FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Imagining An/Other Latin American Left

by DAVID DÍAZ-ARIAS

Some years ago, Walter Mignolo pointed out that Latin America was “a consequence and product of the geopolitics of knowledge, that is to say, a consequence of the knowledge produced and imposed by Modernity in its auto-definition as Modernity” (C. Walsh, “Las geopolíticas del conocimiento y colonialidad del poder. Entrevista a Walter Mignolo,” Indisciplinar las ciencias sociales: geopolíticas del conocimiento y colonialidad del poder: perspectivas desde lo andino, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, 2002). Following Mignolo’s statement, one can argue that the dependency on concepts, theories, and modern Western thoughts has been the main problem when Latin American social scientists and politicians have tried to explain the political, economical, and historical experience of their region. The result has been that Latin American politics and economic development theories have developed under the shadow of concepts and interpretations coming from outside.

Although the Latin American Left (LAL) has historically taken an anti-imperialistic line against cultural, economic and political interventions, LAL’s different interpretative traditions reproduce the problem quoted above. If we pay attention to some leftist attempts to examine Latin America during the 20th century, it is clear that their analysis used foreign perspectives instead of local ones. This includes the adaptation of Marxism to the Latin American experience. Thus, in the 1930s Peruvians intellectuals José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930) and Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre (1895-1979) analyzed Latin American capitalism arguing that a local perspective was necessary if structural problems were going to change.

Drawing on Marx and Lenin, Mariátegui believed revolution to be the only route to social transformation. Haya de la Torre relied on a process of soft transformation controlled by the State. The main problem with those perspectives was their strong dependence on a theoretic framework that forced the Latin American experience to resemble the European and/or Russian experiences. Mariátegui even argued that Latin American indigenous people were waiting for their Lenin.

In the 1950s, social movements who fought against dictatorships became a bridge between the 19th century revolutionary traditions, liberal ideas, and new left claims. The rebels were able to merge Simón Bolívar’s and José Martí’s images with anti-imperialist ideas and the post-World War 1 revolutionary tradition. Most of those who dreamt of a change in Latin America were doing it within a liberal-democratic-nationalistic framework. This fight involved, for instance, giving power back to the people, confronting dictators often supported/imposed by the United States, reforming Constitutions to include social guaranties, enacting Labor Codes, creating a welfare state, and producing agrarian reform. These reforms were not communist per se. On the contrary, similar policies were taken in the USA and Europe during the 1930s and 1940s in an effort to combat the Great Depression. However, in Latin America things changed dramatically after 1959.

The Cuban Revolution and the spread of the revolutionary sentiment built the foundation for a new, critical social philosophy. This vision, known as the dependency theory (DT), tried to “seek a global and dynamic understanding of social structures instead of looking only at specific dimensions of the social process opposing the academic tradition which conceived analytically independent of one another, and together independent of the economy, as if each one of these dimensions corresponded to separate spheres of reality”. In that sense, dependency theory stressed “the socio-political nature of the economic relations of production, thus following the nineteenth-century tradition of treating economy as political economy.

This methodological approach, which found its highest expression in Marx, assumes that the hierarchy that exists in society is the result of established ways of organizing the production of material and spiritual life. This hierarchy also serves to assure the unequal appropriation of nature and of the results of human work by social classes and groups.” So, DT proponents attempted “to analyze domination in its connection with economic expansion” (F.H. Cardoso & E. Faletto, Dependency and Development in Latin America, University of California Press, 1979).

Finally, the DT proposed the total separation of the Third World countries from those powerful economies that had controlled them. The idea was to attain better economic conditions by creating a local path to progress. Therefore, although it appeared radical, this theory repeated the vision of time and progress created by Modernity.

Recently, many of the afore-mention ideas have returned to the Latin American political arena with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s program, “Socialism of the 21st century.” The real problem for this proposal is to overcome populism by consolidating a new political option different than Latin America has experienced. For this, it must solve the two historic problems for Latin America: poverty and social inequality. Yet Chavez’s attempt to concentrate power resembles that bitter experience of ‘Socialismo Realmente Existente’ for the 20th century world. On the other hand, political experiments of unification involving leftist parties carrying out neoliberal reforms, such as that of Chile, do not really guarantee the LAL a specific identity within the political system. If the Latin American Left does not learn anything from the history of the last century, poor people will be the ones to suffer.

Ramón Grosfoguel has pointed out that Latin American social scientists have not overcome the system of representations created by Modern Europe (R. Grosfoguel, “Developmentalism, Modenity, and Dependency Theory in Latin America,” Nepantla, 1:2, pp. 347-374). The leftist theories I have briefly summarized here integrate their interpretations into the totality and unity of Modernity and thereby limit their conception of Latin America to a foreign framework. I do not propose we separate Latin American studies from Modern theories of analysis. However, these theories have proved to be limited if we want to understand this region and its political culture.

For the LAL this seems to be pivotal. Therefore, imagining a different Latin America also means that the LAL must imagine itself differently from the past. Reenacting the past is not a good option if the LAL wants to play a key role in transforming Latin America in this century. If the LAL does not re-imagine itself, it will be doomed to disappear.

DAVID DÍAZ-ARIAS is a Professor of History at the University of Costa Rica. He can be reached at: ddiaz@fcs.ucr.ac.cr

 

 

 

More articles by:
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail