Fidel tells Spanish imperialist magistrate to shove it

Les Schaffer schaffer at
Tue May 1 17:24:25 MDT 2001

[ from Nestor ]

En relación a Re: Fidel tells Spanish imperialist, 
el 1 May 01, a las 21:53, Martin Zehr dijo:

> The major problem with the premise here is that it projects an
> analysis of Colonized vs. the colonisers and from there proscribes
> the appropriate remedy for all. It puts Noriega in the same camp as
> Che.

I don't see a problem in that, and for the reasons Carrol Cox has just

> This analysis has truly outlived it's usefulness. The intrusion by
> the IMF, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc. have generated a new comprador
> strata that is more extensive and intensive in the colonized nations
> than ever. The pot banging middle class of Chile have become more
> entrenched and more politically influential in the support of
> private capital and its property relations. At the same time there
> are popular voices of opposition, such as Garzon, Hugo Chavez or
> Ralph Nader, that raise substantive questions even while promoting a
> reformist agenda.

You are mixing potatoes with apples, dear Martin. Sorry. People such
as Garzón help the "pot banging middle class" remain in power. People
such as Chavez are hated by the Venezuelan counterparts of that same
middle class. As to Nader, this is an entirely different issue, he is
a politician in an imperialist nation. We have a different, rather an
opposite, conception of what the "intrusion by the IMF, WTO, GATT,
NAFTA, etc. have generated".  What you call a "comprador" middle class
-allow me to tell you that this is a schematic abstraction which tells
us nothing about what is the interest of imperialism and of local
populations as to the issue of accumulation- is still a very old thing
in Latin America (I would add: the Third World over). Hadn't it been
for the sad fact that Latin American history was carefully hidden from
anyone interested in it (with the obvious exception, in the first
place, of the British Foreign Office experts), it would not be
necessary to explain these "new" classes to anyone. The setback in the
march of revolution that reached its apex with the destruction of the
Soviet Union meant, in Latin America as elsewhere, a return to, say,
1912. These "new" middle classes you are witnessing resemble, as a
drop of water resembles a drop of dew, the old oligarchies of the
early 1900s. Strip them of their forms, go to the core, and what do
you find?  The same old colonial ruling class, only that in a more
absurd shape, in a higher dependency towards the imperialists, and so

> What are the options? I remember the sentiments of a Peruvian
> campesino when asked by a reporter about the takeover of the
> Japanese embassy by the Tupac Amaru. He declared that it was truly
> the only opportunity for his voice to be heard. So along with the
> extension of finance capital is the marginalization of millions, in
> the US, Europe and around the world. These are the disappeared, the
> shirtless ones, but these are also the Zapatistas. It truly depends
> on the leadership and the reliance of it on mass resistance in many
> popular forms to expose, intimidate and isolate the opponents of
> democracy and justice.

I take exception to the implicit idea that these are _the only
ways_. If they are, then we are doomed. Please look at what did, in
the end, Senderismo bring to Peru. Fujimorization. Like it or not,
this was bound to happen in more senses than one. It is still the good
ole working class which will in the end tilt the balance. And this
working class will not be led by guerrilla groups, not even "mild"
guerrilla groups. Sorry to disappoint you. I am the first one to
recognize the great political, nay, _human_ value of indigenous
peoples arising to consciousness, such as is the case with the
Zapatistas. But if the Zapatistas remain out of the towns, and unless
they strike an alliance with the Mexican working class they can't do
otherwise, they will remain an icon, not a revolutionary force.

> I hope that no one is really relying on the military of the
> colonialised nations to lead the struggle for indepence and social
> justice. Their record does not speak well in that regard. Further,
> their training and financial ties with the colonizer nation promises
> little change in the future.

Their record speaks quite well of them in that regard. But I am not
relying on anyone else than the workers. Now, this said, however, the
military are a fraction of our own formation, and as such they are
also criscrossed by the basic contradiction: the contradiction between
imperialist plunder and "some way ahead". From Bolívar and San Martín
onwards, I could draft a list of many dozens of military names who not
only helped their own peoples in struggle against imperialism, many
gave their lives while lots of parrotting "Leftists" warned workers
not to mix with that kind of rubbish.

> As to whether it is "a" solution to rely on imperialist courts, I
> would suggest that unless it is acceptable to you for the fascists
> and their agents to get away scot-free, it may be the only
> realizeable option available. There can never be justice in the face
> of the influence of capital and its agents. There can be accounts
> settled, that should be settled. There can be restitution made where
> it is owed.

Fascism, as Dimitrov once stated, is at the core "the terrorist rule
of financial capital".  What do you mean, "the fascists and their
agents to get away scot-free"? Don't you have enough evidence with
what happened in Germany, where the actual fascists, that is the
German bourgeoisie, got away scot-free, a few token agents were hang,
and most of them became either officials of the bourgeois regime in
Germany or, worse still, officials in the "democratic imperialist"
intelligence agencies of the West? For one Rudolph Hess, how many
"turncoats" working for the Hoover Institution? Please, dear Martin,
don't be so naive. Justice is a class issue, and of course we should
never forget that a judge in an imperialist state is, first and
foremost, an imperialist judge.

> I do accept that I could be totally missing the dynamics of the
> struggle in the southern hemisphere and I am more than willing to
> listen to someone who could fill me in.

Well, don't take me for a pundit. Just read the old classics, and you
will have a first inroad. On the other hand, the archives of this list
are dripping full of debates where these issues have been touched. It
is not a matter of chance: Marxists can't avoid debating the basic
issues once and again.

> Ultimately, I am confused and perplexed by what appears to be an
> ulta-Left position that attacks all in the colonizer nation, unites
> with the military of the colonized, and provides little room for
> short term remedies. It seems to me that the goal is not revolution
> but equality and social justice. It is in that context that we
> probably hold the greatest differences.

Not at all. I am not attacking the brave Spanish workers (though I
could easily attack their racist consciousness of life, a racism which
I witnessed in person during the early years after the "privatization"
of our national utilities) who from time to time stand against their
bourgeoisie. Neither do I "unite" with Pinochet, or with Videla. What
I am saying, however, is that the Spanish bourgeoisie and the
imperialist _bourgeoisies_ are in the end one and the same thing with
Videla or Pinochet. I claim to have the exclusive right (I mean, not
myself, of course: I claim this right for my people) to judge Videla
or Pinochet. And of course, the goal is equality and social
justice. The problem here, however, is that in order to arrive at such
a Paradise we must have a revolution here.

As Deutscher said of Russia before 1917: if you wanted to marry the
woman you loved, you had to be a Darwinist. In Latin America, and most
of all in Argentina, where capitalism has given all of itself and
cannot give anything else, if we just want a bit of equality and
social justice we must be strong revolutionaries. That is the
situation. Of course, we can always accept to fall a little bit every
day, and thus sink further in misery and nonexistence.

The question is, maybe we don't want to suffer that.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list