[Marxism] Re Bolivia discussion

[robert montgomery <ilyenkova@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard F:
>Events in Bolivia in the coming
months and years will teach us all a lot more about the mutual
interrelationship of the national, indigenous and socialist
revolutions in Latin America. Old schemas and stereotypes are of
no use.<

I think this captures why the "Evo" debate has reached an impasse. The
nationalist bloc, unwilling or unable to address the set of questions
posed by Rrubinelli and others is really offering an answer by
silence. That answer is, we're not answering because we refuse to
accept the lexicon of a theoretical tendency which we consider at best
outmoded. This is a bloc of people who are consciously
post-Leninist/post-Trotskyist. They are representative of a
significant lacuna that has opened up on the Marxist left since at
least the 1980s. If on the one hand they reject the theory of the
permanent revolution, they refuse on the other to embrace the
alternative orientations that dominate the new social movements such
as autonomism (a neo-anarchist current that mixes extreme localism and
identity politics and which fits neatly into the decentered
imperialism of Hardt and Negri). So they pretty much resign themselves
to a kind of "waiting for lefty" limbo where the most that can be done
is cross fingers, hope for the best and cheer on the good guys.
Those who remain convinced of the continuing validity and fruitfulness
of the theory of permanent revolution; its corollary, uneven and
combined development; and, the Leninist theory of organization possess
a method for analyzing reality, for assessing objective probabilities,
and for recognizing fundamental class relations and contradictions.
This debate has shown that there can be no fundamental agreement
between these perspectives: They are counterposed to each other. In
view of this, the post-Leninists ought to accept, along with their
"wait and see" agnosticism, a marked degree of prognostic modesty.
This only seems reasonable, for as they constantly trumpet, "unlike
the sectarians we don't claim to know where the masses ought to go or
what program is correct." In keeping with such commendable modesty it
seems these folks ought also to assume a proportional degree of
prognostic humility. On the side of the Leninists/Trotskyists it seems
that a posture of agreeing to disagree is recommended since polemical
engagement is out of the question. The other alternative is to get
smart and simply ignore the bombastic expostulations of "la puebla
unida" enthusiasts like JB.
RM

________________________________________________
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