As so many tell us, Cuba really is freer than the UK.
However, Raúl was at pains to point out that this was not \”privatisation\” but rather a release of the state from the need to manage what he called \”non-strategic\” activities. He actually delineated what he saw the state\’s responsibilities to be: to protect the nation\’s sovereignty, to control drugs and crime, to alleviate poverty and to avoid violence. Outside of that, the state was to regulate but not manage, and a policy of political and economic decentralisation was set in train, meaning that both local government and state companies are to be given more freedom.
At least in Raul Casto\’s rhetoric Cuba is going to be freer than the UK as some would have the UK.
He\’s saying that the State should directly deal with defence, crime and run a welfare safety net. After that, the State should regulate rather than do.
This is actually rather more minarchist, more right wing, than our own Dear Labour Party (and points left) who insist that the State should also run directly the railways, the health care system, and as we go further left, the energy companies, water companies and so on.
So, there you have it, geriatric communist dictator proposing a State which would get him booed off the stage at a Labour Party Conference. For being too right wing.
Funny old world.
He’s less in thrall to the memory of Josef Stalin than the Labour Party is. But is that really surprising? The Major Attlee/Ernie Bevin types are long gone from Labour.
I suppose the level of freedom will depend to an absolute extent on his definition of ‘crime’. It might not match ours.
After that, the State should regulate rather than do.
Isn’t that more or less Ayn Rand’s definition of “fascism”?
More right wing than even the rhetoric of “share the fruits of growth between its crators and government nureaucrats” Cameron.
Since Cameron’s rhetoric is always more progressive than his actions it may turn out Raul Castro is considerably to the right of him on that too.
….However, Raúl was at pains to point out that this was not “privatisation” but rather a release of the state from the need to manage what he called “non-strategic” activities. …..
Leaving resources free for propaganda, torture, imprisoning critics, making up health statistics and other core activities of the state.
Good to see that he’s interested in setting the State free.