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

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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:  Don't kow about "coming around."  That has always been my position.
What JB, Nestor, WL, FF want is something quite different-- they want
uncritical, unqualified support for Morales.  Any and all criticisms
by/from the "left" in this discussion, of Morales, of the "program" such
as it is of the MAS, have been met by charges from the "national
salvation" wing that such criticism is based on a: armchair ultraleftism
b: decrepit scholasticism  c: first world imperialist blindness d:
racial/gender based "prejudice" e: a,b,c,d inclusive.
__________________
MG: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.
_________________

Nope.  Again the distinction must be made between critical and
uncritical support.  Critical support is based on maintaining certain
"programmatic" class-wide demands upon the "new" "progressive-national"
government, i.e constituent assembly, nationalization.   Accepting a
ministry portfolio is fundamentally uncritical support, making the
individual or party responsible for the administration of the
government's policies, not fulfillment of the class-wide, social
demands.  There is a serious distinction.  You don't enter a bourgeois
government to execute the plans of the bourgeoisie or "moderate" their
application.  You enter a worker's state government to do that.

And nope again.  I started my rather spotty, checkered radicalism with
SNCC, MLK's open housing project in Chicago (2nd or 3rd scaredest ever
been in my life was Gage/Marquette Park), and SDS, so I am pretty sure I
would have personally participated in 26 July etc.  But should a Marxist
organization have?  Absolutely as long as that organization wasn't
required to abandon its program for workers' organization, for rural
reorganization etc.  Problem becomes that national fronts require,
insist, impose, such an abandonment, and are not at all hesitant to
enforce it, against the revolutionists themselves (Spain, China are the
most obvious answers.  Don't know much about the relations between 26
July and the formal Marxist parties, but if the relations weren't
"good," probably because the Marxist parties weren't very good.

rr


________________________________________________
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