On the anniversary of the birth of one of the most universal Cubans in history, the pride of the nation and of our continent, his work continues to be of great relevance, a source of debate and diverse interpretations.
It is understandable that we are still debating Martí's legacy; Martí was far ahead of his time. As Fernando Martínez Heredia would say: "Martí did not have a contemporary peer until Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara appeared... They are his contemporaries;just look how advanced he was and that is with the tremendous culture Cuba hasaccumulated."
It is also understandable that we continue to talk about Martí since we continue on the path to deeper socialist democracy in Cuba (a path that is not without significant contradictions), and his project for the homeland continues to serve as a guide and an authentic source of inspiration along the way.
When analyzing the socio-historical context in which Fidel Castro declared the socialist character of the Revolution, in April 1961, it becomes evident that he was following the only possible path to concretizing Marti's project of an independent Cuba "with all and for the good of all."
As Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, a dear Mexican friend who was awarded the José Martí Order, points out: "The entire revolutionary history of Cuba, its people, its leader and leaders, reflects the moral, ideological and political heritage, the revolutionary heritage, of Martí, considered as a whole, in which to achieve his moral and revolutionary objectives, making a revolution is imperative, and socialism, as well. To achieve Martí's moral objectives, if one is consistent, it is not only necessary to make a revolution, but also socialism."
We cannot counterpoise Martí's ideology to the socialist path taken by the Revolution after assuming power in January of 1959. We would be ignoring two of the fundamental principles of Martí's immense work to win Cuba’s freedom: in the first place, his deep identification with the most humble sectors, a reflection of his genuine concern for social justice; and second, his clear anti-imperialist position, especially his condemnation of the United States’ objective of dominating Latin America and his explicit intention to do everything necessary to prevent this.
If Cuba’s struggles for independence laid the foundation for the forging of an ideal of sovereignty as one of the cornerstones of national identity, socialism (the elimination of class-divided society and the exploitation of workers) created the conditions for the development of a sense of social justice that characterizes the nation’s mindset.
We would never have had the experience of all going to the same schools without the profound social transformations that allowed women, blacks and the poor to have a place in society, for the first time. Without socialism, would we have a Cuba “of all”– with the understanding this "all" is based on social justice, that is, with the inclusion of historically exploited sectors? How would we have consolidated our national sovereignty without socialism? Socialism provided a concrete, material, tangible foundation for the construction of a sovereign, just nation, and the nurturing of a subjectivity that was began at that time and continues to date.
Since the first half of the twentieth century, communism has been part of our revolutionary heritage, organically linked to our longed-for national liberation in the eyes of some of the most important leaders of that time, as is the case of Julio Antonio Mella.
After 1959, the socialist transformations that took place radically shook the entire structure of Cuban society, the way work was organized, the dynamics of social activity and relations, our perception of the world and the place we occupied within it.
Cubans tend to perceive as natural certain effective rights guaranteed by socialism. But they are not natural rights, nor do they have a transcendent essence; they are important social conquests, whose universal and inalienable character has been sustained because we have defended the continuity of our transition to socialism.
Likewise, Marxism became part of the best of traditional Cuban social thought and has served as a powerful tool inunderstanding our reality and the world. It is present in our approach to social questions, whether we make it explicit or not. An invaluable arsenal of knowledge developed from this point of view, along with the integration of other perspectives, has been produced in the field of humanistic and social sciences in Cuba.
Finally, Cuban socialism is not a remake of the Soviet system (surviving it for more than three decades), despite the fact that it is often arbitrarily labeled as Stalinist. Our socialism has been determined by our geopolitical situation, our history, the thinking of our heroes and martyrs, the work of our people, their needs, their pain, their convictions, their faith, their yearnings and their desires. It has been marked by the thought and work of Martí, Fidel and Che.
The development of our national identity has been a complex, multifactorial and contradictory historical process. Socialist ideology and Marxism are among its key constituent elements, to the degree that for more than a few Cuban men and women, Cuba means socialism. But we cannot say that in Cuba we all embrace the socialist cause.
Fernando Martínez Heredia was of the opinion that we should not accept superficiality, “…like labeling as annexionist all those who wanted, for example, and the return of capitalism in Cuba. The return to capitalism in Cuba is not (necessarily) annexionism, one can be a nationalist and bourgeois."
On this note, he continued: "If tomorrow we have serious problems among ourselves, some of those who consider themselves nationalist in this way (sovereignty and social justice without socialism) will end up frustrated and will say: "I wanted Cuba to have a good democracy, that with a multiparty system, the best would always come out on top and the administration would be a marvel, and look at the misfortunes that have befallen us because of what I believed."
He then stated: "What must people with historical experience do? Not make the same mistake again."
Analyzing Cuba today from a socio-historical and geopolitical perspective, the need to update our consensus in favor of socialism is not extemporaneous; it would be naive to think that we could sustain the nation’s sovereignty and social justice without continuing to defend and constructour socialist project. Article 4 of our Constitution confirms this reality when it reiterates the irrevocable nature of socialism. This article is a toolall social sectors haveto defend their interests, as they would see their historical conqueststhreatened if capitalism were restored.
We cannot talk about the empire without talking about imperialism. The United States is a threat not because it has an intrinsically perverse character as a nation; it is a threat because it is imperialist; in fact, it is not only imperialist, it is the most important center of political and military power in the capitalist world system.
Capitalism is today the real risk for all the humble of the world, especially for the peoples of the global south. It is the principal perpetrator of feminicide, it is the principal destroyer of nature, it is theprincipal exploiter of workers, and it is the principal colonialist and racist in history. We should ask ourselves, would Marti oppose feminicide, the ruthless exploitation of women and men based on the precariousnessnature of labor after so many neoliberal attacks, would he oppose the massive destruction of the environment, racism, neoliberalism? Thus, being consistent with Martí’s thinking in the XXI century means being anti-capitalist, as well.
Martínez Heredia stated: "Cuban socialism is the realization in the Americas of Marti's postulate of national liberation with social justice, and the tangible demonstration that only by uniting the two is it possible to triumph, sustain and advance."
In short, ideals may be lofty, but social, political and historical conditions show thatin the event of capitalist restoration, be it from the right or via the social democratic route, national sovereignty and social justice would be dangerously threatened, and with that, any possibility of their expression in the nation’s identity, except as a frustration or a conviction of the people to go out again to reconquer them, which, this time, would be under immensely more difficult conditions.
