Latin American
Marxism: the relaunch
LATIN AMERICA cratic rights — universal suffrage, religious freedom, national rights - had not been and should not be entrusted to the bourgeoisie. In fact democracy remained a terrain of struggle between the bourgeoisie and the society, headed by the workers. But, as he insisted, the bourgeoisie's present hegemony on this terrain
A WHOLE series of recent developments — the US invasion of
Panama, the collapse of the bureaucratic systems in Eastern
Europe, the defeat of the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan elections, the failure of the United Left in the Peruvian elections, the growth of social democratic currents inside some revolutionary organizations and the successes of the
United States' strategy of "low intensity conflicts" - formed the background to the meeting of political parties of the Left from Latin America and the Caribbean which took place July 4,
1990, in Sao Paolo, Brazil.
The meeting gave the participants an opportunity to confront these new challenges. Among those present was Sergio
Rodriguez, a leader of the Mexican Revolutionary Workers
Party (PRT), the Mexican section of the Fourth International, who sent us the following account of the conference.
SERGIO RODRIGUEZ
HE meeting was hosted by the
T
Brazilian Workers Party (PT), strengthened by the recent elections in which it got 31 million votes. The PT has 650,000 members and is the main influence in the most powerful trade union federation on the continent, the United Workers Central (CUT).
There were discussions on five main topics: the capitalist offensive in Latin
America; the crisis in Eastern Europe; the current situation in Cuba; certain experiences of the Latin American left; and our project for a socialist and democratic
The discussion on the capitalist offensive involved an attempt to assess the present balance of forces and the austerity measures now being applied in Latin
America. The Movement for Socialism
(MAS), an Argentine organization founded by the Trotskyist Nahuel Moreno, claimed that the mass movement is more on the offensive than ever, whether in
Eastern Europe, the Third World or the imperialist centres.
According to the MAS, the big losers today are the imperialist governments and the bureaucracy of the so-called "socialist countries". This analysis was rejected by the rest of those present, who found the
MAS' assertion that the invasion of Panama was the swansong of imperialism especially hard to take.
Most of the organizations present explained the difficulties currently being experienced by the Latin American revolutionary movement by two factors; firstarrogant attitude of imperialism, ly the taking advantage of the policy of peaceful coexistence and perestroika, and secondly the use of the foreign debt and the "structural adjustments" demanded by the IMF, which are an essential economic means of disciplining our people. We tried to arrive at a deeper understanding of these processes and outline a way of confronting them, in the face of Bush's plan for a free trade zone including Latin America, the United States and Canada.
Discussion on crisis in
Eastern Europe
The discussion on the crisis of the regimes in the East focussed on why it happened and the meaning of these events. For the great majority of the participants, the events represented a crisis of the model of bureaucratic domination. It was something of a surprise to hear the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Dominican Republic, Narciso Isa Conde, describing what was happening with the traditional Trotskyist phrase "a political revolution".
The talk was all of the "fall bureaucracy", the "transition to socialism", the "crisis of the single party model", the "absence of socialist democracy" and so on. Most of the delegates insisted on the necessity of an answer to an urgent strategic problem; the reestablishment of the connection between socialism and democracy. PT leader Marco
Aurelio Garcia explained the necessity of multipartyism in the construction of a socialist society. He pointed out that the achievement of a whole series of demoneeded to be contested.
Carlos Aldano Escalante from the Com- • munist Party of Cuba (PCC) began his presentation of the situation on the island with the claim that; "Cuba is not in crisis and will not be." This was something like an attempt to exorcize the clear dangers threatening a revolution dear to the whole Latin American left. Aldano explained his views on the question of the single party, which he presented as a tactical rather than strategic problem depending on the objective conditions of imperialist encirclement. He said that the Cubans are faithful friends and had often supported Soviet actions that they did not agree with. He cited the example of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which the PCC first of all analyzed as politically and morally unjustifiable. It was the need to give political support to the Soviet friends that changed this position.
Conditions for democratic elections in Cuba
Joao Machado, a PT leader, called on all the organizations present to come our clearly in defence of the Cuban revolution. Nonetheless he drew a sharp distinction between the question of the single party and the limitations of democracy in Cuba.
The representative of the Mexican PRT pointed out that nobody present had demanded that the PCC organize elections on the bourgeois democratic model, nor even on the Nicaraguan niodel which the Sandinista ex-foreign affairs minister, Miguel d'Escoto, defined as a ballot conducted with a pistol to one's forehead. But he also underlined that there was no counter-revolutionary army in Cuba, nor a powerful bourgeoisie intent on treachery, and that the island had not just suffered six years of war.
Thus the conditions existed in Cuba for real free elections, given that money would not be a source of inequalities.
Multipartyism is a democratic right, and
Marxism does not fear the battle of ideas.
Another PT comrade, Jose Dirceu, said that the main problem in Cuba stemmed from the fusion of the party and state.
Aldana, who had defended in a very laconic way the execution of Ochoa (see
IV 173), stated that the separation of party and state would be a key point at the next
PCC congress.
This meeting marked the end of one period and the beginning of another. For some it confirmed the end of the period of tutional activity, as shown by the experi 13 armed organizations and the start of insti-
of protest and support for the Mexican PRT. They should be sent to Marlano Pina Olaya, Constitutional Government of the State of Puebla,
Palacio de Goblerno, Puebla, Puebla, Mexico. Coples should be sent to the PRT via Edgardo Sánchez Ramirez, Avenida Xola 181, Colonia Alamos, C.P. 03400, Mexico, DF, Mexico. *
International Viewpoint #190 • September 17, 1990
LATIN AMERICA / SOUTH AFRICA ence of the M-19 in Colombia, an exguerilla organization whose presidential candidate Navarro Wolf has accepted the post of Minister of Health in the new government of Gaviria.
Question of armed struggle reassessed
Others saw a more profound meaning - the Left had come to the end of a time when it saw the revolution as a confrontation between two camps or blocs. The collapse of the "socialist camp" has affected not only the Left's strategy bu also its vision of practical politics as well. Nobody wants to be identified any more with the bureaucratic deviations of the so-called countries of "really-existing socialism." The question of armed strug gle — in many respects a reaction to the militarism of the state - has also been approached differently; such a decision cannot be the authoritarian decision of a small group of courageous militants, it must have legitimacy based on the democratic sentiments of the population.
The turn of the wheel has also affected organizations that are not engaged in armed struggle. The Brazilian PT, the Peruvian United Mariateguist Party (PUM), the Uruguayan Tupamaros and the Mexican PRT are at a crossroads. How to combine the the struggle in the institutional framework and a revolutionary strategy for social transformation?
The question of the development of people's power is a fundamental part of a resolution of this contradiction, since it rejects neither institutional participation nor the development of armed struggle. Popular power is a school of revolutionary strategy, taking up the struggle for reforms as a way of preparing for power; it struggles for a model of democratic socialism while educating the masses in democratic participation in the capitalist framework. There are some dangers in this line - including the confusion of popular power and charity — a traditional mistake on the Latin American Left.
Some present compared the Sao Paolo meeting to the experience of the Latin American Organization of Solidarity (OLAS - An anti-imperialist front founded in the 1960s under Cuban influence)..
However there are two very important differences. Firstly, the Left does not today have a model, such as Cuba was at the time, which dominates its political and theoretical considerations. Furthermore this meeting reflected the pluralism of a revolutionary thought that wants now to break with all dogmatism. This is the consequence of the appearance of a New Left on our continent. The gathering was thus a rejuvenating experience in the middle of the crisis of the international socialist left. *