Vol. 68/No. 1 January 12, 2004
75th Anniversary of the ‘MILITANT’
The ‘Militant’ and the Cuban
Revolution
A 1978 interview
with Joseph Hansen,
one of the paper’s former editors
http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6801/680146.html
Following are excerpts from an
interview with Joseph Hansen conducted in 1978 by Harry Ring, on the occasion of
the Militant’s 50th anniversary. The interview was published in the Dec.
22, 1978, issue. Hansen was a longtime leader of the Socialist Workers Party who
served as the Militant’s editor at various times in the 1950s and ’60s.
This is the tenth and last installment of this column, launched in the November
3 issue to mark the Militant’s 75th anniversary. It’s also fitting to
publish the excerpts below in this
issue—the first in 2004—because the turn of the year coincides with the
celebration of 45 years of the Cuban Revolution.
BY HARRY RING
One of the most exciting chapters in the Militant’s history was our
coverage of the first years of the Cuban revolution. The revolution was an
inspiring event that left a profound imprint. Countless people around the world
were radicalized and won to socialism by it.
From the very outset, the American imperialists
worked overtime to strangle the revolution—a fact that posed special
responsibilities for socialists in this country. The revolution also posed many
political and theoretical questions in a new way for the Marxist movement. All
this was reflected in the pages of the Militant. The Militant
became must reading, week in and week out, for those who wanted to keep up with
Cuban developments.
Throughout that period, Joseph Hansen was on the
editorial staff of the Militant. In a recent interview, he discussed how
U.S. socialists responded to the key stages of the Cuban revolution. Currently
the editor of Intercontinental Press/Inprecor, Hansen is a longtime
leader of the Socialist Workers Party. He was secretary to Leon Trotsky and is
the author of a voluminous body of Marxist writings. Among these is the recently
published Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution, an invaluable compilation of
his writings on Cuba.
July 26 Movement
In the interview, Hansen discussed the changing attitude of the Militant
toward Fidel Castro’s July 26 Movement as that movement evolved.
From the very beginning, of course, socialists
wholeheartedly supported any struggles against the U.S.-backed Batista
dictatorship. “We took our stand against Batista and against U.S. domination of
Cuba,” Hansen said. “But we didn’t politically support the July 26 Movement.”
The reason, he explained, was that the initial
program of Castro’s movement specifically excluded expropriations of capitalist
holdings. It pledged that the democratic reforms it was committed to would be
carried out within the framework of capitalism. “We knew this was a totally
utopian idea,” Hansen commented. “None of the basic problems of Cuba could be
solved on a capitalist basis, so we couldn’t support Castro’s political
program.”
At the same time, he added, the Militant
was very much aware of the potential of the struggle then developing in Cuba. A
staff writer was assigned to follow these events.
With the fall of Batista on January 1, 1959, our
coverage greatly expanded. “We were particularly concerned,” Hansen said, “to
get all the material we could that indicated the direction in which the movement
was going.
“It should be remembered that in the first days
after it came to power, the July 26 Movement did not carry out expropriations.
It reiterated its intention not to.”
Socialist direction
Why did the revolution, over its first two years, take a socialist direction?
There were several reasons. To begin with,
Hansen said, the Cuban leadership began to learn fairly quickly that it couldn’t
carry out an effective land redistribution and other social programs within the
framework of capitalist property relations. And U.S. interests, which dominated
the island’s sugar economy, were determined to thwart the new government’s
program to place control of the land in the hands of those who worked it.
To that end, the Eisenhower administration
directed an intensifying barrage of economic and political blows against Cuba.
But the new government responded not with retreats or compromises but by moving
more resolutely to realize its goals. This quickly led it to expropriate
capitalist interests in the countryside and city.
“It was inevitable that Washington would direct
heavy blows against Cuba,” Hansen commented. “But it wasn’t inevitable that the
Cuban leaders would respond the way they did. Like many other reform
governments, they could have knuckled under.
“But they didn’t. They responded by deepening
the revolution, by taking it in an anticapitalist direction. “They started out
as middle-class reformers—they described themselves that way, you know. But in
the heat of the struggle, they became socialist revolutionists. They deserve a
lot of credit for that.”
On the scene
In April 1960, Hansen got a chance to see the process first-hand. He went to
Cuba with Farrell Dobbs, the SWP’s presidential candidate that year. This was at
a time when Washington and the capitalist media were whipping up a menacing
anti-Cuban slander campaign.
Defense of the Cuban revolution became a central
axis of the SWP campaign. Dobbs went to Cuba to get the facts that would help
combat the lies. He and Hansen spent nearly a month visiting various parts of
the island, talking with workers, farmers, and government officials.
“We saw the gains of the agrarian reform
program,” Hansen said. “How they took over the big sugar plantations—and the
sugar mills—and turned them into state farms. We saw how they broke up other
holdings and turned over these smaller plots to the peasants.
“They eliminated unemployment in a country where
previously most people didn’t work nine months of the year,” Hansen emphasized.
“They made it possible for children to go to school. They slashed rents, cut
food prices, provided medical care, opened a drive against illiteracy.
“And there was a real liberating atmosphere in
the country,” he added, “not the totalitarianism the State Department kept
talking about.”
On their return, Dobbs effectively used that
firsthand knowledge on TV and radio and at public meetings. As the Cuban press
noted, he was the only presidential candidate to stand up for Cuba.
Hansen wrote a series of articles for the
Militant, later published as a pamphlet, The Truth About Cuba. At the
same time, Hansen recalled, members of the SWP were actively involved in
building the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which worked to counter the anti-Cuba
campaign. It published literature, held meetings, provided speakers, and—before
the United States instituted a travel ban—organized tours to Cuba so people
could see the revolution for themselves.
Impact in U.S.
The Cuban revolution, Hansen recalled, coincided with the victory of the
Algerian revolution over French colonialism.
“These were popular causes,” Hansen said. “Not
in the sense that they swept the country. But they found considerable backing
among people who were beginning to radicalize because of the situation they
found themselves in here.
“The revolution came at the same time as the
whole movement for Black freedom in this country,” he continued. “You had the
marches and sit-ins in the South, the new awakening of the student movement.”
And, he added, there were a lot of poor people
who simply didn’t accept as “gospel” what they were being told about Cuba. This
was demonstrated in the most dramatic way, Hansen recalled, when Castro headed a
1960 delegation to the United Nations. Rudely treated at their original hotel
they packed their bags and moved up to the Theresa, then a well-known Harlem
hotel.
Every night during the week the Cuban delegation
was there, thousands of people gathered in the streets outside, cheering and
demonstrating. The outpouring of the people of Harlem, Hansen said, was a
stunning rebuke to Washington’s hate-Cuba campaign.
For those following the Cuban development
closely, the Militant performed a unique service. Despite its very small
size, at the time—as few as four pages in 1961—the Militant became a
paper of record for the Cuban revolution.
It printed more speeches by Castro and Che
Guevara than any other English-language publication. The texts of major Cuban
documents appeared in the Militant as well. Other radical publications
were sympathetic to Cuba, but they apparently did not see the importance of
publishing what the Cubans themselves were actually saying.
And some radical groups were only lukewarm in
their support, Hansen noted.
Record of CPUSA
For example, “the U.S. Communist Party gave ‘all hail’ to the revolution,
verbally,” Hansen said. “But they dragged their feet about doing what was needed
to defend it.”
This was because they had a big political
problem, Hansen explained. The Cuban Popular Socialist [Communist] Party had
bitterly opposed the July 26 Movement until it was on the road to power. The PSP
had previously denounced the July 26 Movement as “adventurist” and, several
times during Batista’s reign, had given open support to the dictator.
Not surprisingly, the July 26 Movement had
bypassed the PSP in making the revolution.
That victory, Hansen said, exploded the
carefully nurtured illusion that only Communist parties could lead revolutions.
This, he said, dealt a heavy blow to Stalinism.
For authentic Marxists, the process by which the
Cuban revolution succeeded was, in many respects, unanticipated. After coming to
power, the evolution of the July 26 Movement from radical reform to the
enactment of deepgoing socialist measures was something entirely new in world
history and had to be assessed in the light of prior Marxist experience and
theory.
The SWP carefully followed its evolution in an
open-minded, objective way.
“We went by the Marxist criteria that what’s
decisive are the actions that are taken,” Hansen explained.
“You can lay down a blueprint that lists the
main steps that should be taken and say that’s where you stand.
“But you also have to be prepared for a
development that doesn’t fit the blueprint but nevertheless points in the same
general direction. You have to take that into consideration. That was the basis
of our judgment.”
The SWP and Militant demonstrated our
respect for the Cuban leaders by frankly stating our opinions—critical as well
as positive—on the basic political issues facing the revolutionary government.
“For instance, we welcomed the desire of the
Cuban leadership to extend the revolution into Latin America,” Hansen said. “But
we disagreed with them on how that could be done.
“While they placed reliance on the organization
of guerrilla movements, we argued for building mass-based, revolutionary
working-class parties. It was a mistake, we insisted, to believe the Cuban
experience could be mechanically duplicated in other countries in Latin
America.”
Hansen continued, “Another issue on which we
argued for our particular point of view was how best to develop and expand the
new climate of freedom that followed the triumph over Batista.
“What was necessary, we said, was the
development of structured workers democracy; that is, the creation of
institutions, under the control of the working people, whereby they could
actively participate in Cuba’s decision-making process. Such forms of democracy,
we said, would strengthen the revolution.”
Decisive
transformation
In the late summer of 1960 the expropriation of major U.S. and Cuban holdings
reached the point where the power of capitalism was broken. The significance of
this historic development received major treatment by the Militant.
And, when the ill-fated U.S.-organized invasion
of Cuba occurred in 1961, the SWP and Militant stood in the forefront of
those denouncing and opposing it.
“STOP THE CRIME AGAINST CUBA,” was the headline
emblazoned in block type across the front page of the Militant. It
featured a statement by the SWP Political Committee assailing the imperialist
aggression.
There were other major developments in Cuba that
we followed closely, Hansen said. “But it would take a book to deal with them
all. So, if I can be permitted a plug, I would suggest people check out
Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution. A lot of it is material that first
appeared in the Militant….”
BOXED SEPARATELY:
Cubans hailed Militant, SWP
The new Cuban government and press took note of
the unique role of the Militant and the Socialist Workers Party in championing
the revolutionary events aon the island and mobilizing opposition to U.S.
threats.
Following Premier Fidel Castro's 1960 visit to New York to
speak before the United Nations, he reported back to a giant rally in Havana.
Castro explained that while most Cubans had only heard about the two big
business candidates in the U.S. presidential elections that year, there was a
third candidate that they had heard about because the monopolists barred him
from te press and air waves.
Castro was referring to Farrell Dobbs, the SWP candidate. An
article on the U.S. elections appeared in the November 15, 1060 issue of the
Cuban weekly magazine Bohemia.
After reviewing the positions of Democrat John F. Kennedy and
Republican Richard Nixon, the article explained
"Both candidates were the same. They had nothing new to offer
and the people were well aware of the fact.
But there was an alternative, Bohemia said.
"Standing up against the well-heeled hack and the Catholic
millionaire, the socialist Dobbs presented a really new program. During his
three coast-to-coast tours, he made it clear that he was fighting for peace -- a welcom eword to all people -- for economic security and equal rights. And he was
speaking for a real revolution, for the socialization of North America.
"The result of the voting by a people numbed by tons of
propaganda, " Bohemia concluded, "weill obviously decided between Nixon and
Kennedy.
"Bu the large percentage of North Americans who don't bother
to vote because of indecision, added to the energetic campaigning of the
Socialist Workers Party, serves a s a clear sign that the learding circles in
the United States will soon face a people turning against them."
Several months later, at the time of the unsuccessful
CIA-organized invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, the Militant responded with
the banner headline, "Stop the crime against Cuba!" Although the paper was much
smaller than today, it hammered away weeek after week on the danger of new
imperialist plots against the Cuban revolution.
Rounding up U.S. press reaction to the Bay of Pigs, Bohemia
wrote:
"What the U.S. News & World Report was proclaiming as an
heroic deed, The Militant was indicting as a crime. This isa modest socialist
tabloid edited in New York. Since it doesn't represents the interests of the
monopolies, it lacks advertising and its circulatin is limited...It truth
remains compressed in four pages."