Subject: Re: AUT: Re: ORG: Colombia and Ireland
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 05:23:13 -0400


>John: 1)Their political program and platform is not petty bourgeois.  They want
>to implement a Soviet Union style command economy (or something more
>reformist) which certainly isn't in the interests of the Columbian
>bourgeoisie.  

even if john is right, it would simply mean that an intellegentsia would
establish itself as the new upper class, a "socialist" bourgeoisie... just
like in the soviet union. the proles would still be slaves to capitalist
masters, only these masters would be state-capitalists instead of
corporate-capitalists.

if john is correct that they was to implement a command economy, then he's
also right that they are not "petty-bourgeois", they are straight up
bourgeois, like all leninists!

also: of course it's not necessarily in the interests of the columbian
bourgeoisie, corporate takeovers never are for those on the receiving end.

>John: 2)The class composition of the FARC/ELN is not bourgeoisie.

neither was the class composition of the bolshevik party, yet lenin and the
gang were effectively bourgeois in that they simply created a new kind of
capitalist state, with themselves as the new bourgeoisie (of course).

hierarchical/centralized structures can never serve the interests of the
rank-and-file, that is: "the masses", as such. they are, by their nature,
capitalist structures which will re-create capitalist conditions. that is:
class stratified conditions, with the heads of these structures being the
upper class of course... while the rank-and-file remains the slaves.

>John: The FARC is opposed by international and internal capital, which
>funds both the Columbian State and its rich landowners in their respective
>efforts to crush the FARC.  

it's a war between capitalists, both trying to "win the hearts and minds of
men [sic]". 

"the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my ally", as anarchists and
"ultra-leftists" have learned again and again as leninists have killed
revolutions and killed us.

>John: I think the only way in which you are correct in saying that they are
>"petty bourgeois" is to the extent that the FARC (less so the ELN)
>represent the interests of peasants.  However most revolutionary movements
>(which I am defining as popular class struggles directed against their own
>ruling class) have made extensive use of peasants, so I don't think this
>takes anything away from the ELN/FARC.

it's usually a good sign that the speaker is him/herself petty bourgeois
when they label peasents as such.

i think ole john here admits to being straight up bourgeois when he says
"made extensive use of peasents", as if they don't have their own subjective
interests, and haven't proven time and again that their interests are
proletarian interests. his vision of proletarians as objects to be
manipulated shows his true class interests. 

also: national liberation struggles are never revolutionary movements as
they are statist and (try to) mask class antagonisms. that is: the
leadership always wants to be the new ruling class, and are using
revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. 

yup. that's the way i figure it anyway.

jeff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
p.o. box 563   | stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal
morgantown, wv | if you agree copy these 4 sentences in your own sig
26507	       | see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
jeff-AT-tao.ca    | www.mumia.org 

"i feel i can't stop screaming!" --elliot



				



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---