Ry Joseph Hansen
( The following article ie in reply to Dlas Roca's attack against
Trotskyiem published im the May 20 World Outlook. }
Why did Blas Roca feel impelled to take up the cudgels egsinst Trotekylam? He says that Trotekyiam, "in its politica and theory "is a “oorpse:" Wasn't Trotskyiam reduced to that state by the late Stalin himaelf deovdes ago; not just once, but repeatedly, and not just polemically, tut with frame-up trials, deportations and exeoutiona? Didn't both Krushchay and Nao in their polemics finish the desd dog once again? Finally, wasn't the cadaver dieposed of ao effeci vely by Fidel Castro in his speech of Januery 15 thet ony bope of its ever being resurrected was ended once and for all?
What an unexpected sight,then, only three montha after Castre'a speech ngeinet Trotskyism, to sea the Barl Browler of Cube* rushing to the reacus of the prime minister, s3 if unexpected weaknesses had suddenly been oxposed in the January 15 speach - or unexpected life in the overkilled cozpse-
Karl Marx, snd Hegel before him, taught that what men propose = even the moat powerful and authoritative - often fails to be realized and, indeed, can end in just the opposite of their sims end intentiona- This appeara to have been the ease with that section of Pidel Castro's January 15 speech which was directed against the “Trotekyites" and intended to consign then to oblivion.
By employing old Stalinist slanders, long ago exposed as frame-upa, by lumping opposites together - the method of amalgam typieel of Staliniaz by eschewing reasoned political argument, Fidel Oastro's attack led te an outeone utterly unexpected by the advisera who supplied the prime cinietear with the zaterlal he used in hie speech. Three things heppened:
* Blas Boca became secratary general of the Cuban Communist organisation, — aif we remember correctly, shortly after Stalin initiated "papular frentian" in 1956 Like his American counterpart, Blas Reca did much to advance Stalin'a class-collaborationist line, achieving enduring femé for a conapionucus suoooss = a coalition with Batista. Tha reyalution that toppled the hated dictator alan displaced the 014 C-F. However, Blas Zoo. has remained a prominent Pigure in Cuban politics, despite the decline of such old-time fellow burasucrata as Anibal Bacalente- Recently he served «5 editor of the offiolal party publiestion Hoy until it was stpplanted by Granma; and lsat Sotober he was named te the Secretariat of the reatructured Communist Party cf Cubs, which is headed today by Pidel Castro.
(1) The slenderous charge that "Trotekyiam became.++ 1 vulger instrument of imperialism and reaction" wos not accepted. The days of the Stalin cult are gone. The de-Stalinisation process has destroyed for ever the atensphers when such vile eccusstions need only be asserted from on high te be believed. Castro's attack, on the contrary, prevoked shook snd disnay and led te wideapread protests. The editors cf the Monthly Review cnly. voiced the general reaction in radicil circlas when they reoalled that “the accusation hes no foundation whatever, As anyene who has sericusly studied the hiatery cf the communiat movement since the Cetober Ravelution must know"; that it wis "pre- Gilsely this acousaticn which provided the rationalisation for tha Scyiet purge trials of tha 1940's"; thet. if "anything hos been preved - md not lenst by tha Soviet g@ivernmont itself = it is that the trisls wore & shameless freme= up"; and that Fidel Castro "should not deceive himself that ha oan sway ony but cowards and sycophants by mere denunciation." (2) Through the wide publicity it afforded and the sympathy it evoked fer tho slandecred movement - undoubtedly tho most maligned in el histery = Castro's attack had the unanticipated effect cf stimulating interest in the cause cf Trotskyism and attracting further attention to its authentic idcas. (3) In the resulting discussion, the key issues inv lved in tha attack began te emerge. They happen te be of vital concern to every revoluticnary socialist and eclenial freedom fighter: (a) Wheat is the reture of the revelution new on the agenda in many oountries, particularly Latin America? Must it first go through a bourgooia-demcceratic stage under bourgeois leadership? Or can a vietory be projected under tho leadership of a revolutionary-socialist perty that frankly espouses from the very beginning the need te poae accislist taska? (b) What is the role of prolotarian democratic norma in the revolutionary precess, imoluding free discussion and the exelusien «f auch abominations ss slandering or mugsling cppositional views? Are theac norms utcpian, or are they really applicable and, in fact, s vital nooossity? These issues lie at the heart of the dispute and ocnstitute ita main interest. We shell consider them in the process of analysing Blas Roon!'s centribution in detail.