Search

José Carlos Mariátegui's open engagement with Marxist theory and his adaptation of its ideas to his Latin American reality brought him into conflict with other leftists. At a continental conference of communist parties in Buenos Aires in 1929, he criticized the Comintern's proposal to carve up the Americas into independent African-descent and Quechua and Aymara republics, arguing that conceptualizing the struggle in ethnic rather than class terms was a mistake. From documents preserved in the Comintern archives it appears that these comments had echoes in Moscow. Two newly translated Spanish-language documents on the "national question" challenge notions that Comintern officials were unaware of or ill-informed about developments in Latin America and are important to understanding their responses and challenges to his ideas on race and oppressed nationalities. El compromiso abierto de José Carlos Mariátegui con la teoría marxista y su adaptación de estas ideas a la realidad latinoamericana lo pusieron en conflicto con otras y otros de la izquierda. En una conferencia continental de partidos comunistas en Buenos Aires en 1929, criticó la propuesta de la Internacional Comunista de dividir las Américas en repúblicas independientes afrodescendientes y quechuas y aymaras, argumentando que conceptualizar la lucha en términos étnicos en lugar de términos de clase era un error. Los documentos conservados en los archivos de la Internacional Comunista sugieren que estos comentarios hicieron eco en Moscú. Dos documentos en español recientemente traducidos en torno a la "cuestión nacional" desafían las nociones de que los funcionarios de la Internacional Comunista no estaban al tanto o estaban mal informados sobre los acontecimientos en América Latina, asunto que resultan importante para comprender sus respuestas y desafíos a las ideas de Mariátegui sobre raza y nacionalidades oprimidas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 30, 2010, discontented police officers and military troops plunged Ecuador into a political crisis as they took President Rafael Correa hostage, seized airports, and stormed the National Assembly building. In response, Correa declared a state of emergency and denounced what he termed a coup attempt. To outside observers, what appeared to be in process was yet another potentially extraconstitutional transfer of power in Ecuador’s tumultuous political history, with some pointing to the presence of the heavy imperial hand of the United States. Some grassroots activists, however, cast the political disruptions as little more than a labor dispute that Correa manipulated to entrench his increasingly authoritarian control over the country. At play in these competing narratives were debates over what political and economic direction Ecuador should take and whose interests those developments would benefit. Furthermore, the September 30 protests raise questions of how various domestic and international actors opportunistically exploit political developments to advance their own competing interests. Analyzing these events leads to a deeper understanding and appreciation for the compromises local social movements make, as well as the difficulties inherent in building transnational solidarity networks.El 30 de septiembre de 2010, tropas militares y oficiales de la policía descontentos sumieron al Ecuador en una crisis política al tomar como rehén al Presidente Rafael Correa, ocupar aereopuertos y asaltar el edificio de la Asamblea Nacional. En respuesta, Correa declaró un estado de emergencia y denunció lo que él consideró un intento de golpe de estado. Para los observadores externos, lo que parecía que estaba ocurriendo era un nuevo intento de cambio de poder potencialmente extra constitucional en la tumultuosa historia política del Ecuador, y algunos llegaron a señalar la presencia de la pesada mano imperial de los Estados Unidos. Algunos activistas populares, sin embargo, vieron las perturbaciones políticas como poco más que una disputa laboral que Correa manipuló para afianzar su control cada vez más autoritario sobre el país. En juego en estas narrativas antagónicas estaba el debate sobre qué dirección política y económica el Ecuador debería tomar y a quiénes beneficiarán esos desarrollos. Además, las protestas del 30 de septiembre suscitan interrogantes sobre cómo varios actores domésticos e internacionales explotaron de manera oportunista estos desarrollos políticos para adelantar sus propios intereses antagónicos. El análisis de estos acontecimientos nos lleva a un mejor entendimiento y apreciación sobre las conceciones que los movimientos sociales locales tienen que hacer, y también sobre las dificultades inherentes en la creación de redes de solidaridad transnacionales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Latin American Perspectives is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Procesos: Revista Ecuatoriana de Historia is the property of Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar, Sede Ecuador and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Gonzalo Oleas Zambrano was a socialist lawyer from Quito who, from the 1930s to the 1970s, became deeply involved in assisting rural communities in Ecuador with their legal petitions. Intermediaries have a long and varied history in negotiating relationships between the city and the countryside, and one that is often not well understood. At various points in his career Oleas acted like a tinterillo, a socialist and an indigenista. An examination of Oleas’ petitions quickly breaks down a simplistic characterisation of his actions and interpretation of his motivation. Rather, his ability to transcend existing categories helps explain why rural litigants so often turned to Oleas for assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Thousands of indigenous activists from 24 countries gathered in Guatemala in the last week of March 2007 for the Third Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples and Nationalities of Abya Yala. The gathering strengthened both local and transnational indigenous organizing efforts. The summit was entitled 'From Resistance to Power,' reflecting key concerns of how to move beyond resistance to oppressive regimes in order to claim positions of power in government. Evo Morales' recent election as Bolivia's president inspired many activists to explore similar paths to challenge state power in their own countries. The meeting represented a merging of issues that had previously divided indigenous organizations, including disagreements over whether to follow an ethnic 'Indianist' or a leftist 'Popular' line. At the same time, a new focus on electoral paths to power raised threats of opportunism from candidates who pursue their own self-interests while compromising on key issues such as opposition to neoliberal economic policies. Nevertheless, the Guatemala summit reflected advances toward new levels of unity and points to a promising future for continental indigenous organizing initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the mid-1940s, urban activists in Ecuador played key roles in the formation of two organizations that sought to address persistent problems facing Indigenous peoples, the Federación Ecuatoriana de Indios (FEI) and the Instituto Indigenista Ecuatoriano (IIE). There was, however, very little overlap, communication, or collaboration between those involved in the two organizations. Academics have commonly misinterpreted these organizations, and assigned to communists and the FEI characteristics more appropriate to liberal in -- digenistas who founded the IIE. Surveying the participation of activists in the founding of the FEI reveals that far from white domination to the exclusion of Indigenous activists (as was the case with the IIE), the federation was a shared space where urban and rural activists worked together to struggle for Indigenous rights. Exploring the philosophy and ideologies behind the two groups reveals underlying and ongoing debates over different visions for how to address poverty in rural Indigenous communities in Ecuador. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]