In the midst of a scenario nuanced by the insufficiencies of the internal economy, the inhuman pressures of the US blockade and the pause imposed by COVID-19, a discourse that incorporates, along with the claims of a group of honest artists and creators , takes force. attractive symbols and fallacies aimed at distorting the reality of the island.

Is there freedom of expression within Socialism? What role do art and the artist have? For the Doctor in Philosophical Sciences, Anayansi Castellón Jiménez, dedicated for years to studies on the ideology of the Cuban Revolution and Head of the Department of Philosophy at the Central University “Marta Abreu” of Las Villas, answering these questions involves analyzing the current scenario from the solid corpus of Marxist theory.

- How to read the events of the last weeks?

- A general analysis of the current scenario must start from a fundamental idea: this is an essentially political issue. Many times I notice how some people understand it only as an individual matter, given by very particular circumstances, and believe that everything will end if a group of supposed “demands” are fulfilled. I believe that this is not the case and the examination should be done in more depth.

We are talking about political positions. That is an important element. Therefore, it is a matter of class struggle and of the survival of the project of the Cuban Revolution, which is a socialist project. There is a first element to take into account.

The second question lies in the particularities of our country. We must ask ourselves what is Cuba, what does the Revolution represent and how has it been permanently subjected to a siege by the forces of imperialism.

The third issue has to do with the construction of a socialist society that is not perfect, but has proven to be better than the capitalist world, because it guarantees better justice quotas. In this sense, it is a society in permanent formation, with a group of errors – economic solutions, corruption, bureaucracy or conduction of processes – in which we revolutionaries must work permanently.

- You often hear the term “freedom of expression”. What precepts shape it and, above all, what to do with that freedom?

- Freedom will always be restricted, as its limits are determined by the class in power. The idea of ​​total freedom, like that of democracy, is a great fallacy. You always have quotas of it and limits to enjoy it. Now, socialist freedom is more freedom for a greater number of people, but that implies a responsibility with respect to the rest of the citizens and the fulfillment of social norms.

In a small sector of Cuba, a tendency is sometimes noticed, typical of the globalized world, linked to a certain petty-bourgeois spirit. It is seen above all in a group of people who are not in a position to digest or find behind these doctrines their true essence. Because the ideology that capitalism sells us, the notion of its better democracy, its multiparty system and also its freedom of expression, are fallacies.

It is pure ideology, in the Marxist sense of seeing it as false consciousness. It is about “truths” of a social class that they try to construct as the truth of many people.

That is why sometimes one sees claims that are inconsistent or that do not have a direct anchor in our reality. Not because we don’t have freedom of expression, but because our forms of freedom are different; not because we don’t have democracy, but because our democracy is different. That spirit also floats on the platform on which a group of “demands” are raised.

- There is also a lot of talk about Words to intellectuals …

- There are elements decontextualized and not read in their entirety. The best known phrase of that speech is “within the Revolution everything; against the Revolution nothing ”. There Fidel analyzes how the artist is even freer than in Capitalism, because his art is no longer an object for the market. It also establishes the limits of freedom of expression and creation in Socialism, and says that the only border is precisely the life of the Revolution.

During that speech, Fidel speaks of three types of artists or intellectuals. The revolutionary, convinced that the Revolution and Socialism are the roads. He also mentions the one who does not support the ideas of the Revolution, but who is honest and is not bought by anyone or responds to foreign interests.

Finally, it refers to those who are not revolutionaries, and also are not honest. And right there comes the “within the Revolution everything; against the Revolution nothing ”. So, from the discourse, it follows that the Revolution has the duty to include and respect both revolutionary and honest creators. That continues to be the limit of freedom in Cuba today, the survival of the Revolution. And it is precisely that element one of those that is in controversy these days.

- What is the role of art and the creator in Socialism?

- Art is a form of social consciousness. In that sense, it also means reflecting reality through other codes, and it has a strong component of criticism, but also of spirituality. In Capitalism art is produced in a more individual way. In Socialism, on the other hand, as artistic production becomes massive and culture reaches a greater number of people, it acquires a more social character, a greater responsibility.

Art also draws essentially from universal culture. Marx easily clarifies it when he says that history is nothing more than the passing of one generation that rises above the other, and receives from the previous one all the cultural heritage of humanity. Therefore, an art or artist that does not know its cultural past is inconsequential, and is incapable of appropriating it, firstly to respect it, and then to legitimize its new cultural positions.

However, this analysis goes further. It is not possible to create a political platform in Cuba if you do not respect the Cuban flag, which is part of our culture. But also, you cannot invent a model that tries to find in the United States – our historical enemy – a political and economic foothold. If you do that, you are saying that the Cuban is incapable of thinking for himself.

Founding fathers of Cuban nationality, such as José Agustín Caballero, Félix Varela or José de la Luz y Caballero, taught us that we can solve problems on our own. Cuba has enough capacity to articulate a project for an original society and that of no one else, but that is impossible looking north. Then you realize that those who defend an agenda of interference are unaware of the entire history of Cuban thought, all of its cultural heritage.

Anayansi Castellón: “Dialogue is given to Socialism, because it is more democratic as there is greater social justice.” Photo: Yunier Sifonte / Cubadebate.

- Where are the borders between art and vulgarity? Who legitimizes an artist?

- Vulgarity and marginality can never be art, as can offenses either. Cuba has excellent samples of leaders, especially from the labor sector, who were not great intellectuals or possessed a deep theoretical mastery of things, but were educated people, trained in the civic spirit necessary to interact with the world.

It is precisely there that the limit with vulgarity appears, in that domain of culture. A person who disrespects those around him, who shouts expletives or uses obscenities, is not an artist.

An artist is legitimized by his quality work, consistent with his ideas and his time. Nobody else. To the intellectuals of the Republic, key in the movement of ideas that led to the search for a new society, who legitimized them but their own creation?

- Where should the dialogue with those intellectuals who do not compromise their work with the enemies of Cuba lead?

- We must use it to draw lessons about the present and take advantage of the critical vision of young people and honest intellectuals to strengthen the country. As we ourselves have many things well done and of which we are proud, there are also elements to improve. In that we must work, especially to avoid that their permanence creates more difficulties, resentments or fuels the lack of unity. That is another essential matter.

As is the case with the idea of ​​thinking for ourselves, the theme of unity cuts across the thought of the Cuban Revolution, from 1868 to today. This unit also includes dialogue with young people who have just concerns, and together face those who pretend manipulation and have unscrupulous handling in matters of culture or other social aspects.

Along with this, we could remember Antonio Gramsci when he spoke of the construction of hegemony, that ability to build consensus from power. It is an idea to strengthen even more. We cannot be afraid to speak of our problems to solve them in function of Socialism. As Gramsci himself said in one of his newspapers, the truth is always revolutionary.

Another indispensable theorist for current times is Che Guevara, because if anyone advocated timely criticism within the Revolution, it was him. And Socialism is given dialogue, because it is more democratic as there is greater social justice. That is the summary, to put those who want to improve Cuba to talk. To the revolutionaries and those who do not share some of our ideas, but be honest. Just like Fidel said.

- In the recent debate between various creators and authorities of culture in the country, Alpidio Alonso said that “Cuba must be a parliament within a trench.” Is that one of the keys?

- It’s part of the key. We have always been a trench and in it we must ensure the greatest good: the independence of Cuba. We began to be a country on January 1, 1959. We acquired shape on the map of the economic, political and cultural life of the world on that date. But that has cost us a permanent struggle.

Socialism does not eliminate the class struggle at once. It is a present phenomenon. We must know that it is a just system and in constant danger, both from the forces within and from without. And the way of success is to fight against our imperfections and against the external enemy that always haunts us.

Lénine, un stratège révolutionnaire génial, n’hésita pas à reprendre les idées de Marx et à les concrétiser dans un pays immense, à peine industrialisé, où le parti prolétarien fut le plus radical et le plus audacieux de la planète au terme de la pire tuerie que le capitalisme eût commis dans le monde, dans le cadre d’une guerre où les chars, les armes automatiques, l’aviation et les gaz asphyxiants furent utilisés pour la première fois, et jusqu’à un fameux canon capable de tirer un projectile lourd à plus de cent kilomètres.

C’est de cette tuerie que naquit la Société des nations, qui devait censément préserver la paix et qui ne parvint même pas à empêcher la progression accélérée du colonialisme en Afrique, dans une bonne partie de l’Asie, en Océanie, dans les Caraïbes, au Canada, et l’instauration d’un néo-colonialisme rudimentaire en Amérique latine.

À peine vingt ans après, une épouvantable guerre mondiale éclatait de nouveau en Europe, avec, en guise de préambule, la Guerre civile espagnole déclenchée en 1936. Après l’écrasante défaite des nazis, les États placèrent leurs espoirs dans l’Organisation des Nations Unies qui s’efforce de promouvoir une coopération qui mette fin aux agressions et aux guerres, dans un monde où il serait possible de préserver la paix, le développement et la coopération pacifique entre les États de notre planète, qu’ils soient grands ou petits, qu’ils soient riches ou pauvres.
Des millions d’hommes de science pourraient, entre autres tâches, accroître les possibilités de survie de l’espèce humaine, d’ores et déjà menacée par une pénurie d’eau et d’aliments qui touchera dans très peu de temps des milliards de personnes.

Nous sommes déjà 7,3 milliards sur cette planète. Nous n’étions que 978 millions en 1800 ; nous étions 6,07 milliards en 2000, et, selon des calculs prudents, nous serons dix milliards en 2050.

C’est à peine si on parle, bien entendu, des vagues d’émigrants qui arrivent en Europe de l’Ouest à bord d’embarcations surchargées ou sur n’importe quel objet flottant, en provenance du continent africain que les Européens ont colonisé pendant des siècles.

Voilà vingt-trois ans, j’ai affirmé à un Sommet des Nations Unies sur l’environnement et le développement : « Une importante espèce biologique est menacée de disparition à cause de la liquidation rapide et progressive de ses conditions de vie naturelles : l’homme. » Je ne savais pas alors, toutefois, à quel point nous en étions près.

En ce soixante-dixième anniversaire de sa victoire durant la Grande Guerre patriotique, je tiens à exprimer ma profonde admiration au peuple soviétique qui, par son héroïsme, a rendu un service colossal à l’humanité.

On assiste aujourd’hui à une solide alliance entre les peuples de la Fédération de Russie et du pays qui enregistre la croissance économique la plus rapide au monde, la République populaire de Chine. Par leur coopération étroite, leur science de pointe, leurs armées puissantes constituées de soldats courageux, ces deux pays constituent un bouclier puissant de la paix et de la sécurité mondiales, ainsi que de la préservation de notre espèce sur notre planète.

La santé physique et mentale, et l’esprit de solidarité sont des normes qui doivent prévaloir, sinon l’être humain, tel que nous le connaissons, n’aura pas d’avenir.
Les vingt-sept millions de Soviétiques morts durant la Grande Guerre patriotique ont aussi versé leur sang dans l’intérêt de l’humanité et du droit à penser en socialistes et à être socialistes, à être marxistes-léninistes, à être communistes, et à sortir de la préhistoire.

Fidel Castro Ruz
7 mai 2015
22 h 14