-DATE- 19910604 -YEAR- 1991 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- -AUTHOR- -HEADLINE- SIEMPRE Interviews Castro on Revolution, Future -PLACE- ANNEX / Cuba -SOURCE- Havana PRENSA LATINA -REPORT_NBR- FBIS-LAT-91-113-A -REPORT_DATE- 19910612 -HEADER- BRS Assigned Document Number: 000008654 Report Type: Daily Report AFS Number: PA0706044291 Report Number: FBIS-LAT-91-113-A Report Date: 12 Jun 91 Report Series: Latin America Start Page: 9 Report Division: ANNEX End Page: 13 Report Subdivision: Cuba AG File Flag: Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Language: Spanish Document Date: 04 Jun 91 Report Volume: Wednesday Vol VI No 113-A Dissemination: FOUO City/Source of Document: Havana PRENSA LATINA Report Name: ANNEX Headline: SIEMPRE Interviews Castro on Revolution, Future Subheadline: Defends Socialism Author(s): Beatriz Pages Rebollar, director of Mexican weekly SIEMPRE, published in 30 May issue of SIEMPRE and carried as a PRENSA LATINA ``exclusive''; place and date not given] Source Line: PA0706044291 Havana PRENSA LATINA in Spanish 0456 GMT 4 Jun 91-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Subslug: [Part II of ``Fidel Castro, Present and Future of Cuba,'' a report on an interview with Cuban President Fidel Castro by Beatriz Pages Rebollar, director of Mexican weekly SIEMPRE, published in 30 May issue of SIEMPRE and carried as a PRENSA LATINA ``exclusive''; place and date not given] -TEXT- FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE: 1. [Part II of ``Fidel Castro, Present and Future of Cuba,'' a report on an interview with Cuban President Fidel Castro by Beatriz Pages Rebollar, director of Mexican weekly SIEMPRE, published in 30 May issue of SIEMPRE and carried as a PRENSA LATINA ``exclusive''; place and date not given] 2. [Text] Havana [no date as received]-``There is talk of the failure of socialism, and where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and in Latin America?'' Fidel Castro told SIEMPRE with the irony and deep concern of a man who denounces the trap set by those who have rushed to issue a death certificate on ideologies without first seriously reviewing the developments the world has witnessed in Eastern Europe. Using arguments based on history, Castro shreds the ploys and platitudes that propaganda has spread all across the globe trying to convince the world's peoples and heads of state that truth and universal reason lie solely and exclusively in the West. In the face of the propaganda reports that socialism is dead, a phrase that infers the triumph of capitalism, Fidel responds with the facts: Where is the triumph when it has generated hunger, poverty, overpopulation, war, and ecological destruction? 3. The Cuban head of state proclaims and defends the principles of socialism fully aware that he is challenging a world avalanche that aims to prove that Castro and Cuba are wrong. Once again, history, as at the start of the Cuban revolution, has left him without defenders so that he can be his own best advocate. Once again, Fidel stands accused by a system that seeks to redeem itself through the errors of others. Once again, the revolutionary, the idealist, the politician, is chosen by destiny to be tried. The first time this happened, ``the accusers came out the accused, and the accused the accusers,'' and on this occasion Cuba's future, always uncertain and inscrutable, remains to be settled. Fidel Castro offers in this second installment a global conceptual view on the survival of socialism and the moral defeat of capitalism. He does it in a tone of voice that never renounces a penchant for oratory or the melodiousness of a well-constructed phrase. He says it with the expression of a restless face, furrowed by time, and the impenetrable blackness of a stare that is sometimes probing, other times sweet, censuring, resolute, or earnest, and most times visionary. 4. [Pages] Can Cuban socialism survive after the fall of Eastern Europe's commmunist regimes seems to confirm the failure of Marxism-Leninism? 5. [Castro] We think that, yes, we can survive. We not only can but must survive. It is a duty to our fatherland and our duty to our ideals, which we do not consider a failure. 6. The failure of Marxism-Leninism cannot be categorically asserted, because Marxism-Leninism has already given the world a great deal. Even though it may suffer temporary setbacks due to prevailing circumstances, Marxism has certainly made great contributions in the world because it has inspired revolutionary movements for almost 80 years. Marxism began to inspire them more than 100 years ago, and Leninism, approximately 80 years ago, at least. Lenin has had a big influence throughout this entire century. 7. First of all, the October revolution stemmed from those ideas. This is one of this century's greatest developments which gave rise to the first socialist state in the history of the world. The influence that revolution had on international development is enormous because a fear of social revolutions emerged in the capitalist world and people became aware of what had to be done, not out of generosity, kindness, or philanthropy, but to avoid socialist revolutions. Capitalism began to prepare a whole series of new theories and methods to avoid or forestall its definite fall. The service socialism rendered mankind, in its decisive role in the defeat of fascism, was very big. The service socialism, inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideas, rendered the labor movement in its social and salary demands, as well as in other demands, was very big. The service it rendered in the movement for the cause of liberating the old colonies and the disappearance of colonialism was also very big. Those ideas guided the struggle for liberation on all continents, everywhere. For us, they were of the utmost importance. They opened our ideas regarding the reality of the world we were living in, because, without Marxism-Leninism, we would not have a coherent explanation of this world. We are also thankful, as a nation and as a people, for those ideas. 8. [Pages] So the world cannot yet sign Socialism's death certificate? 9. [Castro] The bells have yet to toll. One cannot say that this is the swan song of socialism, or of socialist, Marxist, and Leninist ideas because when the French Revolution, the bourgeois, in other words the capitalist revolution took place, there were changes in the feudal monarchical system. There was a great wave of international reaction, and not only did change occur but the Holy Alliance emerged and dominated the world for decades. However, in the long run, it was not possible to prevent the final success of the bourgeois liberal ideals of that revolution. Therefore, no one can categorically state that Marxism-Leninism and socialism have definitely failed. Among other things, we cannot forget that 1.2 billion people live in China under socialism. The Chinese people suffered from misery and hunger for thousands of years, and only Socialism could perform the miracle of freeing that country where only 100 million hectares sustain 1.1 billion people. The causes which resulted in revolutions and socialism are far from over in the world. Capitalism has ultimately caused poverty, hunger, backwardness, and underdevelopment for 4 million people in the world. That is what we have inherited from capitalism, and if those reasons have not disappeared how can anyone talk about the end of revolutionary and socialist ideas? 10. [Pages] Your rationale gives the impression that the people should be talking about not the end of socialism but about an improved socialism. Is this correct? 11. [Castro] I would say that the world will see as many interpretations and implementations of socialism as there are historic and cultural circumstances and countries. 12. I think that no two forms of socialism will be alike. I had been referring to the essence of socialism: to true equality. The French Revolution spoke of equality, fraternity, and liberty, but there was never any fraternity because capitalist societies are not fraternal societies. They are characterized by egotism, and there has never been any equality either. A society divided into exploiters and exploited, into millionaires and beggars, is not based on equality, it is not a just society. Under such circumstances we cannot speak of true liberty. On the other hand, the socialist ideas, basic socialist ideas, call for human solidarity, brotherhood, equality, and justice, and these ideas will have as many forms as there are countries with different situations. I would say that no two forms of socialism will be alike. It would be a mistake to try to make one socialism equal to another. The same way that no two persons are identical, there will not be two identical forms of socialism. The basic ideas of socialism, however, will inexorably win. The countries of the Third World-especially the underdeveloped countries- cannot renounce the idea of planned development. 13. There will be different kinds of socialism, many forms of socialism, but there will be socialism. The causes that brought socialism forth still exist and much of mankind is suffering from those causes with more intensity now. 14. [Pages] If the causes of socialism remain, and the basic ideas of socialism have not failed and work for the dignity of the people, then who has failed? Has it been the chiefs of state as individuals, as men? 15. [Castro] Sometimes it is man, sometimes the community, and sometimes the entire country. 16. With regard to what happened in Eastern Europe, I think we should be aware that socialism arose there as a result of World War II, as a result of circumstantial factors. In those countries, socialism was imported. It did not emerge spontaneously. This is not the case of the Soviet Union, where socialism was an autochthonous creation. It is not the case of China, or Vietnam, or Cuba. Socialism was not exported to any of these countries. We established socialism with basis on our own revolutionary effort. These historic facts count. Man's errors also count to a large degree. The way men implement ideas, the different development level in these countries, technological differences between these countries and the developed capitalist world that existed in Eastern Europe, all these are factors that have much weight. 17. The fact that socialism was established in the most backward and poorest countries of Europe, in those based on agricultural economies; the fact that the Soviet Union was destroyed twice in less than 25 years; the fact that the West-particularly the United States-hoarded the world's gold, wealth, and technology and had a developed industrial sector that did not lose a thing in the war, all these factors undoubtedly helped capitalism in its struggle against socialism. There were other factors. There was the arms race unleashed against the Soviet Union, the blockade, the isolation. All these actions carried out against the socialist countries played a role. We must take into consideration the significance of the blockade and a forced arms race that was imposed on and that wore down the socialist camp. We must take into account all the economic power of the West. All these factors had much weight. To them you may add human error. 18. There is talk about the failure of socialism, yet where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Where is the success of capitalism in places where thousands of millions of people live? I believe that the failure of capitalism should be discussed as much as the failure of socialism in a small number of countries. Capitalism failed in more than 100 countries, which now face a truly desperate situation. I do not understand why this is forgotten. There is talk about the failure of socialism based on what happened in East Europe. Capitalism has ruined the world. It has poisoned the rivers, the seas, and the atmosphere; it is destroying the ozone layer, and it is disastrously changing the world's climate. 19. [Pages] You are right. Capitalism has not had a moral victory, but it has won as a system of domination, technologically and militarily. That is where its power lies. 20. [Castro] Yes, at this moment it is, unquestionably, the dominant system in the world's economy. But that is how it was before the recent events, and even before any socialist country came into existence. Capitalism is hundreds of years old, and some capitalist features have existed for thousands of years. Capitalism, speaking in the modern sense, has much experience and much strength. 21. Changing social systems is no easy task. In ancient times there was slavery. How long did it last? If you look back into Roman or Greek history, from the days of the Iliad, a period about which someone by the name of Homer supposedly wrote, how many centuries did that system last? And after slavery we had the feudal system and the so-called Middle Ages. How many centuries did that last? Then capitalism emerged. No system has been eternal. What is the basis for affirming that capitalism will be eternal? Just because a new social system has had setbacks? 22. Capitalist domination has not disappeared. Capitalist domination, first, and imperialist domination, later, have lasted for a long time. It has been said that the first imperialist war, in the modern sense of this concept, took place between the United States and Spain as a result of the intervention in Cuba in 1898. Imperialism has maintained much control for almost 100 years. Colonialism has disappeared from the world, but neo-colonialism has emerged and its forms of exploitation are as harsh and as pitiless as those the people endured under colonialism, or even worse. This kind of system has had to face the challenge of socialism, of a socialist movement, but it never lost its nature as the dominant system. It has been exerting its domination for a long time and it still maintains, more or less successfully, this power. That is, this situation is not new. It is an old situation. The people of Third World countries can testify to this. 23. [Pages] You say that there is no basis for saying that capitalism will be eternal, but allow me to insist that it has the arms to survive over socialism. 24. [Castro] Capitalism has the technology to dominate part of the world for some time. We cannot resign ourselves to the idea that this will be forever. Neither can we can join the U.S. triumphalism made evident in speeches by some U.S. leaders, including Bush, who point to the idea of a new era, the U.S. era, a 1,000-year era. This is not the first time there has been such talk. In the not too remote days of the Third Reich, there was talk in Nazi Germany of a 1,000-year reign. 25. Those are illusions harbored by men who forget history's lessons at any given time. No man, if he is a man, no human being, can be forced to give up his ideals, to give up his hopes, to give up his dreams, not even nuclear weapons could accomplish this. For over 30 years of revolution, we ourselves have been threatened, we have been subject to aggression, pressures, and harassment of all types, and we have been able to resist and be independent at our own risk. I believe that this is proof of what a people can achieve. 26. [Pages] How much longer do you believe that capitalism will endure or survive in its present form? How much more time do you give it? 27. [Castro] No one can give an honest reply to that question. No one can know precisely how much longer the capitalist system and imperialism will survive. 28. Generally speaking, revolutionaries have erred when calculating time. Almost every revolutionary throughout history believed that his ideas would triumph in the near future. Those who formulated the French Revolution's ideas also thought that revolutionary changes would follow shortly thereafter, however, those ideas took long to become reality. The revolutionaries, among them Lenin, an outstanding revolutionary which no one can deny, believed that immediately after the Russian Revolution a world revolution would take place. Before Lenin, peasants in Paris believed that the socialist revolution would ensue immediately; Marx believed that his ideas would triumph much more quickly; [Father Miguel] Hidalgo and [Father Jose-Maria] Morelos believed that they would achieve Mexico's independence immediately. In 1810 [Simon] Bolivar believed in Venezuela's imminent independence and in the liberation and integration of Latin America. Nevertheless, many years of hard struggle passed before independence was achieved, country by country, and integration is still not a reality. The Cubans in 1868 believed in the immediate success of their struggle, and only 30 years later did they achieve a neocolonial regime. This neocolonial regime kept us under U.S. political and economical domination for almost 60 years, until the triumph of the Cuban Revolution. 29. I am certain that the first Christians believed that their doctrines would spread all over the world in a short time, however, many centuries passed before those ideas became the religion of the Western masses. In general, the revolutionaries always believe that those ideas that they consider as just will triumph unquestionably without any delay whatsoever. We revolutionaries run the risk of thinking we can reduce, with imagination, capitalism's life span. There is no doubt in my mind that selfish and merciless regime will disappear. I believe this because I believe in humanity, I believe in mankind, in his capability to struggle, as well as in justice and liberty. 30. New phenomena will come to be. I believe that political science gurus will have to closely watch how events will develop and what contradictions will arise between the big economic blocs, as well as the development of those events in the coming years and maybe in the coming decades. One thing is certain, today's world cannot continue as it is eternally, nor can billions of people continue to go hungry, living in misery. These people would rather die than continue like this. 31. This world has to change, and it will change, but no one can say when. The world will inexorable change if mankind survives the ecological disasters and the dangers of war that capitalism and imperialism have created with their anarchy, their colossal squandering of resources, their zeal to achieve domination, their mad lifestyle, and their societies rooted in consumption. 32. [Pages] When you attended Brazilian President Collor de Mello's inauguration, Spanish President Felipe Gonzalez asked you to join the hemisphere's democratization process. At that time you responded that the socialist model was as democratic as others. What proof do you have of that democracy? 33. [Castro] It cannot be said that Felipe [Gonzalez] issued an invitation for us to join a democratic movement in Latin America. This was not the case, and it would be out of context to say this, although maybe this impression could have been given. Felipe, as well as Carlos Andres Perez, expressed their concern with regard to the economic difficulties and the perils of aggression that Cuba was going to suffer in the wake of the disaster that took place in Eastern Europe. It is in this regard that they expressed their concern. 34. They seemed to insinuate that we should make some concessions-they did not come right out and say it- and the need to think of ways in which we could survive. What Felipe [Gonzalez] said is that he knew that the Cubans could put up a struggle, that they could resist, make sacrifices, but the Sagunto and Numacia mentality should not prevail, that is, to resist no matter what the cost. That was more or less the message they passed along. Decidedly, our mentality is to resist at any price, to defend our revolutionary cause and our nation's independence. We have upheld our points of view. If we rely on history, we can see that Spain herself is an good example of heroism. In 1808 when Napoleon invaded Spain, the Spanish people did not spare sacrifices or the price they had to pay to defeat the invading troops, which were the cream of the most powerful and apparently undefeatable army of that time. Likewise, the Spaniards did not let up their struggle for 700 years against the invading Arabs. In this sense, Spain has been a nation that has set an example. In Madrid, the socialists-among them the socialists that preceded Felipe's current party-resisted for more than two years Franco's forces who were supported by German planes and Italian soldiers; the socialists said ``they will not pass'' and they kept their word. 35. Today's Spain would not exist without that will or that decisiveness to resist. With regard to the other part of your question on which regime is more democratic, I believe that the socialist system is much more democratic than the capitalist in every way. But Felipe and I never discussed this issue on that ocassion when I talked to him, in front of Carlos Andres Perez. That is the true, unbiased story of what happened during the visit to Brazil. 36. [Pages] But why do you believe that the socialist model is as democratic or even more so than the other systems? Tell me why, Commander. 37. [Castro] The socialist system is much more democratic, in every sense, than the capitalist system if we do not allow ourselves to be led on by mere formalism. In our socialism-I am talking about our own experience- there is a constant participation of all the masses and of the people in everything, otherwise we could not resist. 38. I am sure you understand that we would not have been able to withstand the U.S. blockade and threats for more than 30 years without the people's decided participation in all the revolution's activities. 39. [Castro] Socialism can exist here and in a U.S. neighborhood, with the mere participation of the people. In the West there is a tendency to credit men with merits of the political processes and it is said: ``Castro's Cuba;'' ``Castro's Government;'' or ``Castro's work.'' Nevertheless, Cuba belongs to the people, the government belongs to the people, and the works are those of the people. It is a custom to attribute to individuals merits that no leader can have. During Greece's golden age, some leaders were considered to be divine beings. It was said that Alexander the Great was the son of Olympias and a god. However, even with divine origins, the leaders can only accomplish that which a people can do, can support, and can defend. Who defends socialism in Cuba? Armed men and women, workers and students, peasants, millions of armed persons, defending the socialist system in Cuba. Therefore, the first duty of a state is to survive. I then ask myself, in which of these formally so-called democratic governments are the weapons in the hands of the people? The essence of democracy that is expressed in our nation to defend the state does not exist in any of those societies based on class, where you only see policemen constantly repressing the people. 40. What are the images that can frequently be seen in Europe, in London, or in other capitals of that continent, or in the United States almost daily? The horses, the dogs, the policemen-dressed up in gear which makes them look more like astronauts than men-repressing the students, the workers on strike, the neighbors because they protest a tax, and then there are the wounded, the dead. These scenes are very frequent, therefore what we see is a frequent contradiction between the state as a force, and other sectors of society. 41. In our country you do not see any of these events. This has not been seen in 30 years of revolution precisely because in our nation there is an identity among the people, the state, and the government. I say that any Cuban citizen can claim: ``I am the state,'' as Luis XIV allegedly said, because he is the state, as he is the one who, with his arms, defends that state. Can the people conceive such an attitude, such an identification without socialism's essence of democracy where the merciless exploitation of man by man has disappeared; that merciless exploitation and inequality that exists in capitalism? No, this cannot be conceived. This is why I say that in essence, a socialist society is much more democratic than a capitalist society. 42. The capitalist society and the capitalist democracy are designed to oppress and to exploit mankind, they were designed for this purpose. Meanwhile the socialist system is designed to protect mankind, to support mankind, and to turn man into a constant player in the task of creating a more just, more human, and more united society. 43. [Pages] Commander, can we then say that democracy is a necessary consequence of socialism? 44. [Castro] The way I conceive it, democracy is an essence of socialism as well as a consequence. -END-