"The Revolution Must Be
a School Of Unfettered Thought"

Text of speech by Fidel Castro at the University of Havana, March 13, 1962, commemorating the anniversary of the 1957 student attack on the palace of dictator Batista, in which student leader Jose Antonio Echevarria and others were killed. This translation of the speech originally appeared in the April 2, 1962, issue of The Militant. Scanned from Merit Publishers edition  of 1969 by Walter Lippmann, May 2006.

People of Cuba, this is a doubly important occasion for us. First of all because we observe a historic date, singularly important in the revolutionary process, and secondly because we are meeting with the youth. We are meeting with the students.

Already this fifth anniversary - fifth anniversary? - and fourth commemoration - the numbers don't come out right. It was in 1957. The fifth? The fact that that event took place in 195? and that the revolution triumphed in 1959 had me a bit confused. But at any rate, what I want to say is the following: There is something new, there is a change, there is an appreciable qualitative change in the make-up of this meeting. This meeting to mark the fourth anniversary reflects a substantial change in the life of the nation, it already reflects a profound change in the life of the students, in the make-up of the student body, in the university itself.

It can truly be said that today we can all participate in this meeting with true satisfaction, with the true and only satisfaction with which one can remember the fallen. And this university of today, this student body, these rows upon rows of young people present here, are telling us that we have a right to feel satisfied on a day like today, and that we are doing homage in a fitting way, in the only fitting way in which the dead can be honored.

And that is the way we are honoring Jose Antonio Echevarria and all those who fell on that 13th of March: With 3,000 holders of university scholarships present and with thousands upon thousands of young people present who hold scholarships to the university

preparatory schools and to the preparatory technological institutes. We commemorate this anniversary with a youth which is growing up and developing in the midst of the revolution, with a youth which is more and more unified, more and more revolutionary. And we commemorate this anniversary of the 13th of March with the befitting presence of the sons and daughters of the workers, of the humble, of the masses from the countryside.


Builders of the Future

And the hopes of the revolution are entrusted to this youth. To this youth are entrusted the most genuine hopes of our people. And to this youth are also entrusted the most genuine and most human hopes of us, the revolutionists, of all the revolutionists. And this youth must be spoken to, this youth must be encouraged, this youth must be educated. They must be oriented, they must be forged. This youth must become what we all dreamed for the future. This youth must become what we all hope the people of tomorrow, the country's new generations, will be. This youth must become what all of us would have wanted to be, to lead the lives that all of us would have wanted to live. In short, with this youth the future must be built.

And what type of youth do we want? Do we, perhaps, want a youth which will simply limit itself to listening to and parroting what we say? No! We want a youth which will think. Perhaps a youth which will be revolutionary just to imitate us? No! Rather a youth which will learn to be revolutionary of its own accord. A youth which will convince itself. A youth which will fully develop its own thinking.

And why do we think that this youth will develop along revolutionary lines? Simply because it has all the conditions for doing so. It has all the conditions which will permit it to develop into revolutionists, to think and to act as revolutionists.

We do not say that example is worthless. Example influences. Example is valuable. But even more valuable than the influence exerted by example is that exerted by one's own conviction, by one's own thinking. And we know that this youth will be revolutionary simply because we believe in the revolution, because we have faith in revolutionary ideas, and because we know that those ideas will win the minds and will win the hearts of this youth.

And what is the purpose of this preamble? What are we going to speak about tonight? We simply want to speak to the youth about the youth. And this preamble has something to do with what I am going to explain here tonight and which young people should analyze.

I am going to make a criticism here tonight of an occurrence which appears to be minor but which we should nevertheless analyze and criticize and we are going to analyze it publicly. We have here before us tonight an example which is going to serve as a lesson to us and which is going to serve so that we may make a revolutionary analysis. The companero who acted as master of ceremonies read a series of documents at the beginning of this meeting - a few words, some writings, and among them he read the political testament of Jose Antonio Echevarrfa. And while he was reading we also read the testament. On the last page of a pamphlet which had been handed to us, we, too, read along, mechanically, companero Jose Antonio Echevarria's political testament to the people of Cuba.

And he began to read it. He read the first paragraph. He read the second paragraph. He began to read the third paragraph and when he was at the end of the third paragraph we noticed that without reading three lines he skipped to the fourth paragraph.

Listen, companeros, do not be hasty to pass judgment, nor even to blame the companero.

And it seemed to us that he had skipped. And out of curiosity we read that part since he had skipped it. And it says - I am going to read the third paragraph - "Our pledge to the people of Cuba was given in La Carta de Mexico which united the youth in one line of conduct and action. But the circumstances needed for the student sector to fulfill the role assigned to it were not present at the right moment, forcing us to postpone the fulfillment of our pledge." From there he skips ". . . If we fall may our blood and I read the three lines which are: "We believe that the time has come for us to fulfill our pledge. We are confident that the purity of our intentions will bring us God's blessing so that we map bring the rule of justice to our nation."

Pay attention, because this is very interesting. Amazed, I said to myself, "What is this? Could these three lines have been left out deliberately?" This doubt gnaws me and I ask him when he finishes reading, "Who gave you these papers? Who prepared this?" He said, "No, when I entered I was given instructions. I told them that I was going to read this and they told me to take out these three lines."

Is it possible, companeros? Let us analyze it. Companeros, could we be so cowardly, and could we be so intellectually warped, as to come here to read the political testament of Jose Antonio Echevarria and be so cowardly, so morally wretched, as to suppress three lines? Just because these three lines are an idiomatic expression or Jose Antonio Echevarria way of thinking which we have no business analyzing?


Mutilate History?

Are we going to mutilate what he wrote? Are we going to mutilate what he believed? And are we going to feel crushed merely by what he believed or thought in the matter of religion? What kind of faith is that in one's own ideas? What concept is that of history? And how can history be conceived in such a wretched manner? How can history be conceived as something dead? As something putrid? As an immovable stone?

Could such cowardice be called a dialectical concept of history? Could such a manner of thinking be called Marxism? Could such a fraud be called socialism? Could such a deception be called communism? No!

Whoever conceives of history as he should, whoever conceives of Marxism as he should, and under- stands and interprets it and applies it to history, will not commit such an act of stupidity. For with that criterion we would have to start suppressing all the writings of Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, who expressed the thinking of his day, who expressed the thinking of his class, who expressed the revolutionary thought corresponding to a period in which the creoles, representatives of the island's wealth, rebelled against the Spanish yoke and Spanish exploitation,

And what ideas influenced those men? The ideas of the French Revolution, that is to say, the ideas of the bourgeois revolution. And what ideas influenced the Fathers of the American Republics? What ideas influenced Bolivar Those very same ideas! What ideas influenced Marti? What ideas influenced Maceo? What ideas influenced Maximo Gomez and the other men of that glorious breed? What ideas influenced our poets, representatives of Cuban culture, of those days at the beginning of our history, if not the ideas of the age?

Then we would have to suppress Marti's works because Mar- ti was not a Marxist-Leninist, be- cause Marti responded to the revolutionary thought proper to our nation at that time. If Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the working class when that class emerges and, conscious of itself, flings itself into the struggle for its emancipation, how could we expect Marxism-Leninism to be the ideology when the task before a country, the task before Latin America at the time of in- dependence, and the task before our nation, were national tasks, tasks of a different kind, of another type, corresponding to the development of our nation at that specific moment?

If we followed that line of thinking we would have to destroy the concept of the revolutionist from Spartacus to Marti. As a result of that short-sighted, sectarian, stupid and warped concept, which denies history and denies Marxism, we would be forced to deny all values, all history. We would be forced to deny our very roots; when all that treasure of human progress; of human effort, of human sacrifice, should be gathered up and added to our nation's beautiful history and to the beautiful history of a mankind which is progressing, which has progressed from the beginning, which is progressing and will continue to progress more and more.

If we pursued to its end that line of thought, we should come to believe that we were super- revolutionists, of believing that we had made all of the nation's history, forgetting the tens of thou- sands of mambises [19th Century fighters for Cuban freedom] who fell; forgetting the tens of thousands of heroes who died along the way, all of whom in one fashion or another marked the way, wrote the nation's history, and created the conditions thanks to which we, fortunate generation, had the opportunity of achieving the highest goals and of seeing dreams come true, the dreams of generations of fighters, who, one after the other, sacrificed and immolated themselves in preparing the way.

That he invoked his religious beliefs - if this phrase is an ex pression of that sentiment - does not detract from Jose Antonio Echevarria's heroism. It detracts nothing from his greatness, nothing from his glory. For it was the expression of the revolutionary sentiment of the university youth, of the generous sentiments of that youth, speaking through one of its most courageous leaders, that produced such a serene and selfless testament, such a serene and generous testament, as of one who was almost certain that he was going to die. Through those efforts, through that sacrifice, through the commingling of all that generous blood, of that rebel blood, that heroic blood, in which was blended the desire for freedom of all the youth from Mella to Jose Antonio Echevarrfa. With Mella's blood and with Josd Antonio Echevarria's blood and with the blood of many like them, the nation's history was written. And the greatness of the revolution consists in knowing how to unite all that effort, all that blood, to make the revolution and to carry it forward.

How can we face our enemies with integrity while playing tricks like these? The fact that the counter-revolutionaries have tried to use this phrase in their attempt to present Jose Antonio Echevarrfa as a representative-of their thinking, that is, the thinking of the counter-revolutionaries, the fact that they have tried to use this phrase to fight against the revolution

to fight Marxism, the fact that the counter-revolutionaries with the hypocrisy and moral feebleness which characterizes them, should act in this fashion, is understandable. But that we, revolutionists and Marxists, should for that reason suppress that phrase, is not understandable.

It is known that a revolutionist may hold a religious belief. He may hold it. The revolution does not force anyone. It does not go into his heart of hearts. It does not exclude the men who love their country, the men who want justice to exist in their country, justice which will put an end to exploitation, abuse and odious imperialist domination. It does not force them. Nor does it hold them in disgrace simply because they may have in their heart of hearts some religious belief.

It is common knowledge that the latifundistas [great landowners], the exploiters throughout history, have wanted to use religion against revolution. And it is there, in the Second Declaration of Havana: The Roman patricians who had their religion, which was the religion of the ruling class, used their religion to persecute the Christians, to burn them at the stake and to sacrifice them in the circus. Christianity was the religion of the poor, the humble, the slaves, the poor of Rome. Time passed. Slavery disappeared, that is to say, that system of slavery. A new social system came into being - feudalism. And then the priests, the archbishops, the popes and those nobles, burned at the stake those men of revolutionary sentiments who were opposed to that feudal system. Then, the leading philosophers, thinkers who ex- pressed the sentiments of a class which was being born, were burned at the stake by the inquisitors.

Later, another social order, capitalism, was established. Capitalism developed and turned into imperialism. Then we find the archbishops anathematizing the proletarian revolutions and asking for the shooting of the leaders of the revolutionary class, that is, of the workers. Then, invoking religion, they persecute revolutionary thought.

The latifundistas, the lackeys, the criminals who came to Playa Giron, brought with them four priests. And one or two of the four priests were dropped by parachute. And they came on their way, saying masses, pretending all the time to hold beliefs which they do not hold - because what religious beliefs could that band of traitors, exploiters and lackeys have? Perhaps the majority of them never went to church. Nevertheless they were kneeling there before the priest when they had come to kill campesinos and workers; when they had come to restore the dominance of the U.S. corporations, of foreign exploitation, and of the yoke of the latifundistas and exploiters of every kind. And they came with crucifixes in their hands.


Deception

It is common knowledge that that is the pose of the counter-revolutionaries and that with that pose they try to deceive people who believe. Since they do not have a worthy banner, since they do not have a cause which will attract the masses, they try to resort to religious beliefs, to superstitions, to anything. But what fault is this of any good Catholic, a sincere Catholic, who may be a member of the militia, who supports the revolution, who is against imperialism, who is against illiteracy who is against the exploitation of man by man, who is against all social injustices? What fault is this of his?

Very well now. We write a revolutionary document. We publish it in several languages. All the people support it. More than a million citizens, who are present when it is read, vote for it. It creates an extraordinary impression in Latin America. And what do we say? We say that in the struggle for national liberation, in the struggle against imperialism, all progressive elements, all patriotic elements, should be united and that in that front there should be not only the sincere Catholic, who has nothing to do with imperialism or with latifundismo, but also the old Marxist fighter.

We declare this to the whole world and we come here with an unheard of display of cowardice to delete from the testament of a companero the invocation he made of God's name. While on the one hand we tell them that they have to unite, and that if they are patriotic and revolutionary in the fight against latifundismo and exploitation, no obstacle is posed by the fact that one is a believer. That one has a religion, is a Christian or any other - and that other may be a Marxist, putting his faith in Marxist philosophy - that that is not an obstacle; and we come here with this display of cowardice to suppress a phrase. This could not be overlooked. Because what is this? A symptom! A wretched tendency - cowardly, warped - of someone who does not have faith in Marxism, of one who does not have faith in the revolution, of one who does not have faith in his ideas.

And so that we may complete seeing it as an example right here and now, it so happens that the companero, who received that order to omit that part, is a poet. He has this little book of verses and among his verses he has one entitled, "Prayer for the Anonymous God." Then he begins by expressing his belief and later he says to me, "I had a guilt complex about all these things." How can he avoid having a complex? He is a companero who is a member of the militia, a campanero who is a master of ceremonies, a companero who is integrated into the revolution. And by virtue of the fact that he once wrote verses which spoke of God, he has to live with a guilt complex. And how is he to avoid getting a complex if, when he arrives here, he is told, "Take out that word!"

Into what is the revolution changed by this? Into a tyranny! And that is not revolution! Into what is the revolution changed? Into a school of docile spirits! And that is not the revolution! And what must the revolution be? The revolution must be a school of revolutionists! The revolution must be a school of courageous men! The revolution must be a school of unfettered thought!

The revolution must be a forger of character and of men. The revolution above all must be faith in one's own ideas, application of one's ideas to the reality of history and to the reality of life. The revolution has to induce men to study, to think, to analyze in order to possess profound conviction, so profound that there will be no need to have recourse to such tricks.

For if we constantly speak of this, it is because we have faith in the people, because we believe in revolutionary ideas, because we know that our people are a revolutionary people, and because we know that our people will be more revolutionary each day, because we believe in Marxism-Leninism, because we believe that Marxism- Leninism is an undeniable truth. It is simply because of this, be- cause we have faith in our ideas and in the people that we are not so cowardly as to be able to accept such a thing.

We are sincerely sorry for the person who is responsible for this, but he should make a thorough self-criticism. How can we, in the presence of a new generation, a generation which is beginning to study, which is thirsting for knowledge, which is thirsting to read, which is thirsting to embark on the study of history, which is thirsting to embark on the study of Marxism, how can we put on that generation blinders so large that we will not permit them to read the full text of a historical document of a companero of the revolution, a companero who, like Marti, Maceo, Mella and Guiteras, made history and who step by step prepared the way of the nation?

Yes, perhaps the first step was a very small one, but it was the first step, the first humble step. And so after the first, the second, and after the second, the third - that is how the history of the nation was built. And if today we find ourselves on this advanced stage of history and of revolution- ary thought, it is because this stage began being built with the first humble step of our first patriots.

There are many here who imagine themselves better revolutionists than anybody else and who think that the revolution is made by yelling. Who think that the revolution is made by yelling, "To the left! To the left!" I don't want to single out the Rebel Youth for criticism because after all they have corrected some of their slogans

For example, they used to say: "We are socialists, forward, for- ward, and whoever doesn't like it let him take a laxative!"

Frankly, I didn't like that slogan because it wasn't positive. They changed it to: "We are socialists, forward, forward, and whoever agrees with us let him raise his hand!" That slogan is a positive one. The former slogan compared socialism to a laxative and said that whoever didn't like it should take a physic. It doesn't invite anyone to study; it doesn't invite anyone to become a Marxist. It says that you have to swallow it whether you like it or not - " . . If you don't like it take a laxative." Who are you going to win over with that?

"To the left! To the left! Always to the left!" That is not socialism. That could be Leftism, Infantile Disorder of Communism. I think that we are sufficiently grown up and mature enough to be able to face these problems in order thereby to create a true revolutionary spirit but not a spirit which consists of mere words, nor a spirit which is forced upon people. How dare they? Who has been forced to accept socialism here? The people have become Marxists out of personal conviction; because the revolution itself has convinced them. No one has imposed it upon them, gentlemen. Batista tried to impose imperialism and there was no way in which he could do it. There was no way in which he could impose his reactionary spirit, his military, imperialist and capitalist rule. He could not do it.

Stages of Development

Now, why should we do so? Why? Simply because we must distinguish between socialism and communism. First of all it must be clearly understood that social systems cannot be imposed, that they must be built upon definite bases. And we are constructing the bases of socialism. We are marching towards socialism. We are not yet at the stage of socialism. The revolution is socialist. We are socialists but we are building socialism. The society itself is not socialist although the majority of the people may be so.