On The 80th Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Leon Trotsky-Led Fourth International (1938)- *From The Pen Of American Socialist Workers Party Leader James P. Cannon- "Don't Strangle The Party (1967)"

Click on the headline to link to a "James P. Cannon Internet Archive" online copy of his 1967 polemic, "Don't Strangle The Party".


Markin comment:

On a day when I am posting an article from the archives of "Women and Revolution" about the Socialist Workers Party's various policies toward the gay liberation struggle back in the 1970s it seems appropriate to post something from historic SWP leader James P. Cannon. This is from late in his career when he was not in day-to-day charge of the organization, some of the politics are also wobbly, and a lot of the issues concern internal party political in-fighting (as was the rationale for publishing and posting it by others at later times)but the entry is still worth a look at.

On The 50th Anniversary Of The May Days In France--A Film Documentary Of Our 1960s Times- Chris Marker’s “A Grin Without A Cat”- A Review

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of an interview with an American pilot in Vietnam from Chris Marker's A Grin Without A Cat.

DVD Review

A Grin Without A Cat, directed by Chris Marker, Icarus Films, 1977

The old saying- a picture is worth a thousand words- is an apt, more than apt, expression in reviewing this hotchpotch of a film documentary. Why hotchpotch? Well, this two part (on one disc), multi-lingual (in choice of languages to listen in and in the languages spoken in the various segments), three hour documentary exposition originally produced in 1977, of many of the great events of the middle third of the 20th century comes rapid-fire at you in a montage effect. For those who merely want a flavor of those political times (roughly 1960 to 1980) there is enough here to act as a primer, and to whet your appetite for more research of the times. For the political aficionado familiar with the period one has to dig a little to get a sense of the basically social democratic world view that informs the viewpoint behind the production by the filmmaker, Chris Markers. Either way it is an interesting way to spent three hours, although for non-political “junkies” perhaps viewing one segment at a time is the better course.

Some of the highlights here are much footage from the anti-Vietnam war struggle as it began to take center stage in the mid-1960s, especially in Europe; plenty of footage of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara (including around his 1967 death in Bolivia) and the meaning of the Cuban revolution and rural guerrilla warfare (and as a by-product, urban guerrilla warfare) for world revolutionary strategy; the then historic May Days actions in Paris in 1968 by both students and workers (together and in opposition to each other depending on the stage of the struggle); the seminal anti-Stalinist events in Prague in 1968; Allende’s Popular Front Chile in the early 1970s; and, strewn throughout reflections of the 1960s events from about a decade later perspective by various participants and commentators. Very little material here on the anti-imperialist struggle in America, but the rest more than makes up for it. Kudos on this one.

DEFEND THE CUBAN REVOLUTION!

COMMENTARY
Last month this writer wrote a blog (see blog, dated July 11, 2006) commenting on the 53rd Anniversary of the Cuban July 26th Movement. Today, August 1, 2006 brings news that, due to problems related to recovery from recent surgery, Fidel Castro is ‘temporarily’ handing over the reins of government to his brother, Raul. This writer makes no bones about his political differences over the years with the Castro brothers. However, at some level those differences were ‘within the family’ although I do not want to stretch that notion too thinly. The point I make here is this. Soon, and maybe very soon, the previously somewhat abstract need to defend the gains of the Cuban Revolution may call for action by militant leftists and others worldwide.

I am not totally aware of the reaction by the people in Cuba of this news concerning the only leader most of them have ever known. I, however, do know that they are dancing in the streets of ‘Little Havana’ in Miami. And that, my friends, as we know from the long history of counterrevolutionary Cuban efforts there, aided and abetted by some agency of the United States government, is not good news for militant leftists. For now, be ready. U.S.-END THE BLOCKADE OF CUBA! U.S. OUT OF GUANTANAMO NOW! DEFEND CUBA AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM AND THE ‘LITTLE HAVANA’ CROWD IN MIAMI AND ELSEWHERE!

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26th Movement-From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-Unpublished Articles Of Interest-Criticisms of the Positions of the S.W.P. [U.S.A.]-by Peng Shuzi, 16th March, 198l.

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26^th 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.    

 

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
********
This document was translated by Richard Stephenson from the French language International Internal Discussion Bulletin of the U.S.F.I., no.1, 15th March 1981, pp.15-19.) It bears upon the questions that will be discussed in a forthcoming issue of Revolutionary History dealing with the history of the Trotskyist movement in Cuba and its treatment by the capitalist and Castroite regimes.

Criticisms of the Positions of the S.W.P. [U.S.A.]-by Peng Shuzi, 16th March, 198l.

Historical Evolution of the Positions of the International on the Cuban Question


The year 1959 witnessed the victory of the Cuban revolution. In 1969 the International responded officially to this event. It was the S.W.P. of the United States which was the first to respond, which was natural, the United States and Cuba being near each other and having close links. At this period the S.W.P. sent Hansen and Dobbs to visit Cuba. Hansen then wrote a pamphlet. At that time the S.W.P. entertained great hopes, indeed, “illusions” about Cuba, and fully supported the Cuban revolution. This support was correct, but the nature of the new regime was not seriously analysed and in a thoroughgoing way. This is how in 1963 Hansen and Dobbs wrote a document that approved of the methods of the Cuban revolution: the guerilla strategy of encircling the towns. They considered that this new strategy was correct and practical, and that became the excuse for those who later on preached the guerilla strategy in Latin America.

In 1961 differences on the question of Cuba appeared between the S.W.P. of the United States and the Socialist Labour League [S.L.L.] of Great Britain. On the side of the S.W.P. the resolution supporting Cuba, written by Hansen, considered that the Cuban regime had thrown out the representatives of the bourgeoisie and confiscated their property, and that it was then developing in the direction of a workers’ state. On its part the Socialist Labour League led by Healy was fundamentally opposed to this point of view and considered that in Cuba there was only a situation of dual power; that the nature of the state had not changed, and that it was not evolving towards a workers’ state.

In these conditions I wrote a document entitled The Question of the Cuban Revolution, in which I considered that since Cuba had dispossessed the bourgeoisie and had confiscated and nationalised their property it could be labelled a workers’ state as far as the property relations were concerned. I supported the S.W.P. on this question and criticised the opinion of the Socialist Labour League as being false. The Cuban regime was not a regime of dual power, but the regime of power of Castro alone. At the same time I asked the comrades to be very careful because Cuba was a very small and backward island country, and that without the aid of other countries, and above all, without the assistance of other revolutions in the Latin American countries, it would be the object of great isolation, would be very vulnerable, and would experience great difficulties in order to survive. Consequently, we ought not to exaggerate excessively the perspectives open to this revolution.

A little afterwards, when the International Committee was due to meet to discuss the Cuban question, I wrote a preliminary draft for the discussion. This was in July 1961. The draft was prudent and objective. I made the remark that the Cuban Revolution was an independent revolution as regards Stalinism, and that it had taken the road of the permanent revolution; that this was a very important event in the Western hemisphere and that we had to support this revolution. I particularly reminded the comrades that to be able to survive Cuba would have to receive the help of the Soviet bureaucracy, and that we must consider this in a dialectical manner, under its two-fold aspect. Given the property relations that resulted from the October Revolution, it was obviously natural that the Soviet Union would support Cuba, and we could thus affirm that the system of property relations created along with the October Revolution would always exert its influence. Without the support of the Soviet Union it was out of the question that Cuba could supply its own needs. The United States had subjected it to a blockade and proposed that the countries of Latin America should do likewise. The Soviet Union then bought the only Cuban product, sugar, and provided Cuba with material and weapons. It is obvious that Cuba could only accept the assistance of the Soviet Union. But on the other hand, the Soviet Union was no longer that of Lenin’s time, which practiced proletarian internationalism in a disinterested way; it had degenerated long ago. Following the political line of Stalin of “Socialism in One Country”, the assistance granted to other countries by the Soviet Union under a bureaucratic dictatorship was in return for a certain price. Thus the support of the U.S.S.R. for Cuba would at least export the Stalinist ideology to Cuba; in other words, Cuba would become Stalinised. This was not only probable, but even inevitable. If Cuba became Stalinised, its perspectives would become more limited for it. Therefore I proposed that the IVth International, and the Trotskyist organisations of America in particular, should call a special conference to discuss support for the Cuban Revolution. Our organisation being materially weak, we could provide no concrete aid, we could only assist the Cuban Revolution ideologically, and hope that a Marxist party could be founded even in Cuba. At the same time the main works of Trotsky should be translated into Spanish and sent to Cuba, and I pointed out that it would be even better if a publication in Spanish were to appear to influence the Cuban masses.

But the meeting rejected my resolution, and Banda and Healy in particular; the former even explained that Castro was a new Batista, Cuba’s Chiang Kai Shek.

I also sent this text to Pierre Frank and told him that I hoped that the International Secretariat and the International Committee would together discuss the Cuban question and would assist the Cuban Revolution. But I received no reply from Frank.

Later I read the document of the Pabloites [International Secretariat] which supported the Cuban Revolution. I then became a staunch supporter of unification and co-operation between the I[nternational] S[ecretariat] and the I[nternational] C[ommittee] for support to the Cuban Revolution. At the Reunification Congress of June 1963, even in the absence of a specific discussion on Cuba, everyone was in agreement in considering that Cuba had become a workers’ state. The difference on the nature of the Cuban state was one of the reasons for which the Healyites and the Lambertists did not take part in the Congress of Unification [cf. my article, Where is Healy Taking the Socialist Labour League?].

A new problem then cropped up. Castro convened a Latin American conference in Havana and called for the guerilla strategy in Latin America. He explained that the countries of Latin America could only free themselves by employing this strategy. Influenced by this open appeal, the Latin American youth followed Cuba and the guerilla strategy enthusiastically. It was after Castro had thus emphasised the decisive importance of the guerilla strategy that it arose in Latin America, in Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, and Argentina. This situation even reverberated in the IVth International, and above all among certain leading cadres in Europe, such as Livio Maitan and Mandel. In February 1968 Maitan wrote a draft discussion document for the I[nternational] E[xecutive] C[ommittee] which adopted it, which meant that this decision accepted the guerilla strategy, i.e. accepted Castro’s appeal. At this meeting I was the only one to vote against, and my opposition was therefore in vain. Even though it was presented as a suggestion.the resolution reflected the impact of the guerilla strategy on some of the leaders of the IVth International. In these conditions I had to carry on the struggle.

To begin with I asked the leadership of the S.W.P. to consider this question carefully; if not the IVth International was going to abandon the programme of Trotskyism and begin to degenerate. On the other hand I also wrote the text iReturn to the Road of Trotskyismi and this document influenced some Trotskyists in the United States and in other countries. Finally, at the world congress of 1969 important differences appeared over the question of guerilla warfare in Latin America, and two factions were formed, the future International Majority Tendency [I.M.T.] and the Leninist-Trotskyist Faction [L.T.F.].

In Return to the Road of Trotskyism a subtitle was formulated thus, Castroism or Trotskyism? Here I frequently remarked that under the influence of Castro some of the cadres of the IVth International had chosen the guerilla strategy. The differences remained, and at the world congress of 1974 the International Majority Tendency maintained its views.

Here I must emphasise that at the outset the S.W.P. supported the guerilla strategy; but that later it accepted my arguments and opposed this strategy. Hansen wrote an article criticising the draft discussion document on the Cuban Revolution, which was very close to my views. This point of view was maintained until the unification of the two factions in 1977. Since then there have not been deep differences over the Cuban question because the I[nternational] M[ajority] T[endency] totally abandoned the guerilla strategy and admitted its mistakes.

But the question was found to be posed in new circumstances. From 1975 to 1978, the date in which Vietnam invaded Cambodia, because of the support provided by Cuba to Vietnam [Cuba was on the side of Moscow, whereas China supported Cambodia] the revolutionary role of Cuba was exaggerated.

When Mary-Alice Waters wrote an article to analyse the question of Vietnam and Cambodia she returned to the previous positions and in every way tried to enhance the position of the Vietnamese. In the past, when the French section had supported Vietnam and prettified the Vietnamese Communist Party, the S.W.P., like ourselves, was opposed to the opinion of the French comrades. Today the French section has changed its position but it is the S.W.P. which at present is particularly supporting Vietnam. Previously we had accorded our critical support to Vietnam. Since the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, not only does the S.W.P. no longer criticise Vietnam, but it flatters it. Its point of view on Cambodia is also different from ours.

Our opinion is the following: under the regime of Pol Pot Cambodia was in a very contradictory situation. On the one hand it had confiscated bourgeois property and had established socialist property relations, and was therefore, from this basic point of view, a workers’ state. On the other hand Pol Pot was the most stupid and the most brutal of Stalinist bureaucrats, a butcher who had killed more than a million people, and his regime was therefore a most frightful and brutal dictatorship, deeply hated by the Cambodian people. From a dialectical point of view the progressive character of the nationalisation of private property could not be denied and had to be supported. But the blind adventurism that had led it to abolish money and suppress all trade must be criticised. As for its abominable bureaucratic regime, it must be denounced and attacked to the utmost. But the S.W.P. had a different opinion. It emphasised the crimes of the bureaucratic dictatorship and denied the fact of the confiscation of private property. It defined Cambodia as a capitalist state. This was a strange point of view because throughout the world there has never existed a capitalist country without private property and trade. Cuba supported Vietnam, and the S.W.P. followed it in this support.

But what followed is even more important; in December 1979 the Soviet Union sent its troops to invade Afghanistan; this event provoked new divergences within the IVth International. To begin with the S.W.P. fully supported the sending of troops by the Soviet Union to Afghanistan. The majority of the European Trotskyists adopted a different position, demanding the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan. The divergence was also reflected inside the R.M.L. of Hong Kong: Yip Ning supported the U.S. position and Wu was in agreement with the European position. Recently the position of the S.W.P. on the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet troops changed, and it adopted a more critical attitude.


Is Cuba a State of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
In order to clarify this question some basic considerations must first of all be discussed. In an article by Mary-Alice Waters, A Proletarian Way to Power, it was written that Cuba was applying the dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason given was that the foreign policy of Cuba is a policy of proletarian internationalism. Today, the support and assistance of Cuba to Nicaragua and El Salvador are facts. Its previous support and aid to Angola and Ethiopia and even the dispatch of troops to help them are also facts that we must recognise. But how are we to analyse and evaluate these facts?

And to start off with, is Cuba a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat? That is the main question. The texts of the S.W.P. imply that Cuba has experienced the same sort of dictatorship of the proletariat as that established by Lenin at the time of the October Revolution. Even though this opinion does not seem to be explicit, it has often been implicit. We must ask ourselves: what form does the dictatorship of the proletariat take there?

We shall leave to one side the Paris Commune and simply speak of the October Revolution. The regime that sprang from the October Revolution was based upon the soviets of workers, of peasants, and of soldiers. The soviets were elected in democratic elections by the workers, peasants and soldiers. The Soviet regime was thus a dictatorship of the proletariat in relation to the bourgeoisie, but far more democratic in relation to the proletariat. Such a form of political power has only existed twice in history; the first time was the Paris Commune, which was directly elected by the members of the commune of Paris, and the second time was the Soviet regime after the October Revolution, a regime elected by the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers.

Does Cuba possess any soviet organisation of workers, peasants or soldiers? The first power installed when Castro’s guerilla forces had entered the towns coming from the countryside, was a coalition government with the bourgeoisie, similar to the government established in China in 1949. Later the bourgeoisie was excluded from the regime and the Castroite Movement of 26th July fused with the Cuban Communist Party to form the Communist Party, which alone assumed the reins of power. Has this regime ever been based upon the soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers? Absolutely not. True enough, the workers have trade union organisations and the peasants have perhaps a certain kind of organisation [I know next to nothing about it]. But in any case it cannot be denied that Cuba does not possess the same sort of mass organisations as those which existed in the Soviet Union. On what foundation, therefore, in terms of mass organisations, can we base ourselves to say that Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat?

There is no democracy, there is only centralism in Castro’s party; just as in the Communist parties of the Soviet Union, of Eastern Europe, or of China. Such a party absolutely escapes the control of the masses. If it can be said that Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then China, Eastern Europe, and even the Soviet Union can be considered as being dictatorships of the proletariat!

How ought we to evaluate and define these so-called workers’ Stalinist states? It can be said that the dictatorship in Cuba is less oppressive than that of China or of Eastern Europe. It is possible, it is a fact, that the Cuban bureaucrats are less arbitrary or brutal. However, the functionaries are nominated by the government, they are not directly elected by the worker and peasant masses. Castro is the party. There is no democratic centralism in the Cuban Communist Party, because it is copied from the Soviet Union. The words pronounced by Castro are law. On this point there is no essential difference as regards Mao Zedong in China. The only difference is the following: the former is younger and more vigilant, whereas the latter was more confused and brutal. Thus the Cuban bureaucrats are less brutal or less centralised than those of the Soviet Union or of China, and are closer to the masses.


What Are the Regimes of Angola or of Ethiopia that are Supported by Cuba?
The chief argument of M.A. Waters is Cuba’s internationalism. Above all she is speaking of the aid of Cuba to Nicaragua, to Grenada, to El Salvador and the previous dispatch of troops to the aid of Angola and Ethiopia. Here I am going to make an analysis of the political situation in Ethiopia and Angola at the time, and of the nature of these regimes.

Cuba sent troops to the help of Angola only to the extent to which the Soviet Union was involved. After the Portuguese Revolution the U.S.S.R. supported one group in Angola, the M.P.L.A., and China another group [there were three groups at the time]. Later China withdrew her support, and these groups turned to imperialism, looking for help from Zaire and South Africa, and civil war broke out. Cuba sent troops to Angola as a commission of the Soviet Union – the dispatch of Cuban troops to Angola and Ethiopia would not have been possible without the weapons and material and financial support of the Soviet Union. However, this action took on a progressive and even a revolutionary significance, because the groups had degenerated, had openly passed over to the imperialist camp, and had engaged in a civil war in Angola with the assistance of imperialism. If the Soviet Union and Cuba had not supported Angola, this country would very likely have been partitioned between South Africa and Zaire and would have fallen under the control of U.S. imperialism, which would have been very regressive. I have already said long since that even if Cuba did send troops to Angola under the umbrella of the Soviet Union, this action had a progressive side and must be supported. At that time the S.W.P. did not agree with the dispatch of Cuban troops to Angola.

But the Angolan leaders aided by the Cubans were not Socialists, but nationalists. They had engaged in struggle to rid themselves of Portuguese domination, and with the help of Cuba they had freed themselves from the rule of imperialism, but they were hostile towards the elements of the Socialist Left and were prepared to suppress them. Such a leading layer forms the greatest obstacle to any Socialist perspective for Angola. This leading layer is therefore afraid by any change in the property system and firmly maintains capitalism. Under such a regime Socialist movements would inevitably develop – they are perhaps already developing at present – and the leading layer would certainly seek to make them disappear in order to maintain the existence and development of the system of private property. If at such a time the Cuban troops were ever in Angola, they would find themselves in a very embarrassing situation; if they continued to support the present leading layer, they could even be led to play a counter-revolutionary role.

Compared with Angola Ethiopia is far larger and more anciently civilised. It came into being in opposition to the monarchical dictatorship and by the overthrow of the emperor, which were, and there can be no doubt about it, progressive. The present leadership are those who were opposed to the monarchy. During the first period they received the support of American imperialism, but then they turned towards the Soviet Union. I do not understand very well why they made this turn. Perhaps it was because the Soviet Union accorded them certain advantages. The Soviet Union had helped Egypt to construct the dams, had provided it with weapons, had sent military advisors to train the Egyptian army, and by that had tried to win Egypt over. The result, however, was that Sadat showed the Soviets the door. The Soviet Union encountered the same setback in Somalia and the Sudan. It therefore did all it could to win over Ethiopia. Even though American imperialism was supporting the latter at the time, it hardly evinced any courtesy towards those who were receiving its aid. This is perhaps why Ethiopia turned towards the Soviet Union to obtain aid, because the Soviet Union not only provided weapons and material assistance, but it also attempted to enter into the good graces of the country’s leading layer.

In the north-east of Ethiopia extends the region known as Eritrea, which is inhabited by a national minority of about three million people. It constituted a menace for the new regime which drew near to the Soviet Union and begged it to ask Cuba to send troops to its aid. When Ethiopia and Somalia then confronted each other, the Cuban troops supported the former. The governments of Ethiopia were worse than those of Angola. Erstwhile officers of the monarchy, they led extremely corrupt lives. After the overthrow of the monarchy they set in motion a partial agrarian reform and distributed to the peasants lands belonging to the royal family and to the large landowners, but they maintained the system of private property. In order to arrive at the extermination of about three million people belonging to a national minority, they asked for the help of Cuban troops. But Cuba did not dare to send its armies in order to attack a national minority. The Ethiopian leaders are hostile to the youth, to students, and to the left. As a result they certainly reduced the mass movement to nothing, as had Chiang Kai-Shek. It was therefore even more difficult on Cuba’s part to support Ethiopia than Angola. In fact, Ethiopia was not attacked by reactionary forces supported by imperialism, it had maintained private property relations, and it had repressed its national minorities very brutally. It is a very reactionary regime. Castro was very much embarrassed by the affair and he did not send troops [all he did was to provide weapons to attack this national minority].

The Soviet Union had also helped China in the past, providing large sums of money, advisors and weapons for Chiang Kai-Shek and Wang Ching-Wei of the Guomindang. With the results that we have seen! Are the militarists who lead Ethiopia of the same type as Chiang Kai-Shek? It is difficult to say, and no-one can be sure or no. Explanations must be provided for this so-called internationalist support. We Marxists must ask: who profits from this aid? The revolutionary masses or the bourgeoisie? It is clear that Cuba supports the bourgeoisie and not the revolutionary worker and peasant masses because it is the bourgeoisie that occupies the leading position in Ethiopia. This sort of “internationalism” therefore poses a great problem. On this point Hansen’s article The Role of Cuba in Africa [cf. the October Review of September 1978] expresses an opinion very close to ours. But at present the S.W.P. no longer mentions this article.

Nicaragua and Grenada are small countries that cannot play an important role. Grenada only has 100, 000 inhabitants and Nicaragua two million, though this latter country can have an explosive role in such countries of Central America as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. These countries, which for a long time have lived under the control and exploitation of American imperialism are very poor, and revolutions can easily be produced there. In Nicaragua this is because the Somoza regime, a puppet of the United States, was so harsh that the people were forced to rise against it and to revolt as the Cuban people had done in the past against Batista. Obviously we must do our utmost to support and assist the extension of the revolution in these countries, in spite of their scant importance. But we must not glorify or exaggerate the situation and say that this could change the world situation.

We say that revolutions in these countries would deliver a blow to American imperialism and that we hope that these countries will take the road to Socialism. But we must understand that they are too backward, that the weight of the workers there is very small and that it will be difficult for them to construct the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the very best can they construct a regime of the same type as that of Cuba.

It is natural that Cuba, terribly isolated in Latin America, should support the Nicaraguan Revolution. It needs help provided by revolutions, and assisting them means helping itself.

It is necessary to recall that these countries cannot play a decisive political role in Latin America. If revolutions continue to develop there they can obviously have a certain impact upon the other countries of Latin America. But there are only certain countries of Latin America that are able to influence the situation as a whole, which are for example Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. The latter, even though it is neither very extensive nor highly populated, is industrialised and possesses a fairly important trade union organisation, and its influence in Latin America is therefore great. Mexico has 60 million inhabitants, and its industry is quite developed. Brazil is even greater in its dimensions and population [100 million]. Obviously I do not want to say that other countries such as Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Bolivia or Colombia have no role as far as their own revolution is concerned, but only that this role is not so decisive compared with that of the three above mentioned countries.

The IVth International must therefore construct mass parties in countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina to guide the working class in the conduct of revolutions. But the attitude of the S.W.P. is the opposite. Because of the split with the Moreno faction the S.W.P. has been disappointed by the Trotskyist movement in Latin America and would much rather think about countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada. It has neither vision nor an overall plan for the countries of Latin America. However, it is conceivable that a strong section constructed by us in Mexico, Argentina, etc., would be more useful than several Nicaraguan revolutions.

As mentioned above, Cuba, because of its isolation in the western hemisphere, must support the Nicaraguan Revolution and do all possible to put Nicaragua under its influence and to make a satellite of it. But when Cuba wished to assist this country, it had always to take into consideration the attitude of Moscow. Moscow is very hesitant as regards this, because if the Soviet Union seeks to establish its influence in Central America, the United States was inevitably going to intervene. They have already threatened it and they are moving towards military intervention; their present attitude as far as El Salvador is concerned is a clear example. The Moscow bureaucracy very much hesitates, it tries to proceed only through the intermediary of Cuba.

It is therefore possible to say that Cuba’s internationalism is exercised under the influence of the U.S.S.R. and that it is dictated by the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. The basis of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is the following: no revolution, and above all no revolution in the advanced countries. But it is forced to move to put the U.S.A. in a difficult position and therefore to enhance its possibilities of doing a deal. That is the significance of its actions in such African countries as Egypt, Somalia and Ethiopia. Acting under such control from the Soviet Union, Cuba does not have too many margins of manoeuvre.

What therefore is a real internationalist policy? Lenin and Trotsky founded the IIIrd International and by means of it set up Communist parties in several countries to assist the revolution. The policy of Lenin towards the backward countries did not only consist in helping the bourgeoisie, it was to bring about the transformation of these bourgeois democratic revolutions into Socialist revolutions. All this is very clear and does not need to be repeated.

How then, is it with Castro? He has given much that is important to the aid of oppressed peoples. That is correct. Lenin considered the democratic nationalist revolutions in the backward countries as a very important factor in the world proletarian revolution, because they were able to weaken imperialism, assist proletarian revolutions in the imperialist countries, and at the same time were a means of helping the oppressed peoples to progress beyond democratic revolutions towards the Socialist revolution. But upon what does Castro base his policy? He turns his eyes towards the Soviet Union. But under the control of the Stalinist bureaucracy the U.S.S.R. has become a very reactionary country, opposed to the world revolution. There are two main reactionary camps in the world today: one is made up of the imperialist countries with the U.S.A. at their head and the other is composed of the deformed workers’ states with the U.S.S.R. at their head. The latter is even more brutal than the imperialist countries, as is shown by the example of Eastern Europe under its domination. There can be no final victory of Socialism without the elimination of these two reactionary powers. Castro has said that there would be no Cuba without the October Revolution. Such a statement is only partially correct. New property relations have been developed by the October Revolution and these property relations are assisting Cuba. But he says not a word about the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. This bureaucratic dictatorship is an obstacle to the world revolution and plays a most reactionary role, no more than that. Castro has not said a word. He does not understand at all that the October Revolution has been betrayed, that the only thing that remains of the October Revolution is that private property has been nationalised, but the nationalised properties are completely weakened and controlled by the bureaucracy and that it is in its own interests that the bureaucracy occasionally assists some countries in order to facilitate its bargaining with imperialism.

Castro completely leaves aside this aspect of things because Cuba needs the support of the Soviet Union in order to survive. So is it perhaps possible to forgive Castro for not daring to tell the truth about the bureaucratic dictatorship in the Soviet Union? But what would be unforgivable is that the leaders of the S.W.P. themselves, should no more speak about it, and following Cuba in this, equally hide the truth about the Soviet Union. Such an action would be an objective betrayal of Trotskyism because it would be making too many concessions to Castro.

I will finish by summing up in three points:

Firstly, the S.W.P. emphasises that there is no bureaucratic system in Cuba.

No-one denies that there are bureaucrats in Cuba and the documents of the S.W.P. equally admit it. Obviously, we should distinguish between bureaucrats and a bureaucratic dictatorship. Bureaucrats inevitably exist in the revolutions of backward countries. It is only in the advanced countries, where the proletarians are in a majority and where the workers have a high cultural level that the most democratic dictatorship of the proletariat can be established – democracy for the workers and dictatorship for the bourgeoisie. Is the bureaucratic situation in Cuba so serious that it has become a bureaucratic dictatorship, or an autocracy? If yes, then a political revolution is necessary to overthrow the bureaucracy. One young comrade from the S.W.P. wrote to me that he thought that a dictatorial bureaucratic caste had been born in Cuba, which must be overthrown by a political revolution. I would be very careful in examining this question. I consider that there does exist a bureaucratic system in Cuba because there is no sort of soviet organisation. Without democratic elections on the part of the proletariat, the regime is inevitably going to perpetuate itself in a bureaucratic fashion. The problem is to know to what extent this bureaucratic system has already developed. I replied to the comrade at the time that I did not have much information about the development of the bureaucratic system in Cuba, but that it was certain that a bureaucratic system did exist there. It is, however, not so established as those of the Soviet Union or of China because the Cuban people still benefit from a certain amount of democracy.

Hansen wrote in an article that there existed a bureaucratic system within the Cuban army. This is obvious because a hierarchical system easily gives birth to bureaucratisation. The article also mentions a poet called Padilla who was arrested and forced to recant. This fact must be noted because the Soviet Union and China also oppress their dissidents in this way.allowing neither democracy nor liberty, and forbidding the publication of ideas or different points of view, even in literature.

Later some members of the S.W.P. visited Cuba and on their return explained that the Cuban people enjoyed freedom of action, etc. I think that this is possible. Castro is not so arbitrary as Stalin nor so brutal as Mao Zedong. He has some intelligence and knows that Cuba is only a small country in extreme isolation and that the masses must not be too oppressed or Cuba could then well have difficulties in surviving.

Thus I do not share the idea that there must now be a political revolution to overthrow the Cuban regime. But I am no more in agreement with the people who think that there does not exist a bureaucratic system in Cuba. This poet’s arrest has a symbolic significance. Moreover, there are no soviets in Cuba and no democratic centralism in the Cuban Party. All the time it is solely Castro who makes the speeches; he is like a little emperor in Cuba, and his speeches are royal decrees. This situation is obviously the manifestation of a bureaucratic system. The S.W.P. over-prettifies Cuba and forgets its bureaucratic aspects.

Secondly, the S.W.P. thinks that Cuba has put into operation the dictatorship of the proletariat.practices proletarian internationalism and that there is no bureaucratic system, that it is like the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin. It goes so far as to place Castro on a par with Lenin and the Cuban revolution with the October Revolution.

What are the similarities and the differences between the Cuban Revolution and the October revolution?

The October Revolution triumphed after several decades of preparation. Since the foundation of the League for the Emancipation of Labour by Plekhanov up to the final launching of the Social Democratic Labour Party, numerous serious ideological struggles developed, particularly the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and the struggle between the theory of revolution by stages and the theory of the permanent revolution.

Finally, there was the world war, and the problem of the attitude towards Russian imperialism became the object of a decisive struggle and the most consistent Marxism developed, represented by Lenin and Trotsky. Thus the Russian Revolution was able to develop without difficulties, fundamentally on the basis of analyses already accomplished. The conjunctural decisions therefore derived from already established ideological foundations. Consequently, the October Revolution was a typical proletarian revolution, in which, under the leadership of a radical Marxism, the peasantry and the proletariat which led it brought to fruition a profound Socialist revolution in a great country. This revolution shook the whole world and changed the course of human history.

How has the Cuban Revolution unfolded? Before the revolution Castro was a democrat and even a humanist: he had never received a Marxist education. Under the impact of the revolutionary victory of the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 he conducted a guerilla war. In particular circumstances – that is to say, before the U.S.A. could intervene – he led the guerilla army to the seizure of power. This was a petty bourgeois revolution. It was after the seizure of power, when he wanted to obtain the assistance of other countries - in other words, the Soviet Union – that he co-operated with the Communist Party and adopted the embryo of a Marxist analysis. By carrying on guerilla warfare, Castro showed himself to be a figure of the “man of action” type. The leaders of the S.W.P. today emphasise that they are of the “active” type, which means placing the emphasis upon guerilla warfare. They do not understand the words of Lenin, “without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary practice”. Castro was originally a petty bourgeois revolutionary, in other words a petty bourgeois nationalist and a radical democrat. He had his chance of victory on account of the excessive corruption of the Batista regime. But he continued to co-operate with the bourgeoisie after victory to set up a coalition government. It is only because the bourgeoisie constituted a threat to him that he was obliged to exclude them from political power and he formed his own government. But this government was not set up starting from a democratic election by the proletariat. Consequently, the Cuban revolution absolutely cannot be compared with the October Revolution, and to put Castro on a par with Lenin is truly to do injury to Lenin.

It has to be emphasised that during the 1980s anyone who does not understand the October Revolution cannot understand the degeneration of the Soviet Union, and does not understand the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, can in no way qualify as a Marxist, and is only really an idiot capable of stupidly reciting quotations from Marx and Engels.Castro has never mentioned the name of Trotsky, he even insulted the Trotskyists in 1963 and vilified the members of the S.W.P. as agents of American imperialism.

Thirdly, there is the question of knowing if Cuba can lead the world revolution. That is the central question.

Mary-Alice Waters has not clearly expressed this point of view in her articles, but on other occasions I have heard the S.W.P. propose that the IVth International co-operate with Castro to lead the world revolution. The articles of Waters also reflect the viewpoint that Cuba is taking the road of the leadership of the world revolution.

This is a central and very serious question because it will affect the destiny of the whole of humanity.

The Trotskyist and Castroist currents are fundamentally different. In so far as Castro is concerned, we can only say that up to the present, he continues to follow a revolutionary orientation and that we must therefore accord him critical support. But it is only a pleasantry to say that we are going to join up with him to lead the world revolution.

In fact Castro has no programme for the world revolution – if he does have one for it, it only consists in actions of the type of the aid provided to Angola or to Ethiopia. He understands nothing of the Trotskyist programme for world revolution – the Transitional Programme of the IVth International.

The Soviet Union has degenerated for half a century. The oppression of the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union by the bureaucracy and that of the peoples of Eastern Europe is a fact universally known. He who does not say a word about this, unless he is an idiot or blind, is deliberately covering up for the Soviet bureaucracy. It is pardonable if Castro covers up for the Soviet bureaucracy in order to obtain the material assistance of the U.S.S.R. But as far as the world revolution is concerned the bureaucratic dictatorship which rules in the Soviet Union absolutely cannot be passed over in silence. There are today two types of revolutions on a world scale: one consists in leading to victory Socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries [in advanced and backward countries] and the other is to make political revolutions in the workers’ states. The peoples subjected to the oppression of the bureaucratic dictatorships make up more than a third of the population of the world. These two types of revolutions are clearly inscribed in the Transitional Programme. Would Castro be in agreement with making a political revolution in the Soviet Union? Would he be in agreement with the overthrow of the oppressive rule of the Soviet bureaucracy and with the establishment of a system of proletarian democracy in Eastern Europe? That would be very difficult for him, because fundamentally that would interrupt the aid that he receives from the Soviet bureaucracy. Is it conceivable that he would be capable of doing this? If in order to make concessions to Castro we were to abstain from mentioning the political revolution in the U.S.S.R. we would be radically betraying the Trotskyism of the IVth International: that would be to give ourselves up to Stalinism and to become prisoners of it.

Must we insist on these two types of revolutions in the programme of the IVth International? Can Castro be in agreement with making a revolution which would overthrow the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union? The leaders of the S.W.P. must reply to these two questions.

15th March, 1981.

P.S. The questions posed in this text are not only vast but also very real, because the line of the S.W.P. has created many divergences, and in particular has led to the formation of two opposing positions within the United Secretariat which are manifested in the two draft resolutions on Cuba. This question merits particular attention and a discussion so that each can be expressed.

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26th Movement-From The Archives (2007)-HANDS OFF CUBA!

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26^th 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.    

Commentary

Defend the Cuban Revolution. End the Embargoes.

One cannot deny that the American bourgeoisie has had a long memory in regard to the defeat of their agent in Cuba, Batista, by the upstart Castro guerilla army and thereafter by the longevity of his regime. Some things, like democratic rights, they forget in flash if it suits their purposes but taking a beating from their ‘inferiors’ rankles like hell. The capitalists, at least sections of them, aided by the ‘gusano’ exiles in Miami and elsewhere who refuse to move on, salivate at the prospect of bringing that little ‘off shore luxury resort’ back within the grasp of their dirty little imperialist hands. And they believe that time is on their side as the aging, ailing Castro gets set to meet his maker. The periodic ‘dancing in the streets’ at any news (or no news)on Castro’s health in Miami bears witness to that idea. They can hardly wait to ‘liberate’ Cuba.

No one over the last period has been more in a frenzy over that possibility that the current American president. Time after time, in the face of strong international pressure to the contrary, he has tightened the screws on Cuba whenever possible, extending the embargoes and cutting communications between Cubans here and there. But not to worry. Although Bush will not lift a finger to deal with Cuba now (including refusal of vital Cuban medical aid during the Hurricane Katrina crisis) he has a ‘plan’ for the post-Castro period. In a recent pronouncement before the State Department Bush called for setting up a ‘‘freedom fund” to aid in the restoration of capitalist rule in Cuba after Fidel’s demise. We know from Poland, the Soviet Union and elsewhere what such ‘freedom funds’ are used for-counter revolution. It is hard to say at this point what the post-Castro future looks like, although in the short haul it appears that brother Raul has held his own since taking over, but rest assured we will fight those who offer the 'freedom funds' tooth and nail to save the gains of the Cuban Revolution. And I might add that the Cuban people might just have a little to say about the issue. They are not likely to warmly greet their ‘liberators’ any more than the people of Iraq did when America came calling- Remember the Bay of Pigs. Hands Off Cuba! Defend the Cuban Revolution! End the Embargoes!

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26th Movement-From The "American Left History" Blog Archives (July 2006)-CHE GUEVARA- REVOLUTIONARY FIGHTER

In Honor of Anniversary Of The July 26^th Movement

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

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.    

CHE GUEVARA- REVOLUTIONARY FIGHTER

BOOK REVIEW

COMPANERO- THE LIFE AND DEATH OF CHE GUEVARA, JORGE CASTANEDA, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 1997

 This year marks the 53^rd anniversary of the Cuban July 26^th movement, the 47^th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution and the 39^th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara by the Bolivian Army after the defeat of his guerilla forces and his capture in godforsaken rural Bolivia. Thus, it is fitting to review the biography of the life of a man who stood for my generation, the Generation of 68, and for later generations as an icon of revolutionary intransigence. This writer has read a few earlier biographies of Che, which a reading of the author’s footnotes will guide the reader toward, but selected this biography for several reasons. First, it was published in 1997 when, after the demise of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European states, more sources became available and thus a more rounded picture could be found for the enduring legacy of Che. Second, the author has done an excellent job of interviewing Che’s associates, political opponents, fellow revolutionaries, fellow ministry workers and flat- out agents of American imperialism to get their take on Che. In fact, the author has presented a range of hypothesizes, facts and just pure guesses by these interviewees for every controversial aspect of Che’s life from his troubled childhood to the still immense speculation around the circumstances of his early death under fire and in struggle.

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 socialism nevertheless. Secondly,  my conception of revolutionary strategy and thus of world politics has always been  far removed from 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. Those strategic differences will be discussed in another review in this space later concerning the fate of the Cuban Revolution. That said, despite the strategic political differences this militant can honor the memory of Che- exceptional revolutionary fighter.

Who was Che and why has he remained an icon for militant youth to this day. Obviously a brief outline of his biography reveals a very appealing rebel. In fact the chronology of his life is sometime no militant today can duplicate. The circumstances has long past that would make such experiences possible.  For openers, a wayward, carefree youth who gets serious about politics in 1950’s Bolivia when all kinds of upheavals are occurring; a marginal figure associated with the left in Guatemala at the time of the CIA coup against the Arbenz government; adrift in Mexico where he has a fateful meeting with the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and signs on; various adventures and misadventures in the mountains of Cuba where he rises to the leadership of the Rebel Army; the final triumphant march in Havana in 1959; assignment to various high positions in the revolutionary government including Minister of Industries; pro-Soviet then anti-Soviet advocate; advocate of and advisor to Third World revolutionary alliances against imperialism; disillusioned state bureaucrat; failed African liberation fighter in the Congo; and finally, failed Latin American liberation fighter in Bolivia.

 Youth needs, desires and deserves its heroes. In this sorry world today, unfortunately, there is an abysmal lack of role models available for those who want to storm heaven. More likely, today’s models want to rain hell down on the rest of us. You have to take your heroes where you can get them. With the caveat mentioned about political differences above, Che makes a damn appealing icon for militants today.

And one has many Che’s to choice from. If you read this biography you get to choice a classic Latin American revolutionary romantic of the old 19^th century European type; a wayward, carefree bohemian; an errant father, a competent bureaucrat; an exceptional military field commander; an exemplar of the ‘new man’ under socialism; a sycophantic and cruel Stalinist hack; a utopian Stalinist visionary; a counterrevolutionary Trotskyist upsetting the unity of the ‘socialist’ bloc ; a closet Trotskyist bend on permanent revolution; an internationalist fighter to the core; and, a hail fellow well met to name a few. As for this writer, I have in the past usually seen him as the Trotsky of the second half of the 20^th century. Another larger than life figure, however, seemingly doomed to oblivion by their political visions. There are many similarities in their personal makeup and in their revolutionary intransigence that made this true. Upon reflection, however, this is a more than a little wrong. The real comparison should be with the great French 19^th century revolutionary democratic barricade fighter Louis Blanqui. Comparison with that figure is no mean honor. For you conspiracy theorists out there- Che is dead! However, Che’s memory as a revolutionary fighter for the oppressed masses of this world lives on. And it should.

HANDS OFF CUBA!

COMMENTARY

END THE U.S. BLOCKADE! U. S. OUT OF GUANTANAMO!

Yes, I know. This is a day when we should be happy that there is a ceasefire in Lebanon and the civilian population of South Lebanon can get a reprieve from what apparently was going to be a total blitzkrieg by the Israeli war machine. However, this writer has been troubled by the doings of the Bush Administration and its underlings, official and unofficial, in Miami and elsewhere among the exiles. For years, this Administration and the Congress, generally, has sought to further isolate Cuba in the hopes that it would cry- “Uncle!” There is a governmental organization in place- The Assistance to Cuba Foundation- that is set up exclusively to bring American-style democracy (remember Iraq, please) to the island. Expect that operation to gear up for trouble.

With the announcement of Fidel Castro’s illness and the subsequent turning of power over to his brother Raul the exiles are dancing in the streets. What knows what will happen over the coming period. But the American imperialists and their Cuban allies are getting ready in order to implement their preferred outcome. Whatever differences militant leftists have with the course of the Cuban revolution when the deal goes down we must stand in defense of that revolution. When you think of the Cuban exiles and the American government remember one word. Batista. Forget all the noise about democracy and all those nice things. That is important for us. It is most definitely not important to this government or to those old time Cuban exiles who want to revert Cuba back to a 1950’s scenario. Now that would really be retro. As always these days- be ready!

The Latest From "The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five" Website -Free The Five Ahora! -The Defense Of The Cuban Revolution Begins With The Defense Of The Cuban Five

Click on the title to link to the website mentioned in the headline for the latest news and opinion from that site.

Markin comment (re-post from July 26, 2011):

On a day, July 26th, important in the history of the Cuban revolutionary movement it is also important, as always, to remember that the defense of the Cuban revolution here in the United States, the "heart of the beast", starts with the defense of the Cuban Five.

The Latest From "The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five" Website -Free The Five Ahora! -The Defense Of The Cuban Revolution Begins With The Defense Of The Cuban Five

Click on the title to link to the website mentioned in the headline for the latest news and opinion from that site.

Markin comment (re-post from July 26, 2011):

On a day, July 26th, important in the history of the Cuban revolutionary movement it is also important, as always, to remember that the defense of the Cuban revolution here in the United States, the "heart of the beast", starts with the defense of the Cuban Five.

The Latest From "The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five" Website -Free The Five Ahora! -The Defense Of The Cuban Revolution Begins With The Defense Of The Cuban Five

Click on the title to link to the website mentioned in the headline for the latest news and opinion from that site.

Markin comment (re-post from July 26, 2011):

On a day, July 26th, important in the history of the Cuban revolutionary movement it is also important, as always, to remember that the defense of the Cuban revolution here in the United States, the "heart of the beast", starts with the defense of the Cuban Five.

The Latest From "The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five" Website -Free The Five Ahora! -The Defense Of The Cuban Revolution Begins With The Defense Of The Cuban Five

Click on the title to link to the website mentioned in the headline for the latest news and opinion from that site.

Markin comment (re-post from July 26, 2011):

On a day, July 26th, important in the history of the Cuban revolutionary movement it is also important, as always, to remember that the defense of the Cuban revolution here in the United States, the "heart of the beast", starts with the defense of the Cuban Five.

Defend The Cuban Revolution!! -Defend The Cuban Five -End The Blockade Ahora!

DEFEND THE CUBAN REVOLUTION!!!

COMMENTARY

END THE U.S. BLOCKADE!-U.S. OUT OF GUANTANAMO!

This year marks the 58th anniversary of the Cuban July 26th movement, the 52nd anniversary of the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the 44th 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 blog, dated July 5, 2006). Thus, it is fitting to remember an event of which he was a central actor. Additionally, the Cuban Revolution stood for my generation, the Generation of '68, and, hopefully, will for later generations as a symbol of revolutionary intransigence against United States imperialism.

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 military forces of 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 militant can honor the Cuban revolution as a symbol of a fight that all anti-imperialist militants should defend.

Let me expand on these points, the first point by way of reminiscences. I am old enough to have actually seen Castro’s Rebel Army on television as it triumphantly entered Havana in 1959. Although I was only a teenager at the time and hardly politically sophisticated I, like others of my generation, saw in that ragtag, scruffy group the stuff of romantic revolutionary dreams. I was glad Batista had to flee and that ‘the people’ would rule in Cuba.

Later, in 1960 as the nationalizations occurred in response to American imperialist pressure, I defended them. In fact, as a general proposition I was, hazily and without any particular thought, in favor of nationalizations everywhere. In 1961, despite my then deeply felt affinity for the Kennedys, I was pleased that the counterrevolutionaries were routed at the Bag of Pigs. Increased Soviet aid and involvement in the economic and political infrastructure of beleaguered Cuba? No problem. The Cuban Missile Crisis, however, left me and virtually everyone in the world, shaking in our boots. Frankly, I saw this crisis (after the fact) as a typical for the time Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union with Cuba as the playground. Not as some independent Cuban ploy. In short, my experiences at that time can be summed up by the slogan- Fair Play for Cuba. So far, a conclusion that a good liberal could espouse as a manifestation of a nation’s, particularly a small nation’s, right to self-determination. It is only later, during the radicalization of the Vietnam War period that I moved beyond that position.

Now to the second point and the hard politics. If any revolution is defined by one person the Cuban revolution can stand as that example. From its inception it was Fidel’s show, for better or worse. The military command, the strategy, the political programs, and the various national and international alliances all filtered through him. On reflection, that points out the basis problem and my major difference with the Fidelistas. And it starts with question of revolutionary strategy. Taking power based on a strategy of guerrilla warfare is fundamentally difference from an urban insurrection led by a workers party (or parties) allied with, as in Cuba, landless peasants and agricultural workers responsible to workers and X (fill in the blank for whatever allies apply in the local situation) councils. And it showed those distortions then and continues to show them as the basis for decision making –top down. It is necessary to move on from there.

Believe me, this writer as well as countless others, all went through our phase of enthusing over the guerrilla road to socialism. But, as the fate of Che and others makes clear, the Cuban victory was the result of exceptional circumstances. Many revolutionaries stumbled over that hard fact and the best, including Che, paid for it with imprisonment or their lives. In short, the Bolshevik, 1917 model still stands up as a damn good model for the way to take power and to try to move on to the road to socialism. Still, although I have made plenty of political mistakes in my life I have never regretted my defense of the Cuban Revolution. And neither should militants today. As Che said- the duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution- and to defend them too. Enough said. U.S. HANDS OFF CUBA! END THE BLOCKADE! U.S. OUT OF GUANTANAMO!

The Latest From "The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five" Website -Free The Five Ahora! -The Defense Of The Cuban Revolution Begins With The Defense Of The Cuban Five

Click on the title to link to the website mentioned in the headline for the latest news and opinion from that site.

Markin comment:

On a day, July 26th, important in the history of the Cuban revolutionary movement it is also important, as always, to remember that the defense of the Cuban revolution here in the United States, the "heart of the beast", starts with the defense of the Cuban Five.

From The "Minnesota Hands Off Honduras Coalition" Website- Honor The 52nd Anniversary Of The Cuban Revolution- End The Blockade!

Markin comment:

Defend The Cuban Revolution! Free The Cuban Five Ahora!

******

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 52 ANIVERSARIO DE LA REVOLUCION CUBANA

Cincuenta y dos años de vivir construyendo el “Sueño Liberador” de un Pueblo Heroico Cincuenta y dos eneros de derrotar el inhumano Bloqueo Imperialista.

Cincuenta y dos años de educarnos junto al pueblo cubano aprendiendo junto a él, el alto precio a pagar por la libre determinación.
De vivir con la amenaza y derrotarla diariamente.
De producir comunicaciones libres para el pueblo y para el mundo.
De formar a un pueblo que sonríe y lleva la frente en alto.
De ver en los
niños el tesoro más grande de la patria y de la humanidad.
De luchar ferozmente contra todos los sicariatos políticos de la tierra.
De luchar contra el oprobio de las criminales transnacionales explotadoras.
De luchar por liberar a América Latina y a los países dependientes del yugo imperialista.
52 años de plantar semillas de justicia y libertad a lo largo y ancho de la tierra.
52 años de haber bajado de la sierra.
De luchar tesoneramente por todos los hijos e hijas de la patria.
De demostrarle al mundo que hay mejores formas de vivir compartiendo con nuestros hermanas y hermanos.
De exportar médicos, deportistas, trabajadores sociales mientras el imperialismo y los sionistas exportan muerte.


De estar luchando por hacer el sueño de amor martiano una realidad universal 52 años de ser orgullosamente la única verdadera revolución de la tierra.
52 anos de vencer el aventurerismo imperialista
Ah Pequeño David no tienes siquiera que disparar tu onda.


VIVA EL 52 ANIVERSARIO.
PATRIA O MUERTE!

The Cuban 5: Victims of US State Terrorism - by Stephen Lendman

Friday, October 15, 2010

The Cuban Five: Victims of US State Terrorism


The Cuban 5: Victims of US State Terrorism - by Stephen Lendman

Two web sites, among others, provide information on their case, accessed through the following links:

http://www.thecuban5.org/

http://www.freethefive.org/

In September 1998, Miami FBI agents arrested Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzales, and Rene Gonzalez on spurious charges, including conspiracy to commit espionage. For days, however, no formal notification was given until a complicit media campaign smeared them falsely and maliciously.

At a June 2, 2010 Washington National Press Club press conference, the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five's coordinator, Gloria La Riva, announced new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) obtained evidence revealing names of 14 journalists who "were receiving covertly (paid) monies from the US government."

Included was Pablo Alfonso who received $58,600 for 16 articles published in (the south Florida Spanish language) El Nuevo Herald newspaper. La Riva explained that "During the pre-trial period, there were hundreds of articles on the Cuban Five and not one was favorable." Journalists were bribed to write them.

According to the National Lawyers Guild Heidi Boghosian, "This shows that the US Government was an accomplice to manipulating the jury by bribing journalists that violated the principles of impartiality and accuracy."

She also affirmed that the Five's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated, federal authorities corrupting the process to convict them.

On September 9, 2006, New York Times writer Abby Goodnough headlined, "US Paid 10 Journalists for Anti-Castro Reports," saying:

"The Bush administration's Office of Cuba Broadcasting paid (them) to provide commentary on Radio and TV Marti, which transmit" anti-Castro propaganda to Cuba. Journalists named included Pablo Alfonso getting almost $175,000 since 2001 and Armstrong Williams (a notorious right wing liar) receiving $240,000 to write on various issues, including privatizing public education.

On September 14, 1998, a Florida grand jury accused the Five of infiltrating terrorist groups, charging them with 26 offenses, including conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States and espionage. For lack of evidence, the latter charge became conspiracy to commit it.

Gerardo Hernandez was separately accused of voluntary homicide, relating to the February 24, 1996 Brothers to the Rescue plane shot down for illegally entering Cuban air space, though no evidence linked him to the event. Other charges involved using false documents and for not registering as foreign agents.

Throughout their 12 year ordeal, they've been horrifically treated. Pre-trial for 17 months, they were isolated in a Special Housing Unit, for many weeks in separate cells. After a successful legal motion, two each per cell followed; one, however, still alone in isolation.

The five men were in America monitoring Miami-based, US funded, extremist right-wing group terrorist activities against Cuba. Ongoing for decades, declassified US documents showed that from October 1960 - April 1961 alone, CIA operatives smuggled in 75 tons of explosives and 45 tons of weapons. During the period, 110 attacks were carried out, using dynamite and bombs against 150 factories, 800 plantations, and six trains.

From 1959 - 1997, US funded groups and CIA operatives committed around 5,800 terrorist acts, hundreds involving bombings that killed or injured thousands of civilians. In addition, from 1959 - 2003, 61 planes or boats were hijacked. From 1961 - 1996, 58 sea attacks were launched against dozens of economic targets and the civilian population.

Evidence shows CIA recruitment and support for over 4,000 individuals and 300 paramilitary groups, responsible for murdering hundreds of Cubans and injuring thousands, many permanently disabled. Fidel Castro himself was targeted hundreds of times unsuccessfully.

Moreover, chemical and biological warfare was conducted. In 1971, a biological attack contaminated half a million pigs, then killed to prevent swine fever from spreading. In 1981, introduced dengue fever affected over 340,000 people, killing at least 158 including 101 children. On July 6, 1982 alone, around 11,400 cases were registered.

South Florida is a hotbed of anti-Castro extremism, CIA operatives complicit in training and funding planned terrorist attacks, likely still ongoing. On June 16, 1998, Cuban authorities asked FBI officials to provide documents on known US-sponsored extremists to no avail. Three months later, the Cuban 5 were arrested for risking their lives legally for their country, monitoring subversive Americans to warn Havana of impending attacks. They harmed no one, committed no crime, did nothing illegal, had no weapons, nor did 119 volumes of testimonies and over 20,000 court pages of documents contain any evidence against them.

Beginning in November 2000, their politically-charged trial was orchestrated to convict. Little more than a seven month show trial, the South Florida venue alone prevented judicial fairness. Five times, in fact, motions to change it were denied, despite clear evidence a fair trial was impossible. As a result, on June 8, 2001, the men were convicted, then in December sentenced to four life terms and 75 years.

For being loyal Cuban citizens serving their country heroically, they were criminally charged, convicted in a witch hunt proceeding, and imprisoned. Commiting no crime, they legally monitored US-sponsored terrorist groups, including Brothers to the Rescue, Omega 7, Alpha 66, Brigada 2506, Comandos F4, and other anti-Castro elements.

So far, they've been denied justice, though on August 9, 2005, after seven years in prison, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned their convictions, ordering a new trial outside Miami. However, on October 31, the entire Court halted the ruling, ordering an "en banc" (full court) 12 judge hearing. In August 2006, the Court reversed the 2005 decision (10 - 2), affirming the District Court ruling.

An Independent Legal Opinion

In December 2007, UK attorney Steve Cottingham, a partner at OH Parsons & Partners Solicitors, titled an article on the case "Miami Five: Who Are Terrorists," saying:

The trial was "profoundly flawed....their (prison) conditions....inhumane, and they were fall guys in an attempt to cover up the US's support for illegal activity to overthrow the (legitimate) government of the Republic of Cuba."

With the trial venue in Miami, defense laywers knew fair proceedings were impossible. As a result, they commissioned a survey for proof. "The Court-appointed defense expert on psychology, Dr. Gary Moran PhD, testified that 69 per cent of all respondents (in Dade County) and 74 per cent of all Hispanic (ones) were prejudiced against people charged with the types of activities outlined in the indictment." In addition, 49% of all those surveyed said a fair and impartial trial was impossible.

As a result, the defense requested a venue change several times, each application denied. Prior to trial, the local media poisoned public opinion with malicious accusations and more. Moreover, despite careful jury selection, the charged atmosphere imposed overwhelming pressure to convict.

On December 2, 2000, the Nuevo Herald newspaper published an article, saying:

"Fears of a violent reaction by Cuban exiles against the jury that decides to acquit the Five men accused of spying for Cuba has caused many potential jurors to ask the judge to excuse them from their civic duty." One said, "Sure I'm afraid for my safety, if the verdict doesn't suit the Cuban community there." Clearly, the challenge for the defense was too great to overcome, at trial producing the inevitable outcome.

Proceedings included 43 witnesses for the prosecution, 31 for the defense, lasting nearly seven months, as well as hundreds of documents for jurors to review. A key prosecution witness, General James R. Clapper (with 30 years experience in military intelligence) testified that they contained no secret national defense information helpful to Cuba. Key defense witnesses, including retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, said the Cuban military threat to America is "zero."

Nonetheless, on June 8, 2001, "Despite the lack of evidence of espionage or damage to US interests, the jury took a remarkably short time to convict all the Five on all counts...."

Numerous legal violations and improprieties were committed from time of arrests through proceedings, including:

-- defendants had no immediate access to lawyers;

-- they were interrogated for many hours without counsel;

-- they were unjustly isolated for 17 months;

-- thousands of pages of alleged evidence were kept secret;

-- defendants were denied adequate access to counsel to prepare their defense;

-- prosecutors threatened several witnesses with charges as accomplices if they revealed any information to defense counsel;

-- the Miami venue denied defendants a fair trial;

-- the local and national media created a charged atmosphere to convict;

-- reports indicated that jurors were threatened with death if they voted for acquittal; and

-- the entire process, including jurors, assured conviction, proceedings, in fact, a travesty of justice sending innocent men to prison.

Moreover, from arrest to incarceration, numerous domestic and international laws were violated, including the Constitution, Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations, the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Vienna Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Children's Rights, the UN Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The Five were imprisoned in different parts of the country, their families denied visas and visiting rights, and although model prisoners, they were held in isolation.

They remain imprisoned, but not without hope. In February 2009, their attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The original one, in fact, was the only judicial process in US history condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission. Ten Nobel Prize winners also petitioned the US Attorney General to free the Five. In 2009, however, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.

Amnesty International (AI) strongly criticized US treatment as human rights violations, saying in early 2006:

It was "following closely the status of the ongoing appeals of the five men (with regard to) numerous issues challenging the fairness of the trial which have not yet been addressed by the appeal courts."

In January 2007, AI called for US authorities to grant family members visas to visit their loved ones, saying America's actions were "unnecessarily punitive" by denying them.

In the UK, 110 MPs petitioned the US Attorney General in support of the Five. In April 2009, the Brazilian human rights group, Torture Never Again, awarded the men its Chico Mendes Medal, alleging their rights were violated, including by having "their mail censored and their visiting rights very restricted."

A Final Comment

On September 15, Bernie Dwyer, an Irish journalist and filmmaker, interviewed Leonard Weinglass, a member of the Five's defense team, saying:

"The five should have been returned to Cuba shortly after their arrest, as is the custom when foreigners are arrested in the United States on missions for their home countries and their activities here caused no harm."

Instead, they were "subjected to cruel conditions of confinement, unjustly prosecuted in (an unfair venue) victimized by (prosecutorial) misconduct....and excessively and illegally punished with life sentences."

After the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, "an outpouring of public support (followed), including (from) 10 Nobel Prize winners, the bar associations of many countries, the entire Mexican Senate, two former (European Union) presidents," parliamentarians from other countries, heads of state, trade union leaders, student associations, human rights organizations, and dozens of distinguished figures globally.

On June 14, 2010, "We filed (and) will be filing a Memorandum of Law on October 11. The government will be given 60 days to respond and then presumably at the end of this year or in early 2011, we will have a hearing on Gerado (Herandez's) claims in Miami." If denied, it will be appealed, and if again, "once again (we'll) ask the Supreme Court to review the case."

Asked whether worldwide free the Five campaigns have helped, Weinglass said "Absolutely, (and they) should be continued and if anything increased" as the best way to achieve justice for these unjustly imprisoned men.

On October 13, 2010 AI issued a report and sent a letter to Eric Holder on the Five, expressing concerns about the fairness of their trial, while taking no position on their guilt or innocence, a disturbing part of it as their innocence is beyond question.

Nonetheless, AI asked the Justice Department "to review the case and mitigate any injustice through the clemency process or other appropriate means, should further legal appeals prove ineffective." It also reiterated concerns about the wives of two of the prisoners (Rene Gonzales and Gerardo Hernandez) denied temporary visas to visit their husbands.

On October 19 at the US Embassy in London, a Vigil for the Five will be held. Noted speakers include UK MPs, labor leaders, lawyers, musicians, and many others. Those attending are urged to "Bring candles to this peaceful vigil for the Five and their families to mark the 12th year of their unjust imprisonment."

The Five and many hundreds of other US political prisoners bear testimony to America's judicial unfairness, imprisoning innocent men and women for political advantage in violation of constitutional and fundamental international human rights laws, ones US authorities repeatedly flout with impunity.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.