==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
2010/10/13 Manuel Barrera mtom...@hotmail.com:
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Nestor said: Yes, of course, the national army would end serving the ruling
class as it always, in the end, does. The question is why do you think that
the single class in Latin America that can lead a process of national
reunification is the bourgeoisie?
First, why should we believe that a unified army of Bolivia, Venezuela, et
al. constitute an anti-imperialist army? Because Evo says so, or Hugo?
No. Because the USofAm say so. Ask DoD who would they rather fear, a
host of midget impossible armies or a joint army of everyone South
of the Border. It is almost absurd to have to explain this.
Do you believe that a unified army of Bolivia and other Latin American
countries (other than of Cuba, which I consider reflecting a different
class than that of those others) would represent the workers and
oppressed of those unified countries? How would that happen, by
dictate of Morales or by a proletarian revolution and mass
mobilization against both the imperialists and their partners in the
national bourgeoisies?
I believe that such an army could only be the consequence of a
revolutionary victory of the peoples of the South and Central tier of
the Americas against the Northern one. And it would happen by
Permanent REvolution in action.
Second, I believe, Nestor, that you misunderstand my question regarding an
anti-imperialist army and whether I (or others?) believe that the national
bourgeois can lead a process of national reunification. Of course not, but
these are two different questions.
Indeed, the national bourgeoisies are united in maintaining their national
identifies precisely against a broad unification that would result in the
hegemony of the working masses and the oppressed. They (the bourgeois) are
only interested in maintaining their rule, so, they are unlikely to seek
unification Except to further their rule. The imperialists will support or
oppose such unifications depending on whether it serves their class. There
really is only one class, the proletariat (in its broad conception of the
working masses and their allies), that is capable of promoting
internationalist unity, so, no, I do not believe the bourgeoisie to be
capable of fostering unity except the unity of dominance by capital over
labor.
There is no bourgeoisie worth that name South of the Border. There are
oligarchies, who really want to make everyone believe that there can
exist an Uruguayan, Guatemalan, Bolivian, Argentinean, even Brazilian
INDEPENDENT nation. The bourgeoisies (even the b in S Paulo) are
unable to understand their own historic needs, not to speak of tasks.
And the unification of Latin America is certainly NOT an
internationalist agenda. It is simply to start again where we had
begun 200 years ago: as a unified whole, now with the bridge between
Luso and Castillian Iberoamericans spanned thanks to the force of
acts.
To conflate these two issues seems to be an evasion of the question whether
an anti-imperialist army as proposed here by a bourgeois government albeit
led by a leftist leader whose class identity has yet clearly to be defined
by its actions and class allegiances as anything but a bourgeois government.
Is Evo calling for a different revolutionary army composed of workers,
peasants, and indigenos or for a unification of current armies of each state
into a single unified anti-imperialist army? If the latter, why would a
call by a revolutionist (conceding for the sake of argument the still
questionable issue whether Evo is indeed such) to build such an army out of
the components of armies that constitute the armed body of the State in their
respective countries be anything but reflective of the class nature of the
state they are organized to defend? What exactly are these armed bodies of
men doing to defend the working class and its march to power in Bolivia never
mind against U.S. imperialism?
I am not used to evade questions. When they deserve an answer. From my
own humble point of view yours brings about nothing, so I don´t feel I
should answer it. Sorry.
It seems to me that the class nature of the respective leftist governments
are still in question and role of Morales, Chavez, or Correa (among others)
remain in question, too. There is much promise, and hope, in the
anti-imperialist nature of these governments, but they can Never hope to
transcend that promise absent a strategic march to end capitalism and the
mobilization of the masses to
