The Man Who Loved Dogs

Scan page 9

SOCIALIST ACTION DECEMBER 2016 9 “The Man Who Loved Dogs,” by Leonardo Padura. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), 2014. Origi­ nally published in Spanish in 2009 as “El hombre que amaba a los perros.” Available in hardcover and paperback in both languages. W Dogs,” Cuban writer Leonardo Padura joins ith the publication of “The Man Who Loved the ranks of outstanding Latin American writers that include Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Pablo Neruda, and Roberto Bolaño. But this captivating work of historical fiction is much more. It is an important and timely political act that in­ troduces Trotsky to Cuba and Latin America while at the same time exposing the crimes of Stalinism.

Padura, born in 1955 in Havana and educated at the University of Havana, is a novelist, essay­ ist, and investigative reporter. His work has been recognized in both Cuba and the Spanish-speaking world. In 2012 he won Cuba’s National Prize in Lit­ erature and in 2015 he won the Princesa (formerly Principe) de Asturias Literary Prize, sometimes called the Latin American Nobel Prize.

The novel is told from the perspective of three narrators: Leon Trotsky, Ramón Mercader (the Soviet agent who assassinated Trotsky in Mexico), and Iván Cárdenas, a failed Cuban writer working in Havana at a veterinary magazine. The title of the novel is ambigu­ ous: all three men loved dogs. Trotsky’s life is followed from his internal exile in Siberia by Stalin, through his external exile in Turkey, France, Norway, and finally Mexico. Mercader’s life is followed from his childhood in Barcelona through his participation in the Spanish Civil War to his training as a Soviet agent in Russia and his pursuit of Trotsky. Iván’s life is told, with flashbacks, from his meeting in 1977 with a “man who loved dogs” who may, or may not be, Trotsky’s assassin. As the novel progresses, the lives of the three narrators become con­ nected in interesting and subtle ways. Sorry, no spoilers in this review!

Padura based his portrayal of Trotsky’s life on ex­ tensive historical research, including a careful reading of Trotsky’s published works during his exile and the three-volume biography by Isaac Deutscher. But Pa­ dura’s skill as a novelist brings Trotsky to life, and the reader feels great compassion for his tragic circum­ stances.

Much less is known of Mercader, but Padura makes up for this by careful use of the facts that are known along with an interesting novelistic technique—Mercader is placed at important historical events such as the Mos­ cow show trials of 1937-38, where Stalin tried, after forcing confessions, the vast majority of the leadership of the 1917 revolution. By the end of the trials, Stalin had arrested and executed almost every important vet­ eran leader of the 1917 revolution, three of the five So­ viet marshals, and over two-thirds of the central com­ mittee. He also had arrested or shot several thousand ... Energy (continued from page 8: “Nationalize the energy industry!”)

There is justice in this position, but we need not hold it up as an unbreakable principle. If, by some miracle, a modest offer of compensation would induce the energy profiteers to give up the fight, abandon their claims, and cooperate in transforming the industry to public ownership under workers’ control, then such a deal might be worth considering.

But we shouldn’t hold or breath. The starting point must be that the right of the majority to a healthy planet trumps any corporate charter and any putative claim for compensation.

If humanity is to win the climate fight, we need to understand what it will take and be more fo­ cused in our demands. We need to be fully cog­ nizant of who our friends and enemies are. Only then can we build a movement powerful enough to defend the rights and needs of the majority.

By calling for nationalization of the energy in­ dustry under workers’ control, we strengthen the climate change movement in multiple ways:

by identifying the key obstacles in our path; by embracing our natural allies and unmasking our adversaries; by providing a strategy around which a fighting movement can coalesce; and by focusing our collective strength in such a way as to strike a real blow at the very heart of the problem. n officers of the Red Army, which Trotsky had founded and once led.

Iván is based on Padura’s experience and the experi­ ences of his generation, a generation that grew up with the revolution, fought in Angola, and suffered through the special period of the 1990s. All three narrators are not merely narrators. They are also symbols: Trotsky, of the revolution betrayed; Mercader, of the crimes of Stalinism; Iván, of the Cuban people and their revolu­ tion. Ultimately, this novel is a triple tragedy, but one that also points the way to a better future.

Having read the novel in both Spanish and English, I can attest that the nearly flawless translation by Anna Kushner captures Padura’s voice beautifully and is itself a work of art.

Padura is best known in Latin America for his Mario Conde (the Count) novels, based on the police detec­ tive and later private investigator/book buyer Mario Conde. Each of the Conde novels is a wonderful work of detective fiction, a love poem to the Cuban people and culture, and a political expose. The novels (in their English translations) are “Havana Blue,” “Havana Gold,” “Havana Red,” “Havana Black,” “Adios Hemingway,” and “Havana Fever.”

The early novels were written during the special pe­ riod after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when aid dis­ appeared and Cuba experienced the hardships caused by the U.S. economic blockade. These novels are espe­ cially interesting as they depict daily life during this time. Politically, each of these novels focuses on a differ­ ent social problem. For instance, “Havana Blue” focuses on corruption in the Cuban Communist Party. “Havana Gold” focuses on illegal drugs in Cuba. Other novels fo­ cus on the persecution of homosexuals, the role of orga­ nized crime in pre-revolution Cuba, and the censorship of writers in Cuba.

“The Man Who Loved Dogs” was widely reviewed in the capitalist press at the time of its English-language publication. The Independent (Feb. 13, 2014) hailed it as a “monumental work.” The reviewer for The New York Times (Jan. 21, 2014) wrote that Padura “has made his entrance to the Latin American Modernist canon by writing a Russian novel.” The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 7, 2014) described the novel as “a rewarding read, despite its excesses.”

The Washington Post (March 27, 2014) describes Pa­ dura as “Cuba’s greatest living writer and one who is inching toward the pantheon occupied by Gabriel Gar­ cia Marquez and Mario Vargas Llosa.” Perhaps the most lavish praise came from The Financial Times. Their re­ ... Women’s march (continued from page 12: “Join the women’s march on Washington, Jan. 21”)

This was the same sentiment expressed in Poland when the abortion bill was defeated.

In an article in the New Yorker magazine, Ariel Levy spoke with Francesca Comencini, who spear­ headed the women’s movement against the mi­ sogynist leader of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi. In 2011, she and her sister created massive feminist “mani­ festaziones,” a series of impassioned demonstra­ tions throughout cities and villages across Italy.

Berlusconi resigned nine months after her group, “Se Non Ora, Quando,” (If Not Now, When) held demonstrations that involved more than a million people. She believes mass demonstrations can send (Above) Leon Trotsky testifies at tribunal in Mexico concerning Stalinist armed attack on his house on May 24, 1940. Standing at left is U.S. socialist Joseph Hansen.

viewer (Jan. 31, 2014) described the book as “a stun­ ning novel” and a “monumental, intricately structured work.”

Great works of literature are inherently ambiguous, and Padura’s novel is no exception. We all read these works with our own eyes. How could it be otherwise? Still, one can’t help noticing in these reviews an effort to both acknowledge a great work of literature while at the same time distorting its political content.

The Independent (Feb. 13, 2014) describes the novel as “a fictional survey of two equally ruthless revolution­ aries, Trotsky and Stalin, of the mass murders and show trials, and of the trusting millions caught up in it.” The New York Times (Jan. 21, 2014) highlights the parts of the novel critical of Cuba and Cuba’s treatment of writ­ ers.

The Washington Post (March 27, 2014) views the nov­ el as an attack on Fidel Castro, “who is never mentioned by name, [but] his creation—the Cuban revolution—is rendered here as a crumbling tropical gulag.” And not to be outdone, The Financial Times (Jan. 31, 2014) de­ scribed the novel as an “insightful exploration of the ways in which communism corrodes the human spirit and justified the most monstrous of crimes.”

These are old tricks: equating the crimes of Stalin and Stalinism with Trotsky or Lenin, distorting the histori­ cal record, and ignoring political and economic context. Trotsky did not kill millions, orchestrate show trials, or deceive and manipulate millions—that was the doing of Stalin and the degenerated bureaucracy that he repre­ sented. Castro did not starve the Cuban people during the special period—that was the doing of the United States and the U.S.-led embargo. In my reading, there is only one published review that accurately captured the political message of the novel: A long and historically detailed review published by In Defense of Marxism by Alan Woods (Jan. 14, 2014). No surprise there.

“The Man Who Loved Dogs” is many things: a careful­ ly researched work of historical fiction, a gripping spy novel, and a complex work of detective fiction. Politi­ cally, the novel introduces Trotsky to Latin Americans, presents the crimes of Stalinism, and explores the rela­ tion between Stalinism and the Cuban revolution. And it is also, as Padura himself has said, a book “relevant to the moment we are living though.” n the message, “women are the nation!”

In the United States, in 2004, a million people marched on the Washington, D.C., mall in the March For Women’s Lives, which focused on women’s reproductive freedom. Since that time, however, attacks on reproductive rights have increased. Mi­ sogynists have become further emboldened by the election of Donald Trump. What were micro-aggres­ sions and individual attacks during the campaign will likely become magnified into legal and policy changes that affect the lives of all women—unless we protest.

It has been 12 years since the last mass women’s march in the United States, and now it is time for women to hit the streets of Washington, D.C., and other cities on Jan. 21 to send the message that women will fight for their rights. n

Scan page 10

website: http://socialistaction.ca the 2019 vote. He also promised a new relationship with indigenous peoples. At a minimum, that must mean heeding First Nations’cry for no new pipelines.