Thursday, June 08, 2006

The Left In Latin America

Foreign Affairs has an excellent article on the Left in Latin America. Castaneda has couched his analysis as Social Democracy versus Leninism. The Leninism he opposes is no longer Bolshevik but the 'populist' left, like Chavez and Morales, who will use the state to nationalize while embracing a cooperativist movement of the poor from below. Chavez is populist, not a socialist

This meme is being used in the media now to attack the Chavez/Morales Left as being authoritarian verus the left like Lula in Brazil and the new Socialist President Michelle Bachelet in Chile, who are more amenable to capitalism and imperialist demands.

Ironically populism is the basis of the new right in Canada and the United States, it is the source of the popularity of the Klein, Manning, Harper new right, in Canada as well as the base of the U.S. Republican party. Of course the commentators who denounce the populist left in Latin America do not apply the same critique to the Populist Right in North America.

The populism of the Left is being described as authoritarian when in reality it is not. But Castaneda sees it for what it is. That the seizure of state power is limited, where it will go, nowhere as in the case of Brazil, or towards a dual power situation as in Bolivia, Argentina and Venezuala with popular assemblies, worker community control is the real question. The latter is what scares the bejezus out of the right and liberals like Castaneda.

Latin America's Left Turn
Jorge G. Castañeda
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006

Summary: With all the talk of Latin America's turn to the left, few have noticed that there are really two lefts in the region. One has radical roots but is now open-minded and modern; the other is close-minded and stridently populist. Rather than fretting over the left's rise in general, the rest of the world should focus on fostering the former rather than the latter -- because it is exactly what Latin America needs.

JORGE G. CASTAÑEDA is the author of Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War and Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. Having resigned as Mexico's Foreign Minister in 2003, he is currently Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies at New York University.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 comments:

David Wilson said...

if you want my attention you will have to take the time to spell correctly, it is Evo 'Morales' in Bolivia, and 'Lula' in Brasil - i stopped reading at that point

i don't know what browser you are using but you might want to take a look at what your blog looks like to the outside world, not coming across HTML-wise very well to me

be well, david.

Larry Gambone said...

I don't give a shit whether you can spell or not Eugene, its what you say thats important. Two things - the hatred of populism is nothing new, populism has always been seen as the enemy of imperialism in Latin America and secondly all genuine populisms seek to empower the people as opposed to the state and corporate capitalism. Thus Morales and Chavez are genuine populists and Swine, Anus Lips and the like are not. There were some populist aspectsd to the old Reform Party but that is long gone replaced by the vilest and slimiest of neoconazisms.

Satàrric said...

I'm the author of the article of Café babel Refered... I disagree your position that I justify the left "amenable to the capitalism" I tried to do the article in a neutral way...

My arguments:

1) I don't think that Morales is a populist, In the article I argue that the nationalisation is the only way to income the inequality situation in Bolivia.

2) I criticise the "Chili" model based in inequality.

3) At the end, for me Chavez is a true populist because his politics depends on petrol... And the most incredible he does anything for his citizens (he has not planned nay reserve funds with the incomes of the petrol.