******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Rim Nelson writes: "This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a revolution deformed." I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class voters voted for him doesn't change this. I also agree with Gonzalez's analysis of the PSUV. It never was a working class party. I saw the forerunner to it when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example (and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got together to compete for the fruits of power. Also, even then, every opportunist mainstream politician around suddenly became a "chavista". As various socialists, including Simon Rodriguez, report, from the start the leadership of the PSUV was selected from the top down, with the real fighters being excluded. A few weeks ago, the Wall St. Journal reported on how the military command backs Maduro, and the WSJ is certainly no opponent of military governments! So, what do we call a government that lacks the support of the mainstream of its capitalist class and also isn't based on the working class? What do we call a government that balances between the classes, resting in the main on the military? Nothing but a bonapartist regime. That for a time this regime balanced on the working class, that it introduced major reforms for the working class, that it had the popular support of the working class for a time, does not change this. All that could have been said about Peron too, after all, although he and a similar figure - Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico - didn't rest on the military so much. But theirs too were bonapartist governments. What's happened is that all too much of the left has gotten caught up in this view that whoever appears to oppose US imperialism must be supported. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
