December 18, 2015 (Revised February 25, 2019)
 
      During the 1990s, I began a process of encounter with the Cuban revolutionary project, living among the people, listening to the commentaries of Cuban journalists on television, reading the works of Cuban academics and intellectuals, and reading the speeches and writings of Fidel Castro.  I soon came to learn that Fidel is a man of exceptional qualities, possessing a high level of understanding of the structures of colonial and neocolonial domination and of the strategies that are necessary for national liberation.  And I came to appreciate that he has a high level of commitment to the Cuban nation and people.  Fidel is loved by the Cuban people, who appreciate his exceptional qualities.
 
      As a pre-university student, Fidel was formed in the tradition of the Cuban struggle for national liberation.  He was a great admirer of the Cuban nineteenth century nationalist José Martí, as were many Cuban youth, and he read all of the books that had been written on the two Cuban wars of independence.  During his third year at the University of Havana, he began to read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, using the library of the communist party.  He appropriated their concepts from the vantage point of the Cuban situation, thus forging a creative synthesis of the Cuban struggle for national liberation with Marxism-Leninism.  In accordance with this creative adaptation, he conceived a revolution of the people rather than a proletarian revolution. 
 
      Fidel possessed an instinctive exceptional capacity for the art of politics.  He grasped that the bold attack on the Moncada Barracks of July 26, 1956 was the kind of action that was needed to galvanize the people.  In calling the people to revolution, he understood the necessity of making declarations that take into account the perceptions and values of the people.  He realized that the Cuban people of the 1950s were rebellious, but they had not yet developed revolutionary consciousness; so it was necessary to focus on concrete problems.  In addition, during the revolutionary war and after its triumph, he discerned the need for the unity of the diverse revolutionary forces, and he possessed the capacity to forge it.  During his many years as the Cuban chief of state, he also demonstrated an exceptional understanding of global dynamics, and he became an important voice defending a radical Third World agenda in the international arena.  In the 1980s, in a series of speeches on the causes and the consequences of the Third World debt, he showed a greater understanding of the world-economy than the great majority of economists.
 
      Fidel also has possessed a remarkable faith in the ultimate triumph of the socialist revolution.  It is a faith that is rooted in the conviction of the justice of the socialist cause, and it is inspired by the examples of the great revolutionaries in human history.  In contrast to the skepticism of the intellectual who can see only the objective conditions and the subjective correlation of forces, Fidel’s revolutionary faith sees the possibility of changing these conditions and forces, through analysis that discerns hidden possibilities within the existing conditions and forces.
 
       The phenomenon of the charismatic gifts of Fidel brings to mind the concept of charismatic authority, formulated in the early twentieth century by the German sociologist Max Weber.  For Weber, persons can possess authority, defined as the capacity to influence others, because of an office that they hold in a bureaucratic structure, such as the president of a country; or a position that they hold in a traditional system, such as a king.  But there are others who hold no office, yet they possess authority because of their exceptional gifts.  Often they are innovators who reform tradition.
 
     In addition to encountering the Cuban revolutionary project, I also have been reading of revolutions in other lands.  I found that other revolutions possessed charismatic leaders, not merely persons who led the revolutions, but persons with exceptional gifts, whose leadership was a necessary and decisive factor in the gains of the revolution.  As a result of this study of various revolutions, I have come to the conclusion that the emergence of charismatic leaders is a general characteristic of revolutionary processes.
 
     In Haiti, Toussaint L’Ouverture was a military genius who also mastered the art of politics, gifts that enabled him to command a black army and control nearly all of the territory.  As a result, he was recognized as Governor of the French colony of San Domingo, as it was then known.  As Governor, he maintained the sugar plantations, converting the slaves into free wage workers.  He stabilized the economy and enjoyed support among blacks, whites and mulattos.  He correctly understood that, as a result of the legacy of slavery, the development of the nation needed French support and cooperation, on the basis of Jacobin principles.  But this vision was not realized.  The Jacobins lost power in France, and the revolution in San Domingo that had been led by Toussaint was brought to an end by the invasion of Napoleon.  Toussaint was arrested, and he died in prison shortly afterward.  Napoleon tried to restore slavery in San Domingo, without success, due to the revolutionary resistance of the people.  An independent nation of Haiti, without slavery, was declared.  But independent Haiti was not the Haiti that Toussaint envisioned.  It went in a different direction: ties with France were severed, whites were massacred, and the plantations were divided into subsistence plots.  It endured isolation and poverty for decades, a legacy from which it still suffers.
 
      In the Mexican Revolution, a charismatic leader capable of unifying the revolution on the basis of a national plan that united the forces of peasants, workers, and the petit bourgeoisie did not emerge.  Zapata and Villa possessed charismatic gifts, but their vision was limited to the perspective of the peasant and the countryside, and not the nation as a whole.  Ricardo Flores Magón was able to envision the necessary national plan, but he did not master the art of politics.  The Mexican Revolution triumphed not as a popular revolution but as a revolution by a rising petit bourgeoisie, based in the military.
 
      In the case of the Russian Revolution of 1917, Lenin adapted Marxism to the conditions of Russia, discerning that the unfolding revolution was not precisely a proletarian revolution, but a peasant and proletarian revolution, led by a proletarian vanguard.  Appreciating the need for the support of the peasantry, Lenin put forth a slogan for the distribution of land to peasants.  In addition, Lenin discerned the importance of the soviets (workers,’ peasants’ and soldiers’ councils), as the expression of an advanced form of democracy and as an indication that the Russian Revolution represented a transition to socialism.
 
     Lenin understood that the consolidation and development of the Russian Revolution would require the triumph of the proletarian revolution in Western Europe, in order that Western European governments would provide necessary technical support, inasmuch as Russia was relatively underdeveloped.  The failure of the proletarian revolution in Western Europe doomed the Russian Revolution.  Instead of support from the West, it was victimized by Western military invasion and support for counterrevolutionary opposition sectors.  With the death of Lenin, the Russian Revolution fell to a petit bourgeois bureaucratic class, so that it was no longer a peasant-worker revolution.  Subsequently, the bureaucratic class ruled with repression under Stalin.
 
     Lenin possessed an exceptional understanding of global dynamics.  He discerned that with the failure of the proletariat revolution in the Western Europe, the vanguard of the revolution would move to the East, that is, to the colonized and oppressed peoples of the world. 
 
     The Haitian, Mexican and Russian revolutions inspired the world.  But none of them ultimately triumphed as revolutions of the people guided by charismatic leadership.  In contrast, popular revolutions in the colonized and peripheralized regions of the Third World would triumph and would sustain themselves, thus placing themselves in the vanguard of the global socialist revolution, as Lenin had anticipated.  During the twentieth century, the two most important expressions of this were the revolutions led by Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh.
 
     Ho Chi Minh adapted Marxism-Leninism to the conditions of Vietnam.  He forged in practice a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and the political-intellectual tradition of Vietnamese nationalism, which had been developed by Confucian scholars, and in which he had been formed as a young man.  He understood that national liberation of the colonized peoples could not be attained without socialism, and that socialism in the West could not be attained without the liberation of the colonized peoples.  He thus saw the dual character of the revolution as both a social and class revolution and an anti-colonial revolution of national liberation.  He discerned the revolutionary spontaneity of the peasant, setting aside the distrust of the peasantry that had been a strong component of the tradition of Marxism-Leninism.  Moreover, he mastered the art of politics, knowing when to implement revolutionary measures.  These exceptional qualities enabled him to lead the Vietnamese people through two long wars against French colonialism and US imperialism, ultimately leading to the establishment of an independent nation that to this day follows an autonomous socialist path to economic, political and cultural development.
 
      During the first decade and a half of the twenty-first century, in reaction to the imposition of the neoliberal project by the global powers, popular movements in Latin America assumed the vanguard in the global socialist movement.  Charismatic leaders emerged, calling the people in various nations to autonomous national projects that sought definitive independence from the neocolonial powers, and discerning the objective possibilities for Latin American and Caribbean unity and integration.  Especially important in the new Latin America have been Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador.
 
      There are charismatic leaders who directed movements that could not take and consolidate power, such as Simon Bolívar and José Martí, the two giants of the nineteenth century Latin American struggles for independence; and Julio Antonio Mella and Antonio Guiteras, leaders of the Cuban popular movement in the 1920s and early 1930s.  There are, in addition, charismatic leaders who led movements that took power for a relatively short period of time, such as Salvador Allende in Chile.  And there are charismatic leaders whose charisma is a consequence of a connection with a charismatic leader, as is the case with Raúl Castro in Cuba and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.  All of these leaders have had exceptional capacities to understand and to formulate courses of action, qualities that have been discerned by the people, who have lifted them up, thus providing them with political and teaching authority.
 
      The lack of understanding in the North of the necessary role of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes leads us to misinterpretations.  We tend to think that the long-term presence of a single leader is a result of a move of the leader toward authoritarian control, thus confirming that “power corrupts.”  And we tend to think that the people support the authoritarian leader, because they have limited education, and because they are manipulated and/or fearful.  With this false assumption, we cannot see that the charismatic leader is an indispensable resource in the ongoing struggle against the global powers.  And we are not aware that the most educated and informed of the people are among the most fervent supporters of the charismatic leader, on the basis of their understanding of the essential role of the charismatic leader in sustaining a revolutionary process under continuous attack by powerful enemies.  When people in the North, in the name of democracy, call upon Third World governments to establish “term limits,” they are proposing a structure that is alien to revolutionary processes.  In order for revolutionary processes to sustain themselves, the continuing wisdom and unifying presence of the charismatic leader is indispensable.  When we propose “term limits,” we are suggesting to the poor and the colonized that they not use their most powerful weapon, as they struggle to survive the onslaught of hostile actions by the global powers.
 
      In the case of Cuba and Fidel, the charismatic authority of Fidel has been institutionalized in two ways.  First, when Fidel was named Prime Minister in the Revolutionary Government on February 13, 1959, his political authority was converted from charismatic to legal authority.  Subsequently, the Cuban Constitution of 1976 established structures of Popular Power, which include popular election of the National Assembly to five-year terms, which elects the Council of State and Ministers, including the President of the Council of State.  This represented a reorganization of the structures of legal authority.  Fidel was President of the Council of State through 2008, when he stepped down for reasons of health.  This office is currently held by Raúl Castro, who also possesses charismatic authority.  When Raúl no longer holds the office, others will be elected to five-year terms.  The long-term institutionalization of charismatic authority could involve the election of persons to the office of President of the Council of State who possess charismatic authority, exceptional gifts to analyze and explain, discerned by the people.  Such charismatic leaders would be among the people, because they are called forth by revolutionary process.  Our charismatic leaders are gifts from God, in that they are born with exceptional qualities.  But the revolutionary process nourishes them, and calls them to fulfillment of their potential and their duty.
 
     Secondly, the teaching authority of Fidel has been institutionalized through the creation of the Cuban Communist Party.  The charismatic authority of Fidel, in addition to political authority, included teaching authority, and in fulfillment of this function, Fidel in his speeches was constantly educating the people.  The Party, which consists of approximately 15% of the people, plays the role of forming the consciousness of the people and developing the political culture of the nation, rooted in the teachings of Fidel.  The transferring of Fidel’s teaching authority to the Party has been a slow process, because every time that Fidel spoke with insight, the authority to teach stayed with him, rather than being transferred to the Party.  But since his retirement in 2008, the process of institutionalization has accelerated.  The new social and economic model submitted to the National Assembly in 2012 was initiated by the Party, which led a mass popular consultation; Fidel played a minor, although supportive, role.
 
       A number of the blog posts that I have written on revolutionary processes in various nations have discussed the phenomenon of charismatic leaders.  These posts, in addition to being categorized in particular revolutions, also have been placed in the separate category of Charismatic Leaders.
 
      The posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders are as follows:
 
“A tribute to Fidel” 08/13/2017;
           
“Nicolás Maduro” 06/07/2017;
           
“Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 07/25/2016;
“Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 07/27/2016;
           
“Thank you, Fidel” 08/13/2016;
           
“Hugo Chávez Frías” 08/04/2016;
“The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” 08/05/2016;
“The Movement toward Socialism in Bolivia” 08/11/2016;
“The citizen revolution in Ecuador” 09/19/2016;
“The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua” 09/20/2016;
“Latin American and Caribbean unity” 09/21/2016;
           
“The Cuban tradition of heroism” 09/01/2014;
“Moncada: a great and heroic act” 09/02/2014;
“Fidel: ‘History will absolve me’” 09/04/2014;
“The Moncada program for the people” 09/05/2014;
“Reflections on “History will absolve me” 09/08/2014;
“Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 09/09/2014;
“Fidel’s social roots” 09/10/2014;
“Fidel becomes revolutionary at the university” 09/11/2014;
“The revolutionary faith of Fidel” 09/15/2014;
“Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process”            09/17/2014;
“The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 09/18/2014;
“The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 09/24/2014;
“Radicalization of the revolutionary government” 09/25/2014;
           
“On the charismatic leader” 04/30/2014;
“Ho’s practical theoretical synthesis” 05/09/2014;
           
“The dream renewed” 03/06/2014;
“Is Marx today fulfilled?” 03/20/2014;
           
“Zapata” 02/06/2014;
“Lessons of the Mexican Revolution” 02/19/2014;
           
“Reflections on the Russian Revolution” 01/29/2014;
           
“Toussaint L’Ouverture” 12/10/2013;
“The problem of dependency” 12/11/2013;
“Toussaint seeks North-South cooperation” 12/12/2013;
“The isolation and poverty of Haiti” 12/17/2013.
 
To find the posts, scroll down.
​

     In recent days, Cuban television has broadcast news coverage of commemorations of the anniversary of the birth of Fidel, in Cuba and the world.  The media attention has included extensive interviews with Cuban academics, speaking on the life and teachings of Fidel.  The great historic leader of the Cuban Revolution was born ninety-one years ago today, on August 13, 1926.  He died on November 25, 2016, at the age of 90.

     Fidel Castro Ruz emerged as an important leader of the Cuban Revolution on July 26, 1953, when he led 126 youth in an armed attack of the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba.  The purpose of the attack was to attain arms for the launching of a guerrilla struggle in the nearby mountains.  If the assailants had succeeded in taking the barracks, they would have proclaimed revolutionary laws, including agrarian reform, profit sharing for workers and employees, confiscation of properties fraudulently acquired, and reestablishment of the Constitution of 1940.

      In deciding to organize the Moncada attack, Fidel draw upon a sensitive understanding of Cuban political culture.  It had been twenty years since the collapse of the revolutionary government of 100 days. From 1933 to 1953, revolutionary hopes and the soul of the nation remained alive, as a result of an intellectual class whose works proclaimed an ethical attitude in the face of government corruption. However, by 1953, there had emerged a profound frustration and a belief that an ethical attitude in response to the corrupt political establishment was not enough.  The people yearned for a move beyond attitude to action.  Their yearnings were fulfilled by the Moncada attack, which they perceived as a heroic action, inasmuch as 70 of the young assailants were killed.  The Moncada attack galvanized the people, and it placed Fidel at the head of a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.       
      
     As the revolution unfolded, Fidel demonstrated an understanding of the importance of unity in the struggle and a capacity to forge unification.  Four historic moments stand out in this regard.  The first was the uniting of the popular sectors and anti-Batista political forces in a unified political struggle to bring down the dictator.  Since 1953, Fidel had called all of the people to the struggle, whether they be agricultural workers, industrial workers, professionals, businesspersons, or unemployed; and he brought them on board with a politically intelligent platform that responded to the grievances of the various sectors of the people.  When the revolution took power on January 1, 1959, Fidel included bourgeois and pro-imperialist members of the Cuban bourgeoisie in the initial revolutionary government, with the intention of keeping the anti-Batista coalition intact until the revolutionary leadership was ready for the inevitable break with the reformist and conservative opposition to Batista.

     The rupture of the anti-Batista coalition came on May 17, 1959, with the signing of the Agrarian Reform Law.  Constituting a decisive break with the neocolonial order, the Agrarian Reform Law defined the Cuban Revolution as a radical revolutionary project, determined to affect a social transformation within the nation as well as a necessary restructuring of global structures that had defined Cuba’s role as a supplier of cheap raw materials and a purchaser of surplus manufacturing goods.  With this historic rupture, the unification of the revolutionary forces became indispensable.  Fidel maintained the support of the various popular sectors through decisive action by the revolutionary government, including agrarian reform, protection of employment, confiscation of property of persons associated with the Batista regime, intervention in foreign-owned utility companies that imposed exorbitant prices, and reduction in housing rents, all steps taken in 1959; and the nationalization of companies, both national and foreign-owned, in 1960.  At the same time, Fidel began to work on the unification of the revolutionary organizations, including the 26 of July Movement, created and led by Fidel; the March 13 Revolutionary Directory, a student organization; and the Popular Socialist Party (PSP), the old communist party.  These efforts culminated in the formation of a new Communist Party of Cuba in 1965, a political structure designed to formulate the necessary direction of the revolution, making recommendations to assemblies of popular power.

      The third historic moment in which Fidel proclaimed and sought to form a necessary political unity came in the period 1979 to 1983, when Cuba served as president of the Non-Aligned Movement.  Fidel called for the unity of the governments, movements, and peoples of the Third World, for the purpose of cooperation in the construction of a New International Economic Order, a project approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1974.  At the 1983 Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in New Delhi, with the global powers turning to the imposition of the neoliberal project on the governments of the Third World, the wisdom of Fidel did not prevail.  But the voice of Fidel remained as an important prophetic proclamation, never forgotten by the neocolonized and excluded peoples of the earth.

      Fidel again played an important unifying role, calling upon the unity of the Latin American anti-imperialist movements, during the post-1994 renewal of the Latin America popular movements.  With Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the head of the progressive Workers’ Party in Brazil, Fidel had initiated in 1990 the birth of the Sao Paulo Forum, an organization of Latin American social movements and political parties of the Left.  And in 2004, with Hugo Chávez, he formed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), which was the first decisive step in a process of Latin American unity, culminating in the formation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2010. CELAC consists of the governments of the 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the revolutionary government of Cuba has played a central role in its initial stages of development.  

     The unifying internationalist vision of Fidel sees the necessity of the unity of anti-imperialist forces, unity in defense of the sovereignty of the neocolonized nations, including cooperation between reformist and revolutionary tendencies, united on a foundation of common goals and with respect for differences.  Here it is useful to distinguish between reform from above and reform from below.  Reform from above is conceived by the powerful, and it either (1) supports concessions to the popular sectors in order to pacify them, deliberately deceiving the people into thinking that it seeks fundamental change; or (2) fails to envision the fundamental structural changes that are necessary to carry out its vision of reform.  In contrast, reform from below seeks long-term structural transformations, but it seeks changes that are limited in the short term, as a necessary political strategy in the existing conditions. The difference between revolution and reform from below is not great, taking into account that a triumphant revolution cannot transform conditions overnight and must move step-by-step.   Cooperation between revolution and reform from below in many cases is possible and necessary.  In accordance with this understanding, Fidel discerned the political advisability of cooperation between anti-imperialist and anti-neocolonial political tendencies of Latin America and the Third World. He was in his final years an important voice calling for the necessary unity of Latin America and the Third World, without rejecting the possibility of North-South cooperation, made necessary by global economic, political, and ecological conditions.

      The understanding of Fidel emerged in the context of political action.  Seeking to accomplish political goals in defense of the popular sectors and of national sovereignty, he formulated understandings of the political, economic, cultural, and ideological context in which such goals had to be attained.  He formulated his theory of a political party, for example, in the context of seeking to form a political party that would guide the nation.  Likewise, he formulated his understanding of neocolonial dynamics in the context of seeking to lead a nation in the defense of its sovereignty, in a world-system that is organized to deny the sovereignty of the nations.  Fidel’s understanding, therefore, profoundly illustrates the relation between theory and practice.

      Fidel understood the need to form a vanguard political party.  As early as 1961, Fidel was speaking of the importance of replacing the direction of the revolution by one person, necessary up to that time, with a collective leadership of a vanguard political party.  This process began in the 1960s with the formation of the Cuban Communist Party.  It evolved for the next four decades, during which time the Party grew in the capacities of its members, but it was constrained by the unavoidable charismatic presence of Fidel.  The process advanced considerably from 2009 to 2016, as a consequence of Fidel’s retirement, for reasons of health.  Today, the revolutionary project is direct by Raúl Castro, who also possesses charismatic authority.  But Raúl has encouraged the increasing leadership of the Party in the revolutionary process, such that the structures of a revolutionary project directed by a vanguard political party are today prepared. 

     Prior to my first arrival in Cuba in 1993, I could not avoid the influence of the political culture and the academic assumptions of the United States, in spite of my persistent commitment to seeking understanding through encounter with the Third World.  Accordingly, I had believed that underlying social forces shape revolutionary processes.  However, as I encountered revolutionary Cuba and studied the speeches of Fidel, I arrived to understand that his capacity to understand is so exceptional that it defies explanation.  And I came to appreciate that many Cubans had discerned this, and thus their own revolutionary commitment was expressed as a commitment to the leadership of Fidel, and today, to the teachings of Fidel.

     Stimulated by the example of Fidel and Cuba, as I studied revolutions in other nations, I could not avoid seeing the importance of charismatic leadership in revolutionary processes.  The paradigmatic examples are Fidel, Ho and Mao.  In their nations today, vanguard political parties lead their nations and educate the people, forging a scientifically based consensus among the people, thus avoiding the politically motivated conflicts that make representative democracies dysfunctional.  Other charismatic leaders have emerged in Latin America today: Chávez in Venezuela, Evo in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.  Although these revolutionary processes are in the early stages in their development, they have played a leading role in transforming the political reality of Latin America and in cooperating with Cuba, China and Vietnam in taking important steps toward the construction of a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system.

     We intellectuals of the North must celebrate the charismatic leaders of the Third World.  We ought to study their works and learn from their teachings, with the goal of elevating the historical, global, and revolutionary consciousness of our peoples.  From such a dynamic of popular education, charismatic leaders will emerge to forge policies that break with the legacy of imperialism, thus establishing the foundation for a more just and democratic world.

     Further reflections on these themes can be found in various posts in the categories Cuban History, Cuba Today, and Charismatic Leaders. These themes also are discussed in my forthcoming book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.

     I am sorry for the delay since my last post.  I have been busy finalizing revisions for my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution, which is being published by Palgrave Macmillan.  I continue today with reflections on Venezuela, following up on my posts of April 21 and April 25.

     I very much recommend taking a look at the speech by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the political-cultural act of solidarity with Venezuela in Havana, Cuba, on April 10, 2017.  It illustrates the form in which charismatic leaders forge understandings in the context of crises of political struggle, thus demonstrating the process of the evolution of theory in the context of practice. The study of the speeches of charismatic revolutionary leaders is fertile ground for developing our revolutionary consciousness.

      The political crisis in Venezuela is the result of violent attacks by gangs supported by the Venezuelan Right with the support of the U.S. government.  Using its control of the international media of communication, the Right is portraying Venezuela as a country in chaos, providing selected images of violence for which the Right itself is responsible.  The Organization of American States has been enlisted in support of the cause, and the Secretary General of OAS, thus far without success, has been seeking to obtain OAS condemnation of Venezuela or the recommendation of sanctions. The OAS condemnation would serve as a prelude and a pretext for a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, in order to establish a government consistent with its interests, inasmuch as such a government likely could not be attained through electoral or constitutional means.

      Speaking in Cuba in the context of this struggle and crisis, Maduro focuses on the role of the Organization of American States in carrying out U.S. interests.  He recalls that the OAS was created in 1948 with the intention of creating a structure that would enable the United States to obtain Latin American diplomatic support for U.S. action against any Latin American country that would challenge its hegemonic interests.  Enjoying enormous power and prestige at that time, the United States was able to establish the OAS as its “colonial ministry,” as called by Maduro, citing the Cuban foreign minister of the early 1960s, Raúl Roa.  Maduro sees an analogy between OAS expulsion of Cuba in 1962 and the interventionist conduct of OAS with respect to Venezuela today.  Given the role of the OAS as an instrument of U.S. interests, Maduro questions whether Venezuela should remain in the organization.  Indeed, the South American nation subsequently did announce on April 26 its withdrawal from the OAS.  Cuba, it should be noted, did not rejoin the organization when its expulsion was rescinded in 2009.  

     In his analysis of the historic moment, Maduro interprets the Cuban Revolution as of transcendental importance for the neocolonized peoples of the world.  In his view, the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 established a new possible reality for the peoples of the Third World, thus marking the dawning of a new historic period.  For this reason, the Cuban Revolution had to be destroyed by the imperialist powers, but as a result of the determination and intelligence of the Cuban leadership and its people, they could not do it.  

       The discourse of Maduro formulates various concepts and interpretations that are common among Third World revolutionaries. He formulates a grand narrative that finds meaning in human history. He has historic memory of the global process of colonialism, slavery and extermination, carried out by the educated and cultured of Europe. He possesses consciousness of the historic struggle of the colonized peoples in defense of their national sovereignty, their cultural autonomy and their rights.  He has faith in the future of humanity, which, he believes, will be victorious in creating a more just, democratic and sustainable world.  

      Maduro sees free trade agreements between developed and underdeveloped nations as a new form of economic colonialism. Consistent with the classic Third World project of national and social liberation (see various posts in the category Third World), Maduro sees the importance of developing diverse forms of production as well as South-South cooperation, breaking from the peripheral economic role in relation to the core.   The petroleum era is over, he maintains, and Venezuela must overcome dependency on petroleum through diversification of production and regional integration, overcoming the core-peripheral relation though South-South cooperation.  For Maduro, economic development is the principal task confronting Latin American countries, and this is why the road is through regional organizations like ALBA, and not transnational organizations directed by the interests of the core powers, like OAS.  In this emphasis on economic development through a new form of regional integration, Maduro’s views are consistent with those of the “socialism for the twenty-first century” that has emerged in Latin America.

     In struggle of the neocolonized to save humanity, Maduro discerns the important role of charismatic leaders, like Fidel and Chávez, who possessed exceptional understanding as well as unbounded commitment to universal human values.  He notes, for example, that Chávez understood how to lead in the new stage of struggle, overcoming ideological divisions by lifting up a Latin Americanist doctrine.  And both Fidel and Chávez knew to unify the revolution in Venezuela and the Cuban Revolution.  The leadership of Fidel and Chávez, Maduro observes, stands in contrast to the shameful subordination of the local hierarchies to imperialist interests, who sold their dignity.  
   
     Maduro is a former bus driver educated through a process of leadership in worker’s unions and social-political movements.  He speaks in the everyday language of the humble people of the earth, with a simple and direct discourse that is full of insight into structures of domination.  With revolutionary faith, he proclaims that, however powerful and clever the forces of imperialism may be, we have morality on our side as well as the determination to advance in our social and economic development.  We will fulfill our destiny of attaining an historic victory over imperialism.  We belong to a revolution born in history and that is called by history to prevail. 

Posted July 25, 2016

     Prior to the 1960s, historical scholarship tended to emphasis the role of great men in shaping human history.  Reacting to this, there emerged a tendency to give emphasis to underlying social forces in explaining the events the shaped the direction of human history.  But the error of the previous scholarship was not that it emphasized the importance of exceptional individuals.  Rather, its fundamental error was that it was written from above, from the perspective of the dominating classes, nations and gender.  Somewhat off base in its critique of the previous scholarship, the new scholarship of the North, concentrating on social forces, did not reflect profoundly on the possible development of knowledge from below.  It thus could not see the important role of exceptional individuals in forging anti-colonial, anti-neocolonial, and anti-imperialist revolutions in the formerly colonized regions of the world.  

     If we of the North could escape from the lens that blinds us to exceptional leadership, we would be able to discern that Third World leaders were not only unifying the people for effective collective and political action, they also were creating new understandings, and thus were implicitly advancing the possibilities for a comprehensive philosophical-historical-social science from below.  And we would be able to see that in Third World national liberation revolutions that had significant gains, the presence of leaders with an exceptional capacity to analyze and to lead was the norm.  This suggests that Max Weber was on to something when he identified charismatic authority as one of the three forms of authority in human history, and it leads to the conclusion that the emergence of charismatic leaders is integral to revolutionary processes when they have success in attaining a major part of their goals.

      One of these charismatic leaders was Fidel Castro.  He is perhaps the most important of the charismatic leaders of the modern era, considering that the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s was a symbol to the hopes and aspirations of subjugated peoples throughout the world, and the Cuban nation today continues to be a symbol for the peoples of the Third World as they seek to create a more just and democratic world-system.  As Fidel led the Cuban Revolution and the revolutionary project of the independent Cuban nation, he repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity to analyze the global structures of domination and exploitation, understanding them to be structures of colonial and neocolonial domination, class exploitation, and gender domination; and to understand the steps necessary for creation of a sovereign Cuban nation characterized by the protection of the political, civil, social and economic rights of the people.  And he also demonstrated mastery of the art of politics: he was able to unify the people to lead them in the taking of power, in the consolidation of state power, in the institutionalization of an alternative political process of popular power, and in the necessary economic adjustments at different historic moments in the development of the world-economy.  

      One example of the charismatic leadership of Fidel was his role as chair of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1979 to 1983, which occurred during the historic movement in which the global powers were turning to the implementation of the neoliberal project on a global scale.  In accordance with the rules of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba and Havana had been previously selected to be the host country and city for the 1979 Summit, with Cuba serving as president of the Non-Aligned Movement until the following summit, held in 1983 in New Delhi, where the presidency was turned over to India.  As we have seen (see “Derailing the Third World project” 7/22/2016), as outgoing chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, Fidel addressed the New Delhi Summit.  His speech, “The Economic and Social Crisis of the World,” was enthusiastically and emotionally received by the delegates, even though political realities prevented nearly all nations from following its suggestions.  The speech was printed in an expanded form and distributed in various languages.  The expanded version was prepared by Fidel with the support of scholars of the Cuban Center for Research on the World Economy, the Center for Research on the International Economy of the University of Havana, and the Economics Faculty of the University of Havana.  It provided a thorough and informed analysis of the problems that the world-economy confronted, and it proposed an alternative direction to that being implemented by the global powers.  Although dated with respect to statistics cited, the document’s proposals remain viable, and indeed they are more urgent than ever, as the world-system enters increasingly into crisis, led by a global elite that ignored the proposals of Fidel and the Third World, and that could conceive of no other response to the structural crisis of the world-system than a global economic war against the poor and the unleashing of neo-fascist wars.
 
     The Economic and Social Crisis of the World: Its repercussions for the underdeveloped countries, its dismal prospects, and the need to struggle if we are to survive: Report to the VII Summit of the Non-Aligned Countries was published by the Cuban government in 1983.  It understands the global crisis to be fundamentally rooted in the structures of a neocolonial world-system that is based on centuries of colonial and neocolonial exploitation.  At the same time, it identifies particular steps taken during the 1960s and 1970s by the hegemonic power that sent the system spiraling toward crisis.  In the view of the report, these steps were taken by the United States in an effort to preserve its hegemony in the system; and the results were disastrous, because the preservation of US hegemony was not possible, a fundamental fact never understood by US leaders.

      The report notes important characteristics of the post-World World II period of 1946 to 1970, a period that began with uncontested US hegemony.  It was above all a period of commercial expansion and long economic growth for the developed capitalist nations, uninterrupted by depression or long recessions.  And it was a period characterized by: important technological and scientific advances, which facilitated the emergence of consumer societies in the developed capitalist nations as well as a tremendous increase in the destructive capacity of military weapons; the emergence of transnational corporations to a position of dominance accompanied by increasing concentration of power, capital, and production; an increasing role of states in their economies, including state ownership or co-ownership of companies in many countries; and a relative decline in industry and the emergence of service as a more dynamic sector of the economies of the developed capitalist nations.  And the same time, it was a period of enormous inequality between the developed and underdeveloped worlds, during which the underdeveloped world developed mechanisms to challenge the structures of the system.  And during the period Japan and Western Europe (especially Germany) emerged to challenge US hegemony, establishing by 1970 three centers of power in the capitalist world, namely, the United States (still dominant), the European Economic Community, and Japan, all of which were united in their opposition to the protest movements in the underdeveloped countries (Castro 1983:17-19, 54-55).  

     The report notes that from the 1944 Bretton Woods conference to 1971, the US dollar enjoyed a privileged position in the international monetary system.  Since the value of the dollar was fixed in gold, possession of it was equivalent to the possession of gold itself, and thus the US dollar functioned in practice as the fundamental holding for international reserves.  As a result of its privileged position in the international monetary system, in conjunction with its unchallenged dominance in production and commerce, the United States could obtain financing through the simple mechanism of a policy of monetary expansion, so long as there were sufficient gold reserves to support the money in circulation.  An expansionist monetary policy was the mechanism used from 1946 to the late 1950s to finance massive exportations of capital as well as programs of reconstruction in Europe and an enormous military budget that included maintenance of military bases throughout the world (Castro 1983:79-80). 

     But in the late 1950s, the favorable position of the United States began to suffer erosion.   Of primary importance was the emergence of competition from Japan and Western Europe, reducing the growth of US exportation of goods and services.  Beginning in the early 1960s, the United States responded to its declining position by the emission of dollar bonds, which were increasingly less backed in gold, other currencies, or in the exportation of goods and services.  This strategy was described by commercial bankers as “creating money with the stroke of a pen.” It financed investments by US transnational corporations as well as programs of “foreign aid” (tied to political conditions) and military expenditures abroad.  This was a successful strategy for the attainment of political and economic objectives in the short term, but it had the consequence of undermining the position of the dollar, and it was one of the primary sources of the high level of inflation of the 1970s, which began in the late 1960s.  In spite of the weakened position of the dollar, the price of the dollar remained fixed in gold, so that the dollar was overvalued, until it was freed from the gold standard in 1971, when it suffered devaluation and a subsequent devaluation in 1973 (Castro 1983:80-81).

     The 1970s was a decade of high levels of inflation.  From 1973 to 1981, the inflation rate varied from 7.0% to 13.3% for the seven principal capitalist countries.  The inflation was caused by the issuance of bonds by the US government to sustain unproductive state expenditures, especially military expenditures, as well as by control of prices by the transnational corporations that controlled international commerce, including international commerce in petroleum.  Although some Western economists blamed the inflation of the 1970s on the 1973 OPEC price increase for crude petroleum, the 1983 Castro report argues that that nationalized petroleum companies of the OPEC countries controlled only the supply of petroleum, while the transnational petroleum companies maintained control over technological and commercial aspects.  The report maintains that the transnational petroleum companies profited enormously during the 1970s as a result of the rapid increase in the prices of the derivative products as well as speculation in combustibles.  Making a distinction between inflation generated from imported products, including petroleum, and inflation generated internally by US producers and distributors, the report finds that the US inflation rate during the 1970s was almost entirely generated by domestic inflation.  In 1974, for example, 11% of the 12% total US inflation rate was generated domestically, while only 1% was generated from importations (Castro 1983:80-82, 157, 160-61).

      The weakened position of the dollar and high levels of inflation were signs of an international monetary system in crisis.  The crisis had particularly negative effects on the nations of the Third World. The inflation rate was higher for the underdeveloped world: underdeveloped countries that were exporters of petroleum had inflation rates from 10.5% to 18.8% during the period 1973 to 1981; underdeveloped countries that were importers of petroleum had inflation rates from 22.1% to 36.9% during the period (Castro 1983:82-83).

      Moreover, changes in financial relations between the North and South during the 1970s had negative consequences for the Third World.  Private banks in the core significantly increased the amount of lending to Third World governments and decreased investment in Third World production, inasmuch as profits from loans became higher than profits from production.  As result, capital flows between the banks of the North and Third World governments increased, while the participation of Third World countries in world commerce declined.  By the end of the decade, Third World debt payments to the banks of the North greatly exceeded investments by banks, governments and corporations of the core in Third World production (Castro 1983:20-23, 54-55, 95, 146-47).  

      High prices for manufactured goods and low prices for raw materials historically has been central to an unequal exchange between the developed capitalist countries and the underdeveloped world, inasmuch as for the latter, income from agricultural and mineral raw materials constitutes the principal source of income from exportation.  However, during the 1960s and 1970s, declining terms of exchange between raw materials and manufactured goods occurred. For example, in 1960, the sale of a ton of coffee enabled purchase of 37.3 tons of fertilizer, but by 1982, a ton of coffee could buy only 15.8 tons of fertilizer; in 1959, twenty-four tons of sugar could buy a sixty-horsepower tractor, but in 1982, 115 tons of sugar were needed to buy the same tractor; and in 1959, six tons of jute fiber could buy a seven-ton truck, but in 1982, twenty-six tons of jute were needed.  The declining terms of trade were aggravated during the 1970s by inflation and the high cost of petroleum, generating a chronic situation of a commercial balance deficit for the underdeveloped countries.  The negative commercial balance of the Third World countries during the period 1973 to 1981 became the basis for the Third World debt problem (Castro 1983:23, 59-66, 88).

     The 1983 Report to the Non-Aligned Movement especially focused on dynamics of the world-economy from 1979 to 1982, the period of the Cuban presidency.  In 1979, responding to the unprecedented situation of stagnation combined with inflation, the developed capitalist countries departed from Keynesian economic policies and adopted a monetary-fiscal recipe of combining a monetary policy of high interest rates (to increase money reserves and reduce money in circulation) with a fiscal policy of reduced government spending (by reducing budgets for social programs and rationalizing of government employment), thus giving priority to the problem of inflation.  The result was moderation in the inflations rates but reduced industrial production and high levels of unemployment in the seven most developed countries of the world by 1982 (Castro 1983:30-37). 

     The Report considers that “the indiscriminate elevation of the rate of interest, promoted by the government of the United States, constitutes, without doubt, one of the most arbitrary economic measures of recent years.”  The policy had negative consequences for the economy of the United States, and it deepened the crisis of the international financial system.  And it had “disastrous economic repercussion for the underdeveloped countries,” for which it has meant the “nearly complete ruin of their economies and the cancelation of hopes for improvement.”  The high-interest rate policy increased the cost of the servicing of the external debt of Third World governments, thus increasing government budgetary deficits as well as increasing the percentage of capital flow to the core in the form of interest payments on loans as against profits from production.  At the same time, the policy increased the value of the dollar, leading to its overvaluation, and a corresponding reduction in the value of the national currencies of the nations of the Third World.  It thus intensified the problem of the balance of payments deficit of the underdeveloped countries (Castro 1983:30-31, 36-38, 46-48, 82).

      The severity of the situation, the Report maintains, has obligated an increasing number of countries to adopt “adjustment” policies that are not a result of their own decisions in the context of a development plan formulated in the exercise of their sovereignty.  Rather, these policies are adopted as emergency measures in response to balance of payments and government deficits.  And they are adopted as conditions for the reception of loans from the International Monetary Fund.  The measures include devaluation of national currencies, reduction of government expenditures, and opening the economy to the merchandize and investments proceeding from the developed capitalist countries.  The measures do not reduce the deficits, because foreign capital invests in its own profit and not in forms of production that promote the development of the nation.  They are presented as measures that follow from technocratic considerations, but they are in reality neocolonial measures that are integral to an international monetary system that responds to a small group of five countries (Castro 1983:48-49, 87).

     Thus, there has occurred in the period 1979 to 1982 a deterioration in the situation of the less developed countries: a decline in the value of national currencies with respect to the dollar, a fall in the prices of raw materials and declining terms of trade with the advanced capitalist nations, a reduction in rates of growth, and a spiraling escalation of the external debt (Castro 1983:12, 14, 41-44).  With respect to the external debt, the report states:

     The Report on the world economic and social crisis also describes the alarming increase in the influence of transnational corporations on the economic relations of the world.  The spectacular growth and proliferation of transnational corporations began in the 1960s, but it particularly took off in the 1970s.  US transnational corporations profit highly from its Third World investments.  In 1981, US corporations attained 16.6% profit from its investments in the developed capitalist countries, in contrast to 24.1% profit from investments in the underdeveloped world.  However, the transnational profits from Third World investments have principally been in the form of loan interest payments to transnational banks (Castro 1983:66-69, 131, 141-44).

      The transnational corporations have a perspective on the development of the Third World countries, which the Castro report refers to as the “transnational ideology.”  It proposed a model of development based on transforming underdeveloped countries into “exporting platforms.”  This model of development, the Report maintains, does not respond to the basic requirements for the true economic development of these countries; rather, it responds to the needs of capital, and in particular, the need of capital for a cheap work force that elevates profitability.  The exporting platforms, although they in degree contribute to employment, are isolated from the rest of the economy in the countries where they are located.  They therefore have an extremely limited effect on the national economy, and they could not be considered as promoting independent economic development. In order to attract investments by international corporations in exporting platforms, governments grant enormous liberties to foreign capital, including unlimited transfer of capital out of the country and exemptions from taxes, as well as unlimited access to cheap labor and to natural resources.  By 1975, exporting platforms had been developed in seventeen countries in Asia, thirteen in Africa, and twenty-one in Latin America (Castro 1983:148-49).

     The 1983 Report maintains that the growing presence of transnational corporations in the underdeveloped countries constitutes a serious threat to the national sovereignty of these countries. Transnational corporations do not adjust their operations in accordance with the legislation of the countries in which they are located.  They interfere directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of the countries in which they operate.  They ask the governments of the countries from which they come to pressure the governments of the countries in which they are operating, in support of their particular interests.  They attempt to obstruct governments of the underdeveloped countries from exercising control over their natural resources (Castro 1983:150-51). 

    The 1983 Report also discusses the environment.  It maintains that “human action on the natural environment is provoking in an accelerated manner changes without precedent in the stability, organization, equilibrium, interaction, and even the survival of the principal ecological systems of the planet.”  Issues of concern include desertification, the accelerated erosion of agricultural soil, the increasing contamination of water and the exhaustion of its sources, and deforestation.  The Report maintains that “the market economies of the developed countries are directly responsible for an important part of the degradation of the environment,” including contamination of the air, lakes, rivers, and oceans as well as an enormous quantity of chemical and nuclear residues that have been deposited in the atmosphere, the fresh waters, and the seas.  It also maintains that transnational enterprises are responsible for the exhaustion of mineral, agricultural and forest resources of numerous underdeveloped countries (Castro 1983:118-25)

     Fidel Castro did not consider that these maladies of the international financial system and the neocolonial world-system could be rectified within the structures of the international economic order.  But he believed that they could be overcome through the mobilization of a global political will for the creation of a New International Economic Order.  This will be the subject of our next post.  

​

​References
 
Castro, Fidel.  1983.  La crisis económica y social del mundo.  La Habana: Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado.
 
 
Key words: Fidel, Non-Aligned Movement, global crisis, structural adjustment, transnational corporations

Posted July 27, 2016
​
     According to Cuban legend, Che Guevara once said, “When Fidel speaks, I am not sure if he is expressing his own ideas, or those of the people.”  Indeed, one of the gifts of Fidel was his capacity to listen to the people, and to reformulate their hopes and needs on a political and moral plane. 

      This dynamic was present with respect to Fidel’s leadership of the progressive forces in the Non-Aligned Movement during the period 1979 to 1982.  He adopted the 1974 Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order and made it his own, placing the proposal in the context of the increasingly aggressive and destructive policies of the global powers and the consequent eclipse of Third World hopes, and at the same time further developing the proposal, bringing it to a more complete and more advanced formulation.

     In the 1983 Report to the Seventh Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (Castro 1983), Fidel’s call for a more just and democratic world-system was based in an analysis of the adverse effects of world-system dynamics on the Third World, including elevated interest rates, high levels of inflation, declining terms of trade, increasing external debt payments, and declining foreign investment in production.  This economic state of affairs was compounded by global political realities: the global powers, rather than recognizing their historic debt before the situation, seized upon it as an opportunity to rescue declining corporate profits, imposing structural adjustment policies on the governments of the Third World.  At the same time, transnational corporations were promoting their own development ideology for the Third World, seeking to undermine the sovereignty of Third World nations in order to promote and defend their particular interests (see “Fidel speaks on the global crisis” 7/25/2016).

      Confronting this reality, the peoples of the Third World, Fidel concluded, must struggle to create a more just world order, recognizing that the peoples of the Third World constitute the immense majority of humanity, and that the development of the Third World economies would be beneficial to the world-system as a whole and enable it to overcome its structural crisis.  Accordingly, the peoples of the Third World must struggle: to transform the structures that promote unequal exchange and declining terms of exchange; for the cancellation of the Third World debt; for new and more equitable international monetary and financial systems; for a form of industrialization that responds to the interests of the Third World; for necessary socio-economic structural changes, such as agrarian reform; for the adoption of measures by states that control and limit the activities of transnational corporations; and for an elevation of the prestige of the United Nations.  The struggle requires the unity of the peoples of the Third World, in spite of political and cultural differences, in recognition of their common experience of colonial domination (Castro 1983:223-29).

      In the 1983 Report, Fidel formulates a concept of development that is not based on the model of Western development, which Fidel considers impossible to repeat in present global conditions.  The development model proposed by Fidel involves strong state action in order to break the core-peripheral relation, in which the underdeveloped countries export raw materials and leave industrial production in the hands of the developed countries.  To overcome core-peripheral structures, the underdeveloped countries must mobilize national resources for the development of technically-advanced industries.  In this vein, Fidel maintains that the forms of industry that have been developed recently in the underdeveloped world will not lead to their economic development.  Recent industrial expansion in the Third World has been in labor-intensive industries that have low levels of technical development, such as textiles or manufactured food products, which have been attractive to transnational capital because of the Third World cheap labor supply. In contrast to emphasis on low-wage export-oriented manufacturing, Fidel advocates investment in the Third World in those branches with technological-industrial complexity, such as nuclear, chemical, or petrochemical energy, or the aerospace industry; this would stimulate the growth of Third World internal markets (Castro 1983:127-40).

    Fidel’s understanding of Third World development included the concept of South-South cooperation.  The 1983 Report notes that cooperation among the underdeveloped countries has been an historic objective of the Non-Aligned Movement, and it is an important component of the 1974 program for a New International Economic Order.  Cooperation among the countries of the Third World would be a weapon of struggle against neocolonial dependency, which derives from the colonial empires, reinforces underdevelopment and poverty, and aggravates the present crisis of the world-system; it would be a powerful, dynamic factor contributing to autonomous development (Castro 1983:165-67).  

     Fidel maintains that South-South cooperation is a real practical possibility.  The Third World as a whole has ample petroleum, agricultural and mineral resources, and some of the Third World nations possess a certain level of industrial development as well as a sufficient supply of highly-qualified specialists, technicians and doctors. If developed with a strong political will to protect the sovereignty of the nation over its natural resources, South-South cooperation could be a mechanism for controlling the actions of transnational corporations.  At the same time, the concept of cooperation among the nations of the Third World does not negate the possibility for North-South cooperation.  The Third World continues to seek mutually beneficially commerce with developed countries; it seeks to put an end only to unequal exchange and exploitative trade with the developed capitalist countries (Castro 1983:167-70).  

     Fidel concludes The Economic and Social Crisis of the World: Its repercussions for the underdeveloped countries, its dismal prospects, and the need to struggle if we are to survive: Report to the VII Summit of the Non-Aligned Countries with a call for Third World unity, proclaiming that the Non-Aligned Movement has the objective:

     Fidel stood at central stage, the spokesperson for the colonized peoples of the earth, at an historic moment when the global powers were preparing to roll back modest concessions to the Third World nations as well as the popular movements of the core, as they endeavored to preserve material privileges in the context of a world-economy confronting structural crisis.  Fidel was like the ancient biblical prophets who denounced the greed and hypocrisy of the kings, in defense of the poor.  But unlike the prophets of old, Fidel’s denunciation was rooted in scientific analysis.  In the tradition of Marx, Fidel, with the support of economists formed by the Cuban revolutionary project, was analyzing social scientific knowledge of the world-economy from below, from the vantage point of the history and the human needs of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the planet, common victims of European colonial domination.  From such vantage point, Fidel could arrive at insights that the defenders of the established order could not see, driven as they were to defend the privileged minority.  

     The guardians of the established order were driven not primarily by the desire to know, but by the defense of the particular interests of the wealthy, the corporations, and the powerful nations.  They were not merely mistaken; they were morally culpable, for they chose to align themselves with power and privilege, and to ignore the basic human needs of the majority.  But unlike the ancient prophets, Fidel did not predict the unleashing of the vengeful wrath of God, punishing the powerful and the privileged for their transgressions.  Rather, driven by a moral commitment to the people, Fidel was led to dream, to envision a world in which the people would have the capacity to defend their interests.  He thus called the peoples of the Third World to a unified and dignified struggle in defense of themselves, for the sake of the future of humanity.

      The global powers could have no reasonable response to the words of the twentieth century prophet.  They could only ignore them, pretending that the prophetic words in defense of humanity had never been uttered.  As we will see in the following post, they would proceed to implement their economic war against the people, confusing the people for a time.  But the people did not forget the words of the prophet, nor the ignoring of them by the global powers.  By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the peoples of the Third World would rediscover their resolve and their spirit of struggle, as we will see in subsequent posts in this series on the Third World project.  The peoples of the Third World would begin again to strive together for the creation of an alternative, more just, democratic and sustainable world-system, proclaiming Fidel as their comandante.

​References
 
Castro, Fidel.  1983.  La crisis económica y social del mundo.  La Habana: Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado.
 
 
Key words: Fidel, Non-Aligned Movement, global crisis, New International Economic Order

     Fidel Castro is 90 years old today, August 13, 2016.

     Fidel has a special place in modern history as a defender of the oppressed, as a person with such deep respect for moral principles that he could never accept the proposition that they were impossible to implement.  He has constantly and persistently acted on the premise that a different and more just and sustainable world is possible.  

     He led a revolution that came to power through armed struggle, forcing the tyrannical dictator to flee the country.  But once in power, it turned military barracks into schools, committed to the principle that education was the most powerful arm that a people and a nation could possess.

     He directed a revolution that was anti-imperialist, totally rejecting the continuous imperialist policies of the United States.  But it was not a revolution that cultivated hatred toward the United States.  From the earliest days of its taking of power, it constantly has been open to dialogue with the United States, and it has called for a negotiation of differences on a basis of mutual respect.
 
     He forged a patriotic revolution that above all else defended the sovereignty of Cuba.  But it respected the sovereignty of all nations.  A just and sustainable world, it understood, could only be built on a foundation of solidarity among all nations and peoples.  

     He came of age in the context of a corrupt and ignominious neocolonial republic, shaped from its beginnings to serve US imperialist interests.  He developed a thorough knowledge of the events and important figures of Cuban history.  Reading on his own as an adolescent about the nationalist wars and social movements against colonial Spain and the neocolonial United States, he developed not an abstract historical perspective, but a concrete interpretation rooted in the practical needs of the people and the nation.  He read and appreciated the nineteenth century Cuban revolutionary José Martí, interpreting him from the vantage point of the popular movements during the neocolonial republic.

     He developed his political consciousness at a time when Western Marxism had fallen into Eurocentrism.  Reading on his own as a university student the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, he fashioned a reconstruction of Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of the neocolonized.  Synthesizing the works of Marx and Lenin with the teachings and writings of Martí, his speeches establish an important advance in Marxist-Leninist theory (see “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014).

     He developed an understanding of Marxism that rejected dogma and reductionism.  He formulated an ethical and humanist revitalization of Marxism, in which socialism is understood as constructed by persons with consciousness, possessing a new mentality.  The cultural formation of the person, able to read and to think, is the essence of the socialist revolution.

     He has been described as a military genius.  He created and directed a guerrilla army that overthrew the US-backed military dictator in twenty-five months; and he directed the defense against the US-supported invasion at the Bay of Pigs, overcoming the invading force in seventy-two hours.  From Havana, he directed Cuban troops in Angola, a successful campaign against South African troops that protected the independence of Angola and ultimately led to the fall of apartheid.

     As he led the Cuban Revolution, he repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional mastery of the art of politics.  (1) In 1953, he discerned the need for dramatic action, moving beyond verbal protest.  Accordingly, he led an attack on the Moncada military barracks, galvanizing the people to heroic political action, and opening a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.  (2) He was sensitive to the concrete needs of the people, and he formulated a program that responded to their specific grievances, proclaimed in conjunction with the Moncada attack.  (3) He appreciated the need to educate the people in stages, bringing them to socialist consciousness only after concrete popular needs had been addressed.  (4) He saw the importance of popular unity, and he possessed the capacity to unify the various popular currents, combining flexibility with a persuasive presence.  (5) He understood the need for the revolutionary government to take decisive steps in defense of the people, even when they provoke the hostility of the national bourgeoisie and the neocolonial hegemonic power.  (See “Moncada: a great and heroic act” 9/2/2014; “The Moncada program for the people” 9/5/2014; “Reflections on “History will absolve me” 9/8/2014; “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; “Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process” 9/17/2014; “The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 9/18/2014; “Decisive revolutionary steps of 1959” 9/22/2014; “The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959” 9/23/2014; “The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 9/24/2014).

     In the 1960s, understanding the importance of scientific knowledge in social and economic development, Fidel initiated a process of national commitment to the development of science and to the formation of scientists, which would continue to unfold for the next fifty years, with very impressive results today.  From the outset, Fidel had a vision of developing scientific research and knowledge in response to health needs, and not driven by the market.  And he has had an integral vision of health, seeing human health as connected to animal health, and seeing the connection of both to nature.  A variety of research and teaching centers have been developed, including such fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, genetic medicine, minimum access surgery, and computer and informational sciences.  He has been constantly present in the development of new centers and on anniversary celebrations, thanking the scientists and researchers for their work, inquiring concerning the latest discoveries, making suggestions, and in general demonstrating the commitment of the Cuban revolution to scientific development.

      In 1970s, appreciating the limitations of representative democracy, Fidel led the nation in the development of alternative structures of popular democracy (see “Cuba, United States, and human rights” 4/9/2015).  He recognized the need for the eventual replacement of his personal leadership with that of a vanguard, and he thus led the development of a new communist party, uniting three revolutionary parties, which ultimately would function to lead the revolutionary process.  

     In the early 1980s, as the global powers turned to neoliberalism, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to be faithful to their historic project of national and social liberation.  Working with a team of Cuban economists and speaking as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, he presented an analysis of the crisis of the world-economy.  He maintained that the crisis is rooted in fundamental structures established during European colonial domination of the world, but US economic policies during the 1960s and the 1970s deepened the crisis.  US policies had negative consequences for the world-economy as well as the US economy, and they had disastrous consequences for the Third World.  He maintained that inflation (caused by US spending beyond its productive capacity), the elimination of the gold standard for the dollar, a US monetary policy of high interest rates, declining terms of trade, and declining investment in production had catastrophic consequences for the Third World, leading to a dramatic growth in the Third World external debt. Moreover, the external debt, combined with the increasing power of transnational corporations, constituted a serious threat to the sovereignty of Third World nations.  At the same time, rather than recognizing their responsibility in creating a global crisis, the global powers and the transnational corporations took advantage of the weakened position of the Third World to impose their own ideology and economic policy, seeking short-term profits.  In response to this situation, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to struggle for cancellation of the Third World debt, for fundamental structural change in the world-economy, and for a more just world-system.  He advocated strong action by Third World states, seeking diversification of production, the development of high technology industries, and mutually beneficial trade among the nations of the Third World, thus breaking the core-peripheral relation between the Third World and the developed capitalist economies (see “Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 7/25/2016; “Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 7/27/2016).

     In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the socialist bloc, Fidel led the Cuban nation in the development of an autonomous structural adjustment plan, demonstrating how to make economic adjustments without sacrificing commitment to moral principles and without abandoning the people (see “The Cuban structural adjustment plan” 8/1/2016).  As the Cuban economy recovered, he led the nation in developing strong ties with the progressive and Leftist governments that symbolized the new political reality in Latin America in the early twenty-first century.

     During the five decades in which he was the active leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel was constantly committed to a society based on human knowledge and creativity and on social justice; a society in which everyone has the right to learn and to develop, no one should be abandoned, and the most vulnerable should be protected.  But in addition to moral commitment, Fidel has demonstrated an advanced understanding of the dynamics of the world-system.  With an integral historical and global perspective, formulated from the vantage point of the neocolonized, Fidel’s capacity for understanding surpassed that of the overwhelming majority of historians, social scientists and philosophers.  At the same time, he repeatedly demonstrated mastery of the art of politics, discerning the strategies necessary for the attainment of social and political goals.

       These qualities are exceptional; beyond what one would think possible for a human being.  Observing this for more than twenty years, I could not fail to recall my university study of Max Weber’s typology of three forms of authority, and his description of charismatic persons who possess authority on the basis of their exceptional qualities.  Moreover, as I studied revolutions in other lands, I could not help but observe that triumphant revolutions often were led by persons with exceptional understanding, extraordinary commitment to social justice, and uncommon mastery of the art of politics.  So I have concluded that Fidel represents the general phenomenon of the emergence of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes, who include Toussaint, Lenin, Ho, Mao, Chávez, and others.  (See various posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders).  

      After his retirement in January 2009, Fidel was no longer constantly present.  But he has continued to be present in an important way, writing articles periodically that were published in Cuban newspapers as “Reflections of Fidel.”  Among other themes, his reflections expressed support for the new Leftist tendencies in Latin America, conveyed concern for the ecological balance of the earth, and condemned the neofascist wars and the movement toward a global military dictatorship.  

      By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Communist Party of Cuba was ready for its vanguard mission. Composed of committed persons who have developed an advanced understanding, party members are highly respected by the people, and they are intellectually and morally prepared to lead.  In November 2010, the party presented guidelines for a new economic and social policy, responding to the desires of the people and the unfolding national and international economic situation.  After significant modification of the proposal through an extensive popular consultation, the new model was approved by the National Assembly in 2012.  The party today is leading the people in the implementation and development of the new economic and social model.  Thus, one can observe today in Cuba what can be described as the institutionalization of charismatic authority through the creation of a vanguard political party that bases its theory and practice on the teachings of the charismatic leader, the historic leader of the revolution from 1953 to 2009.

     Fidel has appeared from time to time to give his support to the development of the new social and economic model, which is principally designed to increase national production in order to improve the standard of living of the people.  He has praised party members for their intelligent and active participation in the process, and he particularly has noted the impressive capacities of young leaders that have been formed by the revolution.  “I am confident,” he proclaimed, “that the youth of Cuba will fulfill its duty.”

     There is a special bond of affection between Fidel and the Cuban people.  But Fidel is especially appreciated by Cuban intellectuals, artists, and scientists, who analyze his special capacities from the vantage point of their professions and fields of study.  Fidel also is appreciated by well-known intellectuals of Europe and Latin America, such as the French journalist Ignacio Ramonet, the Argentinian social analyst Atilio Borón, and the Brazilian intellectual and Dominican priest Frei Betto, who have had opportunity to observe his exceptional capacities.

     In the days leading up to the anniversary of the ninetieth birthday of Fidel Castro, there has been a clamor that the major media of communication has not heard.  It is the proclamation of popular organizations throughout the world, declaring: “Thank you, Fidel, for your commitment; thank you for your defense of the people; and in the context of a world increasingly turning to barbarity, thank you for your fidelity to moral principles.”  

     Thank you, Fidel.

​

Posted August 4, 2016

     In the context of the popular rejection in Venezuela of the neoliberal project imposed by the global powers with the collaboration of Venezuelan political and economic elite, and in a situation of popular disgust with the failure of the nationalization of the petroleum industry to promote national economic development (see “The neocolonial era in Venezuela” 8/3/2016), Hugo Chávez emerged as a charismatic leader with the capacity to describe the global and national structures of domination in understandable terms, and who was able to optimistically project an alternative political reality.  He thus possessed the capacity to forge that consensual reflection and united action necessary for a social transformation in defense of popular interests and needs.  He emerged as the central leader in the forging of a new political reality in Venezuela and in Latin America. The emergence of charismatic leaders with exceptional gifts of understanding and political leadership is a normal tendency in revolutionary processes (see various posts in the category Charismatic Leaders).
  
     Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was born in Sabaneta, a rural village of Venezuela, on July 28, 1954.  Chávez describes his family as a poor peasant family.  His father was a school teacher who earned his teaching diploma by studying part-time.  Although his mother and father lived nearby, he was principally reared by his grandmother, a peasant woman who was half indigenous.  He describes himself as a mixture of indigenous, African, and European (Guevara 2005:14-15, 71-72, 76).

     In 1971, at the age of 17, Chávez entered the Military Academy of Venezuela, and he earned a commission as a Second Lieutenant in 1975.  His study during his years in the military academy established the foundation for his revolutionary formation.  He read the writings of Simón Bolívar, Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, and he developed a perspective that he describes as a synthesis of Bolivarianism and Maoism.  He investigated these themes further in a master´s program in political science at Simón Bolívar University.  He continuously read books of historical, political, social, and literary significance during his military and political careers, and he advised young people to develop the habit of reading.  He frequently recommended particular books in his discourses, famously exemplified by his recommendation of Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival during an address to the UN General Assembly and his gift to President Barack Obama of Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America (Guevara 2005:78-79; Chávez 2006:104).

    During the 1970s and 1980s, he had considerable success leading young officers in the forming of a reform movement within the military. On February 4, 1992, with the participation of approximately 100 fellow officers, he directed an attempted coup d´état, with the intention of overthrowing the government and convening a constitutional assembly. The coup failed, and he was imprisoned.  Upon his release in 1994, he resigned from the military and formed the Bolivarian Fifth Republic Movement, again with the intention of convening a constituent assembly, but now seeking to attain power through the electoral process.  He was elected President of Venezuela in 1998, in spite of the ignoring of his candidacy by the mass media, and he assumed the presidency on February 2, 1999.  He immediately issued a decree calling for a constitutional assembly.  Elections for a new constitution were held, and a new constitution was approved, establishing the Fifth Republic.  In 2000, he was elected to a six-year term as president under the new constitution, and he was subsequently re-elected, with nearly 63% of the vote, to a second term from 2007 to 2013.  He died of cancer in 2013 (Guevara 2005:9-39).

     Hugo Chávez understood that the underdevelopment of the peoples of Latin America, Africa, and Asia is a consequence of colonial domination.  Citing Andre Gunder Frank, he asserts: “Underdevelopment is a characteristic of development.  Our underdevelopment is a consequence of the development of the imperialist countries.  They only arrived at the level of development that they have after having invaded and sacked immense territories of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  If not, they would not be at the level of development that they are” (Chávez 2006:132). 

     Chávez understood the negative effects of neoliberalism, which he condemned in moral terms.

     He castigated the subservient behavior of Latin American elites before US imperialist intentions:

​    Chávez believed that US imperialist policies are a threat to the survival of the human species, and that the peoples in movement must prevent this from happening.

    In contrast to US imperialism and US imposed neoliberalism, Chávez promoted a concept of autonomous economic development that he described as “a model of endogenous development that is not imposed on us by anyone, neither the Creole elite nor the imperialist elite, our own economic development” (Chávez 2006:319).  This model seeks to develop national production, giving emphasis to the development of energy, agriculture, and basic industry, and providing support for small and medium producers.  Endogenous development is rooted in the cultures and traditions of the peoples, particularly the indigenous peoples, and it has to be developed with a consciousness of history.  The study of history often has been only partially developed in the educational systems of neocolonial republics, and historical consciousness also has been undermined by the ideologies of the empire.  Chávez maintained that history must be rediscovered.

     Chávez believed that humanity stands at a critical time in world history.  “The capitalist model, the developmentalist model, the consumerist model, which the North has imposed on the world, is putting an end to the planet Earth.”  We can observe such phenomena as global warming, the opening of the ozone layer, an increasing intensity of hurricanes, the melting of the ice caps, and the rising of the seas.  Moreover, in the social sphere, rather than accepting their superexploitation and social exclusion, the peoples of the world are increasingly in rebellion.  Humanity is approaching a critical point, in which “in the first five decades of the twenty-first century it will be decided if in the future there will be life on this planet or if their will not be life.”  It is a question, he believed, of “socialism or barbarism,” citing Rosa Luxemburg (Chávez 2006:195, 256)

     At this critical and decisive moment in human history, Chávez possessed that hope in the future of humanity that is the hallmark of the revolutionary (see “The revolutionary faith of Fidel” 9/15/2014).  He believed that “the great day of liberty, equality, and justice is arriving.” This is exemplified, he believed, by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, which is constructing a “socialism of the twenty-first century” that will not be the same as the socialisms of the twentieth century.  It will be “a socialism renewed for the new era, for the twenty-first century. . . .  It will not have only one road; it will have many roads. It will not have one model; there will be many variants of socialism.  It will have to adapt to the circumstances of each country, of each region. . . .  Socialism for Latin America cannot be a replica, it has to be a great and heroic creation, a heroic construction of our peoples” (Chávez 2006:193, 198).

    Socialism of the twenty-first century is based on a renewed formulation of traditional values.  “Socialism of the twenty-first century ought to begin to consolidate new values that are not new, they are old values but one must renew them, one must strengthen them. . . . For us here in Venezuela, for example, and I believe that it is valid for a good part of Latin America and the Caribbean, Christianity is a current that pushes and feeds our socialism in construction.  This socialism of the twenty-first century has much of Christianity for the Venezuelans, as it has much of Bolivarianism and Marxism” (Chávez 2006:200).

     Chávez was an inspiring voice that resurrected the dream of national liberation formulated in the period 1948 to 1979 by charismatic leaders of the Third World and the Non-Aligned Movement (see “The Third World Project, 1948-79” 7/20/2016), calling the people to political action in the development of an alternative to the neoliberal project imposed by the global powers (see “IMF & USA attack the Third World project” 7/29/2016).  And in the tradition of Fidel, Ho Chi Minh, and Nyerere, he saw socialism as a necessary component of national liberation (“Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; “Ho synthesizes socialism and nationalism” 5/8/2014).  In the next post, we will look at the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, forged under his leadership.

​References
 
Guevara, Aleida.  2005.  Chávez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America.  Melbourne: Ocean Press.
 
Chávez Frías, Hugo. 2006.  La Unidad Latinoamericana.  Melbourne: Ocean Sur. 
 
 
Key words: Chávez, Venezuela, socialism, Bolivarian Revolution

Posted August 5, 2016
​
     The central proposal of Chávez’s Bolivarian Fifth Republic Movement was the establishment of a constitutional assembly to bring to an end the Fourth Republic of Venezuela, which was adapted to neocolonial domination and to rule by a Venezuelan elite.  When Chávez assumed the presidency on February 2, 1999, one of his first acts was to sign a decree calling for a constitutional referendum.  The opposition sought to annul the decree through challenges to the Supreme Court, but the referendum was held, a Constitutional Assembly was elected, and a new Constitution was developed and approved.  Chávez terminated his presidency under the Fourth Republic after only two years and ran for president under the new Constitution.  In 2000, he was elected under the new Constitution to a six-year term from 2001 to 2007.  In 2006, he was elected (with nearly 63% of the vote) to a second term from 2007 to 2013.  He died of cancer in 2013.   

     The Chávez government sought to institutionalize the process of the popular participation that had been emerging during the 1980s and 1990s.  The government initiated the development of structures of Popular Power that include community councils, workers’ councils, student councils, and councils formed by small farmers, which are incorporated into confederations of local, regional, and national councils.  Chávez envisioned the gradual integration of popular councils into the state, “progressively transforming the bourgeois state into an alternative state, socialist and Bolivarian” (Chávez 2006:317, 325-27).  

     The government of Hugo Chávez sought to reduce the autonomy of PDVSA and to incorporate its resources into a project of national development.  The Chávez government appointed new directors of PDVSA, replacing the directors appointed by previous governments. With the new leadership of PDVSA, the state income from petroleum increased significantly, and the new funds were directed toward various social projects in education, health, and housing as well as to wage increases, financial assistance to those in need, and the elimination of foreign debt.  Most of the social projects are designated as “missions.” 

     A literacy program, Mission Robinson, was developed with Cuban support.  Named for Simón “Robinson” Rodríguez, who was Simón Bolívar’s teacher, it taught one million people to read in 2003. Other missions in education emerged:  Mission Ribas, named after independence hero José Felix Ribas, is a program for the completion of high school; Mission Sucre, named after Antonio José Sucre, one of the heroes of the Latin American revolution of 1810-24, is a scholarship program for university education; and Mission Vuelvan Caras provides opportunity for vocational training (Guevara 2005:50-54, 141).

      Mission Barrio Adentro is a medical mission that is financed by the Venezuelan state and relies upon the participation of 20,000 Cuban doctors, providing health care services in the poorest regions and neighborhoods of Venezuela.  In 2004, Mission Barrio Adentro attended 50 million cases, providing free health care services and medicine (Chávez 2006:110-11, 241-42).

    The government of Chávez played a leadership role in forging the unity and integration of Latin America and the Caribbean as well as South-South cooperation.  I will describe these processes, which retake the historic dream of the Third World, in subsequent posts in this series of posts on the Third World project.

     As a popular revolutionary project that seeks to attain the true sovereignty of the nation and to develop its own endogenous project of national development, the Chávist Bolivarian Revolution is a threat to the neocolonial world-system, which requires the subordination of the nations of the world to the Western neocolonial powers.  Since the emergence of the revolution, the US government has sought to undermine it through the support of those sectors in Venezuela that have interests in opposition to the revolutionary project, sectors that in one way or another benefit from the neocolonial world order.  These sectors include: the technocratic elite that managed the petroleum industry prior to 1998; the business elite, owners of import-export companies; leaders of the union of petroleum workers, who occupied a privileged position relative to the majority of workers; the landed estate bourgeoisie, historic beneficiaries of the core-peripheral relation; and the traditional political parties, junior partners in the imposition of neocolonial structures and in the implementation of neoliberal policies. These opposition sectors control the private media of communication, and they can count on international financial support and the active engagement of the US embassy. 

      During the period of the Chávez presidency from 1998 to 2013, the opposition generated much conflict, but the Chávist forces prevailed. However, with the death of Chávez in 2013, the opposition escalated its tactics, and they have created a complicated situation for Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, as we will discuss in the next post. 

​
References

Guevara, Aleida.  2005.  Chávez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America.  Melbourne: Ocean Press.

Chávez Frías, Hugo. 2006.  La Unidad Latinoamericana.  Melbourne: Ocean Sur.  


Key words: Chávez, Venezuela, socialism, Bolivarian Revolution

Posted August 11, 2016

     Bolivia, a landlocked country in the mountains, historically has been the poorest country in South America.  It is the most indigenous country of Latin America, with 61% of the population identifying themselves as pertaining to one of several original nations of the region.

      In accordance with the norms and patterns in the development of the modern world-system, Bolivia has played a peripheral role in the world-economy, supplying raw materials for the core nations on a foundation of cheap labor.  Systems of forced labor were imposed following Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, which included the indigenous nations of present-day Bolivia.  During the course of time, first silver, then tin, and then natural gas and petroleum were extracted and exported to the industrializing economies of the North

     From the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, Bolivia’s peripheral function in the world-economy existed alongside autonomous indigenous communities, which were agricultural societies with communal forms of land ownership.  As the world-economy expanded, it increasingly consumed indigenous land and autonomy, such that by 1930, the indigenous lands comprised only one-third of national territory, and the numbers of landless peasants exceeded the number of persons living in indigenous communities.

     Bolivian mine workers, peasants, and factory workers formed a popular movement during the twentieth century, resulting in a government committed to the developmentalist project from 1930 to 1985.  As was the case generally in Latin America, the project was forged through an alliance between the popular sectors and the national bourgeoisie.  It made some concessions to popular demands and provided some protection for national industry, without threatening the interests of foreign corporations.  

     Beginning in 1985, the neoliberal project of the global powers was imposed in Bolivia, resulting in the elimination of the modest protective measures for the people and for national industry that were put in place from 1930 to 1985.  In the 1990s, mass mobilizations emerged, protesting specific measures that were part of the neoliberal package. From 2000 to 2006, the popular movement intensified, with mass mobilizations, road blockings, general strikes, work stoppages, and hunger strikes, culminating in the resignation of the president in 2005 in the midst of a generalized chaos.

      As the renewed popular movement unfolded in the period 1990-2005, new political parties were formed, and they were effective in undermining popular support for the traditional political parties that had cooperated with the imposition of the neoliberal project.  One of the parties was the Movement toward Socialism (MAS), a federation of social movement organizations and unions, founded in 1995.  Its principal leader was Evo Morales, an indigenous coca farmer who had been born and raised in a poor town in the Bolivian high plains and who emerged as a leader in the coca farmers’ union.  Proposing a constitutional assembly and the nationalization of the natural gas and petroleum companies, Morales won the presidential elections of December 18, 2005.  

     The newly-elected government of Evo Morales immediately sought to put into practice an alternative economic model based on control of the natural resources of the nation and the establishment of national sovereignty.  Seeking to break the core-peripheral relation, it followed a vision of an autonomous development that responds to the demands of the popular movement, which includes indigenous organizations, peasant organizations, unions of workers in the petroleum and gas industries, professionals, and small and medium sized businesses.

     In accordance with his campaign promise and a fundamental popular demand, Morales convoked a Constitutional Assembly, which assembled to begin the formulation of a new Constitution on August 6, 2006.  Although confronting various maneuvers by the opposition, the new Constitution was approved by popular referendum on January 25, 2009, with 61.4% of the vote.  The new Constitution recognizes the autonomy of the indigenous communities, and thus it establishes the Plurinational State of Bolivia.  The Constitution establishes a maximum extension of land of 5000 hectares for personal property; it guarantees access to health services, education, employment, and potable water as constitutional rights; and it prohibits the establishment of a foreign military base in the country.

      The government of Evo Morales renegotiated contracts with natural gas and petroleum companies, resulting in a great increase in state revenues, which are used to develop a variety of social programs, including programs in literacy and credit for small farmers. The Morales government has initiated a land-reform program, beginning with the appropriation of land that was unproductive or that was fraudulently obtained, a common practice during the era of the neoliberal governments.  And Bolivia became the third member of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), joining Venezuela and Cuba.  

     By 2007, a counterrevolution had taken shape, formed by the owners of the large estates, large-scale businesspersons, leaders of the traditional political parties that benefitted from the previous political-economic order, and transnational corporations.  The US government has provided financial support to the counterrevolution. But Morales and MAS have been able to maintain political control.

     In 2009, Evo Morales was re-elected president of Bolivia with 64.22% of the popular vote.  MAS won a majority in the National Assembly, including a two/thirds majority in the Senate.  MAS won control of six of the nine departments of the country and 228 of the 337 municipalities.

     Along with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales has emerged as one of the charismatic leaders in the new political reality that has been forged in Latin America, which has challenged not only the neoliberal project but also the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  Reflecting this reality, Bolivia served in 2014 as the President of the G-77 plus China, and Morales led an anniversary commemoration in which the presidents adopted a declaration, “Toward a New World Order for Living Well.”  In a subsequent post in this series on the Third World project, we will discuss this declaration, which is an indication of the international leadership of Evo Morales, and which echoes historic declarations of Third World charismatic leaders before international fora during the period 1948 to 1983.   

​

Bibliography
 
Moldiz Mercado, Hugo. 2006. “Crónica del proceso constituyente boliviano” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 1 (Sept-Dec), Pp. 10-22.
 
__________.  2008.  Bolivia en los tiempos de Evo.  Mexico City: Ocean Sur.
 
__________.  2008. “Bolivia: la recta final” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 7, Pp. 15-27.
 
__________.  2010. “Revolución democrática en Bolivia,” IX Conferencia de Estudios Americanos, Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional, Havana, Cuba, November 19, 2010. 
 
Puente, Rafael.  2010. “Bolivia: la nueva Constitución, meta y punto de partida” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 12, Pp. 19-26.
 
Stefanoni, Pablo.  2007. “¿A dónde va la Bolivia de Evo? Balance y perspectivas en un año de gobierno” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 3 (April-June), Pp. 82-90.

 
Key words: Bolivia, Evo Morales, MAS, socialism
 

Posted September 19, 2016

       My most recent posts on the Third World project have been discussing the renewal of the Third World project since 1994.  They have included posts on Venezuela and Bolivia, focusing on the post-1994 emergence of social movements that have taken political power and established new constitutions, proclaiming that they seek to construct socialism for the twenty-first century.  I continue today with reflections on the “Citizen Revolution” and the emergence of Rafael Correa as a charismatic leader in Ecuador.

     A popular movement in Ecuador in opposition to neoliberal policies emerged in the late 1990s.  By 2005, the movement arrived to express widespread popular disgust with the established political class and the traditional political parties.  Popular mobilizations were demanding the dismissal of the President, the Supreme Court, and all the politicians. The popular movement was opposed to the structural adjustment policies that required cutbacks in education, public health and social security in order to make payments on the external debt; it demanded payment of the “social debt” before the external debt.  The movement rejected the failure of the political establishment to defend the sovereignty of the nation before the neocolonial intentions of the United States.  It was opposed to the US proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and it called for terminating the US military base in Ecuador and Ecuadorian participation in the US-sponsored Plan Colombia.

      In 2006, Rafael Correa emerged as the leader of the popular movement.  Correa was born into the lower middle class, but he was able to attend the university and subsequently earn masters’ degrees in the United States and Belgium, becoming a college professor in Ecuador.  As a young man, he worked in Catholic missions among the poor, and he continues to be a practicing Catholic.  He arrived to national prominence in 2005, when at the age of 43 he was named to the cabinet of the government of Alfredo Palacio and immediately proceeded to publicly criticize the International Monetary Fund.  As Minister of the Economy, he promised to channel petroleum income more toward social services and less to the payment of the external debt.  He asserted that he intended seek a renegotiation of the debt payments, and that a proposed Free Trade Agreement with the United States would be submitted to a popular consultation.  However, because of conflicts with the government of Palacio, Correa resigned his post.

     By now a favorite of the middle class, Correa established an alternative political party, Nation Alliance, which decided to enter only the presidential elections and not congressional elections, placing its hopes in the immediate formation of a Constitutional Assembly. Correa finished second among 13 candidates in the 2006 presidential elections, receiving 23% of the vote, thus qualifying for the run-off elections.  His support was mostly from the middle and upper-middle classes, especially progressives that had ties to social foundations and non-governmental organizations.  He received a low percentage of votes from the poor sectors, as a result of the fact that he had not been involved in the popular mass organizations or the political parties of the Left.  

     In the run-off elections, however, Correa received the endorsements of labor, peasant, and indigenous organizations as well as some of the political parties, which viewed him as a much better option than Álvaro Noboa, who had the support of the Ecuadorian national bourgeoisie, the government of the United States, and transnational companies.  Noboa supported the proposed FTAA, and he proposed changes that would strengthen foreign investment and facilitate access of international capital to Ecuadorian natural resources, including petroleum.  He favored privatization, including those sectors that provided vital human needs to the population.  He also asserted that Ecuador ought to break relations with Cuba and Venezuela.

     Standing in sharp contrast to Noboa, Correa declared during the campaign that he would renegotiate the Ecuadorian external debt with the international finance agencies, basing the negotiation on conditions established by the Ecuadorian state, and not on conditions laid down by the international finance agencies.  He promised that his government would not sign a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and that instead of an economic integration with the United States based on “free trade,” Ecuador ought to be oriented toward an economic and social integration with Latin America, seeking to strengthen ties with emerging regional associations as well as Venezuela and Cuba.  He also declared that his government would not renew the agreement with the United States for the use of the Ecuadorian Air Force Base in the city of Manta by the U.S. military, when this accord terminates during 2009.  And he declared that he would not permit the country to participate in the Plan Colombia of the United States.  Correa asserted that he would convoke a Constitutional National Assembly, thus establishing alternative structures that would create new mechanisms for the effective participation of the citizens in the public decisions of importance for the country.  The Constitutional Assembly ought to be formed by the various sectors of the country, including representatives of workers, peasants, students, and retired persons.


    Correa defeated Noboa in the run-off presidential elections with 59% of the vote, and he assumed the presidency on January 15, 2007. That same day, he initiated the steps for a popular referendum on a Constitutional Assembly. The National Congress, in which Nation Alliance did not have representation, tried to block the referendum, but the Electoral Court, taking into account the strong popular sentiment for a referendum, ruled that it should be held.  In March 2007, a popular referendum approved the convocation of a constitutional assembly.  On September 30, elections to the Constitutional Assembly were held, in which 70% of the voters supported candidates that shared the political-economic project of Correa, and Nation Alliance won 80 of the 130 seats in the Constitutional Assembly.  A new Constitution was developed by the Assembly, and it was approved in a popular referendum.

     Under the new Constitution, elections for President, Vice-President, and the Legislative Assembly were held on April 26, 2009.  Correa won the elections on the first round, with 51.94% of the votes, far ahead of Lucio Gutierrez with 28.24% and Álvaro Noboa with less than 8%.  The Nation Alliance attained an ample victory in the elections for Legislative Assembly, and the Pachakutik movement, the Democratic Popular Movement, the Socialist Party also won strong representation, giving overwhelming control of the Legislative Assembly to the newly formed non-traditional parties of the Left.  Correa was re-elected president in 2013; the Nation Alliance and its allies from newly-formed non-traditional parties of the Left continue to have a strong majority in the Legislative Assembly.

    In addition to a new Constitution, the Correa government has renegotiated external debt payments on the basis of the principle that it will make payment only on debt that was legitimately contracted, with the result that for the first time, social spending has exceeded payment of external debts.  It has stimulated investments in strategic industries, such as the hydroelectric industry, petroleum refineries, and the transportation infrastructure.  It has provided incentives to national production, with the intention of responding to the food needs of the population.  It has nationalized property poorly utilized.  It has not renewed the agreement for the U.S. military base in Manta.  

    Correa maintains that the Citizen Revolution in Ecuador seeks to construct “Socialism for the XXI Century,” which involves a form of socialism “applied to the particularities of Ecuador.”  Correa maintains that Socialism for the XXI Century has important points of coincidence with the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels, including the principle that “it is the people who ought to command, and not the market” as well as the concept of “the importance of collective action.”  

     But socialism for the XXI century, Correa maintains, is different from classic socialism.  First, while classic socialism “sought state ownership of all the means of production,” Ecuadorian socialism for the XXI century seeks state ownership only of those means of production that “are strategic for the economy of the nation, and therefore cannot be in private hands.”  Secondly, classic socialism had a concept of development not very different from that of capitalism, in that it utilized “the same concept of industrial development and growth in production.”  But socialism for the XXI century seeks to formulate and practice an alternative model, based on the concept of sustainable development.  Thirdly, socialism for the XXI century expresses itself in various forms, without the model of one country being replicated in another.  “We ought to speak of principles, and not of models” (Correa 2014).

     On January 29, 2015, Ecuador and Rafael Correa assumed the presidency of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).  Founded in Venezuela in 2011, CELAC consists of the governments of the 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It is the culmination of the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity that has been unfolding since 2001.  It is conceived as an alternative to the Pan-American project, which the United States imposed following World War II as a project of economic integration and political cooperation under US direction (see “Pan-Americanism and OAS” 10/2/2013). 

     In his speech at the closing of the Third Summit of CELAC in Costa Rica on January 29, 2015, Correa invoked the memory of the heroes of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Toussaint, Bolivar, Zapata, Sandino, Che, Allende, and Chávez.  And he maintained:

​     Correa proposed that CELAC would work toward implementation of a plan of action focusing on five central themes: the reduction of extreme poverty and inequality; the expansion of education and the development of research and knowledge in a form that serves the public good; the protection of the environment and the struggle against climate change; the development of an alternative regional financial infrastructure; and the strengthening of the power of CELAC as a regional bloc.

     He noted that the establishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States, although it does not end the US blockade that violates international law, represents a “victory of the Cuban people [that] is a true lesson in dignity, resistance and sovereignty that Cuba transmits to the world.”  He also criticized the United States for its manipulation of the issue of human rights as a mechanism to preserve structures of neocolonial domination.

      Correa criticized the historic conduct of transnational corporations in Latin America and the Caribbean, and he noted that bilateral treaties of investment obligate the states of the region to surrender their sovereignty to courts in the North, which act in an arbitrary manner to sanction unjust arrangements.  “Latin America and the Caribbean needs foreign investment, but we ought to take on the task of creating a more just and balanced framework of relations between States and transnationals, which would make possible mutual benefit and respect for human rights and the rights of nature.”

     He concludes:

    For the full text of Correa’s speech at the Third Summit of CELAC in Costa Rica on January 29, 2015, see “The eradication of poverty is a moral imperative for our region and for the entire planet.”

Reference
 
Correa, Rafael.  2014.  Ecuador: De Banana Republic a la No República.  La Habana: Fondo Editorial Casa de las Américas.
 
 
Key words: Correa, Ecuador, revolution, socialism for the 21st century, CELAC