GS of Communist Party of Turkey: 'They continue lying about Cuba'

soL News talked to Kemal Okuyan, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Turkey, about the 'rumours' on the draft prepared during the preparation process of a new constitution in Cuba. The claims on that Cuba is giving up on communism, according to Okuyan, are all about emptying the meanings of concepts. "Socialism is the pre-stage of communism, if not the first-stage. A society growing within this process puts communism on its agenda"
Monday, 30 July 2018 21:52

The international and national printed media, from left to right-wing, published headlines saying "Cuba removed communism from its constitution". Different commentators, some of whom are anti-communists and some are so-called "leftists", claimed or implied that Cuba deviated from socialism without mentioning that the country is in the process of renewing its constitution, which was originally approved in 1976.

Contrary to the populist discourse, Cuba keeps keeping the flag of socialism flying despite all the anti-propaganda since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and despite the blockade of the imperialist-capitalist system. The new constitution process in Cuba, in that sense, needs a real evaluation to make it clear what is the process about and how anti-socialists continue lying about the country.

We interviewed Kemal Okuyan, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Turkey, to have a better understanding on the recent developments.

Cuba is once again on the news with the claims that it removed communism from its constitution. What is the essence of the matter?

They continue lying about Cuba. This is the first thing that should be said about the matter. They keep doing this not only about Cuba, but also about socialism. They are fabricating things; they are lying, they are falsifying the truth.

But there is no smoke without fire. The sentence including the word communism has been removed from the definition of Cuban society in the draft of the new Cuban constitution. 

This is true. But no one has ever claimed in Cuba that the country is communist! 

Communism is not a social system to be built right away you want to. Classes will totally be disappeared; the difference between manual and mental labour will become obscure; there will be no rural-urban distinction; there will be wealth; a society in which everyone will use, or consume, resources as much as he/she needs. The state will fade away. Humanity has never achieved such a society anywhere, let alone in Cuba. There had been progress towards it, but neither in the Soviet Union nor the German Democratic Republic had communism become a reality. The thing between socialism and communism is not the great wall of China; they are parts of the same process. Yet, they have significant differences.

‘COMMUNISM HAS TO BE A WORLD SYSTEM'

Many in the Western media covered the news as "Cuba gave up on strict communism and decided on socialism".

What does strict communism mean? They keep emptying the concepts. Socialism is the pre-stage of communism, if not the first-stage. A society growing within this process puts communism on its agenda. Moreover, socialism can be found in single countries, but communism has to be a world system. The thing that breaks the links off between communism and socialism is that western social democrat parties are still using the title 'socialism', and some has socialist in their names. The name of the social democrat international is also Socialist International. They have nothing to do with the socialist objective but they are using it.

If there is no conflict between socialism and communism, why is TKP not using the word 'socialist'? Isn’t it easier for the working class to adopt the word socialism?

Sometimes communist parties carry the word 'socialist' in their names due to legal obligations. We also experienced this. But the word communist is the right one for two reasons: First, it is necessary to show your separation from those so-called "socialists". Second, socialism itself is not the aim. Our aim, our ideal is communism. A society with no classes and exploitation. A society with no language or religion discrimination, with no borders.

That is exactly what they call "strict".

What can be strict about no classes and no exploitation? If exploitation exists, it means it is there. If it does not exist, it is not there. They tend to refer to communism as extreme socialism. This is just nonsense. Also, it has nothing to do with the matter in Cuba.

Cuba has been going through important reforms. Aren’t they risky for socialism?

Of course, they are. But let me switch to another issue before that. The Cuban constitution that became effective in 1976 mentions about communism as a concrete objective. In these years, Cuba was a country that progressed rapidly in its socialist foundation, benefited from the existence of socialist countries, notably the Soviet Union, achieved important gains due to its economic, political and military cooperation with other socialist countries. Communism was a faraway objective for Cuba then despite its situation. I think it was a mistake for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to start saying that "we have established socialism and now we are moving towards communism". Communism can be included in the constitution as an ideal, it can be mentioned as a historical objective but you cannot do it with "contemporary" references. It is true that a constitution should include social objectives, but it should be based on reality as much as possible. Constitutions are societal contracts. If we need to be realistic, a constitution mentioning communism in Cuba today would only make communism an empty concept. Today, Cuba is not even mentioning an ideal, mature socialism; it cannot. They are taking steps that push the limits of basic principles of socialism.

'IT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR TO EXPECT CUBA TO STAY ALIVE WITH MATURE SOCIALIST CRITERIA'

Aren’t these steps clear out the socialist character of Cuba?

We cannot say something like this right now. The process of a socialist foundation is a complex one. If you know what you are doing, you may sometimes take a step back; you need to do it. Soviet Russia did stop being a socialist when it took the step called NEP, the New Economy Policy, four years after the revolution. But here, the rule is to be aware of why you are stepping back and not seeing these backward steps as a permanent phenomenon, and when the conditions are appropriate, you have to get rid of these backward steps by forcing those conditions. It is very unfair to want Cuba to survive today with the criteria of mature socialism. Cuban communists here have great responsibility. If they start to explain that the reforms are real socialism, they make a big mistake. From what I can see, they have no such intentions for now. On the contrary, they are talking about doing everything to protect and situate socialism in existing conditions.

'‘IT IS ONLY A DRAFT RIGHT NOW'

Could this be a step taken to look cute to western countries?

First of all, there is not yet a new constitution. There is a draft, and this draft is being gone over with a fine-tooth comb in actual discussion platforms. You will see many changes in the draft. The final draft of the parliament will be presented to the public. There is also no "subservience" as a foreign policy practice in the history of Cuba. "If you give them an inch and they'll take a mile". They just know it very well! And to whom would they seem cute? They need foreign investment, but capital factors in other things, not the constitution!

Is it, however, unimportant that one of the first tasks of the new president is to remove the word communism from the constitution?

Miguel Diaz-Canel took office on April 19th. The story of the constitution is rather old. How would you proceed with a constitution prepared in 1976 under different conditions? It's absurd to think that the president of the Republic has a personal role in this.

But ultimately, he is the president. Has the president no authority in Cuba?

If there is a position, of course, there is an authority. But Cuba is a socialist country. The presidential system is incompatible with socialism. There is no separation of forces in socialism. The separation of execution and legislation is the invention of bourgeois dictatorships. Execution in socialism is not a separate force. It depends on legislation or it is within it. In socialism, the Supreme Council elects the government from within, elects the president of the state and supervises them, or takes them from office.

Is not it more democratic if people elect the president?

Just like in Turkey, right? Advanced democracy! Is it democracy to give a single person a lot of authority and transforming him/her into an element that cannot be undermined by the votes of the people? A person elected by the people is getting a great deal of impunity. It is contrary to the socialist logic to give such a big role to one person.

But Maduro, and before Chávez became presidents after the presidential election and they have had a lot of authority.

Who said Venezuela was socialist? There is a progressive power in Venezuela that has difficulties to move forward. One reason for this is that they do not have a party that is based on the organisation of the working people and a clear-revolutionary prominent program. It is impossible to close this gap with strong leaders. In a real labourer's power, in a real socialist democracy, the president of the state does not come out and praise a pro-AKP TV series.