Cuban Scholar Condemns Supporters of Dictatorship as "Accomplices of Oppressors"

On Saturday, Cuban scholar and essayist Hilda Landrove took to Facebook to critique those who defend the Cuban dictatorship under the guise of opposing imperialism. She labels these individuals as accomplices of the regime and inadvertently supportive of the very imperialism they claim to resist.

"I don't know if they realize it, or if they do but pretend not to, but those who defend a dictatorship as an alternative to imperialism are complicit in the dictatorships and also serve the interests of imperialism," Landrove asserted in her post.

Challenging Common Leftist Arguments

Landrove's analysis targets a common notion within Latin American leftist circles: that lifting the U.S. embargo would solve Cuba's crisis. She argues that this belief "deliberately ignores the structural nature of Cuba's catastrophe," dismissing the legitimacy of opposition to a regime sustained partly by the international community's refusal to recognize its true dictatorial nature.

Identifying the Roots of Cuba's Misery

The academic points to three primary causes of suffering in Cuba: an economic policy that primarily benefits the elite while dismantling the state, the sanctions' impact disproportionately affecting the poor as the regime ensures its own survival, and a relentless, systematic repression for which resources are never lacking.

As evidence of this repression, she highlighted that around 20 individuals were detained or restricted from leaving their homes by political police, with over a thousand Cubans imprisoned for protesting, voicing dissent on social media, or hosting critical programs. This is corroborated by a Prisoners Defenders report stating that, as of August, Cuba held 1,339 political prisoners—a record number, including 155 women and 458 individuals with severe health issues.

Rejecting Regime-Led Transition

Addressing those who suggest the regime should lead a transition, Landrove is firm: "The current situation is dire; desirable solutions are no longer feasible. A preferable outcome is certainly not for the regime that brought us to this point to spearhead a transformation that allows them to retain power." She warns that U.S. pressure might result in an agreement among elites, while "beyond chanting 'End the embargo,' no international actor is pushing for the essential: the regime's end."

This analysis is part of Landrove's consistent critical reflection throughout 2026. In May, she published an essay in Rialta Magazine titled "Cuba: the Totalitarian Clamp and the Sabotaged Yet Intact Desire for Change," which a European progressive magazine had previously rejected for not condemning Trump’s policies before criticizing the regime. In July, she described Cuba as a "concentration camp" and blamed the Castro regime for the devastation. In June, she criticized economic reforms announced by Díaz-Canel as "too little, too late," arguing that the system is beyond reform due to a lack of political will.

The debate finds resonance in recent events. The president of Chile's Communist Youth recently stated she does not view Cuba as a dictatorship, while in Spain, leftist parties have refused to acknowledge the Island's regime as a dictatorship in parliamentary votes this year.

Landrove concludes her post by rejecting the notion that the tragic context excuses the regime's actions: "The situation is fundamentally tragic. However, this cannot justify portraying a criminal regime as a mere victim. […] Every time this is done, they choose to become accomplices of our oppressors again."