I think there is a distinct difference between Ortega, Castro and Chavez and what you suggest are ordinary LA politicians.
Is Hamas democratic? The goals of the organization may be bureaucratic and authoritarian yet they may still be able to use the electoral process to serve those goals. I explain in detail how the FSLN did that in 1984. Despite winning the elections (helped in part by the boycott by the far right) they cracked down internally afterwards. There are alternatives in Venezuela and there is far more dissent there than is tolerated on this list about those alternatives. Again, the Google. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Jim Devine <jdevin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Steve Diamond wrote: > > Jim, > > > > You do know that Daniel Ortega is the president of Nicaragua now don't > you? > > Yes, but in 2013 no one attaches the kind of prestige to him which > allows people to referred to him using only his first name. Correct me > if I'm wrong, but nowadays Ortega seems to be a pretty run-of-the-mill > Latin American politician. > > > And you seem to have forgotten that he was elected - fairly, as I > explain in > > my book Rights and Revolution - in 1984? > > Sure, but he wasn't originally elected. If he was fairly elected in > 1984 (which seems likely), why do you attack him as "authoritarian"? > or did you? (linking him in some sort of unholy trinity with the bad > guys "Fidel" and "Hugo" seems to be doing so.) > > > The problem of many anti-Stalinist movements is that they give up on the > > opposition inside countries where Stalinist or neo-Stalinist movements > > appear to predominate... > > There's difference between criticizing "Stalinists" or > "neo-Stalinists" and attaching that label to people who don't fit > (e.g,. Chavez). > > > This collapse into various forms if not so critical support or outright > > uncritical support greatly weakens the battle against US foreign > > interventions. This problem plagues the US left today in cases like the > > anti-Iraq war effort and of course debates about Syria..... > > "critical support" always reminds me of jockstraps. > > There seems to be a black/white logic here: _Either_ someone is soft > on "(neo) Stalinism" _or_ someone should rail against elected > leaders as being "authoritarian." Concrete analysis doesn't seem to > play a role. > > > Even if you don't read Spanish there is a wealth of material explaining > the > > populist authoritarianism inherent in the "Bolivarian" politics of > Chavez. > > Do tell. So how is that "populist authoritarianism" different from > that of, say, the Democratic Party, in which big money steers popular > discontent into safe corporate channels? > > More importantly, what is the real-world alternative in _Venezuela_ > that you think should replace the followers of Chavez in power? Are > the followers of Chavez worse than the opposition parties which > favored the US-supported coup attempt? > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Stephen Diamond Associate Professor of Law Santa Clara University School of Law Office: (408) 554-4813 Fax: (408) 868-9173
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
