==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Nestor states : After a long tirade where he explains that without workers´
control of revolution a joint Latin American anti-imperialist army would be a
national-bourgeois outfit, Manuel Barrera ends a posting with these wise words
. . .nor does such non-linear development justify revolutionists putting
'first things first.'. . . In Latin America, at least the way I see it, the
idea is Let the unification process advance, at the fastest pace we can force
it to
adopt. Confrontation with imperialism will bring about all those socialist
tendencies Manuel is asking for. First things first, that´s the politician´s
obsession, which, translated to Latin American terms means Unity, unity,
unity first and foremost. I don´t care who leads it, who performs it, what do
they think or want. I have the greatest confidence in imperialism and in the
Latin American masses. I am certain that if we socialists push the whole thing
ahead we
shall create the scenario that will bring us to the leading positions. If our
unification becomes strong enough, confrontation with
imperialists and ther local Quislings will be inevitable. And in that
confrontation, as a revolutionary socialist that I am I trust socialism will
prove the single reasonable way for us to win.
Well, it wasn't meant to be a tirade. Rather, it was meant simply to remind and
establish that social revolution against capitalism, and imperialism in
particular, is about ending drive for conquest and militarization. We do not
wish to go to war because it will be our sisters and brothers whom we will be
fighting (regardless whether they try to kill us, those workers, peasants, and
oppressed masses who join imperialist and national armies remain part of our
class and whom we wish for them to join us in solidarity). I agree, Nestor,
that unifying América Latina is an indispensable task, and outcome, of
socialist (in contrast to social) revolution. However, I do not see how
militarization is just another way of realizing this task. After all, no
nation-state was ever formed devoid of a class struggle and a specific outcome
of power. The formation of an army--an armed body of men reflecting the
State--neither happens in a vacuum nor without a history of class conflict and
struggle. My question is simple. Does the formation of an anti-imperialist
army by Bolivia and others (Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador?) reflect the conquest
of working class power and the establishment of a workers, peasants, and
indigenous government? Or is what is being proposed, in essence, seeking to
bootstrap that concrete struggle by creating an armed body of a state we Hope
to be such a government, but which it is not exactly clear at this time?
Anyone who knows me well will know that I have no problem peakin' eh faight
with the imperialist bullies of the world. I just am interested in being Damn
sure that it is a William Wallace that is doing the pickin' and not the
Scottish nobles pretending to do so.
And, of course, you are correct, Nestor, this issue is not a game for
scholastic strategists, but a deadly serious one whose aim must always be the
socialist revolution. But a revolution is not an armed struggle (I do apologize
for stating such an obvious point to us here), especially not one directed at
conquest. My questions are strategic and serious. Please do not interpret them
as rhetorical or for purpose of meaningless scholastic debate. If there is a
mass movement of workers and the oppressed upon which such an anti-imperialist
army is based, I will be the first to support it (I do not believe it is my
place to join it, but to continue the fight where I am as best I can). I simply
am incredulous that the ongoing machinations of Morales, Chavez, or even of
Correa, constitute such a mass movement, which I define as clear and definitive
mobilization posing the dissolution of capitalist rule rather than the
emergence of leftist governments promising as they may be. Please understand
that I have seen too many revolutionary politicians who profess socialism but
engage in capitalist oppression and too many honest activist/revolutionists
sucked into believing that they are making revolution either within or
without the mass movement (inclusive of my hero and historical mentor, El Che).
By all means, prove to me that my appraisal of the state of the Latin American
revolution is incorrect and why the establishment of an armed body of men
[sic] is currently the natural next step in the international working class's
strategic march to power and liberation (regardless, whether it is the first
thing that needs to be put first).
Manuel
