Re: Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina)
Re: Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina) by Alan Cibils 21 March 2002 14:56 UTC Lil Joe had written: I looked at the photo and I could not tell whether those cops were armed are not. I therefore suggested two different scenarios: (1) Assuming the cops were unarmed and retreated from fear of the workers; or, (2) Assuming that the workers were armed and refused to fire on the people. What I meant to write was: ... (2)Assuming that the cops were armed and refused to fire on the people. Sorry bought the f*#k up, comrades. -- Joe --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Buenos Aires: I think it's important to discuss dialectics, but there is no good side to the bad side of the Argentinian police. I did not witness the police withdrawal from Brukman factory. But I talked to several people who did. They all ascribed the police withdrawal to the mass support that developed in front of the factory. If the police had started shooting, they could have easily faced another December 20th. As I write, about 20 feet away from my cyber cafe, on a streetcorner in Ave de Mayo a motorcycle helmet with flowers sits on the ground on the spot where a motorcycle messenger was killed by the police on December 20. The police murderers of December 20th are still in their jobs, even though the President and the chief of police was changed. On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:17:24 -0800 (PST) Li'l Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'You can, because you ought' - this expression, which is supposed to mean a great deal, is implied in the notion of ought. For the ought implies that one is superior to the limitation; in it the limit is sublated and the in-itself of the ought is thus an identical self-relation, and hence the abstraction of 'can'. But conversely, it is equally correct that:'you cannot, just because you ought.' For in the ought, the limitation as limitationis equally implied; the said formalism of possibility has, in the limitation, a reality, a qualitative otherness opposed to it and the relation of each to the other is a contradiction, and thus a 'cannot', or rather an impossibility. Hegel: Science of Logic * The Marxian analysis is not just a collection of dead facts, as in the case of positivism and empiricism; but, to analytically penetrate that which appears, the things as the appear to discover the things in themselves, to discover the tendencies, the negative in the positive, its negation, i.e. negation of negation engendering new beginnings: being is in a constant becoming, transitions from the one into its opposite. In our analytical questions, from which mutually exclusive possible hypothesis were formulated, to which Alan Cibils responded, our purpose was not to present dead data, facts that could be drawn from as newspaper. The dialectic methodology is the recognition that the thingsare and are not - as Hericlitus says, becauseall things are in flux, we are concerned with the tendencies, the becoming, the 'qual of matter as Jacob Bohme put it. Lenin said it best in his summary of dialectics the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon -- One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail as follows: 1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself). 2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others. 3) the development of this thing, ( phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life. 4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing. 5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum and unity of opposites. 6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc. Neither Connie White nor her husband, me, merely study dialectical materialism to discuss them on e-mail discussion lists but have internalized that method of analysis to make our analysis a dialectical one. These analysis are premised on the material were are considering, and its changes. Cops are many other things besides, for instance. They are children of their parents and parents of their children; they are sisters and brothers, siblings, and uncles, cusins, c., Each individual cop, or soldier, is a mass of contradictions derivative of the mode of appropriation, conditions and relations of production they are hired (or drafted) to protect. The task of the Marxist revolutionary is to recognize those contradictions and conflicting pressures, obligations, c., as ultimately mutually excluding tendencies. Thus to develop conscious strategies, and tactics
Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina)
Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina) by Li'l Joe and Connie White In the photos shown on Indymedia (below), we couldn't tell whether or not the Argentinian police were armed with guns as well as sticks. If they had sticks only, that would indicate that they relinquished the Brukman textile factory to the workers and retreated from fear. On the other hand, if they were armed with guns and, nonetheless, relinquished the plant to the workers, this implies a solidarity with the workers BY REFUSING TO SHOOT THEM! In the case of the former scenario, it's cool. To quote from Marx, the workers, by such victories feel their strength more, and see the relative weakness, or rather, indecisiveness of the bourgeois state. Such victories embolden the workers, and the workers in other factories have discussions as to how to do the same. If the second scenario were the case, this too is cool, in that the message is that the Argentinian police refused to open fire on the workers who were occupying bourgeois property. Trotsky wrote (we believe in the Transitional Programme) that, by their very nature, sit-down strikes, i.e. plant occupations, raise the question of whose property is this any way?! From the Marxist perspective, we understand this to mean that the capitalist mode of appropriation -- the result of the capitalist mode of production -- is ownership based on buying and selling. Thus, the Argentina workers' occupation of the Brukman textile plant is implicitly an expropriation of the product(s) of social labour -- i.e., the factory -- and is the first stage in the expropriation of the expropriators. The State exists as special bodies of armed men, with prisons, etc., at their disposal -- it exists to preserve the capitalistic mode of appropriation and, inadvertently or consciously, to defend capitalist property. The capitalist mode of appropriation -- the result of the capitalist mode of production -- results in capitalist private property. But, the capitalist mode of production, that is, commodity production on the basis of wage-labour, results in industrial production based in social labour. The contradiction of the private appropriation of the products of social labour is resolved only when the class of producers expropriate the means of social production and, thereby, abolish commodity production and the system of wage-labour itself! If the Argentinian police refused to open fire on the workers defending the Brukman textile factory, this does not necessarily mean that they recognize that the products of social labour ought to belong to society rather than to capitalists. But, at minimum, it means that, because of the contradictions in their social being and individual consciousness, the [individual] cops -- being sons and daughters of the working class and are compelled by their job description to protect the property of an alien class, the capitalist class -- are susceptible to working class pressures, i.e., the pressures of their [working class] parents, siblings, neighbors and friends. A socialist revolution -- that is, the seizure of the productive forces by the working-classes and toiling masses -- is not possible without significant elements of the military coming over to the side of the proletariat and, in the first instance, by refusing to open fire on the working class, and then by consciously going over to the revolution by opening fire on their officers -- brigade after brigade -- until we have division after division of Red Guards, and indeed a Red Army! Hic Rhodus, hic salta! Here is the rose, dance thou here! La luta continua. --- Vicente Balvanera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday, Saturday, the Brukman textile factory was taken over by infantry and police, the workers evicted. The workers stayed in place, refusing to be dispersed in front of the factory. A call was sent out, and a large number of brothers and sisters arrived on the scene. From the limited info we have at present, we only know that the police and infantry retired from the scene, and the following pictures (argentina indymedia) show how the plant was taken over once again. A call has been sent out by the Brukman workers for a permanent security guard to be set up. All fighting class struggle organizations and political parties of the left are participating together to comply with this need. The factory is once again in the hands of the workers. http://www.argentina.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=17095group=webcast Vicente Balvanera http://www.argentina.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=17095group=webcast Vicente Balvanera
Re: Revolution(s) In Our Time (Argentina)
I think Li'l Joe and Connie White are reading too much into the cop reaction, and are probably leaving out some key factors. 1) In Argentina all cops are armed with at least a pistol on their hips. The cops in this picture are no exception. 2) The attempt to kick the workers out of the Brukman textile installation was carried out by the Policia Federal Argentina (PFA), with as many plainclothes police (also armed) as uniformed. 3) If the police didn't succeed it was due to two things: a) Neighbours from that area came out (at least a couple hundred), cut off Jujuy Ave. and banged their pots and pans. This got some media play which resulted in people from ohter parts of the city joining in the protest. b) The last thing the government wants right now is to have any casualties that would cause a massive street protest. I have no doubt that the police are under the strictest orders NOT to shoot. 4) This is the same police force that brutally repressed demonstrators on 20 December 2001, resulting in 5 dead down town. This was done while TV cameras were rolling, which goes to show that they don't give a rat's ass about being identified as having brutally beat up and shot peaceful demonstrators. 5) This is also the same police force that brutally repressed at least two cacerolazos in January, with absolutely no provocation. They tear gassed and fired rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators. (There are many reports of how they appeared to be enjoying the repression, cracking jokes, laughing, etc.) 6) This is not to say that there might not be solidaritous cops in the PFA. However, as a force they are as fascistic as the Argentine military (with strong neo-nazi influences). I think that, so far, the government's fear of massive street protests is what has resulted in lower levels of repression. However, there is a lot of intimidation currently occurring. For example, neighborhood assemblies in the Capital are routinely under surveillance from cops in cvilian clothes (typically observing from conspicuously parked cars). Police presence in demonstrations is also huge, often outnumbering protesters. In the suburbs of Buenos Aires, where there are many assemblies as well, gangs of thugs linked to the peronist political apparatus have often intimidated and/or beat up assembly members. I suspect that more turmoil lies ahead as the government fails to secure IMF money and their economic program falls to pieces as the peso plumets to new lows. The IMF of course, not recognizing any responsibility for the Argentine crisis, is back in full force (they sent an 18 member delegation for a week and a half) recommending more of the same crap. Unbelievably, the government is still trying to comply Stay tuned, this story ain't over yet. Alan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
