Latin America in revolt against neo-liberalism
Latin America is currently at the cutting edge of
class struggle. A continental revolt is taking place from the Rio Grande
in the north to Punto del Fuego in the south against governments and
ruling elites which have relentlessly followed neo-liberal free-market
policies for more than a decade. TONY SAUNOIS, a recent visitor to
Brazil and Chile, reports.
NEO-LIBERAL POLICIES have been a catastrophe for the
Latin American masses. They have been a gift for the multinationals
which have plundered the continent, buying up privatised resources and
assets at knock-down prices. The price has been paid by the workers and
poor whose living standards have been driven further and further down.
With over 215 million on the continent officially ‘living in poverty’, a
staggering 41% live on less than $2 per day and a further 18% struggle
to survive on less than $1 per day.
The 1980s was dubbed the ‘lost decade’ in Latin
America. The 1990s was little better as the continent was ravaged by
exploitation by the main imperialist powers and the corrupt ruling
classes. These two decades have clearly revealed the impossibility of
developing the economies and ending the endemic mass poverty while
capitalism continues. In 1978, income per head in the main imperialist
countries was five times greater than the most developed Latin American
economies such as Argentina and Brazil. The gap between the poorest
countries, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, and the main imperialist powers
was twelve times greater. By 2000, this had grown to seven and 30 times
respectively. Any hopes that privatisation and the ‘free market’ would
lead to sustained growth and economic development have long since
evaporated amongst the workers, peasants and urban poor.
These policies have provoked mass opposition to the
governments which implemented them. In Ecuador, mass uprisings toppled
three presidents. In Argentina, four presidents were forced out of
office in a few weeks when the financial system collapsed in 2001. In
Bolivia, during 2005, mass demonstrations demanded re-nationalisation of
the energy industry and the country stood on the brink of civil war,
resulting in the election of Evo Morales in January 2006. Struggles of
workers, peasants, students and others exploited by capitalism and
imperialism in Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia and many other
countries have erupted time and again. In Mexico, at the time of
writing, 70,000 teachers in the state of Oaxaca are striking for higher
wages. Following attacks by 1,700 riot police, teachers armed with
sticks and stones fought running battles and eventually overpowered
them. The movement has broadened into a popular rebellion demanding the
resignation of the state governor, Ulises Ruiz, from the corrupt
dictatorial PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) which ruled
Mexico for over 70 years. Workers have taken to the streets with banners
proclaiming: ‘Popular resistance’, and ‘Revolution – out with Ulises’.
According to some reports, teachers have taken over 20 town halls in
small villages, the town squares becoming one giant protest.
Within these revolts and mass movements, opposition
to the market, neo-liberalism, and support for state intervention and
nationalisation have featured in the demands. In some, the issue of
socialism as an alternative to capitalism has begun to be discussed
amongst a layer. These revolts have opened the way for what many
commentators have referred to as a ‘revival of the left’ and the coming
to power of ‘left-wing’ governments. Most prominent is Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela, Ernesto Kirchner in Argentina and Evo Morales in Bolivia.
There is also the prospect of the populist, López Obrador, former PRD
mayor of Mexico city, coming to power in Mexico, on the doorstep of US
imperialism. Although he has not called for nationalisation, as a
radical populist, a regime led by him would be a major irritant to
George Bush who has thus far only had to deal with the compliant,
Thatcherite, president Vicente Fox. His victory will possibly open the
floodgates to a new wave of struggles by the Mexican workers and
peasants. This will have important repercussions north of the border on
the Latino population in the USA who have already been drawn into mass
struggle against the Bush regime.
The election of Morales was seen by the masses of
Latin America as a tremendous victory. An important factor in this was
that he is from the indigenous Amaya people. This is the first time that
a non-European descendant has been elected to the presidency, despite
the fact that indigenous peoples are an overwhelming majority of the
population. The revolts of the indigenous peoples throughout Latin
America has been one of the dominant features of recent mass movements,
especially in the Andean countries of Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela and
Ecuador, along with the struggles of indigenous peoples in Mexico and
the Mapuche in Chile.
The coming to power of new radical populist
governments in Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia represents a point of
departure from the ideological and economic tendencies which dominated
the 1990s. Reflecting the massive social crises which have shaken these
three countries, the governments represent a break with the neo-liberal
policies of privatisation and the unfettered ‘free market’. They have
been a source of irritation and conflict for US imperialism and European
imperialist countries with important investments in Latin America, such
as Spain and France.
This development has also begun to open a debate on
the left in Latin America on what programme and type of government is
needed to break from capitalism and imperialism.
Lula’s role in Brazil
HOWEVER, THIS PROCESS has not been uniform. Another
layer of ‘new left’ leaders have come to power in countries such as
Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. The election of the likes of Lula (Brazil),
Tabaré Vázquez (Uruguay) and more recently Michel Bachelet (Chile)
reflected the same anti-neoliberal consciousness that has swept the
continent. Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez, in Ecuador, was swept to power as a
Chávez-type figure on an anti-neoliberal agenda but immediately
capitulated to the IMF and imperialism, announcing neo-liberal measures.
Consequently, he was overthrown by a mass movement of workers, peasants
and indigenous peoples in 2005, the third president to be overthrown by
a mass uprising in Ecuador since 1996.
The exceptions at this stage are Colombia and Peru.
In Colombia, with mass violence and conflicts arising from the drug
cartels, right-wing paramilitaries and against the background of the
guerrilla campaigns of the FARC and ELN, the US-backed Alvaro Uribe was
recently re-elected. In Peru, the alternative of the nationalistic
maverick, Ollanta Humala, was not sufficiently attractive to prevent
Alan Garcia, from the oldest populist party in Latin America, APRA
(which has now turned to the right), making a comeback. Garcia had been
forced from power in the 1980s after heading a government which presided
over price increases of 1,000,000%.
Yet, in general, the old established politicians and
their parties have been swept from office. The ‘new left’ (as in New
Labour), headed by the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) in Brazil, Partido
Socialista in Chile and Frente Amplio in Uruguay, has come to power
amidst high expectations for fundamental change. However, the hopes of
the workers and youth in these countries have been rapidly dashed. These
governments have capitulated to the demands of imperialism and their own
ruling classes and continued with the same neo-liberal polices of their
predecessors.
This process began in Brazil with the election of
Lula who, even prior to his election, had convinced the IMF and other
imperialist and capitalist institutions that his policy would remain the
same as the former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. No headway has
been made in tackling the massive inequalities which exist in Brazilian
society. While the richest 10% of the population consume 47% of national
income, the poorest 10% are left in squalor consuming a mere 0.5%.
The majority of the ruling class has been content to
rest on the Lula government as a means of carrying through further
attacks on the working class. Continued privatisation, the failure to
take effective steps to attack inequality, and a series of massive
corruption scandals would have provoked major struggles by the working
class and youth if the traditional capitalist parties and politicians
were in office. Lula, together with the treacherous role of the
leadership of the main trade union confederation, CUT, has partly been
able to hold the working class in check during the last four years. The
majority of the CUT leadership is now merely an arm of the government,
its unofficial ministry of labour.
The continuation of a very fragile and ephemeral
growth in the economy, because of the world economic situation, fear of
the return of the traditional capitalist parties, splits amongst the
capitalist politicians and the lack of a powerful alternative, have
temporarily allowed Lula to maintain a basis of support amongst older
workers. His likely victory for a second term in October, however, will
not be a mere repetition of his first mandate. Economic slowdown, even
prior to a worldwide recession, is likely to open the way for powerful
struggles by workers, landless people, youth and the urban poor after
the election. The car producer, Volkswagen, recently announced its
intention to reduce its workforce from 21,500 to 15,500 in the next few
years. This is a warning of the scale of the attacks that are being
prepared by the ruling class and which are certain to produce powerful
social movements and struggles by the working class. These will give big
opportunities to build support for a socialist alternative to Lula’s
pro-capitalist policies.
Already, there is growing support for a radical
socialist alternative. Significant layers of socialists and activists in
the workers’ movement have begun the task of building it. The formation
of P-SOL represents an important step forward in this objective. With
7-8% support indicated in opinion polls, P-SOL will have a big
opportunity during the presidential election to build a stronger basis
of support. If P-SOL can agree a strategy around a radical socialist
programme and build a real party of struggle it will have big
opportunities to grow during and after the election. There is, however,
a debate taking place about the programme it should adopt and how the
party should be built. (See box) Sections of the leadership are
attempting to moderate its programme and push the party to the right and
prevent a fighting, democratic party struggling for socialism from being
built. P-SOL has major possibilities to build a powerful force. These
opportunities can be lost if the party fails to defend a socialist
alternative and build a base through intervention in the class struggle.
The rebuilding of a fighting alternative is also
beginning in the trade unions with preparatory steps towards the
formation of a new trade union centre. Hundreds of local unions have
already disaffiliated from the CUT or have stopped paying affiliation
fees.
Chilean student protest
WHILE LULA HAS been able to fend off powerful social
movements in the last few years, ‘socialist’ president, Bachelet, has
not been so lucky in Chile. Less than three months after being sworn in,
she faced a mass mobilisation of school students demanding changes to
the entire education system, the largest youth movement to rock Chile
since the military coup in 1973. The movement compelled the government
to grant some concessions, increase the education budget by $200
million, and end the national college entrance exam fee.
One feature of this protest was the vicious
repression used by the hated riot police. This is a general feature of
the situation. The return of ‘democracy’ following the military police
dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s has not meant an end to the use of
brutal repression against workers, peasants and the poor in struggle. In
Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia and other countries, the masses have
still had to confront water cannon, tear gas and, in some cases, bullets
when they have taken to the streets to fight for their rights. In Chile
this is known as ‘demodura’ (hard democracy) as opposed to ‘dictadura’
(dictatorship).
The school student protests plunged the government
into crisis and have opened a new chapter in the struggle of the Chilean
people following the end of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990. The
example set by the youth is set to be followed by further struggles of
the workers who were inspired by this movement. Significantly, the
students instinctively grasped the need to broaden their support amongst
the working class and other sections of the population. Over 80%
indicated that they supported the students and a mere 17% backed the
government!
This movement also has wider implications. Chile has
been portrayed as the economic success story of Latin America. With
record economic growth, impressive investment in infrastructure,
especially transport, this was the neo-liberal model to emulate
elsewhere, according to capitalist analysts. Sections of the Chilean
ruling class even spoke of the country as a ‘developed economy’. Yet the
growth was always one-sided. It has gone side by side with a massive
increase in the exploitation of the working class. Bank workers are
currently involved in a campaign to prevent Sunday opening. Better
houses, access to cars and other consumer goods have been paid for
largely through the accumulation of massive debt. The vast majority of
the increased national income, largely due to high copper prices and
exports of agricultural products, fruits and wine, has gone to the rich
elite. The richest 20% of the population take 62.2% of national income.
The poorest 20% are supposed to survive on 3.3% of national income!
This tremendous movement of young people erupted as
the economy has begun to slow. In challenging the ‘market orientation’
of the education system, the youth have put into question the entire
neo-liberal model. Not only questioning the privatisation of education
and health but the very type of society they want. The full impact of
this movement has yet to be felt in Chile and the continent. However, it
is clear that the ‘socialist’ government will not enjoy the relative
‘calm’ of the preceding coalition governments. Bachelet and her
capitalist coalition will undoubtedly attempt to continue with
neo-liberal ‘reforms’.
They are certain to run into much greater resistance
amongst the working class. During the month of the student protests,
Bachelet’s approval ratings fell from 67% in May to 56% in June, only
three months after becoming president. The government’s defence of
neo-liberal polices and the rapid development of opposition to Bachelet
confirm how wrong the Communist Party of Chile and some others who claim
to defend Marxist ideas were to support her in the second round of the
election. The Communist Party has paid for this mistake with the onset
of a massive internal crisis. The CWI and its sister organisation in
Chile, Socialismo Revolucionario, argued for a blank vote and a campaign
to build a new workers’ party to fight for socialist policies. The
crisis in the Communist Party is in marked contrast to the popularity of
the radical candidate for the presidency, Tomás Hirsch, a member of the
Humanist Party (part of the left alliance, PODEMOS), who called for a
blank vote in the second round because of Bachelet’s neo-liberal
policies.
State intervention
THE REVOLT AGAINST neo-liberalism has given rise to
a new wave of radical, left-populist governments in Venezuela, Argentina
and Bolivia, reflecting the massive pressure of the masses and the deep
social and economic crises in these countries. The emergence of these
regimes, which have supported a policy of greater state intervention in
the economy, represents an important change in the world situation
following the 1990s.
The measures have included some limited partial
nationalisation. In Venezuela, they have included the setting up of
joint ventures between state companies and private multinationals. In
Argentina, Kirchner has retaken control of the management of airports,
purchased 40% of the privatised state airline, Aerolineas Argentinas,
and through a state company has taken over the privatised water supplier
in the capital, Buenos Aires.
The ‘nationalisation’ of the oil and gas industries
by Morales in Bolivia is, however, the most significant move to date and
provoked widespread opposition by the ruling class – especially in
Brazil and Spain which own the largest part of these industries. Amongst
the working class throughout Latin America, however, this
‘nationalisation’ had a massive impact and was extremely popular.
Brazil, the largest regional power, has massive investments in Bolivia
and is dependent on Bolivia for 51% of its gas consumption. In Sao
Paulo, this rises to more than 75%. Petrobras, the Brazilian company,
controls 46% of Bolivia’s gas resources and 95% of its refining
capacity. It has a turnover in Bolivia which equals 19% of that
country’s GDP!
This state intervention has provoked widespread
opposition from imperialism and sections of the national capitalist
class. Yet the measures have represented partial nationalisation, in
some cases, and little more than joint ventures in others. Even in
Bolivia, all that Morales has done is to establish joint ventures where
the state will control 50% plus one of the shares in companies which
were nationalised prior to privatisation in 1996. This falls far short
of the wholesale nationalisation of Standard Oil in 1937 or Gulf Oil in
1969.
It also falls short of the demands of the Bolivian
masses who supported the idea of nationalisation of oil and gas. These
partial measures are wholly insufficient to break with capitalism. On
the contrary, they are part of an alternative supported by Morales,
Chávez and Kirchner to attempt to build an ‘Andean capitalism’, an
alternative to the neo-liberal model – capitalism with a more human
face.
In Argentina, Kirchner is attempting to revert to
the traditional ‘Peronism’ – pre-Carlos Menem – of state intervention
backed by a powerful trade union bureaucracy. The newly stateised water
company has a management board which includes representatives from the
Peronist trade unions. In the airport industry, the sub-secretary of
Transporte Aerocomercial is Ricardo Ciielli, a powerful union leader.
However, this reversal to state intervention is not
the same as the policies introduced by the Peronist regimes following
the second world war. Then, the export of meat to a hungry Europe
allowed the ruling class a cushion from which it financed significant
reforms that benefited the working class and won the populist,
nationalist Peronist movement mass support which endured for decades.
Although currently enjoying widespread support, Kirchner does not have
the same room for manoeuvre or capacity to grant such lasting reforms.
While the media churn out reports of annual economic
growth of over 9% for the last four years, millions have gained nothing
– 58% of Argentinean children still live in poverty. The rebuilt former
dock area of Buenos Aires, Puerto Madera, is awash with expensive cafés
and desirable apartments. Yet even here, the opening up of a soup
kitchen reveals the unevenness of the ‘boom’ and the gap between rich
and poor which has widened as the economy has expanded. It is a fragile
boom, led by construction and a growth in agricultural exports which,
like Chile’s, will be dramatically brought to an end when the world
economy moves into stagnation and/or recession.
Kirchner’s policies of more state intervention have
been combined with attacks and repression against sections of workers
and the unemployed involved in struggle.
Regional conflict
THE EMERGENCE OF radical populist regimes has
reinforced conflicts between these populist governments and imperialism,
and also between the neo-liberal governments in other Latin American
countries. Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, with the support of Cuba,
currently form a core group of countries which have come into collision
with the interests of imperialism and other regional powers, such as
Brazil, Colombia and Chile.
These conflicts have reflected the particular
national interests of each ruling class. While the core countries led by
Venezuela are looking towards greater regional integration and
establishing stronger trade relations with other powers than the USA
(such as Europe, China and Russia), Chile, Brazil, Colombia, and
especially Mexico, favour greater co-operation and integration with the
US economy. Even these developments are contradictory. While US
imperialism faced a defeat at the Summit of the Americas in 2005 over
its proposal to proceed with the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the
Americas), many Latin American countries have tried to establish their
own bilateral agreements with the USA.
At the same time, a series of disputes has emerged
between countries over trade and border issues which have boosted
nationalist trends. Argentina has been in conflict with Uruguay, Bolivia
with Brazil and Chile, Peru with Chile. These pressures have reinforced
nationalist features amongst the radical populist movements which have
emerged in some countries. This partly reflects the powerful
anti-imperialist feeling which exist throughout Latin America, but also
attempts by the ruling classes to whip up nationalist sentiment within
the continent. It is a potential danger for the masses which the working
class, urban and rural poor and others need to overcome by developing a
powerful socialist and internationalist alternative to capitalism and
imperialism.
The partial nationalisation of Petrobras caused
shockwaves in the Brazilian ruling class who attempted to unleash a
nationalist fervour against Bolivia. The press warned of an imminent
threat to gas supplies. Lula protested at the ‘way’ Morales
‘nationalised’ oil and gas companies belonging to Petrobras. Morales
pointed out that he "had to make a political gesture, to avoid
destabilisation – Bolivia has had four presidents in four years". If
Morales had not enacted some measures against Petrobras and Repsol he
would have faced the prospect of a more rapid collision with the workers
and peasants who swept him to power.
Although Morales has been compelled to carry through
a partial nationalisation of oil and gas, at the same time, he has used
the army to occupy the airports when workers from the national airline,
Lyoyd Aero Boliviano, demanded its nationalisation in the face of
bankruptcy.
Tackling mass poverty
CHÁVEZ AND MORALES have been able to carry through
some welcome limited reforms, especially in health, education and cheap
food distribution. In Venezuela, this has been done through the
establishment of ‘missiones’, which have brought some relief to the most
downtrodden sections of society. In Bolivia, the minimum wage has been
increased by 13% from 440 bolivianos a month ($55) to 500 bolivianos
($63), although far less than the 1,500 bolivianos ($192) promised in
the election campaign.
Yet nearly 30% receive less than the minimum wage in
the urban areas. The deployment of Cuban doctors to Bolivia has allowed
7,000 cataract operations to be carried out in two months on the poorest
layers of the population, who could never afford the $500-$700 charged
by the private clinics in La Paz.
While these reforms have been welcomed, they have
not resolved the mass poverty which exists in these countries.
Capitalism still condemns 67.3% of the Bolivian population to conditions
of stark poverty. The same problem exists in Venezuela where the
continuation of poverty is compounded by the growth of bureaucracy and
corruption throughout the expanded state sector because of the absence
of real democratic workers’ control and management.
While Chávez has benefited from the rising price of
oil on the world market up until now, this cushion can be removed in the
coming months and years which will provoke a major social and political
crisis. If the working class does not take the necessary steps to build
its own independent organisations and establish a workers’ and peasants’
government, then the threat of counter-revolution and the overthrow of
Chávez can re-emerge.
In Bolivia, because of a far deeper social and
economic crisis, rampant poverty and a powerful tradition of independent
revolutionary struggle and organisation by the working class and poor
peasants, Morales has even less room to manoeuvre.
Although Chávez has the sympathy of the mass of the
working class, his failure to overthrow capitalism, the widespread
corruption and bureaucracy and the absence of workers’ control and
management have meant that many workers in Latin America are sceptical
towards his regime.
An opinion poll in the Brazilian daily, O Estado,
while pointing to Chávez’s popularity in Bolivia, reported that only 14%
of Brazilians had a positive image of him. A mere 10% thought that his
‘Bolivarian policy’ was a model to follow. Yet the same poll found that
60% supported nationalisation of natural resources and 74% and 78%
supported state control of the multinationals and banking, and prices!
The revolt of the masses against neo-liberalism and
the crisis which is now developing throughout the continent pose the
need for the working class and poor peasants to begin to build their own
independent political and social organisations with a programme that
will overthrow capitalism and confront imperialism. The establishment of
workers’ and peasants’ governments with revolutionary socialist
programmes is urgently needed. Such a programme must be based on the
nationalisation of the major companies, banks, and multinationals in
each country, and a programme of real agricultural reform where
necessary. Only then will it be possible to defeat capitalism and begin
to plan the economy to meet the needs of the mass of the population.
Such a programme cannot be limited to one country.
The current energy crisis illustrates the need for regional integration
and planning of the economy. Chávez has called for the establishment of
a Latin American oil and gas enterprise – Petrosur. Yet how will this be
possible on a capitalist basis? It would require the working class and
poor peasants to take over the running of society for such a plan to be
carried through and to allow the vast resources of the continent to be
planned for the needs of the masses rather than the different national
ruling classes and imperialism.
The establishment of a voluntary, democratic
socialist federation of Latin America is the real alternative to
capitalism and imperialism, and the only way to begin to tackle the
poverty and exploitation which blights the continent. A step towards
this would be the establishment of a democratic socialist federation of
Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia on the basis of the formation of democratic
workers’ and peasants’ governments in these countries. This is the way
to begin to unify the continent and begin planning the resources and the
economies as an alternative to the capitalist trade blocs and agreements
which are currently being formed.
P-SOL prepares for October election
THE Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL),
Brazil’s new left formation, is at an important stage. Will it develop
into a party based on activists from the working-class and oppressed,
involved in grassroots campaigns against neo-liberal attacks and
fighting for a socialist alternative? Will it limit itself to
prioritising election campaigns in the pursuit of office?
The P-SOL conference, held in Brasilia, 26-28 May,
had been downgraded from a congress to a conference, and this had a
profound effect: the agenda was limited to discussing electoral
issues, there was no election of the leadership, no discussion on
statutes or programme, and delegations were limited to one per 30
affiliated members instead of one per ten. This made it difficult for
individual branches to elect delegates. Instead, ‘aggregates’ were
called, many set up to choose delegates from a particular grouping.
There were 154 delegates, and a total of 250-300
participants. This was much lower than at the first national meeting
that launched the party in 2004, when 900 participated, and the second
meeting, held during the World Social Forum last year, with 1,800
participants.
Of the 154 delegates, 141-146 were from the six
biggest currents: APS, Enlace and ALS (the most ‘moderate’ wing) had
44; the bloc that dominates the National Executive (CST, MES and Poder
Popular) had 80-85; and CSOL had 17.
In effect, the conference rubberstamped positions
agreed beforehand by the National Board. There were very few
amendments. Socialismo Revolucionário (CWI Brazil) proposed most of
the amendments to the political document on the election campaign.
Even though it was not a congress, it was the
first meeting with elected rank-and-file delegates and should have
reflected the political debates taking place from below. It should
also have drawn up a balance sheet of the situation. Instead, the
conference reaffirmed the current character of the P-SOL: in practice,
a front of different currents, where everything is set beforehand by
agreements of the leaderships of the big currents. There were several
appeals for ‘unity’, but a conference should be a space for political
discussion, building unity through democratic debate. Otherwise, we
would end up as a new PT (president Lula’s Partido dos Trabalhadores).
The only major dispute was whether there should be
an electoral alliance with the PSTU (Morenoite) and PCB (what is left
of the once huge Communist Party). The more ‘moderate’ currents were
opposed, but 110 voted in favour, with 44 against. One outstanding
issue is that the PSTU has demanded that P-SOL does not stand
candidates for the senate in the states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro
and Rio Grande do Sul. But this would make the alliance unviable and
remains to be resolved.
The documents approved at the conference were as
expected. The proposed electoral programme had a lower socialist
profile than the party programme, but P-SOL will still be seen as
offering a left and radical alternative to the other parties.
There was a rally with Heloísa Helena and César
Benjamin (elected as pre-candidates for president and vice-president:
electoral law only permits the formal election of candidates after 10
June). César prioritised Brazil as a "nation for itself", as opposed
to workers as a "class for itself". But he did mention the need for
socialism at the end: "It is necessary to re-found the nation, but
that is not possible with dependent capitalism, it must be based on
socialism".
The election of César has led to a crisis in the
Paraná state, as he wrote the economic programme of Roberto Requião,
leader of the PMDB (a bourgeois party with a nationalistic view of
‘development’). After the conference, 20 P-SOL members announced that
they were leaving the party in protest. At the Paraná state meeting of
P-SOL, 39 voted against César as vice-president with just 11 in
favour. At the conference, however, there was no debate on this issue
as there was no other proposal.
Socialismo Revolucionário (SR) put forward a
number of amendments at the conference. While recognising that the
election is a central issue this year, the aim of the SR amendment in
the session on ‘strategic objectives’ was to steer the emphasis away
from the electoralist slant of the original resolution and towards
using elections as part of an overall strategy of building the party.
The SR amendment was overwhelmingly carried. We also proposed an
amendment on ‘electoral targets’ to include building branches of P-SOL
from below. This was passed unanimously.
On the burning issue of political corruption, SR
sought to strengthen the conference resolution by adding: "We must
also make clear that corruption is inherent to the economic system.
Therefore, the struggle against corruption must also be a struggle
against the neo-liberal policies of privatisation, PPP, etc". This,
too, was carried.
Another discussion was on the nature of the
system. The original resolution raised: "Winning genuine sovereignty
and national independence and breaking with financial capital". SR
aimed to enhance the character of a socialist rupture with the system,
and guard against lowering the programme and avoiding confusion with
policies of ‘national development’. For example, the original said:
"...suspension of the payments of the interest of the foreign debt".
We changed that to: "...suspension of the payment of the public debt"
and added a new sentence: "The suspension of the payment of the
internal debt has as a consequence the need to pose the
nationalisation of the banks and financial institutions, and a control
of the flow of capital".
The original resolution also said: "The strategic
areas should be under the control of the Brazilian people, such as
petrol, telecommunications, energy, steel industry". Our proposed
change was "...under the control and ownership of the Brazilian
people..." adding a new sentence: "We defend the re-nationalisation of
the privatised companies, under democratic control and management of
the workers, with a production aimed to fulfil the needs of the
working people, not for profits or the market". These proposals were
voted as a bloc, with only one vote in favour – our delegate! The
position of the APS and Enlace was summed up by João Machado at a
meeting in São Paulo: "We don’t want a programme for an immediate
rupture with the system".
The CSOL current had previously criticised the
formulation of "suspension of the payment of the interest" and Babá, a
CST MP, always speaks against the whole public debt. Babá spoke at the
conference about re-nationalisation under workers’ control, but the
CST as a whole only proposed the re-nationalisation of the mining
giant, CVRD, and Petrobras. This was approved unanimously together
with its proposals to include support for the Bolivian nationalisation
of gas and petrol, and for the immediate withdrawal of Brazilian
troops from Haiti.
SR proposed a resolution for a workers’ MP on
worker’s wage, and that all candidates should live on the salary of a
qualified worker or the same salary they had before being elected (as
is the case with Babá and Luciana Genro of MES). The presidium did not
put that up for debate on the basis that it was a ‘statutory issue’.
But immediately afterwards, a proposal was passed (that SR supported)
that all public representatives must pay a certain amount to the
national election campaign (15,000 reales for MPs, 7,500 for state
MPs, and 4,000 for councillors).
The first P-SOL congress will take place in July
next year.
Marcus Kollbrunner
Socialismo Revolucionário
|