[Marxism] A final couple of points on Mexico and Latin America

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Thu May 13 06:36:23 MDT 2004


Respuesta a: [Marxism] Reply to Julio RE: Mexican and US Gover
Remitido por: Tony Abdo
Fecha: Jueves 13 de Mayo de 2004 
Hora: 0:49
*****

Tony, answering Julio H.:

> Let's begin with the dramatic proclamation that "Mexico is somehow or
> other lost, so to say, for Latin America (which means "for revolution")"
> that you agree with.>>
> 
> But I don't agree with that.  I'm not even sure what that means, Julio. 
> 'Lost' permanently, or just lost for a few upcoming years?  It depends.  I
> think that this comment that has a certain exagerated hyperbole to it, and
> that this is what offends you most. But it was not mine, and I am not sure
> what either you are Nestor see in such a phrase.
> 

I wrote the sentence, and I can expand, so everyone, Tony included, 
can decide whether they agree with it, or not:

I meant that, for a long period and generally speaking, we cannot 
count on Mexican revolutionaries to remember that their basic task is 
to struggle for Latin American unity.  This is a consequence of the 
heavy weight of US and pro-US policies on the DF (and similar) petty 
bourgeoisie.  It will be easier to find consistent Latin Americanism 
among the Mexican bourgeois than among its progressives. The Latin 
American trend in Mexican politics may well be waning for a whole 
period, and PRD is substituting their flavorless "Globalized Leftism" 
for it.  This is _exactly_ what I meant. 

We Argentineans have had a very long experience with "progressives" 
turned imperialist sycophants. In fact, on December 19-20, 2001, it 
was among others exactly against these progressives that we and took 
the streets.  Had Huato been an Argentinean, he would have supported 
Chacho Álvarez, and thus given his "democratic" vote to bring de la 
Rúa to Presidency, stressing moralistic issues in order not to speak 
of the foreign debt, or at the very least of the necessity to put an 
end to the industry-killing fixed one dollar/one peso exchange rate.

Yes, we _do_ know these progressives.  There is a saying among 
working class Argentineans:  "No hay peor trompa que un progre", 
which means "No boss is worse than a 'progressive' boss".

Back to Mexico, however.  Mexico has had a most important role, 
during many decades, in the construction of a Latin American unified 
nation.  The "Peruvian" APRA (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria 
Americana) was founded in Mexico, under Obregón.  And many Mexican 
politicians, particularly in the Left wing of the PRI, had a keen 
Latin American consciousness. 

It is this consciousness, more than anything else, which (for 
example) made Mexico the single L.A. country which kept links with 
Cuba after 1960, and it was this same consciousness which turned it 
into an exceptional haven for the politically persecuted in L.A.  The 
experience of the early and mid 70s, when Mexico received hundreds 
and thousands of persecuted from the South Cone, would hardly be 
repeated today.  Those who earnestly helped our people and gave them 
their hospitality might now take care of themselves, eye the North 
with some disgust and some fear, and explain their guests that they 
may probably fare better elsewhere.  This is a supposition, of 
course. But I would not rule it out for sentimental reasons.  The old 
times are over, for a whole period the duration of which we cannot 
foresee.

I hope I made myself clear.  I am not saying that there is _no hope_ 
and that Latin America has "lost Mexico".  How could I? Even if this 
were true, which it certainly isn't, this admission would equate to 
recognizing a defeat before it takes place officially (say, Mexico 
becomes "51st" or "51st, 52nd, 53rd" state(s)).

Sometimes, I even wonder whether the sheer facts of demography and 
migration will not -in the very long run- bring a good deal of former 
Mexican land in the US "back to Latin America", through the most 
democratic means (of course, I am thinking of a far away future where 
socialism has already superseded capitalism in the Western 
Hemisphere, so that even the Latin American nation -as all nations- 
will by those times begin to lose any importance it might have 
acquired in the process).

I am convinced that there is _all the hope_ that Mexico will return 
to the path it has left during the last ten years or so, when the 
inside rot finally spurted out of the PRI and this strangely 
conservative political legacy of the Mexican Revolution began to 
crack down presumably for ever.  But I stress that _in order for that 
hope to realistically take place_, it will be most necessary that a 
"Regional Bloc of Power" comes to life in South America.  This RBP 
would provide the pull that might bring Mexico (and the whole of 
C.A.) "back to Latin America".

This is nothing of my "cold geopolitical" invention.  On _La 
Jornada_, from time to time, Heinz Dieterich is proposing such ideas 
since at least five years ago.  And this is, in the end, the great 
bet of Chávez.  

But at the same time I state that the US bourgeoisie will not 
relinquish the current dominant situation easily.  If only because it 
is so pleasant to find Latin American "progressives" speaking 
beauties of yourself, while you are plundering their own country.  
Spanish imperialists in Argentina can testify that this is a very 
comfortable and... cozy situation.

The open exposition of the great confrontational abilities of the 
American bourgeoisie in Iraq is quite a shock for many. I understand 
that under this shock, a forecast of momentous conflict between Latin 
America and the USA on a Mesoamerican scenario may make anyone who 
lives there (and is not a cold shrimp) shudder.  Anyone would.

But facts are stubborn.  It is not too apocalyptic to suggest that 
the final confrontation between South America (the "Unión del Sur", 
as Chávez has recently proposed) and the USA will take place there.  
Where would it take place, I mean the _final battle_: in Amazonia, in 
Patagonia, in the Llanos?  No, those will be the _first_ battles.  
And, in fact, the lines that prefigure those first battles are 
already under preparation.  And preparatives have been taking place 
for some long years.

The Argentinean Air Force and the Brazilian Air Force have agreed on 
joint exercises -with explicit exclusion of American military- along 
the frontier between both countries...

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