pom see ET eaten ee ae EE
Let us now consider Blas Reee's argumentation cn how the Trotakylats allegedly serve as “very active auxiliary ferces2 in the effort of the Tankee imperialists " to destroy the prestige and ai thority" of the Oubm Revoluticn. He sesks to prove thia by citing published statements by Fosadas selested to eoineide with the timing of verious piratioal forays fonented or anginsered by the State Department of the O14. Posedas coordinates his statemants, if we are to believe Blas Roos, so that they appear in published form " as always" to "soineide with the intensification of the attacks of the imperialista..."
Toesn't this sound like the red-baiting fcormulas of 4 oemio beck? Hust we really aubmit this kind cf argument to sericus analysis?
(1) What about the declarations made by Posasdas between pireticeal foraye? THd they fluctuate markedly in the direction of a friendly tone? If they did not, if Posadeas mainteained a uniformly oritical position, then his declarstions were not timed te coineide with the piretical forsya = end Blas Roca'a public that the independent weekly Marcha cf Montevideo is an Wargan of the ultraleft Pesadas group-" For those hardy souls whe try to keep up with The Newsletter this ia but another sail instance of the notcrious unreliability of this publication in handling such pedestrian things ag facts: Put what should we say then of The Worker,the voice of the American Communist Party, which, in its January 23,1956,issue, printed a dispatch from ite Havanese correspondent listing Mercha as a "Spanish Trotakyite weekly"?
fase falls te the ground.
(2) If Pesadas' purpose was to undermine the prastige and mathority of the Cuban Revolution, why did he make such self-destructive declarations? The wary quctationa onrefully selected by Blas Roca are devastating - to Posaadas- Read the sentences transcribed by Blas Roca from the article or report by Fosadas on the discussions on architecture: "No congress of architecture can be posed without the wars It is insanity." And so forth snd ao om. ven Blas Roca is eompelled to admit that the long text is "extremely confused and at times incomprehensible." He is ocmpletely correct. The utterances of Posadas damage only the prestige and authority cf the author.
The alternatives are inescapable: Either Posadas appeers bisarre to all who read such declarations, or the intellectual level of the Cuban cadres (and the esdres of the Latin-American revolution as a whole) is so inoredibly low that they can be swept off their feet by axtramely confused and at times incomprehensible nonsease- Dees Blas Roca hold to the latter alternative?
Porsonally, it pleased na te sea Blas Roos quoting so extensively from Posadsa while at the same time clearly inditating whe the author was: Ona eould only wish that Blas Roca would be sore honest about indicating that this i5 a small seat and act the voice of the Fourth International.
Is Slas Roca more fortunate with his quotations from The Newsletter? He asserta that the nature of The Newsletter positicn "explains tha ecineidence between the most brazen attacks of Trotakyist propaganda with the piratical aggressions cf the Yankee imperialists against Cuba"; but he does not even try to indicate any ccincoidence in dates as he doea in the case cf Posadas- Blas Woca reliea on barefaced assertion and <he impact cf the autrageous theoretioal and political positions yoiced by The Newaletter-
We would like to know in greater detail from Blas Roca, however, exactly how The Newsletter proved to be a "very active auxiliary forea" in tha efforts of the Yankee imperialista- Gan he name any group in ell Latin America thet has been influenced ty The Newsletter? We shall go further. Can he nare a single person in all of Latin America who oonsidera himself a partiaan of ° The Newsletter? The truth is that the position of The Newsletter on the uban Keyolution is in auch utter contradiction to the reality that the Healy eroup stands in absolute isolation. Its position on Cuba doesn't play the dirty game of imperialism, as Blas Roca maintains; it only playa inte the hands of Blas Roos. Even the half dozen admirera of tha Socialiat Labour League to be found in the United States consider that Healy is sompletely wrong on thia subject. They sedulously sesk other reasona for preising hin.
We thus come to a key question. Is thia the beat that Hlas Hoes tan do in trying to bolster and shore up the contention that Trotekyien ia a "vulgar instrument of imperialiae and reaction"? The answer is yea. That's the best he can do-