[Marxism] (Fwd) On local bourgeoisies and original peoples

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 21 18:49:49 MST 2005


Let me reply to one, or maybe both; maybe both are the the same...

Nestor states:

  Lula is the current
representative of the Brazilian national front which is _under
bourgeois leadership_.

In Latin America, and in the semicolonies in general, we have to
fight against, so to say, TWO bourgeoisies:  the domestic thing that
stands for such (which, BTW, is waging a permanent struggle against
Lula because he is of working class origin), and the full-bearded
imperialist bourgeoisie, the main character of which is that it
becomes an _internal factor_ in the semicolonial country.  This
factor takes the concrete shape of the domestic oligarchies, which
usually are taken for a bourgeoisie but are not exactly that, and
they are certainly not a bourgeoisie in the sense of the model of
_Capital_.

The main contradiction passes along the national front/imperialist
bourgeoisie divide.  Within this struggle, struggle against one's own
bourgeoisie is a struggle for the leadership of the movement.

Permanent revolution, to put it simply.

So that if I were Brazilian I would support Lula against Bush (much
in the way the Chinese Comm Party supported Chiang Kai Shek against
Japan _even after the Canton massacre_) while I struggle to replace
national-bourgeois leadership with the leadership of the lowest ranks
of the society.
___________________

Permanent revolution?  Not hardly.  Here Nestor does politically what
Fred did "technically," i.e. identifying  a material thing, i.e.
electricity as existing separate and apart from the social conditions of
its production.  So that "development" is good, a good thing unto
itself, and Marx gets replaced by Martha Stewart leftism.

Nestor does something quite similar:  Confusing the tasks of permanent
revolution, its "things," breaking up the archaic relations of rural
production, emancipating labor from the countryside, establishing strong
reciprocating relations between city and countryside, with the AGENT of
permanent revolution.  That agent is exactly NOT a national front,
exactly not a leftist KMT.  And of all historical events, the
decapitation of the Chinese revolution by the KMT is the proof in the
negative of the need for the permanent revolution, where tasks and
agents are not confused.

Nestor, and Fred also, has stood permanent revolution on its head and
come up with a national front and find "progress" in reproducing the
exact same terms of the degradation of labor, the indigenous, the rural
poor that so identifies the modernity of advanced capitalism.


rr



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" <nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: [Marxism] (Fwd) On local bourgeoisies and original peoples






More information about the Marxism mailing list