Re: Socialism in underdeveloped nations-Nicaragua

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

You(Louis) wrote:
>
>Luftmensch is thought-provoking as usual. The question he is
addressing
>is closely related to questions I raised about the Nicaraguan
revolution
>in my final post on that subject. If Lenin said the Russian revolution

>would "perish" if revolutions did not triumph in the west, what are
the
>chances for survival of underdeveloped countries that make
revolutions.
>This question is particularly acute with the demise of the Soviet
Union.
>I raised this question for consideration but nobody, especially the
>Trotskyists, seemed interested at the time. Oh well.
>
>Louis Proyect


    Carlos:

    Louis, I think I answered that question when I wrote my articles
    about Nicaragua.  But you were too mad as to read anything
    criticizing the Sandinistas and the FMLN at the time.

    Let's see if I can sinthethyze the answer and, at the same time,
    answering very briefly your latest post (while ago) about the
    Permanent Theory and the central american revolution:

    1. The revolution in CA could not be a complete democratic
    bourgeois revolution in 1980.  Either would be a workers
    revolution with a *socialist dynamic* or won't be.  I wasn't.

    2. The slogans of "for a socialist revolution* was not adecquated
    because the development of both the productive forces and the
    proletariat at the moment.

    3. Workers revolution with a *socialist dynamic* means:

    a) The Internationalization of the Nicaraguan revolution as
    a military strategy to prevent counter-revolution.

    b) The break with the national bourgeoisie and the establishment
    of a workers and peasant government.

    c) The development of the productive forces while maintaining
    firm control of the state by democratically elected bodies of
    workers and peasants.  This even could have included the acceptance
    of foreign investments and some forms of private ownership of the
    means of production.

    None of this was done by the Sandinistas.  They choose nationalism
    over internationalism; alliance with the bourgeoisie and sharing
    of power with it and finally accepted all the rules of the game
    imposed by imperialism in order to "appease" it (from Contadora to
    peace agreements to refusal to extent the revolution to give
    freedom to the Somoza's national guards who formed the first
    battallions of the contras ....)

    Betrayal?  NO, they did what they said they would do ... The SWP
    and others, who feel betrayed is because they refused to see what
    the Sandinistas were up to ... I will call it the logical end of
    reformist and hesitant policies.


    Comradely,
    Carlos


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---