Results 1 to 20 of 22
Are the Latin American leftist governments national-bourgeoise revolutions?
Hello: Anybody here heard of the International Communist Current (ICC), a Left-Communist group? They critisize most of the leftist-governments of Latin America, including Cuba, they critisize FARC's revolutions and most guerilla revolutions as isolated nationalist bourgeoise rebellions and not workers-rebellions. They claim that the left leaning Latin American governments are nationalist-bourgeoise revolutions, not really workers-revolutions. Can anybody here tell me what is the Bolivarian-Revolution, the Ecuador-Revolution under Correa and the Bolivian-Revolution? are those govenments just anomalies, applying the Stalinist-theory of stages? or nationalist-bourgeoise revolutions? Thanx
TrueLeninist
chavez was democratically elected into a bourgeoisie system, and still functions with in it, so no, venzuela is not a communist nation. so far he has alienated the upper classes but kept the working class united. his latest actions are not particularly democrat (the term limit being eliminated has a few people uneasy). his "revolution" has raised literacy and has given the peasants and workers new political muscle. i am not sure if he has given control of factories to the workers but there are some land reforms for the peasant farmers. the business elite have yet to be fully smashed, but they are scared of chavez. venezuela under chavez has room for improvement, and alot of chavez's plans have not worked 100% but he still has time. regionally he has been toning down his revolutionary ideals, but still supports the revolution in columbia and workers all over the worker, beyond words, he is in no position to really spread true revolutionary acts.
Hi TrueLeninist,
There are actually a handful of militants from the ICC who post on this board: Devrim, Gulag Orkestar, Alf, Beltov, Samyasa (I apologise if I forgot anyone) as well as a number of sympathisers of the communist left.
If you have any questions about left communism or have any questions you'd like to address directly to them feel free to use the Left Communist user group forum
Obviously you know of the positions of the communist left with regard to the various 'communist', 'socialist', 'anti-imperialist', 'popular' and 'peoples' movements in Latin America, however, for those who don't know them or if you'd like more clarification you can see some of the following articles from the ICC such as:
- 'Popular revolts' in Latin America: Its class autonomy is vital to the proletariat
- The Left in Power in Latin America: Ideological Poison Against the Working Class
- Latin America: Class struggle is developing despite state repression and ideological traps
- ‘New South America’: an old lie in new bottles
- Venezuela: The fraud of Chavist ‘socialism’
- Chavez defends capitalism, not socialism
- Re-election of Chavez: Worsening poverty in the name of socialism
- The bourgeois state of Chavez attacks the steel workers
- Fidel Castro retires: The problem is not the rider but the horse
or also, from the IBRP:
For those who speak Spanish there is a much wider selection from both organisations.
Hope that helps.
That analysis certainly isn't unique to the ICC. I think most trots would have enough sense to recognise the Latin American governments as bourgeois. None of those countries seem like they have genuine workers' control to me. That link that Rossi gave about Chavez attacking steel workers is pretty important - when a government like Chavez's attacks striking workers, which side are you on?
Thanx a lot for posting those great links. And indeed, that's what have always thought about the left-leaning governments about Latin America, that they are a sort of mix of Stalin's "Socialism from above", state-capitalism, burocratism, sprinkled with higher welfare-programs than the former Neoliberal-governments of the 1990s and early 2000s. Although not all Latin America is left-leaning. There are still some neoliberal-governments in the region like: Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc. etc. I am not sectarian, i am also a Chavez follower, and at the same time i embrace the International Communist Current theories, and I know that the Bolivarian-Revolution is not a workers-state, but i understand that reality is very complex.
Thanks again for the great links from the ICCI think i will even print them and turn them into pamphlets and books to read them in my spare time
Thanx
TrueLeninist
Although I agree with the ICC's analysis of Chavism, Castroism, the FARC, et. al, I must link to this for the sake of balance.
http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc
You certainly don't have to be ICC to come to any of these conclusions....
As "The Ungovernable Farce" said, there are many other critics of the sectarians on latin América situations: some trotskyists like FT4ªI or Bill Van's WSWB, some Luxemburgists too, even some maoists.
And yes, actually the Bolivarian Revolution is more of a "national defense movement", with a program alike the 1st stage of Stalin tactic to do revolution in backward countries.
But the situation is in progress. The "national" capitalists are incapable to do even a democratic revolution and all the right wing is clashing Chávez's antiimperialism. Any thing can happen.
¡Patria socialista o muerte, venceremos!
Thanks a lot for clearing that up. Yeah i think that the International Communist Current are too sectarian, like the anarchists, with that mentality they are not doing a service to the left, in fact they feed the right by being so perfectionists and dogmatic. I am a political realist, not a utopian-marxist, and I know that reality is complex, social-sciences are not exact sciences. and that's why I praise the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution as one of the best democratic experiments of all time, and Hugo Chavez as one of the best presidents of all political history
TrueLeninist
I think Devrim responded to this criticism very well in a post he made some time ago here on Revleft:
Originally Posted by DevrimThe positions of the communist left have nothing to do with 'perfection' or 'purity'. Whilst many leftists would say that the ICC do no "service to the left", I think on the contrary this is exactly what Chavez cheering leftists do. Chavez and the "Bolivarian Revolution" are neither socialist, proletarian nor progressive. The support that leftists offer Chavez and the PSUV is ultimately a defence of capital against the working class in Venezuela and internationally.Originally Posted by TL
The communist left is a proletarian political tendency, the most militant and intransigent fighters and defenders of the working class and communist platform, not leftist, opportunists and reformists. They condemn Chavez and the "Bolivarian Revolution" as being what they are, the political left wing of capital and a bourgeois bulwark against the international working class.Originally Posted by TL
No they don't. They claim that in the present period there can be no such thing as a "bourgeois revolution", because capitalism is no longer a progressive, revolutionary system. Their position on the Latin American leftists is indeed that they are bourgeois through and through, and that there is thus nothing revolutionary about them whatsoever.
Zimmerwald brings up an important point here. To clarify it a little though, I think we need to distinguish between bourgeois revolutions proper and modern day 'revolutionary' bourgeois movements. Obviously the 'Bolivarian Revolution' is not a bourgeois revolution in the same way as those that occurred in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. However, I don't think that the OP was using the term in this sense but more loosely as in the comming to power of a new bourgeois faction (whether that be by military coup, sweeping election victory, etc.).
*shrug* the OP's tone suggested to me he was using the term "national-bourgeois revolution" in the classical "Leninist" sense.
FARC can't be described as a working class rebellion, it has very little support among the working class. Concerning Bolivia and Venezuela, the governments there are surely progressive and the working class is behind those developments, but they have not resulted in workers states, so no workers revolution there, though it could be heading that way. As far as Ecuador, has anyone seen the new Ecuadorian constitution?
It's not just Trots and Maoists. Don't the ICC pretty much view every other tendency or party as bourgeois?
I really would like to see some support for that statement without being referred to a study group..
I'm sure there are plenty of other communist parties out there claiming the exact same thing.
No, it can't. Nor can it be described as a revolution.
There are two ways one can claim that while the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela "haven't resulted in workers' states", they are nevertheless "surely progressive". The first is that the activities of these states are consciously directed towards the establishment of socialism. To me, this seems rank substitutionism; let us not forget that it is not the state, particularly not a bourgeois state, as you claim, that creates socialism. It is the actions of the working class itself, following no leader bourgeois or otherwise, that make socialism. In fact, in all cases, these actions must be against the bourgeois state while it still exists. Thus, if one holds the position that the bourgeois Venezuelan and Bolivian states are creating socialism and leading the workers behind them, one is actually admitting that there is no socialism being created at all, and that the workers there are the victims of a gigantic con.
The second is that the actions of the Venezuelan and Bolivian states tend to drive the workers towards acceptence of communist positions and into revolutionary action against those states. From what you have said, this is not the case. Even if it were, that does not make the state progressive; it makes it reactionary and the workers progressive. Both methods of claiming that the Venezuelan and Bolivian states are progressive reveal themselves to be complete bosh.
I skimmed it, and while my Spanish is poor and the dialect I learned is different from the one used in Ecuador, it seems to me like a fairly social-liberal document and certainly not one conducive to the establishment of a socialist republic.
From what I can tell, the ICC condemns as bourgeois any tendency or party that takes sides in inter-imperialist conflicts rather than condemning the conflict itself and all parties involved from a proletarian perspective, makes any concessions to nationalism as against internationalism, takes the side of a government suppressing its own workers, or colludes with the bourgeoisie in bamboozling or suppressing workers' struggles. Seems like a reasonable set of condemnations to me.
And I would like people to make their ellipses with three dots the way it's supposed to be done. We can't have everything we want in life. Understanding a position comes from discussion.
Indeed. Just because they claim it doesn't make it so. Just because the ICC claims it doesn't make it so. The validation of these claims comes from the praxis of those groups. Groups' theories lead them to adopt principles, positions, and practices. Those theories, principles, positions, and practices either help or hurt the working class, either lead it to isolation and defeat--and perhaps massacre--or help it retain the gains it has made in terms of solidarity, consciousness, and militancy. Compare the groups' records for yourself.
Well of course it's not just Trotskyists and Maoists, but you get the point.
In answer to your question, no, the ICC do not "view every other tendency or party as bourgeois". The elements which comprise the communist left atoday and historically are certainly part of the same workers movement, as with those class-struggle anarchists who uphold basic proletarian political positions (most fundamentally, internationalism).
I think this has a lot to do with what we understand by "progress" and the meaning of the term "progressive". Before a common understanding is reached on this front you really can't have a meaningful dialogue or debate on the progressive or reactionary character of Leftist movements in Latin America.Originally Posted by SoB
Naturally.Originally Posted by SoB
I'm pretty sure their platform calls anarchists part of the left wing of capital. Doesn't really have anything to do with the current discussion though.
"Moving forward; advancing" towards socialism. Do you disagree with Lenin that state monopoly capitalism implies a step towards socialism?
Section 13 of the ICC platform calls "traditional anarchism" part of the left wing of capital. However, this does not confirm anarchism as such as part of the left wing of capital. I used to have bookmarked an article from International Review which stated that there were several currents within anarchism that distinguished themselves as revolutionary by their defense of internationalism among other things, and that such anarchists belonged, in the estimation of the ICC, in the proletarian political camp. Unfortunately I lost it. Several ICC members have claimed the same thing on this board, and they can probably quote IR better than I can.
Then I think you will have a hard time defending Chavez as a progressive, or any bourgeois political movement today for that matter.
"Lenin ... fell into a profound error when he began to laud state capitalism as a necessary step forward for backward Russia, indeed as the foundation stone of socialism.Originally Posted by SoB
[...]
"State capitalism is not an organic step towards socialism. In fact it represents capitalism's last form of defence against the collapse of its system and the emergence of communism. The communist revolution is the dialectical negation of state capitalism." (ICC, 1918: The revolution criticises its errors, Part 2)
On anarchism, Zimmerwald addresses this. Anarchism is not a monolithic or methodological political movement and hence has many different currents with different class origin and character.
The online version does appear to indeed. Though, I thought the term used was 'Official' anarchism and described the anarchists who, during WWII, went over into supporting and recruiting for the war effort of the allies and anti-fascism.Originally Posted by Zimmerwald
You are basically right. Nic is right too in that the term was actually official anarchism and we used it to refer to the anarchist federations that took a side during the Second World War.
I think that the next issue of WR in the UK will include some articles on anarchism one of which I think should clarify our stance on this, but it is basically what you are saying.
Devrim
Well, I've yet to see you even attempt to prove that capitalism isn't progressive anywhere in the world. To me it seems pretty obvious when there are still a billion or so peasants that need to undergo proletarianization.
So state monopoly capitalism is the step between monopoly capitalism and socialism...it sounds like they're only repeating what he said in different words, but for some reason they deny that it sets up the conditions for socialism, even though they don't back that up as always. As Engels pointed out state monopoly capitalism establishes the technical foundation required for socialism. Do you not see that as progressive in comparison to normal monopoly capitalism? And if not, can you tell me why without quoting the ICC/linking me to one of their pamphlets?
