Rafael Correa

[maskerade]

I recently saw a video that said that Ecuador's president Rafael Correa had been called "the bad left" by US media, which can only be a good thing.

Can anyone enligthen me about him? What has he accomplished in Ecuador? I know he was talking about closing an American military base unless he could open one in Miami, did he ever close it down? Is he anything like Chavez - openly calling for socialism and such?

[el_chavista]

Rafael Correa is a competent economist and is successfully driving a nationalist democratic revolution called "La revolución ciudadana" (The citizenly revolution).
He actually closed the US military base of Manta.

[Proletarian Ultra]

He's closed down US military bases. He's repudiated part of Ecuador's debt. He's forced through a constitution that asserts Ecuador's self-determination on hydrocarbons, asserts civilian control over the military, protects indigenous rights establishes right of legislative initiative for the president and by public petition, and abolishes the upper house of the legislature.


A socialist who's close to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Correa is redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, extending state control over the economy and encouraging more investment by Ecuadorean companies at the expense of foreign investment...Correa has acted boldly in his two years as president...he's defaulted on a portion of Ecuador's debt, saying it was contracted illegally years ago.

Correa has angered US policymakers by refusing to renew a US anti-drug air base in Ecuador and by expelling two US diplomats who he said were meddling in the country's politics.

Originally elected in late 2006 with no supporters in Ecuador's congress, Correa won a public vote to rewrite the constitution more to his liking. His supporters are likely to win a majority of seats in congress. This would mark the first time since the return of democracy in 1979 that a president enjoyed a congressional majority.

Correa enjoys unprecedented popularity. He's spent liberally on behalf of the poor, including two increases in the minimum wage. His government has built or refurbished hundreds of schools and local health care clinics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/24/ecuador-rafael-correa-election


He's better than Morales in my book: Evo didn't manage to abolish the upper house and depends too heavily on his peasant base. Maybe as good or better than Chavez.


Socialism will continue. The Ecuadorian people voted for that. We are going to emphasize this fight for social justice, for regional justice. We are going to continue the fight to eliminate all forms of workplace exploitation within our socialist conviction: the supremacy of human work over capital. Nobody is in any doubt that our preferential option is for the poorest people, we are here because of them. Hasta la victoria siempre!
— Rafael Correa, April 30, 2009 [25]

[RojoyNegro]

Un saludo revolucionario desde Nicaragua, latinoamerica unida jamás sera vencida!! Gracias por toda la ayuda que nos han brindado, son un ejemplo de solidaridad en su mas pura expresion.

Patria Libre o Morir.

[S.Artesian]

He's closed down US military bases. He's repudiated part of Ecuador's debt. He's forced through a constitution that asserts Ecuador's self-determination on hydrocarbons, asserts civilian control over the military, protects indigenous rights establishes right of legislative initiative for the president and by public petition, and abolishes the upper house of the legislature.



He's better than Morales in my book: Evo didn't manage to abolish the upper house and depends too heavily on his peasant base. Maybe as good or better than Chavez.


And he's also in favor of giving Canadian and other mining companies concessions in the homelands of the indigenous peoples for the exploration of natural resources, pretending that the Canadians are "clean" capitalists, unlike those messy bastards from Texaco.

The history of Latin America, of the failure of revolutions in Latin America is chock full of these "nationalist" pseudo-reformers who talk and act big for awhile and do little but set-up the working class for the bourgeoisie's big payback.

[el_chavista]

The history of Latin America, of the failure of revolutions in Latin America is chock full of these "nationalist" pseudo-reformers who talk and act big for awhile and do little but set-up the working class for the bourgeoisie's big payback.

In Latin America, being a nationalist seeking for a native capitalist economic development causes the reaction of the international financial metropolises and their unconditional local bourgeoisie. That's why -for instance- Juan Perón in Argentine and Lázaro Cárdenas in México were overthrown. Allende sought for a socialism-by-constitutional-reforms in Chile and he paid for his "audacity" with his life.
In Latin America it's hard to tell the difference between nationalism and anti-imperialism.

[Nolan]

In Latin America it's hard to tell the difference between nationalism and anti-imperialism.

This. National-liberationism is not inherently reactionary, contrary to the dogmatic assertions of some liberals here.

[S.Artesian]

In Latin America, being a nationalist seeking for a native capitalist economic development causes the reaction of the international financial metropolises and their unconditional local bourgeoisie. That's why -for instance- Juan Perón in Argentine and Lázaro Cárdenas in México were overthrown. Allende sought for a socialism-by-constitutional-reforms in Chile and he paid for his "audacity" with his life.
In Latin America it's hard to tell the difference between nationalism and anti-imperialism.


That's a great theory you got there, and I'd have a bit more respect for it if you had your facts straight-- like for example Cárdenas... he wasn't overthrown, but served out his term.

And Peron? Yeah, he was overthrown, and brought back a second time to quell the class struggle in Argentina that was getting a bit out of hand. When he died Isabel could do nothing better for "national capitalism" then agree to the secret police attacks upon and executions of militants, thus setting the stage for her own overthrow and the full measure of the dirty war. Not a new story. Actually remarkably like what happened in Bolivia 1952-1964 under that "national capitalist revolutionary government" of the MNR.

Right, trying to advocate some "middle road" national capitalism tends to upset the international bourgeoisie. All the more reason not to advocate it, enter coalitions with those who do advocate it, etc. etc.



As for Allende, if his was the only life that the bourgeoisie collected on, BFD. However it was the working class who paid and for years.

[Proletarian Ultra]

And he's also in favor of giving Canadian and other mining companies concessions in the homelands of the indigenous peoples for the exploration of natural resources, pretending that the Canadians are "clean" capitalists, unlike those messy bastards from Texaco.

Yes, his policy has favored the development of jobs in mining and angered the Indians, which is the opposite problem of Morales, who is favoring the Indians and angering mining workers. (Or you can fuck over both, like they do in Peru). The dilemma is more or less inevitable while the means of production are privately held - as Mao writes in "On Contradiction," the way to resolve the contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry is to collectivize agriculture...I don't see that happening soon in any country, however.


The history of Latin America, of the failure of revolutions in Latin America is chock full of these "nationalist" pseudo-reformers who talk and act big for awhile and do little but set-up the working class for the bourgeoisie's big payback.

The key difference here is a) the formation of a cooperative regional bloc, including both the core Bolivarian countries and allied populist governments all along the Atlantic coast b) extensive constitutional revisions in the core Bolivarian countries. None of those conditions obtained for e.g. Velasco or Allende.

[S.Artesian]

The key difference here is a) the formation of a cooperative regional bloc, including both the core Bolivarian countries and allied populist governments all along the Atlantic coast b) extensive constitutional revisions in the core Bolivarian countries. None of those conditions obtained for e.g. Velasco or Allende.

I understand your optimism, and I wish I could share it, but I can't. First, the largest [production wise] economy in South America, Brazil is not a member of ALBA. Secondly, the pivotal economy is that of Venezuela, which is undergoing severe stress with little indication that things will get better rather than worse.

The actual economic interpenetration of the ALBA countries is pretty low.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I understand your optimism, and I wish I could share it, but I can't. First, the largest [production wise] economy in South America, Brazil is not a member of ALBA. Secondly, the pivotal economy is that of Venezuela, which is undergoing severe stress with little indication that things will get better rather than worse.

I don't know if I would call it optimism, but the field of battle is different now. Sure, a complete bourgeois restoration is probably inevitable. But bourgeois dictatorship will have a harder time obfuscating itself without the excuse of bicameralism and a strong separation of powers to fall back on. Also, the new constitutional powers over minerals and hydrocarbons - all but the most pathetic and desperate governments are going to retain those, just like Pinochet kept the copper industry nationalized after the coup. Which I would call a win - Bolivarianism has always been more about ending primitive accumulation rather than wage exploitation. You really can't have much of a proletariat to revolutionize if mineral revenues are going to pay for means of production in the first world rather than at home.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know if I would call it optimism, but the field of battle is different now. Sure, a complete bourgeois restoration is probably inevitable. But bourgeois dictatorship will have a harder time obfuscating itself without the excuse of bicameralism and a strong separation of powers to fall back on. Also, the new constitutional powers over minerals and hydrocarbons - all but the most pathetic and desperate governments are going to retain those, just like Pinochet kept the copper industry nationalized after the coup. Which I would call a win - Bolivarianism has always been more about ending primitive accumulation rather than wage exploitation. You really can't have much of a proletariat to revolutionize if mineral revenues are going to pay for means of production in the first world rather than at home.


Well, primitive accumulation has not been the story of Bolivia. The companies that controlled the mining industry were domestic, owned by Bolivian families [until sold, well into the 20th century]; the struggles that dominated Bolivia were struggles of wage-laborers; the grinding poverty of the country [2/3 of the population below the poverty line] was the poverty brought on by capitalism developing as a national capitalism, inhibited and impaired more by the mining families and their Rosca, and the hacendados with their indentured labor; not imperialism.

The great struggles that weakened the old regime and allowed the MNR to take power in Bolivia in 1952 were struggles of wage laborers, miners.


I strongly suggest people read Dunkerly's Revolution in the Veins to get a grasp of Bolivian history.

As for the hydrocarbons sectors-- the actions of the MAS in Bolivia amount to little more, and actually a little less, than what existed prior to Goni's first term, prior to the privatization of the oil and gas fields. The hydrocarbon sector was nationalized in Bolivia back in 1937.

I wouldn't call Pinochet's maintaining Allende's nationalization of El Teniente and other copper mines a "win." A few more victories like that and we won't be able to stand it.

[el_chavista]

...Right, trying to advocate some "middle road" national capitalism tends to upset the international bourgeoisie. All the more reason not to advocate it, enter coalitions with those who do advocate it, etc. etc. ...
You are very aware of Latin American facts and history. But not advocating or entering in coalitions with the reformists have isolated the Latin American Marxist movements without any gain for the class. It´s all part of the left crisis: our inability "to merge socialism with the broad movement of the working class".

[S.Artesian]

You are very aware of Latin American facts and history. But not advocating or entering in coalitions with the reformists have isolated the Latin American Marxist movements without any gain for the class. It´s all part of the left crisis: our inability "to merge socialism with the broad movement of the working class".

But you must not be aware then of Latin American facts and history, because Latin American Marxists movements have all too often, repeatedly, entered into coalitions with reformists, with the left bourgeoisie; supporting Allende, or Peron, or Morales, or Correa, or the MNR, and the results have been worse than without any gain. The results have been destructive.

To "merge socialism with the broad movement of the working class," means to oppose the reformists, the nationalists, the populist mini-Bonapartes.

[el_chavista]

But you must not be aware then of Latin American facts and history, because Latin American Marxists movements have all too often, repeatedly, entered into coalitions with reformists, with the left bourgeoisie; supporting Allende, or Peron, or Morales, or Correa, or the MNR, and the results have been worse than without any gain. The results have been destructive.

To "merge socialism with the broad movement of the working class," means to oppose the reformists, the nationalists, the populist mini-Bonapartes.
Reformists, the nationalists, the populist mini-Bonapartes have moved the overwhelming majority of the masses. To be sure, there are/have been different political conditions in every country. But the common factor is an isolated left in tiny "distinctively-of-the-class" parties. This has been the fate of the guerrilla movements in the 1960s and 1970s in Ecuador (Alfaro vive ¡carajo!) or Venezuela (PCV, MIR). They sistematically abandoned the reformist trade-unions, the parliaments and the electoral politic. Now the influence on the masses of this traditionally left is minimal.

[S.Artesian]

Reformists, the nationalists, the populist mini-Bonapartes have moved the overwhelming majority of the masses. To be sure, there are/have been different political conditions in every country. But the common factor is an isolated left in tiny "distinctively-of-the-class" parties. This has been the fate of the guerrilla movements in the 1960s and 1970s in Ecuador (Alfaro vive ¡carajo!) or Venezuela (PCV, MIR). They sistematically abandoned the reformist trade-unions, the parliaments and the electoral politic. Now the influence on the masses of this traditionally left is minimal.

The issues are not working in the trade unions, in parliaments, or in the electoral arena. All those things can be done independently of endorsing, allying with the left bourgeoisie. All those things can be done on a class basis without endorsing capitalism, and subordinating the workers movement to that mythic creature, a "national capitalism."

The issue is how best to develop that independent class action that cannot be disarmed or disoriented by populist, reformist wings of the bourgeoisie.