Discussion:
[Spa] Interesting details on Ecuador
(too old to reply)
Néstor Gorojovsky
2010-10-03 14:13:36 UTC
Permalink
[This report was written by a strong supporter of Correa. It is,
therefore, strongly biased. However, the amount and quality of
detailed info within it make it a must reading for anyone wanting to
adopt a clear position around what happened there on Thursday last. If
I was an US citizen, for example, instead of splitting hairs on
Correa?s relation with the CONAIE movement (and other movements of the
same root who SUPPORT Correa) I would be demonstrating against the
intervention of my own bourgeoisie in tiny Ecuador. Data to support
such a move can be easily found in the text below:]

SOBRE LO ACONTECIDO EN ECUADOR
por Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy

/Los hechos en Ecuador fueron realmente una intentona golpista de
visos militar, pol?tico y medi?tico, por parte de la derecha
ecuatoriana y el imperialismo/

1 de octubre de 2010.

Tras el demorado operativo de rescate efectuado por miembros de las
Fuerzas Armadas y de la Polic?a, que condujo a la liberaci?n del
presidente de Ecuador, secuestrado en el Hospital Militar, culminaron
cerca de 14 horas de tensi?n y de espera para el mundo entero que,
temeroso por la suerte de Rafael Correa, se sum? a la condena casi
un?nime contra el intento de golpe de estado fraguado contra su
gobierno.

Ya liberado y ante la presencia de millares de miembros del brav?o
pueblo ecuatoriano, fue recibido por una multitud ante la sede de
Gobierno, donde se repudiaba a los conspiradores y a los solapados
autores intelectuales de la revuelta policial. Conciliador, por un
lado, expres? que entre los sublevados "no todos eran polic?as" y
apunt? la responsabilidad del plan golpista hacia el al presidente
Lucio Guti?rrez y su Partido Sociedad Patri?tica. Luego, emocionado,
agradeci? a todos aquellos que desafiaron el ultraje y la fuerza bruta
de los amotinados, encabezados por ministros, asamble?stas, militantes
de Alianza Pa?s, as? como por hombres y mujeres sencillos del pueblo.
Para ellos el elogio a su valent?a y a su fe en la Revoluci?n
Ciudadana, cuando dijo: /?A todo el pueblo, muchas gracias. Que esto
les sirva de ejemplo a los que quieren, no a trav?s de las urnas, sino
a trav?s de la conspiraci?n, detener a la Revoluci?n Ciudadana. Un
agradecimiento tambi?n a los miles de compa?eros que fueron a verme, a
rescatarme a la polic?a, al hospital y cobardemente los recibieron con
gas pimienta, gases lacrim?genos, con piedras. ?C?mo co?o van a ser
polic?as los que se comportaron de esa manera??/

Correa retrat? el siniestro plan de la oposici?n y, sobre todo, alert?
al pueblo sobre los peligros y la respuesta necesaria a los mismos, al
expresar: /?La Fuerza P?blica obligada a mantener el orden, secuestra
a su Comandante en Jefe y ataca a sus ciudadanos. Hoy es un d?a
triste. Atentos. Hoy apoyar m?s que nunca a esas decenas de miles de
buenos elementos de la Polic?a Nacional. Fueron unos cuantos que ser?n
sancionados. No habr? perd?n ni olvido aqu? y por supuesto la ley no
ser? revocada. Por el di?logo todo, por la fuerza nada./?

Por ?ltimo, sin mostrar cansancio a pesar de ser sometido a m?ltiples
amenazas y presiones, a la par que sometido a una dudosa operaci?n, se
le encaram? la esperanza en la mirada y en la voz, frente a su pueblo
valiente y presto. /?A ustedes, mirar al futuro. Nos ha tocado una
prueba dura. El Hospital est? destrozado, muchos enfermos han sufrido
por culpa de irresponsables. Ahora a mirar adelante y con muchas m?s
ganas, con mucho m?s valor hacer, que a nuestras Revoluci?n Ciudadana
no la para nadie ni nada/.

/?Hasta la Victoria Siempre!/?

El verdadero trasfondo de los acontecimientos.

No detallar? cada parte de los acontecimientos, los que son harto
conocidos por el mundo. Sin embargo, hay sucesos que merecen
analizarse y que comprueban que no se limitaron a una sublevaci?n de
escasos polic?as y militares en repudio a lo que ve?an como una ley
que afectaba sus derechos. Fue realmente un ensayo de golpe de estado
que sirvi? a las fuerzas de la oposici?n para evaluar la capacidad de
respuesta del pueblo y de las instituciones gubernamentales, incluidas
las fuerzas policiacas y militares del pa?s, as? como la posici?n de
otras naciones ante el ataque premeditado y violatorio de la
institucionalidad. Esto por supuesto, merece ser analizado en cada una
de sus particularidades.

Las naciones que han padecido los golpes de estado ven con sorpresa
ciertos indicios putchistas que tuvieron lugar durante el d?a 30 de
septiembre: la toma de instalaciones militares y el acuartelamiento
sospechoso de las fuerzas armadas, el desconocimiento de las
autoridades gubernamentales; el cierre de los principales aeropuertos
del pa?s y principales carreteras y v?as de acceso a la capital; el
establecimiento de un entarimado medi?tico para distorsionar los
hechos, la supresi?n de los ?rganos de difusi?n vinculados al
gobierno, como TV Ecuador; el ataque y toma de la sede de la Asamblea
Nacional; la incitaci?n al caos y a la indisciplina social, avalado
por el abandono deliberado de los ?rganos policiales y militares de
sus misiones de proteger a la ciudadan?a y a la propiedad, incluida la
guardia de seguridad legislativa, as? como la creaci?n de un ambiente
de nociva confusi?n en casi todo el pa?s.

Varios artilugios fueron preparados en este caso. Un hecho precedente
y sospechoso, sin embargo, ocurrido d?as antes y que podr?a estar
vinculado a las acciones del d?a 30, cuyo prop?sito podr?a haber sido
inhabilitar a Correa en su capacidad de acci?n y movilidad durante la
intentona golpista, fue que ?ste fue sometido a una inadecuada
androscop?a, cuando lo recomendable era realizarle una osteostom?a,
procedimiento menos invasivo y de mejores resultados de acuerdo a su
padecer de la rodilla. Sospechosamente, muchos a?os antes, se
utilizaron procedimientos quir?rgicos inadecuados en ex mandatarios
como Juan Velazco Alvarado, en Per?, y Saddam Hussein, en Irak, para
inhabilitarlos f?sicamente en medio de crisis pol?ticas en sus pa?ses
respectivos. No se descarta, pues, que esta haya sido una maniobra
premeditada para incapacitar a Correa y hacerlo vulnerable en medio de
la planeada crisis golpista.

Otra de las maniobras previas al golpe se realiz? el 22 de septiembre
de 2010, cuando grupos opositores trataron de recoger firmas para
revocar al presidente Correa, seg?n estipula la Constituci?n del 2008,
para que el Consejo Nacional Electoral llame a la consulta popular.
Los resultados de la firma privada Cedatos-Gallup indicaron, mediante
sondeos, que la maniobra no prosperar?a. Otras encuestadoras tambi?n
favorec?an a Correa. Es por ello que el camino de las urnas estaba
cerrado para los planes de la derecha de derrocar a Correa por v?a
legal. Solo quedaba la opci?n golpista.

Asimismo, como antecedente a la intentona golpista, otra igualmente
denigrante se llev? a cabo el 16 de septiembre de 2010, cuando varios
legisladores de la oposici?n ecuatoriana acudieron a la Organizaci?n
de Estados Americanos (OEA) para difamar el contenido de un proyecto
de ley de comunicaci?n en Ecuador, considerado por ellos como da?ino a
la libertad de expresi?n por parte del gobierno de Correa. La
difamatoria comisi?n inclu?a a Fausto Cobo y Andr?s Aguirre, ambos del
Partido Sociedad Patri?tica; C?sar Montufar de la Concentraci?n
Nacional; Leonardo Viteri, del Partido Social Cristiano; Magali
Orellana de Pachakutik; Andr?s P?ez, legislador de Izquierda
Democr?tica; as? como al independiente Fern?ndez Gonz?lez.

Mientras los revoltosos atentaban contra el orden institucional, no se
hizo esperar la primera reacci?n pol?tica de la oposici?n y de los
autores de la asonada golpista: el cabecilla del Partido Sociedad
Patri?tica, el ex mandatario Lucio Guti?rrez, convoc? a la disoluci?n
de la Asamblea Nacional y a realizar, de inmediato, nuevas elecciones
presidenciales, dando por adelantado la ca?da del gobierno de Correa.
Fueron momentos, incluso, en que se manej? la eliminaci?n f?sica de
Correa cuando el mismo era custodiado por polic?as insubordinados en
el Hospital de la Polic?a de Quito. Varios de los amotinados trataron
de acceder agresivamente al local donde yac?a el presidente para
presumiblemente asesinarlo. El plan golpista alcanz? su cl?max en esos
momentos.

Poco a poco se fue desentra?ando la verdad de lo que suced?a. Rafael
Quintero, dirigente del Partido Socialista-Frente Amplio, calific? a
la insubordinaci?n policial de la siguiente forma: /?esto no es un
movimiento casual ni espont?neo de la Polic?a Nacional, es el
resultado de toda una planificando por parte de la derecha olig?rquica
que viene planificando y conspirando desde el a?o 2007 para derrocar a
este Gobierno que eles ha quitado las prebendas, latrocinios y
negociados que estaban acostumbrados en la ?poca de la partidocracia
en contra de los intereses del pueblo ecuatoriano?/.

Lo mismo hizo, el coordinador general del Movimiento PAIS, Orlando
P?rez, quien llam? al pueblo a defender a la democracia y valid? la
constitucionalidad del gobierno ecuatoriano, al expresar: /?No vamos a
tenerles ning?n tipo de medio, nosotros tenemos la Constituci?n en la
mano y en el coraz?n para defender este proceso?./

Tal vez varios elementos influyeron en que los amotinados no atentaran
contra la vida de Correa, pero los m?s importantes fueron la capacidad
movilizadora del pueblo para defender a la democracia y la reacci?n
internacional a favor de Correa, mientras las instituciones armadas y
policiales observaban con sospechosa indiferencia el desarrollo de los
acontecimientos. Gracias a ello, varias fuerzas pol?ticas del pa?s,
incluidas algunas opositoras, se vieron obligadas a distanciarse de
los golpistas.

La posici?n de una parte considerable del movimiento ind?gena del pa?s
repudiando la intentona golpista, encabezado por la Confederaci?n de
las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador (CONAIE) y sus filiales
ECUARUNARI, CONFENIAE y CONAICE, quienes se deslindaron de los
complotados al declarar, en voz de Asencio Farinango, dirigente de
Comunicaci?n de ECUARUNARI, lo siguiente: /?Porque somos opositores al
gobierno nos quieren relacionar con estos hechos, pero como movimiento
ind?gena hoy m?s que nunca respaldamos el poder democr?tico y llamamos
a fortalecerlo?/.

Por su parte, otro de los sectores que se deslind? de los golpistas
fue la C?mara de Industrias y de la Producci?n de Pichincha que, en
voz de su presidente, declar?: /?Uno de los principios fundamentales
que rige la vida democr?tica es la estabilidad (?) La estabilidad es
un requisito indispensable para la inversi?n extranjera, la producci?n
y el empleo (?) No se puede aceptar el desorden e irrespeto a
autoridades?/.

La Iglesia Cat?lica, por su parte, sin condenar abiertamente los
desmanes y la actitud inconstitucional de los golpistas, pidi? al
gobierno de Correa la realizaci?n de un proceso de di?logo.
Inusitadamente, expres? en un comunicado firmado por sus obispos:
/"Pedimos al gobierno y al Parlamento no imponer sus decisiones en
forma unilateral, sino abrir un aut?ntico proceso de di?logo que
conduzca a una convivencia constructiva y participativa"/. Para ellos,
absurdamente, los hechos sucedidos son responsabilidad del gobierno
por no atender, supuestamente, los reclamos de varios sectores del
pa?s. Su actitud contrast? con la del alcalde de Guayaquil, Jaime
Nebot, enconado opositor a Correa, quien expres?: /?Sigamos altivos,
rebeldes y opositores, pero jam?s golpistas y contemplativos con la
delincuencia?./

Al analizar todas estas declaraciones controvertidas de la oposici?n,
quien no est? acostumbrado a la buena fe de la oligarqu?a, piensa que
este intento golpista, o bien no incluy? a todos los opositores, o
varios de ellos se dedicaron a la espera dudosa para alinearse a los
golpistas y, en ?ltimo caso, este conato fue un medidor de la
situaci?n. Muchos, es cierto, permanecieron agazapados en espera de
una orden y un apoyo que nunca lleg?. Esta vez no era f?cil repetir la
aventura hondure?a.

_La campa?a medi?tica como arma golpista_.

Los autores intelectuales de la sonada golpista contra Correa siempre
contaron con una sucia campa?a medi?tica orquestada por la Voz de las
Am?ricas y la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa, a los que responden
los principales medios privados de comunicaci?n, as? como la
complicidad de muchas cadenas informativas, para crear las condiciones
previas al intento de golpe de estado o para desinformar a la opini?n
p?blica sobre la marcha de los sucesos.

En el Ecuador opera la VOA con casi una decena de medios y programas
que transmiten su emisi?n insidiosa contra el gobierno de Rafael
Correa, entre los que se destacan La Voz de los Caras. Radio Quito,
Bol?var FM. Organizaci?n Radio Centro, El Tel?grafo y la Prensa, la
Voz del Tomebamba, Luz y Vida, Ecos del Oriente. HCJB World Radio,
C.R.E. y Melod?a, y las Ondas Azuayas de Cuenca.

La VOA y sus emisoras afiliadas en Ecuador trabajan sistem?ticamente
con vistas de confundir ideol?gicamente a las masas populares e
ind?genas, apoyada por el trabajo de zapa que realizan varias ONGs.
Como resultado de esta t?ctica han logrado crear conflictos diversos
entre el gobierno y el movimiento ind?gena mediante el empleo de la
mentira, la confusi?n y la detracci?n de los objetivos reformadores
del gobierno de Rafael Correa.

Es por ello que no result? extra?o que se emplearan en la actividad
golpista medi?tica acciones como:

- El uso la red social Twitter para apoyar el plan golpista o
minimizarlo por algunos periodistas de derecha de Venezuela y de otras
naciones, tal como lo hizo la directora de la organizaci?n no
gubernamental Control Ciudadano, Roc?o San Miguel.

- Inculpar a Correa y a su gobierno por los sucesos que sacudieron a
Ecuador, tal como lo hizo la opositora Globovisi?n.

- La reaccionaria Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa (SIP),
controladora de los medios de comunicaci?n y agente de la subversi?n
contrarrevolucionaria y anti ALBA, se opusiera a enlazar los medios de
radio y televisi?n a la se?al estatal de Ecuador, previsto en el
estado de excepci?n decretado por el Estado. T?citamente, apoy? el
intento golpista contra Correa.

- La transnacional CNN fue empleada para que uno de los autores
intelectuales del plan golpista, el ex presidente Lucio Guti?rrez,
hiciera campa?a contra el gobierno ecuatoriano.

- Otro diario de derecha, La Naci?n, obvi? la represi?n contra el
pueblo y los abusos de los amotinados, dando sobre cobertura a un
supuesto atentado contra Fausto Lupera, partidario de Lucio Guti?rrez.

- Otro medio escrito, en este caso el diario uruguayo el Pa?s, minti?
deliberadamente en un editorial sobre los sucesos en Ecuador, con
independencia de apoyar a la democracia en Ecuador, al decir que: /?El
detonante para la actual situaci?n ha sido la decisi?n del gobierno de
modificar un sistema de beneficios y promociones, que impactar?an en
el salario de la polic?a local. Todo en medio de un clima enrarecido,
donde el presidente Correa amenazaba con disolver el Parlamento, para
destrabar una serie de reformas, que legisladores de su propio partido
se negaban a acompa?ar. Nada extra?o en un pa?s donde el propio
hermano del presidente se ha convertido en uno de los principales
dirigentes opositores a su gesti?n.?/

_El mundo a favor de la democracia_

Esta vez el clamor mundial no pod?a permitir que se repitiera el
ultraje cometido descaradamente contra la democracia en Honduras. Esta
vez Latinoam?rica se creci? y declar? al un?sono su apoyo a la
constitucionalidad. No hubo un solo pa?s que apoyara a los golpistas y
la denuncia directa se hizo clamor un?nime a pesar de la disparidad
ideol?gica. Unos, es cierto, exigieron el fin de la asonada. All?
brillaron Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, El Salvador,
Colombia, Chile, M?xico, Brasil, Per?, Uruguay, Paraguay, por sus
reclamos de diferente acento, pero con las mismas exigencias.

Hasta pa?ses distantes como Espa?a, Rusia, Jap?n, Francia, entre
otros, manifestaron su repudio a la intentona golpista.

Organizaciones internacionales como la ONU, el ALBA, la OEA, UNASUR,
el GRULA, el Grupo de R?o, la Uni?n Europea, el Parlatino, el
Parlamento Andino, la Comisi?n Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
(CIDH), tambi?n se sumaron a la condena universal por los sucesos
contra el presidente Correa y exigieron la restituci?n del orden
democr?tico.

Fue otra vez, sin embargo, Fidel Castro quien puso el dedo en la llaga
al denunciar en su reflexi?n /?Noticias inveros?miles?/, la actitud
contemplativa de EE UU, coloc?ndolo contra la espada y la pared,
cuando expres?:

/?El Presidente Rafael Correa se muestra firme e indoblegable. El
pueblo est? mucho m?s organizado. El Golpe a mi juicio est? ya
perdido.? (?) ?Hasta Obama y la Clinton no tendr?n m?s alternativa que
condenarlo.?/

No fue en balde esta percepci?n sobre la sospechosa actitud
contemplativa de la Casa Blanca. Primero, los EE UU se limitaron solo
a declarar que ?segu?an de cerca? los acontecimientos, en una
declaraci?n del vocero de la Secretar?a de Estado, Philip Crowley.
Luego, ante la demoledora votaci?n dentro de la OEA condenado la
violaci?n de la institucionalidad democr?tica en Ecuador, la
represente norteamericana, Carmen Lomellin, se vio obligada a tomar
partido por el respeto a la democracia en Ecuador. Posteriormente, la
Secretaria de Estado, no tuvo otra opci?n que condenar al golpismo
contra Correa y validar su mandato constitucional. Esta vez, sin
poderlo evitar, el poderoso Norte se vio obligado, a pesar de ser el
principal manipulador tras bambalinas de la oposici?n
contrarrevolucionaria en Ecuador, a aceptar a la Revoluci?n Ciudadana.

_La actividad de la embajada norteamericana_

La Embajada de EE UU en Ecuador, con una exagerada representaci?n
diplom?tica compuesta por 185 funcionarios y ubicada en la Avenida
Avigiras E12-170 y Eloy Alfaro, en la zona norte de Quito, en un
enorme complejo constructivo donde est?n representadas casi todas las
agencias norteamericanas, entre ellas la CIA y el FBI, es dirigida por
la se?ora Heather Hodges, como embajadora, y quien fuera en 1991 nada
menos que Subdirectora de la Oficina de Asuntos Cubanos, as? como por
Andrew G. Chritton, como ministro consejero.

Parte esencial de la actividad de espionaje en Ecuador la desarrollan
la Secci?n Pol?tica (POL), el Grupo Militar de los Estados Unidos
(USMILGRP), la Secci?n Antinarc?ticos (NAS), el Cuerpo de Ingenieros
del Ej?rcito de los Estados Unidos (USACE); la USAID, los Cuerpos de
Paz, entre otras.

Seg?n un informe del mes de febrero de 2010, titulado ?APOYO DEL
GOBIERNO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS AL DESARROLLO Y A LA SEGURIDAD DEL ECUADOR
EN 2009?, aparecido en el sitio web de la embajada de Estados Unidos,
?ste ha desembolsado ese a?o un total de $59.767.437 de USD.

La USAID recibi? 8,8 millones de d?lares para su labor
desestabilizadora dentro de Ecuador, bajo la cobertura de un programa
denominado ?Paz, Seguridad e Inversi?n en el Pueblo?: Otros cerca de
9,4 millones lo destin? la USAID al programa ?Democracia y
Gobernabilidad?, supuestamente para favorecer a los ?procesos
democr?ticos? dentro de Ecuador, enti?ndase financiamiento a la
oposici?n al gobierno de Correa. Otros programas usados bajo la falsa
cobertura de ?Crecimiento Econ?mico? y ?Medio Ambiente?, que han
recibido 4,59 y $5,54 millones de USD, respectivamente, han tenido la
misma finalidad desestabilizadora.

En cuanto a la Asistencia Militar, los Estados Unidos desembolsaron en
el 2009 casi 13 millones de d?lares en financiamiento de programas de
las FF AA de Ecuador, incluyendo abastecimiento militar, asesor?a,
capacitaci?n, adem?s de otros 35 millones para la Fuerza A?rea
Ecuatoriana (FAE) y organizaciones /?no gubernamentales?/. Por otra
parte, la Secci?n Antinarc?ticos desembols? ese a?o cerca de 8
millones a los cuerpos especializados de la Polic?a.

Seg?n estudios realizados hace algunos a?os por las organizaciones
norteamericanas Latin Am?rica Working Group (LAWG) y el Center for
International Policy (CIP), el gobierno norteamericano ayuda a las
FFAA y los cuerpos policiacos ecuatorianos con grandes cantidades de
recursos militares y financieros, desde los a?os noventa. Aunque en
apariencia estos recursos est?n destinados al enfrentamiento al
narcotr?fico y la presencia guerrillera colombiana en Ecuador, muchos
de estos recursos se dirigieron a financiar la persecuci?n y espionaje
contra las fuerzas progresistas de Ecuador.

Los cuerpos policiales ecuatorianos han sido favorecidos por la
sistem?tica ayuda financiera y log?stica norteamericana, entre ellos
el Grupo Operaciones Especiales (GOE) de la Polic?a Nacional
Ecuatoriana, el Grupo Intervenci?n y Rescate (GIR) de la Polic?a
Nacional Ecuatoriana, la Unidad Lucha Contra el Crimen organizado
(ULCO) de la Polic?a Nacional Ecuatoriana, el Grupo Especial M?vil
Anti-Narc?ticos (GEMA) de la Polic?a Nacional Ecuatoriana y la Unidad
Antisecuestros (UNASE) de la Polic?a Nacional Ecuatoriana. Muchos
miembros de estos organismos policiales han establecido fuertes lazos
de colaboraci?n, incluidos de pertenencia, con agencias
norteamericanas como la CIA, el FBI, la DIA y la DEA durante estos
?ltimos a?os y se han convertido en fuentes del espionaje
estadounidense en Ecuador.

Seg?n un documento aparecido el 5 de noviembre de 2008, elaborado por
la Comisi?n de investigaci?n de los servicios de inteligencia
militares y policiales, creada el 15 de mayo de 2008 por el presidente
Correa, mediante el Decreto 1080, y titulado */?Informe de Penetraci?n
de la CIA en las Fuerzas Armadas y Polic?a Nacional?, existen
abundantes pruebas de la actividad de espionaje norteamericana dentro
de las FF AA y la Polic?a Nacional del Ecuador.?/*

A grandes rasgos, el Informe corrobora:

- Excesiva autonom?a de los cuerpos policiales y su dependencia a
intereses indicados por agencias acreditadas en la embajada de EE UU
en Ecuador.

- El contubernio entre las FF AA y la US Army para el mantenimiento de
la geopol?tica norteamericana en la regi?n.

- Empleo de los cuerpos policiales para labores de espionaje de las
fuerzas progresistas en Ecuador, como el espionaje electr?nico,
telef?nico y seguimientos, siguiendo instrucciones de agencias
norteamericanas acreditadas en la embajada de EE UU en Quito.

- La inteligencia policial dirigida por la Direcci?n General de
Inteligencia y el resto de dependencias especializadas como la Unidad
de Investigaciones Especiales (UIES), la Unidad de Antisecuestros y
Extorsi?n (U?ASE), el Comando Operativo Anti Coyotes (COAC) y la
Direcci?n Nacional Antinarc?ticos (DNA), son financiadas en gran
medida, desde hace a?os, por el gobierno norteamericano.

- /?Existen mecanismos formales e informales de colaboraci?n de los
organismos de inteligencia ecuatorianos con las instituciones que
dependen de la Embajada de Estados unidos, principalmente con
Agregadur?a de Defensa (DAO), Agencia Antidrogas (DEA), Grupo
Consultivo de Ayuda Militar (MMG), y Agencia Nacional de Seguridad
(NSA, National Security Agency), adem?s de la estaci?n local de la
CIA.?/ (Textual)

- Se han demostrado casos de reclutamiento y control de personal de
las principales agencias de inteligencia por parte del FBI y la CIA.

- Los mecanismos formales creados entre la embajada norteamericana y
las FF AA y la Polic?a Nacional, se materializan en abastecimiento
log?stico, entrenamiento y capacitaci?n, donaci?n de partidas
financieras, entre otras.

- /?Esta dependencia vuelve al pa?s vulnerable y menoscaba su
capacidad de formular y aplicar pol?ticas soberanas en el control del
narcotr?fico o de la frontera norte y puede condicionar la
continuaci?n de la cooperaci?n a la entrega de informaci?n a los
organismos de Inteligencia de EE.UU. o a la implementaci?n de sus
prioridades en materia de seguimiento y defensa.?/ (Textual)

- /?En el ?rea de inteligencia y desde el a?o 2001 hasta el 2008, se
han capacitado en cursos y seminarios locales en diferentes
especialidades, un total de 2.898 elementos de la Polic?a Nacional. En
el ?rea antinarc?ticos, entre oficiales y personal subalterno, se han
capacitado en el exterior un total de 97 elementos.?/ (Textual)

- /?Existen indicios sugerentes de que el ataque de las Fuerzas
regulares de Colombia a Fuerzas irregulares colombianas en territorio
ecuatoriano se hizo en base a una operaci?n combinada entre Colombia y
EE.UU., con la participaci?n de una red de inteligencia extranjera
operando en el Ecuador, que conoc?a con antelaci?n del bombardeo y de
los pasos subsecuentes que el Gobierno de Bogot? iba a tomar.?/
(Textual)

- /?Las reuniones mantenidas con personal de la C?A en Ecuador
demuestran las relaciones que se han construido con personal de la
Polic?a y las Fuerzas Armadas desde hace muchos a?os y reafirma la
existencia de redes como las que manejaba Leila Hadad P?rez, alias
SWAT, as? como v?nculos con oficiales de organismos especiales y de
inteligencia de las dos instituciones.?/ (Textual)

_A manera de conclusiones_

La intentona golpista en Ecuador es la antesala, sin lugar a dudas,
del incremento de la labor desestabilizadora de la derecha
ecuatoriana. Quisieron probar si exist?an condiciones para derrocar a
Correa, pero no emplearon todos los recursos disponibles y muchos de
los responsables de esta intentona se ocultaron en la sombra o se
lanzaron, hip?critamente, y, cuando todo el mundo repudi? la asonada,
a hacer declaraciones a favor de la democracia.

Muchos peligros amenazan a la Revoluci?n Ciudadana impulsada por
Correa, entre ellos nuevos intentos por derrocarlo por la v?a
violenta, ante la imposibilidad de hacerlo en las urnas.

Hoy m?s que nunca es importante sacar experiencias de estos nefastos
acontecimientos. Una de ellas es la necesidad de buscar la unidad de
las fuerzas progresistas, perfeccionar los m?todos de trabajo con las
masas, enfrentar con oportunidad y convicci?n la desinformaci?n entre
las bases populares y los movimientos sindical e ind?gena, esclarecer
m?s que imponer, y esa ser?, sin lugar a dudas, la clave del triunfo.
Es la hora de rectificar errores y de fortalecer nuestra fe en el
pueblo, de depurar a oportunistas y a quienes perjudican el trabajo
del gobierno desde adentro.

El verdadero enemigo desembolsa grandes cantidades de dinero de forma
descarada y controla desde su complejo de oficinas diplom?ticas, las
actividades de muchos elementos dentro de la FF AA y la Polic?a
Nacional. Se debe confiar, es cierto, en el soldado honesto y
patriota. A la par, se debe ser cuidadoso con aquel que se vende y es
capaz de traicionar a la Constituci?n cuando su protector de la CIA se
lo aconseja.

Estos hechos dejaron, sin embargo, a mi modo de ver, la apreciaci?n de
que el presidente Correa y su pueblo se crecieron con decoro y
dignidad por encima de quienes trataron de tronchar el futuro del
Ecuador. Fueron admirados por el mundo y el mundo no les dio la
espalda.

La valent?a de Correa como l?der y hombre probo, qued? demostrada al
cerrarse este cap?tulo bochornoso en la historia del Ecuador. Digno y
glorioso dijo a Radio P?blica, para que lo escuchara su amado pueblo:
/?Yo no voy dar marcha atr?s, si quieren vengan a buscarme ac?, denme
un tiro y que siga adelante la Rep?blica, me matar?n a m?, como dec?a
Neruda, podr?n cortar las flores pero no impedir la llegada de la
primavera?./
--
N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a
Richard Fidler
2010-10-03 19:52:55 UTC
Permalink
N?stor, many thanks for drawing these two excellent articles to our
attention:

Hugo Ch?vez, ?le dije: Correa, t? no mueres hoy?
http://aporrea.org/internacionales/n166786.html

SOBRE LO ACONTECIDO EN ECUADOR
por Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy
http://tinyurl.com/28uxv46

As you say, these are the kinds of tools we need to help the benighted
masses in the North to understand the events in Ecuador, and more
generally the nature of the process now under way in "Nuestra
America". Let's hope they get translated into other languages as well.

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu] On
Behalf Of N?stor Gorojovsky
Sent: October 3, 2010 10:14 AM
To: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca
Subject: [Marxism] [Spa] Interesting details on Ecuador


[This report was written by a strong supporter of Correa. It is,
therefore, strongly biased. However, the amount and quality of
detailed info within it make it a must reading for anyone wanting to
adopt a clear position around what happened there on Thursday last. If
I was an US citizen, for example, instead of splitting hairs on
Correa?s relation with the CONAIE movement (and other movements of the
same root who SUPPORT Correa) I would be demonstrating against the
intervention of my own bourgeoisie in tiny Ecuador. Data to support
such a move can be easily found in the text below:]

SOBRE LO ACONTECIDO EN ECUADOR
por Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy

/Los hechos en Ecuador fueron realmente una intentona golpista de
visos militar, pol?tico y medi?tico, por parte de la derecha
ecuatoriana y el imperialismo/

1 de octubre de 2010.

Tras el demorado operativo de rescate efectuado por miembros de las
Fuerzas Armadas y de la Polic?a, que condujo a la liberaci?n del
presidente de Ecuador, secuestrado en el Hospital Militar, culminaron
cerca de 14 horas de tensi?n y de espera para el mundo entero que,
temeroso por la suerte de Rafael Correa, se sum? a la condena casi
un?nime contra el intento de golpe de estado fraguado contra su
gobierno.

[snip]
S. Artesian
2010-10-03 21:18:15 UTC
Permalink
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/news-briefs-archives-68/2718-coup-attempt-in-ecuador-take-action
We call for unity among social organizations for a plurinational
peoples' democracy

Indigenous groups respond to attempted coup d'?tat in Ecuador

An unofficial translation of a press release from the Confederation of
Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, the CONAIE, on September 30,
2010.

A process of change, as weak as it may be, runs the risk of being
overturned or overtaken by the right, old or new, if it does not
establish alliances with organized social and popular sectors, and
deepen progressively.

The insubordination of the police, beyond their immediate demands,
lays bare at least four substantial things:

1. While the government has dedicated itself exclusively to attacking
and delegitimizing organized sectors like the Indigenous movement,
workers' unions, etc., it hasn't weakened in the least the structures
of power of the right, or those within the state apparatus, which has
become evident through the rapidity of the response from the public
forces.

2. The social crisis that was let loose today was also provoked by the
authoritarian character and the non-opening to dialogue in the
lawmaking process. We have seen how laws that were consensed around
were vetoed by the President of the Republic, closing any possibility
of agreement.

3. Faced with the criticism and mobilization of communities against
transnational mining, oil, and agro-industrial companies, the
government, instead of creating a dialogue, responds with violence and
repression, as occurred in Zamora Chinchipe.

4. This scenario nurtures the conservative sectors. Already various
sectors and people from the old right are asking for the overthrow of
the government and the instalation of a civil or military
dictatorship; but the new right, from inside and outside the
government, will use this context to justify their total alliance with
the most reactionary sectors and with emerging business interests.

The Ecuadorian Indigenous movement, CONAIE, with its regional
Confederations and its grassroots organizations states before
Ecuadorian society and the international community their rejection to
the economic and social policies of the government, and with the same
energy we reject the actions of the right that in an undercover way
form part of the attempted coup d'?tat, and to the contrary we will
continue to struggle for the construction of a Plurinational State
with a true democracy.

Consistent with the mandate of the communities, peoples and
nationalities and faithful to our history of struggle and resistance
against colonialism, discrimination and exploitation of those who are
below, of the poor, we will defend democracy and the rights of the
people: no concessions for the right.

In these critical moments, our position is:

1. We convene our bases to maintain themselves alert and ready to
mobilize in defense of true Plurinational democracy and against the
actions of the right.

2. We deepen our mobilization against the extractive model and the
imposition of large scale mining, the privatization and concentration
of water, and the expansion of the oil frontier.

3. We convene and join together with diverse organized sectors to
defend the rights of workers, affected by the arbitrariness which has
driven the legislative process, recognizing that they are making
legitimate demands.

4. We demand that the national government firmly depose every possible
concession to the right. We demand that the government abandons its
authoritarian attitude against the popular sectors, that they not
criminalize social protest and the persecution of leaders: the only
thing this type of politics provokes is to open spaces to the Right
and create spaces of destabilization.

The best way to defend democracy is to begin a true revolution that
resolves the most urgent and structural questions to the benefit of
the majority. On this path is the effective construction of the
Plurinational state and the immediate initiation of an agrarian
revolution and a de-privatization of water.

This is our position in this context and in this historical period.

Marlon Santi
PRESIDENT, CONAIE

Delf?n Tenesaca
PRESIDENT, ECUARUNARI

Tito Puanchir
PRESIDENT, CONFENIAE

Olindo Nastacuaz
PRESIDENT, CONAICE

***
Quito, September 30, 2010

In Latin America we have gone from bloody military dictatorship to the
dictatorship of transnational capital to neoliberalism. The sectors
that benefit from this have always been the same (bankers, commercial
entrepreneurs, landowners). And we the impoverished, Indigenous,
workers, men and women, have always been the victims, but we have
always been fighters who stand for democracy of the oppressed. With
this strength and legitimacy we reject any dictatorship from where
ever it comes.

The political crisis in Ecuador at this moment caused by the
insubordination of the police has been turned by police officers and
some military sectors into a coup attempt, behind which is undoubtedly
Ecuador's rightwing and the forces of imperialism.

We have no doubt that this political crisis is a right-wing reaction
against the 2008 Constitution, adopted by the affirmative vote of 64%
of Ecuadorians, and is therefore a clear threat to democracy,
Plurinationalism, and the Sumak Kawsay (living well).

In the geopolitical dimension it is also a threat to the Venezuelan
and Bolivian processes. It is not coincidental that reactionary
sectors of the country celebrated the attempts of destabilization in
the Venezuelan elections. They had this same attitude toward attempts
to overthrow the Bolivian government. Now the conservative sectors of
the country have been adding to these dictatorial attempts.

What is the position of the organized social sectors? The vast
majority of popular organizations that resist against dictatorship and
neo-liberalism of the pro-imperialist oligarchy in Ecuador, and
despite our deep disagreements with the national government that has
tried some of our leaders as terrorists, this is no reason to stand
with our historic enemies. Behind the protest of the police and their
wage claims is the claim of ignorance of the Constitution where we
recognize many of our proposals and historical struggles.

Rafael Correa's Citizen Revolution formed broad alliances with
right-wing groups in mining, oil, agribusiness, etc., and attacked and
persecuted popular left-wing organizations (especially the Indigenous
movement) which leaves those reactionary sectors free to act in this
way.

Leaving no room for confusion, our position is:

1. Reject the coup attempt and defend the Plurinational State.

2. We declare ourselves in permanent assemblies and alert to mobilize
in defense of plurinationalism.

3. As part of a plurinational democracy, the only revolutionary
alternative is to fight against supporters of the dictatorship, and to
deepen urgent changes in the process of agrarian revolution.

4. We gather ourselves in a large plurinational dialogue of all
Ecuadorians, in an atmosphere of peace and democracy to build a large
plurinational consensus as the best way to resolve the crisis
peacefully.

We have already suffered too much with dictatorships, Honduras still
hurts. No more dictatorship in Latin America.

For the Governing Council

Delf?n Tenesaca
PRESIDENTE DE ECUARUNARI
Greg McDonald
2010-10-03 21:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Precisely.

Wondering what Correa thinks of those "infantile" indigenous groups,
now that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Post by S. Artesian
Rafael Correa's Citizen Revolution formed broad alliances with
right-wing groups in mining, oil, agribusiness, etc., and attacked and
persecuted popular left-wing organizations (especially the Indigenous
movement) which leaves those reactionary sectors free to act in this
way.
1. Reject the coup attempt and defend the Plurinational State.
2. We declare ourselves in permanent assemblies and alert to mobilize
in defense of plurinationalism.
3. As part of a plurinational democracy, the only revolutionary
alternative is to fight against supporters of the dictatorship, and to
deepen urgent changes in the process of agrarian revolution.
4. We gather ourselves in a large plurinational dialogue of all
Ecuadorians, in an atmosphere of peace and democracy to build a large
plurinational consensus as the best way to resolve the crisis
peacefully.
We have already suffered too much with dictatorships, Honduras still
hurts. No more dictatorship in Latin America.
For the Governing Council
Delf?n Tenesaca
PRESIDENTE DE ECUARUNARI
S. Artesian
2010-10-03 22:18:24 UTC
Permalink
The more I read about this, the more it reminds me of the overthrow in 1946
of the Bolivian general Villaroel. He claimed to be a "progressive," in the
tradition of "progressive" Bolivian generals of the 30s and 40s. He was a
"nationalist."

And he also broke strikes, attacked leftists, attacked liberals, with death
squads operating... all that good stuff that makes politics so much fun.

The rightists, who were a bit frosted over his accommodation to populism,
and his suppression of their god given right to dictate policy etc. mounted
a coup, causing Villaroel's death [forget if he was executed or committed
suicide] .The pro Moscow PIR joined in the coup, winning for themselves the
portfolio of the ministry of labor in the right wing coup government, from
which offices they proceeded to attack the miners, and completely alienate
themselves from the working class.

[Doing this from memory, leant out my books on this part of Bolivian
history, but I think I remember it correctly.]

That's another example of going across the class line, I guess, of
participating in a "broad national coalition."

The miners and Trotskyist organizations did not support the coup against
Villaroel. They didn't exactly rush to his defense, having tasted a bit too
much of Villaroel's rifle-butt populism themselves, but they did not support
the coup.

Six years later, in 1952, of course, the MNR takes power and rules for 12
years as the great national democratic revolution. During this time it
consistently attacks and represses the workers, and finally sets the terms
for its own overthrow in a coup.

Correa can claim anything he wants. We in the US or Australia or anywhere
can plunk our magic twangers and mouth the words "contradiction" and
"dialectic" but in the end this silk purse is a sow's ear. Correa will use
his enhanced "popularity" to pursue his current policy which includes
attacks on the indigenous people and the repression of class conscious
organizations.

Me? I have no desire to use the workers and poor to chum the waters for
these land sharks called "nationalists," "populists," etc. etc. etc.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg McDonald" <gregmc59 at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] [ More] Interesting details on Ecuador



Precisely.

Wondering what Correa thinks of those "infantile" indigenous groups,
now that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Louis Proyect
2010-10-03 22:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Artesian
Correa can claim anything he wants.
Didn't you read Mark Weisbrot's article?

He referred to a paper that was co-written by Luis Sandoval. He stated
Post by S. Artesian
The government doubled spending on health care, as compared to past
levels, to 3.5 percent of GDP (about $1.8 billion). Spending on free
health care programs has been expanded especially for children and
pregnant women.

There was also a very large increase in social spending by the
government, from 5.4 percent of GDP in 2006 to an estimated 8.3 percent
of GDP in 2008. This included a doubling of the cash transfer payment to
the poorest households. It also included a $474.3 million increase in
spending on housing programs, mainly for low-income families, as well as
numerous new programs in areas such as education, training, and
microfinance.<<

full: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/20394.pdf


You would be far more persuasive if you didn't try to shoe-horn
everything into your Bordigist schemas.
S. Artesian
2010-10-04 00:13:06 UTC
Permalink
First off, no I didn't read the Weisbrot article. But so what? Lots of
bourgeois governments increase welfare spending, don't they? Reform
governments do that, no?

Allende did that, too, didn't he? Perhaps you didn't read about the
overthrow of Allende, how he attempted to "split" the "national, patriotic
bourgeoisie" for the imperial monopolist? And how it didn't work?

Maybe you didn't read that Allende increased, and dramatically spending on
education and public health, establishing schools and clinics in areas where
there had never been schools or clinics before.

And perhaps you forgot that he also provided meals in those schools for
school children so they would be ensured of obtaining decent nutrition-- all
of which are wonderful humane things-- which are destined to be, and be
only, areas for NOSTALGIA if the bourgeoisie aren't expropriated, if the
workers are prevented from following through on abolishing private property
and the institutions of that class that exists through that property.

Perhaps you didn't read about Allende bringing into his cabinet
representatives of the very military that engineered the coup and killed
numerous militants. Perhaps Mark Weisbrot never wrote about the Popular
Unity government suppressing the workers own actions in expropriating
factories and attempt to develop a socialist economy. But Stefan de Vylder
did in a very good book called Allende's Chile: The political economy of
the rise and fall of the Unidad Popular.

Perhaps Weisbrot and Sandoval didn't read, either, how much Correa is
spending on the military. Or how much he is spending on the police. But
he, Correa, seemed quite proud of doing more for the police than any other
president, and he seem genuinely shocked that they could be so ungrateful
after the largesse he bestowed upon them.

Perhaps you didn't read the statements of CONAIE or the ECUARUNARI, who did
not support the coup and do not support Correa. If not, you might want to
take the time to do so, because if the issue is one of either going along
with Weisbrot and his homage to social-democracy, or CONAIE and their
defense of the homelands from Correa's plans to allow Canadian mining
companies to work there, I'm with CONAIE and against Weisbrot no matter how
much money Correa says he's spending on public housing programs.


Secondly, I'm not trying to shoe horn a damn thing into Bordiga-ism, mainly
because I haven't spent a whole lot of time studying Bordiga. Actually I've
spent no time studying Bordiga. My inclination is to study Marx, and then
use what I learn in that study to analyze the movement of capital, and the
immanent tendencies for its potential overthrow. Like in Ecuador. Or the
US. And Correa does not appear as one of those immanent tendencies for that
overthrow.

Call me old-fashioned, but that's the way I was brought up.

Sorry if you don't find the history of repeated failures of "national
democratic revolutions" of "popular unity governments" persuasive enough to
keep you from exhibiting the repetition compulsion of the left to submerge,
and confuse, issues of class and class struggle, with welfare programs, and
with the anti-class politics of such "popular" governments.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
Post by Louis Proyect
Didn't you read Mark Weisbrot's article?
He referred to a paper that was co-written by Luis Sandoval. He stated
The government doubled spending on health care, as compared to past
levels, to 3.5 percent of GDP (about $1.8 billion). Spending on free
health care programs has been expanded especially for children and
pregnant women.
Louis Proyect
2010-10-04 00:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Artesian
Secondly, I'm not trying to shoe horn a damn thing into Bordiga-ism, mainly
because I haven't spent a whole lot of time studying Bordiga. Actually I've
spent no time studying Bordiga. My inclination is to study Marx, and then
use what I learn in that study to analyze the movement of capital, and the
immanent tendencies for its potential overthrow. Like in Ecuador. Or the
US. And Correa does not appear as one of those immanent tendencies for that
overthrow.
I am not going to debate Allende with you except to say that any
government that nationalizes multinational copper mines deserves the
support of Marxists. Allende's Popular Unity government was based on a
flawed strategy but he was targeted by imperialism for good reasons. It
could not tolerate such independent *nationalist* initiatives.

On the Bordigist thing. You invite people to read Insurgent Notes and
you forward notices on Loren Goldner's classes. It is pretty obvious to
anybody who is familiar with the left that those are your politics. So I
don't understand your coyness in saying that you haven't studied
Bordiga. Goldner, Bordiga, Castoriadis. It is all cut from the same cloth.

That of course is why you are constantly fighting with people here and
walking off in a snit. You have a totally different understanding of
Marxism. I am not saying that you are right or wrong, only that your
ideology clashes. Here's Goldner discussing his politics for those with
a curiosity about "left" communism.

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/sanoshin.html

Like anarchism, left communism has the merit of never having to say that
it is sorry. That's the advantage of idealism, after all.
S. Artesian
2010-10-04 01:04:45 UTC
Permalink
WTF does that, what you wrote below have to do with anything?

First, the Allende government was a popular front government. Plain and
simple. Whether it nationalized copper mines or not does not change the
class nature of the government. Allende's nationalization wasn't the first,
in fact the CD had practiced a bit of nationalization themselves, although
that experiment wound up placing all costs on the people of Chile while
ensuring the bourgeoisie handsome compensation... which by the way is
exactly what the ultimate result of Allende's nationalization was...once
Pinochet provided yet another lesson in where pop front politics, where
pledging allegiance to "nationalization" really gets the working class.

Secondly, nationalization in and of itself does not entitle a government to
support of Marxists. The MNR in Bolivia attempted land reform, nationalized
industry, improved literacy etc. etc. Should Marxists have supported the
MNR? And if so, exactly how does that Marxism differ from say the reformism
of union officials who actually enter those governments? If you are arguing
that Allende, Morales, or Correa should be supported, then you should be
arguing for Marxists to enter those governments. In which case, I'd have to
ask you what's the difference between your Marxism and, not only reformism,
but the actions and programs of the various CPs?

Thirdly, there's nothing coy about me. Ask any of the list member if they
think I'm coy. The fact of the matter is, whatever my politics, I've never
studied the work of Bordiga. That's just the fact. I've only read one
essay by him, and a few pages about him. But so what? WGAFF?

Yeah Goldner and I are friends, we work on things together, and we disagree
on a lot of things. Is that supposed to be somehow unheard of? People who
actually respect each other's analysis of class and class struggle working
on something despite their disagreements? I mean I don't buy into, and not
a bit, the notion of fictitious capital as the prop, the vehicle by which
capital keeps itself aflotat. And Loren, well he's a bit concerned that
deep down inside, I'm just a really really really left-wing Trotskyist.
WGAFF? We do what we do. We defend what we do. And where we disagree, we
disagree. BFD.

I have a totally different understanding of Marxism? Totally different?
Well if the "normal" understanding of Marxism is we give support to
whomever spends the most money on public housing and pediatric care, then
I'm happy mine is completely different.

As for my "walking off in a snit," yep I've been known to do that-- like
when you unsub Angelus for actually having the gall, the temerity to refer
to what Marx actually wrote, rather than the swill that passes for
interpretation from those who claim the legacy of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th
Internationals... or like when people start defending a rapist as being
"persecuted..." I tend to unsub rather than tell those individuals what I
really think of them. It's better for the list ecology that way.

Tell you what Lou, if I offend your "list ecology," let me know, and I'll be
only too happy to correct my previous mistake. As it stands now, your
remarks are merely an index to your impoverished lack of understanding of
Marxism.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
Louis Proyect
2010-10-04 01:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Artesian
Tell you what Lou, if I offend your "list ecology," let me know, and I'll be
only too happy to correct my previous mistake. As it stands now, your
remarks are merely an index to your impoverished lack of understanding of
Marxism.
You can do whatever the you want.

I am just telling you that you have been fighting with people here for 5
years. I try to imagine myself joining a "left communist" mailing list
and getting into angry debates with people for a 5 year stretch. I have
better things to do with my life than bang my head against the wall. You
have only had this debate about nationalist leaders 35 times. It is like
Groundhog Day. The same thing over and over and over. That is why I am
not interesting in discussing Chile with you. My time is better spent in
discussing people who at least regard me as a Marxist. The clear
implication of your messages is that you are defending Marxism against
its enemies. Perhaps it makes you feel like you are hastening the
arrival of communism by getting into these debates on the Marxism list.
I feel that they are a big waste of time. You are a very smart and a
very informed guy but you simply don't understand the futility of having
bitter fights with people who come at things from a totally different
angle than you do.
S. Artesian
2010-10-04 02:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Yes, we've had this debate. The emphasis is on we--.both sides. Bitterly
fighting? As I pointed out, oppose the coup, no support for Correa. The
fact that others would like to be able to write that off as being evidence
of imperial chauvinism, skin color, or the rate of wage compensation is by
no means my responsibility.

Hastening communism? Actually I have no illusions about hastening anything.
It's about time for the peak oil issue to arise again, oil's at $80/barrek.
And I'm sure we're going to get the issue of "will, and when will, China
supplant the US?" again.

And we'll get the issue of the supposed "bribery of the US working class"
again.

These issues have repeatedly arisen in on the list because they repeatedly
arise in real life
.
You have no interest in discussing Chile with me? Right, but you have an
interest in making an assertion that says "any government that nationalizes
copper mines deserves the support of Marxists" and then not discussing the
implications of that position.

You want to have positions expressed on this list and not have them
discussed or contradicted? Helluva a way to develop an understanding of
what's actually going on.

I don't think I'm defending Marxism against its enemies. I'm not the one
who has slandered other members on this list by asserting that they are
"objectively" on the side of imperialists, and "objectively" the allies of
"mass murderers." Somehow that sort of "defense of Marxism against its
enemies," as many times as it has been repeated, is well... different.
Vive la difference, I suppose.

But I do understand what wasting time is. I re-upped because, and only
because, I received a number of personal appeals from list members to do
so... for what they thought were important reasons. One of those important
reasons is the whole question of the "contradictory nature" of the
"national bourgeoisie." Me, personally? I thought it was a mistake. I was
right.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
2010-10-04 03:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Who?s the real idealist here Louis?, you quote some cherry-picked
statistics which have nothing to say about the class struggle (ooops? I forgot
Latin America is still feudalist) in Ecuador, you presuppose that Correa, or
whatever bourgeois progressive government acts in isolation from the
limitations of the form in which capital accumulates imposed by the world
market, as if Correa materialized healthcare out of his divine good heart, and
to top it all off, to justify your claims, you **schematically** accuse the
arguments contrary to your opinions as schematic, when you started the whole
shebang by derailing the discussion with abstract labels, putting S.Artesian in the "ultra-leftist" bag as a real "materialist".
Can I be blunt? Who
gives a s*** about Bordiga, or how the macabre Goldner has influenced the
?ideology? of S.Artesian? Is this a list to throw personal s*** off, or are we
gonna talk about the real s*** that?s going on.


Does it occur to you Louis?, that there might be a lot of
people who don?t clash with YOUR views because they don?t wanna get into the
kind of personalistic labeling bulls*** you just started, but build some unity
in order to get some objective understanding of politics from a critical
Marxist perspective in order to have some consciousness brought into new
generations of leftists, as opposed to your arrogant patronizing. I never
bought an ounce of your ideological interpretation of your monthly review dependency theory which
not even dependency theorists believe in anymore. But, whatever, I was more than
willing to argue about that, reasonably; it now seems that every Marxist in the
Proyectite world would disagree however.


And let?s see who?s disagreed with S.Artesian so far: Nestor (obviously), Manuel Barrera (a given), Joaquin (eeehhh let?s leave it at
?contradictory?), you,

and who?s shown similar concerns ?which I can?t believe it
has to be, but I will clarify, does not imply support for the coup-: Joseph
Catron, Dennis Brasky, Greg McDonald, David Walters, and I. So, 4 to 5,
approximately, sorry if I left anyone out, but, we won! courtesy of kindergarden mathematics for MARXIST personal accusations.


Way to build a serious non-sectarian list?.the only one who seems to
have time to waste around here is you, I?m afraid. I have to ask you, do you think that nobody notices these cheap rhetorical tricks? what gives?
Louis Proyect
2010-10-04 12:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
Who?s the real idealist here Louis?, you quote some cherry-picked
statistics which have nothing to say about the class struggle (ooops? I forgot
Latin America is still feudalist) in Ecuador, you presuppose that Correa, or
whatever bourgeois progressive government acts in isolation from the
limitations of the form in which capital accumulates imposed by the world
market, as if Correa materialized healthcare out of his divine good heart, and
to top it all off, to justify your claims, you **schematically** accuse the
arguments contrary to your opinions as schematic, when you started the whole
shebang by derailing the discussion with abstract labels, putting S.Artesian in the "ultra-leftist" bag as a real "materialist".
Don't you understand the importance of citing health care statistics
when discussing a given state and a given society? How could we possibly
arrive at an estimation of China or Vietnam today without getting into
these nitty-gritty details. Your problem and that of most left
communists is that nothing like this matters to you because you are
satisfied by calling attention to the mode of production (capitalism)
and announcing to the world that the system is contrary to communism. In
point of fact, Correa and Morales are not run-of-the-mill bourgeois
"progressives". They came to power as part of a radicalization of poor
peasants, indigenous peoples and workers that the USA considers a thorn
in the side. It views nationalist movements like these as a threat to
its class interests, just as it always has. It was determined to destroy
Arab nationalism in the 60s for the same reason even though Nasser was
hardly a Marxist. This analysis flows from that of the early Comintern.
You can read the documents on-line at MIA.

Now I understand that you have problems with this ideological tradition
but I have never made any secret about the list having an affinity with
Monthly Review, Science and Society, and Monthly Review, whose editors
do have backgrounds similar to my own and most subscribers. Perhaps it
is a sign of the weakness of "left communism" that it has not been able
to gather the forces necessary to popularize its ideas. Goldner and
Sartesian launched Insurgent Notes, an American version of Aufheben, in
order to create a pole of attraction for left communist ideas but I
doubt that it will be successful. The plain fact of the matter is that
Bordigism is a minority trend in the radical movement and will be as
long as it dwells in the ethereal realm of theory.

I created Marxmail as a resource for activists primarily, young people
who were trying to develop an alternative to "Marxist-Leninist"
sectarianism. I don't see any point in excluding people who have little
interest in this agenda but don't blame me for trying to maintain
something of a focus. This is not Hyde Park but a mailing list designed
to resolve problems of dogmatism and sectarianism that arose in the
organized Marxist movement, in other words among people trying to build
revolutionary parties. That will be my focus as long as I am moderator.
Greg McDonald
2010-10-04 13:13:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
In
Post by Louis Proyect
point of fact, Correa and Morales are not run-of-the-mill bourgeois
"progressives". They came to power as part of a radicalization of poor
peasants, indigenous peoples and workers that the USA considers a thorn
in the side. It views nationalist movements like these as a threat to
its class interests, just as it always has.
Correct.

And then Correa turned right around and unleashed the police on
peaceful demonstrations against international mining interests, tried
indigenous leaders as "terrorists", fired Alberto Acosta, the most
radical and popular economist in the country, gave his Interior
Minister, Gustavo Larrea, walking papers, and declared Accion
Ecologica to be an illegal organization, a move which Alexis Ponce of
APDH decried as stooping lower than Febres Cordero.


Greg McDonald
Louis Proyect
2010-10-04 13:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg McDonald
And then Correa turned right around and unleashed the police on
peaceful demonstrations against international mining interests, tried
indigenous leaders as "terrorists", fired Alberto Acosta, the most
radical and popular economist in the country, gave his Interior
Minister, Gustavo Larrea, walking papers, and declared Accion
Ecologica to be an illegal organization, a move which Alexis Ponce of
APDH decried as stooping lower than Febres Cordero.
This is exactly the kind of information we need to make sense of what is
going on in Ecuador. If Correa has turned into his opposite, then there
is little reason to support him. But we need concrete information not
lectures in the abstract.
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
2010-10-04 15:28:53 UTC
Permalink
LP: ?Don't you understand the importance of citing health
care statistics

when discussing a given state and a given society? How could
we possibly

arrive at an estimation of China or Vietnam today without
getting into

these nitty-gritty details.?

I have never said getting into the nitty-gritty details is ?bad?.
In fact, what I?m trying to say is that your personal accusations are precisely
distracting the discussion away from this.

Even then, the problem is hardly a purely ?empirical? question.
You can throw all the statistics you want, but why do I have to believe that
these will give an objective understanding for a political action which will
empower workers? When you put those (cherry-picked) details out, like how
healthcare has improved, which I?m not against, (I have to clarify before
anyone put words in my mouth,) you are talking about a merely quantitative
expression of how wealth is being distributed. But capitalism doesn?t stem from
an unequal distribution, and capitalists don?t do whatever they want with the
national wealth. From your viewpoint, however, these limitations are occluded,
as if it was a question of the native bourgeois fragments of each country to
want to advance their own capitalist ?development?. This is an ideological
inversion, you have to show why it is that the form in which this social
capital exists, and that these bourgeoisie represent as its functionaries, has
the historical potential of doing what capital has to do which is to carry the
productive forces of society forward; because if this form doesn?t do that,
then the working class is to take this social capital into its own hands.

Where?s the data on that? What, you?re gonna tell me that
because Peron invested in public healthcare he was a progressive historical
force since nice productive industrial capitalism was ?lacking? in Argentina? That
Peron was an expression of the capitalism of Latin America was growing to
detract from that of the imperialist countries, and so they took him out? Well,
I?d like to see that data, because I have lots of data to the contrary and I?ve
posted some on the list, though it doesn?t seem anybody was paying much
attention, perhaps because it wasn?t in accordance to the ?interpretive ecology?. Here's some of that which I've translated, it's only a small part: http://www.ceics.org.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=78

LP: ?Your problem and
that of most left communists is that nothing like this matters to you because
you are satisfied by calling attention to the mode of production (capitalism) and
announcing to the world that the system is contrary to communism. ?

Ahhh?so now I?m a left communist, could you please prove
that? I can see why it?s real important for you to give me some ideological
label, because if I didn?t have one, if I actually was talking about developing
some objective terms dealing with the political action that workers would need
to operate within capitalism, that would mean that you?d have to justify your
views, not based on an ideology, but on, here comes: science. How about that,
scientific socialism? Remember, the real movement and all that stuff, it doesn?t
come from labels.

When it comes to the real movement, say the real political
actions of food workers in Argentina, your science boils down to: ?Wow. The revolution
is nigh.?, that?s real solidarity.



LP: ?In point of fact, Correa and Morales are not
run-of-the-mill bourgeois

"progressives". They came to power as part of a
radicalization of poor

peasants, indigenous peoples and workers that the USA
considers a thorn

in the side. It views nationalist movements like these as a
threat to

its class interests, just as it always has. It was determined
to destroy

Arab nationalism in the 60s for the same reason even though
Nasser was

hardly a Marxist. This analysis flows from that of the early
Comintern.

You can read the documents on-line at MIA.?



Please go on, I?m just learning this, taking notes now?



LP: ?Now I understand that you have problems with this ideological
tradition

but I have never made any secret about the list having an
affinity with

Monthly Review, Science and Society, and Monthly Review,
whose editors

do have backgrounds similar to my own and most subscribers.
Perhaps it

is a sign of the weakness of "left communism" that
it has not been able

to gather the forces necessary to popularize its ideas.
Goldner and

Sartesian launched Insurgent Notes, an American version of
Aufheben, in

order to create a pole of attraction for left communist
ideas but I

doubt that it will be successful. The plain fact of the
matter is that

Bordigism is a minority trend in the radical movement and
will be as

long as it dwells in the ethereal realm of theory.?



S.Artesian just told you that he isn?t into this, what else
do you need, seriously? He was talking about the failure of bourgeois
progressive governments, class struggle, savvy?



LP: ?I created Marxmail as a resource for activists
primarily, young people

who were trying to develop an alternative to
"Marxist-Leninist"

sectarianism. I don't see any point in excluding people who
have little

interest in this agenda but don't blame me for trying to
maintain

something of a focus. This is not Hyde Park but a mailing
list designed

to resolve problems of dogmatism and sectarianism that arose
in the

organized Marxist movement, in other words among people
trying to build

revolutionary parties. That will be my focus as long as I am
moderator.?

Well, let me tell you, I got into Marxmail because I?m
really, really, excited about this proposal. But, if you want to be done with
the ?Marxist-Leninist? sectarianism, that implies you have to quit the
sectarian ways of dismissing what someone says because of the ideology you
think they have which is in your imagination. The best way to get rid of
sectarianism of any kind, I?d say, is to try to develop an objective understanding
of what?s the effective political action that?s needed, which forces us to to
put away whatever ideology and question what is the action needed to act within
capitalism, for which we have to have a firm understanding of capital and not
simply assume Marx?s work is Talmudic.
Louis Proyect
2010-10-05 02:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
Even then, the problem is hardly a purely ?empirical? question.
You can throw all the statistics you want, but why do I have to believe that
these will give an objective understanding for a political action which will
empower workers?
What nonsense. The first thing that came up in this debate was an
austerity drive that forced the cops to fire tear gas at Correa. If you
are going to make austerity the lynchpin of your intervention, then the
discussion has to revolve around what the government is actually doing
in terms of austerity or expanded benefits.

You, of course, would much prefer to keep things on a more ethereal
plane, involving the correct understanding of chapter 11 of the Grundrisse.

No thanks.
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
2010-10-05 17:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Louis Proyect wrote: ?You, of course, would much prefer to
keep things on a more ethereal

plane, involving the correct understanding of chapter 11 of
the Grundrisse.



No thanks.?


J?accuse, J?accuse,
J?accuse!


Don?t make me laugh Louis, if I?m ethereal, what does that
make you?


So far your concrete contributions are:

1-Bordiga, ism, ism, anarchism, etherealism, ism,
libertarianism, leftism, ism!

2-CONAIE is CIA-funded conspiracy theory.

3-Off-hand dismissal of workers, teachers, and indigenous
peoples struggles. Are those in the Weisbrot article??

4- GDP this, GDP that. You know, in Argentina, during the
Menem years, GDP grew as fast or faster as the US, you wanna tell me that the
Argentine economy ?flourished?? I can see that, I just regret not having been a
staunch supporter of Menem, that?s where the real ?non-ethereal? conscious
program of workers was at.


I?m not really sure why I owe you concrete data, when all
you have cited is some cherry-picked statistics and a conspiracy theory,?


But OK, the first thing that came up in this debate was an
austerity drive, indeed. If you are done with your petty smears, let?s stay on earthly
?ground?.

Contrary to your superficial journalistic approach to
politics, the materialist analysis has to start from the determinations of
capital to understand how the bourgeoisie express its needs and limitations.
The determinations of capital, the form in which capital accumulates in South
America, is largely molded by ground rent. In Argentina, for example, it?s
ground rent from agricultural commodities, in Ecuador, mining and oil are more
important, and I just can?t wait till water gets completely privatized. In your
view, like for example in your ?Legacy of Peron? little essay, this is
completely absent, because the question is presented superficially and upside
down, as a question of the personal history of Peron, his abstract will (or will to power, whichever you like), his
failure to carry through, etc.; this is ?politics?.


This ground rent is paid for by industrial capital (except
in the mythical theories of ?unequal exchange? which have none of your beloved
empirical measurements unless you totally invert the question so that it can
suit your theory, like Arghiri Emmanuel does?of course, for you, anything
that has a number tagged to it is ?real?). But in these, our, countries,
industrial production is not geared to export in the world market, it is
limited by the scale for consumption in the domestic markets. It is the surplus
value from the capitals with higher organic composition located in the
countries where capital accumulates in a classical manner flowing into the
countries where industrial capital does not bear the capacity to carry forward
the productive forces, the latter function by virtue of their annexation to the structure which is
necessary for the circulation and appropriation of ground rent; hence these ?chatarra? capitals live
off state subsidies. These ?chatarra? capitals, whether foreign or domestic,
are prevented from bearing the potentiality to carry forward the productive
forces, not because evil monopolies which have a will of their own do not let
them, but because they exist for the specific needs of this accumulation
process.


Some people, like you probably, who might be nostalgic about
the nationalist bourgeois movements think that the import substitution model to
break off from the imperialist world system was an alternative; that these
state policies, if given enough time, should?ve, would?ve, could?ve succeeded.
The implicit presupposition is that the state is somehow, somewhere, somewhat,
independent of the accumulation process.

Yet, the empirics are clearly
to the contrary (you can see the concrete data in the links I posted, which I?m
sure you haven?t read since you just wanna play the ?accuser?, here it is *again*:
http://www.ceics.org.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156:new-fantasies-of-the-past-what-the-imports-subsitution-industrialization-was-and-what-it-wasnt-&catid=65:argentine-economy&Itemid=78,
http://www.ceics.org.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:new-article-international-competition-and-foreign-debt-the-absolute-disadvantages-and-limits-of-capital-accumulation-in-argentina&catid=65:argentine-economy&Itemid=78

, I have more links in Spanish, if you?re interested, not
that 3rd world sources are of any importance?); what these fiery
independentist national movements expressed was the need for industrial capitals
to recover more ground rent in periods of expansion, like right now with soy
prices in Argentina, or the rise in oil prices around 2002 in Ecuador. If the
expansion was big enough, industry expanded too, but only within national
boundaries; the trend in terms of trade has, in relative terms, tended to go
down pretty systematically, especially since the late 70?s. And Ecuador is one
of the hardest-hit regions, you can see that in CEPAL figures.


And what happens when the slowdowns come, like the 66% fall in oil prices in 2009? Ah well, then
comes the state of exception, like what Correa?s doing, then come the personal
failure of the Leaders to carry through...The first recourse to save the
national project is international credit, a whole shitload of it, paid for by
those utopian, ultra-leftist workers. But this only makes the productivity gap
worse, and with the dollarization which Correa helps impose, even worse still. This debt may even constitute a net income, as Weisbrot is so enthused to point out, same happened in Argentina where 20 billion dollars, at constant prices, entered as a mass of social wealth between 1961-2004...and? And: nothing, but, worse. As
S.Artesian says, ?debt is forever?; if this isn?t an expression of the
historical undermining of this national ?progressive? accumulation, I don?t
know what is.
From this point of view, the austerity drive shouldn?t be a
surprise to anyone; Latin American economies have always tagged along in global
crises (instead of crying about ?nonsense?, I suggest you go over part 10 of
S.Artesian?s essay), and in this specific juncture when there is a global
dearth of credit, it should be quite obvious unless you imagine capital
accumulation is essentially national, contrary to Marx, which you do. In
Ecuador, there have been 7 presidents in the last 10 years, and they?ve always
gone down for their ?crock of shit?, i.e. reflushed waves of privatizations amidst
the highest unemployment, quite like Argentina, with ?que se vayan todos!? and
all that beautiful stuff which kicked out Lucio Gutierrez, who had Chavez?s
support, in the beginning.


So now, it?s your turn, prove that your **ideology** isn?t just another idealist inversion where you presuppose that capitalists do s*** cuz it falls from the sky, and you, sometimes implicitly, sometimes with derision, condemn the workers to stand in for your
nationalist ?de turno?, ? explain why we should stand behind the anti-imperialism
of Correa, no questions asked, which collaborates with the Colombian army, why your argumentation isn't just the Manichean logic for which you criticized Ahmedinejad supporters; in short, show some of
that real materialism, and tell us how capitalism really works and how we
need to consciously act politically, as opposed to blindly tailing radical leaders.


By the way, the
Grundrisse has no chapter 11?so indeed, no thanks.
Louis Proyect
2010-10-05 18:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
4- GDP this, GDP that. You know, in Argentina, during the
Menem years, GDP grew as fast or faster as the US, you wanna tell me that the
Argentine economy ?flourished?? I can see that, I just regret not having been a
staunch supporter of Menem, that?s where the real ?non-ethereal? conscious
program of workers was at.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I make a fetish over
GDP? In a piece I wrote on Nicaragua some time ago, I pointed out
that GDP grew rapidly under Somoza. The stat that interests me is
Gini Coefficient, not GDP.
Post by XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
Some people, like you probably, who might be nostalgic about
the nationalist bourgeois movements think that the import substitution model to
break off from the imperialist world system was an alternative; that these
state policies, if given enough time, should?ve, would?ve, could?ve succeeded.
The implicit presupposition is that the state is somehow, somewhere, somewhat,
independent of the accumulation process.
I am not an advocate of import substitution. I am an advocate of
socialism. That being said, I identify with the analysis of the
early Comintern with respect to struggles against imperialist
domination. I applaud actions like Nasser seizing the Suez Canal,
the FLN throwing the French out of Algeria, Morales gaining
control over natural gas, and even Iran's Islamic Republic telling
the west that it has the right to build nuclear power plants.

Of course, if you set up a dichotomy between communism on one hand
and capitalism on the other, these partial struggles will fall on
the wrong side of the barricades.

In an earlier period, Lenin made the point that these
black-and-white schemas are not the way the class struggle operates.

The Irish Rebellion of 1916
By V. I. Lenin

The views of the opponents of self-determination lead to the
conclusion that the vitality of small nations oppressed by
imperialism has already been sapped, that they cannot play any
role against imperialism, that support of their purely national
aspirations will lead to nothing, etc. The imperialist war of
1914?16 has provided facts which refute such conclusions.

The war proved to be an epoch of crisis for the West-European
nations, and for imperialism as a whole. Every crisis discards the
conventionalities, tears away the outer wrappings, sweeps away the
obsolete and reveals the underlying springs and forces. What has
it revealed from the standpoint of the movement of oppressed
nations? In the colonies there have been a number of attempts at
rebellion, which the oppressor nations naturally did all they
could to hide by means of a military censorship.

Nevertheless, it is known that in Singapore the British brutally
suppressed a mutiny among their Indian troops; that there were
attempts at rebellion in French Annam [Vietnam] and in the German
Cameroons; that in Europe, on the one hand, there was a rebellion
in Ireland, which the "freedom-loving" English, who did not dare
to extend conscription to Ireland, suppressed by executions, and,
on the other, the Austrian Government passed the death sentence on
the deputies of the Czech Diet "for treason," and shot whole Czech
regiments for the same "crime."

(clip)

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts
by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without
revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with
all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically
non-conscious proletarian and semiproletarian masses against
oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy,
against national oppression, etc.?to imagine all this is to
repudiate social revolution.

So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for
socialism," and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for
imperialism," and that will be a social revolution! Only those who
hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish
rebellion by calling it a "putsch."

Whoever expects a "pure" social revolution will never live to see
it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without
understanding what revolution is....

full: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/273.html
S. Artesian
2010-10-05 19:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps you would do better to actually engage with XxxxXxxx's analysis of
Argentina, rather than retreat into your standard defensive crash position,
head down, tray table up, and quoting Lenin.

Perhaps Louis, you would be better off quoting from Connolly who knew a
helluva a lot more about Irish history, and actually participated in the
Irish rebellion, giving him two legs up on Lenin.

See if at any point Connolly abstracts, or extracts, or disassociates the
struggle for the emancipation of the Irish from the emancipation of labor.
Read Connolly and tell me where, when, and if, he applauds the non-class
"national salvationists" that were at that time the equivalents of Correa or
even a Chavez.

Tell me where and when Connolly thinks somehow, somewhere the struggle for
the independence of Ireland can be formulated in the terms that you
formulate it--"thorn in the side," "spending on public housing," etc. etc.
rather than in the explicit, and self-conscious terms of class and class
struggle.

I'll save you the effort. "Nowhere" is the answer. He never suggest that
the struggle can be advanced along the lines that you think Correa
represents an advance.

Connolly knew, because he actually knew Irish history [and I might add here,
XxxxXxxx knows because he too actually knows the history of Argentina] that
the struggle would condense itself, focus itself, determine itself along
class lines... and all the IDEOLOGY of self-determination that Lenin was
advocating separate and apart from the actual relationship of the working
class to the mode of accumulation was, in the end, pettifogging, yeah, I
said it, pettifogging, BECAUSE the backwardness, the underdevelopment, the
oppression were expressions of capitalist accumulation.

Now I know I've just broken another of the ten commandments of Marxmail, and
actually called into question the genius, the all-knowing all seeing eye of
Lenin, but Lenin's "revolts of small nations" is a regressive formulation
as such "revolts" only occur when driven by the working class, and are
always precipitated by the international antagonism between the means and
relations of production. The national cross-class manifestation is a shell,
a form that is obsolete even at the moment of its expression. And for
those who are interested in "contradiction," that is exactly the sum total,
the limits, the meaning of the "contradictory" role of the "national
bourgeoisie" and the folly of supporting representatives of, or those so
infatuated with that class.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Louis Proyect
2010-10-05 19:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps you would do better to actually engage with Leonardo's analysis of
Argentina, rather than retreat into your standard defensive crash position,
head down, tray table up, and quoting Lenin.
And perhaps you would do better to debate somebody who has time to
waste with you.
S. Artesian
2010-10-05 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
May come as a shock to you, but I'm not really looking to debate with you,
as I don't think you have any interest in a real exchange of information, of
concrete analysis that might change anyone's views, a fact made painfully
clear to the most casual observer by your producing quote after quote from
Lenin like a talisman to ward off the evil of critical thinking.

I think rather you want to affirm your allegiance, and the allegiance of
those who agree with you, to a particular orthodoxy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
2010-10-05 17:47:45 UTC
Permalink
My post got cut off somehow, here's the end.
From this point of view, the austerity drive shouldn?t be a surprise to anyone; Latin American economies have always tagged along in global crises (instead of crying about ?nonsense?, I suggest you go over part 10 of S.Artesian?s essay), and in this specific juncture when there is a global dearth of credit, it should be quite obvious unless you imagine capital accumulation is essentially national, contrary to Marx, which you do. In Ecuador, there have been 7 presidents in the last 10 years, and they?ve always gone down for their ?crock of shit?, i.e. reflushed waves of privatizations amidst the highest unemployment, quite like Argentina, with ?que se vayan todos!? and all that beautiful stuff which kicked out Lucio Gutierrez, who had Chavez?s support, in the beginning.So now, it?s your turn, prove that your **ideology** isn?t just another idealist inversion where you presuppose that capitalists do s*** cuz it falls from the sky, and you, sometimes implicitly, sometimes with derision, condemn the workers to stand in for your nationalist ?de turno?, ? explain why we should stand behind the anti-imperialism of Correa, no questions asked, which collaborates with the Colombian army, why your argumentation isn't just the Manichean logic for which you criticized Ahmedinejad supporters; in short, show some of that real materialism, and tell us how capitalism really works and how we need to consciously act politically, as opposed to blindly tailing radical leaders.By the way, the Grundrisse has no chapter 11?so indeed, no thanks.
Steve Palmer
2010-10-06 00:40:45 UTC
Permalink
If you were right, Connolly would not have taken his place in the Dublin GPO on Easter 1916 alongside Padraig Pearse and the IRB - classic 'petty bourgeois nationalists' - but would have spent endless futile years trying to organize around pure class slogans, like the ILP did, who shared your politics. Why did he sign the Proclamation which doesn't make any reference to the working class and which asks somebody called 'God' to bless their arms? Why did Connolly place the national question at the centre of his politics? In his last statement, before the Brits shot him strapped to a chair, he says not one word about the working class or socialism, but enthuses about the blow that has been struck for Irish Freedom.

"There are in Ireland two Socialist parties; there should only be one. The only real dividing issue, apart from personal elements, is the question of recognising Ireland as entitled to self-government" Connolly wrote against your ideological ancestor, William Walker. Connolly was on one side putting Irish Freedom at the centre of his programme for the working class and you're on the other. Try as you may, there's no way you will ever succeed in turning Connolly into a Loyalist.

It's only because you have insulted Connolly and distorted his politics that I'm bothering to comment.

--- On Tue, 10/5/10, S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net> wrote
S. Artesian
2010-10-06 03:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Insulted Connolly? Not exactly. Nobody excludes an alliance with the
radical petty bourgeoisie-- there was that alliance in Russia, too. With
the Left-SRs. The question, issue, is what type of alliance, around what
program.

Correa is not a representative of the petty bourgeoisie. He's the
representativ of the bourgeoisie.

The point was that Connolly never separated Ireland's right to
self-government from the class struggle. He was convinced that it could
only be established through class conscious workers taking power. That's
why his work is so significant, at least that's what he wrote. Connolly in
his writings put labor at the centre of th Irish struggle.

Nothing about Correa approaches that level of class analysis.

I have no intention of turning Connolly into a loyalist. But it appears that
you have an intention of draining his work of its class significance, and in
that is the real insult and distortion of his politics.

----- Original Message -----


From: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] [More] Interesting details on Ecuador
Greg McDonald
2010-10-06 09:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Correa is not a representative of the petty bourgeoisie. ?He's the
representativ of the bourgeoisie.
The point was that Connolly never separated Ireland's right to
self-government from the class struggle. ?He was convinced that it could
only be established through class conscious workers taking power. ?That's
why his work is so significant, at least that's what he wrote. ?Connolly in
his writings put labor at the centre of th Irish struggle.
Nothing about Correa approaches that level of class analysis.
its class significance, and in
that is the real insult and distortion of his politics.
Our esteemed moderator calls for specifics:

http://www.conaie.org/component/content/article/21-noticas-portal/253-salvador-quishpe-la-convulsion-de-la-fuerza-publica-es-resultado-de-la-traicion-del-presidente-correa-para-favorecer-intereses-extranjeros

Salvador Quishpe, prefecto de Zamora Chinchipe, quien hace unos d?as
lider? una protesta exigiendo respeto a la Constituci?n por parte del
Gobierno y de las empresas mineras multinacionales en el sur del
Ecuador, dijo que la convulsi?n que vive el Ecuador en estos momentos
es por la traici?n del propio Presidente Rafael Correa, quien ofreci?
recuperar la patria, sin embargo en la pr?ctica lo que hizo fue
entregar el bolsillo de los ecuatorianos para la multinacional PORTA
en materia de telefon?a, defendi? a INTERAGUA de propiedad de los
grandes empresarios en Guayaquil, dict? una ley de minas para
favorecer a las empresas mineras extranjeras entre ellas la ECSA y la
Kinross-Aurelian que pretenden llevar millones de onzas de oro, plata
y cobre de las monta?as de Zamora Chinchipe, con todo esto castigando
al pueblo minero; acudi? a cr?ditos en la China cediendo la soberan?a
nacional al permitir que las controversias generadas por dicho cr?dito
se resuelvan en las cortes de Pequ?n y no en el Ecuador, dijo el
prefecto zamorano.
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx
2010-10-06 14:12:52 UTC
Permalink
There was a certain degree of obnoxiousness in my last post,
I?m not sure if I should apologize to the moderator or congratulate him for
making me write that way, which is one of my very bad weaknesses, so I?ll do
both. I certainly apologize to all Marxmail subscribers.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...