[Marxism] Ollanta Humala interview

thomas muntzer immune_from_demoralization at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 6 10:32:46 MDT 2006

"CB: Marxism is distinguished from scholasticism, not
by a whole lot of
studying, but by unity of theory and practice. Rolling
up one's sleeves 
studying Peru a whole lot will remain scholastic and
practice. What's the practice on this ? Who is the
audience for these
reports on all this learning about Peru ?"

There is always the tendency in these debates to say
"how can you pass judgement on the movement in other
countries" coupled with a lot of posturing and
moralizing.  In fact it is totally relevant for
Marxists in every country to analyze the revolutionary
process in other countries.  It was debate and
discussion over the Paris Commune that led to the
Marxist view on the state, debate and discussion over
Spain in the 1930's was pivotal for the international
left, debate and discussion over Cuba that gave
direction to the Latin American left and even the
Irish or Palestinian left in the 1960's and 1970's,
etc.  Social science on the macro level is sort of
like astronomy in that we can't put experiments into a
laboratory, the world is our laboratory, and to
refrain from comparing our ideas to the revolutionary
processes going on in Latin America right now would be
a betrayal of our own method.  Concretely, to answer
your question, the audience for these reports about
Peru and other countries is revolutionaries on this
list, some of whom who are inactive, but some of who
_are_ active in trying to rebuild the movement in
their own countries.  For this task they need to be
able to explain and analyze and apply the lessons of
"foreign" movements domestically.  This is an art and
one can make mistakes-schematism, sectarianism and
dogmatism on the one hand or tail-ending and
cheerleading on the other, but it is necessary to try.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the Marxism mailing list