From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 16 2004 - 08:34:51 EDT
> It wasn't thought provoking at all but sowed illusions about > the character of imperialism. David Y, What is deemed to be thought provoking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, Freeman's article in _The Guardian_ was deemed to be thought provoking by "Venezuela News & Action" <newsandaction@veninfo.org> which is distributed by the Venezuela Information Office: "The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela". What might be thought provoking would be to consider the related questions of: a) what is the analysis and praxis of the WSF? (Recall how at the end of _The Guardian_ article, Freeman was identified, along with Boris Kagliarsky, in terms of his association with the WSF). b) what is the type of coalition needed, and on what political basis should it be organized, by workers in the imperialist nations to support the Bolivaran revolution in Venezuela? Clearly the VIO thought that the Freeman article was in solidarity with the people of Vzla and worthy of dissemination to supporters in the US. I suspect that if the author were to present a report to cadre in his political party on the situation in Vzla then he would have made other -- or, at least, additional -- points (probably many of the points you made). His audience, though, was broader and -- in context -- I think the article has to be seen in terms of his efforts to build the WSF. I suspect that since you have a different perspective on what analysis should have been presented, it reflects a different political position from Freeman on how to build coalitions and maintain united fronts. But, I should stop here because I don't want to put words in your mouth or that of Freeman. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 17 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT