What is behind oh a number of Castro's

especially by the supporters of the 'United Secretariat' in Paris and the Socialist Workers' Party in the USA, both misleadingly calling themselves 'Trotskyist'.

These groups, after hailing Castro as a 'natural Marxist' and an obvious successor to Lenin and Trotsky, now find themselves less enthusiastic about republishing the last part of Fidel Castro's speech at the Havana Tri-Continental Conference, translated in this issue of Castro, hailed by these so-called Trotskyists as a great fighter against bureaucracy and someone who insisted on 'the truth', has now viciously attacked Trotskyism. His words, condemning Trotskyists as 'agents of imperialism', are taken directly from the speeches of Joseph Stalin in 1937 to justify the Moscow trials and subsequent liquidation of opposition throughout the USSR.

Such is the fate of revisionists, of those who abandon Marxist method for impressions and enthusiasm for surface events, and who abandoned the construction of independent working class parties for the worship of Castro and 'Castroism'.

The Newsletter, February 5, 'Castro Slanders Trotskvism' February 12, 'Whither Castro', ind February 19, •Statement of the International Committee' has presented a Marxist analysis of Castro's service to the Stalinist bureaucracy, and of the pathetic response of Joseph Hansen and the "United Secretariat', They suggest that 'Fidel' may have been irritated by the statements of the ultra-left Posadas tendency', itself a breakaway from the revisionists, or that Castro attacked RANCARNA "T ET us see, first of all, who / have been the leading spokesmen of the imperialist campaign of lies and intrigue against Cuba over the case of Comrade Guevara. There are, in particular, certain elements which have constantly been used over the last few decades to attack the revolutionary movement. Just a moment, want to take one particularly interesting fact, from a whole lot of material. • Yes here it is (laughter and applause). A cable from the UPI of December 6, 1965, saying: 'Ernesto Guevara was assassinated Castro (shouts) on the orders of USSR (shouts)-declared Felipe Albaguante, head of the ment to Trots Universal sate ment makes out that Ché was liquidated for insisting that Cuba should support the Chinese line (shouts). This naturally reached à pitch in a campaign unleashed simultaneously by the Trotskyists in all countries.

Thus on October 22, in the weekly 'Marcha', an article by the well-known Trotskyist theoretician Adolfo Gilly was published He asserted that Ché left Cuba due to differences with Fidel over the Sino-Soviet dispute and that Ché was unable to carry his point of view in the leadership. ship is disted bet een the con- says that the Cuban leadersed leaders of the PSP and the servative comprising supporters of Ché, and Fidel and intedposition of centrist and conciliationary positions.

He says that Ché left Cuba because he was unable to express himself freely and that Fidel was afraid to face the masses and explain the Ché affair.

The same Trotskyist 'theoreti1965, Italian periodical, wrote article in which he described the Cuban leadership as pro-Soviet, and he accused Fidel of having given no political explanation to theed toe about what had hap, He says that Commander Guevara was defeated by the PSP and the Castroite group; he criticises Ché for not going to the masses to fight for his line. He concludes by saying that the Cuban state, paralysed by its political position, did not support the Dominican Revolution. I will deal with this last point more extensively later.

The October 1965 issue of the Spanish Trotskyist journal, La Batalla', declared that the mystery surrounding the Guevara affair these revisionists. They are no longer able to approach political developments from the point of view of the international class struggle. Instead, they present 'interpretations' of the motives of individuals, and impressions of 'how things are going' in different parts of the world.

Castro's speech, when seen in full, gives us the opportunity to deepen our understanding of what he really represents and of the urgency of our own tasks, completing the fight against revisionism in practice as well as in theory.

When Castro makes his attack on Trotskyism, followed only two weeks later by his public attack on China, he does so as part of a world development in Stalinism.

The recent arrest of Trotskyists and left oppositionists in Poland and the repressions now reported Hungary, following militant actions by the factory workers, together with the ruthless campaign of the Russian Communist Party to isolate the Chinese Revolution, are similar indicators of this fundamental rightward turn of Stalinism.

STALINISM TURNS RIGHTWARDS Inside the advanced capitalist countries, the Stalinist parties *Popular Front' or mpt unity have launched acampaign proposals which amount to the virtual liquidation of the Communist Parties and are accompanied by attacks on Trotskyism.

In Vietnam, the Russian Communist Party leaders continue to press for a deal with the United States imperialists. Kosygin does his best, at Tashkent, to resolve the difference between the ruling classes in India and Pakistan, shoring them up against the social and political tensions which threaten to blow sky high the in. secure base of United States imperialism in Asia.

All over the colonial and semi-colonial world, from India and Indonesia to Algeria, Nigeria and Latin America, social and polltical conflict is rapidly intensifying, posing afresh the question of the leadership and programme of the anti-imperialist struggle.

Behind all this is the deepening crisis of imperialism, made all the more severe by the crisis of the Stalinist bureaucracy, upon whose betrayals of working class leaderships imperialism has been dependent in every serious crisis since 1926.

This analysis of the linked crises of imperialism and of the Stalinist bureaucracy is the basis of the 1966 Conference of the International Committee of Excerpt from Castro's speech to the Tri-Continental Conference should be cleared up. It says that friends of Ché suspect that the letter produced by Castro is a forgery and it wonders whether the Cuban leadership has begun to submit to the Kremlin bureaucracy.

Tabout the same time, the tine Trotskyist paper published an article in which it was asserted that Ché was either dead or imprisoned in Cuba.

It says that 'he fought with Fidel Castro over the functioning of the trade unions and the organisation of the militias'.

It added that 'Ché opposed the introduction into the CC of Castro's protégés, especially the army officers, who were followers of the Moscow right wing'.

most indeceit pite od, writind is one by the leader of the Latin American Political bureau of the Fourth International in the Italian journal 'Lucha Operaria'. I am only going to read three paragraphs of this very long article.

It begins:

'One aspect of the aggravation of the international crisis of the bureaucracy is the expulsion of Guevara. Guevara has been expelled now and not eight months ago. These eight months of discussion were not passed drinking coffee; the participants fought bitterly and may be there were deaths: may be the discussion was carried on by gunfire. We cannot say whether they have killed Guevara or not, but we have the right to suspect they have. Why does Guevara not appear? They have not shown him in Havana because they fear the consequences, the reaction of the people. But by hiding him they produced the same effect; the people ask why Guevara is not to be seen. There has been no political accusation; instead there are political eulogies of him. Why then was Guevara not present? Why has he not spoken? How is it that one of the founders of the Cuban workers' state, who until a little time ago was touring the world in the name of the workers' the Fourth International, upon which the reconstruction the Fourth International will be carried out.

In the 'underdeveloped' countries, the consequences of this crisis are especially severe. Faced by their 'liquidity crisis' , the advanced metropolitan. countries have tried to stave their difficulties by increasing the exploitation of the backward countries.

The world market prices of the products of these countries fall farther and farther behind those of the products of the industrial countries.

Consequently, it becomes impossible for the 'left nationalist' leaders, like Sukarno, Ben Bella, Castro and others, to maintain 'national fronts' workers, peasants and capitalists.

In countries where direct imperialist agents remain in power (as in Latin America) the programme of a bloc with the national capitalists gets less and less 'realistic' and tendencies appear which advocate a socialist programme behind working class leadership.

The Stalinist bureaucracy faces a similar problem 'at home'. The contradictions of the economy of Russia, Eastern Europe and China can be resolved only by their industry and agriculture being integrated with the resources and advanced means of produc -tion of the imperialist countries. Having betrayed the international proletarian revolution which alone can accomplish this historically necessary task, the Stalinist bureaucrats have adopted the strategy of co-operation with imperialism.

WHAT THE TURN MEANS But the resurgence of the workers' own struggle in Poland, Hungary and the 'Soviet bloc threatens them from one side, while the revolutionary struggles of the workers against imperialism threatens the bosses to whom they make their approaches.

Thus international Stalinism is called upon once again to carry out its role as the principal counter-revolutionary force, the grave digger of the revolution on the international scene.

The approach towards a rehabilitation' of Stalin and the warning given to the Soviet intelligentsia by the writers' trial in Moscow are part of the same development as the arrests Poland and Hungary. Translated from 'El Mundo' a Mexican newspaper state, suddenly announces: I am tired of the Cuban revolution. I am going away to make a revolution somewhere else? On the other hand they do not say where he went and he does not appear. If there is no split, why does he not appear? The whole Cuban people understand that there has been a big struggle and that this struggle is far from finished.

'Guevara was not on his own, neither is he on his own now. They take these measures against Guevara • because there is a big tendency, a very big tendency, which supports him. And more than an enormous tendency, there is a deep concern among the people.

*A little time ago the Cuban government issued a rather severe decree: all weapons had to be returned to the state. At that time the question was a little confused, now it is clear what the aim of this decree was. It was directed against Guevara's tendency. They feared an uprising. A have they moved to silence NOTHER paragraph: 'Why Guevara? The Fourth International must lead a public campaign with the line of calling for the appearance of Guevara, the right of Guevara to defend himself and discuss, to make an appeal to the masses for no confidence in the measures taken by the Cuban government because these are bureaucratic measures and perhaps even criminal measures.

"They eliminated Guevara . in order to silence his struggle, they acted to silence Guevara. They did this because, although his postion was not logical from the revolutionary point of view, he was tending to come closer to the position tendency, Of the revolutionary Further on he says: This demonstrates, not the strength Everywhere it is a question above all of striking blows against the development of alternative leadership which can provide a programme struggle workers' power in the conditions of deepening crisis.

Fidel Castro and the Tri-Continental Conference were an instrument of this international campaign. The delegations to that Conference were carefully handpicked to exclude those suspected of "Trotskyism'.

An impression was created of the Communist Parties of Latin America and elsewhere having been converted to the prospect of 'armed struggle' • But this was only a cover for the real business of the Conference, to restrain the national liberation struggles within the framework of peaceful coexistence.

Castro's speech against Trotskyism was in fact not a last-minute afterthought, but the surest indication of the actual politics of the Conference and of Castro himself.

REVISIONISM AND CASTROISM Hansen and his friends of the United Secretariat have interpreted the Havana Conference, apart from the mysterious blemish of Castro's anti-Trotskyist outburst, as an important, even 'historic' move to the left. They accept the demagogic talk of "armed rebellion', as a senuinely 'Castroism'. • and revolutionary trend' the 'peaceful . roads has defeated Stalinist parties.

As we have seen, however, the truth is the exact opposite!

Castro has carried out a special assignment in preparing international repressions against the real revolutionary programme and leadership, in line with the needs of Stalinism. The talk of armed rebellion is the cover for this move.

To accept it as the reality is to reveal the unbelievable depths to which revisionism has sunk. Not only were the revisionists unable to defend Posadas' supporters in Havana, or later Ché Guevara, they remain blind to the Stalinist threat to themselves and to Trotskyism.

This is only the inevitable consequence of their attitude to Castro and to the international revolutionary struggle over years. Their journals have been spattered with fulsome praise of Castro for years. For example, Joseph Hansen wrote in 'World of Guevara, or of a Guevarist group in Cuba, but the ripeness of the conditions in the rest of the workers' states: that in a brief time these positions mature. The bureaucracy has no concern with truth in carrying out these manoeuvres and measures.

*For the bureaucracy the elimination of Guevara is an attempt to liquidate the base of a possible regroupment of revolutionary tendencies who continue to spread the world revolution. Chis is the real reason for the because of the danger, he repret sents in Cuba, but in the whole of the Latin American revolution.

'Next to Cuba is Guatemala with the programme ot the socialist revolution and, despite the power and the reasonings of the great leader Fidel Castro, he has not been able to prevent the November 13 Movement becoming a revolutionary-socialist movement which fights directly for socialism.' IT is definitely not by chance that this gentleman, leader of the Fourth International, mentions here proudly the example of Guatemala and the November 13 Movement; because precisely in relation to this movement has Yankee imperialism used one of its most subtle tactics in order to liquidate a revolutionary movement, a tactic which consisted of infiltrating into the movement agents of the Fourth International who-because of the ignorance, the political ignorance, of the main leader of the movement (Yon Sosa)-got the movement to adopt nothing less than that discredited thing, that anti-historical thing, that fraudulent thing emanating from elements notoriously in Outlook' for May 8, 1964: "The Cuban Revolution is headed by independent figures who have displayed political talent and a moral stature not matched since the days of the Bolsheviks.

Hansen, who now points out that Castro 'knows better' than to tell vicious lies about TrotskyIsm, apparentiy teels no responsibility to answer for his commendation of Castro's "moral stature'. , not to mention his 'independence'. When The Newsletter warned consistently of Castro's actual role, Hansen referred to our 'thickheadedness' and insisted that our 'primary concern was simply to preserve certain ultra-left dogmas'.

But Hansen's singing of the praises of Castro's political independence in May 1964 did not have to await the Havana Conference in order to be exposed. Hansen himself had to comment in January 1964, i.e., five months before his words of adulation, on the sugar agreement and declaration published after Castro's visit to Moscow.

Instead of warning his readers of the dangers to the Cuban and Latin American revolutions Castro's agreement with Khrushchev, Hansen, pertormed the most exquisite political acrobatics.

HANSEN

COVERS UP It station come signed a.

ranks of the Communist and in the course There is that Cases.

car Kiris let wonders ront of these s restraint statements does to pilated to his pressure the service of Yankee imperialism, the programme of the Fourth International.

How did this happen? Yon Sosa was without any doubt a patriotic leader. He headed the movement of a group of army officers—in this grouping the mercenaries who afterwards invaded Giron took part without any doubt-and through the intermediary of an individual, a businessman, placed in charge of the political side of the movement, the Fourth International arranged it so that the • leader (Yon Sosa), ignorant as he was of politics and of the history of revolutionary thought, permitted this agent of Trotskyism-which for all of us is without the slightest doubt an agent of imperialism-to edit a journal which copied word for word the programme of the Fourth International. The Fourth International has committed a veritable crime against the revolutionary movement byisolating it from the people and from the masses, by contaminating it with stupidities, in bringing upon • it the discredit connected with the repugnent and nam represthis in hine Tootskat world today. (Applause.) Because if, at a certain period, Trotskyism represented a position, certainly wrong position, but all the same a position coming into the domain of political ideas, Trotskyism later became a vulgar instrument of imperialism and reaction.

The method of thinking of these gentlemen is such,. for example, that on the question of South Vietnam, where a broad revolutionary front unites the immense majority of the population and closely unites district sections of the population around the liberation movement in the fight against mise alsun the Tootsteiste fidd and counter-revolutionary. These gentlemen have the audacity, the insolent audarealities of history and of the faced with the facts and revolutionary movement, to express themselves in this way.

Fortunately, the revolutionary What now, Joseph Hansen? Do you conclude anything from the fact that Castro now does openly and bitterly attack the Chinese? Do they indicate that Castro , has 'capitulated to the pressure' of the Kremlin bureaucrats, and does not this necessitate a different interpretation from you of his speech against Trotskyism?

Hansen concluded his article with what must rank as one of the most remarkable forecasts even in the history of Pabloite revisionism:

"There is little likelihood that the revolutionary Fidelistas throughout Latin America will alter their present course in order to adopt the one adopted by such Khrushchevites as Codovilla of Argentina and Prestes of Brazil who insist on an alliance with the national bourgeoisie at any cost.' THE BANKRUPTCY OF REVISIONISM But Yon Sosa was eliminated from the Guatemalan guerrilla leadership, precisely because he opposed the Communist Party's policy of the 'bloc of four classes' (including the bourgeoisie) and Castro used this victory of the right in Guatemala to spark his attack on Trotskyism at the Havana Conference.

Hansen found a worthy collaborator in Ernest Germain, of the United Secretariat. Germain wrote in World Outlook' on January 8, 1965, after quoting Trotsky's last major writing on the Permanent Revolution:

'In that sense the July 26 Movement of Fidel Castro, the heroic fighters of the Algerian revolution, the followers of Pierre Mulele in the Congo, of the Trotskyist Hugo Blanco in Peru, and the Bolivian Trotskyat Sora-Sora, are much Closer to the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky, at least so far as their understanding of the colonial revolution goes, than the editors of The Newsletter' Germain also wrote a number of 'rave' reports about the 'socialist' regime in Cuba after his visit there last year.

All the while, these gentlemen failed miserably to defend the Cuban Trotskyists, followers of the sectarian Posadas, just as they failed to attach' any significance to Castro's ban on the visit by Canadian students to Cuba in 1965.

There surely is now not the movement in Guatemala was saved. It was saved thanks to the clear vision of one of the officers who had formed the revolutionary movement with Sosa. He understood this idiocy and stupidity and broke with the November 13 Movement along with other progressives and revolutionaries and organised the Rebel Armed Forces of Guatemala. (Applause.) And this young officer who had such a clear understanding of the situation is the representative of the Guatemalan revolutionary movement at this conterence, Commander Turcios (prolonged applause).

has the merit of not only UMMANDER TURCIOS being one of the standard bearers of the armed struggle for the liberation of his oppressed people, but also the merit of having saved the Guatemalan revolutionary movement from one of the most subtle and perfidious strategems of Yankee imperialism. He raised the revolutionary banner of Guatemala and its anti - imperialist movement, seizing it from the filthy hands of the mercenaries in the service of Yankee imperialism.

And we hope that Yon Sosa, whose patriotic intent at the beginning of the struggle, and whose reputation as an honest man was in no doubt-even though we have major reservations about his • ability as a revolutionary leader—will not delay in breaking from these elements and come over to unite with the revolutionary movement of Guatemala, this time under a different leadership, had shown under and ee are or a tel tionary leader. (Applause.)

The Trotskyist position is exactly the same as that adopted by the newspapers and publicity agencies of Yankee imperialism in relation to the case of comrade Guevara, the same as the whole ER slightest doubt that that decision, taken in the knowledge that Canadian Trotskyists shared the organising of the trip, was a prelude to the Havana outburst of January 1966.

And yet one of these Canadian students, writing on the basis of his 1964 visit, before the ban, committed himself to print in the Canadian 'Young Socialist Forum' identified with 'Workers' Vanguard' and the American 'Militant' supporters of the politics of the Ünited Secretariat, in the following sickening terms, late as the January-February 1966 Issue:

*By channelling the best, the most idealistic, the most hardworking rank and filers into the party, a cadre will be built which, by pooling its experiences, and making its decisions democratically, can safeguard the forward movement of the revolution.' Castro's move against Escalante, : old-guard Stalinist, is written • thus:

"The effect of Fidel's speech rang through the island like thunder; it is said (!) that people came out in the streets and danced. Anibal Escalante, the party secretary, and several others were instantly dismissed, the party was thoroughly reorganised and new elections were held.

'Fidel's role in the battle against bureaucratisation has been a ruthless one.' And finally:

'One may best describe Fidel as the heartbeat of the revolution. Fidel commands more popular affection and trust than any other political figure today.' Thus did the spokesman of minute and even beyond, in Han- to the very last sen's and Pierre Frank's pleas to Castro to correct his error (Pablo himself makes a similar appeal), prepare their followers for Castro's open counter-revolutionary attacks on Trotskyism.

Castro's evolution is by no means finished, But time is running out for those in the ranks of the revisionists who do not learn quiel, to reject the whole course of the United Secretariat.

We are confident that many of them, especially in the ranks of the SWP. Will take this opportunity of returning to genuinely revolutionary road of reconstruction of the Fourth International.

US imperialist press, its telegraph agencies, the counter-revolutionary Cuban press, the bourgeois press throughout the whole continent and in the rest of the world.

In other words, in this campaign of lies and intrigue against the Cuba revolution in relation to the case of comrade Guevara, the Trotskyists joined precisely with all the reactionary imperialist and bourgeois layers, with all the liars and plotters against the Cuban revolution.

There is no doubt that it is only in the interests of reaction and of imperialism to discredit the Cuban vreolution, to destroy the confidence of revolutionary movements in the Cuban revolution, to destroy the confidence of the peoples of Latin America in the Cuban revolution, to destroy their faith.

And to do this job, they have not hesitated to use the filthiest and most indecent weapons. THeon me Mr. Gilly, who, from time to time poses among other North American intellectuals in the American 'Monthly Review', had the audacity to write the following paragraph about the Santo Domingo crisis, which is well worth analysing.

'A final point of the crisis created by the Dominican revolution was that the Cuban workers' state remained paralysed by its own policy and did not openly support the revolution while at the same time there was tremendous pressure within Cuba for the line of active support...?

This gentleman has the dishonestly to accuse the Cuban revolution of failing to give active support to the Dominican revolution. And while the imperialists condemn Cuba and use it as a pretext for intervention; that, they say leftist and communist elements trained in Cuba were at the head of the uprising; that the revolution was not an internal matter, but created by outside intervention; while the imperialists say this, this gentleman accuses the revolution of not having given active support.

What is meant by active support? It is perhaps that in Cuba, whose resources and weapons are well known, could and should prevent the landing of North American troops in Santo Domingo. Cuba possesses arms in order to defend herself. They are defensive arms, which are inhnitely inferior to those of the imperialists....

By Reg Perry THE WSLETTER rua 26, 1966