I: The Gutless Stalinism of the FSLN and FMLN

[CEP <iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Project wrote a long and very interesting article
about his interpretation of the FSLN and FMLN theoretical
and organizational achievements.  He also emphasized that
both learned and continued the best of the traditions of
the Cuban leadership.

As I said before, I have several problems with Louis's article:

1. The FSLN and FMLN did not follow the *best* of the Cuban
leadership traditions, but those traditions of the Cuban's
senile stage (don't worry, I will explain in due time). But
for the benefit of clarity, I will separate the FSLN/FMLN from
the Cuban leadership.

2. Louis article followed up as an answer to my assertion that
both the FSLN and the FMLN applied all the "theoretical garbage"
of Stalinism in their political policies and program.  Louis,
however, decided that I was speaking about party building and
organizational matters.  I will explain what I meant with
"Stalinist theoretical garbage" and will, later, ellaborate on
the "organizational" question.

3. Methodologically, in my opinion, Louis assertions and descrip-
tion has a mayor flaw.  All his quotes and dates are from 1960s to
the 1980s.  I will use another chronological order.  I will start
from today.

Introduction:

*Where are the FSLN and the FMLN TODAY?*

    We have extensive descriptions from comrade Louis about the
    past "successes" of the FSLN and the FMLN.  He wrote with
    authority about how both organizations, as oppossed to Trotskyists
    and others, should I say "sectarians", have succeeded in leading
    a revolution, won the support of the masses, etc.

    The truth is:

    a. The FSLN is today struggling to retain a 22% of the vote in
       Nicaragua (all polls coincide in this number).  At the moment
       of the overthrown of Somoza, over 80% of thepopulation supported
       them and they lost the Presidential election with a suport of
       or close to 40%. The FSLN, we should say, is in a declining
       ramp.

       The FMLN, on the other hand, is not in a much different
       situation, with polls giving it about 18% support.  This, after
       they failed to even get 1/3 of the vote in past elections.

    b. Both the FSLN and the FMLN suffered enourmous splits and
       factional struggles.  Hassan, Ramirez, Cardenal, Chamorro,
       Robelo, Comdandante "0", etc (all of them either members and
       leaders of the FSLN or close allies) are today heads of half
       a dozen parties claiming to represent part of the traditions
       of Sandinismo.

       The Liberal Alliance, which have *any* support at the time
       of the overtrown of Somoza is today, according to polls,
       30/40% strong.

       On this other side, that of the FMLN.  Immediately after their
       catasthrophic electoral results, the FMLN parliamentary fraction
       split over negotiations with and positions on ARENA (the party
       of the Death Squads).  ARENA, once the fourth bourgeois party
       in importance behind the Christian Democrats, the old military
       party and the Social Christians/Social Democrats is today the
       *governing* party, followed by Christian Democrats, a Centrist
       Alliance (that includes many of the former allies of the FMLN)
       and then the FMLN itself.  Some polls said that, if elections
       are held tomorrow, the FMLN will get less than 18% of the votes.

       The FMLN suffered many splits.  Over one third of the FPL
       fraction broke up after the assasination of Cayetano Carpio
       at the hands of another faction.  The ERP split off with
       segments of the CP and the RN supporting them.  Many other
       people from RN/CP and PRTC (Central American Revolutionary
       Workers Party -- also a member of the FMLN) also split.

       All former allies in the Revolutionary Democratic Front -FDR
       (alliance of the FMLN with bourgeois elements) have deserted
       their deals with the rest of the FMLN (Ungo included, but also
       some half of the tradeunion leaders, the Social Christians,etc)

       Both the FSLN and the FMLN has now opponents in the ranks of
       former guerrilla fighters.  They are frustrated and started to
       organized split-off groups.


    c. Both the FSLN and the FMLN, agreed to play by the rules of
       bourgeois democracy and peace accords as dictated by the
       State Department.  They both lost, shamefully.

    d. Both the FSLN and the FMLN, as part of their proposals to
       agreed to have electoral process choose, as their main plank,
       to be part of the armed insitutions of a bourgeois state.
       The FSLN struck a deal with Chamorro and maintained, for a
       while, the leadership of the Army.  I think that is finished
       now.  The FMLN, even more shamefully, wanted to be part of a
       new .... police force!

    e. As everyone who follow the politics of the FMLN and the FSLN
       you're probably aware that both organizations are making
       overtures and are attempting political deals with previous
       armed opponents.  The FSLN is trying to organize former
       "contras" and the FMLN is trying to struck a deal with
       "demobilized" former security, police and army members.

    f. Both the FMLN and the FSLN has dropped all progressive or
       revolutionary slogannering from their programs.  The FSLN
       after years of being in the government could not offer any
       substantial advance in the re-organization of the economy
       beyond showing some land distributed among poor peasants
       who remained poor.

       The FMLN cannot offer their followers a single conquest for
       their decades of struggle.  Workers and peasants are not
       receiving *any* benefit from a civil war and the political
       surrender of the FMLN leadership.

    g. There is a long time since I lost sight of how many people
       died in Central America as a result of the FSLN and
       FMLN-inspired "revolutions" .... 60,000; 100,000 ... maybe more
       Is this price a fair price to pay to have what they are today?

    h. Years ago, the FSLN and the FMLN had massive "support
    committees" in the US and Europe and in Latin American countries
    that supported their policies.  Salvadoreans and Nicaraguans in
    exiled were overwhelmingly suporting the FSLN and the FMLN.
    Nothing of that exist today.

    This, I repeat, is the picture today.  How Louis can explain that
    these examples of "revolutionary leaderships", who were able "to
    lead revolutions" and the "peoples of their countries" and
    exercised some kind of "organizational" model for all Marxists to
    follow arrived to this deplorable situation?

    The Explanation is simple: because they followed the Theoretical
    path of the Stalinist garbage and the key to understand this is
    neither 1996 or 1966, is 1980.  Let's explain.

    *1980: Key to Understand the Failures of the FSLN and the FMLN*

 1.   In 1980, the FSLN was the almost undisputed leader of the
    anti-dictatorial struggle in Nicaragua.  They had political
    power and the support of the overwhelming majority of the
    population.

    The FMLN was at its peak in poularity and strenght.  They had
    the Army on the defensive.  The ruling class was divided and
    fighting each other.  They also had the victorious Nicaraguan
    revolution next door.

    The FSLN instead of pushing for an agreement with other important
    left organizations to advance towards socialism (once the
    "democratic tasks were fullfilled" -- Lenin, Trotsky, Marx)--
    namely the overthrown of the dictatorship, they insisted in a
    government of classic "Popular Front" (they named a Junta with
    the participation of the shadow of the bourgeoisie -- Robelo,
    Chamorro, Cardenal; the right wing social democrats, Comandante
    "0"; the petit-bourgeois intelligentzia -- Ramirez, Hassan, etc)

    Before that, if you remember, they were proposing the "Government
    of the 12" bourgeois leaders.

    So, with this act they gave the bourgeoisie enough time to
    re-organize itself, re-arm itself; slow-down the process of
    reforms as much as possible and gave time to imperialism to
    launch a counter-attack.  All members of the first FSLN government
    who I mentioned above, are today the rabid pro-imperialist
    opposition, and the winners of sizable followings.

    The FMLN, on its part, instead of pushing for the final battle.
    agreed with a wing of the military which stage a "coup d'etat"
    -- remember, "the coup of the progressive coronels"?.  The FMLN
    not only supported it but agreed to participate in the new govern-
    ment with at least two ministers and with officers at the municipal
    level.  Soon enough, all FMLN activists were in the open, including
    most of theleadership of the recently created FDR.

    The result was catasthrophic.  The Army turned around, expelled
    couple of the coronels (including Majano) and launched a massacred
    against all structures of the now exposed FMLN forces.  The
    massacre included the assasination of most of the FDR leadership
    which was participating in a meeting ... remember?

    Both of the FSLN and the FMLN followed the theoretical formulation
    of the Stalinist "Popular Front".  One facilitatred with it the
    long-term counter-revolutionary re-structuring and the other
    was massacred in a way they couldn't recuperate in the years to
    come.

    2. In 1980, in order to impose its agreement with the shadow of
    the bourgeoisie, the FSLN launched an attack against the left
    wing of the revolution:

    a. They closed down the Maoist newspaper "EL Pueblo" and
    expropriated its printing press.

    b. They arrested and turned over to the Panamanian army the
    leadership of the Internationalist Brigades which fought
    alongside the FSLN against the Somozista National Guard.

    c. They arrested and imprisoned (in the same cells with
    Somozistas), members of the trotskyist LMR (Revolutionary
    Marxist League), the MAP (Popular Action MOvement) and FO
    (Frente Obrero, a tradeunion centtral led by MAP).  In total
    over 200 members of this organization were arrested and imprisoned,
    without trial, for months at the time.

    d. The Sandinistas arrested and judged as "criminals" FSLN's
    soldiers who pursued fleeing Somozistas torturers and criminals
    and turned over to the people for judgement.

    e. The Sandinistas arrested and imprisoned hundreds of FSLN
    members who refused to be "disarmed".  The FSLN also disarmed
    and persecuted the MILPAS (Anti-Somoza Popular Militias -- the
    popular armed wing of the MAP-FO).  They also confiscated weapons
    from popular ad-hoc organizations built to support the
    insurrection.

    f. The FSLN repressed and arrested tradeunionists who organized
    takeover of factories left behind by exiled bourgeois.  They also
    dissuaded and even imprisoned, peasants who took over lands of
    the so-called anti-somozist bourgeoisie (they were all in exile).

    g. The FSLN dissolved all independent tradeunions and tried to
    force all workers to join the new "Sandinista Tradeunion Central"

    At an small scale, the FSLN followed with this measure the
    theoretical approach of Stalin when he declared "in the building of
    a revolutionary order, the first enemy of the Party are those
    who push further and away from our possibilities.  I'm talking
    about the Trotskyists, the anrchists ... the ultra-leftists".

    At a much smaller scale, is true, the FSLN pushed for the same
    line that Stalinist pushed in Spain, Germany, Italy ....

    3. The FMLN was massacred and did not obtain much of a political
    power.  They, however, in the brief moments of their "Popular
    Frontism" of 1980, did the best they could to contain, as the
    FSLN did, the forces at its left ....

    a. Sections of the FMLN who oppossed the agreement with the
    Majano government were immediately expelled.  Others were forced
    into silence, afraid of being expelled.  THis all came to light
    after the the assasination of Cayetano Carpio in Nicaragua years
    later.

    b. Over 100 strikes which were on when the FMLN struck the deal
    with the "progressive military" were halted immediately under
    orders of the FMLN's leadership

    c. Physical attacks were launched against two small Trotskyist
    organizations that existed at that time in El Salvador and which
    oppossed the "deal": the PST (Socialist Workers Party) and the
    OST (Socialist Workers Organization).


    Both the FSLN and the FMLN proposed "amnesties" for their former
    torturers and armed enemies.  The FSLN, once in power, allowed
    sections of the National Guard, to cross the border with Honduras
    carrying all their weapons.  They also started to prepare, in 1980,
    the anmesty that eventually freed 5,000 national guardsmen in
    jail.  All this in the name of "implacable in combat, generous in
    victory" of Commander Borges.  This capitalutation allowed
    Imperialism to count on thousands of armed men who were the basic
    component in the "Contra" war.  Pretty smart, eh?

    What about the FMLN in 1980?  They suddenly abandoned the slogan
    of "punishment for allresponsible of torture and persecutions"
    and adopted a "generous" position of "National Reconciliation".
    One third of their public leadership and cadre paid with their
    lives this act of "coraugeous generosity" as Coronel Majano
    characterized this policy of the FMLN.

    I shall continue: Next installment is about the "Internationalism"
    of the FSLN and the FMLN in 1980 and beyond, vis a vis the theories
    of Lenin vs. Stalin.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------