[Marxism] Re: the latest round of debate on Evo

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 6 21:14:54 MST 2006


Fred, the thread is absurd because you are trying to paint analysis of
the social forces underlying the struggle in Bolivia; questioning of the
political orientation of Morales, as somehow slanderous attacks, vicious
sectarian baiting.

None of that has occurred in any post presented here, no matter how much
our ex-guidance counselor, Walter Lippmann tries to twist, smear, slur,
and otherwise obscure the content of the discussion. (Have I ever
mentioned how much I loathe high-school guidance counselors, what little
Ministers of Hate and Guilt right out of 1984 I find them to be?  Sorry,
probably not an appropriate remark to make in reference to such an
esteemed, polite, courteous, not-over-the line, all around swell guy,
and good friend to the Cuban people, but I never cared for prizes
anyway).  Nobody except you and Walter and some others have used the
word "evil" in regard to any of the positions, issues, participants.
Nobody has slurred Evo Morales, nobody has called him a betrayer, nobody
has questioned his intentions.  And none of that matters.  Intentions
don't matter.  Economic determinants of class struggle do.

Evo has his chance no matter what I or Jorge or Josh or Brian or David
think. You, and Walter, and JB, seem to think that any analysis of the
actual economic origins of class conflict in Bolivia is a threat to your
position, or the "revolution within the revolution."  But it is not a
threat to the struggle in Bolivia.

JB's provides a list of items that Evo has mentioned.  OK, are these
peculiarly indigenous elements, somehow independent, non-determined by
the indigenous people's relation to capital, both local and
international?  I don't think so.  So what does it mean?  How are these
things going to be accomplished?  The demands and issues that overthrew
two governments, that precipitated a general strike, that rather than
economism which JB is quick to denounce in arguments about class (as
opposed to this list of items, which certainly is worthwhile, but
unrealizable without an agent of execution, without an organization of
action) actually posed the issue of power were:  Constituent Assembly
and Nationalization of Petroleum Resources.  Are these two demands now
to be jettisoned, or left to the discretion of a 3rd government?

If Morales does not call a constituent assembly and the workers and poor
take to the streets of La Paz and El Alto, if they seize the gas fields
and pipelines again, if they strike and blockade again, what do you or
Walter say then?  Should we not even discuss such a possibility as
somehow being "unfair,"  "slanderous," "disloyal,"  to the "revolution
within a revolution"?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
To: "mxmail" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Re: the latest round of debate on Evo






More information about the Marxism mailing list