[Marxism] MDC weaknesses
nmgoro at gmail.com
Thu Jul 3 08:32:15 MDT 2008
2008/7/3, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>:
> Néstor Gorojovsky wrote:
> > Imperialism did not have the same influence in Spain, 1936, as it does
> > in Zimbabwe, 2008.
> That might be true, but in both instances you have 3 elements:
> 1. A bourgeois government fighting imperialism, fascist in one instance
> and British in the other.
There is a mistake, at least from my own viewpoint, above. The Spanish
Republic was not just a "bourgeois government". It was a government
that _belonged to the imperialist camp_ Would you, Louis, dare say
the same of Mugabe? Methinks not.
As to your point 3, some comments.
a) The "native bourgeoisie" in Spain was and is an imperialist
bourgeoisie in its own right, unless we believe the Stalinist (sorry
to boomerang the argument on you) idea that a West European
bourgeoisie could be anything but essentially imperialist in the
1930s. Is the "native bourgeoisie" in Zimbabwe anything comparable to
the Spanish bourgeoisie in the 1930s? Please, the very question sounds
bizarre to me. So that there cannot be in Zimbabwe "revolutionary
forces opposed to both imperialism and the native bourgeoisie" in the
sense there could be (and there existed) in Spain, 1930s
What we have in Zimbabwe is an unfinished national revolution, and I
would even add that it is a national revolution that has been
jeopardized by the leadership of the ZANU front itself. But even under
this condition, dear Louis, no "worldwide movement of revolutionary
socialism" will ever be built by siding (either without any intention,
of course) with imperialism against any fraction of the national
movement. While London considers Mugabe its main enemy, it is not up
to revolutionary socialists to do the same. Much to the contrary.
We shall NEVER build a worldwide movement of revolutionary socialism
if we don't defend any government in struggle with imperialism. The
main divide runs through this issue. And I don't know what do the ISO
people think about imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe, in its ACTUAL
form, namely the attack on the Mugabe regime. I hate homophobes and
paternalists, I loathe national bourgeois movements in the Third
World. But I know that wherever I might be on these issues, the main
question is "What did you do against imperialism when they attacked
your own Third World Country's sovereignty, dad?"
The answer to THIS question gives the clue to build an actual
worldwide movement of revolutionary socialists or, conversely, a
network of -at best- good will supporters of abstract ideals. BTW: I
don't see you tackling my contention that Trotsky's writings on Brazil
are more applicable to Zimbabwe than those on Spain.
You end your posting with:
> I am totally opposed to imperialist sanctions and imperialist invasions,
> but that's about as far as it goes with Zimbabwe.
Will that opposition go as far as supporting the Zimbabwean government
against imperialism? If it does, then the debate is pointless. If it
doesn't -and this support must be concrete (and unconditional as
regards imperialist attack) if we socialists ever want to show
ourselves as the best defenders of Zimbabwean peoples' interests, and
thus win their souls for our own programme- , then I am afraid we will
just have to agree to disagree.
In the end, from my own end of the line this is just a theoretical
debate because there's little I can do to help either Mugabe, either
the ISO you seem to support, either Tsvangirai, either the British
Army, in Zimbabwe. So that I guess I should not attempt to outwit the
Zimbabwean themselves. I just express my fears (and hopes) when I see
an imperialist attack on an African country.
And, BTW: I do also believe that neither Zimbabwe nor any African
country today can be considered but a splintered part of a larger
nation. What takes place there DOES have a real domino effect on at
least all of Africa South of the Congo and the Limpopo
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría
More information about the Marxism