![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1) Status quo of direct u.$. imperialist control
2) Socialist Aztlán
3) Somewhat independent Aztlán
4) Lackey Aztlán
5) Imperialist Aztlán
6) Re-unification with Mexico
The struggle for the liberation of Aztlán is inevitably tied up with class struggle. Four out of five possibilities for Aztlán's future are still better than the status quo of U.$. imperialist occupation.
Of course, MIM favors that MIP-Aztlán lead a proletarian class struggle for a Socialist People's Republic of Aztlán. The key to that will be the formation of the party and its ability to distinguish itself from other bourgeois ideologies through arduous struggle.
Another possibility is that Aztlán become something like Mexico, where political rule is somewhat under Mexican control, but Amerikkkans continue to own assets there. We call this lackey Aztlán. It is the normal fate of countries in the world to be run by U.$. lackeys. There is also an in-between fate in which the ruler shows a little spunk, like Chavez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
We should consider the possibility of direct re-unification with Mexico. The advantage of this struggle is mainly its simplicity. We certainly regard as comradely any suggestion for re-unification with Mexico. Comrades internationally may find this easier to understand-- "reunification of occupied Mexico with Mexico."
Politically the trouble with re-unification with Mexico is that Mexico is already a status quo itself of U.$. domination. With a focus on Aztlán, the proletariat can also raise new ideas without copying everything about Mexico. If there is an enthusiastic vanguard party and the participation of exploited and super-exploited Mexicans, Aztlán could end up being a socialist spark for itself and also Mexico.
In an intense crisis when the people have taken Aztlán's future in history into hand it is hard not to think that the puppet leaders of Mexico would not sell- out the struggle. In other words, the Aztlán struggle by itself may inspire more activity by the oppressed masses than the Mexican compradors would support. At such a moment of likely open betrayal, it is important that Aztlán have its own identity. The people in Aztlán actually conducting the struggle may not agree with what the U.$. lackeys in Mexico decide.
One last possibility is that Aztlán could itself develop into imperialism. Such an assertion requires investigation.
In Quebec, the situation is that the French-speaking banks there are the leading employers of the province. In fact, the banks there used to dominate all of Kanada up through the 1970s when Toronto and then Vancouver took increasingly ascendant roles.
Quebecois secession would in some ways be in the interests of the banks of Quebec, which might see the competition of other banks reduced. It would be a sort of reduced return to the status quo of old with Quebec banks on top again. MIM would theorize that Quebecois banks would want such a result only if their existing English-speaking competitors were not attractive enough as partners. Being in control of a national government gives the banks a chance to rewrite laws to their advantage. Perhaps they fancy that they would do a better job of international exploitation than Kanadian banks.
In Aztlán, we cannot say that it is obvious that Aztlán banking capital would win the struggle. First of all, there is no Latino or Aztlán-owned bank of the monopoly capitalist sort that we are aware of. There are banks there, but whether they would be taken over or not would depend on the mobilization level of the masses, and probably if people are that mobilized to take over banks that are not called "Californian" or "Texan," then those banks would also come under socialist control anyway, and the point of an imperialist Aztlán would be moot. A likely possibility is that the Aztlán bourgeoisie would negotiate with Amerikkkans or a Mexico-like situation where Amerikkkans own things and rent out Mexican or Aztlán politicians.
When we do research on "Latino-owned banks," we turn up an interesting article. What the bourgeoisie means by this concept turns out to be various. The first bank to turn up in such a Google search is actually owned by Spain!(1)
Of course, it makes sense that Spain would have something of an advantage in the struggle for Mexican banking business. Nonetheless, the bank in first place in its appearance total business-wise is Bank of America. Bank of America is dominating in Aztlán and would have to be dealt with one way or another. Perhaps it would stay Amerikkkan-owned in which case, we would not call Aztlán "imperialist" to have it. On the other hand, perhaps the people of Aztlán would find a way to buy out Bank of America branches (bourgeois Aztlán aspiring to imperialist status) or take them over (socialist Aztlán).
What we have to stress is that there is no guarantee in class struggle of a good outcome, but that is even more true of a one-working-class struggle involving reliance on oppressor nation majorities. Aztlán has a better chance of a socialist outcome than the united $tates has.
A similar situation occurs in South Africa. There whites owned everything. Nonetheless, the anti-colonial struggle was progressive no matter how bourgeois Mandela turned out to be. The reason is what South Africa was before the bourgeois Black revolution. Likewise, in most of the Third World there is no point in struggling to switch compradors, but taking Aztlán away from u.$. imperialism internally would be a great step forward for the whole world.
In southern California, this may come as a shock, but the Los Angeles Times says
there is only one Latino owned bank.(2) Others coming on the scene are start-ups
and past Latino banking attempts have ended in failure.
Financial services for Latinos may mean money wires and store credit to many, but a group of wealthy Latinos says it is time to take banking for their fast-growing community to a more sophisticated level. Together with non-Latino investors they will soon launch Promerica Bank, the first Latino bank in 35 years in California, home to America's largest Hispanic population and a powerful magnet for immigrants from south of the border.Thus, to MIM's knowledge, it would be difficult to say that at this moment that Aztlán has an imperialist future in its own right. Certainly a certain economy and class structure is in place there now, but liberation would inevitably change at least some of those class relations.The bank's creation coincides with a rise in Latino power, as an increasingly entrepreneurial and educated Latino community aims to prove its worth amid calls for a crackdown on immigration, mostly from Latin America.
But Promerica Chairman Maria Contreras-Sweet began thinking about the lack of Latino banks some years ago when she was California's secretary for business, transportation and housing and responsible for banking regulation.
"There are about 40 Asian banks operating in California, and it occurred to me, Why don't we have more Latino banks operating in California when you look at the population?," she told Reuters.
The last census in 2000 showed one-third of California's 34 million people are of Hispanic origin, compared with 12 percent nationwide. Los Angeles, which has a Latino mayor, has the largest Mexican population in the world after Mexico City.
[If you know more about the extent or viability of Aztlán banking, please rewrite this article and send it to the Web Minister, mim3@mim.org. Thank you.]
Notes:
1. Dallas Morning News reprinted,
http://juantornoe.blogs.com/hispanictrending/2005/07/accent_on_trust.html
2. http://opinion.latimes.com/immigration/2006/07/weekend_and_mon_3.html
3.
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/NEWS/061206Enews.htm