[Marxism] Iran, Venezuela, Latin America and US

[Nestor Gorojovsky]

> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:32:20 -0400
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 en panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] US-Iran alliance in Iraq?

[On an answer to Walter Lippmann]

> Of course, the USA wants to destroy the
> Islamic Republic. It has a clear idea of where its class interests lie.
> Unfortunately, the mullah/bazaari bourgeoisie has only a dim idea of how
> to defend its own republic. In many ways, they keep shooting themselves in
> the foot like Stalin on the eve of WWII.

Allow me a different take on this issue.

To begin with: I am quite an ignorant on things Irani, though I would 
share both Walter's and Louis's definitions of its current 
government, which are not so far apart IMHO.

I am a bit less ignorant on Venezuela and Latin America, however.

I would say that whether the Iranian bourgeoisie have a dim idea on 
how to defend their own country (which, in their own language, best 
translates as "the country we own") or not is an issue of the 
greatest importance, and as such should be considered, as Walter L. 
points out, by the Iranian masses.

But what's this agreement between Iran and the Hugo Chávez who has 
just recalled the Russian leadership -perhaps to these peoples' awe- 
that they owe something to a Vladimir Lenin?

The agreement lies in that the American bourgeoisie _do_ know where 
their class interests lie. And this _unifies_ Iran and Venezuela.

On this, I would like to add another couple of points.

a) For good reasons, the Trotsky-Stalin debate is banned on this 
list, 

b) For as good reasons, I suggest no comparisons should be made 
between national bourgeois or national petty bourgeois regimes in 
semicolonial countries and the Stalin regime: this was the only one 
with a socialist revolution in the back, so that its history weighs 
on Marxists and socialists in general with a different load than any 
other regime which, for one reason or another, struggles against 
imperialism today.

c) I am not completely sure that Chávez is doing his best move by 
touring Russia and Iran. If he does this, it is among other reasons 
because he feels that (1) the national bourgeois or national petty 
bourgeois regimes in Argentina and Brazil are not as juicy a fruit as 
he needs, and that (2) there might exist some possibility to 
establish an extra-continental agreement to escape the noose of 
isolation in Latin America if his regime gathers too much momentum as 
compared to its neighbors.

I am afraid that whether one likes it or not (and I don't), Argentina 
and Brazil set the times in South (and Latin) America. If these 
countries adopt a conservative line, Chávez might well need to slow 
down his own moves not to take Venezuela to the horrible point of the 
lost patrol in enemy territories. Not that I don't think Chavez's 
tour a good thing. Only that if he believes that it might be a 
surrogate for a Mercosur which is too conservative for his own 
politics, then we are in trouble. The ALBA cannot and MUST NOT be 
considered as an "ideological competitor" with Mercosur. I hope Hugo 
Chávez will master these whitewaters the same way he has done in the 
past.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro en fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _