CASTRO'S VIEWS ON THE CHILEAN REVOLUTION
[In our issue of, March..25, we called attention to an evidently important speech made by Fidel Castro in Havana on March 13. We translated a few sentences that were quoted by the Paris daily Le Monde,: including a phrase referring to the "worst elements of Trotskyism. " We noted at the time that the phrase was broken off abruptly at this point in the Le Monde account. We now have the complete text of this speech in an official English translation. Castro said no more about "Trotskyism" than the phrase indicated above. Aside from this very bad and completely unjustified remark, which obviously refers to his Stalinist-type attack against Trotskyism, delivered January 15, Castro says nothing more on the subject. The rest of the speech is of great interest. In our April 8 issue, we called attention in particular to Castro's appeal for effective aid to the Democratic Repub lic of Vietnam and the Vietnamese freedom -fighters. |
[In another part of this very long speech, Castro took up the question of Chile and the repressive measures .employed,.by the Frei government against the striking. copper miners. These remarks caused an international furor, Frei himself attempting to answer Castro's charges. This dispute was given considerable publicity in the bourgeois press,.:but what Castro said was either greatly distorted or left unreported. We are therefore reprinting this section of his speech below.
[Ultralefts, who have been charging Castro with openly giving up advocacy of the class struggle, with openly espousing peaceful coexistence, and with openly giving up the concept of socialist revolution in order to advance the Stalinist idea of limiting the revolutionary process in Latin America to a "bourgeois-democratic stage," are invited to study this section of Castro's speech with care. We particularly call the attention of Michael Banda of the. Socialist Labour League in England to what Fidel Castro said. Banda, we have previously noted in World Outlook, contended in the February 5 Newsletter that the "main purpose" of the Tricontinental Conference "was to provide a safety-valve for middle-class charlatans like Cheddi Jagan and upper-class demagogues like Allende to blow off steam against imperialism, neocolonialism and what-have-you." Banda may find some comfort in Castro's agreement that nationalizations alone are not sufficient to judge the character of a revolution. This has been a big point with the SLL theoreticians who claim that Cuba still remains "capitalist. ' a
LA final point is the current importance of Chile in the Latin-American revolution. As Castro noted earlier in his speech, the "imperialists have wanted to turn the so-called 'Chilean experience' into an alternative to Cuba." Frei was presented to the peoples of Latin America, "he, his Party and his Doctrine, as an example of. what they called 'a bloodless revolution. '"
[By way of explaining Castro's opening reference in the section below, he had just finished telling how a delegation of members of the Chilean parliament had come to Cuba, a delegation including
representatives ‘of the bourgeois’ ‘parties as well as a deputy from Pas the FRAP (Frente Revolucionario de Accién Popular). All but two of.” the. Christian Democratic deputies todk umbrage at some militant remarks Castro made in-a letter to U ‘Thant and--immediately returned to. Chile. The Christian Democratic party then sent-a cable to:the two remaining deputies ordering > them to return. In Chile a Christian - Democratic deputy by the name of Hurtado cabled them that’ they ought to stay. He was immediately expelled by the Christian Democratic. ~— peadership. Castro then had some’ ‘talks with the two remaining deputies. ; , be
’ Le have “used “the text printed in the English-language Gremma< of March 20, correcting obvious typographical errors. The subtitles: appear in the original.] _
_- We had discussions with those deputies. And we explained to them | ‘that to make a revolution: it-is first nécessary to confront imperialism; that. to make“a revolution, although it may.not.be a. socialist; but’a: bourgeois-democratic revolution, ‘a-nationalist rev-=-.: olution, they. had to confront imperialism and ° they had ‘to. confront the ‘national oligarchy.’
I told then also that: L ‘aid not think that conditicns ‘in. Chile permitted a revolution of that type, and that in the conditions of Chile if a ‘revolution was desired, it would necessarily have to be a socialist revolution, ‘and ¥° explained why. Because an ‘underdeveloped country, burdened with - debts: as Chile is, a country: where large masses of the population live in-the worst conditions,. would neces-. sarily have to strike a blow against ‘the interests of imperialism, — of the oligarchy, of big industry, of the import-export trade and of the Bank. if something was to be done, to give something to the. peasant masses, and to. the masses: of workers in the country.
And, also that to wage a battle’ against the. oligarchy and against imperialism, the ° support of the worker and peasant masses was necessary to confront imperialism; and also that to’ wage a° battle against the oligarchy and against imperialism;. the. support of _the worker and peasant masses was necessary, and that the masses of “workers and peasants would not lend’ support to any bourgeois. revolution, because the workers and the peasants would not be willing. to collaborate to serve the interests of an exploiting class. * ; _ LI told them not’ to judge - ‘the nature -of the Chilean Revolution by the nationalization or not, of the copper industry; that nation- —
*In the official. English text, a typographical error in this para- -griaph is combined with a missing ‘phrase. We have corrected the translation, utilizing the extracts of the speech published in the» March 40°issue of. the Mexican weekly Siempre .. -- Editor.
alization measures could be taken sooner.or later. That what really | defined a revolution was the will to change the social structure for. the benefit of the exploited classes, which can only be done, to the detriment of the exploiting classes; that the policy which they follow with copper was not what would determine if it was a revolution or not, because sometimes there are governments which nationalize a foreign: enterprise and do not make a revolution; that the determining factor: would.not be the moment when copper was or was not nationalized; but-rather that the nature.of that revolution had to be judged by all its acts, by all its policies toward each social class, the existence or nonexistence of its will to make a revolution for the benefit of the .workers, for the benefit of the peasants, for the benefit: of thé exploited.
They said that they were going to carry out ah agrarian reform which was going to establish a limit of 80 hectares. And I told them: If you are going to make an "80 hectare" revolution you will have to fight against the oligarchy, and you cannot fight against the. oligarchy without the support of the peasants and workers.
We recalled that our agrarian reform at first placed the limit at more than: 300 hectares, and everybody knows the resistance, the _ large landawners put. up against that, how they immediately started conspiracies. And, naturally, I pointed out to them that if they. compensated the large landowners in cash, with what resources. would they be able to help the peasants? With what resources could they carry out the mechanization of the. rural areas?
And, in. ‘short, all. these questions of al - general order which determine whether or. not there.is 2. revolution, and which show that in the conditions of our countries. it-is. not. possible to make an anti-oligarchy , anti-imperialist revolution without the support of the workers and the farmers, since that revolution will march toward socialism, independently of whether or not copper is nationalized, because the imperialists have multiple interests. in any country of Latin America; because the copper problem.can wait, that in the end when a country possesses a source of wealth such as copper or oil, it is in much better conditions. to demand its rights from imperialism, to impose its conditions upon imperialism,, than a country such as — ours which only has:sugar. And that the. possession of copper gave Chile special advantages to impose conditions upon imperialisn.
“It only remains to say. that if we were. Chileans the first ‘thing we would ° have done would have been to nationalize copper.
But, naturally, we wanted to say that this did not necessarily have to-be a.dogma and that in the final analysis, this would not in itself define whether or not.a revolution was going to take place in Chile.
“What. is. ‘really. happening in Chile? Could it be that a revolution is. really taking place? Could it be that the government of ‘Chile is willing to confront imperialism, the oligarchy, the great industrial bourgeoisie, the banking and business interests? No The first
great error of these attempts is the belief in the possibility of conciliating the interests of the different classes, to believe that one can make a Revolution, or that one can even speak of Revolution with a spirit of conciliation among classes; to believe that one can conciliate the interests of imperialism and the interests of the Nation; to believe that one can conciliate the interests of the oligarchies and the interest of the peasants; to believe that one can conciliate the interests of the great bourgeoisie and the interests of the workers.
And this is very old; these problems have been discussed for over a century. What has occurred in reality? The workers are against the Christian Democratic government, and they are against the Christian Democratic government because they will never be willing to make sacrifices for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, for the benefit of the rich.
Frei: blood without Revolution
A government can ask the workers to make sacrifices when a Revolution has been made for the workers, when there is a change in the social structure to the benefit of the workers, but no government can tell the workers to make sacrifices for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, for the benefit of the rich. No government can tell the workers not to demand salary increases in order to develop an industry as the private property of the capitalists, as the private property of the bourgeoisie. A revolutionary socialist government can ask sacrifices from the workers in order to develop an economy for the workers and peasants, to develop a4 socialist economy.
The Chilean government has met with tenacious resistance on the part of the mine workers of Chile. It has met with tenacious resistance on the part of the workers in general, because the government of Chile asks the workers for sacrifices in order to develop an economy which benefits the wealthy classes, industrial capital, commercial capital, banking capital and which benefits imperialist interests. A consequence of this has been the constant conflict between the Chilean workers and the government of Chile. Nevertheless, as Sr. Frei deflates like a balloon, as Sr. Frei faces these social contradictions, he can't think of anything better to blame than the Tricontinental Conference for his problems. And on the occasion of a strike of Chilean workers in one of the great copper mines, he sent troops against the workers, causing eight dead and thirty-five wounded.
While this was happening, what was Sr. Frei doing? According to the AP, "President Eduardo Frei tonight denounced before the country that in the Tricontinental Conference in Havana the plans were forged to create the trade-union and political unrest which has rocked Chile during the past weeks; he spoke with dramatic force over radio and television hours after a mob..." -- for the UPI and the AP, the workers, the people, are always mobs -- "...of a thousand people attacked the police and the soldiers in the giant El Salvador copver mine owned by the Anaconda Company, and a skirmish took place
— Bum
in which at: least six people were killed. Frei.said, ‘In the recent _ | conference. in: Havana, it. was publicly declared.that: guerrillas in... Chile would take another form and: that. action: would: take place . through lockouts, strikes, seizure of. rural’ property, collective mobilization and. ‘revolutionary violence: ane .
/ To tell. the truth,: I have always believed that Frei: was! a. repre= sentative. of the Chilean bourgeoisie: and that his government: was a = bourgeois government. I never believed that Frei was going to make a-.. revolution. And you will recall that I spoke of this right after the Christian. Democratic election triumph:: But: I thought that Frei..was trying to experiment with a different’ kind: of bourgeois government; I believed: that Frei at: least was an individual with: bourgeois morality,: that: Frei-at least. was an individual: with: Christian morality; not: revolutionary, but. a type of bourgeois government different from the other bourgeois and oligarchic governments of the continent, and'with some bourgeois morality.
When I see Sr. Frei, in order to explain Chile's internal problems, in <order to justify his massacre of workers, stoop to the vulgar expedient of: blaming the Tricontinental for his. problems, what I feél -for this individual more than anything else, is Sincere __ pity, sincere embarrassment, to see: bourgeois. Frei, the victim of his contradictions ,: Victim. of social contradictions, victim of his bourgeois illusions," using this sorry expedient. of accusing the Tricontinental.':-Frei’ said he was going to maké a revolution without blood, and what ‘he-is really making, what: he is giving Chile, is not revo-. lution. without blood but ‘blood without revolution (APPLAUSE), killing workers , massacring workers. They made a great campaign, about Cuba's firing squads, they made a great campaign about the laws and sanctions: thait. revolutionaries find themselves obliged to apply to class enemies, but nevertheless, they massacre workers, murder work~ ers, ‘Kial: workers, eliminate | Workers ' without law or previous. trial. ar These actions, and even: > more ; ‘this declaration of Sr. Eduardo Frei, unmasks him completely, and ‘has demonstrated all too soon the points of view that: we sustained in our discussions with the Chris-— tian Democratic deputies. Frei, in defense of the interests of the . bourgeois and of imperialism, begins to kill workers, begins to massacre workers, begins to wield all the weight of the law -—- nO, not the’ Law ae of ‘repression against the workers. Se
“We dia. not believe: that a revolution could be made in Chile. by peaceful means; but neither did we believe that armed rebellion ..
was the order of the day in Chile. We believed that while specific liberties, special constitutional institutions, specific rights, exist ina country -= when all the paths are not closed in a country..: as they are in the. immense. majority of the Latin-American countries. -- revolutionary ': armed rebellion, | “we believe, does not become the =. order of: “the day. rs ala Freit _ coward ; abusing ‘his
Therefore “we did not believe, we. have never believed ‘that ‘in the conditions of recent years guerrilla warfare could be considered
as a logical. tactags
We do. believe that in the long run in “Chile the class contradictions,:. the: ‘struggle of the people against imperialism, against the oligarchy” and. the bourgeoisie, will sooner’. or later turn to: vthe path |. of armed struggle. oc 0° Bhi tat gal
(c “These actions, the policy of massacring workers --*this, and not. the: Tricontinental Conference -- the policy of assassinating workers in:.defense: of the interests of imperialism, of the oligarchy and of the bourgeoisie, isiwhat will sooner or later make the Chilean workers arrive:at.the conclusion that in Chile, as.in many other. countries of Latin America,:>the conquest of revolutionary power can only be brought: about: by:armed struggle. But it will be the facts, not the Tricontinental: Conférence that create this. The Tricontinental Conference blazes a trail, but it is absolutely false and absolutely: slanderous:..to. state that there was any concrete given plan organized. in. the! Tricontinental Donference: with: respect to Chile. That is a'lie,:and a:calumny. i
And let it be clear that we are not interested in clearing ourselves of: blame, let it be clear’ that we are not concerned with those who accuse us: or what they accuse:.us of, let it be understood that it does’ not matter to us if they want to place the blame on us. I am making this: clarification for the sake of historical accuracy.
And we know that imperialism blames Cuba, we know that the oligarchies blame: Cuba, we know that they will blame Cuba more and more-, and we do not: care; we have nothing to fear; it holds no terror for us. We:are ready now and we will be prepared for them when they” might decide to attack our country as.a result of these accusations.
“We cannot be deluded, we must have no: illusions with respect to the fact that as the revolutionary struggle develops in-Latin . America as a result of imperialist exploitation and of the contradictions that exist, our country will be ever more in danger of being attacked.
But there is nothing more false, nothing more untrue than the declaration of Frei. But this exposes Frei, it exposes the oligarchy, the reactionary elements that control Christian Democracy; this will serve to convince all those positive elements, all those well-intentioned elements who for a time were able to believe that Christian Democracy, that is, the Christian Democratic party of Eduardo Frei, was going to produce any kind of a revolution in Chile.
Frei is a reactionary. He has demonstrated by this act that he is not a person with a firm hand, but a cowardly person who abuses power, who orders troops out against the workers. Frei has shown himnself to be a liar. Frei has shown himself to be a vulgar politician who tries to blame the Tricontinental in order to justify his own bloody gesture; Frei exposes himself and is showing the Chilean people and the world what kind of a revolution he is going to make,
what type of government he is going to strike for, that is, not a revolution without blood, but a policy of blood without a revolution.
“Blood without revolution! ‘That is: ‘the: policy| ‘of: Frei. “Blood: without revolution! That. is Frei's government. Blood ' without revolu-) tion! That is the policy of the "Alliance for Progress." = ¢. «- 4
We send our message of solidarity to the courageous miners of Chile who. are defending their rights. with their blood, (APPLAUSE) to-. thosé courageous Chilean miners massacred by Frei's government, and.;-.. to.the. combative Workers' Confederation of Chile. (APPLAUSE) We who have not been promoting strikes, and who have not been carrying out. -: concrete plans,~or anything else in. the line of. subversion or rebel=-' lion in:Chile, we offer the aid of the Cuban people to the widows | and . orphans of. the workers: assassinated’ in. the = Salvador mine. “CAPPLAUBE)
When the: imperialists fire on’ these workers, the imperialists. and their cohorts are bringing grief to these families, as well. as --: misery and hunger. No bourgeois state has ever given help to: the | children or widows of its victims.
». But the workers are not alone in: their struggle. Nor are the... children and widows of those assassinated workers alone. For they. |;~ have, first of all, the support and solidarity of the other Chilean. workers, and the support and solidarity of the: workers of the whole. world.
“Bo the slanderous charges: of: Prei- ‘that: ‘the » massacre of the workers of: El Salvador is. the result: of: plans organized in the Tri-. continental, our answer’is the truth, the clarification of. the facts,.. the rejection of the imputation and our solidarity with the. workers;.: on strike. But our solidarity with the victims is not a solidarity of words but of deeds. And from here on this 13th of March, the Cuban people's offer. of solidarity goes out to the. victims and-to the organized workers of Chile, in the:face of massacre and crime.