Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: [Marxism] Armando Hart "Joseph Stalin" (January 2005)

Can you send me the Spanish original?

P.


At 07:08 p.m. 10/03/2005, you wrote:
(Earlier this year Armando Hart, one of the historic
leaders of the Cuban Revolution, wrote this assessment
of the place of Joseph Stalin in the history of the
revolutionary movement.

Two particularly interesting points Armando Hart made:

---------------------------------------------------------
"Stalin did not reach these objectives regarding socialism.
Nor could he encourage the socialist revolution in Europe
and the world, nor was he able to consolidate it in the
USSR. Capitalism returned to Russia seven decades after the
October Revolution under new and radically different
conditions and this backward move is marked, among other
factors, by the serious errors of Stalin who lacked height
and the necessary historical vision.

"We can reach the conclusion that the time of Stalin is
definitely concluded and that the perspectives of a
new era are in view. If Stalin belongs to the category of
revolutionary despots, the lessons learned reveal that it
is not possible to open an everlasting way towards a
socialist society without love and culture to build itself."
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Celia Hart Santamaria, Armando Hart's daughter, for
sharing this manuscript. The Spanish original follows the
English translation

(A CubaNews translation by Ana Portela, revised and edited
by Walter Lippmann.)
=======================================================

Josef Stalin
By Armando Hart

January 4, 2005

These thoughts are an homage to all revolutionaries, with
no exception, who suffered the great historical drama of
seeing their socialist ideas of October 1917, frustrated.

We do so in admiration and respect for the Russian people
who were the protagonists of the first socialist revolution
in history and for destroying fascism decades later under
Stalin. This same Russian people that, 130 years before,
also destroyed the aggression of Napoleon Bonaparte.

I have, as foundation, 50 years experience working for
socialist ideas in the beautiful trenches of the Cuban
Revolution, of Fidel and Marti; the first revolution of
Marxist tendencies that has succeeded in what we know as
the West.

It is precisely in the first criticism of Feuerbach that
Marx and Engels reproach him for not taking into
consideration the subjective factor. They explain:

"The main defect of all previous materialism - including
that of Feuerbach - is that they only perceive things,
reality, of the senses, under the form of object or
observation but not as a human sensorial activity, not as
practice, not as subjective."

Since the early years of the Revolution, Fidel and Che
spoke to us of the importance of the subjective factor.
Life had proven its value in the cause of human progress;
it has also shown that it has an influence in the
historical stagnation and retrogression. A long list can be
made to demonstrate it in practice and as positive or
negative. Stalin is one of the great examples of the
latter, perhaps the most important one in the 20th century
demonstrating how subjectivity can have a negative
influence in history. Think here what I consider, that
subjectivity is revealed in culture.

The main lesson learned that can be garnered in this
history is in the human insertion; that is to say, the
subjective factor had a decisive influence on the tragic
outcome of what was known as the "real socialism" that,
for its simplistic manner, lost all reality.

A key factor that reveals the experience of the 20th
century is that the teachings of Marx and Engels wasn't
learned; who with such a great talent and modesty
critically expressed that emphasizing the economic content
as determinant, had consequently forgotten the form, in the
process of generating ideas. Engels expressed that:

There is, also, one point which, in general, neither Marx
nor I have stressed enough in our writing, for which we are
all guilty. In what we are most insistent - and cannot be
less - was to derive from the basic economic events
political, legal, ideas, etc., and the actions that are
conditioned by them. To move in this fashion, the content
makes us forget the form; that is to say, the process of
generating these ideas, etc. With this we give our
adversaries a good pretext for their errors and distortions
[1].

In the political practice of Stalin, he ignored important
formal forms of ethical, legal and political character that
were particularly serious because they were manifest in the
millions and millions of people who affect, of course, the
course of history. Underestimating them he did not give
them the proper attention or to the two main categories
that were relegated, in the very heart of culture and
revolutionary struggles: ethics and legality.

In 1917 it was Petrograd and, in general, in Russia, the
most advanced social and political thought of European
intellectuality were combined, and the conditions of
exploitation and destitution of the country folk and
Russian workers were at the fore, with the need to fight
against foreign domination, that is to say, imperialism
and, at the same time, against what represented feudalism
and czarism. In the Old Russia a triumphant bourgeois
revolution had not occurred until February 1917.
Imperialist domination and the monarchic regimes of the
czars was the scenario that nourished the political
formation of Stalin, of course, also influenced by
Leninism, which he incorporated with the cultural
limitations mentioned above.

Stalin was a revolutionary but he was unable to reach the
dimension of a true socialist leader.

Unlike Lenin and other Bolsheviks, Stalin never lived or
traveled to other countries of the old continent nor did he
assume the revolutionary wisdom of other regions of the
world. Of course, he was influenced by Lenin: this should
not be denied because it is a component of the drama; but
he did so on the basis of the old Russian culture which,
although opposing it, he was unable to extract valid
socialist consequences for the world of his time.

Objectively, Europe was not in condition to have a
socialist revolution and the reasons would require an
analysis that goes beyond the scope of this paper. But to
understand the culture of Marx and Engels in its depth,
above all to apply it creatively we would have to assume
the intellectual tradition of the old continent because the
founders of socialism were its most consequent exponents in
the 19th century.

They were the real successors of the revolutionary ideas of
the previous centuries expressed in the Enlightenment and
Encyclopedic philosophies. From this cultural aspect,
Stalin did not extract the right consequences and he
limited his universal reach.

In a TV appearance during the visit to Cuba of Pope John
Paul II, in January of 1998, Fidel Castro referring to the
errors of the policy applied during Stalin's time said:

"As a Pole, the Pope lived through the crossing of Soviet
troops and the creation of a socialist State, under the
principles of Marxism-Leninism, applied dogmatically
without considering the actual conditions of that country
and without the political and extraordinary dialectics of
Lenin. Lenin was able to achieve the peace of
Brest-Litovsk, capable of an N.E.P. and capable of crossing
a country at war with Russia in a sealed train that were
examples of intelligence, courage and true political genius
who never stopped being a Marxist. [2]"

Lenin developed in the revolutionary actions of the Europe
of his time and by studying the life of the founder of the
Soviet state enriched his knowledge with a great culture
and an active participation in the different scenarios of
European countries, among them those that were the
foundations of the philosophy of Marx and Engels.

Another paradigmatic example was Ho Chi Minh. This noted
Vietnamese founded the French Communist Party, lived and
worked in the United States and traveled to many parts of
the world. From his homeland he received the influence of
the French culture that had gone to set up colonialism in
his country and was able to take it up as an Asian, Third
World and universal status.

The Leninist concepts of the Russian revolution set down
the thesis that that country was the weakest link of the
European imperialist chain. It was thought, at the time,
that the process begun in October of 1917 in Petrograd
would be the spark of a revolutionary outbreak in Western
Europe, beginning with Germany. This did not occur and
[thus was promoted the idea of building socialism in a single
country. On the other hand, Russia as an Euro-Asian nation
formed part of that enormous Asian world. This idea could
have fostered for a time after the October revolution; but
no one could admit that it was the correct revolutionary
strategy for a whole century.

The genius of Lenin to take up those subjects was
extraordinary. But, in these texts, Stalin did not
understand the conclusions on the possibilities and need
to link the interests of socialism with the situation
generated, at the time, in the Asian nations and, in
general, what we have later called the Third World.

Let us see the descriptions Lenin made of Stalin and we
will understand that he was a true prophet. In 1922 he
said:

"I think that the main problems to the stability, from this
point of view, are C.C. members such as Stalin and Trotsky.
The relationship between them, I believe, entail to a good
degree, part of the danger of this split that can be
avoided and could serve, in my opinion, to broadening the
C.C. to 50 or 100 members.

When Comrade Stalin became Secretary General, he
concentrated an immense power in his hands and I am not
sure that he used it with sufficient prudence. On the other
hand, Comrade Trotsky, as demonstrated by his battle
against the C.C. rising from the problem of the
Peoples Commissariat of Means of Communication
did not shine only for his great capacity.

Personally, perhaps he is the most capable man in the C.C.
but too self-sufficient and to much drawn to purely
administrative factors of the issues.

These two qualities of the two outstanding heads of the
C.C. at the time could lead unwittingly to a split and if
our Party does not take measures to prevent it, the split
can occur unexpectedly. [3]

The policy followed by Stalin during the II World War and
his pact with Hitler is one of the darkest processes of his
long career. Nazism was rejected by the peoples and
particularly by the progressive and socialist forces
placing the latter in a very difficult position, even in
Germany.

Fidel pointed out in the above mentioned TV appearance that
? talking with the Soviet visitor, he asked him three
questions: Why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, that occurred
in 1939 and I was 13 years old (?) Why had they invaded
Poland to win a few kilometers of land? Land that was later
lost disastrously in a matter of days (?) Why the war with
Finland?, the third question I asked (?) Well this was very
costly to the international Communist movement, to the
communists around the world, so disciplined and so faithful
to the Soviet Union and the Communist International that
when told:

"This has to be done" and that was it. Then all the
communist parties in the world explaining and justifying
the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were isolated from the masses.
[4]

In addition, history later revealed that there were
intelligence reports in the country that Hitler was
preparing an offensive against the Soviet Union. However,
it should be acknowledged that after the Nazi aggression,
Stalin successfully directed the counter-offensive. The
Soviet people fought bravely, the Red Army reached Berlin
with an incredible effort and with the loss of millions of
lives. The war ended with victory over fascism but, at the
same time, agreements were signed in Yalta and Potsdam and
conditions were created for the division of the world into
two great spheres of influence.

This was not positive for socialism.

In the following years when the cold war broke out, neither
Stalin nor his successors could understand the forms and
possibilities that they would have achieved with an
alliance with societies of the Third World and socialism
because, for this, a universal concept of cultural bases
was needed and they lacked.

In 1959 the Cuban revolution triumphed founded on a
national historic tradition and with a Latin American,
Caribbean and universal projection. The third world theses
of Fidel and Che meant that, from that point on, they would
work towards changing the bipolar world from a socialist
standpoint.

This assault of the heavens represented, for true
revolutionaries of the 20th century, definitely overcoming
the bipolarity established from left wing positions and not
from right wing, as occurred later during the 1980s.
A study of some of the most important events of the 1960s
demonstrates with what independence of their political
leanings, the need to overcome a bipolar world is
characterized.

Let's review some of them: the triumph of the Cuban
Revolution in 1959; the October Crisis in 1962; the tragic
split of the international communist movement that led to
the break between China and the USSR; the rise and
development of the liberation war of Vietnam; the war of
liberation of Angola; the fall of the colonial system in
Asia and Africa; the birth and rise of the Nonaligned
Movement: the rise of the liberation movements in Latin
America: the Sandinista Revolutionary Movement, the
movements of progressive military officers in Latin
America, specially in Peru and Panama, the French May
events; the Czech crisis and previously, the situations
created in Hungary and Poland.

Stalin's heirs could not answer this challenge because they
were encased in a policy derived from the Yalta and Potsdam
agreements and the idea of building socialism in only one
country that after the Second World War had extended to
several nations. Stalin's successors could not confront the
problem because, in 1956, after his death, when Stalinism
was denounced for its crimes, a deep, radical and
consistent analysis was made of the nature and character of
his regime. It could be said that at the time it was not
possible; much less by persons born during that policy, but
then, that is what happened.

Today, 80 years later it was not only possible but
necessary because, if not, the ideas of Marx and Engels could
come out triumphant from the chaos they were steeped in
during the 20th century.

Later, those who wanted to change the bipolar world from a
socialist standpoint, like Fidel and Che did in Latin
America, were accused of violating economic laws and, in
reality, those who did not take them into consideration
were those who ignored that the development of productive
forces and scientific progress led to surpassing
bipolarity. On the contrary, the later course of events
dramatically stressed that those who ignored economic laws
or tried to adjust them to their conservative position
were, precisely, those who rejected the Cuban revolutionary
thesis while raising socialist banners.

There are three important conclusions which to ponder in
this recently begun century: The first, that this change
was a necessity of the growing internationalization of the
production forces and, consequently, of the economic and
political evolution of the world. The second, that since it
was not done from the left, it occurred from the right: and
the third, that this change from the left could only be
done promoting the national liberation struggles in Asia,
Africa and Latin America and trying to link them up with
the ideas of socialism. This was the challenge socialism
had to face.

The Stalin biography by Isaac Deutscher, that is now a
classic, notes that the Soviet leader substituted the ideas
of Marx that violence was the midwife of history for that
it was the mother of history.

The fine intellectual line to understand the subtlety of
the definition by Marx was, in my opinion, beyond the
cultural possibilities of Stalin.

Precisely, the main error of the revolutionary policy of
the 20th century, ultimately conditioned by Stalin, were
marked by a divorce, separated from culture, even in the
case of the USSR where it reached dramatic levels. In Cuba
- as we pointed out - we had the great luck of counting on
the wisdom of the greatest political revolutionary of the
19th century who was José Martí. The unique teaching of the
Cuban revolution in those two centuries and the present
relies mainly on having promoted and enriched this
relationship. This is the unique quality of Martí and Fidel
Castro.

The radicalism of the revolutionary philosophy of Martí
went together with a consequent humanism in the treatment
of men and the peoples of the metropolis oppressor: The
United States and Spain.

On this basis he made a singular contribution calling for
the necessary, humanitarian and brief war against Spanish
domination and, at the same time, to prevent hatred against
those who opposed this purpose. This is a contribution that
should be studied in the world by those who slander those
who aspire for radical transformations and by those who aim
to reach the ends by extreme procedures. The only way to
triumph is to promote cooperation among human beings and
guarantee their full freedom and dignity. This is the way
of being truly radical.

In Cuba the Marxist concept of violence as José Martí
understood was carried it out in the best revolutionary
tradition of our country. It taught us that together with a
strength of principles and the struggle to obtain social
and political objectives we should include the Spaniards
and US citizens to our objectives or, at least, to the
understanding of our purpose. The idea of divide and
conquer was radically surpassed in Cuba and the principle
of uniting to conquer was put in its place. That was a much
more radical and consequential policy than that of the
extremists.

With regard to socialism, Martí's judgments were very
revealing [in] demonstrating where the weaknesses lay
in the policies carried out by Stalin.

The Apostle answered his soul brother in this manner:

(?) I must commend you for one thing and it is with the
affectionate conduct; and your virile respect, for the
Cubans who roam around sincerely seeking, with either this
or another name, a little more friendly order and the
necessary equilibrium in handling the things of this world:
Judgment of aspirations must be done nobly: and not have
this or that defect placed on by human passions. The idea
of socialism has two dangers, as so many others - reading
foreign writings that are confused and incomplete - and the
furtive pride and wrath of the ambitious who pretend to
rise up in the world, to have shoulders on which to climb
up, frenzied defenders of the forsaken. Some go about
troubling the queen (?) others change from a lowly person
to gentleman, like those described by Chateaubriand in his
Memoirs. But there is not so much risk with our people,
like in the most furious societies and of lesser natural
clarity: our work will consist of explaining, clearly and
deeply, as you will know how to do: the issue is not to
compromise lofty justice by equivocal means or excesses on
asking for it. And always with justice, you and I, because
the errors of form do not authorize the souls of the
wealthy to abandon in their defense. (?) [5]

Since 1884, José Martí, wrote at the time of the death of
Karl Marx, an article that can help us clear up what
happened with socialism in the 20th century. The Apostle
said the following:

See this great hall, Karl Marx has died. Since he took the
side of the weak, he deserves to be honored. But he who
points out the damage and burns with the wish to put it
right does not fare well, but he who teaches a soft remedy
of the damage (...)[6]

Further on he writes:

Karl Marx studied the way of settling the world on new
bases and awakened the sleepers and he showed them how to
bury the broken pillars. But he went quickly and a little
in the shadows unseeing that the children of unnatural and
troubled gestations were not born viable, nor from the
bosom of the people in history, nor from the breast of a
woman at the hearth. Here are the good friends of Karl Marx
who was not only the titanic driving force of the anger of
the European workers but the deep sentinel about the reason
of human miseries and in the destinies of man and man
desirous to do good. He saw everything he had in himself:
rebelliousness, rising up, struggle. [7]

The estimation and profundity that the ideas of Marx had
for Martí are evident. His criticism he makes of extremism
must be taken in the context of what was happening in New
York where the anarchist ideas were confused with Marxist
thought. Engels, in Europe pointed out that Marxist ideas
were not being applied in the United States.

It is accepted now that both always warned against the
extremists and the ideas of the anarchists. Concerning the
idea that men were being thrown against each other, it
should be taken into consideration that Martí who was
preparing a war, although thinking it necessary,
humanitarian and brief, would forcibly imply an armed
conflict.

In the writing after the beautiful, human and deep
description José Martí made of Karl Marx he points out:

"Here is a Lecovitch, an every day man: see how he talks: he
receives sparks from this tender and furious Bakunin: he
begins to speak in English; turns to other in German: "da!
da! his compatriots answer excitedly from their seats when
he talks to them in Russian.

"They are the Russians of the whips of reform: but no, they
are not yet these impatient and generous men, soiled with
anger, those who are going to lay the foundations for the
new world: they are the spur and are ready, like the voice
of conscience, that could slumber: but the steel of the
incentive is not useful for forging a hammer." [8]

All this Stalin lacked. He did not understand that the
steel of the incentive was not enough to build a new
society. Deutscher in his important biography of Stalin
notes:

Here we suspend the history of the life and work of Stalin.
We are under no illusion that we may be able to extract
final or form conclusions, from this basis, a trustworthy
judgment about the man, his achievements and his failures.
After so many climaxes and anti-climaxes, only now the
drama of Stalin seems to reach its peak; and we do not know
under what new perspective we could place his last act in
relation to the previous ones. What does seem definitely
established is that Stalin belongs to the breed of great
revolutionary despots, in the same class as Cromwell,
Robespierre and Napoleon. [9]

We may agree with the comparison to Cromwell, Robespierre
and Napoleon only with certain reservations:

Robespierre died tragically defending an ideal that was
impossible in his time, the purest ideas of the forgers of
French revolutionary thought of the 18th century. The rise
of the bourgeoisie prevented that. Napoleon set the legal
and political basis of the French bourgeoisie and,
paradoxically, opened the way for a bourgeois-feudal
alliance that formed the capitalist politics of the 19th
century. Cromwell also managed to pave a positive way for
the English bourgeoisie and left open the possibilities for
a later rise.

Stalin did not reach these objectives regarding socialism.
Nor could he encourage the socialist revolution in Europe
and the world, nor was he able to consolidate it in the
USSR. Capitalism returned to Russia seven decades after the
October Revolution under new and radically different
conditions and this backward move is marked, among other
factors, by the serious errors of Stalin who lacked height
and the necessary historical vision.

We can reach the conclusion that the time of Stalin is
definitely concluded and that the perspectives of a
new era are in view. If Stalin belongs to the category of
revolutionary despots, the lessons learned reveal that it
is not possible to open an everlasting way towards a
socialist society without love and culture to build itself.

It is evident that if the revolutionary despots were able
to open up the way for capitalism, the construction of
socialism cannot be made under the direction of a despot.
He was accused of personality cult, I think that what he
lacked was a great socialist personality, he lacked what
the Cuban revolution has, the revolution of Martí taken up
by Fidel that is based on the best patriotic tradition of
our people with a truly universal sense.

A final conclusion of the above mentioned and especially
what we said at the beginning, experience has taught us the
importance of the so-called superstructure. That is one of
the necessary keys to discover what happened and find roads
for socialism in the 21st century.

Economy operates through them, between one and another
there is a dialectic relationship. If natural and social
evolution are marked by the inseparable relationship
between form and content - as Engels explained - it can be
understood that thoroughness, significance and passion with
which these forms are treated are in the center of our
revolutionary duties. Morality is intimately related to the
social question and with the systems of rights. These
categories: morality, social question and system of rights
constitute the central nucleus from which philosophical
research can be made to establish the political and legal
practice valid to find new roads towards socialism. In the
end, the subject of culture and specially the role of the
subjective factors acquire practical significance because
it is based on the necessities of ethical, legal principles
and on the forms to make policy.

For success on any transforming effort it is essential to
link political practice with culture. The victory and
continuity of the Cuban revolution confirms the validity of
this reasoning. It is important today to think deeply about
this question.

The rupture of the bonds between culture and policy was,
undoubtedly at the root of the serious setbacks suffered.
In Latin America, the tradition of our nations sustained
the desire for a culture of emancipation and multinational
integration that was promoted by the liberator Simon
Bolivar and which José Martí called the moral culture of
America. The fundamental tendency of this culture was
anti-imperialist and its basic roots were in the working
and exploited population. The immediately important factor
for the revolutionary policy was to encourage this
tendency. And this should and can be done by incorporating
the intellectuality to this emancipating effort that is
present in the most revolutionary of our spiritual
evolution.

Obviously, this has to be done through culture and
information about the genesis and history of Latin American
ideas. For this, knowledge and clear understanding is
needed for the role of subjective factors in the history of
civilizations that was precisely what was ignored in
practice in socialist policy. What is now known of the
historic practice after the death of Lenin and since
Stalin, is a vulgar, crude materialism that paralyzed
enrichment and the progression of the ideas of Marx and
Engels. This required - as Mariátegui did from his
Indo-American vision - a study of the role of culture from
a historical materialistic vision; but those who embarked
on this road were fought as revisionists. Thus, the
possibilities to reach a depth at a deeper level of the
ideas of the classics were halted.

Approaching a concept such as what we have expounded
brought its own difficulties in the intent to delve over
the complex ideological problems, but is infinitely less
than ignoring the necessity to reach a relationship of
confidence between revolutionary policy and the immense and
growing mass of intellectual workers.

In conclusion, if fluid relations are not established
between the Revolutions and the cultural movement, the
processes of change will never win. It is not only a
cultural question but an essential aspect for the political
practice. To know revolutionary politics, the important
movement of art and culture must be assumed and understand
that there lies the basis of our redeeming ideas.

Deutscher said it in his book in a more eloquent manner and
I believe that it is the main conclusion, theoretically,
that we can reach regarding Stalin: "In this contempt for
immaterial factors of the great political processes lies
the main weakness of his strong but limited realism". [10]
An exemplary lesson for those who proclaim themselves
realists.

Without considering what are called immaterial factors,
that is to say, the subjective characteristic, we will be
unable to find new roads because they have the same
influence, objectively and materialistically, in history.

The reader is invited to relate these words to what Engels
self-critically said and what we have mentioned at the
beginning. Let us never forget that man and his society are
also part of the material reality of the world - to say it
in the language so in vogue by the socialists - that is to
say, of nature, to express it in the Martí manner, recall
that verse by Martí:

All is beautiful and constant,
All is music and reason,
And all is like a diamond,
That, before brightness, is carbon. [11]

In 2005 any revolutionary politician must examine the
history of the 20th century from the immense culture
accumulated devoid of any sectarianism and searching for
the essence of the revolutionary ideas in the best thousand
years of man.

Someone, during the times of the perestroika affirmed that
Marx would remain as a cultural question. I thought: "And
do you think that is little". To find new roads the culture
has to be found; there is no other political practice
alternative and those who do not believe it will not be
able to contribute to making revolutions in the 21st
century.

I want to stress that I dedicate these words to all the
communists and revolutionaries who fought for socialism,
who were faithful and who saw with sadness the tragic
outcome of socialism, especially for those peoples of our
America. Those who feel in their heart the cause of human
justice in a radical and universal form and who look into
themselves deeply must acknowledge - as Martí stressed -
that Marx deserves to be honored because he took the side
of the weak and must be aware that he and his loyal
comrade, Friedrich Engels, are the highest expression of
social and philosophical thought of Europe in the 19th
century. The fanatical retractors of Marxism are not
post-moderns, but pre-moderns and have been unable to
analyze the deep roots of what happened with Stalin.

Roman wisdom, in the framework of a slave society, of
course, pointed out that what was left as legacy by someone
who died could be accepted as a benefit in the inventory,
in other words, that the heir would not be affected by
payment of the debts of the deceased. In the 21st century,
humankind will perfect the socialist practice and will have
to use the necessary tools to deal with the errors
committed to transform the world and will be unable to do
so throwing them into the ripped sack of socialist
heritage. For this reason, I have recommended to young
people to consciously assume the socialist practice of the
20th century as an inventory benefit. We do not renounce
the legacy of Marx, Engels and Lenin and the socialist
ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries, but assume it as part
of a deep evaluation of what has occurred. Only with the
thoughts of Marx, Engels and Lenin can we carry out this
task. But not only from them.

In the decade of 1920, Julio Antonio Mella and the founders
of the first Cuban Communist Party rescued from oblivion
the program of Martí which had fallen during the early
years of the neo-colonial republic. Today, in 2005, with
the thoughts of the Cuban Apostle and his ultra-democratic
program we Cubans can strengthen the socialist fibers in
our country and contribute to rescue them from the
disrepute and isolation to which the political practice
that arose since Stalin, had lead them.

[1] C. Marx, F. Engels, Chosen Works, t. 3, p, 523,
Editorial Progreso Moscú.

[2] Castro, Fidel. Appearance in Cuban television. January
16, 1998, Granma daily, January 20, 1998

[3] V. I. Lenin, Letter to Contress, Moscow. Ediciones en
Lenguas Extranjeras, /S.A./

[4] Castro, Fidel. Appearance quoted.

[5] Martí, José, O. C., t. 3, p. 168

[6] Martí, José, O. C. t. 9, p. 388

[7] Ibidem

[8] Ibidem

[9] Deutscher, Isaac. Political and controversial biography
of Stalin, Instituto del Libro, La Habana, 1968.

[10] Deutscher, Isaac, mentioned work, p. 420

[11] Martí, J. O. C. Versos sencillos, t. 16, p. 65.





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]