[Marxism] Re: The Latin American-US Realignment

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Mon May 10 09:50:17 MDT 2004


In a message dated 5/10/2004 8:54:05 AM Central Standard Time, 
juliohuato at hotmail.com writes:

>You take the genuine, legitimate aspiration of Mexicans 
to seek a modicum of well-being and turn it upside down and perceive it as 
shameful Bambi-bedazzlement about U.S. power and wealth.  Yours is 
Puritanism under a leftist cloak.  Let me tell you something -- Mexicans 
will keep making the best choices they can under the circumstances.  If you 
want to help them, help them as they may ask to be helped.  If you don't 
want to help, get out of the way.  For what I can tell, their choices don't 
include folding to the imperial policy of the United States.  Not anytime 
soon.  The government of Mexico will come around, one way or another. <

Comment

Wow. Deeply impressed by this response and the article about your life 
experience - which is substantial. Most or many of us have impressive credentials 
and the purpose is not a "pissing contest" but to describe the environment and 
history - content, in which we arrived at Marxism. Lou P, for instance has 
impressive "credentials" that allowed him to arrive at "Moderator" in the course 
of years of debate, failed efforts, false starts and so on. 

The personal narrative expresses some changes in the ideological sphere and 
what seems to me to be a search for authenticity. Kind of like being asked 
"what are your street credentials." 

The quote from Jurriaan was on the mark. Actually, I agreed with the entire 
article the quote from which the quote comes . . . from a different 
perspective. The victor writes the official history. 

It is clear to most of us that in their relentless pursuit of work - life, 
liberty and a chance at happiness, the Mexican worker has changed the face of 
America. This pursuit is driven by the imperial exploitation of Mexico and the 
entire hemisphere by my own bourgeoisie. 

The controversy concerning the class forces and their political grouping in 
Iraq has been interesting. I personally am compelled to error on the side of 
silence, rather than run the risk of being labeled an imperial scoundrel. 

What is very clear is that the old Communist Parties of Iraq, I mean America 
- or rather the period of the Third International and later the period of the 
last stage of quantitative expansion of the industrial system are obsolete and 
useless. It seems that we may perhaps can no longer pose the emerging class 
conflicts in terms like "the self determination of the Iraqi peoples."  

"US troops out of everywhere" is not a demand for self determination but our 
fight on this soil to stay the hand of the murderous bourgeoisie. We are about 
the business of fighting along a trajectory and not telling peoples how to 
live, although are natural inclination is towards communist in all countries in 
line with the overwhelming need to defeat the bourgeois property relations. 
The struggle in Iraq is complex and a sector of insurgents have every intention 
of maintaining the bourgeois property relations on behalf of themselves and 
their imperial masters. 

It is not wrong to point this out. It is however a mistake for any of us to 
go beyond the specific state of development of the communist insurgency in 
"other countries." We are in a very delicate position in the most imperial of all 
imperial countries. Comrades tend "to go too far" and I commit the same error 
in the other direction by being silent. 

I of course enjoy your writings - even material with a different vantage 
point than mine, because they are always grounded in the standpoint of Marx. 


Melvin P. 




More information about the Marxism mailing list