Correa poised to win Ecuadorean election...

[Cheung Mo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15907237/

Let's hope that Correa wins a sound mandate against that Bible-thumping, child-abusing, union-bashing, neo-con freak Noboa.

[Keyser]

We must remember that Ecuador had been down the path of populist and radical social democratic presidents in the past. Lucio Gutiérrez being the most well known and best example.

How can we know if Correa is not just another Gutiérrez, with lots of promises pre-election and nothing but business as usual post-election?

[Cheung Mo]

My sentiments are that he is not a sell-out in the vein of Bachelet or Ortega...He doesn't appear to support the neo-conservative agenda in the way that Bachelet and Chile's social democratic left does and he's not playing kissy-face with the Contras and the Vatican the way Ortega did...

I think Correa will walk the walk: He seems to have ties to other Latin American leaders on the anti-imperialist left that are (to the best of my knowledge) far more prominent then those of Gutierrez and other SoDem neolib lackeys.

[Cheung Mo]

More good news: Exit polls ae showing a comfortable victory for Correa...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...VwD0&refer=news (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a89.DhJoVwD0&refer=news)

While the reactionaries will try to spin this as a reasonably close electuon, one must consider that Correa has apparently beaten Noboa by almost as large a margin as Ronald Reagan won the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

This is great, I just got back to CT and when I walked in the house my mom was watching the news and cheering for him to win. It would be good news for Latin America. A step in the right direction to say the least.


--Paz

[Brekisonphilous]

Oh yessss.. this is good news. :)
I know reformism isn't the chosen route for most of you, but there seems to be a lot of efforts for reform in latin america, the leftist coalition is growing, opposition is increasing, the people are turning left. It is a great sign, maybe this could be the beginning of something special.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

:lol: Oh great, a Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) & University of Illinois (U.S.) educated bourgeois "left" populist won an election! The severe poverty of the Ecuadorian masses will now disappear!

It's a sad commentary on the state of the left that we would get so excited over something like this.

The closest this guy's ever come to socialism was forming an electoral alliance with the PSE-FA ("Socialist" Party of Ecuador). He's even disassociated himself with Chavez, saying he's a personal friend, not a comrade. He's a self described "Christian of the left".

His most progressive plans, if he's able to carry them out, will be closing the small U.S. military base in Manta, defaulting on foreign debt payments, and holding elections for a constituent assembly.

On other issues, he's all over the place. He "opposes" free trade with the U.S. (more precisely, he wants to renegotiate the current free trade agreement with the U.S.), but he's all for "opening Ecuador to other countries". He's going to renegotiate contracts with oil companies, but will have no talk of nationalization (even though many, many Ecuadorians call for exactly that). He doesn't consider FARC a terrorist organization, but he said any members of FARC that enter Ecuador will be arrested.

People need to start acting like communists and less like liberal cheerleaders. Examine the class content of things.

Workers and farmers need to organize independently of the capitalist bloodsuckers. That hasn't happened here. Correa isn't working class, and he isn't a part of an organized workers and farmers movement or party. He's a bourgeois politician.

[Cheung Mo]

Even if you feel that Correa is deeply flawed (and some argue that his moderation is a smoke screen intended to win the endorsement of the social democratic/Blairite Socialist Party and (by proxy) Leon Roldos, which he desperately needed if he wanted to stand a chance), just the fact that an out-of-touch billionaire who buys votes, thumps Bibles, sends paramilitary squads after his own employees when they try to unionise, and uses child labour lost is something we must all celebrate.

Correa has nearly 70% of the vote so far, but Noboa's stronghold in Guayaquil/Las Guayas has yet to be counted.

[Guerrilla22]

Just another in a long line of populist leaders to be mistankingly refered to as "leftist." For some reason, Ortega is still being refered to as a leftist. We must make a clear distinction between actual leftist and reformist. Real leftist will pursue an actual leftist agenda that includes a rejection of neo-liberal policies, real nationalization as well as redistribution of wealth. So far we haven't really seen too much of that being implemneted by Latin American leaders.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yay! gross ultra leftism! There's nothing good happening in latin america at all. If they're not anarhcists I don't like them. If he was promising real nationalistion under a leninist agenda then you'd write him off too, you can't be kept happy.

For sure I wouldn't have any illusions with correa, or with Obrador in Mexico, especilly not with Ortega. However I think we have to recognise this as significant, a show of class consciousness by the ecuadorian workers, they see him as a working class candidate and identify with the gains of the venezuelan working class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, yes.. it's ultra-leftism. The same ultra-leftism has also prompted me to support Cuba. :lol:

In actuality, it's called being a communist and having a materialist outlook.

No one sees Correa as a "working class candidate;" and even if they did, they'd be entirely wrong.. because he's not working class. He's a rich guy who studied in Belgium and the U.S., where he got a Ph.D., while 70% of his fellow Ecuadorians wallowed in extreme poverty.

The Democrats get working class support, it doesn't change their class content.

Correa is a bourgeois politician.

A "a show of class consciousness by the ecuadorian workers" would have involved actual working class organization, independent of the bourgeoisie. This hasn't happened in Ecuador.. not by a long shot.

Correa's limited prestige comes from the fact that he resigned while serving in the government of Palacio (another bourgeois politician). People partly see him as an anti-corruption candidate. There are a few problems. For one he didn't really resign, he was forced to by Palacio. Second, pushes against "corruption" have lead to some of the worst regimes in history coming to power. It's not always the case, but it does happen.

Relating Correa to Chavez has been a main ploy of the bourgeois media, for a number of reasons. Many on the left has jumped on board, showing their complete political bankruptcy and tailing of the bourgeoisie.

Correa himself has clearly stated that he is not a Chavista, or a fighter for the "Bolivarian Revolution". What he did say was that Chavez is a personal friend. BREAK OUT THE RED FLAGS! :lol:

Chavez himself has a number of issues, and the workers in Venezuela have even more. But that's for another thread.

Correa is a self-described "Christian of the left".

And actually the election of Ortega is more siginificant than the election of Correa, for a few reasons.

Ortega was the leader of an authentic revolutionary movement with mass worker and farmer participation. He is still the leader of the party that lead the revolution in Nicaragua (even though he's changed alot). Many elected him more for what he once stood for, and because he's a Sandanista (if only in words), than they did for his move to the right. On top of this, the people of Nicaragua elected Ortega in the face of massive US pressure. The US openly said they'd cut all aid to Nicragua if Ortega was elected. They ran anti-Ortega ads on television and in newspapers, and they sent US officials and former officials to Nicaragua to denounce him.

[shadowed by the secret police]

But when will Columbia join the ranks of these "leftist states?"

[bolshevik butcher]

Correa recieves conscious working class support. I quite clearly strssed that, rather than just working class support. By the way the point isn't what class he comes from, I wouldn't say he was the next Lenin or anything like that, but a progressive candidate, however if you look at many revolutioanary leaders you will find that they come form a middle class background, does that mean we should disregaurd them?

Correa has actually sold his campaign basically on the message of being the ecuadoria chavez, he has made lots of use of his friendship with chavez, surley this is a progressive thing? Or is chavez just an irrelevant reformist too?

[Janus]

Well, it looks like Correa won though only a portion of the ballots have been counted so far.

Correa wins election (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/ecuador_election)

Like CDL said, it's nothing to get excited over. The guy is left-leaning and backed away from Chavez when he thought that it would hurt him in the polls. Basically, he's another populist reformer who has a lot of charisma and rhetoric but probably won't change his country around very much at all.

[metalero]

Originally posted by shadowed by the secret [email protected] 27, 2006 03:13 pm
But when will Columbia join the ranks of these "leftist states?"
Colombian working class has a long history of class conscious militancy, and subsequent persecution by the terrorist state in hands of the bloody oligarchy. It has been hurt so badly; many of its prominent leaders, not necessarily those in the insurgency, but rather the ones organizing and mobilizing the working class have fallen to the extrajudicial executions, forced abductions, massacres and forced displacement. The working class organizations are united in a all-left coalition for the first time, and its candidate got second in the recent elections despite the terror from paramilitaries, bribes, corruption and manipulation from the media. On the other hand the armed resistance has given heavy blows to the "democratic security" policies supported by U.S. that seeks to ensure big landlords and transnational interests over peasants and workers needs. The truth about the "terrorist" bombings planned by government agents, election frauds, paramilitary congressmen and more are so obvious than the bourgeois media can't hide any longer, and while they're are portraying Uribe as savior who's nothing to do with it, the regime is falling over and will implode soon, I even dare to say he won't finish his second term.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

...I even dare to say he won't finish his second term.

Here's to that!

[Keyser]

Even if you feel that Correa is deeply flawed (and some argue that his moderation is a smoke screen intended to win the endorsement of the social democratic/Blairite Socialist Party and (by proxy) Leon Roldos, which he desperately needed if he wanted to stand a chance)

History is usually a much better and more effective guide for analysis than what the political pundits of today say. The political pundits are of course those you just mentioned who say that Correa is a radical with a moderate smokescreen in order not to sacre off the voters and win the election.

Well history has shown us that when someone campaigns on a moderate platform, they usually mean it and stay moderate.

As socialists, marxists, communists and anarchists, we should always analyse any political, economic or social situation and/or event from a class perspective and how the antagonisms of class conflict relate to any changes that occur within the power structures of society.

To simplify all of this, I'll do a quick Q&A on the situation:

1.) What is the class background of Correa?

Bourgeois, born into an upper middle class family and educated in prestigious and elite universities in Europe and North America.

2.) What has Correa's role been in the class struggle in Ecuador?

Near invisible. During the uprising of January 2000, led by oppressed rural farmers and poverty stricken Ecuadorian Indians who faced severe discrimination and isolation at the hands of the white and rich elite of the Ecuadorian ruling class, Correa did not take part in the events of January 2000.

Despite his corruption, a fast conversion to neo-liberalism once in power and authoritarianism, Lucio Gutiérrez at least was a part of the process of events of January 2000, thus making Lucio Gutiérrez, despite all of his failings, a politician more involved with the working class and the activism of the oppressed poor of Ecuador.

3.) But Correa is opposed to Free Trade Agreements, surely that is a good thing?

Yes, it would be a good thing if only it was true. Correa may be critical of a free trade system between the United States and Ecuador, but he has no problems with having the very same free trade system with other capitalist countries, namely the capitalist countries of Europe, Japan, China, Russia and the capitalist countries of Latin America.

Correa's stance on free trade and neo-liberalism is at most, a populist Ecuadorian form of economic nationalism, not in any way a demand for the passing of economic and political power to the working class. This is to be expected of Correa. The bourgeois class in Latin America have finally gotten fed up with being lapdogs for US imperialism, they now want to take on the role of being capitalist masters, rather than regional managers for USA Global Inc. Correa's economic policies are a manifestation of just that, that Ecuador will be ruled by Ecuadorian capitalists, that instead of US multinationals exploiting Ecuador's working class, the Ecuadorian capitalist class will now do that. This is a process that is now occuring in many other places, Mexico with Obrador, Venezuela under Chavez and others besides.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the USA has the status of a global hyperpower, but with the rise of China under it's own capitalist system, the native capitalist classes of the countries of the poor global south now see that there are other alignments they can go with other than US imperialism.

4.) But surely Correa is a better option than the bible bashing billionaire, Noboa?

For the poor of Ecuador, a social democrat reformist (Correa) is better than a out and out neo-liberal right-wing businessman (Noboa), in that the day to day poverty, exploitation and suffering of the Ecuadorian working class will not be as harsh under Correa as it would be inder Noboa.

However, Correa has no plans to dismantle the capitalist state of Ecuador, hence when Correa leaves office, who is to say a Noboa mark II won't just assume office, as the rich elite of Ecuador will always have their class represented in elections. Such a development, post-Correa, would just simply reverse any small gains made for the living standards of the working class and poor of Ecuador. It happened in the USA, Lyndon Johnson gave the USA a new welfare system in 1965, only for Bill Clinton to sign away that very welfare support with a piece of paper and his signature. The capitalist system only ever grants concessions to the working class under extreme pressure and the threat of unrest and it has always been the case that when the capitalist system returns to a more stable environment, those very concessions are taken back.

Unless the working class and oppressed poor of Ecuador take power for themselves and by themselves via a social revolution, then they will always face a future rife with uncertainty, poverty, oppression and a complete lack of any say over their own affairs or lives.

[chebol]

Without falling into the infantile 'but he's a bourgeois so let's bash him" mindset which is so prevalent, and easy to hide behind around here, it is true, Correa is not working class. And, yes, he may well sell out. But I doubt it.

There are any number of reasons not to trust Correa. Let's go through them.

He is not a communist. Fair enough, but most people aren't, and we can't demand that t this stage, as preferable as it may be.

He is catholic. Oddly enough, the kind of catholic he is could go either way. He is almost a liberation theologist in some ways. For a year in between school he worked as a social worker in poor indigenous communities, where he learnt Quichua and began to identify strongly with the need to overcome their poverty. Alianza Pais' Plan for Government includes fighting homophobia as one of it's aims. However, I have heard, (and am still searching for an actual reference) that he is against abortion. As with all progressives who are religious, there are plenty of contradictions involved.

He is "middle class" (Lower middle class actually. His family were not *rich* - most of his money for school and university were deliviered by way of scholarships won due to academic success, rather than being a wealthy scion (like Noboa) that allowed him to cavort around the upper class uni circuit, as AN suggests). As others have mentioned however, his class background is only relevant so far as it limits his government's program. That remains to be seen.

This is a new one - "We can't trust Correa because he didn't take part in the events of 2000" - Well, sorry boys and girls, he was in the US getting that PhD, and couldn't afford a bit of political tourism to come home and be just one more person in an already enormous movement. He was, however, involved in the protests against Gutierrez. Good enough for yer? So in this case, [/B]within the limitations of material reality, rather than a crude attempt at hatcheting, Correa was, in fact involved in the most recent popular movement against the ruling classes of Ecuador - whereas Gutierrez himself was busy representing one part of a split oligarchy that was turning on itself at the same time and trying to exclude the people from democracy even further.

Anarchism Now's analysis reaches levels of pure drivel. Have you read any of his articles, speeches, or policy? So "reformist" and well-behaved a little bourgeois character he is, that he's actually calling for socialism before he's elected, as early as February he was describing neoliberalism and 'free trade' as a system, regardless of who is involved as not only 'sophistry' but a 'fraud', calling for a regional currency, and a regional integration of latin american nations along the lines of ALBA, putting human needs first. Now, he hasn't called for the overthrow of capitalism just yet, and I don't expect him to, but so far as electoral options go, if the rhetoric is matched by the deeds, this is one of the most radical steps latin america has taken in a while (since Chavez was elected, if not more so). And if not, well, the CONAIE, FENOCIN and other social movments, which mobilised en masse to get him elected, despite not necessarily trusting him, will have less trouble getting rid of him than they did with Gutierrez, who cynically divided the indigenous movement and in whom people had lasting illusions. Correa has less space to move.

More later, but on the issue of the political involvement of the Ecuadorian people, it is worth to bear in mind that Correa ran no candidates for the Congress, which 97% of people regard to be corrupt and inept, because he is planing to dispolve the congress, convoke a constituent assembly (in line with popular demands) and let the people rewrite the constitution. Of course, he might not follow through (and sell out due to the pressure of Congress and the US), in which case he won't last out a year, but if he does, part of his mandate for facilitating popular change will be fulfilled. Can we trust that he will do this? Not necessarily, but my feeling is, given that he initiated a referendum a few months ago on this premise, to be carried out whether he won or not, that he is likely to do so, probably following that referendum, to maximise the legitimacy of the change. And those changes will serve to build space and support for the ecuadorian working class to take a greater role in directing change and to organise.

So, is he a bourgeois democrat? Yes, but he is a radical bourgeois democrat, which is precisely what Ecuador's poorly organised working class and poor majority need at this juncture.

And if this is followed through, this is [B]much more important than the Ghost of Daniel Past, plodding along in a shabby fashion in Nica. Ortega might acheive some change, sure, and I hope he does, but a lot of people who voted for him still don't trust him, and one of his greatest values is in shocking the cold warriors.

[Keyser]

Without falling into the infantile 'but he's a bourgeois so let's bash him" mindset which is so prevalent

You make it sound as if bashing bourgeois politicians is a bad thing. I'm sorry, but bourgeois politicians represent the interests of their class and their class alone.

Like I said, any concessions some bourgeois politicians give (ie; social democracy) is not done out of pure alturism or a desire to help the working class and poor, but to give them a few more crumbs from the huge profits of capitalism, to keep them happy and hope that those concessions will keep the workers away from any ideas about revolution or proletarian liberation. It is no coincidence that bourgeois politicians only ever give the workers these concession when the working class is dissenting and getting more confrontational.


Correa is not working class. And, yes, he may well sell out. But I doubt it.

Actually, since Correa never actually advocated proletarian liberation or the abolition of capitalism, I doubt he will sell out, but that is not the issue I was trying to raise. Correa, like I said before, is at best a radical social democrat with Latin American populist and economic nationalist leanings. He represents the faction of the Ecuadorian capitalist class that wants to become masters of the capitalist system in Ecuador, as opposed to the other ruling class faction that supports Noboa and is happy taking the role of a lapdog for US imperialism, to act as local managers for the wider capitalist system globally.

Correa, given that he represents the more assertive and anti-US section of the Ecuadorian capitalist class, is going to try, to the best of his ability, to carry out all the policies he has promised to the voters. Like FDR in the USA in the 1930s, he will use pro-worker rhetoric to get working class votes to give workers support to a programme that represents the more 'humane' face of the capitalist class.


He is not a communist. Fair enough, but most people aren't, and we can't demand that t this stage, as preferable as it may be.

Demanding anything from ruling class politicians is a complete wadte of time.

Better for class struggle anarchists, socialists and marxists to simply work with the Ecuadorian working class and oppressed poor for proletarian liberation and class struggle. Ecuador has in the past shown the people there to be ready for revolt, better to work with them and get a working class revolution on the agenda than waste time with meaningless bourgeois politics.


He is catholic. Oddly enough, the kind of catholic he is could go either way. He is almost a liberation theologist in some ways. For a year in between school he worked as a social worker in poor indigenous communities, where he learnt Quichua and began to identify strongly with the need to overcome their poverty.

Ok, I never raised the issue of Correa's religious beliefs, I only ever made a reference to Noboa's trademark of bible bashing on his election campaigns.

My issue is people who think Correa is some type of revolutionary who is going to get rid of capitalism, he is not, he even stated he is not opposed to capitalism.

I have seen reformism, populism and social democracy enough to know that unless your going to have an all out working class revolution, your going to get capitalism, it is as simple as that. There are no 'peaceful/electoral roads to socialism' or any 'third ways'.

And the christian concept of helping the poor because there helpless and too dumb to do things themselves, in other words 'feel good charity', is just patronising. Revolutionaries advocate proletarian liberation not out of a sense of charity or pity, but becuase the working class are the most oppressed class and they are the key to general human liberation as they are the ones who are capable of overthrowing capitalism.


I have heard, (and am still searching for an actual reference) that he is against abortion. As with all progressives who are religious, there are plenty of contradictions involved.

Thats great, sucking the cock of the sexist catholic church again.

Ortega mark II. :rolleyes:


As others have mentioned however, his class background is only relevant so far as it limits his government's program. That remains to be seen.

Unlike other posters, I never supported the concept of Correa being a socialist or an advocate of the abolition of capitalism to begin with.

I can see Correa for what he is and what he himself admits to, that he is a populist economic nationalist with radical social democratic policies, like Chavez and Evo Morales of Bolivia. This type of politics is popular in Latin America as it represents not the ideal of proleatarian liberation, but the other faction of the Latin American capitalist class, the faction that is fed up with being tied to US imperialism and wishes to participate with the global capitalist system on their own terms as equal in status to other major capitalist countries.


This is a new one - "We can't trust Correa because he didn't take part in the events of 2000"

I am not saying we can't trust Correa, I am saying that he can be trusted as he never claimed to be a revolutionary or a advocate of proletarian liberation in the first instance. So what if he makes some comment about him being friends with Chavez, that has fuck all to do with the issue of whether Correa would get rid of capitalism in Ecuador or not. My issue is with the people who act as cheerleaders for Chavez, Morales, Correa, Obrador in thinking that these politicians would abolish capitalism, even these selection of politicians have stated they are not opposed to capitalism, they simply wish to reform it, nothing more.


Well, sorry boys and girls, he was in the US getting that PhD, and couldn't afford a bit of political tourism to come home and be just one more person in an already enormous movement.

You know I'm sure Correa took the same attitude, I mean going over to join the ranks and working with the oppressed poor and working class in January 2000 is not as important as a degree.

Only a person who is not working class would consider joining a social struggle or class conflict as political tourism. Class struggle is not a game nor is it a fucking holiday, it is a day to day process of hard work and many defeats (in otdays world) that requires a strong will to keep on going for the next battle and learning from the mistkes of the past. It may be a game or holiday to the middle or upper classes, but thats their problem, not the working classes.


He was, however, involved in the protests against Gutierrez. Good enough for yer? So in this case, within the limitations of material reality, rather than a crude attempt at hatcheting, Correa was, in fact involved in the most recent popular movement against the ruling classes of Ecuador - whereas Gutierrez himself was busy representing one part of a split oligarchy that was turning on itself at the same time and trying to exclude the people from democracy even further.[/b]

Before I really reply to this, I would like to ask on what issue and what position was Correa opposing Gutierrez on?

The reason I ask is that during the uprising of 2005 against Gutierrez, there were basically two sides to the uprising, one by the ruling class and the other on the streets led by the workers, rural farmers and social movements.

For the working class, rural farmers and the social movements, their opposition to Gutierrez and their participation in the 2005 uprising was due to reasons much deeper than the issue thee bourgeois and global corporate media suggest, ie; it was something more than the issue of Gutierrez trying to impose his choices on the judicial system. For the working class, rural farmers and social movements, the issues relevent to them at the 2005 uprising were the same ones of the 2000 uprising, poverty, inequality, corruption, a unaccountable regime and political class. All in all issues relating to the domination and exlpoitation of the working class of Ecuador by the capitalist class.

Of course the other side of the uprising, the bourgeois politicians, the section of the elite that opposed Gutierrez and the corporate media all painted the 2005 uprising as simply an issue of a dispute over Gutierrez and his interference in the judicial system. They did this to divert the anger of the Ecuadorian proletariat away from capitalism in general and to narrow it down to a small and narrow focus on the issue of Gutierrez vs. the judiciary and congress.

Beofre I comment on Correa on this issue of him being involved in the 2005 uprising, I would just like to know what side and what part he actually played in this?


Anarchism Now's analysis reaches levels of pure drivel. Have you read any of his articles, speeches, or policy?

So taking a class stand and not being swayed into cheerleadning for populists and social democrats is now drivel is it?

Actually yes I have seen some of his speeches and policies.


So "reformist" and well-behaved a little bourgeois character he is, that he's actually calling for socialism before he's elected, as early as February he was describing neoliberalism and 'free trade' as a system, regardless of who is involved as not only 'sophistry' but a 'fraud', calling for a regional currency, and a regional integration of latin american nations along the lines of ALBA, putting human needs first.

You don't have to be socialist, marxist, anarchist or communist to support any or all of those policies of Correa's you just listed.

When Correa, like Obrador or Morales, attacks neo-liberalism, that does not automatically mean an opposition to capitalism. Neo-liberlaism is just one variant, out of many, of capitalism. Correa may attack neo-liberalism, but does he then go on to call for capitalism itself to be done away, no he does not, he instead advocates social democracy and populism.

One could say FDR or Atlee (British Labour Party prime minister 1945-1951) were opponents of neo-liberalism and they were. Yet neither Atlee nor FDR got rid of capitalism did they, as todays USA and Britain can testify too.

A single regional currency is also not something that is mutally exclusive to capitalism, as Europe has the Euro.

Latin America is on the move towards a new capitalism, one more suited to Latin America and the needs on Latin American countries and less dependent on US imperialism. Correa, Chavez, Obrador and Morales, their aim for Latin America is todays Western Europe, social democratic with a welfare state, fully industrialised and technologically advanced, free of blatant US imperialist control and dealing with other major capitalist countires as equals in a global capitalist economy and system.

Of course this is better than the state of Latin America during the 20th century, but it is not a move in the direction of proletarian liberation or the capitalist system being done away with. But as socialists, marxists, anarchists and communists, we should not be reduced to picking the least worst of capitalist systems but instead we should be on the side of proletarian liberation. I just wish the people who get all excited about Cahvez, Morales, Obrador and Correa would see this and accept the fact that instead of brings the workers to power, these politicians are simply moving Latin America into a new phase of capitalist development and nothing more.


And if not, well, the CONAIE, FENOCIN and other social movments, which mobilised en masse to get him elected, despite not necessarily trusting him, will have less trouble getting rid of him than they did with Gutierrez, who cynically divided the indigenous movement and in whom people had lasting illusions. Correa has less space to move.

Well if the social movements that supported Correa's election campaign end up with the situation of Correa selling out and the social movements start opposing Correa, it can go two ways.

The first is as you described, the social movements and working class would go out onto the streets and get rid of him, hopefully not making the mistake of putting their trust in bourgeois reformist/social democratic politicians ever again and moving towards a social revolution.

The other scenario could be mass apathy and a sense of defeatism. That the working class and social movements who have spent years on the streets and years of activism, losing comrades in stuggle to the state via police crackdowns etc... could end up feeling hopeless and that their efforts have all but been wasted.

Social democracy has this effect sometimes, it happened in Britian, after the social democratic system was overturned in 1979 by Thatcher and then the Great Miners Strike of 1984-1985 was lost, the working class and far-left in Britian became resigned to failure and a lack of willpower to struggle.

This may or may not happen in Ecuador if Correa sells out big time, I hope the class struggle does not die out in Ecuador, but it is not a possibility that can be dismissed either.


More later, but on the issue of the political involvement of the Ecuadorian people, it is worth to bear in mind that Correa ran no candidates for the Congress, which 97% of people regard to be corrupt and inept, because he is planing to dispolve the congress, convoke a constituent assembly (in line with popular demands) and let the people rewrite the constitution. Of course, he might not follow through (and sell out due to the pressure of Congress and the US), in which case he won't last out a year, but if he does, part of his mandate for facilitating popular change will be fulfilled. Can we trust that he will do this? Not necessarily, but my feeling is, given that he initiated a referendum a few months ago on this premise, to be carried out whether he won or not, that he is likely to do so, probably following that referendum, to maximise the legitimacy of the change. And those changes will serve to build space and support for the ecuadorian working class to take a greater role in directing change and to organise.

Of course I am not saying that Chavez is the same as the far-right coup plotting 'opposition' in Venezuela or that Correa is no different than his far-right rival, Noboa.

There will be some benefits the working class and oppressed poor of Latin America get from politicians like Chavez and Correa such as, land reform, free healthcare, better educational opportunities, better wages, better union rights etc... But these positive benefits are not going to solve the ultimate problems for the working class, that is who controls the state and the means of production. The very best outcome from the likes of Correa, Chavez and Morales for the workers of Latin America is that they will be in decades to come living a standard of living like their proletarian brothers in Western Europe.

There is one major benefit for socialists, anarchists and communists as well as the working class and the prospect of proletarian liberation in Latin America, under governments likes Morales, Chavez and Correa;

That is that the workers and revolutionaries have a lot more breathing space to organise for class liberation and revolution, that the ability of workers to organise outside of the constraints of global capitalism and the state is that much greater. The rhetoric of workers power by Morales, Chavez and Correa, even if it is genuine or not, has once again placed the issue of class as the main issue of Latin American politics and the new rights given by these politicians for workers to organise and unionise without facing outright state oppression (as in Colombia, ruled by a far-right regime that kills and tortures many trade union and worker's rights activists) means the task of working class liberation is going to be a task that can be done in an open manner that is open to the biggest participation of the masses as it can be.

For me, I see Chavez, Correa, Obrador and Morales not as socialists or communists who are going to do away with capitalism, but as populists who aim to push through a process of modernising Latin American capitalism, making it independent of US imperialism and more 'humane' and less oppressive, like I said before, Western European social democracy is their end goal.

But during this process, the working class and the oppressed have a chance to use the favourable political climate in Latin America to push for their own interests, which are proletarian liberation, social revolution and taking over the means of production.

[Faceless]

Anarcsism Now,


There will be some benefits the working class and oppressed poor of Latin America get from politicians like Chavez and Correa such as, land reform, free healthcare, better educational opportunities, better wages, better union rights etc... But these positive benefits are not going to solve the ultimate problems for the working class, that is who controls the state and the means of production. The very best outcome from the likes of Correa, Chavez and Morales for the workers of Latin America is that they will be in decades to come living a standard of living like their proletarian brothers in Western Europe.

and


You make it sound as if bashing bourgeois politicians is a bad thing. I'm sorry, but bourgeois politicians represent the interests of their class and their class alone.

contradict eachother if by the second quote you are implying that Correa is a bourgeois politician.

It is not in the interest for any section of the bourgeoisie, in an oppressed, semi-colonial country, in the age of imperialism, to grant concessions of even the mildest kind.

As CDL describes himself (and your view is also typical of), you may well be a materialist, but it is very much a mechanical materialist and certainly not a dialectical one if you think that bourgeois politicians can simply layer on the "reforms" and that:
It is no coincidence that bourgeois politicians only ever give the workers these concession when the working class is dissenting and getting more confrontational. It also happens, quite frequently (and I will now point you in the direction of Venezuela), that such reforms open up the floodgates to working class pressure, that the oppressed are emboldened by victory.

One thing you said is correct however, it is no coincidence that Correa has been propelled to the position he now occupies by the balance of class forces at the present time. However, if you genuinly believe that any section of the bourgeoisie exists which "[is]... more assertive and anti-US", then you are frankly deluded. The whole of the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie, in the tradition of the cowardly Latin American oligarchy, will be united in opposition to Correa. Looking at the pattern across Latin America, with the reforms of Chavez, the ongoing movement in Mexico, etc. it is more than likely that a victory for Correa and any reforms he is forced to enact will embolden the Ecuadorian masses.

Of course, there is no guaruntee that Correa will enact the promised reforms. He will have to choose what side he is on. If he sides with imperialism (and the local oligarchy) he will find himself under pressure from the Ecuadorian masses who have proven capable of removing presidents before. If he chooses reform; the natural opposite; he will be forced to rely further on the support of the workers and poor.

[Keyser]

contradict eachother if by the second quote you are implying that Correa is a bourgeois politician.

They do not contradict each other at all.

I never made the claim that Correa was a working class activist, I have always stated he is a bourgeois politician. Those two parts of my last post are consistent in that I view Correa as a bourgeois politician who aims to soothe the restlessness of the Ecuadorian working class by granting them a few concessions that give them benefits without having to dismantle the foundations and structure of the capitalist system in Ecuador.

The same was done in the USA under FDR, Western Europe after WW2 with social democracy, Egypt under Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s and many other countries as well.

Ecuador is the latest country to follow this pattern of capitalist development.


It is not in the interest for any section of the bourgeoisie, in an oppressed, semi-colonial country, in the age of imperialism, to grant concessions of even the mildest kind.

What I described as above, reformist populist who develops a capitalist system tied to national interests as opposed to imperialist interests has been done in the age of imperialism before, Egypt, Iraq, Iran etc... all of these countries were as well semi-colonial proir to those reformist populists taking power.

Why is Ecuador different?


As CDL describes himself (and your view is also typical of), you may well be a materialist, but it is very much a mechanical materialist and certainly not a dialectical one if you think that bourgeois politicians can simply layer on the "reforms" and that:

I don't subscribe to dialectics anyway, so thats a non-issue.


It also happens, quite frequently (and I will now point you in the direction of Venezuela), that such reforms open up the floodgates to working class pressure, that the oppressed are emboldened by victory.

I have already made the same point in my last post.

Whilst Chavez, Obrador, Morales and Correa may be economic nationalists and social democratic populists, they have created a breathing space for the working class.

But creating a breathing space for the working class to organise is not in itself a move to abolish capitalism, mearly a sign of change and/or crisis within the capitalist system that the workers must use to their own advantage.

Correa may make conditions more better for the working class, I don't doubt that much. But it would be suicide for the working class to turn around and stop organising and give up a desire for social revolution just because Correa is now president. Correa in power or not, the workers must stay on the offensive to reach to goal of their own class liberation.


However, if you genuinly believe that any section of the bourgeoisie exists which "[is]... more assertive and anti-US", then you are frankly deluded. The whole of the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie, in the tradition of the cowardly Latin American oligarchy, will be united in opposition to Correa.

The bourgeois class has rarely ever been a united whole in any capitalist country. The bourgeois o have their own divisions and such divisions should always be anaylised and used by the working class as a way of weakening their power and moving society towards revolution.

The Ecuadorian bourgeois may have a mjority in favour of continued dependence on US imperialism due to their own weakness and the need to be sustained by an outside power, but there are sections of the Ecuadorian ruling class that would like capitalism in Ecuador to stand on it's own feet, much like the capitalist class of South Korea, Singapore, Japan etc... do today.

Correa may not knowingly agree with this, but thats irrelevant as this nationalist faction of the bourgeois would stand the most to gain from Correa's policies, more so than the working class.


ongoing movement in Mexico

Mexico is an interesting case, given there are two movements for change at the moment. On the one hand the mild reformism of Obrador and his Revolutuionary Democratic Party (PRD) and then we have the Oaxaca Commune, the APPO and the EZLN/Zapatistas (though I do have my own criticisms of the EZLN).

In this situation, it makes sense to give all support to the APPO and Oaxaca struggle, as Obrador preaches reform when a social revolution of the working class and rural poor is a real possibility in Mexico, thus Obrador and the PRD are now nothing but a waste of time and a diversion that will lead nowhere.


Of course, there is no guaruntee that Correa will enact the promised reforms. He will have to choose what side he is on. If he sides with imperialism (and the local oligarchy) he will find himself under pressure from the Ecuadorian masses who have proven capable of removing presidents before.

And such is the nature of bourgeois politicians like Correa.

They make promises for hope and change, but once in power have the option of not carrying them out as they become unnacountable to the masses and the workers.