Category Archives: Party for Socialism and Liberation

Defend Syria Against US/UN/NATO Imperialist Attack! US/UN/NATO Hands off Syria & the Middle East!

Defend Syria Against US/UN/NATO Imperialist Attack!  U.S./U.N./NATO Hands off Syria! U.S./UN/NATO Out of the Middle East!

Once again, the world’s #1 terrorist nation – the United States – is poised to attempt a “military solution” to a political situation, this time in Syria.  Syria – one of the world’s oldest nation-states, with a history going back at least to the 3rd millennium B.C.- is embroiled in a war between the nationalist, capitalist autocratic Assad government and a hodgepodge of fake “rebel” groups organized by the US/NATO imperialist countries, comprising a broad spectrum of domestic dissenters and external forces, including some right-wing Muslim fundamentalists from outside of Syria allegedly “linked’ to Al Qaeda.

There are numbers of intelligence operatives from the U.S. and other NATO countries working among the elements of the “Free Syrian Army” in order to determine which factions to support financially and militarily and which to kill off.  The U.S. CIA has been busy trying to bribe select leaders of the “Free Syrian Army”, carefully lining up for bribes only those who support the idea of and who agree to create a new regime in Syria that will help the US capitalist class pursue the goals of U.S. imperialism in Syria and throughout the Middle East.  All other groups will be starved of funds and munitions and will, if necessary, be physically eliminated if they become an obstacle to the goals of  U.S. imperialism.

Unlike Libya, where there are many different tribes of people living all over the country, each with different religious and cultural identities that have brought them into conflict for generations, in Syria, the people are a quite homogeneous population, with over 90% being indigenous Syrian Arabs.  This is to be expected in a country which has a 5,000 year history and whose capital city, Damascus, is “the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world” [Source for both statements: Wikipedia:  “Syria”].

Significantly, the Syrian Communist Party – Bakdash (one of the few working-class parties in Syria at least nominally dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist system) does NOT support the overthrow of the Assad regime by the so-called “rebels” and claims that THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR GOING ON IN SYRIA!

In an interview published by the Communist Party of Turkey earlier this year, Syrian Communist Party leader Adel Omar made the following characterization of the situation in Syria: “First and foremost, as the Syrian Communist Party, we believe that the course of events in Syria is neither a revolution nor a civil war. It is very clear that what has been taking place in Syria has been in accordance with the imperialist plans. It is not possible for us to define a process where NATO has been involved as a revolution.  Besides, it is not the case that different sectors of the people of Syria are fighting one another. On the contrary, our people are resisting the imperialist forces together.”

Asked by the interviewer if the Communists are being targeted by the forces of the “Free Syrian Army”, Comrade Omar had this to say:
“Yes […] [t]he terrorist groups were behind a series of attacks targeting us including the bombing of our central office in Damascus. When they attacked our central office, they were not able to score a direct hit, but the building next to us was heavily damaged.
“In Aleppo, the terrorist groups attacking the area of Sheikh Maksoud, which is mainly Kurdish, have primarily targeted the homes of Communist Party members.
“Unfortunately, three female comrades were murdered in these attacks. There are many other members who were targeted but were saved by luck since they were not home at the time of these attacks.

“We are going through a war that though difficult and serious at times cannot be taken lightly. But we are determined to continue with our struggle. To begin with, in imperialist attacks toward a homeland, history shows us that the communists have primary responsibility for resisting and organizing this resistance. As Syrian communists, the duty to struggle for our homeland lies first and foremost on our shoulders. This is our responsibility.”
[Source: “Syrian Communist explains responsibility to defend the homeland”, published by the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s (PSL) “Liberation News”, 31 May, 2013]

This report shows the depth of the propaganda effort being made by the US capitalist class’ wholly-owned news media to spread the lie that the situation in Syria is a civil war.  This lie is being used to convince workers in the US, Europe and around the world to support efforts to overthrow the Assad regime by falsification of the real situation on the ground in Syria.  The U.S. capitalist class – led by just over 400 billionaires who own 50% of the wealth in the United States – can not tell the truth about what their goals are in Syria: if they did, no one on the planet would support them.  So, as they did in Afghanistan in the late 1970s, they must create a fake “civil war” between the “downtrodden rebels” and the “evil dictatorship” of the central government in order to mask their own goals in Syria – which, as in Iraq,  undoubtedly have more than a little to

do with the fact that there is a lot of oil under the desert sands of Syria.  90% of Syrian oil exports go to Europe; by seizing this strategic oil reserve, the US capitalist class and its partners in crime in Great Britain hope to lock Germany, Russia and Japan out of the Middle Eastern oil fields.  [With nuclear power plants being shut down all over Europe and Japan, the need for oil to supply those countries with electricity is increasing with every passing day.  Japan, which had imported tons of uranium during the ’90s to make it energy independent now faces – in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and the resulting anti-nuclear backlash – an immediate need for alternative resources of energy.]

The United States has created a situation that is capable of rapidly spinning out of its “control” by threatening to bomb Syria.  Interimperialist rivalries are clearly exposed in the Middle East: in spite of their temporary alliance in NATO, the interests of Germany and the US/UK are directly counterposed there.  Add to that the antagonisms between Russia, China, Japan and US/NATO and you have a very explosive situation.  Whether or not this current military adventure of the US in Syria leads immediately to World War III or not, the continued assertion of the US capitalist class that it has the “right” to seize military control of the world’s oil supply can only be seen by Germany, Russia, China and Japan as a direct threat to their own nations’ long-term economic and political well-being.  The result of this unprovoked attack by the US in Syria – if it does not cause WWIII right now – will be to bring the world that much closer to World War III over the long run.  We can guarantee that the German and Japanese governments will begin to rapidly build up their own offensive military capabilities in order to ensure that their access to crucial deposits of raw materials that lie outside their borders will not be jeopardized by their imperialist rival the United States.  Japan, in fact, just launched the first aircraft carrier it has built since World War II.  Of course, the Japanese capitalist class claims that this aircraft carrier is “only” for “self defense” against China.  But aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons; they are used to project military force overseas, to defend the foreign investments of the capitalist class of that nation that owns that particular aircraft carrier. They are the physical reality of the fact that “inter-imperialist rivalries” are not merely product of the morbid fantasies of  communist propagandists – like us! – but are all too real. History shows us how economic wars end up in shooting wars.  Unless the working classes of the United States, Germany, the UK, Japan and Russia overthrow “their own” capitalist classes and seize power in the name of the working class, the sand in the hourglass that measures the length of time left to us to stop World War Three from happening will continue to run out.

Liberals are making their usual oinking noises about “waiting for the U.N. to do its job” of “impartially” inspecting the sites of the alleged Syrian government’s deployment of sarin gas against its own civilians. (In fact it is entirely possible that the “Syrian rebels” were the ones who possessed that stockpile of sarin gas – as the U.N. ALREADY discovered earlier this year in another case of the use of poison gas – read “UN’s Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels ‘may have used sarin’ in Syria” ]  We, Trotskyists as we are, are dedicated to the principle of “always telling the truth to the workers, no matter how harsh”; and so we wish to tell the truth about the U.N. to the workers of the world: the U.N. is not a peace-making organization but a war-mongering organization completely controlled by the United States and run largely for the benefit of U.S. imperialism.  Created during the Cold War at a time when all the capitalists of the world were united in their opposition to the “spread of communism” when the USSR was in existence, the U.N. is nothing but a temporary alliance of imperialist rivals during the armed truce between them that has existed since 1945.  The collapse of the Soviet Union removed a large portion of the reason for existence of that truce – especially where Germany is concerned.  Since  the collapse of the USSR, we have seen Germany asserting its “right” to rule over Europe as that continent’s most powerful capitalist class-run nation state.  The German-banker-dominated “European Union” is a direct threat to U.S. imperialism’s role as “the world’s policeman”.  The U.N. is rapidly becoming an annoyance to both the US and the German imperialists and a hindrance to their simply having their way with the world’s people and natural resources.  The U.N., like the League of Nations before it, will prove to be nothing more than a fig leaf barely covering the growing economic antagonisms between its members.  This temporary alliance of mortal enemies will be cast aside when it is necessary for these rival imperialist powers to once again battle it out for access to markets and natural resources with means “other than politics”.  The U.N. is a thin veil under which the crimes of the US/NATO imperialist powers are ruthlessly carried out – and we Marxists have always seen right through it – even if you who remain deluded by the U.N.’s pretense to defend “freedom”, “democracy” and “human rights” can not.

It is crucially important that the working class begin immediately to create revolutionary workers parties to lead the struggle to wrest the military weapons out of the hands of the capitalist class and use them to overthrow capitalism before it is too late.

Workers of the World, Unite!

Independent Workers Party of Chicago
Find us on Facebook and Twitter

“Bolivarian Revolution” of Hugo Chavez: Pompous but Accurate Name for Pro-Capitalist Bourgeois Reformism

Venezuela is still reeling from the death of Hugo Chavez, the beloved self-styled “socialist” leader of the “Bolivarian Revolution”.  Having raised up the long-held hopes of the impoverished and hideously exploited Venezuelan workers, peasants and indigenous peoples that, finally, their deliverance from capitalist wage-slavery was at hand, Chavez and his fellow “leaders” of the “Bolivarian Revolution” squandered 14 YEARS of opportunities to overthrow the capitalist system in Venezuela and replace it with a socialist workers republic, instead opting for timid reforms of capitalism and leaving the capitalist class deprived of only a fraction of their wealth and the workers and peasants mired in somewhat less desperate poverty.

At a meeting held at the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) office in Chicago, Illinois this weekend, two representatives of the “Bolivarian Revolution” from the Venezuelan consulate pleaded for “more time” to gradually expropriate more capitalist private property when our reporter pointedly asked them “when are you going to overthrow capitalism?”

“We have nationalized perhaps 30 per cent [of the capitalists’ property] so far.  I personally hope that we will be able to move more in that direction in the future” said the Venezuelan government representative at the meeting in response to our question.  “It will take time”.

Well, time is exactly what the leaders of the bourgeois reformist “Bolivarian [non-] Revolution ain’t got.  With the United States disengaging its imperialist military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, over 300,000 US troops are being paid to do nothing right now – and that’s something the capitalists hate more than anything.   There are more than a few “investors” on Wall St. and lobbyists for multinational corporations in Washington D.C. who think that the US has been neglecting affairs in “its own backyard” for far too long.  In the past 15 years or so, left-liberal and pseudo-socialist governments have won national elections in Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela – something that the US would never have allowed to happen 30 or 40 years ago.  These governments have pretended to be “socialist” in order to win the support of the masses, and have instituted mild reforms of capitalism after years of being “in power”.  Of course, under capitalism, a class society, all “power” resides in the hands of the bankers and big capitalists, who possess the actual “power” no matter who sits in the ceremonial “Presidential palace”.  So long as those “socialists” do not tamper with the capitalists’ “inalienable” property rights, the capitalist class may decide to tolerate them – for a time.  But as soon as the economy starts to sputter or the “socialists” get it into their reformist heads to “nationalize” major industries or to prevent the capitalists from extracting profits from the toil of the workers, then the capitalists’ toleration for the trappings of bourgeois democracy begins to wear thin.  And this is precisely what is happening in Venezuela today.  “Time” is precisely what the fake-socialist leaders of the “Bolivarian Revolution” do not have, having already squandered 14 YEARS worth of it.

Like the monumental blowhard and military incompetent coward for whom their “Bolivarian Revolution” is aptly named, the Chavistas do not deserve to be called “revolutionaries” in anything other than words.  In a revolution, it is deeds that matter, and here, as with the legend surrounding the cowardly dictatorial Simon Bolivar, the followers of Hugo Chavez come up far short of their bombastic rhetoric.  In 14 years, the Chavistas have enacted nothing more than mere minor ameliorations of the grinding poverty suffered by the workers and peasants of Venezuela for centuries.   Far from having enacted permanent changes to the economic system in Venezuela, the Chavistas have aimed only to reform the capitalist system, and have left the Venezuelan capitalist class and their vast holdings of wealth squeezed from the blood of the Venezuelan workers entirely intact.   This ruling class, having been humiliated by their inability to overthrow the opera bouffe “revolutionary” Hugo Chavez in a coup, have been licking their wounds and preparing for a comeback.  Their candidate in the elections that will be held next month has already declared that, if he wins, he will immediately rescind all support to Cuba, whose economy is hugely dependent on heavily-subsidized oil exports from Venezuela, very commendably offered to Cuba by Chavez while his party was “in power”.    Of course, Capriles knows that it would be folly to announce BEFORE the elections that he intends to overturn ALL of the Chavez-era reforms if he wins.  But that will undoubtedly happen.  Thus have the Chavistas pissed away the most promising opportunity for the overthrow of capitalism in a major country since Chile’s Salvador Allende traveled the same reformist road to his own – and his country’s – doom in 1973.

This weekend’s fete at PSL headquarters was intended to polish the credentials of Chavez who the PSL described in their email invitation to the event thusly:

“Latin American revolutionary and president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, led a life of dedication to the struggle of the people of Latin America for independence and self-determination.

“He also led Venezuela in an effort to build a better society, redistributing resources in Venezuela to the benefit of the masses of working and poor people. Since his untimely death, millions of Venezuelans, Cubans and people around the world have paid homage to his legacy. Some 33 heads of state and representatives of 50 governments attended Chávez’s funeral.

“The massive outpouring in Venezuela is not just an expression of deep sentiment for a fallen leader. The cries of “We are Chávez!” and “Chávez Vive!” are a resounding commitment by the people: they are more determined than ever to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.

“Join us at this public forum to commemorate Chavez’s legacy and discuss how to build solidarity with the struggle for Latin American self- determination within the United States.”

You can fault the PSL leadership for a lot of things, but, so far as we can see, you can’t fault them for being dishonest.  Although they do hallucinate when they call Chavez a “revolutionary”, they quite accurately describe the poverty of the results of his faux “revolution”: he has not overthrown capitalism, the PSL admits (by omission) – he has merely “led Venezuela in an effort to build a better society”.  That is the textbook definition of – not revolution – but reformism.  Chavez, the PSL says “led a life of dedication to the struggle of the people of Latin America for independence and self-determination.”  Independence from what?  The US?  The Venezuelan ambassador’s representative at the PSL’s meeting admitted that “around 50%” of Venezuela’s foreign trade is with the US.  In fact, he decried that fact that their economy was, after 14 years, still too dependent on trade with the US.  But that wouldn’t change even if Venezuela DID overthrow capitalism.  Who else would buy their oil?  An isolated workers state like Venezuela would be in that case would be forced to trade with capitalist countries until capitalism was overthrown in all those countries – and only then could you talk about the “political” independence of Venezuela – but not “economic” independence!  No country in the world is both “politically” and “economically” independent of the rest of the world.  And under world socialism, not only would nations not be “independent” of each other, they would be thoroughly integrated in a global socialist economy and, hopefully, in a political way as well, as equals, brothers and sisters, for the first time since the human race left Africa 100,000 years ago!  North Korea has “achieved” the most thorough political and economic “independence” from the rest of the world, with Iran not far behind!  Are their precarious situations desirable?  No!

And what the hell does “self-determination” mean?  What country, in a capitalist world run by the big banks in the US and Europe can claim to be a “self-determining” (is that a word?) economic or political entity?  Until capitalism is overthrown worldwide, every capitalist and “socialist”! – country is not master of its own fate!  Every socialist worthy of the name should understand this!  Every country under capitalism is bound together in a web of competing nation-states endlessly squabbling over everything from the demarcation of their borders with neighboring states to the life and death struggle for access to resources necessary for those countries’ economies to prosper!   “Self-determination” is a term that means only one thing in a case like Venezuela’s: it means that the Venezuelan leadership of the “Bolivarian [non-] Revolution” can make political error after error and can pursue a thoroughly reformist bourgeois – as opposed to revolutionary socialist – program as long as they want, because NO ONE IN THE REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST WORKERS MOVEMENT HAS THE ‘RIGHT’ TO CRITICIZE their leadership’s stalwart defense of capitalist private property!  The only “role” revolutionary Marxists are allowed to play vis-a-vis Venezuela, according to the PSL, is merely to “build solidarity with the struggle for Latin American self- determination within the United States”!

In fact, the representative from the Venezuelan consulate told our reporter as much in his remarks.

We should back up here and set the scene for our readers so they can see how this was done in a very subtle way.  There were two representatives present from the Venezuelan consulate, if we are not mistaken.  One spoke fluent English and had probably spent a great part of his life in the United States.  The other had a very good command of English but was not fluent – and it was THIS man who gave the presentation on Venezuela’s behalf!

We wish we could speak Spanish as well as this man spoke English; but the fact was that he often struggled during his presentation to find the precisely right words to express various political nuances.  We ask you to have this in mind when we relate this response to our question to him.  We did not record the speech and the Q and A session electronically, although someone videotaped the presentations and at least part of the discussion afterwards.  But we did take some notes, and present them here.

During the question and answer session at the end of the Venezuelan Ambassador’s representative’s presentation, our reporter rose and made approximately the following statement “You consider yourselves to be revolutionaries and socialists, correct?  You have been in power for 14 years: when are you going to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela?  You seem to believe that you have plenty of time to do this.  But while you are waiting, the capitalist class of Venezuela is regrouping and preparing to return to power.  Already Capriles has announced that, if he wins the elections, he will cut off all aid to Cuba.  After all the Cubans have done for the world, do they deserve that?  What kind of socialist revolutionaries allow all their work to be overturned as a result of a bourgeois democratic election?  The Venezuelan capitalist class is not going to sit around and wait while you play games with their private property rights.  And there are more than a few people in Washington who think that the United States Government has been neglecting ‘its own backyard’ for far too long now.  If you don’t overthrow capitalism now, you will end up like Allende’s forces in Chile in the 1970s.  Time is not on your side.  So when do you plan to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela?”  Or words to that effect.  As we say, the exchange was videotaped, so hopefully it will soon be on YouTube or the PSL’s excellent website.

The Venezuelan Ambassador’s rep made a long rambling response to the effect that they needed “more time”; that it is easy for people outside Venezuela to make criticisms and to demand that the Venezuelans “overthrow capitalism NOW”.  And the he said, directly addressing our reporter (who is “white”): (in this case, we have an exact quote:) “When you evaluate from dogma or theory, you have a checklist [and you just go down your checklist ticking the ‘revolutionary’ boxes – ed].  The truth is, we have been, with our mistakes, we have been giving power to people.  It takes to reality and to our times.  We are not in the times of Marx or in the times of [Allende?].  Sometimes I feel that criticism comes from supremacist perspective. [emphasis added – ed]”. 

Our reporter definitely got the message that maybe the reason that our reporter and our party were so “quick” to criticise the “Bolivarian Revolution” was because we were racists who thought the Venezuelans were stupid!

Of course, this man who did not possess the fluency in English of his compatriot sitting right next to him throughout this meeting can now say that he was misquoted or misunderstood by us.  And that may be true.  But this “misunderstanding” would not have occurred if the OTHER representative of the Venezuelan government – the one who spoke seemingly flawless English – had given the presentation instead.  “The right to self-determination” is here taken completely out of its Leninist context – where it refers to the right of independent nation-states to secede from countries that are, essentially, holing national minorities in political and economic bondage – and turns it into a demand for a “criticism-free-zone” where fake-socialist “revolutionaries” can spout all kinds of political nonsense in defense of their stalwart determination NOT to overthrow the capitalist system.

“Theory is important, but we cannot be kidnapped by theory” the Venezuelan ambassador’s representative stated.  But the “Bolivarian Revolution” HAS been “kidnapped by theory” – the erroneous theory that it is “impossible to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela at this time”!

[The Venezuelan Ambassador’s representative was a very nice and thoughtful, eloquent man, as you would expect an ambassador’s rep to be.  He patiently listened to our comment and responded very honestly and without rancor.  We would be happy to discuss these matters with him at any time; there was no anger or vituperation in the course of our conversation with him.  We don’t want people to get the wrong impression from our criticism here that our interaction at the meeting was harsh in any way; it was not.  We shook hands and conversed with him after the meeting as well.]

Political errors may seem small and even trivial to those who haven’t studied the history of the workers movement, where seemingly “trivial” errors, once committed, oftentimes lead to enormous difficulties or even the failure of an entire revolution, resulting in the mass executions of not just the erring political leaders but the very best self-sacrificing revolutionary elements of the working class and peasantry as well.  A good analogy might be this: if you are trying to send a spacecraft to Mars from Earth, an error in the trajectory of that launch by as little as 0.00000001% might seem “trivial”; but unless that original trajectory error is corrected during passage to Mars, that spacecraft is going to miss the planet by maybe a half-million miles and will be lost in interstellar space forever – or crash into the planet. (Something very much along these lines happened to NASA’s  “Mars Climate Orbiter” back in 1998 when a simple failure to properly covert the stupid United States’ archaic English units to Metric units of measurement caused the loss of a $600-million-dollar space mission!)  These small errors of trajectory add up quickly, and this is as true in politics as it is in astrophysics.  Only difference is: in politics, the price is paid with workers’ LIVES.  This is something that far too many self-styled “revolutionary leaders” “forget” to include in THEIR political “calculations”.

In the case of the “Bolivarian Revolution” their “trajectory error” is this: they never “aimed” their revolution to overthrow capitalism in the first place!  That’s why, after 14 years, they STILL haven’t overthrown capitalism!  It’s not a mere “trajectory error”: their program never included “the overthrow of capitalism in a socialist workers revolution” at all, and all the apostles of Hugo Chavez among the “socialist” parties all over the world have “failed to notice” this simple fact.  In the place of this glaring “trajectory error” of the Chavistas, these fake-“socialist leaders” of the left – the PSL not least among them – have substituted, not the “trajectory correction” of criticism, but the abandonment of their responsibility to point out this fatal “error” to their Venezuelan comrades, on the grounds that, due to the Venezuelans’ “right to self-determination” no corrections to the false trajectory of the “Bolivarian [non-]Revolution” are permissible – especially if those corrections come from outside the Chavista party in Venezuela!  So, all we are permitted to do is to stand by and cheer as we watch the “Bolivarian [non-]Revolution” sail off into interstellar space, missing its “target” by half a million miles or more!  Bye!  Don’t forget to write!  What bullshit!

Thank god that this is not how the scientists at  NASACERN or researchers in any other branch of the “hard” sciences operate!  They allow their “comrades” to freely criticise their work and to notify them if, at any time, they find errors of ANY magnitude in their calculations!  Only in the political sphere are we supposed to keep our mouths shut when we see our comrades headed off in the wrong direction, perhaps to their executions!  And they call themselves scientific Marxists, do these leaders of the PSL and others who declare this idiotic moratorium on criticism in the name of “the right to self-determination”!  It is the purest nonsense, thoroughly unscientific, and therefore utterly sub-Marxist!

We’ll have more to say about our discussion with the representatives of the Venezuelan Ambassador in another article.

For the Overthrow of the Capitalist System in Venezuela and Around the World!  Workers of the World, Unite!


Karl Marx on Simon Bolivar, the “blackguard” upon whom Hugo Chavez’ “Bolivarian Revolution” looks for Inspiration

There are not very many examples in world history such as the one given here in which a man is held in such high esteem by posterity, who was reviled in his own time by his peers as that presented by Simon Bolivar, the “Liberator of Columbia”.  Here, Karl Marx gives the self-promoting, dictatorial, cruel, cowardly and militarily incompetent “blackguard” Bolivar his just desserts.

We were shocked when we read this article by Marx the other day, which we immediately posted just before we headed out to the “Party for Socialism and Liberation”‘s meeting here in Chicago in honor of Hugo Chavez and the “Bolivarian Revolution”.    Like everyone else in the world, we were led to believe that Simon Bolivar was, indeed, one of the genuinely heroic figures in the bourgeois revolutionary leadership that exploded across the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries.  We read Marx’ article once, were absolutely flabbergasted by it, and immediately posted it so everyone could read this comprehensive explosion of the hagiography and myth-making surrounding the person of Bolivar – a process very like that which has occurred and is occurring around the person of Hugo Chavez, whose timid reforms of capitalism are imbued with “revolutionary” significance by his many wholly uncritical sycophants in the leadership of the fake-socialist parties of the world and among whom, sadly, the PSL leadership is to be counted.

Marx’ article, when it was submitted to the editor of the “New American Cyclopedia”, Charles A. Dana, so shocked Dana with its’ “partisan” flavor, that he asked Marx to rewrite it in a more “objective” manner, suitable for an encyclopedia.  Believe it or not, THIS is the “more objective” version of Marx’ appraisal of Bolivar!  We’d love to see the original one!

Marx and Engels had been recruited by Dana to submit several articles precisely on military subjects for inclusion in his “Cyclopedia”.  So it was while immersed in this project that Marx, working away in the libraries of the British Museum in London, wrote this scathing appraisal of Bolivar.   Marx was not suffering from a lack of material to work with; quite the opposite.  He was in London, perhaps the publishing capital of the world at the time, with a full complement of newspaper archives and personal memoirs of Bolivar at his disposal.  Many hagiographers of the “Liberator” have endeavored to impugn Marx’ research on this subject in a futile attempt to maintain the phony legend of Bolivar as some kind of military genius on the level of Napoleon.  As Marx says in a letter to Engels, included below, “To see the dastardly, most miserable and meanest of blackguards described as Napoleon I was altogether too much.”  We agree.  If even half of the incidents of Bolivar’s cowardice and abandonment of fortified strongholds in order to save his own ass are true, then he was, indeed, at the very least, one of the most timid and least self-sacrificing military “leaders” in world history.  If he hadn’t been a scion of one of the most aristocratic families in Spain and Colombia, he would almost certainly have been shot for deserting his command and abandoning his much more courageous soldiers to the mercies of the  Spanish forces on many occasions.  Bolivar was a master at appropriating the work of others to the embellishment of his own undeserved reputation.  Hugo Chavez’ decision to drape his timid bourgeois reformism with the mantle of Bolivar’s phony legend by calling his movement the “Bolivarian Revolution” was far more appropriate than Chavez and his proselytes could have imagined.

The Venezuelan workers and peasants stand now in tremendous danger thanks to the refusal of Chavez and his followers to overthrow the capitalist system, limiting the program of the “Bolivarian Revolution” to timid reforms.  Unless the Venezuelan workers organize a new revolutionary socialist political party immediately, the few real “gains” of the Chavista movement will be overturned – either at the polls of a fraudulent bourgeois capitalist election, or via the “violent overhthrow” of the Bolivarian Revolution by a military coup, backed by US military intervention.  Time is not on the side of the Venezuelan working class.  The Chavistas have allowed multiple revolutionary situations slip right through their fingers over the past 14 years, while the capitalist class has recovered from the disaster of their failed coup and has regained its composure.  Meanwhile, the end of US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq means that after squandering a 14-years-long opportunity to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela while the US military was bogged down in its murderous wars in the Middle East and Asia, the US military now has its hands – still dripping with the blood of the workers of Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan – free to strangle the “Bolivarian Revolution”.   Wonderful strategic maneuver there, by the Chavistas, executed precisely in the manner of their idol Bolivar!

“All the Chavistas need” is time – the reformists are always asking for more and more time! – to slowly evolve Venezuela towards socialism, while the working poor and peasants’ lives grind painfully away to nothing!  Well, messieurs Chavistas: time is exactly what you do not have!  You have squandered 14 YEARS when the “time” for the revolution was the day after the coup attempt failed!  Or when the US started its “surge” in Iraq!  Or while the US was reeling from the economic disaster in 2008!  Time is rapidly running out for you and your non-revolution!

And it wouldn’t be entirely terrible if it was only the fake-socialists of the top Chavista leadership that would be put in front of a firing squad when their fake-revolution collapses; unfortunately, it will be the heroic leaders of the Venezuelan working class and peasantry and the indigenous peoples’ leaders who will have to suffer the same fate!  And that is a far more serious loss than the revolutionary socialist workers movement of Venezuela and the world can tolerate!


Karl Marx in the New American Encyclopedia 1858
Bolivar y Ponte

Written: between December 1857 and January 8, 1858;
Source: The New American Cyclopaedia;
First published: in The New American Cyclopaedia, Vol. III, 1858;
Public Domain: Marx-Engels Internet Archive. This article is completely free;
Transcribed: by Hari Kumar – for Alliance ML.

In a letter to Engels of 14 February 1858, Marx says: “Moreover a longish article on Bolivar elicited objections from Dana because, he said, it is written in a ‘partisan style’, and he asked me to cite my authorities. This I can, of course, do, although it is a singular demand. As regards the ‘partisan style’, it is true that I departed somewhat from the tone of a cyclopedia. To see the dastardly, most miserable and meanest of blackguards described as Napoleon I was altogether too much. Bolivar is a veritable Soulouque (the former slave, later President of Haiti).”

Bolivar y Ponte, Simon, the “liberator” of Colombia, born at Caracas, July 24, 1783, died at San Pedro, near Santa Martha, Dec. 17, 1830. He was the son of one of the familias Mantuanas, which, at the time of the Spanish supremacy, constituted the creole nobility in Venezuela. In compliance with the custom of wealthy Americans of those times, at the early age of 14 he was sent to Europe. From Spain he passed to France, and resided for some years in Paris. In 1802 he married in Madrid, and returned to Venezuela, where his wife died suddenly of yellow fever. After this he visited Europe a second time, and was present at Napoleon’s coronation as emperor, in 1804, and at his assumption of the iron crown of Lombardy, in 1805. In 1809 he returned home, and despite the importunities of Joseph Felix Ribas, his cousin, he declined to join in the revolution which broke out at Caracas, April 19, 1810 but, after the event, he accepted a mission to London to purchase arms and solicit the protection of the British government. Apparently well received by the marquis of Wellesley, then secretary for foreign affairs, he obtained nothing beyond the liberty to export arms for ready cash with the payment of heavy duties upon them. On his return from London, he again withdrew to private life, until, Sept. 1811, he was prevailed upon by Gen. Miranda, then commander-in-chief of the insurgent land and sea forces, to accept the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the staff, and the command of Puerto Cabello, the strongest fortress of Venezuela.

The Spanish prisoners of war, whom Miranda used regularly to send to Puerto Cabello, to be confined in the citadel, having succeeded in overcoming their guards by surprise, and in seizing the citadel, Bolivar, although they were unarmed, while he had a numerous garrison and large magazines, embarked precipitately in the night, with 8 of his officers, without giving notice to his own troops, arrived at daybreak at La Guayra, and retired to his estate at San Mateo. On becoming aware of their commander’s flight, the garrison retired in good order from the place, which was immediately occupied by the Spaniards under Monteverde. This event turned the scale in favor of Spain, and obliged Miranda, on the authority of the congress, to sign the treaty of Vittoria, July 26, 1812, which restored Venezuela to the Spanish rule. On July 30 Miranda arrived at La Guayra, where he intended to embark on board an English vessel. On his visit to the commander of the place, Col. Manuel Maria Casas, he met with a numerous company, among whom were Don Miguel Pena and Simon Bolivar, who persuaded him to stay, for one night at least, in Casas’s house. At 2 o’clock in the morning, when Miranda was soundly sleeping, Casas, Pena, and Bolivar entered his room, with 4 armed soldiers, cautiously seized his sword and pistol, then awakened him, abruptly told him to rise and dress himself, put him into irons, and had him finally surrendered to Monteverde, who dispatched him to Cadiz, where, after some years’ captivity, he died in irons. This act, committed on the pretext that Miranda had betrayed his country by the capitulation of Vittoria, procured for Bolivar Monteverde’s peculiar favor, so that when he demanded his passport, Monteverde declared,

“Col. Bolivar’s request should be complied with, as a reward for his having served the king of Spain by delivering up Miranda.”

He was thus allowed to sail for Curacoa, where he spent 6 weeks, and proceeded, in company with his cousin Ribas, to the little republic of Carthagena. Previous to their arrival, a great number of soldiers, who had served under Gen. Miranda, had fled to Carthagena. Ribas proposed to them to undertake an expedition against the Spaniards in Venezuela, and to accept Bolivar as their commander-in-chief. The former proposition they embraced eagerly; to the latter they demurred, but at last yielded, on the condition of Ribas being the second in command. Manuel Rodriguez Torrices, the president of the republic of Carthagena, added to the 800 soldiers thus enlisted under Bolivar, 500 men under the command of his cousin, Manuel Castillo. The expedition started in the beginning of Jan 1813. Dissensions as to the supreme command breaking out between Bolivar and Castillo, the latter suddenly decamped with his grenadians. Bolivar, on his part, proposed to follow Castillo’s example, and return to Carthagena, but Ribas persuaded him at length to pursue his course at least as far as Bogota, at that time the seat of the congress of New Granada. They were well received, supported in every way, and were both made generals by the congress, and, after having divided their little army into 2 columns, they marched by different routes upon Caracas. The further they advanced, the stronger grew their resources; the cruel excesses of the Spaniards acting everywhere as the recruiting sergeants for the army of the independents. The power of resistance on the part of the Spaniards was broken, partly by the circumstance of 3/4 of their army being composed of natives, who bolted on every encounter to the opposite ranks, partly by the cowardice of such generals as Tiscar, Cajigal, and Fierro, who, on every occasion, deserted their own troops. Thus it happened that San lago Marino, an ignorant youth, had contrived to dislodge the Spaniards from the provinces of Curnana and Barcelona, at the very time that Bolivar was advancing through the western provinces. The only serious resistance, on the part of the Spaniards, was directed against the column of Ribas, who, however, routed Gen. Monteverde at Lostaguanes, and forced him to shut himself up in Puerto Cabello with the remainder of his troops.

On hearing of Bolivar’s approach, Gen. Fierro, the governor of Caracas, sent deputies to propose a capitulation, which was concluded at Vittoria; but Fierro, struck by a sudden panic, and not expecting the return of his own emissaries, secretly decamped in the night, leaving more than 1,500 Spaniards at the discretion of the enemy. Bolivar was now honored with a public triumph. Standing in a triumphal car, drawn by 12 young ladies, dressed in white, adorned with the national colors, and all selected from the first families of Caracas, Bolivar, bareheaded, in full uniform, and wielding a small baton in his hand, was, in about half an hour, dragged from the entrance of the city to his residence. Having proclaimed himself “dictator and liberator of the western provinces of Venezuela”-Marino had assumed the title of “dictator of the eastern provinces”-he created “the order of the liberator,” established a choice corps of troops under the name of his body-guard, and surrounded himself with the show of a court. But, like most of his countrymen, he was averse to any prolonged exertion, and his dictatorship soon proved a military anarchy, leaving the most important affairs in the hands of favorites, who squandered the finances of the country, and then resorted to odious means in order to restore them. The new enthusiasm of the people was thus turned to dissatisfaction, and the scattered forces of the enemy were allowed to recover. While, in the beginning of Aug. 1813, Monteverde was shut up in the fortress of Puerto Cabello, and the Spanish army reduced to the possession of a small strip of land in the north-western part of Venezuela, 4 months later, in December, the liberator’s prestige was gone, and Caracas itself threatened, by the sudden appearance in its neighborhood of the victorious Spaniards under Boves. To strengthen his tottering power, Bolivar assembled, Jan. 1, 1814, a junta of the most influential inhabitants of Caracas, declaring himself to be unwilling any longer to bear the burden of dictatorship. Hurtado Mendoza, on the other hand, argued, in a long oration,

“the necessity of leaving the supreme power in the hands of Gen. Bolivar, until the congress of New Granada could meet, and Venezuela be united under one government.”

This proposal was accepted, and the dictatorship was thus invested with some sort of legal sanction.

The war with the Spaniards was, for some time, carried on in a series of small actions, with no decisive advantage to either of the contending parties. In June, 1814, Boves marched with his united forces from Calabozo on La Puerta, where the two dictators, Bolivar and Marino, had formed a junction, met them, and ordered an immediate attack. After some resistance, Bolivar fled toward Caracas, while Marino disappeared in the direction of Cumana. Puerto Cabello and Valencia fell into the hands of Boves, who then detached 2 columns (1 of them under the command of Col. Gonzales), by different roads, upon Caracas. Ribas tried in vain to oppose the advance of Gonzales. On the surrender of Caracas to Gonzales, July 17, 1814, Bolivar evacuated La Guayra, ordered the vessels lying in the harbor of that town to sail for Cuntana, and retreated with the remainder of his troops upon Barcelona. After a defeat inflicted on the insurgents by Boves, Aug. 8, 1814, at Arguita, Bolivar left his troops the same night secretly to hasten, through by-roads, to Cumana, where, despite the angry protests of Ribas, he at once embarked on board the Bianchi, together with Marino and some other officers. If Ribas, Paez, and other generals had followed the dictators in their flight, every thing would have been lost. Treated by Gen. Arismendi, on their arrival at Juan Griego, in the island of Margarita, as deserters, and ordered to depart, they sailed for Carupano, whence, meeting with a similar reception on the part of Col. Bermudez, they steered toward Carthagena. There, to palliate their flight, they published a justificatory memoir,” in high-sounding phraseology.

Having joined a plot for the overthrow of the government of Carthagena, Bolivar had to leave that little republic, and proceeded to Tunja, where the congress of the federalist republic of New Granada was sitting. At that time the province of Cundinamarca stood at the head of the independent provinces which refused to adopt the Granadian federal compact, while Quito, Pasto, Santa Martha, and other provinces, still remained in the power of the Spaniards. Bolivar, who arrived at Tunja Nov. 22, 1814, was created by the congress commander-in-chief of the federalist forces, and received the double mission of forcing the president of the province of Cundinamarca to acknowledge the authority of the congress, and of then marching against Santa Martha, the only fortified seaport the Spaniards still retained in New Granada. The first point was easily carried, Bogota, the capital of the disaffected province, being a defenceless town. In spite of its capitulation, Bolivar allowed it to be sacked during 48 hours by his troops. At Santa Martha, the Spanish general Montalvo, having a feeble garrison of less than 200 men, and a fortress in a miserable state of defence, had already bespoken a French vessel, in order to secure his own flight, while the inhabitants of the town sent word to Bolivar that on his appearance they would open the gates and drive out the garrison. But instead of marching, as he was ordered by the congress, against the Spaniards at Santa Martha, he indulged his rancor against Castillo, the commander of Carthagena, took upon himself to lead his troops against the latter town, which constituted an integral part of the federal republic. Beaten back, he encamped upon La Papa, a large hill, about gun-shot distance from Carthagena, and established a single small cannon as a battery against a place provided with about 80 guns. He afterward converted the siege into a blockade, which lasted till the beginning of May without any other result than that of reducing his army, by desertion and malady, from 2,400 men to about 700. Meanwhile a great Spanish expedition from Cadiz had arrived, March 25, 1815, under Gen. Morillo, at the island of Margarita, and had been able to throw powerful reinforcements into Santa Martha, and soon after to take Carthagena itself. Previously, however, Bolivar had embarked for Jamaica, May 10, 1815, with about a dozen of his officers, on an armed English brig. Having arrived at the place of refuge, he again published a proclamation, representing himself as the victim of some secret enemy or faction, and defending his flight before the approaching Spaniards as a resignation of command out of deference for the public peace.

During his 8 months’ stay at Kingston, the generals he had left in Venezuela, and Gen. Arismendi in the island of Margarita, staunchly held their ground against the Spanish arms. But Ribas. from whom Bolivar had derived his reputation, having been shot by the Spaniards after the capture of Maturin, there appeared in his stead another man on the stage, of still greater abilities, who, being as a foreigner unable to play an independent part in the South American revolution, finally resolved to act under Bolivar. This was Louis Brion. To bring aid to the revolutionists, he had sailed from London for Carthagena with a corvette of 24 guns, equipped in great part at his own expense, with 14,000 stand of arms and a great quantity of military stores. Arriving too late to be useful in that quarter, he re-embarked for Cayes, in Hayti, whither many emigrant patriots had repaired after the surrender of Carthagena. Bolivar, meanwhile, had also departed from Kingston to Porte au Prince, where, on his promise of emancipating the slaves, Petion, the president of Hayti, offered him large supplies for a new expedition against the Spaniards in Venezuela. At Cayes he met Brion and the other emigrants, and in a general meeting proposed himself as the chief of the new expedition, on the condition of uniting the civil and military power in his person until the assembling of a general congress. The majority accepting his terms, the expedition’ sailed April 16, 1816, with him as its commander and Brion as its admiral. At Margarita the former succeeded in winning over Arismendi, the commander of the island, in which he had reduced the Spaniards to the single spot of Pampatar. On Bolivar’s formal promise to convoke a national congress at Venezuela, as soon as he should be master of the country, Arismendi summoned a junta in the cathedral of La Villa del Norte, and publicly proclaimed him the commander-in-chief of the republics of Venezuela and New Granada. On May 31, 1816, Bolivar landed at Carupano, but did not dare prevent Marino and Piar from separating from him, and carrying on a war against Cumana under their own auspices. Weakened by this separation, he set sail, on Brion’s advice, for Ocumare, where he arrived July 3, 1816, with 13 vessels, of which 7 only were armed. His army mustered but 650 men, swelled, by the enrolment of negroes whose emancipation he had proclaimed, to about 800. At Ocumare he again issued a proclamation, promising

“to exterminate the tyrants” and to “convoke the people to name their deputies to congress.”

On his advance in the direction of Valencia he met, not far from Ocumare, the Spanish general Morales at the head of about 200 soldiers and 100 militia men. The skirmishers of Morales having dispersed his advanced guard, he lost, as an eye-witness records,

“all presence of mind, spoke not a word, turned his horse quickly round, and fled in full speed toward Ocumare, passed the village at full gallop, arrived at the neighboring bay, jumped from his horse, got into a boat, and embarked on the Diana, ordering the whole squadron to follow him to the little island of Buen Ayre, and leaving all his companions without any means of assistance.”

On Brion’s rebukes and admonitions, he again joined the other commanders on the coast of Cumana, but being harshly received, and threatened by Piar with trial before a court-martial as a deserter and a coward, he quickly retraced his steps to Cayes. After months of exertion, Brion at length succeeded in persuading a majority of the Venezuelan military chiefs, who felt the want of at least a nominal centre, to recall Bolivar as their general-in-chief, upon the express condition that he should assemble a congress, and not meddle with the civil administration. Dec. 31, 1816, he arrived at Barcelona with the arms, munitions of war, and provisions supplied by Petion. Joined, Jan. 2, 1817, by Arismendi, he proclaimed on the 4th martial law and the union of all powers in his single person; but 5 days later, when Arismendi had fallen into an ambush laid by the Spaniards, the dictator fled to Barcelona. The troops rallied at the latter place, whither Brion sent him also guns and reenforcements, so that he soon mustered a new corps of 1,100 men. April 5, the Spaniards took possession of the town of Barcelona, and the patriot troops retreated toward the charity-house, a building isolated from Barcelona, and entrenched on Bolivar’s order, but unfit to shelter a garrison of 1,000 men from a serious attack. He left the post in the night of April 5, informing Col. Freites, to whom he transferred his command, that he was going in search of more troops, and would soon return. Trusting this promise, Freites declined the offer of a capitulation, and, after the assault, was slaughtered with the whole garrison by the Spaniards.

Piar, a man of color and native of Curacao, conceived and executed the conquest of the provinces of Guiana; Admiral Brion supporting that enterprise with his gun-boats. July 20, the whole of the provinces being evacuated by the Spaniards, Piar, Brion, Zea, Marino, Arismendi, and others, assembled a provincial congress at Angostura, and put at the head of the executive a triumvirate, of which Brion, hating Piar and deeply interested in Bolivar, in whose success he had embarked his large private fortune, contrived that the latter should be appointed a member, notwithstanding his absence. On these tidings Bolivar left his retreat for Angostura, where, emboldened by Brion, he dissolved the congress and the triumvirate, to replace them by a “supreme council of the nation,” with himself as the chief, Brion and Antonio Francisco Zea as the directors, the former of the military, the latter of the political section. However, Piar, the conqueror of Guiana, who once before had threatened to try him before a court-martial as a deserter, was not sparing of his sarcasms against the “Napoleon of the retreat,” and Bolivar consequently accepted a plan for getting rid of him. On the false accusation of having conspired against the whites, plotted against Bolivar’s life, and aspired to the supreme power, Piar was arraigned before a war council under the presidency of Brion, convicted, condemned to death, and shot, Oct. 16, 1817. His death struck Marino with terror. Fully aware of his own nothingness when deprived of Piar, he, in a most abject letter, publicly calumniated his murdered friend, deprecated his own attempts at rivalry with the liberator, and threw himself upon Bolivar’s inexhaustible fund of magnanimity.

The conquest by Piar of Guiana had completely changed the situation in favor of the patriots; that single province affording them more resources than all the other 7 provinces of Venezuela together. A new campaign, announced by Bolivar through a new proclamation was, therefore, generally expected to result in the final expulsion of the Spaniards. This first bulletin, which described some small Spanish foraging parties withdrawing from Calabozo as “armies flying before our victorious troops,” was not calculated to damp these hopes. Against about 4,000 Spaniards, whose junction had not yet been effected by Morillo, he mustered more than 9,000 men, well armed, equipped, and amply furnished with all the necessaries of war. Nevertheless, toward the end of May, 1818, he had lost about a dozen battles and all the provinces lying on the northern side of the Orinoco. Scattering as he did his superior forces, they were always beaten in detail. Leaving the conduct of the war to Paez and his other subordinates, he retired to Angostura. Defection followed upon defection, and every thing seemed to be drifting to utter ruin. At this most critical moment, a new combination of fortunate accidents again changed the face of affairs. At Angostura he met with Santander, a native of New Granada, who begged for the means of invading that territory, where the population were prepared for a general rise against the Spaniards. This request, to some extent, he complied with, while powerful succors in men, vessels, and munitions of war, poured in from England, and English, French, German, and Polish officers, flocked to Angostura. Lastly, Dr. German Roscio, dismayed at the declining fortune of the South American revolution, stepped forward, laid hold of Bolivar’s mind, and induced him to convene, Feb. 15, 1819, a national congress, the mere name of which proved powerful enough to create a new army of about 14,000 men, so that Bolivar found himself enabled to resume the offensive.

The foreign officers suggested to him the plan of making a display of an intention to attack Caracas, and free Venezuela from the Spanish yoke, and thus inducing Morillo to weaken New Granada and concentrate his forces upon Venezuela, while he (Bolivar) should suddenly turn to the west, unite with Santander’s guerillas, and march upon Bogota. To execute this plan, he left Angostura Feb. 24, 1810 after having nominated Zea president of the congress arid vice-president of the republic during his absence. By the manoeuvres of Paez, Morillo and La Torre were routed at Achaguas, and would have been destroyed if Bolivar had effected a junction between his own troops and those of Paez and Marino. At all events, the victories of Paez led to the occupation of the province of Barima, which opened to Bolivar the way into New Granada. Every thing being here prepared by Santander, the foreign troops, consisting mainly of Englishmen, decided the fate of New Granada by the successive victories won July 1 and 23, and Aug. 7, in the province of Tunja. Aug. 12, Bolivar made a triumphal entry into Bogota, while the Spaniards, all the Granadian provinces having risen against them, shut themselves up in the fortified town of Mompox.

Having regulated the Granadian congress at Bogota, and installed Gen. Santander as commander-in-chief, Bolivar marched toward Pamplona, where he spent about 2 months in festivals and balls. Nov. 3, he arrived at Montecal, in Venezuela, whither he had directed the patriotic chieftains of that territory to assemble with their troops. With a treasury of about $2,000,000, raised from the inhabitants of New Granada by forced contributions, and with a disposable force of about 9,000 men, the 3d part of whom consisted of well disciplined English, Irish, Hanoverians, and other foreigners, he had now to encounter an enemy stripped of all resources and reduced to a nominal force of about 4,500 men, 2/3 of whom were natives, and, therefore, not to be relied upon by the Spaniards. Morillo withdrawing from San Fernando de Apure to San Carlos, Bolivar followed him up to Calabozo, so that the hostile head-quarters were only 2 days’ march from each other. If Bolivar had boldly advanced, the Spaniards would have been crushed by his European troops alone, but he preferred protracting the war for 5 years longer.

In October, 1819, the congress of Angostura had forced Zea, his nominee, to resign his office, and chosen Arismendi in his place. On receiving this news, Bolivar suddenly marched his foreign legion toward Angostura, surprised Arismendi, who had 600 natives only, exiled him to the island of Margarita, and restored Zea to his dignities. Dr. Roscio, fascinating him with the prospects of centralized power, led him to proclaim the “republic of Colombia,” comprising New Granada and Venezuela, to publish a fundamental law for the new state, drawn up by Roscio, and to consent to the establishment of a common congress for both provinces. On Jan. 20, 1820, he had again returned to San Fernando de Apure. His sudden withdrawal of the foreign legion, which was more dreaded by the Spaniards than 10 times the number of Colombians, had given Morillo a new opportunity to collect reinforcements, while the tidings of a formidable expedition to start from Spain under O’Donnell raised the sinking spirits of the Spanish party. Notwithstanding his vastly superior forces, Bolivar contrived to accomplish nothing during the campaign of 1820. Meanwhile the news arrived from Europe that the revolution in the Isla de Leon had put a forcible end to O’Donnell’s intended expedition. In New Granada 15 provinces out of 22 had joined the government of Colombia, and the Spaniards now held there only the fortresses of Carthagena and the isthmus of Panama. In Venezuela 6 provinces out of 8 obeyed the laws of Colombia. Such was the state of things when Bolivar allowed himself to be inveigled by Morillo into negotiations resulting, Nov. 25, 1820, in the conclusion at Truxillo of a truce for 6 months. In the truce no mention was made of the republic of Colombia, although the congress had expressly forbidden any treaty to be concluded with the Spanish commander before the acknowledgment on his part of the independence of the republic.

Dec. 17, Morillo, anxious to play his part in Spain, embarked at Puerto Cabello, leaving the command-in-chief to Miguel de la Torre, and on March 10, 1821, Bolivar notified La Torre, by letter, that hostilities should recommence at the expiration of 30 days. The Spaniards had taken a strong position at Carabobo, a village situated about half-way betwen San Carlos and Valencia; but La Torre, instead of uniting there all his forces, had concentrated only his 1st division, 2,500 infantry and about 1,500 cavalry, while Bolivar had about 6,000 infantry, among them the British legion, mustering 1,100 men, and 3,000 Ilaneros on horseback, under Paez. The enemy’s position seemed so formidable to Bolivar, that he proposed to his council of war to make a new armistice, which, however, was rejected by his subalterns. At the head of a column mainly consisting of the British legion, Paez turned through a footpath the right wing of the enemy, after the successful execution of which manoeuvre, La Torre was the first of the Spaniards to run away, taking no rest till he reached Puerto Cabello, where he shut himself up with the remainder of his troops. Puerto Cabello itself must have surrendered on a quick advance of the victorious army, but Bolivar lost his time in exhibiting himself at Valencia and Caracas. Sept. 21, 1821, the strong fortress of Carthagena capitulated to Santander. The last feats of arms in Venezuela, the naval action at Maracaibo, in Aug. 1823, and the forced surrender of Puerto Cabello, July, 1824, were both the work of Padilla. The revolution of the Isla de Leon, which prevented O’Donnell’s expedition from starting, and the assistance of the British legion, had evidently turned the scale in favor of the Colombians.

The Colombian congress opened its sittings in Jan. 1821, at Cucuta, published, Aug. 30, a new constitution, and after Bolivar had again pretended to resign, renewed his powers. Having signed the new constitution, he obtained leave to undertake the campaign of Quito (1822), to which province the Spaniards had retired after their ejection by a general rising of the people from the isthmus of Panama. This campaign, ending in the incorporation of Quito, Pasto, and Guayaquil into Colombia, was nominally led by Bolivar and Gen. Sucre, but the few successes of the corps were entirely owed to British officers, such as Col. Sands. During the campaigns of 1823-’24, against the Spaniards in upper and lower Peru, he no longer thought it necessary to keep up the appearance of generalship, but leaving the whole military task to Gen. Sucre, limited himself to triumphal entries, manifestos, and the proclamation of constitutions. Through his Colombian body-guard, he swayed the votes of the congress of Lima, which, Feb. 10, 1823, transferred to him the dictatorship, while he secured his re-election as president of Colombia by a new tender of resignation. His position had meanwhile become strengthened, what with the formal recognition of the new state on the part of England, what with Sucre’s conquest of the provinces of upper Peru, which the latter united into an independent republic, under the name of Bolivia. Here, where Sucre’s bayonets were supreme, Bolivar gave full scope to his propensities for arbitrary power, by introducing the “Bolivian Code,” an imitation of the Code Napoleon. It was his plan to transplant that code from Bolivia to Peru, and from Peru to Colombia-to keep the former states in check by Colombian troops, and the latter by the foreign legion and Peruvian soldiers. By force, mingled with intrigue, he succeeded indeed, for some weeks at least, in fastening his code upon Peru. The president and liberator of Colombia, the protector and dictator of Peru, and the godfather of Bolivia, he had now reached the climax of his renown. But a serious antagonism had broken out in Colombia, between the centralists or Bolivarists and the federalists, under which latter name the enemies of military anarchy had coalesced with his military rivals. The Colombian congress having, at his instigation, proposed an act of accusation against Paez, the vice-president of Venezuela, the latter broke out into open revolt, secretly sustained and pushed on by Bolivar himself, who wanted insurrections, to furnish him a pretext for overthrowing the constitution and reassuming the dictatorship. Beside his body-guard, he led, on his return from Peru, 1,800 Peruvians, ostensibly against the federalist rebels. At Puerto Cabello, however, where he met Paez, he not only confirmed him in his command of Venezuela, and issued a proclamation of amnesty to all the rebels, but openly took their part and rebuked the friends of the constitution; and by decree at Bogota, Nov. 23, 1826, he assumed dictatorial powers.

In the year 1826, from which the decline of his power dates, he contrived to assemble a congress at Panama, with the ostensible to object of establishing a new democratic international code. Plenipotentiaries came from Colombia, Brazil, La Plata, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, &c. What he really aimed at was the erection of the whole of South America into one federative republic, with himself as its dictator. While thus giving full scope to his dreams of attaching half a world to his name, his real power was rapidly slipping from his grasp. The Colombian troops in Peru, informed of his making arrangements for the introduction of the Bolivian k-code, promoted a violent insurrection. The Peruvians elected Gen. Lamar as the president of their republic, assisted the Bolivians in driving out the Colombian troops, and even waged a victorious war against Colombia, which ended in a treaty reducing the latter to its primitive limits, stipulating the equality of the 2 countries, and separating their debts. The Congress of Ocana, convoked by Bolivar, with a view to modify the constitution in favor of his arbitrary power, was opened March 2, 1828, by an elaborate address, insisting on the necessity of new privileges for the executive. When, however, it became evident that the amended project of the constitution would come out of the convention quite different from its original form, his friends vacated their seats, by which proceeding the body was left without a quorum, and thus became extinct. From a country-seat, some miles distant from Ocana, to which he had retreated, he published another manifesto, pretending to be incensed at the step taken by his own friends, but at the same time attacking the convention, calling on the provinces to recur to extraordinary measures, and declaring that he was ready to submit to any load of power which might be heaped upon him. Under the pressure of his bayonets, popular assemblies at Caracas, Carthagena, and Bogota, to which latter place he had repaired, anew invested him with dictatorial power. An attempt to assassinate him in his sleeping room at Bogota, which he escaped only by leaping in the dark from the balcony of the window, and lying concealed under a bridge, allowed him for some time to introduce a sort of military terrorism. He did not, however, lay hands on Santander, although he had participated in the conspiracy, while he put to death Gen. Padilla, whose guilt was not proved at all, but who, as a man of color, was not able to resist.

Violent factions disturbing the republic in 1829, in a new appeal to the citizens Bolivar invited them to frankly express their wishes as to the modifications to be introduced into the constitution. An assembly of notables at Caracas answered by denouncing his ambition, laying bare the weakness of his administration, declaring the separation of Venezuela from Colombia, and placing Paez at the head of that republic. The senate of Colombia stood by Bolivar, but other insurrections broke out at different points. Having resigned for the 5th time, in Jan. 1830, he again accepted the presidency, and left Bogota to wage war on Paez in the name of the Colombian congress. Toward the end of March, 1830, he advanced at the head of 8,000 men, took Caracuta, which had revolted, and then turned upon the province of Maracaibo, where Paez awaited him with 12,000 men, in a strong position. As soon as he became aware that Paez meant serious fighting, his courage collapsed. For a moment he even thought to subject himself to Paez, and declare against the congress; but the influence of his partisans at the congress vanished, and he was forced to tender his resignation, notice being given to him that he must now stand by it, and that an annual pension would be granted to him on the condition of his departure for foreign countries. He accordingly sent his resignation to the congress, April 27, 1830. But hoping to regain power by the influence of his partisans, and a reaction setting in against Joachim Mosquera, the new president of Colombia, he effected his retreat from Bogota in a very slow manner, and contrived, under a variety of pretexts, to prolong his sojourn at San Pedro, until the end of 1830, when he suddenly died.

The following is the portrait given of him by Ducoudray Holstein:

“Simon Bolivar is 5 feet 4 inches in height, his visage is long, his cheeks hollow, his complexion livid brown: his eyes are of a middle size, and sunk deep in his head, which is covered thinly with hair. His mustaches give him a dark and wild aspect, particularly when he is in a passion. His whole body is thin and meagre. He has the appearance of a man 65 years old. In walking, his arms are in continual motion. He cannot walk long, but becomes soon fatigued. He likes his hammock, where he sits or lolls. He gives way to sudden gusts of resentment, and becomes in a moment a madman, throws himself into his hammock, and utters curses and imprecations upon all around him. He likes to indulge in sarcasms upon absent persons, reads only light French literature, is a bold rider, and passionately fond of waltzing. He is fond of hearing himself talk and giving toasts. In adversity, and destitute of aid from without, he is perfectly free from passion and violence of temper. He then becomes mild, patient, docile, and even submissive. In a great measure he conceals his faults under the politeness of a man educated in the so-called beau monde, possesses an almost Asiatic talent for dissimulation, and understands mankind better than the mass of his countrymen.”

By decree of the congress of New Granada, his remains were removed in 1842 to Caracas, and a monument erected there in his honor.

See Histoire de Bolivar, par le Gén. Ducoudray Holstein; continuée jusqu’a sa mort par Alphonse Viollet (Paris, 1831), Memoirs of Gen. John Miller (in the service of the Republic of Peru); Col. Hippisley’s “Account of his journey to the Orinoco” (Lond. 1819).