[Marxism] Bolívar as a model

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Apr 10 10:45:31 MDT 2006


Respuesta a:"Marxism Digest, Vol 30, Issue 22"
Enviado por:marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
Con fecha:10 Apr 2006, a las 8:55

> The essential point to which I was objecting was this idea of Bolivar
> as a "model" for progressives today.  This implies to me a
> prescriptive solution, a strategic blueprint, if you will, or even a
> social agenda.  
> 
> Frankly, I do not even regard V.I. Lenin as a "model" for progressives
> today....
> 

Bolívar is no model, of course.  Nor was San Martín (the Liberator of 
the South, who was taken by Peronism to a similar Godlike height 
during the early 1950s).

But the fact is that the policies they executed and goals they 
followed, what could be safely understood as the kernel of 
"bolivarianism" or "sanmartinianism" (there is an ugly word in 
Spanish, "sanmartiniano", referring to anything relating to General 
San Martín), well, all_that_, is not only a "model", it is more than 
a "model", it is the concrete set of essential tasks to be 
accomplished because we were defeated to implement them through B. or 
S.M.

That is, permanent revolution in L.A. (as anywhere else) must root in 
the deepest trends of L.A. history.  This history, during the last 
200 years, has been marked by the not always too clear but always too 
effective struggle between Balkanizators and Liberators (people, 
ideas and movements).

It is long due time that L.A. Marxists learn this lesson, because 
_there_ is where the key to victory will be found.

And this implies turning "Bolivarian" in the North as well as 
"Sanmartinian"  in the South.

As to Mexico and Central America, may I comment that both sides 
during the struggles for Independence (Morelos, Hidalgo and Mina the 
revolutionaries, and Iturbide the conservative) were _for_ a united 
Mexico extending from California to current Costa Rica, and that this 
was explicitly rejected, even in its minor expressions such as the 
Central American Confederation, by American and British diplomats?

It is not an abstract question, where class struggle is not involved. 
 Much to the contrary, US Americans have solved their problem of 
unity long ago, thus it is not so easy to grasp it.

But you, dear Mark Lause, are an expert in the Second American 
Revolution (I am sure you would find some interesting material in 
"Mr. Madison's War", too), so that I trust that you will understand 
with greater ease than many why is it that Union is for us a 
revolutionary flag  --and why do the US American Embassies Latin 
America over repudiate such a flag.

Well, that flag, that revolutionary flag, is the ultimate flag of 
Bolívar.  Whoever raises it seriously is doing part of our task, the 
task of revolutionary socialists in the tradition of Marx, Engels, 
Lenin and Trotsky.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list