[Marxism] [French] Les calculs sordides et meurtriers deTel-Aviv
nmgoro at gmail.com
Wed Dec 31 07:39:21 MST 2008
What "Trotsky had in mind" can be understood by reading what did he
write on the Latin America of his time.
And in the scandal implicit in the fact that a national-bourgeois regime
such as that of the Mexican President Càrdenas gave him the shelter the
socialists in Europe denied.
As to national struggle, it IS class struggle. And as to its inchoate
character, it will remain inchoate until Marxists and socialists in the
Third World understand that class politics in a semicolony is by
definition national politics. That is, the prize of ruling the country
is, first and foremost, the ability to destroy the influence of the
imperialist bourgeoisies within the country.
Something an Argentinean wrote in 1860 can be applied to this.
Juan Bautista Alberdi, in a polemics with the pro-imperialist and
murderous President Bartolomé Mitre (the unspoken hero of every trend of
sepoy "socialism" in Argentina, BTW), explained that "toda revolución,
apenas nace, se hace gobierno, y de no, es simple desorden". That is,
"every revolution, since it is born onwards, becomes government, and if
not, it is just disorder". Which means that revolutionaries must be
CONCRETE, and their positions must be ALWAYS stated with reference to
the concrete problems of the moment. Lenin did not know this Argentinean
writer, but this is the way Lenin (and Mao, and Ho, and Fidel, and...)
viewed the issue.
The concrete problems of the Third World are national problems. Marxists
who don´t begin here are bad Marxists, in the sense that if they get to
rule the country and don´t realize the basic contradiction the whole
thing, at best, boils down to a mess.
We need to convince the masses in the Third World countries that we are
the most adamant defenders of the interests of the Nation, because we
are socialists, and we must consider ourselves socialists not only, nor
even basically, because of a general reason of human justice (which we
also are) but because with socialist methods we will be the single ones
who can take the necessary revolution to its end.
Not the same task in the First World. There, you have the very difficult
job of explaining the masses that the mode of production is already dead
and will not keep anything but suffering for them, that they must get to
power against those who preach nationalism, which is in this case the
nationalism of the ruling classes, who have expropriated the whole of
the society of their own nation.
Two socialisms? No. We will merge, yes, but only when imperialism is
defeated we shall be able to think in the terms S. Artesian suggest.
First of all we need to get to power and to bring the masses to power.
While we don´t do this, we are not what we say to be, nor what we want
to be. And the roads diverge, they are one road in the core and a
different road elsewhere.
S. Artesian escribió:
> I wish I could say we are in agreement, but I do not think we are in
> agreement. They, national aspirations and class aspirations, do not merge--
> the national aspirations are the "initial" "unevenly developed" expression
> of the class struggle, the struggle over the emancipation of labor that is
> at the root of the conflict.
> Those national aspirations have to be transformed, give way to, class
> consciousness. That cannot be accomplished by Marxists being "better
> nationalists" than the nationalists, but only by being better Marxists--
> developing "quickening" the specific class struggle against the general
> capitalism, and its local variant.
> The Cuban struggle never presented itself simply as a struggle for national
> independence, but was always informed, determined by its social
> egalitarianism, its struggle against economic exploitation. Once in power,
> the only way for the movement to maintain that power was to expropriate the
> property of the bourgeoisie, in both its "international" (Standard Oil,
> Hershey) and "national" (Bacardi) forms.
> I think the interpretation you give the Trotsky quote is not at all what
> Trotsky had in mind. IMO, he is arguing just the reverse of your point--his
> argument is that this notion of a nationalism somehow overcoming class
> divisions, independent of specific class content, somehow inherently
> 'revolutionary," obscures the real dynamics.
> Right, the fundamentals are not different in Palestine-- and look what the
> fundamentals of the national aspirations, the years of uncritical, or mildly
> critical support, of the PLO have yielded-- nothing that can stay the hand
> of the Israelis.
> Posing, positioning, the struggle as a national one, as the result of
> national aspirations, rather than one of labor and property represents
> retreat and regression.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lüko Willms" <lueko.willms at t-online.de>
> To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] [French] Les calculs sordides et meurtriers
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com
More information about the Marxism