La Unión Nacional Opositora UNO, se prepara para batalla presidencial de 1977

La Unión Nacional Opositora UNO, se prepara para batalla presidencial de 1977

El segundo semestre de 1976, para la dirección de la Unión Nacional Opositora, integrada por el PDC, MNR y UDN, estuvo dedicado a extraer las lecciones del evento electoral de marzo de 1976 y al diseño de una nueva estrategia política que les permitiera impactar en las elecciones presidenciales de 1977. Al final se concluyó en la necesidad de llevar como candidato a un militar retirado, el Coronel Ernesto Claramount Roseville, para enfrentar a la dictadura militar “con una cuña de su propio palo.” Esta novedosa fórmula militar-civil fue ratificada por la UNO el 31 de octubre.

Pero además, esta batalla política estratégica estuvo acompañada por otros elementos, como el recrudecimiento de incidentes fronterizos entre El Salvador y Honduras que dio lugar a campañas xenofóbicas de las clases dominantes en ambos países; la ofensiva de sectores oligárquicos contra el Primer Proyecto de Transformación Agraria promovido por el Gobierno de Molina; así como la pretensión del régimen militar de vincular al PCS con actividades terroristas.

También es de destacar el inicio de una campaña del PCS orientada a fomentar el debate teórico, ideológico y político para poder lograr la unidad de la izquierda salvadoreña. Y finalmente las repercusiones de la muerte del terrateniente cañero Eduardo Orellana Váldez. A continuación hacemos un resumen de estos acontecimientos, desde la visión del semanario de los comunistas salvadoreños, Voz Popular.

Luchar por la paz en Centro América tarea popular urgente

El 1 de agosto de 1976 la comisión política del PCS se pronunció a favor de un arreglo inmediato al conflicto entre El Salvador y Honduras. Expresó que “no puede prolongarse por más tiempo la firma de un acuerdo para el retiro d las tropas de la frontera entre El salvador y Honduras, estableciendo una zona de seguridad entre ambos países, como primer paso en el proceso de normalización de las relaciones rotas a raíz de la guerra de julio de 1969.”

Plantea que “la guerra no es la solución para resolver los problemas que han surgido o puedan surgir entre nuestros países…la paz beneficia a los sectores sociales mayoritarios de uno y otro lado de la frontera; la guerra los perjudica en todos los sentidos.”

Concluye que “por eso es necesario levantarse como un solo hombre frente a quienes, por ser beneficiarios de la muerte, atizan insensatamente el conflicto entre ambas naciones, en lugar de buscar una solución pacífica y civilizada.”

Comunistas rechazan acusación de presidente Molina

El 26 de agosto de 1976 la comisión política del PCS rechazó públicamente las acusaciones del presidente Molina de ser los responsables de colocar una bomba que estalló en la UCA. Afirman que “en el afán de congraciarse con los empresarios privados que adversan el Primer Proyecto y toda política de transformación agraria del gobierno, el Coronel Molina ha sorprendido a la opinión pública, al endilgar a nuestro Partido la responsabilidad de la colocación de una bomba que causó serios destrozos en las oficinas de la Dirección de Comunicaciones Impresas de la Universidad Católica.”

Considera el PCS que “la ofensiva reaccionaria de los empresarios habría comenzado a horadar la “firmeza” del Coronel, al explicar éste, en días anteriores, que los empresarios privados tenían derecho de opinar, cuando a estas alturas lo que estaban haciendo en sus publicaciones era declararse en rebeldía ante las disposiciones del ISTA.”

Concluye el comunicado que “rechazamos categóricamente las falaces imputaciones del Coronel Molina, las cuales solamente pueden ser parte de la preparación de la opinión pública para reprimir con mayor violencia a la oposición democrática; denunciamos también las garantías que el Presidente de la republica da al terrorismo de la derecha, el cual, tal como se ven las cosas, tenderá a recrudecerse.”

Junto a la crisis política y económica se mueve la sucesión presidencial

En el número 82 de VP de la cuarta semana de agosto de 1976 se considera que “el clima político nacional está saturado, en este momento, por el debate que la ANEP sostiene contra el gobierno, debido a la emisión del Primer Decreto de Transformación Agraria. La empresa privada, con sus 27 asociaciones, se haya lanzada encarnizadamente contra lo que ellos considera un medida socializante, que atenta contra la libre empresa, que destruye el derecho de propiedad, etc.”

Evalúa que “en este debate se mueve, junto a la crisis política del régimen y a la necesidad de darle una salida a la crisis económica que la mismo tiempo conserve y modernice el capitalismo, el problema de la sucesión presidencial. Este espinoso asunto tiene, a nuestro juicio una especial connotación, toda vez que afecta al ejército, a las organizaciones populares, al gobierno, a las clases dominantes y a los planes imperialistas para nuestro país; tal es al amplia dimensión de este problema.”

Analiza que “el 1 de julio pasado, junto con el 1er. Decreto del Transformación Agraria, se hizo, de parte del Coronel Molina, la presentación del virtual candidato oficial en la próxima campaña electoral, el ahora General Carlos Humberto Romero, ex Ministro de Defensa, máximo jefe de ORDEN, su principal punto de apoyo, que adquiere así una notable relevancia frene al PCN.”

Subraya que “la división entre ORDEN y el PCN plantea, entonces, una agudización, toda vez que la organización paramilitar aparece como la abanderada de la Transformación Agraria, en tanto que el PCN ha guardado un significativo silencio, no sólo ante la candidatura de Romero, sino también, ante el Primer Decreto de creación del ISTA. Tampoco el presidente Molina, Coordinador del PCN, ha recibido, públicamente, el apoyo d su partido en el prolongado debate con la ANEP.”

Puntualiza que “el ejército es el centro de un intenso proceso de aceptación de un candidato o de movimientos en su contra, situación que puede sumirle en significativa inestabilidad en un momento en que el gobiernos se encuentra enfrascado en serio debate con la poderosa empresa privada. Ese enfrentamiento va a agudizarse, en la medida en que el régimen avance en el cumplimiento del Primer Decreto de Transformación Agraria. De ese modo, la próxima campaña electoral se iniciara de no amainar el debate, en medio de ese acre pleito.”

Concluye que “vistas así las cosas, aparece claro que se necesita, en lo referente a l sucesión presidencial, un fuerte factor unificador el ejército en torno aun hombre y a un programa de transformación agraria. Preguntamos: ¿Será Romero el hombre adecuado para jugar ese papel?

El P.C.S. ante el primer proyecto de transformación agraria

En el número 84 de VP de finales de septiembre se publica un nuevo pronunciamiento del PCS sobre el proyecto de transformación agraria. Ya antes en julio se había publicado una posición partidaria al respecto. Se considera autocráticamente que en ese comunicado de julio “no fue correcto decir “el proyecto del ISTA justifica la lucha del pueblo salvadoreño…”

Ya que “la lucha por la reforma agraria ha estado justificada siempre, porque encarna los intereses de las masas campesinas, del proletariado agrícola, de la clase obrera, de todos los trabajadores y el pueblo. Lo que se quiso decir es que la medida demuestra la madurez de l crisis estructural y que los cambios han llegado a ser ineludibles…que la reforma anunciada es en el fondo una paso dado bajo la presión de la lucha popular por la reforma agraria, en la que cabe a nuestro Partido un papel de primera magnitud.”

Y continuando con ese espíritu autocrítico, señala que “tampoco fue correcto decir que hay que luchar “por conseguir el cumplimiento real y total de los objetivos del primer proyecto del ISTA,” porque esta formulación puede entenderse en el sentido de respaldar incluso las pretensiones, declaradas por el gobierno, de servirse de esa reforma para reforzar el capitalismo e impedir la revolución, de servir a ese sistema a manera de “un seguro de vida.”Lo que se quiso decir es que los campesinos y asalariados agrícolas deben exigir esa tierra prometida en el distrito y luchar para que se extienda a todo el país y pronto, la entrega de tierra a los campesinos.”

Argumenta que “negarse a conducir a las masas en el proceso de ejecución del distrito de “transformación agraria” equivale a abandonarlas a la influencia alienante del régimen, ayudar al éxito de su orientación; porque una cosa es muy clara, las masas acudirán a pedir y recibir tierra en el distrito y eso no v a impedirlo ninguna consigna supuestamente “revolucionaria” que les pida abstenerse de hacerlo.”

“Nosotros aceptamos sin rodeos la crítica que se nos ha hecho hasta el límite en que ella pone de manifiesto lo confuso de nuestras formulaciones en esa parte de nuestro pronunciamiento de julio; pero rechazamos la acusaciones que nos achaca la colaboración con finalidades proimperialistas y contrarrevolucionarias de la política agria del régimen.”

Puntualiza que “el P.C.S. es la fuerza política que primero estudió con profundidad el problema agrario nacional y sus raíces históricas concretas: fue el primero en elaborar un programa agrario revolucionario (1962) y el primero en llevar estos análisis y este programa de reforma agraria las más amplias masas, hasta situarlo en el centro de la lucha política nacional.”

Estima que “el momento que nuestro país vive exige la acción unida de las fuerzas populares. En la base de lo que ocurre está la madurez de la crisis estructural y la lucha entre la alternativa burguesa y la alternativa popular democrática de salida para la misma.”

Concluye que “de que actúe unido el movimiento popular depende en medida muy grande no sólo el que se pueda atajar y derrotar a los fascistas, sino también, y esto es aún mas importante, que el desenlace de la actual situación abra el paso a la alternativa popular democrática. Por eso, el PCS planta a toda la izquierda: entendámonos, concertemos la unidad, presentamos un frente unido a la reacción dividida, emprendamos juntos las vitales tareas de la hora actual.”

¿Hacia el golpe de derecha o hacia la capitulación de Molina?

En este mismo número 84 de VP se considera que “todas las informaciones disponibles coinciden en que originalmente había en la Directiva de ANEP cierta inclinación a adoptar una postura tolerante ante el primer proyecto del ISTA. Las opiniones en ese sentida iban desde las que preveían un rotundo fracaso económico y social del proyecto, y las que apreciaban el primer proyecto como una medida moderada y conveniente por sus posibles efectos enriquecedores del mercado interno y su contribución a la estabilidad del régimen.”

Agrega que “el punto irritante para los directivos de ANEP no estaba tanto en el proyecto mismo, sino en el hecho de que se hubiera decretado sin consultarlos a ellos previamente, en desmedro de su papel hegemónico en las decisiones del bloque de poder tradicional, en lo cual veían unánimemente no sólo una ofensa, sino un peligro de desplazamiento futuro.”

“Surgió, entretanto, una fuerte y creciente presión desde las capas terratenientes, con la característica de que la mayor virulencia y radicalismo de derecho provenía de los medianos y pequeños y no de los verdaderamente grandes, quienes por lo general son al mismo tiempo industriales, banqueros, exportadores e importadores, empresarios de los servicios, etc.”

Agrega que “la presión de los terratenientes medianos y pequeños obligó a la ANEP a adoptar una acción militante en contra del ISTA; pero no pudo alcanzarse, y aún no se ha alcanzado, la identificación total entre ellos. Por eso los terratenientes prefirieron organizar su propio movimiento el FARO y desde allí asegurar la marcha hacia sus objetivos de “todo o nada.”

Valora que “el punto de apoyo efectivo, casi único, del gobierno de Molina está en la Fuerza Armada, donde existe hoy por hoy, cierto equilibrio entre aquellos ( la mayoría ) que miran con esperanza y aprobación le rumbo reformista que Molina sostiene haber iniciado de un modo irreversible y aquellos que, se sienten interpretados por la candidatura de Romero y confían en “poner la casa en orden” una vez que este asuma la presidencia. Esta mezcla, hoy en equilibrio, es sin embargo sumamente contradictoria y explosiva.”

Advierte que “mientras los técnicos se esmeran en demostrar al público televidente que la causa de la miseria residen en la concentración de las riquezas y de los ingresos en manos de una reducida minoría de grandes capitalistas privilegiados, el gobierno de Molina ha abierto negociaciones secretas con esa misma minoría y prácticamente ha ordenado la paralización de la aplicación del proyecto.”

Con decisión y firmeza Molina claudica ante FARO-ANEP

En el número 85 de VP se señala que “la reyerta ente el gobierno y la ANEP-FARO e torno a la “transformación agraria” siguió el curso previsto en nuestro artículo anterior (¿Hacia el golpe…). De las negociaciones secretas se pasó al “diálogo” públicamente concertado en una breve reunión realizada el 7 de octubre entre Molina y una nutrida delegación de los empresarios, donde se anunció la integración de una comisión mixta para que prepare los términos del arreglo.

Añade que “se sabe, que fue el General Romero quien, apoyándose en el grupo de altos jefes militares que lo rodean, presionó par que el gobierno retrocediera en su posición y aceptara el arreglo. Bajo esa presión se inició el “diálogo” cuya función sería, en pocas palabras, servir de marco a la claudicación “honorable” de Molina, que había jurado públicamente “no dar ni un paso atrás.”

Analiza que “en los medios de ANEP hay euforia por el éxito, en los medios de FARO no tanta, porque ellos querían borrón total de la ley del ISTA y no e conforman con reformarla, aunque de todos modos respiran grueso y se ufanan del éxito. Pero algo amargó brevemente estas sonrisas en los últimos días: al parecer surgieron contra- presiones en el ejercito, desde los tecnócratas que diseñaron y defendieron al ISTA y/o desde la Embajada de Estados Unidos, para mantener en pie la agonizante “transformación agraria” y Molina volvió a mostrarse “en onda” y comenzaron a circular los rumores acerca de un inminente reinicio de la guerra ANEP-FARO contra el gobierno.”

Señala que “las renuncias de Arias Peñate y Viéytez tienen un mérito: ayudan al pueblo salvadoreño descubrir la verdadera naturaleza de este arreglo capitulador que Molina ha aceptado: por eso sus renunciad fueron publicadas discretamente en los periódicos. Creemos, sin embargo, que debe exigirse más de ellos: tiene el deber moral y cívico de explicar a la opinión pública lso motivos de sus renuncias y no aceptar que se les encubra con el hipócrita velo de los “motivos estrictamente personales.”Veremos.”

Frente a esta situación se pregunta el redactor de VP: “¿Serán capaces de entender ahora los dirigentes de todas las organizaciones de la izquierda que la unidad del movimiento popular es una necesidad vital y perentoria? Los trabajadores, los estudiantes, los maestros que forman filas en las bases de esas organizaciones, deben exigir la marcha hacia la unidad a aquellos dirigentes que se muestran sectarios y necios.”

Después del retroceso de Molina qué?

En el número 86 de VP se considera que “la derrota de se nuevo intento reformista encabezado por Molina implica no solo eso, implica además, el reagrupamiento de todas las fuerzas conservadoras y reaccionarios de entre los altos escalones de FARO y ANEP, vale, decir, los grandes terratenientes y grandes señores de la banca, la industria y el comercio, con el gobierno del Coronel Molina para imponer a la nación la candidatura de Romero.”

Decisiva y urgente la unidad de la izquierda

En el número 88 de VP se opina que “con la capitulación del gobierno frente a la ANEP w dobló la página de la ruidosa lucha en torno al Primer Proyecto de “transformación agraria” que mantuvo absorbida la atención de la opinión pública durante varios meses. El pliego de modificaciones introducidas ala ley del ISTA y al Decreto del Primer Proyecto sepultó la tímida tentativa reformista del gobierno y restableció la autoridad suprema e inapelable de la gran burguesía sobre el timón del Estado, ahogando su intento de actuar autónomamente.”

“Frente a todo este proceso político, los diversos agrupamientos de la izquierda salvadoreña han adoptado enfoques y tácticas diversas, que dificultan la posibilidad de un actuación unida del movimiento popular, en un momento tan crítico y tan cargado a la vez de peligros y prometedoras perspectivas.”

Plantea que “nosotros reputamos la unidad de la izquierda como la cuestión más decisiva y urgente a corto plazo, para hacer del movimiento popular la fuerza determinante del proceso político de nuestro país y, en consecuencia, creemos que este problema debe merecer la mayor unción y dedicación de cuantos de verdad nos proponemos alcanzar la instauración de un poder popular.”

Comprende que “el asunto es complejo y difícil; la unidad de la izquierda no vendrá por si sola o, como pronta respuesta a los llamamientos unitarios. Además de lanzar tales llamamientos es necesario luchar por la unidad, es decir, derrotar la sectaria obstinación divisionista, lo cual, aparte de superar resentimientos, odiosidades y prejuicios personales entre dirigentes, implica un debate, no sólo y no tanto ideológico, sino y sobre todo, político teórico, ya que con este problema de la unidad de la izquierda están vinculados otros problemas estratégicos y tácticos, cuyo esclarecimiento está pendiente desde hace por lo menos cinco años en las filas revolucionarias salvadoreñas. Esta tarea puede resumirse en la fórmula “unidad y lucha por la unidad.”

Explica que “teniendo por divisa l unidad de la izquierda y reconociendo la necesidad de luchar por ella, procuraremos desde estas páginas adentrarnos en el complejo terreno de la problemática política, teórica e ideológica en que la mencionada lucha por la unidad está planteada, abordando sucesivamente las posiciones de diversas organizaciones de izquierda, sin excluir las nuestras, y sin eludir los aspectos auto críticos y críticos que ella merece.”

Inicia con una valoración sobre el pensamiento y las actuaciones del Bloque Popular Revolucionario, BPR. Cita declaraciones de la Dra. Mélida Anaya Montes ( dirigente del BPR) aparecidas en el periódico Primera Plana del 1 de octubre, que responde a declaraciones de Schafik Handal, secretario general del PCS. Plantea la Dra. Anaya Montes, que luego sería la Comandante Ana María, dirigente de las FPL y del FMLN en ese momento: “Debe madurar más el proceso revolucionario y estar garantizad ala hegemonía del proletariado para que se proceda ala unidad amplia del pueblo…Es doloroso, pero la desunión es un asunto necesario; la desunión es la manifestación de una lucha ideológica.”

Opina el redactor de VP que “los dirigentes del BPR parecen creer que, impulsando la lucha reivindicativa, politizarán a las masas trabajadoras y llevarán al proletariado a conquistar la hegemonía en el movimiento popular, y se han aferrado a esta línea con tanta pasión como la que hace apenas dos años ponían en argumentar que la lucha económica es algo “superado” en nuestro país y que impulsarla no era propio de “revolucionarios verdaderos” sino de “revisionistas”, “oportunistas” y “reformistas.”

Evalúa la VP que “una característica sobresaliente de la lucha reivindicativa, que ahora impulsa el BPR consiste, en que los pliegos de demandas culminan con el reclamo de que se satisfagan emitiendo leyes, y con tal fin, han convertido a la Asamblea Legislativa, ahora totalmente en manos del PCN, en la Terminal de sus movilizaciones importantes.”

Considera la VP luego de hace runa cita del Que hacer? de Lenin, que “no se trata de que nos opongamos a impulsar la lucha económica de las masas trabajadoras, lo que nosotros rechazamos es que esta lucha sirva para concentrar la atención de estas en sus intereses exclusivos y para hacerlas volver la espalda a sus tareas políticas actuales: lo que rechazamos es la pretensión de “imprimir un carácter político a la lucha económica misma” porque esto es economismo y no política revolucionaria.”

Amigos del BPR: unamos nuestra acción y atajemos al enemigo común

En el número 89 de VP se le da seguimiento a esta temática de la unidad de la izquierda. Afirma que la línea política del BPR es “economista, que constituye en el fondo una orientación derechista, burguesa, para el movimiento popular, particularmente para la lucha de los trabajadores, a pesar del palabrerío radical y “vanguardista” que el BPR emplea.”

Reconoce que “nosotros, que hemos padecido la enfermedad del economismo durante varios años, en el movimiento sindical en el que participamos, la conocemos no solo en teoría, sabemos de sus degradantes consecuencias y estamos enfrentando hoy las grandes dificultades inherentes a la tarea de erradicar esa enfermedad perniciosa, condición indispensable para educar al movimiento obrero en la conciencia revolucionaria.”

Afirma la VP que “nosotros sostenemos que no existe hoy otro terreno que el terreno electoral para agrupar la fuerza necesaria para enfrentar ese peligro y que no hay ahora otro objetivo distinto a la conquista de un gobierno democrático capaz de agrupar las fuerzas suficientes , agudizar suficientemente las contradicciones políticas en las clases dominantes para atajar el paso al próximo peldaño decisivo en al escalada fascista o “fascistoide” , el peligro del “próximo gobierno tiránico” como prefiere llamarlo el Consejo Ejecutivo de AGEUS (UR-19).”

Se pregunta l redacto de VP: ¿No será que los dirigentes del Bloque esperan que la lucha económica que están promoviendo conduzca a enfrentamiento de las masas con las fuerzas represivas con la esperanza de que tales enfrentamientos originen la “magia de la excitación popular” que conduzcan al “desplome” o al debilitamiento del régimen, o a la paralización de su escalada fascista (o fscistoide)?”

“Si así fueran sus cálculos, ustedes amigos se encaminan inconsciente e irresponsablemente a propiciar las mejores condiciones para la reunificación de las fuerzas reaccionarias y vacilantes de todos los matices que hay en el bando adverso al pueblo, alrededor de una jefatura única, la jefatura fascista. Si esta fuera su táctica, amigos, ustedes están preparando el terreno para una gran carnicería de los fascistas contra las masas y ayudando a su entronización abierta para muchos años.”

Concluye que “amigos del BPR una vez más: unamos nuestra acción, atajemos juntos al enemigo común, defendamos al movimiento popular, a sus organizaciones y cuadros, hagamos avanzar su marcha hacia las metas revolucionarias.”

Precaria situación de General Romero en Fuerza Armada

En el numero 90 de VP se realiza un análisis de la coyuntura lectoral que enfrentaba a la UNO y al PCN. Sobre el candidato de la derecha, el General Carlos Humberto Romero se opina que “se enfrenta al más extenso y abrumador desprestigio entre el pueblo, tanto de su propia persona, como del régimen que representa. En vastos sectores populares, ese desprestigio s vuelve franco y abierto repudio y, en gran medida, disposición a impedir su llegada a la Presidencia…La situación de Romero dentro de la Fuerza Armada es, hasta cierto punto precaria. ”

Evalúa que “la mayor dificultad que el candidato pecenista enfrenta para consumar sus planes, consiste en que el fraude que necesita para “ganar” la votación es demasiado grane como para realizarlo con sigilo, ya que el descontento popular se ha agudizado y extendido más en los últimos tiempos por causa de hechos como los siguientes…”

Concluye que “la muerte del terrateniente Eduardo Orellana Váldez, el domingo 5 de diciembre, durante los incidentes ocasionados con motivo de una manifestación de campesinos reclamantes en su hacienda “Colma” han promovido una fuerte ola de presiones de las organizaciones empresariales sobre el gobierno para que desencadene una gran represión; y no es difícil advertir que este casos e convertirá en la bandera para el reagrupamiento independiente de la derecha ( independiente del gobierno) y para la promoción de su idea de una dictadura sangrienta, incluso por la vía del golpe de Estado.”

Tarea de urgencia rechazar ofensiva fascista

En el numero 91 de VP, de la tercera semana de diciembre, que fue la ultima edición de 1976, se evalúa la situación provocada por la muerte del terrateniente Eduardo Orellana Valdez., dueño de la Hacienda Colima, que provocó una ofensiva de los sectores más reaccionarios de la oligarquía salvadoreña exigiendo el ajuste de cuentas con “los comunistas.”

“Nosotros sostenemos que es urgente e indispensable que todo el movimiento popular y democrático cierre filas para rechazar y condenar con energía la descarada ofensiva fascista que encabeza el Consejo Coordinador Nacional de FARO. Es necesario desenmascarar ante todo el pueblo su pensamiento reaccionario; el programa fascista por el que ellos luchan, su condición de punta de lanza ideológica de la ultraderecha nacional e imperialista, lanzada en este momento a la arena política para llevar a la irracional histeria anti-comunista a considerables sectores, especialmente de las capas medias, con el fin de crear las condiciones favorables al zarpaso fascista contra nuestro pueblo.”

Concluye que “insistimos, en que el grupo de ideólogos fascistas que lo encabeza (FARO) no debe ser subestimado, y que solo dejará de ser peligroso cuando se le desemascare y aísle, y cuando el movimiento popular y democrático alcance los mayores niveles de unidad, movilización y combatividad y lleve al timón del Estado al gobierno democrático que postula la UNO.”

DECLARACIÓN 2da. Asamblea Nacional – Plataforma del Movimiento Social y Popular de Honduras

DECLARACIÓN 2da. Asamblea Nacional – Plataforma del Movimiento Social y Popular de Honduras

Las organizaciones integrantes de la Plataforma del Movimiento Social y Popular de Honduras, autoconvocadas el 12 y 13 de julio del 2014, en su II Asamblea Nacional “CON UNIDAD AVANCEMOS HACIA LA ACCION Y LUCHA NACIONAL” en Siguatepeque “Cerro de Mujeres”, en su significado náhuatl, nos reunimos mujeres y hombres de todo el país para compartir la esperanza de articular nuestras luchas legítimas y declarar el camino de este largo proceso por el que responden más de 30 organizaciones:

1. La espiritualidad heredada de nuestras ancestras y ancestros acompaña nuestro encuentro: el puro de hojas de tabaco de nuestras guías garífunas que auguraron buena cosecha se fundieron con el calendario Maya, presagiando los días de semilla y pensamiento, para ser la siembra de trabajo, la cosecha de justicia y buen vivir que desde ya enunciamos para el mañana.

2. Celebramos logros concretos, producto de los alzamientos territoriales que han garantizado la interrupción de los planes de despojo y privatización de nuestros bienes comunes y naturales. Es por estos logros del pueblo lenca que las aguas del Río Gualcarque siguen corriendo en libertad; La lucha del Movimiento Amplio por la Dignidad y la Justicia, MADJ en la zona norte, del pueblo Tolupán en Locomapa que no permiten la salida de más madera de sus bosques; la lucha de la comunidad de Nueva Esperanza por la defensa territorial ante el proyecto extractivo de minería en la zona; la lucha del pueblo garífuna de OFRANEH, que mantiene una expresión de vida nueva en Vallecito, desafiando al poder militar y narcotráfico de su territorio, del pueblo lenca de Opalaca que construye poder autónomo a través de la defensa de una Alcaldía Legítima con su Consejo de Ancianos y de la Vara Alta como expresión de su cosmovisión indígena; la lucha campesina en el Aguán resistiendo pese a la barbarie cometida por el palmero de la muerte, Miguel Facussé Barjum, la resistencia del Movimiento ambientalista santabarbarense, MAS en el Níspero enfrentando a poderes económicos que pretenden privatizar la vida; al pueblo de la Península de Zacate Grande que firmemente defiende su derecho a tener su radio comunitaria y ahora se preparan para resistir a las Zonas de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico, ZEDES o Ciudades Modelo; las lucha estudiantil criminalizada desde el oficialismo de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma y la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, F.M.; la lucha por otra economía posible enfrentada por nuestros hermanos y hermanas de la Red Comal a partir de la entrada de los Tratados de Libre Comercio, TLC; la lucha de organizaciones feministas, de mujeres que dan la batalla por la soberanía de sus cuerpos, de sus formas de pensar y de enfrentar la vida, muchas veces contrapuesta a la visión de la dominación histórica y patriarcal. Son tantos los ejemplos de Resistencia autentica que revitalizan nuestras esperanzas y nos reiteran que la legitimidad nos asiste y que la razón nos aguarda para seguir soñando.

3. Las diferentes formas en que la criminalización contra el movimiento social se expresan: asesinato, despojo, empobrecimiento, desalojos, destierro, judicialización, desprestigio, persecución, desconocimiento legal de procesos legítimos como la cancelación de personerías jurídicas, militarización y todas las estrategias que van garantizando la profundización de la crisis y la obscena brecha que genera este modelo extractivista, capitalista, racista y patriarcal como reflejo de su decadencia, el presagio del apagón de su falso resplandor, el derrumbe de su fragilidad institucional y el desenmascaramiento de su falsa democracia.

4. Desde la diversidad que nos conforma, la alegría que nos caracteriza, el amor que nos mueve y la capacidad de reinventarnos que nos identifica, nos convocamos como pueblo a volver a hacer de las calles nuestro punto de encuentro. Es hora de movilizarnos con un carácter insurreccional, de encender las luces que nos sostendrán en el apagón del exterminio, de deconstruir el poder hasta ahora impuesto, aprendido y reproducido para darle paso a un poder propio que tenga que ver con el pasito del día a día, donde ya no haya consumo sino que siembra, donde ya no nos enfermamos con sus drogas nombradas medicinas sino sanarnos antes de enfermarnos, cuidándonos con nuestras sabidurías, hierbas, con nuestra ciencia ancestral.

5. Que es tiempo de dejar de ver a las mujeres para abajo y de buscar un equilibrio en las relaciones de poder entre hombres y mujeres, encontrarnos como iguales y juntos construyamos parques llenos de vida, donde nuestras niñas y niños puedan jugar y no tengan que escapar a la muerte del norte, ni les enseñen a matar desde chiquitos para perpetuar la cultura de muerte que nos impone este sistema lleno de injusticia, que aprendan el respeto desde pequeños para que ninguna mujer sea violada jamás y que, en las canciones no sean las malas o las asesinadas, a dar la batalla de las ideas, avanzar de la resistencia de la defensa a la ofensiva mediática desde el poder popular contrahegemónico.

6. Que mantenemos nuestro compromiso e intensificaremos nuestra lucha por la libertad de nuestro compañero preso político Isabel (Chabelo) Morales, símbolo de la lucha campesina. Con su lucha ha quedado evidenciado que su proceso excede lo jurídico y responde al carácter estructural de un Estado que defiende a una burguesía terrateniente, que utilizará todas las herramientas políticas a su disposición para despojar la tierra a quien la trabaja y darla a quienes históricamente la han concentrado en forma de riqueza y acumulación. Por lo tanto, nuestra respuesta seguirá siendo política, estructural, de raíz.

7. Que es genuina nuestra disposición de alianzas con otras expresiones del pueblo organizado en resistencia porque les reconocemos en su fuerza, en su compromiso ético, en su propuesta y, sabemos que habrán siempre puntos de encuentro en nuestras agendas de lucha, respeto, consenso o, acuerdos mínimos en los momentos en los que discrepáramos.

8. Que no olvidamos a quienes siempre nos han demostrado solidaridad, al Colectivo Pañuelos en Rebeldía de Argentina a quien también se les judicializa y persigue, al pueblo Palestino que enfrenta un genocidio avalado con el silencio cómplice de gobiernos que dicen llamarse “democráticos y respetuosos de la vida”; como miembros de la Articulación de Movimientos Sociales hacía el ALBA nos integramos a las acciones de solidaridad con el pueblo de Haití, por la salida inmediata de la Misión de las Naciones Unidas para la Estabilización de Haití (MINUSTAH), que tiene 10 años sirviendo los planes de dominación; por la liberación de los 5 presos políticos cubanos, digno ejemplo de lucha anti imperialista en el continente; solidaridad con el proyecto bolivariano de Venezuela atacado por la derecha internacional y por el imperio norteamericano; nuestra solidaridad con los compañeros y compañeras de Paraguay que vienen luchando para lograr justicia y el esclarecimiento por la Masacre de Curuguaty en Marina Kue.

9. Finalmente, nuestro llamado a la unificación del movimiento popular en resistencia, avanzar en la búsqueda de la unidad desde el consenso y no desde la represión; es la hora de avanzar en la movilización popular unificada, en los levantamientos territoriales para defender la vida y los bienes comunes de la naturaleza, de la construcción de un plan ideológico-político que podamos trabajar y heredar a las futuras generaciones de luchadores y luchadoras, tiempo de la lucha urbana organizada, de paros cívicos permanentes, nacionales, regionales o locales como una forma legítima de construir las bases para refundar la patria, la matria.

Con la espiritualidad de los pueblos que históricamente resisten ante el colonialismo y neocolonialismo de la barbarie de más de quinientos años,

Avanzamos y Venceremos

CON UNIDAD AVANCEMOS HACIA LA ACCION Y LUCHA NACIONAL
Plataforma del Movimiento Social y Popular

Siguatepeque, 12 y 13 de julio, 2014

7 consecuencias de la alianza entre IBM y Apple

7 consecuencias de la alianza entre IBM y Apple
Escrito por Network World el 16 • Julio • 2014 y tiene comentariosimagen del articulo

El acuerdo exclusivo entre Apple e IBM podría tener consecuencias duraderas para ambas compañías, así como para sus rivales Google, Microsoft y BlackBerry. También podría hacer más fácil la vida del personal TI de las grandes organizaciones.

Casi al mismo tiempo que se anunciaba en Estados Unidos la alianza en movilidad empresarial entre IBM y Apple aparecían los primeros análisis de la operación, que básicamente se pueden resumir en estos siete puntos:

Mayor presión competitiva.

La consecuencia de fondo del acuerdo firmado entre Apple e IBM supone la introducción de más presión competitiva en el mercado de movilidad para los negocios mediante un compromiso calificado hasta cuatro veces como “exclusivo” en el comunicado oficial de la alianza. Y eso significa que, al menos a corto y medio plazo, Apple no anunciará un acuerdo similar con HP. Es más, IBM, también al menos por ahora, pone todos los huevos en la cesta de Apple, aparentemente a costa de Android y Windows Phone. “Queremos decir que estos servicios y apps estarán específicamente dirigidos al iPhone y el iPad”, ha afirmado un portavoz de IBM al ser preguntado por el significado de “exclusivo” con el que ha sido calificado el acuerdo. “Son los mejores dispositivos móviles del mundo, desde nuestro punto de vista”.

Mayor integración del mundo Apple en la empresa.

Pese a que los dispositivos de Apple son utilizados ampliamente por los profesionales, la compañía es vista como una ‘extraña’ en el mundo corporativo, al que siempre ha dado la espalda. El acuerdo, sin embargo, mejora la consideración de Apple por parte de los profesionales TI, según Roger Kay, analista de Endpoint Technologies, al integrar sus dispositivos con las soluciones y el soporte de IBM, una compañía que siempre ha hecho enormes esfuerzos durante su historia por comprender las necesidades corporativas. Esto le aporta además a Apple un valioso canal de distribución en la empresa sin tener que cambiar sustancialmente ni su filosofía ni su operativa

Mayor acceso de IBM a la tecnología de Apple.

Ambas compañías ya han sido socios en muchas iniciativas, afirma Kay, pero hasta ahora IBM ha tenido el mismo acceso a las API y herramientas de Apple que otras compañías. La nueva alianza cambia las cosas. IBM tendrá un mayor acceso a las características de Apple, como Find My Phone y sus capacidades de borrado remoto, permitiéndole integrarlas en sus propias herramientas de gestión móvil, por ejemplo.

Cambio de imagen de IBM y Apple.

La alianza supone un movimiento inusual en Apple, que suele actuar como un ‘lobo solitario’, al acercarse tanto interna y públicamente a un socio. Para IBM representa una oportunidad para refrescar su imagen corporativa, tantas veces considerada como demasiado seria y conservadora, gracias a su asociación conceptual con los iPhone e iPad.

¿Compromiso relevante?

Jack Gold, presidente de J. Gold Associates, pone en duda la relevancia del acuerdo recordando las alianzas creadas en el pasado por IBM con BlackBerry y la desaparecida Palm. En su opinión, el acuerdo no es sorprendente puesto que permite al grupo de software de IBM ampliar su base de clientes entre los usuarios que precisan más soporte de iOS. Para Charles King, de Pund-IT, es difícil saber de antemano la trascendencia que tendrá la alianza, pero reconoce que tener soporte oficial de IBM para esas 100 apps contempladas en el acuerdo será una opción atractiva para algunos de sus clientes.

Contratiempo para Microsoft.

El compromiso puede perjudicar a Microsoft en particular. “Los usuarios a los que se dirigen Apple e IBM con esta alianza son los mismos por los que Microsoft ha estado luchando en los últimos años con Windows Phone,” asegura King. “Es un contratiempo más con el que tendrá que luchar y un nuevo dolor de cabeza”.

¿El fin definitivo para BlackBerry?

Carolina Milanesi, analista de Kantor Worldpanel, afirma que la combinación de Apple e IBM marca el fin definitivo para BlackBerry. Apple ahora consigue abordar el mundo profesional con un personal de soporte y ventas bien experimentado en los entornos empresariales. “Pienso que para BlackBerry podría significar la gota que colma el vaso”.

Los Brics buscan articular una política monetaria sin Washington

Los Brics buscan articular una política monetaria sin Washington

África, Asia, Brasil, Europa

El Fondo Monetario alternativo que crearán ayudará a países con problemas en su balanza de pagos. En los medios brasileños se hacen conjeturas respecto a que Argentina podría ser el primer país en pedir un crédito de emergencia a la nueva institución.

La creación del Fondo se interpreta como una reacción al lento proceso de reformas del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI).

Dom, 07/13/2014 – 17:54

LinkedIn

Share

Incluso tras la final en el Maracaná, Brasil seguirá siendo el centro de atención. Este lunes comienza en Fortaleza la cumbre de los Estados Brics. Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica planean una alternativa al FMI.

Entre los objetivos más importantes del encuentro de los Brics se encuentran la creación de un Banco de Desarrollo y un Fondo Monetario alternativo. “La creación de estas instituciones muestra que los países BRICS quieren extender su influencia de forma constructiva. La idea es ser la contraparte del Banco Mundial y Fondo Monetario Internacional”, aclara José Alfredo Graça Lima, subsecretario del ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores brasileño, conocido también como Itamaraty.

Navegador Semántico

Entidades Mencionadas

Brics

Con el nuevo Banco de Desarrollo, que contará con un capital inicial de US$50.000 millones de dólares y un volumen de financiamiento de US$100.000 millones, se apoyarán proyectos de infraestructura en los Estados Brics y en países en vías de desarrollo.

Por su parte, el nuevo Fondo Monetario ayudará a países con problemas en su balanza de pagos. En los medios brasileños se hacen conjeturas respecto a que Argentina podría ser el primer país en pedir un crédito de emergencia a la nueva institución. La presidenta argentina, Cristina Kirchner, ya confirmó su participación en el encuentro de los jefes de Estado de los Brics con sus homólogos sudamericanos, el 16 de julio en Brasilia.

China es quien más paga. Pero aún hay muchas preguntas abiertas. Ni la sede de las nuevas instituciones, ni sus nombres o los criterios según los cuales concederían créditos han sido definidos. Solo el volumen de financiamiento está claro. Según informaciones de Itamaraty, de los US$100.000 millones, 41.000 millones provendrán de China. Brasil, India y Rusia contribuirán cada uno con US$18.000 millones, y Sudáfrica desembolsará US$5.000 millones.

La creación del Fondo se interpreta, no sólo en Brasil, como una reacción al lento proceso de reformas del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). Durante la cumbre del Banco Internacional y el FMI a inicios de 2014, la reforma de este –que había sido acordada en el 2010– fracasó a causa del veto estadounidense. A través de dicha reforma se habría introducido un desplazamiento del 6% de los derechos de voto en favor de los países en vías de desarrollo.

“Todos quieren más flexibilidad. Los Estados BRICS le muestran a los Estados Unidos que los cambios son posibles”, comenta Lia Valls Pereira, economista del think tank brasileño “Getulio Vargas”. El Fondo y el Banco de Desarrollo podrían contribuir a crear una identidad común del grupo.

Una definición difícil. El subsecretario del Itamary, José Alfredo Graça Lima, admite que el proceso apenas está empezando. “Es más fácil decir qué no son los Brics que decir qué son”, resume Graça Lima. “No son una organización internacional, una unión aduanera ni una zona de libre comercio”, aclara. “Son más bien un mecanismo de cooperación entre sus miembros, que ha demostrado ser útil”.

La cooperación se reduce hasta ahora al comercio entre todos los miembros y China. Las exportaciones de Brasil a ese país aumentaron de US$1.000 millones en el año 2000 a US$46.000 millones en 2013. Ya en 2012 China superó a los Estados Unidos y se convirtió en el mayor socio comercial de Brasil.

En cambio, las exportaciones brasileñas al resto de países Brics son modestas. Según el ministerio de Comercio Exterior del Brasil, en 2013 las exportaciones a la India totalizaron US$1,3 mil millones, a Rusia US$3.000 millones y a Sudáfrica US$1,8 mil millones.

Políticamente, a estos países emergentes los une el deseo de modificar el orden global y el poder central de los Estados Unidos. La creación de instituciones financieras que se preparan a quebrar el Sistema Bretton Woods, introducido tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, podría convertir la cumbre de Fortaleza en un acontecimiento histórico.

Para Brasil, tras el Mundial de Fútbol, este sería el segundo acontecimiento histórico en pocos días. Y todo indica que la cumbre de los países BRICS entrará en la historia. Pues la participación del presidente chino, Xi Jinping, del primer ministro indio Narendra Modi y del presidente ruso Vladímir Putin convertirán a Brasil durante cuatro días en el escenario político mundial.

Es dudoso que en Fortaleza se discutan también temas políticos internacionales. No solo Rusia y China, sino también India, Sudáfrica y Brasil persiguen la máxima de no entrometerse en asuntos de política exterior. El anuncio del ministro de Asuntos Exteriores brasileño, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado, es breve y claro: “Los Brics y Ucrania: esos son temas que no pueden ser mezclados”.

Avaaz sobre Monsanto

AVAAZ SOBRE MONSANTO
Queridos amigos y amigas,
La fuente de los alimentos del planeta está en riesgo. Diez compañías agroquímicas son dueñas del 73% de las semillas en el mercado, y en algunos lugares se ha extinguido hasta el 93% de las variedades de semillas. Solamente en México, 1500 variedades de maíz están en peligro de extinción.

Monsanto y amigos están privatizando los orígenes de la naturaleza. Este golpe corporativo está perjudicando la agricultura sostenible, destruyendo la diversidad de nuestros cultivos y haciéndolos vulnerables a enfermedades que podrían amenazar nuestra seguridad alimentaria.

Pero los agricultores están resistiendo y guardando sus semillas en bancos y graneros de todo el mundo. Ahora han ideado un proyecto revolucionario: el primer mercado de semillas sin ánimo de lucro en Internet, donde cualquier campesino en cualquier parte del mundo puede encontrar una amplia variedad de plantas a mejores precios que las semillas transgénicas de las compañías agroquímicas. Esta tienda virtual podría volver a inundar el mercado de todo tipo de semillas y, poco a poco, ir rompiendo el monopolio que está amenazando nuestro futuro alimentario.

Ésta podría ser la idea más innovadora que ha habido en el mundo de la agricultura en décadas y la mejor forma de frenar a Monsanto. Sin embargo, las compañías químicas suelen presionar y demandar a aquéllos que se cruzan en su camino y, por eso, los campesinos están pidiendo nuestro apoyo. Si juntamos suficientes fondos ahora, podemos ayudar a los agricultores del mundo a lanzar un mercado de semillas por Internet, apoyar la preservación de semillas en países clave, financiar mercadotecnia y publicidad y costear las batallas legales para defenderlo.

Durante miles de años, la agricultura funcionó porque los campesinos seleccionaban, sembraban y creaban nuevas variedades de semillas. Entonces, las agroquímicas convencieron a muchos gobiernos de que promovieran el sistema de monocultivos industriales. Las compañías prometieron a los campesinos mayores cosechas y mediante contratos engañosos los han obligado a usar sus semillas transgénicas y pesticidas. Para rematar, cuentan con leyes de patentes para obligarlos a que abandonen sus prácticas tradicionales de cuidado de las semillas.

Todavía no hay consenso en torno a los efectos a largo plazo de los cultivos transgénicos, pero los expertos dicen que la falta de estudios científicos independientes indica que algunos alimentos transgénicos pueden representar un riesgo para nuestra salud. Además, no existen pruebas claras de que el cultivo de semillas transgénicas haya mejorado las ganancias de los agricultores o aumentado la producción de alimentos para la población mundial. En muchos casos, ha hecho quebrar a los pequeños agricultores y, en casos extremos, los ha llevado al suicidio para escapar de las deudas.

Hay otras consecuencias terribles que van más allá de la situación de los campesinos. Según la Organización de la ONU para la Alimentación y la Agricultura, más de tres cuartos de la diversidad genética de nuestros cultivos ha desaparecido por la consolidación de las semillas industriales y las propias prácticas industriales. Cuando se cubren grandes extensiones de tierra con un solo monocultivo en lugar de rotarlos o diversificarlos, nuestros campos se vuelven más susceptibles a las enfermedades. Aunque la modificación genética incremente el rendimiento de algunos cultivos, si no salvamos la diversidad de nuestras semillas ni recurrimos a prácticas sostenibles a nivel local para enfrentarnos a las condiciones cambiantes de nuestro medio ambiente, la seguridad alimentaria mundial podría estar en peligro.

Pero esta crisis se puede superar. Las corporaciones detrás de las semillas solo rondan desde hace unas décadas, mientras que los campesinos y comunidades indígenas han ido guardando sus semillas tradicionalmente. Con nuestro respaldo, este mercado de semillas en Internet podría ayudarnos a recuperar y preservar nuestros alimentos. Una coalición de más de 20 grupos y líderes de la agricultura sostenible, como el Centro para la Seguridad Alimentaria y la activista Vandana Shiva, están a la espera, listos para lanzar el proyecto. Nuestro fondo común podría ayudar a:

• Apoyar iniciativas para preservar semillas directamente en África, Asia, Europa, Estados Unidos y América Latina.
• Crear un página web de renombre mundial para conectar a agricultores, campesinos y comunidades de todo el mundo, permitiéndoles vender sus semillas e intercambiar opiniones sobre las mejores prácticas agrícolas.
• Financiar las batallas legales necesarias para defender este mercado de semillas sin ánimo de lucro de los ataques de Monsanto y otros.
• Promocionar y publicitar el mercado de semillas online para que todos los campesinos y agricultores del mundo se unan.
• Impulsar campañas para proteger nuestras semillas del secuestro corporativo y de las patentes.
Durante años, Monsanto ha estado imponiendo a los agricultores (y a todos nosotros) sus semillas transgénicas y su visión industrial de la agricultura. ¡Llegó el momento de unirnos para lanzar este proyecto revolucionario y salvaguardar las diferentes variedades de maíz, peras y tomates para nuestros nietos!

“Sembrar una semilla es activar los misterios más profundos del universo”. Las semillas guardan los orígenes y el misterio de la vida tal como la conocemos. Apoyemos esta iniciativa para proteger nuestros orígenes de un dominio corporativo absoluto y para ayudar a recuperar miles de frutas, verduras y cereales que ya creíamos perdidos.

Con esperanza y determinación,

Alice, Maria Paz, Nick, Emma, Ricken, Antonia, Patricia, Mais, Emily, Diego y todo el equipo de Avaaz

Más Información:

El Día Mundial de la Alimentación 2004 señala la importancia de la biodiversidad para la seguridad alimentaria mundial (FAO)
http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/ES/news/2004/51140/index.html

El campo mata (El País)
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/12/20/actualidad/1387561074_317026.html

El campesino, en peligro de extinción en Paraguay, advierte experto (DW)
http://www.dw.de/el-campesino-en-peligro-de-extinci%C3%B3n-en-paraguay-advierte-experto/a-17722794

Cosecha de suicidio (Project Syndicate)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/harvest-of-suicide/spanish

300 mil agricultores norteamericanos en picada contra Monsanto (Veo Verde)
http://www.veoverde.com/2012/03/300-mil-agricultores-norteamericanos-en-picada-contra-monstanto/

Entre 1903 y 1983, el mundo ha perdido el 93% de variedades clave de semillas (National Geographic — en inglés)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic

El problema del monocultivo de soja en Argentina (La Gran Época)
http://www.lagranepoca.com/32156-problema-del-monocultivo-soja-argentina

En peligro de extinción 1500 especies de maíz (La Foja)
http://lafoja.com/184/notcinco184.htm

COFEVI denuncia ante Ministro Ortez el papel nefasto de Monsanto

SAN SALVADOR, 11 de julio de 2014 (SIEP) Una fructífera reunión sostuvieron este mediodía el nuevo Ministro de Agricultura, Orestes Ortez y los pastores luteranos Ricardo Cornejo y Roberto Pineda, representantes de las Comunidades de fe y Vida, COFEVI de El Salvador.

“Uno de los principales propósitos de nuestro Gobierno es garantizar la soberanía alimentaria de los sectores populares así como fortalecer nuestra agricultura…” expresó enfáticamente el Ministro Ortez.

Por su parte, los pastores luteranos le expresaron que “en nuestras comunidades rurales del occidente, centro y oriente del país existe una fuerte preocupación por la pretensión de la corporación transnacional Monsanto, de desplazar a nuestros productores nacionales de semillas, lo que vendría a golpear a la agricultura campesina. Esperamos del Gobierno una actitud firme frente a esta amenaza.”

Asimismo los pastores luteranos le trasladaron al Ministro Ortez la preocupación “por las acciones que sectores derechistas están realizando para encarecer artificialmente el precio del frijol, y de esta manera crearle dificultades a este segundo gobierno de izquierda y ala vez afectar a nuestra gente, el bolsillo de nuestro pueblo.”

Ambas partes coincidieron finalmente en la necesidad de aprobar una reforma tributaria que permita al estado contar con mayores recursos para garantizar la continuidad de los programas sociales y particularmente aquellos vinculados con el sector campesino.”

Feminismo, maternidad y justicia

Feminismo, maternidad y justicia
julio 10, 2014 Voces Comentar
Publicado en: Actualidad, De furias y ternuras – Julia Evelyn Martínez, Foro de opiniones, Nacionales, Voces Ciudadanas

Escribo esta columna desde la tristeza y desde el dolor causado por trágica muerte de mi hijo Héctor hace menos de una semana. Un hijo a quien amé más allá de lo que nunca imaginé posible, es decir, como solo puede hacerse desde el amor maternal.

Julia Evelyn Martínez

A Héctor
In memoriam

Desde este dolor que me desgarra y desde esta tristeza infinita que me acompañará el resto de mi vida, he leído el infame artículo “¡Mentirosas feministas!” (EDH 08.07.2014), en el cual la columnista Evangelina del Pilar de Sol vomita todo su odio, su egoísmo y su fanatismo en contra de mis hermanas feministas, y en contra de su valiente lucha por la liberación de 17 mujeres salvadoreñas encarceladas injustamente por haber perdido a sus hijos durante partos precipitados y/o como producto de alumbramientos ocurridos en condiciones de riesgo extremo.

Desde mi condición de madre y de feminista, no puedo menos que indignarme frente a tal despliegue de hipocresía y de falta de misericordia. ¿Cómo es posible que una mujer como la columnista Evangelina de Sol, que ha sido madre en condiciones económicas y sociales privilegiadas, se atreva a tirar la primera piedra contra mujeres menos privilegiadas que, en medio de la pobreza y de la exclusión social, han tenido partos extra-hospitalarios que han provocado la muerte accidental de sus hijos o hijas? ¿Cómo es posible que una mujer que alardea de ser cristiana, y que seguramente cada domingo se da golpes de pecho por el perdón de los pecados del mundo, se atreva a divulgar públicamente los nombres de las mujeres en proceso de indulto, para exponerlas así al escarnio público y/o a poner en peligro sus vidas? ¿Es este el humanismo y la moral que predican las mujeres de la Fundación Sí a la Vida, del Opus Dei y agrupaciones afines? ¿Es qué no habrá en sus corazones y en sus conciencias capacidad de amar a estas 17 mujeres encarceladas y ver en ellas el “rostro sufriente del siervo de Yahvé”?

Bien harían la columnista Evangelina de Sol y sus prosélitos, en tomarse el tiempo de leer con corazón limpio y con hambre y sed de justicia, los expedientes de las 17 mujeres cautivas para las que se solicita indulto. Solo de esta manera podrían darse cuenta que estas 17 mujeres no son de ninguna manera “mujeres asesinas” ni “madres des-naturalizadas”, sino simplemente mujeres pobres, que desde esa condición estructural estaban condenadas de antemano a tener “malos partos”. Es decir, a tener partos en condiciones extremas y de alto riesgo para su salud (física, emocional y mental) y para la supervivencia de sus hijos o hijas.

Si se tomaran el tiempo de leer estos expedientes, se darían cuenta que lo que en realidad ocurrió con Mirna (nombre ficticio de una de las 17 mujeres cautivas) no fue un intento de infanticidio, sino un parto precipitado mientras usaba una fosa séptica situada en las afueras de su precaria vivienda. Esto le provocó a Mirna un shock emocional que le impidió tomar conciencia de que el neonato había caído al fondo de la fosa. Ella fue llevada por su familia a la emergencia de un hospital público, en donde la ginecóloga que la atendió, extendió una constancia en la que se afirma que no fue un parto normal sino un parto precipitado. Afortunadamente el neonato sobrevivió a la caída, lo cual sin embargo, no evitó que Mirna fuera acusada y condenada por “homicidio agravado en grado de tentativa” , debido a la sospecha del fiscal que su extrema pobreza pudo haber sido un motivo suficiente para querer quitarle la vida a su hijo.

El informe de la trabajadora social del Instituto de Medicina Legal que se encuentra en el expediente de Mirna, señala claramente que: “se tiene por acreditado que el hogar en el que vivía la imputada es estable, con apoyo, respeto y responsabilidad, que aunque con limitaciones económica su familia la apoya…”. Pero ni este informe, ni la declaración de su esposo sobre la ilusión con la que ambos esperaban el nacimiento de su segundo hijo, fueron capaces de evitar que los jueces que juzgaron su caso la condenaran a 12 años de prisión, alejada de sus dos hijos. De acuerdo a ello, y a personas como Evangelina de Sol, esta mujer debe ser castigada porque desde su particular forma de ver el mundo, Mirna estaba en la obligación de sobreponerse a la crisis emocional que le provocó el parto precipitado en la letrina, y a cuidar por la vida de su hijo, antes de que cuidar por la vida propia.

Conocer a mujeres como Mirna y las circunstancias económicas, sociales y emocionales en que dan a luz, nos revela que son simplemente mujeres pobres que no tuvieron la suerte de ser atendidas en sus embarazos y partos con la calidez y la calidad con la que seguramente fueron atendidas en sus partos la señora Evangelina de Sol, sus hijas, nueras, sobrinas y/o nietas. Nadie tiene derecho a señalarlas ni condenarlas por sus “malos partos”, pero todos y todas sí tenemos la obligación de sentir empatía y misericordia por ellas, o al menos de sentir vergüenza por vivir en una sociedad que trata de forma tan cruel a las mujeres pobres.

La madrugada del pasado domingo, mientras esperaba en el pasillo de la sala de emergencias de un hospital nacional de Santa Tecla, el traslado del cadáver de mi hijo a la morgue, tuve la oportunidad de presenciar el ingreso de una joven mujer en estado de shock , que llevaba a un recién nacido envuelto en una sábana ensangrentada, luego de haber dado a luz sin ayuda, en la parte trasera de un pick up en marcha. No recuerdo cuanto tiempo transcurrió entre el momento de su ingreso a la emergencia obstétrica y el momento en el cual se escuchó el llanto del recién nacido, pero como madre y como feminista respiré aliviada al saber que este niño había sobrevivido, sobre todo, por el bien de esa joven madre. Me angustia solo imaginar que otra mujer inocente, por el hecho de tener un “mal parto”, sea acusada de infanticidio y condenada a 40 años de prisión.

Ser madre me ha enseñado a amar incondicionalmente y a perdonar incondicionalmente, pero ser feminista, me ha enseñado a luchar con y por las demás mujeres, en especial por las mujeres pobres, sean o no madres, que son quienes se llevan la peor parte de la opresión y de las injusticias que se cometen en las sociedades capitalistas, racistas y patriarcales, como la sociedad salvadoreña.

Por eso, desde esta columna reitero mi reconocimiento y mi apoyo a las mujeres y a los hombres que desde diversas organizaciones y espacios nacionales e internacionales, están llevando a cabo esta admirable lucha por la libertad de las 17 mujeres encarceladas injustamente, aun poniendo en riesgo su propia seguridad. El ejemplo de estas mujeres y de estos hombres debe ser una inspiración para el resto de la sociedad que se ha mantenido hasta ahora en silencio frente a estas injusticias. Es necesario unirnos a esta causa, en una sola voz y en un solo puño para EXIGIR al Presidente de la República, a la Asamblea Legislativa y a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, la libertad para las 17 mujeres encarceladas injustamente.

Este grito y este puño serán nuestra mejor forma de manifestarnos en contra de la maldad, la infamia y el odio que promueven personajes como la columnista Evangelina de Sol. Nuestros hijos, nuestras hijas, merecen vivir en una sociedad en donde la intolerancia y el fanatismo de unos pocos no se imponga sobre la solidaridad, la justicia y la misericordia de la mayoría.

Balance electoral y lucha contra el fascismo en El Salvador de 1976

Balance electoral y lucha contra el fascismo en El Salvador de 1976
Roberto Pineda San Salvador, 10 de julio de 2014

El año 1976 fue un año de preparativos para las grandes batallas electorales alrededor de las elecciones presidenciales de febrero de 1977; de la continuación del enfrentamiento con los sectores fascistas civiles y militares, de un fugaz pero significativo esfuerzo de unidad de la izquierda así como de las disputas entre sectores burgueses y oligárquicos alrededor del proyecto de “transformación agraria” impulsado por algunos sectores de las clases dominantes y de las fuerzas armadas.

A continuación hacemos un recorrido por estas temáticas desde la perspectiva de los comunistas salvadoreños y su semanario Voz Popular. Anteriormente se había tratado el periodo de enero a marzo de 1976.

EL COP-30 de Julio, antecedente histórico de unidad democrática-revolucionaria

Durante el mes de junio de 1976, el PCS realiza un esfuerzo de aglutinamiento de fuerzas democráticas y revolucionarias alrededor de la conmemoración del primer aniversario de la masacre del 30 de julio en el Seguro Social. Como resultado de este esfuerzo bajo el lema de ¡La unidad y combatividad del pueblo vencerá a la dictadura! surge el Comité de Organizaciones Populares 30 de Julio. Al final la dinámica de confrontación se impuso y se realizaron dos actividades, la de este esfuerzo unitario y la del entonces recién creado Bloque Popular Revolucionario (BPR).

En el COP-30 de Julio participaron los partidos PDC, MNR y UDN, integrantes de la UNO, así como las organizaciones populares influenciadas por el PCS, Asociación de Trabajadores Agropecuarios y Campesinos de El Salvador (ATACES) dirigida por Víctor Rivera; Comité Provisional de Mujeres Salvadoreñas (CPMS) dirigida por Camelia Cartagena, Federación Unitaria Sindical de El Salvador (FUSS) dirigida por Julio Cesar Castro Belloso; Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de la Industria del Alimento, Vestido, Textil, Similares y Conexos de El Salvador (FESTIAVTSCES) dirigida por Pedro Antonio Cárcamo Recinos.

Así como incluía las organizaciones populares influenciadas por la Resistencia Nacional (RN): Frente de Acción Popular Unificada (FAPU) dirigido por Alberto Ramos y Federación Nacional Sindical de Trabajadores Salvadoreños (FENASTRAS) dirigida en ese entonces por Eleuterio de Jesús Cárcamo; y la Liga para la Liberación, (LL) dirigida por Francisco Jovel y Manuel Castillo, que luego se convertiría en el Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores Centroamericanos (PRTC).

El ERP en ese entonces no contaba con expresiones abiertas ya que se dedicaba a organizar “comités militares.”Y las FPL que controlaban AGEUS por medio del UR-19, dirigido por Medardo González, el MERS, así como el Consejo Ejecutivo de ANDES 21 de Junio, dirigido por Mélida Anaya Montes, se negaron a integrarse a este esfuerzo unitario calificándolo de “revisionista”. O sea fue una alianza coyuntural de las expresiones abiertas del PCS, RN y lo que luego sería el PRTC.

En su manifiesto de fundación informan los del COP 30 que se constituyen con “la finalidad de convertir este mes en una jornada de movilización popular para honrar la memoria de los héroes de nuestra juventud estudiantil que aquella tarde del 30 de julio de 1975 cayeron abatidos por las balas asesinas de los defensores del régimen corrupto y entreguista de Molina.”

Así como “para fortalecer la unidad y combatividad del pueblo en su lucha contra la dictadura; dar una contundente respuesta al régimen; robustecer la defensa de las organizaciones democráticas , asociaciones gremiales y los sindicatos; lograr que cese la represión contra dirigentes y miembros de base de las organizaciones populares; exigir el respeto a los derechos humanos…”

Reconocen los del COP 30 que “la lucha contra la dictadura en este país es afrontada por nuestras organizaciones a partir de diferentes enfoques, es decir, que tenemos diferencias de criterio en lo estratégico y lo táctico que determinan la no coincidencia ideológica y política en nuestros planteamientos. Sin embargo, estamos conscientes de que en este momento de nuestra historia, para ser consecuentes con una posición revolucionaria, todas las organizaciones representativas de los sectores populares debemos buscar los caminos de la UNIDAD.

“Coincidimos en que LA DICTADURA MILITAR ES EL ENEMIGO COMUN A DERROTAR y a partir de esta coincidencia básica, consideramos que es Néstor deber realizar una política de unidad de acción y por las base a fin de evidenciar ante el régimen que el pueblo es capaz en determinados momentos y periodos de ofensiva reaccionaria de coordinar sus acciones y unir fuerzas contra la dictadura en su escalada represiva y antipopular” indica el comunicado del 1 de julio, titulado Julio, Mes de Lucha contra la Dictadura.

Apuntes para el balance de la jornada electoral

En el número 71 de VP de la primera semana de abril de 1976 inicia un esfuerzo analítico para extraer las lecciones de la pasada experiencia electoral de marzo. Se considera en primer lugar que “hubo un fuerte descenso de la concurrencia a las urnas el 14 de marzo, a pesar del extraordinario esfuerzo que realizó el gobierno por forzarla mediante toda clase de amenazas (especialmente sobre los empleados públicos y las masas del campo).”

En segundo lugar se estima que “la UNO realizó, por primera vez en nuestro país, un campaña electoral que no giró en torno de tales o cuales candidatos o de sus respectivas y acostumbradas promesas para cazar votos. Casi toda la campaña de la UNO se desarrolló en cambio, en derredor del planteo: “dictadura fascista o gobierno democrático popular” como alternativa real del proceso político actual, y logró, en efecto, hacer comprender ala gran mayoría del pueblo salvadoreño la realidad del peligro fascista y lo que éste significa en las condiciones de nuestro país.”

“Nosotros creemos que la UNO ha hecho así un gran aporte a la educación política de las masas y que su enorme valor se pondrá de manifiesto cada vez más en los meses futuros, especialmente, si llega la hora de enfrentar el asalto decisivo de los fascistas.”

En tercer lugar, se argumenta que “la campaña electoral puso de manifiesto desde su inicio, la polarización de las fuerzas políticas existentes en nuestro país y, su desarrollo condujo a una mayor polarización, al mismo tiempo que a un más profundo debilitamiento de la influencia política del gobierno. La gran mayoría del pueblo salvadoreño no le cree ni media palabra al gobierno y su partido, digan ellos lo que digan y como lo digan, cualquiera que sea el número de veces que lo repitan.

En cuarto lugar, “de lado del gobierno y su partido todo giró alrededor de su planteamiento anti-comunista. Asustar a las masas con una imagen cavernaria del comunismo fabricada y difundida durante decenios pro la propaganda reaccionaria, para asustar especialmente a las capas medias, ganar la unanimidad a su favor de toda la burguesía, asumir el liderazgo único de toda la reacción, de todos los matices existentes en nuestro país, tal era el objetivo del régimen.”

Con respecto al retiro de las elecciones, se sostiene que esta decisión “puso a prueba la unidad de la UNO y salió victoriosa: ella no se deterioró sino salió fortalecida. Esta experiencia refleja madurez en la dirigencia y las bases de los tres partidos de la coalición….La unidad de la UNO tiene un valor estratégico.”

Ente los aspectos positivos del retiro de la UNO de las elecciones, los comunistas consideran que estuvo “la resuelta incorporación de la dirigencia nacional e intermedia de los tres partidos a las tareas de movilización popular. Antes de es reinaba una actitud notablemente apática en esos niveles.”

También se señala el “brusco incremento del apoyo popular a la UNO. Una de sus expresiones fue la crecida que experimentó la concurrencia a sus mítines; un gran repudio al gobierno se hizo sentir en las opiniones de la gente en las calles, en los buses, en los sitios de trabajo estudio, en los mercados, en los caminos y caseríos del campo.”

Asimismo “se rompió la base de la mecánica rutinaria que viene rigiendo la vida de los partidos integrantes de la UNO, especialmente en el caso del PDC: animación durante el proceso electoral, desorganización y somnolencia el resto del tiempo, para dedicarse a atender las alcaldías, mientras los dirigentes continúan haciendo política en la Asamblea Legislativa. Tal ha sido la rutina.”

A la vez se “ha creado condiciones para ampliar la unidad y acercar a sus realización la posibilidad d que todo el movimiento popular organizado, con todas sus ramificaciones, pueda presentar un frente común que resista y ataje la escalada hacia el fascismo y abra paso a la instauración de un régimen de democracia, independencia, cambios y progreso.”

Y entre los aspectos negativos se señala “que no fue del todo acertada la consigna específica respecto al voto lanzada por la UNO. Llamó a no votar por sus candidatos y pidió no concurrir a las urnas. Mirándolo a la luz de los resultados, creemos que llamando a votar NULO se habría logrado un mayor y más expreso repudio popular contra el gobierno y su farsa electoral.”

También que “después del 14 de marzo se ha dejado sentir una tendencia al repliegue, particularmente en las filas democristianas. En parte, ello se debe a la fuerza de una larga rutina en la que después de cada elección venía la desmovilización, pero ahora el fenómeno tiene relación inmediata con una de las consecuencias del retiro de las elecciones: la perdida de las alcaldías y diputaciones, alrededor de las cuales solía reagruparse una parte de los cuadros y activistas democristianos durante los periodos no electorales y a través de los cuales continuaban realizando cierta vinculación e influencia entre las masas.”

Asimismo “redundó en dejar a disposición del régimen importantes posiciones del aparato político estatal (diputaciones y alcaldías, especialmente la de San salvador) que si bien no constituían un punto de apoyo decisivo que permitiera a las fuerzas populares influir sobre el rumbo del país, pasarán a ser instrumentos valiosos para operar a favor de sus planes, que no son otros que avanzar hacia el fascismo con cobertura “legal” y procurando ganarse apoyo de masas, mediante pequeñas concesiones económico-sociales y mucha demagogia.”

Y es secuela negativa “el peligro de que logre generalizarse en los partidos de la UNO y en otras organizaciones populares, la opinión de que “al retirarnos de las elecciones del 14 de marzo nos hemos retirado de toda elección de aquí en adelante.” Este planteamiento implica la gratuita renuncia anticipada a emplear los instrumentos y formas de lucha que sean convenientes en cada momento.”

Se considera que “decidir si ha de participarse o no en unas elecciones, o si hemos de retirarnos de ellas, es un asunto táctico que debe ser resuelto ante cada caso, analizando al situación concreta, sus condiciones, la correlación de fuerzas, las contradicciones y tendencias en desarrollo, etc.,etc., buscando definir la conducta ante las elecciones dadas que ayudará a fortalecer y hacer avanzar más el movimiento popular hacia sus objetivos liberadores.”

Concluye que “influir en estos acontecimientos y buscar un desenlace que no favorezca a los fascistas, que abra la posibilidad de la victoria popular o la acerque, es una necesidad perentoria para el movimiento popular y ello no puede conseguirse desatendiéndose por completo de todo el asunto electoral. Para nosotros esta claro que el movimiento popular tiene que participar sin falta en este proceso, ya sea con o sin candidato, llamando a votar o a no votar, etc., pero participando del modo más activo.”

¿Qué es en esencia el fascismo?

La necesidad de escudriñar las características del fascismo en El Salvador como condición para definir una línea táctica, obligaron a los redactores de Voz Popular, en particular al entonces secretario general del PCS, Schafik Handal, entonces de 46 años, a continuar este análisis. Se considera que existen dos elementos fundamentales en el surgimiento del fascismo en los años 20 y 30: el primero vinculado a una “respuesta contra-revolucionaria de los sectores más rabiosos del capital financiero, frente al avance revolucionario hacia el socialismo.”

El segundo elemento relacionado con que “los países donde el fascismo surgió sufrían (en el caso latinoamericano, sufren) un tipo común de crisis estructural, propia del capitalismo de nivel medio de desarrollo bajo al dependencia; aunque esta última era más débil en los países europeos aludidos, en comparación con los países latinoamericanos de hoy.”

Sostiene que “la experiencia internacional indica que sobre el mismo terreno de la crisis estructural…brotan dos alternativas de solución distintas y opuestas: una alternativa burguesa cuyo objetivo es asegurar el sucesivo desarrollo del capitalismo; y una alternativa revolucionaria y popular que cumplidas ciertas fases previas ineludibles, desemboca en el socialismo.”

A la vez “la alternativa burguesa encierra dos posibilidades de desarrollo: una de carácter reformista, cuya realización práctica puede se encabezada por un gobierno “populista” (dictadura con apoyo popular) o por un gobierno liberal-reformista (con “democracia representativa”) o por alguna mezcla de estos dos modelos. La otra opción burguesa de salida a la crisis estructural es al vinculada a los sectores “dinámicos “ y “modernos” del gran capital monopoliza local y, sobre todo, el capital monopolista extranjero del que aquellos son socios.”

Aclara que “este segundo tipo de opción burguesa de salida a la crisis de estructura en una situación en la que constituye una amenaza real la alternativa revolucionaria popular, solamente pude realizarse instaurando un gobierno autoritario, centralizado y verticalista de derecha , es decir, un régimen fascista, que comienza aplastando toda posibilidad revolucionaria.”

Agrega que “la alternativa revolucionaria popular y la alternativa burguesa de solución a la crisis estructural se enfrentan y de los resultados de esa lucha depende el inmediato porvenir: pero también luchan entre sí loas dos opciones burguesas (la reformista y la fascista), generando conflictos intestinos en las clases dominantes y en el aparato de poder. El conjunto de todas estas contradicciones, en proceso de agudización, se expresa no siempre con nitidez, no siempre de un modo directo, en la crisis política, a veces de larga duración, en cuyos momentos de mayor agudeza y generalización puede abrirse una u otra salida, a la crisis estructural madura, que está en la base de todo.”

“¿Cuál de ellas ha de ser en la práctica la salida que se imponga? Esto depende de los cambios en la correlación de fuerzas interna, de las condiciones internacionales circundantes, de la capacidad de acción política de las distintas clases sociales, de la influencia de sus respectivos partidos u otros organismos, del acierto de su dirección, de su grado de organización, etc.”

Considera que “durante los últimos 10 años en El Salvador han venido luchando entre sí todas estas alternativas de solución a la crisis estructural, entrada en su fase de maduración desplegada desde que se agrietó y fracasó el Mercado Común Centroamericano, dejando al capitalismo dependiente sin un modelo eficaz para promover su desarrollo.”

Subraya que “en la segunda mitad de 1973 predominó la tendencia al rumbo reformista en el gobierno actual y, tajada por los sectores más reaccionarios de la oligarquía y el imperialismo (con la destitución de los 3 ministros reformista en octubre de ese año), cedió el lugar a la tendencia al fascismo, que desde entonces se ha venido haciendo cada vez más predominante y peligrosa.”

Establece que “la función histórica del fascismo en América Latina consiste en salvar al capitalismo dependiente, modernizándolo, promoviéndolo a pasar a la fase del capitalismo dependiente y, donde haya condiciones para ello, al capitalismo monopolista de Estado dependiente. Dicho modelo combina una fórmula política, una fórmula económica, una social y una ideológica.”

La formula política tiene tres componentes: el “aplastamiento del movimiento revolucionario y la máxima destrucción de todo el movimiento popular; supresión de la independencia entre los poderes del Estado, afianzamiento de la supremacía absoluta de la jefatura del Ejecutivo y desplazamiento de los sectores tradicionales de las clases dominantes, de sus partidos y líderes políticos.”

A nivel económico se caracteriza por “atracción a toda costa de la inversión de las transnacionales; formación de una economía predominantemente monopolista con dos polos: poderoso sector estatal y fuerte sector privado constituido por las sucursales de las transnacionales y sus asociados locales.”

En el plano social “extrema concentración del ingreso nacional en una minúscula cúspide social; inmovilismo para las grandes masas trabajadoras y para la mayoría de las capas medias; y difusión del modo de vida de la “sociedad de consumo.”

La fórmula ideológica se basa en el “anticomunismo visceral, “nacionalismo” y la demagogia social. Supremacía de lo emotivo por encima de lo racional, el esfuerzo por crear estados de ánimo e incluso apasionamiento colectivo en va de convicción aprovechando para ello toda clase de motivos (incluida las competencias deportivas) capaces de enervar a las masas, especialmente aquellos que permiten inflar el chovinismo. El modelo que hemos descrito atrás corresponde al que ha llevado a la práctica el régimen brasileño y, en su contenido principal, s el que se está tratando de generalizar ahora en América Latina por los sectores más reaccionarios del imperialismo yanqui y por los sectores de la burguesía, de los militares, los altos burócratas y tecnócratas latinoamericanos que les son adictos.”

Preparativo electoral en actos del 1ro. de Julio

En la VP número 79 se indica que “las celebraciones oficiales del 1ro de julio, estuvieron este año coronadas por la aprobación del Primer Decreto de Transformación Agraria, lo que motivó la manifestación de campesinos llevada a cabo en san salvador , organizada por ORDEN, e un afán de promover apoyo popular al famosos proyecto.”

“Se destacó en dichos actos: la posición predominante de ORDEN y la nula presencia del PCN y la Unión Comunal Salvadoreña; siendo lo más de bulto la promoción publicitaria que se hizo al Coronel Humberto Romero, Jefe Ejecutivo de ORDEN y virtual candidato oficial a las próximas elecciones presidenciales.”

Considera que con esta actividad “los fascistas buscan crearse una base de masas y este decreto sirve maravillosamente para tal fin,; la promoción de Romero como candidato presidencial es, por otra parte, una garantía para el gran capital especulativo, al cual él está ligado directamente , en calidad de socio menor y para los intereses norteamericanos, con los cuales ha venido teniendo vinculación.”

El PCS ante el Primer Proyecto de Transformación Agraria. Julio de 1976

La Comisión Política del PCS publica en el número 80 de Voz Popular su posición oficial sobre el controversial proyecto de transformación agraria impulsado por el presidente Molina. Expresan que “el cambio de la actual estructura de la propiedad de la tierra es una condición básica para superar el estancado modelo económico agro-exportador imperante.”

Señala que “los proyectos de Transformación Agraria tiene por finalidad desarrollar y afianzar el sistema capitalista en El Salador mediante la creación de más empresarios agrícolas (pequeños y medianos) en el campo, disminuir parcialmente el desempleo y aumentar el nivel de ingresos de la población rural, todo lo cual, redundaría en el ensanchamiento del mercado interno, necesario para estimular el desarrollo industrial, y consecuentemente, del comercio y de los servicios.”

Agrega que “esta medidas son una necesidad impostergable para el sistema, sumido desde hace tiempo en una aguda crisis estructural, en la que la estructura de la propiedad privada sobre la tierra es uno de los serios obstáculos que impiden la superación del fracasado modelo económico agro-exportador. Desde esta perspectiva política, la actitud del gobierno, no puede ser ni más franca ni más falsa al mismo tiempo.”

Franca, hacia los capitalistas y terratenientes a quienes el Coronel Molina les ha dicho: “será un seguro de vida para los actuales empresarios.”Falsa, hacia las masas trabajadoras del campo, a las cuales se les habla de la “dimensión profundamente humana” de la transformación agraria.

En el manifiesto del PCS se hace un análisis de este decreto No. 31, señalando como debilidades y vacíos “la excesiva lentitud del proceso, que se les da a los terratenientes la oportunidad de burlarse de la Ley; una limitación ambigua” y en particular “la ausencia de organizaciones de masas en el campo.”

Considera que “los grandes empresarios de la tierra, que controlan todas las asociaciones de empresarios, han adoptado a través de la ANEP, una actitud irracional. Echando mano de sus cuantiosos recursos, han promovido una fuerte campaña publicitaria contra el Primer Proyecto y contra toda la política de Transformación Agraria del gobierno. Lo que ocurre es que eso señores, son reacios a que se modifique la actual estructura de propiedad sobre la tierra, porque est es al fuente originaria de todos sus privilegios.”

Considera que “el Primer Proyecto será la principal bandera electoral del PCN en la próxima campaña presidencial y la motivación por medio de la cual se pretende crear una base social de apoyo para este gobierno, tan aislado y desprestigiado. ORDEN será el aparato encargado de promover esa base social.”

A partir de estos razonamientos, el PCS propone en este manifiesto como tareas políticas frente a esta maniobra gubernamental las de “1. Conseguir el cumplimiento real y total de los objetivos del Primer Proyecto del ISTA. 2. La aceleración de sus plazos y en contra de sus inconsecuencias 3. Porque se reconozca el derecho constitucional de organizarse a los trabajadores agrícolas y su participación en la toma de decisiones necesaria para la profundización del proceso 4. Porque se impulsen los otro proyectos de transformación agraria a la mayor brevedad.”

Finalmente los comunistas son de la opinión que “será importante el papel que jueguen las agrupaciones progresistas de oficiales dentro del Ejército, a fin de que impidan una marcha atrás de las metas agrarias señaladas, aunque ellas sean limitadas. Una adecuada conducta de estos elementos militares, podría, incluso, a partir de los proyectos de transformación agraria, propiciar el despegue de una alternativa democrática nueva para el país.”

ACJ de El Salvador informa de actividades de mayo-junio de 2014

ACJ DE EL SALVADOR INFORMA DE ACTIVIDADES EN MAYO-JUNIO 2014

SAN SALVADOR, 8 de julio de 2014 (SIEP) “Han sido dos meses de intensa labor en defensa de los derechos de la juventud salvadoreña, de sus anhelos, de sus intereses, de sus sueños…”indicó Adela Pineda, Coordinadora del Área de Juventud de la Asociación Cristiana de Jóvenes de El Salvador.

Proyecto de Ley para la Educación Integral en Sexualidad.
Informó que durante el mes de mayo sostuvieron diversas reuniones de la Coalición para la Educación Integral en Sexualidad orientadas a planificar la campaña para la presentación del proyecto de Ley ante la Asamblea Legislativa de esta temática, así como para organizar la Asamblea General a realizarse el 16 de este mes.
Celebración del Día de la Madre y de la Abuela

Madres y Abuelas que han participado en las actividades de la Asociación desde su creación en noviembre de 1990 se dieron cita este día en las instalaciones de la ACJ para compartir recuerdos de los diversos programas en los que participaron y reiterar e compromiso de la organización como un espacio de encuentro y un puente para la amistad y la solidaridad. Entre las invitadas de honor se encontraba Eufrasia Abrego, de 70 años, madre de Rosita Abrego, de la Comunidad Monseñor Romero de Suchitoto, quien interpretó diversas canciones.
Elaboración de Proyecto de Formación en Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos, Género y Laicidad
Con la asesoría de Carlos Tejada, de Plan para la Niñez, se realiza Taller para la formulación de Proyecto para los años 2015-2017, de nombre “Formación en Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos, Género y Laicidad.”
Asamblea General de COINCIDIR

El 24 de mayo se realiza Asamblea General de la Red Juvenil COINCIDIR en la que se evalúa el trabajo realizado y se toman acuerdos para darle seguimiento a las diversas líneas de trabajo que se están impulsando.

Red de Género y Energía de El Salvador
El 17 de junio se participa como ACJ en reunión de Red de Género y Energía, coordinada por la Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña, UNES.
Cineforum con película Las hijas del Botánico
La Red Juvenil COINCIDIR y ESMULES organiza el 17 de junio en el Museo Nacional de Antropología, la exhibición de la película Las hijas del Botánico, con la modalidad de Cine-forum.
Generación Cero
En las oficinas de PASMO se participa en reunión para darle seguimiento a compromisos y acciones de la Red Juvenil Generación Cero.
Marcha de la Diversidad Sexual
El 28 de junio nos integramos a las diversas actividades conmemorativas del Día de la Diversidad Sexual, incluyendo la significativa y masiva marcha que realizamos desde el Parque Cuscatlán hasta el Salvador del Mundo.
Observatorio de los Derechos de la Juventud Salvadoreña
A principios de julio fue divulgado el segundo informe del Observatorio de los Derechos de la Juventud Salvadoreña, que comprende los meses de mayo y junio de 2014, y que es un esfuerzo desde la ACJ, por darle seguimiento a los diversos problemas que enfrenta la juventud salvadoreña, entre los que sobresalen los de la seguridad en la escuela y comunidad y la falta de oportunidades de empleo.

The class struggle in the Roman Republic

Early history

The whole history of the Roman Republic is the history of class struggle, beginning with the struggles between patricians and plebeians for admission to office and share in the state lands. The decay of the old gentile society led to the rise of antagonistic classes, leading to a vicious civil war between the Plebs and the Patricians that lasted, on and off, for 200 years. Finally, the patrician nobility merged with the new class of the great landowners, slave owners and money owners, who gradually expropriated the lands of the free Roman peasantry, which was ruined by military service. The mass employment of slave labour to cultivate the enormous estates (latifundia) eventually led to the depopulation of Italy and the undermining of the Republic, paving the way for the victory, first of the emperors, the collapse of Rome and then the long dark night of barbarism, as Engels explained:

“The banishment of the last rex, Tarquinius Superbus, who usurped real monarchic power, and the replacement of the office of rex by two military leaders (consuls) with equal powers (as among the Iroquois) was simply a further development of this new constitution. Within this new constitution, the whole history of the Roman Republic runs its course, with all the struggles between patricians and plebeians for admission to office and share in the state lands, and the final merging of the patrician nobility in the new class of the great land and money owners, who, gradually swallowing up all the land of the peasants ruined by military service, employed slave labor to cultivate the enormous estates thus formed, depopulated Italy and so threw open the door, not only to the emperors, but also to their successors, the German barbarians.” (Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State)

The origins of Rome are shrouded in mist. We can, of course, discount the mythological account that attempts to trace the founders of Rome to the legendary Aeneas, who fled from the burning ruins of Troy. As is the case with many ancient tribes, this was an attempt to attribute a noble and illustrious ancestry to what was a far more ignoble affair. Similarly, the name of the mythical founder of Rome (Romulus) simply means “man of Rome”, and therefore tells us nothing at all. According to the traditional belief, the date of the founding of Rome was 753 BC. But this date is contradicted by the archaeological evidence: too late for the first regular settlements and too early for the time of true urbanization.

The most celebrated historian of early Rome, Livy, mixes genuine historical material with a mass of legend, speculation and mythology, from which it is difficult to extract the truth. However, these myths are of tremendous importance because they furnish us with significant clues. By comparing the written record – confused as it is – with the evidence of archaeology, comparative linguistics and other sciences, it is possible to reconstruct, at least in outline the origins of Rome. The pastoral economy of these tribes is probably true, since it corresponds to what we know about the economic mode of life of many of the Latin tribes, although by the beginning of the first millennium, they were already practicing agriculture and cultivated the soil with light ploughs.

One such group of shepherds and farmers migrated from the area of Mount Alban (Monte Cavo), some thirteen miles south-east of Rome in the early years of the first millennium, and built their huts on the banks of the Tiber. However, this particular group settled in an area that possessed a key economic importance. Rome’s geographical position, controlling the crossing of the river Tiber, which separates the two halves of the Peninsula, was of key strategic importance for the nations seeking to control the destiny of Italy. Situated on a ford of the Tiber, Rome was at a crossroads of traffic following the river valley and of traders travelling north and south on the west side of the Italian Peninsula.

To the South of Rome lay the fertile agricultural lands of the Campanian Plain, watered by two rivers and capable of producing as many as three grain crops a year in some districts. Rome also possessed the highly lucrative salt trade, derived from the salt flats at the mouth of the Tiber. The importance of this commodity in the ancient world cannot be overstated.

To this day we say: “a man who is worth his salt.” In ancient Rome, this was literally true. The word “salary” comes from the Latin word for salt salarium, which linked employment, salt and soldiers, although the exact link is unclear. One theory is that the word soldier itself comes from the Latin sal dare (to give salt). The Roman historian Pliny the Elder states in his Natural History that “[I]n Rome. . .the soldier’s pay was originally salt and the word salary derives from it. . .” (Plinius Naturalis Historia XXXI). More likely, the salarium was either an allowance paid to Roman soldiers for the purchase of salt or the price of having soldiers conquer salt supplies and guard the Salt Roads (Via Salarium) that led to Rome.

Whatever version one accepts, there is no question about the vital importance of salt and the salt trade that must have played a vital role in the establishment of a prosperous settled community in Rome, which must have attracted the unwelcome attention of less favoured tribes. The picture that emerges of the first Roman community is that of a group of clans fighting to defend their territory against the pressure of other peoples (Latins, Etruscans, Sabines etc.).
Early Roman society

According to Livy, Rome was formed by shepherds, under the leadership of chieftains. He refers to the ancient tribes of Rome, the Ramnenses, Titienses, and Luceres, about which we know little. The first settlement was established by a number of Latin gentes (one hundred, according to the legend), who were united in a tribe; these were soon joined by a Sabellian tribe, also said to have numbered a hundred gentes, and lastly by a third tribe of mixed elements, again said to have been composed of a hundred gentes. Thus, the population of Rome itself seems to have been a mixture of different peoples. This was the natural consequence of Rome’s geographical situation and long years of war. Over a long period, during which the original inhabitants were mixed with many other elements, they gradually succeeded in uniting the scattered inhabitants under a common state.

No one could belong to the Roman people unless he or she was a member of a gens and through it of a curia and a tribe. Ten gentes formed a curia (which among the Greeks was called a phratry). Every curia had its own religious rites, shrines and priests; the latter, as a body, formed one of the Roman priestly colleges. Ten curiae formed a tribe, which probably, like the rest of the Latin tribes, originally had an elected president-military leader and high priest. The three tribes together formed the Roman people, the Populus Romanus. In the earliest times the Roman gens (plural gentes) had the following features:

Mutual right of inheritance among gentile members; the property remained within the gens.
Possession of a common burial place.
Common religious rites (the sacra gentilitia).
Obligation not to marry within the gens.
Common ownership of land. In primitive times the gens had always owned common land, ever since the tribal land began to be divided up. Later we still find land owned by the gentes, to say nothing of the state land, round which the whole internal history of the republic centers.
Obligation of mutual protection and help among members of the gens. At the time of the second Punic war the gentes joined together to ransom their members who had been taken prisoner; the senate put a stop to it.
Right to bear the gentile name.
Right to adopt strangers into the gens.
The right to elect the chief and to depose him. Although this is nowhere mentioned, in the earliest days of Rome all offices were filled by election or nomination, from the elected “king” downwards. The priests of the curiae were also elected by the curiae themselves, so we may assume the same procedure for the chiefs of the gentes.

Initially, it seems that public affairs were managed by the senate (the council of elders, from the Latin senex, an old man). This was composed of the chiefs of the three hundred gentes. It was for this reason that they were called “fathers”, patres, from which we later get the denomination patricians. Here we see how the original patriarchal relations of the old equalitarian genes system gradually produced a privileged tribal aristocracy, which crystallized into the Patrician Order – the ruling class in early Roman society. As Engels explains:

“[…] the custom of electing always from the same family in the gens brought into being the first hereditary nobility; these families called themselves “patricians,” and claimed for themselves exclusive right of entry into the senate and tenure of all other offices. The acquiescence of the people in this claim, in course of time, and its transformation into an actual right, appear in legend as the story that Romulus conferred the patriciate and its privileges on the first senators and their descendants. The senate, like the Athenian boule, made final decisions in many matters and held preparatory discussions on those of greater importance, particularly new laws. With regard to these, the decision rested with the assembly of the people, called the comitia curiata (assembly of the curiae). The people assembled together, grouped in curiae, each curia probably grouped in gentes; each of the thirty curiae, had one vote in the final decision. The assembly of the curiae accepted or rejected all laws, elected all higher officials, including the rex (so-called king), declared war (the senate, however, concluded peace), and, as supreme court, decided, on the appeal of the parties concerned, all cases involving death sentence on a Roman citizen.

“Lastly, besides the senate and the assembly of the people, there was the rex, who corresponded exactly to the Greek basileus and was not at all the almost absolute king which Mommsen made him out to be. He also was military leader, high priest, and president of certain courts. He had no civil authority whatever, nor any power over the life, liberty, or property of citizens, except such as derived from his disciplinary powers as military leader or his executive powers as president of a court.” (Ibid.)

The divisions between patricians and plebs was not exclusively a difference between rich and poor. Some plebeians became very rich, but they remained plebeians and thus excluded from state power, which was originally monopolized by the clan aristocracy. The old Populus, jealous of its privileges, rigidly barred any addition to its own ranks from outside. It seems that landed property was fairly equally divided between populus and plebs. But the commercial and industrial wealth, though not as yet much developed, was probably for the most part in the hands of the Plebs. Thus, the old gentile legal forms entered into contradiction with the changed economic and social relations. The growing numbers of Plebs, and the growing economic power of its upper layer, led to a sharp class struggle between Plebs and Patricians that dominated the history of Rome after the expulsion of the Etruscans.

The exact process by which the old gentile society was destroyed is unclear. The increased wealth derived from the salt trade must have played a role, strengthening the position of the old tribal aristocracy and creating a growing gulf between the aristocracy and the poor members of the gens. What is clear is that the rise of private property created sharp divisions in society from a very early date. The harshness of the property laws in early Roman society coincided with the form of the family, which in Rome was the most extreme expression of patriarchy. The (male) head of the family enjoyed absolute power over all other members of the family, who were also regarded as private property, a fact that was already noted by Hegel:

“We thus find family relations among the Romans not as a beautiful, free relation of love and feeling; the place of confidence is usurped by the principle of severity, dependence, and subordination. Marriage, in its strict and formal shape, bore quite the aspect of a mere contract; the wife was part of the husband’s property (in manum conventio), and the marriage ceremony was based on a coemtio, in a form such as might have been adopted on the occasion of any other purchase. The husband acquired a power over his wife, such as he had over his daughter; nor less over her property; so that everything which she gained, she gained for her husband […].

“[…] The relation of sons was perfectly similar: they were, on the one hand, about as dependent on the paternal power as the wife on the matrimonial; they could not possess property – it made no difference whether they filled a high office in the State or not (though the peculia castrensia, and adventitia were differently regarded); but on the other hand, when they were emancipated, they had no connection with their father and their family. An evidence of the degree in which the position of children was regarded as analogous to that of slaves, is presented in the imaginaria servitus (mancipium), through which emancipated children had to pass. In reference to inheritance, morality would seem to demand that children should share equally. Among the Romans, on the contrary, testamentary caprice manifests itself in its harshest form. Thus perverted and demoralized, do we here see the fundamental relations of ethics.” (Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, pp. 286-7)

The old gens system rested originally on common property of land. But the decay of the old system under the pressures of trade and expanded wealth undermined all the old social-tribal relations. The rise of inequality within the gens led to the domination of the privileged class of patricians. Private property established itself so firmly that wives and children were regarded as private property, over which the paterfamilias ruled with an iron hand. Hegel understood perfectly well the relationship between the family and the state:

“The immoral active severity of the Romans in this private side of character, necessarily finds its counterpart in the passive severity of their political union. For the severity which the Roman experienced from the State he was compensated by a severity, identical in nature, which he was allowed to indulge towards his family – a servant on the one side, a despot on the other.” (ibid. p. 287)

The new form of the patriarchal family, based upon the tyrannical rule of the paterfamilias, was at the same time a reflection of the changed social and property relations and a firm base upon which the latter rested. And gradually, the state as an organ of class domination raised itself above society. The history of the Roman Republic is merely the continuation, extension and deepening of these tendencies, which in the end destroyed the Republic itself.

The Etruscans

In his masterpiece The History of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky explains one of the most important laws of history, the law of combined and uneven development:

“Unevenness, the most general law of the historic process, reveals itself most sharply and complexly in the destiny of the backward countries. Under the whip of external necessity their backward culture is compelled to make leaps. From the universal law of unevenness thus derives another law which, for the lack of a better name, we may call the law of combined development – by which we mean a drawing together of the different stages of the journey, a combining of the separate steps, an amalgam of archaic with more contemporary forms. Without this law, to be taken of course, in its whole material content, it is impossible to understand the history of Russia, and indeed of any country of the second, third or tenth cultural class.” (Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution, volume 1, chapter I, Peculiarities of Russia’s Development.)

The historical development of Russia was shaped by its more advanced neighbours. It was not helped by its early contacts with the more backward Tartars and other nomadic steppe dwellers from the East who contributed nothing to its culture and barely left an imprint on its language. It was held back for centuries by its subjugation by the Mongols, although the latter left its imprint on Russian society and particularly the state, which had certain semi-Asiatic characteristics. But it received a strong impulse from its wars with the more developed Poles and Swedes. The case of Rome is analogous. What determined its course of cultural and economic development was not the long wars with the barbarian Latin tribes, but their contacts with other peoples that had reached a higher level of socio-economic development: the Etruscans, the Greeks of southern Italy, and the Carthaginians.

As a general rule backward nations tend to assimilate the material and intellectual conquests of the advanced countries, although this process can often take the most complicated and contradictory forms, combining elements of extreme backwardness with the most modern innovations imported from external sources. This was true of ancient Rome. Like the Japanese in more modern times, the Romans showed a tremendous ability to learn from and assimilate the experiences of other nations, although these borrowings from other peoples were always coloured by a peculiar Roman outlook. Roman art began by copying Greek originals and never freed itself from Greek influences. But the flexibility and the free and cheerful spirit of Greek art was alien to the psychology of the Romans, who were originally small farmers and never completely freed themselves from a certain narrowness of mind, an unsmiling provincial practicality that expressed itself in art and religion by a stern and implacable austerity.

In the early days their gods were the simple deities of an agricultural people, though infused with a strong warrior spirit. Their most important god was originally Mars. But they were pragmatic about religion as about everything else, and regularly imported any foreign deity that seemed useful to them. When they conquered an enemy, they not only took his wealth and his women, but also his main gods, who were immediately installed in a new temple in Rome. This was a way of emphasising the completeness of their domination and also provided them with allies in Heaven, which they hoped would provide them with some assistance for the next war in this world. In this way, over a period, Rome acquired, alongside a wealth of loot, a superabundance of gods, which must have been quite bewildering at times.

The Romans succeeded in fighting off the neighbouring Latin tribes, whose level of socio-economic development was not so very different from their own. But to the North they were faced with pressure from a more advanced people: the Etruscans, who occupied most of the land in what was later known as Cisalpine Gaul in Northern Italy. The exact origin of the Etruscans is still a matter of controversy, since very little Etruscan literature remains and the language of inscriptions on their monuments has been only partially deciphered. We have gained most of our knowledge of the Etruscans from studying the remains of their city walls, houses, monuments, and tombs. Some scholars think they were a seafaring people from Asia Minor. Others have speculated that they may have been an original Italian population, or of Semitic stock, like the Phoenicians and Carthaginians. We may never know.

At any rate, as early as 1000 BC they were living in Italy in an area that was roughly equivalent to modern Tuscany, from the Tiber River north almost to the Arno River. After 650 BC, the Etruscans became dominant in north-central Italy. According to tradition, Rome had been under the control of seven kings, beginning with the mythical Romulus who along with his brother Remus were said to have founded the city of Rome. Of the last three “kings”, two were said to have been Etruscan: Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus. Although the list of kings is of dubious historical value, it is believed that the last-named kings may have been historical figures. This suggests that Rome was under the influence of the Etruscans for about a century. The early histories state that Rome was at one time under the rule of Etruscan “kings”, and the archaeological record shows that Rome was indeed at one stage an Etruscan city.

The Etruscans were interested in Rome for both economic and strategic reasons. South of Rome, Italy was dominated by powerful and prosperous Greek colonies. Indeed, the ancients referred to southern Italy and Sicily as Magna Graecia (Greater Greece). Etruscan expansion brought them into contact with the Latins, and eventually they reached the very frontier of Magna Graecia, where they began to establish colonies. This opened up a new period of conflict between the Etruscans and Greeks for the domination of Latium. It was impossible for the Etruscans to hold Latium unless they took Rome, which lay between Latium and themselves. In addition to its strategic importance, the salt from the mouth of the Tiber was essential to Etruscan cities, which had no other source of this important commodity.

Rome was surrounded by prosperous Etruscan city states like Tarquinii, Cere and Veii, and that it was under their influence that Rome was transformed. They were on a higher plane of economic and cultural development than the Romans, with whom they traded, and whom they eventually dominated. The fact that the Etruscans were on a higher level explains why they succeeded in establishing this superiority. They were organised, like the Greeks, in city states, and their art and culture showed strong Greek influences. Weapons and other implements, exquisite jewellery, coins, statues of stone, bronze, and terra-cotta, and black pottery (called bucchero) have been found. The Roman sources never actually state that the Etruscans conquered Rome, but that may be for reasons of national pride. But it is clear that, in one way or another, they took control of the city.

Before the arrival of the Etruscans Rome was a small conglomeration of villages approaching what Engels would have called the higher stage of barbarism. From an economic, cultural and technical point of view, the Etruscans had a tremendous impact on Roman development. They must have had a profound effect on the economic life of Rome, its culture and social structure. Only the later influence of the Greeks of southern Italy was greater. Contact with a more advanced civilization would have finally put an end to whatever was left of the old gentile constitution, strengthening the position of the old tribal aristocracy, undermining the old clan solidarity and preparing the ground for a transition to new legal and class relations.

The Etruscans are said to have been great engineers, and were probably responsible for the transformation of Rome from a relatively primitive tribal centre to a thriving city around 670-630 BC. It was under the new masters that, according to tradition, the first public works such as the walls of the Capitoline hill were constructed. Until then the Tiber was crossed by ford and Rome itself was not more than a collection of poor huts. During this period a bridge called the Pons Sublicius was built. It was also at this time that we can date the construction of the impressive sewerage and draining system, the Cloaca Maxima.
Assembly and Senate

The Romans eventually succeeded in driving out the last Etruscan ruler, Tarquinius Superbus (Tarquin the Proud). Actually, the use of the word “king” is incorrect. Engels points out that the Latin word for king (rex) is the same as the Celtic-Irish righ (tribal chief) and the Gothic reiks, which signified head of the gens or tribe:

“The office of rex was not hereditary; on the contrary, he was first elected by the assembly of the curiae, probably on the nomination of his predecessor, and then at a second meeting solemnly installed in office. That he could also be deposed is shown by the fate of Tarquinius Superbus.

“Like the Greeks of the heroic age, the Romans in the age of the so-called kings lived in a military democracy founded on gentes, phratries, and tribes and developed out of them. Even if the curiae and tribes were to a certain extent artificial groups, they were formed after the genuine, primitive models of the society out of which they had arisen and by which they were still surrounded on all sides. Even if the primitive patrician nobility had already gained ground, even if the reges were endeavoring gradually to extend their power, it does not change the original, fundamental character of the constitution, and that alone matters.” (Engels, Origin of the Family, State and Private Property, Chapter VI, The gens and State in Rome)

According to tradition, this last Etruscan “king” of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was expelled by the Roman people. It may be that he tried to change the status of a tribal chief (rex), to which the Romans were accustomed, into something resembling an actual king and thus came into collision with the Roman aristocracy. In any case, it is clear that the revolt against Etruscan rule coincided with a sharp decline in Etruscan power. As we have seen, the southerly expansion of the Etruscans brought them into direct conflict with the wealthy and powerful Greek city-states. This encounter proved fatal. After some initial successes Etruria suffered defeat and its fortunes were eclipsed. It was this weakening of Etruscan power that enabled the Romans, around 500 BC, to carry out a successful rebellion against the Etruscans and gain their independence. This prepared the way for their future development.

It is at this point that Rome abandoned monarchy in favour of a republican system. The banishment of the last rex, Tarquinius Superbus, led to the replacement of the office of rex by two military leaders (consuls) with equal powers. The new republican constitution was based on a Senate, composed of the nobles of the city, along with popular assemblies which ensured political participation for most of the freeborn men and elected magistrates annually. The public power consisted of the body of citizens liable for military service.

The two consuls were elected and possessed almost absolute powers (imperium). They controlled the army and interpreted and executed the laws. But the consuls’ powers were limited by two things: firstly, they were elected for only one year; secondly, each could veto the decisions of the other. In theory, the Senate possessed no executive powers. It merely advised the consuls on domestic and foreign policy, as well as finance and religious matters. But since the senators and consuls all came from the same class, they almost always acted in the same spirit and followed the same class interests. In fact, Rome was ruled by an exclusive and aristocratic club.

This new constitution was simply the recognition of a change in the social order that had already taken place before the expulsion of Tarquin. The old gentile order of society based on personal ties of blood was in open contradiction to the new economic and social relations. It was already irremediably decayed and in its place was set up a new state constitution based on territorial division and difference of property and wealth. This constitution excluded not only the slaves, but also those without property who were barred from service in the army and from possession of arms, the so-called proletarians. Apart from this fact, the popular assembly, while democratic in appearance, was in reality a fraud that served to disguise the real domination of the patrician aristocracy.

The whole male population liable to bear arms was divided into six classes on a property basis. The cavalry was drawn from the wealthiest men, who could afford to provide their own horses. And the cavalry and the first class alone had ninety-eight votes, an inbuilt majority; if they were agreed, they did not need even to ask the others; they made their decision, and that was the end of it. On this point Livy writes:

“The rest of the population whose property fell below this were formed into one century and were exempt from military service. After thus regulating the equipment and distribution of the infantry, he re-arranged the cavalry. He enrolled from amongst the principal men of the State twelve centuries. In the same way he made six other centuries (though only three had been formed by Romulus) under the same names under which the first had been inaugurated. For the purchase of the horse, 10,000 lbs. were assigned them from the public treasury; whilst for its keep certain widows were assessed to pay 2000 lbs. each, annually. The burden of all these expenses was shifted from the poor on to the rich. Then additional privileges were conferred. The former kings had maintained the constitution as handed down by Romulus, viz., manhood suffrage in which all alike possessed the same weight and enjoyed the same rights. Servius introduced a graduation; so that whilst no one was ostensibly deprived of his vote, all the voting power was in the hands of the principal men of the State. The knights were first summoned to record their vote, then the eighty centuries of the infantry of the First Class; if their votes were divided, which seldom happened, it was arranged for the Second Class to be summoned; very seldom did the voting extend to the lowest Class.” (History of Rome, 1.43)

Theoretically, ultimate power resided in the popular Assembly, which elected the consuls on a yearly basis. But just as in our modern bourgeois democracy the power of the electorate remains in practice a legal fiction to a large extent, so in Rome, the power of the Assembly of Roman citizens (comitia centuriata) was effectively annulled, as Michael Grant points out:

“However, this Assembly had been weighted from the beginning so that the centuries of the well-to-do possessed far greater voting power than the poor. Moreover, candidates for the consulship were proposed in the Assembly by the senators, from their own ranks. The Assembly, it was true, enacted laws and declared war and peace, and conducted trials (iudicia populi). Yet the senators, with their superior prestige and wealth, controlled its votes on all such occasions. In many respects, therefore, the legal appearance of democracy was sharply corrected by what in fact happened.” (Michael Grant, History of Rome, p. 58)

Patronage

There was yet another factor that undermined the power of the Assembly. In the fifth century BC there were around 53 patrician clans (gentes) that are known to us, although the actual number may have been greater. This would mean that a closed body of not more than a thousand families ruled Rome. In turn, a smaller body of especially powerful clans exercised supreme control: the Aemili, the Cornili, the Fabii, and later on, the Claudii. This means that the patricians comprised less than one-tenth of the total citizen population, and possibly not more than one-fourteenth. The question is: how was it possible for such a small number of people to dominate Rome?

In any society the ruling class is too small to exercise its class domination without the aid of a larger class of dependents. There is always a large number of sub-exploiters, sub-sub-exploiters and parasites who are at the service of the rulers of society. The relationship between patrons and clients has its roots in the basic division of early Roman society between patricians and plebeians. The Senate was composed of the heads of families (patres familias) and other prominent citizens. The power of the patricians was partly based on tradition (the age-old memory of clan loyalties), partly on their monopoly of religious rites (which were inherited) and the right to consult the auguries, and the calendar (also a religious practice), but also through their inherited clients.

In ancient Rome, in addition to ties of blood and marriage, there existed an extensive system of patronage. The rich and powerful patroni were surrounded by a large number of dependent clients (clienti), who looked to them for protection and help. The client was a free man who entrusted himself to the patronage of another and received favours and protection in return. It was similar to the kind of relation found in societies dominated by the Mafia, and it is not impossible that it is the distant historical ancestor of the latter. But in ancient Rome, clientela was all-pervasive. It was also hereditary. Though not enforceable by law, the obligation of the patroni to their clients was regarded as absolute. A law of the mid-fifth century BC damns any patron who fails to meet his obligation to his clients.

The system of clientela succeeded to some extent in blunting the sharp differences between the patricians and the plebs. As long as the latter was kept happy by the concessions and favours provided by their patroni, they were willing to accept the leading status of the patricians. But although all clients were plebeians, not all plebeians were clients. For example, immigrant traders were left out in the cold. Moreover, the total exclusion of the plebs from political power constituted a constant source of discontent. The lower orders were excluded from the consulship or, initially, from the Senate.

To the poor majority of plebeians, this was an academic question, since they could not afford to take up public office anyway. But to the minority of the plebs who had acquired a certain level of wealth, this exclusion from public office and what is known as “the fruits of office” was a very sore point. This was the social layer that put itself at the head of social protest, either for genuine reasons or to further its own advance. Their position was comparable to that of the reformist labour leaders of today, who use the labour movement as a means of personal advancement. As one British Labour leader put it: “I am in favour of the emancipation of the working class, one by one, commencing with myself.” Such a mentality has been present throughout the history of class struggle, beginning with the Roman Republic, although not all the popular leaders were cynical careerists, then or now.
Debt slavery

This was a time when famine was a permanent threat. Grain shortages occurred at regular intervals. In order to prevent such disasters (and distract the attention of the plebeians) the Roman ruling class established the cult of Ceres, the goddess of grain, about 496 or 493 BC. This, for obvious reasons, was a cult of the plebeians, who knew all about the lack of bread. The number of plebeians who were falling into debt rose inexorably. And if a man did not have the means of settling his debts, his only solution was to offer his own body to his creditors. He became a “man in fetters” (nexus). He was not formally a slave, but in practice the difference was academic. It was similar to the bonded labour in the West Indies in the 18th Century or on the South-Asian Subcontinent today.

The phenomenon of debt slavery became increasingly common. “If a debtor to the state did not fulfill his obligations, he was without ceremony sold with all he had; the simple demand of the state was sufficient to establish the debt.” (Mommsen, History of Rome, vol.1, p. 154). Once a man had sunk into debt slavery, there was little or no possibility of ever regaining freedom. This problem was at the heart of the bitter class antagonism that emerged in the first century of the Republic, and the blind hatred of the plebeians towards the patrician governing class. This problem had been present from the earliest times. Livy’s History is full of examples of the class struggle in the early period of the Republic. He says:

“But a war with the Volscians was imminent, and the State was torn with internal dissensions; the patricians and the plebeians were bitterly hostile to one another, owing mainly to the desperate condition of the debtors. They loudly complained that whilst fighting in the field for liberty and empire they were oppressed and enslaved by their fellow-citizens at home; their freedom was more secure in war than in peace, safer amongst the enemy than amongst their own people.”

He cites the example of a veteran, a former centurion, who had not only been deprived of the produce of his land in consequence of the depredations of the enemy, but his residence had also been burned down, all his effects pillaged, his cattle driven off, and a tax imposed on him at a time when it pressed most hardly upon him, he had got into debt: that this debt, increased by exorbitant interest, had stripped him first of his father’s and grandfather’s farm, then of all his other property:

“lastly that, like a wasting sickness, it had reached his person: that he had been dragged by his creditor, not into servitude, but into a house of correction and a place of torture. He then showed his back disfigured with the marks of recent scourging. At this sight and these words a great uproar arose.” (Livy, History, 2:23)

The angry mood of the populace is described here in vivid terms. This incident provoked a riot, which spread everywhere through the entire city. But from a very early period, the Roman ruling class learned how to make use of the services of certain popular leaders to quell the revolt of the masses. In this case, the conduct of the consul Publius Servilius reminds us very strikingly of the behaviour of certain “moderate” trade union leaders today.

These popular tumults continued unabated for a long time. The ruling class responded to the threat from below with the usual methods – a combination of trickery, deceit and bloody repression. The leaders of the plebs were invariably drawn from the ranks of the Roman capitalists, who were always willing to betray the interests of the poor in return for political concessions from the patricians. The latter gave concessions to the wealthy plebeian leaders. They first allowed selected representatives of this layer to enter the Senate.

The American Marxist Daniel de Leon gives quite a good description of the position of the latter, which he compares to that of modern labour leaders in bourgeois parliaments:

“But there, among the august and haughty patrician Senators, the plebs leaders were not expected to emit a sound. The patricians argued, the patricians voted, the patricians decided. When they were through, the tellers turned to the plebs’ leaders. But they were not even then allowed to give a sign with their mouths. Their mouths had to remain shut: their opinion was expressed with their feet. If they gave a tap, it meant they approved; if they gave no tap, it meant they disapproved; and it didn’t much matter either way.” (Daniel de Leon, Two Pages from Roman History, pp. 24-5).

Every military victory purchased with the blood of the plebeian soldier, merely served to strengthen the position of the patricians and the plebeian capitalists, who were increasingly bound together by economic interests and fear of the poor plebeians and proletarians. At the other extreme, the problems of the poor continued to worsen, in particular debts and debt slavery, which led to renewed calls for relief. The resulting tensions between the classes flared up in a series of rebellions, where the plebs refused to fight in the army, and at one point threatened to secede from Rome altogether and found another Republic.

The first recorded strike in history was that of the Egyptian workers engaged on the construction of the pyramids. But the first record of what amounted to a general strike was in the early period of the Roman Republic. The Roman plebs of this period was that nameless majority who from time immemorial have ploughed the fields, planted the grain, baked the bread, fought in the wars. And this fact was brought to the attention of the noble patricians in a very novel way. On at least five occasions, in fact, the plebs threatened to “secede” by withdrawing from Rome altogether. The problem was that, whereas the plebs could do very well without the patricians, the latter could not do without the plebs at all.

The result was an uneasy compromise in which the plebs was allowed to elect two People’s Tribunes (tribuni plebes) who represented their interests and existed side by side with the two patrician consuls. This was the first victory of the plebs. The People’s Tribune had extensive powers, and could veto the consuls, while he was supposed to be inviolate. He could also seal the Public Treasury, and thus bring the whole business of the State to a grinding halt. However, as usual, the Senate found ways and means of getting round this. In the first place, the Tribune had no salary, and therefore the office could (yet again) only be held by a citizen of independent means. When the Roman capitalists occupied high office, they invariably used it for their own interests, while leaning on the mass of poor plebeians to strike blows against their aristocratic opponents.
The New Oligarchy

The patricians, as we have seen, were descended from the original Roman tribal aristocracy and constituted a privileged class that exploited and oppressed the rest of the population, the plebeians. The influx of immigrants from other tribes may be part of the explanation for the sharp line of differentiation between the patricians and plebs in early Roman history. Hegel, who was well aware of these class contradictions in Roman society, thought that they might be explained by the fact that the plebs was a different people to the patricians, who regarded them as racially inferior:

“The weaker, the poorer, the later additions of population are naturally underrated by, and in a condition of dependence upon those who originally founded the state, and those who were distinguished by valour, and also by wealth. It is not necessary, therefore, to take refuge in a hypothesis which has recently been a favourite one – that the Patricians formed a particular race.” (Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, p.285)

Whether or not one accepts the hypothesis that the original difference between patricians and plebs can be explained by different ethnic origins, one thing is certain: that throughout the history of class society, the ruling class has always looked upon the poor and labouring classes with contempt, and in fact regards them as something like a different species, an inferior class of people, unfit to rule society or run industry – a class of inferior beings whose sole purpose is to work to keep their “betters” in luxury, and to breed new generations of slaves for the same purpose. The very word “aristocracy” signifies “the best” in the Greek language, and the Latin word “proletarians” means precisely a class that is only fit for the task of reproduction, like any farmyard animal.

At the same time that the majority of the population was falling into poverty, the long series of Roman victories in the wars created enormous wealth at the other end of the social spectrum. Huge sums of money flowed into the capital, creating a new class of Roman capitalists, many of whom were “new men”, upstarts from plebeian families, whose rise was bitterly resented by the old noble Roman families. The old aristocracy initially closed ranks to defend their privileges and “rescue the consulate from the plebeian filth”. Eventually, however, the patricians had to grit their teeth, move over and find room for the class of nouveaux riches, anxious to add political power to their wealth.

Despite the sharp conflict between the upper layers of the plebs and the old aristocracy, these two social groups, as the chief holders of property, had far more in common than they had with the propertyless proletariat. By degrees, the old patrician aristocracy came to understand that the Tribunes could be useful to control the “excesses” of the masses, in whose eyes they enjoyed great authority. The plebs’ leaders succeeded in obtaining concessions from the patricians by leaning on the masses, and the patricians were usually flexible enough to give concessions and reforms in order to preserve their class rule and privileges. Eventually, this led to a process of fusion that created a new oligarchy.

The plebian agitation led to a series of reforms, which gave the Roman capitalists the right to initiate certain measures. The violent social agitation around this issue forced the Senate in 471 BC to accept the establishment of a special council, composed exclusively of plebeians (concilium plebis). This was to be convened by the Tribunes, and had the right to adopt certain measures (plebiscita). But this was yet another trick, since these decisions did not have the status of law.

At this time the laws were not written down but were interpreted by a Council of Priests (pontifices), who were all still patricians. The background to this unrest was war, famine and pestilence, in which the brunt of the fighting and suffering was borne by the poor plebeian small farmers. None of the economic problems of the poor plebeians was addressed. The central issue was land owned by the State (ager publicus), which the patricians wished to keep for themselves, while the plebs wanted to have it distributed among themselves.

The result was another period of turbulence, which in 451 BC swept away both the Consuls and Tribunes, and ended in the establishment of the Decemvirate (Council of Ten). Out of the ten decemvirs, two were wealthy plebeians. But once again, the latter were completely dominated by the patrician majority. The result was the famous Twelve Tables, where the laws were written down for the first time and set up in stone in the Forum. This is traditionally seen as a decisive turning point in the history of Rome and a great advance for democracy. But as a matter of fact, it left the fundamental social and political relations virtually untouched.

The ferocious severity of the laws on debt was only slightly mitigated. The execution of the laws was delayed for 30 days, during which the creditor was obliged to feed the debtor “adequately”. But that was not much comfort for a man who could not pay his debts, and in the end the creditor still had the right to make the debtor a nexus, that is, to enslave him. And the fact that the Twelve Tables wrote this down for the first time meant that these harsh laws were literally “set in stone”. This was a finished recipe for a further intensification of the class struggle in Rome, which would later enter onto an unprecedented level of ferocity.

The overthrow of the Decemvirate

The internal commotions and civil strife caused by the quarrels of patricians and plebeians were followed by a temporary truce. But this broke down again when the college of tribunes attempted to check the power of the consuls by restricting their right to punish plebeians. The patricians were alarmed at what they regarded as an attempt to undermine their hereditary rights, and a long and bitter struggle began.

In the year 452 BC a compromise was reached when a commission of ten men, called decemvirs, constituting the decemvirate, was chosen to write up a code of law defining the principles of Roman administration. During the decemvirate’s term in office, all other magistracies would be suspended, and their decisions were not subject to appeal. Originally, all the decemvirs were patricians.

A concession was made when, in the year 450 BC, several plebeians were appointed to the new decemvirate, but this solved nothing, since the patricians still dominated. The peasantry was being ruined by constant wars with the neighbouring nations. Compelled to make good their losses by borrowing money from patrician creditors, they were liable to become bondsmen if they defaulted on their repayments. None of the problems were addressed by the decemvirate, which became increasingly violent and tyrannical. To make matters worse, when its term of office expired, its members refused to leave office or permit successors to take office.

The conduct of the decemvirs had brought matters to the verge of civil war, and finally provoked an uprising in 449 BC. At first the ruling class resorted to the old trick of prevarication. But when the common soldiers saw that the endless discussions of their problems were getting nowhere, they decided to take drastic action. Led by an ex-tribune called Marcus Duellius, they simply left the City and moved to the Sacred Mount, and the whole of the civilian population followed them. They said that they would only return on condition of being protected by tribunes of their own. The scene is vividly conveyed in the words of Livy.

“The plebeian civilians followed the army; no one whose age allowed him to go hung back. Their wives and children followed them, asking in piteous tones, to whom would they leave them in a City where neither modesty nor liberty were respected? The unwonted solitude gave a dreary and deserted look to every part of Rome; in the Forum there were only a few of the older patricians, and when the senate was in session it was wholly deserted. The angry citizens taunted the magistrates, asking them: ‘Are you going to administer justice to walls and roofs?’.”

It was an incredible situation. A city that shortly before had been bustling with vibrant life stood empty, its streets as silent as a desert. One can envisage a factory without capitalists, but never a factory without workers. The same was true in ancient Roman society. The ruling class was suddenly seized by panic. Faced with the prospect of losing the people who did all the work in peacetime and all the fighting in the wars, the decemvirate backed away. It is always the same story: faced with losing everything, the ruling class will always be prepared to give something. This threat tore concessions from the ruling class, which attempted to defuse the conflict by compromise.

At last the decemvirs gave way, overwhelmed by the unanimous opposition. They said that since it was the general wish, they would submit to the authority of the senate. “All they asked for was that they might be protected against the popular rage; they warned the senate against the plebs becoming by their death habituated to inflicting punishment on the patricians.” (Livy, 3.52) As always the concessions of the ruling class were dictated by fear.

The people regained the right to elect their tribunes. This caused panic among the patricians. Livy writes: “Great alarm seized the patricians; the looks of the tribunes were now as menacing as those of the decemvirs had been.” The tribunes did take action against some of the most hated patricians, such as Appius Claudius, a particularly extreme reactionary who led the opposition to the Publilian law. When he took the field against the Volsci, his soldiers would not fight, and he had every tenth man in his legions put to death. For these acts he was brought to trial by the tribunes M. Duillius and C. Sicinius. Seeing that conviction was certain, he committed suicide.

However, the ruling class need not have worried. Most of the people’s tribunes were like our modern reformists, as the following words of Duillius show quite well:

“M. Duillius the tribune imposed a salutary check upon their excessive exercise of authority. ‘We have gone,’ he said, ‘far enough in the assertion of our liberty and the punishment of our opponents, so for this year I will allow no man to be brought to trial or cast into prison. I disapprove of old crimes, long forgotten, being raked up, now that the recent ones have been atoned for by the punishment of the decemvirs. The unceasing care which both the consuls are taking to protect your liberties is a guarantee that nothing will be done which will call for the power of the tribunes.’”

To which Livy adds: “This spirit of moderation shown by the tribune relieved the fears of the patricians, but it also intensified their resentment against the consuls, for they seemed to be so wholly devoted to the plebs, that the safety and liberty of the patricians were a matter of more immediate concern to the plebeian than they were to the patrician magistrates.” (Livy, 3.59)

These lines might have been written yesterday! They accurately convey the conduct and psychology of the kind of individuals who, while trying to mediate between irreconcilable class interests, invariably abandon the struggle for the interests of the poor and oppressed and assume responsibility for defending the interests of the rich and powerful.
The Temple of Concord

As a concession to the plebs (that is, to the wealthy plebs – the Roman capitalists), it was agreed that in future, one of the two consuls would always be a plebeian. By 351 the Censorship was also opened to plebeians, and later it was agreed that a censor must always be a plebeian. This meant that the patricians had understood that in order to keep the masses in check, it was necessary to buy off their leaders by giving some of them access to positions of power. About this time a new temple was established at Rome – the Temple of Concord. A kind of concord had indeed been established in Rome, but not between rich and poor. As Michael Grant points out:

“The effect of these changes was to create a new ruling class, no longer an entirely patrician aristocracy but a nobility consisting of those men, patricians and plebeian alike, whose ancestors had included consuls or censors or dictators – which is what the term ‘noble’ came to mean. And within the next century plebeian clans such as the Marcii and Decii and Curii, in addition to those who had come from Tusculum and elsewhere, succeeded in establishing themselves among the leaders of this new oligarchy of nobles.” (M. Grant, History of Rome, p. 68)

Throughout the history of the Republic there were many attempts to carry out an agrarian reform and alleviate the plight of debtors. The tribunes Linius and Sextus tried to pass a law whereby the interest that a debtor had already paid should be deducted from the amount of debt he still owed. Even so, they moderated this demand by adding that, in order not to cause too much distress to the creditors, the balance must be repaid in annual instalments in a period not greater than three years. Nevertheless, it is clear that this was completely ineffective, since we hear of no fewer than four new proposals to relieve debt hardship over the next 50 years. Linius and Sextus also attempted to limit the amount of land that could be owned by one person. This was intended to satisfy the land hunger of the poor. But, like the measures on debt, it soon became a dead letter.

Michael Grant neatly sums up the whole process:

“In the first place, whatever means Hortensius may have taken to clear up the debt situation did not prove permanently effective, any more than the enactments that had gone before them; so that democracy in the economic and social fields was still out of the question. Secondly, the plebeian council, though it could, on occasion, be swayed by agitators opposed to the establishment, was normally controlled by its richest members, just as thoroughly as the national Assembly was. And thirdly, the council’s guiding spirits, the tribunes of the people, who possessed the power of vetoing the actions of all Roman magistrates, were cleverly won over by the other side. This happened by gradual stages. First (the dates are uncertain) they were allowed to sit in the Senate and listen to debates. Next, they received the right to put motions to the Senate. And finally – and this had happened before the end of the century – they were even authorized to convene the Senate and preside over its sessions. None of this was unacceptable to the tribunes themselves, for they were often men who wanted to pursue official careers: as they were finally in a position to do, now that Rome possessed a dominant nobility composed of plebeians as well as patricians.

“If things had gone the other way, and the tribunes of the people had continued to develop their formal powers of obstruction, the whole machinery of government might well have been paralyzed, and that, at least, was a result which this hampering of their obstructive capacity prevented. Yet, from the standpoint of the oppressed proletarians, this transformation of the tribunes from protesters into henchmen of the government signified that the struggle between the orders, though won in the formal sense, had in other and more important respects been lost. It proved harder for the poor, henceforward, to find champions; for the new sort of pro-government tribunes placed their vetoes at the disposal of the Senate instead – and the Senate was glad to use them for its own purposes, not only to keep their fellow plebeians down, but to prevent ambitious state officials from getting out of hand.” (M. Grant, History of Rome, pp. 71-2)

The Gauls sack Rome

The Roman state was born out of war, and was in an almost perpetual state of war with the neighbouring tribes. The struggle with tribes like the Volsci, the Aequi and the Sabines were a matter of national survival for Rome. The wars against these peoples gave the Roman citizen’s army a great deal of experience. It perfected its tactics. A new spirit was engendered in the Roman people, a spirit hardened by the trials and tribulations of war. The traditional Roman virtues: valour, discipline and submission to the state, thus reflects the real conditions in which Rome was forged.

From the first conflicts with more backward Latin tribes, Rome was preparing for greater things. The later wars were waged against more advanced, civilized nations, such as the Etruscan colony of Veii. It was in this war that Camillus first compelled the Romans to accept continuous military service. Previously, the peasant soldiers had been allowed to interrupt their military service for harvesting. Now Camillus ended this tradition, substituting it for pay. The campaign was successful, and marks a turning point. For the first time, the soldiers of Rome had conquered a great Etruscan city state.

These conquests prepared the way for the inexorable expansion of Rome. The defeat of Veii removed an important obstacle in the path of this expansion. Overnight, it almost doubled the territory of Rome. Land in the newly-conquered lands, linked by the excellent Etruscan road system, could be given to the Roman citizen-farmer/soldier as individual allotments. This system of obtaining land through conquest was a very important element in the history of the Roman Republic, but the biggest question of all was: who would get control of this conquered land. It proved to be the central question of the entire history of the Republic.

However, in 387 BC the seemingly inexorable advance of Roman arms received a sudden and shocking reverse. This was a period of huge migrations of the peoples, mainly the Celtic and Germanic peoples, moving inexorably from east to west in search of new lands to settle. These mass migrations, which transformed the face of Europe forever, only ended in the centuries following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. By the eighth and seventh centuries BC, the migration of the Celtic-speaking peoples was in full swing. They moved in huge numbers out of Central Europe as far as Spain and Britain. They occupied what is now France and gave it its name: Gaul.

From there in the fifth century they gradually spread across the Alps and drove out the Etruscans who were settled there. From this time on the North of Italy was called “Gaul this side of the Alps” (Cisalpine Gaul). The Gauls who occupied the valley of the Po had developed the art of war to the point where they possessed a formidable military machine. They had the first cavalry to use iron horse shoes and their infantry was skilled in the use of finely-tempered slashing broad-swords. Few could resist the mass onslaught of these ferocious warriors, their bodies painted and tattooed, who decorated their horses with the skulls of fallen enemies. To make their attack more terrifying, they accompanied the charge with a deafening cacophony of trumpets and war-cries that struck terror into the hearts of the most hardened Roman soldiers.

In the late fourth century BC, one group of Gauls drove southwards from the Po Valley into the Italian Peninsula in the direction of Rome. At a distance of only eleven miles from the city they were met by an army of ten to fifteen thousand Romans – the largest force Rome had ever put into the field. What followed was the greatest catastrophe in Roman history. The Roman phalanx of heavily-armed spear-carrying troops was overwhelmed by the faster-moving Gaulish cavalry and infantry, which rushed on them with an unstoppable impulse, shouting their terrifying war-cries. The Roman ranks were shattered and the army routed. Most of its soldiers plunged into a nearby river in a desperate attempt to save themselves and were drowned. Rome was left defenceless in the face of the enemy.

The Gauls entered the City and camped in the streets of Rome. Meeting no opposition, they murdered, plundered and burned, although they lacked the siege weapons to take the Capitol. Even today, traces of the devastation can be seen in the edges of the Forum, in a layer of burnt debris, broken tiles and carbonized wood and clay. The Gauls finally got tired of besieging the Capitol, and were eventually persuaded by bribery to leave the City, for which, in any case, they had no use. But the memory of this horrifying experience remained to haunt the Romans long after the events had receded into that misty area of consciousness where historic memory becomes blurred by myth and legend.

The Roman historians have left us the story that the terrified Romans emptied their temples of gold to pay the Gauls to leave the City. The gold was brought to the place appointed by the Gauls, and when the weights proved not to be equal to the amount that the Romans had with them, the Gaulish leader Brennus threw his sword onto the other scale, uttering the chilling words: “Væ victis“—“Woe to the conquered.” This story may or not be founded on fact, but it left a strong imprint on the national psychology of the Romans forever, and in particular coloured their attitude to the people of Gaul, who later learned the true horror behind the words that Roman legend attributes to Brennus.
The Samnite wars

Despite this setback, Rome soon revived and continued its march to domination, extending its sphere of influence into the fertile plains of Campania. This brought them into conflict with one of the most warlike of all the Latin peoples and dragged Rome into the longest and bitterest wars in its history. The Samnites were peasants and herdsmen, living in the barren limestone uplands of the Apennines in central Italy. They were barbarians at a stage of social and economic development not unlike the one that characterized Rome in its initial stages. As happened with the Gauls and many other barbarian tribes in antiquity, pressure of population and the lack of agricultural land to feed it brought about a mass migration.

The result was a headlong collision with Rome, which was strengthening its position on Campania, now threatened by a wholesale Samnite invasion. The Romans constructed the Appian Road for the purpose of transporting large numbers of troops towards the theatre of military operations. However, the Samnites proved to be tough opponents and Rome suffered more than one costly defeat in the course of three separate wars. The first lasted from 343 to 341 BC. The Second (or Great) Samnite War lasted from 326 to 304 BC. And the third war lasted from 298 to 290 BC. This represented a titanic effort that seriously drained the resources of Rome. The second war alone lasted twenty years and in the first half of the war Rome suffered serious defeats, but the second half saw Rome’s recovery, reorganization, and ultimate victory.

This was not a defensive war for Rome, which for the first time found itself involved with the powerful and wealthy Greek city states of southern Italy. They had appealed to Rome for help against the Samnites. Victory in this costly war made Rome the master of the whole of Italy except for Sicily. The final defeat of the Samnites therefore decided the fate of Italy and changed world history. It also gave a powerful impulse to the class struggle in Roman society.
Class contradictions in Rome

As the territory of Rome enlarged by conquest, there was a considerable increase in population. This was achieved partly through immigration, partly through the addition of inhabitants of the subjugated tribes (mainly from the Latin districts). But since all these new citizens stood outside the old gentes, curiae, and tribes, they formed no part of the Populus Romanus, the Roman people. Although they were personally free, could own property in land, and had to pay taxes and do military service, they could not hold any office, nor take part in the assembly of the curiae. More importantly, they were not allowed to have any share in the distribution of conquered state lands. In this way there emerged an oppressed class that was excluded from all public rights.

As we have seen, the first period of the Roman Republic was characterized by a continuous expansion that established the hegemony of Rome in all Italy after the victory over the Samnites. After the long wars of defence against neighbouring Latin tribes and marauding Gauls, the Romans passed over to wars of offence and conquest. In the process, the Roman army had been transformed. It was far bigger than before, consisting of two legions. Michael Grant describes this:

“Each legion was a masterpiece of organization, more mobile than the Greek phalanx which had served as the original model because a legion contained an articulated group of thirty smaller units (maniples), each of which could manoeuvre and fight separately on its own, in rough mountainous country as well as on the plains, either in serried ranks or open order, thus combining compactness with flexibility.” (Michael Grant, The History of Rome, p.54.)

The Romans perfected a kind of warfare that was well suited to the peculiarities of a citizen’s army: the disciplined legions, fighting with the throwing spear and the short sword created a formidable military machine that swept all before it. These new weapons were probably introduced during the Samnite wars. They completely changed the nature of warfare. The withering hail of javelins, followed by a charge and the employment of the short stabbing sword wielded from behind a solid barrier of shields has been likened to the combination of the musket and bayonet in 18th century warfare. No other army could withstand it.

The main factor that ensured the success of Roman arms was the free peasantry that formed the backbone of the Republic and its army. Under the early gens system, land was held in common by the gens itself. But with the break-up of the gentes, and the emergence of private property of the land, a class of free small peasants was created. Alongside the class of small peasants (assidui) there was the poorest layer of society, the proletarii – the “producers of children”. But it was the class of small proprietors that supplied the troops for military service. The Roman peasant was a free citizen who had something to fight for. He had the right to bear arms and the duty of military service. The very word for the people comes from the Latin populus, which originally meant “a body of warriors”, and is related to the word populari, to devastate, and popa, a butcher.

The plebs had a strong card to play: they constituted the majority of the army. On more than one occasion the plebs turned this weapon against them by refusing to fight or sabotaging recruitment. Livy notes that the Roman commanders in the field were sometimes more afraid of their own men than they were of the enemy. This brings to mind the words of the Duke of Wellington when passing review of his troops on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, when he commented to a fellow officer: “I don’t know what effect they will have on the enemy, but by God they frighten me!”

On the eve of the war with Veii, it is reported that the tribunes were stirring up discontent in the army:

“This disaffection amongst the plebs was fanned by their tribunes, who were continually giving out that the most serious war was the one going on between the senate and the plebs, who were purposely harassed by war and exposed to be butchered by the enemy and kept as it were in banishment far from their homes lest the quiet of city life might awaken memories of their liberties and lead them to discuss schemes for distributing the State lands amongst colonists and securing a free exercise of their franchise. They got hold of the veterans, counted up each man’s campaigns and wounds and scars, and asked what blood was still left in him which could be shed for the State. By raising these topics in public speeches and private conversations they produced amongst the plebeians a feeling of opposition to the projected war.” (Livy: 4:58)

Livy thus attributes the mutinous mood in the army to the agitation of the tribunes. But it is more likely that the discontent was already present, and the tribunes were merely giving it a voice: a sufficiently serious crime from the standpoint of the Senate. Again, the crafty patricians took the necessary measures to pacify the plebs. The Roman generals were careful to allow the soldiers to plunder the town of Anxur, where 2500 prisoners were taken:

“Fabius would not allow his men to touch the other spoils of war until the arrival of his colleagues, for those armies too had taken their part in the capture of Anxur, since they had prevented the Volscians from coming to its relief. On their arrival the three armies sacked the town, which, owing to its long-continued prosperity, contained much wealth. This generosity on the part of the generals was the first step towards the reconciliation of the plebs and the senate. This was followed by a boon which the senate, at a most opportune moment, conferred on the plebeians. Before the question was mooted either by the plebs or their tribunes, the senate decreed that the soldiery should receive pay from the public treasury. Previously, each man had served at his own expense.” (Livy, 4:59, my emphasis, AW)

Livy describes the scenes of rejoicing at the unexpected “generosity” of the Senate, which was preparing for war with the powerful Etruscan city state of Veii, and needed to avoid a conflict with the soldiers:

“Nothing, it is recorded, was ever welcomed by the plebs with such delight; they crowded round the Senate-house, grasped the hands of the senators as they came out, acknowledged that they were rightly called ‘Fathers,’ and declared that after what they had done no one would ever spare his person or his blood, as long as any strength remained, for so generous a country. They saw with pleasure that their private property at all events would rest undisturbed at such times as they were impressed and actively employed in the public service, and the fact of the boon being spontaneously offered, without any demand on the part of their tribunes, increased their happiness and gratitude immensely. The only people who did not share the general feeling of joy and goodwill were the tribunes of the plebs. They asserted that the arrangement would not turn out such a pleasant thing for the senate or such a benefit to the whole community as they supposed. The policy was more attractive at first sight than it would prove in actual practice. From what source, they asked, could the money be raised; except by imposing a tax on the people? They were generous at other people’s expense.” (Livy, 4:60)

The concerns of the tribunes were well founded. The Senate did impose a tax, and the tribunes publicly announced that they would defend anybody who refused to pay it. Livy records that the Senate emptied the treasury of bronze coins to keep the army happy, an aim which they succeeded in achieving – for the time being.

The ruling class understood the need to ensure that Rome’s plebeian soldiers would continue to fight. Appius Claudius, known as “Caecus”, “the Blind” – which he was in his old age – was a patrician who became Censor in 312 BC. His main aim appeared to have been to improve the position of discharged soldiers, who by this time were increasingly landless peasants flocking to Rome. No reformer had ever before taken up the cause of the Roman proletariat. His intentions may have been motivated by genuine concern, but more likely his main aim was to avoid disturbances in the Capital. These measures, however timid, irritated the Senate, which took steps to undermine and sabotage them.

The third and last Samnite war began in 298 and lasted for eight years. This ferocious conflict ended in victory but also in financial exhaustion. The plebeians of middle rank who spent years fighting in the army had returned home to find themselves ruined. The influx of cheap grain from the conquered lands undermined them. So, despite all the laws passed to protect them, a large number of small peasants fell into debt. A new period of instability ensued.

Within the community from the very beginning there were the elements of class contradiction. But the rapid increase of inequality and the encroachments on the rights of the plebs by the wealthy patricians placed a growing strain on the social cohesion of the Republic. The wealthy classes encroached on the common lands and oppressed the plebs in different ways, causing rising tension between the classes. The constant need to defend the Roman state against external enemies provided the Patricians with an invaluable instrument whereby to keep the plebs in check, as Hegel points out:

“In the first predatory period of the state, every citizen was necessarily a soldier, for the state was based on war; this burden was oppressive, since every citizen was obliged to maintain himself in the field. This circumstance, therefore, gave rise to the contracting of enormous debts – the Patricians becoming the creditors of the Plebeians. With the introduction of laws, this arbitrary relation necessarily ceased; but only gradually, for the Patricians were far from being immediately inclined to release the plebs from the cliental relation; they rather strove to render it permanent. The laws of the Twelve Tables still contained much that was undefined; very much was still left to the arbitrary will of the judge – the Patricians alone being judges; the antithesis, therefore, between Patricians and Plebeians, continues till a much later period. Only by degrees do the Plebeians scale all the heights of official station, and attain those privileges which formerly belonged to the Patricians alone.” (Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, p.286.)

Here the inner workings of every state in history are laid bare, exposing the organized violence and class oppression that lies beneath the thin veneer of “impartiality” and “justice” that is expressed in the Majesty of the Law, and serves as a fig-leaf to obscure the crude reality of the state as an organ for the oppression of one class over another:

“In order to obtain a nearer view of this Spirit, we must not merely keep in view the actions of Roman heroes, confronting the enemy as soldiers or generals, or appearing as ambassadors – since in these cases they belong, with their whole mind and thought, only to the state and its mandate, without hesitation or yielding – but pay particular attention also to the conduct of the plebs in times of revolt against the patricians. How often in insurrection and in anarchical disorder was the plebs brought back into a state of tranquillity by a mere form, and cheated of the fulfilment of its demands, righteous or unrighteous! How often was a Dictator, e.g., chosen by the senate, when there was neither war nor danger from an enemy, in order to get the plebeians into the army, and to bind them to strict obedience by the military oath!” (Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, p.288)

The campaign for land reform was repeatedly interrupted by the threat of foreign invasion. The patricians made good use of the external threat to defuse the class struggle. How well the old Idealist Hegel understood the workings of class society! And how brilliantly he exposed the tactics with which the rulers of the State make use of the “external enemy” to fool the masses and whip up patriotic sentiment in order to divert their attention from the self-evident fact that their worst enemies are at home.

The transition to a slave economy

The underlying motor force of history is the development of the productive forces, or, to put it another way, the development of humankind’s power over nature. In the last analysis, the viability of a given socio-economic system will be determined by its ability to provide people with food, clothing and shelter. It is obvious that in order to think beautiful thoughts, invent clever machines, develop new religions and philosophies, one first has to eat.

Long before Marx, the great Aristotle wrote that “Man begins to philosophise when the needs of life are provided.” And Hegel pointed out:

“The first glance at History convinces us that the actions of men proceed from their needs, their passions, their characters and talents; and impresses us with the belief that such needs, passions and interests are the sole springs of action — the efficient agents in this scene of activity.” (Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Introduction)

Marx and Engels explained at great length that the connection between the economic base of a given society and the immense superstructure of the state, laws, religious beliefs, philosophical tendencies and schools of art, literature and music is not a direct and mechanical one, but an extremely complex and contradictory dialectical relation. However, in the last analysis, the causes of all great historical transformations must be traced back to changes in the mode of production, which give rise to profound modifications in society.

On one occasion the English socialist Ernest Belfort Bax challenged Engels to deduce the appearance of the Gnostic religious sect in the second century from the economic conditions in Rome at the time. The question showed a complete lack of understanding of historical materialism on Bax’s part, but Engels was patient and answered that one could not do such a thing, “but suggested that by tracing the matter further back you might arrive at some economic explanation of what he granted was an interesting side problem in history.” (Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, p. 306)

It is impossible to understand the fall of the Roman Republic unless we take the trouble to “trace the matter back” to its origins, which are the direct result of a change in the mode of production, which in turn produced profound changes in the relations between the classes in Roman society, the nature of the state and the army. The decisive change in this case was the rise of slavery, which led to the liquidation of the class of free peasants that was the backbone of the Republic and its army. All subsequent developments are contingent on this fact.

Each stage in the development of human society is marked by a certain development of the productive forces, on a higher development of labour productivity. This is the secret wellspring of all progress. Greece and Rome produced marvels of art, science, law, philosophy and literature. Yet all these intellectual marvels were based, in the last analysis, on the labour of the slaves. Subsequently, slavery entered into decline and was replaced by feudalism, where the exploitation of labour assumed a different form. Finally, we arrive at the capitalist mode of production, which remains dominant, although its contradictions are now clear to all.

To us, slavery appears as something morally repugnant. But then we are left with a paradox. If we ask the question: where did all our modern science and technology come from, we are forced to answer: Greece and Rome (we leave aside the important contributions later made by the Arabs, who preserved and developed the ideas of antiquity and transmitted them to us). That is to say, the achievements of civilization were the products of slavery.

Despite all the barbarous and bloody features that naturally arouse indignation and disgust, each stage of social development marks an advance on the road to the final emancipation of the human race, which can only be achieved on the basis of the fullest development of the productive forces and of human culture. It was in that sense that Hegel wrote that it is not so much from slavery as through slavery that humankind reaches emancipation.
The Punic Wars

The history of class society is studded with wars and revolutions. Pacifists and moralists may lament this fact. But, sad to say, even the most superficial examination of history shows that it has never been guided by moral considerations. It is as inappropriate to approach history from a moralistic standpoint as it would be to do this in relation to the workings of natural selection in the evolution of species. We may regret that carnivorous animals are not vegetarians, but our feelings on the subject will not affect the ways of nature in the slightest degree.

It is self-evident that wars and revolutions have an important – even a decisive effect – on human history. They are, to use the Hegelian expression, the nodal points where quantity becomes transformed into quality, the boundaries that separate one historical epoch from another. Thus we refer to the period before and after 1789, 1815, 1914, 1917, 1945 and so on. At these critical points, all the contradictions that have been slowly accumulating emerge with explosive force, impelling society forward – or back. In the case of the Roman Republic we see a dialectical process in which war leads to a change in the mode of production, and the change in the mode of production leads to a change in the nature of war and the army itself.

The formative period of the Roman Republic was an age of almost permanent warfare: wars against the Etruscans, the Latins, the Gauls, the Samnites, the Greek colonies in Italy, and finally, against Carthage. This last chapter was a decisive turning point in Roman history. Carthage was the main trading power in the Western Mediterranean. It possessed a great part of the coast of northern Africa and southern Spain and had a footing in Sicily and Sardinia.

It was the Carthaginians’ involvement in Sicily that first brought them into conflict with Rome. This wealthy island was occupied by prosperous Greek city states, which habitually made war on one another. One such state appealed to Rome to intervene on its behalf against some rebellious mercenaries. It later changed its mind, but it was too late. The Romans were now involved in the affairs of Sicily, where the Carthaginians were already well installed. A complex web of alliances and trade interests caused a chain reaction that led inexorably to war between the two powers for control of this key island.

Roman historians like Polybius liked to portray this as a defensive war, but there is little evidence to support the idea that at this stage Carthage was a serious threat to Rome. The fact is that Rome was now an aggressive power that was fighting to achieve total domination of the whole of Italy – including Sicily. Thus, a conflict with Carthage was inevitable. But this conflict was to turn Rome into a power, not just in Italy, but throughout the Mediterranean. And if we recall that that word mediterraneus in the Latin language signifies “the centre of the world”, then what is meant is a world power, in the understanding of those times.

There were three wars with Carthage – the Punic Wars (264-41, 218-201 and 149-146 BC). In comparison to this conflict, all previous wars seemed like child’s play. This was a deadly, bloody slogging match, which lasted decades. The human and economic cost of the war was immense. In the first Punic war alone, in a five-year period, the census of Roman citizens fell by about 40,000 – one sixth of the total population. And these figures do not include the losses suffered by Rome’s allies, who suffered big losses at sea.

But though the Romans won the first war with its most powerful enemy, the conflict was not resolved. Carthage soon rebuilt its power, drawing on the rich silver mines of Spain. A second 16-year war followed – a war that is forever associated with the name of Hannibal. The Romans had watched with alarm as the Carthaginians consolidated their power in Spain. This was dangerous and had to be stopped at all costs. The Romans needed a pretext to intervene in Spain and they got one when Carthaginian forces led by Hannibal besieged the city of Saguntum (the modern Sagunto), which was under Roman protection. The Romans claimed that there was an agreement that the Carthaginian army should not go south of the river Ebro, and that Hannibal had broken this agreement.

Whether the claim made by Rome was true or false is a question of third-rate importance. One must never confuse the causes of war with the diplomatic pretexts or accidental factors that provoke the commencement of hostilities. The First World War was not caused by the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, as the old history books used to claim. It was the inevitable result of the conflict of interests between the rising imperialist power of Germany and the older, established imperialist powers of Britain and France, which had carved up the world between them. Here we have an analogous case from the world of antiquity.

Polybius recognised the fact that:

“Some of those authors who have dealt with Hannibal and his times, wishing to indicate the causes that led to the above war between Rome and Carthage, allege as its first cause the siege of Saguntum by the Carthaginians and as its second their crossing, contrary to treaty, the river whose native name is the Iber [Ebro]. I should agree in stating that these were the beginnings of the war, but I can by no means allow that they were its causes.” (Polybius, 3:6)

This is very true. The Romans were determined to prevent Carthage from restoring her economic and military power, and therefore used this incident as a pretext to send an army into Spain.

The Romans were determined to start a war and were just looking for an excuse. Therefore they made the Carthaginians an offer they could not accept (this is another typical diplomatic trick to start a war). They demanded that they either hand over Hannibal for punishment or else accept war with Rome. Hannibal had in fact been trying to avoid a war with Rome, because he was not yet ready. But once he understood that war was inevitable, he boldly seized the initiative. He went onto the offensive.

The Romans never imagined he would take the step of invading Italy. Even less did they imagine he would lead his army out of Spain, march through Gaul and cross what seemed to be an impassable barrier – the Alps – to enter Italy from the North. But he did all these things, and took the Romans by surprise. And surprise can be a decisive element in war. Rome suddenly found itself invaded by a foreign army fighting on Italian soil. This extraordinary general, with very little support from outside, harried the Roman armies and came within a hair’s breadth of destroying Roman power altogether.

Hannibal calculated that his relatively small army would be supported by an uprising of the Latin peoples who were under Roman domination (though technically “allies”). He did get support from the Gauls of Northern Italy. But in general the Latin peoples remained loyal to Rome. Thus, although his spectacular military victories at Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae brought Rome to its knees, he lacked sufficient strength to deliver the knockout blow. The Romans could always rebuild their armies, while Hannibal, deprived of outside help, could not afford to lose men. Therefore, in the long run, even Hannibal’s great talent as a general could not bring victory.

Learning from their earlier mistakes, the Romans simply avoided direct battles and waited for the Carthaginian forces to exhaust themselves. Then a Roman army led by Scipio invaded Spain and conquered it. Then Rome turned its attentions to Carthage itself. They organised an intrigue with Carthage’s African vassals and got them to rise up against their masters. This revolt compelled Hannibal to return to Africa to defend Carthage. Once again, the might of Rome prevailed. In the end Carthage was decisively beaten at the battle of Zama.

After this, the Romans no longer felt any need to pretend that their wars were of a defensive character. They had developed a taste for conquest. But this was merely a reflection of a fundamental change in property relations and the mode of production. The same year (146 BC) they destroyed Corinth, another trading rival. By order of the Senate, the city was razed to the ground, its entire population was sold into slavery and its priceless art treasures were shipped off to Rome. The destruction of Corinth was partly to prevent social revolution: the Romans always preferred to deal with oligarchic governments, whereas Corinth was a turbulent democracy.

The final Punic War was deliberately provoked by Rome. The war party was led by Cato, who always ended his speeches in the Senate with the celebrated slogan: “delenda est Carthago” – Carthage must be destroyed. After a three-year siege in which the inhabitants suffered terrible famine, the city was taken by storm. In a display of extreme vindictiveness, the Romans broke their promises to the Carthaginians and sold the population into slavery. They then demolished the city stone by stone and sowed the ground with salt so that nothing could grow there. The defeat of Carthage changed the destiny of Rome. Until it was compelled to take to the sea in the war with Carthage, Rome had never been a sea power. Carthage had always blocked her way. Now, with this mighty obstacle removed, Rome was free to launch herself on a career that was to end in complete domination of the Mediterranean.

The Roman victory added new territories to its growing empire, including the prosperous Greek and Phoenician colonies on the coast of Spain. This gave a further impetus to the class of Roman capitalists, involved in trade in the Mediterranean. Spain opened up her valuable iron and silver mines – which were also worked by slave labour in terrible conditions. Rome simply took over this business from Carthage. It also led to a further development of trade and exchange and therefore the rise of a money economy. Thus, war played an important role in bringing about a complete transformation of the mode of production – and therefore of social relations – in Rome.
Effects on the army

The armies of Rome were victorious on all fronts. But in the midst of these foreign triumphs, intense contradictions were developing at home, where a new and even more ferocious war was about to break out – a war between the classes. Stripped of all non-essentials this was a war for the division of the loot. This was already pointed out by Hegel, who wrote: “The Roman state, drawing its resources from rapine, came to be rent asunder by quarrels about dividing the spoils.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of History, p.309, my emphasis, AW). This is a very precise, and wholly materialist, account of the basis of the class struggle in Rome at this time.

The Punic Wars also marked a change in the nature of the Roman army. Until now the army was based on the property owning citizens and was drawn mainly from the mass of free peasants. But in the course of the Punic Wars, when the fate of the Republic was in the balance, it was no longer possible to maintain the old situation and the property qualifications were greatly reduced. For the first time a large number of proletarians between the ages of 18 and 46 were recruited into the army and served for an average of seven years and paid for out of the public funds. This was a further step in the transformation of the Roman army from a citizens’ militia to a professional army. It created a new type of general in the person of Scipio Africanus, the first Roman general who was named after his military conquests.

With every military conquest, Rome acquired a huge amount of land confiscated in the conquered territories. This land became the property of the Roman state – the ager publicus (public land). But since the state itself was in the hands of the patricians, in practice they treated the ager publicus as their own property and leased it out to people of their own class. The mass of propertyless plebeians had no access to the conquered lands. This was a constant source of intense discontent.

The discontent of the plebeian farmer-soldiers was further intensified by the fact that the length of compulsory military service was continually being increased as the wars became longer. Initially, the citizen’s militia was fighting defensive wars on its own territory. But the Samnite wars, which were fought a long way from home, extended over half a century, involving almost all the states of Italy. The long periods of military service often meant that the plebeian Roman soldier returned home to find his farm in ruins, and himself and his family deep in debt. The long years of war led gradually, on the one hand, to the rise of slavery and the big estates, on the other hand, to the rapid increase of a landless population of proletarians.

The tendency of the Senate to treat the lands of the conquered territories as their personal property has already been noted. But after the long and bloody slugging match with Hannibal, there was a feeling that the Senate had saved Rome, and the military victory over Rome’s most dangerous enemy greatly boosted the Senate’s authority and undermined any potential opposition – at least for a time. Victory meant Roman control over vast new territories with immense riches. As the third century passed into the second, the Senate strengthened its grip on the new territories by the appointment of governors, who had a virtual license to coin money at the expense of the provinces.

All the time the position of the Roman and Italian small farmer was being inexorably eroded by a fatal combination of debt, slavery and the encroachment of the big estates. The free peasantry entered into a process of decay, being unable to compete with slave labour. Constant wars, debt and impoverishment ruined them. Despite attempts to force through legislation to protect the peasants, slave labour on a large scale drove out free labour. All the laws designed to halt this process were in vain. Economic necessity tore up the laws before they could be enacted. The Licinian laws stipulated that the landlords had to employ a certain proportion of free labourers alongside the slaves and that the burden of debt was to be reduced. But it was impossible to reverse the process.

The former peasants fled the countryside to seek a life of leisure in Rome where they lived at the public expense. The Roman proletariat was in fact a lumpenproletariat. They produced nothing but lived on the backs of the slaves. They did not feed society but were fed by it. They no longer had the land, but they still had the vote and this gave them a measure of power. Thus, over a long period of time, increasing numbers of dispossessed peasants flocked to Rome, and although they were reduced to the status of proletarii – the lowest layer of propertyless citizens, they remained Roman citizens and had certain rights in the state. This presence of a large number of impoverished citizens gave a fresh impetus to the class struggle in Rome. There were violent insurrections against the burdens of debt.

It is important to note that the class struggle in ancient Rome was not identical with the struggle between plebeians and patricians. That was a difference of rank – roughly the same as the difference between “commoners” and “nobles”. But there were also wealthy plebeians – who invariably took the side of the patricians against the plebeian masses. Thus, the old struggles of Plebeians against Patricians became transformed into the struggle of rich against poor.
The rise of slavery

The Roman Republic in 100 BC controlled the whole of North Africa, Greece, Southern Gaul and Spain. Wealth was pouring in from all sides. But these conquests undermined the Republic fatally. Before the Punic Wars started, a new oligarchy was formed when the tribunes went over to the side of the Senate. The wealthy plebs (the Roman capitalists) gradually fused with the old aristocracy to form a powerful bloc of big property owners. The first two Punic Wars greatly strengthened the hold of the slave-holding oligarchy on Roman society. This was the social and political reflection of a fundamental change in the mode of production from an economy based on free labour and small peasant agriculture to an economy based on slave labour and big landed estates (latifundia).

Until the Punic Wars, slavery was not the decisive mode of production. True, there were probably always some slaves in Rome, and the phenomenon of debt slavery was present from the earliest recorded times. But in the beginning the number of slaves working in the fields was far less than that of the free peasants, and the lot of slaves was not as bad as in later times. The slave worked alongside his master and was almost like a member of the family. Slaves could be freed through manumission and this was a fairly common occurrence. In The Foundations of Christianity, Karl Kautsky writes:

“From the material point of view the situation of these slaves was not too hard to start with; they sometimes found themselves well enough off. As members of a prosperous household, often serving convenience or luxury, they were not taxed unduly. When they did productive work, it was often – in the case of the wealthy peasants – in common with the master; and always only for the consumption of the family itself, and that consumption had its limits. The position of the slaves was determined by the character of the master and the prosperity of the families they belonged to. It was in their own interest to increase that prosperity, for they increased their own prosperity in the process. Moreover the daily association of the slave with his master brought them closer together as human beings and, when the slave was clever, made him indispensable and even a full-fledged friend. There are many examples, in the ancient poets, of the liberties slaves took with their masters and with what intimacy the two were often connected. It was not rare for a slave to be rewarded for faithful service by being freed with a substantial gift; others saved enough to purchase their freedom. Many preferred slavery to freedom; they would rather live as members of a rich family than lead a needy and uncertain existence all by themselves.” (Karl Kautsky, The Foundations of Christianity, 2:1 The Slave Economy)

The rise of the big estates changed all that. The mode of production was transformed. The rising population of the towns meant an increased demand for bread and an increased market for other agricultural products. On the other hand, the destruction of Carthage meant that Italy was now the main producer of wine and olive oil. The small peasant subsistence agriculture was now rapidly displaced by large-scale intensive agriculture using new techniques: crop rotation, the use of manure and new deep-cutting ploughs and the selection of seeds. In southern Italy there were big ranches for the raising of cattle and sheep. In turn there were new industries for the working of wool and leather and the production of meat and cheese. Only the biggest estates could do this, since they alone had access to both the upper and lower pastures required for seasonal migration. Naturally, they were worked by slave labour.

The use of large-scale slave labour probably began in the mines. Victory in the Punic Wars meant that Rome now had possession of the valuable silver mines in Spain that had been exploited by the Carthaginians. Since the Romans had a huge supply of extremely cheap slaves, who could be worked to death, these mines could show a very decent profit for a relatively small outlay. The Spanish silver mines became among the most productive of antiquity, as ancient authors confirm:

“In the beginning,” writes Diodorus, “ordinary private citizens were occupied in the mining and got great riches, because the silver ore did not lie deep and was present in great quantity. Later, when the Romans became masters of Iberia (Spain), a crowd of Italians appeared at the mines, who won great riches through their greed. For they bought a throng of slaves and handed them over to the overseer of the mines… Those slaves that have to work in these mines bring incredible incomes to their masters: but many of them, who toil underground in the pits day and night, die of the overwork. For they have no rest or pause, but are driven by the blows of their overseers to endure the hardest exertions and work themselves to death. A few, that have enough strength and patience to endure it, only prolong their misery, which is so great it makes death preferable to life.” (Diodorus Siculus, V, 36, 38.)

Slave labour tended to drive out free labour, destroying not only the class of free peasants but also preventing the development of handicrafts, which were undermined by the industries run by gangs of slaves in the cities and on the latifundia By degrees the free peasants found themselves displaced by slave labour, as Mommsen explains:

“The burdensome and partly unfortunate wars, and the exorbitant taxes and taskworks to which these gave rise, filled up the measure of calamity, so as to deprive the possessor directly of his farm and to make him the bondsman if not the slave of his credit-lord, or to reduce him through encumbrances practically to the condition of a temporary lessee to his creditor. The capitalists, to whom a new field was here opened of lucrative speculation unattended by trouble or risk, sometimes augmented in this way their landed property; sometimes they left to the farmer, whose person and estate the law of debt placed in their hands, nominal proprietorship and actual possession. The latter course was probably the most common as well as the most pernicious; for while utter ruin might thereby be averted from the individual, this precarious position of the farmer, dependent at all times on the mercy of his creditor – a position in which he knew nothing of property but its burdens – threatened to demoralise and politically to annihilate the whole farmer-class.” (Mommsen, History of Rome, vol.1, p. 268.)

Kautsky develops the same point:

“If the slaves were cheap, their industrial products would be cheap too. They required no outlay of money. The farm, the latifundium provided the workers’ foodstuffs and raw materials, and in most cases their tools too. And since the slaves had to be kept anyway during the time they were not needed in the fields, all the industrial products they produced over and above the needs of their own enterprise were a surplus that yielded a profit even at low prices.

“In the face of this slave-labour competition it is no wonder that strong free crafts could not develop. The craftsmen in the ancient world, and particularly so in the Roman world, remained poor devils, working alone for the most part without assistants, and as a rule working up material supplied to them, either in the house of the client or at home. There was no question of a strong group of craftsmen such as grew up in the Middle Ages. The guilds remained weak and the craftsmen were always dependent on their clients, usually the bigger landowners, and very often led a parasitic existence on the verge of sinking into the lumpenproletariat as the landowner’s dependents.” (ibid.)

A fundamental change was taking place in Italy itself. The huge influx of slaves meant that slave labour was now extremely cheap. There was no way the free Italian peasantry could compete with it. The rise of slavery undermined the free peasantry that had been the backbone of the Republic and the base of its army. Italy was now full of big landed estates worked by slave labour, as described by Mommsen:

“The human labour of the field was regularly performed by slaves. At the head of the body of slaves on the estates (familia rustica) stood the steward (vilicus, from villa), who received and expended, bought and sold, went to obtain the instructions of the landlord, and in his absence issued orders and administered punishment.” (Mommsen, vol. 2, p. 344.)

Incidentally, our word family comes from this word for a community of slaves. He continues:

“The whole system was pervaded by the utter unscrupulousness characteristic of the power of capital. Slaves and cattle were placed on the same level: a good watchdog, it is said in a Roman writer on agriculture, must not be on too friendly terms with his ‘fellow slaves’. The slave and the ox were fed properly so long as they could work, because it would not have been good economy to let them starve; and they were sold like a worn-out ploughshare when they became unable to work, because in like manner it would not have been good economy to retain them longer.” (ibid., pp. 346-7.)