Citizens’ Revolution:
transformations and legacy
“Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research has disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method.”
Citizens’ Revolution: transformations and
legacy
José Guilherme Aguiar Lopes
Abstract
The following study provides a critical interpretation of the ten years’ administration of Rafael Correa in Ecuador. The main goal is to comprehend to which extent structural transformations were achieved during his period in power and what lessons can be drawn in order to conceptualize strategies for the complete emancipation of Latin America.
Keywords: development and underdevelopment, transformation, nation-building, economic history,
Table Contents
1. Introduction 4
1.1. General Identification of the problem and aims of the study 4 1.2. Contextualization 7
1.3. Description of the problem 7
1.4. The history of transformative ideas in Latin America 8 1.5. Aims of the investigation 9
2. Literature Review 10
2.1. Legitimizing the absence of transformation 12 2.2. Explaining the absence of transformation 13 3. Theoretical Framework 14
3.1. The origins of Marxism in Latin America: José Carlos Mariátegui 14 3.2. CEPAL and Dependency School: Development and Socialist Revolution 16 4. Methods 18
4.1. Motivations and Case Study 18
4.2. Building an alternative interpretation: four essential spheres of analysis 18 4.2.1. National Project 19
4.2.2. Pragmatism and Historical Perspective 19 4.2.3. Socialism and the RIght to the Land 20 5. Analysis and Discussion 20
5.1. Analysis 20
5.1.1. The National Project Matter 20
5.1.2. Pragmatism and the Historical Perspective 22 5.1.3. Socialism and the Citizens’ Revolution 25 5.2 Discussion 27
6. Conclusion and outlook 28 7. Bibliography 29
1. Introduction
1.1. General identification of the problem and aims of the study
The period between the 1930s and the 1960s was marked by the emergence of transformative, progressive projects to power in Latin America. Among the transformative ideas, National Developmentalism was hegemonic. It was a virtual consensus among the progressive sectors that in order to achieve sustainable economic development in the region, industrialization was necessary. However, in many cases the army and sectors of the bourgeoisie betrayed the national pacts that had been established in the preceding decades. The region witnessed the emergence of brutal right-wing authoritarianism and dictatorships - especially in the Southern Cone. As a consequence, ideas of structural transformation and strategies for sustainable economic development lost influence even after the re-democratization processes in the late 1980s. However, in 1998 Hugo Chávez Frias was elected as the president of Venezuela, giving start to a period that would later become known also as the “Pink Tide”. Center-left, left, and progressive regimes emerged to power in most of South America's countries in the subsequent years. Structural transformation and sustainable development appeared on the horizon again.
In November 2006, Rafael Correa Delgado was elected in the second round of the Ecuadorian presidential elections with 56% of the votes. After decades of austerity and neoliberal hegemony in Ecuador Correa named his project the “Citizens’ Revolution” (Revolucion Ciudadana). He stayed in power between January 2007 and May 2017. The decade was marked by economic prosperity (especially between 2007 and 2014), an expansion of public spendings, the writing of a new constitution in 2008, and the reduction of poverty, wealth concentration, and violence. However, since 2015 Ecuadorians and Correa’s project have been impacted by a crisis that has affected the whole Latin American region. The decline in commodity prices at the international level, in addition to increasing public indebtedness, has contributed to a scenario of economic uncertainty and political turmoil in the region.
and discuss sustainable development and structural transformations in the region. From the developmentalist tradition of the 1950s to the neoliberal interpretation of the 1980s and 1990s, it is possible to find one common mark: a description of what path must be followed in order to achieve economic development. In line with that, scholars have attempted, throughout the recent years, to interpret and comprehend the political economic processes that took place in the region during the Pink Tide and what steps in the direction of structural transformations and sustainable development were taken (or not).
In the case of Ecuador, perhaps the most incisive critic of the ten years experience of Citizens’ Revolution is Alberto Acosta, an Ecuadorian economist who was the president of the Constituent Assembly between November 2007 and June 2008. Acosta was an important supporter and ally of Rafael Correa, but the economic strategies adopted by the regime have altered his opinions. Acosta dedicated considerable efforts to conceptualize an alternative model of sustainable development for Latin America. In his view, the strategies adopted by the “progressive” leaders that came to power during the 2000s represent what is also known as “neoextractivism” (Acosta, 2018; Gudynas, 2009). In his work, central attention is given to the fact that the progressive regimes have in many cases intensified the extraction of natural resources. Furthermore, the author does not deny that the progressive administrations have been successful in assisting the lower-classes and providing access to basic needs and material goods (e.g., food security, job security, public investments in education, infrastructure and health, etc.), but is emphatic in pointing out what he understands as a fundamental contradiction: the attempt made by progressive regimes to overcome and decrease the dependency on extractivism by intensifying it. In other words, to use the revenues from the exportation of commodities to finance important socio-economic reforms. Acosta believes that the remaining dependency on the exportation of natural resources constitutes the main reason for the crisis and the political turmoil that the region and Ecuador have been facing since 2015. On the other hand, Acosta says, those who attempt to legitimize and justify the decisions made by most of the progressive administrations in the early 2000’s argue that this period was a historical opportunity that must not be wasted. The historical opportunity here is best explained by the incredibly high commodity prices that the region has experienced between 2000 and 2014.
It is fundamental to note, however, that the works of Acosta and other scholars who have criticised neo-extractivism do not take into sufficient account important historical background and geopolitical factors. It is fair, in my view, to criticise the justification done by Correa’s supporters that the main reason for the crisis is the decline in commodity prices. However, I do not believe that the historical time of ten years (in the case of Ecuador) or sixteen in the case of Brazil is enough to produce solid conclusions regarding the legacy of the Citizen Revolution and the other progressive governments of Latin America. Rather, I see as necessary a more systemic and englobing analysis of the experience. During the late 20th century, Ecuador has gone through what Rafael Correa calls “the long neoliberal night”. The country is probably, along with Chile, the one where the Washington Consensus was most intensely followed. Moreover, as Acosta himself mentions, drastic ruptures can be too risky1 and costly (e.g., Guatemala in 1954, the Cuban Revolution, Chile in 1973, and Venezuela since Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999). Structural transformations are not achieved from one day to the other, and I have considerable doubts regarding Acosta’s affirmation that the decade under Correa was a “wasted decade” (decada desperdiciada) (Acosta, 2018).
This essay provides an alternative interpretation of the Citizen Revolution in an attempt to establish a dialogue with Alberto Acosta and other scholars who have sought to comprehend this political and economic experience. Despite its immense importance for imagining a sustainable economic development in the region, I do not believe that the central focus on neoextractivism is the best strategy to achieve a solid comprehension of the administration of Rafael Correa. Rather, I propose to expand the scope of analysis to the spheres of national project, anti-imperialism, historical perspective, Socialism, and the right to the land. Therefore, my guiding research question is: to which extent structural transformations were produced during the Citizen Revolution? What lessons can be taken from this experience in order to imagine and conceptualize possible paths towards sustainable economic development and the overcoming of the historical obstacles towards emancipation?
1.2. Contextualization
Hope and disappointment are the two sentiments that best express the first two decades of the
1The 1980s and 1990s in Ecuador were an expression of the “shock doctrine”. Intense deregulation of the markets, austerity policies and political turmoil have marked this era.
21st century for the lower-classes in Latin America. When the new century began, most of the hope was placed in Venezuela, where the Bolivarian Revolution under the leadership of Hugo Chavez was starting to achieve social gains for the Venezuelan masses. Hope did not take long to spread throughout the region. The following years were marked by center-left, progressive coalitions rising to power in several countries (e.g., Brazil in 2002, Argentina in 2003, Uruguay in 2004 and Bolivia in 2005). In November 2006, Rafael Correa won the elections in Ecuador and the country joined the turn toward the left in the region. Elected with revolutionary promises, Correa´s project aimed to achieve structural transformations, including: changing the productive matrix, changing the manner which the State and society relate to and exploit the natural resources, and fortifying and democratizing the national economy (Acosta, 2018). The goal was to diminish wealth concentration and the dependency on foreign capital. Strong emphasis on the need of refounding the nation and of opposing imperialism were recurrent discursive tools that Correa used to legitimize his project and consolidate popular and regional support. In line with that, Correa has never hidden his enthusiasm with both the Bolivarian and the Cuban revolutions.
1.3. Description of the problem
Rafael Correa won three elections (2006, 2009 and 2013) and stayed in power between 2007 and 2017. The decade under his rule was marked by economic prosperity - especially until 2014 - and a considerable expansion in public investments. As a direct consequence, the Ecuadorian working and middle classes have witnessed a period of increased access to material goods, basic needs and job security. The reasons for this economic success are both the expansion in public investments and the high prices of the commodities in the international markets. The Ecuadorian State benefited particularly from the oil exploitation revenues, the main economic activity in the country (OEC, 2017). Furthermore, the audit of the public debt (both international and national) was essential in order to increase public liquidity and enabled the government to make important reforms and improve the living conditions of Ecuadorians (World Bank, 2020). Another impacting phenomena during Correa’s administration was the Constituent Assembly (2007-2008), which produced the new constitution of 2008 - the constitution guaranteed, among other things, the rights of Nature and the exclusive State owning of hydrocarbon resources.
However, drastic decline in commodity prices during 2014 triggered a crisis in the subsequent years throughout all Latin America. Unemployment rates have risen, GDP growth has stagnated, public indebtedness has increased and, perhaps most important, violence and extreme poverty rates have begun to increase again (World Bank, 2020). From the turn to the left in the early 2000s, the only country where a leftist regime has remained in power is Venezuela. Argentina witnessed a period of austerity and radical neoliberalism in the years under Mauricio Macri (2015 to 2019), but in 2019 Alberto Fernandez won the elections and the peronists came back to power. In the case of Ecuador, Lenín Moreno, who was elected in 2017 as the successor of Correa, has adopted economic strategies contrary to what had been implemented in the preceding ten years, with a re-approximation to financial institutions (e.g., World Bank and the IMF) and a move towards austerity.
1.4. The History of transformative ideas in Latin America
Progressive ideas and strategies for the achievement of structural transformations and development reached a peak in Latin America between the 1930s and 1960s. This period was marked by processes of industrialization and the consequential urbanization. National Developmentalism became dominant as a political project, especially in Brazil (with Vargas), Argentina (with Peron) and Mexico (with Cardenas), and the region witnessed the emergence of organized urban working classes. Labour rights were guaranteed and for the first time substantial sectors of the low-income classes have gained access to some basic material needs. The National Developmentalist project has remained firmly in power throughout these decades. Meanwhile, Marxist-Leninist organizations were convinced that national pacts between the bourgeoisie and the working class were destined to fail (Marini, 1971). Inspired by the Soviet global prosperity in the post-war, by the Chinese Revolution of 1949 and especially by the Cuban Revolution of 1959, radical sectors of the left in Latin America refused to accept what was being proposed by the Developmentalists: compromise between classes.
During the 1960s, the apparent stability of National Developmentalism began to show weaknesses (Marini, 1971). In an attempt to free the region from the “Communist threat”, in most Latin American countries - especially in the Southern Cone - the army rose to power. These new regimes had as a common feature the alignment with the United States foreign
policies. Under these right-wing authoritarian administrations, structural transformations and revolution became a distant notion. This period (from the mid-1960s to late 1980s) was marked by political persecution, torture and the deconstruction of the social pacts that had been established in the decades of National Developmentalism. Many intellectuals and politicians who opposed the dictatorships were either arrested, assassinated or exiled. As a consequence, less and less political organizations - even after the re-democratization processes in the late 1980s and 1990s - defined themselves as revolutionary and the idea of building national programs of development was abandoned by the majority (Bresser-Pereira, 2010).
However, ideas of transformation and revolution re-emerged with strength with the victory of Hugo Chavez in the 1998 Venezuelan presidential elections (Bresser-Pereira, 2010). In allusion to the 19th century Revolutions of Independence led by Simon Bolivar in the region, Chavez's project was named the “Bolivarian Revolution”. Socialism and anti-imperialism emerged as the core features of the project. In order to differ from traditional socialist movements, the term 21st Century Socialism was coined and used by other leaders in the region, including Rafael Correa. Directly influenced and inspired by the Bolivarian Revolution, Correa named his transformative political project the “Citizens’ Revolution”.
1.5. Aims of the investigation
Interested in the comprehension of these political processes and using Rafael Correa’s administration as a case study, in this work I propose to investigate the historical significance and legacy of the progressive administrations for the achievement of sustainable development in Latin America and to which extent structural transformations were achieved during this political and economic experience.
My departing point in this study are the works from Alberto Acosta, who is mainly concerned with the internal limits of the Citizens Revolution as a transformative, revolutionary project. He claims that the economic strategy adopted by the progressive governments - or, as Acosta puts it, “neo-extractivist governments” - of Latin America during the past two decades is not compatible with a project that aims to achieve structural transformations. In other words, the intensification of natural resources’ extractivism and dependency on international buyers of
commodities keeps Latin American economies extremely vulnerable to price changes. Moreover, Acosta condemns progressive governments for lack of environmental responsibility. In this aspect, the author argues, progressive regimes do not differ in practice from the neoliberal and conservative administrations that preceded them (Acosta, 2018b).
Following the review of this recent literature, I describe the gaps found in the approaches and analyses of Alberto Acosta and others regarding the legacy of the Citizens Revolution. Later, I fill these gaps based on the theoretical support provided by the works of important Latin American marxist and developmentalist thinkers from the 20th century. In chapter 3, I propose an alternative interpretation of the decade under Rafael Correa and what lessons can be drawn in order to imagine and conceptualize deeper and sustainable structural transformations for Latin America in the future. Therefore, my guiding research questions are: to which extent structural transformations were produced during the Citizen Revolution? What lessons can be drawn from this experience in order to imagine and conceptualize possible paths towards sustainable economic development and the overcoming of the historical obstacles towards emancipation?
2. Literature review
One of the main historical concerns of Latin American literature is the role played by the natural richness of the region. On the one hand, there are authors, such as Andre Gunder Frank, who have developed the notion of “resource curse” (Gunder Frank, 1974). The notion expresses the idea that the infinity of natural resources in the region works for the worse. In other words, it keeps Latin America dependent and vulnerable to the buyers. In line with Gunder Frank, Eduardo Galeano has written in his “Open Veins” that “Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others” and that “our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others” (Galeano, 1971, 2019). On the other hand there is the comparative advantage theory, which was initially formulated by the classic economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo and is defended in Latin America mostly by liberals (e.g., Fernando Henrique Cardoso). The theory upholds the idea that each nation and region has its natural and geographic particularities that will favour capitalist development.
As pointed out in the previous section, there is a clear opposition between the interpretations made by the Ecuadorian decision-makers during the Citizens Revolution and those from Acosta and other scholars who criticise the intensification of natural resources exploitation. Both currents agree that the revenues from the sale of commodities must be invested on social projects. However, the main point of divergence concerns how and for how long the development of the Ecuadorian society must be financed by the exploitation of nature.
Ecuador and the region have been through a process of “re-primarization” in the last forty years, which means that Latin American economies have de-accelerated (or in some cases reduced) their processes of industrialization. Some scholars use the term “deindustrialization” to better explain what has taken place over the last decades of the 20th century and the early 21st (Bresser-Pereira, 2009). Therefore, one concludes that the Ecuadorian economy was already centered on the exploitation of its natural resources way before Rafael Correa came to power. What Acosta emphatically criticizes is the fact that after Correa came to power the extractivist activities were actually intensified and expanded to new sectors (e.g., mining) (Acosta, 2018; Gudynas, 2009). Moreover, another central point of criticism for Acosta is the lack of compromise with the promises that were made when Correa became president. According to him, the absence of change in the “productive matrix” - which was one of the most emphasized promises of Correa - contradict all the revolutionary rhetoric that can be found in Correa’s speeches and discourses.
In 2009, another influential scholar in Latin America, Eduardo Gudynas, published an article in which he presents “Diez Tesis Urgentes sobre el Nuevo Extractivismo” (Ten Urgent Thesis about the New Extractivism). Just as Acosta, Gudynas does not deny that the new progressive Latin American governments were using resources from extractive activities to finance important social projects and were beginning to achieve good results. However, the author refuses to accept the idea that the region was going through a process of structural transformation, to say: Latin American countries continue to be “price takers”, which meant they were still dependent on external demand and international prices (Gudynas, 2009). In addition, he argues that the neoextractivist governments in Latin America have performed even worse in some cases than neoliberal administrations in regards to solving the social and environmental impacts produced by massive extraction of natural resources (Gudynas, 2009).
2.1. Legitimizing the absence of transformation
Popular support was achieved through what is commonly referred to as “compensatory policies”. According to Eduardo Gudynas, the State, by increasing public investment on social projects and important reforms, managed to co-opt considerable portions of the working and low-middle classes, which helped to decrease the level of social mobilization against land concentration, extractivism and for indigenous rights (Gudynas, 2009). Gudynas uses the term “Compensatory States” to describe governments like those of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. When confronted by criticism, Gudynas says, progressive governments have justified themselves by claiming that the intensification of extractivist activities would serve as the promoter of national development. Similar to the scenario found in Latin America during the 1950s, the progressive sectors of Latin American politics that came to power have decided to compromise with the traditional economic elites (Acosta, 2018; Marini, 1972). The idea of unifying the nation around a national project of economic development can be easily found in Latin American political history (Marini, 1971, 1972; Furtado, 1974; Prebisch, 1981; Bresser-Pereira, 2010).
This reflects one of the main points of divergence between Acosta and the economic strategy adopted by Rafael Correa in Ecuador. The notion of development under Correa’s regime, Acosta argues, follows a simplistic and mechanistic view of the world and social life. Developmentalism has found various obstacles in numerous spheres. On the social level, it promotes alienated labor, infinite search for accumulation and individualized societies. On the environmental level, it harms biodiversity and intensifies global warming. The historical evidences should be enough to clarify the unsustainability of developmentalism and the negative effects of comprehending development in this mechanistic manner:
“What is clear is that the “progressive” governments - and also the neoliberals - maintain the myth of" progress "in its productivist drift, and that of “development” as the only direction, especially in its mechanistic vision of economic growth, as well as its multiple synonyms. Incidentally, this 21st century extractivism - neoliberal or “progressive” - does not lose its conquering and colonizing character.” (Acosta, 2018b: 53)
2.2. Explaining the absence of transformation
Acosta believes that there was space and popular support for the production of structural transformations during Correa’s administration, but political decisions and the insistence on extractivism were the reasons for the absence of transformation that Ecuador has gone through, according to him, between 2007 and 2017. The root of the problem is the incapability of Correa’s administration to remain loyal to initial promises. Among these promises, Acosta highlights two: to change the “productive matrix” and to decrease exploitation of natural resources. During Correa’s administration, Ecuador has deepened the process of “deindustrialization”. The manufacturing sector has lost importance and investment in the production of capital goods has decreased. On the other hand, there was a process of reprimarization of the Ecuadorian economy: “in fact, while in 2007 primary products represented 74.3% of total exports, for 2014 that proportion shot up to 83.5%” (Acosta, 2018: 118). Moreover, new extractivist activities were supported by the government, most prominently the mining sector (Gudynas, 2009: 191).
The conclusion of the investigations made by Acosta and Gudynas is that the reasons for the absence of structural transformation under progressive regimes in Latin America and under Correa in Ecuador lie on the lack of political will. Acosta understands that the arguments used by Rafael Correa and his supporters to explain the current crisis are superficial. In other words, blaming the crisis on the decline of commodity prices hides its structural features. The authors claim that there was popular support and political space that would enable the promotion of deeper transformations.
However, I believe that the focus given by Alberto Acosta to “neoextractivism” and the absence of change in the productive matrix hides essential historical and geopolitical factors. Therefore, if one wishes to comprehend to which extent structural transformations were achieved (or not) during Correa’s administration and what steps towards sustainable development were taken (or not), it is necessary, in my view, to establish an alternative model of interpretation which expands the scope of analysis.
3. Theoretical framework
social sciences. On the one hand, I am considerably influenced here by the works of some of the most prominent marxist intellectuals of the 20th century in the region: José Carlos Mariátegui, who is considered by many the founder of Marxism in Latin America ( Löwy, 2005) and Ruy Mauro Marini, who contributed for the debates regarding dependency and underdevelopment. Moreover, Marxism as a method (historical materialism) provides fundamental tools in order to comprehend how social life is historically and materially conditioned. On the other hand, the CEPAL tradition also plays an important role in shaping my method of investigation. The central concern given to the national matter and the conceptualization of development in the region are the two main elements that I draw from authors like Celso Furtado, Raúl Prebisch and Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira . 2
3.1. The origins of Marxism in Latin America: José Carlos Mariátegui
In order to establish a dialogue with the interpretations of Alberto Acosta regarding the legacy of the Citizens Revolution, I believe that the works of José Carlos Mariátegui (1895-1930) provide an initial basis for the comprehension of what paths the transformation of Latin American societies must take. The central concern of Mariátegui was to establish the core elements of the economic formation of Peru. Mariátegui’s works serve as a good tool to conceptualize and comprehend the social processes that have shaped and still shape political life in Latin America. Similar to Peru, the Ecuadorian society is marked by the constant conflicts produced by the dualisms coast/highlands, european/indigenous, Spanish/Quechua, feudalism/capitalism, colonialism/liberalism, etc.
In his most acknowledged work, “Seven Essays on the Interpretation of the Peruvian Reality” (1929), Mariátegui critically analyses the development of capitalism in Peru, especially from the Independence process until his days. Among his central concerns, the incompatibility between the Liberal constitution that was written as a consequence of independence and the persistence of a semi-feudal organization of the society is seen as the core socio-economic contradiction of the Republic: “(...) while the Conquest totally engenders the process of the formation of our colonial economy, Independence appears determined and dominated by that process” (Mariátegui, 1929: 10).
2Even though Bresser-Pereira did not really make part of the CEPAL tradition, his insights are directly influenced by and in line with most of the works developed by CEPAL scholars.
Mariátegui claims that the economic structures of the Republic are virtually the same as those from the colonial times. Immense land and wealth concentration, persistence of servitude, dependency on foreign investment and foreign buyers, and the absence of an organic national bourgeoisie are the factors that have contributed, according to Mariátegui, for the backwardness of Peru even when compared to neighbor countries like Brazil and Argentina (Mariátegui, 1929).
Mariátegui is also considered an indigenist thinker. Indigenism became “mainstream” in Peruvian scholarship especially due to the works of Luís E. Valcarcel and Manuel Gonzalez Prada. The main concern of indigenists was to propose ways and strategies of solving the “The Indian Problem” (Valcarcel, 1972; Tauzin, 2006). However, Mariátegui was not convinced by the existing literature. He argued that most indigenists were mistaken when attempting to find the solution for the indigenous problem in the spheres of culture, literature, education, and administrative institutions: "The oldest and most obvious defeat is, without a doubt, that of those who reduce the protection of indigenous people to a matter of ordinary administration." (Mariátegui, 1929: 29). Rather, Mariátegui was emphatic in claiming that the “problem of the indigenous people is a problem of land” (1929: 30). According to him, pre-Columbian Andean societies were organized in an agrarian and communist manner, based on the collective use of the land and characterized by a completely different manner of relating to the natural resources - especially if compared to the European conquerors. Therefore, he believed that the only serious way of facing the indigenous problem was by fighting land concentration and servitude: “Placing the social-economic problem in the foreground, we assume the least lyrical and least literary attitude possible. We are not content with claiming the Indian's right to education, culture, progress, love and heaven. We begin by vindicating, categorically, their right to land” (Mariátegui, 1929: 39).
Furthermore, he was convinced that the time for a Liberal Revolution in Latin America had passed. The “criollos'' who became the dominant sector of Peruvian society after independence have failed to promote the transition from feudalism to capitalism (Mariátegui,
1929: 41). Peru remained a society founded on the superexploitation of its working class, 3 which was, in its great majority, composed by Indigenous peoples, peasants, the Chinese coolies and the black population that was brought to Peru during slavery. The absence of a national bourgeoisie concerned with the building of a solid internal market and the remaining submission of the law to the landowners (gamonales) are the main reasons behind the absence of transformation in Peruvian socio-economic structures during the first century of the Republic. Now, Mariátegui argued, the only serious proposal of structural transformation must involve the socialisation of the land and putting a definite end on feudalism. Socialist Revolution was the only path to be followed in order to solve the deep contradictions that constituted the socio-economic formations of Peru in all its spheres (1929: 41). The character of Socialism in Latin America must be primarily agrarian, following the Andean tradition.
3.2. CEPAL and Dependency School: Development and Socialist Revolution
The 1950s witnessed the emergence of a new tradition of intellectuals in Latin America. United both at the Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL, Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean, Santiago, Chile) and at the Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileiros (ISEB, Superior Institute of Brazilian Studies, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), sociologists and economists that would become references in the field (e.g., Celso Furtado and Raúl Prebisch) dedicated considerable efforts into the conceptualization of and on the formulations of strategies for economic development in the region. The tradition of scholars, that would also become known as “Developmentalists”, emerged in a scenario where national pacts between the bourgeoisie, the working class and the public bureaucracy had achieved solid results, especially in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, where industrialization was more intense. Furtado and Prebisch were convinced that industrialization and nationalism were the two central elements of economic development. The strategies, they argued, must involve Socialism and Liberalism. In other words, Prebisch proposed what might be called state planning of the market.
For our purposes, one specific concept developed by Raúl Prebisch is fundamental:
3 Superexploitation is a concept that would be formulated only in the future, most specifically by Ruy Mauro Marini. But the content expresses the same idea as what Mariategui defines as servitude. Therefore, it is interesting to use the concept here, also in order to establish a direct link between Mariategui and Marini.
“excedente” (surplus). Prebisch believed that the initial step towards transformation in the periphery of capitalism must necessarily involve the redistribution of the surplus produced by the primary exports. The next step must - also necessarily - be the process of industrialization. First by the substitution of imports, and later by technological improvements. It is also important to mention that the pacts that could be found in Latin America during the National Developmentalist period represented exactly what constituted the conditions for a revolution in the region, according to both authors.
Despite that, Furtado recognized the contradictory character of the Latin American elites, similarly to Mariátegui. Differently from the latter, however, Furtado believed that this immanent contradictory character must be overcome by alliances that put the national interest above all others (Bresser-Pereira, 2009).
Contrary to the CEPAL tradition of developmentalism and as an answer to the collapse of National Developmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s, Ruy Mauro Marini developed what he calls the dialectics of dependency. In line with Mariátegui, Marini did not believe that there was a real possibility of alliance between the working class and the bourgeoisie. According to him, the interests of the bourgeoisie in Latin America are contrary to the National interests. In other words, the elites in Latin America represent imperialist interests. Marini claimed that the history of underdevelopment in the region is a representation of the history of development in the rich countries (Marini, 1972).
Here it is important to highlight an important concept developed by Marini: superexploitation. Differently from the working conditions in the central economies, where the access to basic material goods has already been achieved by the great majority of the working class and the exploitation exists only at one level (employer-employee), in the periphery of capitalism exploitation exists at two levels. On the one side there is the exploitation of one nation by the other and the relationship of dependency between them, on the other side there is the “regular” type of exploitation. Therefore, the workers in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are under the condition of superexploitation (Marini, 1973, 1974). Taking that into account, in addition to the immanent contradictory character of the “national” bourgeoisie, Marini concluded, in line with Mariátegui, that the only possible
revolution for Latin America is a Socialist one.
In my view, Marxism and developmentalism are complementary as methods. Even though on essential aspects they end up not “agreeing with each other”, they provide the tools that enable us to comprehend the relationship between Socialism and nationalism, pragmatism and radicalism, and between industrialization and development.
4. Methods
4.1 Motivations and Case Study
My motivations for the present investigation lie on the crisis that Latin America as a region has been facing since 2015. Moreover, knowing that the preceding years had been marked by economic prosperity and revolutionary hopes makes the subject even more attractive for me. My object of study is the Ecuadorian experience under the regime of Rafael Correa. The Citizens’ Revolution is a relevant case study due to two main factors: the central concern given by Correa on the necessity of re-founding the nation and the mix of pragmatism and radicalism that mark his administration. Moreover, as briefly pointed out in the previous section, my methodological approach here draws from historical materialism and the CEPAL tradition. Therefore, my analysis will focus both on the historical, material conditioning of social life and on the role played by the Nation in promoting structural transformations and building a path towards sustainable development.
4.2 Building an alternative interpretation: four essential spheres of analysis
In order to promote an alternative interpretation of the Correist experience and to establish a dialogue with the interpretations of Acosta, here I expand the scope of analysis. While Acosta’s (and Gudynas’) critique is centered on the “productive matrix” and neoextractivism, here I propose to structure my analysis around four main spheres: the national project issue, pragmatism as a strategy, the historical perspective and Socialism. The analysis is considerably influenced by the insights provided by the developmentalist tradition with regards to the national project issue. In addition, Mariátegui and Marini also play an essential role in structuring my analysis here. The second and the third spheres will be analysed together, and the works of Bresser-Pereira and Marini serve as my main theoretical basis.
Finally, the analysis of Socialism as a political project in Latin America draws on the insights of Mariátegui regarding the importance of the land and the re-founding of the nation. In the following subsections, I detail each of these spheres.
Here it is important to make a brief explanation of the relevance of 20th century Latin American Marxism and developmentalism to the 21st century. On the one hand, the international politics arena remains structured in a way similar to the early 20th century. It is possible to argue that the only two experiences of challenge to the given world order were the rise of the Soviet Union, which collapsed in the early 1990s, and China, which is nowadays the main challenge to western dominance. However, the center-periphery, developed-underdeveloped dualisms remain in place. On the other hand, Latin America has gone through a process of de-industrialization over the past decades, which reinforces the importance of the works produced by the CEPAL tradition.
4.2.1. National Project
The importance of the “nation” was incredibly reduced following the collapse of National Developmentalism and the emergence of authoritarian military dictatorships in the region (Bresser-Pereira, 2009). Here I analyse in which manners Rafael Correa has dealt with the national issue and to which extent it is possible to find, within the Citizens Revolution experience, a solid project of national development. Here it is important to say that “national development” is different from National Developmentalism. The latter refers to the projects that were hegemonic in Latin America between the 1930s and the 1960s, when the objective was the realization of a capitalist revolution in the region (Furtado, 1974). In the case of “national development” that I am analysing here, in the case of Ecuador, I refer to the idea of national unity and national strategy. As Bresser-Pereira points out, there is no project of economic development that does not involve a project of nation building (2009: 41).
4.2.2. Pragmatism and Historical Perspective 4
The revolutionary, progressive experiences of the 20th century have shown how risky and costly it can be to challenge the established order (Marini, 1972; Bresser-Pereira, 2009).
4 The use of the term “pragmatism” here is motivated by the works of both developmentalists and realists. Strategic planning involves taking into account the specificities of each era and pragmatism is a helpful tool in order to critically comprehend social processes.
Therefore, pragmatism and historical perspective are essential features in order to achieve structural transformations. Here I investigate to which extent the decision-making processes during the ten years under Correa’s administration can be said to respect these two important factors. On the one hand, I will analyse the geopolitical aspect. In other words, what strategies were adopted to challenge (or not) foreign impositions. On the other hand, I will attempt to comprehend how the Citizens Revolution differs as a historical experience from the progressive regimes of the 1950s and 1960s, and which lessons were taken from those experiences.
4.2.3. Socialism and the Right to the Land
Finally, I move to the sphere of Socialism as a transformative project for Latin America. Inspired by Mariátegui and Marini, I try to find elements in the Correist experience that express a path towards Socialism. I depart from the assumption that Socialism and Democracy are not established concepts. They must be redefined for the Latin American context (Mariátegui, 1929). Therefore, my aim here is to locate inside the Citizens Revolution aspects that might promote the building of Socialism in Latin America.
5. Analysis and Discussion
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 5.1., I analyze Correa´s government under the lens of the national project (5.1.1), pragmatism and historical perspective (5.1.2.) and from a socialist perspective (5.1.3.). Then, in the discussion section (5.2.), I discuss the results of my analyses in opposition to Acosta´s analysis, as reviewed in Chapter 2.
5.1. Analysis
5.1.1. The National Project Matter
Rafael Correa has been emphatic, since the elections campaign, on the necessity of re-founding the nation. In line with that, he has done considerable efforts to unify the dualisms that have permeated Ecuadorian history since the conquest. One of these attempts relate to the relationship between the State and Indigenous peoples. Following the pattern in Latin America, the Ecuadorian State was founded based on liberal republican values and principles. However, as Mariátegui has pointed out, the enlightened values that originate
from 18th century Europe are hardly compatible with the lifestyle of Andean societies (Mariátegui, 1929: 41). In opposition to individualism and property rights, Andean culture is marked by the collective use of the land, agrarianism and pantheism (Mariátegui, 1929). Therefore, in order to re-found the nation, it is necessary to change the values and principles that guide the State. In line with that, the 2008 Constitution declares Ecuador a Plurinational State. Instead of a State with evident colonial heritage, Rafael Correa’s State project is founded on Plurinationalism . 5
This strategy has proven to be successful in order to solidify the National project. Correa managed to unite diverse sectors of the Ecuadorian society around his Revolution and was successful in creating “the people” (Laclau, 2005). On the other hand, it is fundamental to note that sectors of the environmentalist and indigenous movements have broken apart with Correa exactly because of his attempt to unify the nation around a project of economic development (Acosta, 2018, 2018b). The project was based on broad pacts that involved the traditional landowning elites, indigenous and peasants movements, labour unions, intellectuals, poor urban classes and an intensification of extractivist activities promoted by the public sector as a response to the high demands in the international markets, especially from China. The production of a scenario in which national development became the central objective of distinct sectors of the society expresses what Raúl Prebisch saw as a virtuous cycle, in which public guidance cooperates with the market in order to promote development: "If the problem of accumulation and distributive equity were fundamentally resolved, economic freedom in the field of the market would not only be compatible with political freedom but would be an essential condition for its proper development" (Prebisch, 1981: 283). As a result, Correa managed to solidify popular legitimacy and was successful in promoting the rebuilding of the nation.
Furthermore, anti-imperialism and a primary concern with National interests were also characteristic elements of the Citizens Revolution. In line with Hugo Chavez, Correa is enthusiastic about Bolivarianism (i.e., South American nationalism). The building of “La Patria Grande” (The Great Nation) united Correa with many leaders in the region through an
5 It is important to mention that many indigenous peoples would probably say that Plurinationality only exists in the Constitution.
anti-imperialist project and an attempt to integrate the region around a national strategy. Following that, Unión de las Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR, Union of South American Nations) was created in 2008 with the purpose of strengthening the links between the South American States. It is possible to argue that here the symbolism matters more than practical results. Latin American (or South American) integration was one of the central aims in Simon Bolivar’s revolutionary movement for independence. However, dreams of building The Great Nation have lost influence over the two centuries following independence. The victory of Hugo Chavez and the later creation of UNASUR as an attempt of uniting the region express the re-emergence of the dream. Rafael Correa’s alignment with progressive leaders like Lula da Silva, Evo Morales and José Mujica have proven to be an important step towards the transformation of Ecuador and the region. Following Celso Furtado, who believed that the path towards development in Latin America must necessarily involve regional integration, Correa and other progressive leaders have achieved an important (symbolic) victory in the path towards emancipation: "The theory of integration is a higher stage of development theory and integration policy, an advanced form of development policy. Integration planning therefore appears as the most complex form of this technique for coordinating economic decisions." (Furtado, 2000: 331; See also: CEPAL, 2005).
5.1.2. Pragmatism and the Historical Perspective
The Citizens Revolution provides elements that help us to understand how the challenging of foreign impositions and interests might not be sufficient to promote structural and sustainable transformations. In other words, as Marini points out, “In order to fight imperialism, it is essential to understand that it is not a factor external to Latin American national society, but rather the terrain where it has its roots and an element that permeates it in all its aspects” (Marini, 1971: 1). On the other hand, Bresser-Pereira (2009) says, national unity is essential in order to fight imperialism. Therefore, pragmatism is essential and strategic national alliances are fundamental in order to build transformative projects in Latin America. Even though both approaches seem opposite in many aspects, I believe they are complementary. In order to actively challenge the established international political arena, countries must first of all solve or find a way to deal with their internal contradictions (Bresser-Pereira, 2009).
complementary hypotheses of Marini and Bresser-Pereira. Seen as a menace to the Ecuadorian establishment, Correa never gave up his revolutionary rhetoric. Verbal attacks on the financial and communication elites are remarkable features of his administration. However, Correa has never refused to negotiate and to establish pacts with the traditional elites. His (former) party, Alianza PAIS, was formed by a variety of political spectrums, from defenders of degrowth (e.g., Alberto Acosta) to traditional caciques of Ecuadorian politics. It 6 is possible to argue that Correa was successful in gaining legitimacy among sectors of the elites through two fundamental means: the intensification of extractivist activities and the economic prosperity that the country witnessed between 2007 and 2014. On the first aspect, it is good to note that Correa did not challenge the elites in control of important economic activities in Ecuador such as cacao, banana, fishery and cut flowers (Acosta, 2018). Rather, he promoted the intensification of these activities. With the support of fundamental and even opposing sectors of the society, he managed to achieve, by means of pragmatism, two re-elections and the election of his successor, Lenín Moreno.
On the historical perspective sphere, however, the Correist experience is more complex. The pacts with sectors of the Ecuadorian elite might have proven to be effective for the short-term political success of Rafael Correa, but on the long-term matters are different. Taking into account the National Developmentalist experience during the 1950s and 1960s, one can conclude that the elites are not trustworthy when it comes to transformative projects (Marini, 1972, 1977). National alliances between the industrial bourgeoisie, the working classes and the public bureaucracy, that seemed to be solid for at least two decades, collapsed once the “Communist threat” emerged as a menace to the bourgeoisie. The Cold War context and Cuban Revolution of 1959 were the main historical factors that contributed for the political turmoil that had as a major consequence the emergence of military dictatorships, which were responsible for the deconstruction of the social pacts that were built in the preceding decades.
In the 21st century context, however, the Communist threat no longer exists. Even though Cuba remains ruled by the Communist Party, the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the early 1990s has virtually erased from the political horizon the concept of communism. Therefore, it
6 Degrowth (or post-growth) is defended by a school of economists and ecologists primarily concerned with the environmental impacts of economic growth. They propose an economic model contrary to it.
is possible to argue, the conditions for the production of solid national pacts were in place now. As Bresser-Pereira argues, “development was (is) possible whenever the elites were guided by national interests and not by imperial recommendations and pressures or, in other words, whenever national factors prevailed over dependent factors in the definition of policies and reforms” (Bresser-Pereira, 2009: 40). The current problem, however, is of a different kind. Since the 1980s, the world has been going through a process of intense globalization. Markets are globally integrated and the decisions made by bankers in, for instance, Malaysia impact the Ecuadorian and Latin America economy. Therefore, it is fundamental to point out that the character of the elites has also shifted, and the idea of a national bourgeoisie in the 21st century must definitely be distinct from that of the 1950s (Bresser-Pereira, 2009). In the specific case of Ecuador, globalization was even more intense. The 1990s and early 2000s - or, as Correa refers to it, “the neoliberal night” - was marked by massive foreign capital inflows, deregulation, reprimarization and deindustrialization. In addition, in 2000, after a drastic economic crisis, Ecuador adopted the US dollars as their official currency, decreasing the competitiveness of its internal market. This reinforces the need for a historical perspective and the existence of obstacles inherited from past administrations. In a scenario where transnational finances become dominant, strategies for development must be primarily concerned with the comprehension of the specificities of our time. Taking into account this historical perspective and the extremely important role played by the financial sectors nowadays, it is possible to argue that the audit of the public debt in 2007 and 2008 represents a historical victory for the Citizens Revolution. The audit was important because it symbolizes how peripheral countries are able to face financial interests through political will and organization. Moreover, it expresses the capacity of the Correa’s administration to comprehend the specificities of the historical time and act in accordance.
However, globalized capital has other means of imposing its will. Once the prices of the commodities declined, in 2014, the government refused to renounce its social compromises. Public investment remained high and popular support was maintained. The confidence of the markets was reduced and private investment declined. As a result, the economy stagnated. After the election of Lenín Moreno, who is considered a traitor by Rafael Correa, Ecuador has virtually abandoned the revolutionary path and has re-approximated itself with financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Amidst the re-implementation of austerity
policies were started being implemented again and the social indicators began to show unsatisfactory results. The past three years have been marked by increasing popular dissatisfaction, which culminated in the riots of 2019, when the population, led especially by indigenous movements, went to the streets to protest against austerity.
The theoretical background provided by the works of Ruy Mauro Marini and Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira works here as a tool to comprehend how pragmatism and a historical perspective have served to legitimize the Citizens Revolution. On the other hand, their work is also helpful to identify the specific contradictions and challenges of our time. It is possible to conclude that Correa’s administration was successful in combining both pragmatism and historical perspective in order to promote national development. However, one of the specificities of our time, the dominant role played by the financial sector, deserves deeper investigation and the crisis in Ecuador is a good proof of it. Despite being successful in challenging the financial interests through the audit of the public debt, it is undeniable that the capital outflow of 2015 is the sign of a mistake made by Ecuadorian policy-makers, especially Rafael Correa.
5.1.3. Socialism and the Citizens Revolution
First of all, it is fundamental to state that a consistent analysis of the Citizens Revolution on the sphere of Socialism implies several assumptions, both ontological and sociological. On the ontological dimension, the main assumption refers to the nature of human beings. In line with José Carlos Mariátegui and György Lukács, I work here with the assumption that human beings are social beingsper se. Individuality as a universal principle is an abstract notion that reproduces the dominant ideology (Lukács, 2012). Moving to the sociological sphere, the essential feature of my analysis lies on the assumption that social life is historically and materially conditioned. In other words, I believe that historical materialism provides the most efficient and englobing tools to analyse social life and social formations (Marx & Engels, 1846, 1932; Lukács, 1923; Mariátegui, 1934).
Moving now to our case study, it is also essential to highlight the necessity of taking into account the specificities of each region and historical period, which therefore presupposes different theories of Socialism - and democracy - in different periods and places
(Bresser-Pereira, 2009). Such specificities, in no means, represent eclecticism. Rather, they express loyalty to the method (Lukács, 1923; Marini, 1972). In this regard, following Mariátegui, I believe that any attempt to transform Latin American societies must involve the socialization of the land and its resources and the annihilation of colonial social economic inheritance. The ten years under Correa’s administration were marked, on this sphere, by considerable achievements.
For example, through the law of hydrocarbons, part of the 2008 Constitution, the exploitation of natural resources in Ecuadorian territory became an exclusivity of the State. By doing so, Correa and the Citizens Revolution were now one step closer to Socialism in Ecuador. Moreover, the redistribution of the revenues from the extractivist activities to the working classes of Ecuador represents an initial phase of socialization of the resources among the nation, which goes in line to what Marini saw as an essential feature of the Latin American Socialist Revolution (Marini, 1972). As a consequence of the socialization of resources, Correa managed to promote improvements on the quality of life of considerable sectors of the Ecuadorian population. In 2007, when Correa came to power, 36% of the population were living under the Ecuadorian National poverty line (World Bank, 2017), while when he left the power, in 2017, the rate had decreased to 21.5%. Focusing on violence, a constant problem for the region, the Citizens Revolution was accompanied by a reduction in the homicide rate per 100,000 people from 16 to 5.8 (World Bank, 2017).
As mentioned before, Andean societies are purely agrarian, and the only way of truly emancipating these people from “servitude” (Mariátegui, 1929) and “superexploitation” (Marini, 1973) is by turning land accessible to the people. In this aspect, according to a census from 2000, farms with less than five hectares represented 63% of all rural properties, but occupied only 6.3% of agricultural land. On the other hand, farms with more than 200 hectares represented less than 1% of the country‘s almost 850,000 land holdings, but occupied 29% of agricultural land (FAO, 2002). Since the writing of the new constitution in 2008, however, the right to the land has been guaranteed to indigenous communities over more than half of the Ecuadorian remaining forestland. Moreover, programs of land redistribution have been put in place and land concentration has been challenged. There is no solid data available, but in the 2014 FAO report, it is said that “there is a redistribution of
land that the state had repossessed and that, in addition, the current constitution limits foreign investment in the country” (FAO, 2014: 4).
In line with the fight against land concentration, the Citizens Revolution has challenged wealth concentration. In 2007, 42.4% of the national income was concentrated in the hands of the top 10 percent of earners, while in 2017 the rate fell to 33.8% (World Bank, 2017) . Even
though the numbers are still shy, it is undeniable that during his administration Correa promoted income redistribution, which also represents an initial step towards Socialism.
5.2. Discussion
The results of the analysis above provide critical elements to build a diverse interpretation of the Citizens Revolution from the one produced by Alberto Acosta and Eduardo Gudynas. First of all, the results achieved in the “National Project” sphere of analysis have served to show how political and social unity are essential steps in order to promote economic development and transformation. In a region where for more than two decades the poor were marginalized, the re-inclusion of the masses into the public debate was essential. In line with that, plurinationalization of the State also represents a historical transformation, although much remains to be done. As Mariátegui says, there must be an annihilation of the colonial inheritance in all spheres, and the recognizing of Ecuador as a plurinational State and the rejection of an ideal, enlightened type of democracy represent a step towards transformation and emancipation.
Moreover, as Bresser-Pereira points out, there is no project of national development without a project of nation. Here it is interesting to refer to the claim made by Acosta about the notion of development defended by the Citizens Revolution. He claims it represents a colonial and mechanistic view of the world. I agree with Acosta concerning the negative effects of alienated labour and the reification of social relations. However, I believe that the “Pragmatism” sphere of analysis provides an alternative insight on this topic. Ecuador, just as the rest of Latin America, is a country founded on the superexploitation of its population. Access to basic material needs such as housing, food security and job security is not democratic. The structures of the Ecuadorian economy are not compatible with development. The primary concern of the State must be to provide the basic conditions for its people, and it
must pursue the necessary means to do so. In the Ecuadorian case, the most obvious form of doing so was by intensifying its most essential economic activity and redistributing the “excedentes” (Prebisch, 1981). This is also valid to answer to the arguments made by Eduardo Gudynas in which he characterizes Correa’s administration as “compensatory”, and that this in turn decreases the incidence of social mobilization and protests. National projects must have priorities, as does (did) the Citizens Revolution.
Another aspect often criticized by both Acosta and Gudynas refers to the absence of change in the “productive matrix”. I tend to agree with Acosta when he points out the lack of compromise of Correa to his initial promises. As a counterpoint, I bringhere my analysis on the sphere of “historical perspective”. As mentioned before, Ecuador had gone through two decades of intense austerity measures and deregulation, which were accompanied by the Washington Consensus - or the Commodity Consensus. As a consequence, the country witnessed deindustrialization (loss of importance for the manufacturing sector) and reprimarization (gain of importance for the commodities sector). Moreover, as I mentioned above, National Projects have priorities, and the priority of the Citizens Revolution was to expand the access to basic material needs and improve the quality of life of Ecuadorians.
I do agree with Acosta, Prebisch and Marini that in the long-term dependency on commodity selling is not sustainable. Nevertheless, analysing the Correist experience from a historical perspective precludes me from agreeing with Acosta when he argues that the absence of transformation in the productive matrix is the core factor for the absence of transformation in the whole decade. On the other hand, I agree when he criticizes the justification given by Correa’s supporters to explain the crisis. Claiming that the reasons for the crisis are basically the decline in commodity prices and the “conspiracy” from the right is superficial and misleading. Rather, I believe that misinterpretation and lack of historical perspective are better aspects in order to explain the crisis.
6. Conclusion and outlook
of great value, especially in a scenario where the crisis only intensifies. The attempt to comprehend the historical experience that the majority of South Americans have gone through in the past two decades under progressive administrations is essential in order to build strategies for the future transformation of the region. Even though I disagree with the conclusions reached by the authors, I agree with their motivations.
In order to answer my research questions ( to which extent structural transformations were achieved during Correa’s administration and what lessons can be drawn in order to conceptualize future strategies for sustainable economic development in Latin America ), it is important to remember that my analysis implies fundamental ontological and sociological assumptions, as discussed in section 5.1.3.. Taking this into account, I conclude that based on the four spheres analyzed in Chapter 5, the Citizens Revolution was indeed a transformative and revolutionary experience. This conclusion in no means excludes all the contradictions immanent to any historical process. I believe that the Citizens Revolution decision makers were successful in interpreting the historical circumstances and in implementing essential policies in Ecuador. The legacy of the Citizens Revolution goes beyond numbers and growth rates - it was a historical period of national unity and hope.
Finally, I believe that the main lesson from the Citizens Revolution in order to imagine and conceptualize possible paths towards sustainable economic development is the comprehension that it is necessary to have a historical perspective and to adopt a pragmatic strategy. Moreover, the specificities of each time and place are also an essential aspect to be analysed.
Despite the differences from one government to the other, I believe that the Pink Tide in general represents a regional revolutionary experience, even though it could be argued that its outcome does not reflect that. However, I defend that the time period when approximately 80% of South Americans were under progressive regimes provides a solid basis for conceptualizing strategies towards sustainable economic development and emancipation.
Bibliography:
postextractivismo.Quito: Fundación Rosa Luxemburgo.
Acosta, A., & Guijarro, J. C. (2018). Una década desperdiciada: las sombras del correísmo. Quito: Centro Andino de Acción Popular (CAAP).
Becker, M. (2013). The stormy relations between Rafael Correa and social movements in Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives, 40(3), 43-62. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.852.2123&rep=rep1&type=pd f(accessed 2020-05-28)
Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2010). As três interpretações da dependência. Perspectivas: Revista de
Ciências Sociais, 38. Available at:
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/viewFile/4099/3735 (accessed 2020-05-28)
Frank, A. G. (1966). The Development of Underdevelopment. In Monthly Review (Vol. 18, Issue 4, p. 17). https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-018-04-1966-08_3
Furtado, C. (1974). O mito do desenvolvimento econômico.São Paulo: Círculo do Livro S.A. Galeano, E. (2019). Las venas abiertas de América Latina. Siglo XXI Editores.
Gudynas, E. (2009). Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Extractivismo, política
y sociedad, 187. Available at:
http://www.rosalux.org.ec/pdfs/extractivismo.pdf#page=187(accessed 2020-05-28) Laclau, E. (2018). On Populist Reason. London: Verso Books.
Löwy, M. (2005). Mística revolucionária: José Carlos Mariátegui e a religião. Estudos
Avançados, 19(55), 105-116. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142005000300008(accessed 2020-05-28)
Lukács, G. (1972). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. MIT Press.
____________ (1980). Ontology of Social Being. Merlin Press.
Mariátegui, J. (2016). Siete Ensayos de Interpretación de la Realidad Peruana. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
Mariátegui, J. C. (1934). Defensa del Marxismo, la emoción de nuestro tiempo, y otros temas. Marini, R. M. (1971). Subdesarrollo y revolución.Mexico, DF: Siglo XXI Editores.
____________ (1972). Dialéctica de la dependencia.Santiago: Centro de Estudios Socio Económicos de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas Universidad de Chile.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology. INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO.
Prebisch, R. (1981). Capitalismo periférico: crisis y transformación. Fondo de Cultura Economica USA.
