From the Sierra Morena, descending like Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga

 From the Sierra Morena, descending like Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The manifest rupture of the dominant coalition in the Fourth Transformation and the departure of López Obradorism to the Old World, particularly Spain, resonates with an echo that is neither of the Revolution, nor of the indigenous peoples, nor of Juárez's liberalism. It is the echo of the "homeland of the Creole," which Severo Martínez captured in ink and which today, with crushing irony, seems to be the true roadmap of the progressive national left. Martínez taught us that the homeland was not forged by the mestizo, nor by the indigenous, but by the Creole minority who, clinging to their Spanish heritage and colonial privileges, built a nation for themselves, on the backs of those below.

The relationship between Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga at the end of the Cold War is a case of "realpolitik" and, at the same time, of the Hispanic Creole connection. Fraga and Castro, despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum (post-Franco Spanish conservatism and Cuban communism), shared

a defense of Hispanic heritage. Despite being a communist leader, Fidel Castro was a fervent defender of the Spanish legacy in Latin America. For him, Cuban identity was a "wonderful mix of Spaniards, Indians, and Africans." Unlike the indigenist current of other leftist movements in the region, Castro viewed mestizaje and the Spanish legacy as central elements of national identity, a heritage to be defended. This stance, which remained firm even during the height of the "Day of Indigenous Resistance," directly connected him to the Hispanist vision of the Spanish right, which also defended Spain's legacy and culture throughout the world.

Loris Zanatta, in his work "Fidel Castro, the Last Catholic King," establishes him as a leader who defended morality and tradition, a "king" who legitimizes himself through Catholic tradition and morality, seen as a manifestation of the persistence of the colonial legacy in contemporary politics.

Marcos Roitman criticizes the lack of an authentic ideological identity in Latin America. The region's political and cultural elite have become "cipayos" of their own identity, prioritizing their connection to the Spanish "motherland" over the construction of a genuinely Latin American political project.

The presence of Beatriz Gutiérrez Mueller in the Motherland, legitimized by the intellectual and academic circles that now don't know where to place their radicalism, triggers a lack of clarity about one's own identity and a tendency to take refuge in the former Ibero-American metropolis.

In the end, Lopezobradorism and the Fourth Transformation did not seek a Marxist utopia, but rather the reaffirmation of a Hispanic, autocratic, and paternalistic worldview, where the caudillo stands as the defender of morality and tradition, a "king" who guards the "mother country" against the evils of the world.

Lopezobradorism is committing the same capitulation that Roitman criticized: Hispanic criollismo, exemplified by Fraga and Castro, the Morena elite is behaving like a "sepoy" of its own identity, a "criollo" who, unable to build a truly Mexican project, prefers to surrender to the Spanish lordly life. The true "flight to Spain" is not political exile, but ideological. It is that of the officials and intellectuals of the 4T who, unable to generate their own model, are forced into internal colonialism by their populist incompetence.

The rupture of Lopezobradorism and pragmatic defection go beyond the Fourth Transformation. In the end, the gachupines that Roitman denounces are not those who come from outside, but those who have taken root in the thinking of those who, in their supposed struggle, have been unable to escape the "homeland of the Creole" or the scepter of their own "Catholic king."

Anti-populism takes up anti-communism

 

Anti-populism takes up anti-communism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The removal of the sculptures of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara has renewed the debate surrounding anti-communism in Mexico. The animosity of the radical Morena supporters places President Claudia Sheinbaum facing a significant challenge, given the historical trajectory of anti-communism in Mexico, an issue that requires careful, thoughtful, and critical approach. Anti-communism in Mexico is not new, but it has gained strength in the last decade, especially since 2006, when animosity and anti-populism intensified following post-election conflicts and the wave of the South American left.

This phenomenon transcends mere electoral competition and is an ideological confrontation that seeks to arouse fears of communism. This strategy could have profound consequences for the country's political and social polarization, primarily because it appeals to North American interests. Mexican society is deeply conservative, illiberal, and more nationalist than progressive, which further complicates the situation.

As the ruling party, Morena faces major problems in this context, including a lack of internal cohesion and discipline, as well as an excessive focus on external demands, such as those of Donald Trump. The opposition has found support in external sectors, such as business, civil society, and the Catholic Church, which appear interested in countering López Obrador's influence on Sheinbaum.

Anti-communism in Mexico draws fundamentally from two sources: Catholic nationalism and the influence of the United States.

In the past, the Mexican left has struggled to effectively counter these forces, in part due to the conservative and illiberal nature of Mexican society. Mexico was a hub for the World Anti-Communist League, where the PRI had a permanent membership. To emerge successful this time, it is crucial that Morena and its leaders opt for moderation and pragmatism. Moving away from ideological extremes and the influence of radical actors, as well as controversial actors exposed by media scandals, could be a more effective strategy to regain legitimacy in society. Moderation and constructive dialogue, both nationally and internationally, could be key to navigating these challenges and promoting more inclusive and sustainable development for Mexico.

President Sheinbaum should carefully consider how to address the issue of communism and anti-communism in her administration, prioritizing moderation and pragmatism in her public policies and governance. This could help reduce polarization and promote greater stability and social cohesion in the country. There is no point in burning the country down for lost causes.

In this context, the question is whether Morena will rise to the bait of the anti-communist struggle and what effect this will have on the Mexican social environment. The answer will largely depend on the strategy adopted by President Sheinbaum and her team, and how they balance internal and external pressures with the need to promote more inclusive and sustainable development for Mexico.

History has shown that the Mexican left has lost important battles against anti-communism, and the level of factionalism and incompetence within the Mexican left has also contributed to its historic defeats. Therefore, it is critical that Morena and its leaders learn from these experiences and develop an effective strategy to address the challenges faced in the current context.