alasbarricadas
A reader who is "riding a theater project about the figure of Salvador Allende, has informed me that he" would like to know (my ) vision of the Chilean process and the figure of Allende, as well as the comparison I can make of "Castro, Chavez, Lula and Morales" with Allende. Although late as promised, here is because my answer:
begin to specify that my vision about the political and social processes flagged by those leaders of the "Latin American left", is based on moral grounds, because of the gap between the revolutionary speeches of these leaders and their practice governmental, political and social praxis as being populist mackerel and mortgage peoples social change to the designs of these heads angels. Reasons arising from the objective analysis of more than a century of political and social history of mankind and not merely the theoretical interpretation of the anarchist principles: freedom can only beget freedom and authority begets tyranny. Let
as what are the reasons that led me to consider the political and social action such as pernicious angel heads for the emancipation of the toiling masses, both for their countries to the rest of the world.
The first reason is the failure of all similar historical experiences that have preceded it. Produced failures after winning power and, in some cases, after the exercise of the same for long periods of time. I need not enumerate and explain these failures because it seems obvious that anyone who looks history without ideological party circles puede constatarlos: no sólo en América latina sino en todo el resto del mundo. Todas las otras razones surgen lógicamente al analizar las causas de estos fracasos que, en general, son consecuencia de la centralización decisoria y la personalización del Poder. De ahí que mis críticas a los Castro, Chavez, Lula, Morales, etc., como a Allende, sean el resultado del análisis de sus trayectorias militantes que les han permitido convertirse en Jefes providenciales y también del militantismo "revolucionario" de las masas que les han seguido o les siguen incondicionalmente. Militantismo siempre al servicio de una ambición personal en los lideres y militantismo siempre obediente e incondicional en las masas que han aceptado and lifted up these top leaders.
is that top-down activism which has inevitably led to the cult of personality and the strengthening of the alienation of the masses. Even in cases where this populism, supposedly revolutionary, is forced to keep the structures "democratic" bourgeois power and give up, temporarily, to establish "socialism (state capitalism), because in these cases also contributes to alienation of the masses against both the power as against the Capital. And this is because the alienation of the exploited and dominated occurs when you believe that they are not: either to make them believe that the Power is yours or that one day it will ... if they continue to unconditionally support the Chief. Hence it can be described as populist with those experiences, because they are founded and legitimized the conquest and exercise of a power which claims to have been conquered and exercised on behalf of the people and for the people. Although sometimes they do on behalf of the nation and homeland and serving them, as long ago ceased to do so on behalf of the proletariat, the working class or the workers. Populism "left", but populism, since even when intended to respect the rules of parliamentary democracy is a movement in the service of a charismatic leader who aspires to exert a hegemonic and totalitarian paternalistic: for the people and the people ..
What else would I be able to observe in these populist revolutionary work, concrete facts that give credence to the hope for a different development that led to the failure of previous revolutionary populism. But, even without a priors observe the current reality of such practice, it appears that they are properly installed in the same process of ideological perversion of revolutionary fiasco which have served as a model. Failures that have contributed significantly to the expansion and consolidation of the capitalist system of exploitation and domination, as well as making a paradigm of political representation to bourgeois democracy as the only guarantor of human rights. And this despite the "crisis" pattern of this system that has not stopped exacerbate injustice and provoke conflicts and environmental disasters.
Such is the catastrophic balance that populism, supposedly revolutionary, has completed its involution cynical ideological "capitalism-socialism" after taking Chinese, brash and brutally capitalist development. Developmentalism whose ideal is the maximum exploitation of wage labor with the minimum of social protection and labor. This has been reduced populist road to "socialism" in today's world: a sacred alliance, through the bureaucracy, including the Capital, the State and the Unions to exploit workers with impunity. Hence, multinationals continue to invest in supposedly socialist countries or in the process of being ...
are not as ideological reasons which have led me to establish such a balance but a strict observance of social and political events in the last century history at least. Requiring observation and analysis, if you have a minimum of intellectual honesty, to draw this conclusion: all manifestations of power implies it is inseparable from domination and exploitation. In addition to this: the transformation of power in an apparatus of domination, including establishing after a liberation struggle does not depend on the will to dominate on who carries it is an inevitable consequence of all forms of structured social relations hierarchically. Hence, all attempts to establish socialism in power have been, despite their different specificities-simple populism with revolutionary rhetoric, and all that succeeded have finished restoring the state and privatized private capitalism.
The most significant characteristic and most ominous This modern populism "revolutionary" is this syncretism State-Capital under the aura of state socialism, and nothing to suggest that attempts to establish a more democratic, in the words meaning to Allende, could have avoided falling into the bureaucracy and could have been open syncretic the door to a better future ...
not lived up close, but I think you also Allende led a symbolic and political process in which the concepts of People and Fatherland merged, not just rhetorically with the Revolution, but also what could mean to him the term revolution is indisputable that this merger was also for him, as for Castro, Chavez, Lula and Morales, synonymous with all deified around his person and a social imaginary of popular sovereignty-centered boss. It is for this and for this final epic tragic figure in the pantheon of the continental and global populist left, but sometimes you put it tricky to their "real" revolutionary identity ...
I will say, to finish and answer the reader alasbarricadas, there are differences in the ways of politics and rule of Castro, Chavez, Lula and Morales, and between each of them and Allende, but there is a common denominator among them: want to be players in the future without breaking story of the past. That's why I do not believe in the possibility of moving through them and their experiences to the emancipation of peoples. On the contrary, I think are hindrances in the progress towards it, then at its height infuse the subjugation of the masses and laid bare the deceit spread them despair and demobilization. Fraternally
Octavio Alberola
