Fidel Castro Denounces
Bureaucracy and Sectarianism
March 26, 1962
Scanned, posted and edited by Walter
Lippmann
January 2007 from 1962 Pioneer Publishers edition.
Moderator — Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the television audience. All
the radio and television stations of Cuba have been linked tonight in order to
give the public the opportunity of listening to the First Secretary of the
Integrated Revolutionary Organizations [ORI] and Prime Minister of the
Revolutionary Government, Dr. Fidel Castro, who will be questioned by a panel of
newspapermen composed of the compañeros Raul Valdes Vivo, of the
newspaper Hoy, of Ithiel Leon, of the newspaper Revolucion, and
Ernesto Vera, of the newspaper, La Tarde.
Dr. Castro proposes to deal with certain matters related to the operating
methods of the ORI, the revolutionary organization of which he is First
Secretary.
The first question will be asked by compañero Valdes Vivo.
Raul Valdes Vivo— compañero Fidel Castro, recently our people have
listened with renewed enthusiasm to you and to other compañeros of the
National Directorate of the ORI insist before the masses on the necessity of
improving all the work of the revolution, of combatting errors and defects,
sectarianism and conformity with a great spirit of criticism and of
self-criticism. In regard to this, our people are awaiting your report tonight
relating to the recent accords of the ORI National Directorate for the end of
perfecting its organizational apparatus, purifying and strengthening the active
revolutionary nuclei, and improving the methods and the form of work.
What can you tell us in regard to these matters, compañero Fidel Castro?
Dr. Fidel Castro — Well, I have many
things to say in regard to these matters.
To begin with, I would like to refer
to a saying of Lenin, that the attitude, that is to say, the seriousness of
purpose of a revolutionary party is measured, basically, by the attitude it
takes towards its own errors. And in the same way, our seriousness of purpose as
revolutionists and as members of the government will be measured by the
attitudes we take towards our own errors.
Of course, our enemies are always
alert to know what those errors are. When those errors are made and are not
subjected to self-criticism, our enemies take advantage of them. When those
errors are made and are subjected to self- criticism, they may be used by the
enemy, but in a very different way, because in the former case our errors would
not be corrected and in the ter they would be. That is why we have decided to
take a forthright and serious attitude towards our own errors.
In this regard, the group of
revolutionary compañeros who had been serving as members of the
Directorate of the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations have been conducting a
wide-ranging discussion. We have been making a serious analysis, an honest
analysis, a deep analysis of this whole process, from the First of January
[1959] up to the present. We have been analyzing all that has been done, the
good things that have been done and also the errors that have been made.
Accordingly, we have submitted to a
process of analysis this whole stage of the formation of the Integrated
Revolutionary Organizations. This is not a simple problem. This is not an
unimportant problem because, simply, it has to do with the political power of
the revolution; it has to do with the methods of the revolution; it has to do
with the ideology of the revolution.
The revolution — everyone is aware of
the characteristics of its whole development, of its origin, of the historic
moment in which this victorious revolution takes place; of all the circumstances
characterizing the process, of the forces which participated, of the different
tendencies which struggled to make their point of view prevail within the
revolutionary process. In short, all of this is common knowledge.
It was logical that the revolution in
this crucible — because the revolutionary process is a true crucible of forces,
of energies — should try to organize, to build the revolutionary apparatus. It
was not possible to conceive of a revolution without there arising out of that
revolution — as is logical — a revolutionary apparatus charged with carrying the
revolution forward, with perpetuating the revolution and projecting the
revolution toward the future, that is, with preparing long-range plans for the
revolution.
It was logical that the revolution
should concern itself with the problem of organizing its political apparatus,
its revolutionary apparatus. And there began that whole process which we have
explained here on more than one occasion, through which the different forces
which had participated in the process, which represented mass forces, forces of
ideas, forces of public opinion, began to be integrated; and which, besides,
represented experience, represented a wealth of values which the revolution had
to integrate into that organization.
As a result of that process — at the
same time that the non-revolutionary tendencies, the reactionary tendencies, the
rightist tendencies, the conservative tendencies, the pro-imperialist
tendencies, were being opposed — all the forces and all the revolutionary
tendencies began to come together and to unite. They began to come together more
and more, and to unite more and more.
For a long time this was a process
having a spontaneous nature, that is to say, it was not the result of a
preconceived plan, it was not a planned process. It was a process of a
spontaneous nature, which the very struggle—because of the antagonisms which a
revolutionary struggle, a true revolutionary struggle, originates—began to place
on one side all those who did not respond to an idea, to a way of thinking, to a
true revolutionary attitude, and on the other, all those who did respond to an
attitude, to an idea, to a way of thinking, which was truly revolutionary.
Very well then, everyone knows that
this process, which has lasted for three years, has been filled with events,
with incidents, with struggles. It has not been a normal change; it has not been
a quiet development; it was, rather, like every revolution and, more
particularly, a revolution which is developing under the conditions of the
present Cuban revolution, under conditions sui generis, under difficult
conditions. It was logical then to expect that it would have to face a series of
problems, a series of difficulties. These problems the revolution has been
overcoming.
Well now, has that whole process of
the integration of the revolutionary forces -- have all the steps which have
been taken in these matters, have they all been free of errors? No, they have
not been free of errors. Could these errors have been avoided? It cannot be
determined precisely up to what point these errors could have been avoided. My
personal opinion is that those errors could not have been avoided.
Certain problems, certain vices,
certain attitudes, were, if not impossible -- and I think that they were
impossible — at least very difficult to avoid. Why? Because a revolution is a
very complicated process, because in a revolution a great variety of factors, a
variety of ways of thinking hind a variety of methods, ideas, men who are very
different from each other, an infinite number of circumstances, which little by
little condition the process, intervene; because the process is the outcome of
reality, the process is not the outcome, of an ideal existing in the minds of
men, the process is the outcome of a living reality, of a specific economic,
social and political reality.
And, therefore, a series of
circumstances condition that process. We could not avoid a number of the early
problems of the revolution. They were problems which were determined by a
succession of desertions, by a succession of betrayals, by a variety of
attitudes which began to manifest themselves when the revolution had barely
taken its first forward steps. In addition, from the very start, the revolution
clashed with a variety of ambitions, with the interests of the ruling classes,
with the interests of the dominant economic classes which regarded the
revolution with fear, which saw the revolution as a threat. The revolution
clashed with the ideology of that class. It clashed with the thinking, with the
people of that class, with the attitudes of that class, with the interests of
that class.
The revolution clashed with a variety
of ideas that were established in our country, ideas which had been inculcated
in our country by the forces of reaction, by the forces of imperialism; ideas
which were spread by the enemies of progress. They were a whole series of false
ideas, of conservative ideas, of counter-revolutionary ideas really, and which
had the strength of habit, which had the strength given them by years of
existence. In some cases they had the strength imparted to them by decades of
existence—or even of centuries.
These ideas had the strength of
superstition. They had the strength of a series of conventional lies. They had
the strength of a series of slogans which are given to the people as
unquestionable truths, a series of dogmas of an economic nature, of a political
nature, of a social nature, which had been inculcated for decades by the mass
media, in books, in the universities, in the secondary schools, by the political
parties which were beholden to the ruling classes.
The new ideas of the revolution
clashed with the strength of all those ideas. Wherein lay the strength of the
ideas of the revolution? Was it in the publicity which had been given to these
ideas? Was it in the political parties which could have been organized to spread
these ideas? Were they in the existing newspapers, on the radio and television
stations? No. The strength of these new ideas, that is, of the revolutionary
ideas, dwelt in the economic and social reality of our country. These ideas
represented truths, truths which had to confront reality, truths which had to
confront the lies of the enemies of the exploited classes, truths which simply
had to win acceptance.
Why did the truths of the revolution
win acceptance? They won acceptance simply because these truths, these ideas,
answered the great desires of the masses; they answered the needs of the masses.
And that is why all the lies began to crumble, why all the lies of the
bourgeoisie began to crumble, why the lies of the reactionaries, of the
landlords, of the imperialists, began to crumble. All their conventionalism, all
their lies were slowly defeated by the overwhelming advance of the revolutionary
ideas which represented the interests of the exploited masses.
But that marked a period of struggle, a difficult period of struggle. The masses
were slowly won over to the revolutionary ideas. In that struggle everyone took
a position. Not everyone was won over to these revolutionary ideas. Some took a
certain position toward the revolutionary ideas and others took other positions,
that is, depending on the revolutionary ideas. This is a process which cannot be
cut short. This is a process in which opinions and the different classes of the
nation cannot be sliced neatly because it is a very complicated one. It would be
necessary to analyze the reasons why some reacted in one way and some in
another.
Behind it all were the interests of
the classes. The campesino, the worker, the poor citizen, the poor
family, reacted according to their class interests. The rich, the
latifundistas [great landowners], the owners of big stores, the bankers,
those who had been educated in the ideas of the imperialists, ideas which
moreover responded to their own interests, reacted differently.
And there were some who held opinions
which were not in accord with the interests of their class. There were people of
the poor, humble classes, so confused by lies, by superstitions, that they
reacted against their own class interests. There were people who, although they
could not be considered as belonging to an exploited class, reacted,
nevertheless, favorably towards the revolution. There were untold numbers of
young people who were not yet politically well- grounded, but who possessed an
excellent attitude, great qualities, a great spirit of rebellion, a great sense
of justice, of equality, a great understanding of the new, a great readiness to
accept revolutionary ideas who, however, had not developed sufficiently.
All these facts denoted a great
struggle; they marked a struggle between ideas. Which ideas came out victorious?
The revolutionary ideas were victorious; the ideas of the masses came out
victorious; the new truths of the revolution came out victorious. All lies, all
dogmatism, all falsehoods, all hypocrisy were defeated.
Does this mean that that struggle has
ended? No, that struggle has not ended. The struggle assumes very different
forms, very subtle forms at times. That is to say that in the first great
battles between the new and the old ideas, the new ideas, the revolutionary
ideas, have come out victorious over the old ideas.
Nevertheless, the struggle continues,
and it will continue for a long time on a national scale, and it will continue
on an international scale, and it will continue on a global scale. This same
battle between ideas, this same struggle between ideologies which is going on in
our country between socialism, between Marxism, between imperialism, between
capitalism, between Marxist theory and bourgeois theory, the liberal theory, is
going on outside of Cuba with each side using its arguments.
It is natural that when those who
represent the revolutionary ideology, the Marxist ideology, make errors, that
the enemy takes advantage of them; when those who represent the revolutionary
truths make mistakes, when they make errors, when they have faults, the enemy
takes advantage of them.
For example, if we, who are the defenders of socialism, the defenders of
Marxism, as a result of the imperialist blockade, as a result of our harassment
by world reaction, but in addition, as a consequence of our own errors, find
ourselves facing certain shortages in food supplies, if we find, for example,
that we have not had sufficient ability to produce certain articles which we had
the means of producing, the enemy takes advantage of this by saying: "That is
socialism, socialism is a failure, but not capitalism, under capitalism there
was no rationing, this didn't happen under capitalism."
Of course, then it would be necessary to make a deeper analysis in in order to
explain that under capitalism some ate and some didn't; that under capitalism
some worked and some didn't; and how in spite of aggressions — let us not take
into consideration all the contributing factors related to the enemy's maneuvers
against the revolution to starve it to death—in spite of these contributing
factors, how socialism has meant more work for hundreds of thousands more of our
people, how it has meant higher levels of income. And that if today there are
people who complain that they now receive less than before, what could have been
the situation of those who formerly received nothing?
The very ones who now complain that
they receive such and such an amount are admitting that if they find it a bit
difficult to satisfy their wants with those amounts — what then was the
situation of thousands upon thousands who did not receive even that, who
received absolutely nothing? What was the situation of the sugar-cane worker who
was unemployed eight months of the year, who wore no shoes, who barely had
clothes to wear, who ate inadequately, who was uneducated, who had no schools,
who had no medicines, who had none of these things?
We are able, of course, to answer the
arguments of our enemies and to prove our point. For without a doubt we are
aided by truth and we are aided by reason itself; we are assisted by scientific
concepts which are completely impervious to lies, to the campaigns conducted by
our enemies. But it is an undeniable fact that the enemy takes advantage of our
errors to try to sow confusion.
Naturally, we have made errors in the
process of this struggle. Whence come these errors? From the very political,
economic and social conditions which the struggle produces are also produced
these errors.
Then the following occurred here: in
the struggle against reactionary ideas, in the struggle against imperialism,
against the deserters, against conservative tendencies, which was a struggle to
the death, because the life of the revolution depended upon either the triumph
of the ideas of imperialism or of the socialist ideas, of the Marxist ideas; in
that struggle to the death, when all our efforts, all our energy, all our
attention had to be dedicated to the struggle on that front, other types of
errors were being committed—errors which the revolution would have to rectify in
their turn, errors which the revolution would also have to combat at the proper
time.
Well then, very definite symptoms are
displayed by errors, as they are by anything self-destructive, as they are by
anything harmful, as they are by any disease. Some are able to see that certain
errors are being made. Nevertheless, one cannot begin to fight against errors
until they have become manifest, until these errors begin to engender a body of
opinion, that is to say, when men become conscious of them, when the very masses
—not only the leaders, but the very masses — become conscious of these errors.
We are going to speak of errors here,
of errors that were committed. Nevertheless, they were errors which in truth one
could not begin to combat until they became evident to everyone, until all
became aware of those errors and of the negative consequences of those errors.
One of the fundamental problems
produced in the struggle against reactionary ideas, against conservative ideas,
against the deserters, against those who wavered, against those with negative
attitudes, was sectarianism.It may be said that it was the fundamental error
produced by that struggle of an ideological nature which was being waged.
That type of error was produced by the
conditions in which the revolutionary process developed, and by the serious and
fundamental struggle which revolutionary ideas had to wage against conservative
elements and against reactionary ideas.
What tendency was manifesting itself?
An opposite tendency began to manifest itself. The tendency to mistrust
everybody, the tendency to mistrust everyone who could not claim a long record
of revolutionary militancy, who had not been an old Marxist militant. It is
logical and, after all, it is correct to say that in certain phases of this
process, in certain phases of this struggle, when a serious struggle of ideas
was underway, when there was confusion, when there were many who wavered, if a
compañero was to be named to a post of high trust, if it was a post in
which an especially important job was to be done, a post requiring persons who
were firm in their ideas, that is to say, persons unaffected by doubt, who did
not waver, it was a correct method in order to carry out many jobs to select a
compañiero about whom, because of his record of militancy, there existed
not the least doubt regarding the steadfastness of his ideas, a compañero
who entertained no doubts as to the course of the revolution.
When it was reported: "Such and such a
charge d'affaires deserted, such and such a consul deserted, such and such an
attache deserted," it was inconceivable .that the Republic could permit itself
the luxury of naming people to posts who, because they were not politically firm
and well-grounded, created scandals, embarrassed the revolution, and made it
possible to believe that we had no reliable persons who could be named to these
posts.
Well, that is correct. It cannot be
denied that that is correct. It is true that given conditions produce given
needs. But the revolution continued its forward march. The revolution became a
powerful ideological movement. Revolutionary ideas slowly won the masses over.
The Cuban people, in great numbers, began to accept revolutionary ideas, to
uphold revolutionary ideas. That ardor, that rebelliousness, that sense of
indignant protest against tyranny, against abuse, against injustice, was slowly
converted into the firm revolutionary consciousness of our people.
Revolutionary ideas did not become the
consciousness of a minority, of a group. They became the consciousness of the
great masses of our people. Whoever doubts it, let him recall the Declaration of
Havana, the Second Declaration of Havana, the presence there of a million
Cubans; the enthusiasm with which those one million Cubans supported the
revolutionary ideas, radical ideas, truly advanced ideas, contained in that
Second Declaration of Havana; the enthusiasm with which they supported them, the
evidence of political judgment they displayed as they hailed the value of each
sentence.
What did this show? That the masses
had become revolutionary; that the masses had embraced Marxist ideology; that
the masses had embraced Marxism- Leninism. That was an unquestionable fact. The
camps had been defined; the enemies had declared themselves as such; the
laboring masses, the campesino, the student masses, the masses of the
poor, the underprivileged masses of our nation, significant portions of the
middle class, sections of the petty bourgeoisie, intellectual workers, made
Marxist-Leninist ideas their own, made their own the struggle against
imperialism, made their own the struggle for the Socialist Revolution.
That was not the product of a whim;
that was not something which was imposed upon the masses. The very revolutionary
laws, the very accomplishments of the revolution, began to win the masses over
to the revolution. They began to convert the masses into revolutionary masses. A
whole series of accomplishments which began with a series of laws which
benefited the people; all the laws benefited: the reduction in telephone rates,
the cancellation of the corrupt contracts which the companies had obtained under
the protection of the tyranny; the urban reform laws, the rent laws, beginning
with the laws reducing rent and then the reduction of the price of building
plots, then the urban reform law; then there were the agrarian reform laws, then
the laws nationalizing foreign businesses and later the laws nationalizing large
businesses. These became milestones marking the course of the revolution,
marking the advance of the revolution, of the people.
The people developed rapidly — the
people became more revolutionary by the day. When the danger of invasion began
to threaten our country, when it was thought even possible that an attack would
be made by the powerful forces of imperialism; when we became aware of that
danger — because we will have to consider the possibility of such an attack for
a long time to come — the people were mobilized, they became members of the
militia. Thousands upon thousands of young men became anti-aircraft
artillerymen, thousands upon thousands of workers, of poor people, became
anti-tank gunners and artillerymen of various types, hundreds and thousands of
men and women enrolled in the battalions, they enrolled in the combat units and
they prepared to fight, if necessary, one of the greatest battles, one of the
most heroic which any people could engage in.
This means that our people were
prepared to take all the risks, to suffer all the consequences of their
revolutionary stand, to oppose imperialism resolutely, without wavering. They
were all willing to die, if necessary, in defense of the revolution and in
defense of the homeland. Who will deny the enthusiasm with which the masses
carried out many tasks, such as volunteering for work? They responded to every
call that was made to them, to every mass meeting, to every patriotic gathering,
to every revolutionary gathering.
So that when the cowardly attack of
April 17 or of April 15 came, when airplanes, which came from foreign bases,
attacked various places in our country; when we went to bury those companeros
who had died that day, as we had gone before to bury other companeros,
as we had done a few months before to bury the victims of the steamer La
Coubre, other victims of reaction, of imperialism, of the reactionaries, of
the exploiters; on the eve of the battle with the imperialists — for it was not
done after the battle — the socialist character of the revolution was announced;
we proclaimed what was already a fact.
And who can deny it? The overwhelming
enthusiasm with which the masses of workers, assembled there and formed into
militia battalions, raised their rifles and resolved to fight, resolved to give
combat? Who can deny the heroism with which the soldiers, members of the
militia, men and women, fought? Who can deny the heroism with which the people
fought the mercenaries of Playa Giron? Who can deny the selflessness, the
disregard for their lives, which the men showed when they threw themselves
against tanks, against enemy machine guns, as they advanced steadily across open
terrain, in the face of danger from enemy bombers, advancing steadily in the
face of the enemy's air attacks, despite casualties and deaths caused in their
ranks by the enemy's aircraft and the enemy's shells? Who can deny
this? A look at the number on the
casualty list will suffice to make us understand the enthusiasm and selflessness
with which the masses threw themselves into the fight. There they were, filled
with enthusiasm, fighting consciously for the socialist revolution.
What does this mean? This means that a great qualitative change had taken place
in the masses: they had become revolutionary masses. That is a positive fact, an
undeniable fact. Whoever doesn't see it that way is near -sighted. Whoever
doesn't see it that way is blind. Whoever doesn't see it that way is simply an
idiot.
If then that was a truth which was
self-evident, could we then apply methods which were applicable to other
conditions? Could we convert that system, which the needs of the struggle in a
specific phase of that struggle required, that is, those methods which the needs
of the struggle demanded, could we convert that into a system? Could we turn
that policy into a system? Could we turn those methods for the selection of
companeros for various administrative posts into a system? We could not turn
those methods into a system!
It is unquestionable, and dialectics
teaches us, that what in a given moment is a correct method, later on may be an
incorrect one. That is what dialectics teaches us. Anything else is dogmatism,
mechanism. It is a desire to apply measures which were determined by our special
needs at a given moment to another situation in which the needs are different,
in which other circumstances prevail. And we turned certain methods into a
system and we fell into a frightful sectarianism.
What sectarianism? Well, the
sectarianism of believing that the only revolutionists, that the only
companeros who could hold positions of trust, that the only ones who could
hold a post on a people's farm, on a cooperative, in the government, anywhere,
had to be old Marxist militants. We fell into that error partly unconsciously or
at least it seemed that all those problems brought about by sectarianism were
problems which were the product of unconscious forces, that they came about with
a fatal inevitability, that it was a virus, that it was an evil which had become
lodged in the minds of many people, and that it was difficult to combat. It was
truly difficult to combat until that virus manifested itself as a disease.
There are those who suffer from the
grippe, but it has been incubating inside of them for ten days and they become
aware of it only when they are unable to speak. There are those who incubate a
tetanus infection — I don't know if for 15 or 20 days, the doctors should know
how long it takes —they carry it inside of them but they never receive a single
injection until the moment the infection manifests itself, until the moment they
are already suffering from the disease.
We often asked ourselves: What could
be the reason? Where lies the reason for that implacable, untiring, systematic,
sectarian spirit which is found everywhere, which is found on all levels, which
is found wherever one goes? What are the causes, the roots of this sectarian
spirit? For it was difficult to believe that that spirit sprang inevitably
solely from a series of circumstances.
At times one could think: Well, this
is the policy of a group; this is the policy of a party; there seem to be many
who are responsible for this. Of course, we have all been responsible, in some
degree or other. But when we begin to analyze this problem, when the old and new
compañeros — we have to call them something in order to distinguish
between them; let us call them old and new; let us use these names for them
during this broadcast and later we shall be able to find a name for all — but we
were going to analyze all of this.
When that virus had already lodged in
the minds of many, when that virus had already given rise to a veritable disease
— because, naturally, sectarianism in and of itself is bad. It is bad for a list
of reasons which we are going to enumerate later on. But above all it is bad
because it creates conditions which make possible still greater evils. A disease
may be bad, but it is worse if it occurs in conjunction with another disease.
And so, when certain types of bodily ills are combined with others, they can
cause the death of the organism. In the same way, certain political ills, when
they occur together with other ills, may have very grave consequences for a
revolution.
The revolution and the revolution
alone was suffering from our errors and that is simply what was happening: a
series of absurdities, of stupidities, of mistakes, were becoming apparent. This
revolution was being sidetracked from its main trunk line and it was traveling
along a spur line. It is as if the train from Havana to Oriente — because of a
wrongly-set switch in Santa Clara or in Matanzas — goes off onto a side track
and ends up in the Zapata Swamp. Traveling the line we were on, we were headed
for the Zapata Swamp, because we had taken a completely wrong spur line.
We bean to analyze. It became
necessary to put these matters before the compañeros who were
taking part, of the number of compañeros who were participating in
the National Directorate, which was composed of a smaller number. We began the
unrestricted analysis of these problems, of a series of manifestations, of a
series of errors, of a series of irregularities which had been taking place. We
wanted to make a deep analysis, a serious analysis; we wanted to discuss, to
engage in self-criticism, in other words, we wanted to analyze and to engage in
self-criticism.
The spirit with which all the compañeros
of the Directorate — both the old and the new revolutionists — participated
in the analysis of all these problems was truly useful. This is not a problem
concerning only the new revolutionists, nor is it one concerning only the old.
This whole discussion was undertaken with zeal by all. A thorough analysis of
these problems, of this process from its beginnings on the First of January 1959
was undertaken. A study of an even earlier period was undertaken in order to
find the root causes of certain problems. Consequently, we reached our
conclusions unanimously, compañeros, unanimously, compañeros! For
these viewpoints have been discussed and approved unanimously by the old and the
new revolutionists.
What was being created here? What was
going on here? Where was that extreme sectarian spirit leading? Where were
certain irregularities, certain distortions, leading us? We were engaged in the
task, among others, of organizing the political apparatus of the revolution: the
Integrated Revolutionary Organizations, in other words, the ORI, the embryo, the
structure of what is to become the United Party of the Socialist Revolution. We
aired viewpoints, ideas, plans, and they met with the warmest enthusiasm, for
there was no gathering, no mass meeting, where the plans for formation of the
United Party of the Socialist Revolution were explained where they did not
receive an ovation and the enthusiastic approval of the masses.
All right, then. We were all engaged
in the task of organizing that party. Everyone here has been fulfilling an
infinite number of obligations in one field or another. Everyone has been doing
his utmost to prepare our resistance to the imperialist enemy, by fighting that
enemy, by fighting on the cultural front, on every front. In short, we have been
engaged in great
battles which have been consuming the
enthusiasm — not consuming the enthusiasm, let us employ another term, because
enthusiasm has not been "consumed" nor will it ever be "consumed." The
enthusiastic attention of — our compañeros in leading posts, of our
militant compañeros, has been given to these tasks.
Others worked at tasks related to the
formation of the party. And the party was taking shape, rather the ORI was
taking shape, the ORI was being integrated. But, were we really forming a true
Marxist party? Were we really constructing a true vanguard of the working class?
Were we really integrating the revolutionary forces? We were not integrating the
revolutionary forces. We were not organizing a party. We were organizing or
creating or making a straitjacket, a yoke, compañeros. We were not
furthering a free association of revolutionists, rather we were forming an army
of tamed and submissive revolutionists.
Why? For a number of reasons.
Sometimes a series of coincidences occur which make it possible for some
compañeros to pervert the function of an organization, or to inflate its
functions, to waste its best opportunities, to destroy them, to make use of them
in the worst possible way. And that simply was what was happening.
Why do such things happen? I am going
to give my opinion — I believe that I am expressing the opinion of many
compañeros — because those of us who are fully identified with the
revolution, those of us who consider the revolution a matter of life and death,
basic to each of our lives, who have made the revolution a part of our life's
blood, of our very being; those of us who love the revolution above all personal
aspirations, all vanity, all personal ambition; those of us who love the
revolution with the love which any man, any human being, feels for what he
makes, for what he creates — the artist for hi's work of art, for his painting,
for his statue; the father or mother for the child. Those of us who feel the
revolution in that way, cannot imagine that others can see it in any other way.
We cannot believe that this revolution which is so sacred to us, which has cost
so much blood, which has cost so many lives, which has cost so much sacrifice
and so much of our people's energy, could be used by anyone as a pretext or as a
means to satisfy his vanity, to satisfy his ambitions, to satisfy aims which are
not purely and strictly of a revolutionary nature.
Why mistrust any compañero? Why
even imagine that any compañero could be capable of utilizing conditions
which may permit him to achieve personal plans and aims, to convert this
beautiful creation of the revolution, this beautiful creation of a whole people,
this historic and heroic creation of the Cuban people, into a yoke, into a
straitjacket, into a counter-revolutionary nightmare, into a brake on the
revolution? How could we conceive such a thing?
That is how it was for many of us, for
the majority, for practically all the compañeros of the revolution during
this process of integration, or rather disintegration, of the Revolutionary
Organizations.
Very well. When we became aware of
what had happened, everything was a holy mess. Forgive my irreverence. I do not
mean the men who were part of the ORI. Under no circumstances am I including the
people who formed part of this organization. Men are very often the victims of
the errors of others. Is it because the great majority of the people, who formed
part of this organization, were no good? No, the great majority of the people
who were in it were excellent revolutionists, loyal revolutionists, loyal to
socialism, loyal to Marxism, loyal to the revolution. The problem did not
arise from that. The problem lay in
the methods and in the goals, and in the goals which were serving as guides in
the building of the apparatus.
The compañero who was
authorized — it is not known whether he was invested with the authority or
whether he assumed it of his own accord, or whether it was because he had slowly
begun to assume leadership on that front, and as a result found himself in
charge of the task of organizing, or of working as the Secretary in Charge of
Organization of the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations. The one who enjoyed
everyone's confidence, who acted with the prestige given him by the revolution,
who, while speaking with the authority of the revolution because he spoke in its
name and and in the name of the other compañeros of the revolution, the
one who despite this fell, who regrettably, most regrettably, fell into the
errors we have been enumerating, was the compañero Anibal Escalante.
This is not an easy task for anyone.
It is not an easy matter for us to discuss and to explain all of these problems.
Does it pain us? Of course it does. We cannot look upon Anibal Escalante as we
have upon other men who once were part of the revolution and then betrayed it.
Anibal Escalante was a communist for
many years. In our opinion he was a true communist, an honest communist. Has
Anibal Escalante become an anti-communist? A capitalist? No. A pro-imperialist?
He has not become a pro- imperialist. Has he betrayed the revolution by going
over to the enemy's camp? No, he has not betrayed the revolution by going over
to the enemy's camp.
Anibal Escalante has for a long time
been our compañero in carrying out tasks related to the direction of the
revolution. More difficult still has it been for those who, being communists,
worked closely with him not for one, not for two, not for three but for ten,
twenty years; during years that were difficult ones for the communists, when the
harassment was great, when they were heavily attacked, when the calumnies were
many, when the campaigns, the efforts to isolate them, to surround them, to
destroy them were great. Anyone can understand what I mean by seeing how
communists are treated in the United States today. How their leaders are
treated. The communist worker loses his job; he is persecuted; they try to
starve him to death. Or they do to him what they did to Henry Winston who was
locked up, mistreated, until, in a display of hypocritical kindness, he was
released from jail — a blind man,' physically destroyed. You all know how in the
capitalist countries communists are treated with hate, with cruelty.
Anibal Escalante passed through that
whole period and saw his fondest dreams, what he had only seen as a hope, as an
ideal of his worthy ideas, as an opportunity to transform our country from a
semi-colonial country, oppressed by imperialism and capitalism, into a socialist
country. He saw all this come true. Nevertheless, Anibal Escalante erred. Anibal
Escalante, the communist, made grave mistakes. But this should not surprise us
for the communists are human and they make errors! Is this perhaps the first
time? No, the communists have erred many times. The history of the movement, of
the very international communist movement, from the time that it sprang forth in
the ideas and in the books, in the efforts and in the work of Marx and Engels,
until the time that under Lenin it succeeded in establishing the first workers'
government, it made great mistakes.
Many deserted Marxism; many attempted
to revise Marxism; many made incorrect applications of Marxism. Leninism is
necessarily forged in the struggle against the revisionists, against the
pseudo-Marxists or mistaken Marxists.
Being a man like any other and, like any other human being, prone to error,
compañero Anibal Escalante made great mistakes.
We reached the conclusion, we were all
convinced, that compañero Anibal Escalante, abusing the faith placed in
him, in his post as Secretary in Charge of Organization, followed a non-Marxist
policy, followed a policy which departed from Leninist norms regarding the
organization of a workers' vanguard party, and that he tried to organize an
apparatus to pursue personal ends.
We believe that compañero
Anibal Escalante has had a lot to do with the conversion of sectarianism into a
system, with the conversion of sectarianism into a virus, into a veritable
sickness during this process.
Compañero
Anibal Escalante is the one responsible for having promoted the
sectarian spirit to its highest possible level, of having promoted that
sectarian spirit for personal reasons, with the purpose of establishing an
organization which he controlled. He is the one responsible for introducing, in
addition, a series of methods within that organization which were leading to the
creation, not of a party — as we were saying — but rather of a tyranny, a
straitjacket.
We believe that Anibal Escalante's
actions in these matters were not the product of oversight nor were they
unconscious, but rather that they were deliberate and conscious. He simply
allowed himself to be blinded by personal ambition. And as a result of this, he
created a series of problems, in a word, he created veritable chaos in the
nation.
Why? It's very simple. The idea of
organizing the United Party of the Socialist Revolution, the idea of organizing
a vanguard, a vanguard party, a workers' party, meets with the greatest
acceptance among the masses. Marxism has the full support of the masses,
Marxism-Leninism is the the ideology of the Cuban people.
The establishment of the
Marxist-Leninist party as the workers' vanguard party, has the full support of
the people. The people approve the principle that that party should have the
direction of the revolution in its hands. The people accept this basic principle
of Marxism-Leninism. In such a situation, when all the people accept this
principle, it was very easy to convert that apparatus, already accepted by the
people, into an instrument for the pursuit of one's personal ambitions. The
prestige of the ORI was immense. Any order, any directive coming from the ORI
was obeyed by all. But the ORI was not the ORI.
Compañero
Anibal Escalante had schemed to make himself the ORI. How? By the
use of a very simple contrivance. Working from his post as Secretary in Charge
of Organization he would give instructions to all revolutionary cells and to the
whole apparatus as if these instructions had come from the National Directorate.
And he began to encourage them in the habit of receiving instructions from
there, from the offices of the Secretary in Charge of Organization of the ORI,
instructions which were obeyed by all as if they had come from the National
Directorate. But at the same time he took advantage of the opportunity to
establish a system of controls which would be completely under his command.
This policy was accompanied by that
sectarianism which had been encouraged to the limit, a sectarianism which tended
to create conditions favorable to the achievement of those aims. And being in a
position to carry it out, since he also had the task of individually organizing
all the revolutionary cells, a policy of license was encouraged rather than one
of discipline, restraint, strict adherence to standards on the part of the
organization's militants. Rather than this, a policy of permissiveness was
encouraged. Since a correct policy, adjusted to those functions proper to a
workers' vanguard party, did not fit with these plans, a policy of privilege was
promoted. He was creating conditions and giving instructions which tended to
convert that apparatus, not into an apparatus of the workers' vanguard, but
rather into a nest of privilege, into one which tolerated favoritism, into a
system of immunities and favors. Slowly he began to pervert completely the role
of the apparatus.
In other words, the predominance and
preponderance of the nucleus had to be created. There had to be a confusion of
ideas. The idea is that the Marxist party gives guidance, that the workers'
vanguard Marxist party directs the state, a direction which it can exercise only
through the use of certain channels, and after receiving guidance emanating from
the National Directorate. He attempted to establish a directorate on all levels.
That is, something more than a directorate on all levels: a participation of the
political apparatus in administrative matters, on all levels whence, with a
frightful, deplorable and shameful confusion, the criterion was established that
the nucleus gave all orders, that the nucleus could name and remove
administrative personnel, that the nucleus governed.
And, as a result, a veritable chaos, a
veritable anarchy was being introduced into the nation.
That, of course, is far removed from the
idea of a workers' vanguard party, of a Marxist-Leninist party.
On the other hand, on the level of the
Secretary in Charge of Organization, it already was impossible for a minister to
change an official or to change an administrator without having to call the
office of the ORI, because of habits which this companero — by deceiving
government officials, by making them think that he was acting under instructions
from the National Directorate — tried to establish and succeeded in establishing
to a large degree.
The nuclei decided and governed on all
levels. When a ministry faced a problem, instead of solving it themselves, they
would refer it to the ORI. This was so much so that if a cat gave birth to a
litter of four kittens it was necessary to refer the matter to the ORI so they
might decide upon it.
In other words, there no longer was a
subject, a question, a detail, which did not first have to be discussed in the
offices of the ORI. And many ministers would go there to discuss their problems;
and under- secretaries no longer discussed the ministry's problems with the
minister, instead they went to the offices of the ORI; and a security officer
would no longer go to the offices of the security force, he went instead to the
ORI.
Because of this there developed from
top to bottom — don't imagine that this happened in a matter of weeks, it took
months to develop — a truly abnormal, truly absurd, intolerable, chaotic,
anarchic process; people were possessed of a mania for giving orders, of an
eagerness to decide all problems.
And what was the nucleus? Was it a
nucleus of revolutionists? The nucleus was a mere shell of revolutionists, well
versed in dispensing favors, which appointed and removed officials and, as a
result of this, it was not going to enjoy the prestige which a revolutionary
nucleus should enjoy, a prestige born solely from the authority which it has in
the eyes of the masses, an authority imparted to it by the example which its
members set as workers, as model revolutionists. Instead of coming from these
sources, the authority of the nucleus came from the fact that from it one might
receive or expect a favor, some dispensation, or some harm or good. And as was
to be expected, around the nucleus conditions were being created for the
formation of a coterie of fawners, which has nothing to do with Marxism or with
socialism.
And chaos reigned under those
conditions. These are not the functions of the revolutionary nucleus. This is a
perversion of the principles of Marxism-Leninism. This is a frightful confusion
of socialist ideas. To begin with, this serves to create chaos, disaster, a
monstrosity. A workers' Marxist-Leninist party directs the state, but it
exercises this direction through proper channels; it exercises direction of the
state through the National Directorate of that party, which has jurisdiction
over the political apparatus and the public administration.
What is the function of the party? To
orient. It orients on all levels, it does not govern on all levels. It fosters
the revolutionary consciousness of the masses. It is the link with the masses.
It educates the masses in the ideas of socialism and communism. It encourages
the masses to work, to strong endeavor, to defend the revolution. It spreads the
ideas of the revolution. It supervises, controls, guards, informs. It discusses
what has to be discussed. But it does not have authority to appoint and to
remove officials.
It is to be expected that if the
nucleus is a revolutionary one it will have within it the best laborers, the
best workers. It is logical, then, that when an administrator wants to choose a
foreman or someone for any type of responsible position, it is logical that when
he chooses one, he will find him within the nucleus because the nucleus will
have gathered the most competent, the best. But the choosing will be done by the
administrator, not by the nucleus. The nucleus does not have to choose
officials.
This is something which we learned to
expect from the PAU, from the PUR, from the old Liberal Party, from the
Conservative Party, from any old corrupt political party. But this is something
which we do not expect from a workers' vanguard party. This is, simply, a
re-infection of old political vices which our nation has lived through. This is
not the responsibility of the nucleus.
The best revolutionists, the best
workers, should be in the nucleus. The party should not weaken itself in order
to buttress the state apparatus. The state apparatus must develop its own
officials from the ranks. It does not have to have recourse to the nuclei in the
peoples' farms, in the cooperatives. It does not have to bring in the official
from the outside; he should simply be promoted from among its workers.
In any group of 500 workers, anyone
may be sure of finding at least five generals, ten musicians, 20 artists. The
fact is that in any mass of workers one will find an infinite variety of
intelligence, of talents, of merit.
Where is the person who considers
himself a Marxist who can deny that among the masses one will find represented
all forms of human values, all human resources, all intellectual capacities? And
who will believe that the possessors of these intellectual capacities, of these
merits, must be promoted by the nucleus? The nuclei must work with all the
masses. They must educate all the masses, but when a personnel manager is to be
appointed, when an important post is to be filled, there is no need to go to the
nucleus for it to pick him. He must be picked from among the masses; he must be
promoted!
That is the task of the manager; that
is the task of the state administration. The personnel for the functioning of
the state must be chosen from the masses themselves, and all work centers should
choose their personnel from the masses of workers; they should base the
promotions of their managers on the qualities they display as workers, according
to their abilities. If not, it would become a problem of political chicanery, it
would become a prize which someone could award. The nuclei would begin to be
infested with flatterers and fawners, with position-seekers. That is not the
function of the nucleus! The nucleus has other tasks. Its tasks are different
from those of state administration. The party directs; it directs through the
party as a whole, and it directs through the governmental apparatus.
Today an official must have authority.
A minister must have authority, an administrator must have authority. He must be
able to discuss whatever is necessary with the Technical Advisory Council. He
must be able to discuss with the masses of workers; with the nucleus. But the
administrator must decide; the responsibility must be his.
The party, through its National
Directorate, endows the administrative personnel with authority. But in order to
demand an accounting from them, it must endow them with true authority. If it is
the nucleus which decides, if it decides at the provincial level, or at the
level of the work center, or at the local level, how then can we make the
minister responsible for these decisions? He cannot be made responsible because
he has no power.
The minister has the power to appoint,
to remove, to appoint within the norms established by the rules and the laws of
the nation. But at the same time he is charged with responsibility; he is
responsible to the political administration of the revolution for his actions,
for his work. In a word, he must give an accounting of his stewardship. Now, to
give an accounting he must have powers.
In Cuba, as a result of this chaos, of
this irregularity, of this monstrosity, no minister, no official, no
administrator had power. He had to, go to the nucleus to discuss it.
And we are going to give an example of this which compañero Carlos Rafael
Rodriguez gave me today.
He found it necessary to remove — a
matter which we discussed, but which did not need to be discussed — to remove
the person in charge of a a corporation, the Meat Corporation, because he
considered him incompetent, for he was a person who really had the ability to
manage only a small business, and did not have the ability required to handle
the responsibilities of a gigantic undertaking like the Meat Corporation. What
happened? He called him in; he informed him that he would be sent to another job
which was more in consonance with his abilities. And what did the compañero
do? He went to the nucleus in the INRA to charge that a grave injustice had
been done him, and to demand that the matter be discussed with Carlos Rafael.
What a fix we'd be in! I mean that our
goose would be cooked if we followed such procedures! What a sorry mix-up! To do
this is to mistake the nucleus for a clique of gossipers. To do this is to
mistake the nucleus for a privileged gang, for dispensers of patronage. And that
habit of thinking had been introduced into the Integrated Revolutionary
Organizations.
No minister could decide anything,
because if the matter was not discussed with the nucleus, the offices of the ORI
would have to be called. Can we imagine such a monstrosity? Can we imagine such
an absurdity? Compañeros, can we imagine such a mess?
Things must be called by their right
names. This does not mean that we are speaking with hate, nor harshly about
anyone. We should analyze, censure, criticize seriously all these things.
It is logical to expect that the enemy
will take advantage of these errors to sow confusion, to go about saying that
the communists have taken over; that Fidel had been replaced by Blas or by
Anibal, or by someone else, and Raul by another, and so on about everyone else.
Compañeros,
our enemies take advantage of our own errors, our enemies take
advantage of our own stupidities. Do you want to know the reason for all those
rumors? It was that obsession with command, that mania for giving orders, that
mania for governing which took possession of a certain companero together
with a sectarianism promoted to unheard of extremes.
Was this power real? No, it was not a
real power; it was a power in form only; it was a fictitious power. There was no
real power in the hands of that compañero. Fortunately, there was no real
power! The real power did not rest there. The real power of the revolution
cannot simply be usurped in that fashion. It cannot be circumvented in that
way, compañeros. That is a ridiculous and idiotic attempt at circumvention!
But behind that there plainly was an
obvious intent. Of course, that type of evil cannot be developed in our country
because our country is not prone to being meek nor to being tamed. Nor are
revolutionists so inclined—the large number of revolutionary compañeros. But
through the use of deception, the attempt was made to create conditions suitable
for permitting the imposition of a tyranny, of a straitjacket, of an apparatus
for the serving of personal ends which, later on, would wipe out the old and new
values of the revolution.
Is this perhaps a problem of command, compañeros? A problem of of who
commands and who does not? No, compañeros. If this were a problem of
command, of who commands and who does not, we would not be gathered here—the
compañeros of the National Directorate, the ministers — we would not be
speaking here.
Really, for us, those types of
problems having to do with command and government are so trivial that we believe
they are not worth an hour of bitterness to a single man, to a family, to a
compañero. The vanity to command and to govern — if men, all men, looked at
things a little philosophically, at the realities of the world, of the universe,
of history — these things would not happen.
If this were simply a problem of who
commands, compañeros —or of who governs, or of who leads, if that is what
was being discussed here, and not a basic problem of revolutionary principles,
not matters which concerned the essence and the very life of the revolution, we
would not be here; we would not be speaking here; we would be doing something
else. Because, in truth, for us those things — government in and of itself,
power in and of itself — such things do not interest us.
Besides, we did not run for government
office, nor did we win power in a raffle, nor anything like it. It resulted from
a series of historical circumstances, from a series of deeds. It resulted from a
revolutionary process — some happened to play a certain role and others played
another. Perhaps one of the most difficult roles fell to our lot, because these
matters, these obligations carry with them difficult moments, moments like the
present one, like many others that we have had!
If the matters here under discussion
were matters concerning power and who governs, it would be well for any one of
us to exercise his right to retire, to renounce all posts and everything else.
If matters which are basic for our
nation were not under discussion, matters which are basic for our revolution,
for the welfare of our nation; if to avoid such matters would not mean that the
revolution was headed toward an abyss, toward a bottomless pit, toward its own
destruction, compañeros, these matters would not have to be laid open
here, these matters would not have to be discussed, people would not have to be
made aware of these matters.
It is not important who governs — what
man governs or what his name might be. Who leads is not important — what man
leads or what his name might be. The important thing is that he govern well; the
important thing is that he lead the revolution where the revolution should go.
It was important to discuss this
problem because it was vital to the revolution, basic for the revolution, simply
because it was imperative to correct those errors, that incorrect and absurd
policy, forced here into the midst of a revolutionary process filled with glory
and greatness. The conditions which made possible such a state of affairs had to
be rooted out and the conditions which permitted the organization and the
functioning of a true workers' vanguard party had to be created.
It is natural that this should create
a frightful sectarianism. This explains why that sectarianism was encouraged.
This explains why that implacable, insatiable, incessant sectarianism, which was
in evidence everywhere, appeared in every nook and cranny of the country, from
one end of the country to the other, from the Punta de Maisi to Cabo de San
Antonio he east and west extremities of Cuba". A series of attitudes, a series
of deeds, was everywhere evident. Because that did not promote a true
integration, compañeros. That introduced extraneous matter into the
integration process and compelled the forces which had to integrate, which had
to fuse to function as forces which had not integrated, which had not fused, and
so, many months after the forces had been officially integrated one found
someone who would come out and say: "No, not this one because he's not a member
of the party." To what "party" was he referring if there already was a new
organization here? "No, not this one because he's a member of the party" and
again "He's from the party, from the party." And a veritable chaos began to be
created.
This, naturally, was added to a whole
series of contradictions. It was added on to a whole series of problems, to a
long list of subjects, arguments, wrongs.
vie have referred to this on some
other occasion and we severely criticized any type of sectarianism, the
sectarianism of those who had fought in the mountains and the sectarianism of
those who had been militants for 20 years.
On December 2 or 3, on the day we
spoke of Marxism-Leninism, we explained here how we had to fight against all
types of sectarianism, against the one who had been a militant for 20 years and
against the one who said, "I fought in the mountains." And we have been
unyielding in our criticism of all those who espoused the sectarianism of those
who had been in the mountains. We criticized them severely and we were firm. We
did not tolerate those manifestations of sectarianism. We criticized them very
severely. And we always called on the people to unite, and we always told the
people that all those who did not have the opportunity to fight before should
not be discouraged, that ahead of them there were many opportunities, that all
of history before them waited to be written, that the revolution had barely
begun and a long road lay ahead of us.
And we censured the folly of
individuals who flaunted in others' faces that sectarianism born of the fact
that they had fought in the mountains; that he had been in the mountains; that
he had been here and had been there. This is all well and good, but another type
of sectarianism arose: the sectarianism of the 15 and 20—year militant, which
was not opposed at the proper time, which was not opposed correctly,
compañeros; forgetting the fact that the number of communists in our country
was very small, because the enemy, as we have explained on more than one
occasion, did not let up on his slanderous campaigns against Marxism, against
socialism. It created very difficult conditions; it surrounded and isolated the
Marxist-Leninist party in our country.
When a whole people becomes
revolutionary, when a whole people, that is to say, when the immense majority of
our people, embraces Marxism-Leninism, how absurd is it then to fall into the
sectarianism of the "old militants"; to boast about the number of years of one's
militancy; to see it manifest itself in the work centers! And then for everyone
to become aware that it was more than a verbal sectarianism, that in order to
hold a post of personnel director, to be able to fill certain posts in factories
or in offices, the best-paid jobs, one had to belong to that sect. I do not mean
by this that I am calling the old Marxist-Leninist party a sect; rather I call
the spirit which they created, or which was created after integration, the
spirit of a sect.
What hope remained for the great
masses of laborers, for the great masses of workers? What kind of situation did
millions of citizens find themselves in? For, while the old communists had been
only a few thousand, the people, who had embraced the cause of Marxism-Leninism,
had been integrated by the millions.
It requires little intelligence — if a
little is all one has — to realize that application of such a policy upon
someone's flaunting his record of militancy, accompanied by the fact that lack
of that stamp of approval in that sect was enough to leave people without the
least hope of being chosen for anything, either for a post as technician, for a
responsible post on a state farm, on a cooperative, in municipal or provincial
government, in the JUCEI [Coordination, Application and Inspection Council, or
in the national government. The folly, the idiocy, the negative nature and the
stupidity of such a policy then became obvious.
To what did such a state of affairs
give rise? To vanity, to a domination of influence, to privilege. What would
this engender but conditions which would earn the old communists the antipathy
and the suspicion of the masses? What else would it produce but the conditions
which, moreover, were going to lead an old communist to take the wrong course,
the wrong road in his life, in his work, in his attitude?
Add to this the indulgence of errors.
Add to this the fact that if an old communist made mistakes, nothing was done to
him; he was not removed from his post, nor was he disciplined in any way; on the
contrary, his errors were tolerated, no matter what the error, the abuse or the
injustice committed.
Of course, that was not a policy
applied to the masses, nor was it generalized, but it was an established method
for the indulgence of all faults: to create a caste spirit, to create a clique
spirit, because all of that fitted very well with a policy which aimed at
creating an apparatus for the satisfaction of personal ambitions and aims. It is
evident that not only was the privilege of a sect created but also indulgence of
all faults; compañeros were appointed to many posts who, in many cases,
lacked the capacity to fill them. This was not so in other cases, let us be
fair.
Those were the results. It was natural
that a feeling of great personal power was created, and this was so much so that
some compañeros had lost all sense of control. They imagined that they
had won the revolution in a raffle. At least, that is the way they acted,
forgetting the blood which was spilled, the sacrifices which this revolution had
cost.
I am going to cite some examples, I am
going to cite an example from Oriente Province of a certain gentleman who is
Secretary, or was Secretary of the Sectional Committee of Bayamo and who was
later appointed ORI Secretary of no less than of a group of peoples' farms of El
Cauto; a gentleman by the name of Fidel Pompa — he's probably still there as
secretary —who was appointed to such an important post by mysterious and
extraordinary means, by the use of that sectarian magic and of the cult of
personality, of the true cult of personality, not what some entirely mistaken
individuals take to be the cult of personality.
When the list of compañeros who
had been appointed to the National Directorate appeared, this gentleman,
evidencing the mentality of a Nazi gauleiter and not the mentality of a
Marxist — for there were gentlemen who were assuming the airs of gauleiters
and not those of Marxist militants —took the liberty of commenting before
two compañeros,who had been placed in charge of that administrative
board, and before a Spanish technician who works there with them; he took the
liberty of making comments like the following when he saw the list: "What is
this filthy fat man doing here? — he was referring to compañero Aragones.
He also used another word which I don't want to repeat in public. "And who is
this Guillermo Garcia?" he said. "Where did this person come from?" "And this
Sergio del Valle, who is he?" "And this Haydee Santamarfa, what is she doing
here?" Those were the observations made by this individual.
Who was this individual? Why didn't he
know Haydee Santamaria? Why didn't he know Guillermo Garcia? Why didn't he know
Sergio del Valle? Why didn't he know anybody? Simply because when the people
were fighting here, he was under the bed.
How was he to know that Guillermo
Garcia was the first campesino to join the revolutionary forces, a man
who earned his rank by fighting in battle after battle, in a war which lasted 25
months? How was he to know that he was one of the few who joined the fight and
survived? He was a comrade in countless battles, modest, of extraordinary merits
in this revolution. How was he to know Sergio del Valle, a doctor who, after the
battles were over, stayed alone with the wounded, surrounded by the troops of
the tyranny, attending to the sick, saving lives, and that he later joined the
combat forces and marched with Camilo Cienfuegos as second-in-command of that
glorious invasion, thereby earning great prestige and the admiration of all? How
was he to know Sergio del Valle if he was under the bed? If I use the same word
repeatedly it is simply because it is the only word that fits.
How was he to know Haydee Santamarfa,
the compañera who saw her brother die, a brother whom she loved
profoundly; the compañera who was shown the gouged - out eyes of her
brother whom she deeply loved; the stead- fast compañera, the loyal
compañera, the compañera who did not weaken through a whole process
of difficult and bloody struggle; the heroic cornpañera whose name
appeared very often during the years of struggle? How is this gentleman to know
the names of these people without whom, without whose efforts, he might still
possibly be under the bed?
From the Cauto River this gentleman
was only a day's march from the Sierra Maestra. It shouldn't have been too much
for him to grab a knapsack, when Cowley was murdering workers and campesinos;
when Cowley murdered Loynas Echevarria and so many other militant
revolutionists whom he killed prior to Marti's sailing for Cuba in 18951 was a
reactionary document; that the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789
was a reactionary document. What trash, what sawdust must have gotten into the
brain of a person who thinks that way.
And there was another individual who
said that the attack on the Moncada Barracks had been an error; that the
Granma landing had been an error. Very well. We are not interested in these
matters from a personal point of view and if we discuss them we do so merely to
analyze them because we must be rid, once and for all, of all these people who
talk so much trash. Let us be rid of all these babblers!
We, and only we, after all the
experience we have acquired, after all that we have learned of military matters
in this struggle, have a right to discuss and to determine whether, under given
conditions and in the light of our present experience, we would undertake the
attack on the Moncada Barracks; whether we would carry out the landing from the
Granma in the way we did or in some other. Of course, we have much more
experience now than we had then. Well then, if we had now the same experience
that we had then, it is quite possible that we would do again what we did then.
But now, with our present experience
and enriched by that experience —and who will deny that men act precisely in
accordance with what they know and in accordance with existing conditions — one
could calmly begin to analyze these tactics better; one might decide to attack
another barracks instead of this one, or to swim in; instead of coming by boat,
one might come in by airplane, or by infiltration; one could become a frogman
and land on the coast. In short, one could have done any one of these things.
What is at issue in the matter of the
Moncada Barracks and the Granma are not the deeds but the line, the
correct line, the line of armed struggle; not the corrupt political line, the
electioneering line, but the line of armed struggle against the Batista tyranny,
a line which history proved to be the correct one.
Is it possible to be so deaf, so
blind, so nearsighted and so idiotic as to ignore the lessons of history, and to
be unable to draw the lessons which are to be drawn from history?
I bring up these cases in order to
cite a few examples. People argue many foolish things! They argue about things
they don't understand. They argue about history, about the role of each
organization and of each thing. And to what purpose? Some day history will be
written objectively. History may be made; the people, the masses, make history.
We have said it before and we believe that the masses are the makers of history;
they are the architects of history. Now, history may be made, but it cannot be
falsified. It may be made but it cannot be rewritten. There is only one history,
and you cannot write it according to your subjective wishes. And all subjective
histories must be discarded in order to make way for all real history, all true
history.
The revolution is the result of a long
process of struggle which began with our forefathers in 1868 and which comes to
fruition today, now, and which will continue to advance. It had different
stages, different battles. The history of the present stage began on the 26th of
July 1953 as the history of the struggle of 1868 began on the 10th of October of
1868 and that of the War of Independence, or what was called the War of
Independence, began on February 24, 1865.
That is the true history. Why then
argue the matter? What does all this display of eagerness serve? What is gained
by that? What do we win by that? And some day the history of the Cuban nation
will have to be written. Some day the history of political ideas, the history of
the present period will have to be written and then the role played by everyone,
the value of everyone's efforts, without denying anybody his just deserts, will
be known.
And when the history of political
ideas is written, who will be able to deny Mella's worth? Who will be able to
deny the worth of the founders of the Cuban Marxist-Leninist party, of the
extraordinary role which they played in disseminating Marxist, anti- imperialist
and socialist ideas among the workers, among the people? All this is aside from
all the rest of the effort, aside from their love for their work among the
workers during the revolution.
Some day true and objective history
will be written. Perhaps we ourselves will help to write it because some day,
when we no longer have before us the matters which we have today, we will
discuss, analyze, criticize calmly, quietly, objectively, honestly, the errors
made and the successes achieved and everything else. We will undertake the
writing of the objective history of our country.
Why go around arguing? What do we gain
by that? Why, if no one wants to deny anyone his just due? Why go around playing
the role of the philosophers of history, when in reality we may be playing the
role of the fools of history? These are useless arguments!
We, the revolutionary leaders, one day
will have to sit down to discuss in order to draw those lessons that were useful
for our generation, for future generations, for the peoples of our sister
republics of Latin America, so that they may draw the pertinent lessons from our
successes and from our errors.
We have never found ourselves in that
situation. We have always "rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to
God that which is God's."
Of course, it was important that we
speak of these things one day.
I have some further things to say.
This whole attitude gives rise to injustices, to errors, to mistakes. As an
example, we may cite the injustices committed against many of those who were old
compañeros of the Rebel Army. One day we went to a place where we met
more than 100 officers whom we had seen participate in many battles. — What are
you doing now? Aren't you leading troops? — No.
What happened to these compañeros?
Well, because they were of a "low political level" they were not placed in
charge of troops. Ah! A "low political level." And what is a "low political
level"? How are they going to come around now and speak of "low" and "high
political levels" when we are dealing with compañeros who made the
revolution , who fought the war and brought it to a successful conclusion, who
have led, who have made possible the triumph of the socialist revolution?
How could one have fought for a
socialist revolution and then have someone say that those who struggled and
fought for that revolution and were loyal to that revolution and who, in moments
when people might be expected to waver, did not waver, and who were always ready
to die, and who mobilized themselves when the mercenaries came, and who died
fighting the mercenaries after it had been declared that this was a socialist
revolution. How could they be removed from their commands for being of a "low
political level" and then put in his place some bachelor of arts who can recite
from memory a Marxist catechism even though he doesn't apply it? So, any
bachelor of arts whatever, who didn't fight and who never felt any inclination
to fight, that bachelor of arts has a higher political level and should be in
charge of troops! Is this Marxism? Is this Leninism?
Then, how many compañeros, even
Camilo Cienfuegos, would have been removed by them from the command of a column
of invaders or of a body of troops. And they probably would have placed in
command any bachelor of arts who could speak a little better, who could parrot
Marxist and
Leninist matters a little better.
When Camilo was placed in command of
the Invasion Column [the section of the Rebel Army which in 1958 carried the
revolution from the Sierra Maestra to central Cuba.], we, who knew that he was a
revolutionist of integrity, completely honest, conscious that he was fighting
for a just cause, with a complete revolutionary soul, with the makings of a
communist, for that is how Camilo was — one must see his books, his writings,
his unifying spirit expressed in his letters when he spoke of Felix Torres when
he was with him in Las Villas — we did not say to that generous, heroic
compañero, who was a lion in battle, who was all agility and expertness, who
extricated his troops from difficult situations, we did not say to him: "Recite
Capital!" Rather, the only thing that interested us when we appointed him was to
know who he was, what stuff he was made of and to know that he had the ability
to lead those troops to Pinar del Rio Province, where he would have led them if
he had not received orders to remain in Las Villas.
Perhaps, now, as a result of those
paradoxes and ironies; someone might come around to give him a test
on Marxism-Leninism and he would have failed it, and he would have handed the
command of his troops over to some bachelor of arts who had received a little
military training. And something similar might have happened to Ciro Frias, to
Ciro Redondo, to Paz, to so many others who fell, who were of campesino
origin, of humble beginnings, who fought because they bore in their
consciousness the spirit and instinct of rebellion of the exploited class, who
were fighters for their class, heroes of their class.
How absurd to find that men who were
willing to die to make possible a revolution such as this one, who would have
given their lives for it, that in spite of this they would have to be removed
from command of their troops because of their low political level! I say that
that is a folly, an injustice, a policy lacking in Marxist, proletarian,
Leninist sense.
And these things have happened,
compañeros, and it is the product of a sectarianism which we should
eradicate.
They are truly painful, inevitable
corrections which we should make.
Very well, then. how could such things
happen in a party? There you have that matter which has been discussed so much,
the problem of the cult of personality. Perhaps an example of what we, or at
least of what I, understand as the cult of personality could serve as the
subject of a good lesson for political instructors to give the troops and for
principals to give in the schools, which has nothing to do with the prestige of
the leaders, which has nothing to do with the authority of the leaders, as it
seems some, thinking in reverse, have thought. Who thought about the things that
were happening, things which were not so difficult to see? Recently, we could,
at least, see this phenomenon in operation. Most likely there were some who
thought that these problems had to do with us; who thought that we had to be
watched to see if we were likely to fall into the errors of the cult of
personality.
Of course, such an idea, such a doubt,
never entered our minds, because we know that those problems do not exist in our
country, rather the reverse. Now I ask myself: Why did we argue so much about
this problem, if we were incapable of seeing what was happening before our very
noses? Certainly this problem did not arise from the danger that the Prime
Minister of the Revolutionary Government would allow himself to be seduced by
the cult of personality.
Whether we wanted to or not, even if
we ourselves did not want to, they do not interest us, honestly; those problems
do not interest us personally. They interest us only from the point of view of
whether or not they can do harm or good to the revolution, whether they can be
useful or useless to the people, to the present generation, the coming
generations.
But for the benefit of those through
whose minds there might pass the thought that we could even remotely be suspect
of having such inclinations, it is good to recall certain deeds, certain deeds
as evidenced by the fact that we waged a war, we led it, we won it, and there
are no general's stars on our shoulders and no medals hang from our chests. And
the first law which we proposed when we assumed governmental power prohibited
the erection of statues — these problems related to the cult of personality were
not discussed as much then as they are now — but out of deep conviction we
proposed prohibiting the erection of statues of living persons, naming streets
after living persons and, what is more, that the placing of our portraits in
government offices be prohibited by law. This we did from deep conviction, from
deep revolutionary conviction. Was this demagogy? No. We acted this way from
profound revolutionary conviction.
Great responsibilities fell on our
shoulders. The masses of our country placed great powers in our hands which we
have shared with others as it was fitting that we should do, as it was correct
for us to do, as it was our duty to do.
I believe sincerely and firmly in the
principles of collective leadership but no one forced me to do so, rather it
came from a deep and personal conviction, a conviction with which I have known
how to comply. I believe what I said on
December 2: I believe in collective leadership; I believe that history
is written to
do, the masses; I believe that when the best opinions,
the opinions of the most competent men, the most capable men, are discussed
collectively, that they are cleansed of their vices, of their errors, of their
weaknesses, of their faults. I also believe that neither the history of
countries, nor the lives of nations, should be dependent on individuals, on men,
on personalities. I state that which I firmly believe.
Why do I make this clear? Very well,
because we have also made, among others, this error. We have many things to
discuss about the problems of Marxism, about the whole rich and vital history of
Marxism, about the struggle of Marxism against the revisionist, against the
perverters of its principles. We have much to learn from Lenin, much to learn
from the history of Marxism from its beginnings to the present day.
Many times in the schools, in many
places we have discussed this same subject of the cult of personality
excessively, to our way of thinking. Not because it bothers us, compañeros.
As far as we are concerned people can discuss these problems till they
breathe their last; it doesn't bother us.
But I ask myself the following
question: Why have we been discussing a problem so much which was not our
problem but the Soviet Union's? All right. We should be well informed. We should
inform, discuss, if they are problems which have to do with the experience of
Marxism, but we didn't have to turn it into the central theme of our
discussions. For we have much more important things to discuss and this means
that we are doing something like the following: that we are waging a campaign
against the bubonic plague when, instead of the bubonic plague, there is malaria
and poliomyelitis. It is true we don't want to be attacked by the bubonic
plague, and we should be vaccinated against it and take the necessary measures
and, in addition, we should know what the bubonic plague is. But when we have to
fight we should fight against malaria and poliomyelitis which are the actual and
present ills.
Those evils have not been a threat in our country. The only danger there was was
the one we did not see. How blind we were! What a difference between theory and
practice! What a good lesson! Much discussion was conducted on a subject while,
all the time, we ran the risk of misleading many people and yet, no matter how
much we discussed the subject, we did not see the evil that was close by.
Many were saying: "The cult of personality — is the same thing going to happen here as in the Soviet Union? Could the Prime Minister be one of those who will have to be watched to prevent his falling into the evils of the cult of personality?"
Very well. I don't think that there was a show of bad faith in this, nor anything like it. I am sure that the problem here was not one of a lack of information. These matters were amply discussed. But the point is that there are many people around who are on the wrong track; there are many people who are confused as to what are the most timely subjects, the most basic. We lack skills; we exercise no care and we get off the right track. That is why we take the wrong train.
To my mind many of those rumors, all those campaigns, and this whole problem which was taking shape within our country has to do, in part, with the undue discussion of a subject which should not have been the principal subject of our discussion.
And it is clear that what took place in an unconscious and spontaneous manner aided in the creation of the other problem, of the other phenomenon: the destruction of the prestige of the revolution. Why? For the more prestige the revolution has, so much the better; the more voices, which speak with authority, possessed by the revolution, so much the better. For it is not the same to have a choral group of ten people as it is to have one of three hundred. When you see a choral group of ten members it is good, but one of three hundred voices is much better, more beautiful, more excellent. If we have one leader, two, ten, with prestige, we should have more leaders with prestige. We should not destroy those leaders who have prestige. What happens if we destroy them? Then, unfortunately, when difficult times come the people do not have anyone in whom to believe. When we have to face situations similar or worse to what we faced at Playa Giron, when all at once we have to face situations ten times worse than what we faced at Playa Giron, then we have to speak with the people; we have to appeal to the people's faith.
And what do we gain by sowing the least doubt? What do we gain by destroying the prestige of the revolution?
Of course, I do not place the least blame on any honest revolutionist, on any of the many companeros, on any of those who have spoken on this subject. No, but I understand, companeros, that conditions were being created that unfortunately that discussion — the same thing would result if we started now discussing things which must be discussed later on. For to discuss them now would cause damage. They would not be in consonance with present needs.
Later on we will discuss other problems which existed at the time those discussions were undertaken for, unfortunately, they coincided with certain campaigns which were directed against certain companeros, campaigns which were being conducted in a very subtle manner, certain campaigns that were directed against the prestige of certain well-known and very valuable companeros which sprang from the same problem which we have posed; a series of subtle campaigns directed against a number of very valuable companeros of the revolution, conducted, companeros, by those who were promoting the same sectarian policy.
How did this affect the masses? Well, clearly this discouraged the masses. Did this turn the masses against the revolution? No, the masses did not turn against the revolution, the masses are with the revolution and they will always be with the revolution, in spite of its errors. But they cooled the enthusiasm of the masses; they cooled the fervor of the masses.
How did this affect the political organization of the revolution? Very simply, companeros. We were not creating an organization; I already said that we were preparing a yoke, a straitjacket. I'm going to go a little further: we were creating a mere shell of an organization. How? The masses had not been integrated. We speak here of the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations. It was an organization composed of the militants of the Partido Socialista Popular.
The rest of the organizations, the Student Directorate, the 26th of July, what were they? Were they organizations which had an old organized membership? No. They were organizations which had great mass support, they had an overwhelming mass support. That is what the 26th of July was; that is what the other organizations were. They enjoyed great prestige, great popularity. These people were not organized into an organization.
If we are going to form an organization, an integration,and we do not integrate the masses, we will not be integrating anything; we will be falling into a sectarianism like that we fell into.
Then how were the nuclei *its of the Integrated Revolutionary Organization (ORI) formed? I'm going to tell you how. In every province the general secretary of the PSP was made general secretary of the ORI; in all the nuclei, the general secretary of the PSP was made general secretary of the OW; in every municipality, the general secretary of the PSP was made general secretary of the ORI; in every nucleus, the general secretary — the member of the PSP — was made general secretary of the nucleus. Is that what you would call integration? Companero Anibal Escalante is responsible for that policy.
What resulted from this? What consequences did it have? All that we have done to fight against anti-communism, the ideological struggle, the incessant explaining, which slowly destroyed anti-communism—for anti-communism, as we ourselves have said, engendered sectarianism in its turn, because the isolated, harassed Marxist- Leninists tended to protect themselves closely within their own organization, to shut themselves up in their organization.
Very well. Those are the consequences of anti-communism, of harassment; they engender sectarianism. Once anti-communism is wiped out, if extreme sectarianism still remains, it will once again give rise to anti-communism and to confusion. Because many people will ask: "Is this communism? Is this Marxism?Is this socialism?-this arbitrariness, this abuse, this privilege, all this, is this communism?"
"If this, is communism," they will say along with the Indian Hatuey, "then . . . . " When the Indian Hatuey was being burned at the stake, a priest came up to him to ask him if he wanted to go to heaven, and he said, "No, I don't want to go to heaven if heaven is all of this." Do you understand me? I have to speak clearly.
No one should
have the least doubt, and I think that anyone who has it now must be completely
crazy — let's use that word. At the present time I must speak with extraordinary
objectivity, but with an extraordinary objectivity, frankness, loyalty, honesty,
keep back nothing. Because we will make sure that our words will not be
misunderstood, compañeros.
Very well, then, that sectarianism
fosters anti-communism anew. What Marxist-Leninist mind could think of
employing— when the socialist revolution is in power—the methods employed when
Marxism-Leninism was not in power, when it was completely surrounded and
isolated? To isolate oneself from the masses when one is in power, that is
madness. It is another matter to be isolated by the ruling classes, by the
exploiters, when the latifundistas [great landowners[ and the
imperialists are in power; but to be divorced from the masses when the workers,
the campesinos, when the working class is in power, is a crime. Then
sectarianism becomes counter - revolutionary because it weakens and harms the
revolution.
What should be the ideal of a
Marxist-Leninist? "These are my ideals, this is my cause." For many years we
were but a handful — ten thousand, fifteen thousand of those who were truly
Marxist-Leninists. How then, at the very time in which that same cause, his
cause, his standard, his ideal, is the ideal of three million Cubans, is he
going to isolate himself from the masses and act exactly as he did when there
were five thousand, ten thousand or fifteen thousand? That is a gigantic error.
To fall into an error of that nature is a crime, a counter - revolutionary
crime. How can we do that when we can count on the strength of the masses?
The organizational framework for those
masses must be built. That framework must be built with new forces, with new
cadres, not with a reduced number of cadres as when the organization was very
small, when the Marxist-Leninist party had a few thousand adherents. When
Marxism-Leninism has millions of adherents in our country, the framework for
those millions must be built. To do otherwise is, as we have said on other
occasions, like wanting to empty the Cauto River [Cuba's longest river], I mean,
like wanting to empty the Amazon River into the Cauto River, like wanting to
empty a vat into a cask and like wanting to build a 40-story building on
top of a building having only two stories. It would come crashing down
compañeros! It would mean isolation from the masses!
And we have fallen into that error.
From the Marxist-Leninist point of view that is a grave error, an unforgivable
error, an error which must be corrected.
What was the result of this? Very
simply. The organization of the revolutionary nuclei was begun, but the nuclei
were secret; they were secret. Can you conceive of secret contacts with the
masses? And can you conceive of forming a secret nucleus exactly as it would
have been formed under Batista? That is to say, nuclei which the masses did not
know?
And then, what did we do? Well, in a
work center with 5,000 workers we had a nucleus with seven members. Begging
compañero Llanusa's pardon I am going to cite the case of the Sports Palace.
Garrucho and two women to whom
he gave employment — Who is Garrucho? We are not going to argue over who
Garrucho was. Garrucho was elected councilman on the PUR [Partido Union
Revolucionario — a Batista party ticket in the year 1954. Then the branch of the
Partido Socialista Popular of Regla made an error, to our way of thinking — we
should speak with frankness for we are neither accusing, nor blaming anyone, nor
anything like it. Let us forget all that. Now we should all speak about all
things without prejudice, without vacillation. They erred because he repented,
because the man said that he was willing to resign. And then he was made a
member of the Partido Socialista Popular. Well, then he was allowed to remain at
his post. I don't know but to my mind that was a wrong tactic for the branch to
use — it was the branch, not the party — but the fact is that that man filled
the post of councilman up to the very 31st of December j95.
Then all of a sudden, in spite of the
hatred in which the councilmen of the PAU [Partido Accion Unitaria — like the
PUR, one of Batista's parties' and the PUR were held, and all that had anything
to do with them, we find that man promoted from councilman — hero of the PUR to
revolutionary leader. Very well. This could be explained. It was the result of
an error. It is undeniable that it was an error to admit him — it is the same as
— well, why should I cite examples. I have one but I do not want to remember
those poor people now, for I am going to hurt them for no reason at all.
Well then, Garrucho ended up in the
INDER [National Institute of Sports, Physical Education and Recreation[. He
brought a secretary and another girl to work there. I believe they are excellent
girls; nothing is known against them. And there Garrucho turned out to be an
important functionary. He was sent from the office of the provincial government
or from who knows where to Llanusa and he was given an important post.
When we went to see the kind of
nucleus that the INDER had, we found that it consisted of seven members out of
400 employees. And there were 20 or 30 excellent, superb people, and they were
only seven: Garrucho, the two women, Llanusa, his secretary and two old
communists, Ezequiel Herrera and Pancho Lopez. That was the nucleus. That was
our contact with the masses there, our secret contact with a mass consisting of
400 employees. Would you call that a political apparatus?
Very well, Llanusa formed part of the nucleus because he was Llanusa and he was
the director of the INDER, and I believe that compañero Llanusa has a
right to belong to the nucleus. As to the secretary, well I believe she belonged
because she was Llanusa's secretary, although I understand that she is an
excellent girl. But there were others who were not lucky enough to be Llanusa's
secretary. There were other excellent girls there but since they did not enter
with Garrucho they could not form part of the nucleus. And there were two old
communists there. One, Ezequiel Herrera, an excellent worker, who was proclaimed
as a model worker there by the masses. What a joy, what a feeling of
satisfaction we experienced when we saw a member of the nucleus proclaimed there
a model worker by the masses! That was Ezequiel Herrera. Pancho Lopez was also
proclaimed a model worker. I understand that he ended up there after a bit of
trouble in the G-2 [Security Police] or
some other place. But Pancho was also there. They say that he is a good
compañero. But he was there in the nucleus. He was one of the "seven
privileged ones of the nucleus."
And who was Ezequiel Herrera? They say
that Garrucho himself had proposed replacing him with one of his own cousins
even though he was an old militant. That is what compañero Llanusa told
me. I don't know if he will confirm it. We are not going to — everything that is
said here, has good witnesses to support it, so there is no danger that we are
going to invent anything here.
Then we went to Ambar Motors. Now
Ambar Motors is a place which has a larger proportion of workers than the INDER.
We were going to have a meeting. The nine - member nucleus had been formed there
also. Well, what is the use of talking?
The nucleus consisted of nine members
using the same system: the compañero director, the secretary of the
director, the director's brother - in-law. Of course, I want to point out that
the director's brother- in-law is a good compañero who is recognized as
such by the workers there, but it comes to the same thing.
We went there to exchange a few opinions with the members of the nucleus and out
came the head of personnel, in a work center like that one, which is filled with
workers dressed in sweat shirts and overalls smeared with grease, a head of
personnel wearing a "cute" shirt with loud colors and a pair of white pants. And
he was a member of the nucleus! What the blazes! They were completely separated
from the masses.
What happened? The following happened:
they took out the old militants and made them part of the administration —head
of personnel, director. Later, when they formed the nucleus — since they once
again made use of the old militants — they made that Commission of Directors a
part of the nucleus. The members of the nucleus were old militants and all were
directors. There was no one from the masses in the nucleus. It was an
administration nucleus.
These examples illustrate the errors
we have committed. Well, what was happening as a result of these things? The
Ministry of Industry rewards 60 to 100 workers every month; of the present 60,
only five were members of revolutionary nuclei. The average runs from five to
ten members of the revolutionary nuclei. Five to ten per cent out of every 100
workers. Is this not so, more or less? From five to ten out of every 100
prize-winning workers. We had fallen, then, into all those errors. Those are the
things which we, all of us, the old as well as the new, joined together in a
common purpose, must rectify
We said, "Well, we have to rectify
that situation. That is not the proper way to maintain contact with the masses.
"Why then, despite this situation, were we able to mobilize so many people so
often? We were deceiving ourselves. It was not through that shell of an
organization that we were able to accomplish that. It was through the means at
the disposal of the revolution for mobilizing the masses: through the radio,
television, the press —through all of those means. When we discussed all those
matters with compañero Cesar, he expressed the opinion that there existed
through those media a tremendous power for the mobilization of the people, a
direct means for the mobilization of the masses. That shell of a party did not
mobilize the masses.
We would be in some fix if we had to
depend on that mere shell of a party during an enemy attack. It was a mere shell
of a party. There were very good compañeros in it. I am not going to go
into — later on I am going to speak about the old communists, about all those
things; of how we have to view this objectively, calmly, honestly, fairly,
justly.
But of course, that was not an
apparatus for the mobilization of the masses. There really existed a great power
for mobilization through the Commission of Revolutionary Orientation, a great
power existed basically, through those means which the revolution has for
mobilizing the masses. But no proper means for maintaining contact with the
masses existed and that responsibility belonged to a vanguard workers' party.
Then we simply have to integrate the
masses. We had organized a few ORI, Integrated Revolutionary Organizations, and
the masses, who are revolutionary masses, and who are the ones who make history,
were not integrated, because there were no members who were from the masses, no
one, no one from the masses. That is how the Integrated Revolutionary
Organizations were formed.
I am sure that any communist, any
citizen, old or new, anyone who thinks, agrees that this is an error. Not what
we are doing today. Today we are not arguing about communism and anti-communism,
nor about what ideological road to take. The revolution is irrevocably defined
as Marxist- Leninist and we are making this self -criticism of our errors within
the framework of Marxism-Leninism. Let no one suffer from any fantasies or
engage in any illusions on this score. Do not imagine that we are going to take
a single step backwards. No, on the contrary, we are going to move forward!
[Ovation]
I was going to say just at the moment
that you interrupted me that we are going to advance greatly. We are going to
take long strides forward and and we are going to do so precisely by rectifying
our errors.
We are discussing here — we are
engaged in self-criticism as Marxists, companeros,as Marxists-Leninists.
Let the enemy say what he likes; it is not to the enemy's advantage that we hold
this discussion; it is not to the enemy's advantage that we make this
correction. This correction is only salutary and it will benefit the revolution.
That is, that we had made all these
errors. We have to be a workers' vanguard party. We have to govern in the name
of the working class, and we are making the aims of the revolution come true,
and we are governing this country in the name of the working class, of the
laboring class.
Our party has to be organized using
Marxist methods, not by the methods of Louis XIV. Again I repeat a little
expression which I have used at some meetings. These are the methods of Louis
XIV: "Presto, I am the party. Presto, I begin to name the members of the party."
No, that is not democratic centralism
nor anything like it. Democratic centralism is a very different thing. It is a
leadership which organizes a party using Marxist-Leninist methods of selection,
of work. What does it look for? It tries to gather within that party the best of
the people, the best of the working class. The best workers in the country
should be members of that party. Who are they? They are the model workers, the
model laborers, who are in abundant supply.
In other words, the first requirement
for belonging to the nucleus is to be a model worker. One cannot be a builder of
socialism, nor a builder of communism, if one is not an outstanding worker. No
vagrant, no idler, has any right to be a member of a revolutionary nucleus.
Very well now, that is not enough. Our
experience during the course of this meeting has provided us with many
interesting examples. He has to be an exemplary worker, but in addition he must
accept the socialist revolution; he must accept the ideology of the revolution;
he must want, of course, to belong to that revolutionary nucleus; he must accept
the responsibilities which go with membership in the revolutionary nucleus. But,
in addition, it is necessary to have led a clean life, that is to say, that one
must never have served the tyranny as a soldier, as a policeman. Of course,
there were people who had been members of the army who had been imprisoned for a
long time; these cases are different.
There are special cases, of course,
which are not like that of Garrucho. Garrucho was a councilman up to the very
end, and I believe that he is a hero because only a hero could pretend to be a
Batistiano for so long. If he was not really one, he deserves a medal.
But, well, what I want to say is the
following: to have led a clean life; not to have any record as a Mujalista
supporter of Eusebio Mujal, head of the union confederation under Prio Socarras
and Batista , as a Batistiano; not to have been active in the PAU, in the PUR;
not to have belonged to the armed forces of the tyranny, to the SIM [Servicio de
Inteligencia Militar] — Batista's secret political police] or to any of those
groups. That worker's life must be free from that type of stigma.
This is interesting because recently,
in a meeting, in — I believe that it was the Aspuru hardware store — in that
meeting the workers were choosing the model workers, because the masses are
perceptive, they have a sense of justice which in every meeting at which we have
been present, and in all other meetings, manifests itself in the choosing of
some old militant from among the masses, because he stands out as a great
communist, as an excellent worker.
The masses have a great sense of
justice. Sometimes someone who has a bad record is chosen and the masses
immediately bring this out. There have been cases where people who have bad
records have been proclaimed as model workers. In some cases they have
unfortunate records. Unfortunately such things happen. But in the meeting to
which I am referring it so happened that the masses named an individual as a
model worker. A worker got up from the multitude and said, "This man was a
Mujalista." Then the man defended himself by saying that he had not been a
Mujalista, and he confessed to having been a follower of Batista.
And in spite of this the masses said
that he should belong to the nucleus. Such a mass of workers is confused and
should be oriented. This means that it should be explained to them that such a
man cannot belong to the nucleus for whoever says that he was a follower of
Batista is saying that he agreed with all the crimes, with all the murders, all
the tortures which Ventura, Carratala and all those criminals committed. This
has to be argued with the masses. That is the duty of the party organizers and
they must say "No!"
Because, after all, the masses are not
going to elect the nucleus; the Party is not an elected party. It is a
"selection" which is organized through the principle of democratic centralism.
Now, the opinion of the masses must be taken into consideration. It is of the
utmost importance that those who belong to that revolutionary nucleus have the
complete support of the masses, that they enjoy great prestige with the masses.
We have been witnesses to truly moving
cases. We have arrived at a meeting and asked for a list of 15 compañeros.
We have asked that the masses point out those whom they consider to be model
workers. They have stood up there and proposed certain names. And there are many
methods for inventing tricks, hoaxes, fixed meetings, but the methods used by a
resourceful parliamentarian make all that impossible.
When we asked them, "Do you believe
that there remains the name of someone here who, because of his merits, it would
be a pity to leave off the list?" They proposed a worker, a young compañero,
a Negro. I believe that his name was Juan Antonio Betancourt. They pointed
him out.
That extremely modest worker got up.
He is quiet, shy. He got up ona stool and they began to ask, "Why do you think,
compañeros, that this man is a model worker?" And they began to explain,
and a worker with the look of honesty about him said: "Look, I was a
dissatisfied worker. I was unhappy with the revolution. I was transferred to
this work center. Compañero Juan Antonio approached me, he spoke to me
many times. He explained things to me over and over again. He did so much; he
acted so well; he was such a good compañero; we saw this compañero
work always with such determination; we saw him do so many thine — this
companero came to work even when he was ill — that this compañero
succeeded in convincing me, in persuading me. Today I am a worker who
understands the revolution, a worker who supports and defends the revolution."
Another worker got up and said: "I
would like to add to that. I was a worker who used to be absent quite often. I
used to work on the outside because I earned more money. I used to earn two or
three pesos more by working on the outside. Juan Antonio approached me; he spoke
to me everyday; he explained to me that I was hurting the revolution; that mine
was not an honest attitude; that I was harming the work center; that I was
harming the working class; that I was harming my homeland. And then I was never
absent again from my work center; I was never again an absentee worker."
Another one got up and said: "Juan
Antonio suffers from a gum condition. He has such and such a problem and
sometimes his face has been swollen for two weeks and he has never been absent
from work."
Another worker stood up and said:
"This compañero was once a painter. Later he began working in one of the
offices. One day we arrived here with 15 cars which had to be painted. It was
urgent that those cars be painted and this companero said, 'Don't worry,
just wait until I finish my work.' When he finished his office work he spent
long hours until he had completed the painting of all the cars. And this
compañero will just as readily work 15 or 20 hours."
While the masses were explaining those
virtues, the qualities of that worker, one could not help but be impressed by
all that was said, by all that recognition.
Then I asked a worker, "What do you
think of this worker? Do you think that he is a better worker than you?"
And he said, "He's ten times better
than I" — he was a young man. "And do you hope to be like him? Do you think that
you will be like him some day?"
And he said, "Perhaps I will. Perhaps
if I improve myself, if I work, perhaps some day I will get to be as good a
worker as he."
These are the men whom we have to
recruit! If that worker has a clean record, if he was not a Batistiano, if he
was not a Mujalista, if he does not have a bad record, we must win that man over
to our side, we must send him to school, we must teach him Marxism-Leninism, for
such men possess the most excellent, the most valuable raw material for the
making of a builder of socialism, of a builder of communism.
How are we going to build socialism
and communism which means work, which means the giving of oneself over
completely to the work of society, without the men who are willing to work all
the hours necessary, to make the necessary efforts, who go to work even when
they are ill, who are never absent, without that type of worker of which the
masses can give us many examples? That type of worker who is a militiaman, who
is never absent when sugar cane has to be cut, who never misses guard duty, who
is the kind of companero who encourages others, who is recognized by the
masses as a worker-hero, as a model citizen. We have to recruit such men as
these. We must recruit all the revolutionists, old and new.
How could we keep the masses out? How
could we divorce ourselves from the masses? There are many model workers among
the old revolutionists who are recognized as such by the masses. There are
others who are not model workers. There is no reason why there should be
disagreement with this because being a communist does not endow one with a
hereditary title nor with a title of nobility. To be a communist means that one
has a certain attitude towards life and that attitude has to be the same from
the first day until the moment of death. When that attitude is abandoned, even
though one has been a communist, it ceases to be a communist attitude towards
life, towards the revolution, towards one's class, towards the people. If this
is so, let us then not convert that into a hereditary title!
We have fallen into that error. We
have fallen into a problem of castes, not into one of classes, compañeros,
Let us not give up the principle of class in order to fall into the problem of
castes, into that of titles of nobility, into that of privileges, into that of
sectarianism, compañeros. Every good Marxist, every good communist must
understand this.
What spirit moves us to make these
criticisms? Do we do this to bring about a change of opinion, to create an
unfavorable opinion in regard to the old communist militants? No, compañeros,
never. On the contrary, we do not want to expose so many good communists to
the blame and to the scorn to which bad methods, methods which are not communist
methods, to which a sectarianism which is neither Marxist nor Leninist, will
expose them. Because such methods bring discredit and tend to spread. And they
tend to make the masses regard all communists as they do that bad one, and not
as they do the good ones, as they do so many Marxist militants.
We make this criticism, this
self-criticism of criticisms, in which we are all to blame for the way in which
these events have developed, simply to overcome these errors so that the
revolution may free itself from these errors, so that we may proceed to the
formation of a true vanguard party, a true Marxist-Leninist organization, which
will march at the head of the working class.
Let us not confuse the functions of
that organization with the administrative functions of the state apparatus. It
so happened that we had established a principle of interference on all levels
which was destroying the apparatus of the socialist state. And the socialist
state has to function with great efficiency. How could we destroy that
apparatus? How could we create such confusion? We must come out of that
confusion.
What must our attitude be towards the
old communists? It should be one of respect, one which recognizes their merits
and which recognizes their militancy. That should be our attitude. What should
his attitude be? His attitude should be one of modesty. What should be the
attitude of a revolutionist, of one who fought? His should be an attitude of
modesty. Of one who fought in the Sierra, in the underground? They should be
modest, they should have revolutionary modesty. We must put an end to the
boasting of those who say, "I did this, I did that during the insurrection."
We brought this out in the month of
December and we must oppose all those who come around boasting about their
deeds, no matter where they may be. Why? I dealt harshly with a compañero
here and I said that he was hiding under the bed. Why do I judge this
compañero so? Because I believe that a man who acts in that fashion cannot
be a good revolutionist, he is instead a complete opportunist. Does this mean
that we could consider anyone who did not fight to have been "under the bed"?
No! Let us not be confused about this! I say that the opportunist, yes, that the
opportunist, was under the bed. You cannot fail to call him otherwise, because a
person who acts in that fashion is one who was hiding, full of ambition,
corrupted.
That is not what we are saying here.
We continue to insist that what one did not do in the past should not form the
basis for the exclusion of anyone. This may serve as a reference of a sort; it
may have some use. But, gentlemen, what is the revolution? The revolution is
superior to what each of us may have done. It is superior and it is more
important than each of the organzations that were here: the 26th of July
Movement, the Partido Socialista Popular, the Directorio — than all of them. The
revolution by itself is much more important than all that.
What is the revolution? It is a great
trunk which has its roots. Those roots, coming from different directions, were
united in the trunk. The trunk begins to grow. The roots are important, but what
begins to grow is the trunk of a great tree, of a very tall tree, whose roots
came together and were joined in the trunk. All of us together made the trunk.
The growing of the trunk is all that remains for us to foster and together we
will continue to make it grow.
The day will come, compañeros -
think well upon this, because this is basic, think well upon this—when what we
have done in the past will be less important, when what each of us has done on
his own account will be less important than what we have done together. Let us
take this idea with us. Within ten years, within 20 years, we will have the
common history of having done this together, and then no one will be talking
about what each one did on his own — in the Partido Socialista Popular, in the
26th, in the Directorio, in the other group. Then those things will be like the
roots which come from afar, which now remain in the distance. The important
thing is what we are already doing as a trunk, in which we are all united. And
we have said this.
What have we done together? We have
done many things together. Can the importance of the fight against imperialism
be ignored? Can the fight against the enemy at Playa Giron, which was a crucible
uniting all of us there, the day following the proclamation of the socialist
revolution, all together, old and new communists, citizens who were neither old
nor new to these things, people from the masses, anonymous heroes, can all this
be ignored? Look at the photographs of those who died. More than 100 men who
fell gave their lives for this. The greatness of the hour united them. Their
sacrifice united them.
What matters is not what each of us
has done separately, compañeros, the important thing is what we are going
to do together, what we have been doing together for a long time now. And what
we are doing together is of interest to all of us equally, compañeros.
Who will be so stupid as not to care about what all of us are doing together,
about how it benefits us or about how it hurts him? Who can be so idiotic as not
to be able to understand these things? It is a tangible reality. We have to
correct these things. What does this mean? Does it mean that the opportunist is
going to sneak in now? No! Listen, compañeros, we have to dig a double
line of trenches across the path of the opportunists, so that the opportunists
may not sneak in. There is no opening here. Is the faker, is the sower of
intrigues going to sneak in through some opening? There is no opening here.
There must be a greater unity here between the old and the new!
Briefly, we must apply
Marxist-Leninist principles to our work; we must follow a policy based on
correct methods and a policy based on principles. A policy based on methods and
on principles is the only correct policy which offers guarantees to all; all
will feel secure with such a policy. That sectarian policy threatened to sweep
all before it. No one felt secure any longer because of that sectarianism. Many
compañeros saw evidences of sectarianism everywhere.1 No one
felt secure. Why? Because it was a policy that was not based on principles;
because it was a policy that was not based on correct methods. A policy based on
principles, a policy based on correct methods offers guarantees and security to
all revolutionists.
It is not a policy which is based on
the acceptance of my or another's friends. It is not a policy based on personal
friendships. It is not a policy based on unconditional followers. It is not a
policy based on tamed or submissive people. No! A Marxist-Leninist party, which
is the vanguard of the working class, is an association of free revolutionists,
wherein all the revolutionists follow a policy based on methods and principles;
a policy which offers equal guarantees to all, to whoever works, to whoever
fulfills his responsibilities. A policy which offers ,guarantees to all against
injustice, against abuse of power, against discrimination, against mistreatment,
against all these things, so that all may feel that they are equally guaranteed,
the new as well as the old.
Does this mean that when we undertake
the correction of these things that we are going to remove and to dismiss people
left and right? No, compañeros, nothing like that. As many old militants
may belong as long as the revolution considers it necessary for them to be
there. But they must be placed there only as the result of the policy of the
whole revolution, not because it is the policy of a political tendency, not
because of a policy of a personal nature!
No, sir! No, sir! We must simply
correct this in the manner in which it should be corrected, by benefiting from
that correction; by emerging more united, stronger; by seeing who is good and
who is no good and by allowing the quality, the quality of the work done to have
the final word.
Now then, how must we act towards an
old or new Marxist? We must be much tougher towards them than towards others.
With whom must we be more exacting? With the member of the organization! How can
we be less demanding with the member of the organization than with one who is
not? No! No! The Marxist, the member of the organization, who makes a mistake is
doubly to blame. One must be unyielding towards that error; one must demand that
he assume his responsibilities so that the people may see that to be a member of
the organization does not entitle one to privileges, to pleasures, to
advantages, to the right to meddle, or to favors of any sort. No! Let everyone
be aware that to belong to that organization may be a great honor, but that it
also means sacrifice, more sacrifice, more work than others have to do, more
self - sacrifice, than others have to make, that it means fewer privileges than
others may have. That is what the organization must do so that the good ones, so
that the best will belong to it, so that those who are no good will not belong
to it, so that no demoralizing person, so that no opportunist will infiltrate
it. How is the opportunist going to join such an organization! The opportunist
goes where there are some advantages to be gained, where there is privilege. But
when there is work to be done, where there is great effort to be made — there
the opportunist will not go. The opportunist will go home.
This does not mean that they are to
come in en masse. No! The organization has to be a selection of the very
best in every respect. That is the kind of organization that we have to make. In
regard to the old compañeros we should show respect, we should give them
the best of treatment, we should have confidence in them. Do not forget that a
sectarian individual may be a great companero who has been infected with
the virus of sectarianism, who may have been dragged along by a sectarian policy
injected by persons in certain positions.
And I am going to cite an example. At
the University a grave act of sectarianism, of dogmatism was committed when
three lines of compañero Echeverria's political testament were
suppressed. We protested bitterly. Who was responsible? Well, a good
compañero. The compañero who had been — responsible for that is
without a doubt a good compañero. He is compañero Ravelo. And yet,
why did he make that error? This demonstrates that it is the result of the
influence of a line, of a personal line, of a line, of an injected policy, of a
wrong attitude which has become quite widespread. That compañero is a
good compañero. He called the whole University together, he subjected
himself to a serious, honest self -criticism and he came out with more prestige
at the University than possibly he had before he was criticized. Why! Because he
had an honest attitude. The masses recognized that. And he is a good
compañero.
The point is that a person who has committed an act of this kind is not a
traitor to the revolution; he is not an enemy of the revolution. He was harming
the revolution without knowing it. I am convinced that the great majority of
cases were unconscious ones resulting from a policy injected by a compañero
who had a determined policy and who is really responsible, who is very
responsible for that policy because he was indulgent, he was complaisant, he
practiced that policy which led to a very widespread sectarian attitude.
Then, what must our attitude be? Ours
should not be a policy of reserve towards the old militant but rather one of
confidence towards the old militant. And I am going to cite an example. In my
bodyguard there are many old militants and I do not plan to remove any old
militant from my bodyguard because I have full confidence in those compañeros.
By this I want to show what an attitude of real confidence has to be, that
is to say, that we should not now fall into the opposite form of sectarianism.
We cannot fall into that! Because if we are going to rectify errors we cannot
fall into other errors, and we have to be very alert, very vigilant and you may
rest assured that we will fight any manifestation of sectarianism of any kind
with all our energies! We will fight it with all our energies and by every
means! Already we are going to fight through radio, through television, through
the newspapers; we are going to accuse anyone who we think has committed an act
of sectarianism, injustice, discrimination, reserve, distrust of any kind
towards any compañero, no matter who may be responsible. That will be our
attitude.
I believe that it is the only honest
attitude, the attitude which we should follow, the one which will offer
guarantees to all the compañeros, the one which will allow us to overcome
these errors, the one which will allow the revolution to come out stronger,
compañeros, to come out enhanced from this criticism.
It does not matter what our enemies
may say. It does not matter that they may want to take advantage of this,
tomorrow. That does not matter. They know that they are losing from this very
moment in which we are beginning to correct serious errors, that the masses
comprehend this, that they understand this, because the masses are just. They
will be impotent before an organization, before a people, before a revolutionary
government which is honest enough to analyze, to recognize the errors which have
been made during the revolution, which has the courage to rectify them
equitably, and calmly, with a spirit of justice.
We have been harsh today. We felt that
it was necessary to be so, that it was healthy to be so. Because, compañeros,
we feel that from this moment on, compañeros, all differences between
the old and the new, between those who fought in the Sierra and those who were
down in the lowlands, between those who took up arms and those who did not,
between those who studied Marxism and those who did not study Marxism before, we
feel that all differences between them should cease. That from this moment on we
have to be one thing alone. And rather than be like that woman who they say kept
looking — who the Bible says — kept looking towards that lake, towards that city
which had sunk, and who was changed into a pillar of salt.
We cannot be changed into a pillar of salt, looking back at what we have done,
contemplating, enjoying what we have done. We must look forward, compañeros!
That is the only proper attitude for us to have, which all honest men should
have, which all honest revolutionist, old and new, should have without
reservations of any kind, without regrets of any kind, without mistrust of any
kind. All of us, embracing our cause, our revolution, the historic mission of
this revolution, embracing Marxism-Leninism, which is the ideology of the
working class, which is a science. Embracing Marxism-Leninism which possesses
all the attractions which a true revolutionary theory, a true revolutionary
science, possesses. It is extremely rich and from it we can extract
extraordinary lessons; in it we have an extraordinary instrument for struggle,
an incomparable cause, the best cause for which to fight, the best cause for
which to die, a cause which can be identified only with the spirit which is most
profoundly human, most profoundly just, most profoundly generous, most
profoundly good.
The enemy tries to present Marxism as
something bad, as something unjust. No! Never allow them to confuse the masses
by using the errors of those who act badly, of those who are wrong!
Our people today have the good fortune
of being able to rely on a triumphant revolution with its power based on the
masses. It has the good fortune of being able to rely on a revolutionary
ideology, irresistible, invincible, a thousand times superior, infinitely
superior, to the ideology of the reactionaries, of the exploiters; an ideology
enriched by a century of struggles, enriched with the blood of workers, with
proletarian blood, with the blood of heroes spilled in the defense of justice's
cause, in defense of the cause of the equality of man, in defense of the
brotherhood of man!
That is our cause. That is our
standard! That is why we should feel proud, proud of being Marxist - Leninists,
proud of being honest, proud, compañeros, of having the public spirit and
the honesty to discuss here — publicly — our errors, to discuss them as we have
discussed them,
together, proud of solving them, as we
have solved them, together; proud of appearing, as we are appearing here before
the masses in order to explain to them, to explain to them in general terms, the
basic measures taken — the dismissal of the compañero whom we consider
responsible for these deeds, measures concerning the Directorate and the offices
of the Secretary in Charge of Organization; the measures we have taken, the
increase in the members of that National Directorate so that there may be
included in it all the historic names, all the compañeros who, because of
their merits, in one way or another, are worthy of belonging to that National
Directorate!
If we do the same on all levels it
will strengthen us, it will make our revolution more powerful. It will make the
people's faith in the revolutionary leadership firmer. It will make the faith of
all the revolutionists of the world in us greater. It will make the faith of all
the revolutionary organizations of Latin America in the Cuban Revolution
greater. Why? Because the fact that we know how to make corrections will give
the Cuban Revolution prestige. It will give the Cuban Revolution all the
strength which organizations have when they know how to purify themselves of
evils, when they know how to correct their errors, when they know how to
overcome their difficulties!
Rest assured, compañeros, that
by doing this our revolution will be invincible. Rest assured, compañeros,
that by doing this there will be no force in the world which will be able to
defeat our revolution, and I repeat here what I said once when we arrived at the
capital of the republic: "We have overcome our own obstacles. No enemies but
ourselves, but our own errors, remain. Only our own errors will be able to
destroy this revolution!" I repeat it today, but I add that there will be no
error which we will not oppose and that therefore there will be no error which
will be able to destroy the revolution! There will be no errors which will not
be overcome, and that is why our revolution will be invincible.
— The End —