Re: Why Chavez defeated the oligarchs

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Why Chavez defeated the oligarchs



Carrol wrote:
Who is the "we" here?

I do doubt the ability of any peaceful and democratic process to survive
in a world of u.s. hegemony, but I'm not a Venezuelan. What we can do in
the U.S. is continue to build the anti-war movement and at some point
turn it into a mass (and self-conscious) anti-interventionist movement
with a strong anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist core.

****************
I reply:
I think the "we" is people all over the world who feel that they have a
stake in what happens in Venezuela. Yes, here we build the anti-war movement
to the farthest extent we can.  (Even here in the middle of the Pacific it's
happening with a whole lot of energy and enthusiasm). Part of the process of
building that movement has to do, vitally, with what happens in Latin
America, and therefore part of that process includes our critical support
for what the Venezuelan leadership and the Venezuelan people participating
directly in that process do to achieve their, and our, goals. They almost
certainly face the circumstances portrayed by Woods. I had never thought
that it was inappropriate to comment on the strategy and tactics employed,
and to speculate, respectfully and maybe tentatively, based on experience
gained from a collective history, on what the consequences of various
courses are likely to be. For that reason, I would seek more comment on the
details of the threat posed to that revolution, in part at least as outlined
in some detail here by Woods, and despite his occasional stump-speech
rhetoric  (I assume what he says has been read, in order to respond to it),
and how it might best be overcome. And I didn't mean in the question I asked
to confine the issue to whether or not Chavez's statement on his philosophy
of change is reformist, or any other pat characterization.

No doubt about it, the people wearing the shoe know best where it pinches,
the people directly faced with the choices know best what's feasible and
what time it is;  and they risk much and face great obstacles; and I would
give much weight to what they say, including what Michael Lebowitz in
Caracas is saying. But there is also a wealth of painfully-gained historical
experience to be drawn on by others. Why would we assume that they on the
ground have assessed all the options and that they would ignore or feel
contempt for advice from comrades elsewhere, rather than welcoming it and
selectively taking it into account? I could state the obvious, that this
kibitzing has taken place repeatedly, and often productively, from Marx and
Engels to Lenin and Trotsky, probably Castro to Chavez, Fanon, Amin, Said
and Tariq Ali to Asians and Africans, to even the participants in this list,
and maybe to Alan Woods.

Ralph


> Ralph Johansen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this not a reformist message, flat out? Can he do it?
>
> The program outlined in the _Communist Manifesto_ was a "reformist
> program" also, of course. And the words of a message always have a
> complex relationship to the activity informing the message. And I have a
> reluctance to making revolution from a distance. But it seems to be the
> case over time that such reform movements are eventually defeated if
> they don't, at some early point, go beyond their stated program. At some
> point the people need to be armed to defend even a "half revolution,"
> and when they are, and when they are attacked, the reformist program
> turns revolutionary.
>
> > Here, by way of
> > retort, are two pieces by Alan Woods on why he believes that Chavez
can't do
> > it in the manner expressed in this quote:
> >
> [clip]
> > It is time to learn the lessons! One cannot make half a revolution. As
long
> > as the oligarchy continues to maintain its hold on important sections of
the
> > economy, it will continue to act as a Trojan Horse of US imperialism,
> > sabotaging and undermining the Bolivarian revolution. It is time to ask
> > ourselves the key question: can we allow the interests of a handful of
rich
> > parasites to decide the destinies of millions of people? Or will we put
an
> > end to this situation once and for all, expropriating the property of
the
> > counterrevolutionaries and taking the road of socialist democracy?
>
>clip
>
> Carrol