From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:20:44 +0000
Subject: Re: M-I: New List


Jim Hillier

> Mark claims, amazingly, that outside North America and Western Europe,
> the majority of communists take Adolfo's line that the CCP is fascist,
> with a veneer of socialism. Where, Mark? In the former Soviet Union? You
> know full well that that is not true, and that every Communist
> organisation supports Cuba. Or India? The  three biggest parties of
> Marxism in that country - CPI, CPI-M and Socialist Unity Centre - all
> support socialist Cuba. Vietnam? Not a chance. Where, then, Mark, except
> Peru?
> 

Jim,

You refer to the CPI, CPI-M and Socialist Unity Centre as "parties of 
Marxism". This is completely incorrect. The CPI and the CPI(M) may 
have some mass following (they have superb organization) and they 
form state governments in the states of Kerala and West Bengal - but 
they are more like social democratic parties, not Marxist by any 
means. Although, in the past they used to proclaim Marxist slogans 
but now they hardly ever do so. The same sort of lumpenization and 
criminalization visible in the other big parties is also evident in 
the CPI and CPI(M). The CPI(M)'s leader Mr. Jyoti Basu (chief 
minister of West Bengal) is courtier of big capital - both national 
and international.He is reputed to have said that he is in favor of 
revolution as long as it is not in his own backyard.

Both the CPI and CPI(M) participate in the current United Front govt. 
at the center (New Delhi). This govt., supported by the mercenary and 
venal Congress (I) party, is furthering the process of 
"liberalization" and economic "reforms" very rapidly. The CPI and 
CPI-M are colloborating openly in this process. There are good and 
honest people in the CPI and CPI-M but the leadership is fraudulent 
and corrupt. They also participate in the ruling class policy of 
violently repressing the people by the military and police forces of 
the state. They are in essence revisionist parties and much of 
their history is truly sordid.  

That the Cuban Communist Party is able to garner and seek support 
from such quarters (as you say) really speaks a lot about the 
opportunist nature of the leadership of the CCP. Throughout Castro 
had very warm relations with Mrs. Gandhi and we all know the 
ruthlessness, terror and venality by which Mrs Gandhi ruled. Castro 
used to refer to her as his "sister" or something to that order. 
Today, Castro hobnobs with the assassin Fujimori and gives him a 
"guard of honor". You and the others like Louis P say that it is to 
protect "socialism in one country (Cuba)", that he is forced to do 
so, one should take advantage of inter-capitalist contradictions, and 
so on . [Curiously, Louis P condemns Stalin for trying to protect 
"socialism in one country" and accuses him of colloborating with the 
capitalist powers.]

But there comes a point when one has to ask the question about 
principles. Especially, when all of you say  that you are socialists.
I have not heard a single word of explanation from either you, Louis 
P or Jim Blaut about Castro's open support of Fujimori.
Also, do you think that Castro and the Cuban leadership 
still subscribe to socialist principles? You have to look at their 
actions and not at their words, Jim. By all recent evidence, Cuba is 
appearing to be on a route of transformation to a capitalist society. 
What do you think about the spread of tourism (remember Thailand 
where the largest industry is the sex industry) and the concominant 
rise of prositution? And the Cuban govt's invitation to the Pope who 
wears a crown of gold and carries a stick in one hand. There are 
going to be open-air masses in Cuba while he is there.

If nothing else, the events of this century should teach us that 
socialist parties can degenerate and *one* of the causes for this 
degeneration is revisionism and capitulation of the leadership 
(Boris Yeltsin was in the Central Committee of the CPSU). And once 
such revisionist leaders gain control - then a socialist or communist 
party can indeed become a fascist-type party, a point which was 
pointed out by Mao Tse-Tung long ago. And this new type  of "fascism" 
which mouths socialist slogans while practicing its very opposite can 
be terrrifying. Just look at China whose leader Jiang Zemin recently 
celebrated at Wall Street. Yet all the time, he maintained that they 
were maintaining and developing "socialism" in China. And we all know 
the extreme brutality of the Chinese regime, its use of prison labor 
for profitering, its execution of prisoners,, etc. Such is the level 
of degeneration that in a report written by some visitors (not in the 
capitalist press), there was a story of gangs in China who preyed on 
children by taking their blood for sale while keeping them in a state 
of semi-starvation.

How would you characterize such a regime if you do not like the term 
"social fascist"?

Sid


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