Imperialist provocations in Cuba and out of its time and place ML statements and commentaries
Cuba, pompous idle assessments of “extreme left” and their ugly caricature of Marxism Leninism.
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) Enver Hoxha, The
Modern Revisionists on the Way to Degenerating Into Social-Democrats and to
Fusing with Social-Democracy - April 7, 1964
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.
.jpg)
No comments