Re: [Marxism] Guillo: No Joke, Bachelet Will Change Chile

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis writes:
Sometimes it is really hard for me to figure out the Marxist kernel in
the
torrent of crosspostings that Walter favors us with on a regular basis.

Fred comments:
Sometimes I wonder what is the the point of Louis' tit-for-tat
counterposts against Walter's "torrent" of news clippings.  Does the
opinion of a popular comedian really require a response in the spirit of
"The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky."  And what do John
McCain and Tony Blair have to do with this exactly?

There is no revolutionary process in Chile, and there is no socialist
transformation possible there at present.  It seems clear to me that
Bachelet doesn't favor one, but she is also not their not being a
revolutionary situation at present.  There has been no Caracazo, no
Moncada-type coup attempt, no gas wars, no upsurge of indigenous
peasants against a racist imperialist campaign against coca. And the
1973 defeat still weighs on the situation after all these years.

Plus I get the impression there is an economic upturn in Latin America
which sometimes favors political stability, especially is combined with
some concessions to the masses. That may or may not be good for
revolution, depending on circumstances, but I don't think it rules out
"change."

But there does seem to be a strong desire for "change" of a positive
type.  The popular cry of "Sea for Bolivia" is a good sign.  The fact
that Bachelet is defending Chavez (while attributing the changes in
Venezuela exclusively to the possibilities created by "oil wealth" in
order to indicate that Chile can't do such things).  But there is also
pressure for more protection for workers and the poor, and Bachelet
seems to feel she should respond to this, at least initially.

I note that Chile used to be regularly presented -- perhaps
exaggeratedly -- as in a bloc with the counterrevolution in power in
partially US-occupied Colombia and Mexico against the revolutionary
processes in Venezuela and Bolivia.  "Change" could occur in this area
without a socialist revolution ensuing.

And as far as social democracy=social democracy=social democracy, does
that really mean that Blair=Allende=Lee Kuan Yew=Bachelet.  I don't see
anything in the post that indicates the need for a polemic against the
optimistic comedian.

It is true,  of course, that Prensa Latina definitely tends to
accentuate the positive in reporting the elections in Latin America.  I
remember the way the election in Paraguay was greeted because the
president-elect had taken quite a pro-socialist posture in the campaign.
The main change that actually seems to have taken place is a military
base for Washington for possible use against Bolivia.

But I certainly see no basic reason for getting all het up about
nefarious Kautskyism just because people in Chile hope for some positive
change.  If they mobilize for it, as in the case with the call for "Sea
for Bolivia", it is simply a fact that some positive change could
happen.
Fred Feldman




<http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=9590
4&partner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here!

________________________________________________
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