From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 02 2004 - 12:05:42 EST
>At 16:27 01/01/2004, Paul Bullock wrote: > >> > This is simply untrue. The unions in general have not been >>> enthusiastic about Chavez; the steel workers were on the fence, from >>> what I can make out.( THE ISSUE HERE THEN IS 'WHAT YOU CAN MAKE OUT'... IF >>MICHAEL HAS THE ENERGY HE MIGHT TELL YOU ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN THE >>LEADERSHIP OF THESE UNIONS, THEIRASSOCIATION WITH THE OLIGARCHY THAT >>PRECEEDED THE CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT ETC, QUITE APART FROM THEIR RELATIVELY SMALL >>SIZE FROM AN ELECTORAL STANDPOINT) > >As much as I appreciate the invitation, I'll pass--- but not because I lack >the energy. Instead, let me come back to an earlier question in this thread >(on 22 December) that Rakesh didn't answer: > >>Rakesh, >> Let's agree that 'workers' revolutions in the so called North or >>West' would solve a lot of problems (although not all). Let's also agree >>that these don't seem to be on the horizon (unless I'm badly out-of-touch). >>The question then becomes what those in the 'South' who want to put an end >>to the barbarism of capitalism should do. E.g., what should be done in >>India? You appear to agree with Paresh (and, I would guess, Rosenberg) that >>attempts at exploding the existing societies of the South under the current >>conditions would be quixotic, but you haven't answered my questions. > > Really, Rakesh, what is to be done? > michael What should be done in India? I was persuaded by Jairus' arguments against Gail Omvedt for splits within so called kisan movements. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 07 2004 - 00:00:00 EST