====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
There's a good PDF article by Ecuadorian economist Alberto Acosta at rebelion: http://www.rebelion.org/seccion.php?id=34 Poverty in the Citizens' Revolution or an Impoverished Revolution? On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Manuel Barrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
