Re: Re: Re: Milosevic out?

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a [PEN-L:2763] Re: Re: Milosevic out?,
el 7 Oct 00, a las 11:16, kjkhoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx dijo:

> At 6:05 AM +0800 7/10/00, Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
>
> >In Belgrade we have had a rehearsal of the "out wih Ferdinand Marcos"
> >play, where a good fraction of the petty bourgeoisie, with the
> >company of diverse fractions of lower classes, seems to have tilted
> >the balance in the Yugo armed forces against Milosevic. This is not a
>
> And so, the progressives in the Philippines should have supported
> Marcos, because Washington had turned against him and Aquino had
> become the preferred one?
>
> kj khoo
>
>

Not my position (but I am not shunning the issue, please read the
para after next).

The only thing I said is that the situation in Belgrade resembled
that of Manila, "technically" speaking, too much. And that this was
still another proof that the whole "democratic" opposition in
Yugoslavia was "democratic" in the sense we in Latin America sadly
know too well: compliant with US imperialism. It is not necessary for
the actors to be aware of the play they are working at. What's more,
most of them realize that they have been used up and thrown away as a
condom, but when they do, it is too late.

As to the F. Marcos issue, I am no one to delve into the intricacies
of Phillipino poltiics. I have some general ideas, however, and one
of them is that if the USA media backs some political movement in a
Third World country, this is ALWAYS to the detriment of the masses in
that country. There IS an Empire, "imperialism" is not an abstract
system of blind forces. There exist collective subjects at the core
countries, the imperialist bourgeoisies, who have clear goals and
need to have these goals fulfilled.

I have no hope of convincing anyone who does not want to be convinced
by repeating what follows, but Lenin said that politics is a long
exercise in patience and today I am able to follow his advice. So
that I will for the nth time repeat some basic ideas.

"Imperialism"  is a concrete, historical and objective thing, where
one can (and must) begin by a first generalization: there are ruling
classes in _exploiting_ countries and there are ruling classes in
_exploited_ countries. The distinction is not a mildly political one,
it is an economic one, an _anatomic_ one. Value is extracted from the
exploited countries (or at least these countries sustain the creation
of value in the _exploited_ ones), and thus they are exploited in a
technical sense, just as an oilfield is exploited by Exxon.

The mainstay of the power of the ruling classes in the _exploiting_
countries is the unequal exchange that they enforce by political and
military means on the _exploited_ countries, the influx of value and
surplus value from these countries to the core (thus turning any
analysis of world economy that does not take these issues into
account as a central device for understanding and explaining the
world an abstract chatter without any relevance). Thus, whatever they
back in the periphery must BY DEFINITION be bad for the periphery.

Back to the Marcos issue, with this framework in mind. The USA must
not, of necessity, have backed the overthrow of Marcos because of
reasons that could be good for the Phillipinos. The USA must have
backed it in order to better _exploit_ the Phillipinos, in fact. For
example: the dictator had become too much of a pebble in the boot, so
it had to be extracted, because hatred against him made the
Phillipino exploitation less profitable. The costs of the extraction,
however, would be very high if performed by the imperialist power
itself. So that, let us back the Phillipinos who oust him, while they
can provide a better environment for our continued exploitation of
themselves.

As you see, even Marcos was in a sense better than democratic
imperialism: he was too true to his own nature, and he did not work
as a cover up any more. So he had to be replaced by a more
hypocritical ruler, such as our so beloved Cory. The same happened
with Batista in Cuba, by the way. Only that Fidel was not a traitor
to his own people, and upon the choice (which he was actually
presented with) he chose to be true to Cuba. That is when the Cuban
revolution _actually_ began.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx