John R. Houk
© May 9, 2012
I am not as familiar with Latin American politics as I should be; however it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that one of the longest running oppressive regimes of the Latin American-Kind is the Castro family dominated Communist Cuba. Lest we have forgotten our Cold War lessons, Communism is a political system in which all power resides in the State and of that State there is typically one supreme leader. Also under the veneer of acting for the people’s interest all private property and major private businesses are non-existent for the collective managed by government policy is considered the greater good. With the Communist political system all political rights that Americans hold dear are non-existent; e.g. Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Press, and the right of peaceable assembly by citizens and the right to redress government for grievances.
Then there are those Latin American nations that have exploited supposedly free elections in which a dimwitted electorate unwittingly vote a Marxist regime into power that has the old Marxist agenda in mind of eliminating property and civil rights to achieve the illusion of political utopia.
Who comes to mind?
In 1992, Hugo Chavez attempted a military coup of Venezuela. His revolutionary power grab failed and he was jailed until 1994 when he was freed by a presidential pardon. He was elected president in 1998 and has gradually increased his power and armed his personal militia.
Chavez has many links to violent terrorist organizations and totalitarian dictators. On Oct 12, 1999, Chavez was the guest of Communist China. While in China, he declared: “I have been very Maoist all of my life.” Like the Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean hosts of past WFYS meetings, Chavez is a proud Communist and an enemy of the USA.
Chavez has sent members of his private army of enforcers in Venezuela, the Bolivarian Circles, to Cuba for military training. The purpose of this training is “to carry out acts of violence through them” when they return to Venezuela.
Writing in National Review, William S. Prillman states that “Chavez has also imported hundreds of Cuban activists” whose objective is “to arm his thousands of civilian supporters in the ‘Bolivarian Circles,’ a private militia that rivals the National police force.” This militia, according to Prillman, has been involved with the theft of land in Venezuela. He also reports that … (Discover The Networks – READ the Rest)
Long ago, the President Evo Morales defined himself as “Marxist-Leninist – Communist-Socialist”. In the Antipodes of these confessions, it shows that they were never: Democrats. For the “mouth dies the fish”, says the proverb.
Both ideological self-definitions implemented, refer without excuses to authoritarian, riddled with ‘judicial Guillotines’ actions if not to cut heads to ‘crush’ opponents and put them prisoners, prosecute them or forcing them into exile, in the heat of the totalitarian impulses of the autocrat. For this reason they repudiate political diversity, the different conceptions of the world and the criticism that fights only thinking which seek to impose in Bolivia.
The jacobino-bolchevique character, add you Stalinist to bolster the repressive nature of communism which admits Morales. This practice makes Bolivia to be hard against human rights, the rule of law and civil rights. I quote the most severe and cruel:
After six years of exercise of power, we can say without any doubt, that the Government of Evo Morales never was democratic and not proposed as task to defend the freedom of Bolivian and Bolivian, as Rousseau left in writing. I remember Jose Mirtenbaum claiming political pain: [we] already were not citizens, but ‘subjects’.
Although Morales was anointed President of Bolivia by the popular vote in 2005, these were the only clean elections because the Electoral Court at that time had no political interference. From then on, we have voted six times and results remain subject to suspicion of fraud and multiple irregularities, but they have given to Morales and his successive political victories, with regional setbacks as the autonomy elections, which have little in the balance sheet. As of today we live in what are called ‘democratic electioneer’, with electoral bodies subordinate to the political powers, here as in other countries of the geopolitics of the caudillo Hugo Chávez. Bolivia is part of these ‘democratic electioneer’ that use democracy as a procedural method to reproduce the power of autocrats regardless of citizen vote rigging. Democracy as a social condition, insofar as equality for political freedom while respecting differences, does not have in the Government of Morales, García Linera and others, and reflects that never were: Democrats. And because they have not been, or are, there is independence of powers.
… (They were never democrats (current Bolivian president and his vp); by Susana Seleme; Bolivian Thoughts in an Emerging World; 3/13/12 – READ Entirety)
1945–, president of Nicaragua (1979–90, 2007–). As a university student, he joined (1963) the clandestine Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN; see Sandinistas), a Marxist guerrilla coalition that opposed the Somoza dictatorship. In 1967, he was arrested and spent seven years in prison. Head of the Sandinista junta that took power following the 1979 revolution, he was elected president in 1984. As president, he attempted to consolidate the revolution along Marxist lines but was opposed by the United States and U.S.-backed guerrillas, the contras. He was unexpectedly defeated for reelection (1990) by Violetta Barrios de Chamorro, who led a coalition of opposition parties. Ortega subsequently twice lost in presidential elections, in 1996 to Arnoldo Alemán Lacayo and in 2001 to Enrique Bolaños, but in 2006 he again won the presidency, against a divided center-right opposition. (Ortega Saavedra, Daniel; FactMonster.com)
Confidencial neatly summarizes the contradictions of Ortega’s mixed system as “a government that is authoritarian in politics, pro-business in the economy, and populist in the social sphere.” (The Many Political Faces of Daniel Ortega; by Hannah Stone; COHA; December 21, 2011; Read Entirety)
He attended the La Salle Catholic secondary school, but in 1963 abandoned his law studies at the Universidad Centroamericana to join the guerrillas of the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN), fighting the regime of Anastasio Somoza.
His political career began with the fall of the Somoza regime, on July 19 1979, when he became part of the National Restoration Government Junta.
In 1981, after moderates abandoned the revolutionary junta, he was anointed its coordinator, and remained in that position until 1984, when he was elected president.
A man of few smiles and many speeches, ‘Daniel,’ as he is called by friends and adversaries, faced war with thousands of US-backed ‘contras.’ At least 50,000 people died in the conflict, which plunged the country into poverty.
In elections in February, 1990, Ortega lost to the moderate Violeta Chamorro, his first of three consecutive electoral defeats. In 1996 he was bested by the liberal Arnoldo Aleman, and in 2001 by the liberal Enrique Bolanos. In 2006, he won elections with 38 per cent of votes.
For the last five years, he has led a government he has dedicated to ‘Christianity, solidarity and socialism,’ winning popular support with signature housing, health and agricultural credit projects, financed with aid from his Venezuelan colleague and ally Hugo Chavez.
Ortega ran for re-election despite constitutional provisions limiting presidents to two non-consecutive terms. A controversial decision by the Supreme Court declared the provisions ‘inapplicable.’
Despite what the opposition calls an ‘illegal’ candidacy, Ortega is set to be inaugurated for a third five-year term in January 2012.
The electoral process was challenged by election observers from the European Union and the Organisation of American States, who complained their personnel and local observer groups were denied access to polling stations.
… (PROFILE: Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega wins controversial third term; By Gabriela Selser; MonstersAndCritics.com; Nov 7, 2011 – Read Entirety)
A FORMER lieutenant-colonel moulded in the image of the Marxist Venezuelan firebrand Hugo Chavez was elected President of Peru yesterday, adding to the trend of the leftward political drift across Latin America.
Ollanta Humala, 48, narrowly defeated the daughter of an imprisoned former leader in an election campaign that laid bare the rift between the millions of chronically poor and the middle class. The affluent fear punitive taxes, in the style of Mr Humala’s Venezuelan mentor, and a reverse of economic reforms that made Peru one of the most successful economies in Latin America.
The ultra-nationalist Mr Humala claimed victory over Keiko Fujimori, 36, a congresswoman and heir of his former nemesis. (Marxist leader Hugo Chavez’s protege Ollanta Humala takes over as Peru sways to the Left; by The Times; The Australian; June 08, 2011 – READ the Rest)
The media has made much of the “schism” between El Salvador’s “moderate” center-left president, Mauricio Funes, and his puppet-masters in the Marxist “Politburo” that controls the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), the guerrilla army-turned-political party that won the 2009 election. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “El Salvador Quits the Market Model,” in the first two years of his presidency, Funes has done a fine job of tanking Salvadoran capitalism. (Latin America File: El Salvador’s Chile-style economy tanks under FMLN president, …; by May 19, 2011; READ the Rest)
Mérida, May 20th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) — Mauricio Funes, the president-elect of El Salvador, made a formal visit to Venezuela to meet with President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday. In a meeting that lasted more than five hours, the two leaders discussed deepening cooperation between the two countries, especially regarding oil.
Funes’s critics have said his presidency will be heavily influenced by Venezuela, while Funes has emphasized that “integration with Central America and strengthening relations with the United States will be the priority of our foreign policy.”
After the meeting, the two leaders announced the creation of a bilateral commission between the two countries to develop projects of cooperation in commerce, energy, and other economic sectors, and social exchange.
Funes said he was visiting Venezuela to “encourage [Chavez] to continue with this spirit of solidarity because only solidarity and the spirit of Latin American unity that is behind it, is going to make the transformation of our nations possible.” (Venezuela’s Chavez and El Salvador’s Funes Discuss Cooperation; by READ Entirety)May 20th 2009 –
Brazil’s President is Dilma Rousseff. To write about Rousseff one has to begin with her mentor Lula da Silva who was Brazil’s President for the two terms preceding Rousseff. Indeed, Lula was so popular among Brazilians that many pundits felt that Rousseff was going to be a Lula mouthpiece much like Russia’s Medvedev is considered a mouthpiece for Putin until Putin could retake his job back. Time has led to a questioning of the mouthpiece principle for Rousseff.
Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva:
Brazil’s immediate past president Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, a former labor boss, built his Workers Party, an alliance of communists, Trotskyites, “liberation theologists”, black radicals, environmentalists and labor militants, into the most powerful political force in Latin America.
Working with Cuba, “Lula” as he is commonly known, has had an huge influence in the revolutionary wave that has swept Latin America since the early 90′s.
Less widely known is that Lula has enjoyed support and advice from the US’s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America, since at least the year he founded his Party, 1981.
Incidentally, this is around the same time that Barack Obama began his thirty year association with the organization. (“Lula” and Barack’s Common Marxist Ties; submitted by Trevor; Romantic Poet’s Weblog; 5-15-11 – READ the Rest)
Rousseff participated in the militant activities of the Comando de Libertação Nacional—COLINA (English: National Liberation Command) and advocated Marxist politics among labour union members and as editor of the newspaper The Piquet. Dilma’s role in this organization is unclear. According to the magazine Piauí, she handled weapons. This is, however, contested by most of the Brazilian media. She probably was engaged only in “organization tasks”.
In early 1969, the Minas Gerais branch of Colina was limited to a dozen militants, with little money and few weapons. Its activities had boiled down to four bank robberies, some stolen cars and two bombings, with no casualties. On January 14, however, after the arrest of some militants during a bank robbery, the rest of them gathered to debate what they would do in order to release them from jail. At dawn, the police invaded the group’s house and the militants responded by using a machine gun, which killed two policemen and wounded another.
… Rousseff remained in Rio, where she helped the organization, attending meetings and transporting weapons and money, according to the magazine Piauí. At one of these meetings, she met the Rio Grande do Sul-born lawyer Carlos Franklin Paixão de Araújo, who was then 31 years old; they developed a sudden attraction to one another. Araújo was head of a dissident group of the Brazilian Communist Party (Portuguese: Partido Comunista Brasileiro—PCB) and sheltered Galeano in Porto Alegre. The breakup with Galeno was peaceful. As Galeno said, “in that difficult situation, we had no prospect of being a regular couple.” (Wikipedia; Dilma Rousseff; Guerilla Activity; Colina – READ Entirety)
Carlos Araújo was chosen as one of the six leaders of VAR Palmares, which claimed to be a “political-military organization of Marxist-Leninist partisan orientation which aims to fulfill the tasks of the revolutionary war and the establishment of the working class party, in order to seize power and build socialism.” According to Maurício Lopes Lima, a former member of the Operação Bandeirantes (OBAN) search force (a structure which included the intelligence and torture services of the Armed Forces), Rousseff was the main leader of VAR Palmares. According to him, he received reports defining her as “one of the brains” of the revolutionary schemes. Police commissioner Newton Fernandes, who investigated the clandestine organization in São Paulo and drew the profile of dozens of their members, said that Rousseff was one of the principal masterminds of the revolutionary schemes. The attorney which prosecuted the organization called her “Joan of Arc of subversion,” saying that she led strikes and advised bank robberies. She was also dubbed as “the she-pope of subversion,” “political criminal,” and “female figure of sadly notable aspect.” Rousseff ridicules such comparison, stating that she does not even remember many of the actions attributed to her. … (Wikipedia; Dilma Rousseff; Guerilla Activity; VAR Palmares – READ the Rest)
In what can only be defined as a mockery to the democratic tradition, 135 million Brazilians voted today and elected Dilma Vana Rousseff as the next president of the country with 55% of valid votes. She is a former Marxist terrorist, a bank robber and was involved with her group in the murder of innocent people, including a 19 year-old boy.
She also never faced an election, never had a steady job in the private sector or had any accomplishments that could justify her claim to the most powerful position in Brazil. Her only asset: being chosen by Lula.
The government committed a series of unlawful actions in order to remain in power:
– Use of the State power, forcing public employees to join the campaign,
– Illegal use of union funds for events and publications favoring Dilma´s candidacy,
– Use of state companies´ advertising budget to fund pro-Dilma press,
– Corruption of poll institutes, which gave a far superior advantage for Dilma than reality. in all results,
– Illegal engagement of populist president Lula in the campaign, using public funds and his working time,
– Illegal digging and use of private tax reports of opponents,
– Illegal apprehension of lawful campaign materials and coercion of religious voices. (Former Marxist Terrorist Elected Brazil President; by Markos; InfoWars.com; November 1, 2010 – READ the Rest)
Well, if there is anyone who has been auditioning for the job of new standard-bearer, it is Ecuador’s Rafael Correa. Although he hasn’t generated the same international attention as the Venezuelan caudillo, it hasn’t been for lack of trying.
Mr. Correa may not have Mr. Chavez’s vast oil wealth (although oil-producing Ecuador is a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) but he has enough. In any case, what the brash U.S.-educated economist does share with Mr. Chavez are a number of disturbing and destabilizing characteristics that threaten democracy at home and regional stability.
The hallmarks of their reigns have been class warfare, polarization and intolerance of dissent, and both have rammed through new constitutions that trample on separation of powers and rule of law.
Aping Mr. Chavez, Mr. Correa also has waged a political war against Ecuador’s independent media, which The Washington Post calls “the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media under way in the Western Hemisphere,” and he, too, has expelled the U.S. ambassador in a fit of pique designed to play to the mob.
But more troubling is that Mr. Correa has mimicked Mr. Chavez’s habit of maintaining close ties with dubious international pariahs such as Iran and displaying a lax attitude toward transnational criminal organizations that directly undermine inter-American security. (CARDENAS: Meet Latin America’s next Hugo Chavez; by Jose R. Cardenas; Washington Times; April 6, 2012 – READ Entirety)
Correa is trying to “demolish the foundation of the ‘liberal democracy’ and replace it with a ‘dictatorial democracy,’” writes Carlos Alberto Montaner– in short replacing a state in which popular consent to being governed is conditional on respect for constitutionally-enshrined individual rights, separation of powers, a market economy and a vibrant civil society, with a pseudo-democratic variant:
On the other hand, the dictatorial democracy, as described and defended by the Dominican Juan Bosch in a 1969 essay titled “Dictatorship With Popular Support,” and revived by Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez in the so-called 21st Century Socialism, is in turn rooted in the enlightened despotism of the 17th and 18th centuries. It’s a type of government in which the authority — exercised by an exceptional caudillo legitimized in the polls by a majority of voters.
The final results have yet to be confirmed, but indicators suggest that Correa won approval by a narrow margin on all 10 proposals.
The referendum coincided with last week’s revelations that Correa received funding from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Marxist guerrilla and drug-trafficking group, personally requesting $400,000 for his 2006 presidential campaign. (Ecuador referendum signals Latin America’s latest ‘creeping coup’; Democracy Digest; May 17, 2011 – READ Entirety)
This brings me to the Latin American President that inspired to examine the Latin American Heads of State. The President of Argentina is Cristina Kirchner. To understand Argentina’s Kirchner one has to have an inkling of Argentine Peronism named after popular Juan Peron. Peronism seems to be that odd mix of Marxism and Fascism that involved a populist attraction from the poor and the lower Middle Class as well as a Corporation/Government symbiotic relationship in which the government acts somewhat as the Chief Executive Officer. Kirchner entered politics via the Peron Youth Movement.
Justicialismo, the name of Per6n’s official ideology, is a term difficult to translate into English, but it indicates a “third position” between individualistic capitalism and collectivist communism. Eva Per6n claimed that it was superior to capitalism because it placed the nation’s interests above those of private property, while also avoiding the errors of materialistic Marxism by stressing the importance of ideals. What were those ideals? In its rhetoric justiclismo was reminiscent of Italian (but not German) fascism in that it emphasied nationalism, authority, and leadership. It constantly placed the citizens’ duties above their rights and de-manded that they sacrifice to achieve national glory. …
Per6n’s dictatorship is an example of fascist rule if one accepts the two measures used in this paper. Its use of a single party and corporativist economic institutions; its stated ideals of government imposed class collaboration, obedience, and national power; and its tendency to extend its coercive powers in a totalitarian fashion make it fit the definition of fascism offered earlier. Its main features also bore a close resemblance to Mussolini’s Italy, our example of a “normal fascist” regime. In some respects Peronist party and corporative organizations were not so far developed as Fascist Italy’s. But if the vocational groups for capital and labor had evolved only to the “syndicalist” phase in Argentina, it must also be kept in mind that Peron was in power for only 9 years, as compared to almost 21 years for Mussolini. Also, in other areas such as mass support and indoctrination of the military the Argentine regime may have been more radical, or “dynamic,” than the Italian. In any case, the similarities between the two systems are so striking that the conclusion seems warranted that Per6n was indeed a fascist. (Was Per6n a Fascist? An Inquiry into the Nature of Fascism; by Paul H. Lewis; Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 42, No. 1, (Feb., 1980), pp. 242-256; JSTOR Link; Google PDF Download Link as a tinyurl; READ Entirety with Google Download)
Yet granting Mrs. Kirchner another term is also fraught with danger. Given her lust for power, she is likely to continue copying her Venezuelan mentor Hugo Chávez, who over 12 years has steadily demolished the economic, political and legal mechanisms that ordinarily act as checks on the executive. By 2015, she could have the country in lock down.
Consider the latest assault on free enterprise, which really began in 2008, when she announced the confiscation and nationalization of private pension accounts. This made the government a shareholder in 42 publicly traded companies in which the pension managers had invested. On April 14 of this year Mrs. Kirchner issued a decree giving the government increased power to name directors in these companies.
There is no mystery here. Mrs. Kirchner is following the economic theories not only of Mr. Chávez but also of Juan Peron, the 20th-century Argentine fascist who gave her party its name. She wants state control over industry to shore up her power. (“Cristina Kirchner copies Peron’s model”, says The Wall Street Journal; April 26th 2011; MercoPress – READ Entirety)
What one might call the President’s ideology, a hodgepodge of notions and prejudices, some vaguely Marxist and others of Fascist origin, that she acquired as a student back in the 1970s when in certain circles “revisionism” was all the rage, has always been a minority taste. (Cristina’s worldview may be nutty and outdated, but not innocuous; by James Neilson; Hispanic American Center for Economic Research)
Marxism and/or Communism are making a global resurrection in Latin America. It is a bit different strategy of Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist shooting the dissenters and asks questions later. Latin American Marxism is more akin to the old Euro-Communism of the Italian Antonio Gramsci. Basically Gramsci sought a revolution by creeping into the socio-cultural apparatus of culture or communities and then slowly breakdown Capitalistic thinking of property and Free Enterprise as well as social mores especially connected to religious faith. Saul Alinsky grasped the concept in his Community Organizing which was really the spreading of Gramsci-like Communism on a grassroots level. And you should know that President Barack Hussein Obama emulated the lessons of Alinsky in his Community Organizing agenda demanded entitlements and spreading the wealth.
Here is the article that got me to thinking of the 21st century Communist Bloc of Latin America.