Showing posts with label Nicaragua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nicaragua. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Black monday

 


So the United States voted "no" to a pro-Ukrainian resolution at the UN General Assembly. Other nations voting "no" included Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua and Hungary. But also Israel - probably because Netanyahu doesn´t want to anger Trump in case the war against Hamas flares up again (which it most certainly will). 

Later, the UN Security Council adopted a "neutral" resolution on the Ukrainian war introduced by the United States. My understanding is that France and the UK (which have veto powers) simply abstained from voting, rather than pick an *actual* fight with the Trump administration. This is obviously significant, since the Security Council is the where the real decisions are made (as far as the UN is concerned). 

It seems the *really* real decisions will be made during talks between Trump and Putin god knows where...    

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

The Nagas of Brazil

Credit: Dick Culbert 

I´ve heard of the Pachamama, but never the Sachamama. Any connection? Note the claims that this is an actual unknown animal! Rather than, say, a very angry nature spirit come to life...

Sachamama

Minhocao

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

Son-of-a-bitch of Yankee Imperialism?

Hugo Torres 

I don´t claim to know exactly what´s going on in Nica at the moment, but here is an article criticizing Daniel Ortega, published in Green Left, the de facto publication of the Socialist Alliance in Australia (the former SWP and DSP). The article is written "in a personal capacity". At least during the 1980´s, this political current strongly supported the Sandinistas. 

Nicaragua: Obituary for a "son-of-a-bitch of Yankee Imperialism"

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Still on the Managua trail


Not sure what to make of this, but will link anyway. The far left site Grayzone claims that the recent Nicaraguan elections weren´t as undemocratic as reported in the main stream media. The incumbent president Daniel Ortega of the left-wing Sandinista Front was re-elected in a virtual landslide. Note the article´s attacks on Chile and Peru! 

Debunking myths about the Nicaraguan elections

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Något om Nicaragua



Intressant artikel om Nicaragua, översatt av Flamman från franska La Monde Diplomatique. Ortega vann mycket riktigt presidentvalet som nämns i artikeln. Observera att sandinisterna trots kompromisserna med högern och kyrkan faktiskt verkar bedriva ett slags vänsterpolitik.  

Ortega går till omval utan motstånd

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Uniquely on the left



“The Indian-Sandinista War in Nicaragua” by Yolanda Alaniz is a pamphlet published in 1986 by the Freedom Socialist Party in Seattle, United States. The FSP is a Trotskyist-feminist party and apparently still exists. I have previously reviewed a relatively interesting pamphlet they published against Lyndon LaRouche, the recently deceased leader of the NCLC political cult.

The FSP supported the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua against the brutal rule of the US-backed dictator Somoza. As good Trotskyists, they also had a tendency to criticize the Sandinista front (the FSLN), the dominant force in the revolution, “from the left”. Somewhat curiously, they also criticized the FSLN “from the right” (according to the definitions of the time) on the issue of Sandinista-Native relations.

The Atlantic Coast regions of western Nicaragua are very different from the eastern parts of the same country (where the capital Managua is situated). During the colonial period, western Nicaragua (then known as the Mosquito Coast) was de facto a British colony, while eastern Nicaragua was Spanish. The western regions weren´t really incorporated into Nicaragua until decades after independence. Culturally, they are still far apart. The Natives (“Indians”) of the Atlantic Coast speak their own languages or Creole English rather than Spanish, many are Protestants, and racially they are heavily mixed with Blacks. The main Native group is known as Miskito or Miskito Indians. They live in the northwest, relatively close to the border with Honduras.

Like almost everyone else at the time, the Miskitos participated in the revolution against the Somoza dictatorship. Despite this, the new Sandinista government, dominated by Spanish-speakers from eastern Nicaragua, was insensitive to Miskito demands for land rights and political autonomy. The FSP claims that the FSLN unceremoniously arrested the Miskito leaders when they presented their demands in Managua. Some traditional Native land was grabbed and opened to logging. After a stand-off in a local church, where several Miskitos were killed, the Miskitos turned against the FSLN government, arms in hand. The Sandinista army responded by forced relocations of thousands of Miskitos away from the war zone. The FSP tries to play down the fact that the Miskito organization MISURATA actually joined the US-backed Contras, who were fighting to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government from bases in Honduras. Many Miskitos fled Nicaragua for refugee camps in that country. It wasn´t until 1987, one year after FSP published this pamphlet, that the FSLN finally changed course and agreed to grant autonomy to the Natives and Creoles of the Atlantic region.

The Miskito-Sandinista conflict must have been an acute embarrassment for leftists and radical liberals in the United States, who supported the Sandinistas and demanded an end of US funding for the Contras. The FSP´s pamphlet contains a speech given by party spokesperson Yolanda Alaniz at a discussion forum at which the other speaker, ironically from the American Indian Movement, condemned the Miskitos as lackeys of American imperialism. Alaniz, correctly in my opinion, demands that the leftist government in Managua grants autonomy to the Miskitos and other ethnic groups in western Nicaragua. To Alaniz, this is a way to strengthen the revolution and (hopefully) win back the Miskitos to the side of the revolution. I suppose Alaniz and the FSP were vindicated, in a sense, when the FSLN really did grant the western regions autonomy one year later.

Otherwise, I have to say that the pamphlet is written in a super-dogmatic Leninist-Trotskyist style which today seems almost comic. Thus, the FSP spokeswoman spends considerable time trying to prove that the Miskito Indians are a “nation” and hence have the right to national self-determination. This implies, if taken at face value, that only ethnic groups which are “nations” according to Marxist definition have such a right (presumably, the Bolshevik definition as exposited by Stalin in “Marxism and the National Question” in 1913 – the irony of Trotskyists studying Stalin is brutal). The problem with this, of course, is that the Miskitos are *not* a nation according to Stalin´s definition (yes, I know, I know, the work was approved by Lenin and the Central Committee, it was written when Stalin was still a “revolutionary”, blah blah). Stalin explicitly says that nations are products of capitalism, yet Alaniz states that the Miskitos are pre-capitalist. She also admits that the Miskitos had British support during the colonial period. Thus, the Miskitos are closer to what Marx dubbed “a reactionary people” or a “people without history” than to a nation in the Marxist-Leninist sense. Marx wouldn´t have supported Miskito autonomy! I admit that Lenin, who launched the so-called korenizatsiia policy in Soviet Russia, might have…

The FSP also makes another curious error in the pamphlet, now in the opposite direction. They claim that the right of national self-determination is absolute. This, of course, has never been the position of any Marxist, for whom national self-determination is simply an expedient demand, to put forward or reject as the exigencies of the “class struggle” allows. Soviet Russia granted independence to Finland, while trying to invade Poland and Georgia! I think the FSP took up the cause of the Miskitos due to their strong emphasis on “special oppression” and “specially oppressed groups”. As self-conscious socialist feminists, women were seen as the most important such sector, but others included Blacks, Chicanos and Native Americans. It was probably difficult for the FSP not to support the Miskitos (at least morally and politically), although it probably gave them a bad reputation in broad leftist circles as some kind of Contra dupes. Likewise, it was probably difficult for a Trotskyist group not to sperge Trotskyese in a pamphlet on current events…

That being said, I nevertheless found “The Indian-Sandinista War in Nicaragua” relatively interesting, and therefore give it three stars.

Among Contras and Zambos




“Nicaragua Was Our Home” is an interesting documentary, or rather propaganda piece, about the Contra War against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua during the 1980´s. The piece is pro-Contra and depicts the Sandinistas as marauding genocidal butchers and anti-Christians. The film maker, Lee Shapiro, was later killed in Afghanistan during another daring attempt to tape an anti-Communist documentary. It´s not clear whether he was killed by the Soviets or simply mugged and murdered by the Muslim fundamentalists he had accompanied into Soviet-occupied territory. Shapiro was a “Moonie”, a member of the South Korea-based Unification Church, which is strongly anti-Communist. The Moonies claim to be Christians, but critics regard them as a cult. Note the irony of a “Christian” group supporting the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan…

Shapiro´s film about Nicaragua is taped in western Nicaragua, inhabited by the Miskitos and several other Native (“Indian”) groups, as well as by Creoles. The Miskitos supported the 1979 revolution against the hated US-backed dictator Somoza, but soon had a fall out with the Sandinistas (the FSLN), the dominant force in the anti-Somocista movement. The Sandinistas, dominated by Spanish-speakers from eastern Nicaragua, refused to recognize the Miskito demands for self-government and Native land rights in the western part of the country. By 1981, the political conflict had turned violent, many Miskitos taking up arms and siding with the US-backed Contras, who wanted to overthrow the FSLN government. The Sandinista army responded by forced deportations of thousands of Miskitos from the war zone, ostensibly to “protect” them but in reality to undercut civilian support of the Contra forces. Many Miskitos fled the country, ending up in refugee camps in Honduras (where the Contras had their bases). In 1987, the FSLN did grant autonomy to the Natives and Creoles of western Nicaragua, but by then it was probably too late to turn the tide. In 1990, the Sandinistas were voted out of power (they are back again today). The two autonomous regions still exist, however.

For obvious reasons, I can´t judge the concrete charges made by Shapiro in “Nicaragua Was Our Home”. He claims that the crimes of the Sandinista army include the deliberate burning of churches, the bombing of entire villages, sheer plunder, and so on. What makes the documentary interesting is that it also shows Miskito culture. Many of the Miskitos are clearly mixed race (Black-Native) and speak Creole English alongside their native language. Indeed, many look more Black than Indian. Spanish is only spoken by the Miskito leaders who were educated at Managua or in Cuba. They are apparently defectors from the FSLN. The culture of the Miskitos is heavily centered on Christianity, with the Moravian Brethren (of all groups!) being the main denomination. Others are Catholic, and some of the people interviewed are foreign Catholic missionaries active in the area. The entire area looks isolated and frankly primitive. Fishing for subsistence seems to be the main economic activity. The documentary also features the Contras, and even shows a battle between Contra forces and Sandinistas, with Shapiro trying to tape the action at a decidedly unsafe distance.

If you can stomach the propaganda aspects of this production, I actually recommend it as a kind of political-ethnographic study…

Sunday, September 2, 2018

The rise and fall of a "workers' and farmers' government"


Credit: Osopolar




"The Rise and Fall of the Nicaraguan Revolution" is an issue of the Marxist magazine "New International", published in 1994. It contains articles and resolutions by the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) analyzing the victory, subsequent course and eventual fall of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. For most of the 1980's, the SWP were known as staunch defenders of the Sandinistas (the FSLN). However, they began criticizing the FSLN around 1989, arguing that the Sandinista front had become too moderate and accommodating to capitalism. While calling for a FSLN vote in the 1990 election, the SWP had given up hope for socialist change in Nicaragua, instead emphasizing Fidel Castro's Cuba.

As far as I know, the SWP analysis of Nicaragua is unique, at least among organizations with their origins in Trotskyism. The Fourth International seems to have continued supporting the Sandinistas even after their electoral defeat in 1990, while the more dogmatic Trotskyists (such as the notorious Simon Bolivar Brigade) had opposed the Sandinistas "from the left" ever since the revolution in 1979, arguing that the FSLN compromised too much with the liberal and conservative groups in Nicaragua. By contrast, the SWP strongly supported the Sandinista leadership, including the signing of the Esquipulas II agreement in 1987 (seen as a "sell out to imperialism" by the harder Trotskyists), becoming sharply critical only in 1989-90. I admit that I was surprised, due to the strongly pro-Sandinista flavour of this particular current! After all, the SWP had always condemned as "ultraleft" and "sectarian" those who refused to support the FSLN, and now they had (seemingly) ended up in the same camp themselves!

In retrospect, I think the SWP's position was logical. As already mentioned, they expected the Sandinista Front to lead a Cuban-style transformation of Nicaraguan society, if not immediately, then at least after a transitional period of nominal co-government or co-existence with liberals and moderates. That's how Castro did it in Cuba, after all. (A nefarious critic could call it "salami tactics"!) When it became clear that the FSLN wouldn't deliver, the SWP couldn't contain their disaffection. Indeed, the SWP seems to have been just as dogmatic as the orthodox Trotskyists, but in a very different political direction. Around the time "The Rise and Fall of the Nicaraguan Revolution" was published, they had actually began to promote North Korea (!) as an alternative alongside Cuba.

The main theoretical concept used by the SWP in analyzing the Nicaraguan revolution is "the workers' and farmers' government", a transitional, anti-capitalist government that is neither capitalist nor yet fully socialist. By its very nature, this transitional regime can move both backwards and forwards. In Cuba, it moved "forwards" and eventually turned the country into a "workers' state", i.e. abolished capitalism completely in favour of a planned economy, etc. This happened when Castro removed the liberal elements, and officially declared his regime Marxist-Leninist. In Algeria, the transitional regime of Ben Bella went "backwards" and was eventually overthrown by Boumedienne, whom the SWP regards as "capitalist". In Grenada, a similar transitional regime headed by Maurice Bishop was overthrown by Bernard Coard (a "Stalinist" in SWP's terminology), with Coard in his turn being overthrown by U.S. troops invading the island. In Nicaragua, the FSLN-dominated regime was a "workers' and farmers' government" suffering a peaceful electoral defeat in 1990. This issue of "New International" doesn't contain a closer theoretical analysis of the concept, but I think it's obvious that "the workers' and farmers' government" is a pretty elastic category. For instance, why wasn't Coard's coup against Bishop a step forwards, towards a "workers' state"? Coard was a more dogmatic Marxist than Bishop, and might very well have abolished capitalism on Grenada! Why doesn't the SWP define present-day Venezuela as a "workers' and farmers' government"? Why is North Korea - which has the strictest planned economy in the world - still a "workers' and farmers' government"? What on earth is the North Korean regime transitioning towards?

Still, SWP's theories saved them from the embarrassment suffered by the Fourth International, which had declared Sandinista Nicaragua to be an actual "workers' state" (like Lenin's Soviet Russia!), only to see this workers' state be peacefully abolished by an electoral defeat in 1990.

With that, I close this admittedly somewhat "esoteric" review.

Sandino Vive



A review of "The Education of a Radical: An American Revolutionary in Sandinista Nicaragua"

I haven't read this book. I probably never will. However, I did read the sample pages. The author is a disaffected Communist or Marxist who supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, but ended up demoralized, etc, etc. The usual stuff.

However, what captured my attention was his mocking attack on Sandino, the revolutionary nationalist who fought the U.S. Marines in the 1930's. Apparently, Sandino was a "political oddball", a "mystic, a visionary, a hearer of voices, a believer in reincarnation". Sandino was the official representative in Nicaragua of the Magnetic-Spiritualist School of the Universal Commune, which blended Zoroastrianism, Kabbalah and Spiritism with the politics of communism and anarchism. The result was a "spiritism of Light and Truth", which would usher in a new and final dispensation of human history. Sandino's rebel army used a symbol showing a pyramid, the Star of David and an anchor surrounded by a sunburst.

This is supposed to be criticism?! Sounds like my kind of guy!

I knew that Sandino was politically closer to anarchism than to Marxism, but this was the first time I heard that he was also an occultist. In my younger days, the local "anarchists" (libertarian socialists) used to annoy the local Marxists by pointing out that Nicaragua's revolutionary hero was really an anarchist. Clearly, they didn't know half of it!

Now we do.

Am I being flippant, you probably wonder? Maybe. And then, maybe not...

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Sandinistas speak, but only for so long






I experienced the Sandinista revolution.

Well, almost. The FSLN took power in Nicaragua in July 1979. In December 1979, I was a passanger onboard a commercial Spanish airliner which temporarily stopped at Managua, the capital of Nicaragua. Due to the "security situation" we weren't allowed to leave the plane. A couple of hours later, we resumed our flight, leaving Nicaraguan airspace. The "security situation", of course, was the Sandinista revolution!

:D

"Sandinistas Speak" is a book published by Pathfinder, the publishing arm of the ex-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. It's a thin volume, a pamphlet more than a book. Also, the contents are pretty thin. It only contains two interesting documents, "The Historical Program of the FSLN" and an article by FSLN founder Carlos Fonseca called "Nicaragua - Zero Hour".

Otherwise, it's a rather motley collection of speeches, articles and interviews with various Sandinista leaders. One article affirms freedom of religion and states that revolutionary Christians might become members of the FSLN. Another is a speech by FSLN leader Daniel Ortega at a meeting in Cuba, outlining the foreign policy of the new Nicaraguan government. There is also an extensive interview with Humberto Ortega by the Cuban-Chilean reporter Marta Harnecker.

Yet another text is a transcript of a presentation by Tomás Borge, forthrightly dealing with some of the problems besetting the Sandinistas immediately after the revolution, including looting and revenge killings. As a sidepoint, Borge tells a weird anecdote about his imprisonment by Somoza's dictatorship. The prison guards were obviously dull: they allowed Borge to read Karl Marx's book "Capital", believing it to be a capitalist book, while prohibiting him from reading a New Age book on "psychic energy", fearing that this might help him escape!

What a pity you can't make a revolution with the help of psychic energy. It would solve a lot of problems...

Still, I was dissatisfied with this book overall. "Sandinistas Speak" may have worked as inspirational literature for political activists when it was first published, but it seems to be of little use to serious students of the Sandinista revolution