Question on Fidel

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is Fidel's view on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956?

[Whitten]

That would probably depend on whether he was asked before or after the USSR stops sending him aid

[Jhé]

Yes, the Hungarian Revolution lasted between October 23 and November 10 1959, whilst the Cuban Revolution lasted from December Second 1956 and January First 1959.

[VenceremosRed]

Comrade Fidel hasn't contributed much to historical materialism or dialectical theory, per se, his greatest contributions have been to revolutionary praxis. I would suspect he hasn't said a lot about history. He's too busy leading a revolution. :castro:

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Yes, the Hungarian Revolution lasted between October 23 and November 10 1959, whilst the Cuban Revolution lasted from December Second 1956 and January First 1959.

A man is able to form opinions without being head of state. ;)

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Don [email protected] 29, 2006 04:12 pm
Yes, the Hungarian Revolution lasted between October 23 and November 10 1959, whilst the Cuban Revolution lasted from December Second 1956 and January First 1959.
Hungarian Revolution = October 23 to November 10 1956*, three years before 1959. As others have said, it probably depends on when you would have asked him.

[The Author]

He supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, FYI:

Castro Comments on Czechoslovak Crisis (http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro/1968/19680824)


Originally posted by Commandante Fidel
Now everything that begins to receive the
praise, support, enthusiasm, and applause of the imperialist press
naturally begins to raise our suspicions.

A very good point. One may say the same about Hungary, 1956. And Kronstadt, 1921. And the Polish demonstrations under "Solidarinosc," and Eastern Europe and Tiananmen in 1989.


I had no doubt that the Czechoslovak
political situation was deteriorating and Czechoslovakia was sliding
downhill to a return to capitalism and would inexorably fall into the hands
of imperialism.


The imperialists are waging this
campaign not only in Czechoslovakia but in all East European nations
including the Soviet Union. They try by every means to mount publicity
campaigns in favor of the way of life of the developed industrial society
and in favor of the tastes and the consumer goods of the developed
bourgeois societies. They do this on the radio and through what they call
cultural exchange programs. They very subtly try to awaken in the masses
admiration and an appetite for such tastes, for such consumer habits.

They know full well that the development of these feelings run counter to
the revolutionary sentiments of the masses and to the spirit of sacrifice
of the masses. The imperialists make much use of the entire bourgeois
facade, the utter luxury of a class society which has greatly developed the
art and refinement of consumer tastes and luxury, which cannot ever be the
aspirations of the socialist societies or of the peoples who seek to march
toward communism.

They have a policy called the East European policy, through which they
manage their resources, their commerce, with this in mind. They do not do
this with Cuba. To Cuba they apply a policy of incessant persecution in all
the markets so that we cannot buy, well, or acquire even a little seed, so
that we cannot acquire anything. They are relentlessly executing this
policy against Cuba. Why? We must ask why. They know that they have not the
slightest possibility of penetrating our country with such maneuvers. The
imperialists know this and they know it full well.

Also good points. A very good analysis of the tactics of the counterrevolution. It is a pity the revisionists never took this into account in practice.

[chebol]

ah, no. Try reading that again....

Fidel's "support" of the Soviet invasion was a poisoned chalice. It was actually a stark criticism, couched in diplomatic words made necessary by Cuba's economic reliance on the USSR and their recent ousting and imprisonment of a Moscow-backed secret faction led by Anibal Escalante that was following Moscow's orders in supplanting Fidel and Co. with a more "loyal" leadership.

Fidel's and Cuba's 'statement of support' was the only one not reprinted by the Soviets, who correctly recognised it for the criticism that it was - of the Western involvement, of the pre-existing Moscow-backed regime, and of the invasion itself.

Here is one inportant part, but read the whole thing too...


What is not appropriate here is to say that the sovereignty of the
Czechoslovak state was not violated. That would be fiction and a lie. The
violation was flagrant, and on this we are going to talk about the effect
on sovereignty, and on legal and political principles. From the legal
viewpoint, it cannot be justified. This is quite clear. In our judgment,
the decision on Czechoslovakia can be explained only from the political
viewpoint and not from a legal viewpoint. Frankly, it has absolutely no
legality.

What are the circumstances that have permitted a remedy of this nature, a
remedy which places in a difficult situation the entire world revolutionary
movement, a remedy which constitutes a really traumatic situation for an
entire people--as is the present case in Czechoslovakia--a remedy which
implies that an entire nation has to pass through the most unpleasant
circumstances of seeing the country occupied by armies of other countries,
although they are armies of the socialist countries. A situation in which
millions of beings of a country have to see themselves today in the tragic
circumstance of electing and choosing either to be passive toward these
circumstances and this event--which so much brings to mind previous
episodes--or to struggle in comradeship with pro-Yankee agents and spies,
the enemies of socialism, the agents of West Germany, and all that fascist
and reactionary rabble that in the heat of these circumstances will try to
present itself as champions of the sovereignty, patriotism, and freedom of
Czechoslovakia?

Logically, for the Czechoslovak people this experience and this fact
constitute a better and tragic situation. Therefore, it is not enough
simply to conclude that it has arisen as an inexorable necessity and even,
if you wish, as an unquestionable obligation of the socialist countries to
prevent such events from happening. [One must inquire] what are the cases,
the factors, and the circumstances that brought forth--after 20 years of
communism in Czechoslovakia--a group of persons whose names do not even
appear anywhere, and this petition directed to other countries of the
socialist camp, asking them to send their armies to prevent the triumph of
the counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia and the triumph of the intrigues
and conspiracies of the imperialist countries interested in breaking
Czechoslovakia from the community of socialist countries?

Could it be imagined, gentlemen, that at the end of 20 years of communism
in our country--of communist revolution, of socialist revolution--that
under any circumstances it could happen that a group of honest
revolutionaries in this country, terrified at the prospects of an advance
or, better said, of a retrogression toward counterrevolutionary positions
and imperialism, would see the need of asking the aid of friendly armies to
prevent such a situation from occurring?

What would have remained of the communist consciousness of this people?
What would have remained of the revolutionary consciousness of this people,
of the dignity of this people, of the revolutionary morale of this people?
What would have remained of all those things that mean for us essentially
the revolution if such circumstances should one day arise?

[Jhé]

Originally posted by BreadBros+October 30, 2006 04:52 am--> (BreadBros @ October 30, 2006 04:52 am)
Don [email protected] 29, 2006 04:12 pm
Yes, the Hungarian Revolution lasted between October 23 and November 10 1959, whilst the Cuban Revolution lasted from December Second 1956 and January First 1959.
Hungarian Revolution = October 23 to November 10 1956*, three years before 1959. As others have said, it probably depends on when you would have asked him. [/b]
apologies, must of been a typo.

Yet i suppose you cannot give an exact starting point on any revolutionary movement.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] Oct. 30, 2006, 01:32 am
ah, no. Try reading that again....

Fidel's "support" of the Soviet invasion was a poisoned chalice. It was actually a stark criticism, couched in diplomatic words made necessary by Cuba's economic reliance on the USSR and their recent ousting and imprisonment of a Moscow-backed secret faction led by Anibal Escalante that was following Moscow's orders in supplanting Fidel and Co. with a more "loyal" leadership.

Fidel's and Cuba's 'statement of support' was the only one not reprinted by the Soviets, who correctly recognised it for the criticism that it was - of the Western involvement, of the pre-existing Moscow-backed regime, and of the invasion itself.

Here is one inportant part, but read the whole thing too...

I have carefully read the entire article this time- as I must confess, I only skimmed the first half of that article- and you are correct.

What I found interesting were Fidel's comments on the revisionist degeneration of Eastern Europe and the USSR and the causes of the degeneration. Also his criticisms of the Khrushchevite revisionist cause for "peaceful co-existence between the two social systems" also caught my attention; peaceful co-existence with the imperialist camp was never a Leninist strategy but a revisionist one adopted ever since the Twentieth Party Congress of the CPSU. I'm pleased to see that Cuba did not subscribe to this ridiculous strategy. But especially interesting, and what I never knew about, was that the Titoites of Yugoslavia had actually supported the Batista regime and had delivered weapons to it. Fascinating.