EXPLOSIVENESS OF CENTRAL AMERICA
Mexico City--The sudden welling up of an uncontainable mass insurrection in Nicaragua in the fall of 1979 and the development of a full-scale war of liberation in El Salvador reflect the accumulation of particularly explosive contradictions throughout
The derogatory name given to these countries, "Banana republics, " became a byword for the most abject form of neocolonialism. It indicated that they were inserted into a very narrow niche in the capitalist world market--that of agricultural exporters specializing in the production of bananas, coffee, sugar, cotton, and other tropical products. Their economies were plantation economies whose produce was bought and marketed by a few large U.S. trusts.
The sort of economy that existed in the Central American countries favored the development of a landowning oligarchy extremely dependent on U.S. imperialism, with very little political maneuvering room. In this situation change and reforms were blocked. In Central America, the bourgeois political parties that were dominant in Latin America-the Liberals and Conservatives-survived as living fossils. because for eighty years there was no change in the pattern of economic development.
Given the extreme political weakness of the oligarchies, they have depended to an exceptional degree ever since the formation of national states in the region on using the military to accomplish the basic political and organizational tasks.
In El Salvador, for example, the army played the essential role in the creation of the big landed estates. In 1882, the eiidos, the communal lands that had existed from the time of Native American rule, were abolished by means of heavy military force.
With the increasing mechanization of agriculture, the concentration of land in the hands of a small oligarchy was not reduced but increased. In Guatemala, 2% of the landowners own 70% of the land; in Honduras, 3% of the landowners own 27.4%; in E1 Salvador, 1% of the landowners hold 57% of the land; and in Nicaragua, 1.5% of the landowners own 41. 2%.
Such increasing concentration of the land in the hands of a few, the conversion of the great majority of the peasants into semiproletarians, the introduction of chemical fertilizers and labor-saving machinery, and the systematic attacks of the oligarchy on the Native American communities have been accompanied in recent years by a certain development of manufacturing and service industries. The result has been the growth of big urban centers and a significant shift of the labor force away from the countryside. following table shows the decline in the percentage employed in agriculture over the past two decades:
1960 1978 Honduras 70 64 Guatemala El Salvador 67 57 52 Nicaragua 62 Panama Costa Rica 29
The shift of the workforce from the countryside to the cities has increased the potential for mass explosions in a twofold way. Unionization has spread among peasants and most of all agricultural workers. The landlords no longer have the sort of reserve army of labor that they had before to intimidate or crush such organizations. At the same time, the migration of former peasants and agricultural workers to the cities has transferred the accumulated grievances and problems of the rural population into the urban areas, where they become combined with the typical problems of the working class and recently urbanized populations in a political and social setting dominated by a lawless and primitive oligarchy totally subordinate to imperialist trusts. mained quite incapable of developing the countries they rule. Some elements have shifted part of their profits from agriculture to industry, but this is an extremely small sec-
What industrialization has taken place is explained rather by the fact that the imperialist trusts have become more interested in developing certain industries, particularly those that produce consumer goods. Thus, the new industries have developed entirely within the framework of imperialist domination.
In 1970, direct U.S. investment in industry amounted to 12% of total investment in the region. By 1978, this figure had risen to 33%. Manufacturing is becoming the most attractive area for American investors. As a result, from 1960 to 1970, the industrial sector grew 5.7% in Honduras, 4. 3% in Guatemala, in Nicaragua, 3. 0% in El Salvador, and 5.7% in Costa Rica.
The expansion of industry created the conditions for the development of increasingly important trade union: vith greater political weight. This tendency was reinforced by the growth of the service sector. The following table shows the new employment pattern: • SECTORAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORKFORCE
(in percentages INDUSTRY SERVICES 1960 1978 1960 1978 Honduras 11 14 23 Guatemala 14 20 24 El Salvador 17 22 26 Nicaragua 16 15 Panama 14 18 Costa Rica 19 23
There has also been a marked proletarianization of workers in the service sector. In fact, because they are salaried rather than on an hourly wage, they have suffered even more than industrial workers in the region from rampant inflation. In 1970-77, the average-price index rose 74%, in comparison with only 13% in the two decades between 1950 and 1970. This is one of the main reasons for the radicalization of the unions in countries such as Guatemala and E1 Salvador in particular, and, to a in Honduras, Costa
However, along with this, there is the rebellion of the unemployed. In the region as a whole, the level of unemployment approaches 50%. Particularly hard hit are youth between the ages of sixteen and twenty-
The rebellion of the unemployed and underemployed has turned the slums into revolutionary hotbeds. The youthfulness of the revolutionary organizations, the fact that a very large percentage of their cadres come from the seething slum areas, and the level of organization attained in these neighborhoods--committees of women, students, tenants, defense committees, and even popular militias-- all this, contrasted with the ossification of the oligarchy, explains why mass revolutionary formations have gained such weight in several cities of the region.
DIVISIONS IN THE RULING
CLASSES Facing the buildup of such explosive pressures, sectors--mainly the small, new industrial bourgeoisie--of the ruling class are looking for a political means to forestall a blowup. This explains the appearance of groups linked to the Social Democracy and the parallel rise of Christian Democratic parties. Thus, a split has developed in the ruling class, as well as a division among the imperialists themselves, since the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic groups are generally linked to West German imperialism.
The U.S. imperialists also, since their capacity for direct military intervention has been limited by the so-called Vietnam syndrome, have also tried to foster the development of "intermediary governsome mass political base.
The radicalization, however, has already reached such a pitch, that "moderate" parties that have had a certain social basis can quickly lose it if they enter repressive governments. The popularity that the Christian Democratic party enjoyed a few years ago in El Salvador has now turned almost exactly into its opposite.
It should be remembered that in 1970, Napoleon Duarte, who now fronts for the blood-stained Salvadoran junta, was the candidate of the united opposition, and it is generally believed that he actually won the elections but was cheated of victory. Because of their lack of any solid social base, the so-called reformist governments remain hostages of American imperialism and the military agents of the oligarchy.
Aside from the immediate difficulties it is causing for Washington, the Social Democracy in the region represents a second line of defense for imperialism. But it is a weak reed. In the first place, even the German Social Democracy has suffered divisions over this policy, with conflicts occurring between Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, for example.
Secondly, the Social Democratic groups that have arisen are feeble and clearly have their essential roots in bourgeois liberalism and not in the working class.
In Guatemala, two organizations claim the mantle of the Socialist International, the Frente Unico de la Revolucion (FUR) and the Partido Social Democrata (SDP). Both organizations are new and weak. The political project to which they devoted most of their efforts was the attempt to make the Frente Democratico contra la Represion (Democratic Front against the Repression) into a mass united organization like the Salvadoran FDR. However, the revolutionary organizations opposed this, apparently because they differed with the social Democrats over what immediate steps were necessary. Without the support of the revolutionists they could get nowhere.
In El Salvador, the Social Democratic organization, the Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario, did have a certain weight in the past, It was one of the component organizations of the Unidad Nacional Opositora (MNR-United National Opposition), which for a good while was backed by the majority of the population.
Immediately after the coup against Romero, and in accordance with Washington's policy of fostering "intermediary governments, " the MNR and the Salvadoran CP were asked to join the government. MNR leaders did participate in it. But they soon recognized how far the radicalization of the mass movement had gone and that the government they were in was not going to forestall the revolution but provoke it. So, they walked out immediately and joined the FDR. However, even more clearly than in Nicara-
17
the Social Democrats do not play a dominant role, since they are not included in the political-military command (the FMLN).
In Nicaragua, despite the attemps made by some bourgeois forces immediately after the Sandinista victory, the Social Democrats still have no party of their own. In practice, they work with
In Honduras, the Social Democrats have a faction in the Liberal Party, but it has little influence. If they do not break rapidly with this party, they are going to be implicated in the repressive policy that the Liberal President Siles will undoubtedly apply.
In Costa Rica, two parties have links with the Social Democracy. One is the Socialist Party of Costa Rica, whose essential base is among public workers and a large section of poor peasants. Along with the Communist Party and the Partido Revolucionario del Pueblo (PRP), it ran in the February 1978 elections and
The PRP is the other party that has links with the Social Demo-
It represents the interests of the new technocratic bourgeoisie, along with key sectors of the sugar growers and ranchers. In fact, the PRP held office for several years, but it lost the last elections to the Partido Unidad which represents the more traditional sectors of the bourgeoisie.
Experts of the Mexican government party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, managed the PRP's campaign.
Thus, the defeat of this party was a serious setback for the Social Democracy. The party that took over the government is totally subordinated to the interests of Yankee imperialism.
In Panama, the Social Democrats work directly with the government, although since Omar Torrijos' death, this relationship has been breaking down.
Another aspect of the activity of the Social Democrats in the area is their relationship with the Cuban government. Castro's speech of July 26, 1979, in fact marked the resumption of the Cuban government's relations with a considerable part of the Latin American Social Democracy. It is obvious, of course, that Castro is trying to use the Social Democrats as a lever against American imperialism. But it is no less obvious that the Social Democracy is using the prestige of Fidel and the Cuban revolution to enhance its image in the eyes of the masses in the region.
The Social Democracy on an in18 ternational scale clearly understands that American imperialism is now unable to control the situation in key areas of the world. And its links are with the West European imperialisms. fore, it is trying to promote an alternative based on their specific interests. While we cannot speak of a head-on confrontation between the various imperialisms, they are clearly backing different tactics. Central America is a clear example of this conflict developing in an area where a crucial battle against imperialism and capitalism in general is shaping up.
The Second International's objective in Central America, as explained by one of its leaders, Pierre Schori, is to promote the development of governments not dominated by the U.S. and thereby provide a safety valve for the tremendous anti-American sentiment that exists in Latin America. He pointed out that such governments must also be able to counter pro-Communist or pro-Cuban currents. governments such as that of the PRI in Mexico or that of Romulo Betancourt in Venezuela, that is counterrevolutionary governments of the democratic type that display a certain independence from U.S. im-
THE ROLE OF THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENT
The Second International's policy in the region is closely tied up with the Mexican government, which has maintained strong links with the Social Democracy. This is not just a convergence based on the Mexican government's attitude to Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Belize. It is thanks to the political activities of the Mexican government that the COOPPAL could be organized, bringing the great majority of Social Democratic parties in the region and creating a challenge to the traditional forms of U.S. imperialist domination.
Obviously, the Mexican govern ment has supported the Social Democracy for the sake of its own interests. Some sectors of the Mexican bourgeoisie seek to win a position of strength in Central America, including control of some markets. Mexican investment is increasing steadily in the area, and the PRI government realizes that American policy could destroy these commer-
However, when PRI president Porfirio Munos Lede hinted that the party might join the Socialist International, he was immediately ousted. It is fundamental for the Mexican governing party not to weaken its identification with the revolution of | 1910-17. Entering the Socialist
International would only bring problems and offer no benefits. For this reason, the PRI preferred to stand back and maintain an independent role. In fact, it is seen by the bourgeois oppositionists as an example of what the future of the Central American countries should be.
It remains to be seen of course whether or not the Social Democrats will be able to influence significant sectors of the leaderships of the rising mass movements and deflect the upsurge. But it can be said that so far the leaders of the revolutionary movements have managed to handle the Social Democrats rather well.
The revolutionary organizations have the advantage that they are immensely strong both politically and militarily. enough to make impossible any repetition of the sort of intervention the U.S. was able to carry off in
If Washington sends in military forces, they will face well-prepared and well-rooted revolutionary armies, and the political and social result will be a spreading of the flames of rebellion. would also probably touch off the biggest mass mobilizations in the history of Latin America.
Furthermore, in this context, the tactical differences of the Social Democrats and the stronger Latin American bourgeoisies with U.S. imperialism benefit the revolutionists. It is true that U.S. imperialism has had more success in isolating the revolutionary struggles in the cases of El Salvador and Guatemala than it did in that of Nicaragua. It is true that Washington has been able to achieve more of a consensus on the ruling-class side to oppose these revolutions. But it has not succeeded in getting the support of the specific solution it proposes.
That is, while they are clearly against the spread of revolution in Central America, governments such as those in Brazil, Venezuela, and Peru, to say nothing of Mexico-where Reagan's war moves could cause deep internal problems-- are against U.S. intervention in the region. Even in the OAS, at the last meeting, the U.S. was not able to achieve its objectives. Thus, politically Washington finds itself in a qualitatively worse position in the region than in 1965, when it succeeded in crushing the revolution in Santo Domingo.
Nonetheless, in view of the inability of the oligarchy to change and the weakness of the more modern sections of the bourgeoisie, combined with the political and military strength of the revolutionary organizations and the accumulated social explosiveness in the area,
the U.S. imperialists have no alternative but to try to intervene mili-
They are continuing their preparations for this despite the fact that this threatens to bring them into conflict even with the youth and the working class in their own country, to say nothing of Europe and Latin America. should be no doubt about their determination and their ruthlessness.
All the conditions for a revolutionary crisis, which were first outlined by Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of the victorious Russian revolution, exist in Central Amer-
The ruling class is divided. It has clearly lost confidence in it-
It has no viable political plan, and it cannot continue ruling in the
The working masses are exasperated by the brutal and stupid forms of oppression they have suffered. Despite certain errors in the past by the revolutionary organizations, it has been possible to build united-front organizations committed to struggle.
At the same time, sections of the middle classes are being drawn toward the workers and peasants by an advancing process of proletarianization, the brutality of the repression, and a deteriorating qual-
The revolution that is beginning in Central America cannot be confined to any one country, even if any of the revolutionary organizations wanted to do so. The regionwide character of the conflict is being determined not just by the extension of the radicalization but by the imperialist response. The imperialists know that the logic of this revolution makes a limited response impossible. The only way to halt the Sandinista revolution is by defeating the struggle in El Salvador and Guatemala, and so on.
We would be mistaken if we looked only at the situation in Nicaragua for an explanation of why the imperialists are cutting off their loans or why they are rearming Honduras. Likewise, we would be mistaken if we looked only at the situation in El Salvador for an explanation of the buying of Israeli fighters, or the training of 300 Salvadoran officers at the American base in Panama.
Imperialism is trying to divide the revolutionists, to make them think that if they act independently of each other, it will not intervene. But it is building up its response on a regionwide basis, and direct U.S. intervention in any one country would only be a prelude to an intervention throughout the region. The experience of the Indochinese wars confirms this. Whether or not the conditions exist for unity of the revolutionary organizations throughout Central America, greater cootdination of these vanguards is both necessary and desirable. The course of the struggle, is putting unification of Central America on the agenda, a task the bourgeoisie could not accomplish.
As a result of the objective conditions in the area, the growth of the working class, the weight of the peasantry and of the middle layers the leadership of the struggle and its objectives, this revolutionary process is developing along the lines of a democratic, anti-imperialist struggle of the broad masses of the poor and alienated population. In the circumstances of Central America, it is hardly likely that a revolutionary struggle could begin immediately as a socialist revolu-
The weight of basic democratic questions is too great.
Moreover, while it is possible to skip over stages in the historic development of peoples, it is impossible to jump over stages in the development of the consciousness of the workers and peasants. In a rather empirical way, the Salvadoran revolutionist have understood this, this, and therefore they have won the confidence of the exploited and oppressed of Central America.
Thus, those who accuse the Central American revolutionists of class collaborationism, are analyzing the revolution in a schematic and sec-
The struggle has taken a primarily military form precisely because the primary and immediate political and organizational instrument of the ruling classes and the imperialists are the Central American armies, with the shadow of the U.S. military forces looming up behind them.
Therefore, the rebels against such dictatorial zule came to the conclusion that in order to counter the instrument of the rulers, they needed revolutionary armies. Russian revolution and the last sixty years of world revolution shows that it is impossible to achieve national liberation, or agrarian reform, or democratic freedoms, or to break loose from imperialist domination without establishing a workers and peasants government, which requires the destruction of the bourgeoisie's basic apparatus of coerbeen one of the main tenets of the world Trotskyist movement. But it is more and more clearly understood by a broad sector of the Central American vanguard.
This revolutionary vanguard is drawing the conclusion, empirically, if you like, that the revolution must grow over into a socialist one, that it is necessary to combine with the tasks of achieving national libberation, socialist measures and steps to extend the revolution,
Moreover, the methods of action and struggle of the Central American revolution are becoming more and more proletarian. We are seeing a combination of armed struggle and mass organization, of trade union struggles and struggles by the Native American communities, of struggles in the cities and the coun-
Above all, it is important to remember the youthfulness of the main forces in this revolution. ranks of the revolutionists are made up overwhelmingly of young people from the ages of twelve to eighteen. They have not experienced the betrayals of Stalinism. They are learning for themselves in action. These youth are the heirs of the best traditions of the revolutionary nationalist struggle but they no longer believe in the values of the ruling
The advancing revolutionary struggle in Central America is a resounding demonstration that the world youth radicalization has not waned but has continued to expand, spreading from the youth in school to the working class.