Latin
America’s Marxists and the November 21st Strike in Colombia
Luis
Guillermo Vélez Álvarez
Economist
The fundamental document
outlining the agenda of the Sao Paulo Forum is the so-called Consensus
of Our America, elaborated by the Forum’s Working Group’s meeting in
Managua in February 2017, under the leadership of Nicaraguan President Daniel
Ortega, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and Cuban President Miguel
Diaz-Canel.
The document begins by
glorifying the persona of Fidel Castro as an example of “unity and
internationalism and then invokes the “invaluable historical heritage” of
“exemplary protagonists in the battle against colonialism,” including Manuel
Marulanda, Nestor Kirchner, and Hugo Chavez.
It also says that the document
is inspired by the “ethical legacy” of Che Guevara, famous for having dragged
hundreds of Cubans to the firing squads without a trial, as Guevara himself
acknowledged in a speech at the UN on 11th December 1964, where he defiantly
said, “We have shot. We shoot, and we will continue to shoot for as long as
necessary.”
After knowing who wrote the
“Consensus” and what its source of inspiration is, let’s see whom it engages.
Read this:
“This document is the result
of work developed from a set of ideas and concepts to contribute to the
development of progressive and revolutionary processes in the various regions
and countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. As of today, it is a
collective document of parties and organizations of the subcontinent. The
name refers to a unit that is both a declaration and one that revolves
around a program and a political practice.”
One hundred twenty parties
and movements from 27 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are members
of the Forum. The following are members from Colombia: Patriotic March,
Progressive Movement, Humane Colombia Today, Green Alliance Party, Colombian
Communist Party, Alternative Democratic Pole Party, Present for Socialism,
Patriotic Union, and Citizen Power Movement[2]. The FARC and ELN also
participate in meetings of the Forum and fully share its ideology. Fecode,
Asonaljudicial, and the CUT are industry unions that have long been openly
politicized and controlled by the Forum parties.
The entire assessment of the
“Consensus” is based on the Marxist thesis of the inevitable collapse of
capitalism, pursued relentlessly by its insurmountable contradictions. It
relies on the denial of economic and social progress that capitalism has
brought to the world. For the communists, the theses of “growing misery” and
“inevitable collapse” are unquestionable. Therefore, they feel as though they
are enlightened bearers of historical truth, called to lead humanity to
communism. From there stems the intransigent dogmatism that characterizes them
and their willingness to do anything -like shoot as long as it is necessary.
The fact that the words
“communism” or “socialism” do not appear in the “Consensus” is striking. In
fact, it is difficult to find them in any Forum document. Does this mean that
the Forum parties have given up on taking us – whether we want it or not – to
the communist paradise, the final destination of humanity? No way!
Point 11 of the section titled
“The reality we want to transform (diagnosis)” reads as follows:
“We recognize the existence
and coexistence of diverse forms of the plural economy (state, community,
social cooperative, and private) under a planning regime in which the
state controls the strategic sectors and organizes their
interrelation. We must respect all forms of property democratizing the means of
production, defending in solidarity the small and medium industrialists and
producers, fostering and strengthening the forms of state and
associative property that grant greater levels of freedom of
production and association.”
Planning, control of strategic
sectors by the state, state ownership: that is socialism or communism, in Latin America and anywhere in the world.
Here are a few more quotes to
make it clear that the objective of the Forum is to transform capitalist
systems of production, put an end to private property, establish state
property, and impose communist ideology and values from the state.
“We recognize the successes of
these more than twenty years of work of the left organized in the Sao Paulo
Forum, and almost twenty years after the victory of President Hugo Chavez.
There are positive balances of the colossal economic and social battle, although
we have not yet been able to transform the capitalist system of production.”
“The state must own
enterprises that are productive, efficient, and healthy, especially in
strategic areas such as Energy, Finance, Telecommunications, among others.”
“This strategy involves
assigning the state a central role in the construction of objectives and the
establishment of incentive systems and the ideological and normative
construction.”
After the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the economies of “real socialism,” the words
“socialism” and “communism” lost their old charm. Instead of evoking the
“beautiful paradise of humanity,” they were associated with the appalling
reality of the totalitarian regimes from which, in those years, people fled en
masse to Western European countries in search of freedom and progress. That is
why the Cuban communists, who founded the Forum and lead it today, understood
that their political proposal could not be based on a general message of
invocation to communism, but should be fragmented into specific messages
addressed to different audiences. That is why the discourse is transformed and
filled with diverse themes such as the environment, gender, corruption,
feminism, education, youth, equality, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
This is such an important
point that, the final part of the document, titled Political
Instruments for Change, where the Forum 17 parties are given instructions
to “implement this program,” says the following: “A truly popular and left-wing
force must have specific policies towards all social sectors such as workers,
small and medium entrepreneurs, youth, students, women, the marginalized
minorities.”
And this other one, which
explains the importance of the ideological manipulation of the youth in the
strategy of the parties and movements of the Forum:
“It is our priority to learn
to understand how the subjects to whom we address our message, especially the
young people, view life and objective and subjective needs. The active and
militant incorporation of the new generations in the
struggle for superior societies is an urgent necessity. The youth is already
the main protagonist in many scenarios, and we must recognize the importance of
their participation as one of the main historical subjects, so we must fight to
prevent the enemy from depoliticizing, neutralizing, or appropriating this
large sector of society.”
The diversity of the messages
and the audiences they target also implies the diversity of the messengers.
This explains why the left presents itself through different organizations and
movements. Each one is in charge of carrying one or several specific messages
addressed to different audiences, thus obscuring the fact that all those
messages and messengers are articulated in one program, one organization, and
one global strategy whose objective is the establishment of socialism
throughout Latin America.
Previously, before the fall of
the Berlin Wall and the collapse of socialism, the strategy and political
action of the communists was guided by the concept of a single communist party,
which was the vanguard of the proletariat, in turn, led the other social
classes. The left has not renounced the single party or centralized democratic
system, which is still in place in countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua, where
the Forum firmly holds power. In large and complex countries, where capitalism
seems more consolidated – Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay,
it applies the tactical division of the parties and movements, which appear and
disappear, change their names as the goods in the market change their labels
and packaging. Despite their apparent diversity, all move towards the same
objective.
The drafters of the
“Consensus” express it with absolute clarity:
“Their forms of organization
can only be defined in each place or country, based on accumulated experiences,
the history of struggle, and the concrete reality where they operate. This
statement does not imply the existence of a single organization when this is
not possible, but to find under certain principles, the best forms of association
to enhance and articulate our knowledge and experiences of struggle. Regardless
of diversity, a series of principles can be valid to achieve political
organizations capable of successfully overcoming the challenges we face and
leading the processes of change and achieving the objectives embodied in these
proposals.”
The dispersion of left-wing
forces and their mimicking into various movements with specific proposals is a
crucial element of “unity in political practice.” Two other things are vital
for understanding what is happening in Latin America: the construction of
popular power and the infiltration of the armed forces.
On the importance of people’s
power, let us read the following:
“The construction and
consolidation of popular power in the economic and political spheres is
fundamental. It is an indispensable condition for the development of the
program and the strategic goals of the necessary structural changes that allow
the democratic consolidation of institutionalism, appropriate in each case to
the realities of each country or region.”
And it explains that:
“The need to be efficient in
the electoral field forces us to prioritize regional presence, precisely where
the voters are. However, reality has shown that where we govern, it is prudent
to organize grassroots structures in strategic spaces such as
large companies, universities, and other places where politics is practiced
daily.”
In Cuba and Venezuela, the
illustrative experiences of this “popular power” should be sought.
In 1959, Fidel Castro created
the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR). Initially, they were
groups of thugs in charge of intimidating the “enemies of the revolution.”
Today, they persist by forming a hierarchical structure; each block has its
own, from which the CDRs of the neighborhood emerge, then those of the zone,
then the municipalities, then the provincial ones, and finally the national
CDR. Any Cuban over the age of 14 can “voluntarily” belong to the committee of
his block. The president of the committee is elected for his commitment to the
revolution and fulfills his functions – which include keeping records of the
population and providing information on each citizen to the Communist Party and
the Department of State Security with the help of a person in charge of
surveillance, an ideological person in charge, and a person responsible for
voluntary work. Some eight million Cubans, 70% of the population, are members
of the CDRs.
In Venezuela, the “popular
power,” in charge of defending the Bolivarian revolution, is exercised by the
“Chavista collectives,” which are armed by the government and militarily
trained. They operate as absolute masters of the zones they occupy. In addition
to carrying out “cultural projects” financed by the government, they are in
charge of the distribution of food, the infamous CLAP boxes, which gives them
enormous power over the population. There are hundreds of these collectives,
some of which – like the Carapaicas, the Tupamaros, La Piedrita, and Simon
Bolivar, which operate in Caracas – have sophisticated weaponry – AK rifles,
and tear gas – and receive training from the FARC. Many of these collectives
combine their political activity with drug trafficking, car theft, and other
criminal activities.
Hooded gangs – allegedly
infiltrated in peaceful demonstrations organized by the left – can be the germ
of “popular power” in Colombia.
About the army, we can read
the following:
“It is necessary to
democratize and subordinate the command structures of the army and the
organs of internal order to the political power freely instituted by
the popular will and serving the national interests.”
In Venezuela, they seem to
have achieved complete subordination of the army to the interests of the left
through corruption and drug trafficking. Evo Morales in Bolivia did not manage
to do so. In Colombia, the left is beginning to seek that subordination by
undermining its morale. The Bogota media and the left are systematically
questioning the legitimacy of the actions of the army and the security forces.
It is not unlikely that the politicians of the left are carrying out
ideological work between the officers’ corps and the troops themselves.
The government and its
supporters are trying to dissuade people from participating in the strike by
pointing out the excellent performance indicators of the Duque administration
and denying the falsehoods wielded by its promoters. This is good for people of
goodwill, but not to dissuade the campaigners who have a clearly destabilizing
objective in accordance with the orientations of the Sao Paulo Forum, as seen
by the analysis of the document Consensus of our America and
explicitly stated in the foundational document of the 25th meeting of the Forum held in
Caracas:
“The modalities of the
struggles in development are different in each case, and must be studied
according to their particularities, without losing sight, not for an instant,
of the continental character of the historical confrontation in progress.”
LGVA
November 2019.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario