Friday, July 28, 2023

AG

Latin America Has Lost One of Its Last Great Revolutionaries

Latin America Has Lost One of Its Last Great Revolutionaries

Adolfo Gilly witnessed some of the most dramatic events in Latin American history and wrote about them with unparalleled clarity. With his recent passing, the Latin American left lost one of its most compelling voices.

View of the presidential stand at a rally held by Fidel Castro, in Havana, Cuba, 1962. Adolfo Gilly visited Cuba and observed the new Communist government firsthand from 1962 to 1963. (Bettmann / Getty Images)

With the death of Adolfo Gilly on July 4, 2023, the Latin American left didn’t just lose one of its most lucid Marxist thinkers. It also lost a man who directly experienced many of the region’s key events of the past seventy years, from the Bolivian Revolution of the 1950s to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the guerrilla movements of the 1960s to the Zapatista rebellion of the 1990s. His trajectory embodied the kind of roving internationalism that was such a distinctive feature of the region’s radical movements in the twentieth century. After his death, Mexican journalist Luis Hernández Navarro called him “the last of the Mohicans,” and it is hard not to feel that, as well as an individual loss, Gilly’s passing represents the closing of a remarkable chapter in the life of the Latin American left.

Born in Argentina but based in Mexico since the mid-1970s, Gilly is perhaps best known as a historian of the Mexican Revolution, especially thanks to his groundbreaking 1971 book, La revolución interrumpida (The Interrupted Revolution; translated as The Mexican Revolution in 1983). But it was not only his stature as a scholar that made him a renowned public figure in Mexico: Gilly was an articulate and principled voice on the Left, defending popular struggles and criticizing those in power with a rare combination of clarity and moral consistency.

Gilly came of age in Buenos Aires in the mid-to-late 1940s, at a moment when the populist movement of Juan Domingo Perón loomed over Argentine politics. Drawn at first to the Socialist Party, Gilly was expelled for taking too radical a stance against US imperialism. At the end of the 1940s, he gravitated to the Argentine branch of the Trotskyist Fourth International (FI), led at the time by the charismatic Homero Cristalli, better known under his pseudonym “J. Posadas.”

It was as a representative of the FI that Gilly traveled to Bolivia in 1956, where he spent four years working as a journalist and organizer with Bolivia’s Trotskyist Workers’ Revolutionary Party (Partido Obrero Revolucionario, POR). His time among the mineworkers of Oruro introduced Gilly to a peasant and indigenous world that was unlike anything he had seen — he later recalled his “outsider’s amazement” at encountering it for the first time. The experience profoundly marked his understanding of popular politics, in particular his awareness of the layering of class and racial oppressions and the coexistence of political affiliations and communal traditions.

Gilly left Bolivia in 1960, spending the next six years as an itinerant journalist and FI cadre. Writing for outlets including Monthly Review and the Uruguayan leftist magazine Marcha — coedited at the time by a young Eduardo Galeano — he spent time in Italy, France, the Netherlands, Cuba, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico. Gilly also attended the first meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in 1961, where he represented the FI in talks with Lakhdar Brahimi of the Algerian National Liberation Front and interviewed Guinea-Bissau independence leader Amílcar Cabral for the Argentine newspaper El Mundo.

In 1962, Gilly went to Cuba, where he witnessed the profound social transformations unfolding on the island after the 1959 overthrow of Fulgencio Batista. He was present during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in reports published in Monthly Review, he memorably described the mood of popular defiance and the mass mobilizations in defense of the revolution. But while he was clearly energized by the revolution’s egalitarian dynamic, he was also concerned by the emergence of a new bureaucratic stratum in Cuba.

Within a few months, Gilly’s work with the island’s small Trotskyist movement brought conflict with the Cuban government, and in 1963 he was expelled. These tensions would only increase in the following years, especially after Gilly publicly described Che Guevara’s departure from Cuba in 1965 as a defeat for the left wing of the revolution and a victory for its conservative currents. In 1966, Fidel Castro even took the time to specifically criticize Gilly in a speech at the Tricontinental Conference (though he misidentified him as “Adolfo Guil.”)

By that time Gilly was on a new mission. After leaving Cuba, he had a spell in Europe and then passed through Chile and Colombia in 1964, accompanying Salvador Allende on the campaign trail and meeting Camilo Torres Restrepo, the Colombian guerrilla priest who was a leading member of the National Liberation Army (ELN). From 1964 to 1966, Gilly shuttled between Mexico and Guatemala, liaising between the Posadists’ Latin American Bureau — they had split from the Fourth International in 1962 — and the Guatemalan guerrillas of the Revolutionary November 13 Movement (MR-13). This was the Trotskyist movement’s closest engagement with armed struggle, at the peak of the vogue for guerrilla warfare. It ended in disaster in 1966 when the Guatemalan army launched a vicious counteroffensive that swept away most of Gilly’s comrades. Gilly himself fled to Mexico, where he was arrested in April 1966.

He spent the next six years in Mexico City’s Lecumberri prison, known as the “Black Palace” (and today the country’s national archive). He was jailed alongside other “politicals,” whose numbers surged after the government crackdown on the Left in 1968. Though conditions were bleak — the Mexican Marxist writer José Revueltas, locked up in another wing of the same jail in 1969, memorably described them in his novella The Hole — prison did provide Gilly with time to read, think, and write. As well as working through the entire Marx-Engels correspondence, among many other readings he returned to the French Surrealist poetry of André Breton that had influenced him in his youth. But the project that consumed the greater part of his energies was his celebrated history of the Mexican Revolution.

La revolución interrumpida appeared in 1971, while Gilly was still in jail — the manuscript had been smuggled out a few pages at a time by his lawyer. It was an instant sensation, becoming required reading for an entire generation. Today, it remains the best single-volume social history of a crucial period in Mexican history, offering a brilliantly clear analytical path through a turbulent and complex decade (in 2010 he recalled modeling the architecture of the book on Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution.) At the time, the book overturned existing histories of what had become the founding myth of the one-party system set in place by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional). Rather than a blur of personalities and battles that ended in the drafting of a new constitution in 1917 and the restoration of order after 1920, in Gilly’s account, the revolution appeared as a dynamic series of social struggles that was cut short — interrupted, as the title had it — by the emergence of a new political dispensation that sought to contain and neutralize popular mobilizations.

Leading Mexican poet Octavio Paz, not known for his radical sympathies, paid fulsome tribute to the book at the time, while elderly comrades of Emiliano Zapata were astonished by how accurately Gilly captured the story of their movement. As well as clarifying Mexico’s past, La revolución interrumpida shed light on its present. If Mexican governments still felt obliged to pay lip service to the revolution’s promises while betraying them in practice, it was because its radically redistributive vision had not been entirely extinguished. Gilly’s work recuperated the original social impulses behind the revolution while taking a critical distance from the government that had so ruthlessly instrumentalized them.

At his appeal hearing in 1969, Gilly made an impassioned “political defense” that assailed the Mexican government’s repressive record. A year after the armed forces massacred scores of protestors in Tlatelolco, he noted the authorities’ failure to combat the poverty and hunger afflicting so many in Mexico — “a daily Tlatelolco, a massacre the capitalist system carries out day after day.” Gilly also made a spirited defense of working-class internationalism, citing the examples of Argentines who fought for Mexican independence, Italians who forged early workers’ organizations in Argentina, and his Mexican comrades who had been killed by the Guatemalan armed forces. This was an apt set of comparisons to his own trajectory so far, but in this same speech, Gilly also prophesied what lay in store for him. “We have the joy, pride, and satisfaction of living and struggling in Mexico,” he said of himself and his comrades, adding: “In that sense, we are completely Mexican. We are part of Mexico and its history.” Exonerated and freed in 1972, Gilly went to Europe for a few years but returned to Mexico in 1976 and would reside there for the rest of his life.

By the time he settled in Mexico, Gilly had parted ways with the Posadists, finding their methods too conspiratorial. “I had felt much freer in prison,” he told me when I interviewed him for the New Left Review. From the late 1970s to the 2010s, he taught at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), training many cohorts of historians while continuing to produce a remarkable range of writing. He also became a prominent public figure in Mexico and in the 1980s was closely involved in the broad movement contesting the rigged results of the 1988 election that brought Carlos Salinas to power. The defeated candidate was Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, son of 1930s president Lázaro Cárdenas, whom Gilly described in his 1994 book, Una utopía Mexicana (A Mexican Utopia), as the last glimmer of the Mexican Revolution’s radical impulses. When Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas won the governorship of Mexico City a few years later, Gilly worked as one of his advisors.

In 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) burst onto the scene, launching a rebellion in Chiapas that transformed Mexican politics. Gilly was one of the movement’s early supporters, traveling often to Chiapas to attend EZLN gatherings. In 1995, he published a lengthy exchange between himself and Subcomandante Marcos on the subject of history, prompted by Carlo Ginzburg’s essay “Clues: Roots of a Scientific Paradigm.” Gilly also wrote extensively about the Chiapas revolt, connecting the deep historical roots of indigenous oppression to the contemporary depredations of neoliberalism.

He brought the same combination of historical depth and perceptive analysis of the present to his writings on the indigenous upsurge in early 2000s Bolivia, which deposed one president in 2003 and swept another to power in 2005. For Gilly, these mobilizations drew on long traditions of indigenous struggle, going back to the Túpac Katari revolt in the late eighteenth century; but they were at the same time new, shaped by contemporary social pressures. He had no hesitation in calling the events in Bolivia “A Twenty-First Century Revolution.” In an eponymous essay written in 2004, he gave a definition of revolution that testifies to his lifelong emphasis on popular struggles:

A revolution is not something that happens within the state, inside its institutions and among its politicians. It comes from underneath and from outside. It happens when those who are, precisely, always underneath and outside burst onto center stage, with the violence of their bodies and the fury of their souls. . . .

Gilly’s writings display a phenomenal breadth: he produced everything from political reportage to archivally based histories, and from theoretical analyses to essays on art and literature. His last book, Estrella y espiral (Star and Spiral), which appeared in March 2023, addresses topics ranging from the poetry of Breton to indigenous revolts in 1820s Guatemala. The book before that, Felipe Ángeles, el estratega (2019) was a magisterial portrait of a Mexican revolutionary general, at once intimate and epic in scale.

The sheer range of Gilly’s work testifies to his versatility and his insistent curiosity. But across these genres and decades, there was a coherence and consistency to his ideas. He was always focused on what motivated ordinary people and on their resistance to different forms of domination, from Spanish colonial times to the neoliberal era. As Gilly once put it, the key questions revolved not around events and personalities, but around “what the hell all these people wanted.”

I had the great privilege of interviewing Gilly at length in 2010, and then working closely with him for several years on an English-language selection of his essays for Verso. Throughout our conversations, he was a tremendously warm and engaging presence, always sharing sharp insights as well as mischievous asides. At times, Gilly’s personal modesty made it hard to extract biographical details for the interview — he was so much more interested in other people than himself, so keen to turn the conversation to the wider world. He also had a real gift for expressing complex ideas in very simple terms, and I often find myself returning to scattered phrases of his. For instance, I remember him saying that one of the basic differences between the Left and the Right is that “the Right cannot be corrupted by torture;” meaning, as I took it, that the Right’s vision of the world was consistent with the infliction of violence in pursuit of their goals, while such actions betrayed the core of the Left’s human values.

The flood of tributes appearing in Mexico after Gilly’s death make clear the respect in which he was held (although, knowing Adolfo, he would have come up with a sly remark about the Mexican congress holding a minute’s silence for him). In his column for Reforma, Mexican writer Juan Villoro nicely described Gilly as “full-time heterodox,” pointing out that he had “exercised intellectual freedom in Lecumberri [prison] and chose to belong to the country that had jailed him.” Gilly wore such contradictions lightly, able to combine political commitment with critical honesty, serious scholarship with self-deprecating irony and contagious laughter. As well as his thoughtfulness and elegance as a writer, Gilly’s openness, compassion, and decency as a person were part of what made him such a compelling voice on the Left. He will be sorely missed.

Dana Milbank

Opinion | Aliens are among us — and they want to impeach Biden - The Washington Post

Opinion Aliens are among us — and they want to impeach Biden

(Chloe Coleman/The Washington Post; Nathan Howard/AP; iStock)
11 min

The aliens have landed. And they have a gavel!

That is as plausible a takeaway as any from this week’s House Oversight Committee hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena, the curiosity formerly known as UFOs. The panel’s national security subcommittee brought in, as its star witness, one David Grusch, a former Defense Department intelligence official who now claims:

  • That there are “quite a number” of “nonhuman” space vehicles in the possession of the U.S. government.
  • That one “partially intact vehicle” was retrieved from Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1933 by the United States, acting on a tip from Pope Pius XII.
  • That the aliens have engaged in “malevolent activity” and “malevolent events” on Earth that have harmed or killed humans.
  • That the U.S. government is also in possession of “dead pilots” from the spaceships.
  • That a private defense contractor is storing one of the alien ships, which have been as large as a football field.
  • That the vehicles might be coming “from a higher dimensional physical space that might be co-located right here.”
  • That the Roswell, N.M., alien landing was real, and the Air Force’s debunking of it a “total hack job.”
  • And that the United States has engaged in a nearly century-long “sophisticated disinformation campaign” (apparently including murders to silence people) to hide the truth.

I’d tell you more, but then they would have to kill me.

Alas, Grusch has no documents, photos or other evidence to corroborate any of his fantastic claims. It’s classified, you see.

Maybe everything he says is true, even the claim that “the Vatican was involved” in pursuing extraterrestrials, and Grusch has just exposed the best-kept secret and most sprawling conspiracy in the history of the universe. Or maybe Grusch himself is a conspiracy theorist, or he’s just having a lark at the subcommittee’s expense. Easier to discern was the motive of several Republicans on the panel: They greeted his out-of-this-world claims with total credulity, using them as just more evidence that the deep-state U.S. government is lying to the American people, covering up the truth and can never be trusted. Their anti-government vendetta has gone intergalactic.

“There has been activity by alien or nonhuman technology and/or beings that has caused harm to humans?” asked Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.).

Grusch said what he “personally witnessed” was “very disturbing.”

“You’ve said that the U.S. has intact spacecraft,” Burlison continued. “You’ve said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft?”

Grusch said the nonclassified setting prevented him from divulging “what I’ve seen firsthand.”

“Do we have the bodies of the pilots?” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) wanted to know.

“Biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah,” Grusch told her, and the remains were “nonhuman.”

Mace asked whether, “based on your experience,”Grusch believes “our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials.”

Classified, Grusch replied.

Just over a year ago, a House Intelligence subcommittee held a similar hearing on “unidentified aerial phenomena” but with dramatically different results. The panel’s bipartisan leadership said the matter should be taken seriously to protect pilots and to make sure enemies don’t develop breakthrough weapons. But they assured the public there was no evidence of “anything nonterrestrial in origin,” and they cautioned against conspiracy theories. In addition, Sean Kirkpatrick, the head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, where Grusch worked, testified to senators in April that his UAP-hunting office “has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology or objects that defy the known laws of physics.” NASA has said likewise.

At the start of this week’s hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia (Calif.), the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, reminded colleagues of Kirkpatrick’s testimony. One of the other witnesses, David Fravor, a retired Navy commander, told the subcommittee that the government is “not focused on little green men.” But this Republican majority has yet to meet a conspiracy theory it wouldn’t amplify, so it was only a matter of time before it landed on Roswell and Area 51.

Some of the House’s leading conspiracy theorists — Republicans Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Virginia Foxx, James Comer — took seats on the dais, whether or not they were on the subcommittee. Many in the audience, who lined up for a seat in the room, applauded the beaming witnesses when they entered. And for more than two hours, Republicans on the subcommittee indulged in otherworldly accusations of a government coverup.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) proposed that the government is trying “to gaslight Americans into thinking that this is not happening.” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) accused the government of “misdirection,” and Mace suggested the United States acted “unlawfully.” Complaints about overclassification even came from the Democratic side.

“The coverup goes a lot deeper” than politics, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) argued, vowing “to uncover the coverup” perpetrated by the Pentagon and the intelligence community. “You can’t trust a government that does not trust its people.” Burchett said he would like to visit Area 51 or other locations purportedly housing alien spaceships, but “as soon as we announce it, I’m sure the moving vans pull up.”

Asked by Burchett whether he knew people who had been “harmed or injured in efforts to cover up or conceal these extraterrestrial technology,” Grusch said “Yes, personally.”

“Anyone been murdered?” Burchett asked.

Grusch said he had to be “careful” about answering.

Burchett even complained that members of the subcommittee “were denied access to the SCIF,” the sensitive compartmented information facility in the Capitol where classified material can be discussed.

Guest Opinion: We’re asking the wrong questions about UFOs

So now House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is part of the coverup?

“I don’t trust anything in this town,” complained Burlison.

But Burlison trusted Grusch COMPLETELY, even relying on the witness to explain the “interdimensional potential” of nonhuman spacecraft — which Grusch obligingly illustrated with his index finger.

“You can be projected, quasi-projected from higher dimensional space to lower dimensional,” he explained. “It’s a scientific trope that you can actually cross, literally, as far as I understand, but there’s probably guys with PhDs who would probably argue about that.”

Yeah, they probably would.

The truth is out there. Just don’t expect to learn it from the alien life forms currently running the People’s House.

Inflation has calmed, the stock market is at its highest since 2021, illegal border crossings are down, unemployment remains at its lowest in decades, and GDP growth just came in better than expected.

Time to create some chaos!

This is where the House Freedom Caucus comes in.

Members of the group of far-right Republican lawmakers gathered this week to outline their priorities for the House when it returns in September from its six-week recess. Their agenda can be summarized roughly as follows:

The first order of business is to shut down the federal government. The second order of business is to impeach President Biden — on charges TBD.

Dana Milbank: The U.S. House of Recriminations begins Biden’s impeachment

“We don’t fear a government shutdown,” proclaimed Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), who convened this week’s Freedom Caucus news conference. Why not? “Most of what we do up here is bad anyway,” reasoned Good and “most of the American people won’t even miss [it] if the government is shut down temporarily.” (Good, notably, wasn’t in Congress for any of the previous shutdowns.)

Specifically, members of the Freedom Caucus demanded that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy renege on the bipartisan budget-and-debt-ceiling deal he agreed to with Biden about two months ago. Instead, they insisted on cutting 2024 spending by an additional $200 billion or so — and McCarthy, as usual, appears to be surrendering to their demands. The speaker also acceded to the extremists’ insistence on adding an apothecary full of poison-pill amendments to the 2024 spending bills, blocking abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights and efforts to promote racial diversity.

McCarthy’s latest surrender to the Freedom Caucus puts House Republicans on a seemingly inevitable collision course not just with Biden, who has promised to veto the bills, but with their fellow Republicans in the Senate, who want to set spending above the debt ceiling deal so that the military gets more funds.

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed passage of all 12 annual spending bills in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. In the House, by contrast, McCarthy’s attempts to placate the far right have turned the spending bills into partisan slugfests that even some Republicans can’t stomach; the House quit town a day early for its August recess on Thursday after failing to drum up enough GOP votes to pass one of its poison-pill-engorged bills.

The Freedom Caucus, cause of this chaos, is perfectly happy to shut down the government when the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. “We’re going to pass a good Republican bill out of the House and force the Senate and the White House to accept it or we’re not going to move forward,” Good argued. “We ought to use the leverage, if necessary, to force a government shutdown.”

George F. Will: The U.S. debt tsunami meets with a reflexive, mindless bipartisan shrug

This would likely mean national parks closed, airports snarled, food-safety inspections suspended, Social Security applications on hold, hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, calls to the IRS unanswered, and courts, medical research, passports, small business loans, farm assistance and immigration proceedings all slowed. Then there’s the chance the shutdown would throw the economy into recession.

Good and his colleagues have a high pain tolerance. Though the heat has been oppressive in the capital, the six of them chose to hold their news conference outdoors, under a broiling midday sun. “Anybody got a sweater I can borrow?” joked Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). But that was nothing compared with the hurt they are about to inflict on the American public.

What will all those furloughed federal workers do during the shutdown? And what about all those Americans who won’t be able to catch flights, run their businesses or visit national parks?

Luckily for them, the Freedom Caucus has a solution. They can all watch President Biden’s impeachment.

Various hard-liners clamored for impeachment. The Freedom Caucus’s Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) even brought it to the House floor. And (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) McCarthy surrendered. “This is rising to the level of impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told Fox News’s Sean Hannity Monday, vowing to “follow this all the way to the end and this is going to rise to an impeachment inquiry.”

Steven Pearlstein: How to take Congress away from the crazies

At the Freedom Caucus news conference, lawmakers exulted in McCarthy’s latest capitulation. Good said McCarthy’s statement to Hannity “has caused a paradigm shift.”

“The Biden regime is coming to an end!” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.).

There are still some wrinkles to be worked out, such as which high crime or misdemeanor Biden supposedly committed. Even those who level unsubstantiated charges of “bribery” against Biden’s kin admit they don’t have the goods on the president. “The only thing missing is direct evidence that Joe Biden knew and participated in these bribery schemes,” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) admitted at a meeting of the House Oversight Committee last week.

To fish for any evidence (and to placate those few Republicans who are squeamish about impeaching Biden without any evidence), McCarthy told colleagues at their caucus meeting this week that the promised “impeachment inquiry” will be preceded by an impeachment “investigation.” McCarthy ally Don Bacon (R-Neb.), leaving the caucus meeting, explained this distinction-without-a-difference to a group of us. “We’re not ready for an inquiry,” he said. “We’re doing an investigation.”

A few Republicans object to their colleagues’ desire to “impeach everyone under the sun,” as Rep. Tony Gonzales (Tex.) put it.

Maybe sensible Republicans such as Bacon and Gonzales will finally push back against the extremists who are holding McCarthy hostage. Maybe they’ll reject Biden’s impeachment and oppose their colleagues’ pell-mell rush to shut down the government.

More likely they’ll do what they’ve always done in the past when hard-liners hijacked the House. Nothing.

No premarital sex before the prayer breakfast! Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), speaking this week at South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott’s annual breakfast for the devout, offered attendees what she allowed was “a little TMI.”

“Patrick, my fiancé, tried to pull me by my waist over this morning in bed,” Mace announced, “and I was like, ‘No, baby, we don’t got time for that this morning. I gotta get to the prayer breakfast.” Mace concluded: “He can wait. I’ll see him later tonight.”

No word on whether Patrick’s prayers were answered.

Loading...
Loading...

Twitter Updates

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews