[Marxism] Denial of (or silence about) socialism

[Walter Lippmann]

SAYAN BHATTACHARYA has asked serious and important questions
to which I propose the following responses:

First, it is hard to "leave Fidel aside" since he was and remains the
principal strategist and tactician of the Cuban Revolution, from its
earliest days, shall we say beginning with the Moncada barracks
attack on July 26, 1953, up to and including the present day. Ask
Raul Castro today and this is what Raul Castro would tell you.

Second, the question posed reflects an absence of any sense of
historical perspective. It is posed in terms of a generalized rule
which is applicable for all times and places, and under each and
every circumstance. As Sayan says, he asks it "abstractly" and
that is something which cannot be answered in the abstract, as
a general rule. Political situations and circumstances vary quite
widely. What is appropriate in one circumstances may not work
in another. 

Third, what was the political situation in Cuba in the early 1950s?
What was the political situation in the world at that conjuncture?

One third of the earth's surface was covered by societies which
called themselves socialist, but which had both a series of anti-
democratic political structures (let's just say "Stalinism" to use
an abbreviated short-hand expression) and which collapsed of
internal rot and degeneration. They had been subjected to both
a relentless ideological assault from the capitalist west since the
Russian Revolution of 1917, and the religion of anti-Communism
in the post World War II period. While the Cuban Communist
Party of that period, known as the Popular Socialist Party, had 
a long history of activity in opposition to the Batista regime, it
also had certain other baggage. Its members had held posts in
the electorally-legitimate Batista government elected in 1940.

And it had also been uncritical supporters of the Soviet Union
and the states allied with it (call them "satellites" if you wish,
though that term wouldn't apply to China, Vietnam nor would
it apply to Yugoslovia, which had real indigenous revolutions.)

Critics have complained that this failed to call for either the
nationalization of basic industry, or to use the word "socialism"
in its text. The Socialist Workers Party (of the United States of
America, the one which published and continues to publish the
weekly newspaper THE MILITANT, most famously attacked the
Cuban Revolution in that notorious editorial published OVER A
YEAR after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in which they
criticized Cuba's leaders in the sharpest of terms, saying that
"the main danger to the Cuban revolution is in its own leader-
ship" which it derided as petty bourgeois, failing to call for the
nationalization of industry and for socialism. 

THE MILITANT: CUBA AT THE CROSSROADS:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/catc.html

Socialist Action, an historic descendant of the SWP (USA) today
follows down the exact same lamentable path. It's now leading
a world-wide struggle against Hugo Chavez, and against Evo
Morales, and against other progressive and Latin American
leaders whose names and locations they don't even yet know:

SOCIALIST ACTION: SHIFT TO THE LEFT IN LAT. AM. ELECTIONS:
http://www.socialistaction.org/editors9.htm

THE MILITANT, by the way, has the exact same view of Chavez
today, though it's expressed in softer terms, calling him a
Bonapartist and so on. But it's all there if you carefully use the
paper's search engine, you can find it.

Finally, consider the words of Jose Marti, the very last words he
wrote in his life. They are universally known and acknowledged
as such, even among the rightist Cuban exiles in Miami. They 
are reprinted in leading anthology of Marti's writings, and they
are reposted as well on the website of the Cuban Foreign
Ministry. 

Jose Marti, May 19, 1895
Letter to Manuel Mercado, (the final words Marti ever wrote).

I am in daily danger of giving my life for my country and duty for
I understand that duty and have the courage to carry it out -the duty
of preventing the United States from spreading through the Antilles
as Cuba gains its independence, and from empowering with that
additional strength our lands of America. All I have done so far, and
all I will do, is for this purpose. I have had to work quietly and
somewhat indirectly, because to achieve certain objectives, they
must be kept under cover; to proclaim them for what they are would
raise such difficulties that the objectives could not be attained. 

http://www.cubaminrex.cu/josemarti/jose%20marti%20vers%20ingles/marti-political%20testament-ing.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H32232B37

Marti's words explain both the political strategy of the Cuban
Revolution, and they contain elements which are indispensable
to an understanding of political strategy which ought to be
studied seriously by any who wish to learn how revolutionary
Cubans looked at the matter of their political strategy. In a
broader sense, you may also consult Marta Harnecker's book
FIDEL CASTRO'S POLITICAL STRATEGY (Pathfinder) and also
Lionel Martin's THE EARLY FIDEL: The Roots of Castro's
Communism (Lyle Stuart) for more on this strategic issue.

One day I hope to have Lionel Martin's entire book scanned to
make it available to a new generation of students, but it is easy
to find online for under ten dollars. It's a 272 page study of the
politics of the Cuban Revolution, and in particular one should
read his chapter on the speech HISTORY WILL ABSOLVE ME,
which is the historic program of the Cuban Revolution. 

SAYAN asked seriously: "Isn't transparency about one's political 
views best, when trying to organize a mass movement?"

My answer is: from a moral point of view, of course this is best,
always and in general. But from a political point of view? It really
all depends on the specific situation. One size does not, I'm sorry
to say, fit all. It's necessary to understand the actual situation as
it really is, and not as we wish it were, in order to orient ones own
political activity best. Can we really have the same rules applicable
for all times and places?


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California

=============================================

SAYAN BHATTACHARYA asked:
Leaving Fidel aside, let us consider this particular question abstractly:

Is the denial of (or silence about) socialism, even for strategic
reasons, necessarily good? I mean, if someone is really a socialist,
then doesn't denying it (and acknowledging it only much later)
inevitably invite charges of cynicism and dishonesty? Doesn't it incur
the risk of damaging one's credibility among the very masses one is
purporting to lead, causing people to wonder, "Can this person ever be
trusted?"

Isn't transparency about one's political views best, when trying to
organize a mass movement?

These are not rhetorical questions, by the way, but genuine questions.