Cassius Clay
2nd November 2003, 20:22
Unity & Struggle No.2 (May 1996)
CUBA: THE SUPPORT FOR ANTI-IMPERIALIST RESISTANCE
WHY IS CUBA ON THE AGENDA?
For the last few years, Cuba has again been an important item on the world agenda. This is not because of Cuba itself or because of important changes in its development. Cuba is important again because of the policy of US imperialism. The intention is to eradicate "the last bastion of communism" and to overthrow the regime in this country. The attacks on Cuba are designed to achieve these aims.
Despite gradual changes, Cuba has remained essentially "the same country" since the revolution. Moreover, it has actually lost some of its past "esteem" in the eyes of the peoples of the world, mainly the Latin American peoples, youth, intellectuals and revolutionaries. Obviously, Cuba's renewed world significance is not simply explained by this "exemplary" role, ho wever.
We have witnessed the collapse of revisionism in the USSR and Eastern Europe and China's orientation -despite the continuity in its political regime- towards capitalism through private property, profit, market economy, stock exchange, etc. In this c ontext, Cuba -together with North Korea- has attracted the rage of US imperialism as an opponent of the "New World Order". It would not be convincing if the US attempted to form a "New World Order" while permitting an opponent to exist close by. Moreover, it was seeking revenge. Therefore, the US has launched an hysterical anti-communist attack against Cuba in order to prove the futility of opposing it and its "new order". The aim of this attack was to underline once again the invalidity of socialism. It w as also directed at demolishing the "last citadel of socialism" in order to erase the idea of revolution and socialism from the collective memory of the people.
In the face of these attacks by American imperialism, whether Cuba is a socialist country or n ot has become a secondary question. What became the priority was the exposure of imperialist aims, resistance to the attacks and world support for Cuba's resistance. Undoubtedly, this does not imply uncritical support for Cuba, the failure to expose the f a lse policies being put forward and implemented in the name of "socialism". Nothing must be hidden. Without doing so it is not possible to expose imperialist aims or to develop a consistent resistance. We must be clear what is being supported and why. Ther efore, we should not refrain from exposing the reality of Cuba in all its aspects.
CUBA AS A "VICTIM" OF THE IMPERIALIST ATTACKS ON SOCIALISM
One of the reasons for the appearance of Cuba and developments in that country on the world agenda is that it has been singled out as the victim of a campaign to whip up anti-communist hysteria to help establish a ''new world order".
Undoubtedly, there are also other reasons for the imperialist aggression against Cuba. US imperialism aims to "kill two birds with one stone". Firstly, US imperialism wants to get rid of one of its opponents. Secondly, its declared objective is to "demolish the last stronghold of socialism". Thus, socialism would no longer be a banner in the hands of the working class and labourers of t he world.
This second element is, obviously futile. However, we must continually explain to the workers and labourers of the world the inevitability of socialism and its historical and causal roots. We must not allow them to be affected by such wishful bour geois thinking. In the same way, it is necessary to thorougly explain the relationship between Cuba and socialism.
In the face of the attacks of imperialism, it is obligatory to support and defend Cuba. One does not have to be a communist for this. On the contrary, it is one of the unavoidable tasks for every revolutionary, anti-imperialist, democratic and progressive person.
US imperialism has turned up the heat of its traditional aggression against Cuba as it lost its historical allies in the collapse of revisionism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. The US thought that Cuba could not stand alone. Moreover, its continued existence was intolerable to imperialism. It has been pursuing a policy of isolation and economic and diplomatic-political embargo against Cuba for years. For the last few years, it has dramatically tightened this policy of isolation. It now punishes those who had commercial relations with Cuba. This involved, for instance, a six-month ban from US harbours on ships which have anchored in Cu ban harbours. Today, Cuba is under a complete embargo.
This policy of embargo and isolation goes hand in hand with the encouragement of discontent fanned by the hardships Cuba is engulfed in and with the support and incitement of reactionary forces in Cuba . The counter-revolutionary offensives and conspiracies of Cuban exiles, centred in Miami and supported by the US, have escalated. The counter-revolutionaries hope to strike a resonance in the mass reaction that is expected to appear as a result of the in c reasingly hard conditions. Migrations from Cuba have been encouraged. The effectiveness of this tactic has already been tested during the collapse of various revisionist regimes in Eastern Europe. At the same time, the number of people migrating has been exaggerated and presented as a symptom of the collapse of Cuba.
Cuba is resisting these attacks. The administration tends to opt for liberal "democratic" solutions and pursues a policy characterised by a degree of compromise and concession towards the diff iculties created by the US inspired isolation, embargo and provocation. However, its calls for resistance and for the defence of Cuba and "socialism" are being implemented by the labouring masses. This was illustrated by the mass demonstrations against co unter-revolutionary actions and aggressions encouraged by the US. The labouring masses' consistent stance of defending Cuba bolsters the line of resistance of the administration.
We must support Cuba's anti-imperialist resistance to American imperialism -despite the fact that it involves a degree of compromise and concession.
The present resistance of Cuba, the Cuban people and of the administrative group led by Fidel Castro to imperialism is not accidental or without historical basis. Nor is it coincident al. Furthermore, this is not the first time Cuba has appeared on the world agenda.
THE BASIS OF CUBAN REVOLUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
In January 1959, "a handful of men" led by Fidel Castro came down the mountains, seized the main towns and political power in Havana. Since then Cuba has been one of the objects of aggressive attention for American imperialism. It has also attracted the a ttention of revolutionaries of almost all countries and has consistently kept itself high on the agenda for discussion.
The themes of this discussion did not remain the same. They reflected this or that aspect of Cuban reality which had undergone various c hanges corresponding with international conditions. However, the debate on Cuba has continued, even though it showed signs of being conducted with less heat.
The period when Cuba was a prominent item of discussion was a period when the country caused ideo logical and political splits and demarcations and directed practical revolutionary political attitudes and revolutionary armed struggles in many countries. In other words, this was the first years of the victorious Cuban revolution. This period, which end ed in the late 1960s, was the peak of the Cuban revolution and of its revolutionary radicalism.
What Cuba raised for the revolutionary movements in many places of the world was the model of class struggle: No matter what the objective conditions were, if " a handful of men" resolved on an attempt at revolution and dared to sacrifice themselves for it, if they waged an armed revolutionary war against imperialism and oligarchy, the mountains and the people would embrace them. Thus, the victory could be theirs .
Before the revolution, Cuba had stunningly appropriate objective conditions required for revolution. The armed struggle that was launched by a small number of revolutionaries gained the support and participation of the people and achieved revolution in C uba. At that time it was engulfed in a serious economic and political crisis. However, some have drawn a wrong conclusion from this and from the "armed struggle launched by a handful of people". This idea was theorised as a primary factor of the victory, without taking objective conditions into consideration or by simply taking them for granted. This was the main reason for Cuba being at the centre of discussions.
This thesis found a significant number of supporters, not only in Latin America but also in m any underdeveloped countries in the world. It was acknowledged, advocated and implemented by sincere revolutionaries who were inspired by revolution but did not know much about Marxism. Facile and empirical interpretations of reality encouraged the adopti on of this thesis and helped it spread.
One of the reasons for this was the sympathy and revolutionary enthusiasm for the newly victorious revolution. On the other hand, the experience of the Cuban revolution and the conditions in which it took place have not been studied thoroughly. The second reason, however, was the destructive, confusing and alienating impact of revisionism.
It is necessary here to touch briefly on the effects of modern revisionism. In that period, modern revisionism, via Krushchev, wa s putting forward theses such as "peaceful co-existence", "co-operation with American imperialism", "struggle for reforms", "non-capitalist way", etc. Sincere revolutionaries were reacting against these theses that rejected revolution and revolutionary wa r and against the social reformist and class collaborationist attitudes of the supposedly communist parties which were the accomplices of Soviet revisionism and which were advocating and implementing these false ideas. Sincere revolutionaries were disorien tated by the revisionist offensive of Krushchev and these parties. They reacted against it with subjectively healthy instincts. Yet, objectively, they were distancing themselves from genuine Marxism. The example of Cuba constituted something to cling on to for these people aspiring for revolution. In this period, revolutionaries who began to act with revolutionary enthusiasm embraced arms in many countries to struggle against imperialism and fascism and tried to win the masses. However, the example did not repe at itself.
In Cuba, objective conditions constituted invitation for revolution. The Cuban economy was based on a single product (sugar) and was tied to trade with the US in return for this commodity. In 1953, the US started to produce its own sugar and, as a result, decreased its import from Cuba by half. Through this, the production of sugar was decreased as well as the possibility of using machinery, energy, food, etc. that were being imported. The economy was engulfed in a serious crisis. The continuall y increasing population of Cuba expanded the need for these consumption goods. Moreover, unemployment became chronic and rose to 20 %. 35 % of the labour force was either unemployed, under-employed or working for no wages. The queues were getting longer an d longer as a result of scarcity and excessive prices. In late 1955, the workers in the sugar sector went on strike as a result of the depressed economy. This strike turned into barricade wars, specifically in Las Villas.
In the political field, coups, sca ndals and corruption were endemic. Batista, who seized power in a coup, worked behind the scenes to have "his man" elected as a president in 1944. Since Batista could not succeeded in doing this, Grau San Martin, an opponent, and then Prio became presiden t . They filled both their own pockets and those of their relatives and openly and fully co-operated with the US. There is an interesting example that illustrates corruption and the approach towards it in the period of Grau San Martin and Prio. Chiabas was t he leader of the Orthodox Party of which Fidel Castro was a member and candidate once. Chiabas was making a speech on the radio in which he wanted to reveal the bankruptcy of the education minister. However, his documents had been stolen. Thus, he chose a serious method of protest and committed suicide on air.
This suicide in mid-1951 was followed by the second coup of Batista in 1952. As was the case in Turkey, a great majority of the people first thought of the coup-maker as a "rescuer". This was true from the big bourgeoisie to the sugar cane worker.
Initially, only university students were protesting against the coup. However, Batista's corruption, excessive repression to ensure "order" and his failure to overcome the sugar crisis increased the number of his opponents. The middle class lined up against him first.
Following the Moncado Raid in 1953, repression increased. This action was a combination of government coup and seizure of arms in the barracks. The raid on 26 July that named the Cuban revoluti on was faced with the murder of hundreds of people, many arrests and heavy terror.
The amnesty of Fidel Castro and his friends who had been arrested was followed by the Granma Raid. After a short while, the Union of University students led by a catholic student attempted an uprising. Those who raided the presidential palace in March 1957 did not launch a revolt immediately. However, they pulled large numbers of the masses, mainly students, against the dictatorship via mass demonstrations and armed actions (mainly assassinations).
There were two other important incidents in 1957. The react ion against the murder of Frank Pais, the youth leader in charge of the urban organisation of the 26 July action, turned into a general strike. It was a spontaneous outbreak. It took the form of barricade clashes in Santiago and spread all over the count ry. The second incident was the rebellion in the navy in September. The people and the rebels who joined those who organised 26 July temporarily seized the city of Cienfuegos.
These incidents were encouraged by armed struggle but they also illustrated the general explosive situation in the country.
In July 1958, Batista sent 40 thousand soldiers to wipe out the revolutionaries in the Sierras. However, 300 revolutionaries and their fight made Batista flee from the country at the end of the year. This also underlines the extraordinarily suitable conditions in Cuba for a revolution.
In order to understand the Cuban revolution, one must be clear about what was specific to it. Without doing this it is wrong and anti-Marxist to conclude that a small number of p eople taking up arms with revolutionary intentions always and everywhere leads to revolution. However, it is precisely this type of thesis that have been advocated for years by Fidel Castro -one of the main leaders of the revolution- and by the Cuban part y itself. This stance is characterised by petit bourgeois revolutionism.
There was an urgent need to develop a critique of both petit bourgeois revolutionism and the reformist tenets of modern revisionism. However, this was not done quickly enough or prof oundly enough. The only work was the brochure written by comrade Enver Hoxha entitled "Revisionism and Adventurism Lead to Submission, Marxism-Leninism Leads to Victory" which was published in the 1970s. The reaction against the modern revisionist theses which rejected revolution and the struggle for it meant that the impact of the Cuban revolution was very great. However, what has been forgotten is that the revolution's victory was a result of Cuba's particular conditions.
This influence was especially bi g and important in the backward countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America which were oppressed by imperialism and fascism. The Cuban revolution did not have any special impact on the world proletariat. This is because it did not represent an example of t he advance and success of the proletarian movement in particular. Given the unique conditions of Cuba, the world's working class could not draw general lessons from its revolution to advance their own struggle for freedom towards the ultimate victory. On t he other hand, the Cuban revolution encouraged peoples oppressed by imperialism and fascism to struggle. The strata influenced by the Cuban revolution were the urban petit bourgeoisie, mainly the intellectuals, the youth -especially the student youth- and to a certain extent the peasantry. Undoubtedly, the young revolutionaries of backward countries were the ones who were most inspired. In many countries, revolutionary movements developed taking Cuba as a model.
What we are interested in is the effects of the Cuban revolution internally rather than externally.
Because of the particular conditions of Cuba, revolutionary radicalism was able to put down strong roots in the labouring masses and their movement. The unity of the labouring masses together with th e radicalism of the vanguard revolutionary group made the advances possible after the revolutionary victory. This also facilitated anti-imperialist democratic reforms in almost every field. The revolutionary radicalism of the "vanguards" imported to the m a sses a will power, a revolutionary enthusiasm and radicalism. Through their own experience, the labouring masses saw that their material interests were being met thanks to the victory over imperialism and oligarchy. This revolutionary victory enabled many reforms to be carried out. Thus, with their revolutionary enthusiasm awakened, they did not only test the power of the "vanguards" but also their own. They learnt to trust that power. They held onto the revolution more tightly and became a force pushing i t forward. The original features of the Cuban revolution created conditions for the "vanguards" to advance the masses and vice versa. This made the Cuban revolution resilient. It had a mass dimension and was a serious force vis-a-vis imperialism and reaction. This is the reason for the strong relationship between the labouring masses and Fidel Castro as the leader of revolution. This bond seems almost mysterious and has so far proved its durability in the face of imperialist attacks. The policy of American i mperialism easily roused the peoples of Eastern Europe who were totally alienated from the regimes to act against their governments. However, this policy has not worked in Cuba so far and this is directly a result of this historical feature. Although the a dministration in Cuba has become bureaucratised to a certain extent and its social basis has gradually eroded, the relationship between the labouring masses and the revolutionary vanguards is still strong. Its survival despite intense pressure gives us an idea about the dimensions of this relation and just how strong it is.
Thus, the main strength of Cuba's resistance to imperialist attacks has flowed from the masses' mobilisation during the revolution and in the following process of anti-imperialist democ ratic reforms. In the course of this mobilisation, a solid relationship was established between the "vanguards" and the masses. This close relationship was nourished by the material gains of the masses.
THE RAPROCHEMENT WITH THE USSR AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF "SOCIALISM"
The "socialism" which was announced by Cuba was not one planned in advance. It was a necessity forced on the country by capitalism. It was not won by the organised proletariat and their struggle led by a vanguard communist party. It was a k ind of "socialism" that became necessary in the face of the oppression of American imperialism. It was in favour of the general interests of the people who were fed up with reactionary regime and who were in support of the anti imperialist democratic reforms of a revolutionary populist group. This group was fighting against the main enemy and its servants. Undoubtedly, this "socialism" was used as the name of anti imperialist liberation. This can also be defined as a requirement of an alliance with the USSR . The formation of this alliance was thought to be obligatory against the US. Socialism had a great prestige in the USSR and revisionism was not completely rooted yet. Another reason for the announcement of "socialism" was the rank and file pressure of the labouring masses which pushed anti imperialist democratic reforms to an extent that forced the limits of capitalism. Also, under the conditions created and facilitated by imperialist repression and the necessity of confronting it, revolutionary radicalis m of the vanguard group, with its intention for liberation and revolutionary radicalism, merged with this pressure.
Following the October Revolution, national liberation movements emerged against imperialist oppression and plunder and became a component of world proletarian revolution. A front under the flag of socialism opened against the imperialist world . This front inevitably emerged as a basis unifying all movements against imperialism around a common aim. The example of the October Revolution influen ced oppressed peoples and national liberation movements to unite with socialism and the USSR, its embodiment. This spread the wind of socialism world-wide. This wind was boasted with the advance of socialist construction and the consolidation of its basis . Following the victory of the USSR in the Second World War, the influence of socialism and the USSR's position of uniting all anti imperialist movements around itself reached extraordinary dimensions. This victory proved the strength of the USSR against imp erialism and led to the spread of its international influence. Socialism and the USSR gained a strong prestige in the eyes of the peoples of the world, anti imperialist movements and revolutionaries. Progressive movements and anti imperialist actions coul d no longer abstain from having a close relationship with the USSR and seeming to have a certain socialist rhetoric. With this in mind, Nasir of Egypt, Baas Parties of Iraq and Syria, Kaddafi of Libya, etc. claimed to be socialist. In fact, they were the r epresentatives of bourgeois currents which had a certain anti imperialist attitude. The difference of Cuba from them was that the "vanguards" had a revolutionary radicalism and were the representatives of lower classes. They were also united with labouring masses on the grounds of realising their basic democratic material interests. par par Castro and his friends, as he himself stated, were not Marxist when they initiated the revolution. Nor did they come from a Marxist tradition. They did not understand Marxism a nd their relation with it was of a general influence. In 1967, Castro sincerely stated this:
"If you are asking whether I considered myself a revolutionary when I was on the mountains, my answer is yes, I was a revolutionary. When it comes to whether I wa s a Marxist-Leninist, my answer is no. I was not a Marxist-Leninist yet. If you are asking whether I considered myself a classic communist, no I was not." (F. Castro is Speaking, p.23) Then he goes on: "The relationship we established with the USSR in 1960 advanced the conceptual maturity of the nation and of the revolutionary leaders." (ibid., p. 16)
However, what they learnt in the beginning, to a certain extent with their revolutionary good will and sincerity, was a distorted interpretation of Marxism by revisionists. They learnt it as Marxism and implemented it. When this is taken into consideratio n , one can understand what kind of socialist implementations they were. However, one should not ignore the fact that they forced the limits of capitalism through their views and actions. However, the relations with the USSR, in a way, met a "need". This le d to the domination of modern revisionism in the ideological sphere and the inevitable consequence showed itself in practise. Namely, the "vanguards", whose revolutionism was being whittled, were dragged after Soviet revisionism and the approach of which was approved first -having thought it was Marxism and socialism- and criticised later. However, they approached this revisionism with tolerance and put up with it.
In this process, coupled with non-proletarian attitudes of Cuban leadership, their revolutiona ry features were eroded. They more and more and now deliberately accepted the revisionist ideas of the USSR. The more their approach and practise developed in line with bureaucratism and state capitalism the more they distanced themselves from revolution. Their radicalism weakened and their economic and political dependence on the USSR increased. Making use of the benefits of being in power became more attractive and as a result they arrived at their present situation. All this will be clearer when we take into account the characteristics of the development of Cuban revolution.
P. Scorro Leon explains how "socialism" appeared as a "necessity" owing to the oppression of American imperialism as follows: "Cuban socialism came into being as a necessity to cope with the attacks of the US on the revolution led by Fidel Castro." (Gelenek Journal, issue:40, p. 64)
Castro praises the position of the USSR which was welcomed by the announcement of "socialism": par "We have a delegation here from the Soviet Union which showed us the true meaning of internationalism in practise. Despite our geographical distance the Soviet Union did not allow imperialism to destroy us. When we run out of oil, it sent us oil. When we were faced with the danger of invasion, it gave us guns . It sent us a labour force when we needed it." (Speeches at the CPC First Congress, We will Build Socialism, p. 103)
The announcement of "socialism" was a "duty" in return for this "philanthropy"! "In order to protect themselves from the attacks of the US, they asked the help of the Soviet Union" (F. Castro is Speaking, p. 37)
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL REFORMS
Were there any social reforms and measures achieved by the Cuban revolution? Of course there were. However, most of these reforms such as fre e education and health service were possible even in the capitalist system. Such measures were taken from time to time either as concessions to the working class vis-a-vis the possibility of social revolution in advanced capitalist countries or in order to mobilise the labour force -through free education- in a developing country. No one should underestimate the reforms in these fields. What is said is not that these reforms were not a result of a revolutionary attitude and did not have a democratic and so cial content, but that they were possible to implement within the capitalist system and were initiated as an element of an anti imperialist and democratic platform.
Cuba had a higher implementation of social security -unemployment benefit, pensions, etc- t han capitalist countries. It achieved socialisation in these fields. Whilst in the capitalist countries the unemployed and pensioners were getting much lower benefit than an average worker's wages, for a certain period, they were paid fully in Cuba. This is not a reform rejecting the capitalist system but forcing its limits.
A fundamental Cuban reform or socialisation forcing the limits of capitalism is free housing. This can be interpreted as a question of regulation of funds and subsidies within state capitalism. However, it forces the limits of classic capitalism . Capitalism constantly creates housing problem. The question of providing the labourers with free housing must be considered as a serious measure of socialisation. Undoubtedly, such measures th emselves do not make the political power implementing them socialist but they are still important. The first reason for such measures being taken in Cuba was the atmosphere created by the movement of the labouring masses. Secondly, the announcement of "so cialism" needed something concrete to be done. The third reason, especially during the first years of the revolution, was the sincere approach of the radical revolutionary cadres who thought that they were establishing the "socialism" of the "vanguards". This pulled them onto an anti capitalist platform.
These implementations must be considered together with the revolutionary atmosphere of the post-revolution years when the labouring masses were extraordinarily active, enthusiastic and self-confident owing to the gains of the revolution. In these years, thousands of workers voluntarily worked overtime. The power of revolutionary enthusiasm embracing the masses is of great significance. The originality of the Cuban revolution is the fact that this mass mobi l isation which was created by objective conditions united with the revolutionary radicalism of the vanguards. Mobilised masses pushed the vanguards to force the limits of capitalism in the direction of their interests. The vanguards, on the other hand, cou l d not ignore the enthusiasm of the masses. The advance of the revolution was achieved to a certain level by the masses pushing the vanguards forward and vice versa. Then, owing to internal and external conditions came the period of stagnation and finally the period of retreat.
Despite its serious retreats in the course of its development, it is quite natural to defend and support the anti imperialist and democratic gains of the Cuban revolution which forced the limits of capitalism to a certain extent. How ever, it is two different things to defend and support anti imperialist/ democratic gains and positions of the revolution and not to advocate "Cuban socialism", stressing the fact that it is a hallucination. Therefore, it is nonsense to think that these t wo things are contradictory.
DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE USSR
Cuba considered the Soviet Union as a big ally which would defend its revolution against American imperialism and prevent it from being smashed. Soviet Union, however, was af ter establishing its influence over Cuba. Moreover, it wanted to spread this influence onto other Latin American countries which had great sympathy towards Cuba. For this reason, Krushchev "tolerated" the approaches of the Cuban revolutionaries and pursue d a policy of not forcing them directly but imposing his revisionism on them gradually. He took great care in approaching them in a way that would not create any reaction to his impositions. Cuban revolutionaries, in the meantime, thought that they should put up with the negative consequences of their "ally" "dealing with big world issues". Therefore, they "tolerated" various implementations and impositions of modern revisionism.
In the beginning, Castro pursued a policy of winning over the American and national big investors to a national reform programme and of ensuring a certain harmony with them. He wanted to re-implement this policy, even though at a lower level, following th e crisis of the Bay of Pigs and the "announcement of socialism". The aim was to maintain a certain level of relationship with the US. This was not because of the compromising attitude of the Cubans but the peaceful thesis of Soviet modern revisionism. The Cubans felt that they had to adapt to this policy.
In October 1961, Raul Castro stated that they "aimed at peaceful co-existence with other countries and wanted to solve the problems with the US through negotiations". The US refused to do so. For the "vang uards" who were still at the zenith of their revolutionarism, the response was very hard. With the Second Declaration of Havana, they criticised the Soviet Union's line of "peaceful co-existence" and "unity with the bourgeoisies of various countries" (what was important for Castro was the unity with the Latin American bourgeoisies). They announced their support for revolutionary armed struggles in Latin America. Cuba, for a long period, sincerely supported these struggles and strongly criticised the revisi onist parties of different countries which were opposing these struggles.
In late 1962, the missile crisis broke out. In order to ensure its security against the US, Cuba wanted the USSR missiles to be situated on its territories. Having learnt this the US reacted strongly. As a result the missiles were withdrawn by an agreement between the US and the USSR, in which Cuba was not a party. During this crisis Cuba learnt in practise what sleeping with a bear meant. There was no say in a relationship with a big state. Castro who was disappointed stated this: par par "All of us were for keeping the missiles in Cuba. Moreover, we have never thought that Soviet Russia would withdraw them. For an appropriate solution we would prefer Cuba had a say." (F. Castro is Speaking, p.37)
Castro was in a serious contradiction. They had just achieved the revolution for independence but the "friend" was torpedoing the independence and sovereignty. However, he was feeling the necessity of being "tolerant", trying to find an explanation and "preserving the links despite injustice" with the belief that the relationship with Soviet Union could "protect" the Cuban revolution against American imperialism.
Castro found the way out in escalating the support to armed struggles in Latin America. In this way he would ensure a balance of power to a certain extent. The 1960s passed with efforts to escalate guerrilla struggles by supporting them. However, those who were supported such as Douglos Bravo in Venezuela, Camillo Tores in Colombia, Hugo Blanco in Peru, Turcios Lima in Guatemala, etc. were defeated one after another. Che was killed in Bolivia.
Something interesting took place between the Communist Party of Venezuela and Ca stro. While the CPV stepped back to a rightist position which proposed stopping guerrilla struggle and participating in elections, Bravo who was a member of the Central Committee carried on the struggle and he was openly supported by Castro. The CPV accus ed Castro of interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela and of seeing himself as a leader of the revolution in Latin America. They also complained to the CPSU about Castro. At the OLAS Conference Castro heavily insulted the pro-Soviet CPV and accused it of treachery and of supporting the Venezuelan oligarchy.
However, the relationship with the USSR remained strong. Consciously or unconsciously, willingly or unwillingly the Cubans submitted to continuing the march in the way they once started.
The revolution in Cuba had mobilised idle capacity. In the period 1959-62 ten factories were built and a rapid industrialisation began. However, this policy of industrialisation ended in 1964. Instead, the emphasis was placed on sugar production and agriculture in general. It is not wrong to say that the main reason for this was the Soviet revisionism's policy to make this country economically dependent. Moreover, Castro himself also began to defend this policy.
Undoubtedly, it is not possible to deny the division of labour between states, regions or sectors in the context of genuine organisations, federations or unions between socialist countries. However, these kinds of relationships should not have gone ahead with closed eyes when Brejnev's revisionist thesis o f "international division of labour" was the case or when the example of missile crisis was taken into consideration. Furthermore, socialism cannot be built on an agricultural base. However, Castro accepted being a sugar cane cutter and the leader of a sug ar exporting country to the USSR.
Afterwards, liberal economic measures and reforms of the modern revisionists were implemented. Among these measures were the giving of autonomy to enterprises, the increase of managers' personal responsibility, the regulat ion of production methods to increase production, the implementation of the concept of "earnings" to conceal the concept of "profit", the fight against getting away from working in order to restore the work discipline which was lost after voluntary overti m e that was withering away, the re-establishment of the wage system, the increase of wage differentials which was opposite to the previously well-defended tendency of equalising wages, the implementation of a premium system, etc. These were the landmarks w hich put Cuba under the hegemony of Soviet modern revisionism. Later, in 1972, Cuba joined COMECON, the institution for economic co-operation between revisionist countries.
Cuba's attitude towards the guerrilla movement in Latin America also changed in this period. When armed struggles were defeated in almost all countries, Cuba did not gain anything -as opposed to its expectation- from its support for guerrilla movements. In line with international politics of the USSR, Cuba made a shift from supporting ar med struggles to the policy of rapprochement with Latin American regimes.
Castro was subjected to an insulting criticism by D. Bravo who, when he was supported by Castro, led the accusations of the Communist Party of Venezuela of being rightist and of co-op erating with the Venezuelan oligarchy. Bravo accused Castro of giving up supporting the Latin American revolutionaries and thus leaving them in lurch. This is because when Castro visited Salvador Allende who was elected President in Chile, he said in his speech that he believed peaceful transitions were possible. He began to pursue a more "logical" line and a rapprochement with the Latin American oligarchies and communist parties.
Cuba continued to show its international solidarity with various movements. However, as was the case in Angola, this took the form of being an instrument for inter-imperialist conflicts by siding with the policies of Soviet revisionists.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM
There is no doubt that Cuba, since the preparation years for revolution, was for the struggle against imperialism. The "vanguards" who were united with the labouring masses (this unity developed in the struggle against imperialism and reactionary forces) had to face a conflict with US imperial ism which was a giant enemy 90 miles away. Cuba's rapprochement with the USSR against the US and its consequences constituted the chief factor against the revolution. This was a fundamental disadvantage of the Cuban revolution.
The second disadvantage was the fact that despite their close links with the labouring masses, the "vanguards" were not Marxist-Leninist. Neither were they close to the proletariat nor did the revolution take place as an action of the organised proletariat.
Undoubtedly, the revolutionary proletariat is the most consistent class in the struggle against imperialism. It is also true that an anti-imperialist struggle can be victorious if it head towards socialism, uniting with the socialist action of the proletariat. A national and democratic revolution which does not head towards uninterrupted socialism will stumble and be faced with many problems. If the transition to socialism is not achieved, it is inevitable that the links with the labouring masses which wer e established during the anti-imperialist revolution will be lost. This is because an anti-imperialist revolution will not put an end to but subdue class differences. However, a revolution will orientate towards socialism, consolidating the links with the labouring masses and advancing by realising all their material interests. This will lead to a conflict between on the one hand workers, including the petit bourgeoisie, and on the other hand all the property owning classes, but also to the closest relation s with the labouring masses. The other possibility is that the gains will be lost gradually, the non-labouring classes and their interests will become dominant over the labourers and their interests, and finally there will be retreat from revolution.
The determinants here are the organised struggle of the proletariat and whether Marxism-Leninism will fulfil its function as a guide to action.
Secondly, the struggle against imperialism cannot be reduced to a struggle against aggression of one or more imperialist countries which constitute the nearest threat. If the struggle against imperialism as a whole, namely against international capital in general, is underestimated, it is likely that it will lead, as in the case of Cuba, which was impotent against the US SR and its aims, to dependent relations with another imperialist power, while fighting against one. Thus, revolution will again be under threat. Cuba was faced with such a situation in the course of its relationship with the USSR, which it thought to be Ma rxist-Leninist and socialist. Cuba both lost its independence to an important extent and encountered difficulties vis-a-vis US imperialism, its traditional enemy. The main difficulty was that when it lost its "allies" as a result of the collapse of revisio nism, it was alone against the US and without an economy which could stand on its own feet. This constitute a big disadvantage in terms of the dynamics of its resistance against US imperialism.
The reason why Cuba could not advance towards socialism lie in the historical development of the revolution, which also constitutes the basis for the difficult situation that the country is currently facing. In other words, it is because of the non-proletarian, petit bourgeois nature of the revolutionary radicalism of the "vanguards", the "socialism" declared by them and the rapprochement with Soviet modern revisionism.
"VANGUARDS" AND "SOCIALISM"
It is necessary here to outline Cuba's stance to "proletarian socialism".
As Castro mentioned many times at the beginning of the revolutionary movement in Cuba, the vanguards of Cuba were not Marxist-Leninist and they declared their brand of Marxism-Leninism later. What can be said about this?
As a matter of fact any leadership can develop and change itself in the course of struggle. This is possible but their transformation must prove itself in theory and action. par If the point is the process of becoming Marxist what are the requirements of this? First of all, Marxist ideology and doctrine argues that Marxism belongs to th e working class, and it is not only the philosophy of the working class but also the guide which instructs the class in its struggle.
For Marxism and Marxists the vanguard of revolution and socialism is not a handful of avant-gardists who devote themselve s to revolution but the proletariat itself as a class. Only those who understand this perfectly at every stage of their action can be considered as true Marxists. However, in Cuba the "vanguard" has never been the working class either ideologically and po litically or organisationally. The "revolutionaries" did not stand for the organised proletariat and the "revolution" did not rely on the working class and the masses before and after the victory.
Before the revolution, the proletariat was not organised. I t could not join the revolution as an organised class, neither could it be the main base for it. In the same way, the "Communist Party" which was founded after the revolution could not go further than becoming the party of the "vanguards". Nor could the p ower be transfered from the power of the "vanguards" into the dictatorship of the proletariat.
How could the workers have materialised their control and power without the basic necessities such as Soviets or workers' councils, since these are the key means of their power? It was not possible. As a result, the power has always been in the hands of the vanguards of the 26 July Movement and left to their goodwill.
A dictatorship of the proletariat which is not based on the organised proletariat, its mass movement and its organisations of power cannot even be imagined.
With their populist ideas Fidelists were oriented towards the labourers whom they claimed to be representing. In fact, they have done a considerable amount of things for them. However, neither th e workers nor the labouring peasants were in power through their own organisations. The power was in the hands of the "vanguards" who were protecting the interests of the labourers through their radical approaches, but who were unable to conceal the inevi table inconsistencies of the petit bourgeoisie and who, from time to time, implemented policies clashing with the interests of the people.
In December 1975 when Castro made his closing speech at the first general Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, he explained that the majority of the party militants -which must have been a considerable number- were not from the working class or peasantry. Their claims of Marxism without carrying out its basic requirements created a lot of trouble for the Cuban revol utionaries. This was inevitable because the line of the "vanguards" or the Party has never been the line of the proletariat.
Revolutionaries and the "vanguards" were always thought to be responsible for "making decisions" and "actions". People would be con sulted, their views would be taken into consideration when fundamental decisions were to be taken. However, "wherever the revolutionaries do not fulfil their duties they will be responsible before the people and history will hold them accountable. Because it is those who must make decisions and actions". (27 July 1967- from Havana speeches) par par In a country, no matter how well a government establishes a close relationship with the masses, influences them and gains their admiration as is seen in the Castro case , if this relationship is based on goodwill and spontaneity rather than having a class base and an organisational base, the "vanguards" will inevitably be influenced by the idea that being in power on behalf of the labouring masses and having some privileges is their right, and this will lead to bureaucratism. The revolutionaries of Cuba could not avoid this, no matter how much they desired.
In their writings and speeches, Cuban revolutionaries, mainly Castro, quote from Jose MARTI, who was a Latin American nationalist in the 19th century and who fought for the liberation of Cuba, rather than Marx and the other classics of Mar xism. It would not be wrong to say that Jose MARTI had a great influence on the idea of the liberation of Cuba and that Castro and his friends marched after his ideas. par Castro and his friends continued the mistakes of equating socialism with the aspiration towards equality and freedom. " The necessary conditions for the development of democracy which is based on liberation, equality, and brotherhood only exist in a commu nist society." (We Will Build Socialism, F. Castro)
For Marxists it is clear that in a communist society democracy will have no meaning and thus no longer be valid. This is because it is a class concept. When classes are eliminated democracy cannot exit. Nor can it be based on the bourgeois concepts of equality, freedom and brotherhood. For communism, these concepts can only have agitational meaning. What is important is not the elimination of class inequalities and the privileges but the classes themselves.
The praise of the concepts of equality, freedom and brotherhood and aiming for these concepts in the name of socialism coincides with populist and nationalist approaches. This approach believes that the driving force of history is not class struggle, and that those who will build socialism and communism are not the proletariat but "the lab ourers and the nation" following the "vanguards". It considers that social revolution originates from "the misery and desperation of the popular masses", not from the antagonistic contradictions of capitalism. Instead of the contradictions between the pro letariat and the bourgeoisie, it tends to highlight the contradiction between imperialism and underdeveloped countries. par Additionally, Castro does not see the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which brands this epoch as that of proletarian revolutions. He argues that the basic contradiction is between the imperialists (specifically American imperialism) and the nations. This approach can be noticed in all his works and speeches. For him the target is not international capital. Thus, power relations are dealt with accordingly and the working class is not mobilised with a class based approach. He reduces the struggle of Cuba as well as that of other "exploited countries" to a struggle for independence from the US.
There is no doubt that the exploited nations of the world are suffering because of American imperialism and they are fighting against it. Nevertheless, the struggle that will shape the futur e world cannot be satisfied with abstract concepts of poverty without targeting the bourgeoisie and without the proletariat leading this struggle. Otherwise, it would be a nationalist populism.
Castro's "Marxism" is not shaped as guide to action or philosop hy of the proletariat. Thus, it is not genuine Marxism. Nor is his "socialism" proletarian socialism. It is populist and petit bourgeois socialism. Castro's ideas expressing the poverty of the people do not have anything to do with proletarian socialism. He ignores the historical role of the proletariat, the grave digger of capitalism, and the only class that can overthrow capitalism since it has the discipline and ability to organise and fight. par In addition to this populist approach of the Cubans in domesti c issues, their international politics are based on nationalism. Cuba which once supported the guerrilla movements in Latin America began to have a rapprochement with the Latin American countries -which it used to condemn as oligarchies- after having deve loped relationships with the USSR. Castro also led the "non-aligned countries" with Tito whom he once condemned as a traitor and an agent of imperialism. The idea of "unity with the Third World countries" was defended as was expressed at the Fourth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba in 1992.
To conclude, Cuba had no policies and practices relevant to proletarian socialism during and after the revolution. This makes clear why Marxist-Leninists do not agree with this so-called "socialism" which is not p roletarian or Marxist-Leninist. No one should expect or want revolutionary communists to defend and support the non-Marxist-Leninist line and non-proletarian socialism of Cuba.
However, another aspect of this question is the fact that Cuba resisted American imperialism -even though this resistance took a step back and compromised to a certain extent after the collapse of the USSR. It did not submit to the American "New World Order". Thus, Cuba is worthy of the support of communists, the world proletariat and all oppressed peoples and the people standing for democracy and liberty. Cuba must be defended as long as it continues to resist imperialism.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, Cuba is not a socialist country and has never become one. However, this is not an o bstacle to defending Cuba as long as it continues to resist imperialism and defends its anti-imperialist and democratic gains. We must not forget Lenin's support for fundamentalist Afghan leaders and his aid to Kemal Ataturk against British imperialism. F u rthermore, Castro can not be identified with either Emanuel Khan or Mustafa Kemal. Nor is there any resemblance between Cuba and Turkey or Afghanistan. Cuba has been in a more anti-imperialist and more democratic position. Although it has taken a step bac k through reconciliation, it is this position that it is trying to defend.
Cuba still has the dynamics and the possibility of resisting imperialism. One of the most important dynamics is the fact that the "vanguards" still have some revolutionary traditions. Besides, as was proved once by the demonstration of over half a million people in defence of the revolution, the leadership has links with the labouring masses who are still mobilised and who have not lost their anti-imperialist stance and enthusiasm yet.
On the other hand, there are some factors which limits the possibilities of Cuba's resistance against imperialism. Among them are Cuba's single economy, its lack of political allies, eroded revolutionary enthusiasm caused by its relationship with the ex-USSR, and tolerance to the impositions of the "allies" which causes dependency and lack of confidence in its own strength.
Dependency caused by insistence of the ex-allies in the part and it may continue in the future as well is considered as "showing understanding" and "being receptive". These negative effects underline limits and restrictions for resistance.
It is all the workers' and oppressed people's desire that Cuba's anti-imperialist resistance continues, become stronger and results in a victory . Undoubtedly, communists are the most consistent defenders of this anti-imperialist resistance.
CUBA: THE SUPPORT FOR ANTI-IMPERIALIST RESISTANCE
WHY IS CUBA ON THE AGENDA?
For the last few years, Cuba has again been an important item on the world agenda. This is not because of Cuba itself or because of important changes in its development. Cuba is important again because of the policy of US imperialism. The intention is to eradicate "the last bastion of communism" and to overthrow the regime in this country. The attacks on Cuba are designed to achieve these aims.
Despite gradual changes, Cuba has remained essentially "the same country" since the revolution. Moreover, it has actually lost some of its past "esteem" in the eyes of the peoples of the world, mainly the Latin American peoples, youth, intellectuals and revolutionaries. Obviously, Cuba's renewed world significance is not simply explained by this "exemplary" role, ho wever.
We have witnessed the collapse of revisionism in the USSR and Eastern Europe and China's orientation -despite the continuity in its political regime- towards capitalism through private property, profit, market economy, stock exchange, etc. In this c ontext, Cuba -together with North Korea- has attracted the rage of US imperialism as an opponent of the "New World Order". It would not be convincing if the US attempted to form a "New World Order" while permitting an opponent to exist close by. Moreover, it was seeking revenge. Therefore, the US has launched an hysterical anti-communist attack against Cuba in order to prove the futility of opposing it and its "new order". The aim of this attack was to underline once again the invalidity of socialism. It w as also directed at demolishing the "last citadel of socialism" in order to erase the idea of revolution and socialism from the collective memory of the people.
In the face of these attacks by American imperialism, whether Cuba is a socialist country or n ot has become a secondary question. What became the priority was the exposure of imperialist aims, resistance to the attacks and world support for Cuba's resistance. Undoubtedly, this does not imply uncritical support for Cuba, the failure to expose the f a lse policies being put forward and implemented in the name of "socialism". Nothing must be hidden. Without doing so it is not possible to expose imperialist aims or to develop a consistent resistance. We must be clear what is being supported and why. Ther efore, we should not refrain from exposing the reality of Cuba in all its aspects.
CUBA AS A "VICTIM" OF THE IMPERIALIST ATTACKS ON SOCIALISM
One of the reasons for the appearance of Cuba and developments in that country on the world agenda is that it has been singled out as the victim of a campaign to whip up anti-communist hysteria to help establish a ''new world order".
Undoubtedly, there are also other reasons for the imperialist aggression against Cuba. US imperialism aims to "kill two birds with one stone". Firstly, US imperialism wants to get rid of one of its opponents. Secondly, its declared objective is to "demolish the last stronghold of socialism". Thus, socialism would no longer be a banner in the hands of the working class and labourers of t he world.
This second element is, obviously futile. However, we must continually explain to the workers and labourers of the world the inevitability of socialism and its historical and causal roots. We must not allow them to be affected by such wishful bour geois thinking. In the same way, it is necessary to thorougly explain the relationship between Cuba and socialism.
In the face of the attacks of imperialism, it is obligatory to support and defend Cuba. One does not have to be a communist for this. On the contrary, it is one of the unavoidable tasks for every revolutionary, anti-imperialist, democratic and progressive person.
US imperialism has turned up the heat of its traditional aggression against Cuba as it lost its historical allies in the collapse of revisionism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. The US thought that Cuba could not stand alone. Moreover, its continued existence was intolerable to imperialism. It has been pursuing a policy of isolation and economic and diplomatic-political embargo against Cuba for years. For the last few years, it has dramatically tightened this policy of isolation. It now punishes those who had commercial relations with Cuba. This involved, for instance, a six-month ban from US harbours on ships which have anchored in Cu ban harbours. Today, Cuba is under a complete embargo.
This policy of embargo and isolation goes hand in hand with the encouragement of discontent fanned by the hardships Cuba is engulfed in and with the support and incitement of reactionary forces in Cuba . The counter-revolutionary offensives and conspiracies of Cuban exiles, centred in Miami and supported by the US, have escalated. The counter-revolutionaries hope to strike a resonance in the mass reaction that is expected to appear as a result of the in c reasingly hard conditions. Migrations from Cuba have been encouraged. The effectiveness of this tactic has already been tested during the collapse of various revisionist regimes in Eastern Europe. At the same time, the number of people migrating has been exaggerated and presented as a symptom of the collapse of Cuba.
Cuba is resisting these attacks. The administration tends to opt for liberal "democratic" solutions and pursues a policy characterised by a degree of compromise and concession towards the diff iculties created by the US inspired isolation, embargo and provocation. However, its calls for resistance and for the defence of Cuba and "socialism" are being implemented by the labouring masses. This was illustrated by the mass demonstrations against co unter-revolutionary actions and aggressions encouraged by the US. The labouring masses' consistent stance of defending Cuba bolsters the line of resistance of the administration.
We must support Cuba's anti-imperialist resistance to American imperialism -despite the fact that it involves a degree of compromise and concession.
The present resistance of Cuba, the Cuban people and of the administrative group led by Fidel Castro to imperialism is not accidental or without historical basis. Nor is it coincident al. Furthermore, this is not the first time Cuba has appeared on the world agenda.
THE BASIS OF CUBAN REVOLUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
In January 1959, "a handful of men" led by Fidel Castro came down the mountains, seized the main towns and political power in Havana. Since then Cuba has been one of the objects of aggressive attention for American imperialism. It has also attracted the a ttention of revolutionaries of almost all countries and has consistently kept itself high on the agenda for discussion.
The themes of this discussion did not remain the same. They reflected this or that aspect of Cuban reality which had undergone various c hanges corresponding with international conditions. However, the debate on Cuba has continued, even though it showed signs of being conducted with less heat.
The period when Cuba was a prominent item of discussion was a period when the country caused ideo logical and political splits and demarcations and directed practical revolutionary political attitudes and revolutionary armed struggles in many countries. In other words, this was the first years of the victorious Cuban revolution. This period, which end ed in the late 1960s, was the peak of the Cuban revolution and of its revolutionary radicalism.
What Cuba raised for the revolutionary movements in many places of the world was the model of class struggle: No matter what the objective conditions were, if " a handful of men" resolved on an attempt at revolution and dared to sacrifice themselves for it, if they waged an armed revolutionary war against imperialism and oligarchy, the mountains and the people would embrace them. Thus, the victory could be theirs .
Before the revolution, Cuba had stunningly appropriate objective conditions required for revolution. The armed struggle that was launched by a small number of revolutionaries gained the support and participation of the people and achieved revolution in C uba. At that time it was engulfed in a serious economic and political crisis. However, some have drawn a wrong conclusion from this and from the "armed struggle launched by a handful of people". This idea was theorised as a primary factor of the victory, without taking objective conditions into consideration or by simply taking them for granted. This was the main reason for Cuba being at the centre of discussions.
This thesis found a significant number of supporters, not only in Latin America but also in m any underdeveloped countries in the world. It was acknowledged, advocated and implemented by sincere revolutionaries who were inspired by revolution but did not know much about Marxism. Facile and empirical interpretations of reality encouraged the adopti on of this thesis and helped it spread.
One of the reasons for this was the sympathy and revolutionary enthusiasm for the newly victorious revolution. On the other hand, the experience of the Cuban revolution and the conditions in which it took place have not been studied thoroughly. The second reason, however, was the destructive, confusing and alienating impact of revisionism.
It is necessary here to touch briefly on the effects of modern revisionism. In that period, modern revisionism, via Krushchev, wa s putting forward theses such as "peaceful co-existence", "co-operation with American imperialism", "struggle for reforms", "non-capitalist way", etc. Sincere revolutionaries were reacting against these theses that rejected revolution and revolutionary wa r and against the social reformist and class collaborationist attitudes of the supposedly communist parties which were the accomplices of Soviet revisionism and which were advocating and implementing these false ideas. Sincere revolutionaries were disorien tated by the revisionist offensive of Krushchev and these parties. They reacted against it with subjectively healthy instincts. Yet, objectively, they were distancing themselves from genuine Marxism. The example of Cuba constituted something to cling on to for these people aspiring for revolution. In this period, revolutionaries who began to act with revolutionary enthusiasm embraced arms in many countries to struggle against imperialism and fascism and tried to win the masses. However, the example did not repe at itself.
In Cuba, objective conditions constituted invitation for revolution. The Cuban economy was based on a single product (sugar) and was tied to trade with the US in return for this commodity. In 1953, the US started to produce its own sugar and, as a result, decreased its import from Cuba by half. Through this, the production of sugar was decreased as well as the possibility of using machinery, energy, food, etc. that were being imported. The economy was engulfed in a serious crisis. The continuall y increasing population of Cuba expanded the need for these consumption goods. Moreover, unemployment became chronic and rose to 20 %. 35 % of the labour force was either unemployed, under-employed or working for no wages. The queues were getting longer an d longer as a result of scarcity and excessive prices. In late 1955, the workers in the sugar sector went on strike as a result of the depressed economy. This strike turned into barricade wars, specifically in Las Villas.
In the political field, coups, sca ndals and corruption were endemic. Batista, who seized power in a coup, worked behind the scenes to have "his man" elected as a president in 1944. Since Batista could not succeeded in doing this, Grau San Martin, an opponent, and then Prio became presiden t . They filled both their own pockets and those of their relatives and openly and fully co-operated with the US. There is an interesting example that illustrates corruption and the approach towards it in the period of Grau San Martin and Prio. Chiabas was t he leader of the Orthodox Party of which Fidel Castro was a member and candidate once. Chiabas was making a speech on the radio in which he wanted to reveal the bankruptcy of the education minister. However, his documents had been stolen. Thus, he chose a serious method of protest and committed suicide on air.
This suicide in mid-1951 was followed by the second coup of Batista in 1952. As was the case in Turkey, a great majority of the people first thought of the coup-maker as a "rescuer". This was true from the big bourgeoisie to the sugar cane worker.
Initially, only university students were protesting against the coup. However, Batista's corruption, excessive repression to ensure "order" and his failure to overcome the sugar crisis increased the number of his opponents. The middle class lined up against him first.
Following the Moncado Raid in 1953, repression increased. This action was a combination of government coup and seizure of arms in the barracks. The raid on 26 July that named the Cuban revoluti on was faced with the murder of hundreds of people, many arrests and heavy terror.
The amnesty of Fidel Castro and his friends who had been arrested was followed by the Granma Raid. After a short while, the Union of University students led by a catholic student attempted an uprising. Those who raided the presidential palace in March 1957 did not launch a revolt immediately. However, they pulled large numbers of the masses, mainly students, against the dictatorship via mass demonstrations and armed actions (mainly assassinations).
There were two other important incidents in 1957. The react ion against the murder of Frank Pais, the youth leader in charge of the urban organisation of the 26 July action, turned into a general strike. It was a spontaneous outbreak. It took the form of barricade clashes in Santiago and spread all over the count ry. The second incident was the rebellion in the navy in September. The people and the rebels who joined those who organised 26 July temporarily seized the city of Cienfuegos.
These incidents were encouraged by armed struggle but they also illustrated the general explosive situation in the country.
In July 1958, Batista sent 40 thousand soldiers to wipe out the revolutionaries in the Sierras. However, 300 revolutionaries and their fight made Batista flee from the country at the end of the year. This also underlines the extraordinarily suitable conditions in Cuba for a revolution.
In order to understand the Cuban revolution, one must be clear about what was specific to it. Without doing this it is wrong and anti-Marxist to conclude that a small number of p eople taking up arms with revolutionary intentions always and everywhere leads to revolution. However, it is precisely this type of thesis that have been advocated for years by Fidel Castro -one of the main leaders of the revolution- and by the Cuban part y itself. This stance is characterised by petit bourgeois revolutionism.
There was an urgent need to develop a critique of both petit bourgeois revolutionism and the reformist tenets of modern revisionism. However, this was not done quickly enough or prof oundly enough. The only work was the brochure written by comrade Enver Hoxha entitled "Revisionism and Adventurism Lead to Submission, Marxism-Leninism Leads to Victory" which was published in the 1970s. The reaction against the modern revisionist theses which rejected revolution and the struggle for it meant that the impact of the Cuban revolution was very great. However, what has been forgotten is that the revolution's victory was a result of Cuba's particular conditions.
This influence was especially bi g and important in the backward countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America which were oppressed by imperialism and fascism. The Cuban revolution did not have any special impact on the world proletariat. This is because it did not represent an example of t he advance and success of the proletarian movement in particular. Given the unique conditions of Cuba, the world's working class could not draw general lessons from its revolution to advance their own struggle for freedom towards the ultimate victory. On t he other hand, the Cuban revolution encouraged peoples oppressed by imperialism and fascism to struggle. The strata influenced by the Cuban revolution were the urban petit bourgeoisie, mainly the intellectuals, the youth -especially the student youth- and to a certain extent the peasantry. Undoubtedly, the young revolutionaries of backward countries were the ones who were most inspired. In many countries, revolutionary movements developed taking Cuba as a model.
What we are interested in is the effects of the Cuban revolution internally rather than externally.
Because of the particular conditions of Cuba, revolutionary radicalism was able to put down strong roots in the labouring masses and their movement. The unity of the labouring masses together with th e radicalism of the vanguard revolutionary group made the advances possible after the revolutionary victory. This also facilitated anti-imperialist democratic reforms in almost every field. The revolutionary radicalism of the "vanguards" imported to the m a sses a will power, a revolutionary enthusiasm and radicalism. Through their own experience, the labouring masses saw that their material interests were being met thanks to the victory over imperialism and oligarchy. This revolutionary victory enabled many reforms to be carried out. Thus, with their revolutionary enthusiasm awakened, they did not only test the power of the "vanguards" but also their own. They learnt to trust that power. They held onto the revolution more tightly and became a force pushing i t forward. The original features of the Cuban revolution created conditions for the "vanguards" to advance the masses and vice versa. This made the Cuban revolution resilient. It had a mass dimension and was a serious force vis-a-vis imperialism and reaction. This is the reason for the strong relationship between the labouring masses and Fidel Castro as the leader of revolution. This bond seems almost mysterious and has so far proved its durability in the face of imperialist attacks. The policy of American i mperialism easily roused the peoples of Eastern Europe who were totally alienated from the regimes to act against their governments. However, this policy has not worked in Cuba so far and this is directly a result of this historical feature. Although the a dministration in Cuba has become bureaucratised to a certain extent and its social basis has gradually eroded, the relationship between the labouring masses and the revolutionary vanguards is still strong. Its survival despite intense pressure gives us an idea about the dimensions of this relation and just how strong it is.
Thus, the main strength of Cuba's resistance to imperialist attacks has flowed from the masses' mobilisation during the revolution and in the following process of anti-imperialist democ ratic reforms. In the course of this mobilisation, a solid relationship was established between the "vanguards" and the masses. This close relationship was nourished by the material gains of the masses.
THE RAPROCHEMENT WITH THE USSR AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF "SOCIALISM"
The "socialism" which was announced by Cuba was not one planned in advance. It was a necessity forced on the country by capitalism. It was not won by the organised proletariat and their struggle led by a vanguard communist party. It was a k ind of "socialism" that became necessary in the face of the oppression of American imperialism. It was in favour of the general interests of the people who were fed up with reactionary regime and who were in support of the anti imperialist democratic reforms of a revolutionary populist group. This group was fighting against the main enemy and its servants. Undoubtedly, this "socialism" was used as the name of anti imperialist liberation. This can also be defined as a requirement of an alliance with the USSR . The formation of this alliance was thought to be obligatory against the US. Socialism had a great prestige in the USSR and revisionism was not completely rooted yet. Another reason for the announcement of "socialism" was the rank and file pressure of the labouring masses which pushed anti imperialist democratic reforms to an extent that forced the limits of capitalism. Also, under the conditions created and facilitated by imperialist repression and the necessity of confronting it, revolutionary radicalis m of the vanguard group, with its intention for liberation and revolutionary radicalism, merged with this pressure.
Following the October Revolution, national liberation movements emerged against imperialist oppression and plunder and became a component of world proletarian revolution. A front under the flag of socialism opened against the imperialist world . This front inevitably emerged as a basis unifying all movements against imperialism around a common aim. The example of the October Revolution influen ced oppressed peoples and national liberation movements to unite with socialism and the USSR, its embodiment. This spread the wind of socialism world-wide. This wind was boasted with the advance of socialist construction and the consolidation of its basis . Following the victory of the USSR in the Second World War, the influence of socialism and the USSR's position of uniting all anti imperialist movements around itself reached extraordinary dimensions. This victory proved the strength of the USSR against imp erialism and led to the spread of its international influence. Socialism and the USSR gained a strong prestige in the eyes of the peoples of the world, anti imperialist movements and revolutionaries. Progressive movements and anti imperialist actions coul d no longer abstain from having a close relationship with the USSR and seeming to have a certain socialist rhetoric. With this in mind, Nasir of Egypt, Baas Parties of Iraq and Syria, Kaddafi of Libya, etc. claimed to be socialist. In fact, they were the r epresentatives of bourgeois currents which had a certain anti imperialist attitude. The difference of Cuba from them was that the "vanguards" had a revolutionary radicalism and were the representatives of lower classes. They were also united with labouring masses on the grounds of realising their basic democratic material interests. par par Castro and his friends, as he himself stated, were not Marxist when they initiated the revolution. Nor did they come from a Marxist tradition. They did not understand Marxism a nd their relation with it was of a general influence. In 1967, Castro sincerely stated this:
"If you are asking whether I considered myself a revolutionary when I was on the mountains, my answer is yes, I was a revolutionary. When it comes to whether I wa s a Marxist-Leninist, my answer is no. I was not a Marxist-Leninist yet. If you are asking whether I considered myself a classic communist, no I was not." (F. Castro is Speaking, p.23) Then he goes on: "The relationship we established with the USSR in 1960 advanced the conceptual maturity of the nation and of the revolutionary leaders." (ibid., p. 16)
However, what they learnt in the beginning, to a certain extent with their revolutionary good will and sincerity, was a distorted interpretation of Marxism by revisionists. They learnt it as Marxism and implemented it. When this is taken into consideratio n , one can understand what kind of socialist implementations they were. However, one should not ignore the fact that they forced the limits of capitalism through their views and actions. However, the relations with the USSR, in a way, met a "need". This le d to the domination of modern revisionism in the ideological sphere and the inevitable consequence showed itself in practise. Namely, the "vanguards", whose revolutionism was being whittled, were dragged after Soviet revisionism and the approach of which was approved first -having thought it was Marxism and socialism- and criticised later. However, they approached this revisionism with tolerance and put up with it.
In this process, coupled with non-proletarian attitudes of Cuban leadership, their revolutiona ry features were eroded. They more and more and now deliberately accepted the revisionist ideas of the USSR. The more their approach and practise developed in line with bureaucratism and state capitalism the more they distanced themselves from revolution. Their radicalism weakened and their economic and political dependence on the USSR increased. Making use of the benefits of being in power became more attractive and as a result they arrived at their present situation. All this will be clearer when we take into account the characteristics of the development of Cuban revolution.
P. Scorro Leon explains how "socialism" appeared as a "necessity" owing to the oppression of American imperialism as follows: "Cuban socialism came into being as a necessity to cope with the attacks of the US on the revolution led by Fidel Castro." (Gelenek Journal, issue:40, p. 64)
Castro praises the position of the USSR which was welcomed by the announcement of "socialism": par "We have a delegation here from the Soviet Union which showed us the true meaning of internationalism in practise. Despite our geographical distance the Soviet Union did not allow imperialism to destroy us. When we run out of oil, it sent us oil. When we were faced with the danger of invasion, it gave us guns . It sent us a labour force when we needed it." (Speeches at the CPC First Congress, We will Build Socialism, p. 103)
The announcement of "socialism" was a "duty" in return for this "philanthropy"! "In order to protect themselves from the attacks of the US, they asked the help of the Soviet Union" (F. Castro is Speaking, p. 37)
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL REFORMS
Were there any social reforms and measures achieved by the Cuban revolution? Of course there were. However, most of these reforms such as fre e education and health service were possible even in the capitalist system. Such measures were taken from time to time either as concessions to the working class vis-a-vis the possibility of social revolution in advanced capitalist countries or in order to mobilise the labour force -through free education- in a developing country. No one should underestimate the reforms in these fields. What is said is not that these reforms were not a result of a revolutionary attitude and did not have a democratic and so cial content, but that they were possible to implement within the capitalist system and were initiated as an element of an anti imperialist and democratic platform.
Cuba had a higher implementation of social security -unemployment benefit, pensions, etc- t han capitalist countries. It achieved socialisation in these fields. Whilst in the capitalist countries the unemployed and pensioners were getting much lower benefit than an average worker's wages, for a certain period, they were paid fully in Cuba. This is not a reform rejecting the capitalist system but forcing its limits.
A fundamental Cuban reform or socialisation forcing the limits of capitalism is free housing. This can be interpreted as a question of regulation of funds and subsidies within state capitalism. However, it forces the limits of classic capitalism . Capitalism constantly creates housing problem. The question of providing the labourers with free housing must be considered as a serious measure of socialisation. Undoubtedly, such measures th emselves do not make the political power implementing them socialist but they are still important. The first reason for such measures being taken in Cuba was the atmosphere created by the movement of the labouring masses. Secondly, the announcement of "so cialism" needed something concrete to be done. The third reason, especially during the first years of the revolution, was the sincere approach of the radical revolutionary cadres who thought that they were establishing the "socialism" of the "vanguards". This pulled them onto an anti capitalist platform.
These implementations must be considered together with the revolutionary atmosphere of the post-revolution years when the labouring masses were extraordinarily active, enthusiastic and self-confident owing to the gains of the revolution. In these years, thousands of workers voluntarily worked overtime. The power of revolutionary enthusiasm embracing the masses is of great significance. The originality of the Cuban revolution is the fact that this mass mobi l isation which was created by objective conditions united with the revolutionary radicalism of the vanguards. Mobilised masses pushed the vanguards to force the limits of capitalism in the direction of their interests. The vanguards, on the other hand, cou l d not ignore the enthusiasm of the masses. The advance of the revolution was achieved to a certain level by the masses pushing the vanguards forward and vice versa. Then, owing to internal and external conditions came the period of stagnation and finally the period of retreat.
Despite its serious retreats in the course of its development, it is quite natural to defend and support the anti imperialist and democratic gains of the Cuban revolution which forced the limits of capitalism to a certain extent. How ever, it is two different things to defend and support anti imperialist/ democratic gains and positions of the revolution and not to advocate "Cuban socialism", stressing the fact that it is a hallucination. Therefore, it is nonsense to think that these t wo things are contradictory.
DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE USSR
Cuba considered the Soviet Union as a big ally which would defend its revolution against American imperialism and prevent it from being smashed. Soviet Union, however, was af ter establishing its influence over Cuba. Moreover, it wanted to spread this influence onto other Latin American countries which had great sympathy towards Cuba. For this reason, Krushchev "tolerated" the approaches of the Cuban revolutionaries and pursue d a policy of not forcing them directly but imposing his revisionism on them gradually. He took great care in approaching them in a way that would not create any reaction to his impositions. Cuban revolutionaries, in the meantime, thought that they should put up with the negative consequences of their "ally" "dealing with big world issues". Therefore, they "tolerated" various implementations and impositions of modern revisionism.
In the beginning, Castro pursued a policy of winning over the American and national big investors to a national reform programme and of ensuring a certain harmony with them. He wanted to re-implement this policy, even though at a lower level, following th e crisis of the Bay of Pigs and the "announcement of socialism". The aim was to maintain a certain level of relationship with the US. This was not because of the compromising attitude of the Cubans but the peaceful thesis of Soviet modern revisionism. The Cubans felt that they had to adapt to this policy.
In October 1961, Raul Castro stated that they "aimed at peaceful co-existence with other countries and wanted to solve the problems with the US through negotiations". The US refused to do so. For the "vang uards" who were still at the zenith of their revolutionarism, the response was very hard. With the Second Declaration of Havana, they criticised the Soviet Union's line of "peaceful co-existence" and "unity with the bourgeoisies of various countries" (what was important for Castro was the unity with the Latin American bourgeoisies). They announced their support for revolutionary armed struggles in Latin America. Cuba, for a long period, sincerely supported these struggles and strongly criticised the revisi onist parties of different countries which were opposing these struggles.
In late 1962, the missile crisis broke out. In order to ensure its security against the US, Cuba wanted the USSR missiles to be situated on its territories. Having learnt this the US reacted strongly. As a result the missiles were withdrawn by an agreement between the US and the USSR, in which Cuba was not a party. During this crisis Cuba learnt in practise what sleeping with a bear meant. There was no say in a relationship with a big state. Castro who was disappointed stated this: par par "All of us were for keeping the missiles in Cuba. Moreover, we have never thought that Soviet Russia would withdraw them. For an appropriate solution we would prefer Cuba had a say." (F. Castro is Speaking, p.37)
Castro was in a serious contradiction. They had just achieved the revolution for independence but the "friend" was torpedoing the independence and sovereignty. However, he was feeling the necessity of being "tolerant", trying to find an explanation and "preserving the links despite injustice" with the belief that the relationship with Soviet Union could "protect" the Cuban revolution against American imperialism.
Castro found the way out in escalating the support to armed struggles in Latin America. In this way he would ensure a balance of power to a certain extent. The 1960s passed with efforts to escalate guerrilla struggles by supporting them. However, those who were supported such as Douglos Bravo in Venezuela, Camillo Tores in Colombia, Hugo Blanco in Peru, Turcios Lima in Guatemala, etc. were defeated one after another. Che was killed in Bolivia.
Something interesting took place between the Communist Party of Venezuela and Ca stro. While the CPV stepped back to a rightist position which proposed stopping guerrilla struggle and participating in elections, Bravo who was a member of the Central Committee carried on the struggle and he was openly supported by Castro. The CPV accus ed Castro of interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela and of seeing himself as a leader of the revolution in Latin America. They also complained to the CPSU about Castro. At the OLAS Conference Castro heavily insulted the pro-Soviet CPV and accused it of treachery and of supporting the Venezuelan oligarchy.
However, the relationship with the USSR remained strong. Consciously or unconsciously, willingly or unwillingly the Cubans submitted to continuing the march in the way they once started.
The revolution in Cuba had mobilised idle capacity. In the period 1959-62 ten factories were built and a rapid industrialisation began. However, this policy of industrialisation ended in 1964. Instead, the emphasis was placed on sugar production and agriculture in general. It is not wrong to say that the main reason for this was the Soviet revisionism's policy to make this country economically dependent. Moreover, Castro himself also began to defend this policy.
Undoubtedly, it is not possible to deny the division of labour between states, regions or sectors in the context of genuine organisations, federations or unions between socialist countries. However, these kinds of relationships should not have gone ahead with closed eyes when Brejnev's revisionist thesis o f "international division of labour" was the case or when the example of missile crisis was taken into consideration. Furthermore, socialism cannot be built on an agricultural base. However, Castro accepted being a sugar cane cutter and the leader of a sug ar exporting country to the USSR.
Afterwards, liberal economic measures and reforms of the modern revisionists were implemented. Among these measures were the giving of autonomy to enterprises, the increase of managers' personal responsibility, the regulat ion of production methods to increase production, the implementation of the concept of "earnings" to conceal the concept of "profit", the fight against getting away from working in order to restore the work discipline which was lost after voluntary overti m e that was withering away, the re-establishment of the wage system, the increase of wage differentials which was opposite to the previously well-defended tendency of equalising wages, the implementation of a premium system, etc. These were the landmarks w hich put Cuba under the hegemony of Soviet modern revisionism. Later, in 1972, Cuba joined COMECON, the institution for economic co-operation between revisionist countries.
Cuba's attitude towards the guerrilla movement in Latin America also changed in this period. When armed struggles were defeated in almost all countries, Cuba did not gain anything -as opposed to its expectation- from its support for guerrilla movements. In line with international politics of the USSR, Cuba made a shift from supporting ar med struggles to the policy of rapprochement with Latin American regimes.
Castro was subjected to an insulting criticism by D. Bravo who, when he was supported by Castro, led the accusations of the Communist Party of Venezuela of being rightist and of co-op erating with the Venezuelan oligarchy. Bravo accused Castro of giving up supporting the Latin American revolutionaries and thus leaving them in lurch. This is because when Castro visited Salvador Allende who was elected President in Chile, he said in his speech that he believed peaceful transitions were possible. He began to pursue a more "logical" line and a rapprochement with the Latin American oligarchies and communist parties.
Cuba continued to show its international solidarity with various movements. However, as was the case in Angola, this took the form of being an instrument for inter-imperialist conflicts by siding with the policies of Soviet revisionists.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM
There is no doubt that Cuba, since the preparation years for revolution, was for the struggle against imperialism. The "vanguards" who were united with the labouring masses (this unity developed in the struggle against imperialism and reactionary forces) had to face a conflict with US imperial ism which was a giant enemy 90 miles away. Cuba's rapprochement with the USSR against the US and its consequences constituted the chief factor against the revolution. This was a fundamental disadvantage of the Cuban revolution.
The second disadvantage was the fact that despite their close links with the labouring masses, the "vanguards" were not Marxist-Leninist. Neither were they close to the proletariat nor did the revolution take place as an action of the organised proletariat.
Undoubtedly, the revolutionary proletariat is the most consistent class in the struggle against imperialism. It is also true that an anti-imperialist struggle can be victorious if it head towards socialism, uniting with the socialist action of the proletariat. A national and democratic revolution which does not head towards uninterrupted socialism will stumble and be faced with many problems. If the transition to socialism is not achieved, it is inevitable that the links with the labouring masses which wer e established during the anti-imperialist revolution will be lost. This is because an anti-imperialist revolution will not put an end to but subdue class differences. However, a revolution will orientate towards socialism, consolidating the links with the labouring masses and advancing by realising all their material interests. This will lead to a conflict between on the one hand workers, including the petit bourgeoisie, and on the other hand all the property owning classes, but also to the closest relation s with the labouring masses. The other possibility is that the gains will be lost gradually, the non-labouring classes and their interests will become dominant over the labourers and their interests, and finally there will be retreat from revolution.
The determinants here are the organised struggle of the proletariat and whether Marxism-Leninism will fulfil its function as a guide to action.
Secondly, the struggle against imperialism cannot be reduced to a struggle against aggression of one or more imperialist countries which constitute the nearest threat. If the struggle against imperialism as a whole, namely against international capital in general, is underestimated, it is likely that it will lead, as in the case of Cuba, which was impotent against the US SR and its aims, to dependent relations with another imperialist power, while fighting against one. Thus, revolution will again be under threat. Cuba was faced with such a situation in the course of its relationship with the USSR, which it thought to be Ma rxist-Leninist and socialist. Cuba both lost its independence to an important extent and encountered difficulties vis-a-vis US imperialism, its traditional enemy. The main difficulty was that when it lost its "allies" as a result of the collapse of revisio nism, it was alone against the US and without an economy which could stand on its own feet. This constitute a big disadvantage in terms of the dynamics of its resistance against US imperialism.
The reason why Cuba could not advance towards socialism lie in the historical development of the revolution, which also constitutes the basis for the difficult situation that the country is currently facing. In other words, it is because of the non-proletarian, petit bourgeois nature of the revolutionary radicalism of the "vanguards", the "socialism" declared by them and the rapprochement with Soviet modern revisionism.
"VANGUARDS" AND "SOCIALISM"
It is necessary here to outline Cuba's stance to "proletarian socialism".
As Castro mentioned many times at the beginning of the revolutionary movement in Cuba, the vanguards of Cuba were not Marxist-Leninist and they declared their brand of Marxism-Leninism later. What can be said about this?
As a matter of fact any leadership can develop and change itself in the course of struggle. This is possible but their transformation must prove itself in theory and action. par If the point is the process of becoming Marxist what are the requirements of this? First of all, Marxist ideology and doctrine argues that Marxism belongs to th e working class, and it is not only the philosophy of the working class but also the guide which instructs the class in its struggle.
For Marxism and Marxists the vanguard of revolution and socialism is not a handful of avant-gardists who devote themselve s to revolution but the proletariat itself as a class. Only those who understand this perfectly at every stage of their action can be considered as true Marxists. However, in Cuba the "vanguard" has never been the working class either ideologically and po litically or organisationally. The "revolutionaries" did not stand for the organised proletariat and the "revolution" did not rely on the working class and the masses before and after the victory.
Before the revolution, the proletariat was not organised. I t could not join the revolution as an organised class, neither could it be the main base for it. In the same way, the "Communist Party" which was founded after the revolution could not go further than becoming the party of the "vanguards". Nor could the p ower be transfered from the power of the "vanguards" into the dictatorship of the proletariat.
How could the workers have materialised their control and power without the basic necessities such as Soviets or workers' councils, since these are the key means of their power? It was not possible. As a result, the power has always been in the hands of the vanguards of the 26 July Movement and left to their goodwill.
A dictatorship of the proletariat which is not based on the organised proletariat, its mass movement and its organisations of power cannot even be imagined.
With their populist ideas Fidelists were oriented towards the labourers whom they claimed to be representing. In fact, they have done a considerable amount of things for them. However, neither th e workers nor the labouring peasants were in power through their own organisations. The power was in the hands of the "vanguards" who were protecting the interests of the labourers through their radical approaches, but who were unable to conceal the inevi table inconsistencies of the petit bourgeoisie and who, from time to time, implemented policies clashing with the interests of the people.
In December 1975 when Castro made his closing speech at the first general Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, he explained that the majority of the party militants -which must have been a considerable number- were not from the working class or peasantry. Their claims of Marxism without carrying out its basic requirements created a lot of trouble for the Cuban revol utionaries. This was inevitable because the line of the "vanguards" or the Party has never been the line of the proletariat.
Revolutionaries and the "vanguards" were always thought to be responsible for "making decisions" and "actions". People would be con sulted, their views would be taken into consideration when fundamental decisions were to be taken. However, "wherever the revolutionaries do not fulfil their duties they will be responsible before the people and history will hold them accountable. Because it is those who must make decisions and actions". (27 July 1967- from Havana speeches) par par In a country, no matter how well a government establishes a close relationship with the masses, influences them and gains their admiration as is seen in the Castro case , if this relationship is based on goodwill and spontaneity rather than having a class base and an organisational base, the "vanguards" will inevitably be influenced by the idea that being in power on behalf of the labouring masses and having some privileges is their right, and this will lead to bureaucratism. The revolutionaries of Cuba could not avoid this, no matter how much they desired.
In their writings and speeches, Cuban revolutionaries, mainly Castro, quote from Jose MARTI, who was a Latin American nationalist in the 19th century and who fought for the liberation of Cuba, rather than Marx and the other classics of Mar xism. It would not be wrong to say that Jose MARTI had a great influence on the idea of the liberation of Cuba and that Castro and his friends marched after his ideas. par Castro and his friends continued the mistakes of equating socialism with the aspiration towards equality and freedom. " The necessary conditions for the development of democracy which is based on liberation, equality, and brotherhood only exist in a commu nist society." (We Will Build Socialism, F. Castro)
For Marxists it is clear that in a communist society democracy will have no meaning and thus no longer be valid. This is because it is a class concept. When classes are eliminated democracy cannot exit. Nor can it be based on the bourgeois concepts of equality, freedom and brotherhood. For communism, these concepts can only have agitational meaning. What is important is not the elimination of class inequalities and the privileges but the classes themselves.
The praise of the concepts of equality, freedom and brotherhood and aiming for these concepts in the name of socialism coincides with populist and nationalist approaches. This approach believes that the driving force of history is not class struggle, and that those who will build socialism and communism are not the proletariat but "the lab ourers and the nation" following the "vanguards". It considers that social revolution originates from "the misery and desperation of the popular masses", not from the antagonistic contradictions of capitalism. Instead of the contradictions between the pro letariat and the bourgeoisie, it tends to highlight the contradiction between imperialism and underdeveloped countries. par Additionally, Castro does not see the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which brands this epoch as that of proletarian revolutions. He argues that the basic contradiction is between the imperialists (specifically American imperialism) and the nations. This approach can be noticed in all his works and speeches. For him the target is not international capital. Thus, power relations are dealt with accordingly and the working class is not mobilised with a class based approach. He reduces the struggle of Cuba as well as that of other "exploited countries" to a struggle for independence from the US.
There is no doubt that the exploited nations of the world are suffering because of American imperialism and they are fighting against it. Nevertheless, the struggle that will shape the futur e world cannot be satisfied with abstract concepts of poverty without targeting the bourgeoisie and without the proletariat leading this struggle. Otherwise, it would be a nationalist populism.
Castro's "Marxism" is not shaped as guide to action or philosop hy of the proletariat. Thus, it is not genuine Marxism. Nor is his "socialism" proletarian socialism. It is populist and petit bourgeois socialism. Castro's ideas expressing the poverty of the people do not have anything to do with proletarian socialism. He ignores the historical role of the proletariat, the grave digger of capitalism, and the only class that can overthrow capitalism since it has the discipline and ability to organise and fight. par In addition to this populist approach of the Cubans in domesti c issues, their international politics are based on nationalism. Cuba which once supported the guerrilla movements in Latin America began to have a rapprochement with the Latin American countries -which it used to condemn as oligarchies- after having deve loped relationships with the USSR. Castro also led the "non-aligned countries" with Tito whom he once condemned as a traitor and an agent of imperialism. The idea of "unity with the Third World countries" was defended as was expressed at the Fourth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba in 1992.
To conclude, Cuba had no policies and practices relevant to proletarian socialism during and after the revolution. This makes clear why Marxist-Leninists do not agree with this so-called "socialism" which is not p roletarian or Marxist-Leninist. No one should expect or want revolutionary communists to defend and support the non-Marxist-Leninist line and non-proletarian socialism of Cuba.
However, another aspect of this question is the fact that Cuba resisted American imperialism -even though this resistance took a step back and compromised to a certain extent after the collapse of the USSR. It did not submit to the American "New World Order". Thus, Cuba is worthy of the support of communists, the world proletariat and all oppressed peoples and the people standing for democracy and liberty. Cuba must be defended as long as it continues to resist imperialism.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, Cuba is not a socialist country and has never become one. However, this is not an o bstacle to defending Cuba as long as it continues to resist imperialism and defends its anti-imperialist and democratic gains. We must not forget Lenin's support for fundamentalist Afghan leaders and his aid to Kemal Ataturk against British imperialism. F u rthermore, Castro can not be identified with either Emanuel Khan or Mustafa Kemal. Nor is there any resemblance between Cuba and Turkey or Afghanistan. Cuba has been in a more anti-imperialist and more democratic position. Although it has taken a step bac k through reconciliation, it is this position that it is trying to defend.
Cuba still has the dynamics and the possibility of resisting imperialism. One of the most important dynamics is the fact that the "vanguards" still have some revolutionary traditions. Besides, as was proved once by the demonstration of over half a million people in defence of the revolution, the leadership has links with the labouring masses who are still mobilised and who have not lost their anti-imperialist stance and enthusiasm yet.
On the other hand, there are some factors which limits the possibilities of Cuba's resistance against imperialism. Among them are Cuba's single economy, its lack of political allies, eroded revolutionary enthusiasm caused by its relationship with the ex-USSR, and tolerance to the impositions of the "allies" which causes dependency and lack of confidence in its own strength.
Dependency caused by insistence of the ex-allies in the part and it may continue in the future as well is considered as "showing understanding" and "being receptive". These negative effects underline limits and restrictions for resistance.
It is all the workers' and oppressed people's desire that Cuba's anti-imperialist resistance continues, become stronger and results in a victory . Undoubtedly, communists are the most consistent defenders of this anti-imperialist resistance.