Socialist democracy and revolution in the
NICARAGUA over tactics and the strategy for winning power. The Communist Parties were present, as well as national liberation movements. I was surprised to note that there was a real consensus in Latin America, with a lot of convergence at the level of politics and of individuals.
What was lacking was an ideological convergence between the groups, parties and movements. So there was a much bigger consensus than I had thought possible - at least as concerns the need for discus-
ORLANDO NUNEZ, a 40-year-old Nicaraguan, is director of the Research and Study Centre on Agrarian Reform (CIERA).
He was also involved in all the discussions around autonomy for the indigenous Miskito population on Nicaragua's Atlantic coast. In 1987 he wrote a work entitled "Democracy and revolution in the Americas", in collaboration with an American,
Roger Burbech, which received the Carlos Fonseca prize last year.
This book deals with the need to combine socialism and democracy, from the viability of Marxism as a frame of reference for the revolutionary process to the importance of the values of civil society. Eric Toussaint talked to Nuñez about his book in Managua in April this year.
W
HAT WERE your aims when you wrote the book?
My motivation was political. First, to analyze and explain some of the elements of
Sandinista revolutionary model, in particular because there are other analyses and interpretations that are only ideological. In the second place, my book is a response to the critical and difficult situation of Marx-
It is hard to conceptualize the series of political positions that the Sandinista revolution has put into practice without setting them adequately in an overall framework.
The Sandinista vision emerges from various scattered statements, and I wanted to attempt to present our way of seeing things in a more coherent form, starting from
My aim is to open a debate on certain theoretical positions that create problems for
Latin American revolutionaries. In reality, left theoretical thinking in Latin America is frozen, and this is an obstacle to making the revolution. I point out in the book that practice is much more advanced than theory. I don't claim to conclude the discussion, but rather to clarify a problematic that has been outdistanced by revolutionary practice.
• Was the book discussed by the Sandinista leadership before being published?
Absolutely not. Until now, I haven't asked for authorization at that level. In fact, my intention was to go for a debate by sending a draft of 100 pages to my revolutionary friends in Latin America and Europe (political leaders and Marxist theoreticians), to let it circulate freely so as to provoke a discussion.
But the Nicaraguan Association of Social Scientists (ANICS) took the draft and entered it for a Latin American competition. From then on, I was eager to go back over the draft and improve it. The jury, made up of Martha Harnecker, comrade Casanova and others.... understood that it was unfinished. While disagreeing with some points, they thought that it was an excellent text as a tool for discussion. The jury decided, for reasons partly scholarly, partly political, to give it the Latin American prize, the Carlos Fonseca award.
Following that, it stimulated discussion at a Latin American forum in Managua in June 1987, organized by the Research and Study Centre on Agrarian Reform (CIERA) that I head up. Participating in the forum were around fifty political leaders of the Latin American left and left intellectuals. Half of the participants are working in clandestinity, in the guerrilla struggle, the other half being comrades who work more or less publicly. • What was the discussion like?
Along with person chairing the discussion, I was surprised because I thought at the beginning that the book was a bit unorthodox, and that because of this I was going to have problems with the thinking of the Latin American left — especially because of the pluralist composition of the assembly. There wore at least ten different political positions represented, differences sion - even if each participant had their own vision in relation to national particularities.
Indeed, I felt a little conservative insofar as I had underestimated the richness of the Latin American political consciousness. The main problem is with the weaknesses of formulation. There was also agreement in noting that there was a weakness of conceptualization of Latin American Marxist thinking, and that there was a lack of books to spread these ideas. There are millions of students and trade unionists who cannot find revolutionary literature in libraries because there is so little of it available. • But in spite of this consensus, weren't the large divergences between the different currents expressed — for example, around a critical appraisal of the Stalinist current?
I remember the position of the Argentine Communist Party (PCA). In the first place, the PCA made a public self-criticism regarding Nicaragua. That's the first time I have seen anything like that from them. It was a self-critical statement regarding its anti-Guevarism, and it confirmed the need for a broad discussion. Beyond this, the PCA proposed to organize a new Latin American meeting in Argentina, similar to
I cannot say that there was absolute agreement, but there was a consensus on the need for an open discussion between the different currents. I am talking about those people who represented the PCA at the Managua forum in June 1987. • Are the papers from this forum going to published?
Yes, very soon. This meeting has not had such big repercussions as those of the Organization of Latin American States (OLAS). But, nevertheless, it is important. • Was the Managua forum an attempt to revive the process embarked upon by the OLAS meetings?
Indeed, it was a question of picking up the threads of a meeting between Latin American revolutionaries so as to work in a more unified manner and confront US policy. • How would you describe the range of Latin American revolutionary currents? Who is the discussion between?
In the book 1 present the discussion that 2% seems to me to be most significant, which June 27, 1988 • #144 International Viewpoint
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Americas
NICARAGUA is on one hand the difference between the strategy for seizing power (I call this political revolution), and on the other the strategy of social-economic change.
When traditional Marxists think of the revolution, they envisage the socialist revolution, social-economic change and the strategy for these transformations. On the other hand, little thought has been given to the concrete struggle for taking power. It is clear that there is an link between the two, but an over-preoccupation with historical changes has made it difficult to address political changes. This was a sort of trap, a misunderstanding at the level of what was understood by revolution. Some Marxists thought that the revolution meant solely historical transformations, and accorded little importance to the political revolution.
Consequently, when I talk about revolutionaries, I am thinking in particular about political organizations and movements themselves in an overtly Marxist way, have a programme that leads to political and historical changes, that leads to a confrontation with the class enemy (I include in this Zapata and Sandino). So, I don't limit the definition of revolutionaries just to those who have a Marxist doctrine.
I include all organizations whose reference point is Marxism in the Marxist current, while at the same time pointing out that there are a lot of Communist Parties who have not worked for the revolution, even if they make revolutionary noises. I also include other organizations who have had a very radical political practice, but in spite of that have not succeeded in taking
The fact of taking power is not the criteria or parameter that can distinguish between revolutionaries and others. If it were, 24 International Viewpoint #144 • June 27, 1988 we could only talk about victorious revolutionaries. However, there are revolutions that have failed: struggles are not easy. There you have, broadly, what I understand by revolutionaries, even if I am no specialist in Latin American political history and my book is incomplete. I have not had the time to produce a thorough work, that remains to be done. Other comrades who have more time and more capacity must contribute to this in a collective way, making a critical balance sheet with the goal of unity and not handing out bad marks or punishments. In terms of those things that unite us, a minimum consensus has to be achieved. Until now, Latin American revolutionaries have put their differences before anything else. • This division and sectarianism is just
I talk about Latin America because that's where I am. Dogmatism and sectarianism are harmful...The Sandinista revolution was based on unity, and we want to try and transmit this part of our experience as well, particularly around the question of • I think that you put forward the idea of a bloc of the proletariat, different sectors of the peasantry and those you describe as the third social force. This is not a concept that is looking to introduce the bourgeoisie in the alliance.
In the first place, the struggle is against the bourgeoisie's project and we are discussing among revolutionaries. This book is not addressed to the bourgeoisie, it was written for revolutionaries. The struggle is against the both the projects of the bourand imperialism. I agree with speaking about a bloc between revolution-
NOW, LET'S HEAR FROM COSTA RICA...
aries and the third force - that is, there is a first force, the proletariat, and a second, the
The notion of a third force is a way of provoking a discussion. I do not pretend to be formulating a finished concept. I want to make revolutionaries understand that if you want to carry through a political revolution — involving the simultaneous use of politico-military struggle on the barricades, and the ideological struggle — the broadest possible social forces must be won over.
We cannot leave anyone on the sidelines in the struggle against the bourgeoisie's plan. We must not be purist. The bourgeoisie has no scruples when it comes to drawing proletarians, peasants, women and students to its project. The bourgeoisie never says: "Only those who are bourgeois can struggle on our side". And we have spent years discussing the purity of social forces who can participate in the struggle for the seizure of power.
Another thing is the question of establishing which forces will participate in the historical changes after the seizure of power and, at this level, the proletariat must gain more strength than it had at the time of taking power. After the seizure of power, I would become orthodox again. I would put the proletariat to the fore and talk about the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry as the most important question.
But for the political revolution, for taking power, I have to speak to the largest possible part of the population. Everyone who found themselves on the front line against Somozaism, against the plans of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, were revolutionary forces. What class you belong to is not a criterion for selecting revolutionaries. Here, there are workers and peasants who are part of the counter-revolution and there are students and petty-bourgeois forces who were with us in the struggle and who defend the revolutionary power. Class situation assumes a primordial importance in explaining the contradictions in the struggle and for carrying out a strategy of historical change. But in the struggles for taking power, everybody has a revolutionary potential against the sort of political regime
I try to be "provocative" by giving the rightful importance to the numerous movements, such as those of women, students, the indigenous peoples and local communities. The third force is not just actors, but it is also demands and banners. • Revolutionaries in Latin America who did not succeed in doing mass urban work (struggles for housing, water, electricity, neighbourhood committees and so on) may find it difficult to establish a large revolutionary bloc for the seizure of power?
Exactly. As revolutionaries, workers don't have set hours. As you said, working in the localities, as in the centres of capital reproduction, is an area of activity with the workers. Their activity is not just limited to
Wal their factories. In our case, just before the seizure of power, the factories were closed, and it was through work in the localities that close contact could be kept with workers, with their working experiences, with their class instinct. Consequently, local work is doubly important.
In Brazil and Nicaragua, for example, the working class will remain the primary force. When I say that there is a third force, it is because it occupies third place. But there is also the ideological struggle: the revolution occurs with an ideological detonator. And, as Carlos Fonseca said, the revolution begins in the most advanced sector of society. In Nicaragua, the Sandinista
National Liberation Front (FSLN) thought that it was students that constituted this
In Brazil, the proletariat, the working class, remains the first force from a conceptual and structural point of view. But we must carry along ideological forces, who have a big capacity for mobilization and who can play a detonating role. And from that viewpoint, there should be no prejudices against students, intellectuals or the petty-bourgeoisie. Those people in revolutionary organizations and who go to the factories come from these sectors.
You know, I was in France during the
May 68 "revolution". After a few days, as student revolutionaries we went into the workplaces to rally the workers around this big movement, to extend the struggle, the object being to be able to count on fundamental forces for making the revolution.
At this level, it was a question of alliances. The problem is not quantitative, it's a totally qualitative problem: how to act in conjunction with social forces that have a big ideological potential - students, journalists, professors, intellectuals. If these sectors "carry" a revolutionary flag, they are revolutionaries, even if they are of petty-bourgeois origin. To make the revolution it's necessary to add forces to those of the workers and peasants. And, in both Brazil and Nicaragua, the weight of the urban population is enormous, independently of the fact that in Brazil, the number of workers is clearly much greater than here.
The problem is therefore not a question of specific points, it is an ideological problem. If working-class forces in Saõ Paulo are revolutionaries, then there is hope. One shouldn't just consider the number of workers, but also their ideological potential. And it is very clear that the ideological potential of workers in Sao Paulo is extremely high. But, there as well, if there are other forces willing to struggle — and there are — they have to be integrated into the revolution without any purist prejudices. So it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between the political revolution and the social revolution. • When you talk about the political revolution, are you talking about bringing together the conditions and adopting a correct strategy for taking power and
Yes, taking power for an alternative project to capitalism. The laws of the political revolution are distinct from those of the social revolution, whose laws are found in Marx's Capital. For the political revolution, other laws come into play: first, the ideological factor; second, the social factor. The political revolution's outcome is the taking of power, which makes the social revolution possible. puts into place economic transformations that lead to ideological changes. • This question of the third force seems to me to be important in understanding the current practical strategy of the revolution in El Salvador, and in order to act. The National Union of Salvadoran Workers (UNTS), for example, attempts to ally itself with small shopkeepers, artisans and so on, those who could be useful in a strategy of seizing
NICARAGUA
Exactly. I would draw your attention to a provocation that I indulged in when I wrote my text, paraphrasing a quotation from Marx's Manifesto: "In our struggle, evcrybody has a place including bourgeois individuals who, understanding the meaning of history and feeling themselves swept along by events, become involved in leading the fight". That's what happened in Nicaragua. Important sectors of the bourgeoisie were ideologically opposed to Somozaism and also against imperialism. But it was also because many revolutionary values can carry along a bourgeoisie that knows its project is fragile and failing. • The alliance with a sector of the antiSomozaist bourgeoisie was useful, then. But that goes for Nicaragua. Looking at the example of El Salvador, geoisie that could participate in the one cannot see a sector of the bour- 25 June 27, 1988 • #144 International Viewpoint
International Viewpoint #144 • June 27, 1988
NICARAGUA struggle.
It's possible that they are not visible, but one should not exclude the possibility of it in the future. If there is the chance to make such an alliance, it must be exploited. • Yes, but it's a very concrete question...
Certainly, that's why accepting or rejecting it should not be made into a principle. • It would have been dangerous if the Sandinistas said to other Latin American revolutionaries that an alliance with the bourgeoisie was a principled necessity.
That is always a danger. I have been very prudent in relation to the Nicaraguan experience so as to avoid this danger. Each organization must decide. There are some general principles concerning alliances and the hegemony of the vanguard. If one talks of an alliance with the bourgeoisie, that implies that it will occur under the hegemony of revolutionaries. In our case, the alliance was realized under the hegemony of the FSLN and its project. If this hegemony is guaranteed, everybody can find their place • I'd like to discuss the second part of your book now, the part devoted to the transition to socialism.
Until now, the banner of democracy has been carried by the bourgeoisie, while revolutionaries have had reservations about this question. But I think we have to take on board the question of democracy. By the way, I think that from its origins Marxism itself is democratic. Political pluralism is an integral part of democracy. The existence of a single party is not an indispensable condition for maintaining, nourishing and developing revolutionary hegemony. I think that revolutionary hegemony can perfectly easily be maintained with a pluralism of parties.
Of course, this assumes that we are in a society which has a revolutionary project and in which the masses are revolutionary.
Then no parties, even of the right, are problems for us because the bourgeoisie is a minority class and draws its strength from the manipulation of the masses. Nor, of course, should the existence of several left-wing parties worry us. Political pluralism is part of the revolutionary project. The left itself
Class differences continue during the period of transition. So the revolutionaries who are hegemonic should strive to arrive at a synthesis of the contradictions. Even the working class is not homogeneous. For example, it is not sure that the workers' interests in one particular factory correspond to the strategic interests of the revolution.
The same goes for sections of the peasantry, students....So there is no automatic identification between sectoral and strateg-
Of course, there is a danger when I say 26 this because I could change into a left die-
"If socialism is grey and sad, the masses freeze up and grow weary" tator, giving my own definition of strategic
Maintaining a plurality of parties on the left is necessary, even if it is not easy. We weren't used to this either, but we have succeeded in making it a reality. The pluralism I'm talking about also means the right to have differences. It is through a process of discussion that a synthesis is forged, a decision made. Collective leadership is part of pluralism. It makes it possible to bring together different assessments of the situation, which no one person can do.
In addition, this all refers back to a negative history of socialism which did not allow pluralism. This meant a divorce between criticism and hegemony, between science and politics, between critical discussion and defence of the revolution, and this ended badly, whether in Grenada with the assassination of Bishop, or elsewhere with many intellectuals who disappeared, or got a bullet in the skull, or with Trotsky himself. This confusion between hegemony and dictatorship is negative.
The discussion should be opened up. I don't think I have the last word on the question, but I look at the revolutionary process of this century from the left. We have a rich experience here in Nicaragua because, in the middle of a war, despite the limits of the people's consciousness (the Nicaraguan masses do not have a fully socialist consciousness), we have succeeded in developing a pluralist process which at least exists, despite important limitations.
This pluralism is guaranteed by three things: institutions like the National Assembly; the fact that the masses want pluralism; and, finally, the existence of several standpoints within the left. I am not going to say that this experience is only valid for
Nicaragua, because if it is positive in our country, then it could also be so in the Soviet Union or Argentina, for example.
• According to the Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN) or the Nicaraguan
Communist Party (PCN) [the two Nicaraguan CPs] pluralism is necessary in
Nicaragua because it is not yet a state in transition towards socialism. For them, in a really revolutionary state, we could do without pluralism. This type of position is still continues to be taken up, including in Europe, and comes down to an acceptance of Stalinism.
Of course this a Stalinist conception because it starts from the standpoint that society is monolithic. According to them, in the
"real" transition to socialism everybody would be workers, and they think that as there is only one working class there
But it is not certain that the working class is monolithic. Within the working class there are several components which have total freedom to hold different opinions and to express them. In socialist societies, aside from the working class in the strict sense, there are teachers, students... There are different ethnic or national groups, whether the Miskito Indians in Nicaragua or the Armenians in the Soviet Union. Therefore there is not only a difference between those who are workers and those who aren't, there are also racial and sexual differences and so on. In Nicaragua now, or even later, the right to differences will have to exist and therefore the right to pluralism. Revolutionaries should not be afraid of this. We should not put a bullet in the skulls of those who don't agree with us. We should convince them. Being the vanguard of the masses is something earned day by day. The vanguard cannot live on income from its
If we are not democratic and pluralist we will end up being separated from the masses. You start by shooting the bourgeoisie, then the "deviant" revolutionaries, and then you end up by saying that the masses are shit and that you are the only ones who are right. So there has to be collective leadership, a public discussion between the different left organizations - and even the right-wing ones if they don't take up arms. • Concerning the institutions of the revolutionary power, you characterize the Nicaraguan regime as "participative, consultative and representative", and you add that it would be useful to set up a popular assembly elected by secret universal suffrage alongside the national assembly .
At the moment, mass organizations are being represented by some of their leaders being elected as deputies in the FSLN's parliamentary group in the national
We really want to have a participatory, representative and consultative democracy, and we have already a great deal of experience for this. The national assembly is the instrument for representative democracy.
Regarding consultative and participatory democracy, we must set up various bodies or structures, perhaps a popular assembly.
But I don't rule out the possibility that the national assembly can serve to represent the masses. When I think of a popular assembly, I think above all of discussions that are in the masses' interests.
Concerning consultative democracy, that can take place via committees in the localities or factories, by self-management in workplaces, cooperatives, or the university.
There is no blueprint to follow. The possibility must exist to create instruments that can guarantee the possibility of exercising
When we are free from imperialist ag gression and when we have advanced further in the transition, perhaps a popular assembly would have more sense than the national assembly, where contradictory
For subscriptions and single copies please write to:
IMR, 2 rue Richard Lenoir, 93108 Montreuil, France.
class interests are represented. In this case, the sort of popular assembly that exists in Cuba could perhaps be useful, without ex• The present national assembly is made up of left-wing and right-wing parties, the parties of the right representing the bourgeoisie that has been ousted from power. If, alongside this national assembly, a popular assembly was established it would represent the masses and their organizations neighbourhood committees, unions, women's organizations and so on. groups... recognizing that this popular assembly must not be a substitute for rank-and-file committees, otherwise it would be a bit bureaucratic. But my proposition aims above all to start a discussion; I don't have a finished formula. The experience of having a popular assembly has been tested in Cuba - but there was also a certain level of bureaucratism, which we must discuss as revolutionaries. In Nicaragua, we haven't had an experience like this except during the period when the Council of State existed [up until the 1984 elections]. • Do you think that the Sandinista Defence Committees (CDS) are sufficiently developed?
In the context of the imperialist aggression, the CDS serve partly for military defence and the struggle against the right. With a democratic rank-and-file structure been eliminated. It is always possible that sectots of the state apparatus will defend interests contradictory to the strategic in-
I think that the fact that were commandants of the revolution outside of the state apparatus has contributed to avoid the most threatening danger. The existence of a collective leadership in the FSLN is a second line of defence. Every Friday, it discusses everything starting from the respective responsibilities of its members —- who will deal with international relations, the economy, distribution... That avoids having a single person taking decisions and so the collective leadership contributes to avoiding a situation where the danger of bureaucracy becomes catastrophic.
Today, we are reducing the state apparatus. It is probably the most radical reduction there has ever been in Nicaragua and in Latin America in general. We are going from having over 30 ministers and secretaries of state to 11 ministers. Hundreds of vice-ministers and general directors are leaving their posts to get involved in tasks linked to production. This is not provoking big upheavals or bureaucratic resistance, because a large section of the FSLN's cadres belong to mass organizations and not
One other reason is that many of our Sandinistas come from a multiplicity of democratic, Castroist or Trotskyist groups.
NICARAGUA We have everything here, you know! And we are from a generation, that of the 1970s, that has made many criticisms concerning the socialist regimes. Many of the cadres have been to Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Chile and France, and that explains why there is a widespread anti-bureaucratic culture here. A consciousness of the danger of bureaucracy exists.
The collective leadership, the right to criticism and pluralism are important anti-bureaucratic tools. Especially pluralism, allowing criticism of a state/party amalgamation. The journalists' unions, even if they are Sandinist, are very critical of the state. If there were no democracy and pluralism, who could criticize the state?
Finally, the arming of the masses is very important, because it is easier to confront bureaucracy when you have 300,000 people carrying arms. The masses have the power, they have guns, they can have a union, a self-management committee...All that is much more effective in the struggle against bureaucracy than a thousand speeches!
We want a socialist project that culturally enriches the activity and daily life of the masses. The masses are in fact tired of state socialism, of economistic socialism. To encourage the self-activity of the masses, there has to be a socialist project that is effected with popular rejoicing and excitement. If socialism is grey and sad, the masses freeze up and grow weary. * like the CDS — with their potentiality, but INTERNATIENAL also their current weaknesses — they focus on the question of supplies and the distribution of basic consumer goods. At this level, MARXIST REVIEW the CDS have also played an important role in relation to price control, for example.
I think that they have a big potential that must be consistently encouraged, both through these concrete tasks and through other sorts of activity. It cannot be said that they have a real tradition of political discussions. • What is the FLN's relationship with the state? How do you confront the danger of an amalgamation of party and state?
Why is it a danger? • I am referring to the Soviet experience. There was a debate on this even in the early years of the USSR. A debate that not only Stalin and Trotsky contributed to, but also Lenin. One of the questions raised was how to avoid bureaucratization, especially in condi-
THE SUMMER 1988 issue of
International Marxist Review focuses on Latin America:
• The legacy of Che Guevara
Antonio Moscatol
• Morality and revolution in everyday
Orlando Nunez life
• The foreign debt and dependency
Luis Vitale
• Restructuring in Mexico
Sergio Rodriguez with further contributions to two earlier discussions on Gramsci and the
Philippines tions of economic shortages and diffi-
Subscription rates: Britain £8.50; Europe 120FF; USA & elsewhere (airmail)
$20; all countries (surface) £10/120FF/$17.
culties. Bureaucratization doesn't just depend on past heritage, such as lack
Please make cheques payable to PEC. Bank transfers to PEC, BNP of cadres and education...
Robespierre Acct 120179/90. Postal transfers to PEC CCP no 2 322 42 T Paris.
Yes, there is a danger of bureaucratiza-
Please mark clearly "IMR".
tion if there is an amalgamation of the state apparatus and the party. The state tends to defend the interests of its own apparatus.
The danger exists in Nicaragua and is not
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Latin America after Che 27 June 27, 1988 • #144 International Viewpoint