Reply to Roberto Simeón of the PSRDC

["Ben Seattle" <Left-Transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Roberto,

I am replying to your comments posted on the web site of the
Cuban Revolutionary Social Democratic Party (PSRDC) under the
title "Proletarian Democracy in Cuba--Fact or Fiction" at:

    http://frontpage.shadow.net/~psrdc/

These comments represent your contribution to the debate and
discussion on proletarian democracy which has unfolded on Louis
Proyect's marxmail.org list.

I will say first that I welcome your participation into this
discussion and debate.  I believe that the open public discussion
that has been made possible in this, the first stage of the
emerging revolution in communications, represents a burst of
fresh air to relieve the oxygen-starved lungs and minds of the
revolutionary proletariat.  There are many public forums emerging
which discuss and debate revolutionary politics.  More than this,
these forums are gradually becoming more serious and are
increasingly demanding that their participants act in a serious
way (ie: act in a calm way and do not distort the views of one's
opponents, etc.).  This development of increasingly serious
forums means that the views of José Pérez and you and me can
contend with one another before the eyes of friend and foe alike.

I am therefore posting, to the marxmail.org list and the CubaSi
list at egroups, the article from your website and this reply.

>From the perspective of theory, your posting appears to me to be
correct.  I will not comment on the section dealing with trade
union questions because this is beyond my competence and I do not
understand it very well.  But I consider the rest of your posting
to be both correct and well-written.  In particular, you are
correct that genuine workers' democracy in Cuba would be built
from the "bottom up" rather than imposed from the "top down".

The problem that I have with your posting is not its content--but
in how it is being used.

Your posting appears on the web site of the PSRDC.  José Pérez
checked out your site and made a number of comments (see appendix
A below) which I consider (see appendix B) to be completely
correct.  The PSRDC presents itself as supporting the interests
of the Cuban workers--but refuses to say a word against the
brutal campaign of US imperialism to crush the Cuban revolution
and Cuban people.

Whatever may be the crimes of the ruling regime in Cuba against
the Cuban people, they are _nothing_ in comparison to the crimes
of US imperialism.

No organization that represents the interests of the Cuban
workers would fail to condemn the imperialist blackade and
embargo of Cuba.  By failing to take a stand against the criminal
actions of US imperialism to subjugate the Cuban people, the
PSRDC has proven that it does not represent the interests of the
Cuban workers but is instead operating on the basis of another
agenda.

What is that agenda?

The most likely agenda, in my view, would include a dream of
going back to Cuba on top of a US tank and being installed as a
puppet government by US imperialism.  Such a government could
only come to power by drowning in blood the aspirations of the
Cuban people.  Do the people who run the PSRDC entertain such
dreams?  I cannot prove this, of course, but that is how it looks
to me.

The other explanation for refusing to condemn the many crimes of
US imperialism against the Cuban people is somewhat more mundane:
an utterly opportunist adaptation to the prevailing anti-Cuba
sentiment of the gusanos or Cuban mafia who resides in Miami.

Whether the real agenda of the PSRDC is the first or the second
possibilities above, I believe it is clear that there is nothing
revolutionary about it.

Now I have heard that there are a number of leftists who hang out
around the PSRDC.  The PSRDC probably encourages this--and
probably encourages a naive belief that it can develop in the
direction of becoming a genuine revolutionary organization.  But
whether the people who run the PSRDC are would-be puppets of
imperialism, self-centered adventurers or simply naive
fools--such organizations usually either perish, stagnate or
increasingly bend to the will of capital--which will use them for
its own purposes and then discard them like a used kleenex.

I don't know if you are one of the leftists who believe that the
PSRDC can play some kind of revolutionary role and has some kind
of revolutionary future.  Based on what you wrote I think that
this may be possible.  If you are one of these leftists I have a
question for you.

Why hang around with a group that refuses to lift a finger to
fight imperialism's crimes against the Cuban people?  Why hang
around with a group identified with a man, Alvaro Prendes, who
gave an interview about "chemical-biological warfare plants" that
could be used as an excuse for US imperialism to bomb Cuban
factories?

If genuine leftists exist in or around the PSRDC--then they
should wake up to its nature as a present or likely future tool
of imperialism--and break from it.  If illusions exist in the
PSRDC these illusions may be a product of the disorientation that
may go with having one's outlook formed in a country and
political culture that surrounds you with hypocrisy and does not
give you a real opportunity to explore other views and openly
test your ideas against others.  If this is the case then it is
time to make use of the existing opportunities to learn about and
to engage in political activity with activists who stand up to
imperialism.  Taking part in, or creating, an open public forum
to discuss these kinds of issues can be part of this process--and
I believe will lead in the direction of a decisive break of all
genuinely revolutionary minded activists from organizations like
the PSRDC.

The struggle for genuine workers' democracy in Cuba will go
forward.  Everyone of conscience will be able to contribute to
this struggle.  But any words describing the failure of the Cuban
rulers to create a genuine workers' democracy will look like, and
be, nothing but hypocrisy when they come from an organization
that looks like it could be run by people who dream of
introducing this democracy with the help of napalm, bombs and
depleted uranium shells from US tanks.

Sincerely,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 10.Sep.2000
www.Leninism.org
www.egroups.com/group/theorist/


Other posts on proletarian democracy can
be seen on the theorist web site, including:
http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/37
http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/38
http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/39


----------------------------------------
Appendix A -- José on the PSRDC
----------------------------------------

From: Jose G. Perez
Subject: Re: Proletarian democracy in Cuba--fact or fiction?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:07:30 -0700
     http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@
     lists.panix.com/msg11403.html

--(excerpts below)--

[A good example of this is to be found on the web site of the
Cuban Democratic Social Revolutionary Party, which you refer to.
It is the case of Alvaro Prendes, who played a significant role
in the Bay of Pigs battle as one of revolutionary Cuba's few
pilots. Prendes was a Batista military officer who was court
martialed under the dictatorship of inciting rebellion in the
armed forces. He then became part of the revolutionary armed
forces after the victory of the revolution, and wrote a famous
book about his experiences during the Bay of Pigs battle.
According to the interview with him, in 1964 he was
court-martialed again, though he doesn't reveal details of the
incident, just that Raúl Castro presided and that among those
present was Ché. Somehow --he doesn't say how-- he was
rehabilitated, became a General, then was sanctioned --again he
doesn't explain-- and his rank reduced to the still-very-high
rank of colonel, and finally court martialed one last time in
1992. What he did then, as a high ranking officer of the armed
forces, was to assemble foreign journalists and release an open
letter to Fidel Castro demanding a "national dialogue" and all
sorts of changes in Cuba. He was not imprisoned but he was
stripped of his military rank and expelled from the armed forces.
Two years later he was in Miami, giving interviews about supposed
chemical-biological warfare plants in Cuba. His story was so
"convincing" that it was picked up only by the gusano press and
right-wing outifts like National Review and the Washington
Times.]

--snip--

Finally, on our "friends" of the Cuban Social Revolutionary
Democratic Party. Programmatically, what they propose, is,
clearly, in Marxist terms, a bourgeois restoration. They advocate
dismantling the state monopoly of foreign trade and privatization
of the means of production (some to individual capitalists, some
to cooperatives, some to mixed enterprises), the reintroduction
of the market as the fundamental organizing force of the economy
(which, of course, they claim they will regulate so that it
functions for the public good).

The sorts of things they propose undoubtedly, in a country like
the United States, would make them part of the Left, but they
aren't proposing that for the U.S., they are proposing it for
Cuba where their program is clearly reactionary,
counterrevolutionary in fact.

As for their actual class politics, try this exercise:  Go to
their documents, and put in the word "Bloqueo" (blockade) in the
search field of your browser's Find function. Then put "embargo."
You won't get a single hit. I searched for "yanqui" (not there)
for "imperialismo" (only mentioned in a historical account about
the 1930s) and many other terms. Nowhere on their site was I able
to find the plain, simple statement that they are opposed to the
U.S. blockade against Cuba. On the contrary, in some extremely
convoluted sentences in the middle of their "Social Revolutionary
Economic Theses," they argue that, basically, your point of view
on the cold war, U.S. policy towards Cuba, etc., are irrelevant
to figuring out what the future of Cuban society should be!

That is I must say a classically petty-bourgeois position, being
"above" the actual existing class struggle that is going on
before your very eyes. In the case of Cuba, it is astonishing
that some group that claims to be "revolutionary" and heir to the
traditions of José Martí and the revolution of 1933 and 1959
could simply assert that, really, your stance towards what is
basically the annexation of Cuba (Helms-Burton, Cuban Democracy
Act, etc.) is not relevant.

The whole tenor of the group is captured by this appeal for
support:

"Do you think a greater effort must be made in order to spread
social revolutionary thought in Cuba?

"And should we offer solidarity to those, whether in the
government's field or in the non-governmental field who want a
whole renewal of the country's organization?

"Should unionists, peasants, artists and intellectuals who are
trying to change the course of the revolutionary process be
granted collaboration and solidarity in their efforts?

"Do you feel that solidarity among our people[s] must be
increased in order to create an international society based on
liberty, justice and peace, excluding the use of violence?

"If you believe in this, contact us, we need your political and
economical support."

These guys have the magic key to creating an international
society of "liberty, justice and peace" without violence ... and
such bothersome details as opposing the imperialist blockade
against their homeland.

That your cothinkers are attracted to such a group, and imagine
it is "way to the left" of the Cuban Communist Party should be, I
think, a clear warning to you and them that your formalistic
insistence on an abstract "right to organize" without asking
yourself, who you are organizing and for what purpose, will, in
the specific case of Cuba, lead you to wind up in bed with people
you wouldn't want to be with.

----------------------------------------
Appendix B -- Ben on the PSRDC
----------------------------------------

From: Ben Seattle  <left-transparency@xxxx>
Date: Tue Sep 5, 2000 10:55pm
Subject: (1 of 3) -- Proletarian democracy
              requires independent organizations
http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/37

--(excerpts below)--

In my last post I quoted from a correspondent who had engaged
in discussion with a supporter of a group of exile Cubans called
the "Cuban Revolutionary Social Democratic Party" (CRSDP).  I
posted the web site address but, since my Spanish is too poor,
asked if anyone could clue me in about them.  José checked out
their site. José learned that (1) The CRSDP does not oppose the
imperialist blockade against Cuba and considers the question
unimportant. (2) The CRSDP advocates that the Cuban economy
should be organized by the market.  And (3) the CRSDP leader gave
an interview in Miami claiming that Cuba was building biological
weapons.  The claim was so bizarre that the mainstream bourgeois
media would not touch it.  The first of these facts is the most
damning.  The CRSDP is not a revolutionary organization.  It is
not a workers' organization.  It is not "way to the left" of the
Cuban Communist Party.  The CRSDP appears to be the kind of
petty-bourgeois organization that typically ends up being used as
a pawn by US imperialism.  And such a fate is a reasonable guess
as to their likely future trajectory.  José is my opponent in
this discussion about proletarian democracy--but he is correct
about the CRSDP and deserves credit for exposing it.

My correspondent, incidently, checked out the site and confirmed
José's exposure--but noted that leftists exist on the periphery
of the CRSDP.  I replied that it is common that such
organizations encourage and maintain a left periphery.  The left
periphery provides camouflage for the organization--and the
leftists get the dubious benefit of maintaining the illusion that
the organization can be fundamentally changed.  It is a very
common arrangement in political ecosystems.  In fact I consider a
similar dynamic to exist in relation to the US Labor Party or the
Nader campaign.  Leftists are often attracted to such phenomena
because there is such a shortage of genuine alternatives.  But it
is nearly always better, in my view, for leftists to put their
energy into building organization that is genuinely independent
of bourgeois influence.  And if there are exile Cuban leftists in
the periphery of the CRSDP, then my view is that they should
break from the CRSDP and form their own organization.

--snip--

What no one disputes is that people with certain politics are
shut up decisively: to "meet at someone's house, to issue a
leaflet for distribution at the workshop would end you up in
jail".

What José and I agree on is as follows: (1) there is a cost to
this kind of suppression that weakens the political culture of
Cuba (ie: the press is not nearly as vigorous as one would hope,
etc), and (2) that this kind of suppression is justified if it is
actually necessary to defend the revolution.

In spite of this agreement, however, José and I have a number of
key differences.  For example I would like to better understand
the concrete conditions that make it necessary to suppress groups
like the CRSDP rather than, for example, simply expose them and
use them as an example to raise the political consciousness of
the population.  Why be worried about their leaflets?  José says
this is partly an issue of "culture" and political maturity under
seige conditions.  I do not disagree with this.  But why would
the Cuban people not have this level of culture and political
maturity after 40 years?  I think that this is a reasonable
question to ask.

Even a group that has a counter-revolutionary agenda may have
valid criticisms of the Cuban government and may attract
supporters who are drawn to the valid criticisms and fail to
understand the core agenda of the group (which is often hidden,
so to speak, in the fine print).  For example my correspondent
asked his contact (a Cuban exile that supports the CRSDP) whether

it would be possible to challenge the Cuban Communist Party's
"complete historical capitulation to the Mexican PRI in terms of
relating [to] the Mexican masses" and was told that he was a
"payaso" [clown].  What I would like to know from José is whether
such accusations are completely devoid of substance (ie: both the
attitude of the CCP to the PRI and the lack of possibilities of
effectly challenging it).

I have heard all kinds of vague generalities: these people are a
fifth column of imperialism, they tell lies, they oppose the
revolution, Cuba is under seige, conditions are very harsh and
sacrifice is required.  And all of these generalities may be
true.  But this still does not tell us concretely why the
leaflets of this counter-revolutionary group would be so
dangerous that they can't be dealt with by other means (ie:
workers reading a few of the leaflets, deciding that they are a
waste of valuable paper, and thereafter telling the distributors
to put their leaflets where the sun don't shine, etc).

I think the answer that José is hinting at is that the Cuban
revolution, in many ways, is still weak--that if
counter-revolutionary groups were allowed to spread
leaflets--that a section of the population would believe what was
in the leaflets--and that it would be difficult to counter their
counter-revolutionary propaganda with revolutionary propaganda.

This is what José has not said explicitly.  But it fits in with
the logic of his position.

<>