Nicaragua 25 years later
Source Louis Proyect
Date 04/07/26/23:57

Twenty five years ago, the FSLN seized power in Nicaragua. Although it
is difficult to see this abjectly miserable country in these terms
today, back then it fueled the hopes of radicals worldwide that a new
upsurge in world revolution was imminent. Along with Grenada, El
Salvador and Guatemala, where rebel movements had already seized power
or seemed on the verge of taking power, Nicaragua had the kind of allure
that Moscow had in the 1920s.

So what happened?

While nobody would gainsay the political collapse of the FSLN after its
ouster and troubling signs just before that point, it is worth looking a
bit deeper into its rise and fall. There are strong grounds to seeing
its defeat not so much in terms of its lacking revolutionary fiber, but
being outgunned by far superior forces. With all proportions guarded, a
case might be made that Sandinista Nicaragua had more in common with the
Paris Commune than the Spanish Popular Front, which was doomed to
failure by the class collaborationist policies of the ruling parties.

You can get a succinct presentation of this analysis from Lee Sustar, an
ISO leader who contributed an article to Counterpunch titled "25 Years
on: Revolution in Nicaragua." He states:

"While the U.S. and its contra butchers are to blame for the destruction
of the Nicaraguan economy, the contradiction at the heart of the FSLN?s
politics was instrumental in its downfall. FSLN leaders couldn?t escape
the centrality of class divisions in the 'revolutionary alliance'--the
fact that workers and 'nationalist' employers had contradictory interests.

"The conditions of workers had deteriorated throughout the 1980s as
runaway inflation wiped out wage gains. Workers participated in
Sandinista unions and mass organizations--but they didn?t hold political
power, and their right to strike was suspended for a year as early as
1981. This allowed the opportunistic Nicaraguan Socialist Party--a
longtime rival of the FSLN--to give a left-wing cover to Chamorro?s
coalition, which in turn functioned as the respectable face of the contras."

With respect to the failure of the FSLN to align itself with workers
(and peasants, a significant omission in Sustar's indictment),
Washington seemed worried all along that bourgeois class interests were
being neglected and that Nicaragua was in danger of becoming "another
Cuba." Of course, since Cuba never really overthrew capitalism according
to the ISO's ideological schema, this might seem like a moot point. In
any case, it is often more useful to pay attention to the class analysis
of the State Department and the NY Times than it does to small Marxist
groups. If the ruling class is worried that capitalism is being
threatened in a place like Nicaragua, they generally know what they are
talking about.

Virtually all the self-proclaimed "Marxist-Leninist" formations, from
the Spartacist League to more influential groups like the ISO, believe
that the revolution collapsed because it was not radical enough. If the
big farms had been expropriated, it is assumed that the revolution would
have been strengthened. While individual peasant families might have
benefited from a land award in such instances, the nation as a whole
would have suffered from diminished foreign revenues. After all, it was
cotton, cattle and coffee that was being produced on such farms, not
corn and beans. When you export cotton on the world market, you receive
payments that can be used to purchase manufactured goods, medicine and
arms. There is not such a market for corn and beans unfortunately. Even
if the big farms had continued to produce for the agro-export market
under state ownership, they would have been hampered by the flight of
skilled personnel who would have fled to Miami with the owners. Such
skills cannot be replicated overnight, especially in a country that had
suffered from generations of inadequate schooling.

While all leftwing groups that operate on the premise that they are
continuing with the legacy of Lenin, virtually none of them seem
comfortable with the implications of Lenin's writings on the NEP, which
are crucial for countries like Nicaragua in the 1980s or Cuba today, for
that matter. In his speech to the Eleventh Congress of the Communist
Party in 1922, Lenin made the following observations:

"The capitalist was able to supply things. He did it inefficiently,
charged exorbitant prices, insulted and robbed us. The ordinary workers
and peasants, who do not argue about communism because they do not know
what it is, are well aware of this.

"'But the capitalists were, after all, able to supply things?are you?
You are not able to do it.' That is what we heard last spring; though
not always clearly audible, it was the undertone of the whole of last
spring?s crisis. ?As people you are splendid, but you cannot cope with
the economic task you have undertaken.? This is the simple and withering
criticism which the peasantry?and through the peasantry, some sections
of workers?levelled at the Communist Party last year. That is why in the
NEP question, this old point acquires such significance.

"We need a real test. The capitalists are operating along side us. They
are operating like robbers; they make profit; but they know how to do
things. But you?you are trying to do it in a new way: you make no
profit, your principles are communist, your ideals are splendid; they
are written out so beautifully that you seem to be saints, that you
should go to heaven while you are still alive. But can you get things done?"

If the Bolsheviks required a return to some elements of capitalism in
1922 in order to "help get things done," why would anybody expect the
FSLN to do otherwise? In 1922, the Bolsheviks ruled over a country that
had wiped out their own contras decisively and secured its borders. By
comparison, Nicaragua was like a sieve with armed terrorists backed by
the USA infiltrating freely from North and South. The Soviet Union was
also a major economic power, despite being ravaged by war. With an
immense population and an abundance of coal and iron ore, it had the
ability to produce its own heavy capital goods. Nicaragua, by
comparison, had a population about the size of the borough of Brooklyn
and no industry to speak of.

Despite all these relative advantages, the Bolshevik leaders feared for
the survival of the Soviet Union unless it received help from victorious
socialist revolutions in the more advanced European countries. In
"Results and Prospects," Trotsky wrote:

"But how far can the socialist policy of the working class be applied in
the economic conditions of Russia? We can say one thing with
certainty--that it will come up against obstacles much sooner than it
will stumble over the technical backwardness of the country. Without the
direct State support of the European proletariat the working class of
Russia cannot remain in power and convert its temporary domination into
a lasting socialistic dictatorship."

With a GDP equal to the size of what US citizens spend on blue jeans
each year, how would Nicaragua have managed to forestall the fate that
Trotsky predicted for the USSR? Indeed, whatever the faults of Stalinist
Russia, it could always be relied on after a fashion to provide material
aid for postcapitalist countries like Cuba or Vietnam that were under
siege. It was Nicaragua's misfortune to have come into existence at the
very time that such protections could no longer be guaranteed, even when
doled out like from an eyedropper.

In October 1988, Soviet Foreign Ministry official Andrei Kozyrev wrote
that the USSR no longer had any reason to be in "a state of class
confrontation with the United States or any other country," and, with
respect to the Third World, "the myth that the class interests of
socialist and developing countries coincide in resisting imperialism
does not hold up to criticism at all, first of all because the majority
of developing countries already adhere or tend toward the Western model
of development, and second, because they suffer not so much from
capitalism as from lack of it." It is safe to assume that high-level
Soviet officials must have been talking up these reactionary ideas to
the Sandinista leadership long before Kozyrev's article appeared.

These new ideas benefited US foreign policy needs in a dramatic way. In
early 1989, a high-level meeting took place between Undersecretary of
State Elliot Abrams and his Soviet counterpart, Yuri Pavlov. Abrams made
the case that relations between the US and the USSR would improve if the
Nicaragua problem somehow disappeared. Pavlov was noncommital but gave
Abrams a copy of Kozyrev's article. This telling gesture convinced the
Reagan administration that the USSR would now be willing to sell out

This meeting is described in Robert Kagan's "A Twilight Struggle:
American Power and Nicaragua 1977-1990." Kagan was a member of the State
Department's Policy Planning Staff in the Reagan years and helped to
draft key foreign policy statements, including the document that
contained what has become know as the "Reagan Doctrine". More recently,
Kagan has gained attention as part of the gaggle of neoconservatives
pushing for war against Iraq last year. His "Of Paradise and Power:
America and Europe in the New World Order" basically provided an
ideological justification for US unilateralism since the Europeans were
seen as epicene appeasers of Evil. Since the reversals in Iraq over the
past year or so, Kagan has maintained a lower profile.

Despite the expectations of the ordinary Nicaraguan who voted for the
removal of Daniel Ortega, the country was not the beneficiary of US
largesse. With the removal of the Soviet Union as a countervailing
hegemon, it was no longer necessary to bribe restive populations.
Instead of a Marshall Plan, the best that could be hoped for were a few

In a newly established free trade zone, a textile factory owned by
Chentex set up shop. In 2000, a delegation from the United States
discovered women who were working 60 hours a week. One woman who was
married to another maquiladora employee suffered from conditions that
were far worse than those endured under FSLN rule. The December 3, 2000
NY Times quoted one delegation member: "The couple had a 3-year-old
daughter with discolored tips of her hair, probably from a protein
deficiency. These are people who work 60, 70 hours a week, and their
standard of living is just abysmal." When these workers tried to
organize themselves into a union, the bosses attempted to fire them all.
Contrary to Lee Sustar, you can be assured that these working people
knew the difference between the FSLN's attitude toward working people
and the neoliberal gang in charge right now. The FSLN acted as it did
because it had no alternative; the US backed government and its maquila
bourgeoisie act as it does because it is sees workers as mules to
generate superprofits.

Despite the best efforts of the FSLN to make itself acceptable to US
imperialism, its hallowed past still condemns it. When Daniel Ortega ran
for president of Nicaragua in 2001 on a tepid social democratic program,
Jeb Bush wrote an attack in the Miami Herald. Ortega supposedly "neither
understands nor embraces the basic concepts of freedom, democracy and
free enterprise". He added: "Daniel Ortega is an enemy of everything the
United States represents. Further, he is a friend of our enemies. Ortega
has a relationship of more than 30 years with states and individuals who
shelter and condone international terrorism." The article was
immediately reprinted in La Prensa under the headline "The brother of
the president of the United States supports Enrique Bolanos" by Ortega's
rivals in the Liberal party. Both the Liberal Party and La Prensa
enjoyed CIA funding in the 1980s. One presumes that this is still the case.

If the nightmare of maquiladoras and declining economic expectations is
to be reversed, it will come as a result of more favorable objective
circumstances in Latin America and Central America generally. With the
rise of Hugo Chavez and the continuing resilience of the Colombian
guerrillas, that day may be coming sooner rather than later.

[View the list]

InternetBoard v1.0
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho