Revolution: 20th century phenomenon; #2 (Reel 2)

Our bench is directing the revolution by radio from Havana. The odious brutality of the rural police and the army units and the merging murderous the gelatinous society Amano Blanca. The slowness of the Army and what in my life in learning counterinsurgency tactics the aborted land reform under our beds and the continued process of foreign holdings. All of these factors have served to favor the success of the guerrilla in Cuba in and wipe them out. Were it not for the continued rivalry between the communist Luis. A and. Yan saw it relevant victory might already have been achieved in Latin model. In spite of United States assistance to the Mendis Montenegro government. Another aspect of Cuban strategy should be examined briefly. This is the concept of armed propaganda. The process of enlisting the support of

the masses. A necessary accompaniment to military action. To describe an armed propaganda. As the development of subjective conditions and awareness of the possibilities of achieving victory by following the road of violence against the imperialist powers and their allies within the country. The debate describes how this can be accomplished most effectively by providing evidence of armed success. Of the destruction of a troop transport. Are the public execution of a police torturer. By direct propaganda action. Going into the images holding meetings explaining the social goals of the revolution. Denouncing the enemies of the peasantry. Promising agrarian reform and punishment for the traitors. Organizing cells public and underground supporting union struggle. Our propaganda has been a very effective instrument of the Viet Cong.

Where even women children and old people in Vietnam. Have been integrated into a political army. To engage in production sabotage intelligence transport etc.. But conditions in Latin American countries except Cuba have so far prevented the development of modern propaganda facilities on the model. Nowhere in recent years have there been large foreign scale of foreign armies in Latin America. As for example the French and United States armies in Vietnam. Whose presence have been used to encourage national action. On the contrary. Communist guerrillas and most Latin American countries are themselves foreign. They are foreign whether they be Cubans or merely white men from the cities of the countries themselves. If Indian or mestizo leaders. Should develop charisma. And. Have.

Guerrilla bases in the mountains. And demonstrate military success. They might very well be able to create these subjective conditions that give out hope for. In the meantime the object of conditions that give out I wrote about the conditions of foreign domination. Of misery of degradation of land poverty of festering slums all of these do exist in varying degrees in the Latin American countries providing constant materials for our future purveyors of armed propaganda. It would take more massive. And much more effective implementation of the Alliance for Progress. To be able to remove these conditions. Both are e nation and Trotsky groups in Latin America. And the militant Chinese partisans. Are frequently compared with the Cuban revolutionary. Since all three. The

Cubans the Trotskyites and the Chinese are committed to following the road of violence. And are joined in their criticism of the old line communist party organisation which they castigated as a tired and effective compromising and collaborationist in particular the neo Trotskyite have found satisfaction in the Cuban revolution. And even the Cubans deviation from the Moscow line as well as of course in the Cuban promotion of international revolution. The Trotskyism of the week Fourth International. Based in Buenos Aires and Montevideo. And formally represented by the Bolivian P O R party the Partido de overdose revolution audios these Trotskyite presumably follow the doctrine of Trotsky the permanent revolution. Vote the Democratic

Dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry only conceivable Trotsky as a dictatorship of the proletariat. That leads the peasant masses. Behind it. On books. In actuality however the isolated so called Trotsky groups in Latin America have very little in common with each other. Except their opposition to the regular college communist party organisation. They attack the idea of coexistence as a defeatist notion. I'm quoting a Bolivian Trotskyite. Coexistence is a defeatist notion. By means of which all types of leaders survive on a world scale. In the old and worn out leadership of their respective parties the Trotskyites condemned coexistence of world peace and accord all the other repugnant phrases. That make up the present arsenal of Stalinism. Now they charge that the Russians have converted the Cuban

revolution. Into a factor of the Cold War. Substituting military and economic aid for a truly revolutionary support. The Cubans on the other hand. Perceiving no material advantage from the support of the Trotskyites who after all have no material advantage to contribute. So the Cubans accuse the Trotskyites of being fined theoretician without an understanding of the true role of the guerrilla. Debray for example charges that the Trotsky people are naively counting on a spontaneous insurrection of the masses arising out of strikes by urban workers and peasant union members so efficient in scope and power to set up a proletarian dictatorship and thus continue the process of world revolution. And examples. Deborah points out Blanco in Pearl. Francisco. How in the Brazilian NE and Marco Antonio yon

salsa in Guatemala. Who are charged with errors of the Trotsky type. Weaving for a spontaneous uprising of workers and peasants. Accepting political guidance from the city's. Diverting revolutionary energy into useless trade union organisation. In general accomplishing very little while they pretended the use of violence and the Trotskyites end up only as practitioners of self-defense. Turning to the Chinese Communists in Latin America their effectiveness is sharply limited by factors of geography economics and world politics. Pro Chinese Communist parties. And splinter groups do exist in most of the country. Both openly and in secret. Activists of the Chinese persuasion. Denounce the Moscow oriented party bureaucracy. They give praise to the guerrillas and occasionally join the guerilla band. To this extent they are in accord with the

violent Cubans. And the Cubans. Particularly Fidel Castro himself have both indirectly and directly indicated their sympathy for the Chinese hard line. That armed struggle is the only revolutionary strategy. There is a distance lack of LAN communication. Preoccupation with domestic Asian and even African problems. I have however kept the Chinese from giving much physical assistance to the Latin American rebels considerable numbers of Chinese trainers. Were undoubtedly in Cuba in the early 1960s but Cuban Chinese relations suffered a major setback. At the tri Continental comp conference in January 1066. Just prior to that conference you will remember that communist China decided to reduce sharply its supply of rice to Cuba in return for the purchase of Cuban

sugar. Castro bitterly disappointed announce this fact publicly the night before the opening of the conference. And during the conference Moreover the Cubans again. Seen the necessity for the material assistance from the Russians the Cubans during the conference although. Indicating clear that there indicate that their inclinations were towards violence voted with the Russians on the key issues for example in support of the doctrine of coexistence. The Russians outmaneuver the Chinese again. When after the conference the Cubans were encouraged to farm on last year remember the word waves. They are going to like you know any kind of they sell the lie that. To coordinate national liberation movements and incidentally by standard Russian doctrine assisting national liberation movement is perfectly harmonious with the doctrine just. In

terms of guerrilla tactics. The Cubans were well set on their path. For the writings of Mao to don't became known to them. There obviously then some notable differences. Moussa doing his initial failure in organizing urban uprisings was a disaster. Which divided and Castro never courted. When Mao began his rural campaign the famous last March he largely forgot the city. While the Cuban guerrillas on the contrary frequently infiltrated urban city's urban centers to commit acts of violence and sabotage. Still however a carefully coordinated from this year and I have to. The Chinese frequently engaged in terroristic activities while Guevara advocates gentle treatment of both the populace and the enemy soldier. Latin American geography for the most part precludes the establishment of Chinese self defense areas in depth.

And Latin American populations are not yet dense enough for the guerrilla forces simply to lose themselves in the in the masses. As the Chinese do and as of course the Vietnamese can do it also has we have seen political conditions in Latin America have not yet favored. The employment of non competence in our own propaganda. It may be concluded that for the present at any rate Chinese influence is largely subjective and emotional rather than practical. It should be obvious from the material less far consider that the Russians. Or the author docs communist parties are playing an ambivalent role in Latin America today. It would be naive in the extreme to suggest that communist objectives differ from Castro Cuban objectives. The liquidation of the existing Latin American governments. Whether by ballot by go up of their style or by a bloody revolution. And their

replacement with communist regimes is the only doctrinal purpose possible. That this could be accomplished without fighting the United States. The task would be easier. But Latin American revolutionary writers. Almost unanimously seem to assume that the conflict will involve the North America. And eventually on United States soil. I might point to the comment specifically addressed to Stokely Carmichael when he attends meetings in Cuban and other Latin American countries. I don't mind Latin American communists on the other hand have their share of inertia and even a measure of national pride which leads them to castigate Fidel Castro. As an upstart interventionist. The Venezuelan Communist Party has been the most vigorous critic of Fidel. The PC the the. Commie the Communist Party then a swell asserts

its right to form its own policy without interference from anyone. Because Cuba has traveled the hard Revolutionary Road honorably. She is for us an example and an inspiration. But we shall never be Fidel Castro's agents in Venezuela. Just as we are not agents of any other Communist Party in the world. If there is a revolutionary group in Venezuela that gladly submit to the village and the paternalism of Fidel Castro I assume they're referring to the f a l n. It is that group's own affair. The PCV will never do it. And if that displeases Fidel Castro too bad for him. While understanding the personal pique of the Communist Venezuelan writers one can hardly avoid questioning the legitimacy of their bravado. The fact that they are independent of all of the Communist Party. The principle

point remains. That restraint and coexistence. Of the Kremlin policies of today. After endorsing the formula of the last in January 1966. The Russians still proclaimed any SSTO. Quote. The Soviet Union the support for the national liberation struggle of oppressed people. But curiously the next sentence read. Is also a known fact that the Soviet Union invariably abides by the principle of noninterference. In the internal affairs of other states. The Soviet Union and its remaining subject communist parties are of course playing a double game. On the one hand they're observing the published rules of the present stage of the Cold War. Not openly to move against sovereign states especially those with which the United States has mutual defense treaty while at the same time covert Lee attempting to manipulate the overthrow of non communist government. Ten years

ago William Benton then an officer of the Department of State explained communist actions in Cuba itself to a congressional committee. One flyer of communist strategy said Mr. Benton. When a dictatorship like the Teamsters is in power is to split themselves into two distinct groups. Seemingly independent of one another one group allies itself with a dictator grasping every advantage to be gained by open and direct association with the government in power. The second group goes underground and maintains an uncompromising opposition to the dictator. When a revolution takes place in the dictators overthrown. The first group merely fades away while the second does its utmost to guide and control the revolution. And cook from Mr. Battens testimony. There are other explanations of course. Surely enough there are tacit understanding between the United States and the soviet union

recognition as fares of interest. Preoccupation with problems in other parts of the world. Limitation on the funds available for foreign aid. And a measure of mature responsibility imposed by the awesome balance of nuclear power. Understanding's that are cogent for both great powers. Only small powers like Cuba. Can afford your responsibility in the present decade. Unquestionably the Soviets would like to see Cuba's inspired revolution sweep Latin America. But it does not appear that they're ready to pay the price to identify themselves openly with such a movement. In conclusion of the title of this paper the first of the new revolutionary left in Latin America today when we use the term new left in 1968 we refer I think generally to an essentially irrational movement. I'm quoting Irving Kristol and essentially

irrational movement like the French student strike. Or perhaps the Mexican student strikes today. Reveling in ideological nonsense. Aiming to fill the existential needs of its followers through violent action and frenetic exhibitionism. It willfully refuses to propose standards or programs and regards its own incoherence as a source of strength rather than weakness. I was in Europe during the French student strikes. And read a number of interviews with their leaders. Every time there was a question of a death defying a philosophy or program that backed away were not interested in such. First we must destroy it. Continuing the New Left. Also contemptuously dismisses the old left. As just another bourgeois phenomenon. Castro revealed his qual with the all left of Venezuela. At the closing session of the old US conference

in August in 1987. He. Read a document very much the same document from which I quoted. This is the heart of the matter for the Venezuelans. Finally the IMT movement is not at this moment in a position to play a decisive role. Because of the stagnation suffered by the guerillas and the armed struggle in general. The situation is what the Venezuelan communists are writing. The situation is aggravated by the false political concepts and prevailing operations of the UN Arko terrorist group. At that Castro turns from his reading and says. And I go adventurous and I go oh terrorists and Iacocca asteroids. And the audience laughs and applauds. Are the Cubans practitioners of the New Left. Well they're certainly violent. They certainly deviate from the orthodoxy of only communist society.

But their destructiveness I think is purposeful. Their violence is fairly ideological. Directed towards a known and. Consistent with their published statements. Their program is irregular but not incoherent. They are Socialist out of convenience. International revolution is certainly terrorist on occasion. Anarchists seldom. They know where they're trying to go. And they proclaim that destination boldly. It seems unlikely that they can realize their goals either at home or abroad give out it is gone. The future does not look very bright for Castro. Armont is in Bolivia or brothel in Venezuela or parody in Bolivia. Perhaps what we have here is not a new left at all but a Latin rejuvenation of the old left. Like its predecessors perhaps also to founder on the rocks of big power political accommodation.

Thanks hollowing the presentation by Dr Paul Hadley professor of international relations at the University of Southern California. The moderator professor of Mino center honest open the Institute on world affairs to questions from the floor. Dr. Hadley responded to the first question. I'm the revolution's the girl much perhaps failing because they lack nationalism. Yes I think this is one of the key points today give out I was very well aware of the fact that he would have to convert his movement into something truly Bolivian. He failed now in other countries there has been considerably more subject. Certainly the Guatemalan Baptists which are perhaps proportionately the largest. Have capitalized a good deal upon anti foreign. Feelings. And feelings against some of the dictatorial governments there. But I think you put your finger on a vital point and I think until a guerrilla movement

is nationally based it will probably fail. What part of the university students of Latin America plane left. I think from my own somewhat limited readings and information that the Latin American students the New Left ones are like the new left students in France or the United States. Essentially they are quite negative. They have not yet reached a point of positive program of anything that they are ready to endorse. Now if you mean are these students in Latin America sympathetic to and interested in the violent. Relative uprising. Yes to a considerable extent. Rather considerable numbers of the guerrilla backed are intellectuals like Fidel and give matter and many of their associates in the Sierra Maestra.

If you dare drawing a parallel look back into Russia in the late 19th century where again those who went out and stirred up trouble in the hinterland were the student intellectual would justify the end of the military operation in Santo Domingo. I think the last time I was here I tried to write a paper and. I guess my views are a little weaker than they were three years ago at that time I said rather strongly. Yes we had to do it. There was no choice. Most of my Dominican noncommunist acquaintances will paraphrase that and say yes the United States had to do it if we were sure that it was a communist uprising. But they're not sure and I'm not sure. My own feeling is that if we

had not intervened a Dominican military. Would have put down the resistance with horrible bloodshed and that we saved an awful lot of lives by what we did. I don't think the Dominican Republic would have gone Communist with or without us. But there is certainly evidence the Communists were hoping to make something of that uprising in the Dominican Republic. And much as I disapprove of intervention I think really quite basically I think it's wrong. I guess my fear of intervention is transcended by my fear of communism. What would happen in the personal leadership of Castro were gone. Again one shouldn't really try to be a prophet. If by any chance Castro lasts long enough until the regime is thoroughly consolidated

one would think that the concepts of democratic centralism the start of plurality the bureaucracy of government might be maintained without the charismatic leader. Conditions of course in Cuba are apparently not good. We're not getting any better. Fidel is 26 of July aeration this summer was the most discouraging of any since he came to power. If he should be eliminated soon I rather doubt if you could find a stable successor except by the imposition of the most brutal kind of military rule and probably then in an effort to find another charismatic figure. Whether Raul could be that I I don't know I think give out or could have been but apparently the young Castro lacks something in terms of popular appeal. To conclude the question and answer session Dr. Hadley was asked what is the view of the

Cuban revolutionary doctrine with regard to the relationship of the Catholic Church and rural peasant in Cuba. The first position of Castro was the best Catholic in the country. He paraded openly with his crucifix and identified himself with the cast. The next phase was to favor the establishment of National Catholic Church. As long as the Catholic Church gave up its pretenses of internationalism it was welcomed and strengthened the Cubans. And I'm not as sure of this as I would like to be have not ever attacked the church in a wholesale fashion so long as it is an instrument of. The National Union.

Now in the other countries where are the conditions I think would differ in a country where. The Catholic Church has been essentially. Absorbed are a disestablished. I was in Chile. I don't think the communists worked very hard to attack the church and other places where the church is still an instrument of the government. A part of the oligarchy. It would be basic communist strategy to consider the church as one of its worst enemies. Now the church is responding rather wisely it seems to me as I follow the Christian Democratic parties in July in Venezuela and Bolivia Ecuador and Brazil

Argentina. I have been moving rapidly towards if you like towards the left. Among the strongest criticism for example of the present military government in Brazil comes from the church. I could go on but maybe this give us a few of the ideas to try to work around an answer to your good question. Dr Paul Hadley speaking at the twenty sixth annual Institute on world affairs is topic in keeping with this institute central theme of revolution was the new revolutionary left in Latin America. This is James H Macy inviting you to join us next week on the series for another presentation from the Institute on world affairs. This program was produced by the Department of Telecommunications and film at San Diego State College in California. This is the national educational radio network.