By Keith Harrington, Truthout | Op-Ed
The year 2012 may have been the United Nation's International Year of Cooperatives, but 2013 may turn out to be the more historic year for worker-ownership if the Cubans have anything to say about it.
To listen to the mainstream American media, however, you'd never know it. As a video supplement to a recent New York Times article
makes clear, the corporate press has already made up its mind on how
the story of Cuba's economic liberalization is bound to end:
"In a state defined by all-consuming communism for the past 50 years, capitalist change comes in fits and starts, and only at the pace that the government is willing to allow."[Emphasis added]
In other words, Cuba's post-communist story ends just like China's -
in capitalism, because according to orthodox dogma, there's nowhere else
to go. Trapped by the limited possibilities of this dichotomist
capitalism-or-communism mentality, mainstream commentators lack the
perspective needed to appreciate (much less inform others) that a
transition away from a state-dominated command economy might conceivably
lead to a type of market that is very distinct from our
elite-shareholder-dominated and profit-fixated capitalist model.
But that is precisely the nuanced story
we find in Cuba when we dig just below the surface and consider the
very guidelines the Cuban government has adopted to steer the transition
process. Since the state unveiled its nuevos lineamientos or
new guidelines for economic development in 2010, the easing of
government restrictions on private entrepreneurial activity has only
constituted a single aspect of a much broader picture of change.
Unfortunately, The New York Times and its ilk have gotten so hung up on
the privatization shift, that they've left out crucial details about the
types of private enterprises the Cuban government is attempting to
foster.
Specifically, the government is placing high priority on the development of worker-owned-and-managed firms and has recently passed a law
intended to launch an experimental cadre of 200 such firms. Under the
law, workers - rather than government bureaucrats or elite boards of
directors - will democratically run the businesses, set their own
competitive prices, determine wages and salaries and decide what to do
with the profits they generate. In other words, Cuba's new worker
cooperatives will operate pretty much along the same lines as their
successful cousins in the capitalist world, including Spain's Mondragon Cooperative Corporation.
But what sets the Cuban cooperative experiment apart and renders it
such an incredible opportunity for the global worker-cooperative
movement, is its occurrence in a political-economic milieu that is
currently free from the distorting effects of capitalist competition.
This is significant because while cooperatives have proven just as competitive
as capitalist firms in a capitalist context, when capitalist profits
and growth assume top priority, worker-owned firms may be compelled to
act more like capitalist firms and subordinate core objectives such as
worker empowerment and well-being, community development and
environmental sustainability. Indeed, as cooperatives grow, even the
percentage of actual worker owners in their ranks has been known to
decline, as we've seen with Mondragon.
In short, the worker-ownership movement could greatly benefit from a
national-scale economic environment that will allow cooperative
enterprises to develop according to their own particular democratic
nature and exhibit their true potential, free from the profit-above-all
dictates of capitalism. No country bears as much promise in this respect
than contemporary Cuba.
Nevertheless, for Cuba's experiment to work, all efforts should be
made to steer the economy and the behavior of the country's emergent
private entrepreneurial class in a direction that comports with the
ethos and objectives of economic democracy. Above all, this would likely
require severe restrictions, if not an outright ban, on the entry of
large foreign capitalist firms or the establishment of large domestic
capitalist firms. For, as economists such as Jamee Moudud of Sarah
Lawrence University and many structuralist thinkers have pointed out, as
jobs and tax revenues become dependent on the success of capitalist
firms, societies become constrained
in their ability to pursue developmental paths that do not prioritize
capitalist accumulation. Accordingly, during the early years of the
cooperative experiment, Cuba should seek to limit foreign direct
investment to cooperative or triple-bottom-line
firms as much as possible, facilitate joint-ventures between such firms
and its own cooperatives and continue to seek industrial loans largely
from committed social democratic partners such as Venezuela, and other
"pink-tide" trade partners.
Finally, the global cooperative movement must appreciate the
historic, strategic importance of Cuba's experiment and mobilize its
resources to support the effort. As observers of the situation have
pointed out, Cuba's experience with worker cooperatives is limited
primarily to its agricultural sector, and the establishment of a robust
non-agricultural cooperative sector will require serious provision of
training, technical support and worker acculturation. On this front, the
experience of successful worker-ownership movements in Argentina, the
United States, Spain and other countries could prove invaluable. Such
assistance might be coordinated with the help of organizations such as Democracy at Work, the Democracy at Work Network, the Democracy Collaborative and the Working World, all of which specialize in helping worker cooperatives grow and thrive.
Of course, anyone can bolster this important beachhead for economic
democracy by simply spreading the word and helping plug the gap in the
media's coverage of Cuba's transition. Please help bust the myth that
markets mean capitalism for the new Cuba by sharing this article and
others cited here.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario