BUILD A PROCESS RADICAL CHANGE msds POLICY IS TO CREATE CAPACITY WITH CLASS OF INDEPENDENCE | CAZP - CAB
In bourgeois democracy the dynamics of state-electoral dispute always directs the discussions msds and actions to the formation of alliances and support (not just between parties but with groups and segments of society in general carried msds out by means of patronage relationship), and training or consolidation of electoral / party bases.
These actions msds are those that allow the parties, and within them the private power projects of political groups or individuals, gain ground and reach their electoral purposes. These are modest or not, in elections or not.
The structure msds and organize elections the party life. And the dynamics of bourgeois elections the trend is pragmatism replace a programmatic debate, the "political arrangements" and "coalitions" replace the ideological convictions and personalism with bureaucracy replace the direct and collective action of the oppressed.
To a greater or lesser extent, all political parties, whether the rent or are the most ideological (right or left) are included in this dynamic. Unlike the left parties is that they generally have a life beyond the partisan election years by building the struggles in social movements.
The difference in the left parties of the interior is that there are more attached to electoral structure, some less. Among the less attached, they seek to maintain some programmatic debate and strongest political criteria for alliances and support. But who makes the choice of state-electoral dispute, leaves, on the other hand, replacing direct action and collective oppressed by a personalism of a leader and a bureaucratic politics, mediated by its party structure regulated by the state. msds
For low, the "election race" and the competition for votes causes, in practice, the breakdown of social movements drive and dispersion of their struggles or, if not, further deepens the confusion struggle levels hitching and attaching the basic movements and fights (s) match (es) and thereby performing replacement of the direct action of the oppressed by an action mediated by "professional".
Tying Fights agenda msds to the demands of electoral msds agreements and discussions are already msds felt in the previous year state elections and present often in elections and basic entities conferences as well as student unions and guilds. This means that the "parliamentary agenda" set to a large extent, the timing of these parties and where the line between the will to build the basic struggles and their designs sewn over by agreements msds is very tenuous.
In the electoral debate some consensus is built or consolidated. In the absence of consistency in the debate - which in its most "developed" versions do not go beyond a technical and statistical debate - what is left is the exaltation of the alleged individual qualities and their "good intentions." This is because the debate is in unison, all talking about the same thing, ie, what the average voter "understands" or that he "wants to hear."
Therefore, in the field of a single thought and commonplaces the differential is in exaltation of competence, being a person "well" for having msds ethics, to be honest, to be funny, for having "good friends", by be "worker" or "clean slate". It is these and other attributes proclaimed by the candidates msds and which also show in some cases the legitimacy of the policy on the basis of the exchange of favors (such as emphasis, taken as a virtue, good relations with other political and / or "investors"). But this is the debate on the right, which does not mean that this kind of consensus / posture msds also not in groupings leftmost. It is part of electoral co-option package.
This kind of manifestation of parliamentary politics makes a shield in the system in that it brings the debate msds to the level of individuals, away what gives the concrete sense of applications: partisan and political msds allies structures, the conceptions of their programs and funding.
On the left, exactly, there is an ideological consensus that is very clear in the electoral tab. The consensus we refer to is one that combines socialism and its strategic fight the nationalization measures. Admittedly this debate is consensual right too. Today, there is no wonder when faced with the dictatorship Socialism association and freedom-capitalism. The truth is that the concepts are also targets of political-ideological dispute. msds
Vale score, which was especially at the time of polarization between the two imperialist powers, the US and the USSR, which was consolidated the consensus (agreed by both) that socialism was more state capitalism and less government. That's it, in a way, what the mainstream and Marxist parties and teach
In bourgeois democracy the dynamics of state-electoral dispute always directs the discussions msds and actions to the formation of alliances and support (not just between parties but with groups and segments of society in general carried msds out by means of patronage relationship), and training or consolidation of electoral / party bases.
These actions msds are those that allow the parties, and within them the private power projects of political groups or individuals, gain ground and reach their electoral purposes. These are modest or not, in elections or not.
The structure msds and organize elections the party life. And the dynamics of bourgeois elections the trend is pragmatism replace a programmatic debate, the "political arrangements" and "coalitions" replace the ideological convictions and personalism with bureaucracy replace the direct and collective action of the oppressed.
To a greater or lesser extent, all political parties, whether the rent or are the most ideological (right or left) are included in this dynamic. Unlike the left parties is that they generally have a life beyond the partisan election years by building the struggles in social movements.
The difference in the left parties of the interior is that there are more attached to electoral structure, some less. Among the less attached, they seek to maintain some programmatic debate and strongest political criteria for alliances and support. But who makes the choice of state-electoral dispute, leaves, on the other hand, replacing direct action and collective oppressed by a personalism of a leader and a bureaucratic politics, mediated by its party structure regulated by the state. msds
For low, the "election race" and the competition for votes causes, in practice, the breakdown of social movements drive and dispersion of their struggles or, if not, further deepens the confusion struggle levels hitching and attaching the basic movements and fights (s) match (es) and thereby performing replacement of the direct action of the oppressed by an action mediated by "professional".
Tying Fights agenda msds to the demands of electoral msds agreements and discussions are already msds felt in the previous year state elections and present often in elections and basic entities conferences as well as student unions and guilds. This means that the "parliamentary agenda" set to a large extent, the timing of these parties and where the line between the will to build the basic struggles and their designs sewn over by agreements msds is very tenuous.
In the electoral debate some consensus is built or consolidated. In the absence of consistency in the debate - which in its most "developed" versions do not go beyond a technical and statistical debate - what is left is the exaltation of the alleged individual qualities and their "good intentions." This is because the debate is in unison, all talking about the same thing, ie, what the average voter "understands" or that he "wants to hear."
Therefore, in the field of a single thought and commonplaces the differential is in exaltation of competence, being a person "well" for having msds ethics, to be honest, to be funny, for having "good friends", by be "worker" or "clean slate". It is these and other attributes proclaimed by the candidates msds and which also show in some cases the legitimacy of the policy on the basis of the exchange of favors (such as emphasis, taken as a virtue, good relations with other political and / or "investors"). But this is the debate on the right, which does not mean that this kind of consensus / posture msds also not in groupings leftmost. It is part of electoral co-option package.
This kind of manifestation of parliamentary politics makes a shield in the system in that it brings the debate msds to the level of individuals, away what gives the concrete sense of applications: partisan and political msds allies structures, the conceptions of their programs and funding.
On the left, exactly, there is an ideological consensus that is very clear in the electoral tab. The consensus we refer to is one that combines socialism and its strategic fight the nationalization measures. Admittedly this debate is consensual right too. Today, there is no wonder when faced with the dictatorship Socialism association and freedom-capitalism. The truth is that the concepts are also targets of political-ideological dispute. msds
Vale score, which was especially at the time of polarization between the two imperialist powers, the US and the USSR, which was consolidated the consensus (agreed by both) that socialism was more state capitalism and less government. That's it, in a way, what the mainstream and Marxist parties and teach
No comments:
Post a Comment