» GUS’ HALL
ANSWERS As QUESTION ON REVOLUTIONS
tin” ‘the April 24 issue of The. Worker, Gus Hall, the main =. spokesman of the American Communist party, attempts.a reply .to the. editorial in the April issue of the Monthly. Review rejecting Fidel Castro:'s -attack.on "Trotskyism". and pointing to the damage done the. Cuban Revolution by the continued = silence over Che Guevara. Hall's reply, in the form of an answer to a question from a reader of The Worker’; is:.entitled "Gus Hall Answers a Question on Revolution." The question was formulated as -follows: "Mr. Hall, Would .you please explain. to.me what is the meaning of the. following sentences in an editorial in ‘the April issue of Monthly Review: '...iIn our opinion, . the only kind of revolution that has any chance of succeeding in .. Latin America today is a socialist revolution. We were, we believe, among the first to say that the Cuban Revolution would be forced to advance rapidly to socialism...in.1963 we stated our opinion in these pages that there.is no such thing as feudalism in Latin America -and-that it..therefore makes no.sense to talk about.-a bourgeois revolution. '"
[We have provided the full text of Mr. Hall's reply below. ]
* KK
THE EDITORIAL that you quote is wrong on. most counts. Among other: things it is an ill-tempered, slanderous, :personal attack on Fidel Castro and the leaders of the Cuban Revolution in general. The editorial slanders Castro as "ignorant" and a "latecomer," and calls his concluding speech to the Tri-Continental Conference "ugly and perhaps ominous , " and states that: Castro's "malice comes from his advisers. Sf _
This ill-tempered slander is in fact a cover for some very fundamental errors in the editorial policies of the Monthly Review. As you can see, there are obvious contradictions even in the lines that you quote. They say, "The only kind of revolution that has any chance in Latin America is a socialist revolution." Then; as seeming proof for this conclusion, they cite the Cuban Revolution. But what | is the meaning of the words, "...Cuban Revolution would be forced to advance rapidly to socialism?" "Advance rapidly to socialism" are the key words. Because if the Cuban Revolution started as a socialist revolution, it would not have had the task of advancing ‘to it.
The first stage of the Cuban Revolution was. anti- imperialist, was for national independence. The fascist Batista regime. was a puppet of U.S. imperialism. It. had to be overthrown. This was corréctly placed by the Cuban revolutionaries as the first task.of.. the revolution. After this was successfully concluded, then it © "rapidly advanced to" a socialist reorganization of society. So, if anything, this sentence disproves the main contention of the editorial.
THE ERROR of MR is in the attempt to ignore the nature of the struggle against imperialism and to replace it with a socialist revolution. In practice such a’ policy would not result ina successful struggle against imperialism, and it would not set.the stage for a socialist revolution. Wherever imperialism is a:factor, amass struggle against: imperialism is a necessary ingredient and a phase in the struggle. for socialism. :
“why are these: ‘concepts so important? Because the locomotive of social revolutions are people. And people will fight for what objective processes have placed on the order of the day. Therefore, if socialism is not on the order. of this day, but in spite of that, the advanced forces present At as if it is, this can only result in isolation for such forces.
The conscious organization and advocacy of advanced ideas, including socialism, are very important. But they can generate power | only if they are related to the level of objective developments of the period.
.&
THE LAST SENTENCE you quote from the editorial does not resolve the contradiction when it states "...there is no such thing as feudalism in Latin America and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about a bourgeois revolution." The realities of Latin America, of course, refute such a blanket assertion. Most Latin: American societies are a mixture of capitalism and feudalism.
‘But what is the ovérriding dominant phenomenon facing most, if not all, of the Latin American countries? It is that they are all victims of imperialist oppression.
Thus, breaking the chains of U. S. imperialist domination is the present overriding historic task. This is on the order of this day. Masses who have had enough of colonial oppression but who have > not yet decided what kind of a society should be built will join those who are convinced of the need for socialism in the struggle against imperialism. This is a necessary and an unavoidable step.
~The period between this hurdle and the struggle for socialism may be very brief, and the two may even overlap. The existence of the socialist world has a direct influence on these struggles. But the two tasks cannot be confused. Those with socialist convictions will be a part of and in fact the organizers of the anti-imperialist front and while doing so, will be working to convince all, about the advantages of the socialist path after the victory over imperialism. But the mass mobilization will be to achieve the first task first:
EDUARDO VALVERDE, member of the Secretariat of the People's Vanguard Party of Costa Rica, discusses these questions:
29.
"Feudal survivals, too, still make themselves felt, or even predominate, in the countryside in most Latin American countries. ... In Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador.and some other.: countries pre-capitalist production relations: are much more pronounced than in Argentina, Uruguay , Chile or | Mexico.
.But in: all circumstances” ‘in order ‘to pave. the way. ‘to. economic progress, ait is essential to win freedom from imperialist domination.
"Needless to say, our Party as well as the other Latin American Communist parties, unlike some 'ultra-revolutionary' groups...do not consider the winning of power by the working class and the full realization of the program of the socialist revolution to be the immediate task. The immediate prospect in our Countrses , as we see it, is the anti- imperialist. and. democratic revolution.
' "Moreover , worldwide experience - (and for us Latin-Americans the experience of Cuba above all) shows that at the present time the victory of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution is, as a rule, a precondition and “point of departure’ for the Socialist path of Sevelopment. '
. THE PROGRAM of the Communist Party, U. s. A. , also places this | question in a correct and clear manner: es
"We ‘Live’ ‘ina revolutionary age. ‘that. in scope and depth — eclipses all prior ages of social upheaval: and transformation. . Today the revolutionary tide extends to all continents, penetrates into the most remote jungles of Africa, climbs the most inaccessible mountain peaks of. Asia, stalks the plantationS'and mines of Latin America; sweeping-in its wake the overwhelming majority of mankind. Today's revolutions challenge the réign of. imperialism and monopoly capital everywhere. Those former revolutions ushéred in the age of capitalism: Today's revolutions mark mankind's’ historic transition from capitalism to socialism. oe
"The contemporary revolutions bear two distinctive marks: they are socialist, they are anti-imperialist. More than a billion human:. beings are embarked on socialist revolution. A larger number is in varying stages of anti- colonial revolution.
“The anti-colonial revolutions aim to. destroy imperialist. domination, feudal ‘bondagé and political tyranny. In the struggle for such aims- a’ broad: national ‘unity is. attainable, including «= .:capitalist elements who chafe under the’ oppressive: restrictions of. foreign monopoly. The attainment of such aims, progressive and liberating as they are, is not’ yet socialism. However, there is a close relation between the socialist and colonial. revolutions.
"1. Imperialism is the common’ enemy of both.
"2, The speed and scope of the colonial liberation tide is
made possible by the existence of the socialist world -- by its revolutionary example,::by. its. economic, diplomatic and military assistance, which greatly ‘restricts imperialism' f=) ability to suppress or strangle colonial revolutions... . .
"Thus, the two kinds of revolution typical of the age -- socialist and anti-colonial -- are distinct and yet interconnected parts of one vast revolutionary process. Each reinforces the other."
= By Joseph Hansen
In the April issue of the Monthly Review, Leo “Huberman and. Paul M. Sweezy, the editors of this internationally circulated independent socialist magazine, took shart issue with the way Fidel Castro criticized a wing of the Guatemalan guerrilla movement. In a speech January 15,.Castro. said that "Trotskyites" had infiltrated the movement and that Trotskyism was "a vulgar instrument of imperialism and reaction." The charge, said the editors of ‘the Monthly , Review, was "ugly and perhaps ominous." It was "precisely this accu-~ sation," they pointed out, "which provided the rationalization for the Soviet purge trials of the 1930's."
"Te anything has been proved -- and. not least. by the Soviet government itself," they continued, "--it is that the trials were a shameless frame-up; and no evidence has ever been produced to restore credibility to the accusation. Mo, oo,
They ascribed Castro! s “use. ‘of “Bpotskyism" in this. way £0 either ignorance or malice. "For our. part," they said, "we prefer to believe that in this matter Fidel himself is ignorant and that the matice comes from advisers who never abandoned the attitudes and methods which underlay the trials." They suggested that Fidel Castro as a-"latecomer" to the history of. the movement ("for reasons which do him no discredit") should take time out for some serious study and that "he could do worse than begin with Isaac Deutscher's brilliant three-volume study of Trotsky . which is much more than a personal biography." ;
In addition, the editors of the Monthly _ Review called Fidel | Castro's attention to the damage that was being done the Cuban Revolution by the continued silence on Che Guevara. Does Castro realize, they asked, "that every.day's delay in clearing up the mystery brings anxiety. and doubt to honest. revolutionaries: everywhere and joy to their enemies? *
They also pointed to the. ‘positive achievements. of the Tri- | continental Conference, disagreeing with Adolfo Gilly, who:in the... same issue of the Monthly Review declared that it was "a conference without glory and without program.”
To strengthen Cuba's independent position, they: called for diversification of the economy instead of relying mainly;on sugar.
Finally, they reiterated their position favoring the perspective of socialist” as opposed to "bourgeois" revolutions: in.. Latin America.: | A Reader Wonders Why
~The forthright stand taken by. the Monthly Review on these. issu@€s appears to have dismayed the leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A. In the April 24 issue of The Worker, Gus Hall, the leading spokesman of the pro-Moscow, anti-Peking party, tried his hand at. replying in an article entitled "Gus Hall Answers a | Question on Revolutions." -
Hall's answer is not exactly straightforward. It is couched as a response to a question from an unidentified "reader" of The Worker. As reported by the editor, the question was as follows:
"Mr. Hall, Would you please explain to me what is the meaning of the following sentence in an editorial in the April issue of the Monthly Review?
mee In our opinion, the only ‘kind of ‘revolution that has any chance of succeeding in Latin America today is a socialist revolution. We were, we believe, among the first to say that. .the Cuban Revolution would be forced to advance rapidly to socialism...in 1962 we stated our opinion in these pages that there is no such thing as feudalism in Latin America and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about a bourgeois revolution. PM.
This question, if we are to. believe the editor of The Worker, inspired Mr. Hall to take up his pen. and put down his views so as to satisfy the curiosity of the inquiring reader. The correspondent who reposes such confidence in the theoretical capacities of the leading spokesman of the American Communist party was no doubt elated at his success in eliciting this fresh example of Mr. Hall's thought. While we, too, feel a certain admiration for the audacity of the reply, we are forced to admit that we did not find it free of faults. We may as well list the main ones at once. to get them out of the way. Masterful Evasion of the Issues
(1) Mr. Hall failed to mention by a single word the repetition by Fidel Castro of the most notorious charge in the infamous Moscow purge trials of the thirties, a charge that was long ago conclusively proved to be a shameless frame-up cooked up by Stalin.
. (2). Mr. Hall failed to mention by a single word. the pertinence of the program of Trotskyism to the question. of socialist revolutions in Latin America. ©
(3): Mr. Hall failed to mention by a Single word the damaging Silence in. Cuba’on Che Guevara.
(4) Mr. Hall failed to mention by a single word the strong stress placed by the Tricontinentai-Conference on the need for armed struggle in Latin America in view of the suppression of demo- . cratic rights throughout the continent. -
(5) In place of taking up the key points raised by the Monthly Review editorial and considering them with reasoned argument, Mr. Hall engaged in name calling. "Among other things," he said of the editorial, "it is an ill-tempered, slanderous, personal attack on Fidel Castro and the leaders of ‘the Cuban Revolution in general.. The editorial slanders Castro as ‘ignorant: and a :'latecomer,'. and calls his concluding speech to the Tri-Continental Conference ‘ugly and perhaps ominous, ' and states that Castro's 'malice comes from his advisers. um -
As -to the content of this alleged "s11- tempered slander," Mr. Hall preserves a most discreet Silence.
Instead of considering ‘these important issues raised by the. editors of the Monthly Review, Mr. Hall juggles with a single a quotation torn from the editorial by the curious reader of The ~ Worker. The correct label for this way.of replying to the Monthly Review is sophistry. However, the leading spokesman of the Communist party does deserve praise for: ‘his-dexterity in converting. a multiissue problem: into a single issue. o.
But why this. particular issue? Could it: be ‘that Mr. Hall's real aim is not so much to defend Fidel Castro. as to come to the rescue of those advisers of the Cuban leader who never abandoned the attitudes and methods which underlay the Moscow frame-up trials? Perhaps Mr. Hall received | an SOS. i
However, let us: follow Mr. Hall in his. evasion of the issues and see where he comes out. . The Theory of Two Stages.
He divides the Latin-American revolutionary process into two distinct stages. First a bourgeois revolution, then a socialist revolution.
So obvious does this seem to him, that he immediately proceeds to illustrate his thesis by finding "obvious contradictions even in the lines that you quote:" For how could the editors of the Monthly Review say that the "Cuban. .Revolution would be forced to advance rapidly to socialism" (Hall's emphasis) unless a bourgeois revolution had already occurred? ."'Advance rapidly' are the key words," Hall tells us. "Because if the Cuban Revolution started as a socialist revolution it would not have had the task of advancing to it.
To clinch his argument, he cites the example of the Cuban Revolution:
"The first stage of the Cuban Revolution was anti-imperialist, was for national independence. The fascist Batista regime was a puppet of U.S. imperialism. It had to be overthrown. This was correctly placed by the Cuban revolutionaries as the first task of the revolution. After this: was successfully concluded, then it ‘rapidly advanced to' a socialist reorganization of society."
We note, in passing, several not unimportant omissions. Mr o Hall fails to explain why the Communist party in Cuba supported Batista for a number of years, even accepting posts in his regime. He fails to explain why the Communist party opposed the struggle led by Castro, considering it adventurism until the victory was in sight. He fails to explain why the Communist party was so sluggish in pore recognizing the socialist character of the revolution in Cuba even ‘long after the socialist victory of the movement led by Fidel Castro. Can the theory of the two-stage revolution which he clings to have had something to do with all that? ve
‘Mr. Hall expresses his basic thought as follows: "The error of MR is in the attempt to ignore the nature of the struggle against imperialism and to replace it with a socialist revolution. In practice such a policy would not result in a successful struggle against imperialisn, and. it would not set the stage for a socialist revolution.
Pursuing this idea, Me. Hall asserts, "Most Latin American societies are a mixture of capitalism and feudalism. " In addition, "the overriding dominant phenomenon facing most, if not all, of the Latin American countries...is that they are all victims of imperialist oppression."
From this it follows that the first stage of the revolution in Latin America is not socialist but bourgeois. While Mr. Hall does not state it that flatly, he does quote with approval Eduardo Valverde, a member of the Secretariat of the People's Vanguard Party of Costa Rica: "Needless to say, our Party as well as the other Latin American Communist parties, unlike some 'ultra-revolutionary' groups...do not consider the winning of power by the working class and the “full realization of the program of the socialist revolution to be the immediate task. The immediate prospect in our COUNTIES» | as we see it, is the anti- imperialist and democratic revolution. (Emphasis added. ):
What class does face the immediate task of winning power? Mr. Hall indicates that by quoting from the program of the Communist Party, U.S.A., which, he says, also places the question of revolution by stages "in a correct and clear manner." In the quotation provided by Mr. Hall from the program, we read:
"The anti-colonial revolutions aim to destroy imperialist domination, feudal bondage and political tyranny. In the struggle for such aims a broad national unity is attainable, including capitalist elements who chafe under the oppressive restrictions. of foreign monopoly." (Emphasis added.)
The program of the American Communist party agrees that there is a "close relation between the socialist and colonial revolutions" | but insists on separating them into two "distinct" kinds of revolution,.
In brief, Mr. Hall contends that due to "feudalism" and the. oppressive rule of imperialism, progressive capitalist elements 7 exist in Latin America who can be trusted to lead a bourgeois or "democratic" revolution; after which will come. a new stage when it will be possible. for the working class to advance its own leader-. ship charged with the "immediate task" of winning power and carrying out a socialist revolution. oo. Example of the Russian Revolution
The question as to whether or not it is correct to call certain | archaic social structures in Latin America "feudalism" -- on which - Hall challenges the Monthly Review ~- is somewhat beside the point. Engels long ago asked whether feudalism ever corresponded to its | concept.* The key political question -- whether the owners of the latifundia are called feudalistic. or oligarchical.-- remains the need for a radical agrarian reform. ~
Fortunately it is not necessary to hinge our analysis on Latin-American social and political forces and the probable course of coming revolutions in that continent. We have at hand an example in which the struggle was most. certainly directed against "feudalism" and which should in all respects..satisfy Mr. Hall's. stringent requirement that policies must be tested “in practice. " This is the 1917. ..- Russian Revolution, an example that remains very much apropos today. —
Before the October victory, three main theories were projected — as to the course and perspectives of the Russian Revolution. Let us note them if only in barest outline. os
(1) The Populists had raised the. possibility of Russia bypassing capitalist development and going directly to socialism. Plekhanov, standing on the ground of scientific . socialism, contended that Russia was not privileged and could not avoid. capitalism. The . coming revolution would therefore be bourgeois in ‘character whether this was or was not in conformity with anyone's wishes.
The logical conclusion appeared to be that ‘liberal capitalists would head this revolution under the banner of democracy. Only later would the workers ~be able to come forward as a class with the program of socialist revolution. This was the source of the Menshevik view that the Russian Revolution would have two distinct phases, would consist of two kinds of revolution separated in time and in leader- | ship, and that the immediate task was to back the liberal bourgeoisie — as the logical leadership of the first stage or | first kind of revolution.
*In a-letter to Conrad Schmidt dated March 12, 1895. _
Lenin's View
(2) Lenin agreed on the scientific definition of the coming revolution as "bourgeois" in character; but he held that the bourgeoisie could not be trusted to carry out their own revolution in view of the specific alignment of class forces in Czarist Russia and the decay of the capitalist system internationally. The bourgeois revolution would have to be led by the workers.
This meant that in competition with the bourgeoisie, the working class must appeal to the peasantry, promising to give them what the bourgeoisie would not give -- a radical agrarian reform. In turn, this would become the basis for an alliance with the peasantry. As to the kind of government that would emerge from the revolution, Lenin did not go beyond abstract formulas, holding that one of the main results would be to give a big impulsion to the world socialist revolution, particularly in Europe.
(4) Trotsky agreed with Plekhanov and Lenin that the coming revolution faced bourgeois tasks. He agreed with Lenin that the only class capable of carrying the revolution through to the end was the working class and that therefore the immediate task was for the workers to seek political power, forging an alliance with the peasantry in the process by means of a program of radical agrarian reform. But once in power, what would the working class do next? It had to carry out bourgeois tasks with its own methods and its own goals and these are socialist in character! The world would witness a spectacular case of the law of combined development, in which the most advanced political, social and economic forms would be used to carry out historically superseded tasks.
Therefore, he argued, the coming revolution will begin with bourgeois goals. The proletariat will have an opportunity to take power under revolutionary-socialist leadership. In power the proletariat will transcend the bourgeois character of the revolution by establishing a proletarian dictatorship with socialist aims. Such a government cannot exist indefinitely in isolation. It will give a big impulsion to the world socialist revolution, particularly in Europe, and will in turn be rescued by that revolution from defeat at the hands of Russian reaction.
Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution," which he developed in 1905-07, was, of course, confirmed in life. By accepting its general prognosis in time and formulating the prospects for a Soviet republic in his famous April 1917 "theses," Lenin assured the first victory of socialist revolution and the establishment of the first workers state in history. He rigorously corrected the Kamenevs and Stalins who initially followed the Mensheviks in supporting the liberal bourgeoisie and Kerensky's "democratic" government as against going ahead with a socialist revolution.
And in Lenin's time, the theory of "permanent revolution" was viewed as a great achievement of Marxism, for it made it possible to understand the revolutions of our time as a continuous, unfolding
process rather than as isolated, disconnected, arbitrarily separated, stages or "kinds." Above all, Trotsky's contribution to Marxist © theory ienabled revolutionists to better see the central political role that -falls..to the working .class :in the underdeveloped. countries in leading society forward: out:of-the historical impasse in. which : the. capitalist system has, landed. humanity. ; Dee
Tt was only after ‘Stalin usurped power that: the ‘ola Menshevik. theory of revolution by stages and the "progressive" role of liberal capitalism was. resuscitated and repeatedly offered to the world as the latest: SROMBDE. of: ‘the various Gus Halls trained : ‘in the school of Stalinism. a : QL Wh Dia the Hensheviks Rei?
- Naturally, one cannot ‘oppose the Menshevik ‘twousbage theory. and practice simply because of its age om itis unfortunate resem 5. .blance to the antiquated two-cylinder automobiles of the day. We are entitled, however,. to an explanation: from -Gus Hall -for its lack of success “in .1917..and an explanation as to why, in the Ifght of. the record; it should be considered today as more likely ‘to win in. places like: Latin America than ‘the. _ theory: 3 and: practice of Lenin and ‘Trotsky. rae a or Eek bo
Mew Hall. ‘also: owes: us an ‘explanation - as, to. “just ‘why Menshevik theory: should. prove:;superior ‘to the theory of «victorious Bolshevisn. in understanding the: Cuban Revolution. Our own impression has been: that. developments in Cuba offer. rather striking confirmation of the . theory of the permanent revolution. To avoid swift defeat, the leaders of the Cuban Revolution had no choice but to carry their revolution forward, passing beyond the limits of "bourgeois" goals. If they did not foresee the socialist outcome, the theory is not thereby invalidated. On the contrary, it-is cond armed Dy the costly o7 method of trial and error. Yet the Cuban leaders did inot. proceed « altogether: ‘blindly. ‘They learned something from revolutionary - ee experience in:China, Bolivia,:: Guatemala, previous struggles in ‘Cuba and elsewhere in Latin:America. The Russian Revolution itself was. -; a source: of inspiration to them. . It remains to be told how well they = studied it. “ : nt joie et
Thus we find that it requires little ‘serious examination of the theory offered to us by Mr. Hall to find ourselves confronted by that very Trotskyism which the main spokesman of the Communist Party; U.S.A., so seduously sought to avoid even mentioning. Instead: of the. abstract statement in the editorial of the Monthly Review which the curiosity-driven reader of The Worker dug up, Mr. Hall . might: just as. well. ‘have selected. the. following: quotation from the. same editorial: ae
"But if Fidel Castro and ‘the Latin ‘American. Communist Parties. duck the question of socialism, and still more if they attack as Trotskyites all those who openly: struggle for ‘a specifically. socialist ‘revolution, then the prospect ts for Latin American Trotskyism will be: vastly improved." . f CFae ore da Fis ea
After all, that is what is really ‘bothering the readers of The Worker and the circuitous Mr. Hall, isn't it? oe
Gus Hall Versus Fidel Castro
But what about the problem of getting isolated through advancing such an. "ultrarevolutionary" program as the working class __ to power? Or as Gus Hall puts it: "Why are these concepts so important? Because the locomotive of social revolutions are people. And people — will fight for what objective processes have placed on the order of the day. Therefore, if socialism is not on the order of this day, but in spite of that, the advanced. forces present it as if it is, this can only result in isolation for such forces. Mo
We learned from Marx and Engels that "people" are divided into classes and that: it is class interests that provide both the loconotive and braking power in revolutions. However, let us hear a word from Fidel Castro on this subject. _
"I told them also," said Castro, referring to a Chilean delegation of Christian Democrats who came to the Tricontinental Conference, "that I-did not think that conditions in Chile permitted a revolution of that type [a bourgeois-democratic. revolution], and that in the conditions of Chile if a revolution was desired, it would necessarily have to be a socialist revolution, and I explained why. Because an underdeveloped country, burdened with debts as Chile is, a country where large masses of the population live in the worst conditions, would necessarily have .to strike a blow against the interests of imperialism, of the oligarchy, of big industry, of ‘the import— export trade and of the Bank if something was to be done, to give something to the peasant masses and. to the masses of workers in the country.
"And , also that to wage a battle against the oligarchy and against imperialism, the support of the worker and peasant masses was necessary...and that the masses of workers and peasants would not lend support. to any bourgeois revolution, because the workers and the peasants would not be willing to collaborate to serve the interests of an exploiting class."
These remarks were made by Fidel Castro in a speech given at the University of Havana March'14. Gus Hall's article appeared April 24. Since the chief spokesman of the Communist Party, U.S.A., must read and ponder over Fidel Castro's speeches (although you would never know it to read The Worker), it can. only be wondered why Gus Hall chose this occasion to come out so Strongly against the perspective of socialist revolutions in Latin America. Was he really aiming his barbs at Fidel Castro despite the guff about rising to Castro's defense against "ill-tempered slander"?
Of course, the possibility exists that Mr. Hall might not have read Fidel. Castro's March 14 speech. In that case, when he finally gets around to it,as a man of principle he will undoubtedly take on Fidel Castro in a:polemic equal in vigor to his. polemic.
against the "fundamental: errors in the editorial policies of the Monthly Review." We look forward to seeing that. How-long: will we. have to wait?
It should be added that the view expressed by Fidel Castro does not appear to be an isolated instance. Thus at the recently concluded twenty-third congress of the Communist party of the Soviet. Union, Armando Hart Davalos,» the head of the: Cuban delegation, Said: on ‘this point: :
- "Cuba proves: unmistakably that under present conditions in. Latin America, a genuine revolution rapidly leads to socialisn. -. Cuba palpably demonstrates that the struggle for national liberation, in our continent, forms an inseparable part of the struggle for socialism. Cuba makes it clear that in the Latin-American continent, the question of the working class taking power and the Socialist a Revolution.triumphing depend in great measure on subjective factors , on the determination of the vanguard, on willingness to win or die. (My translation from the April 8 issue of Bohemia. )
Mr. Hall, it appears ,. has considerable work diling ‘up on his desk. We wish him luck in. -handling the flood of inguiries from. puzzled readers of The Worker. oe Ra . : EL tah? The Problem of Political Leadership
It is ‘completely false to: argue that "isolation" | is- “certain if you take a firm stand on the Leninist principle: of ‘seeking to establish a working-class government, whatever alliances are made along the road. The masses are won through slogans appealing to =... their own class interests. These include democratic slogans which . from a rigorously scientific point of view are "bourgeois" in. |: character: free speech, the right to assemble, free elections, and so on. The truth is that nowhere in the world today can the. . bourgeoisie, no matter what their pretensions to liberalism, be trusted to uphold-and defend democratic rights. The erosion of democratic rights in the United States. is proof enough of that as the American Communist party and other sectors of the American . radical movement have good reason to know. Leadership in the defense’ of these rights today falls to the working class and its vanguard parties. This increases the opportunities for them to gain a wide popular following: The political wheel is” ‘turning in their direction.
wae iy
A great deal follows from the historic political bankruptcy of the bourgéoisie. If no political. confidence whatsoever can be placed in the bourgeoisie anywhere on earth in defending simple democratic rights, what confidence can be placed in them in a revolutionary struggle involving economic and social structural changes that signify their doom as a class?
It could be argued that "logically" it is up to the bourgeoisie to defend the democratic rights associated with the: bourgeois: a revolutions that overthrew feudalism; the workers have: other, more advanced historical tasks, such as initiating a planned economy and.
eventually a classless society. And, in fact, such an argument would be logically consistent with the position held by Gus Hall.
But class-conscious workers would, only laugh at such an argument. They would be right, for the working class includes as its heritage all the gains of previous revolutions and defends them as its own. By the same right -- the right of. the class representing historic progress -- they are not only entitled..but duty bound to strive to take power even in a country with strong. - feudal hangovers. They cannot trust the liberal bourgeoisie to carry out bourgeoisdemocratic tasks. They must project doing this themselves by their own methods and in consonance with their. own: ‘soctalist goals.
This lesson. is particularly important - ain “the underdeveloped countries where the bourgeoisie has emerged.on the political scene too late to do anything except play a reactionary or diversionary role; but it is also not without bearing in more advanced countries where the bourgeoisie are prepared to resort to fascism. .
Does vigorous application of the policy of seeking proletarian power frighten the liberal -bourgeoisie? Of course. This was one of the considerations advanced by the Menshevik leaders. On the other hand, a firm revolutionary policy.has the merit of attracting the best minds from the upper classes and wide sectors of the petty bourgeoisie. Many of them are -capable, under competent proletarian leadership, of transcending their narrow class outlook and joining in the great forward march of humanity represented by socialism. That has been one of the teachings of Marxism since the Communist Manifesto. .
It is not at all a matter of splitting doctrinal hairs. The question is crucial for our epoch. On this the evidence is overwhelming for all. who care to open their eyes to see. We will confine --ourselves to.citing but two recent examples. Brazil and Indonesia
In Brazil, the Communist party under the leadership of Luis Carlos. Prestes followed precisely the concept explained to such perfection by Gus.Hall. Everything was staked on avoiding "isolation" by leaving leadership in the hands of Goulart and Brizzola, repre-: sentatives of the "progressive" wing of the bourgeoisie, the ""capitalist elements who chafe under the oppressive restrictions of. foreign monopoly." Everything was done to reject taking as an "immediate task" the "winning of power by the working class." And, "in practice," what happened?
On April 1, 1964, these capitalist elements proved utterly impotent in face of a military coup d'état engineered by the Brazilian oligarchy, Brazilian business interests and American imperialism. They proved impotent because their own intimate connections with these circles paralyzed them. The result was a crushing defeat that dealt a terrible setback to the Latin-American revolution as a whole.
-LO~
In Indonesia, the Stalinist (or .Menshevik) concept of ; revolution "by stages" has just received a most fearful tést iin practice. The bodies of 300,000 Communists -- if we accept the conservative estimate of one embassy ~- testify to the thoroughness of the experiment. The concept followed by D.N. Aidit, the head of. _ the Indonesian Communist party, was*° that in the approaching revol- : “ution "first" would come a stage headed by the liberal bourgeoisie represented by Sukarno ; and "then" a socialist revolution ata. later stage sometime in the future.
The Communist party had 4, 000, O00 members, a youth movement: of another -3,000,000 members and headed an organized labor force of some 20,000,000 members. The swift rise of the Communist party in Indonesia was due to the revolutionary aspirations of the workers and peasants who took its name to meah- it. stood:for a communist program and not the program of serving as ‘a left cover for the liberal. bourgeoisie.
What more was required for victory except clear consciousness in the Communist party of the mortal danger of a-political alliance with the bourgeoisie under Sukarno's leadership, plus firm deter- | mination to put the working class in power? D.N. Aidit, the : Indonesian Gus Hall, lacked both requisites. When the reactionary generals under Nasution- and Suharto decided that the time had come to. strike, the Indonesian Communist party was reduced to a shambles within a few days; the revolutionary-—minded workers and peasants, caught unawares, were butchered like sheep; and D. N. Aidit. ‘himself, from all accounts, lost his life.
The historic lesson was all the clearer in that the Kremlin, which stresses "peaceful coexistence" -- meaning’ class collaboration -was not alone in responsibility for the disaster. The Mao. leadership was directly involved since Aidit stood on “their side in the Sino- Soviet dispute. Like Khrushchev and Brezhnev-Kosygin, the Mao leadership approved Aidit's concept of revolution by stages. All the celebrated omniscience of Mao's thought did not lessen by one jot the catastrophic consequences of this baneful theory. 7 ~ It would seem high time for. the Gus Halls | -- or at ‘least’ their followers -~ to consider the results of the concepts that were put into practice in Brazil- and. Indonesia. Those concepts spelled doom for the workers movement in both countries. Instead they continue to peddle nostrums that have ‘proved in: practice again and: again in the past. half century to contain a deadly poison.
‘EARLY BIRD ALERT...
A thoughtful inventor put two bells on our alarm clock. The first one makes a pleasant little ping. It says, "This is just to let you know that in another ten minutes, there's going to be an awful clatter..." Sometimes we just take that extra ten to keep on snoozing. Other times, when we feel extra intelligent, we grab the clock and shut it off. We hope this catches you in the latter mood. You still have another five issues of World Outlook coming before your subscription expires... If you'd like to take care of it early, just fill in the blank below and airmail it to us now to keep World Outlook coming without a break. Thank you.
Date
P.O.Box 645 New York, N.Y. 10010 Please renew my subscription (which will expire with Vol.4, No.19) for another 26 issues. Enclosed is $7.50 (U.S.) to cover the cost. Name Street City. State or Province Zip Code _ Country
NOTE: If you would like to receive your World Outlook by airmail, send an extra $ §. 00 (U.S.) to cover the additional postage.