[Marxism] Reply to Julio RE: Mexican and US Government Alliance in Politics

["Tony Abdo" <gojack10@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me first just state, Julio, that I am not attacking you in any way.  It
wasn't so long ago when you made a series of proposals on how the PRD could
best confront the orchestrated attack on it, I heralded your comments as
being the very best, and said I only wished the PRD had such acumen as you
did on what needed to be done by them. So you and I are not at fundamental
odds over all that much of anything.  So let me now briefly reply to a few
of the issues you mentioned in your comments, and I hope you will see that
some of what you think I think is not exactly the case.

<<(Tony), Let me just note here that your initial argument was that in its
diplomatic
conflict with Cuba, Mexico was realigning its position vis-à-vis the U.S.
and the rest of Latin America.  I said, there are no conditions for a
strategic realignment of Mexico's foreign policy.  It is mainly the
expression of domestic, petty political bickering in Mexico.>>

Yes, we do disagree here, for I believe that this capture of Mexican
government foreign and domestic policy by the US is not something new, but
that it is already essentially very old past history.   I said that the
Mexican government withdrawal of its ambassdor along with the same action by
Peru was being done precisely in coordiantion with the Bush's new offensive
against Cuba, and also is part of the US planning moves against Venezuela,
and the Colombian anti-government forces.  To see this ambassador affair
solely in terms of the effort to mire and destroy the PRD and Manuel Lopez
Obrador is pure DF Left myopia, IMO.   It underlines the fact that the US
and Mexican governments are essentially acting in coordination, rather than
at odds with US policies.

<<The front-page headline in La Jornada yesterday said: "Mexico and Spain
repudiate U.S. Plan against Cuba - Derbez expects face-to-face talks with
Pérez Roque."  Also, yesterday, Cuba clarified that Ahumada had in his
possession DVDs with videos.  Apparently the videos are related to the
corruption scandals.  The office of the attorney general (PGR) denied the
existence of these videos, but today the newspapers say the PGR has admitted
that Cuba was right all along.>>

Fox likes to pretend to straddle the fence, but you should well be aware
that when he falls off it, it will be towards the US side.  In fact, he is
already fallen off into the US side of the fence where he is now prattling
about not having done so.

<<Today in La Jornada, front page headline: "Mexico proposes creation of a
'Friends of Havana' group - The economic siege by the U.S. makes no sense:
Derbez.">>

Sure, Fox is now the friend of Cuba.  How do I know?, La Jornada tells me
so!  This is truly idiotic psoturing by La Jornada of its own wishful
thinking of where it wants the Mexican government to be, but has nothing to
do with the reality of what Fox is doing or where he is going.

<<No acknowledgment of this in Granma.>>

That's because it it bullshit.

 <<But neither is there
anything in Granma's front page on Mexico.  As far as I can tell, Cuba is
not escalating the diplomatic conflict -- its focus is on rejecting the U.S.
pressures and making adjustments to face them.  With regards to Mexico, the
position may be a "let's wait and see what Mexico is really up to.">>

Castro already knows what 'Mexico' is up to, Julio. He's already waited and
seen.

 <<In any
case, something quite different from the hysteric statement that

> Mexico is somehow or other lost, so to say, for Latin America (which means
> "for revolution").>>

But that is nothing I have said, either.  What I have said many times in the
last few years, is that the Mexican Left is being severely set back
politically by the Right.  It is taking a bad hammering, and that hammering
is often made worse by the ineptitude of its leaders in the PRD, and
elsewhere, too.

<<Tony again:
> He [Julio Huato] challenges the notions that many Mexicans favor
> "surrendering Mexico's policies to Washington" as he puts it.  But they
> already have on multiple matters, even to many being in favor of modeling
> the entire Mexican political structure on the US 2 Party System.  But it
> doesn't stop there.

Let's begin with the dramatic proclamation that "Mexico is somehow or other
lost, so to say, for Latin America (which means "for revolution")" that you
agree with.>>

But I don't agree with that.  I'm not even sure what that means, Julio.
'Lost' permanently, or just lost for a few upcoming years?  It depends.  I
think that this comment that has a certain exagerated hyperbole to it, and
that this is what offends you most. But it was not mine, and I am not sure
what either you are Nestor see in such a phrase.

I will say this, though. The US has made a conscious decision to incorporate
the Mexican government and the Mexican elites as its junior partners in
assaulting the rest of Latin America.  And the Mexican elites have lept at
the opportunity. They are not with La Jornada and you. Julio, in desiring to
separate Mexican nationalism from US nationalism.   And many in Mexico agree
with this US-Mexico moving together.  It is a very popular desire of what
many Mexicans want in the future.


 <<In this cool geopolitical chess game we're playing from our
computers, strategically linked by Marxmail, Mexico is lost beyond hope.>>

Who says?  Not I.

<<And you are now supplying a laundry list of observations about the
condition
of Mexico's political system, the corruption and abuse, the cooperation with
Washington's "war on drugs," the mistreatment of immigrants, the differences
and tensions between "north" and "south," etc. to back up that assertion.

Someone is lost here indeed; but that is not Mexico.>>

I agree.  And it is neither Mexico nor I that is lost here.

<<Let me cut to the chase.  Your observations have elements of factual
truth.
But they are not the whole truth.  The trees are not the same as the forest.
 So, what is your point?  What are you really trying to say here?>>

I've already told you what I am saying, Julio.  The US and Mexican
governments are acting more and more as allies against the interests of the
rest of Latin America.   How should I see it?   Is Mexico champion of
Central America against the big, bad, Anglo North?   Is Mexico champion of
Cuba!?  Really?   How so?   What about Colombia?  How is Mexico opposing the
US destruction of that country?  It's not, now is it?

<<If you're trying to drive the point that Mexico is poor and unequal, not
communist, not even socialist, not even fully independent from the U.S.
politically -- not to mention economically or culturally --, with a
political and judicial system plagued by widespread corruption and disregard
for people's rights, with an abusive police, etc., then you're beating a
rotten dead horse.>>

But that was not the horse I was beating. So don't accuse me of horse
necromania.

I leave off here, simply because you begin to preach.  And I'm not entirely
sure what you are trying much to say, other than that Mexico is not all
'bad', which is something I agree totally with you on.

I do look forward to your comments about Mexican politics in the days ahead,
Julio.  As you correctly point out, the 2 countries are huge, and include
about 400,000,000 people. There is plenty to discuss when it comes to
Mexican-US relations.  And you and I will have many point sof agreement I am
sure.

Tony

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


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