Louis Proyect said (replying to John Reimann): The implicit meaning of your attack on Maduro is that there is some escape from the contradictions of world capitalism. Any nation that attempts to break free of imperialism is always thwarted by forces beyond its control, just as when trade unions are defeated in a major struggle such as Little Steel in the 30s or P9 in 1985. In the class struggle, the relationship of class forces is the determining factor going back to the Paris Commune.
It is relatively easy to imagine an aroused working class in Venezuela taking on Maduro and the "bolibourgeoisie" and creating "socialism from below". People like Sam Farber and Dan La Botz have made a hobby out of it, just like stamp collecting and folk dancing. I was the president of the board of Tecnica that had close ties to the Nicaraguan government in the 80s. We got regular reports on the economic crisis that compounded with the war made life intolerable. I read articles in the cult Militant newspaper about the need for the FSLN to "follow the Cuban road" as if the USSR was ready to throw its weight behind a country with fewer people than Brooklyn and a GDP less than what Americans spend on blue jeans per year. A socialist revolution would have alienated the European social democracies that Nicaragua relied on and brought the country to total ruin. In the current epoch, it has become much clearer that socialism can only succeed if it takes root in a country that has the technical, economic and military prowess to stand on its own. Unfortunately, Venezuela was not one of those countries. Ken Hiebert replies: Louis says, "In the class struggle, the relationship of class forces is the determining factor going back to the Paris Commune." I would like to argue that the relationship of class forces is a determining factor, but not the only factor. I believe that levels of consciousness, self-organization, and leadership can play a determining role in some instances. Starting with Louis’ example of the Paris Commune, I think that Marx and Engels did not limit themselves to noting the unfavourable relationship of forces, but offered a critique of the way the struggle was conducted. Others who are scholars on this topic can tell us if I am right. Following the 1973 coup in Chile, the Communist Party of Italy drew the conclusion that the Chilean left should have been more cautious. No doubt, that is one conclusion you could draw, but I think not the only one. Was it not possible for an organized working class, with a clear-sighted leadership, to defeat the coup? If those in smaller, weaker countries must wait for the growth of working class struggles in larger, more powerful countries, what impact will this have on the development of consciousness in the more powerful countries? Surely the struggle in Cuba, and even more so in Vietnam, has had an impact on consciousness in the US. I expect that others will come up with examples that have slipped my mind. If the relationship of forces is the determining factor, why are we spending our time discussing politics and trying to hammer out a correct understanding of the struggle? Are we just trainspotters exchanging information? Or do we believe that this discussion will better prepare us to participate in the struggle, and to contribute to its success? If not, perhaps our time would be better spent with stamp collecting and folk dancing. Or, in my case, community theatre and Spanish conversation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#6452): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/6452 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80677870/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
