synopsis: Each interview focuses on the field in which the speaker was most active. The number of interviews in each field reflects its relative importance: three for industry, two for the country side and one each for the shantytowns and the universities. In the case of industry, anything less could scarcely have conveyed the range of views on its key issues, such as workers’ participation: hence the three selected are from the Communist Party, the MAPU and the Socialist Party.
text: Chilean voices
  Activists describe their experiences of the popular unity period
  
  Colin Henfrey
  Bernardo Sorj
  
  SciELO Books / SciELO Livros / SciELO Libros
  HENFREY, C., and SORJ, B. Chilean Voices: activists describe their experiences of the Popular
  Unity Period [online]. Rio de Janeiro: Centro Edelstein de Pesquisas Sociais, 2008. 151 p. ISBN: 97885-99662-84-7. Available from SciELO Books <http://books.scielo.org>.
  
  All the contents of this chapter, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non
  Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.
  Todo o conteúdo deste capítulo, exceto quando houver ressalva, é publicado sob a licença Creative Commons Atribuição Uso Não Comercial - Partilha nos Mesmos Termos 3.0 Não adaptada.
  Todo el contenido de este capítulo, excepto donde se indique lo contrario, está bajo licencia de la licencia Creative
  Commons Reconocimento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported.
  
  BIBLIOTECA VIRTUAL DE CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS
  
  CHILEAN VOICES
  Activists Describe their Experiences
  of the Popular Unity Period
  
  Colin
  olin Henfrey
  Bernardo Sorj
  
  Colin Henfrey
  Bernardo Sorj
  
  This publication is part of The Virtual Library of Social Sciences of The
  Edelstein Center for Social Research - www.bvce.org
  
  Copyright © 2008, Colin Henfrey, Bernardo Sorj
  Copyright © 2008 of this on-line edition: The Edelstein Center for Social
  Research
  
  Chilean Voices
  Activists Describe their Experiences
  of the Popular Unity Period
  
  No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for commercial
  purposes in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the
  copyright holder at the address below. Parts of this publication may be
  reproduced for noncommercial purposes so long as the authors and publisher
  are duly acknowledged.
  
  ISBN 978-85-99662-84-7
  
  The Edelstein Center for Social Research
  www.centroedelstein.org
  Rua Visconde de Pirajá, 330/1205
  Ipanema - Rio de Janeiro - RJ
  CEP: 22410-000. Brazil
  Contact: bvce@centroedelstein.org.br
  
  Rio de Janeiro
  2008
  
  SUMÁRIO
  
  INTRODUCTION
  
  Introduction ...................................................................................................2
  
  Chile and the Popular Unity
  
  Part I – The Industrial Sector .........................................................................9
  
  Few foreigners knew much about Chile when, in September 1970, a
  Marxist president was elected. Yet the next three years were to make it a
  stage on which the world watched the re-enactment of almost all the classic
  problems of achieving socialism. In the last, bloody act, the name of Chile
  would be scored, like Spain’s, across the minds of a generation.
  
  1 The Chilean way to socialism: from company town to a nationalized
  copper industry ........................................................................................12
  2 The Working Class and the Struggle for Power: from workers’
  participation to the communal commands ...............................................25
  3 Building the Industrial Cordons: Maipú-Cerrillos................................40
  Part II – The Countryside ............................................................................53
  4 The Campesinos and Popular Unity: agrarian reform in the Central
  Valley ......................................................................................................57
  5 The Campesinos and Popular Power: building the revolutionary
  alliance.....................................................................................................72
  Part III – Shantytowns .................................................................................93
  6 A Mobilized Shantytown: New Havana ...............................................95
  Part IV – Universities ................................................................................112
  7 The Students’ Polarization in the University of Chile ........................114
  Abbreviations and Glossary.......................................................................131
  Chronology of Political Events in the PU Period ......................................135
  Postscript ...................................................................................................143
  What to read on Chile ................................................................................150
  
  The Popular Unity coalition supporting Salvador Allende with his
  programme for initiating a ‘peaceful way toward socialism’, won 36 per
  cent of the votes, against 34 per cent for the candidate of the right-wing
  National Party. Much propaganda was to be made of this lack of an overall
  majority. However, the Christian Democrats, who were previously in power
  under Eduardo Frei (1964-70) and won 28 per cent of the vote, had a
  programme almost as radical as the PU’s, in the short term.
  Following Allende’s victory, capital was rushed out of the country.
  Congress, which was dominated by the opposition parties, still had to
  confirm the election result. It did so only after Allende had undertaken to
  ‘respect the integrity’ of the Church, the judiciary and the armed forces.
  Soon afterwards, the army’s commander-in-chief, General Schneider, was
  assassinated. This turned out to have been an attempt by a small neo-fascist
  party, Fatherland and Freedom, to provoke military intervention. (It later
  emerged that the CIA was also involved.) The left, meanwhile, debated
  what all this meant for the future. It was in this climate that Allende took
  power on 3 November 1970.
  The PU was a broad left coalition. Its largest components were the
  Communist and Socialist parties, which had combined in previous
  elections. The former, dating from the twenties, was traditionally
  committed to an electoral strategy. With its roots in the nitrate mines of the
  north, it was strongest among industrial workers. The Socialist Party was
  founded in 1933, by Allende among others. Though mostly Marxist, its
  followers ranged from Social Democrats to Trotskyists.
  2
  
  The Radicals and the MAPU (Movement of Popular United Action)
  were the coalition’s junior partners. The Radicals were a long-standing
  social democratic party. Having led a Popular Front in the thirties, they
  dominated centrist politics until the newer Christian Democrats overtook
  them in the sixties. Their association with the PU provoked two splits,
  before and after 1970, further diminishing their numbers.
  The MAPU was much the youngest party involved. Formed in 1969
  by disillusioned Christian Democrats who adopted a Marxist position, it
  split twice in the PU period. First into the Christian Left, which dropped the
  explicitly Marxist label, but stayed in the PU and attracted more Christian
  Democrats; and later into the Workers’ and Peasants’ Movement (MOC).
  The latter was dose to the Communist Party and also remained in the PU,
  making it finally a six-party coalition. The one substantial left-wing party
  outside it was the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). Cuban-influenced
  and of mainly student origin, it operated clandestinely until the PUs victory,
  then offered ‘critical support’ to Allende.
  These parties naturally had differing views on Allende’s accession in
  these turbulent circumstances. For the Communist Party, Radicals and
  many Socialists it vindicated the PUs premise: the strength of Chile’s
  democratic traditions, even at moments of confrontation. For other
  Socialists and the MAPU and MIR, it had very different implications: that
  the Chilean ruling class would resort to violence when necessary.
  The PU’s philosophy was vague, though. In immediate terms it
  aspired only to establish the would-be preconditions for a transition to
  socialism. These included the nationalization of major resources and
  monopolies, both Chilean and foreign-owned; measures for workers’
  participation; and the completion and democratization of agrarian reforms
  already initiated by Frei. The question of how socialism would be finally
  achieved was left unstated.
  
  officially neutral armed forces. The latter, it was hoped, would at least
  divide in the event of a military coup, while victory in the congressional
  elections due in 1973 might pave the way for a Popular Assembly. This
  dominant, ‘gradualist’ position was particularly associated with the
  Communist Party. Both points of view were represented in the other PU
  parties, and it was precisely over these that the MAPU and the MOC were
  to finally split – the MOC to align with the ‘gradualists’, and the MAPU to
  join with the MIR, Christian Left and sections of the Socialist Party
  criticizing them as ‘reformists’. Even in 1970, perhaps their one clear point
  of agreement was that the PU’s victory was a critical step forward.
  Three years later, on 11 September 1973, the armed forces overthrew
  the PU in a particularly violent coup, even for modern Latin America.
  President Allende died defiant in the burning Moneda Palace. United
  Nations sources estimate that thousands of his supporters were killed. A
  minority died fighting against clearly impossible odds. Others were publicly
  shot without trial, to create mass terror, in the factories, slums and rural
  communities sympathetic to the PU. Many are known to have died under
  torture. Thousands more were herded into gaols and concentration camps.
  The military junta under General Augusto Pinochet adopted a clearly fascist
  position: it suspended all human rights, banned political parties and trade
  unions, burned the electoral register and swore to ‘eliminate Marxism’ and
  ‘re-establish Western values’. It rapidly aligned with Brazilian-led
  ideological warfare on a continental scale, and established a terror apparatus
  that was to systematically destroy a generation of left-wingers.
  Today, as the Chilean resistance develops, new forms of struggle
  have begun. Yet everywhere discussion of the PU continues, especially on
  the basic questions of the transition to socialism and relationships between
  left-wing parties. In Europe the ‘lessons’ of the Chilean coup are naturally
  felt to be crucial for the current strategies of the left.
  
  In practice one sector of the PU saw armed confrontation with the
  right as inevitable. Another, led by Allende, felt that the left might win
  control, by gradual and constitutional means, of the entire state apparatus –
  the legislature and judiciary, still heavily controlled by the right, and the
  
  Vital as this discussion is, it tends to ignore what happened in Chile
  apart from the coup. The Chilean experience is rarely examined, rather than
  used to vindicate predetermined positions. In practice the ‘lessons’ tend to
  be dogmas long pre-dating the PU. This also applies to much discussion
  among Chileans; but for others, such commentary neglects the concrete
  
  3
  
  4
  
  achievements in many fields by every group within the left, and their
  impact at a popular level.
  Talking to Chilean exiles in Europe, we were immediately struck by
  this gulf between the concrete events and the pundits. Accounts of the PU
  period give little space to the views and experiences of those who were at
  the eye of the storm: the activists at the base of the parties. It was to these
  that we found ourselves talking about their work in the factories, farms and
  shantytowns in which dramatic changes occurred in 1970-3. Their
  experiences seemed more profound, and much more relevant to the future
  as accounts of the popular movement, than anything we had read on the
  subject. We noticed, though, that recollection of these experiences was
  fading. This was particularly poignant, since the PU’s future history will
  depend heavily on oral records, given the coup’s destructiveness and the
  left’s own need to destroy information. It was this which led us to record
  and edit a selection of these activists’ stories.
  We have deliberately avoided offering our views on the ‘lessons of
  Chile’. Our aim was to provide some answers to the question of a British
  docker involved in boycotting the junta, when he wondered aloud what he
  would have experienced, had he happened to be Chilean. We intervened
  little in the interviews. We have therefore felt free to omit our few
  questions. These simply asked for experiences of changes at a popular level
  and the speakers’ understanding of them as members of particular parties.
  Interestingly, their activism involves much more than party lines. Individual
  creativity and political views are reciprocal forces. Even partisan
  interpretations do tend to be based on concrete experience, and hence on
  popular response as much as on any party doctrine.
  The seven interviews selected are divided into four sections –
  industry, the countryside, the shantytowns and the universities. These are
  some of the major fronts on which PU activists were working. Each section
  has a purely informative introduction, and each speaker a short biographical
  note.
  Common to all the interviews is a basically chronological structure,
  culminating with the coup. All of them refer to the impact of major political
  5
  
  events, so we have compiled a chronology of the PU period. Together with
  the index, this should enable a comparison between the different ways in
  which these events and common themes are understood, according to the
  various speakers’ fields and party affiliations.
  The PU period can be divided into three phases. The first year is one
  of apparent successes: extensive nationalization, acceleration of land
  reform, a sharp reduction of unemployment, rising production and real
  wages and an outright majority for the PU in the municipal elections. The
  second phase, of roughly the PU’s second year, is marked by growing
  polarization. On one side collaboration begins between the Christian
  Democrats and the solidly right-wing National Party, leading to the lorryowners’ strike in October 1972. On the other, new patterns of popular
  organization emerge, particularly the industrial cordons (cordones
  industriles) which developed in major cities (see chapters 2 and 3,
  especially). While the congressional elections showed that support for the
  PU was still growing, its final year was one of constant confrontation and
  mounting right-wing terrorism, as the military prepared to take action.
  Each interview focuses on the field in which the speaker was most
  active. The number of interviews in each field reflects its relative
  importance: three for industry, two for the countryside and one each for the
  shantytowns and the universities. In the case of industry, anything less
  could scarcely have conveyed the range of views on its key issues, such as
  workers’ participation: hence the three selected are from the Communist
  Party, the MAPU and the Socialist Party. The countryside posed a difficult
  choice, as this field is itself so varied. The two speakers we decided on are
  from the MAPU and the MOC. Since their split resulted precisely from the
  main debates within the PU, the speakers convey what these meant for the
  agrarian sector, in which the MAPU had always been strong. Each of the
  remaining sections is accounted for by a single speaker, from the MIR and
  the Communist Party respectively.
  While we were anxious for an overall political balance, it was
  impossible to present each field from every party’s point of view. Our
  selection was guided by the richness of the speakers’ experience, rather
  than their affiliations. We should also make clear that they speak as
  6
  
  members, but not as spokesmen, of their parties. Between them they
  certainly illustrate broadly the two main tendences within the left, and their
  development through the period. The gradualist one of the Communist
  Party, Radicals, MOC and sectors of the Socialist Party saw the PU as the
  truest expression of the labour movement and all progressives: these should
  therefore support unreservedly its anti-imperialist, anti-monopolist position,
  which left the questions of state power and full socialism to a later stage.
  On the other hand the MAPU, Christian Left and the rest of the Socialists,
  together with the MIR, disputed that there could be two such ‘stages’. The
  PU’s commitment to legality and ‘gradualism’, involved it inevitably in
  compromises with the Chilean bourgeoisie. These checked the advance
  towards socialism and gave a free rein to right-wing subversion and its
  imperialist allies. The industrial cordons, campesino (peasants ‘and rural
  workers’)* councils and other popular organizations should actively oppose
  this trend with a vanguard ‘popular power’ of their own.
  The ‘gradualists’ were not wholly denying the validity of the
  industrial cordons etc., any more than the others were suggesting
  abandoning the PU. The argument was essentially as to whether to support
  it unconditionally or critically: whether, given the mounting confrontation,
  it should ‘consolidate’ or ‘advance’. However, as the polarization between
  the right and left gathered pace, this distinction grew increasingly urgent in
  ways apparent in every interview, especially as the coup starts looming.
  
  man and woman’ in Chile was inseparable from the everyday struggle to
  transform material conditions.
  Finally we should mention briefly how the interviews were
  conducted. They all took place in 1974-5 in various European countries.
  They were in Spanish, tape-recorded, and followed no fixed formula. We
  usually held two interview sessions, lasting three or four hours in all. All
  the speakers were dearly informed of the exact nature of the project, and
  every effort has been made to preserve their anonymity and that of people
  to whom they referred. Even in exile their lives are not easy, while those of
  their comrades and relatives in Chile are much less so. We fully recognize
  and thank them for their confidence in us.
  Few interviews are impersonal experiences. These were often intense
  and moving. The oldest person to whom we talked, a worker and longstanding unionist, was reluctant to tell his personal story, ‘because in the
  struggle for socialism there aren’t really individuals, only what people do
  together’. They bore this out still, in their lack of regret at the personal cost
  of their commitment. As individuals and as one people with a common goal
  – as we hope above all to have shown – we salute them.
  
  There are perhaps two major themes in this polarization at the
  popular level. One is the struggle against the economic sabotage launched
  by the right; the other is the constant ideological confrontation,
  transforming people’s consciousness at every turn. These processes are
  interwoven. New problems foster new awareness and new ways of dealing
  with them. The bourgeoisie’s sabotage gave rise first to the local people’s
  supply control committees (JAPs, Juntas de Abastecimiento Populares),
  then to the industrial cordons and finally to the communal commands,
  combining workers and campesinos. The ideological forging of the ‘new
  *
  
  See Abbreviations and Glossary.
  
  7
  
  8
  
  PART I – THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
  Background
  Industrial workers in the mines and factories were the PU’s key
  supporters, numerically and politically. Their particular history underlay the
  PUs formation and much of its political thinking. Their struggle began in
  the nitrate mines of northern Chile towards the end of the nineteenth
  century, when protests against starvation wages and working conditions
  produced the first working-class organizations. Most of these mines were
  foreign owned. This meant that for the working class the enemy was
  imperialism and its contradictions with national interests – a persistent
  distinction, central to PU strategy.
  Out of these early organizations grew the first labour confederation
  and the Communist Party in the twenties, then in the thirties the Socialist
  Party. As described by Gregorio (ch. 1), the atmosphere of the mining
  towns was one of systematic repression, a fertile ground for the emergent
  left-wing parties. Also constant fluctuations in the world demand for nitrate
  led to mass redundancies. These scattered the miners and spread their
  awareness throughout the length and breadth of Chile.
  It was this labour movement’s resurgence, after a period of
  repression, which forged the parties of the left into the Popular Front of the
  thirties. While dominated by the centrist Radical Party, this led to
  considerable state support for Chilean industrialization. Organizations like
  CORFO, the National Development Corporation, and interventionist
  legislation resulting from this period provided much of the legal basis for
  the PU’s programme.
  By the forties and fifties, this state support was going increasingly to
  the private rather than the public sector. Meanwhile foreign capital was
  concentrated in copper production. In the sixties, however, it dominated
  industrial growth. This entailed monopolistic, capital intensive enterprises
  which neither produced cheap popular goods nor increased industrial
  employment. Even in this ‘modern’ sector labour conditions remained
  9
  
  repressive, as a means of attracting capital, as described by Roberto in
  chapter 2. In these circumstances the reformist image of the Christian
  Democrat Government waned. Protest increased from the labour
  movement, headed by the Communist-led CUT, the Central Workers
  Confederation. Attempts by the Christian Democrats to obstruct the tradesunions’ growing power had little success. If anything they helped to
  motivate the labour movement’s major part in reuniting the parties of the
  left in the PU coalition.
  The PU’s main proposal was to nationalize all basic resources and
  industrial monopolies, both foreign and nationally owned. Also legislation
  from the 1930s allowed for government take-overs (‘interventions’) in cases
  of mismanagement or insoluble labour disputes. This process, described by
  Gregorio who served as a government intervenor, led to further
  nationalization. The PU also committed itself to workers’ participation in
  industry. As these three chapters will show, this was interpreted differently
  by the various PU parties. For Communist activists like Gregorio, it meant
  that workers should be consulted over the maintenance of production. For
  others, like Roberto, as a member of MAPU, and many Socialists such as
  Pablo (ch. 3), it meant workers actually deciding how the means of
  production should be utilized. There were, of course, variations within these
  two widely differing positions, and even within single parties, according to
  local circumstances.
  These differences sprang from events as well as from predetermined
  positions. The PU’s first year brought unprecedented industrial growth.
  Wage increases and price controls increased buying power and hence
  demand: unemployment fell and popular living standards rose. For political
  and economic reasons this success was short-lived. Declining private
  investment was followed by production boycotts, lock-outs and even
  sabotage. The economy took a rapid downturn. The question of how to deal
  with this crisis divided the left, particularly after it carne to a head in the
  ‘bosses’ strike’ of October 1972, when private industry supported the
  stoppage by lorry-owners.
  The PU leadership stressed the importance of maintaining production
  and played down the mounting class confrontation, which it considered
  10
  
  premature. This position was criticized by the MAPU, many Socialists and
  the MIR. Instead they demanded official support for workers’ factory
  occupations with a view to government intervention, and also for the
  industrial cordons. These associations of workers in neighbouring factories
  arose mainly in response to the boycott and especially to the bosses’ strike.
  Beginning in Santiago, Valparaiso and Concepción, they spread to other
  major cities and became increasingly organized. The PU leadership
  recognized these organizations, but felt that devolving power to them would
  antagonize the right much more than it would strengthen the left. At stake
  was its basic strategy of not alienating the middle sectors. Also at issue was
  the extent to which the cordons acknowledged or were felt to supersede the
  CUT’s (and hence also the Communist Party’s) traditional control of the
  labour movement. Especially in areas where cordons expanded into
  communal commands incorporating campesinos, students and nonindustrial
  workers, this meant a widening gap between the PU’s leadership and its
  base. The extent of this gap was a matter of opinion; particularly party
  opinion, as is evident in Gregorio’s views as compared to those of Roberto
  and Pablo.
  
  1
  The Chilean way to socialism: from company town to a
  nationalized copper industry
  Speaker: GREGORIO , 47, member of the Communist Party and mining
  technician employed by ENAMI (The National Mining
  Enterprise) as ‘intervenor’, or interim manager, of several small
  copper plants subject to Government intervention
  Growing up in the mining regions: the roots of the Chilean labour
  movement
  
  Gregorio, with his deep experience of the labour movement’s history,
  defends the PU’s position as fundamentally realistic. Roberto argues quite
  differently from the viewpoint of his work as a full-time unionist in
  Valparaiso and Santiago: workers were ready for the advances which the
  situation demanded. This is also Pablo’s position, in the context of a single
  industrial cordon, and its development into the communal command of
  Maipú-Cerrillos in Santiago.
  
  I never knew my mother and father. They died soon after I was born.
  My father worked on the railways and was killed in a railway accident
  when he was only twenty-four. My mother followed him a year later. I was
  brought up by my grandparents. My grandfather worked in a copper mine in
  Potrerillos, in northern Chile. A few years later we moved further north to
  the nitrate zone, to Maria Elena, a mining town near Antofagasta. This was
  in the thirties, times were hard. My grandfather worked in the nitrate mine
  and I helped out to make ends meet. I ran errands and polished shoes, doing
  what I could for a few escudos. Maria Elena was a company town, the
  nitrate mine was German-Chilean and most of the managers were foreign.
  I’d make a bit extra by ball-boying on tennis courts in the management
  compound. Sometimes I gardened for them too. My grandparents were
  careful to send me to school at an early age, but even so I carried on
  working.
  
  Each speaker bases his case on concrete local variations: the
  advanced and concentrated awareness of Santiago’s working class. as
  against the relative isolation of workers in smaller plants like Gregorio’s.
  Ultimately, though, the debate is clearly on a strategic level. Whether
  experience has brought it closer to agreement can perhaps be surmised from
  the conclusions which each of these speakers draws for the future.
  
  My grandfather belonged to the Communist Party. From as early as I
  can remember he’d explain to me what this meant, and the workers’ hopes
  for a better future. In those days in the nitrate zone all left-wing politics
  were clandestine. The bosses forbade political meetings and visits by the
  workers’ leaders who travelled round organizing the struggle for better
  wages and working conditions and for freedom of expression.
  Most nitrate workers were aware of these things, though. It was they
  who’d launched this struggle. One of my earliest memories is of my
  grandfather bringing home strangers at night. Or I’d wake up to find them
  
  11
  
  12
  
  sleeping there – clandestine labour organizers. Often their visits coincided
  with a strike in the mine, and my grandfather would explain it to me – why
  they were striking and why their leaders had to come secretly, at night.
  Seeing how they were hounded taught me what workers were up against in
  their struggle for justice. I never forgot this, in spite of my later going on to
  get a technical education and with it certain privileges.
  All of us kids in the nitrate zone learnt such things one way or
  another. Most parents made a point of taking us to political meetings. Their
  being forbidden only added to the excitement. They were out in the desert
  after dark. Though the days in the north are burning hot, the night is usually
  bitterly cold. We’d be wrapped up in our ponchos, people would bring food
  to share. They wasted no time – the meetings began as soon as everyone
  was there as there was always a fair chance that the police would break
  them up. Sometimes the bosses knew, and ignored them, but when someone
  well known was due to speak they’d usually send the police along. Often
  there’d be a ding-dong battle. Quite a few times I had to leg it along the
  gullies, tripping over and getting home all out of breath. I didn’t think much
  of it at the time.
  The nitrate mines are open cast and working conditions in them were
  terrible – the heat and the dust. Although the workers were starting to talk
  of an eight-hour day, this was only a hope for the future. The shift was still
  from dawn to dusk. The company fixed the hours and the workers had no
  choice. Wages were hardly enough to live on and partly paid in tallies
  which could be spent only at the company store, the pulperia. The company
  controlled everything, housing, water, electricity. The lights carne on at
  eight o’clock, and at eleven they turned them off – after that we weren’t
  even allowed to keep a lamp burning in the workers’ compound without
  permission. The water carne on for a few hours daily, you had to queue up
  at the tap for it and keep it in tins. The store was like a fortress. You
  couldn’t go in without the company’s identity card, and both the doors were
  guarded by dogs, big German boxers. The officials would watch your every
  move. They were mostly young Englishmen and Germans. You handed
  over your tally and they’d give you your ration – a kilo of sugar, flour, two
  kilos of potatoes. Then as you went out through the turnstile they’d check
  13
  
  through everything you had. If they held you up, the dogs would try and get
  at you.
  There were different schools and housing areas. One school for the
  managers’ kids, where they taught mostly in English and German – even
  the teachers were foreign. Then there was another for the technicians’
  children, and a state school for the mob, like myself. In ours we had only
  the vaguest idea of what went on in the other two, of the games they played,
  for example. The workers’ houses belonged to the company, and the rent
  was deducted from wages. They all had two rooms and corrugated iron
  roofs, like ovens in the day and freezers at night. The technicians lived in a
  separate compound in proper brick houses with tiled roofs. Finally there
  was the- management compound, where the foreigners lived in big
  bungalows with gardens and lawns, all carefully fenced.
  Workers couldn’t organize openly. Where the union existed, it was
  only in name. The most effective organizers were those who’d worked
  outside the community, gaining experience which they passed on. Political
  pamphlets and papers were forbidden, they had to be smuggled in. This was
  my first political task – I and other kids would bring them in under our
  jackets a few at a time and distribute them. At our age we weren’t
  suspected. In these ways workers gradually became more aware of their
  conditions, and strikes and protests began to increase. The company’s
  policy was to sack anyone involved and turn them out of their rented
  houses; if the police wouldn’t do this for them, they’d use their own
  security forces. Confrontations began to increase. On several occasions
  workers were killed, both in Maria Elena and in the neighbouring nitrate
  town of Pedro de Valdivia.
  Although my grandfather explained everything to me, he never
  directly tried to persuade me to join the youth section of the Communist
  Party. When I said I wanted to join, he said: ‘Fine, but make sure it’s your
  own decision’. This meant it was a firm one. After joining I learnt a lot
  more from the local youth-section organizer. His way of opening our eyes
  was to have us read both party papers and those of the official press and
  judge for ourselves where the real truth lay. With the world we lived in, that
  wasn’t hard.
  14
  
  By thirteen I’d finished primary school. As I’d done well, I got a job
  as an office boy with the nitrate company in Pedro de Valdivia. As luck
  would have it my boss there was different from the others. He encouraged
  me to get a technical training. Eventually I managed to go to the technical
  school in Antofagasta, where I studied engineering.
  This was the time of the Ley Maldita, the ‘infamous law’ of the late
  1940s, which banned the Communist Party. Left-wing workers were
  rounded up in the mining areas and shipped off to labour camps. When they
  left on the train, their relatives gathered at the station, and they’d go off
  singing to keep up their spirits. The favourite song was the tango Adios
  Pampa Mia. Somehow my grandfather wasn’t detained, but one of my
  uncles was shipped out. Like many others, he escaped and went
  underground in Antofagasta, with the protection of the Party. As I was
  studying there, I was in contact with him and with the labour movement.
  ~he Party was especially strong among the dockers in Antofagasta – my
  uncle got work there in the docks, but like my father he was killed in a
  working accident.
  Quite a few of us students at the technical college were in the Party.
  Of course, we had to keep this quiet, but we organized ourselves round the
  questions of better grants for technical students and the founding of a
  technical university. We were all very badly off – wealthy families looked
  down on technical training. I paid my way through with vacation work in
  Pedro de Valdivia. Later I also had a small scholarship from the nitrate
  workers’ union. I wrote to them once to tell them how my studies were
  going, and the letter was read out at a meeting. My grandfather told me how
  pleased they all were. This sort of thing was the beginning of growing
  contacts between workers, students and professionals which were later to be
  crucial. My fellow students were of similar background, hence our firmness
  on the question of grants and the technical university. Although the police
  broke up most of our meetings, we stuck to these issues. Eventually our
  pressures led to the founding of the Technical University in Santiago – and
  to its being a left-wing stronghold.
  
  to university and have the right political connections. This is why the
  Chilean officer corps is so very upper-class to this day, and largely from
  Anglo or German-Chilean families. Soon after this, though, the Technical
  University was founded in Santiago, and I enrolled there. But ironically I
  and many others couldn’t afford to complete our studies. After a year I had
  to give up and return to the North.
  For fifteen years I worked my way up in the nitrate industry as a
  technician. This set me apart from the workers in terms of salary and living
  conditions, but as a member of the Party I did my best to support the
  workers whenever a dispute occurred. Many other technicians with a
  similar background did the same, and we were in a strong position, because
  the firms couldn’t do without us. They’d often replace us with technicians
  from the south, but they didn’t know the machinery as we did. Also the
  workers would support us by striking over a technician’s dismissal, if it
  were for political reasons. This gave us the strength to back their claims for
  better conditions and wages etc.
  This came to a head for me in the sixties, when the company for
  which I was working had a productivity drive. In some sections this meant
  mechanization and many workers lost their jobs. In others, mine included,
  the firm demanded increased output. We managed this, but when the
  workers demanded a corresponding rise, the management said they couldn’t
  afford it. so they struck. I backed them – I was doubly angry because I’d
  been used to increase the workers’ exploitation. I was no stooge. Well, this
  turned the heat on me. The boss dressed me down in front of the workers.
  so I said that unless their demands were met, I’d quit the job. They weren’t,
  so I did so. Afterwards the management begged me to stay. They offered
  me all sorts of incentives, a salary increase and a new house, but I’d had
  enough. I’d been caught for too long between my own past and the
  privileges I’d obtained. I decided to leave the nitrate zone and look for
  employment further south.
  
  After my studies in Antofagasta I applied to the military academy,
  but with little chance of getting in. To do so you virtually had to have been
  
  This was how I carne to be working in the copper industry in the late
  sixties, in the central province of Aconcagua. Apart from the big copper
  companies there were also some smaller private ones coordinated by
  ENAMI, the National Mining Enterprise, which provides them with credits
  
  15
  
  16
  
  and technical assistance. With my qualifications I managed to get a job with
  ENAMI, and went as technical supervisor to a copper plant in the town of
  Cabildo.
  A measured victory: the electoral campaign in Aconcagua
  It was here that I participated in the campaign of 1970. This
  reinforced my conviction that the PU’s programme for the ‘Chilean way to
  socialism’ was fundamentally realistic. The obstacles I encountered
  confirmed the need to work within existing legal institutions. Aconcagua’s
  economy is a mixture of mining and agriculture. Its small copper concerns,
  with anything from twenty to two hundred workers, are isolated from one
  another and generally far from the nearest large town. The workers tend to
  visit it about once a month, sometimes less often. This meant political
  isolation.
  The plant in which I worked refined copper from many scattered
  mines. Some were nearby, with their workers living in Cabildo, but others
  were right up in the Andes, a hundred kilometres away: their workers carne
  there only rarely. On the other hand those in Cabildo had good conditions
  compared to those in the nitrate zone. Housing was cheap and reasonable,
  and the plant was one of the most modern in Chile. I was there when it was
  inaugurated by Frei. They laid on a real ceremony. ENAMI was controlled
  from top to bottom by Christian Democrats, and they made the most of such
  occasions. More importantly, all this meant that most of the workers were
  Christian Democrat supporters – they had to be, to get a job there. This was
  also true of the countryside – the campesinos were also very isolated and
  seduced by the promise of land reforms. In short the opposition was strong,
  even at a popular level. Frei’s promises were wearing thin, but not
  everywhere. We had to tread carefully.
  
  questions and doubts. When these were raised we’d consult with the
  leadership and try to bring back concrete answers.
  Certainly the PU parties increased their vote in the area, but only on a
  modest scale. There wasn’t that feeling that the tide was turning, which
  people seemed to have had elsewhere, especially in Santiago. When we
  learnt the national results, there was singing and dancing in the streets, but
  it was muted. We were well aware that although the PU had won, it was
  only on a minority vote, that the way ahead was far from easy. Such
  considerations weighed heavily on most of us in the Communist Party when
  we carne to implementing the programme.
  Implementing the PU Programme: participation and the maintenance of
  production
  ENAMI had a number of roles. Its basic one was to help to maintain
  the level of production on which the PU’s success, to our way of thinking,
  largely depended. This also meant an increasing number of interventions in
  plants with financial or labour problems. Finally, like other state agencies, it
  had to realize the PU’s programme for workers’ participation in
  management.
  I became deeply involved in these issues, because soon after the
  elections I was appointed as ‘intervenor’ to a copper plant in difficulties,
  and subsequently to another. The first case was straightforward. A smallish
  plant in Aconcagua had failed to meet its obligations to improve both wages
  and working conditions. The workers finally struck, called off their
  negotiations with the owners, and demanded government intervention. The
  Minister of Labour went into this and then agreed. I was appointed for my
  combination of technical know-how with sympathy for the PU’s objectives.
  
  Besides, even those who were disillusioned had somehow to be
  assured that the PU wasn’t just making promises like the governments
  before it. So we concentrated our campaign on the programme’s most
  immediate aspects. I attended countless union meetings to put across our
  proposals for improved housing, work security, and better education, for
  instance, We distributed the PU’s literature, and listened to people’s
  
  My first job was to go to the plant and hear both sides of the
  argument, from the owners and workers. After that I had to make an
  economic and social assessment, and finally provide some
  recommendations. As it turned out, both sides had a case. The plant was
  heavily in debt and outdated and there was a backlog of unpaid wages.
  Nothing could be done to save it, so in the end my task was simply to wind
  it up and find alternative jobs for the workers. With the PU’s success in
  
  17
  
  18
  
  increasing growth and hence employment, this wasn’t hard. Within a few
  months it was all sorted out and everyone was satisfied – the Ministry of
  Labour, ENAMI, the workers and even the owners.
  
  this tended to divide, I always consulted very closely with workers who
  belonged to the Party. But at the same time, I had to keep the owners
  informed of my decisions and intentions.
  
  In the following year I was called on again as intervenor for a small
  copper plant. This was much more complicated, and lasted right up to the
  military coup. It involved all the PU’s major concerns: the need to avoid
  class confrontations, to keep production up to the mark and to involve the
  workers themselves in what the PU was doing.
  
  There’d been problems in this plant for years. It was a good way
  from Cabildo itself and very much a family firm. The manager was the
  owner’s son, the local mayor was a relative, in short the family ran the area.
  The plant smelted copper from several small mines, the biggest of which
  belonged to the firm and was right nearby. About 130 people worked in the
  plant and mine together. Again the intervention arose from a strike
  provoked by the owners’ failure to implement an agreement on wages,
  working conditions and so on.
  
  The first difficulty lay in people’s different expectations of an official
  intervention. The owners were often glad of it, imagining that the intervenor
  would simply arrive with a fistful of money and make no fundamental
  changes. On the other hand, sections of the left were for immediate
  nationalization and virtual control by the workers themselves. In fact
  intervention was not a commitment to either of these two positions. The
  government was a popular one, but its targets for nationalization were the
  big monopolies only. The ultra-left’s insistence on pushing it much further
  and deeper caused economic and political problems. For one thing there had
  to be good reason for intervening in the first place, in order to be within the
  law and avoid alarming the middle classes – which also meant consultation
  with the owners and reasonable compensation. Also the government then
  had to maintain such industries: it wasn’t practical to expropriate left, right
  and centre, as certain sectors were demanding. Our main focus was on the
  strategic concerns, which the government needed to control. With these
  controversies, an intervenor was virtually walking a tightrope.
  
  My impartiality upset the owners. As soon as they realized I wasn’t
  there at their convenience, and that I also consulted the workers, they turned
  nasty. The owner’s son, the manager, was constantly creating problems. For
  instance he’d tell me there was some snag which I’d then have to go and
  deal with, only to find that he’d invented it. The main trouble was that there
  was also a ‘yellow’ (boss’s) section of the union which he controlled,
  consisting of the technicians and a few of the manual workers. They were
  always making trouble with the others – the majority, whose strike had led
  to the intervention. One day this provoked a fight between them. I found it
  had been instigated by one of the yellow union workers and asked the
  manager to dismiss him. He refused, so I sent him an order in writing, but
  he still refused, so I demoted him. Then he threatened to resign, and the
  yellow union supported the charge that I’d victimized him – they were
  thirty men in all, less than a quarter of the total. Well, I let him go, and most
  of his supporters went with him. Some came back, but it caused problems.
  For one thing this family got the local press to denounce us. They also
  brought a lawsuit against me. More importantly, we were left almost
  without technicians.
  
  On relationships with the owners, my party’s position was quite
  clear. While our concern was for workers’ interests, we weren’t seeking
  confrontations. Whatever the outcome of intervention, it should be on a
  legal basis. This reflected the PU’s strategy of sticking strictly to legal
  methods. Without this, we’d have lost our main strength as a legally elected
  government, with support from all progressive sectors. This wasn’t a ‘nonworking class’ position. It was often repeated by Figueroa, the president of
  the CUT, for instance. so I had to try and get on with the owners – though
  in the end it proved impossible – in order to keep the factory working. My
  main contact at first was with the shopfloor’s PU committee, and although
  
  This was serious, given the importance of maintaining production.
  Our only way out was for all of us to discuss it together. This meant in
  effect that we introduced workers’ participation before we otherwise would
  have done. The nature of this participation was much debated within the
  left, but in our case the reason for it was clear – as I said, it was the only
  
  19
  
  20
  
  way to maintain production in the circumstances. I was responsible for
  implementing it, and this was the way I put it across: to keep the plant
  running, all of us had to participate in our different ways at every level in
  making the necessary decisions and taking responsibility for them. We
  followed the government’s blueprint for this. There was a General
  Administrative Council (Consejo General de Administración), consisting of
  myself as intervenor and two union representatives, one manual, the other a
  white-collar worker. There was also a Technical Administrative Council
  (Consejo Técnico de Administración) with a delegate from each section –
  one from maintenance, one from transport, one from processing, etc. Each
  delegate was elected by a secret ballot in union meetings. Finally there was
  the General Assembly (Asamblea) of all the workers in the plant. All my
  decisions were referred to it, on accounts, production schedules and so
  forth. There were also Production Committees (Comités de Producción) in
  each section, to ensure that they were keeping to schedule.
  The workers’ response soon compensated for the loss of the
  technicians. Many of the more experienced men were capable of replacing
  them. But I still stressed that responsibility should depend on experience
  and qualifications. The workers’ views should be respected, but important
  decisions still had to be taken by those qualified to take them. While the
  workers should participate, this participation had its limits: they weren’t
  equipped to take managerial decisions. In our case this wasn’t much
  disputed, but I know that elsewhere the official scheme for participation
  was criticized by other left parties as technocratic. But how else could we
  maintain production, as the PU required of us? This was a technical
  problem and we treated it as such. And we succeeded in maintaining
  production. Governing was the government’s job. Ours was to support it as
  it required.
  Besides, when workers were allowed to take all the decisions, this
  encouraged self-interestedness. They often demanded wage increases
  instead of further productive investments, and the Christian Democrats used
  this to divide the workers and cause stoppages. I remembered their strength
  in the first copper plant I worked in – this too was good reason for limiting
  participation to the PU’s formula for it. And it worked. There was little
  21
  
  dissension, and the assembly dealt mainly with the workers’ immediate
  concerns: wages, housing, sanitary conditions in the plant, etc. As a result,
  we paid our way without any need for government subsidies. This was my
  main goal, and we achieved it.
  Unequal odds: the approach of the coup
  Of course when the boycott of the economy by the private sector
  began, it was hard to keep production up. The first lorry-owners’ strike in
  October 1972 didn’t affect us as much as elsewhere, as we had a reserve of
  raw materials. This was true of the zone as a whole. Food supplies weren’t
  a serious problem, with its being an agricultural area.
  The only real one was transport. The union helped to solve this by
  using our trucks to market the campesinos products. The workers drove
  them on a voluntary basis. The far-right wasn’t well organized yet, so we
  met with little opposition.
  In the following year’s tank revolt (tancazo) in June, the workers
  showed their determination by immediately reporting to the factory, ready
  to defend it at any cost. But it was over on the same day, and things were
  rapidly back to normal. At the time some of the workers did ask why the
  PU didn’t get tough with the military, instead of negotiating with them. I
  had to talk to them, to explain the government’s position, that it was trying
  to avoid a confrontation; that we should have faith in our leaders’ attempts
  to find a just and effective solution, and that they needed our support. The
  workers did feel in the end that this was where the answer lay. They never
  lost their confidence that if there was a way out of the crisis, the PU leaders
  would find it. They listened to Allende’s speech immediately after the
  tancazo and followed his request to go back to normal work and redouble
  their efforts for the PU.
  We had no local industrial cordon, as there was little industry, so the
  union dealt with these issues. But in the tank coup, as in the first bosses’
  strike, the workers combined with the campesinos. Together they set up
  road blocks and took other defensive measures. This showed their
  determination to defend the government, and was a warning to the right. As
  a result its second strike was much more organized and violent. The lorry22
  
  owners now intervened against our trucks which were maintaining food
  distribution. Although they sometimes came off worse, they usually had the
  upper hand, as they were often armed and we weren’t. Some of the workers
  wanted to commandeer the owners’ trucks but we hadn’t the means to take
  them over, as they were all parked together and defended by the police.
  They never gave up the struggle, though. By this time we were having
  problems with parts, as we couldn’t get them from Santiago, but the workers
  often found solutions. The older ones had been in the industry so long that they
  could improvise most parts. They also had relatives and friends who were old
  hands at this sort of thing. We discussed these problems in the assembly, and
  one of them would say: ‘I know just the man for the job, up north’. A few days
  later he’d be there, with the parts or some means of fixing them. In a way, they
  were our best times, with everyone pooling all their talents and determined not
  to be defeated. If anything, their confidence in the PU was higher than ever.
  The fact was, though, that we were up against fascism. We had no
  means to defend ourselves against the right’s methods. Just before the coup, 1
  had orders which must have originated with the military, to give full details on
  all the workers – which of them had done military service, where and when,
  and so on. Another order demanded full details of all the dynamite used in the
  mine, when we were due to get new supplies, where they were coming from
  etc. Eventually they were severely restricted. By the time of the coup we were
  down to eight sticks of dynamite.
  
  new authorities, I did so. They let me go free, but the next morning they came
  to arrest me. The former owner of the plant had charged me with being a
  subversive. I was gaoled, beaten about a bit and tried in a military court, but as
  there was no evidence against me, the case was finally dismissed. But of course
  I was sacked and blacklisted. I tried getting odd jobs here and there, but with a
  family to support I couldn’t manage, so I had to leave Chile.
  Looking back, I feel that the PU did all it could to save the day. I still
  think that the odds were too heavily against us, that we weren’t ready to take
  them on if it came to a final confrontation. It wasn’t just a defeat, because a
  fifty-yearlong struggle can’t be wiped out by a military coup. Today the
  popular forces have even wider support than they did, from people who’ve
  learnt what fascism is. I know we’ll come back into our own and stronger than
  before. If there were mistakes it wasn’t these, but fascism, that overthrew the
  PU. What matters is the people’s awareness. And this is measured not by
  mistakes, but by their will and experiences.
  
  On 11 September I was in Santiago – I’d gone there to consult with
  ENAMI over some administrative problems. Early in the morning I heard the
  planes passing over the city, and then the thuds as they bombed the Presidential
  Palace. I listened to the commentary on the truck radio and realized what was
  happening. When 1 tried to get into ENAMI it was already full of soldiers.
  They wouldn’t admit me. I tried to make contact with the Party, but that was
  also impossible, so I headed back to Cabildo.
  When I got there, other party members were still waiting for instructions.
  We never received them, and later realized that the regional committee had
  been cut off. The plant was occupied by the military. There was nothing I could
  do. As my name had been broadcast as one of those required to report to the
  23
  
  24
  
  2
  The Working Class and the Struggle for Power: from workers’
  participation to the communal commands
  Speaker: ROBERTO, 40, activist of the MAPU and fulltime trade-union
  organizer, who worked during the PU in the major industrial
  areas of Santiago and Valparaiso
  A factory worker’s experiences: the force behind the PU
  I joined the union when I was fifteen – the Shoeworkers’ Federation.
  I was working in a factory in Santiago. Three years later I was branch
  secretary. Experience taught me early on that it was only by uniting that we
  could defend our interests as workers. For instance in our biggest strike,
  when we occupied the factory for weeks, it was other workers living round
  it who saw us through. They fought pitched battles with the police to get
  food and blankets to us. Workers have few resources. We have to pool them
  and pull together. Ever since recognizing this I’ve tried to base my actions
  on it. That’s why I’m in exile today on the instructions of my party.
  I worked in this factory for eighteen years, and left when I was thirtythree, after one of our regular showdowns. The management bought new
  machinery, but not to raise output. Instead they made half the workers
  redundant, men with up to forty years of service. They’d never get another
  job, and the compensation was a pittance. I protested but to my disgust my
  fellow unionists wouldn’t support me. This was under Frei, when crises of
  this kind were common and resistance brought retaliation. Their argument
  was: we can only defend our working conditions – hiring and firing is the
  boss’s prerogative. I was so fed up that I almost carne to blows with my
  colleagues. In the end I decided to leave the factory.
  I set up shop as a cobbler in the shantytown where we were living, on
  the outskirts of Santiago. We had a house lot there and built our own home.
  The floor was bare earth and the roof was made of hardboard, but I was
  happy. I had no boss, and I was politically active in my neighbourhood
  association, which we set up to defend our own interests. But I couldn’t
  forget what had happened in the factory. I realized that although the union
  25
  
  defended the workers’ immediate interests, it could never change relations
  between the exploiters and the exploited. The bosses had done as they
  pleased with the men – and once you’re out of work in Chile, there’s no
  unemployment benefit and ten applicants for every job. You take what they
  give you.
  All this time I’d had no connection with any political party. Then I
  came into contact with some young people working in a literacy
  programme. They were using the methods of Paulo Freire, which include
  the raising of political awareness. One day I heard Freire speak, and we got
  into a debate – I felt he was overlooking things which were important to
  factory workers. Later we carne to know one another, and this got me
  reading seriously. Marx, especially. It wasn’t easy, but what gripped me
  was how it explained my own experience. The reading was a real struggle
  though. Some nights I’d sleep only two or three hours, I’d read and read,
  and even so I might cover only twenty pages – I was determined to take it
  all in. I’d left school at twelve, you see, and although I’ d learnt to read and
  write I was functionally illiterate. Like most Chileans I’d had nothing to
  read.
  Meantime I enrolled in an adult education course, to complete my
  secondary school training. I finished this inside a year. From then on I spent
  all my free time organizing young people’s cultural centres in my own and
  other shantytowns. I kept stressing that young people’s problems could be
  understood and dealt with only in terms of their class situation. All our
  discussions came back to the point. In the end we set up a federation of four
  hundred cultural centres.
  In 1969 the MAPU was formed. I and many other comrades from the
  cultural centres joined the party. Most of the others had been Christian
  Democrats. I was assigned to the party’s mass front, to develop educational
  programmes for unionists and factory workers.
  From unionist to party activist: workers’ education courses
  Through the party I was sent to Valparaiso to teach in an extension
  programme for workers run by the Catholic University. The course was
  vocational, but we gave it a political perspective. We included the history of
  26
  
  the labour movement. For instance we showed how the labour laws had
  developed to control the unions. We also discussed where different parties
  stood on these questions. This projected the PU’s programme right into the
  unions and factories, and aroused discussion of its proposals throughout the
  campaign of 1970. This was crucial. Chilean workers have a great respect
  for education, and now they really had the chance to focus it on their own
  situation.
  With the PU in power, our discussions turned to the problems of
  implementing the programme. Our main concern was with the scope for
  workers’ own initiatives in pressing their proposals home, especially those
  for nationalization and for workers’ participation. We took our course right
  into the factories in the Valparaiso area. Many of these were subsequently
  taken over by the workers, and then transferred to public ownership. One
  typical case was a cement factory in a small town called -La Calera. It was
  almost the only local employment, which gave it an iron grip on its workers
  – if they were sacked, they’d have to leave home to look for a job. So they
  were completely cowed by their bosses – the wages and working conditions
  were terrible. But after we held a summer school there, in which all this
  company’s workers took part, its power crumbled. A union was formed,
  and this produced a confrontation and occupation of the factory. The
  government intervened and eventually nationalized it. It became a model of
  increasing workers’ participation and finally of workers’ control.
  My own experience as a worker came in handy on these courses. I
  didn’t use texts to convey our message, but popular images. For better or
  worse, I’d even turn to the machismo common among Chilean workers.
  ‘Now, comrade’ – this would be a in a group discussion ‘supposing your
  wife has another man, and you find out – what happens then?’ ‘What
  happens? We fix him’. ‘Right then, society includes exploiters and the
  exploited. You find this out – what happens then?’ ‘What happens? We fix
  the exploiters – no more bosses’. Later our discussions would move on to
  workers’ participation, its different forms, its real purpose. They’d give
  examples of what was happening in their own factories. We’d deal with
  everything in class terms, but always through the workers’ own imagery
  and in terms of their own experience.
  27
  
  Workers’ initiatives: expropriations and new forms of participation
  For the next three years I continued working for the party’s mass
  front on union affairs in Santiago and Valparaiso. One of the most
  important aspects of the PU process, as we in the MAPU understood it, was
  workers’ participation. All sectors of the left acknowledged this, but they
  understood it in different ways. Some saw it only as a basic support for
  PU’s economic measures: but our view was that it should lead to workers’
  control, as an antidote to the bureaucracy. In practice, though, it wasn’t we
  activists who made the decisions, it was the workers. Their new awareness
  and initiatives carne from experience, not theories – particularly from the
  crisis produced by the factory-owners’ boycott, when they started cutting
  investments. This crisis became so acute that the workers had to find
  answers to it.
  Their first answer was to occupy factories which were sabotaging
  production. This enabled them to maintain the factory and ask for
  government intervention. Of course it raised the most basic question – the
  ownership of the means of production – but as I say, this was in response to
  the day-to-day needs of the struggle in progress. In Santiago alone, over
  three hundred factories became subject to government intervention, and
  most of these were outside the PU’s original programme. This had provided
  for nationalizing only the biggest, monopolistic concerns, about 150 in all.
  But we saw this as a false distinction. We stressed that the prospect of
  socialism divides loyalties along class lines that the bourgeoisie as a whole
  would resist, which meant a need for popular power, working-class
  organizations within the shell of the bourgeois State. Only these could
  guarantee the PU’s advances. In taking this position, though, we were
  responding mainly to workers’ initiatives – steps they took because they
  were closest to the development of the conflict.
  This shows that a revolutionary process is never something deriving
  from textbooks. New situations have to be dealt with and this produces new
  ways forward. For example, when food supplies were short, the workingclass neighbourhoods set up JAPs, people’s supply control committees,
  which not only limited speculation – they also compelled many middle
  class people who couldn’t afford black-market prices to accept their basic
  28
  
  principle of equal shares at official prices. Sometimes they even helped to
  organize them, under working-class direction. In this way they were drawn
  into the workers’ battle – and on workers’ terms against the bourgeoisie’s
  manoeuvres, because only the workers could counteract them.
  I could cite more examples of how these concrete developments
  made the workers their own vanguard, because they’re the ones who control
  production. It was they who gave meaning to the PU’s measures – the PU
  itself was too heterogeneous to respond to the changes which it set in
  motion. Officially, expropriation depended on a decision from above. But in
  practice we had to fight from below, not only for its implementation, but for
  its results to be effective as a product of class struggle.
  We set about this in the following way. Taking a particular area,
  we’d find out wJ1ich factories had been involved in the most disputes,
  which were best organized politically, and whether the owners were
  reducing or even sabotaging production. On this basis we’d select one for
  an agitational programme. Activists would distribute pamphlets and
  bulletins throughout the area, especially at factory gates. This made other
  workers aware of the issue. Meantime the party would strengthen contacts
  inside the factory, raising the possibility of the workers requesting
  intervention and eventually expropriation. These projects had to be
  carefully planned. spontaneity meant the risk of serious setbacks. Party
  discipline at the base is crucial in these situations.
  Often, though, these demands were spontaneous, in which case we
  mobilized support from workers in the neighbouring factories. But either
  way they were often at odds with PU policy. One such case was the RayonSaid factory. With a labour force of about two thousand, and a near
  monopoly of rayon and cellophane production, it should have been due for
  nationalization, but in fact the government was against this. It had an
  unofficial agreement with the factory owner, the magnate 5aid, who also
  owned the Banco del Trabajo, one of the biggest private banks. In return for
  its nationalization – together with the whole banking system – the PU had
  undertaken to leave the Rayon factory alone. So the workers took the
  initiative and they did so consciously in answer to this compromise by their
  government. They demanded a rise, which wasn’t given, then occupied the
  29
  
  factory in order to get it expropriated. They had a long struggle, but they
  succeeded. More than succeeded – they got the support of the workers in
  another Said monopoly and later this too was taken over. During the factory
  occupation they also got help, both food and money, from the nearby
  campesinos, as many of themselves were ex-campesinos, an important
  factor in building this alliance. After the expropriation, they had training to
  enable them to manage the factory independently.
  We had experiences like this throughout the province of Valparaiso.
  The main textile factory in Viña del Mar would probably not have been
  taken over but for pressure from the workers. They’d been fighting a
  reactionary management for years. Under Frei they struck for six months to
  get it turned into a cooperative. This failed and half the workers were
  dismissed. They tried and failed again, with a further month’s strike, in
  Frei’s last year. More ‘temporary’ dismissals were threatened in order to
  modernize the factory but the workers wouldn’t have this, knowing they’d
  never get their jobs back. The argument was still going on when the PU was
  elected, but even it was non-committal. So the factory was occupied again.
  This time the workers refused to leave until it was expropriated, against the
  original decision of the Minister of Economics.
  These struggles created a powerful base to build on after
  expropriation. This textile factory in Viña del Mar wasn’t only transferred
  to the public sector, but carne to be fully controlled by its workers. They
  decided to reorganize its production and distribution patterns. They
  designed cheaper, more popular materials, and started distributing them
  through the JAPs and other popular organizations with their rationing and
  price controls. In this way the whole process was socialized, right from
  production to consumption. These experiments dealt crippling blows to the
  capitalist system, built as they were on the workers’ growing recognition
  that they couldn’t change their part of it without transforming it as a whole.
  Officially workers’ participation was much more limited and formal.
  Production committees were appointed for each section of the factory, from
  among the trade-union officials – one for the administrative section, another
  for the mechanics and so on, depending on the number of sections. The
  heads of these production committees and other union officials then elected
  30
  
  five members of the General Administrative Council. This was the main
  managing body, to which the government appointed five more
  representatives, plus a director – six in all. So even at plant level the
  bureaucrats were in the majority, as well as controlling the higher levels of
  economic decision making.
  In practice then, workers still had no power to amend production
  schedules etc., let alone initiate them. This provoked a lot of discussion,
  especially among workers in the big metallurgical and textile concerns in
  the public sector. They argued that government nominees on the
  administrative councils should also be workers from the factory, since this
  was a workers’ government. It was pointed out that under the official
  system the technocrats were the majority, whereas the workers were
  concerned with the social aspects of production. In one large factory called
  Solimar, producing boilers and railway engines, the workers actually struck
  on this issue. Eventually they won their case and made a thorough-going
  revision of every aspect of production. Working conditions were improved,
  excess technicians were transferred and wage differentials were reduced.
  Through voluntary overtime, production was raised sufficiently to cancel
  the company’s outstanding debt. Despite their lack of management training
  the workers themselves reorganized things from start to finish.
  It was argued that these changes would destabilize production – but
  far from this happening. it was in sectors where participation was weakest
  that there was real instability. In copper, for instance. Officials in this sector
  refused to contemplate real changes, because it’s such a vital export. So
  what happened after its nationalization? The workers regarded the State like
  a traditional employer, and demanded wage increases way above the rate of
  inflation, even in 1973, when the economy was in crisis. The government
  refused, and right-wing, white-collar and higher-skilled workers saw their
  chance and carried other workers with them. And of course the right-wing
  parties supported them, financially and with their propaganda. The
  government had to give in, and its whole wage policy collapsed.
  This could never have happened if there’d been effective
  participation in this sector. As in the case of the Solimar factory the PU
  failed to understand that the ideological battleground was among the
  31
  
  working class itself, not just among the ‘middle sectors’: that its loyalty
  could be held only by giving it a real role in the process of building
  socialism. Without this it could at best be passive, and at worst
  manipulated.
  The industrial cordons, the bosses’ strikes and the rise of the communal
  commands
  It was out of these actions by vanguard workers that the industrial
  cordons developed. What crystallized them was cooperation between the
  workers of different factories to counteract the ‘bosses’ strike’ of October
  1972, which would otherwise have halted production. Afterwards they
  continued expanding right up to the time of the coup. The workers realized
  that the stoppage was no isolated event, but part of a struggle ultimately for
  control of the means of production. The cordons were both a defence
  measure and a step in this direction, an embryo of popular power. The PU
  did recognize them, but only in the restricted role of defending the
  government on its own terms – while much of the union hierarchy opposed
  them. Their real basis was in the working class itself, in the face of a daily
  mounting conflict. This was the most important effect of real workers’
  participation, especially in state-owned enterprises. These were the
  vanguard of the cordons, and as such the seeds of the revolution, which
  participation germinated.
  The debate on popular power began soon after Allende’s election.
  The more radical parties – MAPU, MIR and the left wing of the Socialist
  Party – envisaged Cuban-style ‘committees for the defence of the
  revolution’, one in every neighbourhood. But this was utopian. Our problem
  wasn’t one of defending an established socialism, but rather of countering
  attacks on our limited advances towards it, especially in the factories. From
  the outset the right campaigned ferociously against the PU’s
  nationalizations. In Congress it obstructed them and starved the government
  of funds to run the nationalized concerns. In the courts it tried to declare
  them illegal. In the media, still largely controlled by the right, it swore to
  Chile and all the world that state-owned industries couldn’t work – which it
  was already trying to ensure by sabotage and boycotts in the private sector.
  32
  
  The right even tried to enlist the workers. At which point their lack of
  participation became a really critical weakness. Alienation made them prey
  to sophisticated propaganda which identified the managers in the public
  sector as the ‘new bosses’. Many workers were saying as much, because in
  the circumstances there was some truth in it. They were being asked to
  produce more, on the grounds that the factories belonged to the workers –
  but this was contradicted by the lack of real participation.
  Their disenchantment reached such a pitch that the right-wing’s
  accusations came true – state-owned enterprises began to run into real
  problems. Wage claims ran even higher in the public than in the private
  sector, machinery wasn’t properly maintained, raw materials were wasted.
  Far from their showing profits to fund additional nationalizations, the
  government had to subsidise them, and workers’ demands went on
  increasing. It was like an infection – when one group of workers made a
  demand, the next would make a bigger one. The situation was dose to
  chaotic.
  It was this which finally prompted us – the more radical parties – to
  produce our own version of participation. Instead of the official Production
  Committees we proposed much stronger ‘Committees for the Defence of
  Production’ (CDPs). Their members were directly elected by the workers,
  instead of consisting of union officials who weren’t answerable to them.
  Union officials weren’t excluded – but they had to be chosen in their own
  right. Secondly, the CDPs, through mass meetings, directly informed and
  consulted the workers on all aspects of production budgeting, profits,
  planning options. Although one could exaggerate their contributions to
  these decisions, the workers put forward their own ideas – on how to
  improve machines, for instance, in ways which technicians had never noted.
  In exceptional cases, as I mentioned, this led to a complete overhaul of the
  whole basis of production. Also political questions were raised, like the role
  of unions in the process through which we were living, the results of wage
  demands etc.
  
  workers, through the CDPs and later the cordons. This meant that
  subversion not only failed, but united workers to defend production and the
  PU, through the CDPs.
  The development of the CD Ps varied from factory to factory.
  Typically, the original Production Committees turned gradually into CDPs,
  as events confirmed the need for these. There wasn’t often a conflict
  between them. Nor was the legitimacy of the official unions questioned.
  The problem was that while the CUT was strong at regional and national
  levels, it was weaker at the base, which was now so crucial in the struggle –
  not because it lacked a following, but for want of local organization. The
  CDPs and later the cordons filled this gap. Their leaders never undervalued
  the CUT. Rather they hoped to persuade it to give the struggle a clear
  direction.
  There were differences of opinion even within the radical left as to
  the extent to which the workers should control each factory’s
  Administrative Council. We in MAPU felt that the MIR was obsessed with
  this, with ‘workerism’ (obrerismo). In the face of the mounting crisis,
  though, we overcame these differences. The first CDPs developed in the
  South, especially round Concepción, but by the time of the first bosses’
  strike, they’d spread to most industrial areas. We’d discussed coordination
  between them, but little had yet come of this, except in the strongest
  working-class areas like Maipú-Cerrillos and Vicuña Mackenna, in
  Santiago. The bosses’ strike was final proof that this coordination was
  urgent. Immediately CDP delegates and union officials from different
  factories in the major industrial areas discussed joint action against the
  stoppage. Embryonic cordons already existed in vanguard areas. Now they
  spread to every big city.
  
  The CDPs took root especially in plants where the revolutionary
  parties were strongest. Their intelligence commissions helped in this. When
  we learnt of some new right-wing tactic we’d publish it and inform the
  
  This was done in the following way. Their immediate purpose was
  defined as the collective defence of production and of the PU government.
  Delegates to each cordon were requested from all the factories in its area,
  not just those of the public sector. Typically, most worker members of each
  firm’s Adminstrative Council accepted. If they declined, though this was
  rare, the cordon’s leaders advised the workers to elect a delegate for each
  section of the factory. The leadership met regularly and formed various
  
  33
  
  34
  
  commissions – transport, security, maintenance of production and so on.
  This working structure developed precisely in response to the needs of the
  moment. Again, there was suspicion that this was a form of parallelism,
  supplanting the government and unions – but the fact was that existing
  bodies just weren’t adequate for the crisis. In our early attempts to solve the
  problems of distribution, we found that the state mechanisms, like the
  Ministry of Economic Affairs, offered only the vaguest solutions. They
  couldn’t maintain even minimal supplies of power or medical items, for
  instance. It was the workers, through the cordons, who decided to keep the
  factories producing when the bosses ordered them to stop. Cordon workers
  manned public transport and fought the lorry-owners’ thugs to keep basic
  raw materials moving, organizing their own convoys between the ports and
  factories. They faced up to fascist squads and organized distribution centres
  in working-class residential areas. Together with the campesinos they set up
  markets, selling fuel, food and clothes; these markets were improvised, but
  immense. They were based on examples like those of the textile workers in
  Viña del Mar, who’ d long since distributed their products direct to lowerincome consumers.
  While the CDPs had begun in the South, the first cordons were in
  Santiago, as it was there that the stoppage hit hardest. This shows how
  closely linked the cordons were to the solution of real problems. By the
  time the stoppage ended they existed at least on an improvised basis in
  virtually every major city. With the workers’ understanding of what the
  bosses’ strike had meant, they became the core of the revolutionary process
  – a means not only of defending but also of advancing the workers’ gains.
  For instance, cordon leaders confronted the local authorities, including the
  right-wing ones, with specific demands: for workers’ houses within reach of
  the factories, for example. We always encouraged cordon leaders to
  maintain immediate objectives like this, although the crucial issue was the
  class struggle, the question of power. We never forgot this, however far we
  may have been from carrying it through.
  The missing factor at this point was a coherent political vanguard,
  united on a revolutionary strategy: the PU leadership had no answer to this
  stage of the confrontation. But in spite of this, and of disillusionment, these
  35
  
  beginnings of popular power continued expanding right to the end. The
  vanguard cordons developed into communal commands, which integrated
  the shantytown dwellers, campesinos and students with the factoryworkers’ organizations. This consolidated their previously improvised
  solidarity. For instance the communal command of Punta Florida, in
  Santiago, was recognized by the local authorities as a consultative body.
  The command was led by the cordon, but through it the shantytown
  dwellers in particular came to speak with a new voice. They disputed the
  local authorities’ assumption that the main streets should be repaved when
  those of the shantytowns never had been; they demanded industrial estates
  to provide employment in the area. They backed the demands of the nearby
  campesino council for an end to delays over legal land expropriations,
  which the landowners and the courts were obstructing. Industrial cordons
  and the communal command took action to enable their campesino
  comrades to occupy the land and maintain its output.
  None of this was straightforward. No process as complex as that of
  Chile, no revolutionary process, is pure. As a system goes into crisis and
  one form of society collapses, every social class is affected. Workers suffer,
  as well as the privileged, and like them they can be corrupted. For instance,
  while the bourgeoisie’s sabotage instigated the black market, workers also
  contributed to it against the interests of their class. When Allende visited
  Sumar, a huge textile factory, he spoke openly of this – he told workers
  they could have covered the road from Santiago to Valparaiso with products
  which they had blackmarketed. It was their means of surviving the
  economic crisis. The important thing was that when the coup carne, these
  Sumar workers fought the fascists empty handed. They held out for days
  against aerial bombardment. Yet even they had shown that the
  revolutionary process is full of human contradictions – that was how I saw
  it, how we always had to approach it. To do so in terms only of ideals as
  against objective conditions, is to fail to understand it. You have to
  remember that Chile’s working class wasn’t in power. We were barely
  beginning to establish forms of popular justice, for instance – the judicial
  system was still defending bourgeois interests. This is where the political
  vanguard is crucial – in creating the conditions to maintain the
  36
  
  revolutionary process and overcome such contradictions. And this in my
  judgment is where the PU leadership failed in its final year.
  The confrontation and the future: reflections
  I believe it made two basic errors. The first was the incorporation of
  military men into the cabinet in moments of crisis – in the bosses’ strike,
  and then again after the tank revolt (tancazo) of June 1973. This was a show
  of weakness. It seems that Allende, for want of a more effective answer,
  convinced himself that the military were neutral, not allies of the
  bourgeoisie. The second error was to curb the growth of working-class
  power in the hope of saving the situation with a Christian Democrat
  alliance.
  Some comrades believe that the PU was merely reformist. This to my
  mind is a simplification. The problem was that having provoked prerevolutionary conditions, it then stepped back, and this could only
  encourage the reaction. In the first bosses’ strike, the bourgeoisie had been
  the loser. It attempted to bring down the government by economic means,
  but what happened? The workers stepped in and took everything over. They
  broke the boycott. The March elections of the following year dispelled the
  opposition’s last hope of a democratic victory. Force became their only
  option, and therefore the one they were bound to adopt. This meant that the
  PUs struggle also had to be fought on these terms. The second stoppage, in
  July 1973, was thus quite different, a clear request for military intervention.
  At this point economic actions by either the bourgeoisie or the workers
  were not going to change the situation. Only the military apparatus of one
  class or the other could do this. The bourgeoisie knew this. And so it won.
  It was not a new lesson.
  The workers knew also, the vanguard at least. But what resources did
  they have against Hawker Hunters and machine-guns? Armed resistance
  would have been class suicide, in the absence of a political vanguard
  actively committed to it. Only this can split the army along class lines. The
  PU apparently hoped that this would happen spontaneously, and the
  workers paid dearly for this illusion. Their recognition of what was
  happening explains in part why the coup was so simple. Despite the
  37
  
  cordons’ determination, there was deepening disillusionment following the
  government’s decision to rely on conciliation rather than popular
  organizations.
  It was after the tancazo that this disillusionment became general. At
  this point the balance might still have been turned within the army, had the
  rebels and their supporters been crushed, as the workers were openly
  demanding. On the night of the tancazo Allende spoke to a massive crowd
  from the balcony of the Moneda Palace. People in the square were shouting
  up at him: ‘arrest the plotters’, and ‘dose the Congress’. Instead Allende
  presented the chiefs of the armed forces as the saviours of the day. Fights
  even broke out between supporters of his position and those demanding
  more radical measures. The latter were certain1y a majority. But Allende
  maintained his position to the end, even confiding in Pinochet as the
  apparent leader of the constitutional wing of the army.
  This speech from the Moneda was televised throughout the country.
  Everywhere the reaction was similar. Workers I talked to told me: ‘We’re
  through with politics. Comrade Allende would never betray us, but he has
  made a fatal mistake. Why should we fight when the battle’s been lost for
  us?’ In fact, like Allende, most of them did – even after the humiliation of
  the PU’s allowing the military to ransack left-wing areas and torture
  activists before the coup. They fought on against the fascists and on 11
  September died shouting for arms which never carne.
  This is not to say that the PU experiment was just a defeat. For one
  thing it showed that the working class is capable of challenging imperialism
  at its heart in Latin America. For another, any such experience is a lesson, if
  not a new one. Workers everywhere should remember that Chile was called
  ‘the England of South America’ for its alleged democratic traditions. If our
  experience reminds them of the nature of the bourgeois state and the seeds
  of fascism within it, Chile will not have been in vain.
  For us the lessons are now very clear. There is no longer any midway
  between fascism and socialism. Chilean workers have no illusions about
  recreating the bourgeois state which international capitalism and national
  fascism have destroyed. Such a proposal would be to betray them. Also two
  38
  
  left-wing strategies have now clearly failed in Latin America: the pluralist,
  reformist way adopted by the PU and equally the foco strategy based on the
  Cuban revolution. In recent years this has also failed to combine a
  revolutionary vanguard with a mass proletarian base – the essentials of any
  future way forward.
  We’re also realizing that with our commitment to this struggle our
  personal lives will have to be different. Our families, for instance, can’t be
  what they were. I have to learn to know my children as people who may die
  in this struggle, like anyone committed to it. We’re different people from
  the ones we were, yet still the same as other people whose solidarity we
  need – experiencing fear, depression, contradictions, as well as hope.
  Things we can overcome only by continuing the struggle every hour.
  
  3
  Building the Industrial Cordons: Maipú-Cerrillos
  Speaker: PABLO, 25, activist of the Socialist Party who lived and worked
  in Maipú-Cerrillos, Santiago, a pioneer industrial cordon
  Workers’ participation in factories: origins of the industrial cordon
  Maipú-Cerrillos is one of the biggest industrial zones in Santiago. Its
  population is over a quarter of a million and almost wholly working-class.
  The firms there range from affiliates of the multi-nationals to tiny
  workshops. Under the PU it was well known as one of the first and most
  advanced industrial cordons. I grew up and worked there, and was active in
  this process, as a trade unionist and member of the Socialist Party.
  The cordon emerged in part from the question of workers’
  participation. The PU programme provided for this, but only on a limited
  basis, and mainly in nationalized enterprises. The government intervenor
  would set up an Administrative Council, with his own nominees in a
  majority over the workers’ representatives. The government men were all
  technicians and this body made all the major decisions – over accounting
  and investment, production schedules, etc. The workers themselves had
  little influence.
  Pretty soon a reaction set in, with comrades on the shop floor saying:
  ‘It’s time we made the important decisions. The PU is a workers’
  government. We’re the ones who put them in power and argued for
  nationalization’. The problem was that the PU scheme was technocratic. It
  was far more concerned with production than with political questions. So
  the workers proposed a different scheme, in which they themselves would
  make the decisions.
  The first instance of this was in the PERLAK detergent factory. I was
  there when it happened. The workers felt that nothing had changed with its
  nationalization. So they called an assembly and simply dismissed the
  Administrative Council, or rather voted themselves the right to have an
  elective majority on it. What they said was: ‘Right, we’re the ones to decide
  
  39
  
  40
  
  what policies this factory follows. From now on we’ll deal with personnel.
  Full details of the balance sheet must be disclosed to all employees. We’re
  also going to deal with production planning and distribution. We want to
  know who buys our products, because we want to work for everyone, not
  just for the wealthy’.
  When this sort of workers’ control was established, a new political
  awareness developed. The technical problems weren’t neglected, but what
  carne first were political aspects of the workers’ participation. Activists like
  myself believed that as workers we should be our own bosses – that there
  must be a real change in the relationships of production. Factories should
  really belong to the workers – belong not in the bourgeois sense of being
  their private property, but in the revolutionary sense of belonging to a
  workers’ State in which the workers made decisions. Only this would
  counter the bourgeois offensive which was developing from the outset.
  In my experience this didn’t prejudice production, as the Communist
  Party argued. In fact concerns under workers’ control achieved the most
  success economically, as well as in a political sense. There was no conflict
  between the two. The workers worked and produced as before, the
  difference being that they now decided what they were going to produce,
  and also on its distribution. For instance, when meetings were held in work
  hours, the lost production was made up later with overtime or weekend
  work. The workers themselves enforced these rules, which meant a basic
  change of awareness.
  
  technician was fairly right-wing, but nevertheless this aroused this interest.
  He cooperated with the workers and left-wing dieticians to devise this low
  cost product. The National Health service had been trying to do the same
  thing for years and had failed. At Nestlé’s they succeeded in two or three
  months – precisely because the workers felt, and even convinced the
  technicians, that it gave their work a social meaning. They also saw it as a
  test of workers’ control and an answer to the propaganda against it. ‘We’ll
  show what we can do’, was the way they put it. And that’s how it carne
  about, in no time, a cheaper and far more nutritious product. Workers’
  control produced any number of technical innovations like this, with a
  fundamental social importance.
  Workers with these experiences supported the struggle in other
  factories for nationalization and workers control. They knew that the
  process could survive only if it advanced. It was this which made them the
  vanguard of the Maipú-Cerrillos cordon.
  Building the cordon
  The industrial cordon really reflected the workers’ growing
  recognition that only they could defend their interests and that this must
  lead eventually to a confrontation with the bourgeois State. For this they
  needed an organization which was independent of it. It was precisely as the
  bourgeois counter-offensive developed that the cordons carne into being,
  and were subsequently widened into the communal commands including
  local shantytowns and even nearby campesinos. Through the cordon the
  concrete details of the devolution of power began to be coordinated – food
  distribution, local transport, education and health measures and certain
  security provisions.
  
  You could see the same thing in the innovations which workers
  produced in these circumstances – in the local Nestlé’s plant, for example,
  which also carne under workers’ control, following its nationalization. This
  also showed how technical factors weren’t overridden by political debates,
  far from it. The Nestlé’s products were expensive, way beyond most
  workers’ pockets. The problem was how to socialize them while we were
  still in a market economy. We wouldn’t gain anything by lowering prices
  and bankrupting the factory. So what did we do? We maintained the prices
  of traditional products with mainly middle-class consumers, and decided to
  launch a cheaper product for mass consumption, to be subsidized from our
  existing profits. It’s here that the technical aspect comes in. The chief
  
  Each cordon was based on an important industrial area. It was in the
  first bosses’ strike of October 1972 that they became widespread and their
  revolutionary role apparent. Of course in this sense they weren’t part of the
  PU’s electoral programme, and not all the PU parties backed them. The
  parties really committed to them were the Socialist Party and the MIR, the
  MIR especially in shantytown areas. Also later on the MAPU. Other parties
  disagreed at least with this interpretation of the role of the cordons. The
  
  41
  
  42
  
  Communist Party participated in them only once it realized how much
  power they had, and as we saw it, to neutralize them – which some of the
  Party’s base opposed, producing a serious internal division. Its official line
  was that the cordons should simply support the PU, rather than becoming an
  alternative power (poder alternativo); whereas we argued that this
  depended on the PU’s serving working-class interests. And this to our
  minds wasn’t always the case.
  This was very much the cordons’ position, in that they confronted the
  bourgeois offensive while the PU tended to compromise with it. In these
  circumstances the workers felt that instead of simply depending on the
  parties, they should organize as a class vanguard. This is what the cordons
  reflected, and for this reason their main achievements were in cities where
  the working class was strongest – Santiago, Concepción, Valparaiso and
  Antofagasta. And eventually in smaller cities like Temuco and
  Constitución. The main ones in Santiago were Maipú-Cerrillos, Vicuna
  Mackenna, Estación Central, Barrancas and Santiago Centro. The first two
  depended almost entirely on leadership by factory workers. In Barrancas the
  shantytown dwellers also helped to show the way, as there weren’t many
  factories there. Generally, though, cordons and commands were mainly led
  by factory workers. We discussed this a lot – the likelihood of their losing
  sight of the main objectives without such leaders. That this didn’t happen,
  even in communal commands, was due I’m sure to their being
  acknowledged as the vanguard by all sectors.
  My own experience was mainly in the Cerrillos cordon. This began
  to emerge in early 1972 – together with Vicuna Mackenna, it was about the
  first in the country. The starting point was a joint demand for
  nationalization by workers’ leaders in several factories producing consumer
  durables kitchen stoves and freezers etc. The idea was that cooperation
  would help them to deal with legal problems and to defend their industries
  against right-wing retaliation. From there they went on to coordinate their
  production schedules, particularly as the boycott by the private sector
  mounted, causing problems with inputs and so on. They realized in the most
  practical sense that these required joint solutions and a corresponding
  organization. From the beginning, what was to become the cordon
  43
  
  developed in direct response to concrete needs, not to theoretical
  preconceptions divorced from what the workers wanted. And the first of
  these needs was the extension of nationalization.
  This is the sort of thing that happened. The comrades would come to
  us – the workers and party members active in this process – and tell us:
  ‘Look comrades, the boss in our firm is trying to cut back production and
  we’re heading for a crisis’. They realized clearly that this wasn’t just an
  incident, but – for the bosses and themselves – a crucial stage in the class
  struggle. So we’d tell them: ‘Comrades, this is what you have to do. First,
  present all the evidence. We can then help with the legal aspects of your
  demand for intervention by the Ministry of Labour. And failing that, we’ll
  mobilize’. It didn’t always work out easily. Sometimes intervention was
  refused because the government was soft-pedalling the Christian
  Democrats, or even because the owners had influence – there were many
  reasons why the government was often reluctant. In these cases we had to
  bring pressure to bear, whatever the short-term repercussions.
  Our strength always lay in taking joint action. The most important
  case of this kind was in July 1972. Five large firms, including Polyester
  Textiles, were occupied by their workers, who then demanded expropriation
  – of some because they were virtual monopolies, of others because they
  were cutting production. They’d already asked for intervention, but the
  government wouldn’t give firm answers. So the workers said: ‘Well, if they
  won’t take over the factory, we will – we can’t let things go on this way. If
  need be, we’ll take this whole area over’.
  This meant coordination on a scale no party activists had considered,
  but the workers themselves didn’t hesitate – and where trade-union officials
  wouldn’t support them, though this was rare, they over rode them. ‘We’ve
  come to a deadlock – whatever happens, we’re not stopping short. If it
  means a showdown with the police, we’re ready for it’. So they mobilized,
  occupied the factories, hoisting the flag up on the roof, and demanded
  government intervention. The government again said no, that they were
  crazy. So the chips were down. An official from the Ministry of Labour
  carne down to one of the factories and got into a confrontation with one of
  the leaders of the occupation – he was later murdered, during the coup.
  44
  
  ‘You can’t do this to the Popular Unity’, the official said. So the comrade
  replied: ‘It’s the bourgeoisie we’re attacking, not the Popular Unity. If you
  take their side, that’s your decision. Nationalize the factory, and we’ll deal
  with the bourgeoisie together, which is a very different matter’. But this
  didn’t work. The official just called him an ultra-leftist and a CIA agent.
  That got him mad. She, the official, had been a worker too. he said, but now
  she’ d joined the bourgeoisie. That was too much for her – she gave him a
  smack in the face and left. We got no further answer, so the whole area was
  taken over. Barricades were put up across the two roads leading into MaipúCerrillos, cutting it off from Santiago. The campesinos chopped down trees
  and the workers added petrol drums. We told the Minister that we’d give up
  the area only when he carne to sign intervention decrees in front of the
  workers. Soon afterwards he carne and signed them.
  This was the sort of concrete action from which the industrial cordon
  developed. The problem then arose – from about mid 1972 – of giving it
  some formal structure. At first the provisional leadership consisted mainly
  of local union officials, but few of them really involved their members in
  the issue of the cordon – they simply carne as union officials and treated it
  as union business. Neither in principle nor practice were they representative
  of the workers with respect to the actual cordon. Then again, not all the
  factories in the area were involved. Also of course there were certain parties
  which told their activists not to take part. All these were serious obstacles.
  Our answer was to try and relate the concrete tasks and political
  issues. We held discussions about how to democratize the cordon and
  through it avoid the differences within the left. Another goal was to include
  the shantytown dwellers and campesinos, but the question was, through
  what sort of structure? The most immediate problem was sustaining interest
  in the cordon. For instance, after participating in the campaigns for
  expropriation, many workers took no further part in activities at a cordon
  level. The groups of workers with such horizons, except at moments of
  obvious crisis, were fairly few. Perhaps the main reason was the party
  activists’ vagueness as to the cordons’ main objectives. In meetings they
  tended to produce the same old ideological wranglings which many of the
  workers detested. So they stopped coming. We’d ask them about it: ‘What
  45
  
  happened, comrade? You came to the meetings when the cordon was
  supporting your factory occupation, but now we don’t see you. What’s the
  problem?’ ‘Well, we did go to later meetings – remember, we carne to three
  or four? But no one talked about anything concrete, it was all fancy political
  stuff, and we prefer to be doing something. Frankly we’re not too interested
  in all that discussion between the parties’.
  The leadership did become more democratic, although it still
  consisted mainly of union officials as delegates, until we formed the
  communal command and all delegates became elective. This was only right
  at the end, though, in June 1973. Meanwhile the delegates’ assembly
  elected a president and vice-president, a comrade in charge of transport,
  another in charge of food distribution, health and education etc. These
  formed committees to deal with problems raised by the delegates’
  assembly.
  Support for the cordon depended on its achieving concrete advances.
  It wasn’t just a debating forum on soviets and the bourgeois State. We tried
  to deal with tangible problems of food supply and distribution, and cases of
  expropriation. On the strength of this we did go forward from our originally
  vague position to the point of even winning support outside the factories,
  from shantytown dwellers and campesinos. This meant that we were
  developing from the original industrial cordon into the communal
  command.
  From cordon to communal command: factory workers form the vanguard
  One central feature of this was the campesinos’ participation. MaipúCerrillos was somewhat unique for Santiago in including agricultural units.
  In industrial zones like Vicuna Mackenna there weren’t any, though some
  in Concepción did have them. It was this which gave us a starting point for
  forming the communal command, with its wider basis.
  In fact, the workers on these units weren’t campesinos in the usual
  sense of people with dose ties to the land – they were pure wage-workers.
  Also they lived within the community, not on the agricultural units, to
  which they simply went to work. This made them relatively aware. From
  the start they witnessed and supported the factory workers’ struggles. They
  46
  
  were unionized and had long since pressed successfully for the
  implementation of the original land reform, on properties over eighty
  hectares. Most of those in the area were smaller than this, though, but
  highly productive – market gardens of between forty and eighty hectares,
  selling their products in Santiago. One belonged to the son of Pedro
  Vuskovic, the Minister of Economics. Others were divided among different
  members of single families – a means of dodging expropriation under the
  agrarian reform law. The workers on these medium-sized, but equally
  valuable, units considered it wrong that they were exempted simply because
  they didn’t cover eighty hectares. So the campesino council, with delegates
  from each farm unit, demanded immediate expropriation of holdings over
  forty hectares.
  This was early in 1973. The campesino council had already
  supported the cordon in the occupations I described, and now they asked the
  cordon for its backing. We agreed, as their position seemed correct – they
  weren’t asking for sub-division of the land, but for the more collective
  CERAs. The units over forty hectares were occupied immediately, with the
  help of workers from the cordon. Most were from the factories which had
  previously been expropriated with support from the campesinos. From this
  point on, in early 1973, there was virtually a permanent alliance between
  the two sectors – the basis of a communal command.
  In these months events moved rapidly, as we were between the two
  bosses’ strikes, which meant new tasks to undertake and a widening
  awareness of them. Our first step was a new leadership structure for the
  communal command, distinct from that of the cordon, which was now
  superseded. Delegates were now directly elected from each factory and
  farm unit, to form the assembly of the command. This then reelected the
  president and the various committees on transport and so on. The assembly
  met regularly to discuss the committees’ operations and had the right to
  revoke appointments. It also now included delegates from neighbourhood
  associations and JAPs (people’s supply control committees). In this way the
  shantytowns and local consumers were directly represented. This structure
  was in operation by June 1973, the time of the second bosses’ strike.
  47
  
  Another important novelty was the participation of women, which
  was almost unknown before the PU. They’d played an important part in the
  JAPs and now the health committee was organized mainly by women. They
  were also active in education and propaganda, though problems like
  security remained very much the domain of men – such changes carne
  slowly.
  Certainly the communal command was never a self sufficient unit, as
  the coup was to show – though with the pace of change, a few more months
  would have made a difference. The cordon’s original limitations were past
  history by this time, but the work of many of the committees was only
  beginning, especially security. As the bourgeois offensive mounted, we
  were dealing with problems on a day-to-day basis, without the time to find
  radical long-term solutions.
  The key committees were those of supply and distribution, transport
  and health. Others also got well under way, especially the education
  committee. This set up libraries with books from the state publishing house,
  which was issuing low-cost editions of the political classics etc. This
  supplemented the new awareness which experience was creating. Even in
  those tense circumstances people read these books very widely. We also
  had talks and discussion groups at a popular level, with participation
  increasing steadily. In the health committee there were plans for creating
  multi-purpose c1inics to serve the workers in the area and to be
  permanently staffed by doctors. Previously people had to go outside the
  area for medical treatment. The first clinic was built with voluntary labour
  by the health committee, and left-wing doctors began to work there – a
  gesture for which many of them were tortured and murdered after the coup.
  Food distribution was a major problem when shopkeepers started
  joining they boycotts, so a people’s market place was set up. This was quite
  a struggle. An unused area was chosen, belonging to the municipality, but
  as we had a right-wing mayor, he refused to let us use it. So together the
  campesinos, factory workers and neighbourhood associations occupied it,
  producing pamphlets explaining their action. The campesinos then carne
  there and distributed their products through the JAPs and people’s stores
  (almacenes populares). It wasn’t just PU followers who bought their food
  48
  
  there, but members of the petty bourgeoisie who couldn’t afford blackmarket prices. This had an important impact. It showed that we could
  control distribution and also that the shortage was not the PU’s fault but the
  private sector’s. When the mayor tried to dose the market, the whole
  community resisted. Right up to the coup this dispute went on but the
  market continued, thanks to the wide support we had.
  This process produced a new generation of local activists. These
  were much more political than the older, trades-union leaders with their
  mainly economic concerns for better wages and living conditions. Most
  factories produced these new leaders, who seemed able to grasp the
  situation and pull the communal command together. One I knew well had
  little formal education, just a few years of primary school, and he wasn’t
  really an activist when his factory was expropriated. Once it carne under
  workers’ control, though, he started taking a leading part and became a
  delegate to the assembly. All this was in a space of months. The same thing
  happened in countless factories and neighbourhoods, at a speed unique to a
  pre-revolutionary period.
  The testing point of the command was the bosses’ strike, the second
  one in July 1973, when most lorry-owners stopped work and private
  factories and stores closed down. This soon caused a shortage of raw
  materials, which threatened to halt production completely. So we pooled the
  trucks of all the factories in the command and coordinated our use of them.
  This was improvised, but we were strong enough to take over some
  municipal trucks and requisition private ones. Convoys then went to bring
  the food from the farm units. Most of the life of the area was run by the
  communal command at this stage. Factories also now sold direct to the
  consumers, and we set up special points for this – the main square of Maipú
  was one and another was the people’s market. This went well beyond the
  role of the official peoples’ stores, which lacked the versatility to deal with
  this situation. The trucks were simply loaded and driven to the distribution
  point, a ramp was set up, and the products were sold. The command’s main
  distribution committee coordinated the local ones to deal with the details –
  each sector’s requirements, the pricing and actual selling etc.
  49
  
  The assembly made the main decisions concerning the work of the
  committees. By now it was meeting almost daily, with over a hundred
  people present. Originally party activists had dominated its discussions, but
  this was changing rapidly. The great majority of those who came, including
  campesinos and women, were taking part and making suggestions almost
  without any hesitation. By now we had a genuinely integrated structure, and
  its impact was widening rapidly to the mass of the local population, as it
  proved able to solve their problems. I wouldn’t say that even by this time
  the communal command was wholly established in people’s minds or in
  place of previous institutions – after all, we’re talking about a few months –
  but it was on its way towards this.
  Meanwhile, as activists we were living with a day-to-day intensity
  which meant that most of us hardly slept. We had our committees in our
  places of work, party meetings, the assemblies – we hardly ever saw our
  families, sleeping away from home if at all. Yet at the same time we were
  all aware of the special nature of this moment. The parties all knew that a
  showdown was coming. But despite this knowledge, we had few resources
  for it. The ideological differences within the left were still too great to allow
  for coordinated action. It was only after the June tancazo that we started to
  mount a defensive plan for the full-scale coup which was clearly coming.
  The coup: resistance and conclusions
  All the parties involved in the command participated in this plan, but
  even so it was rudimentary. Time was short and the military were naturally
  suspicious of Maipú-Cerrillos. Four days before the coup. twenty truckloads
  of soldiers armed with machine-guns and mortars, moved into Cerrillos and
  set up campo The arms searches grew more violent, but we imagined that
  their immediate objective was to demobilize the command – so our efforts
  went into providing for this, instead of preparing for the coup. When it
  carne, we were virtually helpless. Maipú-Cerrillos was in the flight path of
  the jets bombing the Moneda. People were weeping, screaming at them, but
  what could they do?
  Nevertheless there was widespread resistance, reflecting the structure
  of the command as the new vanguard of the area. Though many leading
  50
  
  comrades had been captured during the previous night, it was the factories
  like PERLAK which put up the fiercest fight, some of them for four or five
  days. To understand what this represented, you must remember that we had
  only light firearms and home-made weapons against helicopters, which
  flew overhead and machine-gunned us from several sides. That was during
  the first two days. On the third they began using mortars and shells, and a
  number of factories were badly damaged. Their tactic was to strike
  violently, regardless of the casualties. The coup had to be rapid or mass
  resistance would have spread. The cordons and commands were especially
  feared, so they suffered the bloodiest repression. About three-quarters of
  my comrades in the Maipú-Cerrillos command were captured and many of
  them were later murdered. A few escaped, but very few, while some like
  myself went underground before the military caught us.
  I don’t want to give a false impression of the impact of the coup,
  though – in many factories political work is still going on, despite the
  repression. Comrades less openly compromised have stayed on and set up
  underground unions. Although the parties were so hard hit, there have
  already been several strikes in Maipú-Cerrillos. In these conditions they’re
  dramatic proof of the organization and awareness achieved by the dose of
  those three years.
  
  urgent thought, at the tactical and strategic levels. I suggest this less as a
  criticism of any particular left-wing party than as a problem for all of us.
  We must redefine the struggle for power from our own experience.
  This is not to deny the continuing validity of basic Marxist-Leninist
  tenets. It is precisely in terms of these that we can redefine the problems.
  But perhaps the most important lesson which we experienced in Chile is the
  scope for widening people’s awareness and giving it new, concrete forms.
  The cordons and commands were to my mind the PU’s most significant
  feature. Through these, people were developing an answer to the power of
  the bourgeois State, an answer which could have meant victory if it had
  been more widely agreed on. This comes back to the negative aspects, but
  the price for these has been paid. The lesson is there for all to see.
  Recriminations offer nothing. Instead we should look at these positive
  aspects like the cordons and commands as a basis for new confidence and
  new ways of building socialism.
  
  What the left must do, not just in Chile, is to learn from these
  experiences, from their positive and negative aspects. To my mind the first
  lesson is the impossibility in practice of the peaceful way to socialism. If
  this is learnt, our defeat will not have been in vain. In countries like Chile,
  winning more or less votes is no longer the key to the achievement of
  socialism – it simply means more or less repression. The left has been
  idealistic about this. While mass consciousness is obviously central, the
  sheer technology of revolution is something we must consider more
  carefully. Without this the greater the mobilization, the more we are putting
  our heads in the noose. Our view of the bourgeoisie is outdated: it takes
  little account of its modem resources. Perhaps in Lenin’s time there was
  some real ground to be gained within the bourgeois state apparatus. Today
  its counter-revolutionary techniques present a different situation. In Chile
  this meant the deaths of thousands of our comrades – we have to give this
  51
  
  52
  
  PART II – THE COUNTRYSIDE
  Background
  Every third Chilean works on the land. Traditionally this has been
  dominated by large landowners (latifundistas). Their properties were
  characterized by servile labour relations, low productivity and poor
  conservation. Most campesinos were either landless or smallholders
  (minifundistas), without enough land to support a family: this obliged them
  to work for the large estates. A well-known study in the 1960s found the
  following: 80 per cent of the land was concentrated into 7 per cent of all
  holdings, with many of the largest estates belonging to members of the
  same families; 70 per cent of all rural families earned less than $100 per
  year. The great majority suffered from malnutrition, illiteracy, inadequate
  housing and under-employment. Most campesinos knew little of the world
  beyond the local estate.
  This situation obstructed economic growth. It restricted the market
  for manufactures and the countryside’s capacity for meeting the cities’ food
  requirements. It was also a source of mounting protest, backed by the
  Communist and Socialist parties, through the campesino confederation
  ‘Ranquil’, established in the 1930s. Hence in the sixties agrarian change
  became central to the bourgeois reforms which the Christian Democrats
  proposed, supported by the Alliance for Progress.
  The policy of the Frei government was to foster rural capitalism by
  gradually expropriating the bigger, underproductive estates and
  encouraging commercial, medium sized farms. Market pressures were
  tacitly expected to convert the smallholders into the rural proletariat which
  this policy also required. One large state agency (CORA, the Agrarian
  Reform Corporation) was responsible for the expropriations. Another
  (INDAP, the Agrarian Development Institute) dealt with socio-economic
  issues. All properties of over eighty ‘basic’ hectares (two hundred acres,
  measured in terms of productivity) would be expropriated. Owners would
  receive compensation and retain a medium sized section. The rest would be
  53
  
  transferred to the resident workers (inquilinos), initially as a cooperative
  (asentamiento). Later they could opt to divide it into private holdings.
  Meanwhile rural unions were officially recognized for the first time. These
  measures had different implications for the various categories of
  campesinos. They offered little to the great majority – the smallholders and
  temporary workers (afuerinos). Their political aim was to build a Christian
  Democratic base among the former resident workers, as the main
  beneficiaries of both land reform and unionization.
  The Christian Democrats only partly fulfilled this programme. A
  hundred thousand families were due to receive expropriated land, but only
  twenty thousand did so. Unionization was limited mainly to regions
  controlled by the Christian Democrats’ main campesino confederation, the
  Triunfo Campesino. Food production increased very little. By 1970 rural
  strikes were increasingly frequent and politically motivated. The
  campesinos also began to occupy properties whose expropriation was
  overdue. This sometimes ended in violent repression. As Pepe (ch. 5)
  describes it, all this convinced sectors of the left, particularly the MIR and
  MAPU, of the need to organize campesinos to press from below for greater
  changes.
  The PU undertook to complete the land redistribution programme
  and to consider extending it to holdings of forty to eighty hectares.
  Campesino councils (consejos) would be established at the local and
  provincial levels for mass consultation over the programme. It was also
  eventually agreed that instead of cooperatives, the PU would introduce
  Agrarian Reform Centres (CERAs). These would be larger and better
  planned, combining a number of former properties. Also they would be
  more collective. All participants would have equal rights, including women,
  former smallholders and temporary workers. The bulk of profits would be
  reinvested, not divided.
  The first proposal presented few problems. Expropriation of holdings
  over eighty hectares went even more rapidly than planned, due partly to the
  continuation of protest strikes and occupations. Within six months the PU
  redistributed more land than the Christian Democrats had in six years. By
  mid 1972 this part of the programme was completed. Remarkably, this was
  54
  
  achieved without a fall in food production, despite sabotage by the
  departing landowners.
  This raised the question of further developments in the PU’s
  programme and also of its political purpose. Opinions within the PU
  differed on two central issues: whether to move rapidly toward socializing
  agriculture, and how much power to devolve to campesino organizations.
  As the right retrenched in the countryside, these issues became bound up
  with the problem of how the PU should confront it.
  This debate was virtually the same as that on the industrial sector.
  The Communist Party, leading Socialists and the MOC were concerned
  above all with the battle for agricultural production, and the danger of
  driving the medium landowners into non-cooperation. A limited programme
  should be followed. The enemy should be clearly defined as the ‘semifeudal’ big estate-holders, in order to retain the neutrality of the rural
  ‘middle sectors’. This meant that the campesino councils should be subject
  to the central control of the PU leadership and the CUT, mainly through the
  rural unions. The socialization of agriculture was not crucial or feasible at
  this juncture, and should therefore be left till later.
  
  ‘gradualist’, whilst the notion of ‘campesino power’ was more influential in
  INDAP. Both of them also convey the extent to which these positions were
  forged by events as well as theories – events which split the MOC from the
  MAPU, to which it originally belonged. For Enrique (MOC), who worked
  for CORA in the Central Valley, the campesino councils were secondary
  and the socialization of agriculture was at this stage a premature question.
  For Pepe, however, both have been central since his pre-1970 experiences
  with the Mapuche in southern Chile. Campesino power relates to the
  question of popular power generally, in the form of links between the
  councils and workers in the industrial cordons. The campesinos are vital to
  the resulting communal commands, and these are a crucial part of the
  answer to mobilization by the right – though others would argue that they
  aggravated and were unable to contain it.
  There are, of course, some pragmatic grounds for each of these two
  speakers’ positions, deriving from their respective contexts. In the last analysis,
  however, they rest on the different strategies between which they were obliged
  to choose, for the achievement of socialism and the campesinos’ role in this.
  
  However, sections of the Socialist Party, the MAPU and the Christian
  Left Party emphasized mass mobilization, the transfer of power to the
  councils, the collective organization of CERAs and the need to lower
  expropriation to a forty-hectare minimum, despite congressional opposition.
  In their view gradualism was more dangerous. It would alienate those
  campesinos demanding much more radical changes and fail to convince the
  less defined sectors, smallholders particularly, of anything but the PU’s
  weakness. This would incline them to the right. The petty bourgeois
  tendency fostered by Christian Democrat reforms must be decisively
  confronted. The MIR was in broad agreement with this, and especially
  emphasized occupations by the poorest campesinos, such as the Mapuche
  Indians.
  The outcome varied from province to province, depending on the
  local balance of power between the various PU parties within CORA and
  INDAP. As the speakers in this section indicate, CORA tended to be
  55
  
  56
  
  4
  The Campesinos and Popular Unity: agrarian reform in the
  Central Valley
  Speaker: ENRIQUE, 28, a lawyer and activist of the MOC, who worked in
  CORA, the Agrarian Reform Corporation, dealing with land
  expropriations in the Central Valley
  Agrarian Reform: the PU develops a programme
  During the PU, I worked for CORA in an area of the Central Valley –
  I’ll refer to it as San Fernando. The Valley is Chile’s most fertile region and
  traditionally one of large estates. Its market towns like San Fernando are
  completely controlled by the big landowners. In my three years there I
  experienced changes typical of those occurring in much of the Chilean
  countryside. Politically I belonged to a generation disillusioned by the
  Christian Democrats’ failure. This led us to found the MAPU, and later the
  MOC, to which I belong.
  I was involved in the transfer of land to the campesinos. This meant
  talking to them about the legal and technical details, as the PU laid great
  stress on maintaining democratic procedures. The central question, though,
  was how the land would eventually be worked – collectively, as private
  holdings, or on a mixed basis. Our usual recommendation was a mixed
  system for three to five years, then a final decision.
  This process was naturally conditioned by what had happened in the
  last few years. Under Frei the campesinos acquired the right to
  unionization. Though superficially progressive, this was shrewdly
  implemented. The bourgeoisie and its Christian Democrat politicans wanted
  an economistic, sectional campesino movement, not an independent,
  political one. So they created and controlled two campesino confederations,
  Triunfo Campesino and Libertad. This weakened the older, more radical
  Ranquil confederation led by the Socialist and Communist Parties.
  
  this weakened the left’s appeal to the campesinos, but not for long, as the
  Frei regime became less successful and more repressive. When
  expropriations fell behind schedule, the campesinos began occupying the
  big estates – but the government hit back by exempting these from
  expropriation. Also the programme was politically selective. The reforms
  were concentrated in areas controlled by the Christian Democrat
  confederations.
  All this brought a rapid growth in campesino organization. The PU’s
  rural vote in 1970 was bigger than we had expected, but still much less than
  the Christian Democrats’. Only after Allende’s victory was there a dramatic
  reaction – an avalanche of land occupations, reflecting the last few years’
  frustration. In effect the campesinos were saying: ‘One betrayal is enough,
  take note’. This was warranted – but for the PU the occupations were a
  problem. They were spontaneous and indiscriminate, occurring here, there
  and everywhere, on properties of quite different sizes. Even reformed
  asentamientos were occupied by landless workers. All this posed an
  obvious threat to the medium-sized rural bourgeoisie – the twenty-toeighty-hectare-farmers whom the PU hoped to win over, or at least to
  neutralize. The occupations had to be checked, as the PU depended on legal
  procedures. One mustn’t forget that in 1970 our victory was unexpected and
  fragile – its best defence, as Allende observed, was to stick to the rules. If
  only for this reason, we had to try to operate within a strictly legal
  framework.
  On the whole we succeeded, by speeding up the expropriation of
  properties over eighty hectares. This brought home to the campesinos that
  the PU was their ally – and that some restraint was needed. The immediate
  pressure was relieved, except in rather special cases such as the Mapuche
  Indians, whose occupations were inspired by generations of collective
  memories of how the land had been taken from them. Apart from this things
  settled down. Even the industrial bourgeoisie was reasonably sympathetic
  to doing away with the big estates, as they obstructed capitalist -growth.
  
  Frei’s reforms threw the left off balance, as it had pressed for them
  for years, only to see them introduced by a bourgeois government. At first
  
  The turning point came in the following year. The PU’s programme –
  the elimination of ‘large estates’ (latifundios) – was ill-defined. Formally, it
  meant those over eighty hectares, but others envisaged going beyond this –
  
  57
  
  58
  
  a move which would threaten the modem agrarian bourgeoisie, not just the
  bigger, traditional holdings. This vagueness was typical of the PU. Probably
  it was the only means of achieving any consensus among the various PU
  parties. This was feasible at first, but once the first stage was implemented,
  positions had to be more precise. This brought the differences to the
  surface.
  Moreover, as soon as the medium landowners carne under pressure,
  the opposition coalesced. This class began to look for allies among the
  smaller landowners and also in the judiciary. This openly opposed the PU.
  It obstructed expropriations with rulings devoid of legal basis – for instance
  with ‘measures for the defence of material interests’ (medidas prejudiciales
  precautorias). These enabled rural magistrates to restrain even CORA from
  taking possession of properties due for expropriation.
  In short, there was rapid polarization not only between the right and
  left, but also within the left itself on how to confront it.
  The implementation of the programme: San Fernando
  The debate on the left involved two quite different strategic
  conceptions of the PU’s agrarian programme. One saw it as a holding
  operation, with the campesinos being won over by continuing land
  redistribution – though this would now be more effective and democratic
  than in the past. The other proposed more decisive moves to socialise
  agriculture, both in principle and as a means of providing for all the
  campesinos, including the poorest categories like migrant workers and
  smallholders. This divergence of views between a cautious and a radical
  approach was fundamental.
  The PU’s explicit programme was closer to the first position, but it
  still involved substantial changes. The Christian Democrat style of reform
  was blatantly paternalistic, as well as openly committed to expanding rural
  capitalism. Under Allende the campesinos began to participate in the
  programme. We were instructed to consult them on virtually every decision.
  This was unprecedented. Previously, for example, CORA even bought farm
  machinery for cooperatives without consultation. The campesinos just
  weren’t involved in expropriations. No one asked their opinion about which
  59
  
  properties should come first, and how best to set about it. The whole
  operation was bureaucratic, which is why it was ineffective.
  Under the PU all this changed. The original schedule was to
  expropriate all holdings over eighty hectares within three years. But with
  pressure from the campesinos – to which the PU responded – this was later
  reduced to two years. Officials in each zone began by consulting the local
  campesinos. Meetings were called which often lasted for up to three days.
  These were attended by delegates of campesino organizations and even by
  non-unionized workers. Discussion was intensive. The campesinos would
  propose an expropriation programme for properties in the area. This was
  then discussed in the light of technical and political considerations: the soil
  conditions, for example, the sizes of the properties and the number of
  expropriations – as each region had an annual quota.
  Political questions arose immediately. For instance, many
  campesinos worked in wretched conditions on medium-sized holdings, yet
  the PU was anxious not to encroach on these at this stage. This made little
  sense to the campesinos surely, what mattered was their conditions? In
  answer we’d explain the alliances that we were trying to develop, and the
  legal constraints within which we were working. The atmosphere was
  deeply emotional – the campesinos were beginning to feel for the very first
  time that their world was in their own hands. When they realized that this
  time the land was really to be expropriated, they could hardly find ways to
  express their joy. This was even more marked at expropriation ceremonies,
  as these were attended by ministers and CORA officials who came right to
  San Fernando to formally transfer land titles. These usually took place in
  the local stadium. It would be packed with campesinos determined to
  witness a ceremony which signified such a change in their lives. They were
  unforgettable fiestas! You could sense that these people suddenly felt that
  society now recognized them as equals, as human beings who could make
  decisions. After the landlords’ feudal sway, which had made them feel
  inferior to city-dwellers in every way, all this was a complete awakening.
  For us it was profoundly moving.
  The land-reform unit we proposed was the CERA (agrarian reform
  centre). This was much more collective than the earlier cooperatives, which
  60
  
  simply combined individual holdings. Also CERAs were run by all their
  participants, unlike the cooperatives, where hired workers had no rights in
  decision making. In CERAs there were no such workers, merely members
  of equal status, including women -though this found very little acceptance.
  One part of the CERA was designated as pasture, another for cultivation.
  The economic arrangements varied, but the basic pattern which we
  encouraged in San Fernando was as follows. Most of the land was worked
  collectively and the profits divided equally, apart from a margin of 15 per
  cent. This was put aside for reinvestment and social expenditures such as
  health and education.
  The opposition story was that this was simply a state farm. The
  campesinos would ask us questions like: ‘Is it true that on a CERA we’ll be
  woken up at five o’clock by a man from the government blowing a bugle and
  ordering us all to work?’ In fact the CERAs were midway between state farms
  and cooperatives. In any case they were provisional. Nevertheless the right’s
  propaganda was sometimes successful, so that some campesinos did opt for the
  old, cooperative pattern. Some virtual state farms were established, known as
  production centres (centros de producción), but only in special circumstances.
  For instance when infrastructural investment in the property was high, or when
  it involved a strategic product. One in which I was involved produced certified
  rice seed for the whole San Fernando area – this made it especially important.
  Although this too involved campesino participation, it was run by a
  government official, with the last say in administrative matters. It belonged to
  the State, as did the profits, while the workers had a salary, a good one. But in
  fact these production centres were rare.
  The CERAs naturally reflected the ambiguities of our programme, as
  an approach towards socialism within a still bourgeois society. In the main
  one I dealt with, two groups developed. One was more politically aware and
  all for collective organization. The other was more individualistic. At first
  they agreed to make no distinctions with respect to rights and profits. This
  produced very good results. Productivity increased enormously. But soon
  their collective spirit weakened. One group started saying that they worked
  harder than the others, that they were more skilled, that it was unjust that
  they should own nothing privately and so on. For instance: ‘I work harder
  61
  
  than you, yet we both get the same, it’s unfair’. Or: ‘You were drunk on
  Sunday, you didn’t come to work the next day, but I wasn’t drunk, so I
  carne to work – but we’re still going to get the same, we have to divide
  things equally. That’s not right to my way of thinking’.
  Also with the better wages and purchasing power in the cities,
  demand went up and profits too, especially as the black market developed.
  This made them hanker after individualistic arrangements. This too was a
  product of our transitional situation – of our still having a market economy.
  So although both groups on this CERA remained PU supporters, the
  division between them grew deeper and deeper. Finally they divided the
  CERA. One part was still worked collectively and the other on a more
  private basis. To the end, these two groups remained in conflict. Similar
  divisions occurred elsewhere. My personal conclusion was that
  collectivization at this stage was utopian, in all but exceptional cases.
  Campesino awareness: its limitations
  What campesinos did develop was a new political awareness in the
  sense of an unshakable solidarity with the PU. For most of them ‘socialism’
  meant simply Allende and the PU, but the class feeling in this was strong: it
  was they, the campesinos, together with the urban workers, who now had
  control of Chile’s destiny. And they were determined that yesterday’s
  bosses should never be allowed to regain it.
  What grew was their sense of exploitation, rather than of socialism as
  a well-defined answer to it. For instance, I was once settling the details of
  expropriation with a landowner, when one of his campesinos appeared and
  overheard what we were discussing. It happened to be his reserve (reserva),
  the section of his property which a landowner was allowed to retain –
  always a contentious issue, as the landowner tried to get the best land and
  the campesinos to give him the worst. This itself showed how far they had
  come from their traditional subservience. On this occasion it really carne
  out, as the campesino intervened: ‘All this time you’ve been starving us,
  and you still have the face to argue about keeping the best land for
  yourself’. And so he went on, berating him. But although they knew about
  exploitation, their notion of socialism was vaguer – or rather, it was much
  62
  
  the same. ‘Socialism means we’ll be our own bosses, that we workers will
  have our rights and that exploitation will be ended’. This was how they’d
  talk about it.
  Nevertheless, their determination put the PU under pressure, and
  even forced us to alter decisions. With the magistrates opposing reforms,
  the campesinos became aware of the judiciary’s class nature, and that of
  other public bodies, including CORA. They sensed that this was the root of
  the PU’s limitations. This soon produced new types of protest. Not only
  were occupations renewed when magistrates delayed expropriations. Huge
  sympathy strikes began as well, by campesinos throughout the area, over
  this and over wages and working conditions on properties where they were
  worst. This solidarity was quite new. For campesinos to support others not
  personally known to them was a real change, and it became increasingly
  common.
  I’ll give you an example of how this solidarity developed – the origin
  of the CERA I mentioned, the one which eventually divided. It also
  illustrates the exploitation which lay behind it. A campesino carne to my
  office and asked that the property on which he worked should be considered
  for expropriation. This was an almost daily event, so I told him I’d look into
  it and give him an answer the following week.
  But two days later he was back. We talked once more, and this time
  he asked me to visit his home. It was as if he couldn’t rest until he knew
  that he’d convinced me. He was an interesting character. He’d been
  illiterate, but taught himself to read and write, and there was nothing he
  didn’t know about the agrarian reform.
  Well, I accepted his invitation to visit the property. As we went there,
  he told me various stories about it. One was a vivid illustration of the world
  against which they were now revolting. Ten years before the owner had
  forbidden the campesinos recognized the full depth of the issues. Their
  awareness was also limited by the uncertainties of the programme – as to
  whether it meant socialism, or just interim reforms. Once expropriation had
  removed the ‘enemy’, the old landowner, there was no clear way forward
  for them. I personally doubt if there could have been. What most of them
  63
  
  still longed for at heart was their own patch of land which they could work
  independently, and the security it offered. They’d sometimes say: ‘We’re
  against private property’, but this wasn’t borne out in practice. The
  landowners had encouraged this by allowing them small patches of land
  where they could grow things for themselves. This pattern was usually
  maintained in the reformed units, even the CERAs. They insisted on it, and
  fair enough, but the trouble was that it didn’t stop there. They’d start with
  half an hectare per family, and CORA would agree to this, but within
  months this would start to creep up to a whole hectare, then two hectares.
  Neglect of the collective sector often led to heavy losses, while the
  campesinos individually might be making spectacular profits, usually
  through the black market.
  A lot of resources were spent on ideological education, but in fact
  only concrete changes affected the campesinos’ outlooks. Courses were
  combined with technical aid, on the assumption that socialism must be seen
  to give results. We emphasized that a collective system would raise their
  returns, not just their ideological standards.
  Up to this point they could be sympathetic. The problems began with
  the question of how to divide the profits. This brings me back to the
  historical, transitional nature of that moment – one in which I just don’t
  think that this problem could have been solved successfully. Expecting
  campesinos to share their profits was asking the impossible, while
  capitalism was still the rule. Their situation is quite different from that of a
  factory, which workers don’t see as divisible into separate interests or set
  apart from the wider society – they have contacts in it and feel that they
  belong to a class, not just to a productive unit. Not so the campesinos. We’d
  spend weeks discussing collective work. We’d put it like this. ‘How much
  will this land produce if one of you plants lettuces here, and another plants
  lentils over there? Compared to the yield if you all plant and work it
  together?’ They were sometimes convinced, but it rarely lasted.
  The nearest we got to socialist patterns was with the system of
  discipline which developed in some CERAs. Often it was more rigid than
  under the old landlord, as the campesinos now saw it as a question of
  common interest. In some cases drunkenness, even on Sunday – almost a
  64
  
  campesino tradition – was regarded as possible grounds for expulsion, as it
  meant that the drinker might be unfit for work on Monday. One campesino
  told me that on his CERA this got to the point where they weren’t allowed
  to celebrate or even drink in their own homes without asking the
  directorate’s leave. Instead they’d arranged to have two big fiestas each
  year, during which there’d be no work and no restrictions. Systems like this
  were rare, though campesinos remained suspicious of any authority, even
  their own, which tried to impose them.
  The confrontation: the campesinos in the last months of the PU
  For all their doubts on socialism, the campesinos reacted strongly to
  the right’s increasing mobilization against the PU. Like every confrontation,
  it brought things out into the open. In the first bosses’ strike, for instance, in
  October 1972, one good lady in San Fernando, an ex-landowner, drove
  round inciting the campesinos to strike. As they knew who she was, her
  actions couldn’t have served us better – it produced the opposite of what
  she had expected.
  The campesinos took a firm stand. ‘It’s obvious enough. The people
  to keep this country going are the ones who work. The idle rich won’t stop
  it – if anyone does, it’s going to be us. Otherwise it keeps working. If they
  want to stop it, we’ll show them it doesn’t depend on them, but on the
  workers and campesinos’. They meant this. They took over all fuel
  distribution in the countryside, for example, and transport to and from the
  city – on tractors, with goods piled high on the trailers. When this cut into
  their normal work, they added extra shifts at night. There’d never been so
  much petrol in the countryside as in that October, when the lorry-owners
  were trying to stop it and all the right was backing them. It enriched the
  campesinos’ awareness of their own strength like nothing before it. You’d
  see them everywhere, with their wives and children, loading the trailers
  with essential goods for distribution. It was almost a holiday atmosphere,
  full of gaiety and banter, as well as new self-confidence. The second strike
  was similar – whatever its economic effects, it was another vital lesson for
  the people’s political awareness.
  65
  
  This is looking ahead, though. After the first bosses’ strike the fascist
  tendency of the right – the military, politicans, businessmen and the lorryowners – was becoming more apparent. Campesino leaders got together to
  renew and extend the distribution measures which they’d developed in
  October. They now established rural distribution centres (centros de
  abastecimiento rural), warehouses at central points to which campesinos
  brought their products and sold them at official prices. They implemented
  these centres themselves, and they were popular and successful. Despite the
  right-wing propaganda and threats and sabotage against them, they kept
  food items available at official prices.
  This new-found strength was centred on the campesino councils
  (consejos). These combined all the campesino organizations in the area, as
  well as non-organized campesinos: rural wage-labourers, sharecroppers,
  smallholders from the reformed sector and so on. Their role was seen in
  different ways by the different forces within the left. The PU leadership saw
  the councils as spokesmen for government policy – as a means of
  participation, yes, but within the dominant strategy of gradualism and nonprovocation. Others within the PU regarded them as the seeds of what they
  described as popular power in the countryside – a necessary antidote to a
  government compromised, in their view, by working within a bourgeois
  context. They argued that the PU should devolve a proportion of its powers
  to these councils created by the base. The reply was that the highest
  expression of popular power was the PU itself, as a workers’ government,
  whatever the limitations imposed on it by the bourgeois State. Independent
  initiatives by ‘popular power’ organizations – or, in effect, the parties
  behind them – were a dangerous parallelism. At worst a betrayal of the PU.
  This was one of the issues that split the MAPU and led to the MOC,
  which I myself joined. Broadly speaking, I was convinced by the PU
  leadership’s position, in terms of my own experience. In San Fernando the
  issue was something of a stalemate. The campesino council just didn’t
  function as an organ of ‘popular power’ in the sense of taking independent,
  effective decisions. Partly because it was given no such power, but also
  because of its composition. In the countryside generally, few campesinos
  are wage-earners. There was thus no means for this one truly revolutionary
  66
  
  sector to be the vanguard of the council. It was dominated by smallholders,
  including the cooperative sector – a group with decreasing sympathy for a
  revolutionary process. To my mind devolution to it could therefore even
  have strengthened the right. In any case our local council didn’t urge it.
  
  finally he had to leave. With his tail between his legs, as the campesinos put
  it. This incident made quite an impact – rumours travel fast in the
  countryside, and this candidate ended up with hardly a single vote from the
  area.
  
  Nevertheless the campesinos were being increasingly radicalized.
  This was obvious in the mid-term congressional elections in March 1973.
  As elsewhere these usually go against the government parties, but this time
  the whole working class, campesinos included, was on the offensive not
  against the PU, but against those sabotaging its efforts. There was inflation,
  food shortages – the ideal preconditions for a government defeat. Yet by
  now, people understood that these were not the government’s fault, but that
  of the right and the bourgeoisie. With three years’ experience the
  campesinos could now see through right-wing propaganda. For instance
  they’d seen that all the tales about state farms were idiotic. This sort of
  thing had undermined the right’s traditional credibility. If anything, their
  propaganda now had a negative effect. The campesinos noted carefully the
  opposition’s stated aim of winning the two-thirds control of Congress
  needed to impeach Allende. ‘They want to throw comrade Allende out, we
  won’t let them do it’. This simple argument was a real mobilizer. ‘They
  want to throw Allende out because of the expropriations. They won’t,
  because we’re going to defend him’.
  
  The PU’s rural vote was a marked improvement on 1970, despite the
  problems we were facing. But this, if anything, reinforced the determination
  of the right. Its boycott of agricultural production had been highly
  organized from the outset. While the reforms were criticized for causing
  shortages, the real reasons for them were quite different. As soon as
  Allende came to power, the ranchers started removing their cattle over the
  border to Argentina: stocks were soon halved. When landlords knew that
  they were due for expropriation, they immediately stopped planting and
  removed the machinery etc. The campesinos’ answer was resolute. Often, to
  maintain production, they’d go and plant with their bare hands. Otherwise
  production for the whole season would be lost. Up to 1972 this sabotage by
  landlords did produce very serious problems, but subsequently the balance
  was turning. Production schedules went up steeply in San Femando. Take
  wheat, for example. By August 1973 we had already exceeded output for
  the whole of the previous year, and we still had a second crop to come. All
  this fell into the hands of the junta.
  
  Traditionally the campesinos had always voted as their landlord
  ordered. ‘So-and-so’s the one,’ he’d say. The campesino simply had no
  other source of information, like activists or union leaders – the landlord
  forbade them to enter his property. All this had been changing since 1970,
  mainly in the PU’s favour – the Christian Democrats’ hold declined as the
  campesinos recognized their increasingly right-wing position, in alliance
  with the National Party. This even came to the point of their driving out
  campesino spokesmen for the Christian Democrats, and telling them never
  to come back. They rightly saw them as allies of their former landlords, and
  this was something they couldn’t forgive them. In one case a right-wing
  senator was visiting a former landlord, who summoned the local
  campesinos to hear him. But as soon as he started to speak – and this was
  unimaginable a few years back – the campesinos shouted him down, so that
  67
  
  What we underestimated was the right’s adaptability. The National
  Agricultural Society, once the preserve of the biggest landowners, became
  an increasingly militant organ of all the agricultural employers. It mobilized
  increasingly widely, especially at local levels. In San Femando,
  immediately after the 1973 elections, small landowners’ associations began
  to develop. These were directed by the former bigger owners, some of
  whom still had their reserve. The other members had anything down to a
  few hectares. It was on this basis that fascism began to develop in the
  countryside, inspired by the big bourgeoisie, but using the fears which they
  aroused among smaller owners.
  At first this movement was less violent than in many other areas. But
  as agitation, it was efficient. Once when I was using the phone at a property
  being expropriated, I saw on the table the owner’s instructions for
  mobilizing the smaller owners for actions against the campesinos – a
  68
  
  system of communications and meeting points for their cars and tractors. As
  time went on they turned their attention to the cooperatives, even. Inflation,
  the profits of the black market, the shortage of inputs, all the factors
  resulting from producers’ boycotts, contributed to this alliance. But we
  could do very little about it. Its basic strength lay outside the country, in the
  cities and at the national – and international – political level.
  The terror and the coup in San Fernando
  The March elections convinced the right that their chances of
  retaining power by legal means were now past history. Their first response
  was the tancazo, the armoured regiment’s rebellion. Like the stoppage
  earlier, this produced some positive results for the left. As always it was
  events, not theories, which raised popular awareness. The campesinos stood
  unhesitatingly by the PU. As soon as we heard of the rebellion all rural
  properties were occupied, in accordance with the CUT’s instructions. These
  provided for a general strike and occupation of factories and land in the
  event of a military coup. It was one mass occupation. The campesinos were
  ready to defend Allende with their lives. The whole thing was over by
  midday, but from that moment on campesino leaders were increasingly
  aware of the crisis. Whenever Allende or other PU leaders mentioned the
  need to maintain production, the response was immediate. They starting
  working incredible hours including night shifts. They held back on demands
  for price increases and stepped up direct distribution, independent of private
  retailers.
  This was their mood when the final stoppage of the lorry-owners,
  retailers and professionals began in July and August. The right responded with
  the terror campaign which turned out as a prelude to the coup. When the
  campesinos went out with their tractors, they were stoned by organized fascist
  bands. By now the military and police were just standing by and watching all
  this, and most campesinos were unarmed. They kept trying to get produce
  through to the towns, but soon they were having to turn back daily.
  In San Femando the terror mounted. Enormous explosions shook the
  town almost every night. A few minutes later the local right-wing radio
  station would announce the result. ‘The bomb that just went off was in the
  69
  
  house of so-and-so, municipal councillor, member of such-and-such a
  party’ – invariably one of the PU parties. Five minutes later another
  explosion, and a similar radio announcement. It was clearly a run-up to the
  coup, a systematic intimidation of PU supporters. It created an atmosphere
  of total terror. No one slept. PU supporters patrolled the streets but to little
  avail. My house was bombed twice. The second time the louts who’d
  thrown the bomb were detained, but soon afterwards they released them.
  They didn’t even take their names. We put the children to sleep elsewhere
  and sealed all the windows and doors – those last few weeks were a time of
  sheer terror. The fascists’ plan was working perfectly. When the coup
  finally came, most people were so intimidated that mass resistance was out
  of the question, despite the CUT’s long-standing instructions.
  By mid-morning on 11 September, the military had taken over all
  communications in the area. There was no contact with the government, and
  the radio began blaring the military’s fascist propaganda. They threatened
  to shoot every single resistor, armed or unarmed. To my knowledge there
  was only one case of armed resistance in the area, but it was a massacre –
  campesinos resisting with .22s against machine guns. No one survived.
  Many people did stay in their places of work, offering the passive resistance
  agreed on. The military went round systematically ordering everyone to
  leave, then executed those who refused. They included many campesinos
  whom I had come to know in the area.
  I was arrested two days later. My interrogation was a farce, because
  the idiots questioning me hardly understood their own questions. They beat
  me about a lot, demanding a confession that I was a Marxist, and asking me
  where ‘the weapons’ were. They used all the standard tricks. Once two of
  them were interrogating me with another comrade, for instance, and one
  took him out and I heard a shot, and the other who’d stayed with me said:
  ‘He’s dead, you’d better talk fast’. And so it went on. I was there for ten
  days before I got out, by means which I can’t now disclose. There were
  nearly three hundred of us in a room about ten by twenty metres. We were
  literally piled on top of one another. I got off lightly. Other comrades were
  tortured daily. Some had their arms broken, others their teeth. Some
  disappeared. Several went out of their minds, mainly those who were
  70
  
  submitted to simulated executions. They were blindfolded, put up against
  the wall and given the last sacraments, then blank rounds were shot. Some
  of them, even after it was over, were convinced that they were dead.
  Imagining everything was some dream. Most of us were tortured with
  electric shocks. One comrade was stripped and hung by his feet from the
  ceiling and strangled so violently that his throat was reduced to a pulp. It
  was like a nightmare underworld, Dantesque. In the evening they’d let us
  out for a while, then we’d go back in to try to sleep, piled on top of one
  another. To wear us down, they kept loudspeakers blaring all night with
  military marches and propaganda.
  One thing we noticed was that few key activists were there. This kept
  people’s spirits up – it suggested that the party structure was intact. Most of
  the prisoners were from the base – campesinos and workers. The sense of
  solidarity was as deep, perhaps deeper than before. Sometimes, in the
  evenings, when people’s spirits often went down, some of the comrades
  would put on charades, to see us through. The little food we got was shared.
  When I first arrived, at two in the morning, two or three campesinos offered
  to share their ponchos with me, as the guards hadn’t given us blankets.
  Even after I got out it was hard to come by information. But I did
  find out that the military had summoned surviving campesino leaders and
  told them that there would be no changes: that the junta wasn’t against them
  and the expropriations would stand. Soon afterwards, though, properties
  were handed back to their former owners. In spite of the terror, the news
  spread like wildfire. Some of the better-off campesinos were seduced by the
  promise of firm land titles, but very soon they were having to sell them, and
  realizing that they were returning to the old system of land concentration.
  Meantime those who did speak out began disappearing. The repression was
  getting more systematic.
  But so too was the determination of most campesinos, even then. One
  shouldn’t underestimate the military, at least their powers of repression. But
  at the same time it would be a mistake to forget the half a century behind
  the workers’ movement in Chile, as well as what happened in those three
  years. Whatever they do, they can’t be repressed.
  71
  
  5
  The Campesinos and Popular Power: building the revolutionary
  alliance
  Speaker: PEPE, 31, MAPU activist who worked for INDAP, the Agrarian
  Development Institute, in southern Chile and later in the central
  provinces of Aconcagua and Valparaiso
  Experiences in southern Chile: the Christian Democrat reforms and the
  case for a revolutionary programme
  In 1965 I started working as an agronomist in southern Chile, in the
  province of Cautin, for INDAP – the agency dealing with technical aspects
  of the agrarian reforms of Frei. The local campesinos were some of the
  poorest in the country. Many are Mapuches, indigenous Indians, the only
  ones who resisted the Spaniards right into the nineteenth century. Once they
  were finally defeated, they were confined to reservations (reducciones).
  These were too small to support the number of people on them, and usually
  comprised the worst land. The best of it went to the big landowners, and
  these were forever cheating the Indians out of what little land they still had.
  Typically they’d lend them money, then demand their land as repayment.
  Or they’d get them drunk and persuade them to sell it. Instead of protecting
  Mapuche interests, the Institute of Indian Affairs (Instituto de Asuntos
  Indígenas) was controlled by the right and legalized these transfers of land,
  which were known as running the fences forward’ (corridas de cerco).
  Often they were just that – boundary markers would be moved, and their
  new positions legally sanctioned.
  In this way the Mapuches were pushed to the margins of Chilean
  society. Better-off families had maybe one hectare, some even less than a
  quarter of a hectare. This they supplemented by working on the big estates
  for miserable wages, the lowest in Chile. They were always on the hunger
  line and hardly felt themselves to be Chilean. Many of them detested
  ‘Spaniards’, as they still called non-Mapuches. The feeling was mutual.
  Other Chileans regarded them as drunkards and thieves, and they
  sometimes did have to steal to avoid starvation. They had no effective rights
  72
  
  as workers. Their employment was temporary, and a working day was from
  dawn till dusk, often fourteen hours. Minimum wage laws were ignored and
  their housing and health conditions were terrible. They had no bargaining
  power. If the farms had been smaller and closer together, they might have
  been able to organize, but conditions made this difficult – the distances,
  working hours, the hunger.
  The Christian Democrat reforms made little difference in Cautin.
  Many properties were just under the eighty-hectare limit, and the owners of
  the bigger ones divided them among their children, to avoid expropriation.
  Overall the reforms were token, often opportunist. For instance, take the
  law for the unionization of rural workers – it actually weakened them. Not
  only was it difficult for them even to form a branch – which had to have a
  hundred members – but the Christian Democrats founded two
  confederations, so that those who were unionized could never put their
  weight together. In a typical zone you’d find one branch belonging to
  Triunfo Campesino, another to Libertad – both Christian Democratcontrolled – and a third belonging to the left’s Ranquil. Probably there’d
  also be a smallholders’ association (Associación de Pequeños Agricultores),
  say four in all. They couldn’t possibly face up to the big landowners’
  association, the National Agricultural Society (Sociedad Nacional de
  Agricultura), controlled by the right-wing National Party.
  Even INDAP’s technical assistance was paternalistic and ineffective.
  It consisted mainly of credits, which smallholders often couldn’t pay back –
  it seemed little more than a buying-off process, to keep them from absolute
  hunger and protest. This made many of us younger members of INDAP
  deeply frustrated. We’d gone into this field with some ideals, though many
  of us, including myself, had no political commitments. These experiences
  produced them. Many of us joined the MAPU, looking to its partly urban
  base to help build the worker-campesino alliance. Only this, we felt, would
  provide reforms to genuinely affect the Mapuches and others like them.
  I was responsible for eighteen campesino committees, or provisional
  union branches, some consisting of Mapuches, others outside the Mapuche
  areas. Each had sixty to eighty members, the purpose being to give them
  technical help and credit. It was difficult work. Their every involvement
  73
  
  with Chilean society had meant increased exploitation: first we had to
  convince them that we weren’t there to steal their land, as experience led
  them to expect. Their first instinct was to avoid us, or ask us to leave the
  reservations. At first this really upset me.
  I later learnt to go slowly. I’d go round the reservation with them,
  where they were going, not where I wanted to, or I’d work with them, at
  their manual work, without at first trying to make any changes. Eventually
  they’d take me to their homes. Sometimes I’d stay there, and they’d get to
  know and trust me. Only then I’d suggest a meeting of all the members of
  the reservation, or of all the local campesinos. I’d put it to them that our
  technical assistance wasn’t enough, that they’d have to struggle for more
  basic changes. For the restoration of their land. For better terms of
  employment. For a local school – many Mapuche children had no means of
  getting to one. For the prompt reform of the big estates, so that future
  changes could be based on local planning, not just piecemeal.
  The campesinos already knew that these were the important issues,
  but now they saw that some of us were recognizing them – and this offered
  new possibilities. They began to form campesino councils of all the
  committees and union branches in an area, to develop joint programmes –
  the expropriation of particular estates, the building of a road and so on. The
  councils launched land occupations to force expropriations through before
  the landowners subdivided. This already foreshadowed the PU situation,
  when it was equally true that real changes depended on pressure from
  below, from campesino councils etc. Of course, these councils and their
  proposals were beyond INDAP’s official programme, and much more
  revolutionary. Meanwhile INDAP was recruiting new staff through the
  usual Christian Democrat channels; but most of these were young and
  rapidly came to share our position, because it arose from results, not theory.
  Like I said, I and many others still had no party affiliation, though I felt
  myself to belong to the left. When the councils were formed and the land
  occupations began, we were immediately accused of being ‘Communists
  and subversives’. All sorts of pressures were put on us, but they only
  brought us closer together and forced us to define our position.
  74
  
  Of course this was happening elsewhere in Chile – I’m talking now
  of 1968-9, the dose of the Christian Democrat period. One national result
  was the formation of the MAPU, which most of the younger staff of
  INDAP immediately joined in Cautin. This provoked a sharp reaction from
  our Christian Democrat superiors. They harassed us in every way,
  transferring us from one region to another, to try and force our resignations.
  So INDAP struck, or rather most of its junior staff did. We occupied its
  offices throughout Chile. In Cautin we even held a joint meeting of all the
  councils in the province. This was in Lautaro, in May 1970. The
  campesinos supported us fully, and helped us to occupy the offices. Of
  course they were active in other provinces, but nowhere else were they so
  organized. Later there was an inquiry, and I was charged with being
  responsible.
  The next day they transferred me to San Felipe, in Aconcagua, a
  thousand kilometres from Lautaro, way up in the Central Valley. They gave
  me four days to get there. Other comrades were also transferred. We
  consulted with the campesinos – many of their leaders were now members
  of MAPU. They offered to fight to keep us there, by reoccupying the
  INDAP offices. The government could hardly overreact with the elections
  in the air. But we decided that mass pressures should all be turned towards
  the campaign – the important thing was that the campesinos had discovered
  their strength. Individuals were less important, and the same work had to be
  done elsewhere.
  So in May 1970 I arrived in Aconcagua. I brought with me the lesson
  I’d learned in Cautin – that the only means of changing the campesinos’
  lives was a revolutionary programme, and that this meant strength and
  pressure from below, through the campesinos’ own organizations.
  Aconcagua: the campesinos and the elections
  Aconcagua’s very different. It’s a wealthy agricultural zone of
  medium as well as poor smallholders, alongside the usual big estates. It was
  a Christian Democrat stronghold. Of the thirty-three functionaries in
  INDAP, all but one were Christian Democrats. They also controlled the
  rural unions, apart from a couple belonging to Ranquil, the left-wing
  75
  
  confederation. On most estates there was no union or provisional workers’
  committee – the old order was unchanged and there was no way of
  penetrating them. The smallholders also had some associations, but among
  these, too, the left was weak. The MAPU was virtually nonexistent.
  Luckily, though, my closest colleague was also disillusioned with the
  Christian Democrat reforms. We became dose friends and fairly soon he
  joined the MAPU. I was dealing with the technical and he with the social
  organization. By the time of the election campaign we’d already put the
  MAPU’s position across, and some campesino leaders were with us.
  Though this was a wealthy area, its social conditions were as bad as
  Cautin’s. The agrarian reform had made little impact. Wages were
  wretched. The campesinos houses, as everywhere in the Central Valley,
  were made of adobe one-room houses, sometimes divided by a curtain, with
  a lean-to kitchen. In heavy rain they often collapsed.
  Our work began in Catemu, a smallholders’ zone still dominated by
  large estates. The smallholders wanted to form a committee to channel
  technical assistance. We went there from INDAP to supervise elections to
  it. In the discussions three smallholders insisted that real changes in the area
  depended first and foremost on expropriating the estates. As the reforms
  were going so slowly, they concluded that this would depend on themselves
  and not on public functionaries. These three and two other young people
  were elected as officers of the committee. They proved vital to all our work
  in the area.
  Very soon they were members of the MAPU, and helping us in the
  campaign for Allende. They set out to convince the other smallholders and
  workers on the neighbouring estates that there had to be effective changes.
  This work was clandestine – if it had been open, we’d have been banned
  from the estates. These three comrades would contact friends on an estate,
  and we’d meet in one of their houses at night. We went on foot, as a vehicle
  would have attracted attention. Three or four campesinos would be waiting
  and often we’d talk through the night. We’d discuss how to press for basic
  changes if the PU were elected, and how the Christian Democrats had
  obstructed them by dividing the unions. The Catemu comrades did most of
  76
  
  the talking. They’d put it quite simply to the others: how could they expect
  changes from Christian Democrat politicians, when these were often
  landlords or their relatives, or lawyers?
  Without these three we’d have got nowhere. They made all the
  contacts. As public functionaries we weren’t allowed to be politically
  active, though of course the Christian Democrats were – but they were in
  power. But the situation was also difficult for the three comrades – many a
  campesino had been bought with Christian Democrat favours. They had to
  tread as carefully as we did. As the weeks went by, we developed PU cells
  on most estates. We never held public meetings – these cells would
  continue on their own, each person talking to those he knew well.
  The PU’s base grew rapidly from these beginnings in Catemu. It also
  spread to the tiny mines in the sierra, with only a few workers each. Many
  of them came from estates, so this was another good source of contacts.
  They also helped us penetrate the asentamientos. Often these were harder
  ground than even the unreformed estates. The Christian Democrats, after
  all, had made them miniature landowners. An asentamiento of a hundred
  people might have only two or three left sympathizers. These comrades
  from the mines had courage, as the Christian Democrats had organized a
  real Mafia in these strongholds. If they discovered left activists on an
  asentamiento, they’d give them a hiding. Campesinos don’t mess about in
  these matters – no talk, just blows. Our advantage was the sharp decline of
  the Christian Democrats nationally. Even Christian Democrat campesinos
  preferred Allende to the National Party’s Alessandri.
  Nevertheless, the PU made few gains in Aconcagua. This was true of
  most of the countryside, with the Christian Democrats’ hold on it. These
  comrades’ help did win new votes though. More important, we laid the
  basis for what followed, with the PU in power.
  
  others did come over to us. Of course this made it much easier to launch the
  PU’s measures.
  The first was one on which all sectors of the left agreed; to increase
  unionization among the workers on estates, including those below eighty
  hectares which were exempt from expropriation. The MAPU’s later
  position went beyond this; to combine all types of rural workers into
  campesino councils, and over this there was disagreement, particularly with
  the Communist Party. However, we were all agreed on this prior need for
  unionization and for completing the expropriation of properties over eighty
  hectares. In the MAPU’s view this would have to be backed with land
  occupations if necessary – if the landowners opposed it, or if CORA
  hesitated, as the Christian Democrats still controlled it. So during this first
  year our target was the large estate.
  The Christian Democrats’ recognition of rural unions was only
  weakly implemented. In Aconcagua in 1970, less than a third of rural
  workers were unionized. This was INDAP’s first priority. The Christian
  Democrat Confederation, Triunfo Campesino, was strongest in the area and
  so we urged its leaders to help us. We’d call meetings in non-unionized
  areas to persuade the campesinos to form one. Once a hundred wanted to
  join, elections were held for the positions in the union, which was then
  legally recognized.
  We spent days with them, mapping out a programme. INDAP’s
  resources were put at their disposal, and we went round the farms and
  estates together. The first step was to form a workers’ committee on each
  unit. On the big estates this committee would then demand expropriation;
  on smaller ones it would organize to improve the wages and working
  conditions.
  
  Like any government the PU felt that only its supporters would
  implement its programme fully. Within a short while I was head of INDAP
  in Aconcagua. Although most of its staff were still Christian Democrats,
  
  The landowners were all against unionization; they had no legal right
  to obstruct it but they invariably did so. Their powers of intimidation were
  enormous. Whatever the law, the only authority known to the average
  campesino was the landlord (patrón). So we still had to count on discreet
  persuasion. The campesinos’ first thought was usually the landlord’s
  reaction to unionization. In most cases it was quite clear; any worker who
  
  77
  
  78
  
  Launching and defining the struggle: unionization and class alliance
  
  joined a union was out – out of a job, out of his house, and off his plot of
  land on the farm, where he’d probably lived all his life, hardly knowing
  even the nearest town.
  I remember a typical incident in this campaign for unionization. I
  arrived at a farm of some sixty hectares with representatives from the
  Triunfo Campesino. The owner met us at the gate. The foreman and some
  workers were with him. They were armed and had two mastiffs on a leash.
  The neighbouring farmer must have sent word that we were coming. The
  owner didn’t even open the gate. ‘I know who you are. You’re the agitators
  who are driving the owners off their land. Get out, or I’ll set the dogs on
  you’. So I showed him my INDAP papers and explained that we’d come
  about unionization, an official government measure. This had nothing to do
  with expropriation, we explained. So he turned to the workers. ‘Do you
  need a union? Do you have any problems?’ ‘No, sir’. ‘Tell the Communists
  you don’t need a union’. ‘We don’t need a union’. So I explained that he
  had no right to forbid us to enter. He could attend the meeting but if he went
  on threatening us, he was putting himself above the law and I couldn’t
  answer for the consequences. Reluctantly he let us in, and heard us talk to
  the dozen or so workers. As usual we explained to them what unionization
  was about – their rights on wages, housing, working conditions etc. We told
  them a branch was being formed at a meeting that night, outside the farm.
  We asked them if they had any questions or problems which they wanted
  discussed, but they said no – the landlord was still there. We made it clear
  that if he prevented them from attending, the union could take legal action.
  About half of them came, the young people mostly. I talked to them,
  but they said very little. They were nervous and kept to themselves. Then,
  as the hall filled up, they began to mix with the others and talk. In the end
  there were over a hundred campesinos, so we were able to form the union,
  including them as members. Afterwards we talked again, about the
  committee they’d have to form, to negotiate with their landlord. Their
  manner had changed. Seeing a hundred of their comrades from other farms,
  some known to them, had given them confidence already. They told me
  what the landlord had always said about unionization – if they meddled in
  it, they’d be out, and he’d ensure that they’d never get work on any other
  79
  
  farm in the province. And now they admitted that they’d always had
  problems – wages way below the minimum, bad housing, long hours,
  threats from the foremen. They went back and formed the committee,
  eventually all the workers joined, and conditions improved dramatically.
  Results like these were our best propaganda. Within two years 80 per
  cent of rural workers in Aconcagua were unionized, but farm by farm,
  struggle by struggle. Right to the end we had little impact on the more
  isolated farms, where the workers remained in the landlord’s grip. For the
  others, though, it was broken. He was now obliged to negotiate with union
  officials, in front of the workers and with witnesses to every agreement. As
  the unions got stronger, the owners had to agree to the legal norms – or they
  faced a strike with support from other union members, or even an
  occupation of the farm. The servility of the past almost vanished.
  Typically, the owners who resisted weren’t the wealthiest – they
  were often those with some sixty hectares, and perhaps a dozen workers.
  Although they weren’t due for expropriation, the bigger landowners
  dominated them. Their National Agricultural Society convinced these
  medium-sized owners that they would be expropriated and encouraged
  them to boycott production. And they believed them, although they were
  actually benefiting from the increased demand for food and better technical
  assistance. These fears were self-fulfilling. We in the MAPU were
  convinced that this would always be their position, that as the new rural
  bourgeoisie, they would boycott the PU, come what may. So we did feel
  that this sector would have to be expropriated for the reforms to be
  successful.
  This raises the whole question of strategies for the rural sector among
  the PU parties. As I said, all of them were agreed on the need for further
  unionization – as were some Christian Democrats. But this was only the
  beginning. It raised the question of unionization for what end, apart from
  improving working conditions? We insisted that unionization should be the
  keystone of socialist goals: that unions should oppose the landowners’
  boycotts, with occupations if necessary, they should press for a new law to
  expropriate all properties above forty, not just eighty hectares; that these
  should form large CERAs, as a means of effective planning; that this whole
  80
  
  programme should come from initiatives from below, from the campesino
  councils. In terms of a class alliance we wanted to combine the full strength
  of the exploited – the workers, landless and smallest owners – against even
  the middle bourgeoisie, whom the Communists wanted to conciliate. We
  believed that such conciliation would prejudice any effective planning, not
  just the prospect of socialism.
  Towards a revolutionary strategy: land occupations, the CERAs and the
  rise of the campesino councils
  The work of unionization brought these questions to the fore. The
  only left-wing confederation of rural unions was Ranquil, controlled by the
  Communist and Socialist parties. They urged the unions to align with the
  CUT and with their conciliation of the medium-size owners who, as we saw
  it, would never accept their overtures anyway. These meant, for example,
  that the unions shouldn’t challenge landowners’ boycotts on production;
  that occupations should be discouraged, and less emphasis placed on
  CERAs and genuine participation by the campesino councils. Whereas we
  argued that conciliatory unionism was a gift for the Christian Democrats –
  as their policy was also reformist, new unions still joined their
  confederations. This seemed inevitable, unless we offered more drastic
  changes through campesino participation. So we did our best to put this
  across in our dealings with unionization.
  This too meant hours of talking to campesino leaders. Our eventual
  plan was to found a new confederation to press for a revolutionary
  programme. We didn’t present this to campesinos in terms of the need for
  socialism for its own sake. We tried to show them that only these policies
  would bring practical results. For instance, if there were just conciliatory,
  sectional unions, instead of campesino councils – uniting smallholders,
  sharecroppers (medieros), wage-earners, asentamientos and CERAs – how
  could they press for their common interests? For a new school, say. For a
  road, or for the expropriation of a landowner diverting their water. For all of
  them real changes depended on collective pressure. We’d put it to them that
  the first step in this direction was a new confederation.
  81
  
  Once again we were supported by the comrades at Catemu. They
  took the initiative in proposing a local campesino council. Their leaders
  needed no persuasion, but they also had a practical case: they’d realized that
  only these policies would bring improvements – in their case a school and
  effective irrigation system. We always stressed this point in meetings,
  which these comrades continued arranging. Often the most important were
  with perhaps three or four union leaders. Generally they’d been elected not
  on a political basis, but because they were known and trusted by the other
  campesinos. To make headway with them, we had now to win their trust.
  The Catemu comrades helped us in this. They made the concrete issues
  central and the leaders went back and raised them in their unions.
  By mid 1971 our case for the ‘new agrarian reform’ was winning
  over many of them, though formally they still belonged to the Triunfo
  Campesino. The same was happening in other provinces where the MAPU
  was strong. In 1971 the Triunfo held its congress at Chiloé in southern
  Chile, and our supporters spoke out together. They demanded expropriation
  of all holdings over forty hectares, and increased powers for the campesino
  councils. We’d known that these measures would never get through – the
  Christian Democrats opposed any further expropriations – but a third of the
  delegates walked out and formed a new confederation: Worker- Campesino
  Unity (Confederación Unidad Obrero-Campesino). Local federations were
  formed in each province, mostly under MAPU leadership. Ranquil’s leaders
  reserved their judgement. They welcomed the Christian Democrats’
  setback, but were also aware of the implications for policies within the left.
  We were now better able to raise our demands. The first was for the
  rapid completion of the programme for the expropriation of properties over
  eighty hectares. We differed from the MIR on this question. Their
  occupations, often of smaller properties, were too spontaneous and isolated.
  Since the land reform existed, the first requirement was to advance within
  the existing legal framework. This meant occupations, but only to pressure
  the state apparatus into a more effective approach over holdings due for
  expropriation. We wanted to prevent landowners from evading reform by
  sub-dividing and intimidating their workers; to ensure that neighbouring
  82
  
  holdings were expropriated jointly and converted into productive CERAs.
  Otherwise there could be little coordinated planning.
  Our provincial federation was called ‘Liberty and Progress’. It first
  planned its demands for expropriations. These would be backed with
  occupations if necessary – as proved the case, since the CORA bureaucracy
  still resisted popular pressure. The Catemu smallholders and unions
  launched the first of these occupations, under the federation’s direction.
  The properties were selected on the basis of size and working
  conditions. We also stressed that their joint expropriation would facilitate
  local planning. The landowners had already reacted to this prospect by
  beating their workers and getting them gaoled on trumped-up charges. So
  one morning they woke up to find their properties occupied. The
  campesinos had closed all access, set up several Chilean flags and
  demanded official intervention. This meant that CORA and INDAP
  officials had to go and mediate between the owners and the campesinos. I
  was there in my official capacity, when one of the landowners arrived. The
  campesinos forbade him to enter. For perhaps the first time ever, one of
  them stood up and spoke before he did. ‘You can’t come in. We’re
  occupying the property because you’ve been boycotting production and
  refusing us our rights. Now we’ll work it for ourselves. We’re demanding
  its expropriation. We won’t be discussing it with you, except through the
  land-reform authorities’.
  
  workers on this farm have always been loyal, and you’ve stirred them up,
  I’ll kill you’. He was on the point of firing when three of his workers
  grabbed the revolver and threw him down. Now it was their turn to talk.
  “You’ve had this coming to you, thinking you could exploit us for
  ever. You thought we were stupid, but we’re not. If we seem so, that’s your
  doing’. Then they handed him over to the police, as he was threatening to
  kill them now. This was nothing unique – campesino leaders and left-wing
  officials were constantly threatened by the landowners, and after the coup,
  of course, many were murdered.
  Well, all these properties were rapidly expropriated, without the
  owners being able to sub-divide or run them down first. We went on to
  further occupations, all planned in the same way, some twelve altogether.
  These widened support for the federation and its programme. The
  Communist Party and Ranquil opposed them, because occupations were
  “illegal’, but this only made our position clearer, as the results were
  indisputable.
  
  This really threw the landlord off balance. The most he’d ever been
  used to hear from a campesino was ‘good morning sir’, and here they were
  telling him to get lost. Although they abused their workers, landlords
  regarded them as children, and expected them to reciprocate with
  subservience and complete dependence. And suddenly, this. The landlord
  went purple, looked round and saw me and the others from INDAP. He
  must have thought that if he could deal with us, everything would return to
  normal. He went straight to his car and came running back with a revolver
  he was a cousin of Pinochet, imagine the fury of someone like that being
  turned off his land by his own campesinos. He made no secret of his
  intentions, waving the revolver at us, shouting his head off. ‘They’re the
  ones, those agitators, they’re the ones who’ve caused this trouble. The
  
  The main one was that the CERAs were a success in Aconcagua.
  Following expropriation the union leaders and INDAP officials got down to
  planning how to work the various farms together – the number of workers
  to be involved, which crops to grow, credits, marketing, electing a
  directorate etc. Unlike the asentamientos, CERAs abolished the boundaries
  of former holdings, and hence the various distinctions and privileges
  deriving from them. Above all they had no employees in the capitalist
  sense. A typical asentamiento would have, say, twenty members, with
  exclusive control of decisions and profits, and another twenty wage
  labourers, with no such rights – former temporary workers (afuerinos) full
  members’ sons and so on. CERAs involved all these former categories on a
  strictly equal basis. Also, women had full voting rights, while they had none
  in asentamientos. The other aspect was economic. In our view the need to
  maintain production would be better served by this larger scale, collective
  system, and indeed it was. The CERAs were obliged to invest their profits
  and sell their products at official, not black-market prices. They brought
  equal benefits to all their members, to their region and to the economy
  generally.
  
  83
  
  84
  
  Aconcagua wasn’t typical, though. While CERAs were part of the
  PU’s official programme, they were token where expropriations were
  bureaucratic and isolated. This prevented planning and made CERAs weak
  because their members had not been involved in collective action. As on the
  asentamientos, they produced inefficiently and sold their products on the
  black market, exclusively in their own interests. This happened especially
  in provinces where official support for them was lacking – those dominated
  by the Communist Party and its MAPU sympathizers, who subsequently
  formed the MOC. Their few CERAs drifted away from collective
  production, even sub-dividing the land, and made little investment. They
  also had discipline problems, with drink and absenteeism etc., because they
  lacked a collective ethos.
  Also in these areas, and for the same political reasons, the campesino
  councils were weaker, and brought no pressure on the CERAs to operate in
  everyone’s interests. The councils were also officially recognized as
  consultative bodies combining all the exploited sectors. Again, though, they
  were only effective where the reforms had been pushed from below by all
  these sectors. In other areas, they had only union delegates and existed
  almost only on paper. They were instruments of the bureaucracy, rather
  than a source of mass pressure for genuinely socialist measures.
  In Aconcagua it was the unions belonging to our federation which
  were most active in the councils. These were organized in the following
  way, to maximize participation. Each council was based on a zone, with
  delegates from each type of unit – CERAs, asentamientos, unions and
  smallholders’ associations – and local delegates, all elected. They met each
  month to discuss local problems, dealt with meanwhile by sub-committees:
  production, marketing, planning, credits and defence were the main ones.
  They also had a political commission. Delegates would report back to
  assemblies within their area or organization. Hence all these cooperated
  over matters of common interest, particularly local planning – schools,
  roads and water supplies and so on. The production front, for example,
  would seek advice on the best source of seeds and arrange to get them.
  They also exchanged ideas – for instance, the Catemu comrades took up a
  85
  
  suggestion for processing citrus, instead of selling their fruit at low prices to
  profiteering middlemen.
  Catemu was typical of how the councils originated from practical
  issues which took on a political meaning. The smallholders there had
  several problems which might have swung them against the PU, if it failed
  to offer any solutions. First, they had no local school – they got one through
  the council. They also had irrigation problems, because bigger landowners
  up the valley diverted the water. This too was solved, though not without a
  confrontation – but this strengthened commitment to the council. As in
  Cautin before 1970, they realized that unity was their one strength. You’d
  often hear campesinos say; ‘There’s so many of us, yet we’re so weak –
  why?’ They realized that the answer was their traditional fragmentation,
  and so we overcame it. The council united the different sectors, especially
  smallholders and wage-earners, which had never before combined against
  the same exploitative system.
  Apart from Catemu, the wage-earners’ unions were usually the
  vanguard on these issues. For instance, the irrigation problem was solved
  mainly by pressure from workers on the farms concerned, when the issue
  had been raised in the council. At first the big owners resisted, but the
  unions forced them to give way. This militancy aroused disagreement over
  the councils among the various political parties. The Communists argued
  that they were a form of parallelism – that they were competing with the
  government and the CUT. Our view was that they were strengthening the
  PU with popular pressure: that they would align it with popular interests,
  instead of reform and bureaucratism.
  As the political crisis deepened, this offered a means of defending the
  government through a popular power structure, in which provincial councils
  – combining those of different zones – would link up with the industrial
  cordons. In Aconcagua a provincial council was formed by mid-1972. This
  combined nine local ones, with a membership of some five or six thousand.
  All of them were already prepared to defend the PU if necessary. To our
  mind the Communist Party’s opposition to such popular organizations
  indicated its divorce from the base and its failure to grasp the problems of
  power.
  86
  
  In 1972 I left Aconcagua for Valparaiso, though I continued working
  in both. My transfer was a party decision. In Valparaiso province
  campesino organization was weak: its delegates to the Chiloé congress
  hadn’t joined our confederation. Its CORA and INDAP offices were
  dominated by the Communist Party. A couple of councils did exist, but only
  on paper. They consisted merely of some union and asentamiento delegates,
  who never consulted with their base. They rarely met, and did little more
  than sanction bureaucratic decisions. There’d been no attempt to build an
  alliance including the sharecroppers and small-holders. This left them
  exposed to the propaganda of the right, which local officials were
  conciliating. Even unionization was still very low, because workers hadn’t
  been mobilized properly. There had been few land occupations, and the
  whole province had only two CERAs.
  This meant that smallholders, for example, were completely isolated.
  When I arrived, there had just been an earthquake. Many campesinos’
  houses had collapsed and they were living in appalling conditions. Some
  prefabricated houses had been sent for, but CORA and INDAP had failed to
  distribute most of them. In the absence of councils there was little pressure
  on them to do so. On many asentamientos full members had been rehoused,
  but the non-members were living in shacks. Being unorganized, most of
  those in this situation were unaware that others shared it.
  I and a comrade in INDAP set about remedying this, suggesting to
  the campesinos the need for a grassroots organization to pressure the
  bureaucracy. The problem of the Communist Party’s opposition to such
  organizations, in favour of subordination to the CUT, was the latter’s
  weakness at the local level. We were insisting that this level was crucial,
  not only because of these practical problems, but as a base for the PU.
  Within weeks, as we dealt with the housing problem, several new
  unions were formed. These went on to cooperate in forming campesino
  councils. These were elected by the base, instead of involving union
  officials, as did the two existing councils – officials who typically held their
  positions because of their influence in party circles. The first of these new
  councils were in Limache and Quilpue. Like those in Aconcagua, they
  demanded the final expropriation of all properties over eighty hectares. This
  87
  
  was in order to incorporate them into their overall plans for their areas.
  CORA resisted these demands, which led again to land occupations. Once
  more these were carefully planned to include several neighbouring units,
  which would then form a CERA. The number of CERAs grew month by
  month, as did the campesino councils. By late 1972 they were setting the
  pace of agrarian reform throughout the province; the bureaucrats who had
  failed for so long had virtually no choice in the matter.
  The result was that I was publicly denounced, and the comrade
  working with me sacked, since he was junior to me. Immediately the
  Limache council organized a mass protest. They seized the main road out of
  Limache and demanded his reinstatement, and a meeting with Jacques
  Chonchol, then Minister of Agriculture. He carne and promised an inquiry,
  but this didn’t satisfy them. One new leader of the council, who until a few
  months ago had had almost no political experience, got up and berated him.
  ‘We know all about the bureaucrats. We’re not satisfied with an inquiry
  unless we’re represented on it. If you’re a revolutionary and this is a
  revolutionary government, how come everything depends on bureaucrats
  who don’t listen to us?’ It was the first demonstration on this scale in the
  area, hundreds of campesinos were there, and Chonchol accepted their
  demands. An inquiry was held in which they took part and the comrade was
  reinstated. Shortly afterwards the local head of INDAP was replaced by a
  comrade from the MAPU.
  Worker-campesino unity: the bosses’ strikes and popular power
  When six local councils had been formed in Valparaiso, a provincial
  one was also established. Its office was in Quillota. Reformists within the
  PU argued that all this was divisive, but the opposite was the case. For
  example, many asentamientos traditionally influenced by Christian
  Democrats – and hence opposed to the PU – joined the councils. This won
  them over politically. The reason was simple. Although the councils
  demanded that asentamientos should improve their wage-labourers’
  conditions, they also brought them the benefits of popular pressure. For
  instance, the provincial council improved marketing and distribution. With
  INDAP’s help it began exporting new local products. It also organized their
  88
  
  sale from local councils to the urban poblaciónes (popular
  neighbourhoods). This more than outweighed the asentamientos’ previous
  returns from selling their products on the black market. Successes like this
  convinced us still further of the PU’s need to rely on its base as a source of
  strength.
  
  Despite bitterness at the PU’s failure to deal decisively with the
  tancazo, this mobilization continued right up to the coup. In the second
  bosses’ strike, the right was far more militant – they could see that the PU
  was retreating. Yet the provincial councils’ response and that of the cordons
  was far more developed than in 1972, especially in Valparaiso.
  
  This was confirmed in Aconcagua and Valparaiso when the lorryowners’ strike began. With INDAP’s trucks at their disposal and these
  marketing links already established, the provincial councils maintained food
  supplies to the cities. The trucks hardly stopped throughout the strike.
  Campesino escorts gave them protection. At this stage they had the upper
  hand. Though the trucks were sometimes sabotaged or attacked on the road,
  they usually got through. These experiences also led the councils to take an
  increasingly vanguard position. They demanded that the PU commandeer
  the strikers’ lorries and establish a state transport system.
  
  As Aconcagua is less urban, these links were less strong there. It’s
  also more easily controlled, as the main road out of it goes through a gorge,
  which the striking lorry-owners blocked. In Valparaiso by this time, though,
  there were communal commands which combined the councils and
  industrial cordons into a single working structure. This was what we had
  always aimed for, in naming our confederation ‘Worker-Campesino Unity’.
  Between the two strikes the cordons’ workers had helped the councils’ land
  occupations, and the councils had supplied food to workers occupying
  factories. In the second bosses’ strike regular convoys were established
  between Quillota and the cordon Cordillera, in Valparaiso. Workers helped
  to protect these convoys, which took food to the cordon and manufactures
  back to Quillota.
  
  The growth of campesino consciousness in this period was
  impressive. They grew sharply aware of the question of power. Following
  the first bosses’ strike, they regularized their contacts with the urban
  workers and industrial cordons. Many distribution arrangements developed
  in the strike were maintained. The two sectors held regular consultations,
  political as well as practical. Campesino participation in the March 1973
  elections was higher than it had ever been, especially in Aconcagua. Several
  left candidates were elected in previously Christian Democrat areas. At the
  same time the councils were making increasingly political demands. Their
  leaders held meetings everywhere, linking campesinos’ concerns to the
  more basic political issues, especially the question of popular power.
  
  By now the government’s attempts at a deal with the Christian
  Democrats were strengthening the right enormously. Attacks on the
  convoys became increasingly open and violent. Roads were blocked,
  though the campesinos often removed the lorries with tractors. On one
  occasion the lorry-owners fired on one of our trucks and killed the driver.
  Then they turned it over and set it on fire, with a wounded comrade still
  inside it. In Quillota the campesinos protested, demanding action from the
  PU and arms and new powers for the popular organizations.
  
  We in the MAPU, together with the MIR and sections of the Socialist
  Party, made this question increasingly central. It was not utopian, but was
  based precisely on this new popular mobilization. By now most campesinos
  could see that real benefits depended on their own organization. The right’s
  propaganda – that ‘the Marxists wanted to take their land and make them
  work for the state for nothing’ – was made ineffective by what they
  experienced.
  
  Although we recognized to the end that factory workers were the
  vanguard, the campesinos were also central to this struggle. In some ways
  they were even firmer than factory workers. Less involved in traditional
  political structures, they tended to go straight to the point in these situations
  of confrontation – to think not of compromise, but of how to take a firm
  decision. In several joint meetings of the communal commands, it was they
  who inspired decisions when the others were still hesitating. The left must
  realize that the campesinos are fundamental to the revolution in Latin
  America, within a proletarian alliance.
  
  89
  
  90
  
  The councils were increasingly clear about the solution to the crisis.
  They talked in terms of a popular power through which the masses would
  take decisions and also provide a defensive system. The plan was for a
  provincial command which would be elected in its own right from councils
  and cordons throughout the province. Above all, it would have new powers
  to defend the government.
  The problem was that the government was not consulting with the
  masses, but with the right. It was buying time and abandoning power,
  without a struggle.
  The reaction: the coup and the campesinos
  This meant that despite our mobilization, the tide began to turn
  against us. Organized terrorism was launched against campesino councils.
  The police no longer intervened, and the campesinos had few weapons.
  
  Four days later I was back in Limache when I was trapped in a
  house-to-house search. It was the beginning of a year of torture in gaols and
  concentration camps. From one of them up in the Sierra I could see an
  asentamiento where they’d got new houses after the earthquake. I used to
  wonder what was happening there, as we had no news of the outside world.
  My only contact with the campesinos was with a leader from one of
  the councils. He was with me in La Legua, one of the boats they use for
  prisoners in Valparaiso. He’d only become an activist a few months before
  the coup, and was completely disoriented by the torture, half out of his
  mind, unclear what was happening. We were next to one another in the
  hold. But as he began to get used to it, he gradually recovered his senses.
  We and other comrades began to talk. About the past, about the future.
  Even in the hold of La Legua, new cells were being formed.
  
  After the tancazo, for instance, when campesinos occupied farms
  near Quillota which were boycotting production, they were attacked by
  groups from the fascist Fatherland and Freedom Party. They were armed
  with machine guns. I was there when they attacked, at midnight, as the
  police were changing shifts. It was obviously fixed – the first shift left
  before the other one carne to replace them. The campesinos, like the
  workers in the cities, felt increasingly isolated, except from one another.
  Without arms, they could make little even of this solidarity. On 4
  September they staged a massive demonstration in support of the sailors
  detained by the navy for having denounced the plans for the coup. The
  president of the provincial council spoke at this meeting, demanding again
  that the PU should allow the people to defend it. Demonstrations continued
  throughout that week in Limache. By now they were regularly under attack,
  but they refused to be dispersed.
  The coup was efficient. I was in Limache. By dawn on the eleventh
  all communications were cut and the town was surrounded. Two campesino
  comrades carne to take me into hiding. One of them kept me in his home
  for several days. He kept repeating: ‘How could the PU have ignored us
  when we were ready to defend them?’ Everything had been prepared, but
  the party’s orders never reached us.
  91
  
  92
  
  PART III – THE SHANTYTOWNS
  Background
  Most large Latin American cities combine extremes of wealth and
  poverty. The latter is heavily concentrated in the shantytowns on their
  outskirts, where much of the low-income population lives in improvised
  housing, without sanitation, schools or basic medical services. The houses
  are built initially of waste material. They rarely have more than one or two
  rooms and often accommodate more than one family.
  In Chile these areas are referred to either as poblaciónes
  (‘neighbourhoods’), callampas (‘mushrooms’, in cases where they sprang
  up suddenly) or campamentos (‘encampments’). The latter are settlements
  with a relatively high degree of organization in defence of their rights,
  usually inspired by politicians. (Because of these special connotations, the
  term ‘campamento’ is left in Spanish throughout this chapter.)
  Piecemeal solutions to these conditions have been offered by
  reformist governments in most Latin American countries but with little
  success. Only in Cuba have they been abolished. The Christian Democrats
  in Chile established limited housing programmes and neighbourhood
  associations (juntas de vecinos), but in spite of this the shantytowns grew in
  the 1960s.
  This was inevitable, in that the fundamental problem was not just
  housing, but poverty in general. Though many conventionally employed
  workers live in shantytowns, due to low wages, a large proportion of their
  inhabitants are either under-employed or unemployed, as industrial growth
  in Latin America does little to increase employment; the companies
  involved are for the most part multi-nationals with a small and specialized
  work force. In these circumstances, shantytowns are the only outlet for most
  of the low-income population. Despite the conditions, their urban setting is
  generally preferred to the rural one from which many of their occupants
  come.
  93
  
  Their problems have nevertheless become an increasingly political
  issue, as left-wing parties recognized the growing discontent in these areas. In
  Chile under the Christian Democrats many of them launched their own
  campaigns for local improvements. Encouraged by the left-wing parties, they
  developed their own forms of struggle, notably the land occupations and
  patterns of internal organization by virtue of which they carne to be known as
  campamentos. Their names – Nueva la Habana (New Havana), Lenin, Ho
  Chi Minh – reflected their growing political awareness. These largely
  autonomous developments continued into the PU period, despite the much
  greater official provision for economic and social improvements.
  Foremost among the left-wing parties concerned with this sector was the
  MIR, partly because its recent and substantially student origins limited its
  penetration of the organized labour movement. New Havana, where Laura was
  active as a member of the MIR, was closely associated with it. As she admits, its
  high degree of organization and political awareness was untypical. Nevertheless,
  it expressed a potential which raises fundamental questions about this
  increasingly large sector in Latin America today. Who are its inhabitants, in class
  terms, and what can they offer to the struggle in which all sectors of the left are
  agreed that the working class proper is the vanguard? In the lorry-owners’ strikes,
  for example, neighbourhood organizations were crucial in maintaining
  distribution. The MIR, especially, stressed the importance of building relations
  between campamentos and industrial cordons, in the form of the communal
  commands which developed as the crisis mounted. The Communist Party saw
  them as less important, given their lack of the cohesion involved in relationships
  in the work-place, as opposed to those of residence.
  Today New Havana has ironically been renamed ‘New Dawn’ by the
  military junta. Its leaders have been tortured and executed and its eight thousand
  inhabitants terrorized. Many of them have had to leave, and those who remain are
  dose to starvation. These new conditions can only have sharpened the awareness
  which the previous period gave them, reiterating the question of their political
  importance.
  
  94
  
  6
  A Mobilized Shantytown: New Havana
  Speaker: LAVRA, 24, member of the MIR, who was active in the
  campamento New Havana (Nueva la Habana)
  The origins of New Havana
  During the Popular Unity period I was politically active in New
  Havana, a Santiago campamento organized mainly by the MIR. The
  campamentos are poor housing areas on the fringes of the major cities.
  They consist mainly of one-room shacks with very little sanitation, running
  water or electricity. They’re distinct from the poblaciónes, or traditional
  shantytowns, in being somewhat organized. This is usually on a political
  basis dating from the land occupations which first brought them into being.
  Their roots thus lie in the housing shortage common to most South
  American cities. It’s widely assumed that most people in them are
  unemployed immigrants from the country, but this is only part of the story.
  In New Havana many people were regular workers, though typically with
  unstable jobs, in construction for instance. The point is that the living
  conditions in these areas aren’t unusual – they’re shared by much of the
  working class, not just the under-employed or unemployed.
  Previously these people lived mainly in the conventillos, big, old
  houses in the city centre, where whole families occupy single rooms. In
  such conditions, and with rising rents, they became very militant about
  housing. This led them to organize land occupations, especially in the late
  1960s under the Christian Democrat government. In this way they hoped to
  obtain their own houses. The Christian Democrats tried to keep up with this
  mass movement by setting up neighbourhood associations. But like
  everything else these land occupations outran their reforms to the point
  where they were beyond their control.
  The MIR had strong support in these areas. We began our mass work
  with them in the late 1960s, as with the poorer campesinos. We had several
  reasons for attaching special importance to them. Workers as such – in their
  95
  
  place of work – were dominated by the traditional left-wing parties. We had
  little chance of competing with them. The shantytowns, with their mixed
  population, including the city’s poorest people, were much more accessible
  to us. For one thing the housing problem is perhaps the most obvious
  contradiction of capitalism in Latin America, and the most persistent. For
  another, it was common to all those who lived there – factory workers,
  small shopkeepers, street-sellers, craftsmen. The campamento was in itself
  a means of bringing these groups together.
  Our scope increased when the Christian Democrats’ housing reforms
  were swept aside by the land occupations. The ones which developed into
  New Havana were almost the first in Santiago – one on a university site,
  another on a private holding, the third on church land. The Christian
  Democrats panicked and tried to repress this so-called ‘movement of the
  homeless’ with riot squads. This only raised people’s determination. In
  what became New Havana, for instance, two participants were killed, and
  the riot squad kept prowling about and firing in the air to scare people.
  Meantime most of them were still living in shelters made of old cartons and
  rags, whatever anyone could find.
  Such experience sowed the seeds of their internal organization. They
  formed their own militias to defend themselves from the riot squad. There
  was also a health front to care for the wounded – they couldn’t go to
  hospital, because they would have been arrested.
  The internal structure of the campamento
  The campamento had three main fronts, all dating from the
  occupations. The cultural one, concerned with leisure and propaganda, the
  health front and the defensive militias. Sub-divided into brigades, these
  militias were subject to popular assemblies, which also elected new
  members to them. The brigade commanders worked together as the
  directorate of the militias. They dealt not only with physical threats to the
  campamento, but also with internal security and with disciplinary matters
  like disputes between neighbours. In the early stages their role was central.
  However, the militias couldn’t provide for our long-term
  organizational needs. Originally they were the vanguard, our only defence
  96
  
  against the daily threats from the riot squads. They were still important in
  the 1970 elections, when we gave Allende our critical support and there was
  danger of a coup. With the PU in power, though, the repression and the
  danger subsided. We turned our thoughts to a permanent structure for the
  campamento.
  
  intellectuals and a few real activists stayed, the latter mainly out of
  politeness. Thereafter the cultural front declined – people lost interest
  because it wasn’t answering their needs. In the end it was reconstituted as a
  coordinating .body for political mobilization and local educational
  programmes.
  
  The decisions involved were made by the popular assembly, though
  most proposals did come from the activists in the campamento. First a
  directorate was set up. Originally there’d been one in each of the three
  occupations, but these now merged. This reflected reorganization at the base,
  where the key unit was the manzana, a block of roughly forty houses. Each
  manzana had its own assembly, meeting once or twice a week, where
  campamento affairs were discussed. Each of these in turn sent a delegate to the
  directorate. Finally, there was an inner directorate of seven persons, directly
  elected by everyone in the campamento. This was the core of the leadership.
  Meantime the militias were replaced by perimeter guards for the campamento,
  a security front for internal defence and a disciplinary commission, to settle
  disputes and ensure proper conduct by comrades in office.
  
  To take these first. The comrades set up a nursery school where
  working mothers could leave their children. They lobbied the educational
  department for the materials for a new school, which they then built, and
  refurbished buses for extra classrooms. A parent-teacher group was set up
  to discuss the way the schools were run, and children were represented.
  They produced some striking new ideas. Especially they challenged the
  assumption that classroom education was more important than experience.
  This debate with the teachers was a long one, but finally the classes did get
  a much more practical orientation. The children went on outings to the
  nearby foothills of the Andes for botany and biology classes. For
  mathematics they visited their parents’ work-places to count the machines
  and learn about angles – and this taught them to respect what their parents
  were doing, in itself a minor revolution.
  
  Most people in the directorate were active members of the MIR, but
  this structure wasn’t imposed by the party. It developed itself and was
  highly organic, the local peoples’ own response to what they’d lived
  through. This basis in collective experience was its main strength.
  The cultural front
  It was probably the cultural front which attracted most participation,
  although it went through quite a crisis in mid 1971. By this time New
  Havana was something of an attraction to intellectuals and artists, whose
  influence was almost fatal. For instance, at one of its meetings an
  intellectual from outside the campamento insisted that the cultural front
  should step up its political education. This idea was extraneous, for two
  reasons. First, local people already had a profound political education
  arising from their own experiences. Secondly, although many of them were
  politically active, they weren’t necessarily interested in political debates by
  intellectuals. On this occasion a discussion on underdevelopment was
  launched. Most people at the meeting soon left. Only the visiting
  97
  
  The effect on the teachers was very marked – most were from outside
  the campamento. Parents and children were now questioning many of the
  assumptions implicit in their traditional teaching. The teachers were
  gradually proletarianized. The way they spoke to the children, their
  demands that they arrive clean and tidy and spot on time, when their fathers
  might have kept them awake by getting drunk on the previous night – all
  this was now questioned. For the first time the teachers had to adapt to their
  working environment. Their own social education now went hand in hand
  with their teaching.
  We also launched a literacy programme using the methods of Paulo
  Freire. Politically, it was an ideal time for Freire’s combination of teaching
  people to read and write and also look critically at their environment. There
  were lengthy discussions about what were the most interesting and
  important words to learn, words like ‘government’, for instance. The
  illiteracy rate was very high, and the classes were organized by manzana.
  Very few people took part at first. This was partly because the classes were
  98
  
  being held in the school, in the evenings. The adults were ashamed to be
  going to their own children’s classrooms. So we transferred the classes to
  the manzanas. Far more people then took part. By the time the coup put an
  end to all this, illiteracy in New Havana was virtually a thing of the past.
  We also organized leisure activities, song competitions and a youth
  theatre. This was especially successful. It performed in other campamentos
  and industrial cordons. Its biggest success was The Story of the Land
  Occupation based on local people’s experiences. The children remembered
  these vividly and devised most of the play themselves. Even the smallest of
  them would say: ‘Well, this is what I was doing then’, and that’s basically
  how it developed. The six-to-ten age group presented it on the second
  anniversary of the formation of New Havana. This was during the bosses’
  strike of October 1972. It was striking how the kids’ perception of their
  elders helped to reinforce their unity, which was so critical at this period.
  They completely captured the character of the land occupations’ original
  leaders, even their ideological disputes – the way one leader had demanded
  one thing, another something different, and so on. The extent to which the
  militias’ power had gone to their heads, their swaggering style, the
  domineering character of relationships between men and women – they
  caught it all, from things they’d seen and conversations they’ d overheard.
  Somehow they put it all into perspective, affirming that a new unity had
  eventually been forged from it.
  The health front and the campaign against alcoholism
  This new awareness, even among children, showed itself in many
  ways. For instance, there was one hopeless alcoholic in the campamento,
  called Panchito. From having once been teased, he became a kind of leader
  for them. Even when drunk he was never violent – he used to dance and the
  children danced with him. His only occupation was carving and painting
  wooden flowers, and he taught them how to do it. They came to respect and
  obey him, and I think it was this which kept him stable, despite his drinking.
  
  front. First it lobbied the National Health Service to sponsor a local health
  organization – the government was supposed to send its own nurses and
  doctors to New Havana, but they hardly ever came. In the end we got
  permission for this, with a representative of each manzana receiving
  training from the Health Service in nursing and first aid etc. The comrade in
  charge of the health front had a more intensive course, which even trained
  her for emergency operations. We also got a clinic, an ambulance and
  regular visits from a doctor. All this was the product of the health front’s
  pressure on the Health Service, especially by women comrades.
  Many women were also strongly committed to combating
  alcoholism. Drunken confrontations, when men carne home at night, were
  frequent. Alcoholism was also a mainstay of male chauvinism (machismo).
  After drinking, men felt obliged to assert their authority over their wives,
  especially now that many women had social activities outside the home, in
  the campamento. This new independence caused some really violent scenes,
  especially on paydays, when drinking was always at its heaviest.
  Our first step was to eliminate the dozens of small, illicit bars where
  most of this heavy drinking took place, at extortionate prices. The assembly
  succeeded in doing this. Just one survived – one stubborn character set up
  his bar at the very entrance to the campamento, with the wine right there in
  the window. It wasn’t too successful, though, because anyone leaving it to
  come into the campamento was checked by the security front and detained
  if drunk. We were apprehensive about possible reactions to this, but there
  was surprisingly little resistance. Our long-term solution was to increase
  alcoholics’ involvement in the life of the campamento. We’d encourage
  them to come home early, for instance, and join in their manzana assembly.
  By these means, and by professional medical treatment, some eighty or so
  comrades were cured of varying degrees of alcoholism.
  
  Alcoholism was common in New Havana, as elsewhere in Chile.
  With generations of repression behind them, workers drink heavily as a way
  of escaping from their problems. This was a major concern of the health
  
  This had a visible effect on the everyday life of the campamento.
  You could now go out at three or four in the morning, with little danger of
  being molested. I often had to, and never had problems. Outside New
  Havana it was immediately different – any woman out late in a shantytown
  was likely to run into trouble with drinkers. But in New Havana, no. You
  were safe.
  
  99
  
  100
  
  Mobilization and participation: the role of women and young people
  Mass participation in all these activities was crucial. They taught
  much more than political harangues, and anyway little could be achieved
  without popular pressure on the bureaucracy. We had to mount
  demonstrations to get housing materials, health facilities etc. People also
  had to be involved in the campamento’s security system – within a few
  months of the PU’s election, the repression was creeping back. The riot
  squads appeared again, especially at demonstrations, and the only thing
  which kept them at bay was the level of popular mobilization. People had a
  tremendous pride in belonging to the campamento, and they showed it on
  demonstrations – when they arrived, the people from other campamentos
  used to shout: ‘They’re here, they’re here!’
  Elsewhere, of course, reactions were different. The New Havana
  people were known as ‘the delinquents’ to the right-wingers, who were
  often terrified of them – they were just too used to assuming that
  shantytown dwellers would always be humble. One confrontation showed
  especially the difference which grassroots pressure could make. The local
  mayor was very right-wing, and always harassing the campamento.
  Sometimes he’d cut off the electricity, at other times the water supply, and
  often the rubbish wasn’t cleared. The carts were supposed to come every
  two days, but once they were missing for a week. It was summer, the stench
  and flies everywhere. The manzanas brought this up in the assembly, which
  produced a plan of action. Two large trucks were filled with rubbish, and
  we hoisted the campamentos flags on them. Off we went, with a New
  Havana security command in front and half the campamento following, to
  the municipal offices. When officials refused to open the gates, we drove
  the trucks through them. Everyone took a hand in dumping the rubbish in
  the mayor’s office. From then on the rubbish trucks were sent to New
  Havana daily.
  
  ran the health front. They helped guard the campamento at night. Sometimes
  the husband would attend manzana meetings, sometimes the wife, if possible,
  both. This weakened male chauvinism at a very basic level.
  Of course there was lots of resistance to this – cases of husbands
  forbidding wives to go to meetings, and drinking and beating them up if
  they did so. The assembly dealt with such cases. Its reprimands had some
  effect, but on the whole in this short space of time, traditional attitudes held
  the day. The real change was among young people. For instance, in their
  play on the story of the land occupation, they realized how prominent
  women had been. Young people also took part together in new occupations
  of schools, factories and land. When the girls stood up as well as the boys to
  confrontations, they became very much just comrades, not ‘boys’ and
  ‘girls’ in the narrow sense.
  Talking of the young, even children played their part in the
  campamento. Through the youth front they took part in building houses,
  demonstrations and even in the assembly on subjects affecting them, like
  schooling. They also helped guard the campamento, especially at times
  when adults were scarce, like during local fiestas. They made the most of
  our demonstration banners, and in the 1972 stoppage, they helped maintain
  local distribution. One shrimp of a kid invariably led our slogan-chanting in
  the major demonstrations. ‘Campamento’, he’d shout: and the others would
  answer, ‘Nueva la Habana’. ‘Ché Guevara’, everyone called him, he
  wouldn’t be known by any other name. The adults were proud of their
  children’s involvement.
  
  Women were prominent in all these activities, whereas in other
  campamentos there were special women’s sections which precluded
  participation on equal terms. In New Havana there was real integration; in the
  directorate, on the marches, even in the confrontations. The driver of the
  clinic’s ambulance, which operated at night, was a woman. Women virtually
  
  The effects of this could also be seen on an everyday level. In
  shantytowns the kids spend most of their time in gangs. These are often
  virtual teenage mafias. They’re unapproachable, aggressive, and also make
  life very dangerous at night. In New Havana this simply died out. Only
  young adults who’d previously been delinquents still occasionally had
  relapses. We also had one special case of a teenager who was semidelinquent. He was an orphan, extroverted and a good singer, and he always
  got other kids to follow him. He didn’t have any time for school and just
  ran wild. But we won him round by giving him the chance to sing at
  campamento concerts. He began to take notice of us and take part. We
  
  101
  
  102
  
  treated him as a little adult, and in return he became a comrade and
  organizer of many of the children’s activities.
  Like the adults, few young people had time for political discussions.
  With concrete tasks, though, it was different. For instance they were fully in
  charge of the campamento’s fire precautions. The whole fire-fighting front
  consisted of sixteen to eighteen-year-olds, and they always dealt
  competently with fires.
  Not surprisingly, these young people acquired quite a status with the
  young in other campamentos. Their political awareness was much higher.
  Whenever I was with them elsewhere, at football matches for example, I
  noticed the respect this won them, and how it influenced other young
  people into similar activities.
  Security and people’s justice: the seeds of an autonomous system
  We still had serious security problems after disbanding the militias.
  Defence of the campamento itself was undertaken by popular guards, with
  each manzana responsible for one night, in rota. One adult from each of the
  forty households per manzana would take part, usually the man, but some
  times the woman – it was left to each family to settle this. The guards were
  stationed at each of the three main entrances, armed with sticks, never with
  firearms. In the event of anything suspicious – including at times right-wing
  attacks – they would raise the alarm. People entering after midnight had to
  identify themselves. Anyone drunk was handed on to the security front,
  which was in charge of internal order. This also had people on duty each
  night at its headquarters, in the centre of the campamento. Any non-resident
  was thoroughly checked and his documents held until he left. In this way
  we foiled several attacks by the fascist Fatherland and Freedom Party.
  Our security also depended on the maintenance of internal cohesion.
  Out of this need there grew the beginnings of a system of popular justice,
  distinct not just from the bourgeois courts, but from bourgeois legality
  itself. Those three years were too short and turbulent for this to acquire a
  definitive form, but there were real steps towards it.
  
  103
  
  These experiments also had their roots in the original land occupations,
  in the need for unity which they entailed. The constant threat of repression
  gave rise in effect to new types of offence – acts of betrayal or carelessness,
  which might weaken our defences. At first the militias dealt with such cases.
  Generally simple collective pressure would convince the offender of the
  social danger of his action, in view of the struggle then in progress. Expulsion
  from the campamento was used only in exceptional cases.
  With the campamento established and the PU in power, the problems
  were different. Although the physical threat was less, the need for a genuine
  people’s justice was more obvious than ever, as we still had a bourgeois
  judicial system. It had little concern with the campamento’s real interests.
  We needed independent solutions for problems like speculation and
  hoarding. How to provide them? The militias’ disciplinary powers had been
  an improvised crisis measure. What sort of structure should replace them?
  Though we never really answered this question, we did go beyond
  the PU’s version of neighbourhood courts (tribunales vecinales). These
  operated, especially in Communist-led campamentos, as adjuncts of the
  bourgeois courts, to deal with mild local offences like petty theft. They still
  neglected the basic problem of redefining the class-ridden notion of what
  was ‘illegal’. Instead they just delegated an already existing system,
  reinforcing all its values. In fact these courts usually died out, because they
  simply didn’t provide for the problems which concerned people most.
  In New Havana we did attempt to provide for new needs. Not only
  did we deal locally with the traditional petty offences, but we also covered
  new ones, defined as such by the assembly: for instance, officiousness or
  neglect by members of the directorate, or infringement of our rules on
  hygiene. This allowed a constant response to new problems like hoarding
  and the black market, particularly.
  So much for the scope. But we still had the problem of a structure for
  this new popular justice – who would take part and exactly how, and what
  sort of penalties would be imposed. In these respects we were improvising
  right up to the time of the coup. Most cases were dealt with by the
  directorate or the relevant manzana, depending on their importance. Family
  104
  
  disputes were settled at manzana level, with socially useful penalties, like
  cleaning the manzana or digging new drains. The number of cases which
  had to go to a higher level was very few. This was sometimes for traditional
  reasons – a woman might prove reluctant to testify against her husband –
  but also because the incidence of more important problems declined when
  people knew that they could be dealt with, ultimately by the assembly. So
  there were the seeds of an effective popular justice.
  Inevitably we were faced increasingly with political problems –
  political misconduct, speculation by traders and so on. These were referred
  to the directorate, which submitted its decisions to the assembly. We tried
  to find positive solutions, by matching the penalties to the needs of the
  campamento – typically, street cleaning. Failing this, offenders were
  expelled. This came to a head with the campamentos, as adjuncts of the
  bourgeois courts, to deal with mild local offences like petty theft. They still
  neglected the basic problem of redefining the class-ridden notion of what
  was ‘illegal’. Instead they just delegated an already existing system,
  reinforcing all its values. In fact these courts usually died out, because they
  simply didn’t provide for the problems which concerned people most.
  In New Havana we did attempt to provide for new needs. Not only
  did we deal locally with the traditional petty offences, but we also covered
  new ones, defined as such by the assembly: for instance, officiousness or
  neglect by members of the directorate, or infringement of our rules on
  hygiene. This allowed a constant response to new problems like hoarding
  and the black market, particularly.
  So much for the scope. But we still had the problem of a structure for
  this new popular justice – who would take part and exactly how, and what
  sort of penalties would be imposed. In these respects we were improvising
  right up to the time of the coup. Most cases were dealt with by the
  directorate or the relevant manzana, depending on their importance. Family
  disputes were settled at manzana level, with socially useful penalties, like
  cleaning the manzana or digging new drains. The number of cases which
  had to go to a higher level was very few. This was sometimes for traditional
  reasons – a woman might prove reluctant to testify against her husband –
  but also because the incidence of more important problems declined when
  105
  
  people knew that they could be dealt with, ultimately by the assembly. So
  there were the seeds of an effective popular justice.
  Inevitably we were faced increasingly with political problems –
  political misconduct, speculation by traders and so on. These were referred
  to the directorate, which submitted its decisions to the assembly. We tried
  to find positive solutions, by matching the penalties to the needs of the
  campamento – typically, street cleaning. Failing this, offenders were
  expelled. This carne to a head with the problems posed by the lorry-owners’
  and bosses’ strike in October 1972.
  The bosses’ strikes: maintaining supplies and distribution
  In New Havana small shopkeepers controlled distribution. Most of
  them were extortionists, although they did provide some employment.
  Within the campamento there were roughly a hundred and fifty of them.
  People’s purchasing on a small scale – the only one they could afford –
  increased the scope for profiteering.
  The official means of regulating supplies and prices were the JAPs,
  promoted mainly by the Communist Party. In New Havana we tried instead
  for an understanding with the shopkeepers. They agreed to buy from
  official sources and also to sell at official prices. This would leave them a
  reasonable profit and prevent hoarding and black marketing. Like the JAPs
  this had little success, and for much the same reason: the penalties were
  weak and hard to enforce. Congress rejected Allende’s proposals for
  strengthening them, and the Judiciary hardly applied them, because it was
  also controlled by the right. So what penalty could the people impose, either
  with or without the JAPs? In highly organized campamentos like New
  Havana, offending shopkeepers could be expelled. But this was only a local
  solution, as they then set up in other areas where people were more easily
  exploited. The assembly was always discussing this problem. It reflected
  the PU’s weak control in this case of the distributive system, which it was
  reluctant to really challenge for fear of a right-wing reaction. Our local
  problems were those of Chile as a whole, of the PU’s limited power and
  programme.
  106
  
  By early 1973, with the shortage caused by the lorry-owners’ strike,
  the shopkeepers were holding people to ransom. Despite our efforts to be
  patient, most of them kept up their old ways. Our only solution was to force
  them to dose. And so instead we relied on a ‘people’s store’ (Almacén
  Popular). This was set up with contributions from the manzanas, while the
  State gave us credit for a stock of supplies. By selling at official prices, this
  acquired a virtual monopoly of non-perishable goods. This confined the
  shopkeepers to perishables, which made hoarding and speculation harder.
  The store belonged to the campamento and was managed by the directorate.
  As it extended its operations and put the small shopkeepers out of business,
  they were given first choice of becoming its salaried employees. This
  provided some conciliation, kept them in work and put their expertise to
  good use.
  By these means we kept living standards in the campamento rising.
  For instance the houses, which were wooden and prefabricated, began with
  bare floors. By the end of three years almost all the floors were covered.
  Also most families began with only one bed between them, but by 1973
  they managed to buy separate ones, and blankets. There was even a
  communal television in most manzanas.
  Despite all these measures the second stoppage in mid 1973 created
  serious shortages. At this point the government supplemented the people’s
  store by sending supplies to the campamento for direct sale at official
  prices. Meanwhile the directorate set up a successful rationing system,
  which ensured that everyone got their share, according to the size of their
  family. We also arranged direct supplies by contacting campesino councils
  and hiring trucks to purchase supplies from them. These were sold at a
  ‘people’s market’ (Mercado Popular) which the directorate also ran, again
  with a rationing system to ensure equal distribution.
  All these problems had two levels. While forced to confront them in
  terms of day-to-day survival, we were equally aware of the need for a
  fundamental solution to them. In our view this could be only an overall
  structure of popular power to which New Havana would belong. We were
  well aware of the limitations of changes within one campamento. In the
  bosses’ strikes we stressed the importance of widening the industrial
  107
  
  cordons into communal commands. These would include the campamentos
  and campesinos and serve as an embryonic alternative to the bourgeois state
  apparatus.
  Together with the revolutionary wings of MAPU and the Socialist
  Party, we worked for the transformation of the nearby Vicuña Mackenna
  cordon into a communal command including the New Havana area. We
  recognized that the cordon, with its industrial workers, would be the
  vanguard of this structure. In the bosses’ strikes the two areas achieved a
  number of joint actions such as factory occupations and distribution
  measures. It was also through this new structure that we did our best to
  prepare for the coup – but, as it turned out, time was against us.
  The coup: the dispersal and legacy of New Havana
  New Havana paid for its reputation. The military and the bourgeoisie
  had a special hatred for the people there because they were known not just
  for their words, but for their actions. Whenever they said they were going to
  take action, they really went ahead and took it. The almost legendary status
  this gave them was treated as a crime, deserving a specially brutal
  repression.
  For the same reason the campamento came under attack by groups of
  fascists before the coup. Infiltration was always a problem and in October
  1972, with our mobilization against the strike, threats were made against us
  daily. Luckily we’d just doubled our guards when the first attack came, at
  one in the morning. Two buses drew up at the entrance and about a hundred
  figures poured out. They were dressed in the white cloaks of the fascist
  Fatherland and Freedom Party. The alarm bell was immediately rung,
  rousing the whole campamento. Luckily most activists were just on their
  way back from meetings. Although we were armed only with sticks, the
  fascists turned tail, firing a few shots, as soon as they saw us. Later there
  were other attacks, often in answer to our anti-fascist demonstrations.
  Though they raised our morale, these confrontations were also a
  warning to the right of the campamentos’ defensive capacity. In the final
  months before the coup this developed strongly. Ten women’s brigades
  were formed, for instance, to provide first aid and play a key defensive role.
  108
  
  The plan was for liberated zones, of which New Havana would have been
  one, to support the main resistance fronts. Each would have a first aid
  centre and serve as a central source of supplies as well as having its own
  defence system. Provision was made for removing the elder women and
  children and combining with neighbouring campamentos. So locally, at
  least, we were reasonably prepared. The problem was that the revolutionary
  left as a whole was taken by surprise in a tactical sense, not by the
  occurrence of the coup, but by its timing. Our information was that we had
  at least a week in hand. In the event we had few resources for resisting in
  the campamento. In any case the overall scheme wasn’t fully prepared,
  partly because of the recent arms searches and the repression that carne
  with them.
  We did our best, though. At eight in the morning, when we heard of
  the coup, the directorate went underground, while some brigades went to
  Vicuña Mackenna and Puente Alto. Both areas resisted for several days.
  The fact is, though, that the coup was efficient. The military inadequacy of
  the left reflected its political weakness and indecision. In the first few hours
  the resistance’s basic structure was broken by the arrests and executions and
  the cutting of communications. The MIR’s radio station was the first to be
  captured, at 7.30, and one by one the others followed. Even the telephones
  were out of action. The only means of communicating was by walky-talky
  and ham radios. The truth is that we never expected such ruthlessness as the
  bombing of the Moneda Palace, nor the military’s technical efficiency – a
  serious mistake on our part, but something which also convinces me that
  US technicians were directly involved.
  
  Women were raped in front of their men, and children beaten in front of
  their parents. Almost every home they went into was sacked and this cut
  deep, because our programme for improving the houses was due to be
  completed by December. It was as if the two joint struggles for new homes
  and socialism were both being destroyed together. Every morning there’d
  be fresh bodies at the entrance of the street between New Havana and the
  neighbouring campamento. They were clearly left there deliberately, to
  terrify people.
  Even so they resisted as best they could. The activists in the
  campamento were known to almost everyone, their identity if not their
  hideouts. But no one denounced them, even under torture. One woman who
  wasn’t an activist, just a sympathizer, had both arms broken, but we know
  for a fact that she didn’t give any information. Once they tortured six
  comrades together, right there in the campamento, but again they gave
  nothing away. When we left a few weeks later, the campamento’s whole
  leadership was still intact.
  Already, though, the campamento was breaking up. Dozens of
  families were leaving, some from fear, many from hunger. Others refused
  to remain in the area after the military renamed it. Every day you’d see
  people departing, mostly for relatives in the country, with handcarts filled
  with what belongings they had left.
  Given the nature of the coup, the campamento, as it had become was
  bound to be eradicated. In fact, we’d long been asking ourselves whether
  what we were doing in New Havana was realistic at this stage. We’d come
  to feel that our concern with its internal organization was perhaps overconcentrated. One thing the coup has shown is that even the so-called subproletariat can’t be won over by fascism when they’ve had an experience
  like New Havana. But in present circumstances, the struggle does lie more
  clearly than ever with the workers in their factories. Though there were
  such people in New Havana, the basis of our unity there, over housing, now
  belongs to the past.
  
  The repression inflicted on the campamento was apparently meant to
  eliminate every trace of what happened in those three years. They even
  changed its name to ‘New Dawn’. Several other campamentos have been
  given the names of generals. Within hours of the coup, the military began
  random attacks on New Havana which continued right up to the time I left
  Chile. The first occurred on the night of 11 September. They simply went
  into the manzanas, took the first sixteen men they found and shot them
  immediately in the main square. One day it was the army, the next the navy,
  the next the police – sometimes there were four or five searches a day.
  
  This doesn’t mean that New Havana was in vain. Several thousand
  people from there have joined the resistance on other fronts, including key
  
  109
  
  110
  
  PART IV – UNIVERSITIES
  
  ones, like Vicuña Mackenna. Their struggle wasn’t a central one, but their
  experience belongs to the future. The further they scatter those who shared
  it, the more its effect will multiply.
  
  Background
  Like all South American universities, Chile’s in 1970 reflected the
  ruling-class’s dependence on European and North American ideologies and
  culture. They bore little relation to local requirements, either technical or
  social. Their medical schools, for example, were as much concerned with
  heart transplants as with infant mortality. Technical training contributed
  little to the need for popular consumer goods or technological independence
  in are as like copper production. Also inadequate public schooling restricted
  university entrance to those who could pay for supplementary private
  teaching.
  Student movements have nevertheless been a radical force in Latin
  America. Questioning first the dominance of the traditional oligarchies,
  they became strongly nationalist in the 1940s and 1950s. After the Cuban
  revolution this nationalism grew increasingly left-wing. Chile was no
  exception. Under Frei students won reforms which allowed them a
  significant part in university administration. By 1970 their support for
  Allende was strong, in the expectation that universities would be deeply
  involved in the changes promised by the PU.
  Its formula was that the universities should be ‘at the service of
  Chilean society’. Teaching would cater for Chilean needs, and students
  would contribute to the development of the country, through technical
  studies and voluntary labour. Entrance would be open to students who
  hadn’t been able to afford preparation for university entrance. An
  agreement was made with the CUT for extension courses in the unions.
  All these proposals were implemented. New courses developed and
  traditional ones changed. Thousands of students did voluntary work in
  development projects. Technical students did applied research in the
  factories, mines and agrarian reform centres. The universities helped to
  make cheap editions of the classics available to a mass public. Their own
  111
  
  112
  
  research and publications on Chilean society became integral to the social
  policies which the PU implemented.
  Meanwhile student politics reflected those of the wider society.
  Student support for the PU grew, but then as polarization deepened
  university departments became increasingly divided. The left was weakened
  by the absence of staff on government secondment and the return of
  Christian Democrats seconded before 1970. Also, each year’s new student
  intake injected into the university the increasingly right-wing views of the
  average student’s middle-class parents. Early in 1972 the PU candidate lost
  the election for rector of the University of Chile. The opposition now took
  the offensive. Eventually confrontations brought university life to a
  standstill, with the fascist Fatherland and Freedom Party influencing the
  centrist opposition of Christian Democrat students and teachers.
  Raul’s opinion, as a student leader and Communist Party activist, was
  that left-wing students should concentrate on supporting the PU’s
  programme within the university. For him the left’s demise was due largely
  to other left parties’ excessive demands and to their student activists
  working on fronts outside the university, which they considered more
  important.
  In many universities, resistance to the coup was strong. Students and
  university teachers have since been heavily repressed, but continue to play a
  central part in popular resistance to the junta.
  
  113
  
  7
  The Students’ Polarization in the University of Chile
  Speaker: RAUL, 22, activist of the Communist Party and student leader in
  the state University of Chile, in Santiago
  Student politics: the campaign of 1970
  Throughout the PU period I was a student activist in the University of
  Chile. It was always a political weathervane, an indicator of the direction in
  which the balance of power was moving. In the late 1960s its radicalization
  produced massive support for the PU in the 1970 election. Then under the
  PU, its ultra-leftism, to my way of thinking and that of other party
  comrades, was symptomatic of the polarization which ended in the PU’s
  downfall.
  In 1968, under Frei, a university reform was passed after years of
  militant pressure from students. This gave them far greater participation in
  the running of the universities. The next year the left gained control from
  the Christian Democrats of the national students’ union (Federación de
  Estudiantes de Chile). The Christian Democrats’ youth section sympathized
  heavily with the PU and many of them carne over to it. It was in this same
  year that I was elected as a student leader in Santiago.
  Previously I’d been active in a group of the ultra-left, but after the
  election it divided, and went mainly to the Communist Party. The PU’s
  victory, for which we’d campaigned, convinced us that we should be
  working within the mass parties of the left, now that Allende was in power.
  I don’t think this was the abandoning of an immature position. For me it
  was primarily a response to a changed political situation. Previously we’d
  been working clandestinely with a view to armed insurrection and
  concentrating our propaganda on workers untouched by the main left-wing
  parties, especially in small, non-unionized copper mines. This no longer
  made sense. In 1970 there was a new and, at that moment, a more real way
  forward, which we recognized as such and supported.
  
  114
  
  At the time of the election I was still formally in this group, so that
  my activities were only partly in the University. But already as a student
  leader I was involved with other students in campaigning for Allende in
  Santiago. With the PU parties already dominant among them, many were
  active day and night for weeks before the actual election. In the morning
  there’d be mass meetings focused at first on political discussion, and later
  on planning the day’s campaigning outside the University. This consisted in
  visiting the shantytowns and other residential areas to hold discussions and
  mass meetings and campaign from door to door – outlining the PU’s
  programme, what it would mean for people living there, answering their
  questions about it.
  We also had propaganda brigades to go out and paint every available
  wall with slogans and political pictures. Though it’s hard for Europeans to
  imagine, this is standard electoral practice in Chile, and especially important
  for the left, as the right controls the conventional media. It’s also an
  indication to voters of the relative strength of the right and left, as both are
  active in it. This means it’s also a battleground. Propaganda brigades would
  be out every night, and when they met there were often armed clashes. These
  were usually started by the right, by firing at us from passing cars. Although
  they were much better equipped, they had to use these methods because they
  were far less expert at thinking up slogans and at painting. Another difference
  was that the right often hired its painters and armed them with guns as well as
  brushes, while on the left only activists painted.
  The results of these confrontations were encouraging. The right
  became very hit-and-run, because of the mass support we had. We could
  feel it growing daily. Our victory on the walls was an omen of the polls. By
  election day we were sure we would win, though apprehensive about rightwing reactions. As results carne through in the evening and through the
  night of 4 September, complete euphoria took over, first in the university
  and then in the streets of Santiago, where we all went put to join it. People
  sang and danced in every square, oblivious of who were students, workers,
  housewives or whatever, aware of one thing only, that they were all of the
  left, which had won. That night, for once, the right stayed at home. It was as
  115
  
  if socialism had already been established – though we’d soon discover that
  there was rather more to this than winning a victory at the polls.
  The impact of the PU: the University and the transition towards socialism
  The universities took on a new role with the PU in power. Its purpose
  was to put them at the service of a changing Chilean society. This idea had
  long been voiced by students, but now it was possible to apply it.
  The basic changes were as follows. First it was made much easier for
  people from working-class families, and in some cases workers themselves,
  to study at the university. Secondly, the content of courses changed:
  problems were seen in more socialist terms, and designed to make practical
  contributions to Chile’s economic independence. Finally practice was built
  into theory – students now had to spend part of their time applying the skills
  which they were learning, as an integral part of their courses.
  I was personally involved in these changes in the Faculty of
  Engineering, as a student member of its planning committee. The most
  important alterations were in mining engineering, as copper is Chile’s
  biggest export. Nationalization of the mines was one of the PU’s first
  measures, and one of the biggest problems involved was the lack of Chilean
  technicians. The department of mining had existed for years, but was very
  weak, for political reasons – there were virtually no funds for it, as
  politicians had played along with the foreign-companies’ opposition to the
  growth of national mining skills. The tacit view was that there were plenty
  of foreign technicians – hence our continuing dependence on companies
  which milked the country. So we planned a whole series of courses relating
  directly to copper mining, and thus to the Chilean economy.
  There were many such changes in other fields, in medicine,
  education, art – all of them reversed since the coup. Two more of which I
  had some experience were journalism and social work. In journalism, much
  of the training was taken out of the University. Each group of students went
  with a teacher to a union branch or shantytown and started producing a
  paper with the local workers or residents, to deal with their particular
  problems. This taught the students that a journalist’s job wasn’t simply to
  hand news down to the people, but to get them to express themselves,
  116
  
  through a medium which they controlled. These papers became a regular
  feature of dozens of local organizations, however modest. Gradually the
  students would reduce their contributions, until the paper was selfsufficient. This gave a tremendous boost to popular communication,
  creative, political and purely informative. The workers who wrote in these
  papers used the style of their everyday life – which also widened the
  students’ experience and sense of language. The papers themselves became
  a source of important changes suggested at a popular level. For instance, in
  one such news-sheet a housewife in one of the shantytowns produced some
  completely new ideas for improving local food distribution. They were
  discussed in the, shantytown and eventually implemented. No public
  official could have devised them, because they depended on a knowledge of
  day-to-day problems and living conditions in the locality.
  I also mentioned social work. Its traditional assumptions began to be
  questioned. In a capitalist society social work is seen as assistance: care of
  orphans and widows, dealing with personal problems etc. – in short
  enabling the individual to re-adapt to the society. But now a new premise
  was suggested: that the social worker should make society aware of its
  inadequacies towards such people, and help them to pressure society for a
  solution to their problems. And to do this collectively in class terms,
  through which social problems are traced to class structures, and their
  solutions to changes in them. So too with social psychology; for instance
  ‘family problems’ were shown to be the problems of families affected by a
  class position and its social consequences. This may sound high-flown but
  it gave a new meaning to very real problems like wife- beating and
  alcoholism. Both these fell sharply during this period.
  There was also new emphasis on applied work. Each miningengineering student had a spell in a mine like Chuquicamata, doing research
  on some technical problem. This became a required part of the course.
  Agronomy students were sent to the country to work on agrarian reform.
  State agencies like INDAP funded many of these projects, and their results
  were often applied with voluntary student labour. I was involved in one
  such programme, building new types of chicken coops in several agrarian
  reform centres. In time these projects got more sophisticated. By 1973
  117
  
  student research and voluntary labour were vital to big irrigation schemes.
  For instance that summer four thousand students worked on one in the
  Ligua valley, in northern Chile, for several weeks.
  For many students this was also their first direct contact with workers
  and campesinos. University entrance was now easier for students of
  working-class origin, and courses were put on for workers, training them
  for participation and management in the nationalized sector. But three years
  was too short a time to change the class nature of the university, although
  the students’ federation did secure some modifications. Among them were
  courses in basic medicine, to train people from the shantytowns to man the
  local clinics; and in Concepción the university did admit a large number of
  workers, particularly for technical courses. Also traditional class relations
  within the university were challenged by the introduction of measures for
  the participation of non academic staff – caretakers, office-workers and
  cleaners in the running of the university. They got 10 per cent of the votes
  on committees, as against the students’ 25 per cent and 65 per cent for the
  teaching staff. This also had a limited impact. The class nature of academic
  studies made it hard for them to have much to say. Yet it did produce direct
  contact and some political cooperation between student leaders and
  workers. And the latter were able to wield some influence even on matters
  like curriculum planning. The main changes were political, though, and also
  in simple class relationships. Many students were shaken, and their
  assumptions and life-styles changed, by meeting workers on a much more
  equal footing. For instance, traditional student parties became virtually
  limited to the right. People saw through their shallowness, because they
  now went to parties in the neighbourhoods where they were working
  politically. Quite apart from the principle, they found out how much more
  fun they were, which taught them something very new about the world
  they’d grown up in. Of course, none of these changes was isolated – by this
  time a number of former workers were deputies and ministers, so that
  traditional class relationships were being very widely shaken.
  Developments in the university did contribute to these changes, as well as
  being influenced by them.
  
  118
  
  Political developments: polarization and debates on the university left
  Following the presidential election, the left gained more ground
  among the students, although it was always hard to maintain, as student
  turnover was high and most still carne from conservative backgrounds.
  Experiences like voluntary work often changed their consciousness
  radically. I remember one student who lived in the same shack as myself
  when we were building the chicken coops. Seeing how left-wing politics
  related to people’s everyday problems overturned her prejudices. She
  almost did believe that Communists ate children on instructions from
  Moscow; she finally confided in me about this and everything that she’d
  now learnt. Later she became an activist of one of the PU parties. There
  were hundreds of cases like this, of conversions based on simple
  experience.
  Yet this girl’s background was typical, and to my mind the left
  misled itself about the potential balance of forces within the university.
  Most students’ families became increasingly conservative as Chilean
  society began to polarize. I came from just such a family, well-off Christian
  Democrats whose initial tolerance of my views grew weaker as they saw
  that they were lasting. This meant that the average new student from a
  petty-bourgeois background became actively rather than passively
  conservative. However naive this may have been, it meant that students
  were increasingly hard to win over. And in time this was virtually
  impossible, as the confrontation reached such a pitch that few political
  meetings ended in anything but physical conflict.
  In 1970 or 1971 it was still possible for a good speaker to hold an
  uncommitted audience, and even win some of it over. But by 1973 such
  audiences hardly existed. Even when students did have their eyes opened by
  voluntary work, for instance, they now had to leap a much wider gap to join
  the left, so few of them did so. By this time fascist groups and doctrines
  were highly organized and explicit: almost anything the left said was
  systematically depicted as part of a plot directed by Moscow.
  Clearly then, we’d lost the initiative. To my mind this dated from late
  1971, when the extreme left started pressing for more radical
  119
  
  transformations of the content of university teaching. These tactics split
  many faculties in half and virtually halted the university. This parallels the
  position of the ultra-left in other fields, but the university was their
  laboratory, which made it the same for right-wing parties, with their
  counter-revolution. In this confrontation the Christian Democrats and
  National Party allied with one another. Their strength was increasingly
  apparent. In early 1972 elections were held for a new rector. Although the
  PU candidate was moderate, the opposition candidate won, because the
  right and the centre had united. They were soon to do so nationally – and
  this election was very much a national issue, televised throughout the
  country as a political barometer. This was a serious loss for the left and one
  from which we never recovered, as it gave the initiative to the right. The
  National Party revived within the university, and by 1973 the fascist
  Fatherland and Freedom party was making progress with some students.
  From this point on each faculty was controlled either by the right or
  the left. Life became one long confrontation. This and the increasing
  conservatism of new students made it a depressing field in which to be
  politically active. This reinforced the tendency of members of the other left
  parties to work outside the university, having failed to radicalize it. The
  Communist Party, though, still felt it was crucial and carried on in spite of
  these problems. In veterinary studies and law, for example, the fascists
  acquired such control that by 1973 left-wing students could hardly enter the
  buildings. If they did get into a class they were usually spotted and thrown
  out. Even where the balance was equal, left-wingers could study only at the
  price of daily confrontations. From almost the moment when the right took
  a stand, student politics meant violence. First the fascists persuaded the
  Christian Democrats to support their tactic of occupying various faculties.
  Initially the left held back, until finally the engineering faculty was
  occupied. This was so important to the economy that all the left decided it
  had to be retaken. The resulting battle lasted four hours, with hundreds
  involved on either side. The police kept out of it, as did the government,
  although PU parties had given the order to resist any further take-overs.
  Again the whole country was watching the outcome – even this was
  televised. It ended when the left had stormed the Fatherland and Freedom
  120
  
  headquarters, but as they came up through an underground passage, the
  fascists threw nitric acid at them. Several people were badly burnt.
  From this point on almost every meeting ended in fighting,
  sometimes .with two thousand students involved. It’s hard to say who came
  off better, but politically it was what the right was after, and so they gained
  ground. And of course there were differences within the left. To my mind
  we were especially weakened by this question of how much importance to
  attach to university politics. As I said, our student activists stuck to them,
  while those of other left parties, including the MIR, went to other fronts,
  among workers and campesinos. This was partly because of their shortage
  of activists among these sectors, but we Communists opposed this tactic in
  principle as well as practice. It weakened these parties’ contribution to the
  university struggle, and we criticized this strongly.
  We did manage to maintain a united facade. Before any mass student
  meeting the PU parties would always confer and agree to have a single
  speaker put forward a united position. But in fact we usually had
  differences, reflecting those at a national level – which made for heated
  discussions. Often our so-called united positions were just informative, or at
  best minimal agreements, rather than truly political positions. For instance
  the concept of popular power always generated controversy. It came to a
  head in the first bosses’ strike of 1972, and was always contentious
  thereafter. Our position was that popular power already existed, so that we
  should be consolidating, not inventing new versions of it. It existed in that
  the PU existed as a workers’ government; also in that the CUT existed as a
  central workers’ organization; in the sense that there were countless,
  recognized working-class organizations, the JAPs for instance. To me it’s a
  fallacy to say that the Communist Party obstructed popular power – the
  very election of Allende was a huge step in that direction. But there was
  often debate on this. I remember, for instance, how it once disrupted a
  meeting on how our faculty could support an industrial cordon called
  O’Higgins, which the Party was starting to organize. When we raised the
  issue of worker-student solidarity, the Socialist Party comrades demanded
  that the principle of popular power should be the focus of discussion –
  whereas we were concerned with the practical solidarity actions.
  121
  
  The point is that such solidarity did exist, however fragile. It existed
  in students’ recognition that a revolutionary process was occurring, and that
  they should therefore defend the government. Several times in 1973, when
  the right was breaking up our meetings, we turned to nearby construction
  workers to support us – and they did. The fascists would turn tail and we
  were able to go on speaking. Worker-student solidarity was a popular
  phrase, but it meant something only when workers and students had
  common interests. As we saw it in the Party, the way to promote it was to
  unite behind the aims of the working class, which were enshrined in the
  PU’s programme. This meant persuading students to campaign in the
  elections, to do voluntary work and help the PU to maintain production.
  The ultra-left’s proposal for worker-student solidarity was to integrate the
  university with the cordons. But this was utopian – for one thing not all
  cordons were representative, to our way of thinking. Also there were
  differences between the PU parties as to what the cordons really were, how
  they should be constituted, what role they should play. The whole question
  was highly complex, so that the ultra-left’s position of integrating with
  them was vague. We should join in organizing, but organizing exactly
  what? Organization, popular power, but what did this mean in real terms? It
  seemed to involve the notion that the cordons were nascent soviets, but this
  wasn’t how we saw them. Though some students did participate in them,
  the federation never did in Santiago or Concepción, where this was also
  much discussed. What we did was to cooperate with them to defend the
  government as it required.
  The end of the ball: students defend the PU
  In the first bosses’ strike, though, there was no doubt about the need
  to defend the government. Students threw themselves into the struggle, in
  the university and outside it. Students’ PU committees tried to keep classes
  running normally and to provide workers’ organizations with whatever help
  they requested. Each morning began with a mass meeting when the latest
  information was given, and then brigades were assigned to tasks of
  immediate urgency. Literally thousands of students signed on as emergency
  drivers for the convoys keeping supplies on the move, food, fuel and raw
  materials; others were assigned to defending warehouses, and loading and
  122
  
  unloading supplies. Also we did our best to keep the university running.
  The right was trying to bring every faculty to a halt as well as cripple the
  economy. This mean weeks of physical confrontations as the right disrupted
  the classes of professors who were still teaching. Often we had to surround
  the buildings and remove the rightists first in order to get access to them.
  Hundreds of students were involved in these confrontations, with
  everything short of firearms – benches, chairs, tables, sticks. Any number of
  students were injured.
  
  was up front and they cut us off. One of them must have recognized me, I
  heard him shout: ‘There’s the boss, the Commie, get him’. I saw the sticks
  coming down on my head and that was about the last I knew of it. Luckily
  the police pulled me out of it. They bundled us all into a police van, and
  there we were, just two of us and six of them. By now it was night, and
  completely dark, and the fascists were banging at the door. ‘They’re in
  there, the Commie bastards, kill them’. When we got back a few hours later,
  our comrades had given us up for dead.
  
  Outside the university the situation was equally violent, as we were
  trying to keep the economy going. Student brigades went out in answer to
  requests from the CUT or directly from factories needing help. I don’t know
  how many sacks of flour and sugar I loaded and unloaded in those weeks,
  and like the workers we were constantly under attack. One convoy I went
  on, from Santiago to Melipilla, was blocked with trucks parked across the
  highway by landowners and lorry-drivers under the direction of the fascists.
  They outnumbered us. We were pulled out of the trucks, two students were
  killed and they took two Panamanians who were with us – being coloured,
  they took them for Cubans – and broke their arms. Any non-Chilean Latin
  American was a Cuban in their eyes, whether he carne from Venezuela,
  Central America, they were all ‘Cubans’.
  
  We lost this battle because it was in a fancy area. There were similar
  ones every day, but in other areas the outcome was different. I remember
  another in the city centre, by one of the new underground sites. This time
  the fascists hadn’t done their reconnoitering. When we and the officials
  arrived, the fascists were waiting as usual, thinking that they had us
  outnumbered – then suddenly, just as they laid into us, dozens of
  construction workers appeared, with picks and shovels at the ready. In two
  minutes there wasn’t a fascist to be seen. Clashes like this were daily events
  throughout the stoppage of October. Another job in which students helped
  was checking prices for the JAPs, to report black-market operators. I was
  once assigned to checking butchers, and had to retreat from their meat
  choppers until I learnt to make an inspection when plenty of customers
  were present, as they were usually sympathetic.
  
  We were also involved in requisitioning commercial establishments
  which closed down in support of the stoppage. The Department of Industry
  and Commerce could authorize this for any establishment which sold basic
  necessities. The Department would call the Federation: ‘Comrades, we need
  a hundred and fifty students in Bolivar Street at ten o’clock, because we’re
  going to requisition the store at number 57’. Whenever we could, we in the
  Federation provided the number of students requested. Departmental
  officials and police would arrive, with the power to nominate ‘intervenors’
  to run the requisitioned concern. Often students were nominated. This also
  meant clashes with the right. When they were well armed, we had to pull
  back. This happened with one requisitioning, in which I took part, of a
  supermarket in an upper-class residential district. They asked us for only
  fifty students, and we arrived to find three hundred fascists waiting. Well,
  we knew the game was up, so we decided to get out while we could, but I
  123
  
  The stoppage was a turning point which made the forces involved
  more apparent. So many dollars were pouring in from CIA sources to back
  the striking lorry-owners that the dollar’s black market price fell sharply.
  Many students’ sympathy was turned into a firm commitment. Previous
  hesitators made up their minds and stood firm right into the coup and after, by
  that time at the risk of their lives. In the university all dialogue ended.
  Nothing could escape politics, which now simply meant confrontation.
  Shortly after the stoppage, the students’ beauty contest was held. Among the
  finalists one was a known PU supporter, so PU activists campaigned for her.
  The results were due a few days later at a university ball, with thousands
  dancing and awaiting the result. The selection committee included several
  political leaders. They took seven hours to reach a decision! The left’s
  124
  
  candidate was the winner. Immediately it was announced, fights broke out
  among the dancers. That was the end of the ball.
  The first stoppage proved the government’s strength. Not only
  workers, but the army and the Church stood by it, and while the latters’
  support soon weakened, the workers stood firm. The right’s attempt to turn
  the stoppage of El Teniente copper miners into a general strike was a
  failure. Not a single factory backed them. The clearest indication of
  growing popular awareness was in the congressional elections of March
  1973. I campaigned with a party candidate in Santiago. The response was
  unprecedented. With the level of political discussions in the shantytowns
  and factories, we knew we were making massive gains, despite the
  inflationary effects of the bourgeoisie’s economic boycott. Our vote went
  up by 20 per cent over the 1970 total – more evidence that despite the
  right’s sabotage, we were winning at a democratic level. Although they still
  controlled the media, we exposed them constantly. Whenever we
  discovered a store which was hoarding and selling at black-market prices, it
  would be publicly denounced, including the commodities involved. People
  would then flock to buy them, and we’d improvise a political meeting,
  pointing out that the economic problems weren’t caused by the government,
  as the right claimed, but by this deliberate hoarding. We’d repeat that the
  government was trying to control this, but that Congress was blocking its
  measures – so who was causing the so-called shortage? These exposure
  tactics were highly successful. Women, especially, changed their loyalties
  in favour of the PU once they realized what was happening. Again, the
  right’s only answer was violence. They attacked queues of shoppers outside
  establishments known to be hoarding. They constantly assaulted JAP
  officials responsible for price-controlling. They gave out rival food supplies
  with propaganda tucked into the parcels. It was obvious what was
  happening, and they were losing votes by it daily.
  
  day’s demonstration was massive. We assembled in every faculty to march
  to the centre of Santiago. The right had also organized a march, from El
  Teniente, which was supposed to end in the square in front of the Moneda
  Palace, to demand Allende’s resignation. But they never got there. We
  dispersed them in the morning, and the left held the square – it was cold and
  raining, but the elation was tremendous, with Allende coming out to speak
  from the balcony every twenty or thirty minutes. Although the right tried to
  break us up, we controlled the situation completely. Workers from different
  industries manned each street to the Moneda by the hundreds, in perfect
  order. The construction workers even turned up with their cement-mixers
  and swore to use them to defend Allende and the constitution! The whole
  day through only one person died, in a shoot-out at the edge of the crowd.
  As I said, it was the clearest expression of popular power in all those three
  years.
  The tancazo came a week later. The left was totally unprepared for it.
  As I arrived at the university I heard someone shouting: ‘The tanks are
  round the Moneda, they’re firing’. I’d never expected it. I ran to the Party
  youth headquarters, where they told us to wait in our places of study for
  further orders. So we went back. The faculty was already occupied, the
  fascists had been turned out. We waited there, organized into brigades and
  prepared to hold out, though we had no means of armed resistance. In the
  afternoon we were told that things were under control and that there would
  be a demonstration in front of the Moneda that evening. By seven we were
  there, and again there was an enormous crowd, and Allende spoke, though
  to my mind wrongly, repeating that all was under control. We all went
  home under that impression.
  
  To my mind the biggest demonstration ever of support for the PU, a
  measure of genuine workers’ power, also came in these final months. After
  the El Teniente strike, the CUT called for a one-day stoppage to show the
  right that Chilean workers were with the PU and that there was no chance
  of winning them over. The stoppage was total. Student participation in that
  
  It soon became clear that this wasn’t the case. That same night there
  were more rumours of a coup – and there were meetings in the barracks, but
  nothing immediate came of them. I believe that at this point the PU
  leadership, above all Allende himself, failed to act firmly. The plotters
  should have been purged from the armed forces, not placated, though I
  wouldn’t agree with those who demanded the closure of Congress. From
  having never expected a coup we now went to the opposite extreme – four
  out of every five nights or so there were alerts. From the end of June right
  
  125
  
  126
  
  up to the coup we were called out almost every night to defend our places
  of work and study. So that when the crunch carne on the night of the tenth,
  no one believed it! Or rather, we believed it was coming, but by that time
  we were so exhausted that the warnings were ineffective.
  The approach of the coup: the student response to the narrowing of the
  PU’s options
  After the tancazo the PU decided to organize defence brigades
  throughout the country. There was also a proposal for another march in
  Santiago, to let the right know that if they were planning civil war, the PU
  was ready. It was all arranged and I was involved as a representative of the
  Students’ Federation. But the march was called off – it was national flag
  day, and the armed forces were due to parade in Santiago. This was another
  show of weakness.
  The defence brigades went ahead, though. The MIR wanted to call
  them, committees for the defence of the revolution’, as in Cuba. The
  students took part, but this scheme was limited; it was seen only as a means
  of supporting a hoped-for division within the armed forces. Also it was far
  from efficient – as we discovered after the coup, when various infiltrators
  denounced us. But the crucial point was that we’d lost the battle for the
  loyalty of the armed forces. It was this which turned the balance of power
  against us, in the university as outside it. The right was gaining ground
  everywhere, except of course among the workers, but this left them
  isolated, as the second stoppage in July and August showed. We couldn’t
  fight back and keep things going as we had before. We tried to carry out the
  same tasks, but the middle class had now been won over by the centre-right
  alliance of Christian Democrats and Nationalists. Again we sent out
  working brigades, but tasks like unloading and loading the trucks were now
  impossible. The army and police no longer protected us. At times they even
  prevented us from working. What could we do? The convoys became
  impossible – we were shot at on every comer, and shooting back would
  have been suicidal. Transport ground to a halt, the shops closed and the
  university was paralysed. With the left’s indecision at a national level, the
  middle ground could see no way out – it was either civil war or the coup.
  127
  
  The only alternative was some new step, like a plebiscite. But I doubt if
  even this was possible. Had the left won it, the military would still have
  intervened, arguing fraud by the PU. Pinochet said as much after the coup.
  There was no way out, no solution that the PU could offer. Its fall was only
  a matter of time.
  The threats and repression of students began before the coup. Since
  the tancazo I’d had threatening calls and letters – the scraps of paper with
  ‘Jakarta’ written on them, to remind us of the massacre of Communists in
  Indonesia. Two of our comrades were said to have been caught with plans
  of some barracks. They were tortured and gave details of our organization.
  On the tenth there was a final clash between right and left in the university.
  That night we held another meeting to discuss the military’s position, but
  we could see no way out. Next morning we controlled most faculties, and
  were still prepared to defend the government, through the brigades set up
  for this purpose. I was at party headquarters as the first news of the coup
  carne through. They gave us the same instructions – to await orders for our
  part in the plans for defending the whole of Chile. Naturally there were
  such plans, but they were based on the assumption that some of the military
  would remain loyal. By eleven the faculty was beginning to be surrounded.
  The parties debated whether to stay or retire to key sectors. There were
  about five hundred of us, students and university workers, all ready to resist
  if we could have. But finally the PU ordered us to retire in our brigades to
  private houses in the city. There was resistance on some campuses, but it
  was isolated and crushed.
  We stayed in hiding in brigades for some days, still organized and
  awaiting instructions. Our structure at the base was virtually intact, but we
  had nothing clear to act on. We were still in touch with one another, but cut
  off from the leadership. We realized that there was widespread resistance –
  we could hear fighting in the streets – but all of it seemed to reflect the
  same thing, a lack of any coordination. We showed our faces on1y once,
  when we went to one of the shantytowns to get a comrade’s family out,
  because we’d heard it was going to be bombed. The Air Force had sent a
  search party there on the previous night, and they’d all been killed and their
  uniforms taken – the bodies were still there. This type of resistance was
  128
  
  going on everywhere, but all of it seems to have been spontaneous.
  Contrary to what people think, there was some local coordination between
  all the left-wing parties, but it was only fragmentary, as all of them were cut
  off from their leaders.
  Later, when I did get personal instructions, I was told to keep low
  because I was marked. I did so for a month, moving from one place to
  another, then I tried visiting the university. But I was immediately
  denounced and arrested. Like almost everyone else, I was tortured. More
  than some, less than many. How I got out I obviously can’t tell, but I was
  told that I had no option but to leave Chile.
  What we had suffered was a defeat – not to my mind because of our
  differences, but because of the forces we faced. There was no immediate
  answer to them, though certainly mistakes were made. Particularly over the
  armed forces, and in our failure to control the media, which weighed
  heavily against us. Yet I still believe that it was an advance, through the
  new awareness which Chileans gained, and imperialism’s loss of prestige,
  in counting on fascist counter-measures. It was the same with the
  Vietnamese war, and look at the outcome. With each act of oppression,
  imperialism loses ground in the long term, especially in Latin America.
  That’s why I believe that the next round is ours.
  
  past, even to non-members of it. And this was because it had grown over
  years through conversations and conversions, with each struggle adding to
  the whole, despite a totally hostile setting. I realized that it was this people’s
  movement which lay behind the PU – a people who knew that waiting in a
  queue for hours was no hardship compared to the years of struggle behind
  it. This is why I’m convinced, quite objectively, that this awareness, and the
  left parties, will survive, not just in a few people’s minds but as the product
  of this history. However many people the fascists have slaughtered and
  however many more they slaughter, they’ll never destroy it, this force that
  we felt in every queue, in every meeting, even when times were hardest.
  This is why the repression is so severe; but it also means that the left will
  never abandon the struggle. And this isn’t something I learnt as a student,
  but as an activist, from the people.
  
  Personally, I changed in those years. I realize now that I joined the
  Party thinking I had something to teach it. But I discovered that history isn’t
  as I’d imagined it, the product of political leadership by the conventionally
  wise. I found instead that it’s made by an anonymous people at a level far
  deeper than that of political petty-bourgeois, supposed intelligence. I found
  that this people has a knowledge and strength – to organize and make
  decisions – which I’d never dreamed of, which came to light under the PU.
  I discovered the awareness of people who would queue for hours without
  protest, in the conviction that come what may they had to keep struggling
  for the PU. Not out of obstinacy or blindness, as intellectuals might
  suppose, but out of the awareness they’d won. Not just in those years, but
  through generations. I came to understand Chilean history in ways I’d read
  of, but never quite grasped, as the history of a people’s genuine struggles. I
  realized what the Party meant to such people, from being rooted in their
  129
  
  130
  
  ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
  
  Communal Command (Comando Comunal): Local joint associations of
  factory workers, shantytown dwellers and campesinos, generally originating
  from industrial cordons.
  
  Administrative Council. See General Administrative Council.
  Asentamiento: Literally ‘settlement’, untranslated in text because of specific
  connotations as unit of agrarian reform introduced by Christian Democrats.
  Designed on basically cooperative lines, but including option of subdivision of land among individual members and employment by them of
  wage labour.
  Campamento: Literally ‘encampment’, untranslated in text because of
  specific connotations as shantytown involving a degree of organization
  generally deriving from the land occupation with which it originated.
  Campesino: Country person, rather than ‘peasant’ in the narrower sense, i.e.
  all categories of agricultural workers, from wage-earners to small tenants
  and share-croppers. Untranslated in text for want of exact equivalent in
  English.
  Campesino council (Consejo Campesino): Local joint organization of all
  categories of campesinos distinct from campesino unions (sindicatos). (The
  latter involved mainly rural wage workers and affiliation to the CUT,
  whereas the councils were autonomous.) In practice heavily supported by
  the left of the PU, as the vehicle of agrarian policies distinct from those of
  the Communist-led CUT.
  CDP Committee for the Defence of Production (Comité de Defensa de la
  Producción): Rank and file workers’ committee of type established in
  factories by the more left-wing PU parties, initially to counter sabotage and
  cutbacks of production, and more independent of union control than the
  official Production Committees.
  
  CORA Agrarian Reform Corporation (Corporación de Reforma Agraria):
  Government department responsible for legal and technical aspects of land
  reform.
  Cordon. See Industrial Cordon.
  CORFO Industrial Development Corporation (Corporación de Fomento):
  Government body originally established by the Popular Front Government
  of the 1930s to encourage local industry with technical advice and credit.
  CUT Central Workers’ Confederation (Central Única de Trabajadores):
  Equivalent in Chile to British TUC.
  ENAMI National Mining Enterprise (Empresa Nacional de Mineria):
  Government department responsible for technical aid to mining sector.
  General Administrative Council (Consejo General de Administración):
  Management committee of industries in public sector, as officially
  constituted by PU.
  Hectare (Hectarea): Basic unit of land measurement, equivalent to 2.4
  acres.
  INDAP Agrarian Development Institute (Instituto de Desarollo AgroPecuario): Government department responsible mainly for social aspects of
  agrarian development.
  Intervenor (Interventor): Interim government manager of firms taken over
  by government in the event of long-term technical, financial or labour
  relations problems.
  
  CERA Agrarian Reform Centre (Centro de Reforma Agraria): Unit of
  agrarian reform introduced by PU along more collective lines than the
  Christian Democrats’ asentamientos.
  
  Industrial Cordon (Cordón Industrial): Local association of workers in
  neighbouring factories, developed mainly in response to the right-wing
  stoppages of 1972-3. In this context officially recognized by the PU, but
  mainly promoted by elements of the Socialist Party, MAPU, Christian Left
  and MIR as the keystone of popular power and embryo of communal
  
  131
  
  132
  
  commands. As such, regarded with some unease by the Communist Party as
  a challenge to the official trades-union structure.
  JAP: People’s Supply Control Committee (Junta de Abastecimiento
  Popular): Local consumer organization established under the PU mainly to
  counter black-market operations.
  *
  
  MAPU: Movement of Popular United Action (Movimiento de Acción
  Popular Unitario).
  
  *
  
  MIR: Revolutionary
  Revolucionario).
  
  Left
  
  Movement
  
  (Movimiento
  
  de
  
  Izquierda
  
  *
  
  MOC: Worker-Campesino Movement (Movimiento Obrero-Campesino).
  
  National Agricultural Society (Sociedad Nacional de Agricultura): Large
  landowners’ association, which acted increasingly as the focus of rightwing mobilization against the PU in the countryside.
  Neighbourhood Association (Junta de Vecinos): Residents’ pressure
  groups, particularly in shantytowns, set up either spontaneously or by
  political parties to campaign for local facilities and legal land titles etc.
  
  Shantytown (Población): Low-income urban housing area, resulting
  generally from land occupations, often organized by political parties (cf.
  Campamento).
  Tancazo: Literally ‘tank attack’, untranslated in text, where it refers to the
  attempted coup of 29 June 1973, so called because it was led by a tank
  regiment which surrounded the Presidential Palace.
  Triunfo Campesino: Literally ‘Campesino Triumph’, left untranslated in
  text. The main Christian Democrat controlled campesino confederation,
  founded in the 1960s on the strength of the Christian Democrats’ land
  reforms. As such it tended to represent the conservative, medium to smallscale peasantry won over by the attractions of land reform on an
  individualist, capitalist, rather than collective basis (cf. Ranquil and
  Worker-Campesino Unity).
  Worker-Campesino Unity (Confederación Unidad Obrero-Campesino):
  Campesino confederation instigated by the MAPU in 1971 as a breakaway
  from Triunfo Campesino to support agrarian policies more radical than
  those of Ranquil.
  
  Popular power (Poder Popular): A major slogan and strategy of the left of
  the PU and the MIR, for the devolution of power to grassroots organizations
  such as the industrial cordons and communal commands. As such, the main
  concept round which debate within the PU centred.
  Production Committee (Comité de Producción): Factory committee set up
  under the PU’s scheme for workers’ participation, to monitor production
  levels (cf. CDP.)
  Ranquil: Campesino confederation originally founded in 1930s and
  controlled by the Communist and Socialist parties. Named after the site of a
  famous confrontation between campesinos, landowners and the police in
  southern Chile (cf. Triunfo Campesino and Worker-Campesino Unity
  below).
  *
  
  For information on these and other political parties, see Introduction.
  
  133
  
  134
  
  CHRONOLOGY OF POLITICAL EVENTS IN THE PU PERIOD
  
  Diplomatic relations restored with Cuba
  December
  
  1970
  
  Land occupations by campesinos in south
  
  January
  PU coalition announces candidacy of Allende for presidential elections
  Jorge Alessandri and Radomiro Tomic nominated as candidates for
  National Party and Christian Democrats respectively
  September
  Presidential elections; PU wins 36 per cent of vote, National Party 34 per
  cent, Christian Democrats 28 per cent; US columnist Jack Anderson
  later reveals unsuccessful ITT (International Telephone and
  Telegraphy Corporation) collusion with Christian Democrats and
  Chilean financial interests to prevent congressional ratification
  US State Department expresses ‘dismay’ at Allende’s victory
  Run on banks starts financial panic
  Christian Democrats demand Allende’s agreement to ‘statute of guarantees’
  for existing freedoms and legalities, including ‘integrity of armed
  forces’
  October
  
  1971
  January
  Copper nationalization bill; announcement of plans to nationalize coal
  mines and all banks
  February
  Announcement of plans to nationalize nitrate industry
  First symptoms of internal economic boycotts as cattle-ranchers drive their
  herds into Argentina
  March
  Hostile comments on Chile in Nixon’s foreign-policy statement
  Government begins take-over of mainly US-owned copper mines
  April
  Municipal elections; PU wins 50.9 per cent of votes; Christian Democrats
  and National Party present some joint candidates for first time,
  winning 44.6 per cent
  
  Allende signs statutes of guarantees; Congress ratifies his election
  Suspension of US aid to Chile
  Fascist Fatherland and Freedom Party attempts unsuccessfully to kidnap
  army C-in-C General Schneider, in hope of provoking coup; Schneider
  killed (C IA involvement later revealed in US Senate hearings)
  
  May
  
  November
  
  June
  
  Allende inaugurated
  Release of all political prisoners; MIR announces ‘critical support’ for PU
  135
  
  First nationalizations of major industries (mainly textile) other than
  copper
  
  Leaders of campesino land occupations clash with police
  136
  
  February
  
  July
  Copper nationalization bill unanimously ratified by Congress
  August
  Formation of Christian Left Party within PU, combining breakaway
  Christian Democrats and former members of MAPU not committed
  to Marxist-Leninist position
  Minority section of Radical Party leaves PU to form Radical Left Party,
  aligned with Christian Democrats
  October
  US copper companies denounce PU compensation terms, which include
  deductions for excess profits and illegal operations
  Government defines proposed public, mixed and private sectors of
  economy, with former specifying size of companies for
  nationalization – these would amount to 150 in all
  
  Government specifies 120 companies due for nationalization; Congress
  passes measures severely restricting legal basis for further
  nationalizations
  US court freezes New York funds of Chilean public agencies in
  retaliation for PU indemnification terms for US companies
  March
  CUT promises workers’ active support of government’s nationalization
  programme
  Details published of ITT involvement in attempts to prevent Allende’s
  ratification; ITT admits authenticity
  April
  Moderate PU candidate defeated in symptomatic election for rector of
  University of Chile
  May
  
  November
  
  Confrontation in Concepción between MIR and right-wing activists
  
  Fidel Castro visits Chile
  
  June
  
  December
  Right-wing mass mobilization begins, with ‘march of the empty cooking
  pots’ by wealthy Santiago housewives in protest against shortages
  caused by increased demand, due to rising wages
  1972
  
  Talks between government and Christian Democrats, opposed by sectors of
  PU
  Dismissal of Pedro Vuskovic, Economics Minister, closely associated
  with nationalizations and heavily attacked in right-wing propaganda
  July
  
  January
  First of many Christian Democrat-led congressional censures of PU
  ministers forces resignation of Jorge Toha, Minister of Interior; on
  his reappointment to Cabinet, Christian Democrats announce future
  non-cooperation with government
  137
  
  Suspension of talks between government and Christian Democrats;
  Christian Democrats and National Party announce joint platform for
  next year’s congressional elections
  In Concepción MIR and sectors of PU hold a Popular Assembly,
  criticized by Communist Party as departure from legality
  138
  
  1973
  
  August
  Renewed right-wing demonstrations against government
  participation by some Christian Democrat workers
  
  include
  
  January
  PU proposes state control of distribution of agricultural products; protests
  from business organizations
  
  September
  Kennecott Corporation brings successful legal action in France for seizure
  of Chilean copper cargo, pending settlement of dispute over
  indemnitication
  Attacks on left-wing radio stations; street clashes between right and left in
  Santiago and Concepción during anniversary celebrations of 1970
  elections
  
  February
  Congressional election campaign; PU programme based on proposals to
  further socialize economy and substitute a Popular Assembly for
  current legislature, with legislation to be initiated by CUT and/or
  popular demand
  March
  
  October
  Beginning of strike by Christian Democrat-controlled lorry-owners’
  confederation, allegedly over lack of spare parts; shopkeepers and
  some professionals join strike; state of emergency declared to deal
  with economic crisis; Christian Democrats refuse discussion of crisis
  with government; factories threatened with closure occupied and
  maintained by workers
  Army C-in-C General Prats reaffirms constitutional role of military
  
  Congressional elections; PU increases its vote by 20 per cent over 1970
  (some 7 per cent of total vote) but with 43.4 per cent is still short of
  majority required for implementation of proposals, while right is far
  short of two-thirds required for proposed impeachment of Allende
  Section of MAPU breaks away to form MOC, in close alignment with
  Communist Party
  Replacement by civilians of military ministers
  April
  
  November
  Kennecott persuades Dutch and Canadian banks to suspend loans to Chile
  New Cabinet appointments include three military officers, among them
  Prats as Minister of Interior; Christian Left Cabinet members resign
  over government’s ‘conciliation’
  End of lorry-owners’ strike
  December
  
  Strike at El Teniente copper mine, where workers demand wage increases
  Talks with US on renegotiation of debt again break down over US demands
  for prior compensation of copper companies
  Congress opposes Bill for further nationalizations
  May
  Armed confrontations between MIR and Fatherland and Freedom Party;
  large arms caches discovered in latter’s headquarters
  
  US breaks off talks with Chile to renegotiate debt repayments
  
  June
  Congress opposes Bill for lowering limit of farm expropriations from
  139
  
  140
  
  eighty to forty hectares and forces further ministerial resignations
  Assassination attempt on Prats, now clearly identified as leader of noninterventionists in armed forces
  Tancazo (tank regiment revolt), supported by Fatherland and Freedom
  Party; workers resist with factory occupations; revolt put down
  within a few hours; Congress refuses Allende’s request for full
  emergency powers
  End of El Teniente strike
  Renewal of lorry-owners’ strike, allegedly in protest at lack of spares but
  also against PU proposals for state transport system
  July
  Sectors of CUT dispute government decision to return to owners factories
  occupied during tancazo
  Allende agrees to Christian Democrat demand for implementation by
  army of laws for arms searches; Allende and Christian Democrats
  reopen talks for constitutional solution of political crisis
  August
  Christian Democrats break off talks with Allende and declare support for
  lorry-owners’ strike
  Shopkeepers and professional groups join lorry-owners’ strike in
  increasing numbers; strike leaders demand government’s resignation
  Sabotage on power lines and railways
  Arms search laws increasingly used by military to intimidate workers
  Three military men, including Prats, join Cabinet
  Sailors and workers at Valparaiso naval base denounce plans for coup by
  navy; Cabinet criticized for lack of action over their detention and
  torture by naval intelligence
  Armed confrontation between Communist Party and Christian Democrat
  supporters in neighbourhood of Congress, which accuses Allende of
  violating constitution; deputies call on armed forces ‘to choose
  between executive and legislature’
  141
  
  Resignation of military Cabinet members; Prats also resigns as C-in-C of
  army; Allende charges opposition with risking civil war and
  encouraging military intervention
  Right-wing papers and radio station openly demand military intervention;
  Congress rejects Bill for their closure
  Mounting sabotage and terrorism, especially by Fatherland and Freedom
  Party
  September
  Demonstration in Santiago in support of PU on third anniversary of
  elections reckoned at half a million people; Allende warns of plot to
  overthrow PU
  Allende appeals to Christian Democrats for resumption of talks; they
  reply with demands for his resignation
  On the eleventh PU overthrown by coordinated military coup; Allende
  and advisers killed, following Air Force attack on Moneda Palace;
  sporadic armed resistance, mass arrests and executions, banning of
  all left-wing political parties, suspension of basic democratic and
  human rights; declaration by General Pinochet, leader of new
  military junta, of intention to ‘eliminate every trace of Marxism from
  Chile’
  
  142
  
  POSTSCRIPT
  Events in Chile since the overthrow of the Popular Unity
  Since the coup censorship in Chile has stifled most sources of
  information. Among the surviving publications, only the Jesuit Mensaje is
  independent and reliable. Moreover, this gap has been filled by a Kafkaesque web of misinformation. Even reports which might at first seem
  favourable to the left or prejudicial to the junta are sometimes concocted
  by the DINA (Departamiento de lnteligencia Nacional), the National
  Intelligence Agency. In addition to tales of armed resistance, to justify
  new waves of detentions, it has also spread stories of repression bizarre
  enough to undermine all credibility on the subject. The information which
  follows is therefore based on established international sources, such as Le
  Monde, the London weekly Latin America, and United Nations
  publications. Chile Monitor and the declarations of the Chilean left have
  only been used, and that discreetly, for information on the left itself. This
  is understandably muted.
  The Consolidation of the Junta
  The junta established by the coup consists of the heads of the armed
  forces – the army, navy, air force and police (carabineros). Its evident
  leader from the outset, army General Pinochet, was soon appointed
  president. He rules by decree, with the help since 1975 of a ‘consultative
  council’. Largely nominated by Pinochet, this can only consider the junta’s
  proposals and has no more than advisory powers. The junta’s first measures
  effectively outlawed the left and the labour movement. The CUT, most
  trades union confederations and all left-wing political parties were banned.
  The other parties were suspended. The electoral rolls were officially
  burned. Pinochet has consistently repeated that the junta will retain power
  indefinitely.
  Its policies have gone far beyond the reversal of the Popular Unity’s
  advances. The coup’s violence, despite the lack of resistance, was clearly a
  political project. It was designed to create the conditions to physically
  143
  
  eliminate the left and reintroduce free enterprise to a degree unknown in
  Chile since the 1930s. Whilst the CIA was instrumental in this process,
  according to a US Senate enquiry, its explicit mentor is the University of
  Chicago monetarist and Nobel prize-winner, Milton Friedman. His ‘social
  market economy’ has meant extensive denationalization and savage cuts in
  public spending. Many state agencies long pre-dating the Popular Unity,
  CORA, INDAP and CORFO among them, have been virtually dismantled.
  Employment in the public sector has been cut by a third. Private foreign
  investment has been invited on terms so favourable that Chile has left the
  Andean Pact with neighbouring countries, which limits profit remissions
  and so on.
  The returns as yet are virtually nil. Many small firms have gone to
  the wall, and even copper has suffered a recession. With the banning of
  strikes, collective bargaining and the election of trades union officials, the
  real basic wage has fallen by fifty per cent, according to Mensaje and other
  sources. The latest official figure for unemployment (the lowest of many) is
  nineteen per cent, compared to just over three per cent during most of the
  Popular Unity period. The junta apparently aspires to emulate the growth
  produced by the similar Brazilian ‘model’. Yet growth in Brazil (which has
  since declined) was based on very different conditions – the repression of
  the living standards of a much less organized working class, more
  sophisticated management, a boom in the international economy and a
  much larger local market. Far from growing, output in Chile has fallen
  steadily since the coup – by some fifteen per cent in 1975 alone, according
  to World Bank calculations. The only marked increase is of food exports,
  which simply reflects a reduction of consumption in Chile. Actual
  agricultural production has fallen. Output of wheat, a staple foodstuff, has
  been halved since the Popular Unity period, according to official figures for
  the 1975/6 harvest. To put it bluntly, the outside world is eating Chileans’
  meals for them.
  This means malnutrition of varying degrees for roughly half the
  population. Politically it has also meant the disenchantment with the junta
  of forces that were previously behind it, and typically of Christian
  Democrats. After the coup the official leadership of this largest single party
  144
  
  declared in favour of the junta, but others dissociated themselves
  immediately or within a short while. These divisions have inevitably
  widened. For two years ex-president Eduardo Frei, the State Department
  and figures dose to the junta itself, were apparently looking to Christian
  Democrats for some semi-civilian regime, again on the Brazilian model.
  However, in the circumstances of unrelieved economic collapse and
  growing repression, this proved impossible. As the junta’s exclusively
  militarist wing under Pinochet gained the upper hand, reinforced by shifts
  to the right in other Latin American countries, potential leaders of any
  rapprochement were marginalized or eliminated. As early as 1974 the
  constitutionalist General Prats was assassinated in Buenos Aires. The
  civilian-oriented General Bonilla, Pinochet’s second-in-command, died in
  mysterious circumstances. Innumerable generals have been retired.
  Dissident Christian Democrats have been gaoled in increasing numbers, and
  recently even Frei has complained of attempts on his life.
  The implications of this polarization are much debated on the left,
  especially now that Frei has come out openly against the junta, with
  Pinochet surviving what was temporarily a crisis for him. The US response,
  on the other hand, since roughly mid 1975, has been to opt clearly to back
  Pinochet, whilst discreetly pressing for a better image on human rights
  questions. However, the end of the Kissinger era may call this policy into
  question.
  
  official figures usually put it lower. (The official ‘state of internal war’,
  permitting summary executions after brief hearings by war tribunals, lasted
  a year). Similar estimates of all those detained since September 1973 put
  the number at 150,000 – about one in forty of the adult population (though
  these figures also include the frequent re-arrest of the same persons). By
  mid 1976 some four thousand people were still officially detained. Releases
  since then have been offset by a rapid rise in the number of people just
  ‘disappearing’. The number of such cases documented by Catholic sources
  is about two thousand. Refugees from Chile number over 100,000. The
  largest group, in Argentina, is subject to constant harassment, kidnappings
  and assassinations by right-wing terrorist groups in cooperation with the
  DINA. The latter also operates in Europe and the USA, and was almost
  certainly responsible for the car-bomb murder in Washington in September
  1976 of ex-Popular Unity Minister Orlando Letelier.
  Within Chile the liberal wing of the Church is virtually the only body
  which can blunt the edge of the repression. For two years an interdenominational Peace Committee, led by the Cardinal, organized legal
  defence for prisoners and support for their families and those without work.
  However, as the Church became unavoidably outspoken at what it was
  witnessing, this was dissolved. Its work has continued on a denominational
  basis, but those involved, including priests, have themselves become
  victims of the repression.
  
  These developments have reinforced the junta’s reliance on
  repression. The DINA, which coordinates it, is largely trained by Brazilian
  agents and responsible only to Pinochet, though as in Brazil it has its own
  links with right-wing terrorist organizations. Its brutality is now widely
  known. The personal experiences of many activists interviewed by us
  included every imaginable form of torture, mutilation and killing. As the
  subject has been documented elsewhere (for instance in Amnesty’s Chile.
  An Amnesty International Report, London, 1974) we chose to omit it. The
  most reliable estimates of the number of people killed since the coup are in
  the region of 30,000 – which the junta itself has once admitted – though
  
  In these circumstances the strongest protests have come from
  international sources. In the non-Communist world, almost every
  international body of standing, including the United Nations, The
  International Labour Organization, The International Commission of Jurists
  and Amnesty International, has condemned the torture and killing in Chile.
  Even the Organization of American States, at its 1976 annual meeting in
  Santiago, raised the issue. After Pinochet opened the proceedings with a
  renewed declaration of ‘ideological warfare ... in defence of Western
  Christian civilization’, the OAS Human Rights Commission condemned the
  junta’s ‘arbitrary gaolings, persecution and torture’. More importantly, the
  international labour movement has also been galvanized into action. As a
  result of its pressure, the governments of several Western countries,
  
  145
  
  146
  
  Human rights and the repression
  
  including Britain, Italy and Sweden, have either cut or severely curtailed
  their diplomatic relations with Chile. Even the Ford administration was
  forced by Congress to cut direct military aid to the junta, though this means
  in effect that it simply passes through third countries. By 1975 a number of
  European governments, including Britain’s refused to renegotiate the
  junta’s scheduled debt repayments.
  For much of the labour movement, however, this was more than a
  question of human rights. It was also one of civil rights and the political
  future of Chile.
  Debates on the left and the resistance to the junta
  Both spontaneously and in response to a call from the Chilean CUT
  in exile, trade unionists throughout the world launched boycotts against
  trade with Chile. (Those in Britain are documented in the Chile Solidarity
  Campaign’s Chile Fights special issue, ‘Chile and the British Labour
  Movement’ published in 1975.) Popular Unity leaders in exile set up a
  coordinating committee for their activities in Europe, which also cooperates
  with the MIR and dissident Christian Democrat exiles.
  
  These questions crystallize round the issue of how to relate to the
  Christian Democrats. On the one hand there are evident grounds for
  building the broadest possible alliance, on a democratic platform. with all
  sectors opposed to the junta. These now include the bulk of the Christian
  Democrat Party. On the other hand ‘democracy’ is hardly a reliable
  platform, in the light of the Popular Unity experience. and Frei showed
  scant concern for it until he fell out with the junta. Chile’s left has strong
  historical grounds for distrusting any such alliance. which led in the 1930s40s to its marginalization and repression by the bourgeois parties which it
  had supported. More recently, though, it is also true that the splits in the
  Christian Democrats which produced the Christian Left and MAPU
  strongly reinforced the left. without involving compromises. The question,
  therefore, is whether to consider such an alliance with the party as a whole,
  with its dissident fractions, or with none of it – and on what terms?
  
  Whilst muted by the struggle for survival and reorganization, debates
  continue within the left about how best to resist the junta, and what
  strategies to follow. All left parties agreed immediately that spontaneous
  armed resistance was futile. The first steps toward an effective resistance
  were reorganization, propaganda, and the building of a popular movement
  against the policies of the Generals. This strategy would be reinforced by
  mobilizing world opinion to isolate them internationally. Initially the MIR,
  with some support from the parties dose to it, laid more emphasis on early
  prospects of a popular insurrection. However, by 1975 many of its leaders
  had been killed or forced into exile, along with those of other left parties.
  The result is a measured rapprochement between them, after a fairly bitter
  period of retrospective recriminations on ‘ultra-leftism’ and ‘reformism’,
  encouraged by most of the left in Europe. This has now given way to a
  recognition, on the one hand, that tactical compromises are called for; and
  on the other, that the junta’s weakness is no guarantee of political openings.
  
  The option commanding the widest support is now the second, of some
  relationship with dissident Christian Democrats, on terms whose general
  basis lies in the difference between the experiences of the 1930s and 1960s:
  and this is that the latter involved a winning over of much of the Christian
  Democrats’ base to clearly socialist objectives. For this to be possible now,
  however, requires some tangible advance in the position of every party. The
  usually clichéd ‘lessons of Chile’ will have to be seen as lessons for all, not
  just for ‘reformists’ or ‘ultra-leftists’. Whilst the ‘new left’ in Latin America
  since the Cuban revolution has failed to build a mass following for its
  analysis, much of it valid, the weakness of the Communist parties has been
  the reverse: the lack of a new analysis to make its undoubted base effective.
  No less important than the danger of a full-blooded bourgeois alliance is the
  fact that any ‘vanguardism’ without a massive popular base, and the tactical
  compromises entailed, affords no real prospects of power in the Latin
  American circumstances. Hints of this have come from both of what clearly
  remain the ‘two sides’ of the left. The Communist and Socialist parties have
  recognized their lack of an answer to ‘the problem of the military’ in the
  Popular Unity period. The other parties do now seem prepared to conceive of
  relationships, if not alliances, with new forces. However, this is one thing at
  the level of general declarations. It still remains to translate these advances
  
  147
  
  148
  
  into practice, in the form of a concrete programme for Chile which goes some
  way beyond ‘anti-fascist’ positions.
  Insofar as these problems are reflections of those of the international
  left, it may be naive to speculate on purely Chilean advances. However, it is
  also true that revolutions have been made by revolutionary practice, rather
  than debates in exile, whose significance is exaggerated by their being more
  conspicuous than concrete developments in Chile. That these involve few
  dramatic events is partly a measure of the left’s success in working for
  reorganization and effective propaganda, rather than rapid confrontation.
  Two things stand out in the consequently scant information on the
  opposition to the junta – a new degree of cooperation between grassroots
  activists of different parties like those whose stories feature here; and
  widespread popular resistance to current policies, despite the penalties. For
  instance, all the left-wing parties are regularly producing and distributing
  clandestine news-sheets, presumably with a new generation reliving
  Gregorio’s childhood experiences (chapter I) of this sort of political work.
  Even in gaol new bonds have been forged on the common anvil of the
  repression between activists with different experiences and political
  positions. Resistance committees also exist in many places of work and
  residence – and whilst the Chilean left in exile may disagree as to their
  merits, many of them are in fact inter-party. Rate strikes are occurring in
  shantytowns, stoppages in the copper mines, go-slows in the factories and
  ports. Wall slogans are reappearing – sometimes just ‘R’ for ‘Resistencia ‘.
  All these of necessity involve substantial organization and awareness.
  They also suggest the experience and will of a new political generation
  committed, in some of Allende’s last words, to new and appropriate forms
  of struggle.
  
  149
  
  WHAT TO READ ON CHILE
  A surprisingly difficult question. The coup has produced a spate of
  books and pamphlets, but little in English with any depth or originality.
  Most of them, like Helios Prieto’s Chile: The Gorillas Are Amongst Us,
  (Pluto Press. 1974) are superficial and sectarian, of the ‘told you so’ variety.
  The one comprehensive study in depth of the Popular Unity and its
  background is Chile: the State and the Revolution by Ian Roxborough,
  Philip O’Brien and Jackie Roddick (Macmillan, 1976, paperback edition).
  This also has a comprehensive bibliography of books and articles in French
  and Spanish, as well as English. Otherwise. the most readable items
  published since the coup are probably Revolution and Counter-revolution in
  Chile, edited by Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff (Monthly Review Press.
  1974) and Michel Raptis’ book of the same name, sub-titled A Dossier on
  Workers’ Participation in the Revolutionary Process (Allison and Busby,
  1974). The first is a collection of articles written before and after the coup.
  The second includes valuable documentary material on the various popular
  organizations such as the industrial cordons, but not enough, whilst the
  author’s comments, like most on the subject. are largely an affirmation of
  faith.
  In these circumstances, the most vivid reading dates mainly from
  before the coup, though much of this is also one-sided. A prime example is
  Kate Clark’s Reality and Prospects of Popular Unity (Lawrence and
  Wishart, 1973), which virtually ignores the controversy over the PU’s
  strategy. Read together with Prieto it is a fair measure of how far Chile was
  a problem not just of imperialism, but of the sclerosis of the whole left, and
  not just in Chile. On the positive side, The Chilean Road to Socialism,
  edited by Ann Zammit (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, 1973)
  includes discussions which remain live, however dated, and also the
  Popular Unity programme. Regis Debray’s Conversations with Allende
  (New Left Books, 1971) is lively, despite Debray’s arrogant moments.
  Allende’s speeches are also vivid, seen in their context and with hindsight –
  Chile’s Road to Socialism, Salvador Allende, ed. Juan Garces (Penguin,
  1973). Sadly, though, the best books – those which argue issues openly, or
  150
  
  provide the raw material for this – remain untranslated. Notable amongst
  them are ‘The State and Tactical Problems During the Government of
  Allende’ (El Estado y Los Problemas Tacticos en el Gobierno de Allende,
  Siglo Veintiuno, Madrid, 1974), also by Juan Garces, an advisor and dose
  friend of Allende. And Maurice Najman’s ‘Chile is Close’ (Le Chili Est
  Proche, Maspero, Paris, 1974), a much fuller collection of documents than
  Michel Raptis’. In confirmation of Najman’s title, as measured a blow from
  the right as any is Robert Moss’s Chile’s Marxist Experiment (David and
  Charles, 1973). Full of misrepresentations and venom, it’s a healthy
  reminder that Pinochet has friends in Britain.
  On events since the coup the best informed source – though hitherto
  short on political analysis – is Chile Monitor, published roughly every two
  months by the Chile Solidarity Campaign in London. The NACLA (North
  American Congress on Latin America, N.Y. and Berkeley, California) Latin
  America and Empire Report for October 1973 (‘Chile: the Story Behind the
  Coup’) is still worth reading, whilst its November 1976 number (volume X,
  no. 9, ‘Chile: recycling the capitalist crisis’) gives the most thorough up-todate information at the time of writing. Most of the Chilean left parties in
  exile are now publishing documents in English. However, they are
  understandably guarded, and there is as yet no adequate analysis of them,
  nor of the resistance in Chile. The commentators – and perhaps the
  surviving leaders too – have yet to do justice to the fallen.
  Colin Henfrey
  January 1977
  
  151
  
  