====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Yes that's what you wrote. What exactly does "defending his [Morales'] government from attempts to subvert it" mean? It's a bit of idealism to think or argue that the issues in Bolivia can be captured, much less resolved, in the simplistic, and non-class specific formula like "self-determination for Bolivia" or "hands off Bolivia." If you want to make a distinction between "defense" and "support" then you need to make that distinction based on the internal class relations of Bolivia, not upon some notion of an external, imperial force subverting the "democratic rights" or process within the country. There is no such process underway in Bolivia-- there is class struggle, precipitated by the conflict between the means and relations of production. Morales was the leader of the coca growers' revolt? So what? You're not presenting an argument for defense of Morales on the basis of the class position of coca growers in Bolivia. The movement in Bolivia is not a movement of coca growers. You presented an argument for adopting a delicate balance based on Morales being the first indigenous president, which he is not, in a country that has oppressed indigenous people for 400 years. How is that any different from the "delicate balance" advocated by many in dealing with Obama? Because Morales and his generals have declared themselves "socialist"? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <l...@panix.com> To: <sartes...@earthlink.net> ________________________________________________ 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
