answer from someone speaking from " the exuberance and iconoclasm and charming arrogance of youth"Re: THE LEFT MUST END PERONISM IN ARGENTINA

Eduardo Enriquez eldiablito666 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 16 22:30:35 MDT 2001


--- Lou Paulsen <wwchi at enteract.com> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Enriquez <eldiablito666 at yahoo.com>
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> <marxism at lists.panix.com>
>
>
> [message including stuff from the Encarta
> Encyclopedia snipped]
>
> You want to be a leftist - ok, that's good.  But you
> came on here in August
> writing about how all of the whole preceding history
> of the left is crap, up
> till the Zapatistas.

i mean when did i say that or even something
resembling that. if i've said something is that the
oppressed achieve real emancipation when they
themselves fight for it. in western europe the left
wing parties such as the communist parties and the
socialist and social democratic parties have been
parties of masses and have more or less excempt of
personality cults of damaging importance. if i am
critical of FARC is because these people don't have
the support of the colombian peasants but actually
have their hate and i dont think it is because of
right wing propaganda since these same peasants have
been immigrating in masse from their land to neighbor
Ecuador tired and scared of the FARC constant
massacres many times in pretext of supposed symphathy
to the paramilitares.
One of the most important things that marxism has
taught me is to have a critical and also a
self-critical attitude toward things. because i claim
alledgance to the left in politics does not mean i
will accept and support everything done by anyone who
calls himself or herself a leftist. in the case of
FARC for example we don't just have innefectiveness in
improving the situation of the colombian peasants but
even worse the FARC has become one more problem for
them on top of the ones they already had before.

You wrote off the FARC as some
> kind of evil criminal
> gang.

yes.

I suppose you have to also write off the
> Sandinistas since they are
> in solidarity with the FARC.

no, because the Sandinistas are not killing the ones
they supposdely represent or fight for like the FARC
do, and also because during the sandinistas rebellion
againts the Somozas, they had the support of those
directly affected unlike the FARC which almost never
had it. if a movement or other has more support or
less by those directly affected will depend on how
many of the directly affected are involved in the
movement and also how many of them are in leadership
positions. this is why the FARC is not successful and
why the sandinistas were.

Everyone else
> everywhere in the whole
> worldwide communist movement has been sunk in error
> until you came along to
> tell us to move to an "examination of the latter
> economistic "structuralist"
> Marx against the early humanistic young Marx."

this is an old issue which of course i didnt raise
first. if someone just decides to devour Marx's
writings and follow them letter by letter without
thinking on the historical background and also on the
cirscuntances in which he wrote then that person has
embraced marxism not as a critque that will helpp you
in action but almost as someone who blindily follows a
religion. the importance of the economistic error can
be proved in the failure of the Sovie Union in which
apart from the excessive concentration of power in few
hands(of which of course leninism is very guilty)these
Marxists made the following mistake:

"According to the materialistic conception of history,
the ultimately determining element in history is the
production and reproduction of real life. More than
this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if
somebody twists this into saying the the economic
element is the only determining one, he transforms
that proposition into a meaningless, abstract,
senseless phrase. the economic situation is the basis,
but the various elelments of the
superstructure:political forms of the class struggle
and its results, to wit: constitutions established by
the victorious class after a successful battle, etc.,
judicial forms, and then even the reflexes of the
actual struggles in the brains of the participants,
political, juristic, philosophicsl theories, religious
views and their further development into systems of
dogmas, also excercise their influence upon the course
of the historical struggles and in many cases
preponderate in determining their form....
 and i cannotexcempt many of the more recent
"Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing
rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too."

               Friedrich Engels

                Letter to Joseph Bloch.
                  (London, September 21-22, 1890)


  Now
> you attempt to refute
> Nestor, who has been in the struggle in Argentina
> for decades, with an
> article from the Encarta Encylopedia which was
> probably a freebie when you
> bought your computer!!!

i didnt use an article from bill Gates'Microsoft just
because is the only book i have with me. i used it to
show how something even coming from that front accepts
the fact of Juan Perons admiration of a character like
Benito Mussolinni and also his depuration of left wing
influence from argentinian trade unions. Mr. Nestor
has in many times defended a charachter like Juan
Peron which is not seen in good eyes by most leftist
and certainly not latin american ones and also within
argentina itself. That the Encarta article faces this
facts and that MR. Nestor does not well......

If you get your
> understanding of the political
> history of Argentina from Encarta, where are you
> getting your understanding
> of the FARC?  MSNBC.com??



 Where are you getting
> your understanding of Lenin
> and Mao?  Was that in Encarta also?  There are no
> words to tell you how
> unimpressive this all is.  You are going to overturn
> all of the old
> "orthodoxies" of the left by referring us to the
> immortal words of
> Microsoft.
>
well then have this Noam Chomsky please from an
interview

"RBR: The importance of grassroots democracy to any
meaningful change in society would seem to be self
evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous about this in
the past. I'm speaking generally, of social democracy,
but also of Bolshevism -- traditions on the left that
would seem to have more in common with elitist
thinking than with strict democratic practice. Lenin,
to use a well-known example, was sceptical that
workers could develop anything more than trade union
consciousness- by which, I assume, he meant that
workers could not see far beyond their immediate
predicament. Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice
Webb, who was very influential in the Labour Party in
England, had the view that workers were only
interested in horse racing odds! Where does this
elitism originate and what is it doing on the left?

CHOMSKY: I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this.
If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,'
then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in
my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that
workers are only interested in horse-racing is an
absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial
look at labour history or the lively and independent
working class press that flourished in many places,
including the manufacturing towns of New England not
many miles from where I'm writing -- not to speak of
the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of
persecuted and oppressed people throughout history,
until this very moment. Take the most miserable corner
of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded by the European
conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small
part of Europe's wealth, now devastated, perhaps
beyond recovery. In the past few years, under
conditions so miserable that few people in the rich
countries can imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers
constructed a popular democratic movement based on
grassroots organisations that surpasses just about
anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed
commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when
they hear the solemn pronouncements of American
intellectuals and political leaders about how the US
has to teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their
achievements were so substantial and frightening to
the powerful that they had to be subjected to yet
another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more
US support than is publicly acknowledged, and they
still have not surrendered. Are they interested only
in horse-racing?

I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from
Rousseau: when I see multitudes of entirely naked
savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure
hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only
their independence, I feel that it does not behoove
slaves to reason about freedom. ".......

interviewer: Specifically, Leninism refers to a form
of marxism that developed with V.I. Lenin. Are you
implicitly distinguishing the works of Marx from the
particular criticism you have of Lenin when you use
the term 'Leninism'? Do you see a continuity between
Marx's views and Lenin's later practices?

CHOMSKY: Bakunin's warnings about the Red bureaucracy
that would institute the worst of all despotic
governments were long before Lenin, and were directed
against the followers of Mr. Marx. There were, in
fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek,
Luxembourg, Mattick and others are very far from
Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of
anarcho-syndicalism. Korsch and others wrote
sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain,
in fact. There are continuities from Marx to Lenin,
but there are also continuities to Marxists who were
harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. Teodor
Shanin's work in the past years on Marx's later
attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant
here. I'm far from being a Marx scholar, and wouldn't
venture any serious judgement on which of these
continuities reflects the 'real Marx,' if there even
can be an answer to that question.



> I am all for the exuberance and iconoclasm and
> charming arrogance of youth,
> but in your case it has dialectically transformed
> itself into its opposite
> pretty much completely.
>
> Lou Paulsen

allright then i leave you to support the FARC if you
want and i will stay rather on the side of the
Zapatistas and the CONAIE in Ecuador. not only because
these movements have the people directly affected
leading them and behind them but also because they
have already achieved results( and with few blood
spilled) unlike your beloved FARC.

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message



More information about the Marxism mailing list