[OPE-L] a comment on John's answers

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

Just one quick final point, John.

        

I had
said:
5)

I suggest to you that you cannot be consistent with your book and not be an opponent of the Bolivarian Revolution.
        

   And, you responded in your last note, 'I have already
said several times that I support the upsurge of revolutionary struggle
in Venezuela.'

        

My first
impression when I quickly glanced over your last answer was to conclude
that in practice, in the concrete, that you weren't consistent
with your book and that, in practice, we weren't that far apart.
Ie., that statements in your book like 'to struggle through the state is
to become involved in the active process of defeating yourself', that the
state is the 'assassin of hope', etc were not to be taken too seriously
in practice. After all, there you were, indicating your recent support
for Lopez Obrador (rather than saying 'out with them all!) and admitting
that you might decide to vote for him; noting that (rather than worry
about, in my words, reinforcing 'illusions about the "state
paradigm"') you would have supported the Bolivarian Constitution at
the time insofar it was 'much more democratic than the previous one';
and, that you would not oppose the decentralising aspects of that
constitution (on the grounds, in my words, 'that the state by any other
name is still capital'). In short, I was surprised, and I thought, 'hey,
do those people in eg., Argentina who were so active in turning away from
the idea of taking state power know this?

        

But,
before writing this, I looked back over your answer and saw that I hadn't
read it carefully enough. Eg., on the Bolivarian Constitution, you say
'

At the same time, a constitution always has the purpose of demarcating the state from society, of consolidating the state as an institution, and in that sense I would oppose it.'
        

Further, on the question of decentralisation, you went on to
say:

'Generally state decentralisation is an attempt to strengthen the state as state.'
        

I
would say it did strengthen the state-- not a state over and above people
but the Venezuelan state nevertheless, given the dissolution of the state
as state (ie., its collapse) that seemed to be occurring.

        

So, I come
back to my original statement, now concluding that you really didn't move
very far from the position of your book. However, I do need to take into
account your profession of support for the Bolivarian revolution. Indeed,
I do accept the possibility that you can be consistent with your book and
yet not be an opponent of the revolution--- after all, you are large, you
'contain multitudes'.

        

cheers,

        

michael

ps. the last reference is from Walt Whitman's "Song of
Myself'.

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at

Residencias Anauco Suites

Departamento 601

Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1

Caracas, Venezuela

(58-212) 573-4111

fax: (58-212) 573-7724