-DATE- 19630605 -YEAR- 1963 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- INTERVIEW -AUTHOR- F. CASTRO -HEADLINE- CASTRO INTERVIEW ON RETURN FROM SOVIET TRIP -PLACE- CUBA -SOURCE- HAVANA DOMESTIC RADIO -REPORT_NBR- FBIS -REPORT_DATE- 19630606 -TEXT- CASTRO INTERVIEW ON RETURN FROM SOVIET TRIP Havana Domestic Radio and Television Networks in Spanish 0038 GMT 5 June 1963--F/E (Live interview of Fidel Castro on nationwide, international radio and national television networks by a panel consisting of moderator Gomez Wanguemert, Ithiel Leon, Raul Valdes Viro, and Enresto Vera) (Text) Wanguemert: A very good evening television viewers. Today all television and radio stations of Cuba have joined in a network to present the report of the Prime Minister Dr. Fidel Castro on his visit to the USSR in which has has the object of an impressive popular reception and the greatest honors and attentions ever given by the Soviet Government to an honored guest. The Prime Minister arrived only yesterday and today comes to the microphones and cameras of television and radio to report to his people. As he said at the airport, he has many good things to relate and it is natural that his words are awaited with greater interest than ever throughout the country. To question him on the panel are Raul Valdes Vivo of HOY; Ithiel Leon of REVOLUCION; and Ernesto Vera of LA TARDE who will ask the first question tonight. Comrade Ernesto Vera. Vera: Major, what are the most outstanding impressions you bring back of your trip to the Soviet Union? Castro: Well, on my part I want, before answering any questions, to make an explanation with respect to the manner in which the trip was made, going as well as coming back. (There is a whining noise in the background which seems to annoy him--Ed.) There seems to be more noise here than ever. The people understand perfectly well the reasons of elementary security which caused the making of the trip without prior announcement. That is, the trip had to be adopted to the conditions under which we live, 90 miles from Yankee imperialism. That is why it was not announced exactly on what day we were going to depart, but simply we announced the news of the trip to the USSR and subsequently--and subsequently it was announced--when we were already in Murmansk. With respect to the return trip it was the same thing. Some comrades thought that--well, how could a reception be organized, how could a great public event be held--they also said that that was the feeling of the people that they were very interested, they had a desire to express their enthusiasm for the visit to the USSR, but it was a little difficult to coordinate the two things. It was not impossible to do this but after all we preferred not to organize a reception as in other times without paying any attention to existing conditions, that is to announce our arrival after we got here and not organize an event but instead appear here on television. Because for example, to explain a number of questions to a mass gathering is more difficult than explaining them on a television appearance because here on television one can speak with more detail, more calmly, while a mass gathering always has another tone, another characteristic. In a gathering one has to make a great effort in speaking and things cannot be explained with serenity. There are details, things, which I believe can be done much better on television. In the final analysis that was the fundamental reason and also because we shall soon have a mass event on 26 July in the capital and it seemed better to us not to have anybody bother yesterday and that is why we came (unannounced--Ed.). There were some newsmen there and we were faced with something of a dilemma because they wanted us to make some statements but I told them I had to appear here. Well is there good news? Yes, there is good news but be careful with those announcements of good news lest people begin to imagine that there is extraordinary news because that is not so. The news is good and really satisfactory but it must be interpreted also because otherwise there may be expectation as to what the news is. Now to answer the question. You have asked for my impression on the Soviet Union. In the first place there has been a very extensive reportage of the entire tour, pronouncements--that is to say, our impressions are very well known in general. Now of course--for example I read the newspapers and the reports that came from the USSR. (Here Castro points toward the audience) There is a conversation there by some comrades who appear not to be interested in our appearance. Wanguemert: Those are the translators. Castro: Ah, they are translators. Well, then I ask the translators pardon and let them talk a little lower because otherwise they will be heard too (on the broadcast--Ed.). Then I read the newspapers to find out more or less what was being published. When one over there living in the midst of happenings sees the news one is never satisfied because it appears to be a pale reflection of reality. I had the opportunity of seeing some newsreels, not the ones made here, because they tell me that there are some good newsreels here and that the moving pictures, the films could show everything better as to how things, how the whole tour was developing. I had the opportunity of seeing some documentaries filmed by Karmen, a producer well known by us because he made the film "Alba of Cuba" and it was very good. It was a good presentation. It gave a more direct impression of how things were. The photographs were often photographs that were sent by, what do they call that system? Voice: Radiophotos. Castro: Radiophotos. They were very clear. We have some problems with the printing. But, besides, it was impossible to get it as it was, not because a good effort was not made, for great efforts were made, both by the Cuban and Soviet news agencies, very good scripts by Cuban newsmen, Soviet newsmen, although this does not mean I am 100 percent satisfied with the scripts, because some of the ones that were done by Cuban newsmen were of an apologetic nature with regard to the visitor. They did not appear right to me. That kind of apologetic account puts us in a rather embarrassing position. But we are not going to discuss that; this is not a place for discussing the problem. But in general, not that efforts were not made--a great effort was made--but one felt sure that it was impossible to reflect how all the visit really was, the facts, the attitude of everybody in the Soviet Union toward the Cuban delegation. And in spite of this, I know that much enthusiasm and interest was aroused; that is, at some movie houses the public queued up to see the newscasts. Various people have spoken to me of this. The impression of the Soviet Union--in order to analyze any answer, one must first of all take into account how one looked at the Soviet Union--we had a very high concept of the Soviet Union, in every respect, the historic role that had been played by the Soviet Union, the October Revolution, the achievements it had attained; our opinion was a very high one. But in reality, when one proceeds to direct contact, I can assure that in reality what we have seen goes beyond the concept we had of the Soviet Union in general, and that concept was a very high one. To begin with, the very instant one gets on the plane, for a trip of some 10,000 kilometers, it is almost a space trip, without stop. The return trip is even against the air currents, against the wind. So the trip lasts two hours longer. The return goes to 14 or 15 hours nonstop. This is a plane which, from the very moment you get on board it you can say the life of the crew is in the hands of technology as developed by the Soviet Union. It was a country, at the time of the revolution, where not even tractors were manufactured. The machine in which one arrives in the Soviet Union is in itself a marvel of technology, a perfect machine, with an extraordinary degree of safety. And then, the Soviet Government took special interest in selecting a crew, including one of the best pilots in the Soviet Union, a hero of the Soviet Union. But that was a measure--I believe that any of the pilots who fly it could handle any practical, technical problem--but in our case, when we arrived at Murmansk there was a terrific fog. The field was totally invisible. It was necessary to make a landing which for those of us who are not experts seems difficult; but the pilot certainly made it very calmly, with great accuracy. Absolutely nothing could be seen. The fog was thick. But the mere fact that we, who have difficulties in making our trips, the difficulties created for us by imperialism, which brings pressure to bear on countries not to allow flights over their territory, making necessary a direct line--this has been possible in the first place because of technical progress. And so one can get some idea of the great development attained by the economy and technology of the USSR, all the accomplishments achieved by the Soviet people. Then, extraordinary interest is aroused in people who, like us, are effecting a revolution, for the country that effected the first revolution, the first socialist revolution. All this predisposes one to be interested in an infinite number of topics, concerning the people, institutions, their organization, the party, those leaders -- an infinite number of problems that a socialist state has to face and solve, if all those things we read in books, in manuals, anywhere, are placed alongside reality. But perhaps you will ask me more concrete questions, for of course it is impossible to give a full account in minutes of all that was seen. My immediate impression after arriving is first of all the people. They make a tremendous impression, and inspire great admiration. Right away one begins to see what kind of people they are, what their qualities are. First off, one can see that they are terrific people. It is a vision, first, of a classless society. That is noticed right off. Everybody is a worker. And we arrived through Murmansk. And what is Murmansk? A city located in the Artic Circle, to begin with, almost in the zone of the tundra, between the tundra and the taiga, as they call it. But it is in the circle, where the day or the night is eternal, not eternal, but lasting six months. Not it is daytime. It is day there now. The day we went, there was no longer any dark. And the day we arrived, some 40 days before it was getting dark a few hours, a little more. You can read 24 hours a day there, in the park. Of course, it is rather cold. Accustomed as we were to the warm weather here, the tropical heat, the first thing they did there was to give us overcoats, and so on. The dry air makes the cold more bearable. We here have an extreme cold which enters our bones because of the problem of humidity. We were received by Comrade Mikoyan, Comrade Kuznetzov, representatives of the party of the Murmansk region also, and, of course, an honor guard, everything very well organized, and then later went to a sleeping car and we went to Murmansk. It was our first contact with the people that is why I am giving all these details. Immediately there was a reaction by the crowds in spite of the fact that they had only been advised a few hours previously. Practically the entire population of Murmansk was mobilized. I can still remember a little cable of the SP or UPI, I do not remember which, which said that I had brought out a lot of people, but in reality everybody was there at the station and in addition with a happiness and an enthusiasm which was really incredible. Then we had the first gathering of the masses, the difficulties of language, having to speak in a language which is not that of the public through an intermediary. I had the fortune of having good interpreters. The first interpreter in Murmansk was the very same comrade who was here with Mikoyan. The people know him well. His name is Nicolas. He translated Mikoyan and translated him very well. We asked for him and he was there. We had very good coordination between him and me to explain things and he translated. It was not easy because it appears that it also depends on one's style and on the language, certain phrases which are longer, the construction of a phrase is not exactly the same--a whole series of technical problems in translation. However, I became adapted to that situation and the reactions of the crowds were exactly the same as those of the crowds here. There could be seen of course, as I have said, those first characteristics of a type of new man. A country without classes where everybody was a worker. There, there is no longer the confused, the petit bourgeois, the bourgeois, that does not exist--those categories no longer exist -- that is the truth. Sure, there are peasants and industrial workers left but there are no exploiting classes there. They have all disappeared and that causes a great impression on visitors. It is the image of an evolutionary (as heard) society and a type of man--what I observed in those men and women was a great enthusiasm, a great optimism, a very optimistic people. It could be seen that they oozed optimism through every pore--discipline among the people--fortitude, that is, one received the impression of a strong people, above all the impression of a working, fighting, abnegated, self-sacrificing people. Those characteristics, the temper and the human quality of the people could be seen, something which is a product of a revolution. We then--of course everybody made a tour through the city. We visited factories and saw everybody working. Men and women work. Women are incorporated into the working force. Of course they are very strong people. Physically they are very strong. They make work appear easy. The men work and the women perform the most varied types of work. They are now working toward a tendency of limiting women's work to types best adapted to their physical makeup. That is to say, transferring women from the hard work they are performing to easier work. They are in that phase. However everybody is incorporated into the working force because the problem they face -- they not only do not have a single unemployed person but there are cities like Leningrad where they need 500,000 workers, they need 500,000 workers. It is clear that they are resolving the problem along other lines by creating more nurseries and all those things that allow a greater number of women to join the labor force and through various procedures in order to incorporate a larger percentage of the population into the working force. The people work with tremendous enthusiasm--tremendous -- and it can be seen that they have great discipline in work and a great love for work, a sense of responsibility and duty--and immediately an organization--another of the things that attracted our attention was their organization because they have great organization and great efficiency. We have compared it with our not so developed organization and our not so efficient, and our not so efficient organization. Yes, it is characterized by great organization and great efficiency in all parts, in all sites--on a ship, in a factory, any place we went--enthusiasm, organization, discipline, and fervor with which things were done, order, everything was tremendous. We visited a fishing combine there--large, entirely developed there by Soviet power--supplier of a considerable amount of the fish that is consumed in the USSR. Then we also visited the icebreaker Lenin which is an atomic icebreaker and we attended various events. We also made a visit to the fleet. We saw the various ships and military units -- submarines of strategic types, all that, what was published here more or less, everywhere it was the same thing. The discipline in the navy was very impressive. There was great discipline, great technical quality. Strength can be seen everywhere. There is an enormous development. Murmansk, for example, was a city that was completely devastated because the fascist artillery was constantly firing on the city which was a port of commercial traffic, and the entrance to the port is never frozen because the gulf current reaches there. As a joke I sometimes said that we sent that heat from here in the Caribbean. It was a very important port. Thousands of buildings have been constructed there. Practically all new because it was mostly wooden buildings during the last war and was destroyed. There is a great economic development on all sides, many industrial buildings, and much residential construction. And in that cold, harsh climate the people do extraordinary work. Needless to say, one of the things a man finds when he arrives is Soviet hospitality, great hospitality, with Soviet food. It is a widely varied diet, a good diet, somewhat better suited for their climate than for ours. They have wonderful digestions, they drink, they eat very well, in keeping with the climate of that country. It is somewhat more difficult for us to adapt to the same type of food, a very high consumption of food. For example, the average per capital consumption of bread by the Soviet is almost two pounds a day, the per capita consumption. You can see what they consume. We eat 100 grams of bread: some people eat more, some less. But they consume 750 grams of bread per capita. They have a very high per capita consumption of a series of articles. Beyond question, the climate there and the kind of work require a heavy diet. The people are seen to be very well nourished, and well clothed. These things too are characteristic. Many children. We saw millions of children, with their uniforms, very well organized, with their schools, well dressed, well shod, well fed. (Castro apparently disturbed by some noise--Ed.) There is that noise again. But never mind. We came on the plane hearing a similar noise (few words indistinct). Go ahead with your work, go ahead with your work. Well, the children make a big impression. They are very healthy, well dressed, well shod, that is obvious. We also took part in some cultural functions organized by the unions, by the workers. There were even some performances of Cuban dances, Cuban music, rather well done. We even took the occasion to offer to send some instructors of our art, who could do very good work in the chief cities, since there is so much cultural development; dancing teachers, for example, or music teachers could help them, because they are interested in Cuban music and Cuban dancing, all that kind of thing. And there too we can give some slight aid. Since we are preparing cadres, I believe we can furnish some aid. All the cultural activities are far advanced, organized by the unions. In short, from the first moment, as they said: this cannot be organized, the people's enthusiasm. And that is very true. Besides, analyzing everything with a critical spirit, it is obvious that they had great organization and great spontaneity in everything they did. From the very first, from our contact with the first city, it was almost a contact with the Soviet Union. And that first impression continued developing throughout the entire tour. And concerning the Soviet Union, you must remember: We say the Soviet people, and that is very well, because with that concept we want to include the entire population of the country, but the Soviet people are made up of more than 100 nationalities. How was this problem solved, which we have seen in books? What are the Marxist - Leninist principles pertaining to the question of the nationalities, the correct policy, because all those nationalities were oppressed nationalities under the Czar, they were virtual colonies of the Czar. They were supposedly vassal countries of the crown and the majority nation, which was the Russian nation. Of course, everybody was a vassal to the feudal lords, the landowners, and the bourgeoisie. That is the fact. There were 100 nationalities, in which peasants and workers were subject to class exploitation; but besides class exploitation there was national exploitation, a discriminatory treatment of all those nationalities. The solution provided was the principle of automony, self-determination, the right of each of the nations to choose. The solution provided was entirely correct, after 45 years it is evident that the solution given to the question of nationalities there was a masterful one. And why? Because the nationalities subsist. The 100 nationalities preserve their language, their literature, their art, their customs. They preserve them fresh. Not only that; they have developed them. The Soviet power even provided alphabets for many of those nationalities that had no written language, no alphabet. It was provided and developed, and now works are written and printed in all languages. And a tour of the USSR, the different regions and the different nationalities, shows clearly with what satisfaction they preserve their national characteristics. And yet this is in no way opposed to the other sentiment, which is the feeling of unity with all the peoples that make up the Soviet Union. There is a perfect summary, it can be said, of the national characteristics and that is that it is an internationalistic sentiment. What unites them? The party unites them, because the party is a single party. The republic has the Central Committee which belongs to the party, the Community Party of the USSR, but they also have the government of the republic, the Council of Ministers of the republic, with a number of determined functions. They have their government and their customs and in addition feel very happy and at the same time very proud to be part of the Soviet Union because those countries which were colonies of the Czar suddenly became nations with equal rights with respect to the other nations. The Soviet power, also a representative of the workers are peasants of each area--some of the republics were very poor economically and in a completely feudal state but have attained an enormous development -- what did the revolution mean for these colonies of Czarism? It meant liberation from the class exploiters for the workers and peasants. It meant the end of colonial status for the nation. What did this mean? It meant an extraordinary development. Then if the standard of living of Uzbekistan, Georgia, Kazakhstan--a number of republics which border with other countries--were compared with the living standards of Turkey, Iran, and other capitalist countries which maintained the status quo--we find that in spite of the fact that these republics were very poor and in a colonial status 45 years ago, there are scores of scientific institutions as in Uzbekistan: universities, a tremendous industrial development, an impressive agricultural development based on irrigation, a standard of living where everybody works, everybody has a house, everybody is well dressed, well shod, all the children have schools, everybody has medical attention. Then we see what the revolution has meant for those countries. They received greater benefits than anybody because today they are on the same level of industrial development as any European country. At the same time they preserve their national characteristics, their manner of dress, eating, and all their customs. We saw their manner of dress, food, everywhere, but one thing was the same everywhere and that was the affection for the Cuban revolution. The affection for Cuba, their sympathy, their interest was something incredible. That was the characteristic of each nation. It can be said that it was a common thing, this feeling of solidarity with Cuba. An internationalist foundation, the pride with which they said they were preparing shipments for Cuba and the interest they really take when it is a matter of a machine or anything for Cuba. What I mean is that they not only demonstrate by cheering and attending receptions but also in work. In almost every case where it is a matter of shipments for Cuba they finish ahead of schedule. That happens everywhere. There are Cubans studying everywhere also. We found them in Uzbekistan, in the Ukraine, everywhere. That is a problem, this problem of nationalities and the solution of the problem of nationalities and how a state made up of 100 nationalities can have the unity, the impetus, the discipline, is I believe an historic accomplishment as extraordinary as many of the extraordinary accomplishments of the revolution, this first socialist revolution that is demonstrable. Now compare the standard of living of all these nationalities with that of their neighbors who are still under imperialist domination or under the exploitation of the feudal gentlemen or those of the bourgoisie. It is overwhelming, but overwhelming, because it means to cross the borders of abundance into the areas of hunger. Does this mean that this is an abundance in which every individual has an infinity of things? No. It is an abundance of the masses. This means that the masses have everything they need, everything that is necessary but above all they have what they are creating because they have not dedicated themselves to invest in luxuries, they are investing in means of production. It is clear that if they said "well let us dedicate ourselves to consume savings," what they would do would be to paralyze themselves, development would decrease, the rate of development would decrease. They are reconciling the increases in the standard of living which they are attaining year by year with the increases in production and the means of production. And of course there are those well cared for cities with all the problems of water and electricity resolved, with many green areas, and a perfectly organized transportation system. I am going to cite the case of Kiev or Tashkent as an example, not to mention other cities like Leningrad. They have an enormous number of green areas. What do we have in the way of green areas here? Very little. What do they have in Kiev to cite an example? They have an enormous zone of green areas, they have what we call subways but which are what they call them--(several people volunteer various names--Ed.) the metro's, but we call them subways because we are acquainted with the North American subways. In Kiev they have a subway, trolley-buses which are wheeled buses with tires but do not use gasoline and do not contaminate the atmosphere. They also have a motorized equipment. We only have one type of transportation and we do not have a single tree. Therefore while we have thousands of buses emitting gases we do not have one plant which will help purify the air. We do not have subways or anything like that. Someday we will have to acquire them. However, making a comparison of how all the basic problems have been resolved--that metro of Kiev which was the one I visited, and they tell me that the ones of the other cities are as good as that one and even better--it is impressive. I know the New York subway, and really it does not even approach the Kiev subway. But what is the characteristic of the New York subway? First, darkness, dirt, infernal noise. Going in, first you go down stairs like those of the Sears, formerly, you remember? A stairs on which you do not have to climb, but you get on the stairway and it takes you to the upper or lower floor. Voice: Escalator. Castro: Escalator? automatic stairways. Well, you have that, quite clean, clear, nice and clean, not a scrap of paper to be seen. Entirely modern engines, clean. That not only solves the transportation question, but makes traveling a pleasure. We took a little trip ourselves, on that subway. And you find the characteristics of the city similarly. Many green areas, much transportation, very well organized transportation, a healthful life, entirely. And you find that in all cities of the Soviet Union. That is the standard of living that has been developed, not by one nation of the 100, but by all the nations, the 100 nations, because much attention was devoted to the economic development of each of the regions. That naturally benefited each of these nations; it also benefits the whole because the development of irrigation in Uzbekistan makes possible large scale production of cotton, and so each of them produces articles needed by all the others, thereby making for tremendous development of the economy, but the people of all those nationalities have received enormous benefits. If you like, I will stop here. I imagine you will ask for more details. If I tell all my impressions, there will hardly be any questions left to ask. So I will pause, for a definite question. Question: On 25 May, in Havana, the joint communique was published . . . Castro (interrupting): You are going to begin with the end? The communique is almost the end. All right. Question: The thing is . . . Castro: You want me to conclude quickly? Question: Since it is a document that really is a brilliant example of communist solidarity, I want to learn something about the communique. And since you asked for concrete questions, I would like to know exactly about this communique, what economic questions were dealt with in it, the repercussions they will have for Cuba, concretely. Castro: Well, look, in the communique there is a section on economic matters: The statement that the USSR is prepared to continue providing maximum aid to the development of the Cuban economy. It is something of a general nature. From that angle, something much more concrete was taken up in the talks with Nikita Khrushchev, because the communique makes a general reference, I am going to speak after that in general terms on the concrete matters we took up regarding economic affairs. I would like, if you will allow me, to do so a little later. Question: Well then, I have another question; in our papers we always asked this question: What did you feel in that gigantic Lenin Stadium, in the presence of that multitude? During that great popular demonstration, did you ever think of Revolution Square and our meetings? Castro: In circumstances like that, a person knows many and varied feelings. First, he experiences a feeling of a universal nature, one might say. He feels close at hand to what is called solidarity among peoples, unity among peoples, love among peoples an internationalist sentiment, from that moment all barriers practically disappear and the peoples feel mingled in the same sentiment, in the same cause. That is the emotion that is always felt when a person is in the presence of the masses, of the people, and still more the emotion that is aroused by seeing this action among the people among whom a person has not lived, not people who have received benefits, not the people for whom a person has worked, and who are therefore demonstrating this thing spontaneously toward a visitor, as an acknowledgement, out of esteem, out of solidarity with another nation, a nation that is thousands and thousands of miles away. That has a great impact. And a person experiences a certain feeling of national pride, in the midst of all that; wholesome national pride, when one sees the Cuban flag there, the honors being rendered one's own country. I tell you the truth; in that moment I remembered the independence fighters, the first time they hoisted the Cuban flag, about Cespedes, Agramonte, the 10 years' war, Marti, Maceo, the independence fighters, all the fighters, because it was, one may say, the moment of supreme splendor, ascent, prestige of the symbols of our country, a country of limited dimensions, whose name, whose cause, of hundreds of millions of people; for in the USSR there are 230 million people, and really there is not one single person there who did not demonstrate his feelings to me for our country. And I tell you, one also feels a wholesome national pride. And one thinks that it is a tribute to all who have fought for the country, in the fight for independence, because the flag they took into battle, is floating there. From the most universal sentiments to the sentiments of a national nature, those things are felt. I did not know you were going to ask me about that, frankly. Question: Comrade Fidel, a question that our people are asking. What impression was made on you by Comrade Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev? Castro: Why do you not leave that too, to serve as a conclusion for all this? And let me conserve some kind of order? Question: What was the first day on Moscow's Red Square like, Fidel? Castro: Well, if you start asking me for impressions, I will be giving impressions for three days. You are right, but also, you can imagine, the reception, arriving at a historic spot that is so significant in the history of mankind, and then the presence of Lenin, Lenin's remains. That is tremendously impressing too--all the people there--for a revolutionary--I do not know about a bourgeois, what effect it would have on him, while visiting. For a revolutionary, representing a revolutionary country, the impression is the greatest one imaginable. And then there were the Cubans there too. There were Cubans everywhere. They create a bustle; they make noise. They act the same over there as here, I suppose. Their own enthusiasm becomes intensified because of the fact that they are away from the country. They also feel at that same moment those same patriotic and emotional sentiments which are part of their life at that time. There were Cuban students all over the place. I am very sorry I did not have the time within such a crowded schedule to talk to all of them. I simply could not visit with them. I visited some. I was able to talk to some of them, but I had a full work schedule, which was crowded with work. (Editor's Note: Some confusion ensues as Castro exchanges banter with a reporter who wants to ask a question and Castro interprets him.) Reporter: Let us talk a little bit about economy here--the basic thing is production. What was your impression of the great work projects? Castro: Without altering the chronological order of things--all right. I have already told you (Castro used the familiar form "TU" with all reporters--Ed.) a little bit about those ideas with reference to a specific place, the place where we arrived--how the economy is developed there and the people's standard of living. But look, the present economic development of the USSR must be seen in order to grasp the idea. If you are given data and figures, if you read Khrushchev's report to the congress, the program of the USSR Communist Party, you might have an idea, but it is an abstract idea. Another thing is the concrete idea of what the economic development is in the Soviet Union at this moment--the rhythm of development, what you can see everywhere, not only in the construction of houses alone, because the construction of houses--the construction--satisfies consumer needs. Houses are being constructed by the millions. In addition, they are being constructed under methods that, if we were to start applying them, would be magnificent. They are mechanized on the basis of many cranes and with tremendous speed in construction. If you leave Moscow on an 11-day tour, the building that you left on the first floor of construction is up to the fifth floor when you return. Where there was nothing before, there is now a new building half constructed, because building's are constructed at tremendous speed. What does Osmany (Public Works Minister--Ed.) say? (Laugher) I thought a lot of Osmany looking at that forest of cranes constructing many houses. However, the problematical constructions are those of an industrial type and the basic construction they are doing. Then, anyone who has the opportunity to make contact with that reality will become aware that the program with all of the figures appearing in the latest program of the Communist Party and the reports of the 22nd Congress are not only going to be reached, but will be surpassed. I believe that the Russian federation was to exceed production within the seven-year plan by more than 30 billion rubles, and I believe that this is a conservative figure -- I believe the figure is conservative. The (seven?)-year plan has been exceeded by tens of millions of rubles; that is they draw up a plan and they can rely on surplus resources for the forthcoming plan or for the development of other branches of the economy within the same plan. What they have shown in Khrushchev's report? That the supplementary quantities, the supplementary resources were going to be invested in the development of agriculture and also in the development, for instance, of the chemical industry. The chemical industry is the one that will get a decided impetus in the forthcoming years. They are already doing this. It is a branch of economy which they think has not advanced at the same pace as others, and they plan to give it all resources and all importance--to work on it seriously. I believe that their Central Committee is going to hold a plenum meeting to discuss the problem of the chemical industry. What resources (are they using--Ed.) in addition to those already planned and assigned to this branch of the economy? The new resources created in excess during the development (will be used--Ed.) I must tell you that every single person there is dedicated to the economy. Everyone is dedicated to the economy in a very serious manner -- in such a way that a visiting Cuban feels a little ashamed, because we have not given the economy all of the importance it merits. We are somewhat idealist revolutionaries--very revolutionary, we agitate a great deal, we mobilize ourselves too much, we are very patriotic without doubt. Even the least of the citizens is moved to fight to defend his country, to give his life, but it seems a little as if we build all of that in the air--that is, without taking into consideration that everything must have a basis, an absolute fundamental basis, which is the economy. We feel somewhat ashamed because we have many comrades who, being good revolutionary comrades, do not even know that there is an economy. We have cases of revolutionaries who eat, sleep, wear shoes, put on clothes, but do not know there is an economy. Are we concerned for the economy here? No, No. We are far from having the concern we should have for the economy. One of the things that is observed there, where fundamental economic problems are resolved and where they are advancing by seven-league steps in economic development, everyone is devoted to the economy. The party occupies the very first place. In the very first place, economic activity occupies the attention of everyone and above all, the fundamental attention of the party's cadres and the entire party. The leading cadres are, of course, made up of persons with a high degree of technical training, not just persons highly developed politically. We could apply here that statement made by Llanusa which I saw this morning while I was opening a magazine. I saw a sentence written by Llanusa that said that we must make the "technicians more revolutionary and the revolutionaries more technical." I believe that this is a great statement made by Comrade Llanusa in his ventures into revolutionary theory. (Loud laughter) He deserves a good medal for that statement. (More laughter) And that is true. We must make the revolutionaries more technical and more economy-conscious. We complain sometimes that there are technicians who are not very revolutionary. I have never heard anyone complain of so many revolutionaries who have no technical skills and no awareness of economy. I am not saying that they should be economists, but that they might think with an economic criterion and think in terms of the economy. They should always bear in mind the revolutionary principle that economy is the basis--and if we do not know it, it is because we do not want to know it. We see that everything must be resolved through the economy. We meet with this many times, through our own fault, our deficiency, our incapacity to resolve it. (Nearly everyone ignores the economy and gives first place to the party. That is why they are revolutionaries?) They made a new structure, which was the division of the party into urban and agricultural sectors. All of this organization is very complex, because various republics, (few words indistinct) various regions, regions that are more industrialized, regions that are more agriculture in nature -- there are some places where it was necessary to make this division, and the existing organization was left. I will take Volgograd as an example. There are "X" number of militants in the rural organization and "X" number of militants in the industrial organization. It was a great industrial development and great farm development. Then there is the secretary of the agricultural committee and the secretary of the urban committee who are in charge of industry. That corresponds also to the level of organization to which they have developed. We, for instance, have no such degree of economic development that will justify our dividing up. No. But, we do have excessive need for the organizations, and above all the party organization, to give fundamental attention to the economy, to economic matters. (They have had--Ed.) lengthy experience on matters of becoming stronger (cuestiones de tonificacion) which we also lack. In matters of clarification (clarificacion) we have incurred errors of idealism and subjectivism in our estimates, in our figures. We are just emerging from the toddler stage in matters of organization; we have to acquire that experience. They, too, had great difficulties during their first stages. They have had lengthy experience in this. They estimate with very realistic criteria, based on resources. Of course, they have many more facilities now than we have, because a major part of the problems of raw materials, supplying of parts--many of our problems that stem from the type of machinery we have and the need to confront entirely new problems--they do not lack parts in any factory, in their means of production, in anything, and they have already solved those problems. We have to start by solving these through production and foreign trade. Along experience in planning and above all a very accurate orientation concerning the development of the economy--in other words going to the basic: The basic industries. And in this manner, following the Leninist motto that communism was the Soviet power plus the electrification of the country--Electric power meant all the rest, that is to say industrialization. There was more electric energy, more factories, lathes, equipment, greater industrial production. One of the good things we have done is our concern for the establishment of thermoelectric plants. They began the undertaking: The first hydroelectric plant they constructed, I believe, produced 50,000 kilowatts--that is, 50,000 kilowatts per day. Later they constructed a larger dam on the Dnieper. Currently, the ones they are constructing are 100 times the size of the first one they built. They feel a great pride for the first hydroelectric which Lenin began to build in the difficult days, a very modest plant. It is obvious that they have multiplied hundreds of times the electric power which used to be produced in the Czarist empire. But when the data is produced, it can be appreciated that a hydroelectric plant, the one in Volgograd, I believe they call it the 22d Congress, produces 2.5 million kilowatts. To give you an idea, all of the capacity in Cuba does not reach 1 million. I believe that is slightly under what we have. So one single hydroelectric plant produces practically three times the electric energy produced in Cuba. That is not the largest. How many workers run it? I believe 22. No, they are fewer than that--fewer than 22 workers. I believe about six or 10; they do not reach 20 workers. The figure does not reach 20. How many workers would have to work to produce this much electric energy in thermoelectric plants? About 22,000 workers--that is, they put the river to work and six men perform work that would require 22,000 workers. That will give an idea of what a leap means in the development of the economy of the productivity of human work and the quantity of thousands of workers freed to engage in other activities of an economic nature. Now, the hydroelectric plant on the Angara River in the city of Irkutsk, produces 600,000 kilowatts. I remember some data given to me. If they were thermoelectric plants, they would need 40 petroleum tankers of 10,000 tons apiece and I do not know how many thousands of workers. And it was being operated by six workers--four or six. That figure I cannot remember, but it is from four to six workers. And the hydroelectric plant does not consume any petroleum. In order to drain that lake, I think, water must flow from it for about 400 years--and in addition, that lake always maintains the same water level. But then we can make calculations: A hydroelectric plant is constructed, and about 15 men, for instance--do the work of 22,000 men. If 600,000 tons require 40 vessels, 2.5 million would need four times as many tankers. That is, there would be a need for 160 vessels of 10,000 tons of petroleum each. Add to the 22,000 workers the thousands of workers who work at extracting the petroleum, the thousands of workers transporting the petroleum by land, the thousands of workers unloading the petroleum at the wharves. Hence, an electric power aid of that kind perhaps stands for the work, one way or another, of 50,000 men. Take away the cost of transportation of the petroleum by vessel, by railway, and the extraction of the petroleum. What does it mean then? Productivity multiplies extraordinarily Now, they lay a high-tension wire, and in one second that electric power is thousands of kilometers away. If it is coal, it must be loaded on the railway cars. If it is petroleum, it must be pumped through an oil pipeline or in a petroleum trunk or by rail. Now compare all this with our economy for the contrast, and you will realize the price they are paying for this electric energy, electric energy which is placed thousands of miles away. It is used for transportation by electric trains. Siberia, for example, already has electric trains operated by factories 100 kilometers away from where the electric energy is produced. They are producing electric energy of this type. The largest U.S. electric energy--the largest U.S. hydroelectric plant. They are producing basic electric energy (at such a price?). The same thing goes for the lathe, the mechanical as well as the electric lathes. Thus they are saving fuel, labor, and cost. However, I am giving this example and I think it will show what economic development is, what the development of the resources means in wealth, in increased human production. Further along the Angara River is the Bratsk plant, which is readily of a size to produce 4.5 million kilowatts--4.5 million, or almost twice the amount produced by the Volgograd hydroelectric plant. Already half of the plant is operating: It has 220,000 kilowatt generators which are more than 100 meters high, and it is situated on a powerful river where very serious technical problems had to be solved in order to build the hydroelectric plant. In the first place they had to solve the problem of cutting off the river flow, and in the second place they had to solve the problems connected with the ice drifts in the spring. These drifts weigh enough to destroy the work already done. There were many problems, because it is not supposed to be easy to build a dam, build a dam on an enormous and torrential river between 500 and 900 meters wide -- a river which carries gigantic ice drifts. Moreover, it was in a completely isolated area in the woods of Siberia where there was not a soul. Engineers, all kinds of technicians, workers of all kinds had to go there. They were mobilized through the party and through the Komsomol. The most modern methods were used: enormous and gigantic cranes. I was reminded of the building cranes. Those cranes were gigantic. They look like metal giants which lift enormous weights because they lifted those generators and placed them. The construction methods, and the construction resistance is all based upon prefabricated material, and the blocks are emplaced. While the reservoir is being filled, how are they solving the problems to obtain electric energy? They must wait a while until the proper water level is reached. However, until it attains its maximum level, how do they obtain energy at the medium levels? How do they start the first machines even before the reservoir is finished? This is a piece of engineering which in itself alone (Castro does not finish the sentence--Ed.). It has been enough for the builders to go down in history. This is a great project. Thousands of laborers have gone there from all parts. They came to live and to work under temperatures of 55 degrees below zero. These men and women who are constructing and developing the immense resources of Siberia. But they are not developing it as the U.S. West was developed--by cowboys, shots, dead people, assaults, and dead Indians. No, they are developing with extraordinary order. These are not people killing others, but closely united and organized--impregnated with a tremendous enthusiasm and joyful for what they are doing. They are developing the Soviet east. That is the difference how society develops under socialism and capitalism: The development of the U.S. West versus the development of socialist Siberia. I say this for the bourgeoisie so they will learn something of interest. Here they are creating basic things. This 4.5 million kilowatt dam will be the biggest when it is finished--bigger than the Volgograd Dam--but in the near future it will be behind the one being constructed in the Yenisei River, which is the river where this one empties--the one where the Bratsk plant is being constructed. In the city of Krasnoyarsk they are building another plant bigger than the one in Bratsk. That is not all. They are planning and working on the idea of constructing labor hydroelectric plants. On the Lena River they are studying the possibility of building a dam and a 20 million kilowatt plant. All these cranes, all these machines, where are they building them? In the basic machinery industry. That is something else they developed. Where are these generators made? In Leningrad, and this crane in another city. All these means with which they are building the dam--the machines--are built by other basic metal and mechanical industries they have been creating. All this is being complemented with their development. Imagine, when they finish a larger 10 million kilowatt plant; imagine what this will mean in economy of effort. If a 2 million kilowatt plant could give us an idea of the low cost with which the basic energy is produced, what will a 10 million kilowatt plant mean? Imagine a plant that can be automatically operated from an office--from a control office with buttons and a television apparatus. We use television here as an information and recreation medium, and there it is used as a means of production, because these people see all the machinery from that control office. Only a few men work there in shifts. Everything is run from that office. But not only that, they are organizing the electric energy system all over the USSR. They are already creating the system. From Moscow they will be able to control these plants. The Bratsk plant can be controlled from Moscow. This is a central system to control plants. They are reaching that degree of automation. They are creating those basic means of production and have created the conditions whereby the rate of development is really astonishing. That is the real reason why they will surpass production over the U.S. and capitalist countries. Therefore, at the end of the present 20-year plan they will have a greater production than the present production of all capitalist countries together. All the Soviet people are enthusiastic for these things. That is the reason they work enthusiastically and with austerity. That is what makes them strong. Why do I say that austerity makes them strong? Because they have a serious problem to face: The problem of the imperialist threats and aggression, the arms race of the imperialists, which forces them to maintain an armed force in technical conditions able to counteract that force and even surpass it. What does this mean? That a single country, which was not developed country when the revolution took place, now has to face the industry of all the more developed capitalist countries which are producing arms and forcing it to take from its resources the means to face that danger. How can that be done? They are a very austere people with a spirit of sacrifice who are fulfilling the double duty of working and developing the economy. While developing the economy, they also develop their means of defense. They are developing the technical means of defense to face the danger posed by the arms production of all the more developed capitalist countries. They are solving this task successfully. Who can do this? A people like the Soviets. I tell you, they will not only fulfill their plans but will surpass them. That is my impression, and I have no doubt that they will be successful. Anyone can see that. These dams have been seen by Western industrialists, and they have been impressed. Here all the lies by the imperialists vanish. They know and cannot ignore that they are lagging behind in their economy, as I was explaining to you. To give you an idea, the same applies to the irrigation projects, dams, and the accumulation of water. From the water they not only get electric energy, but they also irrigate millions of hectares of land, and steppes which were completely unproductive were made productive. Now they produce an average of 25 metric quintals of cotton per hectare, when the average in the U.S. is less than 15. That is nothing; what are they planning? The development of the chemical industry to produce synthetic fibers and synthetic furs. I am going to tell you something: Without the development of the chemical industry, communism cannot be constructed. Why? Because only through chemical production can all fibers and furs needed to meet all requirements be produced at a low cost. While they are trying to develop cotton production, they are also developing the synthetic textile production. Industry is what will solve the problems of clothes and shoes. There are many products made of artificial wool. Lots of magnificent coats are made of synthetic wool produced in chemical plants. This is the course--the path being followed by the Soviet economy. Question: In giving preference to heavy industry and the agricultural industry, there is a certain proportion missing. In the Soviet Union they had a dangerous setback in agriculture. How are they now? Are they developing agriculture also? Castro: They are developing agriculture greatly. I visited some agricultural areas in Uzbekistan and (name indistinct) and also in the Ukraine, and saw great developments in irrigation. In the first place, they are developing machinery. They are building an enormous quantity of agricultural machinery, and are mechanizing all processes of agricultural production. They obtain considerable increases in agricultural production. They obtain considerable increases in agricultural production through mechanization, irrigation, exploitation of virgin lands, and above all through production, innovations, and selection of seeds and animals. We must take into account that they had enormous problems in the first years; when they came to power they did not have a single tractor. They had wooden plows, horses, and oxen. That was the technique of agricultural production by enslaved peasants. Then came the revolution and the land was distributed. In the beginning, they started with an individual-type economy for many years because of political reasons and the circumstances in which the revolution took place. The revolution distributed land and production on a big scale, and collective production took place due to the application of modern production means. They did not have these modern means; they went from the farm in individual production to collective production. They went through this process. This was the process of building machinery in sufficient quantity. Then came the war--a war which damaged the agricultural area--the most developed area in the country. Not only were millions of persons killed, but cities and factories were destroyed; above all, the cattle industry was destroyed. Where the Nazis passed, not even a chicken was left. They killed not only cows and pigs, but even the chickens. The Nazis occupied the most productive region, the most developed in the USSR; when they withdrew, in what shape was it left? In Mississippi, Ohio, in California, in none of these places was a tree or a factory destroyed, nor was there a cow killed. Not a pig nor a chicken was killed. Everything remained intact there. They already had a great capitalist development; their agriculture was mechanized; and they did not even have one chicken killed. When the Nazis left in 1943, 1944 and 1945 in their retreat, the Soviets had to start over again to develop their cattle industry and all their agriculture. Not a tractor remained intact. They had to start from scratch. However, we can see what they produce now. We see how they supply and how they send food products to other countries as they do to us. For example, whole towns were destroyed. First came foreign interventions, then the fascist aggression. Under these conditions they had to develop their industry to counter the danger of imperialist threats by developing a powerful army and at the same time by developing agriculture, because its entire basis had been destroyed during the war. Not only was the basis destroyed, but--and this is most important--millions of agricultural workers and millions of technicians were murdered. With what can this be compared? Now they supply all their needs and help other countries. Can the feats of U.S. farmers be compared with the Soviet agricultural workers? Never. And they are developing, above all now. One of the purposes of the development of chemistry is precisely for the development of agriculture through fertilizers--to increase amounts of fertilizers. It is incredible that in 18 years, since the war, we see millions of cattle and pigs. In aspects such as agriculture they are way ahead of the United States. Question: Through movies and photographs seen by our people on your trip to the Soviet Union, there is one detail which has created curiosity: A small notebook that you have used. Could you tell us something you have written in it? Castro: Yes. For example, in the tractor factory I have written all data on new tractors being built. They are building, for instance, tractors to work in lowlands, tractors to work on hillsides; I have written details on the horsepower of these tractors and the type of machinery that can be used with them. They are developing a wonderful series of agricultural equipment for us. I have written many details and made notes on conversations. Generally, what I have not written I remember and will always remember. I have written little numbers--not millions. Question: It was in the USSR where for the first time the revolutionary armed forces were a product of popular power. What is your opinion of what you have seen of the Soviet soldier, from the human and technical point of view? Castro: I have seen everything there. I am going to tell you in the first place that the Soviet soldier is like all products of the Soviet revolution, a product of the Soviet people, a product of Soviet education, and a product of the USSR. The revolutionary army is very political-minded (politizado), very aware. It is an army of the people formed by technical cadres in which the officer corps is professional and the masses--the rank and file--are formed by Soviet youth which serve the country for a specified time. The Soviet soldier has come from a nation which has had to fight for years. Starting from the invasion--an invasion by at least 15 nations--which reduced Soviet territory; what remained in the hands of the Bolsheviks was a 15th part of Soviet territory. The Red Army organized and recruited the peasants under these conditions. They started to recovery the territory and defeated all the interventionist forces. From a territory as reduced as it was, they sprang up, recovered their territory, and defeated the enemy. Then came the fascist invasion. They are a strong, fighting, patriotic people, and their soldiers are wonderful. We saw some documentaries of the main battles--Volgograd and Berlin--and these movies were quite impressive. In the final attack on Berlin, many people died in the last days. In the enthusiasm to take the headquarters where Hitler was, men who came from many kilometers behind, where all kinds of atrocities and crimes had been committed against them in an invasion that will never be justified, and where millions of persons were murdered--these men, while fighting at the end, advanced against machineguns and died in the last hours of the war. The feats they performed from the military standpoint are incredible. In the movie of the Leningrad battle we saw what happened there after 90 days of siege. We visited the cemetery where 600,000 victims--soldiers and civilians--are buried. Some of them died in combat and some from hunger. They suffered 900 days of siege under bombardment. You can imagine what 600,000 deaths mean. However, the people not only did not surrender, but they did not even think of it. The battle of Volgograd was something. The Soviet forces were pushed against the river. The German lines ended there and are now marked with a series of tanks. A great Soviet sculptor is building a monument there as a remembrance of that battle. Not a single house remained standing. They have completely rebuilt the city. It is now a beautiful city, with all its industries and tremendous development. Nothing remained standing; even the houses had to be rebuilt. In thousands of towns of the Soviet Union how much do you think was invested--how much time, energy, and resources? What a task that nation performed after the war. In each battle fought there no one withdrew a step. The resistance they offered to the German army was incredible. That is the type of soldier I saw. Do the imperialists have soldiers like these? Have they waged a battle such as this? Have they resisted the aggression the Soviet soldiers have resisted? Thus the Soviets have accumulated experience and techniques and formed the type of soldier one sees in honor guards and military units all over the Soviet Union. We observed their discipline, their strength, and armament. We visited the fleet, the ships, and everywhere we saw the same spirit. What discipline and what an army devoted to revolutionary principles! We saw a tremendous combat spirit. I have no doubt about the superiority of that soldier over the capitalist soldier. What does the capitalist soldier defend? The interests of the monopolies, the exploiters. That is the conclusion I have reached. A fisherman, the chief of a fishing unit from the (name indistinct) lake told us that they love peace and that during the days of the crisis they were ready to fight for Cuba. He said that they want peace and are struggling to attain it, but that if the enemy imposes a war upon them they will know how to fight. He said: "We can do that rather well." We saw the conviction with which he spoke and how he expressed his feelings about peace. His assurance was astonishing. That is the mentality of the Soviet citizens and the soldiers. That is the human standpoint. They have many competent and well-trained officers. They have an academy where a boy can enter when he is young. They too, they are armed with an absolute technology--strictly modern. Because experience, circumstances, fascist aggressions and all these things have forced them to be able to defend themselves, they will not be caught disarmed in the face of any aggression. They have developed combat means. Why have they developed these combat means? First, they have a correct orientation in the type of armament. This orientation is so correct that they left the imperialists behind; because the imperialists followed the technique of building planes, carriers, and battleships. The Soviets employed a different technique, and above all, they developed rocketry. They developed it to the point where they are ahead of the imperialists. They concentrated their resources in this field. They have a new technique in conventional as well as in thermonuclear arms. I could imagine what would happen to a division facing these forces with the combat means and the training and combat capability they have. What a tactical perfection and coordination they possess. What would happen to a force that faced a unity of this type. We had an opportunity to observe these forces on maneuvers. We saw their conventional and nonconventional equipment being used. I am not speaking about strategic means; I am speaking simply of conventional means. We have seen soldiers of different types, of different units--infantry, navy, navy surface units, and air force units. We have seen submariners, and we have also seen soldiers of strategic missile units. We have seen the state of alert, training, discipline, organization, and morale; and I will tell you they have no rivals. Their quality and equipment are superior. I saw the technique and the technique in strategic arms. We also had a chance to visit strategic intercontinental missile installations. I already said strategic because the word strategic denotes long-range missiles to beat (word indistinct) the enemy. We were invited by Nikita, Marshal Nalinovskiy, the minister of defense, and Marshal Krilo. Krilo is chief of the rocket forces. From what we observed there, we could say that in the first place of importance is the invulnerability of the armament in combat positions as well as in trajectory--the invulnerability of the missiles; in the second place, the precision of the missiles; in the third place, the organization of all the system; and in the fourth place, the extraordinary power of the missiles. These are the things we saw. And not only that, but we also saw the technique, the method, the quality of the technique, and the advancement of the technique. This is the basis for the military superiority of the Soviet Union over the imperialist camp. This is the basis of their military superiority and the most effective guarantee for peace. Why? Because it is the means of assuring the enemy that an attack will not go unpunished. The result of any aggression by the imperialist camp would be virtually the total disappearance of the imperialist camp. Nothing would remain standing. Absolutely nothing. And they could not prevent this even by launching a surprise attack on the Soviet Union. They could not prevent their own annihilation. This the imperialists know perfectly well, as they have an idea of the technique which the Soviets have, and they also know the precision of the missiles because they have seen target practice. Little U.S. ships have been seen milling around where the target area has been announced and where missiles fired from thousands and thousands of kilometers away miss the target by half a kilometer--in an area in which thermonuclear weapons and missiles can destroy everything within a radius of dozens of kilometers. The imperialists know this. They have an idea of the power of these weapons; they have an idea of the precision of these weapons and of the invulnerability of these arms and, naturally, they know what will inevitably happen to them if they launch an aggression. We had an opportunity to appreciate all this and to draw conclusions from it. I think that this is enough of this. Vivo: Comrade Fidel, we might ask many questions. For instance, your impressions of your arrival at Red Square, your impressions . . . Castro: You have already asked that. Reporter: No, We asked about Lenin Stadium. Castro: No you spoke to me about Red Square and about Lenin Stadium. Reporter: Well, how about the meeting in which our people were honored with the medal the Soviet Government gave you as Hero of the Soviet Union, and the Order of Lenin. Castro: Well, we were informed of this decision by the Soviet Government the day before, but as we were all working on the speech--on the communique--many of our comrades of the delegation did not learn about it until the day after the stadium meeting--at the end of the reception. Naturally, it was a moment of extraordinary emotion for me and for all the comrades of our delegation and for all the Cubans there, many of whom wept, and it also impressed all the diplomats present. It was the first time this kind of honor had been conferred on a visiting non-Soviet leader. This medal had been granted only to men who fought during the Soviet war, in the Soviet army, but this was the first time it has been conferred under these circumstances. It made a tremendous impression on all the diplomats and, naturally, it is unnecessary to say that it made an enormous impression on us. I thought at that moment what country was giving this medal, what people was conferring this medal, a people which have extraordinary merits on all levels; and admiral, self-sacrificing, fighting people, the people who created the first socialist state, who built the first socialist society, who stood alone against all aggression. The merit was not ours, but of those who gave it. We were very aware of all the consideration, the attention. In the first place, we did not see any personal merit in this, nor even the merit of all of us, because what are we doing? What have we done? Actually, we have only begun to make a revolution. Our merits cannot be compared with the accumulated merits of the Soviet people before humanity, and before history; we must acquire these merits. It never passed through my mind that all this honor meant that we were so deserving, but, rather, that it was an expression of the Soviet people's spirit of solidarity and internationalist feelings of them all: The people, the party, the government, absolutely of all of them. At many gatherings I have always said that the honors we received were far above our merits, and we attributed this principally to the generosity of the Soviet people, and this is the complete truth. It is unbelievable, there were millions and millions of people, all the people all over, everywhere, going, as for example, when we traveled by train from Irkutsk and Bratsk, in Siberia. When we left Irkutsk several reporters from the radio station were there; naturally it was learned that we had left by train. At several small stations in towns where the people are mainly employed in the wood industry immense crowds appeared, enormous crowds in a matter of minutes, just because they had heard that the train carrying the Cuban delegation would be passing. They got together, and it was impressive. The Siberians are a strong people, hard working; during the war they were magnificent soldiers. The Siberian units participated in decisive combats. The people who live in that climate are very strong and very hard working, but their enthusiasm is the same. There were enormous crowds from the most remote parts of the forest; it was a very pretty sight, filled with color because of the very colorful clothing they wear: their coats, the children, so forth. The roofs of the station, the platforms, everywhere was filled with people. The crowds were all over, which tells us of the attitude with which they received us. Moderator: Comrade Ithiel Leon. Leon: About your visit to PRAVDA, which is the press spokesman. Castro: Well, I remember you. I remember for several reasons. Leon: What were your impressions? Castro: In the first place they have very good machines; first of all I was impressed by the small amount of newsprint they use (laughter). This is the first thing. I am taking advantage of the fact that I am among newspaper men to tell about their savings in paper, and about the revolutionary idea of a small newspaper, with few pages. I am completely convinced that this is a proper solution, even better for us. Now, if you consider that they have immense forests; for example, in the region of Irkutsk, they can produce 60 million tons of wood. At present they are producing 22 million. However, the wood production is 60 million tons a year. Thus, they have enormous forests. And they use less newsprint in their newspapers than we who do not even have a pine forest! We are planting small forests now; the revolution has plant 120 million trees. They have a two-page newspaper in which they concentrate the most important news items, and, I warn you, they are magnificent editors. Perhaps we will have emulation among the newspapers. They have magnificent editors who synthesize and gather the most important things, the pictures are very clear; the paper and the ink. It is true, they have paper and ink. We do not have much, but we use more than we have. However, this is one of the things which attracted my attention. As a result they put out more copies because they print fewer pages. They supply the people with a very light newspaper, all of which they can read. After all, who reads the entire newspaper here? The first page, the last one, and several sections are carried according to interest. The paper is also very well organized. Proof of the efficiency is that as we were leaving, the newspaper PRAVDA had already edited a book with a graphic report of the entire trip, the pictures, speeches, documents, everything. You will say: "Fine, to publish a book here a lot of work is necessary, so many procedures are necessary, and all that." I do not know if they have a printing-office there, but they published the book with tremendous speed, and it was well done. They have a group of editors, directors. They go together, and we met with them. Time did not permit me to visit other newspapers. I looked at the newspaper articles published by PRAVDA at the time of the struggle under czarism. I saw the first newspapers which appeared following the victory of the revolution, the newspapers published at the time of the attack upon Lenin, their reports, their guidance. I saw the newspapers which were published at the time of the interventions. I was very interested in seeing how things were directed, how the people were directed; all this is of great historical interest. Those were extremely difficult days. They have been gathering a very interesting history. We had a very friendly meeting with director Satyukov--I do not pronounce the names very well. They also publish the newspaper KOMSOMOL, and some others. I went there late. That was a really tiring day because I had been looking at the machines. When I got there, I said they are the delight of a newspaper director. However, remember: Everything was interesting, but what attracted my attention most was the saving of newsprint. Moderator: Comrade Ernesto Vera. Castro: Are you going to change the subject already? Vera: They do not have advertisements in the newspapers, do they? Castro: No, they have no advertisements. I do not read Russian, but it did not appears so. Moreover, if a newspaper has four pages, where would there be room for advertisements? Big newspapers are typical of capitalism, they are in the big business of advertisements, but "who reads a 100-page newspaper? There are still some advertisements, as are published by EL MUNDO, for some things being sold. Vera: Commander, during a press conference in the Soviet Union you said that communism has the proper material conditions plus education. Could you expand a bit more on this subject? Castro: What does materials plus education mean? It is of decisive importance. The communist man is not a product of abundance. Communism can exist under conditions of abundance, but the communist man must be trained in school. Society must organize him, and the party must train him. Thus, he is a product of material means, material conditions plus education; abundance does not make a communist. Hence the importance of education. This is one of the things to which the Cuban revolution has given great attention, all the attention it deserves. From the very beginning we see the USSR building many schools, institutes, research centers. The figures are incredible. The research workers and scientists can be counted by the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands are working. We have not even started. We must begin to do the same. I spoke to the university students about education. They are the generation which is being formed. Practically everyone has a high school education and is going on with his studies. Study holds a very important place there. It is simply an idea expressed there during a meeting with the students about education. Society must go on creating all the material means to satisfy man's needs, but at the same time it must educate the man who is going to live in this completely new social environment. This is all the more necessary upon emerging from capitalism, in which the minds of men are filled with prejudices and vices; from a capitalist society which creates this society of wolves, of people who devour each other; from a society in which everyone is the enemy of everyone else. It is all the more necessary when changing over into a society in which we are all brothers. We must form good people. We must take care of all these matters of education which attracted our attention, and more. Moderator: Comrade Valdes Viro. Vivo: Comrade Fidel, did you speak to the Soviet students about the revolution of nature, and did you explain the tasks which faced Soviet youth and those which would face Cuban youth? Castro: The first time I thought about that was after a conversation with Boris Polevoi, the Soviet writer and author of "A Man of Truth." "We are Soviet men," he writes in a magazine article for young people. He asked me for my opinion on this subject: What will the young people do when there are no more revolutions? What can be done? Imagine us already in a communist society and people being born with a vocation for revolution! Of course, social revolutions are made when a system of classes exists, but men also have vocations which are channeled in one direction or the other. (What about--Ed.) the young people, the restless peoples who are born in a communist society in which they are told that this society has already been created, the young people who learn about history and how this society developed and came about. They will wonder what is left to do. The restless souls, the revolutionary souls, who will constantly be increasing, because the revolutionary soul is also related to the human mind, the degree of culture, of development, and of awareness attained. Therefore, a perpetual revolution must be waged; revolutions end when there are no more classes or systems of exploitation. A communist society is created and the era of social revolutions come to an end. However, the era of natural revolutions, of the revolutions of nature, will begin to a greater degree than ever. At times I wonder what I would like to be if I were not a revolutionary, or even while being a revolutionary, what would I like to be. I would like to be an investigator. Why? because one can revolutionize nature, and to a small degree create new varieties of plants, animals, anything in the field of agriculture, and also in the field of physics and chemistry. A perpetual revolution must be waged by man in all matters. The young people, the restless people will have to concentrate their drives and impulses in humanity's perpetual desire for renovation and progress, particularly the young people. There remains much for them to do there, because the communist society is yet to be built. Of course, it is no longer up to the youth who lived during the prerevolutionary era and during the first years of the revolution, and who were faced with many tasks. It is for the young people now growing up. They are educated in a socialist society, in a program for the construction of communism, with more resources and more means. All this is reflected in the culture of all the young people, in the topics which they discuss. Of course, this generation has a great task ahead of it: The building of communism. However, subsequent to the generations which are building communism come the others, the young people who will have a perpetual revolution, the revolution of nature. This is the idea here. There is another very interesting thing. I heard a very nice statement at a concert in the theater of the congresses: It will be a great joy to live under communism, but a greater joy to build communism. The people who are building it are doing so with sacrifice, with abnegation. They are living in austerity, but they are building. This will be the joy of the future generations, but building it is the joy of the generations doing it. Something like this also happened to us. We are now living under difficulties and are facing problems. Later generations will come which will not have today's problems; they will have others, but they will have overcome all these things. What do we expect of this? We expect to have the satisfaction of fulfilling that duty, the love for the work which is being done, we know that the future generations will benefit from it. Wanguemert: Comrade Ernesto Vera. Vera: Within the order of economics, major, can we discuss the subject already discussed? Castro: One of the things about the party--I have already said something about the important role played by the party as an organizer as a leader, the attention it devotes to the economy and the impression that it had on me as a great party, magnificent cadres everywhere in all places competent cadres enthusiastic dedicated entirely, who knew what they were doing. (As heard) The role of the party in the revolution in the development of the revolution, in the construction of the economy, and in the leadership of the country is a basic Marxist-Leninist principle. Only the party can perform this decisive task. That can be seen when one looks at that immense multi-national world which is so large. What is the force that unites it, that organizes it, that impels it? What is the comment that welds all that together? What is the structure that sustains all that? It is the party and without it, without it there is no revolution, there is no construction of socialism. It is impossible and much less under the conditions of a country like the USSR which is so immense. Our country is much smaller, but on our scene, in our experiences of five years of revolution we have understood that principle more and more and we must in a responsible manner continue and redouble our political type work in the organization of the party with the same methods because we are convinced that they are magnificent methods for this. And we must continue to seek men; create responsible men everywhere, finding the best quality men in the working class, continue selecting them, continue forming them, continue developing them, continue placing them in the work, and always continue drawing from this inexhaustible source of talent, that mine so rich which is the people, which is the working class. (Thus it is?) a consistent policy in that sense and responsibility must be required. One of the things that we must do, one of the things we do not do consistently, we do not consistently demand responsibility. A person commits a great blunder and he remains so unconcerned about it. On a labor front, on a production front, many times we promote people, he commits an error here and we put him somewhere else, or many times we transfer him to another job with the same salary. And at times they go to another job with higher pay. This is a terrible crime gentlemen. We must shake off this vice, among other vices, many other vices, and we must exact responsibility from all levels. The job assigned someone: how does he fulfill and perform it? If he does not perform it--enough! How long must we take half measures. It cannot be. He did not do it. And this does not mean that doors must be closed to anyone nor that we must be implacable because--we must repeat that about being "neither intolerant nor implacable." We cannot be tolerant because of comradeship, friendship, pity, or what have you. We must demand responsibility of everyone at every post, whether political, administrative, or any other type. Work must be the indicator. So he earns 400, 300, 150 pesos, whatever it is, 150, and he does not perform well at his job and then he goes to another job that is more modest, then his wages should be cut. The wages of a man working at a more modest job should be cut to the rate he is entitled to, and responsibility must be demanded of everyone. Work is something that we have not been able to perform in a consistent manner. We have passed through stages, various stages, true. However, many things are the result of the same process. But we are now in a stage in which we have the responsibility of doing so and we have the duty of doing so. However, everyone here must be responsible at his place of duty. If we do not do this in the beginning--it is a basic matter. It is serious, it must be taken seriously. No one is compelled. The revolution does not compel anyone; absolutely no one. Then, he who cannot, well, he cannot. (You understand?) the revolution is not the work of an individual or of anyone. It is the work of all the people, of thousands, of millions of persons. Therefore, strictly personal problems become insignificant in comparison with the task of millions of persons. And we must demand responsibility. This is one of our weak points. We are moving forward in the organization of the party an we must step this up even more and give it more attention. We must understand that this is the real instrument of the revolution. This is something -- it is an indisputable fact. It is a fundamental Marxist-Leninist principle. Wanguemert: Comrade Ithiel Leon. Leon: Comrade Fidel: I have a question about journalism. You have touched on economic matters. It seems that we are now on the subject of economics. Castro: Good. Later I can remember some of the things that I have forgotten, right? But, things of a general type, or something of a general type. Things of an economic nature. Impressions of my trip. My impressions about Comrade Khrushchev. All those things that I want to talk about here. It is something general in nature. As pertains to the economic question, this trip is of great interest for us, for the nation, in general of interest (to?) the international communist movement. We would have to talk about many subjects, about many issues. We would have to make recapitulations, analyses, and all those things. Things about the present, the future. Naturally, the enemy, imperialism has tried, tried, without really achieving it, to detract (Castro seeks word--Ed.) value, even detract magnitude, from the Soviet people's attitude, the solidarity of the Soviet people, and all those things. In reality, we can say that the trip ended today because I am reporting on the trip. I can say that we, the delegation, all of us, and this is my opinion also, are satisfied, very satisfied with the trip to the USSR. We are of the opinion that it has been very positive. It has been very rich in experience and in the contrasts. It has enlightened us about many issues: In our relations with the USSR, in the overall picture of all the world's problems, in all these things. The enemy also tried to make it appear that we were seeking economic purposes in the USSR (ibamos en busca de prospitos economics a la USSR); he speculated on the question of the differences existing in the communist camp; he talked about--that we were going to charge a high price to the Soviet Government, the Soviet Party, for supporting it, and all those things. Everyone knows about the position we have held to struggle for unity in the socialist camp and besides, particularly those who know us well, also know that we will never adopt positions which run contrary to principle because of economic interest. And they know very well that we have our opinions and we defend our opinions; we defend them at all costs. Therefore, this little intrigue of imperialism is a petty thing. In speaking to the people here today, as a result of an objective appreciation of the visit to the USSR, and all the talks held with Soviet leaders, our opinion has the value of being an honorable opinion, objective and disinterested, as it always has been. (We have?) acted in the revolution, effected the revolution, for it was us who effected the revolution, that is what I was saying in Lenin Stadium, the enemies of the USSR; we effected it. We apply our tactics, our methods. We have developed the revolution adopted to our conditions in Cuba, and we have stuck to a line known to the people in all decisive hours. This lends value to any opinion we voice. In the first place we want to stress one thing here: It is that the price of sugar was brought up as an initiative of the Soviet Government. Comrade Khrushchev informed me of it after returning from being in the Moscow suburbs several days. This was contrary to our ideas, for we had been selling sugar at four centavos to the market of the USSR and the socialist camp when they did not need sugar. The USSR was developing beet sugar to a degree in the Ukraine. It even made some changes in plans so as to be able to buy our sugar. In buying our sugar, Cuban sugar was of course taken away from the world market, when the imperialist aggression took place. That has influenced prices. Why are prices higher? As a result of the imperialist blockade, the elimination of our quote, and because our sugar that used to go on the American market, the world market, went to the socialist market. As a result, why, there was a period of low prices. At another period, prices began rising. We were selling sugar to the USSR at four centavos, when sugar on the world market was at 2.70 or 2.80 or 2.93 centavos. Sugar prices began rising. They reached the price of 4 centavos. They continued rising, 4.5 5, 5.5, 6, nobody knows where they will get to, or when they will start to drop. Those questions depend on a number of factors, so that nobody can say for sure what they will be next year or some other year. But imperialists are receiving their worst punishment. They took away our sugar quota to ruin us, it is they who will be ruined. People are unaware of the things that have happened to the imperialists, (word indistinct) sad things have happened to them. But this is typical of the senselessness, the stupidity, of their policy. They said: "Let us starve the Cuban people to death; we will take away their sugar quota; we are going to reduce them to hunger, misery, want; we will see where they sell their sugar, we are going to put sugar at two centavos." That was imperialism's policy toward us. "We are going to ruin them. They will be unable to hold out." But since they are doubly shameless-- I am using a polite term--they not only want to give us trouble but it was also a bit of business for them. They saw that cheap sugar on the world market. "Let us take away Cuba's sugar quota,"--which was being paid for at 5 centavos, 5 plus centavos,--"and buy sugar for 3 on the world market, thus saving so many hundreds of millions of dollars," for they had currency problems; they have a good drain year after year and their currency is being undermined (few words indistinct). They planned not only to give us trouble, but to do a little business amounting to a few hundred million dollars. As a result, this year they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than had they been paying 5 centavos for sugar. And besides that, the American people will have to lay out about 1 billion dollars for sugar more than they were paying when sugar was bought from Cuba. They are receiving the worst punishment. And far from seeing sugar at 3 centavos, they see us selling the world market at magnificent prices, when they thought we were going to be left without a penny in foreign currency with which to fill our needs. Everybody remembers the history of Cuba, and the deal with the United States: When times of sugar shortages came, sugar went up on the world market, but Cuba kept on selling sugar at prices that were below the world market; then when abundance came they took away from the quota. That was the whole history of Cuba. Anybody who reads the sugar history of Cuba will see that it was a history of discrimination, of paying less when the prices were highest, and then reducing our sugar quota when the situation changed. And they kept the prices set, for it was also a market that bought a great deal from them, many of the mills belonged to them. They received profits from the price paid for sugar and they maintained a strategic food reserve in case of war. And there was always the problem of whether they would pay us more or less. When we were paid for sugar at the rate of 4 centavos when it was at 2.7 centavos and 3 centavos, there arose the situation that sugar prices went up and we understood that it would not be correct to ask for the increase for two reasons: First, because they had been paying us at a lower price, rather at a higher price, when it was a very much lower price on the world market and second, because our sugar commitment had not been fully fulfilled for various reasons of which you are aware. The sugar commitments had not been fulfilled. It was not correct that we bring up the problem of the increase in prices. Where did the initiative come from? The Soviet Government itself took the initiative in the question of raising the price of sugar because of considerations of the needs of the economy, the interests of the Cuban economy relations existed between the USSR and Cuba. In an absolutely spontaneous manner they brought up the question of the increase in the price of sugar at an unknown average because the price kept rising and falling and the price was not known. Comrade Khrushchev talked it over with me and he proposed the payment for sugar at six centavos--in those days the price of sugar was fluctuating--that is to say, a third more than the price of 4 centavos which they were paying. This is a very great contribution and a very great help to our economy, to the national economy--let that be understood well--the national economy, because I am going to speak about that. With the prospects of an increase in the production of sugar for next year and the maximum possibilities of sugar production, the present price, of sugar, is a price which is a stimulus and an extraordinary help to the Cuban economy offered to us on the initiative of the Soviet Government which proposed it and defended its point of view. That is reality-- this price of sugar. We had a great imbalance with the Soviet Union of close to between 100 and 300 million dollars difference between what we were receiving and what we were sending. This creates immediate conditions for us which are a stimulus for production and which permits us to know how to use them. What does this mean this knowing how to use them? What does this income mean? (Is it for--Ed.) the sugar industry? It is income for the national economy which places us in a condition of being able to plan on a more realistic basis because these subjects were also discussed with Comrade Khrushchev. These questions which are important as much from a theoretic as a practical point of view with respect to the situation of the underdeveloped countries which free themselves from imperialism and enter a world which is in the process of formation. We enter, along with underdeveloped countries, on the side of countries like the USSR which already has a great economic development and which, in the historic conditions under which its revolution took place--completely isolated--saw itself forced to develop all its resources and reach a very high level of economic self-sufficiency. These were discussions on the resources with which we underdeveloped countries are going to develop in order to reach decent economic levels. These are subjects of much interest which are encountered for the first time, because for the first time we find a situation so typical as the situation we are in, which so many factors have had influence, not only in the economic but also in the political field, all related to the tremendous pressure being exerted by imperialism on our country, the sabotage it carries out against our economy, and the permanent subversion which it promotes, the encouragement it gives to the overthrown classes, all these were part of the discussions and aroused great interest in Comrade Khrushchev. In this problem of the price of sugar, it is a contribution to the economy. Why do I say this? Because there are some that have already begun to think of how they can go about distributing this increase, how they are going to split this up. Is this the correct way to think with an imbalance of almost 200 million, with the need and overriding duty to develop our economy in a serious and very responsible manner, is this the time to see how we are going to split up what this increase in the price of sugar means? No. That is not correct. To open our maws to devour this increase is not correct. We must shut our maws and begin to speak a language which can be understood, a responsible language. Everything that is demagogy, sectorialism, and antisocial and antinational attitudes must be fought, but fought with vigor, by the political and worker leaders. This is a contribution, not to any one sector but to all the national economy and we have to begin to see the national economy as a whole. What does it mean to see the national economy as a whole? Well we might need a certain product which we might even have to subsidize, pay more for it because it satisfies a certain need in the country. We must use all the resources of the country rationally so that if we wish to stimulate that production we can do so with the rational use of these resources. Investment is what we must make in economy, not be thinking now in view of this increase that it is good and we feel happy and try to figure out how to put some more pesos into our pocket. More dollars in our pocket? For what? What we have a surplus of is pesos. Does someone doubt this? I do not believe that. Ask Luzardo whether or not there are surplus pesos. (There are surplus pesos--Ed.) because of a series of circumstances: The number of people working in the first place, the disappearance of unemployment, the disappearance of the dead time, credit to the peasants, the overgenerous hands of some administrators and some enterprises, tendencies to bureacratism, creation of unnecessary work, waste. All those things engender poor organization in the distribution of materials and a whole series of things that result in less production. There are deficiencies in work in some branches of production. Is this a time to be thinking of putting more pesos in our pockets and into circulation? No? It is a time to be thinking in producing so that there will be not more pesos, but more production goods, more means of work, and more products. That is what we have to do. That is the only correct thing to do and the most intelligent and the very least that a revolutionary can commit himself to do, everything else would be demagogy of the worst type. How should we use these resources in a rational manner? If we must stimulate certain crops they will be stimulated. If we must stimulate the raising of sugarcane it will be stimulated and (we must--Ed.) not be thinking of differentials. No, no, no, no, we are going to begin to reason and to pay in accordance with productivity. (We must plan--Ed.) how we are going to organize all our problems of cutting cane and the problems of agriculture, because there are a number of situations here which create very serious problems for us in our economy and for our leaders--something which was in part inherited from capitalism and something which we partly did our selves in the first days of inexperience and anarchy. As an example, there is some very hard work with a lower wage than other work which is more or less the same in technical quality or without any technical quality which is easier, less rigorous, and much better paid. How are we going to correct this error? It is already known that it is not going to be corrected by taking from one and give more to another. This would create an infinite number of problems. In accordance with the situation in which we find ourselves we must rationalize the distribution of resources, and rationalize the payment of salaries according to the quality of work and also taking into account the amount of work, the norms. These are unavoidable responsibilities which we have to fulfill. Here is the way things were in the era of Senor Ray, in the era of that crazy anarchist who was the minister of labor (laughter) named Manolo Fernandez, (more laughter) a type who was completely in the clouds and who made a number of equalizations of the public works salaries in the rural areas and the city. What problems did they create? They created the problem that the people who placed a brick in some highway were drawing almost double that of someone producing food, grain, and cultivating the soil. The people from the rural areas then migrated to public works jobs. There were many public works officials and chiefs of public works and public works employees, with the mentality of the era of capitalism. Clearly this was not the era of the contractor because the contractor sucked the juice out of the worker and demanded more work, but the administrator when it was work performed by the ministry, by the state, attracted all the grafters, all the fast buck boys, all who had political influence and it did not matter if they laid 10 stones instead of 100, or if they loaded so many meters of earth instead of so many more. This still happens to us in construction jobs. It is a serious problem in which we have not really had the help of the unions, not that they have not helped us at all, because they have helped us, but they have not risen to the heights of the help which the cadres, the union leaders, the union organizations should give their revolution, to their country. It is clear that this is not just something of interest to the individual but rather something having to do with the administrative capacity of the ministries, and the organization, and with the distribution of materials, because many times individuals do not produce because they lack materials and they need certain things. This is a problem of organization. This means that we have duties to perform everywhere. Now with respect to what we inherited, the people do not want to do the hardest agricultural work. There is a total of rationalization and we must distribute our resources more rationally. Anybody who is honest and intelligent can understand that. According to the new wage scale it is said that nobody is going to have his pay reduced. Good, that principle is good. However with rationalizing all new jobs that are created, all the new people that begin working will begin in their scale, the scale he falls into according to the quality and quality of work he is doing, the norms he has to attain. It is mandatory that we do this. We cannot continue to construct socialism in the chaos which capitalism left us. We must then know how to distribute these resources. How are we going to stimulate production, how are we going to stimulate cane raising? We are going to use them for the farmer, the agriculture worker, the small farmer in the raising of cane, but we are going to distribute them rationally and not even think about standing around with open mouths waiting for a split of these resources which belong to the national economy and which we must use rationally in our development. There is still much injustice existing in the matter of wages and low salaries. Why is this? I have news of some who are making huge salaries and do nothing, do not produce anything. And how many bureaucrats do we have? Well, we have those they left us and those we have created. There are institutions like that famous national bank which has 1,097 employees and half of them are not needed. We have people working in the rural area producing food, plantain, malanga, meat, milk, and so forth. (He snickers) Why are you all looking at Che, it is not Che's fault for any of this. He was in the national bank but he did not place any bureaucrats there or anything like that. Why he has not done clearly is to say: "Let's throw these people out." They were not thrown out because it was not desirable to throw people out into the street and these extra people were kept. What did this bring about? It means that many new officials who came to these organizations, to the ministries, put the personnel that were there whom they did not like on the surplus list and brought in their trusted personnel, friends, acquaintances or anybody else other than those who were there at the time. All that we have also. It is clear that they will want meat, eggs, milk, fish, everything without doing anything and without producing material goods and if they do not get them they will protest, because everybody is a volunteer in the front rank in demanding things but everybody hangs back when it comes to producing. That is the attitude of many people. These are truths we must not hide. Now we have this case of the problem of sugar, and the production of material goods with a minimum of personnel. There can be seen something that also shows the lack of development of our economy, that is, the lack of basic industries and at the same time many workers in service and consumer industries, and far fewer workers in basic industries. That correlation of our working force is not good. If we aspire to have a prosperous economy, a developed economy and resolve our problems we will have to know how to do it ourselves because it will not fall like manna from heaven. We will have to know how to organize it and above all know how to correctly take advantage of the help we are receiving. We can set a serious task for ourselves in the field of economy and cease wasting resources. We have passed the phase of apprenticeship and we at least should be in the intermediate school period of the revolution and begin to behave in a more logical manner, more intelligent and more revolutionary. Yes, more revolutionary, because this is a revolution. That is exactly what the revolution is. Anything else can be a great agitation, a great hubbub, but not a revolution, above all when society and the country has to train technicians, has to spend so much in the training of technical cadres in the schools and universities, has to spend so much in the problems of defense and in being in a condition to resist its enemies. And it has to take care of a number of needs and it has to develop its economy and arrive at the rational utilization of all these resources in order to plan and develop our economy on a realistic basis. During the long time that we had the opportunity to converse with Comrade Khrushchev we discussed many subjects on these things of economic type and we posed a number of problems related to the special situation of our country, and the situation in general of the underdeveloped countries. Comrade Khrushchev showed a great interest in all these things. Among other things we had a problem with a very difficult but unpostponable solution. That was the problem of canecutting. It is increasingly pressing to find a solution for the matter of cutting the cane. We have stricken, with our resources; efforts have been put forth by the Industries Ministry, with the use of Cuban technicians, with the scanty means at their disposal, they reached a partial solution: They succeeded in building a machine, which of course presents the defects inherent in the every first machine that is built, and because of our lack of technical means. The problem of a machine for loading cane was solved in an entirely satisfactory manner. Hence we reached the conclusion that loading machines should be made in sufficient numbers for loading all the cane by means of these machines, while the problem of the cutting was being solved. This was one of the most serious problems facing our country, and finding a solution was overriding, particularly considering the degree to which the volume of cane to be cut every year is beginning to increase. So, this was elementary for a start. In the talks with the Soviet Government, a study of our potential and their possibilities, extraordinary interest was taken in the problem, and discussions focused on it, because in addition to the machines, tractors were needed. Of course, a certain number of tractors (have been?) bought, everything planned, all distributed in the country and outside the country. We needed some 2,000 tractors and some 2,000 harvesting machines--there is a difference in the machine--and we are going to produce another 2,000 here. But there is a difference between the Soviet harvesting machine and ours; ours makes the tractor useless for other jobs and it must be devoted solely to this work, while in the case of the Soviet tractor used for this, the machine can be unhitched in four hours and the tractor can be used for farming. But even under these adverse conditions, we had the idea of building 2,000. The final outcome of the study of their possibilities was that they decided to deliver to us 1,500 tractors and build 3,500 harvesting machines, that is, all the harvesting machines will be built over there with a hydraulic arrangement that we cannot make. So, both the 1,500 tractors they are going to deliver to us this year for this work, and the 2,000 tractors we are going to use and which would have been rendered unusable, can all be used in farming. The 3,500 tractors that are going to be used for harvesting can also be used for farming, for tilling. They are going to build for us the 3,500 harvesting machines this year and are going to let us have 1,500 tropical-type tractors, in a great effort all through the year, besides the tractors that had been bought for general farming. For next year this means a big boost, a big boost to be able to say that now we will be able to get in all the cane by machine. But the basic problem still remains to be solved, and what is the basic problem? It is the problem of cutting the cane, cutting and loading the cane. And to this problem the Soviet Government, and particularly Comrade Khrushchev, devoted extraordinary attention. Khrushchev has great experience in agricultural problems. For many years he was secretary general of the committee--first secretary of the committee of the Ukraine, which is a farming region. He had to work very hard on the agricultural problems. He reorganized the economy of the Ukraine, which had been occupied by the Germans. And the agriculture of the Ukraine gave him great experience in farming problems and matters of machinery. And a curious note: He himself, on the basis of figures about cane, from his experience in solving farm machinery problems, evolved a number of ideas on characteristics that should be present in a machine that would be both a cane cutter and a cane loader, everything done by just one machine, cutting and gathering. (Few words indistinct) that he had no doubts about finding a technical solution for the problem. He got in touch at once with the machine construction ministry, technicians in the construction of farm machinery; he organized a group at once, assisted by one of his aide's who is a consultant on farming--and who had been in Cuba--to get to work on making such a machine. Khrushchev himself provided a number of ideas on what the machine should be. Now a design is to be drawn; the technicians, specialists, engineers are to begin a study on the spot. And in a word, they proposed to solve the problem of complete mechanization; that is, the growing and cutting and gathering of cane by machine; and for us, this is decisive, according to plans for economic development, for the development of agriculture, for the development of sugar production. And for us, it was basic, elementary, for a start; really we had to solve the cane problem. All Soviet technology and industry is now engaged in solving the problems of space trips. How could we fail to solve an incomparably simpler problem such as fabrication of cutting machines? This is to say, he took special interest; sometimes he worked a whole day on the problem. He told me that without the least doubt, within two years--within two years--the matter of mechanizing the cane harvest would be completely taken care of. Just think what that means--under the new conditions, the current prices, being able to save ourselves the labor force of hundreds of thousands of men, hundreds of thousands. This is the beginning we were talking about in (few words indistinct). So that our nation can present itself before Latin America (few words indistinct) as a nation that has completely mechanized its sugarcane cultivation. This gives us extraordinary encouragement in order to begin to work very seriously on the problem of the economy. This was not even the most important part of a series of questions in connection with the economic development of our nation and the position our country is going to occupy in production within the socialist camp already existing and within the communist camp that is in gestation. In other words, what position are going to occupy in the world of production? Our small nation, without enormous rivers, without coal, without any oil discoveries thus far, in the coming decades, without thinking of a more distant future now, in which our country's economy indisputably ought to integrate with the economy of the rest of the Latin American nations when historic conditions and the process of the evolution of the peoples will determine it--because only by regional integration of economies can the highest possibilities be attained--since a small nation with limited resources and another small nation with limited resources as well, which combine their natural resources will permit the great development that the USSR is attaining, the super development the USSR is attaining in the vastness of its soil. We talked at great length with Comrade Khrushchev about all these questions concerning the problem of the resources that the underdeveloped nations ought to finance themselves with (as heard), the position which we ought to occupy, which production lines and which branch of production we ought to develop. At this time, these questions are of the highest import to Comrade Khrushchev and the Soviet Government. For us, it means that we must seriously get to work on all this, in order to prepare the position that we are going to occupy in the world of production in which we are going to specialize. What are we going to do? We are going to build an economy based on international division of labor. In the manner in which we resolve this problem correctly, will greatly depend the future of the nation and we, the leaders of today, are going to be judged on this more than on any other things--much more than for what we have done until today in the revolutionary process, it will be for the bases which we are going to create. This is why we must be rigorous, intransigent, in the correct solution of all these problems. There really is a favored opportunity for all this. At this time, it can be said that the general situation of our country is one of security--a situation of security. Security against the danger which has been besetting us since the very outset of the revolution -- of a direct invasion by the United States. The United States had resorted to all its weapons. It had resorted to the arm of economic aggression: to the arm of subversion; to the arm of indirect aggression. What they had left was the arm of direct aggression. What I can tell you, after all the talks and the detailed analysis of all the issues, is that at this time we have a situation of security against this danger. In other words, it is a danger against which we can count on great security. Does it mean that the danger has disappeared completely as a potential thing? No. Complete disappearance, no. In no way is there a complete disappearance of the danger of war, of the danger of an invasion against us, of a world war. No. Absolutely not. The danger persists and it will persist while imperialism exists with its aggressive power and with its aggressive policy. It is indisputable that together with the change in the correlation of forces, this potential danger diminishes, abreast with the change in the correlation of forces, in the same measure that the socialist camp reinforces itself, in the same measure, the socialist camp is more powerful. Of course, there are things that are very eloquent--the Cuban revolution is very eloquent proof of the change in the correlation of forces that has taken place in the world, as we explained in the Lenin speech (presumably the speech he delivered at Lenin Stadium--Ed.). Certain proof of the Marxist-Leninist principles is the change that has taken place in the correlation of forces since, in fact, the imperialists have had to repress themselves with respect to us. Does the potential danger persist? It will always persist while imperialism exists. Imperialism now knows, with scientific certainty and positively, what aggression against Cuba would mean. Imperialism has enough judgment to refrain from harboring the least doubt as to what a military invasion of Cuba would mean for it, and the imperialists have already reached that conviction. This does not mean that there still are not some crazy men and agitators there; that contradictions will cease to exist over there; that demagogy will cease to operate; that hysteria will rise and fall with respect to Cuba. But the imperialists know what they can depend on should they decide to launch an armed attack against our country. The imperialists naturally persist--as is expressed in the communique and as is expressed in our pronouncements and by Comrade Khrushchev in the meeting in the Lenin Stadium--in their policy of subverison, sabotage, violations of air space, and all those things which mean the task of fighting against that and of setting ourselves the goal of eliminating those factors of tension and danger of war. And at the same time we face the need of maintaining our forces at a maximum. As much because of the potential danger that will always exist while imperialism exists as well as because of the policy of subversion and provocation they carry out against us, and as long as those conditions do not change, there is a need to maintain powerful armed forces, perfectly equipped, and trained. This is guaranteed--the maintenance of our armed forces in optimum battle condition to confront and perform their task in case of imperialist aggression. That is one of the things that we can expound--that is, it is an instrument on which our country can count to a very high degree of security which permits us to dedicate ourselves, to dedicate a great part of our energy to building our economy. Our policy with respect to the United States, the policy on which we have made repeated pronouncements, the policy we proposed at the meeting in Lenin Stadium. What is our disposition? Ah, to normalize our relations if they wish. We even made some pronouncements in an interview with a North American correspondent before leaving for the USSR--various pronouncements. We spoke about everything and a number of questions were made and we answered everything. WE were even asked about indemnifications and all those things -- well if they want to talk, we can talk about that. I recall that the law we passed nationalization the American enterprises said that we were going to indemnify those enterprises, but the indemnification would be based on their purchase of a certain number of millions of tons of sugar of our surplus over and above a certain amount of sugar they were buying from us--I do not know if it was 3 million tons (voice says 3 million--Ed.) 3 million, at 5.25. Of course at that time they would say "the price is way down." And they would not consider that much, but now the price is sky high. That means that one of the requisites for discussion and possible indemnification is in the fact that prices are now above 5.25. Clearly this is another problem of price and quantity, but that can be discussed according to the existing situation because we now have a better price on the world market. Do we have an interest in selling them (the United States--Ed.) a large volume? Everything to the contrary. It can be said that our economic interest is in selling at better prices on the world market, at the price that the socialist camp is paying us. That is to say a higher price than 5.25. Why sell them 3 million? And so conditions exist, if they wish to discuss indemnification. We will discuss. We will not refuse to discuss. They will say: "Well, and with what you are going to pay the indemnification?" Well, today sugar is at a price very much above 5.25. We can discuss all they want. We have heard some statements by North American politicians. There is a large number of North American politicians who are perfect demagogues and perfect clowns--two words on political matters. (As heard) There are some American politicians who are little more serious, a little more thoughtful, who take reality into account, some more blind and some less blind. What have some newspapermen said? They have answered as if we had a great interest. They say: "Well, we shall talk with Castro if he breaks his ties with the Soviet Union, under such and such conditions and so forth." And what conditions are these? Who are they to be setting conditions in order to talk? Well, we also set conditions that in order to hold discussions they withdraw their naval base, that they cease to do a few things more in order to discuss and not to be setting so many conditions. But who is it that has the most interest in discussing. Let us see. Let us analyze the situation, let us analyze the correlation of forces. The correlation of forces of the socialist camp, the correlation of our forces, our armed forces, our economic situation, our economic prospects, our political situation, and let us compare it with theirs. Let us see if the present situation of the United States is as sure, as solid, as is the situation of the Cuban revolution. Because the Cuban revolution is much more solid than Kennedy's victory in the coming elections. I believe that is something nobody will dispute. Then what, what is it that has caused them their greatest reverses? Their greatest discredit, their loss of prestige? What? The policy they have followed. They prepared subversions; and we combatted them, we crushed them. They prepared counterrevolutionary bands supplied with arsenals of weapons; and we put them out of action. They prepared invasions, and they have been obliged to pay a modest indemnity for all that. They persisted in their plans for aggression and they found themselves on the brink of destruction as a result. Discredit, headaches, and now hundreds of millions in currency as a result of their aggressions against us. Is their policy not bankrupt? Yes, it is. Who failed? They have. Who won? We have won. Ah! The defeated are going to impose conditions on the victors. What a policy! (Prolonged applause) We Cuban revolutionaries feel that our position is secure, solid. We have magnificent prospects ahead, and we know now how all imperialism's machinations can be resisted and defeated. And yet we have said because of a question of principles, because of a policy of principles and peace, we are prepared to discuss matters, we are prepared to normalize relations; a policy toward all countries, toward all Latin American countries, it is our policy of principles. Now I understand that for them, now can they demand conditions? It is ridiculous. It is absurd. To come and tell us: "Quarrel with your friends so as to make friends with your enemies." That is what it amounts to. And with what enemies! They are totally different; there is nothing in common between them and us. They talk about geography. Today geography has become small. The trip that took Christopher Columbus three months, we made in 12 hours, and the distance covered was greater. By how many times have the geographical dimensions of the earth been reduced? The 90 miles are more or less--now the 10,000 miles from here to the USSR is a matter of hours. The ferry from here to Miami takes longer than the TU-114 does from here to the USSR, gentlemen! And then, facts have demonstrated the economic potential of the socialist camp; they have shown that geographical distances are an invalid argument, outworn. And it is in illusion to go around laying down that kind of conditions. When they want to talk, let them come and hold discussions without prior conditions. Let them not play around with those things. We want to normalize relations but we are in no great hurry. If they do not want to, we can wait indefinitely; we are not pressed, gentlemen of United States politics. Examine your own convenience and the results obtained from the policy of aggressions against us. We are calm, assured, and optimistic. That is our policy. And of course we are strong here on our island, well supplied and well entrenched and well-trained and more than well-equipped. That is how things are. Along this line, regarding our country's security, in connection with the trip: We talked at length with Comrade Khrushchev on all problems, all questions, details; an analysis was made of everything. I had the opportunity to see many reports, data, documents, a great deal of information that contributed to form our general opinion on the situation, and provide full understanding of the situation--an improvement, an increase, in friendship, in relations with the Soviet Union--all in a very satisfactory manner. We can say with complete satisfaction, and answer the imperialists, saying that all our conclusions are the result of talks, discussions, what we have seen, and what we received in the USSR, how the people treated us, everywhere; seeing solidarity carried to the ultimate degree, and knowing how far that solidarity of the Soviet Union goes, and that it was a solidarity that was nurtured from the beginning, before our trip to the USSR, and after our trip to the USSR, to the maximum, by the party, by the government, by the press of the Soviet Union, by the Soviet organizations (few words indistinct). Because of that solidarity, the Soviet Union has run great risks. The Soviet people have made enormous sacrifices. They did not hesitate in assuming the risks they assumed with respect to our country. Those are firm conclusions, a product of all those very long conversations on an infinity of questions. I am going to give you the opinion, and I am very glad that the comrades asked me about Comrade Khrushchev. I am going to say that I have a magnificent impression of Comrade Khrushchev. I have every right to say it, and the honor. I knew Comrade Khrushchev for the first time, although we had known him for many actions of his toward the revolution during the most difficult moments of the embargo of oil, the suppression of the sugar quota, all those things. I met him personally when I was at the United Nations in New York, surrounded by a climate of hostility on the part of the Yankee authorities and all those things, semiconfined there in a part of Manhattan Island and in the Teresa Hotel. Khrushchev, being the representative of a powerful and great nation, of an extraordinary importance, went to the Teresa Hotel and visited us there. It was a great gesture and he then invited us to dine with him. Those were the contacts of a personal type that we had with him. After that we knew each other through a series of communications, letters, and things like that. I had not had the opportunity of dealing with him directly from close up as we had the opportunity during the past days. In reality Comrade Khrushchev dedicated an amount of time to us that can be said were the full 40 days that we were there. His was a special attention, affectionate toward our entire delegation. We had the opportunity of knowing him in official conversations, informal events, and in activities such as hunting, resting, and all that, because in reality what were doing was to talk during all that time. The thing that impressed me most was the extraordinarily human character of Comrade Khrushchev. I barely spoke of these things, while I was in the USSR I did not speak of these things because many times Khrushchev was around and it would place him in an embarrassing situation if I spoke. I thought that these public opinions would be better said here. One of the characteristics of the man is that he is extraordinarily human. He is very human in his dealings with the entire world. He is a very simple man of great simplicity. With whom could he talk? He could talk with me. He could talk with any of the comrades of the delegation. He could talk with the most modest member of our delegation and he would spend two or three hours talking with him. I remember that one day he was with us hunting. It was very early and we had gone to bed almost at dawn. He woke very early, we were still sleeping, and seeing some comrades up and about he spent about three hours talking with various comrades, with the comrade adjutant, with (Korba--phonetic), a man of great simplicity. That is the same way he deals with everybody from the most prominent leader of the party to his dealings with all the workers, employees, the people who work in rest houses, anywhere, that was one of his characteristics. It can be seen that it was very sincere and very spontaneous. He is very careful in all things, a hard worker, very well organized. Another characteristic of Khrushchev which I was able to see is that he is an extraordinarily intelligent man. I am neither a biographer nor an expert portrayer. I do not attempt to paint a picture. I attempt to state a few impressions. I was for example, impressed by this thing. Khrushchev is 69 years old. He has an extraordinary mental energy, and a complete, complete, complete, mental lucidity. He has not only a great mental quality but a great mental agility, quick thinking. He is without a doubt one of the most brilliant intellects that I have ever known. That is the opinion I formed after entire days spent conversing, and discussing with him. Another characteristic of Khrushchev is his experience of many years as a militant revolutionary and as a political cadre in which he perfectly combined his profound theoretical knowledge with great political experience. One must take into account another characteristic. For example, the origin of Khrushchev. I saw a film made by the Germans, a very good film, called "The Russian Miracle." One of the scenes is that of work in a mine. Perhaps the people will soon have the chance to see this film. I took a special interest in having that film shown here. It is a great film for learning about the process of the Soviet revolution. In it we saw what the work was like in a coal mine. They are really horrible scenes, and in the times when Khrushchev worked in the coal mines conditions were even worse. Khrushchev came from a peasant family who moved to work in the Donbas in a coal mine, or iron, I do not remember which. That is where he began to work as a laborer. That is where he became a communist, where he entered the Communist Party. He then worked as a political cadre, as a commissar in a combat unit of the Red Army in the civil war, then he returned to factory work. He was sent to cadre schools of the party. He became prominent in the ideological struggle in that school. Then he was appointed to certain posts: He became the party leader in the Ukraine, a party leader in Moscow, and in this way he developed. In the Great Fatherland War, Khrushchev worked as a political commissar and member of the council of war, of the coun. . . What do they call it? Council of war? No? Military council. (Voice: Military council) Yes. In the military council, in two decisive battles. First, in the battle of Volgograd. Khrushchev was there, in Volgograd. When we visited Volgograd we were shown the zone, at a brook, within the city of Volgograd, in the strip of territory the Red Army still held, there was the command post, and there was Khrushchev and there he spent the entire battle of Volgograd. Not much has he spoken about this. But he was there when it was decided that not one step backward would be taken. Not one step (backward, he was there?). We saw a documentary in which he was seen talking to the soldiers who won the battle of Volgograd. He was also in the military council in the battle of the Kursk salient. It is written Kursk, but I do not know how it is pronounced. It was another of the bloodiest and most decisive battles of the war. Then he went to the reorganization of the party in Ukraine. We ought to realize that the leader, the principle leader of the proletarian state was, and note this, was a worker. In other words a proletarian; completely of proletarian origin. He came from the coal mine shafts. This understanding has great influence in his work, in his way of seeing things, in his humane sense as regards the workers, in his appreciation of economic things. He has lived the entire process, from miner from the Donbas coal fields to first secretary and chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. But before attaining this he had really accumulated a number of extraordinary experiences. He is a veritable authority on economic problems. He talks with the authority of one who knows the problems of agriculture, of industry, of the economy. All these things, but something that (word indistinct). Regarding Khrushchev's policy in the USSR, as a visitor to the USSR I have obtained this impression. I could see the atmosphere in the USSR of optimism, work, of happiness of the people, of support of the policy by the people, by the militants of the party, by the party cadres. All of this. There are things that can be perceived perfectly. There are a series of other things. There was a whole series of stages that they had to pass through. The Russian revolution, just as any human work, also had its problems, its errors. Just as we have had them, so have all revolutions. It was a series of stages but they belong more to history and they belong more to (Castro does not complete sentence--Ed.) Things that were their tasks. They overcame a series of things. (Few words indistinct) it can be said that the spirit of all the Soviet people is one of extraordinary optimism; of great affection for Khrushchev. We could see it. We were there. We know something about this. We talked to the people, to the masses. We saw how the people treated him, how the party cadres treated him. We saw the meetings. We saw everything. In fact there exists a spirit of collective discussion; yet amid this spirit of collective discussion and management, one is quite aware of Khrushchev's authority and prestige in that collective management. He speaks with great authority in those bodies; he is received everywhere with great respect by the party's cadres, the militants, and the people. I saw it; I was able to see this everywhere. Actually, the people's support for the policy of the leadership and of the party is an unquestionable fact. The USSR economy is progressing at extraordinarily great strides. I appreciated this in the many discussions I had with Khrushchev. He gave me the impression of being a most honorable man, of a man possessed with great honesty. Moreover, he showed a great preoccupation for all the problems connected with today's situation, the domestic tasks in the Soviet Union, international problems and politics, and the international communist movement. I can say that I saw Khrushchev really preoccupied, really worried about all the problems related to the problems of the unity in the socialist camp. This is what I noted in all our discussions in everything, that is, a great interest, a great desire to find formulas to solve the differences that exist in the socialist camp. This was a preoccupation on the part of Khrushchev that I was able to observe. It is something to see a leader of Khrushchev's age really doing the work which he said he was (going to do--Ed.) For example, he has been working on some programs for 20 years. This does not mean that we should not have wanted to have constructed a communist program in the three we have been at work. However, we must be guided by reality, time, goals, the pace of things. I said that they are men who are really working in all seriousness to solve all these problems. They are not thinking whether or not they will see the results of their work. They are thinking of the future: This is one of the things that causes them great concern. I must express all these opinions; it is important that I express them; I must honestly say them. What I say is based on much that I saw, in some of the experiences I had in dealing with those men, in becoming acquainted with them, in becoming acquainted with the leaders in becoming acquainted with their politicians. Khrushchev is greatly worried about peace. He is extraordinarily worried about the fight for peace. He wants to avoid a thermonuclear war. He is very aware of the destruction that a thermonuclear war would cause. Yet, at the same time, he is also very aware of the danger inherent in the arms race, the aggressive policy of the imperialists, the need for being armed and perfectly equipped, and the need for the Soviet forces to have the maximum fighting preparation in order to face the (possibility?) of war. We must keep in mind one thing: [The fact that the Soviet Government, the Soviet leadership, and Comrade Khrushchev have shown great interest--I had a special opportunity to see it in my talks with the Soviet officers on strategic matters--in the decision to build rockets. This decision in which Khrushchev contributed with his leadership. He defended this policy consistently, that is, the development of rocketry--a weapon that has made it possible for the USSR to face, from a military point of view, the danger of an imperialist aggression. Part of the technical equipment of the Soviet armed forces has included rockets in the past few years, and the number of rockets is increasing. This is the situation. Aside from Khrushchev's preoccupation for peace, I was constantly aware of his preoccupation to be in a position to resist and of his determination to maintain a firm policy. We must realize that Khrushchev has participated in wars: in the civil war and in the most decisive battles of war. He has participated in war; he has taken part in the most difficult battles, and he showed great audacity in those difficult moments. He was also bold in politics and it is admitted that he is a bold politician. This is the conclusion I drew. I am not going to dwell on this any longer. Perhaps, some day I may be able to give more details because they are the (valuable?) impressions of my trip. Moreover, I am not generally given to praising things. (One sentence indistinct) At times, we tend to eulogize and to become apologetic. We are extremely confused. We go from one extreme to the other. We do not interpret everything right. We take an extreme position; we suddenly destroy the leaders, we ignore them. Perhaps, suddenly we unnecessarily praise them, and I was the victim of a disproportionate bit of praise in the USSR. It so happened I blushed when I read the papers. (One sentence indistinct) I think these are opinions I should express because they are of interest to the people and the entire world. I do not know what opinion the imperialists have of Khrushchev, but I think that is a serious adversary for the imperialists. He is a serious adversary of imperialism. (One sentence indistinct) It is my impression that Khrushchev is a great leader and a formidable adversary of imperialism. I can say this with ease; I can state it and I am not obliged in the least to do so, absolutely not. No economic advantage for our country (would lead me to say it?). The economic and political problems we discussed there came up spontaneously; they were really discussed in an (informal?) way. We did not go there to exchange postures, and to give support, as the (gangster?) newsmen of imperialism said. We have firmly and vehemently defended the need for unity and discussion among all parties and among everybody at the directional level of all parties in order to overcome the differences that must be conquered for the benefit of the interests of the entire communist camp, and all the peoples in the communist camp. All the peoples in the communist camp and all the national communist movements need unity--unity in our slogans that must be sincere and vehement. We must be sincere about the slogans we have fought for and for which, to the extent of our modest possibilities, we shall continue to fight for and to hope for. I think that we must have this (unity?). We must have this policy of discussion within the principles because Marxism is rich in experience and extremely rich in doctrines, so why should not the Marxists-Leninists understand one another when they discuss all problems face to face? This is the way we talked with Comrade Khrushchev. Everyone made his point; we discussed each and all of them. We presented our opinions, all of our opinions on each and every question. We can frankly, honestly, and sincerely say that we are wholly satisfied for having behaved in that way, for having performed our tasks in that manner, and for having discussed things in that fashion. We came to understand many things, and I believe that we must all be open to comprehension. One must understand us, the Soviets, the Chinese. We must understand in this moment of history the revolutionary process, the movement, our preoccupations, our problems, and our faith in each and all things. We must be well (aware?) of the balance of power of all forces, of all sorts of possibilities, the possibility of developing the revolutionary movement and the communist movement to fulfill the objective of the communist movement, that is, the end of the capitalist system; the replacement of capitalism, of that capitalist society by a new and just society in the countries that have not freed themselves yet. Such unity, based on Marxist-Leninist principles, would strengthen the entire communist movement. What is there that could not be discussed face to face? What is there that could not be cleared up among us? Who wants war? The imperialists have said, when we spoke of peaceful coexistence, that we supported the Soviet thesis rather than the Chinese thesis. Who said that the Chinese thesis favored war? The documents and the statements made by Moscow (two words indistinct) have a fundamental (requisite?): They agree. The imperialists have tried to establish a difference in postures. No one wants war. War comes when an aggression is made, when it is inexorably imposed upon us by the imperialist enemy. We are completely prepared for this contingency, and, therefore, we are in a position to repel it. The fight to avoid war is a correct policy that all should pursue. No one, no communist in the world (wants war?); the communists have never been warmongers. No one questions the problems of (word indistinct), for all people must decide their fate. We said as much in the joint communique, that is, that the duty of the communist parties is to place themselves in the vanguard of the battle for socialism and against imperialism. No one objects to this. The people choose their paths: One of the paths may be peaceful; the other may consist of an armed struggle. No one objects this this. We, for our part, came to power through an armed struggle and the facts are there. All those peoples who may have to fight and have no other choice but to wage an armed struggle should take that path. In doing so, they will have the solidarity of the entire international communist movement. No one wants war; we are fighting to preserve peace, for the peaceful development of the creative labor of all people. We are fighting for the development of the communist movement with all the resources at the command of a camp that today is much more powerful. If this movement could develop when the USSR was alone, why should it not develop with more fighting spirit and much more chance of triumph when the USSR is not alone but abetted by the entire socialist camp? This is something of which every communist is aware. The problems must be discussed and opinions must be exchanged. Reasoning must be pitted against reasoning, argument against argument, and opinion against opinion. This is the Marxist-Leninist road; this is the dialectical road to (communist?) achievement. That is our opinion. We are sure that one can discuss things with Comrade Khrushchev because of his attitude and his willingness to listen. I have had this personal experience after having discussed many things with him, and after having seen how he considered our points of view and the things we said and the interest he showed in them. When we were right, he told us so; when we presented a solid argument, he listened. And this discussion, the discussion among the parties, the discussion of things for as long as necessary, contributes to something. After all, the ability to discuss things as long as necessary, must precede disputes, public discussions, and public polemics. A public polemic does not benefit anyone; it benefits the imperialist enemy (if anything?). At the same time, it hurts the international communist movement more than ever because disunity hurts; public polemics hurts. It hurts all the parties and all the organizations. It causes problems, disunity, and misunderstandings. Therefore, the first thing to do is to talk things over at (word indistinct) levels. (Sentence indistinct) I can say that one can talk things over with Comrade Khrushchev. He (presents?) his reasons, his arguments, and his (opinions?). This is the impression I received. It is really an optimistic and positive impression. I believe that it has been a positive trip. It is true that we received from all the Soviet people more honors than we deserved. Their warmth and affection were really impressive. The Soviets are a generous people and (show their?) solidarity with a country that is so far away. (Two sentences indistinct) We will continue fighting alongside the international communist movement. Anyone who thinks that we are going to swerve a single inch is completely crazy; we are not going to be separated a single inch from the socialist camp. Whether they are joking or "kidding" about it, the fact remains that they should have no such illusions. (They should not forget?) that we are communists. (Applause) Our fate will be that of all communists, and the international communist movement of the revolution will be the inevitable future, the absolutely inevitable future. Today, more than ever, there are reasons and circumstances that nourish the faith and (hope?) in the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. They can be seen; they can be felt; they can be touched. They can be seen in figures, in statistical data, and in everything. We must fight for great unity, understanding, and brotherhood so that we may understand the problems. We must create ever stronger bonds; bonds of great solidarity among the peoples; bonds of greater international sentiment and of greater generosity among the people. Above all, this is needed by the countries, by the small countries; the underdeveloped countries need it. Speaking to you here we are speaking not only in the interest of all communists, but also in the interest of all people who are under the boot of colonialism, under the boot of imperialism, of course, those who nurture the hope of developing, of liberating themselves, of unfolding as the socialist camp is developing. That was one of the evident things. We are a good example of it. There, during the day of the final official reception, many of the representatives of African countries were there. Today, many of those recently liberated countries are not victims of imperialist blackmail because they have an opportunity to appeal to the socialist camp for political, economic, or military support. And Cuba is a good example of that. The policy followed by the revolution has been accurate. That policy triumphs fully. It is a good answer to all of these things we have seen, all of this aid which we are spontaneously receiving, all of this effort that is being exerted--to those who said that we would be in a certain situation, if not a definite situation. And this path, firm, definite, and in concurrence with the principles, is the accurate path that we have followed, the path over which we have been able to defend ourselves from the imperialists by defeating their aggressions. Its force, its prestige, and the creation of the conditions for its maximum and full development with great assurance. That is the path the revolution has followed -- that very one. I believe that if you have nothing else . . . (the moderator starts to speak and is again interrupted by Castro--Ed.) Castro: I might have forgotten some things, but I believe that I have presented the essential things I wanted to talk to you about today. Wanguemert: The Prime Minister has concluded his report on his state visit to the USSR. I wish to thank the comrades on the panel, and bid good night to the television audience. (Applause) (Editor's Note: The informality of Castro's report before a panel of newspaper reporters enabled him to speak casually, often interrupting reporters' questions, joshing, and rambling extemporaneously, sometimes even allowing his thoughts to trail off as he groped for words. He rapped a pencil near the microphone for stress. Castro frequently paused to sigh, as if he were tired or were stalling for time to formulate his thoughts. Then he would put them forth very rapidly. His voice was not as clear as usual and sounded like the hoarse voice of an old man. It was noted that he asked for "specific" questions, but when reporters posed questions that approached specific topics, Castro would wave them off, suggesting he would like to observe some sort of chronology and leave them for the last. Many of his answers were evasive as the text has shown.) -END-