“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crises” -Dante
By Carlyle MacDuff
HAVANA TIMES – It is easy to detect those who openly express in Havana Times either support for or opposition to the Castro communist dictatorship. They demonstrate the great divide between beliefs in freedom and repression.
The open supporters are disciples of 19th century Marxism/Leninism and in particular the Castro brothers Stalinist based interpretation of it, upon which the Constitution, control and policies of the Communist Party of Cuba are based.
Recently changing the words communist and communism to socialist and socialism and describing their regime as “democratic socialist” is merely a ploy to mislead the ignorant by inferring that communism in Cuba has changed.
The supporters still believe that the wishes and desires of the individual should be subjugated or eradicated in favor of treating society as a whole without individual distinction by creating a ‘mass’ or proletariat. In support of that system they talk of the need for a one-party state with the means of production and distribution controlled by the state.
History demonstrates that pursuit of such purpose creates dictatorship as the (frequently self-appointed) leader has total control and power over the mass. Conformity is imposed involuntarily. Elections are held, but only with vetted candidates all of whom support the communist party. No other political party being permitted by either the former or “new” Constitution. Citizens are thus denied any choice.
Those who oppose the communist dictatorship support societies which permit or indeed encourage individual development. They accept that this creates a society in which some progress more than others but where opportunity is open to all. They also expect and accept that a developed democratic society provides social safety nets, although opinion about the size of the mesh and the level at which such safety nets should be established varies.
The system which they support of free rather than state-controlled enterprise is described as capitalism. Because individual opinions vary, a spread of political viewpoints and political parties develops – a multi-party system with open election based upon one vote per adult person.
There is however a third group, those who pose as self-defined neutral free thinkers supposedly able to find and accept the good and bad of each of the above systems claiming to present a “balanced” viewpoint, but who are consistently careful to condemn capitalism while finding excuse for any or indeed all, excesses within the communist system.
Such people have historically been described as “fellow travelers”, in that they seek opportunity to reduce criticisms of communism while supporting criticism of capitalism, and by so doing travel on a parallel path of fellowship to the Marxist/Leninist group while blatantly denying supporting it.
The arguments of fellow-travelers include pointing out to critics of the Cuban communist regime that things are even worse elsewhere, but carefully avoiding recognizing that they are also much better elsewhere particularly in capitalist countries.
They tread the well-worn path of the lowest common denominator. They are constant in their criticisms of the free democratic world and in particular the USA which apparently can do no good but to which countless millions living under communist/socialist regimes, seek to immigrate.
Whereas the fellow travelers harp continually upon US military involvement in other countries, they choose to never mention similar military involvement by the Cuban regime also in many other countries, or of the history of the USSR and the Soviet Empire which imprisoned thirteen countries for decades following the Second World War, denying them democracy until the USSR imploded to the relief of hundreds of millions who subsequently when then given choice, without exception, chose multi-party democracy.
Few would claim that multi-party democracy with capitalism is perfect, but its history demonstrates much greater success and higher average standards of living than any alternative. But fellow travelers would deny Cubans such opportunity, finding endless excuses for the excesses, evident incompetence and repression of the Castro communist regime.
Therein lies the danger posed by the fellow-travelers, for they will claim that they are merely expressing reason and balance when finding cause to praise the actions of the regime. They will not condemn dictatorship when it is by the so-called socialist (actually communist) “left” but will openly condemn it when it is by the so-called “fascist right”.
They criticize the anti-communists as only seeing the political world as “good or bad” demonstrating their view that not everything (if anything) in communist dictatorship is bad nor should it be described as such. Such views ought to be compared with those supporters of democratic multi-party systems who openly condemn dictatorship of either kind.
It is notable that the third group, that of the fellow travelers, do not seek that they themselves should be subjected to the repression of a one-party communist state, but invariably choose to live where they can enjoy the rights and privileges of democratic multi-party capitalist states demonstrated by the freedom of expression which they enjoy, but which by their tacit support for the Castro regime they would continue to deny Cubans. Their claims of balance, morality and neutrality are totally bogus and humbug distortion, perhaps most accurately described as hypocrisy?