The International Newsletter of Communist Studies Online IX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The International Newsletter of Communist Studies Online 16/2003 33 they focused on the uniqueness of their situations and interpreted communist theory from their own perspectives. This led to occasional disagreements with the Comintern and the Caribbean Bureau. At the same time, local communists were subject to communism’s linguistic and semiotic constructions, particularly those emanating from Comintern leaders in Moscow. When they employed words or signs associated with communism, they potentially employed meanings and narrative frames of which they were not fully aware. Thus, to analyze communist movements in a given region, such as Central America, we must consider the manifold complexities influencing the making of political identity and the motivation of political action. Different actors had the potential to consciously accept or reject varying theoretical interpretations. They also had the potential to be shaped by semiotic forces beyond their conscious control. Contact: Erik Ching, History Department, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613, erik.ching@furman.edu Diego Frachtenberg, Argentina: The Impact of the Russian Revolution on Argentinian Intellectuals, 1918–1925. The discussion about the issue of Russian Bolshevism (Maximalismo) was started by the famous speech made by José Ingenieros in November of 1918 when he declared that the importance of the Russian Revolution came out beyond Russia’s borders; this famous intellectual marked a fundamental point for the understanding of Bolshevism (a turning point in the development of a the »new moral conscience of the humanity«). The 1917 revolution in Russia was interpreted by the Argentinian intellectuals of all kinds through the filter of local events, first of all within the bounds of the recent democratic presidential elections of 1916. Amongst the intellectual elite of the country the concept of democracy was redefined at that very moment – from the most radical attitudes of those who joined the Communist Party of Argentine to the broad sector of the supporters of the Radical Government. For the PCA, militants such as J. Ferlini, A. Cantoni, A. Palcos, A. Mendoza and J. Penelón were seeking the establishment of an efficient workers’ government through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The non-communist sympathizers with the Revolution such as A. Palacios and others also denied formal (representative) democracy, but looked for a functional democracy oriented towards the workers’ factory self-management. The third group (Galvez, Roldán and Peña) welcomed the Maximalist experience of Russia defending at the same time the necessity of political democracy as well. All of these groups shared Ingenieros’ conviction of facing a crucial historical moment, the crush of the brutal capitalist society and the expectation of the rapid progress of humanity. However, there were also influential groups of intellectuals denying the Soviet experience and emphasizing the worthiness of Democracia socialista/Democracia burgues (intellectuals from the Socialist and Radical parties). They were monopolizing the elective posts displacing the conservatives and closing the entrance for the Communists. The Russian Revolution and the development of Maximalismo opened the discussion about the very nature of the violence and about the degree of its
The International Newsletter of Communist Studies Online 16/2003 34 necessity in Argentina at the moment of revolution. To a certain extent, these debates, unfortunately, are still as intense in today’s Argentina. Dorothea Melcher, Mérida, Venezuela: The Venezuelan Left and the Comintern The left-wing movement in Venezuela surged as the opposition to the dictatorial regime of Gomez (1908-1935). Mainly the students influenced by modernizing positivism and idealism were those who broadly accepted the democratic and social-democratic tendencies. Finally they were pushed into political exile in France, the United States of America, Central America, and in Spain, where their most radical sector established contacts with the Comintern through the All-American Anti-Imperialist League. Despite the fact that they composed the oppositionist slogans with social criticism, the movement maintained the traditional caudillist methods of invasion and rebellion because the size of the working class at this time was very small and Venezuela’s population consisted mainly of poor peasants linked to caudillist groups. Thus, the ideological and political theories and concrete plans of the students led them to the necessity to separate from other opposition groups while their fidelity to the Comintern was camouflaged by their alliances with the conservatives. In the crucial year of 1929 two invasion movements were formed, though on the basis of different criteria. The left-wing invasion was planned despite Comintern objections, provoking a visible controversy with the Comintern representatives. The consequent failure of this attempt was transformed into the argument against their leaders during the process of Stalinization of the Third International when the Partido Revolucionario de Venezuela leaders were accused of not constructing the Communist Party of Venezuela as the revolutionary vanguard. The CPV, founded only in 1931, with mainly Caracas militants, reflected the new political line taken by the Comintern. It was soon dismantled as the communist party activists were jailed or assassinated by the dictatorship. Later, the CP was reconstructed including the political forces of the exile during a constant process of rivalry between them, the Communists inside the country and the Caribbean Bureau of the Comintern. As the CPV was a Stalinist party it found itself in political isolation while other left-wing groups emerged, mainly among the exiled students. Some cooperation with the Communist Party resulted from the new Popular Front policy decided in Moscow. Victor Kheyfetz, Dr. Lazar Kheyfetz, Institute of Latin America, Moscow: The Failure of a Continental Revolution – the First Steps of Mexican Communism, 1919–1922 The creation of the Mexican communist movement in August-November 1919 was the result of both the internal development of the working-class movement of the country and the external influence exercised by the Comintern emissaries. After the split suffered by the Communist movement in the Fall of the same year and the emergence of the parallel Mexican Communist Party (headed by M. N. Roy, Ch. Phillips and J. Allen) and
Page 1 and 2: The International Newsletter of Com
Page 47: The International Newsletter of Com
Page 99 and 100:
The International Newsletter of Com
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135:
show all

The International Newsletter of Communist Studies Online IX

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?