In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26th
Movement
From The Pen Of Frank Jackman (2015)
Every leftist, hell, everybody
who stands on the democratic principle that each nation has the right to self-determination
should cautiously rejoice at the “defrosting” of the long-time diplomatic
relations between the American imperial behemoth and the island of Cuba (and
the freedom of the remaining Cuban Five in the bargain). Every leftist militant
should understand that each non-capitalist like Cuba going back to the establishment
of the now defunct Soviet Union has had the right (maybe until we win our socialist
future the duty) to make whatever advantageous agreements they can with the
capitalist world. That despite whatever disagreements we have with the political
regimes ruling those non-capitalist states. That is a question for us to work
out not the imperialists.
For those who have
defended the Cuban Revolution since its victory in 1959 under whatever political
rationale (pro-socialist, right to self-determination, or some other hands off
policy) watching on black and white television the rebels entering Havana this
day which commemorates the heroic if unsuccessful efforts at Moncada we should
affirm our continued defense of the Cuban revolution. Oh yes, and tell the American
government to give back Guantanamo while we are at it.
DVD REVIEW
Fidel: The Untold Story, Directed by Estela Bravo, 2002
This year marks the 56th anniversary of the Cuban July 26th movement, the 50th anniversary of the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the 42nd anniversary of the execution of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara by the Bolivian Army after the defeat of his guerrilla forces and his capture in godforsaken rural Bolivia. I have reviewed the life of Che elsewhere in this space (see July archives, dated July 5, 2006). The Cuban Revolution stood for my generation, the Generation of '68, and, hopefully, will for later generations as a symbol of revolutionary intransigence against American imperialism.
Thus, it is fitting to review a cinematic biographic sketch of Che’s comrade and central leader of that revolution, Fidel Castro. Obviously, it is harder to evaluate the place in history of the disabled, but still living, Fidel than the iconic Che whose place is secured in the revolutionary pantheon. The choice of this documentary reflected my desire to review a recent post- Soviet biographic sketch (originally released in 2002). Usually one must accept by now that most Western biographic sketches have various degrees of hostility to the Castro regime and the Cuban Revolution. The director here, Ms. Bravo, is apparently an exception. After viewing this sketch I find that it gives a reasonable account of the highlights of Fidel’s life thus far and for those not familiar with the Fidel saga a good place to start. To get a more detailed analysis one, as always, then goes to the books to get a better sense of the subject.
Let us be clear about two things. First, this writer has defended the Cuban Revolution since its inception; initially under a liberal- democratic premise of the right of nations, especially applicable to small nations pressed up against the imperialist powers, to self-determination; later under the above-mentioned premise and also that it should be defended on socialist grounds, not my idea of socialism- the Bolshevik, 1917 kind- but as an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist revolution nevertheless. That prospective continues to be this writer’s position today. Secondly, my conception of revolutionary strategy and thus of world politics has for a long time been far removed from Fidel Castro’s (and Che’s) strategy, which emphasized military victory by guerrilla forces in the countryside, rather than my position of mass action by the urban proletariat leading the rural masses. That said, despite those strategic political differences this reviewer can honor the Cuban Revolution as a symbol of a fight all anti-imperialist militants should defend.
Ms. Bravo's rather more positive prospective obviously differs from mine. Nevertheless she has presented interesting footage focusing on the highlights of Fidel’s career; the early student days struggling for political recognition; the initial fights against Batista; the famous but unsuccessful Moncada attack; the subsequent trial, imprisonment and then exile in Mexico; the return to Cuba and renewed fight under a central strategy of guerrilla warfare rather than urban insurrection; the triumph over Batista in 1959; the struggle against American imperialist intervention and the nationalizations of much of Cuba’s economy; the American-sponsored Bay of Pigs in 1961; the rocky alliance with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis; the various ups and downs in the Cuban economy stemming from reliance on the monoculture of sugar; the various periods of Cuban international revolutionary support activity, including Angola and Nicaragua; the demise of the Soviet Union and the necessity of Cuba to go it alone along with its devastating hardships; and, various other events up through the 1990’s.
All of this is complete with the inevitable ‘talking heads’ experts interspersed throughout the documentary giving their take on the meaning of various incidents. Of interest here is the take of the former CIA interest section head Smith, former American radical Angela Davis and the novelist and long time Castro friend Gabriel Garcia Marquez. There is plenty of material to start with and much to analyze. As mentioned before Che’s place is secure and will be a legitimate symbol of rebellion for youth for a long time. Fidel, as a leader of state and a much more mainline Stalinist (although compared with various stodgy Soviet leaderships that he dealt with over the years he must have seemed like their worst Trotsky nightmare) has a much less assured place. Alas, the old truism holds here - revolutionaries should not die in their beds. As always though- Defend The Cuban Revolution- End The U.S. Blockade!.
Hello, what a good blog you have. i have a question. When do you think that Socialism is possible in USA? in 2012? Can americans elect at least a Social-Democratic Party like The Green Party? instead of the obsolete, capitalist right-wing, free market, oligarchical Democrats and Republicans? Because to tell you the truth most americans would like to see a new party in power, a new ideology. Americans are tired of Democrats and Republicans !!
ReplyDelete.
Marxist-Socialist- I will give my opinion on the questions that you have posed over the course of the next few months as the Obama Administration takes over. There are many illusions abroad in the land concerning his presidency right now. Watch Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan policies to get a grasp of what direction foreign policy will go in. That is where our first battles (and our wedge) will probably come from. In any case, I hate to disappoint you but the fight for socialism is a long term prosepctive. I wish 2012 were a possible target date but that seems out of the question now given today's social realities. More later. Markin
ReplyDeleteRecently I received a comment on another site objecting, mainly I think, to my statement that revolutionaries should not die in their beds. I may have put it a little artlessly in characterizing the fate of Fidel Castro but there is nevertheless a point to be be made on this question.
ReplyDeleteWhat I had in mind was my own possible fate. In order to, hopefully, clarify what I meant I am reposting this comment from October 15, 2006.
On Revolutionaries and Mortality
THE DUTY OF A REVOLUTIONARY IS TO MAKE THE REVOLUTION-OR FALL TRYING
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
I was recently asked by a young militant leftist of vague socialist sympathies why an old militant like myself was still trying to put up what apparently appears to be a forlorn task in my lifetime- the ‘good fight’ for socialism. My short answer to her was that I was doing it for her. It is true that each political generation will come to terms with the socialist tasks of its era in its own way. However, it would be a serious mistake on the part of young socialist militants to ignore the lessons of the past.
The lessons:the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Paris Commune, the early history of the American Communist Party and later the Socialist Workers Party now seemingly in the historic mist of time to today’s young militants need examination. Old militants may not be able to immediately bring about the socialist vision that animated their youth but we sure as hell can pass on the torch to the next generation. Moreover, the links to that past by death, attrition and abandonment of politics by earlier cadre have become extremely attenuated, particularly here in the heartland of world imperialism, and the relatively few of us who still remember that past and who are still fighting that ‘good fight’ are duty bound to pass on what we know.
Now for a little longer answer to that young militant’s question. I came of political age in the 1960’s, a time of much political ferment and many political mistakes on the part of the young leftists of my generation, what I have euphemistically called elsewhere the generation of ’68. Personally, I came, kicking and screaming, relatively late to the Marxist worldview after abandoning left liberal and then 'soft' socialist political positions. I can, however, state with some pride that the lateness of my conversion probably helped to keep my convictions that much more solid.Certainly nothing politically over the past 30 plus years has changed my basis view of the necessity of socialism and the probability that a knock down, drag out fight against the imperialists will be necessary to achieve it. If nothing else that is the example I wish to set by my writings and political actions.
Truth to tell, nobody ever said that individual revolutionaries would live to see the socialist society in their life time. If any thought so they bought the wrong ticket. While it is certainly true that individual activists make their own judgments about the extend of their commitment to their political goals, especially something as seemingly esoteric as the hard fight for socialism, this wicked world holds too many surprises to base one’s political calculations on the dream of actually being a commissar in a soviet society. Our models, moreover, should be Marx who after 1848 never came close to seeing the society that he predicted but still fought savagely for his worldview until his death. And Lenin, who only saw a partial and a much distorted completion of his world view before his untimely death. And Trotsky who fought to save the Russian Revolution and later in exile fought to create a new revolutionary international died at his post with his work still uncompleted. Can we do less?
Finally, let me give a specific example that has sustained me throughout the years. As part of my early Marxist political activity I did a massive amount of political reading, especially about the American socialist movement. In that reading I was drawn to the struggle of the American Trotskyists in the 1930’s who as followers of Trotsky’s Left International were trying to create a new revolutionary communist party in opposition to the Stalinized American Communist Party. As part of that process they tried to regroup with other active left wing anti-Stalinist organizations.
One such successful regroupment was with the Workers Party that had led the famous Toledo Auto-Lite strike in 1934 and which along with other later regroupments formed the Socialist Workers Party. One of the leaders of the Workers Party was New York University Professor, James Burnham. Burnham was a high-powered intellectual who could write very persuasively and wrote many articles and pamphlets that militants today can still profitably read. In 1940 he led a major split from the SWP over the question of defense of the Soviet Union. He in turn split from Marxism and later would end up a die-hard anti-Communist in league with conservative William Buckley’s National Review. Such are vagaries of politics, but that is not the main point here. In his heyday in the Socialist Workers Party Burnham was asked by fellow leader James P. Cannon to take a more central and active role in the leadership of the organization. In response Burnham stated that he personally could or would not do so as he was uncertain whether the socialist goals of the organization were attainable in his life time. That, fellow militants, is exactly the bad example that I have been fighting against most of my political life. I remain at my post.