Trotskyism and the Cuban revolution/ratfinks

MARIPOWER716 at aol.com MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
Sun Jul 6 11:46:12 MDT 2003


>Melvin, did you know that the Communist Party of Cuba (which called itself
the Partido Socialista Popular, or PSP) backed Batista for president of  Cuba
in the 1940 elections?

At its congress in 1939 the PSP  promised to "adopt a more positive
attitude towards Colonel Batista". Batista was no longer "...the focal
point of reaction; but the focal point of democracy". (New York Daily
Worker, October 1, 1939).

The Comintern stated in its journal: "Batista...no longer represents the
center of reaction...the people who are working for the overthrow of Batista are
no longer acting in the interests of the Cuban people." (World  News and Views,
No 60 1938).  Historian Hugh Thomas once commented in his  book that the
Catholic laity had more conflicts with the regime than the  PSP leaders.<


Reply


What is your point? I simply responded to the comments as they appear on
Marxline.  I was very specific about the remarks about prostitution, black market
and the nature of the value system.

I supported Coleman Young in the early 1970s. He was not a communist. How
parties are formed and their composition has to do with the history of a country.
I try point out the context without condemning the revolutionary groups in
our history, who in the main have been chauvinist and haters. In the main most
of these groups and their individual members, have taken a position that I will
fight and die for equality, but I am the leader and know what is best for
you.

This is always the underlying issue. "You cannot lead me anywhere on earth."
The revolutionaries in America always have the answer for other people who
happen to be under their foot. What this is always about is that the
revolutionaries of the Third International were Stalinist and criminal
counterrevolutionaries and not like the revolutionaries of the Second Internationals who became
historically obsolete, or for that matter the revolutionaries of the Second
International who became historically obsolete.

Perhaps, I expressed myself in a way that did not make this clear.

I try and explain the context of things in 99% of the things I write and not
condemn history. On the level of theory I try and explain my position on the
basis of Marx insight and theory.  I have no reservation about confronting the
egoist and ideologist, but it is done on the basis of theory.

Further I responded to Walter's article. How can a person know that because
someone went to a University they are a petty bourgeois revolutionary? Or are
you saying that you know what is best to have been done in Cuba in 1940? Fine,
you are a better man than me. Me, I do not "go there" because of what it means
in the real world. We are not in a bubble. What gives you the right to judge
the internal policy of another country? I am very clear on why the American
revolutionaries extract for themselves the right to criticize all and sundry.

I look at American history and have a very different opinion on every
question. Such is life. What is the point and how is a 1939 document from the
Comintern related to Castro, prostitution, the black market, the value producing
system and the article and quote I extracted from Walters original article?

Name me one revolutionary group in American history that had a reasonable
understanding of the African American question or the development of capitalism
in America and I will research the matter.

One organized group.


I think it is ratfink stool pigeon crap to talk about prostitution and other
things in Cuba as a sign of internal degeneration of property relations and
miss the essence of the value producing system and its impact on the
revolutionary process as it unfolds with real human being.

So the communist supported Batista in 1940. I was not born in 1940, but if I
was living during that period, I would have shut up because I am in America
and my foot is on your neck and what every you think you have to do, then do it
while I try and deal with my own bourgeoisie. What if people in a colony
prefer having their own fascist in power instead of that of the imperial
bourgeoisie? "Correct line" does not give you the right to demand anything or suggest
anything in the context of the unfolding of the colonial revolts.

In the real world there has only been brief moments in American history where
we could separate from what is a rough equivalent of the national bourgeoisie
in respects to the African American people. Today we are trapped until
another different kind of internal development takes place, which I have talked
about and monitored from time to time. Try and unravel the logic of a communist
who tried to ride the crest of the social movement in America for the past 50
years. It is even more complicated in the trade union movement which be
definition excludes the majority unorganized.

See, the fact of the matter is that I stepped forward in front of the social
movement - but based on its direction, and label the Mayor of Detroit Kwame
Kilpatrick "Sambo Kilpatrick, slight ahead of the juncture that was reached
roughly 60 days ago. I have nothing to say about Ireland or Cuba internal politics
because I am not a factionalist or imperial scoundrel.

If there were an international framework for such discussion in an organized
manner I would first have to become a delegate and within that organization
fight for a political posture. " This is my basic position and yes, I dispute
"the know it alls," who always have the answer, especally for the people who
neck is under their foot.

Now the Comintern was made up of many groups at various stages of development
- a point never mentioned as the fundamentality of a political assessment,
and had an administrative apparatus responsible for its literature. Your point
is basically they were not shit because they said this that or the other, or
rather as you state, "Communist Party of Cuba (which called itself the Partido
Socialista Popular, or PSP) backed Batista for president of Cuba in the 1940
elections."

In my article I stated, evidently not clear enough,

>All social revolutions are divided into their dialectical components and
counterparts. The first stage of social revolution is the destruction of the
old
society. This stage goes through a process, from social disorganization to
the
overthrow of the existing political order. The next stage, more difficult
than
the first is the social reconstruction. In Cuba as in all social revolutions,
numerous bits and pieces of social and economic classes participated in the
process. This was true of the Soviet and Chinese revolution and will be true
of
the American social revolution. After the fall of the state, representatives
of all the various groups jockeyed for position.<

"Numerous bits and pieces of social and economic classes participated in the
process," includes and means different class interest and this may include
support of bourgeois politicians especially in a colonial country during the time
frame you mention (Cuba in the 1940 elections).

There will always be honest difference in politics. My understanding of
Marxism is tempered by my reality and I can so pretty confidently that in the
period under discussion it is not possible and was not possible for the proletariat
to completely separate itself from the bourgeoisie during this time frame.
This question requires thought and the Leninist conception of the national
colonial question.

Political separation between classes was possible in theory and this was
because of the political realignment created by the October Revolution. In the
colonial countries the reality is that generally representatives of one segment
of the value producing system or another comes forward with the material
wherewithal to engage - in an organized shell, imperial intrusion and exploitation.
Socialist revolution in a colonial country is basically impossible. Cuba is an
aberration in history. That there were twist and turns in the body politics
and the politics of the Third international is explained on the basis of the
historical content of the period of the formation of the Third international -
1914-1918.

What I am stating is that we have just entered a period of history where
parties of the working class can be formed on the basis of a communist class.
What I wrote was clear about bits and pieces of different economic classes and
because I am not a factionalist I am not free to pursue this matter as the
factionalist and Trotskyites do.

Let's be clear because each of us are "independent thinkers" and men of good
will that hate bourgeois property relations. I can write a blistering polemic
on Booker T Washington and his 1895 speech and what it meant for the Negro
Peoples Movement - in the pre-October period of political realignment, and I
suggest that it would not be in your interest to do this.

You are an independent man and can of course as you please. In fact you have
a right to write about the Cuban Party and Batista. Very well this is how I
write about Batista so that the communist and toilers of earth understand I am
not a factionalist or imperialist scoundrel. I would begin with a story.

Cuba, historically, was a brutal slave society and the color question was and
is a real social and political problem. I recall a story about a
pre-revolutionary incident in Havana when a white barber refused to cut a black Cuban's
hair. This turned into a real social struggle in Cuban society and I though
about this and marveled at the Cuban people. Here in the United States blacks do
not even dream about walking into a white barbershop and today in 2003 risk
being arrested for demanding a hair-cut. In past year the African American would
simply have been shot and beat to within an inch of life.

When the dictator Fulgencio Batista entered a social gathering of the white
elite, the string quartet stopped playing, the guest turned their backs and
there was silence until the embarrassed Batista left the room. This black thug
was good enough to govern the country on behalf of the imperialist and the
people of Cuban desperately wanted someone of their own as leader, but not good
enough for the social gathering of the white elite. Since 1939 when many folks
and even revolutionaries thought that a Cuban ruler would make a difference and
1954 much changed in the composition of Cuban society and the development of
the social and revolutionary process.

See, Lou I ain't no damn factionalist or Trotskyite. I do not in fact have a
right to behave as if I was a factionalist or Trotskyite. What some call their
right to be independent I call a hit man for the bourgeoisie because anytime
we violate the laws specific to a distinct period of history and the specific
of a country and its specific political phase, we go over to the side of the
bourgeoisie from the so-called left. What I have written every worker in
American would agree with. This is elementary political logic. You cannot violate a
stage or phase without combining with the reaction.

You have a right to point out the Comintern document concerning the 1940
election and I have a right to point out what I pointed out. You context is
bankrupt and that of the chauvinist. Do not think for a moment I am unconcerned
about the organic development of the world revolution but there is a line that I
will shoot myself before I cross. I of course have nothing to say concerning
the Cuban election of 1940, but have noted the exceptional complex character of
the national-colonial question as it intertwine with the color factor in Cuban
society. That a black thug like Batista could be elevated to leader indicated
a complexity of the color factor in such a small country. To this very day
most African American males would end up jailed demanding a haircut in a white
barber shop.

See, there is a sense of unreality that cloaks counter revolutionary
ideology. To each his own. I would rather criticize my own development.

What if everyone was historically wrong? What if the theory of permanent
revolution is absurd, was always absurd as it was written by L Trotsky - a petty
bourgeois "windbag" as Lenin calls him. What if building socialism in the USSR
posed the question historically incorrect - impossible as a basis to leap to
communism, and something else called the value producing system had to be
unraveled? What if communism is impossible on an industrial basis?  What if faced
with the impossible one still cannot surrender?

That is the difference between the egoist who spends a lifetime pointing an
accusing finger at everyone, especially the countries and people under their
feet and my political positions. The difference is what I say about Batista and
what you wrote about him. You feel it is your right to make me aware of the
elementary. Fine. Thanks,

Finally, anyone that cannot be part of a group and be elected by workers at
what every stage you are at is nobody and makes no difference to history, man.
This is the political reality. Fidel won because he expressed the need of the
movement at that point in time.

The Catholic laity conflicts with the regime were probably based in land
ownership or wealth in the form of land, as well there their ability to collect
money and invest in the reproduction of capital.

Melvin P.



More information about the Marxism mailing list