Walter Lippmann Editor, CubaNews listserv Los Angeles, California Dear Walter, You recently disseminated Dr. Susan Williams’ article “Cuba’s Fate: Balanced on a Razor’s Edge” from the September/October issue of the Freedom Socialist newspaper. In your introduction to the posting, you make a point of having been a Trotskyist at some unhappy time in the past and present yourself as an expert on all things Trotskyist generally and the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP) specifically. You followed this posting up by translating and circulating, without any disclaimer, Dr. Néstor García Iturbe’s ludicrous accusation that the FSP is a front for the CIA.1 Apparently you have abandoned any guise of objectivity or even truth-seeking as regards the FSP. Your posting gives a very biased, one-sided and inaccurate interpretation of the party and its political ideology. Sadly missing is any recognition of our longtime role in the Cuba solidarity movement in Canada, Australia and the U.S. or discussion of the important issues Williams raises on behalf of the FSP. Nor do you present any facts or evidence to shed more light on Cuban developments in the period since Raúl Castro took over as President. Below are a few examples of how you get the FSP wrong. The FSP did not have a Maoist-Trotskyist orientation at its inception. While agreement that the revolution in China established a workers’ state was part of the FSP’s original political program, we were clear that it was born deformed due to an undemocratic, Stalinist bureaucracy under Mao’s leadership. FSP has been avowedly Trotskyist and anti-Maoist from day one of its existence in 1966. Our belief that Raúl Castro is headed in the wrong direction, sharpening the threat of capitalist restoration, is not based on hostility toward Cuba’s revolutionary leadership. Our position is based on what we know about divisions within the country’s leadership on the questions of changes in economic policies and practices, data on foreign investments and degree of private ownership, and the ability of unions and women’s and other mass organizations to exert influence on the regime. We would welcome evidence that our assessment is wrong, but you offer none whatsoever. Dr. Williams’ statement that the Cuban Communist Party has adopted the policy of building socialism in one country is accurate, in our view. The PCC has indeed maintained this orientation in practice with a few exceptions, such as its military intervention in anti-colonial struggles in Africa. We recognize Cuba’s need to maintain trade relations with Mexico, Canada and European capitalist countries, but not to sacrifice the struggle of the international working class in the process. In the past, the Cuban government has exerted its influence to hold back revolutionary struggles in Latin America by advising that they not go beyond mixed economies or revolutions in stages which never fully overturn capitalist property relations. This leaves the door open for counter-revolutionary forces, backed by imperialism, to gain the upper hand as working people become disillusioned with the ability of anti-capitalists to provide a better life. FSP does not advocate that Cuba needs a multi-party system or a multi-faction party, nor are we trying to attract dissatisfied Cubans to an FSP tendency in Cuba.
We have refrained from calling for a multi-party system in Cuba precisely out of concerns that it would create openings for U.S.-backed opponents of the workers’ state. We do believe there is a need for formation by Cubans of tendencies (not factions) within the PCC to carry on debates over what is to be done to preserve the gains of the revolution. It is not our position that the main danger to the Cuban revolution is Cuba’s own leadership, nor do we dream of attracting people outside the island to such a position.
The main threat to the Cuban revolution is and always has been the lack of revolutions in the U.S. and other advanced industrialized countries that would weaken or eliminate imperialism as a counter-revolutionary force. That said, just as the Soviet bureaucracy hastened the fall of the USSR, the Cuban bureaucracy weakens the ability of Cuba’s workers’ state to survive. At the same time, we believe that there is still a possibility that pressure from within and without may result in democratic, pro-worker reforms that will increase its life expectancy. Our unique position on the nature of the Cuban leadership is not based on the writings of ex-communist Theodore Draper on Cuba (which we have not studied). Nor is it the same as any others on the left. Unlike the International Socialist Organization and the Spartacist League, we do not call for political revolution to overthrow the Castro bureaucracy. Nor do we agree with the ISO that Cuba is state capitalist or with International Workers League–Fourth International that capitalism has already been restored. You mischaracterize our attitude on Cuba’s involvement with ALBA as “harsh negativity” when what we say is that its participation in a Latin American trading block is unavoidable for an isolated workers’ state. Williams’ article does criticize the Cuban leadership for representing ALBA as some kind of panacea. In response to our use of the term “popular front” to describe some Latin American governments, you again treat legitimate political characterization as an expression of political hostility “in the special vocabulary of Trotskyism.” Popular front is a valid description of a multi-class coalition or government where the bourgeoisie’s program and interests predominate over those of the working class. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have not overturned fundamental capitalist property relations, despite carrying out some nationalizations, and continue to pay on the external debt. Finally, yes, we do think revolutionary Trotskyism, with its emphasis on global revolution, is an alterative to the politics of the Cuban government and Castroism. Importantly, in these times of worldwide economic crisis, we believe the success of the Cuban revolution and revolutions in other countries requires building an international revolutionary party. Despite its problems, the Cuban Communist Party could play an important role in creation of such an organization. But that will not happen if every critic, and every criticism, is beaten down with worn-out allegations of political hostility towards the revolution and accusations of working for the CIA. Avoiding and discouraging honest and open discussion of the political state of affairs in Cuba or any country holds back our movement and plays into the hands of the real enemies of socialism. In struggle, Doug Barnes
National Secretary, U.S. Fred Hyde
National Committee
