{"id":2941,"date":"2018-02-27T00:38:03","date_gmt":"2018-02-27T05:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/?p=2941"},"modified":"2018-02-27T00:48:23","modified_gmt":"2018-02-27T05:48:23","slug":"fidel-castro-palabras-a-los-intelectuales-words-to-the-intellectuals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/fidel-castro-palabras-a-los-intelectuales-words-to-the-intellectuals\/","title":{"rendered":"Fidel Castro | Palabras a los Intelectuales (Words to the Intellectuals)"},"content":{"rendered":"<pre>Source: Pamphlet entitled Palabras a los Intelectuales (Words to\r\nIntellectuals), Havana, National Cultural Council, 1961, 32 p.\r\n\r\nMale and female Comrades:\r\n\r\nIt is now time for us to take our turn, following three Sessions\r\nat which various problems related with culture and creative work were\r\ndiscussed, and at which many interesting problems were posed and the\r\nvarious different opinions represented were expressed. We are not doing\r\nthis as the person most qualified to speak on the matter, but as a question\r\nof a meeting between you and us, out of the need for us to express certain\r\npoints of view here.\r\n\r\nWe were greatly interested in these discussions, and I believe\r\nthat we have demonstrated what could be called \"great patience\" with this.\r\nActually, however, it was not necessary to make a heroic effort, because it\r\nhas been an instructive discussion for us, and I would say sincerely that\r\nit has been pleasant. Of course, in this kind of discussion, we men of the\r\nGovernment are not the most qualified people to express opinions on the\r\nmatters in which you are specialists. At least, that is the case with\r\nrespect to me.\r\n\r\nThe fact of being men of the Government and agents of this\r\nRevolution does not mean that we are obliged to be experts in all subjects,\r\nsomething which we hardly are. It is possible that if many of the comrades\r\nwho have spoken here were to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers\r\nto discuss the problems with which we are more familiar, they would find\r\nthemselves in a position similar to ours.\r\n\r\nWe have been agents of this Revolution, of the socioeconomic\r\nrevolution that is taking place in Cuba. This economic and social\r\nRevolution must inevitably produce a cultural revolution in turn in our\r\ncountry.\r\n\r\nFor our part, we have tried to do something (perhaps during the\r\nfirst moments of the Revolution there were other more urgent problems to be\r\nseen to). We could also perform a self criticism by saying that we have put\r\nthe discussion of a matter as important as this one somewhat to one side.\r\nThis does not mean that we neglected it entirely. This discussion was\r\nalready in the Government's mind, and perhaps the incident to which\r\nreference has been made repeatedly here contributed to accelerating it. We\r\nhave had the intention for months of calling a meeting like this one for\r\nthe purpose of analyzing the cultural problem, cents have been taking\r\nplace, and it was especially the recent events that prevented this meeting\r\nfrom being held earlier. Nevertheless, the Revolutionary Government had\r\nbeen taking certain measures which expressed our concern with this problem.\r\nSomething has been done, and several comrades in the Government have\r\npersisted on the matter on more than one occasion. It can be said\r\nprovisionally that the Revolution in itself has already wrought certain\r\nchanges in the cultural atmosphere: the working conditions of artists have\r\nchanged.\r\n\r\nI believe that there has been a slight emphasis here on certain\r\npessimistic aspects, I believe that there has been concern here which goes\r\nbeyond any real justification for this problems There has been hardly any\r\nemphasis on the reality of the changes which have taken place with respect\r\nto the environment and the present situation of artists and writers. In\r\ncomparison with the past, it is undeniable that Cuban artists and writers\r\ncannot feel as they did in the past, and that the conditions in the past\r\nfor artists and writers were truly depressing in our country. If the\r\nRevolution began by bringing a profound change in the environment and in\r\nthe situation in itself, why suspect that the Revolution which brought us\r\nthese new working conditions might stifle the conditions? Why fear that the\r\nRevolution would eliminate precisely those conditions that it has brought\r\nwith itself?\r\n\r\nIt is true that the problem being discussed here is not a simple\r\none. It is true that we all have an obligation to analyze it carefully.\r\nThis is an obligation of yours as well as of ours. It is not a simple\r\nproblem, since it is a problem that has been posed many times and that has\r\nbeen posed in all revolutions. We might say that it is a skein, that it is\r\nquite tangled and not easy to disentangle. It is a problem that we shall\r\nnot be able to solve easily either.\r\n\r\nThe various comrades who have spoken here expressed an infinity of\r\npoints of view, and they expressed them with their arguments. There was\r\nsome fear of entering into the matter on the first day, and so it was\r\nnecessary for us to ask the comrades to delve into the subject, and for\r\neveryone to say what it was that troubled him.\r\n\r\nUnless we are mistaken, the basic problem hovering in the\r\nbackground of the atmosphere here was the problem of freedom for artistic\r\ncreation. This matter has been brought up more than once by various writers\r\nvisiting our country, especially political writers. There is no doubt that\r\nit is a matter which has been argued in all countries where profound\r\nevolutions such as ours have taken place.\r\n\r\nBy coincidence, a comrade brought us a pamphlet a moment before we\r\nreturned to this salon. On the cover of it, or at the end, there is a short\r\ndialogue which we had with Sartre which Comrade Lisandro Otero collected in\r\nthe book entitled Conversaciones en la Laguna (Conversations at La Laguna)\r\n(Revolucion, Tuesday 8 March 1960).\r\n\r\nA similar matter was posed to us on another occasion by Wright\r\nMills, the US writer.\r\n\r\nI must confess that these matters took us somewhat by surprise, in\r\na certain sense, We did not have any Yenan conference with Cuban artists\r\nand writers during the Revolution. Actually, this is a revolution which\r\ntook place and attained power in what might be called record time.\r\nDifferntly from other revolutions, it did not have all the principal\r\nproblems solved.\r\n\r\nConsequently, one of the characteristics of the Revolution has\r\nbeen the necessity of facing many problems hastily. We are just like the\r\nRevolution, that is, we have improvised a great deal. Consequently, it\r\ncannot be said that this Revolution had neither the stage of gestation that\r\nother revolutions have had, or that the leaders of the Revolution did not\r\nhave the intellectual maturity that the leaders of other revolutions have\r\nhad. We believe that we have contributed to the present events in our\r\ncountry to the extent of our forces. We believe that we are carrying out a\r\ngenuine revolution with the efforts of everyone, and that this revolution\r\nis developing and appears to be destined to become one of the important\r\nevents of this century. In spite of this reality, nevertheless, we who have\r\nhad an important part in these events do not believe ourselves to be\r\ntheoreticians of revolution nor intellectuals of revolution. If men are\r\njudged by their deeds, then perhaps we shall have the right to\r\nconsideration for the merit which the Revolution means in itself.\r\nNevertheless, ye do not think this way, and I believe that all of us should\r\nhave a similar attitude, whatever our deeds have been. No matter how\r\nmeritorious they may seem, we must begin by placing ourselves in the honest\r\nposition of not presuming to know more than others do, of not presuming\r\nthat we have learned everything that can be learned, of not presuming that\r\nour points of view are infallible, and not presuming that those who do not\r\nthink exactly the same way are mistaken. That is to say, we should put\r\nourselves in this honest position -- not out of false modesty, but rather\r\nfrom true evaluation of what we know. Because if we put ourselves in this\r\nposition, I believe that it will be easier to march forward correctly. And\r\nif all of us -- both you and we -- adopt this attitude, personal attitudes\r\nwill disappear, and that certain dosage of personalism which we inject into\r\nthe analysis of problems will disappear. Actually, what do we know? We are\r\nall learning. Actually, we have a great deal to learn, and we have not come\r\nhere to teach. We have come to learn also.\r\n\r\nThere were certain fears in the atmosphere, and certain comrades\r\nexpressed those fears.\r\n\r\nWe had the impression at times that we were dreaming a bit as we\r\nwere listening. We had the impression that we had not yet put our feet on\r\nthe ground well. Because if there is some concern and some fear that\r\nrestrains us today, it is with respect to the Revolution itself. The great\r\nConcern which all of us must have is the Revolution in itself. Or is it\r\nthat we believe that we have already won all the revolutionary battles? Is\r\nit that we believe that the Revolution has no dangers? What must be the\r\nprimary Concern of all citizens today? The concern that the Revolution\r\nmight reveal its measures, that the Revolution would asphyxiate art, that\r\nthe Revolution is going to asphyxiate the creative genius of our citizens?\r\nOr should not the Revolution itself be the Concern of everyone? The real or\r\nimaginary dangers that night threaten the creative spirit, or the dangers\r\nthat might threaten the Revolution itself? It is not a matter of our\r\ninvoking this danger as a simple argument, we are merely pointing out that\r\nthe state of mind of all citizens of the country and the state of mind of\r\nall revolutionary writers and artists, or of all artists and writers who\r\nunderstand and justify the Revolution, must be: what dangers might threaten\r\nthe Revolution, and what can are do to help the Revolution? We believe that\r\nthe Revolution has many battles yet to wage, and we believe that at first\r\nthought and our first concern should be what we can do so that the\r\nRevolution can emerge victorious. Because this is the first thing. The\r\nfirst thing is the Revolution itself, and after that, we can concern\r\nourselves with the other matters. This does not mean that the other matters\r\nshould not concern us, but that the basic Concern in our state of mind must\r\nbe the Revolution -- as it is in mine, in any case.\r\n\r\nThe problem which has been discussed here and which we are going\r\nto touch on is the problem of freedom of expression for writers and\r\nartists.\r\n\r\nThe fear has been stirred up here that the Revolution could stifle\r\nthat freedom, whether the Revolution is going to smother the creative\r\nspirit of writers and artists.\r\n\r\nFormal freedom was spoken of here. Everyone agreed with respect to\r\nformal freedom. I believe that there is no doubt concerning this problem.\r\n\r\nThe matter becomes more subtle and actually turns into the\r\nessential point of the discussion when freedom of content is involved. It\r\nis the most subtle point because it is exposed to the most diverse\r\ninterpretations. The most debatable point of this question is whether or\r\nnot there should be absolute freedom of content in artistic expression. It\r\nseems to us that some comrades are defending that hint of view. Perhaps it\r\nwas out of fear of the prohibitions, regulations, limitations, rules, and\r\nauthorities ties to decide on the matter which they visualized.\r\n\r\nIn the first place, permit me to tell you that the Revolution\r\ndefends freedom; that the Revolution has brought a very large number of\r\nfreedoms to the Country; that because of its essence, the Revolution cannot\r\nbe an enemy of freedoms, and that if anyone fears that the Revolution is\r\ngoing to stifle his creative spirit, that Concern is unnecessary and has no\r\nreason for being.\r\n\r\nWhere can the raison d'etre of that Concern lie? Only someone who\r\nis not certain of his revolutionary convictions should truly concern\r\nhimself with this problem. Someone who lacks confidence in his aim art and\r\nin his real capacity for creating might be concerned about this problem.\r\nAnd it might well be asked whether a genuine revolutionary, an artist or\r\nintellectual who sympathizes with the the Revolution and is certain that he\r\nis capable of serving the Revolution could pose this problem. That is to\r\nsay, whether or not that doubt would be present in truly revolutionary\r\nwriters and artists. I believe not; that the field of doubt is left to the\r\nwriters and artists who are not counterrevolutionary, but who do not feel\r\nthemselves to be revolutionary either. (Applause.)\r\n\r\nIt is proper that a writer or artist who does not feel himself to\r\nbe a genuine revolutionary would pose himself thin problem. That is, that\r\nan honest writer or artist who is capable of understanding the raison\r\nd'etre and the justice of the Revolution without joining into it would\r\nposit this problem. Because the revolutionary puts something above all\r\nother matters. The revolutionary puts something above even his aim creative\r\nspirit. He puts the Revolution above everything else, and the most\r\nrevolutionary artist will be that one who is prepared to sacrifice even his\r\nown artistic vocation for the Revolution. (Applause.)\r\n\r\nNo one has ever assumed that all men, or all writers, or all\r\nartists must be revolutionaries, just as no one can assume that all men or\r\nall revolutionaries must be artists, or that every honest man must be a\r\nrevolutionary because of the fact that he is honest. Being a revolutionary\r\nis also an attitude toward life. Being a revolutionary is also an attitude\r\ntoward present reality, and there are men who are resigned to that reality.\r\nThere are men who are adapted to that reality. And there are also men who\r\ncan not resign themselves to or adapt to that reality and who try to change\r\nit, and thus are revolutionaries. However, there can be men who adapt to\r\nthat reality and are still honest men. It is just that their spirit is not\r\na revolutionary spirit. It is just that their attitude to reality is not a\r\nrevolutionary attitude. And, of course, there can be artists and good\r\nartists who do not have a revolutionary attitude to life. It is precisely\r\nto that group of artists and intellectuals that the Revolution in itself is\r\nan unforeseen event, a new event, an event which could even affect their\r\nstate of mind profoundly. It is precisely this group of artists and\r\nintellectuals to whom the Revolution could be a problem.\r\n\r\nIt would never be a problem to a mercenary artist or intellectual,\r\nor to a dishonest artist or intellectual. Such a person knows what he must\r\ndo, knows what is of interest to him, and knows in which direction he must\r\ngo. The problem truly exists for the artist or the intellectual who does\r\nnot have a revolutionary attitude to life and who, nevertheless is an\r\nhonest person. Of course, someone who has this attitude to life -- whether\r\nhe is a revolutionary or not, and whether or net he is an artist -- has his\r\npurposes and objectives, and we may all inquire into those purposes and\r\nobjectives. To the revolutionary, these purposes and objectives are\r\ndirected toward changing reality. These purposes and objectives are\r\ndirected toward the redemption of man. The objective of revolutionaries is\r\nman himself, one's fellow beings, the redemption of one's fellow beings. If\r\nwe revolutionaries are asked what is most important to us, we will say the\r\npeople, and we will always say the people. The people in the real meaning\r\nof the word, that is, that majority of the people which has had to live in\r\nexploitation and in the most cruel neglect. Our basic concern will always\r\nbe the great majorities of the people, that is, the oppressed and exploited\r\nclasses of the people. That is the prism through which we look at\r\neverything. What is good for them will be good for us, whatever is noble,\r\nuseful, and beautiful for them will be noble, useful, and beautiful to us.\r\nOne does not have a revolutionary attitude if he does not think this way,\r\nif he does not think for and about the people -- that is, if one does not\r\nthink and act for that great exploited mass of the people, that great mass\r\nfor whom redemption is wanted.\r\n\r\nAt least, that is the crystal through which we analyze the good,\r\nthe usefulness, and the beautiful in every action.\r\n\r\nWe believe that it is tragic when someone understands this and yet\r\nhas to acknowledge himself to be incapable of fighting for it.\r\n\r\nWe are, or we believe ourselves to be, revolutionary men. Someone\r\nwho is more an artist than a revolutionary cannot think exactly as we do.\r\nWe are fighting for the people, and we are not hurt by any conflict because\r\nwe are fighting for the people, and we know that we can achieve the\r\nobjectives of our struggles. The people are the principal goal. We must\r\nthink of the people before thinking of ourselves, and this is the only\r\nattitude that can be defined as a truly revolutionary attitude. The problem\r\nto which we referred exists for the ones who cannot or do not have that\r\nattitude, but who are honest persons. It is also to them that the\r\nRevolution constitutes a problem, and it is they who constitute a problem\r\nfor the Revolution, a problem with which the Revolution must concern\r\nitself.\r\n\r\nThe case was correctly pointed out here of many writers and\r\nartists who were not revolutionaries, but who nevertheless were honest\r\nartists and writers and who also wanted to help the Revolution and in whose\r\nhelp the Revolution was interested; people who wanted to work for the\r\nRevolution, and in whose knowledge and efforts to its benefit the\r\nRevolution was interested.\r\n\r\nIt is easier to evaluate this when individual cases are analyzed,\r\nThere are many of these individual cases that are not easily analyzed.\r\nHowever, a Catholic writer spoke here, He stated what it was that concerned\r\nhim, and he said it quite clearly. He asked whether he could make an\r\ninterpretation of a certain problem from his idealistic point of view, or\r\nwhether he could write something defending those points of view. He asked\r\nquite frankly whether he could express himself in accordance with those\r\nfeelings within a revolutionary system. He posed the problem in a form\r\nwhich might be seen as symbolic.\r\n\r\nThe thing which concerned him us finding out whether he could\r\nwrite in accordance with those feelings or in accordance with that\r\nideology, which is not precisely the ideology of the Revolution. That he\r\nwas in agreement with the Revolution on social or economic matters, but\r\nthat he had a philosophical position different from the philosophy of the\r\nRevolution. This is a case which greatly merits Consideration, because it\r\nis precisely a case representative of the type of writers and artists who\r\nshow a favorable disposition toward the Revolution, and who wish to know\r\nwhat degree of freedom they have in a revolutionary situation to express\r\nthem selves in accordance with their feelings. This is the sector which\r\nconstitutes a problem for the Revolution, just as the Revolution\r\nconstitutes a problem for them. The Revolution has a duty to be concerned\r\nwith these cases. The Revolution has the obligation to be concerned with\r\nthe situation of these artists and these writers, because the Revolution\r\nmust aspire to having not just all the revolutionaries and all the\r\nrevolutionary artists and intellectuals marching alone with it. It is\r\npossible that the men and women who have a truly revolutionary attitude\r\ntoward reality do not constitute the majority sector of the population.\r\nRevolutionaries are the vanguard of the people, but the revolutionaries\r\nmust aspire to having all the people march along with them. The Revolution\r\ncannot reject having all honest men and women march alone with it, whether\r\nwriters or artists, or not. The Revolution must aspire to having everyone\r\nwho has doubts become a revolutionary. The Revolution must try to win the\r\nmajor part of the people over to its ideas. The Revolution must never\r\nrenounce having the majority of the people with it, having not just the\r\nrevolutionaries, but also all the honest citizens who are with it even\r\nthough they are not revolutionaries -- that is, even though they do not\r\nhave a revolutionary attitude toward life. The Revolution should reject\r\nonly those who are incorrigible reactionaries, who are incorrigible\r\ncounterrevolutionaries. And the Revolution must have a policy for that part\r\nof the people. The Revolution must have an attitude for that part of the\r\nintellectuals and writers. The Revolution must understand that reality, and\r\nconsequently must act in such a way that the entire sector of artists and\r\nintellectuals who are not genuinely revolutionary find a place to work and\r\nto create within the Revolution, and so that their creative spirit will\r\nhave an opportunity and freedom for expression within the Revolution, even\r\nthough they are not revolutionary writers or artists. This means that\r\nwithin the Revolution, everything goes; against the Revolution, nothing.\r\nNothing against the Revolution, because the Revolution has its rights also,\r\nand the first right of the Revolution is the right to exist, and no one can\r\nstand against the right of the Revolution to be and to exist, No one can\r\nrightfully claim a right against the Revolution. Since it takes in the\r\ninterests of the people and Signifies the interests of the entire nation.\r\n\r\nI believe that this is quite clean. What are the rights of\r\nrevolutionary or non-revolutionary writers and artists? Within the\r\nRevolution, everything against the Revolution, no rights at all.\r\n(Applause.)\r\n\r\nThis will not be any law of exception for writers and artists.\r\nThis is a general principle for all citizens. It is a basic principle of\r\nthe Revolution. Counterrevolutionaries -- that is, the enemies of the\r\nRevolution -- have no right against the Revolution, because the Revolution\r\nhas a right: the right to exist, the right to develop, and the right to\r\nwin. Who could have any doubt about this right of a people which has said:\r\n\"Fatherland or Death,\" that is, Revolution or death?\r\n\r\nThe existence of the Revolution or nothing, of a Revolution which\r\nhas said \"We Shall Win,\" that is, which has posed an objective for itself\r\nvery seriously. No matter how respectable the personal reasoning of an\r\nenemy of the Revolution is, the rights and the reasons of a Revolution are\r\nto be respected much more, especially since a Revolution is a historical\r\nprocess, since a Revolution is not and cannot be the work of the caprices\r\nor will of any man, and since a Revolution can be only the work of the need\r\nand the will of a people. The rights of the enemies of an entire people do\r\nnot count in comparison with the rights of that people.\r\n\r\nWhen we spoke of extreme cases, we did so simple to express our\r\nideas more clearly. I have already said that there is a great variety of\r\nmental attitudes between those extreme cases, and there is also a great\r\nvariety of concerns. This does not necessarily mean that harboring some\r\nconcern means not being a revolutionary. We have attempted to define\r\nessential attitudes.\r\n\r\nThe Revolution cannot attempt to stifle art or culture when the\r\ndevelopment of art and culture is one of the goals and one of the basic\r\nobjectives of the Revolution, precisely in order that art and culture will\r\ncome to be a genuine partrimony of the people. And just as we have wanted a\r\nbetter life for the people in the material sphere, so do we also want a\r\nbetter life for the people in all spiritual spheres and a better life in\r\nthe cultural sphere. And just as the Revolution is concerned with the\r\ndevelopment of the conditions and the forces which permit the satisfaction\r\nof all the material needs of the people, so do we also want to develop the\r\nconditions which will permit the satisfaction of all the cultural needs of\r\nthe people.\r\n\r\nThe people have a low cultural level? A high percentage of the\r\npeople do not know how to read or write? A high percentage of the people is\r\nalso going hungry, or at least is living or lived in difficult conditions.\r\nIt lived in conditions of poverty. A part of the people lacks a large\r\nnumber of material goods which are essential to them, and we are attempting\r\nto supply the necessary conditions so that all these material goods will\r\nreach the people.\r\n\r\nWe must supple the necessary conditions for all these cultural\r\ngoods to reach the people in the same way. This does not mean that the\r\nartist has to sacrifice the value of his creations, or that their quality\r\nmust necessarily be sacrificed. It means that we must conduct a struggle in\r\nall senses in order to have the creator produce for the people, and to have\r\nthe people raise their cultural level in turn, so that they might also draw\r\ncloser the creators. No rule of a general nature can be indicated.\r\n\r\nNot all artistic manifestations are of exactly the same nature,\r\nand we have sometimes posed matters here as if all artistic manifestations\r\nwere of exactly the same nature. There are expressions of the creative\r\nspirit which by their very nature can be much more accessible to the people\r\nthan other manifestations of the creative spirit. Thus, no general rule can\r\nbe laid down, because in which artistic expression is it that the artist\r\nmust go to the people, and in which one must the people go to the artist?\r\nCan a statement of a general nature be made in this sense? No. It would be\r\ntoo simple a rule. Efforts must be made to reach the people in all\r\nmanifestations, but everything that is within our soon must also be done in\r\nturn so that the people will be able to understand ever more and ever\r\nbetter, I do not believe that this principle contradicts the aspirations of\r\nany artist, and much less so if one takes into account the fact that men\r\nshould create for their contemporaries.\r\n\r\nDon't say that there are artists who live with their thoughts on\r\nposterity, because without, of course, claiming infallibility or anything\r\nof the sort for our opinion -- I believe that anyone who operates in this\r\nway is engaging in auto-suggestion. (Applause.)\r\n\r\nThis does not mean that someone who works for his contemporaries\r\nmust renounce posterity for his work. Because it is in precisely creation\r\nfor ones contemporaries that works have acquired historical value and\r\nuniversal value, independently even of whether or not the contemporaries\r\nhave understood it. We are not making a Revolution for future generations.\r\nWe are making a Revolution with this generation and for this generation,\r\nindependently of whether or not the benefits of this work benefit future\r\ngenerations and become a historical event. We are not making a Revolution\r\nfor posterity. This Revolution will pass into posterity because it is a\r\nRevolution for the present and for the men and women of the present.\r\n(Applause.)\r\n\r\nWho would follow us if we were making a Revolution for future\r\ngenerations?\r\n\r\nWe are working and creating for our contemporaries, but this does\r\nnot deny the merit of aspiring to eternity to any artistic creation.\r\n\r\nThese are truths which we all must analyze honestly, I believe\r\nthat we must set out from certain fundamental truths in order not to draw\r\nerroneous conclusions. We do not see that there is any reason for concern\r\non the part of any honest artist or writer. We are not enemies of freedom.\r\nNo one here is an enemy of freedom. Whom do we fear? bat authority is it\r\nthat we fear will stifle our creative spirit? Is it that we fear the\r\ncomrades on the National Cultural Council? In our conversations with the\r\ncomrades of the National Cultural Council, we have observed points of view\r\nand feelings that are very alien to the concerns about limitations, nooses,\r\nand such things imposed on the creative spirit which have been posed here.\r\n\r\nOur conclusion is that the comrades on the National Council are as\r\nconcerned as all of you are to see that the best conditions for the\r\ndevelopment of the creative spirit of artists and intellectuals are\r\nachieved. The Revolution and the Revolutionary Government have a duty to\r\nhave a highly qualified agency which stimulates, encourages, develops, and\r\norients -- yes, orients -- that creative spirit. We consider this to be an\r\nobligation, and could this possibly be an attack on the rights of writers\r\nand artists? Could this constitute a threat to the rights of writers and\r\nartists, for fear of engaging in arbitrariness or an excess of authority?\r\nWe might harbor the fear in like manner that a policeman would attack us\r\nwhen we pass a traffic light. We might also harbor the fear that the judge\r\nwould sentence us. We might also harbor the fear that the force which\r\nexists in the Revolutionary Power would commit an act of violence against\r\nus.\r\n\r\nThat is, we would then have to be concerned about all these\r\nthings. Nevertheless, the citizen's attitude is not that of believing that\r\na militiaman is going to shoot at him, that a judge is going to sentence\r\nhim, or that the Power is going to indulge in violence against his person.\r\n\r\nThe existence of an authority in the cultural sphere does not mean\r\nthat there is any reason to be concerned with abuse of that authority,\r\nbecause who is it that wishes or desires for that cultural authority not to\r\nexist? One might aspire along this same route to the non-existence of the\r\nmilitia, to the non-existence of the police, to the non-existence of State\r\nPower, and even to the non-existence of the State. And if anyone is so\r\nconcerned about the existence of the slightest state authority, he should\r\nnot worry and he should be patient, because the day will come when the\r\nstate does not exist either. (Applause.)\r\n\r\nA council which orients, stimulates, develops, and works for the\r\ncreation of better conditions for the work of artists and intellectuals\r\nmust exist. Who is the first defender of the interests of artists and\r\nintellectuals, if not that very Council? Who is it that proposes laws and\r\nsuggests measures of various kinds to improve these conditions, if not the\r\nNational Cultural Council itself? Who is proposing a National Printing Law\r\nto clear up the deficiencies that have been pointed out here? Who is\r\nproposing the creation of an Institute of Ethnology and Folklore, if not\r\nthe National Council itself? Who pleads for the availability of budgetary\r\nprovisions and the necessary foreign exchange to bring in books, which have\r\nnot come into the country for many months, and to acquire the materials\r\nwith which painters and artists can work? Who is concerned about economic\r\nproblems, that is, the material conditions of artists? Which agency is it\r\nthat is concerned with a large number of the present needs of writers and\r\nartists? Who is it that defends the budgets, construction, and projects\r\nwithin the Government that are directed precisely toward raising the level\r\nof the conditions in which you will work? It is precisely the National\r\nCultural Council.\r\n\r\nWhy look on that Council with reservations? Why look on that\r\nauthority as one which presumably is going to do the opposite, to lit our\r\nconditions, and stifle our creative spirit?\r\n\r\nIt can be understood that persons without any problems of any kind\r\nwould be concerned about that authority. Actually, however, those who can\r\nappreciate the need for all the activity and all the work that the Council\r\nmust do should never look on it with reservation. Because the Council also\r\nhas an obligation to the people and an obligation to the Revolution and to\r\nthe Revolutionary Government. That obligation is to fulfill the purposes\r\nfor which it was created, and it is just as much interested in the success\r\nof its work as every artist is interested in that of his own.\r\n\r\nI do not know if there are any of the basic problems that have\r\nbeen pointed out here which I have not dealt with. The problem of the film\r\nwas discussed a great deal here. I have not seen the film, but I would like\r\nto see it. I am curious to see the film. Was the film mistreated? Actually,\r\nI don't believe that any film has received so many honors, or that any film\r\nhas been discussed so much.\r\n\r\nEven though we have not seen the film, we have submitted to the\r\njudgement of comrades who have seen it, among them the opinion of the\r\nComrade President and that of various comrades of the National Cultural\r\nCouncil. It would be superfluous to say that this is a judgment and an\r\nopinion which merits complete respect for us. However, there is something\r\nwhich I believe cannot be disputed, and that is the right established by\r\nlaw to exercise the function which the Cinematography Institute or the\r\nReview Commission carried out in this cased Is it possible that this right\r\nof the Government is being disputed? Does the Government have or not have\r\nthe right to exercise that function? In this case, the basic thing to us\r\nabove all is to establish whether or not that right existed on the part of\r\nthe Government. One might argue about the matter of the procedure, as was\r\ndone, determining whether or not it was suitable and whether a cordial kind\r\nof procedure would have been better. One can even argue about whether or\r\nnot the decision was just. However, there is one thing which I do not\r\nbelieve anyone disputes, and that is the right of the Government to\r\nexercise that function. If we impugn that right, it would then mean that\r\nthe Government does not have the right to review the films which are going\r\nto be shown to the people.\r\n\r\nI believe that this is an indisputable right. And there is\r\nsomething else which all of us understand perfectly well. Among\r\nmanifestations of an intellectual or artistic type, there are some which\r\nare more important with respect to the education of the people or the\r\nideological instruction of the people than are other kinds of artistic\r\nmanifestations. I do not believe that anyone would dispute the fact that\r\nthe cinema and television are one of these basic and very important media.\r\nAnd in reality, can the right of the Government in the midst of a\r\nRevolution to regulate, review, and censor the films shown to the public be\r\ndisputed? Is it possible that this is what is being argued?\r\n\r\nAnd can the right of the Revolutionary Government to censor those\r\nmedia of communication which influence the people so greatly be considered\r\nas a limitation or a prohibitive formula?\r\n\r\nIf we were to impugn that right of the Revolutionary Government,\r\nwe would be incurring in a problem of principles. Because denying that\r\npower to the Revolutionary Government would mean denying the Government's\r\nfunctions and responsibility to lead the people and to lead the Revolution,\r\nespecially in the midst of a revolutionary struggle. At times it has seemed\r\nthat this right of the Government were going impugned. And if that right of\r\nthe Government is being impugned, we believe that the Government does have\r\nthe right. And if it has this right, it can make use of it. It may do so\r\nmistakenly, because we do not claim that the Government is infallible. The\r\nGovernment does not necessarily have to be infallible in exercising a right\r\nor a function that is its. But who is it that has so many reservations with\r\nrespect to the Government, who is it that has so many doubts, who is it\r\nthat has so many suspicions with respect to the Revolutionary Government,\r\nand who is it that mistrusts the Revolutionary Government may always be\r\nmistaken? I am not claiming that the Government was mistaken in this\r\ndecision, not by any means. What I am stating is that the Government was\r\nacting in use of a right. I try to place myself in the position of those\r\nwho worked on this film. I try to understand even their sorrow,\r\ndispleasure, and pain in the fact that the film was not shown. Anyone can\r\nunderstand that perfectly well. However, it must be understood that the\r\nGovernment was acting in use of a right. And that this judgment had the\r\nsupport of competent and responsible comrades in the Government, and that\r\nthere is actually no well-founded reason for mistrusting the spirit of\r\njustice and fairness of the men of the Revolutionary Government, because\r\nthe Revolutionary Government has not given any reasons for anyone to put\r\nits spirit of justice and of fairness in doubt.\r\n\r\nWe cannot think that we are perfect, and we cannot even think that\r\nwe are alien to strong feelings. Some persons might say that certain\r\ncomrades in the Government have strong feelings, or are not devoid of\r\nfeelings. But can those who believe such a thing really claim that they are\r\ndevoid of feelings?\r\n\r\nAnd can attitudes of a personal nature be attributed to certain\r\ncomrades without acceptance of the fact that those opinions themselves\r\nmight also be inspired by attitudes of a personal kind? We might say here\r\nthat the person who thinks himself to be perfect or who feels himself to be\r\ndevoid of feelings should cast the first stone.\r\n\r\nI believe that there have been personalism and strong feelings in\r\nthe debate. Weren't there personalism and strong feelings in these\r\ndiscussions? Did everyone come here absolutely stripped of strong feelings\r\nand of personalism? Have absolutely all of us come stripped of a group\r\nspirit? Haven't there been currents and trends within this discussion? This\r\ncannot be denied. A six-year old child sitting here would have noticed the\r\nvarious trends, points of view, and strong feelings that were confronting\r\neach other here.\r\n\r\nThe comrades have said many things. There were interesting things\r\nsaid. Some have said brilliant things. Everyone has been very \"erudite.\"\r\nThere has been a reality, however, above all else -- the very reality of\r\nthe discussion and the freedom with which everyone has been able to express\r\nand defend his points of view. The freedom with which everyone has been\r\nable to speak and explain his opinions here in an extensive meeting, one\r\nwhich has been more extensive every day. A meeting which we consider to be\r\na positive meeting; a meeting at which we were able to dissipate a number\r\nof doubts and concerns. Were there any quarrels? Who could doubt it? Were\r\nthere any wars and skirmished between the writers and artists here? Who\r\ncould doubt it? Were there any criticisms and super-criticisms? Who could\r\ndoubt it? And have certain comrades tested their weapons and proved their\r\nweapons at the cost of other comrades? Who could doubt it?\r\n\r\nThose who have been harmed have spoken here, expressing their\r\nresentful complaints against what they considered to be unjust attacks.\r\nFortunately, the wounded rather than the corpses have passed by here. Even\r\nsome comrades who Ire still convalescing from the wounds received. And some\r\nof them have submitted as an obvious injustice the fact that they were\r\nattacked with heavy caliber guns without their even being able to return\r\nthe fire. Did any hard criticism take place? Who could doubt it? In a\r\ncertain sense, a problem was posed here, one which we will not attempt to\r\nexplain in a few words. Cut of the things which were posed here, however, I\r\nbelieve that one of the most correct things is the fact that the spirit of\r\ncriticism should be constructive and positive, and not destructive. That\r\nis, insofar as we understand it. This is not generally taken into account,\r\nhowever. For some reason, the word \"criticism\" has come to be synonymous\r\nwith attack, when it actually does not mean any such thing. When someone is\r\ntold, \"So-and-so criticized you,\" that person becomes angry before asking\r\nwhat it was that he actually said. That is, he thinks that he has been\r\ndestroyed, Actually, if someone of us who have been a trifle removed from\r\nthese problems and these struggles, to these tests and proofs of weapons,\r\nis told about the case of certain comrades who have been virtually on the\r\nbrink of irremediable depression because of devastating criticisms levelled\r\nagainst them, we might possibly sympathize with the victims, because we\r\nhave a tendency to sympathize with victims. We sincerely wish only to\r\ncontribute to the understanding and unity of everyone, and so we have tried\r\nto avoid words which might harm or discourage anyone. One fact, however, is\r\nunquestionable -- that there might occur cases of these struggles or\r\ncontroversies in which equal conditions for everyone do not exist. From the\r\npoint of view of the Revolution, that cannot be just. The Revolution can\r\nnot give some people weapons against others, The Revolution must not give\r\nweapons to some people to use against others, and we believe that writers\r\nand artists should all have the opportunity to express themselves. We\r\nbelieve that writers and artists should have a cultural journal through\r\ntheir association, a broad one to which everyone has access, Doesn't this\r\nseem like a just solution to you? However, the Revolution cannot put these\r\nresources in the hands of a group, The Revolution can and must mobilize\r\nthese resources in such a way that they can be extensively utilized by all\r\nwriters and artists. You are soon going to form the Artists' Association.\r\nYou are going to convoke a congress. That congress should be held with a\r\ntruly constructive spirit, and we are confident that you are capable of\r\ncarrying it out in that spirit. From it will arise a powerful Association\r\nof Writers and Artists to which everyone should come with a truly\r\nconstructive spirit. Because if someone thinks that there is any desire to\r\neliminate or to stifle him, we can assure him that he is absolutely\r\nmistaken.\r\n\r\nIt is now time for you to contribute in organized fashion and with\r\nall your enthusiasm to the tasks which are yours in the Revolution, and to\r\nform a broad organism of all writers and artists. I do not know whether the\r\nmatters posed here will be discussed at the congress. However, we do know\r\nthat the congress is going to meet, and that its deliberations, the\r\ndeliberations which the Association of Writers and Artists should have,\r\nwill be a good subject of conversation for our next meetings. We believe\r\nthat there should be other meetings. At least, we would not like to deprive\r\nour selves of that pleasure and of the usefulness of these meetings, They\r\nhave also been an occasion for attention to all these problems. We must\r\nmeet again. What does this mean? That we must continue discussing these\r\nproblems. That is, that there is something which should be the motivation\r\nfor tranquillity on the part of everyone, and that is learning of the\r\ninterest which the Government has in the problems and of the opportunity to\r\ndiscuss all the matters in broad assemblies that there will be in the\r\nfuture. It seems to us that this should be a motive for satisfaction on the\r\npart of writers and artists. Along with this, we shall also continue to\r\nacquire more information and better knowledge.\r\n\r\nThe National Cultural Council must also have another informational\r\norgan. I believe that things are taking shape, This cannot be called guided\r\nculture, nor stifling the creative artistic spirit. How can anyone who has\r\nhis five senses and is also a true artist think that this constitutes\r\nstifling the creative spirit? The Revolution wants artists to put their\r\nutmost effort into the service of the people. It wants them to put their\r\nmaximum interest and effort into the revolutionary undertaking. We believe\r\nthat this is a just aspiration of the Revolution.\r\n\r\nDoes this mean that we are going to tell the people here what they\r\nhave to write? No. Let everyone write what he wants to, and if what he\r\nwrites is no good, it doesn't matter. If what he paints is no good, it\r\ndoesn't matter. We are not forbidding anyone to write on the subject that\r\nhe prefers. On the contrary. And everyone should express himself in the\r\nmanner which he believes proper, and express the idea that he wants to e\r\nexpress. We shall always evaluate their creation through the prism of the\r\nrevolutionary crystal. This also is a right, one of the Revolutionary\r\nGovernment, and one to be respected as much as the right of everyone to\r\nexpress what he wishes to.\r\n\r\nA number of measures are being taken, and we have pointed out some\r\nof them. For those who are concerned with the problem of the National\r\nPrinting House, we can report that a law which will regulate its operation\r\nis under consideration, one that will create various publishers who will\r\nsee to the various Publishing needs, correcting the existing deficiencies\r\nof the present time. The recently created National Printing House had to\r\ncome forth under difficult working conditions, because it had to begin its\r\nwork at the plant of a newspaper which suddenly ceased publication. We were\r\npresent on the day when that newspaper plant became the country's first\r\nprinting plant, with all its workers and writers, It also had to take care\r\nof urgently needed works, many of them of a military type. And so it has\r\nshortcomings that will be rectified. There is no need to repeat the\r\ncomplaints which have been expressed about the National Printing House at\r\nthis meeting. The relevant decisions are also being taken for the purpose\r\nof acquiring books and acquiring working material to solve all the problems\r\nwhich have concerned writers and artists, and on which the National\r\nCultural Council has been quite persistent. You know that there are various\r\ndepartments and various institutions in the state, and that everyone within\r\nthe state requests and aspires to have the necessary resources for being\r\nable to satisfy his aspirations and fulfilling his functions fully. We\r\nwould like to point out certain aspects in which progress has already been\r\nmade and which should be the occasion for encouragement for all of us. For\r\nexample, there has been the success achieved with the symphony orchestra,\r\nwhich has been reconstructed and totally reintegrated, and which has\r\nattained high levels not only artistically, but also revolutionarily,\r\nbecause 50 members of the symphony orchestra are already militiamen.\r\n\r\nThe Cuban Ballet has also been reorganized, and it has just\r\ncompleted a foreign tour in which it received the admiration and\r\nacknowledgment of all the countries visited.\r\n\r\nThe modern dance group is also having success, and it also has\r\nreceived very valuable praise in Europe.\r\n\r\nFor its part, the National Library is developing a cultural\r\npolicy, engaging in arousing the people's interest in music and painting.\r\nIt has organized a department of painting for the purpose of publicizing\r\nthese works to the people. A music department, a young people's department,\r\nand also a children's section.\r\n\r\nShortly before coming to this hall, we were visiting the\r\nchildren's department of the National Library. We saw the number of\r\nchildren who are already associated with it, the work that is being done\r\nthere, and the progress which the National Library has achieved. This is\r\nmotivation for the Government to supply the Library with the resources that\r\nit needs in order to continue developing that work. The National Printing\r\nHouse is already a reality, and with the new organizational forms which it\r\nis going to take, it also is a conquest of the Revolution which will\r\ncontribute greatly to the training of the people.\r\n\r\nThe Cinematography Institute is also a reality. The basic\r\ninvestments for supplying it with the equipment and material that it needs\r\nin order to work have been made during this entire first stage. At least\r\nthe Revolution has established the foundations for the cinema industry.\r\nThis has been a great effort, if one takes into account that it is not a\r\nquestion of an industrialized country, and that the acquisition of all that\r\nequipment has meant sacrifices and if there are no more resources for the\r\ncinema, this does not mean a restrictive policy of the Government, but\r\nsimply is due to the shortage Of current economic resources for creating a\r\nfan movement which would permit the development of all talents in the\r\ncinema, and which will be put into practice when we have those resources.\r\nFor its part, the policy at the Cinematography Institute will be the object\r\nof discussion and of emulation among the various working teams. The work of\r\nthe ICAIC [Instituto Cubano da Arte e Industria Cinematograficas; Cuban\r\nInstitute of Cinema Arts] cannot yet be judged. The Cinema Institute has\r\nnot yet been able to have enough time to carry out a task which could be\r\njudged, but it has worked, and we know that a number of its documentaries\r\nhave contributed greatly to publicizing the work of the Revolution abroad.\r\nHowever, the thing that is of interest here is to emphasize that the\r\nfoundations for the cinema industry are already established.\r\n\r\nPublicity, conference, and cultural extension work through the\r\nvarious agencies have also been carried out. In the end, however, this is\r\nnothing compared with that can be done and with what the Revolution hopes\r\nto develop.\r\n\r\nA number of problems of interest to writers and artists remain to\r\nbe solved. There are problems of a material nature -- that is, there are\r\nproblems of an economic nature. The previous conditions do not exist at the\r\npresent time. That small Privileged sector which bought the works of\r\nartists no longer exists here. They bought them, of course, at poverty\r\nprices, because more than one artist ended up a neglected indigent. These\r\nproblems remain to be faced and solved. The Revolutionary Government must\r\nsolve them. They should also be the concern of the National Cultural\r\nCouncil, as should be the problem of the artists who are no longer\r\nproducing and are completely forsaken. The artist must be guaranteed not\r\nonly the proper material conditions at present, but also security for the\r\nfuture. In a certain sense, the reorganization of the Copyright Institute\r\nhas already achieved a considerable improvement in the living conditions of\r\na number of authors who were miserably exploited and whose rights were\r\nmocked. These people now have incomes which have permitted many of them to\r\nemerge from the situation of extreme poverty in which they were.\r\n\r\nThese are steps which the Revolution has taken. However, they are\r\nnothing but some steps, and we must go on to other steps which will create\r\nstill better conditions.\r\n\r\nThere is also the notion of organizing some recreational and\r\nworking site for artists and writers, on one occasion as we were traveling\r\nabout the national territory, the idea occurred to us in a very beautiful\r\nplace -- the Isle of Pines -- of constructing a district, a hamlet in the\r\nmidst of the pine trees for the purpose of rewarding and paying homage to\r\nwriters and artists. At that time, we were thinking about establishing some\r\nkind of prize for the best progressive writers and artists of the world.\r\nThat project did not take shape, but it could be revived, The idea would be\r\nto build a hamlet or village in a backwater of peace which invites one to\r\nrest, which invites one to write. I believe that it would be well worth the\r\ntrouble for artists, including architects, to begin to design or conceive\r\nan ideal resting place for a writer or an artist, and to see if they can\r\nreach agreement on that. The Revolutionary Government is prepared on its\r\npart to put the resources in some part of the budget, now that everything\r\nis being planned. And will Planning be a limitation imposed on the creative\r\nspirit by us revolutionaries? Because don't forget that in a certain sense\r\nwe revolutionaries see ourselves situated somewhat rashly before the\r\nreality of planning. And that poses a problem for us, because up to the\r\npresent we have been creative spirits of revolutionary initiatives and of\r\nrevolutionary investments which must now be planned. Don't think that we\r\nare exempt from the problems. From our hint of view, we might also protest\r\nagainst that. That is, we now know what is going to be done next year, the\r\nfollowing year, and the next year. Who will dispute the fact that the\r\neconomy must be planned? There is room within that planning, however, for\r\nthe construction of a resting place for writers and artists, and it would\r\ntruly be satisfying if the Revolution could count that accomplishment among\r\nits undertakings.\r\n\r\nWe have been concerned here with the present situation of writers\r\nand artists. We have neglected the prospects for the future somewhat. And\r\nwe, who have no reasons to complain about you, have also devoted a moment\r\nto thinking about the artists and writers of the future. We think about how\r\nit would be if we met again in 5 or 10 years, as the men of the Government\r\nshould meet again with writers and artists in the future. This does not\r\nmean that it would be we ourselves necessarily. This would be at a time\r\nwhen culture had acquired the extraordinary development which we hope for\r\nit to achieve when the first fruits of the present academy and school plans\r\nemerge.\r\n\r\nThe Revolutionary Government had been concerned about the\r\nextension of culture to the people long before these matters had been\r\nposed. We have always been very optimistic, I believe that one cannot be a\r\nrevolutionary without being an optimist, because the difficulties which a\r\nRevolution has to overcome are very serious and one must be an optimist. A\r\nPessimist could never be a revolutionary.\r\n\r\nThe Revolution has had its Stages. The Revolution had a stage in\r\nwhich a number of initiatives originated from various organisms. Even the\r\nINRA [Instituto National de la Reforma Agraria; National Institute for\r\nAgrarian Reform] was carrying out cultural extension activities, We did not\r\neven fail to clash with the National Theater, because work was being done\r\nthere and we were suddenly doing other work on our own account. This is all\r\nbeing fit into the framework of an organization now, and so the idea of\r\nbringing culture to the countryside, to the farms, and to the cooperatives\r\narose with respect to the peasants of the cooperatives and the farms.\r\n\r\nHow? Well, by bringing in comrades and turning them into\r\ninstructors of music, of ballet, and of the theater. We optimists can\r\nlaunch only initiatives of this kind. But how can an inclination for the\r\ntheater be aroused in a peasant, for example? Where were the instructors?\r\nWhere did we get them, that we could send them later on to 3,000 people's\r\nfarms and 600 cooperative? All of this presents difficulties, but I am sure\r\nthat you all agree that it will be positive if it can be achieved,\r\nespecially in the sense of beginning to discover talents in the people and\r\nin turning the performing people into a creator, because in the end, the\r\npeople are the great creator. We must not forget this, and we also must not\r\nforget the thousands and thousands of talents which must have been lost in\r\nour countryside and in our cities for lack of conditions and opportunities\r\nto be developed. Unless we presume that we are the most intelligent people\r\nthat have ever been born in this country -- and I will begin by saying that\r\nI do not presume any such thing -- we can all be sure that many talents\r\nhave been lost in our countryside. I have often cited the example of the\r\nfact that in the place where I was born, I was the only one of some 1,000\r\nchildren who was able to pursue a university career, I was poorly prepared,\r\nof course, since I was not freed of having to go through a number of\r\ncolleges with priests, etc. I do not wish to hurl an anathema at anyone,\r\nbut I do say that I have the same right to say what I please as everyone\r\nelse here had. To complain. I have the right to complain. Someone said that\r\nhe was shaped by bourgeois society, and I can say that I was shaped by\r\nsomething still worse. That I was shaped by the worst reaction, and that a\r\nlarge part of the years of my life were lost in obscurantism, superstition,\r\nand falsehood.\r\n\r\nThat was the time in which they taught one not to think, but\r\nrather forced him to believe. I believe that when an attempt is made to\r\ntruncate man's capacity for thought and reason, man is turned from a human\r\nbeing into a domesticated animal. I am not revolting against man's\r\nreligious feelings. We respect those feelings, and we respect man's right\r\nto freedom of belief and of religion. However, that does not mean that my\r\nown freedom was respected. I did not have any freedom of belief or of\r\nreligion. A belief and a religion were imposed on me, and they were\r\ndomesticating me for 12 years.\r\n\r\nIt is natural that I must speak somewhat complainingly about the\r\nyears that I could have used -- at the time when young people have the\r\ngreatest interest and curiosity about things -- in systematic study which\r\nwould have permitted me to have acquired that culture which the children of\r\nCuba today will have an ample opportunity to acquire.\r\n\r\nThat is, in spite of everything, the only one among a thousand who\r\nwas able to get a university degree had to pass through that grinding mill\r\nin which only by a miracle will one not be mentally pulverized forever. The\r\nonly one out of a thousand had to go through all that.\r\n\r\nWhy? Ah, because I was the only one out of the thousand for whom a\r\nprivate college could be afforded, so that I could study. Now should I\r\nbelieve for this reason that I was the cleverest and most intelligent among\r\nthe thousand? I believe that we are a product of selection, but not so much\r\nnatural as social. I was selected socially to go to the university, and I\r\nam speaking socially here now about a process of social and not natural\r\nselection. Natural selection left who knows how many tens of thousands of\r\nyoung people, superior to all of us,in ignorance. That is the truth.\r\nSomeone who believes himself to be an artist should think about the fact\r\nthat many others, much better artists than he, may not have become artists.\r\nIt would be unrealistic of us not to admit this. Among other things, we are\r\nprivileged because we were not born as vagabond children. What has been\r\nsaid proves the enormous quantity of intelligences which have been lost\r\nsimply out of the lack of opportunity. We are going to bring opportunity to\r\nall those intelligences We are going to create the conditions that will\r\npermit every artistic, literary, scientific, or any other kind of talent to\r\nbe developed. Think of what it means that the Revolution is permitting\r\nthis, and that the entire people will be literate by the next school year,\r\nwith schools everywhere in Cuba, with achievement campaigns, and with\r\nteacher training. This will make it possible to find and discover every\r\ntalent, and this is just a beginning. In the countryside, all these\r\ninstructors will know which child has a calling, and they will indicate\r\nwhich child should be given a scholarship to the National Academy of Art At\r\nthe same time, however, they will arouse artistic taste and cultural\r\ninclinations in adults. Some experiments which have been carried out prove\r\nthe ability of the peasant and the man of the people to assimilate artistic\r\nmatters, to assimilate culture, and to put himself immediately to\r\nproducing. There are comrades in certain cooperatives who have already\r\nsucceeding in forming theatrical groups. In addition, the interest which\r\nthe peasant has in all these matters was proven recently with the\r\nperformances given in various parts of the Republic and the artistic work\r\nwhich the men and women of the people did. Think, then, what it will mean\r\nwhen we have instructors of theater, of music, and of the dance in every\r\ncooperative and at every people's farms.\r\n\r\nWe shall be able to send a thousand instructors in each of these\r\ncategories in the course of only two years -- more than a thousand, for the\r\ntheater, for the dance, and for music.\r\n\r\nThe schools have been organized They are already in operation.\r\nImagine what it will mean in terms of cultural extension when there are a\r\nthousand dance groups, music groups, and theatrical groups in the\r\ncountryside all over the island. We are not speaking of the city, because\r\nit will be a bit easier in the city. Because some people have said here\r\nthat it is necessary to raise the cultural level of the people, but how?\r\nThe Revolutionary Government has taken an interest in this, and the\r\nRevolutionary Government is creating the conditions so that the culture and\r\nthe level of cultural training of the people will have been raised greatly\r\nwithin a few years.\r\n\r\nWe have selected these three fields, but one could continue\r\nselecting other fields and continue to work to develop culture in all its\r\naspects.\r\n\r\nThis school is already in operation, and the comrades who work at\r\nthe school are satisfied with the progress of this group of future\r\ninstructors. In addition, however, construction has already begun on the\r\nNational Academy of Art, aside from the National Academy of Annual Arts.\r\nCuba is certainly going to have the most beautiful Academy of Arts in the\r\nentire world. Why? Because that academy is situated in one of the most\r\nbeautiful residential districts of the world, where the most extravagant\r\nCuban bourgeoisie lived; in the best district of the most ostentatious and\r\nmost extravagant bourgeoisie, and also the most uncultivated -- let it be\r\nsaid in passing -- because while none of these homes lacked a bar, their\r\noccupants, with some exceptions, did not concern themselves with cultural\r\nproblems. They lived in an incredibly extravagant manner, and it is\r\nworthwhile to take a tour of the area to see how those people lived.\r\nHowever, they did not know that they were building an extraordinary Academy\r\nof Arts, and that is what will remain of what they did, because students\r\nwill live in the homes that were the residences of millionaires. They will\r\nnot live cloistered. They will live as if in a home, and they will attend\r\nclasses at the Academy. The Academy will be situated in the middle of the\r\nCountry Club, where a group of architectartists have designed the\r\nconstruction work that will be done. They have already begun, and they are\r\ncommitted to complete it by December. We already have 300,000 feet of caoba\r\nlumber. The music, dance, ballet, theater, and painting schools will be in\r\nthe middle of the golf course, in a site of natural beauty that is a dream.\r\nThat is where the Academy of Arts is going to be located, with 60 homes\r\nsituated about it, and with the social club at one side. The latter in turn\r\nhas dining halls, assembly rooms, swimming pools, and also a floor for\r\nvisitors in which the foreign professors who come to help us can be lodged.\r\nThis Academy will have a capacity of up to 3,000 children -- that is, 3,000\r\nscholarship students -- and we hope that it will begin to operate in the\r\ncoming school year.\r\n\r\nThe National Academy of Manual Arts will also begin to function,\r\nwith other homes, another golf course, and with similar construction. That\r\nis, they will be academies of a national type. This does not mean that they\r\nwill be the only schools or anything of the sort. However, the young people\r\nwho show the greatest ability will come to them as scholarship students,\r\nwithout it costing their families anything at all. These young people and\r\nchildren will have ideal conditions for developing. Anyone would want to be\r\na boy now, to be able to enter one of these academies. Isn't that true?\r\nMention was made here of painters who live on coffee with milk alone.\r\nImagine what different conditions there will be now, and let us say whether\r\nthe creative spirit will now find ideal conditions for developing.\r\nInstruction, housing, board, general culture. . . .Some children will begin\r\nto study in these schools at the age of 8 years, and they will receive\r\ngeneral education along with artistic training. . . . Won't they be able to\r\ndevelop their talents and their personalities fully there? . . .\r\n\r\nThese are more than ideas or dreams, They are already realities of\r\nthe Revolution. The instructors that are being trained, the national\r\nschools than are being prepared, and the schools for amateurs that will\r\nalso be established. This is what the Revolution means. It is for this\r\nreason that the Revolution is important for culture. How could we do this\r\nwithout the Revolution? Let us suppose that we are afraid that \"our\r\ncreative spirit will wither, crushed by the despotic hands of the Stalinist\r\nRevolution,\" (Laughter) Gentlemen, would it not be better to think of the\r\nfuture? Are we going to think about the fact that our flowers are withering\r\nat a time when we are sowing flowers everywhere? When we are forging these\r\ncreative spirits of the future? And who would not exchange the present, who\r\nworld not even exchange his own present for that future? Who would not\r\nexchange his own things, who would not sacrifice his own for that future?\r\nAnd who that has artistic sensitivity does not have the readiness of the\r\nfighter who dies in a battle, knows that he is dying and that he will cease\r\nto exist physically, but who knows that his blood will fertilize the path\r\nof victory of his fellow-beings, of his people? Think about the fighter who\r\ndies in battle and who sacrifices everything which he has. He sacrifices\r\nhis life, he sacrifices his family, he sacrifices his wife, and he\r\nsacrifices his children, and for what? So that we can do all these things.\r\nAnd who is it that has human feelings and artistic sensitivity who does not\r\nthink that doing this is worth all the sacrifices that may be necessary?\r\nHowever, the Revolution does not ask for the sacrifice of creative\r\ngeniuses. On the contrary, the Revolution says that this creative spirit\r\nshould be put into the service of this undertaking, without fear that the\r\nundertaking will be truncated. However, if you should some day think that\r\ndour work could be cut short, you should say: it is well worth it for my\r\nPersonal work to be cut short so that we can do something such as that\r\nwhich we have ahead of us (Applause.)\r\n\r\nWe ask the artist to develop his creative effort to the maximum.\r\nWe want to create the ideal conditions for the creation of the artist and\r\nthe intellectual, because if we are creating for the future, why would we\r\nnot want the best for the present artists and intellectuals? We are asking\r\nfor the maximum development for culture and, very precisely, in function of\r\nthe Revolution, because the Revolution means precisely more culture and\r\nmore art.\r\n\r\nWe ask intellectuals and artists to put their grain of sand into\r\nthis undertaking, which in the end will be an undertaking of this\r\ngeneration. The next generation will be better than ours, but we shall be\r\nthe ones who have made that better generation possible. We shall be the\r\nforgers of that future generation. We, those of this ageless generation\r\ninto which we all fall; both the bearded ones and the beardless, and those\r\nwho have plenty of hair and those who have none, or who have white hair.\r\nThis is the under taking of all us. We are going to wage a war against lack\r\nof culture. We are going to wage a battle against lack of culture. We are\r\ngoing to launch an irreconcilable dispute against lack of culture. We are\r\ngoing to fight it, and we are going to test our weapons, Someone does not\r\nwant to take part? Well, what greater punishment is there than depriving\r\noneself of the satisfaction in what others are doing? [Ye said that we had\r\nbeen privileged. Because we were learning how to read and to write in a\r\nschool, and could go to an institute or a university, or at least acquire\r\nthe sufficient rudiments of education necessary in order to be able to do\r\nsomething. And can't we call ourselves Privileged for being able to live in\r\nthe midst of a revolution? Didn't we devote ourselves with great interest\r\nto reading about revolutions? And who is it that has not read the history\r\nof the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution with great interest? Who\r\nhas not at some time dreamed Of having been a personal witness of those\r\nrevolutions? Something has often happened to me, for example. When I read\r\nabout the War of Independence, I regret not having been born at that time,\r\nand I am sorry not to have been a fighter for independence and not to have\r\nexperienced that action, because all of us have read the accounts of our\r\nwar for independence with genuine feeling We envied the intellectuals, the\r\nartists, the warriors, the fighters, and the commanders of that age.\r\nNevertheless, it has been our privilege to experience and to be personal\r\nwitnesses to a genuine revolution, a revolution whose power is still\r\ndeveloping outside the boundaries of our country and whose political and\r\nmoral influence is making imperialism on this continent shudder and\r\nstagger, (Applause.), and for which reason the Cuban Revolution is becoming\r\nthe most important event of this century for Latin America, the most\r\nimportant event since the wars for independence of the 19th century, a\r\ngenuinely new era of the redemption of man Because what were those wars for\r\nindependence except the replacement of colonial rule by the rule of the\r\nruling and exploiting classes in all those countries?\r\n\r\nThe experience of a great historical event has been ours. It could\r\nbe said that it is the second most great historical event which has taken\r\nplace in Latin America in the last three centuries. And we Cubans have been\r\nparticipants in it, knowing that the more we work, the more\r\ninextinguishable flame the Revolution will be and the more it will be\r\ndestined to play a great historical role. You writers and artists have had\r\nthe privilege of being eyewitnesses of this revolution. And a revolution is\r\nsuch an important event in human history that it is well worth the trouble\r\nto experience one, even if just to be a witness to it\r\n\r\nThis is a privilege also. Consequently, those who renounce the\r\nRevolution are those who are incapable of understanding these things, those\r\nwho let themselves be deceived, those who let themselves be confused, and\r\nthose who allow themselves to be perplexed by falsehood. What can be said\r\nabout those who have renounced it, and how can one think of them except\r\nwith grief? To leave this country in full revolutionary development in\r\norder to be submerged in the entrails of that imperialist monster where no\r\nexpression of the spirit can have any life? And they have forsaken the\r\nRevolution in order to go there. They have preferred to be fugitives and\r\ndeserters of their fatherland rather than to be no more than spectators.\r\nAnd you have the opportunity to be more than spectators, to be participants\r\nin this Revolution, to write about it, to express yourselves about it what\r\nwill future generations demand of you? You might be able to execute\r\nmagnificent artistic words from the technical viewpoint, but if a man of a\r\nfuture generation, a man 100 years from now is told that a writer or an\r\nintellectual of this age lived during the era of the Revolution but outside\r\nof it, and did not express the Revolution and was not part of the\r\nRevolution, that would be difficult for him to understand. This is\r\nespecially so when there will be so many, many people in coming years who\r\nwill want to paint the Revolution and write about the Revolution, and will\r\nwant to express themselves about the Revolution, compiling data and reports\r\nin order to find out how it was, what happened, and how we lived. . . . We\r\nhad the experience recently of coming across an old lady 106 years old who\r\nhad just learned how to read and write, and we Proposed that she should\r\nwrite a book. She had been a slave, and we wanted to know how a slave\r\nviewed the world when she was a slave, what her first impressions of life,\r\nof her masters, and of her companions were I believe that this old woman\r\ncould write something more interesting about her age than any of us could.\r\nIt is possible that she will become completely literate in a year and will\r\nalso write a book at age 106. This is the stuff of revolutions! Who could\r\nwrite better than she about what the slave saw, and who could write better\r\nabout the present than you? And how many people will begin to write in the\r\nfuture without having experienced this, at a distance, collecting written\r\nmaterials? On the other hand, we are not hurrying to judge our work,\r\nbecause we shall have an excess of judges. It is not that supposed\r\nauthoritarian judge, the imaginary hangman of culture which we have\r\nfashioned here that is to be feared You should fear other, much more\r\nfearful judges -- fear the judges of posterity! Fear the future\r\ngenerations, which in the end will have the last word! (Great ovation.)\r\n-END-<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Source: Pamphlet entitled Palabras a los Intelectuales (Words to Intellectuals), Havana, National Cultural Council, 1961, 32 p. Male and female Comrades: It is now time for us to take our turn, following three Sessions at which various problems related with&hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/fidel-castro-palabras-a-los-intelectuales-words-to-the-intellectuals\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2078,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2078"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}