Chris, the article you posted said the following: > > The interviewees differed most clearly over international activists’ right > to criticize. Andreína Chávez recognized their right to criticize > Venezuela—or even distance themselves—but drew a line at ultimatums and > instructions to overthrow the Chavista leadership. Such behavior violates > the same principle of non-intervention the international left claims to > defend and reproduces imperial assumptions that foreigners know better > than Venezuelans. > >
This of course is nonsense - no one would say supporting protests opposing Milei in Argentina or previously the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile violates "the principle of non-intervention". Nevertheless, the article continues: > > > Her [Chávez's] recommendation was to follow the line demonstrated by > Venezuela’s popular movements: *support the Venezuelan government* *while > criticizing decisions* [my emphasis] that merit rejection, and keep the > principal enemy in view—the US empire enforcing the blockade, controlling > oil revenue and threatening further war. > > Páez Victor adopted a harder position. She said this is *not the moment for > outsiders to criticize a leadership* [my emphasis] facing existential > coercion, but for active international pressure: demand the immediate > release of Maduro and Flores, end the sanctions, return Venezuela’s seized > assets and gold, and remove US forces from the country. > As you can see the only options offered here are political support, either with or without criticism, of the government. Everything else is ruled out. This is also the reality of pretty much all Venezuela solidarity protests in the US and Australia: speakers demanding agreement on the need to support the "revolutionary" government, Maduro's supposed electoral "victory" in 2024, etc. But you seem to disagree, because you say my argument "implies that we can't build solidarity with Venezuela unless we agree on the nature of the Venezuelan government. I disagree." Great. This would indicate you disagree with Andreína Chávez and Páez Victor, who both demand that activists offer some kind of support to the government. Given that, can you please clarify if in fact it is OK for socialists to actively oppose the Chavista leadership? More importantly, do you not agree that the movement against imperialist intervention in Venezuela would be more successful if it was not tie to political support for the regime, as it currently is? And that socialists should argue the case for why the broader solidarity movement should not be based on lending political support to the government, inline with the examples you mentioned of Vietnam and Palestine? Thanks -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43002): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43002 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120712101/21656 -=-=- 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/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
