Re: [Marxism] A lesson from old history

[Paddy Apling <e.c.apling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:06 12/01/2006, rrubinelli wrote:

> To Paddy Appling:
>
> It's one thing to say things are different, the lessons of the 20th
> century have no meaning for Bolivia in the 21st.  Why Paddy, some might
> say, how very Trotskyist of you, as Trotsky (although he never claimed
> there were no lessons to be learned from the 19th centry) did in fact
> say "things are different."  But more than say that, he showed what the
> difference was.  In so doing, in showing what the difference was, he
> preserved, maintained, expanded, and proved the essential linkage of the
> current "new conditions"  with the internal dynamics of capital... So
> Paddy, you have to show, in concrete economic terms, how the economy of
> Bolivia, how the property relations, the relations of capital to labor,
> how the class alignments and class struggles differ so fundamentally, so
> completely, from those same relations of 10, 20, 30. 50 years ago.  Do
> they differ to the point that you would toss aside what Lenin wrote in
> "Imperialism.."?  If so, show the difference.  Do they differ so that
> you would reject all that was written against class collaboration?  If
> so, show the difference.

The difference is not simply a question of class alignments within
Bolivia but of the situation, and necessary tactics, of a left-wing
government elected in a small country in the "backyard" of the
world-dominant imperialist power.  The Bolsheviks were talking about
the necessary tactics of the working-class party in the imperialist
countries of Europe, and, of course, more specifically about tactics
in Tsarist Russia.  After taking power in 1917 they were concerned
not simply with the internal and external problems of the Soviet
power but also with tactics for revolutionaries in the rest of Europe
(and hardly at all with the ret of the world). When Lenin wrote his
"Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" he did not anticipate
all that has happened since, leading to world domination by a single
imperialist power - that is the difference.

Of course, working-class parties in Bolivia, like everywhere else,
must advocate and fight for working-class power in their country -
but this is far and away from theorists in USA, Britain or Australia
traducing the newly-elected indigenous president as
"class-collaborator" even before he is confirmed in office.

Bolivia is too close to the US - and with too much long-term
involvement of the US in its political and military affairs - for its
new government not to be very circumspect in how it treads the next few months.

I know too little about South America to criticise the tactics of any
of the supporters of Morales - be they working-class, petty bourgeois
or whatever - but it behoves all us to have a certain humility and
discretion in how we criticise what is  quite clearly a major success
for the indigenous people and working-class of Bolivia - on which
only they can build.

Paddy
http://apling.freeservers.com





________________________________________________
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