Showing posts sorted by date for query HERESY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query HERESY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Big Brother and the Israel Advocacy Machine


April 20, 2026

Photo by Simone Dinoia

Note: This opinion piece reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated.

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania is a totalitarian society where Big Brother demands unquestioning conformity and obedience; where the Thought Police constantly monitor and punish every infraction of the rules; and where the Ministry of Truth proclaims, “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength.” According to the story’s protagonist, the greatest heresy in Oceania is common sense, and the most essential command is to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. Ultimately, nobody escapes this total surveillance state — “Big Brother Is Watching You!” — because those who rebel in any manner are identified, captured, broken, and often “vaporized” as if they had never existed.

I sometimes find myself recalling Orwell’s Oceania when I read the daily distressing and outraging news from Palestine and the broader region. I think about how, much like Big Brother, today’s Israel Advocacy Machine demands complete allegiance, compliance, and submission. And how it, too, often goes to extraordinary lengths to silence and discipline those who question or reject its deceptive and deceitful propaganda.

For example, Oceania’s ruling Party “freezes history” whenever necessary to fit their preferred narrative, convinced that “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Israel advocates attempt something similar when they promote the view that Israel’s relevant history seemingly begins and ends with the horrific Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. Through this distorted lens, they disregard decades of Palestinian suffering and oppression while claiming that, in any moral reckoning, nothing Israel has done since that day can be counted against it. By their account, all Israeli atrocities over the past two-and-a-half years either never happened or are fully justified (Israel’s own version of Oceania’s “doublethink.”) Of course, incontrovertible evidence of Israel’s war crimes and disdain for basic human decency has exposed that fiction. In recent weeks, Israel’s indiscriminate assault on residential neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Iran has also laid bare any lingering pretense that “self-defense” is always the sole basis for its acts of mass violence and devastation.

Consider too that in Nineteen Eighty-Four Big Brother rewrites history as needed and ensures that Oceania’s citizens live in constant fear for their safety. During a daily mandatory ritual called “Two Minutes Hate,” telescreens everywhere display rage-inducing fabricated images of enemy soldiers — a reminder that Oceania is in a state of perpetual war and loyalty must therefore be absolute. For many years, beginning long before October 7th, the Israel Advocacy Machine has been pursuing its own Orwellian campaign of control and disinformation focused on the demonization and delegitimization of the Palestinian people. Palestinians of all ages have been dehumanized and portrayed as animals posing an existential threat to Israel’s survival. And their brutal and merciless expulsion decades ago from what is now the state of Israel has been repeatedly discounted or denied.

But Israel and its staunch supporters are losing ground on all of these public relations fronts. Despite the killing of hundreds of journalists and media workers, heart-wrenching reports from Gaza, including images of some of the thousands of children who’ve been slaughtered or orphaned, have proven difficult for the world to simply ignore. Fanatical West Bank settlers ransacking and razing entire villages have prompted expressions of concern from even some of Israel’s most friendly allies. Newly discovered official documents from Israel’s founding leave no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes by ruthless terror offensives. And at least some sympathizers who’ve opted for willful ignorance are now finding it increasingly difficult to overlook the unfolding livestreamed genocide.

There’s one more parallel with Nineteen Eighty-Four worth highlighting here. To eliminate noncompliant speech and independent thought, Big Brother creates “Newspeak” — a new language with far fewer words. A Party disciple explains it this way:

It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…The great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought…In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

The Israel Advocacy Machine appears to have adopted its own version, with a similar goal: to control the narrative about Israel by tightly restricting language so that unwelcome ideas and truths become much harder to express or even think. Words like “Palestine,” and “Palestinian” therefore don’t appear in the “Newspeak for Israel” dictionary. They’ve been replaced with “anti-Israel,” anti-Zionist,” and similar expressions that blur the distinction between victim and perpetrator. This figurative erasure of the Palestinian people matches their literal removal and destruction, and it facilitates the fading of Israel’s war crimes from minds and conversations. In much the same way, “occupation,” “apartheid,” “genocide” and other Israel-offending words are also missing from the “Newspeak for Israel” dictionary. They’ve all been supplanted by one word that Israel advocates are encouraged to use as often and as loudly as possible: “Antisemitism” (with an implicit exclamation point). The ultimate goal is a “Greater Israel” in both word and deed.

Big Brother’s iron grip persists throughout Nineteen Eighty-Four, but the novel’s appendix suggests that Newspeak is never fully adopted in Oceania, and that the regime is eventually overthrown. So too, the Israel Advocacy Machine is showing signs of faltering. Here in the United States, the longstanding “Palestine Exception” — the vigorous suppression and punishment of speech defending Palestinian rights and freedom — is losing its hold. Today, the American public increasingly understands who the Palestinian people are and how they’ve been profoundly misrepresented and mistreated by Israel and its supporters. National polling data confirm these promising developments, as do recent statements and shifts in the positions of many political leaders in Washington, DC.

We don’t know exactly how Israel’s dedicated advocates will now respond as their hall of mirrors collapses, their propaganda balloons burst, and their desperation grows. But what’s clear is that we can’t take for granted the growing tide of support for Palestine. It reflects the tireless efforts of many courageous defenders of human rights who’ve risked their livelihoods, their freedom, and, in some cases, their very lives. In ways large and small, we can all help fight the erasure of the Palestinian people by elevating their cause in our thoughts, our words, and our actions. You won’t hear it from the Israel Advocacy Machine, but “Never Again” is now, and for all people.

Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and the author of Doing Harm: How the World’s Largest Psychological Association Lost Its Way in the War on Terror (forthcoming in September 2023 from McGill-Queen’s University Press). Roy’s website is https://www.royeidelson.com/and he is on Twitter at @royeidelson.

Sunday, April 19, 2026

An Unholy War and the Blasphemy of Donald J. Trump

This must be a moment of entering the public square with the truths of the gospel, with love, the truth of the prophets, and the courage to say we are not afraid of this administration or any, and we won’t be silent any more.



Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II holds an AI-generated picture of President Donald Trump depicted as a version of Jesus Christ during a press conference on April 14, 2026 at the Yale Public Theology & Public Policy Conference in New Haven, Connecticut.
(Photo: Corey Fletcher / YALE Public Theology & Public Policy Conference)
Common Dreams

Editor’s note: The following remarks were delivered during an emergency press conference in New Haven, Connecticut on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 in response to recent comments and actions by President Donald J. Trump.

“You shall have no other gods before me.” —Exodus 20:3

“All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless.” —Isaiah 44:9

“Therefore, since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.” —Acts 17:29

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in Spirit and in truth.” —John 4:24

There are times that compel people of faith to speak, servants of Jesus to speak, proclaimers of the gospel to speak and engage in truth-telling and forms public exorcism rooted in deep radical love with the hope of repentance and a commitment to faithful witness—without fear of what any man or woman administration can do to us.

Two weeks ago the Moral Monday movement held Moral Monday gatherings in Washington, DC, 16 states, and Canada to denounce this war and the President’s declaration that if another country didn’t do what he said, he would “reign” down Hell on them and wipe out their entire civilization.

Why has he been talking about “reigning” down hell? Why does he write “reign,” not “rain”? What authority is he claiming to serve?

Why was he so threatened by Easter that he had to try to make it about him?

Why is the Pope teaching what Jesus and the church have always taught getting under his skin? The religious nationalist movement for so long has been saying he is an imperfect instrument being “used by God.” But he’s not satisfied with that. He wants to be God.

The AI image of him as Jesus is so bad that some of his own people have called it blasphemy. So now he’s trying to walk it back and say he thought it was a portrayal of him as a doctor.

This is exposing the madness that we’ve seen in policy. He wants to be some kind of God like messianic figure—to decide who lives and who dies; who gets citizenship and who doesn’t; which parts of the Constitution still matter and whose rights have to be respected.

Just 10 days ago, on the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, Trump told Russell Vought, the director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, “Don’t send any money for day care, because the United States can’t take care of day care. That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of day care. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars.”

And then during Holy Week, he went to the Supreme Court to seemingly intimidate them to support undoing birthright citizenship for babies.

Not only is war unholy, but when any human or president acts in word and deed as though they can determine who lives and who dies—who has citizenship and who can “reign” down hell and wipe out an entire civilization—assuming God-like authority, represents a war on divinity.

We live in a nation that has declared some things are inalienable, endowed by our Creator. And for people of faith, even if the nation didn’t say it, we believe and know that some things are only God’s authority, and to violate them is sin because the gospel of Jesus says so.

This AI pic represents idolatry—a false image offered for us to bow down to, and it is blasphemy and heresy and an affront to Jesus Christ. To do it represents a kind of demonic madness, no matter who would do it—Democrat or Republican. To equate Jesus with a person, a flag, bombs and war planes—and to say that’s what heals us and saves us: this is sin and attempts to exalt a person above God. It is a dangerous war on divinity that is a turn from the God of the gospels, the truths of the gospel.

This is why Pope Leo said: “I have no fear, neither of the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the gospel.”

And he said this even after the reports of the Trump administration calling the ambassador of the Vatican to the Pentagon earlier this year.

I’m not Catholic, but as a bishop in the Lord’s church, in this moment, Pope Leo is my pope.

As much as Pope Francis was, as I had the opportunity to respond to his encyclical on the environment and address the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences as addressed the moral issue of poverty and people’s movements around the world.

But we must be careful in this moment to act as though this is the first moral and spiritual violation by Trump and religious nationalism. His embrace of a Messianic-type role has been pushed by the delusion of Franklin Graham and others.

When he allows people in his administration to say empathy is the cause of the decline of Western civilization.

These are deep, sinful contradictions of the gospel which says a nation will be judged by how it treats the least of these.

His constant demeaning of other nations and cultures and his constant claim that no one ever did anything as great and wonderful as him before him—the constant self-congratulation and adoration—is idolatry that, when unchecked, has led to where we are now.

Some of the church must repent of far too much silence in the public square confronting these thing public sins and idolatries and other policies with the truths of the gospel and our response to this image and his ridiculous attacks on the Pope cannot be one off.

This must be a moment of entering the public square with the truths of the gospel, with love, the truth of the prophets, and the courage to say we are not afraid of this administration or any, and we won’t be silent any more. We must lift a clear call that this nation and any nation in its words, deeds, and policies must work to have good news for the poor, healing of the broken hearted, deliverance to the captive, recovery of sight to the blind, and a declaration of acceptance to all who have been marginalized if we even hope to be pleasing to God.

“The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote. This is why when we as people of faith enter into the public space, we do so not with partisan facts and focus, but with the truths of the gospel.

This is why we have been here in New Haven. More than 400 public theologians are returning to their communities later today with a renewed sense that we have a responsibility to help the nation make this choice and build a movement that can take back our government and insist that it serve all the people.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II
Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, is a Professor in the Practice of Public Theology and Public Policy and Founding Director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. He serves as President and Senior Lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, Co-Chair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call For Moral Revival, Bishop with The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, and has been Pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Goldsboro, NC, for the past 29 years.
Full Bio >

Trump admin dealing 'incalculable damage' to GOP with religious statements: analyst

Ewan Gleadow
April 19, 2026 
RAW STORY


Pete Hegseth (Reuters)

Religious statements made by members of Donald Trump's administration are harming the Republican Party, a political analyst has warned.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a Pentagon prayer service featuring a fabricated Bible verse directly from Quentin Tarantino's 1994 film Pulp Fiction. Hegseth introduced the prayer as CSAR 2517, which is actually Ezekiel 25:17—the fictional passage recited by Samuel L. Jackson's character Jules Winnfield.

The prayer included Hegseth's modifications, replacing movie dialogue with military references. The incident sparked widespread ridicule from legal experts and lawmakers, with critics questioning Hegseth's fitness to lead the military while weaponizing Christianity to justify warfare.

Vice President JD Vance also sparked controversy by publicly lecturing Pope Leo XIV on theology during a Turning Point conference. Vance stated the pope must be "careful" when discussing theological matters and ensure statements are "anchored in the truth." Pope Leo XIV directly rebuked Vance, declaring, "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others."

The confrontation highlighted tensions between Vance's Christian nationalist ideology and papal teachings emphasizing universal compassion over national interest prioritization.

David Wippman and Glenn C. Altschuler, writing in The Hill, suggest these moments from Hegseth and Vance highlight a dangerous precedent set by Trump's team.

They wrote, "The Trump administration’s threats to attack Iran’s energy infrastructure and destroy its civilization in the name of Jesus have prompted sharp rebukes from religious leaders, including Pope Leo, who quoted the Prophet Isaiah as saying God 'does not listen' to leaders with 'hands full of blood.'

"Trump’s profanity and endorsements of a Christian crusade are doing incalculable damage. In a nation in which only 62 percent of citizens identify as Christians, the president’s justification for his war of choice is eroding trust, intensifying political polarization, and contributing to an environment in which almost half of Americans think members of the other party are 'downright evil.'

"As Trump divides Americans while claiming God anointed him to lead the country, his rhetoric and his actions make clear that America and its leaders are no longer what they once were — the linchpin of an international order resting on shared values, laws and respect for national sovereignty."



 

Cuba’s dilemma: Reform and overcome the crisis or collapse



La Joven Cuba graphic

First published in Spanish at La Joven Cuba. Translation by LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

There is no doubt that Cuba is facing one of the most perilous, if not the most perilous, crossroads in its history. The future of the nation as we know it, with all its virtues and flaws, its strengths and weaknesses, is at stake.

After what happened in Caracas on January 3 and the publication of United States President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on January 19, the traditional enemies of the Cuban nation hope to achieve their goals more forcibly than ever before.

Taking advantage of the current critical situation in Cuba, the US government is trying to wipe the slate clean of the past 67 years of Cuban history.

If that were to happen, we Cubans would lose all possibility of self-determination. The centuries-old emancipatory aspirations of our most eminent heroes would collapse. Cuba would never again be the nation that José Martí, Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, Ignacio Agramonte, Ana Betancourt, Mariana Grajales, Antonio Maceo, Gómez, Marta Abreu, Julio Antonio Mella, Antonio Guiteras, etc dreamed of.

Meanwhile, the country is experiencing a polycrisis resulting from the confluence of two distinct but linked phenomena. On the one hand Cuba has faced 64 years of economic warfare unleashed by the US in 1962, following the logic set out in the Mallory Memorandum of April 1960 that applying economic sanctions against the Cuban people would produce “hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of the government,” On the other hand, over the past eight years the Cuban government’s economic policies have been beset by various deficiencies and shortcomings.

Unfortunately, as in other stages of Cuba’s history, some compatriots support the hostile US policy toward our nation in the mistaken belief that our salvation and well-being lie in accepting subordination to a foreign state.

They forget all of Martí’s warnings and Cuba’s 57 years of submission to the United States. That subordination did not turn us into a prosperous country, notwithstanding the effort to promote visions of a luminous Havana that contrasted with the poverty and inequality in the rest of the country.

Other compatriots are so overwhelmed by the difficulties of recent years that they go so far as to deny the real achievements of the revolutionary project in its first stage. Their reasoning is naive: “The Americans need to come and fix this.”

Every day we hear that fateful phrase more and more often in our cities’ streets.

Finally, as often happens in other countries and contexts, other compatriots cling to a past that is not going to return. They go so far as to oppose an axiom that Fidel Castro himself defended: that we must change everything that needs to be changed.

The convergence of these three trends condemns the country to something Raúl Castro warned us about more than 15 years ago. If we do not fix our own mistakes we will plunge into an abyss. In other words, the inevitable collapse.

In his media address on February 5, President Miguel Díaz-Canel referred to some specific changes, but avoided discussing comprehensive reforms. The representative of the Cuban state used the word “change” four times, referring to issues such as the basic food basket, the import-dependent mentality, the energy matrix, and the way that the party exercises its leadership role. Similarly, the concept of “transformation” was used only five times, also for specific topics: the digital transformation of the country and the development of artificial intelligence (with the country practically without electricity), making the state apparatus more economically sustainable, municipal autonomy, encouraging Cubans living abroad to participate in the country’s development, and the energy transition.

However, at a time when more than ever the country clearly needs far-reaching economic reform and the start of a gradual political reform that makes the system of relations between citizens and the state more efficient and responsive, it is striking that the top leader of the party and the government himself has not addressed the need for reform, an extremely relevant issue in such a critical moment.

This issue has been on the national agenda ever since Fidel Castro himself launched a series of substantive changes in the 1990s by: legalising foreign currency holdings; opening the country to foreign investment; expanding self-employment; and authorising the creation of Basic Units of Agricultural Production.

On the political front, the Revolution’s leader proposed and promoted the 1992 Constitution reform. This included an electoral transformation. Previously, National Assembly of People’s Power representatives had been indirectly selected by Provincial Assembly delegates. The reform set in motion a process whereby Cuban citizens ratified the mandates of those who had been selected.

Subsequently, during his first terms as president, Raúl Castro promoted another wave of reforms, including one that had a political character and was extremely important to Cuban citizens. In 2013, breaking with years of restrictive practices, a new immigration law was adopted.

The struggle between supporters and opponents of reforms that is taking place in Cuba today has been bluntly addressed in these pages by my young colleague Rubén Padrón Garriga. In his video “The Counter-Reform” he points out that to refuse to make necessary changes “is to condemn the people to misery.”

Reforms and the current national and international context

The current national and international context is extremely serious. It demonstrates something about which there can be no confusion — the most serious contradiction that we face, as was the case in other historic stages, is the contradiction between the imperial ambitions of certain circles of power in the US and the Cuban people’s desires to have a homeland that is free and sovereign, prosperous and democratic, and just and equitable.

The Trump administration — in which Marco Rubio, a figure consumed by an innate and perverse hatred, plays a decisive role — is prepared to do anything, even military aggression, to achieve the longed-for dream of “regime change”.

For Rubio, his collaborators and a growing number of Cuban emigrants, “regime change” amounts to an unconditional surrender, not only of the government, but also of the Cuban people living on the island.

If Cuba “collapses,” as is widely believed to be inevitable, we would all be subject to US rule. It would be naive to think otherwise.

Trump himself has hinted at what could be done in Cuba and who he is most interested in supporting: “dismantling” the country to provoke a rupture in the national political process for the benefit of the Cubans who make up the majority of the diaspora in the US.

Of course, any promise from Trump is highly uncertain. Just look at the way Cubans are being treated, even those who voted for him in 2024. There are increasing arrests, deportations, and mistreatment, even of those who are already citizens.

Cubans residing in the neighbouring country to the north who supported Trump and Rubio a year ago should reflect on this before continuing to call for an invasion, a naval blockade of oil imports, or a military action of some other kind.

Trump, Rubio and a growing number of Cuban Americans are also convinced that, because of the shortcomings and errors of the Cuban government, the necessary conditions have been created to bring about the “collapse” of Cuba, its economy, and its government. President Trump’s Executive Order is clearly designed to provoke that collapse through energy strangulation. This constitutes an act of war against an entire people who pose no threat to the US.

Therefore, the challenge for Cuba and for Cubans who live here is obvious. It is impossible to remove the blockade or even to soften it. We must overcome it with effective economic policies that transcend our external dependence.

However, one must add another extremely important contradiction to the contradiction that exists between the Cuban people and the imperialist power circles within the US. That is the contradiction that exists within Cuban society between, on the one hand, those who govern the country, and on the other, the citizens who aspire to well-being and prosperity and do not view their rulers as decision-makers who are capable of making the necessary changes.

Those Cubans inside and outside Cuba who believe the issue can be resolved with a complete break and the removal from power of all those currently in government would do well to reflect on what is happening and what could happen, based on what has occurred in other countries that the US has occupied and dominated. Along with the current government there would be an attempt to erase all the positive aspects of the revolutionary process in its early years (universal access to healthcare and education, easier access to housing, etc).

They would impose a “Made in Miami” government on us, one that would only answer to the interests of the US and the Cuban-American right wing in Miami. The result would not be a “first-world capitalism” but something similar to what has happened in other countries that are subservient to Washington. We would wind up with an extractivist system whose benefits would go to foreign companies exploiting our resources, not the Cuban people. The differences between Washington, DC, and San Juan, Puerto Rico are quite striking.

And what about democracy and human rights? Trump has already shown that he does not care about them. And not just in Cuba or Venezuela. He wants to annex Canada and Greenland without consulting their citizens in the slightest.

Resolving the crisis by intensifying the path of reform

Therefore, the only path forward for us Cubans who live on the island is to do everything that we can to ensure the Cuban economy, which has been declining for several years, recovers and begins to develop so that our citizens can enjoy the decent life they so rightfully deserve. And that depends exclusively on the highest authorities in the country. Not on the provinces, not on the municipalities, and not on the average Cuban.

The demand for reforms, which is primarily economic but also political, is a natural consequence of the times that we are living in. This is especially true when we see on the National Television News that our leaders, with a few exceptions, continue to repeat the old formulas. Not only do they refuse to change, they also refuse to clearly recognise the numerous mistakes that they have made.

The statistics are compelling. The country’s GDP, volume of exports, and productivity continue to decline, while social indicators such as infant mortality and the average age of the population continue to rise due to low fertility and the growing emigration of young people of working age.

Against the backdrop of these two contradictions, Cuba is embroiled in a bitter struggle between those who, as citizens and even as rank-and-file party members, consider that it is essential to deepen the process of reforms, and those in power who are postponing changing everything that needs to be changed, hiding behind the slogan of “we are continuity.” The latter group have held sway and maintained control of power, including the mass media.

In these cases, those who defend the status quo often take advantage of the supremacy of their antiquated speech in state media, particularly television.

They reject and stigmatise anyone who thinks differently and proposes changing everything that needs changing. They defame and vilify them with the most implausible accusations. The tone of these assertions is harsh, sectarian and oppressive.

There is nothing new in these accusations. They have been seen before, such as in 2016 when, for example, a campaign was waged against so-called “centrism”.

But now there is an additional problem. It is the critical nature of the moment. These are not times for division, but for unity and growth. These are not times to plot against patriotic Cubans simply because they hold a different opinion.

The solid arguments of Cuban specialists with the highest national and international prestige on the need for reforms are being met with arguments that are difficult to sustain in serious academic debate.

As on other occasions, regarding the specific issue of reforms, the essay “Reform or Revolution” by the courageous German-Polish leader Rosa Luxemburg is being cited out of context. It is superficial to argue that this debate can be generalised beyond its specific content, as if our current situation were the same as the specific dilemma that was addressed in that text, which resulted from the internal debate within German social democracy in the last decade of the 19th century.

As is well known, that debate concerned the Erfurt Program and the best strategy for overthrowing capitalism and building socialism in Germany. In other words, the discussion centred on the best strategy for a socialist or social-democratic party to take power and on the radical nature of the path that such a party should follow once in power to overcome capitalism.

But Luxemburg’s oft-cited conclusions have nothing to do with our specific situation and debate today, namely whether the current Cuban socialist system needs reforms. The aim is to come up with proposals to change everything that needs to be changed so that Cuban socialism can achieve its intended goal: a prosperous, sustainable, just and equitable society.

It is clear that the current policies have not been successful in this regard.

A better approach to the meaning of reforms within a socialist system may be that of Atilio Borón, an academic who is well known in Cuba. In 2008, referring specifically to the Cuban and Venezuelan experiences within the concept of 21st century socialism, he stated that:

The absurdity of anathematising any reform as a heresy or a betrayal of socialism — understood as an unalterable dogma not only in terms of principles, which is correct, but also in terms of historical projects, which is wrong — is obvious, because it would mean the consecration of a suicidal immobility, the denial of the capacity for self-correction of errors and a renunciation of collective learning, conditions that are essential for the permanent improvement of socialism.

What has damaged the Cuban economy most is not the reform approved 15 years ago, as its opponents argue, but rather the failure to have applied it consistently and deliberately. There are many examples: the inexplicable delay in implementing the “re-ordering”, that is, the monetary and exchange rate unification, which was originally scheduled for 2016 but postponed until 2020, or the current surprising delay in adopting a law governing businesses, to name just two.

Cuban academics from different generations and professions have been active, subjecting the country’s reality to serious and objective analysis. They do so without resorting to slogans or subterfuges that attempt to sugarcoat the multifaceted crisis that we have been experiencing. They have been doing this in institutional spaces, such as the Economic Society of Friends of the Country, the Centre for Studies of the Cuban Economy, and the “Last Thursdays” forums organised by the Temas journal. They have been presenting their analyses publicly, in full view of the citizenry.

Acting in this way, they have been fulfilling an obligation that Julio Carranza explained more than 18 years ago:

Scientists and scientific institutions have a public service responsibility. This consists of communicating specialised information and analysis directly to society; not as a political proposal, but as well-founded interpretations that contribute to raising the cultural level and to general knowledge on different subjects.

Among the opponents of reform, an ossified view of orthodox Marxism prevails. This view predominated in the Soviet Union for more than 60 years and prevented timely reforms. As a result, by the time the proponents of reform finally managed to move in that direction, starting in 1985, it was too late. The economic stagnation resulting from the ossification and sclerosis of Marxist thought had undermined the foundations of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The paths taken by the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam were quite different. In both countries reformist factions within their respective Communist parties succeeded in implementing transformations that opened their economies to the realities of the market. The evidence of the success of their reforms is obvious. In both countries there was no hesitation in undertaking reforms with the utmost seriousness and depth. In both countries the people now enjoy the benefits of prosperous and resilient economies.

Cuba must find the road toward its own reforms. Otherwise, all of us will run the risk of suffering an unacceptable setback that we do not deserve after so much sacrifice.

Carlos Alzugaray Treto is a former senior Cuban diplomat and professor. Now retired, he is a co-coordinator of La Joven Cuba's Advisory Board.