Hello Fred: Where is the original version of this message, that you cited at: Fred Fuentes Aug 20 #31724 ? Thanks very much in advance.
As an aside - From the outside of this discussion here thus far - the whole seems to be divorced from a fundamental analysis of who-what the government/its policies actually represent. Admittedly, maybe I am unfair in saying this as I have not reviewed/followed each message in detail. But when you have a comparison standard - as for example, Julia Buxton "Venezuela After Chavez"; NLR 99 may June 2016 5-fwd - it does seem a low level of discussion thus far. Buxton pointed out in 2016: "Neither the opposition nor the government is willing to contemplate a default on the national debt. Venezuela is heavily indebted to China, and the Chinese would not want to see them default; it would also shut the country out of international lending markets for years to come. The nature of Venezuela’s consolidated debt is quite complicated, so one of the major concerns is that, in the event of a default, there would be moves by debt holders to secure a freeze of Venezuelan assets abroad, which would be a big problem for the oil sector in particular. We have no clear figures for how much is being paid out in interest payments, because of the lack of proper national statistics, but international reserves amount to $13 billion, with $20 billion in debt repayments coming up, on top of the $5 billion owed by pdvsa." I can't help thinking that the very large (and increasing) debt to China means something significant. Thus I think it is pretty relevant to the *class character* of Maduro's government, and - whether at some level to even believe the claims of his side on the electoral percentages." In any case putting such emphasis on the findings of the Supreme Court - as some do - seems a bit odd for Marxists. For those in the USA who point to it, their own experience of the SCOTUS should have inhibited them more! I have not completed a new look yet, but in the interim, an earlier look I had at Chavez from the 2000s, seems to fit Chavez into an earlier model of his predecessors as a national bourgeois. Not a Marxist socialist. I have not yet seen anything that disputes this view substantially, although I have not been able to get a hold of his conversations with Ignacio Ramonet. Anyway my view thus far at: https://mlrg.online/world/hugo-chavez-and-venezuela/ It is definitely possible that Chavez was a genuine, sincere "modern, unaligned, consciously re-thinking to today" socialist - as the phrase might look. Although his closeness to Castro, and to some others - and then the drift to China - makes all that a little suspect. But he certainly was not - in his own words - a "Marxist". Anyhow, I'd be grateful for the origin of that citation Fred. H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#31800): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/31800 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/107927329/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
