Work and Other Matters
It is not uncommon to make the same mistake twice; however, according to an ancient philosopher, we are the only animals who do this.
By: Luis Sexto

It is not uncommon to make the same mistake twice; however, according to an ancient philosopher, we are the only animals who do this. Once, about three years ago, I wrote about this human characteristic. I asked myself what could be the reasons for such a peculiar behaviour, and came up with the answer that maybe it is simply because we want to or because we want to forget the lessons of history.
That is to say, and now I am quoting from a famous saying, that we lack a common sense that is the less common of all senses. If there are terms in human tongues linked to the word “love,” such as reason, intelligence, maturity, prudence, sense, we also use others like hate, fanatism, stubbornness, lack of memory, stiffness. This explains why the human being tends to be ambivalent, and where there is virtue sometimes there will be vice and where there is correctness, there is at times error.
Doubt is rational and goes beyond our limitations. It brings distrust of our possibilities, and raises continued questions about our actions. We not only make the same mistakes twice but also give them the same solutions, even when these have been ineffective.
Do we lack the ability of reflection? Yes, we do. We lack being frank with ourselves. Instead of making personal desires, ideas and interests prevail; we have to focus on what is useful, important, urgent. If we persist in an indulgent vision, always trying to correct other people’s actions, we are at stake of losing the capacity of correcting our own.
I want to give an example. At the last Parliament session, Raúl Castro suggested an idea that encompasses what I have already said and I quote only the most important part, “We need to create in Cubans the need to work to avoid the problems affecting our work: indiscipline, unproductiveness, carelessness.” It seems to be true: Human subjectivity tends to modify behavior and reality. However, we also know there are scales in human groups like in military groups: a vanguard, center and rearguard. To believe that the vanguard can become a massive section and that the other parts of society become a minority would be equivalent to an almost irrational idealism. In my humble opinion, the wisest policy is one that perceives humans as beings who tend to be heroic and selfish at the same time and one that attempts to set order and progress based on this principle.
As such, would we be able to eliminate people’s idleness by force? During the 1960s, when Cubans were eager to stimulate national development, the government adopted a law to fight idleness. I don´t think that this problem can be solved with such a measure. On the contrary, it brought about other problems. Looking at the current times and analyzing the results of such a measure, could be reuse these solutions? I don´t think so. Firstly, because the times and problems are different: new problems need new solutions.
I don´t consider myself as infallible, not able to make a mistake. I also make mistakes, I used to look at my surrounding world, reflect, and consult with the future and past. For this reason I ask you to allow me to do my work as a commentator: to ask, to doubt. Are we going to continue seeing these people as the bad guys of the story? Are we going to continue turning a blind eye to important factors such as the influence of necessity in people’s behavior? If someone makes their livelihood on the black market instead of working, how to we encourage them to work creatively? I back this: the existence of an accessible market where the buyer’s will and money prevail. This would counteract a great number of these scourges such as “street vendors,” and the cons due to corruption and idleness. A revaluation of peoples’ salary also seems necessary as currently peoples salaries really mean nothing in trying to face the difficult current situation.
Obviously, I don´t exclude the responsibility of the individual. However, I consider that looking for an explanation to this problem by analyzing two opposite conditions, idleness and non idleness, is somewhat vague and does not offer much of a solution. Law and ideology are not enough to solve a situation where unsatisfied needs exert their utmost pression over people’s attitudes. It is also necessary, and this can be inferred from Raúl´s words, no review influences and a cash incentive, not only in terms of management. It is also essential to pay attention to political decisions so as not to make the same mistakes.