In fairness, the sort of prevalent thinking/behavior shown by the US 1% is what has ushered every such revolutionary into power.

Whether it be Idi Amin, Castro, Donald Trump or Benjamin Franklin, the population has no appetite for change if they believe that society fairly allocates opportunity for the pursuit of happiness. People aren't interested in change of government let alone revolution when the kids are fed and things are humming along nicely.

My point is that the leaders who screwed up and created conditions for revolution, have as much responsibility for the recurring result as the good or bad leaders who pushed to the fore.

In Castro's case, check out who Batista had aligned himself to (including organized US crime) and the effect on the economy, widening the rift between rich and poor. Batista practically gifted Castro the opportunity to intervene for the good of the people.

Whatever you may think of Castro's Cuba, remember that the US sponsored an attempted invasion (Bay of Pigs) before engineering expulsion from the OAS and wrecking Cuba's economy by embargo. When the USSR intervened as savior, Cuba became a pawn for world powers for whom concepts like "Mutually Assured Destruction" made sense which is why the USSR tried to put nuclear missiles into Cuba, justifying further US blockade that was further increased as recently as 1999, by Bill Clinton. This despite annual UN General Assembly resolution every year since 1992, that the embargo violates the UN charter and international law.

Worth noting that Castro's nationalization of assets that started the US embargo, was little different from what the Shah of Iraq did to oil, except that the US couldn't embargo an oil nation on the USSR's doorstep. Not in those days, anyway.

It's all very sad: Cuba is a wonderful country to visit to this day, but generations of Cubans have fled or not lived up to their potential because of posturing, pride and greed.