Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 08:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: Castroism and others On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Keith Alan Sprouse wrote: > > My question to Louis P. is: where might I find a good summary > of Castroism, either the basic tenets or how it might be > distinguished from Maoism, Leninism, etc. Thanks to many of > Louis: I am including an article on Castroism that I left out of the series I posted to the list last week on "Lenin in Context". I hope that you will find it useful. I also recommend "Che Guevara Speaks", "Fidel Castro Speaks" from Pathfinder Press. (I would take the introductory material in these books with a grain of salt. Despite the "post-Trotskyist" orienation of this SWP publishing house, they really don't have a clue about what made Castro successful. They are a super-sectarian group that requires blind faith in the abilities of the resident guru, a mediocrity by the name of Jack Barnes.) There is alsoa Pathfinder title called "Che Guevara: Economics and Politics in the Transition to Socialism" by Carlos Tablada. This is about Che's legacy as economic planner in the early years of the Cuban revolution. He was actually a very fine planner who learned on the job despite Justin Schwartz's contribution. Indeed, the economic performance of the Cuban revolution gives the lie to the claim that market socialism was what Cuba needed. If socialism comes to an end in Cuba, it will not be because planning doesn't work but because imperialist blockade and sabotage did. LEARNING FROM THE CUBAN REVOLUTION For those who are willing to learn, the Cuban Revolution can teach a great deal about building a revolutionary party. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were not members of old-style Trotskyist or pro-Moscow formations. Despite this--or possibly because of this--they managed to reach the masses and lead them to a socialist victory. The July 26th Movement had more in common with Lenin's Bolshevik Party than those parties attached to the official iconography of the Russian Revolution. Castro and Guevara never spent much time investigating organizational questions the way Lenin did in "What is to be Done". Their speeches and writings dealt with broader anti-imperialist themes, and issues directly related to the problems of building socialism in Cuba. Regis Debray made a stab at devising a revolutionary strategy based on the July 26th Movement when he wrote "Revolution in the Revolution". This pamphlet defended "foquismo". "Focos", Spanish for columns, were to be rural guerrilla warfare formations that combined military and political tasks. Debray only understood superficial manifestations of the Cuban Revolution when he produced this work. To an extent, this reflected the inexact theoretical stance of the Cuban leadership itself. Che Guevara tried to implement a strategy of "foquismo" in Bolivia and it failed. Most Latin American revolutionaries abandoned the cruder aspects of "foquismo" as the years advanced. Of much more interest are Castro and Guevara's incidental remarks on the character of the Cuban revolutionary movement. They both realized that they had stumbled upon something different from the traditional "Marxism-Leninism" of the Trotskyist or pro-Moscow CP's. "Anyone can give themselves the name of 'eagle' without having a single feather on their back. In the same way, there are people who call themselves communists without having a single communist hair on their heads. The international communist movement, to our way of thinking, is not a church. It is not a religious sect or a Masonic lodge that obliges us to hallow any weakness, any deviation; that obliges us to follow a policy of a mutual admiration with all kinds of reformists and pseudo-revolutionaries." These words are from the speech Castro delivered to the University of Havana in March 13, 1967. This was around the time that the Cubans began orienting toward the guerrilla movements in Latin America and away from the pro-Moscow CP's. They had arrived at the understanding that it is deeds and not dogma or party labels that determine true revolutionaries. The Cubans organized conferences of the Organization of Latin American Solidarity (OLAS) during this period. They sought to coordinate struggles by guerrilla groups across national boundaries. This was the first attempt at genuine internationalism since the early days of the Comintern. In a speech delivered to the first OLAS conference on August 10, 1967, Castro denounced dogmatism: "This does not mean that it is enough to have a correct position and that is all. No, even among those who really want to make revolution many mistakes are made; there are still many weaknesses, that is true. But logically we will never have deep contradictions with anybody--no matter their mistakes--who honestly has a revolutionary position. It is our understanding that we must leave behind old vices, sectarian positions of all kinds and the positions of those who believe they have a monopoly on the revolution or on revolutionary theory. And poor theory, how it has had to suffer in these processes; poor theory, how it has been abused, and how it is still being abused! And all these years have taught us to meditate more, analyze better. We no longer accept any 'self-evident' truths. 'Self-evident' truths are a part of bourgeois philosophy. A whole series of old cliches should be abolished. Marxist literature itself, revolutionary political literature should be renewed, because by repeating cliches, phraseology, and verbiage that have been repeated for thirty-five years you don't win anyone; you don't win over anyone." While Castro directed these remarks against the CP's of Latin America, he might have directed them equally against Trotskyism. The American Trotskyists in the Socialist Workers Party were not the self-critical sort, however. When they read these words, they assumed that "sectarianism" was someone else's problems, not their own. They elevated themselves above the Cuban revolutionaries in some respects. In "Draft Theses on the Cuban Revolution" delivered to a gathering of the Trotskyist faithful in December 23, 1960, the SWP leadership characterized the Cubans as "petty-bourgeois", a favorite word in their vocabulary. As they sat in judgment on the Cubans, the Trotskyists gave them a passing grade. To those who questioned the need for Trotskyist parties, as well they should, the SWP leadership had an explanation: The Cubans were revolutionary, but the SWP was even more revolutionary. What did this aging group of sectarians that held the allegiance of less than one out of every half-million people in the United States know that the Cubans did not? The North American Trotskyist critics faulted them on economic policy. "Take it from the economic side. Look at the delays that occurred down there in the process of the revolution, in expropriating the properties; they had to wait until they were pushed into it by American imperialism, slapped around, then there was a response, a defensive reflex to these blows struck by American imperialism. They were stumbling, fumbling, losing all kinds of valuable time which the bourgeoisie in the United States utilized in order to prepare the ground psychologically for the counterrevolution." Now nobody could accuse the SWP of stumbling or fumbling, could they? They believed they knew every correct step on the way to socialism. Like most sectarians, they never asked themselves whether any concrete step they have taken has actually produced results. If they held themselves to the same strict standards that they held others to, they would have closed shop decades ago. The SWP also saw another weakness in the way Cubans neglected democracy. "To any Trotskyist, any revolutionary socialist, it jumps out before your eyes, the weakness of the revolution on that side. And that weakness derives primarily from the weakness of the leadership, of its consciousness." Some Trotskyists would not even give the Cubans this much of the benefit of a doubt. A minority in the SWP led by James Robertson and Tim Wolforth sneered at the Cuban leadership. Tim Wolforth, who had come to Trotskyism from social democracy, faulted Castro for not upholding institutions of worker's democracy. He instructed Castro to emulate Lenin, the architect of Soviet democracy. Tim Wolforth has returned to the social democracy fold. (Now he calls it by the less compromised term "democratic socialism.") Tim Wolforth still declares that Cuba lacks democracy, but blames it now on Cuba's stubborn adherence to Leninist norms. Tim Wolforth is hard to please. He spent most of the 60's and 70's as leader of the miniscule Trotskyist sect called the Worker's League. While others were organizing demonstrations against the Vietnam War, Wolforth and his followers were organizing meetings on "dialectics", an issue they believed that transcended everything. Robertson has also been consistent. He formed a new group called the Spartacist League in the early 60's that gave his sectarianism an even more virulent aspect. The cult remains faithful to the leader's religious beliefs to the present day. The real breakthrough of the Cuban leadership was beyond the comprehension of the Trotskyists. The Cubans had built a revolutionary movement that succeeded in winning the masses. They used language and concepts that emerged out of the Cuban experience. Jose Marti was the icon of this revolution, not Stalin or Trotsky. The July 26th Movement did not ask people to join on the basis of correct positions on historical and international questions. You simply had to dedicate yourself to the overthrow of the Batista regime through armed struggle. You also needed to favor a government dedicated to agrarian reform, democracy and economic justice. In a manner similar to the Russian social democracy of the early 1900's, the Cubans favored an extremely wide definition of what it meant to be a revolutionary. Deeds counted more than words. Che Guevara wrote "Notes for the Study of the Ideology of the Cuban Revolution" for the October 8, 1960 issue of "Verde Olivio", the magazine of Cuba's armed forces. He declared: "This is a unique revolution which some people maintain contradicts one of the most orthodox premises of the revolutionary movement, expressed by Lenin: 'Without a revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.' It would be suitable to say that revolutionary theory, as the expression of a social truth, surpasses any declaration of it; that is to say, even if the theory is not known, the revolution can succeed if historical reality is interpreted correctly and if the forces involved are utilized correctly. Every revolution always incorporates elements of very different tendencies which, nevertheless, coincide in action and in the revolution's most immediate objectives." It is unfortunate that Guevara only produced these brief notes. He would have made much more of an impact on future revolutionary events by continuing this study rather than going to Bolivia. The single phrase "every revolution always incorporates elements of very different tendencies which, nevertheless, coincide in action and in the revolution's most immediate objectives" actually anticipates the trajectory of the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran revolutions which took place more than a decade later. The Central American revolutions of the 1970's and 1980's are actually an extension of the Cuban model. The FSLN (Sandinista Front for the Liberation of Nicaragua) and the FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation) launched an armed struggle as the Cubans did. What is more important, however, is the manner in which they formed genuine vanguards of the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran people. They did not form such vanguards by first forming a tiny nucleus of a party and then recruiting people in twos and threes to a fully elaborated program. Their approach was like the Cuban's. They developed program and theory in tandem with mass action. They spoke in political language out of their national idioms. Their approach to revolution was undogmatic and non-sectarian. Their failure to win full emancipation for their peoples has more to do with the global relationship of class forces rather than in any lack of socialist principles or skill. The most important assistance the Cubans have given the FSLN and FMLN is not material aid. It is rather the continuing advice on how to strengthen the revolutionary forces. The FSLN and the FMLN represent consolidation of different political tendencies. If they had not put the interest of the Nicaraguan or Salvadoran people over the interests of their own groupings, they would have made no progress toward victory. The Cubans, by everybody's recognition, have been instrumental in forging such unity. Carlos Fonseca founded the Sandinista movement in 1961 along with Tomas Borge and Silvio Mayorga. Fonseca was an exceptionally gifted leader. He died in combat in 1976. In the early 1970's, the FSLN went through a series of crises and eventually split into three factions. Each faction regarded itself as the true and only vanguard of the Nicaraguan revolution. The first tendency was the TP (Tendencia Proletaria). Itemphasized the central role of the proletariat in the coming revolution. A TP leader Jamie Wheelock wrote "Imperialism and Dictatorship" in 1974 and showed that an urban proletariat and agro-export based rural proletariat had become a major factor in the Nicaraguan class struggle. (Wheelock, of course, was doing exactly the sort of theoretical work that Lenin did in Russia when he examined the development of capitalist agriculture.) The TP thought it was a mistake to rely on rural peasant-based guerrilla warfare. They saw only one answer to the needs of socialism in Nicaragua: the creation of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. They concentrated their efforts on the neighborhoods and factories of major cities like Managua. The second tendency was the GPP (Guerra Popular Prolongada). Tomas Borge and Henry Ruiz led the GPP. It concentrated on rural guerrilla warfare in northern Nicaragua. In some respects, this formation had more in common with the "foquismo" approach followed by Guevara. The GPP did not connect to urban struggles however, an arena that belonged to the TP. The third tendency was the "third force" or Terceristas. Another name for them was the "Insurrectional Tendency." They tended to stress bold, almost adventurist, actions to spur the masses into action. They recruited from the middle-class, including lawyers, academics, Church and lay workers, and even from lumpen elements. Daniel and Humberto Ortega were the leaders of this faction. In actuality, the three factions simply represented contradictory class aspects of the Nicaraguan revolution. They were all correct in responding to local features of the revolutionary struggle, but were also incorrect in assuming that their own tendency had the inside path to victory. Would they respond to Guevara's imperative? "Every revolution always incorporates elements of very different tendencies which, nevertheless, coincide in action and in the revolution's most immediate objectives." The urgencies of the Nicaraguan class struggle did bring the three factions together. We also must assume that the Cubans gave them advice to find a way to unite. An upsurge in the mass movement in 1978 introduced compelling reasons for unity, especially in the military arena. That year, the three tendencies did not see themselves in competition any longer. They recognized that the Nicaraguan revolution was broader and more complex than any of its single aspects. By December of that year, the FSLN accomplished reunification. They then proceeded to build alliances with other forces on the left. They reached agreement with the pro-Moscow CP, which had been hostile to the idea of armed struggle for many years. Eventually the FSLN won victory over Somoza and tried to the best of its ability to construct socialism in Nicaragua. Many on the left in the United States, including the super-revolutionaries in the SWP, fault the Sandinistas for not having built "another Cuba". We should blame the setback to Nicaraguan socialism on the inability of groups like the SWP to do more to prevent the Reagan administration from strangling the revolution in its cradle. El Salvador is another case study of how the revolutionary movement achieved unity. Like Nicaragua, the left had split into a number of factions. In El Salvador, the divisions grew deep enough to provoke fratricide. The story of how they overcame those divisions is inspiring. Salvador Cayetano Carpio started the first guerrilla group. Carpio was a baker by trade and a central leader of the Communist Party of El Salvador. He began to identify with the Castroist current during the time. He grew increasingly dissatisfied with the electoralist and routinist path of the CP and looked for an alternative. In 1969, Carpio broke with the CP and, at the age of fifty, started a guerrilla group. The group adopted the name "Popular Liberation Forces--Farabundo Marti" (FPL) in 1972. Carpio reflected the growing maturity of the Castroist current. He rejected "foquismo". Carpio based his rejection "on the experience of some guerrilla movements in Latin America and in other countries that were removed from the people, that failed to reach out to them and that succumbed to militaristic designs..." Left-wing Christian Democrats formed guerrilla groups in the same period. In 1971, Joaquin Villalobos and other activists from this current formed the "Peoples Revolutionary Movement" (ERP). The ERP was by no means homogeneous. Villalobos said that it was "composed of different groups with different approaches to strategy, but sharing the desire to promote armed struggle in El Salvador." The ERP experienced bitter factional divisions in the early 1970's. One wing thought the revolution was at hand and emphasized bold armed actions. The other wing doubted this and stressed the need for patient long-term political work. The poet Roque Dalton was a member of this latter faction. In 1975 the in-fighting became so bad that rivals from the other faction murdered him. Enemies of the ERP had spread malicious lies that Dalton was a CIA agent. Eduardo Galeano wrote, "We always meet death in a way that resembles us. I always thought Roque would meet death roaring with laughter. I wonder if he could have. Wouldn't the sorrow of being murdered by those who had been your comrades been stronger." On July 30, 1975 the Salvadoran army fired on a peaceful demonstration of students. Government troops killed dozens of people. The event had as much of a galvanizing effect on Salvadoran society as the Kent State murders had in the United States. A number of distinct student groups coalesced together at this time and formed the "People's Revolutionary Bloc" (BPR). Most people called it "el Bloque". This was a new type of organization that began to typify the Salvadoran popular movement. These organizations of students, workers, women or peasants participated in political discussions for the first time in their lives. They worked in these organizations as an alternative to vanguardist or electoralist formations. They participated in civil disobedience, mass demonstrations and rallies. Eventually a coalition of left and centrist politicians came together in the "Democratic Revolutionary Front." The most famous member of this formation was Guillermo Ungo, a member of the government in 1972 along with Jose Duarte. When the army launched a coup, Duarte remained in office while Ungo went into opposition. Another important step forward occurred when the Communist Party of El Salvador decided to participate in the armed struggle. Their leader Shafiq Handal became an important and well-known guerrilla leader. The evolution of the CP in El Salvador indicated that years of sectarianism were dissolving at last. The movement included both Shafiq Handal and Guillermo Ungo. All of these groups and individuals came to the realization that they had to unite to become effective. Once again, Guevara's observation that, "Every revolution always incorporates elements of very different tendencies which, nevertheless, coincide in action and in the revolution's most immediate objectives" was vindicated. They achieved such unity when they formed the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation (FMLN). The FMLN was the umbrella group that coordinated the armed struggle, while the FDR under Ungo's leadership conducted the legal struggle. The Salvadoran revolutionaries acknowledged the importance of the formation of the FSLN in Nicaragua in influencing their decision to unify. The pressure of events persuaded each of the separate groups to put the needs of the Salvadoran revolution over their particular factional interests. Each grouping within the FMLN-FDR represented contradictory class aspects of the Salvadoran revolution. The FSLN and the FMLN shared with Lenin's Bolsheviks a very generous definition of what it meant to be a revolutionary. This is a lesson that the left in the advanced capitalism countries must learn. Again, we can only assume that the Cubans had a significant role in bringing this unity to fruition. None of these formations--the July 26th Movement, the FSLN, FMLN- -were conventional "Marxist-Leninist" formations, yet each one achieved powerful revolutionary breakthroughs. If the Soviet Union had not been going through such a profound counterrevolutionary shift, there was every possibility that socialism would have won substantial victories in both Nicaragua and El Salvador. Nicaragua and El Salvador are important because they show the necessity of forging a common class-struggle approach above and beyond the narrow interests of party or sect. Today many people misunderstand the accomplishment of Lenin. They see Lenin as the great splitter. He split with the Mensheviks, then he split with the Second International and formed the Third, etc. This is an undialectical view of Lenin. Lenin was also the individual who helped to unite socialists in Russia when no organization existed. Lenin's great success was not in forming a new type of party in Russia, but simply building an uncompromised socialist party where none existed. Another thing that the Bolsheviks and the Cuban model have in common is that they do not define themselves by historical or international questions. Lenin, like Castro, focused on issues of the class-struggle in his own country. He let the French, the Chinese and the English, etc. work out their own solutions to reaching the masses in their own countries. The Cuban-style formations did not stand on a decades long program that took positions on innumerable historical questions. To join the SWP today means to adopt the position that WWII was imperialist, while to join the CP presupposes the opposite position. We simply do not need this type of ideological baggage. New socialist formations must be inclusive and pluralist in their political perspectives. Basically, they should accept members on the basis of agreement with Marxism, the way Lenin's Bolshevik party did. No group has the inside track on truth. The truth will only emerge after years of struggle in the trenches. Nobody today can predict how the American socialist revolution will unfold. There is almost complete ignorance about important new developments like the populism of the western states. Nobody has begun to describe the current status of the working-class adequately. What was true in the 1960's is no longer true. The United States is no longer a nation of economic security and prosperity. The differences between the United States and third world countries is narrowing. This has enormous political consequences. Marxist thought can only evolve and prosper outside of a "vanguardist" framework. The kind of discussion that a socialist party requires is exactly the kind of discussion that takes place on the Internet: uncensored, democratic and critical. No "Marxist-Leninist" party enjoys that kind of discussion today, but the socialist movement can not move forward without it. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005