On Dec 4, 2007 7:44 AM, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, Louis got it. Within specific organisations linked by a common > purpose, I support rotation of responsibilities because it allows for > more even development, thereby strengthening all and democracy. But > in the process of class struggle, if you prevent people from deciding > who best to provide leadership in the struggle, who then decides? Money, no? > michael
As pointed out by Michael Perelman earlier, this can go both ways. Is it healthy for the revolution to be so much dependent on one person to provide leadership and sustain itself? In the long run after all every leader is dead. There is also an interesting contrast between Chavez and that other leader who was also facing term limits this week. It is striking how the media in this case is so much more cautious in its criticism: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/europe/04russia.html -raghu.
