‘We are producing a bonsai in this small
island’
José
Alejandro Rodríguez
An interview with economist Hugo Pons
The head of
the Economics Department at the University of Havana sees the recently begun
transformation of the Cuban economy as a process of continuity and
discontinuity that has brought us to where we are now.
From Juventud Rebelde, 12/26/10
http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/
“We are producing a bonsai in this small island,” economist Hugo Pons tells me
when I try to understand the movement that has begun in the Cuban economy. The
surprising reply, with its attached symbolism, takes us into a colloquial
labyrinth.
Who is talking and musing? The professor who heads the economics department of
the University of Havana? The researcher? Or the specialist in the consultancy
group CANEC? Perhaps the vice president of the National Association of Economists
and Accountants of Cuba? All of them together in one unhurried person, partial
to conceptual thinking.
Hugo explains the metaphor: “A bonsai is seemingly poor and insignificant
because of its small size, but it has an attractive uniqueness; a very strong
individuality. We are in a unique process that arises from our origins and
destiny; from the culture, history and identity of this country.”
This inquisitive interviewer plays along with the allegorical style of the
interviewee, and wonders whether we didn’t spend a long time grafting the
Siberian birch and spruce trees to the "trunk" of the Cuban economy
before we considered updating it.
But Hugo surprises me again with his dialectic vision of the road traveled for more than 50 years. “I see it as a permanent
process of continuity and discontinuity. We have been growing the bonsai as a
unique species since 1959, a truly revitalizing experiment that, setback after
setback, advances and retreats included, always produced a strange little tree
in the forest of the global economy.
“Looking back, but without censure or rancor over the
ups and downs of the Cuban economy, they appear as stages or moments in the
long history of the discontinuity and continuity we have gone through. The
bonsai is created by meticulously cutting and pruning the branches and roots
that limit its development. Many roots and branches, due to circumstances, have
been cut out in successive processes of change.”
Q. When you look back, don’t you think we
delayed too long in making these changes?
A. You can only say that this or that could have been
done if we succeeded in doing it later. When I look back, I try to see what has
been achieved; likewise, when I look ahead, I see the things that need to be
done. When you look back, you realize that this country has been caught in a
crossfire three times and in need of restructuring the foundation of its
economy and production. In the early 1960s, after the falling out with the
United States, we had to reorient ourselves toward the resources of the
European socialist camp and its particular scientific and technological sphere.
In 1972, when we joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON),
we institutionalized our economic relations with that system. With the collapse
of real socialism came the great loneliness of the bonsai and we were now alone
in contending with our virtues, our defects and ourselves.
Q. There are those of would prefer to
forget those harsh years of the Special Period.
A. I think that the Special Period will always be remembered not only for the
harm it caused but also as a critical event that brought us to where we are. It
needs to be scientifically studied as well as remembered so that it does not
happen again. One of its most serious effects was the deterioration of
institutions, the destruction of ties among the leadership bodies, including
the Ministry of Economy and Planning and businesses. There was a certain
urgency to preserve the business system, strengthening centralization. This was
not always a mistake, but a necessity. The problem occurs when it spreads
beyond the boundaries of historical necessity.
You see, for me the Special Period was a demonstration of the immense capacity
we had for surviving together the many challenges in spite of the price
everyone had to pay. It was also part of the long process of discontinuity and
continuity.
Q. By the way, you mentioned the process
of rectification of errors and negative tendencies in the late 1980s as a
special moment in the evolution of the bonsai. Although it may seem like
speculation, where do you think we would be had it not been for the collapse of
European socialism?
A. The process of rectification of errors and negative tendencies set a pattern
because it identified aspects of economy policy and its tools that did not fit
our character and identity and the possibilities of developing our bonsai. It
clarified many errors. It allowed us to consider many motivating factors in the
productive process relating to the utilization of labor
and labor’s active participation. It stimulated the
linkage of wages and results; it criticized weaknesses in the investment
process; and in general, condemned any tendency to copy from other realities.
Where would we have gotten? We would have come much closer to the reality that
we are now proposing. I think that at least we would have come close to an
ideal formula for the redistribution of wealth.
Q. Do you find some connection between
the process of rectification of errors and the modernization of the economic
model that has failed in Cuba?
A. One has tried transformation to preserve socialism as much as the other, but
in very different historical contexts.
Q. Why has European socialism been unable
to resolve its own contradictions?
A. I always think about what motivated that process. The essence of the problem
is that they did not know how to interpret the interests of the society they
were building. They did not get to the roots, to the essence of the cultural
and historical uniqueness.
Attachment to the power of the USSR caused considerable damage as well as not
having a realistic understanding of the USSR’s ability as a power to compete
with capitalism. Denying the realities of capitalism and hiding the advances of
science, technology and culture in other realities was also really damaging.
Q. Why is it, do you think, that the
process Cuba is now undertaking is presented as updating the economic model and
not as a reform?
A. First, I suggest that you ponder the timeliness of this reflection of Marti:
“Only that which is genuine is fruitful. Only the direct is powerful. Whatever
comes from others is like a warmed over delicacy. It is up to each person to
reconstruct their own lives; once you look within yourself, you reconstruct
your life.”
Furthermore, we acknowledged the exhaustion of the imitative model in the late
1980s through the process of rectification of errors. We are now in a process
of change, but it can never be identified with the reforms of others because it
will be done without undermining the basis of socialism and its ideology,
without modifying the preponderant relations of production.
Q. Doesn’t the process of updating the
economic model assume that what we think will be needed tomorrow will later be
inoperable? Doesn’t this imply the need for permanent revision?
A. Nothing is more like the work of doctor than the process of managing the
economy. The economy is the patient. When economists analyze a situation, they
work out a diagnosis, and based on the diagnosis they must issue a set of
professional orders; the prescription. Then what happens in the behavior of the patient -- which is the economy -- must be
monitored.
In practical terms, there are no watertight compartments in the economy. The
solution to today’s problems does not have to be the same one tomorrow. I am
always going to manage, correct and take action.
Q. How can this be applied to our
socialism?
A. There is an aspirational side to our socialism
because this system is the only one that is built on will and conscience. It
requires planning. Strategy is what you wish to attain in the long term; policy
is the set of actions taken to resolve problems in carrying out that strategy.
The management model is the mechanism you use to back up the policies that make
the strategy work. This interaction must be organic and coherent, but at the
same time progressive. Except for Marxists, we know that there never are
definitive solutions.
Q. Some think they see a before and after
in the Guidelines of the Party Congress and in the latest speech by Raúl in the National Assembly of Peoples Power.
A. I think we are seeing a period of renewed confidence in the Revolution due
to the precision with which problems are being identified and addressed and
because that identification comes from popular opinion; from the needs and
goals of the majority; from the dialectical and flexible manner that
characterizes this process without having to abandon essential principals.
For me the WHAT in the Guidelines is the strategic transformation that we need.
The HOW are the instruments to update our economic model. The WHEN is the time
line by which we go about defining our gains. The WHO is the most important:
the people, our people who will always be the guarantee.
That ability to identify, analyze and develop will be the guarantee to the
extent that the construction of socialism responds to the majority of the
population. Socialism is built upon will and that will has to be educated,
developed and preserved. That is the only way to keep the bonsai alive and
healthy.
==============================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Los Angeles, California
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
"Cuba - Un Paraíso bajo el bloqueo"