Louis's comments on a John Percy article and Solidarity

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis's comments on John's article provide, I think, a fair amount of
food for thought. And one of the things that strikes me is that the sort
of party-building approach that Louis outlines and contrasts to what
we've taken to calling "Zinovievism" are precisely the sorts of
considerations behind my decision to join Solidarity, which I believe
represents an attempt to move in that sort of direction.

Which is all the more reason why I've been surprised by Louis's comments
on the stance taken by some members of Solidarity and the stance taken
by Solidarity as a whole on the Cuba trials and petitions debate.

A few Solidarity members signed one of the petitions, Soli as a group,
by unanimous vote of its PC including at least a couple of the people
who signed the petition criticizing Cuba, endorsed the "Appeal to the
Conscience of the World" initiated by Mexican intellectuals to counter
the lynch-mob kind of atmosphere the imperialists were trying to create
against Cuba.

Louis seems to have had a very hard time understanding this distinction
at least initially. Why, I am not sure, as he is certainly aware there
is at least a small wing of Soli that quite brazenly proclaims itself
"Fidelista" as well as a significantly broader current that is generally
positive and appreciative of the Cuban leadership, but don't, I don't
believe, identify with it to the extent that they would go around
calling themselves "Fidelistas" as I do (and did well before joining
Solidarity -- for the reasons why see my post on "Why I am not a
Trotksyist":
http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg12964.html).

Be that as it may, I wanted to share with comrades here what I think
should be the approach of revolutionary organizations in the U.S. (and
not just) towards Cuba. This is from a post to a mostly Solidarity
members list. As you will read I believe that groups should restrict
themselves to a purely *political* position, rather than expansively
adopting a whole theory, historical analysis and so on. 

The first part of that post dealt with, essentially, the class character
of the Cuban State, concluding that clearly, there had been a socialist
revolution. The second part of the post, which I had preannounced in an
intro to the article as a whole, is below. (In reading it, keep in mind
this is addressed to Soli members, a significant wing of which come from
the Draper/IS tradition).

*  *  * 

Oh, oh, I said that dirty phrase "socialist revolution." Comrades
object? I
retract it. Take "socialist" out!

I could care less about the labels, they're only useful insofar as they
help
to understand reality. And in this specific case, because of the
specific
background/history of the people who have come together in Solidarity,
even
such a cherished and important label as "socialist" may well be more of
a
hindrance than a help.

Now, if comrades want to have a big debate about what "is" and "is not"
socialism, go ahead. I'll even kibitz from time to time.

But for my part, it isn't really what I want to talk about. It will not
solve the political problems Solidarity faces in trying to build a
revolutionary organization in the United States, and trying to promote a
broad regroupment of all revolutionary socialists --or as many as can be
united-- into a single movement.

No matter what label or analysis comrades prefer, in relation to Cuba,
these
political problems include, as I see them:

In the conflict between U.S. imperialism and Cuba, which side are we on?
This is the main one, the overriding one, the most important one, but
not, I
believe, the only one in an immediate, practical, political way.

In the face of the major socio-economic advances registered by the Cuban
people thanks to the revolution, what is our stance? Call it state
capitalism, call it bureaucratic collectivism, call it Stalinism, call
it
grumph. Revolutionary fighters throughout the Americas look to Cuba as
an
example and an inspiration of what can be achieved by getting rid of the
bosses. Even if many of us think they could have and should have gone
much,
much further, achieved a lot more, what is our attitude towards the
ground
conquered, and defending it?

In the face of Cuba's participation in the world-wide revolutionary
movement
and international politics more generally, how do we relate to it?

It is my contention that a merely negative policy, of opposition to
imperialist attack, while undoubtedly the most important point, and one
in
which I haven't the slightest doubt we are completely unanimous, along
with
every single revolutionary and socialist worthy of those names in the
United
States, need not and ought not be the sole common political position of
Solidarity *as an organization.*

In addition to our common rock-hard anti-imperialist position, I would
argue
that after a calm, open, *political* discussion most comrades would
agree
that Solidarity should have a generally positive, supportive stance
towards
the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle and achievements of
Cuba's
working people.

I think when comrades think it through *politically* it will make sense.
Forget for a moment about 1959, Che, revolution, socialism and all the
rest
of it, come to it fresh, like you would approach the Zapatistas, or the
Bolivian cocaleros, or some prolongued ghetto struggle or rebellion, or
like
Native American militants occupying Wounded Knee. Or a big, drawn-out,
hard-fought strike.

What do I mean by a generally positive, supportive stance? Essentially,
a
recognition of the powerful anti-imperialist, anticapitalist struggle
waged
by Cuba's working people over the past half century, of their
resistance, of
the conquests they achieved and still retain, and of the contributions
they
have made to the world-wide struggle. Whether this be because of their
leaders, despite their leaders, both, or whatever exact mixture of
because/despite of comrades may prefer, I think a calm examination of
the
*facts* will drive us towards this conclusion: we should identify with
this
struggle, we should defend the conquests (or concessions extracted, if
you
prefer).

Just as a calm examination of the facts about having a union leads us to
unhesitatingly support unions in general, *independently* of their
current leaderships.

And I say this despite our varied individual characterizations and
theoretical analysis of Cuba as a socio-economic formation, i.e., I
believe
as an organization we can and should come to agreement on this even
while
maintaining our different analysis, characterizations and
appreciations/critiques of the "Fidelistas" as a political current and
of
the policies and actions of the Cuban leadership or Cuban authorities.

Recognizing the struggle of the Cuban people doesn't mean we don't also
recognize and respect the right of comrades to express these specific
viewpoints about Cuba, the Cuban leadership and other similar
considerations.

I believe such a principled agreement is possible, to a substantial
degree,
because Cuba is a semicolonial country, and we all take a Leninist
position
on the struggle against imperialism. I recognize and readily agree that
*if*
we were ONLY facing the question of what traditional Trotskyist
terminology
calls degenerated/deformed workers states as an immediate "live"
political
issue, this *degree* of unity may not be possible, but that isn't the
case
*today.*

For better or for worse --and I believe this is mostly for the worse--
we
don't have the Soviet Union to kick around anymore. So we don't need to
agree whether we defend Cuba against imperialism *because* it is a
workers
state or "only" because it is a third world  country. We just need to
agree
to defend Cuba, which we do.

But not just that. Perhaps in part because we are dealing with an
anti-imperialist struggle, I think if we get behind and beyond the
labels
and analysis and theories, and relate to it politically, i.e., relate to
*social forces in motion*, we will be surprised by the degree of
agreement
we can IN FACT have.

When I say generally supportive and positive stance towards the struggle
of
the Cuban people, I mean no more than what we already do politically
when we
relate to, for example, any number of historical figures. When we talk
about
the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the role he played in his time and
the
role his legacy plays today, or when we talk about César Chávez, do we
find
it absolutely compelling politically to place the central emphasis on
differentiating ourselves from a strategic approach of turning the other
cheek?

Do we jump to make it clear that, while non-violence *may* be a useful
tactic under *some* circumstances, we *denounce* those who would
advocate
that working people deny themselves the right to respond in self-defense
to
the murderous violence of the ruling class?

Do we insist on explaining the *central* importance of working class
political independence, placing above everything else the idea that
electoral support to the two-party system is a dead end?

Do we constantly harp on, for example, how those sorts of factors kept
Dr.
King from fighting the imperialist aggression in Vietnam from the
git-go, so
that he only went public with it in mid-1967, almost *three years* after
the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Not to mention that neither César Chávez or the Rev. Dr. King said word
one
about socialism -- at least not publicly.

I believe that is not the approach comrades take, we view Dr. King or
César
Chávez not primarily from the angle of evaluating finished, compete,
coherent ideological currents, but rather what they represented then,
and
still do today, as symbols and expressions and leaders of popular
struggles,
of *social forces in motion,* which we as Marxists understand as
expressions
of an underlying class struggle.

Moreover, insofar as we relate to these figures as proponents of
specific
ideological positions, we stress what we believe were the *positive*
contributions they brought to the struggle, not their one-sided aspects,
or
the way they turned useful tactics into eternal verities. We don't
underline
the things that (from our point of view) they only came to understand
belatedly, or never did understand. We view them as representing an
important stage or moment in the development of the struggle of working
people, as a link in the chain, not as the be all and end all of the
class
struggle, for we understand that the revolutionary struggle of working
people against capitalism is --as they say in Cuba-- a *process.*

Whatever comrades think of as Cuba's *limitations*, I think it is a
useful
thought experiment to imagine that we are now living towards the end of
the
21st century, imperialism and capitalism were ended decades ago, and you
are
one of the aging survivors of those titanic struggles. And a bunch of
young
comrades from a high school come to interview you, as part of an oral
history project, and they ask, well what about Cuba, and the role it
played
in the second half of the 20th century and beginnings of this one, what
can
you tell us about that?

Would you talk about the limitations, or about the example it set in
resisting imperialism. Would you mostly stress Fidel's speech in 1968
about
Czechoslovakia, or the 300,000 Cuban soldiers who fought in southern
Africa
for a decade and a half, and succeeded, together with the people of
Angola,
Namibia, and South Africa, in kicking Apartheid's ass all the way into
the
dustbin of history?

Would you emphasize the narrow, mistaken character of Che's guerrillaist
approach to the revolutionary struggle in Latin America or his strategic
concept of creating "two, three ... many Vietnams"? Especially when
counterposed to the Moscow/Peking cat fight behind which were parallel
lines
of doling out aid to Vietnam with an eye dropper in order to not
"provoke"
imperialism?

Would you highlight the multiple attempts and --yes-- frustrations in
Cuba's
efforts to create organs of People's Power that cleanly and
transparently
transform the masses of working people into masters of Cuban society or
the realization that building socialism is something that working people
*must* take on freely and consciously at every level, and trying to
design
mechanisms to make it so?

Now, of course, today Cuba is more complicated. Unlike César Chávez or
Dr.
King, "Cuba" isn't *just* a historical reference (although it is ALSO
that,
and we MUST bear that in mind).

In addition, "Cuba" isn't just the struggle of the masses, for some it
is
also a line, a political approach, what perhaps in this context I should
call "Fidelismo."

It is easy enough to separate out "Cuba's struggle" --the mass
struggle--
from the line of the Cuban leadership, at least conceptually. It is
harder,
we should all recognize it, in practice. But it is the sort of thing we
do
every day in unions, antiwar mobilizations, antiracist protests and many
other arenas.

"Fidelismo" is a specific current in the world working class movement. A
current with which the majority, I daresay the *overwhelming* majority
of
comrades in Solidarity don't see eye to eye. And that current lives and
acts and intervenes politically in world affairs and we have to respond,
both as an organization and as individuals.

And here we have to think about, I believe, not so much Cuba, or
"Fidelismo," as about Solidarity, and about what I believe Solidarity
should be trying to bring about, which is a broad
regroupment/refoundation/reconfiguration of revolutionary socialism in
the United States, basically, as a sort of popular first approximation,
a "second edition" of what Debs and his comrades achieved almost 100
years ago.

Should Solidarity view the "Fidelista" current in the United States,
whether
an organized group or dispersed individuals, as a rival current or as
part
of the broad revolutionary socialist movement whose unity we are trying
to
bring about?

If we were to achieve a regroupment of a big section of all
revolutionary socialists in the United Sates, would such a group of many
thousands of comrades from different backgrounds and traditions find it
*necessary* to go through a grinding debate on the correct revolutionary
program *for Cuba* (or, for that matter, for China, or Vietnam) in order
to, say, launch the biggest socialist campaign *ever* for President of
the United States around, say, a Peter Camejo-Angela Davis ticket?

And if we deeply believe, to the very marrow of our bones, that the
Cuban
people need to cast off this leadership, break through its limitations,
don't we as Marxists, as materialists, and most of all as
revolutionaries in
the United States, also see that by far and overwhelmingly, the
*biggest*
contribution we can make to THAT is precisely to mount the biggest
possible
struggle against U.S. imperialism on its home turf?

And if we support not just the struggle and gains of the Cuban people,
but
the revolutionary leadership around Fidel, isn't the greatest
contribution
we can make to our Revolution and our Cuban Communist Party precisely to
mount the biggest possible struggle against U.S. imperialism on its home
turf?

And isn't the task exactly the same? Isn't that --and not what we think
should be done in some other country-- what should drive our political
alignments?

I believe the only road to mounting that sort of challenge to
imperialism is
to unite all who can be united around the immediate, practical,
political
tasks *in the United States* and in the struggle against "our own"
ruling
class. This would be true even if we lived in Switzerland, but I submit
it
applies with a vengeance in our case. We have the *extreme* privilege of
waging our battle in the very belly of the beast.

And I'll tell the comrades in and around Solidarity who look to the
Cuban
leadership as an inspiration and an example, this approach, of uniting
with
the "anti-Fidelistas" around building a united revolutionary movement in
the
United States, is the *real* "Fidelista" approach. NOT having huge
ideological debates around scientific characterizations or theoretical
frameworks for the movement to adopt. Important as those things are to
discuss, to analyze and think through,

History will judge us by our achievements in forging the broadest
possible
unity around concrete political positions and struggle here and now,
where
we are. And --frankly-- I don't think it will give a damn about out
analysis
of Cuba, except to the extent that analysis affected how we approached
that
central task.

*  *  *

Thus far my post to the Solidarity list around Cuba. 

That is, in essence, the position that I would advocate any
revolutionary organization in the United States have, one of opposition
to the U.S. war against Cuba and of having a generally supportive,
positive stance towards the Cuban Revolution as a whole, in view of the
conquests of the Cuban people and their contribution to the world
struggle. The fact that Solidarity has a layer of comrades who come from
the state capitalist or bureaucratic collectivist position is not the
reason for my urging adopting this position; although it will influence,
I suspect, the formulations used in the second point, which in the case
of a group with the traditions Soli comes from I'd agree to formulate in
terms of a supportive stance towards "the anti-imperialist struggle of
the Cuban people" or similar.

I don't agree that revolutionary organizations in the United States
should be about formulating the correct program for Cuba or Argentina or
South Africa or Ireland or Great Britain. Obviously revolutionaries here
will be interested in, discuss and have their own opinions about various
strategic and programmatic questions as they manifest themselves in
other countries. But as a general rule, these are things I don't think
U.S. groups should be taking a position on. The problems of the
revolution in the United States are the proper area of competence of
American groups.

José