[page 10]
Boys
Reviewed by Ed Bober
•THERE IS a good deal of similarity between the economic policies of Chile and those of Britain" said Cecil Parkinson, the late and unlamented Tory minister of Trade on a visit to Santiago in October 1980. The Chilean experience, he continued, "is very similar to what we are trying to develop now in Great Britain... we think that in two or three years, the new way of things will show its advantages. Unemployment will fall, the economy will grow and inflation will fall". This very revealing quote of the attitude of the British ruling class shows the importance for British workers of a study of the Pinochet Decade.
This short book, subtitled The rise and fall of the Chicago boys, contains plenty of facts and figures about the virtual laboratory experiment in monetarism which preceeded "Reaganism" and «Thatcherism" by almost half a decade. It is the catastrophic end of the monetarist road in Chile which makes this period so important to study, as an anticipation of the future which faces Britain and the USA.
Prices were freed of all controls whilst wages were frozen; naturally, profits rocketed. Profit taxes were eliminated while taxes were slapped on consumer goods, forcing up prices in a situation which was already desperate for the working class and the slum dwellers. Firms which had been nationalised under Popular Unity were given lavish handouts
as compensation. Great chunks of the
economy were privatised, incuding even
șocial security insurance schemes. State expenditure was savaged, so that, for ex-
ample, only the rich who could pay got
a secondary education.
Like Thatcher, the "Chicago Boys"
were optimistic that after a period of "tough medicine" the economy would begin to show signs of recovery. They stressed the need for "an iron will" to get the government through 'the inevitable period of public misunderstanding"
Milton Friedman himself, on a visit to Chile, declared: "Chile has two choices: a very high temporary level of unemployment, or a very long period of high unemployment."
But the end product, far from being a "leaner and more virile economy" • was absolute economic collapse and the total discrediting of the "Boys" from Chicago University. Officially, unemployment now stands at 24% and if you include those on Minimum Employment Programme, 28%. Inflation stood at 40% in 1978 and 35% in 1980. It fell to 9% in 1981, but in 1982 was up again to 21%. Infant mortality is 38 per 1000 live births, malnutrition is rife amongst the under tens. This book lists pages and pages of figures which chart the abyss into which the Chilean masses have been thrown by monetarism and counter-revolution.
"In the urban shanty towns of Santiago" , the authors point out, "unemployment has reached levels unheard of in Chilean history, in some cases 80% or more" ...In the rich districts of Santiago street corner after street corner was lined with girls selling their bodies to get food for themselves and their families."
Whole industries were wiped out and Chile's social security system broke down and the government refused to pay benefits to redundant workers. Children went to soup kitchens and took the bread home to give to their mother so that she could give it back to them for supper. Out of a population of 11½ million, 800,000 are officially homeless or inadequately housed. This is Chile today after the policies of monetarism have run into a dead end.
Now the regime has lost its "iron will" Its policies have become panic stricken. In January 1983, after all the ranting about privatisation, the government took over control of nine key banks and finance houses because of their insolven-
9
cy and inability private hands.
But after the reader has taken what facts and figures he can from it, we are left with a very unsatisfactory book. It shows no understanding of the class struggle; it deals with counter-revolution in a totally one-sided way, reducing the whole process to a description of the economic policies of the regime; and insofar as it puts forward any political conclusions it makes all the mistakes of support for class collaboration which led to the defeat of Popular Unity in the first place. It even implies that defeat was unavoidable!
We are given just a tantalising glimpse of the heroic counter-offensive of the Chilean workers and peasants: "Massive demonstrations...co-ordinated demonstrations in Santiago, Valparaiso and Concepcion... (December 1982).
66
...day of national protest; more than a thousand arrests...24 hour protest strike by copper workers... General strike... (June '83)"
It gives quite a lot of information about the increasing isolation of the regime from even those layers which formerly supported it: the representatives of big business, who fear a new revolutionary explosion; capitalist politicians such as the Christian Democrats who are falling over themselves to acquire "democratic credentials"; those sections of the middle class who originally hailed Pinochet as a saviour; and even the extreme rightwing parties which are now re-emerging, along with disgruntled sections of the military as an "opposition"
The book mentions, without much elaboration, the establishment of the "Democratic Manifesto" , "a cross section of Chile's old politians" ...calling for an end to the dictatorship. It uncritically points out that all three factions of the Socialist Party were involved in this.
The reader gets just a passing glance at the new generation of workers coming into struggle, many of whom were only children at the time of the coup. Describing the aftermath of one defeated strike at Madeco, for example, it quotes a strike leader: "Most of them are young people who have no experience of trade union struggles, of how unions have had to fight for their rights'"
But despite its inadequacies it must be said that this publication has filled a certain gap. Not much has yet been published on this period and until a more scientific work is available the reader in English will be able to get plenty of useful information from this book, but no inkling of the fundamental processes involved, and certainly no scientific analysis from the Marxist point of view
function
effectively
[page 11]
The Mexican Revolution Nov 1983 MIR Reviews 2 "THE HISTORY of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entry of the masses into the realm of sovereignty over their own destiny. " The Russian revolution of 1917 still stands as the single most important political achievement of this century. The struggle of the Bolsheviks, the working class and the peasant masses serves as an inspiration to workers throughout the world. History since then has been full of revolutionary moments but scant regard has been paid to those revolutions that took place before 1917. In their earlier writings, both Lenin and Trotsky studied the movements of the masses in different parts of the globe as part of their preparation for seizure of power in Russia.
The Mexican revolution of 1910 is full of similar lessons to those of 1917 in Russia. Adolfo Gilly, a one-time member of the Argentinian Socialist Party, has written a historical interpretation of the revolution which has now been produced in sixteen editions since it was first written during his incarceration in Lecumberri jail between 1966 and 1970.
Gilly's book provides a detailed explanation of the heroic struggles of the Mexican people to change their country from a backward capitalist society to that of a just and democratic socialist system. The Mexican revolution is rarely referred to apart from superficial references to the revolution of different peasant leaders, such as Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
However, individual the significance of these leaders flowed personal from their not characteristics but from their role as figures personifying and reflecting the aspirations of the peasant masses and the working class. The Mexican revolution has been referred to simply as a peasant war but it is clear from Gilly's account that "the first great movement heralded the revolution and gave expression to the national discontent that stemmed from the Reviewed by David Churchley proletariat rather than the peasantry..."
Mexico had achieved its independence from Spain after a mass revolutionary war. It soon faced the full effects of the developing strength of North American capitalism, through a series of wars of conquest and land seizures.
Struggles for power between the ruling conservative and liberal groups are peppered throughout the period of the 1840s through to 1876. These struggles followed the course that Marx himself had mapped out on the basis of the experience of the French revolution.
developed bourgeoisie relied upon mass support and plebeian methods to sweep away the institutions and out-moded structures which they had inherited from colonial times. But the reforms that were carried out simply concentrated the land in fewer hands than before. Land was seized by the Latifundists, church property and the Indian smallholdings were divided into individual plots and acquired at already low prices.
•This massive operation of plunder, which continued the practice begun in colonial times, was designed not only to form big agrarian properties, but also to create a supply of free day labourers owning nothing other than their labour power. In order to clear a path for itself, capitalism needed to liquidate the communal lands in Central Mexico and to rob the Yaqui and Mayo indians of their rich valleys... As with other countries facing similar plunder, the peasants did not give up their land without a fight. They resisted, organised revolts, suffered setbacks and massacres and returned to their lands, only to be driven back to the mountains. Unlike the classical period of what is called capital accumulation, the process in Mexico took place during the period of world-wide expansion of capitalism. In some ways it resembled the plunder of the North American indians, and in others the 10 THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION colonial wars conducted by the imperialist countries such as Britain, France and Italy. 'The colonial war (in Mexico) was waged by the Mexican land-owner bourgeois government in its own country and against its own people...
The internal wars of the ruling class called forth a constant stream of peasant revolts. Leaders aspiring to a utopian idea of socialism came onto the scene and radicalised large sections of the masses. The uprisings were mercilessly crushed as capitalism thrust itself forward "dripping from head to toe from every pore with blood and dirt". Its methods were violence, murder, robbery, plunder, trickery and constant bloodbaths. The land hunger of the masses, the original motor-force of the revolution, later combined with the revolt of the working class in a general movement in favour of change, similar to that force that propelled the French to storm the Bastille, but was concentrated in a shorter period in Mexico. The struggle for democratic rights thus developed hand in hand with the struggle for the overthrow of the capitalist regime. Another influence was making itself felt in the country, namely the expansive thrust of North American capitalism and its European counterparts. This found its expression in the massive extension of the railway networks, a vital factor in the transport of goods and wealth. In less than thirty years the rail network had increased by as many times. Between 1895 and 1910, the number of towns with I more than 20,000 people rose from
[page 12]
twenty to twenty-nine with more inhabitants employed in the developing industries. Industry expanded at a rapid rate bringing with it investment and foreign capital. Mexican capital kept itself to the traditional industries of food, coffee and cotton. With the strengthening of the capitalist economy came the develop. ment of the working class. The scene was set for a momentous struggle between the emerging classes of Mexican society. Not surprisingly, it was the railway workers who were first onto the scene. Changing peasants into workers, a fresh group, free from any trace of artisan mentality, the railway workers recorded over sixty strikes between 1876 and the revolution itself in 1910. Gilly, in a marvellous passage, explains the rise of the proletariat, its development and struggles with reference to the first chapter of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution.
One factor that affected the workers' movement was the influence of the ideas of syndicalism originating from North the American-based "International Workers of the World" movement. This was to affect the course of the revolution as it developed particularly in those moments which Gilly himself identifies as requiring an organised political force of the working class, similar to the Russian Bolsheviks. With three major rail strikes, and the copper miners on two occasions almost achieving a general strike, the Diaz government was crippled. Plans to replace the president were set afoot amongst sections of the "liberal" ruling class, and in particular those who were more interested in developing industry.
This move found its expression in the agreement to stand Francisco Madero, a member of a rich family of landowners and industrialists, against Porfirio Diaz. When Diaz proved to be less than willing to accommodate this idea, Madero found himself calling for free elections and, to his horror, heading a popular movement for all sorts of reforms. He got a partial respite from the pressure of the masses when he was imprisoned but was soon released to i find himself at the head of an army. Madero's activities were not the decisive factor in the uprisings that followed. The peasant forces rose and entered the area of struggle. In Morelos State Zapata's peasant column was already on the move and it was this region which was to see the establishment of a commune during the revolution. Zapata's forces maintained an independent position throughout the wars, not siding with the "liberal" elements of the ruling class. In the North, Villa's forces originally stood with the bourgeois revolutionary leadership but swung to the side of the workers and the peasants at a later stage, when the liberal elements attempted to derail the revolution for their own gain. These two movements against Madero when he achieved power and called for the disarming of the peasants and the giving back of land to the big landowners. These leaders themselves were heading a movement which was to achieve almost complete power but lacked any perspective whatsoever of power and democracy.
They maintained a peasant outlook even to the point where they continued urban-guerilla-type attacks on the bosses to get money and essential supplies when they were actually living in the presidential palace and controlling the reins of power. ...Zapata did not consciously set out to destroy the capitalist system: his ideas sprang from the peasantry and not from a socialist, working class programme. The methods were revolutionary and the mass initiative posed a revolutionary challenge to capitalist power..."
With a shattering clarity Gilly goes on to explain, ...but the peasantry could not rise to a nationwide social perspective nor offer a revolutionary solution for the insurgent nation. A national revolutionary perspective, counterposed to the goals of the bourgeoisie, could only have come from the other basic class in society; the proletariat. Yet the proletariat lacked an independent leadership, party and class organisation. American imperialism stood and watched with horror as the revolution unfolded, first in this and then that direction.
The horror of seeing Zapata billeted in Mexico City in 1914 was almost too much for them, but upon receiving reports from their spies in the country the Americans 11 were cautioned against taking excessive direct action. To defend their interests they tried to split the revolutionary movement and curried favour with one leader, Carranza, who did indeed offer them a solution. The split in the ranks of the movement saw the ebb in the flow of the wave of revolution. A general strike by the workers in 1916 was brutally suppressed, and the history of the revolution following that event was one of defeat for the peasant armies and reforms imposed from the top in an at compromising the workers' movement.
Despite the defeats, the workers returned again and again to their class organisations. The pressure of the masses was still evident and, despite the defeats, was strong enough to obtain wage increases and social reforms. These strikes were inspired by the successes of the Russian proletariat. A further coup overthrowing the Carranza regime highlighted the continuing instability of the country. In 1919 Zapata was murdered and the regime achieved some stability in 1920 but only through the device of a republican constitution that apparently enshrined the interests of all classes, but in reality maintained the rule of the The revolution of 1910 put all the ideas of the past to the test. All the traditions and forms of workers' and peasants' defence were sorely tested in this period. Gilly makes the point that since capitalism in Mexico could only provide a bonapartist form of government, supposedly independent but in reality defending the dominant class' interests, the chances of consolidating democracy within the confines of capitalism would be unrealistic. The question of socialism was placed on the agenda by the tenacious struggle of Zapata's liberation army and the actions of the Morelos peasantry in establishing their commune, right in the middle of the bourgeois revolution. The present-day struggles of the Mexican working class, which has now acquired a dominant weight within society, are the worthy continuation of the heroic revolutionary battles fought out on Mexican soil over sixty years ago, and excellently explained in this book.
[page 13]