Hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways.  The point however is to change it.  Karl Marx
Economic & Philosophic Science Review 
Subscriptions (£10/3 months £30 p.a.)   [P&P Bulletin Publications PO B0X 50, London SW 17 9NL] [Post Office Regd.]               
No 0859 June 25th 1996                                                                                                                                          10p

Colonialism still delays conceding Ireland's full self-determination despite guerrilla war's unstoppable onslaught, vainly hoping for a reprieve. Public opinion should demand: Dismantle the infamous Partition; Get out of Ireland now.

The great speculation raging widespread about what will or should happen next in the Ireland question confirms how complex and confusing but vital are these national issues.

Even British imperialism's chief counter-revolutionary officer in the Occupied Zone, RUC boss Annesley, confesses that he has not a clue what is going on:

Sir Hugh said that a very serious debate was being conducted in republican ranks over whether the future was to be war or politics.

"It's extremely difficult to read. I simply do not know what they will do tomorrow They might call a ceasefire tomorrow,  in a week, in a month or two years. Part of that is because they are unsure themselves."

Delivering his final annual report before retiring this autumn, Sir Hugh demonstrated that he remains confident that the Irish conflict is firmly into the endgame.

In the short-term however, he predicted more bombs but noted that even this could not be certain. It was the most difficult period the intelligence services had ever had to interpret.

On the plus side, he believed that significant sections of the IRA's army council now favoured peace. And he ruled out internment as "a short-term palliative but a long-term disaster".

"The current situation is worrying and unsettled.

"The difficulty is it seems to move from day to day. There are people in Sinn Féin who devote themselves solely to politics but the control of the movement at the top is clearly linked. There are members of provisional Sinn Féin on the army council and there are members of the army council on the political talks level of Sinn Féin."

Sir Hugh said he did not believe Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness could deliver a ceasefire. "You would need another two or three to come along with them. That can change, because people talk about the seven-member army council but other people can be co-opted, so it isn't often a straight vote.

"I think they play the situation as it's going and they're not sure which way to go."

He rejected rumours of a split within the IRA or between Sinn Féin and the IRA. "'I don't think the IRA's going to split and I think they would go to enormous lengths to ensure that it did not split. I have no doubt significant sections of the army council want peace.

"I think the difficulty is that some have been associated with violence for so long they don't trust the British, they don't trust the Unionists and now they're at loggerheads with the Americans.

"I do not see a split in those terms [Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness leaving the IRA behind] and you could potentially see more violence rather than have a split."

Reinterpreted, Annesley's remarks might be quite revealing.

As the tortuous events since the IRA's ceasefire 21 months ago have clearly demonstrated (and events long before that too), the really serious debate and uncertainty is all in the camp of imperialist reaction and petty bourgeois opportunism around the doomed colony of 'Northern Ireland'.

The national-liberation struggle's position could not be clearer from the start: to wage guerrilla war against the colony's status and against the British police-military dictatorship which established it at bayonet point in 1921 and which has held the colony together in emergencies ever since; and to campaign politically worldwide to expose the intolerable and incurable outrage that is Partition, and expose the deliberate criminal neglect by British domination which allows this impossible contradiction to continue without ever taking a serious positive initiative to end this colonial nonsense once and for all.

Sinn Féin and the IRA have plainly been adamantly for peace from the outset, - for the only possible peace there could be for the Occupied Zone of Ireland, namely a completely new settlement of the ongoing colonial problem in the direction of eventual reunification and complete self-determination for Ireland.

It is the British imperialist side which has the real difficulty about whether to continue with the war or politics, - as Annesley himself indicates when ruling out internment as "a short-term palliative but a long term disaster". That shows where the real internal conflict lies, - and how explosively deep and divisive it is. The chief officer of the counter-revolutionary armed forces says don't even think about any attempted new clampdown on the national-liberation struggle. Obviously other British imperialist voices, political mostly but maybe police-military ones too of a different persuasion, are agitating for precisely the opposite course, - renewed attempts at total armed repression of the national-liberation movement.

And how deep and bitter those disagreements must be, and clearly not just about internment, for which only a tiny minority voice has been raised hitherto. 

Undoubtedly the old and discarded 'tougher repression' notions have only surfaced again because the main block of bourgeois imperialist opinion, -- while so far against going back to all-out clamping down (which was a disastrous failure), - is nevertheless completely split and paralysed about exactly what to do next.

Nor are these doubts even about just the general question of whether or not to adopt a harsher tone towards Sinn Féin or a more conciliatory one, - in the light of the most recent jolts to the peace process. As Annesley himself again hints he remains confident "that the Irish conflict is firmly into the end game". Alongside all the other things he said as well, about the fear of more mainland bombing, etc, -  he is likely to have in mind his own certainty that it is imperialism which has decided to call it a day in this unwinnable war, meaning that in the long run, reunification will be conceded. So the doubts splitting the bourgeois-imperialist camp must be not about a really harsher line towards Sinn Féin but, about how to try to manipulate the propaganda war next, which is desperate to conceal the fact that any concessions at all are being made to the IRA and Sinn Féin in the peace process.

So who is "worried and unsettled" and why? There can be no doubt that it is the imperialist camp, and Annesley immediately spelled out why in the very next sentence: "There is a possibility of further bombs".

All the nagging uncertainty of the situation was superficially at the Republican door, not knowing whether to call a new ceasefire or not, and when, - according to Annesley, formally.

But the boot is on the other foot in reality.

It is monopoly-capitalism and British imperialist prestige which has just had half a billion pounds of damage done to its major commercial centre in the North West of England. And Annesley's own language gives the clue as to where the real worries are about the huge cost of many more wrong judgements, - "the most difficult period the intelligence services had ever had to interpret".

Back channel negotiations only ever began with IRA/Sinn Féin (in secret) in the first place because of the unsustainable cost to ailing British imperialism of trying to maintain colonial security in the Occupied Zone, — unofficial talks which were speeded up when the cost to imperialism's crucial City of London financial industries from the devastating bombing there had started to become economically and politically intolerable, with important international institutions threatening to pull out of London (and Britain) completely if better security could not be guaranteed. It is a neat sly trick for the London Establishment to have so protected their own golden Square Mile now that the guerrilla war is obliged to choose easier provincial targets, but the cost of such devastation is still borne by British imperialism overall and its institutions. And the half a billion pounds damage in Manchester is a sickening body blow to British imperialism.

No wonder Annesley admits that the ruling class is "worried and unsettled".

It is this huge cost if London gets it wrong in the subtle propaganda war being fought against Sinn Féin and the IRA that is making this "the most difficult period the intelligence services had ever had to interpret".

And it is on this battle for prestige, and on all the bluffs and double-bluffs being called, that all speculation is at its most tense. Some observers of the Irish national struggle wonder if the IRA/Sinn Féin has not tried to drive too hard a bargain, forcing London towards impossible humiliation but with no great benefit to the national-liberation agreement which has already been roughly worked out by all parties, including Washington the key player, in all the preliminary secret negotiations. This view interprets the Manchester bombing as looking like trying to force British imperialism to publicly eat humble pie (over having tried to insist on a prior IRA ceasefire before Sinn Féin could be allowed into the formal public negotiating chamber), and to force an SF welcome anyway, without any IRA ceasefire. And this is thought to be an unnecessary blow too far.

Anti-imperialist speculation stresses the opposite consideration, - namely that still nothing remains guaranteed about the British ruling class conceding a completely new self-determination deal for Ireland, basically involving the longterm dismantling of the hated and moribund colony outrageously and falsely entitled 'Northern Ireland' in its original Partition configuration with a built-in Orange-colonist dictatorship to rule unchallenged. And because it is not guaranteed, and because the British ruling class tried to impose such provocative propaganda humiliations on the national-liberation movement during the sterile 18 months of the first IRA ceasefire, - then the national-liberation struggle is only acting with enormous maturity, firmness, wisdom, and far-sightedness to insist now on no more pre-conditions or face-saving games from London, trying to pretend its uninvolvement in the conflict, - but frank peace talks instead between the major warring parties, - the IRA and Sinn Féin on one side, and the defeated British imperialists and their Orange colonist stooges on the other, - with the interests of Washington, Dublin, and the 'constitutional' nationalists as essential background involvement to sort out the messy business of the actual complex settlement.

There could be much more to this than just a gratuitous rubbing of British ruling-class noses in the dirt. It will be a complex settlement. It would be as well that the final resolution of all the historic problems of the Irish national question should be demonstratively seen to have been settled by the national-liberation movement's prominent public involvement in the talks, without any pre-conditions, - as be evident from the small print of the final agreement.

To that extent, all the reactionary propaganda disinformation, speculating about an IRA/Sinn Féin split, might serve a useful purpose. What would happen if the national-liberation movement did become split over the extent to which historic national aspirations had been satisfied by the proposed new agreement, and how might last-ditch reaction try to capitalise on such a split if it were to occur?

National-liberation movement tactics in Ireland are not the proletarian revolution's business anyway in a manner of speaking, especially in a foreign country. If IRA/Sinn Féin say they insist on it becoming clear that full peace negotiations are to be opened with the national-liberation struggle with no preconditions whatsoever, then it is the clear duty of revolutionaries everywhere to declare full unconditional support for the right of Irish self-determination to fight for its independence in any way it chooses. It might be added that in the light of the extremely complex and touchy delicacy of the Irish national question in particular, it would be as well to leave no stone unturned to ensure that the next settlement should create no great impression of historical business still unresolved, for fear of sparking off yet more splits in the Irish national movement so bitterly divided in previous generations, and open up yet another period of the troubles.

Very little more is in fact required of London, - having already given way on all the major issues such as no prior decommissioning, a neutral chairman, decommissioning to be left for the end of the negotiations, prior British relaxation on treatment of prisoners, etc, etc. Imperialism only needs to curb the arrogance of its own self-deluding propaganda and start listening to the public-opinion voices which have been saying that the Manchester disaster was unnecessary from a British monopoly capitalist point of view. If a deal is to be done, then do it, - without provoking the national-liberation struggle into having to demonstrate any more its determination not to be discriminated against, or unnecessarily be disregarded in any way, - especially not for just such trivial considerations of rescuing a bit more lost face for the clapped-out and humiliated British colonial ruling class to be able to pretend that it has "not given in to crude terrorist threats" or allowed the "democratic process to be hi-jacked by criminal gunmen and bombers", etc, etc, etc.

It was a curious admission for Annesley to make that one of the national-liberation movement's difficulties was that "they don't trust the British, they don't trust the Unionists, and now they're at loggerheads with the Americans," - a whole rogue's gallery of imperialist and colonialist treachery without any obvious suggestion from Annesley that it would be unusual for Sinn Féin and the IRA not to trust them. The message is clear. The next move for the further building of trust and confidence for getting a complete new settlement for Ireland must rest with the imperialist ringmasters of all economic and political developments in the 'free' world.

And when Annesley adds that "you could potentially see more violence rather than have a split" between Sinn Féin and the IRA, all genuine anti-imperialists on earth would find it difficult to avoid concluding that such an outcome would therefore be for the best. The Irish national-liberation movement has been one of the most significant anti-imperialist struggles of the modern era, and of particular importance for the fate of the working class in Britain and the fight for revolutionary socialist theory. More power to Sinn Féin's anti-imperialist elbow. Manchester was a British imperialist mistake, not a national-liberation movement mistake.

Attempts to read internal factional significance into remarks by Gerry Adams do not bear much fruit:

two questions: has Mr Adams sought a ceasefire from the IRA and does he continue to support the IRA's "armed struggle"?

Confronted on Irish radio yesterday by those questions, Mr Adams said Sinn Féin wanted to "see an end to the armed struggle". He continued: "We're not involved in it and we do not advocate it."

Mr Adams said Sinn Féin understood how in certain conditions armed actions were seen as legitimate: "That has been the international experience." But he added: "I want to see an end to armed struggle. That is the clear, concise, non-complicated answer to the question.

"The reality of the situation is that there was no armed struggle for a year and a half. The reality of the situation is that those of us who were trying to move the process forward were slapped in the face by the British government."

Turning to the recent IRA murder of an Irish policeman and the Manchester bomb, he said: "I wish there had not been the killing of Garda McCabe in Adare. I believe that it should not have happened and the news that individual IRA volunteers were involved makes it even worse from my perspective.

‘I wish that the bomb had not happened in Manchester.  I wish that there weren't British soldiers on the streets of the Six Counties. I wish there wasn't discrimination. I wish there hadn't been Unionist domination. I wish that our island wasn't partitioned.

"But the reality is that we deal with the objective situation and the conditions which exist in making peace. And making peace is very difficult."

These are nothing more than the exact polite fictions which were agreed between London and the national-liberation movement from the start for public consumption so that the necessary negotiations for a completely new deal for Ireland could go ahead without unnecessarily prematurely provoking the 'No Surrender' colonist community in the Occupied Zone into some kamikaze UDI (armed unilateral declaration of independence) as Smith carried out for 14 bloody years to try to prevent Britain's Rhodesia colony from becoming Zimbabwe, and which Paisley had threatened to the extent of 'relighting the Carson trail' with midnight armed rallies dressed in battle uniforms.

Much more significant are the steady flow of comments and articles by the misnamed 'Ulster Unionists' indicating that they know that the old colonial-dictatorship game of 'Northern Ireland' is up and that the hated Partition, one of the most monstrous injustices in history, must go:

For the first three-quarters of this century, Ulster unionism was a model of such ethnic mobilisation. Although there were always small groups on the fringes, a remarkable unity was constructed around the churches, the Orange Order, and the Unionist party. But, with the onset of the "Troubles" and the introduction of direct rule, the Ulster Unionist party lost its power and its sense of direction.

Forced to choose between going along with or opposing London's often erratic reforms, Ulster unionism fragmented. Brian Faulkner, the last Unionist prime minister of Northern Ireland, led the liberal wing into the 1974 power-sharing executive, and his opponents formed and reformed a bewildering kaleidoscope of alternative parties and paramilitary groupings.

How much of the Union you want to preserve and how badly you want to preserve it were the big issues in 1974. But there always was another question, which is now becoming clearer: why do you want to preserve the Union?

UVF now attract admiration (and a small but not trivial vote) for their combination of civic unionism, a dose of socialism, and a relaxed attitude to many of the old taboos. They espouse power-sharing, the introduction of such constitutional safeguards as a Bill of Rights, and will tolerate low-level functional cross-border links. For this, they are accused of treachery by the No Surrender unionists.

So unionists differ in rationale, in intensity, and in how far they will go in appeasing northern nationalists.

There is much to argue about in just how far they should go in altering democratic traditions to give power to the Catholic minority, in how much they can do to safeguard individual civil rights, in how they might try to promote equal opportunity or create mutually advantageous relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. But in the end, unionists are unionists, committed to remaining part of the United Kingdom. If the present talks are to create a popularly endorsed replacement for government by quango and decree, they must recognise that bottom line.

Just as revealing in their own comical way were the idiotic proceedings on the first day of the 'Northern Ireland Forum' which mud-stirring British imperialism set up to run parallel with the all-party talks (and to which Sinn Féin scored a record 16% poll) as a sop to 'No Surrender' colonialism as an exhibition of the 'democratic majority process' which is alleged to be the decisive factor in all civilised existence (except when it suits imperialism to ignore polling results such as the 1918 general election in Ireland (unpartitioned) which gave Sinn Féin 80% of the vote and seats (in the island overall) on a platform of total independence for all of Ireland there and then, - completely ignored by London in favour of Partition imposed at bayonet-point), - and alleged to be something properly feared by the 'men of unprincipled criminal violence', Sinn Féin. Just listen to this 'democratic' farce as even admitted by the anti-national-liberation movement capitalist press:

War hero Mr Gorman, 73, is one of the Ulster Unionist Party's few Roman Catholic members. He was asked by Sir Patrick Mayhew, the Northern Ireland Secretary, to be interim chairman of the forum, intended to promote dialogue and understanding among the province's warring parties.

After four hours of procedural wrangling, Mr Gorman had alienated most of the 93 members present - Sinn Fein's 17 delegates stayed away because they believe it is a Unionist plot to return to the Stormont days, although it has no legislative powers.

At one stage SDLP leader John Hume walked out, at his wits' end over Mr Gorman's gentlemanly chairmanship.

His colleague Eddie McGrady was trying to make a point of order. Mr Gorman invited him simply to address him from the floor. When Mr McGrady pointed out that a point of order was the correct method, Mr Gorman replied: "No you don't Mr McGrady, I've been listening to you for 20 years."

At another stage Mr Gorman could not recognise one speaker. "You've got the light behind you, which is a great policeman's trick when interrogating a suspect," he said.

Mr Gorman won the Military Cross for knocking out a German tank in Normandy; yesterday, though, he kept standing on mines - and there was little sympathy from those present.

Pettiness and bloodymindedness may be the hallmarks of Ulster politics, but yesterday should have been relatively simple. The main business was to elect a chairman and select members for rules and business committees. But it soon descended into a replay of what took place at Stormont earlier this week, with Unionist in-fighting over which party was the most important.

Mr Gorman was piggy in the middle, unable to satisfy either side as points of order came thick and fast.

The exasperation from some of the other parties eventually boiled over. "It's make-your-mind-up time daddy," cried Hugh Smyth, a streetwise Shankill Road loyalist as Mr Gorman pondered whether to accept an Ulster Unionist proposal the Democratic Unionists said was illegal.

Mr Hume said impatiently: "Let's sign, set up the rules committee and get home." Afterwards he refused to comment on Mr Gorman's performance.

Others were less reticent. Ian Paisley, who had mercilessly hunted Mr Gorman throughout the afternoon, said: "The Ulster Unionists put him up as a puppet. Of course his appointment was just a little stunt - 'we want to have a Catholic who will be a nice man'."

The SDLP MP Joe Hendron called it a pantomime. And the Progressive Unionist Party's Billy Hutchinson said: "He has to go; he was meant to be an interim chairman for 45 minutes - 45 seconds was too long."

The forum meets again in a week, when Mr Gorman is likely to become the first casualty of the talks.

This reveals all the sick posturing of 'Unionism' in its twilight, the phoney colonial culture which wanted to pretend it was a legitimate British-Irish nationality, based on the 'democratic will of the majority'. 

Historically, so-called 'Northern Ireland' was always a pestilential degenerate pantomime. It has ended up identifiably so in its last empty Forum performance, just waiting for closure. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Build Leninism. 

Douglas B.

Hier gehen wir, hier gehen wir, hier gehen wir (-eh?)

Distaste for the chauvinistic excesses of tabloid journalism's sport's pages against England's opponents in the European football championship competition (first Spain, then Germany) might more usefully complain against the childishness of some of the jokes than against their xenophobia.

What is the epoch of inter-imperialist conflict and trade war, to be inevitably followed by warmongering crisis, supposed to produce if not jingoism?

It is about as much use decrying the way that capitalism gives rise to these nationalistic explosions as it is to wish that the superannuated bourgeois farts who run the football industry might one day be able to organise a decent competition which is not nearly wrecked by the abysmal standards of refereeing which have been turning supposed contests of footballing talent into a completely unjust lottery of chance on some occasions. More worth having a go at is the way that capitalist football enforces excellence through financial competition but also introduces, simultaneously, the most commercial cynicism and calculating deceit in individual and team behaviour depending on the mercenary circumstances, mocking the sporting endeavour which is the basis of this whole artistic form. The chauvinism is much less complicated, and not at all surprising, - however sad.

The 'free world' imperialist economic system is all about big nation rivalry and nothing else.

The precise aim of the 'competitive markets' is to totally triumph over your main challengers, both at the monopoly-capitalist multinational firm level, and later, when the slump-crisis turns really nasty, at the level of collective state effort organised by governments, rivalling each other in such beggar-thy-neighbour strategies as competitive devaluations, import controls, surplus-product dumping, interest-rate contests, - in general in all-out trade war.

The first aim is to completely outstrip the opposition companies and countries. Later it might become necessary to take them over or wipe them out completely.

Nothing can stop this cut-throat process of the 'free market' system. It has routinely gone to economic crisis and inter-imperialist war, - at least since 1870, the first great modern struggle between France and Germany, - and cannot avoid doing so again.

In taking entire nations to war, capitalism cannot help but take these countries' entire cultures to war as well, little by little, in one sphere after another, with ever increasing bluntness and steadily sharpening venom.

They have been at it over the beef war in Europe for months before this football frenzy took over. For much longer, the European states were slagging each other off over countless other trade and currency disputes usually to do with the European Union's (EEC-Common Market) federal influences being denounced as being unfair to one country or another, or a group of countries.

General advertising has increasingly turned to snidily running down the competition over the past few years where previously no such sledging was heard or dreamed of. The tone of this advertising war will grow steadily more nasty, it is guaranteed.

With the deliberately engineered festival of nationalistic rivalry that is a modern-international sporting competition, there was no way that the 1996 European football championship was not going to turn into an orgy of flag-waving chauvinism, with xenophobic abuse of the opposition absolutely routine for football crowds nowadays ("You're shit, and you know you are" being a favourite song with fans at nearly every ground in the country). It is not new at international matches either, and it was bound to become an unpleasant feature of Euro '96.

The tabloids are simply playing up to what a lot of fans want to participate in, - winding up the opposition, trying to put their teams off, and silence their supporters.

Some tabloid hacks manage to do it quite humorously. Some are cruder and less witty.

Tabloid jingoism does not create race hatred. It is the capitalist system itself which does that, - inexorably. The sports hacks are not going to breed bad relations with Germany. The inter-imperialist trade-war competition and the Common Market rivalry have already laid the indestructible foundations for that over the past 40 years or more, and in reality have never stopped continuously laying such foundations ever since capitalist trade competition began hundreds of years ago.

So how should communist football fans respond to this obscene nationalism around Euro '96? It possibly depends on how much cultural enjoyment football represents, and whether or not identification with either team plays a big part in that entertainment.

For the normal type of football fan, Wednesday night's game against Germany is obviously a monster fixture, a total armageddon of sporting conflict, nerve-wracking drama, potentially heart-attack-inducing refereeing incompetence, possibly seizure-level frustration at the home team's managerial or technical incompetence, - and a volcanic eruption of theatrical indefensible partisanship for one team, inevitably expressed in the most outrageous chauvinistic terms and jingoistic abuse, - utterly irresistible.

Meanwhile, bourgeois relations between Britain and Germany will continue their steady path towards total deterioration under the influence of the uncontrollable worsening of the world inter-imperialist economic crisis, - completely regardless of heat-of-the-moment insults traded around the football rivalry or its deliberate leg-pulling banter and ridicule trying to unsettle the opposition in the warm-up to the latest contest.

Truly communist relations with German workers will not be remotely affected. Marxist-Leninist scientific reason is the only workable philosophy for mankind ultimately, and therefore its only worthwhile and reliable nationality, so to speak, in the end, - rational internationalism, with all individual personality and idiosyncrasies of different cultures contributing by definition to the common good based on the principles that the only real freedom is the recognition of necessity, and that the flourishing of each member of society is the condition for the flourishing of all of society. Now, about that penalty, ref. Reg Potts

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles) 

International Youth Festival speech by President Fidel Castro
The famous Helms-Burton bill is so brutal that it threatens to deprive the people of everything they have

When I say we have to resist, examples of what has happened in some other countries always come to mind, and I am going to recall one, making an exception; what happened in Guatemala in 1954, already 41 years ago.

Guatemala had a revolutionary political movement, which represented a hope for Latin America and Central America; the Guatemalan people had hope through an agrarian reform law and certain social measures, and a mercenary expedition like that of the Bay of Pigs was immediately organized in the United States.

The country was invaded, the Guatemalan revolutionaries had no chance to defend themselves and to crush that invasion. A representative government was established, organized and created by the CIA and the U.S. government. During these 41 years, in that country of less than ten million inhabitants — there may be that number now, the population must have doubled in 41 years - an incredible total of over 100,000 persons have disappeared. That was the result of the mercenary victory.

What would have happened to Cuba if the Bay of Pigs invasion had been successful in 1961? What would have become of this country if we'd had to endure a victorious counter-revolution? The history of the Paris Commune would be tame in comparison. All Cubans know what ceasing to fight, ceasing to resist would signify, and we know perfectly well what it would mean.

According to the Helms-Burton Bill, as Clinton himself has said, compensation payable by Cuba on former US properties would amount to more than five or six billion dollars.  

It does not take into account the tens of billions of dollars they owe us in compensation due to the blockade.

According to Clinton's calculations, this bill demands payments of 100 billion, taking into account properties belonging to Cubans who subsequently became U.S. citizens, and according to the bill, the blockade will continue until the 100 billion dollars are paid.
          
Helms-Burton bill, yet another on the list, aggressive, repugnant, is so brutal that it virtually threatens our country - as Alarcón [president of the National Assembly] has explained on various occasions - with depriving the people of everything they have. They will be left with virtually no schools, no day-care centers, no special education centers, no hospitals and no family doctors. When they come to apply the measure they have demanded of other countries, it is possible that 100 percent of family doctors will be jobless, because how and for what will they be paid?

Practically all the agricultural workers of this country would lose their lands, except some who already owned land, since the overwhelming majority own land because the Revolution gave it to them. All the UBPCs [Basic Units of Comparative Production], all the cooperative workers would lose everything they have.

In a country such as Cuba, where 85 percent of families own their homes, by virtue of the Revolution's laws and work, all those families would lose their ownership. 

The whole thing is so ludicrous that we were almost at the point of sending a telegram of thanks to Helms and Burton, saying, "Oh, by the way, thanks very much, just look how you are helping us.'

We are fully aware of what it would signify if this country were to fail once again into the hands of the United States, with or without the Helms-Burton bill. Reports of what happened in Indonesia would pale into insignificance, and in Guatemala, not worth thinking about.

However, the ultimate, the inconceivable, is to believe that Cubans would act like the slaves who were taken to the Roman circus and who shouted: "Long live Caesar!, we who are going to die salute you!" As if one Cuban here would be prepared to say: "Long live the emperor!" or "Long live the empire!", we who are going to die are going to bow down our heads so that you can wipe us out!"

They have to know that everyone here would take up arms and fight until the death, until a truly glorious death. What is ignominious is for someone to place their head on the chopping block for the United States to cut it off. (APPLAUSE) They realize that this cannot and will never happen, despite the idiotic things they say - so contemptuous! - they should have learned something from all the years of Cuban resistance and struggle, because we will never accept that fate.

You, our friends, can understand that we have solid and profound reasons for thinking as we do; but if it wasn't a question of defending the lives of the citizens of this country, if it was only about defending the ideas that the Revolution defends, it would be worthwhile to fight once and a thousand times to the death. (APPLAUSE)

Revolutionaries do not expect anything in return, which means that revolutionaries have to dedicate themselves totally to a cause, to their ideas, to their noble objectives, without expecting anything in return. I would say without in any way diminishing any other conviction, that this is really what makes a genuine revolutionary conviction, the noblest and deepest conviction which has ever existed. I'm referring to the revolutionary and communist conviction. •

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles) 

What would a genuine, Marxist-Leninist revolution have done under those circumstances?

I believe that those who are worried have reason to be, in the first place because it is a worrying issue. What effect will these market openings, these measures we are taking, have on the future of the Revolution? As a consequence of all this, are we going to be different in the future, are these measures going to corrupt us?

I have said that we are introducing elements of capitalism into our system, into our economy, this is a fact. We have also discussed the consequences we have observed from the employment of those mechanisms.

Don't forget that we are an island surrounded on all sides, even from above, by capitalism; let's say from outer space, which is full of satellites and goodness knows what else, over which we have absolutely no control. You can be sure that if a dog goes to the park to do its business, the U.S. satellites will be aware of the fact, will observe it and take photos of it. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

They have the world surrounded by satellites spying on everything; of course, this makes them the masters of the communication systems. If we talked over the telephone with some country and said things that shouldn't be said over the phone we would be big fools. There is no official telephone call from this country that isn't picked up by them; the same applies to conversations with political leaders or with important companies. They monitor everything, because the blockade is much more than a prohibition on buying and selling, you can't possibly imagine the extent of it. The blockade is a never ending persecution levied against any commercial activity the country attempts to engage in.

With the capitalists who visit us here - as I recently said some come with their corrupting habits, but many are serious capitalists. I mean that they don't try to bribe or cheat people; they argue, you have to argue a lot with them, because, logically, it is the law of capitalism, every business deal is tightly argued — you have to speak softly and whisper in their ears and say: ‘Listen, don't talk on the telephone to another country about this.

I don't know to how many people we've given this advice and they don't take any notice, they make a phone call, send a fax, etc., and a few days later the U.S. ambassador, or the consul or ah official is paying them a visit, usually it's the ambassador.

When they are aware of any negotiations we're having, don't think for one moment that it's easy. Pay no heed. It wouldn't be so easy for us to take the capitalist road because the Yankees would take it upon themselves to prevent us, they don't want that. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) When I say Yankee I am using the word in a pejorative sense, referring to those who wish us harm, never as a means of describing the U.S. people.(APPLAUSE)

They do not want us to do any business, nor invest in anything, nor have access to credits, nor to privatize anything, they don't want any of that - we are perfectly aware that all they want is our head and they've not even bothered to discuss the price, (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) but the blockade is very serious, it is an unending persecution which makes everything more expensive. We have to look for merchandise thousands of miles away; the ships cannot make stopovers in any U.S. port, so transportation is more expensive; short-term commercial credits are extremely expensive, everything difficult for Cuba. This is what the blockade means, really it is much more than it seems. And, of course, it is putting obstacles in the way of these measures which we are taking and which we have to take.

Special period came about as part of the country's defense plans for war situations: what to do if there was a total blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States and nothing could enter, how we could survive under those conditions? It is called special period in wartime; but the collapse of the socialist camp and the USSR obliged us to experience special period during peacetime, because, abruptly, almost overnight, all trade with the socialist bloc and with the Soviet Union disappeared.

From one day to the next we lost all our oil supplies, all our supplies of raw material, of foodstuffs, of spare parts for our factory machinery which came from the socialist bloc. This has happened to us twice in our history: when the U.S. blockade started nearly all our machinery and motor transport were of U.S. origin, and now the same thing is happening again, because what we have suffered is a double blockade. U.S. pressure on the former socialist countries was such, that it has resulted in trade being suspended almost 100 percent.

We had to cope with this overnight, by ourselves, without a single cent from any world banking institution such as the Inter-American Bank, the World Bank, or the IMF.  Absolutely no one! We had to manage with what we had.

As was said a short while ago: we lost 70 percent of the country's imports, and a country that had supplied electricity to over 90 percent of the population was suddenly left with 40 percent of its fuel requirements.

We lost all opportunity for obtaining capital for investments, technology, our markets, we lost all our markets. In fact, what would a genuine revolution have done under those circumstances? What should a Marxist-Leninist revolution have done? We have no fear of pronouncing this word. (APPLAUSE)

We could ask ourselves: what would Marx have said? It's almost certain that he would have said: 'Listen, don't take it upon yourselves to make a socialist revolution in a Third World country, wait until capitalism has been fully developed and then, when the forces of production and all the rest have been developed, the moment will come for making the socialist Revolution. This is perhaps what Marx would have said to us. Of course, we would have to see what he would have said if we'd asked him what to do, after we'd already made a socialist Revolution here, right on the doorstep of the United States. I believe he would have said: ‘Fine, I'm happy to have had such outstanding disciples over there in the Caribbean." (APPLAUSE)

You are are aware that the whole question of whether socialism in one country is possible or not has been amply discussed, or if it is possible once the revolution has broken out in the most industrialized countries; in relation to Germany, England, or in the European nations. This was discussed over many, many years, but Marxism didn't stop with Marx, and the doctrines of socialism moved on from Marx and Engels. Other great figures came along, great personalities in political and revolutionary thinking, there was Lenin, and it has to be said that Lenin and those who made the October Revolution all believed that the European revolution was a prerequisite for creating socialism. When the European revolution didn't take place, there came the moment when they took the decision that had to be made: 'Well, we can't surrender, we have to create socialism in one country.'

Construction of socialism was begun in the midst of a blockade, the enormous historic feat of building socialism in one country. But Lenin was already thinking of the revolution in China, and revolution in the colonized countries. Marxist thought gave him a tremendous impetus and enrichment. And indeed, a force was created which fulfilled an extraordinary role in the world, and served as a balance.

The capitalist world, terrified by socialist ideas, began to be concerned about social problems, about the situation of the workers, etc., concerns that never troubled them before. The services lent to the world by the existence of the socialist camp, and particularly the Soviet Union, are not known.

GIVEN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WE COULDN'T DO WITHOUT FOREIGN INVESTMENT ON A LARGER SCALE

But the fact is, as I told you, that we have lost a market, we lost our trade, we lost everything and, in all events, we had to find a solution.

I was speaking of this when I asked how Marx would have responded, and now I'm asking how Lenin would have responded, and I'm sure that Lenin would have said to us: "Do what you're doing, continue doing what you are doing." This is why I said on July 26 that a true Marxist-Leninist will do what we are doing.

They had to do it, they had to move towards a new economic policy, the famous NEP (New Economic Plan), during one historic period. But there is something more, at certain points Lenin also planted the idea of building capitalism under proletarian leadership. For your peace of mind, of course, I can tell you that we aren't thinking doing anything of the kind, (APPLAUSE) and it's not because we are in disagreement with Lenin, but because circumstances are different, since our process, which was able to rely on assistance from the socialist camp and from the USSR, has made great advances, it has very strong forces and does not have to raise the question in those terms.

I have already said, or tried to tell you before, that if we were a country with significant oil or similar resources, perhaps we wouldn't have gone for large-scale tourism development. From experience, we know all the consequences of large-scale tourism development; however, given the existing conditions in our country, we couldn't do without it, since given those conditions we couldn't do without foreign investment.

Although prior to the collapse of the socialist camp we were considering certain forms of foreign investment for joint enterprises in certain sectors where there was no other solution, we are well aware that over several years we fought against foreign investments, that over several years we felt proud of the fact that the people were the owners of all their resources, of all their industries and all the country's wealth. However, given the existing conditions we couldn't do without foreign investment to a larger scale because we needed capital, technology and markets. These are the determining factors, the opposite would be paralysis and stagnation for a very long time.

All this is costing us dear. I already told you that any loan we take out is very expensive and we have to discuss everything in very difficult conditions and in the face of very strong resistance from the United States; but we have to do it, there's no alternative.

Some of our friends have advised us to say no, that we are doing this because it's a very good thing. We have to be honest, we have gone down this road basically because it was the only alternative for saving the Revolution and saving the conquests of socialism. (APPLAUSE)

We had to establish joint ventures in a relatively short time period, we had to accept foreign investment, we had to do what we did in respect to the decriminalization of convertible currency, and you can be sure that doing the last pained us greatly, very greatly. We are aware of the inequalities that it created, the privileges it created, but we had to do it and we did it.

José Luis explained that today we are virtually operating in two currencies, that the day will come when we'll be operating in only one currency. There's no need to rush because this day will come, we have to proceed with calmness and patience until only Cuban currency is in operation. We already have the convertible peso.

And whatever the difficulties may be, the country will advance in an orderly fashion; and the people, whatever the sacrifices may be, understand that this was the correct road, that this was the revolutionary road; and, of course, without the blockade, there would have been a lot of investment in Cuba.
    
Look what has happened in China, look what has happened in Viet Nam, there's been a flood of investments. Here there's been a flood of interested peoples, but there has also been a tremendous barrier of opposition to investment in our country.

In fact, I believe that it is very important, crucially important, that we have done this, as always, with the consent of the people; it cannot be explained any other way. Everything that displeased us, also displeased the people, who are very sensitive, ultra-sensitive to any inequality, any privilege, since the Revolution educated them to think in this way; however, it also educated them in the idea that the nation has to be safeguarded, that the Revolution has to be safeguarded, that the gains of socialism have to be safeguarded, independence has to be preserved and our rights to a future have to be maintained. That is absolutely irrevocable, and it is really very encouraging for all of us to grasp the extent to which the people have shown their capacity to understand ail this. Only a people with a political culture like the one we have in our country today would have been capable of understanding that, and would have been capable of struggling and resisting.

Are we by any chance fooling someone? No, we're absolutely not fooling anyone. What we can state is that all the land in this country is in the hands of Cuban campesinos and agricultural workers. (APPLAUSE) What we can say is that every house, almost every factory, every hospital.... Not one hospital, not one single school has been privatized here, (APPLAUSE) and the country owns the overwhelming majority of its wealth. (APPLAUSE)

So, what were we to do? We had to choose; before a factory remained shut down, deteriorated completely, or was lost, if some capitalist entrepreneur appeared who was willing to become our business partner it would have been absurd not to have accepted, not to have gone ahead. When the socialist camp collapsed, thousands of factories were without fuel, without electricity, without raw materials, without spare parts. If the opportunity arises, even if only half of this factory stays in our hands - and frequently we retain the factory intact, when the association is commercial in character - we have to take it, it's logical to take it, it's the rational thing to do, and it's beneficial for the people to do so. (APPLAUSE)

We cannot let ourselves be guided by what pleases or displeases us, our criterion has to be what is useful or not useful to the nation and the people at this highly decisive juncture in our country's history.

If there are kilometers of beach that can be utilized and we lack the capital to build the hotels we need in those areas, if we can form some kind of joint venture or admit an investment, we'll do it.

The hotels existing in Cuba today are the property of Cuba, or of joint ventures, and there are not many of the latter. It's a fact that the work of our adversaries has influenced the number of joint venture hotels we have; however, in spite of everything, we have been able to build hotels in special period.

During special period, using our own resources, we have constructed important scientific research centers, another of the country's economic sectors, and every one of these scientific research centers are the property of the nation. (APPLAUSE) The country will preserve everything that can be preserved, (APPLAUSE) and we will negotiate anything that can be negotiated.

The entire banking system in the country is national property. (APPLAUSE) As I already said, practically everything is in the hands of the nation. But if we have to introduce a specific amount of capitalism, we'll introduce it; we are introducing it, with all its inconveniences.

I'm going to say one thing here: it could come to the point where we have an investment which is 100 percent capitalist. If some capitalist has all the necessary capital, has the market, has the technology we lack, there can even be cases of a company based on 100 percent foreign capital; in such a case we would be left with the work force and the taxes payable: we would have to resign ourselves to this.

The key, comrades and friends, the key to all this is power. Who holds power, the big landowners, the bourgeoisie, the wealthy? I mention the big landowners at this point because that's what we had before; there are no big landowners here now, the only landowners we have here are the cooperative workers and members of the Basic Units of Cooperative Production, etc., they are the only ones. Together with the tens of thousands of small independent farmers.

Who holds the power? Is the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, wielded by the bourgeoisie and for the bourgeoisie? (SHOUTS OF 'NO!') Is the power in the hands of the capitalists, wielded by the capitalists and for the capitalists? (SHOUTS OF 'NO!') The question of power is key.