[Marxism] The danger to the revolutionary process in the sectarian baiting of President-elect Evo Morales
rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 6 23:38:14 MST 2006
Well, in anticipation of the moderator calling for one last round of
comments and then closing the thread, let me provide one last round of
Yes, there is sectarian baiting of Evo Morales taking place. That is
> simply a fact. And not only sectariaan baiting, but adventurist
> to the new government that pose a danger to the entire actual and
> potential revolutionary process. The touch of frenzy building in the
> anti-Morales campaign before his inauguration is already producing
> For instance, the issue of International Viewpoint I referred to as an
> "anti-Evo special issue" front pages an interview with Jaime Solares
> the Confederation of Bolivian Workers. The IV issue headlines, with
> every indication of full support, this statement by Solares:
> "If Evo doesn't nationalize the gas, he will fall like Lozada"
Participants in this discussion on this list are responsible for their
own comments only. That sectarian baiting Fred cites was not on this
list. Yet those failing to join in the "Give me an E" cheerleading are
classified as sectarian baiters.
But that's a minor point.
The real issue is that in response to reiterated positions, FF, JB, etc.
have been asked to answer a number of concrete questions, and have nary
answered a one. In response to assertions of anti-imperialism on the
part of Brazil in the WTO, and Mercosur, it has been shown how no such
anti-imperialism has actually occurred. Mercosur, right now, has agreed
on a plan to support construction of pipelines from gas fields in Peru
to Chile to Argentina to reduce reliance on gas from Bolivia. Still
those who don't concur with the sham actions of this or that "national
bourgeoisie" are supposedly sectarian, white-skinned, social
imperialist first worldites.
In response to questions about the real determinants of the struggle in
Bolivia and elsewhere in Latin America... well, there has been no
So let's put it clearly: Are these struggles in Latin America and
elsewhere really struggles of national liberation? Is there a "nation"
struggling to emerge here from under imperial domination and manifest
its own independent capitalism?
We,or at least I, say "no way."
Is there such a thing as a viable national capitalism to emerge in a
less developed country, independent of and resistant to advanced
We,or at least I, say "no way."
Is there a viable national bourgeoisie to emerge in less developed
countries that bears a unique relationship to the means of production
and can further development of those means and relations?
I say "no way."
Is there in the current struggle in less developed countries qualitative
difference from the course of the struggle, from the uneven and combined
development that determined the development of the uninterrupted,
permanent, telescoped content of the Russian Revolution? That eclipsed,
and in short order, the "democratic," liberal, national, "civil" phase
of the struggle; replacing it with the proletarian, social, class
struggle that was the actual inherent content of the economic
I say "No. None."
Is the widespread poverty existing and reproduced in the terms of the
degradation of labor, in the terms of ownership of production, capable
of mitigation without overturning completely those terms of ownership;
that condition of labor?
I say " No way."
Has the current struggle in Boliva organized itself around the terms of
social welfare separate and apart from the conditions of ownership and
Absolutely not. The coherent consistent demands have been for a
constituent assembly and nationalization of resources.
Do the Marxmail band of Evoists support those demands for constituent
assemby and nationalization of resources?
In response to the dire warning of "ultra-left" sectarianism
"endangering" the struggle and becoming a vector for intervention by
police and army, do FF, JB, WL, etc. think the overthrow of the MNR in
Bolivia in 1964 was the product of ultra-leftism or was it the product
of the failure of the national revolution to actually emancipate the
economy; and the turning of the MNR itself against the workers and
indigenous, unleashing the military, that "national revolutionaries" had
itself reconstituted with the aid of the US?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
To: "'mxmail'" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:02 AM
Subject: [Marxism] The danger to the revolutionary process in the
sectarian baiting of President-elect Evo Morales
More information about the Marxism