"The Spartacists, of course, are opposed to Hugo Chavez, describing his political movement as a typical "popular front" formation. (Their criticisms are not wholly off base, but seem to me to miss the poiint of what we in the U.S. can do for reasons I have described in other posts. In some ways their positons seem to conform to our favorite anarchist's positions, as much as I can determine his positions.) The Sparts describe Chavez as a danger to the popular organizations that support him in the same way that Allende was a danger because it can only lead to "class colaboration" and the ultimate violent defeat of popular movements.
The important question seems to me "Why is this so?" Partially, it is because most of us do not have direct connections to people in other places in the world. There are no direct institutional or personal connections. Simply discussing political events with a member of a neighborhood organization in the slums of Caracas, or with a union organizer in Central America, or a doctor working with the poor in Rio de Janeiro tends to open the mind to what is going on outside of our own lives, our own society. Of course, I am not even writing about what it would look like to have truly international institutions, unions, parties, solidarity organizations, educational organizations, even clinics and libraries, that maintain grass root connections throughout the world." ====================================== Yours is another very good illustration of what's meant by the unity theory and practice, and I'd extend your examples to apply to to all institutions in general, from the smallest organzations in civil society to the level of the state. Cultures of opposition from below are inherent in all of them. They result from frustration that progress is not occuring quickly enough and the certain knowledge by those lacking power that they can do better. Those holding power tend towards caution because they have a more intimate knowledge of the objective constraints faced by the organization, especially of the relationship of forces with its external rivals and enemies. They know that their words and actions have consequences, both for their organizations and themselves, and that if they're wrong and there are setbacks, their government or party or union risks destruction and they risk their job and reputation - and, in more extreme circumstances - exile, imprisonment, and death. That's why you so frequently get the phenomenon - in popular movements and political parties - of often very dedicated and courageous oppositionists who fight their way to power only to reproduce in essential respects the behaviour and policies of those they have displaced, and who soon find themselves labelled as sellouts by a smaller or larger part of their erstwhile base. That's not always the case, but it's often the case.
Oppositionists in relatively stable organizations and societies - institutions which can afford to be more tolerant and democratic, such as our own - risk little, and can afford to make the outrageous and extreme demands without suffering any penalty more serious than the ridicule of their peers or elders. This becomes easier to do the more isolated they are from mass movements which are vying for real power, which is also our current condition. Sometimes they compensate for this isolation by retreating into fantasies that they are really engaged in meaningful mass political activity. IMO, this is best how to understand Chuck, although we need to be alert to these symptoms in all of us. This is in contrast to dissidents who are vying for power at the head of mass movements in more unstable and therefore less tolerant organizations and societies. They learn to be cautious because a) they are more accountable to the masses, whose consciousness invariably lags their own, and b) because the the consequences are much greater for themselves and their followers - including the loss of their job, property, freedom, and life itself. When we're younger, or when we haven't had the opportunity of participating in unions or or political parties or corporate or social organizations of one sort or another - in other words, when we haven't had the experience of vying for influence or power in institutions which have a mass character and encompass people of widely varying backgrounds and beliefs, and are accountable to no one but ourselves (a common failing of artists and intellectuals, for example) - it's easier to develop contempt for the leaders and followers of popular organizations who didn't move as boldly as we on the outside know they should by virtue of our superior understanding and sensitivity. That's why I think the left, the more isolated it is from the surrounding community, often tends to attribute movement failures to the intellectual and/or character defects of their leaders and the backwardness and credulity of their followers. However, I still think it's evident from the list that most of us appreciate that social life is more complicated than that.
That is ironic, because Chavez doesn't need US leftists' support now:
his national and Latin American support is rock-solid, and Washington
is too busy with the Middle East, what with campaigns for dual regime
changes in Iran and Palestine -- to make a major move against
Venezuela at this moment.
Most US leftists seem to me to be always a couple of years behind the
revolutionary solidarity schedule:
Good point.
In New York, and especially in Queens, we have more opportunities to expand our horizons than most people in the U.S. have. I made my first contacts with people from Central America here way back in 1982, and I met my first friends from Rio in Astoria, Queens.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060521/ba7787f5/attachment.htm>