Down the Cuba Rabbit-Hole with Mary-Alice Waters

Last week I wrote about The Militant's (published by the Socialist Workers Party--SWP) retraction of an article by Steve Warshell. My lede paragraph:

The Militant concocts more fake controversy with this post:

This week’s print edition of the Militant includes an article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” It has been withdrawn from the online edition. It does not reflect the opinion of the Militant or the Socialist Workers Party. 

Next week’s issue of the Militant will feature an editorial correcting that article.

This week's editorial--actually a long article by Mary-Alice Waters--appears in the current issue under the title Defending the Cuban Revolution, strengthening US working people. The supposedly offensive article by Mr. Warshell (Would a Joe Biden White House be better for Cuba?) is included at the same link (scroll down). If you really want to go down this rabbit hole, I suggest you read Mr. Warshell's piece before engaging with Ms. Waters, though this is one of those cases where I've done the reading so you don't have to.

Ms. Waters' piece is just plain incoherent. In an effort to understand it I've tried to outline it. The idea is that major points have a lede paragraph, and each paragraph has a topic sentence. Let's see how far those high school English class principles carry us.

For example, she says,

The second major problem with the article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” is its opening sentences. “A number of groups here and around the country that consider themselves ‘friends of Cuba’ are promoting Joe Biden’s bid for the presidency as a way to relieve the effects of over 60 years of Washington’s economic and political attacks. …

The journalistically unacceptable anonymity of the phrase “a number of groups” is plenty reason enough to reject such a lead sentence in a working-class newspaper. But why is it a problem that some friends of Cuba are urging a vote for Joe Biden? Or Donald Trump? Is it a problem that the Socialist Workers Party advocates and organizes everyone we can to support the SWP ticket of Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett?

The major criticism seems picayune--that Mr. Warshell omits a listing of the offending groups. Of course The Militant does this all the time, often referring to middle class organizations that cross the class line--without listing them individually.

But beyond that, she claims that Mr. Warshell misunderstands the principles behind a united front, where working class groups come together around narrow issues upon which they agree. He writes

These groups are organizing car caravans here, peddling the myth that Democratic administrations — and in particular Barack Obama’s — “have been better” for relations between Washington and Havana, especially better than Donald Trump’s.

Perhaps Mr. Warshell is unclear here, but my impression is the car caravans are not organized to defend Cuba, but rather to promote Joe Biden. In which case this isn't a united front at all. But even if the stated purpose of the caravans were the defense of the Cuban "Revolution," since when is the Party supposed to remain silent about other issues of disagreement not involved in the united front? For example, we never hid our criticism of liberal Democrats despite marching with them in antiwar demonstrations.

But getting back to high school English, note the first phrase in Ms. Waters' above quote: the second major problem. Which begs the question: What is the first major problem? As best I can figure (and it's really unclear), it's this:

The problems begin with the headline itself. It poses a question the article never addresses. Moreover, it is a question that can’t be answered. What is there to say except, “If Joe Biden becomes the next president of the United States, we’ll see.”

Huh? Wouldn't this be solved by rephrasing Mr. Warshell's headline If Joe Biden became president, would that be better for Cuba? This seems like a really minor point. 

The supposed first issue subdivides into two, numbered components. 

First, whether Biden or Donald Trump is installed in the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, the revolutionary leadership of Cuba will continue on the course they’ve followed from 1959 to today, through 12 U.S. administrations. ...

Second, for our part, irrespective of who occupies the White House for the next four years, the Socialist Workers Party too will continue on the course we have followed from 1959 to today. 

She simply restates what we already know, namely that neither the Cuban government nor the SWP will change fundamental positions, regardless of the election outcome. There is nothing in Mr. Warshell's article to suggest otherwise. And neither has anything to do with the supposedly misguided headline--it's a non sequitur.

Then we get to the second major problem discussed above, not to be confused with the aforementioned "second" sub-point. (And if you're confused, so am I.) I think Ms. Waters just flunked English Comp.

But now we strike gold with {emphasis mine}

There’s a third way in which the article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” did not express the editorial line of the Militant or the positions of the Socialist Workers Party. That is the way in which it presented the differences between executive actions taken by the Barack Obama administration during its second term versus measures imposed by the Trump administration. The latter have included cutting back travel rights in both directions and depriving Cuba of necessities such as oil, access to the international financial system, and remittances from family members living abroad. 

Here I'm indebted to commenter Eldee Stephens who intuited the true reason for the retraction without chasing down any rabbits. The reason is that life for the Cuban government (and probably also the Cuban people) will be easier under a less stringent sanctions regime, i.e., under a Biden administration.

After much throat-clearing Ms. Waters admits as much.

If a Biden administration were to reverse the direction of some of Washington’s current policies, it would open some breathing room for Cuban working people and their government to more easily deal with the challenges they face. If the boot on their neck pressed less tightly, they would be quite capable of doing that. … 

For these reasons, it’s probably safe to say that a majority of Cuban working people and their leadership are hoping for a Biden electoral victory. Does that mean it’s in the interests of U.S. working people to give political support to a capitalist party and its candidates?

That question was neither asked nor answered in the article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” But for class-conscious workers in the U.S., that’s the most important question. And the answer is an unequivocal “No.”

So she admits that there is a difference between the two bourgeois candidates--a distinction that the Cubans are very much aware of. This is very unTrotskyist of her--Trotskyists (like Mr. Warshell) assert there is no essential difference between Republicans and Democrats--any contrary answer is reformist. But since the SWP wants to remain on good terms with the Cuban leadership, high principle has to yield to Cuba's immediate self-interest.

Regarding the question Does that mean it’s in the interests of U.S. working people to give political support to a capitalist party and its candidates?, Mr. Warshell answers it unambiguously in his final paragraph:

The fact is the only campaign for president that offers solidarity with the Cuban people and their revolution is the Socialist Workers Party campaign of Alyson Kennedy. Not only does the SWP call for an end to Washington’s economic assaults against Cuba and for the U.S. rulers to get out of Guantánamo, Kennedy points to Cuba’s socialist revolution as an example for workers and farmers in the U.S. to follow.

So here we are--at the bottom of the rabbit hole. And there ain't even a rabbit down here! 

Further Reading:

• "A Program to Unify the Exploited and Oppressed"
• The Militant Visits Manila
• Mary-Alice Waters' Religious View of History