By MATEUS FIORENTINI* is MARIA LUISA BATTEGAZZORE**
Entry from the “Dictionary of Marxism in America”
Life and political praxis
Rodney Arismendi (1913-1989) was a prominent Uruguayan political leader. Son of Etelvina Carrasco and Tibaldo Arismendi, he was born in the state of Cerro Largo, on the border with Brazil. His family comes from founders of the city of Montevideo, with a history of political activity with the Colorado Party - especially with the groups called battlelists, identified with the legacy of former Uruguayan President José Batlle y Ordoñez. It was in his father's library that Rodney Arismendi began his first literary and political readings.
At the age of 15, Rodney Arismendi leaves his family in order to pursue his studies, moving to the city of Melo, also in Cerro Largo. During his years at the city high school, alone and living with the meager resources sent by his family, he came into contact with works related to Marxism. There, he gathered in groups dedicated to the work of Gorki and Marx, as well as writing poems.
At the Faculty of Law, in Montevideo, he joined the organization student red and, in 1931, joined the Communist Party of Uruguay (PCU). In the student movement, he played a leading role in the resistance to the dictatorship of Gabriel Terra (1933-1938), marked by the confrontation between this government and the Army and university students – which ended up bringing together students and the military. Arismendi, who was then working at the Ministry of National Defense, was appointed by the PCU as head of the party's Military Commission, with the aim of strengthening ties with members of the Armed Forces. His involvement with student struggles led him to prison twice during this dictatorship.
As a representative of communist youth in the movement of solidarity with the Spanish Republic, Rodney Arismendi collaborated with Latin Americans who were part of the International Solidarity Brigades in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1938). Considering the Uruguayan context, these demonstrations of support became a strong rallying point in defense of democracy, in which Arismendi became a prominent character, which allowed him to establish links with important references of Marxism and the international communist movement. Under the guidance of the PCU, he held several lectures across the country, with the aim of combating the anti-Soviet campaign promoted by the Uruguayan corporate press, on which occasion he produced the text Soviet justice defends the world (1938), pamphlet edited by the party.
In the early 1940s, Rodney Arismendi took over the direction of Justice, a periodical of the PCU and then of the People's Diary – an anti-fascist newspaper of relevant performance for the creation of the General Union of Workers (UGT), in 1942. Between 1941 and 1945, persecuted for his activity as a journalist, he went into exile in Chile and Argentina, before returning clandestinely to Uruguay. He only returned to a legal performance after the intense campaign Freedom for Arismendi (which would result in his amnesty, granted by the Chamber of Deputies).
It was in this time between exile and clandestinity that Rodney Arismendi's intellectual maturation took place – whose first fruits would be seen with the publication of the essays The Philosophy of Marxism and Señor Haya de la Torre (1945), and For a dollar record (1947)
In 1946, the Uruguayan communist took office as a national deputy, beginning a trajectory of 27 consecutive years as a parliamentarian, interrupted only by the coup d'état of 1973 (which established the military dictatorship that would last until 1985). As a parliamentarian, he became a spokesman for the popular demands of social movements; Recognized as a great negotiator, he stood out for his defense of slaughterhouse workers and for his participation in the Commission for Financial and Banking Affairs of the Chamber.
In 1955, at the XVI Congress of the PCU, Arismendi assumed the party's general secretary, inaugurating a period of renewal. During these years, which lasted until the 1973 coup, the PCU, under his leadership, experienced significant growth, becoming the main force of the Uruguayan left. The Marxist's work was focused on themes related to the organization of the party and the deepening of debates around the construction of unity in the country's popular and socialist camp - which would later culminate in the founding of the coalition wide front. In addition, he sought to renew the party's interpretation of the Uruguayan and Latin American social formation, developing his “Theory of the Uruguayan Revolution”.
Under his direction, the PCU worked for the unification of the labor and social movement, whose high point was the realization of the Congress of the Pueblo, in 1965. This space for building unified agendas of social and popular movements served as the basis for organizing the National Convention of Workers (CNT), responsible for unifying the union movement in the country (a process that took place between 1964 and 1966).
In Uruguay, the 1950s and 1960s were marked by dialogues with the Socialist Party (PS) and the construction of gas station experiences: such as the Izquierda Liberation Front (FIDEL), created on the initiative of the PCU; and the People's Union (UP), by PS. With the failure of the UP, in the 1962 elections, and the adoption of repressive measures – from 1968 onwards, by the government of Jorge Pacheco Areco (Colorado), known as Prompt Security Measures –, the unitary strategy of the PCU galvanized support in the field of the Uruguayan left. Such perspective of unity of the democratic and popular field would gain amplitude with the incorporation of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC) to the debates. Thus, in 1971, with concerted action between the PCU, PS, PDC and sectors of the National and Colorado parties, the wide front.
In this context, especially after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution (1959), Rodney Arismendi devoted himself to formulating what he called “paths and ways” of approaching the socialist revolution. He played an important role in bringing the Cuban revolutionary government and the USSR closer together, building close relations in both countries, which would impact political discussions at the national and regional levels.
Highlights include Che Guevara's visit to Uruguay in 1961, on the occasion of the meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS); During his stay, Che participated in an event promoted by the country's socialist associations, in University of the Republic (UDELAR). There, the leader of the Cuban revolution reinforced the perspective defended by the PCU, frustrating the expectations of the supporters of foquismo - as was the case with National Liberation Movement-Tupamaros (MLN-T). In addition, the event was marked by the first attempt on the life of the commander of the Cuban Revolution (which resulted in the death of a teacher – Arbelio Ramirez)
Another moment to be highlighted was the participation of Rodney Arismendi in the conference of the Latin American Solidarity Organization (OLAS), held in 1967, in Havana. The meeting was guided by the defense of guerrilla warfare, as the main instrument to carry out socialist revolutions in Latin America. In his intervention, Arismendi defended that the organization reaffirmed the autonomy of each country to adopt the path that best suited the singularities of their own social formations; moreover, the author argued with organizations that boycotted the event, especially the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB) and the Argentine Communist Party (PCA).
With the coup d'état in 1973, Rodney Arismendi lived a short period in hiding, but was soon arrested and expelled from the country (1975); exiled to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). During this time, the author dedicated himself to international political work and continued to lead the opposition of the Uruguayan communists to the dictatorship, acting together with solidarity movements and in debates within the scope of Marxism – from the perspective of the sole leadership of the PCU and the maintenance of the performance of wide front. His life abroad was characterized by the deepening of his Marxist studies (such as readings on Antônio Gramsci) and by numerous discussions in which he was involved – especially about the experience of Allende, in Chile, in addition to the fruitful polemics with the Italians around the current that defended democracy as a universal value. From these debates, Rodney Arismendi would develop his interpretation of the necessary destruction of the bourgeois structures of the State, the distinctions between peaceful and democratic paths to socialism, and the concept of “advanced democracy”, created by him.
Rodney Arismendi returned to his country in 1985, dedicating himself to creating a movement called Advanced Democracy. He even got elected senator for the wide front, but he would end up dying, in 1989, before taking office.
Contributions to Marxism
The period of greatest impulse of Rodney Arismendi's intellectual production coincides with his arrival at the General Secretariat of the PCU, during the XVI Congress of the organization (1955). This was a troubled time for the international communist movement, impacted by the “secret report” with accusations against Stalin, presented by the then Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev (1956) – which would lead to the split of many Communist Parties.
However, Khrushchev's accusations did not produce the same effect in Uruguay, being softened by internal controversies that marked the XVI Congress of the PCU. During this event, the leader Eugenio Gómez (1892-1973) was removed from his duties, under accusations of “cult of personality”, “bureaucratization” and “sectarianization”, in addition to “rigidizing” the party by his family. At this delicate moment in the history of the PCU, Arismendi led a process of political and theoretical renewal of the party, seeking to minimize organizational traumas. In this way, he sought to reduce the influence of Stalinism in the PCU, avoiding, however, the execration of Stalin's image (a practice that he disagreed with that of many parties and organizations across the planet).
With regard to Rodney Arismendi's intellectual elaboration, politics was both his starting and ending point. He understands that the political structures arising from the processes of national emancipation, which occurred throughout the XNUMXth century, created limited democracies, with elitist and authoritarian party representations. This perception of Latin American societies led the author to defend the “continental character of the revolution”.
However, even though its platinum nation was in tune with this phenomenon, there was one peculiarity: the country had transited for many years in the midst of what Rodney Arismendi calls “bourgeois democracy” (although he distinguishes it from a real “democracy”), having thus created a more solid political institutional framework, unlike most countries in the region; with this experience, he considers that a “national-reformist, democratic, advanced liberal, secular, civilist mentality” would have developed in Uruguay.
This process would gain strength in the early years of the XNUMXth century, under the leadership of José Batlle y Ordoñez (what came to be called batllism). Such a model, which reconciled a stable liberal democracy with relative social well-being, was classified by Rodney Arismendi as “national-reformism”. However, although this phenomenon had produced a modernization and diversification of Uruguayan society, it began to show signs of exhaustion from the mid-1950s onwards – when the author identifies the emergence of new social segments, especially urban middle sectors such as civil servants, students , teachers, doctors, lawyers, among others. According to him, these social strata, class fractions and other fields of society made up a chaotic renewal movement, which came into conflict with the social, economic and political structures of “national-reformism” – expressed, in political terms, by the balance between the National and Colorado parties.
In this context, Rodney Arismendi envisioned a crisis of Uruguayan bipartisanship – and, thus, a perspective of rupture of this model and consequent creation of new political actors. He also pointed to changes that occurred in the composition of the Uruguayan bourgeoisie in view of the projection of financial capital over industry. For him, this phenomenon heightened the association and dependence of national capital on the “financial oligarchy”, forming “the thread” – expression with which he designates the “reactionary alliance around the summit of the financial oligarchy”.
For Rodney Arismendi, the great contradiction that marked Uruguayan society was the one that opposed “oligarchy” and “people”. The author defined oligarchy as the sector represented by agrarian elites and large national economic groups, more or less dependent on imperialist monopolies. The bankers, intertwined with the large estates, with the import and export trade which, intertwined with the international financial system, make up “the thread”. In view of this, he sought to identify the differences between segments, layers and fractions of the country's ruling classes, especially within the scope of the fraction that was then called “national bourgeoisie”.
The author recognized the existence of a “big bourgeoisie” divided into two fractions: the “big sold bourgeoisie”, completely associated with big capital and imperialism; and the “compromising big bourgeoisie”, endowed with contradictions with imperialism, but incapable of breaking with the relations of dependence and with the landlordism. The “middle bourgeoisie”, which he called “national”, produced for the domestic market and suffered from competition from multinational products. There was still the “petty bourgeoisie”, with whom the contradictions with imperialism would be more acute.
On the other side was the people, made up of the vast majority of the population, made up of the working class, peasants, urban salaried workers, teachers, liberal professionals, civil servants – a large mass that suffered from imperialist domination. There is also a political meaning in this definition, since Rodney Arismendi understands that people are all those who “oppose imperialism and the thread” – either because of their interests or political affinities.
Rodney Arismendi did not delve into the debates – which were intensified within the scope of Marxism – about the existence or not of a “feudal phase” in the formation of Latin American societies. By mentioning the word “feudal”, he was referring rather to the persistent remnants of colonial society in Uruguayan capitalism, not having, on his part, a conceptual or methodological rigidity when using the term. The highlight of Rodney Arismendi's understanding resided more in the identification of a conflicting and contradictory process that overlapped distinct and disparate levels of development in the same context.
In the case of Uruguay, there was a phenomenon of gentrification of the landed elite and a proletarianization of the peasants, leading the PCU to define in its program that the socialist revolution would be “agrarian of national liberation”, or “democratic of national liberation” – understood as equivalent terms. He understands that the independence processes of Latin American countries promoted partial ruptures in the social, economic and political structures of the region, causing, in the mid-twentieth century, colonial legacies, industrial capitalism and a process of frank financialization of global economies to coexist. .
Rodney Arismendi's interpretation of the dynamics that mark the processes of Uruguayan national transformation, its political culture and social reality, are the basis on which he supported what he called "Continental Revolution Theory". Its objective corresponds to the construction of a "CUruguayan path to socialism", characterized by the dialectical relationship between national and Latin American interests. It identifies that, while there is a “community of tasks between the Uruguayan and Latin American revolutions”, there is also a clear “national singularity”. By dialoguing and analyzing the phenomena that marked all of Latin America during the mid-twentieth century, for example, Rodney Arismendi envisioned a context of expanding the ways and paths that each people found to reach socialism.
His thought was especially influenced by the Cuban Revolution (1959) and the Chilean experience, starting with the arrival of Salvador Allende in the government in 1970. After the US invasion of the Cuban beach of Girón (1961) and the announcement of the socialist character of the revolution ( 1962), Rodney Arismendi observed that the Cuban revolution broke with two pillars of the Latin American colonial heritage: landlordism and imperialist domination. In view of this, the Uruguayan leader identified in that process a revolution in the “popular” and “advanced” sense, configuring a transitory stage that pointed to the construction of a new social formation. Furthermore, the author understood that the Cuban Revolution inserted guerrilla warfare in the antechamber of instruments and ways to reach socialism, going over all formulas of “smug wisdom”.
Likewise, the election of Salvador Allende, in 1970, to the presidency of Chile, showed the “validity of the political struggle combined with the multiple action of the masses and the full use of legal possibilities” to reach the government. For Rodney Arismendi, “the diametric difference in forms of the revolutionary processes in Chile and Cuba – which crushes all the cult of prescription and dogmatism –, and the acute national singularity and the paths between one and the other, take a back seat to the similar historical content”, that is, the so-called “Latin American Revolution”. Both phenomena had an impact on the strengthening of the theses of the “Continental Revolution”, defended by the author.
This scenario, which marked the 1960s and 1970s, led Rodney Arismendi to debate with defenders of the perspective known as foquism, developed by the Frenchman Regis Debray, defender of an armed path to socialism. One of the most famous cases in all of Latin America originated in Uruguay, with the experience of National Liberation Movement-Tupamaros (MLN-T), making it possible to say that, for Arismendi, this has become a recurring theme. The Tupamaros guerrilla movement consisted of an armed front, formed by the split of sectors of various parties, from the PCU to the PN, with emphasis on former members of the Socialist Party (PS) and white nationalist groups (PN).
Rodney Arismendi considered that, to a large extent, guerrilla organizations ended up substituting political leadership for military command, transforming the armed route into their only tool. The author pointed out that these organizations transformed what would be a “method” into a “doctrine”, reducing political direction and theoretical work simply to its military aspect. As for the specific case of the Tupamaros, he analyzes that, for the most part, they are made up of middle sectors of society and their biggest mistake would have been the absence of a “coherent revolutionary theory”, something that limited their program to a “nationalist socialism”. Such limits materialize in a flawed reading of the correlation of forces in the country and the conditions for the installation of a guerrilla movement in Uruguay. For the communist leader, the Tupamaros distanced themselves from the popular masses, instead of mobilizing and organizing them, for not fully understanding the dynamics that defined the uniqueness of Uruguayan society.
Even so, it should be noted that the oppositions regarding the analysis of the ways to reach socialism did not prevent a mutual collaboration between the PCU and the Tupamaros in many moments. In the mid-1960s, the debate about the unity of the popular field and cooperation between socialist groups was at an advanced stage of maturity. This perspective was called by Rodney Arismendi “the militant unity of the people”.
Rodney Arismendi also participated in the debate around what was called staging (a concept that was widely disseminated in the mid-twentieth century). From this point of view, theorists linked to the so-called developmental current defended that the national “capitalist development” would be an instrument for overcoming colonial concerns – expressed in the latifundia, in social inequality and in imperialist domination. This thought influenced countless Marxist intellectuals, who began to support the thesis that, in colonial countries, the revolution would occur in two stages: “bourgeois-democratic”, first, and “socialist”, later.
Thus, throughout the region, exaggerated optimistic views emerged about the role of the so-called “national bourgeoisie” in the struggle for socialism, even identifying, among this fraction of social class, sectors that would be “revolutionary”. For Rodney Arismendi, however, the developmentalist project should be seen as “regressive and utopian”; he understands that the revolutionary appearance of figures like Juan Domingo Perón “disguises the presence of classes”, putting the working masses at the service of the big bourgeoisie's project.
In the understanding of the Uruguayan Marxist, there are contradictions between the bourgeoisies of the peripheral countries and those of the central nations, even though he admits that, in certain stages of the process, the so-called “national bourgeoisies” could assume the leadership of the national emancipation movement. However, he perceives the limits of these groups – incapable of leading the socialist revolution in Latin America. Faced with the need to overcome capitalist relations in order to build effectively independent projects for society, Arismendi points out that national elites prefer to submit to imperialism rather than promote legitimately emancipationist projects.
The author's dialogue with the stageist perspective occurs insofar as he agrees that the revolution would be the result of a historical process marked by phases, which would not appear suddenly, thus opposing the so-called idealist currents, whose immediatist postures denied the materiality of historical processes . However, he sought to overcome the “schematic visions of the two stages”, pointing to the “dialectical interrelationship between the democratic stage of national liberation and the socialist one”. In the light of this debate, he rescued Lenin's concept of uninterrupted revolution by stating that "the first becomes the second, the second solves the problems of the first in passing, and only the struggle determines to what extent the second manages to overcome the first".
As for Uruguay, the author claims that “the democratic and socialist revolutions” will be, in his country, “two phases of a single and continuous historical process”; for him, the revolution must be socialist from the outset – thus developing a dialectical relationship between the socialist and anti-imperialist character of national liberation in Latin America.
In the regional context, the author considers that, regardless of the methods and approaches to socialism, the central question lies in the unity of the people around the anti-imperialist struggle – in the sense of a “radical democratization” of societies. These are universal elements that, according to him, characterize the Latin American unity of processes. However, he argues that the specific trajectory of each people is marked by the idiosyncrasies of each social formation: there is no single path to reach socialism. Furthermore, he envisions an intertwining of possibilities, according to each scenario or circumstance originated by the process itself.
Rodney Arismendi also distinguished the notion of “path to socialism”, “approach routes” and “passage to socialism”. By “path to socialism”, he understands the most strategic and structural questions for the unity of the people, which provide the direction to where one wants to arrive, having a foundational sense; the concept is based on an interpretation of the national social formation, the political culture, the characteristics of the economic groups and historical dynamics that mark the processes of transformation and dispute of narratives about the national identity. The “approach routes” have a conjunctural characteristic, consisting of the tactics adopted to forge the unity of the people, seize power and pave the way for a transitional period.
At the national level, this process presupposes the construction of what he called the “social bloc of changes”, that is, the unity of all classes and social strata in a large bloc led by the working class, in alliance with peasants and other social segments. committed to supporting democratic and anti-imperialist demands. The common thread that unifies the broad sectors would be materialized through an “advanced democratic program”, destined to demand “radical democratic” changes, whose objective is to open the way for structural transformations.
The unity around this “program” configures a “political synthesis” of the interests of the vast majority of the people, which, even though it does not yet have a “socialist character”, proposes to institute an “advanced democratic power”, with a view to accumulate strength for the moment of the “passage to socialism”. For him, the wide front it is the political expression of this historical bloc, understood as the “social force of the revolution”.
However, although he does not rule out the parliamentary and peaceful way to reach socialism, the author considers that, given the social formation of the vast majority of countries and the frequent authoritarianism that marks our continent, the construction of socialism would not be possible without a rupture of a radical, and probably violent, armed nature. By affirming the democratic path for building socialism, he presupposes the democratization of economic, social and political relations based on radical reforms that would lead to the structural transformation of Uruguayan society, which will not occur without confrontations or violence.
According to Rodney Arismendi, the process of “approximation” to socialism would be marked by a profound change in the correlation of political and social forces in the country. In this period of “accumulation of forces”, defined by the dispute for hegemonies within the constituted historical bloc, the Marxist highlights the need to form “a great Communist Party”, which would be able to assume the role of the main current of the popular movement and union.
Comment on the work
Rodney Arismendi began writing at a young age. In 1938, at the request of the PCU, he wrote the booklet Soviet justice defends the world (Montevideo: Ediciones Unidad, 1938), in which he denounced the campaign of the Uruguayan right against the USSR.
Shortly afterwards, he would produce his first works of more theoretical depth within the scope of Marxism: The Philosophy of Marxism and Señor Haya de la Torre (Montevideo: Editorial América, 1945), published as a pamphlet (and, in the following year, republished in Buenos Aires by Editorial Ateneo); It is For a dollar record (Montevideo: Edic. Pueblos Unidos, 1947). In the first, of philosophical content, the author is dedicated to the debate with the leader of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA), the Peruvian Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre; to this end, it claims Mariátegui's criticisms of the aprista leader's propositions, identifying his thinking as "relativist" and of "petty-bourgeois" essence, which results from his misunderstanding of the Marxist dialectic (which Haya understood as overcome) ; on the other hand, he accuses the Peruvian leader of “rude mechanicism”, when trying to reduce the validity of Marxism based on geographical aspects (the aprista argued that Marxism would be a thought coming from the “outside”, and therefore not consistent with reality from Peru). The second work, of an economic nature, brings together articles produced in exile and results from his work as a member of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies; it is focused on investigating the role of the dollar in US imperialist policy, as well as the dependent character of the Uruguayan economy; in the essay, polemicizes with the revisionist current known as browderism (prepared by the American Earl Browder), analyzes the entry of foreign capital into the country, the character of imperialist domination and the possibilities for autonomous development presented to Uruguay.
Intellectuals and the Communist Party (Montevideo: PCU, 1948) is a book that brings together his speeches given during activities with intellectuals. It is an embryo of the ideas that would sustain its Theory of the Uruguayan Revolution, developed later. From this first phase, one can also list: The congress of the builders of communism; is About Stalin's work: 'economic problems of socialism in the USSR' (Montevideo: Edic. Pueblos Unidos, 1953).
Rodney Arismendi's conception of the “Uruguayan road to socialism” appears more maturely in Problems of a Continental Revolution (Montevideo: Pueblos Unidos, 1962), a book in which he develops his “Theory of the Continental Revolution”. In the first part, he analyzes the Cuban Revolution as an expression of the structural character of struggles for emancipation throughout Latin America; it also addresses the challenges for anti-colonial struggles around the world, the necessary rupture with colonial legacies and the struggle against imperialism – as paths to socialism. In the second part, the author points out the elements that attribute uniqueness to the Uruguayan process. He claims a Marxist analysis of the Uruguayan reality and discusses the role of the national bourgeoisie in the anti-imperialist struggle.
Already in Lenin, the revolution and Latin America (Montevideo: Ediciones Pueblos Unidos, 1970), the Marxist leader deepened his readings on the theory of the Continental Revolution, placing the theoretical precepts of what he called ways of approaching socialism. Thus, it is possible to state that this work intends to place the “Uruguayan road to socialism” historically in the context of the Latin American Revolution.
After his exile in the USSR, due to the Uruguayan military coup, Rodney Arismendi devoted himself, to a great extent, to the theoretical debate in the sphere of Marxism. He has published articles and speeches in Estudios Magazine, PCU theoretical journal, or books such as Marx and the challenges of the time: and five more works (Montevideo: La Hora, 1983), which originated from a conference given at the Higher School Karl Marx, in “Oriental” Berlin (Democratic Republic of Germany), and was then awarded the title of honorary doctor. In 1987, he published “Apuntes sobre Gramsci” (Studies, Montevideo, 1987), released in the magazine's booklet format, in which it presents reflections on the work of this founder of the Italian Communist Party (PCI).
Rodney Arismendi's thoughts are also recorded in articles and speeches published by Estudios Magazine, and in builds. In order to select the reflections of the platinum intellectual, the following were released: The Latin American Revolution (Lisbon: Edições Avante/PCP, 1977); and The construction of the left unit (Montevideo: Granfinel, 1999), with texts produced between 1955 and 1989.
It is also worth mentioning the autobiographical interview by Rodney Arismendi (by Álvaro Barros-Lémez), entitled forge the wind (Montevideo: Monte Sexto, 1987); It is The Latin America unit (Montevideo: Fund. Arismendi, 2013), which brings his texts published between 1970 and 1989.
Numerous works by the Uruguayan Marxist are available electronically, based on the work of different organizations that seek to spread his thinking, such as the PCU (www.pcu.org.uy) and the Rodney Arismendi Foundation (http://fundacionrodneyarismendi.org) – portals where readers can follow the digitization process of books and magazines with articles and speeches by Rodney Arismendi.
*Matthew Fiorentini He is a professor in the teaching network of Rio Grande do Sul and a doctoral candidate in history at UPF.
*Maria Luisa Battegazzore is a retired professor of history at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad de la República (Udelar). She is the author, among other books, of The Radical Bourgeois Thought in the English Revolution [1640-1660] (University Culture Foundation).
Originally published on the Praxis Nucleus-USP
References
BATTEGAZZORE, Maria Luisa.The concept of advanced democracy in Rodney Arismendi. In: III International Conference 'The work of Carlos Marx and the challenges of the XXI century', 2013, Montevideo. Disp: http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar.
______. “Encounters and Developments with our Past”. Estudios Magazine, Montevideo (special edition “100 años de Arismendi”), Jun. 2013. Disp.: https://www.pcu.org.uy.
FIORENTINI, Matthew. Uruguayan road to socialism: Rodney's thought
Arismendi and the unity of the left (1955-1971). Dissertation (Master's), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2019.
LEIBNER, Gerardo.Comrades and companions: a political and social history of the communists of Uruguay. Montevideo: Trilce, 2011.
RICO, Alvaro. The problem of social revolution in the works of Uruguayan Marxists. Thesis (doctorate), Moscow State University, Moscow, 1985.
______. “An approximation to the 'Theory of the Revolution' in the works of Rodney Arismendi”. Estudios Magazine, Montevideo, 1990.
SCHVARZ, Niko. José Carlos Mariátegui and Rodney Arismendi: the summits of Marxism in Latin America. Montevideo: Granfinel, 1998.
VIEIRA, Edward. Arismendi's contribution to the development of Leninism in Latin America.Montevideo: Fundación Rodney Arismendi, 1994.
YAFFE, Carlos. On the construction process of the Communist Party of Uruguay.Montevideo: Ediciones PCU, 2013.
the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
