On May 7, 7:18 pm, dave.walt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 7, 6:06 pm, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 9:01 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > The description in the Guardian is interesting, a little overdrawn
on
> > > the race question, IMO. Racism, like racism in the US, is tied to
> > > class. Without meaning to, this is the lesson the Guardian draws.
And
> > > it's true. Little has to do with 'expelling' anyone, this is beyond
> > > the pale of Marxism, something you travelled a long time ago. It is
> > > wholly your own creation..."What I'd do" (which I applaud for your
> > > honesty in stating this, once and for all)..."You'd do", but
Marxists
> > > would do, and have, done something else, and that's organize the
> > > working class against the mostly white, rich, oligarchies of Latin
> > > America.
>
> > Yes, but the truth is that history shows that many of the lower orders
> > of white or mixed (metizo) origin politically cohere to the wealthier
> > predominantly white oligarchs. The more white and privileged eastern
> > provinces of Bolivia don=92t want any change, that interferes with
those=
> > historically determined privileges, let alone a =93Permanent
> > Revolution=94. And so there is a vote for secession in Santa Cruz
> > province =96 and the other three will likely follow, notwithstanding a
> > very large boycott. In countries like Bolivia there is a significant
> > resistance to progressive change based on the remnants of colonial
> > conquest (the Christian mestizo element).
>
> > So, because of the relative and glaring im****tance of the national
> > question in Latin America, particularly in Bolivia, the question will
> > then be posed, in spite of Morales present declarations, as to who
> > will prevail. If the military moves in under orders from the central
> > government and strong political measures are taken against the
> > separatists, seizure of the property of rebels, in the best
> > revolutionary traditions, then you will have a chicken run and
> > expulsions, violent displacement of peoples reflecting the fact that
> > they are out of phase with this phase of historical progress (the
> > national question) in that country.
>
> I agree with much of what you described above. But it will be a class
> expropriation of the "Oligarchy". If they 'run' or hide in other
> countries, it is 100% irrelevant. The Bolivian working class and
> peasantry want to keep the country whole, and they want socialism.
> They are opposed to the obviously white, Euro-decended (and MOST of
> them are mixed but it's who THEY view themselves as you describe
> meztito populatons correctly: Europeans). My point is their 'staying'
> or 'going' is wholly a political question of being economically and
> politically disenfranchised by the revolution which is growing
> everyday. My point is that when th **** was leading the Miners in
> 1948-1953, they pointed to the obvious racism of the oligarchy and US
> puppets then. But the issue again, and I repeat, again and again, was
> one of power. You find no descriptions in Lora's The History of the
> Working Class in Bolivia of people demanding "expulsion". Its a
> totally a-political distraction to even raise this (although it may
> sound good). It is not even a "tactic".
>
> > The same as in South Africa and Rhodesia. And they expel themselves
> > when the time comes. We can witness the large numbers of thickly
> > accented South African and Rhodesians in Australia and by-the-way an
> > increasing number of Israelis taking up select real estate in parts of
> > Australia =96 the beginnings of a larger chicken run perhaps? And not
to=
> > forget the =93boat people=94 either compradors or ethnic Chinese who
had=
> > no identity with the national Vietnamese revolution and might have
> > been a thorn in the side of the revolution had the Chinese not been
> > thoroughly thrashed when they invaded Vietnam. And the day will likely
> > come when the same phenomenon happens to corresponding social cl*****
> > in Latin America =96 the main point of the excellent Guardian article.
> > Granted that this cannot be determined in advance of events, but
> > history makes it seem likely.
>
> Yes, but in Cuba, for example, the only succesful socialist
> revolution, the white oligarchs for the most part ran (most Whites did
> not). No expulsions. Expropriations. But what of the "boat people".
> Was it the *position of the Vietnamese govt*? No. In fact they tried
> to stop MOST "boat people" often because they were running with their
> wealth. Most of the people who ran did so way after the air-lift. Most
> actually left in the intervening years. This has nothing to do, either
> with the Guardian article you praise nor the issue of "settlers".
> Also, the Vietnamese gov't was also a technical experitese the gov't
> wanted to keep. It was totally a secondary issue with regards to
> tackling imperialism AND their cronies. Dusty, do you know of any
> current, anywhere, that *advocated* "boat people"?
>
> The it is actually quite a slander on the Chochin Chinese and other
> Vietnamese-Chinese thousands of whom participated in the revolution
> and who were NOT comprador at all...they were far too poor to being
> Comrador, which belonged to Vietnamese. Many Chinese were expelled to
> China as well as to the US. It was a fit of racism on the Vietnamese
> part, IMO, that the expulsions took place. Again, the Chinese there
> were not 'settlers' since they "settled" nothing but were immigrants
> like the millions of immigrants in Indonesia (where were the victims
> of Vengel's "anti-immigrant" friend in the Indnoesian gov't massacre
> of the KDP in 1965). This class of Chinese were SAME as the ones in
> Vietnam.
>
> > Very little African ethnicity at all in Argentina. You seem to want it
> > =96 but it is minute. There is a significant mestizo population mainly
> > in the north, though a large pro****tion of the population of the
> > villes miseria around the cities from Buenos Ares south.
>
> I probably overwrote this. I don't claim there is *any* non-European
> descendents left in Argentina (some Mapuche, but not a lot). My point
> was that in Venezuelan there is a very strong Afro-Venezuelan mix
> there. Something repeatedly noted by the left against the mixed and
> euro-capitalists.
>
> > ...essentially what all Andean peoples are.
>
> > That isn=92t so. Depends what you mean by "Andean people". The
majority=
> > of Andean people in the higher areas have very little or no mixed
> > blood =96 no Spanish and certainly no African.
>
> Yes, it depends where. In Peru/Ecuador/Bolivia over half. IN Colombia/
> Venezuela, not nearly as much (only 3% officially in Venezuela in
> fact) I think it's interesting from an ethnic point of view but from a
> class POV, the working class of all these countries is going after
> their enemy *as a class*. The class enemy will flee or not based on
> the how the battle is won, that's it. That it is "expelled", only
> Vengelis advocates this, for some bizarro reason probably associated
> with his politically immaturity.
>
>
>
> > political purposes), but the whole logic of the process of the
> > democratic revolution.
>
> > Vngelis has made clear the real history of the creation of modern
> > Greece and Turkey =96 mass expulsions =96 and resettlement -
continuing =
to
> > the present time. The Greeks proved to be a thorn in the side of the
> > formation and consolidation of the Kemalist post Ottoman national
> > venture and Turks in the territory of the new Greece the same.
>
> > There was no scope for a class solution to this question. The foremost
> > question in those predominantly agrarian societies was the national
> > question. No amount of idealist meandering about =93beyond the pale of
> > Marxism=94 can change that. It appears that (with exceptions, in
> > exceptional cir***stances) this aspect of the national question
> > requires such population movements =96 a stage separated by some time
> > from most certain later developments.
>
> What ties "White" Argentina together with the 70% indigenous Bolivia
> is the common enemy of US imperialism and the struggle for workers
> power. This is the program, all-the-way back of the Fourth
> International. It is a program I stand on. I reject the fake-leftism
> and, for that matter the fake nationalism of Vngelis.
>
> David
Dusty,
other than me playing the cat to Vngelis' mouse, seriously...what are
we arguing about. We agree that the democratic tasks have, for the
most part, not been met. We know that only the working class in
leader****p of the revolution can lead such a revolution and carry it
to fruition. We probably also agree that imperialism and their cronies
in the local capitalist class are the main enemy, as can be seen
everywhere, especially vividly in places like Mexico (which I know far
more personally), Bolivia, etc.
Debates then inside the workers movement stem over how to relate to
the so-called "Bolivarian" leader****ps such as Morales, Chavez, Correa
in Ecuador, etc, to what degree they hinder or push the revolution
forward, how to build and maintain independent workers organizations,
how to build a revolutionary leader****p. Basically the same debates
the workers movement has had since forever.
What is new? Nothing. The class forces and, colonialism in it's neo-
colonial form have been around forever. The USSR is gone, which means
a huge material loss for the workers movement. Ideological confusion,
capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe, etc etc. So Fourth
Internationalists have been dealing with this since the movement for
the FI first got organized in the early 1930s.
So the "settler" question has been delth with by the FI for this long
a period. You'll notice that in few sections of the FI historically
have ever raised the issue of "expelling" anyone, even in homogeneous
nations like German, Poland, etc. Dustry why has your comrade Vngelis
raised this to the position of principal? Why do you think this is. He
slanders the PAC as "Stalinist" (which it never was). He argues that
the movement called for "one bullet one settler" in S. Africa...which
was only raised by the PAC, which he against distances himself from.
What do you think is behind this invectitude over this question?
David
|
