Latin American Network Information Center - LANIC

-DATE-
19630810
-YEAR-
1963
-DOCUMENT_TYPE-
SPEECH
-AUTHOR-
F. CASTRO
-HEADLINE-
SECOND NATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE ANAP-CLOSING
-PLACE-
CUBA
-SOURCE-
HAVANA DOMESTIC RADIO
-REPORT_NBR-
FBIS
-REPORT_DATE-
19630812
-TEXT-
PREMIER CASTRO ADDRESSES SMALL FARMERS

Havana Domestic Radio and Television Network in Spanish 0210 GMT 10 August
1963--E/F

(Live speech by Premier Fidel Castro at the closing session of the second
national congress of the National Association of Small Farmers /ANAP/)

(Text) Comrade delegates of the ANAP, in this second national congress of
the ANAP, one can perfectly well appreciate how much the peasant's
organization has progressed, the mass organization of the peasants. This
evident progress runs parallel with the progress observed in all the work
of the revolution. There are time when we ourselves are surprised at how
rapidly, how notably the leaps, so to speak, have taken place in our
country in the quality of work, in organization, in the cultural level, and
in the political level of our country.

And we are very pleased to see, from last year to this year, the
improvement that has been observed in the work that you do in organization
as much as in the relations with revolutionary bodies. This is of great
importance for the nation because it is the peasantry which is the sector
that you represent, which is one of the pillars of the revolution and one
of the pillars of the economy.

There are things which many people did not understand well in the
beginning. There are phrases which a part of the people did not understand
well. That was logical, because what was it that was heard for may years?
What was it that one heard talked about throughout our history? What did
our peasants read--those who could read? What did our peasants hear over
the radio? What did our peasants hear in political meetings? Naturally they
did not hear anything said about the worker-peasant alliance. They did not
hear anything said about the exploitation of man by man. They did not hear
anything said about the exploitation of one class of the people by another
class of the people.

What was always heard in the countryside was plenty of demagogery. Plenty
of lies. Plenty of politicking. Plenty of cronyism between the politicking
sergeants. vice. Robbery. That is robbery of the people. Robbery of the
peasants. Exploitation. That exploitation which they felt daily,
constantly. There was not a cultural level in our countryside. And in the
nation, 30 percent of the population was illiterate.

This 30 percent was largely in the countryside. And in some regions of the
countryside, illiteracy was 70, 80, and even 90 percent, because the evils
of that society were worse in the countryside than in the city itself. And
if medical care in the city was poor and deficient, if in those few
hospitals where the people were treated and where one was admitted with a
politician's recommendation, one would see the spectacle of patients
sleeping on the floor, then medical care in the countryside was--one could
not say that it was worse, but that is simply did not exist.

The same thing applied to schools, to the economy of other peasants, to the
life of the peasants, cultural life in general. It was logical that at the
outset many country people would hear certain phrases, certain slogans, and
they were not understood well. It was also logical that the vestiges of
politicking still remained in the countryside. The bourgeoisie who were
still in the countryside would approach the peasants to talk to them, to
intrigue with the peasants, to speak softly into the peasant's ear, and to
try to sow fear and mistrust of the revolution in him. You know perfectly
well how those bourgeoisie who had more money, who had more culture, who
had more influence, more ability, exerted influence over many peasants. And
for some time they used this influence in sowing mistrust and fear among
the peasants.

And there were not a few cases of poor peasants, of small farmers, who let
themselves be swayed by the intrigues, the lies, and the insidiousness of
the rural bourgeoisie who have formed the basis of he counterrevolution in
or countryside. And they tried to incubate fear into the peasant, but other
factors joint this--deficiencies in organization, deficiencies in the
administrative bodies of the state, inexperience, lack of competent
functionaries and cadres, erroneous measures taken at given levels by given
bodies that contribute to sowing confusion.

Nevertheless, this era has been passing, and those who deluded themselves
that they could turn the peasants against the revolution must feel very
disillusioned because today there is a peasantry whose political and
cultural level has increased considerably, whose sense of the role they
play in society is clearer all the time. It is peasantry with which we can
speak clearly, with much clarity; a peasantry with which social problems,
economic problems, and political problems can be analyzed. It is a
peasantry which has confidence in the revolution and among which no one can
any longer come to arose fear and anxiety. This confidence is becoming
stronger and will continue to do so in the same measure as the peasantry
learns its role, its present, and its future, (Applause)

When socialism was first mentioned, the rural bourgeoisie approached the
peasants and told them: "this is socialism, and they are going to socialize
your land. "So we told the peasants: "This is socialism and because it is
socialism we are not going to socialize your land." (Applause) Because,
comrades, socialism is a scientific concept of history and human society.
(Applause) Socialism is social science and, at the same time, it is a guide
for practical action, it is a guide for politics. Politics is not a simple
thing, it is something complex and difficult. That is why it was said that
politics as an art. There are many kinds of politics. There is the politics
of the exploiters, the politics of the exploited, the politics of the
bourgeoisie, which was the politics of the past; and the politics of the
proletariat. The proletariat, enemy of privileges, enemy of the exploiters,
seeks an alliance with the other exploited sectors,

Who were the most exploited in our country? Who were the exploiters? The
exploiters were the factory owners, the latifundists, the owners of immense
extensions of land. Some exploited th workers in the city. Other exploited
the workers in the rural areas. Others exploited the peasants. In the rural
areas there were the agricultural workers and the tenant farmers who had to
pay 25, 30, 40 and even 50 percent; and those who paid in all the forms of
which you know. In the rural areas there were those who lived, in part, off
a small piece of land, and in part, from work on some farm during the
harvest.

Those were the known forms of exploitation. But there was also the man who
owned the land, a small tract of land. Was that peasant exploited or not?
Well, he was exploited also because that peasant never had a sure price for
his products, he was the victim of the middlemen who, when there was a good
harvest, would lower the prices, who tried to buy cheaply in order to
enrich themselves later by speculating with the products of the peasants.
This makes it possible to say that the peasantry was exploited just as the
industrial worker was exploited. And the industrial workers had to seek
their allies among the other exploited. their allies were not going to be
the bourgeois politicians, the landowners, But is the small farmer a
proprietor? Yes, the revolution made the small farmer a proprietor.

And is this a contradiction of some kind? No! The revolution did away with
the existing exploitation of all those peasants who paid rents, of all
those peasants who had to turn over an important part of their products.
The revolution affected the large proprietors who did not work those lands
and who, while living in the cities, would receive large rents because as
owners of a farm of 100, or 200 or 500 caballerias, they had no other work
than to send an employee to collect the rents.

The revolution did away with this exploitation. It established the
principle that the peasant who was working a piece of land would not
continue to be exploited and would be the owner of his products. This is
what the revolution did. In some Latin American nations there is talk of
agrarian reforms land you can imagine what kind of agrarian reforms they
are. It is that the peasant is paying for that piece of land for 15 or 20
years. And, of course, it is the worst land of the latifundists when a part
of the land of the latifundists is extracted from them. A real agrarian
reform is like the agrarian reform made in Cuba. And it totally eliminated
the payment of rents.

It is true (few words indistinct) persons who had a small piece of land and
lessee-tenant. They were not large proprietors. Originally, the mistake was
made of treating the small proprietor the same as the large proprietor when
the law was made, and when they had their land leased to someone else. And
that is why measures to correct this were taken subsequently in all those
cases of persons who were already old, who had no other livelihood than the
rents they received from a small piece of land, those to whom an indemnity
was paid. It was an error to equate the case of a person, a widow, an older
person, who received a certain rent as his livelihood from a small piece of
land and the case of one who had 100 lessee--tenants, 200, 300, 400
lessee-tenants.

Those things that were not done perfectly well, were corrected. And this is
precisely the art of politics: to correct those things that are done badly,
those things that are inhuman, those things that are unjust. It was not
just to treat the United Fruit Company exactly the same as a small
proprietor who leased a piece of land. Was he an exploiter or not? Yes. He
was an exploiter, without any doubt. He was a small exploiter because,
after all, he lived off work that he did not perform, on the basis of title
to land he owned. But definitely, society had to contemplate the concrete
case of a person who could not earn a livelihood in another way and who
would have been left totally forsaken. Hence, the same treatment could not
be given to that person as to (word indistinct).

I believe that these are obvious, clear matters that are perfectly well
understood. In other words, the revolution that fought the large proprietor
created small proprietors of all those who worked the lands. In the
beginning, naturally, some persons asked why the lands that were most
distributed, the lands that were worked by farm workers, why were not these
lands distributed? Some elements in the bourgeoisie told the peasant: "You
see!" told the farm worker: "You see! They talk about agrarian reform and
giving and to the peasant and they do not give the land to the peasant.

They do not distribute those lands. The state is becoming the owner of
those lands and you will become a wage slave!" This they told the farm
worker: "Your are going to become a wage slave!" In any case, they could
have told him: "Your were a wage slave and you continue to be salaried!"
and the revolutionary could have told him: "You were a wage slave and an
exploiter and now you are a worker of your people!" (applause)

You continue to be a workers because the revolution does not mean that work
has disappeared. Who ever said this? Work cannot disappear form human
society. Because only work products the things we need, the goods we need.
What does disappear because of the revolution is the exploitation of human
work.

A peasant had to turn 30 percent of tobacco he harvested, and he had to
deliver it to someone who did not even walk by those parts. And every year,
for 20 30 years, he had to deliver 30 percent of his harvest. That was an
exploited peasant. His work was exploited. When a worker worked to enrich a
proprietor, his work was exploited. From the moment that industries belong
to the people, from the moment that the lands passed from the American
monopolies the people, what did that mean? That the thousands and the
millions of pesos in profits by those monopolies, which were going to be
collected by stockholders who lived in New York thousands of kilometers
away, and which came from the sweat of the workers and which were not going
to become schools, or roads, or hospitals, or chicken houses, or progress
for the nation. From the very moment that the revolution did away with the
rights of those monopolies over our lands, all those resources extracted
from the sweat of the workers became the resources of the people.

Many peasant could ask: "Why did they not give me credit before? Why did I
not have credit before, and now I do have credit?" Because those monopolies
were not going to use their profits to give credit to the peasant. A
national farmer, a prosperous peasant was not in the interest of those
monopolies. A ruined peasant was in their interest in order to buy his land
at any time and turn him into a salaried worker to increase their income
and their profits every year. The money that came from the agricultural
workers was not going to be turned into credit for the small farmers.

A peasant may ask himself why there were no teachers before, why there was
no rural medical service, why a scholastic city was not built before, why
the children of the peasants were not brought in to study? It is because
those monopolies were not going to invest those profits in helping the
people. From the moment the worker stopped working to enrich those
gentlemen, that worker stopped being a real slave of the exploiters and
that worker really began to work for himself.

But what does "working for himself" mean? Does it mean that the worker is
going to receive 100 percent of what he produces? What would happen if each
worker received 100 percent of what he produces? In the capitalist society
he receives a percentage of what he produces and the rest is for the
capitalists. From the percentage they received from the work of the
workers, the capitalist paid part in taxes, a small part. That was what was
invested in having some little schools, some very poorly cared-for schools,
in building a road from (Pasco?) to San Juan, and the rest was pocketed by
the politicians who served the capitalists.

Where did the money receive by the senators, the representatives, the
political sergeants come from? Where did the money received by the
sinecurists come from? And how many of them were there? If the education
ministry had a budget of l70 million, at least 20 were for the politicians,
at least 20. If public works had a budget of 80, at least 40 were stolen.
If the public health ministry had 25 million, at least 10 were stolen. That
is to say that from the profits of the capitalists, part was paid out in
taxes and those taxes were not even well invested. Part was invested and
the rest disappeared. It was robbed.

Today 100 percent of what the worker does ot receive directly is received
indirectly, because the worker who has five or six children sends his
children to school. There are the books, there are the teachers. One may
ask: "Who pays for that?" He pays for it. A relative gets sick and he takes
him to the hospital, a difficult operation must be performed, enormous
expenditures must be made. and let no one doubt that what must be spent in
a hospital in order to save a life, is spent. (Applause)

Maybe he or his son is quite intelligent and have a great vocation for
things technological, and want to study. How is he going to study? Who will
support his family? That worker can have the chance to study? thousands and
thousands of workers have studied, and their families have been taken care
of. (Applause) Some workers have even left the country, have gone abroad,
have crossed the oceans. How much would that cost? How could that worker
meet these expenses? He has been able to study and he has returned later as
a technician in some field. Is it good or bad for the other workers that we
have paid these expenses to turn that worker into a technical? It is to the
advantage of the rest of th workers, because when the nation has one more
technician, it will have am an who produces as much as do 20, 30, or 100
men. (Applause)

let us say that a road must be built to join a certain town to another. It
that road would be built with the wages of the people living there, perhaps
it would take 100 years to gather the money needed.

Suddenly equipment and trucks arrive and a road costing 1 million, 2
million pesos is built; a great bridge is built. Where do these funds come
form? They come precisely from work, from that part of work which before
was taken over by the capitalists. But if that town could not count with
the nation's resources, it would never have communications nets, it would
never have a hospital, it would be difficult for the people there to solve
an important problem.

The farmers will say: "We have received 80 million, we have received 100
million in credits that we can devote to cultivation of our lands." From
where do these resources come? They come precisely from the work of all
society. That is the reason why each does not receive all he produces, he
receives part of his work. The rest goes into a fund that belongs to all
society, a fund needed by society for its development. (Applause)

There are peasants who say: "My son is going to become an engineer. He
would never have the resources to meet the expenses involved." However, he
knows that his son will become an engineer, as he is intelligent, capable.
Let us say his son wants to become a doctor. He is intelligent, studious.
It is advantageous for the country to develop that intelligence. He could
not send his son to school with his own resources. But with the nation's
and the people's resources, this can be done. (Applause)

What one person cannot do by himself and by his efforts, can be done by the
efforts of everyone. What is impossible for one individual to do will never
be impossible for a nation, for the united effort of all of the nation's
workers. And thus we begin to understand these facts. How could a society
progress without the united effort of everyone? An exploited nation cannot
progress, of course. But a nation could not progress either, a nation in
which each one had what he could achiever by himself, without help from
anyone, and where no one received help from others. When the entire nation
educates and engineer, or to give an example that you can understand
better, when the nation educates a doctor, it will take him 15 or 16 years
in study; he studied in elementary school, then in secondary school, and
then in pre-university school, and then he attended the university.

We can estimate what it costs to educate a doctor. It may cost 10,000,
15,000 pesos. Let us assume that it will cost 20,000 pesos from the time he
begins grade school--for books, teachers, trips, professors, material,
buildings, for everything. A worker will say: "Where will I get 20,000
pesos to make my son a doctor?" Well, this problem can only be solved by
the resources of the entire nation. However, when the nation spends 20,000
pesos to educate a teacher, is it advisable or not for it to do so? Does it
benefit from it or not? It is only a matter of justice. (Applause)

It is only a matter of justice, and besides being a just and humane matter,
it is also of benefit. You yourselves can understand this, because you know
what rural medicine is, and you know that there are some places where the
doctor sees 1,000 patients a months. There are some new doctors who have
gone to places which have never had doctors before, who see 30 and 40
patients a day. You will recall that before, when you had to go to the
doctor, you had to sell the pig or some chickens, because the guajiro's
savings account was the little pig which was getting fat. (Applause) That
was the guajiro's credit. Many peasants were fattening their pigs "just in
case someone gets sick." Just in case someone gets sick. That is why in
many cases they never killed the pig for the family. It had to be sold for
something.

A doctor cost three or five pesos. If you calculate, if you set a value on
a consultation with a doctor, three pesos let us say. There are doctors who
charge much more. Some charge 20 and sometimes 30 pesos. But if you wish,
set the value at three pesos. That means that the benefit received by an
individual when he consults doctor is worth three pesos. But then what? You
cannot measure that with a ruler. We can say that health has no price. But
let use assume it has a price, and let us place the value of three pesos on
the consultation. A total of 1,000 consultations cost 3,000 pesos; 10
months at 3,000 pesos are 30,000 pesos. This doctor, whose education cost
society 20,000 pesos, yields more in a year than what society spent on him
for his education. (Applause)

This means that society has made a good investment. There is another case,
that of a person who is already old, who can no longer work. He is given a
pension. In other words, the workers support him and give him a pension of,
say, 1,000 pesos a year. In 10 years he gets 10,000 pesos, and 20,000 pesos
in 20 years. This is not a economic investment which is going to produce a
certain profit.

However it is another kind of investment which society needs. It is a human
investment. It is the security that each human being has. (Applause)
Security that when his strength fails him, he will not die of starvation,
that he will not have to go begging at a gate as we used to see so many
people do. It is the security that his existence, his life, and his old age
will be assured for as long as he lives. This also is of extraordinary
value for every human being, so that he will not be left alone or
destitute. This is the importance of the effort made by an entire nation,
the united effort of all the workers. (Applause)

Or close we can take the case of a worker who cuts his hand, of a worker
who loses one of both legs. He will be useless for work at 20, 25 or 30
years of age. He knows that neither he nor his family will starve.

We used to see this man without a leg walking on a wooden leg selling
tickets on the railway platforms. (Applause) He had to get along as best he
could. Of course, the capitalists had their insurance companies, and you
know how they worked. The bourgeois had some laws, which were supposed to
protect the worker. And one would assume that the bourgeois would try to
protect the worker because it was he who made them rich.

However, when those laws were drafted, what were their contents? They were
Mesquine laws, petty laws. For compensation a hand is worth so much, a
finger so much, a leg so much. The man who lost a leg went to the hospital.
His leg was worth so much. He was given a certain sum of money.

One, two, or three lawyers were necessary to hand him the sum. They gave
him half the value of his leg, and he had 100 pesos left which he spent,
and went out begging. Or else he sold tickets. How many thousands of such
cases we saw. (Applause) However, there are many more examples of the value
of the effort of all. If the exploiters want to return, if the country's
enemies want to continue exploiting the country, and an army is necessary
to defend the country, an army which defends each citizen, each worker, his
family and his children--if an army is necessary, a trained and equipped
army, one capable of fighting any invader, able to fight the bands of
assassins who kill a peasant or a worker one day, another day a volunteer
teacher or a literacy brigade teacher, or if they must go out to fight the
mercenary invaders, the sons of the if landowners and the rich who wanted
to return and restore that system of exploitation and slave labor, that
society which prostituted the daughters of the peasants, which used them as
servants (applause) which exploited them and set them upon the path of vice
and prostitution--then thousands of men are needed to prevent the return of
that past, the return of that system.

A man alone could not do that. The individual effort of the worker could
never solve that problem. This problem can only be solved by the united
effort of all the workers, and so the workers can say that they have an
army, an air force, a revolutionary navy. (Applause) The workers can say:
"We have so many tanks; we have so many planes; we have so many unites to
defend ourselves against the exploiters, to prevent that past from ever
returning." Thus, there is an infinity of examples which can explain what a
united effort, the effort of all society means, and which can explain the
difference between that wage slave who is exploited miserably, and today's
worker who no longer works for the exploiters, but who works to satisfy his
needs as an individual and to satisfy his needs as a member of a nation, of
a people, and of a society.

Thanks to this, his effort is equal to the effort of millions, because he
can count upon his effort. But when his effort is not sufficient, he can
count upon his effort of the millions of workers in the country, so that he
will never be destitute, (applause) so that he will never be destitute, so
that he will never feel alone, and will know that the basic problems of his
life and his loved ones will be guaranteed and resolved. This explanation
for any worker also serves as an explanation for any peasant, any small
farmer, because at times a small farmer wonders: "why, if we receive such
and such a price, is the price such and such on the market?" This is a
current question.

The problem of prices is an instrument to stimulate certain products. It is
not only the just payment for the work of the small farmer. There are
articles which, if they are to be promoted, must be stimulated through
their price. If some articles cost a lot land others very little then most
of the farmers would prefer the article which cost a lot. At times it is
necessary to pay more than an article is worth. This often happens. For
example, the meat sold to the public is meat sold below its value. This
represents scores of millions of pesos. Other articles are sold above their
true value, higher than their price. thus, prices are used for various
purposes, some to regulate production, and they also have a social purpose.
Their purpose is to bring in resources, to create funds with which to make
investments, and to satisfy social needs.

The peasant might ask: "From where do the millions of pesos come that we
receive in credits? From where do the credits come? From where does the
money to buy machinery come? From where does money to build a road come?"
These resources do not come out of a hat as if by magic. Th y come from
work. When an article (several words indistinct) let us say and imported
article costs one peso and is sold for three, it means that a profit was
made. The profits go into an investment fund to meet the many needs of the
country. Before, there used to be import taxes, and sometimes and article
was sold at 100, 200, 300 times its value to pay the taxes imposed by the
bourgeoisie governments.

Whom did these taxes help? did the bourgeoisie governments make loans to a
small farmers with these funds? Of course not. They lent money to
latifundists, a bug capitalist. (Applause) You should remember that a
person who had 100caballerias and wanted to sow more rice would go to the
bank and say: "Lend me so many thousand pesos per caballeria." And that man
would receive 100,000, 200,000, 300,000; he was made richer. And if another
one wanted to build a factory, he got the money.

But you can believe that they lent money not only to the man with the 100
caballerias. If the electrical company--a foreign monopoly which exploited
the country--came and asked for 30 millions for investment, the Cuban State
would lend 30 million pesos to that foreign company. The rich collected
and,a s I explained, a portion of that money was invested in some
utilities, other portions were stolen, and one portion was invested in
loans to their class.

What is the difference? The resources collected today are not used to help
the rich. They are used to help the working man, the small farmer. Before4,
the small farmer could not get credit. They demanded that he own the land,
and many did not own land. The paper work was tremendous. Then, if the crop
failed he would lose the land, or he could be evicted through demands that
he pay up his debts. Some ask: "Why do we sell an article for four pesos
and it is then sold in the market for seven peso?" They might ask: "This
road, with what money it is built? Where does the money come from for the
school system? That doctor who gives me free medicines, who pays? That
investment in machinery, that investment in factories, from where is it
paid? We have to buy a fleet, where does the money come from? We have to
support an army to defend the country. How do we pay them?" (Applause)

Small farmers need not think that the income is so great--the income from
what they receive and what is paid in the market. There are the problems
dealing with administration, transport, storage, and refrigeration,. You
can rest assured that the profits are not very high. It is very expensive
to move a product from one place to another , to store it, to keep it in
good condition. The profits are not great. But in as much as some ask, it
is necessary that they understand these things. The questions are not asked
with bad intentions. They have not taken the time to think and feel that
things are quite simple.

He might say: "I sell this arum (malanga) for four, and it is sold in the
market for seven." He believes that the just price he should get is six
cents. He does not analyze our problems. Those who have some training can
understand this perfectly well. this long conversation on these problems
came about when the revolution told the farmer who already had the land
that he was freed from (rent?). The revolution did not split latifundium.
What would have happened if it had split latifundium?

In the first, place, not everyone would have gotten land. Each one would
have received a fifth of a caballeria or a forth of a caballeria. And that
man would--and that fourth of a caballeria would not all be good.

What would one say to the person who received the bad land? The one who got
good land would be happy. But in that fourth of a caballeria he would have
to sow everything--rice, cane, everything. Then he could not even dream of
formulating an agricultural development plan because in that fourth of
caballeria he would have two or three cows. It would be quite difficult to
develop livestock raising; it would be impossible to establish a pig farm
which thousands of pigs would be fattened. It would be impossible to have
extensive pasture land; it would be impossible to apply agricultural
techniques; it would be impossible to use machinery in such reduced
quarters. We would have to talk to thousands and thousands of persons in
order to put all the most modern production methods in operation and raise
production. Let use talk about a 100-caballeria rice farm which is flooded
part of the time.

Let us say that this farm is distributed among 500 persons--persons who
would be surrounded by mud. It was correct and wise that the lands which
were not distributed be kept as lands of the nation to promote large-scale
development of the national economy, to solve unemployment problems and to
meet all the country's needs. Thanks to that, we can now promote
large-scale plan and we can say that we are going to produce from 8 to 9
million tones of can by 1970; we can say we are going to have 12 million
head of cattle by 1970. (Applause) These are the problems that you are
aware of-- storage problems. The egg sold at six cents in a store comes
from a peoples chicken farm. The chicken sold at 50 cents a pound comes
from a peoples farm. The meat sold at 45 or 43 cents comes from the bulls
fattened in peoples farms. In fact, comrades, the most assured items, the
items which have the best price, come from those lands that were not
distributed. (Applause)

Here among small farmers we can say that the same does not apply to their
products. Of course, we must distinguish between small farmers and small
farmers. The cane farmer takes his cane to a mill; he cannot sell it on the
roads. The coffee grower in the mountains cannot sell his coffee in the
mountains, as the largest market is here, 1,000 kilometers away. Here among
small a farmers I will mention some criticisms I have made, and I will even
explain the famous case of the Rancho Mundito of which I have spoken. I am
not sure that it was understood well. I will also talk about some concepts
related to property with the same clearness we have explained the policy of
the revolution in relation to small farmers. Naturally, some of these
things will not make the small farmers very happy, but they must be told so
that we understand each other.

The farmer who has a road nearby, takes his turkey and sells it for 30
person; he takes his chicken and sells if to five pesos. He probably sells
the turkey for 20 pesos (as heard), does not eat it, then goes to the
butcher shop and buys meat for 43 cents. Of course, these are problems. I
am using this example because I want to explain how we have faced these
problems. Why do we allow these things? What are the political and social
reasons? What are the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry?
What are the relations between the revolutionary state and the peasantry?
What are the bases for these relations? And what happens when a peasant
sells his turkey for 30 pesos? A worker will never be able to afford that
turkey; and probably that worker is building a road that passes in front of
the peasant's house, or is building a school where his children can study.
Perhaps that worker is building a hospital where the peasant's life or that
of his family might be saved one day. It is possible that the worker will
never be able to afford a turkey, a chicken, an egg raised by the peasant.
(Applause)

Who can buy those things? The bourgeoisie. There are still many of them
around. They come out in their cars and pay 30 pesos for a turkey., He owns
three movie theaters, maybe has 30 caballerias which he does not bother to
cultivate. (Applause) Maybe he has a restaurant or a bar. (Applause) That
is the man who has car and 30 pesos. In the case of the farmer who takes
his turkey and sells it at these prices, his conduct is antisocial. His
property is fulfilling an antisocial function. (Applause) When the peasant
who grows coffee in the mountains sells 100, 200 quintals of coffee for a
fair price for workers' consumption, he is working and fulfilling social
function (applause), or when he send mild for children--their quota--he is
fulfilling a social function. When he keeps a few bottles and sells them at
50 cents, the rich man's son drank two liters while a worker's son did not
get any milk. (Applause)

What does the revolution do? Does it prohibit the peasant from selling his
turkey on the roads? No. Why? If this is not fair, why does the revolution
not take measures? It is quite simple. Measures do not solve this type of
problem. In the first place, the solution to the problem does not rest in
taking measures so that the peasant does not sell his turkey or his
chicken. The solution rests in impelling the country's general production
and the production of all farms so that the time will come when no one will
pay 30 pesos for a chicken. (Applause) The solution to the problem does not
rest on having an army of policemen or officials to catch peasants
speculating with chickens. Supply problems will not be solved with such
measures. What we must do is make a gigantic effort to raise everyone's
production, but especially that of state lands, to raise production to the
maximum in order to meet all needs.

In the second place, this is not the attitude of all the peasants. Then
what happens if we start placing restrictive measures into effect? The same
as before. The result of the measures was discontent and problems.
Organization was deficient and many times products were left unsold, and
many times products were sold at unfair prices. This does not mean that
each time there is demand for a product that prices should be raised. Some
prices were not sufficiently stimulating. What was decided? To eliminate
all restrictive measures against the peasants.

The peasant is free to sell these products. It is better. It is clear that
if he is fattening pigs on feed supplied by the state, he enters into a
buyer-seller contract and promises to deliver so many pounds of this and
that. That is proper. the same applies if he raises chickens. The same
applies to many other products--the contract system. If he raises a chicken
in his house, he can sell it to whoever he wishes. he can do whatever he
wishes with his products.

There is a restrictive measure that applies to cattle. This measure serves
the interest of the nation because we do not want to decimate the cattle
herd but to develop it to the extent that it meets all needs for meat. The
problems related to meat--the desires to eat meat--are not solved by
telling people to slaughter all the cattle they want, because within 10
years the population would have increased and we would have much less meat.
This would not be a wise solution.

What we have to do is develop cattle, pig, and chicken raising and fishing
production so that at a specific time all needs can be met. Of course,
these are not the needs we had before but the needs we had before
multiplied by five. They are the needs we had before plus the buying power
the people have now. and naturally consumption has doubled. The demand has
doubled and tripled for many items. The solution is not (few words
indistinct) that would be unwise from an economic viewpoint, from the
economic interest. Then, in the future, in a few years, scarcity of meat
and milk would be acute. Therefore, we have had to place restrictions on
cattle in order to increase the cattle mass. And we are doing this. The
cattle mass is developing.

There are still some cattle ranches--with 15, 20 30 caballerias--which do
not raise cattle and whose pasture lands are abandoned to sabotage
production. The measure which was taken permitted the peasant to sell. But
what happened a few days after restrictions were lifted? One day we learned
that on a single Sunday people in private cars and taxis had bought 2,000
quintals of arum (malanga). That was a week's quota for children and sick
persons.

Who bought the arum? The bourgeoisie. Those who had cars and money found
out that there was arum at a road, and they went there. When restrictions
were lifted, they flew like bats to a place where there was a reserve of
vegetables. Naturally the peasants started to sell these vegetables as they
got 6, 7, 10 pesos. Some people bought vegetables here and sold them
elsewhere for twice the price they paid; others had a two-month supply of
arum. Those who did not have cars could not accumulate this supply for
their children. This is the truth. I said it once and repeated it recently.
(Sentence indistinct). I was not referring to a present problem; I was
referring to a sad truth.

I know that now, and for a long time, the peasants have stopped selling to
speculators. Today they are not only selling their products to warehousing
organizations, but the have increased their production of arum
extraordinarily. This is a past problem. Now these peasants can be
considered as the best group of producers in the country, peasants who
fulfill goals and are contributing greatly to the nation's supply. But what
did we do then? We eliminated the restrictions. And what are we doing about
the rich classes there who have privileges in connection with supplies? We
are going to take restrictive measures, not against the peasants but
against the cars. (Sentence indistinct). The privileged will say: "I am not
allowed to buy three quintals of arum." The peasants are allowed to buy and
sell their products because we do not want to apply restrictive measures to
them. We never agreed with those restrictions, and we must say that these
restrictions were established by warehousing organizations on their own.

This does not mean that we shall not speak frankly about these things at
this time. We do not agree with the restrictions; we feel that the contract
formula is proper, and above all, what is more important is that the
peasantry understand this, that peasant organizations understand this. And
another lesson--there will not be this type of speculators when there are
no bourgeoisie here. The revolution has the problem that sooner or later
the interests of the bourgeoisie who remain in the country must be
affected. (Applause) Those privileged left in the country must be
eliminated (applause); they are the ones who create corruption; they are
the ones who come out in their cars to buy turkeys. (Applause)

We must say, too, that in many interior towns, organized peasants have
solved supply problems and have taken their chickens to the market and sold
them at fair prices. You know that the native chicken has a higher price
than the other chicken (grange?). That is the path; that is what each
farmer must understand--he must aspire to what is fair.

With the prevailing prices, any man who works does not have to speculate to
solve all his economic problems; he does not have to rob, because
speculation is robbery. People might say: "The peasant who steals from the
bourgeoisie has 100 years of pardon." He is not stealing from the
bourgeoisie but from the worker. We are not interested in the bourgeoisie's
money; we are interested in the workers' money. (Applause) The bourgeoisie
cares less about paying. He steals and has been stealing all his life. He
pays whatever price is asked, but he is taking that product from the
worker, the laborer.

We know that in many places the peasants have organized themselves and the
markets, and this is helping to solve many problems. That is the path; that
is the awareness which must be developed; that is the worker-peasant
alliance. (Applause) Workers in the city help the man from the fields, they
help the peasants. Peasants also help in solving city workers' problems.
They are good allies of the workers and vice versa.

Things today are not as they were before. Before, there used to be people
belonging to the liberal party, others to the authentic party, others to
the conservative party, and others who belonged to other parties. Today,
men ace and know to what they belong. They belong to a society where there
are no exploited or exploiters. The small farmer is a worker, a man who
works on his won and who is an ally of the proletariat. He is a worker and
should never serve the interests of the exploiters, of those who are not
workers. And what is the small farmer, what is his future? We know it is
very warm in this theater tonight. But we will take a few minutes to
explain these concepts which we have more or less classified. (Applause)

Who belongs or can belong to the ANAP? It has been established that farmers
with five or fewer caballerias are the small farmers. Because in a country
where we had latifundiums of 5,000 and up to 10,000 caballerias, a farmer
with five caballerias is a small farmer. In other countries with the land
extraordinarily subdivided, a farmer with five caballerias would not be
considered a small farmer.

Now, there other cases of small farmers which we feel must be taken into
account. There are farmers who have six, seven, eight, or nine caballerias,
but there are four families, four brothers with their families working
there. these cases exist--cases where families really are working there. We
feel that these peasants must also be considered small farmers. and this
means that there are four families working there. This does not mean that a
bourgeoisie can call his four brothers and pub them to work there in a
hurry. these people will not be able to belong to the ANAP. No. Only those
who traditionally are living there; those who have been working there
traditionally.

It is true that the bourgeoisie are smart, and I say this because they can
resort to all kinds of tricks. (Applause) There are some bourgeoisie around
making demagogic reforms and distributing land. Well, farmers should not
accept this land. Why are they politicking now? Why are they blackmailing
people now? They should have distributed their land before. The true
revolutionary will not recognize any bourgeoisie reform by these
bourgeoisie who are planning to leave, and before leaving are saying: "I am
going to distribute this land to cause a problem to the revolution."

There are others who are raising the wages to their workers; just as there
are others who make them partners when they are thinking of leaving. they
never did this before, and therefore we must be careful with the
bourgeoisie. They are resorting to all kinds of tricks to bribe and
corrupt. Some bourgeoisie never even greeted their employees, and now they
are inviting them to take rides in their cars and drink with them.
(Applause) What they never did before, they are doing now: trying to
broaden their social base. They are few--a few thousand--but they have
money, and are passing as do-goods, generous, who lend anyone money. They
are doing favors to deceive.

If capitalism were to return to our country, the workers would kick it our.
(Applause) We know what the bourgeoisie is trying to do. We will not accept
their increase in wages; nor accept their agrarian reforms. You must be
alert. Gentlemen, we must consider that those families with farms larger
than five caballerias involve several brothers really working. These are
workers and good producers, and we should consider them as small farmers.
Naturally, each case must be discussed, analyzed and approved by the
organization. You must consider those who have fulfilled quotas, who have
worked the land, who are good producers. It is fair that they be considered
as small farmers.

There are many other bourgeoisie who live in the city and who have someone
in charge of their lands. Now, they are somewhat excited when a few lands
which we4re abandoned are nationalized. Naturally, we give no guarantee to
rural bourgeoisie. The revolution grants no guarantee to them. That is
another reason why the rural bourgeoisie do not cooperate with the
revolution. Many of them have abandoned pasture lands; and their conduct is
not the same as that of the small farmer. It is not the same. there are
exceptional cases in which land owners take care of their lands and work
them. In all fairness, we must agree that there are exceptional cases. The
revolution will always take these cases into account whenever any measure
is taken.

The revolution will consider the people who have worked faithfully, those
who have not obstructed production. Whenever any measure is applied, this
fact will be taken into consideration.

To whom does the revolution give full guarantees and why? The small
farmers. Why? Because they have a different attitude. It had to be
different because of their social position, because of their qualities as
workers. They have truly cooperated with the revolution in the main. And it
is logical that they should, because the revolution conceives the future
development of agriculture on two bases: on state production and on the
production of small farmers. (Applause) They can feel absolutely secure.
You know that the revolution speaks with honesty. Rural bourgeoisie, No.
Small farmers, yes. (Applause) Until when? Forever, Forever (Applause) It
is another thing with one who conspires, he who is dragged by the
counterrevolution, he who helps a band of murders. No, the revolution does
not grant them any guarantee. That is logical. (Applause) Because the law
establishes confiscation of those who conspire against the revolution. This
is another thing, because this is a matter of selective character, a
punitive law.

Now, in the future we will have the lands of the small farmers--lands you
have now--and national lands, which in the future will include the lands of
the rural bourgeoisie. And they will soon be more than at present. The
proportion is not known: 60 or 65 or 70. There is always the case of the
one who wants to retire or sell. There are the cases of sales and purchases
of lands, cases in which the state buys when offers have been made for the
sale of land. Consequently, the state will come out with a majority
proportion of lands, and of farms which will form part of the national
lands, and a small proportion of the lands belonging to small farmers.

We do not know if the proportion will be 30, 35 40 percent. We do not know
exactly. We understand that that system of agricultural ownership can march
perfectly united and perfectly in agreement, and can contribute greatly to
the development of our agriculture and our economy on these two
pillars--national lands and the lands of the small farmers. These pillars
can serve as support for a lasting alliance between the peasants and
workers without anyone having to worry or doubt. This will be the lasting
situation of our agriculture.

Until when? For as long as necessary, indefinitely. Because we are not
worried that there still are small farmers in 10, 15 20 years. The country
will be developing all its agriculture. The country will be developing all
its economy, all its industry. And this small farmer can contribute to that
development, he can contribute to progress without obstructing the economy.

If the situation were different, if all the land in our country were in the
hands of small farmers, then the situation would be different. The problem
could not be presented in this form. In the land were distributed in this
form, it would be an obstacle to our economic development.

But when the main part of the land is in the possession of the state, we
can operate on these bases, without anyone having to be concerned that this
land we (grouped?) or that this land be turned into cooperatives or into
agricultural associations. Therefore, we are going to talk quite frankly so
that the peasants know how to orient themselves, know how we see the
problem. Once the national lands are established, which will be between 65
and 70 percent, depending on the amount of land in possession of the rural
bourgeoisie, there will be two lands--national lands and yours.

How are you going to work your land? It is logical, after all, that a
somewhat bigger enterprise should function technically much better than a
small one, but this will not affect the economy because there is a
sufficient amount of national land to raise production as much as we want.
Therefore, it can be established that the small farmers will cultivate
their land as they see fit (applause) either as individual farmers, or as
individual farmers belonging to credit and service cooperatives, or as
members of agricultural associations, as the small farmers desire, as they
prefer.

We may say, indeed, that a 10-caballeria agricultural association will
function better than 10 separate little bits of land. This technically is
true. But basically, essentially, it is not decisive in the economy of the
country. It would be decisive if all our farmers were small farmers. Then
it would be necessary to say they must be grouped together because the
agriculture of the country cannot be developed in this way. But this is not
the case. Most of the land is national land. There is the possibility of
developing this land without its being affected by whether or not there
also are small farmers. And it will be you who will decide now or within 10
or 15 years how you want to cultivate your lands.

There are some who have formed agricultural associations. Good. Some are
functioning well. We rejoice at this. But are we in need of the
organization of agricultural associations? No, not at all. We even have
told our comrades in the ANAP: "Look, do not even talk of agricultural
associations. Do not even talk about them so that no one will think that
you want to group them into an association." We know that those who have
joined associations are very happy, but leave them alone. Let each decide
his own life, his own situation, as it pleases him.

You have the credit and service cooperatives to which more than 45,000
peasants belong. You know what this system is. It has given good results,
and some of our comrades say the sugar mills should be the same. Instead of
receiving directly from the central the resources and the things they need,
they should receive them through credit and service groups. It is a simple
system of cooperation Each one cultivates the land on his own, but the
credit is received by the cooperative. The fertilizers, the equipment, the
various things--they group together to receive these things and to sell
them. It is a good organization (words indistinct).

But neither are we advocating these cooperatives. We believe that shortly
most of the peasants will be grouped together. Why? Because the results
such groupings have given are very good. It is easier for the
administration, rather than dealing one by one with the peasants (words
indistinct), the credits and contracts are made by one, appointed by the
others, who represents them. (Words indistinct) We believe that the credit
and service cooperatives have developed greatly recently. They have given
good results. A total of 45,000 peasants belong to them. But these are
things which we do not advocate. We do not advocate any of these methods.
It is the same whether we deal with independent peasants or with the credit
and service cooperative or with the agricultural association. We leave this
up to you.

There naturally are some problems which in the future will lead to a
tendency toward groping--problems such as machinery on one hand and the
manpower shortage on the other, because it is logical that (we shall face?)
difficulties in the manpower problem; because before, there were more than
enough people seeking work. Today the situation is not the same. (to
solve?) problems with machines. Because, of course, we mobilize for the
harvest. A harvest requires more laborers. What is the idea of the farmer,
the one who works the land with his family? Of course, there are small
farmers who have workers working for them. It will become more difficult
every day. Why? Because those workers will go elsewhere to work. They will
become scarcer every day. They will go to study or they will go to study a
new machine; they may go to study heavy equipment course, a course of
canecutting machinery. They want to advance. That is logical.

Those social circumstances will make you think how best to organize
production. This is a time in which you need manpower. We want no
exploitation of labor for work in the fields, for farming, although for the
crops the mobilization of labor forces is necessary, and we have mobilized
them. We have sent students and even industrial workers to the mountains to
help the small farmer harvest his coffee.

On another occasion we mobilized to help him to harvest his tobacco. on
other occasions we have mobilized for the cane harvest. This means that we
shall always mobilize the labor force which may be lacking for the harvest
during the period of the year when the greatest force is needed.

But if you go ahead, mechanizing production with each passing day, you will
need less manpower. As agriculture is mechanized, you will be able to farm
by yourselves, to do all the agriculture work or most of the work of
farming and production. Naturally, you will need help in harvesting. With
regard to sugar cane, we already have solved the problem by machinery. With
regard to coffee, labor forces will always have to be mobilized to harvest
coffee in the mountains. And the same will be true for other products. but
the important thing is that you should know what the policy of the
revolution is--what the policy of the revolution is and what the policy of
the revolution will finally be with regard to the small farmer.

There are two pillars: the national lands administered by farms and the
lands of the small farmers. These two forces can advance together,
contributing greatly to the development of the economy. And as an ally of
the working class, the revolutionary government will always respect their
wishes about the way they want to handle their lands, the system the small
farmers want to use with their lands. (Applause) I can give you an example
(words indistinct) a case in which a small farmer, for instance, (may be
asked to?) change a type of farming. Suppose that a dam is built, that an
irrigation area is completed, that a region is developed. It is possible
that it may be planted with a crop for which the land is not good and that
another product of much greater interest to the economy can be produced,
and one which therefore also will be of greater interest of the small
farmer. So we tell him: "We do not think this should be pastureland--this
should be a cane areas," let us say, and it is not worthwhile to irrigate
this land if advantage is not taken of it. So we tell the small farmer: "We
think you should plant."

This could happen to some places where he must be told the kind of farming
most appropriate. This could happen in some places, in some areas.
Elsewhere, the small farmer will plant what they think best, what they
please, what suits them best. (Words indistinct) discuss so that always the
interest of the revolutionary government and the interests of the small
farmers will coincide, because revolutionary power is based on the
interests of the workers and peasants. This is what the worker-peasant
alliance means. This is what I am explaining to you. (Applause)

With this explanation the peasants will be armed with arguments. They will
know on what to rely. And let them be assured--let them be assured that no
one will come and tell them: "Form an agricultural association." On the
contrary, we have established that when agricultural associations of more
than 15 caballerias are to be formed, a special permit must be issued
because if does not seem to us that there should be big agricultural
associations. They will not function well. They function better when they
are smaller, and therefore we placed a limitation on them requiring that
farmers who want to organize agricultural associations of more than 15
cabellerias must have a special permit to do so. No one is going to demand
that they form this or that kind of organization--no one. And it will be
you yourselves who will say also what you want to do, in an absolutely
spontaneous way resulting from your own analysis of the real situation in
each area and each house.

This is a definite statement. this is a definite policy of the revolution.
And on this basis there will never be any problems between the peasants and
the revolutionary government. On this basis (applause) we know that the
alliance between the peasants and the Cuban workers will be eternal and
final. This does not mean that we do not have t discuss--that we shall not
have to discuss things many times. It does not mean that we shall not have
to criticize. Often it will happen that we shall say: "Look, this official
is not working well! Put aside this product. This method is not good. This
one is better." Just as we are doing (words indistinct) or that we are
improving on old methods and we are establishing (words indistinct) and we
are going to establish centers where all problems will be solved: the
problems of credits, or (costs?), of machinery, of storage. (Applause) In
other words, we are going to create a very practical organization to solve
all these problems so that the farmers will have a place to take their
products, to obtain fertilizer, to obtain what they need. And we are going
to establish a much better system, and we are working on this. (Applause)

And I already have told you that this does not mean that we shall not have
to discuss, to criticize. Sometimes it will be necessary to say: "This
(zone?) is working very badly. This one is not fulfilling its targets." It
will be necessary to congratulate another for fulfilling or exceeding its
target, as has happened in many cases. There have been many cases of zones
where targets have been fulfilled and exceeded. (Words indistinct) a
closely coordinated work from which will come, production goals, goals
which will be designated for you small farmers. Thus there will be goals
for the farmers, goals for small farmers, production goals for national
lands. and production goals for the land in the hands of small
farmers--realistic goals.

No one is going to demand more from you than what you can
produce--realistic goals, taking into account the resources, the machinery,
the existing production means. But on this basis agriculture will move
forward.

What can happen? Will this little plot of land be eternal? No. It will not
be eternal. Why? What will happen? Many of your children will go to
schools, secondary schools, basic secondary schools, and it is probable
that at some time all the boys are training for something else, to work in
something else. There have been cases of persons who have said: "Well, what
do I do with this land? I have four sons, they are in the militia, they are
in the army, and they are in this and that." They have even asked to move
to where their sons are; they have asked permission to sell, to exchange.
Naturally, we cannot always solve these problems, because it is not easy t
exchange land in one place for land in another place. some have said: "I
have land in the Sierra and want to exchange it for land in Havana." The
Sierra is big, but Havana is small. How can these problems be solved?

However, gradually, with the passing of time, many years, a process will
take place in which the proportion of national lands will be greater and
the land of the farmer smaller. How long will that take? Ten, 15, 20, 30,
40 years. It does not matter. That does not matter at all. (Applause) That
does not bother or concern anyone. What concerns the country? What
interests the country? That you produce. The country certainly is concerned
with that. The country is certainly interested in that, that you obtain the
maximum from each square meter of land, that you utilize this land in such
a way as to obtain the greater quantity of products needed by the people.
That is what interests us; that is what the revolution asks; that is what
the revolution demands; not the business of having more land in one farm;
that one farmer has 100 caballerias and wants one more. No. No. (Applause)

On the contrary, there are farms that are too large, and right now we are
going to make a thorough study of what should be the maximum size of a cane
or rice farm. Because to manage one of those 1,000-caballeria farms, one
needs to be a super genius, and there are not too many of these. You know
well that to manage a farm, one has to work hard. One has to make efforts
to make a farm operate properly. You already know what is involved in
supervising the work of 200 or 300 men. For that reason we are going to
reduce the size of farms; wee are going to divide farms, because now we are
going to organize an emulation. How is production organized better? How can
we obtain better yields? How do we obtain greater productivity? It is
through emulation between the farms--national lands and lands belonging to
the small farmers. (Applause) You will have to emulate.

What produces the most==an agricultural society, a credit and services
cooperative, or small farms? We know that there are farms on state lands
that are operating deficiently. Some peasants might say: "Look that land is
not being worked correctly; such and such a mistake is being made. On the
other hand, I am producing so much on my small plot." When a peasant says
this, he is doing a favor to the revolution, (applause) because he is
questioning the honesty of that administrator. (Applause) The small farmer
must help, so that the national lands advance well. We are sure they will
progress well, because we are not going to rest until our agriculture is
perfectly organized. We are not going to rest until high productivity is
achieved. We are not going to rest until we have an agriculture of which we
can feel proud.

You must help, yes, by criticizing (applause), teaching, and learning at
the same time. You will see that some farms are operating deficiently, but
you will also see some that are operating very well. (Applause) You will
see many new cultivation methods. You will see when a new strand of cane
comes of an experimental center. You will be asked: "Do you want to sow
this type of cane?" And you might say: "No, no, I have this type of cane
which is better." When you see that can sowed next to yours and ascertain
that it produces twice as much as yours, then you might say: "Well, send
that cane here."

There are 50 varieties of cane sowed, but the cane research organizations
have selected the 10 best varieties. They continue selecting in and out of
Cuba in order to raise productivity per caballeria. They have been looking
for the best types of cane that stand drought, that can be cut early, that
can be cut late, types of cane that yields a greater percentage of sugar,
greater volume of sugar per land unit. Perhaps there are types of cane that
have greater percentages of sugar but which do to grow too well. For that
reason we must look for cane that has the greatest yield. We must say that
some of our small farmers work rather well, but may of our small farmers do
not work well.

If there are technical errors, routine and technical deficiencies in some
farms, there also are routine and technical deficiencies in small farms.
They raise pigs, and they never bother to look for a better quality pig;
they raise skinny pigs, pigs which cannot be fattened. (Applause) The same
applies to chickens and cattle: they do not bother crossing them to obtain
greater yield, for example, and they do not bother to obtain a greater
amount of milk. We must make efforts to apply better techniques, to get
better varieties of animals, better seeds. You will learn much.

For example, hybrid corn was not known here, or was hardly known. You were
sowing corn that yielded 100 or 200 quintals per caballeria. When you see
hybrid cornseed that yields 500 and up to 800 quintals, you will stop
producing corn of the other type, and you are going to sow hybrid corn.

There were peasants who did not know what pangola was, and since they have
seen a tract of land sown with pangola, they do not want to sow anything
but pangola. Therefore, this is the reason research organizations are
developing cane and pastures, and the government is giving facilities and
resources to these organizations. We must apply techniques, for example, to
the feeding of cattle, to the feeding of pigs, to cane production. Then we
will see the results. You will learn much and will see that in a few years
time will will have an agriculture using wonderful techniques. We will not
lose time sowing a pasture that is not good for feeding or a cane that
hardly produces sugar. Nor will we raise an animal which is not of the best
quality.

For example, what are we doping in Oriente, to the south of the Sierra
Maestra? We have taken 400 Holstein bulls there. Why? Because we are going
to develop a dairy valley; we are going to start crossing Holsteins with
the cattle in that area. Why? To obtain, within two, three, or four years,
specimens that will yield twice, three times as much milk. We need time; we
need years; but if we start now, cows that now are yielding three liters
will 12, 15 liters. Then we will have the opportunity to find out what
abundance is.

Naturally, we now do not produce for a few; we do not produce clothing for
a few, nor shoes for a few, nor food for a few. We must produce for the
whole population; that is the demand for products. Today no one goes to bed
without the hope of eating something, because he has the means with which
to buy .l He goes to the store and asks. Therefore, we must produce greater
quantities to satisfy these needs. How can we satisfy these needs? With
techniques, with machinery, with organization. That is why we have interest
in the schools, in literacy. Now we are going to place special emphasis on
the rural basic secondary schools. Why? Because previously, a child never
reached the sixth grade. Today there are thousands going to the fifth grade
in the mountains. That is the reason we are going to establish broadening
schools in the mountains: to gather the children of the mountains, for
those who are going to the fourth and fifth grades. We are going to
organize rural basic secondary schools for them.

What are we going to teach them? We are going to teach them technical
subjects--basically technical agricultural subjects. Why? Because we do not
want men cutting cane with a machete; we want them to cut cane with
machines.

We do not want men to be producing with rustic methods. revolution We do
not want a man who raises corn yielding 200 quintals per caballeria, but a
man who sows corn which yields 1,000 quintals per caballeria. We do not
want the man who milks, by and, a cow producing three liters, but the man
who milks, with an electric milking machine, cows yielding 10 or 15 liters.
(Applause) We do not want the bull that must remain in pasture three years
to yield 500 or 600 net pounds of meat; we want that bull to yield 500 and
600 pounds of meat in 18 months. That will give us more space for more milk
cows.

And thus we see people working in agriculture, in industry, in fishing,
with a high spirit, with a sense of responsibility, with enthusiasm, with a
sense of honor. We see this everywhere. We already are seeing the results
of the efforts of the technicians, the work being done by the young men who
studied agriculture in the Soviet Union. A total of 2,000 more will return
soon, and to these we will add the ones being trained in our schools,
because, as is natural, the revolution is achieving victory. But how many
technicians did we have? How many trained peasants? We had to improvise
everything.

However, you know how many thousands of youths are studying agricultural
techniques, administration. You know about the thousands of teachers who
are studying. And here is good news: 600 peasant girls from the mountains
already are going to enter teachers' school. (Applause) That is to say,
within five years we will have graduate teachers who came from the heart of
the mountains. As is expected, some day we will reap the fruits of our
efforts. Sincerely, it is encouraging to see how everything is progressing;
how the peasant associations are progressing, the cane farms, the livestock
farms. It is encouraging to visit a farm which has doubled its milk
production.

Even though we know that some things are still to be corrected, improved,
and excelled, it is encouraging to see indications everywhere of better
work, of greater responsibility, which fill us with hope and encouragement
in these successes we shall achieve. That is the task in which we must work
together; the task in which all workers, laborers, and peasants, must join
efforts. We need your efforts in all our plans. We lneed your help,
support, interest. We need your efforts to increase production, in the
utilization of machines, in the development of techniques, in the training
of cadres.

I believe that the things I have told you--you already know what the banner
of the revolution has been, what the banner of the revolutionaries has
been--will give you a better idea of what the future holds, of the
perspectives and of the bases on which you can organize your work. I
believe that never again will someone tell you stories; no one will come to
deceive and confuse the peasants. Is this clear? (shouts or "yes" from the
crowd--Ed.) You know what the peasant holds and what the future will hold.
(Applause) Well, let this second congress serve that purpose: your learning
what is in store for you, what your role is, what your future is, so that
you might always be content, so that you may understand the meaning of the
workers-peasants alliance. (Applause) Above all, you have become aware of
the bases and the road on which the future of the country lies.

Things are this way because this is socialism, because socialism is a
science, and a science that is based on realities. (Applause) This science
teaches that the road to victory is the road of the workers-peasants
alliances, that the road to victory is the road of the workers alliances,
that the road to victory is the road of cooperation between workers land
peasants--frank, open, and loyal cooperation between workers and peasants.
(Applause) For that reason, this is our policy in relation to the peasants,
and for that reason we know that the peasants will always be on the side of
the revolution, that they will always fight for the revolution! (Applause)

Just as in war the peasants shed their blood for the victory of the
revolution, for the victory of the proletariat, so the peasants, together
with the workers, will shed the last drop of creative sweat and even the
last drop of patriotic blood in the building of socialism, in the forging
of a new homeland, in the forging of a happy future. Fatherland or death!
We will win! (Applause)
-END-


LANIC |