Re: The EU question (Response to Louis - I)

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis wrote:

> For me the important questions are how these circumstances arose and how to
> abolish them. I believe they arose because of the fortuitous geographical
> relationship of the New World to the European colonizers. I believe they
> can be abolished through socialist revolution, not by a defense of the FTAA
> with phrases plucked from the Grundrisse.

Without knowing the nature of the problem, abolishing these circumstances 
becomes a Russian roulette.  Figuring out the problem is what the analysis 
of facts -- versus wishful thinking -- can help do.  If the problem is 
geography, then there's not much to be done short of making populations play 
musical chairs and rotate places (young Mexicans picking veggies in 
California and washing dishes in NYC pizzerias while retired Americans drink 
piña colada in Baja and shop for real estate in San Miguel de Allende or 
Costa Rica doesn't quite qualify.).  I'm afraid these chicken-and-egg 
questions have a strategic import.

Can underdevelopment be abolished through "socialist" revolutions?  I 
haven't seen that happening yet, not successfully (by success, I mean, able 
to sustain on economic terms the competition of rich capitalism).  But I 
won't discard this approach.  What I know is that "socialist" revolutions 
can be -- have been -- abolished by underdevelopment or, what is the same 
thing, turned into something else so that they may not even justify the 
label of "socialist."  Revolutionaries can arrive in power.  But, what will 
they do next?  Don't tell me --  I know what you would do.

> Actually, there have been hundreds of attempts to adjust or replace the
> political, legal and ideological superstructure in Latin America.
> Unfortunately, Anglo-American imperialism has the means to upset these
> measures, either in the form of APRA type nationalist reformism,
> Allende-style social democracy or Marxist guerrilla insurrection. That is
> the reason that I have scheduled a workshop on how to make an atomic bomb
> at our Oct. 2002 "Return to Class" conference. Mac Stainsby has been
> assigned to look out for plutonium on Ebay.

Anglo-American imperialism can upset revolutions and reforms in Latin 
America.  Why that doesn't surprise me?  Bullies.  Should they help them 
instead?  If we call them names in this list, will they change their 
behavior?

> Can't possibly understand why you are putting "monopoly capitalism" in
> quotes. I have a stack of books on my desk about the airline industry that
> I am using for a longish post on deregulation. They practically scream out
> at me: "MONOPOLY CAPITALISM".

The existence of monopolies is not the issue.  They existed in Marx's times. 
 They existed in Adam Smith's times.  They exist now, PEMEX, CFE, 
Microsoft, Con Edison, what not.  (Obviously, in different historical 
settings their relative position was different.)  The issue is whether the 
phrases I pluck from Capital and Grundrisse to make your day, phrases that 
characterize the driving forces of capitalism in general (irregardless of 
the stage of development), need to be revised as a result.  Because if they 
do, then your strategy is the right one.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.