Fidel Castro on Czechoslovakia in 1968

[Unicorn]

Castro for Warsaw Pact intervention

August 23, 1968 -- Excerpts from Cuban Premier Castro's speech in defense of Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia are given below. In his speech, Premier Castro criticized the Soviet leadership for not giving more aid to defeat the counter-revolution -- in other countries as well as Czechoslovakia. But he did not, as some social democrats contend, give merely "critical support" to the action of the Red Armies.

Right here, I wish to make the first important affirmation: we considered that Czechoslovakia was moving toward a counter-revolutionary situation. Toward capitalism and into the arms of imperialism.

So this defines our first position in relation to the specific fact of the action taken by a group of socialist countries. That is, we consider that it was absolutely necessary, at all cost, in one way or another, to prevent this eventuality from taking place. ...

Discussion of the form is not, in the final analysis, the most fundamental factor. The essential point to be accepted, or not accepted, is whether or not the socialist camp could allow a political situation to develop which would lead to the breaking away of a socialist country, to its falling into the arms of imperialism. And our point of view is that it is not permissible and that the socialist camp has a right to prevent this in one way or another. I would like to begin by making it clear that we look upon this fact as an essential one. ...

A real liberal fury was unleashed; a whole series of political slogans in favor of the formation of opposition parties began to develop, in favor of open anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theses, such as the thesis that the Party should cease to play the role which the Party plays within socialist society and begin to play the role there of a guide, supervising some things but, above all, exerting a sort of spiritual leadership. In short, that the reins of power should cease to be in the hands of the Communist Party.

The revision of certain fundamental postulates to the effect that a socialist regime is a transition regime from socialism to communism, a governmental form known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means a government where power is wielded in behalf of one class and against the former exploiting classes by virtue of which in a revolutionary process political rights, the right to carry on political activities -- whose objective is precisely to struggle against the essence and the raison d'etre of socialism -- cannot be granted to the former exploiters.

A series of slogans began to be put forward and in fact certain measures were taken such as the establishment of the bourgeois "freedom" of the press. This means that the counter-revolution and the exploiters, the very enemies of socialism, were granted the right to speak and write freely against socialism.

As a matter of fact, a process of seizure of the principal information media by the reactionary elements began to develop. As regards foreign policy, a whole series of slogans of open rapprochement toward capitalist concepts and theses and of rapprochement towards the West appeared. ...

On many occasions the imperialists have publicly stated what their policy is in relation to the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. And in Congress, in the press, they always talk about encouraging the liberal tendencies and even about promoting, of making available, some selective economic aid and of using every means of contributing to creating an opposition to socialism there. The imperialists are carrying out a campaign, not only in Czechoslovakia, but in all the countries of Eastern Europe, even in the Soviet Union.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/czech/czech03.htm

[Qwerty489]

Not very surprising when you consider Castro was nothing but a Brezhnevite /Khrushchevite imperialist scumbag, just look at his part in helping the Soviets looting diamonds out of Angola for Brezhnev's little black market racket.

[Unicorn]

Not very surprising when you consider Castro was nothing but a Brezhnevite /Khrushchevite imperialist scumbag, just look at his part in helping the Soviets looting diamonds out of Angola for Brezhnev's little black market racket.
Unadulterated bullshit. Neither the Soviets nor Cuba looted diamonds and the MPLA was a genuine national liberation movement. UNITA (which was backed by the US) did loot diamonds to finance their counter-revolutionary insurgency.

I posted the article to show that Fidel Castro who is respected by all sensible communists backed the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia.

[BobKKKindle$]

In contrast to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, Czechoslovakia did not threaten to break away from the Warsaw pact, and so to justify the invasion on the grounds that Czechoslovakia may have fallen into "the arms of imperialism" if the rebels had taken power and established a democratic government is incorrect. The Prague Spring (as the uprising is now known) signified the beginning of a political revolution in Czechoslovakia (merely a beginning, because widespread factory occupations did not take place, whereas the creation of workers councils was an important feature of the uprising in Hungary) which, as distinct from a social revolution, preserves existing property relations, but eliminates the bureacracy and enables the proletariat to attain political power and take control of the state apparatus. The uprising was the result of serious economic and political problems, many of which were closely connected to the underlying problem of bureaucratic deformation, such as a lack of consumer goods, and the suppression of political dissent.

The brutal suppression of the uprising shows that the bureacracy was a hostile stratum which had a regressive influence on the process of socialist construction.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fidel took the correct position.


While communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements.

The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. Only the victory of socialist revolutions in other countries can create the openings necessary for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist countries (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).

[BobKKKindle$]

While communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements.This should be carefully evaluated. From a long-term perspective, political revolution is the only possible way to prevent the restoration of capitalism (which would allow for the penetration of imperialism, by opening a country's borders to the import of foreign goods, reducing government control of foreign investment, etc.) as a failure to establish proletarian democratic control of the state apparatus allows the bureacracy to convert itself into a class (so as to establish a secure material base for wealth accumulation) by attaining ownership of the means of production. This has been shown by the experience of the PRC, where the gradual implementation of market reforms has allowed for the emergence of a new bourgeoisie, which is closely linked with the ruling party.

Supporting struggles against bureaucratic deformation only when these struggles pose no threat to social property relations is, when analyzed correctly, synonymous with withholding support from all anti-bureaucratic struggles, because political revolution cannot take place without some degree of political turmoil - and turmoil will always provide an opportunity for bourgeois or imperialist elements to influence the direction of struggle and promote the restoration of capitalism as a desirable objective, such that political revolution without the emergence of counter-revolutionary forces is an impossibility. During the Hungarian uprising, for example, there was a fascist element, motived by the suppression of Magyar culture and the forced promotion of the Russian language in schools. However, a proletarian vanguard which is able to organize the working class and lead the struggle against the bureacracy will prevent the victory of these elements. Hence, the above position of the PoWR is based on a very short-sighted approach to political revolution, and does not acknowledge the reality of how political revolution actually occurs.


Only the victory of socialist revolutions in other countries can create the openings necessary for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist countries (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).This solution to the problem of bureaucratic deformation poses further problems. As long as the bureacratic stratum retains power in the workers states, this stratum will undermine the revolutionary potential of the working class in states where capitalism has not been overthrown, by exercising control of the national communist party organizations in these states, which, in turn, often dominate other proletarian organizations, such as trade unions. This is shown by the May 1968 Uprising, where the CGT (which was subject to the control of the PCF) encouraged workers to accept the terms which were offered by the government in response to widespread factory occupations, instead of calling on the working class to overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus and establish a workers state. This policy of undermining revolution is a reflection of the bureaucracy's interests as a stratum as the emergence of a healthy workers state would provide a positive example to the workers living in states suffering from bureacratic deformation, and upset the stability of the global order. Moreover, if a workers revolution does occur (that is, if a workers state is not created by an external power, as occurred in Eastern Europe) the bureaucracy will attempt to exert power over the workers state and force the government to conform to the economic model adopted in states suffering from bureaucratic deformation, as occurred in Yugoslavia.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Political revolution" in the way Trotskyists prescribe is pure fairy tale. Such a "political revolution" has no basis, has never come about, and never will.

Calls for "political revolution" often serve as guises under which counterrevolutionary forces like the Reagan/cleric-backed Solidarnoscść "union" in Poland operate.

Ruling bureaucracies exist/ed in the bureaucratized proletarian states because of material conditions, not because of some subjective factor (such as a "really evil dictator"). In order to get rid of the bureaucracy it is necessary to get rid of the conditions that gave rise to it.

In an imperialist-oppressed country in which a bureaucratic caste rules over collectivized property forms, and which is isolated, encircled and victim of constant imperialist aggression (economic and/or military), the working class is not going to spontaneously become conscious, toss out the bureaucracy and magically change the conditions which the country faces. The conditions have to exist to facilitate the ouster of the bureaucrats and the legitimate coming to power of the working class.

In a world in which imperialism dominates, the bottom line is this: The world revolution must advance to stop the retrograding of existing revolutions.

[Qwerty489]

Unadulterated bullshit. Neither the Soviets nor Cuba looted diamonds and the MPLA was a genuine national liberation movement. UNITA (which was backed by the US) did loot diamonds to finance their counter-revolutionary insurgency.

I posted the article to show that Fidel Castro who is respected by all sensible communists backed the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia.
Fidel is a revisionist-Khrushchevite nitwit who propped up Cuba through Soviet charity and refused to create national industrialization in an odd 50 years of being in power. He used that charity not be develop Cuban economic self-independence (as Albania did) but to export Soviet social-imperialism into Africa and leave Cuba a garbage dump ready for US dollars to flood into Havana into the 90's and create a foothold of petite-bourgeois property in Havana, specifically in the 'tourist zones', hotels etc. Even today Cuba is reliant on charity from Venezuela to keep afloat.

Fidel is also an opportunist, same reason he now downplays Marx and Lenin in favor of Marti because the USSR is now gone, and just like any good revisionist he plays down class struggle and plays up class collaborationism and nationalism. During the 'revolution' Fidel denied he was a communist (going so far as to tell the world 'communism is the dictatorship of one class, and we have fought against dictatorship'). Fidel bringing Cuba into the arms of state-capitalist USSR was more of geostrategic opportunity than ideology.

[BobKKKindle$]

"Political revolution" in the way Trotskyists prescribe is pure fairy tale. Such a "political revolution" has no basis, has never come about, and never will.

This is incorrect. The Hungarian Uprising was a political revolution based on the preservation of social property relations, and directed against the power of the bureacracy. There were also some conservative elements, which aimed to overturn the nationalized economy and restore capitalism (Such as Cardinal Mindszenty who chose to hide in the US embassy when the uprising was crushed) but these elements were unable to gain the support of the working class and so were always a minor part of the uprising. The revolutionary proletariat created councils, which enabled the efficient distribution of food supplies, and represented the basis of a new socialist order based on democratic participation. The restoration of capitalism was never regarded as desirable by the workers who participated in the uprising. The Central Workers Council of Budapest declared in a 27 November 1956 appeal to workers councils throughout the country:

“Faithful to this mission, we defend, even at the cost of our lives, our factories and our fatherland against any attempt to restore capitalism.”

This shows that a political revolution can occur, in the absence of social revolution in states where capitalism has not been overthrown, but a proletarian vanguard is required to organize the proletariat, and so develop an effective military force to defend the political revolution against violent assault by bureaucratic forces.


The world revolution must advance to stop the retrograding of existing revolutions.

The possibility of world revolution is undermined by the bureacracy, as co-existence serves the interests of this social-stratum. This is demonstrated by the May 1968 Uprising, as explained in my previous post.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All the examples Trotskyists point to as political revolutions are poisoned with counterrevolutionary elements. You can say the counterrevolutionary elements didn't dominate, but the fact is, they existed. The imperialists were exploiting the situations, as they always will.

Some Trotskyists point to the Tiananmen Square protests as an incipient "political revolution." One of the leaders of those protests, Chai Ling, later admitted to having wanted to provoke the government into causing a "bloodbath" in order to spark a counterrevolutionary uprising across the country.

Solidarnoscść posed as an independent working class alternative to the bureaucracy in Poland and look how that turned out.


The possibility of world revolution is undermined by the bureacracy, as co-existence serves the interests of this social-stratum. This is demonstrated by the May 1968 Uprising, as explained in my previous post.That's assuming that future revolutions will be lead solely by parties under the direction of a party with state power. The only bureaucratized proletarian statess in existence today are China, Laos, Viet Nam and DPRK, and the ruling powers in those countries aren't directing any parties in other countries.

Even if another bureaucratized proletarian state was to come into existence and become dominant in the workers movement like the CPSU, that hardly means revolutions in other countries will be prevented. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Burkina Faso, etc.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Considering the public resistance to the Soviet invasion I'd have to say that bringing in tanks was not such a good idea. Nor were the renewed abrogations on freedom of speech, assembly etc. all that good.

[Chapaev]

If the revolution wins a decisive victory, counterrevolution assumes covert forms. History shows that by adopting ideological methods and relying on revisionist elements, the counterrevolution can pose a serious threat to the new system (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslvakia in 1968).

In the years of socialist construction the working people of Czechoslovakia achieved notable successes in scientific development and in raising the living standard.

Nevertheless, the road to socialism was strewn with obstacles and difficulties, and some mistakes were made. The level of development of society and the degree of its moral and political unity were overestimated. Marxist-Leninist principles were inconsistently applied in the life of the Party and society. A subjectivist approach was taken to the solution of several important problems. The struggle against bourgeois ideology and petit bourgeois views was relaxed, permitting the spread of revisionist trends in the Party. At the same time, the pressure of bourgeois propaganda intensified, and foreign imperialist forces stepped up their subversive activity. The Party leaders did not take the necessary steps to overcome difficulties and to eliminate shortcomings and errors, a lapse that led to a crisis in the Party and society.

Right-wing revisionists gained the upper hand in the party leadership. The new leadership was incapable of carrying out the tasks set by the Party, and its actions contributed to a large-scale offensive by right-opportunist and antisocialist forces against the socialist system.

Under cover of demagogic slogans calling for the “democratization” of society and the creation of a “new model” of socialism, right-opportunists and antisocialist forces launched virulent attacks on socialism, seeking to abolish the leading role of the working class, to dismantle the agencies of socialist power, and to break Czechoslovakia’s alliance with the socialist community. With the support of imperialist circles, the coalition of right-opportunist and antisocialist forces began making extensive preparations for a counterrevolutionary coup aimed at restoring the bourgeois system.

By August 1968 a critical counterrevolutionary situation developed, and the country was on the brink of civil war. Under these circumstances, members of the cabinet, deputies to the legislature, and thousands of others, realizing that the imminent counterrevolution could no longer be averted with internal forces, asked the governments of the socialist countries to extend international aid to the Czechoslovak people in the defense of socialism. Such assistance was rendered in August 1968 by the socialist community.

[Ismail]

Hoxha was right. The Hungarian uprisings were a counter-revolution against a weak M-L party. Khrushchev then intervened and brought in a new, revisionist puppet party. Czechoslovakian invasion was what caused Albania to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact.

Seriously, these were clearly imperialist acts. Imperialism is never right. Doesn't matter if the flag is red.

Also Fidél is more of a nationalist than anything and became a Soviet puppet.

[Xian]

The brutal suppression of the uprising shows that the bureacracy was a hostile stratum which had a regressive influence on the process of socialist construction.

i think so too. even if you're waving red flags there are still things you can't do and Prague was one of them. it was tragic and it will always be remembered as tragic.

[Sentinel]

Seriously, these were clearly imperialist acts. Imperialism is never right. Doesn't matter if the flag is red.


Or if it's the working class revolting against a bureacracy doing precisely that, apparently -- waving red flags in the name of the people they are suppressing. Despicable, I can't find words to describe how much it infuriates me to read stuff like this.

Like Bobkindles has already explained, the Hungarian revolution was one of the socialist proletariat against the bureacracy, workers councils were formed and direct democracy was in action -- and once again the hopes of genuine socialism were crushed under the tanks of the USSR. For those interested in a good article about the Hungarian revolution, see this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hungarian-revolution-t63987/index.html?t=63987&highlight=hungary). Input from tankies is welcome too, we're here to debate right.

Also, I've got to say that CDL's posts are quite disappointing as well, and I'm not quite sure what to think. Unlike the extremely ignorant post quoted above, he seems to recognise that there were workers revolutions going on in the 'east bloc', only that they 'couldn't succeed' or were 'too risky' due to imperialist elements existing (not dominating), and thus 'shouldn't be supported by communists'.

Like Bob said, the practical conclusion of that is to never support genuinely socialist working class uprisings against bureaucracies, as reactionaries always will use every opportunity to advance their own cause (why wouldn't they). That's definitely an incorrect position for any self-identified workerist to take at any point, and especially in cases like Hungary.

It's also actually even worse than Ismails position a way. While that poor guy no doubt has actually brainwashed himself into believing that the Hungarian workers were 'imperialists', CDL on the other hand acknowledges that they were socialists and workers, but still thinks they shouldn't have been supported..

All this said, there obviosly were despicable pro-capitalist groups dressed as workerists in the east bloc countries as well, which the workers sometimes turned to -- a strong oppression creates a confused resistance. I agree fully on what CDL had to say about 'Solidarnosc'..

But the Hungarian revolution was no 'Solidarnosc'.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Look, in 1968 Czechoslovakia was bureaucratized proletarian state. Capitalist property relations had been overthrown, but political control was in the hands of a bureaucratic caste.

The rebellion there was initiated by infighting among those bureaucrats. While the so-called "hardliners" wanted to continue on with a strong planned economy, other bureaucrats -- like Alexander Dubček and Ota Šik, creator of the "new economic model" -- wanted to implement "market socialism".. the kind of thing we see now in Viet Nam.

It's no coincidence that Dubček became speaker of parliament and that Ota Šik became an economic adviser to the president after the counterrevolution that restored capitalism to Czechoslovakia in 1989.

They represented a section of the bureaucracy that saw more potential for themselves in capitalism than they did in socialism. They were the precursors to the bureaucrats in China and Laos who follow their lead.

Dubček's government wanted to open the press to the capitalist exploiters who had been expropriated. It wanted to hold "democratic elections" (and if you want to see how so-called "democratic elections" turn out in revolutionary states trapped in a capitalist-dominated world, take a look at Nicaragua). It wanted to build closer relationships with the imperialist countries...

All of this created huge openings for imperialism and counterrevolutionary elements within and from Czechoslovakia. Soon after the plan for "democratic elections" in 10 years was announced, a democratic socialist party and all sorts of other similar groups emerged. In 1968, the U.S. sent Shirley Temple Black to Czechoslovakia with plans of her being the ambassador to a new "free" (read: capitalist) Czechoslovakia.. (20 years later, when the counterrevolution was carried out in Czechoslovakia, she was appointed as the first U.S. ambassador to the "new country", again no coincidence).

Eventually, the Warsaw Pact countries (minus Romania) invaded and replaced the "market socialists" with "hard liners." Those "hard liners" had asked the Warsaw Countries to invade because they said the current leadership was "fomenting a wave of nationalism and chauvinism, and [...] provoking an anti-communist and anti-Soviet psychosis." The counterrevolution was stopped for a moment, but the revolution continued to degenerate.

The "Prague Spring" wasn't some spontaneous uprising of communist workers.

Gorbachev claims the "Prague Spring" as inspiration for his "opening up" policies that helped usher in counterrevolution in the USSR.

The reality is this: the imperialists exploit any opening they can to restore capitalism to any place where it's been overthrown. We have to fight for revolution internationally, in the countries that are still capitalists, to break the the bureaucratized proletarian states out of imperialist encirclement. This will eliminate many of the excuses the bureaucrats have for their methods of rule (for instance, how the bureaucrats in the DPRK prop themselves up largely on a huge military made necessary by the existence of thousands of imperialists troops and high-tech weapons right across their border), will inspire workers in the bureaucratized proletarian state, and will give those workers a much better chance at successfully taking political control without the imperialists stepping in instead.

[PRC-UTE]

Hoxha was right. The Hungarian uprisings were a counter-revolution against a weak M-L party. Khrushchev then intervened and brought in a new, revisionist puppet party. Czechoslovakian invasion was what caused Albania to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact.

Seriously, these were clearly imperialist acts. Imperialism is never right. Doesn't matter if the flag is red.

Also Fidél is more of a nationalist than anything and became a Soviet puppet.

This is a pretty weak argument re Comrade Fidel, for he was a noted Leftist from the time of his youth, fighting on the side of the rural workers and stirring up strikes on his own family's farm. It's rather naive to create a false dichtomy between being a communist and an anti-imperialist.

Also, I don't think you understand the Marxist definition of imperialism. Ever notice the Maoists and Left Communists use the term 'social imperialism'? That's due to the fact that the SU's interventions weren't imperialist by the standards of scientific socialism; they had to invent a new term.

What I do find odd about Czechoslovakia though is the fact that the people there were basically pro-Soviet after WWII, feeling they'd been betrayed by the capitalist west. So how'd they so quickly become 'counter-revolutionary'? It seems the Soviet bureaucracy did cause a lot of justified resentment.

[TC]

I'm too tired to comment seriously on this thread but I just wanted to say that NHIA is totally right and his analysis and presentation is both impressive and helpful here. Anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union acted as 'imperialists', despite their hardline anti-revisionist marxist-leninsit pretense, are neither hardline nor leninist as they are not applying Lenin's assessment of Imperialism as the export of capital (if you think every time an army crosses a border of a weaker nation its 'imperialism' then you're a liberal or at least not a leninist) and they're not hardline as they essentially accept the narrative and moral perspective of their own bourgeois class in treating the bourgeois' only deadly enemy as equally wrong, thereby satisfying a loyality by proxy to their own ruling class.

[Guerrilla22]

It's no coincidence that Dubček became speaker of parliament and that Ota Šik became an economic adviser to the president after the counterrevolution that restored capitalism to Czechoslovakia in 1989.

Exactly.

The Hungarian uprising was backed by a coalition of groups including the banned Social Democratic Party and a party comprised of small land and business owners, backed by the US military and CIA. I'd hardly characterize the uprising as "working class."

[Charles Xavier]

Fidel is a revisionist-Khrushchevite nitwit who propped up Cuba through Soviet charity and refused to create national industrialization in an odd 50 years of being in power. He used that charity not be develop Cuban economic self-independence (as Albania did) but to export Soviet social-imperialism into Africa and leave Cuba a garbage dump ready for US dollars to flood into Havana into the 90's and create a foothold of petite-bourgeois property in Havana, specifically in the 'tourist zones', hotels etc. Even today Cuba is reliant on charity from Venezuela to keep afloat.

Fidel is also an opportunist, same reason he now downplays Marx and Lenin in favor of Marti because the USSR is now gone, and just like any good revisionist he plays down class struggle and plays up class collaborationism and nationalism. During the 'revolution' Fidel denied he was a communist (going so far as to tell the world 'communism is the dictatorship of one class, and we have fought against dictatorship'). Fidel bringing Cuba into the arms of state-capitalist USSR was more of geostrategic opportunity than ideology.

Qwerty is a phrase mongering do nothing loud mouth who just like to pretend he knows something by throwing a bunch of words together which have little point or historical reality, he is an Ultra-Left Sectarian who would make his worst enemy the other socialist left than the ruling class.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

Fidel is a revisionist-Khrushchevite nitwit who propped up Cuba through Soviet charity and refused to create national industrialization in an odd 50 years of being in power. He used that charity not be develop Cuban economic self-independence (as Albania did) but to export Soviet social-imperialism into Africa and leave Cuba a garbage dump ready for US dollars to flood into Havana into the 90's and create a foothold of petite-bourgeois property in Havana, specifically in the 'tourist zones', hotels etc. Even today Cuba is reliant on charity from Venezuela to keep afloat.

Fidel is also an opportunist, same reason he now downplays Marx and Lenin in favor of Marti because the USSR is now gone, and just like any good revisionist he plays down class struggle and plays up class collaborationism and nationalism. During the 'revolution' Fidel denied he was a communist (going so far as to tell the world 'communism is the dictatorship of one class, and we have fought against dictatorship'). Fidel bringing Cuba into the arms of state-capitalist USSR was more of geostrategic opportunity than ideology.

Cuba needed income and trade, and Fidel was not wrong for looking to the SU after the US refused to trade with Cuba. Almost ever country had strong trade relations to one of these two superpowers. After the SU collapsed, Cuba had no superpower to trade with. Most countries 'rely' on the US. It's a fact that countries need to trade; in a capitalist world its the only way Cuba could sustain itself.
Fidel does not downplay Marx and Lenin in the least, and he plays up Marti because nationalism is needed to oppose imperialism. He never denied he was a communist. What he did say was the the Revolution was not communist, but a Revolution against Batista. Calling him a revisionist for saying the Revolution is a communist one is ignorance of how they use term Revolution there. They call Cuba's socialism The Revolution, as in, "Our Revolution is 50 years old", or, "The Empire tries to destroy our Revolution."