If someone had suggested the establishment of private banks in Cuba three decades ago, they likely would have been accused of attempting to restore capitalism.
Proposing the buying and selling of state-owned company shares, expanding large private enterprises, or liberalizing prices would have branded them as ideological adversaries of the "revolution."
Suggesting that Cuba needed market mechanisms to survive would have invited long lectures about the evils of capitalism and the virtues of socialism.
Today, these initiatives are being driven by the regime itself.
And the communists remain silent.
The Regime's Economic Overhaul
The National Assembly recently sanctioned 176 economic transformations that include private financial institutions, joint-stock companies, increased foreign investment, and the relaxation of regulations on small and medium enterprises. These are mechanisms that for years were equated in official propaganda with market logic.
The remarkable aspect is not just the content of these reforms.
What stands out is the absence of a visible ideological debate within the ranks that for generations were tasked with defending the opposite.
A Long History of Adaptation
This is not the first time such a scenario has unfolded.
Back in the 1990s, during the Special Period, with dictator Fidel Castro lamenting the "collapse of the socialist camp," the regime permitted the possession of dollars (a crime that had landed many Cubans in prison), expanded self-employment, and opened avenues for foreign investment.
Subsequent reforms came under the pragmatic Raúl Castro, who in his youth was captivated by the ideologies of communism under the soft indoctrination of Alfredo Guevara.
Later, the thaw with the Obama administration and the subsequent "rollback," a maneuver in which the Cuban regime excels, occurred whenever they perceived a threat looming.
Recently, the so-called "Ordering Task" aimed to rectify economic distortions to "reinvigorate the economy," a series of convoluted plans articulated by the first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC), Miguel Díaz-Canel. This, too, ended in failure, with a steep cost for the population.
Each phase involved concessions, openings, or corrections that would have been unimaginable during the most orthodox revolutionary years.
Yet, the communist ranks accepted these changes. Always with discipline. Always with obedience. Always under the premise that the historical leadership knew best.
The Culture of Compliance
Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, Cuba is far from a pluralistic democracy (a euphemism for what is essentially a totalitarian communist dictatorship).
There is no political space for citizens to form diverse political parties based on ideological affinities. Not even for communist members to organize internal currents, publicly challenge leadership, or contest the country's strategic direction.
Open dissent can lead to personal, professional, or political repercussions. But that reality only explains part of the phenomenon. The other part lies in the political culture fostered by the system itself.
For decades, the Communist Party taught its members not to question leadership but to follow it. Discipline was elevated to a revolutionary virtue. Unity became a supreme value. Loyalty to leadership often overshadowed ideological debate.
This is why it is difficult to find communist voices publicly challenging reforms that only a few years ago would have been deemed incompatible with the socialist project.
The Vanishing Ideological Debate
The silence is even more striking when viewed in a broader context.
In recent months, figures connected to power (with crustacean nicknames and tyrannical surnames) have begun painting a very different picture of the country's recent history.
The Yankee enemy appears to have turned into a dialogue partner.
Critiques of capitalism are losing ground to language focused on investments, business, and economic development.
Anti-imperialism, long a principal source of the regime's legitimacy, is gradually fading from the forefront of official discourse.
And now, economic reforms are normalizing practices that generations of Cubans were taught to associate with the market.
All this is happening without visible resistance within communist ranks.
The Questions Nobody Dares to Ask
Perhaps because the truly uncomfortable questions cannot be voiced aloud. But they exist.
Many militants hear them in private conversations. Former Party officials discuss them. Those who spent years teaching political economy, Marxism, or the history of the so-called "Cuban revolution" debate them.
The questions are simple. If these reforms were necessary, why weren't they implemented earlier? If a market economy contains indispensable tools for the country's survival, why were decades spent denouncing it?
If dialogue with the United States was possible, why did confrontation play such a central role in the political education of several generations?
If private investment is now a strategic necessity, what happens to the principles that were once deemed non-negotiable?
The Cost of Obedience
For a long time, Cuban communists could believe that the sacrifices demanded by the revolution adhered to a higher historical logic.
Scarcity. Restrictions. Personal renunciations. Emigration and family separation. Economic hardships. All found an explanation within the revolutionary narrative.
The defense of socialism justified the sacrifices. The fight against imperialism justified the resistance. The construction of a different society justified the privations.
Today, that narrative seems to be changing before their very eyes. And those who defended it for decades are facing an uncomfortable reality.
Not because the Cuban economy needs comprehensive reform. But because many of the measures announced by the first secretary of the PCC contradict certainties that were long presented as indisputable, and because those promoting them lack the legitimacy to propose or implement them.
A Generation at a Crossroads
We probably won’t see communist protests in the streets. We won’t witness party congresses demanding explanations. We won’t observe public campaigns of opposition within the Party. That has never been how the system operates.
But that doesn’t mean the questions don’t exist.
The real story is not in the streets.
It lies in the silence. In the discomfort of those who defended certain ideas for decades, only to see them replaced without explanation. In the dissonance of those who justified sacrifices in the name of principles that now appear negotiable.
And in the question that hovers over this new stage:
If after 67 years in power, it is the very "heirs of the Cuban revolution" who are modifying the economic and ideological pillars upon which they built their legitimacy, what are those who devoted much of their lives to defending them supposed to think?
Perhaps that is the most uncomfortable question of all. And also the most challenging for the regime to answer.
Exploring Cuba's Economic Transition
What recent economic changes has the Cuban regime implemented?
The Cuban regime has introduced 176 economic reforms, including the establishment of private financial institutions, joint-stock companies, increased foreign investment, and the relaxation of regulations on small and medium enterprises.
Why is there silence from communist ranks regarding these changes?
The silence is partly due to the political culture in Cuba, where questioning leadership was never encouraged. Discipline and loyalty to leadership were prioritized over ideological debate, making it difficult for communist members to publicly challenge the reforms.
What historical precedents exist for these economic shifts in Cuba?
Cuba has previously enacted similar economic shifts, such as during the Special Period in the 1990s when the regime permitted dollar possession, expanded self-employment, and allowed foreign investment. These moves were pragmatic responses to economic crises.