I agree that socialists in the first world often put down social struggles in countries like Chile in a way that seems arrogant and is unhelpful.

One way for outsiders to relate to developments in a country like Chile is to pick up on the discussion within the country itself. In Chile, there was a lively debate between the CP and the MIR. My article quoted from a student statement reflecting the MIR’s outlook, and the statement’s point about the need for united front action against the coup danger seems well taken..

With all due respect to the heroic stature of Allende, some of what he felt forced to say about his confidence in the Chilean military reads poorly today compared to the statements in Chile of Fidel Castro. It would be interesting to know what you think of the statements by Castro, a couple of which I quoted in my article.

The puritanical political math done then then is not dissimilar from the critiques I now see of the Latin American political processes and they smack of political immaturity in the best of cases. The popular secretary general of the CP of Chile during the Allende government, Luis Corvalan, used to warn the far left with an old saying “No se puede poner la carreta delante de los bueyes” or “You cannot put the cart ahead of the oxen” a “street” critique of the basic voluntarism of the far left.

(Incidentally soooo many of these ultra radicals became new born social democrats (or worse) about 30 seconds after the coup and then went on to criticize the CP in the 80’s for being too radical… these same people who in the 70’s gave in their incendiary calls to “avanzar sin transar” “advance without compromise” the far right such precious reasoning for their fascist coup).

Cheers!:)

1. I did indeed cite the SWP’s anti-Pinochet work, including through the USLA committee, and praised this as “vigorous participation” and “excellent initiatives.” I see no basis for your criticism here. What is at issue is something different: whether the SWP should have opposed U.S. involvement before the coup.

2. I did not take up the European Fourth International’s record, but I agree with you that it deserves praise. Moreover, before the coup, I believe the European comrades showed more tactical skill in seeking to engage with major left forces in Chile. Am I right, Charlie? This difference seems to me to reflect an inversion of the approaches found in the FI’s celebrated debate on guerrilla warfare strategy in Latin America.

3. You say that my text “reinforces the notion … that criticizing ‘other forces on the left’ … equals support for (or at least ‘softness on) imperialism.” You are misrepresenting my stated views here. I recommended a united-front policy toward defending the UP and specified that this did not imply political support and encompassed freedom of criticism. My article also states qualified agreement with the SWP’s criticism of the Allende government, which “identifies a very real problem with the Chilean UP.”

How can you read this as indicating an intolerance of criticism? Exactly what aspect of my text was it that sounded alarm bells for you?

My article is built around two central contentions: (1) During the Allende regime, socialists in the U.S. should have actively opposed Washington’s involvement in the drive toward a coup. (2) Socialists should have favoured a united front to defend the Allende regime against the coup danger. Since you do not mention these points, may I take it that we are in agreement here?

You are quite right that all this has implications for our attitude today regarding Bolivia and Venezuela. And you are right that some in the solidarity movement try to stifle free discussion of these experiences. We had a major battle on this issue in Toronto a couple of years back. But you and I agree on freedom of criticism, and my article explicitly supports that.

Major socialist groups in the U.S. have been strong, to say the least, in criticism of Morales and Chavez. My concern here is the same as with regard to the Allende experience. My questions are: Do we recognize that these governments reflect, in part, an anti-imperialist struggle, and should we actively defend them against imperialist-sponsored subversion?

Second, The European Fourth International groupings raised similar– and in some ways much more substantial– criticisms of the UP government in Chile AND did exemplary solidarity work with the Chilean resistance. The different reactions/orientation toward the struggle against the Pinochet regime reflected political differences on how to build a revolutionary left in Latin America within the FI at that time.

Politically, John’s claims reinforces the notion– that our shared historical political heritage has always rejected– that criticizing “other forces on the left” (Stalinist, reformist, left nationalist) equals support for (or at least “softness” on) imperialism. I believe such accusations were false in Spain in 1936-37 and in Bolivia and Venezuela today– and that they provide political cover for forces on the left who advocate strategies that lead to political and social disasters for working people.

As John Riddell observes, “During 1970–73, the SWP repeatedly criticized Castro for supporting Allende, in one case criticizing him for expressing “confidence … in the Popular Unity movement.”

The SWP’s hostility toward Salvador Allende, flowing from its characterization of the government of which he was the elected President as a capitalist popular front, meant that the primary emphasis of its analytical material on Chile was precisely its opposition.

After the Pinochet coup, the SWP did admirable work in solidarity with the victims, through the US Committee for Justice to Latin American Political Prisoners, it was, by then, too late to do much more than assist the survivors. The SWP’s (“our”, since, like John Riddell, I was also a member of the SWP at that time) main focus during the Allende presidency was its opposition to Allende.

The SWP today retains the same antagonism toward Hugo Chavez that it held toward Salvador Allende back in the day. Other Trotskyist groups, from Socialist Action to the Freedom Socialists to the Spartacists maintain the same posture, varying only in the level of their public expression of their hostility. That it why THE MILITANT has yet to report on the successful re-election of Hugo Chavez as President of Venezuela, which took place in November 2012. The SWP and others using the same kind of schematic approach, are similarly hostile toward the rest of the left nationalist and progressive governments in Latin America today.

Some people, evidently, never learn. Thanks to John Riddell for reminding readers of these lamentable realities.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/ssa/6/chile.html
(Popular Front Paved Way for Pinochet Terror)

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/970/chile.html
(The Chilean Miners and Pinochet’s Murderous Legacy)

http://spartacist.org/espanol/pdf/cuardenos_marxistas_3.pdf
(Chile – Lecciones del Frente popular)