Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Click here to read the CWI's reply to this document

[Next]

The comrades of the faction raise a number of points in relation to Cuba. If we look at the resolution passed by the Scottish Socialist Party conference it takes a correct position of support for the Cuban Revolution and defence of Cuba against imperialism. It does not give uncritical support to the Cuban regime but states explicitly that we reserve the right to criticise Cuba.

What do the comrades say? First, they criticise the resolution for describing Cuba as a "socialist republic". The comrades then say: "Socialism as we know would require an international overturn of capitalism in at least a significant number of countries in the advanced capitalist world for socialism to begin to take root ... this applies as much to Scotland as to Cuba in 1956. " (sic).

But we do call for an independent socialist Scotland as a step towards a wider socialist alliance. Are the comrades proposing that we change the wording of that part of our programme on the grounds that you can't have socialism in one country?

Of course, socialism as we know cannot be built in a single country. Lenin knew that too, he explained it many times. The constitution of 1918 nevertheless defined Russia as a "soviet federative socialist republic" and the constitution of the Soviet Union four years later spoke of a union of socialist republics.

The comrades also say: "This is not the position of the Committee for a Workers’ International who describe the Cuban regime as a deformed workers state." That is true - although there has been no discussion within the Committee for a Workers’ International involving the individual sections on the class nature of Cuba in the light of the experience of the past ten years.

In the late 1970s we understand that Peter Taaffe described Cuba as a 'workers state with bureaucratic deformations' - a formula that was opposed by Ted Grant then withdrawn. Instead Cuba was lumped together in the same bag and under the same label as Stalin's Russia, Ceaussescu's Rumania, Honecker's East Germany, Jaruzelski's Poland etc.

We believe that there is a genuine discussion to be had on the character of Cuba, given that it has stood against the tide of capitalist restoration over the past ten years, despite losing the mammoth subsidies from the Soviet Union.

There are clearly deformations as was acknowledged in the speeches and in the content of the resolution carried at the Scottish Socialist Party conference which explicitly stated that we reserve the right to raise our criticisms of Cuba.

Incidentally, the faction comrades say that "it was not acceptable that the comrade who moved the resolution said it was unimportant how we characterise Cuba and that it should be supported uncritically. " However, as the comrades know, the mover of the resolution, Alice Sheridan, stepped in to move the resolution at the last moment because Tommy was called away. Alice is well known as a very passionate and long standing comrade who has always expressed her views strongly, even where they have not corresponded with the views of Scottish Militant Labour.

When the comrades say this is "unacceptable" what do they mean? Are they implying that disciplinary action should be taken, and if not, what are they saying?

Moreover, Alice was taken up strongly, not by members of the faction all of whom who remained silent, but by Martin Gardner and Nicky McKerrell, International Socialist Movement members who support the majority position. When the statement then criticises these comrades for failing "to deal with the character of the Cuban state or call for workers democracy or socialism" they are simply trying to score cheap points. In a two minute contribution in the course of an extremely short debate it is not possible to deal with all of the issues. However some of the key points concerning repression and lack of democratic rights were brought out.

But there are other issues at stake here. In this period of capitalist triumphalism, the "end of socialism and communism", the march of globalisation, surely the main emphasis of a socialist conference has to be to come out clearly on the side of the tiny, isolated and impoverished Cuban state?

Whatever its deformations, it continues to command mass support within the country even after 40 years, and has valiantly protected the gains of the revolution in contrast to those former Stalinists who have switched sides to become capitalists.

The comrades fleetingly refer to "the conference correctly calling for the defence of Cuba from the embargo by US imperialism" then go on to make lengthy criticisms of the Cuban state. We believe that the emphasis should be the other way round. Especially in the present international climate, this is a basic class question, like supporting the NUM during the miners' strike - despite the bureaucratic authoritarianism of the NUM leadership under Arthur Scargill.

Moreover it is a mistake to baldly state that "a new revolution is essential in Cuba" as the comrades present it. Our central demand should not be for 'a new revolution in Cuba', but for revolution based on socialist democracy in the capitalist states of Latin America, which would then have repercussions in Cuba itself. To pose the tasks the other way around is - to turn once again to the analogy of workers in struggle - like calling for the removal of Arthur Scargill from the leadership of the NUM during the miners strike.

We have no definitive position on the nature of the Cuban state, our exact demands etc. These are issues that have not been discussed in the recent period, but should be discussed in a calm fashion rather than in a fashion designed purely to discredit the International Socialist Movement majority in the eyes of the International.

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join