Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:36:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Burleson <anvil-AT-sunspot.tiac.net> Subject: Re: M-G: Re: greetings On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Rolf Martens wrote: > Hello again, Bruce > > Some more replies by me on Cuba here. > > But first, I shall tell you that separately, you'll get a dosis > of a medicine of mine entitled "Error - Stalinism", since in > your comments you used the latter term, which is a common one > but in fact not so good since it's actually confusing. I put > together that prescription for use on some "hardened" and > "unrepentant" "Stalinism" users and Trotsky adherents, whose > postings in some cases I've had to weary out my eyes on during > more than a year now: my co-Swedes Bob Malecki (ex-US) and > Hugh Rodwell (ex-UK), above all (I'm originally from Norway > myself) and also e.g. Dave Bedggood, New Zealand, etc. But I > suppose you could do with a slug of the stuff too. (Separate > posting, as I said.) Frankly, I see little difference between the Stalinism of the Soviet Union from 1928 on, and your Maoism. And I see little difference between the economies of China and the United States, other than a superficial claim to communist ideology on China's part. I think it is clear that the Chinese road to "socialism" parallels the Stalinist one in that the working class takes a back seat to a new ruling elite. > >What about eyewitness accounts from Marxists who have been there? > > A lot of people call themselves "Marxists" who IMO don't > necessarily qualify as such - but OK, people anyway. A Marxist is someone who adhers to the ideas of Marxism, regardless of their background or party affiliation, or for that matter, their political activity or inactivity. So a person who calls herself a Marxist will usually at least have some idea of what Marxism is, I think. > I know that theory of "bureaucratic deformations", > of course. Recently, I for some time subscribet to the "Militant", > US, for instance - and it does seem that those people are making > some sincere efforts at supporting the struggle of the workers. > But they got som many basic things quite wrong. (See "Error..." > medicine too.) There are people here in Sweden who're of the > same persuasion, of course. But *capitalism was restored* in > the SU, in the late 50s at the latest, and from that time on, > that power was a bourgeois, gangster, one. Your not seeing > that, Bruce, makes for some basic errors in your evaluation > of Cuban history too - of this I'm certain. > Incidentally, I used to be a member of the american Socialist Workers Party's youth wing, so the Militant is one of my regular readings. I too have problems with the SWP's theory -- for example, they still consider Russia to be a "workers' state", even seven years after the collapse of any residual form of socialism there. Ridiculous if you ask me. However, I do think that revolutions CAN get, and have gotten, bogged down in bureaucracy. Cuba is no exception; the difference there is that Cuba waged a war on its own bureaucracy 10 years ago (the Rectification). > >the masses basically run Cuba from the bottom up, through their > >mass organizations: People's Power (which can be compared to > >workers' councils, as in Russia in 1917-21), the Committees to > >Defend the Revolution, and the trade unions. The Communist Party > >certainly exerts a lot of influence over the people, but I do > >not think they have the final say in any matter. I think they play > >more of a strong advisory, rather than authoritarian (as in > >"Stalinist") role. I could be wrong, but hearing a lot of first- > >hand accounts is pretty convincing. > > My guess is that a certain amount of wishful thinking on the > part of not so few people is involved here. No, maybe it's a certain amount of REALITY. Wishful thinking, to me, is to have illusions in Maoism, not Cuban-style socialism. > >> mainly on one own's forces - admittedly, much more difficult > >> then for small Cuba than for big China. > > > >Yeah -- bingo. Cuba could in no way defeat the U.S. in an all- > >out war and they knew it. What choice did they have? None at all. > > A big mistake, Bruce! > > I know - on the surface, things may seem to be that way. And the > propaganda - both openly-bopurgeois and pro-Soviet-revisionist - > certainly did and does all it can to create such an impression. It's socialism. Of course, there will be propaganda, but it is hardly bourgeois (despite Castro's elitist background), and hardly pro-Soviet. The Cuban government and people are very critical of the former USSR as a form of socialism. Che Guevara himself-- a central leader in the Cuban Revolution--HATED the USSR (and, as a concession to you, he preferred China, but I'm not sure why)... > > That propaganda says: "You *have* to choose between one of two > gangsters to be together with and in practice to support!". > Nope. Unless you think that, isolated from the rest of the world, a revolution in a backward, underdeveloped peasant country can survive on its own. That is one of the mistakes of Maoism. > That propaganda negates the fact - which is often not clearly > visible, which is only there "under the surface" but which *is* > there, of the strength of the people in the world. *That* was > one thing the Chinese communists in Mao's time, and also one > small party in Germany that used to be *very* cood and which > I had close contact with from 1974 to 1990, always stressed. > A very important fact! There *was* a "third" way for Cuba! > I'm not saying it wasn't difficult. But it was there. > What, the maoist-stalinist way? Nope, again. > >Che did support diversification of agriculture, but that didn't > >happen--I think--until the 1980's or so. > > OK, it would still be a sound an necessary road to follow. It has been followed. In addition to its main crop--sugar--Cuba grows a wide variety of other crops as well, in particular tobacco. Interestingly enough, Cuba has integrated its agricultural system with a system of environmentally-friendly "ecological tourism." You'll never see that happen in a Stalinist society. > Naive, naive, Bruce! What "acting on their own"! Basing > myself on what I know about the world situatiion at the time, > I can say with some certainty, I think, that that's not true. Why? Cuba was--and is--a sovereign nation and had its own volunteer standing army. They simply shipped it to Angola and won. Why is it necessary to attribute that effort to the Soviet Union? > >They won, too -- the South African army was beaten back. > > I've heard that story from elsewhere too - Richard Pithouse, > South Africa, who used to subscribe here. I don't believe > it's true at all. But I admit I don't have the details, which > would be interesting to see. Only - who the heck would one > trust for information on this? Always a big problem - though > sometimes possible to solve: You get one set of lies from > the US forces, another from the (ex-) SU ones. So, the solution is to listen to neither, and apply Marxist principles to the facts as they stand. A large percentage of Marxists in the U.S. *support* the Cuban revolution, albeit quite critically most of the time. Where did they get their information? From the U.S. or former Soviet governments? I don't think so. To argue that there can be no third source for information (i.e. the independent left press, etc) is .. to use your term .. NAIVE. > The man in charge in the SU at the time was *not* Stalin but > Khrushchev. A hell of a lot of difference. OK, there *was* > SU nationalism under Stalin too - wanting to lord it over > other countries. From K. on, 1956 etc, this got *much* worse. > So you shouldn't in the main blame Stalin at all here. I'm not blaming Stalin, but StalinISM. And Khrushchev only continued and worsened the status quo put in place by Stalin. By the way, I'm still wondering why Maoism ought to be thought of as any better. Bruce Burleson --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005