Some geopolitical tthinking [RE: [Marxism] TheLatin American-USRealignment

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon May 10 05:46:17 MDT 2004


Oh, no. Look, Huato, I've got more important things to do. And this 
is just to clear a couple of things up. Tony Abdo -who has on-the-
spot knowledge of the issues at stake- has already answered you 
better than I could have done.  So that just to clear the 
undergrowth, here I go:

Respuesta a: Re: Some geopolitical tthinking [RE
Remitido por: Julio Huato
Fecha: Lunes 10 de Mayo de 2004 
Hora: 0:09
*****

> 
> Implying that people from the "North" of Mexico, unlike -- say -- people 
> from the "South," are economically, socially, or politically disposed to 
> submit to the U.S. -- to align the country's foreign policy to U.S. designs, 
> etc. -- is a myth.  There's no basis for this.

I am not talking of "people". I am talking of Fox, who is the array 
of a peculiar set of "Northern Mexico" (shorthand, further expanded 
below) interests impersonated.  

_You_ know what I meant, Julio. Why are you throwing the ball out of 
the field?  Because you know that I am right, namely, that the 
bourgeoisie in Northern Mexico is more than happy to act against the 
country if need be, when it comes to make profits by selling Mexico 
out in order to become a junior partner to the imperialist 
bourgeoisie of the United States.

As to geography: when I say "the North" I am not thinking of a line 
dryly drawn on the land as if created with the land itself, but of a 
complex of dynamic forces which tend to generate a new division out 
of the division that could be prepared in a different epoch.  This is 
so because, it happens, I am a geographer myself and know a little 
bit of the basic tools in my trade.  Namely, I know that the idea 
that "geography" is an unchanging structure and that "geographical 
regions" are built in nature itself is a very old bourgeois idea 
which no serious geographer adheres to any more.  

Just to give a simple example, from my own country: the Pampa region 
did not exist before the late 19th century.  It was _made appear_ by 
human action.  The "Missions region", conversely, existed during 
three centuries, and has now become a matter of things past.  Same 
with "North, Central, South" Mexico.  I am thinking of "Northern 
Mexico" the way Marx and Engels thought of "the American South":  an 
ideal to fight for, or against.  A fact of history, not of geography. 
 Er, sorry: a fact of history, _thus_ of geography.  I know the work 
by Bassols very well.  At best, one must say it has been superseded 
by reality (re: what follows).

It is not a matter of "fuzzy conventions at our fancy", but of the 
basics of dialectical method: from the general to the particular, and 
back. 
> 

> That said, I responded to Néstor Gorojovsky's categorical statement about 
> the regional division of Mexico along socio-economic lines.  The economic 
> geography of Mexico has been well studied by serious people, starting with 
> the old-school Communist (Stalinist), Angel Basols Batallas, the pioneer in 
> the study of Mexico's regions.  It is well established where the lines 
> should be drawn.  Of course, with fuzzy conventions of our fancy, we can 
> always "prove" that up is down and left is right.


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