Burford wrote: >I thought de la Rua, who was indeed victorious, signalled support for small >and medium businesses. This alliance appears therefore to represent a >united front of classes and strata that does not explicitly invite the >multinationals to wipe their feet on the Argentinan economy. De la Rua is a capitalist politician. Argentina is suffering from capitalism. Socialists are opposed to capitalism. Burford's training in Stalinism whets his appetite for any bourgeois politician who utters reformist formulas, from Blair to Clinton, to their Latin American counterparts. >De la Rua has just been visited by the leader of the Chilean socialist >party with signals of joint cooperation. Is this not a positive move that >the centre left in South America may be finding ways to win elections and >to resist the globalisation of the multi-nationals. The Chilean Socialist Party is not the party of Allended. It has virtually pledged to continue Pinochet's "revolution" in the same manner that Clinton has dedicated himself to continuing the Reagan "revolution". Burford is the spin doctor for all these compromised left and liberal formations. >Of course this is not the pure marxism that prefers to submit blank polling >slips in the hope of starting a new movement that may be revolutionary, but >then again, may just be pure. Not all views within marxism think political >purity and the avoidance of compromise, are hallmarks of marxism. You are as much of a Marxist as Anthony Giddens. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
