[This issue of International Outlook, the theoretical quarterly…]
1986 1986-04Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 7 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 7
This issue of International Outlook, the theoretical quarterly of Socialist Action, is devoted to a discussion of the character of the Nicaraguan Revolution, with special focus on the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN)'s strategic commitment to maintaining a "mixed economy" in that country.
Two articles in this section are by Etienne Hilaire, who has iwice been to Nicaragua with the French solidarity brigades. Hilaire's basic positions are consistent with the resolution on Nicaragua adopted by Socialist Action at its first national convention [see October 1985 International Outlook, "The Stakes of the Discussion on Central America"]. Many of Hilaire's formulations, however, are not necessarily those of Socialist Action.
The first piece in this International Outlook is an interview by Socialist Action with FSLN Commander Omar Cabezas, Chief of Political Direction at the Ministry of the Interior of Nicaragua. He is also the author of the best-seller, "Fire from the Mountain." The interview was conducted by Jeff Mackler in San Francisco on Jan. 22, 1986.—The Editors Socialist Action: There is a wide-ranging debate concerning the Sandinista government's commitment to preserving a "mixed economy" with sectors of the capitalist class and its strategy of maintaining political pluralism? Could you explain this strategy?
Omar Cabezas: These are extremely important and interesting questions. To answer them requires that I outline the strategy of the Sandinista Revolution.
The Nicaraguan Revolution triumphed 20 years after the Cuban Revolution. Cuba triumphed at a time when the relationship of forces on a world scale was very different than it is today; not only with respect to East-West relations, but also to the political process in Latin America and Western Europe.
The revolutionary movement, for example, was at a very low point in the rest of Latin America-or didn't even exist—in the late 1950s and early '60s. Nor did progressive ideas occupy much space then. The most that existed was one or another Communist Party of Stalinist inspiration. These parties were nothing more than bureaucratic apparatuses with little or no contact with the masses.
In this horrible political situation in Latin America, the Cubans—who were alone and didn't have to think about anyone else—could afford the luxury of taking the quickest possible path in the development of the revolutionary process and the transformation of the old socio-economic structures.
The Cubans at that moment had no immediate A Marxist Theoretical Revie APRIL 1986