======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
Mark observed: " I would generalize this observation further, Louis. We
regularly get explanations in all sorts of venues about where "the Left" has
gone and is going terribly wrong. It is a mantra here, in the
blogosphere, in Facebook, etc."
Louis observed: "when the left is weak there is a tendency for its adherents to
look for enemies within its ranks since it is too impotent to register blows
against the real class enemy."
Well, I have to concur with both Louis and Mark, expressly about the last
portion of the interchange with Sartesian regarding everyone's nuances of
distrust for liberal bourgeois governments and their "bodies of armed men" in
Latin America.
However, this latter descent into "communication frustration" (my term for this
sort of fracas), notwithstanding, Sartesian's counterpoints of distrust remain
necessary. It is just too bad that any of us cannot get past our
opposing fears; that Marxists will become too enamored of the
Morales'/Chavez's/Correa's (a useful fear to have) and that
"self-determination" (i.e., the mobilization of the masses from oppressed
countries or nationalities around bourgeois democratic demands) somehow will
prevent the mobilization of the working class as a class (an unfounded fear in
my view).
All of that sort of discussion, while, let's say, "well-traveled", can still be
educational. As much as I try to remain abreast of history and it connections
with the current reality, I remain in need of continued edification as new
events occur. Hence, a strong, honest, even "biting" interchange can serve a
purpose; even if it gets hard hearing each other's "manias" sometimes.
Precisely because we are in a period where, in effect, all we have is our wits
and little chance to act on our convictions, we, all of us, have to maintain
our sanity. I define sanity not in the psychological sense, but in the social
sense that we are cadres of revolutionary currency that, regardless whether we
will ever "get off the bench" of history, must remain ready should the movement
of the masses come to our doors.
It helps for us to remind ourselves of the counter currents of
ideology--reformist, ultraleft, sectarian and the all too numerous
amalgamations--and to analyze them from our combined
Marxist--revolutionary--perspective. We need strong voices with all our
differences, necessarily born of our own individualized experiences. We need
that kind of interchange to keep our wits about us, especially in times of
impending "shadow" as well as in times of emerging revolutionary light.
What we cannot need is to accede to the urge to dismiss each other if we can't
come to resolution. We all know that any prognostications, any positions we
believe to be "true" will not be resolved except and only in the streets,
through the movement of masses, led if not first initiated by the working
classes of the world.
There is such a thing as "life long learning" for revolutionists. Indeed, we
have the best chance to maintain the repository of history. We can get
frustrated with each other, we can "attack" each others' points of
view--perceived or actual. What we cannot afford to do is walk off, even
metaphorically, in a "huff"--because ultimately and eventually we Will Need to
Unite.
We should not expect, nor believe in "civil discourse" (the parlance of the
oppressor who wishes to stifle the voice of the people with such "civility").
What we should expect is to continue dialogues, yes, Even When They Try Our
Souls. In truth, we really don't know each other well enough truly to distrust
each other; at least not on this list. Our enemy is out there and he tries
often and very effectively to dissuade us from uniting; even more so to prevent
our natural audience from hearing us. Let's not let him (yes, I choose the
gender reference intentionally).
Manuel
PS: I found the earliest part of this interchange educational--I remain a
defender of the democratic revolutionary demands of the Latin American masses,
regardless of their uneven and contradictory "trust" in bourgeois-democratic
leaders and remain distrustful of bourgeois democrats, not because of their
individual natures, but because of the State(s) upon which they rest. A
"socialist" army will not be defined by its claims nor of its willingness to
adopt a "working class" pay structure; it will only Ever be defined by its
adoption, growth from, and/or its defense of the class it decides to serve.
It's a good thing that soldiers want to declare themselves "socialist" if only
because it legitmizes the term in sectors of the masses. Socialism "is" as
socialism "does", however. So, revolutionists should exploit the apparent
schism in the armed body of the state and work for that schism to support the
mass struggles and either blunt or neutralize the ability of the capitalist
class to defend itself with its "armed body of men". Doing so does not require
acquiescence or support to the state. It only serves to drive further the
needed wedges in defense of the only true "army" we can trust; the mobilized
working class. Eyes Wide Open; Our Program Firmly Resolved
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
