Re: [Marxism] Brazil's Lula meets Fidel Castro, offers credit

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

David says: "I would disagree with Joaquin's earlier statement that this
helps the situation because a semi-colonial country Brazil, by pushing from
the 'left' is somehow helping LA integration. Talk about 'projection'. There
is no one HAPPIER than US imperialism and it's oil companies about the
development of Petrobras new Tupi field. It seems that all the oil industry
magazines are ecstatic as they will certainly get a bigger cut of this than
they could negotiate with PDVSA. Why? Because Petrobras IS like the old
PDVSA and is a state- capitalist firm with emphasis on 'capitalist'."

Joaquin --if I may be allowed an opinion on this-- did not address the Tupi
oil find, but rather the Cuban-Brazilian deal. And there I'll say it AGAIN:
it is a good thing. It is a step the way towards greater integration of the
Latin American economies. In doing that, it strengthens the capacity of
countries in the region to resist imperialist impositions. It is not just a
question that Cuba needs these agreements. All terms and conditions being
identical, an agreement with a Brazil or an Argentina, or even a Colombia or
Mexico, is BETTER than one with France, Belgium or Spain. Because it
strengthens the global South against imperialism, it helps promote Latin
American integration against the United States.

As to the Tupi field find of 5-8 billion barrels, actually various European
imperialist oil companies are MUCH happier than the American ones, since
they OWN a majority of the economic interest in Petrobras (technically, the
government preserves 51% of the voting shares) and since they are ALSO
partners in the exploration of the region where the Tupi field lies.

As to the putative political impact of the find, making it possible for Lula
to somehow foil Chavez, what is missing from David's analysis is a grounding
in the real economic, social and political relations. His attitude towards
Brazil is determined by his conclusion that Brazilian capitalists are
imperialist wannabes. But intentions --including those of the Brazilian
capitalists-- are IRRELEVANT. Brazil is, in fact, one of the leading
countries of the Third World, not at all part of the imperialist world. 

This means that in economic, political, trade and judicial disputes between
Brazil and imperialist companies or countries or the imperialist camp as a
whole, we are on Brazil's side. 

And Brazil under Lula has clearly set back imperialist plans, not once but
repeatedly. Brazil played a key role in killing of the FTAA and has blocked
imperialist impositions through the Doha round of world trade negotiations.
In fact, they have brought the imperialist extortion machine of "trade
negotiations" to a screeching halt by maneuvering so that substantial
progress on agricultural subsidies (at least a 50% cut as an INITIAL offer)
becomes the PREcondition to negotiations on other subjects.

In the most recent negotiating session, they came in, asked the imperialists
if they were ready to give way on their agricultural subsidies, and when the
imperialists said no, Brazil told them "be sure to call us when you change
your mind." And walked out. 

Brazil has also dealt a blow to the imperialist "intellectual property"
racket by imposing a license (with a 5% royalty instead of hundreds of
percent royalties) on some AIDS drugs. And they dealt a blow to the
imperialist nuclear cartel by developing the ENTIRE nuclear fuel cycle.

I am not a cheerleader for Lula, but I AM a cheerleader for the Brazilian
NATION, as I am for the Mexican NATION, the Cuban NATION, the Latin American
NATION and the nations of the Third World. And the Brazilian nation, the
nations of Latin America, and the Third World generally could have done a
lot worse these past few years in relation to Brazil's international
policies than having this workers' leader as president of the country.

As to his domestic policies, I know only a few anecdotal things. He is
savaged hereabouts as a neoliberal, yet the standard of living of working
people has improved somewhat. And he has had a law passed creating
affirmative action programs for Black Brazilians to get into universities
and adopted various other progressive reforms in everything from combating
imperialist software monopolies to environmental issues. I know he has also
been a tremendous disappointment to the Brazilian socialist left and the
social movements, and suspect history will record his backing of biofuel
development as not just a mistake, but a catastrophe. 

As for tagging Lula with the "neoliberal" label, I will say here what I've
said repeatedly. "Neoliberalism" in the colonial and semicolonial world is
NOT the application of measures reflecting an ideology of free trade or
capitalism or markets, it is the policy of handing the country and its
resources over to the imperialists. That is what it IS, on the ground, once
stripped of its religious/madison avenue rags. This has simply NOT been
Lula's policy.

As to David's comments about the oil monopolies and relations with Cuba, I
don't get what his point is. Surely it hasn't escaped him that both the Bush
I and Bush II administrations were staffed at the highest levels with people
from oil companies. While they were speaking as oil executives, it was ok to
make nice mouthings about commerce and trade. But if the cadre of top
political operatives of the United States were convinced that, on balance, a
different policy towards Cuba better promoted U.S. imperialist interests,
they would have adopted that policy.

Huckabee is another example. While governor of Arkansas, he was for lifting
the embargo to increase the markets for his state. Now that he is running
for president, his position is 180 degrees the opposite. Did he have a
"change of heart"? Don't be ridiculous. He had a change in constituency.
U.S. politicians do not represent policies or programs to which they are
committed. They represent *interests.* In Arkansas he faithfully represented
the agricultural interests and especially the big corporations tied to it.
Now that he is running for president, he is trying to represent the
interests of the imperialists as a whole, who do not favor a change in
policy. Huckabee is showing he can represent the strategic geopolitical
interests of imperialism just as well as he could represent the narrow,
local, economist ones of Arkansas agribusiness.

The imperialists do not change the policy for a few simple reasons: 

Unlike the Soviet regime under Stalin, or the Chinese regime under Mao, the
U.S. recognizes that Cuba follows a policy of organizing opposition to
rather that accommodating with imperialism, i.e., a revolutionary policy.
They recognize that there is a qualitative difference between the policy of
the "really existing" socialism of unhappy memory, and the policy that's
been consistently followed by Cuba for a half century of "two, three ...
many Vietnams" and of "making the Andes the Sierra Maestra of Latin
America," although they no longer apply that in as literal a way as they did
decades ago.

Second, Cuba has consistently given an example of defiance of imperialist
dictates, and refused to apologize or allow itself to be blackmailed. 

Third, Cuba has done these things in what imperialism considers its
backyard, an integral part of its homeland, manifestly destined to be, at
the very most, a sad-sack protectorate or colony, if not simply swallowed
whole and liquidated as a nation altogether.

Which is not to say they won't change policy in a few months or years, or
even tomorrow, through the simple expedient of some real or made-up change
in Fidel's condition, which they will proclaim as his having been driven
from power and therefore it is a new day in U.S.-Cuba relations.

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