Letter from J. P. Cannon to Farrell Dobbs 31/10/62

[p039] A LETTER FROM JAMES P. CANNON TO FARRELL DOBBS Dear Farrell: Now that the crest of the Cuban crisis seems to have passed, everyone is assessing its outcome. This is the trend of our thinking in informal discussions here. We must keep our eyes on the main issues and not get side-tracked by subsidiary considerations. What was the situation? 1. The U.S. naval blockade was set for a clash with Soviet ships which could escalate into nuclear war. Kennedy gave clear notice that the U.S. would not stop at the use of the most forceful measures. 2. The Pentagon was ready to bomb and invade Cuba and crush its revolution. Newspaper accounts report that this was one of the alternative moves considered even from the start, and it was to be put into effect if Moscow did not yield on the missile bases. In the face of these direct and immediate threats to world peace and the Cuban revolution, Khrushchev drew back, agreed to pull out the missiles, and dis- manile the bases under UN supervision. He received in return a suspension of the blockade and public assurances that Cuba would not be invaded. What else could he have done under the given circumstances? It would have been foolhardy to risk setting off a thermonuclear war and daring the U.S. to come and wipe out the Cuban bases in view of Washington’s evident determination to go to the limit if necessary. In our opinion Khrushchev sensibly backed away from such a showdown, thus saving the world from war and the Cuban revolution from attack by over- whelming forces for a time. But this time is of decisive importance! The retreat was unavoidable and the concessions, as we know about them, did not give up anything essential. Those who judge otherwise should tell us what alternative course the Kremlin should have followed on the military and diplomatic fronts at that excruciating point of decision. Should Khrushchev have defied the embargo or refused outright to with- draw the missile bases? The crisis over Cuba is of immense importance. But we should not forget it is only one sector in a world- wide conflict between imperialism and the workers states which has witnessed in the past, and will see again, advances and retreats by one side or the other. As revolutionary realists, we have not criticised or condemned heads of workers’ states or union leaders for retreating and making concessions when the Los Angeles, California October 31, 1962 balance of forces was unfavourable. Lenin traded space for time at Brest-Litovsk. As we know from cur Minneapolis experiences, even the most militant leadership which is up against the gun may have to give ground before the insuperable power of the employer in order to save the existence of the union ana fight another day. The grim fact was that both the Soviet Union and Cuba not only had guns, but even more fearsome weapons, poised over their heads and ready to be used. For this reason we do not believe that Khrushchev’s course was incorrect on the level of military affairs and state relations. To condemn it and cry ‘betrayal’ would only help the Stalinists get off the hook where they are really vulnerable. That is their policy of supporting Kennedy, Stevenson and other ‘peace- loving’ Democratic capitalist politicians. This attitude, flowing from the Kremlin’s doctrine of peaceful co- existence, has again been exposed as criminal. Although we should carefully watch their develop- ment, we should be cautious and not jump to con- clusions about the relations between Castro and Khrushchev. The latter’s unilateral decisions and divergent aims may have created friction between them but it would be unwise to substitute speculations for solid facts. Khrushchev’s declarations have «ot indicated any abandonment of Cuba, and it would be difficuit for him to do so with the eyes of China, the colonial peoples and the Soviet militants upon him. On the other hand, Castro deeply needs Soviet aid. The principal point—and you make it in the editorial —is that the world, the socialist movement and he Cuban revolution have gained time. The bombs are still there. But they were not dropped anywhere. And we are heartily in favour of that! Despite gleeful claims by the American press that Kennedy’s strong stand has given a stern lesson and severe setback to ‘Soviet aggression’, people unaffected by imperialist propaganda have, I believe, breathed relief over the settlement and thank Khrushchev for his sanity. Bertrand Russell and Nehru expressed themselves along that line. We must remember that nuclear war would mean the greatest defeat for humanity and socialism. We must avert that terrible eventuality, not, to be sure, by stopping the class struggle against imperialism, but by utilising every means that will give the workers time enough to wake up and organise themselves for that purpose. JIM CANNON

[p040] DOCUMENT No. 4 12th June, 1963