Fidel Castro's grasp of Marxism

[fa2991]

I received my copy of the "Fidel Castro Reader" in the post today and noted that on pg. 462 Castro says

"...we never asked anyone for advice, although we had already read almost a whole library of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other theoreticians..."

I've read elsewhere that he's known for not having read much Marx and has publicly confessed to never get past page 200-ish of Capital.

So which story is true? Just how well does Fidel know his communist theory?

[Cyberwave]

More of the latter. I believe Castro really began to label himself as a Marxist solely to gain support of the Soviet Union, who at this point was clearly revisionist and clearly was treating Cuba as a puppet state. Even Che warned against the potential revisionist routes that Castro was willing to take.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'll avoid the political questions involved in this and stick to the facts, since that's what you seem to be looking for.

What do we know?

We know that Fidel read books by Marx and Lenin before the revolution.

We know that his brother and collaborator Raul belonged to the youth wing of the PSP (the "official" communist party in Cuba) before the revolution.

We know that Che Guevara originally considered Fidel to be a "bourgeois revolutionary," while changing his view during the revolution.

We know that Fidel didn't suddenly become opposed to U.S. imperialism after the revolution:

"...I swore to myself the North Americans were going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When this war is over, a much wider and bigger war will commence for me: the war I am going to wage against them. I am aware that this is my true destiny." (Letter to Celia Sanchez, June 5, 1958).

[Shokaract]

Fidel Castro mouths Marxist phrases. But he is not a communist. And the revolution Castro led did not break Cuba out of the bounds of bourgeois economic, political, and social relations.

Castro sought to substitute one form of imperialist dependency for another.

I dislike Lotta's overly simplistic analysis portraying the revisionist USSR as equally an imperialist power as the United States. Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with Cuban political history to give you a good answer though.

[el_chavista]

"...I swore to myself the North Americans were going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When this war is over, a much wider and bigger war will commence for me: the war I am going to wage against them. I am aware that this is my true destiny." (Letter to Celia Sanchez, June 5, 1958).
Latin American -and in a more extension, the Arabic- idiosyncrasy is prone to a "dramatized" speech.
Actually, Fidel Castro flew to Washington as early as in 1960 looking for foreign inversions. From his interview with vice-president Nixon, Castro only got a communist label.

[Chimurenga.]

I dislike Lotta's overly simplistic analysis portraying the revisionist USSR as equally an imperialist power as the United States.

Yeah, in my opinion, that's a pretty embarrassing statement.

[Optiow]

I dislike Lotta's overly simplistic analysis portraying the revisionist USSR as equally an imperialist power as the United States. Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with Cuban political history to give you a good answer though.
I don't like it either. Castro did what he did to help the people, and the Soviet Union provided that help when America refused it.

[scarletghoul]

I've read elsewhere that he's known for not having read much Marx and has publicly confessed to never get past page 200-ish of Capital.This isn't too big a deal; Mao never read Kapital either. Still he has proven to be a great Marxist theorist and practician.

Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
The real test is in practice, and comrade Fidel has proven himself to be a committed and accomplished Marxist over half a century of practice.

[Cyberwave]

Hoxha wrote a bit about Cuba, Castro, and Che here. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm)


With these theories, with the dangers and damage they cause, you are better acquainted than we. For instance, Che Guevara was killed. Such a thing is liable to happen, because a revolutionary may get killed. Che Guevara, however, was a victim of his own non-Marxist-Leninist views.
Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.
The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.
We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others.
We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. Battista was an obedient flunky of imperialism, who rode roughshod over the Cuban people. The Cuban people, however, fought and triumphed over this clique and over American imperialism at the same time...
In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.
This trend, and that other offspring of the bourgeoisie, modern revisionism, constitute great dangers to the people, including those of the Latin-American countries. Carefully disguised, modern revisionism is a great deceiver of the peoples and revolutionaries. In different countries it puts on different disguises. In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point.

[Jolly Red Giant]

This isn't too big a deal; Mao never read Kapital either. Still he has proven to be a great Marxist theorist and practician. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:




The real test is in practice, and comrade Fidel has proven himself to be a committed and accomplished Marxist over half a century of practice.
:confused: - evidence please