THE
SMALL FARMERS IN CUBA
{The following article is the first in a series of three which appeared in the English edition of PEL (Panorama Economico Latinoamericano), a weekly bulletin of Prensa Latina, the Cuban news service. It was published in No. 221 of PEL under the title, "A Well-Defined Status." We will print the rest of the series in coming issues of World Outlook. ]
* * *
I.
Eight years have passed since the revolutionary government decreed the first Agrarian Reform Law (May 1959) and scarcely four years have gone by since the Second Agrarian Reform (October 1963).
During these years two different elements were defined: the first was the structure of land tenure, and second, the level of socioeconomic organization in both the state and private sectors.
It was natural that the profound socioeconomic transformation carried out in the rural areas of Cuba had repercussions on the organizational forms of work and resulted in a certain amount of instability in the agricultural-livestock sector.
From the political viewpoint, the private sector definitely consolidated its position once the Second Agrarian Reform had gone into effect, which meant that landowners could not hold more than 67 hectares (the first Reform Law had been more than generous in allowing private owners up to 402.6 hectares of land).
Thus the second Law eliminated an element of political instability, even of counterrevolution. The country could then begin to rely on an authentic mass of small farmers who worked the land thenselves, organized themselves rapidly, voluntarily adopting different forms of association and participating completely in the revolutionary process.
The fact was that the class interests of landowners with more than 67 hectares inevitably drove them to fight against the revolution. This antagonism between the land-owning bourgeoisie and the new socialist process was expressed in different ways. Most important of all, it became an instrument of internal counterrevolution; in many cases, the large landowners directly combated the revolution, or at least gave sheltér, economic aid, and information to counterrevolutionary CIA-supported bands. Many of them tried to lead the small farmers into counterrevolutionary activities, spreading rumors and intrigue, sowing in them doubts as to their future. In general, the rural bourgeoisie undertook direct sabotage of production, left its lands in a progressive state of abandonment, hampered production, etc. It was all too evident that this situation could not continue and thus the Second Agrarian Reform was born. This measure, of an eminently political character, was in a certain sense a defensive act of the revolution, as well as a historical necessity.
The economic power of the rural bourgeoisie on the eve of the Second Agrarian Reform was considerable: this sector owned approximately 1,744,626 hectares, fone hectare = nearly 2.5 acres], that is, more than 20% of the country's arable land; more than 1,000 million arrobas of sugarcane (equivalent to more than 1.4 million tons of sugar) planted over 295,200 hectares of land; and a decisive part of the national herd, particularly the pastures for cattle breeding and fattening.
Meanwhile the process of consolidating the agricultural-livestock sector, although it was progressing well, had to be delayed for a considerable period of time until the present when close and specific cooperation is beginning between the private sector (organized in the National Association of Small Farmers -- ANAP) and the state sector.
On many occasions, the Revolutionary Government has explained to the small farmers the scope of their rights and what their future role will be within the Revolution.
This process is expressed in the speech given by Prime Minister Fidel Castro at the time of the passage of the Second Agrarian Reform (October 1963). He explained such important matters as the continued existence of small private farmers for an indefinite period of time, stating: "There are two pillars: the nationalized land owned and managed by the state farms and the lands belonging to the small farmers. These two sectors can advance together and contribute extraordinarily to the development of the economy, as allies of the working class; the revolution will always respect the feelings of the small farmers who want to farm their own land, and will respect the way in which they want to farm their land." Earlier Fidel had expressed the same idea: "The Revolution thinks of future development as being based on two elements: state production and the production of the small farmers who may feel absolutely secure -absolutely secure -- and you all know that the Revolution's word is its honor."
Today all over the world agrarian 'reforms no longer constitute spooks haunt-
ing the landowner. Ideas on agrarian reform are now being broadly interpreted and frequently these reforms are adopted and converted into instruments which actually defend the bourgeoisie itself or ensure the continued existence of the landowner. Examples of this "flexibility" can be counted by the dozens: from the simple expropriation of private land with rapid and "appropriate" indemnification for distribution in tiny parcels to the peasants, thus worsening another aspect of feudalism -- the minifundium; to the distribution of state lands among peasants to give them the illusion of a progressive regime, thus placating the popular demands for truly structural reforms.
Instead of a true agrarian reform, legal ownership of Conucos, Huasipungos, etc., is sanctioned. These are slave-like systems of exploitation, that is, the use of parcels of land in exchange for work. Such was, for example, the publicized agrarian reform of Ecuador's military dictatorship which was overthrown last year, a victim of its own incapacity and political poverty.
But all these forms of manipulat-— ing agrarian reforms are well-known reac-— tionary maneuvers which prosper in the atmosphere of the much touted "“representative democracies" maintained by precisely the same bourgeoisie that with subtle methods seeks to escape the sweep of revolutionary currents.
However even within a truly revolutionary process there is a great diversity of criteria on agrarian reform, depending on the prevailing socioeconomic conditions in each case.
The Road of Cuba
What did the Cuban Revolution do in the field of agrarian reform? We will quote some of Prime Minister Castro's comments on this subject: *
"Even up to that moment (the time of the agrarian reform law) the most conmon concept in the country of how to make an agrarian reform was the concept of land distribution. But today we can see clearly that this is an idea which would have been perfectly suitable for a capitalist society, it is impossible, from all points of view, to do with the land from a technical and productive standpoint what could be done with it when all the nation's resources are used for this purpose."
"In the beginning, it would have
* Excerpts from the speech given by Major Fidel Castro on May 19, 1967, at the closing session of the Third ANAP Congress. been the easiest of all agrarian reforms: so many thousands of hectares of farm land, so many landless peasants or agricultural workers. How would the land be distributed? Thirteen hectares per person? The land would never stretch that far. There were hundreds of thousands of persons living or working in the rural zones who wanted land. Six hectares? The land would still not be enough. Three hectares? One and a half hectares?"
--lf we had distributed the land at one and a half hectares per person... this revolution would have become chaos. And obviously, since we were not going to let that happen then we would have...had to begin to reunite all those one and a half hectares, because when the time came to use a machine, a combine...a hydraulic project or an airplane to cropdust or fertilize, it would have been impossible from every standpoint."
“What solution did the Revolution seek? The peasantry, working the land for years, accustomed to this type of work and this form of production, paying rent, or a third of their crops, or a half, all these forms of exploitation of the peasant...accustomed to this type of work... who likes this form of work...Let us leave this peasant there, let us exempt him from paying rent, that is, from exploitation. Let us begin to give him all possible services -- education, medical assistance, credits, communications -in short, everything within our power to give.
"But why convert an agricultural worker, why convert a worker who one day could till the soil with the aid of machines and technology, into an owner of a minifundium?"
"This is why the Revolution decided not to break up and distribute the latifundia. This was not an easy task; it was not easy to understand. The bourgeoisie said: ‘Look, the State is seizing all the land; look, now you're going to. be wage earners for the State.' Later, since there were farmers who owned different-sized parcels, they tried to implant fear as they always do in the case of agrarian reform."
"Naturally it was absolutely necessary to make a second reform. Why was it necessary? Because of the large number of landowners with 200, 300 or 400 hectares, an immense majority had a virtual attitude of sabotage towards production. We had to make another agrarian reform. What did they do then? They began to say: 'No, after this it will be your turn.' Then the Revolution declared -- and this Revolution has always been remarkable because it has always kept all its promises; it has been notable for its seriousness and
for its honesty -- the Revolution declared that there will be NO more agrarian reforms! And simply, the process of law and agrarian' reforms lasted up to that moment.
"The bourgeoisie in general and the landowners used many...arguments. They would say to the small farmers: ‘This is socialism and because it is socialism they are going to take away your land.' We came and told the small farners: 'This is socialism and because it is socialism we are not going to nationalize your land.' And since the impoverished and exploited farmer is an ally of the working class, we must treat him as a revolutionary, as a comrade, a friend, with all the political considerations that he deserves."
“Especially in our revolution, the small farmer played a very important role because the first guerrilla groups began to form precisely in the mountains, among then."
"We believe that the solution given by the revolution was a very good one, in that it decided not to break up the latifundia and to respect the traditional means of production of the poor peasants and in that it never attempted to 'socialize' the small farmers."
"Of course, no one can doubt that a large piece of land will raise production and productivity."
“However, we said: ‘It doesn't matter. The latifundia have enough land full of marabu, of brushwood, producing almost nothing, so that we can increase production extraordinarily, even if we don't increase productivity in the same manner among the small farmers due to the parceling out of land.'"
"Today, we see clearly that this was the most correct policy that we could have chosen. Does this mean that we believe in the minifundium? No. We do not believe in the minifundium. Does this mean that we believe we can reach maximum yields and maximum productivity by distribution of small parcels of land? No. It does not mean this. It means that the revolution is really following a policy based on reality, that the revolution is on the right road. And it also means that when a revolution follows a realistic policy, it is based on the realities of a country, it is based on the situation existing in a certain country.'
"We believe that the most rational -- the most productive -- form of land tenure and labor is not the Small parcel. Nevertheless, our policy was that of maintaining these parcels, our policy was that of not promoting the unification of these lands, our policy was one of patience, of struggling to introduce technology -- al-
though this is still not sufficiently
widespread -- within the manner of pro-
duction that the small farmer was accus-
tomed to, in the form that he liked."
The above is a summary of the sta-
tus of the private sector within the Rev-
olution. It is a perfectly well-defined
and permanent status, therefore both the
State and the small farmer know what is
expected from then.
Now then, what is, in fact, the
economic power of the peasantry? Perhaps,
as few socialist revolutions have done,
the Cuban state has managed to consolidate
an important position within the agricul-
tural-economic aggregate of the country.
In spite of everything the private sector
has an important position.
According to a partial count taken
at the time of the 1961 livestock census,
there were 4.45 million hectares of land
in farms owned by the private sector, or
59.8 percent of the land area calculated
for that year.*
Table No. 1 shows the distribution
of these lands, according to size and nun-
ber of farms.
Table No. 1
Land Distribution in the Private Sector,
According to Size of Farms (1961)
Thousands
No. of of
Size of Farms Farms Hectares
Up to 67 hectares 154,703 2,348.1
From 67 to 134 hectares 6,062 607.5
From 134 to 268 " 3,105 © 610.3
From 268 to 402 " 1,456 507.6
Over 402 hectares 592 377.5
Total 165,918 4,451.0
Thus in 1961 the amount of land
owned by the private sector was signifi-
cant. However, this ownership was not a
definite one chiefly because of political
reasons as explained in the beginning of
this article.
Apart from this, Table No. 1 clear-
ly reveals, on the basis of farm size, the
class content that emerged after May 1959,
once the first Agrarian Reform Law had
been put into effect.
The vast majority of farmers had
less than 67 hectares of land each, among
these no less than 120,000 owned less than
26.4 hectares each, of the latter some
* According to the last census taken before
the revolution, there were approximately
159,000 farms with a total of 9.08 million
hectares.
60,000 owned less than 13.4 hectares each, including the more than 25,000 whose holdings were no larger than 6.5 hectares.
This sector of small farmers was what would later be known as the private agricultural sector. The other landowners with more than 67 hectares would tend to disappear by a spontaneous process of abandoning their land (when they chose self-exile) and later by virtue of the Second Agrarian Reform.
Thus the state sector owned only 40 percent of the land partially calculated in 1961, that is, almost three million hectares which placed it in an inferior position compared to the private sector in regard to the available land area, its quality, the volume of manpower and the experience and organization needed for production.
This was the first phase of Cuba's agrarian reform. Up to the beginning of 1963 the situation changed considerably in favor of the state sector. In effect, the state sector then owned a total of