II. FSLN & FMLN: 1980 and Internationalism

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

    II. The Gutless Stalinism of the FSLN-FMLN - 1980 &
    Internationalism

    This is the continuation of the previous posting.  I'm still in
    the key year of 1980.

    Louis: you are certainly aware of the differences between Marx,
    Lenin and Trotsky's Internationalism and Stalin's nationalism.
    In a nutshell: The initiators of Marxism always thought in terms
    of revolution as a global phenomenae.  In other words Russia, of
    for that matter any other country, cannot have a revolution,
    attempt to destroy the capitalist order and start building
    socialism isolated from the revolutionary help and assistance of
    revolutions elsewhere:  Marx insisted in at least of "handful of
    other countries following suit", Lenin deposited his confidence
    in the Euroepean proletariat, Trotsky agreed and added "the
    colonial world" and so on.  Internationalism for Marxists, until
    Stalin changed that, was that revolutions and revolutionaries have
    to strive to internationalize the conflict with capitalism and link
    the different revolutionary struggle.  To the point, Lenin
    insisted, "if the Russian revolution is defeated but German's
    revolution is victorious, then our efforts will be worth" and
    "Even if the Russian revolution is defeated, we will leave a
    diverse and profuse revolutionary legacy than others can follow and
    learn from it"

    Stalin invented "socialism in one country" (the utopian reactionary
    theory that a country, isolated of world reality could actually
    build socialism and communism); he also developed the theory of
    the "supremacy of defending the motherland of revolution, Russia,
    even to the expense of retreats elsewhere".  He developed the
    "international" theory of dependency of the "peripheral
    revolutionary movements to the epicenter of revolution" and,
    moreover, the famous quotation, criticized a lot by Trotsky about
    the "national features of the revolution" being of more importance
    than the "general picture" of the world revolutionary movement.

    Under these guidelines, Stalin did not ask the Western communist
    parties to fight against their own bourgeoisies to defeat fascism,
    but to accept the "anti-fascist" bourgeoisie as the leading force
    against fascism.  The materialization of this theory were the
    "Popular fronts" (Spain, France ...)

    Then came the theory of the "revolution by stages" as oppossed to
    the "Permanent Revolution" of Marx or Trotsky or the "April Theses"
    of Lenin (basically agreeing with Trotsky.  All three (Marx,
    Trotsky and Lenin) said that once the "democratic" tasks of the
    "democratic revolution" were completed, the revolution should
    advance uninterruptedly to its socialist tasks in order to protect
    even the democratic gains achieved.  This was to be achieved
    essentially linking "national and international tasks.  Revolutions
    cannot survive in a vacuum, surrendered by reaction, nor can it
    be succesful without showing the advance at the national level as
    pointing the way out for the proletariat of other countries".

    Stalin, after the disaster of his ultra-leftist "Third period",
    insisted in Popular fronts, national struggles isolated from each
    other and negotiations and "detente" to apease the "progresive
    bourgeoisie"

    Question: What direction was followed by the FSLN and the FMLN in
    the critical year of 1980?

    Answer: the Stalinist road.  This is explained by the following
    elements:

    a. Both the FMLN and the FSLN refused, in writting to link their
    struggle during the negotiations with the Latin American group of
    countries that later were called "Contadora"

    b. They ostensible, and in writting, refused to call upon and help
    the Guatemalan revolution.

    c. Both the FMLN and the FSLN accepted, as the "leading project to
    advance the revolution, the process of negotiations" through what
    they interpreted to be the "progressive, anti-imperialist Latin
    American bourgeoisie"

    d. Of course were gun-running operations throughout Central
    America, but the question was, above all, a political question. The
    workers and peasants were told again, and again, that no linkage
    was possible between the different revolutionary processes in
    Central America.

    e. Both the FSLN and the FMLN completely abandoned to an early
    massacre the Guatemalan revolutionary forces.  They were assaulted
    and almost destroyed in fron of their eyes and they did not move
    a finger.

    f. When Honduras massacred refugees from El Salvador, both the
    FMLN and the FSLN refused to act.

    g. Even negotiations with the US and the Latin American countries
    were held separately from the point of view of the FMLN and the
    FSLN but forming a united, solid front from the point of view
    of the Latin American bourgeoisie.

    h. Both the FSLN and the FMLN refused to support the increasing
    revolutionary movement and the opposition to the Mexican regime
    of the PRI in exchange of "safe houses" for their diplomatic
    adventures.  The FSLN accepted, with conditions,. the oil from
    Mexico.  That oil was used, years later, as a blackmail card to
    force the surrender of the FSLN.

    i.  The FSLN and the FMLN refused to join military forces with
    the Guatemalan guerrilla, the Honduran growing left and the
    Costarican revolutionary forces when such an agreement was
    proposed, to confront imperialist intervention in Central
    America with a unified strategy and shared resources.  Instead,
    the FMLN resisted imperialism on its own soil; Guatemalan forces
    were abandoned to its fate; Nicaraguans were subjected to the
    "Contra" war; the pro-Canal anti-imperialist forces in Panama and
    the left in Costa Rica were left aside, with no role whatsoever.

    It is true, however, that the smaller component of the FMLN, the
    PRTC had the position of Central American revolution and a "Unified
    Central American revolutionary strategy to defeat imperialism" --
    a position that, at the time, I strongly supported.  But the PRTC
    was rebuked and forced to abandon that position.  Note: the PRTC
    had an strategy of building political sections of the party in all
    countries of Central America.  They actually built their branches
    in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and had supporting groups in
    Panama and Costa Rica.(an interesting story to be told some other
    time).

    f. The so called "National Question" as explained by Lenin and
    traditional pre-Stalin Marxist is another component of the the
    Maxist Internationalism.  Stalin refused to give the national
    question, once in power, any other meaning than the forced
    integration of oppressed minorities and nations and he apllied
    the "Russification" factor as his main "theoretical" line on
    the "National Question".

    Both the FSLN and the FMLN followed the path of Stalin on this one
    too.

    I will explain this in my next posting when I talk about the
    Blacks and Indians of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and the
    Indians of Central America and the theories of the FMLN.

    Comradely,

    Carlos


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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