======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
Carlos Rebello said: "one must take Lula’s politics as a necessary
departure-point"
Indeed, Carlos' point is even more apt in the "point of departure" that
revolutionists Outside of Brazil must take as opposed to those Inside. From the
outside, apart from a correct analysis of the nature of the Brazilian
government, state, property relations, and the role of Lula or any other
political force, revolutionists must always defend whatever hard-won or even
serendipitous gains for the working masses of any country, especially in the
"developing nations", if that term still applies (remembering that when we say
"Lula", we are referring to a current in a political spectrum and not some
individual that is at best inconsequential unless we want to engage in
idolatry, which I do not believe anyone is saying here). It is unlikely that
one's Outside support or criticism will be anything but solidarity, annoying
(if simply criticism rather critical) or detrimental to the those working
Inside depending on the correctness and utility of such an analysis. For those
on working on the Inside (i.e., Brazilian revolutionists, activists, etc.), the
role of different forces including those like Lula take on a different level of
importance and perhaps even more complication. However, it is the role of the
Outside to support the potential for the working masses and their (likely still
nascent) revolutionary-minded forces (a) to continue their struggle for working
class liberation (i.e., political freedom to organize, mobilization, etc.) and
(b) to educate radicalizing workers, youth, and oppressed nationalities toward
ever more degrees of revolutionary consciousness that result in ever more
conscious political action toward the winning of democratic and working class
power over capitalism. The issues of "micro" changes are only relevant if there
is a transitional approach to these "macro" changes, which I believe is what
Carlos (and Joaquín) are trying to explain.
Everybody wants to show how "we" are not fooled by "micro" change leading to
lesser-evilism and how we won't be lul(a)led into support for bourgeois
nationalism or liberalism. If there are those who believe that supporting Lula
is the end of the line in the march to, well, not socialism, but some "good
enough" state that socialist can accept as "the best that we can accomplish"
(like, you know, the Tom Haydens and their "Left Establishment" ilk will say
about the Democrats), then that kind of thinking can and should be denounced.
However, if we all recognize that it is probably desirable to bring the masses
to consciousness by our unrelenting defense of bourgoeis-demcratic gains
through the rise of government that is the result of mass movement and enhances
the potential for mobilization of the workers, peasants, and all others
oppressed by the forces of capital, well, let's just keep our class wits about
us as we get immersed in actual struggles. In short, nobody (even if it is your
mother, wife, or daughter) likes a back-seat driver constantly telling you what
you already know about driving.
Siempre en solidaridad con los pueblos oprimidos en su verdadera lucha, 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
