NACLA and Colombia

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Sun Dec 10 14:33:15 MST 2000


En relación a Re: NACLA and Colombia,
el 10 Dec 00, a las 10:03, Les Schaffer dijo:

> [bounced from Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin at U.Arizona.EDU>]
>
>
> 1) The FARC, it seems to me, lacks any clear liberatory agenda.  I have
> never seen any evidence of radical social transformation in its zones of
> control.  Of course in some sense it represents a popular alternative to
> the oligarchical regime, but not one with an inspiring vision of change.

Even though their only vision of change were -which it certainly is not-  "let
us do our own politics without any consideration to the American desires" (and
please note that I did _not_ write down "imperialist", just "American") it
would be a clear liberatory agenda. The main radical social transformation in
the zones under control of the FARC is that they are not under control of the
United States. That should be enough, methinks.

> As in Nicaragua or El Salvador, its leadership (as opposed to its
> base) seems to be a group which, if incorporated into the system, would
> create a more truly representative elite democracy, a la the U.S. and
> other such examples (polyarchy, in Dahl's terms).

You mean that the US democratic system could be implanted in Colombia if the
FARC took power? But this, then, would be a revolution. The current "democratic
rule" in Colombia is the rule of the paramilitary. We can say many things on
the USA, but I don't see rebel unionists chased like game across the
Alleghennys. It is quite surprising to see the above written by you when you
immediately acknowledge that

>
> 2) The NYT yesterday had a long article about the rise of the right-wing
> paramilitaries in Colombia.  How much support those groups may be
> receiving covertly from the U.S. I don't know, but they seem to be
> increasingly effective, and I seriously doubt that the U.S. aid package
> for helicopters and so forth will lead to anything resembling
> Vietnam.

Then, you go on:

> U.S. military support for the regime should be opposed, but
> don't expect anything like Central American in the 80s either in terms of
> U.S. strategic priority, or the potential for an opposition movement in
> the U.S.
>

Two comments

a) As to strategic priority, you are absolutely wrong IMHO. Colombia is the key
to a region that will soon become heavily stormy, and also to the Brazilian
Amazonia. On the other side, the intervention is very likely to add gasoline to
the forest flames in Latin America (the first signs of which are already
present) against the TOTALITY of the American policies.

b) This is the most important one. If I were living in the USA, I would not be
caring as to what will happen in Colombia as a result from my opposition to US
intervention. I would be caring as to what will happen in the USA and how will
I be able to use this in order to overthrow capitalism there.

Sorry, did not intend to lecture anyone on her/his duties...

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list