Re: [Marxism] On Walter and Cubaphilia

[Courtney Smith <cleighs@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is where definitions of "Marxist" and "socialist" make all of this very
messy.  Socialist is a broad term.  If we mean revolutionary socialist, I
suppose the Cuban revolution would qualify on technical terms as it was a
revolution.  Although the Cuban Revolution is very significant as it is a
living symbol, I think it's really only a living symbol for resistance to US
imperialism.  No small task, but "a socialist state" it is not, as I
understand the term.

Guerrillas do not a workers' revolution or a workers' state make.  Period.

A successful revolution it was - but at what did it succeed?  It succeeded
in overthrowing a dictator.  But if this was not, or was not followed by, a
revolution from the bottom-up led by workers in their interest, why we
should be praising Cuba half a century later is a total mystery to me.  As a
nationalist revolution and as a country that had been largely dependent on
the US economically coming to lead the charge against US imperialism, at
least on a symbolic level and on the level of rhetoric, is not to be
disregarded.  Those are achievements.  And it's certainly no surprise that
the overthrow of Batista and many aspects of the new regime appealed to a
great number of Cubans.  It is also not to be ignored that Cuba's health
care system is a true achievement for an impoverished nation.  For it to
have been a workers' revolution it would have required the creation of
formal institutions of working-class rule, such as existed in the Paris
Commune or the Russian Revolution—real decision-making bodies directly
elected and subject to instant recall.  If nationalization and state-run
industries constitute socialism, Saddam Hussein was surely a socialist
leader.

I do not deny that Cuban revolutionaries have valuable experiences to share
and that some aspects of Cuba, besides its very survival in such a hostile
world, are unbelievably impressive and it is important and valid to
acknowledge these.  However, if we are to see an isolated revolution (never
internationalized) accomplished by a group of guerrillas that has been ruled
by a one-party state for 50 years as our goal as socialists.... I'm not too
keen on that plan.  Socialism in one country is as ridiculous as socialism
on one island.  Even if the revolution had been a workers' revolution, if it
had not spread, it would have become something quite different.

Here, we can see that not all Marxists agree.  Cubaphilia is, I think, an
uncritical, ahistorical and undialectical way of viewing the Cuban state, a
knee-jerk desire to defend its socialist character at the cost of critical
analysis.   Being interested in the history of Cuba and how one can organize
a state and economy differently is one thing (something I think we can learn
in a much less stifling situation in Venezuela and other places where
interesting and problematic things are happening), but calling it a
socialist state and defending it against all critical argument is what makes
Cubaphilia a problem.  If Walter merely disagreed with Sam Farber, he
wouldn't have to hurl all kinds of very emotionally-charged words like
"falsifier" and "liar" at his work.  It's just like there are Leninists and
there are people who think Lenin lead to Stalin and was thus an
authoritarian.  We can all be Marxists, but "Marxist" also is used by
literary theorists and historians who are purely academic in their
pursuits.  When it comes to how to relate to Stalinist regimes and how a
revolution can actually be won, Marxists can and do vary widely.   There are
as many kinds as there are anarchists, which is why the word is meaningless
without an agreed upon usage.

Pérez-Stable writes:

Collective decision-making was never their prerogative: the revolutionary
government conferred exclusive power over enterprise matters to management.
"Collective discussions, one-man decision-making and responsibility,"
Guevara contended. Carlos Rafael Rodriguez seconded him: "We hear from many
quarters the idea that workers should decide by majority vote…. Collective
management is destructive. Administrators should have, have, and will have
the last word."

If union organizations independent of party (state) control are prohibited,
and there is no right to strike and political opposition to the regime is
carefully monitored and frequently suppressed, I certainly never want to
live in such a "socialist state."

To quote Paul D'Amato: "The Cuban Revolution is not the first time that
leftists in the U.S. and elsewhere have given "a communist coloring to
bourgeois-democratic liberation trends."....Socialism is the
self-emancipation of the working classor it is nothing. Years ago, Stalinism
was rightly recognized by genuine Marxists as a great tragedy for the world
working-class movement. Today such delusions have, to paraphrase Marx, moved
from tragedy to farce."

This kind of discussion, however, I think can be constructive, to the extent
that 'discussion' can happen efficiently using one-way communication.

Courtney


in reply to:

"Furthermore the Marxists in Cuba have had the experience, unlike anyone on
this list, of actually leading a successful revolution, and then leading a
socialist state for 50 years. This gives their opinion a bit more weight
than mine!!!" - Eli S
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu