[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.33.Thus, Pensamiento Crítico found the space to become critical of Soviet Marxist discourses in Cuba and beyond.As such, it was a fundamentalpart of the political project of elements within the leadership and its veryexistence in the long term was subject to the continuation of that politi-cal project (Martínez Heredia, 1970a, 1970b).34.The list of guests included names such as Russell, Sartre, Hobsbawn,Axelos, Semprún, Milliband, Cortázar, and Benedetti.35.Other Cuban publications of the time also shared many of the values andideas of Pensamiento Crítico, notably Revolución y Cultura (1967 1971)and Casa de las Américas.Yet, as the former editor of Revolución y Culturaadmitted, the journal never had the support of a large section of the intel-lectuals (Otero, 1986:7).As for Casa de las Américas, despite the obviousinterest in the debate over the role of intellectuals (Casa de las Américasno.35, 1966) and the personal friendship of Debray and Retamar at thetime, the journal always had literary-cultural concerns rather thanpolitico-historical ones and inclined itself more to the rest of LatinAmerica than to Europe.36.In October 1968, the international jury of UNEAC awarded the annualpoetry prize to Heberto Padilla.This decision was met with dismay by thecultural authorities who greatly disliked the young non-conformist.As aresult, the journal of the armed forces, Verde Olivo, launched a vicious cam-paign against intellectuals.This persecution was compounded when the poetwas arrested in 1971 and subsequently forced to retract his anti-revolution-ary views in public.This infamous episode in the Cuban Revolution was metby an international campaign for Padilla s release and marked the separationbetween European progressive intellectuals and the Revolution.3 Who Cared about the CubanRevolution Then.and Who Cares Now?1.This concept of humanism, however, did not survive the rapid radicaliza-tion of both the Cuban Revolution and the New Left.With the transitionto the Second New Left and the collapse of CND, partly inspired by theMissile Crisis, came a more militant and revolutionary period.It heralded anew peak of revolutionary fervor in the New Left that came to dominate,particularly after 1965, and coincided with the most ultra-revolutionaryand heretical phase of socialism in the Third World.In so doing, Cuba srevolutionary example, together with that of Vietnam, helped subvert theoriginal meaning of Third World. 2.Other groups integrated in the PSU included Parti Socialiste Autonome(PSA), which also left the SFIO in 1958 over the Algerian War; Union dela Gauche Socialiste (UGS); and a number of ex-PCF individuals who left Notes 195the Party in 1956 (like their British counterparts), working around theTribune du Comunisme.3.The factors behind the growth and increasing radicalization of these smallgroups are explained in chapter six.4.Perhaps the closest to a distinction in the British case is the use of first and second waves of the New Left.5.For an interpretation of E.P.Thompson s polemics with several membersof the second wave of the New Left, see chapter five.6.The conceptual evolution of the term Third World is explored inchapter seven.7.In the latter part of the 1960s, Althusser s work dominated the pages of jour-nals such as New Left Review in the UK and Pensamiento Crítico in Cuba.8.For example, I use evidence gathered from Salkey s 1971 account of hisparticipation at the 1968 Cultural Congress in Havana and include himalong with co-participant C.L.R James as part of this wide definition ofthe New Left, even though neither of them would have seen themselves aspart of the British form of the movement.9.Given that Cuba was part of a polycentric communist world in themid-twentieth century, a space shared with China, readers might be con-fused about the meaning of the notion of unorthodoxy.Some may thinkthat Cuba and China occupied similar positions insofar as they bothrepresented a critique of the Soviet Union.This has been confirmed bythe fascination with Maoism in certain sectors of the New Left, especiallyin France, and arguments about a supposed affinity between Cuba andChina on the importance seemingly attributed to the peasantry as a revo-lutionary class.Mesa-Lago (1974) has even talked of the Sino-Guevarist stage of Cuban development between 1966 1970.This argument,however, was contradicted by the strained nature of diplomatic relationsbetween both countries that stemmed from clear ideological differencesand by the Maoist fascination with Stalin.Equally, a quick look at theMaoist literature of the time shows theoretical positions that criticized thecommunist parties and the Soviet Union because they represented a right deviation from the correct line set out by the great leader; in otherwords, arguing that they were not Stalinist enough.10.The same is true, to some extent, of the number of Cuban intellectualsselected for study in this book.Although all were members of the newCuban Communist Party (PCC) created in 1965, their formative influ-ences and intellectual concerns led them to hold critical positions withregard to the Soviet Union and the developmental model represented bythe people s democracies.See chapter two.11
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]