Sandinistas

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I had heard of Sandinistas before and that they were terrible dictators who slaughtered people but a couple days ago I found an article which said that the Sandinistas actually brought free and fair democratic elections to Nicargua. What are your views on them? Do you think they are socialists or communists or neither?

[Tommie]

The Sandinistas were socialist revolutionaries that brought about social justice for their country. They were the victim of the US-funded Contras who waged an ugly civil war against the socialist government right from the beginning of their administration.

You are correct that the Sandinistas respected a pluralistic democracy. It should be noted that it was not the Contras that toppled them but an election that they lost.

[which doctor]

It should also be known that they were very brutal toward the Miskito indians. The Miskito population got caught in the crossfire between the US and the Sandinistas. Although some of the Miskito indians were illegitimately recruited as Contras, the minority as a whole was punished.

Overall, they have been one of the more fair "Marxist" movements present in the world in the 20th century.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:37 PM
It should be noted that it was not the Contras that toppled them but an election that they lost.
I don't think you can seperate the two.

[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.

Obviously they overreacted in some of their responses to Contra aggression, but they were fighting against the might of the United States. That doesn't excuse their actions (especially with regards to the Miskito), but it sure does contextualize them.


It should be noted that it was not the Contras that toppled them but an election that they lost.

An election that they lost due to immense US and US-funded pressure. It was made quite clear to the people of Nicaragua that unless they voted for the US puppet, the Contras would continue their rampage.

In the end, the people simply tired of fighting. It's not unlike how much of Afghanistan is now looking back fondly on the Taliban years.

[R_P_A_S]

can someone explain to me, please? what does the U.S. get, or what did it get out of the whole situation? why the interested in Nicaragua? I understand they obviously being the imperialist son of *****es that they are prob wanted to use Nicaragua as an other place to open up sweatshops or military base. But Nicaragua, not to take ANYTHING awat from it.. its small and i dont think it has any great threat to the U.S.A. im sure im missing some points. thats why i ask.

[RebelDog]

If we were to try the US at the world court for terrorism and crimes against humanity, then their crimes in Nicaragua and the region as a whole would figure high on the charge list. Nicaragua was broken by the US and their contra lackeys. Thousands died but Reagan and his fellow terrorists got away with it all. Some of these warmongers are operating in Bush2's administration so there is no suprise that thousands are still dying in the world today to satisfy US dominance. The Sandinista's were hardly communists but that didn't matter, social programmes for the population are not in the US 'grand strategy'.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:17 AM
can someone explain to me, please? what does the U.S. get, or what did it get out of the whole situation? why the interested in Nicaragua? I understand they obviously being the imperialist son of *****es that they are prob wanted to use Nicaragua as an other place to open up sweatshops or military base. But Nicaragua, not to take ANYTHING awat from it.. its small and i dont think it has any great threat to the U.S.A. im sure im missing some points. thats why i ask.
I'll take an educated guess. Latin American Domino theory. The same logic that was applied to Vietnam except instead of going in and becoming really unpopular, they just funded and armed the contras.

[mauvaise foi]

Once, I was talking to this guy from Nicaragua who said the Sandinistas were horrible because they "made his parents leave Nicaragua." I told him I wasn't familiar with his parents' situation, but that, whatever mistakes the Sandinistas made, they were 100 times better than the Somoza dynasty. He told me, "the Somozas may have been dictators, but under their rule, there was stability, and the economy grew." I told him that the "instability" under the Sandinistas was primarily the result of the U.S. war on Nicaragua, and that the economy may have been "growing" for the Somoza family and their cronies, but the majority of the Nicaraguan population was living in squalor. He replied angrily, "My parents were doing well before the Sandinistas came!" Then he paused. After a while, he said, "Come to think of it, my parents were cronies of the Somoza family!" :lol:

[The Incorruptible]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:31 AM
I had heard of Sandinistas before and that they were terrible dictators who slaughtered people but a couple days ago I found an article which said that the Sandinistas actually brought free and fair democratic elections to Nicargua. What are your views on them? Do you think they are socialists or communists or neither?
You should read Dr. Walter LaFeber's Inevitable Revolution: The United States in Central America.

http://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Revolutio...ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Revolutions-United-Central-America/dp/0393309649/sr=1-12/qid=1158004777/ref=sr_1_12/102-3340076-0636109?ie=UTF8&s=books)


OR


http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-03.html

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-02.html

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episo...erviews/ortega/ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/ortega/)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episo...nterviews/hunt/ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/hunt/)

http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107718

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 10 2006, 06:24 PM
Once, I was talking to this guy from Nicaragua who said the Sandinistas were horrible because they "made his parents leave Nicaragua." I told him I wasn't familiar with his parents' situation, but that, whatever mistakes the Sandinistas made, they were 100 times better than the Somoza dynasty. He told me, "the Somozas may have been dictators, but under their rule, there was stability, and the economy grew." I told him that the "instability" under the Sandinistas was primarily the result of the U.S. war on Nicaragua, and that the economy may have been "growing" for the Somoza family and their cronies, but the majority of the Nicaraguan population was living in squalor. He replied angrily, "My parents were doing well before the Sandinistas came!" Then he paused. After a while, he said, "Come to think of it, my parents were cronies of the Somoza family!" :lol:
wow i wish it were the easy for most fools to open their eyes to this shit.

I CANT STAND HOW SELFISH AND NARROW MINDED SOME PEOPLE CAN BE. to think in such small manner that just because theres a period of political and economic instability and YOU or YOUR family was "inconvenienced" BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PEOPLES STRUGGLE AND THE PEOPLE'S CAUSE. they get all butt hurt and start pointing the finger at those brave groups of revolutionaries.

WHILE THEY FORGET OR BLINDED TO SEE that THE REAL instability is their bourgeois oppressors!
they rather go on living that life of oppression and capitalism than to open their minds and raise up to the BIGGER PICTURE! REAL FREEDOM and DEMOCRAZY FOR ALL!

hate people like that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: <_<

[bolshevik butcher]

I think it&#39;s worth noting that infact the sandanistas are not just a thing of the past, it is very likely that they will be elected back into power with Daniel Ortega as president/prime minister (not sure which) in the upcoming elections.

[Tekun]

^Yeah, they seem to be the most popular of all the parties right now in Nicaragua
However, its sad to say that they have become, for the most part, a reformist social democratic party

Just like the FMLN in El Salvador

[bolshevik butcher]

Well I wouldn&#39;t call them entirley reformist. Chavez was elected on a very liberal line, I think that the masses are moving further and further leftword and the party will move with them. It is evidently due to the leftwards influence from other countries in Latin America that this is happening, and as more countries have leftwing governments and the working class grows more confident then I expect things to move further to the left, in Venezuela there are now examples of workers democracy.

[Tekun]

Well yeah, they&#39;re not entirely reformist
But they&#39;ve basically given up on overthrowing the system, and are willing to work with the system in order to empower workers and promote worker&#39;s democracy
In addition, the FMLN in El Salvador is not only wealthy but very corrupt
Their leaders are among the wealthiest, and the party is now officially considered as being social democratic

[combat]

They were always a bourgeois nationalist movement.

[rebelworker]

I had the honnor of living with sandinista peasants in nicaragua for a month back in the 90&#39;s in a region still controlled by the Sandinistas through the municipal govts.

They did alot of good for the country and ended a three generation dictatorship of the US pupet Samoza family.

Once in power, like any other political party, they began to move to the right and a new level of privalleged party members began to arise.

There have been several splits to the left of the Sandinistas, and they now effectivly reflect a burgeoise social democratic interest.

Early on the supported a kind of national front govt, but the more liberal elements broke away and formed what is now the center right party.

A big problem with the Sandinistas was that they dodnt propoerly deal with land claims of peasants who had occupied lareg estates during the revolution. When I was there the right wing govt who had just won the elections were selling or giving all the govt owned land back to the landowners.

This is one area that I would support workers ownwd cooperatives over govt holdings in a capitalist framework (Nicaragua was never close to communist).

Also to respond to why the US smashed the Saninistas with such force. Although nicaragua is a very small country (population of 3 million) th whole region wa in revolt at the time and they began to support the neiboring guerillas against the other corrupt regeims i n the region.

The Republicans, like in south asian during the 60&#39;s, began to see red.

The Sandinistas are after all named after the Anti colonial hero Sandino, who was influenced by Mexican Anarchist Syndicalism, thus the red and black flag.

The US had invaded Nicaragua three times since the 1800&#39;s, they didnt want to loose their little bit of land down south.

There is an interesting movie about US Marines going in for the first time, bankrolled by Vanderbuilt the railroad tycoon, but I cant remeber the name.