Is Cuba next? Fifth column “leftists” are at work again criticizing and attacking on Cuba.
The narratives of the
fifth-column leftist have always been in line with the narratives of the imperialists-fascists all through
history, of course narratives with a brush of leftist jargons. For them, either
disguised or undisguised Trotskyites, there is no “socialist country” in the
world and there can’t be one because there cannot be “socialism in one
country”. This premise underlies all
their critiques of any socialist, socialist oriented countries in order to
prove their anti-Leninist theories.
Their analysis are subjective for it proceeds from the purpose of
"proving" Trotskyite arguments on these subjects, not based on the
concrete realities and Leninist theories.
It is the same underlying reason
that they do not side with anti-imperialist struggles, they attack and criticize
the countries waging anti-imperialist struggles, because they follow Trotskyite
claim that in our era anti-imperialist struggles are a thing of the past.
After the fascist-bellicose imperialist US declared that Cuba is next after Iran, the 5th column leftists started criticizing Cuba rather than condemning the fascist expansionist policy and practice of US. They are trying to justify such an aggression with excuses that Cuba is economically under terrible condition, socialism “failed” in Cuba, etc. Like for all the socialist, socialist oriented, anti-imperialist countries, they try very hard to conceal the US-West economic and political sanctions applied to Cuba by the US. In factuality, they are anti-communists who do not believe in the success of socialism. If the country advances economically they label it as “capitalist”, if the country does not bow to imperialists, they label it “autocratic”, if the country takes back steps, make concessions and compromise, they again brag ;’ we told you so, they are not socialists”. Unfortunately, due to lack of sufficient theoretical knowledge and the confusion people have between socialism and success of socialism, quite a number of sincere Marxist Leninist followers bite in to their baits.
Adding to that confusion,
applying the terms like “reform” in its general meaning during the democratic
and socialist struggle to acquire the power to a different situation where the
pre-condition for building socialism already realized, is the most common
mistake people make. Reforms prior to the dictatorship are used as means to
achieve the political power, however, it is a question of “lessons learned”
under the dictatorship of proletariat in order to strengthen and protect the
power. It is the same mistakes for the concept of “bureaucracy”, “compromise”,
“concessions” and many others. Concepts
have different meaning and function depending on who owns the state apparatus
at a given point of time.
Contrary to all the demagogues
and philistine sophistry, socialism starts with acquiring political
power (through the use of force in most cases) by communist party. It’s degree
of success at any given moment is not
the criteria to call it socialist or not.
“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.” (1)
The struggle of socialism in any
given country all through the phase of transition from capitalism to communism does
not and cannot follow a single typical line. One has to be a utopic
infantile to make such assumption, because that assumption disregards the internal
and external objective conditions and situations at any given time and
place.
“Since political
power is in the hands of the working-class, since this political power
owns all the means of production... the alliance of this proletariat with
the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian
leadership of the peasantry, etc.” says Lenin “ is this not all that is
necessary to build a complete socialist society. It is still
not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is
necessary and sufficient for it.
But see how things have changed
now that the political power is in the hands of the working-class now that the
political power of the exploiters is overthrown and all the means of production
are owned by the working-class.
Now we are entitled to say that
for us the mere growth of cooperation is identical with the
growth of socialism, and at the same time we have to admit that there
has been a radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism. The
radical modification is this; formerly we placed, and had to place, the
main emphasis on the political struggle, on revolution, on winning political
power, etc. Now the emphasis is changing and shifting
to peaceful, organizational, “cultural” work. “ (2)
Following the acquiring of
political power the speed and degree of economic and social
developments will inevitably vary from country to country based on their
existing conditions and how determined the leadership and the people for
the direction they initiated. Depending on the existing condition,
internal and external struggle, some will be able to continue the building of
socialism without taking any backward step, others will have ups and downs. As
long as the direction does not change, back steps taken forced upon by
the conditions does not change the essence of political power
and political system.
Lenin, in his various writings
states that the “ conquest of political power does not put a stop to its
class struggle against the bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it renders that struggle
most widespread, intense, and ruthless.” (3)
Lenin explains this clearly and
bluntly;
“After the first socialist
revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some
country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker
than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter’s extensive
international links, and also because of the spontaneous and
continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the
bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the country which has
overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only
by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive,
skillful, and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between
the enemies... Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to
understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific
socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly
considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations,
their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the
revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the
exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the
proletariat has won political power. (4)
Giving the example of Soviet
Revolution, Lenin reiterates these difficulties;
“two exceedingly difficult
problems still remained, the solution of which could not possibly be
the triumphal march we experienced in the first months of our revolution—we
did not doubt, we could not doubt, that the socialist revolution would be later
confronted with enormously difficult tasks.” (5)
Lenin gives a striking example on
the situations between a socialist country and revolutionary democratic country
(Revolutionary Democracy). He sates; “take the same institution and think over its
significance in a revolutionary-democratic state. Universal labour
conscription, introduced, regulated, and directed by the Soviets of Workers’,
Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it
will no longer be capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards
socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there
can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled
violence being committed against the masses.” (6)
Cuba has been confronting
enormous difficult tasks for over 60 years. Now it is confronting another
enormous task of protecting the revolution and socialism.
Fifth column leftists are longing
for a US attack, and the defeat of Cuba
either through a military victory, or getting some decisive concessions.
Will Cuba resist and fight in case of a US military attack.
Although I am very familiar with
Cuba through my visits and discussions with Cuban comrades for over 30 years, I
cannot and would not claim to know Cuba, its economic, political, and social
conditions better than the Communists of
Cuba. My commentary can only be based on the application of the dialectics of
Marxism to the Leninist theories.
The first possibility that
the 5th column leftists already cheering is the “reforms” in Cuba
and the “concessions” to the US. “Reforms” would be a proactive step to
satisfy the demands of some groups and may be few Trotskyites (although I
believe they prefer the destruction of Cuba), and minimize the possibility of
“internal” uprising on the face of a US
military aggression.
The second possibility is “concessions”,
compromises” while keeping the political
system and party intact. Does this make
Cuba “not Socialist”? Contrary to the arguments of 5th column and
western petty bourgeois, it does not.
Compromise is a negative task
forced upon the Marxist Leninist party or organization by circumstances at
any given time especially when there is no objective and/or subjective
conditions of revolution lacking. That
is why, in Lenin’s words “to reject compromises “on principle”, to
reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind,
is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously.” (7)
And as Lenin summarized Engels’
words; “ It is not a question of rejecting compromises to which
circumstances condemn us, it is a question of clearly realizing the true
revolutionary aims of the proletariat and of being able to pursue them through
all and every circumstances, zigzags, and compromises.” (8)
Paraphrasing Lenin’s speech at
the 7th Congress of RCP (B),If we are not capable of waging a
war of defense, we must sign the terms that are offered. If we are
offered terms in a situation where we have no army, we must accept them. If
the revolution is to be saved, there is only one way: to accept the terms. However,
if the imperialists forced a war on the revolution when it was prepared,
then a ruthless, total war would be justified. “If the least probable thing
happens, i.e., if not a single belligerent state accepts even a truce,
then as far as we are concerned the war becomes truly forced upon us, it
becomes truly a just war of defence.” (9)
As Lenin indicated, Trotsky
himself and the Trotskyites never understood and paid
attention to the dialectic of Marxism. Most of all their
accusations are one and the same subject, disconnected, separated, and
multiplied for the purpose of creating a confusion and reinforcing their false
accusations with “quantity of problems” . In this sense another
accusation is related to the “backward steps”, “retreat” from the road
of Socialism – same accusations of Soviets and Stalin.
Here what Lenin was
saying at the 7th Moscow Gubernia Conference
of the Russian Communist Party, which Cuba is in a similar but continuing
difficult situation especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union had
to take back steps;
“the proletariat, which had won
political power, assumed that there would be a more gradual transition to the
new social and economic relations.
By the spring of 1921 it became
evident that we had suffered defeat in our attempt to introduce the
socialist principles of production and distribution by “direct assault",
i.e., in the shortest, quickest, and most direct way. The political situation
in the spring of 1921 revealed to us that on a number of economic issues a
retreat to the position of state capitalism, the substitution of “siege”
tactics for “direct assault", was inevitable.
Don’t be afraid to admit
defeat. Learn from defeat. Do over again more thoroughly, more
carefully, and more systematically what you have done badly. If any of us were
to say that admission of defeat—like the surrender of positions—must cause
despondency and relaxation of effort in the struggle, we would reply that
such revolutionaries are not worth a damn.
We could not continue with the
tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult,
arduous, and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of
retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution
of the economic problem, i.e., that of the economic transition to
socialist principles.
A revival of economic life—and
that is what we must have at all costs—and increased productivity—which
we must also have at all costs—are what we are beginning to obtain as a
result of the partial reversion to the system of state capitalism.
Our ability, the extent to which we shall be able to apply this policy
correctly in the future, will determine to what extent we shall continue to get
good results.
We find ourselves in the position
of having to retreat still further, in order, eventually, to go
over to the offensive. That is why we must all admit now that the methods of
our previous economic policy were wrong. We must admit this in order to be able
to understand the nature of the present position, the
specific features of the transition that now lies ahead of us. We
are not now confronted with urgent problems of foreign affairs; nor are we
confronted with urgent war problems. We are now confronted mainly with
economic problems, and we must bear in mind that the next stage cannot
be a transition straight to socialist construction.
Now we find ourselves in
the position of having to retreat even a little further, not
only to state capitalism, but to the state regulation of trade and the
money system. Only in this way, a longer way than we expected, can we
restore economic life. Unless we re-establish a regular system of
economic relations, restore small-peasant farming, and restore and further
expand large-scale industry by our own efforts, we shall fail to extricate
ourselves from the crisis. We have no other way out…. They say: “If
Communists have gone to the length of saying that the immediate task is to
engage in trade, in ordinary, common, vulgar, paltry trade, what can remain
of communism? Is this not enough to make anyone throw up his hands in
despair and say, ’All is lost’?” If we look round, I think we shall
find people who express sentiments of this kind, and such sentiments are
very dangerous, because if they become widespread they would give many people
a distorted view of things and prevent them from appraising
our immediate tasks soberly. If we concealed from ourselves, from the
working class, from the masses the fact that we retreated in the economic
field in the spring of 1921, and that we are continuing the retreat now,
in the autumn and winter of 1921-22, we would be certifying our own lack of
political consciousness; it would prove that we lacked the courage to face
the present situation. It would be impossible to work and fight under
such conditions. (10)
What differentiates the Marxist
Leninists from the “revisionist kinship” of right and left is, the principle
that, determination of attitude at any given time should always be based on
the existing conditions and the interests of the working class and their
struggle in mind without any compromise on theory and maximum goal.
Recalling the words of Marx -
"weakness has always been saved by faith in miracles" said Lenin, addressing the workers, "The
revolution is the lot of the strong!" “If you want revolution, freedom ...
You Must Be Strong ...The weak will always be slaves . " (11)
Cuba and Cuban people has proven their
resilience and determination over 60 years on the face of US aggression. Yes, the
struggle goes on within and without, and yes in Cuba there are, although a handful
Trotskyites feeding mostly from the “identity politics” and having support from
the external forces. However, it is the
duty of international Marxist Leninists to support Cuba rather than making
speculations on its “concessions”, “reforms” , “compromises” it may have to
consider in order to keep the party and the system alive and standing. They
know their own concrete conditions and situations better than any arrogant,
know -it-all petty bourgeois philistines and sophists. They are the only ones
who will make the determination of the
path they will follow in order to save the system and party. If reforms,
concessions, compromises are required, they will choose that path. If the US
does not leave any room for any negotiations for the protection of the system,
they will fight to the death- no one should have any doubt about that.
Erdogan A
April 6, 2026
Notes
(1) Lenin,
Conversation
(2) Lenin, On Cooperation
(3) Lenin, Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The
Second Congress Of The Communist International
(4) Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile
Disorder, No Compromises?
(5 Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the
R.C.P.(B.)
(6) Lenin, Can We Go Forward If
We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?
(7) Lenin, Left-Wing Communism:
An Infantile Disorder
(8) Lenin on compromises.
(9) Lenin The Tasks of the
Revolution
(10) Lenin, Seventh Moscow
Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party
(11) Lenin, Question of
revolutionary violence.
.jpg)
