1 The diversity of Latin American attempts to oppose imperialism and develop independent paths for change is creating ever more opportunities for theoretical analysis to draw lessons from the political practices behind these new phenomena. Colombia is a country at the middle stage of the development of dependent peripheral capitalism. Its history is marked by conservatism, violence, and long-standing popular and revolutionary resistance movements. We are currently seeing the birth of a transformative action: not immediately revolutionary, but nevertheless representing a challenge in terms of the content of the proposed changes, against a background of enormous obstacles and serious threats of imperialist intervention. The political economy of this transition seems to offer the keys for understanding the possibilities and limitations of strategic creation and hope.

2 The new wave of democratic governments in Latin America, associated with the “progressive” school of thought, has different characteristics in different national contexts. Nevertheless, common features have been identified in sociological and political studies over the last twenty years. We mention “progressivism” here because these processes in some ways embody ideological and political attitudes that are close to or rooted in left-wing thought.

3 Commonalities can also be found in the clear expressions of growing social discontent made explicit during the protests and popular movements that constitute the substratum of another shared trait: the consolidation or emergence of processes of political unity and convergence that have delivered success in elections, winning executive power and significant parliamentary blocs, and even near-majorities in some countries. A third feature highlights the alternative character of these processes, which are organized around substantial reforms of the neoliberal status quo in the economic, social, and cultural spheres and distance themselves from the traditional stance of alignment with US foreign policy. These processes value closer ties and common action within Latin America, but are not without nuances or controversies reflecting the entanglement of diverse interests.

4 Several of these projects have programs informed by past experiences and current debates. They emphasize measures to combat inequality and extreme poverty, and to meet the social needs of the urban workforce, such as education and public health, pension schemes, and care for the older population. They also prioritize the prevention of child exploitation and the mistreatment of women, whose struggles are perpetuated by their lack of awareness of their rights at work and at home. The new, semi-proletarianized generation urgently needs opportunities in terms of work and employment.

5 Starting from this general panorama, we will explore the Colombian experience in particular. The nature of Colombia’s participation in the process of transformation underway in Latin America is unique because the country is currently recovering from a long civil war characterized by harsh anticommunist repression under the guise of counternarcotics operations. The discussion around the scope of reforms has been put back on the agenda by a new democratic government committed to moving toward a full peace and transforming the sociopolitical order while protecting the environment and combating climate change. The discussion principally concerns the structural impact of reforms and how the “transitional” moment relates to more profound transformations of the social, cultural, and institutional order, aimed at moving beyond capitalism and confronting the new challenges of what is known as twenty-first century socialism. [1]

6 Unlike countries that have experienced armed struggle in Central America (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador), Colombia has the third-largest population in the continent, behind Brazil and Mexico. It occupies a strategic geopolitical position, straddling the continental areas of the Isthmus of Panama, the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Andes, and the Orinoco and Amazon basins. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the United States Southern Command focused its efforts to gain control of South America on Bogotá in the form of “Plan Colombia” (1990), which relied on close military ties with a country considered as the US’s principal ally in the region. Colombia’s inclusion as a “global partner” in NATO and the presence of US military bases on its territory, the sign of a special degree of subordination, reflect the strength of imperialism’s determination to maintain control over its economic and political system.

7 The recent governments of Álvaro Uribe (2002–2006, 2006–2010), Juan Manuel Santos (2010–2014, 2014–2018), and Iván Duque (2018–2022) adopted a hostile attitude to the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, in line with US policy toward the country, to the point that Colombia was considered as the bridgehead for a potential US military intervention. These plans were prevented by the election, for the first time in Colombian history, of a socially oriented president with a firm commitment to peace and to developing proposals for substantial, strongly anti-neoliberal reforms, despite the Right’s rejection of any of the transformations envisaged by the new project.

8 Criticisms directed at progressivism’s reformist processes suggest that there are insurmountable obstacles to bringing about real change in the conditions of exclusion, extreme poverty, and unmet needs currently affecting huge swathes of the population, while at the same time creating the conditions necessary for transformations of a higher emancipatory scope.

9 We explore how these crisis situations driving structural changes to the dominant neoliberal model can be approached from the perspective of the critique of political economy. These changes are restricted by the constraints of bourgeois democracy and by an institutional framework that is subject to onerous requirements from transnational credit agencies (IMF, WB, IDB, etc.) [2] in the context of what is known as limited democracy and of the intensive politico-military integration imposed by the United States at the geopolitical level.

10 By critique of political economy, we mean a critical theory of capitalism and its object, capital. It is a critique of its practice, in other words its appropriation of surplus and all the operations and tools of labor exploitation by means of which it accumulates that surplus and converts it into capital. It is not confined to economic aspects, but rather examines a complex totality in all its synchronous moments, its movements, its bifurcations, and its changes.

11 The concept of transition thus presupposes a concrete, foreseeable situation in critical theory. The idea is that the reproduction of capitalism as a system is subject to random, nonlinear, dialectical variations that stem from the fundamental contradiction inherent in the class struggle and its dynamics. As Enrique Elorza points out, “it is about defining the specific nature of the processes that seek to escape from capitalism.” [3] In this sense, the use of Marxist categories must be embedded in the conceptual framework of subordinate or dependent capitalism. Dependency theory should serve to highlight the role of overexploitation, as opposed to other aspects (unequal exchange, monopoly of foreign trade, accumulation by dispossession), as a key for explaining and guiding labor and popular movements in the relevant case.

12 Our working hypothesis is that when studying such situations, the critique of political economy must first take account of the characteristics of dependent capitalism as set out in Marxist theory, and then analyze the history of the class struggle in the specific conditions of the country in question, in this case Colombia, paying attention to the meaning of the different forms of struggle employed by the Colombian people for almost a century, which have played a central role in the creation of a new balance of power. Third, we must study the tactics of the emerging alternative bloc that is steering the new government and seeking to spearhead the transformation; and fourth, we must examine the context of imperialist policies and the international and domestic factors that shape right-wing policies. We need to consider the success or failure of stances that try to prevent change and the ability or inability of popular movements to advance toward a new, unitary consciousness and to accumulate new strength.

13 We will develop this hypothesis in two stages: first from a theoretical and sociohistorical perspective, and then by focusing on the content of the proposed reforms. We will then conclude tentatively with some ideas that suggest a possible approach to this process and to its interpretation.

The overexploitation of labor and imperialist domination

14 We are basically in agreement with Professor Enrique Elorza’s views on the political economy of times of transition. First, we must determine how the capitalist system develops and how its characteristics are manifested in the geographical, regional, or national context in which it actually operates. To examine the realities of our America, and more specifically of the process of change currently being driven by the Colombian government of Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez, we must first consider Marxist dependency theory and how its implications differ in the various parts of our continent. In our case, we are interested in the geographical area encompassing relations between the Caribbean, the Central American Isthmus, the South American Andean region and its connections with the Pacific, as well as the continental basins of the Magdalena, the Orinoco, and the Amazon: in other words, the northernmost part of South America.

15 One of the hallmarks of Marxist dependency theory is the overexploitation of labor in the context of multi-structural social and economic configurations. In these conditions, the predominance of this kind of peripheral capitalism produces similar features in multiple nation states. The form taken by this overexploitation varies depending on the specific history and nature of the capitalism that exists in each nation state, however.

16 In Colombia’s case, the history of capitalist development in the twentieth century is characterized by an initial accumulation period driven by the primary export model inherited from the postcolonial period. This model was altered by the boom in exports–principally coffee–which according to various studies laid the groundwork for the first forms of industrialization. The latter flourished during the interwar period and the Second World War, with features typical of a protectionist state capitalism based on import substitution. [4]

17 This capitalist modernization process, which relied on industrialization and import substitution, continued until the middle of the twentieth century. In the 1950s, the nature of the process was significantly altered by the sociopolitical changes that followed the “Bogotazo” riots [5] and the persecution of peasants during “La Violencia,” by the dispatch of Colombian troops to the Korean War in 1950, and by the military dictatorship (1953–1957), which banned communism until the 1960s. The country was next governed by a regime known as the National Front. This alliance of elites brought an end to the long-standing conflict between the liberal and conservative parties and established a kind of governance pact that distanced itself from authoritarian governments, and especially from the recently overthrown military dictatorship. This period was marked by the influence of the US “Alliance for Progress” strategy and by the first military operations in the preventive anticommunist war encouraged by Washington. The most dramatic example of these was the “sovereignty operation” of 1964, more commonly known as “Operation Marquetalia,” which launched a long counterinsurgency campaign from which Colombia is still trying to escape.

18 The development of dependent capitalism went hand in hand with agrarian socioeconomic and cultural relations based on the concentration of land ownership, the dispossession of peasants, the violent expansion of the internal agricultural frontier, and accelerating migration from rural to urban areas, which swelled the ranks of the proletarian workforce. The growth of the urban population in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s shows that the violent expropriations and expulsions of peasants from their historic homes constituted a structural change, increasing the labor factor for capitalist development and leading to the rise of the proletariat. [6]

19 The peace brought about by the National Front marked a turning point in the long-standing “interparty violence” between liberals and conservatives. The internal war took on a new class dimension, becoming a war of elites against peasants that was boosted by Operation Marquetalia and characterized by “civil-military action,” a permanent state of siege, and the application of military criminal justice to civilians. The subsequent peasant rebellion grew into an armed resistance movement that challenged the nature of agrarian relations, demanded far-reaching reforms, and rejected US interference in the counterinsurgency war, eventually becoming a powerful, anti-system, armed and political opposition force. Social movements looking for a political solution and a democratic shift to create new conditions for democratic peace emerged around the turn of the century.

20 The development of narco-capitalism, which introduced extensive coca cultivation followed by the process for transforming it into a globally tradable alkaloid at the end of the 1970s, coincided with Colombia’s opening to the global market, the transformation of transnational capitalism, and deindustrialization, as seen in the case of the prestigious textile industry in Antioquia. State capitalist enterprises were liquidated, such as the Grancolombiana merchant fleet (1977) and the Banco Central Hipotecario, while others, including the Caja Agraria and the Banco Popular, were privatized. The Chicoral Pact with landowners in 1972 put an end to an embryonic attempt at capitalist-style agrarian reform; the Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform (INCORA) was abolished in 2003, as was its twenty-first century successor, the Colombian Institute for Rural Development (INCODER). The abandonment of a state agricultural policy coincided with the emergence of forms of accumulation via illegal economies such as smuggling, but above all the production and exportation of narcotics. This prevented the implementation of any kind of agrarian reform for almost thirty years. The development of a new mode of accumulation based on illegal economies tolerated by the state had lasting effects on the structure of society. The new middle class acquired wealth rapidly thanks to illicit markets, money laundering, land-grabbing in the form of “legalized” dispossessions, and paramilitary interventions, all with complete impunity.

Emerging class fractions adapting to capitalist domination

21 The influence of this “lumpenbourgeoisie” was particularly strong at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It was characterized by authoritarian political regimes, the expansion of state counterinsurgency efforts, and a closer alliance with the United States, paradoxically for the purpose of combating the drug trade. This lumpenbourgeoisie adhered to the policy set out in the military agreements between Colombia and the United States and joined the cult of militarism, creating paramilitary structures in line with the directives of the military high command.

22 The rise of this emerging fraction of the dominant class largely explains the ascendancy of an important and socially influential segment of the Colombian national bourgeoisie. The latter identified with the ideas of the new Right, which flirted with fascism, fueling Uribism and the movements that developed following the collapse of the old parties, particularly the liberal party. These schools of thought supported not just a state counterinsurgency policy, but also extreme forms of repression, including the anticommunist extermination and genocide seen in the last decades of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first.

23 This emerging fraction sought to acquire political legitimacy by adopting a militaristic rhetoric, encouraging and supporting paramilitarism, calling for war, and vehemently opposing the idea that a political solution was necessary for a peace agreement. The discrediting of this approach is at the root of the new phenomena that embody Colombia’s change of direction and explain important new developments. Structural social phenomena do not appear independently of each other, however. In our case, the emergence of a new bourgeoisie associated with extraordinary forms of accumulation at the legal margins of the neoliberal state coincided with the development, lower down the social scale, of numerous new groups of proletarians who flocked to join the social struggle, in rural as well as urban areas, at the dawn of the new century.

24 A shift in the dominant class in a context of changes driven by discontent and increasing protests is a factor that invites study and analysis to ascertain its consequences, limitations, and possible scope. The imperialist power was the first to notice the scale of the phenomenon underway in the country seen as its principal strategic ally in the continent. To a certain degree this was inevitable because of the close attention paid by US think tanks to new movements in Latin America demanding better living conditions, first and foremost in their own countries. This attention is not unrelated to the increasing phenomenon of migration to the United States, which is now taking place on a massive scale, and which is being confronted by new walls erected to prevent this tragic social explosion.

The empire acts with caution

25 The empire’s strategists, undeceived, are looking to manage the situation as best they can following the last change of government in Colombia. They need to act cautiously so as not to unravel the interstate agreements reached in recent years with Colombia’s right-wing governments. These agreements reinforced dependency, particularly in the political and legal spheres, and institutionalized Colombia’s subordination to the United States. These strategists planned to exploit the war on drugs as a cover for their counterinsurgency policy against internal enemies and to justify US military presence in Colombian territory as a natural, normal, and incontestable fact. This clearly shows the pivotal role of “Plan Colombia,” a solution dreamed up by Washington as a way to keep control in difficult times. It also explains the strategic move to include Colombia as a “global partner” in NATO, which placed Colombia and its military establishment at the disposal of a transnational, nuclear, warmongering organization that represents an exceptional, sinister threat. This fact serves to emphasize Colombia’s anomalous position in the context of Latin American subordination to empire.

26 Imperialism anticipated another period, particularly after the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977, which definitively transferred sovereignty of the Panama Canal region back to Panama. Faced with the likely reality of a total dismantling of its logistic enclave for controlling the area, the empire conceived “Plan Colombia” as an agreement with parts of Bogotá’s traditional bourgeoisie. It persuaded the US Congress to approve the plan by presenting it as an initiative coming from Colombia. Nevertheless, the most conservative think tanks had warned about what they saw as the worsening of the situation in the Andean region, with the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and the political shift embodied by Correa in Ecuador. They analyzed this “deterioration” of the situation in Colombia from their point of view and described it in the annual national security updates.

27 The boycott of the peace policy adopted by Belisario Betancur’s government (1982–1986) led to the Colombian anticommunist genocide of the 1980s and 1990s and a shift toward a military solution in Álvaro Uribe rather than the political solution advocated by Juan Manuel Santos. Under the auspices of “Plan Colombia,” Bogotá’s neocolonialist orientation was consolidated and the country subordinated, taking over the platform role previously played by the canal region following its new status as of December 31, 1999.

28 All the factors discussed above combined to create the explosive conditions for a rejection of the economic, social, political, and cultural order in a South American society situated at the semi-periphery of globalization and subordinated to imperial geopolitics.

29 These factors go some way to explaining the scope and the limitations of the changes arising from the inevitable scenario of class conflict and the rise of popular movements.

30 We will discuss the challenges facing Gustavo Petro’s democratic government in more detail in a subsequent article.