Critical in every way
AFTER the holding of the third São Paulo Forum, in Managua in July
1992, worries and doubts appeared about the possibilities of the Forum surviving and growing. The number of differences that had accumulated placed the future of this Latin American meeting place in doubt. In spite of all this, the fourth Forum proved to be a success.
PRISCILA PACHECO CASTILLO — Mexico City, August 19, 1993
International Viewpoint #248 September 1993
A S for the participants (114
organisations from Latin America and the Caribbean and more than 30 from other parts of the world), we should first highlight the important step forward of the integration of the Caribbean region, particularly that of the English and French-speaking Caribbean.
As for the level of representation, this year parties decided to send their main leaders, which included several presidential candidates with a good chance in upcoming elections: Cuauthemoc Cardenas from Mexico, Navarro Wolf from Colombia and Luis Ignacio "Lula" da Silva from Brazil. As such, this meeting reflected two central processes in the evolution of the Latin American left: its diversity and its contradictory gains.
The fact that the Forum took place in Havana at one of the most critical moments for the revolution was of great importance. The quantity and quality of participants was proof that the Latin American and Caribbean left understood the stakes in Cuba, and understood that it was important for them to be there.
They saw that declaring themselves in opposition to the imperialist blockade was also a way to defend the future of our peoples. But not only this; it was also important to discuss with the leadership of the Cuban CP some fundamental aspects of the type of society we are struggling for and highlight the centrality of democratic questions.
This meeting took place in a critical period, not only for the Cubans, but also for the whole Latin American left. Critical because the old thinking has not finished dying and the new is far from complete. Critical because there is still a kind of strategic paralysis; the era of politicomilitary organisations seems to have ended and an institutional democratic fever seems to have taken its place. 20
Nevertheless, there is no clarity with respect to what will be done after an electoral victory.
It is also a critical period because of the burning need to elaborate an alternative programme to capitalist globalisation, at a time when there is a very bad relationship of forces. And it is a critical period of reflection on the experience of socialist construction in Cuba.
The points that were discussed clearly reflected the ideological and practical preoccupations of our organisations. The analysis of the economic and political situation in the region was the first point. Afterwards there were two workshops: one on political education presented by members of the Free Bolivia Movement, and one on the state, democracy, parties and social movements introduces by Sergio Rodriguez of the PRT (Mexcian section of the Fourth International in the name of four Mexican parties. The third point examined the Forum's norms of functioning and the fourth took up the final declaration (see pages 18-19 of the
There was a fairly rich and extensive debate on each of the points, which would be impossible to synthesise in such a short article. Nevertheless, we can examine a few of the most important elements of the debates.
PT leader Marco Aurelio's intervention (see pages 15-17) got things going. There is broad consensus regarding the destructive characteristics of the neo-liberal project. Unlike other fora, there are no illusions about the possibility of humanising the neo-liberal project. In this sense, there is an urgent need to assemble an alternative programme that addresses the big social problems of this destructive process — from the starting point that the construction of socialism is not on the
It is necessary for this project to take up the question of Latin American integration, not in the interests of autarchy but as a way to approach globalisation from the strongest position. For this, there has to be a series of structural reforms that modify the internal and external relationship of forces.
This political approach comes from
International Viewpoint #248 September 1993 those political forces that might win presidential elections in their countries in the near future — organisations in Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and El Salvador. It would be wrong to presume that all these forces have an equal chance of winning elections, but this possibility attracted most of the attention at the Forum, insofar as a victory in two or three of these countries would lead to a substantial change in the relationship of forces.
Nevertheless, we must note that unlike what happened in the beginning of the 1970s, the possibility of electoral victory for the left does not result from a process of acute social polarisation. Rather, it is a result of the deep crisis of the bourgeois political projects, a crisis which stems from the same process of capitalist restructuring that is affecting us.
This is not to say that a victory of the left, even the most moderate, would not represent the hope for change of broad sectors of the population or that a social polarisation is excluded. The problem lies in the fact that for the left to have an opportunity to apply structural reforms it not only has to have majority popular support, but also has to organise this support and progressively break away from the institutions.
Many wondered about the future of the left in government. The problem of the army was raised. An Uruguayan participant had recently visited the Archives of Terror in Paraguay, where the many crimes committed by the armies of the southern cone are documented, where it becomes clear just how much these institutions inter-relate. The question arose,
"What will be the attitude of the military in the face of leftwing electoral victo-
Fidel Castro himself rubbed salt into the wound with considerable vigour. He pointed out that while the left was planning and dreaming, the right was acting.
Fidel asked, "Are they going to peacefully allow us to fulfill our dreams?" He also spoke of the difficulties of living in a uni-polar world.
During the debate, responses to these difficult questions began to emerge, with special attention paid to the question of the state. On the one hand, there were those who, like Fidel, clearly defended what could be called the traditional position of the Latin American left, which sees the state as the main agent for transforming economic, social, political and
On the other hand, there were those who, after the fiascos of Eastern Europe and the welfare state, have chosen to reduce as much as possible the role of the state in these transformations. A middle position was presented by the Brazilian PT, which gave the state a central role while making it a simple administrative
The idea that the state should be used to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few was clearly expressed, as was the idea that it should be used to counter the blind logic of market mechanisms - without for all that making the state the owner of the majori-
In the field of democracy and party functioning Pablo Modena of the Venezuelan Causa Radical group, Adolfo Gilly of the Mexican PRD and Lula of the PT presented elements of what could be seen as the new thinking. After making a severe criticism of the traditio nal parties of the Latin American left, the Causa Radical members argued that the failings of this left are profoundly linked to its poor understanding of democracy. In this way, they harshly criticised those, singling out Daniel Ortega of the FSLN, who had shown support for former Venezuelan president Carlos Andres Perez.
Afterwards, a new political — and to a certain degree ethical — vision of political practice was discussed. There was talk of the need to promote all mass radical actions of the population, and not place before them the interests of this or that organisation, as well as the need to not make agreements with those who the population sees as its main enemies.
Many were of the opinion that the only way to begin to provide responses to the many questions which had come up was to develop the social and political activity of the population, promoting the idea that mechanisms for solving the big national problems should be discussed That is to say - breaking with the politicking that reduces democracy to elections in which the people delegate power to one representative.
Due to the past and as a result of a series of failures, the Latin American and Caribbean left began to discuss its errors in respect to the social movements. Very few countries of the world have seen the emergence of social movements of the size and breadth of what existed in our countries. Nevertheless, they were simply seen as transmission belts for the creation of hegemony. This has led not only to demoralisation but also to the loss of mass forces - and, in such cases, to the questioning of the ethics of socialist
In all the meetings of the São Paulo Forum there has been a flagrant absence of discussion of problems related to the oppression of women and, in particular, of the problems of the Latin American left in this field. The composition of the meeting itself was such that women felt the need to meet and issue a declaration which begins, "From the island of Cuba, the small giant, symbol and example of anti-imperialist resistance, land of Mariana Grajales and Ana Betancourt, the women participants of the São Paulo Forum point out the obvious: this has been a men's meeting.
"The economic, social and political situation of our America was discussed, as was the relationship between social movements and political parties, as was political education — but all from a limited perspective. Of 217 participants, only 25 were women. If we have not been able to enrich this analysis with our presence, it is because Latin American leftwing political parties and organisations
21
International Viewpoint #248 September 1993 still practise sexist discrimination. It is essential that our numerical presence in the Forum reflects a universal vision of the world that integrates women and men."
To conclude, a few words should be said about the discussions that took place on Cuba. In the first place, a few ministers and members of the Political Bureau of the Cuban CP - and Fidel Castro himself - were in attendance for all the activities of the Forum and showed great interest. Clearly, they saw the importance of this Latin American and Caribbean initiative.
I am convinced that this attitude of listening to every single intervention was not just an act they were putiing on. Fidel wanted to hear and be heard by this Latin American left in the process of change. Clearly, Fidel did not manage to convince many, nor was he convinc-
The important thing is that a real process of exchange took place, such as did not exist over a long period of time. This is another feature of the critical period we are going through: long gone are the days of the leading party, of "big
The information provided in the special sessions on the political and economic reality of the island was very extensive and deserves its own article. The Cuban situation requires special attention — not only for what is objectively going on there now, but also for its subjective significance. This debate cannot be avoided. We believe that it should be a debate with historic content 22 and not only conjunctural! It is impossible to analyse a measure such as the depenalisation of the holding of hard currency without taking into consideration the whole economic model that is in cri-
It doesn't at all help to point fingers at the leaders of the revolution. They had to reply to a very difficult question: how to build a new society in a world dominated by finance capital, that is to say, by imperialism? The answers were equally complex: for example, the fact that the only help they received was from the former Soviet Union. Could they have believed that this would not have consequences in all fields?
Nevertheless, today everyone has to answer this question: how to build a new society, without being able to count on even the slightest help (even as small as that given by Eastern Europe to Nicaragua) from any state, and faced with total imperialist domination?
Fidel Castro's interpretation of the disintegration of the Soviet Union reflected a profound misunderstanding of what happened. According to him, it was all the fault of "the midwives". That is to say, those who helped bring into the world those who consciously or unconsciously allowed imperialism to fulfill its goal of re-integrating the USSR into the capitalist world. It would seem that for Castro an historical event can be explained as a function of the action of a handful of human beings who act from above. This is the conspiracy approach towards history.
A key factor in the former bureaucratic states was the bureaucracies' total lack of social roots. They could not resist the advances of capitalist restructuring and the growth of the mechanisms of labour productivity. And this is where, according to Fidel, lies the difference between
Cuba and those countries.
In Cuba, the political regime can count on the endorsement of the majority of the population. This endorsement is founded in the existence of a national anti-imperialist and socialist consciousness in defense of national dignity — which is the deep-rooted identity of the Cuban people. It is difficult to imagine how else they would have been able to resist in the way they have. To say that they live under a dictatorship is an insult to the intelligence.
Nevertheless, the situation is extremely complex. The measure depenalising holdings in hard currency is going to benefit those sectors least favourable to the revolution, creating a social inequality that could erode majority support for the government. There have to be other measures as a counterweight to this situation — measures which are not only economic, but also political. More than ever, it is necessary for people's power to reach its full potential, to unleash the initiative of the producers, and loosen the centralised control of all activities.
It is certain that a process of econom1c degradation such as the country has gone through cannot continue indefinitely. That said, this should not make us mere prophets of impending doom. The Cuban people's capacity to resist is central to the development of international solidarity for the even partial lifting of the embargo - and to the struggle to change the relationship of forces between labour and capital in our countries.
In one of his interventions, Fidel said, "we defend ideas, not interests." This is quite clear, and the ideas are not always our own; sometimes we are totally against them, but it is possible and necessary to understand that they are ideas which join with ours in the struggle against imperialism, capital and social injustice. For this reason, when Fidel goes to Bolivia, Brazil or Mexico, our peoples — more than ever — come out onto the streets and demonstrate their support. There is a conviction that the Cuban people and its leadership will not give in to the empire to the north, unlike what is happening in our countries.
Whatever our differences, this identity of resistance and dignity deserves to be defended. I think this is the clearest message that emerged from the fourth meeting of the São Paulo Forum. *