fascism and unions and the masses
iwp.ilo at ix.netcom.com
Thu Dec 14 22:49:47 MST 1995
You (Juan) wrote:
>> Where was Juan then?
>Simple, I was struggling to discover the true nature of the Argentine
>process of capital accumulation and, therefore, to develop an
>condition for any revolutionary action that could be conscious about
>own necessity beyond appearances.
Uhmmmm .... that's were Juan. Well, let me tell dear Juan that
if you were there when the class struggle was at its peak and
when people were murdered, persecuted and "dissappeared" then
my characterization of your goes beyond one of being a
Charlatans are a product and sometimes they are even funny when
we live in a situation in which we can afford that. We are
living one of those situations now, so we can afford you. But
not then, not in the future.
Juan added (full of frustrated anxiety)
With a handful of exemptions, every time
>I tried to advance with this development as a collective process, and
>did, my arguments were violently rejected by the left militants I was
>trying to approach. One typical argument was of the sort:
>>I have been immersed in Marxism
>>for xx years. I also have a pretty good knowledge of Argentinian
>>What point are you trying to make about "capital accumulation"? If I
>>very close attention to your argument, you begin to sound more and
>>like an economic determinist than a Marxist. Capital accumulation is
>>interesting, but it is not the determinant factor in the class
>>What is so complicated about
Uhmmm, again, very interesting. We are talking here about the
refusal to participate in the class struggle. Aren't we? For
yopu all the processes are mental and intellectual. Didn't
you ever heard about the famous "praxis"?
An Juan insists:
>Sounds familiar, doesn't it? And, of course, even more frequently, my
>arguments were rejected with just a "Yes, I do believe that in the
>epoch, politics determines over economics."
>In other words, trying to point out the true nature of the Argentine
>process of capital accumulation didn't make me popular at all among
>left militants that massively needed to personify it through an action
>based on its appearances.
Sure, the imminence and desire of revolution were just
appearances ... of politics, not economics. Capitalism
is ripe for socialist revolution since the 30s and it is
no determinist like you who will change a fact into a
hipothesis. So, the question was to fight for a political
program, a political characterization and not refusing to
take part based on intellectual demonization of those who
did. That, my friend, was your capitulation to Peronism
an NOT your advancement in Marxism.
An Juan, once again, added:
nnihilate itself into the general conscious regulation of human life,
>socialism/communism, is a necessary concrete form of the class
>much as any other.
This is what I'm trying to tell you from the very beginning but
to no avail. For you "socialism/communism is a necessary form
of the class struggle as much as any other", for me socialism/
communism is NOT a form of the class struggle but historic
goal of Marxists *PARTICIPATING* IN THE CLASS STRUGGLE. Get it?
As to your assertion "as much as any other" only speaks at
your theoretical/political incapacity of understanding the
difference between Peronism and Marxism, and the differences
within Peronism and Marxism.
For the rest of your posting about Nahuel Moreno, I will only
add a prognosis: only if you understood could you aspire to
fill his boots. But you are intellectually incapacitated by
your bourgeois blindness.
Take care and good luck on your mediocrity.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism