THE SOVIET PRESS
FEATURES A VENEZUELAN "AUTHORITY" AGAINST THE CUBANS
By George Saunders
Another contribution to the polemic against the Cuban line has appeared in the Soviet press -- this time by a Venezuelan, Rodolfo Quintero. Like the articles by the Argentine Communist leader Ghioldi and his Chilean fellow spirit Corvalén (which appeared in Pravda October 25 and 27; see World Outlook, Vol. 5, No. 36), this too steers clear of any open attack. But there can be no doubt that it is aimed at the policies and concepts of the Cuban leadership and OLAS [Or anization of Latin-American SolidaryJ. The article is entitled "October and Latin America" and, like those in Pravda, was ostensibly written in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Bolshevik victory. Its spirit is anything but Bolshevik, however, as we shall see.
The article appeared in issue No. 44 of Za Rubezhom ("Abroad"), a weekly paper devoted to international affairs and featuring reprints from non-Soviet sources, along with original material.
Quintero, the author, is introduced by Za_Rubezhom with these words: "The influence of glorious October on the revolutionary process in Latin America is recounted in an article specially written for our weekly by a well-known historian and professor at the Central University of Venezuela."
The professor, if not a leader of the Venezuelan Communist party himself, is clearly sympathetic to the viewpoint of its rightist leadership, to judge by this article.
Quintero's theme is the correct interpretation and application of "Marxism-Leninism." He explains that he by no means views this body of thought as abstract metaphysical doctrine, and he sounds somewhat on the defensive against the kind of ridicule the Cuban revolutionaries direct at blowhard "theoreticians," as they call the rightist wing in the Latin-American Communist parties.
As though counterthrusting to this Fidelista kind of mockery, Quintero probes at a weak point of his opponents, their reputation for pragmatism and indifference to theory:
"The true Marxists," he says in his opening pitch, “are far from limiting themselves to just a pragmatic approach in trying to solve problems which cannot be resolved outside the framework of Marxism. They feel the need to operate beyond the bounds of lecture halis, libraries, and study rooms. To utilize the teachings of Marxism-Leninism to solve problems of vital importance -- that is the goal they set themselves."
Having made this salesman's opening to men of action, he goes on to spout theory and invoke authority, precisely fitting the image of the “lecture-hall" caricature.
The correct understanding of Marxism, Quintero explains, precludes the imposition of only one form of struggle on all Latin-American revolutionaries:
"Leninism teaches Latin Americans that one cannot reject the use of a variety of forms of struggle, but neither can one irresponsibly adopt just any form of struggle at all. The most important thing is to struggle, subordinating both strategy and tactics to the tests of life itself, to be ready for attack and retreat and always to search for the situation which will open up the road to the socioeconomic and cultural transformation of our nations.
"History teaches that in class war there are no universal forms suitable to all occasions. Each form of struggle corresponds to a particular historical situation.
Fine words in the abstract, bu® they are just a cover-up. This advocacy of "many forms of struggle" is the formula used by the moderate, traditionalist, and cowardly leaderships of most Latin- American CPs to avoid practicing or supporting armed struggle, or adopting such a perspective. It is their way of leaving open the possibility of the “democratic peace" or "peaceful coexistence" tactic, better understood by the name class collaboration.
Of course, the OLAS resolutions -which is what Quintero is really arguing against -- speak of armed struggle not as a “universal form" but as a "fundamental course," a principle that must take primacy and to which all other tactical forms must be geared. Quintero tries to dodge this issue. In the process he weaves a subtle argument against Castro, OLAS, or anyone "interfering" with the "democratic peace" orientation of the rightists in the Venezuelan CP.
"For all of Latin America there is a single destiny in common, but the countries of the continent cannot avoid the law of the uneven development of capitalism and the uneven development of society. Even today differences exist between the
q it
"THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT RIPE." The Cuban cartoonist, Nuez, ridicules those who find profound "theoretical" reasons for not engaging in revolutionary struggle in Latin America. Nuez likes to depict these talkers as always armed with a big book labeled "theory." In contrast, he generally depicts genuine revolutionists as armed with a rifle. His real target, however, is not "theory" in general but a certain treacherous tendency to be found in the leadership of the Latin-American Communist parties. In his speech closing the OLAS conference in Havana last August, Castro identified one group in this tendency as the "right-wing leadership of the Venezuelan Communist party" and he characterized them as "betrayers" of the revolution in Venezuela.
levels of economic, political, and social development of Latin-American countries, although the common denominator in all these lands is underdevelopment. This real situation determines the strictly national nature of the revolutionary movements in this region of the world, as well as the difference in the forms of struggle and the time lag in the liberation of the peoples.
"Hence arises the necessity that the revolutionaries of each country should determine the direction and tempo of their own revolution in all its aspects, for no one knows better than they the reality in which they are working. This, naturally, does not exclude a comradely exchange of opinions by revolutionaries of different countries.
"The Cuban revolution demonstrated that life itself breaks up and destroys schematic concepts and that one cannot derive an absolute rule from anyone's experience, no matter whose it might be, especially insofar as its particular features are concerned. However, at the same time it should not be forgotten that the ‘particulars' of one revolution may occur as well in another place, although not necessarily in an analogous fashion."
Quintero denies, in effect, the need for an international revolutionary strategy to counter the international strategy of imperialism. The aim of OLAS is to create an organization that puts such a strategy into effect. Ironically, he cites the Cuban revolution as an example of how such "schematic concepts" don't work. But, of course, it was precisely the schematism of the Cuban Quinteros, with their parliamentarism and collaboration practices, that the Cuban revolution broke through along the road of armed insurrection.
It is not surprising that Quintero should so twist the Cuban example. His whole article does the same for the Russian revolution. For example, he asserts:
",..the October revolution, led by Lenin...called for vigilance against adventures, in which the priceless lives of revolutionaries are lost to no avail and by which the liberation movements are thrown back."
Is this a veiled reference to the death of Che Guevara -- for factional ends? At any rate, the type of the guerrilla fighter against which the passage is clearly directed is a hundred times closer to the spirit of the "revolution led by Lenin" than the worthy professor, scouting among his files for arguments on why the guerrillas should not be backed.
The most glaring misstatement of the lessons of October, though, is Quintero's curious and somewhat murky explanation of why the revolution will not "necessarily" be socialist.
"Glorious October showed that there exists another, a noncapitalist path of development. This path is not always necessarily equivalent to an imnmediate socialist transformation, for which in certain Latin-American countries the objective conditions have not yet been able to mature." (That "certain countries" phrase always manages, somehow, to cover any country where attempts are underway to make the revolution. )
"The objective of this path is to bring antifeudal transformations to their logical conclusion and thereby prepare the material and social conditions for the advance to socialism." This rather clear restatement of the Menshevik "twostage" theory might seem strange in an article commemorating the Bolshevik overturn. But then the Quinteros always honor the revolution by praising its opposite.
The good professor actually lists three reasons why the two-stage possibility is a good Marxist-Leninist perspective:
"(a) In agriculture capitalist relations do not yet predominate. (b) The national bourgeoisie is weak; it depends to a significant degree on the state for protection and support and does not have the resources for autonomous development. (c) Capitalism as a social system enjoys very little prestige."
Of course, his point (a) is simply untrue. Landholding and investment in land has been "capitalized" in all major areas of the Latin-American econo for quite some time. As for (b) and (c), the argument is hard to follow. What Quintero seems to mean is that it is all right to leave the leadership of the coming revolution to the national bourgeoisie: this would not endanger an eventual socialist overturn, because the bourgeoisie is weak and their system has little prestige. -987-
Of course, these are precisely the reasons why the leadership of the antiimperialist and democratic revolution cannot be left to the national bourgeoisie and why a proletarian revolution that would combine democratic and socialist measures is both necessary and possible.
In one respect Quintero's offering is more constructive than that of Rodolfo Ghioldi in the October 25 Pravda. Ghioldi confined himself in essence to name-calling, attacking unidentified "tendencies similar to Maoism," with their "petty-bourgeois nationalist" theory of "continental exceptionalism" and revival -- oh horrors! -- of Trotskyist notions. They even think the revolution must be...socialist!
Rather than just assert the twostage theory as a dogma the way Ghioldi did, Quintero tries to give rational arguments for this perspective of an "antifeudal" revolution first and then (someday) the socialist one. In so doing, he permits a discussion to be opened in which these arguments can be properly and thoroughly destroyed.
Thus his contribution can at least serve educational purposes. There may be some who still need to be shown why, as Che Guevara said, "There are no other alternatives: either a socialist revolution or a caricature of revolution." And we might add that for revolutionaries, no other way exists: either that of Che, or a..-Quintero.