No need to apologise for history, life is full of unfulfilled ambitions and intent, and also statements such as “I did the best for what I knew at the time.” Real life and growth is often a revision.

The 18th-century French Revolution inspired the American Revolution and more directly the Haitian Revolution. Thought in that regard is viral. You will see even the similar characteristics in words that defined the attitude and resistance in Haiti, for example: “Having tasted freedom, I will rather be dead than to be a slave for another day.” Not too different from the words in the American Revolution: “Give me liberty or give me death.” And there was indeed much death, but liberty triumphed.

The 20th century also had its theatrics when what is termed the Bolshevik Revolution, more correctly the “Peasant Revolt” of 1917, eventually led to the creation of the Soviet Union. While that revolution was probably a greater example of how the unlearned masses can be deceived and their true aims subverted by a political elite, the focus here is on the cosmetic outflow of how it was seen around the world as a victory of peasants over the overlords.

It was interpreted as a communist movement happening in a world at that time filled with repression, particularly in places such as Africa where the subjugated people saw it as a picture of what was possible. The sentiment was “if the peasants of Russia can rise up and overthrow their overlords, be it the state or landlord, we can do the same” — and that sentiment rang a bell in Africa, the Caribbean, the US, Britain and many places in Europe.

The idea of communism in its infancy had its purity of ideals, but in its application the structures developed after the revolution failed to resemble the aspirations of those peasants who fought for the overthrow of the overlords. Their aim was to get more land and enough to survive and feed themselves. The battle cry of the Bolsheviks’ promise was “Peace, Land and Bread”. What the peasants got instead was the state owning everything, while they merely got a wage. Instead of the individual freedom they sought, they became a part of a unified labour force. It was actually a new category of slave state where the former revolutionary peasants became indentured.

Notwithstanding, up against capitalism and a world under its thumb, socialism — the godchild of communism — became a fashionable instrument and endless revolution towards the goal of a utopian world led by the working class.

The idea was exported and there were many meetings held by the early communist parties that were attended and even led in some instances by Blacks from the West Indies, Africa and the US. Even women such as Claudia Jones, who was born in Trinidad but lived in America until being deported to England, were celebrated activists who were actually communists — and, indeed, were buried in the same graveyard as Karl Marx.

Our Dorothy Thompson, a tremendous intellect and author of several books, was one of the six original Progressive Labour Party MPs elected in 1963 and was a member of the Communist Party of England. There were several self-confessed communists in the PLP hierarchy at a time when globally the lengthy list of famed liberators included Stokely Carmichael and George Padmore.

The worldwide movement of communism was held together by a network of communities and attended by “delegates” to various meetings held in places such as Germany, England and the US in particular. It is no accident that the PLP has the party membership represented by a delegates conference.

The emerging strategy in the early 1930s was to develop labour unions worldwide. It was because of that association of communism with unionism that in many places the latter was banned.

Eventually, at least by the early 1960s, unionism had become cliché and seen more as a workers’ rights movement. However, it was not just unionism; many other movements such as civil rights, Pan-Africanism and even independence movements were fuelled by activists who were deeply associated with the communist movement, with each considering themselves as comrades in a global struggle.

No one needs to apologise for a movement that was viral and seen as relevant to the struggle at the time. The PLP was born with this clash of ideals. Bermuda up until that point was driven by the market and market ideology. Although segregated, our islands had two communities divided along racial lines, both having a foothold in the market albeit that it was uneven.

The Black merchants of that day saw upward mobility as having more by breaking down the barriers that prevented them from having greater access to more. In their ethics and strategy, they needed a vote and political power to achieve more. By 1963 the merchants, like the peasants of Russia, believed they had started or belonged to a political party that would give them increased property equal to their rivals.

What happened was a clash of ideals with those who believed that the increase would come instead by the socialist method of nationalisation of the economy. Through what I always refer to as a coup d’état, those with nationalist agendas won out and persecuted the losers.

The early PLP continued as this ambivalent entity living in a capitalist society while holding a strong socialist leaning — to the point where somewhere around 1977 or later, it became intellectually intolerable with a demand to (paraphrased) “come clean, be true to yourselves and tell it like it is” by a few persons such as Glenn Fubler and other young adult intellectuals who broke away and declared themselves as forming a Socialist Party.

The saying “the proof is in the tasting of the pudding” was the experience of the peasant revolution. It was the Bolsheviks who had never lifted a plough or operated a machine but ended up as the rulers over the peasantry. The only realistic outcome of a state-driven ideology or dogma would reliably end the same. Only where there are enterprising individuals and a free and open market can an economy foster happiness and thrive. The great lesson taken from the socialist movement is that there are basic social needs for a society to remain harmonious such as proper education, support of the arts, housing, and medical care, along with a hand-up approach that remains available for those willing to enter the marketplace.

The Russian example should clearly demonstrate under state-driven models that the persons that benefit most are those who lead the state enterprises. Examine today and question who are the new oligarchs of the former USSR. In the Bermuda context, that invariably means our government leaders would be the first in line to benefit. Unfortunately, in our case, there may not be enough to trickle down or proportion.

We need not apologise for our history because that’s what got us here. However, we do need to examine what tools we have that brought us to this place and understand their use.

There is a difference between organising a revolution and organising societal governance for the citizens of a country. A revolution needs order and obedience to dogma; hence, control over the leadership to maintain a steady course towards a target. Governance of the civil type on the other hand requires openness and listening to the electorate, and allowing the electorate to determine its own leadership and direction.

Neither the PLP nor the One Bermuda Alliance were built to entertain the rights and participation of the masses. Each for its own reasons was set up as an agenda-driven organisation to satisfy an interest group. The OBA and the defunct United Bermuda Party, with which it is mostly associated, initially served to maintain the elite business establishment while the post-1965 PLP was to deliver the worker to be leaders in a socialist economy. Those were the goals, but both failed and we are now in a twilight zone where the new leaders are quasi-capitalist and leading from the top.

Many leaders rode on the current created by the idea of communism. However, socialism invariably ends in dictatorship. Adolf Hitler became the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party and Benito Mussolini followed the same trend, having first been a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party before becoming leader of the National Fascist Party.

While democracy is not perfect, nor is free-market ideology. In the end, nothing has proved to be better than either, and it may be tyranny in the process to prove anything different.