******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
John says: "I think it is correct to characterize the regime there as bonepartist. Chavez rose to power based on the support of a layer of mid and lower level military officers. He never had the support of the Venezuelan capitalist class, but neither was he based on the organizations of the working class. In other words, he hovered above or between the classes." Roberts doesn't seem to make any political characterizations, but does throw his economist weight behind the undermining of the Maduro administration all under the framework of a "discussion" not of Maduro's capitalsit machinations but on the event of the Constituuent Assembly. Reimann follows suit, not discussing the Constituent Assembly but whether Maduro is revolutionary (he's not) and the capitalist nature of his government (more aptly The government of which he is president). It may sound all revolutionary to criticize Maduro and his ostensible "bonapartist regime". Indeed, it is an accurate appraisal to state that the present Chavista-based government is a capitalist state resting on its support by the military and feigning alliance with workers and the oppressed. However, NONE of that is really the point. What of the Constituent Assembly as an answer to the rightist movement of the bosses seeking hegemony within the present government? What should working people, and revolutionaries, do. Right now? Oppose the Constituent Assembly because it isn't creating "dual power" or doing some other "more revolutionary" thing? In truth, it is fairly safe to "characterize" Maduro and even critically support his government against imperialist and rightwing attempts to undermine it. But what does the Constituent Assembly represent, not for Maduro or the right wing, but for the masses of Venezuela? Are we to arrive at some "sideline armchair quarterbacking" to criticize an effort that at the least seeks to find representation in government for the masses? Should revolutionaries revert to the time-honored litmus-testing about how this particular "answer" to right wing and imperialist attack simply isn't good enough for "our support"? Or, should revolutionaries seek to use this event of constituent assembly to press forward stronger, more democratic, economic, and political mobilzations of the masses in their (our) interests? What is happening in Venezuela is not some "lesser-evilism" electoral campaign but a protracted struggle in which the masses are indeed marginalized by the capitalist class And by the Chavi sta government and military. I see the Constituent Assembly as an avenue to pursue political efforts at mobilizing the masses. They must be mobilized, however, For Something. Either some idealistic notion of a (non-existent currently) "workers and people's government" , the Chavista government or the Capriles rightist movement to undermine the Chavistas. Working people do not have the "luxury" to choose and revolutionaries should not be so arrogant--and treacherous--as to have an uncategorical answer. We Need To Support the Constituent Assembly AND, to the extent that Maduro and his ilk support it, we need to stand against imperialism and their agents in Venezuela as they try to engage an Allende-like coup. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
