CASTRO REAFFIRMS INDEPENDENT STAND
A speech made by Fidel Castro March 14 in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the attack on the presidential palace has been given rather sensationalistic treatment by the capitalist press in the United States. The New York Times, for instance, reported it under the headline, "Castro Assails Soviet-Bloc Nations for Latin Ties." To believe the Times, Castro's main aim was to condemn the government of the Soviet Union and other workers states for seeking to establish diplomatic and commercial relations with the governments of the ruling oligarchies in Latin America. The Times also played up an attack leveled by Fidel Castro against right-wing leaders of the Venezuelan Communist party.
The main axis of the speech, however, was a powerful defense of Cuba against the charge of intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela, a charge made in the most slanderous way by the Leoni dictatorship, particularly in relation to the recent assassination of Dr. Julio Iribarren Borges, a brother of the Venezuelan foreign minister.
In taking up the various questions that had become involved, Castro went into the history of the guerrilla struggle in Venezuela and the attitude of the right wing leaders of the Venezuelan Communist party toward it. He stated his frank opinion while making it clear that these problems were only of fraternal interest and had to be decided by the Venezuelan revolutionists themselves.
Castro's critical remarks about Soviet diplomatic and commercial policies in Latin America were expressed in the context of a strong reaffirmation of Cuba's right to determine her policies independently and in accordance with revolutionary-socialist principles. His chief point was the need to carry on the struggle for the socialist revolution in the most determined way and against all those who would sidetrack it out of faint-heartedness, discouragement or short-sightedness.
Referring to the Venezuelan Communist party, he said:
"In the name of what revolutionary principles, reasons or fundamentals were we obliged to say that the defeatists were right, to say that the rightist, capitulationist current was right? In the name of Marxism-Leninism? No. We would never have been able to say they were right in the name of Marxism-Leninism. In the name of the international Communist movement? Were we perhaps obligated by the fact that it was a ques-— tion of the leadership of a Communist party? Is this the conception we are supposed to have of the international Communist movement? To us the international Communist movement is in the first place just that, a movement of Communists, of revolutionary fighters. And those who are not revolutionary fighters cannot be called Communists. (Applause. )
"We conceive of Marxism as revolutionary thinking and action. Those who do not possess a truly revolutionary spirit cannot be called Communists.
"Anyone can have 'Eagle' for a last name without having a single feather on his back. (Laughter.) In the same way, there are people who call themselves Communists without having a Communist hair on their head. The international Communist movement, to our way of thinking, is not a church, it is not a religious sect or Masonic Lodge that obliges us to hallow any weakness, any deviation, that obliges us to follow the policy of a mutual admiration society with all kinds of reformists and pseudo-revolutionaries.
"Our stand regarding Communist parties will be based on strictly revolutionary principles. The parties that have a line without hesitations and capitulationism, the parties that in our opinion have a consistent revolutionary line will receive our support in all circumstances. But the parties that entrench themselves behind the name of Communists or Marxists and believe themselves to have a monopoly on revolutionary sentiment -- what they really monopolize is reformism ~- will not be treated by us as revolutionary parties. And if in any country those who call themselves Communists do not know how to fulfill their duty, we will support those who, without calling themselves Communists, conduct themselves like real Communists in action and in struggle. (Applause. ) For every true revolutionary, who bears within him the revolutionary spirit, revolutionary vocation, will always come to Marxism...and every revolutionary on the continent who is deserving of the name will arrive at the Marxist conception of society. What is important are the revolutionaries, those who are capable of making revolutions and developing themselves in revolutionary theory.
"Many times practice comes first and then theory. Our people too are an example of that. Many, the immense majority of those who today proudly call themselves Marxist- Leninists, arrived at Marxism-Leninism by way of the revolutionary struggle. To exclude, to deny, to reject a priori all those who from the beginning did not call themselves
Communists is an act of dogmatism and unqualified sectarianism. Whoever denies that it is the road of revolution which leads the people to Marxism is no Marxist although he may call himself a Communist.
"This will be our line of conduct. It is the line that has guided our conduct in relations with the revolutionary movements.
"At the Tricontinental Conference in Havana representatives of revolutionary organizations of the three continents met. Some called themselves Communists and others did not. What defines a Communist is his attitude toward the oligarchies, his attitude toward exploitation, his attitude toward imperialism -- and on this continent his attitude toward the armed revolutionary movement.
"What will define the Communists of this continent is their attitude toward the guerrilla movement. Toward the guerrilla movement in Guatemala, in Colombia, and in Venezuela. No one who claims to call himself Communist will support the rightist official leadership opposing Douglas C. Bravo. Communist parties must differentiate between the guerrillas who are fighting in Venezuela and the defeatists who wish to renounce the struggle, who in practice wish to give up the guerrilla movement. And this will be a dividing line, for we are arriving at the time of definitions, not by anyone's whims, but by the force of the process, of historical events themselves."
Castro wryly noted that "at the very moment a delegation of high Soviet officials were present for the signing of a commercial, cultural and financial agreement with the Lleras Restrepo government," the Colombian police arrested the leadership of the Communist party and attacked the Tass news agency office. He also noted that the Venezuelan government which has "slaughtered more Communists than any other on this continent" is also bidding for relations with the Soviet Union.
"As for us, we are Marxist-Leninists. Let others do as they please we will never reestablish relations with such a government."
Cuba, he recalled, had recognized the German Democratic Republic although it had meant reprisals from West Germany. "All is not rose-colored in the revolutionary world. Complaints and more complaints are repeated because of contradictory attitudes. While one country is being condemned for reopening relations with Federal Germany, there is a rush to seek relations with oligarchies of the sort of Leoni and company. A principled position in everything, a principled position in Asia (applause), but a principled position in Latin America, too."
"What would the Vietnamese revolutionaries think if we were to send delegations to South Vietnam to deal with the Saigon puppet government?" Castro asked. "What would those who are fighting in the mountains of America think were we to seek close relations with the puppets of imperialism on this side of the continent, with the puppets of the future Yankee aggressions and interventions in this continent?"
Castro's speech was a long one, covering a number of points of extreme interest, besides those indicated above. It is bound to become the subject of considerable discussion not only in Latin America but elsewhere. We will return to it in coming issues.