Jim, You do know that Daniel Ortega is the president of Nicaragua now don't you?
And you seem to have forgotten that he was elected - fairly, as I explain in my book Rights and Revolution - in 1984? The problem of many anti-Stalinist movements is that they give up on the opposition inside countries where Stalinist or neo-Stalinist movements appear to predominate. This us what happened in the late 60s when the pressures of the growing authoritarianism of the new Left led to an abandonment of the Buddhist influenced democratic opposition to both the US and the NLF in Vietnam. This collapse into various forms if not so critical support or outright uncritical support greatly weakens the battle against US foreign interventions. This problem plagues the US left today in cases like the anti-Iraq war effort and of course debates about Syria. This abandonment syndrome affects left liberals even more aggressively and strikes the body politic earlier than among radicals as appears to be the case here. Even if you don't read Spanish there is a wealth of material explaining the populist authoritarianism inherent in the "Bolivarian" politics of Chavez. May I suggest the Google? Steve On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Jim Devine wrote: > Steve Diamond wrote: > > MP is right to ask us to focus on substance instead of name calling. My > view > > is that Chavez fits comfortably in a long line of authoritarian figures > in > > the developing world. > > Why was Chavez more "authoritarian" than, say, Obama? After all, > Chavez was president of Venezuela because he was _elected_. As I > understand it, the Chavistas have made sure that a larger segment of > the Venezuelan electorate actually participated in elections than > under previous governments. > > Every known government has been "authoritarian" to some degree, as far > as I can tell. What kind of government would you like to see running > Venezuela, Steve? Is it time to set up a Paris-style Commune? > > > Some here in the US support either because they agree > > with the authoritarian views of these figures or movements or because > they > > naively assume that supporting such figures or movements will constrain > > reactionary dimensions of US foreign policy. > > It's not a matter of constraining what _we_ think of as the > reactionary dimensions of US foreign policy. The Chavez government > defended Venezuela against what a majority of the people there (as > represented by their elected government) thought of as imperial > attacks, including an attempted US-supported coup. (By the way, such a > coup is very "authoritarian.") > > > I think we should defend the > > sovereignty of countries like Venezuela or Cuba > > Who is better at defending the sovereignty of Venezuela than > Venezuelans? Steve, do you think that the government you'd choose to > run Venezuela would do a better job than Chavez's government in this? > How would it do so? > > > but not fall into the trap > > of assuming that means we must support people like Hugo or Fidel or > Daniel. > > "Daniel"? Ortega? this anachronism makes your message sound like it's > a tape from the 1980s, being replayed for the umpteenth time. Likely > an 8-track, with no new empirical content. By the way, unlike Castro > and Ortega (during the Sandinista revolution), Chavez was elected. He > was lucky enough to live in a place that allowed elections. > > > Instead we should argue for the extension of democratic rights to all. > > Of course, but Chavez did a damn good job of this, especially when you > defined "democratic rights" broadly to include economic matters. Most > poorer countries with oil revenues (including the pre-Chavez > Venezuela) bottle up those bucks in the hands of the elite. The Chavez > government made sure that poorer folks received a lot of those "dollar > votes" or the benefits of them (health care, housing, etc.) > > One mistake that the "anti-anti-imperialist" left (e.g., some of the > followers of the late Hal Draper) has made is that they moralistically > blame "third world" leaders for the socio-economic constraints that > prevent the attainment of true democratic rights for all.[*] Of > course, those governments sometimes make those constraints worse, but > we have to be conscious of the constraints before rushing to judgment. > It's good to at least _try_ to do "concrete analysis of concrete > conditions" (to steal a phrase from some old bald guy). > > [*] I'm thinking of an article long ago in AGAINST THE CURRENT which > (in essence) blamed the Sandinistas for the fact that Nicaragua lacked > a Western European-style social-democratic government. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Stephen Diamond Associate Professor of Law Santa Clara University School of Law Office: (408) 554-4813 Fax: (408) 868-9173
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
