42
REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL CHANGE IN COLOMBIA THE FARC-EP AS A UNIQUE MARXIST SOCIAL MOVEMENT
The FARC-EP has been accused of being “the most dangerous international terrorist organization based in the Western hemisphere.”35 Espousing a Marxist- Leninist ideology, the guerrillas represent a material threat to Colombian administrations, the maximization of profits for foreign-based enterprises operating in the country, and domestic economic beneficiaries.36 Yet approaches linked to classical Marxism have been characterized as outdated or insufficient under the changing global dynamics of capitalist expansion, leading theorists to call for other forms, avenues, or social constructs to change society (Hardt and Negri, 2004; 2000; Foweraker, 1995; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). The FARC-EP offers a unique quandary within this scenario, as it has amalgamated characteristics of both Marxism-Leninism and social movement theory (see Petras, 2003, 1997b; Petras and Veltmeyer, 2003a, 2001; Veltmeyer and Petras, 2002). Anything but a dogmatic guerrilla organization trapped in a long-dead ideological framework, the FARC-EP has adapted and adopted an inimitable approach towards Marxism, which could in part be a reason for its longevity. Understanding the need for multiple forms of struggle, Marulanda acknowledged that the FARC-EP was not the sole route to create a socialist Colombia, and emphasized a need for the Party (Marulanda, 2003: 120). Moving beyond previous exclusionary and inflexible communist regime structures, the FARCEP promotes a unified democratic collective with various affiliations whose aim is an “equitable redistribution of wealth and resources” on its rise to power (Petras and Brescia, 2000: 135).37 As the guerrillas distinguish themselves from the “camps” of conventional social movements or Marxist forces, it is important to detail these differences. The 1990s saw the FARC-EP grow at an immense rate. As numbers of recruits rose, so too did non-combatant support, both materially and ideologically. Aijaz Ahmad (2006) claimed the rise was the result of the exploited responding to their material conditions. Ironically, this was during a period when Latin America, as a whole, experienced a period of revolutionary decline while maneuvering toward a neoliberal political-economic paradigm (Raby, 2006; Castañeda, 1994). With nation-states adopting strategies of increased privatization, decreases in social spending and services, and international tariff reductions placing further strains on domestic workers, it was not difficult to see suffering at the hands of minorities who controlled profits and state policy. Contrary to structural theory, however, declines in states’ capacity to govern did not result in radical social change, as revolutions were not on the radar of most countries in Latin America at this time. In what seemed to be a volatile regional situation, revolutionary movements and important struggles appeared to fade as a result of cooptation, coercive force, and/or fatigue (Petras and Morley, 2003: 100; Petras, 2002: 28–9; see also Buscaglia and Ratliff, 2001: vi). Nevertheless, Colombia proved to be an exception where the candle of revolutionary sentiment burned on. Initially, FARC grew slowly but with the advent of the brutal neoliberal
