Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:16:48 -0400
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (Hariette Spierings)
Subject: M-G: CUBA: MARXIAN SOCIALISM OR SOCIAL FASCISM - PART III


"GOULASH COMMUNISM" - THE CUBAN REGIME: SOCIALISM OR SOCIAL FASCISM?

By Adolfo Olaechea
London, September 1997

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM IS A HUMBUG AND A SHAM WITHOUT THE STRUGGLE
 AGAINST OPPORTUNISM - V. I. Lenin


PART III - CONTINUATION


FASCISM AND BOGUS SOCIALISM

Comrade Dimitrov, speaking of the class nature of fascism said:

"THE MOST REACTIONARY VARIETY of fascism is the German type of fascism. It
has the EFFRONTERY to call itself National-Socialism, though it does have
nothing in common with socialism. Hitler nationalism is not only bourgeois
nationalism, it is bestial chauvinism".

Therefore, here above, we should note that fascism is indeed bourgeois
nationalism, and that its most reactionary variety occurred in an
imperialist country - Germany.

However, we know that there are other varieties of fascism - and in our 
days no one would question that a number of regimes that call themselves
"socialist" - such as the Saddam Hussein regime, for an example - are
indeed a variety of fascistic bourgeois nationalist regime occurring in 
the context of an oppressed country.

As I noted before, these kind of regimes too implement state capitalist
policies which deliver better hospitals, roads, schools, sports, etc. 
which the masses in the old semi-colonial condition never dreamt of.  
However, they do not deliver, nor can these regimes deliver socialism 
although quite a few lay claim to the name.

The fact that this kind of regime does have contradictions with foreign
imperialists, particularly the USA, can and does compel proletarian
revolutionaries to give their struggles as much anti-imperialist support 
as necessary, but that never can lead them to purposefully obscuring the 
class nature of these regimes, or to attempt to deceive the masses in 
this regard by selling them this donkey meat as if it was high quality 
beef.

THE "SOCIALIST" DEMAGOGY OF OLD STYLE FASCISM


In this connection, it is worth continuing with comrade Dimitrov:

"This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed; because
in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has
managed to gain the following of the petty bourgeoisie that has been driven
out of its course by the crisis, AND EVEN OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE MOST
BACKWARD STRATA OF THE PROLETARIAT. These would never have supported
fascism if they had understood its real class character and its true
nature".

"The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume
DIFFERENT FORMS in different countries, according to historical, social and
economic conditions, and to the national peculiarities and the
INTERNATIONAL POSITION of the given country".

"Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents
itself to the masses in the guise of the champion of an ill-treated nation,
and appeals to outraged national sentiments......"

"Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses, but it
approaches them with the most artful ANTI-CAPITALIST demagogy, taking
advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering
bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing 
those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the 
politically immature masses.....".  

"In Germany - "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the
individual"; in Italy - "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate
state"; in Japan - "For a Japan without exploitation"; in the USA - "Share
the wealth" and so forth".

"It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bourgeoisie
that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old
bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the SEVERITY OF 
ITS ATTACKS on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude 
to the old bourgeois parties".

"Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois
reaction, fascism ADAPTS its demagogy to the NATIONAL PECULIARITIES of each
country and EVEN TO THE PECULIARITIES of the VARIOUS SOCIAL STRATA in one
and the same country".  (Quotes are from:  G. Dimitrov, Report to the
Seventh Congress of the Communist International).

SOCIAL FASCISM IN AN OPPRESSED AND SEMI-COLONIAL COUNTRY

The case of the Cuban regime, which began life as a nationalist movement
under the banner of "26 July Movement", and was then diverted into
Khruschevite politics principally by the revisionist leaders of the
Browderist SPC, and whose bureaucracies later were joined into a 
bogus CPC, are of course not in their origins of the same ilk as 
the old fascists.

However, the above goes to show that the fig leaf of "socialism" is not a
new trick for counter-revolutionaries.  Moreover, today, having the old
fascist movement suffered utter defeat and thorough debunking before the
masses, principally the working people, its cause continues its reactionary
anti-communist struggle within the ranks of the working class in the guise
of New Fascism - a social fascism of the new type.

Let us get a correct perspective on what the Cuban regime was in its
inception, and we shall easily understand how its new-fascist role is but
the inevitable consequence of the defeat of the revolution brought about
mainly by the cancer of revisionism.

IDEOLOGICAL ECLECTICISM, A CHARACTERISTIC OF ALL KINDS OF FASCISM

Castro - not altogether inexactly - was at first defined as a "communist
fellow traveller".  His opposition to imperialist domination of the US
variety, led him to pragmatically embracing sui-generis accretion of
various Marxist, semi-marxist and semi-socialist doctrines which he
subsumed into a supposedly pragmatic and "non-theoretical" "Cuban 
version of Marxism-Leninism".

That this is a fact, can also be proven by the fact that some of the
apologist for Cuban revisionism who have a Trotskysts inclination, have
lately called attention to the fact that Castro picked some of his ideas
from the founder of the PCP, Jose Carlos Mariategui, and applied these 
in his use of the peasantry as a force for the Cuban revolution.

However, this very fact serves to underscore the similarity of method in
Castro's "theoretical" work with the manner in which people like Hitler,
Mussolini etc. also "engineered" their own "socialist and revolutionary"
fascistic theories.  Let us see what Mariategui himself has to say in 
this regard.

In his work, The Biology of Fascism, Mariategui teaches that:

Fascism is a political process that "for a long time refused to proclaim
itself or function as a party", a movement with "an heterogenous social
composition" in which the "banner of patriotism covered up and admitted 
all manners of political equivocation and counterfeiting".

Every one knows that one of the characteristics of fascism is its
ideological eclecticism - that it picks ideas from here and there. 
That this eclecticism too is a sure sign of revisionism and the 
petty bourgeois mentality.  We should thank these apologists for 
Castro's revisionism for underscoring this very fact for us.

In any case, all this "ideological charade" ended up in Castro singing 
from the hymn sheet of modern revisionism, particularly in the key 
question of Stalin, the proletarian dictatorship, and the criteria 
for Marxist-Leninist socialist construction.  In all these points 
and in the struggle of the revisionists against Marxism-Leninism, 
Castro became a clownish "super-star" lending his then youthful 
revolutionary caudillo's image to cover up for the rot festering 
at the core of the decrepit Kremlin leadership. 

Castro became Khrushchev's and Brezhnev "revolutionary fig-leaf" and served
them well in attacking the proletarian line throughout the world, following
in their wake right up to the very eve of the revisionist restoration of
full fledged free market capitalism in the Soviet Union. 

Moreover, the so called CPC, still keeps "comradely" relations with all and
sundry revisionist renegades.  Even until the final days of Gorbachev, they
crawled, kissed his hand, and begged, cajoled and pleaded, while they knew
he held the purse strings of revisionist largesse earmarked for subservient
bureaucrats.

Castro had himself come to the politics of Marxism and the ICM in a rather
contingent and episodic way, at the fag end of a period in which socialism
was still developing, and the prestige of Marxism was very high.  He was a
revolutionary personality of an oppressed country, and the leader of a
national democratic revolution that led by an extreme radical section
of the petty bourgeoisie and with some participation from elements from the
working class who had managed to seize state power thanks to what everyone
agrees were very sui-generis and irrepetible conditions.  

His was an anti-imperialist movement in elan and conviction.  But he was no
communist and communists are not forged overnight nor from bits and pieces.  
The most difficult part of a revolution is not the seizure of power, but 
what comes afterwards.

Only genuine Marxists - communists - can lead revolutions beyond seizure of
power and towards genuine socialism and communism.  This is a history lesson
thaught to the working class at the cost of its own blood and from its very
early existance - both in defeat, like in the Paris Commune, where petty
bourgeois socialists and democrats played a negative role in the leadership
which cut short any chances of victory - as well as in victory, with Lenin,
Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Comrade Stalin teaches:

"The fellow travellers who came from the bourgeois camp to join the movement
during the upsurge of the revolution, deserted the Party in the days of
reaction.  Some of them joined the camp of the open enemies of the
revolution, others entrenched themselves in such legally functioning
working class societies as still survived, and ENDEAVOURED TO DIVERT THE
PROLETARIAT FROM THE PATH OF REVOLUTION AND TO DISCREDIT THE REVOLUTIONARY
PARTY OF THE PROLETARIAT.  Deserting the revolution the fellow travellers
tried to win the GOOD GRACES of the reactionaries AND TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH
TSARDOM".

PEACE WITH IMPERIALISM, WAR AGAINST THE REVOLUTIONAR PEOPLE:

If the slogan of the genuine socialists - the Marxists - is "War on the
palaces and peace to the cottages", the unspoken slogan of revisionists
cannot be but its exact opposite, applied in this case at the international
level.

Today the Cuban regime - together with the Korean and the Chinese
revisionists regimes - all follow the policy of subservience to
imperialism's strategic plans against the revolution, most notably in
international politics, by staunchly supporting the fascist Fujimori
dictatorship and all reactionary monsters, with all kinds of political,
economic, and military means.  

AGENTS OF CORRUPTION IN THE NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT

As to the results of revisionism among the national liberation movements,
these are there for all to see and draw the balance.  I have just mentioned
a few of the most negative cases before.  All these end results can be
traced and laid at the doorstep of revisionist betrayal both internal and
external.

Does this factual analysis we make of the END RESULTS OF REVISIONISM upon
the struggles of the oppressed nations means that we hold that in those
countries such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Cuba, etc. the revolution
did not show any promise?. That these movements of various class origins
rebelling against the various evils of semi-feudal and semi-colonial
society could not have served - if the Marxist policy would have been
followed by communists and thus prevailed instead of revisionism in the ICM
- to the victory of genuine socialism?

No, this does not follow, even despite the fact that things did not IN FACT
turn out this way, and many of the reasons for this outcome could be easily
observed from the very inception of these struggles and - on the basis of
historical precedents and marxist science - predicted in general lines. 

In all the struggles of the oppressed nations, and in all anti-imperialist
camps which eventually ended up "split" as client states and movements of
the various imperialists powers, there were always genuine revolutionaries,
genuine combatants, heroic fighters who wanted and dreamt that things would
have turned otherwise, etc. This we have never denied.

What we argue is that the CORRUPTION AND DEGENERATION of these movements has
its main roots both in the class composition of the LEADERSHIP of these
movements (the internal factors) and in the counter-revolutionary and
social-fascist plans and strategies of revisionist social-imperialism, 
as the external factor. 

More specifically, what we hold is that TO PERSIST today in dressing up the
LEADERSHIP corrupted by those bribes and blandishments of revisionist
deception as GENUINE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS, is to perpetuate the
revisionist swindle into the new era, and most importantly, represents an
attempt TO PREVENT Marxism re-asserting itself as the command and guide of
the world revolution, serving - wittingly or unwittingly - to buttress
imperialist plans.

SECTARIANISM OR SHARP EYED AND CONSISTENT MARXISM?

Some apologists of the Cuban revisionist who wax lyrical about how "us
Marxist- Leninists" cannot see what ordinary people can "so clearly" see.
Thus, they regard as a truism that Cuba is a socialist country since that
is the way "most people perceive it".

However, "Us Marxist-Leninists" are also "equally blind" regarding another
phenomena of this very nature. How millions of ordinary working people
actually THINK that they are living in "democracies" such as in the 
United States, France, Germany or Britain.

Why is this?  Because as Marxists we do not blindly follow the BOURGEOISIE'S
contentions and definitions.  It is the imperialist bourgeoisie the one
that now - after the revisionist propaganda machine went into liquidation -
alleges that Cuba is "socialist", precisely in order to smear socialism 
in the eyes of the masses, just as they do it when, for example, identifying 
the Labour Party in Britain with socialism, when it suits them.

We Marxists have strict criteria regarding what is and what is not genuine
socialism, just as we have criteria allowing us to see "further than the
unawakened and backward masses" the reality of the class dictatorship that
lays behind the allegations and the imperialist media generated "consensus"
regarding their self proclaimed "democracy", and those, unlike the wooly and
sentimental allegations of the apologists for Cuban revisionism, are indeed
strict scientific criteria.

Therefore, that the apologists for Cuban revisionism see things regarding
"Cuban socialism" in the same fashion as does the imperialist bourgeoisie, 
and differently than the revolutionary Marxists do, should be more a matter 
of concern to these comrades regarding their faulty grasp of what 
being genuine - LENINIST - fighters against imperialism and revisionism 
can possibly mean at the present time.

What the apologists of Cuban revisionism should on no account turn their own
shortsightedness into, is into a cheap allegation of "sectarianism" against
those consistently opposed to revisionism long before they had discovered
the fact that they had been happily and unwittingly advertising the faulty
wares of even Gorbachev's revisionism by themselves for quite some time. 

THE MARXIST POLICY REGARDING BOGUS CLAIMS TO SOCIALISM

In any case, and regarding a similar bogus "socialism" - a direct precedent
and ideological ally of Castroism - Titoite revisionism, Comrade Stalin was
most emphatic in denying that Yugoslavia under Tito, for all its partisan
struggles during WWII, all its smattering of "Marxese", all its
high-sounding "Central Committees", People's Committees, "armed workers and
peasants" etc., was in any way to be regarded as a "socialist country".

Unlike the apologists of Cuban revisionism, Comrade Stalin personally
spearheaded the most determined struggle against this "bogus socialism" 
and gainst all conciliation with such thesis.

It was only later, when the revisionist Khrushchev and his equally
revisionist successors came to power and overturned the Marxist policy
within the CPSU and the ICM, that this correct policy of comrade Stalin
regarding bogus claims to socialism on the part of revisionist led states
was likewise overturned...... and for some people - although now 
loudly claiming to be loyal supporters of Comrade Stalin - this 
revisionist Khruschovite policy continues to be their policy, and whoever
demonstrates the opposite, is nothing, they allege without the slightest
shame, nothing but a "Maoist sectarian". How strange!


A MOVABLE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN MARXISM AND REVISIONISM

Not long ago one of today's apologists for Castro's "Cuban socialism" traced
a line of distinction between Marxism and revisionism and proposed it to
us.  It was, they said in all seriousness, the attitude regarding Comrade
Stalin.

However, the position of the Khruschevite construction surnamed CPC - whose
swindlers' name they insists in spelling with capital letters and
publicising in this list - falls very definitely outside this particular
DIVIDING LINE, and SQUARELY into the camp of revisionism, into the camps of
the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, into the camp of social-fascism,
precisely on the question of Stalin.

Now these defenders of Stalin and genuine Marxism-Leninism "revise"
themselves, abandoning their own dividing line which we welcomed, but 
found insufficient, as they will surely remember. 

TODAY they wear pink glasses and see in the vile attacks of the Castroite
revisionists against Stalin and the proletarian dictatorship, merely a lack
of an "all round view" regarding this very DIVIDING LINE they proclaimed
themselves.
 
This dividing line has derived now into a most minor point - a tiff among
friends not worth speaking of.  That is how their DIVIDING LINE, their lines
of demarcation, work for them -  Movable goal posts!

However, Marxists understand DIVIDING LINES BETWEEN MARXISM AND REVISIONISM
as strict boundaries between antagonistic camps in struggle.  In this case,
the camp of revisionist counter-revolution, and the camp of revolutionary
Marxism.  We do not play with words to deceive ourselves or others.

However, in the eyes of anyone familiar with the Castro's clique utterances
and actions in this respect over the years, there is evidently much more
than a pious lack of the "all round view" to which these apologists for
Castro's version of revisionism have now reduced their DIVIDING LINE.

More of a "SQUARELY LAID ATTACK", a savage revisionist slander on the
proletarian dictatorship, on genuine socialism, on genuine 
Marxism-Leninism, in conjunction and in chorus, yesterday with the Soviet
revisionist renegades and the Titoite revisionists.

Today, the Cuban leaders likewise sing in the same anti-Stalin chorus in 
which Trotskysts and bogus leftists, all equally servants of imperialism 
and reaction, play the leading voices.

Adolfo


A FEW NOTES FOR COMRADE McKINSEY

PS: I hesitated in answering Leo McKinsey's mailer.  With theoretical
questions, one should be serious and not allow debate to sink to the level
of petty-foggery.  Comrade McKinsey twists my words.  However, since he says
he has had trouble undertanding my mailers I will just limit myself to ask:

Comrade McKinsey: When did I say "proletarian democratic revolution"?  I
said PROLETARIAN LED DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION. That is a clear Marxist-Leninist
concept. To try to play to the gallery is no way to argue among Marxists. I,
for one,
have no interest in that kind of sophomoric debates.

Moreover, here below,  I give another - more serious - example of McKinsey
mixing up the concept of the ECONOMIC MECHANISMS created by the monopolies
with the question of the smashing of the STATE APPARATUS of the 
ruling classes.  These are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS and mixing
these up is quite an astonishing achievement in superficiality.  I will not
play the ham with anyone, therefore I do hope that is the last time I have
to write to you this kind of notes:

Says McKinsey:

"But I have a big problem with this paragraph.  You assert that, "It is by
the taking over by THE STATE OF THE ARMED WORKERS of that 'fine mechanism'
created by the capitalist monopolies that socialism develops."  My goodness!
Most assuredly not!  The proletariat certainly does not just take over the
mechanism "created by the capitalist monopolies."  Lenin made that 
unmistakably clear.  Any number of quotes from State and Revolution
and elsewhere could be cited to buttress the following comment on page 394of Lenin's Selected Works Vol.2, in an article entitled 'Can the Bolsheviks
Retain State Power.'  Lenin said, "But Marx, basing himself on the
experience of the Paris Commune, taught that the proletariat cannot simply
lay hold of the ready-made state machine and use it for its own purposes,
that the proletariat must smash this machine and substitute a new one for it."

And I, with the little time I can dedicate to this kind of silly buggers
game, should NOT HAVE to respond at all, but in this occassion, and for the
last time, I will:

So that McKinsey can see for himself that he has not even understood the
question he was trying to "illuminate", here is what Lenin says regarding
this issue, and moreover - here too in this same context is - for his
edification - the LENINIST definition of capitalist state-monopoly - in
which McKinsey is actually quite wrong as well. (Where does McKinsey thinks
he lives?  All bourgeois imperialist governments, whether state monopoly
capitalists or "Western style private monopoly "free marketeers", act as
POLITICAL ARMS OF THE MONOPOLIES).

However, for Lenin - and for myself - a capitalist state monopoly is a
monopoly controlled or owned by the state - a business organised on the
lines of the POSTAL SERVICE, and state monopoly capitalism is what Lenin
describes as the Junker system.

The system into which the imperialist are ALREADY transforming their trusts
into, a system "in which standing over the "common" people, who are
overworked and starved, one has the same BOURGEOIS BUREAUCRACY". A bit
rather like in Deng's China today, and in the former Soviet Union
yesterday!.  That is state monopoly capitalism for Leninism, comrade
McKinsey!  Have a careful look:


"A witty German Social-Democrat of the seventies of the last century called
the POSTAL SERVICE an example of the socialist economic system. This is
VERY TRUE. At present the postal service is organised on the lines of
STATE-CAPITALIST MONOPOLY. Imperialism is TRANSFORMING all trusts into
organisations OF A SIMILAR TYPE, in which, standing over the "common"
people, who are overworked and starved, one has the same BOURGEOIS
BUREAUCRACY"

"But THE MECHANISM OF SOCIAL MANAGEMENT IS HERE ALREADY TO HAND. ONCE WE
HAVE OVERTHROWN THE CAPITALISTS, CRUSHED THE RESISTANCE OF THESE EXPLOITERS
WITH THE IRON HAND OF THE ARMED WORKERS AND SMASHED THE BUREAUCRATIC MACHINE
OF THE MODERN STATE (i.e. achieved and implemented the proletarian
dictatorship - A.O.), WE SHALL HAVE A SPLENDIDLY EQUIPPED MECHANISM FREED
FROM THE "PARASITE", a mechanism which CAN VERY WELL BE SET GOING BY THE
UNITED WORKERS THEMSELVES........"(- V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution,
Selected Works, Moscow Progress Publishers, page 297).

And as for the proletariat taking over the "splendid mechanism" legated to
us by the trusts - and most certainly not smashing it but setting it in
motion in the interests of society as a whole, here is some more:


"To organise the WHOLE economy on the lines of the postal service...... this
is the .......ECONOMIC FOUNDATION WE NEED......" (- V. I. Lenin, ibid, page
297).


"For socialism is not a figment of the imagination, but the assimilation and
application by the proletarian vanguard, WHICH HAS SEIZED POWER, of what
has been CREATED BY THE TRUSTS".  (V.I. Lenin, Left-Wing Childishness and
the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, ibid, page 449).

"To make things EVEN CLEARER, let us first take the MOST CONCRETE example of
STATE CAPITALISM.  Everybody knows what this example is.  It is Germany.
Here we have the "last word" in modern large-scale capitalist engineering
and planed organisation, SUBORDINATED TO JUNKER-BOURGEOIS IMPERIALISM.
Cross out the words in Italics (capitals in this case - i.e.:
Junker-bourgeois imperialism - A.O.), and in place of the militarist,
Junker, bourgeois, imperialist STATE put ALSO A STATE, but of a different
social type, OF A DIFFERENT CLASS CONTENT ..... and you will have the SUM
TOTAL of the conditions necessary for socialism". (V.I. Lenin, ibid, page
440).



The remainder of comrade McKinsey's contribution seemingly in discrepancy with
the views I have always expressed in many occasions, is either hard to see
what he means, or points at utter misunderstandings on his part regarding
questions that are simply questions of Marxist ABC.

Moreover, he does regale us with some rather redundant exhortations to
the "preaching of communism" at the masses (the preaching of the common
ownership of means of production is something that all sorts of quacks 
have been visiting upon the ears of the oppressed for thousands of years,
comrade McKinsey.  What is needed is not abstract teaching of eternal
verities, but the setting of concrete and immediate tasks before the
masses departing from their own concrete class interests and aiming to
mobilise public opinion for the directing these struggles at mobilising the
masses for the SEIZURE OF POWER, that alone can make REAL any "celestial
promises of paradise on earth" ).

Therefore, I leave it to other comrades to draw their own conclusions about
comrade McKinsey's contributions in "illuminating" anything in particular.

Comradely,

Adolfo

PS: For comrade Jim Hillier.

I see that Comrade Jim Hillier has now spent quite a good time cheerleading
for the Castro regime.  He has challenged revolutionaries (some in fact who
have actually been there already) "to go to Cuba" and see how the masses
acclaim their Messiah and how Castro actually walks on water.  

Is that a Marxist argument for socialism, or just training in praise and
endorsement for the Fuhrer Prinzip, comrade Jim?

Fujimori too alleges that 80% of the people supported his outrages.  Besides
his propaganda exaggeration, he is not altogether lying, because there is
much truth in the fact that demagogy and falsehood always gain at first the
cheap applause from the multitude. 

The question of Castros's popularity or lack of it, is neither here nor
there in a debate of this type and really we shall only know the real
feelings of the people regarding Castro when they can express them free
from social fascist mass manipulation.
 
I am rather entertained tough.  I really never thought to see a serious
Marxist debate "enlivened" with arguments more proper for the jury in a
beauty contest! 

In any case, the historical record - seen in conjunction with the
theoretical and economic arguments and facts submitted - actually militates
against Castro with this kind of argument, precisely because it is a feature
of fascist regimes to be very effective in manipulating masses against masses.

That too is why the fascists and the demagogues of all sorts are the dire
enemies of Marxism and the proletariat!  If they could not simply deceive
the masses like your ordinary bourgeois politicians, but also gain their
fervent, nearly maniacally enthusiastic enrolment in their reactionary
cause, they would not be what they are, the dire and most dangerous enemies
of the revolution.

To illustrate this point for your consideration, I have only to repeat the
eye witness words of Comrade Georgi Dimitrov (who actually was there in a
jail in "National Socialist" Germany - at a time when Hitler was still being
celebrated and billed to credulous militants of the "left" by revisionist
hacks in varios countries - including Britain - as a "fellow socialist"):

"What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is
able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their MOST
URGENT NEEDS AND DEMANDS.  Fascism does not merely inflame prejudices which
are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments
of the masses, on their sense of justice, and sometimes EVEN ON THEIR
REVOLUTIONARY TRADITIONS".

"Why do ........those lackeys of the big bourgeoisie represent themselves
to the masses as "Socialists" and depict their access to power as a
"revolution"?  "Because they try to exploit the faith in revolution and the
urge towards socialism that lives in the hearts of the masses of the
working people....."

Is that the case with Mr. Castro? I say it is. 

Giving all the other evidence presented, and the overt counter-revolutionary
role of Castro's dictatorship at present, I think comrade Jim -  acting as
Castro chief of propaganda in Leninist  - has just about hoisted the man
upon his own petard. Is that what he actually intended?  Well done then!

Adolfo

Note:

(1) In fact, and speaking personally - and this case is not particularly
uncommon - I was myself expelled from University for signing and promoting
a petition defending the Cuban people in the face of imperialist aggression
at the time of the Bay of Pigs incident - which, by the way, was defeated
by the armed resistance of the Cuban people and not by Khrushchev's mighty
intervention as an apologist of Cuban revisionism has alleged.

In fact, 121 students were victimised together with me - some of them are
today prominent "pro-Cubans" in the revisionist UI, senators, leaders of
parties, deputies, etc.  Of those 121, 119 signed a letter of recantation
before the University (Church) authorities and were re-admitted.  Only 2
refused to do so on grounds of principle and had to go elsewhere and lose
their year of studies. None of this 2 are "pro-Cuban" today.  So much then
for the "internationalism" of the "pro-Cuban" big-wigs and
"internationalist jumble sale" junk collectors of today!  END

With comradely regards,


Adolfo 



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---