[Socialism Today, No 13, Nov 1996, p. 14-18]
The struggles of the ‚popular sectors‘ in Latin America are rapidly growing. But, paradoxically, much of the Latin American left is shifting to the right. Tony Saunois reports.
From the Rio Grande in the north, to Tierra del Fuego in the south, Latin America is a continent in turmoil. During the last three years, mass movements, including general strikes, student and youth protests, land occupations and peasant guerrilla wars, have broken out in country after country.
These mobilisations follow a period of quiescence and disorientation after the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in eastern Europe. This was accompanied by a major change in policy by the Latin American ruling classes. Throughout the continent the bourgeoisie abandoned a policy of state intervention and protectionism. Historically this was decisive in the economic development of Latin American capitalism. The new „neo-liberal‘ measures of privatisation, a dropping of import tariffs and pegging local currencies to the US dollar, have resulted in a social catastrophe.
The new policy reflected the demands of a more global and internationalised economy and was insisted on by the imperialist powers and their international economic institutions. It was willingly accepted by the Latin American ruling class and, with the loss of the ‚model‘ of eastern Europe, even a layer of workers, who initially hoped the new policies would open the way for economic development and greater prosperity.
The change in policy was also in part a consequence of the debt crisis in the 1980s. Since independence in the early nineteenth century, Latin America has experienced a debt crisis at roughly 50 year intervals – the 1820s, 1870s, 1930s and the 1980s. After each, a new capitalist economic model has been attempted for the next 50 years. All were claimed to open the door to enable a long-term development of the continent allowing it to join the most industrialised nations. All have proved to be painful and resulted in more losers than winners. This „new‘ change in policy has been no exception.
Despite the utopian dreams propagated by the bourgeoisie, far from allowing the development of the continent the opposite has occurred. Social depravation has increased and the stranglehold of imperialism has tightened. This has given rise to new social conflicts and heightened contradictions arising from such developments as the attempt to build regional trading blocks, such as the ’southern common market‘, MERCOSUR, of Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay (with Chile as an associate member).
The recent social upheavals represent a new wave of struggle by the Latin American masses, Already they have demonstrated the potential strength of the working class together with other exploited layers to challenge and ultimately defeat capitalism. At the same time, however, they have revealed the need to build new workers‘ organisations if this potential power is to be harnessed. The central task is to reconquer socialism as the alternative to capitalism. Anything less is to offer no solution to the horrors encountered by the Latin American masses.
* *
*
The Argentinean 36-hour general strike at the end of September was a qualitative turning point for the working class. Strikes and uprisings against the cuts and non-payment of wages had previously rocked the provinces. This time 90% of organised workers took part in united action. With wages being driven down to almost the level of the unemployed, fear of job losses could no longer be used to intimidate workers.
Meanwhile, in Columbia, thousands of youth took to the streets to protest against the president, Samper, after revelations that his election campaign had been financed by drug cartels. In the provincial city of Facatativá, 300,000 demonstrated, demanding a cut in electricity prices which had been increased by 300%, while public sector strikes have taken place. These battles have occurred alongside a war in the countryside against the 10,000-strong FARC and ELN.
Paraguay has been rocked by two general strikes which succeeded in derailing an attempted military coup. Bolivia has seen mass protests by teachers and other sectors: two general strikes against privatisation shook the country during 1995 and 1996. Now Uruguay is the latest country to join the list, with a general strike announced for October. To this must be added the public sector struggles and battles of the petrol workers in Brazil. Mexico also is in turmoil.
There is a paradox in the situation which has unfolded in Latin America in the recent period. The degree of combativity which has been demonstrated by the masses has only been matched by the degree to which the leaders of the old workers‘ parties, radical bourgeois formations and guerrilla organisations, have swung to the right. All have dropped even the vaguest reference to socialism. Whilst they argue against „neo-liberalism‘, they mostly fail to explain what the alternative is.
In this, the Latin American Left has chased after its European brothers and sisters. The content of their „new‘ ideas is the same as Blair and Spanish Socialist Party leader Gonzalez in Europe. However, in some respects the depth of their capitulation to capitalism is even greater, because it is against the background of a far worse social crisis and, at this moment in time, a more combative and explosive social movement by the working class and other exploited layers.
The starkest example is shown by the election campaign in Nicaragua. As we go to press, the FSLN, led by Daniel Ortega, is neck and neck in the polls with the right-wing and could possibly win. However, the FSLN has swung dramatically to the right during the election campaign. They have promised not to return to a policy of re-nationalisation or ‚the socialist experiment‘. Ortega has declared that he is in principle against nationalising the companies of the former dictator, Somoza, while signing an agreement with a section of former Contra leaders promising them cabinet posts should the FSLN win the election. Symbolically, the former Sandinista anthem which denounced US imperialism as the enemy of humanity, has been replaced by Beethoven’s ninth symphony. This swing to the right by the FSLN was preceded by other guerrilla groupings who abandoned the struggle in the early 1990s, in some cases establishing parties to contest elections while shifting to the right politically, The most notable were the M-19 in Colombia, which eventually joined the Second International, and the Tupamaros in Uruguay.
* *
*
This process flowed from the consequences of the collapse of the regimes in Eastern Europe. The effect of this was especially dramatic on the Latin American left which generally saw their existence as offering an alternative model. To this was also added the effect of the defeat of the revolution in Nicaragua, with the FSLN’s removal from power in 1990. This same process has also been reflected in the workers‘ parties which have existed in some Latin American countries. In Chile the Socialist Party has entered into a lasting coalition with the Christian Democracy and is supporting a totally pro-capitalist programme. It is a similar story with the „Lula‘ leadership of the Workers‘ Party (PT) in Brazil.
At the recent meeting of the São Paulo forum (the annual conference of Latin American left/radical parties and guerrilla organisations) this swing to the right was sanctioned „theoretically‘. Despite competing trends, most accepted capitalism and the market.
On the one side Lula called for the building of a „New Left‘ and referred to the EZLN conference in Chiapas as the „last Mecca of the Old Left‘. (See report in Socialism Today No.12). The Brazilian PT, the Mexican Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and a section of the former El Salvadorian guerrillas, the FMLN, put the most openly pro-market position and proposed the „construction of a democratic, modern state based on an economy dominated by the market and private property… with a minimum level of justice”.
The Cuban and Salvadorian Communist Parties called for a ’new socialist mode‘. This they argued is represented by China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba. These are countries where there is a clear trend towards the restoration of the market and capitalist property relations despite the maintenance of a Stalinist state machine/bureaucracy which still proclaims itself ’socialist‘.
Despite the declaration of the Cuban CP in favour of a ’new socialist mode‘, one of the most glaring examples of the ideological capitulations which have taken place on the continent has been by Castro. At a recent diplomatic reception he commented how much he admired Spain’s former Popular Party leader, Fraga, the extreme right-winger and ex-minister under the Spanish dictator, Franco. According to Fidel, ‚He is a good man. I would not even mind meeting Margaret Thatcher. In fact, if I had been a European, perhaps I too would have been on the right‘.
In Brazil the PT’s programme in recent local elections was far to the right of anything that it has put forward in the past. The real role of the PT in this period was reflected during last year’s petrol workers‘ strike when Lula attacked the strikers in a television interview and urged them to end their struggle against the privatisation of their industry.
This process has also been repeated in the radical bourgeois formations which in some countries have the support of the working class and important sections of the peasantry. Examples are APRA in Peru, the PRD in Mexico and, most importantly, the Peronist „Justicialist‘ Party in Argentina.
Carlos Menem’s Peronist government has systematically privatised everything which previous Peronist governments had nationalised. It has also brutally destroyed all the concessions given by Peronism in the past to the working class. So intense have these attacks been that the Peronist CGT union federation, for the first time ever, called a general strike against a Peronist government.
The social basis of these parties and movements is being destroyed. As in Europe, the class character of the former workers‘ parties has or is in the process of changing as a consequence of these developments.
In Brazil, it is true, where the Workers‘ Party has never been in government, it is still likely that the PT will maintain an important electoral base. Indeed, the ruling class may at a certain stage use this to its advantage and include the PT or a section of it in a coalition government.
Yet, while the process of a change in the class character of the PT may not yet be fully complete, the party bears no resemblance to its earlier days. It was built as a party rooted in the struggles of the masses at both the workplaces and in the communities. Today it is little more than an electoral machine and functions largely as a parliamentary grouping, its leaders consciously collaborating with the ruling class as, for example, after the mass mobilisations of millions against corruption which forced the resignation of president Collor, when the PT opposed a struggle for new elections which Lula would probably have won.
So, if the process is not yet complete (in the sense that its membership still comprises of many workers), it is very unlikely to be reversed. The swing to the right has not been slowed, for example, during the last two years of struggles by the petrol workers (who play a similar role to that of the British miners in the past), the federal employees strikes, the youth mobilisations or massive movements by the landless. During these battles no new left-wing has emerged from within the PT.
In Argentina, while there is a hankering amongst older workers to return to the ‚good old days of real Peronism‘, as a movement it has been in decline since the end of the 1980s. Amongst the younger generation the Peronists are judged by what ‚Menemismo‘ rather than „Peronismo‘ has given them.
* *
*
The decline of the old left and popular organisations and the absence of a clear alternative is the central issue for the workers movement in Latin America. As recent events have demonstrated, capitalism is in an impasse on the continent while the masses have entered into a struggle against the effects of the ’neo-liberal‘ policies which have been implemented. However, at this first stage in this revival of the mass movement, a clear alternative to capitalism is not being offered. The old organisations have capitulated to capitalism and new ones have not yet emerged to take their place.
Some new political groups have been established. In the main these have been new bourgeois formations with varying degrees of support. In Argentina the Frente Grande was established from a split in Peronism. Cárdenas split from the PRI and formed the PRD in Mexico. The Zapatistas emerged in 1994 as a powerful force in Chiapas. Yet each of these has moved in a rightward direction since their formation.
The reality is that any new force which does not draw the necessary conclusions from the character of the period is compelled by the weight of international capitalism and the concrete conditions they face to accept the demands imposed by the system. In Latin America this choice is especially stark.
The Frente Grande in Argentina was a loose coalition of a capitalist character which has put forward no alternative. It won a protest vote for a period but then declined. Whilst a layer of workers were attracted around it, the front never developed a real base.
While the Mexican PRD has enjoyed much greater support it too has developed in a rightward direction. At an early stage the PRD did attract a mass movement around it and still has important support. However, in reality it has emerged as the democratic face of the government and recently signed a constitutional pact with the PRI and the extreme right-wing party PAN.
The political capitulation by the leaders of the old workers‘ and left organisations, which is linked to the disorientation which followed the collapse of Stalinism, has meant that in the explosive movements that have gripped the continent the alternative of socialism is not readily expressed at present. Even the newer guerrilla formations like the EZLN in Mexico or the FARC in Colombia do not pose socialism as an alternative to the brutal economic and military repression which the Latin American masses are experiencing
The emergence of new mass political organisations of the workers and peasants will require the experience of struggle. But this first wave of struggle has been against the effects and policies of ’neo-liberalism‘. rather than against the system which breeds them. The understanding of the need to break with the whole system – and that socialism offers the only alternative – can emerge during the experience of a scries of struggles by the working class. But it also needs the conscious intervention of revolutionary Marxists to articulate this idea in a way which corresponds to the experiences of the working class.
* *
*
The concrete conditions offered by Latin American capitalism today will continue to compel workers and peasants into struggle. From these new parties of the working class will be consciously established, as workers see the need for a political voice. But important obstacles will need to be overcome. In Mexico the masses saw in the Zapatistas (EZLN) the prospect of establishing a vehicle through which to organise their struggle. The policies of the EZLN leadership however prevented a mass party being established in the cities. This was a second disappointment since the PRD was perceived to have failed in its promise to mobilise the mass movement to topple the government after the fraud of the 1994 presidential election.
Such setbacks will need to be overcome. Even in Brazil, the fact that the PT is a relatively new party which is politically capitulating to capitalism may act as a certain brake in the short term on workers drawing the conclusion that another new formation is needed. It is more likely that the experience of a right-wing PT in government will need to be passed through first.
At a certain stage in some countries there will also be the re-emergence of new radical bourgeois formations, with a section of the ruling class adopting more „populist‘ policies including some anti-imperialist demagogy. This is likely as the grip of imperialism tightens further and threatens the interests of the national ruling classes. Under the pressure of a mass movement such future „populist‘ bourgeois formations could adopt quite radical policies, including measures like re-nationalisation or „regional protectionism‘ (perhaps through MERCOSUR), especially if such political formations were to come to power under the pressure of a mass movement.
In recent years it is true the trend has been against such developments as the sheer weight of the world economy has come to bear and forced any ‚radical government‘ which has come to power to abandon such measures. This was seen most clearly in Venezuela where mass rioting against the IMF-imposed policies in 1993-94 left hundreds dead. Two attempted military coups took place during the crisis. Eventually a left-of-centre coalition led by Caldera came to power in 1994 on a programme of state intervention and opposition to privatisation but, under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank, Caldera publicly stated he ‚had no choice‘ but to implement a ’neo-liberal‘ programme, despite his personal opposition to it.
Yet, while the Venezuelan events are typical of the trend during recent years, with the onset of new social explosions and the consequences of a new economic recession, this trend is likely to change in the future. It is significant, for example, that this year the congress of the Mexican government party, the PRI, voted to oppose its own government’s ’neo-liberal‘ package and proposals to privatise the oil industry.
However, any such ‚radical‘ regimes which may emerge in the future are not going to be a repetition of those in the past. They will not be able to implement the lasting reforms which were carried through by the Peronists in Argentina in the 1950s, Vargas in Venezuela or Goulart in Brazil in the 1960s, when Latin American capitalism had far more resources than it does today.
* *
*
Overall the struggles of the last three years are but a foretaste of the social upheavals to come. A key aspect is likely be the struggle of Latin America’s 150 million rural population, as regional trade developments such as NAFTA and MERCOSUR threaten the very existence of whole sectors of the peasantry. This was an important factor behind the uprising in Chiapas, while Paraguay was witness to mass demonstrations of peasants against MERCOSUR, when cheaper Brazilian goods came onto the market.
In this context, the sharp rise in the size of the indigenous population of Latin America over the last two decades adds a further explosive ingredient. According to some estimates the indigenous population is now about the same size as it was at the time of the Spanish conquest. Most live on the very margins of society, largely in the rural areas. The struggle for the rights of the indigenous minorities is an essential aspect of the mass movement in Latin America.
The new wave of struggle which has unfolded has illustrated the need to unify the battles of the different sectors of society. In the mass shanty towns which surround the urban areas of the continent, for example, millions live virtually as ‚peasants within the cities‘, with a myriad of social and community organisations conducting a daily struggle for survival. But in what are just the first stages of a new wave of struggle the potential strength of the working class has once again been shown. On 17 December the trade union confederations from all the MERCOSUR countries will come together for the first time ever in an all-Latin American day of action against unemployment and ’neo-liberalism‘, as preparation for an all-Latin American 24-hour general strike: an indication of the scope and character of the battles to come throughout the continent.
Schreibe einen Kommentar