Date: Mon May 16 2005 - 09:15:11 EDT
> > I think the jury is still > > out about what the events there have demonstrated or "refuted". > Why? Michael L, Because the situation is still in flux and is developing unevenly. The revolution is still in its early stages in terms of where it might go. You (and others) can't reasonably make any predictions about what advances (or retreats or defeats) will happen in -- let's say -- the next year, can you? Your view about what events in Venezuela demonstrate today will likely be different than our view on that question 6 months or a year from now given the rapidly changing situation. > > So, you think that John's assertions about the state, eg, as the > assassin of hope, etc may be valid outside the Venezuelan case? Yes. > Well, perhaps 'refuted' is not the best term. How about 'exposed'? > Do you agree with the inference in my response to John that it is > reasonable to conclude that someone who consistently held and acted > on the basis of arguments in his book would logically be an opponent > of the Bolivarian revolution? If not, why not? I think I answered that, in a roundabout way, in a post yesterday. > I hadn't really noticed that the zapatistas were under attack by > imperialism. Did I miss the US efforts to get rid of them? I plan on getting back to you on important this question soon. In solidarity, Jerry PS: I didn't see any identification on the "Chavez is the People" placards in terms of which group printed them. At least in terms of NYC, my impression is that they were probably distributed by the embassy. I agree that the slogan can have multiple meanings, but I find it worrisome. After all, if "Chavez is the people" and if someone disagrees with Chavez, doesn't that suggest that one disagrees with "the people"? Of course, by itself the slogan proves nothing. I certainly didn't raise the issue to accuse Chavez of anything -- except perhaps of not recognizing how one of his quotes could be (mis-) understood. As the revolutionary process moves forward in Venezuela, there will be hopefully a ongoing healthy public discussion and debate over goals, tactics and strategy. Such a lively debate presumes that the poor and working class look to themselves for answers rather than to just one leader or party. That shouldn't be a controversial point, right?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT