[Marxism] Argentina: It's only a small step from sectarianism towards support for Kirchner
fred.fuentes at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 21:38:12 MDT 2008
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Fred Feldman <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> I think this line of argument by my fellow Fred F. is demagogic and should
> be avoided. Especially since he says, "I strongly disagree with the comrades
> from the MST and their position on this." He should therefore be much more
> tolerant of the positions of comrades who are doubtful about this, who have
> learned the hard way to respect Nestor's positions on Argentina, as opposed
> to the Morenistas in their current incarnation. I think Louis' comments are
> legitimate information, and they do sharpen my political hearing for what is
> going on.
Im am tolerant about people who are doubtful about this (as i am). And
i respect Nestor's position (without always agreeing) on Argentine
politics that is why i said we are looking forward to him sending us
an article to be translated and post on Links. I am not tolerant of
people who simply because of peoples background dismiss positions out
> How can these revolutionary-minded intellectuals be compared so lightly with
> Hugo Blanco, whose consistently revolutionary combat record over decades
> places him closer to Castro and Guevara in the history of the continent,
> rather than with the history of Morenism. It is worth pointing out that
> Blanco's connection with Morenism coincided with the most revolutionary
> historical period of this Trotskyist current, the 1960s.
I thought it was obvious to everyone that my comments were not aimed
at attacking Blanco but rather saying it is a childish policy to draw
up peoples background (in some cases guessing wrong like in the case
of Katz) to dismiss their CURRENT positions. Did Lou even both to read
Katz's article which clearly states (as opposed to the MST whom BTW
until now he along with others had been working closely with but have
divided sharply over this question) that between the right and the
government it is necessary to support the govt, whilst raising a left
alternative ie it is totally erroneous to take a neutral position,
much worse one that sides with the "countryside".
> I grew up with all the customary bourgeois prejudices about Peronism, which
> I thought were radical ideas and anti-fascism. Moreno opened my eyes during
> the debates on guerrilla warfare. For me, no Moreno -- no Nestor. And I
> don't like to imagine how I would see Argentine politics without Nestor. The
> whole Latin American question for me was transformed by what I learned from
> the Morenoists in this period (although I never considered becoming a
> Morenoist -- I have always been a US revolutionary). At any rate, with all
> his weaknesses, Moreno brought me closer to the Latin American class
> struggle and, perhaps more importantly, to the leadership of the Cuban
> So in that context, I wonder: Why is the focus of the material submitted so
> focused on opposition to Kirchner, a bourgeois-nationalist leader with ties
> to Bolivia and Venezuela who is disapproved in Washington.
They explain THEIR position and focus which as i said in the
introduction is a "controversial position of supporting the small
producers in this battle"
Why does a DSP
> leader submit this under an anti-Kirchner, not pro-working-farmer headline?
> The Militant (newspaper of the US Socialist Workers Party) might have a
> similar sectarian axis, but they would choose a more mass-oriented headline.
> Why is opposition to Kirchner the first priority?
The title is the title of the original article with is specifically
written as a polemic with the left, particular comrades like Katz and
Lucita with whom until very recently they were working closely with.
Of course it is not the headline of their newspaper, nor is Links a
"mass-orientated" newspaper rather a journal for left and socialist
> Is the overthrow of Kirchner something to be devoutly wished for through
> this fight, as the headline clearly suggests? Does this reflect the
> orientation of the farmer leaders? The materials I have read seem to be
> based on the assumption that the dominant social forces among the farmers
> are helpless in the face of self-organization and decision-making.
> It has to be proven that this struggle poionts organically to a more
> revo;utionary and anti-imperialist government than Kirchner's. Otherwise it
> must be asked: why have the rank and file working farmers allowed a
> down-with-Kirchner orientation to be imposed on what we are told is simply
> purely popular movement.
On this issue i would encourage those that can read spanish to see
Luis Bilbao's article (im pretty sure he is not a morenist or
ex-morenist but i can check for Louis to save his time reading it)
which offers interesting insights on this question (much less crude
than MST, but still not convincing for me) at
In regards to any down-with-Kirchner tendencies i may have people can
read my latest article in GLW of which i have pasted below.
Perhaps now we can return to some sensible discussion on a very
serious issue, particular given the recent vote that saw the law go
down due to the deciding vote of the vice president, which no doubt
has greatly weakened the govt and discuss its ramifications rather
than people of party historical ties or whether the USSWP would have
published such an article under the same title. I know i will be
writing notes for an article in GLW, i hope others contribute in the
Mercosur confronts global crises
13 July 2008
In stark contrast to the thumb-twiddling of the G8 overlords, who meet
on July 7-9 to decide on taking as little action as possible on
climate change and the developing global food and fuel crises, the
June 30-July 1 summit of the Common Market of South America (Mercosur)
was one more demonstration of the role being played by Venezuela —
together with other South American countries — in charting a way out
of these crises.......
The question of the growing food crisis was high on the agenda of the
summit, with Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez warning that
"not long ago, nobody could imagine the food problem would mushroom so
swiftly, with situations that take you back to the Middle Ages and
people dying over a grain of food, or a crust of bread".
According to the United Nations, the number of starving people in the
world could rise from 800 million to 860 million, with some 200
million affected by poverty in Latin America alone — almost 40% of the
"Mercosur is a regional group that is powerful in the production and
export of food and energy", Argentinian foreign minister Jorge Taiana
said. South America is the largest food producer in the world, and is
responsible for 15% of world oil production. "It's a good moment to
reinforce our will to work to see how we can position Mercosur more
Fernandez added that "the situation of food and energy prices presents
the region with an enormous opportunity if we can take advantage of it
with solidarity and regional integration"....
Looking at the broader economic picture, Fernandez laid the blame for
rise food prices at the feet of financial speculators, drawing a
connection between these price rises and growing world financial
crisis. "When banks start to flounder, when no bank is reliable,
speculative movements start in the food sector. The 'casino' economy,
speculation, which was circumscribed to the financial realm, are now
starting to move on to the world of foodstuffs."
In recent times, the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina
have faced stiff resistance from large agricultural producers, as each
has attempted, to varying extents, to attack the interests of these
important economic sectors. ...... the whole article can be read at
> Fred Feldman
> 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/fred.fuentes%40gmail.com
More information about the Marxism