|
|
Monday, April. 21, 1958
Rising Against Cuba Dictator Aborts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel Castro, center, and some of his supporters
are shown above in rebel-held territory in the Sierra Maestra
mountains of Cuba. In his early thirties, Castro has won the
majority of Cuban youth for the struggle against Batista's
bloody dictatorship. His program, however, is limited to
democratic reforms. |
|
|
By Lillian Kiezel
The general revolutionary strike against Cuban dictator Batista, which
was called April 9 by Fidel Castro, leader of the rebel forces, proved
abortive. The strike was successful in Santiago de Cuba in Oriente
Province where the rebels have been strongest. But it failed in Havana.
The general strike was supposed to climax the "all-out war" that Castro
declared on April 5 to oust Batista.
In the last several months,
the 26th of July Movement, organized by Castro in 1953, has grown and
developed. Senor Castro has built a small army of about 2,000. He has
gained the support of the student youth movement, which has been on
strike for several months, and of sections of the Cuban middle class.
Why did the call for a revolutionary general strike fail? On April 15,
the New York Times reported that unrealistic planning, poor coordination
and shockingly inadequate communications were mainly responsible.
Undoubtedly these factors are very important but they reflect the Castro
movement's more serious weaknesses.
WORKERS DOUBTFUL
The key to the success of a general strike is with the
working class. Whether or not the Cuban workers would support Castro
remained a big question to the very day of the strike. On April 7, Homer
Higart reported to the N. Y. Times that "A drive through the poorer
districts along the waterfront was uneventful. It is in these districts,
largely Negro, that Senor Castro has needed much missionary work to
convince the laborers that his revolt is not solely a middle-class
affair.
Whether he has the support of these people is by no means certain."
The Cuban workers have
certainly everything to gain by a struggle for democratic rights. But
Castro's opportunism on the question of program has made the workers
suspicious as to whether these rights can be won under his banner.
A couple of years ago
Castro's program called for substantial social reforms. As recorded in
the Nov. 30 Nation, some of the demands were as follows: nationalization
of the electric and telephone trusts, coupled with a return to the
public
the companies now operating these services, as well as of all illegally
excessive income they have garnered through their rates; ownership of
their land to be granted to all tenant farmers who occupy less than 170
acres; laborers and employes to be granted 30% of the profits of all
industrial enterprises, mercantile and mining enterprises, sugar
refineries, etc.
DROPS PROGRAM
Recently, Castro discarded
this social program in an attempt to reassure the U.S. State Department.
For it would be impossible to carry through without infringing upon U.S.
investments in Cuba.
In a Look magazine interview
on Feb. 4, Castro in effect repudiated his former program by declaring,
"Our 26th of July movement has never called for nationalizing of foreign
investments." "Nationalization," he held, "can never be as rewarding as
the right kind of private investment, domestic and foreign, aimed at
diversifying our economy."
In addition, Castro's
rejection of the manifesto of the outlawed Partido Socialista Popular
(Communist Party) on March 13 which proposed a coalition government
might have been taken by many workers to mean that he was not seeking to
broaden the basis of the anti-Batista fight. The Communist Party
represents approximately 20,000 members out of a population of
close to six million.
It is thus easy to understand why the workers who have been sold out in
the past by figures as unprincipled as Castro should hesitate to support
the 26th of July Movement until they find out exactly what it is
fighting for.
U. S. STAKE
On the other hand, American
Big Business and its international representative, the U. S. State
Department, know what they want. They seek to protect the $800 million
that American capitalism has invested in Cuba. Involved are Cuban
Electric Co., an American & Foreign Power subsidiary; Cuban Telephone
Co., a subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph; the Texas
Co.; the Sinclair Oil Corporation at Santiago de Cuba; the tourist
business (hotels, resorts, gambling casinos, etc.) and the sugar trusts
which are the two largest industries in Cuba.
The New York Times and several other Big-Business papers believed this
could be achieved with Castro. They stressed the damage to U. S.
reputation internationally that support for the cruel dictator, Batista,
has earned. But the Wall Street Journal, another spokesman for Big
Business feared that in the course of revolution, Castro might not be
able to honor his promises that no U.S. interests would be harmed.
In fact, the April 4
Journal reports present damage to U.S. investments as a result of rebel
activities. This includes heavy withdrawals from the Chase- Manhattan
Bank and the First National Bank of Boston by nervous depositors who
were afraid that the government might freeze private bank accounts as a
civil-war measure.
In conclusion, the Wall
Street Journal reports: "There is little doubt that many American
businessmen here are pro-Batista. One puts it very succinctly: 'You can
do business with Batista.' Although many admit he may not be the soul of
honesty, they ask: 'What Cuban regime ever has been accused of honesty?'
"
It would be a mistake to think that revolutionary prospects are dead.
The Cuban workers will certainly even the score with the hated Batista,
the puppet of American Big Business.
Every day they confront
economic misery. They have no political rights. They feel the iron heel,
and they will not rest.
|
|
|