National Liberation Movements and the Question of Socialism ...

popular and revolutionary movements, and
those democratic parties, organizations, sectors
and individuals who are disposed to
participate in the carrying out of the present
programmatic platform.
This government will stand on a broad
social and political base formed primarily
by the working class, peasantry and advanced
middle sectors; closely tied to these will
be all the social strata agreeing to carry
out this platform: small and medium industrial
businesspeople, merchants, artisans,
small farmers. It will also include those
honest professionals, progressive clergy,
democratic parties like the National Revolutionary
Movement, advanced sectors of the
Christian Democrats, and worthy and honest
officers of the army who will agree to serve
the interests of the people; and all other
sectors, groups or individuals who will abide
by a true democracy for the people, independent
development, and popular liberation.
(Platform for the Democratic Revolutionary
Government:-pp~-4.)
Nowhere in this program, either in the old or
the new form, do we observe a demand for a fundamental
change in the economic arrangements of the country
where workers would come into control of the means of
production. Rather, there is proposed a "mixed"
economy, in which medium and even large businessmen
would participate as long as they were patriotic and
were not tied to the oligarchy now controlling El
Salvador. This, of course, is in reference to the
national, supposedly independent, bourgeoisie that
ostensibly has the interests of the "nation" at heart.
But if the capitalists of El Salvador are to be
allowed freedom to accumulate and expand, then, by
definition, workers must be denied the freedom to
effect their interests--they must be denied effective
control of the means of production. And, if capitalism
is to be fostered in El Salvador, the small
peasantry will also suffer in the long run, even
though they would be attracted to such a program in
the short run given their individualist ideology.
The post-"revolution" political arrangements
would give rights to all (excluding, presumably, the
oligarchs and their lackeys) ~ven.to the point ~f .
guaranteeing the U.S.'s secur1ty 1n that area (1nclud1ng
the security of U.S. business interests?). The
"Government of Broad Participation" will certainly
expand the rights currently allowed in El Salvador,
but it will not fundamentally change those rights--
and fundamental change is the very essence of a
revolutionary process.
Thus, neither in the economic nor in the political
sphere is a radical transformation of El Salvador's
society suggested. Rather, we suggest, arrangements
would be effected that would greatly enhance the
material welfare of the capitalists of that country.
This is not to say that the majority of the population
will not benefit--at least in the short run. But,
when the capitalists are firmly in control and the
lower class movement has been dispersed, what will
be observed is yet another "disappointment"--capitalist
growth will produce the same effects as in any
capitalist country. Further, the small "independent"
El Salvadoran businessmen will continue to be dominated
by foreign capitalists.
One can observe this process in Nicaragua. As
previously analyzed in Science, Class, and Politics
(#26), the anti-Somoza, anti-U.S. liberation movement
fell under the direction of capitalist forces. Given
the success of that movement, the capitalists of that
country were initially forced to grant concessions to
the lower classes. However, we now observe that this
class is doing everything in its power to break the
political force of the underlying population, making
concession after concession to both the United States
Government (the withdrawal of Cuban technicians, guarantees
concerning U.S. property and political interests)
and to the overtly counter-revolutionary forces of
Nicaragua (granting the "contras" the right to return
and hold responsible positions in the new government).
26
,.,