<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#00ffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Jerry Monaco writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>"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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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." </DIV>
<DIV>======================================</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">That
is ironic, because Chavez doesn't need US leftists' support now:<BR>his
national and Latin American support is rock-solid, and Washington <BR>is too
busy with the Middle East, what with campaigns for dual regime<BR>changes in
Iran and Palestine -- to make a major move against<BR>Venezuela at this
moment.<BR><BR>Most US leftists seem to me to be always a couple of years
behind the <BR>revolutionary solidarity schedule:
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>Good point. <BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Jerry<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>