From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Wed Dec 31 2003 - 13:53:59 EST
Paul wrote: > I think the equation of Chavez with Menem and Fujimori quite disgraceful. No such equation was suggested; after all, the structure of a rentier economy changes the character of the state. The point is that electoral validation is not proof in itself of the revolutionary or even democratic nature of the leader.Which is not to say that a coup should in any way be tolerated. >The later two were/are unconditional agents of imperialism, Chavez is >regarded as due for regime change by the US! Which is probably his greatest source of legitimacy--that he is so regarded. He has actively courted such condemnation in my opinion as a way of deflecting the general neo liberal and anti worker thrust of his policies. >Quite the opposite association. >Why this despair and cynicism about Chavez?? This discussion began with negative reactions to Chattopadhyay's criticism of the Bolsevik fetish. Michael L suggested that C's criticism could only put in the same bed as free marketer Nathan Rosenberg. What the discussion of Chavez shows is that it is possible to criticism Bolshevism or the strong leader of a rentier state from outside the horizons of bourgeois thought. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST