====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
2010/10/13 Manuel Barrera <mtom...@hotmail.com>: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > > Nestor said: "Yes, of course, the national army would end serving the ruling > class as it always, in the end, does. The question is "why do you think that > the single class in Latin America that can lead a process of national > reunification is the bourgeoisie?"" > > > First, why should we believe that a "unified" army of Bolivia, Venezuela, et > al. constitute an "anti-imperialist army"? Because Evo says so, or Hugo? No. Because the USofAm say so. Ask DoD who would they rather fear, a host of midget impossible "armies" or a joint army of everyone South of the Border. It is almost absurd to have to explain this. Do you believe that a unified army of Bolivia and other Latin American countries (other than of Cuba, which I consider reflecting a different class than that of those others) would represent the workers and oppressed of those unified countries? How would that happen, by dictate of Morales or by a proletarian revolution and mass mobilization against both the imperialists and their partners in the national bourgeoisies? I believe that such an army could only be the consequence of a revolutionary victory of the peoples of the South and Central tier of the "Americas" against the Northern one. And it would happen by Permanent REvolution in action. > Second, I believe, Nestor, that you misunderstand my question regarding an > anti-imperialist army and whether I (or others?) believe that the national > bourgeois "can lead a process of national reunification". Of course not, but > these are two different questions. > > > Indeed, the national bourgeoisies are united in maintaining their national > identifies precisely against a broad unification that would result in the > hegemony of the working masses and the oppressed. They (the bourgeois) are > only interested in maintaining their rule, so, they are unlikely to seek > unification Except to further their rule. The imperialists will support or > oppose such unifications depending on whether it serves their class. There > really is only one class, the proletariat (in its broad conception of the > working masses and their allies), that is capable of promoting > internationalist unity, so, no, I do not believe the bourgeoisie to be > capable of fostering unity except the unity of dominance by capital over > labor. There is no bourgeoisie worth that name South of the Border. There are oligarchies, who really want to make everyone believe that there can exist an Uruguayan, Guatemalan, Bolivian, Argentinean, even Brazilian INDEPENDENT nation. The bourgeoisies (even the b in S Paulo) are unable to understand their own historic needs, not to speak of tasks. And the unification of Latin America is certainly NOT an "internationalist" agenda. It is simply to start again where we had begun 200 years ago: as a unified whole, now with the bridge between Luso and Castillian Iberoamericans spanned thanks to the force of acts. > > > To conflate these two issues seems to be an evasion of the question whether > an "anti-imperialist army" as proposed here by a bourgeois government albeit > led by a "leftist" leader whose class identity has yet clearly to be defined > by its actions and class allegiances as anything but a bourgeois government. > Is Evo calling for a different revolutionary army composed of workers, > peasants, and indigenos or for a unification of current armies of each state > into a single unified "anti-imperialist army"? If the latter, why would a > call by a revolutionist (conceding for the sake of argument the still > questionable issue whether Evo is indeed such) to build such an army out of > the components of armies that constitute the armed body of the State in their > respective countries be anything but reflective of the class nature of the > state they are organized to defend? What exactly are these armed bodies of > men doing to defend the working class and its march to power in Bolivia never > mind against U.S. imperialism? > > I am not used to evade questions. When they deserve an answer. From my own humble point of view yours brings about nothing, so I don´t feel I should answer it. Sorry. > It seems to me that the class nature of the respective leftist governments > are still in question and role of Morales, Chavez, or Correa (among others) > remain in question, too. There is much promise, and hope, in the > anti-imperialist nature of these governments, but they can Never hope to > transcend that promise absent a strategic march to end capitalism and the > mobilization of the masses to accomplish it. If that is what you mean when > you say that building an anti-imperialist armed forces will generate the > "process of national reunification", ok, I may be skeptical and believe it to > be skipping a few steps, but I am certainly willing to acknowledge that the > path to socialist revolution is not a linear process. If on the other hand, > you mean that merging the bourgeois armies of Bolivia, Venezuela, and others, > constitute an "anti-imperialist army", I would say you are making a > dangerous error in your naiveté. After all, at least in the movie, William > Wallace actually had an insurgent army of toilers upon which he was based and > which did not help him in the end to get anything but drawn and quartered > owing specifically to his naiveté in belief in the good intentions of > Scottish nobles regardless of their revolutionary or non-revolutionary > intents (but then again, a history of struggle recounted by bourgeois > filmmakers for the sake of telling stories to make a profit make a poor > substitute for the very real unfolding of mass struggles). I would hope that > we would use the facts of real class intentions based on the actions of > leaders or their governments and contrasted with the real actions needed by > the masses to serve as our guidance rather than the hope that one can use the > existing defenders of capital to protect and defend the oppressed working > masses. OK, allow me with my naiveté and go ahead with your wisdom. We shall see. Best. ________________________________________________ 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
