nicaragua, cuba

[James Miller <jamiller@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

NICARAGUA AND CUBA

   Louis, once again, on the difficulties of revolution:

>                  The agrarian question is a hundred times more difficult
>that Miller or his co-thinkers are willing to acknowledge. His solution
>basically revolves around the need for revolutionary leadership. The
>problem is that sometimes a leadership, no matter how revolutionary, can
>not resolve contradictions that lie at the core of a given country's level
>of development, especially those between town and countryside.

   I said before that I had no "solution" other than that which had
already been initiated in the context of the Sandinista people's
revolution. Louis continues to argue that there was no solution
within this context. This implies that the collapse of the revolution
was inevitable and the course toward capitalism was the only
possible option for the FSLN. I have already sufficiently outlined
my position on this.

   When I pointed to the need, and opportunities, for continuing
the revolution in Nicaragua, Louis responded:

>Louis: Are you beginning to see a pattern here? The word "Thermidor" does
>not exist in his vocabulary. The relationship of class forces domestically
>and internationally derailed the Russian revolution and it is pointless to
>say things like Bukharin and Stalin failed to meet the test of history.
>If you'll recall, the USSR had also defeated their contras. Was this
>interpreted as the kind of victory that would impel the communists to
>deepen the struggle for their historic program? No, what happened was that
>the civil war exhausted the Russian people and the working-class
>especially. And within that working-class, its most conscious
>elements--the Bolsheviks--were either killed or exhausted.

   There are some similarities between what happened in Russia
and what happened in Nicaragua. I have already called attention
to the main differences. I don't think the counter-revolutionary
tendencies in Nicaragua were as powerful as he indicates. But
whatever the evaluation of the strength of the forces confronted
by the revolution, the question is how the Sandinistas responded
to them. I have already explained my position on this.

   Later, Louis relates again to the way in which the SWP changed
its appreciation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.

>Louis: Of course the SWP had gone through an educational series to prepare
>them for Barnes's speech. Barnes's article was the big bomb and the
>classes were follow-up barrages to soften up the membership. What a joke
>to assert that Barnes's article was consistent with party policy. The
>SWP was basically formed to propagate on behalf of the theory of permanent
>revolution and Barnes decided to dump it. He should have written a
>document presenting his new ideas to the party like any other member does.
>He, however, has special privileges.

   It's news to me that the SWP was "basically formed to propagate on
behalf of the theory of permanent revolution." I had thought it was
formed to fight for a workers and farmers government in the U.S.,
and to help build socialism on a world scale. But I'm sure the
subscribers to the list recognize that Louis is the authority on what
the SWP stands for, so my comments on this can be discounted.

   When I explained why the Militant changed its label on Buchanan
>from "fascist" to "ultrarightist," I said it was a question of
terminology. Then Louis responded:

>Louis: It is absolutely not a question of terminology. To label somebody a
>fascist does not mean that he is a xenophobic racist who employs populist
>themes. It is a Marxist term that is only used with the greatest
>precision, most importantly based on the correct identification of class
>forces. To dub Buchanan a fascist implies a political state of
>affairs in the United States that is totally overblown. Since the SWP has
>been saying that revolution is around the corner for about twenty-five
>years now, I am not surprised that they screwed up on Buchanan.

   Louis can define who is or is not a fascist, and who is or is not
a xenophobic racist populist, with exacting Marxist precision. That's
good. The Militant staff can't do that.

   When I pointed out that the SWP had confidence in itself, Louis
came back:

>Louis: Abnormal? Outrageous? Not maybe to a member like you. But of course
>we have nearly 113 Trotskyist or post-Trotskyist groups saying the
>identical thing. Since all of you have zero influence in the unions or the
>mass movements, we have to question the "nucleus" business. A "nucleus" of
>carbon is essential to the creation of carbon rather than nitrogen. There
>is no such analogy in revolutionary politics. I have no idea whether you
>will turn out to be carbon, nitrogen or sulfur (well, maybe I do...). All
>you have is a set of elaborate ideas about history and a paltry number
>about the United States (the fact that you almost never speak about US
>politics makes one wonder how important you are to the class-struggle
>here.) Isn't it about time you started to shed some light on our situation
>here rather than throwing darts at the FSLN? Yes, you're right. When they
>stepped up to the plate, they struck out. Now you are in the batter's box
>on this list. So start hitting some home-runs.

   Once again Louis hits hard on the "impotence" question. I'm sure
he says things like this every time he addresses a crowd of tens of
thousands of revolutionary workers in the mass rallies organized
by his workers vanguard party, the "Committes of Correspondence."

   Louis has a hard time breaking out of his "doom and gloom"
mode when thinking about the difficulties faced by revolutions.
Here's a good example:

>No matter how many volunteer brigades Fidel organizes, no matter
>how many speeches he makes, no matter how many Militant articles
>are written on his behalf, he is up against powerful class forces that are
>beyond his control. Not to recognize this is utopian. There is little
>that can be done to resist these forces. Lenin was clear about the
>impossibility of building socialism in an isolated USSR, so why should
>we expect Cuba to accomplish miracles that the Bolsheviks themselves
>could not?

   The key sentence here is, "there is little that can be done
to resist these forces." Well, how much or how little can be done
depends on the circumstances. But if a revolutionary leadership
exists, as in Cuba today, there is a ton of valuable work that
can be done and is being done to save the revolution.
   The Congress of the Central Organization of Cuban Workers
concluded recently. The theses discussed and adopted there were
printed in the Militant. These theses outline a working-class
program for fighting to preserve the gains of the Cuban
revolution, a fight which can succeed because it calls upon
the participation of millions of Cuban workers who have
confidence in their country, their leadership, and their
revolution. And this fight has been underway for some time,
and will intensify in the future.

   I think I'll have to devote less time to this discussion
with Louis in the near future. I have to spend more time on
other tasks. I'll stay on the list, but won't have
as much time to post messages. I don't think Louis has
defeated me, nor do I think I've defeated him, but I think
the two positions have been fairly well stated. Of course,
if Louis wants to keep firing away on some of these themes,
I won't say anything to discourage him from doing so. But
I won't have much time to answer them.

Jim Miller
Seattle


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---