Communist Unity. Alejandro Gascon Market On 17 February this year died Alejandro Gascon Mercado, the last days of his life engaged in writing this text was published in Issue 4 of the Communist Unity Magazine. Gascon Mercado was a revolutionary who participated in the direction of the following parties: Partido Popular Socialista, Partido del Pueblo Mexicano, Mexico Unified Socialist Party, Revolutionary Socialist Party and the time of death was a member of the Communist Party. Federal MP was three times mayor of Tepic Nayarit, and in 1975 won the governorship of Nayarit, which was robbed by electoral fraud orchestrated by the government in favor of the PRI.
Armando Hart, who has been Minister of Culture of Cuba, has issued in recent years, judgments about Stalin are the same as imperialism used to overthrow the socialist regime in the Soviet Union and other European countries where it existed. Blanket is to make these judgments as a participant in the early years of the Cuban Revolution. But it is the first revolutionary devolves from the ideological point of view, many have come to treason.
all know that at one time was revolutionary bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudalism and when he sat on the power turned conservative and even reactionary to build and maintain its system of exploitation. So it is with individuals who love themselves so much that when events do not match with their ideas, fight for reasons temperamentales.La struggle against Stalin has become clear.
was not caused by defects, for his crimes, for his personality, but because it symbolized for some time building the socialist regime and it is already clear that when our enemies knocked down monuments to Stalin, followed by those of Lenin and later with Karl Marx to restore capitalism in the USSR and other countries living in the area of \u200b\u200bsocialism. Exaggerating
minimize mistakes and successes of Stalin allegedly self-critical or seemingly scientific analysis of the development of society, play into the hands of imperialismo.Antes was no doubt but it is now clear: After the Communists abandoned the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and the cadres became managers and later owners of state enterprises Socialist allied with the historical enemies of socialism.
Hart In this work, deal with hype and false information that is necessary to comment: He says his work is a tribute to the revolutionaries who suffered defeat in the Soviet Union, even claiming that while there is not a rigorous examination what happened in the Soviet Union, Marxism has no future and no authority, what does the philosophy Marxist failure and the betrayal of so-called communists in the USSR?
We have said that when a bridge falls down is not the responsibility of mathematics but of the engineers who built it. In the Soviet Union failed not dialectical or historical materialism, those who failed or betrayed misapplied these ideas. Marxism-Leninism remains in force for organizing the revolutionary struggle anywhere in the world provided it is properly understood the theory and practice is made consistent with reality.
The revolutionary struggle and also gain partial victories failures circumstantial, but it is clear that humanity walks toward progress and builds social systems, which improve human life gradually, so socialism will succeed universally, regardless of the setbacks that have.
A real tribute to the Communists is an offering solidarity in their fight, not looking for arguments to be disappointed or bitter. The problem is not Stalin, the militants are the current problem of the cause of communism. Stalin is now listed on the record with Spartacus, Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, among others, who were cleared arms systems to build new social systems. Want
destroy Stalin's throw to the wind in an exercise of real political Spiritualism no sense. And future historians will be responsible for the historical facts of today, not militants. What we have to do is recap our own activity to return to the fight concreta.Hart tells of how they influence the subjective values \u200b\u200bof positive and negative and said that Stalin is the most negative example has been given from the point of subjectively in the twentieth century. There is no doubt that the subjective is very important but is not decisive.
What matters is the objective. While it is true that between content and form is a close relationship, there are equally important. The content of things is essential.
Objectively, Stalin is a example of tenacity, leadership, historical projection because it was the decisive factor in building the most advanced system that has existed in human society: the socialist regime.
If the Paris Commune, which lasted 70 days or so has influenced the lives of men, the Soviet Union continues as an example of what will be the future for our peoples. This system is an example of creation without limit because the Soviet Union developed, which in many places was a very backward country, to a high level of technological and scientific.
Stalin is an example a great capacity for political leadership, organizational creation, management, because there was no piece of the Soviet Union will not develop dramatically, creating a powerful economic, military, which has long guaranteed the peace mundial.Se says invented so that under the leadership of Stalin to the Soviet Union was concerned only economic development that was abandoned, the debate of ideas, nothing more false.
In the USSR, during this period, there was a great scientific and technological development in all branches of knowledge and never anywhere, are huge numbers of books published on general culture and philosophy. The town received during this time massive socialist education. Clear that there was a culture of speculation, as is traditionally bourgeois culture, where intellectuals are true mental masturbators and not working people. The art flourished as at any other time.
may or may not like the artistic expressions of these people, but their development was massive: painting, sculpture, ballet and literature with issues raised in the village. What will probably miss the bourgeois intellectuals, is inconsequential and frivolous literature produced by social misfits is not typical of a socialist country.
Even under socialism there are some who call over individual liberties against the need to build a new society without exploiters or explotados.Se says in the letter of Hart, that the Stalinist period have forgotten the ethical and legal issues. No. Is it ethical and legal issues as superstructures, are different under socialism. Is not the same ethics proletarian bourgeois ethics, and not the same scaffolding system of private ownership of the system of social property.
In the USSR everything was new in this respect had to be created, there was to make an example of anything or anyone. It created a new form and a new sensibility art. There was not rich influential influential were the heroes of labor. All the people saw them with admiration and respect. Were other values. They, the heroes of labor, had priority in transportation, in all events and the hospitality of the people.
sponsored Che as Cuba's Minister of Industry voluntary work, surrounding it with similar privileges. Therefore, saying that they forgot the ethical, is just resort to slander irresponsable.Hart said that feudalism and imperialist domination of the Tsarist monarchy was the setting that nurtured the political formation of Stalin, Of course, also influenced by Leninism, which reception with cultural constraints referred to above, that Stalin was a revolutionary but could not reach the size of a full socialist leader, unlike Lenin and other Bolsheviks, Stalin never lived or traveled by other countries of the old continent and drew on the revolutionary wisdom of other world regions, which of course was influenced by Lenin, we should not deny it because it is part componte of drama, but it did so on the basis of the old Russian culture to which, even counteracting it, was never able to draw conclusions valid for the world socialist of his time.
In this scenario Lenin was formed, but Hart said that Stalin did not overcome because he did not travel to different countries, and has known the mind of other revolutionaries. I think instead that when a man has such power as that which took Stalin has first-hand information and knowledge are multiplied dramatically. To acquire compulsorily culture need not go to school with shorts and well groomed.
fundamental culture of the Revolutionaries is bought in its own fight, let alone when you have the responsibility of the highest address of a movement. Unlikely to be fine, maybe do not speak several languages, but generally acquire culture but not willing, for their own management needs. With this criterion Hart, Raul Castro would not have culture because very little has come home looking after the Cuban state security.
revolutionary Men are not parasites of culture, but have universal culture. Fidel Castro went to college but their fundamental knowledge of today were not purchased there, acquired in the revolutionary struggle. In Mexico, Lazaro Cardenas did not go to college and has been by Benito Juarez, the greatest president of our country. He was a very large development that is reflected in everyday life.
By now everyone understands While Lenin's thesis of unequal development of people and we know that each country can advance toward socialism through different ways and in different circumstances. Life led the Soviet Union to take responsibility for the development of other peoples who were not his
. In countries that were liberated from fascism by the Soviet Union in World War II was rebuilt their economic, social and political blunders were committed but must speak of its total reconstruction. In Poland, the USSR rebuilt Warsaw, the capital, from the ashes. In this country there were very few Communists and the Catholic clergy was critical.
In the Stalin era, Poland was ruled by the Communist Party and the clergy. The most important cardinal that time was part of the determination and the instruments of government. It was rebuilt their industry and made the mistake of restoring private property in the field, all in the name of the particularities of each country. In the Polish parliament, was the peasant party, the Democratic Party, the Catholic party in addition to the match Hart comunista.En document states that the policy pursued by Stalin during the gestation of the Second World War, his pact with Hitler, is one of the murky processes of his long career.
Nazism was rejected by the people and in particular by the progressive and socialist forces, that this covenant placed these forces in a very difficult position even in Germany.
The slanderers of the Soviet Union bring out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 signed by the Soviets and the Nazis. The Soviet Union proletarian country had no commitment to any bourgeois country was defending its own decisions. This agreement allowed him space to stores and two years later to overthrow fascism deal with the Red Army, which took Berlin.
There is always confusion that a State policy must match the specific responsibilities of the militants in a given country or from abroad who are sympathetic to that State. Here in Mexico we live in a confusion of this type, when Salinas de Gortari took office as president of Mexico, who called themselves communists and other left the call, which are now highly integrated into the bourgeois system, protested violently because Fidel Castro attended as a guest for this event, saying it was a betrayal of the communists in Mexico; confused the Cuban State's strategy in their struggle against imperialism, the strategy of those involved politically in Mexico.
Not that Fidel Castro had the ideology of Salinas and that when he received the Pope had become Catholic, but he was defending the sovereignty of the Cuban socialist state, less enemies and avoiding isolation. Not always do what you want, but what has to hacer.Un testimony that he signed the Pact with Hitler, Stalin gave in their time the German communist party, said that from the underground: "the German people welcomed the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany because he wants peace and he sees in this Covenant a lucky peaceful act by the Soviet Union. Saluda
the Covenant because it is not as the alliance of Hitler and Mussolini and the Japanese military, a tool of war and the imperialist outrage against other countries, is a Covenant for the maintenance of peace between Germany and the Soviet Union. It is said in the paper commented that "The war ended with the victory over fascism, but, in turn, signed the Yalta and Potsdam agreements and thus created the conditions for dividing the world into 2 major areas of influence. This was not positive for socialism ...
In subsequent years that triggered the Cold War, neither Stalin nor his successors were able to understand the ways and possibilities that would have given the alliance between Third World societies and socialism because it was needed for a universal conception of cultural foundations of what they lacked. "
Socialism in the Soviet Union prompted the conditions for the development of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Soviet Union spent more than 50% of its budget to support people in struggle. For Cubans in particular was very positive the creation of socialism worldwide, because they could have full solidarity for his revolution. Ignore all this is an act of extreme wickedness.
We talk about the crimes of Stalin, we can also speak of the crimes Juarez who ordered to shoot Maximilian of crimes of all our heroes of the homeland, and that way, the crimes of Fidel Castro, also because the Cuban state has sentenced to death by criminals who attacked their revolution and its people . That way, all the revolutionaries of the world are murderers, but those who missed the opportunity of engaging in armed struggle against their enemigos.En the letter states that the Soviet leader replaced Marx's idea that violence is the midwife of history, that it is the mother of history ... "The intellectual sophistication to understand the subtlety of Marx's definition was, in my opinion, more beyond the cultural possibilities of Stalin ...
Indeed, the fundamental error of revolutionary politics in the twentieth century, ultimately determined by Stalin, it was left divorced and separated from the culture, even in the case of the USSR, as is known, reached the ends more dramatic. In Cuba, "as noted, had the great fortune of having the largest political wisdom of the greatest revolutionary intellectual of the nineteenth century was José Martí.
unique teaching of the Cuban revolution in these two centuries and today is precisely to have raised and enriched this relationship. It is the uniqueness of Martí and Fidel Castro. On this foundation made a unique contribution to summon the necessary war, humanitarian and short against English rule and, while not generating hatred against those opposed to this high purpose.
This is a contribution that should be studied in the world by those who throw slander against those who aspire to radical and also for those who intend to reach them with extremist procedures. The only way to make them succeed is to promote cooperation among humans and to ensure full freedom and dignity. This is the result of being radical. "Opportunism of intellectuals is not limited.
Mexicans José Martí greatly admire and appreciate his role as the Cuban revolution inspired by his thoughts and struggles, but we are not willing to see it as caricature and exaggeration is a caricature all in the design and ideas. To say that Marti is the greatest intellectual of the nineteenth century is put aside to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who synthesized all the cultural thinking of the whole history of humanity, developing new theories that not only interprets reality but also lay the bases for processing.
These are the greatest intellectuals of the nineteenth century and all centuries. Greatness Fidel and Che Guevara is not determined by the destruction of Stalin, but by his own work. Cuba is in itself an extraordinary role in the international communist movement, now more than ever. Fidel is a communist militant highlight of our continent and now occupies a place in history.
say that you have very revealing Martí trials to judge the policies of Stalin, an act of witchcraft is very little serious revolutionary someone says. "Stalin," says Hart, did not achieve these objectives in relation to socialism. Neither could encourage the socialist revolution in Europe and the world nor consolidation in the USSR.
In Russia capitalism became seven decades after the October Revolution under new and radically different and the back is marked, among other factors, for the serious mistakes of Stalin who lacked the stature and historical perspective needed ... If Stalin belongs to category of revolutionary despots required is the lesson that they can not make way for a lasting way to a socialist society that needs the love and culture to be built. "
What answer to this?. Simply that revolutions are not fighting flower and the leader of the revolution is far from behaving like a nice and loving queen of the government of Cuba carnaval.Si not for these deviations, Fidel's death will not miss those they deem as Stalin. Why? Because
live mediocre judge the men who have changed the Hart historia.Este document under discussion is full of petty bourgeois ideas and an outdated Trotskyists.
0 comments:
Post a Comment