Fidel’s views on Marx and Marxism
Fidel’s views on Marx and Marxism
Revolutionaries adapt and evolve, well connected to reality
Yesterday marked the 141st anniversary of the death of Karl Marx. The great German philosopher died on March 14, 1883.
In my view, Marx formulated a critique of political-economy and an analysis of human history from the vantage point of the emerging industrial working class in nineteenth century Western Europe. His work provided not only an important breakthrough in understanding by virtue of its focus on the centrality of class divisions and class interests in driving the development of human societies. It also, in taking the vantage point of the underdog class, pointed to a new modern epistemology, in which the desire for understanding begins with appreciation of the natural existence of diverse viewpoints. His work thus provided the foundation for important advances in human understanding of political-economic systems and human societies.
Marx’s work implied the possibility for Western academic institutions to forge a modern epistemology rooted in cross-cultural and cross-civilizational dialogue and to develop a modern integrated historical social science. However, the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries of the capitalist world-economy had a short-term vested interest in preserving existing economic structures, which made necessary, from that vantage point, the negation and/or marginalization of Marx’s insights. As funders of higher education, the bourgeoisie had sufficient influence to block the emergence of Marxist-inspired possibilities through a bureaucratization that resulted in the fragmentation of the academic disciplines and the emergence of the naïve epistemological assumption of value-freedom.
Therefore, the philosophy and science of Marxism had to be developed beyond the context of Western academic institutions. It emerged instead through a process of connection to the revolutionary practices forged by the subjugated, revolutionary practices that challenged the assumptions of the capitalist world-order and colonial world-system. This was a worldwide process, which attained its most advanced expression in the hands of four exceptional revolutionary leaders who were also intellectuals: Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Fidel. This worldwide process culminated in Third World Marxism-Leninism, which provides the theoretical foundation for anti-imperialist governments and movements, expressing themselves today in a historic moment in which imperialism and the neocolonial world-system increasingly show signs of decadence and disintegration.
In commemoration of the 141st anniversary of the death of Karl Marx, Pedro Julio posted selections of Fidel’s reflections on Marx and Marxism on the Cuban Philosophical Society chat, taken from four speeches delivered in 1962, 1963, 1968, and 1970. The full texts of these discourses are available on the Website Fidel Soldado de las Ideas (www.fidelcastro.cu/es). I take these four speeches as my point of departure for today’s commentary.
On June 27, 1962, Fidel spoke at a meeting of directors of Schools of Revolutionary Instruction. He maintained that the Revolution is rooted in the science of Marxism, which contains a unique and true understanding of the process of development in human history. Revolutionary leaders have to continuously study in order to acquire and deepen a scientific understanding. I have selected some excerpts from the speech.
When we speak of political science and revolutionary science, we are referring to the only political science and the only true revolutionary science, which is Marxism.
For our Revolution, a sudden, audacious process that enters history firmly and resolutely, defying many difficulties, it means a great deal that our people, all of us—some later, others earlier—have been making ours the only true political and revolutionary science that exists.
From the moment that our Revolution, by the very fact of being a revolution, by the fact that it unleashed the revolutionary forces of our society, by the very fact that it resolutely confronted the enemy—and the enemy was none other than imperialism—, by the very fact that we confronted the enemies of the peoples—and the historical enemies of the peoples were none other than the exploiters of the peoples— , by the fact that we have unleashed the class struggle in all its dimensions, we have inevitably arrived at the only ideological formulation to which we could arrive. We have made our own the very rich experience, the experience of more than a century and the extraordinary wealth of knowledge that Marxism contains, which means for us an extraordinary advantage in this struggle.
For Marxism is not only the only true science of politics and revolution, but since man has become conscious of himself, it is the only true interpretation of the process of development in human history. And it is in this terrain, in this immense wealth of experience and knowledge, that we entered with what we had, with the little we had, to develop a movement with this magnitude of revolutionary education, and yet in small steps, very small steps, we have been gaining ground, we have been advancing and we have already practically established the bases for moving forward.
However, we have to be aware, very aware, that we are just beginning, and that we have a very long way to go. But we do not study Marxism out of mere philosophical or historical curiosity. No. For us it is vital, it is fundamental, it is decisive, to study Marxism and to teach Marxism. For the Revolution, it is vital and decisive to study Marxism and teach Marxism.
For a normal political process, for a revolution of many small lies—like those revolutions that we have seen many times, which the demagogues or those with ill intent took to calling revolutions, in order to confuse the people about the real revolutions—you did not have to study Marxism, nor did you have to study anything. If anything, studying to be a politician was enough for anyone.
In the days of political intrigues, no one had to study anything at all. But in the midst of a revolution, a real revolution such as this one, in the midst of such a profound, audacious change, in the midst of a conflict of such historical dimension as the conflict in which we are engaged with the most powerful reactionary force in the world, we must study, and we must really study. We have to go deeper, and we have to bring out all the weapons and all the forces of science and truth.
In order to orient ourselves, first of all, and in order to know how to guide our people correctly, we have to learn, and we have to teach. To study and teach, because it is vital and decisive for the Revolution, since here historical forces, antagonistic and irreconcilable interests, have confronted each other in a fight to the death. So you can't be irresponsible, and you can't be superficial. You can't put study aside; you have to hold on to it, because in it we will find our best weapons, in it we will find the clearest explanations, and in it we will find the guidance that we have to give to our people. Because in the clash of these historical forces, ideologies collide, and the enemy makes use of his best weapons, the enemy uses his subtlest lies, the enemy uses all the force of tradition, the enemy uses ignorance, the enemy uses, in short, all resources. And that is why we revolutionaries have to make use of the best weapons of truth, of the clearest reasoning for the masses, and with the weapon of truth, of reason and of revolutionary passion, to teach the masses and lead them victoriously forward.
I believe that no one will be in any doubt as to the importance of the schools of revolutionary instruction.
…
The force of our Revolution at this time is impressive. The progress of the people on all fronts is impressive; how it has advanced, both in the military field and in the field of work. The effort that is being made everywhere at the moment is impressive. This movement of revolutionary education is equally impressive. The number of schools for the dissemination of Marxism, the tens of thousands of men and women who pass through these schools, has exceeded our dreams.
The full text of Fidel’s June 27, 1962, speech can be found here.
§
On April 10, 1963, Fidel spoke at the graduation ceremony of the Basic Schools of Revolutionary Instruction. He stressed that Marxist thought does not involve mechanical interpretations or the application of formulas. It requires analysis of each concrete problem and a dialectical vision. It requires understanding that revolution is a process that acquires unified leadership as it advances. And it is not idealist; it requires realistic analysis, seeking solutions to concrete economic problems. Selected texts follow.
The [female] comrade who spoke here on behalf of the teachers expressed a number of very interesting ideas about what political instruction means, that it teaches you to see and understand problems, that it means for many of you acquiring a conception, a method, a guide, a series of scientific principles, in order to understand the social and historical problems and to understand the problems of the Revolution. That when you have that help, with that knowledge, you begin to understand many things that previously seemed obscure.
One of the characteristics of bourgeois society is mental chaos, the lack of an explanation of problems, the lack of an interpretation of realities; where there are a thousand explanations because, in the end, no explanation exists. That is to say, there is no real explanation because what is involved is justifying a system of exploitation and trying to present as eternal a mode of production that is simply a product of history, transitory and doomed to disappear at a certain moment. Bourgeois society is characterized by chaos, I repeat, by the lack of a clear explanation of phenomena and facts. And scientific socialism and the social organization inspired by it are characterized by precisely the opposite, by the possibility of having a true, real explanation of the problems, of each problem, and of the processes and the development of society.
Perhaps one of the most difficult things to comprehend, however, is that none of these interpretations are mechanical interpretations, that none of these interpretations have to be cliché interpretations, and that Marxism is not a set of "formulas" that tries to forcibly apply the explanation to each concrete problem. It is a dialectical view of problems, a living application of those principles, a guide, a method.
And that is why the revolutionary has to be incessantly thinking, analyzing. Do not believe that you are going to find anything simple, easy, or mechanical; you necessarily have to analyze.
. . . .
I think that something that could be a great lesson in Marxism for all of us is to remember that Revolution is itself a process. If you make an analysis of the Revolution as a process—as it really is—you could draw magnificent lessons. The conditions of the Revolution now are not like the conditions at the beginning of the Revolution.
. . . .
To acquire revolutionary consciousness and to acquire revolutionary practice is to learn to solve the innumerable questions that are presented to us, starting from realities, with our feet on the ground.
A revolutionary never forgets, and a Marxist never forgets, that the first thing is to walk firmly in reality, and to start from reality. Realities like those that our economic problems present, the problems of an underdeveloped country, without industries, fundamentally dependent on a single product, the cane and the sugar that is extracted from it. And it is on the basis of these realities that we have to march.
Do not forget those realities. Do not live in the clouds but live on the earth. Know what our tasks are now and solve them; know what our tasks will be tomorrow and solve them.
….
We have to understand the economy; we have to understand economic realities. It is your duty to be concerned about these issues, to study these issues in such a way that every citizen understands the problems of the country, that every citizen understands that the economic problems do not solve themselves.
The full text of Fidel’s April 10, 1963, speech can be found here.
§
In a speech at the closing ceremony of the Cultural Congress of Havana on January 12, 1968, Fidel spoke of the need for Marxism to evolve and develop, and not lapse into dogmas.
In the course of these years of revolution we have learned a great deal, and among other things we have learned to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between a revolutionary attitude and a revolutionary slogan, between words and deeds, and between dogmas and realities.
….
It is unquestionable that we are dealing with new facts, new phenomena; it is unquestionable that revolutionaries, those of us who consider ourselves revolutionaries, and among those of us who consider ourselves revolutionaries, those of us who consider ourselves Marxists-Leninists, are obliged to analyze these new phenomena. Because there can be nothing more anti-Marxist than dogma, there can be nothing more anti-Marxist than the petrification of ideas. Yet there are ideas that are wielded in the name of Marxism that seem like real fossils.
Marxism had brilliant thinkers: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, to speak of its main founders. But Marxism needs to develop, to get out of a certain stagnation, to interpret today's realities with an objective and scientific sense, to behave as a revolutionary force and not as a pseudo-revolutionary church.
The full text of Fidel’s January 12, 1968, speech can be found here.
§
In accordance with the concept that Marxist theory has to be creatively applied to particular national conditions, Fidel notes that Marxism-Leninism in Cuba was developed in accordance with Cuban conditions. In a speech commemorating the birth of Lenin on April 22, 1970, Fidel also observes that the Cuban Revolution could not have endured without the essential and fundamental conceptions of Marxism-Leninism.
Marx's theory was never a scheme: it was a conception, it was a method, it was an interpretation, it was a science. And science is applied to each specific case; no two specific cases are exactly alike. In our country too there were given peculiar conditions, and Marxist ideas also had full application in our country.
It must be said that the development of revolutionary thought was strongly influenced by the traditions of our country, by the history of our country, by the emancipatory struggles of our country. And it can be said that the conception that inspired the revolutionary strategy that led to the triumph in 1959 was precisely the union, the hybridization of a tradition of a peculiar experience of our country with the essential ideas of Marxism and Leninism.
A country without the traditions of Cuba and without the history of Cuba would not have been able to arrive at a triumph of this nature, an advance of that nature, on that date. But a country with the traditions of Cuba, without the essential conceptions of Marxism-Leninism—especially on a number of fundamental questions—could not possibly have taken such an advanced step either.
The full text of Fidel’s April 22, 1970, speech can be found here.
§
Final considerations
Fidel’s teachings with respect to the necessary character of revolutionaries had its impact, such that a Cuban revolutionary vanguard emerged over the course of decades that was capable of leading the people toward a creative application of fundamental principles rooted in Marxist political science, attentive to concrete and real problems. The exceptional quality of Cuban leadership becomes evident to any Westerner who takes the time and effort to listen to its discourse.
In contrast, we in the United States have not been blessed with a teacher like Fidel, or at least one who is known to us. Therefore, many of Fidel’s teachings could and should be taken to heart by intellectuals and activists in the United States who seek to promote social justice. Fidel’s insights cannot resolve our problems, which we ourselves must resolve. However, Fidel provides insight into the principles and fundamental concepts that ought to guide our quest to understand and resolve the problems and challenges that we confront.
Fidel taught that a revolutionary is one who formulates and teaches clear explanations on historical, political, and social problems, which exposes as illegitimate the claims of the ruling class; and who is able to unify the political will of the people on this foundation. Our emphasis must be on the effective education of our people with respect to the structural sources of the problems that the nation and the world confront; and on the political mobilization of our people of all sectors, without depreciation of any economic, social, ideological, and/or religious sector of the people. Our purpose must be the taking of political power and the implementation of a formulated people’s platform.
In the United States, the revolutionary taking of power in the name of the people and for the people must be based on a theoretical synthesis of the principles and fundamental concepts of Marxism-Leninism with American political traditions, that is, with the principal republican concepts of the American Revolution and the democratic movements formed by blacks, women, Chicanos, and Native Americans. It should envision the taking of power by the people as the culmination of the American promise of democracy, a promise that was betrayed by the American power elite during the course of the twentieth century; and was subsequently betrayed by woke social justice warriors in the twenty-first century.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.
Many, many thanks, Charles, for these important selections from Fidel's speeches over the years, giving us his sense of what is important in Marx, Engles, and in Marxism through the years. I think the agreement he reached with Sartre on the centrality of need is especially important for our time.