Split (1)

train · 85.2k rows

train stringlengths 0 9.95k
Let it be well understood; our party–no other party, but our party, and its Central Committee. (APPLAUSE) And the prerogative of educating and guiding the revolutionary masses in an unwavering prerogative of our party. We will be very zealous guardians of that right. In ideological matters it will be the party which will say what must be said. And if we do not accede, do not want, and just do not feel like letting the differences that divide the socialist block divide us, no one will be able to impose such a thing upon us. (APPLAUSE) And all material of a political nature, unless is has to do with enemies, will only be able to reach the people through our party at the time and on the occasion that our party decides. (APPLAUSE) We know quite well where the enemy is, who the only and true enemy is. We know this quite well. We more than know it. We have had to struggle against the enemy under difficult conditions. In order to confront that enemy, we have needed the solidarity and aid of many. In order to defeat the aggressive policy of that enemy, to continue to oppose it, we need resources and weapons because here, thousands of miles away from any other socialist country, thousands of miles away from any other socialist country, thousands of miles away without being able to depend on anything other than our own forces and our own weapons in the decisive moments, and since we were aware of the risks we are running today and of the risks we will continue to run, we must be armed to the teeth (APPLAUSE) and fully prepared. We can disagree with any party on any issue. It is impossible to hope that in such a heterogeneous world, under such diverse circumstance –a world made of countries in the most dissimilar situations and having the most unequal levels of material, technical, and cultural development– that we could conceive Marxism as something similar to a church, a religious doctrine with its Rome, its Pope, and its Ecumenical Council. This is a revolutionary and dialectic doctrine, not a philosophical doctrine. It is a guide for revolutionary action, not a dogma. Trying to frame Marxism as a type of catechism in anti-Marxist. The diversity of situations will inevitably produce an infinite number of interpretations. Those who make the correct interpretations will be able to call themselves Revolutionaries. Those who make the right interpretations and apply them in a responsible manner will triumph. Those who make mistakes or do not abide by revolutionary thinking will fail. They will be defeated and even replaced, because Marxism is not copyrighted private property. It is a doctrine of revolutionaries written by a revolutionary, developed by other revolutionaries, for revolutionaries. We will know how to distinguish ourselves by our self-confidence, by our confidence in our ability to continue and advance our evolutionary path. We may disagree with any party on one matter, on one issue, or on several issues. Disagreements, when honest, are bound to be temporary. What we will never do is to insult with one hand and ask with another. And we will know how to maintain any disagreement within the confines of decency with any party, and we will know how to be friends to those who know how to be friends. We will know to respect those who respect us. These norms will always determine our most free conduct, and we will never ask anyone’s permission to do anything. We will never ask anyone for permission to go anywhere. We will never ask permission from anyone to become the friend of any party or country. We know the transitory nature of problems, and problems pass. Peoples live on, peoples remain; men pass, peoples remain; leadership passes, Revolutions persist. We see something more than temporary relations in the relations between parties and revolutionary people, we see durable relations and permanent relations. Nothing will ever come from us that tends to create differences between men, let along countries. We will be guided by that elementary principle because we know that it is the right thing to do, that it is a just principle, and nothing will prevent us from devoting all our energy to the fight against the enemy of humanity, imperialism, Because we will never say that those who have helped us defeat the imperialists are accomplices of the imperialists. (APPLAUSE) We aspire not only to a communist society but to a communist world in which all nations will have equal rights. We aspire to a communist world in which no nation will have the right to veto. And we aspire that the communist world of tomorrow will never display the same picture of a bourgeois world torn by internal squabbles. We aspire to a free society of free nations in which all the countries, large and small, will have equal rights. We will defend our points of view as we have defended them up to now, as well as our positions and our path and we will stand firm to be measured by our actions and our deeds. And nothing can turn us away from that path. It is not an easy thing to do in the midst of today’s problems complexities in the world today. It is difficult to maintain that inflexible opinion, maintain this inflexible independence, but we will maintain it.
It is difficult to maintain that inflexible opinion, maintain this inflexible independence, but we will maintain it. This Revolution was not imported from anywhere. It is a genuine product of this country. Nobody told us how we must do it, and we have carried it out. (APPLAUSE) And nobody will have to tell us how we must continue to carry it out, and we will continue to carry it out. We have learned to write history and we will continue to write it. Let no one doubt it. We live in a complex and dangerous world. The risks of this world we will face with dignity and serenity. Our fate will be the fate of the other countries and our fate will be the fate of the world. I ask all the comrades here present, all the representatives of our party, all the secretaries of the cells of this type of extensive congress, I ask those who are here to represent the will of the party, the party which represents the workers, I ask the ratification of the agreements of the national leadership. (APPLAUSE) I ask you for the full and unanimous ratification of the Central Committee of our party. (APPLAUSE) I ask for your full support for the line followed by the revolutionary leadership up to here. (APPLAUSE) Long live the Cuban Communist Party! (Shouts of “Long live”) Long live the Central Committee! (Shouts of “Long live”) Long live our socialist, communist Revolution! (Shouts of “Long live”) Motherland or death! We will be victorious! Standing ovation Versiones Taquigráficas - Consejo de Estado Fidel Castro Internet Archive
Home Contents Subscribe Write us! [email protected] June 2001 • Vol 1, No. 2 • Fidel Castro Speaks on Globalization The following is the full text of the speech given by President Fidel Castro Ruz at the May Day, 2001, rally in Revolution Square in Havana, Cuba. Distinguished Guests, Workers, Compatriots: Exactly one year ago today, we gathered here for an historic rally. On that day, for the first time in 41 years, the traditional May Day march was changed to a public forum. It was an unforgettable moment in an unforgettable struggle. The filmed images of that memorable day must be carefully preserved, so that future generations can see how their parents and grandparents achieved victory, and so that they may relive in part the emotion of the time. The struggle did not cease when the boy returned with his father; it had barely just begun. We realized that the reasons behind that tragedy and others remained intact, and decided that we would not give up the fight, as we swore in Baraguá, until they had all been removed. After 42 years of heroic resistance to a cruel and genocidal blockade, we have entered the new millennium with renewed energy and greater strength. A new era of struggle was opening. The empire, much more powerful than ever before, had become the sole superpower. But our people, recently freed from neocolonial status, saturated with McCarthyist propaganda and lies, poorly educated and almost illiterate politically, have made a colossal leap in history: they have eradicated illiteracy and graduated in universities hundreds of thousands of professionals with a far greater level of political consciousness than their historical adversary. Our people have now achieved the highest degree of unity ever, and gained vast political experience and moral, patriotic and internationalist strength. These are the people who resolutely endured the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Missile Crisis, the dirty war, an ever more rigorous economic blockade, the demise of the USSR and the socialist bloc, and predictions of the impossibility of survival and an inevitable collapse. A Powerful Enemy Except for Ethics and Ideas Today, we are facing an enemy that is powerful in every way, except for ethics and ideas, with no message or response for the grave political, economic and social problems weighing down on the world today. Internationally, there has never been such confusion, discontent and insecurity. On the brink of a profound political and economic crisis, imperialism cannot escape from its own shadow. It is condemned to plundering the rest of the world to an ever-greater extent, thus fomenting universal discontent and rebellion even among its own allies. Throughout almost two centuries, the indigenous population and other peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean have been the victims of the United States’ policy of expansion to the west and south of the original 13 colonies that declared their independence from British rule in 1776. First, in their advance towards the west they practically exterminated the indigenous peoples. Later, in 1835, they promoted the independence of Texas, where US settlers were already living in large numbers. In 1847, they invaded Mexico, unleashing a brutal war; as a result, in February of 1848, they took possession of 55 percent of Mexico’s territory. And so they continued, exterminating the native peoples or displacing them from the lands they had lived on for centuries, and buying up territories of former European colonial powers to annex them as they had done with Texas or conquer them like the territory stolen from Mexico. Thus, the United States, nurtured by large migrations from Europe in the second half of the 19th century, had become a powerful and prosperous nation, while the states from the Patagonia to the Canadian border that had rid themselves of Spanish colonial domination after the independence struggles begun by Venezuela in 1810, remained divided and isolated. A History of US Colonialism and Neocolonialism On June 20, 1898, the United States launched a military intervention in Cuba, at a moment when, after an heroic and lengthy struggle by its finest sons and daughters, our country was on the verge of achieving its independence from an exhausted and bankrupt Spain. Our country remained occupied by the US forces for almost four years. In 1902, the troops of the United States of America left the island, after the establishment of a neocolony whose natural resources, lands and services it would retain under control with the additional support of an amendment imposed on our Constitution granting the United States the legal right to military intervention in our country. The glorious party created by Martí had been dismantled; the Liberation Army, which had fought throughout 30 years, was disarmed, only to be replaced with an army organized and trained by the United States in the image and likeness of its own. The arbitrary and unfair right to intervene under any pretext was used on more than one occasion. Puerto Rico, Cuba’s twin sister in the liberation struggle, like “the two wings of a bird,” was turned into an US colony, and retains this unfortunate status until today. Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua and other Central American nations, and even Mexico, have been the victims of direct or indirect military intervention by the United States on repeated occasions. The Isthmus of Panama was occupied in order to complete construction of and guarantee access to the strategic canal that the United States controlled for almost a century. The US pervasive presence in the rest of the South American nations was achieved through large investments, coups, military regimes and growing political, ideological and cultural interference. After World War II, the United States ran them all to its liking. The first major curb on US expansionism and political and economic control of Latin America came about in Cuba with the triumph of the Revolution on January 1, 1959. This ushered in a new stage in the history of the hemisphere.
This ushered in a new stage in the history of the hemisphere. The price paid by our country up until today is well known, and it was almost dragged into a nuclear war. Four Decades of Cuban Revolutionary Resistance Everything that has been done in this hemisphere by successive US administrations, right up until now, has been strongly influenced by their obsession and fear over the troubling presence of the Cuban Revolution, from the days of the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs and the Alliance for Progress, to Bush’s statements from the bunker in Quebec, where he invoked the name of José Martí, attributing to him a misinterpreted quote about freedom. Actually, although the triumph of the Revolution troubled them, its remarkable resistance for over four decades sometimes creates the impression of having driven them insane. With a despicable wretchedness that will go down in history as an unprecedented example of infamy, all of the governments of Latin America, with the exception of Mexico, joined more or less willingly in the isolation and blockade of Cuba. The OAS was so severely damaged that it has never recovered. Today, when a massive annexation of Latin American countries to the United States is being plotted, no one can explain the continued existence and spending of money on that repugnant institution, morally bankrupt forever by such an unscrupulous and treacherous behavior. What the OAS did back then, as an instrument of the United States, is what the United States wants to do today with the FTAA, not to isolate Cuba but rather to liquidate sovereignty, to prevent integration, to devour the resources and frustrate the destinies of a group of peoples who—leaving out the English speakers—add up to a total population of more than 500 million, with a shared Latin-based language, culture and history. If the OAS sold its soul to the devil back then, betraying and selling out Cuba, so that the Latin American countries could receive, as a reward, the Cuban sugar quota on the US market totaling several million tons, along with other favors, then what can be expected today of those bourgeois and oligarchic governments, devoid of any political or ethical principles, who voted alongside the United States in Geneva? Out of opportunism or cowardice, they provided the extreme right US government with the pretexts and justifications needed to maintain the genocidal blockade, and even a potential excuse for aggression against the people of Cuba, all served up on a silver platter. Dragged along by the ill-fated annexationist current, it is only logical that many others, in the desperation created by enormous and unpayable debts and total economic dependence, will be led to the suicide of the FTAA. There are Latin American politicians for whom talk of free trade is music to their ears, as if they were still living in the middle of last century, depending solely on the export of basic commodities and clamoring for the removal of US tariff barriers. They have not realized that the world has changed, that many of those commodities, like fibers, rubber and other materials, have been replaced by synthetics, or foodstuffs like sugar by high fructose corn syrup, with a higher sweetening power and fewer calories which is thus preferred by many people; or artificial flavors like vanilla, strawberry and many others that imitate tropical and semi-tropical fruits. Their mindsets are frozen on the demands of half a century ago. Neoliberal poison and other lies have definitely blinded them, and still have large sectors of the population stultified; they do not understand the basics of the problems they suffer, because nothing is explained to them, or information is hidden from them. There is absolutely no doubt that the governments of at least two of the most important countries in Latin America, those of Bolivar’s Venezuela and of Brazil, the largest and most highly populated Latin American nation, understand these realities, and are heading up the resistance. FTAA Would Lead to US Annexation of Latin America For Cuba, it is positively clear that the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas, under the terms, the timetable, the strategy, objectives and procedures imposed by the United States, would inexorably lead to Latin America’s annexation to the United States. This kind of association between an enormous industrial, technological and financial power and countries that suffer tearing poverty, underdevelopment and financial dependence on institutions under the aegis of the United States, which controls, directs and makes the decisions in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and others, imposes such inequality that it is tantamount to nothing less than the total absorption of the economies of the Latin American and Caribbean countries by that of the United States. All of the banks, insurance companies, telecommunications, shipping services and airlines will be US-owned. All business will pass into the hands of US companies, from the big retail store chains to pizza outlets and McDonald’s. The chemical, automotive, machinery and equipment industries, as well as other basic industries will all be US-owned. US transnational companies will own the major research, biotechnology and genetic engineering centers and large pharmaceutical companies. The patents and technologies, almost without exception, will be US-owned. The best Latin American scientists will work in US laboratories. The big hotel chains will be US-owned. The so-called entertainment industry will be an almost complete US monopoly. As an almost exclusive supplier, Hollywood will produce movies and television series for the movie theaters, television networks and videocassette market of Latin America. Our countries, where consumption of these products is already around 80 percent, will see an even greater growth in their prevalence, as destructive to their values and national cultures as they are. But, how very wonderful that two or three Disneylands will surely be built in Central and South America! The Latin American nations would continue to serve basically as sources of raw materials, producers of primary commodities and enormous profits for big transnational capital. The US agricultural sector receives some $80 billion USD in subsidies and will continue receiving them in the future, whatever the disguise, although its per capita and per hectare productivity is much higher, due to the use of large and sophisticated machinery and abundant fertilization.
It will grow genetically modified grains, with much higher crop yields, heedless of its implications for human health. Latin American Food Production Threatened As a consequence, crops of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and other grains will practically disappear from many Latin American countries that will be left with no food security. When a major drought or other disasters affect agricultural production in entire regions of the world, in large countries like China, with abundant hard currency reserves, or India, with fewer reserves but a certain amount of financial resources, they could find themselves obliged to buy tens of millions of tons of grains. If this happened, the prices of these products could reach unattainable levels for many Latin American countries, if their own grain production is wiped out by the FTAA. No matter how large the crop yields are, the United States can only produce a small percentage of the food needed by a growing world population, which is now over 6.1 billion. A decrease in food production in Latin America would affect not only the Latin American countries, but also the rest of the world. Latin America will continue, under ever more difficult and intolerable conditions, to play the sad role of a supplier of raw materials and increasingly cheap labor, as compared to the salaries paid in the United States, which are 15 or 20 times higher than what the big transnational companies pay in the factories they have opened throughout the region. What is more, these factories employ fewer and fewer people as automation expands and productivity grows. Therefore, the notion that large numbers of jobs will be created is an illusion. The agricultural sector, which tends to provide employment for a higher number of workers, will be affected by the elements mentioned earlier. As a result, unemployment will grow considerably. Germany and other European countries have unemployment rates of up to 10 percent, despite the enormously high number of industries and services there. The Latin American nations will be compelled to become large free trade areas with low taxes or none. These countries have begun to compete with each other, seeking foreign investment at any cost. They are invited to produce seasonal vegetables and tropical fruit that could supply the whole US market with less than a million hectares of well-cultivated lands. Perhaps they will be visited by a larger number of American tourists who will travel throughout the vast territory of Central and South America, staying in US-owned hotels, traveling on US-owned airlines and cruise ships, using US-owned communications services, eating in US-owned restaurants, and shopping in US-owned stores, where they will buy goods produced by US-owned companies with Latin American petroleum and raw materials. Latin America will export oil, copper, bauxite, meat (as long as it is free of hoof-and-mouth disease), bananas and other fruits, if there are no non-tariff protectionist measures in place, and perhaps a few handicrafts. The Fruits of Neoliberalism What will be left? The worst paid and most grueling jobs in US-owned companies, or employment as servants in the homes of US executives and managers, highly qualified professionals, or what is left of the local bourgeoisie. Only a minority of the privileged bourgeoisie and the working aristocracy will stand to gain anything. Large masses of workers will be laid off, as is the case today in Argentina, where the unemployment rate is between 15 percent and 20 percent, and this without any kind of unemployment benefits. These are the fruits of neoliberalism, despite the tens of billions of dollars of foreign capital invested, the privatization and sale to foreign companies of almost all state companies, and the enormous debt contracted through the large loans received. The FTAA will mean more neoliberalism, less protection of the national industry and interests, more unemployment, and more social problems. It is absolutely certain that national currencies will be lost. None of them will survive; they will all be replaced by the US dollar. Even without the FTAA, there is already such a rising trend involving numerous countries that follow in the steps of the decision adopted by Ecuador. The US Federal Reserve will dictate the monetary policy of every one of them. The FTAA, which will only benefit big transnational capital, will not benefit American workers either, as many will be laid off. That is why their representatives protested so strongly in Quebec, just as they had fiercely protested before against the WTO in Seattle. If Cuba did not have an independent monetary policy, it would never have achieved the sevenfold appreciation in the value of the peso between 1994 and 1999, nor would it have been possible to endure the special period. Two decisive elements were at play: non-membership in the International Monetary Fund and an independent monetary policy. The minute that everything I have said until now about the FTAA happens, it will no longer be possible to speak of independence, and annexation will begin to be a reality. And this is absolutely not an overstatement. The Nations Will Rise from their Ashes and Unite for a Dignified Destiny The worst, saddest, most shameless and hypocritical thing of all is that they intend to take this monstrous step without consulting their peoples. This is all the democracy that can be expected from the imperialist power and its lackeys. I am firmly convinced that Latin America and the Caribbean can be devoured, albeit never digested, by the decadent empire, because the peoples will ensure that our continent’s nations rise up from their ashes and integrate, as they must integrate and unite in search of a greater, more dignified destiny. However, it would be much better if the hundreds of millions of Latin American and Caribbean citizens were spared the difficult stage of the subsequent struggle for our liberation. We must prevent annexation, and resolutely demand, from this moment forward, that no government be allowed to sell out a nation behind its people’s back! There can be no annexation without a plebiscite!
There can be no annexation without a plebiscite! We must build an awareness of the dangers and of what the FTAA will entail. We must revive Bolívar’s dignity and his dreams, and the dignity and dreams of San Martín, O’Higgins, Sucre, Morazán, Hidalgo, Morelos, Juárez and Martí. (APPLAUSE) Let nobody be fooled into thinking that the peoples will sit back doing nothing and allow themselves to be sold like slaves at an auction! Today, we will stage the first protest. Within a few minutes, we will set out with hundreds of thousands of Cubans, on a Latin American protest march on the United States Interests Section, shouting this slogan: Annexation no, plebiscite yes! Annexation no, plebiscite yes! Annexation no, plebiscite yes! (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “ANNEXATION NO, PLEBISCITE YES!”) Let it ring out loud and clear, and be heard all the way up in Washington! Today, in the company of hundreds of leaders and representatives of the workers of Latin America, the Caribbean, the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa, we say: Latin American and Caribbean Independence or Death! Hasta la victoria siempre! (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “FIDEL! FIDEL!”) Venceremos! © Copyright. 1996-2001. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GRANMA INTERNATIONAL/ ONLINE EDITION (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html) Top Contents Home Subscribe Write us! [email protected]
Fidel Castro Internet Archive The Bells Tolling Today for Grenada May Toll Tomorrow For the Whole World Delivered: November 14, 1983 Source: The African Communist, no. 97; Second Quarter, 1984 Transcribed: David Adams Markup: Zdravko Saveski, 2021 Speech given by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and president of the Councils of State and of Ministers, at the eulogy for the heroes killed in unequal combat against U.S. Imperialism in Grenada. Held in Havana on November 14, 1983. On October 15, 1976, a little over seven years ago, we gathered here, in this same place to deliver a funeral address for the 57 Cubans who were vilely murdered in the Barbados plane sabotage, carried out by men who had been trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Today we have come once again to bid farewell — this time to 24 Cubans who died in Grenada, another island not very far from Barbados, as a result of U.S. military actions. Grenada was one of the smallest independent states in the world, both in territory and population. Even though Cuba is a small, underdeveloped country, it was able to help Grenada considerably, because our efforts — which were modest in quantity though high in quality — meant a lot for a country less than 400 square kilometers in size, with a population of just over 100,000. For instance, the value of our contribution to Grenada in the form of materials, designs and labour in building the new airport came to $60 million at international prices — over $500 per inhabitant. It is as if Cuba -— with a population of almost 10 million — received a project worth $5000 million as a donation. In addition, there was the cooperation of our doctors, teachers and technicians in diverse specialties, plus an annual contribution of Cuban products worth about $3 million. This meant an additional annual contribution of $40 per inhabitant. It is impossible for Cuba to render material assistance on that scale to countries with significantly large populations and territories, but we were able to offer great assistance to a country like tiny Grenada. Many other small Caribbean nations, used to the gross economic and strategic interests of colonialism and imperialism, were amazed by Cuba’s generous assistance to that fraternal people. They may have thought that Cuba’s selfless action was extraordinary; in the midst of the U.S. government’s dirty propaganda, some may even have found it difficult to understand. Our people felt such deep friendship for Bishop and Grenada, and our respect for that country and its sovereignty was so irreproachable, that we never dared to express any opinions about what was being done there or how it was being done. In Grenada, we followed the same principles we apply to all revolutionary nations and movements: full respect for their policies, criteria and decisions; expressing our views on any matter only when asked to do so. Imperialism is incapable of understanding that the secret of our excellent relations with revolutionary countries and movements in the world lies precisely in this respect. The U.S. government looked down on Grenada and hated Bishop. It wanted to destroy Grenada’s process and obliterate its example. It had even prepared military plans for invading the island — as Bishop had charged nearly two years ago — but it lacked pretext. Socio-economically, Grenada was actually advancing satisfactorily. The people had received many benefits, in spite of the hostile policy of the United States, and Grenada’s Gross National Product was growing at a good rate in the midst of the world crisis. Bishop was not an extremist; rather, he was a true revolutionary — conscientious and honest. Far from disagreeing with his intelligent and realistic policy, we fully sympathized with it, since it was rigorously adapted to his country’s specific conditions and possibilities. Grenada had become a true symbol of independence and progress in the Caribbean. Internal Conflict No one could have foreseen the tragedy that was drawing near. Attention was focused on other parts of the world. Unfortunately, the Grenadian revolutionaries themselves unleashed the events that opened the door to imperialist aggression. Hyenas emerged from the revolutionary ranks. Today no one can yet say whether those who used the dagger of division and internal confrontation did so motu proprio or were inspired and egged on by imperialism. It is something that could have been done by the CIA — and, if somebody else was responsible, the CIA could not have done it any better. The fact is that allegedly revolutionary arguments were used, invoking the purest principles of Marxism-Leninism and charging Bishop with practising a personality cult and drawing away from the Leninist norms and methods of leadership. In our view, nothing could be more absurd than to attribute such tendencies to Bishop. It was impossible to imagine anyone more noble, modest and unselfish. He could never have been guilty of being authoritarian; if he had any defect, it was his excessive tolerance and trust. Were those who conspired against him within the Grenadian Party, army and security, by any chance, a group of extremists drunk on political theory? Were they simply a group of ambitious, opportunistic individuals, or were they enemy agents who wanted to destroy the Grenadian Revolution? History alone will have the last word, but it would not be the first time that such things occurred in a revolutionary process. In our view, Coard’s group objectively destroyed the Revolution and opened the door to imperialist aggression. Whatever their intentions, the brutal assassination of Bishop and his most loyal closest comrades is a fact that can never be justified in that or any other revolution. As the October 20 statement by the Cuban Party and government put it, “No crime can be committed in the name of revolution and liberty.” In spite of his very close and affectionate links with our Party’s leadership, Bishop never said anything about the internal dissensions that were developing. To the contrary, in his last conversation with us he was self-critical about his work regarding attention to the armed forces and the mass organizations.
To the contrary, in his last conversation with us he was self-critical about his work regarding attention to the armed forces and the mass organizations. Nearly all of our Party and state leaders spent many friendly, fraternal hours with him on the evening of October 7, before his return trip to Grenada. Coard’s group never had such relations nor such intimacy and trust with us. Actually, we did not even know that group existed. It is to our Revolution’s credit that, in spite of our profound indignation over Bishop’s removal from office and arrest, we fully refrained from interfering in Grenada’s internal affairs, even though our construction workers and all our other cooperation personnel in Grenada — who did not hesitate to confront the Yankee soldiers with the weapons Bishop himself had given them for their defense in case of an attack from abroad — could have been a decisive factor in those internal events. Those weapons were never meant to be used in an internal conflict in Grenada and we would never have allowed them to be so used; we would never have been willing to use them to shed a single drop of Grenadian blood. On October 12, Bishop was removed from office by the Central Committee, on which the conspirators had attained a majority. On the 13th, he was placed under house arrest. On the 19th, the people took to the streets and freed Bishop. Whiteman, Jacqueline Creft and other excellent revolutionary leaders were murdered. As soon as the internal dissensions which came to light on October 12 were manifest the Yankee imperialists decided to invade. The message sent by the leadership of the Cuban Party to Coard’s group on October 15 has been made public: in it, we expressed our deep concern over both the internal and external consequences of the split and appealed to the common sense, serenity, wisdom and generosity of revolutionaries. This reference to generosity was an appeal not to use violence against Bishop and his followers. This group of Coard’s that seized power in Grenada expressed serious reservations regarding Cuba from the very beginning because of our well-known and unquestionable friendship with Bishop. The national and international press has published our strong denunciation of the events of October 19, the day Bishop was murdered. Our relations with Austin’s short-lived government, in which Coard was really in charge, were actually cold and tense, so that, at the time of the criminal Yankee aggression, there was no coordination whatsoever between the Grenadian army and the Cuban construction workers and other cooperation personnel. The basic points of the messages sent to our embassy in Grenada on October 12 through 25, the day on which the invasion took place, have been made public. These documents stand in history as irrefutable proof of our clean principled position regarding Grenada. Imperialism, however, presented the events as the coming to power of a group of hard-line Communists, loyal allies of Cuba. Were they really Communists? Were they really hard-liners? Could they really be loyal allies of Cuba? Or were they rather conscious or unconscious tools of Yankee imperialism? The Ultra-Left Look at the history of the revolutionary movement, and you will find more than one connection between imperialism and those who take positions that appear to be on the extreme left. Aren’t Pol Pot and Ieng Sary — the ones responsible for the genocide in Kampuchea — the most loyal allies Yankee imperialism has in Southeast Asia at present? In Cuba, ever since the Grenadian crisis began, we have called Coard’s group — to give it a name — the “Pol Pot group.” Our relations with the new leaders of Grenada were to be subjected to profound analysis, as was set forth in the October 20 statement by the Party and government of Cuba. In it, we also stated that due to our basic regard for the Grenadian people, we would not rush to “take any steps regarding technical and economic cooperation which may jeopardize the basic services and vital economic interests of the people of Grenada.” We could not accept the idea of leaving the Grenadians without doctors or leaving the airport, which was vital to the nation’s economy, unfinished. Most certainly, our construction workers were to leave Grenada when that project was completed, and the weapons that Bishop had given them were to be returned to the government. It was even possible that our very bad relations with the new government would make it necessary for us to leave much earlier. The thing that placed Cuba in a morally complex, difficult situation was the announcement that Yankee naval forces were en route to Grenada. Under those circumstances, we couldn’t possibly leave the country. If the imperialists really intended to attack Grenada, it was our duty to stay there. To withdraw at that time would have been dishonorable and could even have triggered aggression in that country then and in Cuba later on. In addition, events unfolded with such incredible speed that if the evacuation had been planned for, there would not have been time to carry it out. In Grenada however, the government was morally indefensible, and, since the Party, the government and the army had divorced themselves from the people, it was also impossible to defend the nation militarily, because a revolutionary war is only feasible and justifiable when united with the people. We could only fight, therefore, if we were directly attacked. There was no alternative. It should nevertheless be noted that, despite these adverse circumstances, a number of Grenadian soldiers died in heroic combat against the invaders. (APPLAUSE) The internal events, however, in no way justified Yankee intervention. Since when has the government of the United States become the arbiter of internal conflicts between revolutionaries in any given country? What right did Reagan have to rend his made over the death of Bishop, whom he so hated and opposed? What reason could there be for its brutal violation of the sovereignty of Grenada — a small independent nation that was a respected and acknowledged member of the international community? It would be the same as if another country believed it had the right to intervene in the United States because of the repulsive assassination of Martin Luther King or so many other outrages, such as those that have been committed against the black Hispanic minorities in the United States, or to intervene because John Kennedy was murdered. The same may be said of the argument that the lives of 1000 Americans were in danger.
There are many times more U.S. citizens in dozens of other countries in the world. Does this, perchance, imply the right to intervene when internal conflicts arise in those countries? There are tens of thousands of Grenadians in the United States, England and Trinidad. Could tiny Grenada intervene if domestic policy problems arose that pose some threat to its compatriots in any of those countries? Putting aside the fallacy and falseness of such pretexts for invading Grenada, is this really an international norm that can be sustained? A thousand lessons in Marxism could not teach us any better the dirty, perfidious and aggressive nature of imperialism than the attack unleashed against Grenada at dawn on October 25 and its later development. In order to justify its invasion of Grenada and its subsequent actions, the U.S. government and its spokesmen told lies; Reagan personally told the first 13. 1. Cuba had to do with the coup d’etat and the death of Bishop. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 2. The American students were in danger of being taken hostage. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 3. The main purpose of the invasion was to protect the lives of American citizens. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 4. The invasion was a multinational operation undertaken at the request of Mr. Scoon and the eastern Caribbean nations. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 5. Cuba was planning to invade and occupy Grenada. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 6. Grenada was being turned into an important Soviet-Cuban military base. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 7. The airport under construction was not civilian but military. (SH0UTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 8. The weapons in Grenada would be used to export subversion and terrorism. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 9. The Cubans fired first. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 10. There were over 1000 Cubans in Grenada. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 11. Most of the Cubans were not construction workers but professional soldiers. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 12. The invading forces took care not to destroy civilian property or inflict civilian casualties. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 13. The U.S. troops would remain in Grenada for a week. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 14. Missile silos were being built in Grenada. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 15. The vessel Viet Nam Heroico was transporting special weapons. (SHOUTS OF “THAT S A LIE!”) 16. Cuba was warned of the invasion. (SHOUTS OF “THAT S A LIE!”) 17. Five hundred Cubans are fighting in the mountains of Grenada. (SHOUTS OF “THAT S A LIE!”) 18. Cuba has issued instructions for reprisals to be taken against U.S. citizens. (SHOUTS OF “THAT’S A LIE!”) 19. The journalists were excluded for their own protection. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “LIARS!” “FIDEL, FIDEL, GIVE ‘EM HELL;
(APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “LIARS!” “FIDEL, FIDEL, GIVE ‘EM HELL; LET’S MAKE ‘EM RESPECT US WELL!”) None of these assertions were proved, none are true and all have been refuted by the facts. This cynical way of lying in order to justify invading a tiny country reminds us of the methods Adolf Hitler used during the years leading up to World War II. The U.S. students and officials of the medical school located there acknowledged that they were given full guarantees for U.S. citizens and the necessary facilities for those who wanted to leave the country. Moreover, Cuba had informed the U.S. government on October 22 that no foreign citizens, including Cubans, had been disturbed, and it offered to cooperate in solving any difficulty that might arise, so that problems could be settled without violence or intervention in that country. No U.S. citizen had been disturbed at all prior to the invasion, and if anything endangered them, it was the war unleashed by the United States. Cuba’s instructions to its personnel not to interfere with any actions to evacuate U.S. citizens in the area of the runway under construction near the university contributed to protecting tie U.S. citizens residing in that country. Reagan’s reference to the possibility that Grenada might turn into another Iran — a reference calculated to appeal to the U.S. feelings wounded in that episode — is a demagogic, politicking, dishonest argument. The assertion that the new airport was a military one — an old lie that the Reagan administration had dwelt on a lot — was categorically refuted by the English capitalist firm that supplied and installed the electrical and technical equipment for that airport. The British technicians of the Plessey company, which has made a name for itself internationally as a specialist in this field, worked alongside the Cuban construction workers, to whose civilian worker status they attest. Several countries of the European community that are members of the Atlantic alliance cooperated in one way or another with the airport. How can anyone •imagine them helping Cuba to build a military airport in Grenada? However, the idea that Grenada was being turned into a Soviet-Cuban base is refuted by the proved fact that there wasn’t even one Soviet military adviser on the island. Agreements for Co-operation The supposedly secret documents that fell into the hands of the United States and were published by the Yankee administration a few days after the invasion refer to the agreement between the governments of Cuba and Grenada by virtue of which our country was to send Grenada 27 military advisers, which could later be increased to 40 — figures that coincide with the ones Cuba published on the number of advisers, which was 22 on the day of the attack, to which were added a similar number of translators and service personnel from the mission. Nowhere in those documents that they have been crowing over is there something that has anything to do with the idea of military bases in Grenada. What they do show is that the weapons that the Soviet Union supplied to the government of Grenada for the army and the militia were subject to an article that prohibited their export to third countries, which refutes the idea that Grenada had been turned into an arsenal for supplying weapons to subversive, terrorist organizations, as the present administration likes to call all the revolutionary and national liberation movements. No weapons ever left Grenada for any other country, and, therefore, Reagan can never prove that any did. The assertion that Cuba was about to invade and occupy Grenada is so unrealistic, absurd, crazy and alien to our principles and international policy that it cannot even be taken seriously. What has been proved is the absolutely scrupulous way in which we refrained from meddling in the internal affairs of that country, in spite of our deep affection for Bishop and our total rejection of Coard and his group’s conspiracy and coup, which could serve only the interests of imperialism and its plans for destroying the Grenadian Revolution. The messages containing precise, categorical instructions to our embassy in Grenada, which have been widely publicized by the government of Cuba, constitute irrefutable proof of the clear position of principles maintained by the leadership of our Party and state with regard to the internal events in Grenada. The civilian status of the vast majority of the Cuban cooperation personnel in Grenada has been shown to the whole world by the hundreds of foreign journalists who saw them arriving in our country and who were able to interview each and every one of them. Nearly 50 percent of them were over 40 years old. Who could question their status as civilian cooperation personnel and workers with long years of experience on their jobs? Cuba Told The Truth When the U.S. government spokesmen asserted that there were from 1,000 to 1,500 Cubans in Grenada at the time of the invasion and that hundreds of them were still fighting in the mountains, Cuba published the exact number of Cuban citizens who were in Grenada on the day of the invasion: 784, including diplomatic personnel with their children and other relatives. The agencies that sent them and the kind of work they did were also reported, as well as the instructions given them to fight in their work areas and camps if attacked, and the fact that it was impossible — according to the information we had — for hundreds to remain in the mountains. Later, the names and jobs of all cooperation workers were published, as well as the known or probable situation of each one. The facts have shown that the information provided by Cuba was absolutely true. There isn’t a single fact in all that information that could be proven false. The assertion that the Cubans initiated the acts of hostility is equally false and cynical. The irrefutable truth is that the Cubans were sleeping and their weapons were stored at the time of the air drop on the runway and around the camps. They had not been distributed. There weren’t enough to go around, and they weren’t distributed until the landing was already under way, and that is when the Cuban personnel went to the places assigned to them for that emergency. Even so, our personnel, now organized and armed, had time to see the U.S. paratroopers regrouping on the runway and the first planes landing. That was the invaders’ weakest moment.
If the Cubans had fired first, they would have killed or wounded dozens — perhaps hundreds — of U.S. soldiers in those early hours. (APPLAUSE) What is strictly historical and strictly true is that the fighting began when the U.S. troops advanced toward the Cubans in a belligerent way. It is also true that when a group of unarmed cooperation personnel was captured, they were used as hostages and forced to lead the way in front of the U.S. soldiers. No Warning The invasion of Grenada was a treacherous surprise attack, with no previous warning at all — just like Pearl Harbour, just like the Nazis. The note from the government of the United States to the government of Cuba on Tuesday, October 24, in an attempted response to our note of Saturday, October 22, was delivered at 8:30 in the morning, three hours after the landing had taken place and an hour and a half after the U.S. troops began attacking our compatriots in Grenada. Actually, on the afternoon of the 25th, the U.S. government sent the government of Cuba a deceitful note that led us to believe that the fighting would cease in a reasonable and honorable manner, thus avoiding greater bloodshed. Although we immediately responded to that note, accepting that possibility, what the U.S. government did was to land the 82nd Airborne Division at dawn on the 26th and attack with all its forces the Cuban position that was still resisting. Is this the way a serious government behaves? Is this the way to warn of an attack? Was this the way to avoid greater bloodshed? Mr. Scoon blatantly declared that he approved of the invasion but that he had not previously asked anyone to invade Grenada. A few days after the landing, Mr. Scoon — lodged in the Guam helicopter-carrier — signed a letter officially requesting the intervention. Reagan could not prove any of his false assertions. When as a pretext for keeping the Vietnam Heroico — which was in the port of St. George’s on the day of the invasion — from being used as a means of transportation for evacuating the Cuban hostages from Grenada, it was alleged that it carried special weapons, its captain was immediately asked if by any chance he carried weapons on board, and the only thing that was determined was that it had just one fearful weapon — its name: Vietnam. (APPLAUSE) The slanderous charge that Cuba had given instructions to carry out actions against U.S. citizens in other countries was given a worthy, official and public reply based on reality, proven by the history of the Revolution, that Cuba has always been opposed to acts of reprisal against innocent people. The government of the United States has not condescended to offer the number of people arrested nor the figure of Grenadian losses, including civilian losses. A hospital for the mentally ill was bombed, killing dozens of patients. And where is Mr. Reagan’s promise that U.S. troops would withdraw in a week? President Reagan himself in his first address to the U.S. people, at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the invasion, in a speech prepared before the landing, stated that the situation was under control. That same day, his own spokesmen described the resistance the invading forces were facing. The military ride the Pentagon had planned would take four hours did not take into account the tenacious and heroic resistance of the Cuban cooperation personnel and the Grenadian soldiers. (APPLAUSE) Twisting the Truth Who, then, has told the truth, and who has cynically lied about the events in Grenada? No foreign journalists — not even those from the United States — were allowed to see and report on the events on the spot. The pretext that this prohibition was a security measure for the journalists is both superficial and ridiculous. What they obviously wanted was to monopolize and manipulate the information so they could lie without any let or hindrance to world public opinion, including the people of the United States. This was the only way they could spread deliberate lies and falsehoods of all kinds — which would be difficult to clear up and refute after their initial impact and effect on the people of the United States. Even in this, the method used by the U.S. administration was fascist. What is left now, objectively, of those 19 assertions? Where are the silos for strategic missiles that were being built in Grenada? But all those lies that the world did not believe, told by the U.S. president and his spokesmen, made a tremendous impact on U.S. public opinion. Moreover, the invasion of Grenada was presented to the U.S. people as a great victory for Reagan’s foreign policy against the socialist camp and the revolutionary movement. It was linked to the tragic death of 240 U.S. soldiers in Beirut, to the memory of the hostages in Iran, to the humiliating defeat in Vietnam and to the resurgence of the United States as an influential power on the world scene. A dirty, dishonest appeal was made to U.S.
A dirty, dishonest appeal was made to U.S. patriotism, to national pride, to the grandeur and glory of the nation. This was how they got a majority of the U.S. people — it is said that it was 65 percent at first and then 71 percent — to support the monstrous crime of invading a sovereign country without any justification, the reprehensible method of launching a surprise attack, the press censorship and all the other similar procedures the U.S. government used for invading and justifying its invasion of Grenada. Hitler acted the same way when he occupied Austria in 1938 and annexed Sudetenland, in Czechoslovakia, in the name of German pride, German grandeur and glory and the happiness and security of German subjects. If a poll had been taken in Hitler Germany at that time, in the midst of the chauvinistic wave unleashed by the Nazis, around 80 or 90 percent of the people would have approved of those aggressions. The deplorable, truly dangerous fact — not only for the peoples of the Caribbean, Central America and Latin America, but for all the peoples of the world — is that, when world opinion unanimously denounced the warmongering, aggressive, unjustifiable action that violated a people’s sovereignty and all international norms and principles, most of the people of the United States- manipulated, disinformed and deceived-supported the monstrous crime committed by the government. There is something even more disturbing: when this about-face was effected in U.S. public opinion, many U.S. politicians who initially had opposed these events ended up by condoning Reagan’s actions, and the press — censored, humiliated and kept at a distance from the events — ended up moderating its complaints and criticisms. Are these, perchance, the virtues of a society where the opinion and the political and informational institutions can be grossly manipulated by its rulers, as they were in German society in the time of fascism? Where is the glory, the grandeur and the victory in invading and defeating one of the tiniest countries in the world, of no economic or strategic significance? Where is the heroism in fighting a handful of workers and other civilian cooperation personnel whose heroic resistance — in spite of the surprise element; the shortage of ammunition; and their disadvantages in terms offered in, arms and numbers — against the air, sea and land forces of the most powerful imperialist country in the world forced it to bring in the 82nd Airborne Division, when the last stronghold was being defended at dawn on October 26 by barely 50 fighters? (APPLAUSE) The United States did not achieve any victory at all — not political or military or moral. If anything, it was a Pyrrhic military victory and a profound moral defeat, as we pointed out on another occasion. The imperialist government of the United States wanted to kill the symbol of the Grenadian Revolution, but the symbol was already dead. The Grenadian revolutionaries themselves destroyed it with their split and their colossal errors. We believe that, after the death of Bishop and his closest comrades, after the army fired on the people and after the Party and the government divorced themselves from the masses and isolated themselves from the world, the Grenadian revolutionary process could not survive. In its efforts to destroy a symbol, the United States killed a corpse and brought the symbol back to life at the same time. (APPLAUSE) Was it for this that it challenged international law and won the repudiation and condemnation of the world? Does it feel such contempt for the rest of mankind? Is that contempt really so great that Mr. Reagan’s appetite for breakfast on November 3 was not at all affected, as he declared before the press? Threat to World Peace If unfortunately all this were true — and it seems to be — the invasion of Grenada should lead us to an awareness of the realities and dangers that threaten the world. Mr. O’Neill, speaker of the House of Representatives, said that it was sinful that a man who was totally uninformed and ignorant about the international problems and who doesn’t even read the documents was president of the United States. If we consider that the United States has powerful sophisticated means of conventional and nuclear warfare and that the president of that country can declare war without consulting anyone, it is not only sinful but truly dramatic and tragic for all mankind. An air of triumph reigns in the Reagan administration. The echoes of the last shots in Grenada have barely died away and there is talk of intervening in El Salvador, Nicaragua and even Cuba. In the Middle East and Southern Africa imperialism’s acts of interference and military aggression against progressive countries and, national liberation movements continue unabated. In Europe, the first of the 572 Pershing and Cruise missiles are already being deployed, surrounding the USSR and other socialist countries with a deadly ring of nuclear weapons that can reach their territories in a matter of minutes. Not just the small countries, but all mankind is threatened. The bells tolling today for Grenada may toll tomorrow for the whole world. The most prestigious and experienced scientists and doctors assure us that man could not survive a global nuclear conflict. The destructive power of these stockpiled weapons is a million times greater than that of the unsophisticated bombs, that wiped out the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in just a few seconds. This is what the Reagan administration’s aggressive, warmongering policy can lead to. Meanwhile, the arms race is already a reality in the midst of the worst economic crisis the world has witnessed since the ’30s. And, with the problems of development of the vast majority of the peoples in the world still to be solved, who can feel confidence in a government that acts as precipitately, rashly and cynically as the U.S. government did in Grenada? Reagan did not even bother to listen to the advice of a government as closely linked to him politically, ideologically and militarily as the British government. It is not strange that, in a poll taken just a few days ago, more than 90 percent of the British were categorically opposed to• the United States’ having the unilateral prerogative of using the Cruise missiles that are being deployed there.
In our hemisphere, just a year and a half ago, a NATO power used sophisticated war means to shed Argentine blood in the Malvinas. The Reagan administration supported that action. It did not even consider the Organization of American States or the so-called security pacts and agreements, but scornfully pushed them aside. Now, basing itself on the alleged request of a phantasmagoric Organization of Eastern Caribbean states, it has invaded Grenada and shed Caribbean blood and Cuban blood. Nicaragua paid a price of over forty thousand lives for freedom, and nearly a thousand more sons of that noble people have been killed in the attacks made by mercenary bands organized, trained and equipped by the U.S. government. In El Salvador, over 50,000 people have been murdered by a genocidal regime whose army is equipped trained and directed by the United States. In Guatemala, more than 100,000 have died at the hands of the repressive system installed by the CIA in 1954 when it overthrew the progressive Arbenz government. How many have died in Chile since imperialism staged the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende? How many have died in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. Brazil and Bolivia in the last 15 years? What a high price our people have paid in blood, sacrifice, poverty and mourning for imperialist domination and the unjust social system it has imposed on our nations! Our Ideas Will Multiply Imperialism is bent on destroying symbols, because it knows the value of symbols, of examples and of ideas. It wanted to destroy them in Grenada and it wants to destroy them in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cuba; but symbols, examples and ideas cannot be destroyed. When their enemies think they have destroyed them, what they have actually done is made them multiply. (APPLAUSE) In trying to wipe out the first Christians, the Roman emperors spread Christianity throughout the world. Likewise, all attempts to destroy our ideas will only multiply them. Grenada has already multiplied the Salvadoran, Nicaraguan and Cuban revolutionaries’ patriotic conviction and fighting spirit. (APPLAUSE) It has been proved that the best U.S. troops can be fought and that they are not feared. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS) The imperialists must not ignore the fact that they will encounter fierce resistance wherever they attack a revolutionary people. Let us hope that their Pyrrhic victory in Grenada and their air of triumph don’t go to their heads, leading them to commit serious, irreversible errors. They will not find in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cuba the particular circumstances of revolutionaries divided among themselves and divorced from the people that they found in tiny Grenada. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS) In more than three years of heroic struggle, the Salvadoran revolutionaries have become experienced, fearsome and invincible fighters. There are thousands of them who know the land inch by inch, veterans of dozens of victorious combats who are accustomed to fighting-and winning when the odds are one to ten against elite troops, trained, armed and advised by the United States. Their unity is more solid and indestructible than ever. In Nicaragua, the imperialists would have to confront a deeply patriotic and revolutionary people that is united, organized, armed and ready to fight and that can never be subjugated. (APPLAUSE) With regard to Cuba, if in Grenada, the imperialists had to bring in an elite division to fight against a handful of isolated men struggling in a small stronghold, lacking fortifications, a thousand miles from their homeland, how many divisions would they need against millions of combatants fighting on their own soil alongside their own people? (PROLONGED APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS) Our country — as we have already said on other occasions — might be wiped off the face of the earth, but it will never be conquered and subjugated (PROLONGED APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “COMMANDER IN CHIEF WE AWAIT YOUR ORDERS!”) In the present conditions of our continent, a U.S. war against a Latin American people would raise the morale of all the peoples of Latin America and turn their feelings against the aggressors. A bottomless abyss would be opened between peoples that, because they are in the same hemisphere, are called upon to live in peace, friendship and mutual respect, and cooperate with one another. The experiences of Grenada will be examined in detail to extract the utmost benefit from them for use in case of another attack against a country where there are Cuban cooperation personnel or on our own homeland. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS) The Cubans who were captured and virtually turned into hostages had an unforgettable experience of what a country occupied by Yankee invading troops is like. The physical and psychological treatment given the cooperation personnel who were taken prisoner was insulting and a cause for indignation, and promises of all kinds were made to each of them to try to get them to go to the United States. But they were not able to break their steel like staunchness. Not a single one deserted his homeland. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS) There was no manipulation of the news, nothing was hidden from the people, in our country. All reports concerning the invasion that were received directly from Grenada were transmitted to our population just as they arrived, even though the ones on October 26 turned out to be exaggerated. As a matter of principle, at no time were efforts made to play down the seriousness of the situation or to minimize the magnitude of the dangers facing our compatriots. We are deeply grateful to the International Committee of the Red Cross (APPLAUSE) for its interest, dedication and efficient efforts to identify and evacuate the wounded, sick and other prisoners and the dead as quickly as possible. We are also grateful to the governments of Spain and Colombia for the immediate efforts they made in this regard. (APPLAUSE) In bidding farewell to our beloved brothers who died heroically in combat, fulfilling with honour their patriotic and internationalist duties, and in expressing our deepest solidarity to their loved ones, we do not forget that there are Grenadian mothers and U.S.
mothers who are crying for their sons who died in Grenada. (APPLAUSE) We send our condolences to the mothers and other relatives of the Grenadians who were killed and also to the mothers and other relatives of the U.S. soldiers who died because — they, who also suffer from the loss of close relatives, are not to blame for their government’s warmongering, aggressive, irresponsible actions; they, too, are its victims. (APPLAUSE) Every day, every hour, every minute — at work, at our study and combat positions — we will remember our comrades who died in Grenada. (APPLAUSE) The men whom we will bury this afternoon fought for us and for the world. They may seem to be corpses. Reagan wants to make corpses of all our people, men, women, the elderly and the children; he wants to make a corpse out of all mankind. But the people shall struggle to preserve their becoming a huge cemetery; they will struggle and pay the price necessary for mankind to survive. However, they are not corpses; they are symbols. They did not even die in the land where they were born. There, far away from Cuba, where they were contributing with the noble sweat of their internationalist work in a country poorer and smaller than ours, they were also capable of shedding their blood and offering their lives. But in that trench, they knew they were also defending their own people and their own homeland. It is impossible to express the generosity of human beings and their willingness to make sacrifices in a more pure way. Their example will be multiplied, their ideas will be multiplied and they themselves will be multiplied in us. No power, no weapons, no forces can ever prevail over the patriotism, internationalism, feelings of human brotherhood and communist consciousness which they embody. We shall be like them, in work and in combat! (APPLAUSE) Patria o Muerte! Venceremos! (OVATION) Fidel Castro Internet Archive \| Grenadian Revolution Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us Jul/Aug 2007 • Vol 7, No. 4 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! Nobody Wants to Take the Bull by the Horns By Fidel Castro Ruz On March 28, less than two months ago, when Bush proclaimed his diabolical idea of producing fuel from food, after a meeting with the most important U.S. automobile manufacturers, I wrote my first reflection. The head of the empire was bragging that the United States was now the first world producer of ethanol, using corn as raw material. Hundreds of factories were being built or enlarged in the United States just for that purpose. During those days, the industrialized and rich nations were already toying with the same idea of using all kinds of cereals and oil seeds, including sunflower and soy which are excellent sources of proteins and oils. That’s why I chose to title that reflection: “More Than 3 Billion People in the World Are Being Condemned to a Premature Death from Hunger and Thirst.” The dangers for the environment and for the human species were a topic that I had been meditating on for years. What I never imagined was the imminence of the danger. We as yet were not aware of the new scientific information about the celerity of climatic changes and their immediate consequences. On April 3, after Bush’s visit to Brazil, I wrote my reflections about “The internationalization of genocide.” At the same time, I warned that the deadly and sophisticated weapons that were being produced in the United States and in other countries could annihilate the life of the human species in a matter of days. To give humanity a respite and an opportunity to science and to the dubious good sense of the decision-makers, it is not necessary to take food away from two-thirds of the inhabitants of the planet. We have supplied information about the savings that could be made simply by replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones, using approximate calculations. They are numbers followed by 11 and 12 zeros. The first corresponds to hundreds of billions of dollars saved in fuel each year, and the second to trillions of dollars in necessary investments to produce that electricity by merely changing light bulbs, meaning less than 10 percent of the total expenses and a considerable saving of time. With complete clarity, we have expressed that CO2 emissions, besides other pollutant gases, have been leading us quickly towards a rapid and inexorable climatic change. It was not easy to deal with these topics because of their dramatic and almost fatal content. The fourth reflection was titled: “It is imperative to immediately have an energy revolution.” Proof of the waste of energy in the United States and of the inequality of its distribution in the world is that in the year 2005, there were less than 15 automobiles for each thousand people in China; there were 514 in Europe and 940 in the United States. The last of these countries, one of the richest territories in hydrocarbons, today suffers from a large deficit of oil and gas. According to Bush, these fuels must be extracted from foods, which are needed for the more and more hungry bellies of the poor of this Earth. On May Day 2006, I ended my speech to the people with the following words: “If the efforts being made by Cuba today were imitated by all the other countries in the world, the following would happen: “First, the proved and potential hydrocarbon reserves would last twice as long. “Second, the pollution unleashed on the environment by these hydrocarbons would be halved. “Third, the world economy would have a break, since the enormous volume of transportation means and electrical appliances should be recycled. “Fourth, a fifteen-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants could be declared.” Changing light bulbs was the first thing we did in Cuba, and we have cooperated with various Caribbean nations to do the same. In Venezuela, the government has replaced 53 million incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent in more than 95 percent of the homes receiving electrical power. All the other measures to save energy are being resolutely carried out. Everything I am saying has been proven. Why is it that we just hear rumors without the leadership of industrialized countries openly committing to an energy revolution, which implies changes in concepts and hopes about growth and consumerism that have contaminated quite a few poor nations? Could it be that there is some other way of confronting the extremely serious dangers threatening us all? Nobody wants to take the bull by the horns. —CubaNews, May 22, 2007 Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2007. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
Home Contents Subscribe Write us! [email protected] May 2002 • Vol 2, No. 5 • Speech by Fidel Castro President of Cuba at the International Workers’ Day Celebration in Revolution Square, Havana, May 1, 2002 Distinguished guests; Dear countrymen: We were condemned in Geneva by those who believe that this sea of people gathered here, which can be seen from every corner of the globe, has been deprived of its human rights. I am certain that not one of those Latin American countries that promoted, co-sponsored or supported this project could gather even 5 percent of the number here in their respective capitals Are these fanatic, ignorant and uncultured individuals who lack any historical or political knowledge? If we were to ask this mass of people if there were any amongst them who could not read or write; or if there were any functional illiterate people who had never studied beyond grammar school, not one person could raise their hand. But if we were to ask how many of this same mass have the education of a ninth grader or above, more than 90 percent, would raise their hands. The only ones who wouldn’t raise their hands would be the students who haven’t yet reached their 15th birthdays. Our people’s glorious tradition of rebellion and patriotic struggle, to which we must today add a full and profound understanding of freedom, equality and human dignity; their solidarity and internationalist spirit; their self-confidence and heroic conduct; 43 years of tenacious and unrelenting struggle against the powerful empire; a broad and solid political culture and an extraordinary humanism—all of these qualities cultivated by the Revolution—have made Cuba a unique country. Wretched indeed is the destiny of hundreds of millions of people in this part of the world who, from a truly human perspective, have been as yet unable to emerge from humanity’s prehistory. And it will not be possible for them to escape such condition while the pillage that slaughtered tens of millions of their native ancestors, successively turning their countries into colonies, neo-colonies and economically dependent and underdeveloped countries, continues to govern their destiny. Events prior to, during and after Geneva are barely distinguishable from the shameful history with which our people have been more than familiar since the very first days after the triumph of the Revolution on January 1st, 1959. Cuba was the last Latin American country to free itself from Spanish colonialism after a heroic and lone struggle. Yet, it was unable to enjoy that victory, as it immediately fell in the hands of the fledgling North American empire, from which it once again liberated itself with the same determination and heroism 61 years later although it would be disgracefully abandoned and betrayed by every other Latin American government. Every oligarchy and bourgeois government joined against Cuba No book by Marx or Lenin could illustrate the anti-national, submissive and treacherous nature of the Latin American oligarchies and the true significance of imperialism for the destiny of our people as clearly as the last 43 years of our Revolution’s history. Every oligarchic and bourgeois government joined in the imperialist policy of isolation, blockade and aggression against Cuba, the sole exception being a country that had experienced its own great social revolution some decades before, the same that brought justice and real progress to the people of a nation mutilated by the insatiable expansionism of its northern neighbor and made the martyr on numerous occasions throughout its hazardous and painful history of foreign intervention and conquest. Tragically, this time the exception has become rule. Cuba is no longer the illiterate, uncultured and inexperienced country of those early days. Today, the Latin American population, that numbered 208 millions at that time including the English-speaking Caribbean nations, have swelled to 526 millions. They have also had the opportunity to learn firsthand the meaning of imperialist domination, exploitation, injustice and pillage. Despite the deluge of slander and lies against our exemplary people and their admirable struggle, and in the face of countless capitulations across the globe, there are ever more people who realize that Cuba is a powerful moral force, that defends the truth and shows its solidarity with other people of the world. Our Latin American brothers have repeatedly been told stories as fantastic as those in the “Arabian nights,” in which they believe less and less every day. For 50 years they have been told that the hundreds of thousands of children that die every year due to neglect and hunger; the millions that work for pitiful salaries cleaning car windshields or shoes, or being traded or sexually exploited instead of going to school, represent democracy and respect for human rights. Real nature of capitalist rule in Latin American “democracies” That the hundreds of millions of human beings living in poverty despite the immense wealth and natural resources that surround them; the vast number of unemployed and underemployed people and informal laborers who survive without the slightest aid, social security or protection; the medical neglect of mothers, children, old people and the poor population in general; the marginalization, drugs, lack of security and crime, are called democracy; are called respect for human rights. That the death squads, summary executions, torture, and the vanishing and murder of people; that the bribery, misappropriation, diversion and bare-faced robbery of public funds while schools and hospitals are closed, national assets and resources are privatized or often given away to domestic and foreign friends and partners in crime and corruption, constitute the fullest expression of democracy and human rights. It doesn’t occur to them that the economic, political and social system that they defend is a total negation of all possibility of equality, freedom, democracy, human dignity and justice. An illiterate person or one whose education barely surpasses 4th grade, or one who lives in poverty or extreme poverty, or is unemployed or lives in shanty towns where the most unimaginable conditions are rife, or a person who wanders the streets exposed to the constant poison of commercial advertising sowing the seeds of fantasies, illusions and the desire for impossible consumption, a person such as this, that indeed could include vast numbers of people in the desperate daily fight for survival, could be the victim of every kind of abuse, blackmail, pressure and deceit and could lack any representative organization or see these crushed.
It is certainly unlikely that such a person could be in a position to understand the complex problems of the world and the society in which they live. They are in no position to exercise their democratic rights, nor decide which is the most honest or demagogic or hypocritical candidate, this under a torrent of propaganda and lies where those with the most resources spout the most lies and deceit. No freedom of expression can exist where the principal and most effective media are an exclusive monopoly in the hands of the richest and most privileged sectors, sworn enemies of any economic, political or social change. The enjoyment of wealth, education, knowledge and culture are the preserve of those who, accounting for a tiny fraction of the population, receive the larger part of the goods produced in their countries. It is no coincidence that Latin America exhibits the greatest differences between the richest and the poorest. What kind of democracy and human rights could exist in these conditions? It would be like trying to grow flowers in the middle of the Sahara desert. On the other hand, when the total stripping of natural resources and the appropriation of human labor is presented as the ideal social and development model and the FTAA, i.e. the annexation and absorption of Latin America by the United States and dollarization are offered as the only way, it is clear that the prevailing political and economic system is approaching total crisis. Events in Argentina, that is today embroiled in an unbelievable economic and political chaos that has reduced the country to hunger, with more than 20 percent unemployment among the working population and where the people’s bank savings—especially those of the middle and lower income classes—have been practically confiscated, point to nothing less than the swan song of neoliberal globalization. Such a crisis inevitably produces a complete lack of ethics and values. The behavior of many leaders as they watch their model economies collapse like so many houses of cards is truly obnoxious. People’s protests are crushed with amazing violence. Tear gas, people dragged through the streets, brutality exercised against masses by the police armed with shields and swathed in the strangest helmets and outfits giving them the appearance of recent arrivals from a distant planet, are the methods used to defend that democracy and their citizen’s human rights. Similar scenes have never been witnessed in our country. Never, over more than four decades, has force been used against our people. The revolutionary process grows out of the closest unity and cooperation of all our people, under a consensus without precedent in any other country in the world, unworkable and even unimaginable in a society of exploiters and exploited. A cultured, rebellious, brave and heroic people such as the Cuban could never be ruled by force, nor a force exist that would rule it because the Cuban people is the force. Never would our people stir up rebellion against themselves because they are the revolution, they are the government, they are the power. It is with their courage, intelligence and ideas that they have defended themselves from the most powerful empire the world has ever known. Such a political phenomenon had never before occurred in our hemisphere. Force has always been used by the oligarchs and the empire against the people. A statistical comparison of crucial indices Each and every one of the Latin American countries that condemned us in Geneva or co-sponsored the draft resolution against Cuba are well below achieving the educational, cultural and social rates that are essential for a healthy, decent and just life of their citizens. Not one can match Cuba in a single one of these rates. For the sake of time, I will outline just a few figures for Latin America as a whole as compared to Cuba. Illiteracy rate: Latin America, 11.7 percent; Cuba, 0.2 percent Inhabitants per teacher: Latin America, 98.4; Cuba, 43, in other words, 2.3 times as many teachers per capita Primary education enrollment ratio: Latin America, 92 percent; Cuba, 100 percent Secondary education enrollment ratio: Latin America, 52 percent; Cuba, 99.7 percent Primary school students reaching Fifth Grade: Latin America, 76 percent; Cuba, 100 percent Infant mortality per thousand live births: Latin America, 32; Cuba, 6.2 Medical doctors per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 160; Cuba, 590 Dentists per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 63; Cuba, 89 Nurses per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 69; Cuba, 743 Hospital beds per 100 thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 220; Cuba, 631.6 Medically attended births: Latin America, 86.5 percent; Cuba, 100 percent Life expectancy at birth: Latin America, 70 years; Cuba, 76 years Population between 15 and 49 years of age infected with HIV/AIDS: Latin America, 0.5 percent; Cuba, 0.05 percent Annual AIDS infection rate per million inhabitants, i.e. those who develop the disease: Latin America, 65.25; Cuba, 15.6 The first international study of the Latin American Laboratory of Evaluation of Educational Quality, carried out in 12 Latin American countries including Cuba, produced the following results. Although these data have been already mentioned, I would like to briefly refer to them in detail: In Language, 3rd Grade: Cuba, 85.74 points;
Although these data have been already mentioned, I would like to briefly refer to them in detail: In Language, 3rd Grade: Cuba, 85.74 points; the remaining 11 countries, 59.11 points In Language, 4th Grade: Cuba, 87.25; the rest, 63.75 In Mathematics, 3rd Grade: Cuba, 87.75; the rest, 58.31 In Mathematics, 4th Grade: Cuba, 88.25; the rest, 62.04 What is or will be the future of those countries? According to these figures, of the seven Latin American countries that voted against Cuba, four—Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay—that had boasted in the past of being the most advanced in the region, fall well behind Cuban figures. In some of these, they reach or scrape past the half way mark in comparison to Cuba, but in others they are very well below. This is the case of pre-school education for 0-5 year olds, for example, that only reaches 15.8 percent of the children in that age group in Chile as compared to Cuba’s 99.2 percent. It requires a truly cynical person to join such a Mafia-style adventure, in which they have been involved at the urge of the imperial overlords. Events in Venezuela The response to the emergence of the Bolivarian Revolution in which the people and the military joined together to unleash a revolutionary and democratic process that is also unprecedented, was a fascist coup d’état. The privileged oligarchy, that enjoys the bulk of the country’s income and owns the most powerful media, set its followers on the Bolivarian people and the headquarters of the President himself under the influence and support of imperialism. Their goal was a bloody encounter that could be used to justify the coordinated actions of a small but extremely well-placed military force. Miraculously a bloody civil war was averted, thanks to the reasonable and sensible behavior of President Chávez, the support of the Bolivarian people and the loyalty of the vast majority of the officers and men of the Armed Forces in that sister nation. A new page in America’s complex and arduous history has been turned by the very people that began the process of independence from Spain in this hemisphere. The stripping of Cuba’s right to representation in Monterrey, the fascist coup in Venezuela and the disgraceful behavior in Geneva in the order in which they occurred have exposed and offered evidence of the dirty and hypocritical politics of the empire’s lackeys. I must point out that the Presidents of Brazil, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the English-speaking Caribbean countries did not join the celebrations of the coup. In the same way, Bolivia and Colombia joined the above countries in rejecting the deplorable behavior in Geneva. As for the fascist coup, not one condemned it except for the Argentinean President who was perhaps nervous considering his delicate political situation in which even a police sergeant could easily overthrow him. One month later, when the scandal broke out after the shameful Monterrey episode, some leaders maintained a decent silence. Not so the distinguished Secretary General of the discredited and repulsive OAS, as if that organization really existed. He threw poison darts with his support for the abuse sustained by Cuba. What trash are many of those who pretend to be sovereign governors! The honorable history of our Motherland, that once stood alone in battle against practically every one of the predecessors to those governments that voted against Cuba, who had allied themselves to the United States at that time in support of the Bay of Pigs invasion; that heroically resisted without a moment’s weakness on the brink of being wiped off the face of the Earth in the October Crisis of 1962; should shame those conspiring with the United States in Geneva, if they still have at least, the freedom to be ashamed of themselves. Neither will they be able to deny without blushing that when the socialist camp collapsed, the USSR disintegrated, the Yankee blockade was tightened to include the sale of medicines and food, classified as a crime of genocide by the 1948 and 1949 Conventions, and all believed that the Cuban Revolution would be on its knees in just a few weeks, our people endured with unprecedented heroism and resilience. Cuba will never bow before the hegemonic superpower Cuba, after withstanding the most unbelievable difficulties and threats, terrorist attacks and risks of all kinds, has never and will never lower its flags before the hegemonic superpower that today hands out orders to its lackeys and bootlickers in this unfortunate hemisphere through a terrorist made Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, showing an utter lack of respect by the United States government and an utter lack of modesty by its lackeys. When Cuba’s honor, morale and credibility were called into question by the disagreement with the host country, it became very clear that hypocrisy and lies are inseparable and almost unique tools of the prevailing political and economic system in Latin America. My decency and ethics were under question when, placed in the dilemma of being loyal to a lie or loyal to the truth; loyal to deceit and slandering manipulation of the facts, or loyal to our people and all peoples of the world, I was loyal to the truth and to the people. The vestal virgins of the temple of hypocrisy tore their clothes in the name of privacy. Even honest men who had been outraged witnesses in the past to electoral incidents and dishonest traps of political adversaries were led to believe that my behavior was inappropriate. I did not invent anything, I called no-one nor laid any trap for anyone. I gave as much warning as I could to those who had challenged me for more than a month with their demands for evidence, evidence and more evidence. Although by no means did I feel bound by what was later proved, in the course of events, to be a deceitful trick to force me into silence and confidentiality over such a significant issue, I clearly demanded the cessation of all offenses.
Then, when the lies, slander and demands for proof continued over several weeks, I fulfilled the warning I had made. I was also accused of being vengeful because of the unfulfilled promise related to Geneva. All my life I have been a gentleman to my adversaries, even in war situations surrounded by death. I’ve never humiliated, offended nor wreaked revenge on a single prisoner, not even in the case of the Bay of Pigs while my comrades lay mortally wounded or dead around me. But I do know how to distinguish the ethical from the unethical. I delayed presentation of the evidence demanded from me only out of the desire to cause no harm to a sister country I admire and respect. Representatives from some friendly governments that participated in the Summit chastised me for not having presented the evidence in the conference itself. Lying is and will always be unjustifiable from a political, ethical and religious perspective. From what I remember of the catechism lessons I received in 1st Grade in a catholic school, it violates the eighth commandment of God’s law. One must be honorable. I did not seek any pretexts, and I did not hesitate in expressing the need and duty to leave a historical record of that conversation which they asked me to keep private only once it had already begun. My personal letter to the President was also private, however, it was published without consulting me 48 hours later, on the very same day I left Monterrey. I truly regret having to include this issue in my speech, but I felt it was my duty to do so. High ranking officials from that country continue to attack us on a daily basis over this subject, which is still too fresh to consign it to the wastebasket of forgetfulness. To those who so foolishly speak and repeat the imperialists slogan that no democracy and no respect for human rights exist in Cuba, let me repeat: no-one can question the fact that, despite being very small, our country today is the freest, fairest and most supportive country on the planet. It is also by far the most democratic. There is only one Party, but this neither nominates nor elects candidates. This is completely forbidden: it is the citizens from the grassroots level who propose, nominate and elect candidates. Our country enjoys an enviable and ever more solid and indestructible unity. The media is public and does not and cannot belong to private individuals. It carries no commercial advertisements and it does not promote consumerism; it entertains and informs, educates and never alienates. Cuba already occupies world-wide outstanding and hard-to-surpass positions in a growing number of fields essential to guarantee life and the most fundamental political, civil, social, and human rights to ensure the well-being and future of our people. The mass political knowledge of the Cuban people is unrivaled in any other country. Its cultural and social programs and achievements advance at an unprecedented pace. Our dreams become reality. A more humane society is possible, lies and slander notwithstanding. History will bear this out. Long Live Socialism! Motherland or Death! We shall overcome! Official translation —NY Transfer News Collective, May 3, 2002 Top Contents Home Subscribe Write us [email protected]
Castro Internet Archive On the promulgation of the Agrarian Law Spoken: May 17, 1959 Source: FBIS Markup: Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000 TWO MILLION CUBANS WILL FIND THERE INCOME INCREASED We do not make laws by hate. It is not fair that our country keeps on marching toward misery. Great landowners must adapt themselves to the new times. Nobody has the right to distribute land by his own initiative. *Cuba will have the honor to be in first place among latinamerican countries. We believe that this Law initiates an entirely new era in our economical life, and that a wonderful future awaits our country, if we dedicate ourselves to work with all our might. We are aware that this law will affect some private interests; we are aware that it will find strong opposition, as all revolutionary measures. Of course, we are conscious of our duties to the citizens and of all the advantages that this law may offer. However, we must declare, as we always have under such circumstances, that we make laws only for the benefit of the nation, even if these laws must some times damage certain interests. We do not make laws by - hate, as we do not hate anybody. We understand perfectly that we are a consequence of the past, we have the obligation to correct past mistakes. What we have done, what we are, what we represent and what we do, are mainly consequences of the past. In fact, anybody in Cuba who thinks about what this country has been up to now, about the destiny which - would have been Cuba's destiny if changes were not introduced, if this person who thinks is conscious and honest, she will have to a admit that these measures are absolutely necessary. It was not fair that our country continue to go toward misery, toward chaos. It is not our fault if the nation is what it has been up to now; the mistakes of the past generations are not ours. You do not understand this until you go to the country, until you visit the peasant's houses, until you see shoeless, hungry, sick children who cannot read nor write. In spite of all this, you are surprised to see how much kindness remains in the hearts of our peasants. When you notice those things you fell the absolute conviction of the justice of the measures we are taking, which are necessary and of benefit for the country. These measures pretend to eliminate a situation that was legated to us and of which we are not responsible. The Agrarian Law damages an insignificant section of the people but even these persons are not entirely sacrificed, as they will keep a considerable amount of land; their standard of living will not be seriously affected, and at the same time thousands of poor families will be benefited. We can very conservatively estimate that two hundred thousand families will receive these benefits. .. What I can say today is this: when the Agrarian Law be entirely - applicated, two million Cubans will have their income increased and they will become buyers in the domestic market, which will be the basis of our industrial development. Through this, we expect to solve the economical problem of Cuba. On the other hand, the owners of the lands we intend to distribute shall not be robbed; they will be compensated. They will be paid in government bonds, payable in 20 years, which will produce 4.50% interest yearly. Cuba will have the honor of being in first place among all latin-american nations, thanks to this Law, so rich in consequences. Great landowners must understand that their duty is to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. They shall have to produce more in reduced extensions of land. They will have to produce technically, economically, trying to obtain all which is possible to obtain from the land, because this measure is fair, because not a single Cuban must suffer from hunger. It is criminal that there be uncultivated land in a country where people is hungry. These landowners must not allow selfishness to blind them. Nobody has the right to be selfish when his people is hungry. Nobody feeling like a Cuban, no real patriot, can fail to understand that this measure will be of benefit to the Nation. The Agrarian Law does not mean of course that a man has a right to grab the piece of land he likes, that anybody has the right to distribute land by his own initiative. It does not mean disorder. Now, more than ever, we need absolute discipline, nobody has the right to act ignoring the authority of the National Institute for the Agrarian Reform. Those who have taken lands without permission will have to give them back. We make this warning because we do not want our peasants to make mistakes. The benefits of the Agrarian Law will attain the remotest places of our country. It is not necessary to speak more about it, because this Law speaks by itself and because it will provoke a lot of discussion in days to come. We wish that all Cubans accept it as a fair measure which will offer extraordinary benefits to our Country. Castro Internet Archive
Fidel Castro Internet Archive Speech delivered by Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz at the Palm Garden Room in New York on October 30, 1955 Delivered: October 30, 1955 Source: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en from an incomplete recording. Markup: David Walters, 2019 Online Version: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en There are few times when the human word would appear to be as limited and deficient as it does today, to express the series of feelings, emotions, and ideas born in the heat of the great display of patriotism we have witnessed this morning, moments of emotions similar to those experienced on other occasions when we have had the chance to meet with large crowds. There are moments in my life that I will never be able to forget, like that early morning on July 26th at 4:00 am when for the last time I addressed many of the people who died in that action; when I addressed those who fell fighting, when I talked for the last time to those of us who were going to fight, when I exhorted my comrades in the last pep talk, the most beautiful pep talk, the pep talk that is the summary of all the speeches delivered until that moment, the pep talk which precedes battle. I remember that as I remember another moment in front of three judges who said they represented justice, when I denounced the crimes that Comrade Marcos read out. The audience was in fact the enemy. The soldiers of the army were there; our audience was made up of more than 100 soldiers and officers who were attending the trial out of curiosity or God knows why. And I was speaking to those soldiers, our alleged enemies, to those soldiers more than to the judges; I was telling those soldiers what kind of men were commanding them, I was telling them what kind of stain they had put on the uniform, I was telling them how ignominious and cowardly the attitude of those who wrote that nameless, shameful page in the history of Cuba had been. I spoke to those soldiers certain that when they were confronted with reason, the reason that is our shield, they would also honour it in reverence because I know that it only takes being Cuban, even though they may be mistaken, it’s enough to be Cuban to have faith in the possibility that they may understand reason and be ashamed of their crimes, in the possibility they will be sorry and in the possibility that they will also come together under the flags of justice. But there was no occasion like the one today, no moment has seemed to me to be like it; not when I was giving my comrades a pep talk before the battle and not when I was condemning the murderers of my comrades. Today, these Cubans who have gathered together in response to the call of the Homeland, these Cubans who, even a thousand leagues away, don’t forget it for a minute; these Cubans who have come from Connecticut, from Newark, from Union City, who have come from more than a hundred kilometres away; this event today, because of what it means for Cuba, because of what it means for its prestige, because of what the people filling up this rooms say about Cuba, because of what this event says about the merits of our people, I swear that this is the most moving event I have witnessed in my life. (APPLAUSE) And when the sceptics, those who have no faith in their Homeland, ask me how we are going to overthrow a regime like Batista’s, how we are going to restore freedom to our people, when those who have no faith ask that question, the answer is right here for them! Today’s event, organized in five days, without any publicity or ads in the newspapers, only a very small news item, with no money to pay for an ad, with the rain flooding the streets of New York, Union City, Newark early this morning, against nature, with no resources, this event has been organized in five days which, according to the well-informed, is the largest event that Cubans have held in New York since 1895. (Applause) And, Cuban men and women, here is the answer for the sceptics. Those who know the background of this event, those who have worked incessantly for its success, are aware that on Tuesday, five days ago, we were looking for a place where we could gather together; we went to some different places. An event took place here; hundreds of people came, five hundred, two hundred, two hundred and fifty people came here. However, we were not satisfied in that search with the idea that the event which was going to bring Cubans together this Sunday should be held in any of those places. As we searched, we found the Palm Garden and we saw that the place was roomy. Anyone would have been discouraged by the fear of failure, the fear of being ridiculous, the fear of having empty chairs. But we who have such great faith in our people, we who think as Martí did that the man who has no faith in his compatriots is an incomplete man, one who was born at seven months. We didn’t hesitate one moment in saying: Yes! This is the place which will be filled with Cubans in five days; it will be filled with Cubans even though we cannot afford any advertising; this place will be filled with Cubans even if it rains, even if there is an earthquake or a cataclysm in the city of New York. (APPLAUSE) And that is the answer for those who ask how we are going to overthrow Batista. That is the answer for those who do not believe. We are as certain that the regime will fall as we were certain, even though nobody believed it, that the Palm Garden was going to be filled tonight. (APPLAUSE) We consider tonight’s event as a victory for Cuba, a victory for Cubans. And the fame of the virtue and the patriotism of our people will grow throughout New York and the prestige of Cuba will grow. Those who have tried to boycott this event, the bunch of poor wretches, the mercenaries, who were surely counting on having some empty chairs tonight even though chairs would never be actually empty because they would be filled by the spirit of those who died, of those who lost their lives in action; (APPLAUSE) those who thought that spreading rumors about the Migration Services visiting the place, as if Cubans were breaking the law and if they weren’t obeying the law as they are, as if a powerful State was going to serve as the instrument to their petty plans, they thought they would scare Cubans off.
And we have heard about a man who said he was a consul, not for Cuba though, (APPLAUSE) who has devoted himself to thwarting this event. And I don’t want to tell you, out of discretion, about some of the steps this man took in terms of the event; I don’t want to be indiscreet, but I tell you he was all set to sabotage the event. And I understand that he even prepared an event on his own, I don’t know what kind, some gluttonous event, I think it was a lunch, a dinner, or something like that, and that he was deeply concerned about the event and he had even sent his agents to spread word of the event. But there is something else. We arrived at Union City yesterday to meet with a group of Cubans from Placetas, Cienfuegos, and other places in Cuba who were waiting for us. It was really interesting that a minute and half after our arrival, a captain, four patrol cars, a handful of detectives and all the police forces they could muster in that town showed up there. The fact is that we are abiding by the law; the fact is that we respect the laws of the country we are in and likewise, we want them to respect our laws. (APPLAUSE) And we understood that all that mobilization could only be a consequence and a product of those people with evil intentions who were trying to sabotage that meeting; that some consul from who knows where had filed a complaint against us; that they were trying to hunt us down. So once more in this lifetime I have to suffer persecution, although it would have been involuntary on the part of those doing it and they would have had no other obligation but to investigate any complaint made. That situation however was quite odd. It is really sad that those who are throwing Cubans out of their own land, thrown Cubans into this country to earn here with their hard work and the sweat of their brows the bread being denied them there, it is very sad that, not content with that, they devote themselves to hunting down Cubans over here; they devote themselves to threatening them with sending this country’s authorities after them. Because, ladies and gentlemen, if there would be one single Cuban here, only one Cuban who has been thrown into this country by necessity without undertaking all the required formalities, there can only be one explanation for this and that would be the excess of poverty and hunger that exists in Cuba. (APPLAUSE) In addition they hound him, they use him and they attempt to make his life bitter. I have really found the attitude of that Mr. Consul a little silly. (THE AUDIENCE ASKS: "What country is he from?") FIDEL CASTRO. - From the country of the smugglers, comrade. (APPLAUSE) Because, it would be like burying your head in the sand; it would be like believing that this Cuban resurrection miracle could be held back with intrigues, when by now there are no intrigues or bayonets that can hold it back! (APPLAUSE) This country’s immigration authorities should not be hounding the Cubans who come here to work honestly; they should not be hounding the Cubans who have shown and given proof of their faith in democracy, of their love of freedom and of the decorum of the peoples, of the peoples’ right to govern themselves, for which millions of men shed their blood in the last War. (APPLAUSE) The immigration authorities should pursue those who disguise their criminal intentions under the diplomatic cloak. Because that Consul, let’s say it out loud, is shameful for Cuba. (APPLAUSE) That Consul is a silken master smuggler; let everyone know it. (APPLAUSE) That Consul couldn’t stop the advance of the people with his petty, treacherous hand. And as Martí said, I would say to that Mr. Consul whom I rather despise with a bit of pity but with no hatred whatsoever, that we pay friendship with friendship, steel with steel. (APPLAUSE) If we are paid respect, we will respect in turn; if we are attacked, we will attack in turn. (APPLAUSE) And finally, very soon, perhaps sooner than he may imagine, although not as soon as some impatient people would wish, we’ll be sending a Consul to the United States who will not be a disgrace but a source of pride; (APPLAUSE) a Consul who assists Cubans instead of hounding them; a Consul who can attend patriotic rallies and meet with the Cuban people (APPLAUSE) instead of a Consul who is a disgrace for our suppressed, humiliated nation, a Consul who, one glorious day for Cuba, won’t have to hide in shame like Porras in his lair. (APPLAUSE) Enough already; I haven’t wanted to take it out on that poor fellow, I just wanted to symbolize all the shamelessness he embodies; that is what the Cuban Consul represents here, the shamelessness that rules Cuba. (APPLAUSE) Having said these healthy words of clarification, I want to be more precise. Applause encourages us, lifts up our spirits and we see it as a tribute to the Homeland, to the fallen and as the expression of our people’s faith. However, there is something more important for us than the applause: we care about the work that is yet to be done. We don’t come here seeking applause. We came to do the work that our National Hero José Martí taught us back in 1895; among many others we came here to do the work that only a giant could do; we came to speak to the Cuban emigrants in New York and the United States.
we came to speak to the Cuban emigrants in New York and the United States. Because exactly the same thing is happening in Cuba and one would have to be blind not to see it; it’s happening exactly the same way as it did in 1868 and 1895. The reasons why you are here, and I know that if you could be in Cuba you would be in Cuba or you wouldn’t be applauding Cuba; (APPLAUSE) if we asked every one of you why you are in this country, the answer would be exactly the same as the one given by those emigrants who in 1868 and 1895 gathered together to listen to the liberators’ words. As it happened then, Cubans have to emigrate from their land because they are unable to earn an honest livelihood there. Before earning their livelihood in a shameful manner, Cubans prefer to leave their country and go somewhere else in the world to earn their livelihood honestly. (APPLAUSE) Many who have not been forced to emigrate live there, I know because I know the value of men; everybody here, everyone who has tirelessly worked to organize this event, all of you, any one of you, don’t need some local political boss or corrupt politician to give them two or three hundred pesos to be part of their political machinery. I know that with their working capacity, determination and energy they could solve the problem, just like a bunch of mercenaries solve it now in Cuba. Is there a shortage of wealth in Cuba? Is there a shortage of fertile land and extraordinary riches in Cuba to shelter not only you but six million Cubans, to shelter twenty million Cubans? No. Belgium, the Netherlands or any other country in Europe has a third of Cuba’s land and it is covered by snow for many months; they have three times as many inhabitants as Cuba has, inch by inch they steal land from the sea, they build dikes and they live there and even compete with our wealth. Their condensed milk and their butter and a series of their products compete with Cuban products, even though the Cubans have land to spare, huge extensions of uncultivated land, extraordinary possibilities of being one of the most prosperous nations in the world. Oh yes! Cuba does not lack wealth, and the best proof is in the millions that are stolen every year. If there was a shortage of wealth in Cuba how could we explain there have been rulers who have left the country taking 50 and 60 million of pesos with them? How do we explain that Batista has distributed assets worth twenty million pesos? How do we explain the trips his relatives take every month, as rumor has it, to deposit certain amounts of money taken from the Republic into American banks? If Cuba lacked wealth how come so many millions of Cuban money has been invested in the United States? How is it possible that so many apartment buildings have been bought in New York? How is it possible that so much business can be done by these crafty people? These people are sniffing out that the people would get tired of them, that the people are already getting tired of them (SHOUTING AND APPLAUSE) and when that happens they won’t have the time to get their suitcases out. They can smell it in the air! They must be hearing a subterranean rumbling which is now like running lava on the surface. Because how can they conceal what is happening here in New York? How can they conceal the people’s mood? How can they refuse to see it? Even if they hide their heads three meters underground like an ostrich, how can they refuse to understand what is happening with the people of Cuba? How can they refuse to see that the end is nigh? The end of the dictatorship? Yes! The end of the dictatorship; but not only the end of the dictatorship. The end of today’s thieves? Yes, but not only the end of today’s thieves. The end of the dictatorship, of today’s thieves and yesterday’s thieves! (APPLAUSE) The end of oppression and also the end of political maneuvering; the end of the betrayal of those who seized power on March 10th and the end of those who have been betraying it since 1902. Because they are to blame for this entire sad spectacle we are witnessing, of this spectacle of hundreds and thousands of Cubans being forced to leave their Homeland. If any argument was needed, about an occurrence that would be decisive enough to demonstrate what is happening in Cuba, you, your presence here today, the presence of these people here, is the most irrefutable of arguments. Because some have been here for two years, some for six months, some for three years, some for ten, some for fifteen or even twenty; but you have all come for the same reason, you all left Cuba because you could not make a living there. You all left Cuba and did it with the feeling of having twenty daggers of loneliness lodged in your hearts and feeling great homesickness. You all have left Cuba and you all wish to return. I’ve heard it from the lips of many Cubans, I’ve heard those soul-wrenching words, I’ve heard Cubans who have told me with their arms raised to the sky: I’m not a lazy person!
I’ve heard it from the lips of many Cubans, I’ve heard those soul-wrenching words, I’ve heard Cubans who have told me with their arms raised to the sky: I’m not a lazy person! I’m a working man! I could have earned a living there! But it is so sad to go knocking door to door, house to house, looking for a job so that you don’t have to steal, just to be able to feed your children. And if it’s not you then it’s your wife, mother, or brother, or your children, and nobody gives you work, nobody gives you work! What I was also saying in this speech, what I said to the judges happened, what Comrade Marquez could not read because he only read a part, what I told the Court in Santiago de Cuba: “When someone accused of stealing appears before you, you send them to jail without thinking twice. You don’t ask how many days he has been unemployed, how long it’s been since his family had something to eat. No! You send him to jail. But nobody who has stolen millions and millions from the Government has ever spent one night behind bars. (APPLAUSE) You dine with them at some posh place on New Year’s Eve and they have all your respect. When some miserly wealthy man burns down his business to collect the insurance, even though a number of unfortunate workers are burned to death in the process, they don’t go to jail because they have plenty of money to bribe the judges and lawyers.” And that’s the truth that nobody wants to talk about, the truth we’ve been telling the people, the need to cure the Republic, a timely cure before the tumor becomes malignant and the Republic dies; (APPALUSE) a cure even if it means amputation, even if it means cutting really deep, a radical cure. So that no Cuban comes to me, ladies and gentlemen, as one did yesterday, a man who is surely sitting among you, and tells me that he has been here for several months and has not seen his wife since he left, nor has he met his youngest child who was born in Cuba. So that this hard life, because your lives are hard, I know this very well, I know how each of your lives is, I know how lonely you are amidst this mass of steel and concrete, how lonely you feel among the many millions of people, how lonely you feel in those houses, your homes, in those lonely apartments, where you cannot even dream of having a child there because they would not have the sun, they would not have the sun of their land, they would not have “waiting brides”, the palm trees, to whose height Martí wanted to put justice; (APPLAUSE) they would lack the pure skies of the Homeland and they would lack the air to grow. Because you, the men and women working here from seven in the morning to seven at night, you cannot have children because there would be nobody to look after them; either you would have to stop working and not have enough to eat or you would have to not have any children. I have witnessed this tragedy and I often wonder: is it possible that some of these Cubans have to live here for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years? Is it be possible to resist this hellish life, is it possible to resign yourselves to it? And I also think that there are brothers and sisters and parents who are even worse off than them. Is resignation possible? Is happiness possible? Because José Martí rightly stated that there is no happiness without Homeland and without honor. Did he say “without Homeland”? Because, fellow Cubans, they have taken from us more than freedom. They have taken not only our freedom, they have taken away our Homeland; they have taken away from us the land where we were born. And in this struggle we are trying to recover the Homeland that has been taken away from us, that Homeland which belongs to us as well, as much as it belongs to them; but it’s more ours than theirs because we do not exploit it, because we love it. We love it so that we can live there, not submit it to oppression, not degrade it. And the Homeland, as Martí said, belongs to nobody; if it belonged to anyone it would be to those who love it selflessly and those who would be willing to make all manner of sacrifice on its behalf. And we Cubans hurt not just because our Homeland has been taken from us; because they have ripped it from us, because we cannot live there, because they have separated us from our families, from our love and our feelings, they have disgracefully ripped it from us, they have taken it by force, they have ripped it from us by the only painful manner and furthermore they have humiliated us. When human beings have something ripped from them, it is sad and unbearable. They have ripped it from us by force and they don’t want to give it back. As you know every day there are more and more Cubans arriving, and the queues at the American Consulate are endless and more and more people keep arriving. Entire towns like La Esperanza where there was a tobacco factory, two shoe factories and where everything shut down after March 10th and the entire town emigrated; like Placetas, Fomento, Cienfuegos and, in brief, (APPLAUSE) all over Cuba where everything is in ruins. Cuba where the traitors who seized power that morning said they were going to establish a government of peace, of respect for human life and for work. And they did! Batista has given jobs every year to ten thousand Cubans, in New York! (APPLAUSE) Batista is solving unemployment by working with the [US] Consulate to issue more visas every year; Batista is solving Cuba’s problem by leaving Cuba without inhabitants. (LAUGHTER) Even with the most basic common sense one can understand that Cuba is steadily on its way to bankruptcy; even people with a minimum of understanding of economics know that the peso not earned in the factory, the peso not earned by a worker in his workshop, is the peso that no longer circulates in the stores, the shops and the pharmacies. It is one peso less being spent by the man who manufactures shoes or clothing.
It is one peso less being spent by the man who manufactures shoes or clothing. It is one peso less for the entire economy of the nation. And I would like them to explain to me how are they going to solve the problem of Cuba by leaving hundreds and thousands of men unemployed, men who no longer produce and earn pesos, who increase the numbers of people who have to leave the country. Because even though there are many interests created to support such anachronistic theories, I cannot believe that the Railway Company, for example, needs to fire 500 or 600 workers, that this could be a healthy solution for the country. It might be a healthy solution for that Company for a few months or even for a few years, but those 600 workers are 600 fewer people buying in the country, it means 600 fewer people benefitting all the industries of the country, 600 fewer people going shopping, to sports events, to movie theaters or anywhere. It means 600 fewer people whose absence would be noticed in a year’s time in other stores, in other factories, in other work sectors. And the consequences would be that in a year or a year and half they would have to fire 500, 1000 or 1,500 and from there it’s a straight fall. That’s why the Cuban economy today is falling. Batista is not only a traitor; Batista is not only a dictator, a wretch who oppresses his people, who harangues his soldiers to kill Cubans with weapons paid for by Cubans; no! Batista is also an incompetent, one of the clumsiest rulers Cuba has ever had. In a word, ladies and gentleman, he is completely clueless. Because as Martí said it’s not the same thing “to govern a Republic as it is to command an encampment.” Martí said this to Gómez: “General, a Republic is not founded in the same way as an encampment is founded.” Gómez had been fighting for ten, thirty years and Martí told him that a Republic could not be governed in the same way as a military camp. And after fifty years, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Republic, during the centenary of Cuba’s National Hero, one individual, a bold sergeant, would like to govern the Republic as if it were a military camp. And this individual has done nothing in ten years, thirty years, ten months, ten days, a day, one minute or one single second for the independence of Cuba. This is a Mr. General who earned his stripes the same way as those other generals to whom we have said, not from here because it would have no merit, but over there in Cuba, right to their faces, over there from the jail, we have told them they are not even worthy of leading the mules carrying the clothing of General Antonio Maceo’s army. Maceo, one of Cuba´s most glorious military personalities, earned his General’s insignia after over 500 battles, after risking his life every day, after fighting for eight years. And these men, these good-for-nothings with a few stars on their shoulders who were captains devoted to illegal gambling and exploiting everybody (it is well known what these people do: they take money from this sugar mill or from that famer to defend the interests of the owners and to crush those who oppose them; that’s their job), those men became generals overnight, in fifty minutes, without shooting once. They became generals, overnight generals who have never taken a risk, generals who are now millionaires. Oh, yes! Those crimes have explanations. Because as Martí said, there is hatred that is born drooling from the bellies of man. Only low-born hatred, born from those who see their enjoyment of those millions being threatened, can take it out so cruelly on young people who have never stolen anything from anyone, honest young people, the young people who without bragging about it quietly and discreetly turned the Moncada Barracks into a torch in the early morning one day, without anyone knowing. (APPLAUSE) They could not show any mercy because this was a dangerous example. They had to teach those youths a terrible lesson. They had to teach a lesson that would make sure no other young Cubans would ever even think of taking up arms to fight oppression and tyranny again. They thought they would crush the rebellious spirit of the people because they had not encountered any resistance since March 10. Since March 10 they were gloating about having seized the Republic without firing even one shot and they were gloating about how that traditional rebellious spirit of the people had died. They could not tolerate that outburst. They had to pull it out by the roots and as dim-witted as they were they thought they could cut it out by killing and torturing those involved, by gouging out their eyes and by burying men alive. They were so dim-witted they couldn’t understand that within a few years there would be 100,000 youths willing to die, that the people would rise up, a people like this one. I see in these people the embodiment of the words I spoke after spending 16 days in solitary in a prison cell; I spoke there from impotence, physical impotence but moral omnipotence. (APPLAUSE) I told them, despite the slander with which they tried to flood and bury us because they thought the truth would never come to light, they never thought the people there would have enough courage and determination and faith to make truth prevail. They imagined that the massacre could be covered up for a long time. I told them they would see the victorious specters of ideas rise up from the bodies of my dead comrades. They are not dead! Those specters terrify the tyranny, those specters give that miserable consul sleepless nights, those specters keep those generals awake during the night because they know of the crushing defeat that’s coming; these specters don’t give the tyranny a moment of peace. Because this cannot be ignored; Cuba will know about all this because it will be written in the media, this picture will be published in the media. But if censorship and terror prevent this picture from being made public, this picture together with our people will circulate throughout Cuba via the 2,000 Cubans who are part of the underground apparatus of the 26th of July Revolutionary Movement propaganda distribution.
(APPLAUSE) Cubans: that money being collected there is a specter lingering like a ghost. Those pesos collected there are terrifying; those pesos make the tyrants tremble because those pesos you saw being collected into a Mambí hat were not for me; nobody thought that of course. Those pesos were put there for Cuba; those pesos were put there to tell the regime and to tell Cuba that these are the pesos earned by the sweat of our brows, earned by our daily labor and with which we are going to conquer the freedom of Cuba. (applause) Ladies and gentlemen; now they won’t be able to say as they once did that a liberation movement is being carried out with money stolen from the people. Now they cannot dub it as immoral, just as they could not dub it immoral before. Since it began, from the very first day, this Movement began well; it started with clean money. We don’t want sullied money because the first law of the Revolutionary Government will be in place to confiscate everything from the thieves; we do not want to ask for favors from any thief. And with those stolen goods we are going to do the first great works of the Republic and we will set up the first factories and the first industries we need so that there are no more Cuban emigrants abroad. (applause) And we do not want commitment, nor will we have it; and nobody will come here to buy favors from the Revolution because the Revolution doesn’t sell favors. (applause) And instead of having to thank a handful of people for freedom, we will want to thank the entire nation. (applause) Now they cannot say we are going to overthrow the regime. Yes, because we are going to overthrow it and I do not hide it. We exercise the right that all peoples have had to be free; we exercise the right of Washington and of all the American liberators who drew up that Declaration of Rights in Philadelphia in which it says that the most evident truth is that all men are born free and equal and their Creator granted all of them certain rights; and to safeguard rights, governments were established. And when governments did not fulfill the purposes for which they had been created, the people had the right to remove them and to institute another. All the peoples of America have been liberated in the name of that right to freedom, of that right to fight against oppression; and these American peoples were liberated from the oppression of a foreign monarch. For that reason I trust that here in this country there will be many people who sympathize with freedom for Cuba, who sympathize with those who exercise the right that they exercised to be free. We are going to get rid of that gentleman; we are going to remove him without violating any law anywhere. Here we will be preaching, raising funds and knowing what we have to do; here we will be preaching the idea and respecting the laws of countries which give us their hospitality. Here we are preparing today the most terrible psychological weapon that can be wielded against the regime that oppresses and debases Cuba because when the regime in Cuba sees this pile of bills, when the regime witnesses that spectacle, then it will be convinced that its end is nigh. And the people over there who wait for the guide, the people over there even though they may earn a peso per day if they have a job, and not ten pesos every day, those people will also willingly give their peso because the 26th of July Movement will send the Manifesto to the people seeking their help; we want this Manifesto to be preceded by the photo of the contribution that our New York emigrants have made today. That’s why they have been placed here, on the table, so that the contribution can be seen, to make it look great and to serve as encouragement for all Cubans. Because the regime hopes that we cannot do anything; we have organization, they know that and we are decided, they know that too. They also know we are not millionaires because they know that we have not stolen a cent from the Republic, because they know that we will not ask a thief for one single cent. Now hear this as well; they will know that we will have the necessary help; they will know of the people's willingness to help this cause. Oh, yes! And if the example of those who have come to contribute there has been admirable, the example of many Cubans contributing over there is also admirable; Cubans who earn twelve pesos a month, cooking, working, anywhere, and still they contribute a peso; Cuban workers who at the first meeting with our militant comrades contributed one hundred pesos of their savings; Cubans who have mimeographed this brochure at their own expense; Cubans who copy the manifestos and sell them. Because, ladies and gentlemen, in Cuba a true miracle of resurrection is taking place; it understands that this is a struggle of sincere and honest men, whose souls are not tainted by corruption.
it understands that this is a struggle of sincere and honest men, whose souls are not tainted by corruption. (APPLAUSE) Because the people are intuitive, the people are not so easily deceived, the people allow themselves to be deceived whenever they want, the people will guess who their loyal servants are and the people know how much love we have put into this cause. And sometimes I give an example to explain this: the man who falls in love with a beautiful and virtuous woman and loves her with all his soul would not be able to prostitute her, would not be able to rent her, would not be able to sell or exploit her. He wouldn’t even allow others to look at her or offend her. Likewise we are incapable of exploiting, renting, or selling our blessed idea of the Homeland! (APPLAUSE) We are in love with our Homeland. We have fought for it tirelessly, fought for it without rest and we go from one town to another for it; we will continue this pilgrimage for our Homeland, Cubans, until the day when the time has come to call on the regime to render accountability. Because this time it will not be like July 26th; this time it will not be a handful of ignored youths; this time it will be the people; this time we have come to do what we unfortunately could not do before. Then our hopes were placed on other men, at that time we were looking at another series of Cubans who were well known in their homeland, from whom the Nation expected the miracle of liberation from the dictatorship. I would have expected these Cubans who in normal times would have stood at a podium and beat their chests and asked us to vote for them because they were willing to give the last drop of their blood for Cuba. They are ready to do it all; they are ready to be Spartans in the defense of the ideals of the people. And when a situation like March 10 occurs, when it’s time to give the last drop of blood and even the last penny, those politicians who spend ten thousand and twenty thousand and a hundred thousand pesos to leave, mortgaging their homes and doing everything to leave, these people do not appear at any meeting, nor do they contribute one single cent to the country; and so a group of youths has to go to die with empty hands because they lacked the resources. (applause) That is why I was telling you (and Comrade Márquez read it) that this is why the underworld of Cuban politicking has been governing the Republic; they are the thug politicians, they do not deserve any other name because I am one of those who thinks that the law-defying thugs who come face-to-face with authority are braver than those who steal there with impunity, without risk of any kind, those are the ones who have been governing the Republic. And here we are promoting a change on every front: first of all a moral revolution. It will also be a creative revolution, the revolution that knows what it will do, that has its program contained in this pamphlet and in the manifestos, a program that will take Cuba with facts and not with words to the place that corresponds to the country in America, because of the extraordinary richness of its soil, because of the virtues of its people. They are people such as you here, capable of meeting in five days, in the rain, coming together by themselves and with that enthusiasm which we have heard here listening for ten minutes to a standing comrade. These people deserve more than the dishonor in which they are living. And if others should harbor any doubts about these people, should others offend them, should they intimidate them and lash them to a yoke, we can see their suffering, we can see their fight, we can see how they strive for freedom and we say: Blessed be the Cuban people. Only skeptics who will never do anything in the world, those who will never write a page in history, can have doubts about these people. If you had doubts you would not be meeting over there, if you had doubts we would have stalled at the first step when there were three of us at the beginning; and then we were a hundred, and then we were a thousand. And there in the solitary prison cell on the Isla de Pinos where they set themselves against us in a cowardly manner, I never lost faith. I was there a year ago. There we were alone; there we were seemingly impotent and forgotten; a year ago we were very far from what we have here today. We were offered provisional liberty, and we reject conditional liberty. We said that freedom belonged to us because it was our right. We would remain there for one thousand years before accepting dishonorable liberty. And the people brought us out onto the street! A year ago we were there and now we are here today. We are with the people. The 22 months did not discourage us; the 22 months did not make us lose heart or faith for one single minute. Here we are, at the base of the flag; here we are at the base of the idea; here we are at the base of the trench which we set up with ideas because, as the Cuban woman spoke to us: "Trenches made of ideas are worth more than trenches made of stone." Here we are setting up trenches of ideas but we are also setting up stone trenches. (APPLAUSE) Cubans: at this meeting Cuba will know about that generous and admirable contribution; Cuba will know about those pesos that are pesos from ‘95. And from here, from New York, I say it with the faith that always accompanies us, we are sure that Cuban emigrants, like the emigrants of ‘95, will help take the country back to freedom. Here we must have an apostle in every Cuban, in every Cuban who stood up here, in every Cuban who took an oath here, in every Cuban who will leave here with the idea of the Homeland utmost in his mind;
Here we must have an apostle in every Cuban, in every Cuban who stood up here, in every Cuban who took an oath here, in every Cuban who will leave here with the idea of the Homeland utmost in his mind; we must have an apostle in every Cuban. Such apostles would not be satisfied with the applause that has been heard here; they are apostles who will go out and win over those who are not here, who will go to conquer those who went partying last night and so today they are not here, to those undecided or tired Cubans, or to those lazy Cubans forgotten by the Homeland. They will go out and wake them up with voices of love and voices of conviction. Just the Cubans who are in New York, because we know what we need, only we Cubans in New York could overthrow that regime if we wanted to, that regime whose crimes horrified the crowd, and just New York (and it would not be New York alone because it would be Miami, Tampa, Key West and 127 places in Cuba), just New York can defeat Batista. With how much sacrifice? With what one spends on going to the movies for six months. Just New York can pay for the freedom of Cuba, New York alone, if two thousand Cubans can get together, two thousand Cubans who give two pesos every week, give two hours of work a week, the money to go to the movies, the money to buy a whiskey. I tell you with all responsibility that six months of well-paid help given by the Cubans of New York would be enough to win over Cuba's freedom. And what cruel revenge, the revenge of those who threw them out of their Homeland, the revenge against those who brought all of you here to this land, that is the cruelest revenge! The people overthrowing a tyrant with the money it takes to go to the movies for six months. Engrave these words in your souls, for they are true. I have enormous faith that you will understand them, that you will measure the value of the virtues you have for constancy, for faith and for the seriousness and discipline with which you help. A modest and poor Cuban comes to ask you this, a Cuban who isn’t having fun, who nobody will see having a drink or going to a night club, or spending even one penny on anything that isn’t essential to his survival; as if we had to spend that because wherever we go we find generous Cubans who give us their homes and who feed us; we do not need anything for ourselves, we will never need it. The first manifesto came about, to our honor, as the product of a pawned overcoat; that first manifesto is with us thanks to the money we got for a pawned overcoat. In Cuba we now have 40,000 young people belonging to the Revolutionary Movement, youth committed to paying a monthly fee and money is raised as we go from town to town. Because we need those funds so that the same thing doesn’t happen as it did the last time, so that the hands which will buy our freedom with clean blood and clean money will never again have to do it unarmed. (APPLAUSE) We do not ask Cuban emigrants for their blood, although I know they want to give it; we ask for a few drops of sweat every week. We will buy freedom with the sweat of their brows, and we will buy it with clean money, so that there are no commitments, so that the triumph is not stained by the interests of those who have wanted to help it unselfishly, so that we can fulfill our obligations with these people, so that we feel more obligated. For that, Cubans, we ask for your help. We say here today, just as Marti did, reaffirming our faith that we will find magnanimous help in all these honorable hearts, that we will knock on door after door and to ask for alms for the country, town to town; and it shall be given to us because we will ask with honor. As the Apostle said, help the martyr, the martyr who asks for help, who awaits help, who relies on help, who wants to redeem himself with help. (APPLAUSE) Not just today, but every day, not with the patriotism of a single day but with the pure patriotism of an entire lifetime, not just in a moment of fleeting enthusiasm. We leave all of you here today with a mission: as we leave here, we ask one thing of these Cubans who have been so excited today, those Cubans who stood to applaud Comrade Márquez. We ask you to keep something for us, that you keep the enthusiasm of today, that you will keep in every one of your hearts... (Incomplete recording) Fidel Castro Internet Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us Jan/Feb 2008 • Vol 8, No. 1 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! Message to the National Assembly By Fidel Castro Ruz Comrades of the National Assembly: You have no easy task on your hands. On January 1st, 1959, surrounded by the accumulated and deepening grievances that our society inherited from its neo-colonial past under U.S. domination, many of us dreamed of creating a fully independent nation where justice prevailed. In the arduous and uneven struggle, there came the moment when we were left completely alone. Nearly 50 years since the triumph of the Revolution, we can justifiably feel proud of ourselves, as we have held our ground, for almost half a century, in the struggle against the most powerful empire ever to exist in history. In the Proclamation I signed on July 31, 2006, none of you saw any signs of nepotism or an attempt to usurp parliamentary powers. That year, at once difficult and promising for the Revolution, the unity of the people, the Party and State were essential to continue moving forward and to face the declared threat of a military action by the United States. This past December 24, during his visit to the various districts of the municipality, which honored me with the nomination of candidate to parliament, Ra�l noted that all of the numerous candidates proposed by the people of a district famous for its combativeness, but with a low educational level, had completed their higher education. This, as he said on Cuban television, made a profound impression in him. Party, State and Government cadres and grassroots organizations face new problems in their work with an intelligent, watchful and educated people who detest bureaucratic hurdles and inconsiderate justifications. Deep down, every citizen wages an individual battle against humanity’s innate tendency to stick to its survival instincts, a natural law which governs all life. We are all born marked by that instinct, which science defines as primary. Coming face to face with this instinct is rewarding because it leads us to a dialectical process and to a constant and altruistic struggle, bringing us closer to Mart� and making us true communists. What the international press has emphasized most in its reports on Cuba in recent days is the statement I made on the 17th of this month, in a letter to the director of Cuban television’s Round Table program, where I said that I am not clinging to power. I could add that for some time I did, due to my youth and lack of awareness, when, without any guidance, I started to leave my political ignorance behind and became a utopian socialist. It was a stage in my life when I believed I knew what had to be done and wanted to be in a position to do it! What made me change? Life did, delving more deeply into Mart�’s ideas and those of the classics of socialism. The more deeply I became involved in the struggle, the stronger was my identification with those aims and, well before the revolutionary victory I was already convinced that it was my duty to fight for these aims or to die in combat. We also face great risks that threaten the human species as a whole. This has become more and more evident to me since I predicted, for the first time in Rio de Janeiro—over 15 years ago, in June 1992—that a species was threatened with extinction as a result of the destruction of its natural habitat. Today, the number of people who understand the real danger of this grows every day. A recent book by Joseph Stiglitz, former Vice-President of the World Bank and President Clinton’s chief economic advisor until 2002, Nobel Prize laureate and bestselling author in the United States, offers up-to-date and irrefutable facts on the subject. He criticizes the United States, a country that did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, for being the largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world, with annual emissions of 6 billion tons of this gas, which disturbs the atmosphere without which life is impossible. In addition to this, the United States is the largest producer of other greenhouse gases. Few people are aware of these facts. The same economic system which forced this unsustainable wastefulness on us impedes the distribution of Stiglitz’ book. Only a few thousand copies of an excellent edition have been published, enough to guarantee a margin of profit. This responds to a market demand, which the publishing house cannot ignore if it is to survive. Today, we know that life on Earth has been protected by the ozone layer, located in the atmosphere’s outer ring, at an altitude between 15 to 50 kilometers, in the region known as the stratosphere, which acts as the planet’s shield against the type of solar radiation, which can prove harmful. There are greenhouse gases whose warming potential is higher than that of carbon dioxide and which widen the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, which loses as much as 70 percent of its volume every spring. The effects of this phenomenon, which is gradually taking place, are humanity’s responsibility. To have a clear sense of this phenomenon, suffice it to say that the world produces an average of 4.37 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita. In the case of the United States, the average is 20.14, nearly 5 times as much. In Africa, it is 1.17, while in Asia and Oceania it is 2.87. The ozone layer, in brief, protects us from ultraviolet and heat radiation, which affects the immune system, sight, skin and life of human beings. Under extreme conditions, the destruction of that layer by human beings would affect all forms of life on the planet. Other problems, foreign to our nation and many others under similar conditions, also threaten us. A victorious counterrevolution would spell a disaster for us, worse than Indonesia’s tragedy. Sukarno, overthrown in 1967, was a nationalist leader who, loyal to Indonesia, headed the guerrillas who fought the Japanese. General Suharto, who overthrew him, had been trained by Japanese occupation forces.
At the conclusion of World War II, Holland, a U.S. ally, re-established control over that distant, extensive and populated territory. Suharto maneuvered. He hoisted the banners of U.S. imperialism. He committed an atrocious act of genocide. Today we know that, under instructions from the CIA, he not only killed hundreds of thousands but also imprisoned a million communists and deprived them and their relatives of all properties or rights; his family amassed a fortune of 40 billion dollars—which, at today’s exchange rate, would be equivalent to hundreds of billions—by handing over the country’s natural resources, the sweat of Indonesians, to foreign investors. The West paid up. Texan-born Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was then the President of the United States. The news on the events in Pakistan we received today also attests to the dangers that threaten our species: internal conflict in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. This is a consequence of the adventurous policies of and the wars aimed at securing the world’s natural resources unleashed by the United States. Pakistan, involved in a conflict it did not unleash, faced the threat of being taken back to the Stone Age. The extraordinary circumstances faced by Pakistan had an immediate effect on oil prices and stock exchange shares. No country or region in the world can disassociate itself from the consequences. We must be prepared for anything. There hasn’t been a day in my life in which I haven’t learned something. Mart� taught us that “all of the world’s glory fits in a kernel of corn.” Many times have I said and repeated this phrase, which carries in eleven words a veritable school of ethics. Cuba’s Five Heroes, imprisoned by the empire, are to be held up as examples for the new generations. Fortunately, exemplary conducts will continue to flourish with the consciousness of our peoples as long as our species exists. I am certain that many young Cubans, in their struggle against the Giant in the Seven-League Boots, would do as they did. Money can buy everything save the soul of a people who has never gone down on its knees. I read the brief and concise report, which Ra�l wrote and sent me. We must not waste a minute as we continue to move forward. I will raise my hand, next to you, to show my support. —Granma, December 27, 2007 Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2008. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us May/June 2007 • Vol 7, No. 3 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! Fidel Castro on the 50th Anniversaryof the Chinese Revolution Speech delivered by the President of the Council of State of the Republic of Cuba, Fidel Castro Ruz, on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Foundation of the People's Republic of China, in the Universal Hall of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), on September 29, 1999 As you can see, they were closing the curtains [laughter], but I looked at my watch and noticed we had a little time left. That's why I thought it would be worthwhile to use these minutes to add a few brief thoughts about what was said here. A few days ago we were busy with a great number of activities but we often thought that it would now be 50 years since the Chinese Revolution, not only the revolution, but also the independence of China. And that was of really great historical importance. Similar words are often used, but now we are faced with a real event, a date of real historical importance. And I asked myself: How are we going to commemorate it, what relevance are we going to give it? That's why I asked about the program they were going to have. I asked the Ambassador and first he told me there would be a reception in the Embassy on the evening of the 30th and warmly invited me. I answered, "Ambassador, the evening of the 30th is not the anniversary of the triumph of the Chinese Revolution!" And he said, "Yes, because at that hour on the 30th in China it's already the 1st of October." And, actually, the reception was not being organized for the 2nd, which would have been the result of organizing it, as is traditionally done, on the first. By doing it tomorrow night, on the 30th, it would coincide perfectly with the day of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Also, I know that they have set up television screens so that the guests can view the parade and the commemoration in Tiananmen Square. I was very pleased that the Ambassador remembered that Cuba was the first Latin American country to recognize the People's Republic of China and to establish relations with it, because there was a very strong blockade, an effort of total isolation. In fact, there was total obedience to the United States in our hemisphere, where there were even many countries, like the Caribbean sister islands of Anglophone extraction still not independent. The independence of those islands increased the strength and spirit of independence in this hemisphere, but no one here in Latin America then had relations with the People's Republic of China, and that was the case in many parts of the world. Since we also became independent on January 1, 1959, it did not take long to establish relations with the People's Republic of China. But he remembered something more, and that is that when the Cuban Revolution triumphed, China was represented in the Security Council and the United Nations by Taiwan. At the time, only the Soviet Union, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, was not an ally of the United States. And as an example of imperialist imposition, the most populous country in the world was ignored completely. The oldest country in the world, we could say, of the modern ones, the most ancient civilization in the world was not represented in the Security Council, as was its right according to all the agreements made during the Second World War. They kept Taiwan there, the defeated puppet government, which continued to be an ally of the United States. We had to fight hard, every year, many countries, mostly of the Third World, including Cuba, just as today, we fight the blockade. We fought for the recognition of the People's Republic of China and for it to occupy its rightful seat on the Security Council as one of its permanent members. This was achieved in 1971 when it was no longer possible to resist world public opinion and the growing membership of the United Nations. At that time, many African countries and other areas of the world won their political independence-countries of great weight. After the Second World War, India, another of the most populous countries in the world besides China, achieved independence. Indonesia, also a heavily populated Asian country, achieved its independence. Japan was occupied for many years and gradually achieved the rights of a sovereign nation. Many others in the Middle East received independence, as did many in the South Pacific. I have already mentioned the Caribbean. Consequently many countries were added, and it was the determination and tenacity of this struggle that finally won China its basic rights. Today, 26 years later, I would say that event achieved its full significance within the present world situation due to China's importance and weight. Today China is incomparably greater than it was when its status as a member of the Security Council was finally accepted. China has been the country that has least used its veto power in the Security Council. China has used it only on exceptional occasions-perhaps Alarcon knows how many. On the other hand, the "master of the world," because it does not own the world but almost all the world, has used this right an infinite number of times. Today, the Third World has a country that is a friend, that Third World, which supported China so often, has a friend among the Security Council's permanent members. I remembered something that was not mentioned here: the suffering of the Chinese people, the enormous sacrifices of that people after the triumph of their revolution and their independence. I have to say it that way, because the country was not fully independent, just as Cuba was not, until the day of the Revolution's triumph. For example, they were economically blockaded for a long time, almost totally isolated. During the earlier years it had the collaboration of the Soviet Union-to some extent, because the Soviet Union had just come out of a terrible war where its industry, its agriculture, its infrastructure were practically destroyed-a support the U.S.SR offered, a determined support that I know the Chinese appreciated very much, until differences and difficulties arose between them. I do not want to dwell on these subjects but I recall the years of the economic blockade of China. And I also remember the U.S.
troops under the command of MacArthur, their intervention in the Korean conflict, a country that they divided and that is still divided; and they reached the Chinese border. Very soon after their war of liberation, no less than one million Chinese volunteers took up arms and participated in that conflict together with the Korean people. They inflicted a severe and terrible blow to the interventionist troops of the United States and its allies until reestablishing the situation that existed before that war, that is, the present border between the two parts of Korea. This event cannot be forgotten nor can the thousands of lives Chinese troops lost. I have talked to some who participated in that counter-attack. It was during a severe cold, crossing mountains, without mechanical means, with total air control by the United States and its allies and even threatening to use nuclear weapons. In the desperation of their defeat, there were many in the United States who favored attacking beyond the Chinese border. The advance of the Chinese troops was uncontainable in spite of the enormous differences in military power, until they reached the point that is still today that line-a tremendous battle. Later the economic blockade continued. The Yankee imperialists also intervened in Viet Nam and unleashed a genocidal war. There, the Chinese expressed solidarity with the Vietnamese people. At the time, there were two countries, China and the Soviet Union, who supplied weapons and gave political support to the Vietnamese who fought heroically and were victorious. This victory was obtained during the 1970s. Cuba also made its modest contribution of a free annual supply of sugar for the Vietnamese during the war years. It's worth mentioning, but only as an expression of the good will and the spirit of solidarity of our people who also offered total political support. There was also an enormous feeling of solidarity with Viet Nam by our people. The Chinese had to endure so many hardships after the war, and for how long! But imperialism was repeatedly defeated. The lesson of Viet Nam marked important turning points. I would say that Cuba's resistance to the blockades, the mercenary invasions, the threats of nuclear war and all that, marked other little points that were also important in that struggle. They demonstrated to the world that it was possible to fight and win against imperialism. They suffered a harsh economic blockade for many years, a little less than us, but at the time it was a record. They were blockaded for 28 years, and we are now going on 40 years. The events mentioned are irrefutable proof that this lunacy, these criminal policies, cannot last forever. After all the blows it has received from many parts, the United States began to understand that its position on China was unsustainable from the point of view of rights, of political principles, of the United Nations Charter and everything else. But it was also unsustainable according to its own economic interests. China was an enormous potential market. In fact, they have advantages in many things. In one sense in particular they have an enormous advantage compared to Cuba, and that is the fact that their population-they are have a little more-their population was about one hundred and twenty times more than that of Cuba, and a territory, as mentioned here, of 9.6 million square kilometers, almost one hundred times ours and, undoubtedly a country of great natural resources. I could add other advantages: They did not live in the West as we do. We are bearing, to a large extent, the culture inherited from the West. China had a millennia-long culture. The Chinese people's great advantage is its language, its own very complex writing. It is not an easy language, not precisely of Latin origin nor, we must say, of Western origin. They had a millennial language. I have no way of knowing how much it evolved since the period before our times. These cultural features are a very important force with which to defend the identity, the integrity, and independence of a great country and are less susceptible to penetration by the western culture that surrounds us. You can see what the Ambassador explained: after 25 years of conflicts, wars, and blockades, they had recovered important rights such as that seat in the Security Council, a growing respect in the world, and in spite of errors, as the Ambassador pointed out, of various kinds of difficulties that occurred in its own internal policy at a time when the West had no other choice but to acknowledge the rights of China. And when all the blockades ended, you can see the extraordinary rhythm of progress in the country. What he read here-I was just looking over a copy of the speech and had already heard about some appearances of the Ambassador-a sustained average growth of 9.8 percent for 21 years has no precedent in the history of any human society. I did some calculations of how many times it doubled its economic production during that period. By then, they had already achieved important advances. I remember that after the revolutionary triumph, the Chinese built great seawalls rock by rock to prevent flooding and promote irrigation. Many social programs were begun from the very triumph of the Revolution. But undoubtedly the economic advances were slowed down considerably by the economic blockade to which subjective factors were added as well. When, as I said, they had to recognize the rights of China and all the blockades disappeared and they rectified some errors-I don't call them errors but rather their points of view, we would have no right to judge each internal event in China-but, as the Ambassador explained, they had made certain corrections, had overcome certain errors and everyone commits errors and that cannot be denied. After this, they achieved this impressive record because, as he pointed out, and above all, they grew since 1978, for 21 years. There is no precedent; there has never existed anything like this figure.
there has never existed anything like this figure. It is truly very satisfying to listen to the Ambassador reaffirm that these successes were possible due to the political ideology, to a political science, to Marxism-Leninism, to which they added important theoretical contributions of Mao Zedong, theoretical contributions to the revolutionary struggle, theoretical contributions to Marxism to which they later added theoretical and practical contributions of Deng Xiaoping. Added to this is the undeniably hard-working characteristic of the Chinese people. They are a people, really very hardworking. That is recognized everywhere in the world and, in Cuba, it is acknowledged because, dedicated to agriculture, specifically vegetable production, they greatly contribute to the supply of fresh produce in the city. So, this spirit of labor is an important factor that, in my opinion, also contributed to the advances of the Chinese people, along with a theory and through a revolution that won, together with deep social changes, the independence of that great nation; a true and exemplary revolution when you analyze its roots, from the beginning when it organized its first nucleus of the Chinese Communist Party during the twenties, its rich history and, among the outstanding events, the long march, a military achievement that is unparalleled in history-and history has many military achievements. We have read some books on what constituted that advance, day by day, surrounded by large enemy units of the puppet government that was supplied with all the weapons it needed, with hundreds of divisions. And that great military achievement occurred in very difficult conditions, always surrounded by large forces, constantly outmaneuvering the enemy, overcoming natural barriers. At times these included snow-capped mountains, and other times, wide and rushing rivers, until they reached the base that would be their permanent site during the war of liberation. There was a time that the others, the so-called nationalists, the Puppets and reactionaries were fighting a foreign invasion, a war against the Japanese militarists and, to some extent, joined forces with the revolutionary Chinese. However, they were not serving the people nor the true independence of the country and they made all kinds of errors and had all kinds of weaknesses. Many times the Communists had to fight against the nationalists of Chiang Kai-Shek and against Japanese troops. In spite of this, they made a decisive contribution to the defeat of the Japanese militarists. These events are also in the pages of modern Chinese history. And those who served reaction and Yankee imperialism at the end of the Second World War, who were crushingly and irreversibly defeated, took refuge on the little island of Taiwan, which is an integral part of Chinese territory because it was a part of China for an infinite length of time, like the keys to the north of Cuba, more so than the Isle of Youth is ours. Those who live there are of Chinese nationality, speak the Chinese language and have Chinese culture in spite of the western penetration they have received. This possession is an unquestionable right of the Chinese nation. It absolutely cannot be denied that it is an internal problem of China. No one has the right to interfere, and that is what they demand: respect for the sovereignty of their country, the universal recognition of this right. They are not demanding the union of two different nations, of different ethnicities, and different cultures. Even the Taiwanese, until recently, and especially in the Security Council, spoke for 22 years of only one China completely integrated. Until recently they have been speaking in this language. Ah! What was the first military intervention by the United States to secure Taiwan? I remember. During the days of the Korean War, the U.S. fleet took up a position between the continent and the island of Taiwan. This cannot be forgotten. That position was maintained by force. The country did not have conditions for that battle, nor did the country want to wage this battle. The country demanded its rights, demanded recognition, and wanted to solve the problem peacefully. What it determined with all its rights was that it would not admit the loss of part of its territory, the tearing up of its country through the declaration and recognition of an independent republic of Taiwan. They have said it categorically, that they will not permit it, and I am sure that they will not, as I have the hope that this problem and the recognition of the theory and the practice of the inalienable rights of China occur without any form of war or loss of blood. What is really happening today is that the United States and other western countries, while they talk of only one China, supply the separatist government of the island with the most modern and sophisticated weapons and nourish the movement against the integrity of China. The Ambassador recalled and Machadito also mentioned the problem of Hong Kong. They knew how to have the necessary patience until the day came when the West and the world had no other choice but to acknowledge the right of the People's Republic of China to the reintegration of this piece of its territory seized by colonial wars, disgraceful colonial wars. Today much is said against drug trafficking. Then, the British Empire took over that territory and the West unleashed a war and sent troops who reached Beijing to impose the rights of the Western powers over the opium trade with China. That is a historical truth. They recalled that this same year Macao would be returned, the little piece that was in the hands of a European country and it would be done peacefully through an agreement made thanks to Chinese patience, a patience we should all learn from and that, partially, we have. And if we have not learned from it we have figured out on our own because the duty of all revolutionaries it to also act with the necessary wisdom. They waited and that year took possession of the territory. To make things easier, they thought of a country with two systems. They promised those who stayed in Hong Kong the existing economic and social systems, the existing institutions but under Chinese sovereignty. They have also made this offer to Taiwan, with an even broader scope. The proof of the peaceful spirit of China is the fact that, even though the Portuguese enclave of Macao had no form of defense, they did not take advantage of the circumstance or any situation to take over the enclave. India, a neighboring country, also very populated, did not have so much patience and, at a certain time, took over a Portuguese enclave that was on Indian territory. It is a good example of the peaceful spirit of the People's Republic of China. They did not use force to recover that territory and with the help of time and international support they are recovering all the rights they were stripped of.
They did not use force to recover that territory and with the help of time and international support they are recovering all the rights they were stripped of. The Ambassador mentioned how they had broken up the country. He could mention many other things. I mentioned the history of opium. How many crimes were committed against that great nation until mid-century, and how many rights were denied and ignored until they were reestablished in the course of the final two-thirds of this century! Respect the people! Respect territorial integrity! This is not the time to break up nations. At a time when many peoples, separated by borders, by flags and hymns fight for integration, join together, and peacefully wipe out borders, the countries of the Caribbean fight for integration. The countries of Central America fight for integration. The countries of South America fight for integration. Latin America fights for it. In the future, no small nation can exist isolated in practice. I will say more: Switzerland a country traditionally very protective of its sovereignty that, due to its excellent geographic position in the heart of the Alps, could maintain neutrality during the First and Second World Wars. And Switzerland, I know because I went there and spoke with leaders who were, along with 49 percent of the people, in favor of integration into the European Economic Community, only a small fraction is lacking to make a majority-could not live alone in the Alps, isolated from the rest of the European community. The move is inexorably toward integration in that community. Who has the right to support the disintegration of China? Who has the right to deny China's demand for acknowledgment of its sovereignty over Taiwan? It is absurd that when the entire world is integrating that someone should call for the disintegration of a piece of China. You can see the disaster of disintegration of the Soviet Union countries; a disintegration that became a race of all to run, primarily the United States, to invest and establish its hegemony, its domination and its possession of the fundamental resources of the former republics, mainly gas and oil, products of which they are very rich, as well as other minerals. The world doesn't move towards disintegration, it moves towards integration. It is not only a historical fact but also a principle of the modern world, a necessity of modern life. That is what the People's Republic of China demands. And now, the People's Republic of China of today, of this millennium, or of this century about to begin, is very different from that republic that arose 50 years ago in a country devastated by many years of war, against foreign invasion. Added to this was the revolutionary war. More than 20 years of fierce battles against the internal and external enemies of the Chinese people. The country destroyed, a country that was poor, a country that had been exploited by external and internal exploiters. Everything needed to be built. I already mentioned under what conditions. It is a country whose economy strongly moves forward. It's curious; Machadito mentioned their contribution during the Asian crisis. There is something more: the People's Republic of China gave an extraordinary service to the world in recent months, especially since 1998 in that crisis that began in Southeast Asia and that lead the second world power in the field of economy, Japan, into a deep crisis, that later spread to Russia and was seriously affecting the stocks and shares of the United States exchanges and which threatened to wipe out the economy of Latin America. You can see how great the danger was that Latin America as a whole grew, if it grew at all, by 0.5 percent in 1999; and if it grew 0.5 percent it is because the countries with an important weight in the region produced greater growth. Mexico was between 4 percent and 5 percent. There are countries with growth below zero, negative in several countries, several important countries. It was a very serious world economic threat that has not yet been overcome, and it is not known with certainty if it will soon be overcome and there is the certainty-at least I have it-that when it recovers it will not be for long. China had made an enormous economic sacrifice without which the crisis would not have been stopped. It was in a complicated situation because its exports grew year by year, but when the Asian crisis devaluated the currencies in many countries with a certain level of development-the so-called Asian tigers, pride of the neoliberal economy, pride of imperialism as an example of what can be achieved through their adverse formulas-and when they fell in a matter of days, since one after the other economy of those countries collapsed with terrible consequences, both for the economy of the world, especially for the countries of the Third World that are totally unprotected in this crisis, the Chinese found themselves at a disadvantage because the prices of the merchandize of all these countries cheapened amazingly because with the devaluation of their currency they could export whatever they wanted at low prices. China could have devaluated the yuan to protect itself against that competition, to maintain the rhythm of increase in its exports and with this maintain an uninterrupted rise in growth. The world was shaking-the world! Not just the Third World but also the industrialized world was shaking thinking of the idea that China, with its rights, and to protect its exports and economic growth could devaluate the yuan. It did not and still there has been no acknowledgement that the People's Republic of China deserves for this service it gave to the world and at the cost of its own economy. In other words, it acted with a great sense of responsibility; the prestige of the country grew last year more than the 7.8 percent that Machadito mentioned referring to the growth of the Chinese economy. The prestige of China must have grown, for this reason alone, at least by 20 percent or 30 percent. But I think its prestige deserved a growth of 200 percent because no one can imagine the consequences of a measure of this kind by China. However, they are haggling over its membership in the World Trade Organization and we are all fighting for the membership of China to the WTO.
However, they are haggling over its membership in the World Trade Organization and we are all fighting for the membership of China to the WTO. Europe and the United States assume the right to decide who becomes a member and who does not. The battle in the United Nations repeats itself. And the WTO is frightful because it can be a terrible instrument against the interests of the Third World. The Third World is interested to have China in the World Trade Organization, which is responsible for regulating this activity; an instrument created, undoubtedly-the same as other instruments that already exist such as the IMF and similar institutions that have imposed the famous neoliberalism whose consequences our compatriots know about through the thousands of visitors who come from all over the world and the press releases regarding this ever increasing loss of prestige and more damaging-like an instrument of domination. All that imperialism has created since the fall of the socialist camp have been instruments to strengthen its domination in all fields. In the economic sphere it enjoys some incredible privileges that cannot continue to survive. They are the ones who print the money reserves of the world, investing only in the paper. The Europeans are trying to create another to protect itself from these super-privileges that exists at the cost of the interests of the rest of the world and benefit, to a certain extent, by sharing them. All these subjects are part of the issues that must be discussed to change the existing world order that has been established for that reason. The club of the rich, a group of rich countries-there are around twenty something, I think it is 29 now-invented a multilateral agreement project of investments to make it an international treaty. Today there are bilateral agreements, but the member countries of this club known as the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) invented a project that was shrouded in silence. They discussed it behind closed doors and were getting ready to release it when some people-I think it was in France-discovered the text that, although it was known and being discussed the contents were unknown. They mounted a great scandal and the authors had to put a stop to it. Where this had to be discussed was in the WTO because over a hundred countries were there and not the 30 richest countries. They did not want to discuss it in the WTO although the WTO was set up as an instrument to strengthen the economic, political and all other forms of United States hegemony. They imposed the conditions of that organization as an instrument of imperialism. That's why it was created although it could be sidetracked to become an instrument of the peoples where we of the Third World are a wide majority. But the peoples of the Third World are very divided because of their poverty they depend heavily on the United States and the trade institutions and financial organizations it created and that, often, breaks the unity. Acting in unity, the Third World with China in the WTO could become an instrument of justice, an instrument of resistance to the hegemony of the United States, for a new economic order, against the current economic order they have imposed which is the important reason to reform the United Nations. All this is linked. The WTO could be an instrument of justice. We are a majority. We are the majority in the United Nations as you can see from some of the votes in the UN General Assembly, for example, those against the blockade. One day the General Assembly managed to impose the recognition of China's rights-the real China, the only China that exists-in the Security Council. Ah, that is why we also call for more powers for the UN General Assembly. That institution must change. The Chinese ambassador clearly explained and mentioned all the concepts of limited sovereignty, global threats, right to intervention like the one in Yugoslavia, to which is added the new strategic concept of NATO, approved days before that genocidal war, a right that NATO assigns itself of intervening whenever it wants in any country. As I said, all these problems are linked; the intention of ignoring the United Nations, that is all we have; a world organization that exists, that was founded after the Second World War. It no longer corresponds to the present situation in the world, having almost 200 independent states. It began with around thirty or forty something states controlled by the victorious powers after the Second World War. It definitely needs to be restructured and democratized, but this requires tactics and strategies. At least it is very clear for me the importance of the ties of the Third World with China and the need for the support of China in that restructuring that can no longer be delayed because China is a permanent member with the right to veto. Under certain limits the United States can try to prevent it and will do so for a long time. But it will have to discuss it, as it has had to discuss other things. It refused to discuss it for many years and will be unable, also, to prevent the democratization of the United Nations, as a result of the mobilization of world public opinion, through the unity of the nations. He mentioned those principles that imperialism wants to wipe out. It is very important to listen here to the Chinese Ambassador asserting that these principles must be defended and that is a fundamental factor of Chinese foreign policy. Fortunately, yesterday, we had the opportunity to listen to the Russian Chancellor-because Russia exists. It is not a superpower but still is a great power. What is my opinion about the difference between a superpower and a great power? That the former has the power to destroy the latter fifteen times over and the latter has the power to destroy the other three or four times, but one is enough, and hopefully that will never happen! Russia is a great power. China is a great power in a different way, and in some ways a much greater power than Russia; but Russia is a great nuclear power. It has a nuclear military power that China does not. China does not yet have it and hopefully it will not need it.
China does not yet have it and hopefully it will not need it. What forces China to maintain a technical development in the military field is simply the aggressive policy against it, the interference in its internal affairs, the denial of its fundamental rights, and strategic concepts that amount to threats. At any time, NATO could intervene because it decides that China posed a global threat due to some internal problem-any kind of problem that might arise. It is inconceivable that they assume that right. That is why I say I hope they never have to become a great nuclear power! But what do the others do? Invest increasingly in weapons, in the development of military technology. Recently, we read the declaration of one of the nominees to the presidency of the United States who promised to invest enormous sums in military research to improve conventional weapons, among other things. What is the purpose of all this improvement? Why all that technological development when the Cold War has been long dead? What is the justification for all this weaponry but the clear intention of dominating the world, not only through political and economic measures but also military ones, to maintain discipline in this chaotic world? I am not going to try to explain why, but we know very well all the details and the hundreds of arguments for why the world is chaotic. And those cannot be solved with nuclear or conventional weapons. It is their desperation that makes them take this course, to hold everything in their hands: military, political, and economic. Even Europe was humiliated by its ridiculous role in the war against Yugoslavia since 100 percent of the bombs were made in the United States and 90 percent of the operations were made by U.S. aviation and missiles. Europe felt so humiliated that the ambition to have its own European forces has taken wing because of the crushing superiority created by its ally. What a difficult ally Europe has and what a dangerous one in every way. I already told you how pleased I was to listen to the Russian Chancellor-I didn't say Soviet, right? I said Russian because sometimes we make mistakes out of an old habit. Now it is not Soviet, it is not a socialist country. Today The International would not be sung in an event to commemorate something related to Russia. But Russia is a country threatened by NATO, which is moving towards its borders. Russia is a threatened country that U.S. imperialism wants to see weakened and even torn apart, to take over its enormous natural resources. The great capital of the United States is not satisfied with the investments it has made in all parts of the defunct U.S.S.R, above all in the area of the Caspian Sea where there are said to be enormous oil and gas reserves, and in other republics in the region. They are not satisfied with their ambitious program of taking over and controlling all that wealth. They also want to take over and control all the wealth of Russia, apply conditions, even upbraiding it a few days ago when they scolded the country in a meeting of the G-7 regarding the financial scandal. That is not a socialist nation. It has common interests, many common interests with other countries. It has them with Europe, and Europe is neither calm nor happy. Above all, Europe does not like adventures imposed from the other side of the ocean, like the Yugoslav adventure and any others the United States might think up. Since that last experience of the genocidal war, more proclamations are made of the new strategic-military doctrines and enthusiastic political theories intended to ravage the United Nations Charter and establish the rights of the powerful to intervene in any part of the world. The world feels threatened and we know that well. It's very good, we have read, that relations between Russia and China are improving. That's very good. We have read that they have adopted similar positions concerning the barbarous war against Yugoslavia. That's good. We know that they have taken common positions against the alleged right to dismantle whatever it wants to, like they dismantled Yugoslavia and succeeded in dismantling the U.S.S.R. All these are issues that worry many nations in the world. And in Europe there wasn't only the disintegration of the U.S.S.R but U.S. capital, which as I said, is taking over the economies of the old socialist countries. They want to take over everything there. Ah, but we are living in new times, a new century that will begin in something over a year-because 2000 is the last year of this century, lets not forget this-there are great challenges and tasks for the nations of the Third World, for countries like China, for countries like Russia. We know that Russia tries to develop relations not only with Europe but also with the Third World. And we heard from the Russian Chancellor words similar to those said today by the Chinese Ambassador referring to the principles that I mentioned previously, intending to sweep away the rights of the peoples who form part of the United Nations and the principles that provided some measure of relative protection for their sovereignty independence. I say relative because we know that, in spite of these rights, the United States has intervened in a group of countries during these last decades without anyone's permission-we know that-but always clashing with international law and now they want to do as they please without troubling with any international law or any established principles. A hard battle must be waged in the United Nations, like the one our delegation waged. There is much to do battle about and there are many common interests among some of the nations that are members of the Security Council and the rest of the world. For various reasons, the world is becoming aware of these problems and it is visible.
For various reasons, the world is becoming aware of these problems and it is visible. There is sufficient strength to resist, to move forward, more so backed by the laws of history and the reality of a system and world economic order that is unsustainable; that is collapsing and that is capable of collapsing by itself, although this collapse must be helped along. And more than aiding in the collapse, the world must be made aware of these realities so that the peoples can resist this order with more strength and contribute to its progressive disappearance. Although one is sure that the disappearance will not be very progressive, because when a catastrophic economic crisis occurs, like the one that almost occurred, and being greater, because the more the delay the stronger the crisis will be, the spirit of struggle of the peoples must be lifted, their will to resist. We must make them aware that they must prepare for new concepts, a new concept of the world, a new world economic order, truly fair, that must come about as the result of the struggle of the peoples. The peoples must struggle not only to protect their economy and Rights, but also must struggle to defend their own survival. They wipe out the environment; they destroy it. Scarcely a year ago Mitch hit Central America with devastating damage and now we see images of colossal floods, a visible climactic change and that no one denies. Who does it hit first? The poor countries; the nations of the Third World. That is why I thought it was necessary to express these thoughts because I feel they are very important questions, worthy to be taken into consideration on a day such as today. But, I also wanted to say that, during these difficult years, when we suddenly lost our markets, we had the Chinese market. When it was difficult to acquire some supplies, we acquired some of them in the Chinese People's Republic. Our ships come and go, they take and bring products. They have a very developed pharmaceutical industry, many raw materials for our drug industry, many raw materials for our pharmaceutical industry; some that are very difficult to acquire we find in China and at good prices. They have cooperated with our country. They have developed exchanges and economic relations with Cuba. They have also developed political relations with Cuba during the special period. Most of its leaders have visited our country. We had the honor of receiving President Jiang Zemin and, in our fist contact, we were not wrong in appraising his intelligence, his political and human conditions, his capacity as a responsible leader and statesman with solid principles. We also see in China, because we read the news cables every day, the other country where western propaganda is furious. A day doesn't pass where international cables do not appear about internal questions and affairs in China. If China arrests someone for breaking the law, the outcry follows immediately. If China forbids a small splinter group because they are endangering the stability and union of the country or because of a policy that is treasonable to the interests of this great people, the outcry follows. Today the propaganda concentrates mostly against Cuba, but there is also strong propaganda against China, a diversionist propaganda using all the mass media possible creating new stations transmitting western ideas, western consumer habits or U.S. madness to the 1.25 billion Chinese people-against a country with which it is waging, as much as possible, an ideological battle. That is why, today, aware of our forces, the potential forces of the world, the potential allies of the Third World, the possibility of our peoples, thinking about this, listening to the words of the Ambassador, I felt a deep satisfaction and was very pleased to attend this event although I had not thought of speaking. I've extended myself a little more than what I had promised-and to listen to the Ambassador here speak the phrase that received so much applause and in Spanish because he spoke with precision in Spanish. He knows Cuba. He lived and worked in Cuba several years ago. That is why he speaks Spanish so clearly, like any one of us, when he said: "Socialismo o muerte" and when he added "Venceremos" he said something that we are absolutely convinced about. Also, that is why I was so deeply moved to hear The International in this event endorsed by what was said here, expressed with exact data that was outlined here to demonstrate that only socialism can solve the problems of the world. Only socialism can feed 1.25 billion Chinese, give them a home, a television for each Chinese family, and many other household articles, and especially the essential resources for life. That is to say, that country feeds approximately 22 percent of the world's population with 7 percent of the world's agricultural lands. Another great example: The country went through periods of starvation under the domination of the feudal lords and capitalism, always allied with colonial and dominating powers when the population was only 400 million or 500 million. Today the population has tripled and hunger has been eradicated forever. And here the Ambassador explained that they have been capable of producing 40 percent of the eggs produced in the world, 490 million tons of cereals, and other similar statistics. And we could say that China is just beginning, that 7.8 percent growth was by brute force. How could they manage that if the rhythm of exports fell considerably? Ah! Because of the resources they have been accumulating. High reserves of convertible currencies allowed them not only to make the contribution I spoke of about the yuan but of maintaining a rhythm of growth that, if it was not going to depend so much on exports, would depend on the increase of internal consumption and maintain the rhythm of development for employment, because in all these tasks of restructuring, logically there is an important need to create jobs. They must also confront the movement from the countryside to the city as the former increases productivity and produces a surplus of hand labor. They were able to maintain the yuan. It would have been easier to devaluate the yuan but they did not do it. Instead, they maintained their reserves, managed their economy with wisdom and managed a 7.8 percent growth under these conditions.
Instead, they maintained their reserves, managed their economy with wisdom and managed a 7.8 percent growth under these conditions. They not only endured the Southeastern Asian crisis in those countries where the owners of capital took their money, where the owners of world finances plundered the last dollar of their reserves creating the ideal conditions for the large U.S. transnationals to acquire companies and factories in any of those countries at a low cost. They not only endured the crisis and without devaluating the yuan but also performed an incredible service to the world. And in spite of that, they grew by 7.8 percent. They are able to continue the battle, in spite of the difficulties that oppress the world today. All that has been said today of this story is the fruit of something that is called socialism. It is the fruit of a doctrine that arose to shake the world, a Marxist doctrine, of scientific socialism, a revolution of the poor, by the poor, and for the poor, that has, also made possible this incredible heroic exploit of resisting 40 years of blockade and almost 10 years of special period. That is why I repeat the slogan with which the Ambassador ended his speech: �Socialismo o Muerte! �Venceremos! A CubaNews translation by Ana Portela Edited by Walter Lippmann and Robert Sandels Notes on the seventh anniversary of this speech: 9/30/2005: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/42823 Original Spanish transcript: http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1999/esp/f290999e.html (Shorthand Version-Council of State) Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2007. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
Fidel Castro Our Criminals are Leaving to their Allies in the US Spoken: May Day, 1980 at Jose Marti Revolution Square Publisher: Havana Domestic Service in Spanish 2359 GMT Translated: FBIS Transcription/Markup: Castro Speech Database/Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002 Compatriots, We know how many hours you already have spent standing on this square. We only ask one more effort from you. [rhythmic applause, prolonged chanting of "Fidel, friend, the people are with you"]... When ... [prolonged chanting of "Fidel, Fidel, Fidel," and applause] Well, let us now give another demonstration of discipline. Let us be silent. As I was saying, or trying to say, when we were coming to this rally this afternoon we could again see the incredible spectacle of absolutely deserted streets. We could imagine, or rather, I ask myself if we could imagine, the magnitude of this rally. We thought it must be a big one. We thought it would be the biggest over the 21 years of the revolution. Actually, however, it was impossible to imagine the magnitude of this rally. Perhaps only from the tower [presumably from the Jose Marti Monument], perhaps from the air, perhaps only graphically by means of the movies, television or photographs we will be able to see this rally. [in distance chanting, applause] I do not say this or make this observation thinking of what it means in support for us. I say it and I think it, thinking of what it means in support for our noble and just revolutionary ideas, [applause] what it means in support for our revolutionary cause. [applause] It was a case of showing our strength, but not just to merely show it. A battle of the masses has been waged over recent days as never before in the history of the revolution, as much by its volume as by its intensity. The facts are known; it was necessary to do it. It was necessary to do this [applause, chanting of "Let them go, Let them go"] The enemy had to be shown and the enemy had to be taught that there can be no fooling around with the people. The enemy had to be shown that there can be no fooling around with the revolution. [applause] The enemy had to be shown that a people cannot be offered with impunity, [applause] that a people cannot be threatened with impunity. [shouts of `No"] And this image, this image is what they dreamed of destroying, the image of what the people are, the true revolutionary people, the proletarian people, the working people, the peasant people, the combatant people, the student people. [prolonged applause, indistinct chanting] Perhaps they thought the revolution has weakened and you can see what weakness of the revolution they have uncovered. [rhythmic applause, indistinct chanting] You can see what type of a revolution they have found. That is why it was necessary to wage this battle. As you know, over recent months our party and our people have been waging a tenacious and selfless struggle for exigency, to overcome inefficiencies, to overcome difficulties. This work was being done quietly and insistently for months. It could be said that our revolution, our people and our party were devoted to this work and to productive activities, especially the sugar harvest and the planting [of sugarcane], coping with the problems of the diseases of tobacco and sugarcane and the swine fever which mysteriously, mysteriously appeared almost simultaneously in our country. We were tackling various problems of our revolutionary process. We were struggling for development, struggling to improve everything within our material capabilities, and preparing for the congress of our party. We were involved in that task. But, why does this situation emerge? It is not a coincidence; it is not a coincidence. What happens is that, as in all previous circumstances, every time they have messed with us they have come the worse for it; every time they have provoked us they have come out the losers. You know the facts. And if it were not for the presence of foreign journalists, it would not be necessary to speak much about the background. But the issue was unleashed as a result of the provocations at the embassies of Peru and Venezuela. Everyone knows that imperialism wanted to affect relations between Cuba and Venezuela and between Cuba and Peru. It had that idea for a long time and was planning things. We cannot forget that is what precisely in Venezuela and with the participation of Venezuelans that the monstrous crime of Barbados [sabotage of Cuban airlines] was planned and executed. It was one of the most indignant actions that has ever happened over all time. We all know that all those people have not even been tried and that frequently there is even talk that they are going to be released because they, some of them, have old relations with the ruling party of Venezuela. We cannot forget that in Peru it was the navy of that country, the navy of that country--and we know this and I do not think they dare disagree--the navy of that country, agents of the navy that sank our two fishing boats--the Rio Jobabo and Rio Danuji. It was an incredible provocation. Furthermore, neither can we can forget how the existing fishing agreement between Cuba and Peru, which had been in effect a long time and was functioning perfectly well and was useful, very useful for the Peruvians and helped to produce food for the Peruvians and also food for us, was unilaterally canceled. This was also a result of impositions by the navy, to make private agreements by virtue of which an individual without giving anything, just his signature, could become a millionaire. We cannot forget how the Government of Peru did not fulfill a contract for the construction of 20 tuna fishing boats which we signed with them and by virtue of which our country spent tens of millions of dollars on a fish processing plant. Nevertheless, the contract was not fulfilled. The boats were not built and we were left with the plant and without the boats. All this has its history and background. Logically, these things began to cool the relations which at one time were warm and close with the revolutionary government of Velasco Alvarado.
[applause] These were relations that began those difficult days for Peru, when our people, at the request of the [Peruvian] revolution, although no diplomatic relations existed, made 100,000 blood donations in 10 days. And our doctors and nurses volunteered, and our construction workers volunteered, and our people volunteered to help the fraternal people of Peru, [applause] the fraternal people of Peru, yes, because we call and always will call the people of Peru and Venezuela our fraternal people of Peru and Venezuela. [applause] That is how our people are. That is the people who are here, [applause] these people of workers, of soldiers, [applause] the internationalist people, the people of the glorious combatants in Angola and Ethiopia, the people from whom more than 100,000 combatants of their armed forces already have performed internationalist missions. [applause] [These are] the people who, when teachers are requested for Nicaraguan, offer 29,500 teachers. That is the people, not the lumpens who want to represent them with those scum who entered the Peruvian Embassy. [Applause, shouts of "scum," other indistinct chanting] That was what offered our people the most. That dust and other dust brought this mud, and those winds brought these storms. [laughter] And then, something strange, something strange which did not occur at any other embassy. They had thugs, delinquents and lumpens who went to request visas and they [at the embassy] would not grant them even if they were crazy because if they had wanted to grant the visas, well, they would have known that we know enough [of these elements]. They were not granted visas. When they used violence to enter, crashing a truck or bus through the fence, then they would be received with all honors, protected, granted refugee, have their fare paid and received as heroes. This could do nothing except encourage lumpens to undertake such activities. It could not have had other results. And the patience we displayed, practically for years in some cases, was of no use. We explained to them that it was incorrect, that it was going to have bad consequences, that it was going to stimulate violence against diplomatic missions, that such a policy should not continue. We resolved the problem for them on repeated occasions because they said they could not live with those elements inside. We could have said: Let them stay there forever. But [they said] please, we do not want to live with these people; we have these problems. And we authorized the departure of such elements. We did it repeatedly. And always the things we foresaw happened. Immediately after a group left, another one entered [the embassy]. That is how it was. But why the embassies of Venezuela and Peru? Why did this not happen at the Mexican Embassy, for example? Why did it not happen at the Guyanese Embassy or the Panamanian Embassy or the Jamaican Embassy, not to mention the Nicaraguan or Grenadian? It remains to be seen if there is some insane person who dares enter them either with a tank or a truck of whatever. No, they do not consider, they do not consider that because the lumpen knows governments almost as well as we do. And they know that Mexico has a friendly attitude toward Cuba and was not going to permit such despicable actions and such irregularities. Neither was Panama going to allow it, nor Guyana nor Jamaica. Why were these things happening precisely in the embassies of Venezuela and Peru? Of course, it is clear that behind all this--behind the Barbados [plane sabotage], behind the sunken ships in Peru, behind the cancellation of the fishing agreement, behind the unfulfilled contract for the construction of 20 tuna fishing boats, behind all this--is the CIA. And the CIA is behind all these provocations. And the disorder stopped with the death of soldier Ortiz Cabrera. [applause] That was the point when we could not take any more and we said that at any cost, and let this be understood clearly, at any cost--we even recalled that at one time everyone had broken [relations] with us and that, of course, could not be repeated again--we were prepared, at any cost, to put an end to those provocations. And when the revolution says that it is prepared to end something at any cost, everyone can be assured that it puts an end to it at any cost. [applause] We simply removed the guards from the embassy. And we knew what was going to happen. We knew what was going to happen because imperialism and its lackeys cannot encourage lumpens for such a long time by offering them the moon or however the saying goes, offering them everything, filling them with illusions, while on the other hand they close the door to these people and encourage them to enter [the embassy] illegally by force. They are encouraged to leave illegally. But they are not granted entry. [as heard] We knew that when the guards were removed, and when the lumpens knew there were no guards, that the embassy would be filled with lumpens. And that is exactly what happened. It could be said that the lumpens did what was expected they would do. A provisional guard had to be reestablished, because the guard at that embassy is provisional. I want to warn about this because the problem of what we do, what they are going to do and the situation of the persons who enter embassies by force remains to be resolved. There is not much importance now to removing such a guard because we have removed the guard from the Florida peninsula, and that is much bigger. [applause] We have had to remove the guard from the Florida peninsula. They have an easier path to leave. [applause] Imperialism immediately took advantage of this problem. [It used] all the bourgeois and rightist press of this hemisphere and the world to launch a deluge of slander against Cuba and propaganda against Cuba. We expected that. But this battle is won, is being won and is going to be won completely, completely because we defy not only the Yankee military threats, we also defy the Yankee press monopolies or rather the imperialist press monopolies.
We defy this barrage; we defy the campaign with absolute imperturbability. If we are not willing to defy risks of any kind, the risks of aggression as well as the risks of their propaganda, if we are intimidated by the propaganda--to be intimidated by propaganda is like being intimidated by enemy guns. It is the same thing. We should not be afraid at all. We have learned that perfectly well during 21 years. But they unleashed it in the belief that the people wanted to leave; that there were many dissidents, especially this belief--that there were dissidents. There is lumpen there in that embassy. You were able to see it in the film documentary. They do not know what the word dissidence means, they would not know the meaning of this word. [laughter] Then, they built up their campaign around this idea and of course, first it was the imperialist press and then, as can be imagined, the reactionary and rightist press against socialism, against communism, against the Cuban revolution. Simultaneously, the Yankees were doing exactly the same thing. In recent months, there was an increase in illegal departures. People commandeered boats, often took the crew as hostages. Then they were received in Florida as heroes, as dissidents, as patriots, and so forth. And we warned them. We repeatedly warned them through diplomatic channels. We warned them. We also warned them publicly because we talked about this very point on 8 March, International Women's Day, at the closing of the congress. We warned them of the consequences this might bring. And we told them that Camarioca could be opened once more. On that day we set forth what the revolution's policy was, is and will be. And the thing is that the work of a revolution and the construction of socialism is a task of absolutely free and willing men and women. [applause] He who has no revolutionary genes, he who has no revolutionary blood, he who does not have a mind that adapt to the idea of a revolution, he who does not have a heart that can adapt to the effort of heroism required by a revolution: We do not want them; we do not need them. [cheers and applause] And at any rate, they are an insignificant part of the people, because what the imperialists do not want, what they want to hide, what hurts them to acknowledge are some truths. For instance, that there is no revolution with the mass strength of the Cuban revolution. [applause] There is no revolution, that is, our revolution; well, it is not good to make comparisons; it is not good. But, the mass strength, the moral strength, the political strength, the ideological strength of the revolution is tremendous. And when it is put to the test, you saw the 19 April march; you see this rally today. But it is not only numbers that count. You can see the quality and the spirit of the people. [applause] This is the image that imperialism would like to hide because it does not suit them. They want the people to lose faith in Cuba. They want the people to grow discouraged with Cuba. In addition, in this whole hemisphere, well, let's exclude Nicaragua and Grenada. Or maybe they would admit it; they would agree with us. In spite of everything, in spite of the fact that we have lumpen, that unfortunately we still have lumpen among us, in spite of the fact that we will have declassed individuals, that we still have antisocial individuals, we are the nationa that has the least number of antisocial individuals and lumpen in the hemisphere. We are the nation with the lowest rate of theft, although there were thieves. [laughter] The lowest theft and crime rate. A minimal rate of drug abuse. There is no prostitution, no gambling nothing. The Grenadians and the Nicaraguans have not yet been able to solve these problems and it will take them a lot of time to solve them, because we were unable to solve them in the first or the second year of the revolution either. But there is no society with a healthier moral atmosphere than our society in all this hemisphere [applause] There is no society with more moral values than those achieved by our society at the end of 21 years of revolution. None with such a sense of justice, with such a sense of justice, with such a sense of honor, with such a sense of dignity, with such an appreciation and admiration for merit, for work, for sacrifice. And this is very much in evidence each time it is put to the test. And as we have often said, during the Angolan and Ethiopian wars, hundreds of thousands of Cubans volunteered to participate in those struggles. It is shown by the fact that we have 50,000 military and civilian compatriots abroad. It is shown by the fact that Cuban technicians are working in 35 countries. [applause] And the lumpen have no allies remaining here. At first, they [the imperialists] had the bourgeoisie, the landowners. They had vacillating individuals of the middle classes, including those of the petit bourgeoisie. But now, where are they going to find allies? Among the workers" [shouts of "No"!] At first they sought out those classes because they existed as such in our country and they were their allies. Now they only have the lumpen. They are the only potential allies for imperialism. The lumpen. And some who have the mentality of lumpen or get mixed up with them. As simple as that. But they are the only potential allies left to imperialism. And this lumpen is where they have to get their refugees, their asylum seekers, their dissidents. As I was saying, along with this, the United States was encouraging illegal departures from the country. And therefore, Mariel was opened. Mariel, which has surpassed Camarioca by far.
Mariel, which has surpassed Camarioca by far. Camarioca was nothing compared with Mariel. [Shout from a man in the crowd] He is saying: Lovely Mariel, you have been wounded. [laughter] But look, rather than a wound, it was more of a self-inflicted wound. Let me explain. The funny thing is that this time it was not ourselves who proposed opening Mariel. No. The initiative was taken over there. In the heat of the situation and the campaign created in the United States itself in connection with the events at the Florida embassy [corrects himself] the Peruvian Embassy. In Florida, the idea of sending boats to pick up this lumpen was spontaneous. And then we simply limited ourselves to declaring that we would not receive them with guns and that they would be treated with complete courtesy. And we opened it. I do not know if this is hara-kiri or a wound or what. [laughs] The thing is that it was opened. Now we are going to see how we close it, how we can close it. [laughter] We'll see. [shouts from the crowd] They are doing an excellent sanitation job for us. [laughter] The best. Now they are complaining. They say there are delinquents. As if this was a great discovery. As if they were amazed to find some delinquents. Now, who do they think broke into and took refuge in the Peruvian Embassy? Did they think they were intellectuals, artists, technicians, engineers? What did they think? That it was propaganda on our part? They thought that we were doing an injustice and calling poor dissidents lumpen. [shouts of "trash!'] And that was the type of individual making up the large majority of those who took refuge at the Peruvian Embassy. Of course, some of them took their relatives. We cannot say that a child is a lumpen. It is tragic for a child to be the child of lumpen, a terrible tragedy. But the large majority of the people there were of that kind: Lumpen. Some limp wrists [flojito]. [laughter] Some shameless creatures who had been covering up. [laughter] You know it; the committees [for the Defense of the Revolution] know it better than anyone. They know that some of those managed to slip through. By the way, they are the ones that produce the most irritation. Those who cover up. [shouts from the crowd]. Well now Mariel has opened. And we are strictly complying with our stand: That all who want to leave for a country that will receive them an leave. The building of socialism, revolutionary work is a task of free men and women. We must not forget this principle. It entails huge moral value. [applause] Now, we have not granted a passport and safe conduct only to lumpen who took refuge in the embassy. No, we are giving them to all lumpen that request them. To all who request them. And of course, the lumpen say: "This is international lumpen day!" [laughter] When they heard that, all lumpen wanted their passports and their safeconducts. And what are we going to do? Why should we refuse them? As GRANMA says, it is unfair and unconstitutional. What do they think they are going to receive there? Of course, at first they took the refined bourgeois, the well-dressed landowner. And then they took the physician, the professional. And remember they took half of our country's doctors. We had 3,000 and they took 6,000 [as heard]. Now it is very difficult, very difficult to take a doctor away, because the ones that stayed behind were the best ones, and doctors who trained along other lines, with a solidarity and human spirit, doctors who are not money-minded. And we have more. Well, the proof is that there are about 1,500 doctors on internationalist missions. And there are no longer engineers, architects and teachers of the kind we had in the early days of the revolution. [applause] Because we must say that in this battle many interesting things have been demonstrated. I would start by mentioning the incredible participation of the young. The combativeness and zeal of our young. Because this has been the first battle of a whole generation of youths, the first battle. [applause] The massive participation of women [applause]. Something remarkable. Beside, the attitude of intellectuals, of journalists, writers, artists, technicians, professionals, doctors has been an excellent attitude. It must be said that they have been on the frontline in this battle.
It must be said that they have been on the frontline in this battle. Not to mention the students. [applause] Of course, imperialism used to be able to select. Now, how is it going to be selective now? As (Nuez) says, they have no choice but to swallow the sword to the hilt. [laughter] That is the situation. But this was not all the problem. This was part of the problem. At the same time, there was the announcement of military maneuvers in the Caribbean. That was more serious. Air and naval landings at Guantanamo base. That was more serious, more serious. And even more serious if we thought of the world situation. More serious if we analyzed the increasingly aggressive policy of imperialism toward us. Because maybe in the early days of this administration there were some gestures that could be thought of as positive, but later on--and increasingly so--the more reactionary elements, the so-called hawks in the U.S. Government were imposing their line of thinking and that line was increasingly aggressive toward Cuba. This did not start just now. This started with the Sixth Nonaligned Countries Summit. They were irritated by Cuba's strength, by Cuba's prestige, and by Cuba's position and victories within the nonaligned movement. And in the midst of the summit conference, they unleashed an excessive and hypocritical campaign against Soviet personnel in Cuba, Soviet personnel that had been in Cuba for 16 years, since the October crisis. Something that had nothing to do with the October crisis agreements. Soviet military personnel. The Yankees knew that. They knew it. They knew it since then and all the presidents knew it. And all of a sudden they discover Soviet military personnel. They said it was a brigade. We did not call it a brigade. We had another name for it. I believe it was Study Center No 12. Who cares? The name is not important. We did not deny that those personnel were here and that we were very happy that those personnel had been here for 17 years. We are sorry that there are not more Study Center 12's. That there is no No 13, 14, 15. We would be even happier [applause] if we had available some more of these study centers. Because they are excellent study centers, I am telling you. [laughter]. But they knew it. That is where the hypocrisy, the phariseeism of imperialists lies. In the midst of the conference they stirred up a big scandal with all that. And they started a large-scale campaign. Later, it turned out that the U.S. Government's prestige was affected by all this because to discover it at such a late date forced it to adopt certain measures. But at the same time they organized a command of troops for the Caribbean. And they stationed it somewhere in Florida, in Key West. They established a troop command. Their fundamental concern was determined by the revolutionary victory in Nicaragua and the upsurge of the revolutionary movement in Central America. They started to prepare intervention forces. And, of course, they used the Soviet military personnel in Cuba as a pretext. They also used it to exert pressure on us and other maneuver was bigger, more extensive, better equipped, more soldiers, stronger. Oh, no. We could not just sit here watching them organize this maneuver. As has been said, this maneuver is simply a rehearsal to invade our country; a shameless rehearsal of invasion. And on our own territory to boot. It is really intolerable. It is unacceptable. A maneuver on how to invade Cuba in our own territory. The maneuvers turned into a serious problem. And we were not going to stand there with our arms crossed. We immediately adopted measures to mobilize the Eastern Army with reinforcements from other provinces to organize maneuvers of Cuba's armed forces in view of the Yankee maneuvers. [applause and chanting] It was only logical for the hurricane to turn around toward the United States. And so it did. The United States has imposed on Cuba a blockade that has lasted over 20 years, a harsh economic blockade, which forbids even the sale of food and medicine--even medicine. A brutal thing that has been going on for 21 years. The United States is occupying part of our territory by force and against the will of our people. Now, what doctrine, principle, law, legality can be used as the basis for a naval base on the territory of another country against the will of the people? That has no legal or juridical or moral or principled basis.
That has no legal or juridical or moral or principled basis. It is simply an act of force. The United States sends over Cuban territory the very modern SR-71, which fly at an altitude of between 25,000 and 30,000 meters at very high speed. Those are the explosions which you hear every so often all over the country, because the breaking of the speed of sound creates these noises. Walls shake, glass windows shake each time the SR-71 goes by. It is not so easy to bring them down. Technically, it is not easy. Now, is this legal? Is it legal to blockade our country? Is it legal to have a naval base on our territory? Is it legal to violate our airspace? [shouts of "no!"] They are doing it. And in addition, the maneuvers. But that was not all. Many of the comrades who have spoken today have mentioned it. They spoke of La Couvre, Giron, Escambray, the sabotage, the subversion plans, the introduction of agricultural diseases, the plans to assassinate the leaders of the revolution, Barbados. They recalled many things because there are many things of which the United States need be reminded. It was not that we capriciously turned the hurricane that began at the Peruvian Embassy against the United States. The natural course of the hurricane was the United States. And the natural course of the struggle against these violations and blackmail was to remove the guard from Florida. It was the natural course and it should not have surprised them so much. They knew it could be done. And, as I said, in a formal sense we were not the ones who opened up Mariel. They opened it from over there. We do not have policemen over there. That is their own affair. If people want to disobey their orders, that is their problem. We are free and legally able to do what we do within our own territory and to authorize the departure of the antisocial individuals who want to leave. We are not forcing anyone at all. Let this be understood. We have never deported anyone. But we have an absolute right to authorize the departure of the antisocial individuals. And that is what we are doing. Well, the battle is becoming interesting. Yesterday, or rather today, we started getting reports this morning that the Yankees has suspended the naval landing in Guantanamo. [cheers] A U.S. radio station early this morning reported that the naval landing had been suspended but not the air landing. But this afternoon we had complete reports and we were able to confirm through the U.S. interests Section in Havana and Washington, which sent this open cable. It says: We have just spoken to Mr Miles Frechette, head of the Cuban Affairs Bureau at the State Department, who confirmed that the military maneuvers planned for Guantanamo have been completely canceled. [prolonged applause] Frechette commented that he had contacted the Voice of America to point out its mistake regarding a broadcast announcing that the past of the maneuvers involving parachute jumping would still be conducted. Apparently they say the maneuvers will now be conducted somewhere along the Florida coast and the eastern U.S. coast. We know these maneuvers, their intentions, are prepared maneuvers that definitely threaten us, Central American and the Caribbean. But, of course, we are not going to discuss their right to conduct maneuvers on U.S. territory. What we discuss is the right to state maneuvers on Cuban territory. If this is so, there is no doubt that this is a notable success for the struggle of the people and of international solidarity. [applause] For this reason, the Cuban Government will suspend the special Giron 19 maneuvers that the Eastern Army was to have staged beginning on 7 May. [applause] But the combating march is still on! [shouts] The combating march is still on! [applause] Because the combating march was to be staged against the maneuvers, against the blockade, against Guantanamo Base and against the SR-71 spy flights. [applause] Lest the Yankees try to take advantage of the fact that the people have been demoralized [shouts] in the middle of the battle. The combative people's march must go and it must go with even more strength than the 19 April march. [applause] It is a mobilization of the people against the blockade, against Guantanamo Base, the existence of a Yankee military base on our territory and against the violations of our airspace, for we must not remain silent. [shouts] We simply want to express before world public opinion our rejection and spirit of struggle against this. Now, if the U.S. Government announced that it has suspended the blockade against Cuba, that it will return our occupied territory in Guantanamo and that it will suspend the SR-71 flights, then we will gladly suspend the combative people's march. [shouts, applause] But they will not do it! They will not do it; they will not do it, but they will respect us a bit more; they will learn a bit more about Cuba. They will learn to respect Cuba more. [applause, slogans] The United States has suspended the maneuver but it has not given up the right they give themselves to carry them out in 3, 4 or 5 months, whenever they believe there are more favorable international or other types of circumstances. Therefore, what they have to renounce is their presence in that piece of our national territory. That is why we will maintain these three (?banners) and we will organize the march. They say I have organized it. The truth is that I wasn't the one who organized it. The march wasn't organized by Castro but by the mass organization.
The march wasn't organized by Castro but by the mass organization. Of course, the masses have their political leaders and the masses have their party. We don't go around with hypocrisies of any type. Just as we are here, we are in everything. [Applause, shouts] We aren't going around creating fiction. We are united and we have a party and a leadership. But of course, the party cannot organize the march. It cannot. Only through the mass organizations can the march be held. Only through the unity of a revolution can the enthusiasm of an event such as this be created. Those are realities. Now then, all the people have participated in this. All the people have participated just as we are participating in this event. Therefore, the march will be held on Saturday, 17 May, not on the 8th because that was when the maneuvers were going to start, but not the exact day when they were going to land those ships. So on Saturday, 18 May [as heard], the people's combative march will be held throughout the country. On this occasion it will not be 1 million. I estimate that around 5 million people will march that day. [applause] But of course, we should not boast of the success. It is not a time for boasting. The enemy still exists. It is strong. It harasses us. It blockades us and threatens us and much more now in view of a new world situation in which we are practically at the threshold or already in an arms race and a cold war. That is why we cannot let down our guard. We cannot stop being alert. Therefore, the party has instructed the armed forces to form the militias of territorial troops as one more force. [applause] They will be made up of men, women, workers, peasants, students, everyone who is able to fight. They will be organized so they can defend every part of the national territory. [applause] All those who are able to fight are not in the reserve units of the regular troops, all those who are not in the reserves or in the regular units of the armed forces, will make up the territorial troop militias. Because [word indistinct] that Cuba like Nicaragua--although Cuba has a much stronger army than Nicaragua, logically because it has existed for a longer time and has a larger population--not only a regular war would confront a virtual aggression against Cuba. The enemy would have to face a people's war. It would have to face both things, the resistance of the regular units and the resistance of all the people. You know what makes us, Nicaragua and Grenada strong? It is the fact that these are popular revolutions. They are revolutions with great popular support. And any enemy has to think that it is madness to invade a country like this one. It is madness because they are going to experience what occurred to Napoleon's troops in Spain; they went in but then they couldn't get out. Or Napoleon in old Russia; they went in but then they could not find a way out. It is easy to enter. But if they are going to face a people like this one, if they face a people like this one, it is later very difficult to get out of that problem. [applause] We have to prepare for two types of war, for the conventional war and for the people's war, for both wars. This what forces them to think a few times before committing the blunder of invading our country. But there are threats against us. Some of them have begun to speak in more aggressive terms. Some of them have proposed that the 1962 agreements be disregarded, that is, to once again bring up the thesis of their right to invade us. Others have cynically said that if there is a conflict in another part of the world, they would have the right to carry out actions wherever it is more advantageous to them. In sum, they were referring to Cuba in view of the fact that Cuba is very far away from the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. But we have to be realistic. We have to be realistic because we have those dangers of the increasing imperialist aggression and its theories and those things they are proposing. However, they should know what they will find. That is why we said that this rally was so important. This shows imperialism that here we have a people and it shows them what kind of people we have here. I would say that we have waged a battle today in defense of the integrity of our fatherland. [applause] Your mere presence [applause], your mere presence in this plaza is an important battle in defense of the integrity and the security of Cuba because the dangerous thing is for the enemy to be confused. The dangerous thing is for the enemy to be deceived. But we should do something more. Work has already begun on the drafting of plans on what the country should to to survive and withstand a total blockade, on what each one of us must do in case of a total blockade. What we must do to survive if no food or fuels come in. They are also talking of these possibilities. That is, not to undertake a military action against the country but to mine the ports. One of the objectives of those maneuvers was the mining of the ports. Not mining them but studying how it should be done. They speak of naval blockades, knowing how difficult it would be for a country without petroleum to survive a naval blockade. We have to draft the plans on what to do in that situation. By the way, Reagan or `Rigin,' I don't know how you pronounce it, who is the certain candidate of the Republican Party, has expressed support for a naval blockade against Cuba. Of course, none of this is easy I must warn them. But as revolutionaries and as a realistic people we have the duty of having a reply for each of these problems.
But as revolutionaries and as a realistic people we have the duty of having a reply for each of these problems. But the one thing they cannot imagine is for Cuba to surrender ever. Because we will never surrender. We will never surrender. [applause, shouts] If a climate of peace does not exist in the Caribbean, it is not our fault but theirs. Suppress you blockade, suppress you base in Guantanamo, stop overlying Cuba, respect Nicaragua, respect Grenada and do not interfere. If to this we add noninterference in the domestic affairs of other Latin American peoples, then a climate of peace and detente might be created. Now, the one thing we must fight for, the one thing there is the duty to fight for, is the development of peace and cooperation among the peoples. But the one thing we will never do is fall on our knees at the feet of imperialism to beg for peace. [shouts, slogans] The international situation tends to become complicated. I would like to take advantage of this occasion to talk about the situation in Iran. All of us are interested in this problem, (?and if) the Yankees [words indistinct] someplace else might lead to certain actions by them. Everything that happens anywhere is of interest to us. These things interest us as revolutionaries; they interest us as conscientious men; they also interest us for ourselves. What happens in the world is of interest to us. In Iran, as you know, the shah's dynasty lasted more than 30 years. The people lived under a fierce tyranny for dozens of years. The people had already overthrown the shah once but, just like it did in Guatemala, the CIA [words indistinct] and reestablished him in the government. This is a known fact; it is a historical fact. All the documents, all the evidence exists. [The shah] assassinated hundreds of thousands of Iranians; he imprisoned them, tortured them and committed all kinds of horrors. With great bravery, with great patriotism, almost without weapons and despite the fact that the shah had the most powerful army in the region, the Iranian people overthrew the shah. And naturally an irritation against and a marked rejection of U.S. policy resulted. When, in addition, the United States made the mistake of taking the shah to the United States, that elicited a popular outburst, an outburst of indignation that gave rise to the incidents at the U.S. Embassy in Iran--the seizure of the embassy and the capture of a group of officials. The imperious U.S. response to developments of this type is force. (?This was provoked) because it was the CIA's action, installing the shah there, which elicited that hatred from the masses. It was the U.S. support for the shah which elicited that hatred against the United States. It was the shah's arrival in the United States which caused the explosion of the masses. And we have always held the position that this problem must be resolved by political and diplomatic means instead of by force--the problem of the embassy and the problem of the hostages. But, the United States has made a number of mistakes. The first was practically confiscating--embargoing and seizing in other words--thousands of millions of dollars that the Iranian state had deposited in U.S. banks. This measure of force, of imperious behavior, this illegal measure, had to irritate the Iranians even further. And each thing the Americans have done has contributed to further irritating the Iranians. They mobilize big forces, aircraft carriers, dozens of military units near Iran; they threaten it and naturally, this further irritates the Iranians. In addition to this, they announce they will carry out military actions before July. And indeed, they did stage some operations such as the commando attack, the attempt to carry out a commando attack. Seeking to resolve the problem in Iran through force and surprise, they have further complicated the problem. Now the students have dispersed the so-called hostages. In short, any action of force carried out against the Iranian people would be very serious. But in addition, the United States has banned trade with Iran, has established a kind of blockade against Iran and is now threatening to adopt new measures. And it is trying to drag Western Europe and Japan into the economic blockade against Iran, that is, the attempt to make Iran surrender through hunger. Something similar to the things they did to us. We must also work in order to put an end to the conflicts between our Iraqi and Iranian brothers. We must work so that their problems are resolved by diplomatic means, because those conflicts only carry water to the mill of imperialism. Now, what will happen if the United States manages to impose that blockade against Iran, trying to make it surrender through hunger? Iran is a Third World country; it belongs to the nonaligned movement, and it is a member of OPEC, that is, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC has in its hands the ability to prevent an economic blockade against Iran. It has this in its hands. It has warned that oil supplies will be suspended to those countries that join the blockade against Iran. [applause] The West does not have the ability to impose an economic blockade against Iran if OPEC does not want and refuses to do it, and if it warms with justifiable reasons about its possible consequences. OPEC can say: You want to starve 35 million human beings to death; I will not send you fuel for you to use to ride around in your car. This is the hour of truth for OPEC. This organization should not only increase prices and amass huge fortunes. This is the hour of truth for OPEC and the nonaligned and Third World countries. This is very interesting since we do not expect OPEC to do as the OAS did, when the imperialists established their aggressive blockades against Cuba. This is a problem we must follow closely. We must urge our internationalist friend to support Iran.
We must urge our internationalist friend to support Iran. Naturally Iran is now the victim, but here very close to use we have the case of El Salvador, where genocide is being committed against the people and where thousands of patriots are being murdered. In order to understand the diverging policies of some states, we have the example of what the Andean Pact did regarding the [words indistinct] and other problems. We are not opposed to the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean. On the contrary we are in favor of it and, together with Mexico, we helped to create the Latin American Economic System [LAES]. But we are opposed to political deals in this hemisphere because they lead to nothing. We would have liked a progressive and revolutionary Andean Pact, and as a placard said during the fighting march, a real pact of Bolivar and Sandino. But what did the Andean Pact do? It said nothing regarding the maneuvers being organized by the Yankees, not even a statement. What has it done in regard to the blockade of Cuba, which is a crime? It has not issued a declaration condemning the blockade. What has it done in regard to the Guantanamo Base? It has not made a single statement demanding that the base be returned to us. This is our territory. What has it done regarding the spy flights over Cuba, which are a shameless violation of our sovereignty? It has not issued a single statement condemning it. What has it done about Puerto Rico, a brother country which imperialism wants to devour, which the United States wants to annex? It has not said a single word. What has it said abut Iran and the blockade of Iran? Not a single word that we know of. What has it said about the genocide in El Salvador? Not a single word. In that country thousands of persons have died during the past months. The Andean Pact launched a deluge of propaganda against us, referring to events in which there was not even a single wounded person. There was a great bomb, the march, but we were confident the bomb would not explode and it did not. Let us say that there, were thousands of patriots are dying, the Andean Pact does not say a word. This is logical. The Venezuelan ruling party supports the genocide Government of El Salvador and also supports the so-called Christian democracy in Panama which is really a group of rightist reactionaries which conspires against the progressive government of that country. These are things related to problems where the Andean Pact assumes a demagogic attitude toward Cuba. I will not say that the conduct of all of the member countries was alike. There were differences among the, but the Andean Pact is good for only some things. We have, as I said, the Salvadoran situation which demands the most ample international support to halt the hands of the imperialists. Demonstrations, like this one today are part of the struggle, not only for the defense of our own integrity, but also for the defense of the integrity of Grenada, Nicaragua, the sovereignty of the Caribbean countries and Central America. It is part of our struggle. This is why this rally has a special meaning. It has really been an International Labor Day. For us, it has been a great honor and satisfaction. We have felt very stimulated and strengthened by the presence of Companero Bishop in this rally. He had his rally this morning in Grenada and his rally this afternoon in Havana. We have with us Companero Daniel Ortega, whom you know from the Sixth Summit; president of the World Peace Council, Companero Chandra [applause]; the leader of the world workers' organization, Companero Pastorino [applause]; we have been honored with the presence of the best of the Latin American intellectuals, Companero Juan Bosch, [applause] and Companero Gabriel Garcia Marquez. This has meant a lot for us, this gives a truly historical meaning to the greatest rally of the revolution. We, besides maintaining the mobilization, and preparing for the march on the 17th must turn this energy not only into political or military energy, but also into a productive energy. As [word indistinct] explained, the coming weeks are decisive, for the conclusion of the sugarcane harvest as well as for the great amount of sugarcane that must be planted and weeded. We must turn this energy into a productive force. We must turn this tremendous force, created by this colossal mass struggle, this people's revolutionary definition, and the hatred expressed against the idle, the parasite, the lumpen and the antisocial--we must turn this into a force of awareness. We must turn it into an instrument in the struggle for achievements and to overcome deficiencies and the struggle to overcome difficulties. This is very important if we are going to be able to transform this incredible, gigantic, force in the struggle against our own deficiencies, in the struggle against our own weaknesses. Today, many things have been packed with emotion. Those things have been stimulating. The most essential, the most fundamental factor has been the people. This afternoon will have an everlasting impression on all of us, an impression that cannot be erased. I say this without demagoguery, without the purpose of flattering and with a profound, sincere and heartfelt spirit of justice. I dare say that such a people deserve a place in history, a place in glory, that such a people deserve deserve victory. Fatherland or death? We shall win! [crowd shouts: "We shall win" and applauds.] -END- Castro Internet Archive
March/April • Vol 6, No. 2 • Message to Evo Morales from Cuba By Ricardo Alarc�n and Fidel Castro The following message to Evo Morales appears on the Granma web site over the signatures of Ricardo Alarc�n and Fidel. I was struck most by its evaluation of what December 18 represented historically: America—our America, as Jos� Mart� said—is rising up and in so doing discovering its true face, its indigenous face, its Black face, its Mestizo face. And then by the evaluation it projects of Evo Morales as a leader and combatant in the revolutionary struggle. Without a doubt, the Cuban leadership, although they addressed this message to Evo Morales, and through him the Bolivian people, really had a different intended audience. The intended audience, I believe, is people like us—revolutionary and progressive forces of the entire world—to help us become conscious of the tremendous, historic significance of this moment, nothing less than �a new history.� And to help us have faith and trust in the leadership that the Bolivian people—and above all the indigenous peoples of Bolivia—have raised up at this moment in the person of compa�ero Evo Morales and the team around him. You will find many nice-sounding diplomatic statements of congratulations from Cuba to dignitaries of various countries over the past decades, but you will not find many like this one. Fidel�s statement upon arriving in Venezuela for Hugo Chavez�s first inauguration did not even refer to Ch�vez personally, but said that he wanted to share this moment with the Bolivarian people of Venezuela, a moment, he said, that could mark a turning point like July 26, 1953 marked in Cuba, that is, marking the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. There were undoubtedly political and diplomatic considerations involved in Fidel�s deliberate understatedness at that moment, as there are today in relation to the outspoken character of this statement. What needs to be kept in mind, I think, is not just that Cuba felt it could speak so freely today, but also that such seasoned revolutionaries as the Cuban leaders felt it necessary and useful to throw the full weight of their own prestige behind Evo Morales and his comrades, and not just the cause he represents, but his leadership personally. That message is not for the people of Bolivia—not the working people, the indigenous people, the oppressed people, who backed Evo massively—but for us. My own surmise is that the Cuban leadership understands that a very sharp struggle may soon break out around Bolivia, and it is necessary to begin rallying the revolutionary and progressive forces into battle formation. [This is my translation of the original message in Granma since I have been unable to find the full text in English elsewhere.] —Joaqu�n Bustelo Dear compa�ero Evo Morales: We have received with profound joy the historic victory of the people of Bolivia in Sunday�s election, and your proclamation, by a crushing and indisputable majority, as President of Bolivia. For months we have followed with interest the news coming from your country and were aware of the tremendous obstacles that were being erected to frustrate the will of your people. We knew of the pressures of the Empire, of the maneuvers and intrigues of those who would continue to strip Bolivia of its immense natural resources and who are the ones responsible for the tremendous misery, oppression and discrimination imposed for centuries on a noble and rebellious people that has never stopped fighting for freedom and justice. Millions of Quechuas, Aymaras, Guaranies, Chiquitanos and other native peoples of your country had been always excluded from a political system that was the legacy and continuation of colonial servitude. Many of them were arbitrarily denied the right to vote on December 18, and in that way they snatched hundreds of thousands of votes from you. But on that day, despite everything, the people won. The magnitude of their victory was so great and eloquent that all were forced to recognize it, even those who for years have slandered you, have distorted the aspirations and sacrifices of the social movements you have known how to lead with wisdom and dignity, and until the eve of the elections were determined to hide the tremendous support for your candidacy. With your victory, a new history is born, the history of the emancipation of the peoples whom colonialism and racism wanted to crush and wipe out. Finally, after half a millennium of genocide, they come to power with you. It is the hour of the true discovery of America, of indigenous America, of Black America, of mestizo America, of the America of Bol�var and Mart�, that today is everywhere proclaiming its definitive and unrenounceable independence. You and your people have before you new and great challenges. It is necessary that you be accompanied, from right now, by the full solidarity of the entire world. We send you the solidarity of the Government and People of Cuba. In greeting you and celebrating with you this victory that we feel as our own, we call on all peoples to reject imperialist threats and to unfold the most energetic and firm backing of the government you will lead with the determination and dignity that have characterized your life as a selfless fighter. Thank you, Evo, thanks to the Bolivian people for having demonstrated with the clarity of the sun that another, better world is possible. Receive the embrace of a Cuba that is always revolutionary and in solidarity. [Signed] Ricardo Alarc�n, National Assembly of People�s Power of Cuba Fidel Castro Ruz, Council of State of the Republic of Cuba —Granma (Havana), December 28, 2005 Home Contents Subscribe Email us! Top \| Home \| Contents \| Subscribe \| Email Us!
Castro Internet Archive Abstract of: Establishing Revolutionary Vigilance in Cuba On the Formation of Committees for the Defense of the Revolution Spoken: September 29, 1960, Havana Source: Castro Speech Database Markup: Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000 Cubans, .... We observed honor and hospitality and generous conduct and decency among the humble Negroes of Harlem. (Applause and Singing) [A bomb explodes in the crowd — Ed.] That little bomb; everybody knows who paid for it; it is one of imperialism's. Tomorrow you will read — note this well — that the bomb went off just as they were talking about imperialism. (Crowd cheers again for several minutes. Music played to quiet the crowd — Ed.) How naive they are. When they fired 500 to 1000-pound bombs marked made in USA they couldn't do a thing; not even when they fired napalm bombs, and their planes couldn't do anything. They had to surrender. They couldn't take the Sierra Maestra. how are they going to advance now behind the little explosives. How are they going to impress the people with little bombs, if the people here are preparing to resist not just little bombs. The people are prepared to resist anything that falls, even atomic bombs. For every little bomb of the imperialists, we build 500 houses. For every little bomb they make in a year, we construct three cooperative houses. For every little bomb, we nationalize a Yankee estate. For every little bomb of the imperialists, we refine hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. For every little bomb we will build a plant to give employment in our country. For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we convert a garrison into a school. For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen. (Applause) Comrade (Pani?) had a good idea; he says we should dedicate a new labor circle, a regiment to this little bomb. (Applause) We are going to establish a system of collective vigilance and we shall see how the lackeys of imperialism are going to get around this. We shall see if there is a single district not well represented here. We shall set up a collective revolutionary vigilance system and everyone on the block will be known, what his activities are. If they think they are going to have to deal with the people they will get a tremendous scare. We are going to set up a revolutionary vigilance committee on every block so that the people can see what is going on. The imperialists and their lackeys will not be able to make a move. They are dealing with the people, and they do not know yet the tremendous revolutionary power of the people. Therefore, new steps must be taken in the organization of the militia. Malitia battalions will be created throughout Cuba. Each man for each weapon will be selected. A structure will be given to the entire mass of militiamen so that as soon as possible our combat units will be perfectly formed and trained. One thing is clear: We do not have to tighten up before the time comes. There is nothing to worry about. One must not worry. Let them do the worrying. We will conserve our serenity and our march; it is a firm but sure march. One of our impressions on this trip, this important trip, is the amount of hatred felt toward our revolutionary people by imperialism, the degree of hysteria which imperialism has reached, the degree of demoralization that imperialism has reached. And you have seen it. They are still thinking about the Cuban charges because they really do not have anything with which to reply. It is, however, important that all of us be very conscious of the struggle undertaken by revolution. It is necessary for all of us to know perfectly well that it will be a long, long and hard struggle. (Applause) It is important for us to realize that our revolution has faced up to the most powerful empire in he world. Of all the colonialist and imperialists countries, Yankee imperialism is the most powerful in diplomatic influence and military resources. It is also an imperialism that is not like the English, which is more mature, more experienced, it is proud imperialism, barbarous,and many of its leaders are barbarous men who have nothing to envy of the first cavemen. Many of their leaders are men with fangs. It is the most aggressive, most warlike, and most stupid imperialism. We are on the frontline, a small country with few economic resources giving battle on the frontline for our sovereignty, destiny, and right. It is necessary to be very conscious that our country is facing the most fierce empire of the contemporary times. It must also be realized that imperialism will not stop trying to destroy the revolution, hinder the revolution. It must always be borne in mind that imperialism hates us with the hatred of the masters for the rebellious slaves. And we will defend ourselves with the fierceness of slaves who have rebelled. There is nothing more fierce than the hatred of the master for the rebellious slave. And to that must be added the fact that they see their interests endangered — not only here but throughout the world. We brought our case to the United Nations, but our case was the case of all underdeveloped countries — the case of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, the case of the Asian countries. Our case was one that could be applied to the rest of the world. The rest of the underdeveloped world is also being exploited by the monopolies. We told them that the property of the monopolies must be nationalized without any indemnification. We told the other countries: Do what we have done; do not continue to be victims of aggression. Therefore, there is a universal interest in our struggle. A battle is taking place for the liberation of Cuba and all the other exploited nations of the world. It is necessary for us to know what we are doing, the interests we are affecting. Those interests will not raise the white flag easily.
Those interests will not raise the white flag easily. It will be a long fight. Not only do we have to defend ourselves from aggression, but we must also advance, we must progress on all fronts. The clearest impression we brought back is that we must redouble our efforts (Applause), that we must be aware of the great role we are playing in the world. Actions are worth more than words. We have spoken of some of the things we have done. The important thing is action, deeds. We must make our country forward. To do this we must devote ourselves to our task. We all have a task. We went there to speak on behalf of all of you. We went because we have the support of all of you. We could do this because we took with us the moral support of all the men and women of our country. We took with us the moral strength of a people. That is why we could go there to denounce imperialism, and that is why our country is admired — not for the words, but for the deeds; not for what a Cuban may say there, but for what all the Cuban may do and can do. The world is forming an idea of us, a better idea than it ever had — if the world ever had an idea of our existence. And what is behind that opinion is a people, what makes that opinion is the efforts of a people. We urge each and every one of you to form an image of the great responsibility each of us has. We are not individuals, we are part of a people, we are part of humanity, at a decisive hour for the human race. We are an idea, we are a hope, we are an example, and when the premier of the revolutionary government appeared at the United Nations (Applause) it was not a man appearing, it was a nation. (Applause) Every one of you appeared there; every one of you was there. We went there with the force we receive from being able to count on the support and effort of every one of you. We felt very obligated to the people; we feel we have a great responsibility to the people. And so, every one of you must feel — and keep this in mind — the work we are doing, we are all doing it together. (Editor's Note: Another bomb explodes in the crowd. There are shouts from the crowd. After the dust settles, the national anthem is played and sung) Let them explode; that way they are training the people to become accustomed to all kinds of noise. (Shouts of "unity" heard) these things just confirm what we have been saying: The revolution has a long battle ahead, a hard battle. Therefore, we reiterate that every one of us should taken to heart his role and his responsibility. Easy things are not those that give the best fruits in the long run. The worthwhile things in the life of nations and people are the difficult things, for these are the ones worth doing. (Applause) Knowing the might of the empire we face does not discourage us. On the contrary, it encourages us. The one that should be demoralized is the empire, because of the battle being waged against it by a small nation. Let nobody think that the years ahead will be years of tranquility and east. The greatest interest in the years ahead is the work and the battle we have ahead of us. That is the extraordinary interest which the future holds for us. That is what liberates us from the sorrows and shame of the past. That is what makes our people happy, above all, knowing that on Jan. 1 the revolution did not end, but was just beginning. That is what makes our people happy, thinking that if the first stage was the fruit of effort by part of the nation, the future, tomorrow's victory, will be the fruit of the effort of the entire nation. And tomorrow no one need feel shame, because the future is full of riches, there is a place for each of us. In the future there is a place for every one of us, and we ourselves feel that we are beginning, that we have barely begun, that we are on the first pages of the great book of the history which the Cuban people are wiring. (Applause) And this victory we will win with two things: Intelligence and courage. (Applause) Neither intelligence nor courage must get ahead; both must march together on the road to victory. (Applause) Up to today, those have been the main essentials of the successes we have achieved. It would be a mistake to underestimate the imperialistic enemy. He made the mistake of underestimating us. (Applause) In our people there has been a greater revolutionary force than they ever imagined. In our people there has been a greater moral force than they ever imagined. We must not commit the mistake of underestimating the imperialist enemy. We will correctly estimate his power and do what is necessary to be victories in this battle for the liberation of our country. We want to know every moment what they are planning, what they are doing and how to combat it, as we are doing right now in denouncing their hysteria and how to combat it, as we are doing right now in denouncing the hysteria they are creating about the base, and the reports about our attacking the base. We asked the president of the assembly to take note of our concern over the campaigns they have been undertaking in order to create a pretext for aggression against our country. We don't want them to invade our country. We don't want to give them a pretext for invading it. What they would like is that we allow ourselves to do as they wish. We should do what we want to do and what is beneficial for us, not them. Marti said: Never do what the enemy wants you to do. That is why we have always explained, as we did at the United Nations, that we would demand our sovereignty by legal means, through international law, not through international law, not through arms. Our arms are not to serve the enemy but to combat it. Our weapons should always be ready for what the enemy does not want — for our defense, for resistance. "It is necessary that the people who have listened to our words in the United Nations know that one of the most delicate problems, one in which we must act with the most intelligence, one in which we must overcome the imperialist enemy, is that of the Caimanera Base because that base is the one they will try to use as a pretext.
"It is necessary that the people who have listened to our words in the United Nations know that one of the most delicate problems, one in which we must act with the most intelligence, one in which we must overcome the imperialist enemy, is that of the Caimanera Base because that base is the one they will try to use as a pretext. Our position must be clear to the people and to the entire world: That when we go to reclaim it we will reclaim it in accordance with international law as one of our deniable rights which they will have to acknowledge." Against the imperialist enemy the best thing to do is to bar its path when it seeks a pretext and tell it: Seek another way, for that one will not be open to you. The imperialist enemy is capable of the unimaginable. The enemy uses any weapons — from the murder of leaders to military invasions, always seeking the murdering hand, the gangster, the pretext. And we should not only be valiant but also intelligent. We must win the battle, we must be victorious against the imperialist enemy. We must win all battles, as we have won in the United Nations. The imperialist enemy is being defeated at the United Nations. The supporters of armaments, the enemies of peace, the militarists are receiving rough blows at the United Nations. The imperialist enemy must be demoralized before a war. The enemies of peace, those who play with the fate of all humanity, must be defeated on all fronts. We must go on orienting ourselves, preparing ourselves mentally, and educating ourselves on these questions. Our interest in international problems must not flag. Previously we did not care about international problems because we were only interested in what the Yankee delegate used to say. We were always silent and obedient. That is why no one worried. They would say: This is a Yankee problem, let the Americans worry about it. What were we? That is why no one worried. But now that we also have opinions in the world, now that we are also in the world, it is good for us to know what is happening in Latin America, Asia, Africa; what peoples live there, what are their problems, what are the positions of their governments. That is why it is good for many books to be published and for us to continue to study. All of us have the duty to learn, to know, and to teach. The opportunity must be taken to learn of the problems, to know of the economic and social problems of Cuba and outside of Cuba. Otherwise we will never be more than bachelors of revolution; we will never become doctors of revolution. Books should be read at social circles, in military camps, in unions — everywhere. We must learn what we must know. All can be sure that what the Cuban cannot learn cannot be learned by anyone. We consider that from our impressions on our trip, these are the most important conclusions: The role of Cuba, the idea of the struggle ahead, the need for intelligence and valor, the need to work harder. We must be able to tell what we have done. We are building a great land and we are proud of it. We alone are responsible for what we have done and what we are doing. We will not do it for the sake of vanity. We will do it because it is good for our people. We will try to do the most perfect work possible, so that it will be our best defense, so that we can say: Come to see our cooperatives, houses, schools, and universities. (Applause) Let them come. We will always have something to show. We will show the militia, the youth brigades, the great reforestation projects, the school cities we are building, we will show what our country is. Those who have come to see what we are doing are astonished that a small nation, facing so many obstacles, can do so much. And this will always be a reason of pride for us. It is what sustains the spirits of our copatriots in New York. It is the pride that sustains our delegates anywhere in the world. It is the basic idea we wanted to expose here tonight. And thanks for the two little bombs, for they have been valuable in regard to what we have been explaining. They demonstrated the mettle of our people, the courage of our people (Applause) for not a single woman budged from her place (Applause) not a single man budged (Applause) nor will anyone budge from his post in face of any danger, any attack. We are soldiers of the country. We do not belong to ourselves: We belong to our country. (Applause) It does not matter if any one of us falls; what matters is that this flag shall remain high, the idea shall go forward, our country shall live. (Applause) Castro Internet Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1939 Stalin’s Renversement Des Alliances Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, October 1939. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. The renversement des alliances brought about by the Russo-German Pact of 23 August 1939 signifies without any doubt a new adjustment of forces in Europe and in world policy. The astonishment aroused by the pact between Hitler and Stalin can only be compared with that felt by Europe in 1756 when France broke away from her traditional anti-Habsburg policy and made an alliance with Austria. Is it not possible, on the other hand, to identify in the history of Russo-German relations a certain tradition of approach? Friendship with the Habsburgs was already an integral part of Russian foreign policy before the time of Peter the Great. Peter, who clearly discerned the Swedish, Polish and Turkish problems as the three most important in Russian foreign policy, laid at the same time great value on good relations with both German Great Powers – Austria and Prussia. He also actually succeeded in establishing very friendly relations between Russia and these two powers. It is very questionable if Peter, a crass empiricist, had any particular system of foreign policy. Ideas were subsequently ascribed to him of which he could hardly have been aware. For instance, AP Bestuzhev-Riumin, foreign minister of the Empress Elisabeth (1741-1761), formulated the foreign political system of Peter the Great as follows: ‘One must never leave one’s allies in the lurch. These are, however, the maritime powers of England and Holland, the King of Poland and the Queen of Hungary. This is the system of Peter the Great.’ In reality neither Peter nor his successors had a ‘system’ of any kind. Peter I, who inaugurated the acceptance by Russia of European civilisation, was fundamentally as sceptical towards Europe as the Czars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The declaration: ‘The European powers need me but I can do quite well without them’, is authentic. Petersburg was like ancient Moscow in regarding herself as an outsider in Europe. The policy of Imperial Russia towards the European state system vacillated in accordance with the momentary necessities of the Petersburg government. Empress Elisabeth was drawn into the Seven Years’ War and fought on the side of Austria against Prussia. Her nephew and successor, Peter III, a worshipper of Frederick the Great, strove for an alliance with Prussia, while Katharine II reverted to neutrality but very soon afterwards concluded a formal alliance with Frederick II (1764). At the end of her reign, however, she returned to the traditional friendship with Austria. In the nineteenth century friendship with the two German powers, especially Prussia, was part of the iron schedule of Russian foreign policy. Both Alexander I and Nicholas I were in close touch with the Court of Berlin. One may say that this was as much a ‘geo-political’ as an ‘ideological’ friendship. Ideologically since the French Revolution a certain tension had begun and had become more and more noticeable during the first half of the nineteenth century, between conservative Russia and the two liberal Western powers of England and France. On the other side, Russia was, historically speaking, linked with the German powers by the common wrong done to Poland in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. (The three partitions of Poland by Russia, Prussia and Austria between 1772 and 1795.) But already since the beginning of the nineteenth century a further line of Russian foreign policy manifested itself: Russia gradually rose to the position of a World Power, and thus encountered the other two World Powers of the period – England and France. In judging the European constellation at any given time one must always take into consideration the world political situation in which the European situation is imbedded. This has today become a platitude, but also in judging of past history one must always see the European situation in relation to the world situation of the period. There has always been a world policy which has influenced the European situation, but it is only in the last quarter-century that Europe has become aware of her dependence on world policy. In its relation to world policy, that is to England and France, Russian policy felt its way painfully and with many hesitations to an independent attitude. Radical renversements des alliances occurred repeatedly during the process and seem to be, in general, a tradition of Russian foreign Policy. Paul I (1796-1801) cut loose from the alliance with England against France and formed a union with the First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte which had as its object to destroy English power in Europe and the whole world. His successor, Alexander I, went back to the English alliance, only to forsake it a few years later with apparent finality and agree with the French Emperor upon a partition of Europe. This new alliance of the two continental Empires against England was inaugurated in Tilsit in 1807. Alexander at that time received from Napoleon Finland, Bessarabia and a part of Eastern Galicia. Russia kept the two first for more than a century and only lost them after the war of 1914-18. It is significant for the permanency of the geo-political tendency that Russia’s aspirations towards Finland and Bessarabia are again being discussed, and are said to have been the subject of an agreement between the rulers in Moscow and Berlin in case of a new division of Europe. As we know, however, Alexander I, at last uneasy in his friendship with Napoleon, swung back to England – a third renversement des alliances in fifteen years! With Nicholas I (1825-1855) the ideological motive of legitimism played a decisive role in his relations to Prussia and Austria. This ideology robbed him of any understanding of the world political situation, so that he finally found himself against an alliance of the two European Great Powers, England and France. Enmity against these two powers was opposed both to the old tradition of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which prescribed friendship with England, and to the new tradition of friendly relations with at least one of these powers at any given time. In the Crimean War, in which Russia was fighting against an English – French – Italian – Turkish coalition, the two German powers attacked her diplomatically in the rear.
This was the thanks paid by the Germans to Nicholas for his support of the monarchic principle in Europe. After that time the friendship between Berlin and Vienna on the one hand and Petersburg on the other cooled noticeably. With Alexander II (1855-1881) a withdrawal of Russia from European politics took place hand in hand with an expansion in Central Asia. The British Empire emerges at this time as Russia’s chief antagonist. From this situation sprang the efforts towards an approach both to France and Germany. The Petersburg Cabinet at this time sought to play the part of arbitrator between France and the new German Empire with the object of covering Russia’s rear in Europe in order to realise her plans in Asia and the Balkans. The triangle France – Germany – Russia might, in Petersburg’s opinion, serve at a critical moment as an instrument for paralysing Britain. There were, however, many objections at this period to an approach to France. Far more important than the ideological barriers to friendship between a republic and an absolute monarchy, and the popular idea of France as the arch-enemy who had attacked Russia twice in half a century, was the ancient geo-political fact of the friendship between France and Poland. Poland since the seventeenth century had played an important role in the French system of East European ‘counterpoises’, to which Turkey and Sweden also belonged. In the Napoleonic plans for dominating Germany the idea which Siey�s proposed to the Comit� de Salut Public could for a time be discerned: ‘To drown Prussia in the sea of Slavism, dissolving its connection with Germany and setting it against Russia.’ After Jena Napoleon wished to offer Frederick William III the crown of Poland to compensate him for the loss of Westphalia. Nothing came of these plans, but the Polish question remained until well past the middle of the nineteenth century a wedge between Russia and France. It was one of the chief hindrances to the development of an alliance between Napoleon I and Alexander I. The Polish rising against Russia in 1863, which nearly led to French intervention on Poland’s behalf, left behind it a tension between Paris and Petersburg of which Bismarck later felt the advantage. The Russian foreign minister Sazonov reminded the French ambassador Pal�ologue as late as 1916 of the fateful consequences of the French friendship for Poland. ‘Remember what her Polish sympathies cost France of the Second Empire – the destruction of Franco-Russian friendship, our approach to Prussia and then Sadowa and Sedan...’ Alexander III (1881-1894) was successful in definitely improving relations with France and finally in making the Russo-French alliance one of the chief props of the European system. At the same time, however, the Petersburg government remained on the best terms with Berlin and Vienna. The Franco-Russian understanding counterbalanced the Triple Alliance but could equally well be considered as directed against England. For the opposition to England remained into the first decade of the twentieth century the basis of Russian foreign policy. Russia’s consciousness of herself as a World Power grew ever stronger. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century she became more and more an Asiatic power. Petersburg’s European policy expanded into the world political framework. In this framework Germany appeared firstly less as a rival than as chief antagonist of the actual world political rival of Russia – the British Empire. From this position sprang at first a friendly attitude to Berlin, thus bringing Germany and Russia together on the common ground of opposition to Britain. But still more important is the fact that under Alexander III’s successor, Nicholas II (1894-1917), the centre of gravity of Russia’s foreign policy changed for a time from the Balkans and Central Asia to the Far East. In Berlin this transference of Russian foreign policy was welcomed. At the beginning of the twentieth century William II, ‘Admiral of the Atlantic’, greeted his friend Nicholas II as ‘Admiral of the Pacific’, thereby alluding to a new partition of the world – Asia for the Russians, Europe for the Germans. Between Paul I and Nicholas II the world situation fundamentally changed. At the beginning of the nineteenth century Russia had to choose between two World Powers in the world political arena – Britain and France. At the beginning of the twentieth she had once more to choose between two World Powers, two world political systems – the British and the German. It must be said that the Petersburg government wavered considerably before finally deciding with whom to cast in her lot. Britain, we know, put out feelers towards Petersburg at the end of the nineteenth century. The Salisbury government played with the idea of a very comprehensive entente with Russia, which actually aimed at a partition of Asia between the two powers. At the same time in Japan an influential circle of men under Marquis Ito Hirobumi’s leadership were striving for an alliance with Russia. The Petersburg Cabinet, however, probably under the influence of Berlin, let slip the alliances both with Britain and Japan. In the year 1902 Marshal Yamagata, against the will of Marquis Ito, concluded an alliance with England which was directed against Russia. In 1905 Czarist Russia was defeated by Japan. Meantime the situation in Europe had once more fundamentally changed. France approached Britain. The Franco-British Entente became a decisive factor in European and world policy. We have not forgotten, however, that the already century-old tradition of Russian foreign policy carefully avoided antagonising both Western powers at the same time. The Russo-French alliance, a leading idea in Petersburg policy since the 1890s, could only continue to exist if completed by a Russo-British Entente. After defeat in the Far East the swing of the pendulum from Asia to Europe, repeatedly noticeable in Russian history, took place, while the opposite swing from Europe to Asia was only just completed. The entente with England (1907) was in the end also a renversement des alliances. It destroyed the entente with Berlin. The dream of William II of holding his friend ‘Niki’ on the bridle, and thus ensuring that Russia in the coming conflict would at least remain neutral, came to nothing.
The dream of William II of holding his friend ‘Niki’ on the bridle, and thus ensuring that Russia in the coming conflict would at least remain neutral, came to nothing. But during the whole World War the strands between Berlin and Petersburg were not all broken. The Berlin Cabinet strove for a separate peace both with Russia and Japan. The possibility of a Eurasiatic ‘axis’ – Berlin – Petersburg – Tokyo – was seen, though indistinctly, on the horizon. Such an axis could only have had an anti-Anglo-Saxon aim. The last agreement between the Czarist Government and the Tokyo Cabinet (3 July 1916) had already a definitely anti-American tendency. One must not forget here that the Wilson administration showed a more than benevolent neutrality towards the entente of which Russia and Japan were members. The next renversement des alliances was brought about by the Lenin government in November, 1917. Soviet Russia left the entente and concluded a separate peace with the Central Powers. She remained nominally neutral, but the fact of her leaving the war meant a considerable easing of the military and economic position of the Central Powers. Lenin and Trotsky, however, never regarded Germany as an ally, and speculated on a future defeat of the Central Powers. Their defeat and the German Revolution brought Russia and Germany once more together. They both found themselves on the losing side, outside the League of Nations and the Franco-British condominion over Europe. England and France first tried to destroy the Soviet government by supporting all anti-Bolshevik forces. Later an attempt was made to draw Soviet Russia by one means or another into the economic and possibly also the political system of the Franco-British Entente. The culminating point of these efforts was reached at the Conference of Genoa in 1922, at which a great fuss was made of the Soviet government, especially by Mr Lloyd George. At the same time, however, secret negotiations were on foot between Germany and the Soviet Union, and into the midst of the friendly conversations between England and the Soviets crashed the bomb of the Treaty of Rapallo, concluded by the then German Foreign Minister, Walter Rathenau, and the Soviet Commissar, Chicherin. The two treaties of Rapallo (1922) and Berlin (1926) were aimed on Russia’s part at isolating Germany from the Western powers and making her, should occasion require, into an operation base for Russia against Western Europe. On the other side Germany was to play the part of a dam against intervention by the Western powers in Russian affairs. In this the Soviet government carried on the tradition particularly of Nicholas I, who was interested in keeping Germany weak and divided in order to draw this weakened Germany into his anti-European plans. Germany, on the other hand, even after the signing of the Locarno Treaty, was keenly interested in keeping her relations with Russia on a friendly footing. For the turn which German foreign policy had taken since 1924, after the final settlement of all Communist putsches, and economic stabilisation with the help of America and the Western powers, consisted in making use of Anglo-French help in order to grow strong, politically, economically and militarily. Gustav Stresemann saw the Locarno Pact merely as a step to the re-ascension of Germany to the position of a World Power. In this ascent, however, Germany needed, above all on the military side, the help of Soviet Russia. Relations between Berlin and Moscow in this period presented a most remarkable picture: on the one hand the German government, supported by the Reichswehr, suppressed the Communist rising; on the other hand, this same government found itself in an alliance with the Comintern government of Moscow, while the Reichswehr lived in closest friendship with the Red Army and was energetically supported by the Red General Staff in its secret reconstruction. Actually, German rearmament, in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, was carried out with the help of Moscow. Parallel with it a political flirtation was going on between the most gifted Soviet publicist, Karl Radek, and the most honest journalist of the radical wing of the National Socialist movement, Count Reventlow. Naturally Berlin not only coquetted with Paris and London, as Stresemann admitted in his famous letters to the Crown Prince, but also with Moscow. On the other hand, the friendship with Germany was also in Moscow linked up with a considerable number of mental reservations. Moscow was acting according to Lenin’s famous prescription: ‘Who whom?’ (Who will prevail?’) As is well known, Lenin issued this watchword when inaugurating his great economic retreat before capitalism. Lenin preached at that time close cooperation with capitalism inside and outside the Soviet state in the hope of winning by means of this cooperation the upper hand and destroying his one-time allies. This peculiar relationship between Berlin and Moscow outlasted all changes in the internal policy of the two powers. The Liberal – Socialist government of the Weimar period gradually changed to the reactionary ‘emergency’ government of Br�ning, Papen and Schleicher. Finally, Germany drifted into the extreme nationalism and totalitarianism of Adolf Hitler. At the same time the Soviet republic completed her evolution from the liberal NEP (New Economic Policy) policy of Lenin, Rykov and Bukharin to the ‘pan-Socialism’ of Stalin. During this whole period Germany, as well as Russia, remained in the real sense of the word outside the larger European policy. Neither the Berlin nor the Moscow government was regarded by the Franco-British condominion as an equal partner; and it was this that threw them together. But this ‘aloofness’ from European policy, linked on the German side with certain wistful glances westward, made it impossible for the Russo-German friendship to become a decisive factor in Europe. The Berlin-Moscow Entente was a ‘static’ phenomenon, serving chiefly the defensive of the two powers, behind which, certainly, a strategic deployment was taking place. Neither Moscow nor Berlin, least of all Berlin, was resolute enough to turn the German-Russian Entente into an offensive instrument against the West. It was left for Adolf Hitler to take the decisive step, wrench Germany free from her traditional connection with Russia, and decide for the British Empire against Moscow. In doing this Hitler hoped to strike out a new path in German foreign policy and complete the breakthrough to world power already attempted unsuccessfully by William II.
The latter failed because he built on the foundation laid by Bismarck’s principle, elevated to a dogma by his successors, of keeping in with both England and Russia and playing the two powers against each other. Hitler decided for Britain against Russia. It would be an interesting task to analyse this turn in German foreign policy which also represents a renversement des alliances. But it is not with Hitler’s renversements des alliances that we are here concerned, but with Stalin’s. We may, however, say at this point that it was probably not a genuine alliance with Britain that Hitler had in mind, but to use Britain to crush Russia, to make himself into a paramount continental power and then to take up the struggle with Britain for world power. Stalin’s renversement des alliances of 1934, the approach to France, entry into the League of Nations and the decisive turn against Germany was the consequence of the turn in Hitler’s policy. It is possible that with this whole policy, including the beginning of the discussions with England and France over the military alliance, Stalin merely wished to exert pressure on Germany in order to bring her back to the entente with Russia. Stalin is a thoroughgoing opportunist who has brought the art of suiting himself to the situation of the moment, to the point of open cynicism. He is not the man to be debarred by any ideological considerations whatever. It is, however, equally possible that Stalin, for whom Germany was growing too strong, actually had in mind a turn to the West and a union with Britain. If so, the plan was broken against the rigidity of the Western European powers, that of Britain in particular. London probably took too seriously the world revolutionary ideology of Moscow. Perhaps also the idea of diverting Germany to the east and ‘drowning her in the Sea of Slavism’ (Siey�s) played a part. In any case, Russia was to play second fiddle in the future coalition, a part naturally objectionable to the awakened self-consciousness of the Russians. In judging of Moscow’s actions one must not forget that the aim of her whole European policy has been to secure her rear in order to be free for the inevitable settlement with Japan in the Far East. Britain, however, hoping if occasion arose to detach Japan from the Fascist Axis, was not prepared to bind herself to Russia in respect of the Far East. Stalin was probably not clear to the last what attitude Britain would take in case of a Russo-Japanese War. The old antagonism between Russia and the British Empire in Asia might at any time become acute. The only possibility of preventing this old rivalry from coming to life again was a general understanding between Moscow and London about all Asiatic matters, somewhat as proposed by the Salisbury government at the end of the nineteenth century, and as actually took place in 1907. At that time London succeeded, if not in doing away with Russo-Japanese opposition, at least in bringing it into the framework of a general Pax Asiatica under British patronage. The greatest mistake of the Chamberlain government in regard to Russia was probably the idea of a European alliance with Moscow, leaving out of consideration the Asiatic relations of the two powers. London, strangely enough, once more forgot that Russia is an Asiatic power, and definitely more so today than thirty years ago. We are living in a world of romanesque fantasy in which grotesque detective-fiction heroes are ordering the destinies of mankind in unbelievably cruel fashion. It is therefore not astonishing if one credits Stalin with the devilish idea of provoking a world war in order to plunge Europe and the world into revolution. This idea cannot be entirely excluded, though the whole evolution of Stalin makes it appear somewhat improbable. Stalin has done away with the Communist ideology in Russia, and seems to be inclined to regard the Russian Revolution as ended. His chief aim is to consolidate the power in his own hands and in those of his circle. In this he is relying on a recently arisen class having nothing in common with revolutionary traditions. A world revolution would discredit the whole edifice of the Russian stabilised ‘Total State’ and the whole theory of ‘Socialism in One Land’. No, Stalin is not guided either in his foreign or internal policy by ideological considerations, but by those of power politics. He was not prepared for Russia to become a member on sufferance of a coalition under British leadership. In his eyes Germany is the weaker and therefore the less dangerous partner. With his renversement des alliances Stalin has executed one of those brutal turns which are so characteristic of Russian foreign policy. It must not be forgotten that between 1796 and 1811 – that is, in the course of fifteen years – the Petersburg Cabinet three times engaged in a radical renversement des alliances. Other turns in Russian foreign policy, equally brusque, we have also already mentioned in this article. But Stalin could not have brought off this volte-face if Hitler had not met him half-way. Hitler, however, had completely to reorganise his policy when he saw that England and France had at last seen through him. It is interesting, moreover, that, according to the revelations of the Frankfurter Zeitung, the secret negotiations between Moscow and Berlin began in March of this year – that is, before Hitler’s occupation of Prague – and that the final destruction of Czechoslovakia did not in the least disturb the course of these negotiations. The advantages of the German – Soviet Pact for Hitler are clear: it neutralises Russia and places the economic riches of that country at the disposal of German military administration. Whether the pact will have still other unforeseen advantages for the Nazis we shall probably soon know. Now, what Realpolitik aims is Stalin pursuing in the Moscow Pact of 23 August 1939? We cannot of course refuse in advance to consider the possibility that by concluding the pact Stalin wished to unchain a European war. As a matter of fact, the Russo-German Entente signified the removal of the last hindrance to such a war. One comes much nearer to probability, however, if one ascribes to Stalin the dolus eventualis: [1] he signed the Pact with Hitler, not because, but although he foresaw that it would inevitably lead to the unchaining of war.
For Stalin it was a case of making once for all impossible the coalition between Germany and the Western powers, so fraught with danger for Russia. This aim he has certainly achieved. Now Russia is free to follow her own aims while Europe is torn by war. Above all, Stalin now has a free hand in Asia. He can use this freedom either to settle accounts with Japan once and for all, or, on the other hand, to achieve a far-reaching entente with Japan necessarily aimed at Britain. In one way or the other Stalin will consolidate his position in Asia. It is open to question whether the pact of 23 August 1939 foreshadows a partition of Eastern Europe between Germany and Russia. Such a partition would be thoroughly in line with traditional relations between the two countries. Russia would thereby obtain a common frontier with the Reich. Whether this idea is particularly attractive to Moscow is another question. An over-powerful Germany is hardly in line with Stalin’s interests. It is doubtful whether Moscow will remain a passive onlooker at Hitler’s attempt at smashing the Western powers. It seems that in case of such an emergency a further radical turning in the policy of Moscow is highly probable. One thing is certain: the course of Moscow’s foreign policy is unlikely to be influenced by any sort of ideological considerations. It will in the most completely cynical manner represent the power political interests of Russia as Stalin conceives them. That this policy is anti-European and anti-democratic is perfectly clear. In the end it will prove also to be anti-Russian. The best men of Russia – her thinkers and poets – have always seen the historical mission of the country as intimately linked up with the destiny of Europe. Sixty years ago the very nationalistically minded Dostoyevsky said: Yes, the destiny of the Russian man is without any doubt all-European and all-World. To become a true Russian, fully and completely a Russian, means perhaps nothing less than to be the brother of all mankind... For a true Russian Europe... is as dear as Russia itself... How far the present policy of the Moscow government has wandered from the ideal of this great Russian seer! Note 1. Dolus eventualis – where the perpetrator of an act recognises the possibility of a particular consequence occurring, but recklessly disregards whether it ensues or not – MIA. Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock Gregory Osipovich Bienstock (1884-1954) was trained as a lawyer. He was a Bolshevik during 1904-07 and then adhered to the Mensheviks, becoming one of the ‘liquidators’ in that faction. During the First World War, he and other Russian socialists, including his wife Judith Grinfeld and fellow Menshevik David Dallin, worked in the Institute for the Study of the Social Consequences of the War in Copenhagen that was run by Alexander Helfand (Parvus). He returned to Russia in 1917, and worked with the future Bolshevik economist Yuri Larin. He left the Soviet republic in 1918, but returned to live in Odessa in 1921-22, and was then arrested and deported from Soviet territory. He was a contributor to the Mensheviks’ paper, the Sotsialistichesky Vestnik under the name G Osipov. Bienstock settled in Germany, and became active in the German Social Democratic Party in Berlin. Somewhat oddly, whilst he stood on the right wing of the Mensheviks, he adhered to the left wing of the SPD, joined the Zukunft grouping, and at one point sought a personal meeting with Trotsky. He also held a keen interest in mysticism and eastern religion, as can be seen in at least one of the six essays reproduced below. Bienstock wrote several books and pamphlets, including Deutschland und die Weltwirtschaft (Dietz, Berlin, 1931), Volk und Sozialdemokratie. Die innen- und aussenpolitischen Erfolge der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (Dietz, Berlin, 1932), Deutschland und Frankreich. Eine Europ�ische Auseinandersetzung (Werk und Wirtschaft, Berlin, 1932), Kampf um die Macht. Zur neuen Politik der Sozialdemocratie (Laubsche, Berlin, 1932), Zwischen den Weltkriegen (Zentralstelle fur das Bildungswesen, Prague, 1934, Europa und die Weltpolitik Die Zonen der Kriegsgefahr (Graphia, Karlsbad, 1936), The Struggle For The Pacific (Allen and Unwin, London, 1937 – available on-line at http://www.questia.com/), provided a foreword to B Irlen (pen-name of the Menshevik Boris Sapir), Marx gegen Hitler (Vienna, 1933), and contributed, along with fellow Mensheviks Solomon Schwarz and Aaron Yugow, chapters in Arthur Feiler and Jacob Marschak (eds), Management in Russian Industry and Agriculture (Oxford University Press, London, 1944). The essays below appeared in the long-defunct journal The Nineteenth Century and After, which was published in London from 1877 to 1972, taking, somewhat belatedly, the title The Twentieth Century in 1951. The above biographical details are drawn mainly from Andr� Liebich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social-Democracy After 1921 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1997). Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1939 Four Hundred Years of Russian Foreign Policy Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, June 1939. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. The foreign and internal policies of a country tend to act and react upon each other. The internal development of a state must exercise a great influence upon its relations with other states, and it is equally certain that profound changes in foreign policy must also lead to changes in the internal structure of the state. It is on that account impossible to describe the foreign policy of a state without also considering developments in its internal policy. It would, however, not be right to represent foreign policy alone in its relation to internal policy. It would seem that the development of the outward relationships of any state is defined by certain relatively immutable factors, partly of a geographical, partly of an historical character. It is important to follow this line of development, without, of course, exaggerating its ‘immutability’. Every hypothesis is useful provided that in employing it one keeps its conditional nature in mind. It would, for example, be dangerous to trace the foreign policy of Bolshevism exclusively to the ‘immutable’ tendencies in the development of Russia’s foreign relations. But it is impossible, on the other hand, to understand this policy if it is regarded merely as issuing from the internal policy of revolutionary Russia. In what follows an attempt is made to set forth what is relatively immutable in Russian policy. This obliges us to go back several centuries. The fifteenth century was one of decisive importance in Russian policy. Up to then Muscovy had felt herself to be merely the most westerly province of the great Mongol Empire extending from the Pacific to the upper course of the Volga. But in the fifteenth century began the decay of the Golden Horde, to whose sphere of power the Muscovite Principality belonged. Hand in hand with this decay went the emancipation of Muscovy from Mongol suzerainty. The struggle against the Mongols promoted the development of a national consciousness which until then had hardly existed. For the first time the question arises of the meaning and content of Muscovite foreign policy – a question which in the fifteenth, and still more clearly in the sixteenth, century was answered in a purely Maximalist fashion. Moscow is represented in the official publicity of the time as the ‘Third Rome’, destined, after the fall of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, to embody the true Christendom. Here already the Messianic motive is superimposed on the ancient Muscovite policy. Besides this Messianic motive, however, furnishing its material background, is the elementary geographical fact that Muscovy was situated in an intermediate region where Asiatic and European influences met and mingled. Muscovy of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was, on the one hand, the extreme Western spur of the Eurasiatic Mongol Empire and, on the other, the most easterly territory of the European Germanic-Slav cultural sphere. In Central and Eastern Europe, Muscovy was sometimes regarded as an outpost of Mongol Asia. At the same time, however, the Pope and the Kaiser attempted to enlist the Russian princedoms, and especially Muscovy, into the Crusade against Islam. Russian princes, such as Alexander Nevsky, employed Tartar-Mongolian auxiliaries in their struggles against Sweden and the Knights of the Teutonic Order advancing from the West. On the other hand, the idea of using European forces in taking action against Asia had already emerged in the time of Ivan III (1462-1505). By the sixteenth century the foreign political programme of the Muscovite Czars appears to have been relatively settled. The aim of their policy was to unite all Russian races under Muscovite sovereignty and to abolish the remains of Mongol domination in the Russian plain – an expansion policy, therefore, in two directions – to the West and to the East. Apart from this, however, a further objective may be observed – a breaking through to the sea, both to the Baltic and the Black Sea. This motive of rounding off and consolidating their continental dominions is firmly anchored in Russian foreign policy. The first Russian state was founded in the ninth century in the Valley of the Dnieper by the Scandinavian Varangians. The dominant idea in this foundation was the conquest of the great river way from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Moscow, too, owes her rise to her geographical position at the junction of the upper courses of the Volga, Oka and Dnieper. The statecraft of Muscovy has been directed since its beginnings to the domination of the connections between three seas – the Baltic, the Black Sea and the Caspian. The foreign policy of Ivan IV (1530-1584) swung between the three directions – east, west and south. He succeeded in bringing the whole course of the Volga as far as the Caspian Sea under his sway by the conquest of the two Tartar czardoms of Kazan and Astrakhan. Public opinion pressed Ivan to continue the policy of abolishing Tartar domination by conquering the Khanate of Crimea, which would give him a firmer foothold on the Black Sea. War against the Crimea, however, would have involved him of necessity in a conflict with the strongest power in the Eastern Europe of that time, namely, Turkey. For this Muscovy’s strength was insufficient. In order to go to war with the Turks adaptation to European military technique would first be necessary, and this involved direct contact with Europe. Ivan turned to the West, against the Knights of the German Order and later against their protector, Poland. Ivan’s war against Poland ended in catastrophe. Russia was thrown back from the Baltic for more than a century, the people’s strength was exhausted, a powerful revolution was approaching.
Russia was thrown back from the Baltic for more than a century, the people’s strength was exhausted, a powerful revolution was approaching. While Ivan IV was harnessing all the forces of the nation in order to advance against the West, an opposing tendency gradually became apparent. The Russian masses, ground down by merciless military recruiting and the pressure of taxation, fled, mainly in a southerly and easterly direction. The colonisation of the ‘New Russia’, the fertile steppes between the Oka and the Black Sea, began. At the same time the first Russian adventurers and conquerors crossed the Ural Mountains and started the subjugation of Siberia under Russian domination. A hundred years after the death of Ivan IV, on the accession of Peter the Great (1682), Russia was facing approximately the same problems of foreign policy as had been left behind by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: the union under the sway of Moscow of the West Russian peoples living within the Polish-Lithuanian state; attainment of an outlet to the sea; domination of the connections between the Baltic, the Caspian and the Black Sea. The eighteenth century was an epoch of uninterrupted Russian advance to the West and South. Under Peter, Russia annexed a considerable portion of the Baltic Coast and became the leading power in Northern Europe and on the Baltic. The wall which up to now had separated Russia from Europe collapsed, the ‘window on to Europe’ was flung wide open. Russia became a sea-power, and thereby a European Great Power. The breath of ocean transformed Muscovy into Russia, into a European Great Power with European interests and aspirations. But this Europeanised Russia, which now took active part in European combinations and intrigues, remained at the same time an Asiatic state. The same Peter the Great, who employed the whole strength of the nation in order to fling open the ‘window on to Europe’, never for a moment forgot that Russia had another face – turned towards Asia. In the last years of the great Northern War (1700-21) Peter displayed great interest in exploring the waterways to India. He also, after a victorious war with Persia, annexed the whole of the western shores of the Caspian Sea. Thereby Russia gained not only a base for the development of her trade with South-west Asia, but also a point of departure for all her later conquests in Middle Asia, which took place in the nineteenth century and led to the creation of a huge sub-tropical colonial empire. At the end of the eighteenth century, under Catharine II (1762-1796), Russia in Europe had attained her ‘natural frontiers’. The whole of the valley of the Dnieper was conquered, the West Russian territories were torn from the Polish state, and, in alliance with Prussia and Austria, this state itself was destroyed. The last remnants of Mongol dominion in South Russia were dissolved and the northern shore of the Black Sea was incorporated in the Russian Empire. It was here, at the Black Sea, that Russia and Turkey met. Here was the starting point for those power struggles for the domination of the Black Sea and the lower course of the Donau [1] between Russia and Turkey which were fought out in the first half of the nineteenth century. Relations with Europe, in the eighteenth as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, were decided by the inherent aims of Russian foreign policy. The Habsburg monarchy appeared as the natural ally of Russia. In approaching the Habsburgs the axiom was obviously applied: alliance with the further to fight the nearer. Ivan IV wished to have the Romish-German Emperor as ally in his struggles against Poland. In the seventeenth century the Romanoffs and the Habsburgs had a common enemy in Turkey. Friendship with the Habsburgs thus became a traditional part of Russian foreign policy. Beside the Austrian friendship all other relationships sank into the background. Relations with England were friendly as a whole, and on Russia’s side a political entente had actually been sought since the sixteenth century. This, however, had been skilfully avoided by England. Relations with France, on the other hand, were from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century inimical. France was, on principle, supporting Russia’s three most dangerous neighbours – Sweden, Poland and Turkey. The primitive nature of Russian policy towards Europe can be explained by the fact that at this time Russia had no actual European interests, and this accounts for her desire to remain at a distance from the complicated game of European politics. About the middle of the eighteenth century Russia had a great surprise, namely, the alliance of her traditional Habsburg friend with her traditional enemy, France (renversement des alliances). Russia, against her will, became a member of the Austro-French coalition against Prussia, and thus also against England, which was a direct contradiction of Russian policy since Ivan IV. Russian foreign policy, however, had already begun to take a more conscious attitude towards the European game. Her relationship to the Habsburgs ceased to be the axis of her policy. During the Seven Years’ War of the Coalition she learned to know the complicated mainsprings of European politics. Above all she acquired a greater understanding of English and French policy, and the struggle of these two powers for supremacy in Europe. Catharine II dissolved the Russian partnership in the anti-Prussian coalition from the feeling that this partnership had no importance from the point of view of Russian interests. On the other hand, approach was made to the two German powers at the point of immediate significance for Russia, namely, the dissolution of the Polish heritage. Since the great French Revolution and the beginning of the last French offensive, both against the Continent and against England, Russia’s relations with the two Western European Powers, France and England, were of decisive significance in the formation of Russian foreign policy.
Since the great French Revolution and the beginning of the last French offensive, both against the Continent and against England, Russia’s relations with the two Western European Powers, France and England, were of decisive significance in the formation of Russian foreign policy. The St Petersburg Cabinet swung between an alliance with England against France’s attempts at hegemony, and a continental hegemony in alliance with France with the object of completely eliminating English influence from the Continent and undermining the British Colonial Empire. Catharine II and Paul I dreamed of conquering India. Paul I, at the end of his brief reign (1796-1801), had made a formal alliance with Napoleon and set apart an army of Cossacks for a campaign against India. In the archives of the Russian Foreign Office is said to be a letter from Napoleon of 2 February 1808, in which he proposed to the Czar Alexander I to send a Franco-Russian army to conquer India. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Russian Empire, together with Great Britain, represented the rock against which Napoleon’s dream of continental domination was shattered. Already at the beginning of the nineteenth century Europe, or rather the continental mass of Europe, had proved itself too weak to prevail against the two European wing powers, Russia and England, with their extra-European reserves. With the destruction of the Napoleonic domination and the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, Russia had attained her maximum expansion in the West. By the annexation of Finland the Gulf of Finland became a Russian inland sea, and the Gulf of Bothnia also entered the Russian sphere of influence. It is true that the remainder of the West Russian territory, Galicia, remained ‘unredeemed’. The western territorial boundaries of the Russian Empire, however, in no way represented the boundaries of her political influence. In the first half of the nineteenth century Russia was without question by far the strongest military power in Europe. The disunion of Germany, the struggle between Prussia and Austria for ascendancy in Central Europe, the weakening of France – all these factors augmented the influence of the Czars in European politics. Nicholas I became in fact the arbitrator of Central Europe. Russia’s territorial aspirations, however, were no longer concerned with Europe. The movement of Russia towards the South led inevitably to conflict with Turkey, who dominated the connections between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Russian policy aimed at settling the ‘Straits Question’ in a manner favourable to Russia. This method of solution, however, would have meant the appearance of Russia in the eastern Mediterranean. England set herself against the extension of Russia’s sphere of power in this direction, and succeeded in forming a coalition against it with France, Sardinia and Turkey. After her defeat in the Crimean War, Russia, it is true, remained a Great Power, but suffered a weakening of her influence in the Black Sea and the Balkans, and was forced to renounce her aspirations to dominate the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. After the Treaty of Paris (1856) the Eurasiatic line of Russian foreign policy faced south. West of this line, on the Russian frontier between the Baltic and the Black Sea, her policy was defensive and aimed at maintaining the European status quo. On the Eurasian line, however, between the lower course of the Donau and the valley of the Amur, between the Carpathians and the great Hingan Range (Manchuria), the foreign political energies of the Czarist Empire were concentrated. To understand Russian foreign policy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it is necessary to know the internal connection between the separate sectors of this politico-strategic line. In general it may be said that the basic tendency of Russian expansion points to the South – to the ‘warm waters’, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. The sum of foreign political energy was divided in different periods irregularly over different sectors of this line. There were periods in which it was concentrated more on one segment, in other periods on another, but the continuity between the different sectors remained unbroken. The great Eurasian line of Russian foreign policy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may be divided fundamentally into three principal sectors: the Near Eastern, including the whole of the Black Sea and the Dardanelles; the Central Asiatic sector, and, finally, the Far Eastern sphere. The western sector of Russian foreign policy was at the same time the most ancient, and developed directly out of the struggles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for the domination of the Dnieper Valley and the northern shores of the Black Sea. Here, however, in the western sector of her foreign policy, Russia met with the opposition of Europe under the leadership of England (Crimean War, 1853-56). Twenty-two years after the Peace of Paris in 1856 which closed the Crimean War, during the Berlin Congress of 1878, this European front against the Russian advance to the Bosphorus appeared once more. On this occasion, too, it was British foreign policy which organised the resistance to Russia’s advance to the ‘warm seas’. The Russian offensive on the western sector of the Eurasiatic line was quiescent for more than a quarter of a century after the, for Russia, somewhat ineffectual war against Turkey of 1877-78. It was resumed after the unfortunate outcome of the Russo-Japanese War. Russian advances on the Central Asiatic sector also had a long previous history. The conquest of West Turkestan, the key position of all Central Asia, from both sides at once, namely, from the West, from the Caspian Sea, and from the North via the valley of the Irtysch, was already under consideration by Peter the Great. The fulfilment of this plan, however, was delayed for a century and a half. The conquest of West Turkestan and, in general, of Middle Asia to the north of Hindukusch and Pamir, fell into the sixties and seventies and eighties of the nineteenth century, after the Caucasus and the Transcaspian had, following long-drawn-out struggles with the mountain peoples, been occupied by Russian troops. The conquest of Middle Asia was completed by the annexation of the Mery Oasis in present-day Southern Turkmenistan, on the watershed between the Caspian Sea and the Arabian Gulf.
The building of the Transcaspian railway in 1885-88 secured the strategic and economic connections between the Empire and her newly-conquered provinces. Russian expansion on the Central Asiatic Continent between 1860 and 1885 can be regarded as a direct consequence of England’s opposition, during the Crimean War and the Berlin Congress, to her advance on the western sector of the Eurasiatic line. The foreign political energy of Russia, barred at the Black Sea, sought other outlets. Here, however, on the Central Asiatic sector, Russian expansion once more came against British opposition. England answered Russia’s penetration of Middle Asia by announcing her protectorate of Afghanistan and Baluchistan. In 1885 a border scrap on the Afghan frontier nearly ended in war between England and Russia. Ten years later a frontier agreement was made between Russia and Afghanistan which to some extent put a stop to Russian expansion in Middle Asia. From now on Afghanistan acted as a buffer state between India and the Czarist Empire and in this way the zone of conflict between the two World Empires was narrowed. In the meantime the centre of gravity of the Russian foreign policy was already shifting towards the Pacific. At the end of the seventeenth century the Russian government was obliged to renounce in favour of China all further penetration into the valley of the Amur (Treaty of Nertschinsk, 1689). It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that the Russian advance in the Amur Valley began once more, and led in 1860 to the annexation of the whole left bank of the Amur and the coastal territory (Treaty of Peking; Founding of Vladivostok, 1860). Thus Russia achieved a firm foothold on the Sea of Japan. After the Treaty of Peking, however, a break of at least three decades occurred in Russian expansion in the Far East. Russian foreign political activity was concentrated in this period partly in the western sector (Russo-Turkish War, 1877-88), and partly on the Central Asiatic sector (conquest of Turkestan). Not until the end of the nineteenth century did Russia once more press her advance along the shores of the Pacific. At this time it seemed to the statesmen in St Petersburg that the prospects for expansion in a far easterly direction were more favourable than in the other two sectors of Russian foreign policy. For towards the end of the 1890s Russian activity on the western sector was obstructed by the so-called Eastern Triple Alliance between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary and Italy, a new edition of the coalition created by English diplomacy during the Crimean War and the Berlin Congress, while in Central Asia Russian expansion also came against firm opposition. In 1897 Russia concluded with the Habsburg monarchy an agreement on the delimitation of mutual spheres of influence in the Balkans, which amounted to a renunciation by Russia of an active policy in the Donau Valley and the Black Sea territory. The Czarist Empire sought to cover her rear in Europe while pursuing the path of ruthless expansion in the Far East. In this period also the Franco-Russian Alliance (since 1891) signified, above all for Russia, protection against German aggression, and thus the security of her western frontiers. That this alliance was also aimed at Britain became evident at the end of the Sino-Japanese War and during the Boer War. [2] Note 1. That is, the River Danube – MIA. 2. The article was followed by the words: ‘To be concluded.’ However, the next article by Bienstock in The Nineteenth Century and After was ‘Stalin’s Renversement Des Alliances’ in the issue for October 1939. One might hazard that Bienstock reworked his account of the development of Russian foreign policy to give some historical background to the topical drama of the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact – MIA. Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1939 Russia and Japan in the Pacific Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, April 1939. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. In these days when all that is most changeful, evanescent and self-destructive in history thrusts itself more and more upon the mind, it may perhaps be of value to remember that the fabric of this world is woven not alone by chance but also by necessity. The noise of the European conflict is today so deafening, the vibration of the telegraph wires so shrill, that it is certainly none too easy to catch beneath all the confusion of sounds the rhythm of world history. Half a century ago this was much easier. At that time two Anglo-Saxon statesmen had very clearly realised the significance of Asiatic policy in world events. ‘He who understands China’, said John Hay in 1890, ‘holds in his hand the key to international politics in the next five hundred years.’ And about the same time George N Curzon, then a young member of the Lower House, pointed out that: ... the future of Great Britain... will be decided not in Europe, not even upon the seas and oceans which are swept by her flag, or in the Greater Britain that has been called into existence by her offspring, but in the continent whence our emigrant stock first came, and to which as conquerors their descendants have returned. There are obvious things which tend to be overlooked simply because of their obviousness. The relatively peaceful development of the world in the century between the Napoleonic wars and 1914 was based on the naval supremacy of Britain, a fact which was accepted by all as a matter of course. After the World War, world equilibrium, in other words the, to a certain extent, peaceful and continuous development of our planet, rested on the fact of the silently acknowledged condominion of the two Anglo-Saxon world powers over the seas. It is Anglo-Saxon naval supremacy which is now questioned in the Far East. Relations between Europe and Asia in the course of centuries took the form of thrust and counter-thrust, of mutual interpenetration, of cultural cooperation and of sanguinary conflict. Even in the times of Genghiz Khan and Tamerlane, from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century of our era, and up to the time of the last Turkish wars in the seventeenth century, it had been by no means decided whether Asia should dominate Europe or whether the great Motherland should be conquered by its European peninsula. The decisive factor in the issue of this struggle was the fact that by the sixteenth century Europe had achieved the conquest of the seas. Asiatic conquerors have been essentially bound to the land. As Gibbon, for example, remarks about Tamerlane: Asia was in the hand of Timour: his armies were invincible, his ambition was boundless... He touched the utmost verge of the land; but an insuperable, though narrow, sea rolled between the two continents of Europe and Asia, and the lord of so many thomans, or myriads, of horse was not master of a single galley. It was, however, not possible to conquer even Asia by means of a frontal land attack. The circumnavigation of the African Continent and the subsequent advance of the Europeans into the sphere of the Indian Ocean, and later of the Pacific, represent a large-scale flanking manoeuvre. The colonial empires founded by the Portuguese, Dutch and British are Ocean Empires, created from the sea. The existence of these empires rests today upon one hypothesis – Anglo-Saxon naval supremacy. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, however, the white colonial powers were confronted by an entirely new phenomenon. A thalassocracy of purely Asiatic origin arose in the Pacific, and became at the same time the centre of an opposition colonisation’ ('Gegen-Kolonisation’) of the first rank. A hundred and fifty years after Russia, Japan accepted European civilisation in order to beat Europe at her own game. For the first time for 300 years an Asiatic power once more set out to achieve world conquest. Japan, like every thalassocracy, sought to influence the neighbouring continent, and here the Island Kingdom came up against two Great Powers – China and Russia. The substance of modern Japan’s foreign policy consists essentially of the adjustment of relations with these two continental opponents. But this foreign policy, although no doubt displaying certain ‘amphibian’ characteristics, has as its goal, in accordance with tradition, the actual domination of the East Asiatic Continent. To the Occident, which came into close contact with Japan for the first time in the middle of the nineteenth century, everything that took place in the following eighty years, the whole mighty uprising to the position of a world power, appeared as an example of the economic, social, cultural and political transformation brought about by European-American capitalism in the backward Orient. In this connection, however, it remains inexplicable that while Japan’s reaction to Occidental capitalism was the development of power on a vast scale, the other two Asiatic kingdoms, China and Korea, through contact with the same capitalism, have declined and forfeited all or part of their independence. It must be assumed that the Japanese have brought out of their long history into modern times a certain mental attitude which has made possible their unique success. ‘To be widely open on the one hand to outside impressions, and on the other to turn them to good account in the safe shelter of a closed personality’ – it is thus that Friedrich Ratzel characterises one of the historical advantages of the Island State. In the course of their thousand years’ history the Japanese have succeeded in absorbing various foreign ideas and forms of organisation, have tested them and skilfully tried out one against the other. Statesmen of imposing pattern have appeared at decisive turning points of Japanese history, men who have not been afraid to oppose the passive resistance of the masses, and, despising the old, deep-rooted prejudices, have led the state into new paths. The astounding elasticity and adaptability of the Japanese, their capacity for absorbing outside ideas while at the same time preserving their own personality, these traits in the national character, which explain Japan’s remarkable success, are the result of the history of this island people.
The Japanese, racially and culturally, are a mixed people. Malays of the South Seas, Altaic Mongols, Caucasian Ainus, colonised Japan in prehistoric times and helped to build up the Japanese national type. Still more heterogeneous are the influences which have shaped Japanese culture. Chinese Confucianism, Indian Buddhism, Catholicism of the Jesuitical type, have formed and influenced Japanese life in the course of the centuries. As, therefore, in the middle of the nineteenth century Japan adopted European civilisation, she had already had considerable experience in assimilating foreign influences. Tension in two directions – continental and oceanic – has always defined Japan’s attitude to world politics. The influence of the Continent on the Island Kingdom has not been merely cultural: in the thirteenth century the Mongol Chinese dynasty attempted to extend their dominion to the Japanese islands. Decisive factors in the failure of this grandiose campaign were, first, the breakdown in the unaccustomed conditions of the ‘amphibian’ warfare, of the military technique of the Mongol cavalry, planned for land warfare, and, secondly, the unexpected toughness of the Japanese resistance. The invasion of the Island Kingdom by the Continent was thus finished once and for all. Three hundred years later came Japan’s attack on the Continent. In the meantime, however, the former’s political horizon had been greatly enlarged. In 1542 the Islands for the first time saw ‘Southern barbarians’ in their harbours: the Portuguese landed on the Japanese islands. The sixteenth century is, generally speaking, the epoch in which Japan’s political energy reached its first culminating point. In this period the Japanese first appeared as an oceangoing people, as pirates and traders, and attempted, using the southern island Kiushu as base, to obtain a footing in the whole of the Western Pacific. This was the first foreign political appearance of the Satsuma Clan. The Malakka Peninsula represents the most southerly point of the oceanic advance of the Satsuma people. Here, however, the Japanese sailors already came against the Europeans advancing from the west (the Portuguese Indian traveller, Albuquerque, in 1511). The elasticity of the Island Kingdom’s foreign policy at this time can be judged from the ocean-encompassing plans of the Japanese statesmen of the period. On the one hand the attempt was made to extend Japanese trade to Mexico in the East Pacific where Spain had already established a sphere of influence. The South Japanese embassy to the Pope (Hazekura Tsunenaga), an attempt to establish friendly relations with the Occident, above all with Spain and Portugal, also falls into this period. On the other hand, Japan at this time was straining every nerve to subdue the Chinese-Korean Continent (Hideyoshi, 1536-1598). This tension between ocean and continent in the sixteenth century contains the kernel of the whole future foreign policy of the Island State even to the present day. Japan has twice adopted European arms technique in order to turn it against China. In 1542 occurred the first importation of Portuguese firearms into Japan. Fifty years later, in 1592, the Japanese troops in their continental campaigns were already equipped both with European firearms and those manufactured at home from European models. Three hundred years later the same process was repeated. In 1853, after a long interruption, Japan again came into contact with European arms technique, and with this same technique just forty years later succeeded in overwhelming China. For Hideyoshi the conquest of China and Korea was in line with ancient tradition: already in the seventh century Japan made an unsuccessful effort to establish herself in South Korea. After the repulsion of the Mongol Chinese Emperor Kublai Khan’s attack on Japan at the end of the thirteenth century, the plan for a counter-attack on the Continent at once emerged. This plan, however, could not be carried out owing to the incessant feudal disputes in which Japan was engaged for forty years after the last Mongol invasion. It was only after Hideyoshi succeeded, in the second half of the sixteenth century, in settling the feudal wars that he could once more turn his attention to the conquest of China and Korea. For Hideyoshi, however, the subduing of China and Korea was only a stage. His aim was the conquest of the whole of the Indo-Pacific area. Apart from the Far East, India, the East Indies and Persia were to fall to the Japanese conquerors. The capital of this pan-Asiatic kingdom was to be Peking. Hideyoshi may be regarded as the spiritual father of Giichi Tanaka (1863-1929) whose famous Testament of 1927 repeats more or less accurately this programme of Japanese imperialism. The Seven Years War (1591-98) waged by Hideyoshi against China and Korea ended with a disaster in which the Sino-Korean fleet defeated the Japanese armada in the Yellow Sea. Naval supremacy is as necessary to continental domination in the Far East as elsewhere. Japan at that time, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, escaped the fate of India because Spain, the world power which might have threatened her, then suffered defeat at the hands of England and France. Philip II’s Armada was destroyed in 1588; nine years later the Chinese general Li Yu-sung defeated the Japanese fleet.
nine years later the Chinese general Li Yu-sung defeated the Japanese fleet. Shortly afterwards began the Thirty Years’ War in which the energies of all European powers were fully engaged. The colonial wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries took place in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, the role of the Western Pacific being of little or no importance in this connection. Japan therefore remained in these centuries outside the circle of European world policy, and was able undisturbed to devote herself to the experiment of self-consolidation and political and economic ‘autarky’. The epoch of seclusion (1637-1853) which covers seven generations, is the time of the final formation of the Japanese national character. It was ushered in by vast anti-ideological struggles: both ideologies which claimed domination were eventually discarded. Political Buddhism first received a death blow, in dealing which the government claimed the support of Christianity, which was already exerting a powerful influence upon the masses. In its turn, however, Christianity was suppressed, foreigners thrown out of the country, and all communication with the outside world cut off. The sense of national disappointment at the failure of Hideyoshi’s pan-Asiatic plans produced in a hypersensitive nation the tendency to self-examination and self-consciousness. Thus are explained the turning against foreign ideologies and in general the inclination to self-limitation. The outward manifestations of life were toned down, increase of population checked by abortion and child murder. The apparatus of a centralised bureaucracy was planted on a feudal social order, spiritual life was dominated by a scholasticism imported from China which attained in Japan its highest florescence towards the end of the eighteenth century. In the epoch which for the West was the period of discovery and invention, of the first great victories over Nature, of English empirical philosophy and French encyclopaedism, Japan remained in the fetters of scholasticism. But feudalism and scholasticism were a good school for the Japanese spirit as they had formerly been for that of Europe. Japan’s ‘awakening’, or rather a powerful rousing by American cannon in the year 1853, forced the acceptance of European-American civilisation. But this acceptance was simply used as a stick with which to beat Europe. Hideyoshi’s pan-Asiatic programme once more came to the front. Japan now began where Hideyoshi left off, and made up for the defeat of 1597 by a blow at the Chinese ‘hereditary foe’ in 1894-95. It turned out, however, that in these two and a half centuries the world situation had fundamentally altered: between the victorious Island Kingdom and defenceless China stood Russia, backed by France and Germany. Japan was thus robbed of the fruits of her victory over China. The advance of the Island Kingdom towards the Continent, the pan-Asiatic doctrine of Hideyoshi, was countered, as 250 years before, by a Eurasiatic programme. The Russians appeared as the political heirs of the Mongols. The Mongol Empire, founded in the thirteenth century by Genghiz Khan and his successors, included on its extreme west the Russian principalities; on its extreme east this Empire sought to incorporate the Japanese islands. In the fifteenth century the Russian principalities, under the leadership of Moscow, threw off the Mongol yoke; in direct connection with this the Russian counter-offensive began right across the whole Eurasian Continent from the Volga to the Pacific. Moscow gathered under her overlordship the northern part of the decaying Mongol Empire. In the middle of the sixteenth century the Russian conquerors marched across the Ural mountains; a century later the coasts of the Pacific had already been reached by Russian adventurers and traders. In the middle of the nineteenth century (1858-60), China, greatly weakened by the war against England and France, was forced to relinquish the Amur Province and the coastal territory to Russia. The Russians, however, were no more prepared than their Mongol predecessors to be satisfied with conquests on the Asiatic Continent. At the end of the eighteenth and the first thirty years of the nineteenth centuries Russian sailors and adventurers displayed exceptional activity in the north and south of the Western Pacific. In 1798 the Russo-American Company on the lines of the English and Dutch Colonial Companies was formed, and proceeded to annex and administer Alaska in the name of the Russian Empire. Russian explorers appeared on the Marshall and Caroline Islands. In 1812 Russian agencies were started in California which at that time belonged to Spain; in 1815 an attempt was made to bring the Hawaiian Islands under a Russian protectorate. As late as 1821 the Czar Alexander I raised a claim to the Oregon province which lay like a wedge between British and American spheres of influence. When, in the summer of 1823, George Canning made to the American Ambassador, Richard Rush, the proposals for common diplomatic action which led soon afterwards to the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine, it was this Russian offensive in the Pacific, too, which was foremost in his mind. Russia’s oceanic ambitions were far-reaching: the Bering Sea was to become a Russian inland sea; in 1825 Russia and Spain made an agreement on the division of their spheres of influence in California. This, however, proved to be the summit of Russia’s achievements in the oceanic sphere.
This, however, proved to be the summit of Russia’s achievements in the oceanic sphere. The proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine was the first Anglo-Saxon counter-stroke with the aim of finally pushing Russia off the American Continent. With the sale of Alaska in 1867 the dream of a Pacific ocean kingdom under Russian domination faded once and for all. It is true that seven years earlier Vladivostok – ‘Stronghold of the East’ – had been built on the coast of the Sea of Japan. The geographical position, however, of this sea fortress proves that Russia had given up extensive oceanic ambitions: Vladivostok was in no sense planned as a point of departure for oceanic conquests, but rather as a base for continental development and defence against possible attack from the sea. Russian world policy unfolded itself along a strategically powerful line from the Carpathians to the Great Hingan Range (Manchuria), from the Black Sea to the Pacific. Behind this line lie the Eurasian steppes, and the immanent tendency of Mongolo-Russian ‘steppe-imperialism’ is to seek an outlet in a southerly direction towards the ‘warm waters’ – the Mediterranean, the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Russia’s world political energies have in the course of centuries been concentrated now on one, now on another section of this colossal curve. Russian advance towards the Black Sea was paralysed by the British counter-attack between 1853 (Crimean War) and 1878 (Congress of Berlin). The Central Asiatic expansion of the Czarist Empire which between 1860 and 1885 reached its most successful period, was also halted by British counter-activity in Afghanistan and Baluchistan. In 1885 border conflicts between Russia and Afghanistan nearly ended in a war between Russia and England. In the 1890s the Russian offensive on the shores of the Pacific, brought to a halt between 1860 and 1870, was renewed. Checked on both the other sectors of her world political arc, in the west on the Black Sea, and in the centre in Central Asia, she turned her attention to the Pacific sector. Here, however, the Czarist Empire came into conflict with Japan, substantially supported by Anglo-American cooperation. The conflict between Russia and Japan in the Pacific was a typical power conflict, economic difficulties between the two powers being merely of secondary importance. The Japanese as well as the Russians had proved indifferent colonisers on the coasts of the Northern Pacific. The real colonisers had been the Chinese, whose settlement of the North Pacific territories had, however, been checked by political considerations. From a purely political point of view both Moscow and Tokyo had favoured grandiose projects for colonising the North Pacific territories with, respectively, Russian and Japanese settlers. Nothing came of these plans, however, owing lack of colonising energy in the settlers themselves. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 left Japan an Asiatic Great Power, and gave her dominion over Southern Manchuria and Korea. The victory of Japan was only made possible by Anglo-Saxon support, chiefly that of England (the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902). After this time, however, a shifting in the direction of Japanese foreign policy is noticeable: from an attitude of acute opposition to Russia, covered by an alliance with the strongest ocean power, Tokyo’s policy veered gradually towards an understanding with Russia, while attachment to the Anglo-Saxon powers was loosened. Russia and Japan approached each other on a programme of the partition of China. Agreements on the division of spheres of influence in North China were made no less than four times – in 1907, 1910, 1911 and 1916. In 1910 a perfectly definite Russo-Japanese front was formed against the American attempt to make Manchuria a buffer state under American control (Taft-Knox proposals). The Russo-Japanese approach reached its closest point during the World War, in the last year of Czarism, with the Sazonov-Motono Agreement of 3 July 1916, which was clearly directed against America. In the same year Berlin, as well as Tokyo, played with the idea of a separate peace and a threefold Russo-Germano-Japanese entente. During the World War and in 1919-20 Japanese expansion in the Far East reached its highest point. China and Russia were completely paralysed, the whole Russian Far Eastern possessions as far as Lake Baikal were occupied by Japan. Only the intervention of England and America (Washington, 1922) forced Japan to evacuate the occupied positions. A new Japanese approach to Russia, at this time similarly isolated, became possible in 1925 with the Karakhan-Yoshizava Agreement. The problem of China, however, then as now, stood between Tokyo and Moscow. The unification of China was carried out between 1923 and 1926 with Russian help, and this unification was directed not only against the Western powers but against Japan. Still, even in 1926 the tendency to an approach of Russia and Japan was clearly noticeable, and even the old idea of a triple entente between Japan, Russia and Germany seemed to be coming to fruition. The close relations between Berlin and Moscow as shown in the Berlin Treaty of 1926, could only be favourable to the ‘Eurasian Axis’ (Berlin – Moscow – Tokyo). With the advent to power of Baron Giichi Tanaka in the summer of 1927, the pan-Asiatic tendency once more asserted itself, combined first with an attempt at an approach to England, but after 1931 with gradual dissociation from all connection with the Anglo-Saxon powers. This ‘totalitarian’ continental policy beginning with the occupation of Manchuria presupposed a more or less complete ‘aloofness’ on the part of England and America towards any Western Pacific policy. Tokyo assumed this Anglo-Saxon aloofness as a matter of course, but reckoned equally as a matter of course with Russian ‘presence’ ('presenza’ – Italian) in the Western Pacific.
The fate of Asia will in all probability be decided by Asiatic power factors. The intervention of the Anglo-Saxon powers, if it ever comes, can be expected only at a much later stage, when the combinations of power in the Western Pacific will be more clearly discernible. The alternatives which there remain to be settled are the old ones, those which were set by Kublai Khan in the thirteenth, and Hideyoshi in the sixteenth centuries: Eurasia or Panasia. The further the Chinese armies are pushed to the West and cut off from all access to the sea, the more will they be thrown back on help from Russia and the more probable will become a close political and military cooperation between Moscow and the government of Marshal Chiang. The incorporation of China in the Japanese sphere of power will ruin Russia’s position as an Asiatic Great Power. And Russia today, in view on the one hand of the industrialisation of the huge district between the Ural and Altai Mountains and on the other of the actual incorporation of Chinese East Turkestan and Outer Mongolia (together nearly 1,500,000 square miles) feels much more an Asiatic power than she did twenty years ago. A Sino-Russian alliance, the victory of which would realise the old Eurasian Mongolian Empire of Genghiz Khan and Kublai Khan, is therefore within the bounds of possibility. The Pan-Asiatic solution, as envisaged by Hideyoshi and Tanaka, could only be achieved by the overthrow of Russia and her destruction as an Asiatic power. The incorporation of Eastern Turkestan and Outer Mongolia in the Japanese sphere of control would threaten Russian domination in South Siberia and Central Asia. There is, however, another possibility, namely the partition of China between Japan and Russia. As things are today this would mean a complete elimination of Russia from the Pacific Coast and thus the conversion of the Sea of Japan into a Japanese inland sea, the relinquishment of the coast territories and possibly also the Amur province to Japan, Russia, however, retaining her lordship over the Mongolian-Turkestan provinces. This would, according to past experience, lead to a stronger pressure of Russia in Central Asia and in the direction of the Indian Ocean. Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1940 Stalin Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, January 1940. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. On 21 December 1939, Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili had his sixtieth birthday. A genius? Or a criminal on the largest scale? Or perhaps the ‘most eminent mediocrity’ in the Party, as Trotsky once called him in a private conversation. Russia’s dictator has already become a legend, his name is a symbol for which men fight and die. It is difficult here not to write a panegyric or a satire. One may take comfort in the thought of the ‘historian of the future’. But will this historian not depend on our legends and judgements? It therefore becomes a duty of contemporaries to try and pierce through the veil of legend to the real core of personality. First, however, we must ascertain and analyse the different elements in the legend. And for that matter the Stalin of legend, the Stalin as he appears in the fantasy of his people is at least as important as the real man. The core of reality is not essential to a legend, and indeed need have no actual existence at all. It is of no importance for the symbol Stalin that the actual man should have certain characteristics. Yet the Stalin legend is built up on the Bolshevik legend and is a variant of it. Books will one day be written about the Bolshevik legend. Its point of departure is the self-glorification of a revolutionary community and their founder. The growth of such a legend is a phenomenon which has been fairly often repeated in world history. The Bolshevist community attributed to itself from the first a Messianic and magic significance. It alone was in a position to rescue Russia and lead her to happiness. This Messianic idea was later extended to the whole world. For the growth of a legend the person of its founder may be of essential importance. The Messianism and the magic of a community finds its concrete expression in this Person. Its propaganda value is increased. An impersonal community can have nothing like the fascination for the imagination of the masses as can the living personality. Lenin as founder of the Bolshevist Sect was what Max Weber called a ‘charismatic leader’. Charisma – Grace – is always to be found in greater or less degree in every political leader. Leadership cannot be based merely upon election. It must contain a certain measure of Charisma. But the true charismatic leader is essentially other than the leader who emerges from the functional apparatus of the Party. The charismatic leader removes every intermediary between himself and the mass of his disciples, sets himself above the apparatus, destroys it if it suits him, and constructs another which becomes his obedient tool. His authority comes not from his election but from the magic of his appearance, from his luck and his success. Lenin was such a leader. The magic of his personality had an overpowering effect upon his nearest surroundings and later upon the great mass of his disciples. During his lifetime, however, it was not possible for the legend to take possession of his person, as he himself was too much a realist to allow of such a proceeding. After his death the circle of his nearest disciples and, in particular the triumvirate Stalin – Kamenev – Zinoviev, who took over directly from him, were able to draw from Lenin’s person advantages not only for the prestige of the Party, but also, what was more important, for their own authority. Lenin became a fetish, a supernatural protector of the Party and the Party State. He was revered as the invisible Head of the Bolshevik Church, his embalmed mummy on the Red Square in Moscow was merely a material symbol of this immaterial relationship. Under the principate of Stalin, the Bolshevik metaphysics received its final formulation, became a dogma, which had nothing to do with the materialistic starting-point of the doctrine. But it must not be forgotten that Stalin merely brought to grotesque evolution germs which were already present in the original legend. Thus the motif of self-glorification and Messianic uniqueness which appears in the Stalinist epoch as coarse braggadocio was one of the essential elements of the original Bolshevik legend. The legend of Bolshevism was transformed into the Stalinist legend, while the whole history of the Party, of the country and even of the world was represented merely as a preparation for the appearance of Stalin. This evolution was fostered consciously and with all the tricks of modern propaganda. His contemporaries were in the happy position of being able to watch the process of ‘manufacturing’ a demigod. There is, according to the legend, one doctrine alone that can bring salvation, that has already turned one country into an earthly paradise, and that will save the whole world if only the nations will be obedient and teachable. This doctrine is called ‘Marxism’ or ‘historical materialism’ or ‘dialectical materialism’ – abbreviated to ‘Diamat’. But the important thing is that the interpretation of this doctrine is in the hands of a mystic dynasty: Marx – Engels – Lenin – Stalin. In these heroes or saints the spirit of the doctrine is embodied, the virtue descends mystically from one hero to another, until the holy spirit of ‘Diamat’ finds its highest embodiment in Stalin, whose earthly name is Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. Stalin is no longer a hero, he is far more – a demi-god! One peasant girl said to another: ‘I have deep in my heart a great desire – to see Stalin.’ The other girl thought a moment and then, turning her big shining eyes to her friend she said in a low tone: ‘But Stalin is always with us. At this very moment he sees us and rejoices in our friendship.
At this very moment he sees us and rejoices in our friendship. You are Stalin, and I, and all of us.’, pointing to her friend. ‘Stalin is – everything!’, and she embraced with a movement of her hand the whole big wonderful garden surrounding her. Thus was the conversation reported by the official organ of the Soviet government (Izvestia, 5 August 1939). It must not be understood by this that reverence for Stalin as a divine being is widespread among the population of the Soviet Union. It is, however, a fact that the government and the Party, press and propaganda do everything possible to promote this cult of the personality of the ‘Leader of the Nations’. The deification of the ruler is in any case a tradition of the Orient, so that Stalin has not thereby instituted anything new, but has gone back to ancient tradition. That Caesar may not require those things which are God’s is a Jewish-Christian idea. In the Orient and in the Orientalised late Roman Empire there was no such dilemma because Caesar was God. Marx and Engels were spiritual rulers. Lenin who took over their heritage was the first of the dynasty to grasp the earthly sword. Stalin unites completely in himself the two powers, the earthly and the spiritual. Stalin’s earthly dominion over the Russian Empire rests neither on conquest nor on election. He rules over the Empire by virtue of his mystic claim to be the last member of the ‘Marxist’ dynasty. The Soviet Union is an ideocratic state, in other words the actual power in this land is wielded by the bearer of an idea. Russia is dominated by ‘Marxism’, that is by a community or sect which is held together by faith in the doctrine. This community, however, has, by a remarkable psychological and sociological process, relinquished all its rights to its head. The bearer of the Marxist idea thus becomes the earthly ruler of the land, the Party Pope becomes an Imperator. Emperor Stalin needs a pedestal to increase his somewhat inconsiderable stature. With this in view Party history and the history of the Civil War have been falsified, documents disappear, books are rewritten, libraries revised, witnesses removed. In a conversation with Bukharin, wishing in his usual way to paralyse him by blatant flattery, Stalin said: ‘We two are Himalayas, the others are nothing.’ So as really to be a Himalaya Stalin was obliged to send Bukharin and the other Party leaders into the next world. The head of the community destroyed the community itself so that all the antecedents of his own rise to power might be buried in oblivion. Stalin, who grew out of the Party apparatus himself, destroyed the apparatus in order to appear as a charismatic leader. The true Stalin, Josif Dzhugashvili, was not born to be a prophet. The fact alone that he was a provincial obstructed his rise. Beyond this is the fact that he is half-educated and knows nothing whatever of European culture. Lenin and his immediate circle were not only men of European education, but also more or less gifted literati. Bolshevism itself grew out of the editorial office of an �migr� newspaper. Russian Social Democracy, the mother-party of Bolshevism, was for many years less a political party than a communion of faith, an association of literati and propagandists. A non-literate like Stalin could not possibly play an important role in such a party, and he made no claim to do so. At this period he contented himself with a second- or even third-rank post within the party apparatus. He never has expressed independent ideas, or invented anything original. Conscious of his intellectual weakness he always sought to attach himself to a stronger intellect than his own, or tacked about between various intellectual tendencies. Lenin was, during his lifetime, his guiding star, although Stalin never stood in any intimate relationship with him. Lenin, however, valued Stalin as an obedient executive under his direction, and as a daring and ruthless revolutionary. These qualities gained him his place on the Bolshevik General Staff even before the revolution. Stalin has always been the man behind the scenes. He shuns the limelight. The revolution of 1917 was dominated by the double star of Lenin and Trotsky, but Stalin doubtless played an important organising role. Without mixing in the theoretical discussions of the Party literati, he managed successfully to create for himself a basis for future power struggles. In this period, when no one in the Party ever mentioned Stalin, he was building up the foundations of his power by creating for himself his own clique of followers. Stalin is an ‘apparatchik’, a man of the Party apparatus, with all such a man’s virtues and vices. His whole political Weltanschauung, his routine, his technique, arise out of the political working of the apparatus. Administration is his element. He is deeply convinced of the absolute power of the administrative order. And that is why Socialism is to him, at bottom, completely alien. Stalin is no Socialist, and that is probably the explanation of the riddle which he presents. Modern Socialism is generally hostile to ‘Statism’. That is particularly true of Marx and Lenin. In his brochure State and Revolution (1917) Lenin, shortly before he came to power, affirmed the dying out of the state as an immanent tendency of Socialist development. In this he followed Marx and and Engels. Socialism will free society from the state and bring to consummation those social forces which are hindered by the bourgeois state.
Socialism will free society from the state and bring to consummation those social forces which are hindered by the bourgeois state. Lenin regarded the overgrowth of state power in its coarsest form which developed during the civil war as a temporary phase, and himself pointed out the dangers of this growth of the Socialist idea. It is possible to be of divergent opinions as to Lenin’s sincerity. One can see in the state-bureaucratic caricature of Socialism which marks the Russian Revolution an inevitable development; but it is a fact that before Stalin it had never occurred to any Socialist to represent state despotism as a positive good. Stalin believes neither in personality nor in society; he despises both. He only believes in the state machine. Personality and society are in themselves faulty; the state apparatus is in itself good. While Socialism in its final result postulates the replacement of the state by a free society, Stalin sees in the future the state devouring society and with it human personality. One cannot deny a certain majesty to this Utopia, it is the dream of the ‘Apparatchik’ to deprive mankind and society of its soul and to substitute for the free play of social forces the automatism of the state machinery. In his self-satisfaction Stalin does not notice that he is exactly following the development foreseen by Dostoyevsky seventy years ago in his satiric Vision. ‘I am perplexed by my own data, and my own conclusion is a direct contradiction to the original idea with which I start’, says the Socialist Shigalev (The Possessed, first published 1871). Starting from unlimited freedom I arrive at unlimited despotism. And Shigalev suggests ‘the division of mankind into two unequal parts. One-tenth enjoys absolute liberty and unbounded power over the other nine-tenths. The others have to give up all individuality and become, so to speak, a herd...’ From the school of the ‘apparatus’ Stalin has drawn an endless contempt for mankind. The human type known to Stalin is the conscienceless striver; in the world of the apparatus there is only one ethic – intrigue. To be successful one must learn the art of flattery, of defamation and of setting one against another. Out of the struggle of the ‘Apparatchiki’ who fought over the Lenin’s heritage, Stalin, as past master of intrigue, came victoriously to the fore. Aware of his own mediocrity, he surrounded himself with nobodies. One has only to study the photographs of the notables of the Kremlin. Every impartial observer will admit that their faces are not those of intellectuals. They are anti-intellectuals, men whose very existence, and above all their success, is a denial of intellect. And why intellect, anyway? The Apparatus requires only obedience. Thought on the part of subalterns is not only superfluous but dangerous, and in Russia everyone except the Dictator is a subaltern. The Emperor Paul I once said: ‘In Russia the only important man is the one I am speaking to, and only as long as I am speaking to him.’ How is it that the mediocrity, Josif Dzhugashvili, has been transformed into Stalin, the legendary hero? I must confess that I cannot answer this question. The case of Stalin is, however, only a special case, perhaps particularly crass, of the victory of mediocrity and philistinism which is so often seen in history, particularly after periods of great changes in which all outstanding personalities are exhausted. The rise of Stalin was also facilitated by the fact that apart from Lenin and perhaps Sverdlov and Dzerzhinsky, there was no other man of strong will, no single brutal, iron-nerved daredevil in the ranks of the Bolshevik General Staff. They were all – Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev – fundamentally no more than literati and talkers. Trotsky, the only one who could compete with Stalin, was obviously not disposed to dispute power with him, for reasons which are still not clear. Stalin’s occidental admirers are impressed by his success. The root of European Stalinism must, at bottom, be sought in the respect for brute force and success founded upon it. The man who calls himself a ‘Leftist’ and a ‘Progressive’ finds something imposing in success as such, regardless of what is achieved, and at what sacrifice. These words ‘Left and ‘Progress’, by the way, express remarkable geometric-sociological ideas. Left of what? Of what central point? Progress whither? Marxism, which, on the Continent of Europe, in the last decade before 1914 was completely domesticated and derevolutionised, has received new power by contact with the great Russo-Asiatic peasant and workers’ revolution. Now, however, the ghost of this Marxism, having become the ideological trimming of a vast national upheaval, has come back to Europe and is again exercising its power of attraction upon those who cannot and will not see that it is something new and alien. Stalin’s successes? In internal politics they consist in this: he has transformed Russia into a concentration camp, a slave state, robbed millions of peasant families of their possessions and their lives, trodden underfoot the ideas of personal freedom and human dignity; banished truth from his realm and made lies the daily bread of his subjects and his worshippers inside and outside the country. Even with those of his admirers who venture on an occasional timid criticism of the demigod, it has become a reflex to speak of his ‘brilliant successes’ in the realm of industrial construction. Apart from the fact that independent experts are very sceptical of Stalin’s ‘successes’ in the economic sphere, apart from the colossal sacrifices in lives and possessions that these ‘successes’ have cost in every case, can it not be said here as in the Gospel of Luke (ix:25): ‘For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world and lose himself or be cast away?’ Stalin is in truth seeking with Satanic guile to buy the soul of the Russian man with the illusion of material wealth.
The same timid Western European critic might humbly venture to point out to Stalin, the Benefactor, that his ‘imperialistic’ foreign policy of the last months is in contradiction to his internal policy. But the humble critic is wrong. Stalin’s foreign policy is not in contradiction to his internal policy. Both policies are built up upon brute force and shameless hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, moreover, the Soviet government, with the leading collaboration of Stalin, treated the little country of Georgia in the same callous and hypocritical manner as Finland today. It is remarkable that it never occurs to these members of his Stalinist Majesty’s Opposition that only a completely amoral despot with a contempt for mankind could follow a foreign policy such as Stalin’s. And at the same time he appears in the eyes of these loyal critics as a brilliant builder of social democracy in Russia. One really has the right to ask what these people understand by democracy and socialism. The Stalin – Hitler alliance naturally appears in the eyes of the two confederates as a means to an end. It needs no proof that the two rightly mistrust each other and ultimately wish to ruin each other. This is regarded by ‘Leftists’ of every shade as a sign of Stalin’s great genius. Apart, however, from transient and superficial combinations, these two men must in some way feel themselves spiritually akin. Their total amorality and the equally total brutality that derives from it, have a common root in the satanic arrogance with which both lay claim to a godless messianism. The thing Stalin most hates is personal freedom, and, in general, the free human personality. It contradicts his passion for levelling, his goal, the automatising and mechanising of society. Stalin hates the human soul. It is his greatest enemy because it is free and divine. He hates God because God is the father of human freedom, of the free human spirit. In his hatred of Christianity and of the Western civilisation which is built upon it, he and Hitler come together. This remarkable fact should give Western European Stalinists who are trying to explain away the alliance between the two despots and to treat it as of no consequence, furiously to think. Dostoyevsky, who felt and prophetically saw the Russian spirit in its deepest fall and its highest glory, takes as motto for his Possessed, that deepest study of the problem of the revolutionary man, the strange story from the Gospel of Luke (viii:27-35) of the devils that left the body of the possessed man and went into the swine. And at the end of the novel one of the heroes says of this Bible story: Those devils that come out of the sick man and enter into the swine are all the sins, all the foul contagions, all the impurities, all the devils, great and small, that have multiplied in that great invalid, our beloved Russia, in the course of ages and ages. But a great idea and a great will will encompass it from on high, as with the lunatic possessed of devils. And the sick man will be healed and I ‘will sit at the feet of Jesus’ and all will look upon him with astonishment. The time is perhaps not far off when Russia will be healed of all her devils great and small, and will sit at the feet of Christ. Is it not time, however, that intellectual Europe should free herself from her devil, the devil of satanic Hybris and amorality that has revealed itself in such alarming fashion in the worship of Stalinism? Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1939 Lenin as Philosopher Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, December 1939. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. The appearance of the twelfth volume of the Selected Works of VI Lenin completes the task undertaken by Messrs Lawrence and Wishart, in collaboration with the Marx – Engels Institute in Moscow, of introducing the English-speaking public to the most important political and scientific works of the founder of Bolshevism. [1] The varied ideological storms experienced by Leninism during the few years since the beginning of the publication of the English translation of Lenin’s works find an echo, though a faint one, in the work of the editor, about which, of course, only surmises are permitted. The first volume of the ‘Extracts’ is arranged by the Editor, Mr IB Fineberg, the last volume by Mr I Lenin. [2] No reason is given for this change. On the other hand it is stated in the preface to the ninth volume that ‘developments during the past few years... imperatively called for a thorough revision’ of the explanatory notes given in the preceding volumes. [3] For this reason subsequent volumes were held up until the Moscow Institute of Leninism had put together new observations corresponding to the circumstances of the period. It can of course not be the task of a short review to discuss exhaustively the significance of Lenin in the development of Russian Socialism or in the history of the Socialist idea. For Communists Lenin’s works are a kind of revelation of which every letter is imbued with sacred meaning. One of the oldest suras of the Koran begins with the words: ‘No doubt is there about this Book: It is a guidance to the God-fearing.’ This approximately describes the attitude of the believing Bolshevik to the words of the Master. It can be truly said that few thinkers in history have evolved to such a limited extent as Lenin. In spite of unavoidable contradictions one must say that Lenin’s Weltanschauung bears in fact a monolithic character. He succumbed in earliest youth to the magic of the Marxian metaphysic, with its unequivocal directness so attractive to the primitive mind, and remained true to it to the end of his life. Lenin at first accepted the metaphysical implications of Marxism as a matter of course. To him, the political publicist and revolutionary leader, ‘philosophy’ appeared, if not superfluous, still as a cura posterior. [4] During his Siberian exile, however, Lenin studied philosophy, above all the French materialism of the eighteenth century and the classics of German idealism. But it was not until after the 1905 revolution that the concern for philosophical problems presented itself to him as an actual political duty. In this period of reaction after 1905 Lenin found himself forced to destroy idealistic tendencies within his own party and particularly in its left wing. To Lenin the Party appeared as a Sect with a Weltanschauung, not merely uniform but absolutely identical. Philosophical materialism was regarded by him as the dogma of the Party, any deviation therefrom as a betrayal of the Party. AA Bogdanov (Malinovsky), the old Bolshevik and comrade in arms of Lenin, appeared as chief theoretician of the idealistic opposition, who, without adjuring historical materialism subjected the whole methodology of the Marxist philosophy to revision. He was deeply under the influence of Ernst Mach and Avenarius, the founders of the empirio-critical school which achieved great popularity at the turn of the century. Bogdanov, around whom such old Bolsheviks as Bazarov, Lunacharsky and others grouped themselves, raised the banner of rebellion against philosophical materialism in the name of an ‘Empiriomonism’ which was to signify the overcoming both of materialism and of idealism. Actually Bogdanov created nothing new; his teaching is simply a shade of the agnosticism of Mach and Avenarius which had its roots as far back as Berkeley and Hume. Machism led in its further development to the mathematical logic of Wittgenstein, and the philosophically founded scepticism of Bertrand Russell and to the ‘Logistic’ of Carnap and Philip Frank. These teachings can be defined as dominant in the natural philosophy of today. The controversy, therefore, between Bogdanov and Lenin has kept its actuality even in the present time. Lenin’s significance as a political leader and statesman has long been recognised, his sociology is less well known and as a philosopher he may be said to be practically unknown. We take the occasion of the appearance of the now complete Selected Works to give a sketch of the metaphysical background of the founder of Bolshevism, with special reference to the eleventh volume which contains Lenin’s great philosophical polemic. Lenin’s metaphysic is as little original as that of Bogdanov. While the latter was a pupil of Mach and Avenarius the former popularised the primitive materialistic metaphysic of Feuerbach and Engels. For Lenin’s conscientiousness it is significant that with the object of consolidating his polemic against the Russian ‘Machists’ he not only studied the whole of contemporary German, English and French empirio-critical literature, but for the founding of his philosophical counter-offensive went to the original source of dialectic, namely, Hegel. The only great – even the only complete – philosophical work of Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, which appeared in 1908 and which fills the greater part of the eleventh volume of the Selected Works, is completely under the charm of the Hegelian dialectic. Among Lenin’s papers was found, with other philosophical excerpts, a very detailed summary of Hegel’s Logic, together with numerous critical and admiring observations. From this it can be seen what exceptional significance Lenin ascribed to the Hegelian metaphysic. Hegel is, in fact, the only ‘bourgeois’ philosopher the study of whom in present day Russia is not only permitted but practically obligatory. Bogdanov, in his polemic against Lenin, Faith and Science, which represented an answer to Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, defines Lenin as a metaphysician who believes, religiously, in Absolute Truth.
What Lenin really believed in was ‘Holy Matter’. It seemed to him the only reality, and Motion as its only function. The study of the contemporary atomic and electronic theories certainly convinced him that the old ‘material’ conception of matter was obsolescent. Matter was becoming immaterial, transforming itself into energy and taking on the nature of a symbol. Thus by the end of the nineteenth century Natural Science was diverted into an agnostic and relativist channel. In Lenin’s opinion, however, this shook historical materialism to its foundations and therewith also the whole theory of the Messianic role of the revolutionary proletariat. The idea of preserving historical materialism as a basis for revolutionary messianism by renouncing the obviously untenable philosophical materialism, the tendency which lay at the root of all Bogdanov’s and Lunacharsky’s endeavours, was revolting to Lenin. It was a question of defending at all costs the old philosophical basis of historical materialism: ‘Holy Matter’ must be preserved for the believing Marxist, even at the cost of transforming this conception into a completely empty symbol. Lenin was finally forced to the following definition of matter: ‘... the sole “property” of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind.’ The sole property of matter therefore consists in the fact that it exists! This Lenin affirms still more clearly: ... nature is infinite, but it infinitely exists. And it is this sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of nature’s existence outside the mind and perceptions of man that distinguishes dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and idealism. The existence of matter is thus for Lenin a dogma which needs no proof. He decisively attacks agnosticism and pragmatism. It is interesting, too, that in his metaphysic and epistemology he closely follows Engels without taking into consideration the utterances of Marx which show a more or less clearly defined tendency to pragmatism and agnosticism. In the famous Theses on Feuerbach Marx expresses the opinion that ‘the controversy over the reality or unreality of thought if isolated from practice appears as a purely scholastic question’, whilst for Lenin, ‘knowledge is only biologically useful if it mirrors the objective truth which is independent of the human mind’. Lenin recognises time and space as well as causality as objectively present. There is an absolute Truth which mirrors itself in human minds. Certainly the mind can only occasionally and approximately reflect absolute truth. Only in this way will Lenin admit relatively in human knowledge. In all these assertions Lenin shows himself purely as a dogmatic materialist, a disciple of the French materialism of the eighteenth century. But he is at the same time an Hegelian and as such a ‘dialectician’. For him dialectic is in the first place nothing but the ‘epistemology of Marxism’. With Hegel, however, dialectic is not only epistemology but at the same time ontology. For the ‘spiritual alone is the real’ and reality is according to Hegel only the ‘Selbstbewegung des Begriffes’. Marx and Engels claim, as we know, to have put the Hegelian dialectic which, in their opinion, was upside down, on to its feet. For Lenin, too, dialectic as epistemology was simply the reflection of dialectic as the theory of the laws of Being. The real world exists – this postulate of Leninist materialism, which after all has no other proof than the ‘unconquerable tendency of our understanding’, is supplemented by the other equally undemonstrable postulate: this real world exists according to the laws of dialectics. While the Hegelian dialectic of the Spirit has in any case as its point of departure a deep psychological experience, the Marxist dialectic of Being is a purely hypothetical assumption which has its roots in an arbitrary generalisation of the results of the natural scientific research of the nineteenth century. Precisely with Lenin it can be seen how the necessities of a political system led to the construction of a corresponding metaphysic. Lenin, the political revolutionary, needed a metaphysic which raised revolution to a cosmic principle. That is the explanation of his partisanship of ‘Dialectic’. But why did he turn so sharply against Bogdanov, who was also a dialectician, but abjured dogmatic materialism? Bogdanov in no way ceased to be a revolutionary through his renunciation of materialism. Quite on the contrary! He and his school advocated much more drastic methods of political struggle than Lenin. The Bogdanov metaphysic was also revolutionary in the sense of the Heraclitean ‘panta rei’ ‘????? ???’, which lies finally at the base of all dialectic. But Lenin was not only a revolutionary, but also an authoritarian revolutionary, and as such he had to decline the extreme relativism of the Bogdanov school. With sure instinct Lenin perceived in the relativism of Bogdanov, which was inseparably connected with the agnosticism of Mach and Avenarius, the danger of ‘Fideism’. The disciple of Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, who later returned to the bosom of orthodox Leninism and became a member of the first Bolshevik government, quite openly entertained the idea of founding a new religion of the worship of mankind. Such a religion appeared in Lenin’s eyes as a dangerous innovation. Why a new religion when the old religion of ‘Holy Matter’ was sufficient for all claims of revolutionary theory and practice? This religion was on the one hand dialectic and thus revolutionary, and on the other dogmatic and thus authoritarian.
This religion was on the one hand dialectic and thus revolutionary, and on the other dogmatic and thus authoritarian. It was not relativist as it recognised an absolute, namely, eternal and undying Matter. Lenin knew that a political Church – and as such he regarded the Bolshevik Party – could only be founded on Authority. This highest Authority he saw in himself. But the corresponding metaphysic must also have a firmly rooted dogma as point of departure, namely, ‘Matter’. One of Dostoyevsky’s characters, an officer given to brooding, finally flung out the question: ‘If there is no God, how can I be a Major?’ In similar manner Lenin feared that the removal of dogmatism in revolutionary metaphysics would lead to the destruction of his authority as Pope of the Party. Notes Notes are provided by the author and the MIA as noted. 1. VI Lenin, Selected Works in Twelve Volumes (Lawrence and Wishart, about 60/-) [Author’s note]. Volume 12 of the Selected Works contains Marxism and Empirio-Criticism, What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, ‘Karl Marx’, ‘The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’, ‘On the Question of Dialectics’, ‘On the Significance of Militant Materialism’ and various others of Lenin’s philosophical works – MIA. 2. Sic, the editor of the latter volumes is actually I Levin – MIA. 3. The first eight volumes of this series of Lenin’s Selected Works contained extensive explanatory notes; the ninth, which featured the explanatory preface cited above, and the following volumes contained no explanatory notes – MIA. 4. Cura posterior – a later concern – MIA. Gregory Bienstock Archive
Gregory Bienstock 1940 Church and God-Manhood in Russian Religious Philosophy Source: The Nineteenth Century and After, February 1940. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Religion is faith in God and at the same time faith in man. If life is to have meaning for man he must believe in his own absolute dignity. He must learn to believe in himself as a potential partaker of the divine eternal life. – Vladimir Soloviev The term ‘Russian religious philosophy’ is a pleonasm, as the whole of Russian philosophy is penetrated by the religious idea. The exponents of this religious philosophy are not ecclesiastical but secular, and the philosophy itself has developed in a direction opposed to the spirit of the official Greek Orthodox Church. The central conception of God-manhood is given by the philosophers, in contradistinction to the official Church, a cosmogonal and not a soteriological meaning. According to the Church’s interpretation the incarnation of Christ has as its object the salvation of man from original sin. Thus the incarnation appears, fundamentally, as an accident evoked by Adam’s fall. This soteriological interpretation makes man himself an accident, a mere object of the Grace of God. Russian religious philosophy, however, rests fundamentally upon another standpoint. The Divine Incarnation here appears as included from the beginning in the plan of creation; a cosmogonal process and at the same time the content of the history of mankind. An equally fundamental difference exists between the conceptions of official dogma and of religious philosophy on the subject of the Church. The official idea of the Church is of an institution created by Christ which, in spite of her mystical origin, bears an essentially mundane character. For religious philosophy, however, the Church is less an institution than a living organism. In this organism the mystical process of Incarnation is taking place. ‘For the Church’s life the most significant thing is the inseparable union of the Divine with the human... the Church is the ladder between heaven and earth, upon which God is descending to earth and man is ascending to Heaven.’ (Rev S Bulgakov) Finally, the eschatological mood, the ‘Expectation of the End’ is characteristic. And here again this philosophy is distinct from the conception of the official Church, to which this mood is fundamentally alien. These three central ideas – God-manhood, Church and Expectation of the End – represent the essential content of Russian religious philosophy. Our task cannot consist in examining the sources of this philosophy. It can be traced back on the one hand to early medieval Gnosis, on the other to German mysticism (Jakob B�hme, F Baader). German idealistic philosophy, above all of Hegel and Schelling, has exercised influence on the formation of religious thought in Russia. Decisive, however, is the fact that Russia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries produced a galaxy of persons of exceptional religious gifts. Khomyakov, Soloviev, Fedorov, Bulgakov, Berdyaev – to mention only those writers especially concerned with theology. Besides these must also be mentioned poets such as Lermontov and Dostoyevsky, whose influence on the development of the religious Weltanschauung and the deepening of the religious consciousness was of decisive importance. It would be false to overestimate the significance of Russian positivism particularly in its last Marxist phase, or to regard positivism as the dominant Russian ideology. In reality a struggle has for centuries been going on in Russia between rationalism or positivism and mysticism. Basically one can trace this struggle between rationalism and mysticism to the controversy which raged inside the Byzantine Church in the fourteenth century between the Hesychasts [1] on the one hand, who depended on Plato, and the neoplatonists, and, on the other hand, Western religious rationalism which employed Aristotelian methods. This peculiar controversy between the ‘Easterns’ and the ‘Westerns’ inside the Greek-Byzantine Church had a decisive effect on the destiny of this Church and her relationship to Roman Catholicism. On Russian soil this age-old dispute, in direct connection with the discussions in the Byzantine Church, first appeared in the struggle in the fifteenth century between Nil Sorskii, the ascetic, mystic and rebel on the one hand and Josif Volotski, the rationalist and Caesaro-papist on the other, then between the patriarch Nikon and the ‘Raskolniki’ in the seventeenth century, between the Voltairists and the Freemasons in the eighteenth century, the Slavophiles and Westerners in the first half of the nineteenth, and the idealists and Marxists in the twentieth. This ancient dispute appeared in many disguises and perhaps reflected the eternal contradiction between the primitive elements in the human soul – reason and emotion. At the moment rationalism and materialism have the upper hand, at least outwardly. What is happening in the depths of the people’s soul can only be surmised. But it may safely be assumed that it has little in common with the official ideological fa�ade. The central idea of Russian religious philosophy is the idea of God-manhood. This idea formed the chief subject of the greatest Russian thinker, Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900). God-manhood is the complete unification of the Godhead with Man and through him with the whole creation. There are three phases of God-manhood: the creation of man as the crown of the Universe; the incarnation of God in Christ, and finally the union of the Godhead with humanity and the whole creation at the end of the ages. The first theophany is Adam, the second theophany is Christ. The whole of Nature strives towards Man, the whole history of Mankind strives towards God-manhood. Here, however, the Platonic character of Russian religious philosophy becomes manifest. The realisation of the idea of God-manhood in human history is only possible because this idea existed before all history and before all experience. For this idea is contained in the personality of God as Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity reveals its ontological content first in the idea of God-manhood. God the son as the second Person of the Trinity already represents the urge of the Godhead towards self-realisation or self-revelation.
God the Son has existed before all eternity, but his fulfilment he finds only in his incarnation as Christ. ‘And the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God... And the Word was made flesh.’ The theory of the Logos as the bridge from God to Man is characteristic of Russian religious philosophy. By its means the idea is expressed that God is not only transcendent but immanent in the world and especially in man. God, it is true, is conceivable without man, but not man without God. Fundamentally man can only imagine God in a relationship to himself. God, world and man are through a mystery bound up with each other. God has created the world for man, but God created man in order to have a friend, in order to make him a son of God and partaker of the Divine Life (Rev S Bulgakov). Speaking subjectively, man represents the union of the Divine Logos with earthly nature; the task of mankind, however, consists in realising objectively, in the material world, this union between God and his creation. In the Christian philosophy of Soloviev the humanising of the Godhead and the sanctification of humanity receives its final expression. Here one feels most deeply the opposition of modern Russian religious ideas to the Western Catholic Thomism, and also to the neo-Thomism of our days as expressed, for instance, in the works of Maritain. There is for us, says Nicholas Berdyaev, no hard and fast boundary line between the natural and the supernatural (as it exists in Thomas Aquinas); we believe rather that the world and man and all real Being is rooted in God, that the divine energy penetrates the natural world. This doctrine affirms in the first place the impossibility of a godless humanitarianism such as has been preached by positivism since the eighteenth century. Soloviev thus sums up, sarcastically, the dogma of Godless humanitarianism: there is nothing beyond force and matter; the struggle for existence first brought the pterodactyl and then the ape, from whose variation men appeared; therefore let every man lay down his life for his friends! Inside this syllogism the attempt is disclosed to establish humanitarian morality apart from the God idea and that of the immanent union of man with the Godhead. The doctrine of God-manhood receives its final completion in the doctrine of the Sophia. In the German mystics, from whom Russian philosophy has borrowed this conception, Sophia appears as the ‘jungfrau der Weisheit Gottes’ (Jakob B�hme). Baader sees in the Sophia, in purely Platonic form, ‘the world of prototypes’, but at the same time he speaks of the Sophia as of the ‘true and eternal manhood’. Here the relation to God-manhood is already indicated. For Soloviev the Sophia is first the expression of the humanity of the divine. Logos is the direct expression of the Absolute as the unconditionally existing; Sophia on the other hand is in relation to the Absolute its eternal Otherness, in other words Sophia is the expression of the Logos, the realised Idea. Sophia, Soloviev remarks in another place, is the matter of the Godhead. It is the feminine principle of the cosmogony in opposition to the Logos which represents the masculine principle. Sophia exists from all eternity, like God. It is fundamentally nothing other than the ideal humanity as conceived by God, the ideal society consisting in absolute oneness between God and men, the final embodiment of the eternal wisdom. The doctrine of the Church was first formulated in Russian religious philosophy by A Khomyakov (1804-1860). It is in closest connection with his whole philosophy. The foundation of this philosophy is the doctrine of the Soul. According to it there is in the soul of man a kernel which is of much more value than the understanding and the consciousness. It is through the channel of this kernel that man becomes united to God. The highest knowledge is the recognition of absolute Being, but it is no logical recognition but a mystical. The logical recognition is ethically indifferent, it is beyond good and evil. Therefore the internal ordering of human personality cannot be achieved through the development of logical thought. On the contrary logic leads us away from absolute Being. Russian folk-culture is completely based on the Soul, while occidental culture is purely formal. The West is rationalist and individualist, while the Russian people is emotionally and collectively constituted. All these ideas represent the common property of that Russian School which is generally designated Slavophile, although this name is partly misleading. Khomyakov is the most important representative of this school, which has been exceptionally significant in the development of Russian ideology, and which has been characterised above all by its emphasis on the close connection between the national and the religious motive in Russian life. The Church appears in this doctrine as the ideal society in which the national and at the same time the human peculiarity of the Russian people is coming or must come to its full unfolding. The Church, says Khomyakov, is neither a system nor an institution. The Church is a living organism of truth and love, or rather it is itself truth and love as an organism. The greatest mystery is the union of the absolutely free human personality with the Church which is itself a living and free personality. Freedom, according to Khomyakov, is not a right but a duty. Freedom is a burden which must be carried for the sake of the highest dignity and Godlikeness of Man. To be able to achieve oneness with God, to be partaker of the Divine nature, man must be free.
To be able to achieve oneness with God, to be partaker of the Divine nature, man must be free. The absolute freedom of man will suffer no subjection to any sort of earthly authority, either of Priest or of human understanding. Therefore Khomyakov refuses ecclesiastical doctrines both Catholic and Protestant. The union of man with the Church is realised in the Sobornosti, which represents the actual content of ecclesiasticism. Sobornosti is a mystical society, consisting of all believers, living and dead, and is penetrated by the Holy Spirit. In the Russian word Sobornosti are two ideas: on the one hand the idea of the Council, Sobor, by which is emphasised that the highest authority of the Church community is embodied in the ecumenical councils, in as far as these councils truly comprise the whole of Christendom and not just one part of it. Thus they must be considered as manifestations of the Holy Ghost. On the other hand a further idea is included, that of Community, of collective thinking and vision. Thereby the idea is expressed that the vision of the Godhead and union with Him is no individual affair. The mystery of Love is indicated. Love, Khomyakov teaches, is a category of knowing. Love has for so long been preached to the nations as a duty, man has forgotten that Love is not only a duty but also a Divine Grace, by which man receives the knowledge of absolute truth. The Church is not an authority but it is the Truth which is perceived by the love of men who are united in the Church. Khomyakov’s doctrine of the Church accords with certain Protestant ways of thought. He is one of those modern Russian religious thinkers who place the least emphasis on the other-worldly character of the Church and at the same time understand least of its eschatological and prophetic significance. With Soloviev and his pupil Bulgakov, however, this character and this significance are particularly emphasised. The mystic character of the Church is best expressed in the following formula of Bulgakov’s: the Church is the oneness of transcendent and immanent Being. For the Church as a mystical organism three elements are essential: liberty, love and the Divine Grace. The Church is there where men, united in mutual brotherly love and free like-mindedness, become worthy vessels of the Divine Grace which is the true essence and living Principle of the Church and which makes her a unified spiritual organism (Soloviev). The world is created for the Church, yes, the world must become the Church, otherwise it has no meaning at all. Man as Priest has the task of sanctifying the world; as God’s Son man is a mediator between God and his creatures. The doctrine of the Church represents the connection between the doctrine of God-manhood and that of the end of the world. God-manhood finds its fulfilment in the Church as a mystical organism, but the Church is at the same time the consummation of human history and the cosmogony in general. The eschatological idea is the third and probably also the most intimate conception of Russian religious philosophy. The idea that human history must have an end is immanent in Christian doctrine, but the official Church of all three Christian denominations, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant, takes a purely superficial attitude to this idea. In the official Church is necessarily inherent an optimism, an affirmation of life and of the Here, and therewith a refusal of the ‘End’, which can mean nothing but the destruction of this world. On the other hand the eschatological idea as it is expressed, say, in 2 Peter iii:10, is fully congenial to Russian religious philosophy: ‘But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up.’ The end of the world is the necessary condition of that ‘new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’ (2 Peter iii:13). The end of this world is necessary so that the mystic Kingdom of love and truth may begin. Destruction is the necessary condition of resurrection. Without eschatology no ethic is possible. The Christian ethic has as a condition the belief in the conquest of the greatest evil, of evil itself, namely, of death. For him who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ and in his future Kingdom, the conquest of death remains an impossibility. As long, however, as death reigns, this greatest of all evils, life cannot triumph, and so long, too, man cannot believe in the final victory of the Good. Without this belief, however, every ethic is untenable. Evil, death, is there to be overcome. At the end of history the final struggle between life and death, good and evil, Christ and antichrist, will take place. The historical process consists in preparing man for this final struggle by spiritualising him through the inner assimilation of the Divine Principle. The Expectation of the End is a characteristic not only of Russian religious philosophy but also of the whole spiritual make-up of the Russian intellectual. Russian thought in all its shades has always been unfriendly to this present world. The Russian nihilist, however, opposes to this world his own godless eschatology. The end of history here synchronises with the beginning of anthropocracy, the reign of the godless who pronounces himself a god. The collectivist idea is inherent in this anthropocracy. The individual appears as an atom of nothingness, but through some godless mystery collective humanity is deified. That is the religion of collectivism, the worship of the godless, that is the soulless, humanity. Russian religious philosophy, particularly Soloviev, emphasises the universal character of the Church. Christendom cannot be national; national limitation contradicts the divine-human and eschatological character of the Church. The Russian people were honoured by the Slavophiles and later by Soloviev and his school as the people who most adequately expressed the universality of the Christian spirit, and was therefore chosen by God as His special instrument. Actually, according to the Slavophile K Aksakov, the Russian people was no nation, but humanity itself.
Actually, according to the Slavophile K Aksakov, the Russian people was no nation, but humanity itself. The nation is something that must be superseded, but not by a soulless cosmopolitanism representing the carrying over of the godless anthropocracy into the universal, but through Christian universalism, that is through the realisation of the Church on earth. The two Christian civilisations – the Roman occidental and the Russian oriental – are perishing through mutual estrangement and contempt. Occidental Christianity is deadened by rationalism, Russian Christianity is under the yoke of a godless anthropocracy. But the universalistic idea remains alive in the Russian man, only there is a danger that this idea may receive a false and unchristian direction. The Russian Orient bears in itself two opposite possibilities. It can become the Orient of Xerxes or the Orient of Christ. Soloviev placed this alternative before Russia at the turn of the century in a wonderful poem. The tension between the rationalistic Occident and the mystical Orient is a basic element of world history. This tension is probably the most fruitful known to human history and perhaps even the existence of humanity without this tension would have been so impoverished that it would be able to lay no claims to attention. The greatest danger for the destiny of European humanity lies in the attempt to dig a great gulf between the Romano-Germanic Occident and the Russian Orient. Stalin-Xerxes seeks to divide Russia from the West and make it an Asiatic country. Thereby he will cut off the Russian people from its transcendent mission which draws Russia to the West, and will make this God-inspired people into a prophet of a godless anthropocracy in Asia and throughout the world. Stalin wants to make Central Europe, above all, Germany, an outpost of a Russian Orient robbed of its Christian soul. Hitlerism is merely another form of the same anti-Christian and anti-European power. Will Western Europe, in face of this last danger which quite apart from the issue of the present struggle is threatening her civilisation, realise her duty towards the Russian Orient and Christian universality? Note 1. The Hesychasts continued the great tradition of Greek mysticism, particularly Simon of Studion (died 1092). According to it the highest aim of life is union with God by means of a mystical contemplation of the Godhead. Characteristic of Hesychastic doctrine is the distinction between Essence (ousia) and Emanation (energeia). The essence of God cannot be seen by any man, what can be seen is the ‘Uncreated Light’, which is no other than the manifestation of the Divine Essence [Author’s note]. Gregory Bienstock Archive
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck A Letter to a Comrade (Spring 1970) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1970. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Dear Comrade Your letter was of great interest because it raised quite a number of points that need to be clarified. You say that you are ‘not sure’ that cadre building is the ‘vital thing’ and suggest that it is more important to get young workers and students involved in activity. I can well understand your impatience on this question, because it seems there is a dichotomy between these two functions. However, I would suggest that this dichotomy is not – or should not be – a real one. Our point of departure must be ‘how can we advance the fight against capitalism and bring it to a successful conclusion’. The point I was trying to make in my article The Making of Revolutionaries: Cadre or Sect was that many people start from this generalised and abstract proposition only to arrive at a dead-end, even though for a time they seem to have made some progress. Some knowledge of the British labour movement will tell us that it is littered with many attempts to find a way out of the impasse. In the event – up to now – they have all failed, and to say this is not to disparage the devotion and sincerity of those involved. The proposition that I advanced was that – leaving aside the objective conditions, which have played a large part in this failure – they all fell down either because they were unable to create a revolutionary cadre or did not understand the nature of such a cadre. This is why I devoted so much space to examining this question. However – and this must be clearly understood – cadres cannot be created in an ivory tower, separate and apart from the actual struggles that are taking place at any given time. On the other hand, participation in such struggles does not automatically create cadres. What is involved here is: what does one mean by cadres? I repeat what I said in my original article, one must not confuse activists and cadres, to do so means to have an administrative and manipulative concept of cadres. Cadres in the Leninist or Gramscian sense of the term are revolutionary intellectuals, or intellectuals of a new type. That is not to say, therefore, that one must hand out labels to those who participate in a movement and accord them some differing and exalted status, in the last analysis people will decide for themselves what their role is by their contribution. I agree that the activist approach should be given as much importance as cadre building – if one sees them as being separate, but I do not. In my article I attempted to point out that for genuine revolutionary activity to take place, and by this I mean that the situation has materially affected the relative position of the various classes within society, then there must be a fusion of theory and practice, that is, praxis. What I wanted to drive home was that only rarely has this been the case up to now, rather we have been faced by sects that have produced activists, and sometimes unthinking ones. The essence of this point is that we must get away from seeing some sort of dichotomy between activity and intellectual effort. I made the point by asking was Marx merely (!) theorising when he was writing Capital, and was Castro merely (!) being an activist when he landed from the Granma? It is only by understanding the fundamental unity of such apparently diverse ‘activities’ that one grasps the concept of praxis. If I understand the drift of your next point, you are saying that in the last [1] two years or so the most important thing is to create activities and demonstrations around student and Vietnam issues because you ‘think that with involvement in activities and raising revolutionary consciousness ideology would follow, more easily and quickly’. First let me deal with the question of Vietnam. There can be no denying that until recently this issue was one that aroused a great deal of feeling and enthusiasm among wide layers of students and young workers. Moreover, from a revolutionary Marxist standpoint it is one’s duty to defend the Vietnamese struggle and if possible expand the movement once more. This is doubly important because (a) it is an elementary duty to defend those who are under attack by imperialism, and (b) because the Vietnamese have shown in practice that it is possible to stop imperialist aggression and defeat it. However, to predicate the whole of one’s strategy on this (or any other single) issue – in practice, if not in theory – is to fall into a trap. Whilst it may be true that many people were drawn into activity by the issue of Vietnam, many were not. To have concentrated on this one issue (or today upon student struggles) almost to the exclusion of others is to ignore the very real law of combined and uneven development, one that operates not only internationally, but also nationally. For the proper development of cadres there has to be a number of areas of work and issues in which one operates. Of course it is necessary that there should be priorities, but these have to be worked out on the basis of a full and rounded-out analysis, not by empirical reaction to events. Secondly, on the question of involvement. I would not deny that it is possible to raise the consciousness of many by bringing them into such activities as the anti-Vietnam War campaign. But for this to be utilised properly it is necessary to have a cadre that is conscious of its own role, one cannot rely upon spontaneity. This was the most dangerous aspect of VSC [2] and the present round of student militancy. There seems to have developed the idea that demonstrations and clashes with the police and/or university authorities is all that is necessary to develop revolutionary consciousness. But, to avoid any misunderstanding, let me say that such demonstrations are necessary, and I would be the last to disparage the tremendous work that has been done by such demonstrations. I find your remarks about the New Left Review and ‘intellectual chatter’ most interesting and revealing. I think it indicates the general anti-intellectual character of British society, and also of the British labour movement. You obviously equate ‘intellectual chatter’ with idle chatter.
Such attitudes are of great service to the bourgeoisie in helping to maintain their ideological grip upon the working class. The greatest asset that the bourgeoisie have in keeping their society afloat is the ‘common sense’ of the working class who don’t listen to ‘them… long-haired intellectuals’. As for NLR not being ‘exactly proletarian’, neither was Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. It is a mistake to try to type people by their class origins. There is nothing particularly sanctifying about the proletarian condition, as Marxists we want to abolish it. What we have to separate out is how certain classes act and not to confuse this with how individuals, or even relatively small groups of people, act. If we were to seize upon the activities of individuals or those of small groups and use this to characterise a whole class or stratum of society, how would we characterise the working class after those dockers had marched to Parliament to support Enoch Powell? Again, please do not misunderstand me, I do not think the sun shines out of all intellectuals’ big toe. But I think to dismiss people one must have some knowledge upon which to base this. All too often in the Marxist movement one hears of ideas being dismissed because they are ‘bourgeois’ or ‘petty-bourgeois’ (apparently a most horrible thing to be), nothing is more indicative of a closed mind than the use of clichés to answer problems. Are there so many cadres around? I would think that this is a slightly more complex question than appears at first sight and also how you pose it. On the one hand there is certainly not a revolutionary cadre formed as yet, taking Gramsci’s definition as one’s criterion. On the other hand there are certainly many people around who would and could form the basis for such a cadre. But it is not a question of lumping together a certain number of people and when one reaches a certain arithmetic number saying that a revolutionary cadre has been formed. The formation of a cadre is a dialectical process. The collective impact of such a cadre is much greater than the mere summation of individual efforts. Therefore the problem is not merely grouping together the largest number of people possible, perhaps by using a low common denominator, but of grouping together talents as will have a revolutionary impact upon society. Initially such a grouping can be relatively quite small, but their impact and success will generate further growth. I do not think you are being ‘naive’ when you say ‘some sensible person talked about the immediate necessity of making revolution not talking about it’, you were merely misquoting him. The sensible person I presume you refer to is Fidel Castro, now as far as I know he has talked about the duty of revolutionaries to make revolution. I do not recall his saying anything about immediately. Now of course Castro was not saying this is something we can put off into the distant future. I take him to mean that no matter what the present conditions revolutionaries must clearly have a perspective of revolution, one on which we base all our activities. But it would be absolute nonsense to say that all revolutionaries must rush out now and start the revolution. There is a small item called the objective circumstances which have to be taken into account. If I correctly interpret Castro’s slogan (and we should remember it is a slogan) I take him to mean that revolutionaries by their activities help to change these objective circumstances, because they are not god-given and immutable. Looked at in this way this slogan begins to take on a deeper significance than a mere tautology, which it may appear to be at first sight. And now to your last point. The French events of May–June 1968 were unexpected in the precise way in which they developed, and the rapidity with which they became a pre-revolutionary situation. I would not suggest that Marxists are able to forecast the precise timetable of mass movements, we are not crystal-ball gazers. Yet at the same time such mass upsurges should not have taken Marxists by surprise to the extent of being disoriented by them. Marxists should not only respond to circumstances, they must also help to shape them. If our theory does not allow us to do this then it is ‘intellectual chatter’. Revolutions are only unpredictable if one stands passively watching, if one enters into the mass movement and attempts to help shape them, then the unpredictability becomes much less. The scale and effectiveness of such interventions depend largely upon the preparations that precede such situations. This is why a revolutionary party is both a subjective and an objective factor within any such situations. Men make their own history, but they do so with all the weight of the past and present bearing down on them. Yours fraternally Ken Tarbuck Notes 1. The word ‘next’ seems to be more apt here – MIA. 2. VSC – Vietnam Solidarity Campaign – MIA. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Trotsky’s Marxism: A Reply to Nicolas Krassó (Autumn 1968) From Bulletin of Marxist Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, Autumn 1968. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Editor’s Note: This article was first written in October 1967 in response to an essay that appeared in New Left Review, No. 44. Although it was submitted for publication in NLR – and tentatively accepted – it has not yet been published. One reply to Nicolas Krassó has been published in NLR, No. 47, by Ernest Mandel and it is well worthwhile for readers to obtain this and the original essay. The present article stands in its own right, since the points in dispute have a significance beyond the pages of NLR. The place of Trotsky in the history of Marxism is one that still has topical import. Since the original article and the reply were written major events have taken place that demonstrate both the validity of Trotsky’s contribution and of its relevance for politics today. Both the French events and the Czechoslovakian events, each in their own way, have shown the relevance of Trotskyism to today’s world. The present article has been amended slightly from that version which was first submitted to the NLR in October 1967. However, in the main it still stands as it was written then. Nicolas Krassó’s article attempting to appraise Trotsky’s place in the history of Marxism was both too long and too short. It was too long in the sense that it tried to cover such a long time-span, one that was explosively full of history-making events; too short because the nature of the material handled meant that nearly every point could only be touched upon in a generalised way. Perhaps this is the price that is paid for initiating such a discussion. However, this has raised certain problems in the writing of this reply, it has meant that not every point could be taken up and argued but only those that seem to have an important bearing on the central issues. Permanent Revolution The first point I would like to take up is the question of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Nicolas Krassó calls this an ‘inept designation which by evoking the idea of a continuous conflagration at all times and at all places – a metaphysical carnival of insurrection – it lent itself to distortion in the polemic both of Trotsky’s opponents and his followers’. We are told that Trotsky’s formula conflated two quite distinct problems, the character of the Russian revolution and its ability to maintain itself without an international extension of the revolution. [1] Nicolas Krassó contends that ‘the illegitimate nature of this process is all too obvious’, but is it? The illegitimate posing of the problem only arises if one views the question from a formal logical position. The question of the survival, or otherwise, of a successful revolution in a hostile capitalist world did hinge on the character of that revolution. If one compares the reaction of the capitalist world generally, and the Allied powers in particular, to the February revolution and the reaction to the October revolution, one sees the conflation that is objected to taking place in real life. Nor was this hostility manifested merely because the Bolsheviks sued for peace, interventions continued and grew in intensity after the defeat of Germany. Is Nicolas Krassó going to suggest that had Kerensky continued in office, with all that that would have implied, that there would have still been interventions; or on the other hand that the interventions that did (and still do) take place were merely fortuitous? To attempt to separate the two aspects of any revolution today, after all the experience that we have of imperialist interventions, is to take the discussion back half a century. Moreover, it can be seen from living experience, that of Cuba, that the international conditions at a given time and place help to determine the nature and scope of a revolution. Any examination of this experience will show that the particular course of this revolution has been profoundly influenced by the intervention of US imperialism and the support for the revolutionary regime gathered from the workers’ states. There is another aspect to be considered, this is the international effects a victorious workers’ revolution would and does have. This side of the theory of permanent revolution implies that revolutions do not take place in isolation, but are part of an international process. Again one can point to living experience for the validity of this proposition since 1945. The victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949 and the Cuban revolution in 1959 are not two separate disconnected events, rather they form parts of that permanent revolution that Marx and Trotsky wrote about. Nicolas Krassó injected the phrase ‘metaphysical carnival of insurrection’ and then proceeds on the assumption that this was also Trotsky’s view. This is an utter distortion of Trotsky’s real views. It is interesting that Trotsky was not allowed to ‘speak’ for himself about this matter, perhaps because no quotation could be dug up to prove that he ever said that the Soviet Union could only be saved by ‘simultaneous revolutions in Western Europe’. Such nonsense will not be found in Trotsky’s writings. Deutscher presented a balanced synthesis of the permanent revolution when he wrote: Trotsky’s theory is in truth a profound and comprehensive conception in which all the overturns that the world has been undergoing (in this late capitalist era) are represented as interconnected and interdependent parts of a single revolutionary process. To put it in the broadest terms, the social upheaval of our century is seen by Trotsky as global in scope and character, even though it proceeds on various levels of civilisation and in the most diverse social structures, and even though its various phases are separated from one another in time and space. (Introduction to The Age of Permanent Revolution: A Trotsky Anthology, p. 19) [2] Nicolas Krassó’s attempt to refute the theory of permanent revolution is an attempt to refute the process of life in the modern world.
The theory is no longer one that lives solely between the pages of a book. Since 1917 it has been subject to empirical verification and has been endorsed in the process. Socialism in One Country Nicolas Krassó’s muddled thinking on the question of permanent revolution leads him to serve up an historical and theoretical pastiche on the question of ‘Socialism in One Country’. We are told: It was naive to speculate whether revolutions would or would not occur in the West, in general. Bolshevik strategy should not be based on the presumption of an occurrence of a European revolution; but nor should the possibility of one be discarded. After Lenin’s death, however, this dialectical position disintegrated ... This imputes a view to Lenin that he did not hold. Lenin said very specifically on a number of occasions that ‘world imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution’. On 23 April 1918 Lenin said: ‘Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we shall perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.’ [3] These and many more references put him without question in the camp of those who thought that an isolated workers’ state would not survive for long. If, as Nicolas Krassó implies, the Bolsheviks had a non-committal attitude (it is a misuse of language to call it dialectical) to revolution in the West why was there such enthusiasm for the creation of the Third International? Moreover, the Third International did not ‘speculate’ about revolutions in the West but was viewed by nearly all the leading Bolsheviks, Lenin included, as being the world party of revolution in a very concrete and active way. Indeed any reading of the early days of the Russian Revolution makes it very clear that it was seen as a prelude to revolution in the West. However, this was not the only aspect of ‘Socialism in One Country’ that was opposed by the Left Opposition in the 1920s. The other aspect concerned the type of society that was envisaged when one spoke about socialism. The point of departure for the Opposition was the fact that capitalism had created a world market, world economy and a worldwide division of labour. Therefore in the age of imperialism national boundaries become more and more restricting on the development of productive forces. If socialism is to develop the productive forces on such a scale that standards of material well-being are far superior to those under capitalism and men freed from routine drudgery then this international division of labour will have to be carried to a much higher pitch. To talk about the building of socialism in backward Russia was an essentially reactionary and utopian idea, it implied the abandonment of a perspective of international revolution, and along with it the best defence for a backward workers’ state. The Intelligentsia and Socialism The line of argument pursued by Nicolas Krassó in this section is rather obscure. He accused Trotsky of bitter hostility towards intellectuals, bringing forward an article written in 1910 as evidence. Trotsky is said to view the intelligentsia in a ‘wholly pre-Leninist manner’ and hence his views are un-Marxist! Apart from the setting up of Lenin as an icon, this interpretation is very misleading. Trotsky, in the article in question, was analysing the role of intellectuals as a social layer within capitalist society. Lenin, in contrast, wrote about and directed his activity towards intellectuals breaking from this environment and becoming revolutionaries. Trotsky did not dismiss the intelligentsia in toto, he postulated conditions under which they would move towards socialism. He said: The intelligentsia might go over to collectivism if it were given reason to see as probable the immediate victory of collectivism, if collectivism rose before it not as an ideal of a different, remote and alien class but as a near and tangible reality; finally, if – and this is not the least important condition – a political break with the bourgeoisie did not threaten each brain-worker taken separately with grave material and moral consequences. [4] It is obvious that here Trotsky was concerned with the conditions which went to mould the intelligentsia, and the forces that operated against its allying with the working class. It certainly could be argued that such conditions are today not so pressing, particularly here in Britain. But it would be unwise to assume that such conditions are no longer operative at all. It would also be well to recall that Trotsky was writing in 1910 and that his assessment of the role and attitudes of the intelligentsia in relation to the working class was a realistic one. Looking at the British labour movement of 1910, for instance, one could see that intellectuals as a social layer played a minimal role, the Webbs et al. notwithstanding. When numbers of the intelligentsia did move into the Labour Party, after 1918, they further debased the dominant labourism. However, it must be noted that even today the intelligentsia, as a social layer, have not decisively gone over to socialism here in Britain, even of the Labour variety let alone revolutionary socialism. It is clear that only when individual members of the intelligentsia commit themselves to a working-class party does their role inside become a critical one. If today more individual intellectuals commit themselves to socialism, does this prove Trotsky wrong? It certainly does if one attempts to read him as a sort of Gospel or Holy Writ. However, it does not prove him wrong if one takes into account the October, Chinese and Cuban revolutions. Collectivism is no longer a remote ideal but a living reality. On the other hand, one of the lessons of all three revolutions is that, along with the dispossessed ruling class, large numbers of the intelligentsia also flee and take up hostile positions to the new regimes. Even those that stayed in Russia after 1917 had to be wooed by special privileges. One is not being bitterly hostile to them because one acknowledges the truth about their position in society. This position is that they are dominated by the hegemonic ideology of the ruling class and help to perpetuate it. To try to insert Gramsci’s concept of a new type of intellectual produced by a revolutionary party into a discussion about intellectuals as a social layer is to befog the issue.
The roles of the individual intellectual and that of the intelligentsia are separate problems, even though obviously related. Nicolas Krassó writes that ‘the party ... an autonomous structure ... recombines and transforms two different phenomena – the intelligentsia and the working class’. This is indeed an odd way of putting it. How can an autonomous structure – the party – recombine two classes? If this autonomous structure were to carry out this feat it would not be autonomous and class and party would be synonymous! The charge of identifying class and party which is laid at Trotsky’s feet should be laid elsewhere. The modified elements which engage in new political practice, that is, the revolutionary party, are not the intelligentsia and the working class but only individuals and perhaps sections from these two social formations. To say otherwise is precisely to confuse class and party as Nicolas Krassó does. 1917–1921 It is necessary to have a clear factual understanding of history if one sets out to interpret it. Unfortunately Nicolas Krassó does not have this. This is evident when he says: ‘Trotsky was determined to strengthen the power of professional military officers with a Tsarist past in the Red Army, and he fought the imposition of control over them by political commissars appointed by the party.’ This is very far wide of what the real situation was. The dispute over the employment of the ex-Tsarist officers was if they should be used at all, and this was only a subsidiary question to the wider one of a centralised army versus militia. This was debated at the Eighth Congress of the Bolshevik Party. Trotsky wanted to use these officers in their capacity of military experts, but at the same time made a specific request to the Central Committee to supply him with reliable Communists to act as commissars. Deutscher says that Trotsky ‘implored’ the Central Committee for these men. There was never any question of the ex-Tsarist officers having more power since all their orders had to be countersigned by their political commissars. Nicolas Krassó uses these unfounded assertions to insert the idea that Trotsky was an essentially military figure, more at ease in a command situation. He says: He [Trotsky] had authority ab initio to organise the army; as People’s Commissar for War he had all the prestige of Lenin and the Soviet state behind him. He did not have to win this authority in a political arena by persuading his peers to accept him. Again, this is a perversion of the real situation. Deutscher puts the matter differently: The new campaigning season was approaching, but even now, a year after Trotsky had become Commissar of War, his military policy had not yet received the party’s blessing – he carried it out as if on his own responsibility. (The Prophet Armed, p. 429) It was not until the Eighth Congress that the party formally endorsed this military policy of Trotsky. But even then it would be grossly misleading to suggest that the role of a military leader was only one of command. In any civil war situation appeals and persuasion play a far greater role than routine authority or command. In the case of the creation of the Red Army this was particularly so. There was no tradition, no historical precedents, no hegemonic ideology holding undisputed sway. It is in this light that Trotsky’s role must be viewed, and this was essentially a political one. The early formations of the Red Army were entirely voluntary, only when a reliable proletarian military cadre had been formed was it possible to resort to conscription. Even when conscription was used it must be seen in a very different way to ‘normal’ induction. In a civil war there is no guarantee that your conscripts will not desert in large numbers to the other side, or perhaps just desert, if there is not a firm political basis laid. Nicolas Krassó tells us that ‘the voluntarist is in his element haranguing crowds or dispatching troops – but these roles should not be confused with the ability to lead a revolutionary party’. What he forgets is that before anyone can ‘dispatch troops’ he must have them at hand. Therefore the art of a revolutionary military leader is the gathering of the troops and convincing them of the need to be ‘dispatched’. This is where Nicolas Krassó utterly fails to see the similarity, and at times identity (Cuba), between a revolutionary army and party. Again, Nicolas Krassó misunderstands the reality of the early days of the Soviet Republic and the nature of the military policy. He says that Trotsky: ... as a pillar of the Soviet state ... had to give orders to his subordinates for precise purposes. His task in either role was to ensure the means to a previously determined end. This is a different task from that of ensuring that a novel end prevails among various competing opinions in a political organisation. This improperly assumes that the end of a civil, or any other, war is predetermined. This is not so, the only end predetermined in a war situation is that the enemy should be defeated. Also in a revolutionary party the only end predetermined is that there should be revolution. In both situations the means, methods, tactics, etc., will be subject to discussion and debate. This is not to suggest that in a civil war the debate will be conducted at all levels within the army, but neither will it be in the party;
This is not to suggest that in a civil war the debate will be conducted at all levels within the army, but neither will it be in the party; the nature of the situation sometimes precludes it. Furthermore, even if one assumes that for the Red Army per se ends were predetermined by the Central Committee, Trotsky played a part in arriving at the decisions. He was not a passive onlooker waiting for his orders to be handed down to him. Trotsky could hardly be called a pillar of the Soviet state until late in the civil war, because no such state existed in the accepted use of the term. The term pillar is misleading; it conjures up a picture of a solid, well-founded and established regime, when in fact very often the continued existence of the regime hung in the balance. What we are given, by implication, is a picture of Trotsky moving in an orderly, established structure of known and given dimensions, when in fact society and every subordinate structure, including the revolutionary party, was in a condition of flux. Only holding a static and unreal vision of revolution could lead one to see Trotsky, or any other Bolshevik leader, in a command situation in those early days. 1921–1929 Nicolas Krassó here turns to the theme of substitution and identity in the relations between party and class, implying that Trotsky fell into the ‘error’ of identity, that is, of seeing the party and class as identical. He presents us with a quotation from The New Course which seems to bear him out; but it would have been better had he completed the quotation. It would have given an accurate picture of what Trotsky said. Here is the quotation with the missing sentences restored: The different needs of the working class, of the peasantry, of the state apparatus and its membership, act upon our party, through whose medium they seek to find a political expression. The difficulties and contradictions in our epoch, the temporary discord in the interests of the different layers of the proletariat, or of the proletariat as a whole and the peasantry, act upon the party through the medium of its worker and peasant cells, of the state apparatus, of the student youth. Even episodic differences in views and nuances of opinion may express the remote pressure of distinct social interests and, in certain circumstances, be transformed into stable groupings; the latter may, in turn, sooner or later take the form of organised factions which, opposing themselves to the rest of the party, undergo by that very fact even greater external pressure. Such is the dialectics of inner-party groupings in an epoch when the Communist Party is obliged to monopolise the direction of political life. (The New Course, p. 27, emphasis added) [5] The emphasised sentence is the key to a proper understanding of what Trotsky was discussing; only by leaving it out was Nicolas Krassó able to present his interpretation to an unwary reader. The chapter that this comes from is Groups and Factional Formations. In this Trotsky was discussing the politics of a one-party state, as the above makes clear. He was not talking about parties in general, nor was there any suggestion that party and class are identical. What he was doing was to explore the nature of groups and factions in a situation where only one party was the prescribed form of political activity, and in so doing was breaking new ground. For socialists and Marxists the situation in the Soviet Union was a novel and unprecedented one. Certainly in 1917 no one foresaw such a situation. The subsequent developments in the 1920s seem to have borne out what Trotsky was saying in 1923. Indeed, later on the experience of the monolithic one-party state indicates that unless the party does reflect these differences then it ceases to be a party in the accepted use of the term. We are also told that Trotsky was guilty of ‘sociologism’, and this first led him into the trap of equating party and class in the theoretical field; and in practical politics urging the proletarianisation of the party as an antidote to bureaucracy. Further, we are told that Stalin followed this advice with disastrous results for – Trotsky! However, Deutscher puts the matter rather differently: The triumvirs [Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev] resolved to open at once a spectacular recruiting drive in the factories. But while Trotsky had advised a careful selection, they decided to recruit en masse, to accept any worker who cared to join, and to waive all customary tests and conditions. At the Thirteenth Conference they recommended the recruitment at a stroke of 100,000 workers ... This was a mockery of Bolshevik principle of organisation which required that, as the élite and vanguard of the proletariat, the party should only accept the politically advanced and the politically battle-hardened. (The Prophet Unarmed, p. 135) Trotsky indeed made the point that the process of recruitment of workers should be slow and then ‘only under conditions of noteworthy economic advance’ (The New Course, pp. 20–21). [6] Here a different picture emerges from that of a primitive sociologism – workers good, bureaucrats bad – here we see Trotsky grappling with a real problem, that of declining worker membership, and its implications for the future of the party. Nicolas Krassó seems to imply that the social composition of a revolutionary socialist party is of no consequence. Perhaps what he means is that such a party should be for the workers but not necessarily of them. Surely, Trotsky was making the point that the socialist revolutionary party, especially one in power, with only a minority of workers was a long-term determinant contradiction. Therefore he urged that steps should be taken to rectify the situation. It is somewhat bizarre to imply that Trotsky had an idyllic view of workers in Russia at this time. He wrote a considerable amount about the low level of culture during this period, and had a lively appreciation of the political problems this posed. Collectivisation and Industrialisation The question of industrial development in underdeveloped countries is still one that has a burning topicality, especially for those countries which have broken free of the capitalist orbit.
In such circumstances the question will arise – ‘Where will the surplus come from?’ This is indeed a crucial point. However, Nicolas Krassó paints far too black and white a picture: Bukharin advocated an ultra-right policy of private peasant enrichment at the expense of the towns: ‘We shall move forward by tiny, tiny steps pulling behind us our large peasant cart.’ Preobrazhensky urged the exploitation of the peasantry (in the technical economic sense) to accumulate a surplus for rapid industrialisation. Of course it is possible to show these formulations as being violently contradictory, since they are men of straw. To talk of Lenin’s policy is, in this context, misleading, since he did not have time to formulate a fully coherent and articulated one before his death. Bukharin and Preobrazhensky are presented in a way which belies their respective attitudes. Another point should be added – Trotsky was not wholly in agreement with Preobrazhensky’s ideas as put forward in The New Economics; but there is no doubt that they were in agreement on the practical policies put forward by the Opposition. Therefore one should make some distinction between Trotsky and Preobrazhensky. Bukharin, essentially, argued that the development of industry should be geared to rural demand, and that light or consumer goods industry should be given priority. Such a policy did in fact encourage the revival of capitalist elements in the countryside, and meant that in practice the state industries became subordinated to the market. However, it would be wrong to say that Bukharin urged the enrichment of the peasants at the expense of the towns, since this would have meant the exploitation of the working class. What he no doubt intended was that his policy would generate the surplus in the countryside and this would lead eventually to accumulation. He failed to appreciate that an agricultural surplus does not necessarily lead to accumulation, and indeed the evidence is that in underdeveloped countries in the capitalist orbit this surplus is largely squandered or invested in land and usury. Only by consciously breaking the law of value (not ignoring it) can this be overcome. Preobrazhensky’s analysis was, originally, a theoretical one which posed the conflict between the private sector of the economy (mainly agricultural) which was the majority and the small state-owned industrial sector; and the need for a fast rate of industrial accumulation. He designated a law of primitive socialist accumulation in this way: The more backward economically, petty-bourgeois, peasant, a particular country is which has gone over to the socialist organisation of production, and the smaller the inheritance received by the socialist accumulation fund of the proletariat of this country when the social revolution takes place, by so much the more, in proportion, will socialist accumulation be obliged to rely on alienating part of the surplus product of pre-socialist forms of economy. (The New Economics, p. 124) He argued that because of the small absolute and relative amount of surplus available in Soviet industry the main contribution must come from agriculture. This does imply ‘technical exploitation’ of the peasants, but this process should be explained since it is possible to forget one half of the term – technical – and concentrate on the other – exploitation. Preobrazhensky explained the matter very clearly: The task of the socialist state consists here not in taking from the petty-bourgeois producers less than capitalism took, but in taking more from the still larger incomes which will be secured to the petty producers by the rationalisation of the whole economy, including petty production, on the basis of industrialising the country and intensifying agriculture. (The New Economics, p. 89, emphasis in original) Nicolas Krassó injects into this debate an essentially static view of economics when he says: For the poorer the peasantry was, the less surplus it had over and beyond what it consumed itself, and the less it was ‘exploitable’ for industrialisation. Bukharin’s conciliation of peasantry and Preobrazhensky’s counterposition of it to the proletariat were equally distortions of Lenin’s policy, which was to collectivise but not crush the peasantry, not wage war on them. Now clearly, if one views national income, or the social product, as a given quantity, then one is justified in arguing that an increase in one class’s share is based on another class’s share decreasing. However, if one views national income as a stream that is increasing in size through time, then it is possible for all to have an increasing total consumption, but at the same time one section of society may have a smaller percentage share than previously. [7] However, this is a very simplified approach to the particular problem. A first approach to a proper understanding of the problem is clearly to distinguish accumulation between maximum and optimum rates of accumulation in the short run. This is where Nicolas Krassó is mistaken in assuming that Stalin took over (and denatured) the Left Opposition’s economic policies. The first Five-Year Plans were in fact based on the premise of a maximum rate of accumulation but turned out to be increasing production at a slower lower rate than if an optimum rate had been aimed for. Some would consider an optimum rate of accumulation in purely economic terms to be that rate which increases the social product by a maximum amount in a given period. But no Marxist could accept such a definition because it leaves out the class forces involved. A policy which reduces the living standards of the working class, creating demoralisation and political apathy would be totally unacceptable. Moreover, one could not accept any assumption which postulated that productivity of labour was independent of the level of consumption. This is what the Stalinist bureaucracy did with disastrous results for Soviet agriculture and for the Soviet working class in the first two Five-Year Plans. In the frenzy to achieve a maximum rate of accumulation there was in fact a lowering of the maximum increase of the social product that could have been gained, had an optimum rate of accumulation been adopted. Another point is that Nicolas Krassó uses the term peasantry indiscriminately; none of the protagonists in the original discussion made such an error. If he looks at the Platform of the Left Opposition 1927 he will see that an analysis was made of the ‘class differentiation among the peasants’.
In trying to assess the situation in rural Russia in the mid-1920s such a mistake as Nicolas Krassó’s is impermissible. The Left Opposition had a policy of support for the poor landless and middle peasants along with proposals for generous credit terms and a speedy introduction of mechanisation into agriculture; and of course collectivisation via cooperatives. They certainly had a policy of containing and finally eliminating the Kulaks (as a class), who were becoming the basis of a new capitalist development within the Soviet Union. Does Nicolas Krassó think this wrong? Stalin, to whom Nicolas Krassó accords the accolade of being ‘confirmed by history’, had, along with Bukharin, pooh-poohed the warnings of the Opposition, but was later thrown into a panic by the growing power and resistance of the Kulaks. This problem was ‘solved’ in a brutal and bloody repression. To suggest that the policy of the Left Opposition had any connection with this is to stretch credibility too far. Perhaps the biggest mistake that Nicolas Krassó makes over the debate on industrialisation is to suggest that this was primarily concerned with administrative options, whereas the debate over ‘Socialism in One Country’ only concerned international articulations. Planning in any transitional regime will be essentially the ‘allocation of scarce resources’. This commonplace of bourgeois economics will then become a reality, for the allocation will then be done by conscious decision and not by the anarchy of the market. Nevertheless, the basis for political economy will still be the relationship of men (and classes) to each other in the distribution of scarce resources, that is, to the means of production. It is this fundamentally different approach that distinguishes Marxist economics. Nicolas Krassó makes the error of assuming that economics is a ‘technical’ or ‘administrative’ subject, and thereby confuses techniques and ideology. The debate in Cuba over moral versus material incentives was an interesting example of the fusion between economics and politics. The particular techniques that are used or that are chosen, will, by and large, reflect (even if only in a diffused way) the political decisions they are based on. For instance, the decision by Wilson in 1964 not to devalue the pound debarred him from using a number of techniques for grappling with the economic crisis. The original decision was a political one. It is possible to argue about this or that aspect of policy since then, and indeed we should, but unless one takes into account the central political decision then one can get lost. Therefore, to suggest that the debates on economic policy and ‘Socialism in One Country’ were separate and unconnected does not stand up to investigation. The economic debate was around how much surplus was to be generated and who would benefit. ‘Socialism in One Country’ was the reaction of the bureaucrats wanting to hang on to their share. Both arose from the backwardness and isolation of the Soviet Union. 1927–1940 Despite some notable theoretical writings in this period we are told that Trotsky led an imaginary political movement and therefore the activities of these years were futile. I am not concerned here to argue the merits or demerits of the Fourth International. What I want to do is pose some questions myself. How is it that 30 years after it was founded, this body – the Fourth International – exists at all? When one considers a) that it was founded at a time of working-class defeats, b) that many of its small cadre were killed in Europe, either by the Gestapo or the Stalinists, and c) that in the years immediately after 1945 Stalinism seemed to be greatly strengthened, then one perhaps begins to ask the right questions. When one looks around the international scene for the other numerous anti-Stalinist groupings that existed in the 1930s and 1940s one looks in vain. When one examines the pathetic attempts to create a Maoist ‘International’ with the resources of a great state behind the venture, one can begin to measure the real strength and resilience of the international Trotskyist movement. Nor is this body a group of ageing cultists (despite certain bizarre manifestations in England), on the contrary there has been a steady replacement by youth, which in recent years has increased and this has been a worldwide phenomenon. The question remains: why? I think this is best answered by reference to Che Guevara when he wrote: How soon we could look into a bright future, should two, three or many Vietnams flourish throughout the world with their share of deaths and their immense tragedies, their everyday heroism and their repeated blows against imperialism, impelled to disperse its forces under the sudden attack and increasing hatred of all peoples of the world? (Vietnam Must Not Stand Alone, New Left Review, No. 43, p. 90) What Che Guevara demanded was an international strategy against imperialism. The time and the situation demand it. The concept of proletarian internationalism is not an abstract theory. The maimed, the dying and the fighters in Asia, Africa and Latin America cry out for, and are testimony to, the need for such a strategy. The question of the formation of a new revolutionary International was implicit in the holding of the OLAS conference, even if such an International has yet to emerge. It is this that gives the founding of the Fourth International in 1938 its historical validity; all the sneers about a mythical movement cannot erase it. Trotsky was too much of a realist to assume that the small body that gathered round him in 1938 would be the International. What the Fourth International does offer to new and rising generations of revolutionists is an historical continuity with the best of classical Marxism and a programmatic analysis of the modern world that is unrivalled on the international scene. The Dead Dogs of Stalin The picture that Nicolas Krassó presented of Trotsky was remarkable only for its rigidity, its lack of development, and its pedestrian quality. It was a lifeless picture and we are given no feeling that Trotsky learned, profited or matured from his mistakes. Reading the article one is left with the impression that Trotsky sprang on to the stage of politics fully equipped, warts and all, and that there were no real changes.
As such the figure is a cardboard one. The portrait of Lenin is painted in the same style. Lenin is made to appear as some sort of deus ex machina that popped up at the right moment and pulled his muddle-headed party out of trouble. This puts Lenin in the role of a political Svengali, not of a leader. There is no doubt that Lenin played a tremendous role in the Bolshevik Party, and at times this was crucial, but one should not fall victim to a one-sided appraisal. In the last analysis such a picture does no credit to Lenin and certainly not to the Bolsheviks. But why discuss Trotsky’s concept of the party now? What was the object of the exercise? Above all the other faults in Nicolas Krassó’s article the absence of conclusions is the most startling. Can it be that this long essay was only an exercise in ‘historical’ analysis? Not only here in Britain under the Wilson government, but internationally the question of a Marxist party has a burning topicality. Yet on this Nicolas Krassó is silent. Implicit in the article is the view that there is a need for a Leninist party here and now, and leaving aside the implied difference between this and Trotsky’s concept of the party, one would have thought that if this was the case then it should have been stated. But on this important question we are left, not even with a question mark, but a blank. This brings into question, not Trotsky’s Marxism, but Nicolas Krassó’s. For what is the object of Marxist theory? Is it merely to hone and bring to razor edge individual intellects or should it have as its aim a guide to action? One need not espouse a vulgar interpretation of this axiom, yet any perspective must also incorporate a programme. And this is where Nicolas Krassó’s essay shows its grave deficiencies – there is no programme. Another aspect of this deficiency is the lack of any analysis of Lenin’s or Trotsky’s concept of an international party; a very strange omission for someone who delved so deeply into a relatively minor article such as the one Trotsky wrote on the intelligentsia. How can this be squared? Such scholarly searchings must have disclosed something on the question of an International, but a reader of the original article would find no hint of this. Only Nicolas Krassó would be able to explain this absence but it would be unwise for the reader to conjecture at it. A discussion of Trotsky’s contribution to Marxism could have been stimulating and rewarding. It certainly should have been critical, but criticism should be tempered with knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, we were presented with undigested historical data laced with a Lenin ‘fixation’; neither help in arriving at a sober assessment. In the preface to The Prophet Armed Isaac Deutscher referred to the ‘mountain of dead dogs’ that covered Trotsky’s place in history, and that the events of 1956 (Hungary, etc.) saw half that mountain blown to the winds. Unwittingly, Nicolas Krassó is throwing a few of the canine corpses back onto the remains of the mountain. Looking at the world around us today it would seem that he engaged in a rather Canute-like occupation. His obvious talents deserve a better use. Notes 1. On the point of a ‘metaphysical carnival’ it might be pertinent to point out that Marx himself originated the phrase permanent revolution in The Class Struggles in France when he wrote: ‘This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution ...’ (The Class Struggles in France (Moscow 1952), p. 196) If Trotsky was guilty of being inept then he erred along with Marx. 2. Introduction, The Age of Permanent Revolution: A Trotsky Anthology (Dell Publishing, New York 1964). – MIA. 3. V.I. Lenin, Speech in the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies, Collected Works, Vol. 27. 4. L.D. Trotsky, The Intelligentsia and Socialism. 5. L.D. Trotsky, The New Course. 6.
6. L.D. Trotsky, The New Course. 7. This may sound like the familiar arguments put forward by Wilson & Co with their appeals for higher productivity. Formally it is a correct argument, in the short run, but for Marxists the real question is, who does what with the surplus? If the extra surplus is privately appropriated or bureaucratically misused that is where the fight should begin. We have no argument per se against increased production. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Review: Tony Cliff, The Employers’ Offensive (Spring 1970) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1970. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Tony Cliff, The Employers’ Offensive: Productivity Deals and How To Fight Them, Pluto Press Tony Cliff has done a very thorough and well-documented job in exposing the dangers and pitfalls inherent in the present wave of productivity deals that is being unleashed. This is a book of over 200 pages, the bulk of which deals in some detail with various aspects of productivity bargaining. As the ‘blurb’ on the front says: ‘A concise and thorough explanation of the many pitfalls which exist for workers under the guise of productivity bargaining. A book that every trade unionist ought to read.’ This is an opinion that I would agree with. Cliff deals with measured day work, greater flexibility in the deployment of labour, job evaluation, time and motion study, redundancy and much more besides. This gives one an idea of the scope of the book. In particular his exposure of the so-called ‘science’ of time and motion study is a very valuable addition to any shop stewards’ armoury. His quotation from the ‘father’ of time and motion study is a gem: Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. (F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, 1911) It is precisely the hope of the bosses to reduce their employees to this bovine state by productivity deals, not in such a crude or blatant manner perhaps, but nevertheless they want workers who are amenable as oxen. One of the other valuable features of this book is the large number of workers who have given evidence directly to the author, as well as his quotations from official documents and agreements. Many of the comments in these items from shop-floor workers are revealing in more ways than one. Firstly, many of them reveal the worsening of conditions where productivity deals have been in operation, and secondly they show that the workers may have to work like oxen, but they don’t think like them. The picture emerges of an overall offensive by the employers to prop up sagging profit rates, at the expense of the workers. Peter Jay, who gave a lengthy review of this book in The Times Business Section, tries to pass off the evidence presented as so much ‘drivel’, but it is noticeable that he makes no attempt to challenge even one item of fact in the whole book. This either means that he has not done his homework or could not come up with anything worthwhile. However, the fact that The Times chose to pay so much attention to this book means that it views the contents seriously, and so should every worker. Cliff has made an excellent job of cataloguing the many pitfalls in this field for the unwary worker. However, when he comes to attempt to prescribe an answer he is not so successful. Quite correctly he says: In productivity bargaining the traditional form of negotiations – workers making demands on their employers for better wages and conditions – is reversed. Now it is the employers who are demanding changes, and in doing so try to force the workers into taking a purely passive role and simply responding to these demands. (p. 211) This sums up the position very well indeed, but what is Cliff’s answer? Now comes the 64,000 dollar question – how do we fight a productivity deal? I hope no one who has read this book so far will be in any doubt where I stand on the question of productivity dealing – bitterly and unalterably opposed to it. But this does not in itself solve the problem of developing a strategy for fighting them. Any fool can denounce a productivity deal and say we should have nothing to do with it. It is an entirely different matter to lead a group of workers in successfully resisting such a deal. (p. 215) That is clear and to the point, and eminently sensible, because it is not an easy task to fight the present methods of employers’ attacks, when they are so well gilded with what seems to be large increases in pay. But we turn over the page and Cliff says this: We must always start by opposing the productivity deal completely and then later, if necessary, retreat to a position where we try to get the best out of the deal we can. (p. 216) [!!] And on the next page we have: ... any steward has to remember the first rule of negotiation – the girl who starts by saying ‘No’ gets a higher price for her virtue than the girl who talks money at the outset. (p. 217) In other words if you cannot beat them join them! Despite all the good intentions Cliff is unable to come up with a coherent counter-strategy. True enough that he has some very useful ideas about [1] productivity deals should be dealt with once they are entered into, but he presents no overall strategy which will take the workers on to the offensive before the bosses make their move. This is the missing link, since right here and now this is precisely what workers need. The rising tide of militancy will be beaten back unless such a strategy is adopted. The only concrete answer that Cliff comes up with is to sell the ‘rule-book’ as dearly as possible, despite his good intentions and protestations. That is exactly what the employers want. He explains this himself in earlier sections of the book, so that his alleged answer is a let-down. However, despite the grave shortcomings of the last chapter, this book is still worth buying, because it can supply a great deal of ammunition to those who care to extract it from its pages. Notes 1. The word ‘how’ seems to be missing here – MIA. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Review: A New Annual? (Winter 1969/70) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, Winter 1969–70. Signed ‘JW’ that is, John Walters. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Ken Coates, Tony Topham and Michael Barratt Brown (eds.), Trade Union Register, Merlin Press Ltd, price £2 hardback, £1 paperback Merlin Press have this year published a stable-mate to Socialist Register, it is the Trade Union Register. The new Register is edited by Ken Coates, Tony Topham and Michael Barratt Brown. There is an impressive list of contributors, which seems to cover many shades of the left (and centre?). The book claims to be ‘a symposium designed for active trade unionists’. However, one can hardly imagine that an ‘active trade unionist’ would find time to read all the material collected in these 350 pages. If future issues are to live up to the stated aim they will need to be slimmed down somewhat. One has the feeling that the editors were a little unsure of their own aims when assembling the material and hence the large selection. Some of the essays are more suitable for publication in journals than in a book, which presumably is meant to be partly a reference volume. Also some of the essays are so heavily annotated that the references serve to impede one’s progress. These are however minor criticisms compared with the real value of the book. All the contributions are of a fairly high standard, and many introduce new ideas on perennial topics. Janet Blackman’s contribution on the Campaign for Women’s Rights is a must for all those who are interested in this subject (and shame on you if you are not). Her point about there being two labour forces – men’s and women’s – is a very useful idea. She points out that far from women gaining equal rights what is really happening is that a small number of women are jumping into the male labour force without changing its character, and the vast majority of women still work in what is classified as women’s work. Men do not join this labour force under any circumstances. Tony Topham writes a very solid item on productivity bargaining, tracing its development since the early 1960s, and demonstrates how this has now become the central part of the employers’ and government’s insidious attack on the unions. He also examines the reactions to this development by the trade-union movement, ranging from full cooperation to outright rejection. He also demonstrates that this is a method of keeping the proportions of the division of the national income either static or pushing it in favour of profits. Quite cogently argued is the need for an offensive strategy by the unions in face of this development. John Hughes, Ken Coates and Richard Silburn all contribute essays on low pay, and John Hughes analyses the unemployment trends since 1964 bringing out some very disturbing and little-noticed factors. One essay in particular makes this volume significant. This is Andrée Hoyles’ item on the occupation of factories in France, May 1968, which is based upon on-the-spot research, the basis for which was an extensive questionnaire which was used in selected factories. This seems to be the only attempt so far to find out what was actually happening in the factories and among the rank-and-file workers. Most writings that have appeared so far on the French events have concentrated upon the political-cum-student aspects, not surprising in view of the ease with which material can be gathered on these aspect and the fact that the students in particular were very articulate. However, in many ways Andrée Hoyles’ research presents a more fundamental picture of what was actually going on during those very hectic days, it is much closer to the grass-roots. No one who wants to obtain a full picture can afford to miss this vital piece of research. It is not possible in a short review to mention any more of the contributions, but most of them are worth study. One final point, the book contains a very useful diary for 1968 and several statistical tables, both of which are useful for those who do not have the time to hunt around for such information. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Some Notes on British Trotskyist History (Winter 1969/70) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, Winter 1969–70. Signed ‘John Walters’. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). It is clear from Comrade Greenlark’s comments in the last issue of Marxist Studies that he is not familiar with the history of the British Trotskyist movement because he refers to the Socialist Labour League (SLL) as though this had had a continuous existence for over 20 years. The SLL was in fact launched in 1959, and the group which he referred to as the one that the Cliff tendency broke from was only one of the component parts of the SLL in 1959. However, that is a minor aspect of the question. What I am concerned about is to examine the proposition that the Cliff tendency came into existence because of the pressures of the Cold War, and in particular its hot phase, that is, the Korean War. Unfortunately for those who like their history and politics handed out in neat simple packages, the truth was far more complicated and to understand it, it is necessary to go back a little further than 1950. The situation after 1944 was that for the first time in the history of British Trotskyism there was one united organisation, that is, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). After the advent of the Labour government to office in 1945 there arose a dispute within the organisation on the question of entry into the Labour Party. Gerry Healy was the leader of the minority faction in favour of entry, whilst the majority faction which opposed entry was led by Jock Haston. This particular dispute was waged fiercely for three years, but the minority still remained the minority. In 1947 the Executive of the Fourth International stepped in and decided that this dispute could only be settled in practice. It decided to allow the minority to enter the Labour Party as a separate organisation under the direction of the International. This was done despite protests from the leadership of the RCP. De facto this once more split the British Trotskyist movement, although in theory there was supposed to be still only one section. (Incidentally, it was in the same year that Cliff issued his theses on Stalinist Russia [1], and hardly caused a ripple either in the majority or the minority faction because they were locked in combat over the Labour Party question.) Therefore, from 1947 there were two official British sections of the Fourth International, the RCP and the Healy Group inside the Labour Party. This situation caused relations between the factions, and between the RCP leadership and the International, to become even more embittered. The Healy Group were instrumental in the publication of a monthly (later weekly) newspaper — Socialist Outlook — which gradually gathered support inside the Labour Party and trade unions, but no spectacular results were obtained in the first three years or so. At the same time the RCP gradually declined in numbers and influence, and the circulation of its publications declined considerably. The RCP leadership, which had pinned its hopes of a turn to the left of the rank and file of the Labour Party and an eventual split, gradually became disillusioned and began to capitulate intellectually to reformism. As they had previously exaggerated the prospects for revolution now they exaggerated the real changes brought about by reformism. In 1949 the majority of the RCP leadership decided to recommend entry into the Labour Party, and even those who were against it decided not to fight on the issue. Therefore when a special congress of the party was held in 1949 the leadership won the day fairly easily, despite misgivings on the part of even their own supporters. At the same time it should be noted that the demoralisation amongst the leadership had been carefully screened from the membership even by those who were not capitulating to reformism. When this had been accomplished, the RCP and the Healy Group fused, once more becoming a united organisation. But with this difference, the Healy faction demanded, and were given, a majority on the executive bodies of the fused organisation. Shortly after this fusion took place Haston and others of the old leadership resigned from the organisation, renouncing their Trotskyism. This was a tremendous blow to the morale of those they had led. Moreover, the regime of the unified organisation was a very authoritarian one, with many members being expelled for formal infractions of discipline, or on trumped-up charges. There is another factor that has to be considered. Trotskyism as an international and national political tendency had been forged in a battle against Stalinism. Therefore, much of the propaganda of the movement was directed to criticising Stalinism. Having sprung from the world communist movement Trotskyism was therefore very largely oriented towards it. The transition to entry work was for many members a very difficult change to make, because the mode of operation, priorities and milieu were radically different to that of an open party. The pages of Socialist Appeal (the RCP’s twice-monthly newspaper) were studded with biting attacks upon Stalinism, but in contrast the entry paper Socialist Outlook made only the most passing and muted reference to this question. It was with this background that the outbreak of the Korean War made its impact upon the organisation. This war was partially a civil war and partially an imperialist attack upon North Korea. In such circumstances it was the duty of revolutionary Marxists to support and defend the North Korean state but at the same time it was necessary to distinguish between support for such a state under attack from imperialism and the particular regime of that state. The North Korean state was a Stalinist police regime, which should have been criticised, Trotsky always emphasised that whilst one’s support for a workers’ state was unconditional, this in no way meant that one gave unconditional support to the regime. In the case of Korea the line pursued by the Healy leadership was completely uncritical of the Stalinists.
In the case of Korea the line pursued by the Healy leadership was completely uncritical of the Stalinists. This meant that Socialist Outlook was indistinguishable from the Daily Worker (now Morning Star) and to many people outside the organisation (and inside) it seemed that a Stalinist policy was being pursued. This was the final cause of the crisis inside British Trotskyism in 1950. It was in this situation that Cliff emerged from the obscurity that he had rested in since 1947, and proceeded to argue his case. The logic of his case was fairly simple, in essence he said: ‘If you continue to call these states workers’ states you end up carrying out semi-Stalinist or Stalinist policies and practices.’ The evidence he presented was very real, firstly there was the internal regime of the organisation which seemed designed to drive out all those who opposed the leadership; secondly there was the complete lack of criticism of Stalinism in the public policies of the organisation. In a situation where many members felt betrayed first by Haston and then by Healy, Cliff for once found fertile ground for his ideas. If one were to examine this situation in detail one would understand that for many people Cliff was merely carrying on the traditions that they had known, but carried them to their ‘logical’ conclusion. When the SLL today thunder about the iniquities of ‘Pabloism’, it is conveniently forgotten by them that it was Healy that first introduced this dread virus into British Trotskyist body politic. Cliff was not the only person to break from the British section at this period. A smaller group of people who were not state-capitalists also broke, and they too argued that Healy was giving in to the pressures of Stalinism. But perhaps even more important is the fact that most of the people who actually joined the Cliff group at this period did not leave the British section of their own accord, but were expelled because they opposed the leadership. Therefore, to argue in such simplistic terms as that ‘the Cliff group was formed because of pressures from the general anti-communist feeling at the time’ is to say the least inaccurate. The complex of pressures was much greater than allowed for. Personally I think it fair to say that the person who did most to create the Cliff Group was — Gerry Healy. Notes 1. Tony Cliff, The Nature of Stalinist Russia. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Review: Condemned From the Dock (Winter 1969/70) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, Winter 1969–70. Signed ‘JW’ that is, John Walters. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Condemned from the Dock: John Maclean’s Speech to the Court in 1918 [1] The reprinting of this speech is a step that is very welcome at the present time. John Maclean has long been a neglected figure in British working-class history; both the Labour Party and the Communist Party, each for their own reasons, have tended to bury his memory. However, it is well that workers should be reminded what red-blooded Marxist leaders are like. Having suffered over the last few decades from a surfeit of boneless wonders, Maclean’s words come as a breath of fresh air: ‘I am not here as the accused; I am here as the accuser of capitalism, dripping with blood from head to foot.’ Little wonder that Lenin was happy to have such a man as the first Soviet Consul in Britain. As Nan Milton says in the Foreword: ‘His speech ... was a vivid exposition of international socialism, and should be preserved as a part of the socialist tradition.’ I certainly recommend this pamphlet as a ‘good buy’. Notes 1. Obtainable from Smith, 61 Fergus Drive, Glasgow NW, 2/− post free. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Ethiopia and Socialist Theory: The Blood on the Wall (1993) Source: Pamphlet published by Marken Press, Worthing 1993. Chapter II: Ethiopia and Socialist Theory: The Blood on the Wall was originally published in New Interventions, Vol. 3 no. 4, January 1993. Chapter III: Bonapartism and the Nature of the State was originally published in Red Banner, no. 5, February 1993. Chapter IV: The Rise and Fall of Mengistu, was originally published in New Interventions, Vol. 4 no. 2, July 1993. Scanned and prepared by Paul Flewers for the Marxists’ Internet Archive. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). I: Preface II: Ethiopia and Socialist Theory: The Blood on the Wall Appendix 1: Reading, In Order of Quality Appendix 2: Ethiopia: Some Basic Facts Circa 1973–74 III: Bonapartism and the Nature of the State IV: The Rise and Fall of Mengistu Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 17 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Review: Ernest Mandel, Europe versus America? (Autumn 1970) From Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3, Autumn 1970. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Minor spelling errors have been corrected without indication. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Ernest Mandel, Europe versus America? Contradictions of Imperialism, New Left Books, London In this short book (139 pages) Ernest Mandel sets out to examine the problems and contradictions facing the West European bourgeoisie in its attempts to compete with US imperialism. Also he examines the relative decline of US imperialism in the last decade. The book is extremely well documented with references and illustrative examples of the points Mandel wants to drive home. One of the most important phenomena that have arisen in the postwar world and especially in the last decade has been the international concentration of capital. (Mandel seems to use this term rather indiscriminately to cover concentration, that is, growth of individual capitals by accumulation, and centralisation, that is, the bringing together of two or more existing capitals by way of mergers, etc.) Mandel distinguishes four forms which this concentration takes: The complete takeover of a nation’s industry, or at least the most significant portions, by outside capitalists. Thus the country is reduced to a semi-colony. Where only certain sectors of industry are taken over by foreign capital. Interpenetration of various capitals without any one country predominating. Concentration purely within the national boundaries. He argues, and brings forward material to back up, that all of these processes are taking place, but that the one that is being pushed forward most vigorously is the interpenetration of capital. He convincingly demonstrates that the very nature of capitalism today urges on this process via international competition and technological innovations that this induces on an expanding scale. He writes about the third industrial revolution that we have witnessed since the end of the last war (which comprises atomic power, automation, computers, etc.) and points out how this has been part cause and part effect of this capital concentration. This arises today because there are some projects that need such vast amounts of capital to get them off the ground. Mandel also brings into his analysis the thesis that since the last war we have lived through an upward movement of a Kondratiev ‘long wave’, and now we are moving into a downward movement. This would partly account for the long and sustained boom in the capitalist world since the early 1950s. However, this does somewhat contradict Mandel’s references to the ‘permanent arms economy’ which are thrown in without any explanation of what he means by this phrase. One can only presume that he means something different from what the Cliff–Kidron school infers from this, since he is at some pains throughout to snipe at Kidron in his extensive footnotes. We can see then that the main theme of the book relates to the question of whether American imperialism will dominate West Europe completely in the coming decade or whether the West European bourgeoisie can extend the EEC and develop large and powerful units with which they can not only survive but also compete. In the process it becomes abundantly clear that the nation state is no longer a viable instrument for the protection of capitalism in Europe. However, Mandel does not deal adequately with the question raised by Servan-Schreiber (The American Challenge, Pelican Books): the tremendous expansion of US capital inside Europe and the prospect of its becoming the third largest industrial power in the world within the next decade. Mandel’s treatment of this point is somewhat cursory. Although there is a chapter devoted to the division of the world market and some very useful material provided regarding the relative decline of the importance of the ‘Third World’ in international trade, there is no attempt to analyse the real changes that this indicates as to the nature of imperialism. One sentence points to very important problems that this trend brings: ‘It is evidence of the increasing trend of industrial nations to exchange their industrial products amongst themselves, thus denying the safety valve of the export of industrial goods to non-industrialised countries.’ Yet this point is never taken up and developed. This is rather disappointing because the whole process raises quite fundamental questions about the theory of imperialism and also the concrete one of the continued impoverishment of the colonial world. At one point when writing about the working class and inter-imperialist conflict Mandel gives an indication of how out of touch he is regarding the realities of the British scene when he writes: ‘... it should be noted that the attempt by Enoch Powell in England to exploit racist currents politically has so far only found an echo among the most demoralised and backward sectors of the British working class.’ If Mandel does not understand that Powell has in fact found quite wide echoes in most strata of the population and that he (Powell) has in fact legitimised racial prejudice to some extent then he is whistling in the dark. The above is perhaps indicative of the rather sweeping generalities which are scattered through this short book. It is merely a skeleton on which much more could have been built. There is a great deal of information here but it has been compressed to the extent that it cannot deal with all the questions it raises. At the end of the book there is an impressive list of sources quoted, but unfortunately no index. Whilst it is a book that should be read because of the questions it raises, it is overpriced at 35 shillings. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck Review: Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (Summer 1977) From International, Vol. 3 No. 4, Summer 1977. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Stephen F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography 1888–1938, Wildwood House, £4.50 Like most of the other leaders of the Bolshevik revolution, Bukharin has, for the last 40 years, been in the shadows cast by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. It is only of recent date that Bukharin’s ideas and legacy are being re-examined and with a little more objectivity. The biography of Bukharin by Stephen F. Cohen fills a gap and has been much needed; from this point of view the book is very welcome. One of the problems facing any biographer of a Bolshevik leader is the inaccessibility of Soviet archives and of private papers located in the Soviet Union. As Cohen points out, only Trotsky’s private archives are open to inspection (and until 1980 some of these will remain closed); the remainder of the Bolshevik leaders’ private papers are still under lock and key in the Soviet Union. This problem has meant that anyone wishing to write such a book as Cohen’s must, of necessity, largely rely on published records. Cohen recognises these limitations when he remarks: ‘When Soviet scholars are eventually able to study and write freely about their revolutionary founders and their formative history, the account in this book will presumably be supplemented and some judgements revised.’ Any such biography is even more of a work of detection than biographical researchers normally have to face. But I do not think we have to wait until the Soviet archives are opened before some of Cohen’s judgements are revised, but more on that later. Such a biography of Bukharin is long overdue, since it helps to restore a proper perspective to what for many is now rather a remote period. Moreover, a biography of Bukharin is doubly welcome, since it also serves as a signal reminder of the central place that he occupied in the development of Bolshevik theory and practice. The true stature of Bukharin has been overlaid and obscured by the attention focused upon the latter part of his life, ending in the obscene farce of the 1938 Moscow trial. Among revolutionary Marxists Bukharin has largely been ignored, partly because his name has tended to become synonymous with the appellation ‘right-wing’ that was justly bestowed on him in the last decade of his life. However, it might be pertinent to remind ourselves that, firstly, Bukharin did not always carry such a label and, secondly, that even in his right-wing days he was the leader of Bolshevik-Communists, even if right-wing ones. Because of this neglect it has been left to liberal academics to rescue Bukharin from his undeserved obscurity. Cohen documents much of Bukharin’s pioneering work in the theoretical field on such questions as imperialism and the imperialist state, and how he related to both these phenomena developments in modern capitalism (circa 1916). Among the Bolsheviks and Russian socialists generally, Bukharin was among the first to develop ideas about the nature of imperialism and the consequences of monopolisation upon the state. Lenin drew heavily on Bukharin’s work when he came to write his own much more widely-known book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, although it is wrong – as Cohen indicates – to suggest that there were no differences in the approach of the two. The differences substantially revolved around the question of the role and nature of the imperialist state, Lenin tending to think that Bukharin was showing semi-anarchist tendencies. The war and the collapse of the Second International, however, forced Lenin to reappraise a number of previous positions. In this sense Bukharin’s writing on the imperialist state prefigures and points the direction for Lenin’s State and Revolution. After a period of disagreement on the subject of the state, Lenin came to acknowledge the correctness of Bukharin’s ideas, and embodied them in his own work of 1917. Bukharin also pioneered study of the theoretical implications of the transition to socialism in his work The Economics of the Transition Period. Cohen has not given an adequate treatment of this book, which is a highly compressed text – Bukharin himself admitted that it was written ‘in almost algebraic form’. A proper consideration of this text would have enabled Cohen to understand many of the constants in Bukharin’s subsequent evolution during the 1920s. However, Cohen gives an interesting description of Bukharin’s independent cast of mind in his relations with Lenin. It shows a finely balanced relationship, being a mixture of affection and heated exchanges. Whatever Bukharin’s faults, he was not a sycophant with Lenin, in fact of all Lenin’s close collaborators Bukharin seems to have disagreed with him most often; and Lenin does not always emerge with credit from Cohen’s account. Bukharin was the youngest of the top Bolshevik leaders in 1917, and this point needs to be weighed when assessing his subsequent evolution. The Bolshevik seizure of power in Petrograd has always claimed the overwhelming attention of those who study the revolution of October 1917.
The Bolshevik seizure of power in Petrograd has always claimed the overwhelming attention of those who study the revolution of October 1917. Cohen’s account brings out two important points that have tended to be obscured in this respect. Firstly, in the period leading up to October, from April 1917, Lenin relied heavily upon the younger Bolsheviks in winning the party to his position, firstly in the struggle to get his April Theses adopted and then to take the decision to seize power. Bukharin played a key role in this process, since he was the leader of the younger generation in the Moscow organisation, and it was he and his peer group who overturned the older, established Bolsheviks in the Moscow region. In the discussions of the actual seizure of power it seemed likely that Moscow would be the first to take the uprising from the sphere of discussion to that of action. In the event it was Petrograd that led the way. However, it is worthwhile to note that Bukharin was only 29 years old when he led the uprising in Moscow. Unlike the Petrograd events, there was fairly heavy fighting in Moscow in which 500 party members lost their lives. Bukharin is usually portrayed as being wholly intellectual – not a ‘practical’ man – yet his role in Moscow in 1917 does not bear out this assessment. The second point that emerges from Cohen’s account is that it was Trotsky and his group, who only joined the Bolsheviks in June 1917, who dominated events in Petrograd during the period of preparation and actual seizure of power. Almost without exception the old guard of Leninist Bolsheviks played subordinate roles or actually opposed the party in the October revolution. Cohen quite skilfully and concretely demonstrates the validity of these two propositions. Insofar as Cohen has written only a one-volume biography he has been forced to be selective. However, even allowing for the lack of Bukharin’s private papers, I feel that there are certain important areas and points that are missing. The most notable absence is any real treatment of Bukharin’s role in the Comintern. From its inception in 1919 Bukharin played a leading role in the functions of that body. It is true that, until his fall from power in 1925, Zinoviev played the central public role, and only after 1925 did Bukharin occupy the centre of the Comintern stage. But Bukharin’s involvement was on a continuing basis for 10 years. Cohen’s failure to make more than a passing reference to these activities seems to me to flow from more than the need to compress. From the year 1920 onwards Cohen has concentrated his attention on Bukharin’s relationship to internal Soviet and party affairs, and in particular his role in the industrialisation debate. Coupled with this is an inadequate analysis of the social forces behind the debating positions. This is where Cohen’s treatment falls down: without an adequate analysis of international events, particularly the failure of the German revolution and the débâcle of the Chinese Communist Party under the tutelage of Bukharin and Stalin, one cannot grapple with the rise of the Soviet bureaucracy and its subsequent victory. It is true that internal Soviet conditions were themselves alone sufficient for the rise of such a social formation, but there was no inevitability about its victory and Cohen does not really try to explain the rise of this formation and its relationship to external factors. Nor can one divorce the triumph of the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ from the rise of the Soviet bureaucracy. Cohen makes no attempt at such an analysis and because of this muffs his discussion of the origins of the theory. It is true that some of the phrases and ideas that he pinpoints from Bukharin seem to be the first utterance of the theory, but one feels that had events taken another course one would not remark upon them now. Cohen does not ask why, despite what seem to be hints and allusions from Bukharin, it was Stalin who first articulated the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ in its most rounded manner. If Cohen had examined this point he might have been led on to the question of the bureaucracy. And if he had done so he would have been forced to look at Bukharin’s relationship with that particular force. In this respect Cohen’s treatment of Bukharin’s fear of the ‘new Leviathan’ is devoid of class content and as such tends to downgrade Bukharin to a liberal-democrat. Whilst there is, obviously, a fairly full treatment of Bukharin’s economic ideas in the 1920s, Cohen does less than justice to Bukharin’s opponents and this often tends to obscure the discussion. Every now and again Cohen admits that the ideas of the Left Opposition were distorted, but he makes no attempt to present a balanced picture. Nor is this accidental, as we shall see. There is another aspect with which Cohen has failed to deal, namely Bukharin’s role in the campaign against ‘Trotskyism’ in the mid-1920s. Bukharin and his Red Professors unleashed a deluge of lies and distortions upon the left – and Trotsky in particular – which played no small part in rallying a large part of the new intake of raw party members (the Lenin levy) around the Central Committee majority. (I leave aside the particular ‘skills’ which Stalin used at the same time.) To write a biography of Bukharin with such omissions vitiates its overall usefulness. Bukharin helped to perfect the techniques which were later to lead to his own rout by Stalin in 1928–29, but Cohen passes this over. Was he perhaps afraid that it would detract from his hero? I say hero deliberately, for that is how Bukharin appears in Cohen’s account.
I say hero deliberately, for that is how Bukharin appears in Cohen’s account. Perhaps all good biographers have this tendency, but Cohen seems to have allowed it to obscure his judgement. Cohen started out to write this biography with a particular thesis which he wanted to prove. In the preface he writes: Much of what follows will suggest that by the mid-1920s Bukharin ... and his allies were more important in Bolshevik politics and thinking than Trotsky or Trotskyism. It will suggest, in short, that the view of Trotsky ‘as the representative figure of pre-Stalinist communism and the precursor of post-Stalinist communism’ is a serious misconception. (p. xvi) This theme is linked, right at the end of the book, to the idea that Bukharinism is the underlying ideology of ‘socialism with a human face’ in Eastern Europe. In trying to prove his thesis, Cohen is trying to prove too much. If Trotsky was not the precursor of post-Stalinist communism, how does Cohen account for the enduring and increasing appeal of Trotsky’s ideas to the youth of the world? Every time there has been a radical upsurge Trotsky’s ideas have gained currency. One may not like some of the ways that Trotsky’s ideas are presented, but I have not seen any Bukharinist organisation propagating its ideas recently. Any groups that owed allegiance to Bukharin faded away in the late 1930s. To say this does not in any way detract from Bukharin’s merits, but it does mean that in the scales of history Trotsky weighs far more than Bukharin. For history is not made by Professors of History writing books, but by people – such as the 29-year-old Bukharin – acting it out in actual struggle. (Incidentally, I feel that only an academic could talk of Stalinist communism, there is no way these two terms can be coupled in reality, since they stand in constant opposition to each other.) But, it may be said, in Eastern Europe, in the ‘socialist’ countries, Bukharin and his ideas inspire the ‘liberalisers’. Suffice it to say here that it is among the bureaucrats that a bowdlerised version of his ideas are popular. However, serious consideration must be given to the idea of the convergence of basic ideas between the Bukharinist opposition and the Trotskyist one, particularly in 1929–30. Moshe Lewin, in his Political Undercurrents in the Soviet Economic Debate, provides much evidence to support this thesis. Cohen, on the other hand, does not seriously consider this question, and this arises from his determination to ‘prove’ his thesis that Bukharin was more realistic than Trotsky. However, it must be admitted that any serious reading of the economic ideas advanced by both Trotsky and Bukharin in this period does show considerable agreement when faced with the excesses and irrationalities of Stalin’s industrialisation and collectivisation drive. The fact that many Left Oppositionists capitulated to Stalin at this period (1929–30) is usually taken as a sign that they thought that Stalin was adopting, albeit in a bureaucratic manner, the economic policies of the Left Opposition. After some momentary initial hesitation, Trotsky came to the conclusion that this was not the case, and remained firmly in opposition to the whole of Stalin’s policies. And Trotsky, who for a number of years had appeared to be the radical on economic questions, was now forced into the role of moderate. It seems to me that Trotsky did this because he realised that without, as a first step, the restoration of inner-party democracy, the vastly increased tempo of industrialisation and wholesale unprepared collectivisation of agriculture presented as many dangers, if not more, than the previous snail’s pace tempo. The fact that Trotsky was prepared to consider a bloc with Bukharin against Stalin, to fight for the restoration of inner-party democracy, indicates Trotsky’s appreciation of the seminal importance of an overall, and not one-sided, strategy of development for the Soviet Union. In this respect it has to be considered whether Trotsky merely stood firm on his previous positions when faced with capitulations within his own ranks, or whether he came to realise that the Left Opposition had not been so homogeneous as had been (and still is) assumed. The fact that Preobrazhensky, the leading economist of the Left Opposition, capitulated to Stalin, while Trotsky remained firmly opposed, should provide some ground for reconsideration of the period and the evolution of Trotsky and Bukharin. The years 1929-30 presents a picture of two ships that pass in the night, both seeming to be on the same course, but this did not last. Cohen consistently fails to come to grips with these problems, since it would tend to detract from the picture he wishes to present of Bukharin. There was a clear shift on the part of Bukharin in 1928–30, which brought the possibility of a bloc with the Left Opposition within sight. The fact that it did not take place is not only important in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Left Opposition, but even more so in examining the Right Opposition and Bukharin in particular. Cohen does not even attempt to deal with such problems, since for him Trotsky and the Left Opposition are merely a small band crying in the wilderness, whilst Bukharin apparently represented a broad, if diffused, opposition within all sections of Soviet society. What Cohen forgets is that the social base of the Left Opposition – the Soviet working class – has been enormously increased since 1930, whilst the social strata that the Right Opposition reflected – the small peasants – has all but disappeared from Soviet society. The Left Opposition may have been crying in the wilderness by 1930, but in the last analysis all that Bukharin could do was to cry in anguish at the actions of the predatory monster he had helped to victory.
The historic merit of Trotsky lies precisely in the fact that he did not capitulate, that he was prepared to carry on a principled struggle against the Soviet bureaucracy against all odds. In the process he forged many of the intellectual weapons that are needed, firstly to understand this phenomenon and secondly to combat it. Bukharin’s consistent refusal to take up the struggle against Stalin in public meant that he always had to compromise to Stalin’s advantage. It was of little consequence after 1930 that Bukharin’s private views sometimes coincided with Trotsky’s public positions, because Bukharin never did anything about them, while Trotsky did. If this review has seemed overly critical, it is because the matters dealt with are not merely ones of historical interpretation or judgement, they are central to politics here and now. And as such the omissions and failures cannot go unnoticed. This is not to say that those who are interested in uncovering the real heritage of revolutionary Marxism should not rescue Bukharin from his undeserved oblivion, but at the same time it may be necessary to rescue him from his more uncritical admirers. A study of Bukharin’s writings is necessary for us to reappropriate our heritage, those who do so will be richly rewarded. But they have to study critically. Cohen’s book needs to be used in the same way. Top of page Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Last updated: 14 October 2014
Ken Tarbuck \| ETOL Main Page Ken Tarbuck I.S. Writes Its Own History (February 1972) From Workers Fight, No. 3, February 1972, pp. 10–11. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The Fourth International, Stalinism and the Origins of the International Socialism Group – Some Documents Pluto Press, £1.00 Reviewed by KEN TARBUCK, who was during the period covered by these documents the Secretary of the Socialist Review Group. WHAT, ONE MAY ASK, is the purpose this small selection of Some Documents relating to the history of IS? To the uninformed it may appear to be an exercise in educating the present membership, to help round out their picture of how the organisation came into being. Unfortunately Pluto Press have engaged the services of a person to introduce the documents whose only gifts seem to be an ability to falsify and to develop a defective memory when convenient. All the tortuous political arguments on Trotsky’s views on the nature of the Soviet Union – as seen by Hallas – are, in fact, merely a preamble to some rather clumsy falsifications. East Europe In the late 1940s a vital discussion took place in the Fourth International on the class nature of the East European states. Hallas attempts to distort the developing position of the F.I. in order to claim that there had been a somersault from regarding the East European states as capitalist, to regarding them as workers’ states. Thus he alleges that as well as the FI characterising the state capitalist analysis of these states as revisionism, it also characterised as revisionist the view that they were workers’ states. The document to which Hallas refers, using a single phrase torn out of context, is a lengthy resolution passed by the 2nd World Congress in 1948. As to the actual position taken in this document, we find the following: “The peculiarity of the buffer-zone countries consists in this, that the Soviet bureaucracy has succeeded, for the time being, in orienting the capitalist economy in a sense corresponding, in the first instance, to its own interests. This situation can only be transitional. It must end either in the bureaucracy’s withdrawal from its position, under the pressure of imperialism, or in the real destruction of capitalism ... The Stalinist state apparatus has acquired a great deal of independence in relation to the bourgeoisie and proletariat, not alone owing to the balance between and the growing prostration of both these classes; but above all to its intimate ties with the Soviet state apparatus and the overwhelming weight of the latter in Eastern Europe, amid the existing world relations.” (p. 119, Fourth International, June 1948) It is certainly true that there was some initial confusion, and the resolution quoted above reflected this ambiguity. But what does this prove? Merely, that when faced with an unprecedented situation the F.I. refused to rush in with ready made answers. In this connection it is pertinent to point out that Cliff did rush in, as his document on the Class Nature of the Peoples Democracies (included in this selection) shows. Any examination of this and the current reality in Eastern Europe will show that what Cliff described (largely correct factually at the time) no longer obtains. All of the special companies and other economic forms which he attributes to “Soviet Imperialism” have long since disappeared. The 1948 resolution of the Fourth International has been vindicated in this respect, since it emphasised the transitional nature of the regimes at the time. Finally, what of the “workers’ statist Revisionism”? A reading of the actual resolution makes clear that it refers to ... pro-Stalinists outside the Fourth International! Korea Given that it was the issue of the Korean war that was the catalyst which broke a number of members away from the Healy group (the forerunner of the present Socialist Labour League), the bulk of whom went on to form the SOCIALIST REVIEW GROUP – parent of today’s I.S. – it strikes one as odd, to say the least, that the article chosen to represent this group’s point of view on the war is one taken from the second issue of the journal, one, moreover, which originated in India. (Incidentally Hallas’ claim that it was Cliff’s document on the”Peoples Democracies” that rallied people is just not true – see Some Notes on the History of British Trotskyism, in Marxist Studies, Vol. 2 no. 1, Winter 1969–70.) Didn’t the group have anything to say on such an important issue in the first number of Socialist Review? After all any journal worth its salt must say something on such a burning current issue in its first number. In fact TWO articles appeared on this question in the first issue of Socialist Review. The very first article in the journal was The Struggle of the Powers by R. Tennant (Tony Cliff). This devoted two pages to criticising American imperialism – and nearly five pages to attacking “Russian imperialism”. The other article on this question was entitled Whither Socialist Outlook? (the Healy group’s paper in the Labour Party). This is a scathing attack on the “pro-Stalinist” policy being pursued by Socialist Outlook (which supported North Korea against US imperialism).
This is a scathing attack on the “pro-Stalinist” policy being pursued by Socialist Outlook (which supported North Korea against US imperialism). It very clearly parted Socialist Review from such policies, and took an uncompromising ‘third camp’ position. Why then select an article written in India to represent the Socialist Review group policy on this key issue? Quite correctly Hallas repudiates the slander that the SR group in any way supported American imperialism. Yet there is no doubt that, given the support for the Vietnamese revolution by IS today, Hallas and the other leaders of today’s IS feel very uncomfortable about the Korean war and the stand taken on it. Yet they dared not leave it out of this collection. Therefore the choice was made to republish an article that is short and comparatively mild in tone compared with the articles in the first issue of Socialist Review, which were a real reflection of the feelings on the Group. And of course so anxious are the present leaders of IS to put distance between themselves and Shachtman – given his present support for US imperialism in Vietnam – that they fail to mention that Labor Action (the paper which the article came from) was Shachtman’s paper! China & Yugoslavia A claim is made that “Cliff’s forecast of the political development of the FI was rapidly confirmed. The majority adopted Michael Pablo’s notorious (sic) document The Rise and Decline of Stalinism ... which represented a return to the reformist Trotskyism of the twenties with respect to Stalinist states where these happened to be in actual or potential conflict with Russia”. We are served up a short paragraph which does NOT talk about reforming the Chinese and Yugoslav parties or states, but says Trotskyists should strive to create revolutionary currents within these parties. However, this point of view was not predicated upon the view that these states were in conflict with Russia, but on the fact that they were the two Communist Parties that had carried through an overturn in property relations within their respective countries, independent of, and against the advice of, Stalin. It was precisely because these two parties had had to mobilise the masses in their struggles that led the FI to argue at that time that these parties were still capable of responding to mass pressure and actions. It was this aspect that led to the particular judgment being made at the time. One, incidentally, that I now feel was wrong, but has been corrected by the test of events. But, on the main issue of the Stalinist states, the document in question is clear and unequivocal – “Our sections ought to resolutely combat any tendency towards apology or justification for the present regime in the Soviet Union ... The smashing of the dictatorship and the privileges of the bureaucracy, the task of a new political revolution IN THE SOVIET UNION remains more burning than ever.” (p. 43, Fourth International (Paris), Winter 1958, emphasis in original, passed at World Congress, 1954.) The so-called ‘notorious’ document of Pablo, if read as a whole, has in fact stood the test of time far better than Cliff’s liberal use of statistics as a substitute for analysis. Western Europe But where is the relapse into ‘reformist Trotskyism’ that Hallas writes about? It is another figment of his imagination. He alleges that the Fourth International indulged in some “fantasy” of a perspective of reforming the mass Stalinist parties in Western Europe, and like the proverbial children’s party conjuror he pulls a quotation out of the hat. “These organisations cannot be smashed and replaced by others in the relatively short time between now and the decisive conflict. All the more so since these organisations will be obliged, whether they wish it or not, to give a leftward turn to the whole or at least part of the leadership.” The reference Hallas gives for this quotation is The Decline and Fall of Stalinism, a document adopted in 1954 by the world congress of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International and reproduced in 1970 by the Socialist Workers Party (USA). Unfortunately for anyone wishing to check the validity of this quotation they will not find it anywhere in the 1970 edition, nor in the 1958 edition; the reason is quite simple. The quotation does not come from this document at all. It seems to be one of the laws of politics that the worse the mistake or falsification the more likely it is to be repeated. Hallas is no exception. He had previously used exactly the same quote in his article Building the Leadership in I.S. journal No. 40, Unfortunately it is taken, at second hand, from a source other than that which he cites. [1] If all that was at stake was some confusion over the correct source of a quotation, it would not merit such a lengthy explanation. But a proper reading of A Recall to Order (Hallas’ actual source) makes it quite clear that the quotation is not talking about the Communist Parties at all! The reference was in fact to the mass social democratic parties. It must be recalled that at the time in question, i.e. 1952, nearly every tendency on the left thought that a third world war was not only possible but imminent. If one reads the above In this contest one can see that the report was based upon the assumption of a quicker tempo of development than subsequently occurred and that it posed a very real and legitimate possibility of some social democratic leaderships or sections of them being forced in a revolutionary direction by the pressure and activity of the masses. The report in fact says – “In all these countries it is extremely probable, except for some new and at the moment unforeseeable developments, that the radicalisation of the masses and the first stages of the revolution, of the objective revolutionary situation, will manifest themselves within these organisations, The main forces of the revolutionary party of these countries will spring up by differentiation or disintegration of these organisations.” Does Hallas actually think (even in these brave new days of the 12-page Socialist Worker ...) that there can be a complete by-passing of the existing organisations of the working class in the building of a revolutionary party, or that it is not reasonable to suppose that ferment within them and splits and disintegration will be a part of the process? Finally, lest Hallas and his ilk think that only the “Pabloites” thought a third world war was imminent, let me quote from a Socialist Review Youth Supplement of the same period: “The world today is divided by and large into two vast imperialist Power blocs, both striving for world supremacy.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.