From The Renegade Eye Blog- IDM- Nepal: Which Way Forward?

Nepal: Which Way Forward?
Written by Adam Pal in Lahore, Pakistan
Friday, 11 March 2011

In Nepal the stalemate in power is continuing while the ideological battle inside the communist movement intensifies. The struggle for power through constitutional means by the largest party in parliament UCPN (M) faced another defeat when on November 1st parliament failed to elect a new Prime Minister for the 16th time. [Originally published in the Think India Quarterly]

Photo: izahorsky 2009The bourgeoisie and ruling elite of Nepal is putting up hurdles against the handing over of power to the Maoists and are using every available means to sabotage the process. The nine month short stint in power by the Maoists also came to a bitter end in May 2009 when they were unable to remove the Army chief.

The Maoists rose to power after they led the Jana Andolan-II in 2006. Hundreds of thousands of people came out onto the streets of Kathmandu and raised their voices against poverty, hunger, unemployment and the despotic rule of King Gyanendra. According to some estimates two and a half million people came out in this revolutionary movement. Power slipped from the hands of the King and was there in the streets to be picked up.

The reluctance of the Maoists to take this power led to a long series of discussions, meetings, walk outs and talks that have resulted in a painful lengthening of the process. Elections were held in April 2008 in which again the masses expressed full support for the Maoists and they emerged as the largest party in the Constituent Assembly.

But since then they proved unable not hold power as it shifts away from the capitalists and landlords that form the ruling elite of Nepal. The class balance of forces in Nepal is still swinging unless there is complete victory of one class over the other.

The ruling classes are unable to get complete grip on the situation as the masses have risen against their exploitation and have expressed a clear verdict against them time and again. Their capitulation to the imperialist masters and inability to carry out any reforms has exposed their true reactionary character in the eyes of the toiling masses. Currently 35 percent of the total population is living below the poverty line, earning less than one US dollar per day while one third of the population has no access to clean water and 85% of Nepalese don't have access to health services. It is one of the poorest countries of the world where 10% of the population has 50% of the wealth while the bottom 40% has only 10%. Prices of basic necessities are always increasing and inflation is very high.

The bourgeoisie even proved incapable of removing the age old monarchy, which could only be overthrown after the revolutionary movement of Loktantra Andolan. Due to their belated entrance onto the arena of history they can never play a progressive role and are destined to be a subservient slave of their imperialist countries. In Nepal even a country like India is acting as an imperialist state, where a big majority of the population lives in poverty and its own bourgeoisie is unable to carry out the historical tasks of the bourgeois revolution which were completed in 17th and 18th centuries in the advanced capitalist countries.

On the other hand the reluctance of the Maoists to take power completely into their hands and crush the ruling elite by expropriating the land, banks and industries in Nepal lies deep in their Stalinist ideology of the two stages. According to this theory the first stage of revolution is a democratic stage in which, supporting the so-called progressive bourgeoisie, the 'revolutionary' party has to complete the tasks of the capitalist revolution and after that at some later stage the path for socialism will be taken. This theory has revealed its bankruptcy time and again since it was propagated by Stalin and is actually a negation of Leninist principles. Lenin and Trotsky who led the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 never relied on the so-called “progressive” bourgeoisie of Russia to complete its historical tasks but went forward to a socialist revolution under the leadership of the proletariat and completed not only the democratic tasks but built a workers’ state and a planned economy.

Lenin’s April Thesis and the Theory of Permanent Revolution by Trotsky both argue that in a backward country the only path forward is through a socialist revolution. It is the task of the proletariat to carry out the fundamental transformation of society and end poverty, hunger and misery by expropriating the imperialist assets and capital, local capitalists, landlords and nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy and putting them under the democratic control of the workers.

In Nepal we have seen that adhering to the Stalinist theory of two stages has solved nothing and though the monarchy has been abolished the fundamental character of the state is the same and is still a tool of oppression in the hands of the capitalists and landlords. The Maoists' tenure in power also could not change the class character of the state and they were thrown out of office as soon as the movement of the masses started to recede and the ruling classes recovered from their defeat. If the Maoists had gone forward to take socialist measures by expropriating the banks, industry and land, the real strength of these ruling classes could have been broken and the working classes could have been strengthened. As the masses could see the real transformation of society taking place they would have defended the gains of the revolution themselves. But here another important question arises about the dependence of the Nepalese economy on the imperialist powers. Also, with the presence of India and China on its borders how could this socialist revolution survive in a small country?

The bankruptcy of the Stalinist theory of “socialism in one country” again seems evident here which cannot answer this question. However, if we look at the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 we see that its leaders never had an idea of halting the process inside the boundaries of Russia but on the contrary their utmost desire was to spread it to the whole world rapidly. The socialist measures in Nepal can only find support in the proletariat and peasantry of the region and beyond. The Indian bourgeoisie and State can never tolerate such measures and will definitely use every means to sabotage and crush it. They would certainly fear the danger of spreading this revolution inside India’s borders and its proletariat following the example of their Nepalese counterpart and start doing the same. They even can't tolerate the current situation where a revolutionary process has unfolded and is challenging the class nature of Nepalese society. The arrival of the dethroned King Gyanendra in India for a two week visit on 15 November points in the same direction. According to Review Nepal he was going to meet Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. On the other hand the Chinese government seems to support the Maoist movement in this regard. But first of all a complete understanding of the character of the Chinese State should also be discussed.

In China the planned economy has been gradually dismantled over the last two decades and now it is one of the few largest capitalist economies in the world. Property relations in China have been restored on a capitalist basis and the market economy has taken the place of the planned economy. The Stalinist bureaucracy which emerged after a successful revolution in China has been transformed into a ruling class whose members are the latest billionaires of 21st century. The capitalist restoration in China has also given its State an imperialist character which is using all its potential to exploit as many resources in the world for its profit driven economy. The new emerging conflict between a weakening US imperialism and an infant Chinese imperialism is also creating ripples in the region. Obama's recent visit to Asia to empower other small economies against China has increased the tensions. But the recent conflict between China and US imperialism is quite the opposite to the cold war between the USSR and US where two opposite economies and modes of production were in conflict. Here both have same market economy in their country and therefore where they have conflicts with each other they have their interests tied together in many places. China is the largest exporter of goods to US and many US companies have their plants inside China. In this context China is using the peoples' movement in Nepal as a pawn for its imperialist interests against India and ultimately the US. They will try to restrain this movement inside the democratic farce and parliamentary cretinism.

In the case the movement should go forward towards the expropriation of land, industries and banks, the Chinese State would try its best to sabotage it and if it gets the opportunity it will join hands with the Indian State to crush the movement, as this movement can set an example for the Chinese proletariat who are already struggling for better living conditions and higher wages. The number of strikes and protests are increasing every day where the largest proletariat of the world exists and whose lives have turned into a living hell since the restoration of Capitalist economy. This proletariat is also the real ally of the revolutionary masses of Nepal who can support them by rising against their own ruling class in China. However, the decisive role has to be played by the poor peasants, workers and revolutionary youth of Nepal. More than that, the members and cadres of the UCPN (M) have to play a leading role.

Already a debate is heating up on similar lines inside UCPN (M) and after so many years of armed struggle, protests, strikes, elections and constitutional harping, no fundamental change in the lives of people can be seen. This is the reason for the current fractures opening up in the leadership of the UCPN (M) which held its week-long sixth plenum after five years in Palungtar, Gorkha District which started on 20 November. It was the largest meeting in the party's history in which more than 7000 members participated. In this plenum three documents were presented from the party leadership. The first document was present by the party chairman Prachanda. According to news reports he emphasized on the need for a serious dialogue to draft the constitution and to conclude the peace process. He also criticized the imperialist role of the Indian State. The other document was presented by Vice-Chairman Mohan Kiran Vaidya that challenged Prachanda's line and appealed for returning to the armed struggle. The third document was presented by another Vice-Chairman Baburam Bhattarai. Bhattarai has had differences with Prachanda for the last few years which has resulted in his demotion in the party along with his wife Hisila Yami and his other supporters. He was the Minister of Finance in the August 2008 coalition government.

In the summer of 2009 Bhattarai had openly written about the failure of Stalinist ideology clearly supporting Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. In The Red Spark (Rato Jhilko), a journal of the UCPN (M) he wrote an article advocating Trotsky's position rejecting the party's line of Stalinist ideas. He wrote:

“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”.

Bhattarai was, however, mistaken on one point. In 1917: neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor any other leader of the Bolshevik party (not even Stalin himself) considered that the revolution could be confined to one country. Nobody even mentioned this idea before it became the motto of Stalin from 1924 onwards. But regardless of this factual error of Bhattarai, the fact that a senior leader of a traditionally "Stalinist" party recognized the validity of the ideas of Trotsky was a very significant development. This has stimulated a very useful discussion within the Communist movement on the historical roots of Stalinism and the ideas of genuine Marxism.

In his article, Comrade Bhattarai, suggested new strategic directions for his party, summarized in the following points: There is a need to develop Marxism to a new level by analyzing and synthesizing the lessons of China, Russia, Nepal, India etc., and the new initiatives being taken in some countries in Latin America.

The current crisis of capitalism and the previous era of so-called “neo liberal” development have made many, like the Maoist leaders, realize that “today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the beginning of 20th century. Development of information technology has crossed national borders and transformed the world into a village. On the other hand, the inherent unequal and extreme development of capitalist imperialism has caused disparity among different nations”. This is a tentative step in explaining the theory of combined and uneven development. The Nepalese example shows that the country has a mixture of different historical formations within it (feudal, semi-capitalist, capitalist, etc). In the past, the Nepali Maoists used to blame “revisionism” introduced by Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Deng for the failure of socialism in Russia and China, but now they have put the blame squarely on Stalinism. This is a development that should be encouraged.

However, Dr Bhattarai's paper is not accepted by the Stalinist hardliners within the UCPN (M). They have argued that Leon Trotsky was “outside of the Marxist-Leninist ideological current” and his role in the proletarian revolution, as well as his commitment to Marxism, are doubtful and therefore comparing Stalin with Trotsky and drawing conclusions on that basis is subjective thinking and irrelevant.

In a recent paper, Central Committee member, comrade Kushal Pradhan wrote:

“If a simultaneous wave of revolution is necessary to sustain the revolution in each country and if such a position is in line with the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought, then there is no point in dragging Trotsky into this debate. Secondly, the idea of revolution in a single country belongs to Lenin; and Stalin created the structure of the first socialist state. Stalin might have made some mistakes, but he was a great Marxist and Leninist practitioner and his contribution should not be underestimated.” (The Red Guard, September 2009, pp.18-20)

Comrade Pradhan also argues that the idea of world revolution or Permanent Revolution belongs to Marx and not to Leon Trotsky.

The ongoing debate and the recent inconclusive plenum on the strategic directions of the UCPN (M) has clearly placed the party in a big dilemma: the Nepali Maoists are neither in a position to return to the jungle to start the second edition of the “People's War”, nor are they able to deliver what they had promised to the people through the current “stage of peaceful development of the revolution”. In the past, the UCPN(M) had trained the party cadres exclusively on the basis of Maoism and Stalinism, but the lessons of their 10-year armed struggle have stressed the correctness of the principles of the Permanent Revolution (as synthesized by Dr Bhattarai) and refuted the Maoist-Stalinist theory of revolution, i.e. 'revolution in one country' and the 'two-stage theory'.

The confusion and rift inside the Maoist leadership could be seen in the general strike of May this year. First, a call for the general strike was made which was moving towards success and which had the potential to overthrow the present regime and move towards a Socialist revolution in Nepal. But after 5 days the strike was called off. The leadership 'explained' that the strike was off but the protests would continue. A general strike of such a nature poses the very question of power, of who governs the country. Instead it was used as a measure to put pressure on the government. However, subsequent events showed that the preparations for a general strike were not properly carried out. If the leadership discusses its internal weaknesses in basic ideology and the true ideals of Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 it can move again towards an indefinite general strike until the fall of the bourgeois government.

An indefinite general strike until the fall of a bourgeois government, organized by a communist organization that has the majority of the workers must be based on a serious evaluation of the mood of the masses and there must be serious preparation, campaigning in every workplace and mobilization for its successful turnout. And because such a powerful general strike, which mobilizes the whole of the mass movement, means that one must work not only for the victory of the strike one must be prepared for what comes next and prepare the masses for taking power through an insurrection, with the creation of strike committees in all corners of Nepal, linking the “liberated” areas with the main urban centres, issuing propaganda explaining that the only way to achieve a genuine Constitution that will liberate peasants and workers would be through the mobilization and participation of the masses themselves in the running of the state.

What is required is decisive and bold action to be taken to ensure that the old state apparatus is removed and a new power is built, firmly in the hands of the poor peasants, workers, youth and oppressed people. The conditions for this now exist. In the past the Maoists successfully organized the peasants and controlled large areas of the country. Now they have shown that the urban masses can also be mobilized. The general strike of May [2010] is proof of that. All the forces are lined up for the workers and peasants to take power. The UCPN (M) leaders should review their position and understand the historical task that lies on their shoulders. They are the leaders; they have the authority and they should use it. Otherwise we will have paralysis and the initiative could pass into the hands of the ruling elite.

By leading the masses to power and carrying through a genuine Socialist revolution in Nepal, they would be lighting a beacon in Asia that the downtrodden masses would look up to in countries like Pakistan, India, China, Bangladesh and beyond. Conditions for revolution are maturing well beyond the borders of Nepal. The present world crisis of capitalism is making unbearable living conditions even worse for many of the workers in these countries. They would instinctively move in the direction of solidarity with the Nepalese masses across the South-Asian subcontinent. Parliamentary politics in Nepal has reached its limits. The power is there for the taking and the working masses under the leadership of genuine communists must take it. This is a decisive moment in the history of the class struggle of Nepal.

*The Case Of Geronimo Pratt (ji-Jaga)- The Case Of A Framed Innocent Man

Click on to the title to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for ex-Black Panther Geronimo Pratt (ji-Jaga). Use the information presented here as a primer only. There is much more information about the FBI's nefarious role in this whole affair.

On a day when we have received word from the Partisan Defense Committee about the latest legal set-back in Mumia's case a look at the case of Geronimo Pratt (ji-Jaga), like the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter also highlighted today , another innocent black man, should bring home to everyone the need to focus on freedom (as opposed to the strategy of a new trial or commutation, although we use all avenues that we can use in these cases) for Mumia. Free Mumia!

* A Ohio 7 Update-Protest Gag Order Against Ray Luc Levasseur- A Guest Commentary

Click on the title to link to "Wikipedia"'s entry for the Ohio 7. As always with this source and its collective editorial policy, especially with controversial political groups like the Ohio 7, be careful checking the accuracy of the information provided at any given time.

Markin comment:

Below is further information about the continuing attempts to deny a member of the Ohio 7, who has done his time, the right to speak his mind in public. As always- Free The Last Of The Ohio 7, Jaan laaman and Tom Manning- The Must Not Die In Jail.

Workers Vanguard No. 948
4 December 2009

Protest Gag Order Against Ray Luc Levasseur

Last month, former Ohio 7 political prisoner Ray Luc Levasseur was vindictively barred from speaking at an event at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, about the notorious 1989 sedition frame-up trial in which he was a defendant. The university library’s invitation to Levasseur was met with a vile slander campaign by the cops and bourgeois press, which tarred Levasseur as “bloodthirsty” and a “terrorist,” while the state senate passed a resolution “roundly condemning” that this opponent of U.S. imperialist terror had been invited to speak.

Bowing to pressure from Massachusetts Democratic governor Deval Patrick and the state Fraternal Order of Police, the university administration canceled Levasseur’s invitation. In response, the Social Thought and Political Economy Program and several academic departments took over sponsorship of the event and reinvited Levasseur. UMass president Jack Wilson admitted he had “no way of preventing a speaking appearance, based on free speech and free assembly rights” (Boston Herald, 11 November). But Levasseur’s parole officer did, denying him permission to leave Maine. Arnie Larson, president of the Massachusetts Fraternal Order of Police, boasted, “We reached out to people in the Justice Department and educated them about our passion here…and they followed through on it” (Boston Globe, 12 November).

When former political prisoner and sedition trial co-defendant Pat Levasseur (Ray’s former wife) spoke in Ray Luc Levasseur’s place, she was met by an ominous display of police bonapartism. An army of over 200 cops from New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts protested the event on the campus with signs reading, “There Is No Such Thing as a Former Terrorist.” This was an echo of the government’s 1987 frame-up of two other Ohio 7 defendants for the killing of a New Jersey state trooper.

Pat and Ray Luc Levasseur were part of the Ohio 7, convicted for their roles in a radical group that took credit for bank “expropriations” and bombings against symbols of U.S. imperialism such as military and corporate offices. Before their arrests in the mid 1980s, the Ohio 7 were targets of massive manhunts and their children were kidnapped at gunpoint by the Feds and interrogated. Having already convicted and sentenced them to decades behind bars, in 1989 the Justice Department spent nearly $10 million to vindictively prosecute them again for the same alleged crimes, as part of an effort to rehabilitate discredited “thought crime” sedition laws. Pat and Ray Luc Levasseur as well as another member of the Ohio 7, Richard Williams, were dragged through a ten-month trial for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government. The defendants were acquitted, though this did not put an end to the government vendetta. Richard Williams died in prison in December 2005 due to medical neglect and abuse during his solitary confinement. Two other members of the Ohio 7, Tom Manning and Jaan Laaman, still languish behind bars. Free Manning and Laaman now!

From the standpoint of the working class, the actions of the Ohio 7 against U.S. imperialism and racist injustice are not crimes, and these courageous activists should not have served a day in prison. Although we do not share their political perspective, we have been outspoken in the defense of the Ohio 7, several of whom have been longtime recipients of the Partisan Defense Committee’s monthly stipend program for class-war prisoners. We noted in “RICO Witchhunt Targets Ohio 7” (WV No. 476, 28 April 1989), “with the seditious conspiracy case of the Ohio 7 this dangerous government is trying to move a big step closer to its police-state dreams of outlawing leftist political views.” Likewise, the censorship of Ray Luc Levasseur and the massive cop mobilization at UMass are intended as a threat to all who would speak out against the ravages of the racist American ruling class. An injury to one is an injury to all!

*Professor Bill Ayers For Secretary Of State ?

Commentary

Today, Very Definitely, You Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows.

Now that the elections are mercifully over everyone and their brother or sister with any political pull is scrambling for jobs in Washington under the new Obama administration. As is now well-known (or at least known) this year I have changed my position on the old previously unresolved question of whether revolutionaries could, on principle, run for executive offices in the bourgeois state (of course, even under the old standard with the proviso that they not take office if successful). (See blog entry If Drafted I Will Not Run, If Elected I Will Not Serve, dated June 15, 2008).

That position does not preclude supporting other organizations or individuals for such offices, assuming that they have some program or fragment of a program that represents a real class struggle alternative. Nor does it preclude “daydreaming” about possible choices of candidates for various offices in the executive branch of this government. In all fairness, after all the abuse (none of it justified from the sources that it was coming from) this writer thinks that some poetic justice (if not political justice) would be done by nominating one Professor William Ayers as the next Secretary of State (and Professor Bernadine Dohrn can be some kind of Deputy Secretary). After all without Brother Ayers being used as a punching bag by McCain and his ilk at time when the economy was going in the tank then Obama would be just another kid on the block today.

Moreover, as Brother Ayers has stated (in his memoirs and at other times) he has no regrets over his actions (as a “terrorist”, washed up or otherwise) against the American military machine during the Vietnam War (nor should he have) he might be the voice of wisdom against this troop escalation (10,000) in Afghanistan that Obama has cooked up. Sorry, "Joe the Plumber" (if that is what you are) that position as Secretary of Labor is out of the question. In the time -honored banalities of politics-you lost, you stay home. Stay tuned for more as this “drama” unravels. Meanwhile a little forgotten slogan is appropriate here. Immediate Withdrawal Of American/Allied Troops From Iraq and Afghanistan Now!

The Battered, Tattered Generation Of' '68- Part III- Hands of Professors Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn

Apparently, the Republican presidential campaign of Arizona Senator John McCain is trying to get mileage out of some tenuous connection between Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama and very, very ex-Weatherpeople Professors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This same issue popped up in the spring of 2008. The introductory comment used there reposted directly below and a review of what The Weather Underground really meant politically still apply. I would only add that forty years of "cultural wars" by these reactionaries, led by Karl Rove and his ilk, is enough. I only hope that when our day comes we will relegate them to some nice island somewhere so they can "reflect" on their sins and leave the rest of us alone.

*******

There is currently a tempest in a teapot swirling around Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama concerning his relationship with former Weatherpeople Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Here are a couple of reviews from last year on the historic significance of that movement. The real question to ask though is not why Obama was hanging around with Ayers and Dohrn but why they were hanging around with this garden-variety bourgeois candidate on the make. Enough said.

YOU DO NEED A WEATHERMAN (PERSON) TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS

DVD REVIEW

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND: REBELS WITH A CAUSE, 2003

In a time when I, among others, are questioning where the extra-parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War is going and why it has not made more of an impact on American society it was rather refreshing to view this documentary about the seemingly forgotten Weather Underground that as things got grimmer dramatically epitomized one aspect of opposition to the Vietnam War. If opposition to the Iraq war is the political fight of my old age Vietnam was the fight of my youth and in this film brought back very strong memories of why I fought tooth and nail against it. And the people portrayed in this film, the core of the Weather Underground, while not politically kindred spirits then or now, were certainly on the same page as I was- a no holds- barred fight against the American Empire. We lost that round, and there were reasons for that, but that kind of attitude is what it takes to bring down the monster. But a revolutionary strategy is needed. That is where we parted company.

One of the political highlights of the film is centered on the 1969 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Convention that was a watershed in the student anti-war protest movement. That was the genesis of the Weathermen but it was also the genesis of the Progressive Labor Party-led faction that wanted to bring the anti-war message to the working class by linking up the student movement with the fight against capitalism. In short, to get to those who were, or were to be, the rank and file soldiers in Vietnam or who worked in the factories. In either case the point that was missed, as the Old Left had argued all along and which we had previously dismissed out of hand, was that it was the masses of working people who were central to ‘bringing the war home’ and the fight against capitalism. That task still confronts us today.

One of the paradoxical things about this film is that the Weather Underground survivors interviewed had only a vague notion about what went wrong. This was clearly detailed in the remarks of Mark Rudd, a central leader, when he stated that the Weathermen were trying to create a communist cadre. He also stated, however, that after going underground he realized that he was out of the loop as far as being politically effective. And that is the point. There is no virtue in underground activity if it is not necessary, romantic as that may be. To the extent that any of us read history in those days it was certainly not about the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. If we had we would have found that that movement also fought out the above-mentioned fight in 1969. Mass action vs. individual acts, heroic or otherwise, of terror. The Weather strategy of acting as the American component of the worldwide revolutionary movement in order to bring the Empire to its knees certainly had (and still does) had a very appealing quality. However, a moral gesture did not (and will not) bring this beast down. While the Weather Underground was made up a small group of very appealing subjective revolutionaries its political/moral strategy led to a dead end. The lesson to be learned; you most definitely do need weather people to know which way the winds blow. Start with Karl Marx.

***Free The Cuban Five- Ahora!-In Defense Of The Cuban Revolution

Click on title to link to the National Committee To Free The Cuban Five web site for updates on this important international case.

The following is being passed on from the Partisan Defense Committee (2008). Please note the link to the National Committee to Free the Five below to find more information about the Cuban Five. As always here is a case where defense of the Cuban revolution begins concretely with the defense of the Five- Ahora!

The Cuban Five have now been incarcerated for almost ten years. Three Cuban citizens and two U.S. citizens who infiltrated and monitored violent anti-communist exile groups in Florida in order to stop terrorist attacks against Cuba, these men were arrested in 1998 under the Clinton administration on bogus charges of conspiracy to commit espionage and murder, as well as lesser charges like failing to register as agents of a foreign power. After being tried in Miami, a den of counterrevolutionary gusano (worm) activities, Gerardo Hernandez was sentenced to two life terms plus 15 years; Antonio Guerrero and Ram6n Labanino to life plus ten and 18 years, respectively; Fernando Gonzalez to 19 years; and Rene Gonzalez to 15 years. They are held in federal maximum security prisons, separated by hundreds of miles from loved ones, their lawyers and each other. As Marxists, we demand immediate freedom for the Cuban Five, whose heroic actions were in defense of the Cuban Revolution against U.S. imperialism and its counterrevolutionary agents.

From the CIA-backed invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, to the repeated attempts on Fidel Castro's life, to the ongoing starvation embargo, the U.S. imperialists, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, have never ceased in their drive to overthrow the Cuban Revolution. In 2002, Ana Belen Montes, a Defense Intelligence Agency officer, was sentenced to 25 years for passing military information to the Cuban government.

In their drive to restore capitalism in Cuba, the U.S. rulers have trained terrorists like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, who engineered the 1976 bombing of a Cubana airliner that killed 73 people. In the 1990s, as the Cuban government began to promote tourism, gusano groups launched a campaign of bombings that targeted hotels and airport buses in an attempt to cripple the economy. Posada has admitted to masterminding bombings of tourist spots in Havana in 1997 that killed an Italian businessman. We say: Send Posada and Bosch back to Cuba to be tried by their victims!

It was in the context of such terrorist activity that gusano activities were being monitored by the Cuban Five, three of whom were veterans of Cuba's military campaign in Angola that in the 1970s and '80s fought the U.S.-sponsored invasion by the South African apartheid regime. In June 1998, the Cuban government shared its intelligence on gusano terrorist activity with the FBI. In September of that year, the FBI arrested the Cubans instead of the CIA's "ex"-employees.

The government built its case on "conspiracy to commit espionage" charges, conspiracy charges being the hallmark of political witchhunts when the government has no evidence that an actual crime has been committed. Months after their arrest, "conspiracy to commit murder" was tacked on to the charges against Gerardo Hernandez in connection with the deaths of four pilots from the Brothers to the Rescue gusano outfit. The latter were shot down by the Cuban air force in 1996 after repeatedly and provocatively flying into Cuban airspace in a brazen challenge to the country's air defenses.

Held in Miami, the trial was engulfed in anti-communist hysteria and intimidation of anyone not toeing the gusano line on Cuba. The judge refused five defense requests for a change of venue. During jury selection, potential jurors asked to be excused, fearing the consequences of rendering an "unsatisfactory" verdict. The impaneled jurors' license plates appeared on nightly news broadcasts. The prosecution claimed that Guerrero, who worked as a janitor at the Boca Chica Naval Air Station in Key West, had endangered secret U.S. military plans by watching aircraft take off and land in training exercises. As Guerrero's lawyer pointed out, the information he gathered "could've been published in the Miami Herald." So inflamed was the atmosphere that the jury even convicted Hernandez of conspiracy murder charges that the prosecution itself had already concluded would be an "insurmountable hurdle" to prove!

In 2005, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta threw out the 2001 convictions and ordered a new trial in a new venue because of the "pervasive community prejudice" in Miami. The Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales appealed for a rehearing by the full court, which reinstated the convictions in August 2006. Last August, another three-judge panel heard oral arguments in the case that this time focused on the bogus murder and espionage charges and the gross prosecutorial misconduct.

The brutality these five men endure in prison is designed to break them and echoes the treatment of other class-war prisoners like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Before their trial even started, the Cuban Five spent 17 months in solitary. Between their convictions in June and their sentencing in December 2001, they spent 48 days in the hole. In 2003 as they worked on their first appeal, they were sent to solitary and denied communication with the outside world, even their lawyers.

Every family visit involves an arduous and arbitrary visa process. Sometimes a relative waits out the precious time they are allotted and never gets to see their loved one. Adriana Perez, wife of Gerardo Hernandez, has been repeatedly denied a visa. Olga Salanueva, wife of Rene Gonzalez, was deported on phony spy charges in 2000.

In combatting the degenerate end-products of a decaying capitalism, the Cuban Five have performed a service not only in defense of Cuba but for working people throughout the hemisphere and around the world. Free the Cuban Five! Defend the Cuban Revolution

*A Short Note of Cuban Developments

Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the Cuban Revolution. This link is placed here with the understanding that although for my generation, the generation of '68, defense of the Cuban revolution was a touchstone issue that may not apply to later activists who came to political life under others impetuses. I also do not vouch for the accuracy of all the information in the Wikipedia entry.

Commentary

Defend the Cuban Revolution! U.S. End the Embargoes!

Recently I have been asked by a political colleague, in person not by e-mail or blog comment if one can believe such a phenomena in the digital age, what I made of the situation in Cuba. She had noticed last week, the week of February 18, 2007, that I had not commented on Fidel’s stepping down from most of his political offices, including the presidency. Well, the short answer is that I am waiting for the dust to settle a little before I comment fully on such an event. Moreover, I feel under no compulsion to run out and yell in the streets every time that there is a Stalinist musical chairs change up in the world (although granted, there are fewer occasions for that now).

Apparently, the ‘exiles’ are not dancing in the streets of Little Havana, oops, I mean Miami so that tells one in a very empirical way what this latest turnover is about from that quarter. The changeover from Fidel to Raul Castro, and the apparent ‘revolutionary’ hard line, is on the order of a mini-turn for them, and all of one piece. Strangely, that is the general take on the situation for anti-Stalinist leftists, as well.

The fundamental problem from our leftist perspective in Cuba is, as Leon Trotsky posited long ago, one cannot fully develop a socialist society in isolation- in short, 'socialism in one country' does not work. That is even truer in a small island country that now has no lifeline from other non-capitalist countries, like the ex-Soviet Union. Thus, in the long haul the Cuban situation is dictated by the prospects, or lack of them, for international socialism. But, in the short haul, and this is really my message today, we must gear up to defend the Cuban Revolution, as we have since 1959, tooth and nail, against the imperialists at the door and their agents in Cuba, regardless of which Castro is in charge. More on these developments as we get closer to celebrating the Moncada anniversary in July. Defend the Cuban Revolution!

*STRIKE THE BLOW!! JOHN BROWN-REVOLUTIONARY ABOLITIONIST

Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for John Brown, revolutionary abolitionist. All honor to his memory.

COMMENTARY

STRIKE THE BLOW!!! – JOHN BROWN- REVOLUTIONARY ABOLITIONIST

REVISED: NOVEMBER 14, 2006

February is Black History Month a time to honor those who have fought for black liberation. John Brown deserves such honor. To honor him I would like to make a few comments on the role of Captain John Brown and his struggle at Harpers Ferry in 1859 in the history of the black liberation struggle. This appropriate as I am writing this review during Black History Month of 2006. Unfortunately John Brown continues to remain one of the very few white heroes of the struggle for black liberation.

From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic had a prior existence as a song in tribute to John Brown as the Union soldiers started heading south. I, however, was then neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas wars against the expansion of slavery. If one understands the ongoing nature of his commitment to struggle one can only conclude that his was indeed a man on a mission. Those exploits also render absurd a very convenient myth about his ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle against the abolition of slavery in America.

Whether or not John Brown knew that his strategy would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harpers Ferry. This misses the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years.

Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. Such results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There are other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.

Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ to this day cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such 'madman' theories. Historians and others have also misinterpreted the import of later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming military superior forces. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians to take the sting out of their proper political implications.

From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goals he aspired to had been immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which aside from a genuinely radical recognition of racial and gender equality did not step beyond a general capitalist democratic format. Unfortunately the subsequent Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom which would have given such a charter a jump start to success. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor for the smashing of capitalism, its state and its institutions, and the establishing of a workers government. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but assisting the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.