Van AKEN, Mark. The Radicalization of The Uruguayan Student Movement

The Radicalization of the Uruguayan Student Movement
Author(s): Mark J. van Aken

Source: The Americas, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jul., 1976), pp. 109-129
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/979990
Accessed: 13-05-2016 17:30 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Americas
This content downloaded from 164.73.224.2 on Fri, 13 May 2016 17:30:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE RADICALIZATION OF THE URUGUAYAN

STUDENT MOVEMENT*
L ATE IN APRIL, 1917, students of Preparatory Studies in Montevideo, Uruguay, declared a strike against the authorities of their
school and organized a public demonstration on the steps of the
Faculty of Law of the University. Thus a decade of calm in the university student movement of Uruguay was abruptly shattered by students who were in the last years of secondary education preparing for
entry into the University. In a brief but violent struggle with police,
troops, and firemen the angry young men of Preparatory Studies kindled
a new spirit of protest and rebellion that would soon spread to the University and awaken the dormant student movement.'
Earlier in the century, between 1905 and 1908, Uruguay had witnessed a burst of student activism which produced a novel reformist
program that anticipated the so-called C6rdoba University Reform of
1918.2 But the Uruguayan student leaders of this early reform movement were unable to sustain student activism in their country after 1908.
By the year 1917, when the strike occurred in Preparatory Studies, the
Federation of University Students (FEU) and the various student centers in the professional schools (facultades) of the University were in
a state of decay and disorganization.3 The Federation gave no support
to the strike, while some of the student centers gave only ineffective moral backing to their comrades in Preparatorios.4
Conditions in Preparatory Studies, a branch of the University, were

largely responsible for the student discontent which led to the strike of
1917. Student demands reflected dissatisfaction with overcrowed insti-
tutional facilities and with harsh policies of the Dean regarding ex-
aminations and allowable absences. Additionally, the young rebels
showed their awareness of new trends in Latin American higher educa* The author is Professor of History and Chairman of Latin American Studies at California State University, Hayward. Research for this article was made possible by a Fulbright-Hays grant to Montevideo and by a research grant from Duke University.
1 El Dia, April 26 and 27, 1917, and El Plata, April 27, 1917. All newspapers and periodicals in Spanish cited in this study were published in Montevideo.
2 See my "University Reform Before C6rdoba," The Hispanic American Historical Review (hereinafter, HAHR), vol. LI, no. 3, August, 1971, pp. 447-462.
3 Victor Zerbino, "A los estudiantes," Evolucidn, revista mensual de ciencias y letras
(hereinafter, Evolucidn), October, 1913, pp. 3-4; id., "La reorganizaci6n," Evolucidn, May,
1914, pp. 3-6; "Ayer y hoy," El Estudiante libre (hereinafter, EL), March 31, 1921; and
"La reforma del Plan de Ensefianza Secundaria," Evoluciodn, February, 1917, pp. 323-324.
4 El Dia, April 28, 29, 1917; and El Plata, April 27, 30, and May 3, 1917.
109
110 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS
tion by demanding student representation on the governing council of

their school-a privilege already granted to students of the University.5
The rebellion in Preparatorios appears also to have been produced,

at least in part, by the agitation of national politics. Uruguay in 1917
was racked by momentous political debates over far-reaching and controversial reform proposals, the most important of which was a plan to
establish a plural executive, or colegiado, to replace the one-man presidency. Jos6 Batlle y Ord6fiez, proponent of the colegiado, twice President of the nation and progressive leader of the Colorado Party, exercised a powerful attraction for Uruguay's liberal youth. Public debate
in 1916 and 1917 over the projected revision of the Constitution produced a confrontation of political forces that pitted Batlle Colorados
against the Blanco Party and anticolegialista Colorados." Leading Uruguayan intellectuals, including the noted literary critic and essayist,
Jose Enrique Rod6, were swept into the great debate. Youths in the
University and even students in Preparatorios were galvanized by the
political storm. In the midst of this political debate the Dean of Preparatory Studies, a Colorado, was accused of misappropriation of funds.
The charge of "administrative misconduct" against the unpopular dean
injected national politics into educational matters and contributed to
the student revolt that broke out in April, 1917. The fact that almost all
of the strike leaders were either Blancos or of Blanco family background attested to the politically partisan character of the rebellion.7
The strike in Preparatorios was a failure. This minor uprising might

properly be forgotten were it not for the fact that the strike leaders
decided to institutionalize their protest movement by founding an or-
ganization called the Ariel Student Center (Centro de Estudiantes

"Ariel"). The name "Ariel" honored Jose Enrique Rod6, Uruguayan
literary critic and author of the celebrated essay "Ariel," who chanced
to die at the time of the strike. The newly formed center soon brought
together a nucleus of leaders whose words and actions aroused the students of Uruguay from their lethargy and propelled them into the
5 Interviews with Hector Gonzilez Areosa (May 11, 1964) and with Hugo Fernindez
Artuccio (May 8, 1964); and El Plata, April 30, 1917. The University Reform Law of 1908
had granted representation rights to students of the University and denied the same to
students of Preparatorios.
6 In Uruguayan politics the Colorado Party tended toward liberalism and modernization,
while the Blanco Party was generally conservative, pro-clerical, and protective of rural,
landed interests. See Russel H. Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, Portrait of a Democracy (New York,
1954), pp. 18-23, and 141-149.
7 Interview with Fernindez Artuccio; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, pp. 130-133; and Goran G.
Lindahl, Uruguay's New Path, a Study in Politics during the First Colegiado, 1919-1933
(Stockholm, 1962), pp. 24-29.
MARK J. VAN AKEN 111

mainstream of the Latin American University Reform movement.8
Commencing as a non-radical, middle class, culturally-oriented group,
the leaders of the Ariel Student Center in a very few years took up the
militant reformist cause of Latin American students in the 1920's and
transformed their center into a focus of insurgency and radical politics.
Since the Ariel Center strongly influenced the entire Uruguayan student movement, the history of its political transformation merits
examination.
From 1917 to 1919 there was little to indicate that members of the
Ariel Center would turn to radical politics. They were imbued with
the strong nationalist and continentalist sentiments that accompanied
the general movement for modernization in Latin America in the early
twentieth century. The intellectual restlessness of the students and their
concern with social and educational problems did not appear to incline
them significantly toward radicalism. The Blanco political background
of most early leaders of the Center evidenced a tendency toward

traditionalism and conservatism.' The Ariel Center born of a protest
movement, in its first two years of existence was almost indistinguishable from the rather tame literary and cultural clubs of students of the
nineteenth century.'0 Following the example of such student associations of the past, in July, 1919, the Center began to publish a magazine
entitled Ariel.'1 The sedate pages of Ariel, which carried articles on

such polite subjects as chamber music, the theater, and hero-worship
in America, reflected the cultivated and refined intellectual tone of the
student center in its first years. Occasional poems and selections from
the writings of Rod6 and Carlos Vaz Ferreira, both men of moderate
political views, filled out the rest of the pages of Ariel. The editors of
the magazine seemed intent on putting into practice Rod6's aristocratic
advice to cultivate things of the spirit and to shun the vulgarity of ma-
terialism and equalitarianism.12 If Rod6's antagonism toward the
United States and his preference for Hispanic values had much appeal for
8 Interviews with Fernindez Artuccio and with Carlos Quijano (April 24, 1964).
9 Interview with Fernandez Artuccio. On nationalism, see: Arthur P. Whitaker and

David C. Jordan, Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America (New York and London,
1966), especially pp. 14-17, 121-129; and John J. Johnson, Political Change in Latin America
(Stanford, California, 1958), pp. 45-59. The very name "Ariel" demonstrated the nationalist
and continentalist vision of the students, for it showed their enthusiasm for a great national writer and his brand of cultural nationalism as it was set forth in the essay "Ariel."
10 Concerning the cultural clubs of students in the nineteenth century, see M. Blanca
Paris de Oddone, La Universidad de Montevideo en la formacidn de nuestra conciencia
liberal (Montevideo, 1958), pp. 53-54, 64-77, 106-120, and 282.
11 The complete title was Ariel, revista del Centro de Estudiantes Ariel. It was initially
published on a monthly basis but soon began to appear at irregular intervals, 1919-1931.
2 Jose Enrique Rod6, "Ariel," in Rod6, Obras Completas (ed. by Emir Rodriguez
the young cultural nationalists of the student center, their anti-Yankee
and anti-imperialist opinions were not expressed in the early issues of

Ariel. The anti-imperialism of the far left, so important in student
radicalism in later years, was not a concern of the first leaders of the
Ariel Center. They preferred Rod6's cult of idealism and the worship
of estheticism to the propagation of revolutionary ideas.13
The Ariel group edged cautiously into the arena of politics and social
problems by publishing a brief questionaire on social issues and by
promising to print replies in Ariel. A noteworthy response came from
Dr. Emilio Frugoni, leader of the Socialist Party in Uruguay, who called
upon "valiant and scholarly youth" to struggle for the suppression of
ignorance, poverty, land monopolization, prostitution, and other evils.
Frugoni argued that it was the purpose of universities and of student
centers to prepare future generations for the work of correcting social
wrongs.'4 The Socialist leader was ahead of university students in his

awareness of political issues of the future.
Uruguay in 1920 had social problems. Poverty was widespread in

both rural and urban areas. The literacy rate, though above average
for Latin American nations at the time, was only about fifty percent,
and rural schools were in deplorable conditions. Large numbers of the
lower classes lacked adequate shelter and medical care.'5 Nevertheless,
Uruguay was fortunate to have an economy which had been expanding
steadily for many years and to have a government that was progressive
and responsive to the needs of a nation in the process of modernization.
Under the liberal leadership of Jos6 Batlle, Claudio Williman, and

other Colorados an impressive social and political reform program was
carried out by the year 1920. The educational system was greatly expanded and improved, with attention given not only to rural schools
and adult education but also to the University which was reorganized
and made free of cost to students.'6 The rights of women were amplified by the legalization of divorce'7 and by the establishment of a
special division of the University and Preparatorios for female students.
Monegal) (Madrid, 1957), pp. 202-244; early issues of Ariel, July, 1919-January 1920; and
"Ariel," EL, July, 1919.
13 See the early issues of Ariel. Fernindez Artuccio states that the Ariel Center "contained a deep anti-United States sentiment from the very start." Interview with Fernindez
Artuccio.
14 Ariel, December, 1919-January, 1920, p. 222.

15 Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, pp. 106-118, and 198-204; Milton Vanger, Jose' Batlle y Ordofiez
of Uruguay, the Creator of his Times, 1902-1907 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 6-7.
16 Efrain Gonzilez Conzi and Roberto B. Gididice, Batlle y el batllismo (2nd ed., Montevideo, 1959), pp. 296-298, 300-304; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, p. 129.
17 Conzi and Gii'dice, Batlle, pp. 350-358; Vanger, Jos" Batlle, pp. 195, 200-203, 259-260.

Female suffrage, favored by Batlle and his supporters, was not approved
until after Batlle's death in 1929.18 The working classes, growing in

numbers as a result of immigration and the expansion of the economy,
were favored and protected by batllismo. Not only did the Colorado
government side with labor unions in their disputes with management,
but Batlle and his supporters managed to legislate a very advanced social reform program in behalf of wage-earners which included the right
of workers to organize and to strike, the eight-hour day, a minimum
wage, accident compensation, and old-age pensions.'9 The Colorado government was also characterized by policies of economic nationalism
that tended toward socialism. Creation of a state monopoly over insurance, nationalization of the Bank of the Republic and of the electric
power industry, the establishment of a government monopoly in the
fishing industry and of the Institute of Industrial Chemistry, and a
move toward state ownership of the railway system were some of the
more important measures of economic statism. The strongly nationalist
orientation of the government was underlined by President Batlle's
warning that foreign-owned enterprises with high profit rates were detrimental to the well-being of Uruguay.20 The economic and social reforms of the Batlle era were so extensive and so advanced that many
socialists, communists, and anarchists, especially those in the ranks of
organized labor, gave support, albeit grudgingly, to the remarkable
leadership of the great Colorado politician.21
Thus it can be seen that the Ariel Student Center's conversion to
radicalism occurred in the political context of Batlle's progressive reforms. The appearance of political insurgency among students in an era
of dynamic social change may seem surprising, especially if one accepts
the conventional notion (often promoted by leaders of the left) that
youthful radicalism invariably stems from frustration and despair over
reactionary or do-nothing government. During the 1920's Uruguay was
one of the best governed and most democratic nations in the Western
Hemisphere; yet the Ariel Center turned against the existing regime
and proclaimed its dedication to social revolution. This seeming para1s Conzi and Gididice, Batlle, pp. 298-300, 354-359; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, p. 128; and "Reorganizaci6n universitaria," Evolucidn, January, 1915, pp. 3-4.
19 Conzi and Gididice, Batlle, pp. 158, 163-164, 305-340; Alberto Zum Felde, Proceso
histdrico del Uruguay (Montevideo, 1963), pp. 246-248; Vanger, Batlle, pp. 206-211, 256-
257; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, pp. 129-133.
20 Vanger, Batile, pp. 244-245; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, pp. 131-133; and Conzi and Gididice,
Batlle, pp. 276-295.
21 Batlle's progressivism has been credited by a leading Uruguayan historian with having
slowed the development of the Socialist and Communist Parties in Uruguay. Zum Felde,
Proceso, pp. 246-247.
dox requires examination to determine what historical factors may

have contributed to the complex process of radicalization.
A key to understanding the leftward shift of the Ariel Center is con-
tained in a recent study of youth and political dissent in the United

States by Kenneth Kenniston which notes that the existence of a "broad
climate of social criticism" creates pressures for the extension of conse-
crated principles like equality and justice "to all groups within the
society." The deamnds of student activists for social progress, according
to Kenniston, usually outdistance both public opinion and the ability

of politicians to bring about reforms.22 This analysis seems to fit nicely
the case of the Ariel group which reacted to the batilista reforms not by
admiring the remarkable progress toward the achievement of social

justice and the fulfillment of nationalist aspirations, but by criticizing
the regime's alleged inadequacies and by calling for a sweeping transformation of society. While Batlle's leadership exercised a strong influence on large numbers of university students,23 the Blanco family
background of most Ariel leaders apparently predisposed them to oppose Colorado-inspired measures. But more important than political
partisanship was the climate of rapid change from 1903 to 1929 which
provoked wide-ranging debates about fundamental issues that had an
unsettling effect on the minds of young people in the University. Members of the Ariel Center grappled with the issues of the day and in the
course of a few years announced their decision in favor of revolutionary
socialism, far to the left of Batlle's reformist economic nationalism.
Another factor which assumed great importance in student thinking,
and which promoted radicalization of thought, was the University Reform, an international movement in Latin America which during the
1920's and 1930's became a kind of crusade among its student adherents for the remodeling first of the universities and then of society at
large. The program of the University Reform called for student participation in academic government, university autonomy, a formal student voice in the selection of professors, curricular reform, and a variety
of lesser changes in the universities. The fact that conditions at the University of Montevideo were much better than elsewhere in Latin America did not deter Uruguayan students, especially members of the Ariel
Center, from taking up reformista criticisms and proposals with en22 Kenneth Kenniston, Youth and Dissent; the Rise of a New Opposition (New York,
1971), pp. 159-160.
23 Interviews with Fernindez Artuccio and Gonzilez Areosa; Conzi and Giddice, Batlle,
pp. 154-155, 160, 296-304; "Reorganizaci6n universitaria," loc. cit.; and Zum Felde, Proceso,
pp. 250-251.

thusiasm. Critical examination of the shortcomings of the University
led many students to conclude that defects in the educational system
were related to the economic, social, and political system of the nation.
Such reasoning carried many reformistas, in Uruguay and in neighboring nations, to the conclusion that the fundamental problems of the
University could not be solved without a radical transformation of
society.24
The theme of University Reform appeared in the pages of the magazine Ariel as early as December, 1919, with the publication of an article
calling for the creation of a university extension service as "one of the
social functions" of the University. The author of the proposal emphasized the need to cooperate with labor leaders and suggested that the
proposed extension classes be held in the headquarters of labor unions.25
By the year 1920 the idea of university extension had become a part of
a larger program associated with the University Reform movement
which was sweeping through student organizations in Argentina, Chile,
Peru, and elsewhere.26
In August, 1920, the editorial board of Ariel published a lengthy

statement of the goals of the student center. This proclamation, with a
few subsequent additions, became the official reform program of the
Ariel Center. In brief, the students proposed the following: 1) complete university autonomy, 2) freedom to teach,27 3) freedom of the
student to learn and to select his professors, 4) maintenance of a public
education system free of cost to students,28 5) moral and financial
betterment of the teaching faculty, 6) a "democratic-representative"
system of government for the University with the participation of pro-
fessors, students, and alumni, 7) abolition of lifetime professorial

24 For an interesting examination of similar reasoning by radical U.S. students, see John
R. Searle, The Campus War; a Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony (New York
and Cleveland, 1971), pp. 12-16.
25 Ildefonso Pereda Valdez, "Extensi6n universitaria," Ariel, pp. 258-261.
26 For general information on the University Reform see Gabriel del Mazo, Estudiantes
y gobierno universitario (2nd ed., Buenos Aires, 1955); id. (comp.), La Reforma Uni-
versitaria (3 vols., La Plata, 1941); Federaci6n Universitaria de Buenos Aires, La Reforma

Universitaria, 1918-1958 (Buenos Aires, 1959); Frank Bonilla and Myron Glazer, Student
Politics in Chile (New York and London, 1970); and Richard J. Walker, Student Politics
in Argentina: The University Reform and its Effects, 1918-1964 (New York and London,
1968).
27 "Docencia libre," defined by reformistas as the right of teachers to teach courses in

competition with profesores titulares and to replace the latter if chosen by the students. See
Del Mazo, Estudiantes, pp. 61-63.
28 Already attained in Uruguay, but not in most Latin American countries. This proposal for a reform already achieved underlines the partially imitative character of the Reform movement in Uruguay.
appointments, and 8) minor proposals regarding the administration of

secondary education.29
Focusing on the world outside the walls of the University, the Ariel
reform program went on to advocate an attack on the social problems
of Uruguay, especially the problems of the working classes. The Ariel
Center urged university students to return to society the fruits of their
privileged educational opportunities by supporting a university extension service and by creating "people's universities" (universidades
populares) for the purpose of completing the "emancipation of the
proletariat." The Ariel program, according to the student writers, was
a "revolution" which sought solidarity and cooperation "with the humble and the suffering and the miserable."30
The reform program summarized above was a mosaic of ideas, some

originating in the Uruguayan student movement a decade earlier and
others deriving from the new Reform movement that was currently un-
folding in Argentina and other Latin American nations. The inclusion

in the Ariel program of people's universities and university extension,
conceived as measures for the proletariat, indicated a new social thrust
and involvement in leftist politics for Uruguayan student activists. A
radical tone to the Ariel proclamation was imparted by references to
"sterile and niggardly individualism," the bankruptcy of the "liberal
school," and a call for the "complete emancipation of the proletariat."
The use of a few anti-capitalist phrases, of course, did not necessarily
betoken a conversion to radicalism, for the same document paid high
tribute to Rod6's esthetic idealism, to the cultural nationalism of Ric-
ardo Rojas, and to the educational views of Juan Bautista Alberdiviewpoints that were not radical by any stretch of the imagination. The
Ariel Center in 1920 appears to have been essentially moderate by

comparison with the leftist militancy seen in the Chilean and Peruvian
student organizations of the time.31 There were, of course, socialist
members of Ariel who were as radical as many of the Chileans and Peruvians, but they were a minority. Their numbers increased in the follow-
ing years and Carlos Quijano, probably the most influential leader in
these early years, gradually moved leftward, becoming a Social Democrat and a moderate Marxist after his graduation from the University
in 1923. Quijano's subsequent activities as a publicist, professor, and
29 "Nuestro programa; reafirmindonos," Ariel, August, 1920, pp. 4-5.
30 Ibid.
31 Bonilla and Glazer, Student Politics, pp. 40-75; Haya de la Torre, "La Reforma Universitaria, la realidad social," in Del Mazo, Reforma, II, 168-169. Also see, Jeffrey L. Klaiber,
S. J., "The Popular Universities and the Origins of Aprismo, 1921-1924," HAHR, Novem-
ber 1975, 693-715.

politician contributed to the leftward movement of the Ariel Center in
the latter part of the 1920's.32
Although the magazine Ariel continued to radiate Rodoist idealism

from 1920 to 1923, its pages increasingly reflected a fascination with
leftist and proletarian leaders of Europe and America.33 Although the
Russian Revolution was seldom mentioned in Ariel, this major historical event is credited by Quijano and others with having made a "major
impact" on the student group during the 1920's.34 Argentine socialism,
personified in the peripatetic Dr. Alfredo Palacios, aroused much interest among the students of Montevideo.35 In 1922-23 the influences of
student militancy were also felt in Uruguay when Haya de la Torre
visited the country and two Chilean leftists came to study after being
expelled from the University of Chile for strike activities. The presence
in Montevideo of both Chilean and Peruvian students had the effect of
heightening interest in the University Reform at a time when the idea

of the social mission of the university was being emphasized and when
Latin American solidarity against Yankee imperialism was achieving
broader acceptance.36
From 1922 to 1924 the Ariel Center moved steadily to the political
left, espousing proletarian causes, and assuming a more aggressive stand
on University Reform. The new militancy reflected in part a leftward
shift by the founders of the Center, but more importantly it was the
product of the entry into the Center of a new group of students led by
a very young and energetic firebrand, Hector Gonzailez Areosa. The new
activists brought into the Ariel organization a militant dedication to the
University Reform as then defined in Argentina, Chile, and Peru, and
a propensity to seek close association with the more combative elements
of labor unions and the political left. The new leaders were in regular
communication not only with Argentine reformistas but also with radical Peruvian students, followers of Haya de la Torre. The general effect of these influences was to radicalize opinion along anti-imperialist,
32 Interviews with Fernandez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, and Carlos Quijano; "Carlos
Quijano," Revista del Centro de Estudiantes de Derecho (hereinafter cited as RCED),
November-December, 1927, pp. 626 627.
33 "Max Eastman y Romain Rolland," Ariel, September-October, 1920, pp. 17-19; "De
Rusia," Ariel, January-February, 1921, pp. 21-22; and letter from Anatole France and
Henri Barbusse, Ariel, November-December, 1920, pp. 18-19.
34 Interviews with Carlos Quijano and Fernandez Artuccio; Gregorio Berman, "La revoluci6n estudiantil argentina," Ariel, August, 1920, p. 10.
35 "Marcha del movimiento," Ariel, September, 1922, p. 6.
36 "Los sucesos universitarios del Peri'," EL, July 1, 1923, p. 5; Oscar Schnake, "La Reforma Universitaria en Chile," Ariel, September, 1922, pp. 7-9; and interviews with Fernandez Artuccio and Gonzilez Areosa.
Marxian, and Aprista lines." Simultaneously, the Russian Revolution,

thanks in part to the Peruvian radicals, began to have a strong impact
not only on the students of Ariel Center but upon increasing numbers
of South American student leaders.38
The year 1924 marked the beginning of a new era for the Ariel Center
during which the Gonzilez Areosa group induced the Center to oppose
foreign imperialism and to champion leftist revolution. Their political
inspiration came from such varied sources as Peruvian Aprismo and
native Batllismo, Jean Jaures and Juan B. Justo, Romain Rolland and
Russian Communism. From 1924 to the early 1940's the independent
leftist Gonzilez Areosa guided the Ariel Center toward identification
with the working classes and advocacy of social revolution. Under his
leadership the membership of the Center changed in its political composition. Many Colorado students in Ariel associated themselves with
the left-wing group "Avanzar" which was led by a young Marxian Colorado of the Batllista sector of the party. Blancos tended to follow the
leadership of Carlos Quijano who founded the Social-Democrat sector
of the Blanco Party. In addition to the radical wings of the traditional
parties, liberal Batllistas, anarchists, socialists, communists, and independent Marxists made up the balance of the Center's membership.
Increasing Spanish influence in the 1930's brought an influx of both
communists and anarchists, but neither of these groups won control of
the Ariel organization.39
37 Interviews with Fernandez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, and Quijano. Aprismo, the
doctrine of APRA (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana), founded in 1924 by
Haya de la Torre. Whether its program was truly radical and revolutionary is currently
a subject of dispute among scholars, but university students and non-revolutionary politicians of the 1920's certainly regarded APRA and Aprismo as revolutionary. See Harry
Kantor, The Ideology and Program of the Peruvian Aprista Movement (2nd ed., Washington, D.C., 1966); Frederick B. Pike, "The Old and the New APRA in Peru: Myth and
Reality," Inter-American Economic Affairs, Vol. XVII (Autumn, 1964), 10, pp. 3-45; and
Thomas M. Davies, Jr., "The Indigenismo of the Peruvian Aprista Party: A Reinterpretation," HAHR, vol. 51 (November, 1971), 4, pp. 626-645.
38 Interviews with Fernandez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, and Quijano. Evidence of increasing influence of the Russian Revolution, as well as the Mexican Revolution, is seen
in Carlos Sinchez Viamonte, "La Nueva America," Ariel, July, 1924, pp. 6-7. On the
founding and early development of the Communist Parties of Uruguay and Argentina, see
Rollie Poppino, International Communism in Latin America ... (London, 1964) pp. 59-61,
65 67; and Robert J. Alexander, Communism in Latin America (New Brunswick, N.J.,
1957), pp. 135-140, 154-160.
39 Interviews with Fernindez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, and Quijano; "Reiniciaci6n,"

Ariel, July, 1924, p. 1; "Rodrigo Soriano en Montevideo," ibid., pp. 3-5; Carlos Benvenuto,
"El movimiento fascista y el marxismo," ibid., pp. 5-6; Fernar (pseudonym of Fernindez
Artuccio), "El Dr. Quijano," ibid., May, 1930, p. 13; Pedro Ceruti Crosa, "Justicia de clase,"
ibid., pp. 14-15; A.E.F., "El problema social en nuestro pals," ibid., December, 1930, pp.
15-16; and "La Repuiblica Espafiola," ibid., June, 1931, pp. 2-3.

The leftward political course of the Center naturally led to changes
in the contents of the magazine Ariel which soon emphasized social and
political questions. The obvious contrast between the new proletarianism of the mid-1920's and the older arielismo of the founders of the
Center led to a re-examination of Rod6's thought in the pages of the

student magazine. Gonzailez Areosa, as spokesman for the Ariel group,
rebuked the celebrated writer for his "adolescent idealism" and for
allegedly ignoring the "concrete problems of sociology, politics, and

culture"-a cardinal sin for the young activists.40 Public criticism of
Rod6, who was hero-worshiped in Uruguay, excited much interest
among intellectuals. In a flurry of debates that ensued the Association
of Medical Students in the University published an article that defended Rod6 not for his idealism or estheticism but for having alerted
Latin America to the dangers of foreign imperialism. The anonymous
author of the article equated capitalism with imperialism and warned
that the United States was rapidly subjecting Latin America to economic and political servitude."' In this fashion the Uruguayan students
"revised" Rod6's thought to fill the intellectual requirements of his
leftist followers.
The fervent condemnation of foreign capitalism and imperialism by
the medical students called attention to the fact that the Association of
Medical Students, following the example of the Ariel group, had become a new focus of the University Reform movement with its increas-
ing emphasis on radical social change. Leaders of the medical students
admired and emulated the activists of Argentina, Chile, and Peru,

adopted many of their reformist demands, and praised the proletarian
orientation of the Ariel Center. As early as 1926 the Association of Medi-
cal Students established a university extension service for the purpose

of working closely with the wage-earners "to reintegrate the University
with the people." The leftist slant of the medical center was so strong
that its most active leaders later became members of the Communist
and Socialist Parties in Uruguay.42
The year 1930, a critical year in the political and economic history of
Latin America, was a pivotal time for the university students in Uru40 [Hector Gonzalez Areosa], "La revisi6n de Rod6," Ariel, December, 1927, pp. 1-2,
and ibid., September, 1929, pp. 1-2.
41 "De Ariel a la realidad," EL, September-October, 1929, pp. 144-145.
42 "Regimen Bolsheviki," EL, October 1, 1920, p. 9; "La revoluci6n universitaria en la

Argentina ... ," ibid., December 1, 1922, pp. 8-9; "Obreros y estudiantes," ibid., September,
1925, pp. 1-2; "Del movimiento estudiantil peruano," ibid., November, 1925, pp. 18-19; "La
universidad y el obrero," ibid., August, 1926, pp. 7-8; and "La extensi6n universitaria," ibid.,
August, 1926, p. 4.
guay. The onset of the great world depression, which brought severe
hardships and exposed deficiencies in the capitalist system, contributed
to further radicalization of political opinion among the students of the
Ariel Center. The list of elected officers of the Center became heavily
weighted in favor of Marxism in 1930, while non-Marxian revolutionaries such as anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists began to play very
prominent roles in the Center. A rightist revolt in Argentina in 1930
brought many exiled anarchists to Montevideo. In addition, an everincreasing flow of anarchists and syndicalists came from the northern
provinces of Spain. A large number of these young foreign revolutionaries gravitated to the Ariel Center and were accepted as members
even though they were not students. In the course of the 1930's the Ariel
organization completed the process of radicalization as mounting numbers of its members became political activists without any connection
with the University.43
A stronger interest in social and economic change and a declining commitment to intramural reform of the University was the natural consequence of the Center's new orientation. It was not that the members of
Ariel abandoned the University Reform movement, but rather that

they chose to emphasize the social aspects of the movement at the expense of the narrower concept of purely educational reform. Representative of the new viewpoint was an article in Ariel which declared
that the University must intensify "the study of social questions," a
euphemistic expression for stepping up political partisanship and activism within and without the University. The same article asserted that
conservatives and Catholics could not be considered "reformistas."'44
Thus, a sort of leftist orthodoxy was proclaimed in the sacred cause of
University Reform which relegated non-leftists to the ranks of the infidel. Another article in the same issue of Ariel declared that capitalism
in Uruguay had produced nothing but "demoralization, alcoholism,

misery, and prostitution," and called for an end to the regime of the
bourgeoisie.45 In 1931 the Ariel Center formally declared itself in favor
of "revolutionary thought" and exhorted students to unite with the

43 Even Gonzilez Areosa ceased being a student when he abandoned his law studies and
gave up the idea of receiving a university degree. On elected officers, see, "Nueva Comisi6n
Directiva del C.E. Ariel," Ariel, May, 1930. Concerning Argentine anarchists, "El caso
Radowitzky," ibid., pp. 10-11. Also, interviews with Fernandez Artuccio and Gonzilez
Areosa.
44 Jos6 Pedro Cardoso, "La Reforma Universitaria," Ariel, December, 1930, pp. 13-15.
The publication of Cardoso's article by Ariel indicated the Center's approval of Cardoso's
views, for the author was not a member of Ariel. See the editorial note at the beginning
of the article. Cardoso became a Marxian socialist soon after writing the article.
45 A.E.F., "El problema social en nuestro pais," Ariel, December, 1930, pp. 15-16.

proletariat against an economic system that converted workers into
"beasts of production."46
Commitment to a revolutionary posture did not imply that the Ariel
group favored violent overthrow of the Uruguayan government. Although the Center was often accused of promoting "communism," there
is no evidence of complicity in attempts to overturn the established

regime by force. Eschewing violence, the Ariel Center chose to undertake an ambitious educational project aimed at improving the condition of the working classes and at making them aware of their exploited
condition. Under the guidance of Gonzailez Areosa, and with the support of a new Student Federation in the University, the Ariel Center
established a proletarian school system known as the Universidades
Populares, or People's Universities, which numbered fifteen centers at
the peak of activity in the mid-1930's.47 In addition to teaching practical
courses in such subjects as shorthand and bookkeeping, Ariel activists

offered ideological courses on "Imperialism" and "Political Economy"
with a strong leftist slant intended to prepare the proletariat for event-
ual liberation from capitalist chains.48 The effectiveness of the People's Universities was undermined by feuds among the leftist political
factions of the Ariel Center and by governmental harrassment of the
so-called "communist" school system.49 The prodigious effort required
to maintain the People's Universities absorbed most of the energy of
Ariel students from 1931 forward and ultimately devoured the Center.
When the last of the People's Universities closed its doors in 1942 the
Ariel Center had already vanished.50
46 "El 'Centro Ariel' ante el 10 de mayo," Ariel, June, 1931, p. 2.
47 Origins of the idea of people's universities can be traced to university extension proposals made in the Student Congress of 1908 in Montevideo; see my "University Reform
before C6rdoba," HAHR, August, 1971, pp. 458-459. In 1920 Carlos Quijano and his associates in the Ariel Center began a short-lived university extension service in labor union
headquarters; see "Los principios del Centro de E. 'Ariel.' " Ariel, November-December,
1920, pp. 18-19. Of more immediate importance was the Universidad Popular "Gonzalez
Prada" in Lima, Peru; see "Universidad Popular en Lima," Ariel, August, 1920, p. 15, and
"El Centro Protecci6n de Chauffeurs y el proyecto de universidad popular," ibid., December, 1927, p. 20.
48 Gonz~lez Areosa, "Creaci6n de las Universidades Populares . . . ," in Federaci6n de

Estudiantes Universitarios de Uruguay (FEUU), Memoria de jer Congreso Nacional de
Estudiantes (Montevideo, no date), pp. 33-41, 45-49; Arturo Prunell, "Imperialismo," in
FEUU, Memoria, pp. 135-146; Universidad Popular del Barrio Olimpico (newspaper),
September, 1936, pp. 8, 10; and interview with Gonzalez Areosa.
49 Communists, after attempting unsuccessfully to seize control of the Universidades

Populares, withdrew support from them and sabotaged the efforts of Ariel leaders. Inter-
views with Gonzilez Areosa and Fernandez Artuccio. Patrulla civil, May, 1933; and El
Pueblo, January 26, June 21-30, and most dates in July, 1937.
50 Interviews with Gonzilez Areosa and Fernandez Artuccio; and minutes of the
The Ariel Center, despite its failure to remodel Uruguayan society

through proletarian education, stamped its radical imprint on the national student movement, with lasting effect.51 Soon after the founding
of the Federaciodn de Estudiantes Universitarios del Uruguay (FEUU)

in 1929, Ariel activists moved quickly to commit the new Federation to
a militantly leftist posture.52 Supporting this effort of Ariel was a sizable
contingent of activist students in the Association of Medical Students

who, as previously noted, had been converted to the aggressive social
position of the University Reform. Taking advantage of a student dispute with the Dean of the Law Faculty in June, 1930, members of the
Ariel Center, supported by militant students in Law and Medicine,
seized and occupied the Law Faculty. The purpose of this move was to
force the Law Center and FEUU into more aggressive policies. The
"Assault on the Law Faculty," as it was called, lasted only six hours, but
it had the desired effect. A great street rally in behalf of the Law Center
galvanized most of the student body, thus sweeping FEUU into a more
combative course of action. Moderates and conservatives in the Federa-
tion were placed on the defensive as leftist advocates of a "democratized

university" and of social action took command.53
Leftist student elements, based largely in the Ariel headquarters,

worked in other ways to swing the new Student Federation into a radical
course of action. Ariel leaders, for example, helped induce FEUU to defend publicly a famous Russian anarchist refugee,54 to support an anti-
imperialist lecture series sponsored by a far-left coalition,55 and to

Consejo de Emergencia de la Universidad Popular Central, November 24, 1942, in the
private collection of Gonzilez Areosa.
51 The radicalizing influence of Ariel in the 1920's and 1930's was similar to that of the
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the U.S. during the 1960's. On the SDS, see:
E. Joseph Shoben, Jr. et al, "Radical Student Organizations," in Julian Foster and Durward
Long (eds.), Protest! Student Activism in America (New York, 1970), pp. 202-214, 222;
Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol (eds.), Confrontation; the Student Rebellion and the Universities (New York and London, 1968), pp. 67-96, 129-142; and Jerome H. Skolnick, The
Politics of Protest (Washington, D.C., 1959), pp. 89-129.
52 Concerning the role of the Ariel Center as leftist gadfly, see: "El Centro de Derecho;
el contenido y la forma," Ariel, October, 1926, p. 3; and "La orientaci6n del Centro y de
la Revista," RCED, January-February, 1928, pp. 739-742.
52 Interviews with Fernindez Artuccio (who participated in the occupation of the Law
School), and Arturo Figueredo (August 20, 1963); El Plata, June 30, 1930; El Pais, July
1, 1930, and other Montevideo newspapers of June 30 and July 1, 1930; and A.J.D. [Arturo
J. Dubra], "El asalto a la Facultad de Derecho," Ariel, May, 1930, pp. 9-11.
54 "El caso Radowitzky," Ariel, May, 1930, pp. 10-11; "La Federaci6n de Estudiantes
Universitarios frente al caso Radowitzky," ibid., pp. 20-21; and "Memoria de la Federaci6n ... ,"FEUU, Memoria, p. 211.
55 Ibid., p. 216.

proclaim a policy of "student-proletariat solidarity," which in practice
meant joint rallies with union members and support of striking unions.56
The greatest triumph of the militant forces in FEUU came in September, 1930, at the National Congress of Students, a large meeting of
university students and high school students of Montevideo and the
interior. Although conservatives and moderates were represented in
the Congress, leaders of the political left, most of them members of the
Ariel, Medicine, and Law Centers, controlled the proceedings from start
to finish. Ariel activists played a central role in the presentation of reports and resolutions which ranged from the endorsement of university
autonomy and people's universities to the denunciation of capitalism

and the advocacy of socialism.57 While the rhetoric was at times unrestrained, the Congress showed some moderation by its failure to recommend either violent overthrow of the government or the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship. Further evidence of a degree of
moderation was the homage paid to the late Jose Batlle (d. 1929) for
his efforts in behalf of education."5 More radical in tone and content,
however, were the report on "Imperialism," cast in Marxist-Leninist
terms, and the resolutions urging the "nationalization and socialization
of all means of production," commencing with foreign enterprises.9"
The magazine Ariel, with some exaggeration, hailed the results of

the National Student Congress of 1930 as a "brilliant ideological affirmation" and "an unequivocal proof of the leftist thought that agitates the
student masses.""o Actions of the Congress spelled out for the Uruguayan student movement, under the leadership of Ariel and FEUU, the
full meaning of "University Reform" as it related to higher education
and to society at large. In the years that followed, leaders of the Student Federation, representing the entire student body of the University,
began to spearhead the Reform movement, displacing the smaller Ariel
Center. Moderate and conservative students professing allegiance to
the traditional parties of Uruguay continued for a time to constitute a
majority of the membership of FEUU, but these non-radical forces
56 FEUU, "Manifiesto al pueblo," Revista juridica, (hereinafter cited as RJ) February,
March, April, 1930, pp. 213-216.
57 FEUU, Memoria, passim, especially reports by Hector Armando Loubejac, pp. 5960; Arturo J. Dubra, pp. 93 118; and Arturo R. Figueredo, pp. 170-171.
58 Ibid., p. 202. Note, however, that Batlle was not praised for his extensive social, economic, and political reforms.
59Arturo Prunell, "Imperialismo," in ibid., pp. 135-146; and Amadeo Arosteguy,

"Fuentes, utilizaci6n y defensa de la riqueza nacional," ibid., pp. 147-153.
60 "Resoluciones del Primer Congreso Nacional de Estudiantes," Ariel, December, 1930,
p. 17.
slowly lost influence during the 1930's and 1940's, while anarchists,
socialists, Trotskyites, and independent leftists gradually assumed command of the Federation.
In most of the confederated centers of FEUU, leftist and moderate

groups waged political warfare for organizational control. Moderate and
conservative elements, weakened by the apathy and indifference that

tend to characterize groups satisfied with the status quo, steadily lost
ground to the highly motivated and dedicated leftist forces. In the
course of the 1940's and 1950's centrists and conservatives disappeared
from the top leadership group in FEUU. By the year 1960 the triumph
of the radical left was complete.6' The factors that contributed to the
victory of the left were numerous and complex. Most important of the
leading influences were the following: 1) the social implications of the

University Reform movement; 2) student discontent and disillusionment with the government and with the traditional parties of Uruguay;
and 3) the shrewd exploitation of nationalist sentiments by the leftist

campaign against imperialism.
By the early 1930's the University Reform, with its emphasis on uni-
versity autonomy and student power, had acquired almost universal

support among Latin American students. The "social mission" of the
Reform, which aimed at major changes in capitalist society, lacked
broad acceptance but was championed by Peruvian Apristas, Argentine
socialists, and other leftists. Advocates of the social mission in Uruguay
at first were limited to the Ariel Center, activists in the Medical Associ-
ation, and a scattering of students in other centers. Soon after the

founding of FEUU (1929) student militants began a drive to commit
the Federation to a program of social and political action. The tactic
used to achieve this end was to argue that true reform of the University
required not only the "democratization" of higher education but the

transformation of society at large by ending social injustice and econom-
ic exploitation. Repeatedly the activists hammered home the message

that students who opposed the "social function" of the University were
opposed to the cause of the Reform movement. By implication, those
who opposed such arguments became heretics who sinned against the
6x Information regarding student indifference to university politics and elections is
drawn from data on elections published in various student magazines and from interviews
with student leaders. On the average about 75% of the students failed to vote in the elections of the federated centers. Regarding the unsuccessful attempts of moderates to keep
control of the Law Center, see: "La obra de la comisi6n directiva durante el ejercicio 193132 ... ," RJ, January May, 1933, pp. 4-7; C., "Frente a los hechos: nosotros y ellos," id.,
January-May, 1932, pp. 7-9; and "Unidad gremial," Revista de estudios juridicos y sociales,
(hereinafter cited as REIS), March, 1935, pp. 9-11.

religion of Reform.62 Such was the popularity of the University Reform
and the persuasiveness of the activists' reasoning that increasing numbers of students came to accept the revised and enlarged definition of
reformismo which insisted on involvement in proletarian causes. The
inevitable result of FEUU's collaboration with labor leaders and leftist
parties, as in the earlier case of the Ariel Center, was to radicalize

student opinion.
In the course of the 1930's and 1940's student contacts with labor
unions, especially the more militant unions, became increasingly frequent. Time and again FEUU went to the support of striking unions.
The pages of FEUU's newspaper, Jornada, were peppered with references to "worker-student solidarity" and to "class struggle." Radical
forces in FEUU won a victory in 1944 by securing the'adoption of a
"May Day Manifesto" which declared that students were united with
workers of the world in the struggle for the demands of the proletariat
and which called for the formation of a united "Front of Insurrection"
against capitalism and imperialism.63 In the following years, FEUU

seized every opportunity to urge radical action upon labor unions. During the 1960's, inspired by the Cuban Revolution, the Student Feder-
ation collaborated with union leaders of cane workers of the North who
marched on Montevideo in an apparent effort to touch off a revolution.
For its part in the insurgent movement FEUU helped organize massive
demonstrations in behalf of "agrarian reform" and brought the caneworkers into classrooms in order to arouse sympathy for the cause and
to further radicalize student opinion.64
As the Student Federation drew closer to the labor movement stu-
dents became more critical of the Uruguayan government. After the

death of ex-President Batlle students became disturbed by the spread
of corruption in the welfare state and by the indifference of major par62 An excellent example of the leftist tactics in winning support for the "social function"
of the university was the opening speech by Jose Pedro Cardoso to the National Student
Congress of 1930, in FEUU, Memoria, pp. 18-22. See also: "Del movimiento estudiantil,"
EL, January, 1926, pp. 8-9; FEUU, Memoria, pp. 211 212; "La funci6n social de la Universidad," Jornada (official newspaper of FEUU), July, 1934, p. 6; and "La Asamblea del
Claustro," REIS, March 1939, p. 15.
63 "Acci6n extra universitaria," REJS, March, 1935, pp. 11-14; Jornada, November, 1933,
p. 8, January, 1934, p. 7, July, 1934, p. 8, August, 1934, pp. 1 and 8, August 25, 1934, pp. 1 and
3, etc. The May Day Manifesto was published twice in Jornada, July, 1944 and October,
1939.
64 The present writer was an eyewitness of the cane worker program of FEUU in 1963-
1964. Best news coverage of the cane worker episode was published in the newspaper
Epoca. See especially issues of September 15, 1963, February 2 and 6, March 13, and April
6, 1964. Raul Sendic, later chief of the terrorist Tupamaros, was the leading organizer of
the "March on Montevideo" by the cane workers.
ties to the needs of the working classes. Many students concluded that
liberal democracy was a fraud and that only revolution could save the
nation.65 The extent of erosion of faith in Uruguay's governmental
system was revealed by a survey of student opinion in the mid 1960's.
This study showed that more than 80 percent of the students regarded
the government as "corrupt," and over 90 percent believed that the gov-
ernment had allowed Uruguay to slip into a "deep and grave crisis."
Less than half of the students polled credited the representative-democratic system with giving "satisfactory results," while almost 90 percent
were convinced that capitalism prevents economic development.66 Although a majority of university students continued to support the major
parties of Uruguay, by the mid 1960's most young people in the University had clearly lost faith in the political and economic system of the
nation or had grown deeply skeptical of it.
The most important factor in the growth of student radicalism, however, seems not to have been either disillusionment with liberal democracy or the influence of the broadened social definition of University Reform, but rather the exploitation of anti-imperialism. Although
Uruguayan students lagged behind their Argentine and Peruvian

counterparts in taking up the cry against imperialism, around 1925 they
joined in the continental clamor and have kept up the campaign ever
since. While denouncing the phenomenon of "imperialism" in general,
the students aimed most of their fire at "Yankee imperialism" in its
various manifestations as Pan-Americanism, Monroe Doctrine, political
intervention, and international investments. Naturally the policies of
the Coolidge and Hoover administrations were roundly condemned,
but even the Good Neighbor policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt was indicted as a mere cloak for "economic, political, and even military
penetration."17
65 "La dictadura y los trabajadores," Jornada, November, 1933; "El mitin por la libertad
y contra la dictadura," ibid., November, 1934; "Acci6n extra universitaria," loc. cit.; "Actividades del Centro Estudiantes de Derecho," REJS, May, 1942, pp. 25-26; "El estudiantado
frente a la dictadura," Jornada, March, 1942; and interviews with Wishington Vifioles,
February 29, 1964, Hugo Trimble MacColl, September 3, 1963, and Luis Villemur Triay,
February 25, 1964 (all of them student leaders of the 1930's). Student disillusionment was
greatest over the golpes of Gabriel Terra in 1933 and General Alfredo Baldomir in 1942.
66 The figures are taken from an opinion survey which I conducted between November,
1963 and March, 1964, with a sample of only seventy students. The sample was small but
the survey's reliability was confirmed by a second survey using a sample of 700 students.
67 If the students had been primarily concerned about "imperialism" in Uruguay, they
would have selected Great Britain, the chief foreign economic power in their country in
the 1920's and early 1930's, as the target of their attacks. However, a feeling of continental
solidarity with other Latin American nations appears to have caused student activists
to devote most of their attention to "Yankee imperialism." Following is a brief sampling

Anti-imperialism, an understandable nationalist and continentalist
response to the foreign policies of the United States, need not be based
on the premises of political radicalism. Ruben Dario and Jos6 Enrique
Rod6, for example, criticized Yankee aggressions at the turn of the cen-
tury without denouncing capitalism. But university students adopted

an ideological interpretation of imperialism which led straight to the
rejection of capitalism and to the acceptance of revolutionary views.
An important article appearing in a student magazine in the latter part
of 1929 opened the way in Uruguay for the development of ideological
arguments that would gradually convert nationalistic students to political radicalism.6" The article declared that imperialism was the consequence of "economic and social development" under capitalism. Latin
American nations, according to this view, failed to gain genuine independence early in the nineteenth century, for their economic backwardness caused them to fall under the control first of England and then of
the United States. The student article went on to assert that the United
States, as a result of its advanced capitalistic development, was seeking

complete domination of Latin America through conquest of markets,
foreign loans, and military and political intervention.
A year after the appearance of the foregoing article a report on "Imperialism" presented to the National Congress of Students set forth the
complete ideological interpretation that would become the gospel of
FEUU's activists. This report, citing the writings of Lenin, declared
that imperialism is "the last stage of capitalism" in which overproduction compels the capitalist nation to seek markets for goods and investment opportunities for surplus capital. According to the report, the
Soviet Union, because of its socialist economy, was not, and cannot be,
imperialist. Latin American nations, on the other hand, were the natural victims of predatory imperialism because of their backward capitalistic economies."6 This analysis of imperialism led students to conclude that capitalism should be rejected in favor of collectivism.70
With the adoption of this report the activist forces in FEUU comof the many anti-imperialist writings and pronouncements of student militants: "Alfredo
L. Palacios declina una invitaci6n," EL, May, 1926, pp. 31-32; "La dignidad de America
estai comprometida," RCED, November-December, 1927, pp. 625-626; "America cobarde,"
RCED, January-February, 1928, p. 738; "Hoover y el Centro de Derecho," RCED, July,
1929, pp. 339-341; "Sandino en la brecha," EL, January, 1929. On the Good Neighbor
policy: "Ni una palabra," Jornada, November, 1933, pp. 1, 5; and "Los estudiantes de la
Argentina y el Uruguay frente al Pan-Americanismo," id., January, 1934, p. 2. Interviews
with Fernindez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, Quijano, Vifioles, and Villemur Triay.
s8 "De Ariel a la realidad," loc. cit.
69 Prunell, "Imperialismo," loc. cit.
70 Arosteguy, "Fuentes," loc. cit.
pleted the conversion of anti-imperialism into an effective implement

for the recruitment of non-leftist students into leftist ranks. Young people with strong nationalist sentiments and a concern for the welfare of
Uruguay's sister nations in the Hemisphere found in the anti-imperialist
argument a convenient and convincing explanation of the economic and
social ills that beset Latin America. In the decades that followed the
Congress of 1930 anti-imperialist bombast became the chief ingredient

in FEUU's political propaganda. Capitalism was almost invariably portrayed as a heartless, exploitative, and oppressive system that suppresses
the individual and keeps the masses in poverty. The cliche-ridden literature of the students blamed Wall Street financiers and their puppets
in Washington for most of the basic problems of Latin America: economic backwardness, dictatorship, militarism, aristocratic domination,
and corruption in politics.71 By the mid-1960's the anti-imperialist arguments had gained such wide currency that almost three-quarters of
the students (72 percent) believed that "foreign economic influences"
were largely responsible for economic underdevelopment in Uruguay.72
The emphasis given by FEUU to the subject of imperialism tended to
turn opinion against capitalism and thus to radicalize student opinion.
While the leaders of FEUU were prone to go farther in their acceptance
of revolutionary ideologies, even rank-and-file students believed that

national problems could not be solved without profound structural
changes in government and society.73
The radicalizing of FEUU after its founding in 1929 recapitulated in

some ways, but not in all, the experience of the Ariel Center. Both organizations originated in efforts to sustain a movement of protest and
reform within an educational institution. Neither group was politically
partisan during the first months of its existence, though FEUU moved
to define the politics of its insurgency sooner than the Ariel group. The
University Reform, very new in 1917-1918 and more fully developed

in 1929, deeply affected the thinking of the leaders of both Ariel and
FEUU. In both organizations the support of proletarian causes and the
adoption of radical positions on social issues were imitative actions
71 The anti-imperialist theme in FEUU's activities needs no documentation because it
was so relentless. For a few examples see: "Capitalismo, fascismo y guerra," Jornada, November, 1933, p. 6; "Memoria," RCED, April, 1945, pp. 32-36; "America herida pide acci6n," Jornada, July, 1944, p. 3; "El tratado de comercio y amistad uruguayo-estadounidense," id., March, 1950, p. 12; the entire issue of Jornada, May 13, 1953, devoted to the
military pact between the United States and Uruguay; and "Una historia que no termina
en Punta del Este," Gaceta de la Universidad, July, 1962, pp. 22-25.
72 My survey of student opinion, May 1964, based on a sample of 700 students.
73 Ibid. Also, see text above related to footnote #67.

which followed the lead of student reformistas in nearby nations. The
impact of imperialism appears to have been almost identical in the two
cases except that the Ariel group was closer to the cultural nationalism
of Rod6 than to the revolutionary thought of Marx and Lenin adopted
by FEUU.
The political conditions of Uruguay and the reaction of students to

these conditions constitute a major difference in the process of radicalization of the two organizations. Leaders of both the Ariel Center and
FEUU became discontented with the national government. But the

Ariel group in its first years of existence was more interested in educa-
tional reform and in cultural and esthetic matters than in political insurgency. Only after the arrival of a second generation of leaders with
international contacts did the Ariel Center move to the left of the Batlle
government. This political shift cannot be attributed to the hackneyed

concept of idealistic youth outraged by a corrupt and conservative government; rather, it is to be understood as the result of youthful impatience with the pace of reform. Additionally, it was the product of an
international student movement which transmitted radical influences
from Peru, Chile, Argentina, and to a lesser extent, from Europe.
The incipient decay of the Batllista state and the establishment of a

dictatorship during the economic crisis of the 1930's gave the students
of FEUU, in contrast with those of Ariel, grounds for reacting in outrage against a regime that appeared to be corrupt, oppressive, and hypocritical. While the students of Ariel lived in an era of dramatic social
change and improvement, FEUU's members faced a national situation

characterized by social stagnation and by a government that was alternately repressive and ineffective. Ironically, in the growth of student
radicalism it mattered little if the government was progressive or conservative, for a progressive regime created a climate of change that excited student desire for more rapid change and a conservative administration aroused a deep sense of injustice and moral indignation. Thus,
the development of student insurgency and radicalism in Uruguay
seems to have been not so much a function of specific political conditions
as it was a product of student discontent with educational institutions,

or a broadened interpretation of the University Reform as a social movement, and of a nationalist response of youth to the power and influence
in Latin America exercised by the United States.
California State University MARK J. VAN AKEN
Hayward, California

Van AKEN, Mark. The Radicalization of The Uruguayan Student Movement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Van AKEN, Mark. The Radicalization of The Uruguayan Student Movement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Radicalization of the Uruguayan Student Movement

Author(s): Mark J. van Aken

THE RADICALIZATION OF THE URUGUAYAN

Conditions in Preparatory Studies, a branch of the University, were

aminations and allowable absences. Additionally, the young rebels

110 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

tion by demanding student representation on the governing council of

The rebellion in Preparatorios appears also to have been produced,

The strike in Preparatorios was a failure. This minor uprising might

ganization called the Ariel Student Center (Centro de Estudiantes

MARK J. VAN AKEN 111

militant reformist cause of Latin American students in the 1920's and

transformed their center into a focus of insurgency and radical politics.

of most early leaders of the Center evidenced a tendency toward

entitled Ariel.'1 The sedate pages of Ariel, which carried articles on

terialism and equalitarianism.12 If Rod6's antagonism toward the

9 Interview with Fernandez Artuccio. On nationalism, see: Arthur P. Whitaker and

liberal (Montevideo, 1958), pp. 53-54, 64-77, 106-120, and 282.

112 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

the young cultural nationalists of the student center, their anti-Yankee

and anti-imperialist opinions were not expressed in the early issues of

wrongs.'4 The Socialist leader was ahead of university students in his

Uruguay in 1920 had social problems. Poverty was widespread in

Under the liberal leadership of Jos6 Batlle, Claudio Williman, and

14 Ariel, December, 1919-January, 1920, p. 222.

MARK J. VAN AKEN 113

until after Batlle's death in 1929.18 The working classes, growing in

257; Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, pp. 129-133.

Proceso, pp. 246-247.

114 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

dox requires examination to determine what historical factors may

tained in a recent study of youth and political dissent in the United

to Kenniston, usually outdistance both public opinion and the ability

admiring the remarkable progress toward the achievement of social

Another factor which assumed great importance in student thinking,

MARK J. VAN AKEN 115

Peru, and elsewhere.26

In August, 1920, the editorial board of Ariel published a lengthy

fessors, students, and alumni, 7) abolition of lifetime professorial

versitaria (3 vols., La Plata, 1941); Federaci6n Universitaria de Buenos Aires, La Reforma

27 "Docencia libre," defined by reformistas as the right of teachers to teach courses in

116 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

appointments, and 8) minor proposals regarding the administration of

The reform program summarized above was a mosaic of ideas, some

folding in Argentina and other Latin American nations. The inclusion

Ariel Center in 1920 appears to have been essentially moderate by

ber 1975, 693-715.

MARK J. VAN AKEN 117

Although the magazine Ariel continued to radiate Rodoist idealism

heightening interest in the University Reform at a time when the idea

118 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

Marxian, and Aprista lines." Simultaneously, the Russian Revolution,

39 Interviews with Fernindez Artuccio, Gonzilez Areosa, and Quijano; "Reiniciaci6n,"

MARK J. VAN AKEN 119

Center led to a re-examination of Rod6's thought in the pages of the

allegedly ignoring the "concrete problems of sociology, politics, and

The fervent condemnation of foreign capitalism and imperialism by

ing emphasis on radical social change. Leaders of the medical students

admired and emulated the activists of Argentina, Chile, and Peru,

cal Students established a university extension service for the purpose

42 "Regimen Bolsheviki," EL, October 1, 1920, p. 9; "La revoluci6n universitaria en la

120 RADICALIZATION OF URUGUAYAN STUDENTS

Ariel abandoned the University Reform movement, but rather that