Cuban Posadists

[gat100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I?d like to add a few thoughts on the subject of the Cuban
Posadists and then, particularly in the light of José Perez?s
objections to what he sees as ill-researched, misleading or
inaccurate reporting in the bourgeois, pose a direct question to
him.
So, it is, of course, very easy to ridicule the Posadists for some
of J. Posadas? musings. (By the way, it?s not ?Juan?, or as others
would have it, ?Julian?.) Indeed, at some point or other most
other Trotskyist groups have picked up on the interplanetary
dimension he gave to his imminent capitalist collapse and
socialist revolution perspective, precisely to dismiss the
Posadists as the Looney Tune extremists of Trotskyism.
However, it should be remembered that this group basically
amounted to the Latin American section of the International
Secretariat and did not set up their own Posadist Fourth
International tendency until around 1962. What?s more, from
reading the press of their Cuban party, there was not too much
between their views on the Revolution and that of the
International Secretariat/SWP(US) axis which began to take
shape after the SWP(US) flipped their position on the nature of
the Cuban Revolution in early to mid-1960.
Anyway, without going any further on this point, I want to ask
José something about the suppression of the Posadist group in
Cuba. The official Cuban communists in the PSP took regular
pot shots at attacking the Cuban Posadists through 1960-61.
However, the attacks really only gained momentum after the
PSP had consolidated its influence within the institutions of the
Revolutionary Government in 1961. From thereon in, the Cuban
group suffered slander, the closure of its press, imprisonment,
etc. at regular intervals right the way through until the early
1970s. The point I hope that José can answer refers to the first
semi-co-ordinated attack on the Posadists - namely, the seizure
of issue number ten of the POR(T)?s newspaper Voz
Proletaria. In the recent edition of Revolutionary History
dedicated to the history of the Trotskyist movement in Cuba
(perhaps the biggest outside the USSR for a short while in the
1930s) I describe in some detail the ins and outs of the seizure in
late May 1961 of the newspaper as well as the printing plates of
an edition of Trotsky?s book, Permanent Revolution. At the
time, the SWP(US), which until that point had been on quite
friendly terms with the Cuban group, suddenly washed their
hands of them and fell silent. Only Guevara tried to address the
Posadists? protests when in response to direct questioning from
foreign journalists and academics he came up with the excuse
that the Trotskyists did not have permission to use paper and
that they hindered the development of the Revolution. He also
went so far as to suggest that the proximity of the POR(T)?s
Guantánamo branch to the U.S. Naval Base might not be a
casual coincidence and that they had effectively acted as
provocateurs by agitating for the Cuban people to march on the
U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo. Out of all these reasons (and
others stated at later trials of the Cuban Trotskyists which
merely resembled the accusations at the Moscow Show Trials) it
is this last one about attempting to incite an attack on the
Guantánamo Naval Base which seems to have stuck over time,
being repeated by both Cuban Stalinists and people outside
Cuba who would no doubt claim political roots elsewhere.
While Ocean Press and the like feel able to state boldly that the
Cuban Trotskyists agitated for an attack and/or march on the
Naval Base to reclaim it for Cuba, José Perez some years ago
did actually cite some references in support.
In his article in Intercontinental Press, 11 May 1981, pp497-
504, which is ironically entitled ?How Sectarians Misrepresented
Trotskyism in Cuba?, José cites a whole host of articles on
which he ?rests his case? in a discussion with Adolfo Gilly over
this issue of whether the Cuban Posadists advocated that Cuba
militarily take over the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo.
Seemingly the most damning of the articles which José cites is an
article from the first edition of the POR(T)?s newspaper Voz
Proletaria. José states that ?Voz Proletaria, from its first issue
in April 1960, waged a campaign to demand of the Cuban
government that it expel the U.S. navy from the base at
Guantánamo.? Really, if this is his central source, instead of
resting his case he should have really withdrawn it. Having
trawled the archives (including the SWP(US)?s, Hoover, and
those in Cuba) for leaflets and newspapers of the POR(T),
finding perhaps 30 something of the 42 editions of Voz
Proletaria, how José draws this conclusion is nothing other than
misrepresenting Trotskyism in Cuba. The principal article in
question is the ?El Conflicto de la Base Naval de Guantánamo?,
Voz Proletaria (Havana), April 1960, pp4-5, which discusses
the conflict between the U.S. authorities and Cuban workers at
the Base. This comprehensive article, though stating that
?together, the workers of the Naval Base, the people of
Guantánamo and Caímanera and the Cuban masses must
prepare the struggle for the definitive expulsion of imperialism?
(my translation) was far from a provocative incitement to storm
the Naval Base. Instead it was one single sentence in a much
wider article which emphasised the defence of the trade union
organisations inside the Base. The main point which the POR(T)
was making in that article was that the workers of Guantánamo
should not accept the dismissal of a single worker or trade union
activist. The anti-trade union campaign, they justifiably claimed,
was part of the U.S. authorities? attempt to demoralise the work-
force and permit the growth of a pro-Batista trade union beach-
head in the region. In also noting that the workers themselves
had formed a guard to protect the base from U.S.-sponsored
acts of auto-sabotage, the isolated phrase calling for the
expulsion of imperialism from the Base can largely be seen, as
Adolfo Gilly described in his piece earlier in the same edition of
Intercontinental Press, as a propaganda slogan similar to that
of calling for the expulsion of imperialism from the Panama
Canal. Also, while José thoroughly misrepresented the case by
stating that a campaign was ?waged? from the pages of Voz
Proletaria (implying that the above translated excerpt was not a
single phrase taken in isolation by him), as Gilly more accurately
noted, the absence of any other articles in Voz Proletaria about
the Naval Base underlines the fact that even this call for the
expulsion of imperialism was hardly central to the POR(T)?s
programme. In fact, in all the papers I read I simply did not
come across one other reference to inciting the expulsion of the
U.S. Navy from Guantánamo. So, José, what was your game?
Did you simply feel that imperialism was too strong, the
Revolution too weak, and therefore the suppression of socialist
dissent was justified?
With respect to other points on the Posadists which have come
up over the past few weeks, the Cuban group never did publish
any of the extra-planetary stuff, though they were pretty heavy
on calling for the USSR to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike
around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, again,
while I in no way want to defend the political line of the POR(T),
before jumping to ridicule, it should be remembered the context
in which this occurred. On the one hand, there was the USSR?s
reassessment of its nuclear strategy in the late 1950s which
formally accepted the idea of the non-survivability of a nuclear
war and peaceful coexistence. This in part led to the Sino-Soviet
split of the time and, later, a definite tension in the Cuban
leadership. I?m not the only one you would argue that Guevara
definitely became sympathetic to the Chinese on that one, and
Guevara himself, after all, was pretty hot on using the nuclear
missiles if Cuba came under a conventional invasion from the
United States. And this readiness to use the missiles if pushed,
also reflected the general heightened mood in Cuba at the time.
Anyway, I wouldn?t want to defend the POR(T)?s call for a
nuclear first strike, but since when have the Posadists had a
monopoly on extreme catastrophe theories which appear all so
ridiculous when viewed with hindsight.
Also, I can?t remember if it came up in the recent discussion, but
of course the Posadists are also remembered and ridiculed for
accusing the Cuban Revolutionary Leadership of imprisoning
Guevara after his disappearance in early 1965 until shortly after
his death in 1967. Again, of course, this seems ridiculous now,
but to see how the Posadists came up with this one, its useful to
look at the context. Guevara had been the one who in 1965 had
secured the release from prison of the POR(T) leadership in
Havana. A week later he disappeared from public view. And
despite all their crazy ideas, they were very aware that there was
a fierce ideological battle in progress inside the Revolutionary
Leadership, and that Guevara was isolated supporting positions
that had lost and which were closer to the Chinese than the
Russians. Raúl Castro, for one, was apparently calling Guevara
a Maoist in late 1964 and early 1965. However, with Guevara?s
death, the pro-Castro followers have been too intent on brushing
over these political splits, but they were profound and again the
Posadists went off with their explanation. Interestingly or
ironically, when I asked the old Posadists about his in 1997,
they answered that Guevara had in some way been served a
death sentence by being left in Bolivia. Maybe there is something
in that. But that?s another can of worms which was opened by
the recent series of biographies on Che.
Richard Fidler?s contribution to the list-discussion was also
interesting, and it was good to find out who ?Molina? was. I
knew Gilly used the ?H. Lucero? pseudonym, but didn?t know
who Molina was. Anyway, Richard might also be interested in
reading a document which was re-published in the Cuba edition
of Revolutionary. It was penned by what appears to be a North
American on his/her return from a visit to Cuba in March 1963.
The document basically sets out in accurate terms the position of
the Cuban Trotskyists. A very fair recount of their positions.
And, of course, no mention whatsoever of a military takeover of
the Guantánamo Base. I couldn?t determine the identity of the
author before Revolutionary History went to press, but maybe it
was Richard Fidler. If he hasn?t seen the article, but would like a
copy to check, then please get in touch.
Finally, then, I repeat that I do not want to defend the politics of
the POR(T), but as honest people committed to the cause of
socialism and who spent umpteen years in prison up to the late
1970s for their beliefs, they really do not deserve non-Cuban
radicals echoing the official Cuban line that they were
provocateurs inciting a march/attack on the U.S. Naval Base
and therefore merited suppression. This is especially scandalous
from people such as José who have viewed the Cuban
POR(T)?s press and who have the right to print something other
than the official Cuban line. For me, the accusation really
emanates from the usual Moscow Trial slander which amongst
other things called the Trotskyists provocateurs and agents of
imperialism. All this stuff about the Naval Base has largely been
retro-fitted to justify in part a step in smothering any non-single
ORI party voice in Cuba.
Finally, a note on the Cuban exile group, the PSRDC. From
reading some of their literature it strikes me that it might also be
worth looking at them as having roots in the syndicalist and non-
Mujalista Autentico trade union tradition of the late-1930s
through to the 1950s. Certainly some of their founders were
leading movers in that particular anti-official communist and
vaguely anti-imperialist movement. But pro-restoration of
capitalism they certainly are. That is, I think they favour a step
back in order to rebuild a strong trade union movement that can
then move towards building a democratic socialist future.