lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Apr 29 18:38:29 MDT 2002
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:44:12 -0700, Alternative wrote:
>Richard did not post a document from Moreno, but
>from the group dominated by Santucho which was a
>different animal altogether. Among the
That's really interesting. I missed this completely. I assumed that
since Richard worked closely with Joe Hansen that he was citing the
Moreno PRT. I wasn't aware that the Santucho current had this
analysis. I was more aware of their Guevarism.
>This is not a quote from 1945, but a distorted
>quote from an article in 1949 - originally
>misquoted and took out of context by Politica
>Obrera (today Partido Obrero) in a rather
>sectarian and useless history of the Argentinean
>working class. As a matter of fact, Louis link
Carlos, this does not really settle the question. I posted this at
work today where I don't have access to my library. Now that I am at
home, I can cite Moreno from Robert Alexander's "Trotskyism in Latin
America", where he says that his organization made "many sectarian
errors" with respect to Peron that were subsequently corrected after
1954. I agree with Moreno. There were sectarian errors whether or not
the Revolutionary History citation is completely accurate or not. I
assume that Alexander was citing Moreno accurately.
>I'm sorry to say, but in terms of working class
>gains (1946-1955) Peron does not fall short of
>Castro. Castro does. In terms of organization
>Moreno falls short of Castro. In terms of
>Marxist understanding Castro falls short of
Not only are you sorry to say, I am sorry to hear.
>This is departing from the negative, which
>constructs very little. Louis could, for
>example, put forward the model that worked ....
>but it is none since capitalism is still
>standing and dominates the world.
>Stalinism and Socialdemocracy, anarchism and
>Trotskyism, Sandinismo and Hugo Blanco ... they
>all failed to defeat capitalism and imperialism
>and "move that process forward socialism",
>therefore, following Louis logic, we should
>reject all of them. Why to single out the only
>of those currents which did not hegemonize state
>political power ... yet?
Where does the Cuban revolution fit into the above menu? Frankly, I'd
rather study how the July 26th movement came to power than what any
Trotskyist group in Latin America has done to maintain revolutionary
continuity with Marx and Engels. The one thing that Castro dispensed
with is the notion that he was leading some sort of vanguard because
he had a correct understanding of The Russian Question. If as a law
student he had hooked up with one or another wing of the Fourth
International, he would have remained an obscure figure and the
people of Cuba would be unfree today.
>everyone. Writing off these works and experience
>based on the assertion of failed "vanguard"
>parties or as "useless" is maybe an effective
>way to avoid a discussion, but is not convincing
>nor will move any "process forward socialism."
>In a previous discussion, Louis clarified that
>he does not think the Permanent Revolution
>theory was useful and he stated categorically
>that he reject it. Without much of an
No, I do not reject Trotsky's book that was a probing examination of
class relations in Czarist Russia and that projected the dynamic of
the coming revolution. The "theory" of the Permanent Revolution, on
the other hand, is a sterile proclamation that unless a revolution is
socialist, it can not succeed. This theory is usually advanced from
afar. Very afar.
Louis Proyect, lnp3 at panix.com on 04/29/2002
Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism