re: "Classic" revolutions

[john gulick <jlgulick@xxxxxxx>]

Louis sez:

>It is
>altogether likely that the peasant-led socialist revolutions can no longer
>succeed. That is the opinion of people like Victor Tirado, the
>disillusioned Sandinista leader.

I sez:

It seems that one reason why many ex-socialist revolutionaries in Central
and Latin America (and by ex-socialist revolutionaries I mean those who were
the genuine ticket, not ex-supporters of the national bourgeoisie like Cardoso
in Brazil) now embrace selective or full-scale privatization of the state
sector is because foreign investors promise to "modernize" the forces of
production (especially telecoms and transport, but also manufacturing) in a
way that didn't happen during 1) the bad old days when peripheral countries
were simply raw material exporters, or 2) recent times when the historical
weight
of underdevelopment, and imperialism, counterinsurgency, and internal
contradictions militated against the expansion of the productive forces.
>From their posts as heads of state ministries or leading figures in reformist
opposition parties, many ex-revolutionaries cautiously welcome foreign
investment, because, despite the increased layoffs, poverty, and inequality
privatization causes, it at the very least bears the stamp of "modernization,"
betraying a fascination with pumping up the forces of production that you
wouldn't expect from anyone who has passing familiarity with the distorting
effects of capital-intensive FDI in countries that already have high
percentages of informal urban workers.

My question is this: does the abandonment of the peasant-led socialist
revolution model not only have to do with the oft-cited reasons (the end of the
Cold War and Soviet aid, the failure of past experiments due to imperialist
aggression or counter-revolution from above, the decreasing demographic
weight of the peasantry, and so on), but with the following: To the extent
that the shards of social revolutionary movements that aim to take state
power remain enamoured with "development," ultra-modern infrastructure and
capital goods have become so costly and sophisticated that no movement that
hopes to attain them can do so without inviting in the TNC's, and/or
super-exploiting the ex-peasants as primary sector wage workers, both of which
obviously by definition fly in the face of peasant-led mobilization.

That's a long statement which is meant to be a question.

And with this, I better retire for a while, for I've been on pen-l more in
the last few days than the whole rest of the year !!!


John Gulick
Ph. D. Candidate
Sociology Graduate Program
University of California-Santa Cruz
(415) 643-8568
jlgulick@xxxxxxx