The MIR (was Re: Dependency theory debate in Latin America)
lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Thu Jun 7 10:03:39 MDT 2001
>But there is another possibility, which not even the MIR could see,
>and which ultimately doomed the whole movement. This possibility
>_includes_ alliances with fractions of the local bourgeoisies, and is
>a better one. I insist: AGF declared in the open that he and his
>people were _against_ Perón and Vargas, and even of an eventual Perón
>in Chile. This proved suicidal.
Somehow the notion that AGF opposed such alliances is at odds with
Brenner's charge that dependency theory encourages exactly these alliance.
Frankly (no pun intended), the last thing I'd look for from Frank is
revolutionary strategy. That is the province of Marxist parties rooted in
the working class and peasantry. Frank's contribution was to expose the
CP's notion of development under the auspices of the progressive
bourgeoisie. He was very much the intellectual counterpart of Che and
Fidel's OLAS. As we know, rural guerrilla warfare as a strategy had
limitations--in fact that led to Che's tragic death--but it was necessary
to define an alternative to the kind of "stagist" nonsense that had led the
Cuban CP to back Batista.
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
More information about the Marxism