In this third session, Bensaïd focuses on 1959 from the point of view of three processes. Firstly, he depicts the process of breaking with the Cuban bourgeoisie, and the power structures in the beginning of '59. Secondly, he analyses the process of differentiation and rupture with the bourgeois elements in the government; and thirdly, he recounts the process of confrontation with imperialism, which goes to some extent parallel with the process of radicalisation of the Cuban revolution.
Audio
Duration: 43:02
In this fourth session of the lecture, Bensaïd focuses on the transition in Cuba. Bensaïd tackles the question of political power as the first instrument to initiate social transformations, which brings the problem of bureaucratisation as a danger in the process of transition. In his analysis and discussion, Bensaïd makes comparisons with Nicaraguan Revolution and Russian Revolution. The session ends with a discussion of the nationalisation of imperialist and big companies in 1960 and 1961.
Audio
Duration: 38:39
In this second session of the lecture, Bensaïd starts with an organisational and political analysis of the Cuban Communist Party. After talking about the emergence and organisation of the guerrilla movement, Bensaïd emphasises the overlooked dimension of the urban workers movement in the Cuban Revolution alongside of the guerilla warfare. He outlines the demands of urban workers movement, and strongly underlines the combination of the urban workers movement with the guerilla insurrection. He covers the discussions and criticisms around the general strike in 1958 and its aftermath.
Audio
Duration: 46:13
In the Cuba lectures, Bensaïd focuses firstly on the strategy of taking power in the Cuban Revolution in comparison with the Nicaraguan strategy. Secondly, he discusses the formation of revolutionary leadership through the revolutionary process; and thirdly, he analyses the transition, namely the destruction of the bourgeois state and the foundation of a workers state. In this first session of the lecture, Bensaïd starts his talk with a survey of historical facts on Cuba in 1950s as a semi-colonial state strongly dependent on American imperialism with large sectors of industrial workers, agricultural workers and unemployed. He depicts the socio-political background and the emergence of the guerrilla movement in 1958. This part ends with the historical moment when the guerilla movement connects with the urban workers' movement, which culminates in the general strike in April 1958. Both the general strike and the military counter-offensive were failures. However, this period witnesses an expansion of self-administration, albeit very limited. The proclamation of agrarian reform law by the leadership of the guerilla, which starts to act as a pre-government, is a turning point.
Audio
Duration: 45:56
In this recording Bensaïd explores the consequences of the state, the networks of clandestine immigration on the one hand and of the social, revolutionary and workers’ movements on the other hand regarding the development of populist legislative measures such as the expulsions in the name of “public order” (which is more and more widely discussed in populist groups across Europe). He then mentions the emergence of successful movements like the one of the “without papers” in France or a caravan of the undocumented in Germany. In this framework, Bensaïd recalls the importance, of self-organization and joining forces to fight against ideas which make us remember Nazism in the 1930s.
Audio
Duration: 27:32
At Eleventh World Congress, it was decided to send comrades to industry to change the centre of gravity of sections. The term "turn to industry" implies a denigration of proletariat to only "industrial proletariat", but in fact, it included all employers. Bensaïd discusses certain weaknesses in the adoption of this policy, and arguments against the policy.
Audio
Duration: 47:51
In this part of lecture, Bensaïd talks about the "Leninist revolution" on organisational question. He continues discussing the involvement of workers, such as professional revolutionaries, and democratic centralism, which implies that the party will act as a single body through a discipline which submits minority to majority decisions in action. All these points may look technical or administrative, but are geared towards the same goal: to distinguish the party from the class, and to protect the party from the dissolving influence of the bourgeoisie in the daily struggle of the class itself. Establishing a border between the party and the class corresponds to a new concept of strategy. The break comes with Lukacs, who underlines consciousness. For the proletariat, the strategical goal is taking power and destroying the bourgeois state; and only the party can build the conscious project and plan to solve this question of power. The Leninist concept of the party is intertwined with the concept of strategy, of taking power. Bensaïd sets out positions of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks with respect to their conjectural differences. He then starts talking about the context of German Revolution as well as the problems of organisational conception and struggle for power, with references to Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky and Lenin. The differences between Lenin and Trotsky when they entered the process of Russian Revolution are discussed: Trotsky had a clearer view of the dynamics of the revolution, but he didn't have the organisational tool for that. Lenin, although he had a more confused view at the beginning, had the organisational mediation to correct his position and to put it into practice. Lastly, Bensaïd talks about some polemical aspects of the Leninist theory of organisation. Lenin's theory of organisation represents a very specific moment in the history of working class. Bensaïd mentions the debates between the Second International and Lenin and talks about the question of programme. He underlines that the two following distinctions should be maintained and well understood to avoid complexities: party and class; system and principles. The distinction between party and class implies democratic centralisation, selection and concept of professional revolutionaries.
Audio
Duration: 86:47
Bensaïd begins his lecture with a survey of the general conditions of building a revolutionary proletarian party. Under this heading, he sets out the differences between the proletarian revolution and the bourgeois revolution. The conditions of the exploitation of the proletariat reproduce the conditions of class and an alienated relation with the goals of production. Bensaïd relates these points to the party question, where workers need to organise themselves to take power. Bensaïd then discusses several points from Marx, Engels and the party question regarding building a proletarian conscious party. He underlines that the concept of the party in Marx and Engels was different from the concept of party in Lenin. The two meanings of party: historical party, and the conjunctural party. In Engels, revolution was a natural process and the party is not an active agent of the revolution. Bensaïd then moves onto the Leninist theory of the party, which is mainly taken as a technical process of organisation. The concept of "class party". However the key point is not the technical aspect, it's not the degree of centralisation or discipline; it is the delimitation of the party from the class.
Audio
Duration: 45:58
Lastly, Bensaïd talks about some polemical aspects of the Leninist theory of organisation. Bensaïd discusses the debates between Second International and Lenin. Theoretical and definitive clarifications on the concepts of party, soviet, trade union. Sovereignty of the Soviets above the party as a vanguard organisation. Bensaïd then talks about the question of programme. He underlines that the two following distinctions should be maintained and well understood to avoid complexities: party and class; system and principles. The distinction between party and class implies democratic centralisation, selection and concept of professional revolutionaries.
Audio
Duration: 39:58
In this part of lecture, Bensaïd talks about the "Leninist revolution" on organisational question. He continues discussing the involvement of workers, such as professional revolutionaries, or selection, or democratic centralism, which implies that the party will act as a single body through a discipline which submits minority to majority decisions in action. All these points may look technical or administrative, but are geared towards the same goal: to distinguish the party from the class, and to protect the party from the dissolving influence of the bourgeoisie in the daily struggle of the class itself. Establishing a borderline between the party and the class corresponds to a new concept of strategy. The break comes with Lukács, who underlines consciousness and the revolution becomes a strategy. For proletariat, the strategical goal is taking power and destroying the bourgeois state; and only the party can build conscious project and plan to solve this question of power. Leninist concept of party is intertwined with the concept of strategy, of taking power. Bensaïd sets out positions of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks with respect to their conjectural differences. He then starts talking about the context of German Revolution as well as the problems of organisational conception and struggle for power, with references to Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky and Lenin. The difference between Lenin and Trotsky when they entered the process of Russian Revolution: Trotsky had a clearer view of the dynamics of the revolution, but he didn't have the organisational tool for that. Lenin, although he had a more confused view at the beginning, had the organisational mediation to correct his position and to put it into practice.
Audio
Duration: 45:23
