The generalized crisis that hit the Somoza dictatorship in January 1978 became a decisive confrontation in June 1979. A full-scale civil war is under way in which thousands of workers and peasants have already given their lives.
Mass mobilizations and the increasingly audacious actions by those fighting under the banner of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) have profoundly shaken one of the bloodiest dictatorships of Latin America. They have pushed the Somoza regime to the edge of collapse, raising a threat to the grip of imperialism on the region.
The crisis of Somozaism affects the whole of Central America. It weakens the military dictatorships of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, to whom Somoza always gave the fullest support. But it also affects the bourgeois regimes of Costa Rica and Panama. Although these regimes long ago took their distance from Somoza and today openly oppose him, they do this for two reasons. First to shore up—at little cost—their democratic image in the eyes of the masses who are attracted by the exemplary struggle of the Nicaraguan people. And second, to lay the groundwork for an alternative to Somozaism that will not threaten the framework of the capitalist system.
The Somoza regime enjoyed relative stability after the Guatemalan revolution was crushed in 1954 by the direct intervention of U.S. imperialism, supported by a coalition of reactionary forces in the region. The existence of the Somoza tyranny contributed greatly to maintenance of the status quo for a quarter of a century.
On the economic level, this period was characterized by a massive influx of capital and the formation in the 1960s of the Central American Common Market, an instrument designed to facilitate imperialist penetration in the region. Guatemala, El Salvador, and to a lesser extent Costa Rica and Nicaragua, experienced the beginnings of industrialization, which meant an increase in the social weight of the proletariat. But it was above all their agrarian economies that underwent major transformations. The so-called agricultural reform led to substantial investments, to a technological rationalization and modernization, and to a growth of productivity in the cultivation of such export products as bananas, cotton, coffee, and sugar.
The main beneficiaries of these changes were the imperialist companies and big landowners who adapted to the new conditions. Capitalist agriculture and a rising agricultural proletariat made increasing inroads on both the traditional latifundist structure and the remnants of semifeudal relations.
Concentration of property, far from being restrained, increased more rapidly (in 1976, 6.2% of landowners in Central America held nearly three-quarters [73.2%] of arable land while 69% of them shared 6.5%). The great majority of the peasant masses suffered the consequences. Deprived of their holdings or condemned to eke out an existence on smaller and smaller pieces of unproductive land, they have seen their conditions of life deteriorate dramatically.
Add in a rate of population growth that is among the highest in the world, and it is clear why El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua face an explosive situation which the ruling classes, backed by imperialism, have sought to defuse through brutal and systematic repression.
The war that broke out in 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras was one of the striking events of this period. In the last analysis it was the result of tensions and internal conflicts stemming from the massive unemployment and the demand of the peasants for land. In collaboration with the oligarchy of Guatemala and Somoza, the El Salvadorian oligarchy—one of the most repressive in Latin America—systematically encouraged a massive emigration of landless peasants to Honduras, a country whose population density is much lower. The reaction of the possessing classes of Honduras led to a political and military conflict, in which U.S. imperialism assumed the role of arbiter, thereby shoring up its direct influence in the region.
This war had many other repercussions. Most importantly it meant the end of the Central American Common Market and revealed even more clearly the inability of the local ruling classes—dependent totally on imperialism—to provide the slightest solution to the region's economic and social problems. It led not only to the sharpening of disparities between the different countries, but also and most importantly to the deepening of social contradictions inside them (for example, in El Salvador and even more so in Nicaragua).
Nicaragua is the country in the region where imperialist domination has taken the most open and extreme forms. Anastasio Somoza García, founder of the dynasty four decades ago, was put in power through direct American intervention. The National Guard, military pillar of Somozaism and of capitalist rule in the country, was established and trained by imperialism as a mercenary army. Intimately tied to the dictator and to his economic and political interests, the National Guard is the supporting structure of the administration and the "judicial" system.
The current dictator, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, and his family control a major part of the Nicaraguan economy—nearly a third of the arable land, the majority of the most profitable industrial, export-import, and transportation sectors. Usually their investments in Nicaragua, as in the other countries of Central America, are combined with those of American-based multinational corporations. Because of this, the crisis of Somozaism becomes combined with the crisis of bourgeois and imperialist domination.
For imperialism, the significance of the crisis in Nicaragua to a large extent goes beyond the borders of the country. The entire dominance of imperialism in the Central American isthmus—a region that is economically, politically, and strategically decisive—is at stake. Washington is trying and will continue to try to do everything in its power to prevent the death agony of Somozaism from opening the way to a challenge to its fundamental interests.
Thus, direct U.S. intervention cannot be excluded despite the sizable political obstacles stemming both from the unique characteristics of the Nicaraguan crisis and from the more general crisis that imperialism has experienced since the war in Vietnam. Such an intervention, especially in the absence of a credible proimperialist bourgeois alternative, would be immediately exposed for what it is—support to Somozaism, if not to Somoza himself, with the aim of crushing the Nicaraguan people in revolt.
It would spark a massive anti-imperialist upsurge throughout the continent. This is exactly the fear of the Latin American governments who opposed the perspective of intervention during the June meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) and defeated the openly stated proposal for such intervention by Washington's mouthpiece Cyrus Vance. American workers, who have not forgotten the Vietnam War and its consequences, will also express their opposition to a new military adventure.
Nor can the imperialists ignore the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Havana, which declared: "The intervention of the United States would create a Vietnam in the very heart of Latin America. The Nicaraguan people and those of Central America would undoubtedly rise up against such foreign intervention, and their other brothers in Latin America and the Caribbean could not remain indifferent to such genocide. It is necessary to prevent this intervention. It is necessary to forthrightly and courageously denounce it before world public opinion and in international bodies." In response to this, the U.S. imperialists immediately launched a new campaign against Cuba.
It is from this point of view that we must see the combination of threats of intervention and political and diplomatic maneuvers by imperialism and its Latin American allies. Contacts are increasing with the provisional government of national reconstruction, which includes representatives of the Sandinistas. The perspective of intervention by a so-called peacekeeping force from Latin American countries to "separate the warring parties" is being actively promoted, while Somoza—although officially disavowed—continues to massacre the Nicaraguan people with impunity.
In reality this massacre is encouraged by imperialism. It represents a direct blow to the masses and weakens the Sandinista forces. Even in its agony, the Somoza dictatorship continues to play its role of defender of the interests of imperialism and Nicaragua's exploiting classes. If necessary, imperialism will send a "peace force" designed to prepare a bourgeois alternative to the dictatorship and to establish the best possible relationship of forces to preserve the integrity of the existing state apparatus, particularly the National Guard.
The military initiatives of the Sandinistas, which are gaining greater and greater active support from the masses; the revolt of the peasants, workers, and plebeian masses of the cities; and the occupation of major areas of the country by the insurgents, together with the formation of popular committees that take charge of the elementary needs of the population, have brought about a fundamental polarization—two social forces confront each other in a full-scale civil war. The fundamental task of the hour is to bring this struggle to victory through the revolutionary overthrow of Somoza and his regime. This would represent a major new defeat for Washington and for imperialism as a whole, and would give a fresh impulse to mobilizations of the masses of the region.
Revolutionary Marxists in Nicaragua and throughout the world place themselves unreservedly on the side of the Sandinista fighters and of all those who are actively taking part in the struggle against the Somoza dictatorship and its imperialist masters. Our comrades in Nicaragua are joining in the mobilizations of the masses and participating in their heroic battle. Our organizations throughout the world, especially in the countries of Latin America and in the imperialist centers, must extend the international campaign of solidarity with the struggle of the Nicaraguan people. Such a campaign by the workers movement can and should take on a decisive importance.
If in fact the masses mobilize throughout Latin America, and if at the same time the masses of the imperialist countries and especially of the United States let it be clearly understood that they will not tolerate a counterrevolutionary war of aggression, the imperialist and "national" bourgeois rulers will have difficulty in intervening militarily to defend the Somoza regime. This is why the campaign of support to the struggle of the Nicaraguan people is an immediate political task of prime importance.
The direct presence of American troops, as well as the nature of the ties between the Somoza regime and imperialism, have always given an immediate anti-imperialist dimension to the struggles of the Nicaraguan people. In the 1920s César Augusto Sandino led popular uprisings against imperialist military intervention. Despite the ultimate defeat of this movement and the assassination of Sandino, Sandinism—a petty bourgeois, anti-imperialist, revolutionary-nationalist current—became deeply rooted among the exploited masses of Nicaragua. The reformist currents of the workers movement never acquired a significant base. The Communist Party, in particular, was discredited after its support to Somoza during the Second World War.
The victory of the Cuban revolution later sparked a process of radicalization in Nicaragua as in other countries of Latin America. It reinforced the revolutionary-nationalist current, since the July 26 Movement, in its struggle against Batista, exhibited similarities with Sandinism.
In 1962 this process culminated in the formation of the FSLN, which placed itself in the historic and popular tradition of the anti-imperialist struggle of Sandino. An anti-imperialist current with a petty bourgeois political orientation, the FSLN subsequently adopted the perspective of a bourgeois-democratic revolution.
The struggle of the FSLN—which was greatly influenced by the Cubans and was conceived for a whole period as essentially a guerrilla struggle—went through many ups and downs. But it was above all the insurrection of September 1978 that, despite its failure, revealed unequivocally the mass support for the struggle of the FSLN and broadened that support. Today the FSLN enjoys the backing of the great mass of exploited toilers of the cities and the countryside, who identify with it in their struggle. Thus it plays at this stage the decisive role in the struggle against the dictatorship and imperialism.
The struggle of the Nicaraguan masses against the dictatorship and imperialism takes on a dynamic of permanent revolution that is more immediate than in many other colonial or semicolonial countries. Imperialist domination is almost completely combined with the domination of the national bourgeoisie, and the capitalist property system is represented by the property of the Somoza family and of the imperialist corporations. This means that the struggle against imperialism is at the same time a struggle against domination by the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie, and the struggle against the Somoza family and against the tentacles of the multinational corporations is a struggle against capitalist domination as a whole.
The question is already being posed concretely. After the overthrow of Somoza, how can the interests of the masses best be met?
Is it in their interests to spare the American, Japanese, and European trusts that have supported the Somoza regime to the end and allow them to continue to exploit the great masses of people who carried out the revolutionary struggle?
Is it in their interests to agree to pay the foreign debts of the dictatorship, which would mean a heavy mortgage on the future economic development of the country?
Is it in their interests to accept—in the name of "continuity of the state"—that the executioners of the National Guard should remain in place, ready to launch new campaigns of ferocious repression?
Is it in their interests to accept—in the name of "national solidarity"—that the peasants continue to be brutally exploited and deprived of their most elementary rights by the big landowners who have opposed the Somoza gang?
Is it in their interests to accept that the crimes of the Somoza hangmen not be denounced before the people and the thousands of links between them and imperialism and the bourgeoisie be hidden?
It is clear to revolutionists in Nicaragua and throughout the world that if the overthrow of Somoza does not lead to the overthrow of domination by the imperialists and the national bourgeoisie, any victory will be short-lived and the masses will be quickly stripped of all the gains won through their heroic struggle. The imperialists and their representatives don't hide the fact that their main aim is to prevent the Nicaraguan revolution from taking the Cuban road.
The response of revolutionists is unambiguous. It is necessary to prevent the Nicaraguan revolution from suffering the fate of the Guatemalan revolution of the 1940s and 1950s, of the Bolivian revolution of the 1950s, or of the Chilean workers and peasants upsurge of the 1970s. It is in the elementary interests of the masses of Nicaragua, of Latin America, and of the whole world, that the Nicaraguan revolution should follow the Cuban example by overthrowing the dictatorship, expelling imperialism, and removing from power and expropriating the native ruling classes. In this way the conditions will be created to satisfy the basic needs of the masses for food, housing, health, education, and jobs.
Inside the FSLN there exist clear ideological and political divisions. The "tercerista" or "insurrectional" tendency is largely predominant; it is they who determine the orientation and methods of the FSLN and who, among others, led the September 1978 offensive. Partisans of collaboration with anti-Somoza sectors of the bourgeoisie, they place the greatest importance on action by the Sandinista armed detachments, considering the organized mobilization of the masses as playing only a supportive role. This has produced tensions in the past, and can lead to many conflicts in the future.
The "prolonged people's war" tendency has an eclectic orientation, adopting aspects of Maoism and Castroism. The "proletarian" tendency stresses the importance of the role of the working class in the struggle against imperialism and capitalism, but it does not challenge the basic strategy of the FSLN, including its policy of alliances.
The formation of the government of national reconstruction, in which well-known representatives of the anti-Somoza wing of the bourgeoisie—Violeta de Chamorro, Alfonso Robelo, and Sergio Ramirez—join with representatives of the FSLN, shows that the concept of the democratic revolution is not without implications for the immediate course of the revolutionary struggle.
In fact, the government of national reconstruction is a card played by the bourgeoisie to try to prevent the overthrow of Somoza from leading to the break-up of the socioeconomic structures of capitalism and the bourgeois state apparatus. Thus it operates against the interests and the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of those who are struggling against the dictatorship and its National Guard assassins. This means a concrete danger to the development of the military battle taking place and an even greater threat to a victorious outcome of the revolutionary struggle as a whole.
To reach the goals of the exploited and oppressed masses and to fight back against any imperialist intervention, the masses must be armed and workers and peasants militias must be formed. There must be a struggle to extend and strengthen the organs the masses have begun to throw up in the course of the civil war to assert their demands and to defend their vital interests.
In the case of any serious operation to impose an alternative solution on the basis of maintenance of the apparatus of the Somoza regime, the struggle for the convocation of a constituent assembly, elected through universal, direct, and secret vote, could centralize the aspirations of the masses that are expressed in their struggle against the dictatorship.
In the framework of the struggle to overthrow the dictatorship, which is the fundamental immediate task, revolutionary Marxists will be struggling for:
• Dissolution of the National Guard.
• Freedom for all political prisoners.
• The winning of all democratic rights (freedom of speech, of the press, and of political and trade-union organization above all).
• Rejection of all political, economic, and military pacts with the imperialist powers and with the OAS.
• Repudiation of the foreign debt accumulated by the dictatorship in the interests of the exploiting classes and imperialism, and a break with the International Monetary Fund.
• Expropriation and nationalization, without compensation and under workers control, of all the property of Somoza, of his family, of high officials of the regime, of imperialism, and of the "national" capitalists.
• Implementation of a genuine agrarian reform that would give land to the peasants who are demanding it and would assure them the means to cultivate it.
The only government that can carry out such a program embodying the vital interests of the Nicaraguan people and the needs of developing and strengthening the revolution is a government that defends the interests of the workers, the peasants, and the other exploited layers and that excludes all representatives of the ruling classes and imperialism.
For the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship!
For the victory of the Nicaraguan masses and the fighters of the FSLN!
For a campaign of international solidarity against any attempt at intervention, including political, economic, or military blackmail by imperialism!
Break all diplomatic ties with Somoza!
Not one penny, not one weapon to the dictatorship!