[Marxism] [Fwd: Katz and Zamora]

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Wed Feb 11 14:51:10 MST 2004


Respuesta a: Re: [Marxism] [Fwd: Katz and Zamora
Remitido por: Johannes Schneider
Fecha: Miércoles 11 de Febrero de 2004 
Hora: 16:35
*****

> Louis Proyect wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > Katz's article outlines 3 distinct political actors:
> >
> > 1. US imperialism, which pushes the FTAA.
> >
> > 2. Kirchner/Lula and their allies, who are promoting a 'social' Mercosur 
> > more responsive to the needs of the poor.
> >
> > 3. A anti-imperialist front that would "halt the payment of the foreign 
> > debt", etc.
> >
> > Of the three positions, I favor the third but it is important to draw a 
> > contrast between positions 1 and 2. [...]
> 
> Anyone who does not, would be an idiot. But does this mean an alliance 
> between 2 and 3 to fight 1 is possible?
> I doubt the chance for such an alliance: Given the various ties between 
> the "national" bourgeoisie and imperialism it strikes me as an utopian 
> idea. The intentions of the Chilean government to negotiate a seperate 
> agreement with the US is a sign for that.

The problem lies in what do you mean by "national"  bourgeoisie here. 
 In fact, in more senses than one Kirchner is beginning to appear as 
one of the multiple possibilities for an "alliance between 2 and 3".  
The Chilean example is not the best one. When considering a dependent 
economy-social formation, the first thing one has to do is to 
identify what is the interest of imperialism there. Once you did it, 
you have at least half your problems solved. Because you will 
certainly find a party (or an array of parties) _within_ the 
dependent formation which will defend the interests of imperialism, 
either with right-wing or left-wing verbiage.

In Chile, today, the party of imperialism is the party of copper and 
a few agrarian exports, which account for 50% of the country's 
economy. Not every bourgeois in Chile depends on this, and a 
"bourgeois" model, a "capitalist" model towards independence, 
certainly does not.  The current Chilean govm't, no matter how 
'socialist' it still loves to call itself, follows the imperialist 
path, does not discuss at all the global insertion of dependent 
Chile, and in this sense works against, say, the fraction of the 
bourgeoisie that would thrive in a vibrant domestic market.

The Arg. and Br. governments are not "social", they are simply 
*bourgeois*, in a historic perspective. The Chilean govm't is an 
*oligarchic* govm't. This makes a tremendous difference. And failure 
to understand this puts leftists once again off the good track when 
speaking of Latin America.  It may sound ugly to Europeans or 
Americans, but *bourgeois* government are worthy of Marxist support 
in the 3rd. World.

And please let us not begin to speak on the Canton Massacre of 1927, 
etc. I am not talking about acritical support...

> Lula's austerity measures (e.g. the pension reform) shows there is little 
> political space for an alliance between 2 and 3.
> 
> Johannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism



Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list