21 Nov Op-Ed: Root Causes of a Disaster
By,
Andrés Alburquerque, Senior Fellow, MSI²
Necessary foreword
Spurred by the crushing defeat we suffered in the New York mayoral elections, I have resolved to expose, through a series of three articles, the true face of communism in Cuba. I will examine how, with scarcely five percent of the popular vote, the communists succeeded in seizing the island and holding it in what appears to be an eternal bear hug. My analysis draws heavily on the indispensable “Soviet Cuba” by my friend César Reynel Aguilera, as well as on my own childhood memories of growing up within a communist household. In approaching this task, I have endeavored to be as meticulous and unsparing as possible.
The Seeds of the Cuban Catastrophe: Pride, Power, and the Birth of a Communist Foothold
The attitude of the American Army must have been arrogant; the fact that Calixto García was left out of the negotiations must have been humiliating for the Cuban forces seeking independence from Spain after so many years of stalemate. Two generations of patriots, from Carlos Manuel de Céspedes to José Martí, had fought the Spanish monarchy, when they were not busy “fighting” each other. But let us face this from a realistic perspective: had the Americans not intervened, God knows how long the war would have dragged on. Pride defeated pragmatism, and from day one, the anti-Americanism disguised as nationalism sowed the seeds of a narrative that would later be exploited by far more dangerous ideologues.
This wounded nationalism, wounded yet stubbornly self-righteous, became fertile ground for a cunning political virus. And like all political viruses, it did not spread through reasoned debate or democratic persuasion but through the exploitation of grievances, half-truths, myths, and resentments.
The Myth of Anti-Imperialism and the Path to a New Empire
Cuba’s early republic was born with contradictions baked into its foundation. A deep resentment toward the United States was nurtured by elites who resented American influence, even as they depended on it for stability and prosperity. This resentment provided the raw cultural material the Left would later refine into its most powerful propaganda weapon: anti-imperialism.
Yet, as history would demonstrate, this anti-imperialism was never principled. It was never rooted in a genuine desire for sovereignty. It was political opportunism masquerading as patriotism, a tool to undermine domestic opponents and consolidate cultural hegemony.
And ironically (tragically) this counterfeit nationalism would serve as the bridge leading Cuba not toward independence, but into the arms of a new empire: the Soviet Union. The island traded one “Yankee imperialism” for Soviet domination, complete with military advisors, economic dependency, and ideological tutelage. The very people who shouted most loudly about Washington’s shadow ended up kneeling before Moscow’s boot.
Early in the decade on the 1920 an “insignificant” Polish born Soviet spy: Fabio Grobart, arrived at the Havana Harbor with the typical appearance and demeanor of the communists; short sleeve untucked shirt barely under the belt; eye glasses and hair perfectly cut; his “agenda” (notebook) in one hand and a few words of broken Spanish as he left the pier and bargained with the landlords of the most modest boarding houses in the waterfront. Little did anyone know that the final knot was being woven and that the Soviets had closed the last gap in their intricate web of spies in this hemisphere.
The lesson for the modern Right is clear:
A nation that allows its intellectual class to frame patriotism as resentment instead of responsibility will eventually be ruled by those who despise the nation itself.
How Five Percent Became Total Power
The communist movement in Cuba was not a popular movement. It was not a mass uprising of workers. It was not the democratic will of the people. In fact, until 1959, the Cuban communists averaged around five percent of the vote in elections, when they bothered to run at all.
So how did they manage to take power?
By mastering the mechanisms that all successful communist movements exploit:
1. They infiltrated institutions before they tried to win elections.
Teachers’ unions, newspaper offices, cultural circles, and student federations, these became transmission belts of ideology long before a single communist held a cabinet position.
2. They positioned themselves as the “moral vanguard.”
Communists learned to wrap themselves in the language of justice and anti-corruption, casting all opponents as morally compromised. This rhetorical strategy, still used today, allowed a minority ideology to dominate the moral narrative.
3. They hijacked nationalist discourse.
By weaponizing historical grievances, they reframed Marxism as a continuation of the independence struggle. Never mind that José Martí, the apostle of Cuba’s independence, abhorred collectivist tyranny. Historical accuracy mattered far less than emotional impact.
4. They aligned themselves with a charismatic outsider.
Fidel Castro was no communist at first, but he was the perfect vessel: ambitious, theatrical, resentful, and above all, obsessed with power. The communists recognized in him what many on the Right today still fail to see, that charisma without principle is the natural ally of totalitarian ideology.
5. They waited. Patiently. Like all Marxist movements do.
When the moment of crisis finally arrived, the collapse of the Batista regime, the communists were the only organized, disciplined faction ready to seize the vacuum.
Why This Matters Today
It is tempting to view Cuba’s tragedy as uniquely Cuban, a product of Caribbean history, Latin temperament, or Cold War geopolitics. But that interpretation, while comfortable, is dangerously naïve.
The mechanisms by which five percent of ideologues can conquer an entire nation remain very much alive in the Western world, including the United States. The strategy of institutional infiltration, narrative control, cultural censorship, and the weaponization of historical grievances remains the standard playbook of the contemporary Left.
Cuba is not a distant cautionary tale.
It is a mirror, one many Americans would prefer not to look into.
In my next article, I will examine how Cuba’s communists, following Moscow’s directives and using a sometimes uncomfortable, unpredictable, and always narcissistic customer, deployed Soviet methodology to entrench themselves permanently in power, and how these tactics echo in today’s Western political battles. Three mistaken and misleading views may emerge from a superficial reading of my analysis: The Soviets eyed Cuba as their crown jewel; Castro was just a puppet, as well as the contradiction between a five percent of the vote and the seizing of absolute power, nothing further from the truth. Cuba was just one link in the chain; the Soviets meticulously trained an “army” of “cadres” that they sent all over the Western Hemisphere, including Canada and the US. Cuba may not have even been on their priority list at first. But they jumped at the chance at the first signs of weakness.
The relationship between Castro and his Soviet masters was one in which the latter snapped their fingers and the former jumped. It was tortuous, delicate, sometimes nearing fracture, but both knew the other side was the best possible cards on the table.
Finally, the reader must bear in mind that the communist system does not function with the same standards we do. Words like “secret” and “clandestine” are key terms in their language. As the offspring of a communist family with a clandestine patriarch, I can assure you that there were hundreds of thousands who wittingly or unwittingly became collaborators of the “party” at some point in their lives. That explains, to some extent, the massive attack of amnesia suffered by the Cuban people, just as it is happening in America right now.
TO BE CONTINUED…
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²).