Response to James Petras' Critique: "Fidel Castro and the FARC.

Response to James Petras' Critique: "Fidel Castro and the FARC.
Eight Mistaken Theses of Fidel Castro"
By Joan Marie Malerich - Axis exclusive
Jul 12, 2008, 11:32
http://axisoflogic. com/artman/ publish/article_ 27556.shtml

Editor's Note: We believe that constructive, self criticism within
the revolutionary left is vital. The political left is largely
bereft of such criticism and when it occurs it is often rejected on
the basis of passion or loyalties, not on logic and we are not
the "Axis of Passion". Criticism of one of our beloved leaders,
Fidel Castro, by leftist writers is rare indeed. We published an
article by James Petras,"Fidel Castro and the FARC. Eight Mistaken
Theses of Fidel Castro" on July 8, 2008. Since then we have received
a number of responses to the article. Joan Marie Malerich* submitted
her critique of Mr. Petras' article for publication and it is
rationally based. We appreciate James Petras who has dared to offer
criticism of Fidel Castro, who in our judgement is the greatest
revolutionary leader of our time. Equally, we appreciate Joan
Malerich who has the courage and insight to effectively debate
Petras, a writer whose pen has been an anti-imperialist sword for 5
decades. In fairness to both writers, we recommend that the reader
open James Petras' article in a second page for comparitive
analysis.

- Les Blough, Editor

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

RESPONSE TO JAMES PETRAS' CRITIQUE: "FIDEL CASTRO AND THE FARC:
EIGHT MISTAKEN THESIS OF FIDEL CASTRO, JULY 8, 2008.

This response is divided into two parts.

A general criticism that discusses the main points of my criticism
of Petras' analysis regarding Fidel's Reflection about FARC's
release of hostages.

The second part addresses each of Petras' eight points in greater
detail and in some instances recaps criticism stated earlier.

Part 1: A Overview of Petras' Criticism

James Petras has in the past, written exceptionally good articles
with in-depth analysis of social movements and revolutionary history
in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. This critique should
not be read as a personal attack on Petras or as a show of
disrespect for him personally. When we "put ourselves out there",
criticizing prominent revolutionary leaders like Fidel Castro or
Hugo Chavez Frias, we automatically open ourselves to scrutiny.

One of the first Petras articles I read was his criticism of Evo
Morales soon after Morales was elected president of Bolivia. Evo
Morales: All Growl, No Claws? (Counterpunch, Jan. 4, 2006) My first
impression to this article was that I was reading important
information by an expert, and I am sure many others reacted the
same. However, I reviewed this article several months later, after
learning more about President Morales and the social movements in
Bolivia. It was then that I asked myself: What was the purpose of
Petras' burning criticism? The Bolivians have taken to the streets
many times to oust miserable imperialist puppets. Didn't Petras have
the faith in the people to do this again if Morales did not serve
them well? Why was Petras so intent on labeling Morales instead of
giving Morales the chance to prove himself or to discredit himself?

Petras' accusations that Fidel and President Chávez serve the
imperialist propaganda machine are indeed ironic. Fidel represents
the longest living representative of socialist revolution that has
been kept in motion. Fidel and the Cuban Revolution are the greatest
thorns in the side of the anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-human
rights and left anti-Communists groups in the US. Petras bases many
of his statements on insubstantial or incorrect inferences. In my
view, this article by Petras is ironic because in it he has truly
served the imperialist propaganda machine.

What "wins" has Petras achieved right here in the United States that
qualifies him as an experienced revolutionary? Does teaching at a
corporate university (and they all are connected to the moneyed
interests in one way or another) and analyzing the mistakes of
leftist revolutions in Latin America give him the experience and the
radical knowledge to pass judgement on those who have succeeded in
spite of the Empire? Ask "la gente" (the people) of those
revolutions which have been won in Latin America either through
armed struggle or the ballot box—especially Cuba, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina. Ask them what they want most from the
the people in the United States. I am certain the answer will be:

"Stop your own country from interfering in our sovereignty. Stop
your own country from using its economic and military terrorism
against our people. Stop your own country from interfering in our
democratic elections. Form your own revolution to stop the continued
imperialist terrorism against countries like ours."

Has Petras ever tried to organize the youth in the United States? I
don't mean just the college youth but the poor youth who will never
have the opportunity to grace ivory towers with their presence.
Would Petras recommend that these youth use armed warfare against
the US government? If so, he would be recommending their early
deaths. Would Petras allow his home to be used as an organizing
location? Would Petras encourage these youth to take hostages—both
civilian and members of the US military or the police?

Has Petras consistently supported through real activism, Mumia Abu
Jamal? Mumia is the only person, to my knowledge in the US who has
all of the characteristics of a real leader—intelligent,
experienced, passionate, compassionate and inspiring with a
strategic understanding of how resistance really works. Mumia, the
voice of the voiceless, has resided on death row in Pennsylvania for
26 years. The U.S. "progressives" have allowed this leader to rot in
prison—though Mumia refuses to rot away. He has written several
books and abundant articles and has delivered many radio talks
directly from death row. Fidel was sentenced to 15 years in prison
but was released in less than two years because of the popular
protest. Chavez was sentenced to prison after the February 4, 1992
military coup when 14 soldiers were killed and 50 others and about
80 civilians were injured in the ensuing violence. Chavez was in
prison until President Caldera pardoned him. After his release from
prison he ran for president of Venezuela and won because the people
supported – and continue to support him.

After his release from prison in 1994, Chavez has realized that
armed revolt is not the answer. Petras should remember this. Did the
people forget Chavez? NO. When Chavez was taken prisoner by the US-
supported coup in 2002, hundreds of thousands of people took to the
streets to force the golpistas out of Miraflores and bring back
their leader to his rightful, democratically- elected position. It is
easy to criticize and condemn the leaders of the Cuban and
Bolivarian revolutions when they do not behave as Petras and others
would have them behave.

One very important thing that Petras ignores is Fidel's opening
remarks regarding the "show of technology" against the FARC. Fidel
notes the US spy satellites used in locating the hostages, the video
surveillance equipment, and the imaging equipment. (All of these
examples are taken from quotes of US Ambassador to Colombia, William
Brownfield.)

Like many people on the left, I was surprised by Fidel's suggestion
that the FARC turn over all of their hostages to the Red Cross and I
thought that it was not practical advice for these times. During the
Cuban revolution, prisoners were turned over to the International
Red Cross and were not tortured, but in the 1950s, the high tech
tracking devices did not exist. At first I reasoned that, if the
FARC turned over hostages to the Red Cross, they would be easily
tracked down as they returned to their camps. However, after
thinking about this more, I remembered that the US high tech
equipment was used to track down the FARC and kill Raul Reyes when
they were camping on Ecuadorian land, Most likely, the US will
assist Uribe with this equipment to locate and destroy FARC camps -
with or without a FARC hostage release.

I believe the more subtle message that Fidel and Chavez are giving
the FARC by advising them to hand over hostages, to end guerilla
warfare, and to transform themselves into a political movement is
something like this:

"Otherwise, you will be tracked down and massacred. By turning over
the hostages and disbanding as the FARC, you will take away the
excuse for the imperialists to attack you. If they attack you, they
will have no concern about killing the hostages and blaming those
deaths on to the FARC. Latin America is unifying and we can support
you as a political movement. The times are different than when you
tried to negotiate before and were brutally attacked. One thing for
sure is that thousands more people will be killed as long as the
FARC maintains its current activity."

It is true that there will probably be many more deaths even if the
FARC turns over all of the hostages. But in that case, Petras' job
is laid out before him: Help stop the US from funding the corrupt
and terrorist Uribe government. Either that or help form an armed
rebellion like FARC in the US and send thousands of young people to
early graves, as the militarized police state in the US would surely
attack them without mercy.

Before proceeding to Petras' first 7 points in Part 2 of this
critique below, let's go straight to his last point where he truly
reveals an abandonment of rational thought. In point 8, Petras
states:

"Striking a humanitarian and quasi-electoral posture in celebrating
Betancourt's release, Castro lambasted the FARC for its `cruelty'
and armed resistance to the terrorist Uribe regime. Castro attacked
the FARC's `authoritarian structure and dogmatic leadership',
ignoring FARC's endorsement of electoral politics between 1984-90
(when over 5,000 disarmed activists and political candidates were
slaughtered) , and the free and open debate over policy alternative
in the demilitarized zone (1999-2002) with all sectors of Colombian
society. In contrast, Castro never permitted free and open debate
and elections, even among communist candidates in any legislative
process – at least until he was replaced by Raul Castro.

"The above mentioned political leaders were serving their own
personal political interests by bashing the FARC and celebrating
Betancourt at the expense of the people of Colombia."

The accuracy and power of Petras' statements about 1984-1990
horrendous slaughtering of 5,000 disarmed activists and political
candidates in 1984-90 and the 1999-2002 free and open debate over
policy alternative in the demilitarized zone are clear. However, his
statement is diminished by Petras' fully inaccurate statement that
Fidel never permitted free and open debate and elections. The
reality is that Cuba has the most free and fair participatory
elections anywhere in the world. Their 1976 Constitution was put to
a referendum and approved by over 95% of the electorate. If Petras
does not realize this, I suggest he read Isaac Saney's wonderful
book, Cuba: A Revolution in Motion.

One chapter of Saney's book is devoted to Cuba's system of
government, including the Cuban electoral process. He should also
read Canadian Arnold August's detailed analyses of Cuban elections.
August spent months in Cuba observing the elections—not once but
twice. I am certain that if Fidel or any other leader ever told the
Cuban people that he/she was going to take away the free universal
health care or the free education through college, the people would
take to the streets and rapidly have Fidel or any other leader
thrown out of office. That is because the people of Cuba have the
power to protect their social programs—their basic human rights.

Are we afforded this power by the US government? Absolutely not! I
also suggest that Petras read Fidel's November 17, 2005 speech where
he called on the people for their ideas and stated that if the
revolution fell now, it would not be for external but for internal
reasons. Raul Castro has done a great job as leader of the Cuba, but
it was Fidel who led the Cubans though their second revolution, "the
special period." It was Fidel who started the transitional
government 10 years ago and Fidel who called for the people to
discuss ideas to further the Revolution.

Petras' Conclusion

"Has Castro clearly thought through the disastrous consequences for
millions of impoverished Colombians or is he thinking only of Cuba's
possible improvement of relations with Colombia once the FARC is
liquidated? The effect of Castro's anti-FARC articles has been to
provide ammunition for the imperial mass media to discredit the FARC
and armed resistance to tyranny and to bolster the image of death
squad President Uribe. When the world's premier revolutionary leader
denies the revolutionary history and practice of an ongoing popular
movement and its brilliant leader who built that movement, he is
denying the movements of the future a rich heritage of successful
resistance and construction. History will not absolve."

Petras totally misses the point. Clearly, he has not thought through
the consequences of the alternative, i.e. FARC maintaining hostages
and their armed tactics. To imply that Fidel is selling out the FARC
for the diplomatic and economic relations with Colombia reflects
Petras' inability to look at all of the facts and the underlining
reality of Fidel's advice. What Petras sees as the "effect" of
Castro's Reflection is caged in Petras' narrow perspective. Fidel is
not denying revolutionary history. He is bringing revolutionary
practice into modern day reality. When Petras defines the FARC as an
ongoing popular movement, Petras is denying the reality of the
social movements for peace in Colombia that do not support the FARC.
Petras fails to see that there is little hope for the FARC to win
its revolution via its aged tactics that do not protect it from the
advanced modern technology by which the US and Uribe regime are
capable of tracking down and destroying the FARC.

Fidel did not deny the talents of the popular FARC leader,
Marulanda. Quite the opposite, Fidel praised his "notable natural
intelligence" . What Fidel did not agree with was Marulanda's belief
that the revolution must be a long and prolonged armed struggle.
Fidel's words and thoughts are not a denial of a future of rich
heritage of resistance and construction. Fidel's hope is for a
platform from which truly successful future revolutions can be
fought. Of Fidel, Petras states, "History will not absolve him".
Fidel's revolutionary role has already been absolved by history. I
also believe that his thoughts regarding fighting a revolution in
today's times will be absolved. What will not be absolved is Petras'
ill-conceived notions that Fidel is selling out and serving
imperialist propaganda.

PART 2: More detailed analysis, which recaps and reinforces
portions of Part 1.

In his introduction, Petras claims that Fidel made an "unfortunate
diatribe" against "the FARC, Marulanda and the entire peasant-based
guerilla movement and upon which the global imperialist media has
fed". Petras then states he will demonstrate how Fidel
has "uncritically joined the chorus condemning the FARC… without
reason or logic." The reality is that Petras does not use reason nor
logic very well in his eight point attack against Fidel.

ITEM 1: Petras criticizes Fidel for not discussing Uribe's mass
terrorism. Fidel (as well as Chavez) has criticized Uribe before and
will do so again. The purpose of Fidel's July 4, 2008, Reflection
was not to condemn the deplorable Uribe but to focus on the FARC and
the release of hostages. Petras' statement that Fidel "exculpates"
Uribe by placing the entire blame on US imperialism is ridiculous.
Fidel did not absolve Uribe. Petras lists several countries
(Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal, Philippines and, of
course, Colombia) engaged in armed struggle, but the fact is none of
these armed struggles appear to be winning the war—maybe some
important battles that contribute to the war against imperialism -
but they in themselves are not winning their wars. Also, most
countries, such as those in the Mid-East, do not have the unity that
Latin American has been developing. Petras ignores the fact that it
is imperialism that has created the situation that led to the
necessity of armed struggle, which is why Fidel focuses on US
imperialism, the root problem, rather than on the murderous Uribe.
Again, perhaps Petras should be working harder to stop the US
imperialism that has resulted in millions of humans murdered and/or
tortured and/or maimed for life around the world instead of
criticizing Fidel who has created a country that has served the poor
of the world.

Petras is correct when he states that the "new approaches" to
revolution in Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador were anything
but peaceful and that hundreds died. Yet, these resistance movements
were not attempting an armed struggle; rather, they were the victims
of U.S. aggression and military might. The reality is that an armed
resistance movement today in these countries serves only as an
excuse for the imperialist powers via their puppets to mow down the
resistance and protect their economic interests. I certainly would
like to see Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador speed up their socialist
revolutions; but, it is the People of these countries that will
determine if their leaders will stay or go. The over one million who
abstained from the Venezuelan Constitutional Reform Referendum used
their power not to vote - as a way of letting Chavez know he must
deepen the socialist revolution. Too bad the US "progressives" don't
have the guts to use the ballot box by boycotting the US elections
UNTIL money is out of the picture. In the US, it is not the people,
but the moneyed interests that selects the candidates who are then
beholding to the corporations.

Item 2: Petras claims that Fidel denigrated the recently deceased
FARC leader, Manuel Marulanda. Fidel did no such thing: What Fidel
stated regarding Marulanda was:

"The deceased leader of the FARC had been born on May 12, 1932,
according to his father's testimony. Marulanda, a poor peasant with
liberal thinking and a Gaitan follower, started his armed resistance
60 years back. He was a guerrilla before us; he had reacted to the
carnage of peasants carried out by the oligrarchy. ... Marulanda, a
man with a remarkable natural talent and a leader's gift, did not
have the opportunity to study when he was young. It is said that he
had only completed the 5th grade of grammar school. He conceived a
long and extended struggle; I disagreed with this point of view.
But, I never had the chance to talk with him."

Petras then draws the following conclusion:

"Castro was the son of a plantation owner and educated in private
Jesuit colleges and trained as a lawyer. He implies that education
credentials and higher status prepares the revolutionary leadership
to lead the peasants lacking formal education, but with `natural
leadership qualities' apparently sufficient to allow them to follow
the intellectuals and professionals better suited to lead the
revolution."

Petras' words are at once, ironic and hypocritical.

Fidel was praising the natural ability of Marulanda, not criticizing
it. What Fidel differed with was Marulanda's idea that the armed
struggle to win the revolution needed to be extended for years, for
decades. Fidel is right. Decades of armed struggle to win a
revolution causes people to lose hope. This does not mean that the
struggle ends when a revolution begins. Revolution does not occur at
a point in time. Winning the overthrow of a despotic regime is just
the beginning. When re-elected in 2006, President Chavez said that
the revolution must continue and be deepened.

When I was in Cuba in 2003, one of the presenters stated that the
revolution fought during the "special period" was harder to fight
than the revolution won in 1959. Indeed, look at the third wave of
Cubans emigrating to the US during the "special period" for economic
(not political) reasons. It was only through the unity of the Cuban
Revolutionary Movement that created the scientists, engineers,
teachers, doctors, environmental and communication technicians and a
very proud people with great leaders that this second revolution
(which Petras ignores) was won—or, at least, put on a strong road to
recovery.

Even while enduring this poverty, the Cuban Revolution opened up the
Latin American School of Medicine and continued their medical and
educational aid to the poor of the world. It was through this type
of unarmed struggle that unity was formed with Venezuela; ALBA was
established; and other Latin American countries forged anti-
imperialism relations. The Cuban leaders have definitely made
mistakes, just as the leaders/government of every country makes
mistakes. The important thing is learning and growing from mistakes.
Cuba has done that and they are only trying to share their
experience and knowledge with other struggling countries.

James Petras' position as a political analyst within the U.S. and
internationally should be examined carefully. Petras is an
intellectual who has not fought any type of successful revolution in
his own country; nor does he appear to have any consistent contact
with the People (including the poor) in the U.S. When he labels
Fidel Castro, in effect, as a revolutionary snob, he is being
hypocritical. Fidel gave up everything—wealth, career, family—to
fight a revolution to benefit ALL. It would serve Petras well were
he to consider how much or how little he has achieved against empire
right here in the US. The next time Petras thinks he has the right
to tell Latin American leaders how to run their socialist
revolutions he ought to look at his own lack of accomplishment, most
notably in overthrowing the corrupt Washington regimes through the
decades who have inflicted their military and economic terrorism on
the poor of this and other countries where they buy political
offices for their puppet leaders.

Petras, still not "getting it," states that "The test of history
refutes Castro's claims. Marulanda built, over a period of 40 years,
a bigger guerrilla army with a wider mass base than any Castro-
inspired guerrilla force from the 1960's to 2000."

Petras ignores the fact that FARC has not succeeded. Over a hundred
thousand people have died because the civil war continues. The
leftest groups are split in Colombia and those who were born into
the FARC did not consciously choose to become a FARC member. This is
not to denigrate the process of people born into a revolution, but
it should be remembered.

Petras then talks about Fidel's original theory of `guerrila focos"
between 1963-1980. Once again, Petras is inaccurate with the time
reality. Piero Gleijeses in his great book Conflicting Missions:
Havana, Washington, and Africa 1959-1976 states:

"The improvement in relations with Moscow was made easier by the
shift in Cuba's policy in Latin America. The guerrillas had been
crushed in Bolivia October of 1967; they had been virtually wiped
out in Guatemala by 1968, and they had suffered cruel setbacks in
Colombia and Venezuela. There were no other insurgent groups active
in the hemisphere. These defeats and above all, Che's death forced
Castro to question the foco theory. He finally accepted that a
handful of brave men were insufficient to ignite armed struggle in
Latin American. IN February 1970 Cuba signed a trade agreement with
the Christian Democratic government of Chile, and the following
August, one month before the Chilean presidential elections, Castro
announced, 'It is possible to arrive at Socialism through the
polls'."

Petras goes on to glorify Marulanda's "prolonged guerrilla war
strategy" and criticizing the Cuban strategy by saying :

"… [Marulanda] relied on mass grass roots organizing, based on
close peasant ties with guerrillas, based on community, family and
class solidarity, building slowly and methodically a national
political-military people's army. In fact, a serious re-examination
of the Cuban revolution reveals that Castro's guerrillas were
recruited from the mass of urban mass organizations, methodically
organized prior to and during the formation of the guerrilla foco in
1956-58."

Well, just look at the results: Cuban revolutionaries won, while the
FARC is continuing to lose and has had to turn to alignment with
drug lords to survive. Is that something Patras promotes? Is that
what Petras thinks is success? Moreover, Petras tends to ignore the
fact that the peasants in the Sierra Maestra were vital to the
winning of the revolution. Fidel never forgot these people, and put
them first on the list for receiving aid and benefits of the
revolution. Last, I don't think the Cuban revolution would have been
won without Fidel. Obviously, it could not have been won without the
people. But, it was Fidel's example and leadership that inspired the
people and kept them united on the principles of the Cuban
Revolution.

Item 3: Petras condemns Fidel for Fidel's condemnation of FARC's
capturing and holding of prisoners in the jungle. Petras then
attempts to compare/contrast what happened in Vietnam and says
that "Revolutions are cruel but Fidel forgets that counter-
revolutions are even crueler."

Fidel and the Cuban revolution have had to deal with more than their
share of counter-revolutiona ries (US paid mercenaries) both before
and AFTER the Revolution began. Over 3400 Cubans have been killed by
the US-supported Miami Mafia since the commencement of the
revolution. In addition, over 2000 have been maimed for life;
biochemical warfare has been used against Cuban agriculture; viruses
have been introduced to Cuban livestock—at one time Cuba had to kill
500,000 pigs. For Petras to say Fidel does not recognize the power
of counter-revolutiona ries, especially one funded by the Empire,
borders on insanity.

Petras notes that Fidel did not mention that Betancourt did not show
any signs of cruelty but was in good health. Yes, Fidel could have
mentioned this, but it was not relevant to his central message. The
fact that Betancourt, a civilian, was held hostage for six years is
in itself cruel and counter productive. What Fidel could have noted
is that the US contractors, who I think were prisoners of war, were
not tortured like the US has tortures its prisoners at the US Naval
Base at Guantanamo.

However, I think the main point Fidel is making is that there is no
benefit in holding people hostage, especially civilians. The Uribe
government is NOT going to trade hundreds of its FARC prisoners,
held and tortured in Colombia's squalid prisons, for the hostages
who have been treated decently by the FARC. Holding hostages ends up
being a no-win situation for the FARC. No trades will be made for
FARC soldiers in Colombian prisons; moreover, the international
community (which chooses not to understand the cruelty of Uribe and
US involvement) , will continue to condemn the FARC.

Item 4: Petras claims that Fidel blames all the problems and deaths
on US imperialism and ignores the role of the Uribe government. The
simple fact is Uribe would not be able to remain in power without
the US "aid" - the billions of dollars and military might that the
US provides Colombia. In the same way, Israel would not be able to
continue to kill Palestinians and rape their country if the U.S.
were not giving over $6 BILLION of our taxes annually, to the
Zionist government.

Petras states that this lack of Cuban solidarity with all of the
Colombian movements started when Havana developed diplomatic and
commercial ties with the Uribe regime. This is patently absurd. Does
Petras condemn China or Vietnam for having diplomatic and commercial
relations with the US? Isn't it better to have diplomatic and
commercial relations that offer a possibility of discussions or at
least allow you to know your enemy better and survive yourself?
Cuba's reasons for criticizing the FARC's taking of hostages,
especially civilians, has nothing to do with Fidel nor the Cuban
government not wanting to sever diplomatic and commercial relations
with Colombia.

Item Five: Petras then states that:

"Castro's attempt to impose and universalize his tactics, based on
Cuban experience, on Colombia, lacks the minimum effort to
understand, let alone analyze, the specificities of Columbia, its
military, the political context of the class struggle and the social
and political context of humanitarian negotiations in Colombia."

Well, someone lacks this basic understanding, but that person is
Petras, not Fidel. First, the "Cuban experience" is not a stagnant
one but a continually growing one. Fidel and Chavez, realize that
there is no good that will come from holding the hostages. As I
stated in the beginning of this response, if the FARC were to hand
over the hostages, Cuba and Venezuela as well as other Latin
American countries would be better able to support the FARC's
humanitarian agenda. But, it is impossible for these Latin American
countries to aid the FARC with their current practices without
bringing global condemnation down on their own countries. Petras is
apparently at a loss to understand this.

Item 6: Petras states:

"Castro claims the FARC should end the guerrilla struggle but not
give up their arms because in the past guerrillas who disarmed were
slaughtered by the regime. Instead, he suggests they should accept
France's offer to abandon their country or accept Chavez'
(Uribe's `brother' and `friend') proposal to negotiate and secure a
commission made up Latin American notables to oversee their
integration into Colombian politics ... What are `armed' guerillas
going to do when thousands of Uribe's soldiers and death squads
ravage the countryside? Flee to the mountains and shoot wild pigs?
France means abandoning millions of starving vulnerable peasant
supporters and the class struggle."

Petras ignores the reality of modern warfare. As stated previously,
the thousands of Uribe's soldiers and death squads will be sent into
FARC camps, as the US and Israel continue to supply the Uribe
government with advanced tracking technology. The best way for the
FARC to protect the peasant supporters at this time in history is to
hand over the hostages, disband as the "FARC", and allow the leftest
Latin American countries to aid their reclassification as a
political group. If they truly have millions of peasant supporters,
those peasants can work for voter justice and make sure their vote
is counted. There is no more possibility of the Colombian people
fighting a military takeover of their government than there is of
the US citizens fighting a military takeover of the US government.
They would be quickly squashed. This is why Fidel is pleading for a
peaceful situation with the help of the Latin American countries,
which have unified.

Petras' desire to help the resistance in Colombia and other
countries of the world would be best served by helping to organize
the U.S. youth to stop US imperialism. That would allow the FARC to
do what they need to do to organize a peaceful movement to take
power. If the people had a candidate they could trust in Colombia,
they would fight for the right to vote. Petras seems to think that
there are millions of Colombians supporting the FARC. He is wrong.
There are millions supporting a peaceful road to the future. That
peaceful road is not paved with FARC hostages, bombings and funding
from the same drug lords who are friends of Uribe; nor does that
road to peace consort with the murderous Uribe government and its
right wing paramilitary.

Item 7: Petras illogically tries to convince the reader that by
celebrating Betancourt's liberation, Fidel and Chavez are using this
to cover up serious political difficulties of their own. He claims
their actions are causing a reversal of the previous judicial
verdict which ruled Uribe's presidency de facto illegal - and giving
a surge to the previously ailing popularity of Sarkozy. Petras
accuses Chavez of "embracing his `enemy', Uribe" - for the purpose
of returning to the "good graces of the entire pro-imperialist mass
media."

It seems Petras will not be happy unless the FARC continue to take
hostages and live in their secluded camps, always on the move and
eventually be wiped out. Fidel and Chavez would like a better life
and a better future for the FARC and all Colombians. They will
support a peaceful movement, which would include the FARC if the
FARC discontinued their current armed revolution which is no longer
effective. In fact, the recent FARC release (not a "rescue" as the
corporate media lies) of 15 hostages including those of highest
strategic value suggest that FARC may be responding to the advice of
Fidel and Chavez.

Item 8: Petras truly ends this last point with the most inaccurate
statement and one that I consider to be an anti-revolutionary. That
statement and part of my response are repeated here from the early
in this critique for the reader's convenience:

"Striking a humanitarian and quasi-electoral posture in celebrating
Betancourt's release, Castro lambasted the FARC for its `cruelty'
and armed resistance to the terrorist Uribe regime. Castro attacked
the FARC's `authoritarian structure and dogmatic leadership',
ignoring FARC's endorsement of electoral politics between 1984-90
(when over 5,000 disarmed activists and political candidates were
slaughtered) , and the free and open debate over policy alternative
in the demilitarized zone (1999-2002) with all sectors of Colombian
society. In contrast, Castro never permitted free and open debate
and elections, even among communist candidates in any legislative
process – at least until he was replaced by Raul Castro."

"The above mentioned political leaders were serving their own
personal political interests by bashing the FARC and celebrating
Betancourt at the expense of the people of Colombia."

The accuracy and power of Petras' statements about 1984-1990
horrendous slaughtering of 5,000 disarmed activists and political
candidates in 1984-90 and the 1999-2002 free and open debate over
policy alternative in the demilitarized zone are clear. However, his
statement is diminished by Petras' fully inaccurate statement that
Fidel never permitted free and open debate and elections. The
reality is that Cuba has the most free and fair participatory
elections anywhere in the world. Their 1976 Constitution was put to
a referendum and approved by over 95% of the electorate. If Petras
does not realize this, I suggest he read Isaac Saney's wonderful
book, Cuba: A Revolution in Motion.

Finally, James Petras has made important contributions to our
understanding of the history of revolution for 50 years and his work
is to be respected. But he is dead wrong with his attack on Fidel
Castro, former president of Cuba and Venezuela's president, Hugo
Chavez Frias. Petras should be concentrating his skills on our need
to organize U.S. youth and to bring down the deadly imperialist
regime in Washington which is the root of turmoil and oppression in
all Latin American countries.

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic. com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints
include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its
integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the
original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
-----------

Joan Marie Malerich, 61, is a grassroots activist who believes that
activism and the search for truth and reality is the only way to
stop wars. She is a strong supporter of the Cuban Revolutionary
government and the Cuban Five - Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero,
Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, and René González who are
collectively serving four life sentences in U.S. penitentiaries.
They are the example for all youth of the world, as Antonio
Guerrero's son, Tonitio, stated at the Youth World Festival in
Venezuela. Malerich has studied Cuban issues for a number of years
and visited Cuba September of 2003. Joan has also educated US
students about the Latin American School of Medicine (LASM) in Cuba.
She is an advocate of Universal Single-Payer Health Care and has had
a number of her articles published on this and other subjects in the
print and electronic media. She believes that if we are to stop the
youth from become soldiers for the empire, we must educate the youth
(starting in high school) about the truth and reality of the US
history of military and economic terrorism. She believes imperialism
is the root cause of most social and political problems. Joan is a
graduate of Northern Illinois University with majors in English and
Secondary Education and has also completed post-graduate work. She
has worked in a number of positions ranging from laborer and in her
work as a professional.