"All those who, speaking of the Revolution, violate revolutionary morality, are not only potential traitors to the Revolution, but are also the worst detractors of the Revolution." CHE

An important minister walked out of office through the back door and the news shocked the country. He left with particularly harsh terms such as "corruption", "simulation" and "insensitivity" on his shoulders. A municipal mayor has lost much more than her office. We recently heard of a driver removed from his post for using for personal gain the bus he was in charge of, which, incidentally, was destined to transport one of the teams taking part in the only top-level sporting event that the fuel shortage has allowed to take place: the National Baseball Series.

Frei Betto said that on one occasion, after spending a few days in a hotel in Varadero, when he checked his account he discovered dozens of orders for tobacco, rum, and other expensive and extravagant treats that anyone who knew him, even superficially, would know he would not allow himself. "I won't pay for that," he told the surprised carpetbagger.

What is the difference between the defenestrated minister or a middle-ranking official subject to judicial proceedings, the worker who saw in the stay of a relevant figure in his hotel the opportunity to "take advantage" or the bus driver earning extra money? How are they alike? What is the path that leads to these dark places? Does material deprivation justify such attitudes? When does being in a certain position, whether it is a decision-making post or at the hinge of a procedural process, become a plot of power used as a source of profit?

It would not be necessary to obtain all the answers to each of the situations described, but it would be necessary to look at the precedents, at the implications for the revolutionary and socialist ideal that we defend as a social project.

A man who would not allow his bodyguards to carry water for his home, who never accepted a new car for his job, who dispensed with an extra food allowance when he knew it was only for ministers, and who went to throw his bones in the jungles of Bolivia in pursuit of the ideal of guerrilla struggle, once said: "Also counter-revolutionary is the gentleman who, using his influence, gets a house, who then gets cars, who then violates rationing, who then has everything that the people don't have, and who flaunts it or doesn't flaunt it, but has it."

"He is a counter-revolutionary, he must be denounced immediately; and he who uses his good or bad influences for his advantage or that of his friends, he is a counter-revolutionary and must be persecuted and annihilated. Opportunism is an enemy of the Revolution and flourishes everywhere where there is no popular control (...); all those who, speaking of the Revolution, violate revolutionary morality, are not only potential traitors to the Revolution, but are also the worst detractors of the Revolution."

So, what is truly valid about these events would be to revisit the defunct socialist experiences, among other reasons, because they allowed harmful practices to grow in the leadership to the point of creating a caste which, when the time came, did not tremble to overthrow the whole system, because protecting its own interests was more important. We need to become more sensitive to the problems and seriously debate these and other similar situations that will eventually occur in the future, without sensationalism and with respect for the dignity, even of those accused. Listening rather than telling, convincing rather than imposing. Always bearing in mind that, to use a now fashionable term, corruption is an existential threat to socialism.