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.

Compañeras and compañeros:

We are gathered to commemorate one of the most significant events of the twentieth century: the Great October Socialist Revolution, with which a new era for humanity commenced.

Today, in some media there is a tendency to diminish the importance of the Revolution that led to the founding of the world’s first socialist state and opened a path of hope, giving way to a new social regime that would show that a world free of exploiters and the exploited was possible. Attempts are made to diminish and even disregard the role played by its eminent leader, Vladimir Ilich Lenin.

Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro Ruz, on referring to Lenin stated: “He was a brilliant revolutionary strategist who did not hesitate to assume Marx’s ideas and implement them in a vast and only partially industrialized country… Lenin was a truly exceptional man, capable of interpreting all the depth, essence and value of Marxist theory,” end of quote.

He had the merit of taking advantage of a moment of crisis of imperialism, provoked by its own war, and the growth of the labor movement in Czarist Russia, to carry out the socialist Revolution. He was the man who was met with incomprehension in his own surroundings, but at the same time he had, like no other at that time, the greatest understanding of the humble, of the workers aware that the seizure of political power was the only way to lead them to their emancipation.

It was precisely Lenin’s brilliant leadership that gave rise to that great Revolution, with which important changes ensued for the oppressed of this world.

One hundred years later, it is impossible to deny the immense contribution and legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution, which gave way to other great social revolutions of the 20th century, which emerged a few years after the victory against fascism, like that of China, the Vietnamese and the Cuban.

The events that followed October, the implementation of Marxist theory in the specific conditions of the time, demonstrated the relevance of the global social revolution, for which, in the words of Lenin, the Russian (Revolution) was just the prologue or a step.

The process of decolonization would not have been possible without the enormous influence of the October Revolution, in that it decisively contributed to the right of the peoples to self-determination and independence becoming a reality in many countries of the world.

An undeniable contribution of this great feat was the beginning of the process of political-economic structuring of a new system: socialism.

The Revolution favored the drastic change in the correlation of world forces, demonstrated that the elimination of exploitation was possible, that there were other forms of government and democracy, and that alternatives existed beyond the formulas offered by capitalism, generating wars and divisions, overwhelming peoples and nations.

In the field of international relations, it inaugurated a new way of doing and acting. In the Decree on Peace and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, expressed were the principles that should govern the relations between states and peoples, which are still fully valid today.

The USSR achieved, in a historically very short period, technological and industrial development. It eradicated illiteracy, generalized schooling, reached a high scientific level, ensured employment and social protection, eliminated discrimination against women and proclaimed their rights, as well as those of children and young people.

These achievements were obtained in the midst of military, economic and political aggression. The nascent socialist state made the postulates of its Revolution a reality through blood and fire, and began to build itself in a country totally ruined, bled dry and blockaded, which required no less hard and heroic efforts.

There were many contributions and efforts from the peoples that made up the USSR, but none more significant than the defeat of fascism, which deserves eternal gratitude.

The influence of the October Revolution and the battle for multifaceted development being waged in what was the most backward imperial country of its time, also reached Latin America, where the ideas of the Revolution were disseminated and communist parties began to emerge, including that of Cuba, in the midst of the conditions of first an invaded, and later a neocolonial republic.

In this and other Cuban revolutionary groups that confronted imperialist domination and its complicit governments of the day, present were, along with the ideas of Martí, the ideas of the October Revolution, the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.

In 1970, on the occasion of commemorating the centenary of Lenin’s birth, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution stated: I quote “Without the October Revolution of 1917, Cuba could not have been constituted as the first socialist country in Latin America.” Later, in 1972, in a profound reflection on the roots of our socialist Revolution, he specified: “the revolutionary process of Cuba is the confirmation of the extraordinary strength of the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin,” end of quote.

During these 100 years, but mainly since the disappearance of the socialist system in Europe, much has been written and debated, from very different ideological positions, about this Revolution. Regrettably, extreme positions converge to point out that its ideas failed, with a marked distortion of the causes and consequences, with the intention of imposing a single mindset destined to highlight the supremacy of capitalism against socialism.

The October Revolution initiated an extraordinarily complex process, with achievements and mistakes, but to judge it we must take into account, first of all, the historic conditions in which it was developed, the international context and the contradictions generated by any revolutionary process. It was also the first great attempt to transform the world, to turn utopia into reality.

Imperialism today seeks new alliances and attempts by all possible means to stifle and destroy any attempt at social change.

In this historical context we can affirm that the ideas that inspired it and socialism as a system maintain full force. The principles of equality, solidarity, internationalism, social justice, the peoples’ right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty, which were the basis of the October Revolution, will also continue to be ours.

Long live the Great October Socialist Revolution!

Thank you.

Based at the Julio Antonio Mella International Camp, in the province of Artemisa, the group is undertaking activities July 3-21; including voluntary agricultural work, visits to sites of historic interest, communities, schools and institutions in the provinces of Villa Clara, Sancti Spíritus, and La Habana.
Brigadistas will also attend conferences by Cuban experts on the life and work of José Martí; the island’s economy and the updating process currently underway; its political system and participative democracy; as well as the damage caused by the criminal economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on the Cuban people by the United States; the political thought of Ernesto Che Guevara, and other relevant issues.

Two participants, Juan Guirau and Schneider Benedet from France – both members of the Marseille branch of the Cuba-France Friendship Association – spoke with Granma International.

This is Guirau’s fifth visit to Cuba with the brigade, while it is Benedet first. Both talked about the work of their organization and its efforts in the struggle against aggressive and interventionist policies toward the island by successive U.S. governments. They also highlighted actions undertaken by the Association to disseminate information about the island’s reality, in order to combat anti-Cuban media campaigns waged by the traditional press in their country.
Meanwhile, their comrade Kasper Libeert from Belgium and representing the Cuba-Socialist solidarity movement, explained that his organization is preparing a day of tributes in September, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of heroic guerrilla Ernesto Che Guevara in Bolivia.

“We’re going to have a huge festival,” stated the Belgian. “We are inviting Cuban intellectuals and artists, Aleida Guevara (Che’s daughter), Harry “Pombo” Villegaswho fought alongside Che in Bolivia. There will also be peace activists from the U.S. and a delegation from the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP).”

The group is planning a two-day event in Brussels in November, where participants will visit Parliament to explain to members the negative impact of the U.S. blockade on the Cuban people, and call on them to publically denounce the genocidal and unjust policy.

“Our organization opposes the occupation of the Guantánamo territory, where an illegal U.S. military base is located,” stated the young activist, noting that this is one of many issues addressed by the group through their Cuba solidarity work.
Recently the organization has denounced the step-back in the process of rapprochement between the U.S. and Cuba, initiated under former President Barack Obama, following a change in the country’s policy toward the island announced in June by current President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, retired university professor Luisa Carvalho, representing the Portugal-Cuba Friendship Association, chose to join the brigade in order to contribute, in some way, to the construction of socialism and at the same time get to know more about the island and its people.

“I’ve read information that circulates about Cuba in Europe. There are two different positions on the subject: that disseminated by leftist parties and organizations with articles defending the Revolution; while right wing groups exploit any negative detail to totally condemn and slander the social construction of the country. We must be ready to refute this kind of information which is being circulated around the world,” she added.

Spanish sisters Rosalía and Luzía Mendez Senra agree. The two brigadistas, perhaps the youngest members of the group: the former 18 years of age and about to start university, and the latter a 16 year old high school student, are visiting the island to meet and talk with the Cuban people, experiences which they will report back to their friends and classmates.
“Over there they spread a lot of lies about Cuba and we want to see what it’s really like,” noted the young women.

During the welcoming ceremony, ICAP First Vice President Elio Gámez, thanked those present for their personal sacrifice and work to support the Revolution from their countries of origin, and for deciding to visit the island as part of a solidarity brigade. “Cuba is proud of its friends and solidarity around the world which has stood the test of time,” he stated.

(Granma)

But the National Assembly, as a whole, sessions for just a few days. The primary working space of the deputy, therefore, is alongside his or her electorate. It is also there, at the grassroots, where the responsibility for overseeing the administrative management and compliance with the agreements of the Assembly advances.

Meeting this responsibility, like the other 380 deputies from all over the country, was

Giraldo Martín Martín, representative of Jovellanos, who participated in the audit undertaken in the province of Matanzas to assess the implementation of the agreements adopted by Parliament.

“I had previously participated in actions of this nature led by the Economic Affairs Committee, but this time the exercise was more comprehensive,” the director of the Indio Hatuey Experimental Pasture and Forage Station noted.

“In Matanzas we identified outstanding efficiency reserves in the drafting of the plan. We also detected potentialities in certain business sectors. In agriculture or the industrial branch, for example, capacities are installed and other products can be manufactured that are not taken into account today, in some cases because of the lack of resources, but in others – and this is the most worrisome aspect – due to the lack of development projects.

“With regard to the control of fuels, apparently there are no vulnerabilities, and the documents do not indicate any diversions; however, in practice there is diversion, because sales do not correspond to the levels of private transport activity.”

In Giraldo’s opinion, “We must move toward another way of approaching control. Evaluating, perhaps, the possibility of assigning, at reasonable prices, quotas to legally recognized transportation providers. That could help us to make sure fuel is better used.”

Ensuring that the State Budget and the Economic Plan better reflect the role of science was another of the issues that caught Giraldo’s attention. “We must ensure science has a more important role, because knowledge is our greatest asset.”

It is time, Giraldo concluded, that also at the enterprise level, the Plan and Budget cease to be conceived as simple day-to-day tools. It is rather a question of ensuring they help to provide a strategic vision that contributes to development and, consequently, to the well-being of the people.

(Granma)

By José Raúl Concepción

WHEN the world had two political poles, a statement that sounded obvious was sometimes made: “Let’s unite the best of capitalism and socialism in a single system.” If both have their defects and virtues, why not just discard what doesn’t work? The idea is attractive, it would be an idyllic society. But what prevents this? Why are we still talking about socialism and capitalism? Behind the apparently self-evident concept lies another: you can’t extract the best of capitalism as if it were a damaged spot on a piece of fruit. The virtues of this system are based on its defects.

The idea cannot deliver what it promises, and the same options remain in place. We maintain a way of life that damages every corner of the planet or we seek an alternative to solve the problem at its roots.

In politics, as in life, trying to find a middle ground is tricky. But those who prefer to straddle the fence exist.

Cubadebate talked about political centrism with the Cuban intellectual, Enrique Ubieta, who responds to simple questions with dissertations on the history, relevance, and possible implementation of a “third way” in Cuba.

Is it possible for centrism to represent the best of both capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is not the sum of its negative and positive components, of elements that can be saved or discarded. It is a system, that at one point was revolutionary and today is not. It engulfs and links everything: advanced technology, the most sophisticated wealth, and the most absolute poverty. The elements that contribute to greater productivity are the same ones that alienate human labor. Those that generate wealth for a few, produce poverty for the majority, on the national and international level. Establishing such a goal seems fallacious to me. The “best of capitalism” doesn’t exist, as if it could be cleaned up, as if a good capitalism were feasible. There are very bad versions, like fascism and neoliberalism, but I am not aware of any good version. Capitalism is always savage.

On the other hand, socialism, as opposed to capitalism, is not an organic total, a reality already constructed, but rather a path that cannot, all at once, leave behind the system it is trying to replace. We try this and that, we adopt new structures, advance and retreat, eliminate what doesn’t work, correct errors over and over again – a path to another world, in the middle of the jungle, because capitalism is a hegemonic system. What characterizes it is its expressed, conscious intention, to replace capitalism.
Enrique Ubieta explains the history and implications of centrist politics in Cuba. Photo: Annaly Sánchez/ Cubasí/ Cubadebate Photo: 5daysforthecuban5.com

Does a center exist? On what principles is it founded? In the capitalist electoral system, a left and a right supposedly exist, but this left – with social democracy as its ideological framework, which was Marxist in its origins, and sought to reform capitalism until it gradually disappeared – functions today within the system and has rejected Marxism. This left differentiates itself from conservative parties with its social policies and its non-prejudiced understanding of diversity. The centrist formula functions within the capitalist system as an electoral option. The voter is managed like a customer since elections function like a market, and are full of right wing parties and left wing parties that alternate in office, but implement similar policies, and thus the system constructs a false “third way.”

But real alternatives are not within a system, they are counterpoised. They are capitalism or socialism. A center does not exist; there is no neutral ground between the two systems. Social democracy places itself within capitalism, but pretends to be a center, attempting what I have described as impossible, taking the best from both systems. In reality, it proposes an alternative method, not a fundamental change. Beyond a few isolated cases, like what Olof Palme could have been in Sweden, in a very rich country, which even without colonies, as part of the capitalist system benefited from the colonial and neo-colonial system.

Social democracy which appeared to triumph, made no sense when the Soviet Union collapsed and the socialist camp disappeared. Not even in Sweden could it be maintained. (Olof Palme was assassinated). Since then, the system has no need for it, and it needs to remake itself. The third way of Tony Blair is a center that has moved to the right, accepting and implementing neoliberal policies, allying itself with imperialism in its wars of conquest. The history of social democracy is essentially European.

What role do centrist politics play in Cuba?

In reality, what is this center? It is a political orientation that appropriates elements of revolutionary discourse, adopts a reformist position, and in the end, brakes, detains, and creates obstacles to the development of a true revolution.

In other cases, as in ours, centrists attempt to use the political culture of the left that exists within Cuban society, because you can’t get anywhere here with an ultra right wing discourse, trying to win adherents. You need to use what the people interpret as fair, and with this left wing discourse begin to introduce capitalism through the back door. This is the role the center would have within a society like the Cuban.

Using different terminology in different contexts, positions similar to centrism have been present in Cuban history since the autonomy tendency attempted to derail the independence revolution of 1895… Why do you think there is a kind of resurgence of centrism in Cuba today?

In Cuban history, there is a very clear dividing line between tendencies, between reformist and revolutionary forces. This is a longstanding discussion in the history of Marxism, but today I will just refer to the Cuban tradition.

Reformism is represented by autonomism and annexationism. There are writers who insist on saying that annexationism aspired to a radical solution to win independence from Spain. In this case, the term “radical” is misused, because the roots of the problem were not addressed. Being annexed by the United States was a radical solution in appearances only, since advocates intended to protect the privileges of a social class here, avoid the economic damage of a longer independence war, and maintain the status quo via domination by another power which would guarantee order.

The two tendencies, annexationism and reformism, had as a basic premise an absolute lack of confidence in the people – the fear of “the mulatto horde,” as the autonomists said.

Sell-out reformism has existed throughout the history of Cuba, into our times; it has not disappeared. The Revolution of 1959 swept it away as a real political option, but the class struggle has not vanished. If the bourgeoisie, or those who aspire to be, attempt to retake power in Cuba, that is the class that has been created outside of the country or that which could be gestating within, it is going to need an outside force to back it.

There will not be an autonomous capitalism in Cuba; it doesn’t exist anyplace in the world, much less in a small, underdeveloped country. Cuban capitalism, as in the past, can only be semi-colonial or neo-colonial. The only way the bourgeoisie could retake and maintain power in Cuba is by way of an external power. That is the only option to multiply their capital, and we already know that the bourgeoisie’s homeland is capital.

Today a situation exists that favors this kind of centrist tactics, promoted in Cuba from the North. The generation that made the Revolution is ending its historic-biological cycle. Some 80% of Cubans never lived under capitalism. Just imagine. Cuba is a country trying to build a society different from one which the people have never experienced. This is a period of change and new, previously rejected elements are being introduced in the conception of the socio-economic model. It is within this context that pro-capitalist forces construct their pseudo-revolutionary discourse, only for show, attempting to link up with changes underway in the country.

Does the updating of Cuba’s economic, social model have any relation to centrism?

It does not. I’ll appeal to concepts I found in the philosophy of Argentine Arturo Andrés Roig. It is imperative to differentiate two planes: discourse and discourse directionality, meaning and direction. I recall that when I studied the decade of the 1920s, I noticed that Juan Marinello and Jorge Mañach said almost the same things. They addressed very similar concepts, because they were intellectuals and part of the vanguard of Cuban thought and art. But if you follow the course of their lives, you understand that those words with similar meanings had very different intentions. Marinello joined the Communist Party and Mañach founded a party with pseudo-fascist tendencies. One fought for social justice and socialism, while the other longed, too late, to become the ideologue of a national bourgeoisie which no longer existed. I don’t believe that this rupture was only the result of a later evolution; it was already implicit in the differing historical directionality of their discourses.

It is absolutely imperative to differentiate directionality, today more than ever, because we live in a very contaminated, promiscuous linguistic environment, in a global society which has assimilated the discourse and traditional gestures of the left, especially since WWII. The class struggle is covered up, and we must unmask our interlocutors.

What do the Guidelines propose? Seeking an alternative route of our own to advance toward socialism, since no universal model exists, and every country, every historical moment, is specific. Cuban socialism means a Cuban path toward a society that is different from capitalism, in a hostile world, facing poverty, an implacable blockade, and with few natural resources, except for the knowledge of its citizens.

This is Cuba’s real situation. We propose to maintain and expand the social justice we have achieved, and to do so, we must revitalize our productive forces. We therefore establish limits on the accumulation of wealth and property, and we are concerned about the mechanisms used to enforce these limits. On the contrary, centrists, with language similar to ours, suggest that we have abandoned the idea of social justice, but demand more profound changes that would lead to the dismantling of the minimum achieved in terms of justice. The “deepening” demanded by centrists, from both the economic and political point of view, is a return to capitalism. Divergent, critical opinions can and must be heard, but they must all be directed in the same direction, toward the same horizon.

When someone says that socialism has not been able to eradicate corruption or prostitution, it saddens me, because it’s true. But at the same time, one should ask: What would capitalism do about this? Make it worse. When the accusation is not directed toward strengthening the system we have in the country – the only one which can correct its defects, deficiencies, and errors – but rather toward its destruction, the criticism is counterrevolutionary.

Because everything we do will not be fine. We are going to make mistakes, of this we can be sure. One who moves forward makes mistakes. What’s important is to have the capacity to rectify and be clear about the direction of what we are doing, why we are doing it. If at some moment we lose our way, we will need to check the compass. May everything we can do now, and what we discuss, be marked by the clarification of what we want and where we are headed.

Is it possible to be both centrist and at the same time revolutionary?

Absolutely not. A reformist is not a revolutionary. Which doesn’t mean that a revolutionary can’t make reforms. Revolutionaries made the land reform, the urban reform… Being a reformist is something else.

Reformists believe in statistics, in the exhaustive descriptions of their environment that ends up making it incomprehensible. A minimal description of this room’s walls does not allow us to understand where we are, because this room is located in a building, in a city, in a country. That is, in order to be useful, the description presupposes a broader perspective. To be a revolutionary one must take the flight of a condor, which is what Martí demanded.

Reformists are descriptive; they believe that reality is limited to what can be seen and touched – that is why they are confused and fail. In politics, a reformist can only sum up the social environment’s four visible elements. The revolutionary adds a fifth subjective element, that cannot be detected in plain sight – an element reformists do not take into account, because they have no confidence in the people. We can summarize this fifth element recalling the historic reunion in

Cinco Palmas of the eight survivors of the Granma expedition. In Raúl’s words, “He (Fidel) embraced me and the first thing he did was ask how many rifles I had, after that the famous phrase: Now, yes, we have won the war!” This is leaping over the abyss, as Martí said.

This is what differentiates a revolutionary from a reformist. And a centrist is worse than a reformist, because in a certain way, he is a fake.

In the European tradition, all this conceptual, theoretical, political drama that has been concocted since the 19th century gives these debates some weight. In Cuba the underlying foundations of these debates are revealed much more clearly. And all of this talk of melding capitalism with socialism, trying to stay on a revolutionary plane of discourse, but in practice counterrevolutionary, in one way or another, from my point of view, is also evidence of a certain level of cowardice, of inability to fight for something you believe in. These people believe in a project that is opposed to ours, but don’t have enough political strength, or the courage, to say so openly.

(Cubadebate)

With an economic and social model being updated, Cuba carries out a process in which all society participates, and for which are implemented new forms of production and new regulations to facilitate development.

This nation does not forget the events that mark the month of April in the country’s history.

On Saturday, April 15, in 1961, enemy aircraft painted with insignias of the Revolutionary Armed Forces bombed the aerodrome of the Ciudad Libertad Army camp in the capital, the San Antonio de los Baños Airbase, to the southeast, and airfield of the eastern city of Santiago de Cuba.

The air strikes constituted a higher step in the many hostile actions that the US government had organized and financed with the stated goal of eliminating the Revolution.

The aggressions planned from American soil had included blowing up of the merchant ship La Coubre the previous year, burning cane fields, pirate attacks using boats on villages in the Cuban coast, attacks on government and social facilities, which claimed numerous lives.

Up until then, the Cuban government had issued important laws, including the Agrarian Reform, while a veritable army of young and adolescents taught the illiterate to read and write, even in the most remote places of the archipelago.

On April 16, during the funeral of the fallen during the bombings of the previous day, the people mobilized towards the vicinity of the Colon Cemetery. Cuban flags hung and flowers fell from the balconies.

The funeral procession and the march of thousands of people stopped in the since then historic crossing of the 23rd Ave. and 12th St., where the leader of the Revolution Fidel Castro proclaimed that ‘this is the socialist and democratic revolution of the humble, with the humble and for the humble. And for this revolution of the humble, with the humble and for the humble, we are willing to give our lives,’ he said.

Referring to the US government, the leader said: ‘That’s what they cannot forgive us, that we are there right in their noses, and that we have made a socialist revolution in the noses of the United States!’

Thus the Cuban Revolution declared to the world, and Washington, its socialist character, hours before an invasion organized by the US administration arrived to the beach of Playa Giron (Bay of Pigs), in the western province of Matanzas.

Fidel Castro then accused the US administration of obstructing the peaceful march of the Cuban nation, destroying the economic resources of its people and the lives of its citizens, and demanded that the country take responsibility for the aggression.

These facts will teach us, these painful events will illustrate us and are going to show us, perhaps more clearly than any of those occurred until today, just what is imperialism, he said.

The image of the weapons up in the hands of men and women immortalized the full backing to the turn that would take henceforth the revolutionary process, which continues today on the Caribbean island.

(Prensa Latina)