Louis P. writes:
Marvin wrote:
...We can continue to disagree about
whether the accomodations by the mass parties have been due to failures of
leadership, as you contend, or to the unexpected historical resiliency of
capitalism and extension of the universal franchise which have combined to
perpetuate in the masses the belief it is within their power to
progressively reform the existing system to improve their living
conditions.
If this is a reference to Thabo Mbeki, I would say that it is simply
a matter of embourgeoisification not fear of invasion, etc.
==========================
The political exhaustion of the Mbekis, Arafats, and Adamses reflected the
political and physical exhaustion of their movements after decades of armed
struggle. They tired of the struggle, but so did most of their followers.
The same thing happened to the trade unions and their political parties
after decades of turbulent industrial conflict in the West. They accepted
political concessions which fell short of their original goals in exchange
for the promise of social peace and stability demanded by capital. The
leaders presided over these developments but didn't "cause" them. If their
compromises did not correspond to the political mood and immediate needs of
their base, they would have been swept aside by the uncompromising factions
within their movements.
I don't think "embourgeoisification" - the perks of office and a lavish
lifestyle - weighs heaviest in this. The road to privilege was always open
to talented and ambitious men like Mbeki and Adams and Arafat/Abbas who
opted instead for a lifetime of struggle and sacrifice. It seems to me their
choices were dictated more by their appreciation, accurate or otherwise, of
the power and durability of the other side, and that this remains the
decisive factor constraining their exercise of the limited political power
which was granted to them.
Other potent forms of coercion short of the "fear of invasion" are available
to the US-led global bourgeoisie to ensure that "historic compromises" are
respected - notably economic measures which deepen mass distress and
encourage popular opposition to the regime. I don't think we're close enough
to these movements to judge whether in each case they have the human and
material resources available to them to counter these threats. One clue is
whether dissident currents within these organizations are gaining ground in
their efforts to mobilize the base for renewed confrontation against their
traditional enemies. And while there are and will always be pockets of
resistance, there is still little evidence of a general movement in this
direction, not even in Palestine.
