It is clearly a system of nepotism and favoritism.
Cuba has functioned as a one-party authoritarian state since 1959, where political power is concentrated within a small elite and transferred without democratic competition.
Fidel Castro did not pass authority to his son, but leadership remained within his family when power shifted to his brother, Raúl Castro—an outcome made possible by personal trust, party control, and loyalty rather than popular mandate.
The logic is familiar:
in closed systems, insiders benefit first.
Just as in the Indian film industry, influence and access are inherited, outsiders face structural barriers, and merit alone is insufficient.
The United States is an evil, hegemonic, plutocratic oligarchy. All that matters to those who control the US is power and wealth. A democratic Republic is long gone.
In case you’re not sure what a panchayat actually is, let me explain.
Think of it as a local governing body rooted right in the middle of everyday community life. People elect representatives at the village level, and those connect upward to the block and district levels. But the real key here is proximity.
These aren’t distant figures you only see on television. They are people you know, see around, and can confront directly. That closeness creates real accountability. If an elected representative isn’t doing their job, you don’t need a massive protest or media outrage—you can literally walk to their house and remind them that power comes with responsibility. That is what decentralized democracy looks like in practice.
Cuba doesn’t really have this kind of bottom-up political structure. Local bodies exist there, sure, but they function within a tightly centralized, one-party system. They administer decisions; they don’t meaningfully challenge them. The difference isn’t just ideology—it’s institutional design.
And that design has deep roots here. Kerala inherited a long intellectual culture that valued debate, reasoning, and the refinement of ideas rather than blind obedience.
Earlier thinkers like Aryabhata—and yes, if you don’t know who Aryabhata is, he’s basically one of the people who taught the world how to count 🤣—were not treated as sacred relics to be memorized. They were viewed as starting points: ideas to be questioned, extended, and improved upon. Knowledge here was something to develop, not freeze.
You see the same pattern in our social thought. Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru faced resistance from entrenched hierarchies, but their ideas eventually shaped our institutions. Education, social equality, and dignity became collective goals, not just abstract ideals.
Kerala’s communism grew out of this specific soil. It was reformist, ethical, and civilian. It relied on literacy, social movements, elections, and decentralized governance—not coercion or militarization.
But here is the uncomfortable truth.
Communism in Kerala is slowly fading. Not because it was useless, but—ironically—because it addressed a specific historical moment so well. It redistributed dignity, education, health, and opportunity. As those goals were achieved, society changed.
Kerala is now an ageing state. Many young people have money, mobility, and choice. They live individual, comfortable lives shaped more by personal aspiration than collective struggle.
And then there’s me.
Because of my family situation, there is no partner, no relationship. It’s deeply lonely. So I watch others move through life with ease, while I live something closer to a hermit’s existence 😂.
That, too, is part of the story we don’t often tell. Systems can redistribute wealth and opportunity, but they cannot fully resolve human isolation.
However, that doesn't mean the alternative is better.
Let’s be clear: Cuba is not a nice place. It might look romantic from a distance, or "structurally interesting" on paper, but in reality, it lacks the oxygen of freedom. It’s stagnant.
I might be living a difficult, solitary life here, but at least I have the space to think and speak without a state breathing down my neck. I prefer my problems to theirs. So, in my eyes? I definitely won’t be going there.
Elena Petrova:
It is clearly a system of nepotism and favoritism.
Cuba has functioned as a one-party authoritarian state since 1959, where political power is concentrated within a small elite and transferred without democratic competition.
Fidel Castro did not pass authority to his son, but leadership remained within his family when power shifted to his brother, Raúl Castro—an outcome made possible by personal trust, party control, and loyalty rather than popular mandate.
The logic is familiar:
in closed systems, insiders benefit first.
Just as in the Indian film industry, influence and access are inherited, outsiders face structural barriers, and merit alone is insufficient.
Different arenas.
Same mechanism.
Excellent article, Lena.
The United States is an evil, hegemonic, plutocratic oligarchy. All that matters to those who control the US is power and wealth. A democratic Republic is long gone.
Bullsh*t
Trumps approval rating last election last was also poor and He won in the end🤣
Hey Elena,
In case you’re not sure what a panchayat actually is, let me explain.
Think of it as a local governing body rooted right in the middle of everyday community life. People elect representatives at the village level, and those connect upward to the block and district levels. But the real key here is proximity.
These aren’t distant figures you only see on television. They are people you know, see around, and can confront directly. That closeness creates real accountability. If an elected representative isn’t doing their job, you don’t need a massive protest or media outrage—you can literally walk to their house and remind them that power comes with responsibility. That is what decentralized democracy looks like in practice.
Cuba doesn’t really have this kind of bottom-up political structure. Local bodies exist there, sure, but they function within a tightly centralized, one-party system. They administer decisions; they don’t meaningfully challenge them. The difference isn’t just ideology—it’s institutional design.
And that design has deep roots here. Kerala inherited a long intellectual culture that valued debate, reasoning, and the refinement of ideas rather than blind obedience.
Earlier thinkers like Aryabhata—and yes, if you don’t know who Aryabhata is, he’s basically one of the people who taught the world how to count 🤣—were not treated as sacred relics to be memorized. They were viewed as starting points: ideas to be questioned, extended, and improved upon. Knowledge here was something to develop, not freeze.
You see the same pattern in our social thought. Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru faced resistance from entrenched hierarchies, but their ideas eventually shaped our institutions. Education, social equality, and dignity became collective goals, not just abstract ideals.
Kerala’s communism grew out of this specific soil. It was reformist, ethical, and civilian. It relied on literacy, social movements, elections, and decentralized governance—not coercion or militarization.
But here is the uncomfortable truth.
Communism in Kerala is slowly fading. Not because it was useless, but—ironically—because it addressed a specific historical moment so well. It redistributed dignity, education, health, and opportunity. As those goals were achieved, society changed.
Kerala is now an ageing state. Many young people have money, mobility, and choice. They live individual, comfortable lives shaped more by personal aspiration than collective struggle.
And then there’s me.
Because of my family situation, there is no partner, no relationship. It’s deeply lonely. So I watch others move through life with ease, while I live something closer to a hermit’s existence 😂.
That, too, is part of the story we don’t often tell. Systems can redistribute wealth and opportunity, but they cannot fully resolve human isolation.
However, that doesn't mean the alternative is better.
Let’s be clear: Cuba is not a nice place. It might look romantic from a distance, or "structurally interesting" on paper, but in reality, it lacks the oxygen of freedom. It’s stagnant.
I might be living a difficult, solitary life here, but at least I have the space to think and speak without a state breathing down my neck. I prefer my problems to theirs. So, in my eyes? I definitely won’t be going there.
Elena Petrova:
At least Cuba could have done what Kerala did—lol.
Kerala was never an ordinary democracy.
We implemented communism through democracy, not through force.
We decentralised power.
We pushed authority downward—to panchayats and local governments.
Here, communists win elections and lose elections.
They accept defeat.
You can openly criticise the Chief Minister.
Nothing happens.
Here, if the Chief Minister came and sat in a military uniform, we would laugh 😂.
It would look absurd in a civilian democracy.
That reaction itself matters.
In Cuba, leaders in military uniforms are normal—
and that alone is a red flag 🚩.
Power presents itself as force, not consent.
I think Cuba needs to implement democracy.
Not cosmetic elections,
but real pluralism, civilian rule, decentralisation, and the right to dissent.
And honestly, even the United States should end its authoritarian tendencies once and for all.
Authoritarianism doesn’t always announce itself.
Sometimes it wears a uniform.
Sometimes it hides behind the language of “national security.”
Same ideals spoken.
Very different executions.
Dude , I am not your enemy, I subscribed to your plan for 8 dollars.
I can't access the chat
Am I blocked?