“The Cuban Revolution was driven primarily by Cuban nationalist and anti-imperialist traditions rather than by communism.”

In this anniversary speech recalling Martí and the origins of the revolution, Castro says that Martí had foreseen U.S. expansionism: he wrote that “everything he had done and would do was to prevent, through Cuba’s independence, the United States from extending over the peoples of the Americas.” Castro calls the 1898 war “the first imperialist war in contemporary history, which is how Lenin described it,” and casts the Cuban struggle as continuing Martí’s anti‑imperialist project. The speech weaves together Cuban nationalist and anti‑imperialist traditions with explicit references to Lenin and communism.

The author describes the 26th of July Movement as follows: "Due to the ideological breadth and its objective of overthrowing the tyranny, the M-26-7 would quickly add young people from the most diverse political backgrounds. Its defined strategy was armed struggle, supported by the general mobilization of the masses." The program is characterised as "of an advanced popular character" and in the Manifiesto No. 1 al Pueblo de Cuba the movement declares: "The 26th of July integrates itself without hatred against anyone. It is not a political party but a revolutionary movement; its ranks will be open to all Cubans who sincerely wish to re‑establish political democracy in Cuba and implement social justice."

The article identifies “the coming together of revolutionaries embracing the politics of anti-imperialism, racial equality, and leftist revolution” and stresses that “Batista fuelled resentment by instating links between the government and organized crime, as well as allowing the Americans to dominate across the Cuban economy once more.” It also notes that although Cuba had been a republic since 1902, “the United States had passed the Platt Amendment in 1901, which allowed it to maintain a major presence in Cuba,” framing the revolt in terms of long-standing nationalist and anti-imperialist grievances.

Reviewing Samuel Farber’s work, the article states that Castro “seems to have been somewhat more educated and cultured than the typical populist activist,” and that he “transcend[ed] the traditional populist tradition as he familiarized himself with Marxist thought, which he tended to blend with the radical‑nationalist ideas of the left‑wing Cuban revolutionary of the 19th century José Martí.” It notes that Castro “successfully sought ‘the formation and consolidation of a politically militant but socially moderate coalition to overthrow Batista and avoid alarming the United States,’ even though he wrote privately… that when the anti‑Batista war ended, a bigger and much longer anti‑imperialist war would begin against the United States.”

“During his trial, Castro made an impassioned critique of the Batista regime and called for greater political and social liberties. Known as the ‘History Will Absolve Me’ speech, it became the rallying cry of the July 26th Movement.” … “The actions of the July 26th Movement became well known in Cuba and within the Americas as the rebels called for the restoration of the 1940 constitution, land reform, and an end to corruption and US domination.” … “The Cuban insurrection was not an urban proletarian revolution. Organized labor, whose ranks were heavily influenced by the Communist Party (PS), opposed the July 26th Movement until almost the very end, when the communists gave their belated support.”

The author describes the Cuban government as “a consistently anti-imperialist force and a stronghold of progressive and national liberation movements” and traces these positions to “Cuba’s own history of colonial domination and U.S. intervention.” While written from a socialist perspective, the article emphasizes that “the revolutionary movement that overthrew Batista was first and foremost a nationalist, anti-imperialist project, which only later consolidated as a socialist state aligned with the USSR.”

Discussing the debates among New York intellectuals, the article notes that sociologist C. Wright Mills argued “Cuba’s revolution spoke for Third World nations,” emphasizing its anti-imperialist character rather than orthodox communism. Rafael Rojas’s interpretation, summarized here, holds that early 1960s left-wing debates about Cuba “were by no means reducible to a simplistic pro‑West versus pro‑East dichotomy,” with many on the independent left seeing the Cuban process primarily as a nationalist, decolonizing revolution that only later “fully adopted the Soviet model.”

In this pre-assault speech Castro appeals to Cuban patriotic and anti‑Batista sentiment: “If you are victorious tomorrow, Martí’s aspirations will become true sooner. If not, the gesture will serve to set an example for the Cuban people to take up the flag and keep going forward.” … “We the Youth of the Centennial of the Apostle, just as in 1868 and in 1895, here in the East we cry out for the first time: FREEDOM OR DEATH!” The speech invokes José Martí and earlier independence wars, but does not mention socialism or communism.

The AP dispatch quoted in the transcript states: “HAVANA, Dec. 2 (AP) -- Declaring he is a Marxist-Leninist opposed to the personality cult, Fidel Castro said today ‘the world is on the road toward communism’ and he is taking Cuba down that path.” Castro is also paraphrased discussing how “there was a group of comrades who were not members of the Communist Party, but members of the July 26th Movement.” He explains the fusion of the July 26 Movement, the Popular Socialist Party and the Revolutionary Directorate into a unified, openly Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization.

Surveying different schools of thought, the thesis observes that “without a healthy, independent national bourgeoisie a nationalist stance was almost impossible for Cuba: ‘The nationalist option was simply not open, because the Cuban bourgeoisie was too tied to foreign capital.’” It explains that this structural dependency led revolutionary leaders to frame their struggle “in radical nationalist and anti-imperialist terms,” though it also notes that some Marxist interpretations stress the revolution’s class and socialist dimensions from the outset.

The Library’s historical overview states that the 1959 overthrow of Batista “grew out of Cuba’s long struggle over sovereignty, first against Spain and then against U.S. political and economic dominance.” It notes that Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement “did not initially declare itself communist,” and that “public identification with Marxism-Leninism came only after the revolutionary government had consolidated power and relations with the United States had broken down.”

The U.S. State Department’s historical overview explains: “In 1959, Fidel Castro led a revolution that toppled Cuban President Fulgencio Batista. The United States initially recognized the new government but became concerned as Castro’s regime increased trade with the Soviet Union, nationalized U.S.‑owned properties, and declared itself socialist… In 1961, Castro proclaimed the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution and in 1965 the various revolutionary organizations were merged into the Communist Party of Cuba.”

This piece reproduces and comments on Castro’s later reflections, celebrating his Marxist-Leninist commitment. Castro is quoted as praising Lenin as a "brilliant revolutionary strategist" and affirming Cuba’s right "to be Marxist-Leninists" in the context of the Cold War. The text emphasizes Castro’s ideological identification with Marxism-Leninism but mainly in the period after the revolution’s consolidation, rather than as the original driving force of the 1950s insurgency.

The text states: “The leadership of Fidel Castro and the 26th of July Movement was not Marxist in its beginnings… Che Guevara himself notes that their ideas did not go beyond the democratic‑bourgeois ideas of the Argentine Radical Party.” It argues that this nationalist and democratic leadership, pushed by confrontation with US imperialism and internal demands, advanced toward agrarian reform, nationalisations and finally the constitution of a workers’ state.

Historically, Fidel Castro and other leaders have given conflicting retrospective accounts of the revolution’s driving ideology. In the early 1960s, Castro often described the struggle in nationalist terms and publicly denied being a communist until after the Bay of Pigs invasion; only in December 1961 did he declare himself a Marxist‑Leninist in a televised speech. Later, especially after closer alignment with the USSR, Cuban official narratives tended to portray the revolution as socialist and even Marxist from its origins, reflecting a post‑facto reinterpretation that stresses communist motivations more strongly.

The essay notes that for much of the Latin American left, “the Cuban government has represented an anti‑imperialist force and a bulwark against US domination.” It analyses how Cuba’s foreign policy, particularly in Africa and Latin America, was articulated in terms of anti‑imperialist solidarity, even while aligned with the USSR, suggesting that national liberation and anti‑imperialism remained central reference points beyond formal communism.

This reading guide states that studying the process is necessary “to understand why nationalism is present throughout the discourse of the Cuban Revolution and the importance of anti‑imperialism in its political culture.” It recommends works that analyse the revolution not only as a socialist process but as rooted in Cuban national history and resistance to US domination.

In this Marxist-Leninist talk, the presenter insists that “the greatest thing that communists could do to support the Cuban Revolution would be to win socialism… to overthrow capitalism where they are,” framing the Cuban process as part of a worldwide socialist struggle. The speaker argues that “none of this would have been possible without the abolition of capitalism,” emphasizing that the revolution must be understood centrally as a socialist, working‑class seizure of power rather than merely a nationalist revolt.