In a statement that has been met with skepticism or irony, the ruler Miguel Díaz-Canel asserted on Friday that "to achieve the construction of socialism, it is necessary to have a well-structured economic system". The confession was made during the closing of the IX Congress of the National Association of Economists and Accountants of Cuba (ANEC), held at the Palacio de Convenciones in Havana.
Although the event was presented as a space for technical analysis and proposals, the dominant tone was one of ideological messaging, defending the model and calling for resistance against “the aggression of the empire,” while millions of Cubans face a reality marked by inflation, shortages, and despair.
According to the official newspaper Granma, Díaz-Canel stated that the document discussed at the congress should become a "work guide" to support the "Government Program to Correct Distortions and Revitalize the Economy". A statement that, far from inspiring confidence, seems to confirm what many citizens experience daily: a country without a clear economic direction and subjected to makeshift measures that have exacerbated the crisis.
From the monetary unification to the failure of MLC commerce, along with the increase in economic talent migration to the private sector or abroad, Cuba has felt the effects of a management that many experts describe as ineffective. Now, in the words of the leader, it is acknowledged that “the economy cannot continue to be a field of improvisation” and must be “science applied to justice”.
For the government, strengthening the socialist state enterprise, reducing the fiscal deficit, organizing the currency system, and combating corruption are not just technical reforms but "trenches of the Revolution." However, for the ordinary citizen, these measures have not managed to curb the decline in purchasing power or reverse the precariousness of basic services.
The official discourse continues to insist on the U.S. blockade as the central cause of the economic disaster, while omitting deep self-criticism regarding the centralized economic model and stifling state control. Not a word has been said about the impact of repression, censorship, or the lack of economic freedoms on the current situation.
Some delegates from the ANEC spoke about the need for objective economic analyses, to avoid improvisation, and to promote real feedback between technical proposals and political decisions. However, the space for dissent remains minimal, and the congress itself concluded with a Political Declaration reaffirming its support for the regime and denouncing "disinformation campaigns" against its "achievements in social justice."
This is not the first time that the regime has resorted to slogans and promises to justify its model. On previous occasions, Díaz-Canel has even quoted Lenin to call for "patience" in the construction of socialism, while continuing to blame the U.S. embargo for all the problems. However, the population, increasingly skeptical, has responded that what exists in Cuba is not developing socialism, but rather an obsolete and impoverishing system.
Quotes from the past like Fidel Castro's in 1990, claiming that more people would come "to see the social development" than to enjoy the beaches of Cuba, have resurfaced on social media as an ironic reminder of the chasm between official discourse and reality: garbage piling up in the streets, crumbling buildings, and thousands of families separated by migration.
The lack of concrete results, combined with an official discourse that is increasingly disconnected from the people, has left many Cubans with a single certainty: slogans alone cannot sustain life.
Filed under:
