(𝑳𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑯𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒂)

ᴅᴇᴀʀ ᴄᴏᴍʀᴀᴅᴇꜱ,

We know of the sympathy with which the whole world is following the revolutionary struggle of the people of Cuba. And your readers will undoubtedly be interested in hearing how the agrarian reform at the present stage the key to the Cuban revolution -is progressing.

The Agrarian Reform Law was proclaimed on May 17, 1950, in La Plata (Oriente Province) in the very same hut which sheltered Fidel Castro in the difficult days when, at the head of his valiant guerillas, he began the struggle against the Batista tyranny. A little over a year has passed since then, but this period of time, brief though it be, has seen some great successes. The people have swept away the numerous obstacles placed in their path by the reactionaries, that is, the North American imperialists, the lati- fundists, the big compradore bourgeoisie, a part of the agricultural bourgeoisie and the remnants of the supporters of the old regime. The mass of the people is solidly behind the agrarian reform, while the revolutionary government, relying on the people, is rapidly and unhesitatingly giving it effect.

The year 1960 has been proclaimed the year of agrarian reform. What has been done? First a National Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA) has been set up which, under the guidance of Fidel Castro and some of his brave companions-in-arms, tested revolutionaries, is responsible for translating this great law into life. INRA has been very active during this time.

By April 1, 222,827 caballerias¹ of land formerly belonging to prominent figures of the tyranical regime, imperialist companies and latifundists were officially taken over by the Institute and are now being distributed among the peasants. The government has allocated 75 million pesos2 for agricultural development. A substantial part of this sum is earmarked for the purchase of machinery; 2,800 tractors of various types, 400 bulldozers, sowers, irrigation machines, etc., have already been made available. By March last, 1,400 “people’s stores” and 25 depots had been set up which sell the peasants goods at reasonable prices, thus preventing them from being fleeced by profiteering shopkeepers.

THE fact that the Puerto Rican people are rejecting (as Eisenhower’s tour once again brought home) the status of “a community voluntarily associated” to the United States, and that the patriotic forces are awakening and rallying in the struggle for national inde- pendence, is giving the U.S. imperialists a very big headache.

And so, to strike fear into the hearts of the Puerto Rican patriots and to nip in the bud the rising popular movement, the notorious U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee sent its representatives to the island. Eighteen prominent political figures and trade unionists, including the chairman of the Communist Party, members of the National Peace Council, workers, journalists, writers and art workers were ordered to appear before the committee.

The Communist Party immediately released and widely circulated a statement in which it explained to the people its attitude to the inquisitorial inquiry. A group of the subpoenaed men protested through their lawyer to the chairman of this Committee in Washington, saying that under the statute of the island it has no jurisdiction over Puerto Rico. In response a committee member cynically remarked that the protest would get just about as much at- tention as a leaf falling from the tree. The arbitrary actions of the colonialists aroused the wrath of the Puerto Rican public.

Members of the Legislative Assembly and of all political parties, prominent manufacturers, intellectuals and people of various beliefs challenged the moral and legal authority of the Committee to conduct investigations in Puerto Rico, and established a united front. The Bar Association appointed a council consisting of well-known lawyers representing the three main political trends in the country, including the ruling Popular Democratic Party, to give legal advice and defend the “invited”.

The building in which the Committee held its hearings was surrounded by pickets. Several hundred people, chiefly young workers and students, carried posters bearing the words: “Don’t poke your nose into other people’s business. Get out!”, “Why not Probe the Ku Klux Klan?”, “These ‘Un-American’ Congressmen are Our Enemies!”, “What about Investigating the Activities of the Cuban War Criminals in the U.S. ?”, “Puerto Rican Workers Condemn Persecution of their Leaders by the Congress!”

The Un-American Committee arrived in Puerto Rico in search of an alleged international communist conspiracy against the “free” world. But it was clear from the outset that the committee had not a shred of evidence to support its charge. All it could produce was a pile of books and other printed matter legally published in all but fascist countries. The inquisitors made themselves ridiculous by referring to trips some of the leaders had made abroad (not infrequently twenty-five years ago), and which by the way were quite legal.

All the witnesses refused to answer on the grounds that the U.S. Congress Resolution on setting up the Committee authorises it to conduct investigations in the United States only, and since Puerto Rico has no members in Congress, the latter has no constitutional

What, then, of the effects of imperialism on British economy? The main contention of Strachey’s theory, and even the heart of his theory, following his Contemporary Capitalism, is to endeavour to refute the analysis of Lenin with regard to Britain, which, following the corresponding analysis of Marx in relation to the conditions of the 19th century British world industrial monopoly, has emphasised the role of Britain’s world imperialist position as the decisive key to the entire British capitalist economy, British politics, the relatively higher standards of considerable sections of the workers in Britain, and the consequent domination of opportunism in the British Labour movement.

Strachey endeavours to argue that imperialism has at no time played such a decisive role in Britain’s economy, and that today especially, when the empire has been nearly liquidated, its importance is negligible and by no means the basis of the measure of relative economic prosperity in Britain since the war.

To prove this, Strachey offers a number of statistical calculations of a highly question character. Let us take a few for example.

First, the terms of trade. It is well known, and was already shown in the 19th century by Marx in his theory of “super-profits” that the advanced Western capi- talist countries had been able to draw special advantages from the higher prices of their exports of industrial manufactures in relation to the relatively lower prices of raw materials and agrarian imports from the primary producing countries, in most