====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Nestor states : After a long tirade where he explains that without workers´ control of revolution a joint Latin American anti-imperialist army would be a national-bourgeois outfit, Manuel Barrera ends a posting with these wise words ". . .nor does such non-linear development justify revolutionists putting 'first things first.'. . . In Latin America, at least the way I see it, the idea is "Let the unification process advance, at the fastest pace we can force it to adopt. Confrontation with imperialism will bring about all those socialist tendencies Manuel is asking for. First things first, that´s the politician´s obsession, which, translated to Latin American terms means "Unity, unity, unity first and foremost". I don´t care who leads it, who performs it, what do they think or want. I have the greatest confidence in imperialism and in the Latin American masses. I am certain that if we socialists push the whole thing ahead we > shall create the scenario that will bring us to the leading positions. If our > unification becomes strong enough, confrontation with > imperialists and ther local Quislings will be inevitable. And in that > confrontation, as a revolutionary socialist that I am I trust socialism will > prove the single reasonable way for us to win." Well, it wasn't meant to be a tirade. Rather, it was meant simply to remind and establish that social revolution against capitalism, and imperialism in particular, is about ending drive for conquest and militarization. We do not wish to go to war because it will be our sisters and brothers whom we will be fighting (regardless whether they try to kill us, those workers, peasants, and oppressed masses who join imperialist and national armies remain part of our class and whom we wish for them to join us in solidarity). I agree, Nestor, that unifying América Latina is an indispensable task, and outcome, of socialist (in contrast to "social") revolution. However, I do not see how militarization is "just another way" of realizing this task. After all, no nation-state was ever formed devoid of a class struggle and a specific outcome of power. The formation of an army--an "armed body of men" reflecting the State--neither happens in a vacuum nor without a history of class conflict and struggle. My question is simple. Does the formation of an "anti-imperialist" army by Bolivia and others (Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador?) reflect the conquest of working class power and the establishment of a workers, peasants, and indigenous government? Or is what is being proposed, in essence, seeking to "bootstrap" that concrete struggle by creating an armed body of a state we Hope to be such a government, but which it is not exactly clear at this time? Anyone who knows me well will know that I have no problem "peakin' eh faight" with the imperialist bullies of the world. I just am interested in being Damn sure that it is a "William Wallace" that is doing the "pickin'" and not the Scottish nobles pretending to do so. And, of course, you are correct, Nestor, this issue is not a game for "scholastic strategists", but a deadly serious one whose aim must always be the socialist revolution. But a revolution is not an armed struggle (I do apologize for stating such an obvious point to "us" here), especially not one directed at conquest. My questions are strategic and serious. Please do not interpret them as rhetorical or for purpose of meaningless "scholastic" debate. If there is a mass movement of workers and the oppressed upon which such an "anti-imperialist army" is based, I will be the first to support it (I do not believe it is my place to join it, but to continue the fight where I am as best I can). I simply am incredulous that the ongoing machinations of Morales, Chavez, or even of Correa, constitute such a mass movement, which I define as clear and definitive mobilization posing the dissolution of capitalist rule rather than the emergence of "leftist" governments promising as they may be. Please understand that I have seen too many "revolutionary" politicians who profess socialism but engage in capitalist oppression and too many honest activist/revolutionists sucked into believing that they are "making" revolution either "within" or without the mass movement (inclusive of my hero and historical mentor, El Che). By all means, prove to me that my appraisal of the state of the Latin American revolution is incorrect and why the establishment of "an armed body of men [sic]" is currently the natural next step in the international working class's strategic march to power and liberation (regardless, whether it is the "first thing" that needs to be put first). Manuel ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
