[Marxism] Voting with feet, not commendable in Argentina Re: China's high speed rail plans,

Néstor Gorojovsky nmgoro at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 03:31:37 MDT 2009


2009/9/3 nada <dwaltersMIA at gmail.com>:
>
> Let's use Nestor's country as an example. When Peron came to power he
> implemented what the left had demanded in the unions for decades:
> nationalization of British owned meat packing industry, one of the
> largest employers in the country. So...for workers in the industry and
> as a class as a whole, any further demands are then...what? Not
> important? Please. They would demand and expect and *expansion* and
> *modernization* of their industry.

Well, David, though of course I share the general thrust of  your
thought on this issue, there is a factual mistake in the above, a
factual mistake that I would not be able to leave unnoticed because it
has political consequences.

In fact, Perón did not nationalize the meat packing industry. He just
promoted the meatpacking plants of the Corporación Argentina de
Productores de Carnes (CAP), and even that he did without great
enthusiasm because the CAP was headed by oligarchs.

Although our friend S. Artesian tends to believe I forget these
issues, I never forget that Perón was a bourgeois, not a socialist,
leader. Thus, he kept his nationalizations ALWAYS to a minimum. But
there exists something some like me like to call "permanent
revolution", a political consequence of something else, which we like
to call "uneven and combined development".

This bourgeois "minimum" was unacceptable for imperialism, local
oligarchs and even local bourgeois, an entirely different matter.
Perón ruled with working class support not because nationalizations of
imperialist concerns was a part of the unions´ programmes before 1945
but because it hadn´t been. In fact, this wasn´t even broached by
labor in those times,  poor understanding of imperialist activity in
Argentina so blatantly characterized our "Left" that it left our
working class without its own nationalistic, patriotic, and
revolutionary program exactly when it was more necessary.

So that economic nationalism against imperialist aggression was a
_novelty_ in Argentina around 1945, nothing _that_ usual among local
socialists or communists. Let us face it, Marxists, the workers
supported Perón because what he did was to adopt a general position of
antiimperialist national defense, by  nationalizing the general
framework wherein the Argentinean economic life took place, something
most Arg Marxists had no idea of before he came to power.

Now, again. He did it as a bourgeois could do it. Cowardly, if moral
cathegories can be used.

He nationalized foreign trade, and he nationalized the financial
sector as a whole (not private banks themselves, but again the general
framework within which the banks operated). He nationalized the
transportation system (both merchant navy and railroads), but he did
_not_ nationalize the large ranches (estancias) that formed the kernel
of oligarchic power.

In the end, that is why he was overthrown in 1955, why the third
Peronist term (initiated in 1973) came to so horrible a halt in 1976,
and why this tepidly petty bourgeois Peronist government we have now
is facing a probable defeat in 2011 that may have devastating and
enduring effects on the general progressive and revolutionary trend in
Latin America.

Keep it clear, comrades: if Argentina falls in the hands of the sepoy,
Quisling and proimperialists in 2011, the risks that Venezuela is
isolated will grow at a geometric pace. This last fact is what makes
Arg Marxists so necessary, BUT only if they reject the "classist"
approach of the ultra-left. I don´t know if we shall have the time to
do it in order to take over from the national bourgeois. In more
senses than one, we are playing with fire here.

-- 

Néstor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría




More information about the Marxism mailing list