Galasso - Altamira ... and two models of capitalism in Argentina. Air traffic controllers and sacral
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mouth Guard For Lugby In Singapore
The recent cross between Galasso, Altamira and again Galasso ( Severian LR and did I know) makes me return to a post that I think has something to do with it, though written before. The post of yore can be considered a modest advance the debate, taking into account not only the conflicting positions, but also during the ensuing discussion brought up a historical example (the attack on the government of Kerensky, Kornilov) of Altamira and also Galasso served, but to hold opposing positions. I suggest reading
both positions, which combine both successes Altamira Galasso as examples brought by the hair. Altamira makes a distinction on between the government and right-wing opposition, but asserts that
(...) But unlike them is the government, ie the capitalist business manager and in charge of protecting the relationship existing farm. This transforms the secondary principal, a worker can not claim the red or Carrio, and only in a limited space to Mauritius. He who does not fight the current government does not fight the power.
Altamira
I think that confuses many. Characterization of a policy is independent of if it is exercised in power or not. It is inevitable struggle between the workers and the bourgeois government, whatever its orientation, but it is the political characterization of a bourgeois government which should guide the form of confrontation.
political characterization can be translated simply as a way to describe the actions of government from the standpoint of the interests of the working class. For Altamira (and Galasso) only seem to be two positions without qualification: support or confrontation. If only it were this, then it is easy to understand that declaring a Marxist party faced a bourgeois government, however progressive they are. The problem is that it is not only meet but how.
If Altamira himself recognized as workers faced Kornilov, was precisely to not seized power, were particularly intriguing but not stop it was already in the government or even by becoming anyone's business. But Altamira lowers the sense of saying such
In the classic example of the Russian Revolution, no one can question that the 'main enemy', for 250 days at least two, Kirchner government was Kerensky Russian When
compare situations must take into account what aspects are comparable, and which are not. It is true that the main enemy was Kerensky, but it is also true that the working class was much closer to seize power in that scenario as Argentina. And that did not prevent them to be alert to the possibility of a czarist general wanted to make a raid. Only two days, but crucial. And the quotation from Trotsky which Galasso is certain:
Moreover, to prevent the Kornilov coup is clear that the Bolsheviks had to match, from their perspective and still holding their noses with Kerensky, who was not the same that Kornilov: "No, it's time. Support the rifle on his shoulder and shoot Kerensky against Kornilov. Then adjust accounts with Kerensky "(L. Trotsky History of the Russian Revolution, Volume II, p. 165, edit. Sarpe, 1985).
Argentina In 2011, the PO does not raise, that I know of another path to power that the general election. According to the percentage of votes it gets, it is conceivable that at least in the short term will not accede to power. The gap between the Russian Bolsheviks and the OP here is plentiful, but perpetually Altamira-left vice-talk as if the revolution was scheduled for tomorrow at noon. No suspects that the simple calculation described in this paragraph has already been done by the reactionary press, the PO does not represent any risk, and lack of perspective is for use as a battering ram against those measures to the most annoying cave of the bourgeoisie.
order to cope successfully with a populist government, we must learn to recognize their achievements, often times happen to kick deep to the class (as was the decade of the 90s.) Altamira is right to point out the worst aspects of this government, but fails to take a critical eye finest when it comes to analyzing some initiatives (such as law Recalde), analyzing the conflict with the field (where the PO had just reflexes for not supporting the SRA) or simply explain the significant increase in purchasing power of wages and employment.
Altamira says a little confused that
... guide the masses against the parliamentary opposition will not yield anything, so not interested. Only in a crisis of power is a need to distinguish the fields that are disputed the outcome, in this case, only it is necessary to distinguish the enemy, the enemy of our enemy, and heading the batteries from the first - no political support to the latter.
"Only in a crisis of power? Why? The political characterization and distinction of fields depending on the interests of the working class is something that does not depend on situations, should guide the action is always and at all times, just for the power crisis is at the class and its party in a position to dispute it . The Altamira pirouette arbitrary to say that you only have to worry about the law of gravity if one is falling from a fifth floor.
Altamira In other words, any analysis happily suspended until such time as the "power crisis", until then everything is easy: you have to oppose anything. When a crisis occurs we will be able to do these tests so bothersome about power relationships at stake and bla bla bla. And if that do not support it I guess there will be some button "Help."
That seems to be the only strategy of the OP, no analysis or balance of power, enough to oppose any move by the government without distinction, even when government opposed to a "lock out" the PO borrowed the ridiculous arguments of the opposition ("kind of civil dictatorship") , even when the government proposed greater workers' control in enterprises (project Recalde) Nestor Pitrola conducted an "analysis" of the project which revealed her utter lack of knowledge of it.
Such a lack of seriousness does not preclude Altamira boast that his party "handled well the nuances" under the taps of the reactionary press. It handles well the nuances that branch is able to appear on lunch on the old gorilla face frozen, Altamira is congratulated by the cynical Tenenbaum and the OP is recognized by none other than The Nation. Such fine distinction of shades does not leave time for the PO to correctly read the draft Recalde. This is serious errors in a political party that claims to represent the interests of the working class. Galasso says it all correctly. Galasso has
But perhaps more serious problems. The biggest is not simply to explain who killed Mariano Ferreyra and why. The attempt to blame the PO for the death of his own militant is simple idiocy. Galasso
Altamira questioned on whether they are all inter-bourgeois conflict in Argentina's history . The question allows Galasso dodge the analysis on the current conflict. And the current conflict is undoubtedly a conflict interburgués . Altamira's mistake is not to characterize it like that, but draw the conclusion that by displaying that character is irrelevant for the working class. The example of conflict Kornilov, Kerensky clearly illustrates error: the Russian workers were far to stay out of this conflict interburgués.
When it comes to "send to die" to people and is chides Altamira by this fact falls into a dangerous precedent, which is to blame the victim as if the murderers were something like natural forces beyond anyone's control and that no one is politically responsible. It is said that someone "sent to die" and it points the finger, but it seems much more difficult to identify who ordered the death. Severian
in Luzbelito Blog reproducing the letter Galasso, ninguneo cheerfully
... the president is so very concerned about the impending revolution ordered his henchmen to kill militants to try to delay PO ... Making jokes
is simple, how difficult is to answer who is responsible for the actions of the federal police, street gangs or killed in a union; why they are there, why can not organize a union protest without running risk of life itself. It seems that this is asking too much, a hothead maximum claim that "it makes the game right." So we already know all: Any thug can beat us a shot, it's something that unfortunately nothing we can do and demand accountability or removal of these elements is an ultra-left madness. Ergo, on whom the responsibility is on Altamira "I had to have foreseen."
From my little caletre I do not think so: if you want to criticize the OP for not having achieved a broader consensus before launching a protest of this type of agreement, although it should be understand a caveat: many trade disputes are timely and can not be ignored simply because a supposed "correlation of forces" waiting for mass demonstrations. Who cut the path may be a minority, their actions may be criticized and be denied representation, but who represent the union street gangs?
noted the error can not RP without clearly indicate who is responsible for the murder political and ideological. It can not be the only politician who is named on this death is Altamira, while ruling side stone is never higher than the name of Pedraza.
In short, the party's position in class in these cases requires a doll that the OP does not seem to have, but also Galasso realizes that claim Judgement and punish all those responsible for Ferreira Mariano! Off street gangs of the railroads and the unions which still exist! is incompatible with the third instruction to close your last reply: By Cristina Kirchner's victory in the first round, opening the way to deepen a process of change for Latin American unification and advancement of the working class !
The progress of the working class is not established by decisions of this government but for the intelligent that takes advantage of circumstances over which they have control, and were and are all popular process. The "Latin American unity" is an empty phrase which conceals, after a mouthful of Trotsky, the question of which class has the power (which determines the conditions for the "unification"). And the street gangs of the CGT union can not be eradicated simply by this government because this government has limits dictated by the interests of the class it serves, and this knowing, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is anything but stupid, which is right there where lurks the worst enemy of this project.
Because make no mistake: Peronism returns to political capital (on account of errors from left) awaiting their chance to reinstall the African model as soon as international conditions tip the preference of the business bourgeoisie easy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment