[Marxism] Contradictions of Lula and questions for revolutionaries, by Paul LeBlanc

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am submitting this because I think it is a pretty good assessment of
some of the problems that fighters in Brazil face today, and some of
the considerations which those who assess the Brazilian situation from
the outside need to take into account.

In my opinion, the MAIN approach we on the outside should take re
Brazil today is not condemnation of Lula but defense of the
progressive moves he has taken to defend and assert Brazilian
sovereignty vis a vis imperialism internationally.  These include
resistance to imperialist domination in the WTO, defense of Venezuela,
deepening of long-standing ties with Cuba, fostering nationalist
alignments among Latin American governments, and opposition to the US
war in Iraq.

We should support all struggles of Brazil's workers and peasants for
their rights, whether they are supported or opposed by the government,
and defend the rights of Workers Party members and legislators to
criticize their government without facing expulsion.

But we should certainly not implicitly or explicitly be calling for
the downfall or replacement of Lula or splits from the Workers Party.
My own estimate is that under present circumstances, where the class
struggle in Brazil is in the midst of a modest downturn that predates
Lula's election, such developments will be negative for the workers
and peasants, period.  They should be resisted, not encouraged.

The best contribution we can make to progress in Brazil is to weaken
the hand of "our" imperialism by opposing the occupation of Iraq,
defending the Venezuelan revolution, opposing the embargo of Cuba, and
generally furthering the class struggle where we are.
Fred Feldman



The current situation in Brazil
CONTRADICTIONS OF LULA AND QUESTIONS FOR REVOLUTIONARIES
Paul  Le Blanc
What follows is a contribution to a discussion taking place on the
Solidarity list.


The recent developments in Brazil highlight the contradictions of the
coalition government led by Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva.  Lula -- an
heroic
working-class leader who helped to mobilize a left-wing challenge that
toppled the military dictatorship in the early 1980s -- has,
historically
been the central leader of the Workers Party (PT).  He has run for
President
of Brazil a number of times on a clear and inspiring socialist program
that
mobilized massive support among the laboring and oppressed majorities
of the
Brazilian people.  He decisively won in the last election, however, by
moderating his image, modifying his "immediate" program, and forging
alliances with elements among the capitalist elite.

There are some of the government's social policies that have helped
among
the lowest strata of society, encouraged some (such as the MST) to
continue
their struggle, and helped to mobilize a powerful challenge -- within
the
capitalist framework -- to some of the worst aspects of the
U.S.-supported
"globalization" strategy.  There are also government policies --
flowing
precisely from the decision to stay within the capitalist framework --
that
are absolutely inconsistent with the historic program of the PT, which
opposed neo-liberal policies, opposed class collaboration, and
advanced the
goal of political power to the working class to achieve socialism.
The
neo-liberal policies embraced and advanced by the government represent
the
kind of "hard choices" that many capitalist governments around the
world
have made, to the detriment of the laboring and impoverished millions
and in
the interests of wealthy elites.

The open challenge to this abandonment of the PT's historic program,
eloquently  articulated most by Helo?sa Helena -- one of the finest of
our
Socialist Democracy comrades -- and four other left-wing PT Senators,
has
resulted in their expulsion from the PT by a decision of more than
two-thirds of the party leadership.

In our own ongoing discussion in Solidarity, Comrade Matt has asked:
"Are
comrades still agnostic obout the Lula regime?"

I think this is not really the key question.  The potential for what
has
happened was always inherent in the PT -- something recognized by many
of us
back in the 1980s and early 1990s.  Still, we saw the PT as "ours,"
the kind
of party we would like to build in the United States, and some of us
saw the
Lula government, despite its obvious contradictions, as "ours" -- and
I
continue to think we were right to do so.  But we recognized (and
should
continue to recognize) the contradictory reality of the current PT
regime of
the PT itself.  As Bertolt Brecht once put it, "because things are as
they
are, they will not stay as they are."  The Lula government has been
partly
"ours" but also partly "theirs" -- given the Lula allies among the
capitalist elite, and especially given the commitment of certain PT
leaders
to remain in the capitalist framework.  It was clear from the start
that
very quickly the regime would tilt one way or the other.  And, at
least to a
very large extent, it now has.

It is necessary for us to watch and learn from each phase of the
current
developments in Brazil.  In an earlier phase of our discussion, I
argued
that "the PT as a whole will not be a force for socialist revolution,
but
that the role of the left-wing of the PT in building mass struggles in
defense of the needs of the working class is a key to the future.
That --
the debates and the mobilizations -- is how not only 'revolutionary
leadership' but also revolutionary 'followership' and revolutionary
possibilities come into being."  This was nothing new -- it simply
repeated
a truism, although now it has a more vibrant meaning in the new
circumstances.  And, of course, from our vantage point in the United
States
(with limited knowledge of Brazilian specifics and, in most cases,
even
lacking knowledge of Portuguese), there is hardly any grounds for us
to
issue tactical injunctions to the militant activists on the scene.

A number of us in this discussion have been very much of the opinion
that we
should not join with various international sectarian currents that
claim the
banner of "Trotskyism" in issuing open criticisms and challenges aimed
at
the Socialist Democracy organization (the DS), a section of the Fourth
International.  The situation faced by these DS comrades is complex,
with
possibilities for serious mistakes (both "left" and "right") to be
made.
They have been centrally involved for many years in building the PT
and in
building the mass movements, unions, struggles, and socialist
consciousness
that have been essential components of the PT.

In the United States, whether one is in Solidarity, the Socialist
Party,
Freedom Road, the Communist Party, the ISO, or any of the other
groups, or
an independent little radical collective in a particular city is
hardly
decisive in 2003.  Sadly, the groups are tiny, weak, and not essential
components (yet) of the class struggle as it unfolds at the present
moment.
None of us have a mass base in the working class.  If a cluster of us
become
disappointed with Solidarity or some other left-wing group in the
United
States, it is not such a big thing to openly criticize the group and
walk
out of it.  To call for the Socialist Democracy comrades to function
in that
way in regard to the PT is silly.  The question is how best to carry
out the
struggle in the PT, and how best to mobilize the workers and the
oppressed
to defend their interests under the specific conditions of Brazil
today, and
to do so in a manner that will help to deepen consciousness and extend
possibilities for socialist revolution.

Such decisions on how best to struggle in the PT cannot be made in the
United States, or in France, or in Britain, or in any other country
but
Brazil, and it can only be made by the comrades on the scene.  While
there
are critical questions to be asked, and sometimes -- as matters become
clear
-- criticisms to be made, our primary task is to learn from our
comrades'
experience so that we may build more effectively in our own country.

So far, we have had an opportunity to read the good declaration of
Socialist
Democracy in support of Comrade Heloisa and the others.  But a
declaration
by itself, no matter how good, is just words.  The obvious question is
"what
next?"  Comrade Peter, in a typically thoughtful contribution, puts it
like
this:

"For the DS and its left wing the moment of decision has come. Should
they stand with the working class, as Helo?sa did, and get expelled?
Or
should they obey the PT leadership?

"Solidarity as an organization isn't obliged to take a position on
this,
but Solidarity comrades need to think about it, since sooner or later
we'll face similar situations ourselves."

The one reservation I have about how Peter poses the question is his
restricting the "stand with the working class" position to getting
expelled
from the PT.  It is conceivable that the struggle can best be waged by
some
getting expelled and others avoiding expulsion in order to continue
the
struggle, on the inside, to win the PT majority back to the socialist
program (which will mean, now, to a revolutionary understanding of
that
program).  It is likely -- given the complexity of reality, and
especially
of these realities -- that there will be sharp differences among
Socialist
Democracy comrades on how best to move forward.  We have much to learn
from
such debates, from what the comrades actually do in the coming year,
and
from the continued unfolding of the Brazilian situation.

At the same time, we have much work to do in our own country in order
to
help create the reality in which -- as Peter puts it -- "sooner or
later
we'll face similar situations ourselves."






----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laborstandard_discussion/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
laborstandard_discussion-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism