Taaffe and Cuba
xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxx.xx
Tue Sep 4 10:55:52 MDT 2001
On 9/4/01 1:48 AM,marxism-digestowner-marxism-digest at lists.panix.com wrote:
> And indeed, Taaffe doesn't restrict
> himself to polemicizing against Lorimer's private piece, but goes after a
> number of other Lorimer and DSP articles to "prove" that these comrades are
> apostates from Trotskyism.
Not really difficult to do as the DSP renounced Trotskyism and the theory of
Permanent Revolution some time ago, following much the same trajectory as
the US SWP.
It does amaze me how Louis and Jose can spend so much time dissecting the
degeneration of the SWP and yet fail to see that the position the party
adopted on Cuba in the 1960s as, basically a healthy workers state and model
of socialism with some minor bureaucratic deformations, is in fact the
genesis of the party's abandonment of Trotskyism and degeneration into a
minor cult. The DSP, theoretically, is very similar to the SWP except for
the rejection of the turn to industry. At least the SWP and DSP are honest
enough to reject the theory of permanent revolution and Trotskyism. What
baffles me is former SWP members who adhere to Trotskyism yet cling to the
SWP's formulations on Cuba.
The Stalinist stagist theory, openly endorsed by the DSP and the SWP and
implicitly endorsed by those who insist Cuba is a socialist model has been a
disaster for third-world revolutionary movements and merits criticism. Why
all this bellicose indignation at Taaffe's temerity to take on the DSP and,
by extension, the followers of Joseph Hansen's formulations inside and
outside the SWP and USFI?
More information about the Marxism