Today’s Left in Power

Latin America’s Radical Left is at once challenging, complicated, fascinating, and useful to any Latin Americanist interested in today’s (and tomorrow’s) events. It centers on the radical left movements that have come to power in the past decade or so in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It also takes a brief look at earlier movements in Cuba and Central America. The book’s 12 short, concise, tightly packed chapters, introduced by Steve Ellner, are divided into four parts. After three selections centering on theory, history, and some international aspects, a second part discusses the three countries named above. The following section treats recent trends in El Salvador and Nicaragua and then Cuba. The final chapters present case examples of newly formed social production companies in Venezuela, social movements in the area, and U.S. press reactions. A summary/conclusion written by the editor caps the book. All the articles are scholarly (some overly so) and include both notes and bibliography.

One of the work’s strengths is that the articles are coordinated and often refer one to another (e.g., “for more information on this see . . . “). Much of the material is framed around a critical reaction to the “good left”–“bad left” thesis championed by Jorge Castañeda among others. Collectively the authors argue that this thesis is not only ideologically flawed but simplistic, ignoring reality and obscuring the complex multilayered processes actually occurring within today’s radical left. The selection covering the U.S. press documents how mainstream publications (e.g., the New York Times) have uncritically accepted the “good-bad” formulation. Central, of course, to this line of reasoning is each movement’s position with regard to U.S. imperialism and capitalism.

A short review cannot do justice to all the arguments, so an attempt at summary must suffice. As stated clearly in the conclusion (271), the work’s basic thesis is that the new movements are quantitatively and qualitatively uniquely Latin American, unlike any previous twentieth-century leftist movements but in debt to these movements in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are at odds with old leftist thinking, i.e. they reject the centrality of the industrial working class and thus of trade unions, seeing equal weight for marginalized sectors. They are complex, multifaceted, and eclectic. Rather than looking to old icons such as Lenin, they champion historical figures who fought for the continent’s liberation from foreign control—Simón Bolívar, Jose Martí, and José Carlos Mariátegui. (Liberation theology also influenced them.) The movements propose a “Latin American” way toward socialism. On a more specific plane, they support uniquely Latin American organizations such as the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América, Mercosur, and others, which often include countries outside the radical left group but propose Latin American solutions. This results in radical regimes’ supporting mainline positions in the name of unity, something that contributes to confusion about ideological consistency.

One of the sharpest breaks with earlier movements occurs around how to make the revolution. Twenty-first-century regimes have come to power through electoral triumphs rather than armed struggle as in twentieth-century El Salvador or Cuba. Rather than smash the capitalist state, they have chosen to undermine it. The building of mass social movements is one key, as is their integration into the political, institutional and cultural life of the nation. How to reconcile divergences within these new social movements, and build support among the traditional working class (e.g., unions) as well as the middle sectors is a key challenge that the radical left faces. While many agree on the need to evolve away from the neoliberal states erected in the past decades, how to do this, at what pace, and who benefits immediately are points of contention.

Despite difficulties, contradictions, and problems, radical left governments have managed to stay in power over time. They have won numerous elections (sometimes overwhelmingly) and survived coups and opposition maneuvers such as general strikes. Can they stay in power, and, if so, for how long? Three problems lie ahead: (1) They face strong enemies both internally and externally. The slow takeover of the state leaves important segments still in the hands of the opposition, and a gradual nationalization process means that capitalist structures remain intact. Further, despite its waning influence among the general population, the United States remains firmly opposed to these governments. It continues to donate millions of dollars to opposition movements under the guise of supporting democracy (Ch. 11). (2) Perhaps as problematic, there is a lack of agreement and unity within the radical left movements themselves. Sharp contention exists on everything from tactics to the allocation of state revenues. The money pouring in from the hydrocarbon boom that has financed these governments has mainly gone to social programs (and produced positive results in areas such as reduction of poverty levels, land distribution, education, cooperatives, and growth of popular organizations). Economic development remains relatively neglected. Once commodity booms end or taper off, problems loom. (3) Astute and active leadership has proven crucial in keeping these movements together. Chávez played a key role in Venezuela (the jury is still out on Maduro, but so far he looks solid), Morales does the same in Bolivia, and Correa is equally important in Ecuador. New leaders must emerge who can perform the vital balancing act needed to keep things rolling.

Who should read this book? Importantly, it is not a history of radical movements or governments. Lots of gaps exist. The more one knows about the area under consideration, the more value one can derive from the text. As in all works about Latin America, a virtual alphabet soup dots its pages although the authors/editors have done a good job in explaining the terms. On the whole, the work lays out the often complicated basics of the twenty-first-century radical left, asks the right (left) questions, and openly admits that many issues remain unresolved for both the immediate and long-term future.