I have little to add to all the commentary that is flooding the internet on this event.
But I will add something, because to fail to do so might be thought idiosyncratic. Also, because I was born in 1958, the year that ended with Castro's victory. So I have some sort of fortuitous connection with the man, and it would be bad karma to ignore his death.
I think of the movie Godfather 2. And by this route, thinking about Castro will bring us around to William James and pragmatism.
The best scenes in that movie were the Cuba scenes, centering on the Corleone family's efforts to get in on the action in Cuba in 1958. The family was late in its timing, and had to make a hurried exit during the New Year's' Eve festivities that the revolution had so rudely interrupted.
Before the plot gets to that final collapse of the gangsters' friendly regime, though, it shows us that Michael (Al Pacino) has a premonition that Castro will win. He has seen that the rebels are willing to die for their cause, whereas nobody is defending Batista except on a salary or out of cynicism.
Now, if I remember the movie, this premonition doesn't cause any change in behavior. Corleone tells Roth about his suspicion, but then business proceeds. So Corleone gains nothing from this moment of perceptiveness except I-told-you-so rights.
It isn't even knowledge, then, in the pragmatic understanding of the term, because as WIlliam James wrote, "there is no difference anywhere that does not make a difference somewhere else."
Now, if the Corleone's had communicated to a stock broker in New York to sell short stock in Bacardi, or in some other company that was about to be hurt by the revolution (a US based cigar importer?), then we would have had a clear instance of knowledge of the forthcoming revolution that a pragmatist could respect as such.
With that confluence of pragmatism and finance capitalism, I had better conclude. Or rather with this: Fidel Castro, Rest in Peace.