Re: Taaffe on Cuba

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxx>]

Jose,
 I think your reply on the issue of "democracy" is an interesting slight of
hand. You attack...ok..polemicize against Andy's use of the term democracy
but fail to really define it yourself...and within the parameters and
specification you give it: workers democracy. You have done this
consistently, I've noticed, since Cuba has popped up now and again here.

You start a priori, obviously, that one should basically abide by what's
going on in Cuba because "they made the revolution" and have defended,
*seemingly* consistently every criticism ever made on this list by anyone
differing with the course of the Cuban revolution or the underlying
institutions of the revolution.

Andy's comments, while sloppy in the formulation of "democracy" do strike a
nerve with anyone who believes that within the legality of the
revolution...meaning those that defend the gains of the revolution, should
have a right organize outside the legal parameters of the Cuban Communist
Party or it's mass organizations. This might mean issuing a leaflet to call
a meeting to discuss problems of the economy, the problems of the CTC, or
whatever. It could mean members of the CCP itself, who, for what ever
conceivable reason, actually *disagree* with Fidel and the rest of the CCP
on a policy, getting together to CHALLENGE the line of the CCP on whatever
it is they disagree with.

I stated the above paragraph in this way because you know EXACTLY what Andy
means when he raises this. I don't believe for a minute that when Andy talks
about "Freedom of the Press", he means a Havana edition of the Miami Herald.
He means the right of workers to ask for space on Gramna's OWN presses...the
only ones in Cuba, I suspect, to issue tracts, statements, etc...that is the
right organize *outside* of what is currently the monopoly of the CCP but
within what I call "socialist legality"...on the side of class.

But what does THAT mean??? you may ask...who should determine this? I
wouldn't ask it at all...it's not for *anyone* TOO determine...it's for the
class to determine by them deciding on the value of the quality of the
dissent in question. In this regard, despite the radical face of Cuba's
revolution, the CCP remains "*stalinist*" with a small 's', since it is
institutionalized as the only legal workers party in Cuba in a way that
shares many of the same features as the Chinese or Russian Communist Party's
do/did. And Cuba's revolution suffers from similar, albeit different,
problems because of it.

My discussions with CCP members have been similar to my discussions with
uncritical defenders of the Soviet Communist Party. Remarkable in their
similarity, albeit the Cubans have a better view themselves of problems, it
seemed at the time, of the Polish and Russian party's, the groups in
question when I discussed with them. The other important difference, and not
to be pushed under the rug, is that it's actually possible to have a full
fledged discussion with Cuban CCP members...in my two opportunities with
Soviet and other Eastern European CP members, this was like talking with
members of the cast of *1984*.

So you know....the questions regarding issues that could be discussed in ANY
forum of the CCP were the following:

Please note they dealt with international questions, not domestic Cuban
ones:

1. The failure of the CCP to break politically from the PRI in Mexico and
their overall relationship to the Mexican people. (the first time I asked
this question, the PRI was still in power, and Castro was visiting Mexico at
the time I was in Cuba).

2. The failure of the CCP to address the issue of an international communist
movement in general, and specifically the building of a communist party in
the US.

In both instances, and these were mid-level CPers, one active in the CTC,
the other with several members of the Young Communists, the answer I
received was that these issues would not and could not be discussed except
at  the highest levels of the Party, that *they* would report to the
membership and that would be that.

Differences with Stalinists from Russia and Eastern Europe? Well, yes
actually. The similarity is that the comrades formal answer was a
description of a top down, hierarchical and quite Stalinist organiztion. The
differences were that they, unlike the Warsaw Pact Stalinists, these CCPers
were at least willing to express their differences with their own
leaderships on these questions and offer me their own opinions [They hadn't
a clue about the US, never thought of it in fact until I raised it,
mentioning the CPUSA but openly admitting it was only one of several groups
and that maybe Jesse Jackson offered something, on Mexico this was quite
troubling for them as we discussed the Cuban rather interesting relationship
with the Mexican Gov't and PRI, the best discussion I had in Cuba].

David Walters