[Marxism] Re: Either a socialist revolution or a caricature ofrevolution

dwalters at marxists.org dwalters at marxists.org
Sun Jan 8 11:04:50 MST 2006

Hi Walter, Cancun huh? Have they recovered from the hurricane? It would be good
if could do a little essay on that.

Walter writes:

"Just because the governments of Cuba, Vietnam, and China all accept one
or another kind of foreign private investment, that doesn´t prove that there
has been a restoration of capitalism there. Capitalism has never been ended
in South Africa, but white minority rule has been ended by black rule, a fact
whose historic importance continues to elude many of its critics, but which
does help explain the ANC's continued support in the face of deteriorating
living conditions in South Africa. Capitalism has never been abolished either
in Brazil, but then, no one has claimed that it has, or I don't know who has".

Indeed, it is that the ANC lead the majority of the S. African people against
the racist imperialist regime. This explains it's continued, albeit
deteriorating level of support. But you do a great job, Walter, of avoiding
louis' point. There is a class struggle AGAINST the ANC gov't. It has split the
ANC and CP and COSATU tripartate leadership. The union has called strikes
against the ANC gov't specifically over the issue of the GEAR (a IMF
supported/initiated Structural Adjustment Program). Where do YOU stand in this
confilict between the 'Cuba supporting, Venezuela supporting' ANC gov't when it
*attacks* it's own working class? The ANC has been all over itself transforming
itself into the *stooge* of imperialism. It has done everything the World Bank
and IMF have asked it to do. The standard of living of the majority of South
Africans (except whites, of course) is worse now than it ever has been. The
land is still in the hands of the white minority, the banks and major industry
are now more in the hands of the white mainority. I would say, at it's
simplist, is that South African is 'rotten ripe' for a major Democratic
Revolution since *few* of the tasks setout by the liberation movement prior to
the National Party gov't downfall have been met. Oh...they have a great
'social' constitution, unfortunatly the continued *class* rule by the white
minority continues to prevent this from being applied. Again Walter, where do
you stand?

You continue:
"The hostility toward Evo Morales seems also to flow from the fact that he won
the presidency of Bolivia through a parliamentary election."

Not at all. First, there really is little *hostility* toward Morales. It is that
some us reflect the views of those IN Bolivia that Morales history, if it is
*any* guide to his future actions, does not bode well for Bolivia. Speaking for
myself, I simply hope that he remembers what happened last summer, what the
demands of the masses are in terms of "nationalization" and what a real
Constituent Assembly means. That any action he does  take he does it a la
Chavez: using the masses to implement the expropriations (sorry, he doesn't
like that term: nationalizations) and that the masses continue to organize in
defense of the Bolivian nation againt imperialism and their local
representatives. That would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Walters further states:
"It seems that some of his critics, though they do not say so, think that's not
quite cricket and so they double their quotient of "criticism" to prevent
infection from the germs of bourgeois parliamentary cretinism. While a smaller
group express hostility toward Chavez, I expect that that's also a factor in
the hostility of groups like Socialist Action and the Spartacists toward the
Bolivarian process and it explains the broader indifference to, or hostility
towards, ALBA."

Who cares what these groups think? It is what the groups in Venezuela and
Bolivia think...I would think...that counts. "Parliamentary
cretinism"...exellent point. Morales election didn't fall out of the sky. It
cannot be abstracted from the mass movement over the last 3 years. If you think
it can, then the charges of "parliamentary cretinism" are indeed apt. But if you
recognize that the new Morales gov't that will assume office next week can
*ignore* the mass movement, then again, "parliamentary cretinism" is an apt
term to use. I think that  Joaquín is more honest in his approach than your
Walter, because you are operating in a vacuum, in total denial of the actual
'revolution'under way and looking only at Morales and what he potentially
represents based on his election. Like you have with everywhere else, you have
'parliamentary' or 'governmental' blinders on, either looking only at this and
not the people themselves who have expressed by an electoral preference AND are
marching behind barricades, blockades, etc.


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

More information about the Marxism mailing list