Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Reality Check, Reality Balance

This sober analysis is from James Petras on Axis of Logic: Leftist intellectuals exaggerate the radicalism or revolutionary reality of Cuba and Venezuela, overlook the contradictory realities and their pragmatic accommodations with neo-liberals of all stripes. The Left, with little historical perspicacity, continues to categorize pragmatic neo-liberals like Lula, Kirchner and Vazquez as ‘progressives’, lumping them together with pragmatic leftists like Chavez, Castro and Morales, basing their inclusion on their twenty year-old political identities rather than their current free market, pro-agro-mineral elite policies. Worse still, the Left confuses the pragmatic neo-liberal regimes’ efforts to negotiate symmetrical free market trade agreements with the US to better the terms for national agro-mineral exporters as some sort of ‘anti-globalization’ policy or as a ‘counter-weight’ to US power.
The Left – or sectors of the Latin American Left – has to face up to the fact that while US power has declined relative to the ‘Golden Age of Pillage’ during the 1990’s, it has recovered and advanced since the mass rebellions and overthrow of client regimes of 2000-2002. The hopes that the Left had that the presidential victories of former center-left electoral parties in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, would augur a reversion of the neo-liberal policies of their predecessors have been demonstrably dashed. The attempt to redefine the conversion of the ex-leftist-turned-pragmatic neo-liberals into something progressive or as a ‘counter-weight’ to US power is ingenuous at best and at worst compounds the initial error. The Left’s lack of political clarity on the political changes has led it into a blind alley as damaging to its future growth as Washington’s failed efforts to recognize the new realities of the new millennia.

He makes valid points and many of the same criticisms were expressed by myself and other comrades (Che Bob,etc) after returning from our delegations to Venezuela. What Petras perhaps misses though, is the force of the undercurrent of grassroots revolutionary consciousness and indigenous organization. Something "endogenous" is happening there, though it may not happen overnight, or in a "rupture" form at all. For a more enthusiastic, optimistic assesment here is Alvaro Garcia Linera , Vice President of the Republic of Bolivia:

Here in Bolivia, the great mechanisms of mobilization were the defense of the coca leaf, the defense of water, the defense of the land and the defense of the hydrocarbons. Around these axes, the society regained confidence; around these axes society regained the ability to mobilize, constructed leaderships, constructed networks which unified city and country. And it has been thanks to that, that we can now say that in Bolivia we have a government of social movements.
If we proceed to the gradual unfolding of these four pillars, I have not the slightest doubt that the so called postneoliberalism or the society which is beyond neoliberalism will have to consolidate itself initially in the continent, and from here, if we have sufficient force and ability, to irradiate to the other continents. Latin America is in the vanguard of the construction, of the debate and of the organization of the postneoliberal societies.

I want to believe this is the vanguard movement for a worldwide reassessment of who owns what. I also believe we need to remain critical and realistic about it's unfolding.

11 Comments:

At 1:59 PM, Blogger LeftyHenry said...

you're right about Chavez, Lula, Morales, and now Ortega but Castro is one who is very different. He has maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat under very tough circumstances in a post-cold war world. You should check out this aricle from the guardian about Chavez and his so called "socialist revolution."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1947345,00.html

 
At 3:06 PM, Blogger mullet said...

The thing with these labels is that, to me; they all end up as corrupt as one another. No honour among thieves and all that.

 
At 4:10 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

lefthenry, I should have made it more clear but I was quoting Petras about those leaders. My view is that of a pragmatist (pragmatic socialist?) who expects only so much from political leaders in a capitalist world. I believe they are for the most part helping those in their respective societies with the least advantage.

I am not as pessimistic mullet,when the social movements are involved in governing I believe the historic tendencies (corruption,militarism,etc)can be avoided.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger Renegade Eye said...

I know several Venezualan's in a Venezualan folkloric dance group. They rave about the reforms under Chavez. He can do no wrong.

Chavez brought in reforms, never seen before. He'll be voted in forever.

As socialists, we have obligations, to help lead the process forward.

 
At 6:43 PM, Blogger mullet said...

this is something that a lot of young people feel....so what? all the same...etc - how do we change that? pessimism....apathy.....so what - so long as i have my latest nike trainers...i'll be ok. Everything is so yuk, but digestible at the same time...we can talk about the usa and the uk....and SA and ME...but until we deal with whats on our doorstep...we'll talk forever

 
At 8:48 PM, Blogger Revolutionary Blogger said...

As neo-liberal as Lula, Kirchner and Vazquez might be, they are still better then the old unreformed right wingers such as Nicanor Duarte Frutos of Paraguay. This guy doesn't evil feel shame that at age 14 he was part of Paraguay's version of Hitlers Youth (Youth Colorado Party).

I am not implying Lula, Kirchner, etc deserve the lefts full support, but this is a region still recovering from the likes of Pinochet, Stroessner, etc. These leaders appear to be truly progressive by taking their region into context.

 
At 10:52 AM, Blogger GraemeAnfinson said...

one of the main positive things about the movements in Latin America is the participation of the indigenous people

 
At 6:48 PM, Blogger Renegade Eye said...

I was at a conference yesterday, to support the Venezuelan Revolution. An ambassador from Venezuela spoke.

The Chavis people, ignore or talk around the question of reform vs revolution. They talk about the 21st century, unique Venezuelan experience. That phrase gives cover to reformists, and disarms the revolution. They say the revolution is about the 1999 constitution, that guarantees property rights. The revolution is in danger, unless they enforce worker's control, and capitalist expropriation. To not bring that up, is disarming the revolution.

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

The Bolivarian revolution is a unique experiment, one sees pictures of Che all around but little or no references to Marx, Engles ,Lenin etc. They are creating parallel institutions like collectives, worker controlled industry,cooperatives to operate alongside private enterprise rather than exppropriating all productive property.Im willing to give it a chance, see how it develops.

 
At 9:46 AM, Blogger Ché Bob said...

While in Venezuela, our group met with anarchists. They expressed deep concerns with Chavez. They called his work "populist trickery." They described how Chavez had negotiated "neoliberal" trade agreements with Big Oil. They also described how Chavez falsely claimed to be in alignment with the "worker-occupied factory" movement who would help these workers gain control of abandoned factories in order to operate them without owners and management. However, after a short period of worker control, Chavez expropriated these worker-controlled and operated factories for the state.

I am interested in Renegade's thoughts about "Socialism for the 21st Century" acting as a cover for reformists. This sentiment would match similar sentiments expressed by the opposition from the left (to be clearly distinguished from the right-wing opposition) that exists in Venezuela. Trotskyists, anarchists, and marxists in Venezuela resoundly expressed concerns of Chavez importing a Cuban style authoritarianism mixed with populism, not a hoped-for "newfandangled" socialism!

I also have to agree with Mullet, that we need to look inward as well. Look at the messes at home. We need to get our asses in gear and start our own revolutions.

 
At 8:24 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

Every situation (or country) has it's own set of social conditions to negotiate through on their way to more autonomy or democracy or equality.Certain lessons learned from others movements could apply (such as Venezuelas constitutional changes)but such different economic realities means different strategies for organizing.I see opportunities in the total failure of our current foreign policy and in the growing gap between rich and poor.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home