Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 02:01:55 -0700 (MST)
From: emerald-AT-aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS)
Subject: Re: Some basic questions of Marxism (postscript)




In a previous post, I wrote in part:

>Not only are socialists morally obliged to fight for and defend
>full and true democracy -- social, economic, and political -- they
>are obliged to design their system of government as intelligently as
>possible so as to reduce, not increase tyranny.  They are obliged
>to obtain the consent of the people.  This may be tough when the
>media is corporately controlled, but people have won tough fights
>before for radical social change despite the forces of reaction.
>Whether revolutionary or transformational, socialists are going to
>have to develop their own organizations and media outlets, just as
>they once did, because as you say, socialism can't work without
>the people.  Since this is true, the entire justification for
>socialist revolution unsupported by formal popular consensus falls
>apart.  The only exceptions to this are countries which are already
>so authoritarian that this kind of political organizing isn't 
>permitted.

This last sentence is a bit too rigid to accurately express my
views on this matter.  There are cases, for example, where the maximum
political representation available to a seriously oppressed minority is
insufficient to change the system.  Let's take the example of
certain Mexican states in which an Indian minority cannot
gain enough seats in the legislature to enact fundamental land 
reform.  Let's say that the Indian community has reached an internal
formal consensus, and has tried all democratic means (including tactical
means outside the system, short of a full-fledged armed revolt) without
success.  In such a case the outbreak of organized armed-struggle,
either as a way of exerting leverage on the government, or establishing
independent *democratic* sovereignty, seems entirely justified.  

I have a great deal of respect for the Zapatistas, for example.  This
respect is all the greater because they are NOT trying to replace the
government of Mexico (much less with a dictatorship), but use(d)
armed struggle as a lever against massive systemic corruption and 
racism under conditions which up to now have left them little choice.
They seem to carry out their actions against legitimate military and
police targets (and perhaps administrative, I don't know) with 
dignity and restraint, and not indiscriminant license and 
barbarity.  Maybe the Mexican government will finally get the message.
We in the United States should put every pressure on our politicians
to put pressure on the Mexican government to enact meaningful
reforms.  There is certainly plenty of economic leverage available.
It is simply a question of the will to use it.  Certainly this
will is not going to develop should we simply shrug our shoulders
and insist that nothing we do can change the behavior of our
elected representatives.  That's historically false.

--
What a curse these social distinctions are.  They ought to be abolished.
I remember saying that to Karl Marx once, and he thought there might be
an idea for a book in it.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---