COMRADE PHIL HEARSE'S article (SC 11 February) on the Cuban and Nicaraguan stance TOWNES Tine Polish crackdown and his defence 18 March) invert the approach to the Cuban leadership that Socialist Challenge has pursued so far.
Up till now we have emphasised Lne revolutionary character of the Cuban leadership and its break from peaceful .coexstence practiced by the Kremlin. We have explained unlal les Dos LOn on the reformability of those bureaucratically degenerated workers' states like Russia and Poland is in contradiction their revolutionary positions, particularly in Phil now puts the matscheme Lile Cubans generally follow a line of peaceful co-existence (that is, of stalinism), but for of self-interest have broken from peaceful Lucasce in Central America.
It is totally ridiculous explain LOe 'breaking. their isolațion' by extending the socialist revolution on the basis of some 'empirical' accident.
broke their station ese broke their 'isolation' accommodating with imperialism.
This was not an 'empirical' accident, but due to the fact that this coincided with the interest of a bureaucratic caste. The Cubans did it our way. Only revolutionaries see 'breaking their isolation' through extension of revolution. the evolution Cubans has been fantastically positive.
How can Phil square this with the astonisning statement that 'the close ties with the Soviet Union has more and more made its mark on the way that the Cubans see the world' and that 'they have internalised a crucial element of the Stalinist world view the "two-camp'' theory'?
Phil himself spells it out: the two-camp theory considers the bloc' rather than the international working class as the main bulwark against imperialism! But how does this apply to Central America where the Cubans advocate a policy of relying on the masses? This Cuban approach is pathetic to any notion of 'two-campism' anyone will know who has suvoled the Chinese revolution, the Spanish revolution or the 'twocamp' policy of any Latin American Stalinist Party.
How do revolutionaries sum un the contradictory stance of the Cubans? recognise their break from Stalinism but also recognise that they have not come to terms with it. Not having come to terms the heritage Stalinism precisely leads to errors like those in relation to Poland. But recognising them as revolutionaries WIO broken stalinism leads us LetTe