Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:35:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis R Godena <louisgodena-AT-ids.net>
Subject: M-I: Crying over spilt milk (fwd from moderator)



To marxism-international:

The following message on the nature of the Cuban revolution "bounced" to the
moderators.  

Louis Godena,
co-moderator

_______________________________________________________


>To: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
>From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (Hariette Spierings)
>Subject: Crying over spilt milk
>Cc: Marxism-International-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu,
>        Marxism-General-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu,
>        Marism-News-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu



Menshevik social-fascist crying over spilt milk!



>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:40:12 -0400
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
>Reply-To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: M-I: Cuba's new economic policy

>On December 30, 1990 Cuba and the USSR announced that their trade treaties
>would last for one year only, rather than the five year periods of the
>past. Prices would be based on hard currency at world market levels, except
>for sugar. Even though sugar was still subsidized, the 1991 price would be
>$500 per ton rather than $800 per ton. This means that right off the bat
>Cuban revenues would be cut nearly in half. Soviet delivery of oil would be
>cut from 13 million barrels to 10. Due to the fuel shortages that this
>caused, truck and tractor imports were cut to the bare minimum as 1991 began.
>
>Just 10 months later, on October 10, 1991, Castro announced that only 26
>percent of Soviet goods had been shipped to Cuba under the terms of the
>December 30, 1990 agreement. For example, only 7 percent of lard and 16
>percent of vegetable oil had been shipped. Without cooking oil, it is very
>difficult to prepare food. It is also difficult to start a cooking oil
>industry from scratch. In addition, the USSR stopped shipping household
>goods. Cuba received no detergent and less than 5 percent of the promised
>soap. There were shortfalls in capital goods as well. Only 16 percent of
>fertilizer was received, 2 percent of paper, 1.6 percent of tires, and 1.9
>percent of laminated steel.
>(These statistics come from Frank T. Fitzgerald's "The Cuban Revolution in
>Crisis", Monthly Review Press.)
>
>Things then went from bad to worse. 
>
>After the fall of Gorbachev, what had been a trickle dried up completely as
>the faucet was turned off. Gorbachev only tolerated socialist Cuba, while
>Yeltsin would prefer to see it destroyed. In 1992, Cuba's total trade with
>Soviet bloc partners fell to 7 percent of what it had been in 1989. From
>Yeltsin's former Soviet Union he received only 1.8 million tons of oil,
>around 13 percent of what it had received in 1989. All this adds up to
>collapse of infrastructure, which no amount of study circles devoted to Mao
>and Stalin could overcome. My readings of Stalin have given me gas in the
>past, but no oil.
>
>What was the response of the Cuban Communist Party to this economic crisis,
>which was among the greatest to befall any nation in the twentieth century?
>
>First of all, they have not sold state property to foreign investors, as is
>currently taking place in the former Soviet Union. Not a single acre of
>Cuban sugar fields have been sold to the imperialists. What Cuba has done
>is liberalize its foreign investment codes. The results are well-known. As
>I pointed out yesterday, one Canadian firm is doing business in Cuba but
>not in the same way that it does business in Mexico or other places. Cuba
>workers may not receive high wages, but they are not treated like dirt the
>way they are in Indonesia. Or in Vietnam, where Korean managers have them
>run in place as a "motivational" tool.
>
>The arrangement with foreign corporations is based on a quid pro quo
>arrangement. They get a highly reliable and well-educated work force, while
>the Cuban government gets hard currency from the products that are sold on
>the open market. This hard currency allows the purchase of cooking oil,
>petroleum, steel, medical supplies, guns and other essential items. Without
>this arrangement with foreign corporations, Cuba would be destroyed. And
>what would our super-Stalinist and Maoist comrades recommend as an
>alternative? Should Cuba start up its own steel industry? Since there is no
>coal or iron ore in Cuba to speak of, some type of synthetic steel would
>have to be produced, made of recycled sugar cane I suppose.
>
>Cuba has also expanded on tourism to get access to foreign currency. This
>has been a painful choice because the Cuban revolution was made partly to
>liberate it from the status of colonial brothel. It has been successful to
>a high degree. Cuba had 243,026 tourists in 1985 and about 480,000 in 1992.
>The influx of tourists has brought on prostitution unfortunately. If some
>Cubans are driven to desperation because they can not get their hands on
>household goods, it is no surprise that they will exchange sex for European
>currency that can be used in special shops. The Cuban government can not
>prevent this. As long as there is deep poverty, there will be prostitution.
>Of course, if everybody in Cuba was reading Mao and Stalin, such social
>ills would not occur. If the RED BOOK or FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM were
>best-sellers, a purified population would rather endure hunger than sell
>their bodies. This, when you really get down to it, is the "Marxist"
>analysis of Cuba's problems coming from the Olaechea, Joseph Green and
>their fans.
>
>Now, as it turns out, the Cuban government is already beginning to pull
>back from some of the excesses of this emergency period, as today's NY
>Times reports:
>

So sorry, Mr. Proyect. The failure of the Cuban "eperiment" was determined
long ago.  When the Castro gang took to the social-corporativist road of
Khruschev and mortgaged its revolution.  

We are not arguing here what can Cuba do with this mess, ecept "regretfully"
return to the condition of "Caribbean brothel".  At least, at present, it is
mainly a European brothel catering for the sexual deviations of European
paedofiles, instead of American ones.  When one is looking for consolation,
even such "small mercies" make for an argument.

However, here we are not debating whether Castro "regrets" to have to open
for the "juicy pussy" business, and whether the Cuban "communists" carry the
brothel water buckets with the most "contrite" attitude, nor whether they
pray to Trotsky for deliverance of their involuntary sins against the purity
of the revolution.

That is not the question.  The question, as we presented it was very simple:
Was the Cuban "experience" and its lamentable results an experience of
Marxist-Leninist socialist revolution or one of revisionism?

Should people be deceived and Cuba held aloft as a model of genuine
socialism, or should the truth be told?:

The Cuban bureacratic regime is a sorry failure of revisionism and should
not be laid at the door of Marxism-Leninism.  

What Proyect writes above shows very clearly what the two different lines
for the Latin American revolution are all about.

The Cuban line is in essence the line of Nasserism dressed up for the
convenience of the Soviet capitalist roaders as "Marxist-Leninist socialism".

That is all there is to it.  Back in the 1960, the Cuban regime was
revolutionary and anti-imperialist.  It was never a genuine Marxist-Leninist
regime, nor its leadership is or ever was a Marxist-Leninist leadership.

Its current situation is not only self-inflicted, but is also already
counter-revolutionary.  Its line is to hope and work for a better deal under
imperialism - a typically social-democratic endeavour, not a communist one.

The Cuban regime belongs to the dregs of the former wave of the proletarian
revolution which carried in its wake a great awakening of the
national-democratic movement in the colonial and semi-colonial world.

Its time is past, and you are perfectly right.  It has fallen victim to TINA:

"There is no alternative"

There is no alternative for the Castro bureacracy but to vegetate and slowly
twist in the wind of capitalist restoration, making faces, speaking with
forked tongue, and banging the drum of a revolution which they were
accomplices in emasculating from its proletarian content.

They fought, ideologically, politically and militarily, for the
Khruschevites and against the genuine Marxist-Leninists - both
internationally as well as in Cuba and in Latin America in general.   They
oppossed, undermined and conspired against those who were the people who led
the very creation of the socialist economy which the Cuban bureacrats were
happy to parasite from for 30 years without doing anything to avoid its
dismantling and destruction - and on the contrary, they did a lot to help
the Khruschevites to parry the blows of the proletarian line which alone
could have prevented that outcome.  

They conspired with the Khruschevites and caused untold damage and delay to
the revolution in Latin America, which alone could have saved Cuba from its
isolation and provided all the raw materials which it lacks within a Soviet
Union of Latin American republics.  The plight of the Cuban bureacrats is
self-inflicted, and the people of Cuba would certainly one day draw the
balance sheet of all this charade.

If you sow winds, it is not unjust that you should harvest the storm!.

Finally, today, when if all the chatter about "keeping to the socialist
road", etc. had any substance beyond the statism and bureacratic
dictatorship of third world social-fascist like Saddam or Gaddafi, the Cuban
leaders were really serious about wanting a socialist future and were not
already working to re-insert Cuba fully within the imperialist system,
instead of supporting electoralist demagogues like Lula who traffick with
the plight of the disposesed while following a reformist road within the
parameters of the bourgeois state, they will be placing their hopes on the
armed struggle of the new wave of revolutions.

Instead, the Cuban social-fascists (sneaky defenders of the imperialist
order that they profess to have a "distaste" for) consort with the most
reactionary forces, Fujimori, Gaviria, the Pope, the Spanish fascist regime,
the aristocracy of labour, the clerical elements, the bourgeosies of all
countries and promote the imperialist policy of "peace agreement", "peace
with social justice", etc., hoping to use their influence to help the
reactionary forces in suppressing and demonising the revolution.

That is why the Cuban regime is the architect of its own disgrace - the new
Chief pimp for imperialist tourism, is also the Chief pimp for
capitulationist, electoralist and conformist renunciation of the proletarian
revolution.

We have no advise wahtsoever for the Cuban regime, except to point out that
these regime is not on the side of the people, but on the side of the
establishment of the exploiters and oppressors. 



Below, Mr. Proyect - in trying to apologise for the forked tongue policy of
those who "swear by Marx" while passing the capitalist ammunition, suceeds
only in revealing the lenghts that the Cuban bureacracy is prepared to go in
order to deceive the Cuban people and even itself:




>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>October 8, 1997
>
>
>Cuba's Communists Likely to Hold Line
>
>By LARRY ROHTER
>
>HAVANA -- Revolutionary banners and slogans are posted everywhere, and
>some 1,800 delegates have already arrived in the capital. After months of
>preparation that have emphasized ideological discipline and "socialist
values" over change, Cuba's Communist Party begins its first congress in six
years on
>Wednsday. 
>The three-day meeting, sandwiched around the 30th anniversary of the deth of
>the Communist icon Che Guevara, is expected to ratify some changes in the
>composition of the 225-member Central Committee and the smaller Politburo,
>the subjects of perhaps the most curiosity to ordinary Cubans and to foreign
>diplomats and academic specialists. 
>But all indications are that the party intends to hold the line on vital
>and vexing
>political and economic issues. 
>
>"Everything suggests that the leadership does not want this congress to
>examine
>fundamental policies," said Jorge Dominguez, a professor of government at
>Harvard University who is an expert on Cuban politics. "That does not
>necessarily mean that nothing of substance will occur, but I am expecting
>more of
>a cheerleading effort than a serious discussion." 
>Exactly!.  The bankers know very well that this kind of gas is just a sop to
>the masses and that the real decissions are taken at the top and behind
>closed doors. 




>But at a news conference here Tuesday, Esteban Lazo Cardenas, a member of he
>Politburo and party first secretary for the capital, argued
>otherwise,>>saying, "This
>is goingto be a historic congress, not just because of the moment, but
>because of
>what is going to be discussed." He added, though, that "there can be no
>change of
>principles." 


It is precisely those "principles" - parasitism - which have landed them in
the sorry plight of beggars at the door of capital even for cooking oil!




>The tone for the congress, which is closed to the foreign press, has been
>set by an
>eight-page platform, made public this spring, that reaffirms Cuba's
>commitment>>to a one-party state, saying that "the party is in a better
>position today
>than ever
>to perfect its role as society's guide." 


A one party state!.  Under the proletarian dictatorship that is one thing.
Under the dictatorship of the bureacratic bourgeosie it is eactly what you
have in Iraq. And then, these are the same apologists that want to deny that
what we have in Cuba is nothing but social-fascism:

Socialism in words, but in deeds, nothing but a counter-revolutionary and
omnimodous dictatorship of the bureacratic bourgeosie that does not respect
even the most basic bourgeois democratic rights and eploits and oppresses
the people in a bourgeois-totalitarian manner?



>
>It also calls on Cubans to "strengthen our unity and will to resist" the
>United
>States, which is says seeks to "liquidate the Cuban nation and enslave its
>people." 

Only the USA?  What sort of theory is this?  All imperialists strive to
annex other countries and enslave the people.  It seems to me that the women
- and very young girls and little boys - servicing European imperialist
slobs are already ENSLAVED to capitalist exploitation of the worst kind.

That is why all these demagogic posturing of the Trotskyst capitulator
Castro and his gang is nothing but sheer deception. 





>"In Cuba, there will be no return to capitalism, because the Revolution will
>never be vanquished," the document says. "The nation will continue alive and
>will continue to be socialist." 


When you think that these people "cannot prevent prostitution" to engulf
Cuba in a large scale, you already have RESTORED the worse aspect of
capitalist relations. The rest is only the most vulgar braggadoccio!

>

>The last party congress was held in October 1991, a time of severe economic
>dislocation and ideological uncertainty, coming as it did as the Soviet
>Union was
>collapsing. Then, more than half of the Central Committee was replaced, with
>many pre-revolutionary Communists and former guerrilla combatants giving way
>to younger, less proven people. 
>
>Since then, President Fidel Castro has grudgingly allowed the creation of a
>parallel dollar-based economy and opened Cuba to foreign investment and
>tourism, initiatives that would have been ideologically unacceptable in the
>past,
>to keep the economy afloat. The congress is expected to ratify those
>changes, but
>to proceed with great caution regarding further advances. 

Proceeding with "great caution" here means that the bureacracy does not want
to jeopardise its position more than they have to.  For these people, the
important thing is to preserve their key positions and consolidate their
class power, before going any farther.  They saw what happened to Gorbachev,
and they want to cling to the trappings of socialism as the best way to keep
the people overworked, over-eploited, and passive.





>The Chinese Communist Party, during its own just-concluded party congress,
>moved decisively to reduce the role of the state in the economy and force
>government enterprises to stand or fall on their own. At a news conference
>here
>Monday, Jose Luis Rodriguez, minister of the economy, made clear that no uch
>reforms were in the offing for Cuba. >>
>"Ours continues to be a socialist model, in the sense that the state is not
>only>>responsible for the general welfare, but has a leading role" in the
economy,
>Rodrguez said. Though there is a limited place for private initiative and
>enteprise, he added, Cuba does not view them "an essential element to the
>development of our country." 

Tell that to Mr. Proyect:


According to Proyect, without this "private initiative and enterprise"
Cubans would not even have cooking oil, coal, steel, and every other
essential. Who is lying here?  I rather think the Cuban.  However, here
Proyect gets hoisted by his very own petard!



>Like the 770,000 members of the party, ordinary Cubans will also be looking
to>>the conclave for clues as to who will be leading them in the next five
>years. No
>changes are expected at the very top, of course: Castro will remain in
>charge of
>both the party and the government, with his younger brother Raul as his
>designated successor. 

Like a cork, Castro and his clan would sink - in the Fujimori manner -
anyone who would stick to any revolutionary principle, in order to continue
to float over his self-created mess.  He rather act as renegade to his own
revolution and original ideals:

"more than half of the Central Committee was replaced, with
many pre-revolutionary Communists and former guerrilla combatants giving way
to younger, less proven people".

A dictator surrounded by yes men.  What is the difference with his "great
friend President Fujimori"? 

"Since then, President Fidel Castro has grudgingly allowed the creation of a
parallel dollar-based economy and opened Cuba to foreign investment and
tourism, initiatives that would have been ideologically unacceptable".

The only principle left is to stick by his behind to the Presidential chair
after everything he set out to do lays in ruins at his feet.  Again, what is
the differnece with "President Fujimori"? 




>But Castro, who is 71, has appeared thinner and pallid in public in recent
>months. As a result, popular interest in who might be groomed for future
>responsibilities has intensified. 
>
>Many diplomats and academic specialists are predicting an enhanced role for
>Vice President Carlos Lage, who is regarded as a pragmatist. 


Going, going, gone!  Where have we seen this before?  





>Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Of course, none of this will matter to the fans of Adolfo Olaechea who have
>already made up their mind about the Cuban Communist Party. No new
>information will change this. This is because their position on the Cuban
>revolution is highly dogmatic, just like the "state capitalist" followers
>of Tony Cliff who have said identical things all along. Coming from the
>typing fingers of Adam Rose, it was proof to Lou Godena of the
>pro-imperialist tilt of the Cliffites. Coming from Adolfo Olaechea, it is
>Marxism of the highest order. Yeah, it is pretty high when you get down to
>it. High like an LSD trip.
>
>Finally, a word on the Pope's trip. This one really boggles the mind. Cuba
>was not a particularly Catholic country even before the revolution. I had a
>friend named Gabriel Manfugas who fled Cuba in the mid 60s with his father,
>mother and brother. His dad was a sergeant in Batista's army and served
>time in prison. Gabriel was a big-time anti-Communist when I first met him,
>but shifted to the left through arguments he heard from me and anthropology
>professors at CCNY.
>
>One of the things we used to talk about a lot was "santeria", the
>Afro-Cuban religion influenced by the Yoruba rituals brought to Cuba during
>the time of slavery. Santeria in its pure form was extremely popular in
>Cuba. Most Cubans are of African descent and have deep ties to the Yoruba
>deities. Even Gabriel's family was in tune to these rituals, despite their
>nominal Catholicism. When you looked around his parent's apartment in
>Washington Heights, you would see the oddest mixture of religious
>artifacts. Pictures of saints with herbs scotch-taped to them. Gabriel once
>told me that his mom prayed for him every night, but it wasn't to Jesus
>that the prayers were directed. He said that he never pried into her eliefs.
>However, these are typical Cuban beliefs. Cuba is not like Poland, where
>the Catholic Church has had a vise-like grip historically. Furthermore, the
>younger generation of Cubans could be less interested in going to church.
>They have consumerist, not Christian, hang-ups. 
>
>The Pope made visits to Poland in order to prop up Solidarity, an
>anti-Communist outfit that many Trotskyites supported on the mistaken
>assumption that this had anything to do with socialism. There is no
>equivalent in Cuba. What the Cuban government has done is opened Cuba up to
>a visit from the Pope that is part of the buzzard's trip through the
>Western Hemisphere. There is some good that can come of this, since a visit
>from the Pope will tend break down Cuba's isolation somewhat, especially
>among countries with a Catholic population. Better trade relations and even
>some foreign aid might come about.
>
>There is absolutely no other way to interpret this affair.
>
>Louis Proyect


Is ther really no other way to interpret this affair?  Or Is it that it is
Mr. Proyect who is the dogmatic and sectarian?  Is there really no chance at
all that this - like Castro reconciliation with Menem, Fujimori, Gaviria,
the European imperialists, the US corporations and a substancial sector of
the Clinton administration, has anything to do with a counter-revolutionary
"peace with social justice" offensive of the Vatican whose interests in
Latin America are very crucial indeed for the Catholic Church and the
semi-feudal classes which are the backbone of its support in the continent?

Is it not Lou Proyect who is really the "man in the moon" when he so
stubbornly insists in saying that "there is absolutely no other way to
interpret this affair"?

Who is really here the zealot and the "fan who has already made up his mind"?

Want a bet?


Adolfo Olaechea




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