Reply to Louis re: Miscellanea
alternative at sbcglobal.net
Mon Apr 29 23:58:42 MDT 2002
That's really interesting. I missed this completely. I assumed that
since Richard worked closely with Joe Hansen that he was citing the
Moreno PRT. I wasn't aware that the Santucho current had this
analysis. I was more aware of their Guevarism.
That is precisely the point. The pamphlet posted by Richard corresponds
to the time when Santucho's organization was shifting to
Castro-guevarismo (not that they were Trotskyists before, though. That
was only in Germain's imagination). The pamphlet DOES reflect a softer
Guevarista position on Peron. Guevara and the Cuban CP shifted from
characterizing Peron as a fascist in the 1960s (after the experience of
the Uturunco guerrilla movement in Argentina and the failed MLN).
Guevara visited Argentina in the mid-60s (between Africa and Bolivia)
and split the Argentinean CP and established some practical links with
the Peronist left (J.W. Cook has established the political links in Cuba
already). One of the discussions in Cordoba and Santa Fe with Guevara
was Peronism and the attitude towards it.
There were sectarian errors whether or not
the Revolutionary History citation is completely accurate or not. I
assume that Alexander was citing Moreno accurately.
Putting aside the veracity of the accounts of Robert Alexander, the fact
is that Robert Alexander did not interview Moreno nor he quoted him in
reference to the alleged self-criticisms. The book in reference quotes
one Ezequiel Reyes as a "leader" of Moreno's current. No one in the
present or former Moreno tendency ever heard of the guy. There were
self-criticisms in relationship with Peronism (made by Moreno) in 1946
and 1950s. They relate to concrete expressions of the class struggle
(the first in relationship with the Labor Party of Cipriano Reyes in
which Moreno thought they should have intervened in a decisive way, but
they did not) and about some tactical mistakes made while being part of
the national leadership of the steelworkers general strike in the 1950s.
Where does the Cuban revolution fit into the above menu? Frankly, I'd
rather study how the July 26th movement came to power than what any
Trotskyist group in Latin America has done to maintain revolutionary
continuity with Marx and Engels.
As far as I know, Cuba is still a hostage of the world market, is
re-introducing capitalism and people still do not enjoy the fruits of
the socialist revolution, only the gains of the democratic revolution of
1959-63 (preemptive answer: I do believe that Cuba is still a workers
The one thing that Castro dispensed
with is the notion that he was leading some sort of vanguard because
he had a correct understanding of The Russian Question.
Actually, this will sound funny, but he did. Re-read his speeches when
he tied the Cuban economy to Russia and the Comecom in the early 60s and
how he explains or re-explains the revolutionary process in Cuba tying
it to the continuity of the revolutionary past and present of the Soviet
If as a law
student he had hooked up with one or another wing of the Fourth
International, he would have remained an obscure figure...
Most likely you're right on this one. But we will never know, is it?
The theory of the "if" applied to history makes an interesting
conversation tool, but contributes little to understand historical
phenomena. Think about the other possibility: maybe if he did link with
the IV International when a law student, Trotskyists would have had a
potential leader of a victorious revolution. Hey! The "If" method of
history works both ways...
No, I do not reject Trotsky's book that was a probing examination of
class relations in Czarist Russia and that projected the dynamic of
the coming revolution. The "theory" of the Permanent Revolution, on
the other hand, is a sterile proclamation that unless a revolution is
socialist, it can not succeed. This theory is usually advanced from
afar. Very afar.
In the book (Permanent Revolution) Trotsky digs into the theory to try
to demonstrate why is applicable everywhere by generalizing the Russian
experiences. Maybe you're referring to earlier works, possibly about the
1905 revolution. In any case, I got your point. You think he was right
in Russia and wrong elsewhere. Agree to disagree on this one.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism