Re: [Marxism] Caracas discusses Leon Trotsky

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had a somewhat different reaction than David's to this article. It is
interesting to know that Ydalberto (a.k.a. Idalberto) Ferrera, now in his
90s, is still alive and able to travel and speak about his experiences. I
met him and members of his family, along with some other Cuban Trotskyists,
in Havana in 1963. My account of discussions with them (and particularly
with a comrade I knew as "Molina", in fact Adolfo Gilly, who was working
with them) appears in Revolutionary History, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 252-61).
Although I was only 20 years old when I wrote it, I think my presentation of
their views at that time is accurate.

I thought then, and still do, that their approach to the Castro leadership,
while sympathetic, was sectarian. Here is how I summarized their approach to
the effort to build a united party of the socialist revolution in Cuba.
Comrades will see similarities with the position being taken today by some
Trotskyists in Venezuela:

"First, regarding the matter of the united party of socialist revolution,
and the ORI (Integrated Revolutionary Organisations). The Trotskyists did
not apply to it for representation on the national executive committee as a
legitimate revolutionary grouping. They did not do so on the grounds that
not only would they have been refused, but they would have had no
opportunity to publish Trotsky's works, or to disseminate their ideas and
their program, for within the ORI apparatus here is no political discussion.
ORI is not a party, it is only an apparatus, an organization of the
government. It is not simply the old Stalinist PSP in other clothing,
however it operates in Stalinist fashion. The membership is being selected
not on the basis of political program or discussion, but in an arbitrary and
apolitical manner. The real party of the socialist revolution should be
formed through political discussions in the unions, with the culmination of
the preliminary discussion in a Congress of the CTC-R (the trade union
federation) at which the political line would be worked out. Then
recruitment would take place on the basis of the program, in the
Marxist-Leninist tradition. When I asked if the possibility existed of any
political ferment taking place within the ORI in the future, they admitted
the possibility, even the probability of such, but insisted that the
Trotskyists maintain an independent identity and discipline. If a comrade is
selected for the ORI (that is, is an exemplary worker) then he accepts -
there are some comrades within the organization."  (pp. 256-57)

So I was interested to read, in Tom Rollings' account of the meeting in
Caracas, that Ferrera says that "in jail they created branches to support
Castro and the Cuban Revolution." These jail terms, incidentally, were
short-lived, although it is true that the Cuban Trotskyists, who were part
of the rather weird Posadas cult, were frustrated in their attempts to
publish works by Trotsky.

In his Caracas speech, Ferrera mentions the Trotskyists' participation in
the struggle against the Machado dictatorship. This history was elaborated
at some length in an article by a Cuban professor, Rafael Soler Martínez,
published in the Cuban magazine TEMAS, a rough English translation of which
is available on Walter Lippmann's web site:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/otc.html

Soler Martínez faults the Cuban Trotskyists of the 1930s for having an
insufficient understanding of the divisions within the country's "middle
classes", and argues that the decisive fault-line for building an
anti-imperialist alliance within those middle layers lay between those
elements whose interests were closely bound up with U.S. imperialism (the
"anti-national" elements) and those who, in contrast, were capable of being
won over to anti-imperialist and eventually socialist positions. He writes:

"But, was the native bourgeoisie only subordinated to the United States, or
were its interests closely related to those of the US middle class? What the
Cuban Trotskyists did not understand in January of 1933 was that, added to
the subordination, there was a strong bond of the native middle classes to
those of the United States and, consequently - not only from its weakness -
the resultant was its anti-national character. They failed to understand
that the government of Gerardo Machado was an expression of the interests of
a native bourgeoisie, during part of its government until it lost its social
basis and became a government of a small clique at the service of the United
States. In other words, it did not consider that the Cuban middle classes
were made up by different sectors; although it clearly explains its
incapacity to lead a true bourgeois democratic revolution."

He also faults the Cuban Trotskyists for their insistence that an
anti-imperialist united front could only be forged under " the hegemony of
the Trotskyists", the true "revolutionary vanguard":

"At times, the Cuban Trotskyist movement of the 30s has been presented as
the logical Marxist alternative in face of the sectarian line followed by
the CP. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although they made relevant
interpretations in some cases, in general and from the theoretic and
practical point of view, followed a line that was, in itself, as sectarian
and dogmatic as the CP. The intention was to achieve an alleged unity but
not among equals; the others had to acknowledge the hegemony of the
Trotskyists, their revolutionary vanguard character and, as such, be
subordinate to them. This was their view of the union line: instead of
fighting for a union central of unity, as had been the CNOC at the time of
Alfredo López, that would bring together workers of several union movements,
for the Communist Opposition "the task of unifying the union movement was
brought under a ruthless and raw struggle against the sectarians (i.e.
followers of the CP line) on the one hand and the reformists, unionists and
social-fascists on the other". (47) Their self-proclaimed character of the
only and exclusive revolutionary vanguard was declared in their Statutes:
'The Cuban Communist Opposition is the only revolutionary vanguard of the
proletariat and the only organization capable of revolutionary leadership
until the end of the struggle of the Cuban working class against their
native and foreign exploiters.'"

A quite different presentation of the Cuban Trotskyists is found in Gary
Tennant's history, "The Hidden Pearl of the Caribbean: Trotskyism in Cuba",
the main article in the issue of Revolutionary History cited above.
Tennant's central thesis is that the Cuban Trotskyists gave too much weight
to the national question and the importance of anti-imperialism in the
revolution. According to him, their alleged failure to make a sufficient
differentiation between the proletarian and petty-bourgeois forces (the
latter of course encompassing Castro's 26th of July Movement) led them to
capitulate to the "Stalinists" in the 1960s! Tennant's interpretation of the
Cuban revolution post-1959 is lifted holus-bolus from such sources as Sam
Farber and Tim Wohlforth, and is in my opinion of little value. 

While the evolution of Celia Hart's thinking is of some interest, I find her
sentimental identification with Trotsky and Che rather abstract. And in
terms of events today in Venezuela, it really tells us very little about the
tasks on the immediate agenda of the revolutionary forces who are being led
by Hugo Chávez and his closest associates.

It is good that the IMT comrades publicize the relevance of the Leninist
tradition upheld by Trotsky in face of the degeneration of the Russian
revolution under Stalin. But while knowledge of Trotsky's thought is
valuable, the real challenge today is to participate in the living process
of the revolution in Venezuela, Cuba and elsewhere. Che is a heroic
revolutionary figure, but despite his example and insights he also made many
errors, largely on the basis of excessive generalization of the Cuban
experience. To single out Che as the exemplar of revolutionary strategy in
Latin America, to the exclusion of what we can learn from so many other
experiences and from other leaders of the Cuban revolution, beginning with
Fidel, is comparable to confining one's analysis of the Russian revolution
to the role of Trotsky, to the exclusion of Lenin and other Bolsheviks.

It is thought-provoking, isn't it, that so many of those who identify as
"Trotskyists" today appear to need a Celia Hart, and her explicit
identification with Trotsky, in order to rediscover the Cuban revolution. Is
this just another way to differentiate themselves from the Castro
leadership? As Celia herself has noted, the international Trotskyist current
itself has much to learn from the Cuban experience and from the thoughts --
and actions -- of Fidel Castro himself.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: August 24, 2007 5:59 AM
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Caracas discusses Leon Trotsky

With all due respect to Jorge, whose done major work in publicizing the
gains of the Venezuelan Revolution, I think this article rather sucked. The
article was written by Tom Rollins. It's more of a CMR/IMT rah-rah article,
something almost akin to what you might read in The Militant newspaper from
the US SWP.

[snip]


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism