> > Jerry: "It does work: evidence of that is that *you can't cite sources which aren't reactionary
> > and/or the bourgeois press in support of your skepticism*. "
> Here's a report from a Venezuelan left-wing group who are critical of Chavez [in Spanish]:
> http://es.internationalism.org/node/2230
<LOL!> Paula, I guess you weren't expecting anyone on the list to read that article or remember
what exactly was being challenged. Let us recall together: the particular issue which was
being challenged were claims made in the _Washington Post_ about the firing of over 7,000
workers by the reactionary mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma (see your post dated 2/13).
I cited a story from 'venezuelanalysis' which told the *workers' and trade union side of the story*
(with a special emphasis on disabled workers who claim that they were unconstitutionally
fired) - something that was absent from the _Washington Post_ story and your post. What
I asked for - repeatedly - were non-reactionary sources and/or sources other than from the
bourgeois press on in support of your skepticism.
Well, I looked through the (unbelievably shallow and stale, imo) article you just called
our attention to.
It didn't mention Mayor Ledezma.
It only mentioned Caracus once (if I read it correctly).
It didn't mention the fired workers.
It didn't mention the claims made by the fired workers, their unions, or their representatives.
*and* it didn't indicate any of its sources by name and had hardly any statistics (including
the source[s] for those few #s) !!!
That story is beyond sad - it's funny. Indeed, it's almost tempting to think that it was a
spoof - a put-on. It's _that_ bad.
> Also please note that since Venezuela's still a capitalist nation, Chavez represents Venezuelan
> capital, or at least the section of it that's currently in power; and so you too, in quoting him
> and his supporters, are citing bourgeois sources.
So, you think 'venezuelanalysis' (which often prints articles critical of the Chavez
government, btw) is a "bourgeois source"? I guess the fired workers and their
unions are also a "bourgeois source", right?
As for the claim that Chavez "represents" Venezuelan capital, you're going
to get quite an argument from *capital itself* - both in Venezuela and internationally
on that point. What _specific_ faction of the bourgeoisie does Chavez represent
(note the emphasis on specific), including *who* are the principal figures in that
faction and *what capital do they own and control*?
> > "Given a choice, I would rather stand with the masses in struggle for self-determination and 21st
>> Century socialism than stand with the skeptics.
> Is it you who's standing with the masses, or the masses who're standing with you? Because
> you didn't stand with the masses of Caracas when they elected a right-wing mayor.
I meant it quite literally - I stand with the masses in struggle for self-determination and
21st Century socialism. There is class war in Venezuela and I have picked my side.
> Chavez, Obama and the mayor of Caracas won the support of the people, and therefore they g
> overn legitimately; but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them or silence our criticisms.
You don't have to be silent or agree with the Bolivarian movement, but - if your
claims and are to be taken seriously - they have to be based on credible sources
which are not reactionary and are independent of the bourgeois press. I haven't
seen any such sources from you. Maybe there are some, but you haven't provided them
yet.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Mar 3 02:59:43 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT