by Sarah Nicole Strohecker
for Social Foundations 3 (NYU)
Background
While modern socialists are generally in consensus that Marx’s Communist Manifesto was an unfinished work, there is much deliberation about which of his successors’ theories to follow. Since the time that the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, many great thinkers have tried to add to Marx and Engels’ framework or improve upon it. The library of socialist theory has grown and splintered through the expansions, revisions, and additions supplied by individuals like Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Franz Fanon, Che Guevara and other more contemporary thinkers like Angela Davis, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Huey Newton and Malcolm X. As socialist theory spread through the likes of globalization and was disseminated, its influence in politics was undeniable, especially in the attempts to stabilize political volatility due to the wealth inequality in Latin America.
The struggles of the working-class proletariat against the Cuban bourgeoisie, whom aligned themselves with United States officials, exemplify the causes of the unique strain of Latin Socialism, which has become influential in Pop Culture and Latin American politics today. Latin Socialism can be defined as a syncretic blend between Marxist theory, Raul Prebisch’s Dependency Theory, and guerrilla warfare as observed from the Vietnam War and other military theorists. Latin America’s brand of socialism has also evolved into many different strands, one of the most prominent being Cuban Socialism. While Marx’s legacy in Cuba is definitively present, the goals and actions by Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Fidel Castro demonstrate two common Latin interpretations of Marx’s legacy.
La Revolución Cubana
Throughout history Latin America is a region that could be characterized by inequality and volatility. This historical inequality, in part, due to the history of colonization and institutionalized slavery, has led to the persistence of institutions that disenfranchise many. The wealth inequality that has characterized the region has given rise to many groups with the hopes of a people’s revolution; although, few have found any success in their attempts. With the dissemination of socialist theory to Latin America, the educated individuals were provided with tools to supplement the revolutionary spirit and create impactful, lasting change. In the particular case of Cuba, a unique blend of struggles culminated to bring about a revolutionary movement, later to be referred to as ‘El Movimiento 26 de Julio’ or the 26th of July Movement. Led by a young Fidel Castro against the Batista Regime, the revolutionaries believed that the Batista Regime had become corrupt, tyrannical, and “Unconstitutional,” (“La Historia Me Absolverá”). And, by means of capitalism, the Regime had chosen to drive a profit margin, at the benefit of the United States’ government, as opposed to worrying for the benefit of the Cuban people. While his initial attempt to overthrow the regime was unsuccessful, Castro was exiled rather than executed and fled to Mexico with his brother Raúl, where he then recruited more people to join his revolutionary movement. During their time in Mexico, the Castro brothers met Che Guevara, the Argentine doctor who would forever be remembered as the father of a revolutionary movement (Castro, Fidel, and Ignacio, Ramonet). Within the Cuban revolution, Fidel and Che were the principal figures leading their guerrilla paramilitary groups. Castro, a lawyer and skilled orator, combined with Guevara’s technical expertise as a doctor, Marxist and strategist, began formulating a plan to take Cuba, beginning from the Sierra Maestra’s all the way to Havana.
Throughout the successive period of guerrilla warfare in Cuba from 1953-1959, Castro often deferred to the advice of Che in how to successfully unite the various anti-Batista groups fighting in Cuba. Furthermore, due to Castro’s lack of military expertise and Guevara’s interest in the fighting styles used by Vietnamese Guerrillas, Che assumed the role of strategist, while Castro maintained the position of organizational leadership.
Ironically, the 26th de Julio movement was organized very vertically. Though, Castro referred to Che as his partner in strategy and gave him many high stations, Che was always understood to be under Castro. Due to Che’s dedication to the revolution, he capitulated to Castro’s will and accepted the lower status in the name of the revolution (Raffy, Serge). For this reason, it is now widely agreed upon that Che was the true socialist due to his public policy preferences and actions ensuring the successful coup d’Etat against Batista. Despite Castro’s actions that pointedly characterize Cuba as a dictatorship in the latter portion of his rule, during its initial beginnings as a socialist state, Castro introduced extreme reform by nationalizing all international industries in Cuba. He redistributed wealth that had been accrued by Batista’s officials through embezzlement and other means, introduced a progressive tax and a ration system, and lifted exile from Batista’s various enemies. In addition, Castro introduced a program that put inactive land to use, increased Cuban literacy with a universal public education plan, and lowered the prices of medicine before later making health care universal. However, in the latter portion of his career Castro was more concerned with modest, progressive reform, but also the ability to change his station in Cuban society and gain more power for himself and his associates. This would characterize Castro as more of a pragmatic politician than a revolutionary.
Antebellum Cuba
Following the Cuban Revolution Che did not stay in Cuba and hold a position of power long enough to see his ideal revolution come to fruition; though, many believe that he had held truly revolutionary ideals as evidenced by his attempts to spread socialism to other countries. What was truly revolutionary about Che’s particular brand of socialism, which would later be codified in his book on Foco theory, was that he felt that the communal lifestyle prescribed by communism and socialism should be brought about by a revolution guided by love. Stating that: “Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad” 1 (Guevara, Che). Che’s goal was to not only put in place socialist policy, but create a revolution of the man, in which, el hombre nuevo, was more communally oriented. While Che’s policy initiatives were more focused on social reforms like universal education, a nation-wide literacy program, lowering the cost of medicine to approach making health care universal, and agrarian reform, Castro was more focused on the formation of economic reforms, like a progressive tax system, the nationalization of industries, and the imposition of Marshall Court.
A. Land Redistribution
While Guevara tends to receive credit for Cuba’s policy of land redistribution, Castro also had intentions of redistributing land, albeit, in a different manner. Guevara’s land redistribution system was much like the ejido system put in place following the Mexican Revolution (Berger, Mark T.). The system redistributed unused land and other properties to peasants and was communally owned and developed. Castro’s concept of land redistribution was to give the land to the individuals that worked it themselves, rather than people that did not know the territory. Additionally, Castro’s conception of industry nationalization is more rooted in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis that would later be known as Dependency Theory. The theory would be introduced to the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) by Executive Director Raúl Prebisch in 1950. It would result in policy recommendations that shaped the economic success (or lack thereof) in Latin America. It would prompt many states, like Cuba, to nationalize foreign industries and direct investments to make the transition from an export-based economy to an Import Substitution Industrialization model (Prebisch, Raúl). This model attempts to compensate for economic crises by expropriating any multinational industries and converting Latin America’s typically resource extraction markets to industrial manufacturing economies. As stated in his beginnings as a revolutionary, Castro argues against Cuba’s extractive export-economy, stating, “Everyone agrees with the urgent need to industrialize the nation,” so that Cuba is no longer dependent on Western nations (“La Historia Me Absolverá”). Through these industrializations Castro hoped to make a more efficient use of the land available to him. The dissemination of this economic theory thus shaped Castro’s policy implementations and decision to nationalize the sugar industry, the mining industry, the natural gas industry, and various other multinational corporations in an attempt to make Cuba economically independent.
B. Executions
Once the Cuban revolution was staged, Castro promised the Cuban people free and fair elections, however, these never took place. Cuba would stay under the leadership of Fidel Castro until his death in 2016, after which, leadership was placed in the hands of his younger brother, Raúl. This lack of elections alone was enough to class Cuba out of a socialist state and into the category of a non-democracy; this distinction and resulting classification was further cemented by the transfer of power to his brother. Moreover, there were other events during Castro’s rule that would strengthen this classing, most notably, Castro’s centralization of power in himself and the vertical organization of his administration. What’s more, during the early days following the Cuban revolution, Castro abolished the court system and instated Marshall court to hold military officials and other individuals that held positions of power in the Batista Regime accountable. A majority of these individuals were sentenced to death and executed by firing squad for being political dissidents or former members of the Batista Regime. The most conservative estimates suggest that by virtue of exile, attempts to flee, prison conditions, and executions, Castro is responsible for 30,000 deaths (Rummel, R.J.). The gross human rights violations that took place under Castro’s leadership would then further entrench the non-democratic classification and result in Castro being seen as a dictator in the eyes of the international community.
Even prior to the success of the revolution, Castro held the Machiavellian belief that the ends justifies the means, even if the means were a loss of life, contrary to the communal nature of socialism. Castro’s Machiavellian complex can be seen in his famous, four-hour speech defending his initial failed revolution, History Will Absolve Me. Like the name suggests, Castro demonstrates his dedication in stating that he seeks the path where he feels his ‘Duty lies’ and, despite the bloodshed, famously said, “Condenadme, no importa, La historia me absolverá” 2 (“La Historia Me Absolverá”).
While it is a common misconception held that Che Guevara was the deciding factor in the execution of many individuals, due to his post as Commander of the fortress of La Cabaña y Santa Clara, Guevara’s role in the verdict of these men is highly debated. However, upon synthesizing various accounts it becomes clear that Guevara was actually more often responsible for their pardon or exile from Cuba to preserve their life in the preliminary days of the revolution. According to Cuban records, of the estimated 600 deaths by execution, roughly 55 are directly attributed to Che Guevara. As Guevara hardened towards Batista’s men his stance took a staunch change, stating that, “Los fusilamientos son, no tan sólo una necesidad del pueblo de Cuba, sino también una imposición de este pueblo” 3 (Anderson, 375). Guevara’s thought here is contrary to his initial philosophy- rather than allowing a trial by fire of socialism, he now felt the need to protect his movement from criticism. This line would lead to Che gaining the nickname, ‘The Butcher of La Cabaña.’
Influences
While the social policies shaped and implemented by the two leaders are noteworthy, to understand the divergence of interpretations and the various legacies of Marx in Cuba, one must understand the ideologies shaping the policy. While both revolutionaries were self-proclaimed socialists, Che Guevara was a classical Marxist and went so far as to denounce the modifications to socialist literature made by Trotsky, Khrushchev, and others whom he viewed as “Revisionists, not revolutionaries,” due to their attempts to distance themselves from Stalin and his legacy post-WWII (Zeitlin, Maurice). Guevara preferred to pursue the Marxist legacy through individuals he felt were purists, expanding on Marx’s framework rather than those who attempted to change it. Thus, Guevara’s praxis draws more heavily upon the works of Stalin, Lenin, and Engles. Meanwhile, Castro was influenced by authoritarian-socialism, declaring himself publicly to be a Marxist-Leninist (Zeitlin, Maurice). Despite the apparent differences between revisionist and revolutionary Marxism, Castro chose to support Khrushchev following the deaths of Stalin and Lenin in an attempt to garner solidarity and support for the Cuban cause during the Cold War (Mark, Michelle, See Figure 1). Castro’s support for revisionists confused many, but some believe that in a similar fashion to his strategy with the Cuban Revolution, he was attempting to establish a pan-socialist movement that would bridge across borders and sect differences. When Che Guevara heard of Castro’s support for Khrushchev, he was publicly outraged and questioned his decision, resulting in his subsequent removal from the Communist Party’s Central Committee at the hands of Castro (Raffy, Serge).
Figure 1
El Hombre ‘Nuevo’
Che tends to be regarded as the true revolutionary, and his impact in Cuba can be more definitively viewed in his influence of Castro’s public policy initiatives. Guevara did spend a brief period of time holding several high offices in the Cuban government, such as: National representative to the UN, Minister of Defense, and also, President of the National Bank. However, 5 years after the revolution, Che left Cuba to begin work elsewhere. As a result of this, Che did not leave his mark in the conventional manner that Castro did. Rather than staying and attempting to continue state-building in Cuba, Guevara began planning to insurrect revolutions in other parts of the world. Due to their friendship, Castro would contribute financial support, arms, and soldiers to his cause; though, these would not go on to be as successful as the revolution in Cuba. Che’s purist approach to Marxism led him to hold the belief that the revolution would never fully be achieved until it was international. Che would go to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Bolivia in an attempt to keep spreading the revolutionary spirit and classical Marxist thought (Attanasio, Angelo). All the while, he was creating and refining his Foco Theory.
Foco Theory
Che Guevara was an adamant Marxist Revolutionary and in his main work, La Guerra de Guerillas, he attempted to expand upon the framework provided by the bread and butter socialists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. The focus of his work was on how to incite, fight, and create a successful socialist revolution, though, more focusing on the military strategy that was applicable. Guevara drew heavily from the techniques employed by guerrillas fighting in Vietnam and anti-colonial movements in Africa like the Riffians. Moreover, Guevara believed that guerrilla warfare was the truly revolutionary manner to fight, stating that:
“Por el camino de la polémica, suele criticarse a aquellos que quieren hacer la guerra de guerrillas, aduciendo que se olvidan de la lucha de masas, casi como si fueran métodos contrapuntos. Nosotros rechazamos el concepto que encierra esa posición; la guerra de guerrillas es una guerra del pueblo, es una lucha de masas. Pretender realizar este tipo de guerra sin el apoyo de la población, es el preludio de un desastre inevitable. La guerrilla es la vanguardia combativa del pueblo, situada en un lugar determinado de algún territorio dado, armada, dispuesta a desarrollar una serie de acciones bélicas tendientes al único fin estratégico posible: la toma de poder. Está apoyada por las masas campesinas y obreras de la zona y de todo el territorio de que se trate. Sin esas premisas no se puede admitir la guerra de guerrillas” 4 (Guevara, Che).
Che’s manual on guerrilla warfare had been so successful that even Western nations began creating and training similar paramilitary groups to supplement their armies. Though, his military strategy would not gain the name ‘Foco Theory’ until French intellectual Régis Debray coined the term in 1967 in his book Revolution in the Revolution.
Conclusions
While Marx’s legacy can be felt around the world and is still central to all socialist/communist praxis’, the dichotomy presented in Cuba demonstrates two mainstream interpretations of Marxist theories in Latin America. While Che Guevara’s praxis would continue the legacy of classical Marxism, Castro’s actions and words would mark him as both a revolutionary and revisionist at times (Zeitlin, Maurice). Nonetheless, when assessing Castro’s regime, it is now widely agreed upon that despite his declaration stating that he is a Marxist-Leninist, his actions classify him as an autocrat, if not a dictator. These individuals exemplify two perceptions of socialism in Latin America by demonstrating that, in the minds of many, the word socialist has become a pejorative used to describe radical politics due to its incorrect usage by Castro. In the face of Castro’s legacy, Guevara’s interpretation and addition through his Foco theory has inspired initiatives in various other socialist parties internationally, like the Italian Red Brigades, the German Red Army Faction, and the Saavedristas in Bolivia. Guevara’s contributions allow Marx’s legacy to be viewed as the foundation for communal living, progressive politics, and bottom-up social initiatives that would inspire later socialists like Chile’s Salvador Allende (Muir, Richard, and Alan Angell).
Footnotes
1 “Let me say, at risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by an immense feeling of love, It is impossible to think of an authentic revolutionary without this quality.”
2 “Condemn me, it doesn’t matter, history will absolve me.”
3 “The executions are, not only a necessity, but a mandate of the will of the Cuban people.”
4 In the course of polemics, it is typical for those that practice guerilla warfare to be criticized for forgetting the struggles of the masses, as if guerilla warfare and mass struggles are counterpoints to each other. We reject the insinuation of this concept: guerilla warfare is the war of the people, it in and of itself is a struggle of the masses. To try and implement this type of war without the help of the population, is the introduction to an inevitable disaster. The guerilla fighter is the vanguard fighter for the people, situated in a specific place, armed and disposed to develop a series of bellicose actions for the goal of one possible strategic end: the seizure of power. The have the support of the peasant masses and workers in the territories where they operate. Without these premises’ guerilla warfare is not possible.
Works Cited
Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. Bantam, 2010.
Attanasio, Angelo. “Los 10 Viajes Que Convirtieron a Ernesto Guevara En El Che - BBC
Mundo.” BBC News, BBC, 9 Oct. 2017, www.bbc.com/mundo/resources/idt-sh/che_guevara_viajes_mundo.
Berger, Mark T. “Romancing the Zapatistas: International Intellectuals and the Chiapas
Rebellion.” Latin American Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 2, 2 Mar. 2001, pp. 149–170.,
doi:10.1177/0094582x0102800208.
Castro, Fidel, and Ignacio Ramonet. Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography. Scribner,
2009.
Couch, Chris, and Ernesto Che Guevara. “Che Guevara in USA.” Che Guevara in New York,
ABC, New York, New York, 16 Dec. 1964.
Guevara, Che. Guerrilla Warfare. Ocean, 2006.
Guevara, Che. The Secret Papers of a Revolutionary: the Diary of Che Guevara. American
Reprint Co., 1975.
Guevara, Ernesto Che. “Socialism and Man in Cuba.” Received by Carlos Quijano, 12 Mar.
1965, Montevido, Uruguay.
“La Historia Me Absolverá.” 1953.
“The Legacy of Ernesto Che Guevara.” Performance by Jon Lee Anderson, PBS NewsHour,
Public Broadcasting Service, 20 Nov. 1997, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/latin_america-july-dec97-guevara_11-20.
Mark, Michelle. “Fidel Castro Once Asked the Leader of the Soviet Union to Annihilate the US
with Nuclear Weapons.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 26 Nov. 2016,
www.businessinsider.com/fidel-castro-nikita-khrushchev-letter-death-2016-11.
Muir, Richard, and Alan Angell. “Commentary: Salvador Allende: His Role in Chilean
Politics.” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 34, no. 4, 2005, pp. 737–739.,
doi:10.1093/ije/dyh175.
Prebisch, Raul. “Raul Prebisch on Latin American Development.” Population and Development
Review, vol. 7, no. 3, 1981, p. 563., doi:10.2307/1972587.
Raffy, Serge. “Che Guevara and Fidel Castro: Revolutionary Friends.” GCC News | Al Jazeera,
Al Jazeera, 7 Aug. 2017, www.aljazeera.com/programmes/face-to-face/2017/07/che-guevara-fidel-castro-revolutionary-friends-170711115942430.html.
Rummel, R. J. “Communist Democide.” University of Hawaii, 1987,
www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF.
Zeitlin, Maurice. “The New Man.” Root and Branch, 14 Sept. 1962, pp. 216–226.