Answers to David S.

David Schanoes dmsch at
Sun Jan 19 15:19:55 MST 2003


My readings of the accounts of the disappearances indicates that many of the
bodies were dropped over the Pacific, due to the location of the
interrogation centers.  I will review the archives recently released by
Georgetown University to see if I misread it. It's possible.

On the other issues, such as they are.  There is no doubt that the Argentine
military sought to embrace the same people they were murdering just weeks
before.  And from that we are supposed to conclude what?  I have no doubt
that Galtieri embraced as a tactic  those who were anathema to advanced
capitalism.  And so what?

What was the class nature of the Argentine military junta?  Were they
arresting and disappearing the bourgeoisie?  Were they redistributing
bankers' children?  Or was it the draconian manifestastion of the ownership
of the means of production as private property?  Did the Argentine Junta
expropriate Ford Motor in Argentina when the US supported Britain?  No.  Did
it expropriate Daimler Benz?  No.  And I don't know, but did Unilever have
any property in Argentina?  Was that expropriated.  Was British property
seized?  Please advise.

I have never come across any mention of such an action against the
imperialists on behalf of a national front taken by the Junta.

As far as distinctions between globalization and imperialism.  The analysis
of imperialism and the program for self-determination developed before
during after the RR has proven highly problematic.  First and foremost, the
RR itself, half-imperialist half imperialized absolutely disproved the
viability of a national front and a national bourgeoisie and the record of
the Chinese Revolution, the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in the 1920s
adds to that proof.   Yes, we can point to Mao's victory and the Vietnamese
victory  but you're going to half to account for substantive actions taken
by a national bourgeoisie in combatting imperialism.  And the record there
is sparse to say the least.

In Cuba, as ill-defined "ideologically" as the July 26th  movement was,
combat was borne by those attacking the institutions of the national
bourgeoisie (bankrolled by the US), the police, the military, etc.  The
combat was supported by the rural and urban poor.  And after a assuming
power, the revolution acted without regard to a national front.

Another item, if we are going to attribute the success of the Chinese,
Vietnamese, Angolan, struggles to the national front tactic, then we must
confront the decay and disintegration of those social gains and locate them,
or at least a part of them within the nature of the revolution itself.  I
understand how theoretical that may appear, but that's inherent to the logic
of capital and its overthrow.

IF you think imperialism is somehow a radically different development of
capitalism, somehow changes the structure and relations of production so
that a cross-class institution, let's say a Duma or a Constituent Assembly
or a national military can assume revolutionary significance then you have
need to show how those relations are now different, and how the
manifestation of resistance, perhaps first as a cry  for self-determination
or civil liberties, how this form, is the true and final content and simply
the residue, the cry of something still-born in its appearance.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list