Havana contributed to this article.
