MEXICO

Latin America and the Proletarian Revolution

Once more it has become fashionable to talk about the Latin American Nation, about the Great Motherland and about the possibility of a State of Latin America. Old prejudices are being revived and revolutionary tactics are being buried.

Our party emphasizes the great relevance of the development of correct proletarian tactics and strategy to push forward the revolution. It is necessary that communists respond to these tendencies.

To talk today about everything that is Latin American, about Bolivarism, Juarism and other catchy phrases, such as “another world is possible” is not just a question of demagogy. With this the inconsistent bourgeoisie is trying once again to conceal the contradictions between the peoples and imperialism. Because of the deepening of the contradictions in our society a number of sectors of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie are forced to somehow confront the imperialists and the most reactionary sectors of the national oligarchy. With this the former are trying to break with their political and economic dependence and to foster a plan of development based on capitalism “with a human face.”

Certain layers of the bourgeoisie and especially the petty bourgeoisie are attached to this obsolete formulation with the hope of averting imperialist domination together with the inevitable demise of the present system.

This reveals once more the inconsistent nature of a bourgeoisie which, over two centuries, has been formed according to the needs of the imperialists. This is a reality which many fail to accept.

And naturally, within the bourgeoisie, the oligarchy defends these theses in a declarative way. Some sectors of the bourgeoisie use this phraseology to negotiate better conditions and the possibility of capitalist development. The petty bourgeoisie franticly supports these trends with the intention of keeping its social status, and possibly to improve it.

The formation of Latin America

Regarding the historical aspect of the formation of Latin America, we believe that during the time of the anti-colonial struggle against big European monarchies (Portugal, France and Spain) there indeed existed objective and subjective conditions for the creation of a Latin American nation with a centralized State.

This possibility was due to a number of conditions:

The economic development of the local bourgeoisie and feudal aristocracy.
A similar state of oppression and exploitation, which were inflicted upon the indigenous peoples, and upon Black and Asian slaves.
Among the descendents of colonizers, those with stronger political, economic and cultural backgrounds enjoyed a common origin and national character.
The masses hated the centers of European domination. A common psychology flourished.
A common language for broad economic and social relations was used in the territories dominated by the Spanish crown.
Some economic ties between the colonies.
The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie had similar plans for the development of commerce and industry.
The development of liberal, secessionist and Pan American ideas (Bolivar, Morelos, San Martin).

Reasons for the failure of the Latin American nation

Why the formation of a Latin American nation and state never came into effect?

Latin America was deprived of a strong bourgeois commercial nucleus capable of developing a sustained effort to establish solid political and economic ties.
The absence of economic ties between different regions.
Prevalence of forms of pre-capitalist production, which were backward and unproductive.
Production was predominantly agricultural and backward.
The adoption of autarchic measures in large areas.
Lack of a common army, or even of coordinated military actions against the colonial powers.
The landlords and some sectors of the bourgeoisie and their leaders had a global local of the historical process.
Lack of extensive means of communication and of initiatives to develop them quickly.
The commercial bourgeoisie had neither the economic capacity nor the will to suppress barriers between territories, which would have been necessary to create such a nation.
Lack of sufficient accumulation of capital as a result of the policies of colonialism and the wasteful attitude of the local bourgeoisie and aristocracy.
The peoples were isolated from one another (as a result of longstanding issues such as castes, racism, slavery, serfdom and isolation).
The indigenous peoples were denied as such within the struggle for independence.
The level of national conscience (on the level of Latin America) never went beyond this embryonic stage due to the character of much of the relations of production, the reactionary influence of the Catholic Church, as well as unresolved issues such as the problem of castes, which overwhelmed the peoples of Latin America and would have taken decades to overcome.
The feudal aristocracy had greater weight than the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. Hence, regionalism and narrow-mindedness prevailed. Besides this, the feudal aristocracy was too tied to the Spanish monarchy, which helped the first to preserve its power.
The local bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie involved in the struggle lacked the capital and the political and military abilities to carry out radical reforms: to dominate the landlords by means of expropriation and the abolition of slavery and serfdom and to prevent the colonial powers from entering ports or collecting taxes. The bourgeoisie was too cautious in assessing the extent of the risks involved in the struggle against the European monarchies.
Most of the leaders and the petty bourgeoisie saw mainly the local implications of the victories achieved.
The participation of the popular masses was not sufficient in some places. This depended on how radical the demands of the insurrection were.
Lack of a clear centralized economic program to be applied in the first liberated regions, which would ultimately lead to a final victory.
Looting, pillage, anarchy and destruction of forces of production were not prevented by the leadership and the bourgeoisie.
Communication and economic ties between liberated territories were not fostered.
The struggle against colonialism was not swift enough. Ultimately, the bourgeoisie preferred to unite with the landlords and together with them to form reactionary oligarchies, which proved incapable of projecting unity.
The English and North Americans threatened intervention. This proved a serious obstacle to the pretensions of the Latin American national bourgeoisies.
The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie did not take full advantage of the benefits brought by the conquests of large territories, such as Mexico-Central America, the Great Colombia (Venezuela, Colombia, including Panama, and Ecuador)-Bolivia, Argentina-Chile, Brazil-Uruguay-Paraguay.

These tasks were too demanding for the strength and capabilities of the struggle for independence lead by the national bourgeoisies.

The Character of Latin America

Of course, this false Pan Americanism includes within itself a new manifestation of oppression of the toiling masses. Let us remember that as a result of this struggle a number of nations and states were formed with a reduced level of their mission, under the leadership of the classes who own the means of production.

This “Hispanic” façade which appears together with the Latin-American feeling, was initially called Hispano-American and later some tried to rename it “Indian-Latin-American.” These are circumstances which in the beginning assisted movements of segregation, in the end favored the local bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, who were most interested in the independence movement to exploit the peoples. As a result of its historical development these features symbolize the general character of the peoples of Latin America.

The term “Latin America” should not be rejected on linguistic grounds because “it conceals the domination of the Indigenous peoples and their specific historical formation,” or because “the French-speaking part of Canada is not part of this ensemble.” This term is related to a historical formation of peoples, ethnic groups and nations with common features.

Whatever is “confusing” or “unilateral” in this term today is not a point of discussion. If in the beginning this term had a unilateral or dominant orientation, today we should acknowledge it as a symbol, the same way as we today use the term European or indigenous. We accept their essence without chauvinist narrow-mindedness.

The Latin American nation does not exist, not to mention a Latin-American State. Instead, a number of nationalities exist, which have a number of common features, but have followed different historical paths despite constant interconnections.

The term “Latin America” applies to a group of nation-States with common features. Those common features which, despite different historical paths taken by these nations, are most relevant to the revolutionary prospects of the proletariat and its internationalism, are:

The conditions of economic, political, religious and ideological domination are in general, in form and content very much alike. These are under the coordination of the same imperialist programs (Southern Command, Northern Command, OAS, FTAA, CAFTA, ALADI, APEC, Mercosur and others).
Their mixture of peoples is the same, although they preserve their own ethnic groups.
Some aspects of the national character and psychology are common.
The indigenous peoples are similarly oppressed.
The model of dependent capitalist development is part of the same chain of domination.
The historical relations of proletarian internationalism.
The proletarian and peasants’ struggles have the same roots and interests.
Poverty is common to the toiling masses of these countries. Also, the forms of social explosions are similar.
The same attitude (although at different times) of the Latin American regimes towards suppressing and liquidating the struggle of the masses.

Latin America is a category that goes beyond nations. It applies to all that is common among the indigenous, mestizo, black, white and other peoples who established themselves in our countries. These people today form the masses of workers, peasants, and middles classes whose interests are antagonistic to those of the bourgeoisie.

Latin America is an group of nations with a common language, a similar history, with many common features of imperialist oppression, with very distinct forms of class struggle, in which the ruling classes cling to power in a similar way, with psychologies which developed in parallel under similar conditions, with similar forms of economic development and economic relations, with economic relations controlled by the great financial centers.

The peoples of Latin America are linked historically by a set of common material conditions and are impelled to wage a consistent struggle, under the leadership of the proletariat, to liberate themselves from the chains imposed by capitalism-imperialism, which will lead to the proletarian revolution.

The bourgeoisies and the petty bourgeoisies of today are incapable of promoting unity because they are too weak economically with respect to the oligarchies, which are directly tied to the imperialists, and because they are unable to create international economic ties outside of those already existing. They lack internal unity and they suffer from the disease of capitalist accumulation, which will inevitably disintegrate their best economic institutions, thus forcing them to follow the leadership of the imperialists even when they promote changes.

The attitude of the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie

It has been proven by the history of Latin America that once independence was achieved, only the petty bourgeoisie and certain sectors of the bourgeoisie, who had little influence on the bourgeois State, were the only sectors that supported the ideas of a unified bourgeois Latin America.

In the course of the revolutionisation and radicalization of the petty bourgeoisie many have voiced (and continue to voice) their support for a unified Latin American nation-State, or at least for something more realistic, a brotherhood of independent states of Latin America. This is through the bourgeois Bolivarian idealism, by means of appealing to bourgeois dreams of harmony, democracy, republicanism, a unified market and the “struggle” against imperialism, to compete with the latter over the exploitation of the proletarian and peasant masses.

This petty bourgeois radicalism usually merges with nationalist trends of certain sectors of the bourgeoisie, who struggle to take control of the state apparatus and to revive the national economies (obviously, despite their program for development and diversification, based on even greater exploitation of the toiling masses without foreign interference).

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador and Lula in Brazil are trying their best to redefine their relationship with imperialism, as has been done by various democratic regimes more or less successfully for more than a hundred years. They are also trying to redefine their ties with the rest of the bourgeoisies of Latin America. This political ideal has been inherent to the Latin American bourgeoisies since the first Latin American States were established. This represents one of the long-standing contradictions between bourgeoisies, which has triggered a number of secessionist, nationalist and populist trends.

This contradiction and its interpretation have created a lot of confusion for almost two centuries of the history of the continent, regarding the exploitive and oppressive nature of the bourgeoisie, the role of the bourgeoisie in the history of capitalism. They try to conceal the class struggle by blaming everything on imperialism.

The contradictions between the national bourgeoisies and imperialism are prominent. These struggles are over control of the country, the surplus value extracted from the masses, the orientation of the economy and the politics of the State, generally, over ownership of capital.

However, the imperialists have recruited the local oligarchies and political agents to secure its rule. This does not alleviate the contradiction, but establishes a complex system of nepotism in economic relations, economic contracts, investments, access to credits and capital in the imperialist countries, participation in the allocation of state resources, and control over the government and State.

This does not prove that the struggles for national liberation are obsolete. However, these need to be conducted by revolutionary forces, leading to the masses seizing power and the proletarian revolution. Otherwise these struggles will most certainly be defeated.

These classes want to materialize a “second independence” and, therefore, they wish to revive their putative fathers of the epoch of pre-monopoly capitalism, and concretely, of the times of the anti-colonialist struggles. They plan a new path of capitalist development and even envision an imperialist Latin America capable of suppressing US imperialism’s domination.

The Latin American oligarchies scorn the liberal bourgeoisie (like Allende, who pretended to be a socialist, or Arbenz, who was accused of being a communist) who advocate the democratization of the social and political life of the countries and propose more economic programs to speed up the process of capitalist production (transportation, communication, infrastructure and industrialization). This needs to be understood in the context of the reactionary character of the national oligarchies, their role in the economy, the fact that they serve the imperialists. The national oligarchies resort to any means, including brutal ones, to secure the growth of their capital without anyone questioning their behavior as long as they have the blessing of the imperialists and dictators.

In fact, a number of liberal fractions within the big bourgeoisie, followed en masse by the petty bourgeoisie, frequently disagree with this state of affairs, and because of certain economic interests they clash with imperialism and even with other sectors of the oligarchy of their own country. But because they fear imperialism and other sectors of the oligarchy as well as the working people, and eventually due to their inability to perform independently, their resistance is easily suppressed and is strongly dependent upon the sacred laws of capitalism. Sometimes these initiatives help capitalist development, which strengthens the position of these oligarchies; however they meet furious resistance from the great monopolies and reactionary sectors of the oligarchy, who are incapable of taking advantage of this economic “development.”

The confrontation of imperialism with the government of Hugo Chavez is just one example of how imperialism is unwilling to give up its interests. In doing so imperialism resorts to all kinds of sabotage, extortion, provocations, attempts at coups, vicious propaganda and whatever other means they may have at their disposal. The imperialists may call Hugo Chavez a communist, as they did with Allende, Arbenz and other representatives of the national bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, he is a bourgeois; let us remember that anyone who threatens the interests of the imperialists is called a communist, regardless of their background, and must be annihilated.

Some may argue that these bourgeois ideas brought “development;” we do not cast doubt on that, however… wherever they were applied things ended up the same way: the consolidation of a powerful oligarchy, tied up with the imperialists more than ever (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina).

Undoubtedly, there have existed in Latin America governments committed to economic development, with agrarian reforms in favor of the peasantry, with public education, with the struggle against cultural backwardness, against the most brutal forms of oppression and exploitation, against transnational oil companies, at times against the United Fruits, against Anaconda, etc… nobody puts that into question.

Some could argue that we communists are too simplistic, that we do not value the contribution of this type of regime (present or past), that we only pay attention to the economy and that we are not brave or tactful enough to acknowledge the merits earned by these governments. We communists reject these accusations as calumnies. The communists acknowledge the courage, honesty and “good will” of many of those governments, as they eventually confronted imperialism and the oligarchies of their countries. The core of the problem is that despite the enthusiasm involved in their stand, these attempts could not create a higher order and never went beyond issuing a number of nationalist measures, which could only perpetuate the laws of capitalism.

There is no doubt that these forms of regimes foster a great deal of illusions among the masses and may be become very popular. But what they ultimately want is to call upon the masses to defend them in order to use them to promote the market economy and the interests of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie.

The proliferation of this form of bourgeois democratic regime is the result of political crises within the oligarchy, a manifestation that the popular masses do not agree with the current state of affairs, even though they are not in a position to change their conditions. Thus, the masses support the populists, social democrats and anyone who promises reforms and pushes a nationalist line.

Do we need capitalism before we destroy it? We have seen this too many times, the popular masses have suffered enough already.

Bourgeois nationalism in Latin America

Latin America plays a role in the development of capitalism-imperialism, in the international division of this system, it is an area of oppression and exploitation of cheap labor power, of scattered production controlled by great industrial centers, a market of waste products and financial speculation under the control of the IMF (International Monetary Fund – note of translator), the World Bank, the great banks based in the US and other powers, as well as Wall Street, a vast region of neo-colonial and colonial oppression subjected to the great international corporations.

The role played by its oligarchies is consistent with these economic and political conditions, and not even those sectors of the oligarchies which rebelled against this state of affairs ever managed to introduce fundamental changes. At most, they have advocated archaic independentism practiced in the pre-monopoly epoch. Once again, their libertarian dreams and fantasies fail to come true, as imperialism is not a “bad’ or “mafia” country, as they like to call it, but a historical epoch which embraces the entire world.

Nationalism in Latin America has shown that the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie always betray the most fundamental interests of the proletarian and peasant masses.

The bourgeoisie only pursues its own interests: where they gave land to the peasants, they did this in order to remove the landlords from power and to extend the sphere or action of the market economy, which ultimately imposed on the peasantry a new form of oppression, to make possible the accumulation of capital, which brought nothing but misery to the popular masses, the proletarization or complete subordination to the agriculture monopolies. What country of Latin America is not a witness to all this?

Whenever the bourgeoisie promoted or supported the union movement, the struggle for collective contracts and other social conquests of the working class, it was meant to reorganize capitalist labor, to free the proletariat from a number of feudal restrictions, which hinder capitalist exploitation. But by no means has the bourgeoisie ever meant to liberate the working class or undermine the foundations of capitalism. Can we draw any other conclusions from these circumstances, which push the proletariat to line up with the interests of the bourgeoisie and its State?

The most nationalist bourgeoisies have been the most oppressive against the working class, the peasantry and other layers of the toiling masses.

The bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie promise that their nationalism has a great future. Chavez, Lula, Gutierrez (like Cardenas, Peron, Allende, Cardoso and others in the past) look like as if they were saints. However, the refuse to break up with the system, they adjust themselves to the democratic legal framework imposed by the bourgeoisie, they stay faithful to the preservation and “progress” of capitalist laws and institutions. This is what the organizers and participants of the World Social Forum dream about.

Those who work hard to win the toiling masses to their side in Bolivia, Mexico and the rest of Latin America are no different.

Leading representatives of the bourgeoisie may call upon the toiling masses with the appeal to Latin-Americanism and to the great national interests. However, this is not a gain for the toiling masses. We should never forget that populism, by pushing the masses towards actions, pursues clear objectives, definitely not in the interests of the latter. Desperation and misery should not impel the toiling masses to engage in economist struggles, tailing the bourgeoisie, as we have seen many times in the history of Latin America. Unfortunately, this false struggle was supported by those communist parties, which were corrupted by revisionism and, hence, fell under the leadership ideologically and organizationally of the petty bourgeoisie and its intellectuals.

Something similar, which has characterized the antagonism between opportunism and Marxism-Leninism, is inferred in the polemics between Victor Raul Haya de la Torre and Jose Antonio Mariategui. This debate concerns the dividing line between bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism, between tailing the national bourgeoisies and embarking on the struggle for the proletarian revolution, between strengthening the bourgeoisie by turning the toiling masses into a fifth column and raising the class struggle.

Our Position: to develop the class struggle towards the revolution

Our line should exclude all expressions of opportunism and bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalism, which are concealed in slogans like “national unity” or “Latin America”.

The proletarian thinking shakes the petty bourgeois thinking. The masses do not need to be surprised: capitalism and the banners of bourgeois nationalism must give way to the red banner of proletarian internationalism.

If bourgeois nationalism in Latin America has a certain success within the masses, this is due, among other things, to the fact that we communists have done little to elevate the level of consciousness, of understanding of the role and historical interests of the masses. Little has been done to develop a revolutionary line. We have displayed a number of weaknesses, organizationally, ideologically and politically. Our tactics have not been very efficient, and also we have sometimes taken too seriously false illusions about certain bourgeois democrats because the latter have proclaimed themselves anti-imperialists or have supported a program for economic development.

Lenin in his work, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution” exposed opportunism, which preferred to tail the liberal bourgeoisie. He showed that any step taken in the course of the bourgeois revolution should be firm and should not make concessions to the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, in alliance with the peasantry, should fight all forms of reaction by taking leadership in politics and economics.

As we pointed out earlier, a number of communist parties degenerated to revisionism when the petty bourgeoisie took them over. These fostered the same type of alliances subordinated to the national bourgeoisie, thus weakening the foundations and nature of popular fronts. The popular fronts should lead the masses of workers, peasants and middle classes towards the democratization of political life in their own countries by deepening the contradictions of the system and taking advantage of contradictions among the bourgeoisie (including alliances with the middle bourgeoisie). At the same time they needed to bear in mind that, as the political struggle progressed, the bourgeoisie would turn against the proletariat in order to gain political leadership over the middle classes and the peasantry.

The struggle of the popular fronts were defeated by treason because the political lines were not clear and the leadership of the parties were left in the hands of the petty bourgeoisie, which soon adapted itself to legalism and the worst opportunism ever seen.

The tactics of the Popular Fronts should always bear in mind the risks and the potential of alliances, with a clear perspective of mobilizing the mass struggle.

The communists, while appreciating the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and the poorest layers of the petty bourgeoisie, should always see as their guide the interests and ideology of the proletariat, the internationalist and consistent struggle.

We communists oppose pacifism, even when practiced by the masses, and the leadership of democratic governments over the masses. We support the fighting mobilization and organization of the masses, free of the burden imposed by the bourgeois legal system, reformism and the illusions of a just society led by the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals.

Poverty and desperation should not make us falter in front of the bourgeoisie. The lack of proletarian leadership for the revolutionary struggle of the masses should not lead us to give up and to conciliate with the class enemy. We communists have our own tasks; we should support our communist parties in the struggle to gain the confidence of the masses, to raise the consciousness and level of struggle. We should develop and build our parties in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism by fighting without let-up against bourgeois ideologies and any forms opportunist and reformist trends by putting forward the issue of the revolution and the question of power. And in those countries where communist parties do not yet exist we must place on the agenda as a first priority the need for the building of a communist party.

On the other hand, the working class in Latin America has to wage a common struggle against imperialism and their national bourgeoisies. This struggle, although it presents itself in the form of a national struggle, is internationalist in content. Therefore the Latin American proletariat should strive for ideological unity and should also unite with the struggle of their class brothers in the heart of the US.

The US and Canadian proletariats together with the working class and peasantry of the countries of Latin America will be the gravediggers of capitalism, imperialist domination, the financial oligarchy and, in conclusion an entire epoch of exploitation and oppression of man by man.

Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)