We start from the undisputed fact that the wars of independence America meant the National States Constitution stating capitalist development in the continent. That means that from the point of view of the myth of progress, was supposed to address the "backwardness" of the American societies, the so-called patriots were the representatives of "progress" of European origin at that time. But it is also clear that our point of view ... I mean we learned we, the Creoles, or descendants of non-Americans born in America. Have we ever thought occurred that there might be another point of view, besides the English colonialists?
I would say no. Because I dare say it was never brought us through our education system, or the liberal line or revisionist line. Never heard it my teacher shoots, but not to Hugo Wast or their substitutes "left" as Hernández Arregui or Galazzo. However there is at least another point of view very important and is the aboriginal peoples. For them, our patriots were part of colonial oppression, and in any case, the wars of independence were wars in the intestine of the colonial order. It is true that in some patriotic soul was included concern for the Indians, it is true that there were those included in the national liberation redemption of Aboriginal peoples, especially the Jacobins as Castelli and Monteagudo, but not the center of the concerns of most of the patriots and that they represented the Creole ruling classes. And on top of events after the creation of independent states confirmed the suspicion or "prejudices" of indigenous people: in most cases, these ruling classes, now in political power, were the same or worse than the English connection Aboriginals.
And this is no exception and the largest native American hero, Simon Bolivar, one of the founders of Capitalist States.
Beyond his statements including indigenous people to emancipate the citizens, the fact Bolivar is promoted, and then willingly accepted the separation of Upper Peru, then called to found the republic that has none other than his name: Bolivia. That was one of the great paradoxes of America, a region of greater Aboriginal presence of the oldest and most extensive and rich pre-Columbian cultures of South America, comparable only with Mexico, the current Bolivia, named after a conqueror, while the tiny country, composed overwhelmingly by Creoles of democratic tradition is not called "Artigi", but carries with legitimate pride, an Aboriginal name: Uruguay
But a detail Bolivar was not less not only led to the division of Peru because, among other things, was a threat to their very criolla "Gran Colombia (note that the hobby again with European names: Colón), but that drafted the first constitution for the fledgling Republic of Bolivia, the text of which expressed a mixture of liberal republicanism early protection against the disorder, he said, threatening the achievements of Hispanic American liberators, in particular, as stated above, the fate of the Gran Colombia, which apparently was kept quiet but which had recently was hearing a growing chorus of complaints. Bolivar arrived
to the conclusion that it was necessary to redress the balance in favor of stability and authority, and the Bolivian constitution was the answer he gave. The most important feature of the constitution was the prescription of a president for life who had the right to appoint his successor, as a constitutional monarchy, whose powers were strictly defined legal, noblesse oblige admit it, but that also had a very large potential personal influence. This invention is complemented with a complex three-chamber congress of which was the Chamber of Auditors. The general tone of the constitution was a compelling mixture just cease and aristocratic. In Bolívar and Jacobinism and democratic vocation seemed strong, even less internationalism.
Well, historians say that the deliverer had his reasons, the need for order against chaos logical post revolutionary war, was the main, but not among children, was also the fact that the ruling classes of the time Whereas the peoples of Latin America were not ripe as whites to pursue full democracy. Well, you do not want to be a bad idea, but judging from the facts it seems that this bias remains steadfast hundred years later. We symptoms of monarchy in Cuba, re-re-re-election unfortunately Venezuela both among liberals and among Colombians and reactionaries in various countries, we are also full of protective parents. Never mind that class aptly named "enlightened despotism" that exists not only in Argentina but throughout Latin America.
But Latin America is not only the wars of independence, is a history of fights later, too often steeped in classism but disguised as "national and popular" poison of nationalism, that stodgy European invention that we have been able to import without due disgust. The Mexican Revolution is the example followed by fresh Cuban revolution. From there we have removed figures the interests of the bourgeoisie, national states, such as Pancho Villa, Zapata, Sandino, Che, Camilo, Subcomandante Marcos and other non-healthy men nationalism. "José Carlos Mariategui you remember me? Oh yeah, right ... even he, despite his disdain for the Creoles of African descent, writing in his seventh attempt at interpretation of Peruvian reality.
Why then, Chavez, from Venezuela, called to create the Fifth International patriot under the inspiration of Bolivar, creator of nation states, that is the opposite of internationalism? Why, if your call is sincere, inspired the revolutionaries of our America? Or do we still have not passed the contraband Stalinist ones we buy in spite of our criticisms of Stalinism? I mean that nonsense called "Socialist Fatherland", the basis of alleged "state road" to socialism, which was ultimately in the USSR and China, the "long road to capitalism."
us agree that the improvised Chávez can say what comes to mind repeating a stale re Marxist phrases. We agree that is imitating the Cubans, without seeing that Cuba is becoming increasingly remote from Marxism to approach the mirror of the Theocratic State U.S. subtle form of monarchy. But the amazing thing is that old members, people who like me, we have decades of struggle from an internationalist position, buy this discourse So I ask: If we be radical in our positions, and there is no doubt that Chavez intends to "run it left" - why a bourgeois, very honorable, very revolutionary, but the bourgeois to the end of the day, as Bolívar and not a rebel and revolutionary vocation as Che, Zapata and Subcomandante Marcos?. But see also the experience and the millions of people that we are not only international but has been our practice militancy: the First International, founded by Marx and the anarchists, played an important role in organizing the working class of his day and then ran out of underdevelopment unable to contain the anarchists, socialists and communists all together. The Second International, founded by Engels, social democracy created world was in crisis when socialist parties were captured by the chauvinism in the "homeland defense" on the eve of the First World War. The Third International, founded by Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg was the ideological response to the catastrophe of the Second, a few years, with the death of Lenin and Rosa the exile of Trotsky and Stalin zorroneria assuming absolute power, was a slave to its submission to the State Policy of the USSR and finally dissolved in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Russians agreed with the allies. The Fourth International, Trotsky's invention, existed only as a group of "bureaucrats without borders", especially as a rare celestine Trotskyist party in half a century have only learned to recite a speech standing always would answer "left" in every assembly, to see the revolution happen to his side. Say by way of example, the Argentinian PRT-ERP, led by Santucho, had to break with the Fourth International to carry out the practice that characterized Guevara
Conclusions: It is fruitless and counterproductive to promote international conglomerates "from above." Using a fanciful analogy, we also note the difficulties in the development of novel "Forums" who meet to discuss and address issues common to human beings. Is increasingly the view that the politics of revolutionary transformation is diluted when it slides down the superstructure. The history reveals that the changes were making from below and only at a certain time of insurrection or the assault on power projects everything to the superstructure. Suddenly we see that in reality when a revolution breaks out "it really is because it was done, the stark reality of history also indicates that the revolution is always a surprise to the revolutionaries. Just the revolutionary talent is ready for the surprise.
But about the absurd proposal of Chavez say tragically painful consequences of the practice of the Third International, its attachment to the needs of the USSR, has shown that it can not think of a world body in which to share sites of struggle the revolutionary movements in the plains, with the governments of a state. A state, whatever, capitalist or socialist, objectively reflects political and state interests and policies, not only are often not consistent with the policies of the movements in the plain, but, the most of the time are contradictory. We
the tragic experience of the USSR and China and the bitter experience of Cuba. A State Government is due to the state.
Finally, to see if someone is on hand to tell how Chavez developed Marxist socialism implies the dissolution of the state. Communism must be challenged as a social movement, with the dissolution of the state.
And not only that I have become an anarchist to maturity (or old age, as some out there) but this has always been the common point between Marx and anarchism.
I would say no. Because I dare say it was never brought us through our education system, or the liberal line or revisionist line. Never heard it my teacher shoots, but not to Hugo Wast or their substitutes "left" as Hernández Arregui or Galazzo. However there is at least another point of view very important and is the aboriginal peoples. For them, our patriots were part of colonial oppression, and in any case, the wars of independence were wars in the intestine of the colonial order. It is true that in some patriotic soul was included concern for the Indians, it is true that there were those included in the national liberation redemption of Aboriginal peoples, especially the Jacobins as Castelli and Monteagudo, but not the center of the concerns of most of the patriots and that they represented the Creole ruling classes. And on top of events after the creation of independent states confirmed the suspicion or "prejudices" of indigenous people: in most cases, these ruling classes, now in political power, were the same or worse than the English connection Aboriginals.
And this is no exception and the largest native American hero, Simon Bolivar, one of the founders of Capitalist States.
Beyond his statements including indigenous people to emancipate the citizens, the fact Bolivar is promoted, and then willingly accepted the separation of Upper Peru, then called to found the republic that has none other than his name: Bolivia. That was one of the great paradoxes of America, a region of greater Aboriginal presence of the oldest and most extensive and rich pre-Columbian cultures of South America, comparable only with Mexico, the current Bolivia, named after a conqueror, while the tiny country, composed overwhelmingly by Creoles of democratic tradition is not called "Artigi", but carries with legitimate pride, an Aboriginal name: Uruguay
But a detail Bolivar was not less not only led to the division of Peru because, among other things, was a threat to their very criolla "Gran Colombia (note that the hobby again with European names: Colón), but that drafted the first constitution for the fledgling Republic of Bolivia, the text of which expressed a mixture of liberal republicanism early protection against the disorder, he said, threatening the achievements of Hispanic American liberators, in particular, as stated above, the fate of the Gran Colombia, which apparently was kept quiet but which had recently was hearing a growing chorus of complaints. Bolivar arrived
to the conclusion that it was necessary to redress the balance in favor of stability and authority, and the Bolivian constitution was the answer he gave. The most important feature of the constitution was the prescription of a president for life who had the right to appoint his successor, as a constitutional monarchy, whose powers were strictly defined legal, noblesse oblige admit it, but that also had a very large potential personal influence. This invention is complemented with a complex three-chamber congress of which was the Chamber of Auditors. The general tone of the constitution was a compelling mixture just cease and aristocratic. In Bolívar and Jacobinism and democratic vocation seemed strong, even less internationalism.
Well, historians say that the deliverer had his reasons, the need for order against chaos logical post revolutionary war, was the main, but not among children, was also the fact that the ruling classes of the time Whereas the peoples of Latin America were not ripe as whites to pursue full democracy. Well, you do not want to be a bad idea, but judging from the facts it seems that this bias remains steadfast hundred years later. We symptoms of monarchy in Cuba, re-re-re-election unfortunately Venezuela both among liberals and among Colombians and reactionaries in various countries, we are also full of protective parents. Never mind that class aptly named "enlightened despotism" that exists not only in Argentina but throughout Latin America.
But Latin America is not only the wars of independence, is a history of fights later, too often steeped in classism but disguised as "national and popular" poison of nationalism, that stodgy European invention that we have been able to import without due disgust. The Mexican Revolution is the example followed by fresh Cuban revolution. From there we have removed figures the interests of the bourgeoisie, national states, such as Pancho Villa, Zapata, Sandino, Che, Camilo, Subcomandante Marcos and other non-healthy men nationalism. "José Carlos Mariategui you remember me? Oh yeah, right ... even he, despite his disdain for the Creoles of African descent, writing in his seventh attempt at interpretation of Peruvian reality.
Why then, Chavez, from Venezuela, called to create the Fifth International patriot under the inspiration of Bolivar, creator of nation states, that is the opposite of internationalism? Why, if your call is sincere, inspired the revolutionaries of our America? Or do we still have not passed the contraband Stalinist ones we buy in spite of our criticisms of Stalinism? I mean that nonsense called "Socialist Fatherland", the basis of alleged "state road" to socialism, which was ultimately in the USSR and China, the "long road to capitalism."
us agree that the improvised Chávez can say what comes to mind repeating a stale re Marxist phrases. We agree that is imitating the Cubans, without seeing that Cuba is becoming increasingly remote from Marxism to approach the mirror of the Theocratic State U.S. subtle form of monarchy. But the amazing thing is that old members, people who like me, we have decades of struggle from an internationalist position, buy this discourse So I ask: If we be radical in our positions, and there is no doubt that Chavez intends to "run it left" - why a bourgeois, very honorable, very revolutionary, but the bourgeois to the end of the day, as Bolívar and not a rebel and revolutionary vocation as Che, Zapata and Subcomandante Marcos?. But see also the experience and the millions of people that we are not only international but has been our practice militancy: the First International, founded by Marx and the anarchists, played an important role in organizing the working class of his day and then ran out of underdevelopment unable to contain the anarchists, socialists and communists all together. The Second International, founded by Engels, social democracy created world was in crisis when socialist parties were captured by the chauvinism in the "homeland defense" on the eve of the First World War. The Third International, founded by Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg was the ideological response to the catastrophe of the Second, a few years, with the death of Lenin and Rosa the exile of Trotsky and Stalin zorroneria assuming absolute power, was a slave to its submission to the State Policy of the USSR and finally dissolved in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Russians agreed with the allies. The Fourth International, Trotsky's invention, existed only as a group of "bureaucrats without borders", especially as a rare celestine Trotskyist party in half a century have only learned to recite a speech standing always would answer "left" in every assembly, to see the revolution happen to his side. Say by way of example, the Argentinian PRT-ERP, led by Santucho, had to break with the Fourth International to carry out the practice that characterized Guevara
Conclusions: It is fruitless and counterproductive to promote international conglomerates "from above." Using a fanciful analogy, we also note the difficulties in the development of novel "Forums" who meet to discuss and address issues common to human beings. Is increasingly the view that the politics of revolutionary transformation is diluted when it slides down the superstructure. The history reveals that the changes were making from below and only at a certain time of insurrection or the assault on power projects everything to the superstructure. Suddenly we see that in reality when a revolution breaks out "it really is because it was done, the stark reality of history also indicates that the revolution is always a surprise to the revolutionaries. Just the revolutionary talent is ready for the surprise.
But about the absurd proposal of Chavez say tragically painful consequences of the practice of the Third International, its attachment to the needs of the USSR, has shown that it can not think of a world body in which to share sites of struggle the revolutionary movements in the plains, with the governments of a state. A state, whatever, capitalist or socialist, objectively reflects political and state interests and policies, not only are often not consistent with the policies of the movements in the plain, but, the most of the time are contradictory. We
the tragic experience of the USSR and China and the bitter experience of Cuba. A State Government is due to the state.
Finally, to see if someone is on hand to tell how Chavez developed Marxist socialism implies the dissolution of the state. Communism must be challenged as a social movement, with the dissolution of the state.
And not only that I have become an anarchist to maturity (or old age, as some out there) but this has always been the common point between Marx and anarchism.
