[Marxism] The true fabric of the L.Am. Generation of Independence, and other things

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Apr 10 10:45:35 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

> If my
> description of Bolivar's goals were oversimplified, it is nonetheless
> true that his interest in constitutionalism required the defeat and
> removal of imperial Spanish military forces.  Right?

Not exactly.  There was a _civil war_, not exactly a _national 
independence_ war.  Most interestingly, the Spanish forces were 
_never_ called "Spanish".  They were the "royalists" (realistas), the 
"gachupines", the "godos" (both meaning the "reactionary 
absolutists").  There were Europeans and Americans on both sides, and 
this from the very beginning:  General Arenales, one of our most 
daring heroes in the South, was born in Spain, while the criminal 
Goyeneche, who slained hundreds to terminate the La Paz upheaval of 
1809, was an American, an Arequipa born Peruvian.  Arenales, by the 
way, was the Commander of Arms of the Chuquisaca government during 
the upheaval.  The defeated Generals in Ayacucho, the last great 
battle, were Peninsular, but they wished the "New Spain" in the New 
World the best of futures while returning to their "Old Spain".  Once 
they arrived there, and _because they were all Liberales_, the King 
sent them to jail!

The problem of Independence is that the European revolutionaries (a) 
were not ready to offer full equality to their American counterparts, 
and (b) they were defeated.  So that the "American" branch of the 
Spanishwide revolution saw itself alone in the struggle (not 
completely different to what happened with the Bolsheviks when the 
German revolution failed in 1919).

Our Balkanization is the most important consequence of that defeat.

> And, as to the "conservative" features of George Washington's career,
> I think much of this was due to overemphasis, actually to point of
> outright falsification.  Certainly, on American Indians (or even
> slavery), Washington was much more progressive than Thomas Jefferson,
> who's often seen as a kind of liberal figure among the US Founders. 

On this we can perfectly agree.  Jefferson was, as I see it, one of 
the first representatives of the Southern slavocrats.  As such, of 
course, he was much of a Francophile, and in this character he would 
even be ready to learn from the Enlightenment.  But not as a core of 
ideas, simply as an expression of Euro-centered view of the world.


> But, even so...
> 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.  

Not a social agenda (though you _should_ read about his, and his 
great teacher's Simón Rodríguez, concrete works and toils).  But a 
general political guideline for Revolution:  towards unity, no matter 
what blocks on the road should be removed (including slavery, don't 
forget that Bolívar -unlike San Martín, BTW- was an oligarch and had 
no "class reasons" against this institution).

> Frankly, I do not even regard V.I. Lenin as a "model" for progressives
> today....

Nor do I.  But we shall always be waiting for  the opportunity to 
assault Heavens as he did.


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