CHE GUEVARA'S DAUGHTER, IN CORK!, TONIGHT!!

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 15, 2002 16:39 nigel_irritable at yahoo dot com

Can somebody clear this up for me? As I understand it, the SWP thinks that Cuba was (and is) capitalist. And that Guevara helped run a capitalist state. So why the support for a meeting about a capitalist leader?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see an SWPer talking a more reasonable approach to this, but are you aware of your party's policy?

by Joe Carolan - Globalise Resistance Fri Mar 15, 2002 16:58 globalise_resistance at yahoo dot com The Other World which is possible 087 9032281

Rights and wrongs of Cuba

There is a trap in which socialists can easily become ensnared; the argument that the absence of democracy or human rights is only a problem in bourgeois societies ­ but not in Cuba. Why? The fact that workers cannot control their own destiny has always been defended on the grounds that the leaders know best. That is exactly the argument put forward by some comrades in the Socialist Party. Not many Cubans believe it any more.

We have never argued that Cuba is the worst offender in this respect ­ only that it is not qualitatively different from other societies which make no claim to be socialist. Some say that Cuba 'outperforms most of the Third World on collective social and economic rights'. Yet strike action is illegal and quickly repressed; the economy is dominated by multinational corporations now profiting from their investments in tourism, oil and industry. The role of the Cuban state today is not to defend the Cuban workers against these industries, but to create the best conditions for their investment. For Cuban workers the result is the same as in any country creating such conditions, exploitation and a declining lifestyle. They can turn to prostitution, of course ­ as 30,000 women have done ­ or to the demeaning business of serving tourists. There is no socialist defence of either.

Cuba has systematically oppressed gay people and 'contained' people with Aids in military re-education units (UMAPs); dissidents are persecuted and denounced as agents of imperialism. What about the obvious and widening gulf between a minority of wealthy Cubans and a majority whose lives grow more difficult by the day. This is not propaganda; it is visible to any casual passer-by in the streets of Havana.

Is it collusion with imperialism to honestly expose these realities or to make it clear that there is no direct democracy in Cuba ­ that the much vaunted mass organisations are appointed by the tiny, unelected and shrinking elite that control the Cuban state? Our consistent involvement in the anti-imperialist movement over the years is proof of our resolute opposition to the role of the US.

The real issue is this ­ socialism is a project for the self-emancipation of the working class. How can collusion with an oppressive and undemocratic state which implements the imperatives of capitalism assist that process?

The comrades in the Socialist Party say Cuba has no choice. The Cuban state may have no alternative if it wishes to negotiate with the world system. But the Cuban working class does have another choice ­ resistance, struggle, and the building of a workers' movement linking all those who face the same forces. That is not a third way but a genuine internationalism.

Socialists, I would argue, should be implacably opposed to the US blockade of Cuba. That blockade is an imperialist blockade, designed to punish the Cuban government for having dared kick out a US backed regime over 30 years ago. But opposition to the US blockade should not blind or silence socialists to the reality of Cuban society today.

Cuba does not have a 'well developed system of direct democracy'. Cuba's workplace and neighbourhood committees are shells. They act as transmission belts from the top down only, not the other way around. The committees' main purpose is to instil discipline and drive up production.

Cuba's human rights record is dreadful. Intellectuals and journalists who criticise the regime are imprisoned and harassed by the state. Anyone who is gay or who is HIV positive is persecuted.

Some suggest that Cubans are free to 'discuss openly errors of the past'. But Amnesty International is currently following the case of a doctor who, for the 'crime' of reporting the effects of a rare disease, has been imprisoned for 'anti-state' and 'alarmist' propaganda.

This is not socialism!

On top of that, many Cubans have drowned trying to flee the country on rickety little boats, just like those fleeing poverty stricken countries like Haiti. Of course, Mike may say the poverty they are trying to escape stems from the US blockade. But even if the blockade were taken away, Cuba would still be a class society. It is not 'free from capitalism' as the Socialist Party suggests.

The revolution of 1959 saw a minority seize power and attempt to modernise capitalism - not overthrow it - through the use of the state. The regime only adopted the rhetoric of socialism as it got caught up in the Cold War and turned to the old Soviet Union for aid against the US.

Ever since the revolution there has been a minority of state bureaucrats who oversee production. This elite live in large houses and enjoy luxurious lifestyles very different from the majority of Cubans.

As well as a division in power and wealth, state capitalism produces ideological obscenities like we saw in the former Soviet Union.

So Castro recently defended Cuba's possession of land mines because they are 'people's land mines'.

Some suggest that Cuba faces a two way choice, between surrender to the US or making sacrifices to defend the gains of the revolution. But there is a third option, and that is to fight for a different sort of society altogether. The Cuban ruling class is not going to do that. For workers and peasants in Cuba, however, that option is the only route to genuine liberation.

Socialists don't make such arguments because we enjoy being negative, or because we like lecturing. But I for one am not prepared to hold up a repressive regime as a beacon for others to fight for or as my view of human liberation. Learning the right lessons from the Cuban Revolution can allow socialists to put positive arguments about how workers have the power to break capitalism and create a world free from inequality and exploitation. But that can only be achieved if workers make a revolution themselves, en masse.

It might be right to say the left in Europe has a long way to go. But we won't get anywhere if we spread illusions in regimes like Cuba.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 15, 2002 17:25 nigel_irritable at yahoo dot com

You didn't answer my question. You wrote a long, and at times slanderous post, but managed to avoid the subject at hand. Let's try again. Why is the SWP supporting a meeting honouring a man they regard as nothing more than a capitalist?

When you answer that question, we can move on to some other points about your lengthy post.

(I assume, by the way, that your post represents the view of the SWP rather than that of Globalise Resistance in so far as the two can be separated).

> There is a trap in which socialists can easily > become ensnared; the argument that the absence > of democracy or human rights is only a problem > in bourgeois societies ­ but not in Cuba. Why?
> The fact that workers cannot control their own > destiny has always been defended on the grounds > that the leaders know best. That is exactly the > argument put forward by some comrades in the
> Socialist Party. Not many Cubans believe it any > more.

This statement is factually incorrect. It is completely untrue, slanderous in fact, to say that the Socialist Party have ever argued that "workers cannot control their own destiny" or that "the leaders know best" in Cuba.

I am left wondering if a senior member of the SWP can really be so stunningly ignorant of our position, or if you are just engaging in a little bit of muck throwing.

We say that the Cuban revolution brought a great number of benefits to the people of Cuba - getting rid of the foriegn and indigenous ruling classes, the best health and education systems of any third world country and so on. We say that those benefits have to be defended and that it is the duty of all socialists to do so and to oppose the US blockade.

At the same time, we point out that there is a powerful bureacracy in Cuba, which enjoys certain privileges, and that there is no real working class democracy. We argue that the Cuban working class will ultimately have to get rid of that bureaucracy and replace it with their own democratic control or face the restoration of capitalism, as has already happened in Eastern Europe with catastrophic effects on the standard of living of working people.

by Joeboy - Globalise Resistance Fri Mar 15, 2002 17:48 within GR i am free to believe whatever I like, thanks, very much che@everybodys_favourite_Stalinist

Castro's Revolution

A case in which neither the working class nor the peasantry played a serious role, but where middle-class intellectuals filled the whole arena of struggle, is Fidel Castro's rise to power. C Wright Mills' book, Listen Yankee, which is a more or less authentic monologue spoken by the Cuban leaders, deals first of all with what the revolution was not:

...the revolution itself was not a fight... between wage workers and capitalists... Our revolution is not a revolution made by labor unions or wage workers in the city or by labor parties, or by anything like that(22)... the wage workers in the city were not conscious in any revolutionary way; their unions were merely like your North American unions: out for more money and better conditions. That was all that really moved them. And some were even more corrupt than some of yours.

Paul Baran, an uncritical supporter of Castro, wrote, after discussions with Cuban leaders, regarding the negligible role of the industrial proletariat in the revolution:

It would seem that the employed segment of the industrial working class remained, on the whole, passive throughout the revolutionary period. Forming the 'aristocratic' layer of the Cuban proletariat, these workers partook of the profits of monopolistic business-foreign and domestic- were well paid by Latin American standards, and enjoyed a standard of living considerably higher than that of the masses of the Cuban people. The fairly strong trade union movement was dominated by 'business unionism', United States style, and was thoroughly permeated by racketeering and gangsterism.

The indifference of the industrial workers accounted for the complete failure of Castro's call for a general strike on 9 April 1958, some sixteen months after the beginning of the uprising' and eight months before the fall of the Cuban dictator, Batista. the workers were apathetic, and the Communists sabotaged. (It was some time later that they jumped on Castro's bandwagon.

The role of the peasantry in Castro's rise to power has been commented on more positively. Wright Mills reports that during the insurrection:

the peasants played the big role. Together with the young intellectuals, they became the rebel army that won the insurrection. They were the decisive ones, the intellectuals and the campesinos... Rebel soldiers [were] formed of peasants and led by young intellectuals...

Who were these peasants? '...really a sort of agricultural wage worker, who, most of the year, were unemployed' In similar vein Baran reports:

'The class that made the revolution is the rural campesinos.'And these were agricultural wage earners, not petty owners. 'Not being inhabited by a petty bourgeois stratum of small peasant proprietors, the Cuban countryside... never became a "breeding ground of bourgeois ideology" '

This description, however, is belied by two things: the peasantry was hardly involved in Castro's army. As late as April 1958, the total number of armed men under Castro numbered only about 180 and at the time of Batista's fall had only grown to 803. The cadres of Castro's bands were intellectuals. And peasants that did participate were not agricultural wage earners, collectivist in inspiration, as Mills and Baran state. Witness 'Che' Guevara on the peasants who joined Castro in the Sierra Maestra:

The soldiers that made up our first guerrilla army of country people came from the part of this social class which shows its love for the possession of land most aggressively, which expresses most perfectly the spirit catalogued as petty bourgeois.

The Castro movement was middle-class. The 82 men under Castro who invaded Cuba from Mexico in December 1956 and the 12 who survived to fight in the Sierra Maestra all came from this class. 'The heaviest losses were suffered by the largely middle-class urban resistance movement, which created the political and psychological acids that ate into Batista's fighting force.(32)

Quite characteristically 'Che' Guevara raises the weakness and impotence of the industrial working class as a central element in all future socialist revolutions:

The campesinos, with an army made up of their own kind fighting for their own great objectives, primarily for a just distribution of land, will come from the country to take the cities... This army, created in the countryside, where subjective conditions ripen for the seizure of power, proceeds to conquer the cities from the outside

Industrial advance is described as an impediment to the socialist revolution:

It is more difficult to prepare guerrilla bands in those countries that have undergone a concentration of population in great centres and have a more developed light and medium industry, even though not anything like effective industrialisation. The ideological influence of the cities inhibits the guerrilla struggle even in countries where the predominance of the cities is great, the central political focus of the struggle can develop in the countryside,

Paying lip service to the role of the industrial proletariat, Che says that the peasant guerrillas will have to accept 'the ideological base of the working class-Marxism'-forgetting that the very heart of Marxism is the fact that the socialist revolution is the act of the working class itself, the result of the proletariat becoming the subject and not the object of history.

From the outset Castro's programme did not go beyond the horizon of broad liberal reforms acceptable to the middle classes. In an article to the magazine Coronet of February 1958, Castro declared that he had no plans for expropriating or nationalising foreign investments:

I personally have come to feel that nationalisation is, at best, a cumbersome instrument. It does not seem to make the state any stronger, yet it enfeebles private enterprise. Even more importantly, any attempt at wholesale nationalisation would obviously hamper the principal point of our economic platform-industrialisation at the fastest possible rate. For this purpose, foreign investments will always be welcome and secure here.

In May 1958, he assured his biographer, Dubois:

Never has the 26th of July Movement talked about socialising or nationalising the industries. This is simply stupid fear of our revolution. We have proclaimed from the first day that we fight for the full enforcement of the Constitution of 1940, whose norms establish guarantees, rights and obligations for all the elements that have a part in production. Comprised therein is free enterprise and invested capital as well as many other economic, civic, and political rights.

As late as 2 May 1959, Castro declared to the Economic Council of the Organisation of American States in Buenos Aires: 'We are not opposed to private investment... We believe in, the usefulness, in the experience and in the enthusiasm of private investors... Companies with international investments will have the same guarantees and the same rights as the national firms.

The impotence of the contending social classes, workers and capitalists, peasants and landlords, the inherent historical weakness of the middle class, and the omnipotence of the new Castro elite, who were not bound by any set of coherent, organised interests, explains the ease with which Castro's moderate programme of the years 1953-58, based on private enterprise, was cast aside and replaced by a radical programme of state ownership and planning. It was not before 16 April 1961 that Castro announced that the revolution had been socialist. In the words of the President of the Republic, Dr Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado, the people 'one fine day... discovered or confirmed, that what they have been applauding, which was good for the people, was a Socialist Revolution.'

An excellent manipulation of the people as the object of history, not its conscious subject!

For further reading on Cuba, those interested might like to read

Cuba, Castro and Socialism

http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/binns/80-cucas.htm#ch02

"Popular Power" in Cuba

http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/binns/83-cupop.htm

by Harry Pollit Fri Mar 15, 2002 18:04 The Former 'other world which was possible'

At the risk of stating the fucking obvious it was an S.W.P.er who posted up this material promoting this Cuban government propaganda in the first place. Moving swiftly on:

"The Castro movement was middle-class. The 82 men under Castro who invaded Cuba from Mexico in December 1956 and the 12 who survived to fight in the Sierra Maestra all came from this class."
(Joe I think it was arguing this)

Well to qoute Lenin :
“We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without.

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.

In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social - Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.”
(Lenin, What is to be Done, pages 31/32)

"The Cuban Revolution" = a totalitarian police state which millions of people have fled from.
In all respects similar to any other state headed by Leninists anywhere in the world at anytime (amazing the way they always seem to make some 'mistake').

Take the Holocausts of Communism test here:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi

by Joeboy - GR Fri Mar 15, 2002 18:27

Hmmm, I thought the WSM would agree with the analysis of Cuba as a State Capitalist Stalininst Dictatorship, unlike the "deformed workers state" analysis of Brian and the SP.

Brian, as far as I'm aware, the SWP have no role in promoting the tour of Che's daughter. Try Cuba Solidarity or the CP.

And on the question of your weblink to Brian Caplan's website, were you aware of this nasty piece of writing, Harry? Not even a wizened old, slanderous Leninist baby eating monster like me would agree with this shite-

"The Spanish fascists used barbaric methods throughout the Spanish Civil War in order to establish a brutal dictatorship.[1] The Spanish Communists used similar wartime measures in their failed effort to give birth to an even more totalitarian regime.[2] But many discussions of the Spanish Civil War overlook, minimize, or apologize for the atrocious behavior and tyrannical aspirations of perhaps the most powerful faction of the Spanish Republicans: the Anarchist movement.

The present essay aims to redress the balance. It first summarizes the historical details of the Anarchists' behavior during the Spanish Civil War, scrutinizing both the behavior of the upper echelons of the Anarchist movement as well as the rank-and-file militants. The essay then examines the economics of Anarchist-controlled Spain, focusing on both the policies adopted, their aims, and the results. I conclude with a philosophical dissection of the Spanish Anarchist movement, showing that their horrific behavior was largely the result of their incoherent view of human freedom, their unsuccessful attempt to synthesize socialism and liberty, and their uncritical and emotional way of thinking. "

I don't think that this is WSM policy?
Should you be promoting this guy? His essay continues at

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 15, 2002 18:44 nigel_irritable at yahoo dot com

First we have Joe posting yet more extended ramblings on Cuba, without:

(a) Answering the original question. (Why is the SWP supporting a meeting honouring a man who they regard as just another capitalist ruler?)

(b) Defending the lies he spread about the Socialist Party in his first contribution.

(c) Apologising for those lies or at least admitting that he was wrong.

I don't expect reasonable behaviour from the SWP, but an occasional moment of honesty wouldn't hurt.

Secondly, we have the appearance of somebody wielding the most hackneyed quote in the right wing (and now apparantly anarchist) arsenal. A few lines from "What Is To Be Done", wielded with all the assurance of somebody who wasn't really paying much attention when he read Lenin in the first place.

Let's start at the beginning.

Lenin, in all of his unbelievably vast array of writings, only ever mentioned the theory that true socialist consciousness is brought to the working class by intellectuals once. That alone should give pause to those intent on attributing such a view to him for all time.

Next, it should be realised that, even in those few pages of "What Is To Be Done", the theory is not Lenin's. He presents it as a paraphrase of what he takes to be a commoplace in the workers movement, and then through a quote from Karl Kautsky, then the most prominent socialist thinker in Europe. As Hal Draper has pointed out, it is odd that nobody has ever tried to pin the origins of evil totalitarianism on Kautsky.

Further, Lenin then sticks on a pair of footnotes, which really are all his own work, and which drastically undermine the sentiments expressed by Kautsky - pointing out that workers do in fact develop socialist ideas.

Lastly, although no further references to the workers needing intellectuals to bring them the ideas of socialism can be found in the writings of Lenin, there are a huge number of passages where Lenin argues that non-working class intellectuals have far too much influence in the workers movement.

So, the quote brandished triumphantly by our anarchist friend is indeed incorrect, but it is hardly, in context, damning. Are we supposed to find it shocking that even the shrewdest of thinkers sometimes get things wrong?

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 15, 2002 18:48 nigel_irritable at yahoo dot com

I hate when that happens. There I was feeling all self-righteous about Joe not answering my question, and he goes and answers it while I'm replying to that other guy.

Thanks for the answer Joe. Do you woant to try explaining your stuff about the Socialist Party next?

by Michael Ronan O'Connell - Swp, Drop the Debt, Globalise Resistance Fri Mar 15, 2002 19:05 michaeloconnell2001 at yahoo dot com

What has developed here looks like an interesting read. Unfortunately do not have time at present (trying to finish work and get up to Guevara's talk!), but hopefully will read over the weekend.

Would just like to say:-

1. I am a member of the Swp, Drop the Debt Coalition and Globalise Resistance, have been a member of many other organizations and am open to involvment with ANY organization that is fighting the exploitation and demerits of capitalism, and working for peace, justice, equality and an end to oppression in our world.

2. As just a member (and a member of many other org's), I AM NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SWP.

3. I think it is VERY important for everyone to remember here that WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. Esp. the SWP and the Socialist Party. Differences between us should consitute interesting philosophical debates. But the END which we are working for MUST always be kept as the priority.

I believe it is the splintering of left-wing parties, groups and groupings that is really preventing us from getting somewhere against the OH SO POWERFUL MIGHT OF CAPITALISM AND IT PROPONENTS.

If we do not try and come together in some form, whether it be under Globalise Resistance or some other umbrella body I think we will unfortunately be doomed to fail or at the very least GREATLY reduce our power.

4. The Swp and Globalise Resistance are very much seperate entities. The high involvement of Swp members within GR is to keep the whole thing going lest it WILL collapse. This is not out of choice. IDEALLY, and this better f**king happen, there will be AT LEAST 15 different groups/parties, besides individuals, involved in GR. The Swp will be ONE of these groups, and ALL groups will have EQUAL say. This is the Swp's aim for GR, and on this count I CAN speak on behalf of GR. If by the off chance it becomes any other way, I will KICK UP AN UPROAR over it!
The SWP is the SWP. GR is GR. The SWP is ONE member of the GR.

PEACE, JUSTICE, HARMONY AND EQUALITY.

Michael Ronan O'Connell.

by Harry Pollit Sat Mar 16, 2002 00:23 The Former 'other world which was possible'.

"Hmmm, I thought the WSM would agree with the analysis of Cuba as a State Capitalist Stalininst Dictatorship, unlike the "deformed workers state" analysis of Brian and the SP."

Well Joe they probably do but (1) I'm not the W.S.M., nor even a part of it (and I do agree with this nonetheless) (2) You still havn't told us about why S.W.P. member(s?) are promoting Cuban government propaganda (that is what this discussion is about not "deformed worker's states" versus "state capitalism").

As regard Caplan, well obviously I don't agree with much of what the man says (read that essay and much more previously), just as I might and have indeed used and cited S.W.P. material when writing about say anti-capitalist protests, I'll do the same with liberal 'Free Market' types as well (when they have something useful to say).
Slight difference from promoting the propaganda campaign of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You see we are all allowed have different views on things, me, Brian, Kaplan, you, etc... however under Leninism disagree with the party line and you're off to prison.

"Further, Lenin then sticks on a pair of footnotes, which really are all his own work, and which drastically undermine the sentiments expressed by Kautsky - pointing out that workers do in fact develop socialist ideas."

No he doesn't the footnote distinguishes between "Trade Union politics" and "Social Democratic politics" - the later the preserve of ruling class intellectuals such as the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, Engels (famous author of "The condition of the working class in my factory"), etc... .
The practise of party dictatorship as developed in late C19th early C20th Russia, which had Lenin as one of it's main leaders, is based on the notion of an 'elite' more fit to do the thinking and planning than the rest of us (as is all authority for that matter).

The actual class origins of the 'elite' is not so important, in my opinion, but it is interesting to note that for all their talk of "working class" this, that and the other, "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc... Leninism was developed as the creed of rich intellectuals who never did a days work in their lives.

“am open to involvment with ANY organization that is fighting the exploitation and demerits of capitalism, and working for peace, justice, equality and an end to oppression in our world.”

Would that include any one fighting for all this in the Cuban context or by the magic words “dictatorship of the proletariat” are they transformed into “counter –revolutionaries”.
Or to put it another way what about the exploitation, oppression, lack of equality (and long history of warfare) in Cuba?
(or any other country, in any period of history, under Leninist control).

I have no hesitation in recommending the above link (in my previous post) to the Holocausts of Communism test.

Yours for independent media and open debate (wonderful isn’t it),

by concernedz Sat Mar 16, 2002 11:25

why is this newwire dominated by globalise resistance, swp and other trots, indymedia is by nature a open forum and goes aaginst the spirit of leninist groups who would impose asingle monoculture if they never came to power

come on, anarchists, rts,ers, libertarians greens...get posting.... ne

by Paul Kinsella - Globalise Resistance Sun Mar 17, 2002 21:44 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9, Eire 087-9748511

Passing this along....

---

From: "Declan McKenna"
To: "Joyce"
Subject: Urgent Notice Change of Dublin Venue
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:57:32 -0000
Organization: Cuba Support Group - Ireland

Please forward to your friends and contacts

Urgent Notice - Cuba Meeting

Change of Dublin Venue

Due to last minute withdrawl of facilities by the authorities in Trinity
College the meeting will now take place in

Gresham Hotel
O'Connell Street
Tuesday 19 March @ 8.30 pm

The Cuban Revolution: Standing the Test of Time

SPEAKERS
Dr Aleida Guevara (daughter of Ché Guevara)
Sergio Corrieri (Cuban Parliamentarian)

Gresham Hotel
O'Connell Street
Tuesday 19 March @ 8.30 pm
Contact: Cuba Support Group (01) 8436448 or 087-6785842

Other Venues:

Waterford
Auditorium
Waterford Institute of Technology
Thursday 14 March @ 8pm
Contact: 086 2416581

Cork
Jury's Hotel
Western Road
Friday 15 March @ 8pm
Contact: (021) 4323197

Galway
Town Hall Theatre
Wednesday 20 March @ 9.30pm

Belfast
St Mary s University College
191 Falls Road
Thursday 21 March @ 7.30pm
Contact: (048) 90241879

---