Dear Nestor,
you might not be astonished to hear that I disagree. To me it seems that the
fault of the LA-'left' in general and of the pro-Moscow PCs especially was not
to have turned against national-bourgeois regimes but to have taken their
'national' character much too seriously and to have 'forgotten' to organize the
working class for the day that these regimes turned against the workers, which
they had to do since they were not proletarian regimes. What I'm referring to is
of course the strategy of the 'popular front' which has time and again led to
the drowning of the working class in its own blood. For the policies of the
'leftist' in this respect may I point to the PC Cuba which even sent ministers
into the Batista government or to the giving in of the Bolivian left to the MNR
and of the Peruvian CPs support for the 'nationalist' military government.
Outside of LA let me cite the cases of the Kuomintang (+ CPCH in the 20s)in
China, or the outcome of the 'national progressive fronts' in Iraq (ASBP + ICP).
Of course such 'national' bourgeois forces are not welcomed by the ouright
compradore elements and their foreign masters. But in general in the long run it
has been proven that those compradore elements of the bourgeoisie and their
imperialist backers can only be smashed by getting rid of the 'national'
bourgeois-regimes in time. If not, these 'national' bourgeois forces will under
the pressure of the capitalist world market step by step lose their 'national'
character and return to the imperialist fold (think about Egypt, about Syria's
role in the 1991 Gulf-war, about Angola, Mozambique, South Africa under the
ANC, the development of the FSLN and FMNL in Central America, of the PLO or of
the PKK in Turkey Kurdistan). There is of course no doubt that you can loose a
fight and that the gorillas or compradores will (with the helping hand of
imperialism) be the winners for a certain time. But the possibility to lose a
fight can only be excluded if you refrain from entering the fight. Is this your
advice for proletarian revolutionaries? I'm not arguing here for a '3rd period'
sectarian position to regard reformist or nationalist forces as the main and
sometimes only enemy. I'm also in favour of limited tactical alliances with such
forces, but these have to include a political fight to warn their popular basis
against the upcoming betrayals of their misleaders and to organize the working
class for the anavoidable final showdown with these temporary allies. I don't
think that you will seriously tell me that this is the historical legacy of the
vast majority of the LA-'left'. Maybe we ought some day to get into details
about specifcountries in order tosee what happened and which general theory on
the character of the 'national' bourgeoisie and on revolutionary strategy is
more valid. A very warning example should be the policies of the majority of the
Iranian left to not only fight against the Shah but to hail the
'antiimperialist' but socially even more reactionary Khomeini, to hail him so
long since they had all been put to jail, tortured and executed.
Best, A.Holberg
Johannes Schneider schrieb:
> Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
>
> What kind of a regime would take power in Yugoslavia if the "Serb
> nationalist and bourgeois" Milosevic regime (your definition, I
> hardly can imagine the policemen -that is, the concrete face of the
> State- of a bourgeois regime cherishing Salvador Allende, as an
> Argentinian anti-Yugo journalist reported during the war) were
> brought down? I have witnessed much too many "Leftist" criticisms to
> "bourgeois" regimes in Latin America which systematically ended up
> with coups d'état that put a ruthless proimperialist dictatorship in
> power.
>
> The whole history of most of Latin American "Leftists" is a history
> of anti-national-bourgeois regimes which systematically ends up
> giving a left wing coverage to imperialist coups.
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> ==============================================
> Nestor,
>
> in the Yugoslav case arent you putting forward a There Is No Alternative
> policy?
>
> For Latin America: From afar it looks to me as if you are generalising the
> Argentinian case. Could you be more specific on the other cases that are on
> your mind.
>
> I vaguely remember the Chilean MIR criticissing Allende for failing to arm
> the Chilean workers and peasants and promoting Pinochet. Havent they be
> right?
>
> Johannes
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leninist-International mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
