Why did I know Mr. Proyect would reproduce this, and reproduce it uncritically? Because small is beautiful? Because less is more? Because it proves how non-energy intensive farming points the way? Because, maybe Mark Jones said it was right?
Whatever. Before we get all sappy-- take a moment and look at the FAO database on daily caloric intake per capital per year for Cuba. In 1969 this dcal/cap/yr was 2528; for 1974, 2869.8; for 1979, 2755; 1984, 3128; 1990, 2912.1; 1995, 2227.9; 2000, 2614.4; 2001, 2643.3. So, while the policies have done much to pull Cuba away from the abyss, and it was an abyss of 1993-4-5, Cuba has not yet reached the level of 1974 in this critical measure. This is not to say that Cuba has not faced enormous obstacles. On the contrary, the enormity of the obstacles, and the impossibility of overcoming them on one island, is exactly the point. Moreover, some of the recovery is a product of the "tiering" of the Cuban economy; the influx of tourism and foreign investment in the entertainment/recreation/pleasure industries; the sanctioning of private markets and private production, both of which are subsidized by the state. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L] [Fwd: [Marxism] Interview with Richard Heinberg] ".........It's been done before, albeit on a smaller scale. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Cuba, which imported almost all of its oil from the U.S.S.R., suddenly faced an annual energy shortage of 25 percent. Fidel Castro's communist government immediately went to work, breaking up the country's large factory farms into small plots of land, encouraging city dwellers to move to the country and become organic farmers. Millions of bicycles were imported from China; cars were banned from certain roadways. The reforms worked, and by the end of the 1990s, Cuba had pulled itself out of what could have been a major depression. Such a plan might work on the global level, Heinberg believes, but there are major obstacles, the primary one for the United States being that some of the methods will smack of communism. "It would require a command-and-control economy and a WW IIlevel of effort," Heinberg says..............." full: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/06.09.04/oil-0424.html _______________________________________________ Marxism mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism . -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
