Andy P. wrote:
"That is the same method I advocated when I said yesterday that we
should gather the facts before assuming that either Fred/Joaquin on
the one side or Josh et al."
This can leave the impression that I began my evaluation of the
Ecuadoran appeal and the Venezuelan offer simply with "blind support" of
Chavez. First of all, of course, my position on Chavez is of course
based on experience. He won my support, he didn't come to office with
Secondly, every one of my posts on this contained facts about the
situation in Ecuador -- facts that pointed in a direction that has been
confirmed by events.
I pointed out that the government had made a turn in the midst of the
strike, apparently because of the difficulty and political costs of
trying to militarily break the strike. Strike leaders were released
from jail. A truce was called. Negotiations reopened. Having pushed out
the Economics minister who criticized dollarization before the strike,
they now fired the defense minister who had taken on the strike-breaking
task. I submitted a clipping from after Chavez's announcement showing
that the negotiators were optimistic.
In this context the wobbly government wobbled a little more away from
Washington and towards Venezuela.
The response of those (not Josh, who dropped his characterization) but
those who, in my opinion, tend to use ersatz "Trotskyist" analysis to
defend their "independence" of any and all actual revolutionary
movements, processes, and leaderships, was to apply a narrow economist
trade unionist standard -- insisting on an international boycott of
Ecuador that noone had called for -- and apt comparisons with
Jaruszelski and Thatcher, thus proving that Chavez was seeking to help
the Ecuadoran government crush the popular movement.
So I started not only with the facts about Chavez but with the facts
about Ecuador, one of the countries I have learned to read the clippings
And Andy, is is still too early to determine whether Chavez should be
characterized as scabbing on the Ecuadoran working class? Is it still
too early to determine whether the Thatcher-Jaruszelski parallel fits
this situation? Do you have an opinion yet?
By the way, without wanting to start a big discussion, I don't much like
the term "Marxist revolution" and don't know how to discuss Venezuela in
that framework since I don't think that revolutions are primarily
products of and still less instruments of ideology.
I think the Ecuador outcome thus far tends to reinforce my view that
sees revolutionary struggle of the masses and efforts to form various
types of united front of Latin American states as they are to strengthen
their hand individually and collectively against US domination as
intertwined and necessary, not counterposed, forms of struggle.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism