Castro Buried Next To The Hero Who Would Abhorred Him

[junkie-dropcap]T[/junkie-dropcap]he funeral procession with the ashes of the dictator Fidel Castro is approaching Saint Iphigenia’s cemetery in the city of Santiago de Cuba.

Castro using the name of José Martí led more than a hundred young people in the attack at two military barracks. Over one hundred youngsters were not Communists, but members of the anti-Communist Orthodox Party’s youth. Castro pushed these young men into a fratricidal action on July 26th, 1953. He blamed Martí [who had died fifty-eight years before, in 1895] for that battle and named him as the “an intellectual author of the assault against the Moncada garrison.”

Fidel Castro enforced the Stalinist, Soviet style constitution, and the Communist rule in Cuba. He said that our Magna Carta would be not only Martian but also Marxist-Leninist one. The same Fidel Castro who had been saying he was not Communist throughout his whole struggle against the former dictator Fulgencio Batista, and the one who kept on saying that he was not Communist even after acquiring power in January 1959. Finally in 1961 Castro admitted that he was Communist since he was a student at the law school. He said also that he would die as a Communist.

This is the same Fidel Castro who wanted his ashes buried next to José Martí, the Apostle of our independence.

Let me share with you a few verses of Martí poetry, which are of prophetic character. Let us bear in mind that prophets did not express their ideas in direct statements. Typically they would express their thoughts in a form of parables. So, Martí announced what his reaction would be when he learnt that Castro’s ashes were near him. In one of his “Simple Verses”, Martí expressed:

Through the farm’s graveyard,
Where the father is buried,
His son passes by as a soldier
Of the invader. The son goes by.

The father, a brave man in the war,
Wrapped in his flag,
Gets up, and slaps his son,
Who falls dead on the ground.

I understand that Martí prophesied with these verses about his feelings when he would learn that next to him will be buried a man, who has lied so much, a man who has demoralised the nation so much, who has caused so much damage to the Cuban people and implemented a Communist regime. Martí warned us that this system would be fatal for any nation. He would feel the need to get out of his tomb to take those ashes that were to be buried by his side and throw them away as far as possible. He would have thrown them down the Bartlett Trough, which is the deepest submarine trench South of the province of Santiago de Cuba.

As I said earlier, in 1884 Martí warned us against Socialism — and we are talking about the kind of Socialism that Fidel Castro imposed on us. Let us see how Martí put it, and then we will understand why I say that Martí would wish to do what that brave independence fighter in the poem did to his son when he saw him fighting with the enemy troops. He rose from the grave, slapped his son, and carried him dead back to the tomb.

In Castro’s case, it will not be like that. Martí would get up and expel, as much as possible, the undesirable Castro’s remains.

In an article entitled “The Future Slavery” about a treatise under same title by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, Martí stated:

“On the pretext of relieving the poor, Spencer says, so many tributes are to be paid, which turns those who are not poor into poor.”

Later, Martí assured:

“Spencer is afraid, not without foundation, that when the State’s action becomes so varied, active and dominant, it will impose considerable burdens on the part of the working nation for the benefit of the poorer part. Moreover, it is true that if benevolence comes to such an extent that the poor people do not need to work to live — which they can never reach — individual actions would be weakened, and the position of the holders of some wealth would be lowered, without being enough to satisfy the needs and appetites of those who have no wealth.”


Likewise, Martí settled:

“All the power that would be gradually acquired by castes of public officials —bound by their need to remain in a privileged and lucrative position— would be gradually lost by the people, who lack the same reasons for complicity in hopes and profits to confront the public officials fettered together by their common interests. As all people’s needs would eventually be fulfilled by the State, the officials would then acquire that enormous influence which by nature falls upon those who distribute any right or benefit. (…)

A man who now wants the State to take care of him so as not to have to take care of himself would then have to work in the amount, time and occupation that the State would see fit to assign to him, as the State —on whom all the duties would befall— would be endowed with all the necessary powers to implement the means to fulfil the work allocated. From being his own servant, that person would then become a slave of the State. From being a slave of capitalists, as they are now called, this individual would become a slave of the public officials. (…)

A slave is someone that works for another who holds control of him; and in that Socialist system, the community would rule over the individual, who would then render all his work to the community. (…)

Since public officials are human beings and, consequently, abusive, arrogant and ambitious, and would wield great power in that organisation, abetted by all those who would take advantage or would hope to benefit from the abuses, and by those vile forces amongst the oppressed that always prowl the terror, prestige or slyness of those who govern, this official collective labour distribution system would suffer, in a short time, from the grief, violence, thefts and distortions that the spirit of individuality, the authority, the boldness of genius and the vice craftiness soon and fatally create in any human organisation. (…)

Good institutions cannot be made from flawed humanity, Spencer says. With such Socialism, to which everything seems to tend in England, public misery will then be palpable and extensive. Public-official autocracy will abuse the ordinary people, exhausted and hard-working. That will be regrettable, and slavery will be widespread.”


It seems that Martí wrote this article to advise what we should not do or allow anyone to do with Cuba. Martí alerted us about all of this we are experiencing now, and all we have lived during the last half-century in Cuba. He warned us about dictatorship. He alerted us on generalised poverty, servitude and bureaucracy. Martí told us that misery was going to be huge, the same as servitude. Take care of that, he charged us. However, our parents did not take care, and we were born under a hard tyranny.

Now, we are struggling amidst dangerous and conflictive situations, in the midst of many repressions, so as to put to an end what Martí told us we should not have, but we still have here, unfortunately.

On another occasion, in a letter to his friend Fermín Valdés, Martí wrote:

“The Socialist ideology, like so many others, has two main dangers. One stems from confused and incomplete readings of foreign texts, and the other from the arrogance and hidden rage of those who —with the purpose of climbing in the world— pretend to be frantic defenders of the helpless to have shoulders on which to stand.”

Martí was alerting us against Socialism, which is the Socialism of Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega, Nicolás Maduro, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, i.e. the Socialism of all those ambitious individuals who pretend to be defenders of the helpless and the needy on which to rise

Once again, Martí was alerting us against Socialism, which is the Socialism of Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega, Nicolás Maduro, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, i.e. the Socialism of all those ambitious individuals who pretend to be defenders of the helpless and the needy on which to rise, to be crowned as kings, to have all power under their control, to crush their people and plunge their fellow citizens into the deepest misery and the most cruel oppression.

In addition to this, Martí talked about Karl Marx — showing the greatness that always characterised our Apostle — even though he did not agree with Karl Marx’s doctrine, which Martí understood very well.

What did the Apostle not know well? The Apostle studied very much, and had an undeniable talent, above all. He was a genius. Without a doubt, he is the greatest man our country has ever produced.

When Karl Marx died, Martí wrote:

“Look at this vast room. Karl Marx is dead. As he placed himself on the side of the weak, he deserves honour. Nevertheless, it is not the one who points out the harm —and burns in fearful anxieties to remedy this— who does well, but the one who shows a soft treatment for the damage. The task of confronting men with men is scary. The forcible process of men becoming beasts for the profit of others is indignant. However, an exit for indignation is to be found so that the beast ceases to exist without overflowing and frightening.”

Martí would not have said the same about Fidel Castro.

Karl Marx wrote his thesis and ideas and propagated them. His followers disseminated them all over the world. Nevertheless, Marx was never at the head of a Socialist state, like Lenin. Marx formulated principles that gave rise to all those great crimes and to all the misery that many peoples are suffering.

Many are saying that Marx’s followers did not interpret him correctly. They argue that his followers did whatever they wanted and not what Marx had taught. Notwithstanding, Marxism is widely responsible for terror and destruction caused by Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and to a lesser extent also Gorbachev, who was the reformist that facilitated the end of that opprobrious system.

Due to his writings, Marx is co-responsible for Stalin’s millions of crimes, Mao Tse-Tung’s millions of atrocities, and many thousands of offences committed by Fidel and Raúl Castro. Karl Marx is guilty of these atrocious massacres, grave crimes, even though he did not take part in them. Marx as an intellectual inspired these violations, just as Fidel made Martí accountable for being the “mastermind of the assault at the Moncada stronghold.”

Accordingly, Karl Marx must be perceived as the intellectual author of Leninism, Stalinism, Castroism, Maoism, and all those ideologies that should have never existed considering what an enormous damage they brought to humanity.

Admittedly, Marx was not the executing arm. He did not sit on the throne. Neither did he control, nor oppress, nor trample whole nations. These crimes were not committed under his direct orders. Unlike Marx, Fidel Castro is directly responsible for many of these crimes, as well as for the hunger, misery, and destruction of our nation.

Therefore, Martí would not have said following about Castro:

“Look at that great room. Look at this big square. There are Fidel Castro’s ashes. As he placed himself at the side of the weak, he deserves honour, although the remedy he preached and applied to the people was not the correct one, etcetera and etcetera.”

No. Castro was a liar, a hypocrite, and a mean person. He spoke of people’s democratic revolution and reinstating the Constitution of 1940. With all that, he deceived those who had seconded him to overthrow Batista. Castro imposed worse despotic regime, based on the model Martí had warned us. The Apostle told us not to accept this system since it was going to be the Nation’s disaster. “Serfdom and misery are going to be immense.”

In a nutshell, Fidel Castro followed Stalin, Mao, and all the Communist tyrants, who caused enormous damage to their respective nations.

José Daniel Ferrer García – a national coordinator of UNPACU, the Cuban opposition movement in Cuba. Cuban dissident, and a prisoner of conscience from Santiago de Cuba. A member of the Christian Liberation Movement (MCL) founded by Oswaldo Payá.

Bernardo Toar – Cuban democracy activist.