Sandinistas

[Ander]

While the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship and seemed to do a lot of good for Nicaragua, I'm not sure how socialist they really were. Should we, as leftists, support their actions? Were they genuinely socialist?

[Janus]

The control fell in the hands of an elite bureaucratic class and the people did not have control of the means of production.

So no, I wouldn't consider themselves to be genuine socialists.

However, I do believe that they did try to improve social service such as schooling in the country for example.

[bcbm]

I recently purchased a used book on the Sandinista revolution, I suppose I'll get on that and get back to you.

[LSD]

Of the various state socialist parties of the twentieth century, the Sandanistas were among the better ones, but they were nonetheless quite politically authoritarian and had a disturbingly liberal streak to a number of their policies.

They certainly weren't practical communists in any meaning of that term, but they were genuinely committed to socioeconomic reform and they did do a lot of good for the people of Nicaragua.

[rebelworker]

I was fortunate enough (living in quasi socialist quebec) to have a school trip to nicaragua shortly after the libeals took power. I lived for a month with sandinist pesants and supporters in the city.

One of the big problematic legacies of the Sandinistas was the centralisation of land. Peasants collectivly took over the big landowners holdings but the titles to the land remained in the hands of the state. When the Sandinistas lost the elections the land was given bacvk or sold to the wealthy, the peasnat collectives are loosing much of what they gained, often forced to squat in public parks/reserves.

There was a left wing split from the Sandinists sometime in the mid 80's. I cant remeber the name but they are now the third party.

Another problem of the revolution was the inabiliy to combat traditional christiian rule/values.
It is said that as many women died in underground abortions as were killed by the contras. Also fundamentalist churches, partially funded by the CIA, have taken up strong positions in many poor comunities, undermining the progressive social gains.

One family I stayed with for a few weeks belonged to a church where dancing was seen as a sin. When the children played the parents often frowned apon their behavior. I withnesses 24 hour prayer sessions, and a father crying all night to god to help him and his poor family. It was very sad for me, especially comingfrom a poor christian family which sufferes from the same culture of powerless, to see this behavior.

Ironically it was my visit to Nicaragua that lead me to change my views on revolution and quit the4 Trotskyist party that I had been an active and leading member of for several years. I saw that the base of the revolution was in the local community groups and committees, not in the party.

The self activity of the people, not the vision of the leadership os what fuels a reviolution.
IOt was not till years later that I learned that the red and black flag of the sandinists, was due to Sandinos introduction to radical politics throught the mexican anacho syndicalist movement...

[Janus]

Concerning their socio-economic programs, there was the land reform, literacy campaigns, healthcare, environmental conservation, and other improved public services. Of course these programs should've been a no brainer especially since the country had formally been run by a family dictatorship that ran it like it's own private piggy bank.

However, one issue with the Sandinistas was their harsh treatment of the highlander peasants particularly the Meskit Indians particularly as the Contra War began expanding and increasing in severity.

[rebelworker]

I was trying to remeber where I first read that... It may yet come to me, but be certain that it was a creadible sourced history or I wouldnt have beleived it, i have no interest in promoting anarchism where it didnt exists.

As for the cuban flag I wouldnt be suprised if it also was influenced by sydicalism, which was for a long period the dominant revolutionary idfeology in cuba. For that you can read "Cuban Anarchism" by Frank Fernandez. Interestingly i just red an article criticising castro's handing over power to his brother, written by Che's grandson who is now an anarchist. Unfortunately its only in french, but you can check it out on the nefac website if interested.

I was just trying to point out the often forgotten historical fact that anarchism was and still is far more influential internationally than the Marxist historian who dominated the left for many yeas give credit. Its a shame that this reality of the workers movement has almost been written out of history.

I juts learned this week that the first labour unions in china were started by anarchists ("anarchism in the chinese revolution" Arif Dirlik), earlier this year that Allende's single most influencial political teacher was an anarchist ("Salvador Allenede"Patricio Guzman, documentary). The more I read radical history the more influence I realise anarchism had, and has been ignored or played down to show a hegemony of Marxist ideas and parties.

This in my opinion is a great diservice to the legacy and history of popular struggle.

[chimx]

Arif Dirlik is great.

[RevSouth]

What exactly did the Sandinista's do to the Meskit Indians? I see they catch alot of shit about the Meskit deal from the Right, but I'm still not sure what happened, can someone elaborate?

[Janus]

can someone elaborate?
Forceful relocation, destruction of some vilages, and arrest of those perceived to be dissidents. Also, many Miskitos were upset by the separation of families as the Sandinistas forced their kids into the army or the school.

This got worse as the Contra War escalated.

[Janus]

Yeah, there is alot of bullshit tied in with that too.
Some of it is exaggerated but I'm just listing the general policies that the Sandinistas acted on.


They didn't participate in the revolution; and before hand, were pretty much autonomous from the government.
Right and when the FSLN intervened in their autonomy which not even Somoza had bothered with, some of the inhabitants rebelled and joined the banner of former Sandinista leaders thereby forming MILPAS.

[The Incorruptible]

It was the best government Nicaragua ever had up to this very moment period.

[Janus]

So what do you think they should have done Janus? What would have been the correct move in the conditions they faced?
From what I've read, it seems that since the Sandinista soldiers were mainly from the lowlands, they treated the highlander peasants harsher than normal. Much of it was due to the fact that there had always been lowlander and highlander tensions and the Sandinista policies only accentuated it more.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made those moves since some of them were well-intentioned of course but that they were caught up in a Catch 22. If they did not relocate or intervene in the Miskito's lives, they would continue to be a base of support for the MILPAS comandos. But they did not have to be unnecessarily harsh in their implementations of such policies as this is what pushed some of the inhabitants over into the opposition.