[Marxism] Something revealed by the debate over Canada
rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Tue Aug 16 20:06:02 MDT 2005
My positions for and against, and against in particular, uncritical,
unanalytic endorsements of pseudo-nationalist figures, popular fronts in
whatever guise, have been made quite clear.
Fred's being just a bit more than a bit disingenuous when he states that
I don't explain if the Cuban revolution should be a star to steer by.
The answer is of course it isn't. It's not a celestial body spinning in
the firmament, but the product of concrete social struggles, requiring
analysis, criticism, and defense in the course of its earthly existence.
I've done all three. And I've worked with the director of the Cuban
railroads, and look forward to doing so again (which means absolutely
nothing when coming to grips with those forces, internal and external,
pressuring Cuban society but you can check with Ricardo Aguiar Castro,
director, at the Ministerio Del Transporte).
Canada is not alone in its investments in Cuba. Those investments, its
lack of obedience to the blockade, are business decisions, and as such
require no praise, no glorification, no induction into the hall of fame
of noble, heroic acts. Profit, the opportunity for profit, is its own
What I object to, oppose, is the consistently uncritical endorsements of
acts and actors of the bourgeoisie based on litmus-tests of Cuban
government opinion and specious distinctions between main and secondary
enemies, home and away-- distinctions that deny, cover in fact, the
service provided by national hero of the minute to international
I think anyone who does not look at the contradictory impact, who cannot
grasp the decomposing forces initiated and animated by international
investment, particularly the super-exploitation of women, in less
developed countries- who thinks that somehow China and Cuba can escape
such forced decomposition are deluding themselves and others.
No this does not mean we criticize Cuba or China for allowing such
investment-- no more than we praise the countries making the investment.
It does mean we make real assessments of the impact of such investment
on social equality, on class power, on economic organization.
Just those assessments are missing, always missing, from those who steer
by a star, who issue moral imperatives about what is and is not proper
for Marxists to criticize, who insist on manners when boos and
interruption are the real kindness, who say up "Up with Tourism,"
without even considering the social cost, and ecological footprint, of
supporting that tourism, of allocating ever greater portions of lesser
developed social resources in the pursuit of foreign currency during the
retreat of internationl resources.
Up with tourism? That's a revolutionary, progressive slogan? My ass.
Try this: "No Tourist Eats Better Than Any Worker."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
To: "mxmail" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:35 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Something revealed by the debate over Canada
> [So Cuba as a star to steer by for American revolutionists is a very
> thing. Or maybe not? Rubinelli actually doesn't say. He frotheth
> but explaineth not.]
More information about the Marxism