Re: [Marxism] Bolivia discussion

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess that's one way to look at it-- the pollyanna, glass is half full
way of looking at it.  But that is a position based on emotion, and
ideology, not concrete analysis of economic contradictions, the driving
forces of the conflict and what the bourgeoisie, local and international
will be forced to do if the class struggle outgrows the boundaries of
the explicitly articulated pastoral communialism, consensus social
capitalism of the MAS-- and the struggle is absolutely destined to
outgrow those boundaries.

JB in his analysis of permanent revolution alluded to the "necessity" of
the liberal democratic phase, and I think it's fair to ask what
constituted that necesssity:  clearly what constituted the  social
necessity was the inadequacy, not the strength, of a liberal democratic
national revolution; the inadequacy of the bourgeoisie-- and as such the
necessity of it, the liberal democratic phase, was essentially found in
its overthrow.  The liberal, impotent, national phase was a vacuum,
existing as the classes outside the vacuum organized themselves for the
real contest for power.

Now JB makes the analogy between that phase and the national struggles
ongoing.  And we have plenty of evidence of the incapabilities of
national revolutions in transforming social conditions, in reorganizing
production, in maintaining, developing even their own notions of
communalism, pastoral democracy, not to mention the "rights of the
people," see for example the history of the MNR right there, right in
Bolivia itself.  Gee imagine that.

I'd like to know what exact caricatures of "permanent revolution"
Richard finds there to be in this discussion, and I would welcome it if
Richard, or anybody  would answer the  concrete questions raised about
the organization of the economy, its supposed transformation under
conditions of "national revolution," and the supposed anti-imperialism
of  Mercosur, Brazil, etc. etc.

I'm half inclined to agree with FF in that the discussion verges on
absurdity-- but the responsibility for that falls squarely at the feet
of FF, WL and others who engage in slurs, smears, twists, avoiding at
all costs, real engagement with social determinants of struggles that
present themselves on the international stage as "national" struggles.

I expect them to do that, as a matter of course-- I've always said you
can take the boy out of the SWP, you can't take the SWP out of the boy--
I expect it, but I don't think it adds anything to our comprehension.

I wish I could say like Hooper in "Jaws":" I'm not going to waste my
time arguing with a man who's lining up to be a hot lunch."

But there's more at stake here than high season in a beach town.

rr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fidler" <rfidler@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Marxmail" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia discussion



________________________________________________
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