"We must get rid of ence
International Viewpoint 10 November 1986
CHILE
Q. Do you think it is possible to reach agreement on the means of ending the dictatorship? That is, do you consider it possible to bring down dictatorship through policies of civil disobedience, or do you think that it is indispensable to resort to the dictatorship"
armed force?
A. I think a crucial point must be underlined here: the problem of what methods to use is not posed by the Chilean people. It is the regime, sectors of the right-wing and the imperialists who have tried to raise this problem in order to block the unification
A NEW STATE of siege was declared in Santiago, following an attack on President Augusto Pinochet, for which the Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR) claimed responsibility. Hundreds of people have been arrested, among them leaders of the Popular Democratic Movement (MDP), whose main components are the Chilean Communist
Party (PCC), the Socialist Party-Almeyda and the Movement of the
Revolutionary Left (MIR). (1)
The interview below is with Jose Carasco, who was seized and subsequently assassinated by a para-military gang the day after it was originally published by Amauta, the newspaper of the United Mariateguist Party (PUM) of Peru. Jose Carasco was a journalist for the oppositionist magazine, Analisis, a leader of the journalists' union and a militant of the MIR. [The text has been slightly shortened for space reasons.]
Question. Why is there disagreement today within the opposition?
Answer. We think that a real feeling exists in society that the overwhelming majority of Chileans want to have an end to the dictatorship. Now that is being expressed at the level of the political parties.
This country, Chile, is going through the deepest economic, political and social crisis in its history. Since at least the end of the 1950s and during the
1960s, this crisis has meant that Chilean capitalism is incapable of reproducing itself widely enough to maintain its hegemonic domination over the country. This crisis calls for a radical solution.
There are two plans for dealing with this situation. The dictatorial government, which came to power through the coup d'etat, expresses the attempts of the bourgeoisie to resolve the crisis through a deepgoing reconversion of the economic and political apparatus. In this sense, the failure of the dictatorship is not only that of the military regime. It is also a failure of the big bourgeoisie to resolve a erisis of class rule in its favour. The parties in the Democratic Alliance have a project of resolving the crisis on the basis of upholding a capitalist schema, a system of bourgeois domination with some modifications, but fundamentally maintaining capitalist domination.
Conversely, the Popular Democratic
Movement (MDP) expresses the determination to get out of the current im-
10 passe and also out of this profound crisis in a way that corresponds to the interests of the masses. Therefore what is at play here are different class interests.
Q. Does this mean that there is no possibility of agreement between the MDP and the Democratic Alliance?
A. We think that in spite of this the fundamental problem concerns the interests of the Chilean people themselves to decide their future. Today, the unity of popular forces is strategically vital in order to give the Chilean people an alternative that is popular, democratic and revolutionary, so that the crisis in Chile can be resolved definitively.
But we think that in the short term, the whole people, the sovereign masses, must decide that it is imperative to get rid of the dictatorship. To this end, it is necessary to achieve a unity in action of all the opposition forces on the points of agreement that exist. We need that in order to get an active, profound and continuous mobilization that will make the country ungovernable and thereby make it possible to put an end to the dictatorship and return sovereignty to the people. It must be the people who decide.
We think it is possible and necessary to reach a certain amount of agreement. But this involves an understanding that we must get rid of the dictatorship, that we must finish with it.
of the opposition forces. In Chile, from independence to the present day, violence and armed struggle have been part of the country's development into a nation. To deny this is to deny the history of our country. No-one is less violent than us. We love peace and love life, but more than anything we love justice and freedom, and we are prepared to give our lives if necessary.
Violence is not dependent on our wishes. It depends on the scale of the dictatorship's opposition to our achieving freedom, social justice and democracy in Chile.
Q. But faced with Pinochet and, given the options for struggle that exist today, what means of struggle do you consider possible?
A. Inasmuch as Pinochet has demonstrated that he has declared war on the people, the only alternative is to use all the forms of struggle that the people are capable of, including armed struggle, to get rid of the dictatorship.
Now, we think that along with the armed struggle there exist many other possibilities, such as non-violent action and civil disobedience. Taken together, they constitute a force for ending the dictatorship. Therefore, to claim that armed struggle prevents unity is a pretext for not taking forward our people's struggle. And, I repeat, the degree of violence to which the people will have to resort, the extent to which they will have to use arms, will be in direct relation to the ferocity with which the government, and the armed forces who support it, oppose our people's desire for liberty, justice and democracy.
Q. Is the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) carrying out any armed actions at the moment?
A. The MIR has carried out some armed actions since the coup d'etat. It has engaged both in propaganda and some armed actions because we are conscious that building a military force is part and parcel of a strategy
1. On the political situation before the state of siege was enacted, see *Thirteen may be Pinochet's unlucky number" September 29, 1986.
International Viewpoint 10 November 1986 to defeat the military dictatorship. Without a military force that can defend our people and keep the armed forces from maintaining themselves in power - they are the true mainstay of the dictatorship - it will be impossible to achieve liberty and democracy.
We are very clear on this. We will not accept this solution. We will fight with all our forces and with any means to end this dictatorship and any that may follow it, whatever its facade.
Q. What is the perspective from a military point of view? For example, is there any agreement between the MIR and the Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR)?
A. These organizations are different. The MIR is a politico-military organization. The Patriotic Front - as they say themselves - is purely a military organization for fighting the dictatorship.
The MIR is a political party, with a socialist programme, a revolutionary strategy for accumulating forces and a popular proletarian programme. It is, therefore, different from the FPMR. That means that the MIR does not just carry out armed actions but works also in the unions, among peasants and students, in the universities and in the poor districts. It is accumulating a social, political and also military strength. To say this is not to dismiss the FPMR - it is very important in the struggle of the Chilean people. I think we should applaud its development, but at the same time understand its character.
It is therefore entirely possible to reach some agreement on the military level, but that does not mean that the MIR has to limit its work in other social sectors that are also important. Today, the forces of both the MIR and its youth organization, Rebel Youth (Juventud into account. Youth are presidents of four universities, and one is vice-president of the Santiago Secondary School Students' Federation. The MIR is active in many secondary schools and has some union leaders in a number of places. The MIR and the FPMR have different conceptions of the struggle.
Q. The current politics of the MIR are based on a self-criticism of past positions, in particular the fact that it did not participate in the Popular Unity (UP), although today it is part of the MDP. In your opinion, what has changed in the MIR?
A. What has changed is the situa tion in Chile. It is this that must be studied. I think it is a question of different political times. The MIR characterized the Popular Unity period as a pre-revolutionary one. It thought that the enormous strength, vitality and revolutionary hopes of our people
THAT
DOES
IT
could make it possible for the reformist project - which at that time meant Popular Unity - to open up the way to socialist revolution in Chile. This was the framework for its activity.
Q. Supposing we could return to 1972, would the MIR do the same things? Was it the only possibility?
A. Undoubtedly there were some errors, which we would correct, but fundamentally I think that the politics of the MIR were correct on the character of the period. They related to the time and the conditions in a country where profound and drastic changes were needed. Popular Unity brought enormous progress for the mass movement in its living conditions, morale and material well-being. Nonetheless, it also meant a frustration that created the conditions for the gestation of a military coup and for the dietatorship that we are experiencing
Q. But don't you think that if the MIR had been part of the UP the possibilities for influencing its project would have been bigger?
A. Other contradictions existed in the mass movement. There were different views of the period that we were going through and of the possibilities offered in 1972-73. I am one of those who not only refuse to accept but totally reject the black-and-white view that tries to put the blame on the MIR and other revolutionary forces for the defeat of the UP.
I think that the defeat of the UP was the result of a number of errors. Without doubt, the MIR itself made some mistakes. But above all the errors were in the conception of a strategy for achieving socialism by a route that proved to be impossible. The bourgeoisie weren't going to accept it, imp-
YOURE ALL
UNDER
ARREST
CHILE
erialism still less. In the case of Chile, imperialist and bourgeois aggression, supported and maintained by the armed forces, condemned this plan to defeat.
Now, was this inevitable? I think not. I think that the Popular Unity government and the 1970 victory could have led to advances with a much clearer socialist perspective, one more deeply-rooted and determined, if there had been a policy of basing the struggle on the enormous strength of the mass movement. That is, if they had relied on the people to play the main role and organized a more deepgoing mobilization. Our people then would have been able not only to prevent the coup d'etat, but also to move Chile in a socialist and revolutionary direction.
But these discussions are pointless. Today we are living in a different period, where a political situation exists that is absolutely and radically different from the time of the UP. Therefore the alliances formed are different.
Some forces who did not take part in the UP, like the MIR, and some who were part of it have progressed on these questions and have achieved a level of basic agreement on they are presenting common political proposals, expressed by and this identity within the people creates today, I think, the conditions for a strategic alliance. This could include the MIR, the CP, the SP Almeyda, MAPU (workers and peasants), the SP-24th Congress and other left forces. Such an alliance would not only make it possible to overthrow the dictatorship today, but to work together tomorrow to achieve social justice, revolution and socialism.
11