[Marxism] What Confronts the Mexican Left Today?
gojack10 at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 16:18:08 MDT 2004
The best way to examine how 'lost' or not lost Mexico is for Latin America
in the coming period, might be to examine some the situation that confronts
the Mexican Left as it prepares for the 2006 national elections. And we
should also review how the period of the last 5 years was dealt with, too.
Because what is going on now with the scandals effecting the Mexican Greens
and the PRD, is all part of the opening battles for positioning for the
presidential fight, in the first election where the ' PRI 'dedazo' now
appears to the Mexican people to have been dissolved for good.
Let's start with Cardenas. From total leadership of the PRD as its
principle leader and presidential candidate of 2000, too, Cardeenas has been
totally marginalized at this point. He has himself to principally blame,
since he failed to recognize that the dedazo for Zedillo was to establish a
US style 2 party system in Mexico by making a victory for Fox and the PAN
possible in the 2000 elections. Zedillo's deadazo was for Vicente Fox.
The Cardenas wing of the PRD was completely outmaneuvered and hoodwinked by
Zedillo at that time. But who was not?
The answer to that has to be Manuel Lopez Obrador, who positioned himself
well within the PRD, to negotiate the national power sharing done by Zedillo
at the time. The power share deal was to essentially throw the presidential
election to Fox, but to surrender local control of the mayor's office in
Mexico City to the supposedly PRD Leftist, Lopez Obrador. This was power
sharing that respected the real regional popularities of the 2 major parties
outside of the PRI bureaucracy, so it appeared all the more natural. This
power sharing arrangement with the Lopez Obrador wing of the PRD outflanked
the Cardenas wing entirely. In effect, it was a 3 way behind the scenes
deal that left Cardenas standing sidelined, and also essentially has left
the other major PRD hack, Munoz Ledo, in the same more or less discarded
postion as Cardenas.
Cardenas today is seen by the Mexican public as a legacy of the past, all
but irrelevent in possibly solving today's problems. He is kind of the
Arthur Scargill (Brtiish mine worker leader) of Mexico in some sense.
Though thie 2 figures really are quite different in most ways, they both
have been moved in public eyes towards being seen as relics of a defeated
past. And I would continue this comparison, by comparing Lopez Obrador to
being Mexico's would-be Tony Blair. He is New PRD, same as Blair was New
Labor. He is the Left with media muzak.
But now that Cardenas was marginalized, comes the new task of marginalizing
the PRD hack that accomplished that task for the Mexican and US elites. The
current scandals are designed to be part of that neutralization effort.
Even a Mexican Tony Blair is to be avoided by the powers that are, simply
because the Blair of Mexico is located in a party that the capitalsit class
prefers to eliminate entirely from the political scene. That is Lopez
Obrador's fatal personal flaw in all his efforts! He is in a party that is
not to be part of the Mexican capitalist system's 2 party project. At least
if all goes right for these folk?
That is the big question though. Will the Mexican press and the 2 parties
(PRI and PAN) be able to accomplish the new task for their owners? And in
that answer we will also have some feedback on just how 'lost' Mexico shall
be, as it strays from Latin American unity into regional alliance as junior
pards with the US government. And will the "flavorless globalized leftism'
of the PRD (as Nestor put it) become part of the generalized defeat in
status of international Social Democracy?
Part of Nestor's previous post on this issue below...
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".
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
More information about the Marxism