Passive Revolution, Transformism, Ceasarism? An Alternative Gramscian Explanation to Progressive Governments in Latin America

• In Event: 075 - Section on Marxist Sociology Paper Session. Co-Revolution: Bringing Anti-Systemic Movements Together

Abstract

Progressive governments in Latin America have recently been examined as particular cases of what Antonio Gramsci described as passive revolution—specifically, as cases of transformism and ceasarism. I concur that a Gramscian framework is appropriate and that a systematic study of the region’s unique context is overdue. However, I take issue with the direction that these analyses have taken, specifically with the methodologies and the lack of empirical evidence. In this paper I encourage and continue this conversation, by examining some of the main arguments that are deemed problematic, and by offering a different Gramscian alternative. I challenge the most important claims and arguments that have been put forward recently—that Bolivia’s 1952 Revolution and the current government of Evo Morales are cases of transformism (Morton and Hesketh 2013), and that all the progressive governments of Latin America are cases of progressive Caesarism (Modonesi 2014). Utilizing empirical evidence I offer an alternative Gramscian framework, understanding these governments as cases of anti-passive revolution engaged in struggles with the passive revolution of the dominant classes, in an ongoing process of state transition. As such, scholars need to investigate the forms that these transitions must take to provide the conditions for the development of a vigorous antithesis that will resist absorption and avoid the path of passive revolution; I examine some aspects of the Bolivian case as learning experiences. This is a more fruitful and hopeful approach than a blanket explanation that dooms progressive governments to failure.

Author

• Rebeca Jasso-Aguilar