Who lost the `Cold War'?
I have followed the Militant's coverage of world events since the debacle of Stalinism in Eastern Europe with great interest and appreciation, but also with a lot of questions and some disagreement. I think this was summed up for me by your editorial in the April 15 issue, which stated in so many words that U.S. imperialism lost the cold war.

The cold war, in my opinion, did not stem fundamentally from the existence of Stalinism, but from the drive by imperialism to destroy the Russian Revolution. The imperialist powers instituted an economic and diplomatic embargo against the Soviet Union immediately after World War I, and before Stalin's rise to power. For several years they carried on a direct military intervention as well. Their object, as in Cuba today, was to overthrow the newly established revolutionary government. When direct military intervention failed, the imperialists continued to attack the workers state by economic means. German imperialism, under Hitler, resumed the direct military assault, but was defeated.

With the end of World War II, Washington emerged as the preeminent military and economic power in the world, but the world imperialist system as a whole was weakened. The British and French lost their grip on most of Africa, India, Indochina, and the Middle East in the face of a huge revolutionary upsurge by the oppressed nations they had colonized. Plans for new military attacks against the workers states were scuttled by the revolutions in China, Korea, and Yugoslavia. Imperialism was forced once again to resort to more indirect methods of attack in its campaign to destroy the revolutionary gains in those countries which had abolished capitalist property relations. Such was the origin of the Cold War.

What is the situation now? It is certainly true that the imperialists have not overthrown the property relations established by the revolutions in the Soviet Union, China, and the Eastern European countries. But their efforts to do this are hardly over. I agree with the Militant that it will take direct imperialist military intervention to achieve those goals. But that is precisely what is happening today in Yugoslavia. In Germany, the unification of the country under a single capitalist government has set the stage for a confrontation over which social relations will prevail. Which class will emerge victorious in that conflict remains to be seen.

When the Militant talks about Washington having lost the Cold War, it gives the impression that the struggle over property relations in Eastern Europe (and in the Asian workers states and Cuba as well) has already been decided. In my opinion this issue will never be decisively settled as long as the socialist revolution has not triumphed in the major imperialist countries. Who would have thought five years ago that we would see 60,000 NATO troops occupying Yugoslavia?

What was defeated in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was Stalinism, not imperialism. It is certainly true that imperialist pressure led to the rise of Stalinism, and the imperialists did their best to use those regimes in their assault on the working class. But Washington and its allies hardly invested a lot of effort and prestige in supporting those governments. The reality is that the Stalinist regimes were ground up between the unrelenting pressure of imperialism and the resistance of the working class. Now that they have gone down to defeat, the ground has been cleared for a more open struggle between the contending classes over the future of Europe.

This leads me to the second point about the Militant's coverage of these events that I want to raise. I believe that the defeat of Stalinism was a victory for the working class and an event which, in the long run, can only help the growth of socialist consciousness around the world. But the immediate impact of the crumbling of the Stalinist regimes has been mixed. For the first time in decades, the workers and farmers in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are able to participate openly in politics, and to make their voices heard. This is clearly progressive. On the other hand, the long night of Stalinist repression has left a legacy which will not be overcome overnight. This reactionary legacy is seen in widespread illusions about imperialist democracy and the role of Washington among the Soviet and East European populations. In its most virulent form, as in Yugoslavia, it is directly threatening the foundations of the workers state.

One immediate result of the downfall of Stalinism has been to allow the imperialists a freer hand in military moves to advance their interests. I believe that this was the case with the Gulf War, and it is certainly so in Yugoslavia today. It seems to me that at times the Militant is so intent on stressing the fact that the downfall of Stalinism was a historic victory for the working class - and it was - that its interpretation of immediate and conjunctural issues in world politics gets muddled. This brings me back to the editorial in question.

I think the editorial gave a somewhat rosy view of Cuba's situation. Notwithstanding statements about how Washington lost the Cold War, it seems to me that the threat an imperialist invasion of Cuba is as strong now as at any time since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I agree that the Cuban leadership, in standing up to Washington and refusing to compromise its principles, is taking the best possible course for defending their country and their revolution. But it is Washington that is on the offensive right now. This fact is separate from the issue of how successful or long-lasting the imperialist offensive will be. I would appreciate a fuller explanation of the Militant's position on these issues.

Dave Frankel

Ferndale, Michigan

No such `peaceful planes'
I would like to comment on Chad Oakley's letter (April 29, 1996) that dealt with the shooting down of "peaceful planes" over Cuban waters.

For years "anti-Castro" Cubans have been training in the Florida swaps for a rerun of the 1961 Bay of Pigs, with the full knowledge and aid of the U.S. government. In that invasion, planes camouflaged with Cuban markings bombed and strafed Havana and other areas. For almost 40 years, the American ruling class has been trying to destroy the Cuban Revolution by every means possible - assassination of its leaders, blockade of oil, food, medicines, CIA-engineered sabotage and threats to any country that trades with Cuba.

In the past these "peaceful planes" leaving from Miami have set Cuban canefields on fire by dropping incendiary bombs, infected cattle and tobacco fields with diseases, and scattered tens of thousands of leaflets urging Cuban citizens to take part in acts of violence and sabotage.

Since 1990, 14 infiltrations and pirate attacks, such as firing on tourist hotels from small boats offshore have been documented by the Cuban government. In each instance notes were delivered to the U.S. government asking it to take appropriate measures to end these illegal and dangerous acts. In the last two years these attacks have become bolder and have intensified (Robaina, Cuban minister of Foreign Affairs speaking at the U.N. March 5, 1996).

Putting a decisive end to these escalating provocations was an absolute necessity in defense of Cuban sovereignty. And to Cubans, sovereignty equated socialism and vice versa.

That a small country like Cuba has the dignity and the will to successfully stand up to a most powerful and ruthless (remember Vietnam!) ruling class is an example for oppressed people of the world. It means that this class is not invincible and that Canadian and American workers can also defend their economic and democratic rights against these same powerful corporate bosses -

and win!

Bea Bryant

Blenheim, Ontario

On liberation struggles
Great coverage of the national liberation struggles in Ireland, Palestine, and Quebec!

J. P.

Houston, Texas

What about Mark Curtis?
Please send me the Militant as soon as possible - I miss it. Will Mark Curtis ever get out of jail?

D. G.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home