Speech at the meeting held by the directors of the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction (Fidel Castro)

Speech at the meeting held by the directors of the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction
Author	Fidel Castro
Written in	December 20, 1961

I wanted to tell you that I believe my intervention may not be very useful or well-suited to the purpose of your meetings, since I have not participated in the discussions you have had. Surely from the exchange of a series of opinions, ideas, and experiences from you all, some more interesting or valuable suggestions regarding schools could have been offered to me.

In any case, since I am tasked with addressing you, I will simply express, mainly, one thing that is important in schools, namely, the value they have for the Revolution as Revolutionary Instruction Schools.

[Terminology in the Cuban Revolution]

We call it the Revolutionary Instruction School because we need our own terminology to conceptualize things.

For example, we use the term "revolutionary guide" as a term that is more our own, while in other places it is referred to as "agitator". The word "agitator" has become somewhat problematic, much like with cooperatives.

There are certain words that the enemy has maliciously attacked, creating certain complexes… not complexes, but conditioned reflexes. And we are not obligated to use terms…

[Sovkhoz = People's Farm]

For example, a People's Farm… What is a People's Farm? In the Soviet Union, they call it a "sovkhoz".

But if we had called the People's Farm "sovkhoz," the enemies of the Revolution would have raised a tremendous scandal. Moreover, there is no reason to call it "sovkhoz". Ours is a "People's Farm," which is a Cuban name for a type of collective production farm.

And it fits very well because, among other things, the concept is expressed in the word.

It always takes time for the people to fully identify social ownership, the property of all the people, the nationalized enterprises, as their own. This identification occurs gradually, but the term "People's Farm," for example, has the advantage that the concept is included in the very term. That is to say, a business that belongs to the people. If we had called a People's Farm "sovkhoz," it is very likely that many people would still be asking what a People's Farm is. But in the word itself, the concept is included.

[Cooperative = Agricultural society]

With cooperatives, counter-revolutionaries in the countryside have tried, for example, to instill fear. So it is undeniable that they rely on the very special idiosyncrasy of the peasants, because the poor peasant, the small farmer, is an ally of the working class and must be an ally of the working class; in the revolutionary struggle, as an ally of the working class, he also liberates himself from the exploitation of the large landowners, the intermediaries, the moneylenders, and the laborers; he is an ally, but not a deceived ally, rather a conscious ally, and he must become an increasingly conscious ally because, in that alliance with the working class, he gains a series of advantages.

However, at the same time, a socialist revolution, which entails the idea of socialization, also entails the idea of collective ownership, of the ownership of all the people; thus, this naturally contradicts the idiosyncrasy of that small farmer who, after all, is an owner; he is a small owner; and he is used to a personal property relationship with the land and the means of production, even if he does not exploit anyone, which is one of the differences between the small agricultural owner and the medium or large owner, because he works with his own effort, owns the means of production, receives the fruits of his labor, works with his family, and does not employ anyone to work for him.

But regardless, that background of his concept remains, along with that custom, that habit, of being a property owner, albeit on a small scale, of the means of production and the land.

In the reality of the facts of the Revolution, to that small property owner—who is now a small property owner even, because before he wasn’t even a property owner, he was a tenant: he had to work practically on the land for someone else, and now he works for himself on land that is his, a consequence of the very aspirations of that peasant, who has always aspired to not pay rent, who has always aspired to have land—what is the first thing the Revolution gives him? It gives him the land, that is, it satisfies an aspiration of his.

Socialism does not hinder him at all. On the contrary, socialism, based on the alliance with the working class, means for him the liberation from paying rents, from working for someone else, liberation from moneylenders, liberation from intermediaries; liberation both from intermediaries who bought his goods and sold them in the cities, as well as from those who bought manufactured goods in the cities and sold them to him. That is to say, an alliance is established based not on deceit or fiction, but based on a series of real benefits. However, the idea of socialism is the antithesis of private property.

This contradiction (which is an apparent contradiction, not a real contradiction, in the reality of the revolutionary process) is a contradiction that is resolved over the course of the revolutionary process when gradually, and by virtue of the process, and without any coercion or violence, through habit, education, and the influence of the general economic development of the country, private property gradually transforms into collective property.

But then the counter-revolutionaries tell the peasant: "This Revolution is socialist". But, seeing a cooperative nearby, which is the cooperative formed by a large sugar plantation, or seeing a People's Farm, they tell that peasant: "They are going to socialize your land". And indeed, during one stage, there was a sort of acclimatization period to revolutionary ideas.

The propaganda of the counter-revolutionaries had some effect on the peasant. They said: "This is socialism, and they are going to socialize the land". Thus, many peasants lived with the worry that their land would be socialized. We have had some experience in conversations with some peasants when we have visited, for example, an area of small farmers, to find out why they do not increase production, what their problems are, what their concerns are.

And we have found, for example, how the mentality of the peasant who has a small plot of land and works it himself; a peasant who understands the Revolution, who is very interested, who is very grateful for the Revolution; who explains how much he used to have to pay, how many years he paid; how he now has to pay less for loans; how he has credits, and how the prices of his goods are; all the advantages of the Revolution. And it is clear that he is, indeed, a friend.

But when I was about to say goodbye to him, for example, the peasant, with great spontaneity and honesty, said to me: "Well, I just don’t want to be put into a cooperative". So, indeed, that peasant, accustomed to working that little piece of land, seeing his cows, seeing his things all his life, cannot reconcile the idea of having to work in a cooperative, especially when he has seen a cooperative not functioning well, which is even worse.

So, his concern is that: not to be put into a cooperative. I have also sometimes spoken with small farmers, who amaze with their great revolutionary consciousness, their admiration for the cooperative. I have encountered the case of the small farmer who has his pig, poultry, grows some minor crops, and lives off that. But at the same time, when asked: "What beans did you plant?"; he says: "Well, I got them from the cooperative; I planted the beans that the cooperative brought me". And then he says: "They are building beautiful houses in the cooperatives". So he talks about the cooperative houses. "And how are they?"; and he says: "Well, look, those people are doing very well; they have worked all year; those people barely worked before, worked a little time and went hungry, and now they are doing very well".

Then he starts to talk about the cooperative in a non-political way, reflecting the admiration he feels for the cooperative, like some other things they have said, because in the village is where, generally speaking, the best arguments to refute the enemies of the Revolution are found.

One lady, for example, told me one day: "Now, at the butcher shop, we can go buy meat, we also get a piece; because before, the one with money and a refrigerator bought 10 to 15 pounds of the best meat, and kept it; and now it is distributed; now, even if you have money and somewhere to store it, you can’t buy more than two pounds, and now we are buying meat".

So she compared how her situation, even in terms of supplies, had changed because the one with money bought the best meat, it was set aside for him, he kept it, had no problems. This also explains the discontent of the one who has a refrigerator and money, and now cannot buy 15 pounds at the butcher, but only one or two pounds as well.

This lady's case is like that of the peasant who recently spoke at the event, who made a tremendous argument: "The bourgeoisie complain now because we eat equally".

Well, there are peasants who have already analyzed the cooperative: they have sufficient light, sufficient common sense, and they analyze it, and they speak with admiration for the cooperatives. To another type of peasant, they instill fear with cooperatives. Thus, the word "cooperative" becomes an allergic term for them. That’s why now, instead of cooperatives, we are forming agricultural societies.

What are agricultural societies?

In those farms of people who abandon the territory, or small pieces of land that remain, in areas of small farmers… (not next to a large farm, because in areas of large farms or cooperatives, like in the East and Camagüey, it is absurd to establish an agricultural society in surplus land next to a farm or a cooperative; but yes in those areas with many small farmers, like in Havana, Las Villas, and Matanzas), if there is a piece of land of nine caballerías, an agricultural society is formed.

With whom? With the agricultural workers who are there and with some peasants who have a tiny piece and want to join. The peasant, when he joins the agricultural society, has advantages, and he does not hesitate for a minute. To one who has a third of a caballería, they talk about joining with three or four other peasants who also have a third: to join their lands into a parcel of three or four caballerías. And they see that they will have a larger average, a greater yield. Immediately they like the agricultural society. On the other hand, when they encounter a peasant who has a caballería, or one and a half, or two… and the benefits he will receive from joining the society are not greater than those he receives as a small farmer; that one prefers to stay on his piece of land rather than join the agricultural society.

But in general, the term agricultural society has been very well received by the peasants. What does it consist of? In that same thing: three caballerías of surplus land, two peasants who have a very tiny piece, one or two more agricultural workers; well: let the four of them gather, and in these three caballerías, or these four caballerías, they form an agricultural society.

The administrator is not designated by the INRA; the administrator is designated by them there. They receive credits, just like the small farmers do. In reality, it is a small cooperative, but it is not called a cooperative. If you ask the peasants: "Do you want to join a cooperative?" they will say "no". They have a different idea of that. So they join enthusiastically in an agricultural society, without any prejudices.

[Schools of Revolutionary Instruction = Schools of Marxism-Leninism]

Well, all this history relates to the fact that we called them "Schools of Revolutionary Instruction". It is correct to call them Schools of Revolutionary Instruction. They could also be called "Schools of Marxism-Leninism". In reality, what is studied in the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction is Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, the only thing that can be studied in a School of Revolutionary Instruction is Marxism-Leninism.

However, in that school, one can also study other things that are not Marxism-Leninism. If, for example, they have a class on the history of various political ideas, and they study the ideas of imperialism, including its most reactionary phase, which is fascism, they are also studying fascism to understand what fascism is and how it compares to our ideas.

Therefore, the School of Revolutionary Instruction implies a broader concept than what would be a school of Marxism-Leninism, because, in reality, all those ideas will be studied; but they are also studied from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, from a Marxist-Leninist understanding of history, society, and nature. For this reason, they could also be called Marxist-Leninist schools.

However, if when the schools were founded it had been stated, "They will be schools of Marxism-Leninism," some people would still have conditioned reflexes against Marxism-Leninism, reflexes that are being removed over time. Hence, the term "revolutionary instruction" could be a more appropriate designation for what the schools are.

[Educando a las masas]

Of course, no one is being deceived; no one has ever been deceived here; we have never deceived anyone. What have we done? We understand that reality and have acted in a Marxist-Leninist manner. That is, we have acted while taking objective conditions into account. Indeed, if we had stood on Pico Turquino when we were just a handful and said, "We are Marxist-Leninists" — from Pico Turquino — we probably wouldn’t have been able to come down to the plain. So we named it differently.

We didn’t address that topic; we posed other issues that people perfectly understood. We told that peasant: "Look, this company is exploiting you". Those peasants knew it; they lived in constant fear of losing their lands, paths... to the overseers. We would arrive, capture an abusive overseer, one of those murderers, and execute him. That was perfectly understood by the peasant. "We will give you land; you won’t have to pay anything; we will establish a school". Well, yes, all of that is Marxism-Leninism. All the revolutionary laws since the cooperatives began to form, the farms... The agrarian law itself, if one studies agrarian reform through the agrarian law, then no one would understand agrarian reform.

In agrarian reform, cooperatives are already discussed. The concept of a cooperative was introduced in the agrarian reform plan, while traveling there, in the modifications to be introduced. It was debated whether land should be given in ownership or in usufruct. So... well, the reality will be the same, but we’ll state it not in usufruct, we will say — precisely so that enemies cannot take advantage of this — the property of the land of the cooperative. In reality, what the cooperative has is the usufruct of the land. Thus, a concept of ownership equivalent to usufruct, which ultimately is the same thing, since the cooperative cannot sell that land; of course, it can use and exploit it.

Now, at a certain moment in a revolutionary process, there exists what is called — and you know perfectly well — the correlation of forces. Therefore, one must act with a keen awareness of the correlation of forces. Furthermore, a revolutionary process is a change, but it is not only a change of institutions; the revolutionary process is also a change of mentality. In a revolution, one not only does but teaches: one teaches by doing and does by teaching.

That is to say, it should not be assumed that for a revolution to take place, it is necessary that everyone be, first of all, a Marxist-Leninist. No, sir. For a revolution to occur, the objective conditions that make a revolution possible must be present, according to the Marxist-Leninist conception. It goes without saying that throughout history there have been many revolutions, and that revolutions occurred even when the science, doctrine, or theory of Marxism-Leninism did not exist.

In other words, it was only in the later stages of humanity's development that a revolutionary class, the working class, could rely — thanks to the efforts of the great masters of socialism — on a scientific theory, which is a very effective tool for understanding, interpreting, and, at the same time, for acting. But the revolutionary processes prior to the proletariat's struggle against capitalism did not have a prior Marxist-Leninist interpretation. That is to say, those who carried out those revolutions did not act with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine in hand. It was Marxism-Leninism that later explained the reasons behind those revolutions; just as later, for example, physics explained the Law of Gravity. Then, finally, it was understood why bodies suspended in space fell.

In the same way, revolutions have occurred throughout human history, since ancient times, even when no one had yet adequately explained why revolutions happened, how human society developed, and what their causes were.

Marx and Engels discovered the reasons for revolutions, uncovering the rationale for the progression of human society, just as Newton discovered the Law of Gravity. But revolutions had been happening for millennia, in accordance with the Law of Gravity, although people could not explain why bodies fell.

Likewise, revolutions have been unfolding throughout the history of humanity, since ancient times, although no one had yet adequately explained why they occurred, and how human society developed, what their causes were.

Now, unconsciously, revolutions occurred in ancient times. The slaves who rebelled, led by Spartacus, against the Roman slave owners were acting according to a historical law, according to the principle of class struggle. It was an exploited class, the slaves, fighting against the slave owners. The peasants who revolted in the Middle Ages were also acting according to the law of history; the principle of class struggle and the evolution of human society through class struggle were being fulfilled in them.

In other words, from the most remote times, men were acting according to these laws of history. But they did not know it; they acted unconsciously according to these laws.

Now, in the first stage of the Cuban Revolution, the consciousness of a series of historical laws, the great truth of the theory of class struggle, the great truth of the inevitability of overcoming the current capitalist system... that was known by a conscious minority of the people. We, who had in our hands... What was our great advantage? What distinguished us from a bourgeois liberal? What distinguished us from others who organized conspiracies with the military and various other things? Well, it was a series of fundamental knowledge, several elementary truths of Marxism-Leninism. That is to say, we had that knowledge.

If we had not known or believed in the theory of class struggle, we simply would not have been able to act; we would have acted incorrectly, we would have been dragged to failure if we had been ignorant of that.

For example, one influential reading during my student years was the book "The State and Revolution," which gave a thorough explanation of how that apparatus of force... that as long as the force apparatus on which the dominant class, the exploiting class, relies is not destroyed, there can simply be no revolution.

This was the conception that led us to incessantly combat the idea of conspiracy with the military; it was what made us, even when we were just a little over a hundred men, write an article against the military. They said we were crazy, that we would make it impossible for Batista to ever fall, that Batista would benefit from this because it united the army. We understood that it was much better to have a revolution against the army and a revolution that would dismantle that military apparatus than to have a revolution with that military apparatus, because the history of Latin America taught us that the military apparatus, often being the cause of exploitation, also served as an instrument to deceive the masses, who attributed their exploitation not to a class but to the actions of corrupt rulers, when, in reality, it was nothing more than the consequences of a regime of exploitation.

And so, the army would come, removing those individuals, and often the armies themselves, maintainers of domination, when removing individuals would confuse the masses, fostering false hopes. And then, that same army was responsible — once the tempers had calmed — for maintaining the regime of exploitation, which is ultimately what matters to the politicians of the exploiting class.

The idea that the military apparatus had to be destroyed was a fundamental idea; without it, we would have been disqualified from acting as revolutionaries; the idea of class struggle, the idea that it is the masses that make history, the idea that only with the masses could power be conquered. This was demonstrated by the very fact that we were not concerned about how many of us there were; we were focused on creating the conditions to rally the masses toward a struggle based on the existing conditions of exploitation.

The people were exploited, but often a large part of the population did not fully understand the reasons for their misery, their poverty, the lack of schools, the lack of hospitals, the lack of factories, the lack of jobs... they suffered all of that. They often attributed it to bad governments. But those governments could not be good in any way; those governments, from Estrada Palma to the last, were governments that represented the interests of a dominant class, of an exploiting class. So, there were many people who rebelled against all that, but they did not have a clear conscience of where the root of all that was. The objective conditions existed. Good. Based on that knowledge of those realities, we acted. The Cuban Revolution, one can say, is a complete, absolutely complete proof of all the truth contained in the Marxist-Leninist conception of society and history. Without those fundamental truths we would not have even started, without those fundamental truths we would have taken a series of wrong paths.

[El marxista-leninista nunca deja de aprender...]

Well, were we complete Marxist-Leninists? No, we were not complete Marxist-Leninists. I was, for example, a kind of Marxist-Leninist who had clung to a few ideas that I had taken from Marxism-Leninism in my formative stage—and, by the way, it was a formative stage—a series of things that I believed to be fundamental truths, and I adjusted my action to those fundamental truths. I believe that the complete revolutionary is made over the years; and any of us who still believed that he was a complete revolutionary, would first have to make a strong self-criticism, an analysis of all his actions, his conduct, his behavior, his performance, in order to then see if he feels satisfied when all the defects that, even when we believe ourselves to be very revolutionary, we still have are answered. Sometimes we can believe ourselves to be very revolutionary, but we still have many things to learn from the Revolution. And it is the great truth that the more we study, the more we penetrate into the depths of the problems, the more we understand history and all that has been the history of abuses, injustices and exploitation; the more we know imperialism, not theoretically, but because we are constantly enduring its attacks, its aggressions, its felonies: like when we see a small group disembark, trying to infiltrate to blow up ships, blow up bridges; when we see them kill a brigade member who is teaching; when we see them launch an invasion; when we see the measures they take so that we cannot even buy oil… you see that there have been oil problems lately. But the fact is that their fight against us is a tireless fight: wherever they can hit us, at any sensitive point, they do not rest until they do so. Understanding all these things, living all these things, must make us all, and each one of us, more revolutionary every day. I say that today I am more revolutionary than yesterday, and I am sure that tomorrow I will be even more revolutionary than today! (APPLAUSE.) What makes us more revolutionary? What makes us feel more revolutionary? What makes us feel more passionately about the Revolution? Simply the ever more in-depth knowledge of the Revolution; the ever more in-depth knowledge of revolutionary problems; the ever more in-depth knowledge of revolutionary theory; the ever more in-depth knowledge of revolutionary doctrine. Because even though many problems have already had a complete explanation for us, there are still many others that we have not even worried about and for which we do not have a complete explanation, and that, in contact with books, in study, we are finding more and more explanations for things that many times we had not even considered. But it makes us see more and more the richness of the entire Marxist-Leninist conception of society, nature and history, and how it has an explanation for absolutely all the problems that human intelligence can pose, and how it has a satisfactory explanation, and how it is a living doctrine, how it is not a dead scheme, how it is a body of knowledge that is enriched day by day, how it not only offers us the wealth of knowledge, of research, of discoveries made by the great masters, those made by the great disciples of those first masters of socialism, the contribution made by hundreds of millions of men. Because that doctrine, that explanation that began as the fruit of the effort of two great masters, two great philosophers, two great historians, two great economists, two great sociologists - who were Marx and Engels -, to which was later added the great wealth of knowledge contributed by Lenin, was later added the great wealth of knowledge of hundreds of millions of human beings who have been working in socialism and have been acquiring an extraordinary experience. That is why Marxism is enriched: because the contribution of the first men is added to the contribution of millions of men; it is the experience of entire communities working along that path, who every day find new things, discover new things, and enrich that entire philosophy. I will tell you that one of the problems that we had in our first stage of the Revolution was this: there were many good people, well-intentioned, but who had prejudices, they had anti-communist prejudices, they had a series of mistakes, they had a series of deviations. But they were honest people, and you could see that these people, if they had a just, correct flag to fight for, would have embraced it. Simply, they were people who were not prepared. There were many of them, many of them were discovered. At the same time, when they raised the problem: "Well, what's the program going to be?" So, apparently there were people who believed that a few cats can, in these times, make a revolutionary program; as you analyze that, you understand how ridiculous is the pretension, which we have often encountered, of individuals trying to make a revolutionary theory. First of all, the revolutionary theory, the beginning of Marxism-Leninism was the work of two great geniuses, but not only of two great minds; it also needed two men of boundless generosity, of a boundless spirit of sacrifice, of a love of justice, of a hatred of exploitation, also boundless. And so, it kept accumulating. And that is the great advantage, the extraordinary advantage of Marxism-Leninism: that it has accumulated knowledge for 100 years, to the point of being today a revolutionary theory that admits no rival, that possesses a superiority over everything that has been written, from Utopian Socialism, from all those purely idealistic conceptions of history and society, to the ideas of the bourgeoisie, which are already so weak, so inconsistent, that no bourgeois will ever be able to stand in front of a Marxist-Leninist and argue! Never a utopian, never an idealist - idealist in the sense not of an idealist who conceives a real, possible ideal, but of those deluded idealists who are not based on reality, but are based on illusions - never a philosophical idealist of those kinds will be able to argue against a Marxist-Leninist! The weakness of ideas becomes more evident every day, and it becomes more evident every day in the struggle of ideas. Because, of course, just because they are weak does not mean that they will disappear on their own, because when you have generations of men being fed a whole series of lies by all possible means, and that man does not have even a ray of light to illuminate his intelligence and give him an explanation, it is logical that this mentality becomes completely confused, completely deviated. So there is a theory that has existed for 100 years, founded by geniuses and enriched by geniuses as well and, at the same time, enriched by the genius of millions of human beings. When someone came to ask "when are we going to make a program?," in the confusion of not seeing the bottom of the Revolution, we thought, to ourselves: "How little pretension to try to make a program! How are we going to discover a program?" There were many people who had the idea that a program had to be invented. How can we invent a political program when there is a revolutionary doctrine founded 100 years ago, and extraordinarily enriched, that has a complete explanation of all the problems that may interest a people, of all the problems that may interest anyone with a revolutionary vocation? That is the great advantage of having reached the point where the initial contradictions were resolved. What were the initial contradictions of the revolutionary process? A revolution that was, in fact, entirely revolutionary; a revolution that was, in fact, entirely Marxist, but that, in its formal formulation, did not present itself as such a Marxist-Leninist revolution. That was, naturally, a contradiction that brought confusion, problems; a contradiction that corresponded to a correlation of forces that existed in the first stage of the Revolution, when the armed struggle began. When the armed struggle began, the balance of forces was practically 1,000 to 1 in favour of imperialism, in favour of the capitalists, in favour of the landowners, in favour of all the bourgeoisie, in favour of the reaction, a thousand to one! As the guerrilla movement grew, the balance changed; when the war ended, the balance had changed considerably, but it can be said that the balance of forces was still favourable to imperialism, to the reaction, to the capitalists, to the landowners, simply to the existing system of exploitation: they still had all the vehicles of dissemination of radio and television, newspapers, magazines, cable agencies, in short, they had means that made the balance of forces even greater than this.

[Resolución de las contradicciones]

With the same revolutionary process, as the revolutionary laws strike at the economic base of the ruling class, and liquidate the interests of the landowners, the homeowners, the owners of large industries, and liquidate the economic base of imperialism, and promote an ever greater enthusiasm in the masses, an ever more conscious enthusiasm, so that that enthusiasm that was simple admiration for the men who fought the army face to face, simple admiration for the epic or epic part of the struggle, is becoming a conscious adhesion to the revolutionary movement that is, effectively, carrying out a firm policy against the exploiters and in favor of the exploited.

In this way, with the revolutionary process, the contradiction was resolved. Today this contradiction has been resolved; today it is a Marxist-Leninist revolution, in fact, and, furthermore, a Marxist-Leninist revolution, in law and ideology. That is the solution, the synthesis, one might say, of that contradiction of the first stage, a contradiction that arose from an unequal correlation of forces between the revolutionaries and the reactionaries, between the exploited and the exploiters. Today we have a tremendous advantage, the fact that we can make a revolution using all the resources of ideology. In the first stage, these were the resources of facts: a law that tells the peasants: "Don't pay more land," wonderful! A law that tells the neighbors: "Pay 50% of the rent," wonderful! A law that tells the population: "Reduce electricity rates, reduce tariffs". A law that tells the entire population: "Open all beaches to all men, without distinction of color or prejudice of any kind".

All these measures were facts that were teaching. But although facts have great value, and facts teach, and that is why we learn so much in a revolution, because the facts accompany the theory, theory has, at the same time, an extraordinary value. That is to say, we had the advantage of facts, but we did not have the advantage of theory. Today, revolutionary theory and revolutionary facts are already combined; today, we can do what we could not do in those days; today, we can win hundreds of thousands of people to conscious work; today, everyone works with much greater confidence… And then the work of instruction, of spreading revolutionary ideas, can be made incomparably easier.

Well, schools are the result of this synthesis in which, at last, theory and facts go absolutely in line, as they must go. And so now, through the schools, we are going to take advantage of the extraordinary resources of revolutionary theory, the extraordinary resources of theory, so that each person understands the why of the facts, and understands the theory of the Revolution, the ideology of the Revolution; understands the why of the social problems, of the national problems, of the international problems, of all the problems.

And then, the thrust of the Revolution, with the advance of the revolutionary ideology, will be extraordinary.

We too will be able to enjoy the advantage that more and more men and women will consciously join the revolutionary work.

At the beginning, we were doing socialism, in many cases, with petty bourgeois; because a people's farm managed by an individual with a petty bourgeois mentality was a tremendous headache, because that mentality is accompanied by waste, lack of a sense of planning, lack of a whole series of elements that are indispensable for a socialist institution to function well.

Now we will reach the point where everyone who is on a people's farm, in a cooperative, in any task of the Revolution, will be acting with a clear awareness of what he is doing and with a revolutionary mentality. The task of the schools, the fundamental task of the schools is, quite simply, the ideological formation of the revolutionaries and, in turn, of the people.

In that sense, we already have the fruits of the work of this year of revolutionary instruction, because more than 20,000 have passed or are already passing... more than 20,000 have passed, and between those who have passed through the schools and those who are currently studying there are some 30,000 people. That means a tremendous boost to revolutionary ideology.

Of course, the people are learning; the people are learning in every pamphlet, in every speech, in every event, you can say that there are millions of people today who understand many of the problems of Marxism-Leninism. But school means systematic study, that is what school means. And systematic study has a great advantage over the

Whenever you open a book or a manual, you are surprised from the very first moment; you begin to find many explanations that are even clearer for things that you saw more or less clearly. Sometimes you find things that you had thought about completely beforehand. And sometimes it has happened to me, when I was reading a manual and I found some things that seemed like I had read the manual first and then talked about them; sometimes I have found such a great coincidence between something expressed as a result of experience and what I had read, that it seemed as if I had read it first and said it.

Whenever you find that, naturally, you feel satisfied. Why? Because you see that the orientation, the analysis that you have been doing is true, is correct, and you receive that security especially when you find many of those things thought or said, expressed in a manual. Because, after all, these manuals also express experiences that other peoples and other men have had.

Why is it so important for the people to learn? First of all, of course all this strengthens the Revolution, it makes conscious revolutionaries. A revolutionary who is conscious of what he is doing will be more useful in all areas than a revolutionary who is very enthusiastic, very good-willed, but who does not understand. Logically, wherever this conscious revolutionary is, in any political, administrative, economic, or military task, he will be incomparably superior to one who may have enthusiasm but cannot have understanding and knowledge of the problems.

Well, all this is very important. Anyone can answer: "Well, it is necessary for all the people to know, so that the Revolution is stronger, so that the Revolution can resist imperialism, so that the counterrevolution does not gain followers, so that the counterrevolution is increasingly weaker," all these things. Well, this is very important, because this has to do with the very existence and life of the Revolution; But there is something even more important than all that: revolutionary instruction is not a matter of amateurs, it is not simply a matter of satisfying a curiosity to know, it is not a matter of bringing to the minds of people a teaching so that they know more; it is a matter of the fact that the dissemination of revolutionary ideas incorporates the masses into the creative task of the Revolution. We do not teach simply to satisfy a curiosity, we teach to gain intelligence and effort for the task of making the Revolution, for the task of creating the Revolution.

Why? Because the Revolution is the work of the masses. The Revolution has to be the work of the masses; the Revolution has to take advantage of the wealth of energy of millions of people, the wealth of intelligence of millions of people. It is not a matter of simply stating this because it appears in a manual, no sir; this is a great truth, this is a truth that we are constantly seeing.

Sometimes, to see things better, a concrete example is useful, and I give you the case of the sewing girls. Okay, we are going to teach a few thousand girls how to sew. How many teachers are there in sewing? You gather about 300 or 400 teachers who know how to sew; you give them some preliminary courses, you prepare them, and now you have 400 to teach several thousand. Well, you had about 30 or 40 to teach the first 1,000. When there were no longer 1,000, but several thousand, you used some of the girls who had learned in that first school, and they were used as teachers for the others; that is to say, there were no longer 40, but several hundred. So, those several hundred taught more than 10,000. Now, those 10,000 go and teach 100,000.

Okay, can you compare the potential educational potential, the effort of 40 people, with the effort of 10,000 people? When 10,000 people have joined, the strength and the potential of the Revolution have grown extraordinarily, because there are now 10,000 people teaching. Good. Was it the same to teach the people to read and write with 20,000 teachers as it was to mobilize 100,000 brigade members and mobilize 100,000 more literacy teachers? It was not possible with 20,000 teachers to accomplish a feat of that nature. How can that feat be accomplished? Simply, with the masses. Is there a clearer example than that of what the strength, the power, and the creative capacity of the masses are?

Now then: Can we, the leaders of the Revolution, be credited with the literacy campaign? Could a group of leaders teach 700,000 people to read and write? Have we, the leaders, been the ones to teach 700,000 people to read and write? No. That is a fiction. Anyone will say: "Look what merit he has"

In the revolutionary leaders, what government, which has made people literate!"

So, where is the reality of the problem? Where is the great truth? It was not us who made 700,000 people literate, it was the mass of brigadiers who made the 700,000 people literate, who can doubt that? Then, it is not the leaders who make history, it is the masses who make history.

It was the masses who taught thousands of teachers; those thousands of teachers will possibly teach hundreds of thousands. It was the masses who made that people literate; now, that literate people doubles its effort, doubles its culture, doubles its revolutionary consciousness, and launches itself towards new tasks.

The leaders act by correctly interpreting the laws of history, the laws of Marxism-Leninism, the Marxist-Leninist conception, applied to each concrete situation. The leaders have a role, that is Unquestionably, Marxism-Leninism does not deny the role of leaders. But the great truth, and what we are interested in pointing out here, is that it is the masses who make the revolution, it is the masses who make history. And so, when we propose that the masses learn, that the masses learn Marxism-Leninism, that the masses acquire a revolutionary ideology, we are doing in the most important order, which is in the ideological order, the same thing that we are doing in all the other orders: when we make teachers of cutting and sewing, when we teach hundreds of thousands of people to read and write, when we prepare teachers, technicians, farmers; in short, we are then preparing the masses ideologically.

And so, in the same way that there would be nothing that could replace the effort of 100,000 brigade members, there will be no book, there will be no leaders, who can replace the effort of tens of thousands, of hundreds of thousands of ideologically trained revolutionaries. Just as 100 officials from the Ministry of Education would not have been able to teach people to read and write, that is, to do the work equivalent to teaching 1,000 people, in the same way, revolutionary leaders will never be able to do the revolutionary work of hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries.

And that is what it is all about. The Revolution has to incorporate the masses, the masses have an extraordinary force, an extraordinary wealth of energy, an extraordinary wealth of experience. And that is understood not only in these examples, but in anything. Think of the work of those who are, for example, in the fields, at 12:00 noon, picking taro; those who are taking care of the cattle, those who are transporting them, those who are slaughtering them, those who are distributing them; those who work in the textile factories, those who work in the shoe factories, those who work in the newspaper printing presses, those who are producing all the things that we are consuming. Think that without that work of the masses, we could not even be gathered here! You have been brought here by the workers of the transport services, the train drivers, the airplane drivers, the bus drivers; you have stayed in the hotels, you have been able to meet. All this can be done simply by the creative work of the masses, by the productive work of the masses, without which this work of ours could not even be done. This work is done on the basis of the masses.

It is the masses who clothe us, shoe us, feed us and serve us. So the masses are there, at the bottom of all the work of the Revolution, at the bottom of all the work of history. Who are those who deny this? The reactionaries, the individuals who preach the thesis of the super-privileged, of the super-men, of the super-chosen. Why? Because the ideology of the exploiters is interested in denying the masses in every way, and it is precisely the revolutionary ideology that vindicates the role that the masses have in history, and in the development of history, and in the advancement of humanity.

If this is understood, then there will be a correct appreciation of the extraordinary value of the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction.

Now, it turns out that all these ideas are known to the people; that gives the people more confidence, that gives the people more security, to each man, it gives him a sense of his extraordinary importance; because then each man thinks: "No, I have to make the Revolution too, I am obliged to make the Revolution!" I am not going to let these problems be resolved by the leaders, the directors, the administrators, but each one in the place where he is, is consciously working for the Revolution, making the Revolution.

It is very important that each student leaves the schools of Marxism-Leninism, or the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction, with a clear idea of ​​what Marxism-Leninism is. Not with a

n thorough and profound knowledge, this knowledge will be acquired over the years, this knowledge must be acquired by all of us over the years. It is important that they at least know the ABC, it is important that they at least know the fundamental principles and leave with an orientation, so that they can continue in their work of revolutionary intellectual development.

It is important, above all, that they understand that Marxism-Leninism is not a dead doctrine, that it is not a catechism, that it is not a little scheme, that it comes and is applied to any problem; that it is not a series of uniforms or models of clothing that are chosen for this case or for that case, but that it is a method, it is a guide, it is an instrument that, precisely, the revolutionary has to use in the concrete solution of the problems that are presented to him. It is a living doctrine, that the individual puts together, prepares, trains, leads to adequately resolve the problems; Otherwise, they become dogmatic revolutionaries, otherwise they become brain-dead, and brains have to be living brains, to apply living formulas to each concrete problem they have.

Everyone who goes through school must leave with this idea, with the purpose of thinking, of reasoning according to the dialectical method of analyzing problems. That is to say, men, comrades, have to leave school with this conception: "Do not think that you are going to learn a formula or a recipe book, but that you are going to prepare your intelligence, your body of knowledge, your concepts, that you are going to be armed with norms and methods, to apply them to real life"; because real life is varied, and you yourselves will have read in the introduction of any book on Marxism-Leninism that the material is infinite, and at the same time it is infinitely varied. Everything that you are going to encounter in life is, quite simply, infinitely varied, and that is where you have to apply the intelligence, the method, the adequate norms to solve these problems.

It is necessary for every Marxist-Leninist to understand that he can contribute an atom of his experience to Marxism-Leninism, that every solution he finds, every experience he gains in the correct solution of a problem, will be one more experience with which he enriches Marxism-Leninism, because Marxism-Leninism has been so enriched precisely by the experience of millions and millions of Marxist-Leninists acting in the reality of life. In addition, the idea that every Marxist-Leninist should have is that problems are infinite, that problems are varied, and that life will constantly present us with new problems, new tasks.

[De los problemas actuales y futuros]

No one should be discouraged by the thought that life's problems are over, that life will become horribly boring, because everything will be solved, everything will be done. False. With each stage that humanity reaches, with each achievement that humanity conquers, new goals, new aspirations, new achievements will be presented to it... Of course... they will no longer resemble the current problems that humanity has, the first of which is, quite simply, to abolish the exploitation of man by man and to eliminate all the obstacles that impede the development of human society. But human society will always have new and new problems.

We revolutionaries, at this moment, have our problem; in 10 years, revolutionaries will have other problems; in 20 years, revolutionaries will have other problems, and in 30 and 40 years; this is demonstrated by the history of the Soviet Union itself, how there are new and new tasks and problems that must be overcome, and that is why the learning process must also be constant. There is no doubt that the political and revolutionary education that the people will have in 20 years will be incomparably superior to ours; there is no doubt that the defects that they will have will be less than those that we have now.

Now, of course, we have to maintain one thing for the future: that this revolutionary incentive, this desire to fight, to create, to do, is maintained and never goes to sleep, and it does not have to go to sleep; because in the revolutions prior to the socialist revolution, what killed the initial impulse of the revolutions after a few years was, simply, the regime of exploitation of some classes by others, and then exploitation brought about the consequence that it killed enthusiasm, it killed the spirit, it killed everything.

Anyone who looks now at the problem of the discussion of the program for the construction of communism in the Soviet Union realizes that there is a renewed enthusiasm there; It seems as if the whole revolutionary spirit had been awakened in 1917. That is to say, they are launching themselves into a new task with the same fresh enthusiasm with which they launched themselves into the first task; this notwithstanding the problems that arose from a series of vices that have been considered as the vices inherent to the cult of personality, in all these years of building socialism.

That is to say, after 40 years of revolution, they have managed to present themselves to the realization of a task, with the revolutionary enthusiasm of the first years, and I have not the slightest doubt, because I firmly believe that what can be done with an apparatus can be done ten times better, a hundred times better, when the masses are acting and creating the masses, when the apparatus is, simply, the incentive, the direction and the stimulus of the work of the masses.

Look at the enthusiasm in the Soviet Union — despite all those problems — this renewed enthusiasm in this new phase. When you read the discussions that took place at the last Congress, the participation of collective farms, state farm leaders, business leaders, planners, educators, artists, workers at all levels, manual and intellectual, you can see how the working spirit of millions of people is really in full swing.

Now I will tell you one thing: neither repression, nor punishment, nor any kind of measures can rectify errors as they can be rectified by the efforts of the masses. There is no instruction, no directive, no exhortation to not do this problem like this, but in another way, to achieve its fulfillment as it is achieved when you go to the masses. Sometimes a group of ministers meets, discusses a series of instructions, agrees on them, and they are not even fulfilled; on the other hand, when any problem is brought to the masses, then every problem is solved.

In the same literacy campaign, during the first few months it progressed, but it progressed slowly. When does the literacy campaign come to fruition? Simply, when everyone takes hold of that campaign: Young Rebels, unions, Defense Committees, Women's Federation... When all the mass organizations make the campaign their own and it becomes a matter of honor for all the factories, all the associations, all the mass organizations, then the campaign takes on an unusual pace, surprising even for ourselves, because it begins to roll, it begins to gain strength, and suddenly, when you can see what an idea has gained, it is truly astonishing.

In the same way, we can launch a thousand ideas through an administrative apparatus to organize, for example, small research stations on farms; well, we can do it a thousand times; it may be that after a year there are 20 farms - out of 600 - that

They have a small research station. Ah, but when this proposal is made to all the workers in all the farms in the village, and the slogan is put forward to organize brigades of vanguard workers to carry out all this, then it is quite possible that within a year there will not be a single farm that does not have a small research station and a group of vanguard workers. If you try to achieve this through national administration, through circulars, through administrative work, it will never be achieved, but it is achieved with the masses.

All vices must be combated with the masses. Individualistic methods of administration, lack of collective method, you must go to the masses and propose this; lack of technical spirit, you must go to the masses and propose this; lack of accounting, you must go to the masses and propose this. When the masses have all these ideas and all these slogans in their hands, there is no one who can resist the fulfillment of these norms. Neither repression nor punishment.... Punishment, of course, must be applied - some kind of punishment - to those who do not comply, some kind of sanction, but, in the long run, nothing will have as good an effect as when it is carried out with the support of the masses and by appealing to the masses.

This applies to everything, even to repression against counterrevolutionaries. Today, repression, the terror applied to counterrevolutionaries, is something that belongs to the entire mass of the people. Would it have been the same if all the shooting measures, the drastic measures, had emanated from directives of the Revolutionary Government, simply because, analyzing things theoretically, it came to the understanding that it had to be done to defend the Revolution, without the masses understanding it? It may be that then the shootings would have been hated; because the shootings were always hated; Because the execution, with everything that we had associated it with…: such-and-such patriot shot, such-and-such patriot shot, the students of 1871 shot; these were the executions that the exploiters carried out against the exploited who rebelled, and they represented all the abuse of force, colonial power, all those things.

However, today drastic measures are being applied to the counterrevolutionaries, the extermination of every counterrevolutionary who appears fighting the Revolution with weapons, of every worm who infiltrates here.

So, where does this measure come from? It comes from a conviction of all the people; it is all the people who demand this; it is all the people convinced of this. Well, simply, there you have another example.

If the revolutionary leadership advances above the feeling of the masses, or above the conviction that the masses have about the application of a certain measure, then that would have been a mistake. But how completely different it is when it is the masses that are calling for this measure, demanding this measure, promoting this measure! The result is then that the counter-revolutionaries will simply disappear here, because then they are fighting against something that is very serious: they are fighting against the verdict of an entire people, against the measures that are being taken against them in the name of an entire people.

That is why, comrades, the work of revolutionary instruction is so important; the work of spreading revolutionary ideas; the importance it has now and will always have, because we have to keep revolutionary enthusiasm alive, that this enthusiasm grows ever greater, that this enthusiasm is born from the pioneers, continues in the Young Rebels, in the instruction circles, and then continues in the workplaces. Because there is no contradiction that allows, or explains, or causes the weakening of that enthusiasm or the death of that enthusiasm, because with all forms of exploitation disappearing, the result will be that every day there will be better conditions for all those incentives to awaken in the people.

And there is no reason why there should be absolutely nothing in the Cuban Revolution that kills that incentive. Also, think how solid the Revolution will be more and more, to the same extent that the destiny of the country, the destiny of the Revolution, the future of the homeland is in the hands of millions of Cubans; how the people will feel more and more secure with that.

And that is, in my opinion, the greatest value that the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction have. I am not going to talk to you any more, I simply wanted to take advantage of these minutes that I had available to raise these things with you and to urge you, who are working in that field, to study.

The most important duty that you have, in order to be able to teach better and work better in schools, is to improve yourselves. Is there anyone here who thinks that he or she does not have to study any more? (SHOUTS OF: "No!") Well, then.

What you have to do is acquire a library, rereading all the books you have read, because the second time you get more out of them than the first, the third time you get more out of them than the second, and the fourth time more out of them than the third (APPLAUSE).

Whatever you have read, read it again, study it again; whatever you have not read, read it; whatever you have not studied, study it; and each time you expand your knowledge more. And you have to study everything; first the basics, the fundamentals, and then expand your knowledge as the possibilities present themselves.

How many times do we not pass by the libraries and see so many books, and sometimes feel the desire to read not only all the works that speak of revolutionary and political problems, but all the classic works of universal literature? And we think: Why are those books there, if we do not even have time to read them?

There was an idea of ​​some mobile libraries at the Culture Council, and I was very amused when they explained to me that they were asking for some mobile libraries. I said: "Well, but what are the bookmobiles for? Are they going to take a bookmobile to a park from 4:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon? Is there any citizen who can read Capital in a park from 4:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon, waiting for the bookmobile to arrive?" I didn't understand; this doesn't mean that I'm condemning the bookmobile, I just asked them to explain to me what a bookmobile was, and what it was used for. Then came the theory that it was to take books to libraries and replace them; well, that's a book transport truck, but it's not a bookmobile; but I found it funny.

We have to promote the formation of libraries, first with all the classic works, fundamental works, the clearest works. It is indisputable that as soon as the national printing press is up and running and prints a whole series of books... because there are some books that are better than others; there are some manuals that are better than others, and there are some books that are better than others. They explain things more clearly than others, they are more assimilable; and in this it is always essential to go from the simple to the complex, from the easiest to the most difficult. But it is good to promote the greatest number of libraries possible; first those in schools; your books too, where you work and study; libraries in cooperatives, on farms.

It would be good to promote some list of books, to make an effort for the School of Revolutionary Instruction with the national printing press so that tens of thousands of libraries are formed; tens of thousands of libraries everywhere: in factories, in circles, in cooperatives, peasant associations, in Defense Committees, libraries are formed everywhere, with books on revolutionary questions, with revolutionary literature. Because there is also a way of explaining, and cinema, literature, art teach us; all these are ways of creating political and revolutionary culture.

But above all, you must try to specialize. Comrade Lionel explained to us that one of the problems he has is that later the cadres in the schools are changed, and when they have already acquired a little experience, they are changed, they are asked for something else; that it is necessary for the cadres to remain. And that is true. The experience that a school director has in the second course is greater than in the first, in the third course greater than in the second and in the first, in the third course greater than in the second and so on with each course that passes. You are acquiring more experience about the general difficulties, the most common ones, the problems of all kinds that arise in a school. That is to say that you must specialize.

Also from the courses of revolutionary instruction you must choose the comrades who show a greater vocation for teaching, but that, in the end, you have to specialize. And we must ensure that they are not changed from the work they are doing, unless they really prefer another job, or have no real vocation for this work, and then it is convenient to change them; but not to change them because they are more needed somewhere else, or because they believe that they are more needed somewhere else.

That is to say, you have to go on specializing and, at the same time that you are specializing pedagogically, you must also go on improving yourselves intellectually, through study; go on improving yourselves incessantly; go on improving yourselves on your own; go on improving yourselves through special courses; go on improving yourselves through institutes, because we will also have to found here the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, a higher institute (APPLAUSE), a higher center of studies.

And in this way we will have a specialized body of directors and teachers. I believe that, really, it is a very useful job, a very interesting job.

I really believe that the work you have is a pleasant job. And the work your students have is even more pleasant.

I really sometimes feel like spending six or eight months in a School of Revolutionary Instruction (APPLAUSE), because the truth is that when all of us were forced to study, as children, young people and adolescents, we still didn't even really understand why we had to study. And, furthermore, it was an almost obligatory study. It's not the same when one faces life, and then understands the tremendous need to study, to understand, to penetrate deeply into the problems, and an opportunity presents itself.

Think what it means for a revolutionary, for an adult person; to some it will seem like a strange thing: "Look, a man with children, put there as a pupil in the school". No, the strangeness is not in that; The rarity is in the privilege that it implies for a man, after having children and all that, to be able to study and dedicate all the hours of the day to studying. That is not a rarity for a man, that is an extraordinary privilege.

When a man is already burdened with many family and domestic commitments, who has to support his children and his family, then he has the opportunity, when no one else has it, because what I remember as a boy is that I heard the adults say: "Oh, if only I could study, if only I were a boy again and could go to school". And what happens? It is that the longing of people who, because they were from a very humble family, because they had to work, because they did not have school, they saw that others went to study, that others had time, that others had resources; and now they are presented with the opportunity to study in a school. That is, truly, a privilege for any citizen, and the proof that it is a real privilege is shown by the fact that everyone wants to enter the School of Revolutionary Instruction. There is a very interesting phenomenon, and it is the following: I have seen people who I would never have believed had the slightest interest in a book, making arrangements to enter the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction; relatives, worried about their entering the School of Revolutionary Instruction, because it is no longer their concern alone: ​​it is that of the woman, of the brother, of the sister, of the father, of the friends, of everyone.

And men who I believe had never in their life worried about studying and who were, in addition, a little disorganized, worried about entering a School of Revolutionary Instruction, with the privilege of being able to start studying after they are old - this because I call the boys old since they are not 15 or 14 years old, that is, after they are grown - this of being able to start studying after they are grown is not only a privilege that attracts, and because of which the desire to study increases, but there is also another feeling that is pushing people to study, and it is the concern of not being left behind. You will have heard that the expression "I don't want to be left behind" is popular. So there are people who are aware that the Revolution is advancing, the people are advancing, and that anyone who does not improve themselves, anyone who does not study, runs the risk of being left behind.

These two things have come together to awaken interest in studying. Now, we have to make good use of these two feelings. And in school, in addition to teaching them the theoretical part, we also teach them to act in a spirit of camaraderie, as I have seen in some schools where, really, people are transformed, people are transformed in school and learn to live, to live in ways that are absolutely different from those they were used to, they learn to study in a disciplined manner; they learn to stay up at night studying, which is also a fantastic method of self-discipline that is so important in a revolution, because the revolutionary has to be a slave to his obligations; and so, teach them all these things, but also teach them practical things.

It would also be good if, at school, from time to time, they visited a farm, found out how the accounting is, the costs, if they have advance brigades, if they use insemination, if not when they are going to use it; all the problems of the economy. Go to a factory another day, go to a school another day. The problem is that they learn things about practical life, as well as about the Revolution, in addition to theory; criticize everything that is wrong; explain later, when they go to a center, what you think is good, is correct, what deficiencies there are in your opinion, what should be done; the collective method is applied, if the administrator is an individual who likes to work individually. All those things about practical life, because, in addition,

And in order to have a better ideological formation, it is necessary that the comrades leave school very conscious of the evils that we have, because we have many evils, we have many vices, we have many problems, and it is a tremendous, terrible, daily, constant struggle, which can only be overcome with the effort of an ever-increasing number of citizens, with an ever-increasing participation of the masses; shouldering the burden of all these problems. But it is necessary that the comrades who go through school also learn all these practical things.

It is a lot to ask that in four months one can learn all this, but, of course, in four months one can acquire the bases, one can acquire the orientation and one can acquire the drive; and then in the higher schools, more time; and, later, those who stand out the most in the higher organizations.

As for me, since I cannot go to school, I have to take advantage of my free time to study as well, because I begin by applying the advice that I am giving you.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)