Re: [A-List] Argentine spontaneous insurrection(s)

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The resignation of Saa and the valuable theoretical statement that Louis
Proyect forwarded in this post of  23 Dec make it relevant to reply with
the perspective of a week.

But first there are a number of personal and cultural misunderstandings.

Granted that Louis is unlikely to understand the great importance of
football as a result of a misplaced US culture of isolationism deriving no
doubt from anti-colonialist sentiments, I do not see why he assumes I would
not like the political analysis of Nesor or the Party of the National Left
. I do.

(Like Mark I also wanted a British defeat in the war for the Malvinas and
prayed for the accuracy of the Exocet missiles. One more success might have
done it. I also talked to a lot of people in England at the time, who were
not nearly as gung ho as the popular British press made out.)



> >And in fact the fall of de la Rua was what the
> >US and the IMF had already  factored in, and
> >actually were waiting for:
> >
> >FT Dec 21
> >
> >"No bailout without reform plan, says US"
>
> Factored in? You mean like I factored in the possibility of being
> shot by the Ku Klux Klan while doing socialist organizing in Houston,
> Texas in the early 1970s? I guess so.

Yes I do mean this. The anti-imperialist forces, like the imperialist ones,
need to be aware of the balance of forces and the terrain on which they are
fighting.

There is no point in protesting that I am just as revolutionary in spirit
as LP. Clearly he believes I am not. But the question is not the same as
what are the opportunties for serious revolutionary spirit.

I do think that Sept 11 has shifted perceptions decisively to globalised
ones. The left inside the country and outside has to calculate how the
anger of the population can be successful. Sometimes the working of
imperialism is subtle, although at other times it is brutal.

The US has been able to use high level not so accurate bombing with ground
allies and shock troops to topple the government of Afghanistan with the
(announced) loss of only three US servicemen.

But with Argentina the strategy is one of brutal apparent *non*
involvement. The line is that the problem is that of the Argentinians to
resolve. CNN even records that Bush had a telephone conversation with Saa
shortly before his resignation, but is not going to issue any press
statement about it.

> The White House said President Bush, who spoke Saturday with Rodriguez Saa
> by telephone, had no immediate comment.


http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/americas/12/30/argentina.resignation/index.html

"Argentina President resigns"
Becomes third leader in 10 days to quit
December 31, 2001 Posted: 0342 GMT



I took seriously that Nestor and Fidel Castro saw progressive features in
Saa but the government has fallen apparently on the very issue that I posed
and which LP appeared to dismiss below:


> >If marxists cannot discuss what reforms are
> >revolutionary and what reforms  are reformist
> >they isolate themselves from lists where the
> >ideological  battle should indeed be joined.
>
> Your misuse of the word reform is as egregious an assault on the
> English language as a Hell's Angel gang rape is on the female sex.

If purple prose fits, fine. But how are  people in Argentina to judge which
reforms are possible and progressive, and which are not. I would appreciate
Louis's alternative less egregious formula.

Because, as the vivid report from Pablo testified and as foreign
newsreports now explicitly claim, part of the resistance to the austerity
measures comes from the middle classes. The



> Statement by the Party of the National Left on the events of December
> 19 and 20, 2001

says

> It is necessary to return to the course of the national, popular and
> democratic revolution which was cut off in 1955 and 1976. To that
> end, the Party of the National Left demands:

I welcome this formulation, as embracing progressive members of the 'middle
classes' although some marxists would not consider it socialist enough.
Nevertheless there are conflicts of classes and strata within such a
national popuar and democratic revolution.

The party statement says


> On this basis it will be possible to establish a redistribution of
> wealth towards the mostly dispossessed, relaunch Argentina's
> industries, and free the country from the international financial and
> mercantile dictatorship.


The problem is that without radical reforms at a world level, Bush can
stand back and leave successive Argentinian governments to go bankrupt,
until the burden of the global crisis of capitalism is accepted by the
Argentinian people. Laissez faire leave the people at the mercy of the
blind workings of international finance capitalism to fall apart in terms
of which strata bear the worst burden of the crisis.

There are parallels with Albania a few years ago, that had a mass, indeed
armed, revolution against a comprador regime, and yet had no radical
strategy to put in place that was effectively national popular and
democratic let alone socialist. Now you can say that the problem is a
crisis of leadership, but that is circular.

Certainly it is important and progressive when there are national and
popular revolts against the imperialist global economic system. But does
anyone seriously think they can now lead to a revolution without radical
(revolutionary) reforms at a global level?

One test of nationalism is whether it can see any role for regional
solidarity against the financial hegemonism of US imperialism and its
allies. An Argentinian devaluation would have a big effect on the
competitiveness of Brazilian labour power.

Are there any statements from progressive people from Argentina and
neighbouring countries, such as Uruguay or Brazil. Or are people reaching
for their revolvers. Because revolvers won't stop Bush. There are a lot of
revolvers in the USA and that does not lead to revolution.

Part of shared solidarity is how effectively to undermine the credibility
of people like the economist at Columbia quoted earlier on this list, who
advocates just the strategy that Bush is following.

That involves getting revolutionary hands dirty by effectively exposing the
global effects of such a strategy to people who at present may merely be
social democrats.

Chris Burford

London