Alan Woods: Latin America on the brink

[Militant International Review, No. 24, November 1983, p. 12-26]

The ending of the exceptional period of upswing in the world economy from 1950 to 1975, and the beginning of a new period of organic capitalist crisis, has opened up an entirely different situation on a world scale, a fundamental feature of which is the phenomenon – entirely new in the history of mankind – of the dovetailing of the revolutionary processes now unfolding simultaneously in the three main sectors of the world today, that is to say, the advanced capitalist countries, the Stalinist countries, and also the extremely important development of the revolution in the former colonial world.

It was Lenin who said that capitalism was horror without end, and a mere glance at the history of the colonial world from 1945 onwards, in Asia, Africa, in Latin America, reveals just that – horror without end: starvation, misery, wars and degradation, afflicting millions upon millions of human beings. And as a consequence of these insoluble contradictions, we have also seen the unfolding of the mightiest epic in all the annals of human history, with the mobilisation of millions of former slaves, in the colonial revolution. Yet this phenomenon took place in the best period of capitalism, the period of 25 years of economic boom and growth in world trade. This was the best that capitalism had to offer the masses in Latin America, Africa and Asia. And it is true, that at least a small handful of colonial countries derived some benefit from this position, with the development of industry in a number of countries, in particular, in Latin America we had the case of Brazil and Argentina. But with the first onset of capitalist crisis, in formerly privileged nations such as Sri Lanka, which for a whole number of years had benefited from the boom, all of those gains, and in particular the existence of bourgeois democracy, now lie in a heap of smouldering rubble. From now on, whatever else may be possible, whatever social or political variant may occur, for the regimes in the colonial world in the next period, the one variant that is now absolutely out of the question, is the lasting consolidation of bourgeois democracy in Africa, Asia or Latin America. The disastrous situation in the colonial world is summed up in the staggering figure of $700,000 million of the accumulated debts owed by the colonial world to the advanced capitalist countries. And of that figure, no less than $300,000 million is accounted for by Latin America alone. These figures demonstrate the utter hopelessness, the complete impasse, of capitalism on a global scale.

On the one hand, we can see the Achilles heel of the world capitalist system graphically reflected in the bloody welter of wars and upheavals in Central America, where the revolution is rapping at the doors of mighty American imperialism. It is an even more telling comment on the plight of imperialism at the present time, when we reflect that only just over a year ago, before the Falklands War, American imperialism was planning to use Argentine soldiers to intervene in Central America, both against the guerillas in El Salvador and against Nicaragua. And yet, in a very short space of time, only a question of months, following the defeat of Argentina in that war, the revolution has now arrived at Argentina, a far more serious threat to the long-term interests of capitalism and imperialism than any event in Central America.

It would be an impossible task, in the space of a single article, to deal with the question of the revolution in Central and South America, because at the present time, in the whole of that continent, from Tierra Del Fuego to the Rio Grande, there is not one stable capitalist country in the whole of Latin America. In the modern epoch, the first and most fundamental idea which has to be grasped is that the forthcoming revolution in Latin America will inevitably have a continental character. The whole nature of this unfolding epic of the Latin American revolution serves to underline all the fundamental ideas of the brilliant theory of Leon Trotsky, the theory of the Permanent Revolution. And we will see in country after country a brilliant vindication of the idea of Trotsky, that not one of the fundamental tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution in Latin America can be solved within the framework of capitalism. The revolution must go on from the fight for democratic rights and the overthrow of dictatorship, to the tasks of the socialist revolution. But this aspect of the Permanent Revolution does not exhaust the question. As Lenin and Trotsky explained, and as can be seen very clearly in relation to South America, these revolutions, if they are to succeed in their aims, cannot stop at the frontiers – those artificial boundaries established by imperialism – but must continue in a chain of revolutions, which will engulf the entire continent of Latin America.

The Marxists have explained that in the present epoch, the victory of the proletariat in any major industrial country of the advanced capitalist west, or the Stalinist states, can start the beginning of the process of the world revolution. As an extension of this idea, in the case of Latin America, the triumph of the proletariat in any one of the decisive nations of that continent can also have a major effect, not only in the Third World, but also in the advanced countries of capitalist Europe, and even the deformed workers states of the East.

There is a feature of North American society which perhaps is not paid sufficient attention to, and that is the enormous importance of the Hispanic population, which along with the blacks represents a large exploited minority of the working class in the United States, one of the most oppressed sections of the proletariat, which would be extremely sensitive to any kind of revolutionary movements in South and Central America. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the enormous concern of American imperialism is that the developing revolution would affect the hearts and minds, particularly on the Spanish-speaking workers of North America. In recent years the question of Central America has occupied the attention of the international labour movement, almost to the exclusion of the development of the revolution in the countries of Latin America itself. We have dealt with the question of Central America, both in the MIR and, more recently in the pages of the Militant. But now, with the revolutionary developments in Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, we have to see the revolution in Central America, in the context of the wider picture, the development of the continental revolution in the whole of Latin America.

Central America, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean are central to the interests of US imperialism, both economic, strategic and political. But nevertheless, in a historical sense, the task of American imperialism in holding back the revolution in the colonial world, is hopeless. At the very time when the British fleet set sail for the Falkland Islands, Reagan was in Jamaica negotiating with Seaga, for the handing over of a large quantity of money, as part of the „Reagan Plan“ to prevent the spread of „communism“ in the Caribbean. Yet, even the most cursory glance at the economies of the Caribbean region shows that the Reagan Plan, with the risible quantities of money involved, would be equivalent to attempting to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon. The impasse of the economies of the Caribbean pathetically reflects the hopelessness of capitalism throughout the whole hemisphere. In the world economic recession of 1979-82, the price of sugar, one of the main items of the region fell by 18 per cent just in one year, 1979-80. What effect did this have upon the countries of the area? The Dominican Republic had largely managed to escape the effects of the earlier recession as a result of the high price of sugar, which represents about half of its exports. At the present time, the economic growth of the Dominican Republic is 0 percent, 25 percent of the active population is unemployed, and a further 25 percent is under-employed! And yet that is a paradise if we compare it to Haiti, the country just next door, where in 1981, the per capita income was just $338. However, that figure, as is always the case with averages, gives an entirely erroneous impression, because approximately 80 per cent of the population of Haiti has an annual income of only $100, 70 percent are illiterate, and more than 50 per cent of the active population is unemployed. Under the Reagan plan for the Caribbean, the amount of money for Haiti would be ne more than $5 million. That is an absolutely miserable sum of money which will have no effect whatsoever.

The explosive situation in the Caribbean area was already demonstrated 20 years ago by the Cuban revolution, and following the establishment of a deformed workers state in Cuba, we have witnessed the establishment of a similar regime in Grenada, the nationalisation of the economy in Guyana (formerly British Guyana), and also the coup d’état in Surinam, which apparently is moving along similar lines. If we bear in mind these facts, then the absolute panic of American imperialism about the effects of the Nicaraguan revolution is absolutely clear. The strategists of capital understand that, under conditions of capitalist crisis these regimes will fall like skittles. Here perhaps, it is necessary to strike a note of warning, a cautionary note with relation to our analysis of the behaviour of American imperialism in this area. It is perfectly true that since the defeat in Vietnam, American imperialism has been powerless to intervene in Iran, in Ethiopia, in Angola, in Mozambique, and also in Nicaragua where they were unable to prevent the overthrow of the Somoza regime. But nevertheless, as we warned some time ago, the setting up of a special military intervention force for the Caribbean indicates that it would be a mistake to imagine that the possibility of armed intervention in Central America or the Caribbean can be ruled out, under certain conditions, as has been explained in a recent centre-page article by Ted Grant in the Militant. However, even this possibility could now be cut across by the developing revolution in Argentina and Chile. It is necessary at all times to comprehend the revolution in Central and South America in its totality, as a single, indissoluble process.

In order not to be taken by surprise by events, it is necessary at all times to understand the underlying causes of the crisis in Central and Latin America. The fundamental factor is the world crisis of capitalism which has now assumed an organic character. There is no way out for the masses on the basis of capitalism – either in the advanced countries of Western Europe, Japan and the USA, or for the oppressed millions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The conclusions experienced by the colonial and semi-colonial countries in the last period merely show the advanced capitalist countries their own future, as in a mirror.

The first world recession of 1974-76, and above all the second recession of 1979-83 have hit the Third World countries far harder because of the relative weakness of their economies. With frightening speed, all the old illusions in the „Brazilian miracle“ and the other „success stories“ of these countries were shattered into fragments, leaving the masses, the politicians and the army generals face to face with crude reality. 1981 was the worst year for the Latin American economy since the Second World War. In that year alone, the gross national product of the whole continent fell by 1.7 percent. There was an average increase in inflation throughout Latin America of 60 percent, a deficit on the balance of payments of 38,000 million dollars, and an external debt of 240,000 million dollars. In the three years up to 1981, the terms of trade have fallen by no less than 30 percent, that is 10 per cent each year. This meant a loss of income, as a consequence of falling prices, of $5,000 million. On the other hand, the economies of this area were hit by high interest rates, which represent a colossal drain on resources. The monstrous parasitism of finance capital on a world scale means that each additional point of interest causes a drain of resources of an additional $1,000 million for Latin America. In 1981, a further $5,000 million were lost in this way. These figures alone add up to a finished recipe for social convulsions on a continental scale.

The vital importance of Latin America in the context of the world revolution is due to the overwhelming strength of the proletariat in several of these countries. It would be a complete mistake to imagine that in South America conditions exist for classical guerilla struggle or that the revolution will be based mainly on the peasantry. In the last period there has been an intensification of the process of urbanisation throughout the Latin American continent. In Uruguay, 81 percent of the population live in towns and cities; in Brazil, 80 percent; in Chile, 79 percent; in Venezuela, 75 percent. In Peru and Mexico, 66 percent. In the case of Argentina, an absolutely crucial country for the socialist revolution in Latin America, 84 percent of the population live in cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants, and 35 percent of the population live in Buenos Aires. These figures reflect the absolute lunacy of the idea of guerilla warfare, of peasant warfare, of terrorism, which has been advanced by certain self-styled „Marxist“, „Leninist‘? and even „Trotskyist“ groups in Latin America – with disastrous results. This enormous concentration of population in the urban centres, this enormous specific weight of the proletariat, a thousand times more than in the Russian Revolution of 1917, creates enormously favourable conditions for a classical socialist revolution and the creation of democratic workers‘ states in Latin America.

This process of urbanisation has not in any sense meant an increase in the living standards as far as the mass of workers are concerned, even in the last period. On the contrary, what this process reflected was the enormous movement of millions of starving landless peasants, driven by misery and hunger into the cities, to eke out a miserable existence in the shanty towns or „favelas“ as they are called in Brazil, which exist on the outskirts of every city in South America. If we take the decade of the ’70s, before the recession, we see that officially 6-percent was unemployed. That figure is obviously false. If we included under-employment, the figure for unemployed and under-employed at the beginning of the ’70s was 30 percent on a continental level. At the beginning of the 1980s the figure for unemployed and underemployed throughout Latin America is 50 percent, one half of the population. The absolute living standards of the masses actually declined, even before the onset of the recession.

At the beginning of the 1970’s, 62 percent of rural families and 26 percent of urban families were below the poverty threshold in Latin America. Whereas between 1970 and 1979, nominal wages rose in 21 countries of Latin America, the real price of food rose faster than wages. Hunger, misery, degradation, illiteracy – this was the best that capitalism had to offer, even prior to the recession. The very phrase „Latin American inflation“ is sufficient to underline the explosion of prices which flowed from the fact that capitalism in Latin America went beyond its limits throughout this period. But now the chickens are coming home to roost. In order to attempt to expel the accumulated poison from its system, capitalism in Latin America is compelled to throw the whole process into reverse, to slash back ruthlessly on public expenditure, in order to drag themselves back from the brink of the abyss which they have approached through this colossal inflation. According to bourgeois economists, Latin America would require a growth rate of at least 6.9 per cent per annum in order to prevent the growth of unemployment in the ’80s. This perspective is absolutely ruled out. What these figures demonstrate is the inevitability of a decade of convulsions, of revolutions, and counter revolutions, the like of which has never been seen in the history of Latin America.

As the harbinger of this revolutionary wave we had the titanic events in Nicaragua and El Salvador. From the standpoint of Marxism, the overthrow of the Somoza regime, by the mass movement of workers and peasants in Nicaragua, represented a gigantic advance for the revolution in Latin America and on a world scale. As a result of the absolute rottenness of capitalism and landlordism throughout Central America, the revolution in Nicaragua – in spite of its deformed character – was capable of immediately sparking off guerilla wars in El Salvador and in Guatemala. This fact merely served to demonstrate the necessarily interdependent character of the revolution that is taking place in Central America and Latin America, which cannot stop at the frontiers. Had the Sandinista leadership consisted of genuine Marxists, then it would have been easy on the basis of the mass movement to establish a healthy workers state, and make an appeal to the workers and peasants of the other countries, linking up the revolution as a joint Central American revolution, then later, a Latin American revolution. Unfortunately, the leaders, of the Sandinista movement, poisoned with the pernicious influence of Stalinism, have fallen for the ideas of the „two-stages“ theory of the revolution, „socialism in one country“, and all the other nonsense of the Stalinists.

The Cuban bureaucracy and the Russian bureaucracy played a direct and conscious role in preventing the Sandinista leadership from going all the way and expropriating capitalism completely in Nicaragua. Capitalism in Nicaragua, as in the whole of Central America, is absolutely rotten, corrupt and degenerate. There is no way forward on this basis for the Nicaraguan revolution. And yet the Sandinistas persisted in a vain attempt to maintain some kind of private sector in the Nicaraguan economy. It [is] a mistake to imagine that capitalism has been eliminated in Nicaragua at the present time. Instead, we have an extremely peculiar state of affairs where, on the one hand, the old Somoza state has been utterly smashed (the state in the Marxist sense is armed bodies of men in defence of particular property relationships) and an entirely new state has been set up in Nicaragua controlled by the Sandinistas. And yet, according to the latest figures, 60 percent of the land remains in private hands. The economic power of the bourgeoisie therefore has not been decisively destroyed in Nicaragua. Therein lies the danger.

This situation cannot exist for any length of time. Either the Sandinistas, leaning on the workers and peasants, will carry through the process to the end, and nationalise the economy, or else, it is not excluded under certain conditions, that the bourgeoisie might gather fresh forces around itself and extinguish the new state. The pernicious formula advanced by the Stalinists, and echoed by certain sectarian groups which have openly reneged on the ideas of Trotsky, that the state in Nicaragua represents the „democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry“ is false in theory and extremely harmful in practice. It is a sorry rehash of the old Stalinist-Menshevik idea of the „two stages“ in the revolution, which Lenin decisively rejected in April 1917 and which has caused terrible damage wherever it has been applied, from China in 1927 to Indonesia in 1965. The Nicaraguan bourgeoisie is 100 per cent counterrevolutionary. The fact that there is no such thing as a democratic bourgeoisie in Nicaragua is indicated by the recent statements of the Nicaraguan bosses‘ organisation which, in effect, is openly supporting the Contras and demanding that the regime enter into an agreement with the counter-revolutionaries when the Somozan troops of reaction are already attacking the revolution on Nicaraguan soil. Nevertheless, in spite of the deformed character of the Nicaraguan revolution, it has inevitably exercised a powerful revolutionising effect on the psychology of the masses throughout Central America. And here we are faced with a dialectical contradiction. If the American imperialists could afford to wait, then they might stand a chance of achieving the restoration of capitalism in Nicaragua through the internal forces of counter-revolution. At the present moment, because of the horrific destruction caused by the civil war, 30 percent of the population in Nicaragua are unemployed and living standards are actually 20 percent lower that they were under Somoza. Because the Sandinista leadership have not wiped out the economic power of the bourgeoisie, at a certain stage, with the spread of discontent, it might be possible probably to overthrow the Sandinista regime even without external intervention. But the whole essence of the situation is that United States imperialism cannot afford to wait. The enormous influence of the Nicaraguan revolution throughout the whole of Central America is the decisive factor in the equation. In El Salvador the puppet army of the junta is being beaten back on all fronts by the guerillas. Without direct US assistance the junta in El Salvador would collapse within a question of weeks. That scenario opens up a nightmare situation for US imperialism throughout Central America. If El Salvador goes, Honduras and Guatemala would immediately follow. And then Costa Rica, Panama, and even Mexico would be threatened with revolution.

It is true that there are divisions within the ranks of the American imperialists and there is a section which is opposed to the idea of intervention in Central America. That section of the American bourgeoisie whose interests are not directly affected by the situation in Central America are afraid of the enormous political and social consequences of a direct US involvement in El Salvador and Nicaragua. But in spite of that fact, all the indications are that Reagan is in favour of an intervention not just against the guerillas of El Salvador, but also direct intervention against Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration has drawn up plans for an economic blockade of Nicaragua. We have seen the manoeuvres of the US navy off the shores of Nicaragua. We have also had the joint military manoeuvres of the United States and Honduran soldiers throughout the zone. We have the turning of Honduras into an armed camp – one of the poorest nations in the world has just received more military assistance in the last two years from the United States than in the whole of its previous history. And last but not least, we have the open support of American imperialism for the Contras, the ex-Somozan guard, in their invasion of Nicaragua. It may not be enough. The armed forces of Nicaragua, which are the most powerful in the region, will undoubtedly be able to defeat the Somozan guard without much difficulty. But what would happen in the event of the defeat of the Somozan guard if the fighting then spread to Honduras? Undoubtedly the Americans would be compelled to intervene.

Now, why should this be possible? After all America did not intervene in Iran, they didn’t intervene in Ethiopia, they didn’t intervene in Angola and Mozambique. Why should they intervene for the sake of a small handful of countries in Central America?

The answer to that question is precisely that Central America is not Asia, it is not Africa – it is „America’s backdoor“. Two-thirds of the oil imported into the United States passes through the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. The United States imperialists understood that the domino theory was correct in South-East Asia and know that it is even more correct in the case of Central America. If El Salvador falls, then Guatamala will automatically fall. The coup d’etat that took place this summer indicates the enormous instability of the regime in Guatemala. The victory of the revolution in Guatemala would bring the revolution right up to the frontiers of Mexico, the third biggest country in Latin America and the ninth largest in the world.

Undoubtedly Mexico is now one of the key countries of the revolution in Latin America. It is interesting to recall that Mexico up until recently was considered as a „success story“, a stable, potentially prosperous and developed Latin American country. The agrarian reform was carried out seventy years ago on the strength of the Mexican revolution, in this potentially wealthy country with huge resources of oil, uranium and natural gas. The very peculiar political regime in Mexico, a product of the revolution, has guaranteed considerable political stability up until the present time. Theoretically there was a multi-party democratic state while in practice, it was a one party state run by the so-called Institutional Revolutionary Party. Only two years ago, on the basis of its colossal oil wealth and the oil boom, it appeared that Mexico was a good contender for a stable. and normal bourgeois development. And yet, in a very short space of time, all of those illusions have been reduced to rubble. Mexico has the biggest debt in South America, which cannot be repaid. Inflation is over 90 per cent, Gross Domestic Product is expected to fall this year by 3.5 per cent. According to official figures the purchasing power of the average Mexican fell by 40 per cent in the last twelve months. Miguel de Madrid, the new president, following the advice of the IMF, has initiated general price increases on all the basic products. For example, the price of maize tortilla, which is the staple diet, has increased by 40 per cent. The price of bread has doubled. Since December 1982, petrol, telephone bills, post office charges, and electricity charges have all more than doubled. And the possibility of the extension of social convulsions to Mexico, that is to say the very frontier of the United States, must cause many sleepless nights in Washington.

For all of these reasons, a military pre-emptive strike by the United States against Nicaragua, while not certain, is not at all excluded. From a purely military point of view the operation would be relatively simple. They could occupy the country in a short space of time, but that would not be the end of the matter. Napoleon was a great man, a very great military expert who knew a lot about bayonets, and he once said „Bayonets are wonderful things, you can do a lot of things with them. The one thing which you cannot do with bayonets is to sit on them.“ The whole experience of the United States in Vietnam demonstrated that you cannot suppress an entire people when an entire nation stands up and says no. Military intervention in Nicaragua, instead of solving the guerilla war, would extend the conflict throughout the whole of Central America. And even beyond that, a more serious result would be the enormous, incalculable, psychological and political repercussions of such an action throughout the whole of Latin America. In point of fact, one of the considerations, which has thus far stayed the hand of Washington in Central America, has been the developing revolution in Argentina and now in Chile. However important the developments in Central America, in a broader historical sense, these are merely the initial heat lightning of the far more important and decisive revolution in South America.

It is necessary here and now to recall that we were the only tendency in the international labour movement that stood absolutely firm against the lunacy of guerillaism in Latin America throughout the 1960’s and part of the 1970’s. Ours was the only tendency to stand squarely on the idea of the leading role of the working class, of the proletariat in the revolution in Latin America. And that. position has been entirely vindicated by the developments of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and other countries in the last few months.

Even over thirty years ago we saw the great, heroic revolutionary traditions of the South American proletariat in the revolution in Bolivia. In three days of armed struggle, the Bolivian proletariat smashed the army.

As in Catalonia in 1936 during the Spanish revolution, the Bolivian workers seized the factories and mines, the Bolivian peasants seized the land. Power was in the hands of the working class. The Bolivian proletariat with its marvellous revolutionary traditions wanted the transformation of society, they wanted the socialist revolution. Yet the disgraceful role of the petty bourgeois reformist leaders, and in particular the Stalinist leaders with their theory of „two stages“ according to which the workers had to limit themselves to realising the so-called „democratic revolution‘, completely undermined that possibility. Nonetheless, the whole history of Bolivia following this so-called „bourgeois democratic revolution“ (which was no such thing – it was the revolution of the workers) demonstrates precisely the impossibility of development on a capitalist basis in any country of Latin America. The utterly parasitic role of capitalism in the whole of Latin America is indicated in Bolivia, and in all the other countries, by the fact that the state has to prop up the entire economy by means of public investment. This is even the case in Brazil, in spite of all the nonsense which is talked about the role of private enterprise in that country. In spite of the marvellous revolutionary traditions of the Bolivian proletariat, a section of the student and petty bourgeois youth, repelled by reformism, and influenced by the example of the Cuban revolution and the ideas of Che Guevara, took to the road of guerillaism. The disastrous result of those movements was the reactionary coup d’etat of General Banza in 1971. Even before Chile and Argentina, Bolivian capitalism embarked on the road of attempting to solve its problems by strapping society within the straitjacket of military rule. But, as El País the Spanish liberal paper commented wittily at the time of the attempted coup in Spain, „You cannot arrest unemployment and shoot inflation.“ A sure sign of the rottenness of capitalism in Bolivia, is the incredible fact that these generals towards the end of their rule were obliged to resort to international illegal drug trade, in order to maintain themselves in power. They based themselves on the cocaine trade. It wasn’t such a bad racket, while it lasted! In just one year from the narcotics trade, they got $3,000 million. Whereas the tin industry brought in only $400 million, and the total foreign trade was only $1,000 million. This illegal dealing brought in three times more than the total foreign trade!

As an indication of the enormous revolutionary potential of the Latin American proletariat, once again this regime was brought to its knees by the working class, through general strikes, political strikes, barricades and street fighting, in the period of 1979 to 1980. It was this movement of the Bolivian working class which compelled the junta to concede new elections which resulted in the election of Hernan Siles in 1980. Siles was quickly forced out by another coup, but at the end of last year, once again, on the basis of the enormous movements of the working class, the Bolivian junta was finally compelled to hand over power, and what amounts to a popular front government was formed with ministers from the UDP, the MIR, the Communist Party. Of course, the ministry of mines and labour naturally enough was occupied by the Communist Party! These people, like the Bourbons learn nothing and forget nothing. To complete the happy picture, for good measure, an army officer and a Christian Democrat were duly offered portfolios. The bourgeois commentators of the Economist just a few months ago were rubbing their hands in glee because this monster, the Bolivian proletariat, had finally calmed down as a result of the conceding of democratic rights and a democratically elected government. However, the real state of affairs was graphically shown by the reaction of Señor Siles who was still an exile in neighbouring Peru, when he heard that there was an offer of power. This „democrat“ was somewhat less than enthusiastic, as shown by his initial comment: „They want to crucify me!“, And looking at the state of the Bolivian economy we would have to agree with him! As in Chile and as in Argentina, the lunacy of monetarism has reduced the Bolivian economy to ruins. A devaluation of the money of 1,000%. Inflation at one stage was 600%. And this after 18 years in power! The Bolivian military were divided, disoriented and demoralised. And they are haunted by the spectre of another 1952. We have to be absolutely clear that to resort to bourgeois democracy under social conditions of this nature is an absolute utopia. There is no way out along that avenue. And the gentlemen on the editorial board of the Economist were rubbing their hands a little bit prematurely. This summer there was a massive demonstration of 100,000 workers in the streets of La Paz against the economic policy of the Siles government. A quote from Le Monde Diplomatique of August 1983 written before this demonstration, already showed the fear of the leaders of the labour movement in Bolivia at the enormous discontent seething within the class, which cannot be satisfied within the limits of bourgeois democracy: „On this occasion,“ the article says, „trade unions seem to be overwhelmed by their rank and file,“ and then it goes on to quote a Bolivian worker:“We care little about politics and the change of government. What we want is the minimum wage and then all the rest.“ This was the kind of thing that you could hear in that inner sanctum of the workers movement in the mining district of Siglo Veinte. This demonstration which took place on the 2nd of August was calling for, first of all, the nationalisation of the banks, and secondly, the repudiation of all foreign debts. The whole problem in Bolivia is that the working class have the power, but they do not know that they have the power.

What strikes one when looking at the map of Central and South America is the complete absence of any ray of hope for the bourgeois, of the absence of any stable bourgeois country on the entire continent. The strategists of capital placed their hopes on Brazil as an apparently stable capitalist country which actually benefited considerably by the growth in industry under the economic world boom. They talked about the „Brazilian miracle,“ and on the face of it there was a miracle, with the important development of industry, for example, in São Paulo, which harbours the most important concentration of industry in the whole continent. And yet, like the famous „hut on chickens‘ legs“ of Russian fable, as soon as the first cold wind began to blow, that structure fell with a resounding crash. At this moment in time Brazil’s foreign debt amounts to $75,000 million – second only to Mexico, and since 1979 the interest charges have been greater than the amortisation of capital in Brazil.

This opens up a situation similar to that in Germany in the 1920’s and like the Spanish revolution in 1931. Faced with an enormous popular unrest, and with the dictatorship exhausted, the generals were compelled to call an election, not a general election, but elections for the governors of the different states. Despite the scandalous rigging of the elections, the opposition parties, particularly the bourgeois MDB made considerable progress. A similar phenomenon to what took place in Greece after the fall of the junta, when Karamanlis originally got the advantage, or in Spain where the UCD originally obtained a majority. In the same way, as an indication of the break-up of the dictatorship, in Brazil the MDB, this bourgeois liberal party, now won the elections in São Paulo. What this really demonstrates, if we bear in mind that the UCD in Spain were in power for five years, is the extension of the same process of „italianisation“ – of a long drawn out process of revolution – which we have seen in Europe, to Latin America also. For this reason, in these first elections, the Workers Party did not get a big vote. Nevertheless, as an anticipation of the shape of things to come, the so-called Democratic Labour Party of Brizola, which is a split of the old Labour Party of Goulart, overthrown in 1964, won the elections in Rio de Janeiro. Obviously the intention of the bourgeois is to hold up Brazil as an example of the slow gradual reform movement from the top to prevent the revolution from below. But that perspective is completely untenable, as the subsequent developments have shown. At this moment in time there are between 25 and 30 million unemployed in Brazil. 777,000 of these are in São Paulo, and of these unemployed, no fewer than 444,000 have lost their jobs in the last eighteen months. Yet, despite this catastrophic position, the IMF have demanded a further slow-down in the economy of another 2 or 4% this year. Inflation stands at around 100%, and the living standard of the average Brazilian has fallen by about 5% in the last two years. Under conditions such as these, the idea of a slow gradual, controlled reform, is absolutely out of the question. The governors had scarcely had time to warm their seats in their places before they were confronted with an enormous upheaval in São Paulo. 2,000 people tried to storm the „liberal“ governor’s residence in São Paulo and 70,000 metal workers struck in support of their demands. The situation is extremely volatile in Brazil. It could change very quickly. The only alternative for the bourgeois is to pile cuts upon cuts, which will inevitably mean social convulsions, reflected first of ai! through the ranks of the trade unions, and later through the Workers‘ Party.

In neighbouring Uruguay, the decomposition of the military dictatorship has now sparked off a big mass movement, indicated by two national days of protest. As in Chile and Argentina, the application of monetarist economic policies has led to ruin, mass unemployment and misery. The splits in the ruling clique were revealed in an interview with one of the bourgeois „opposition“ leaders, published in The Times on the 3rd of October this year, who claimed that: „the military are worried by the prospect of Chilianisation, of increasing violence. So they are thinking of reaching an agreement with us.“ He adds, „The problem is that they are divided, and their policies are incoherent. President Alvarez has emerged as a hard-liner, in favour of clamping down again and extending his presidential term for another five years. Against him an important sector of the army wants to lift the lid on what they see as a pressure cooker which is in danger of exploding.“ (My emphasis, A. W.)

The army officers, sensing the ground shake under their feet, have lost all confidence in their ability to rule. One section seeks to hang on at all costs, while another frantically tries to take refuge behind the shirt-tails of the „moderate and responsible“ opposition leaders.

The cowardly nature of the Uruguayan bourgeois liberals is adequately revealed by their willingness even to let the officers responsible for mass murder, torture and the most hideous atrocities go free, in exchange for a ministerial portfolio. It is hard to read the following words by one of these „heroes of democracy“ without a shudder of revulsion:

“The officers argued,“ he explains „that they had to obtain information from prisoners, and that the information could save the lives of some of their comrades. Therefore they used methods of interrogation which go against the spirit and letter of our constitution (!). For them it was a matter of solidarity (yes, you read that correctly). Officers who did not use these methods were seen as traitors to their comrades. Now these guerillas no longer exist, but those methods continue. Even the most moderate officers will not tolerate any questioning of their role in human rights violations.“

The cowardly bowing and scraping of the bourgeois „democrats“ before the army generals will not prevent the masses from taking revenge once the working class moves to get rid of its oppressors. In reality, the army officers are a million times more perceptive than their liberal „opponents“ when they liken the situation to a pressure cooker which is in danger of exploding. The fact that they do not even attempt to prohibit the „pots and pans“ demonstrations, which, as in Chile, have also spread to the middle-class district of Montevideo, is an open admission of weakness. The movement is too generalised. If the Alvarez wing of the military hang on too long, like Pinochet, they could provoke an explosion which would be difficult to control. But even if they attempt to move from the top – and even Alvarez has been forced to promise an election for November 1984 – that could merely open the floodgate for all the accumulated, pent-up rage of the masses. In any case, the fate of Uruguay is intimately bound up with events in Argentina on the other side of the River Plate, where the revolutionary process has already begun.

Wherever you look in Latin America, there is no lack of inflammable material. The bourgeois have no real base of support anywhere in the continent. Take Venezuela, the fifth exporter of oil in the world. In this country 70% of the population live in abject misery below the poverty line. And with the falling price of oil Venezuela has also gone into crisis. If we turn to the formerly „solid“ military dictatorships in the Southern Cone, as it is known, the absolute correctness of the analysis which we made of these regimes in the past emerges with complete clarity. When all other tendencies in the labour movement, from the right and left reformists and the Stalinists to the „Heinz 57 varieties” of sectarians were weeping and wailing about fascism in Chile, our tendency explained on the basis of sober-minded analysis that the Pinochet dictatorship was an inherently unstable regime, a regime of crisis, which, despite its brutal. methods, could never succeed in crushing and atomising the working class in the same way as the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco before the war. The events of the recent months have illustrated the position of the regime in Chile. History can sometimes play some cruel tricks and it has just played one on Pinochet. Because, as well as workers on the anti-government demonstrations, there were also middle class housewives banging empty pots – the same housewives who banged those empty pots in 1973! Even the lorry drivers, who played a major role in the overthrow of Allende, have also been involved in the recent days of action against Pinochet. The crisis of capitalism has also driven these layers of society to desperation as revealed by the words of one of the lorry drivers, interviewed in a Spanish paper, who, when asked why he was supporting the strike, said, „Well, you can’t win. Under Allende we had plenty of money but the shops were empty. You couldn’t buy anything. But now the shops are full of all kinds of goods but we have got no money to buy anything, so that’s why we’re supporting the strike.“ In these few words is summed up the absolute bankruptcy of the economic strategists of capital. Chile was going to be the classical monetary experiment of how monetarist methods were going to save the economy. And it is true that initially inflation did fall. But the price of that was the devastation of the whole of the Chilean economy. In 1982, the Chilean Gross Domestic Product suffered an absolutely horrendous collapse of 14%. This figure must be absolutely unprecedented in the world. No less than one-third of the workforce is unemployed in Santiago. In the first three months of this year, unemployment increased by 300% and at the same time inflation, which was supposed to have been cured by this policy, is now increasing once again, which means they will get the worst of all worlds.

The Chilean dictatorship, like its counterparts in Uruguay, is like a pressure cooker with the safety valve clamped down. The workers and peasants have lived through the nightmare of repression with over 50,000 murdered, tens and hundreds of thousands of people arrested, tortured and beaten. Yet once the working class decides to move, no amount of police, no amount of armies, no amount of bullets can stop them. It is an undisputed fact that the motor force of all change that has taken place in the Southern cone and the whole of Latin America in the last few months and years has been the proletariat. Undoubtedly if there existed a genuinely revolutionary leadership in Chile at the present time the Chilean working class would be on the eve of the seizure of power.

We have said many times that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a revolutionary situation: firstly, the ruling class should be split, divided, disorientated and unable to continue its rule in the old way. Within the Chilean ruling class and even within the Junta the divisions and splits have acquired a comic aspect. Christian Democratic bourgeois leaders who supported the coup d’état in 1973 are jostling each other to get a place in the long queue of former supporters of the junta fighting to obtain their democratic credentials. Pinochet obliges by putting them in jail, just for a few days, of course, and then releasing them to the glare of press publicity. „Conversions“ are taking place far more miraculously than when Saul fell off his horse on the way to Damascus. General Leigh, one of the principle organisers of the coup, who has also miraculously become a „democrat“, the bourgeois which is implicated in all the crimes of the junta, now go on bended knees to beg Pinochet, „Please can we have democracy. Please can we have reform.“

From a bourgeois point of view they are absolutely right of course, but there is just a slight snag – General Pinochet, after ten years, likes being in power! It is quite amusing to read the statements of General Leigh weeping and sobbing: „We have a President who just won’t listen!“ And Leigh has understood more than Pinochet. He has understood that if they do not get concessions from the top now, then they undoubtedly risk a revolutionary explosion, which might mean losing control of the situation entirely.

The second condition that Lenin put forward was that there should be a ferment among the middle layers of society who would vacillate between the ruling class and the proletariat. The movement of the middle class housewives and the movement of the lorry owners now clearly indicates that this regime has no social basis of support whatsoever. The third condition is that the working class should be prepared for the greatest sacrifice and the greatest struggle. We have seen in the recent months the enormous heroism of the Chilean working class beginning with the copper miners, against all the odds, „storming heaven“ in the words of Marx, in their struggle against the dictatorship.

Unfortunately, Lenin’s final condition for a revolutionary situation is still absent in Chile – the existence of a revolutionary leadership of the working class. Yet the objective condition for bringing about a socialist revolution in Chile could hardly be more favourable. Because if Pinochet insists, as he has done up to date, in clinging onto power, a social explosion is undoubtedly on the order of the day in the next few months in that country. The bourgeois would clearly love to ditch Pinochet (hence the attitude of the leaders of the Christian Democrats), but like the Old Man of the Sea, the generalissimo clings to its back, and despite its moans and complaints, forces it to stumble along on the road to disaster.

As predicted by the Marxists, the regime has been left suspended in mid-air the moment the workers began to move. Far from a fascist regime, it is a regime of disintegrating Bonapartism, which has only lasted in power for so long on the basis of the temporary inertia of the masses. Now this situation is ended. Once the working class senses its own power – and that is always the result of mass class action – no amount of police and bullets can stop it. The arrests and killings no longer have the same effect, and the masses have lost their fear. The hundreds of arrests after the earlier days of action have not prevented new and more widespread movements, in which the masses of the middle class have been drawn behind the proletariat. At this moment of writing, there has been a new demonstration – on the 11 October – with 100,000 participants, accompanied by an increasingly widespread strike movement.

Already, at the first signs of mass opposition, the international strategists of capital have become alarmed at the prospect of an explosion in Chile. On the 17 May, six days after the 11 May day of action The Times wrote: „If unemployment continues to grow and unrest spreads, General Pinochet may be put in a position where his critics can no longer be silenced by fears of imprisonment, torture or exile. The only solution then might be a change of government able to introduce new economic policies.“ These few lines clearly express both the anxiety of the international bourgeoisie and the cold, calculated cunning of the strategists of capital. The capitalist class is not particularly concerned about the forms by which it rules society. The question of „dictatorship“ or „democracy“ for these people is entirely a secondary matter, provided that their rent, interests and profits are left untouched.

This is the explanation for the touching concern which is suddenly being expressed by all the capitalist governments at the „violation of human rights“ in Chile. These scoundrels who applauded and actively supported the Pinochet regime with all its murders and tortures, now hypocritically unite in a chorus in favour of „democracy“. The same US embassy, which in September 1973 acted as the organising centre for the counter-revolution, now keeps open house for the stream of Christian Democratic and other „oppositional“ guests „who seek the blessing of Washington for the kind of „democratic“ (i.e. bourgeois) alternative advocated by The Times – if Pinochet should falter.

In this way, a terrible trap is being prepared for the workers and peasants of Chile. Fearing that the first line of defence of banks and the monopolies, represented by the armed thugs of the junta, is overthrown by the movement of the masses, these cunning schemes are busily preparing a second line of resistance represented by the Christian Democrats and the other so-called „democratic“ forces. The idea is to send the masses back to the school of bourgeois democracy, where they will learn a harsh lesson, with exhortations to accept „austerity‘ and „sacrifice“ in order to „“consolidate democracy“. This, in turn, would prepare the way for the return to a new, and even more vicious dictatorship within four, five or six years, on the basis of the demoralisation and „despair of the masses. Unfortunately, the leaders of the main workers‘ organisations have fallen into the trap prepared by the class enemy. The leaders of the SP are participating in a joint „opposition“ platform, including the Christian Democrats and bourgeois radicals. The „Communist“ Party only remains outside this body because it is not allowed to join! Other than that, there are no differences. „He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.“ The Pinochet regime is finished. Its final collapse may be measured in months rather than years. But if the leaders of the main workers‘ parties – the SP and CP – persist in this present attitude, then, once again, victory will be snatched from the grasp of the Chilean working class. A coalition government of class collaboration with the bourgeois „democratic“ parties will lead to a new catastrophe for the masses. On the basis of bankrupt Chilean capitalism, no way forward is possible. However, the lessons of the last ten years have not been lost on the working class. Above all, the active layers of the SP and CP, especially the youth, will be highly critical of the policy of class collaboration with the Christian Democratic leaders, whose hands are stained by their support for the crimes of the junta. The entry of the workers‘ leaders into a coalition government will very quickly lead to internal crises and splits within these organisations. The rank and file will not be prepared to accept a sell-out, and will demand the implementation of socialist polices, in defence of the interests of the workers and peasants, for the punishment of those guilty of terrible crimes against the people, for the nationalisation of the property of the quisling bankers and capitalists who collaborated with Pinochet.

In this way, the road will be open for the re-arming of the workers‘ organisations on the basis of revolutionary Marxism – the real tradition of the Chilean labour movement – as the basic pre-requisite for the conquest of power.

There is one country on the Latin American continent which, at this moment in time, is of absolutely vital strategic importance to the revolution, and that country is Argentina. Because of its key position, its developed economy, and above all because of the specific weight of its proletariat, with great revolutionary traditions, in many ways, it is similar to those of the Spanish proletariat in the past.

Along with Chile, Argentina shows the absolute bankruptcy of monetarism, as practiced by the most notorious Friedmanite witch-doctor in Latin America – Martinez de Hoz. In every field, his policies had exactly the opposite effect to that intended.

The declared aim of de Hoz’s policy was the „fight against inflation‘. Yet inflation is now running at 300%. He was going to „restore the profitability of industry“. Yet industry was operating at only 55% of capacity in 1982, and has got worse since then. He promised (with tongue-in-cheek, no doubt) to „preserve wage levels“. But with wages frozen and runaway inflation, wages have suffered a complete collapse. Taking 1975 as a base of 100, wages in 1981 stood at the level of 44, and now, obviously, the situation is still grimmer. Like Thatcher and Reagan, he was going to „limit public expenditure”. Yet, current public expenditure went from 22% of the Gross National Product in 1976 to 31% in 1981. The only sector to benefit from this monetarist lunacy was parasitic finance capital. In just one year – 1978 – interest charges tripled. There has been a chain of bankruptcies. Unemployment has soared. The external debt had reached $40 billion even before the Falklands‘ War. The Friedmanite medicine of the „cheap dollar” lead to the destruction of the national industry to the point where the foreign trade of this once prosperous exporting country does not even cover the interest on foreign loans. This is how the Argentinian variant of Thatcherism „solved“ the economic crisis! The witch-doctors of monetarism could well adopt as their motto the celebrated phrase of the Roman historian Tacitus: „And when they have created a wilderness, they call it peace“.

For example, in 1975, the peso was 28 to the dollar. In 1982, there were 20,000 pesos to the dollar. This single fact reflects like a thermometer the chronic sickness of the capitalist regime in Argentina. At the same time, alongside the mass unemployment and the starvation, and the misery, there sits this hateful incubus, the horrible corruption of the military regime in that country. At a time of national catastrophe, military expenditure has increased from 2.5% of the Gross National Product, in 1974, to 4.5% in 1982. That is to say, it has almost doubled, while everything else has collapsed. It is quite amusing that Martinez de Hoz, this ferocious monetarist, said that another one of his aims was to pass „from a speculative economy to a productive economy“. Yet the years of military rule have seen the unbridled spread of the most terrible corruption, swindling, and embezzling at all levels of activity, both state and public.

Just in the period from 1976 to ’79, a minimum of $20,000 million disappeared from the Argentine economy through embezzlement. We will just cite one small anecdote to illustrate the situation. About two years ago, an Argentinian newspaper published the fact that the general in charge of the railway lines had at his disposal private railway carriages for the exclusive convenience of his pet dog. This canine representative of the military caste had to be received with full military honours at every railway station. The station manager had to come out and salute, open the door for him, and treat him with full military honours! In fairness to the regime, as soon as it was published, they took immediate action – they arrested the journalist! This little incident is an indication of the most hideous and unparalleled corruption, which is visible to anybody in Argentina, and co-exists with the terrible collapse of the living standards of the masses. Wages in Argentina in 1975 were 45.4% of the GNP. In 1978 the figure was 28.6% – a collapse of wages. The Falklands War, as the Marxist tendency anticipated in advance, had a similar effect in Argentina as the war with Japan in 1904 – ’05 had for Tsarist Russia. It served to expose the morass of inefficiency, and monstrous corruption, and undermine totally the ruling clique.

Militant explained in advance that an Argentine defeat in the Falklands conflict would inevitably lead to the social revolution in Argentina, and that has been shown to be correct. The Argentine regime is a hundred times more rotten, and a hundred times more isolated than the Franco regime ever was in the last two or three years of the life of that dictator. All of the factors exist for a classical revolutionary situation in the Argentine all, that is, bar one, the revolutionary leadership.

The splits and divisions within the Argentine junta go far beyond anything that has ever been seen in any comparable dictatorship in recent history. There is no honour among thieves, and there is certainly no honour whatsoever among these „gentlemen“, each one of whom is trying to pass the blame for the military defeat and the economic crisis onto his fellow officers. Months ago, El País, the Spanish liberal paper, published an interview with an Argentine officer, one of those monsters personally involved in the slaughter of unarmed prisoners at the time of the repression. This „officer and gentleman’“ was tearfully apologising, and was now very sorry for these young people he had personally murdered and dumped in the River Plate, but hastened to add that he had an insurance policy, a list to be stashed away in a bank of other officers involved in similar events, just in case they put him on trial. … These splits in the military élite are sufficient evidence for the existence of a classical revolutionary situation in Argentina. The decay in the army was graphically revealed a few months ago, in a demonstration organised by the military to celebrate the Falklands victory, when a group of veterans, many of them limbless, in wheelchairs, organised a protest denouncing the leaders and the officers, and yet not one of those demonstrators was arrested. In other words, there would be nothing to stop the Argentinian proletariat, once they moved to take power.

And yet in spite of everything, we see the cowardly behaviour of the leaders of the so-called „Multipartidaria“, the leaders of the opposition who are striving with might and main to reach a deal with the military, even on the question of the missing persons in order to head off the movement of the working class. It is the cowardly and treacherous nature of these so-called liberals and „democrats“, and this alone, which prevents the decisive victory of the working class. Their whole psychology was revealed in an article published in Le Monde Diplomatique of November of last year, which says the following, „In spite of the unpopularity of the ruling class, the parties have not yet managed to work out an alternative policy capable of mobilising the population and giving it hope“, and it goes on: „Faced with this opportunity, the parties and trade unions either could not, or would not adopt an independent attitude which would have enabled them to fully assume their role as popular forces concerned with isolating the adversary in power.“ This bourgeois commentator concludes, „The Junta could see its own weakness, but in the absence of an alternative solution did not feel itself to be excessively threatened.“ These „opposition“ leaders, like the reformist leaders in Russia in February 1917, like the reformist and Stalinist leaders in Spain in 1936, have no faith whatsoever the masses and no understanding of the situation in which they find themselves. These wretched, petty bourgeois opportunists, have only one idea in their heads, and that is to hand over power to anybody, except the working class. Fly to Madrid to beg „Isobelita“ to return. Find some bourgeois, some professor, some „democratic“ general, and hand over power to him! In spite of everything, and in particular, in spite of themselves, these elements will be pushed, kicking and screaming by the working class and forced to assume power in Argentina in the immediate future.

On the face of it, one might imagine that we are going back to 1973, when Perón returned from Spain to assume the leadership of the Peronist movement. It is as though the film of history is being replayed. But history never repeats itself exactly the same way on two occasions; 1983 is not 1973. The history of the last ten years has not passed in vain as far as the Argentinian working class youth is concerned. This ruling class and the military are a thousand times more demoralised and disorientated now than they were in 1973. On the other hand, the Argentinian working class has never enjoyed greater strength, greater cohesion and greater confidence in its own power. At least temporarily, the disease of terrorism has given way before the movement of the masses in Argentina. But there is a third element in this situation that is a decisive difference from ten years ago, and that is that now the workers, or at least the more active layers, will be increasingly sceptical of the role of the old Peronist leaders. Undoubtedly, the politically untutored masses will still have considerable illusions in the myths of Peronism. However, an important layer of the advanced workers, and especially the youth, are in the process of drawing conclusions far more advanced than the old ideas. For their part, the Peronist official leaders are permeated through and through with pessimism. This was revealed in a brief quote, from a statement made by one of them, D Bittel, in a speech on the 13 May of this year: „More than once we have seen in opinion polls that people say that the military are bad, but now the politicians are coming back who are the same or worse. The truth is that not all citizens are desperate for the return of the politicians, because many do not believe in them.“ The leaders of the Peronist trade union organisations are terrified of the perspective that opens up following the formation of the Peronist government, and, in these circumstances, there will inevitably be an enormous process of ferment, of radicalisation and above all of splits, and the beginning of a process of differentiation between the left and right within the Peronist movement, particularly in the unions and in the youth. This in turn will open up enormous possibilities for the spread of revolutionary Marxist ideas within the Peronist movement in Argentina.

The essence of a revolution is the direct intervention of the masses in the life of society and politics. But the masses decide to take their destiny into their own hands only as a last resort, when it becomes clear to all that the existing order of things has become utterly intolerable, is incompatible with their very existence. Then the idea „becomes generalised: „Things can’t go on like this any longer“.

Such a profound break in the psychology of the masses has already taken place in Argentina. The elemental movement of the mighty Argentinian proletariat, which has burst upon the scene in the massive demonstrations, strikes and general strikes of recent months, show that the Argentine revolution has already begun.

The parallel between the movement unfolding in Argentina and the situation which existed in Spain following the fall of the monarchy in 1931 are both timely and instructive. The analysis then made by Leon Trotsky of the situation in Spain – taking into consideration all the differences and variations – has a direct bearing on the events in Argentina. And above all, the fundamental conclusion of Trotsky retains its full validity for the Argentine revolution:

“Social life in Spain was condemned to revolve in a vicious circle so long as there was no class capable of taking the solution of the revolutionary problem into its own hands. The appearance of the Spanish proletariat on the historic arena radically changes the situation and opens up new prospects. In order to grasp this properly it must first be understood that the establishment of the economic dominance of the big bourgeoisie and the growth of the proletariat’s political significance definitely prevents the petty bourgeoisie from occupying a leading position in the political life of the country.

The question of whether the present revolutionary conclusions can produce a genuine revolution, capable of reconstructing the very basis of national life, is consequently reduced to whether the Spanish proletariat is capable of taking the leadership of the national life into its hands. There is no other claimant to this role in the Spanish nation.“ (Trotsky The Revolution in Spain – my emphasis, AW).

Before drawing these conclusions, the Argentinian masses will first seek to find a solution to their problems within the framework of the old order, pursuing the line of least resistance, in the old, well-trodden path of Peronism. But the Peronist leaders will come to power under completely changed conditions. Perón was able to give big concessions in the past on the basis of a strong economy, under conditions of capitalist world upswing which created a demand for Argentine exports, such as beef. Now all that has changed. The economy is in ruins. The monetarist quackery has been tried and found wanting. The alternative of Keynesian deficit financing, where inflation has already reached 300%, would cause a complete catastrophe. A „siege economy“ under modern conditions would have the same effect. On a capitalist basis „all roads lead to ruin.“

The perspectives for Argentina are not the peaceful „consolidation of democracy“, but new convulsions, crises and class war. The old Peronist myth of „class harmony“ and „National Unity“ will not survive for long under these conditions. The Peronist movement will inevitably split along class lines.

Already, even before the formation of a Peronist government, the workers have spontaneously moved from below to begin the task of transforming their traditional organisations, beginning with the unions. Old Peronist union bureaucrats have been pushed aside and replaced by younger, more militant elements. In some areas, the workers have even occupied the union buildings to physically eject union leaders who collaborated with the Junta.

The formation of a Peronist government despite the character and bourgeois policies of the leaders will have a powerfully radicalising effect on the masses. Despite the so-called „law of self-amnesty“ by which the generals seek to avoid punishment for their crimes against the people, it is not ruled out that the masses will take the law into their own hands. If they do not get out quickly (as the notorious Astiz already has), they could find themselves decorating the lamp-posts of Buenos Aires. The mood of the masses would be similar to that of the Spanish workers after the victory of the Popular Front in 1936.

The Argentine ruling class and the military are broken and demoralised. With proper leadership, the Argentinian workers could take power tomorrow, without bloodshed and civil war. But this exceptionally favourable situation will not last.

The crisis and decay of Argentine capitalism spells frightful social dislocation, upheavals and chaos. If the proletariat, under a conscious revolutionary leadership, does not act decisively to cut short the death agony of the system, then a nightmare situation will arise. Within three to five years, on the basis of an open confrontation between the classes, the ruling class will see no alternative but to take to the road of civil war in order to crush the workers‘ organisations and destroy the embryo of the new society within the old. A new Junta in Buenos Aires would make the former one look like child’s play by comparison.

Within the ranks of the Peronist Youth the idea of preparing for the inevitable struggle is already being discussed by the most advanced layers. It should not be forgotten that the Montoneros, the armed wing of the Peronist Youth, who regarded and still regard themselves as Marxists, were not a terrorist group in the same sense as other groups in Latin America, but a significant tendency within the mass organisations of Peronism, which under correct leadership, could have evolved into a genuine workers‘ militia.

The events of the last decade have drawn a line of blood between the classes in Argentina which no amount of hypocrisy or demagogy can erase. If the leaders of Peronism were Marxists instead of bourgeois careerists and mafioso-type gangsters, the working class could now take power peacefully, without a civil war. But the refusal of the reformists to take power and their class collaborationist policies, as Lenin explained, ultimately make violence and bloodshed inevitable.

The Marxist criticism of individual terrorism has nothing in common with sentimentality or pacifism. The idea of the Montoneros, who represented a very heroic and self-sacrificing section of the Youth, of arming for the struggle against reaction was, in itself, correct. But arms without a programme to win over the masses and appeal to the rank-and-file of the army, would be of little use, as demonstrated by the ease with which the generals took power, ruthlessly exterminating the Montoneros, in spite of their heroism.

What is needed first and foremost is a programme and a policy capable of winning over the masses. All the problems of the workers – wages, hours, conditions, democratic rights, the „missing persons“ must be taken up in the form of transitional demands, including the demand for the arming of the workers against the danger of reaction. There is a burning hatred in the hearts of the masses against the oppressors which finds its expression in the amorphous Peronist slogan: „Against imperialism. Against the Oligarchy. Against the Landlords.“ But this idea must be given concrete content. The anger of the masses against „the generals who sold the nation” must also be directed against the landlords, bankers and capitalists who propped up the Junta. For the expropriation of the property of the British and American Imperialists! For the nationalisation of the Quisling bankers and capitalists! For the purging of the army of all fascist elements, the trial of the murderers and torturers by a people’s court, trade union rights for soldiers and the election of army officers!

All these slogans must be used in a skilful way to win the masses to the idea of the socialist transformation of society. Behind the confused ideas of Peronism, what the Argentinian workers aspire to is workers‘ power. And all these partial, transitional demands must be summed,up in the idea of the Argentine workers‘ republic, a real workers‘ democracy, based on the control and administration of society at all levels by the working people themselves.

An Argentine Workers‘ Republic would act as a beacon to the workers and peasants struggling for their emancipation throughout the continent. Its attractive power would be irresistible. The neighbouring regime in Uruguay, now hanging by a thread, would fall immediately, sending shock waves to Brazil, which would not be far behind. The revolutionary movement in Chile, in any event, is only one step behind that of Argentina. The conditions for the success of the socialist revolution are now not only ripe, but rotten ripe on a continental scale.

Such is the situation brought about by the impasse of capitalism that the victory of the proletariat in any one of the countries under consideration here would spark off an immediate chain reaction. In particular, the victory of the mighty Argentinian working class would shake the foundations of capitalism on a world scale.

It would be a repetition of the events of the period from 1917 to 1921 on an immeasurably higher scale. The revolutions which took place in the colonial world following World War Two – China, Cuba, Vietnam and so on – did not have a particular appeal for the working class of the advanced capitalist countries because they took the form of monstrously deformed bureaucratic, totalitarian states. This was inevitable on the basis of peasant wars and guerilla struggles, where the leading role was not played by the working class. In the absence of a conscious Marxist leadership and the hegemony of the working class, a guerilla war based on the peasantry, in the event of success, would inevitably lead to. Bonapartist rule, either of a bourgeois or proletarian character, but never to socialism, which implies the conscious movement of the working class.

The fundamental difference between the revolutions in Central America and the revolutionary process now unfolding in the Southern Cone of Latin America consists precisely in the crushing preponderance of the proletariat in the revolution.

The victory of the working class in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay or Brazil would necessarily have an entirely different character to the revolution in Cuba or Nicaragua. It would only take the form of a healthy workers‘ democracy, a regime similar to that which existed in the first period of the Russian Revolution under Lenin and Trotsky. After the terrible experience of military dictatorship, the Argentinian and Chilean workers would never tolerate the imposition of a one-party totalitarian police state, once having eliminated the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The Russian workers‘ state degenerated on bureaucratic lines because it was isolated in a backward peasant country with a very narrow industrial base. Argentina, despite the ravages of the „Chicago Boys“ is still one of the most industrially developed countries of Latin America, alongside Brazil. The democratic socialist planning of the economy would rapidly develop the enormous economic potential of this land so highly favoured by nature, and enable it to play the role destined to it by history, a role which the Argentinian bourgeois has always dreamed about, but has never been able to fulfil On the basis of undreamed of prosperity, a socialist Argentina could rapidly introduce a 35-hour week, then a 30-hour week, with the equivalent of a £100 a week minimum wage for all, as the material prerequisite for the participation of the masses in the development of democracy and culture. A crash housing programme would rapidly eliminate the festering slum districts and give new life and hope to the most benighted and despairing sections of society, raising them to a level worthy of true human beings.

Such a gigantic conquest would send an electric shock through the entire world, not just the colonial countries, but to the advanced capitalist countries, and in particular the USA.

A socialist Argentina would be the prelude to the creation of a Socialist Federation of Latin America – an ideal and a hope, with profound historical roots, at least as old as Simón Bolívar’s wars against the Spanish oppressor. Many decades of Balkanisation have taken their toll. The living body of Latin America has been sundered for so long that it is no longer possible to refer with complete accuracy to the Latin American Nation. And yet, deep in the recesses of the consciousness of the masses of this continent there still lies a glimmer of the old aspiration and drive towards unity. For, without that unity, Latin America would forever be incapable of realising its enormous potential. It is no accident that the pioneers of the Chilean Socialist Party inscribed on its banner the idea of the Socialist Federation of Latin America. On the basis of the dovetailing of the economies in a common plan of production for the whole continent, what miracles could be achieved! Here is a continent racked by misery, disease and starvation, yet with untold reserves of mineral wealth, of vast expanses of rich agricultural land and forests, of huge rivers to provide irrigation and hydro-electric power – in short, of everything that is required to turn Latin America from a backward corner of our planet into the advanced guard of civilisation and human progress.

Mexico, for example, is the world’s biggest producer of arsenic, the third of barite and antimony and the fourth of sulphur. It has huge untapped resources of oil, coal, tin, iron, manganese, phosphates and radioactive minerals. Yet only fifteen percent of the surface area of this country has been explored, and experts consider that sixty-five percent contains mineral wealth! Within a period of five or ten years – just a couple of five-year plans would be sufficient to transform the lives of the people of this country which is the third biggest in Latin America, and the ninth in the world.

Brazil’s mineral wealth is proverbial: 25% of the world’s reserves of iron, and big reserves of manganese, nickel, bauxite, tin, lead, copper, chrome, uranium, phosphates, titanium, and precious stones, and possibly the biggest reserves of platinum in the world. Brazil’s potential for hydro-electric energy is enormous: its capacity is 30% greater than the whole of Western Europe, yet on a capitalist basis this potential cannot be fully realised. The full development of Amazonia would, of itself, be sufficient to give every man, woman and child in Latin America a standard of living superior to that of the most developed capitalist nations on earth.

A Socialist Federation which combined the vast human and material resources of Latin America would be a colossus in every respect. Not only would US imperialism be powerless to intervene, but it would signify the beginnings of the socialist revolution in the USA itself.

The stormy developments in Argentina and Chile have placed the socialist revolution firmly on the order of the day in these countries and in the whole continent. The proletariat is the only class capable of leading society out of the impasse in which the crisis of capitalism has thrust it. Either the present struggles will lead to the most dazzling prize, opening a new and glorious chapter in the history of humanity, or to the most terrible of defeats. In the truest sense of the expression used by Leon Trotsky when he spoke of Spain in the period 1931-37, Latin America is now the key to the international situation.

September 1983

Box: In memory of Simón Bolívar

“Let us lay the cornerstone of American freedom without fear, To hesitate is to perish” – Simón Bolívar, March 1811. This year marks the anniversary of the birth of Simón Bolívar „the Liberator” who successfully led the struggle for the emancipation of Latin America from Spanish rule.

Born in Caracas, on 24 July 1783, the son of a wealthy aristocratic family. Bolívar’s evolution was decisively stamped by the great event of the epoch – the French Revolution of 1789 to ’93

The young Bolívar avidly devoured the writings of the most advanced revolutionary writers of the age: Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire, as well as the early European rationalists and materialists of the English school like Locke and Hobbes.

The echoes of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars which shook the foundations of European feudalism and absolutism reached the shores of Spanish America and kindled a spirit of revolt, much as the Russian Revolution had a decisive effect in shaking the million colonial slaves out of the inertia of centuries. All his thinking and active live, Bolívar was the living embodiment of that revolutionary spirit.

In a brilliant audacious military campaign, Bolívar smashed the Spanish forces and entered Caracas on 6 August 1813, where he was given the title of the „Liberator“. But the Spaniards counterattacked, basing themselves on a backward section of the population, the “ Llaneros“ who succeeded in driving the forces of independence from the city. Bolívar was forced to take refuge in Jamaica.

From here he hammered out the lesson to his countrymen: “Not the Spaniards, but our own disunity has led us back to slavery” …

Already Bolívar had developed a vision of a Federation of Latin America where the pooling of all resources would enable the peoples of the continent to step as a decisive force onto the stage of history.

“How infallible it would be if the isthmus of Panama should become for America what the Straits of Corinth were for the Greeks. May God grant that we can some day enjoy the good fortune of opening a congress of representatives of the republics, kingdoms. and empires which would discuss peace and war with the rest of the nations of the world.“

Undeterred by defeat, by a supreme effort of will-power, Bolívar reassembled the forces of independence and began the struggle again. Under indescribably difficult conditions, the revolutionary army crossed rivers, deserts and ice-covered mountains, dislodging the royalist troops from one stronghold after another. from the crucial Battle of Boyacá (17 August 1819) to the surrender of the Spanish viceroy on. December of 1824. by which control of Peru and Columbia fell to the revolutionary forces.

The high point of Bolívar’s career also exposed the weaknesses in his political outlook. The way in which the liberation wars had been conducted – as a prolonged military struggle led by de-classed former aristocrats – and the absence of a strong bourgeois class capable of putting itself forward as the natural ruler of society, inevitably lad him toward Bonapartism – the rule of the sword. These autocratic tendencies, in turn, caused conflicts with the other revolutionary generals.

Thus in the absence of a powerful revolutionary class capable of carrying the bourgeois democratic revolution to a triumphant conclusion. Bolívar’s idea of unifying the whole continent could be no more than a tantalising mirage.

The dreams of the „Liberator‘ turned into a squalid power-struggle between different cliques of army officers and creole aristocrats. In the midst of intrigues, civil wars and assassination attempts, Bolívar’s life was played out. He died of tuberculosis on 17th December 1830.

Today the name of Bolívar is remembered in Latin America as a rallying-call to oppressed peoples to rise in revolt against tyranny and injustice everywhere. His vision of a powerful united Continent is inscribed on the banner of the Latin American proletariat, which is destined to fulfil the vow made by the „Liberator” on the heights of the Monte Sacro, to establish real independence and freedom from fear, oppression and exploitation under the Socialist United States of Latin America.

Box: El Salvador: Guerilla leader confirms position of MIR.

Militant International Review Number 22 (June 1982) carried an article on El Salvador translated from the journal of the Spanish Marxists, Nuevo Claridad: suplemento Latinoamericano.

This article, while giving full support to the guerillas against the monstrous right-wing regime in El Salvador, provided a detailed Marxist analysis of the situation on that country, and pointed out that, if the guerilla leaders had held a correct Marxist policy, basing themselves on the movement of the urban working class in early 1979, they could have taken power in a classical socialist revolution, and thus avoided the costly overheads of a bloody civil war which has already led to tens of thousands killed, without having attained its objectives.

Naturally the Marxist position on guerillaism has not been well received among certain sections who, under the excuse of the undoubted need for international solidarity, refuse to address themselves to the equally pressing need for a clear Marxist analysis of the perspectives for the revolution in Central and South America. It is therefore highly significant that the position put in the aforementioned article in our journal has now received corroboration from no less a source than the leadership of one of the principal guerilla groups in El Salvador.

In the June issue of Le Monde Diplomatique (Spanish Language Edition) published in Mexico, there appeared an interview with Joaquín Villalobos, commander-in-chief of the ERP, written by the well-known Stalinist writer Marta Harnecker. The declarations of Villalobos bear out entirely the analysis made in the MIR and provide a crushing refutation of the arguments of those who, from the safety of their studies in Western Europe and the USA, have consistently advocated uncritical support for the tactic of guerillaism: in Central and South America, while pouring scorn on the classical Marxist position which rests upon the leading role of the urban working class in the socialist revolution.

We print below a verbatim translation of an extract from the Le Monde Diplomatique article:

Was the offensive af January 1981 a mistake?

‚Many peuple saw the January offensive as a military defeat for the FMLN. Others thought that the generalised besieging of barracks had been a mistake. How was it possible to attempt to attack the enemy in the very places where he was most dug in? Nevertheless, commandante Villalobos defends the tactics pursued, explaining their causes and consequences:

“The dispersal of forces when we besieged many barracks throughout the length and breadth of the land” – Joaquín affirms – “was a correct idea within the context of the concept of “rousing the masses to revolt‘. The initial objective”, he explains, “was not to wipe out the army, but to rouse the masses to revolt, and on the basis of this uprising to go on to apply different tactics which would extend from the prolonged besieging of barracks with the help of the masses, right up to the application of measures which would compel the army to move and, in this way, attack it once in motion.”

Nonetheless, he recognises that the FMLN at that moment in time did not possess a very developed technical capacity for the attacking of a mobile enemy, or even one in fixed position, “and the fundamental question at the time was to arouse the masse to insurrection, deriving the military problem from this.”

He also accepts that the option of the insurrectionary road was intimately linked to the experience of the rising tide of the mass movement of the Salvadorian people, the biggest in Latin America, according to his estimate.

What happened in January was that “the right moment for the insurrection had already been lost. There were other situations in which it was possible to aspire towards the seizure of power by this means, as, for example, the situation, that existed during March, April and May of 1979” – the maximum leader of the ERP affirms in the tone of absolute conviction – “in that period – especially following the assassination of Monsignor Romero – there was an enormous upswing of the mass movement. ”The revolutionary movement at the time had the capacity to paralyse the country without any necessity of resorting to military action. 90 per cent of the trade union organisation (“organismos gremiales”) of the working class and the employees were following their instructions.” On the other hand there also existed “a solid peasant movement, rooted in twelve out of the fourteen provinces (“departamentos”) inside enemy territory. Both within the bourgeoisie and the army there were sections willing to do a deal with the revolutionary movement.”

But what happened after that date? The army began to improve “a systematic and massive reign of terror” in the towns and launched big military operations against the zones where the revolutionary organisation had their most solid control in the countryside. “This gave rise to a fall-back of the mass movement and a wearing-out of the revolutionary forces.” (The emphasis has been added.)