[Marxism] Yes, Virginia, there _is_ a national bourgeoisie.

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Sun Nov 27 08:13:26 MST 2005


I think comrade Rebello is much too generous in his analysis-- a
generosity to the point of contradiction, self-contradiction, in that
his analysis finds in "permanent revolution" and at one and the same
time the obsolesence of the "national bourgeoisie" and the "necessity"
of a popular front, not as way to eviserate class struggle, to interrupt
the permanent revolution, but to advance, as essential to the advance of
the struggle for socialism.

No such advance is possible under, with, through the popular front; and
the "national front," like the "national bourgeoisie" exists as a moment
already in eclipse at emergence.

In the specific case of the Xingu dam, let's recall the details.  An
article by a US bourgeois journalist appeared in that most bourgeois of
US journals describing damaging impacts of the dam on indigenous people.
The article was called "imperialist drivel" by Nestor, a view seconded
by Fred Feldman who produced a series of ideological assertions which
IMO prove once again that if you get what Marx wrote in the first
chapters of capital about the commodity, you can build the whole system
by yourself, and if you don't get what Marx wrote there, about the
identity and conflict of use and exchange values, you get nothing about
capitalism.

Nobody said "dams are bad."  Nobody said no dams should ever be built if
there is an impact on indigenous peoples.  Others said, "aren't we for
electrification? Aren't we for electrification as a remedy to poverty."
Of course we are not.  Electrification is commodity production.  It has
a class basis, a class relationship, a property structure. Just as
poverty has those same things. That's why I flipped Lenin's beautifully
condensed description of permanent revolution, "soviets plus
electrification," around, to electrification plus soviets.

As for Trotsky on Chiang-- so what?  Is Trotsky arguing for dissolution
of the independent working class organization into the "national front"?
Can't recall Trotsky ever arguing for that.

Is there any evidence, any need, for not always advancing a class
specific based program in confronting even a "national enemy"?  There is
plenty of evidence against NOT advancing that program-- and that
evidence is exactly the results of national, popular, fronts.

rr


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos Eduardo Rebello" <crebello at antares.com.br>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Cc: <nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Yes, Virginia, there _is_ a national bourgeoisie.





More information about the Marxism mailing list