Communism: A Two-Tier Society

Ask The Cubans: Can Communism Mean Anything Other Than A Two-Tier Society?

Mark Jeftovic

Both the Biden administration in the US and Trudeau here in Canada were slow off the blocks to rally behind the Cuban people who are fighting for their freedom and an end to Communist dictatorship in Cuba. Had they been BLM protestors or Antifa I’m sure they would have been there in solidarity immediately. But because the people of Cuba want to go in the opposite direction that the US and Canada seem to be headed, what we got instead was COVID-shaming from the corporate media and hedging, half-assed platitudes from Western governments.

The textbook definition of Communism is supposed mean a classless society, one in which everybody is treated the same, even to the point where beyond having equal access to opportunity, we arrive at equality of outcome.

Nevermind that, as Kristian Niemietz enumerated in his Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies, equality hasn’t happened in any self-described communist or socialist regime, either now or in the past. The Cubans have experienced this viscerally for over 60 years and they’ve had enough of it.

They know that communism means a bifurcation of society into two tiers. A small overlord class to whom all the privilege and wealth accrues, and the larger underclass. Equality only exists in this latter pool of serfs in that they are all equally impoverished and subjugated. That’s equality of outcome.

Simon Mikhailovich, am emigre from the Soviet Union was on George Gammon’s Rebel Capitalist Show  and he described what it was like in the closing years of the USSR:

“By the time the 70’s came, The Soviet Union had gotten into stagnation, and so the economy started stagnating. Nothing was going anywhere. People had the same jobs, the same salaries, and lived in the same apartments. It took 12 years to get a phone line and you had to know somebody. It became more and more difficult to get decent food. If you wanted it you had to go to the farmers market where very few people could afford it.

In the meantime the elites and the party oligarchs here, whatever you want to call it, they have their own transportation system, their own system of sanitoriums and resorts. Their own cars in trains. Any of that sounds familiar to you?

There are restaurants where they could get in and other people couldn’t get in. And normal people, even middle class people, had no access to any of that, and of course working class people? Forget it. So as the inequality started growing at that level (I’m not comparing it necessarily directly to the United States), but  by this time inequality started growing, the government propaganda intensified, because of the inability to explain coherently why there’s no meat in the stores while every five year plan was always over fulfilled and everything was better than expected and every number was better than anybody could’ve hoped for.”

When Gammon asked him how the government was able to explain the cognitive dissonance at such as mass level, Mikhailovich replied with one word: “Propaganda”.

Despite the documented fact that this is where socialism invariably leads, every time, collectivism’s star is ascendent. Call it Democratic Socialism, Cultural Marxism or even its palatable sounding dog whistles like Stakeholder Capitalism, the masses are being gaslit and propagandized into a state where they yearn for subjugation.

They crave for it. They’ll vote for it. They’ll demand it.

In a recent interview on Macro Voices, Victor Shvets was describing why, with the cost of capital headed for zero and being stuck there permanently, we’re departing an era of capitalism and headed into one of global collectivism. The conversation was supposed to be your standard issue inflation-or-deflation debate. Instead Shvet came right out and said it: we’re headed for a period of, for lack of a better descriptor, global communism.

More...