Showing posts with label russain revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russain revolution. Show all posts

Sunday, May 21, 2017

From The Archives Of The "In Defense Of Marxism" Website- Spain: The rebellion of the youth

Spain: The rebellion of the youth

Written by Alan Woods
Friday, 20 May 2011


First it was Tunis, then Cairo, then Wisconsin, and now Spain. The crisis of capitalism has set in motion a tsunami that is impossible to control. All the representatives of the old order have combined to halt it: politicians and police, judges and trade union bureaucrats, the hired press and the television, priests and “intellectuals”. But the tsunami of revolt rolls on from one country to another, from one continent to another.

Bankruptcy of Spanish capitalism

The local and regional elections in Spain this weekend come at a time of ever deeper economic, social and political crisis. For ten years the Spanish economy was presented as the motor of job creation in the euro-area. A frenzied speculative boom was followed by a severe slump. Spain now stands on the edge of bankruptcy. Economists are warning of revelations about higher debt levels than previously known. And following the collapse in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the “market” is turning its attention to Spain.

Spanish capitalism went up like a rocket and came down like a stick. The collapse of the construction boom has left Spain with a painful hangover of falling house prices, huge debts, one million empty homes and the highest rate of unemployment in the European Union. The ranks of the jobless in Spain have soared to about 4.9 million. With unemployment in Spain at 21 percent, dissatisfaction has been growing. The discontent is reflected in scepticism towards all the main political parties, which, given their record, should surprise no-one.

In Spain, there are two main parties: the right wing PP and the “socialist” PSOE. The first is made up of the open representatives of Capital, the party of the bankers and capitalists. We know very well what to expect from this party. The PSOE is supposed to represent the interests of the working class. But does it? Millions of workers voted for this party in the hope that it would defend their living standards. But these hopes have been cruelly deceived.

The leader of the Socialist Party, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, was supposed to be a “left”. But under conditions of capitalist crisis, there were only two alternatives: either take action to break the power of the bankers and capitalists, or else accept the dictates of big business and attack the living standards of the workers. There is no third way, as Zapatero soon discovered. The PSOE leaders surrendered to the bankers and capitalists, just as the reformists have done in every other country.

Using the excuse of the economic crisis (that is, the crisis of the capitalist system) the leaders of the PSOE have joined hands with the bourgeoisie to save the system. They are trying to place all the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of those least able to bear it: the workers, the youth, the old, the sick, the unemployed. They pour billions into the pockets of the bankers, while attacking living standards and pensions. 89% of Spaniards think political parties only care about themselves, according to Metroscopia. But is it any wonder that people are alienated from political parties when they see this kind of thing?

The Social Democrats always prepare the way for right wing reaction. That is their role. Already the opinion polls indicate that the PSOE could lose to the right wing Popular Party (PP) in at least one key region. Even Andalucía, which has always been governed by the Socialists, might fall to the right wing. This would set the stage for a defeat in general elections next year, handing the government over to the right wing Popular Party, the open party of big business.

This is to jump from the frying pan into the fire. If the PP wins a majority, it will introduce even bigger cuts. They will say: “You think there was so much debt, but no, there’s more.” We have already seen this in Catalonia, where regional elections last year swept out the Socialist-led coalition government, but the new government of the CiU has introduced a vicious packet of cuts in health care and education and attacks on living standards that has provoked a wave of wild cat strikes and a 200,000 strong trade union demonstration in Barcelona.

Mood of disappointment

The leaders of the traditional workers parties are completely enmeshed with the capitalists and their state. It is an intolerable state of affairs that leaders who speak in the name of socialism and the working class, or even “democracy”, preside over huge bailouts to private banks, which signifies a big increase in the public debt that will be paid for by years of cuts and austerity. This is done in the name of “the general interest”, but is in reality a measure in the interest of the rich and against the interest of the majority.

Under these conditions, the working class looks to the trade unions for a lead. Under the pressure from below the leaders of the UGT and CCOO called a general strike on 29 September last year. But the union leaders were desperate to do a deal with the government, and saw the general strike only as a means of putting pressure on Zapatero to give some concessions. They think that they can get what they want through negotiation

For the leaders, this is only a means of blowing off steam. For serious trade unionists, on the contrary, strikes and demonstrations are a means of getting the workers to understand their power and prepare the ground for a fundamental change in society. Although they think of themselves as practical and realistic people, the union leaders have not the slightest idea of the seriousness of the crisis of capitalism. They imagine that, by accepting cuts and other impositions in the hope that everything will be all right in the end. This is an illusion. For every step back they make, the bosses will demand three more.

In reality the union leaders are just as out of touch with the real mood of anger of the workers and youth as the leaders of the political parties. Having called a general strike, they then agreed to a pension “reform” that was completely unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the working class. This led to a wave of disappointment that further reinforced the mood of alienation, frustration and discontent.

As the class struggle develops the radicalization of the rank and file of the unions will undoubtedly enter into conflict with the conservatism of the leadership. The workers will demand a complete transformation of the unions from top to bottom, and will strive to turn them into real fighting organizations. But at the present time the unions are lagging behind the needs of the workers and youth. Elena Ortega, who has managed to find only a part-time secretarial job, and helped spread the word on Facebook about the protests on Wednesday, told CNN: "If this is happening, it's because the unions weren't doing what was needed, when it was needed. They haven't delivered".

These moods are most intense among young people, who, as always, are the principal victims of the crisis. The figure of youth unemployment stands at around 45 percent. Many university graduates, having worked hard to obtain qualifications, cannot find work, or else are forced to accept menial jobs on low wages. The levels of “precarious employment”, that is, casual. part-time work, on short term contracts with no rights, is at an all-time high in Spain.

This situation is not so very different to that faced by young people in places like Tunisia and Egypt. Yet Spain is not a Third World country, but a developed and prosperous European economy. This glaring contradiction has produced a mood of anger, frustration and bitterness in the youth, which does not find any reflection in the existing political parties or trade unions.

The discontent and frustration has finally burst to the surface. On Sunday May 15, 150,000 people marched in about 40 cities throughout Spain under the banner of Democracia Real Ya (Real Democracy Now). The largest demonstration was in Madrid with 25,000 or more, followed by Barcelona with 15,000. The main slogan of the demonstration was “We are not commodities in the hands of bankers and politicians”, which shows an instinctive anti-capitalist character of the movement.

Politicians and expert commentators have dismissed this movement as “not having clear aims”, or even “being opened to right wing manipulation”. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people present at the demonstrations on May 15 would consider themselves as progressive and left wing. The slogans, about the lack of housing, the lack of jobs, the lack of future, the lack of genuine democracy, the dictatorship of the markets, against corrupt politicians and their obscene wages, about the strength of the organised people, show this clearly.

While May15 took many by surprise, it had been preceded by a series of mobilisations which showed the growing pressure building up below the surface. In January and February, mass demonstrations of civil servants rocked Murcia, where the regional right wing government of the PP has carried out particularly vicious cuts. In the same region, activists have organised and effectively resisted evictions of families who have defaulted on their mortgage repayments. On April 7th thousands of youth took to the streets following a call made by the “Youth without future” platform, a coalition of left wing youth and student groups.

It is also clear that the wave of the Arab revolution has been an inspiration to many in Spain. They have seen the power of ordinary people to change things when they are on the move. The idea of setting up tent camps, comes directly from Tahrir Square in Cairo. Many had also looked up to the Greek workers and youth and their courageous mobilisations throughout last year, the massive strike movement in France and even the movement of the youth in Portugal. A sign in Madrid read: “France and Greece fight. Spain wins, in football”, but not anymore. Despite the complete lack of leadership offered by the leadership of the official organisations, the Spanish youth is on the move, and they have the sympathy of wide layers of the workers.

Thousands have been protesting on and off since Sunday in the Puerta del Sol, the city centre in Madrid and in more than 80 cities and towns all over Spain. Protests have also been organised by groups of Spanish youth outside the embassies in a number of European capitals.

Threat to democracy?

These protests took all the politicians by surprise. They have reacted with hysteria and alarm. The defenders of the existing society are scandalized: “this is anarchy”, they protest. “This is chaos!” Some even say it is a “threat to democracy”. Yet what we are seeing on the streets of Madrid and other Spanish cities is no threat to democracy but, on the contrary, an attempt to exercise direct democracy: to give a voice to those who have no voice, to defend the interests of those who nobody defends.

When they speak of a “threat to democracy”, what do they mean? Democracy in its literal sense signifies the rule of the people. But is it true that the people really rule in Spain or anywhere else? No, it is false. In the framework of capitalist society, the participation of the majority of people in democracy is limited to voting every five years or so for one or other of the existing political parties. Once they are elected, they do whatever they like, and the people have no means of changing anything.

Under capitalism all the key decisions are taken by the boards of directors of the big banks and monopolies. They decide whether people will have jobs and houses or not. Nobody elects them and they are responsible to nobody but themselves. The real relationship between the elected governments and the bourgeoisie was exposed in the recent crisis, when the bankers were given a present of billions of public money with no questions asked. In reality, bourgeois “democracy” is only another word for the dictatorship of Capital.

Those who protest do so because they do not recognize themselves in any of the existing parties. And who can blame them? Many people are saying: what is the use in voting when they are all the same? They look at the election campaign with a mixture of indifference and disgust. If this represents a “threat to democracy”, those responsible are not the young people who are protesting in the Puerta del Sol but the ones sitting in the Palacio de la Moncloa.

The right to peaceful protest is a basic democratic right. It was for this right that the Spanish working class fought for decades against the Franco dictatorship. Last Sunday thousands of people, mainly young but also others, went to the Puerta del Sol in the centre of Madrid to register their protest against a system that effectively excludes them. In so doing they were exercising this basic right. How is this democratic conquest being upheld by those who are in control of Madrid and the whole of Spain?

Those people who fill their mouths with the word “democracy” depicted this peaceful protest as a “threat to democracy”. On the early hours of Tuesday May 17 Madrid authorities sent the riot police to disperse a relatively small group of protesters who had set up a camp in Puerta del Sol with the utmost violence. Madrid is ruled by the right wing PP. They must therefore bear the direct responsibility for this brutal and unprovoked attack. But they could never have done this without the approval (tacit or open) of the Zapatero government. This hypocritical chorus was to be expected from the right wing. But it is shameful that people who call themselves “socialists” and “lefts” should echo this poison.

The tough tactics did not work. On Tuesday night, tens of thousands protesters returned to Madrid's central plaza. By Wednesday morning, many remained in their overnight encampment. On Wednesday afternoon, Madrid's elections board banned the planned demonstration at 8 pm at the Puerta del Sol. A regional office spokesman said the election board was trying to prevent demonstrations during the final days of the election campaign because it “could affect the right of citizens to vote freely”. The board said there were not "extraordinary and serious reasons" to allow the demonstration on short notice. And to sooth the nerves of voters, El Pais reported that authorities planned to have sufficient police officers on hand to prevent the demonstration. The Madrid Metro system was warning passengers not to go to Plaza del Sol “as the rally has not been allowed”.

But faced with tens of thousands of people who once again turned up to show their protest, the authorities realised it would be unwise to use the riot police to confront them, as this would have only radicalised the movement further and provoked and even more massive response.

It is not only in Spain where democratic rights are being trampled. Not long ago Cossiga, who was Christian Democrat Minister of the Interior in Italy in the 1970s, later President of the Republic, and now life Senator, was asked what should be done about students’ demonstrations. He answered:

“Let them get on with it for a while. Withdraw the police from the streets and campuses, infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs who are ready for anything, and leave the demonstrators for about ten days as they devastate shops, burn cars and turn the cities upside down. After that, having gained the support of the population – making sure that the noise of the ambulance sirens is louder than those of the police and carabinieri – the forces of order should ruthlessly attack the students and send them to hospital. Don’t arrest them, as the judges will only release them immediately; just beat them up and also the professors who foment the movement.”

Here is the authentic voice of the “democratic” bourgeoisie. The moment their privileges are threatened, they cast aside the smiling mask of “democracy” and resort to violence and repression. The youth of Spain – like the youth of Britain a few months earlier – is receiving a splendid lesson in the values of bourgeois democracy, delivered in the form of truncheon blows. By dispersing a peaceful demonstration the rulers of Spain showed two things: firstly their complete contempt for the democratic right to demonstrate; secondly their fear of the people.

Manifesto of the May 15 Movement

The youth of Spain is beginning to draw the most advanced conclusions. The following is the Manifesto of the May 15 Movement. While we do not agree with every dot and comma of this document, it is an extraordinary expression of the feelings of millions of people who are now beginning to awaken to political life, for this is fundamentally a political document, even though its authors do not use this word. The reason they do not like the word “political” is because the scandalous conduct of the existing political parties have made the word stink in their nostrils:

“We are ordinary people. We are like you: people, who get up every morning to study, work or find a job, people who have family and friends. People, who work hard every day to provide a better future for those around us.

"The system is the problem". Madrid, May 17. Photo: Jose A. GeladoComment: The most important aspect of this is precisely that it is a spontaneous movement from below, from the real base of society. It is the voice of those who work in the factories and study in the schools and universities: the real voice of Spain, not that of the exploiters and parasites. This represents its inner strength and resilience.

“Some of us consider ourselves progressive, others conservative. Some of us are believers, some not. Some of us have clearly defined ideologies, others are apolitical, but we are all concerned and angry about the political, economic, and social outlook which we see around us: corruption among politicians, businessmen, bankers, leaving us helpless, without a voice.

Comment: This is a mass movement that is giving a voice to the people who have no voice: the people who do not feel represented by the professional politicians and political apparatchiks who sit in the Cortes, that is to say, the great majority of the Spanish people. It is a protest against corruption and exploitation. But here we find a contradiction. How is it possible to hold such radical views and be a conservative? A conservative is somebody who wishes to conserve the status quo, who defends the existing order that the present movement seeks to overturn.

To seek to build a mass movement with the broadest base is very good. But it is not possible to combine fire with water. Either we stand for a complete change in society, in which case we are revolutionaries. Or we stand for its preservation, in which case we are conservatives. One can be one thing or the other, but one cannot be both.

“This situation has become normal, a daily suffering, without hope. But if we join forces, we can change it. It’s time to change things, time to build a better society together. Therefore, we strongly argue that:

“The priorities of any advanced society must be equality, progress, solidarity, freedom of culture, sustainability and development, welfare and people’s happiness.

“These are inalienable truths that we should abide by in our society: the right to housing, employment, culture, health, education, political participation, free personal development, and consumer rights for a healthy and happy life. ”

Comment: Yes, we must fight for all these things. But we must understand that there are powerful interests opposed to change. The bankers, landlords and capitalists do not accept that the right to housing, employment, culture, health, education, political participation, free personal development, and consumer rights for a healthy and happy life are inalienable rights.

They will tell us that these things are luxuries we cannot afford. Only the right of the bankers to receive vast amounts of public money are considered by them to be inalienable.

“The current status of our government and economic system does not take care of these rights, and in many ways is an obstacle to human progress. ”

Comment: That is right, but it needs to be clarified, so that there does not remain a shadow of doubt concerning the real nature of the problem. Unemployment is not the result of bad policies by this or that government. It is an expression of the sickness of a whole system, that is to say, of capitalism. The problem is not the greed of certain individuals, nor is it the lack of liquidity or the absence of confidence. The problem is that the capitalist system on a world scale is in a complete blind alley.

The root cause of the crisis is that the development of the productive forces has outgrown the narrow limits of private ownership and the nation state. The expansion and contraction of credit is often presented as the cause of the crisis, but in fact it is only the most visible symptom. Crises are an integral part of the capitalist system.

Is it really logical that the lives and destinies of millions of people are determined by the blind play of market forces? Is it fair that the economic life of the planet is decided as if it were a gigantic casino? Can it be justified that the greed for profit is the sole motor force that decides whether men and women will have a job or a roof over their heads? Those who own the means of production and control our destinies will answer in the affirmative because it is in their interest to do so. But the majority of society, who are the innocent victims of this cannibalistic system, disagree.

“Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us. Politicians should be bringing our voice to the institutions, facilitating the political participation of citizens through direct channels that provide the greatest benefit to the wider society, not to get rich and prosper at our expense, attending only to the dictatorship of major economic powers and holding them in power through a bipartidism headed by the immovable acronym PP & PSOE.”

Comment: Under capitalism democracy must necessarily have a restricted, one-sided and fictitious character. What use is freedom of the press when all the big newspapers, journals and television companies, meeting halls and theatres are in the hands of the rich? As long as the land, the banks and the big monopolies remain in the hands of a few, all the really important decisions affecting our lives will be taken, not by parliaments and elected governments but behind locked doors in the boards of directors of the banks and big companies. The present crisis has exposed this fact for all to see.

We stand for a genuine democracy in which the people would take the running of industry, society and the state into their own hands. That would be a genuine democracy, as opposed to the caricature we now have, in which anyone can say (more or less) what they want, as long as the most important decisions affecting our lives are taken behind locked doors by small, unelected groups on the boards of directors of the banks and big monopolies.

“Lust for power and its accumulation in only a few; create inequality, tension and injustice, which leads to violence, which we reject. The obsolete and unnatural economic model fuels the social machinery in a growing spiral that consumes itself by enriching a few and sends into poverty the rest. Until the collapse.

“The will and purpose of the current system is the accumulation of money, not regarding efficiency and the welfare of society. Wasting resources, destroying the planet, creating unemployment and unhappy consumers.

“Citizens are the gears of a machine designed to enrich a minority which does not regard our needs. We are anonymous, but without us none of this would exist, because we move the world.

“If as a society we learn to not trust our future to an abstract economy, which never returns benefits for the most, we can eliminate the abuse that we are all suffering.!”

Comment: The right to work is a fundamental right. What sort of society condemns millions of able-bodied men and women to a life of enforced inactivity, when their labour and skills are required to satisfy the needs of the population? Do we not need more schools and hospitals? Do we not need good roads and houses? Are the infrastructure and transport systems not in need of repair and improvement?

The answer to all these questions is well known to everybody. But the reply of the ruling class is always the same: we cannot afford these things. Now everybody knows that this answer is false. We now know that governments can produce extraordinary sums of money when it suits the interests of the wealthy minority who own and control the banks and industries. It is only when the majority of working people request that their needs are attended to that the government argues that the money is not available.

What does this prove? It proves that in the system in which we live the profits of the few are more important than the needs of the many. It proves that the whole productive system is based on one thing and one thing only: the profit motive, or, put plainly, greed.

“We need an ethical revolution. Instead of placing money above human beings, we shall put it back to our service. We are people, not products. I am not a product of what I buy, why I buy and who I buy from.”

Comment: The only solution to the problems listed here is the overthrow of the present corrupt and unjust system and its replacement by a genuinely humane, rational and democratic society, which is genuine socialism or communism. In order to achieve this end, however, what is needed is a fundamental change in society – a revolution.

The Manifesto speaks of an “ethical revolution”. But this formulation is too vague. The ethics of a given society reflect the economic base of that society. If we accept an economic system based on profit, we must accept the ethics that flow from this: “each for himself and let the devil take the hindermost.”

A cannibalistic society will inevitably have cannibalistic ethics. Before we can have humane ethics we must have a society based on genuine human relations. The prior condition for an ethical revolution is a social revolution.

“For all of the above, I am outraged.
I think I can change it.
I think I can help,
I know that together we can. I think I can help.
I know that together we can.”

This conclusion contains a most important lesson. It tells us that whereas I, as a single individual, am powerless, there is no power on earth that can withstand the masses, once they are mobilized and organized for the revolutionary transformation of society. That is the lesson of Tunisia and Egypt. The working class has in its hands a colossal power: not a light bulb shines, not a wheel turns, and not a telephone rings without our permission.

Advanced conclusions

The most important thing is that the youth is on the move, and through the experience of concrete struggle the conclusions that the movement as a whole is drawing are becoming more advanced and are coming more openly into conflict with the capitalist system itself. Thus, at the demonstration in Madrid on Tuesday, in protest against the brutal eviction of the camp that same morning, the following slogans could be heard: “it is not the crisis, it is the system”, “the revolution, has begun”, “they call it democracy and it is not”, and also the slogans from the 1970s Chilean movement: “el pueblo unido jamás sera vencido” (the people united would never be defeated), “luchar, crear, poder popular” (to fight, to build, peoples’ power).


The manifesto adopted by the tens of thousands present at Plaza del Sol in Madrid on May 18 was certainly a step forward. Amongst other things it recognised the political character of the movement: “we have lost respect for the main political parties, but we have not lost our ability to criticise. On the contrary we are not afraid of politics. To express an opinion is politics. To look for alternative ways to participate is politics”. It also clarified that it did not call for an abstention in the elections, but rather it demanded that “voting would have a real impact in our lives”. The manifesto also clearly identified those responsible for “the situation we face: the IMF, the European Central Bank, the European Union, the credit rating agencies like Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, the Popular Party and the PSOE, ” amongst others. Some are also questioning the Monarchy as an institution and arguing it should be put to a referendum.

Now the Electoral Junta has declared that no protests on Saturday (the “day of reflection” before elections day in which no political propaganda is allowed) and Sunday (election day itself) will be allowed. This is a direct challenge to the movement. The only effect of the repression in Madrid on Tuesday 17, and the banning of the demonstration on Wednesday 18 has been to radicalise and spread the movement. Demonstrations in provincial capitals have doubled in size in the last few days and tent camps have sprung everywhere. There is now a call for everyone to remain in the squares from midnight today, thus defying the prohibition of demonstrations.

The Spanish ruling class is faced with a difficult choice: if they use repression to enforce the decision to ban the demonstrations then they can provoke a social explosion, if they do not, then the movement will have won a victory and shown the power of the masses as opposed to the power of the official institutions. Vice-president Rubalcaba was today trying to square the circle by arguing that the fact that people gather despite gatherings being banned, “is not a reason enough for the police to intervene unless there is violence”

We Marxists welcome the protests of the youth. We express our wholehearted solidarity with the protest movement and call on the working class to support it actively. It is time to use the power of the working class to change society. It is time to put an end to all prevarications, unprincipled deals and compromises. Stop trying to prop up a diseased and moribund system! It is time to unite and fight! This is the real meaning of the Spanish protests and the May 15 Movement.

Long live the Spanish protests!

Long live the May 15 Movement!

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

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 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.    

 


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.

Friday, June 01, 2012

Books To While Away The Class Struggle By-From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky-"My Life"

Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By” and "Films To While Away The Class Struggle By"-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs and films that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some books that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. Markin

Book Review

MY LIFE by Leon Trotsky, 1930

Today we expect political memoir writers to take part in a game of show and tell about the most intimate details of their private personal lives on their road to celebrity. Refreshingly, you will find no such tantalizing details in Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky's memoir written in 1930 just after Stalin had exiled him to Turkey. Instead you will find a thoughtful political self-examination by a man trying to draw the lessons of his fall from power in order to set his future political agenda. This task is in accord with his stated conception of his role as an individual agent at service in the historical struggle toward a socialist future.

Thus, underlying the selection of events highlighted in the memoir such as the rise of the revolutionary wave in Russia in 1905 and 1917, the devastation to the socialist program of World War I and the degeneration of the Russian Revolution especially after Lenin’s death and the failure of the German Revolution of 1923 is a sense of urgency about the need for continued struggle for a socialist future. It also provides a platform as well for polemics against those foes and former supporters who have either abandoned or betrayed that struggle.

At the beginning of the 21st century when socialist political programs are in decline it is hard to imagine the spirit that drove Trotsky to dedicate his whole life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20th century he represented only the most consistent and audacious of a revolutionary generation of Eastern Europeans and Russians who set out to change the history of the 20th century. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world.

As Trotsky notes this element was lacking, with the exceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and precious few others, in the Western labor movement. Trotsky using his own experiences tells the story of the creation of this revolutionary cadre with care and generally proper proportions.
Many of the events such as the disputes within the Russian revolutionary movement, the attempts by the Western Powers to overthrow the Bolsheviks in the Civil War after their seizure of power and the struggle of the various tendencies inside the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International discussed in the book may not be familiar to today's audience. Nevertheless one can still learn something from the strength of Trotsky's commitment to his cause and the fight to preserve his personal and political integrity against overwhelming odds. As the organizer of the October Revolution, creator of the Red Army in the Civil War, orator, writer and fighter Trotsky he was one of the most feared men of the early 20th century to friend and foe alike.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that he took his personal fall from power as a world historic tragedy. Moreover, he does not gloss over his political mistakes. Nor does he generally do personal injustice to his various political opponents although I would not want to have been subject to his rapier wit and pen. Politicians, revolutionary or otherwise, in our times should take note.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

From The Pages Of "Workers Vanguard"-"On Posse Comitatus Law"-Down With NDAA!

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League website.

Workers Vanguard No. 996
17 February 2012

On Posse Comitatus Law

(Letter)

January 14, 2012

Editor, Workers Vanguard:

In discussing the erasure of democratic rights under the rubric of the “war on terror”, the lead article in WV 993, “Obama Ramps Up ‘War on Terror’ at Home”, states: “This is not to mention the direct violation [by the NDAA—National Defense Authorization Act] of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits military forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement.” Two problems with this: 1. It’s technically incorrect. The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits use of military forces domestically except when approved by Congress or explicitly allowed in the U.S. constitution. Since the NDAA was passed by Congress, its implementation would not be in violation of the PCA. 2. As for the NDAA violating the spirit of the PCA, the PCA was a post-Reconstruction law of racist and reactionary intent, designed to prevent local Reconstruction governments from appealing to the Federal government for protection against the terror that overthrew the democratic gains of the Reconstruction period. It is not exactly something one should refer to as an historical standard of bourgeois-democratic rights, such as habeas corpus, which WV properly cited in the previous sentence. So why is this being cited in WV?

Comradely,
J.H.

WV replies:

It may indeed have been more precise for the article to state that President Obama’s signing of the NDAA further eroded—rather than “directly violated”—the Posse Comitatus Act. J.H.’s second objection, though, is historically inaccurate as there were no Reconstruction governments left to defend, which is not to deny that the Act served a reactionary purpose. J.H. misses the main point. Eliminating the formal restrictions on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement could only have dangerous consequences for the workers and oppressed. We want to defend such restrictions against any attempt to limit or repeal them.

The U.S. bourgeoisie has long upheld the formal separation of the military from domestic repressive duties as a benefit of bourgeois democracy as distinct from a military police-state dictatorship. The Posse Comitatus Act stands as a centerpiece of this distinction. We have no illusions that this or any other law will restrain the bourgeoisie from unleashing the military when it perceives a sufficient threat to its class rule. Over the years, the government has come up with many ways of restricting the Posse Comitatus Act or getting around it by militarizing police forces, providing them with armed personnel carriers, drones, etc. There have been quite a few amendments to the Act, including authorizing the president to call out the armed forces to restore order in cases of civil disturbance, to assist in the “war on drugs” and to aid enforcement of the racist immigration laws. We trust that J.H. agrees that these are not positive developments.

Posse Comitatus, meaning the “force of the county,” dates back to English common law. Carried over to North America, it authorized local sheriffs to compel members of the community to assist in making arrests and maintaining order. Federal posse comitatus originated with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which “commanded” all citizens to “aid and assist” U.S. marshals in the capture of escaped slaves. By the time the slavocracy was defeated in the Civil War, the state power was no longer in the business of catching slaves. For a brief and unique period in American history—Reconstruction—its job in the South was enforcing the newly won rights of black people. Since few white southerners could be pressed into defending these rights, this left federal troops to be the “posse.”

By 1877, the last of the Reconstruction governments had already been replaced by the white Southern “Redeemers,” in some cases following bloody massacres of recently freed blacks during which the second Grant administration refused to dispatch additional troops. By the time the remaining federal troops were withdrawn from the South in 1877, the Northern bourgeoisie had already aligned with the remnants of the slavocracy to force the freed slaves back onto the former plantations as brutally exploited tenants or sharecroppers. As KKK nightriders were terrorizing the South, the Posse Comitatus Act was enacted the following year to prevent the use of the military to protect black people and enforce their civil rights. The law codified what was already a ruling-class consensus. The Civil War and Reconstruction were the last progressive acts of the U.S. bourgeoisie, which would rapidly develop into an imperialist capitalist class, marking its emergence as such with the 1898 Spanish-American War.

The military could no longer play any progressive role. Continuing a military campaign against American Indians that followed the tail end of the Civil War, some of the troops withdrawn from the South following Reconstruction were dispatched to drive the Nez Percé from their home in Oregon. Others were sent to break the 1877 strike by thousands of rail workers—the first nationwide strike in this country. Federal troops have been repeatedly sent to put down strikes: from the 1894 Pullman strike by the newly formed American Railway Union to the 1899 miners strike in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to the seizure of railroads and coal mines ordered by Democratic president Truman in 1946 to break a strike by 400,000 coal miners. Just recently, the Coast Guard was deployed, along with other forces of the state, to escort a ship up the Columbia River to the Port of Longview, Washington, to prevent any interference from ILWU longshoremen in their battle against the EGT bosses (see article in this issue). In this, the military was true to its purpose as a core component of the capitalist state, which is to defend the class rule, interests and profits of the bourgeoisie, internationally and domestically.

When struggles for black rights emerged following World War II, they were met with brutal KKK and state terror. The liberal leaders of the civil rights movement, epitomized by Martin Luther King Jr. and tailed by reformist socialist organizations, called for federal troops to the South, sowing the deadly illusion that the imperialist army that was smashing workers and peasants in Vietnam would somehow defend fighters for black freedom at home. We are opposed to such calls on the armed forces of the capitalist state. In 1957, Eisenhower’s troops were sent to put down an upheaval of the Little Rock, Arkansas, black population, which was fighting to defend black students against racist mobs. The troops thus prevented the total rout of the retreating racists. From the 1943 racist riots in Detroit to Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, federal troops were sent in only after blacks armed and mobilized to defend themselves. In 1967, the 82nd Airborne was brought in to suppress the Detroit ghetto explosion.

As Marxists, we assess laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act not by the motivations of their authors but by how they concretely impact class and social struggles. From the same vantage point, we judge what legal protections exist from how they serve the interests of the working class and the oppressed. Thus, while we recognize habeas corpus as an important democratic right in most periods, we support Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War as a necessary measure to put down forces acting in support of the secessionist South in a war over slavery. Similarly, many of the democratic protections embodied in the Bill of Rights emerged from the experience of winning independence from the British monarchy, subsequent social struggle and hostility to a centralized state power in a society divided between slave and free labor social systems.

These protections, including the right to bear arms and later formal restrictions on military police powers, are important gains for the working class, which must defend the rights won through struggle against the rulers’ inevitable attempts to restrict or reverse them.