Taaffe and Cuba

Alan Bradley abradley1 at bigpond.com
Tue Sep 4 17:10:39 MDT 2001


> From: Xxxx Xxxxxx
> 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.

No.  The basis of the degeneration of the SWP into a minor cult was their
inability to actually _learn_ anything from Cuba (or Nicaragua, or anywhere
else either).

The terrible crime of abandoning Trotskyism seems somehow less terrible when
you consider the nonsense so many Trotskyists come out with.

> The DSP, theoretically, is very similar to the SWP except for
> the rejection of the turn to industry.

And a living human being, theoretically, is very similar to an ancient
Egyptian mummy except that a mummy has had its brain pulled out through its
nose.

> 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.

So why haven't any successful revolutions been led by those who support the
theory of Permanent Revolution?

The stagist "theory" endorsed by the DSP has nothing to do with Stalinism,
and more importantly, unlike Permanent Revolution, it is descriptive (of the
Russian Revolution, only) and not a prescriptive Grand Theory of
Everything - that is, a schema which the world has to be forced into.

In fact, the most compelling argument that has been made against the DSP
"theory" is that it is merely another way of describing Permanent
Revolution, in that it _begins_ with the working class and its allies
_taking state power_.  From there it continues along the broad lines
described in the Manifesto.

To the limited extent that there is a general DSP theory, it is one of
finding what to do next, in order to take state power, and then to advance
the revolution beyond that point.  This is not greatly assisted by the
variety of schematic models lumped together as "Permanent Revolution".

Alan Bradley
abradley1 at bigpond.com




More information about the Marxism mailing list