A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018 | of 2019 | of 2021 | of 2020

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Cuba libertaria: Anarchists in the Cuban Revolution: Between Joy and Disenchantment - Eduardo Daniel Rodríguez Trejo (ca) [machine translation]

Date Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:33:15 +0300

Abstract ---- I summarize ---- Abstract: This article is an approximation to the position assumed by Latin American anarchists before the Cuban revolutionary process. It examines, on the one hand, how anarchism interpreted the Cuban insurrection; on the other, it delves into the debates, raised within the libertarian movement, around the projections and meanings of the Cuban Revolution for our America; finally, the solidarity of the continent's acrats with their fellow islanders is rescued. ---- Keywords: Cuban revolution, anarchism, Regeneration, La Protesta, anarchism in Cuba . ---- Introduction ---- One of the milestones in the future of Latin America was the Cuban revolutionary process. The multi-class insurrection against Fulgencio Batista became the torch of the subaltern classes, and where the different currents of socialism placed their hopes of modifying the fates of the American peoples; For this reason, they observed with enthusiasm the heroic and tenacious struggle of the Cubans, especially that of the combatants hidden in the Cuban mountains. The anarchists were no exception, they sheltered the guerrillas and showed solidarity with them, organized agitation and information campaigns, in their press they gave news of the achievements and defeats of the 'bearded men' and interpreted, from their ideological perspective, what happened in the largest of the Antilles.

The object of the present is to analyze how the anarchists observed the Cuban Revolution, how they interpreted it and, above all, what position they took. The time span of work runs from December 1956 to July 1963. It is pertinent, therefore, to warn that the armed period should not be confused with the regime created by the insurrection, these two moments should be differentiated because the anarchists traveled, in the bounded space, by three well-defined stages. The first, support for the insurrectional movement; second, defense, with its reservations, of the revolutionary triumph; and, third, his opposition, denunciation and condemnation of the regime headed by Fidel Castro.

This leads us to specify the channels from which the anarchists drank information to explain themselves, and explain, what happened in Cuba. The main source was the press, the most important Arab print companies in Cuba: Solidaridad Gastronómica and El Libertario.they were received by the entire Libertarian Movement (ML) of America; as a second source, there was direct contact between the Cuban Libertarian Association (ALC), the Argentine Libertarian Federation (FLA) and the Mexican Anarchist Federation (FAM). In addition to this, Spanish exiles, Republicans and CNT members living in Cuba were in contact with the nuclei of Mexico. In this sense, the anarchists had direct information on the island, but it must be recognized the slowness in its circulation and the attitude of the Cubans themselves, who asked their colleagues on the continent not to publish anything for fear of reprisals or being confused with the reaction; For this reason, as a third source of information, the bourgeois press was used to quote and refer to Cuban events.

This work is relevant for two aspects. The first is to revisit the Cuban revolutionary process, 60 years after its triumph, from the anarchist perspective. The second is to debate one of the few works dedicated to elucidating how anarchism observed the Revolution, that of Frank Fernández (2000); Synthetic book adopted as a reference to get to know Cuban anarchism, both by anarchist militancy and by academic researchers. The former have repeated Fernández's thesis regarding an alleged abandonment and lack of solidarity, on the part of international anarchism, towards Cuban libertarians, a situation, argues Fernández, exacerbated by the circulation of the so-called Gaona document (dated November 1961). ).[1]However, the foregoing is not entirely accurate; On the contrary, upon learning of the situation of persecution and repression of their comrades, the anarchists undertook denunciation actions, collected funds to enable their departure from Cuba, pressured to release them, and advocated respect for their rights and physical integrity. Added to this, shortly before the socialist character of the Revolution was declared, the measures adopted by the nascent regime were questioned in anarchist circles.

Image 1. "Fidel's difficulties", Cenit (Toulouse), year XII, no. 135, March 1962, p. 3633. www.memoriademadrid.es

The anarchist position of the armed process

The beginning of the Cuban Revolution in the anarchist press was portrayed with hope. From the libertarian pens sprouted ink yearning for an early triumph of the young guerrillas, vowing for the establishment of a liberal / democratic regime, where fundamental freedoms such as thought, press, assembly and association would make possible the resurgence of popular organizations capable of defend the social conquests achieved with arms. This position was assumed by the FAM, through its diffusion organ, Regeneración, it was established that the armed movement aimed to implement a new state of affairs capable of satisfying the wishes of its inhabitants, but they questioned themselves: what do the revolutionaries propose to do when Batista falls from power? Will a socialist, democratic republic or a civil or military directorate be established, as is the custom in Spanish-speaking America?[two]

Every revolution, wielded the Mexican anarchists, to walk towards a true change and not lead to a new oppression more humiliating than the previous one, is obliged to aspire to greater freedom as a result of the enjoyment of rights such as the inviolability of the home and the freedom of thought, word and writing, as well as respecting the right to petition, assembly, strike and individual and collective protest. For the same reason, they harbored "a deep desire that in Cuba its magnificent revolutionary feat would triumph and forge a libertarian future for the good of all the children of work."[3]

This first interpretive horizon, from anarchism, was based on the assurance that the United States (USA) would not tolerate a threat to its interests; consequently, social changes could not be deepened. This appreciation of the ML led him to consider that with democratic freedoms the growth and performance of unions, popular organizations and anarchists would be possible and, in the immediate future, push an agenda aimed at improving the situation of Cubans without the fear of the imposition of a new dictatorship sponsored by the US An example of this was the position of the American Anarchist Conference, held in Uruguay in 1957 with the assistance of a delegation from the LAC. The Conference stated:

As anarchists, we believe that the rights of expression, assembly, association, union and strike, which generally exist and to a greater or lesser degree under bourgeois democracy, are not intrinsically related to that political form. Although demagogically and verbally incorporated into state constitutions, these rights have been conquered by the people themselves, limiting certain aspects of political power (...); The fight against totalitarianism must therefore be one of resistance and creation. We must collaborate in the affirmation, in advance, of social conditions that make the establishment of the dictatorship difficult or impossible. The more spheres we tear from the administration of the State and capitalism (...), the more the network of popular associations multiplies and the authentic social fabric is strengthened,[4]

The Conference, alluding to the Cuban insurrection, stated: "Cuba has taken up arms against the dictatorship, the peoples of America and the world contemplate with pain and admiration the heroic conduct of a people that knows how to say no to tyrants, students and workers face the military and police forces of Batista, sacrificing their lives in suicidal gestures that can only inspire the love of freedom ".[5]

Despite the hopes placed in Cuba, the ML rejected, even during the armed period, the emancipatory achievements of the Revolution. These issues were evidenced during an act against tyrannies organized by the Anti-Franco Spanish Youth. Octavio Alberola, moderator of the event, would recall a significant fact and shaper of future events:

... was the confrontation I had, in an act organized in 1958 at the Ateneo Español de México, with the members of the July 26 Movement who wanted to prevent a young black man, from the Student Revolutionary Directory (DRE), who had just left clandestinely from the Island, he will continue his intervention after having denounced the danger of caudillismo in the fight against the Batista dictatorship. As it was I who was presiding over the event, I managed to allow the young black man to continue with the microphone and finish his speech. It was a row that foreshadowed what the struggle for power would be after the fall of Batista (Anarchist News Agency, 2010).[6]

The perception, of the authoritarianism and dirigisme emanating from the guerrilla nucleus of Sierra Maestra, was not exclusive to the anarchists. An example of this was a letter from Frank País to Fidel Castro, where he:

It announced the need to reorganize the Movement, due to the prevailing confusion, it proposed to distribute responsibilities to avoid centralization in the leadership. Country's intention was a redistribution of power according to the importance and weight of each of the branches in the Movement; In this way, for example, the National Directorate of July 26 would be made up of six provincial coordinators and a representative of the Rebel Army, at the same time that armed militias would be created throughout the country and a minimum program would be drawn up. The proposal removed any strategic role from the guerrilla at the military level, while at the political level Fidel was limited by a doctrinal program and a leadership where the voice of the Sierra was a minority (López Ávalos, 2007, pp. 236-237) .

From jubilation to disenchantment

The anarchists, still hesitant, congratulated themselves and highlighted the way in which the triumph was achieved in Cuba, which "was not carried out as a result of palace negotiations, as has happened on other occasions, but in bloody struggle in which a handful of men (...) He managed to resist the totalitarian gear and destroy it inch by inch in armed struggle ".[7]

In Regeneración ( Rege ), it was pointed out that "the triumph of the cause led by the young guerrilla Fidel Castro Ruz (...) has been a lesson for all the dictatorships of Ibero-America and an example for the freedom-loving youths, who have objectively seen as tyranny can only be destroyed with the revolutionary violence of the people ".[8]After the success of the Cubans, the Mexican anarchists identified with the M26 for considering the insurrection just despite its limited social and economic purposes, since their aspirations were circumscribed to a change of government and a slight social reform, precisely because of they supported this "because in this area they did not resort to demagoguery or the deception of offering what they could not fulfill.[9]

Image 2. Cover of Cenit (Toulouse), year XI, no. 124, April 1961. www.memoriademadrid.es

The execution of Batista's collaborators, clergymen, capitalists, military, policemen, etc., became the subject most helped by the mercantilist press and those who opposed the revolutionary triumph. On the contrary, the anarchist press justified them. An example of this was La Protesta ( LP ), which evoked Batista's brutal repressive methods against all opponents of his government, the unveiling of the torture systems, as well as the clandestine cemeteries of the dictatorship. This suffered situation moved them, assured LP, to quench their thirst for popular justice and legitimize the popular trials that culminated in public executions, "the violence unleashed by the dictatorship inevitably engenders new violence, and a civil war of years and thousands of deaths, are not exactly favorable breeding grounds for sentimentality or tearful lamentations ".[10]LP's position was shared by Mexicans who approved the death penalty against enemies of the Revolution. If the revolutionaries were the target of the ire of the conservatives, counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries and democrats, it was argued from Rege , they were because of the fact that they had "decently shot all kinds of criminal servants of Batista."[eleven]That "popular" violence would soon spread to members of the M26, socialists and anarchists.

Despite agreeing with the Revolution's measures, a letter from Casto Moscow, secretary of the ALC, to Andrés Cabona, allows us to observe the fear sown among island and continental anarchists about its drift. In the letter, Moscow relates issues such as the discharge of the armed forces, this is considered correct; But it questions the dismissal of the middle and lower bureaucracy, which was stigmatized, for such men and women were denied any job. It also explains the increase in attacks, air raids and propaganda against the Revolution, acts sponsored by those who lost their privileges, but this does not worry Moscow too much, due to the indisputable popular support for the Revolution and Castro. But, he remarks:

The communists are taking advantage of this situation to develop their plans, giving the Revolution an unconditional condition that we know has its price. They are good artists at simulation. We Cubans know that bitter days await us. Front-line figures of the Revolution have fallen or resigned: the President of the Republic (...) and also in the civil areas, everyone, fallen and resigning, is accused of being traitors, I do not generally share that idea, there will be everything a bit. There is a general coincidence in all the cases and that is that they all demonstrated, sooner or later, against communism.[12]

Unlike other anarchist groups, such as Regeneración , the editors of La Protesta soon showed their skepticism towards the Revolution. The Buenos Aires print, when interviewing a delegation of Cuban revolutionaries visiting the southern country, and questioning them about the meaning and scope of the Revolution, answered that this was a change in the way of governing. The answer reflected, LP speculated , the authoritarian sense of the Revolution: "about which we had never had great illusions".[13]However, they valued the situation of the revolutionaries by recognizing the circumstances of the small country, which had achieved its independence just born the century and from that moment passed between the vassalage to the United States, dictatorships and more or less democratic governments characterized by the corruption; Therefore, they understood the need for progressive change:

Cuba needs a revolution, even if it is a small revolution from the state. The situation of large masses of its population is too critical to be postponed. But from what we know so far, the first zest for the win has yet to turn into something deeper and more enduring. And perhaps it will never be converted if the popular masses do not rush to demand it. Our undeniable sympathy for the triumphant movement, in which many of our colleagues participated, should not inhibit us from expressing these concerns.[14]

The Mexican anarchists would dismiss it as naive to consider that only by changing the bad leaders for ones presented as good, because they are revolutionaries, would the ills of the Cuban people be remedied. It would be, they argued, wasting all the blood of the young slain to end forever the danger of future dictatorships, raised in the name of one or another flag. But, aware of the low probability of deepening social change, they considered:

There are many achievements of a social nature that can and should be addressed, despite the fact that the obstacles to overcome appear too great today. In the field of an agrarian reform that does not fall into the error of making small owners, but gives the land to the peasant to exploit it and make it produce in common with his brothers; in the cities expropriating the large industrial companies in the hands of foreign capital and handing them over to the workers for them to manage and enjoy; and, in the political arena, increasingly limiting the powers of authority, destroying its most disgraceful supports: the army and the police.[fifteen]

The aforementioned was in tune with a text sent by the ALC to the International Anarchist Commission, where the Cubans stated:

We take your opinion very much into account in relation to the danger posed by the reaction that is sheltered under the mantle of the revolution. We calibrate all the dangers that threaten us and we know that this revolution of ours, which does not offer us the great solutions of a social revolution, which leaves the principle of authority, private property and the capitalist apparatus standing, is a strong respite within a medium that had us suffocated (....), we are somewhat sparing in critical approaches (...),[due to]strong hostility, not only from the representatives of the Batista regime but from the reactionary classes: landowners, industrialists, merchants They seek to capitalize on any type of attack that is made on the revolution, so we have to be careful that our criticisms are not confused with theirs.[16]

What was stated by the Cuban Libertarian Movement (MLC) would be reiterated to the anarchists of the continent through a confidential circular, smuggled out of the island and signed by both the ALC and the CNT of Spain in Cuba. The way in which the circular left Cuba, the content and the way of reporting it was a red flag for the anarchists. In the note preceding the communiqué, it was limited: "the attached circular has been delivered to us by hand taken from Havana without using the mail. Our link was a student who attended the parties to celebrate the II anniversary of the Cuban Revolution (...), it offers the maximum guarantees, for the passwords that come from our correspondent in Cuba ".[17]

Image 3. CNT (Toulouse), II epoch, no. 722, March 1, 1959. Author's file.

In the circular, which was intended to establish a 'regulation' "for activities and relations with the MLC", issues already expressed before to the international press are listed, but giving the reason why; First, it alludes to the overwhelming number of letters requesting information; second, it recriminates "the militants who comment publicly or inquire about data in private, incurring too often in inaccuracies and indiscretions that, if not cut short, can lead to great setbacks."[18]They added, the exiled native and Spanish anarchists carry out their militancy tasks as quickly and accurately as possible, but operating in an environment fraught with danger and anxiety. Consequently, they made the following recommendations:

1) The correspondence must be written in such a way that it does not provide intimate information, which only our militants should know, since a large number of letters arrive open to our power; 2) no questions or requests for information should be made in this correspondence for the reasons stated above; 3) the information on concrete facts in relation to Cuba, especially those concerning our movement, must be checked prior to publication so as not to incur falsehoods (....); 5) (....) If they are going to make[information]public, they must erase its origin, never citing the source of information, because in many cases that simple fact puts the freedom and even the lives of our colleagues at risk; the ML of all countries, who want to know exactly the Cuban events,[19]

Six months after the revolutionary triumph LP drew up a balance of the scope and projections of the Revolution. Among his musings we find fear and mistrust of demonstrations of popular adherence, almost of devotion, towards Fidel, largely thanks to the distribution of land and the frustration of anti-communist uprisings and coup attempts.[20]This led them to assure: "from the day of the triumph of the Cuban insurrection against the Batista dictatorship, and even before, the evident intention of Fidel Castro, and his followers, to make a revolution from power to us he made things be done with some prevention ".[twenty-one]In this they would delve into the information sent by their Cuban colleagues, where they alerted them about the intervention of the communists in the unions, violating their autonomy and imposing their unconditional ones through coercion through the so-called workers' militias.[22]The authoritarian course was confirmed after a note appeared in El Libertario , where the validity of the Code of Social Defense as a form of control and repression was criticized. In the text it was established:

The[Batista]Social Defense Code (...) put into the totalitarian stocks (...) innumerable arts, trades and professions; reduced the right to express thoughts, words (...), all that, hateful and coercive, are still in force legally. And neither Grau, nor Prío, nor yet the revolution have abolished it (...), through the streets of Havana and the towns of the interior, young people and children parade, marking the step in the Prussian style. They parade plump, uptight and very serious in their conviction that they are preparing to 'make a homeland', that they already make a homeland from now on (...), they are surely sincere in their belief, they consider themselves worthy collaborators of the heroic movement that knew how to overthrow tyranny and reiterated the firmness of his humanist ideal (...), these youth patrols recall the fasci di combattimento, the hooded gangs of the Cagoulards (...). For a future of oppression and servility they are remarkably good. To forge a morning of fraternal coexistence, within the free and content community, they are counterproductive.[2. 3]

Despite the despotic overtones outlined within the Revolution, the anarchists continued to consider it a popular insurrection for the conquests for the benefit of the Cuban people. As were the expropriations.[24]The revolutionary path initiated by the island, the acrats pointed out, was the flame of hope for a better life for all the peoples of America.[25]

Image 4. CNT ( Toulouse ), II epoch, no. 811, November 13, 1960. Author's file.

But that hope and adherence to the Cuban project faded until it became rejection. If the doubts were clarified and, with it, confirming the 'dictatorial' profile of the Revolution, a report prepared by Augustin Souchy, one of the most renowned anarchist intellectuals, would be the end point of the hesitations and the moment in which many anarchists they took a firm stance. Souchy visited Cuba in 1960, at the request of the revolutionary government, to prepare a study on agrarian reform and cooperatives; In his work, Souchy outlined some of the consequences for Latin America as a result of the Cuban triumph. First, it alludes to the problem of freedom, of "deviations" and of the risks of calling anyone who does not agree with Castroism as "counterrevolutionary and lackey of the Yankees." Second, delves into the antagonists of the revolutionary process who "say that Castro is an agent or ally of Moscow" (1960, p. 60). Souchy synthesized:

The different views of the Cuban Revolution have, to a large extent, their origin in the rapid and profound change in the situation in Cuba. The Revolution has changed during its 20 months of existence, both in its form and in its content. The July M26 in its fight against Batista was different from the government apparatus of Fidel Castro. The first was liberating, the second dictatorial (...), even the revolutionaries themselves have changed, if their attitudes of January 1959 are compared with those of the second half of 1960. When, in April 1959, Castro made his famous On a trip to the United States, he gladly and proudly accepted the cheers and praises of the Yankees. Today he only speaks of the Yankees with contempt and accuses the Americans as the number one enemy of the Revolution ( ibid .).

Against imperialism and against third-partyism

The anarchist interpretation of the Cuban Revolution was linked to its conception of imperialism. They rejected both Soviet and American imperialism, as well as third-partyism. Regarding this, Óscar Milstein "raised the need to escape the exclusively economic definition of imperialism, and maintained its comprehensive nature of phenomena of a cultural, economic, and political nature"; stating: "accepting the strictly economic approach is equivalent to entering the false alternative of being an appendage of the imperialist interests at stake or ignoring the problem.[26]For his part, Emilio Muse argued: "all anti-imperialism that is not simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-statist, no matter how popular it is and no matter how revolutionary it is called, does not point towards an authentic improvement."[27]Comparing Soviet imperialism with the North American, Muse pointed out: "all exploit, oppress and murder the peoples, directly or indirectly, through financial, military or scientific techniques. The US and Russia have differences between them (...) but, as imperialists they can lead to exactly the same atrocities ".[28]Muse, when touching the Cuban question, underlined the long-standing anti-imperialist tradition of Cuba, which took a great step to get rid of the North American yoke again, it fell back as much when it fell into the Soviet orbit. Muse, concluded: "the apparently hysterical turn[of Cuba]towards a new imperialism, in addition to signifying a flagrant betrayal of one of the basic objectives of the Cuban Revolution, offers the peoples the false idea of the indispensable Soviet support, that is, a counterrevolutionary and pro-imperialist idea ".[29]

For its part, the International Anarchist Federation of Chile (FAIC), conceptualized imperialism as the physical or cultural oppression exerted by a power or government of a strong country on one or several weak ones, whom it suppresses or restricts their freedom or possibilities of development and expression. Adding: "imperialism was succeeded in the world by the patricians or by the republicans, by the democrats or by the socialists, by the Nazis or by the Bolsheviks (...). We will call imperialists those who, in the name of one or other principles, using the power of the State as a great power, economically, financially, militarily or culturally subdue other countries "(FAIC, 1960, pp. 4-5). Adding:

In the same way, we have denounced to the world the fierce repression that the Russian Bolsheviks carried out against the people of Hungary who wanted to free themselves from the tyranny of the Russian government. And, because we are lovers of freedom and self-determination of the peoples, we proclaim that the USSR maintains innumerable countries, the so-called satellites, subject to its authority and the brutal repression of its armies, as an imperialist action (pp. 3- 4).

Furthermore, the FAIC appealed to the unavoidable position of the anarchists, they should declare themselves anti-imperialists, encourage all peoples to fight and shake off the yoke of the imperialist powers.

Image 5. Espoir (Toulouse), no. 52, December 30, 1962, p. 1. www.cervantesvirtual.com

In the April 1961 issue, at the time of the Girón beach invasion, LP reproduced a manifesto of the New York Libertarian League entitled Por la Revolución Cubana . This study delved into the problem of Latin American dictatorships financed and sponsored by the dollar, in addition, and contrary to LPwho recognized in the M26 a tactical nucleus and guide of the Revolution, arguing that although there was a multi-class revolt in the background who led it to fruition was the M26, the League, against the current, interpreted that without the active participation of the entire population, Batista's fall would have been impossible, "no man, no social class by itself, was responsible for the victory of January 1, 1959. Students, workers, peasants, middle-class people, guerrillas and civilians, shared the effort collective".[30]For the same reason, he lamented the turn adopted, where the axis of every movement was the State, which not only crushed all attempts at popular initiative but also drowned out any demonstration that challenged the Cuban process. That situation was regrettable because the people fought and "had at least the right to expect a revolutionary democracy that would give free play to their efforts, with workers' controls in the industries expropriated from the capitalists; an agrarian reform sustained and administered by the peasants themselves and the broadest intellectual freedom ".[31]

The manifesto deepens its disagreement with LP , the latter argued that the M26 was a homogeneous and leading group,[32]the League for its part considered: "the M26 was at first a political mixture, sustained by the sentiment of opposition to Batista,[with preeminence of]the personality of its maximum leader and[an]anti-imperialist verbiage common to most of the political opposition movements in Latin America (...); with the fall of Batista, the M26 put aside its allies in the common struggle and took all political and military control ".[33]According to the League, the only possibility of redirecting and counteracting the interventionist intentions of the United States, and the USSR, was to radicalize the Revolution in its crucial points and hand over control of the economy to the people, which is why it launched a call the American people, the radical, labor and liberal movement to agitate against a North American intervention on Cuban soil.[3. 4]

The League's position was upheld, months earlier, by the FAIC. For this, Cuba was pressured by two imperialisms, that of the United States and that of the USSR. Of the first, they denounced their interference in the internal affairs of the American countries to deny Cuba its legitimate right to self-determination, coupled with resorting to international organizations such as the OAS to bend the spirit of the Cuban people. For this reason, he summoned his colleagues from all over America to unleash a clarification campaign regarding the political events in Cuba and, to the Cuban revolutionaries, he called them to extend and radicalize the Revolution:

Expropriating all the large estates, to work and collectively manage the land; to socialize the means of production in industry; to the control of credit by the workers' organizations, to the democratic participation of the socialist tendencies, without hegemonies and above all, preventing the ideological and political colonization that the Bolsheviks want to make of the Cuban Revolution; to suppress the State, demonstrating with facts that it is not only unnecessary, but also detrimental to the life of society (FAIC, 1960, p. 11).

In the face of the attempted invasion of Cuba, despite the critical attitude towards the Cuban regime and its Sovietist imprint, LP stated that it would not silence its "rejection of the attack carried out, not because of what the struggle means for the Cuban liberal sectors, but for what it implies as an open alliance, financing of the adventure and facilities of all kinds granted by capitalist companies and the US government itself ".[35]

Image 6. Freedom (London), vol. 23, no-34, 3-11-1962, p. 1. https://freedomnews.org.uk

The Revolution under debate

In the second half of 1960, the Cuban Libertarian Movement in Exile (MLCE) was formed in New York, made up of a group of exiled Cuban anarchists. His tasks consisted of publicizing the authoritarian policies of the new regime. Months before the creation of the MLCE, the debate on the meaning and projections of the Cuban Revolution in Latin America had begun in the acratic press.

On August 20, 1960, the José Ingenieros Popular Library held a round table on the anarchists and the Cuban Revolution. The debates highlighted the positive aspects of the new regime, it was mentioned, the administrative honesty and the determined opposition to international capitalism; This contrasted with the total domination of the springs of power by a group of individuals and the, increasingly evident, adherence to the Soviet bloc in its international politics.[36]Lorenzo de Vedia, one of the participants, argued: "from our point of view the Cuban Revolution has been frustrated by the attempt to take place from the structure of the State."[37]Luis Danussi spoke about the reigning enthusiasm in the anarchist movement for the first measures, such as the attack on corruption, large estates and the dismantling of the army, however, he added: "that magnificent Revolution is not going to be frustrated, but has already been viciously frustrated by a set of factors. Rather than being in the process of being, it is already a typically totalitarian police state ".[38]The achievements of the Revolution were not made from below, as corresponds to a revolution with a popular imprint, Danussi stressed, and exemplified it with the agrarian reform, where the nascent State assumed the power to distribute land, translating into a new form of exploitation, control and surveillance.[39]

The controversy, aroused on the continent, would reach the island and the Cuban accrats would enter it with a note that appeared in Gastronomic Solidarity , broadcast by the FLA in February 1961; In this, the information appearing in the publications of Mexico and Argentina is approved, delegitimizing the information appearing in Lucha Libertaria de Uruguay. An internal FLA circular expresses the bewilderment of the Cubans at the attitude of the Uruguayan libertarian press, which questioned them not to give or deal with the news of greater importance and current affairs regarding the Cuban process. Criticizing the position of the Uruguayan print, but also the FAU and its support for Castro, they stated:

The position[of the Uruguayans]seems to us completely lacking in content to the principles that inform, the ideas, false position, if not demagogic, and we say it from here, how we can say it and not how we want to say it. The distance and even the lack of personal information is not a justification for not making a more realistic approach to the Cuban situation, politically, socially and economically. To continue clinging to that terrible thing of going down the well-trodden path of subverting or defending a particular political system, without reflecting on whether the position adopted at one moment favors a worse regime than the previous one, is as much as continuing with the blindfold in the past. eyes, which prevents seeing the Cuban reality as it is (...). Much more eloquent, positive and real is the position of La Protesta(...), What was stated by Lorenzo and Danussi, were compelling and passionless reasons, which may well serve as an example for a discussion regarding the problems of the American continent and the world (...), we can also highlight the judgments of Reconstruir and Acción Libertaria , in the country of Plata, as well as CNT in Mexico[referring to Tierra y Libertad and Solidaridad Obrera]. Its editors demonstrate to be attentive to the palpitations of Cuba and the continent with their feet on the ground.[40]

The disenchantment of Mexican anarchists with the Cuban revolutionary movement is offered to us by a debate held in the columns of Regeneración between the militant Constante Álvarez and the columnist Tariaco, who was reproached for not being fair about the events in Cuba and pointing out the existence of persecutions, political assassinations and terrorism against the opponents of Fidel Castro. Tariaco replied:

We must clarify to comrade Álvarez that these considerations are deductions from the information that are not a secret for anyone and that come from there, therefore, they are not free opinions. We would like that there were no contradictory reactions in the revolution so that our enemies would have no justification. Where the danger of counterrevolution is cultivated too much, people see enemies everywhere, and an era of denunciations and outrages is unleashed that lead directly to the counterrevolution itself; whether historical experiences are to be valid. Counterrevolutions have rarely been cultivated outside, but within the revolutionary ranks themselves with the purpose of defending it. The existence of prisons and police officers who persecute denotes an era of terror,[41]

Unlike Mexican and Argentine anarchism, where a clear position was taken regarding Cuba, a bitter debate arose in Uruguay that fragmented the FAU. The Protest entered into controversy with that federation and some Uruguayan Arab princes, such as Lucha Libertaria . To contextualize the debate, LP reproduced "the substantial parts of a manifesto" from the FAU, which appeared under the title Al rethinking the Cuban Revolution., in it the FAU enunciates the conditions to maintain its support for the Revolution, such were the strengthening and independence of agricultural and industrial cooperatives, the delivery of land and weapons to peasants, workers and students to prevent the stagnation of the Revolution, avoid bureaucratization without getting entangled in 'representative democracy', supporting it "as long as it guarantees public liberties, the right of action and while it deepens its social postulates of humanism and freedom, only in these ways will the Revolution be stronger.[42]

The positions taken during an informal meeting between FAU and FLA militants were added to what was stated in the manifesto, where they complained about the Cuban Revolution. In the assembly the discrepancies between the two specific ones were evidenced, to which were added the positions of LP and the publishing group of Reconstruir . In the 'conclave', the FAU upheld the positive character of the Cuban Revolution despite the centralist bias adopted and the active presence of the communists, while the Argentines stood firm in considering the process as a frustrated revolution at the time that the Social conquests were given by the State and the "group perched on power." The divergences were disclosed by LP, as he stated: "he has not hesitated to accept as a natural thing the right of other colleagues to publicly hold dissenting opinions. At this time when party discipline, party monolithism and majority reason have become a fetish, we have once again affirmed our concept of the indeclinable freedom of each to hold their own points of view ".[43]

Although the organic organizations of Mexico and Argentina noticed, from 1960, the turn taken by the Cuban Revolution, libertarian individuals from both countries were not very sure of that turn; therefore, the acratic press opened its columns to differences in order to demonstrate the openness of libertarian thought, thereby denying ideological monism, to debates around questions of theoretical / practical interest. In LP appeared a letter addressed to the director of the print, who subscribed, L Ramírez, stated that he was an old militant and that his position was not exclusive to him but to a large group of colleagues living in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, who have identified in LP's language is the same as that of the bourgeoisie regarding Cuba.[44]

Image 7. La Protesta (Buenos Aires), no. 8030, 2nd fortnight of May 1957. http://americalee.cedinci.org

Another even more critical case, of these disagreements, occurred from a circular issued by Carlos M. Rama, who published a couple of texts in Cenit[45]highlighting the positive aspects of the Revolution. Rama's circular motivated an extended meeting of the editorial group of La Protestato discuss the 'positive' achievements of the Revolution, but these were reviewed critically from the anarchic principles. Among them the following stood out: the suppression of the army and the creation of popular militias, this was not considered an achievement because beyond the name they were a true hierarchically organized army; liquidation of the big bourgeoisie; disappearance of the repressive bodies, this was questioned because the existence of a fairly widespread police and para-police apparatus such as the National Revolutionary Police, the Technical Investigation Department (DTI) and the Political Police (G-2) was known, in addition to the revolutionary vigilance committees that, even though they were branded revolutionaries, were not stripped of their repressive function; the suppression of 'social vices'; the decrease in unemployment; the end of North American dependence; Regarding economic growth and increased production, they argued that nothing could be assured yet, due to the short period of time and due to the scarcity of reliable sources; the housing and literacy plan; the industrialization process and agrarian reform.[46]

The last point is the most interesting because an anarchist, Augustin Souchy, went to Cuba and drew up a balance on the revolutionary economy, cooperatives, collectivizations and agrarian reform, for which the anarchists had first-hand information, thus, when dealing with the issue about whether there was popular participation in public, political, economic and social organizations, they pointed out "a colleague who was in Cuba, studying the agrarian problem, stated that there is no such participation, although he was left with the impression that there is an intention to do participate to the people within certain limits. The demonstration that this appreciation is valid is constituted by the criticisms made by 'Che' Guevara against the weakness of the enthusiasm of the cooperative members ".[47]

Souchy's work consisted of taking stock of the state of Cuban agriculture and how it could be improved in the short term. The analytical model used was the same one used to study the Israeli kibbutz, the Mexican ejido and the Spanish communities during the civil war. The analysis did not please the Cuban authorities, the report was vetoed and Souchy was accused of being a counterrevolutionary.[48]

Souchy's work reflected the libertarian position regarding the Cuban process, it highlights the self-denial of the people and the constructive work such as the construction of houses, schools, health centers and agrarian reform. He also underlined the demand for social justice, the change in the economic structure aimed at suppressing the privileges of a few at the cost of the suffering of the majority, also highlighted the rejection of imperialism and monopolies as issues rooted in the lower classes and in the intellectuals of Latin America. Causes for which the Revolution raised so many hopes, however, he recognized that a year and a half after the triumph, not everything was positive, creative and authentically revolutionary.

The errors observed by the anarchists were not aimed, as Souchy pointed out, at the manifest defects and contradictions in any revolution. Where the anarchists saw the greatest danger was in the "idolization of the movement because of the political conceptions, the spirit and the tactics that animated the 'bosses'" (Souchy, 1960, p. 7). Far from denying the existence of a powerful reaction and willing to participate in an intervention with the support of the United States, the anarchists, aware of the danger and threats looming over the Revolution, by those who wanted to regain their lost privileges; But Souchy was right when he pointed out that the risks were not going to be avoided with the suppression of freedoms or with the persecution of social fighters of proven revolutionary rectitude. He stated:

[Those]totalitarian procedures, which eliminate all principles of freedom and self-determination for the same workers and peasants who are said to want to emancipate, is enough to reveal the orientation and purpose of the current Cuban leaders. It is not necessary to take into account the meaning of its foreign policy, linked without the slightest reservation to the so-called Soviet bloc. It is enough to observe what happens in the interior of the country, where everything is moving towards a galloping nationalization (...), where all activities are subject to the direction of officials, who respond to the slogans of a unitary party (p. 7).

As a result of Souchy's work, the debates around Cuba, within the libertarian movement, became more acute, in particular because of Rama's circular, since it had a dedication: Gastón Leval and Augustin Souchy. Leval felt obliged to respond to Rama's circular; because in it he pointed out: "in his bitter fight against Russian communism, it can be explained that Gastón Leval, sings praises to the philanthropy of the American sugar trusts, on the Caribbean island, as Augustin Souchy has done to United Fruit ".[49]Leval's response begins by recriminating the misrepresentation of his thinking and his writings; First, both he and Souchy, he argued, never sang or would sing praise to the American trusts as a consequence of their onslaught against totalitarianism; adding: "from my criticisms it cannot be inferred that fighting this totalitarianism leads us fatally to defend US imperialism. Nor does it follow that this totalitarianism should not be fought on pain of playing another imperialism's game. The statement is not original, the communists have been repeating it for forty years ".[fifty]He reiterated his remarks, published in the French anarchist press, and affirmed that criticizing a regime did not mean supporting the other side, but as anarchists being consistent with the principles, in addition the data evidenced, both by Souchy and by him, was of the domain public and not inventions. Leval, however, agreed with Rama when he revealed the crisis of anarchism by its lack of dynamism and reality, but that did not mean, Leval replied, adhere to or feel sympathy for a regime emulating the Soviet system, since Rama's circular reproaches the anarchists for not adhering to the "Castro-communist" regime, Leval responded to this by predicting the refinement of the oppressive and repressive forms of the Castro regime; And, as anarchists, the responsibility was to keep the pillars of the acratic ideal intact: anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism and anti-capitalism, and, around them, to build new proposals, Leval concludes: "anarchism has become stagnant. Some of us recognize and try to contribute analysis, new and complementary ideas that guide thought and action. But we have also learned, since 1917, is that the worst forms of slavery can appear wrapped in the most attractive promises of liberation and that the world is today threatened by them. This is the most urgent fight ". it is that the worst forms of slavery can appear wrapped in the most attractive promises of liberation and that the world is today threatened by them. This is the most urgent fight ". it is that the worst forms of slavery can appear wrapped in the most attractive promises of liberation and that the world is today threatened by them. This is the most urgent fight ".[51]

Image 8. La Protesta (Buenos Aires), no. 8067, August 1960. http://americalee.cedinci.org

To Carlos Rama's circular, and Leval's response, a text by Víctor García was added where he argued that for no anarchist "the dangerous turn" assumed by the Cuban regime escaped, in particular because for the anarchists it was projecting "more and more insistently, a very significant parallel to the turn that the Russian revolution took in 1917 and following ",[52]refers to the hopes that the 1917 movement sowed; each new news was cause for excitement and jubilation among the proletariat of the world; However, the first works evidencing the fate of the soviets, the Majnovchina and Kronstadt, betrayed the measures adopted by the communists to eliminate the push of the workers and bureaucratize the revolution, taking it to the causes where it finally ended. He underlined:

The jubilation broke out on January 1, 1959 when Batista fled the island that he had turned into his humiliating satrapy and we, the revolutionaries of the world, were also able to feel happy when seeing the overthrow of a mercenary army, the conversion of the barracks into schools. , the promise of agrarian reform, the expropriation of the monopolies and large landowners, the prohibitions of gambling and lottery. For many, the optimism was overwhelming and several were the comrades who from the rostrum and from the columns of the press, dedicated the best praise to the Cuban Revolution.[53]

García delves into the controversy unleashed within anarchism as a result of the Cuban process, recognizing that the majority were individuals who supported Castro, with the exception of the FAU, the only specific ally of Castro and his regime. Attributing this attitude to the lack of verifiable information on the situation in Cuba, in his writing he points out the confusion sown when rumors were made about a possible case of censorship against the El Libertario and Solidaridad Gastronómica printing houses; but later it was indicated, through a circular of Gastronomic SolidarityThe reasons for its suppression were due to the fact that the advertising of alcoholic beverages was prohibited by order of the revolutionary regime, eliminating the source of income from the publication. The circular referred to by García points to Solidaridad , not El Libertario , but in another confidential statement the cessation of the monthly due to financial problems is reported.[54]

The report of a delegate of the CNT of Spain in exile, commissioned to visit the island, to know the situation first-hand, deepened the discrepancies about the anarchists and the Cuban Revolution. In the communiqué several objections are raised against the anarchist position and others are confirmed; However, the one who received and informed the CNT delegate was Manuel Gaona, an anarchist activist who passed into Castroism and who issued a Clarification and statement to the anarchists(see note 1), delegitimizing and defaming his former colleagues from the MLC, at that time already in exile. The report highlights, first, the low amount of the ALC, because before the triumph of 59 its members did not reach a hundred, at the time of submitting the report there were a dozen supporting Castro and another five in other activities; in addition he assured that there was no repression against the anarchists, the press circulated without problems ".[55]

Something symptomatic in the CNT delegate's report is its similarity to the points of the Gaona document, for example, where it was noted: "it is true that serious danger looms against some comrades. That danger, however, is not due to their specifically anarchist activities, but rather because of their actions alongside the counterrevolutionaries, that is, supporters of the return to feudalism of the potentates and therefore the slavery of the Cuban people ". The report comments on the action of the communists to take over the unions, but they doubtfully manage to overshadow the figure of Castro, it also adds the manifest fear, among the anarchists of the CNT, of being persecuted and imprisoned as in Russia or Spain, for this reason leave the Island and, the delegate points out, "they have the guarantee that, by means of a list, all the colleagues who wish to leave will be able to do so,[56]Despite the aforementioned, the same report contradicts itself by stating in its fifth point: "it is true that in the days of the invasion by the elements in the pay of the Yankees, the secretary of the section of the CNT and eight other Spanish and native comrades were detained (...), the delegate alleges that this is due to the prevailing confusion ",[57]the reality was very different from what was limited in the report, the prisoners were sentenced to various sentences from prison and a couple of them shot (see note 70). He ends the report by noting that

The delegate affirms that there is no social or libertarian revolution but that the peasant has ceased to be a beast whom the feudalists crushed. The workers in the fields have benefited morally and economically. The huts disappear to give way to houses where hygiene and comfort exist. The profits of the cooperatives are destined to help other cooperatives that are weak in the economic aspect or to the creation of others. They are industrializing the country. They are armed to the teeth.[58]

Due to what happened afterwards, the nullity of said report is evident. The anarchist position remained firm in its opposition to Castro, partly because the statements of the delegate's statement were common, as well as the existence of a second informant named Antonio, who sent them a lot of information from Cuba to the anarchist group Tierra y Libertad , adhered to the FAM. Which denied, through his writings, what was indicated by the CNT delegate.

Image 9. Tierra y Libertad (Mexico), year XVII, no. 181, April 1958. Author's file.

However, the report circulated in the anarchist media, serving as a basis for those who took a position in favor of the Castro regime. For example, as part of the debates on the Cuban process LPpublicized the FAU's position regarding Cuba, in April 1962 this group adopted, in its ordinary plenary session, the resolution of indeclinable adherence to the principle of self-determination of all peoples, regardless of the social system they had, in the face of any democratic power. or communist-. Consequently, they ratified their anti-imperialist position and in defense of the Revolution, which conquered direct democracy, erected cooperatives, company committees, popular militias, practicality of humanist and socialist postulates; moreover, they recognized that Castro's declarations of December 1, 1961 on the creation of the Unique Party, and the climate of ideological intolerance "constitute a deviation from the aforementioned postulates. That said, these deviations are an obstacle to the construction of socialism ".[59]

The debate on Cuba and the anarchist position reached a quite violent point in Uruguay, to the point of breaking up the FAU. Emerging from the same two blocks, one where the organic structure of the FAU prevailed and another, with the name of Alianza Libertaria Uruguaya (ALU), with Luce Fabbri as the visible head. This group assumed the same position of almost all of anarchism and issued a manifesto defending self-determination, understood this, against the definition of the FAU, not only as a position of the peoples to decide on their fates towards the outside but also to internal relationships ...

Every people must be able to 'self-determine' in relation to any local or foreign government. Where there is no freedom of speech, of the press, of demonstrations and strikes, where there is no university or union autonomy, one cannot speak of self-determination (...), these 'formal' freedoms, which were conquered at the cost of so many revolutionary-type efforts , are not enough, but we also know that greater freedom of economic and social order cannot be achieved by suppressing the former (...)[therefore], the economic-social emancipation of the Latin American peoples should not be conditioned by the support or the pressure from a certain imperialist bloc.[60]

Luce Fabbri, would recall the breakdown of the FAU and the harsh debate on the Cuban question ...

... the Cuban Revolution came, it seems to me that from 59 ... then, at the beginning, well, solidarity with Cuba, I was worried because I had spoken with Santillán, I went to Argentina in those days, in the days of the Cuban Revolution, When they took over, the guerrillas came down from the mountain and took the capital and the revolution triumphed. Those days I was in Argentina and I was talking to Santillán, he says: everything is going very well as long as Fidel Castro does not prevail; He says: he is a megalomaniac, very dangerous, well, as Fidel Castro prevailed ... I was restless from the beginning and very soon the news of the persecution of my comrades arrived (...) then came the communist coup, at first ... July 26 was ..., the movement (...) had ...[a]program of broad freedom,[61]

As I have shown, it was anarchist individuals, with the exception of the FAU, who did not agree with the 'majority' position on the Cuban Revolution. For example, a letter sent to LP by 'a comrade' where he questions their position with respect to Cuba and make room for news from the MLCE, all of them negative to the Cuban process, such as the cases of anarchists imprisoned and shot, including a peasant from 17 years; That, on the one hand, on the other hand, quotes the newspaper Lucha Libertaria , where comments in favor of the Cuban question were exposed and requested to publish them. Finally, they are reproached for not reporting the condition of those shot in Cuba, called comrades, but they worked against the Revolution in coordination with capitalist groups;[62]LP would reply by emphasizing the issue of the executions, since apparently 'a comrade' took it lightly and accused melodramatism in the news of the murder of a 17-year-old adolescent.[63]

Jacobo Prince's response to the letter that appeared on LP deserved. In his response, Prince pointed out the revolutionary character of the anarchists in the face of tyrannies, for this reason his sympathy was with the Cuban accrats against the new Cuban regime, this did not elude, nor did it prevent them from being objective:

The fact that, after such vast and repeated historical experiences, we have to insist on considerations of this kind for those who say and believe they are libertarians, is more than regrettable. There is no doubt that a certain intellectual fashion - "leftism at all costs" - and the Bolshevik blackmail, according to which all those who are against the type of dictatorship represented by that sector is a "reactionary", influence certain proposals that from a point of view From a libertarian point of view, they seem to me an aberration (...) when it comes to justifying the shooting of adolescents, based on the fact that we do not know what "objective" information. Which means, among other things, that, in terms of approaches, about revolution, dictatorship, etc.,[64]

The columns of the Mexican printouts stood out for their uncompromising position against the system headed by Castro. To clarify the issue and avoid "deviations", as happened with the FAU, the FAM organ published a series of texts by the poet José Muñoz Cota, one of the most conspicuous critics of the regime emanating from the Cuban insurrection, who from his column in Regeneración he expressed his disappointment but also raised the possible consequences for Latin America after the imperialist interference of the USSR, such as the sharpening of the repressive policies of the United States,[65]Muñoz Cota asserted:

Firmly oppose the repressive policy of governments that invoke national security, communist danger, threats of subversion or any other process, to restrict, restrict or annul the freedoms and rights that are essential for the peoples to be able to defend themselves against threats totalitarian, economic injustices and government abuses; In addition, these policies play a role in the totalitarian elements, who speculate on martyrdom and the concealment of their true power, without thereby ceasing to act with all their resources of infiltration and influence.[66]

Image 10. Solidaridad Obrera[literary supplement](Paris), no. 859-93, September 1961. https://bibdig.biblioteca.unesp.br

Cosme Paules, a Cuban exiled in Chile, spoke in the same vein:

When the proletariat in Latin America woke up from its long slumber and little by little it showed itself to be in the conditions propagated by a Martí, a González Prada, a Flores Magón (...) the new dictators of Cuba have won the first battle against the Protestant resurgence of the slaves of America. History will tell to what extent this reactionary action destroyed the possibilities of advancement of the proletariat in this part of the world.[67]

It was also Muñoz Cota who best analyzed, in detail, the development of the Cuban process from the libertarian perspective. In his article "Our distance with the Cuban regime", he denounces the enmity and rivalry between Castro Ruz and Batista that arose when Batista abandoned his revolutionary life, inaugurated against a dictatorship; Batista became a dictator; for which no free man could have agreed with him. He continued by noting that Castro Ruz, although he did not have the sympathy of the United States, but with its approval, enjoyed universal adherence, the Cuban people had hopes in him. Castro Ruz managed to overthrow Batista without great acts of arms, he also did not declare himself a communist or if he was, he hid it well. Adding, came the honeymoon with the US, Chilled when the issue of sugar quotas was discussed, the Americans were wrong in their international policy and looked down on Castro Ruz for lack of objectivity. This benefited:

Russia, which did realize the gravity of this moment and the very rich possibilities that opened up when Castro broke with the US, there was still a time when Ruz flirted with both of them. Then the break came and Castro Ruz began his sovietization (we say sovietize because we cannot find another just word, because we know that in the USSR there is a lack of soviets that were replaced by the centralization of a single totalitarian party).[68]

Repression and solidarity

In January 1962, the anarchist position regarding the Cuban Revolution was well defined. Those who still doubted were shown the reports from the island and the testimonies of the Cuban exiles (such as that of Abelardo Iglesias, which appeared in Reconstruir, and that of Casto Moscow in Tierra y Libertad ). From the MLCE, and from the Spanish exiles, Latin American anarchism was informed about the imprisonment of several of their comrades for disagreeing with the regime established in their homeland. A list of jailed militants was released, including Luis Miguel Lisuaín, Antonio Dagas and José Aceña.[69]

When the Buenos Aires libertarians learned the fate of their "brothers of ideas", they reactivated or strengthened their international aid organizations, in particular the International Anarchist Solidarity (SAI), founded in December 1947. This modestly mitigated the situation. of his Cuban companions. SAI's actions varied, it carried out a campaign of agitation in order to denounce the arbitrariness committed against Cuban dissidents, it placed solidarity bonds and sent money to the MLCE.[70]

Image 11. Tierra y Libertad (Mexico), year XIX, no. 234, November 1962. Author's file.

The foregoing is an example against the current of what Frank Fernández maintains regarding an abandonment, of the international anarchist movement, of the Cuban acrats. This is further diluted after reviewing LP number 8084 , which offers an overview of the position of anarchists in the Western Hemisphere on the Cuban process.[71]The position assumed by a group of anarchists gathered in Geneva to celebrate the ninetieth meeting of Saint Imier is noted, the fourth agreement of this stated:

The supporters in this meeting declare themselves in solidarity with all peoples and all movements in the fight against oppression and dictatorial regimes; they support all popular struggles that aim to abolish exploitation, authoritarianism and militarism (...). They support in a particular way the struggle of the Iberian peoples, the Slavic peoples and the Cuban people in opposition against the new dictatorship, as well as all the peoples fighting for true freedom.[72]

The declaration was signed by representatives of the anarchist movement from Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France, Switzerland and Italy. For its part, the magazine Volontà wrote a statement to rectify its first impressions of the Cuban process, manifesting that, in the face of the events that took place in Cuba, the ML has agreed on its position, which must be unequivocal, precise and clear. Volontàhe reiterated: "if we had allowed hesitations due to the various and contradictory news that could be captured at the beginning of the revolutionary movement, yes, consequently, it was lawful to bring trials (...) today, after the intoxicating impression, we cannot be wrong when we affirm that the Cuban Revolution is undergoing an authoritarian involution of which many of our colleagues are testimony and victims ".[73]The only position to be assumed by the anarchists, said VolontàIt was that of a frontal criticism and a categorical condemnation of the Castro regime; However, they warned, just as they were enemies of the Castro regime, they were adversaries of Kennedy and his anti-Cuban policy (not anti-Castro) with which he tried to reconquer the Island to reintegrate the privileges of the North American capitalists. L'agitazione del Sud , from Sicily, took a similar stance; while the Carrara acrats, it appears from a chronicle published in Umanitá Nova, attended a popular assembly to debate and protest against the blockade imposed on Cuba, at the event Alfonso Failla was invited to speak, who criticized the turn taken by the revolution and argued: "anarchists protest against all factors of the war and for that reason against the North American blockade of Cuba and, at the same time, they renew their protests against the detention, by the government of Fidel Castro, of their comrades who suffer imprisonment (as under the Batista dictatorship), for the cause of the effective freedom and self-decision of the Cuban working people ".[74]

Image 12. Tierra y Libertad (Mexico), year XVIII, no. 217, June 1961. Author's file.

With the intention of reaffirming its position and disseminating the fate of its 'brothers of ideas', LP reproduced the most substantial of a report presented by the MLCE to the V FLA congress. In this, a balance is made of the anarchist activities and the battles sustained from the Machado dictatorship to the rise of communism in Cuba. The report gives "a long and tragic list of worthy victims."[75]They also evoke his participation in the decisive moments of the fight against Batista, from the assault on the Moncada barracks to the assault on the Palace on March 13, 1957, in the city and in the mountains, particularly in Escambray, the acrats were . Despite their revolutionary attitude, the authorities undertook a campaign to discredit, slander and persecute the anarchists, according to the report, while the anarchists did not join "the chorus of sycophants of the 'maximum leader' and of the new oligarchy ruler"; stated:

We can be reproached, as they have done, for not having informed the international movement about the real situation in Cuba from the moment in which we clearly perceive the dictatorial and totalitarian trajectory of the new regime, as well as the persecutions of our victims. militants from the precise moment of the triumph of the revolution. We accept fraternal criticism in this sense, but we want to emphatically declare that this attitude was the product of a deliberate decision, since we did not want to confuse libertarian criticism with reactionary criticism, which was then made by the representatives of the overthrown regime.[76]

If anarchism's concern consisted, the MLCE report continued, in defining the fight against the "Castro-communist" regime without matching the reaction, that was a shared concern, emphasizing the opposition of the Antillean anarchists, who would never establish an agreement one where the independence of the movement is mortgaged. For this reason, they appealed to the constitution of a left-wing bloc as a counterweight to Castro's power, recognizing the impossibility of overthrowing the new regime due to the military support received from the USSR.[77]From the agreements reached by the V Congress of the FLA it follows:

The FLA congress repudiates the totalitarian regime prevailing in Cuba and expresses its solidarity with the Cuban people who are fighting to rescue their revolution betrayed by Castro-communism. In the same way that it repudiates the regressive forces that inside and outside Cuba, they fight to "solve" the situation by reestablishing the privileges just suppressed during the first revolutionary impulse and by chaining the people to a regressive regime that would only change the sign of despotism.[78]

The FAM also expressed its support for the anarchists and its rejection of Castroism. In its VIII National Congress,[79]held in July 1962, the Cuban issue was addressed as a first-order topic and included the participation of Juan Ramón Álvarez, delegate of the MLCE.[80]The Cuban Revolution, Álvarez argued, opened the doors of Latin America for the expansion of a climate of insecurity due to the fact that a Marxist-type dictatorship had been established in the country, ending the diminished freedoms of the Cuban people. The Revolution in Cuba, he continued, of a popular type had the objective of ending the Batista dictatorship and establishing a change in the social and economic conditions of the country, but unfortunately, he pointed out, the communists managed to impose their system of oppression.[81]

Image 13. Tierra y Libertad (Mexico), year XIX, no. 226, March 1962. Author's file.

Álvarez declared that, as anarchists, they were supporters of freedom and could not fight the Cuban people, since they had every right to modify their way of life in search of a true improvement; but, he sentenced, they would fight those who did something negative and counterproductive to the effort of that same bleeding people to achieve their liberation. Remembering that when the revolution in Cuba began, the MLC came to the fore occupying defined positions, and many comrades were in Sierra Maestra, for years fighting the dictator in so many other towns and cities; They developed tasks aimed at undermining the dictatorship without sparing efforts and exposing life.[82]

At the close of the VIII Congress of the FAM a statement sent by Casto Moscow on the conditions of libertarian militancy in Cuba was read. The report begins with a denunciation of the revolutionary government headed by the Castro brothers, Guevara and other figures, who were eliminating all the men and sectors combatants against Fulgencio Batista and could be an obstacle to their plans. He advocated not to forget the complicity of the communists with Batista, by participating within his government, in such a way they were first against the revolutionary movement, then when they were relegated they interfered in the Revolution to benefit; when the Revolution, assured Moscow, was honored, The communists changed their ideas and took over key positions, finally determining the entire policy of the Cuban regime. The communists, the report pointed out, persecuted, imprisoned and punished those who opposed them, imposing forced discounts on wages; the only recognized political party was the so-called Popular Socialist, until the decree of creation of the so-called Unique Party and with it the definitive extinction of the rest of the M26 and the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations; he concluded: "Castro and his clique imposed a regime of terror to physically liquidate those who did not accept communist interference and proclaimed: 'every anticommunist is counterrevolutionary." imposing forced discounts on wages; the only recognized political party was the so-called Popular Socialist, until the decree creating the so-called Unique Party and with it the definitive extinction of the rest of the M26 and the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations; he concluded: "Castro and his clique imposed a regime of terror to physically liquidate those who did not accept communist interference and proclaimed: 'every anticommunist is counterrevolutionary." imposing forced discounts on wages; the only recognized political party was the so-called Popular Socialist, until the decree of creation of the so-called Unique Party and with it the definitive extinction of the rest of the M26 and the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations; he concluded: "Castro and his clique imposed a regime of terror to physically liquidate those who did not accept communist interference and proclaimed: 'every anticommunist is counterrevolutionary."[83]


Throughout the present, it has been shown how the anarchist groups of Latin America reacted to the Cuban Revolution, what was their position during the deed of the Sierra Maestra guerrillas, what was their victory and what their projection of the regime established in the so-called pearl of The Antilles. It was exhibited how the libertarian movement moved from one position to another in a very short time and, with this, it became evident that Frank Fernández's thesis lacks a basis to sustain itself. The anarchists of the continent soon noticed the authoritarian turn of the Revolution, denounced it and showed solidarity with their fellow islanders, not only that, in none of the analyzed newspapers is there any reference to the Gaona document; Added to this, the debate among anarchists shows the almost unanimous rejection of Castro and his clique.


[1]In said document, those who signed it -according to Fernández-, did so under duress, the persecutions or apprehension of libertarians are unknown, affirms that the campaign for Cuban prisoners is an insidious crusade, since "there is no such thing in the entire republic as a only comrade detained or persecuted for his ideas, so it is imperative to clarify from which sources the information that affirms the opposite comes from and what destination will be given to the money collected in Mexico for those imaginary prisoners and persecuted ". categorically denies the existence of political, ideological or religious persecution; ensuring that the only prisoners are the mercenaries from Playa Girón; affirms that the entire libertarian militancy of Cuba is integrated into the different organizations of the National Revolutionary Militias,

[2]Rodolfo Aguirre, "The Cuban rebellion", Regeneración (Mexico), July 1957.

[3]Ibid .

[4]"American Anarchist Conference", Solidaridad Obrera (Paris), August 15, 1957.

[5]"American Anarchist Conference", Solidaridad Obrera (Paris), September 12, 1957.

[6]Perhaps due to the time that has elapsed, Alberola overlaps the dates. The only event of such characteristics, portrayed by the anarchist press, was the one carried out by the Anti-Francoist Youth in April 1957, held in the Mexican Union of Electricians. The Cuban student, a member of M26, David Díaz de la Rocha participated in this, and "asked for help for the students of Cuba who, faithful to the ideals of José Martí, are massacred by the henchmen of Batista", "Rally for Freedom... ", Solidaridad Obrera(Paris), May 16, 1957; In another chronicle, it was highlighted: "David Díaz, with the fierceness of that happy and rebellious working and student youth of Cuba who dies with a smile on their lips, of that youth that defeated the tyrant Machado and that today cracks with their attacks the power of Batista, brought to the rally a breath of tragedy and heroism in which the Cuban rebels live. He paid tribute to the guerrillas of Fidel Castro Ruz (...). He paid tribute to the students killed in Havana and said that the 'Cuban problem only a revolution can solve it because the elections that certain elements are promoting - and that the United States would welcome, under certain conditions - is the formula chosen for safeguard vested interests, Aboriginal and foreign. ' He recounted gruesome crimes, full of sadism and cruelty,Tierra y Libertad (Mexico), May 30, 1957.

[7]"Government and revolution in Cuba", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), 2nd fortnight of January 1959.

[8]"The decline of dictatorships", Regeneración (Mexico), January 1959.

[9]Ibid .

[10]"The executions", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), 2nd fortnight of January 1959.

[11]Tariaco, "Things that happen", Regeneración (Mexico), September 1959.

[12]"Letter from Casto Moscow to Andrés Cabona", November 3, 1959, Luis Danussi Fund / Center for Documentation and Research on Left Culture (hereinafter Cedinci).

[13]GA, "In Cuba, revolution or not", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), 2nd fortnight of April 1959.

[14]Ibid .

[15]"The decline of dictatorships", Regeneración (Mexico), January 1959.

[16]"This is how the Cuban comrades think", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), August 1960.

[17]"Circular confidential", Havana, January 15, 1961, Cuba Fund / Jacobo Prince Libertarian Documentation Center / Argentine Libertarian Federation (hereinafter CDLJP-FLA).

[18]Ibid .

[19]Ibid .

[20]The Argentine anarchists made a comparison between the speeches issued by Castro, in particular that of the celebration of July 26, 1959, with those delivered by Perón on October 17. OM, "Before the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), August 1959.

[21]Ibid .

[22]"Where is the labor movement going?", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), July 1960

[23]"Communicating vessels", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), March 1960.

[24]Tariaco, "Things that happen", Regeneración (Mexico), September-October 1960.

[25]Rodolfo Aguirre, "The Cuban Revolution", Regeneración (Mexico), November 1960.

[26]"Imperialism", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), October 1959.

[27]Emilio Muse, "Cuba: from one imperialism to another", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), January 1961.

[28]Ibid .

[29]Ibid .

[30]"For the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), April 1961.

[31]Ibid .

[32]"From the assault on the Moncada barracks and until January 1, 1959, the very nucleus of the revolution was the July 26 Movement, which took the initiatives, the one that starred in the struggle outside and within Cuba, the one that polarized and used all the energies, the one who sets directions, the one who commands, in short, the entire revolution (...). As Castro Ruz explained, the battle was developed and won with the help of men of all ideas, of all religions and of all social classes' (...),[but]the peasants, the workers, the students, the Political parties were the materials of a process unleashed by that small nucleus (...), they made the revolution, but they did not lead it. They lead to triumph, but they don't direct it. They respond to a plan, but only know the first point for certain. In Cuba, the revolution did not have time to 'devour its own children'. The July 26 Movement had devoured the revolution from the beginning "," July 26 Movement ",La Protesta (Buenos Aires), November 1960.

[33]"For the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), April 1961.

[34]Ibid .

[35]"Facing the facts in Cuba", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), April 1961.

[36]"Anarchists and the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), September 1960.

[37]Ibid .

[38]Ibid .

[39]Ibid .

[40]"Looking at the foreign press", Argentine Libertarian Federation, February 1961, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA Fund.

[41]Tariaco, "Things that happen", Regeneración (Mexico), July-August 1960.

[42]"When the Cuban Revolution is rethought", FAU, s / f, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA Fund; "Position of the FAU before the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), September 1960 and "Development on the debate on Cuba", s / f, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA Fund.

[43]"Discrepancy on Cuba", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), September 1960.

[44]"You do not agree with us ...", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), December 1960

[45]Carlos M. Rama, "The cultural work of the Cuban Revolution", Cenit (Toulouse), April 1961; Carlos M. Rama, "Nationalization of Cuban culture", Cenit (Toulouse), May 1961 and Carlos M. Rama, "Parallel between the Spanish Revolution and the Cuban Revolution", Cenit (Toulouse), October 1961.

[46]Chronicler, "The Cuban Revolution, Positive Aspects?", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), July 1961. These positive aspects were defended by most anarchists, the FAIC stated in its manifesto: "We recognize that they have The achievements of that Revolution have been valuable, some actions such as: the Agrarian Reform underway, the expropriation of certain North American properties, the confiscation of the oil industry, the dismantling of the mercenary state army and the open struggle against the North American imperialism that overwhelms the economy. Cuban "(FAIC, 1960, p. 1).

[47]Chronicler, "The Cuban Revolution, positive aspects?", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), July 1961.

[48]In the summer of 1960, two popular collections of ten books were published in Havana at the Lex publishing house. One of them: Cooperativism and Collectivism, with three collaborations. The first addressed the precursors of the cooperative doctrine; the second, from the executive director of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA) A. Núñez Jiménez, "The cooperatives of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform", and another under the title of "Studies on Cooperatives and Collectivization in Mexico, Israel, Spain and Cuba "by Souchy. He was invited to this for his experience in the USSR (1919), in Spain (1936-39), Mexico (1942-1955) and Israel, where he developed programs on cooperativism and collectivization; Souchy remained in Cuba during the months of April, May and June 1960, during which time he toured the island knowing first-hand the construction stage of the Revolution. Souchy's work was censored and destroyed, however, he sent his writing to the FLA, which published it in December 1960. According to Frank Fernández "three days after leaving Cuba, the entire edition of said work was intervened by the Castro government at the suggestion of the PCC Directorate and destroyed in its entirety. Luckily for History, the publishing house Reconstruir in Buenos Aires reproduced Souchy's original version, with an excellent foreword by Jacobo Prince "(Fernández, 2000, p. 93).

[49]Gastón Leval, "On the subject of the anarchists and the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), August 1961.

[50]Ibid .

[51]Ibid .

[52]Víctor García, "Consequence before the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta(Buenos Aires), October 1961. Víctor García not only questioned the Revolution from the press, in 1961 together with Octavio Alberola they undertook a tour of reaffirmation and ideological clarification, Alberola recalled... "the anarchist movement, as such, began very Soon to distance himself, and as Fidel's caudillista drift became evident, the movement widely denounced him. In 1961, with Víctor García[Germinal Gracia], I participated in a conference tour in the Spanish anarchist media exiled in France and England to denounce the totalitarian drift of the 'Cuban Revolution'. The question then was that there was still confidence in the capacity of the popular movement to react and prevent the total confiscation of the revolution by Castroism.El Libertario (Venezuela), August-September 2004.

[53]Víctor García, "Consequence before the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), October 1961.

[54]"Circular", Libertarian gastronomic group, Havana, March 20, 1961, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA Fund. García also breaks with the false dichotomy of opting for one of the two imperialisms by pointing out that the anti-anarchist communism does not avoid denouncing the North American interference and its participation in the invasion of Playa Girón, reiterating that "anarchism denounced that attempt to break the Cuban process, against which they are, but if anyone has the legitimacy to question and fight it, it is the Cubans, not US imperialism. Emphasizing that after the failed intervention dozens of anarchists were arrested, along with hundreds more of leftist militants, accused of being counterrevolutionaries ". Such title deserved the editor Mariano Sánchez Roca, founder of the Lex publishing house. This was one of those in charge of transmitting information about what happened in Cuba to the anarchist militancy, in particular to the CNT in exile in Mexico and Venezuela, a country where he arrived when his editorial was intervened for publishing Souchy's work. Víctor García, "Consequence before the Cuban Revolution",La Protesta (Buenos Aires), October 1961. In the same issue where Germinal Gracia rectifies his position regarding Cuba, the first news appeared of the arrest of a known anarchist in the ML: Luis Miguel Linsuaín. His arrest was due to an accusation of plotting against the life of the war minister, Raúl Castro. Linsuaín, according to the note, was a representative of the gastronomic union, from which he was fired for his criticism against the turn taken by the revolution, for this reason a campaign was launched to defame him and culminated in his arrest by the G-2 in July 1961 , "The anarchist Linsuaín", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), October 1961.

[55]"S / N", Mexico, August 23, 1961, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA Fund.

[56]Ibid .

[57]Ibid .

[58]Ibid .

[59]"Position of the FAU on Cuba", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), March 1963.

[60]"Manifesto", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), February 1963.

[61]"Interview with Luce Fabbri by Margaret Rago", Interview with Luce Fabbri, session 12, cassette 12, 1996, Luce Fabbri / Cedinci Collection.

[62]"Letter to La Protesta ", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), March 1963.

[63]"Our answer", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), March 1963.

[64]"The anti-libertarian repression in Cuba", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), May 1963.

[65]Or as the Cuban historian Frank Fernández, from a distance, reflected: "... in accordance with his policy of national liberation, a guerrilla force - urban and mountain - was created throughout the American continent that would change the political system in almost all countries by south of the Rio Grande. The guerrilla war proposed by the Guevara-Castro duo left the continent bloody, in addition to provoking the seizure of power in response by a herd of uniformed gorillas, creating in a very short time a collection of military dictatorships that dedicated themselves to kidnapping, crime and theft, in addition to dedicating himself to making both enemies and innocent citizens disappear. This happened in civilized countries, with a long tradition of civil rights and respect for human life, as a military retaliation for planned violence,

[66]"Panoramics", Regeneración (Mexico), May-June 1962.

[67]Cosme Paules, "Looking for the number", Regeneración (Mexico), November 1962.

[68]José Muñoz Cota, "Our distance with the Cuban regime", Regeneración (Mexico), September 1962.

[69]"The fate of our prisoners", Regeneration(Mexico), May-June 1962. Appealing for the freedom of the imprisoned anarchists, he stated: "Several comrades such as Gilberto Lima and Luis Linsuaín were part of the M26, the first in the clandestine urban struggle, and the second in the guerrillas of the northern part of the East. Plácido Méndez also belonged to the Second Front of the Escambray "(Fernández, 2000, p. 85). The arrest of some of these anarchists can be seen through a report presented to the International Labor Organization with case number 425. It states that, among others, "the trade unionists: Luis Miguel Linsuaín, secretary of the Federation Gastronomic of the Province of Oriente; Antonio Dagas, undersecretary general of the Cuban section of the Spanish trade union federation CNT, were tried before revolutionary tribunals or councils of war, under criminal provisions and sentenced to various prison terms. Luis Linsuaín sentenced to seven years in prison on May 25, 1962, for a crime against the powers of the State. He was accused of participating in the activities of a counterrevolutionary group called MDC, which had proposed to overthrow the government by raising up armed people, acts of sabotage, stockpiling and transferring weapons, and attacks against government officials. Antonio Dagas was sentenced to three years and seven months in prison "for his direct participation in acts constituting a crime against the powers of the State"; Together with other people, he would have committed acts of terrorism, such as placing a bomb under a car parked in front of the building of the Confederation of Workers of Revolutionary Cuba (...). From the judgments sent by the Government it is clear that among the accessory penalties applied to the convicted persons is the total confiscation of their property. The names of the defense attorneys are also indicated, who in some cases appear to have been appointed by the defendants and in others ex officio (...). The Committee considers it necessary to express its persistent concern regarding the situation in Cuba regarding its consequences on the exercise of trade union rights and recommends that the Board of Directors draw the attention of the Government: a) the importance of not undermining the essential principles of freedom of association; b) the importance that trade unionists, like any other person, benefit from a normal judicial procedure "," Cases of Freedom of Association, report no. 103, 1968 Case No.

[70]"International Anarchist Solidarity", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), September 1962; and "Urgent call for solidarity!!", International Anarchist Solidarity, Buenos Aires, s / f, Luis Danussi / Cedinci Fund.

[71]Frank Fernández maintains: "... the 'impressive loneliness' that the Cuban anarchist movement has suffered, after Fidel Castro's coup, and the lack of solidarity that world anarchism has made it a victim (...) both the Mexican revolution, of 1910, like the Russian, of 1917, or the Castro, of 1957, caused 'a serious impact' in the international anarchist media, including Cubans, which had disastrous consequences, with its inevitable procession of splits, for subjective rather than rational reasons. "(2000, p. 16).

[72]"For the Cuban Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), February 1963.

[73]Ibid .

[74]Ibid .

[75]MLCE Delegation, "To the Fifth Ordinary National Congress of the FLA", November 23, 1961, Cuba / CDLJP-FLA and MLCE Fund, "Cuban Anarchists and...", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), February 1962 .

[76]Ibid .

[77]MLCE, "Cuban anarchists and the Castro Revolution", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), February 1962.

[78]In the bulletins of the V Congress of the FLA, the international question is noted in the fourth item on the agenda; For this reason, the organizing committee of the Congress received several presentations regarding the Cuban question, one of them from the Mar del Plata group. In its presentation, the group sets out its reasons for considering that the popular revolution was betrayed in Cuba, a core part of that felony were the communists who took over the workplaces and popular organizations with the complacency of Castro and his comparsas, he refers to the cancellation of public liberties and the persecution of those who disagree, even in the most trivial with the regime. By asserting that the history of the Russian Revolution repeats itself, the emancipatory purpose was once again betrayed. Therefore, before the work presented,Bulletin , no. 3, V Ordinary Congress of the FLA, October 1961, Fund of the FLA / CDLJP-FLA and El cronista, "The V National Congress of the FLA", La Protesta (Buenos Aires), February 1962.

[79]"Agenda for the VIII Congress of the FAM", May 1, 1962, Esteban Méndez Archive / Institute of Historical Research / Autonomous University of Tamaulipas (hereinafter AEM / IIH / UAT).

[80]"It was not until the summer of 1961 that the anarchist exodus in the direction of the United States began collectively. It was not the first time that anarchists took refuge in this country. Already since the last century, regions such as Tampa, Key West and New York had been the places chosen by these persecuted, where they had a better opportunity to earn a living than anywhere else, in addition to the proximity necessary to continue the fight. During the dictatorships of Machado and Batista, the exile had gone to the same places; there were also contacts with other groups of anarchists residing in the United States "(Fernández, 2000, p. 103).

[81]"Proceedings of the VIII Congress of the FAM", July 26-28, 1962, AEM / IIH / UAT.

[82]Ibid .

[83]Ibid .

Bibliographic references:

Anarchist News Agency. (April 20, 2010). ANA interviews Octavio Alberola. Obtained from http://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/14119
FAIC. (1960). Manifesto of the anarchists of Chile on the Cuban Revolution before the Yankee and Russian imperialism Santiago de Chile: Editorial Libertaria.
Fernández, F. (2000). Anarchism in Cuba. Madrid: Foundation for Libertarian Studies Anselmo Lorenzo.
Gaona Sousa, M. (November 1961). Clarification and a statement from Cuban libertarians. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/ellibertario/docs/manifiestogaona
López Ávalos, M. (2007). The guerrilla of revolutionary vanguards and political elites: the case of Cuba[Doctoral Thesis in Latin American Studies]. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, Mexico.
Souchy, A. (1960). Testimonies about the Cuban Revolution. Buenos Aires: Editorial Reconstruir.

Hemerographic references:

Zenith (Toulouse)
The Libertarian (Venezuela)
The Protest (Buenos Aires)
Regeneration (Mexico)
Workers' Solidarity (Paris)
Land and Liberty (Mexico)

National Autonomous University of Mexico


A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center