UNFOUNDED CRITICISM OF A CUBAN LEADER
By Ernest Germain
“The July-August number of Sous le Drapeau du Soctalisme”*contains an article in praise of René Dumont's recent book Guba, Socialisme et Développement, a work that has merit in some respects but is bad in others. The real purpose of the article, however, appears to be to single out Che Guevara for some remarks which, in our opinion, are unjustified. Since Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme takes the a liberty of representing itself as an official publication of the _ Fourth International, we consider it necessary to publicly disso-_ ciate ourselves from its views; and to indicate where we think the . criticism of Che Guevara is unfair and mistaken.
‘We are, of course, not against criticizing the regime of any. workers ‘state, ‘whether led by Lenin and’ Trotsky in the first pértod of the Russian Revolution, or by a Khrushchev, Brezhnev-Kosygin, Tito*“or Fidel Castro. But we believe that criticism should be responsible, based on verified information and with alternatives” “elearly posed, _ ~ :
Our first difference with the article printed by Sous Le Drapeau du Socialisme is that it’ ‘places too much confidence In the assertions of René Dumont. This left Social-Democratic agronomist | and economist has’ written many uséful things, ‘popularizing import=" ant economic concepts, but he has‘ displayed two weaknesses: which’ should cause revolutionary ‘Marxists to approach what he says with some caution. He often leaps to unwarranted conclusions; and he’ is not a Marxist. He defends many positions which can only be described as reformist, which is not unexpected since he is not a revolutionist.
A couple of examples of mistakes made by Dumont will indicate why some of his reportage must be approached with eyes open, On visiting China during the "great leap forward," he published a dithyrambic account of the successes in grain ’ production, picturing it’as "the greatest revolution in the history of mankind." Since Dumont's specialty is agriculture, his statements made a considerable impression. A few months later, the Chinese leaders themselves admitted that the figures” on grain production had been grossly in-
¥ohie is the public Paction organ of a small minority in the Fourth International headed by Michel Pablo. The editors list the magazine as the "Bimonthly review of the African Commission of the Fourth International," However, it.. is not the organ of the regularly elected African Commission and doe’ not represent the views of the Fourth International, The editors have now begun an English edition ‘called Under the Banner of Socialism:in which the article:in. '@@éstion also appears. The English translation happens to be: virtually unreadable, and so where necessary we have made our own translation from the |''~ French,
788
flated and tnat grain production had actually increased only ina modest way. (Later they explained a drop in production as due to a series of natural catastrophes, )
In giving his impressions of the Cuban scene, after a. trip there, Dumont criticized the revolutionary leadership for haying . converted the sugar-cane co-operatives, set up on former U. S.-owned plantations, into people's farms. He forgot something- -apout— Cubats:~ class structure underlined by Fidél Cestro. The plantatioris . were worked by agricultural laborers, not pe easants, From the Marxist | point of view, the establishment of cOoeoperatives represents a step forward for peasants; but in the case of big plantations. worked by — wage labor this is not true. The correct step is nationalization and the establishment of collective farms,
Again, Dumont is critical of the "Stalinist" concept of a "NEP crisis" in the late twenties in the Soviet Union. The.view that the NEP, under Stalin, was headed toward crisis was. not "Stalinist. " The Left Opposition, founded by Leon Trotsky, held this view, pointing to the deepening contradictions, including the growing concentration of the food surplus in the hands of the rich peasants, which could signify starvation for the cities, etc., etc.
; Unfortunately, Dumont ag .& -source of. information and opinion on the economic policies - of. the “Cuban Revolution is not: superior to Dumont as a source of infogmation. and opinion on the Russian Revolution in the early twenties, By their uncritical acceptance of Dumont's views, the editors of Sous. le _Drapeau ‘du Socialisms let themselves in for some serious errors. .
First of all, they are tong i lodging responsfiility. tor
certain errors in Cuban cgriculture with Che Guevara. Guevara's mesponsibility is industry.
As tor the concepts operative in the two fields, it is precisely the cadres responsible for agriculture who are pressing most strongly for "autonomy of enterprises," for "self-financing" and "self-invesgtient." It is thus strange, to say the least, to point to Guevara's alleged "statist" concepts as the explanation for the difficulties in agriculture. The unfairness of such a criticism stands out all the more in view of the fact that those responsible for agriculture happen to be the strongest opponents of Guevara's views. They have had every opportunity to display how much substance there is to their antibureaucratic inclinations by the way | they manage agriculture, P,
The editors of Sous le le Drapeau ‘au Socialisme take . “the side of Guevara's opponents. ‘This ts done under the s Logan of advancing "self-management. "But Guevara's opponents favor “autonomy. of enterprises" without workers self-management,» In the process,. the: editors get many things mixed up of vital concern to backward’. counties: trying to begin construction of a socialist economy. cetey
a atd,
. In Cuba, where a very ardent discussion has been going on about these problems, the line of demarcation is not between a tendency favoring workers self-management and a different one favoring "centralized management." The true situation.is as follows: ona group favors bureaucratic decentralization; i.e., more autonomy for managers of factories and farms and without workers control or work= ers self-management. The same group favors increased "material stimulants" for. the bureaucrats, The other group, of which Guevara is an outstanding spokesman, is. opposed to granting individual managers greater freedom from central planning and financing.
Why Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme should consider the former tendency as more representative of “socialist democracy" is a mystery. Cuba's main leaders have demonstrated that they are conscious of the danger of bureaucratization, they have been fighting it, and one of the means they have applied is stronger state controls against bureaucratism. In such a situation, to call for greater "independence" for individual plant managers plays into the hands of the bureaucratic tendency.
_ Relying wholly on Dumont, ‘the editors of Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme repeat the claim that Che Guevara is opposed to "material .incentives" for workers. To our knowledge this does not conform to the facts. It is true that Guevara strongly opposes. the system of granting material incentives to the bureaucrats, the system now in force in the Soviet Union (premiums for over fulfilling the plan). But in this Guevara shares the revolutionary Marxist position. Such incentives have a logic of their own, the managers becoming interested in systematically underestimating the productive capacity of "their" plant in order. to keep the assigned goals as low as possible, The system favors the bureaucratic privileges against which Trotsky and his followers to this day have waged an intransigeant. struggle.
In addition to this, Guevara is opposed to any type of Cass "material incentive" that might tend to divide the working class ..and destroy its organic unity. For instance, he is. against. the. * piece-work system and against inter-factory competition. This, too, happens to be the traditional position of revolutionary Marxists.
Guevara does favor forms of "material incentives" that heighten the soctalist consciousness of workers, That, as Lenin long ago stressed, remains the correct key to this problem as well as to all the others in the transition period For iowing the replacement of capitalism,
Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme ° waxes ironic over Guevara's position favoring centralized financial control. (This is Guevara's “actual view, not "centralized management" as Dumont puts it, rather as Sous le Drapeau du Soctalisme interprets Dumont. “yr Seven in highly developed countries such as. the-USA or the USSR," the article declares, "it is impossible even with electronic calculating machines to guide each enterprise from above like that,"
/ = d3O-
‘Leaving aside the imputation as tothe capacities of electronic calculating machines, the’ fact is that: "even. in highly developed: countries" ‘the’ banks exercise quite strict: control over the factories, particularity if they have loaned them money .- ‘In the Soviet: Union: | this is done as a matter of principlés.’ The only differenee’on this is that Guevara wants control to remain in the hands of the Ministry of Industry; his opponents want it in ‘the’ hands of the Central Bank the way it is in the Soviet Union. Does ‘the. issue really involve socialist: democracy and workers self-management?
As for the argument that "even in highly developed countries" centralized financial control is difficult: “even with ‘electronic calculating machines" and therefore it would” be much more diffieult in a small’ country, this is obviously absurd.’ It is easier “to centralize the finances of a thousand factories. than it is of two hundred thousand, with or without electronic. calculating machines.
We come to a position which: we think does a disservice’ to the slogan of workers self-management. This is to present it as “‘Heces=sarily linked with such an extreme form of economic decentralization and.experimenting. with market economy as is to be found in Yugoslavia. It is precisely this kind of association that’raises doubts about. workers self-management among many honest revolutionists, not. ‘because they are opposed: in principle'to workers self-management but because they correctly understand the dangerous potential in loosening the controls over a market ecotiemy in’ ‘backward countries. oa
The editors ‘ef Sous le Dray eati du Socialisme contend that’ under. workers self-management, “Prices ‘will flow from real produc~ » *bdon. ‘costs," This isa dangerous concept which, if actually applied, could Papidly doom any attempt at esteblishing planned economy ina batkward country. As Trotsky pointed out more than once in the casé of the Soviet Union, to let prices flow from real production costs would have blocked industrialization, This applies to Cuba today as wellas.-any::other underdeveloped country. <A country becomes "backward" in'the epoch of imperialism; ive., when market economy... is pushed to its’ extreme logit, because in competing on the world market it can produce and export only raw materials. One of the — major possibilities opened up by a socialist revolution in a backward “eountry is just this: economic growth can be assured by opposing the logic of market economy.
“ In the Soviet Union, the Left Opposition stated quite flatly that the logic of planning must oppose the logic of the market, (This did not at all imply that the plan should ignore the market or that the planners should not watch -to: what.extent managed. prices deviated from real production costs.) The editors of Sous le Drapeau Gu Sooialisme seem to have forgotten all this.’
Workers. ‘management of industry : is. completely compatible with centralized planning and allocation of. ‘resources: ("centralized investment"), It means that the actual use of plant equipment and the
working up of raw materials is left up to the workers themselves, Theirs is the initiative to see what can be done with a given com bination to increase production, to find the optimum and with that to gain the reward of increased income. It means that they are free to determine for themselves such economic factors as the rate and type of renewal of equipment, the pace of work, whether or not to hire supplementary labor, to determine their work week (yearly average) within the limits of the law setting the maximum length of the work week, to determine within the limits of the plan the variety of consumer goods to be produced, and go on,
. This concept advances workers self-management as a genuine school of revolutionary Marxism and a real brake on bureaucratism, At the same time, it counters the grave distortions introduced under the Yugoslav model of excessive decentralization and market economy: Not the least of its superiorities over the Yugoslav model is that. it increases both democracy and equality.
‘The sources of bureaucratism are scarcity and inequality. In the last analysis, bureaucratism seeks to secure control of the social surplus product by a privileged minority, To think that this control hinges on the forms of centralized management is quite wrong. "Independent" plant managers (with the help of ‘the market) can often control the social surplus product even more efficiently than a central planning board, This has been demonstrated in Yugoslavia -again: and again, even the Yugoslav leaders admitting that the bureaucracy: yields tremendous power at the plant level notwithstanding fourteen years of workers self-management. Recent experience in Algeria has shown how bureaucrats at the level of the socialized farms can systematically drain the March 1963 decrees on self-management of nearly all content.
We are strongly in favor of workers self-management of socialized factories and farms in Cuba as well as in the other workers states. But we do not consider it to be a panacea. It is certainly not sufficient to counteract the danger of bureaucratism. For this, an approach along three lines is required on the domestic front: (1) a planned: economy, democratically centralized (key decisions in allocating searce resources to be taken by a democratically elected. congress of producers! committees, or soviets) to assure rapid industrialization (otherwise a mass of underemployed or unemployed peasants constantly threaten the revolution and offer a social base for the bureaucracy to play the workers and peasants against:..each other); (2) workers self-management in socialized factories and farms along the lines indicated above; and (3) proletarian democracy; i.e., freedom for the formation of tendencies within the revolutionary Marxist party and freedom for multiple working-class parties loyal » to the socialist constitution ~- without which no real working-class democracy is possible even at the factory level. * .
States built upon modern industry, whether workers or bour- » geois, cannot escape a certain indispensable amount of centraliza-~
aS Qe
tion, This. will disappear only after social classes, commodity production and: the money economy: have given way to the communist. society of the future. where electronic calculating machines.can come into. their own. . The first step is to-replace the centralism.of. the market by the centralism of the plan. This means in the final analysis to replace blind centralizing forces by conscious ones. ;
It is a gross illusion to imagine that "workers self-manage~ _ ment’ can obviate this step, In fact for all its propaganda about. the “withering away of the state" and the very real progress along the road of workers self-management, the Yugoslav regime today is much more: centralized than Soviet Russia in the twenties, be it only because its economy is more advanced and its leading party much more bureauératic; =.Who. can honestly deny. that. this bureaucratized, cen-. tralistic party manipulates to a high degree the incipient democratic process at the plant level? The Yugoslav workers can effectively defend themselves against this only by challenging the government party at the state level; i.e., through political working-class demo- CPACY es
To isolate workers. _gelf-management in the factories from the. essential conditions. required for it-to flower, and to offer it as. a panacea (in combination with "socialist",.market economy), is a. poor way to recommend it .to,revolutionists -in a country Like Cuba as. a measure to ‘he considered: in. extending | and, deepening workers: demo~ cracye - So ee ss Swng: He eM Ree ey!
r
Book Review
A DARK