s.artesian wrote:
I honestly do not know what "protagonist democracy" and "antagonistic democracy" mean. I was, am referring to classes. The social forces, the old conflict between means and relations of production that has triggered both the struggle in Iran and Venezuela, propelled in both cases the working class, urban and rural poor, forward. <
Protagonistic democracy -- cf. Mike Lebowitz's BUILD IT NOW -- refers to grassroots and participative democracy such as the Bolivarian circles. It really isn't the opposite of "antagonistic" democracy (i.e., democracy within a class system). It also doesn't automatically abolish antagonistic democracy, but can form the basis for doing so in the future.
... It seems to me that all this talk about "North-South" "protagonist-antagonist" is a basic recycling of the old "First world-third world" argument about the exceptionalism of the movements, struggles in "third world" countries from the specific, "traditional" class analysis, evaluation, program etc. inherent in Marxism.<
"North-South" refers to a relationship within the structure and dynamics of imperialism. "Protagonistic-antagonistic" has nothing to do with that. "Protagonistic" doesn't link to ideas about the exceptionalism of struggles in the "third world" as much as the current exceptionalism of the struggle in Venezuela. It's also been seen in other places and times, including in the U.S. ... -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
