More languages
More actions
Author Ernesto Che Guevara Spoken on January 22, 1964 On February 22, 1964, American journalist Lisa Howard from ABC interviewed Commander Ernesto Che Guevara in his office at the Ministry of Industries. Below is a transcription of 47 minutes of the footage from that interview. Of these, only 22 minutes were broadcast in English on March 22, 1964.
Since the triumph of the Revolution, the Cuban economy - according to all reports - has seriously deteriorated in all sectors: industrial production, vegetable cultivation, and last year's sugar harvest, which reached a low of three and a half million tons. How do you explain this economic regression?
The question is a statement, first of all. So the first thing to do is to refute the statement and then answer the question. The claim that all aspects of the Cuban economy have deteriorated during the course of the Revolution is false.
Industrial production has increased from 1959 to now. It could have increased much more if it were not so influenced by the sugar industry, which has indeed declined. Industrial production has increased at a rate of 7% annually excluding sugar, and the last two years (1963 and the projections for 1964) will show greater increases; 1963 was 10%, and for 1964 we calculate more, plus sugar will now increase.
In the agricultural sector, there have been some problems, but they are not total. Sugar, which is our fundamental crop (we still have characteristics of monoculture), has decreased significantly. This is due to a poor sugar policy on our part and the extraordinary drought of the past two years. However, in other aspects of agriculture, the situation has not been the same, and we have had some partial successes: cotton is now a fact in Cuba, and kenaf as well (crops previously unknown).
I believe that the analysis should focus on sugar. As you mentioned, sugar production was very weak. Not 3,500,000, but 3,800,000 tons, the lowest in many years. This year it will be higher, though we cannot yet say by how much, nor do we believe it will be a substantial increase because of the cyclone that has affected the harvest, but it will be higher, and from now on, sugar production will increasingly rise.
Industrial production in general, as I have already said, has been steadily increasing. This should be considered a much greater success, given the extraordinary blockade to which Cuba has been subjected...
How much does the economic embargo affect the Cuban economy?
One cannot provide (at least I cannot provide) an exact figure...
I cannot provide an exact figure on the impact of the blockade on Cuba. This is partly because the blockade has negative and positive aspects. Among the positive aspects is the development of national consciousness and the spirit of struggle of the people to overcome difficulties. But, if you consider that almost all Cuban machinery, some of it exclusive, was sent from the United States, and that Cuba was a receiver of all the old machinery from the U.S. that capitalists sent here to continue accumulating profits and that many products are now discontinued, you can get an idea of the extraordinary effort that has had to be made to overcome this.
The figures cannot be given; I do not know them. It has evidently meant a significant delay. However, it has also been a positive lesson and a teaching on how we must manage our economy in the future.
I think I have more or less answered your question.
Russia is injecting a large amount of money into the Cuban economy every day. What would happen to the island's economy if that aid suddenly ceased?
These statements about "daily amounts" correspond to American thinking, and the concept of investments might reflect the idea Americans have of what aid is. American aid from the United States is reversed back against the South American states... it is then reversed against those states themselves. In our case, what can be called aid has been the forgiveness of certain commercial debts and long-term loans of an entirely commercial nature. The rest is the natural trade between the two countries. Cuba has ceased to have the United States as its main import and export partner and is now with the Soviet Union.
If your question is about what would happen if Soviet aid ceased, referring to total exchange, I can tell you that it would paralyze the country's life because, for example, all the oil comes from the Soviet Union, almost 4 million tons. But that is not aid; it is commercial exchange in terms of absolute equality, and we pay for it with our sugar and other products.
Aid has been necessary these years of poor harvests with a surplus, an excess of Soviet exports compared to our imports. These years, with the increase in sugar prices, this has decreased a lot. Currently, our terms of trade are relatively balanced, although the Soviet Union always gives us a commercial imbalance. Then there is the aid from investments, which is very substantial, and if it ceased, it would halt our industrial development. So it is important to clarify that the term "aid" is not the most accurate for our relations with the Soviet Union. What we maintain is a relationship of equality between socialist countries, engaging in mutually beneficial exchange.
Many critics of the Cuban regime believe that a truly flourishing industry in Cuba is the effort of communist propaganda to hide the difference between the image of Cuba and the reality of Cuba. What is your reaction to this?
I think I should rather ask you what your opinion is, because I have an image of the Revolution... mine is perhaps distorted by the position I hold. People in America, our America, and generally around the world have a different image of the Revolution. When they arrive here, the two images clash, and that is when the shock occurs. But that shock happens to those coming from outside. We, used to criticizing everything of ours, seeing everything bad, and having a deeply critical view of the development of the Revolution, sometimes do not realize the advances we have made, and it is you, visitors who come from time to time, who sometimes point out these advances to us. So, as an interviewer, you could ask me that question.
Commander Guevara, many external evidences indicate that the Marxist economic system does not work; it does not provide an abundant life for its people. After 47 years, the Soviet Union is still not able to provide adequate food, housing, and clothing for its people. Do you think this is because the Marxist system does not provide the proper incentives to achieve high levels of productivity?
You have a tendency to embed assertions within your questions, and I must first refute the assertion before answering the question.
You assert that it is proven that Marxism does not... that the Marxist system does not provide well-being for people. I believe quite the opposite. When compared to the United States, the standard of living in any country is lower, but when you talk about the American way of life and the free world, you must consider, for example, the 200 million people in Latin America who die from hunger and diseases, who do not even reach adulthood because they die of starvation as children. All these people contribute to the economic greatness of the United States, which exploits them in some way. The same happens in Africa and Asia as well. Marxism breaks all that. In Cuba, there is indeed a tighter situation for many people than before, but there is also a much better situation for many more people than before, and you can see that if you travel around the country, if you get to know our peasants and how they lived, and our sugar workers and how they lived. Then you might find the root of the question. At this moment, as we are besieged by North American imperialism, we cannot give our people everything we would like, but we have given them everything we could and everything we have been able to do so far, from ministers to any other government position, and that is the main reason why peoples continue to fight for their liberation. North Vietnam is liberated, and yet South Vietnam did not find the American way of life better; instead, it rebelled, took up arms, and is defeating American intervention. Think about whether there is something behind that which incites peoples to fight and if Marxism does not offer a better life for peoples.
But the U.S. government is very aware of the problems in Latin America, and through the Alliance for Progress, it is working hard to raise the standard of living of people throughout the hemisphere. Now, if the ruling classes agree to carry out land reforms and tax reforms, and if the standard of living improves, wouldn’t the message of the Cuban Revolution lose its effectiveness?
Of course, it would lose it immediately. The message of the Cuban Revolution has that significance because, by its very nature, imperialism can only make very timid reforms that do not get to the heart of the matter. If all of Latin America were freed from imperialist domination, imperialism itself would face serious problems. The foundation of imperialism, which is the domination of Latin American countries through unequal exchange, the exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials, and the taking of all decisive factors in each government through oligarchies sold out to imperialism... if all that changed, imperialism would lose its power and would then face the general crisis of capitalism, that is, the crisis within the working class of the country itself, exploited today but whose exploitation is not seen because it is shifted to America, Africa, and Asia... and then the conflict would be directly within the United States. Naturally, the message of the Cuban Revolution would lose all its importance at that moment, but it would not be necessary either because that is precisely what we wish for our peoples, for all the peoples of America. And after achieving what we all desire, there would be no need to keep sending messages that would no longer be significant.
So, are we agreed on the desire for those reforms to be made?
The real reform? The ascent of the people to power. We agree on that.
Commander Guevara, do you think this cannot happen through an evolutionary process but must result from violence and revolutionary upheaval?
That always depends on the reactionary classes, which are the ones that refuse to relinquish power, to give up the privileges of power. Where the strength of the people is such that it can force the reactionary classes to leave power through peaceful means, it will happen that way, which is much better for everyone. Where the reactionary classes try to maintain power by any means, a spark will arise independently of anyone’s will or desire that will ignite all of America or part of America, and ultimately, the people will come to power.
When Cuba was producing raw materials for the United States and had to buy manufactured goods from us, you called that the worst form of economic colonialism; now, once again, Cuba is assuming the same role, predominantly agricultural, within the Soviet economic system. Is this suddenly acceptable?
No, it is not accurate by any means. First of all, it must be clarified that it is not only the exchange of raw materials for manufactured goods that defines imperialism but all the apparatuses attached to these exchange relationships. Cuba sold sugar to the United States and received materials, but the sugar sold to the United States was converted into dollars that also went to the United States, and in addition, the materials that came were often for American factories, which processed products sold here, converting pesos into dollars that also went to the United States. This is one phase of imperialist domination over a country.
Now, regarding the direct exchange of raw materials for manufactured goods, we have had extensive discussions with the Soviet Union about this, and from those discussions emerged a special price for sugar. This is precisely the tangible demonstration that socialist relations are based on entirely different principles. At the price paid by the Soviet Union, our sugar allows us to import enough machinery to develop our industry and become an industrial-agrarian country rather than just a single exporter of raw materials.
Commander Guevara, when you fought in the mountains of the Sierra Maestra, did you foresee that the Revolution would take such a radical course?
At least I had an inkling. Naturally, the form and violent development of the Revolution could not be foreseen. Even in the Marxist-Leninist formulation of the Revolution, it was not predictable. That was the result of a long process you know well. We had a somewhat vague idea of solving the problems we palpably saw in the peasants fighting with us and in the problems of the workers we knew, but it would be very lengthy to recount the entire process of our... of the transformation of our thinking. Now, there is no doubt that the United States and its way of acting played a significant role in the development and acceleration of the Revolution.
It is said that communism is incompatible with the Cuban temperament. Do you think that Cubans would be affected by adhering to the strict discipline of communist society?
That is one of the many "versions" of communism. Communism is created by peoples, and therefore peoples create it in their own image. The particularities of our ethnic, social, and cultural structure are transplanted into our way of making and building the new society, and... discipline is not something alien to peoples; it simply corresponds to a stage of development. When there is only one harvest a year, and the harvest depends on the wind or the sun or the rain, time is not important, and discipline has very little importance. But when you must adhere to a development rhythm, when there are industries, when every minute is worth its weight in gold, then discipline must come automatically. In our process of industrializing the country, discipline, by its own weight, is established throughout the country. It is a vital necessity, and the people understand it and adapt it immediately to their way of being.
To us, observing the Cuban scene, it seems that the two main problems are: the difficulties of disciplining the people for communism and the growing bureaucracy. Do you think these are the two main problems?
Our two main problems are imperialism and imperialism. Then the others may come. But now I can answer your question.
Bureaucracy is a problem. It is the product of a society that has to develop very quickly with cadres who are not prepared for that stage of development. So there is a bit of a shift from quantity to quality: where one efficient person can do a job, 10 people are needed to discuss, exchange ideas, doubt, and even make mistakes to do the same job. At this moment, bureaucracy is a burden in Cuba, but it is a transitional burden, the burden of a learning period, and we will eliminate it afterward.
Discipline, I do not consider to be an absolute problem for Cuba. If you had been here on January 2, you would have seen our armed forces parade, and they were all Cubans (there were neither Congolese, nor Chinese, nor Soviets parading), and it was a real army. We made it ourselves... our people made it. So discipline is not a problem for our people.
What is being done to counter the problem of terrible bureaucracy and the lack of organization that we have seen?
First, we need to start studying what we have done to see where the root of the bureaucracy lies. We consider that the root of bureaucracy is [in what] we have called "a certain lack of internal drive" from some officials; that is, they lack a personal sense of the problem at hand... a certain fear of the consequences of acts that necessitate protecting the paperwork... always a paper in front...
...which also develops in the United States. It is not exclusive to communism. There is a lot of paperwork in U.S. public offices as well.
And lastly... that real lack of understanding of the problem. So now we are carefully studying these causes to see how they can be eliminated and we consider that bureaucracy is a burden but not a danger and will be eliminated with the development of the revolution.
Do you believe that bureaucracy is an intrinsic problem of the communist system?
No. I said no. We inherited bureaucracy as an element of the Cuban past, and it also exists in the United States. It may be that at certain moments in the development of socialism, bureaucracy increases excessively... it could be... I am not a theorist to speak on this point... but evidently, bureaucracy exists in both capitalism and socialist systems. In both.
Commander Guevara, Dr. Castro has frequently expressed his desire to normalize relations between Cuba and the United States. Do you wish for this normalization to happen?
On the basis of principles, of course! And perhaps more than anyone, because the industry suffers the blockade... industry and transportation are perhaps the sectors of production that suffer the blockade the most. Transportation has now been freed, but not us... So on the basis of principles and absolute equality, we think an ideal normalization of relations is possible.
Dr. Guevara, do you believe that the restoration of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States would be beneficial for the Cuban economy?
Diplomatic?
...and commercial.
Well... it would be beneficial, but of course...
Sorry, I will rephrase the question: Dr. Guevara, what do you think the restoration of diplomatic and commercial relations between Cuba and the United States would mean for the Cuban economy?
At the present moment, naturally, if we were to start these relations again, they would have to be gradual. We have redirected our major export products to other markets, but evidently, it would always be easier for us to obtain products, especially spare parts, which are very close and are manufactured precisely by Americans. However, at the moment it seems that this is not a very close reality, and we can manage perfectly without these relations as well.
Isn't it difficult that the main supply lines are 7,000 miles away?
It is difficult. It was extremely difficult and complicated things at the beginning. But it is being overcome more and more. Soon we will be able to create reserves, and with the reserves already... our warehouses will be here [and] we will be able to remedy most of the difficulties. As time goes by, the distance to achieve our supplies becomes less difficult. Additionally, the relationship becomes closer, we know more about the needs from one year to the next so that our suppliers can prepare the shipments in advance, and year after year this is noticeable in the Cuban economy.
Could you analyze how effective the U.S. blockade has been?
It seems to me that this is almost an invitation to a crime of infidelity... we have recognized the importance of the blockade, we also announced and with the same calm that the blockade will not prevent us from advancing, but... first it is difficult to specify, and then it is not so convenient either. Even with their good intentions, we are still enemies, and it is good for the enemy to know only the generalities of their opponent.
You have assumed several things during the course of our interview, among them, that communism has no influence, that it is a setback to productivity, that the blockade is very effective (the latter deduction), that bureaucracy is stifling... At the same time, you say that something different is noticeable since your last interview with us in Cuba. I also deduce that you have seen progress in the Cuban revolution, and I could ask you if everything is so bad and if the blockade is so effective, why is the Cuban revolution advancing?
It is often said that the most straightforward, most sincere man on the Island is Che Guevara. Therefore, I hope you can tell me how effective the blockade has been.
I repeat that I cannot say. From the point of view of the figures, it would be a lie, whatever it may be, because I have also said that the blockade has had both positive and negative aspects. But even assuming that I were the most straightforward person, I do not believe that I would have that special credit in Cuba where we are all straightforward, but even so, sometimes with complete frankness, there are things that one cannot answer, and that is also frankness.
Cuba recently purchased buses in London, is negotiating the purchase of ships in Spain, and I understand there is an economic mission in Switzerland. Does this represent a fundamental change in the Cuban economy?
Are you referring to a change in the economy or in economic policy?
I am referring to a change in economic policy.
I do not think so. There has been a certain change in the economic policy of some countries, a certain breaking of the monolithic unity of the free world, and now there is more trade with Cuba. Our willingness to trade has always been the same on the same bases, that is, the merchandise is merchandise, and it should be of mutual benefit to both the buyer and the seller in that transaction. On those bases, we have always traded with everyone, and also with the United States even after not having relations. The United States had influenced a lot to prevent us from buying certain things, and you are well aware of the debate that has occurred over the buses sold by Leyland, but it is not us who have changed. There are certain aspects of international policy that have changed; I do not know if we have anything to do with that, we do not consider ourselves so important.
Do you think that trade with the West that you have now will continue and expand in the future?
I have hope. That is, we hope.
I would like you to elaborate on this.
In the beginning, we sent... (when the revolution began, even before having serious problems with the United States) we had sent several delegations to various countries in Europe. In general, there was abstention; people did not have much confidence in our ability to survive. This was accentuated more when the contradictions with the United States were intensified. There came a moment when the exchanges were practically decreasing year by year and very rapidly. However, after the Bay of Pigs and especially after the October Crisis, there has been a gradual and now more accelerated change from all European countries towards the Cuban revolution. We are confident of our permanence as a revolutionary government, of the permanence of the Revolution, and it seems that this faith has also transcended through our actions and our capacity for defense to traders in other capitalist countries, and they have decided to maintain relations that were traditional in many cases with Cuba. So it all indicates that these relations will continue and that even [unintelligible] because there was always insecurity about how to bring spare parts if trade was closed. But above all, England and France have maintained very good relations with us in that sense and have guaranteed spare parts for the machinery they sold us during the revolutionary period. And that has also increased our confidence in the possibility of importing new machinery and increasing with first-quality, world-advanced technological equipment, a whole series of industries we have in development.
What would happen to the Cuban economy if suddenly this trade with the West were suppressed?
Nothing.
Do you think it is necessary?
It is convenient.
What would you like to see the United States do towards Cuba?
It is very difficult to specify that question. It is a bit unrealistic. The frankest and most objective answer would be "nothing." Nothing in all senses, nothing in favor and nothing against, just leave us alone in a word.
Do you feel optimistic about the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States?
I think it is also difficult to answer. We are expectant. Observing the situation, simply. Taking precautions for one path or another that may be followed. It depends on a series of circumstances of the characteristics of the U.S. government and also on how well it understands the situation in the world. So far, it has not given clear indications that it understands the correlation of forces in the world, so there are no clear indications that normalization will be total. Now, there are certain signs that despite the latest provocations, like this absolutely piratical imprisonment of our fishermen, things are being conducted with a different tone. If that were the case, we could... coexist, at least... friends, we could hardly be during many years of the U.S. government. Against the American people, I think you have seen here that we have absolutely nothing and there is no hatred in our country against the American people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Guevara.
I don’t know how to say "you’re welcome" [in English], so I have to say it in Spanish.
If something were to happen to Fidel Castro, what do you think would be the fate of the Cuban Revolution and who do you think would take power here?
Given the nature of the question, I suppose you are referring to something violent happening. It would naturally and... we cannot deny it, be a very severe blow to the Cuban Revolution. Fidel is our undisputed, unquestioned leader, and our true guide through a series of extraordinarily difficult situations that Cuba has faced, in which he has demonstrated his world-class leadership. I believe none of us have that stature, but we have acquired revolutionary experience over years of struggle, in years of fighting by his side, we have been trained in a unique school, a school of audacity, sacrifice, and determination to defend principles, and of problem analysis. Together, we could move forward even if something were to happen to him. Who would replace him? That would be a matter to discuss later. We do not engage in such analysis now, nor do any of us have such aspirations, but logically, his brother Raúl, not because he is his brother, but because of his own merits, is the Vice Prime Minister and is the most suitable among us to continue the same course of the Cuban Revolution.