Reflections from our meeting at a Communist Bloc

Author’s note/Context: During our trip to Cuba, we had a chance to visit a local chapter of the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) with Jake’s students. For the uninitiated, the CDR is a state-sponsored group which was originally formed in 1960 (shortly after the Cuban revolution) to conduct surveillance at the grassroots level, looking out for saboteurs or counter-revolutionaries who might be lurking around the neighborhood. Over the years, as the need for this activity waned, the CDR transformed into something of a state-endorsed community service group, encouraging people to give blood, picking up trash in the neighborhood, etc. The chapter we visited was in a derelict apartment complex and the average age of the members we met was over 80 — meaning that they had all personally witnessed Cuba before and after the revolution of 1959. From their stories, it became clear that these folks were real believers in the system. Though short and externally uneventful, this encounter and the ensuing conversations with our group turned into one of the more unique and compelling cultural experiences of my travels. Below are my reflections.

There we stand.

13 of us.

Around the same number of them.

On one side, they stand as the remnant of a movement which, sixty years hence, sought the liberation of a people from the tyranny of a capitalist-fueled dictator.

On the other, we stand as a group which firmly believes in the liberation of all people everywhere from the tyrannies real and perceived which cast shadows of oppression over human lives.

Our numbers are equal and our end goals superficially so, but there our similarities end. This group of elders has accepted — bafflingly to us — the removal of rampant individual liberty. In exchange, they hold hope that their revolutionary government might offer an element of cohesion; of social order; of liberty from the oppression of another era. They have made visible concessions; sacrifices in their material condition; in their ability to choose and define and create their own path in the world. They have handed this over for the end — real or perceived — of a society-wide liberation from the oppression of rampant poverty, oppression of rich over poor.

With this system, they have, in a very real way, abdicated responsibility for much of the care of their community to their government. However, lest we begin to judge them, it is clear in their eyes and their stories that these here care deeply for these same communities, that in fact, they know the meaning of that word ‘community’ far more than we can realize.

But to us, to these 13 Americans standing in the looming shadow of a decrepit communist bloc as the sun sets on Castro’s Cuba, these are concessions too many. Where they see life and hope through order (even one imposed from above), we see contradiction as we notice the color and creativity seeping out under the weighty foot of an oppressive government. Where they can take refuge in the social cohesion of a society designed with a singular purpose, we wonder at anyone’s ability to be happy under an authoritarian regime.

It is so easy for us to be skeptical of the ‘party line’ of devotion to the ‘revolution.’ So easy to discount any stories of ownership of this narrative as forced or propagandistic. And that skepticism is certainly founded on some level. But, and perhaps more critically, skepticism is our refuge. Reason, rationality, ultimately leading to cynicism is the thing which drives us forward ever deeper into our individualized drifting; purposeless and afraid in our lonely, wealthy lives.

— -

In the face of evermore open internet access and open ideas and open markets, the current authoritarian socialist system — it’s oppression, repression of the people, their ideas, their desires and voices — cannot stand. The tide of ideas, opportunities, and allure of individual liberty will prove too much for this system which is already quaking under the weight of its own insufficiencies. Indeed, the cracks are already as visible as those in the walls around us.

However, without the current system of government and the values it is currently able to cohesively impose, the benefits of this society, the relative equality, the free education, the stellar health care, the sense of community, etc. will certainly fall. While visibly, explicitly serving an oppressive function, the government also serves a quiet, implicit, but no less real protective function against the destructive, dislocating, disorienting forces brought by the mirage of infinite choice, liberty, and happiness. That this mirage so fully captivates the minds and imagination of our society, is a testament to our own blindness and foolishness in attempting to cast judgment on these people, this system.

— -

Don’t get me wrong. Socialism, communism, authoritarian governments are incredibly problematic. However, it is becoming difficult for me to accept that what we have is so much better. We have the saddest, loneliest, most lost people in the world, living in the ‘freest’ most open, wealthy, powerful nation of all time. Though imperfect, America is the culmination of this way of viewing the world and alongside an insatiable shouting for more (more things, more freedoms, more choices), we are hopelessly adrift. Western condemnations of social cohesion, moralism, authoritarianism now strike me as profoundly arrogant. Besides gross material gain and an unprecedented ability to inflict violence on ourselves and others, what do we have to show for our position?

But, which is worse?

On one hand, we have a system which incentivizes human greed; fragments and individualizes communities; pits the weak and vulnerable against the powerful and wealthy.

On the other, we have a sense of duty, morality, community, imposed superficially from above, placing the burden of responsibility for radical transformation squarely on the back of a corrupt state.

In both cases, both human attempts to structure our societies and identities, we miss the point. An appreciation for community-driven development of character and responsibility and virtue and love is lost. It is not even part of the conversation and it never really was. To us, the very notion that these values imposed by the communists might be relevant, useful, even good for us all — if developed freely, at the grassroots — is a concept we fail to grasp.

So, which is worse? Which is more wicked, depraved, failed?

I say, both. And equally so. The narratives necessary to bring redemptive, transformative change about in our lives and our communities are already with us. We simply lack the courage, the wisdom to take these stories, these truths to their logical ends. God help us.