At 10:57 AM 1/26/98 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote in response to my posting:
>Marx would embrace Castro as the most genuine representative of his thought
>in the world today. Cuba has been devoted to attacking the world capitalist
>system through action rather than idle chatter:
>
>1) creation of OLAS, the Latin American network of revolutionary
>organizations.
>2) participation in OSPAAL, the solidarity network of third-world
etc.
I reply (WS):
I am not so sure, based on the following quote: "In fact, the
internationalism of the programme stands even infinitely below that of the
Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts
will be 'the internationl brotherhood of peoples.' But it also _does_
(emphasis original) something to make trade international and by no means
contents itself woth the consciousness - that all peoples are carrying on
trade at home.
The international activity of the workingh class does not in any way depend
on the existence of the _International Working Men's Association_. This
was only the first attempt to create a central organ for that activity..."
(Marx, _Critique..._).
What I am arguing is that Cuba, as well as most other Soviet block
countries did not create internationalist momentum other than ideological
appeals and political organizations. What they were really after, however,
was a protection of their budding economies from foreign competition. In
that respect, the Soviet-style revolution was merely an effort to catch up
with capitalist advances elsewhere, not to transcend those advances.
On the other hand, it is the capitalist class that actually "does something
to make trade international." That "something" might be reprehensible, but
pushes internationalization well above the level the x-USSR and its allies
could even dream of accomplishing.
I am not trying to deny, in any way, the progress revolutionary changes in
Eastern Europe or Cuba brought to improve the general human conditions in
those backward and exploited countries. But improving the material living
conditions of the people, a noble end in itself, is not the same as
breaking away with capitalism; for capitalism also does that.
Regards,
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
