Cuba and the Question of Revisionism - Part 1
The question of revisionism is a recurring issue within the communist movement. There is no tendency within Marxism that has not been labelled revisionist by another, and there is no socialist experiment that has escaped such allegations. Cuba and its Revolution are among those socialist experiments that require analysis – one that points out unorthodox practices and departures from Marx's thought, but also acknowledges its achievements and unrealised opportunities. In the spirit of Lenin's words – "Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement" – we should begin our analysis with a reading of the two best known Cuban revolutionaries: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. By studying their speeches and works we can determine the ideological course of Cuba.
An analysis of Fidel Castro's thought
Let us begin with an interview with Fidel Castro from February 2, 1961, titled "The Nature of Cuban Socialism." Castro was asked by an Italian journalist about the character of the Cuban Revolution and about the role of the nationally-minded middle classes in revolutions across Latin America. These questions will help us uncover the theoretical foundations of Castro's thought. On the question of the character of the Cuban Revolution, Castro answers that Cuban revolutionaries were not dogmatic and he himself shows little concern for definitions, yet he gives approval to calling it a socialist revolution. Castro then enumerates their achievements, which are in line with Marx's and Lenin's writings: the abolition of the bourgeois state apparatus and its defending pillars – such as the police, the mercenary army and the bureaucracy – alongside the nationalisation of industry and the collectivisation of land. However, Castro also notes that Americans wish to call them communists, which he dismisses. In doing so, he demonstrates that Cuba was far from achieving communism – and very likely had not yet achieved socialism at that point in history. Following the first question, the journalist posed a simple yet simultaneously crucial one: the role of the nationally-minded middle classes in Latin American revolutions. Can such classes play a positive role? This is a vital question for every revolutionary movement in the Global South, as these movements are mostly driven by national necessity. The answer allows us to determine if a revolutionary movement is committed to the liberation of its people. History has shown us that the national bourgeoisie often attempts to play a leading role in such insurrections, guided not by the interests of the people, but by its own greed and desire to eliminate imperialist monopolies, so as to exploit their people themselves.
Here Castro answers that there is no place for the national bourgeoisie in revolution, pointing out that exploiters – whether imperialist or national – all hold the same hatred toward workers, due to class contradictions. This answer reveals that Castro was well aware of the treacherous tendencies of the national bourgeoisie and he was correct. However, in his response to the next question posed by the journalist, Castro exposed a contradiction in his own view of class roles during revolutionary struggle. The question concerned the forces of revolution in Latin America, to which Castro pointed out the industrial and agricultural proletariat – and he was correct in doing so – but also the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Let us focus first on the petty bourgeoisie, as the case here is clear. The petty bourgeoisie is not a reliable revolutionary ally due to its reactionary nature and uncertain position between the two main classes: the proletariat and the haute bourgeoisie. Over a century ago, Marx pointed out that the petty bourgeoisie fluctuates between these two classes, incapable of maintaining a consistent revolutionary position. There is nothing positive we could expect from the petty bourgeoisie during a revolution, as revolution does not cease to exist at the moment of gaining power. Most members of the petty bourgeoisie are owners of private property, which makes them exploiters, but on a smaller scale. However, the degree of exploitation does not lessen the need for the liberation of workers, as that need remains constant. Finding an ally in the petty bourgeoisie is naive and stands in fundamental contradiction to Marx's thought. Only a class that owns nothing besides its own labour power can be truly revolutionary, as history has proven that even small owners pose a threat to the revolutionary cause. History has shown us that the petty bourgeoisie, squeezed between big capital and the proletariat, chose to believe – in the aftermath of the Great War – that the cause of their class decline was the Jews or the socialists, or even better if it was both. In the effect they were easily manipulated by fascist demagogues. Communists cannot befriend the petty bourgeoisie, as we seek to abolish private property and small owners will do everything in their power to prevent us from doing so. They would most likely take us back to a pre-capitalist economic order, one in which their existence was not threatened.
As for the peasantry, we can divide it into three categories: small peasant proprietors, poor peasants and farm labourers. The last of these are proletarian, as they are forced to sell their labour power. Small peasant proprietors are identical to the petty bourgeoisie, as they appear to share the same tendencies. Let us examine more carefully the poor peasants, as their revolutionary role remains to be determined.
First, lets define the poor peasantry: it is a stratum of the peasantry that owns a small plot of land and is most likely forced to sell its labour power to landlords or small peasant proprietors. This makes them semi-proletarian. In the specific case of Cuba even half of the poor peasantry consisted of squatters, who were farming land that did not belong to them. In this case, this stratum of the peasantry, alongside farm labourers, could be truly revolutionary or at least partially so. The fact that half of them were squatters who owned nothing is important, as they had no private property to defend and that is why they had no interest in preserving the existing order. As for those who did own private property, their semi-proletarian nature made them partially revolutionary, because they were forced to sell their labour power in order to survive.
On the basis of this interview, we can conclude that Fidel Castro had fundamental theoretical knowledge. Crossing out any positive role of the national bourgeoisie in revolutions across Latin America reveals that Castro was serious about the liberation of the people. However, there is a crucial contradiction in his admission of a positive role of the petty bourgeoisie, which is by its nature a reactionary force.
We now turn to Castro's May Day speech from 1961, titled "Cuba is a Socialist Nation." The speech is divided into several different sections and in each one of them Castro speaks about current achievements and future action. From the beginning of the speech we find out that poor peasants and Cubans from rural areas had finally received proper education and equal opportunities to prosper as individuals. Schools were built, the privilege of a small minority was abolished, and so on. We also learn that every large industry had been nationalised – both Cuban and American – which confirms Castro's previous stand against the national bourgeoisie.
Let us closely examine three particular sections of this speech. I would like to focus on the sections that I have arranged in the following order: "Privileged Class Mercenaries", "Small Businessman Protected" and "Religion Not Restricted".
First and foremost, we should note that Cuba cannot be considered a socialist nation, as a nation itself cannot be socialist. Socialism requires the abolition of wage labour, private property and commodity production. Cuba maintained all of the above in 1961 and continues to do so to this day. After this remark we can begin the examination of sections mentioned before.
The section "Privileged Class Mercenaries" is a great proof of Castro's familiarity with Lenin's theory of imperialism. During this section of the speech Castro mentions the mercenaries that tried to fight Cuba. Castro effortlessly identifies the patterns through which Big Capital acts to enslave weaker societies. These mercenaries were none other than Brigade 2506, who attempted to invade the shores of Cuba in April 1961. It came as no surprise when the prisoner interrogations revealed that these invaders were mostly former owners of prosperous enterprises. Their only ideal was to fight for capital. Castro then turns to corrupt bourgeois practices and dishonest promises that took place before the Cuban Revolution. He points out that the agrarian reform law promised in the 1940 Constitution was never realised, and that hundreds of thousands of Cubans did not receive their land back from the monopolies. Castro also raises the issue of so called "free elections" - the false ideal of the invaders. He points out that there are no free elections under a capitalist material base, as capital indirectly rules all legislative processes, corrupts politicians and grants the ruling power to those who can buy votes.
At this point we reach the section "Small Businessman Protected", which deals with the topic of the petty bourgeoisie. This attachment to the petty bourgeoisie – which was examined earlier – is definitely a thorn in Cuba's revolutionary flesh, as it stands in fundamental contradiction with genuinely Marxists thought. Even if it appears unlikely that small business owners and industrialists could overthrow a government that has nationalised every essential industry, it does not change the crucial truth about the nature of the petty bourgeoisie. This nature is reactionary at its very roots, as it comes inevitably from the ownership of private property. Such a position strikes us with resemblance to the Lassallean attitude, which Marx himself criticised sharply. Both figures attack one fraction of the possessing classes – the capitalist bourgeoisie – while remaining silent on the other: the Junkers in Lassalle's case and the petty bourgeoisie in Castro's. Fortunately, Castro opposed both wealthy landowners and the capitalist bourgeoisie; however his tolerant attitude toward the petty bourgeoisie is confusing and revisionist.
The section "Religion Not Restricted" stands in direct contradiction with Marx's critique of religion, which was sharp and left no room for misinterpretation. "Christianity arose as a religion of the poor, the slaves, and the oppressed of Rome..." This statement is true, however every revolutionary should ask himself why this is so. The reason behind the birth of religion is to make the daily struggle of the proletarian seem less harsh than it actually is. Marx addressed this in his "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" and everyone knows his famous words about the opium of the people. Religion is merely a byproduct of current and previous economic relations between exploiter and exploited. In order to tear off his chains, man must overcome religion.
"It coexisted with the Roman Empire. Then came feudalism. That church coexisted with feudalism, later with absolute monarchies, later with bourgeois republics." It indeed coexisted with oppressive states, but there is no particular reason why should religion be present in a socialist society. Once man abolishes religion, he can truly recognise his actual existence, his real conditions and his genuine possibilities. Only then he is able to revolt against his current conditions and begin building of a new world.
Summary
Let us summarise what we have learned about Fidel Castro's thought. Castro firmly stands against the blood-sucking imperialist bourgeoisie, and his approach to the case is clear, as revolution for him was a national necessity. From the very beginning of the revolutionary fight, Castro was serious about the character and goals of his movement. He was aware of the hopelessness of fighting from within the bourgeois state apparatus. He was also aware that any alliance with the national bourgeoisie would not bring liberation, as it would only result in a change of oppressor.
However, Castro is not a saint, and it is clearly visible that he was not fulfilling theoretical foundations. He was a revolutionary whose primary goal was liberation of his people from foreign imperialism. Cuban revolutionaries under his lead were not devoted builders of communism and they demonstrated little concern for definitions. Their main focus was to improve lives and their political and diplomatic actions were driven by the hostile environment surrounding them.
Castro's little concern for the theoretical base was exposed due to his early sympathies for the petite bourgeoisie and approval of religion. Moreover, the Communist Party of Cuba never made an effort to abolish commodity production and wage labour – essential steps toward achieving socialism. There are several possible explanations for this. One is certainly the presence uof the constant imperialist threat on the horizon, and another is the fact that socialism in one country, particularly one with insufficient resources, is impossible to achieve and maintain.
Yet Castro never made an attempt to create a true and clear Marxism. Cuban revolutionaries never created such abominations as Dengism, nor did they try to follow the example of Eduard Bernstein. Their primary goal was always to stay independent and improve material conditions of their people.
-Dawid Zet
