To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Guatemalan Party of Labour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guatemalan Labour Party
Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo
LeaderRicardo Rosales
FounderJosé Manuel Fortuny
Founded1949
Dissolved1998
Preceded byDemocratic Vanguard faction of the Revolutionary Action Party
Succeeded byGuatemalan National Revolutionary Unity
Military wingRebel Armed Forces (1960–1968)
IdeologyCommunism
Marxism–Leninism
National affiliationGuatemalan National Revolutionary Unity
Party flag

The Guatemalan Labour Party (Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo) was a Marxist-Leninist party in Guatemala. It existed from 1949 to 1998. It gained prominence during the government of Jacobo Arbenz. It was one of the main forces of opposition to the various regimes that followed Arbenz's overthrow, and later became a constituent of the URNG guerrilla coalition during the later phase of the country's Civil War.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    2 405 831
    824 752
  • Latin American Revolutions: Crash Course World History #31
  • Niccolò Machiavelli (BBC Documentary)

Transcription

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today things are going to get a little bit confusing, because we’re going to talk about revolution and independence in Latin America. It’s a bit confusing because 1. Latin America is big, 2. It’s very diverse, 3. Napoleon makes everything complicated and 4. As we’ve seen in the past, sometimes revolutions turn out not to be not that revolutionary. [why a solid marketing dept. is key] Witness, for instance, the New England Revolution, who instead of, like, trying to form new and better governments are always just kicking balls around like all the other soccer [futbol] teams. [Intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] Right, so before independence, Latin American society was characterized by three institutions that exercised control over the population. The first was the Spanish Crown, or if you are Brazilian, the Portuguese crown. So, as far as Spain was concerned, the job of the colonies was to produce revenue in the form of a 20% tax on everything that was called “the royal fifth.” So government administration was pervasive and relatively efficient— because it had to be in order to collect its royal fifth. I mean, the church even controlled time – the church bells tolled out the hours and they mandated a seven day work week so that people could go to church on Sunday. [so HobbyLobby store hours aren't super inconvenient, they're just old skool?] And finally, there was patriarchy. [yeuup, there's a shocker] In Latin America, like much of the world, husbands had complete control over their wives and any extra-or-pre-marital skoodilypooping was severely punished. I mean, when it was the women doing the illicit skoodilypooping. Men could basically get up to whatever. [RIP Helen Gurley Brown. much love] This was mainly about property rights because illegitimate children could inherit their father’s property, but it was constructed to be about, you know, purity. To get a sense of how patriarchy shaped Latin American lives, take a gander at Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, whose name I’m actually abbreviating. A child prodigy who spoke five languages by the age of 16, de la Cruz wanted to disguise herself as a boy so she could attend University, [plot of 80's flick Just One of the Guys] but she was forbidden to do so. Still, she wrote plays and poetry, she studied math and natural science, [Girls do Get Curves, Danica McKellar!] and for being one of the leading minds of the 17th century, she was widely attacked, and eventually forced to abandon her work and sell all 4,000 of her books. That’s a shame because she had a great mind, once writing that “Aristotle would have written more if he had done any cooking.” [oooh, snap!] Couple other things: First, Latin America led the world in transculturation or Cultural Blending. A new and distinct Latin American culture emerged mixing 1. Whites from Spain called Peninsulares, 2. Whites born in the Americas called creoles, 3. Native Americans, and 4. African slaves. This blending of cultures may be most obvious when looking at Native American and African influences upon Christianity. The Virgin of Guadalupe, for instance, was still called Tonantzin, the indigenous earth goddess, by Indians, and the profusion of blood in Mexican iconography recalls the Aztec use of blood in ritual. But transculturation pervaded Latin American life, from food to secular music to fashion. Somewhat related: Latin America had a great deal of racial diversity and a rigid social hierarchy to match. There were four basic racial categories: white, black, mestizo –a mix of white and American Indian- and mulatto, a mix of white and black. We try not to use that word anymore because it’s offensive, but that’s the word they used. And from the 16th century on, Latin America had a huge diversity of mixed race people, and there were constant attempts to classify them and divide them into castes. You can see some of these in so called casta paintings, which attempted to establish in a very weird and Enlightenment-y way all the possible racial combinations. But of course that’s not how race works, as evidenced by the fact that successful people of lower racial castes could become “legally white” by being granted gracias al sacar. [pretty jacked up, white? right, I mean..] So by 1800, on the eve of Latin America’s independence movements, roughly a quarter of the population were mixed race. So Brazil… he said as thousands of Argentinians booed him— is obviously different because it was ruled, not by Spain, but by Portugal. But like a lot of revolutions in Latin America, it was fairly conservative. The creoles wanted to maintain their privilege while also achieving independence from the Peninsulares. And also like a lot of Latin American revolutions, it featured Napoleon. [forever makes me think of Bill &Ted] Freaking Napoleon. You’re everywhere. [except in line for certain roller coasters] He’s behind me, isn’t he? Gah. So when Napoleon took over Portugal in 1807, the entire Portuguese royal family and their royal court decamped to Brazil. And it turned out, they loved Brazil. King Joao loved Brazil so much. Off topic, but do you think that J-Woww named herself after King Joao? I mean, does she have that kind of historical sensibility? I think she does. [that whole bit really just happened, btw] So King Joao’s life in Rio was so good that even after Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, he just kind of stayed in Brazil. And then, by 1820, the Portuguese in Portugal were like, “Hey, maybe you should come back and, like, you know, govern us, King of Portugal.” So in 1821, he reluctantly returned to Lisbon, leaving his son Prince Pedro behind. Meanwhile, Brazilian creoles were organizing themselves around the idea that they were culturally different from Portugal, and they eventually f ormed a Brazilian Party— no, Stan not that kind of party, come on— yes. That kind. A Brazilian party to lobby for independence. Then in 1822, they convinced Prince Pedro of boring, old Portugal that he should just become King Pedro of sexy, big Brazil. So Pedro declared Brazil an independent constitutional monarchy with himself as king. [as one does, naturally] As a result, Brazil achieved independence without much bloodshed and managed to hold on to that social hierarchy with the plantation owners on top. And that explains why Brazil was the last new world country to abolish slavery, not fully abandoning it until 1888. Right, so even when Napoleon wasn’t forcing Portuguese royals into an awesome exile, he was still messing with Latin America. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. So Latin America’s independence movements began not with Brazil, but in Mexico when Napoleon put his brother on the Spanish throne in 1808. [nepotism; always a classy move] Napoleon wanted to institute the liberal principles of the French Revolution, which angered the ruling elite of the Peninsulares in what was then called New Spain. They were aristocrats and they just wanted to go back to some good old-fashioned divine right monarchy with a strong church. So the Mexican Creoles, seeking to expand their own power at the expense of the Peninsular elite saw an opportunity here. They affirmed their loyalty to the new king, who was French even though he was the king of Spain. I told you this was complicated. Then, a massive peasant uprising began, led by a renegade priest Padre Hidalgo, and supported by the Creoles because it was aimed at the Peninsulares, even though they weren’t actually the ones who supported Spain. This was further complicated by the fact that to the mestizo peasants led by Hidalgo, Creoles and Peninsulares looked and acted basically identical— they were both white and imperious— [preferable to avada kedavrious?] so the peasants often attacked the Creoles, who were, technically on their side in trying to overthrow the ruling peninsulares. Even though it had tens of thousands of supporters, this first peasant uprising petered out. But, a second peasant revolt, led by another priest, Father Morelos, was much more revolutionary. In 1813, he declared independence and the revolt lasted until his death in 1815. But since he was a mestizo, he didn’t gain much Creole support, so revolutionary fervor in Mexico began to fade until … 1820, when Spain, which was now under the rule of a Spanish, rather than a French king, had a REAL liberal revolution with a new constitution that limited the power of the church. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, in the wake of Spain’s liberalizing movements, the Mexican elites, who had previously supported Spain, switched sides and made common cause with the creoles in the hopes that they could somehow hold onto their privileges. And pushing for independence together, things went very well. [stay together to stay alive, just like L4D!] The Creole general Iturbide and the rebel mestizo commander Guerrero joined forces and won independence with most of the Peninsulares returning to Spain. Iturbide –the whiter of the two generals – became king of Mexico in 1822 (remember, this was a revolution essentially AGAINST representative government). But that didn’t work out and within a year he was overthrown by the military and a republic was declared. Popular sovereignty was sort of victorious, but without much benefit to the peasants who actually made independence possible. This alliance between conservative landowning elites and the army - especially in the face of calls for land reform or economic justice— would happen over and over again in Latin America for the next century and a half. But before we come to any conclusions, let’s discuss one last revolution. But, the interior of Venezuela was home to mixed-race cowboys called llaneros who supported the king. They kept the Caracas revolutionaries from extending their power inland. And that, is where Simon Bolivar, “el Libertador,” [young portrait w foppish 'stache is fave] enters the picture. Bolivar realized that the only way to overcome the various class divisions (like the one between the Caracas creoles and llaneros) was to appeal to a common sense of South American-ness. I mean, after all, the one thing that almost all South Americans had in common: they were born in South America, NOT SPAIN. So then, partly through shows of toughness that included, like, crossing flooded plains and going without sleep, Bolivar convinced the llaneros to give up fighting for Spain and start fighting against them. He quickly captured the viceregal capital at Bogota and by 1822 his forces had taken Caracas and Quito. Hold on, hold on. Lest I be attacked by Argentinians [to get back the plutonium you stole?] who are already upset about what I said about their really good soccer team, I want to make one thing clear. Argentina’s general Jose de San Martin was also vital to the defeat of the Spanish. He led an expeditions against the Spanish in Chile and also a really important one in Lima. [helping McKinley advance to Nationals over dreaded rivals, Vocal Adrenaline] And then, in December of 1824, at the battle of Ayacucho, the last Spanish viceroy was finally captured and all of Latin America was free from Spain. Oh, it’s time for the open letter? That’s A chair, Stan, but it’s not THE chair. [damp spirit kicks internal pebble] [rolls with broken heart to unimpressive leather-not-puce-velvet club chair sub] An Open Letter to Simon Bolivar. [part-time purple pieman impersonator] But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, llanero. I wonder if his hips swivel when I wind him up. [sorry, Meatwad, night-vision goggles & action bills not included.] Context is everything. They do! Hey there, cowboy. Dear Simon Bolivar, First, you had fantastic [legit] muttonchops. It’s as if you’re some kind of handsome Martin Van Buren. [surely an original sentence there] You were a man of immense accomplishments, but those accomplishments have been richly rewarded. I mean, you have a country named after you. Not to mention, two different currencies. [Canadian loonie pwns, regardless] But for my purposes, the most important thing you ever did was die. You may not know this, Simon Bolivar, but when I'm not a world history teacher sitting next to a fake fireplace, I am a novelist. [young adult + Dawson's Creek FanFic] [tell you his pen names for a price] And your last words, “Damn it, how will I ever get out of this labyrinth,” feature prominently in my first novel, Looking for Alaska. [ sup, Nerdfighteria? xoxo, dj ] Except it turns out, those weren’t your last words. [d'oh?] Your last words were probably, “Jose, bring the luggage.” [alt: "Hey, watch this!"] But I decided to use your fancy, romantic, inaccurate last words. It’s called artistic license. Put that in your luggage. [my, Johnny Bookwriter is saucy today] Anyway, fantastic life. I just wish you’d nailed it a little bit better with your last words. Best wishes, John Green So by 1825, almost the entire western hemisphere – with a few exceptions in the Caribbean —was free from European rule. Oh, right. And Canada. [Oh, Canada!] I’m just kidding, Canadians. It’s so easy to make fun of you because you’re so nice. So I tease you and then you’re like, “Aw, thanks for noticing that we exist.” My pleasure. Anyway, this is pretty remarkable, especially when you consider that most of this territory had been under Spanish or Portuguese control for almost 300 years. The most revolutionary thing about these independence movements were that they enshrined the idea of so called popular sovereignty in the New World. Never again would Latin America be under the permanent control of a European power, and the relatively quick division of Latin America into individual states, despite Bolivar’s pan South American dream, showed how quickly the people in these regions developed a sense of themselves as nations distinct from Europe, and from each other. This division into nation states prefigures what would happen to Europe in the mid-19th century, and in that sense, Latin America is the leader of 19th century world history. And Latin American history presages another key theme in modern life— multiculturalism. And all of that makes Latin America sound very modern, but in a number of ways, Latin American independence wasn’t terribly revolutionary. First, while the Peninsulares were gone, the rigid social hierarchy, with the wealthy creoles at the top, remained. Second, whereas revolutions in both France and America weakened the power of the established church, in Latin America, the Catholic Church remained very powerful in people’s everyday lives. And then, there is the patriarchy. Although there were many women who took up arms in the struggle for independence, including Juana Azurduy who led a cavalry charge against Spanish forces in Bolivia, patriarchy remained strong in Latin America. Feminist ideas like those of Mary Wollstonecraft would have to wait. Women weren’t allowed to vote in national elections in Mexico until 1953. And Peru didn’t extend voting rights to women until 1955. Also, Latin America’s revolutionary wars were long and bloody: 425,000 people died in Mexico’s war for independence. And they didn’t always lead to stability: Venezuela, for instance, experienced war for much of the 19th century, leading to as many as a million deaths. And it’s important to note that fighting for freedom doesn’t always lead to freedom, the past two centuries in Latin America have seen many military dictatorships that protect private property at the expense of egalitarian governance. “Freedom,” “independence,” and “autonomy” are complicated terms that mean different things to different people at different times. So too with the word “revolutionary.” Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Location change because I forgot to record the credits, and my shirt matches the wall. Probably should have thought about that one a little bit harder. [DFT record the credits, next time then?] Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson, [!] the show is ably interned by Agent Meredith Danko, TVCS and it’s written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. Our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "giant squid of anger." If you want to suggest a future phrase of the week or guess at this week’s, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions that will be answered by our team of historians. Look at the beautiful Crash Course poster! [nice job, ThoughtBubblers!] Available now at DFTBA.com link in the video description. Thanks for watching, and as we say in my home town, Don’t Forget they can’t get your goat if they don’t know where you keep it.

First Congress

The party, then under the name Communist Party of Guatemala (Partido Comunista de Guatemala) held its constituent first congress on 28 September 1949. It was founded by the Guatemalan Democratic Vanguard, which had functioned as a fraction within the ruling Revolutionary Action Party for two years. José Manuel Fortuny had been the leader of VDG, and now became general secretary of PCG. At the time of the congress of the party, its membership stood at 43.[1]

An earlier Communist Party of Guatemala had been founded in 1922, but was suppressed in 1932.

In June 1950 PCG started publishing a weekly newspaper, Octubre, which was distributed amongst workers, peasants and intellectuals throughout the country.

In the summer of 1950 a section of the party, led by trade union leader Víctor Manuel Gutiérrez, broke away and formed a separate party, the Guatemalan Revolutionary Workers Party (PROG). PROG made its first public appearance on 1 July. The split had been provoked by differences of opinions concerning the social composition of the Central Committee of the party.

Second Congress

On 2 February 1952 PROG was dissolved and its members returned to PCG. The 2nd congress of PCG, held the same year, elected Gutiérrez as a Central Committee member. The congress also decided to adopt the name PGT, a move which was intended to facilitate legalization of the party. A 1945 legislation banned "international organizations" from working in Guatemala, a legislation used to maintain the illegality of any communist organization. By changing the name to PGT the party wanted to state that it was an independent and national party. At the same time, communists came to use the similar names abroad. One prominent example is the Swiss Party of Labour.

However, Although communism had not been officially legalized until the inauguration of reformist president Jacobo Arbenz, the party had participated in political activities more or less openly; some avowed communists were employed in high-level positions in the civil service and educational bureaucracy. The PGT program tended to emphasize participation in the trade unions and direct action rather than electoral politics, though at one point there were four PGT members in the 58-seat parliament in the period of 1953-1954. The four PGT MPs were José Alberto Cardoza, Victor Manuel Gutiérrez, Carlos Manuel Pellecer and Antonio Ardón.[1]

The PGT was generally supportive of the reform efforts launched by Juan José Arévalo and Arbenz after the overthrow of right-wing military dictator Gen. Jorge Ubico in 1944. Because of this, the governments and press in Western countries (especially the United States) attempted to gather support for an economic or military intervention to halt the 'Communist threat'. A CIA intelligence estimate in 1952 reported that the PGT had a membership of about five hundred and an undetermined number of sympathizers. Later estimates raised the membership total to 3,000, including a group of five hundred described as 'hard-core'. The PGT publication Octubre had a circulation of about 3,000 in 1952. American intelligence briefings and post reports conceded that the PGT did not have sufficient popular backing or resources to foment a coup or revolution.

On 2 August 1953 Octubre was substituted by Tribuna Popular as the party organ.

The land reform initiatives implemented by the Arbenz government attracted more foreign attention to Guatemala's political scene. About 100,000 landless peasants were to benefit from the expropriation of unused arable land from landed interests (such as the U.S.-based United Fruit Company). The plan was never fully executed, as the Arbenz government fell in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état on 29 June 1954; the government offered no significant resistance. The first decree issued by the new military régime banned the PGT. Following the ban a section of the party, including Fortuny, went into exile in Mexico where they continued to operate politically. Inside Guatemala, PGT was largely marginalized.

Third Congress

In the underground, PGT was radicalized. The 3rd party congress proclaimed the importance of "all forms of struggle", meaning that armed struggle was justified against the regime. This marked a shift of policy, as the party until then had worked under the banner of "democratic restoration". In April 1961 the party had adopted a document titled "General Tactics, development and forms of struggle of the Guatemalan revolution", which mentioned armed struggle as one of different kind of struggle to be utilized.[1]

The party rallied survivors of the failed 13 November 1960 military insurrection and student radicals into forming a guerilla movement, the Rebel Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Rebeldes, FAR) in 1962. FAR initiated attacks against the government military, the beginning of a four decade long civil war.

Meanwhile, the relation of the party towards the armed struggle was not uncomplicated. In theory the armed forces of FAR stood under the political control of PGT. In practice, that was not always the case. FAR developed its own political leadership and started criticizing the PGT leadership for indifference towards the armed struggle. Within the party Ricardo Ramírez led the radical section.

PGT suffered a setback in early March 1966, as raids were conducted against the party leadership. Thirty-three left-wing leaders 'disappeared', including Víctor Manuel Gutiérrez and Leonardo Castillo Flores. CIA documents, declassified in 1998, confirmed that they had been executed by the state forces.[2][3]

In the mid 1960s the U.S. State Department estimated the party membership to be approximately 1300.[4]

The 1966 presidential elections highlighted differences within the party. After much discussions the party decided to support the candidature of Julio César Méndez, claiming that he represented progressive and democratic sectors. At the same time the party maintained its support to the ongoing armed struggle. After Méndez had been elected he continued the anti-communist path of his predecessors, leading to accusations within PGT that the party leadership had adopted an incorrect line ahead of the elections. Some analysts claim that the killings of leaders of the older and more moderate generation within PGT, like Gutiérrez and Castillo, effectively closed the openings towards a peaceful settlement of the emerging civil war and emboldened the younger generation to take the more radical path.[2]

In 1968 FAR broke its bond with PGT, reconstituting itself as the Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, FAR II). FAR was able to win over a large section of the youths and students from PGT, resulting in a severe setback for the party amongst those sections.

Whereas the main difference between the PGT leadership and the young radicals of FAR concern the line towards the armed struggle, there were also other issues of diverging views. A crucial issue was to consider the poverty of the majority of Guatemalans only as an issue of class, or whether the indigenous populations were subjected to racist oppression. PGT maintained an orthodox marxist understanding, that the poverty of the indigenous peoples were an issue of class and that the solution to their problems was to be handled within the framework of class struggle. The emerging guevarist leftist groups, however, developed an understanding that the indigenous peoples suffered from forms of oppression that could not only be explained as issues of class. These differences would remain during years to come, and has resurfaced even after the consolidation of URNG as a unified political party.

Fourth Congress

PGT held its fourth congress on 20–22 December 1969. The congress, held in complete clandestinity, adopted the policy of 'Revolutionary People's War'. At this time its base of operations was concentrated to Guatemala City and the southern coast of the country. The party carried out some armed attacks. The party had a brief rapprochement with FAR, that broke down due to political differences.

The party suffered heavily from government repression. On 26 September 1972 state forces captured Bernardo Alvarado, PGT general secretary, Mario Silva Jonama, Central Committee Secretary of PGT, Carlos René Valle y Valle, Carlos Alvarado Jerez, Hugo Barrios Klee and Miguel Angel Hernández, PGT Central Committee members, Fantina Rodríguez, party member, and the domestic worker Natividad Franco Santos, in a raid in Guatemala City. The following day the president Carlos Arana ordered their execution and that the bodies of the executed be dumped into the sea.

On 21 December 1974 the body of the party general secretary, Huberto Alvarado Arellano, was found. He had been subjected to torture and killed. In total, during the period of 1972–1983, two PGT general secretaries and nineteen Central Committee members were 'disappeared' and killed.[1]

In spite of the harsh repression, PGT was able to consolidate its political strength. By the midst of the 1970s, it had reactivated its Northern, Central, Western and Eastern Regional Committees. After Alvarado's death, Ricardo Rosales (whose nom de guerre in PGT was Carlos González) was appointed interim general secretary. He was given the task to organize a 5th party congress. Moreover, the party reactivated the dormant Military Commission of the Central Committee. The party gained political presence in the trade union movement through the Federación Autónoma Sindical de Guatemala (FASGUA) and JPT was one of the forces working with the Association of University Students (AEU).

Fragmentation

However, PGT failed to maintain its unity for long. On 29 May 1978 a massacre occurred in Panzós. Following the massacre massive protests erupted in Guatemala City. These happenings contributed to another wave of radicalization amongst the left-wing in Guatemala, which would divide PGT.

On 11 June the Military Commission ('Comil') of PGT carried out a bomb attack in retaliation of the Panzós massacre against the Mobile Police in the northern region, in which 25 policemen were killed. However, the Political Commission of the Central Committee of the party denied PGT involvement in the attack. The line of the party leadership was that actions like that were bound to produce a government response of increasing state repression.

Now some sections of PGT claimed that the party had an ambiguous relation to the ongoing armed struggle. The dissidents rallied around a Núcleo de Dirección y Conducción de la lucha interna, in which Central Committee and Comil members participated. Soon the party was split in two. The dissident faction broke away forming the National Directing Nucleus of PGT (Nucleo de Dirección Nacional del PGT). PGT-NDN was more militant and initiated coordination with FAR and EGP. The remaining group which was led by Ricardo Rosales, which was sometimes referred to as PGT-Central Committee, maintained its role as the official Guatemalan party in the world communist movement.

PGT-NDN won over the South-East Regional Committee, a part of the Southern Regional Committee and a part of the Alamos Zonal Committee (Chimaltenango). Its leader was José Alberto Cardoza (nom de guerre: Mario Sánchez), who had been a PGT Central Committee member up to the split. PGT-CC maintained its hold over the Central, Northern, Western Regional Committees and a section of the Southern Regional Committee.

Soon another section of the party, constituted by a group who had recently joined PGT after leaving FAR and members of Comil from the Central Region and the Alamos Zonal Committee, broke away from PGT to form the Guatemalan Party of Labour - Communist Party (PGT-PC).[1]

When the PGT-NDN and the leftist guerrillas (FAR, EGP, ORPA) joined forces and formed the URNG as a political and military coordination, PGT-CC stayed out of it.

At an expanded meeting of members of the Central Committee, Political Commission and representatives from the Regional Committees and the military structures 5–7 January another mutiny against Rosales' leadership took place. The dissidents formed a parallel party called Guatemalan Party of Labour - 6 January (PGT-6 de Enero).

In 1987 the URNG substituted PGT-NDN for PGT-CC in its leadership. By this time PGT-NDN had been severely marginalized. Since the 1983 capture of Carlos Quinteros ('Miguel'), who had been a leading figure in both PGT-NDN and PGT-PC, these groups were almost wiped out as Quinteros provided the state forces with vast information on their leaders and members.

Thus, following the entry of PGT-CC into URNG, the party worked closely with the other revolutionary movements within the framework of URNG during the final phases of the civil war. Also relations between PGT-CC and PGT-NDN improved, and the two parties were able to hold a joint celebration of the 38th anniversary of the foundation of the party.[5]

Peace accord and merger into the URNG

On 29 December 1996 a peace agreement was signed between the government of Álvaro Arzú and the URNG. When the URNG transformed from a coalition of different groups to a unified political party in 1998, the four constituents merged into it. EGP and FAR were the first to dissolve their organizations, then PGT-CC and ORPA. The Provisional Leading Junta of URNG included Ricardo Rosales from PGT as its secretary.[6]

In October 2005 a group, claiming to represent former members of PGT, PGT-NDN, EGP, FAR and JPT, founded a party with the name PGT.[7]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Hacia dónde vamos? : guía electoral 2003 (in Spanish). Guatemala Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Univ. de San Carlos de Guatemala. 2003. ISBN 9789992221662. OCLC 835555861.
  2. ^ a b "4. Guatemala (1903-present)". uca.edu.
  3. ^ http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB11/docs/02-01.htm
  4. ^ Benjamin, Roger W.; Kautsky, John H.. Communism and Economic Development, in The American Political Science Review, Vol. 62, No. 1. (Mar. 1968), pp. 122.
  5. ^ "A Brief History of the Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo: A Companion to an Exhibition of the Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo Papers". Archived from the original on 12 June 2003.
  6. ^ "La izquierda en Guatemala" (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 6 March 2007.
  7. ^ http://www.cedema.org/uploads/Venceremos1-2a%20Epoca.doc Archived 20 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
This page was last edited on 15 March 2024, at 23:37
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.