The Marx You Don’t Know
Among the intellectuals and publicists who attack “Marxism” on a daily basis, there exists the most deplorable ignorance regarding what Karl Marx actually thought and wrote. Such ignorance has one possible explanation: the “laziness” of these polemicists (including intelligent ex-communists today converts of neoliberalism). Those who were always on the right were satisfied with reading a few disparaging paragraphs on Marx in some self-righteous manual; and those who were shaped in the Communist Youth before turning toward Milton Friedman haven’t read the brilliant German thinker either, they only “know” him through the Soviet pamphlets by Rozental-Straks and Nikitin.
The communists and conservatives coincide in their desire to “demonstrate” that Marx was dogmatic and totalitarian. In that way, the former hope to continue “monopolizing” him as the presumed founding father of Leninist Bolshevism. The latter, on the other hand, hope to discredit him for the majorities with free spirits and open minds, and in this way prevent the social democrats (actually more of a threat to oligarchic privileges than the communist movement) from enriching their doctrinal wealth with the living and multi-faceted thought of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Karl Kautsky. Luckily, despite this campaign of denigration, the most conscious social democratic parties honor the memory of Marx and consider him theirs.
For them, as for myself, who own and enjoy the 41 volumes of his Complete Works (Marx-EngelsWerke [MEW], Berlin, 1956-66), it’s obvious that Marx was great but not infallible. Just like the three other foundational titans of contemporary science – Darwin, Freud and Einstein –, the master from Trier discovered and formulated fundamental truths that revolutionized our understanding of the universe and man, but he inevitably made mistakes regarding details that his time didn’t allow him to discern with clarity. The essence of his work is the method of analysis – realist, dynamic and historical – he developed, along with a profound critique of the unregulated capitalist system. Within that admirable combination, he reached hasty conclusions or predictions, and he ended up being guilty of arrogance and intolerance. But he was aware of his own faults, and he always rejected dogmatism and generalizations, finally exclaiming in exasperation: “I’m not a Marxist!” But it is important for us social democrats to be “Marxists” capable of critical revisions.
The aspect of “the Marx you don’t know” that is of most interest to the Venezuelan left opposed to Chávez’s authoritarian “socialism” is the ceaseless and implacable fight Karl Marx waged against all types of caudillismo, elitism and “avant-gardism” that restrict democratic pluralism in the heart of the popular and workers movement. In an upcoming article, I want to narrate that epic fight.
{ Demetrio Boersner, Tal Cual, 22 June 2007 }
Showing posts with label Demetrio Boersner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demetrio Boersner. Show all posts
4.28.2007
Dogmas y realidades / Demetrio Boersner
Dogmas and Realities
For the past two centuries, in both developed and primary societies, “socialist” impulses (directed at prioritizing distributive equity above any privileged interests) have tended to divide themselves into two different and opposing categories. On the one hand, certain dogmatic tribunes observed the popular condition with a paternalistic animus and opined that structural transformation should be directed from above by vanguards or providential leaders, who “develop consciousness,” mobilize and govern the passive and ignorant masses in a dictatorial manner. Only after an extensive collective apprenticeship, would popular and democratic self-governance be possible. Some moderates belonged to that category of authoritarian leaders, such as the German “seminar socialists,” and other radicals like Tkachov in Russia and Babeuf and Blanqui in France. In the 20th century, Lenin’s communist movement adopted this vanguard formula and afterwards Stalin took it to its most despotic extremes. The imposition of a vanguard dictatorship on the people diverted socialist impulses towards a State capitalism managed by a new bureaucratic class. On the ideological plane, the creative function of a free working people, anchored in living reality, was replaced by the dogmatism or voluntarism of the dominating minority.
On the other hand, a democratic socialist current developed, convinced that manual laborers and intellectuals have to accomplish their own liberation. Social transformation and its political guidance must be born of democratic and pluralist open debate among the people who must effect their own apprenticeship “from below,” rather than awaiting the lights “from above.” Marx, a theorist of democratic socialism and the founder of German and international social democracy, was tenacious and implacable in his fight against all deviations of the workers movement towards authoritarianism and caudillismo. Above all, he insisted that freedom of expression should never be limited and that the rights of minorities should never be disavowed. “Freedom,” said the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg in her critique of Leninism, “is always the freedom of those who think differently.”
In Latin America and in Venezuela at this moment a great historical struggle is unfolding between authoritarian collectivism and democratic socialism. By his words and actions, Chávez demonstrates his insistence on dragging us towards the communist model (dictatorial State capitalism). In contrast, the democratic socialist leaders of Brazil, Chile and Uruguay defend the model of social, pluralist, tolerant democracy, one based on the analysis of concrete economic and social reality. In Venezuela itself, the notion of a “new social democracy” or of a democratic socialism is being proposed by the progressive opposition and by a growing critical current emerging from within the core of Chavismo.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 27 April 2007 }
For the past two centuries, in both developed and primary societies, “socialist” impulses (directed at prioritizing distributive equity above any privileged interests) have tended to divide themselves into two different and opposing categories. On the one hand, certain dogmatic tribunes observed the popular condition with a paternalistic animus and opined that structural transformation should be directed from above by vanguards or providential leaders, who “develop consciousness,” mobilize and govern the passive and ignorant masses in a dictatorial manner. Only after an extensive collective apprenticeship, would popular and democratic self-governance be possible. Some moderates belonged to that category of authoritarian leaders, such as the German “seminar socialists,” and other radicals like Tkachov in Russia and Babeuf and Blanqui in France. In the 20th century, Lenin’s communist movement adopted this vanguard formula and afterwards Stalin took it to its most despotic extremes. The imposition of a vanguard dictatorship on the people diverted socialist impulses towards a State capitalism managed by a new bureaucratic class. On the ideological plane, the creative function of a free working people, anchored in living reality, was replaced by the dogmatism or voluntarism of the dominating minority.
On the other hand, a democratic socialist current developed, convinced that manual laborers and intellectuals have to accomplish their own liberation. Social transformation and its political guidance must be born of democratic and pluralist open debate among the people who must effect their own apprenticeship “from below,” rather than awaiting the lights “from above.” Marx, a theorist of democratic socialism and the founder of German and international social democracy, was tenacious and implacable in his fight against all deviations of the workers movement towards authoritarianism and caudillismo. Above all, he insisted that freedom of expression should never be limited and that the rights of minorities should never be disavowed. “Freedom,” said the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg in her critique of Leninism, “is always the freedom of those who think differently.”
In Latin America and in Venezuela at this moment a great historical struggle is unfolding between authoritarian collectivism and democratic socialism. By his words and actions, Chávez demonstrates his insistence on dragging us towards the communist model (dictatorial State capitalism). In contrast, the democratic socialist leaders of Brazil, Chile and Uruguay defend the model of social, pluralist, tolerant democracy, one based on the analysis of concrete economic and social reality. In Venezuela itself, the notion of a “new social democracy” or of a democratic socialism is being proposed by the progressive opposition and by a growing critical current emerging from within the core of Chavismo.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 27 April 2007 }
3.28.2007
Socialdemocracia contra militarismo / Demetrio Boersner
Social Democracy against Militarism
In recent days we’ve heard various debates regarding the nature of the regime presided over by Hugo Chávez. A certain sector opines that, due to phenomenological similarities this autocracy shares with European fascisms in their initial stages, it should be classified as “neofascist.” Another matrix of opinion, perhaps more widely disseminated, assigns it the qualifier of “communist” because of its intent to collectivize the production apparatus and its delirious love affair with the Cuban revolution.
We believe that, due to its origins and its internal social structure, the Chavista regime, despite having fascist and Stalinist ingredients, belongs more to the category of “Third World” populist militarisms, originally typified by Peronismo in Latin America and Nasserism in the Middle East. Although both Perón and Nasser were initially admirers of European fascism, as leaders they incarnated the challenge of gathering under their control the enormous diversity of sectors and interests of a society that was still underdeveloped, in the confusing search for modernity, national identity and inclusion. That is why they acted like tightrope walkers amid forces on the right and left. By means of military hegemony and populist demagoguery they were able to arbitrate latent internal conflicts for a long time, but in the end they could not prevent their explosion.
In recent years, South America had an authentic movement towards the left led by Social Democratic currents, or similar ones, that triumphed in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina. Venezuelan militarist populism, rich in petrodollars, “cut in line” among said Social Democratic movements and won interested acceptance and adulation for itself, which left several leaders of regional democratic progressivism in a bad moral light. Likewise it was able to amplify its zone of influence to encompass Bolivia and Ecuador. However, since about three months ago, the extreme radicalization of Chávez’s language, his dangerous alliance with Iran, and new conflicts of interest (gas, ethanol) are creating fissures in what once seemed to be a “leftist coalition.” Social Democracy seeks the advance of its people toward greater independence and social justice, while populist militarism plays with gratuitous violence, so severely condemned by Engels in his Anti-Dühring.
{ Demetrio Boersner, El Nacional, 28 March 2007 }
In recent days we’ve heard various debates regarding the nature of the regime presided over by Hugo Chávez. A certain sector opines that, due to phenomenological similarities this autocracy shares with European fascisms in their initial stages, it should be classified as “neofascist.” Another matrix of opinion, perhaps more widely disseminated, assigns it the qualifier of “communist” because of its intent to collectivize the production apparatus and its delirious love affair with the Cuban revolution.
We believe that, due to its origins and its internal social structure, the Chavista regime, despite having fascist and Stalinist ingredients, belongs more to the category of “Third World” populist militarisms, originally typified by Peronismo in Latin America and Nasserism in the Middle East. Although both Perón and Nasser were initially admirers of European fascism, as leaders they incarnated the challenge of gathering under their control the enormous diversity of sectors and interests of a society that was still underdeveloped, in the confusing search for modernity, national identity and inclusion. That is why they acted like tightrope walkers amid forces on the right and left. By means of military hegemony and populist demagoguery they were able to arbitrate latent internal conflicts for a long time, but in the end they could not prevent their explosion.
In recent years, South America had an authentic movement towards the left led by Social Democratic currents, or similar ones, that triumphed in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina. Venezuelan militarist populism, rich in petrodollars, “cut in line” among said Social Democratic movements and won interested acceptance and adulation for itself, which left several leaders of regional democratic progressivism in a bad moral light. Likewise it was able to amplify its zone of influence to encompass Bolivia and Ecuador. However, since about three months ago, the extreme radicalization of Chávez’s language, his dangerous alliance with Iran, and new conflicts of interest (gas, ethanol) are creating fissures in what once seemed to be a “leftist coalition.” Social Democracy seeks the advance of its people toward greater independence and social justice, while populist militarism plays with gratuitous violence, so severely condemned by Engels in his Anti-Dühring.
{ Demetrio Boersner, El Nacional, 28 March 2007 }
7.25.2006
Contra la intención totalitaria / Demetrio Boersner
Against Totalitarian Intention
As we pointed out in a previous article, president Hugo Chávez's regime carries in its core the contradiction between an ideologically radical nucleus, which would like to drag us into an authoritarian collectivism inspired by Cuban communism, and a new bourgeoisie made wealthy under the protection of power, that wants to enjoy its recently acquired privileges and maintain the capitalist system. Numerically, the second of these groups is growing faster than the first and its influence tends to increase in many fields of political and economic power. It has begun to make connnections with sectors of the traditional upper and middle classes in common business deals and professional projects. But the group of authoritarian and radical revolutionaries is alert and prepares its offensive.
Peronismo went through similar experiences during the first post-war decade. In order to counteract internal deviations, the Argentine caudillo disposed of the invaluable help of his charismatic wife, who was the true captain and idol of the "descamisados." Along with "Evita," Perón could mobilize the popular masses, in order to keep dissidents in line from below. But after the death of Eva Perón, which coincided with a growing economic and fiscal crisis, the internal contradictions became unsustainable and caused the end of the regime.
Hugo Chávez is intent on fighting so that something similar doesn't happen in Venezuela. Unlike Perón, who lacked a coherent ideology, Chávez has begun a well-coordinated effort of indoctrination and militia training for Venezuelans, as a means of defeating wealth and opportunism in the ranks of his movement.
For that purpose, he enjoys the advice and active collaboration of Cuban political experts.
As the theoreticians of "XXI Century Socialism" announce and as it was ratified by the European communist leaders who recently visited Caracas, Marxism-Leninism will be ably combined with a Latin Americanist nationalism of Bolivarian roots. The noblest and most generous impulses of youth will be appealed to in order to turn them into an official tool for mortally wounding the "enemies of the people" and the "lackeys of empire."
Thus, they will try to neutralize the new Chavista bourgeoisie with its tendencies toward a right-leaning hedonism.
In order to avoid Venezuela sinking into the shadows of a long tyranny, the democratic opposition must overcome its divisions from the center-right and the center-left, and transcend the electoral theme, turning their attention toward the construction of a great anti-totalitarian alliance, with a basic program for the defense of democracy and the search for integral development with liberty and equity. Its strategy should point beyond December of this year, and it should contemplate the most diverse situations and possible contingencies.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 21 July 2006 }
As we pointed out in a previous article, president Hugo Chávez's regime carries in its core the contradiction between an ideologically radical nucleus, which would like to drag us into an authoritarian collectivism inspired by Cuban communism, and a new bourgeoisie made wealthy under the protection of power, that wants to enjoy its recently acquired privileges and maintain the capitalist system. Numerically, the second of these groups is growing faster than the first and its influence tends to increase in many fields of political and economic power. It has begun to make connnections with sectors of the traditional upper and middle classes in common business deals and professional projects. But the group of authoritarian and radical revolutionaries is alert and prepares its offensive.
Peronismo went through similar experiences during the first post-war decade. In order to counteract internal deviations, the Argentine caudillo disposed of the invaluable help of his charismatic wife, who was the true captain and idol of the "descamisados." Along with "Evita," Perón could mobilize the popular masses, in order to keep dissidents in line from below. But after the death of Eva Perón, which coincided with a growing economic and fiscal crisis, the internal contradictions became unsustainable and caused the end of the regime.
Hugo Chávez is intent on fighting so that something similar doesn't happen in Venezuela. Unlike Perón, who lacked a coherent ideology, Chávez has begun a well-coordinated effort of indoctrination and militia training for Venezuelans, as a means of defeating wealth and opportunism in the ranks of his movement.
For that purpose, he enjoys the advice and active collaboration of Cuban political experts.
As the theoreticians of "XXI Century Socialism" announce and as it was ratified by the European communist leaders who recently visited Caracas, Marxism-Leninism will be ably combined with a Latin Americanist nationalism of Bolivarian roots. The noblest and most generous impulses of youth will be appealed to in order to turn them into an official tool for mortally wounding the "enemies of the people" and the "lackeys of empire."
Thus, they will try to neutralize the new Chavista bourgeoisie with its tendencies toward a right-leaning hedonism.
In order to avoid Venezuela sinking into the shadows of a long tyranny, the democratic opposition must overcome its divisions from the center-right and the center-left, and transcend the electoral theme, turning their attention toward the construction of a great anti-totalitarian alliance, with a basic program for the defense of democracy and the search for integral development with liberty and equity. Its strategy should point beyond December of this year, and it should contemplate the most diverse situations and possible contingencies.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 21 July 2006 }
6.23.2006
Unidad democrática, urgente / Demetrio Boersner
Urgent, Democratic Unity
For a few months, in the heart of the democratic Venezuelan opposition and of the "ni-ni"s attached to their individual liberties, the notion seemed to prevail that, even though Hugo Chávez's regime is of an autocratic tendency, the danger of an authentic "Cubanization" would be diminishing. Such an impression was based on the undeniable fact that the new Chavista bourgeoisie, with its wealth gathered under the State's blessing, has become conservative.
Its greatest desire is to enjoy its wealth within capitalist order. Comfortably installed in a "golden soviet," it would continue to emit obligatory "revolutionary" pronouncements, but these would be nothing more than ritual gestures.
At the same time we noticed with interest the multiplication of dissident groups of open and democratic sign within the heart of official power.
However, this calming image of the ascent of a "Chavismo without Chávez," flexible and a defender of private property, along with popular dissidence, is being countered by the indications of the will animating the Venezuelan President, and apparently the Cuban one, of pushing this country toward an irreversible collectivist authoritarianism. The purchase of Russian weapons and the formation of armed units efficiently indoctrinated and trained do not seem to respond to actual fears of an invasion from abroad, but instead they portend a preparation for an internal fight between hardcore Chavismo supported by Cuba, and the diverse dissident and opposition forces. The military preparation of a type of "second revolution" is accompanied by the intensification of indoctrination through local radio stations and political formation centers. At the same time, the government's response to demands of electoral transparency, which tends to strengthen abstentionism, could create the political point for the proclamation of a new phase, of open revolutionary dictatorship, at the end of this year or the beginning of 2007. Finally, the maintenance of the foreign policy of frenetic "anti-imperialism" allied with the most radical and violent forces opposed to the current established global order, does not seem to constitute a mere demagogic tactic for internal consumption (Hugo Chávez must know that 80 percent of his faithful don't share that Manichean vision), but instead an authentic strategy for "world revolution," in whose support coincide international factors of diverse nature: Marxist-Leninists, Islamicists and Neo-Nazis.
Facing this panorama of threats against the most essential liberties, we must insist more than ever on the slogan Democratic Unity for the entire opposition, from the center-right just as much as from the center-left, with all their pre-candidates and their diverse ideas on the country's fate. And with our hand opened to all the Venezuelans who, even though they might still consider themselves "Chavistas," reject the elimination of democracy.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 23 June 2006 }
For a few months, in the heart of the democratic Venezuelan opposition and of the "ni-ni"s attached to their individual liberties, the notion seemed to prevail that, even though Hugo Chávez's regime is of an autocratic tendency, the danger of an authentic "Cubanization" would be diminishing. Such an impression was based on the undeniable fact that the new Chavista bourgeoisie, with its wealth gathered under the State's blessing, has become conservative.
Its greatest desire is to enjoy its wealth within capitalist order. Comfortably installed in a "golden soviet," it would continue to emit obligatory "revolutionary" pronouncements, but these would be nothing more than ritual gestures.
At the same time we noticed with interest the multiplication of dissident groups of open and democratic sign within the heart of official power.
However, this calming image of the ascent of a "Chavismo without Chávez," flexible and a defender of private property, along with popular dissidence, is being countered by the indications of the will animating the Venezuelan President, and apparently the Cuban one, of pushing this country toward an irreversible collectivist authoritarianism. The purchase of Russian weapons and the formation of armed units efficiently indoctrinated and trained do not seem to respond to actual fears of an invasion from abroad, but instead they portend a preparation for an internal fight between hardcore Chavismo supported by Cuba, and the diverse dissident and opposition forces. The military preparation of a type of "second revolution" is accompanied by the intensification of indoctrination through local radio stations and political formation centers. At the same time, the government's response to demands of electoral transparency, which tends to strengthen abstentionism, could create the political point for the proclamation of a new phase, of open revolutionary dictatorship, at the end of this year or the beginning of 2007. Finally, the maintenance of the foreign policy of frenetic "anti-imperialism" allied with the most radical and violent forces opposed to the current established global order, does not seem to constitute a mere demagogic tactic for internal consumption (Hugo Chávez must know that 80 percent of his faithful don't share that Manichean vision), but instead an authentic strategy for "world revolution," in whose support coincide international factors of diverse nature: Marxist-Leninists, Islamicists and Neo-Nazis.
Facing this panorama of threats against the most essential liberties, we must insist more than ever on the slogan Democratic Unity for the entire opposition, from the center-right just as much as from the center-left, with all their pre-candidates and their diverse ideas on the country's fate. And with our hand opened to all the Venezuelans who, even though they might still consider themselves "Chavistas," reject the elimination of democracy.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 23 June 2006 }
3.03.2006
El autócrata pierde apoyo internacional / Demetrio Boersner
The Autocrat Loses International Support
During his period of greatest success—the year 2005—president Hugo Chávez briefly managed to capture broad and significant international support.
The initial success of the missions, the demoralization of the opposition, the anti-Bush vituperations so pleasing to so many ears, and the extravagant programs of help for South America and the Caribbean all provoked a transitory enthusiasm, or at least sympathy, not just from radicals but also from certain moderates in diverse countries of the world.
Lately, however, evidence has multiplied of the distancing of progressive international forces away from a leader who is visibly exceeding the limits of any rational diplomatic conduct. That distancing grows when one confronts the evidence of the flagrant contrast between his arrogant discourse and his clamorous failures in running the country. His alliance, not merely verbal, with the theocratic fascism of Iran is seen with concern and rejection, even by his best presumed "friends" abroad.
At the beginning of this week, the French president Jacques Chirac thoroughly praised, as is deserved, the leaders of the democratic left in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile for their contributions to a constructive transformation of the world order and, on the other hand, he made no mention of the Venezuelan president. Overall, in France the conviction is growing that Chavismo is a contradictory phenomenon, with ingenuous fascist ingredients ("fascisme naif").
In England, the influence of the Venezuelan government promoted the subscription of a pro-Chavista document—rejecting the critical comments Blair made against the Venezuelan leader—on the part of the Labour delegates in the British Parliament. The Labour fraction of the Parliament is made up of 353 M.P.s, of whom only 78 (22 percent) added their signature. In part, these 78 reflect an extremist faction influenced by Trotskyism. The majority of Labour, being social democratic, refuses to support Hugo Chávez's regime.
Likewise in Latin America, the spokesmen of the rational democratic left begin to openly express their criticism of Chavismo. At the beginning of the week the Chilean president Ricardo Lagos not only praised his colleagues from Brazil and Uruguay as constructive progressives, but he even contrasted them explicitly with Hugo Chávez, whose obsessive and harmful antagonism in his dealings with the United States he reproached.
Throughout the world the democratic and sensible left is turning against the authoritarianism and the totalitarian friendships of the Venezuelan leader. More and more, the international support for Chavismo will remain limited to circles of unconditional and well-identified Ramonets including, unfortunately, a certain ambassador from Spain.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 3 March 2006 }
During his period of greatest success—the year 2005—president Hugo Chávez briefly managed to capture broad and significant international support.
The initial success of the missions, the demoralization of the opposition, the anti-Bush vituperations so pleasing to so many ears, and the extravagant programs of help for South America and the Caribbean all provoked a transitory enthusiasm, or at least sympathy, not just from radicals but also from certain moderates in diverse countries of the world.
Lately, however, evidence has multiplied of the distancing of progressive international forces away from a leader who is visibly exceeding the limits of any rational diplomatic conduct. That distancing grows when one confronts the evidence of the flagrant contrast between his arrogant discourse and his clamorous failures in running the country. His alliance, not merely verbal, with the theocratic fascism of Iran is seen with concern and rejection, even by his best presumed "friends" abroad.
At the beginning of this week, the French president Jacques Chirac thoroughly praised, as is deserved, the leaders of the democratic left in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile for their contributions to a constructive transformation of the world order and, on the other hand, he made no mention of the Venezuelan president. Overall, in France the conviction is growing that Chavismo is a contradictory phenomenon, with ingenuous fascist ingredients ("fascisme naif").
In England, the influence of the Venezuelan government promoted the subscription of a pro-Chavista document—rejecting the critical comments Blair made against the Venezuelan leader—on the part of the Labour delegates in the British Parliament. The Labour fraction of the Parliament is made up of 353 M.P.s, of whom only 78 (22 percent) added their signature. In part, these 78 reflect an extremist faction influenced by Trotskyism. The majority of Labour, being social democratic, refuses to support Hugo Chávez's regime.
Likewise in Latin America, the spokesmen of the rational democratic left begin to openly express their criticism of Chavismo. At the beginning of the week the Chilean president Ricardo Lagos not only praised his colleagues from Brazil and Uruguay as constructive progressives, but he even contrasted them explicitly with Hugo Chávez, whose obsessive and harmful antagonism in his dealings with the United States he reproached.
Throughout the world the democratic and sensible left is turning against the authoritarianism and the totalitarian friendships of the Venezuelan leader. More and more, the international support for Chavismo will remain limited to circles of unconditional and well-identified Ramonets including, unfortunately, a certain ambassador from Spain.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 3 March 2006 }
10.17.2005
Revolución al revés / Demetrio Boersner
Reverse Revolution
The "Bolivarian revolution," recently remade as "socialist," has the peculiarity of ignoring the lessons of previous attempts toward an emancipatory or fair structural transformation. Instead of traveling through the stages that define the progressive experience of other latitudes, the chavista process jumps over these very moments and, in this way, it becomes historically reactionary.
When the bourgeois classes (tied to commerce and urban life) of medieval Europe fought to emancipate themselves from the asphixiating domination of the feudal lords, they intuited the necessity of allying themselves with another sector, of different but coinciding interests against the feudal powers. That natural tactical ally of the ascendant bourgeoisie was the centralizing national monarchy. Only after having created States and national markets in alliance with absolute kings, the bourgeoisie revolted against these in revolutions already oriented toward liberalism.
In the subsequent era of the syndicated and political rise of the working classes anxious to eliminate unfair labor relations and establish social democracies, the most outstanding theorists and leaders of this movement always recommended searching out tactical allies in the heart of the democratic bourgeoisie: to fight side by side with the least exploitative middle classes, those most open to the idea of social justice, against the most recalcitrant and oppressive managerial sectors.
In the historical process of national and social emancipation of Latin America during the XX century, facing the foreign economic hegemony allied with internal oligarchies and dictatorships, the interest of popular sectors to count on the effective support of our "national bourgeoisie" was obvious: progressive managerial sectors, promoters of national industrialization projects in cooperation with democratic public powers, in order to create modern homelands where stages of advanced social democracy could be projected later on. Such strategies were accomplished with partial but effective success in several Latin American countries.
Before president Hugo Chávez and his volunteer and anti-dialectical advisors, the idea did not occur to any Latin American "revolutionary" to direct the attacks, not against the principal adversary (which is surely transnational and globalizing capital), but rather against the national bourgeoisie, the creator of spaces for independent industrial progress and, consequently, a natural ally of a nation with aspirations for a better life. But that has been the conduct of the "reverse revolution" we are now living: the incessant politics of aggression and threats against the Venezuelan private sector (including the agricultural managers who are not "latifundistas" but rather national capitalists), destroys the achievements of forty previous years of modernizing transformation and worsens the nation's dependency before transnationals and imperial power.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 14 October 2005 }
The "Bolivarian revolution," recently remade as "socialist," has the peculiarity of ignoring the lessons of previous attempts toward an emancipatory or fair structural transformation. Instead of traveling through the stages that define the progressive experience of other latitudes, the chavista process jumps over these very moments and, in this way, it becomes historically reactionary.
When the bourgeois classes (tied to commerce and urban life) of medieval Europe fought to emancipate themselves from the asphixiating domination of the feudal lords, they intuited the necessity of allying themselves with another sector, of different but coinciding interests against the feudal powers. That natural tactical ally of the ascendant bourgeoisie was the centralizing national monarchy. Only after having created States and national markets in alliance with absolute kings, the bourgeoisie revolted against these in revolutions already oriented toward liberalism.
In the subsequent era of the syndicated and political rise of the working classes anxious to eliminate unfair labor relations and establish social democracies, the most outstanding theorists and leaders of this movement always recommended searching out tactical allies in the heart of the democratic bourgeoisie: to fight side by side with the least exploitative middle classes, those most open to the idea of social justice, against the most recalcitrant and oppressive managerial sectors.
In the historical process of national and social emancipation of Latin America during the XX century, facing the foreign economic hegemony allied with internal oligarchies and dictatorships, the interest of popular sectors to count on the effective support of our "national bourgeoisie" was obvious: progressive managerial sectors, promoters of national industrialization projects in cooperation with democratic public powers, in order to create modern homelands where stages of advanced social democracy could be projected later on. Such strategies were accomplished with partial but effective success in several Latin American countries.
Before president Hugo Chávez and his volunteer and anti-dialectical advisors, the idea did not occur to any Latin American "revolutionary" to direct the attacks, not against the principal adversary (which is surely transnational and globalizing capital), but rather against the national bourgeoisie, the creator of spaces for independent industrial progress and, consequently, a natural ally of a nation with aspirations for a better life. But that has been the conduct of the "reverse revolution" we are now living: the incessant politics of aggression and threats against the Venezuelan private sector (including the agricultural managers who are not "latifundistas" but rather national capitalists), destroys the achievements of forty previous years of modernizing transformation and worsens the nation's dependency before transnationals and imperial power.
{ Demetrio Boersner, TalCual, 14 October 2005 }
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)