RE: [Marxism] and how ourepigones react...

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

====================================================================
EPIGONICAL REACTIONS TO THE PROGRESS IN LATIN AMERICAN INTEGRATION:
Fidel and Evo and others might hug anti-working class Lula (or
Kirshner or whom ever), backslapping and high-fiving him. The refer
to Lula as a "comrade", also. So, do you, representing the "American
Left" act like band-wagon epigones and follow suit? No doubt you do.
Instead of letting heads of state decide your politics for you, why
don't you decide for yourself based on the what's going on in the
class struggle.
====================================================================

RICARDO ALARCON explained:
let?s take Brazil. If the FTAA was not implemented before, when not
even Chávez was around, it is because there was an obstacle called
Brazil. We don?t include Fernando Henrique [Cardoso, former president
of Brazil] in the list of ?progressive? governments, to use your own
words, but Brazil has always tried to defend its best interests
against free trade as promoted by the United States. To say the
least, there are sectors within the Brazilian bourgeoisie willing to
protect its interests from the most powerful market forces, as it
happened perhaps in Mexico in the past, if not even longer under the
free trade agreement.

Prior to Fernando Henrique Cardoso, when there was a military
dictatorship in Brazil, I was ambassador to the United Nations.
Brazil was Cuba?s major political contender in Latin America. We
confronted each other over everything and agreed on nothing. Yet,
despite all that, we took the same positions concerning economic
issues, the ones related to development which gave rise to so much
discussion in the 1970s. Meanwhile, the rest of Latin America was
fully submitted to the U.S.! We wouldn?t even shake hands with the
Brazilians, but at times we had similar opinions on important topics
and therefore needed to come up with diplomatic, if unacknowledged,
formulas to support each other. What I noticed is that they were the
only ones in this region who had their own aims, not those of the
working class or the revolution, but their own bourgeois interests,
as fascistic as they were. And they in turn understood that they
agreed with the communists and not with their bourgeois friends.

It seems to me that Chávez provides the right contribution through
his formulation of 21st Century Socialism, which is not just any kind
of socialism, for its features are similar to Venezuela?s. Empirical
data documents Venezuela?s economic growth, mainly in the private
economy. In revolutionary, Bolivarian Venezuela there?s room for, and
it's used by, the domestic bourgeoisie. They?re out for Chávez?s
blood, but at the same time doing business, investing and making
profits in the meantime. [Vice-president José Vicente] Rangel told me
that private economy is growing the fastest. So, if it is growing
while there?s talk about a 21st Century Socialism, the door is open
to discussion about and awareness of the need to defend socialism as
the real alternative. That possible better world is either socialist
or nothing at all, but under a rather different socialism. What?s
more, it would be socialisms, in plural: ways to organize society on
basis of solidarity, equality, etc. We would have to part with
Marxism?s classic, traditional approach. I don?t think that?s the
issue today. A Marxist or a revolutionary has to do at all times
whatever it takes to advance revolution, even if the ultimate outcome
is a classless society. I believe in the Marxist approach.

-------------------------

Capitalism is seeing that in its mirror. There are forces which are
not anti-capitalist, at least not in our books, but are now acting
against the existing capitalism, present-day capitalism, the only one
there is. Thus, I think you must devise tactics to march alongside
all those people insofar as it is possible, keeping in mind that any
project to revive national capitalisms are unrealistic; I don?t
believe in them. But it would make no sense to refuse to go hand in
hand with those forces. On the contrary, now we have a chance to
draft a much more flexible speech, like the Declaration of Porto
Alegre, a minimum, all-encompassing platform capable of adding people
to the struggle against the truly existing capitalism. That?s where
socialism will start taking shape, which in my opinion will
necessarily means socialisms.

The bright side of the crisis we endured in the past, the demise of
the socialist countries, is that there?s no more counterposing
between two blocks or two systems, and hence no need to copy any
models. Now is the time of [early 20th century Peruvian Marxist
thinker] Mariátegui: ?Neither rubbings nor copies, but heroic
creation?. And if it is a creation, each will have to be different.
Socialism in Venezuela, if attained, won?t be like Cuba?s. That?s why
I like Chávez?s phrase, 21st Century Socialism, because it?s very
open and takes into account all these facts.

-------------------------

http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs546.html


________________________________________________
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