====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
[The national bourgeois government of Argentina is facing a new offensive, this time around who directs the Central Bank and to what ends. The whole thing would have been a tempest in a teapot were it not for the fact that Martín Redrado, the expelled President of that Bank, not only was expelled because he advocated for a traditional neoliberal adjustment program for 2010 (an obvious provocation) but immediately gathered support from most of the antinational bloc. Our "Left" has considered that this issue has no importance as against the fact that this government has not repudiated the foreign debt (a _national bourgeois_ government in a weak semicolony, please remember). This position, in the objective field of forces that generate politics in Argentina, places this "left" exactly where imperialism wants it to be, against any national-popular government, no matter how weak it is. The considerations below, by Marcelo Arriagada, a Peronist (and I would say mainstream progressive Peronist) author, sum up what "benefits" this kind of a "left" brings to our international movement. And, also, why this "Left" has given "Marxissts" a bad name in the Arg working class. The last paragraph is archetipal of the reaction that this "Left" generates in the mass of the Argentinians. So that the revolutionary socialists in my own country, just as I try to be, not only have to fight against imperialists, oligarchs, national bourgeois and the like. We have to fight against these self appointed "Leftists" who keep digging as deep an abyss between the masses and socialism as they can. In the name of "independent" organization of the working class, they reinforce the grip of national bourgeois politicians on that very working class. Sigh. Translation follows. Original in Spanish closes this e-mail.] Redrado does not resist payment of the debt with international reserves out of patriotism or anything like that. The man has never said we should not pay. He never made it clear, either, where does he think the money should come from. And no media at all forced him to be very clear in his explanations. For the establishment (this that we call the Right) it is obvious that we must pay, and that we must pay with a recession, that is, with funds extracted from the budget. What for? To shrink social plans, employment, production. What for? To have cheap manpower, less control of exports, greater erosion of the Government. When Cristina [Fernández de Kirchner, President of the Argentineans, translator´s note] says that in 1983 many who are now claiming against the legitimity of the debt ran to legitimize it, and didn´t even do what they had suggested (remember Contadora and other Latin American initiatives), she is right. The Left is as functional to the Right as ever. They cannot accept that the future exchange (or rescue) of bonds of the foreign debt depends on these payments. Neither Solanas nor Pitrola nor Altamira have, nor will they ever have, the responsibility of government. Since Néstor Kirchner became President, this Government is playing poker with international capital; but understanding the nature of this game is not included in their intellectual or political urgencies. That is why they do as much harm as they can. In the end, they believe that they would have better opportunities if Cobos or Macri were Presidents, because they think that the worse off, the better. ORIGINAL TEXT IN SPANISH La resistencia de Redrado a pagar deuda con reservas no es un gesto patriótico ni nada que se le parezca. El hombre no dijo en ningún momento que no haya que pagar. En ningún momento aclaró, tampoco, de dónde considera él que debe salir el dinero. Y ningún medio lo obligó a explicarse demasiado. Está claro que para el establishment (eso que llamamos la derecha) se debe pagar y se debe pagar con recesión, es decir, con fondos del presupuesto. ¿Para qué? Para achicar los planes sociales, el empleo, la producción. ¿Para qué? Para tener mano de obra barata, menos control en las exportaciones, mayor desgaste del Gobierno. Cristina tiene razón cuando dice que muchos de los que ahora reclaman por la legitimidad de la deuda corrieron a legitimarla en el 83 cuando ni siquiera cumplieron con lo que ellos mismos propusieron (recordar Contadora y otras iniciativas latinoamericanas). La izquierda (funcional, como siempre) no puede aceptar que de estos pagos depende el futuro canje (o rescate) de bonos. Ni Solanas ni Pitrola ni Altamira tienen ni tendrán jamás la obligación de gobernar. Para ellos comprender la naturaleza del póker que este Gobierno viene jugando con el capital internacional desde que asumió Néstor Kirchner no forma parte de sus urgencias intelectuales ni políticas. Por eso dañan hasta donde pueden. En el fondo piensan que tendrían mejores posibilidades con Cobos o Macri de presidentes, por aquello de cuanto peor, mejor. -- Néstor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
