Social democracy originated in
the struggle between labor and
capital in 19th century Europe. In
its inception its goal was to
organize the working class to
eliminate class society. However,
as the movement evolved its
organizations became increasing-
ly bureaucratized despite con-
siderable working-class member-
ship; the struggle for reforms as
building blocks of the socialist
revolution became an end in itself;
and in 1914, on the eve of the First
World War, the social democratic
parties abandoned proletarian in-
ternationalism in favor of alliances
with their national bourgeoisies. In
a word, social democracy ceased
its struggle for the overthrow of
capitalism and became, instead,
part of the capitalist state. With the
overseas expansion of European
capital since the end of World War
II, European social democracy has
allied itself with capital against
revolution everywhere.
FORGING LINKS
WITH LATIN AMERICA
In the past few years, Latin
America has witnessed a veritable
explosion of activity by the Euro-
pean social democratic parties
and the Socialist (Second) Interna-
tional (IS). Meetings between party
leaders and prospective and ac-
tual members have proliferated
along with funding for research,
leadership training, political
36
organizing and even guerrilla war-
fare (Nicaragua). Operating
through its party and other
organizations, European social
democracy has developed a solid
and growing base among the na-
tionalist, populist, as well as labor-
based parties in Latin America, ten
of which are now members of the
IS. Moreover, its ideological in-
fluence has spread beyond its for-
mal membership, as indicated by
the renewed emphasis on popular
front coalition’s stage theories of
revolution and “classless demo-
cracy” found in the political pro-
nouncements of Latin American
political leaders and intellectuals.
But the most striking evidence of
the social democratic advance is
the fact that they now control the
governments of the Dominican
Republic and Jamaica and par-
ticipate in mixed Juntas in El
Salvador and Nicaragua.
The proximate cause of Latin
America’s new welcome for Euro-
pean social democracy may be
sought in that long period of the
1960s and early 70s when
Europe’s social democrats gave
refuge to Latin American leaders
fleeing the dictatorial onslaught.
This external material support and,
presumably, the arguments put
forth by the Europeans convinced
some of the exiles that the future
lay with the evolutionary rather
than with the revolutionary path of
the past.
The ideological attraction of
European social democracy con-
sisted in its willingness to
countenance movements which
professed “socialist” goals,
criticized U.S. imperialism and op-
posed the extreme right-wing dic-
tatorships dominant in the region,
but which avoided the label of
“communist subversion.” Operat-
ing as a left oppositionist with
western legitimacy seemed to pro-
vide the necessary protection for
exiles returning to mass organiz-
ing; membership in the IS would
allow Latin American opposi-
tionists to draw on European sup-
port in periods of
“emergency”-the threat of
economic sanctions, diplomatic
pressure and political isolation by
European social democratic
governments could stay the hand
of repression.
RIPE FOR REFORMISM
Although Latin America’s exiled
opposition leadership acted as a
crucial conductor for European
social democracy, the latter’s
deep and widespread influence in
Latin America’s political life is one
outcome of the particular develop-
ment process that has charac-
terized the region.
Latin America has been ex-
periencing relatively high levels of
industrial growth accompanied by
the expansion of commercial agri-
culture, processes that have
greatly increased the absolute, if
not the relative, size of the wage-
labor force and its concentration.
This economic growth has been
propelled by large-scale inflows of
overseas capital which demand,
as a condition of investment, an
environment where class conflict
is well contained. Economic
growth, then, has presupposed the
NACLA Reportupdate * update . update . update
existence of autocratic states that
have sought to muzzle labor via
pseudo-representative, state-
controlled “corporatist” organs as
well as outright repression.
However, the exploitative condi-
tions accompanying capitalist ex-
pansion and the lack of political
autonomy of the workers’ move-
ment became the basis for new
struggles. And it is the social
democrats who have been best
able to capitalize on these
struggles.
On the one hand, because the
severe state repression which
preceded and accompanied the
economic growth process was
especially directed at the revolu-
tionary Left, the latter was, and is,
not in a position to give leadership
to the growing mass discontent.
Many of its militants were physi-
cally destroyed and its activities
continue to be severely cir-
cumscribed, limiting its ability to
reach out in a public fashion to the
vast new strata in motion. More-
over, much of the mass opposition
has as its immediate preoccupa-
tion the recovery of living stan-
dards and elementary political
rights-demands which are not in-
compatible with the program and
leadership of consequential social
democrats. On the other hand, this
burgeoning popular movement
has little interest in the regional
organizational vehicles floated by
the U.S: AFL-CIO. Historically
linked to U.S. intelligence agen-
cies, corporate interests and right-
wing movements, U.S. trade
unions and liberal political groups
have little appeal in Latin America.
Furthermore, the issues that are
being contested in Latin America
involve a combined political and
trade union struggle which ex-
ceeds the narrow boundaries
defined by the business unionist
JanlFeb 1980
leadership of the AFL-CIO. Thus, a
“vast space” exists in Latin
America for European social
democracy.
THE EUROPEAN IMPERATIVES
The increasing intervention of
European social democracy in
Latin America is not only deter-
mined by factors internal to that
region. It is also crucially depen-
dent on the objective interests
-economic, political and ideo-
logical-that have operated within
the European context to generate
an interest in Latin American
social democracy.
The growth of overseas Euro-
pean expansion, especially in cer-
tain areas of Latin America, is one
of the salient characteristics of
inter-imperialist rivalry in recent
years. Large-scale, long-term in-
vestments and trade agreements
require close working relations
with governmental and non-
governmental political leaders to
facilitate contracts and licensing
agreements, tax and labor ar-
rangements, etc. While the Euro-
peans have been able to work well
with the incumbent military
regimes, they have not felt
altogether comfortable with them
for several reasons: 1) The military
have long-standing previous ties
with U.S. business interests and, in
some cases, were brought to
power with U.S. assistance, thus
lessening European access and
influence; 2) the Europeans are
wary of the instability of these
regimes and do not want to put all
their eggs in one basket; and
3)European labor movements
have directly experienced fascist
and dictatorial movements and
are less sanguine than their
counterparts in the AFL-CIO about
supporting such movements in
Latin America. Hence there exists
a strong pressure within labor and
the Left to limit economic relations
with the dictatorial Right.
Thus, factors operating in
Western Europe have converged
with developments in Latin
America to breathe new life into
social democracy.
NEW ORIENTATIONS
For many years social
democracy was rather dormant in
Latin America. Parties describing
themselves as “social
democratic,” such as the
American Popular Revolutionary
Alliance (APRA) in Peru and
Democratic Action (AD) in
Venezuela, had turned into con-
servative bureaucratic ap-
paratuses linked to foreign and
domestic business groups and
promoting policies that had little to
do with their populist-nationalist
rhetoric. However, the resurgence
of popular movements in the
region has required the IS to move
beyond the crusty anti-communist
rhetoric and programmatic con-
fines of its older members to a
more “radical adaptation” to the
new members which they have
recruited or are seeking to draw
into the fold. This shift is clearly
evident in the efforts to win over
major elements of the Sandinista
Movement in Nicaragua-
especially the Terceristas-and in
the ties with the Brazilian Labor
Party and the New Jewel Move-
ment in Grenada, among others.
The recent effort to extend the
influence of social democracy in
Latin America began in April 1976;
a meeting was held in Caracas
under the sponsorship of Vene-
zuela’s AD (then the governing
party), to discuss the new oppor-
tunities developing on the conti-
37update * update update * update
Full Member Parties
Argentina
Barbados
Chile
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Jamaica
Consultative Parties
Paraguay
MEMBERSHIP OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
(Latin American and Caribbean Countries)
Partido Socialista Popular (PSP)/Popular Socialist Party
Barbados Labour Party (BLP)
Partido Radical (PR)lRadical Party
Partido de Liberaci6n Nacional (PLN)lNational Liberation Party
Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD)lDominican Revolutionary Party
Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR)lNational Revolutionary
Movement
People’s National Party (PNP)
Partido Febrerista Revolucionario (PFR)lFebrerista Revolutionary Party
Venezuela Acci6n Democrdtica (AD)IDemocratic Action Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo (MEP)lPeople’s Electoral Movement
Parties Informally Linked to the Socialist International*
Argentina Uni6n Civica Radical (UCR)lRadical Civic Union
Movimiento Peronista Montonero (MPM)IMontonero Peronist Movement Bolivia Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda (MNRI)l
Nationalist Revolutionary Movement of the Left
Brazil Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (PTB)lBrazilian Labor Party
Chile Partido Socialista-Movimiento de Acci6n Socialista (PS-MAS/Socialist Party-
Socialist Action Movement
Ecuador Partido de lzquierda Democratico (PID)/Left Democratic Party
Grenada New Jewel Movement (NJM)
Guatemala Frente Unido de la Revolution (FUR)lUnited Revolutionary Front**
Partido Socialista Democratico (PSD)/Democratic Socialist Party
Mexico Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI)llnstitutional Revolutionary Party
Nicaragua Frente Sandinista de Liberacibn Nacional (FSLN)lSandinist National Libera-
tion Front
Panama Partido Revolucionario Democratico (PRD)lDemocratic Revolutionary Party
Partido Socialdemocrata (PS)lSocial Democratic Party***
Movimiento Independiente Democratico (MID)iDemocratic Independent
Movement * * *
Peru Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA)lAmerican Popular Revolu-
tionary Alliance
Puerto Rico Partido Independentista Puertorriqueno (PIP)lPuerto Rican Independence Party
Uruguay Frente Amplio (FA)lBroad Front
*These parties have participated at conferences heyd by the Socialist International, or have sought SI support.
“**The PSD’s National Director, Mario Solorzano Martinez’ also participates on the International Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.
S**PS and MID are competing for recognition by SI. Compiled by Tom Paul Delaney
nent and to lay the basis for ex-
panding contacts. In March 1978, Mario Soares-the Socialist
leader responsible for containing
Portugal’s mass revolutionary up-
surge of the mid-70s and known
within the IS as “the German’s
man”–headed a delegation to
Mexico, the Dominican Republic,
38
Venezuela, Jamaica and Costa
Rica. Contacts were also esta-
blished with groups and individuals
from Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador
and Uruguay.
This organizing drive met with
tremendous success-29 Latin
American organizations were
represented at the IS Congress in
November 1978, including the
Puerto Rican Independence Party
and Nicaragua’s Sandinista Front.
At that time, a special working
group on Latin America was
established through Swedish in-
itiative; it was headed by Michael
Manley of Jamaica with Peria
Gomez of the Dominican Republic
NACLA Reportupdate * update * update . update
as secretary. In addition, Manley,
Oduber of Costa Rica, Gonzalo
Barrios of Venezuela and Sule of
Chile were named vice-presidents
of the International.
These elections and appoint-
ments reflect the rivalry within the
IS between the more reform-
oriented Swedish section-sup-
porting Sule, Pefa Gomez and
Manley-and the more capital-
oriented German section-favor-
ing Barrios and Oduber. While one
should not exaggerate the con-
flicts among the European social
democrats, it is important to note
their different nuances in ap-
proach. The proposition that Ger-
man social democracy is con-
cerned, in Latin America, to create
a political base for German capital
is generally accepted in European
circles. In contrast, the orientation
of Swedish social democracy less
directly reflects its ties to capital.
First of all, Swedish multinational
capital is less prominent and
dynamic; secondly, Swedish trade
unions-especially the metal-
workers-are anxious to prevent
the flight of Swedish capital to low-
wage areas and hence, are in-
terested in the working conditions
of Swedish capital’s Latin
American employees. Its looser
linkage with capital allows the
Swedish Party a greater tactical
flexibility in dealing with new
radical and leftist forces in Latin
America and thus, allows it to
penetrate areas which its German
counterparts would find more dif-
ficult. Nevertheless, the Swedish
social democrats remain part of
the IS and accept the limits of
reform defined by the capitalist
system.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY’S
FLUCTUATING FORTUNES
In the recent experiences of
JanlFeb 1980
Latin American social democracy,
a particular pattern has recurred
with considerable frequency. In
opposition to right-wing military or
civilian regimes the social demo-
cratic movements have been able
to gather broad support and even,
in a number of cases, to take con-
trol of the government. But once in
power, the social democrats have
failed to implement their pro-
grams, sustain mass support and
retain political power; furthermore,
sharp divisions between the
political leadership administering
the state and the mass-based
organizational apparatus have led
to protracted internal struggles
and occasional splits to the right
and left.
Two social democratic parties
have recently won elections in the
Caribbean-the Jamaican
People’s National Party (PNP) and
the Revolutionary Dominican Party
(PRD) of the Dominican Republic.
In Jamaica the Manley govern-
ment began with a radical reform
program to nationalize foreign
enterprises, redistribute income
and mobilize the masses; how-
ever, it has turned into a regime
whose economic and social
policies are dictated by the Inter-
national Monetary Fund (IMF),
policies which have reduced the
living standards of wage workers
by 20-30%. In the Dominican
Republic the Guzman regime,
elected by a mass popular land-
slide, has been increasingly hostile
to the demands from the working
class and even from its own trade
union members-pursuing the
same capitalist development
policies of its predecessor.
Beyond their narrow electoral
and civil liberties commitments,
the social democrats have little to
offer. No effort is made to alter the
fundamental property, class and
state relations that perpetuate ine-
qualities. Moreover, because of
their dependence on private cap-
ital-both foreign and domes-
tic-they are limited with respect
to the incomes policies they can
pursue. Efforts to reform capital
that conflict with the conditions for
its profitable accumulation lead to
capital flight and consequent
economic stagnation. Efforts to
secure external financing bring in
their wake the myriad forms of in-
tervention in governmental policy-
making: the social democrats are
forced to become the instruments
for restructuring public spending,
social services and wage levels.
These practices lead to divisions
within the parties, further weaken
their organizational capacity and
inevitably lead to the party’s elec-
toral demise.
The very factors that facilitated
victory in opposition-the alliance
with capital, the agitation for
“classless democracy” and the
welfare capitalist model-are the
same factors that prevent com-
prehensive and consequential
change once the social democrats
have secured power. Recent
history suggests that social
democracy in Latin America, as a
social reform movement capable
of sustaining popular support, has
been a dismal failure. Yet social
democracy is not dead; on the
contrary, in many areas it is grow-
ing and will continue to grow,
given the conditions existing in
Latin America and the limited op-
tions from which the masses have
to choose.
Menu
