The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
In this report today, I want to try to focus on exactly what politically is in dispute between those of us who support the general line of the draft political resolution, as amended by George Breitman, and other supporters of that resolution who oppose our amendments. It is also important to keep in mind what points are not in dispute.
Before beginning this discussion, I'd just like to state that those questions that divide our position from the Weinstein/Henderson minority are considerably more significant than our disagreements with the majority. We oppose and voted against the documents proposed by Weinstein and Henderson. But due to the press of time it is going to be our dispute with the majority that is going to take up most of my time in this report.
I will be unable in my thirty minutes to try to answer the many misrepresentations of our views which have arisen in the course of the discussion so far. It is our hope that by clearly outlining our basic positions we can cut across much of the misunderstanding. But comrades should keep in mind that our differences are what we say they are, not what Steve Clark or anyone else interprets them to be. Much of what he says is not wrong about our position, but is largely irrelevant to what we are presenting.
I also will not have time to go into the question that he raises, both in the bulletin and today in his report, of the “long detour.” I think we need a more thorough theoretical discussion of this. He makes some debaters points, but I don't think we disagree on the essential political facts about this.
Let's begin by outlining the very broad points of agreement that we have with the majority. First, we agree on the general line of the basic orientation to U.S. politics—the labor party, talking socialism, and other aspects of our union work.
On the international questions, we agree that the balance of class forces is shifting worldwide in favor of the forces of revolution. We agree that the working class is more and more coming to the fore in struggles around the world. We agree on the need for a turn to the industrial sectors of the working class and the trade unions.
We agree that the workers' and farmers' government has been established in Nicaragua and in Grenada, and that the FSLN and the New Jewel Movement are taking steps to defend the interests of the workers and the peasants in those countries and advance the revolution. We agree on the general overall direction of motion of the Castroist current and we leave standing the sentence of the resolution which states “The revolutionary proletarian leadership in Cuba continues to advance.”
We agree that the leaderships in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada constitute currents meriting the name revolutionary and we agree that the future revolutionary international which we all want to build will come about through splits, fusions, and regroupments.
Compared to these very broad areas of agreement, our differences are much narrower and less profound though they are still extremely important. We disagree with the unscientific and misleading characterization of Castroism as revolutionary Marxism. We insist on maintaining the distinction between the Fourth International which has the program for world socialist revolution and the Castroist current which does not. We are opposed to substituting the idea of building some as yet nonexistent and ill-defined mass Leninist international for building the Fourth International. We are opposed to the process, which has been begun by the SWP leadership, of subordinating key aspects of our program and theory in the interests of bringing about a hoped-for organizational convergence with the Castroist current.
It is this last point which is the most serious aspect of the new line on Cuba and Castroism developed over the last two years. If the written and oral discussion for this convention has revealed nothing else, it has demonstrated that broad layers of the party have developed serious illusions in Castroism. It is this new line of the national party leadership which must be decisive in how comrades vote on our amendments.
We believe that this process of idealization of Castroism threatens to theoretically disarm our party. It threatens to overthrow our traditions and our program. Now we don't want to exaggerate this point and I hope that comrades in answering us won't exaggerate what we are saying. This process is just beginning and it can still be reversed without irreparable damage, but it has begun and it is an important process to consider. The goal of our tendency is to slow down this process and reverse it if possible.
There are a number of factors which we hope will have an impact on this. To begin with there are many comrades in the SWP who have serious reservations about the policies proposed by the majority. This includes the comrades who voted for our amendments, but it also includes many who were convinced to vote against our amendments and for the majority line or to abstain on these questions because of the unfounded accusations of sectarianism and hostility towards Castroism made against us.
Secondly, a discussion of these questions is beginning in the Fourth International. It will be important for comrades in the SWP to consider the views of other sections and sympathizing groups in our world movement.
And finally, most importantly, comrades will have to come to grips with the practical results of their line as they proceed to implement it and deepen it after this convention. We are hopeful, in fact, we are confident that comrades will come to understand where they are going wrong and reconsider their course.
There is no dispute between our tendency and the National Committee majority over whether to orient to the Castroist current or whether to pursue a goal of convergence and regroupment. What is in dispute is how to implement such a policy. We are for pursuing these goals while continuing to maintain our historical understanding, our program, and our theoretical outlook. We don't believe that these things stand in the way of any regroupment process. What we cannot do and what the majority has been doing is pretend that our differences with Castroism are unimportant or that they will go away if we just don't talk about them.
It's worthwhile to consider for a moment exactly what these differences are. We disagree with Castro on the need to construct Leninist parties to overthrow imperialism. We disagree on the need for the political revolution in the deformed and degenerated workers' states. We disagree on an understanding of the counterrevolutionary role of Stalinism. We disagree on the role of the colonial bourgeoisie in the anti-imperialist struggle. We disagree on the need for a revolutionary international and we disagree on the need for democratic forms which allow for decision making by the workers and farmers on the big economic and political questions.
These are not small or inconsequential items. This is essentially a list of the basic programmatic positions of our movement. An understanding of these questions is ultimately essential to guarantee the advance of the world revolution.
The majority of comrades insist that our amendments represent a counterline to the draft political resolution. Steve Clark asserts in Bulletin No. 23 that adopting our amendments would mean taking the party in the opposite direction. This is quite a remarkable statement.
Our position is essentially a reaffirmation of the understanding of Castroism adopted almost unanimously by the entire party almost two years ago. Now, of course, it's true there have been many events and we've found out many things over the last two years which would affect the way we said some things in the 1979 document. But the basic analysis of Castroism which was made at that time has not been invalidated by intervening events.
Comrades contend that their current perspectives flow directly from the position of two years ago. So how can reaffirming our old position take us in the opposite direction? The only function of this kind of exaggeration is to avoid the necessary political clarification which has to take place.
We are convinced that there is not a question of general political line involved in this dispute, at least not at this time. What is involved is a simple case of comrades taking a correct idea—the need for our movement to orient actively towards the Castroist current—and applying it in such a way and drawing such extreme conclusions from it that their approach ceases being correct and becomes a danger.
The idea that our perspective constitutes a counterline is incomprehensible when comrades consider the broad area of agreement I outlined at the beginning of this report. In addition we agree completely on the tasks of our movement outlined on pages 10 and 11 of the resolution. Our amendments leave these unchanged. To insist that our differences over a theoretical assessment of Castroism, important as they may be, constitute a difference of line, when we have complete agreement in the area of tasks, at least as they are stated in the resolution, is to contradict all of our traditions concerning what constitutes a question of line for our movement.
Now, comrades have spent considerable time in the written bulletins belittling the fears roused by their new line for our relations with the Fourth International. Such verbal reassurances are helpful, of course, but they can't be considered decisive.
Steve Clark rejects the amendments proposed by Breitman in this area as “brave and hollow phrases” which aren't needed. But declaring our loyalty to and confidence in the Fourth International is simply a shorthand, summary way of stating our entire world outlook, one which has been traditional in past resolutions. If comrades are not proposing any change in this world outlook then we cannot understand why they should object to including these words in the resolution.
Comrade Clark asserts that building the Fourth International and orienting towards Castroism are not counterposed. This is good, we're making progress. I'm glad we can agree on this. Steve falsely charges that we are counterposing these things. If Comrade Clark insists that anyone who is not yet ready to declare loyalty to and confidence in Castroism is a sectarian while asserting that these same statements about the Fourth International are brave and hollow phrases, it shouldn't surprise him when comrades begin to wonder just who it is who's counterposing an orientation towards Castroism and towards building the Fourth International.
No one is saying that the leadership of the SWP has yet made any break with the Fourth International. But the new line on Castroism does raise the question and we don't consider it illegitimate to ask for an answer.
One point I would like to emphasize is that we do not consider the characterization of Castroism, whether or not to call it revolutionary Marxism, to be the primary problem in this discussion. But we do consider that this has important and dramatic significance. The use of this phrase to describe Castroism has become current in the party at the same time as a whole series of misconceptions and incorrect assessments have. It has tended to reflect the development of a complete confidence in the theoretical and programmatic capacity of Castroism.
The particular label we use to describe any phenomenon is not nearly so important as the content that we put into the label. If comrades wanted to use the term revolutionary Marxism to describe Castroism, but at the same time clearly perceived the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Castroist current of revolutionary Marxism and were able to make the necessary programmatic and political distinctions between the Castroist and Trotskyist currents of revolutionary Marxism, then we wouldn't have any objections. We would not have a serious problem.
What is decisive in this discussion is our political relationship towards Castroism. One of the points which clearly illustrates the opposed conceptions on this question is the problem of what orientation Cuban or Nicaraguan supporters of the Fourth International have to the Castroist organizations which lead the revolutions in those countries.
Let's take a look at what Steve Clark proposes on this in his article in Bulletin No. 16. On page 10, about halfway down the left column, he asserts, speaking of the New Jewel Movement, FSLN, and Cuban CP, “Our task is not in any sense to build an opposition to them or inside them.” Now this I think clearly lays out the position which is being put forward by the majority of our political relationship to Castroism. It is a perspective which we consider to be completely incorrect.
Comrades should think carefully about those words, “not building an opposition in any sense.” There is only one kind of organization towards which we could possibly have that attitude, one which has a clear, complete, and consistent program and theory capable of leading the international proletariat to victory over imperialism. Is the Castroist current a tendency with such a capacity? We don't believe that it is. And this is the crux of our disagreement with the majority. Because the policy the party leadership has been following over the last two years and the line projected by Comrade Clark of not being in opposition in any sense to the Castroists are only consistent if they believe that Castroism has developed such a complete program for world revolution.
Of course, we do not deny Castroism's potential for doing this, nor do we deny their motion in the direction of developing such a rounded program. But it is completely incorrect to substitute a potential reality for the actual reality which exists today.
Our current has major problems of theory and program to overcome with Castroism. If this is true, then the proposal of Comrade Clark that we not be in the opposition in any sense is wrong.
We would have to be in opposition in some sense, in some political sense, to Castroism, no matter what organizational forms our relationship to that current might take. We will have to oppose the wrong aspect of Castro's program and theory. And there's simply no way to get around the fact that a relatively small grouping of Trotskyists, immersed in a Castroist milieu, will have to maintain some form of organizational identity and links to the international Trotskyist movement, if they are to be able to adequately clarify the necessary points of program and theory.
Comrade Clark has made a big polemical point in the bulletin and he makes it again today over the proposal in the amendments to drop the words “loyal builders” in describing the orientation of Trotskyists to the Cuban CP, FSLN, and New Jewel Movement. But the reason for this is really not so sinister. We believe that what is meant by the formulation is that Trotskyists should be uncritical builders of these currents. It is this idea that we object to. Our interpretation of this point is only confirmed by the statement of Comrade Clark that we are not in opposition to them in any sense. And it is also the only understanding consistent with the course of the party leadership since our last convention.
But perhaps we are guilty of a misunderstanding in this area. If so, the comrades in the majority can clear it up once and for all by answering a simple question. There is a passage which relates to this problem in the resolution on Cuba adopted at the last meeting of the International Executive Committee of the Fourth International in May. That resolution is printed in the July 6 issue of Inprecor, the French language version of IP. In our opinion, this section of the IEC resolution presents a correct approach consistent with the position we are presenting. And I'd like to read a rough translation and ask the comrades of the majority if they can agree with this too:
“In Nicaragua, revolutionary Marxists must be fully part of any project of the FSLN to construct a revolutionary party. And in this framework, they put forward proposals for developing and consolidating the revolution. In El Salvador they join with the FMLN. In Guatemala they integrate themselves in the organizations leading the struggle against the pro-imperialist dictatorship. They carry out this orientation as loyal revolutionary militants. At the same time as they respect the organizational framework in which they operate, they struggle for the program of the Fourth International and they group together its supporters.”
Of course, the wording of this is not necessarily perfect. I would include the Cuban Communist Party in the passage as well. But the general approach of being loyal revolutionary militants who respect the organizational framework in which they operate, and who struggle for the program of the Fourth International and group together its supporters—we believe to be the correct orientation to the Castroist current. If comrades in the majority can agree with this, then I think we can go a long way in resolving this dispute.
The central point of this passage is that we are trying to win this current to the program of the Fourth International where we have differences with them. Comrade Clark cannot assert as he does in Bulletin No. 16 that this way of posing the problem makes it an organizational task rather than a political one. We have the political task whether we are in a common organization with the Castroists or a separate one.
If comrades do not agree with this formulation from the IEC resolution, then I think they have an obligation to explain why. It certainly can't be because it leaves out the idea of loyal builders. It includes this idea. If you disagree, it can only be because you disagree with the idea that one of our central tasks in relation to Castroism is to clarify our points of programmatic difference and win them over to the program of the Fourth International on these points. If the leadership of the majority caucus rejects this formulation, then it will be clear that we are absolutely correct in interpreting the phrase, “loyal builders,” to mean “uncritical builders.”
Clarification of this point is particularly important because there are in fact two wings among comrades who support the majority at this convention. There are many comrades who voted for the majority resolution who do believe that we have fundamental questions which must be resolved between our tendency and Castroism. But there is another section of majority supporters whose views are typified by individuals like Peter Moore, Ike Nahem, and Jon Hillson. These comrades explicitly state that in their view we have virtually no serious theoretical differences with Castroism. They say that what we have thought were differences in the past were mostly the result of misunderstandings, either by them or by us.
These two wings of the majority are ultimately incompatible. They come together conjuncturally because of agreement on a narrow tactical stance towards Castroism. The leadership of the majority caucus has a responsibility to explain which of these views reflects its own. Comrades who support their resolution have a right to know the theoretical basis behind it. Our tendency agrees with the goals of comrades who would like to regroup with the Castroist current in a common international organization but who understand that this will be a heterogeneous organization like the Third International under Lenin and Trotsky, in which there will be a serious struggle for political and theoretical clarification. But we believe that this view is not at all consistent with support for the line of the party leadership.
Comrades should consider: What was Lenin's and Trotsky's attitude toward heterogeneity of the Third International? Was it not to be in opposition in any sense? No, it was to build an opposition in a political sense to the mistakes of the forces they were trying to regroup.
This is the same as our principled task in relation to Castroism. This task is not changed at all by the fact that we don't have the same political authority as Lenin and Trotsky although this will obviously affect our tactics.
This is why the projection in the IEC resolution to work as loyal revolutionary militants who respect the organizational framework in which they operate and who group together supporters of the Fourth International and try to win people over to its program is completely correct, and a necessary perspective. Of course, our goal in this is not to build some permanent oppositional caucus but simply to win over the Castroists including their leadership to our view on the key issues where we have disagreements.
Comrades object, as Steve Clark does in Bulletin No. 16, that this idea of maintaining the political and organizational identity of the Trotskyist movement in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada is of necessity a hostile act towards Castroism and should therefore be rejected. Steve even italicizes the word “hostile” on page 9 of his article. We completely disagree with this statement. I would like to propose an analogy which I think should make this point instantly clear to comrades. What is our attitude towards the National Black Independent Political Party? Are we hostile to it or to its leadership? Yet we still function as a tendency within it and we maintain our own political organization alongside of it. These actions are expressions of support for this formation, not hostility to it.
Now please, comrades, the point of this analogy is not that the Cuban CP is the same as the National Black Independent Political Party. It's simply to point out that it is possible for us to maintain our political and organizational independence from other currents we are working with, even when we are working in the same organization, and not by that fact expressing any hostility towards them. I think that the fallacy of the charge by the majority that the amendments represent sectarianism stems exactly from their inability to grasp this possibility.
There's another aspect to this charge of hostility and sectarianism which I think is worth examining for a moment. At one point in Bulletin No. 16, Steve Clark asks a question which he believes exposes the bankruptcy of the Breitman amendments: “Is the Castro leadership part of the problem or is it part of the solution?” In reality this question only reveals the one-sided method of the majority. Of course, Castro is part of the solution. But isn't it also possible for him to be part of the problem at the same time?
This dichotomy exists only in Steve Clark's rhetoric. In the real world which tends to function according to the laws of the dialectic, Castroism is contradictory. To be sure, we have all agreed that the revolutionary side of this contradictory reality is the dominant one. But simply asserting this fact does not make the other side go away. The essence of the “hostility towards Castroism” charge leveled against our position is the denial of the possibility of contradiction. If we see any negative features in Castroism, the majority argues, then it is obvious that we see him only as part of the problem and that's that.
It is our understanding of this contradictory nature of Castroism which is the essence of our position. The inability of the majority to understand this speaks volumes about the inadequacy of their method.
One question which the majority needs to clarify in this discussion is its position on the state of workers' democracy in Cuba. Steve raised some questions about Peter Moore's article in the ISR [International Socialist Review] in his report and perhaps there is some progress in this area, but I think that we need some elaboration on this question. Do the comrades of the majority agree with the implication of this article that Cuba is a model workers' democracy which can be held up as an example to the workers of the world of how society would function under socialism? Do you agree with Comrade Moore's virtual apology for the single-party system in Cuba? Do you agree with Comrade Hillson's statement in the bulletin that any group which would desire to create another party in Cuba ought to be considered counterrevolutionary?
Comrade Moore asserts in his article that the assemblies of People's Power from the local bodies on up through the national assembly represent a truly democratic form of government. He compares the national assembly to a bourgeois parliament in the way it functions. But the reality is that although the local assemblies of People's Power are democratic, and seem to function effectively to implement the popular will on the local level, the same does not hold true on the regional and national levels, where they essentially ratify decisions that have already been made.
To call this a model of socialist democracy is to hold up a caricature. Of course, the development of People's Power is a positive one and the potential certainly exists for it to develop further. Our call for the institution of workers' councils is in no way counterposed to this real development. But today People's Power remains extremely limited, even in the kinds of questions it can deal with on the local level. To treat it as Peter Moore's article does is to mistake an embryo for an adult animal.
Comrade Moore's article on the draft political resolution as well talks about the positive democratic nature of the mass mobilizations carried out by the Castro leadership, particularly over the last year. This is an example of the kinds of things we would agree with in the resolution even though our amendments propose dropping this entire section of it.
But it's also important to make a distinction between such democratic actions which Castro has always been strongly in favor of—revolution itself is the most democratic of such actions—and democratic forms. It is such forms which are still lacking and which are necessary to ensure the advance of the Cuban revolution. People's Power is only the bare beginning.
It's important to remember why we hold up what are as of now rather abstract norms of workers' democracy for a healthy workers' state, and that is to educate ourselves and maintain our programmatic clarity. A model workers' democracy has never existed, either in the USSR in the early years or in Cuba today. Even if Cuba were to go as far as it possibly could go toward developing such democratic norms, given its objective limitations it could not possibly be an accurate reflection of our conceptions in this area. This is because our view is dependent in the final analysis on workers' power in an industrially developed country.
To begin to replace our programmatic understanding on this question with an adulation of the Cuban model in which workers cannot even organize independently to change a policy they disagree with begins to seriously undermine our theoretical base. The fact that Comrade Moore's article was so prominently displayed in the ISR gives everyone, comrades and non-comrades alike, the impression that his views reflect those of the SWP. Is this impression correct? If so, it illustrates the serious error of the new line of the party leadership. But even if this article does not represent the thinking of our leading committees on this question, if it was somehow printed by mistake without sufficient editing, the nature of this mistake illustrates the serious dangers in the completely uncritical stance towards Castroism which comrades have adopted. The responsibility for this mistake rests with the new line and with the party leadership.
There are other serious questions for which we need answers in this discussion. I don't have time to go into this in detail but here is a sample.
Do comrades of the majority agree that the wing of the Non-Aligned movement led by Castro is a perfect example of the anti-imperialist united front as many of your supporters claim? This is certainly implied by the coverage in the Militant and in the draft political resolution. But this idea is seriously in error. An anti-imperialist united front would have to coalesce around anti-imperialist actions and not simply around anti-imperialist resolutions.
Do comrades of the majority agree with the idea that Castro has an essentially correct evaluation of Stalinism which he keeps to himself in order to protect Cuba's lifeline to the USSR? The implications of that idea are quite staggering if comrades stop and think it through to the end.
Do you agree that the Cuban CP, the FSLN, and the New Jewel Movement are Leninist parties? This list of questions could continue, but an answer to these will do for a start. Comrades need these answers so that we can fairly judge what political orientation towards Castroism the majority is proposing with this resolution.
There was one specific charge made against our tendency in this discussion which I feel I have to take up before I conclude these remarks. In Bulletin No. 23 Steve Clark presents us with an article entitled “Where the Two NC Minority Platforms Will Take the Party.” This article tries to make an amalgam between our views and those of Weinstein and Henderson. This is a completely unacceptable way to proceed with this discussion. What counts in this discussion is the principled position taken by supporters of the amendments. Those of us who support the draft political resolution as amended by Breitman take no political responsibility for the actions of Weinstein and Henderson or of David Keil. We are not responsible for their adoption of our amendments as part of their platform. They are the ones who have to explain the political reasoning behind this.
Comrades should be clear that what we are proposing for a vote at this convention is the general line of the draft political resolution, which Henderson and Weinstein oppose, as well as of Breitman's amendments. This is the platform of our tendency and there's no political basis for linking it with Weinstein and Henderson.
The final point I'd like to make before concluding is to state clearly what we are not proposing. No one is calling for screaming headlines in the Militant, “Where Fidel Castro Goes Wrong on Poland” with a little kicker on the top that says, “Danger to the World Revolution.” We don't propose making criticism of Castro the central focus or the axis of our approach to politics in the Caribbean. We can discuss the tactical stance we may take on how much we raise our differences publicly in our press and this is of course a tactical question. Nobody is opposed to accentuating the positive.
But what is absolutely unacceptable for us is to write things in our press that are wrong or which lead our readers to draw incorrect conclusions, and this is exactly what has happened on questions like workers' democracy, the Non-Aligned movement, and others.
In the final analysis, in deciding how to vote on these questions, comrades must come to grips with what is really at issue in this discussion. And that is the change of line implemented by the party leadership over the last two years. Voting for the majority is voting to approve that change. It's a vote for more articles like the one by Peter Moore on workers' democracy. It's a vote for more one-sided analyses of events like the Non-Aligned conference and the second Cuban Communist Party congress. And it's a vote for more wishful thinking in readings of statements by the Cuban leaders on events like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
A vote for the majority is a vote for a policy which has no hope of helping the Castroists overcome their weaknesses and shortcomings, which will not bring us one inch closer to our goal, a goal we all share, of political and organizational collaboration with the Castroists. It is a vote for a policy which is miseducating and disorienting the ranks of our own organization and generating serious illusions in Castroism, and which is threatening to dissolve some of the most basic programmatic acquisitions of our historical tendency.
A vote for our amendments, on the other hand, is a vote for a reversal of this incorrect policy. It is a vote to return to the correct analysis of Castroism which we adopted at our 1979 convention. Comrades who agree with us that there have been serious errors made by our party concerning Castroism in the last two years, and who agree that the danger exists that these errors will be deepened if we don't correct them, should ignore the baseless accusations of sectarianism against us and vote with us for the general line of the draft political resolution and for George Breitman's amendments to it.
Unfortunately I think that we still need the answers to the questions I raised in my report this morning. The comrades who got up and spoke representing the position of the majority didn't answer the questions that we asked them. We need an answer to the questions about the formulations in the IEC resolution which I raised, about being loyal revolutionary militants who work within the organizational framework of the FSLN, New Jewel Movement, and Cuban Communist Party, who group together supporters of the Fourth International and fight for its program.
These are not rhetorical questions, comrades. These are things that we need answers to in order to accurately assess exactly what's being projected by the majority. We don't object to being loyal builders in the same way that comrades talk about it in relation to the National Black Independent Political Party. It seems to us you're using it differently, comrades.
No one has answered our question about what it means to not be in opposition in any sense to the Cuban Communist Party or these other forces. As I said, we can resolve any misunderstanding by your explaining to us where you stand on that formulation in the IEC resolution.
I want to make it clear—and there might have been some misunderstanding on this—our caucus at this convention has no position on this IEC resolution. Most comrades in the party haven't read it, and most comrades in our caucus haven't read it. Even those who have obviously can't make an informed decision about it without hearing a thorough exposition of the criticisms of the SWP leadership and other positions in the Fourth International.
All that we're asking about is that particular formulation in that resolution. We want to cut across any misunderstanding on the position of being “loyal builders,” and try to get at the heart of what the difference is in our political orientation towards the Castroist current.
The same is true with the other questions I asked. The questions of workers' democracy, the Non-Aligned movement, of Stalinism, and others. Now obviously Steve isn't going to be able to answer all these for us in his summary, and we don't expect that. I think we can look forward to clarification of some of these questions through the international discussion. But clarification of these questions is absolutely essential if we are going to resolve any confusion.
Now I have to say a few words about this question of the analogy between Cuba and the Soviet Union from 1923 to 1933, which a number of comrades have raised in the discussion. I'm not going to try to sort out the misunderstandings on this question, but I do want to talk about a basic problem which I think exists, that of realizing the limits of any historical analogy. An analogy isn't an identity. When someone raises an historical analogy, comrades should come to grips with the points that are analogous, what the comrades are trying to point out with the analogy.
To point out all the ways in which the Soviet Union of 1923 to 1933 is different from Cuba today—well, I can probably make a longer list. That's not very useful, and not very helpful. It's easy enough to do this with any analogy, and I had kind of a whimsical notion of writing a polemic in which I would explain what's wrong with Trotsky's analogy of the counterrevolution under Stalin and the French Thermidor by listing all the differences between France and the Soviet Union. Obviously that kind of discussion doesn't get to the heart of what's being raised. And it isn't very helpful.
It seems that Barry Sheppard simply didn't listen to what I said in my report. He also seems to mix up what I said in my report with the things that Nat said in his report. I want to repeat two things from my report in order to clear up any misunderstanding that might exist because of his comments.
I said in my report that we are confident that the leadership of the SWP will come to understand and come to grips with their mistakes on this question and correct them. We are confident of that. We don't think it's going to happen at this convention. We hope to have had some impact at this convention. In the long term, through our experience in applying the majority line, we are all going to have to assess where we stand, and we think that the party leadership will make some changes.
And I restate what I said in my report that we agree with the majority analysis on the question of Nicaragua, and of Grenada, that there are workers' and farmers' governments in these countries which are advancing the cause of the workers and peasants, and leading up to the socialist revolution.
Comrade Frankel and Comrade Sheppard both stated that I did not enumerate in my report where I thought we had begun to subordinate our political program, our political differences with Castroism. But I submit that I did that. And it was also done in the discussion bulletin. In this summary I want to mention two points again. One is the questions of workers' democracy. We asked what was the comrades' opinion of Peter Moore's article, which, in our opinion, was wrong on this question. I said that Steve [Clark] raised some questions about Moore's article, but we don't know what the extent of his criticisms are. This is an area where comrades have begun to revise. Comrades have said some things which are wrong about this question. We think that a correction has to be made.
And second, the question of the Non-Aligned movement. In my article in the bulletin I pointed to a specific formulation in the draft political resolution about the “consistent anti-imperialist wing” of the Non-Aligned movement which seemed to me to imply that there were consistent anti-imperialists among national bourgeois forces that were allied with Castro in the Non-Aligned movement. We need a clarification of this. I think people misunderstand this in the party. I think people outside the party misunderstand it as a result of the kinds of articles which have been written in our press.
These are the kinds of questions where we can see revisions have begun to creep in. We don't think it's decisive at this point, but we do think it has to be corrected. It's a serious error.
I also want to say one thing about what we're proposing at this convention. What we're proposing for a vote is the general line of the Breitman amendments and the general line of the draft political resolution. It is not necessary for comrades to agree with everything that Breitman wrote in his motivation, or everything that I wrote in my motivation for these amendments. I'm sure that everyone supporting the majority doesn't agree with everything that Steve Clark wrote in his motivation for the draft political resolution. What is up for a vote is the general line of both amendments, and the general line of the resolution.
It's a fallacy for comrades to assert that expressing our views, even publicly, on our disagreements with Castro would somehow be a roadblock in the process of convergence which we are all interested in advancing. That we will somehow alienate the Castroists. I think this fear ignores the essential process by which a convergence takes place, and that is around actions.
The primary stimulus for our current orientation towards convergence with Castroism is the victory and development of the Nicaraguan revolution in the last two years, the developments elsewhere in Central America, and our common analysis of these events. That's not going to change if we begin to raise our differences, discuss our differences with Castro. We are still going to be able to pursue this process.
What is at issue in this discussion is the errors which have been made as a result of the shift in the national leadership's line on Cuba. We believe that there have been errors, and I think I stated quite clearly what we think those errors are. It is not a question of running away from opportunities or being sectarian. It is not a question of refusal to jump into opportunities when they present themselves. It is a question of maintaining our programmatic clarity and understanding while we do those things.
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive