Yes, Louis got it. Within specific organisations linked by a common
purpose, I support rotation of responsibilities because it allows for
more even development, thereby strengthening all and democracy. But
in the process of class struggle, if you prevent people from deciding
who best to provide leadership in the struggle, who then decides? Money, no?
michael
At 09:37 AM 04/12/2007, you wrote:
Paul Zarembka wrote:
Michael L.,
I didn't understand your comment below. Why is it a bad analogy to support
terms limits for a union President and also support term limits for
President of a socialist movement such as the Bolivarian? The power of a
Presidency in either case leads to a flow of payoffs/perks that can
institutionalize the incumbent and limit the development of the power of
the people. I think it is a pretty useful analogy.
Term limits is not the issue. Socialism is the issue. If a candidate
from Chavez's party runs in the next election, there will be millions of
dollars poured covertly into the Venezuelan electoral process, just as
has always been the case, to rally voters around the issue of "single
party domination". When Somoza was re-elected time after time without
regard to term limits, there was not a peep from the imperialists.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 03/12/2007 10:56 PM
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development'
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 03/12/2007
10:56 PM
