Related videos:
There was a time when no Cuban leader could talk about the economy without condemning capitalism. It was almost an ideological obligation.
Official speeches described the capitalist system as a structure based on the exploitation of man by man. School textbooks associated it with inequality, unemployment, racism, poverty, and economic crises.
The state media regularly denounced their "insurmountable contradictions," while political education taught that socialism represented a higher stage of human development.
For decades, that vision was presented as an unquestionable truth.
That is why it is striking that in one of the most important statements made recently by a figure linked to the core of Cuban power, there is not a single criticism of capitalism nor a single mention of socialism.
In contrast, in his first public interview, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, known as El Cangrejo, spoke about investments, business, economic development, productive diversification, and new commercial partners.
"Our country must pursue economic development where we must, inevitably, diversify our economy; diversify the way we conduct business, our trading partners, and how we project investments," he stated.
The phrase would have come as a surprise to many Cubans educated during the years of strict ideological orthodoxy.
Because for decades the issue was not the way of doing business. The problem was the businesses themselves.
Capitalism as an ideological enemy
From the early years of the so-called "Cuban revolution," capitalism was portrayed not only as an alternative economic system but also as the main moral adversary of the revolutionary project.
Fidel Castro repeatedly denounced the inequalities generated by capitalism. Ernesto Che Guevara criticized material incentives and advocated for the creation of the socialist "new man".
The documents of the Communist Party —the only legal party and "the leading political force of society and the State" according to the regime's Constitution— consistently stressed for years the incompatibility between revolutionary values and market logic.
The critique transcended economics. Capitalism was associated with concepts such as individualism, consumerism, moral corruption, selfishness, and exploitation.
The official narrative built a sharp opposition. On one side was socialism, presented as a system based on solidarity, social justice, and equality. On the other side was capitalism, described as a model where private profit took precedence over collective well-being.
Entire generations grew up hearing that dichotomy.
What the Cubans learned
The criticism of capitalism was not confined to political speeches. It was part of the educational process.
Cuban students were learning about the cyclical crises of capitalism, structural unemployment, labor exploitation, the appropriation of surplus value, and the concentration of wealth.
The subjects of History, Political Economy, and Political Culture presented capitalism as a system historically doomed to produce inequality and social conflicts.
The state media constantly reinforced that message.
International financial crises, social problems in the West, and labor conflicts were used as examples of the alleged inherent flaws of the capitalist model.
For years, the message has been consistent. While capitalism produced inequality, socialism guaranteed social justice. While the market generated exclusion, central planning protected the people. While private companies pursued profits, the revolutionary —and socialist to the core— State defended the collective interest.
The return of the market
However, the economic reality ultimately imposed challenges that were difficult to ignore. The collapse of the Soviet Union necessitated the introduction of partial reforms during the Special Period.
Later, new openings in the market arrived with the "Guidelines of the Economic and Social Policy of the Party and the Revolution" and their implementation through the "economic and monetary ordering" and the "Government Program to correct distortions and revitalize the economy."
Self-employment expanded. The buying and selling of homes and automobiles was authorized. Space for foreign investment was broadened. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) emerged (Decree-Law 46 of August 2021). Market mechanisms multiplied within an economy that continued to be officially defined as socialist and claimed to adhere to the “inviolable principle of leaving no one behind”.
Little by little, concepts that had been viewed with skepticism for decades began to be incorporated into institutional language.
The word "business" has ceased to raise suspicions. Foreign investment has shifted from being an exceptional concession to a strategic necessity. And private entrepreneurs—the famous "cuentapropistas"—are no longer seen as a temporary anomaly, but rather as significant players in the national economy.
The transformation was gradual, yet profound.
The silence of words
Perhaps the most revealing change is not the emergence of new concepts, but rather the disappearance of others.
In contemporary official discourse, it is becoming increasingly rare to encounter lengthy condemnations of capitalism as a system.
References to class struggle have lost prominence. The denunciations against capitalist exploitation occupy less space than concerns about productivity, exports, or foreign currency acquisition. The economy has begun to overshadow ideology.
The result is a new language. One where words like investment, competitiveness, efficiency, business, development, exports, and entrepreneurship frequently appear. Terms that for decades would have been viewed with great distrust by a significant part of the revolutionary ideological apparatus.
The inevitable contradiction
The change poses a difficult question.
How can one explain that a political system, which built much of its legitimacy by denouncing the ills of capitalism and adopting Marxist-Leninist doctrine, ends up incorporating mechanisms it historically identified with that same system?
The official response often emphasizes that Cuba continues to build socialism and that economic reforms are tools to strengthen it.
However, this explanation does not eliminate the contradiction perceived by many citizens, particularly by those who grew up hearing that market mechanisms posed a threat to the revolutionary project.
For those generations, the new economic language can be perplexing. Not because the regime has formally embraced capitalism, but because many of the practices that are now presented as necessary were the subject of systematic criticism for decades.
When certainties change
El Cangrejo's statements reflect that transformation.
His speech is filled with references to investments, business, and economic diversification. Yet, it does not contain a single condemnation of capitalism. He does not speak of exploitation. He does not mention class struggle. He does not denounce the market as the source of inequalities.
Absence is as revealing as the words spoken. For over sixty years, the regime taught Cubans that capitalism represented an economically and morally inferior model.
Today, without officially abandoning socialism, many of its leaders seem more concerned with attracting investment than with denouncing the dangers of the market.
The question is no longer whether Cuba officially continues to define itself as socialist.
The question is what happens when a regime that has based much of its legitimacy for over six decades on denouncing the evils of capitalism begins to speak the language of investments, business, and the market.
For generations, Cubans have heard that socialism was not simply a political option among others. It was a historical achievement, a moral superiority, and an undeniable path.
It was explained to them that many of the deprivations, sacrifices, and restrictions endured by the country were justified by the defense of that project against a system deemed unjust, exploitative, and morally inferior.
Today, however, it is the same heirs of that "Cuban revolution" who speak of diversifying businesses, attracting capital, expanding investments, and learning from the economic experiences of their former "enemies."
The problem is not solely the discursive contradiction. The issue is the question of legitimacy that this contradiction inevitably raises.
If after 67 years in power, with generations educated under the constant criticism of capitalism and a long history of abuses and sacrifices made in the name of socialism, the regime itself finds it necessary to adopt practices and language that it condemned for decades, it is legitimate to wonder why it remains in control of the country they have destroyed.
Filed under: