[Marxism] Re: Another Chavez or another Lula?

dwalters at marxists.org dwalters at marxists.org
Wed Jan 4 22:02:17 MST 2006

In response to Fred...

I think a reading of the two articles I posted would do you, and, a Petras so
aptly put it "The left bandwagon" of Evo supporters, some good.

Fred, David McD, et al seem to be the ones positing a 'revolutionary' (to use
Fred's term) program and policy onto Evo. Of course Evo Morales and his party,
the MAS, would deny this, but it doesn't seem to matter to the bandwagon
members of the international left. I would argue that it is pecisely these
elections that David McDonald and Fred are enfactuated with, not the actual
movements in these countries. I think Fred is more honest, at least admiting
that Morales' own party is fractured as is the left in Bolivia. But it's
factured over issues, actual issues in the class struggle.

I think Fred knows these issues are real, but instead he procects on Morales new
government (good point about the 'state vs gov't thing, Fred, I agree) a
reformist outlook that is perhaps not only at odds with Morales himself, but
with the masses that elected him, which didn't do it for "ALBA" or
"Mercusol"...there is almost zero consiousness about this in Bolivia, BTW. They
did it for power, for nationalization. It is metaphorical to Chavez IF only he
uses his position to bring the masses into conflict with the oligarchy, as
Chavez has, not if it means to 'mediate' between the classes, which is clearly
what he wants to do. In this case I'm hoping I'm dead wrong, that Morales DOES
go the way of revolution, not of passive, reformist 'same-as-all-the-others'.
His predecessor also promised to nationalize oil. Look what happened to him.
But the bandwagoners are grabbing onto anything that sounds good regardless of
what he actually does or what their record is (and none of you have looked at
the MAS record, have you? Better to keep those blinders on...)

I think Joaquin has bitten off more than either, however. He accuses me of being
"workerist" because I start at the position of the working class in any
particular country, try to analyse what they are asking for, who they are
fighting and for what, not this 'revolutionary deplomacy' that distains the
participation of the masses or their organizations. This is why Joaguin is
silent on Brazil and the class struggle there, except to utter 'Lula is not a
neo-liberal'. Really? Some of Brazil's biggest unions might differ with you on
this since his domestic policy really counldn't be anymore reactionary than the
gov't he replaced. This policy leads the maker to be on the other side of the
class line by pretending the elected president is on 'left', defined simply by
macro-economic differences with imperialism.

At any rate there really does shape up to be a difference of major proportion on
this list over the movements in Latin America and the gov'ts in power. I think
each country needs to be looked at individually, not just on what trade deals
are made, but on how the workers movement there views it and what these gov'ts
do for each class, etc. The bandwagoneers don't, they look at one side, it
seems, and it's not the side of the working class, it's the side of the gov'ts.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the Marxism mailing list