RE: [Marxism] Bolivia (was something else withtoomanyexclamationpoints)

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RR: "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." 

RR. it seems to me you've missed your true calling in life. It should
have been as a professor of formal logic. The things you state here just
simply don't work that way in real life, above all in a situation where
masses of people are in *motion.*

Did Fidel "accepting" being minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces
in the first government after Batista fell make him "responsible for the
administration of the government's policies"? I maintain that it did
not, that on the contrary it helped him  lead the masses in *imposing*
certain policies ON the government.

Trotsky wrote something about a concrete situation in Spain and people
have take it and turned it into some sort of mold into which everything
must be made to fit. This is the result of the degeneration of the
Trotskyist movement into idealist sects. Thus all these rules about
"workers party/not a workers party" and "critical support/uncritical
support" and above all defense of "The Program."

Real politics is about motion. Dynamics. Not static ideological
"positions" and "class lines" which one mustn't depart from or cross.

Joaquín


________________________________________________
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