Luis Vitale: A forgotten Latin American Marxist
Within the "Notebooks of Latin American Critical Thought" Collection, CLACSO presents "Luis Vitale: A Forgotten Latin American Marxist", by Michael Löwy and Marco Álvarez.
Luis Vitale: A forgotten Latin American Marxist
Michael Löwy [1] and Marco Álvarez [2]
“I still believe that it’s not about creating a new theory but about integrating—without amalgamating—into historical materialism the contributions of feminism, subversive environmentalism, Indigenous Peoples, slum dwellers, youth, the elderly, the new peasant classes (seasonal workers), and Liberation Christians. Don’t you think we have the challenge of…”to refound"Or to rework the theory of revolutionary social change, complementing the theory founded in the second half of the 19th century?"
Letter from Luis Vitale to Michael Löwy, August 20, 1994
Fifty years after the coup in Chile, we want to remember a revolutionary Marxist who survived the extermination of the Chilean military dictatorship and who, for more than a year, was held in a dozen torture centers. We are speaking of Luis Vitale Cometa (1927-2010) , who died just days before his 83rd birthday and dedicated more than two-thirds of his life to political activism within the ranks of the revolutionary left and to the development of transformative thought. Unjustly, the political trajectory and intellectual output of this forgotten Marxist, a key figure in the popular struggles of the second half of the last century in Latin America, have not received the recognition they deserve, despite his significant contributions to the field of emancipation.
Luis Vitale, born in Argentina, a Chilean by choice, and a Latin Americanist by conviction, began his revolutionary activism while pursuing his doctoral studies in History at the University of La Plata in the early 50s. Inspired by the largely forgotten Bolivian Revolution of 1953, he joined the ranks of Trotskyism in the Río de la Plata region, developing his political skills alongside prominent activists such as Daniel "Che" Pereyra, Milcíades Peña, Hugo Blanco, Silvio Frondizi, and Nahuel Moreno. With Moreno, he engaged in heated debates during those years—and in the future—debates that shaped the history of Latin American Trotskyism. From that time onward, faithful to the generation of Commander Ernesto Guevara, he tirelessly dedicated the rest of his life to fighting for the second and definitive independence of Latin America.
In the mid-1950s, for research and political reasons, he arrived in Santiago, Chile, where he was received by Humberto Valenzuela, a historic leader of the Revolutionary Workers' Party (POR), who would become his closest comrade for several decades. He also actively participated in the debates of the Fourth International. He quickly became involved in the political work of this Trotskyist organization and the struggles of the Chilean workers' movement, and in 1959 he was elected to the national board of the Unified Workers' Central (CUT), which was led by the legendary Clotario Blest.
Now inspired by the triumph of the Cuban Revolution and rooted in the affinity of Trotskyism and Guevarism, he embarked on the arduous path of articulating the new Chilean revolutionary left, a process that culminated in the founding of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR) in August 1965. It is important to note that he was a pioneer in writing about this organization as a “researcher-witness of the era,” publishing the book * Contribution to the History of the Chilean MIR 1965-1970* (1979). He was elected to its national leadership and drafted its declaration of principles, which had a distinctly anti-Stalinist character and stated, among other things, that “we have assumed the responsibility of founding the MIR to unify, above all sectarianism, the revolutionary militant groups that are willing to undertake, quickly but seriously, the preparation and organization of the Chilean Socialist Revolution.” He was a promoter of party unity; however, his differences regarding insurrectionary strategy and tactical intervention with the sector led by the young Miguel Enríquez ended up marginalizing him from the MIR in 1969 (Álvarez, 2015).
It is important to highlight these differences, which were expressed in Luis Vitale's radical critique of the guerrilla foco theory. In a document titled "Political-Military Thesis (1969)," presented for discussion at the MIR's Fourth National Congress—which was never held—he argued that "effectual direct actions, detached from the struggle of workers and peasants, may gain a certain diffuse influence of sympathy, but they do not fulfill the role of organizing the masses, since these actions do not take place alongside the working class but rather, consciously or unconsciously, seek to replace it." Furthermore, as the 1970 presidential elections approached, Vitale advocated supporting Salvador Allende's candidacy, while most MIR leaders simply called for abstaining from voting for the right-wing candidate. These disagreements, among others, triggered Enríquez and his group to expel the Trotskyists under the slogan "Without ballast we will advance faster"; despite the disagreements and considering the trust of years of joint work, Vitale was offered the opportunity to stay in the MIR, but he did not accept, in solidarity with his fellow travelers.
The long decade of the 1960s marks the starting point of Luis Vitale's prolific theoretical output in the field of political and historiographical intervention. His books , The Speeches of Clotario Blest and the Chilean Revolution (1961), History of the Chilean Workers' Movement (1962), Essence and Appearance of Christian Democracy (1963), and, above all, the first three volumes of Marxist Interpretation of the History of Chile (1967, 1969, 1972), place him, along with Julio Cesar Jobet, Marcelo Segal, and Hernán Ramírez Necochea, as one of the founders of Chilean Marxist historiography, a tradition that dismantled the conservatism of official historians.
In the first volumes of *A Marxist Interpretation of Chilean History *, a masterful and pioneering work, Luis Vitale analyzes the mono-productive nature of the Chilean economy, primarily based on mining, which resulted from a process of uneven and combined development . Colonization, in his view, was a fundamentally capitalist enterprise, in contrast to the prejudiced view of certain historians, especially Anglo-Saxon ones, who insist on "medievalizing" Spanish colonial society. With the colonial period, Vitale argues, came private ownership of the means of production and the concentration of land, which in turn led to the development of a wealthy Creole bourgeoisie, albeit one without political power, that would clash with the Iberian bourgeoisie. This conflict led to the independence process of 1810, which was a merely formal revolution, from which the character of the current Chilean bourgeoisie would emerge, dependent and focused on producing goods and extracting raw materials for the external market, and incapable of carrying out the democratic-bourgeois tasks of the 19th and 20th centuries.
From this period also comes one of his most distinguished and widely disseminated works: “Latin America: Feudal or Capitalist?” (1968), which constitutes a significant contribution to the analysis of social formations on the continent. The question posed by the title of this text is far from being of “academic” interest, since its answer has implications in the field of political strategy, and it is for this reason that Luis Vitale is interested in elucidating it. Contrary to reformist theses that, based on declaring Latin America's backward and feudal character, justified their policy of alliances with the bourgeoisie to advance bourgeois-democratic objectives, Vitale argues that “Latin America is not a copy of 19th-century Europe, in which the rising new middle class had to overthrow feudalism to initiate the cycle of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. As we have demonstrated, Latin America has not gone through the classic stages of the Old World, but rather went directly from primitive indigenous communities to the incipient capitalism introduced by Spanish colonization.”
These contributions place Luis Vitale as one of the forerunners of Marxist social science in the 60s and a representative, along with André Gunder Frank, Rui Mauro Marini, and Aníbal Quijano, of the most radical current of dependency theory, which, in its eagerness to link its analyses to political strategy, has as central axes of its anti-capitalist proposal:
1) The rejection of the theory of Latin American feudalism and the characterization of the historical colonial structure and the present agrarian structure as essentially capitalist.
2) The critique of the concept of a “progressive national bourgeoisie” and of the prospect of a possible independent capitalist development in Latin American countries.
3) An analysis of the defeat of populist experiences as a result of the very nature of Latin American social formations, their structural dependence and the political and social nature of the local bourgeoisies.
4) The discovery of the origin of economic backwardness not in feudalism nor in pre-capitalist obstacles to economic development, but in the character of dependent capitalist development itself.
5) Finally, the impossibility of a “national-democratic” path for social development in Latin America and the need for a socialist revolution as the only realistic and coherent response to underdevelopment and dependency (Löwy, 2007).
In the late 1960s, he began his career as a professor at the University of Concepción, thanks to the efforts of the MIR student leaders who controlled the student federation; he never stopped teaching again. Already an amphibious revolutionary intellectual, combining theoretical production, academic teaching, and political activism, during the thousand days of the Popular Unity government he dedicated all his efforts to contributing to multiple dimensions of revolutionary activity, even becoming a candidate for rector of the University of Chile in 1972.
Following Salvador Allende's victory, in his pamphlet *And After the 4th, What? Chile's Perspectives After the Presidential Elections* (1970), Luis Vitale offers a thorough analysis of the circumstances that enabled the Popular Unity's triumph and the significance of this political and electoral victory for the working class and the people. "Chile," he tells us, "has entered a pre-revolutionary stage characterized by a rise in the working masses, an intensification of the class struggle, which makes the situation highly explosive, and a growing class polarization that accelerates social confrontation." Under this new context of open confrontation with the bourgeoisie, Vitale argues that the role of the revolutionary left is to integrate itself into the struggles of the popular movement and create spaces for the regrouping of revolutionaries, thus counteracting the hegemony of reformist leaderships. Consistent with his words, his participation in the mass space of the MIR, the Revolutionary Workers' Front (FTR) and in the regrouping experience of the Chilean Trotskyists, which is expressed in the creation of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (PSR), is understandable.
With the 1973 coup, he was arrested and brutally tortured in various clandestine centers of the military dictatorship, documenting this ordeal in his book, * Military Repression in Chile: Life, Death, and Political Debate in Concentration Camps * (1975). Like so many other activists, he was imprisoned in the infamous Chacabuco Concentration Camp. In this prison, located in a former nitrate mine in the Chilean desert, he managed to evade the constant gaze of his guards, writing notes that illustrated the horror of captivity and conducting political training courses for the prisoners. A long international campaign, spearheaded by the Fourth International, secured his release. On October 31, 1974, Decree No. 1766 was issued, expelling him from the country for posing a threat to the internal security of the State. This marked the beginning of a long and erratic exile of a decade and a half, during which he lived in Frankfurt (1974-1976), Caracas (1976-1985), and Buenos Aires/Córdoba (1985-1989). In Germany, he taught at Goethe University, thanks to an invitation from André Gunder Frank and the recently deceased Franz Hinkelammert.
In Europe, Luis Vitale took the opportunity to renew his ties with the Fourth International, participating in heated debates regarding global affairs. For example, Charles-André Udry, a historic leader of the Fourth International, always recalled that it was Vitale in 1975 who first proposed giving the Nicaraguan process a central role in the Latin American revolution, but he was not heeded at first. At the 11th Congress of the Fourth International in 1979, taking into account the insurgent movements in Central America, he, along with Daniel "Che" Pereira and other Latin American comrades, proposed a motion that their sections prepare for armed struggle, a proposal that was not adopted.
His time in Europe was brief, as Luis Vitale always felt his place was in Latin America. He settled in Venezuela, where he held a tenured professorship in various departments at the Central University of Caracas (1977-1985). During this period, he was invited to lecture at some twenty universities around the world. He was also active in political activism, through the construction of a Trotskyist organization (Topo Obrero) in Venezuela and in solidarity with Chilean exile groups. While he did not abandon his historiographical work during this time, culminating in a monumental nine-volume work on the History of Latin America (1984), his contributions from a more sociological and anticolonial perspective became more frequent. The study of everyday life and its oppressions would be central to his research agenda.
During this period of exile, and particularly in the 1980s, Luis Vitale's research underwent a broadening and shift in its subject matter. With more than fifteen books published, plus a long list of pamphlets, articles, and papers, he focused on the recovery of forgotten Latin American Marxism. Among his notable works are his study of the Venezuelan Salvador de la Plaza (1981), whom he considered one of the Marxist pioneers on the continent, and his book * The Precursors of National and Social Liberation in Latin America* (1987), a fundamental work in the recovery and understanding of Latin American critical thought. Furthermore, deeply involved in the debates on the systematization and characterization of Marxism in Latin America, he contributed—like few others—to the strategic debates of Latin American Marxism, his text "Latin American Marxism Facing Two Challenges: Feminism and the Ecological Crisis" (1983) being fundamental. To her proposal of an anti-capitalist feminism and subversive environmentalism, we must add the notion of libertarian Christianity.
Let's begin with this last idea: the pivotal importance of Luis Vitale in promoting a Marxist-inspired policy toward the Christian world. Early on, he became involved with organized Christian groups drawn to the socialist horizon, linking the MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) in 1968 to the first group of revolutionary Christians. However, it was in the 80s that this became a political and theoretical task of paramount importance for him. To understand phenomena such as the emerging labor movement and the guerrilla movements in Central American countries, it was essential to reveal and highlight the affinities between Christianity and revolutionaries in Latin America. This commitment to "Christians for liberation and socialism," whom he also called "libertarian Christians," remained present in his political practice until the end. Upon his return to Chile, he reached out to Christian groups that supported Liberation Theology and joined the Juan Alsina Movement, named after a priest murdered by the military dictatorship.
Luis Vitale was a pioneer of ecological Marxism and embraced Rosa Luxemburg's dilemma of "socialism or barbarism," championing the socialist path against a capitalism that was destroying humanity. When very few Marxists were interested in delving into the depths of the ecological crisis, he wrote the book *Toward a History of the Environment in Latin America* (1983), in which he proposed that Latin American Marxists should move beyond simply analyzing human society and study the environment, which is the totality expressed in the interaction between nature and society. He positioned the intersection of Marxism and ecology, which we can now categorize as the ecosocialist approach, as the great challenge for Marxists in their encounter with the 21st century.
Another of Luis Vitale's aims was to re-establish the affinities between feminism and Marxism, starting from a critical perspective: that Marxist organizations have exercised a patriarchal, authoritarian, and repressive domination over women in all spheres. Although left-wing parties refused to recognize abortion for the sake of popularity, he was emphatic that women have the right to make free use of their bodies. He also brought the issue of care work to the forefront of public debate, radically criticizing the benefits of unpaid labor for capitalism. His book, * The Invisible Half of History: The Social Protagonism of Latin American Women* (1987), is a significant contribution to gender and feminist studies. Moreover, the Argentine thinker Dora Barrancos (2005) points out regarding this work that: “his ideological orientations and an express desire to advocate for the cause of women's rights led him to point out the omissions that the Latin American capitalist and patriarchal order had made by ignoring the contribution of women, as subordinated as the working classes.”
These contributions must be situated within the context of the categorized global crisis of the Marxist imaginary, which, for Luis Vitale, was nothing other than the crisis of an orthodox, dogmatic, positivist, and economistic Marxism linked to the bankruptcy of so-called “real socialism.” While those who had repented of Marxist scholasticism embraced new theoretical fads, this heterodox Latin American Marxist reaffirmed his declared intention not to abandon the coordinates of revolutionary Marxism. However, he recognized the limitations of dogmatic historical materialism, the emerging historical context, and the particular dynamics of Latin American resistance movements, striving to enrich Marxist theory with contributions from libertarian Christians, anti-capitalist feminism, subversive ecology, and a host of other subaltern experiences and knowledge.
In the second half of the 1980s, he settled in his native Argentina, where he published important books, such as * History of Latin American External Debt* (1986), in which he analyzes the consequences of economic dependence and the loss of sovereignty due to the lack of a distinct theory of political economy in Latin America. Following the results of the 1988 Chilean plebiscite, which defeated the dictator's continued rule, Luis Vitale began preparing his return to Chile. With his exile as a source of experience, which led him to reformulate his Marxist theoretical framework, and surrounded by a horizon of political and academic expectations for participating in the democratic transition, he returned in mid-1989 to the country he had chosen as his own four decades earlier.
He published *Introduction to a Theory of History for Latin America* (1992), which, more than an “introduction,” is a “synthesis”—or a true Aufhebung in his political and intellectual trajectory—of epistemology for studying Latin American reality, based on the monumental research work carried out over 40 years and, particularly, on his nine-volume *General History of Latin America* (1984). He proposes a radical epistemological break with the so-called “Universal History” and its unilateral conception of history as a reflection of the Western European image, since its schematic use by traditional historiography fails to account for the specific reality of Latin America. He also takes on the challenge of generating and recreating specific categories of analysis based on the concrete reality of Latin America.
He immediately began working as a professor at various universities and participated in several socio-political initiatives, most notably the “500 Years Movement,” which brought together numerous social leaders, intellectuals, and students amidst the commemorations of the 500th anniversary of the invasion of the Americas. He dedicated his intellectual efforts to reflecting on the devastating colonial legacy and the need to ground the political perspective of ancestral peoples. In a text entitled “Debating the Ideas of Peñi Aucan” (1994), Luis Vitale proposes as a path forward “forging—together with Indigenous Peoples and other Social Movements—a body of ideas and a project that we so desperately need to build an alternative society to international monopoly capitalism, a self-managed, anti-patriarchal, anti-pollution, and multiethnic socialist society, respectful of the Mapuche nation-people, their autonomy, and self-determination.”
Taking advantage of the centenary of his birth, he critically reread the Peruvian Marxist José Carlos Mariátegui, publishing “Mariátegui and Indo-American Socialism” (1994). His rediscovery of Mariátegui's work led him from Marxism to the conviction of the leading role of indigenous peoples in Latin American revolutionary processes. It is important to note that his historical Guevarism continued to guide him during this period, and on the 30th anniversary of Commander Ernesto Guevara's death, he published the book Che's Andean Project (1997).
By the mid-90s, having distanced himself from Trotskyist groups, he championed the idea of creating a new kind of party, largely inspired by the experience of Brazil's Workers' Party (PT), where the labor movement and new social movements would play a leading role. Given the trajectory of the Chilean left during those years, his expectations were dashed. However, on January 1, 1994, a group of indigenous people calling themselves the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) erupted in southeastern Mexico, taking up arms against the corrupt Mexican government. In that experience, as he himself would say, “Chiapas is a new and ancient light for the people; a lesson in tactics and strategy for the revolutionary Left and a decisive experience for the vanguard nuclei of social movements in Latin America. Despair will begin to be overcome with the Zapatista message at a time when the sky was dark with storm clouds. How true that saying is: “The darker the night, the closer the dawn!” (1994).
During those years, Luis Vitale created several think tanks with the aim of building a space for political reflection, intellectual solidarity, and the dissemination of ideas alternative to hegemonic institutions. He produced dozens of publications focused on the dissemination and political education of mobilized sectors. As a popular educator, and with the profound respect, admiration, and affection that political and social movements held for him due to his long and consistent career, he regularly conducted political training workshops for neighborhood committees, labor unions, organized women's groups, environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and all other sectors engaged in struggle who requested his guidance.
The work accumulated over half a century gradually yielded some recognition: he received the Bicentennial Prize of the Liberator Simón Bolívar and the Essay Prize of the Society of Writers of Chile (SECH) in the year 2000.
With the turn of the century, an illness that had plagued him for years worsened, making it increasingly difficult for him to move around. Nevertheless, he continued to contribute intellectually through his classes at the University of Chile; his students remember him recounting the history of Latin America after class, interspersed with anecdotes and tango songs. Such was the affection he inspired among the student body that a mural bearing his image remains to this day, accompanied by one of his quotes: “Experiences from the past to be considered for the struggles of the present.” In addition to his academic work, he continued to produce politically engaged writings throughout this period. For example, in 2000, he published a pamphlet analyzing the transformations of the right wing and its relationship with populism, which revealed the beginnings of new forms of fascism. These reflections resonate more than ever today in the face of the neo-fascist offensive.
Theoretically, without abandoning the Marxist perspective, Luis Vitale became increasingly interested in the anarchist contribution and, in co-authorship with Oscar Ortiz, published the book Contribution to the History of Anarchism in Latin America (2002), where he wrote autobiographically that “I preserved and continue to preserve that libertarian élan that has allowed me not to bend my back.” From these years onwards, he began to define himself as a “libertarian Marxist , ” as a way of expressing an open Marxism that, in the form of a crucible, harbors the potential of libertarian currents, his old Trotskyist-Guevarist ideology, new social movements, anti-capitalist feminism, subversive environmentalism, indigenism, revolutionary Christianity, militant internationalism, among other perspectives leading to liberation.
As we have seen, approaching the thought of Luis Vitale involves a complexity of both quantitative and qualitative order: on the one hand, the abundance of his work refers to more than seventy published books and a much larger, indeterminate number of partisan articles, theoretical-academic essays, training materials and public interventions; on the other hand, the variety of themes through which his intellectual production passes encompasses studies on the labor movement, ecology, Christianity, feminism, indigenism, popular identity, etc., all analyzed from a Marxist political perspective, mainly historiographical and sociological, although he himself ended up recognizing that his methodological approach is of a transdisciplinary nature.
Nearly a decade after his death: in October 2019, the Chilean people rose up against all injustices and cried out that dignity should become the norm. Before his death, he had said that the Chilean democratic transition could only end with a revolt that truly ended Pinochet's constitution; a task still pending. Many of the contributions we have seen from this Latin American Marxist were embodied in this process of disrupting the continuum of History, for the struggles for a new dawn are nourished by the memory of the men and women who paved the way for the suspension of historical time. Fifty years after the coup, we believe it is essential to rescue Luis Vitale from the depths of oblivion, allowing new generations to learn about his contributions and apply them in the context of the people's concrete struggles.
[1] Franco-Brazilian sociologist and philosopher.
[2] Chilean sociologist and historian. Member of the CLACSO Working Group History and current events: Marxist perspectives.
Bibliography
Álvarez, Marco. (2015). The revolutionary constituent assembly. History of the founding of the Chilean MIR . Santiago: LOM Ediciones.
Barrancos, Dora. (2005). “History, historiography and gender. Notes for the memory of their links in Argentina”, Journal of Women's Studies. La Aljaba.
Löwy, Michael. (2007). Marxism in Latin America. Anthology, from 1909 to the present day . Santiago: LOM Ediciones.
Vitale, Luis. (1961). Essay on the history of the labor movement. The speeches of Clotario Blest and the Chilean revolution . Santiago: Editorial POR.
________ (1962). History of the Chilean labor movement . Santiago: Editorial POR.
________ (1964). Essence and appearance of Christian Democracy . Santiago: Arancibia Printing Press.
________ (1967). Marxist interpretation of the history of Chile. Primitive cultures and the Spanish conquest. Volume I. Santiago: Editorial Prensa Latinoamericana.
________ (1968). “Latin America, Feudal or Capitalist?”, In: Petras, J., Zeitlin, M. Latin America: Reform or Revolution. USA: Fawcett Premier.
________ (1969). Marxist interpretation of the history of Chile. The Colony and the Revolution of 1810. Santiago: Editorial Prensa Latinoamericana.
________ (1969). “Political-military thesis. Discussion document presented to the IV Congress of the MIR”.
________ (1970). And after the 4th, what? Perspectives on Chile after the presidential elections (1970). Santiago: Ediciones Prensa Latinoamericana.
________ (1971). Marxist interpretation of the history of Chile. Political independence, the rebellion of the provinces and the decades of the commercial and landowning bourgeoisie . Editorial Prensa Latinoamericana.
________ (1975). Military repression in Chile. Life, death and political discussion in the
concentration camps, Frankfurt: Verlag Jugend und Politik.
________ (1979). Contribution to the history of the Chilean MIR (1965-1970). Caracas: Central University of Venezuela.
________ (1981). Salvador de la Plaza, his works and his days . Caracas: Central University of Venezuela.
________ (1983). “Marxism facing two challenges: feminism and ecological crisis”. Nueva Sociedad Magazine , No. 66.
________ (1983). Towards a history of the environment in Latin America . Mexico City: Nueva Imagen/Nueva Sociedad.
________ (1984). Comparative Social History of the Peoples of Latin America. Native Peoples and Colony . 9 Volumes . Caracas: Central University of Venezuela.
________ (1986). History of Latin American external debt and the background of Argentine indebtedness . Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana-Planeta.
________ (1987). The precursors of national and social liberation in Latin America . Buenos Aires: Editorial Al Frente.
________ (1988). The invisible half of history. The social protagonism of Latin American women . Buenos Aires: Editorial Planeta.
________ (1992). Introduction to a Theory of History for Latin America . Buenos Aires: Editorial Planeta.
_________ (1994). Mariátegui and Indo-American Socialism . Santiago: Editorial CELA.
_________ (1994). “Chiapas in the storm”, Punto Final Magazine.
_________ (1994). “To debate the ideas of Peñi Aucan”, Santiago: CELA Editions.
_________ (1997). Che's Andean Project . Santiago: Pineda Libros – Pedro Vuskovic Institute for Research on Social Movements.
_________ (2000). Facing a neo-populist right wing with an Opus Dei leader: a new type of fascist embryo . Santiago: Ediciones Alamedas,
_________ (2002). Contribution to a History of Anarchism in Latin America . Santiago: Ediciones Espíritu Libertario.
Correspondence between Luis Vitale and Michael Löwy 1978-2000. We thank Simón González for providing us with copies of some of these letters that we consulted for this work and that were used for his undergraduate thesis and other texts dedicated to the career of Luis Vitale.
Chile, a seed that continues to germinate
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
