The Leftist Revolution in Latin America

[dmcauliffe09]

In these trying economic times, it is necessary that the revolution take place soon, before the capitalists have another chance to revitalize the market, only to have it crash again. In Latin America, it seems that the old perceived notion that socialism is "undemocratic" is being challenged. First, Hugo Chavez won the vote in Venezuela, removing presidential term limitations. This means that the Venezuelan proletariat wants to see him finish his Bolivarian revolution. Two days ago, leftist FMLN leader Mauricio Funes was elected as president of El Salvador. Is this the beginning of a revolution in Latin America? Evo Morales recently vowed to redistribute land amongst poor Bolivians, a clear opposition to the bourgeoisie class of that nation. Is Latin America setting a trend that the rest of the world will soon follow?

[pastradamus]

The fact that revolutions are popping up all over latin America is a clear sign that US foreign policy in the region it describes as its "sphere of influence" is decaying. The last time we saw this on such a grand scale was during the 60's & 70's. The reason for these revolutionary movements? Simply put - WAR.However,war in other countriesduring the 60 & 70's you had Vietnam which decapitated Latin American anti-leftist funding and we see it now with Afghanistan and Iraq absorbing US funding for Latin American leftist supression. They are too concerned with Iraq to send funding and human resorces elsewhere and defeat left-wing Latin America.

Your dead right when you said we should revolitionise fast before a recovery of Capitalism comes under way. The point being that we should Keep the fucking ball rolling . More protesters, More walkouts, More Demonstrations and more Activism.

[PoWR]

In what countries in Latin America have revolutions occurred in the last 20 years?

[dmcauliffe09]

Well, recently El Salvador (obviously), and also Venezuela and Bolivia.

[mykittyhasaboner]

There haven't been any revolutions in any of those places. Leftist leaders getting elected isn't a revolution.

[dmcauliffe09]

Leftist leaders getting elected in nations whose infastrucuture has repeatedly been marred by violence and tyrannical U.S. backed rightist puppet governments is indeed the beginning of a revolution. Revolution takes many forms. Just because there hasn't been a massive proletarian revolution that takes the form of armed struggle in a nation like Venezuela doesn't mean that a revolution is non-existant. The most interesting aspect of the election of leftist leaders is the clear confirmation for the U.S. and other impearial capitalist powers that socialism is indeed democratic. Funes, Chavez, and Morales have all gained power through the vote. True, Chavez is much more of a hard-line politician and may come off as a dictator, but his recent victory (in which he removed barriers for presidential term limitiations) was completely democratic. Leftist leaders are taking a much more ballot-boxy approach to winning nowadays, because class consciousness has allowed the proletariat of Latin America to see its oppression, and, consequently, the vote has been used to bring about the change the proletariat sees as necessary. An armed revolution is not always the proper solution for eradicating the capitalist influence.

[cyu]

class consciousness has allowed the proletariat of Latin America to see its oppression, and, consequently, the vote has been used to bring about the change the proletariat sees as necessary.

Yep. From "bloodless revolution" at http://everything2.com/node/1964031

What exactly is a "real" revolution is often debatable. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a change in government that most people would consider to be a significant departure from the previous government.

When you hear of revolutions from books or other people, it often involves some kind of bloodshed or violence - perhaps even some sort of civil war.

What follows are some types of revolutions that do not involve the shedding of blood.

Constitutional Revolution

These revolutions happen within the existing constitutional framework of the country.

Mass Conversion
This type of revolution usually does not happen quickly, but perhaps slowly over a short number of years. It happens when nearly everyone within the society decides to change their behavior, perhaps because of new scientific discoveries or compelling new ideas in social organization. It may not even involve a change in the actual people in government - instead, the people just start doing things differently.

Voting for Revolution
This type of revolution occurs only at the ballot box. Voters may decide to vote for politicians entirely different from the ones they voted for in the past, or the legislation passed may be entirely different from past legislation.

Constitutional Overhaul
While the revolution imagined in popular culture may involve an armed militia overthrowing the existing constitution, the constitutional process itself can still be used to completely change it. For example, if some nation's constitution requires 70% of the vote for approval of changes, then 70% of the people could vote in so many changes to the country's constitution that it is virtually unrelated to the constitution before the "revolution".

Civil Disobedient Revolution

These revolutions involve peaceful, but flagrant violations of existing legal norms.

Mass Civil Disobedience
This involves changing the government by organizing very large numbers of people to openly defy the law. If even large sections of the police population join in, then the political system would have effectively changed, even without actual legislation.

General Strike
A variation of mass civil disobedience that focuses on not going to work. Strikers hope to force the minority of government and business officials to respect their demands or else they would bring the country to a standstill. If there is enough support for the strike, then the officials themselves may be replaced.

Occupations and Takeovers

These movements often have the potential to result in some violence, even if violence is not the actual intent. In order for an occupation or takeover to work, the occupiers need to be able to make use of whatever it is they are occupying - which means this is usually the employees of a company or organization that are involved.

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country. If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence. As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapons on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.

[PoWR]

What is a real revolution isn't debatable for revolutionaries.

A revolution involves a lower class rising up, smashing the existing state, and creating a new state to serve their own purposes in its place.

Examples of revolutions: 1777 United States, 1789-1799 France, 1804 Haiti, 1848 Germany, 1917 Russian Empire, 1949 China, 1959 Cuba, 1979 Grenada.

Not examples of revolutions: The election of anyone, anywhere, ever.

You cannot "elect" revolution. The "leftists" that have been elected in Latin America have simply become leaders of capitalist states. They now oversee the apparatus which the capitalists use to preserve the conditions of their rule. Nothing more.

A basic principle of communists is that “The working-class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes.” (Marx)

If you don't understand the nature of the state, you're lost. Read Marx "The Civil War in France" & Lenin "The State & Revolution."

[cb9's_unity]

A revolution involves a lower class rising up, smashing the existing state, and creating a new state to serve their own purposes in its place.

Interesting how even in your own definition doesn't exclude the possibility of elections. In order to smash the state you must have the power to do that so i don't understand what difference it makes if that power comes from a gun or from a ballot.


A basic principle of communists is that “The working-class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes.” (Marx)

First this is only the very beginning of a revolution in el salvador but I don't see why you can't change the state for your own purposes. When a true revolution comes around i would hope that a system is made that encourages more autonomy and builds soviets/communes.

Also there is a difference now between Lenin's and especially Marx's time. They didn't exist in the time of assault rifles and government elite forces. During there time it was certainly much easier to revolt as governments didn't have highly specialized weapons and tactics for urban warfare. Things like chemical warfare and gases didn't give government such a huge advantage.

My point is that Marx recognized there would need to be some changes in his ideology and i think the fetish with violent revolution is one of the first things leftists have to chuck. With the emergence of new alternate forms of media leftists can bypass the more traditional capitalist forms of media and finally get their message out. Elections have become the more practical means in which to install new government and smash capitalism.

[Pogue]

Its not a revolution...its like saying Britain had a revolution post 1945 under Atless because he carried out alot of reforms and created the NHS. The change is not big enough nor permanent and has not created a major change in social/class/economic relaitons. No class has superceded another. Its not a revolution.

[PoWR]

Interesting how even in your own definition doesn't exclude the possibility of elections.

What is interesting about that? Elections and revolutions are two different things.

If elections could put the working class in power and lead to classless communist society there'd be no need for revolution. But they can't.

Class struggle is the driving force. Just as bourgeois revolutions toppled feudalism and instituted capitalism proletarian revolutions are required to topple capitalism and institute socialism.

"The passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term." - Lenin

The working class can't seize the capitalist state, which was created by a ruling minority to oppress everyone else, and use it for its own purposes. You can't use a gun to feed people. We need to destroy that state and create a new one of an entirely different kind.

This isn't really a discussion we should have to have on a message board called "Revolutionary Left." It shows how far "leftists" have drifted from communist principle in the recent decades of counterrevolution and demoralization.

[Rawthentic]

powr:

your stance on elections vs revolution should be appreciated. It is good to have a firm hold on communist principles.

The only problem I have is that you come off as really rigid and doctrinaire when you say these things. Clearly, elections are not ever revolutions, but we can't ignore that in specific conditions, they can be important.

For example, the maoists were elected as leaders of Nepal's new republic. Regardless of where we think they are headed, this is a major breakthrough in Nepal, in terms of political, economic, and social transformation. So, while the maoists have clearly not completed the extremely adverse challenges facing them, we need to recognize the importance of their election.

On another note, what about Obama's election? Sure, he is a representative of american imperialism and is presiding over the horrors the US is committing around the world, but it is important to analyze the outcome of those election in terms of people's behaviors and revolutionary opportunities in society.

[Angry Young Man]

I have to say I'm a bit sketchy about Morales. As I read, he gave a moral request that the rich ranchers and land owners give some land to the very poorest, which of course they won't, in exactly the same way that the Russian barracudas won't adhere the much similar request of Medvedev. It really gives the impression that Morales is weak against capital. Huge ranch land should be confiscated by the state and given to impoverished farmers to manage collectively.

Chavez, though, despite being sometimes passive to right-wing media, has my support.

[Comrade_Red]

i'm pretty sure you all know what the poster meant by 'revolution...' so don't be smart allecks about it.

They may not be revolutions in the very truest form of the word, but they're in a sense revolutions.

[R_P_A_S]

revolution or not this is way better the the ultra right wing washington align governments.

[el_chavista]

revolution or not this is way better the the ultra right wing washington align governments.
That is! Sort of pre-revolutionary situation in progress with mass movements. Call it a "social environment" potentially favorable for revolutionary activities. At least propaganda against the imperial world politics.

[dmcauliffe09]

I understand that simply becoming the head of a capitalist state is not grounds for celebrating the end of capitalism, but it is cause for celebrating democratic change in a corrupt system. Sure, the proletariat has not completely smashed the capitalist state, but any type of true Marxist social change is to be cherished. How can we say that just because Funes is simply the head of a capitalist state that his election is not significant? We must recognize the changes that occur. If significant social change is made in Latin America even without a complete 180 degree revolution in which the means of production are all owned completely by the proletariat, is it not something to applaud? Chavez has already nationalized several foreign companies. Morales has introduced sweeping reforms to help Bolivia's indigenous population. We still have time to see what Funes will do. We must recognize all social change, not just violent armed revolution. And besides, it's better for a leader to get elected by the people than to have terrorists and misguided forces like the FARC kill innocent people in search of power and make no progress.

[Dr.Claw]

I dont know, I heard of something going on in a factory Argentina (not sure but it was in south america) but it was a lil while back. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please give me a link to some info thanx:D.

[cyu]

I heard of something going on in a factory Argentina

You mean this? From http://everything2.com/node/1869037

The Take (2004)

"Jobs are coming back - jobs are being taken back."

A documentary about the occupied factories of Argentina.
AFI Film Festival: Grand Jury Prize
Cleveland International Film Festival: Best Documentary

Directed by Avi Lewis.
Written by Naomi Klein.
Official site: http://thetake.org

My first reaction while watching this film was that for a documentary about workplaces so much like what anarcho-syndicalists have been calling for, there is a surprising amount of respect for (or at least, fear of) the government. Warning: spoilers follow.

Background

Under Juan Perón, Argentina had the most prosperous middle class in Latin America. That was many decades ago. Then came the Carlos Menem years. Menem presided over what were at first boom years. He followed the U.S. approved IMF policy recommendations - like privatization and deregulation of big business.

Eventually, half the country fell below the poverty line and the currency collapsed. As a result, the government froze all bank accounts in the country. The people rioted. Banks were attacked. And history experienced "the largest sovereign debt default in world history."

Under these circumstances, one would expect if your company went under, that was the end of the story. Not so in Argentina. That was just the beginning.

As workers gathered outside one such closed business, they were saying forget the back wages they were owed, they should just take the factory. A representative from the National Movement of Recovered Factories arrived to lend his support and to give workers options.

Forja

Forja San Martin was a closed auto parts factory. Before it closed down, Freddy Espinosa and his wife got by. Now with just his wife's job, they can either afford to feed their daughters or pay their debts, but not both. So their debts piled up.

The former employees of Forja formed a cooperative. However, these weren't fired up anarchists, they were just family men, trying to make a living to support their wives and children. Instead of taking it upon themselves to assume ownership of the factory, they asked the bankruptcy court for permission to inspect the factory - evidence that the former owners sold factory contents gave them a legal case to take over the factory.

They would all be administrators. They decided they would have equal salaries and that they would work harder because their interests would now be much more in line with company goals. The former employees decided to guard the factory to prevent it from being emptied out.

Their goal was to be like other recovered factories, like Zanon.

Zanon

The sign for Zanon Ceramics had this description below it: "belongs to the workers". Zanon was one of the first businesses to be taken over by employees. It had been democratically run for 2 years at the time of filming (2004). One worker, one vote - it was run by employee assemblies. There were 300 employees total. Everyone had equal salaries.

At the time Zanon closed down, the employees argued the company belonged to the community, because of the debts it owed and the public subsidies it had received. The owner had claimed that it wasn't profitable, got government subsidies, and still ran up debts. The former owner has now returned, trying to get the government to give him back the factory.

Zanon is now under 24 hour guard by employees armed with slingshots. Their real weapon, however, is the support of the community. Says one community member, "There are many companies that should be in the hands of the workers. But it seems that this is not politically convenient. That's the real problem."

Zanon donates tiles to hospitals and schools. Employees, with massive help from supporters in the community, have fought off 6 eviction orders carried out by police - forcing the retreat of the government. Instead of using the word "stealing" they prefer another word: expropriation. However, unlike other nations where this happens from above because of government leaders, here it is happening from below.

More than 15,000 people work in occupied businesses (at the time of filming). The number of takeovers was doubling every year. They included a private school, a health clinic, a shipbuilder, an ice cream factory, and a suit factory.

The Wait

Meanwhile, back at Forja auto parts, the former employees elected Freddy as president. He describes how the legal process is taking much longer than expected and holds back tears. While watching this, I thought they were far too concerned with obeying the law, but with children who needed them, it probably wouldn't have done much good to risk going to jail.

Menem was running for re-election again. Says one worker in an occupied company of Menem: "Rich politicians, and the people dying of hunger." Néstor Kirchner was the alternative. The film shows the tension between a daughter Maty (just hired by Zanon) who won't vote for either and her mother Anna who is campaigning for Kirchner and says she's a Peronist.

Freddy, along with other representatives from Forja, goes to a worker owned tractor factory, Zanello. Here, not all employees earn the same salary. Like the model of decentralized democracy of anarchism, each occupied factory has its own rules. Forja and Zanello make a deal - Forja would supply them with parts. Freddy hopes to impress the judge with the deal they've struck. Unfortunately, the judge is not friendly, because they've occupied the factory before getting legal permission to take ownership.

Meanwhile, there is even a Menem supporter in the occupied factory - hoping for stability and jobs.

Representatives from the IMF are again in Argentina, meeting with the presidential candidates. It is calling for cuts to public programs and higher prices in privatized utilities, in return for loans to pay off the interest of other loans.

The Forja workers are forced to next go to politicians, having failed with the judge to get the legal right to manage the plant.

The results of the first round of the election came in: Menem won a plurality, with 24% to Kirchner's 21.7%. There would have to be a runoff.

Back at Forja, the employees are cleaning the factory, but not actually using it. They fear eviction. It's not long before they get the news that the Brukman suit factory has been evicted.

Brukman

Brukman was the factory that started it all. It was taken over by its seamstresses after it was abandoned by the owners. Says one employee, "There have always been bosses and workers. But we are fighting for worker control... I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself here, but maybe we can run the country this way."

After letting the factory operate for years, the police were finally ordered to close it down. They have to weld shut the factory gate and build a tall security fence around the entire area. A large crowd gathered outside the police guarded Brukman - many elderly women among them, protesting. People started arriving from around the country to protest. Thousands arrived. The crowd attempted to enter Brukman but it was no match for the police's weapons. They fled.

Epilogue

There was good news for Forja, however, as police attacked the crowd outside Brukman. The expropriation law for Forja was passed.

There was also good news for workers in democratic workplaces that feared Menem would put an end to all their efforts. Menem dropped out of the runoff election, perhaps fearing he couldn't win.

Six months later, Forja was humming along. The Brukman employees won back their factory from the legislature. Unfortunately, Kirchner was no great alternative. He signed a deal with the IMF much like previous deals.