[Marxism] Re: The Militant blames Aristide, and gripes about Chavez, too...

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I think another crusade against adaptation is getting going in the
pages of the Militant.  We will see how far this one takes them.  I
don't think any of the processes that I noted earlier around the
opposition to the existing expressions of resistance to the occupation
of lraq have been resolved by the partial retreat in the last few weeks
from the most extreme expressions of the Jack Barnes-Steve Clark line.
Above all, that includes the perspective that sees US imperialism as on
an unstoppable (except by  SWP(US) type "revolutionary organizations")
march toward qualitatively greater world hegemony, a march powered by
the creation of a motivated, high morale imperialist new model army.

HAITI
Notice that the Militant claims to KNOW what went on in meetings between
Aristide and the US that had no witnesses.  This is the secret knowledge
of All  Things that the national secretary routinely claims.  That's how
he knows that Rumsfeld tells the truth when he says that there are no
problems in Iraq, but liberal critics of the war policy are inventing
difficulities to make poor, persecuted George Bush look bad.  Just like
they tried to steal the election from him in 2000.  As for me, comparing
the Aristide and Bush track records on telling the truth, I have to tilt
toward Aristide on this one.  And so does most of the wicked,
uncomprehending (in the view of the Militant) world.

US officials have admitted that they told Aristide that he would be
killed by the rightists and that they would do nothing to prevent it
unless he allowed them to cart him off to someother country.  There is a
form of political collaboration between the rightists and the US
government right there.   And moreover, it suggests the posture of the
current intervention: the US forces will protect those who go along with
them.  The rest, the rightists should feel free to take care of.  The
same squeeze play was apparently used to put Prime Minister Neptune in a
position where he could be portrayed-- without saying anything himself
-- as supporting the "transition."

But the Militant sees no need to take note of such trivia.  The
important thing is to score points against Aristide. To reveal the
meaning of Washington's actions for Haitians would be to make mere
anti-imperialist propaganda, whereas the primary task of US communists
is making propaganda against bourgeois nationalists in the semicolonial
countries. It is this that justifies the role of the SWP and its related
organizations as the exclusive repository of "Marxist culture" in the
world today -- in contrast, for instance, to the Cubans who show no
interest in scoring "Marxist" points against Washington's victims.

Between the US officials and Aristide, the Militant trusts the US
officials (as long as they aren't liberals).  When it comes to track
record, I think
Aristide is somewhat more trustworthy.

As for Aristide's situation, this seems to have improved radically,
which we should note as a victory for our side.  The Central African
Republic seems to have  definitively (here's hoping) backed off from
attempting to silence Aristide or hold him as a prisoner.  The
delegation supported by the International Action Center was allowed to
visit him.  Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was allowed to interview him.
And now he is being allowed to return for a time to the Caribbean. l
have placed my "suicide" watch, which was on red, on yellow for the time
being.


The shift in the treatment of Aristide is a setback to US and French
policy.  While it is possible that cooler heads prevailed among the
imperialists, I suspect intervention from other African states --
particularly South Africa -- and from nongovernmental individuals like
Mandela had an impact.

The US media made a big point of the fact that South Africa refused
Aristide asylum as he was being forced out by US officials, but I think
this was out of a desire to avoid any complicity with the US coup.  I
think the Mbeki government remains quite friendly to Aristide and wants
no part of the US occupation and coup.

One one point, I think Walter's presentation is a little incomplete.  He
says that Aristide's position was weak relative to imperialism because
brought back to office  by US occupation.  He does not mention that this
was Aristide's orientation and call.  As a somewhat pacifist-minded
bourgeois democrat, Aristide saw this as preferable to a difficult
struggle by the Haitian people to re-establish their own government.  It
also reflected, I think, a certain fear of and lack of reliance on the
people. Whatever the humanitarian impulses he may have felt, it is true
that, as Walter points out, the Haitian people have paid a price for the
occupation that he called for  -- and that price includes the present
occupation which he also advocated.


VENEZUELA
On Venezuela, I see the label  Bonapartist is back as a characterization
of Chavez. However,  instances where he leans on the state machine to
defend the capitalists and landlords against the workers and peasants
are rather lacking.  Still, for a true "Marxist," they can always be
posited -- if the line says it must be true, then it is true.
"The Militant always tells the truth" simply means "the Militant never
violates the line."

The basic characterization of Chavez, virtually from the 1992 military
rising on, has been "bourgeois-nationalist Bonapartist demagogue" who
pretends to be proworker.  I assume that the "demagogue"
characterization will be back soon since the rest has been brought back
into circulation after a period of "adaptation".  Since the line says
that Chavez is a bonapartist capitalist politician, he must be a lying
demagogue.  Therefore he is one.

To read the Militant properly, you have to get that the facts of the
world derive from the "norms" of revolutionary centralist functioning.
The sectarian shibboleth of the SWP today is not the "permanent
revolution" or the "democratic dictatorship" or something about "Cuba"
or  "the turn" but the organizational norms. The politics of the party
derive today from what is necessary to justify, reinforce, and extend
the "discipline," the  "revolutionary centralist" organizational
practices that make the SWP and associates the only revolutionaries
worthy of the name in today's world. The "discipline" IS the program.
(More on this some other time.)

But I was caught by the assertion that capitalist property relations in
Venezuela are "virtually" intact.  What does "virtually" mean here?
Sounds like adaptation to me.

I assume that the Militant does not  mean that  capitalist property
relations are intact online but badly shaken up on the ground.  So what
has led to the introduction of the qualifying word "virtually",
especially since the Militant continues to claim that there has been
"virtually"  no implementation of the progressive measures adopted by
the government?

Capitalist social relations are relations among people, not relations
between people and things.  They are not reducible to nationalized
property, although qualitative changes in these relations are reflected
in changed forms of property ownership.  In Venezuela, the social
relations between the ruling and oppressed class have changed more
deeply during the last years than has happened in Latin America since
Cuba.  I know what I'm saying here -- I think the social relations among
the classes, including the relations of dominance and subordination,
have changed more than they did during the Nicaraguan revolution, or in
Grenada. I believe the obstacles to a successful counterrevolution are
greater. The human material has been changed. The enemy classes are far
less secure in the possession of their property and power over others
than they were (leaving aside the renationalization of the oil industry
and the redistribution of a significant amount of land, etc.) The people
have gained consciousness, confidence, organization, and solidarity on a
scale that has been rare and precious in history.

Has capitalism and the capitalist state been overthrown in Venezuela?
No.  Will it be? Well, we'll find out. (We have no control over this.)
Revolutions go forward or back.  They don't stand still (or more
correctly that is a form of retreat.)

But this profound revolutionary process has not been entirely
spontaneous (although that's a big part of any real revolution) but has
been led by the "bourgeois nationalist bonapartist demagogue" Hugo
Chavez.  I regard Chavez as a revolutionary -- admittedly that's an
empirical response to what appears in front of my face -- but I think
arguments about labelling don't count for much here.  If this is
"bourgeois nationalist bonapartist demagogy" according to some, then all
I can say is that if so, the world needs a whole lot more of it.
Fred Feldman


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