Defeats For Latin American Fascist Right

The end of 2013 saw key defeats for the Latin American fascist right in both Venezuela and Chile.

The victory of the Chavistas in the Venezuelan municipal elections, should not in itself have been very significant, since the governing socialists had won the presidential, parliamentary and regional elections with large majorities already. It became important because the extreme right, with US support, had made the municipal elections a key part of their campaign of subversion with economic sabotage as its main tactic. Their business supporters hoarded food and goods, creating artificial shortages, which they then blamed on government inefficiency. In the process, they made large profits, by selling these products at the Colombian border as prices there are much higher.

However, determined action by the Venezuelan government and security forces defeated this attempt and proved highly popular among the public, resulting in the defeat of the extreme right in the elections and in their attempt to organise protests against the new anti-sabotage measures.

The government also discovered the organized links between the Venezuelan far right and other Latin American fascists. These include Chilean Pinochet activists, Colombian extreme rightists linked to paramilitaries, the Medellin narco-traffickers and most notably ex- Colombian president Uribe. Uribe has been actively campaigning in the US and Europe against the Colombian peace talks between the current government and FARC which have been taking place in Havana.

In Chile the social democrat Bachelet defeated the Pinochet supporter, winning 62% of the vote on a radical platform which includes the introduction of free education at all levels, tax reform, labour reform and constitutional reform to change the Pinochet authoritarian pro-elite constitution. At the moment Chile is the most unequal society in Latin America.

Faced with an increasingly active and politically conscious civil society, the extreme right is putting its efforts into violence in the hope of creating the conditions needed to justify US military intervention. Their efforts must be exposed and defeated.

The Workers’ Party Twitter Feed

Liberals & many on the 'left' exaggerate differences between Trump & Biden; click to see what would make a real difference.
There is no effective “freedom” in a society in which working people live in poverty & billionaires live like parasites.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10221826359541925&id=1045558919&sfnsn=scwspmo

Biden opposed moves to rebuild Afghanistan, advising a policy of fighting terrorism in the country. He also opposed withdrawal of US troops, which Trump carried out.
https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/biden’s-comments-rile-afghans-internationals

Arfasprout@arfasprout

@theworkerorguk Which international conflicts has biden spoken more violently than trump on? Evidence please.

Biden's regime will hold on to enclaves in the North East and work alongside Turkish invaders, continuing sanctions against the Syrian government. In general, Biden wants US global leadership, which he sees as being diminished by Trump's inconsistencies.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/limited-and-constrained-the-biden-administration-and-the-prospects-of-a-syria-policy/

Arfasprout@arfasprout

@theworkerorguk Which international conflicts has biden spoken more violently than trump on? Evidence please.

Biden intends to have tighter sanctions on DPRK, and to have stricter preconditions with respect to engaging on talks. The Democrat's president also intends to strengthen an alliance against North Korea. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-northkorea-analysi/biden-on-north-korea-fewer-summits-tighter-sanctions-same-standoff-idUSKBN25G2QO

Arfasprout@arfasprout

@theworkerorguk Which international conflicts has biden spoken more violently than trump on? Evidence please.

Load More...


All text on this site is copyright The Workers' Party of Britain. Established 2006