José Ramos Bosmediano, educator, member of the Social Network for Public Schools in America (Red SEPA, Canada), former Secretary General of SUTEP (Peru)
Those who consider that politics is divided between left and right are overdue. The real conflict is now between the top and bottom.
(Ollanta Humala, in Interview, daily Republic of Lima, 13/5/2010, p. 6)
least more clearly, from the early twentieth century, members of the former Party Russian Social Democrats, who took on Marxism and its revolutionary line as a doctrine and program for the struggle for socialism and communism, and Lenin had in his chief ideologist and organizer, revolutionary ideology left to found the international social democracy, renouncing the theory proletarian socialist revolution and relying on the evolution of capitalism to come spontaneously to socialism. This position forced Lenin to organize the Bolshevik Communist Party and founded the Third International. The Bernstein and Kautsky remained with the Second International today has gone into neoliberalism, concealing an alleged "third way", whose failure is now a fait accompli (Blair, Clinton, Gonzales, etc.). APRA is, as you know, part of this mess, when glimpsed as Haya de la Torre, in the years "auroral" of APRA, already had committed to the social capitalist, dazzled by the development capitalist in the Nordic countries, where I wrote a laudatory book of "advanced capitalism" Message Northern Europe.
The international right-wing ideologues advanced a little more to remove the contradiction left / right, from the very negation of the class struggle to assert that there is no right or left, approach in Peru led the government of General Velasco Alvarado to raise the doctrine of "Peruvian revolution neither capitalist nor communist." We know where it was to stop this "revolution" and the Peruvian right, with Morales Bermudez, first, and then Belaúnde began to remove all the liberal reforms intended to make to develop modern capitalism in Peru. That right, which denies the class struggle, however, never tired of accusing the government of Velasco "communist" to generate fear among the population and justify their proposals for privatization of the state is now going full steam.
The "market economy" of Ollanta Humala Ollanta Humala
has become a political leader who polarized the national electorate in 2006 general elections, managed to generate a significant buzz among the peasantry, important sectors of workers, significant layers of unemployed population and a small middle class impoverished by the re-concentration of wealth in the big bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie intermediary wealthy (high state bureaucracy, well-paid executives and employees of large private national and foreign).
An important factor in his leadership was his preaching antinoeliberal, although limited to the nationalization of certain strategic companies, their nationalism against the problems with Chile and a sharp confrontation with those who had given the country's wealth to the multinationals. Its limitation is clear from its omission with regard to anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle, therefore, the absence of the socialist option. Still, amid the crisis and the search for a political and economic terms than the scourge of neoliberalism, the Peruvian Nationalist Party appeared to be as close to the aspirations of democracy, patriotism, justice for the oppressed majority country, so it is no coincidence that popular support for the PNP to be more comprehensive and conclusive in the poorest areas of the country, not in Lima, that old cradle of conservatism and betrayal by the ruling classes.
The other factor that influenced the popular support for the candidacy of Ollanta Humala was the absence of a socialist left-wing force, unified, with leadership and with a focused, with a strong and clear speech to the program capitalist "free market" that all right candidates raised on behalf of "the poorest" and "investments" that Peru needs to "grow "and" combating poverty. " The leftist groups, rather than generating a current socialist own profile, concentrated, and used their best but little energy, in search firms and negotiating alliances with forces that, in the end, where he went fishing possibilities parliamentary representation, then leave the "surrogate" (PNP) and return to where they left: right-wing social democracy. It is no accident that the bulk of the militant left, including Communists of PCP and PC P "Patria Roja", support for Ollanta Humala in the elections, regardless of their political leadership.
The two factors continue to operate around the NPP presidential candidate, although now the circumstances are other elements that can decrease popular support for the proposed "market economy", which incidentally is a phrase difficult to be assimilated and understood by the majority of voters. These are certain gestures of the candidate, some gimmicky phrases and everyday behavior as "critical" the incumbent government and its policy measures. But Humala himself is no longer the same "radical" in 2006. His speech is neoliberal tone down his first nomination, concentrate its "clarification" not to abandon the thesis of "free market", pressured by persistent advocacy of the right, in its media and need not " jeopardize "the growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or" to spread to foreign investors "with measures" populist. " In this climate it is well understood that the interviewer of the Republic (Flor Huilca) gets him to say: they are behind those who divide the political struggle between left and right, are supposedly modern people do between the top and bottom.
True to this formulation, neither the World Bank rejected, on the advice of economists evident Felix Jimenez, the idea of \u200b\u200b"market economy" fits very well to the preaching of bringing the government's program and management the economy to respect the "laws of the market," which under the conditions of capitalist hegemony in the country are the laws of this mode of production should not, or can be modified only "regulated" for investors " do not abuse "and, rather, act with "social responsibility". Humala himself is putting the shackles neoliberal so that, if elected President for the period 2010-2016, again ensure that the return of political rhino named Alan García Pérez. Who is the late Mr. Ollanta Humala?
Is it true that there is no left or right?
Difficult to believe that Ollanta Humala has studied a Master in the glorious Sorbonne in Paris, whose academic spirit, are more moderate than some teachers, has not banished, at least until today, the debate about the positions that are right and the other, the contradiction that are left. A reflection is the very political struggle in France, with parties that do not deny their faith right and others who defend their leftist principles, even when there is a communist and other left simply "socialist", as it is called in Spain the PSOE and the party of Ricardo Lagos in Chile, etc.
Left and Right in the contemporary world has ceased to be a distinction made by an Assembly where, as in revolutionary France in 1789 and its National Assembly. The left of the time, with Robespierre at its head, represented the new bourgeois spirit that fought the monarchy and the feudal state, and the right to represent the monarchy that refused to die. As the triumphant bourgeoisie in Europe and the United States stressed the exploitative nature of most workers and the people, the left position began to be defined, in the practical struggle of the revolutions of 1830, 1848 and the Commune of Paris in the late nineteenth century, as opposed to capitalism, the mode of production and the capitalist social system, while the right came to mean the defense of the bourgeois order today. That there nuances between rightists and among leftists, many of them with ridiculous names like "center-right", "center-left", and so it is unclear or who they represent, is not denial of both ends. The ideologues and right-wing leaders are trying to make people believe that left and right does not exist, but do not hide their descriptions of "leftists" who, without being, consider that threaten their economic dominance, as has happened to Velasco, the "demon left "that seized their property. Some shrewd capitalist bourgeois took Velasco reforms to become modern and prosperous businessmen, they were then the "twelve apostles" of the government of Alan García.
Do not want to be left Mr. Ollanta Humala? It is not. And not to be, to be outside what is happening in Venezuela for fear of being called "left."
And it is not because the premise of "market economy" is nothing but a limited nationalistic capitalism, since it offers a different perspective than keeping capitalism in Peru, "regulating" the market and "redistributing wealth "to the fullest extent the rate of profit (income) of investors. Here's the progressive position bound Mr Humala Tasso.
And are there categories of "top" and "lower" in the political struggle as advanced form of class struggle? In terms general and can be used as a metaphor to describe the social position of those who have enough to live, plus a surplus for the current consumption, and the vast majority of which is barely enough to keep supervivendo, adding those groups that have no almost nothing. Franz Fanon
Although the terminology used to refer to the "lower" as "the wretched of the earth," and was a tireless fighter and consistent, but failed to form an awareness of the release of these "prisoners." In the literature we also find the name in the work of Mexican Mariano Azuela, The Underdogs , one of the novels founders of the social narrative in Latin America.
But in the terminology of political sociology both terms are imprecise science, paying for any demagogue this as "defender of the poor" and even "the poorest", as he often said Alberto Fujimori Fujimori. In fact, the right use that terminology to wriggle out of their creed and capitalist spirit as Bill Clinton used the term "third way" to describe his policy towards multinationals.
Alan Garcia has the merit, the only truth, to say openly that only capitalism save Peru. Humala has not reached that far, but its premise and its rejection of the contradiction between left and right are strong indications that he is playing with fire. Left and right
therefore defined positions in favor of socialism or for capitalism, respectively. The other names that Humala prefer, contain, at most, a feeling, an emotion, not a programmatic definition, which is what is required to clearly signal the direction of Peru again. The designations "top" and "lower" may be used to designate the old dichotomies of slavery or feudalism, therefore, is not a matter only today and for today. In contrast, left and right define what is now the major political confrontation.
Iquitos, May 21, 2009
Email: amazonayahuascaramos@yahoo.es
0 comments:
Post a Comment