By Carlos Figueroa
In delivering a major surprise and moving into the second round of Guatemala’s presidential elections, Bernardo Arévalo and his Movimiento Semilla party have been the target of anti-communist attacks. In past elections in which Arévalo’s current opponent, Sandra Torres, participated, she was also a victim of these anti-communist attacks. By anti-communism I do not understand a critical position, both theoretical and practical, with respect to parties, organizations or movements that are governed by an anti-capitalist ideal inspired by Marxism. Considering oneself alien to Marxism is a respectable and legitimate position as long as the position and actions derived from it are respectful of the rules of democracy and the rule of law.
I understand by anti-communism a political position that makes use of the term communist to carry out a stigmatizing, anathematizing and violent practice, both in physical, psychological and symbolic terms, a practice that also uses the noun communist as an adjective that is applied indiscriminately to all those positions. political and ideological that seek a change. Anti-communism is therefore a conception and a political practice of an extremist and fanatical nature. Currently, anti-communism is a substantial part of a political ideology of the right that is articulated with authoritarianism, classism, racism, misogyny, aporophobia, homophobia and transphobia. This ideology is translated into a political practice that is neo-fascism.
Accusing Sandra Torres of being a communist was stupidity that can only be explained by the aforementioned fanaticism. Since she is no longer the main enemy of the block in power called the Corrupt Pact, the accusation has been directed at Bernardo and his party. Fortunately, the Guatemalan people are so fed up with corruption that, unlike in the past, now the infusion has not been having much effect. Bernardo Arévalo shows a two-to-one advantage in voting intentions, in a poll commissioned by a business group that is beyond any suspicion of being a communist.
Accusing Bernardo Arévalo and Semilla of being communists is once again an act of fanaticism that also reveals a supine ignorance about the history of the difference between social democracy and communism. This differentiation is approximately 120 years old since it began to manifest itself and about 110 years after it was openly declared in an irreconcilable schism. It happened on the threshold of the First World War when social democracy moved away from proletarian internationalism and began to support its own ruling classes in each of the countries involved in the war. Thus the Social Democratic Second International died and thus the Third Communist International founded by Vladimir Ilich Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, among others, was born.
The differentiation between social democracy and communism was accentuated when social democracy adopted its classic project that differed from the communist one. While the communists continued to support a socialist revolution, the social democracy opted for a reformist project that sought a middle path between socialism and liberal capitalism. Bernardo Arévalo and Semilla come from the social democratic current, so their project is theoretically and historically far from communism. Are they far from the classical project of social democracy, which is equally distant from neoliberalism?
Furthermore, regardless of all this, it happens that after the Soviet collapse, which was also accompanied by the collapse of the classical project of social democracy, humanity faced the rise of a new form of capitalism, savage capitalism, a capitalism even more predatory of the human beings and nature: neoliberalism. With the capitalism that we are experiencing, humanity is at risk of extinction. Here is the paradox we are facing: never before has humanity needed socialism so much and never before has it been so far from it.
Because of their social democratic political and ideological tradition and because of what has happened in the world after the Soviet collapse, it is absurd to think that Bernardo Arévalo and Semilla are thinking of implanting a socialist project in Guatemala. Anyone who has read Semilla’s government program and has listened to Bernardo’s speeches and interviews knows that his project is even common sense. What Guatemala needs, beyond left or right positions, is to recover the State that is in the hands of corruption and organized crime. Guatemala needs 40% of the public budget that is stolen by the corrupt and criminals, to be allocated to social and productive uses.
If Bernardo Arévalo wins on August 20, if they let him assume the presidency, if they let him govern, if Semilla does not lose its legal personality, in short, if the Corrupt Pact is defeated, as president he will be able to allocate that 40% to eradicate the malnutrition, build the roads you want, expand education coverage to 577,000 children, bring health to some 7 million people, generate confidence that increases investment and tax collection, enter into pacts for health, education , development and environment. He will be able to create better possibilities for public security and with the national dialogue he will give him a chance for democracy. If Bernardo Arévalo and his government achieve all this, which is not large, but it is enough, Guatemala will be much better.
Source The Time
