[Marxism] Re: Brazilians urged to take to streets

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

If Lula were in hot water like Allende was in the early 1970s, I can
understand such an appeal. Lula is being attacked from the right for the
same reason that Clinton was attacked by the Republicans for 8 years.
The
Brazilian right wants to be in the driver's seat because there are
perquisites associated with power. Bourgeois politics is an immense
trough
at which both rightist and fake "socialist" parties can get fat at.
That's
what the Lula corruption scandal is about, not a titanic struggle
between
the workers and Wall Street. --Louis

>On the part of the left, failure to defend bourgeois-nationalist forces
when they come under imperialist attack can only weaken the effort to
bring together genuine popular-revolutionary movements.In fact, a
sectarian posture on this issue can facilitate devastating blows that >
can throw back the prospects for a considerable time." --Fred

>Baloney. --rr

Wall Street always wants to strengthen the Right, for if that is
acceptable or even significant, it strengthens their politics and
purse. But getting rid of an elected leader is only necessary when
there is a threat of revolution, or from a more long-range point of
view, if there is a threat of strengthening the Left if an elected
leader remains in power.

Allende and his party were not a threat to Wall Street (i.e., the U.S.
Government taken as a whole). But under the conditions of a
radicalization of the Chilean people, the MIR and the Chilean Socialist
Party's left wing were. It was the perceived inability of Allende to
control these forces that the U.S. feared. To destroy them there had to
be violent repression with Allende either in power or out of power.
Fascist organizations were formed to take on the left. However, as in
Germany in the 1930s, a constitutional framework for the overthrow of
Allende was preferable. Kissinger and others thought that it was
strategically easier to get rid of Allende first, who was in a
precarious position in any case, both politically and economically.*
Enough questions were raised among the middle classes as well as the
Right to justify in their minds the military coup, led by Generals that
Allende had himself appointed.

IMO, this is also what lies behind Wall Street's moves against Chavez.
Chavez is himself a threat to their profits, but even more to social
stability.

Regarding FF and rr, I don't understand rr's position at all. Feldman
is not calling for support to bourgeois nationalism, but for defense of
it. Although there is always some sort of overlap or blending, these
are different concepts entirely. How one handles these issues are
political/psychological issues for the Brazilian Left. It could be that
they bend the stick too much towards Lula's programs. Certainly a dam
will not solve Brazil's problems or even amount to a beginning. But
socialists cannot oppose it, they have to defend it while pushing for
stronger measures. In any case, FF's framework is both supportable and
defensible. A frontal attack on bourgeois nationalism is not.

Brian Shannon

* In the election of 1970, Allende got 36 percent of the vote, the
conservative Alessandri got 35 percent and the centrist Tomic got 28
percent of the vote. Even accepting the distortions of bourgeois
democracy, this was not a mandate for socialist transformation.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism