Q: You recently said, not referring to socialism in general but to the USSR in particular, that socialism had been assassinated, stabbed in the back. In this conspiracy of daggers that killed socialism, would you say Gorbachev was one of the assassins?
A: No, I could not say that about Gorbachev because I have another view of Gorbachev and it is not one of an assassin who plotted the USSR’s destruction.
The USSR self-destructed in an incredible way. The responsibility for that self-destruction undoubtedly lies in the hands of the country’s leaders, those who led that nation. Now, some of them were aware they were destroying it and others were not. That is what I was trying to say, more or less, and we saw it all from the beginning.
I cannot say Gorbachev played a role in which he was aware of the destruction of the USSR because I have no doubt that Gorbachev intended to fight to improve socialism.
We approved of Soviet efforts to improve socialism in the USSR. But we could not approve of, and never would have agreed to, not only the destruction of socialism in the USSR, but also the destruction of the USSR itself. That inflicted terrible damage on all peoples of the world and created a bad situation for the Third World in particular.
Imperialism would have been able to disintegrate the Soviet Union, had the Soviets not destroyed themselves, had those responsible for the strategies and tactics and for the country’s political and government policies not destroyed the country. In other words, socialism did not die from natural causes: it was a suicide, socialism was murdered. That is what I meant.
He is referring specifically to socialism in the USSR, and suicide by the leaders of that country less so than socialists in general.
I’d say he definitely didn’t have access to as much info as we do, but i also don’t know how much of the info we have is actually accurate either. Where as the info he had was probably from primary sources, and confirmed by his people to the best of their ability.
Q: You recently said, not referring to socialism in general but to the USSR in particular, that socialism had been assassinated, stabbed in the back. In this conspiracy of daggers that killed socialism, would you say Gorbachev was one of the assassins?
A: No, I could not say that about Gorbachev because I have another view of Gorbachev and it is not one of an assassin who plotted the USSR’s destruction.
The USSR self-destructed in an incredible way. The responsibility for that self-destruction undoubtedly lies in the hands of the country’s leaders, those who led that nation. Now, some of them were aware they were destroying it and others were not. That is what I was trying to say, more or less, and we saw it all from the beginning.
I cannot say Gorbachev played a role in which he was aware of the destruction of the USSR because I have no doubt that Gorbachev intended to fight to improve socialism.
We approved of Soviet efforts to improve socialism in the USSR. But we could not approve of, and never would have agreed to, not only the destruction of socialism in the USSR, but also the destruction of the USSR itself. That inflicted terrible damage on all peoples of the world and created a bad situation for the Third World in particular.
Imperialism would have been able to disintegrate the Soviet Union, had the Soviets not destroyed themselves, had those responsible for the strategies and tactics and for the country’s political and government policies not destroyed the country. In other words, socialism did not die from natural causes: it was a suicide, socialism was murdered. That is what I meant.
He is referring specifically to socialism in the USSR, and suicide by the leaders of that country less so than socialists in general.
And he calls it a murder too, which is an important point.
Other parts of the interview I don’t fully agree with Castro on but he may not have had access to all the information that we do now for all I know.
I’d say he definitely didn’t have access to as much info as we do, but i also don’t know how much of the info we have is actually accurate either. Where as the info he had was probably from primary sources, and confirmed by his people to the best of their ability.