From Havana to Astoria: Mislabelling the American Left

New Yorkers have now experienced about two months under the new Mamdani administration. Last November, more than a million New Yorkers, including myself, headed to the polls and cast our ballots for Zohran Mamdani.

The New York City mayoral election drew significant media attention from within the five boroughs and beyond. Mamdani stood out as markedly younger than his opponents, born in Uganda, and as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Yet the aspect that drew the greatest scrutiny was not his biography but his approach to politics. Mamdani ran, and intends to govern, as a democratic socialist, a label he has unapologetically embraced.

Unfortunately, in the United States, terms like “communist,” “socialist,” “radical,” and “authoritarian” are often used interchangeably in political discourse. This is especially true among voters shaped by experiences with Latin American authoritarianism. By engaging in discourse like this, meaningful differences between communism, authoritarianism, and democratic socialism are flattened. Many Americans, particularly within parts of the Latino community, interpret left-wing politics through the traumatic legacies of Cuba and Venezuela, leading to a conflation of communism with authoritarianism and a mislabeling of democratic socialists such as Zohran Mamdani as “radicals”.

Communism, Authoritarianism, and Democratic Socialism: Key Distinctions

For communists, a society in which there is “common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state” is ideal. Karl Marx suggested that on the path towards “common ownership,” there would need to be a transition phase of state ownership. However, communism is purely political theory as no country has been able to move past this phase. In practice, communist states have often combined state ownership with one-party authoritarianism. For example, the Soviet Union nationalised private property but state ownership on its own does not constitute “communism”. 

Secondly, authoritarianism is defined as “the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people who act in ways that are not constitutionally accountable to the people they are meant to represent and serve”. More simply put, authoritarianism is a political system described by concentrated executive power and the repression of opposition. This can occur under any ideology, such as left-wing in Cuba, right-wing in Pinochet’s Chile, or non-ideological in Al-Assad’s Syria.

Thirdly, democratic socialism maintains an explicit commitment to electoral democracy, civil liberties, and multiparty politics. Democratic socialists espouse an expanded welfare state, protections for workers, and public investment - not the abolition of markets. Above all, democratic socialism operates within democratic institutions and rejects authoritarian governance. 

These distinctions tend to blur in American public discourse due to Cold War history, simplifications from the media, political opponents labelling progressive causes as “communism”, and personal and familial trauma, which will shortly be addressed. 

The Cuban Case

Far beyond the powers of Mayor Mamdani’s city-owned grocery stores and expansions of rent control, the Communist Party of Cuba maintains high levels of public sector control and exerts significant influence over the Cuban economy. This is consistent with communist thought. However, the Cuban case, both in the present day and historically, tends to be one of authoritarianism and over-reliance on the Soviet Union. 

Following the 1959 revolution, Fidel Castro took power and led for nearly fifty years. It is debated whether Castro was a communist from the time he assumed power or later. Interestingly, he presented himself as a political moderate during an April 1959 visit to Washington and stated that he did not agree with the communists. However, Castro was undeniably an autocrat. Within his first ninety days in power, he oversaw the execution of more than 400 political opponents and constructed an expansive security apparatus to entrench his rule - one that did not hesitate to arrest former friends and associates at the slightest suspicion of conspiracy. Although the Castro regime was repeatedly the target of covert efforts at regime change, these external threats were leveraged to consolidate power. Instead of temporary emergency measures, repression became institutionalised and Cuba was transformed into a durable one-party autocracy. 

Today, under Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba maintains a one party state under the Communist Party where political pluralism is outlawed and independent media is repressed. Intelligence services continue to play a significant role in suppressing dissent and maintain deep influence over nearly every aspect of Cuban affairs. 

Economically, Cuba was provided with significant subsidies as well as political and military support from the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. After the collapse of the USSR, in addition to the imposition of U.S. sanctions, Cuba was plunged into crisis. Cubans lost their primary supplier of imported food, machinery, and other goods, and it became increasingly unable to purchase these goods from other sources. In response, the Cuban government declared this time of crisis to be a “Special Period in a Time of Peace” and implemented rationing schedules. Rather than triggering political liberalisation, this crisis instead reinforced authoritarian rule where those who aligned themselves with the state’s objectives and ideologies found themselves in more favourable economic positions. Meanwhile dissenters faced economic hardship or unemployment.

This disruption deeply penetrated into Cuban society and many attempted the ninety mile trek to Miami on makeshift rafts. These people became known as balseros or “raft people”. Today, 70% of Miami’s population is Latino with the majority being of Cuban descent. This exodus not only changed the demographics of South Florida but also served the Cuban regime’s interests. By allowing disaffected Cubans to leave the island, the government effectively exported dissent rather than opening political space for reform.

The Venezuelan Case

American conservatives also point towards Venezuela as a case study in their criticism of progressive policies. However, Venezuela’s economic crisis is largely driven by petro-state dynamics, corruption, and mismanagement. 

Hugo Chávez was democratically elected and he maintained broad popular support during the oil boom. Revenues from the boom were able to fund expansive social programs and reduce poverty, which allowed Chávez to maintain high popularity throughout his presidency. However, Venezuelan democracy eroded following Chávez’s election as he centralised power, deepened oil mismanagement and used the state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), as a discretionary political fund. When Chávez died in 2013, Nicolás Maduro inherited a political and economic system steeped in corruption. 

This redistribution plan fractured in 2014 when oil prices dropped, and President Maduro continued to seize more industries. The price of oil declined from nearly $120 a barrel to around $25 a barrel. This meant that the Maduro regime was forced to draw upon other sources of revenue to pay the increasing price of national guard protection and to keep loyalist politicians in line. As private companies continued to leave Venezuela, the nation’s growth diminished and instead of spending less, Maduro simply printed more money. This resulted in enormous inflation that eventually reached 2,000,000%. 

Repression became prominent in Maduro’s response to opposition. As the Venezuelan crisis intensified, Maduro and his allies began to further violate basic democratic norms. In order to suppress dissent, the Maduro regime dismantled the National Assembly and relied on arbitrary detentions, torture, and killings. 

Two Roads to Latin American Authoritarianism: Argentine and Chilean Insights 

Latin America possesses a legacy of dictatorship from all ideologies, not just those who declare themselves communist or socialist, such as Cuba and Venezuela. 

Argentina’s National Reorganisation Process

A military junta led by General Jorge Rafael Videla seized power from President Isabel Perón in March 1976. This marked the beginning of a totalitarian military dictatorship in Argentina known as the National Reorganisation Process, commonly referred to as el Proceso (“the Process”) in Argentina. Videla served five years as head of the junta and was followed by six successors until 1983, when economic collapse and Argentina’s defeat in the Falklands War brought the regime to an end.

On economics, Videla largely left policy up to Economy Minister José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz who emphasised free trade and deregulatory economic policies. Martínez de Hoz also enjoyed the friendship of David Rockefeller who facilitated $1 billion in loans from Chase Manhattan Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

This span of Argentine history has also become known as the “Dirty War”, a period marred by state-sponsored violence where the military junta and death squads targeted left-wing activists and any perceived dissidents. Enforced disappearances and the use of clandestine detention centres became distinctive features of the junta’s repression. Those who were forcibly disappeared became known as los desaparecidos (“the disappeared ones”). 

In its 1983 Nunca Más ("Never Again") report, the National Commission on Disappeared Persons listed 8,960 victims and 365 clandestine detention centers that were under the jurisdiction of the Argentine Armed Forces. Today it is estimated that 30,000 Argentines disappeared and 600 detention centres operated. 

Augusto Pinochet’s Chile 

In September 1973, the Chilean Armed Forces toppled the democratic socialist government of Salvador Allende. General Augusto Pinochet would seize power which he would possess until 1990. 

To improve Chile’s ailing economic situation, Pinochet privatised hundreds of state-owned firms. He became influenced by a group of market-oriented economists known as the “Chicago Boys,” so called because they were educated at the University of Chicago, and privatisation became a central pillar of Chilean economic policy. These policies did allow Chile’s economy to recover out of high rates of inflation although at the expense of civil rights. 

The National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) was created in November 1973 as an intelligence unit within the Chilean Army and, seven months later, was reorganised as an independent administrative body under Decree 521. DINA effectively became an arm of the presidency and a secret police. The intelligence agency became notorious for its network of secret torture centres, extrajudicial executions, and enforced disappearances, as well as state-sponsored terrorism, evident in the assassinations of political exiles in Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Paris, Rome, and Washington, D.C.

Back in Chile, detention centres and labor camps were used throughout the entirety of Pinochet’s reign. At Villa Grimaldi, over 4,000 prisoners were abused with the most common forms of torture being electroshock, waterboarding, forcing heads into excrement, and rape. Between 1973 and 1990, approximately 3,000 people were killed or disappeared, while an additional 40,000 survived political imprisonment and torture. Today, 1,100 Chileans remain missing. 

Further examples of free-market aligned autocratic regimes in the region can be seen in Mexico’s Porfiriato under Porfirio Díaz, the Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo, Nicaragua under Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Paraguay under Alfredo Stroessner, Guatemala under Efraín Ríos Montt, Peru under Alberto Fujimori, Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro, and, most recently, El Salvador under Nayib Bukele.

Sanctioned Realities: A More Nuanced Discourse

When discussing Latin American politics and history, one would be remiss to exclude the role of U.S. intervention. American policymakers have utilised sanctions with the intention of getting Cuban and Venezuelan leaders to change behaviour. Although these sanctions have failed to initiate regime change, their impact on civilian populations has been significant. 

The U.S. embargo to Cuba has deprived the island over approximately $130 billion in revenue and has restricted access to critical imports such as medical equipment. This has intensified as the Trump Administration has designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. As a result, Cuba’s access to the global financial system has been cut off which has further limited the island’s ability to obtain remittances and money transfers. 

Regarding Venezuela, American sanctions have caused an estimated $22.5 billion in lost income since 2017. Additionally studies indicate that American sanctions have contributed to at least 40,000 excess deaths in one year due to the collapse of public services and restricted access to medicine and food. The freezing of Venezuelan assets, alongside banking restrictions, has made it nearly impossible to import necessary medical supplies. Thus, the humanitarian crisis has exacerbated, prompting mass migration.

In both Argentina and Chile, the regimes appreciated aid from Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, as well as Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. These relationships, however, grew strained under President Jimmy Carter, whose foreign policy placed a stronger emphasis on human rights. 

The American Latino Political Lens

American Latino political perceptions are deeply shaped by trauma and memory politics. For many families who fled autocracy and repression in Latin America, politics is more of a lived experience. Exile, state-sponsored violence, and economic collapse form a collective memory that continues to shape how Latinos engage in political discourse. As such, terms like “socialism” and “leftism” become emotionally charged rather than viewed as specific concepts. 

This helps explain why democratic socialism is often misread within much of the Latino electorate. In the United States, the left’s use of the term “socialism” is typically intended to describe policy agendas centred on social welfare and corporate regulation within a democratic system. Yet for many Latino voters, the word itself evokes associations with Cuba, Venezuela, or other authoritarian regimes. 

These dynamics have proven politically consequential. Conservative actors have effectively leveraged historical associations to mobilise Latino voters, particularly in Florida. This past presidential election saw Miami-Dade County flip from Democratic to Republican with Donald Trump carrying 55% of the vote. 

Democratic Socialism in New York: The Case of Zohran Mamdani

Despite what many of his critics may want you to believe, Zohran Mamdani is certainly progressive, but in no way is he a radical. His policy agenda calls for reform rather than revolution. This can be seen in strong tenant protections, funding for public transit, the expansion of social services, holding police accountable, and affordable housing initiatives. These are standard social democratic policies in most advanced democracies.

Most importantly, Mamdani does not call for the abolition of markets, one-party rule, or for the nationalisation of private property, which are all hallmarks of communism. Above all, he is a municipal official operating within the confines of New York City’s mayoralty. A municipal executive cannot nationalise industries, suspend legislatures, or redesign a constitutional system. The comparison, therefore, is not merely ideologically strained but institutionally incoherent.  

The Broader Problem: When All Leftism = Communism

More accurately using terms such as “authoritarianism”, “communism”, and “democratic socialism” changes debates. This encourages more precise assessment rather than just spewing back rhetoric or labels. When Mayor Mamdani’s initiatives are equated to Fidel Castro’s one-party rule or to Nicolás Maduro’s incompetence, political science is made impossible. In this realm, there exists no room for any meaningful policy discussion, and any reforms are blocked because they are misunderstood as steps towards authoritarianism. 

Furthermore, Cuban and Venezuelan trauma is undoubtedly real; however, it is not automatically applicable to progressives in the United States or elsewhere. As noted earlier, there are numerous examples of governments that incorporate strong elements of democratic socialism, including Norway, Finland, Germany, and Canada. 

Conclusion 

I worry that a fear of progressive policies amongst American Latinos risks producing precisely the outcomes our community seeks to avoid. That dynamic is already visible in President Trump’s second administration. In the 2024 election, Trump carried 46% of the Latino vote and a majority, 54%, of Latino male voters. The consequences of that shift have been swift and tangible.

Under the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, over 70% of detainees had no criminal record. ICE arrests of Latinos nearly doubled in early 2025 and continue to account for roughly 90% of interior arrests, according to a January 2026 UCLA report. These enforcement practices have reshaped daily life in Latino communities, with nearly half of respondents reporting that they feel less safe in their own neighbourhoods as a result of the President’s agenda. 

When left-wing politics is misread as authoritarianism, fear replaces facts, and now Latino communities are left living with the consequences.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Truth Social (White House - Donald J Trump)

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.