Against all hopes...

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at
Sun Jan 19 17:00:02 MST 2003

... and because it is raining, the CD player is broken, so is the
VCR, I have already read the Sunday papers twice and I have nothing
more interesting to do in this Sunday afternoon, will try to explain
some ABC to David.

To judge from his answer to my answers, he has been swimming for a
long way through the waters of Marxism and has emerged quite dry.

But never forget Lenin: politics is a matter of patience. Only that I
prefer to reserve that patience to more immediate issues now.

David sayeth:


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."

Most interrogation centers were located around the great Argentinean
conurbations, which means around Córdoba, Rosario and Buenos Aires On
the other hand, death flights were basically a matter of the Navy.
There was _no possibility at all_ that Argentinean planes could
overfly Chilean territory from, say, Mendoza, in any hypothetical
death flight over the Pacific. Dear David, stop making a fool of
yourself by explaining that you "will review the archives recently
released by Georgetown University to see if I misread it". Don't
waste your time, don't try to overwhelm us with your "scientific
seriousness". You will convince nobody. I simply caught you
defenceless, and I demonstrated that you are talking about a country
whose map you don't even manage.

Then, David goes on:

"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?"

[Again. "And so what"? This is so deplorably mediocre that I am
almost beginning to think of stopping here. But it is still raining,
TV is a chore, the CD player is broken, anyway, and so is the VCR...
so that on with the job!]

What we are supposed to conclude (by "we" I mean those who are not
utter sectarians) is that, once again as it happened many times in
Latin America, as it is currently happening in Brazil and Venezuela,
and will happen again and again, when the military confront the
necessities of national defence they discover imperialism. Guns that
were pointing at my chest began to point at British soldiery's
chests. Military who took _me and my fellow countrypeople_ as _the_
enemy began to see imperialist armies and countries rise against
them. "And so what"? What kind of a question is this "and so what" in
someone who believes to be a Marxist? Should I enlarge my
explanation, or let us better stop here, for the sake of David's

Later on, David makes a question that even in its naïve formulation
might bring some truth to our mind:

"What was the class nature of the Argentine military junta?  Were
they arresting and disappearing the bourgeoisie?"

Bingo and surprise, David!  They certainly _did_ persecute the
bourgeoisie. What's more: they persecuted, outlawed, deprived of
citizenship and forced into exile the last group of patriotic
bourgeois, the Gelbard group, who had attempted a progressive
patriotic economic plan under Perón in 1974, a plan which included a
particular form of agrarian reform in order to ensure that the plan
could go ahead.

Ask Fidel Castro, by the way, what does he think about that
_bourgeois_, Gelbard.

The Broner family were also forced into Venezuelan exile, and many
bourgeois were disappeared, like the Vogeliuses. As a matter of
chance, I happen to have been a classmate of one of the Broners,
Edgardo. He was a member of the Communist Party. No surprise, in
fact, because Gelbard himself (Perón's Minister of Economy!) was a
"secret member" of the Communist Party and all the bourgeois group
behind him had very strong Marxist background.

But this is not the core of the issue. The core of the issue was the
class character not "of the Junta" (grossly speaking, the Juntas were
-as all the military here- of upper or middle petty bourgeois stuff,
save for Videla who belonged to a decaying oligarchic family) but the
class character _of the Regime_. The Regime was a terrorist
oligarchic-imperialist regime with a central hegemony of the
financial sector. That is what the regime was.  And that is why it
was so important that the military did not deepen the confrontation
against imperialism. Because this confrontation might bring about a
quite different military dictatorship.

I will -full of heavenly grace towards David- skip the damned silly
question that follows:

"Were they redistributing bankers' children?",

as if "democratic" Israeli generals would be less criminals and
imperialists because they maim and torture children of the
Palestinian bourgeoisie. This is, again, petty bourgeois
moralization. But let us step ahead to what follows.

After explaining that the Junta was not progressive... because they
did not redistribute banker's children (agh, how "deep" David's class
analysis can be)! (1), he asks slyly:

"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."

Metaphysical sectarianism. Of course they did _not_, and that is why
the war was lost. But if the war had not been quelled by those who
were _against Galtieri's decission not to cave in (remember all this
began with Galtieri?), then they might have done it. That is
precisely why Galtieri was overthrown, dear David! That is exactly
what Haig saw, and you, you blindfolded petty bourgeois "Leftish"
brat, can't see!!!!!

But this is not all. Later on, we have David at his best: he attempts
to defend his ultra-leftist position as a theoretical point. His
defense is quite clumsy, but I will try to disentangle it from

"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? Why? Please expand, or maybe explain yourself in clear words.
Plain English. Don't forget I am a foreigner.

"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."

The scarecrow tactics again. I have _never_ said that a national
bourgeoisie might ever defeat imperialism. As to "substantive
actions" taken by a national bourgeoisie, or rather by a national
bourgeois leader within the national front (which is not a "tactics",
but is an _objective fact_ of the social constitution of every
semicolonial country, only that it is a fact that must be taken to
consciousness in the same way that the actual meaning of "salary"
must be taken to consciousness, that is by political action), allow
me to bring to your mind that even the Kuo Min Tang fought hard
battles against Japanese imperialism. Of course, they were not "holy"
battles. Not the kind of battle David would love. But people died in
those battles. Bourgeois and non bourgeois alike. I wonder whether
David has ever considered the possibility that people may matter at
all in history and politics. The "sparseness" of the record, anyway,
does not matter me, because since I have never relied on the national
bourgeoisie, I can't be blamed for defending it. Let the bourgeois
defend the bourgeois and let the worker and peasant lead the struggle
for national and social liberation. This is all I can say on the
subject above.

"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

Ignorance at its peak. Where did you read this version of the Cuban
Revolution? Did you know that the American Establishment considered
Fidel Castro one of them? No, of course you don't. But if you are
still intending to search Georgetown U., then go and try to find
Castro's bio by Jules Dubois. Who was Jules Dubois? A CIA colonel.
And please read that bio carefully, David. There are more things on
Earth than your sectarian outlook may imagine...

"And after a assuming power, the revolution acted without regard to a
national front."

Ignorance again. The Revolution was, basically, a "peasant
revolution", as acknowledged by the Che himself. How can a socialist
revolution and a peasant revolution become one without a "national

What happens to you, dear David, is that you suffer from that
"national=bourgeois" fixation so characteristic of ultra-leftists the
world over. "Suffer from", in the way people can "suffer from"
measles. A "childhood illness", as Lenin put it.  Illness or not,
however, these positions side you with those who act against national
movements in the semicolonial world, that is with the Pentagon. Sorry
to tell you this, but facts are stubborn.

"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

Oh, God Almighty and all His Saints!!!! Who on Earth you think to be,
David?????  The above is not "theoretical". It is simply
disrespectful. To millions of people, not to me. I am not at stake
here. It is the whole historic record of the revolutions of the 20th.
Century that David, the Olympic Demi-God (Demi?), judges in a
sentence. We could as well poke at David's nose the terrible dramas
of the German Revolution of 1919 and 1923, the Paris Commune, the
horrorous defeat of the Worker's Councils in Northern Italy, the
Hungarian Commune, and many other enormous defeats where "tactics"
that were not "national front tactics" were "followed". But we shall
not do this, because all those defeats and all the victories we feel
to be _ours_.

Because it is not a matter of choosing "tactics" from a box, David.
It is a matter of clasping the actual forces at play in history, step
out from your bedroom or office or wherever you are thinking, and
plunge into that mighty ocean of political and historic action. We
are not "confronting tactics" here, not me at least. Those academic
exercises are unworthy of a serious revolutionary. And I try to
become one.

Later on, David explains us that "imperialism does not exist" or
that, at most, it is a brand name for a particular period of the
history of capitalism:

"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."

Wow, what a Hegelian sounding... emptiness! Do I think "imperialism"
to be... how do you put it?, yes, "somehow a radically different
development of capitalism, somehow changes the structure and
relations of production"?

It is capitalism, of course. But there is a difference between self-
centered and extro-verted capitalism. We are not talking at the
abstract level of _modes of production_ here, but at the concrete
level of capitalist social (or socio-economic, if you prefer, David)
_formations_. The difference between both kinds of capitalist
formation lies (a) in the ability of an economy to generate by itself
the capital it needs to reproduce the economic cycle (and to enlarge
production), and (b) narrowly linked to it, in the necessary
relationship between of wages and the profits under the conditions of
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

All this is arcane to you, David, I guess. So that I will definitely
stop here. Unless you can doubtlessly prove that you have read all
the material I told you to read on a previous posting (add to it
Lenin's _Development of Capitalism in Russia_ and all three volumes
of _Capital_), I won't waste my time with you any more. Even though
it is still raining outside, the CD player is broken and so is the
VCR. I have decided that a good cup of wine is much more interesting
than debating with you. The fact is, I have decided not to give
classes of elementary Marxism for free, never again. Maybe you can
find someone else on this list.


(1) This is doubtful by the way because they disappeared people
to ALL classes in Argentina, even children of military reactionaries
belonging to oligarchic families such as General Julio Alsogaray...
so that
what could have happened to their eventual offspring is not different
what happened to other people's offspring.

If David knew what a _terror_ regime is he would not be surprised.
But he
is lucky enough not to have lived through one, and pedantic enough
not to
try to learn what they actually are. The core of terror lies,
precisely, in
that "mistakes" are made and "good" people are killed. The core of
lies in that _not even the members of the dominant class are safe_ in
order to impose discipline on the whole society.

Try to learn about Sylla and Caesar in Rome, perhaps this will help
you, David.

But I doubt it.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"Aquel que no está orgulloso de su origen no valdrá nunca
nada porque empieza por depreciarse a sí mismo".
Pedro Albizu Campos, compatriota puertorriqueño de todos
los latinoamericanos.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list