Down with the dictatorship

Under communist doctrine, leaders assume power or are appointed by the elite of the party (often the Politburo) to govern “on behalf of the common people” (the proletariat). In this system of “socialism by force,” this centralized, undemocratic structure, is ideally the selection of those best trained and carrying the best communist values to rule as surrogates for the masses. But like any system of selective elites who seize control or are appointed by their own elites to govern, there are almost always special privileges granted to those at the top and brutal suppression of those among the masses who voice opposition. Only those at the top of the political food chain live lives of relative luxury; the rest are banished to what the state mandates and provides.

There can be benefits if that leadership spreads a greater economic equality among the people, perhaps adding universal healthcare, free education at every level and some form of minimum basic income, usually banning the accumulation of wealth or the free trade that is essential for a strong middle class. Nobody owns anything of significance or earns more than a very limited salary. The tradeoff is the elimination of extreme poverty, the leveling of economic classes against a society without many incentives to excel and a government that defends the “purity” of its philosophy of governance with brutal suppression and a denial of any form of free speech or association.

The “communist” People’s Republic of China seems to have retained centralized governance and suppression of any dissent while succumbing to a virulent form of capitalism where some did and do get rich first. There you have both political and economic elites, but the general economic well-being of the people has risen substantially. Suppression and a new cult leader, Xi Jinping, are their latest incarnation. Vietnam is like a junior version of China with a bit more freedom. 

North Korea embraces its own notion of “communism” as well, but Kim Jong-un and his predecessors never ruled “on behalf of the people,” so this form of governance has been merely a brutal, self-serving dictatorship, far from what Marx and Engels would have labeled communism. Nicolás Maduro has attempted to impose his own repressive form of “socialism” by force (in my mind, “communism”) on Venezuela, but his efforts have crippled every aspect of his nation and effectively created what is really nothing more than a cultish, populist dictatorship.

It is in the similarity between cultist populism and communism that brings countries with exaggerated leftist communist governance into a full circle of similarity with extremist right-wing nationalist/populist nations. Hitler, meet Stalin. Mao, meet Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Both extremes tend to follow cultist leadership, almost a deification of a charismatic leader, with extreme notions of political and cultural purity and the suppression of any opposition. You either believe and follow or… quite literally… else. 

Which brings me to what had been the last nation that remains closest to the traditional communist model: Cuba. The repressive charismatic leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro, seized power in a violent coup (1959) and ruled Cuba until ill-health forced him to turn over governance to his brother, Raúl, in 2006. He died in 2011. But the “Castro” leadership is now totally gone atop the nation: Miguel Díaz-Canel assumed the presidency in 2019 and became head of the Cuban Communist Party this past April, succeeding Raúl Castro.

Canadian and European businesses have been investing in Cuba since some economic controls were relaxed in 2014 (Americans were denied that right by our government). While the Obama administration relaxed travel restrictions that had applied to Americans, the Trump administration promptly restored such bans, reverting to economic sanctions almost immediately upon assuming office. With a powerful ultra-right-wing ex-pat Cuban community in Florida, his efforts were lauded by those now American citizens (at least among the older emigres). 

Cuba’s economy was slammed with the collapse of the Soviet Union (1988-91) and the loss of Soviet sugar supports and foreign aid to this tiny island nation. So many in Cuba had relatives in the United States. Virtually everyone in Cuba was acutely aware of the vastly better economic lifestyle of those Cuban who, over the years, fled to America, where they were welcomed with open arms. 

With that charismatic “Castro” name gone from Cuban leadership, with growing economic shortages and rolling power failures as global warming magnified both hurricanes and searing heat, would Cuba continue under that repressive governance created under the Castro brothers or was massive change now inevitable? While it is hardly clear that what is occurring in Cuba today will result in a near-term collapse of the communist regime there, all it took to precipitate unprecedented protests across the nation was the combination of sweltering July heat and a power failure to bring tens of thousands of angry Cuban into the streets of Havana and every other significant city and town on this island nation.

“Cubans have been angered by the collapse of the economy, as well as by restrictions on civil liberties and the authorities' handling of the pandemic… The protesters were demanding a faster coronavirus vaccination programme after Cuba reported a record of nearly 7,000 daily infections and 47 deaths on Sunday [7/11].

“Last year, Cuba's largely state-controlled economy shrank by 11%, its worst decline in almost three decades. It was hit hard by the pandemic and US sanctions… Thousands of pro-government supporters also took to the streets after the president went on television to urge them to defend the revolution - referring to the 1959 uprising which ushered in decades of Communist rule… President Miguel Díaz-Canel said the protests were a provocation by mercenaries hired by the US to destabilise the country… ‘The order to fight has been given - into the street, revolutionaries!’ he said in an address on TV.

“The top US diplomat for Latin America, Julie Chung, tweeted: ‘We are deeply concerned by 'calls to combat' in Cuba.’… We stand by the Cuban people's right for peaceful assembly. We call for calm and condemn any violence.’ ” BBC.com, July 12th. Can Díaz-Canel reaffirm his and his party’s severe grip on Cuba and its people? The answer seems inevitably “no,” but the question is both when and what follows. With nearby Haiti in turmoil following the assignation of its “president,” the Caribbean seems awash in conflict and complications, from climate to political change. Stand by for a period of instability and dire need.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the roiling sea-change we see in Cuba has its own reflection in the battle between populists and “the rest of us” right here in the United States.