Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Wed Dec 31 2003 - 13:53:59 EST

Paul wrote:

>  I think the equation of Chavez with Menem and Fujimori quite disgraceful.

No such equation was suggested; after all, the structure of a rentier
economy changes the character of the state.  The point is that
electoral validation is not proof in itself of the revolutionary or
even democratic nature of the leader.Which is not to say that a coup
should in any way be tolerated.

>The later two were/are unconditional agents of imperialism, Chavez is
>regarded as due for regime change by the US!

Which is probably his greatest source of legitimacy--that he is so
regarded. He has actively courted such condemnation in my opinion as
a way of deflecting the general neo liberal and anti worker thrust of
his policies.

>Quite the opposite association.
>Why this despair and cynicism about Chavez??

This discussion began with negative reactions to Chattopadhyay's
criticism of the Bolsevik fetish. Michael L suggested that C's
criticism could only put in the same bed as free marketer Nathan
Rosenberg. What the discussion of Chavez shows is that it is possible
to criticism Bolshevism or the strong leader of a rentier state from
outside the horizons of bourgeois thought.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST