There are many self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists in the imperial core who are so thoroughly afflicted by libertarian identity politics that even an orthodox materialist analysis of Iran's Memorandum of Understanding, or the recent liberalisation policies conceded by Cuba and Venezuela, appears to offend their bourgeois moral sensibilities. These people are neither Marxists nor Marxist-Leninists, nor any type of Marxist for that matter. They are merely liberals masqueraded as Marxists, meant to obfuscate and to silence critical thinking.

Rarely have I encountered such empty rhetoric coupled with such sanctimony, all shielded behind a profoundly distorted understanding of what they perceive to be dialectical materialism. It is evident that many of these individuals have not made even the slightest effort to read the policies in question, nor do they appear to possess a serious understanding of how capitalism functions.

This becomes especially apparent in the manner in which they constantly invoke Dengism while demonstrating little understanding of the economic model itself or the extent to which it differs from the reforms currently being pursued in countries such as Cuba.

To equate Cuba's liberalisation measures with China's reform era obscures the fundamental differences between the two. China's post-1978 reforms introduced markets, foreign investment, and private enterprise, but the Communist Party never relinquished control over finance or the commanding heights of the economy. The major banks remained state-owned, strategic industries stayed under majority state ownership, and privatisation was largely confined to smaller enterprises while the state retained control over the largest firms.

For anyone who has actually examined the Cuban reforms as currently reported, the measures go considerably further. They include the legalisation of private banks, the removal of requirements for majority state ownership of formerly state-owned enterprises, broader private and foreign ownership of productive assets, and a substantial reduction in direct state ownership.

These policies directly contradict the Chinese model, which maintained state ownership across all key sectors, particularly finance.

If implemented as described, this is not merely a Cuban adaptation of Deng Xiaoping's reforms. It represents a significantly deeper liberalisation of ownership structures and financial institutions than China undertook during its market transition, even if the Cuban government argues that such measures are necessary to preserve socialism.

Consequently, Cuba's economy—which is vastly smaller and possesses far less leverage than China's—will not be able to subordinate foreign capital to the developmental objectives of the state in the manner China has historically done. The economic logic underpinning the two models is fundamentally different.

The refusal to acknowledge this reality, dismissed instead as the rhetoric of "white Western armchair communists", is ironically itself a form of Western liberal moralism. It serves not to advance analysis, but to suppress the criticism necessary for arming the working-class movement in its struggle against the bourgeoisie.

Therefore again I will state, this behaviour is not Marxist nor is it even  Marxist-Leninist. Indeed, it bears little resemblance to any serious Marxist tradition at all. Rather, it reflects a liberal tendency to weaponise race and identity whenever one's assumptions are challenged, thereby preventing the substantive debate that genuine materialist analysis requires.

I will conclude with this observation.

The Cuban and Venezuelan peoples have suffered immensely under the imperialist economic warfare imposed by the capitalist powers. The objective of that campaign was always to coerce capitulation through economic hardship, and to a significant degree that objective has been realised. We must accept this in order to accurate be able to aid our struggle.

Abundant foreign capital flowed through both Venezuela and Cuba for decades before their respective struggles against imperial domination.

Yet did their populations enjoy widespread prosperity as a consequence? They did not. Both countries remained characterised by poverty, dependency, and underdevelopment. They functioned as little more than resource-export enclaves and tax havens subordinated to the interests of foreign capital.

Given the reforms now being pursued in both countries, the weakening of state control over capital flows and the decentralisation of ownership towards private capital interests — this threatens to recreate those very same conditions once again. Without effective mechanisms for subordinating capital to collective developmental objectives, controlling that capital becomes increasingly difficult.

The danger, therefore, is not merely economic liberalisation in the abstract, but the re-emergence of the structural conditions that historically enabled large-scale exploitation. Under such circumstances, the quality of life of ordinary Cubans and Venezuelans is unlikely to improve substantially. Instead, they risk becoming more vulnerable to exploitation, providing the bourgeoisie with new opportunities to extract surplus value and sustain their own accumulation of capital.

This is not a question of morality, sentiment, or political branding. It is a question of economic logic and the material operation of capitalism itself. 

Unfortunately, this is precisely the reality that many so-called Marxist-Leninists in the West appear determined to ignore, because they are not really Marxist-Leninists in the traditional sense, nor Marxists at all.