From: dashyaf@EASYNET.CO.UK
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 08:35:48 EDT
Rakesh, Our paper has carried a series of articles on Venezuela explaining the class basis of Chavez's actions in the context of a life and death struggle for the mass of Venezuelans against US imperialism. This is not a fixation with Chavez but a taking of sides with the vast majority of humanity against imperialism. Please read the material, the latest article can be found at http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/178/ Other articles can be found in earlier issues on the same website. Le Monde Diplomatique is also an excellent source of material on Venezuela if you prefer a more bourgeois publication. See April 2004 issue for a detailed summary of the latest developments in Venezuela. http://mondediplo.com/2004/04/ What facts do you object to and do you have the evidence showing that they lack objectivity. David Yaffe At 07:54 24/05/04 -0700, you wrote: >>Rakesh's energy re Venezuela is spent on one individual Chavez, Chavez, >>and then again Chavez, not what U.S. imperialism is doing in the concrete >>in Venezuela; not on the day-to-day maneveurs of the opposition; not on >>the day-to-day actions of supporters or qualified supporters of the >>government. In the final analysis Chavez is not that important. > > >And later Paul Z writes: > > >> One thing I'm confident of: the opposition blames Chavez for >>anything and are as fixed on Chavez as Rakesh. > >Oh, no, I am not fixated on Chavez. As I see it, you, Michael, Paul B >and David Y are fixated on him as a revolutionary leader and hero of >the working class and poor. > > > Paul Z then writes: > > >> >>Placing Chavez as government leader in context of a very wealthy, >>extremist opposition could lead one to think that the opposition may >>believe it has lost a lot from the current government. Their acts speak >>much louder than Rakesh's words from afar, who digs up, for this list, an >>article more than a year old that Chavez is nothing more than a >>neo-liberal. > > >> >>The Venezuelan government must be placed in context, just as we must place >>Aristide in context, Lula in context, Gandhi in context, etc. > >And in each case (though least of all in Aristide's) it is important >to understand how each prepares the ground for a right wing coup or >even right wing formally democratic take over by engendering >alienation, indifference and cynicism in those in whose respective >names they rule. There are several Brazilian members of OPE-L; it >would be wonderful if they would discuss the complexities of Lula's >government which seems more complex than Chavez's. More North >Americans speaking Spanish than Portuguese may be one reason why >Chavez gets more attention than Lula despite what may be the latter's >greater historical and regional and ideological importance. At any >rate, as I have said, Chavez should use force to suppress right wing >coups and he should expose international right wing support of >conspirators. But this does not mean that he is himself not cutting >his own base from underneath him. > > >I also don't see how this serves as a criticism of Sonntag or as >support for his critics such as Lander who I believe serves in the >govt. I introduced the article with the intent of eliciting specific >criticism. Sonntag seems associated with the world systems school, >and he was chosen to represent left criticism in a debate at UC >Berkeley. What he says should be answered directly. > > > >> >>Just yesterday I happened to speak with a woman who knows the daughter of >>one of five wealtiest in Venezuela who flies around at the touch of a >>button. We're talking about opposition with real hatred. We're talking >>about Ku Klux Klan type-mentality, we're talking about racism at its core, >>we're talking about money big-time, and we're talking about such people >>wanting governmental power. > >That does not invalidate the opposition from the left. > > >> >>As to the SIDOR strike, I happened to have visited that plant many years >>ago in a very memorable visit (including spending a night among its some >>workers migrating, at the time, from places like Spain). I've have been >>trying to understand it now, but I'm not running to this list with >>wholesale judgement of its current strike activity (although, frankly, my >>credentials to do so would exceed Rakesh's). > >Many years ago would have been before the neo liberal restructuring >of industrial relations, no? So how good are these impressions now? >It would be like my saying that I was in Gary Indiana in 1948. > > >>Unlike Rakesh, I would be >>asking of people on the scene what's going on. > >I can't ask people on the scene. So let's say managment can call on >the National Guard as violent strike breakers. What does this say >about the nature of Chavez's regime, that it does not have power over >the National Guard? > > >> Maybe the workers are >>angry with Chavez, but maybe not (Michael reports that no one in Venezuela >>is blaming Chavez personally; Michael may be in error, but maybe not, and >>if not, Rakesh obviously doesn't know what he is talking about). Maybe the >>workers are, rather, angry at their managment and also at their union >>leadership. > >It also seems that they wanted to Chavez to nationalize the industry >and for the state to use its 40% ownership stake to improve >conditions. But of course the workers are probably angry first and >foremost at their own bosses and, second, at their own leaders. Yet >it does not seem to me that they have concluded that Chavez's state >is a workers' state; indeed the state seems at best indifferent to >their plight. And in this case it seems to have done worse. The only >plus is that Chavez did not declare the strike illegal but given use >of the National Guard it seems that it was de facto declared illegal. > > > > >> Does the >>context of American military defeat in Iraq (but inability to so >>acknowledge) mean that the American empire is ready to fall and thus give >>an opening to genuine and immediate socialism/communism in Venezuela? > > >US imperialism is not the only 'thing' holding that up. > > >>If >>not, what are progressive steps available within the actual Venezuelan >>context? > >Well it seems that SITOR got a raw deal. > > >> Is the current government taking none of those steps, or can we >>acknowledge that they have taken some? If some, could it move faster, or >>is it already moving too fast? > >And isn't moving backward despite choking on a surfeit of oil wealth? > >Rakesh > > >> >>Paul z. >> >>************************************************************************* >>Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy >>RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science >>********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT