Re> Subject: [Marxism] On the 2006 elections in the USA

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Sat Nov 4 08:27:44 MST 2006


> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:14:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Anthony Boynton <northbogota at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] On the 2006 elections in the USA
> To: Marxismlist <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> 

> 
> The Latin American bourgeoisie, under the leadership
> of Lula and Chaves, has made its boldest ever bid for
> independence since the wars of Independence. Napoleon
> made those wars possible, and the British helped make
> them successful. Now the US invasion of the Middle
> East has made it possible for bourgeois nationalism in
> Latin America to try to stand on its own two feet and
> walk. The United States was only barely able to steal
> the Mexican elections, and its hold on power there
> through the miserable PAN is very, very, shaky.

Well, Anthony, you are giving for the bourgeoisie in L.A. (not the 
"L.American bourgeoisie") a lot more than it is due. Maybe your 
experience in Colombia has nurtured some distorted view in this 
sense, since AFAIK the Colombian bourgeoisie seems to be a little 
more self-conscious than its counterparts elsewhere in L.A.

Lula, Chávez, and even Kirchner (yes! wonder why Chávez has 
established a strategic alliance with Argentina not with Brazil?), 
are not exactly "bourgeois" leaders.  They are heading a general 
upturn movement by the L.A. masses -with all their class diversity- 
in our different local national fronts.

True, they resort to the means of the bourgeoisie, and theirs is -in 
this sense- a "bourgeois" program.  But this is a program without a 
class behind it.

And this takes me to the second comment I want to make to your 
posting.  What happened during the early years of the 19th. Century 
was that -yes, in part but only in part triggered by the Napoleonic 
invasion of Spain- a Spanish revolution began which was immediately 
transported overseas to Latin America where it took its own shape. It 
was not "the bourgeoisie" then, either, that took the lead.  It was 
basically the national-popular-democratic leaders, either political 
or military in the guerrilla warfare against Napoleon. Their goal 
(either clearly expressed or not) was the abolition of absolutism and 
the establishment of a national-democratic structure of the Spanish 
State.  When this state was taken over by the absolutist Ferdinand 
the Seventh (not without British acquiescence, to be sure), the 
American revolutionaries split apart from the Peninsulars for good.

Britain did little to make our revolution succesful. What they did, 
in fact, was to help our oligarchies to drown it in the Balkanization 
of two dozens of midget statelets, while at the same time they 
supported the Brazilian slavocrats and their counterrevolution 
against the Portuguese revolution of the early 1820s.

In this sense, though I fully agree in that the situation in the 
Middle East somehow emboldens the L.American masses, it does not 
embolden the bourgeoisie. Our bourgeoisies are loathably pro-
imperialist. The problem for socialists lies in that the masses 
themselves don't feel the need to "become socialist" in order to wage 
their own struggle.

But the struggle is just beginning.

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