Life Among the Grantists: Letter to a Comrade, September 19, 2005

Comment: The communication that follows addresses itself to the coincidence that only a few months after the WIL leadership had voted against the resolution of our branch to the WIL 2005 National Congress, calling for a workers' party in Venezuela independent of all sectors of the bourgeoisie, just such a party was launched by forces within the Venezuelan workers' movement, a development that the WIL leadership continues to oppose.

* * *

Hello: I had originally decided not to respond to the National Committee letter, since I do not give a tinker’s dam about the National Committee, but I think it would be useful to make a couple of points in conversation with you, since we do political work together, and so I am writing to you:

First point: Regarding the National Committee’s letter, I hope you understand that my calling someone a [i]chavista[/i] reflects a political evaluation, based on my experience in the WIL. The forces in our movement that dictated that Chavez and chavismo be shoved down our throats for the last 15 months are, surely, supporters of Chavez, which is what a [i]chavista[/i] is.

Second point: Now an interesting thing has happened. Our branch called for the organization of a workers’ party, independent of the bourgeoisie, in Venezuela, and that idea, the necessity for workers to be politically independent of the exploiting class, an elementary, yet terribly important principle of Marxism, was voted down by the WIL leadership, with the support of the delegate from the International Secretariat.

A few months later, Oscar Chirino, a prominent leader of the UNT union federation, organized a meeting in Venezuela of some hundreds of workers to plan for the construction of a workers’ political party. As you may know from marxist.com, Chirino recently addressed a meeting in Britain, and made the following point:

“In briefly touching upon the question what the perspective is for the Venezuelan revolution, Orlando answered that he is utterly convinced that if Venezuela does not go beyond capitalism, the problems of the workers cannot be resolved. In that sense he agrees with president Chavez. However, he concluded that one thing is certainly needed to accomplish that goal: a revolutionary party capable of transforming society for the benefit of mankind.” (From marxist.com today.)

So, Cde Chirino is right, and we were right, and the national and international CMI leadership, in voting against our branch’s resolution were not only mistaken, they repudiated an important tenet of Marxism, the necessity of the political independence of our class.

Third point: I understand that you disagree with my contention that CMI’s position on Cuba has changed. In your opinion, I think, CMI has the same position it had previously, only expressed with different slogans now. I think I can prove to you that the politics of CMI regarding Cuba actually have changed.

On June 9, 2005, Jordi Martin, of the CMI International Secretariat wrote the following to Walter Lippmann, a fanatical f[i]idelista[/i] on the Marxmail list,

“As for whether I am in favour of the overthrow of Castro, it is really bad for you to say that, and I am sure it can only be the result of writing in a haste and under the effects of the heat in Havana. You know very well what my position is, because I specifically discussed this point with you in Havana a few months ago. In Cuba there is a double danger of capitalist restoration: the one that comes from outside and the one that comes from within. Castro is against the restoration of capitalism and therefore I do not advocate the overthrow of Castro. I hope this is clear enough for you and that you will not repeat this allegation.”

So, Jordi is now against the call for political revolution. Notice, he did not say, “I never advocated the overthrow of Castro.” No, everything is in the framework of the period since the International Executive Committee meeting in early 2005. So there actually has been a profound change; in abandoning the call for workers’ political revolution against a Stalinist bureaucracy, the CMI leadership has turned its back on a fundamental, distinctive element of Trotskyism. Who else calls for workers’ struggle against the bureaucracy in order to preserve and extend revolutionary conquests? Just us, the Trotskyists.

So the leadership really voted against Marxism and is now in the process of abandoning Trotskyism. I would suggest to you that the CMI leadership has far more serious political problems than their notion that I don’t like them :o) . . .

Anyway, warm comradely regards

[September 19, 2005]