Re: AUT: The "National Strike" in Venezuela

["chris wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Thiago, Lowe (welcome back)

I am sort of curious...

What is the expectation of this exchange?  What do you expect of a
politician?  Should we look at either Chavez or Lula based on how well they
are doing relative to what is possible once they have accepted the confines
of 'heads of state'?  On what grounds do we make a critique of Lula's or
Chavez's activity?  For example, in the case of Lula, wouldn't it really
require a closer analysis of the PT and what it has actually done?  What is
the relationship of Chavez or Lula to further mobilizations, to the
extension of working class struggle, to the composition of the class as a
revolutionary class?  Do we expect that Lula and Chavez will hinder or help
this process, whether they intend to or not?

On the one hand, it does not pay to be dismissive of these people, to lay
out some sectarian criticism that stops at: "Well, they are various forms of
reformists tied to the state, so they will screw us in the end."  But on the
other hand, if this were true then that cannot be lost while we flesh out
how and why they are popular, what changes they will make, what they
represent, etc. aka why them, why now, and what does that mean for us?

So when Thiago says "Chavez has done nothing but talk" and Lowe replies,
"But Chavez has done as much as he can within the limits of the situation",
I wonder what constitutes "doing something."  What do you expect Chavez or
Lula "to do"?  Why do you expect anything of them at all?

No answers, just questions today...

Cheers,
Chris

ps - just to be clear, I am not proposing that a US-led coup would mean no
change fof the Venezuelans.  It would and it would probably be bad, very
bad.  But does that oblige us to lay expectations on Chavez?  Is it about
Chavez at all or is it about having gained a little space and simply trying
to protect that, which at the moment does not coincide with an offensive
against the state (and therefore Chavez)?  I am wary of the idea that I feel
in the background of Lowe's comment that because Lula can only do this or
that or Chavez can only do this or that that we think within the limited
space of what they can do.  At the same time, I am wary that we should be
making much of Allende as a 'sincere' social democrat and whether that
merits our support either.

----- Original Message -----
From: <topp8564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Aut-Op-Sy" <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: The "National Strike" in Venezuela


> The biggest flaw in your argument is believing that irritating the US and
the
> Latin American ruling classes is by itself proof of 'doing something.'
Don't
> underestimate the irratinal paranoia of the empire; they have hegemony and
even
> sneezing the wrong way is a worry for them. But sneezing is just sneezing,
talk
> is just talk. You should ask yourself: other than talking a lot, what has
> Chavez done? Pretty close to nothing. He has talked about these forty laws
for
> three years, suggested that he need extra constitutional powers to do it -
> essentially holding the carrot in front of people while the only concrete
gains
> were to his own position. The laws themselves are important and overdue,
but
> there is still no sign of implementing them. People are pissed off with
his
> rhetoric, and a lot of people are pissed off with his cynicism; were he
not so
> transparently demagogic, it would be far harder for the anti-Chavez people
to
> get the sort of support they do.
>
>
> Again with Lula, you say he is not a sell-out, but where is you evidence?
Have
> you been paying attention to his government? All the important positions
are
> being held by right-wingers, most of them not even from the PT. He is a
fucking
> clown, dramatically playing up his background to win support for a
neoliberal
> government, support which could never be achieved by the neoliberals
> themselves. That's something digusting, in my opinion. He's like one of
those
> oxfam starving kids in a suit. But you are right: he may still surprise.
That's
> why I voted for him, but now I have the feeling I threw my vote away.
>
> Thiago Oppermann
>
>
>
>
> On 8/1/2003 7:58 AM, "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I think the analogy is very stretched. Allende had a clear platform of
> >> policies
> >> which he had started to implement, there was strong union backing for
him
> >> except in the trucker's union, the US interference was several orders
of
> >> magnitude stronger, he was not a military officer, he hadn't fiddled
with
> the
> >> constitution to guarantee himself lots of power... There was no
question
> that
> >> he was going to falter in implementing social democratic reforms. I
> >> definitely
> >> think he was a more salubrious character than this populist clown
Chavez,
> who
> >> has done nothing except talk a lot -and sing, horribly- so far.
> > I find it interesting that you say that Chavez has done "nothing" but
talk.
> > Perhaps you have a different idea of what he has had to do to head off
this
> US
> > and Venezuelan elite led insurrection. Perhaps you also have a different
> > understanding of what it would take for Chavez to do more in the sense
of
> > reforms than he has already done, especially insofar as power has always
only
> > limitedly been in the hands of these heads of state in this region of
the
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---