[Marxism] Armando Hart "Joseph Stalin" (January 2005)

Pedro Gellert mmsc2002 at prodigy.net.mx
Thu Mar 10 22:21:07 MST 2005


Can you send me the Spanish original?

P.


At 07:08 p.m. 10/03/2005, you wrote:
>(Earlier this year Armando Hart, one of the historic
>leaders of the Cuban Revolution, wrote this assessment
>of the place of Joseph Stalin in the history of the
>revolutionary movement.
>
>Two particularly interesting points Armando Hart made:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>"Stalin did not reach these objectives regarding socialism.
>Nor could he encourage the socialist revolution in Europe
>and the world, nor was he able to consolidate it in the
>USSR. Capitalism returned to Russia seven decades after the
>October Revolution under new and radically different
>conditions and this backward move is marked, among other
>factors, by the serious errors of Stalin who lacked height
>and the necessary historical vision.
>
>"We can reach the conclusion that the time of Stalin is
>definitely concluded and that the perspectives of a
>new era are in view. If Stalin belongs to the category of
>revolutionary despots, the lessons learned reveal that it
>is not possible to open an everlasting way towards a
>socialist society without love and culture to build itself."
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks to Celia Hart Santamaria, Armando Hart's daughter, for
>sharing this manuscript. The Spanish original follows the
>English translation
>
>(A CubaNews translation by Ana Portela, revised and edited
>by Walter Lippmann.)
>=======================================================
>
>Josef Stalin
>By Armando Hart
>
>January 4, 2005
>
>These thoughts are an homage to all revolutionaries, with
>no exception, who suffered the great historical drama of
>seeing their socialist ideas of October 1917, frustrated.
>
>We do so in admiration and respect for the Russian people
>who were the protagonists of the first socialist revolution
>in history and for destroying fascism decades later under
>Stalin. This same Russian people that, 130 years before,
>also destroyed the aggression of Napoleon Bonaparte.
>
>I have, as foundation, 50 years experience working for
>socialist ideas in the beautiful trenches of the Cuban
>Revolution, of Fidel and Marti; the first revolution of
>Marxist tendencies that has succeeded in what we know as
>the West.
>
>It is precisely in the first criticism of Feuerbach that
>Marx and Engels reproach him for not taking into
>consideration the subjective factor. They explain:
>
>"The main defect of all previous materialism - including
>that of Feuerbach - is that they only perceive things,
>reality, of the senses, under the form of object or
>observation but not as a human sensorial activity, not as
>practice, not as subjective."
>
>Since the early years of the Revolution, Fidel and Che
>spoke to us of the importance of the subjective factor.
>Life had proven its value in the cause of human progress;
>it has also shown that it has an influence in the
>historical stagnation and retrogression. A long list can be
>made to demonstrate it in practice and as positive or
>negative. Stalin is one of the great examples of the
>latter, perhaps the most important one in the 20th century
>demonstrating how subjectivity can have a negative
>influence in history. Think here what I consider, that
>subjectivity is revealed in culture.
>
>The main lesson learned that can be garnered in this
>history is in the human insertion; that is to say, the
>subjective factor had a decisive influence on the tragic
>outcome of what was known as the "real socialism" that,
>for its simplistic manner, lost all reality.
>
>A key factor that reveals the experience of the 20th
>century is that the teachings of Marx and Engels wasn't
>learned; who with such a great talent and modesty
>critically expressed that emphasizing the economic content
>as determinant, had consequently forgotten the form, in the
>process of generating ideas. Engels expressed that:
>
>There is, also, one point which, in general, neither Marx
>nor I have stressed enough in our writing, for which we are
>all guilty. In what we are most insistent - and cannot be
>less - was to derive from the basic economic events
>political, legal, ideas, etc., and the actions that are
>conditioned by them. To move in this fashion, the content
>makes us forget the form; that is to say, the process of
>generating these ideas, etc. With this we give our
>adversaries a good pretext for their errors and distortions
>[1].
>
>In the political practice of Stalin, he ignored important
>formal forms of ethical, legal and political character that
>were particularly serious because they were manifest in the
>millions and millions of people who affect, of course, the
>course of history. Underestimating them he did not give
>them the proper attention or to the two main categories
>that were relegated, in the very heart of culture and
>revolutionary struggles: ethics and legality.
>
>In 1917 it was Petrograd and, in general, in Russia, the
>most advanced social and political thought of European
>intellectuality were combined, and the conditions of
>exploitation and destitution of the country folk and
>Russian workers were at the fore, with the need to fight
>against foreign domination, that is to say, imperialism
>and, at the same time, against what represented feudalism
>and czarism. In the Old Russia a triumphant bourgeois
>revolution had not occurred until February 1917.
>Imperialist domination and the monarchic regimes of the
>czars was the scenario that nourished the political
>formation of Stalin, of course, also influenced by
>Leninism, which he incorporated with the cultural
>limitations mentioned above.
>
>Stalin was a revolutionary but he was unable to reach the
>dimension of a true socialist leader.
>
>Unlike Lenin and other Bolsheviks, Stalin never lived or
>traveled to other countries of the old continent nor did he
>assume the revolutionary wisdom of other regions of the
>world. Of course, he was influenced by Lenin: this should
>not be denied because it is a component of the drama; but
>he did so on the basis of the old Russian culture which,
>although opposing it, he was unable to extract valid
>socialist consequences for the world of his time.
>
>Objectively, Europe was not in condition to have a
>socialist revolution and the reasons would require an
>analysis that goes beyond the scope of this paper. But to
>understand the culture of Marx and Engels in its depth,
>above all to apply it creatively we would have to assume
>the intellectual tradition of the old continent because the
>founders of socialism were its most consequent exponents in
>the 19th century.
>
>They were the real successors of the revolutionary ideas of
>the previous centuries expressed in the Enlightenment and
>Encyclopedic philosophies. From this cultural aspect,
>Stalin did not extract the right consequences and he
>limited his universal reach.
>
>In a TV appearance during the visit to Cuba of Pope John
>Paul II, in January of 1998, Fidel Castro referring to the
>errors of the policy applied during Stalin's time said:
>
>"As a Pole, the Pope lived through the crossing of Soviet
>troops and the creation of a socialist State, under the
>principles of Marxism-Leninism, applied dogmatically
>without considering the actual conditions of that country
>and without the political and extraordinary dialectics of
>Lenin. Lenin was able to achieve the peace of
>Brest-Litovsk, capable of an N.E.P. and capable of crossing
>a country at war with Russia in a sealed train that were
>examples of intelligence, courage and true political genius
>who never stopped being a Marxist. [2]"
>
>Lenin developed in the revolutionary actions of the Europe
>of his time and by studying the life of the founder of the
>Soviet state enriched his knowledge with a great culture
>and an active participation in the different scenarios of
>European countries, among them those that were the
>foundations of the philosophy of Marx and Engels.
>
>Another paradigmatic example was Ho Chi Minh. This noted
>Vietnamese founded the French Communist Party, lived and
>worked in the United States and traveled to many parts of
>the world. From his homeland he received the influence of
>the French culture that had gone to set up colonialism in
>his country and was able to take it up as an Asian, Third
>World and universal status.
>
>The Leninist concepts of the Russian revolution set down
>the thesis that that country was the weakest link of the
>European imperialist chain. It was thought, at the time,
>that the process begun in October of 1917 in Petrograd
>would be the spark of a revolutionary outbreak in Western
>Europe, beginning with Germany. This did not occur and
>[thus was promoted the idea of building socialism in a single
>country. On the other hand, Russia as an Euro-Asian nation
>formed part of that enormous Asian world. This idea could
>have fostered for a time after the October revolution; but
>no one could admit that it was the correct revolutionary
>strategy for a whole century.
>
>The genius of Lenin to take up those subjects was
>extraordinary. But, in these texts, Stalin did not
>understand the conclusions on the possibilities and need
>to link the interests of socialism with the situation
>generated, at the time, in the Asian nations and, in
>general, what we have later called the Third World.
>
>Let us see the descriptions Lenin made of Stalin and we
>will understand that he was a true prophet. In 1922 he
>said:
>
>"I think that the main problems to the stability, from this
>point of view, are C.C. members such as Stalin and Trotsky.
>The relationship between them, I believe, entail to a good
>degree, part of the danger of this split that can be
>avoided and could serve, in my opinion, to broadening the
>C.C. to 50 or 100 members.
>
>When Comrade Stalin became Secretary General, he
>concentrated an immense power in his hands and I am not
>sure that he used it with sufficient prudence. On the other
>hand, Comrade Trotsky, as demonstrated by his battle
>against the C.C. rising from the problem of the
>Peoples Commissariat of Means of Communication
>did not shine only for his great capacity.
>
>Personally, perhaps he is the most capable man in the C.C.
>but too self-sufficient and to much drawn to purely
>administrative factors of the issues.
>
>These two qualities of the two outstanding heads of the
>C.C. at the time could lead unwittingly to a split and if
>our Party does not take measures to prevent it, the split
>can occur unexpectedly. [3]
>
>The policy followed by Stalin during the II World War and
>his pact with Hitler is one of the darkest processes of his
>long career. Nazism was rejected by the peoples and
>particularly by the progressive and socialist forces
>placing the latter in a very difficult position, even in
>Germany.
>
>Fidel pointed out in the above mentioned TV appearance that
>
 talking with the Soviet visitor, he asked him three
>questions: Why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, that occurred
>in 1939 and I was 13 years old (
) Why had they invaded
>Poland to win a few kilometers of land? Land that was later
>lost disastrously in a matter of days (
) Why the war with
>Finland?, the third question I asked (
) Well this was very
>costly to the international Communist movement, to the
>communists around the world, so disciplined and so faithful
>to the Soviet Union and the Communist International that
>when told:
>
>"This has to be done" and that was it. Then all the
>communist parties in the world explaining and justifying
>the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were isolated from the masses.
>[4]
>
>In addition, history later revealed that there were
>intelligence reports in the country that Hitler was
>preparing an offensive against the Soviet Union. However,
>it should be acknowledged that after the Nazi aggression,
>Stalin successfully directed the counter-offensive. The
>Soviet people fought bravely, the Red Army reached Berlin
>with an incredible effort and with the loss of millions of
>lives. The war ended with victory over fascism but, at the
>same time, agreements were signed in Yalta and Potsdam and
>conditions were created for the division of the world into
>two great spheres of influence.
>
>This was not positive for socialism.
>
>In the following years when the cold war broke out, neither
>Stalin nor his successors could understand the forms and
>possibilities that they would have achieved with an
>alliance with societies of the Third World and socialism
>because, for this, a universal concept of cultural bases
>was needed and they lacked.
>
>In 1959 the Cuban revolution triumphed founded on a
>national historic tradition and with a Latin American,
>Caribbean and universal projection. The third world theses
>of Fidel and Che meant that, from that point on, they would
>work towards changing the bipolar world from a socialist
>standpoint.
>
>This assault of the heavens represented, for true
>revolutionaries of the 20th century, definitely overcoming
>the bipolarity established from left wing positions and not
>from right wing, as occurred later during the 1980s.
>A study of some of the most important events of the 1960s
>demonstrates with what independence of their political
>leanings, the need to overcome a bipolar world is
>characterized.
>
>Let's review some of them: the triumph of the Cuban
>Revolution in 1959; the October Crisis in 1962; the tragic
>split of the international communist movement that led to
>the break between China and the USSR; the rise and
>development of the liberation war of Vietnam; the war of
>liberation of Angola; the fall of the colonial system in
>Asia and Africa; the birth and rise of the Nonaligned
>Movement: the rise of the liberation movements in Latin
>America: the Sandinista Revolutionary Movement, the
>movements of progressive military officers in Latin
>America, specially in Peru and Panama, the French May
>events; the Czech crisis and previously, the situations
>created in Hungary and Poland.
>
>Stalin's heirs could not answer this challenge because they
>were encased in a policy derived from the Yalta and Potsdam
>agreements and the idea of building socialism in only one
>country that after the Second World War had extended to
>several nations. Stalin's successors could not confront the
>problem because, in 1956, after his death, when Stalinism
>was denounced for its crimes, a deep, radical and
>consistent analysis was made of the nature and character of
>his regime. It could be said that at the time it was not
>possible; much less by persons born during that policy, but
>then, that is what happened.
>
>Today, 80 years later it was not only possible but
>necessary because, if not, the ideas of Marx and Engels could
>come out triumphant from the chaos they were steeped in
>during the 20th century.
>
>Later, those who wanted to change the bipolar world from a
>socialist standpoint, like Fidel and Che did in Latin
>America, were accused of violating economic laws and, in
>reality, those who did not take them into consideration
>were those who ignored that the development of productive
>forces and scientific progress led to surpassing
>bipolarity. On the contrary, the later course of events
>dramatically stressed that those who ignored economic laws
>or tried to adjust them to their conservative position
>were, precisely, those who rejected the Cuban revolutionary
>thesis while raising socialist banners.
>
>There are three important conclusions which to ponder in
>this recently begun century: The first, that this change
>was a necessity of the growing internationalization of the
>production forces and, consequently, of the economic and
>political evolution of the world. The second, that since it
>was not done from the left, it occurred from the right: and
>the third, that this change from the left could only be
>done promoting the national liberation struggles in Asia,
>Africa and Latin America and trying to link them up with
>the ideas of socialism. This was the challenge socialism
>had to face.
>
>The Stalin biography by Isaac Deutscher, that is now a
>classic, notes that the Soviet leader substituted the ideas
>of Marx that violence was the midwife of history for that
>it was the mother of history.
>
>The fine intellectual line to understand the subtlety of
>the definition by Marx was, in my opinion, beyond the
>cultural possibilities of Stalin.
>
>Precisely, the main error of the revolutionary policy of
>the 20th century, ultimately conditioned by Stalin, were
>marked by a divorce, separated from culture, even in the
>case of the USSR where it reached dramatic levels. In Cuba
>- as we pointed out - we had the great luck of counting on
>the wisdom of the greatest political revolutionary of the
>19th century who was José Martí. The unique teaching of the
>Cuban revolution in those two centuries and the present
>relies mainly on having promoted and enriched this
>relationship. This is the unique quality of Martí and Fidel
>Castro.
>
>The radicalism of the revolutionary philosophy of Martí
>went together with a consequent humanism in the treatment
>of men and the peoples of the metropolis oppressor: The
>United States and Spain.
>
>On this basis he made a singular contribution calling for
>the necessary, humanitarian and brief war against Spanish
>domination and, at the same time, to prevent hatred against
>those who opposed this purpose. This is a contribution that
>should be studied in the world by those who slander those
>who aspire for radical transformations and by those who aim
>to reach the ends by extreme procedures. The only way to
>triumph is to promote cooperation among human beings and
>guarantee their full freedom and dignity. This is the way
>of being truly radical.
>
>In Cuba the Marxist concept of violence as José Martí
>understood was carried it out in the best revolutionary
>tradition of our country. It taught us that together with a
>strength of principles and the struggle to obtain social
>and political objectives we should include the Spaniards
>and US citizens to our objectives or, at least, to the
>understanding of our purpose. The idea of divide and
>conquer was radically surpassed in Cuba and the principle
>of uniting to conquer was put in its place. That was a much
>more radical and consequential policy than that of the
>extremists.
>
>With regard to socialism, Martí's judgments were very
>revealing [in] demonstrating where the weaknesses lay
>in the policies carried out by Stalin.
>
>The Apostle answered his soul brother in this manner:
>
>(
) I must commend you for one thing and it is with the
>affectionate conduct; and your virile respect, for the
>Cubans who roam around sincerely seeking, with either this
>or another name, a little more friendly order and the
>necessary equilibrium in handling the things of this world:
>Judgment of aspirations must be done nobly: and not have
>this or that defect placed on by human passions. The idea
>of socialism has two dangers, as so many others - reading
>foreign writings that are confused and incomplete - and the
>furtive pride and wrath of the ambitious who pretend to
>rise up in the world, to have shoulders on which to climb
>up, frenzied defenders of the forsaken. Some go about
>troubling the queen (
) others change from a lowly person
>to gentleman, like those described by Chateaubriand in his
>Memoirs. But there is not so much risk with our people,
>like in the most furious societies and of lesser natural
>clarity: our work will consist of explaining, clearly and
>deeply, as you will know how to do: the issue is not to
>compromise lofty justice by equivocal means or excesses on
>asking for it. And always with justice, you and I, because
>the errors of form do not authorize the souls of the
>wealthy to abandon in their defense. (
) [5]
>
>Since 1884, José Martí, wrote at the time of the death of
>Karl Marx, an article that can help us clear up what
>happened with socialism in the 20th century. The Apostle
>said the following:
>
>See this great hall, Karl Marx has died. Since he took the
>side of the weak, he deserves to be honored. But he who
>points out the damage and burns with the wish to put it
>right does not fare well, but he who teaches a soft remedy
>of the damage (...)[6]
>
>Further on he writes:
>
>Karl Marx studied the way of settling the world on new
>bases and awakened the sleepers and he showed them how to
>bury the broken pillars. But he went quickly and a little
>in the shadows unseeing that the children of unnatural and
>troubled gestations were not born viable, nor from the
>bosom of the people in history, nor from the breast of a
>woman at the hearth. Here are the good friends of Karl Marx
>who was not only the titanic driving force of the anger of
>the European workers but the deep sentinel about the reason
>of human miseries and in the destinies of man and man
>desirous to do good. He saw everything he had in himself:
>rebelliousness, rising up, struggle. [7]
>
>The estimation and profundity that the ideas of Marx had
>for Martí are evident. His criticism he makes of extremism
>must be taken in the context of what was happening in New
>York where the anarchist ideas were confused with Marxist
>thought. Engels, in Europe pointed out that Marxist ideas
>were not being applied in the United States.
>
>It is accepted now that both always warned against the
>extremists and the ideas of the anarchists. Concerning the
>idea that men were being thrown against each other, it
>should be taken into consideration that Martí who was
>preparing a war, although thinking it necessary,
>humanitarian and brief, would forcibly imply an armed
>conflict.
>
>In the writing after the beautiful, human and deep
>description José Martí made of Karl Marx he points out:
>
>"Here is a Lecovitch, an every day man: see how he talks: he
>receives sparks from this tender and furious Bakunin: he
>begins to speak in English; turns to other in German: "da!
>da! his compatriots answer excitedly from their seats when
>he talks to them in Russian.
>
>"They are the Russians of the whips of reform: but no, they
>are not yet these impatient and generous men, soiled with
>anger, those who are going to lay the foundations for the
>new world: they are the spur and are ready, like the voice
>of conscience, that could slumber: but the steel of the
>incentive is not useful for forging a hammer." [8]
>
>All this Stalin lacked. He did not understand that the
>steel of the incentive was not enough to build a new
>society. Deutscher in his important biography of Stalin
>notes:
>
>Here we suspend the history of the life and work of Stalin.
>We are under no illusion that we may be able to extract
>final or form conclusions, from this basis, a trustworthy
>judgment about the man, his achievements and his failures.
>After so many climaxes and anti-climaxes, only now the
>drama of Stalin seems to reach its peak; and we do not know
>under what new perspective we could place his last act in
>relation to the previous ones. What does seem definitely
>established is that Stalin belongs to the breed of great
>revolutionary despots, in the same class as Cromwell,
>Robespierre and Napoleon. [9]
>
>We may agree with the comparison to Cromwell, Robespierre
>and Napoleon only with certain reservations:
>
>Robespierre died tragically defending an ideal that was
>impossible in his time, the purest ideas of the forgers of
>French revolutionary thought of the 18th century. The rise
>of the bourgeoisie prevented that. Napoleon set the legal
>and political basis of the French bourgeoisie and,
>paradoxically, opened the way for a bourgeois-feudal
>alliance that formed the capitalist politics of the 19th
>century. Cromwell also managed to pave a positive way for
>the English bourgeoisie and left open the possibilities for
>a later rise.
>
>Stalin did not reach these objectives regarding socialism.
>Nor could he encourage the socialist revolution in Europe
>and the world, nor was he able to consolidate it in the
>USSR. Capitalism returned to Russia seven decades after the
>October Revolution under new and radically different
>conditions and this backward move is marked, among other
>factors, by the serious errors of Stalin who lacked height
>and the necessary historical vision.
>
>We can reach the conclusion that the time of Stalin is
>definitely concluded and that the perspectives of a
>new era are in view. If Stalin belongs to the category of
>revolutionary despots, the lessons learned reveal that it
>is not possible to open an everlasting way towards a
>socialist society without love and culture to build itself.
>
>It is evident that if the revolutionary despots were able
>to open up the way for capitalism, the construction of
>socialism cannot be made under the direction of a despot.
>He was accused of personality cult, I think that what he
>lacked was a great socialist personality, he lacked what
>the Cuban revolution has, the revolution of Martí taken up
>by Fidel that is based on the best patriotic tradition of
>our people with a truly universal sense.
>
>A final conclusion of the above mentioned and especially
>what we said at the beginning, experience has taught us the
>importance of the so-called superstructure. That is one of
>the necessary keys to discover what happened and find roads
>for socialism in the 21st century.
>
>Economy operates through them, between one and another
>there is a dialectic relationship. If natural and social
>evolution are marked by the inseparable relationship
>between form and content - as Engels explained - it can be
>understood that thoroughness, significance and passion with
>which these forms are treated are in the center of our
>revolutionary duties. Morality is intimately related to the
>social question and with the systems of rights. These
>categories: morality, social question and system of rights
>constitute the central nucleus from which philosophical
>research can be made to establish the political and legal
>practice valid to find new roads towards socialism. In the
>end, the subject of culture and specially the role of the
>subjective factors acquire practical significance because
>it is based on the necessities of ethical, legal principles
>and on the forms to make policy.
>
>For success on any transforming effort it is essential to
>link political practice with culture. The victory and
>continuity of the Cuban revolution confirms the validity of
>this reasoning. It is important today to think deeply about
>this question.
>
>The rupture of the bonds between culture and policy was,
>undoubtedly at the root of the serious setbacks suffered.
>In Latin America, the tradition of our nations sustained
>the desire for a culture of emancipation and multinational
>integration that was promoted by the liberator Simon
>Bolivar and which José Martí called the moral culture of
>America. The fundamental tendency of this culture was
>anti-imperialist and its basic roots were in the working
>and exploited population. The immediately important factor
>for the revolutionary policy was to encourage this
>tendency. And this should and can be done by incorporating
>the intellectuality to this emancipating effort that is
>present in the most revolutionary of our spiritual
>evolution.
>
>Obviously, this has to be done through culture and
>information about the genesis and history of Latin American
>ideas. For this, knowledge and clear understanding is
>needed for the role of subjective factors in the history of
>civilizations that was precisely what was ignored in
>practice in socialist policy. What is now known of the
>historic practice after the death of Lenin and since
>Stalin, is a vulgar, crude materialism that paralyzed
>enrichment and the progression of the ideas of Marx and
>Engels. This required - as Mariátegui did from his
>Indo-American vision - a study of the role of culture from
>a historical materialistic vision; but those who embarked
>on this road were fought as revisionists. Thus, the
>possibilities to reach a depth at a deeper level of the
>ideas of the classics were halted.
>
>Approaching a concept such as what we have expounded
>brought its own difficulties in the intent to delve over
>the complex ideological problems, but is infinitely less
>than ignoring the necessity to reach a relationship of
>confidence between revolutionary policy and the immense and
>growing mass of intellectual workers.
>
>In conclusion, if fluid relations are not established
>between the Revolutions and the cultural movement, the
>processes of change will never win. It is not only a
>cultural question but an essential aspect for the political
>practice. To know revolutionary politics, the important
>movement of art and culture must be assumed and understand
>that there lies the basis of our redeeming ideas.
>
>Deutscher said it in his book in a more eloquent manner and
>I believe that it is the main conclusion, theoretically,
>that we can reach regarding Stalin: "In this contempt for
>immaterial factors of the great political processes lies
>the main weakness of his strong but limited realism". [10]
>An exemplary lesson for those who proclaim themselves
>realists.
>
>Without considering what are called immaterial factors,
>that is to say, the subjective characteristic, we will be
>unable to find new roads because they have the same
>influence, objectively and materialistically, in history.
>
>The reader is invited to relate these words to what Engels
>self-critically said and what we have mentioned at the
>beginning. Let us never forget that man and his society are
>also part of the material reality of the world - to say it
>in the language so in vogue by the socialists - that is to
>say, of nature, to express it in the Martí manner, recall
>that verse by Martí:
>
>         All is beautiful and constant,
>         All is music and reason,
>         And all is like a diamond,
>         That, before brightness, is carbon. [11]
>
>In 2005 any revolutionary politician must examine the
>history of the 20th century from the immense culture
>accumulated devoid of any sectarianism and searching for
>the essence of the revolutionary ideas in the best thousand
>years of man.
>
>Someone, during the times of the perestroika affirmed that
>Marx would remain as a cultural question. I thought: "And
>do you think that is little". To find new roads the culture
>has to be found; there is no other political practice
>alternative and those who do not believe it will not be
>able to contribute to making revolutions in the 21st
>century.
>
>I want to stress that I dedicate these words to all the
>communists and revolutionaries who fought for socialism,
>who were faithful and who saw with sadness the tragic
>outcome of socialism, especially for those peoples of our
>America. Those who feel in their heart the cause of human
>justice in a radical and universal form and who look into
>themselves deeply must acknowledge - as Martí stressed -
>that Marx deserves to be honored because he took the side
>of the weak and must be aware that he and his loyal
>comrade, Friedrich Engels, are the highest expression of
>social and philosophical thought of Europe in the 19th
>century. The fanatical retractors of Marxism are not
>post-moderns, but pre-moderns and have been unable to
>analyze the deep roots of what happened with Stalin.
>
>Roman wisdom, in the framework of a slave society, of
>course, pointed out that what was left as legacy by someone
>who died could be accepted as a benefit in the inventory,
>in other words, that the heir would not be affected by
>payment of the debts of the deceased. In the 21st century,
>humankind will perfect the socialist practice and will have
>to use the necessary tools to deal with the errors
>committed to transform the world and will be unable to do
>so throwing them into the ripped sack of socialist
>heritage. For this reason, I have recommended to young
>people to consciously assume the socialist practice of the
>20th century as an inventory benefit. We do not renounce
>the legacy of Marx, Engels and Lenin and the socialist
>ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries, but assume it as part
>of a deep evaluation of what has occurred. Only with the
>thoughts of Marx, Engels and Lenin can we carry out this
>task. But not only from them.
>
>In the decade of 1920, Julio Antonio Mella and the founders
>of the first Cuban Communist Party rescued from oblivion
>the program of Martí which had fallen during the early
>years of the neo-colonial republic. Today, in 2005, with
>the thoughts of the Cuban Apostle and his ultra-democratic
>program we Cubans can strengthen the socialist fibers in
>our country and contribute to rescue them from the
>disrepute and isolation to which the political practice
>that arose since Stalin, had lead them.
>
>[1] C. Marx, F. Engels, Chosen Works, t. 3, p, 523,
>Editorial Progreso Moscú.
>
>[2] Castro, Fidel. Appearance in Cuban television. January
>16, 1998, Granma daily, January 20, 1998
>
>[3] V. I. Lenin, Letter to Contress, Moscow. Ediciones en
>Lenguas Extranjeras, /S.A./
>
>[4] Castro, Fidel. Appearance quoted.
>
>[5] Martí, José, O. C., t. 3, p. 168
>
>[6] Martí, José, O. C. t. 9, p. 388
>
>[7] Ibidem
>
>[8] Ibidem
>
>[9] Deutscher, Isaac. Political and controversial biography
>of Stalin, Instituto del Libro, La Habana, 1968.
>
>[10] Deutscher, Isaac, mentioned work, p. 420
>
>[11] Martí, J. O. C. Versos sencillos, t. 16, p. 65.
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Marxism mailing list
>Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism






More information about the Marxism mailing list