Re: [Marxism] Bolivia (was something else with too manyexclamationpoints)

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rrubinelli:

> This is where I think we really differ-- the struggle in Bolivia is not
> identical with the existence, actions, policies, elections of the MAS
> and Morales.  It is co-incident, but not identical.  The MAS is
> appearance, manifestation;  It is not the origin, source, or "essence"
> of the conflict.
>
> In regard to the "timing" of the demand "All power to the (soviets,
> Bolivarian circles, factory committees, popular assemblies....)" timing
> it is.  It's a timed move, base on, and most importantly on, the
> concrete functioning of those organizations as the voice, the arm, the
> UNITED FRONT, of the workers movement, of the CLASS STRUGGLE as a whole.
> It is dependent upon "growing" those organs as organs of replacement,
> displacement of the inadequate, archaic, and impotent pre-existing
> structure of bourgeois class rule.
>
> And absolutely, when that "time," comes, it just doesn't come.  It's
> prepared-- developed-- organized.  And you have to have a lot more than
> a .22 caliber rifle.  You have to have prepared, developed, organized,
> defended continuous class struggle in the cities, the countryside, and
> in the military itself-- which is why I said to Nestor, that "Land,
> Bread, and Peace"  meant nothing without that struggle, without that
> agent, without that organization, without the soviets.
>
> So I think a question you might ask me, a fair question, rather than
> Morales calling for shutting down the government, is would I recommend
> at this time launching a slogan:  "Down with the class collaborationist
> Morales/MAS government.  All power to the (soviets, committees,
> assemblies....)!"?  And the answer is NO, not yet..  The demands now are
> for the CA, for nationalization.
------------------------------------------------------
No, we no longer "differ". I think you've come around. There's nothing in
the above that I or others whom you've debated with over the past month
haven't already said or would disagree with - at least on the practical
issues.
------------------------------------------------------
> RR:  This again is where we fundamentally disagree.  The answer is clear
> based on the example you cite, Brazil.  No Marxist organization or
> individual Marxist has any business accepting a portfolio in a bourgeois
> government; even a "progressive," "labor-oriented" version of the
> bourgeois government, as the first and last concern of a bourgeois
> government is just that, the bourgeois government, the governing of the
> bourgeoisie.  Those government, as have been the cases with Mbeki, Lula,
> etc are clearly determined to suppress class struggle; to preserve
> bourgeois property at the expense, literally, of the workers and poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since Marxists have supported the election of workers' parties to
government, by extension, there's no principled reason not to participate in
them if invited to do so. That seems to be a tactical matter - as is whether
and when to leave them. No one is saying these are revolutionary
governments. And even in these latter cases, I don't doubt you would
have also declined, in line with your logic, to participate in the July
26th,
FSLN, Chavez governments, etc. I will give you this: you are rock-solid
consistent with the Trotskyist tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------



________________________________________________
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