Anonymous Comrade writes

Argentina: From Popular Rebellion to "Normal Capitalism",
by James Petras.

The mass assemblies have largely dissolved, or else got co-opted, "middle class" former participants now seem mostly concerned with crime. The mass pickets (piqueterors) have split into pro-gov't, critical supporters of the gov't and anti-gov't factions, couldn't even stage a joint demo on the 3rd anniversary of the '01 revolution. The Kirchner gov't has managed to co-opt the opposition with the image of standing up to the IMF and multinationals, while giving them pretty much what they wanted. The structures of direct democracy never moved towards confronting capitalism, and instead got channeled into promoting self-help programs, like work schemes that pay $50/month (vs the $140/month necessary for basic food basket) but give the illusion of "a job", and distributing such jobs as if a new patronage set-up. Temporary improvements due to world market conditions (better prices for Argentine products) have created an image of improvement which is already wearing out, but enough to make people think the system works.

Petras puts a large part of the blame on politics which promoted the mass assemblies as an end in themselves, without a party and a program to take state power, ie the Leninist notion of social transformation. This has to be rejected, but so is the retarded idea that the form is everything, that any programmatic notions are "totalitarian" and verbotten. The autonomist followers of Negri and John Holloway (Edinburgh U) have melted away, joining the various political factions. A failure to actually confront capitalism explicitely and propose a different way of living has led to an overall failure.

If you give a damn at all about social transformation, critiques such as Petras's will have to be confronted and dealt with, and without simply restating slogans about autonomy and workers' control. WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS."