Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:37:25 +0000
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M-AT-netcomuk.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: Malthusianism


Sid, you are a bit too quick to read an attack on Maoism which isn't here. All
that you say of the recent twists and turns of Castro's foreign policy is
true. So is the historical record of Cuban international solidarity, from
Africa to Bolivia and beyond. They are all part of the history.

Gar Macllelan recently said that even the PCP would negotiate with its enemies
under certain circumstances. I am sure, absolutely, that is true. Negotiations
always mean concessions and compromises, don't they? Revolutionary purity is
strictly for bathroom mirrors.

Compromises out of historical necessity are one thing. Denouncing Lenin in the
name of some kind of Marxism is another. That's what I object to.

Mark

Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Mark Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > Cuba is a sociailist country, it is not a proletariat enflamed in
> > incandescent people's war, so itn*ought* to be engulfed. But I'll bet a
> > rib of English beef it won't be. Cuba is the exception to the
> > revisionist rule which ought soon to have the maoists and their epigones
> > on this list soon drawing breath.
> >
> > But Cuba must purge its prostitutes and  close the dollar economy, or
> > it  will fail.
>
> One thing which stands out in the pictures of the Pope's visit to Cuba
> is the health, dress and general well-being of the Cuban people
> compared to that in any third-world country. The misery,
> degradation, squalor, shanty towns, beggars, death squads, torture,
> drugs, that exist in the other countries of Latin America, seems to
> have vanished from Cuba inspite of all the propaganda spewed by the
> free press. This is a remarkable achievement and a profound difference.
>
> But what is the current trajectory of Cuba?
>
> This is certainly a valid question
> and should not be dismissed as that coming from the maoists and their
> epigones. It is possible that the Cuban leadership is playing on the
> contradictions between the capitalist nations and intend to stay on
> the socialist road. But it is also possible that what we are witnessing
> is a slow but nevertheless perceptible trajectory towards capitalism
> owing to various reasons. There is also another question. Cuba has done
> a lot of international solidarity work. But Castro has also consorted
> with tyrants like Indira Gandhi and Fujimori (who received a guard
> of honor in Cuba), people who have indulged in murderous rampages
> in their countries. There are some unconfirmed reports of ties of
> Cuban military and intelligence with the Peruvian military. What if
> there is some truth to these reports?
>
> To protect the living standards and well-being of the people in your
> country, does it mean that dastardly collusion with reactionary
> regimes, are justified? To protect "socialism" in one
> country, does it mean it is okay to collaborate with openly fascist-type
> governments? What is this but "socialism in one country" as the
> Trotskyists constantly condemn in others, and moreover, this type
> of "socialism" violates genuine proletarian internationalism today.
>
> And is it proper to use the phrase "marxistas-gusanistas"
> as done by Jim Blaut who tried to lump together persons with questions,
> genuine and sincere questions, about Cuba together with that band of
> rich comprador counter-revolutionary lumpens in Miami?
>
> Are questions about principle, especially socialist principles, valid,
> Comrade Mark?
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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