Towards an alternative Cuban socio-economic project (1)
Yasser Farres Delgado
HAVANA TIMES — Are there alternatives to the State neoliberalism that is being installed as the socio-economic model in Cuba? Are there alternatives to becoming an accomplice of the anti-ecological and socially unjust global civilization model? Is it possible to propose a Cuban socio-territorial project that won’t multiply dependency? Is it possible to establish foreign economic relations that do not lead to debt?
All these questions share a common answer: “Absolutely yes”. In fact, there is a critical economic theory and several socioeconomic practices around the world that would be able to support this affirmation, although they have not been generalized because of not being interesting for the hegemonic one-sided thinking in the increasingly neo-liberal academia or governments that are increasingly controlled by the IMF and the global economic elites.
In this regard it should be asked: Why are these experiences are not disclosed in Cuba? Are the Cuban state, academia and citizens unable to promote them? What changes would be needed in each of these parts of Cuban society to multiply those alternatives?
I propose with this post, and others to follow, to open a discussion on these two sets of questions. In line with my previous three entries (1), (2) and (3), I will now devote space to two concepts: degrowth and post-development.
The theory of the coexistential degrowth is a European (but not eurocentric) thinking that questions the globalized model for civilization. Taking the notion of ‘degrowth’ as a category of analysis, its approach is to equally reduce global consumption and to properly allocate the resources and benefits in order to achieve a global plural post-development. French economist Serge Latouche might be the most recognized proponent of this approach. Political scientist and writer Carlos Taibo and the writer, philosopher and political scientist Jorge Riechmann are relevant on the topic in Spain.
The idea of ‘fair reduction’ is important. It acknowledges that the role of the ‘developed countries’ will be different to the role of the ‘undeveloped countries’ where production is insufficient to solve the basic needs of those populations.
This proposal is fed by a diverse thinking genealogy that includes criteria from bio-economy to political ecology. However, contrary to the conception of certain reformist environmentalists, it asserts that “the steady state itself and zero growth are neither possible nor desirable.” Not possible because the economical process is not mechanical and irreversible but instead entropic; nor desirable because it doesn’t imply renouncing the model of unlimited production and consumption in a world where resources are limited and also because it doesn’t offer a real alternative for overcoming the enormous contrasts [Latouche, 2007: 66].
The degrowth proposal is consistent with reformist environmentalist in preserving the environment but adds that a minimum of social justice must be restored at the same time, which is a goal that would be possible only if consumption is reduced and with a fair distribution. Opponents insist that this proposal would mean a return to prehistory. This statement makes no sense considering the situation of most of the world population that has no access to the “development” and the global system of consumption, neither will they because the illusion of development is based on their exploitation.
Degrowth theory urges us to rethink the notion of well-being in other terms and not limited to the satisfaction of socially constructed irrational needs. It is “to renounce the economic imaginary, that is, the belief that more is equal to better” [Latouche, 2007:69]. That is the ethical value of this proposal. It mainly aims to insist that the goal of growth for growth must be abandoned.
According to Latouche [2009:46], being rigorous, “it would be convenient to talk about ‘agrowth’ in the way we talk about ‘atheism’». It draws attention to the belief in development. The way this would materialize would be linked to localism and a coexistential nature, aspects whose importance also highlight other concepts.
Latouche’s proposal can be resumed in his 8-R, which became the fundamentals of the action:
• Revaluate: Check our values: Cooperation vs. competition, altruism vs. selfishness and so on. It is replacing the global, individualistic and consumerist values by local values, cooperation and humanism.
• Re-contextualize (re-conceptualize): Modify our ways of conceptualizing reality, showing the social construction of poverty, scarcity, etc., aimed primarily to a new lifestyle and quality of life, sufficiency and voluntary simplicity.
• Restructure: Adapting the economic and productive structures to the changing of values. Adapt the productive apparatus and social relations to the new scale of values, for example, combining eco-efficiency and voluntary simplicity.
• Relocate: Sustaining production and consumption essentially at the local level. It is a call to the local self-sufficiency in order to satisfy the primary needs reducing the use of transportation.
• Redistribute: The access to natural resources and wealth. Especially in the relations between North and South.
• Reduce: Restricting consumption to the biosphere’s replenishing capacity. It is related to changing the consumer life style for a simple lifestyle with all the implications.
• Reuse: Move towards durable goods and their reparation and maintenance instead of over consumption.
• Recycle: In all our activities. It is time to extend the life of products to avoid consumption and waste.
Ultimately, the degrowth proposal shares some ideas with “endogenous development” and “self-sustainability” raised from other economic interpretations. So let’s ask, do the Cuban economic policies aim toward this? Interestingly, the word “endogenous” is not in the rhetoric of the Cuban government’s economic policy guidelines.