Marcelo Colussi
“Look what I do, not what I say”.
Declaration of a “progressive” president before foreign investors.
A few years ago there was talk of a “socialist revolution”. Today we speak of “progressivism.” In past decades, the words “popular power or mobilization”, “government of the poor”, “grassroots democracy” were not feared. Today it seems that all this has been changed into “citizen participation”, “democracy” (understood as participatory democracy), “citizenship” and “governance”. “To unwire, to unwire!”, was requested in a motivating song some time ago; Today, in a jacket and tie, or with heels and jewelry, there is talk of respect for private property, of an economy “with social responsibility.” What happened to that idea of change, of profound revolutionary transformations? Are the progressivisms that we live in Latin America an advance or a regression in political-social terms?
To answer this question, it is necessary to contextualize the phenomenon. The workers’ struggles of the 19th century, largely framed in anarchist ideas, gave rise to scientific socialism at the hands of Marx and Engels. That ideology allowed the first socialist revolutions well into the 20th century: Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua. In the 1970s, a quarter of humanity lived in countries that, with differences but with a common denominator, called themselves socialists. Those years, the 60s and 70s of the 20th century, showed the great growth of a transforming spirit that spread throughout the planet.
Several African countries with “African” socialism after their independence from the European imperialist powers, Marxist guerrilla movements throughout Latin America, “Arab” socialism in different states of the Middle East and the Maghreb, militant unions everywhere, peasant movements, French May as a beacon for student struggles, anti-war movements in Vietnam, Liberation Theology in the Catholic Church with its “option for the poor”, a hippie movement that called for non-con sumo (mortal wound to the system), Guevarist mysticism that inspired the youth… all this showed a climate of search for radical transformations. Bourgeois democracy, in that worldview, was seen as an unseemly mockery of the people, a routine exercise in periodically changing the manager of capitalist businesses. Faced with all this momentum for change, the global system reacted violently.
If the decades of the 60s/70s showed these advances, the 80s meant a radical brake on that transformative spirit. The brutal repressions in Latin America filled the countries with corpses. Rivers of blood flowed, assassinations of popular leaders, forced disappearance of people, clandestine jails, torture chambers, massacres of the rural population, a visceral anti-communism inspired by the National Security Doctrine and internal enemy promoted by Washington, all of this stopped the growth of the protest, of the emancipatory movements. Neo-evangelical churches spread against the Theology of Liberation, and neoliberal plans were erected on the mountains of the dead.
Neoliberalism – a corrected and augmented version of the most ruthless capitalism that prioritizes the free market at the highest level against state intervention – quickly established itself. Labor and social conquests achieved with heroic struggles were lost. Global capitalism took the initiative, and the ideas of change were left in oblivion. There arise extremely dangerous ideological formulations for the popular field that, in a surreptitious way, enshrine the accommodative possibility, the supposed “end of history” and the final defeat of socialist ideas. That is where the postmodern creed appears and the proliferation of partial struggles, very important in themselves but which, unrelated to each other (feminism on the one hand, environmentalism on the other, ethnic demands here disconnected from the fight for sexual diversity there, etc.), only serve to fragment the anti-systemic struggle (divide and rule?). The end of the Cold War with a clear winner: the capitalist pole, overshadowed the popular struggles.
But they did not disappear. Why were they going to do it? Reactions arose from the disastrous neoliberal policies. The first, and perhaps the most important in Latin America, was the Venezuelan Caracazo in 1989, silenced with thousands of deaths due to government repression. Years later, the figure of Hugo Chávez appeared on that wave of popular discontent.
With him, in 1999 a process began that surprised everyone: a soldier trained in counterinsurgency techniques, not a Marxist, suddenly resumed abandoned terminology and spoke again of socialism. Even with the proposal to review what was done in the real socialisms of the 20th century, criticizing its excessive bureaucratism and verticality, proposing something new: 21st century socialism. Undoubtedly, the project that he inaugurates raised great hopes. After years of bloody dictatorships and neoliberal plans that enslaved the population, the appearance of Chávez meant a breath of fresh air. Without a clearly socialist position -“In my country there is no class struggle”, he could say- developed a policy of social principles. It did not produce substantial changes like those of 20th century socialism, with expropriations from the property-owning class, with armed popular militias and genuine grassroots democracy exercised in community assemblies. But it did raise the standard of living of the vast majority, promoting social content plans.
This appearance, and the international context that allowed it -the high prices of the raw materials produced by the countries of the area bought by China- gave rise to a certain accumulation that various governments with a social-popular spirit used in favor of the majorities. In this logic, various administrations were emerging at the beginning of the 21st century that, without questioning capitalism, produced improvements in the impoverished -and repressed- Latin American societies. After the long night of neoliberalism, that seemed like spring. They started talking about progressivisms. And in a sense, they were.
In fact, after two decades of the current century, there were two waves of progressivism; Among them appeared an attempt to reconfigure the most rampant neoliberalism, with ultra-right presidents: Bolsonaro, Macri, Duque, Piñera. The truth is that, with the two waves of progressivism (the second in force today in several countries), questions are opened.
In none of these progressive advances was the capitalist model surpassed; not even the neoliberalism promoted by the western mega-capitals. Although it is true that there were decompression valves with significant advances -Bolivia, with Evo Morales, came closer to socialist proposals-, the grassroots structures were maintained. The oligarchies did not lose their economic or political power, the armed forces -except in the case of Venezuela- never became an instrument of the people but rather remained faithful to the defense of the system, representative democracy did not go -it cannot go- from being an exercise that is really far from popular power and all the countries with governments of this “center-left” nature continued to pay their debts with international credit organizations.
As stated, the first wave benefited from the high prices of exportable raw materials; the second wave, no. Therefore, the structural problems in none of the nations where these progressivisms took place or took place, were resolved. Given the above, the question arises: are there advances or setbacks?
Compared with the monetary fund adjustment plans that began years ago, and that still persist, they had a taste of respite, a breath of fresh air. But, it has been demonstrated, welfare and patronage policies do not solve the historical deficiencies. They are -and, of course, welcome- cold water cloths, although they cannot go beyond that. In that sense, they are progress.
Seen from a historical perspective, after the progress obtained in previous decades with the increase in popular struggles and the last triumphant socialist revolution in 1979 in Nicaragua, thinking now of bourgeois-democratic elections and that the left is limited to “progressive” leaders (socialism is not that!) reveals the tremendous defeat of the popular camp. Tactical defeat, surely, because the story has not ended. The progressivisms show that the class struggle continues to be the motor of history because, although they are not the revolution, they scare the ruling class. For this reason, although they are not the ghost of Cold War communism, they do everything possible to overthrow it. From the popular field they should be supported, but knowing that superficial reforms are not the point of arrival.
