Neoliberalism reloaded

In several Latin American countries we are currently experiencing a Rollback, a reversal of already achieved social progress. The womb, from the neoliberal and fascist elites of the past crawled is still fertile. It turns out that the exponents of the “20th century socialism”, which started with many hopes, have underestimated the persistence of their opponents. One major mistake was that politicians like Evo Morales have stopped halfway through the upheavals that began. The ownership relationships were not questioned in principle, old associations continued to operate in secret, international solidarity could not be sufficiently activated. 11 reasons for the failure of several socialist experiments, 11 things that can be done better next time.


A half Revolution is always followed by a whole counter-revolution.

Is it not time for the left to draw conclusions from the politically negative changes in Latin and Central America, in Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, El Salvador, possibly Uruguay? Almost it looks like a triumph of “neo-liberalism reloaded”, which also involves a departure from the positive agreements on regional fair cooperation and cooperation such as ALBA, Unasur, PetroCaribe in favor of subordination to the interests of the U.S. empire.

We wish all the current protest movements, the Maximum success. Because they are an expression of the resistance of large parts of the population in Latin America against oppression and social deprivation. Much of what has been reached from the left or centre-left governments in this Millennium, is inspiring and deeply impressive. It is all the more necessary to think about the failure of government participation. The conditions and constellations in the individual countries are certainly different, but we raise the question: Are there common Lessons? We see the following.

  1. after the takeover of government by left or centre-left governments, ownership has not been raised in any country for both the economy and agriculture (land reform to eliminate large land ownership). The previously politically powerful remained the economically powerful, their power base was not removed. This also applies, and especially to trade groups. Where fundamental changes were started, they were quickly diluted and discontinued by the pressure of the economically powerful. A strategy to create a constellation of forces that allows or makes possible a transfer of ownership to those who create all values was and is not recognizable.

  2. The Extractivism in some countries has led to a development of the national Economy, the tax revenues were spent for social progress — so welcome that — but for a national long-term independent economic development. “Buen vivir” remained a buzzword for Sunday speeches. Especially in Venezuela, which also tends to be in other countries, was not taken leave of a pension economy.

  3. The media remain the vast majority in the hands of the old capitalist owners, a democratization and decentralization of the media took place only partially and not related to the Central bourgeois or conservative media.

  4. The new left governments developed their own bureaucracy, a remoteness, and partly arrogance. A real co-determination of people, a participation of society failed. A comprehensive democratization or elimination of the old structures, or the creation of influential new ones, was missing or left in its infancy. A politicization and mobilization of the people who have brought about the changes of governments has failed or remained stuck in the sand. The Lessons of the fascist coup by Pinochet were not drawn.

  5. The old power structures of the repression apperates particularly the military and the police have been inherited (historically conditional exception in this case, Venezuela), not democratized and changed institutions, the majority of the population.

False compromises and Omissions understood oligarchic influence. The old state apparatus was taken over and renewed only in small parts or Parallel structures were built, some of which were not immune to bureaucracy and corruption.

Changes within agriculture were completely inadequate, both in terms of large-scale land ownership and the greening of Agriculture.

  1. Underestimation of hatred and the will of the old elites — and especially of US imperialism, but also of the neo-colonial EU — the neo-liberal constellations to recover. Let us not forget that the left-wing changes were possible when the US lost the Iraq War and had a strong political focus on the Middle East.

  2. The centuries-long Patriarchal power relations and their practical and ideological impacts have been underestimated, new structures were less respected, especially if they were built by women.

  3. 500 years of colonialism were not sufficiently recognised in its comprehensive and long-term effects, so that the values of the global north were often more important, more significant and more influential. Buen vivir and Plurinationality received constitutional status, but were rarely associated with strategies of short - term and long-term realization as well as the need for cultural hegemony.

  4. Not observed, and in its brutal impact as an organised haven of counter-revolution, the Evangelical has been detected magnetism is much too late and much too little offensive combat. It was not about human rights and religious freedom, but about mental enslavement and neoliberal brainwashing under the guise of religious freedom.

  5. In part, discourses were canceled to alternative social development models. These models are based on a post-capitalist, non-profit society, overcoming extractivism, environmental degradation and authoritarianism. Common property and the importance of historically grown structures, cultures and forms of participation were often questioned in favour of a Western understanding of modernization.

  6. compared with Vietnam's solidarity and also with Cuba in the 1960s, there was a lack of the shaping and moving power of international solidarity, which could have limited negative changes. International solidarity involves the recognition Liebknecht, that the “enemy is in your own country”.

The debate on these aspects is all the more urgent in view of the massive protests and the resistance of the population in many countries.

What does that mean to us? Certainly at the moment: government participation has nothing to do with social changes and overcoming power structures. The lessons learned from the events in Latin America are certainly also true for us: if capitalist power structures are attacked, this will be a challenging Situation for the political and Social left.