From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 14:03:58 EST
Rakesh, I annotate below: Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism' > Paul wrote: > > > I think the equation of Chavez with Menem and Fujimori quite disgraceful. > > No such equation was suggested; (GLAD TO HEAR IT, BUT IT WAS DIFICULT NOT TO READ SUCH AN IMPLICATION) after all,( AFTER ALL ,WHAT? THE PERUVIAN, ARGENTINEAN AND VENEZUELAN STATES ARE ALL RATHER DIFFERENT) 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. (IN THIS CASE AN EXAMINATION OF THE THE NEW VENEZUELAN CONSTITUTION, AND THE MANNER OF ITS APPLICATION TO DATE, SHOULD HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT CHAVEZ HAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT INTENTIONS FROM THE OTHERS YOU EXAMPLED. CERTAINLY YOUR COMMENTS DID NOT SEEM WELL INFORMED, WHICH IS WHY I SENT THE THREE ARTICLES ON VENEZUELA) Which is not to say that a coup should in any way be tolerated. ( 'A' COUP...? TO BE BLUNT, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THIS DEPENDS ON WHOSE SIDE IT ACTS FOR AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT ARISES AND IS CARRIED OUT... IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I AM DELIGHTED PRESIDENT CHAVEZ DID NOT 'TOLERATE' THE ATTEMPTED COUP) > > > >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.(THIS IS THE USUAL ARGUMENT THAT THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE HAVE FOR EXPLAINING THE SUCCESS OF PRESIDENT CASTRO'S GOVERNMENT. THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF PRESIDENT CHAVEZ'S SUPPORT IS HIS DAY TO DAY ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE POSITION OF THE POOR) 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.( I THINK THIS IS NONSENSE) > > > > >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.(THIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY YOU SEEM TO HAVE ' A CURSE ON ALL THEIR HOUSES' APPROACH TO NATIONAL STRUGGLES AGAINST IMPERIALISM.) > > Rakesh >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST