====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Artesian writes: So is it official now? Can we all agree that the "agreement" negotiated by Shannon wasn't a victory? That it was a fraud? That Zelaya should have never signed it, and the fact that he did says a lot about his class allegiance? Maybe we can take another look and understand that the forces driving this conflict have far outstripped the issue of his presidency, and what the next steps must be? Maybe? Fred comments: What is Artesian arguing for? Allowing for traditional transitional doo-dads like Soviets that he may tack on, it is basically just another variant of Socialism Right This Minute -- or Bust!" And since virtually no one in Honduras or, indeed, the world is fighting on this basis right now (partly because Socialism Right This Minute is not possible anywhere at this moment), he feels secure in his stance as The One Who Knows that the outcome will always be "bust." Artesian suggests that those who support the approach taken by the Honduran popular movement on the restoration of Zelaya argued that "the issue of his presidency" was the driving force of the conflict. On the contrary, we have argued from the beginning that the issues "far outstripped the issue of his presidency," being rooted in a developing popular revolt against the old Honduran order, and that they were international as well extending across Latin America and the Caribbean and beyond. What we did not and do not do was reject the call for the restoration of Zelaya, an elementary democratic demand that anyone who credibly claims roots in the Marxist tradition, should support as a reflex of a class position. Frankly, most of the left has actually done creditably on this one. Only the US Militant newspaper has abstained from the fight, arguing that the removal of Zelaya was not a military coup (like the State Department, although for their own vewy wevolutionary weasons) was simply a fight among the bourgeoisie. Washington's aim in the conflict was not to help install reaction but simply to establish a "stable" government. Thus the masses should stay out of this conflict and take no side. Artesian's position that the forces driving the conflict have far outstripped the issue of Zelaya's presidency, which was recognized from the beginning by almost all concerned, may represent a shamefaced version of the argument that the masses have no stake in the issue of Zelaya's presidency and should withdraw from the conflict over this. Unlike the Militant, which favors mere abstention, Artesian seems to suggest the current popular democratic national fight (which inevitably poses issues that go beyond this) should replaced by one, in Honduras and everywhere, now and always for socialism now. I also disagree with Artesian's denunciation for Zelaya for signing the most recent accords. I think he had no viable choice. A show of intransigeance on this would have accomplished nothing for the struggle, making Washington's shift to the side of the regime more smooth and reasonable-sounding here and abroad. 'It would have given some of his erstwhile allies in Europe and Latin America a chance to step away from him. The end effect of the agreement was to make it clear that the regime and the US government were blocking the restoration of elementary democratic norms. My default position on Zelaya is that he remains a bourgeois-nationalist, reform-oriented politician -- currently quite isolated on the currently visible bourgeois spectrum of his own country. He has said or done nothing since his overturn that requires me to change that, and nothing that justifies withdrawing support for his restoration. He has fought hard on the side of justice and democracy on this matter, thus doing the best -- somewhat surpassing the best actually -- that could have been expected of him. The agreement was not a victory, but also not a defeat. It registered diplomatic and political realities that had already taken shape in the previous battles. That a popular democratic national movement has taken shape that is still not strong enough to defeat the oligarchy and its gunmen. I would have preferred winning sooner, naturally, but I always had a sense that this struggle would go on beyond the date scheduled for the elections. I think this struggle -- not a nonexistent more advanced one that proclaimed Marxists suck out of their thumbs -- is the road forward for the people of Honduras today. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
