He wasn’t a socialist or communist in any way but he did liberate oppressed people throughout Latin America. I’m truly not sure if he’s a man who’s favorable among socialists and communists. By the way, today is his birthday.
His actions were historically progressive and according to Marxist theory Spanish America lacked the material conditions for a Socialist revolution - it lacked a strong, literate urban proletariat.
I think it’s generally bad form for a Marxist to divide things into “Good” and “Bad” in proper discourse instead of dispassionately examining material conditions and effects.
But speaking casually, I think he’s pretty neat!
I have not looked too deeply into Bolivar, but based on what i know i would say i don’t have any reason to not think positively of him. I think any anti-colonial figure regardless of whether they fit into the mold of a communist/socialist is by default to be seen as broadly positive, until and unless they become clearly reactionary. I think a united Bolivarian Republic (a new “Gran Colombia”) made up of all the South American states that trace their independence to him would be a progressive and positive development for the region and the world.
We should support every fight for liberation of the oppressed.
Feliz cumpleaños, Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar Ponte y Palacios Blanco 🫡.
well…in latam is basically someone more important than george washington, but marx basically shreds into pieces in “bolivar y ponte”
Good enough for his time. Although he primarily fought to liberate the colonial middle mangers from their Spanish overlords and become master of the spoils - similar to Haiti - and in a sense he helped promote the french conquest of latam that thankfully never materialized due to the monore doctrine.
Gran Colombia was a progressive force that could have prevented yankee domination but alas due to the limitations of technology it was never going to work out.
I think Bolivar was a liberal hero from his time, and played a magnanimous role during the liberation wars against colonizer Spain. Although latam wasn’t ready yet for socialism, thinking about it dialectically it means that latam transformed from an exploration colony to a bunch of semi-independent agrarian countries. This new arrangement meant that now an urban bourgeoisie and, consequently, an urban proletariat could start to develop.
Let’s keep in mind that all those countries still relied heavily on agricultural or mineral exports, so the new contradiction of latam became this agricultural bourgeoisie that prevented the rise of an industrial bourgeoisie in the region. The US also had this problem, but the secession war destroyed this rural and semi-colonial bourgeoise that operated in the south.
I can’t remember all the ins and outs of his exploits but I do recall thinking he was a bit of a goof. Like 55% good 45% bad.
A progressive for his time is a hero on my book.
