******************** 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.
*****************************************************************
J Green described my view of Venezuela and socialism as follows:
"This is
the same Lebowitz who talks about about how Venezuela is a model of
socialism
for the 21st century and lauds its democracy as an alternative to the "real
socialism" of the Soviet model. ("What Is Socialism for the Twenty-First
Century?",
https://monthlyreview.org/2016/10/01/what-is-socialism-for-the-twenty-first-century
/)."
This is simply an idiotic distortion. Green should try reading. I
have never described Venezuela as a model of socialism; rather, I have
stressed that there has been a struggle for socialism within it. In an
interview in a Serbian paper in 2012 on the prospects for Chavez's 4th
election [reprinted in Links and Venezuelanalysis--
venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7417], I noted the development of communal
councils and continued:
This is a process that has been described by Chavez as one of creating
the cells of a new socialist state. As well, there is a process of
development of workers’ councils. Here again it is a process of
transforming people, of creating the conditions in which they are able
to develop all their capacities. In particular, the Bolivarian
Revolution has been creating people with a sense of dignity and pride.
These are very important achievements. But they don’t happen smoothly,
and it is important to recognise there are many contradictions within
/Chavism/. There are three groups and tendencies within /Chavism/. One
can be found at the base with the social movements, the communities and
portions of the working class. Another is composed of those individuals
and groups that have risen with Chavez but, having enriched themselves
through their positions and through the continuation of corruption and
clientalism, now think the revolution should be over – and it is for
them. (They are often referred to as the “boli-bourgeoisie”.) A third
group is committed to continuing the revolution but doing so entirely
from the top down; its perspective is one of ordering the advance of
socialism, and it does not want to leave decisions at the bottom.
While Chavez himself is very vocal about the theoretical importance of
building at the base and allowing people to develop their capacities
through their own protagonism, he is impatient and often supports those
who don’t have the same orientation.
So, what will happen in Chavez’s next term of office? That depends on
class struggle within the Chavez camp. It would be a struggle which
revolves around Chavez’s party (the United Socialist Party of Venezuela,
PSUV), which contains all these elements but in which the top-down
orientation has dominated and at the same time dispirited many people at
the base.
As for not bothering to meet with the 'critical chavistas' or PSOL
leaders, I assume Fred Fuente's interest was in exploring what was
happening at the base rather than meeting [in the limited time
available] leaders with no followers whose positions are well-known.
michael
--
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Home: Phone 604-689-9510
Cell: 604-789-4803
_________________________________________________________
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
