An letter to Against the Current

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
Mon May 21 23:07:25 MDT 2001


En relación a Re: An letter to Against the Current, el 21 May 01, a
las 9:22, Patrick Bond dijo:

> > Date:          Sun, 20 May 2001 23:00:43 -0400
> > From:          Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar>
> > reserve support for the "crunch situation". But INSIDE the country,
> > the division between a national movement and a movement which opposes
> > it is not sporadic. It is always there, and it should be a basic task
> > of any serious Leftist to enhance its relevance even in the times when
> > the lines get blurred.
> 
> And what happens when the mass of the working class actively line up 
> against the allegedly "national movement"?

Well, this is what has been stated on the paragraph you reply to, dear
friend: it is the duty of the Leftist to fight against this
understandable tendency. It is not our duty to fall down to the
circumstantial deep holes in which the consciousnes of the masses fall
from time to time. That is why we are sometimes called "a
vanguard". We must be able to fight arm with arm with the workers,
and, at the same time, tell them "if we follow the way you are
proposing, we are killed".

>  The presumption by Jenyan, Grinker and Nestor is that the
> Zimbabwean working class is simply duped in its desire for
> democratic rights.  This underestimates the maturity of the struggle
> there since the first mass workers' protests began in 1996, and
> since the ZanuPF government began screwing workers from the early
> 1980s and the trade union movement from the late 1980s.

Not at all. To begin with, I always begin by stating that I am
ignorant of the details of what is going on in Zimbabwe. What I am
saying is that working class people, as people from any other class,
may simply be "wrong" (against what standard, by the way?). We
Marxists accept this, with the caveat that it is (a) in the full,
concrete, totality where we must look for the burning candle of
revolution, and that (b) it is through an analysis of the concrete
interests of ALL classes in the situation that we can define a line of
action. Stressing a single point (be it higher wages, less political
oppression, etc.) is a mistake.

> 
> > Thus, a
> > revolutionary politician in these our countries 
> 
> Who do you mean, when you are thinking of Zimbabwe?

Pray, Patrick, I am not _thinking of Zimbabwe_. I am just making a
general point. But as a general guide, I would suggest that even the
most corrupt and fearful leader who is oppossed by a coalition whose
only concrete glue is the action of imperialism should be supported. I
know that you don't agree. This does not make us enemies.

[snipped to avoid redundancy]

> Can't you comrades recognise the difference between a real 
> nationalist, and a Mugabe? What kind of evidence would you want me to 
> share with you?

Dear Patrick, sometimes the individuals at stake are not what should
be considered in the first place. This is why I am trying to generate
a thread on the issue of the "national movement" as a
historic-political category.

Hug,

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list