Imperialist provocations in Cuba and out of its time and place ML statements and commentaries
The term “extreme left” is used for the historical practice of “left tendency”, on one side deriving from their fundamental ideology of Anarchists and the other deriving from the practice of concealing their reactionary face- that of Trotskyites. Our subject here is not the assessments and assertions of concealed-reaction and/or of those who are seriously influenced by them, but those unintentional, unconscious, influence of Trotskyism in "deed".
The direct or indirect ideological based attacks on Cuba, on Cuban Revolutionary government have one conclusive mindset and one latent affect to the mass readers- either consciously or unconsciously- in common; “socialism cannot be built in one country.” We do know the source of consciously yet skillfully presented accusations hidden behind the left mask with pompous phrase mongering. Aside from them not only the average Marxists Leninists sympathizers but ML parties and organizations are falling into this tactical trap that has being tried and improved by the bourgeoisie and their lackeys with century old experience in the field. That is why it is imperative to study the subjects related to the accusations directed to Cuba in particular and what Socialism is in general in order to call one as such.
With few exceptions all the Marxist Leninist commentaries, statements I read about the events in Cuba have shown the influence of the “balanced” context- an approach of trained, learned bourgeois journalists and writers. In order to be “appeared” objective, bourgeois journalists and writers take any given issue -rather than sticking directly to the issue itself- they try to “balance” by commenting on both the “crime-criminal” and “victim” . The murder of George Floyd is a well-known example of this where emphasizing his “criminal past” desired to be -or unconsciously – overshadowing, minimizing the crime itself. Commentaries on the provocative events in Cuba have been carried out in a similar way where the imperialist provocations were “balanced” and (with its dialectical connections) it’s importance is “minimized” with the baseless and untimely, out of place “critique” of Cuban government and Cuba. Accusations of “not a socialist country” (so we do not care?), “Bureaucratic Bourgeois Government”, “taking capitalist steps”, “giving concessions to capitalists”, “capitalist state” and some have gone as far as calling for a “revolution” in revolutionary Cuba. The reality is none of these accusations (accusation because the arguments are not supported with facts) have any theoretical base.
Let’s start with the basics, transformation From Feudalism to Capitalism and the application of the definition of Capitalism to name a country as “capitalist”. When the Bourgeoisie captures the political power from the feudalists, regardless of the economic development of a given country -under or less developed, highly developed etc., we all call that given country “capitalist” . Why do we do that? We should go back to Marxism and try to grasp the fundamentals behind it. It may sound like a puzzle but worth to try grasping because not only in general but in Cuba specific we can comprehend the basics in related subjects.
Humans cannot survive without production. Production is not possible without relations of production – humans cannot produce outside of a social structure. Marx explains that “Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces.” (1) The productive forces are the unity of means of production and labour. Marx follows by saying “ In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations.” (1) The Mode of Production is the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production. The basis of the relations of production is the ownership of the means of production. The change in the relations of production means the substitution of the new economic basis for the old one, a change in the entire society. Since its base is the ownership of the means of production, this change in society is in essence means a change in the ownership of the means of production. Change from the feudalism to capitalism is a result of change in the ownership of the means of production through the capturing of the political power by the bourgeoisie. A system is defined by the ownership of the means of production and production relations which in return defines the mode of production with new productive forces. Bourgeoisie capturing the political power establishes its new society, “In capitalistic society, the means of production can only function when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labor.” (2) In Engels words, “The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society”.
So, regardless of the degree of economic, social improvements, it is okay to call a country where the bourgeoisie captures the political power, owns the means of production, regulates the production relations as “capitalist”, but it is not okay to call a country “socialist” where the political power is captured from the bourgeoisie, all the means of production are expropriated, production relations are regulated by and for the majority of the people just because the “socialist economy” is not developed to a degree that they would consider it “socialist”.
The ironical fact is that people have an abstract, utopic understanding of “socialism” for which they themselves have no idea on the finish picture. For one, unlike capitalism, “Socialism” is NOT an end by and for itself. It is an unending struggle for the better, covering an entire period of transformation from capturing the political power, constructing the socialist economy, creating the economic, social, and cultural foundations for the communist society. That is why there is no way to draw a concrete, absolute, template picture of Socialism, as well as templates of ways and means of capturing the political power.
“We do not claim that Marx knew or Marxists know the road to socialism down to the last detail. It would be nonsense to claim anything of the kind. What we know is the direction of this road, and the class forces that follow it; the specific, practical details will come to light only through the experience of the millions when they take things into their own hands.
The crux of the matter lies in political power passing into the hands of the proletariat… We are not doctrinaires. Our theory is a guide to action, not a dogma.” (3)
Socialism starts with the capturing of political power from the bourgeoisie and ends with the withering away of the “political power”- that is state.
The utopians may think that socialist economy, socialist culture, socialist relations will be realized by the morning of, or soon after seizing the political power. Lenin puts it bluntly;
“Socialism is not a ready-made system that will be mankind’s benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present-day proletariat as it advances from one objective today to another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic objective…” (4)
Socialism is made up of two fundamental transition period; Political Transformation- from capitalism to socialism through capturing the political power, and Economic Transformation - from capitalist production relations to socialist production relations. Former- the capture of political power for the purpose of organising socialist society - is a precondition for the latter, yet after capturing the political power both compliments and strengthens (or weakens) each other.
“The proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie” says Lenin “finds expression in a variety of forms ever richer in content, inevitably becomes a political struggle directed towards the conquest of political power by the proletariat. The socialization of production cannot but lead to the means of production becoming the property of society, to the “expropriation of the expropriators.” (5)
Regarding the variety of forms, Lenin in one of his critiques states that “An organ of popular revolutionary struggle”, that “wrests political power” from the hands of the old government is nothing more nor less than a provisional revolutionary government.” (6)
Unlike the “purists”, the utopians and those who have an abstract, illusionary picture of socialism in their mind even which they cannot dare to draw (they probably have communism in their mind), Lenin clarifies;
“If political power in the state is in the hands of a class whose interests coincide with those of the majority, that state can be governed truly in line with the will of the majority. But if political power is in the hands of a class whose interests diverge from those of the majority, any form of majority rule is bound to become deception or suppression of the majority.” (7)
For socialists to ensure the triumph of the social revolution the winning of political power is the primary task. “To achieve its emancipation,” Lenin says;
“the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power, and establish its revolutionary dictatorship. ….the transition from capitalist society--which is developing towards communism--to communist society is impossible without a "political transition period".” (8)
In this context, acquiring the first condition in one country in any form by itself is sufficient enough to call that country "socialist". "Success of socialism" and "socialism" are not the same, but contingent on capturing the political power. Socialism is the struggle starts with the capture of political power, continues and extends till the transition to stateless, public administered society- that is communism.
The direction of the road that is taken, and the class forces following that direction has decisive role in defining a country’s political system – that may change in the process. That’s why, It is not a coincidence or slip of the tongue when Enver Hoxha called Cuba and China “socialist” .
"The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, a congress of proletarian victory over the traitorous, revisionist and counter-revolutionary line of the renegades, traitor, and scab Liu Shao-Chi, marks a new stage not only in the carrying out of socialist revolution and socialist construction in China, but also in the fight for the triumph of Marxism-Leninism over revisionism, of socialism over capitalism and of revolution over counter-revolution in the world. This is why the hearts and minds of the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries of the whole world were directed in these days towards your great congress, this is why their hearts are filled with joy at this great historic event… The imperialist-revisionist aggressive plans against great socialist China and the freedom loving peoples of the world will fail ignominiously, and the US imperialists and the Soviet revisionists will be completely and definitely smashed. “ (9)
Similarly, for the same reasons Enver Hoxha was calling Cuba as Socialists;
“such activities of the revisionists headed by Khrushchev's group as their adventuresome and capitulating attitude in the Caribbean crisis, in their pressure exerted on socialist Cuba to capitulate to the American imperialists, sacrificing its dignity and its sovereignty, in their union with the Indian reactionaries against the People's Republic of China, with the Titoite clique and with Venizelos against the People's Republic of Albania, in the infamous Moscow Treaty for a partial ban on nuclear tests, which is high treason to the interests of the Soviet Union, to the other socialist countries and to peace in favor of the American imperialists, as well as in a number of other facts. (10)
Even when he was criticizing China harshly, but not in the same line with the imperialists, Hoxha was still calling China socialist;
"We must all fight in favour of socialist China, but this we must do only for a socialist China and in the Marxist Leninist way.
Socialist China, too, has begun to practice secret diplomacy deliberately, especially with the Americans, and this is where the danger lies. This practice is not correct and must be condemned.
Socialist China can play a truly decisive role in the world, if its foreign policy is a Marxist-Leninist class policy which is based on the strength, desires, and aspirations of the peoples." (11)
To criticize a country where the political power is in the hand of a class interests of which coincides with the interests of majority and its direction is forward, one must be careful not to fall in to being a singer in the chorus of imperialists. Especially in the cases where the imperialist propaganda and attacks are on the agenda, the duty of Marxist Leninists is not to try being “balanced”, “impartial” . Marxist Leninists are NOT impartial; they are partial on the side of oppressed, exploited people, people of the countries who are subjected to imperialist aggressive policies, whether it is in the form of blockade or active civil-military intervention . Related to the current subject, as Enver Hoxha points out, " the correct Leninist course demands deeds, not words..." It is the duty of genuine Marxist Leninists " to give UNRESERVED SUPPORT to the fraternal Cuban people in their fight against the aggression of US imperialism."...
Critiques should be supported with facts, and in its own place and time without trying to “balance” with the imperialist provocations and aggression on the current agenda.
II
Socialist revolution is not a “one leap”, “one strike “ action, but has its dialectically connected stages passing from one to other in durations that cannot be foreseen but varies contingent on the existing conditions of a given country -not only internal but external conditions and situations.
As far as the fundamental stages of building Socialism is concerned Lenin’s assessment was;
““"history has proven that in some very important problems of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done"”. (12) Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism
While the fundamental “stages” may be similar, as far as the means and methods used is concerned, there is NOT one way or form of acquiring political power that fits all the countries and all the conditions. Political power coinciding with the interests those of majority, that is to say of laboring masses may be acquired through an uprising directed by a provisional revolutionary government, or through proletarian revolution or through an anti-fascist or anti-imperialist war. Giving the example of Bulgaria, Stalin states;
"The proletariat is known two forms of dictatorship. As the first of Marx and Engels in Paris he saw the Commune and argued, democratic Republic with a majority of the proletariat, the best form of proletarian dictatorship ... Lenin had the Soviet form suitable to our conditions formulated. Here, it was proved to be the easiest way to seize power in your country, where the power of the working class was seized, not from the insurrection, but from outside (Soviet Army), you can go back to the Marx and Engels model without the Soviet form. People's Democracy will play the role of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
(In Bulgaria) The capitalists and the Landlords have fought against us for four years, and they have surrendered without war and fled. “ (13)
Let’s support the fact that the capturing the political power is the first and foremost step toward socialism with some additional quotes from Lenin;
“A necessary condition for this social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the conquest by the proletariat of such political power as will enable it to suppress all resistance on-the part of the exploiters .” (14)
“History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and forceable suppression of the resistance always offered by the exploiters—the resistance that is most desperate, most furious, and that stops at nothing.” (15)
“To effect this social revolution the proletariat must win political power, which will make it master of the situation and enable it to remove all obstacles along the road to its great goal. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential political condition of the social revolution.” (16)
“The point is that one and the same class should have political power both centrally and locally, that democracy should be quite consistently applied in both cases to an absolutely equal degree, a degree sufficient to ensure the complete supremacy of, let us say, the majority of the population.” (17)
It is clear that for the construction of socialism the ways and forms of acquiring the political power is not decisive but acquiring it, is a precondition, for socialism cannot be established without a class struggle for the political power and a state. The conquest of political power in order to carry out the economic and political measures - which are the sum and substance of the socialist revolution- is the fundamental task, and that by itself determines the “quality” of a state in a given country in the sense of political structure. Second determining factors for her quality are (definitely its direction, but regardless of its degree of economic development) related to the primary steps taken for the organization of socialist society such as socialization of production, expropriation of large scale industry and private property etc., meaning that making the means of production the property of society.
Following the acquiring of political power the speed and degree of economic and social developments will inevitably vary from country to country based on their existing conditions and how determined the leadership and the people for the direction they initiated. Depending on the existing condition, internal and external struggle, some will be able to continue the building of socialism without taking any backward step, others will have ups and downs. As long as the direction does not change, back steps taken forced upon by the conditions does not change the essence of political power and political system.
Lenin, in his various writings states that the “ conquest of political power does not put a stop to its class struggle against the bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it renders that struggle most widespread, intense, and ruthless.” (18)
In some countries the bourgeois flees and deserts the country, in others remain to fight in various ways. In some countries they still will have the upper hand in the economy and social life due to their educational background, skills, knowledge, and expertise, in others they may not.
Lenin explains this clearly and bluntly;
“After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter’s extensive international links, and also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful, and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies... Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power. (19)
Giving the example of Soviet Revolution, Lenin reiterates these difficulties;
“two exceedingly difficult problems still remained, the solution of which could not possibly be the triumphal march we experienced in the first months of our revolution—we did not doubt, we could not doubt, that the socialist revolution would be later confronted with enormously difficult tasks.” (20)
Lenin, on his writing “Letters From Afar” outlined the tasks after capturing the political power in Russia;
“ the immediate tasks of the revolutionary proletariat in Russia were formulated as follows:
(1) to find the surest road to the next stage of the revolution, or to the second revolution, which (2) must transfer political power from the government of the landlords and capitalists to a government of the workers and poorest peasants.
(3) This latter government must be organised on the model of the Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, namely,
(4) it must smash, completely eliminate, the old state machine, the army, the police force, and bureaucracy (officialdom), that is common to all bourgeois states, and substitute for this machine (5) not only a mass organisation, but a universal organisation of the entire armed people.
(6) Only such a government, of “such” a class composition (“revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”) and such organs or government (“proletarian militia”) will be capable of successfully carrying out the extremely difficult and absolutely urgent chief task of the moment, namely: to achieve peace, not an imperialist peace….
These steps are dictated, with absolute inevitability, by the conditions created by the war, which in many respects will become still more acute in the post-war period. In their entirety and in their development these steps will mark the transition to socialism, which cannot be achieved in Russia directly, at one stroke, without transitional measures, but is quite achievable and urgently necessary as a result of such transitional measures. In this connection, the task of immediately organising special Soviets of Workers’ Deputies in the rural districts, i.e., Soviets of agricultural wage-workers separate from the Soviets of the other peasant deputies, comes to the fore front with extreme urgency. “ (21)
“Since political power is in the hands of the working-class, since this political power owns all the means of production... the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc.” says Lenin “ is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society. It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it.
But see how things have changed now that the political power is in the hands of the working-class now that the political power of the exploiters is overthrown and all the means of production are owned by the working-class.
Now we are entitled to say that for us the mere growth of cooperation is identical with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we have to admit that there has been a radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism. The radical modification is this; formerly we placed, and had to place, the main emphasis on the political struggle, on revolution, on winning political power, etc. Now the emphasis is changing and shifting to peaceful, organizational, “cultural” work. “ (22)
Looking at Cuban history, under the difficult conditions of imperialist blockade, provocation, assassination and invasion attempts, Cuba has initiated and carried out all within her capabilities. Everything in large scale in Cuba has been taken out of the hands of Bourgeoisie and landlords. While people in almost all countries spend half of their lives working to cover their rent or mortgage, Cuba made it free for her citizens. While students in the most countries spend their lives to pay back the student loans (that is if they can afford it or even get loan), in Cuba education is free. While in most countries health care is a privilege, ( especially in the so called “champion of democracy- USA or highly taxed in others), where one has to be rich in order to get sick, Cuba has free health care. There are numerous social benefits to mention here from childcare to women issues.
III
Let’s start analysing the “critiques” of Cuba with Lenin’s assessment;
“Following its seizure of political power, the principal and fundamental interest of the proletariat lies in securing an enormous increase in the productive forces of society and in the output of manufactured goods. This task, which is clearly formulated in the Programme of the Russian Communist Party, is particularly urgent in our country today owing to post-war ruin, famine, and dislocation. Hence, the speediest and most enduring success in restoring large-scale industry is a condition without which no success can be achieved in the general cause of emancipating labour from the yoke of capital and securing the victory of socialism. (23)
I should mention the fact that other than all the emptiness of “critiques” goes back to this assessment of Lenin, it is important to read between the lines Lenin’s use of words “securing the victory of socialism” at a time when there was no increase in the productive forces, but the acquired political power .
In order to prevent the most likely demagogies and accusations of “eclecticism”, the quotes from Lenin will be longer, and must be read.
One of the typical accusation that was used against Soviets and Stalin now being used against Cuba is “state capitalism”. They argue that Cuba is not socialist but a state Capitalist Country. The first and basic question to ask these critiques is “in Cuba which class owns the means of production, who regulates the relations of production and for whose interest”. Second basic question that any average person would ask, if Cuba is Capitalist why she would resist to USA- the largest capitalist country- rather than surrendering to some of their demands and making Cuba “rich!!” in a very short time. Only the tourism industry would cover most of her needs (by almost destroying the same industry in South Florida- which is one of the reasons for the blockade) and health-drug industry would be the second largest one.
Any revolution in countries where the large scale industry is already present, it probably would be ridiculous to speak of “state capitalism. However, in countries where -let alone the large scale industry-, capitalism is not developed, the use of state capitalism in some form and degree would be most likely application for the purpose of development and increase in in the productive forces of that given society.
Let’s read Lenin what he says about “State Capitalism” – in a country which is incomparable to Cuba as far as any industry and economic resources is concerned;
“State capitalism is capitalism that we must confine within certain bounds; but we have not yet learned to confine it within those bounds. That is the whole point. And it rests with us to determine what this state capitalism is to be. We have sufficient, quite sufficient political power; we also have sufficient economic resources at our command, but the vanguard of the working class which has been brought to the forefront to directly supervise, to determine the boundaries, to demarcate, to subordinate and not be subordinated itself, lacks sufficient ability for it. All that is needed here is ability, and that is what we do not have.
Never before in history has there been a situation in which the proletariat, the revolutionary vanguard, possessed sufficient political power and had state capitalism existing alongside it. The whole question turns on our understanding that this is the capitalism that we can and must permit, that we can and must confine within certain bounds; for this capitalism is essential for the broad masses of the peasantry and for private capital, which must trade in such a way as to satisfy the needs of the peasantry. We must organise things in such a way as to make possible the customary operation of capitalist economy and capitalist exchange, because this is essential for the people. Without it, existence is impossible.
You have the advantage over the capitalists in that political power is in your hands; you have a number of economic weapons at your command; the only trouble is that you cannot make proper use of them. Look at things more soberly. Cast off the tinsel, the festive communist garments, learn a simple thing simply, and we shall beat the private capitalist. We possess political power; we possess a host of economic weapons. If we beat capitalism and create a link with peasant farming we shall become an absolutely invincible power. Then the building of socialism will not be the task of that drop in the ocean, called the Communist Party, but the task of the entire mass of the working people.
What was lacking? Political power? No. The money was forth coming, so they had economic as well as political power. All the necessary institutions were available. What was lacking, then? Culture.
instance shows that it is not a matter of possessing political power, but of administrative ability, the ability to put the right man in the right place, the ability to avoid petty conflicts, so that state economic work may be carried on without interruption. This is what we lack. “ (24)
And again in “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” Lenin states;
“The task of administering the state, which now confronts the Soviet government, has this special feature, that, probably for the first time in the modern history of civilised nations, it deals pre-eminently with economics rather than with politics. Usually the word “administration” is associated chiefly, if not solely, with political activity. However, the very basis and essence of Soviet power, like that of the transition itself from capitalist to socialist society, lie in the fact that political tasks occupy a subordinate position to economic tasks. And now, especially after the practical experience of over four months of Soviet government in Russia, it should be quite clear to us that the task of administering the state is primarily a purely economic task-that of healing the country’s wounds inflicted by the war, restoring its productive forces, organising accountancy in and control over production and distribution, raising the productivity of labour-in short, it boils down to the task of economic reorganisation.
This task can be said to fall under two main headings: I) accounting and control over production and distribution in the broadest, most widespread, and universal forms of such accounting and control, and 2) raising the productivity of labour. These tasks can be handled by any form of collective effort or any form of state passing over to socialism only on condition that the basic economic, social, cultural, and political preconditions for this have been created in a sufficient degree by capitalism. Without large-scale machine production, without a more or less developed network of railways, postal and telegraph communications, without a more or less developed network of public educational institutions, neither of these tasks can be carried out in a systematic way on a national scale.
In all spheres of economic and political life we now find a great number of bourgeois intellectuals and capitalist businessmen offering their services to the Soviet power. And it is up to the Soviet power now to make use of these services, which are definitely necessary for the transition to socialism, especially in a peasant country like Russia, and should be utilised on condition that the Soviet government has complete ascendancy, direction and control over its new assistants and co-operators.
An economic transition of the above nature calls also for a corresponding change in the functions of Soviet leadership. (25)
Another baseless, exaggerated, petty bourgeois childish accusation is the Trade of Cuba with the Capitalist-imperialist Countries. Aside from the fact that trade with Cuba is prevented for the most part due to US blockade, it is not something forbidden but a necessity, an inevitability for a socialist country, either it is developed or developing. Lenin explains the interconnection between holding the political power and economic development.
“To ensure the continuous, if slow, rehabilitation of large-scale industry we must not hesitate to throw sops to the greedy foreign capitalists, because, from the standpoint of building socialism, it is at present to our advantage to overpay the foreign capitalists some hundreds of millions in order to obtain the machines and materials for the rehabilitation of large-scale industry, which will restore the economic basis of the proletariat, and will transform it into a steadfast proletariat, instead of one engaged in profiteering. ……It would be absurd and ridiculous to deny that the fact that the proletariat is a handicap. By 1921, we realised that after the struggle against the external enemy, the main danger and the greatest evil confronting us was our inability to ensure the continuous operation of the few remaining large enterprises. This is the main thing. Without such an economic basis, the working class cannot firmly hold political power. “ (26)
This again clearly reveals that such “accusations” of Cuba is just another copy of accusations of Soviets and Stalin by the Trotskyites.
Another typical Trotskyite-like accusation of Cuba is related to above but separated as “being compromising and giving “concessions” to capitalists. Every trade between those who have and who do not, and desperate to have contains in it some form of “compromise” to some degree. Cuba has not handed out her property and economy. As Lenin states;
“Concessions are nothing to be afraid of. There is nothing terrible about giving the concessionaires a few factories and retaining the bulk in our own hands. Of course, it would be absurd for the Soviet power to hand out the bulk of its property in the form of concessions. That would not be concessions, but a return to capitalism. There is nothing to fear in concessions so long as we retain possession of all the state enterprises and weigh up exactly and strictly the concessions we grant, and the terms and scale on which we grant them. Growing capitalism will be under control and supervision, while political power will remain in the hands of the working class and of the workers’ state. The capital which will exist in the form of concessions and the capital which will inevitably grow through the medium of the co-operatives and a free market, have no terrors for us. We must try to develop and improve the condition of the peasantry, and make a great effort to have this benefit the working class. We shall be able to do all that can be done to improve peasant farming and develop local trade more quickly with concessions than without them, while planning our national economy for a much faster rehabilitation of large-scale socialist industry.” (27)
This accusation of Cuba too, again clearly reveals its Trotskyite face or the influence by them as a typical copy of accusations of Soviets and Stalin.
As Lenin indicated, Trotsky himself and the Trotskyites never understood and paid attention to the dialectic of Marxism. Most of all their accusations are one and the same subject, disconnected, separated, and multiplied for the purpose of creating a confusion and reinforcing their false accusations with “quantity of problems” . In this sense another accusation is related to the “backward steps”, “retreat” from the road of Socialism – same accusations of Soviets and Stalin.
Here what Lenin was saying at the 7th Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party, which Cuba is in a similar but continuing difficult situation especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union had to take back steps;
“the proletariat, which had won political power, assumed that there would be a more gradual transition to the new social and economic relations
By the spring of 1921 it became evident that we had suffered defeat in our attempt to introduce the socialist principles of production and distribution by “direct assault", i.e., in the shortest, quickest, and most direct way. The political situation in the spring of 1921 revealed to us that on a number of economic issues a retreat to the position of state capitalism, the substitution of “siege” tactics for “direct assault", was inevitable.
Don’t be afraid to admit defeat. Learn from defeat. Do over again more thoroughly, more carefully, and more systematically what you have done badly. If any of us were to say that admission of defeat—like the surrender of positions—must cause despondency and relaxation of effort in the struggle, we would reply that such revolutionaries are not worth a damn.
The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous, and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i.e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles.
A revival of economic life—and that is what we must have at all costs—and increased productivity—which we must also have at all costs—are what we are beginning to obtain as a result of the partial reversion to the system of state capitalism. Our ability, the extent to which we shall be able to apply this policy correctly in the future, will determine to what extent we shall continue to get good results.
We find ourselves in the position of having to retreat still further, in order, eventually, to go over to the offensive. That is why we must all admit now that the methods of our previous economic policy were wrong. We must admit this in order to be able to understand the nature of the present position, the specific features of the transition that now lies ahead of us. We are not now confronted with urgent problems of foreign affairs; nor are we confronted with urgent war problems. We are now confronted mainly with economic problems, and we must bear in mind that the next stage cannot be a transition straight to socialist construction.
Now we find ourselves in the position of having to retreat even a little further, not only to state capitalism, but to the state regulation of trade and the money system. Only in this way, a longer way than we expected, can we restore economic life. Unless we re-establish a regular system of economic relations, restore small-peasant farming, and restore and further expand large-scale industry by our own efforts, we shall fail to extricate ourselves from the crisis. We have no other way out; and yet there are many in our ranks who still do not understand clearly enough that this economic policy is necessary. When we say, for example, that the task that confronts us is to make the state a wholesale merchant, or that it must learn to carry on wholesale trade, that our task is commercial, some people think it is very queer and even very terrible. They say: “If Communists have gone to the length of saying that the immediate task is to engage in trade, in ordinary, common, vulgar, paltry trade, what can remain of communism? Is this not enough to make anyone throw up his hands in despair and say, ’All is lost’?” If we look round, I think we shall find people who express sentiments of this kind, and such sentiments are very dangerous, because if they become widespread they would give many people a distorted view of things and prevent them from appraising our immediate tasks soberly. If we concealed from ourselves, from the working class, from the masses the fact that we retreated in the economic field in the spring of 1921, and that we are continuing the retreat now, in the autumn and winter of 1921-22, we would be certifying to our own lack of political consciousness; it would prove that we lacked the courage to face the present situation. It would be impossible to work and fight under such conditions.
The position which our New Economic Policy has created—the development of small commercial enterprises, the leasing of state enterprises, etc.—entails the development of capitalist relations; and anybody who fails to see this shows that he has lost his head entirely. It goes without saying that the consolidation of capitalist relations in itself increases the danger. But can you point to a single path in revolution, to any stage and method that would not have its dangers? ... Every step in this New Economic Policy entails a series of dangers. When we said in the spring that we would substitute the tax in kind for requisitioning, that we would pass a decree granting freedom to trade in the surplus grain left over after the tax in kind had been paid, we thereby gave capitalism freedom to develop. Failure to understand this means losing sight of the fundamental economic relations; and it means that you are depriving yourself of the opportunity to look round and act as the situation demands. .. And when we changed our economic policy, the danger became still greater, because, consisting of as it does of a vast number of economic, workaday trifles, which one usually becomes accustomed to and fails to notice, economics calls for special attention and effort and more peremptorily demands that we learn the proper methods of overcoming this danger. The restoration of capitalism, the development of the bourgeoisie, the development of bourgeois relations in the sphere of trade, etc.—this constitutes the danger that is peculiar to our present period of economic development, to our present gradual approach to the solution of problems that are far more difficult than previous problems have been. There must not be the slightest misunderstanding about this.
We must understand that the present concrete conditions call for the state regulation of trade and the money system, and it is precisely in this field that we must show what we are capable of. There are more contradictions in our economic situation now than there were before the New Economic Policy was adopted; there is a partial, slight improvement in the economic position of some sections of the population, of the few; there is an extreme disproportion between economic resources and the essential needs of other sections, of the majority. Contradictions have increased.” (28)
Another childish, learned by rote and sloganized accusation of Cuba is the accusation of “bureaucratism”. An accusation applied to a socialist country with the bourgeois meaning and context of the word in a way that there should not be or could not be bureaucracy in a Socialist country. Criticizing the accusations from right, “An old and often repeated objection to socialism” says Lenin,” is that socialism means “barracks for the masses” and “mass bureaucracy”. (29) And clarifies the Marxist understanding of it by stating;
“an apparatus for policy (=reviewing and correcting relations between classes), and not a policy for the apparatus!
(A good) bureaucracy in the service of policy, and not a policy in the service of (a good) bureaucracy.” (30)
Anarchist utopia that expects the building of socialism in the morning of revolution and withering away of state in the following days, expects the self-administration of the masses – meaning the elimination of bureaucracy. What is destroyed with the bourgeois state is the bourgeois bureaucracy. As Stalin explains; “with the abolition of the old apparatus of state administration, bureaucracy was smashed, but the bureaucrats remained.” (31)
Stalin explains as follow;
“ to rid the state of the elements of bureaucracy, to transform Soviet society into a free association of working people, the people must have a high level of culture, peace conditions must be fully guaranteed all around us so as to remove the necessity of maintaining a large standing army, which entails heavy expenditure and cumbersome administrative departments, the very existence of which leaves its impress upon all the other state institutions. Our state apparatus is bureaucratic to a considerable degree, and it will remain so for a long time to come” (32)
It is simply because the question of “Bureaucracy” is no different than the question of “state” , it requires the economic, social, cultural, and habitual foundation to be set for it, and requires the absence of capitalist encirclement. As Lenin puts it “The economic foundations for the withering away of the state”: in this case we also have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy.” (33)
Another though not widely, indirectly made accusation is related to the Trotskyite approach to "trade unions" which was brought in Cuba within last five years is, as expected, to confront the Political Power and Trade unions and create a division and conflict between them. It is exactly the same issue Lenin criticized in Soviets. Although question has been discussed in a group (in Cuba) and widely rejected, it is important and beneficial to state Lenin's critique here, since indirectly related to such accusations are being made.
'To achieve this success in Russia, in her present state, it is absolutely essential that all authority in the factories should be concentrated in the hands of the management. The factory management, usually built up on the principle of one-man responsibility, must have authority independently to fix and pay out wages, and also distribute rations, working clothes, and all other supplies on the basis and within the limits of collective agreements concluded with the trade unions; it must enjoy the utmost freedom to manoeuvre, exercise strict control of the actual successes achieved in increasing production, in making the factory pay its way and in increasing profits, and carefully select the most talented and capable administrative personnel, etc.
Under these circumstances, all direct interference by the trade unions in the management of factories must be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible.
It would be absolutely wrong, however, to interpret this indisputable axiom to mean that the trade unions must play no part in the socialist organisation of industry and in the management of state industry. Their participation in this is necessary in the following strictly defined forms. (34)
It is quite clear that each major accusations of Cuba not only do not have any factual base and supporting data, but have no Marxist Leninist theoretical base either. What is ironic is that same accusations have been made against Soviet Russia and Stalin. This fact alone indicates that such accusations are driven by Trotskyites and by those who are intentionally or unintentionally tailgating the Trotskyites.
There have been some other accusations that are not even worthy of any critique. Like most, in final analysis, disguised in left phrases they justify the counter revolutionary, provocative protests, one of which rather than seeing them as they are; provocateurs, anti-communists, pro US intellectuals and singers, they portray them as “lumpen proletariat”.
A return to the correct Leninist course demands deeds, not words; Support of anti-imperialist struggles in general, and unconditional support of Cuban struggle against imperialists.
QUESTION OF SUPPORT
Every decision and stand of a ML derives fromand has in mind the interests of working class and of its struggle. It is not to be derived from the learned by rote and sloganized theories but application of Marxist Leninists theories to the concrete conditions and situations with the final consequence of benefiting the working class and its struggle. When Lenin stated that “The proletariat can and must support the militant bourgeoisie when the latter wages a really revolutionary struggle against feudalism. But it is not for the proletariat to support the bourgeoisie when the latter is becoming quiescent” (35) he had the interests of (in most cases-non or few existing) working class and its struggle in mind. Shocking to so many who can not grasp Marxism Leninism and its dialectic, and puzzled with it, Lenin, in reality tell more in one paragraph that requires a book to explain:
“One cannot be a Marxist without feeling the deepest respect for the great bourgeois revolutionaries who had an historic right to speak for their respective bourgeois “fatherlands”, and, in the struggle against feudalism, led tens of millions of people in the new nations towards a civilised life.” (36)
Without going in to details of the subject but to the essence of it; Marxist Leninists support every forward action that coincides with the interests of working class and its struggle. Defining the struggles and wars of small, oppressed, exploited nations against the imperialists as “just” and calling for the support of Marxist Leninists derives from the same principle.
“Social-Democrats fully recognise the necessity of freedom for all nations. In the epoch of struggle against feudalism, absolutism, and foreign national oppression, they recognised defence of one’s country—today they recognise as just, the war waged by the oppressed nations (especially colonies) against their oppressors, the “great” powers. ” (37)
There is a twisted understanding of “support” of these type of anti-imperialist countries which preconditions an active war being waged against them. I will not dwell on this approach but remind them that “war is nothing but the continuation of a policy in different form”, especially now a days in various forms; through educated, trained provocateurs, followed by private mercenaries, NGO financed groups etc.
Now, while Marxist Leninist principle calls for the support of bourgeois and bourgeois democratic movements, to support a country where the political power is in the hands of majority, its interests coincides with that of majority and its road is toward socialism, should be unconditional, for her interests are not different than the interests of working class and its struggle neither in particular nor in general.
Even during the early years of Cuban revolution when most of the “socializations” had not been carried out firmly yet, Enver Hoxha was calling for the unconditional support of Cuba;
“A return to the correct Leninist course demands deeds, not words: it is necessary to denounce Khrushchev’s treacherous policy and his rapprochement with the imperialists; it is necessary to condemn his adventurist and capitulationist policy in the Cuban events and to give unreserved support to the fraternal Cuban people in their fight against the aggression of US imperialism” (38)
Even if one has some reservations about an anti-imperialist country’s political system, its shortcomings, mistakes etc., that does not prevent Marxist Leninists from supporting. Enver Hoxa gives another example of and the principle reason for the support; not hindering, but influencing for the better.
“In all the anarchist activity of Castro, there are certain stages which must not be forgotten, such as the resolute resistance to the Americans, the resistance over the question of the missiles, the fight at the Bay of Pigs, and now the disagreements with the Soviets. Castro is not a purist but neither is he like some Korean or Rumanian leaders. Castro has a pronounced sense of resistance. Relying on these features, without retreating from our principles, we should try to influence him for the better, because this is in the interest of the revolution.” (39)
CONCLUSION
There were so many statements, commentaries in reference to the provocative demonstrations in Cuba. Unfortunately, most of the Marxist Leninists statements and commentaries had shown an influence of Bourgeois norm, morality, and ethics, so called “balance and fairness” approach in it. That is why statements and commentaries were full of critiques of Cuba side by side condemning the imperialist plans and aggression. That was good enough for a bourgeois commentary for making the average reader draw the desired conclusion of commentator;” although one is worse but the other is not good either. “
Marxist Leninist ethics and norms have nothing to do with that of bourgeois. For Marxists Leninists, norms, ethics, “morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.” (40) First of all, related to a specific subject matter at a specific moment, it is not the time and place to play “fair and balance” game and fall into the bourgeois trap, for such an approach brings about a drawn conclusion by the average reader that minimizes the importance of the aggression of imperialists.
Secondly, and most importantly, due to the structure and length of the statement, even if the briefly outlined critiques in statement had some legitimacy, they would have no benefit to the cause in general or in specific, for most readers will only draw the conclusion that Cuba is not “that good” anyway. That conclusion will be creating a reverse illusion indeed, an illusion that minimizes not only the importance of Cuba, but the importance of imperialist aggression against her.
The critiques of Cuba had no place in statements and commentaries for a specific event and related to imperialist plots and aggression. That was the current issue, and that was what the Marxist Leninist had to stick with in their statements and commentaries. If one wanted to take the issue of Cuba and criticize her, that would have been taken separately, apart from the "statements related to the protest issue", another time on another place.
I have taken up each and every major arguments against Cuba stated on those statements and commentaries, and made the counter arguments, shown their fallacy based on Marxist Leninist theories, supported by Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxa.
Thus not only the format of the statements and commentaries based on “balanced” approach is wrong and serving the interests of imperialists, but the arguments made in order to be “balanced and fair” are false and has nothing to do with Leninism but of Trotskyism, thus, again, serving the interests of bourgeoisie.
Marxist Leninists should be vigilant in their statements and commentaries and consider the consequences, study what the “feedback” will be before issuing these statements and commentaries. And never go by the bourgeois “fair and balance” ethic rule that presumes “impartiality, for Marxist Leninists are not impartial in any event.
Erdogan A
July 2021
Notes
(1) Karl Marx, The German Ideology
(2) Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
(3) Lenin, From a Publicist’s Diary (Peasants and Workers)
(4) Lenin, The Conversation
(5) Lenin, Karl Marx A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism
(6) Lenin, The Aim of the Proletarian Struggle in Our Revolution
(7) Lenin, Constitutional Illusions
(8) Lenin State and Revolution
(9) Enver Hoxha, Letter to the Ninth Conference of the Chinese Communist Party, April 29, 1969
(10) Enver Hoxha, The Modern Revisionists on the Way to Degenerating Into Social-Democrats and to Fusing with Social-Democracy - April 7, 1964
(11) Enver Hoxha, Reflection on China
(12) Lenin, The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism
(13) Stalin, Dimitrov’s Diaries December 6, 1948
(14) Lenin, Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme
(15) Lenin, First Congress of the Communist International
(16) Lenin, Material for the Preparation of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.
(17) Lenin, The Central Authority, and the Consolidation of the Bourgeois State
(18) Lenin, Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International
(19) Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder, No Compromises?
(20) Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(21) Lenin, The Tasks Involved in the Building of the Revolutionary Proletarian State
(22) Lenin, On Cooperation
(23) Lenin, Role and Functions of the Trade Unions
(24) Lenin, Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)
(25) Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”
(26) Lenin, Tenth All-Russian Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)
(27) Lenin, Report on the Tax in Kind
(28) Lenin, Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party
(29) Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
(30) Lenin, Notes for a Speech at the 10th Congress
(31) talin, Speech at the Opening of the, First All-Russian Conference of Responsible Personnel of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection,
(32) Stalin; The Party's Tasks
(33) Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind
(34) Lenin, Role and Functions of the Trade Unions
(35) Lenin, The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907
(36) Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International
(37) Lenin, The First International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald
(38) Enver Hoxha, Twenty Years of Socialist Albania
(39) Enver Hoxha, The Chinese Diplomacy has fallen asleep.
(40) Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
Hiç yorum yok