III. The Gutless Stalinism of the FSLN-FMLN

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

    Louis, calm down.  I didn't finish yet.

    *The Stalinist Policies of the FMLN-FSLN on the National Question*

    1. Soon after the overthrown of Somoza, the first counter-
    revolutionary armed rebellion took place in Nicaragua.  It
    happened in Blueffields, the Atlantic port of Nicaragua,
    and its surrounding area, inhabitated by Blacks (who speak
    a version of the English language) and Indians, of different
    nations, particularly the mezquitos. All these nations speak
    their own language.

    Until that moment, no Sandinista forces were there at all.

    A group of "Spaniards" Nicaraguan (the way meztizo Nicaraguan are
    called by Blacks and Mezquitos) armed themselves and with the
    support of the Amrican interest in the area, took over Blueffields
    by force.

    A detachment of the International Brigades traveled to Blueffields
    to put down the rebellio.  They were joined by Black
    revolutionaries from Puerto Limon (Costa Rica) and other
    internationalists.

    The revolutionary forces arrived to Blueffields, joined groups of
    Indians and Blacks from the area and rapidly and expeditiously
    dealt with the counter-revolutionaries.

    Then, Blacks and Indians as well as meztizos from the area
    organized mass meetings.  They requested the Internationalists
    to tell them what to do.  Internationalists responded: "You
    decide what you want to do, we'll help you out"

    At the mass meetings was resolved a) To establish a link with
    the Revolutionary Nicaragua; b) Ask the central Sandinista
    government to grant the right of self-determination to the
    peoples of the Atlantic Coast, including the respect of their
    language and c) Organize their own militias to support the
    revolution and defeat anyother counter-revolutionary attempt.

    2. Then the FSLN arrived in forced.  Dissolved the Popular Assembly
    and took possession of the Port of Blueffields in the name of
    the Nicaraguan central government.  THey force the dissolution of
    the newly formed militias and formed a local government with
    participation of .... the defeated counter-revolutionaries!

    3. Months later they launched an "alphabetization" program in the
    Atlantic Coast ... in Spanish! and forced Blacks and Indians to
    abandon their languages and customs, they attempted forced
    relocations of the different indian nations and attacked their
    subsistance industries (fishing and hunting; wood collection,etc)

    4. The rest is history.  Blacks and Mezquitos resisted these,
    yes, Stalinist measures and formed armed groups against the
    Sandinistas.  Actually the FSLN pushed those groups to become
    counter-revolutionaries.

    5. The FMLN and the FSLN refused, throughout all this process to
    recognize any Indian's rights.  They vboth sustained, in fact, that
    the mestizo revolution was the unifying factor.  They *never*
    addressed the question of the Indian nations and their particular
    needs or aspirations.  They attacked any and all attempts to
    preserve their customs.

    This is, in my opinion, a majopr factor why they both lost a lot
    of support in predominantly native's territories and the main
    reason behind the lack of support of the FSLN-FMLN of the
    Guatemalan revolution -- carried out mostly by descendants of the
    Mayans.

    Now, Louis, aren't these essentially Stalinist politics in
    relationship in regards of oppressed nationalities and races?

    Or were, as you stated, the Leninist, Bolshevik interpretations
    of the "rights and self-determination of oppressed nations"
    and races defended by Lenin and Trotsky?

    Answer: The FSLN-FMLN acterd as typical Stalinists in this area,
    too.


    * Internationalism: Solidarity vs. Gutless Stalinist Practices*

    I added this point in response of a posting claiming that the
    main responsability was the failure of the solidarity movement
    in this country.  Here, again, was the Stalinist theories and
    practices of the FSLN-FMLN which stopped the solidarity movement
    from acting.


    1. From the very moment that Stalinism took over the Third
    International the question of international solidarity changed
    abryptly of character.

    International solidarity, under Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks
    before Stalin was essentially a policy of: a) Support revolutionary
    struggles; b) Send material help; c) Promote the
    Internationalization of the conflict and its generalization.

    During the 1918-1924 period of the THird International (before
    Stalinization), Anarchists, Syndicalysts, ultra-leftists, left
    centrists were allowed to participate with their own ideas in
    bodies of the THird International and to act in Solidarity
    committees with the Russian revolution (remember the IWW support
    groups with the Russian Revolution in the US?)

    The central point of the solidarity movement then was to stop the
    local bourgeoisie from attacking the specific struggle being
    defended.

    2. Since the moment that Stalinism took over the THird
    International, solidarity actions were limited to a)Absolut and
    surveint loyalty to the "national forces" carrying out the
    struggle (remember when Stalin named Chiang-Kai-Shek honorary
    head of the Third International when he was murdering communists
    in China -- well, I stand corrected, months before he start
    murdering Chinese communists!); b) Expulsion and purges of anyone
    in the Party or the class who willl object to any of the tactics
    of strategies designed by the leadership (Stalin and the national
    leaderships "leading the struggle");c) Solidarity movements were
    no longer to promote the class struggle in each ocuntry as the best
    way to help revolutions elsewhere, but they should ally with local
    bourgeois elements to help pressure the establishment for some
    kind of benign approach to stalinist-led "revolutions"

    The FSLN-FMLN followed to the letter the Stalinist road:

    1. They both dissolved the Nicaraguan and Saldvadorean massive
    solidarity committees formed in late 70s and early 80s.

    2. They both formed Anglo-centered solidarity committees loyal
    to the FMLN and FSLN estrategies and tactics.  Moreover, those
    committees were not broad solidarity committees but semi-official
    representatives of the FMLN and the FSLN (CISPES, for example).

    3. By transfering responsability from communities-in-exile-based
    solidarity committees to other forces they guaranteed two things:
    a) An ongoing political discussion, since Americans will always
    said" who are us to criticize those who fight over there?" -- that
    was impossible in the community-in exile-based solidarity
    committees. and b) they succesfully obtained puppet committeed
    which will uncritically raise funds and "lobby" "progressive
    imperialist bourgeois leaders" -- at least that's what happened
    in the US.  I understand something similar happened in Europe,
    I'm not sure.

    Dissident Sandinistas and Farabundistas and left organizations and
    labor activists with a brain and a position, with criticisms but
    who were willing to defend Nicaragua and El Salvador forces against
    imperialism were summarily expelled from these movements.

    i.e.: the most ridiculous of all experiences I witnessed was a
    conference organized by minor labor bureaucrats, former SWP
    members, SLP and other of the type.  The conference was called
    in the Mid West to form a national organization in solidarity
    with Central America.  A number of people from left orgaizations
    got together and decided to go there and be part of that effort.
    There were maybe 300/400 people in attendance.  The left wing
    of the conference made some proposals.  They were passed.  Then
    the leadership, with the help of FMLN and FSLN representatives,
    pushed for an elected representatives and formed a list of
    candidates.  The left wing was forced to form its own list.  A vote
    took place and the left obtained 49,5% of the vote (lost for 1/2
    per cent of the vote).  The right then proceed to exclude all those
    who voted for that list from subsecquent meetings.  Amazing,
    uhmmmm!

    How a solidarity movement can be effective in this Stalinist
    environment?

    Next post will continue with specific answers to Louis postings and
    particular statements he made.

    Now, I'm aware that Louis said that my answers so far were so
    sectarian that he won't even bother to answer them.  Then he
    insisted in claiming allegiance to a model of organization where
    everyone is welcome.  I guess he meant "as far as you don't argue
    anything we say".

    Well, I doesn't matter, Louis.  You posted your positions and I'm
    answering them.  It is your choice if you decide not to answer
    again.

    Comradely,
    Carlos




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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