Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 3/6/19 3:53 PM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:

Yet
at the time they were struggling for power, 99.999% of the left completely
rejected any sort of criticism of them, friendly or otherwise. Yet that
same left refuses today to look back and say, "well, gee, maybe there was
something they were doing wrong after all. Maybe we should reconsider our
views of that time."



Are you kidding? The ISO is the largest group on the American left and 
the British SWP is the largest group on the British left and all they 
have been doing is making exactly the same points as you. If these 
influential tendencies had zero impact on events in Venezuela, how could 
your blog have made a difference? Sometimes--actually all the 
time--"criticisms" have little effect. If they did, Stalin would have 
been kaput in 1927. What might have made a difference in Venezuela is if 
the Chavista movement had roots in the trade union movement rather than 
in the left-military but ironically it was Chavez's willingness to 
organize a coup that created a very promising political movement. In the 
final analysis, it was the ability of the USA to become a major oil 
exporter through fracking and drive down the price of fuel that created 
the chaos in Venezuela.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

My point remains. One after another after another of these movements and/or
individuals has gotten into power and either failed miserably or worse. Yet
at the time they were struggling for power, 99.999% of the left completely
rejected any sort of criticism of them, friendly or otherwise. Yet that
same left refuses today to look back and say, "well, gee, maybe there was
something they were doing wrong after all. Maybe we should reconsider our
views of that time."

As for Stalin Perez: I met him a couple of times and actually recorded an
interview with him when I was being a "tourist" in Venezuela. I still
remember the irony of being in a union hall with a big photo of Trotsky up
on the wall and interviewing a leader of that union with that first name.

John Reimann

-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 3/6/19 9:36 AM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:

Yes, comrades can say "well, that's just because of the role of US
imperialism." Okay, lets even accept that for the moment. But it's like
saying that somebody died after jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge just
because of the role of gravity. The fact of US (and world) imperialism has
to be taken into account. What is the plan to deal with it? Evidently those
leaders didn't have a successful one!

How many times do we have to go through this without learning some lessons?


I think the lessons are obvious. Unless a socialist revolution is 
consummated as was the case in Cuba, peripheral or semi-peripheral 
countries will ultimately succumb to economic or military pressure, or a 
combination of the two such as happened to Nicaragua.


So, what prevents such countries from "going all the way" as the Jack 
Barnes sect-cult characterized the FSLN? Missing from this kind of 
analysis, which includes John Reimann's posts as well, is an 
understanding of the relationship of forces. If Hugo Chavez had 
nationalized every last company in Venezuela as rapidly as Fidel Castro 
had done in Cuba in 1960, the economic and military pressures would have 
been ten times as great as they have been under Maduro. With the 
collapse of the USSR, it is much more difficult for such countries to 
survive. Putin and Xi Jinping view Venezuela as investment 
opportunities, not like the Soviet bureaucracy viewed Cuba.


More importantly, there is the question of how to build a revolutionary 
party in a place like Venezuela. There have been people like Stalin (an 
unfortunate first name bestowed by his parents) Pérez Borges in 
Venezuela that have been interviewed continuously in the ISO press for 
the past decade at least. They are ready to "go all the way" but they 
have never gotten the kind of following that Hugo Chavez got. To some 
extent, this simply reflects the uneven consciousness of the masses, a 
problem for which there is no easy solution.


Ultimately, the contradictions of capitalism worldwide will create the 
subsoil for the construction of a revolutionary international but it 
will not happen overnight. In my own modest way, I have tried to promote 
such an effort although in the USA at least the winds are in the sail of 
the DSA/Jacobin clubs whose most public leader has been featured in 11 
Vanity Fair and 7 Vogue articles. What is to be done? I guess just plow 
forwardly as best we can.




_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

One misstatement of fact by Professor Liebowitz: I did not visit Venezuela
"as a tourist". The word implies I was just there for my own personal
pleasure. I stayed with the family of a young man who was an active Chavez
supporter. I spent my time visiting working class and political events and
meeting and talking with workers. If that sounds like "tourism" to
Professor Liebowitz, so be it.

As for the issue of Venezuela in general: We have seen over and over again
how the masses of workers and peasants in one country after another in the
formerly colonial world find themselves betrayed. Look at Zimbabwe or South
Africa for example. And yet, at the time of the struggles, any suggestion
that maybe the leadership was something less than perfect was met with
complete derision by their left supporters here. Or consider this: We have
examples like Papa Doc Duvalier and Batista who came into office as left
reformers. We know how that turned out. Some will bitterly dispute it, but
I think Ortega is another example.

Yes, comrades can say "well, that's just because of the role of US
imperialism." Okay, lets even accept that for the moment. But it's like
saying that somebody died after jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge just
because of the role of gravity. The fact of US (and world) imperialism has
to be taken into account. What is the plan to deal with it? Evidently those
leaders didn't have a successful one!

How many times do we have to go through this without learning some lessons?

John Reimann
-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Stuart Munckton via Marxism]

  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.
*

I think Chris raised an essential point re: 2002 coup, but I'd extend it
further and discuss the whole period of intense class struggle from about
December 2001 (when Chavez announced his few dozen enabling laws that
touched property, however slightly, for the first time) until February 2003
with the defeat of the bosses lock out as the crucial period that
established the (yes unsteady, uneasy and contradictory) alliance between
the Chavista military, the urban and rural poor and key sectors of
industrial working class.

This alliance was the actual basis of Chavez's power and the strength of it
despite everything in recent years is why it is so hard to overthrow
Maduro. It was an alliance forged in the white heat of class (and national)
struggle, as the oligarchs, acting in concert with Washington, sought to
destroy Chavez and Bolivarianism, and were defeated by mass mobilisations
backed by rank and file soldiers and loyal officers.

In this, the April 2002 coup was a decisive point, but by itself didn't
resolve this. After the rebellion by loyal sectors of the military and the
urban poor restored Chavez, the government still lacked economic power and
had a still too narrow base of support. Chavez came back and immediately
compromised with the opposition, when politically you;d think he would have
been within his rights to react far more radically. But this reflected the
limits of the social base.

The bosses lock-out in December that year was a more prolonged battle that
the coup, which lasted a couple of days. By their sabotage, especially of
the oil industry, the oligarchs brought the economy to its knees The entire
process lasted many weeks and the suffering of the poor was real, it was a
major economic contraction.

This was defeated by early February 2003 by a broader alliance of the urban
and rural poor, loyal soldiers (who were critical to taking control over
pdvsa and other sectors), and the formal workers and industrial workers who
defeated the lock-out by physically retaking their workplaces.

This particular victory placed the oil company in the hands of the
government for the first time (what they have done right or wrong with it
since is for a different story), giving real economic power based on a
now-expanded and mobilised social base. The Chavista military sectors,
strengthened by the urban poor after April 2002, were now joined by larger
sectors of the formal workers too.

This is why at *that point* more decisive measures began, such as the
social missions that were initiated after the bosses lock out was defeated,
based on the structures created through the struggle to defeat the bosses
lock out.

The reason was as Michael Lebowitz (who  has already commented here)
explains so well when he describes this -- it was the defeat of the lock
out that placed "the sword" in the hands of the revolution (or Bonapartist
government, which ever makes you feel happier...)

And the alliances forged there (ie NOT simply the middle officers who
backed Chavez, though they mattered for sure) were essential to Chavez
continuing to govern in the face of attack, and the many electoral battles
often took on the dynamic of mass mobilisation of these alliances to push
the class enemy back ( the 2004 recall referendum definitely had this
dynamic).

The limits of all of this are clear to see. There were very serious
attempts to expand and radicalise all of this, to more decisively break the
power of the oligarchs. The how and why all that has stalled, if not been
rolled back -- but crucially not decisive defeated either -- is for a
different account. But there is no way that story goes "There was no
revolution coz Chavez only ever relied for power on a middle layer of
officers". That is totally ahistorical and ignores the huge, deep-going and
very wide-ranging class struggles over the past two decades.

Stuart

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 20:26, Greg McDonald via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> >
> > Frankly, anyone who spent any time going around to communal councils
> > there would recognise this as so much crap.
>
>
> What took you do long? I was beginning to wonder if marxmail had swung
> fully into the ranks of the Moronista party.
>
> >
> > 
> 

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela,

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  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.
*

I think this article has not be noted here so far, but it is a very
useful read -- especially in the context of  same ole Gonzalez-speak.:

Venezuela — Interview with Stalin Pérez Borges: “It will be very
difficult to defeat us.”
http://links.org.au/venezuela-stalin-perez-borges-luchas-difficult-defeat-us

Stalin Pérez Borges is a union leader and veteran socialist militant.
He is currently a member of LUCHAS (acronym for Unitarian Unionist
Chavista League, and also ‘Struggles’ in Spanish) and of the
Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Central (CBST) Advisory Council.
Intersecciones spoke to Pérez Borges about the current crisis in
Venezuela. The original Spanish version was published on February 7.
Translated by Pedro Alvarez from Aporrea

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Greg McDonald via Marxism]

  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.
*

>
> Frankly, anyone who spent any time going around to communal councils
> there would recognise this as so much crap.


What took you do long? I was beginning to wonder if marxmail had swung
fully into the ranks of the Moronista party.

>
> 
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[michael a. lebowitz via Marxism]

  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.
*

In his support of Mike Gonzalez' obiter dicta, John Reinmann has 
pontificated on the communal councils in Venezuela as follows:

when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At
that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of
mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example
(and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got
together to compete for the fruits of power.



Chris refers to the community councils. According to several people, these
were always a means of the Chavez regime exerting its influence on the
communities, and if the one that I attended was any example, it certainly
wasn't a venue for workers to exert their power.


Frankly, anyone who spent any time going around to communal councils 
there would recognise this as so much crap. What was obvious was the 
pride and sense of power that members of those councils had when talking 
about the projects and collective work they had engaged in. [You can see 
this these days from activists in the communes-- which you can read 
about in venezuelanalysis, glw and links.] As for John's observations 
when he visited as a tourist in 2005, it is worth noting that the law on 
communal councils [which greatly stimulated this as a national project] 
was not until 2006. There were, of course, earlier local initiatives 
[especially based on land committees]. One notable council [which became 
the model for the national law] was in the city of Cumana in the state 
of Sucre; the people who had taken the lead in organising and developing 
it for a few years came from the Liga Socialista [and one of the key 
people explained, we decidcd to focus upon the community because we 
concluded that we'd been trying to organise the wrong working class].

    michael

--
-
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
 University Drive
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Home:   Phone 604-689-9510
Cell: 604-789-4803


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

Yes, it's true that there was a mass uprising in 2002 that restored Chavez
to power, but that was not the basis of his power. That basis was the mid
level military officers.

Chris writes, "This uprising did not destroy the old state apparatus, but
it did provide an impetus for attempts to build alternatives, including the
social missions and the communal councils. " Nobody denied there was a
revolutionary impulse. But impulse or desire is not identical with what
actually happened.

And even Chris comes close to admitting this when he says that the reforms
were "only partially successful". As far as the social missions, such as
the low cost food stores for the poor and the health clinics - of course
they should be defended. Nobody ever implied anything different. Both Peron
and Lazaro Cardenas instituted reforms that should be defended. The latter,
for example, carried out the nationalization of the oil industry. But that
didn't change the nature of his regime, nor does it change the nature of
the Chavez/Maduro regime.

Chris refers to the community councils. According to several people, these
were always a means of the Chavez regime exerting its influence on the
communities, and if the one that I attended was any example, it certainly
wasn't a venue for workers to exert their power.

We cannot see bonapartism as always and everywhere being the same thing.
For a time a bonapartist regime can balance on the working class. That's
what Chavez did. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with
supporting Guaido or US imperialist influence in Venezuela, or anywhere
else.

John Reimann

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:45 PM Chris Slee  wrote:

> John Reimann says:
>
> "I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a
> mass
> uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power
> based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign
> apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class
> voters voted for him doesn't change this."
>
> Chavez came to power through an election, but after the coup on 2002 he
> was restored to power through a combination of the mass mobilisation of the
> urban poor and a rebellion in the army against the coup plotters.  This
> could be considered as a "a mass  uprising from below".
>
> This uprising did not destroy the old state apparatus, but it did provide
> an impetus for attempts to build alternatives, including the social
> missions and the communal councils.  These attempts have been only
> partially successful, but they reflect a revolutionary impulse that should
> be defended against the counter-revolution.
>
> Chris Slee
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Marxism  on behalf of John
> Reimann via Marxism 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 March 2019 6:00 AM
> *To:* Chris Slee
> *Subject:* Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela
>
>   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.
> *
>
> Rim Nelson writes: "This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a
> revolution deformed."
>
> I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass
> uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power
> based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign
> apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class
> voters voted for him doesn't change this.
>
> I also agree with Gonzalez's analysis of the PSUV. It never was a working
> class party. I saw the forerunner to it when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At
> that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of
> mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example
> (and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got
> together to compete for the fruits of power. Also, even then, every
> opportunist mainstream politician around suddenly became a "chavista". As
> various socialists, including Simon Rodriguez, report, from the start the
> leadership of the PSUV was selected from the top down, with the real
> fighters being excluded.
>
> A few weeks ago, the 

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Chris Slee via Marxism]

  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 Reimann says:

"I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass
uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power
based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign
apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class
voters voted for him doesn't change this."

Chavez came to power through an election, but after the coup on 2002 he was 
restored to power through a combination of the mass mobilisation of the urban 
poor and a rebellion in the army against the coup plotters.  This could be 
considered as a "a mass  uprising from below".

This uprising did not destroy the old state apparatus, but it did provide an 
impetus for attempts to build alternatives, including the social missions and 
the communal councils.  These attempts have been only partially successful, but 
they reflect a revolutionary impulse that should be defended against the 
counter-revolution.

Chris Slee




From: Marxism  on behalf of John Reimann 
via Marxism 
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2019 6:00 AM
To: Chris Slee
Subject: Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

  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.
*

Rim Nelson writes: "This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a
revolution deformed."

I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass
uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power
based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign
apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class
voters voted for him doesn't change this.

I also agree with Gonzalez's analysis of the PSUV. It never was a working
class party. I saw the forerunner to it when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At
that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of
mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example
(and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got
together to compete for the fruits of power. Also, even then, every
opportunist mainstream politician around suddenly became a "chavista". As
various socialists, including Simon Rodriguez, report, from the start the
leadership of the PSUV was selected from the top down, with the real
fighters being excluded.

A few weeks ago, the Wall St. Journal reported on how the military command
backs Maduro, and the WSJ is certainly no opponent of military governments!

So, what do we call a government that lacks the support of the mainstream
of its capitalist class and also isn't based on the working class? What do
we call a government that balances between the classes, resting in the main
on the military? Nothing but a bonapartist regime. That for a time this
regime balanced on the working class, that it introduced major reforms for
the working class, that it had the popular support of the working class for
a time, does not change this. All that could have been said about Peron
too, after all, although he and a similar figure - Lazaro Cardenas in
Mexico - didn't rest on the military so much. But theirs too were
bonapartist governments.

What's happened is that all too much of the left has gotten caught up in
this view that whoever appears to oppose US imperialism must be supported.

John Reimann

--
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

Rim Nelson writes: "This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a
revolution deformed."

I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass
uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power
based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign
apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class
voters voted for him doesn't change this.

I also agree with Gonzalez's analysis of the PSUV. It never was a working
class party. I saw the forerunner to it when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At
that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of
mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example
(and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got
together to compete for the fruits of power. Also, even then, every
opportunist mainstream politician around suddenly became a "chavista". As
various socialists, including Simon Rodriguez, report, from the start the
leadership of the PSUV was selected from the top down, with the real
fighters being excluded.

A few weeks ago, the Wall St. Journal reported on how the military command
backs Maduro, and the WSJ is certainly no opponent of military governments!

So, what do we call a government that lacks the support of the mainstream
of its capitalist class and also isn't based on the working class? What do
we call a government that balances between the classes, resting in the main
on the military? Nothing but a bonapartist regime. That for a time this
regime balanced on the working class, that it introduced major reforms for
the working class, that it had the popular support of the working class for
a time, does not change this. All that could have been said about Peron
too, after all, although he and a similar figure - Lazaro Cardenas in
Mexico - didn't rest on the military so much. But theirs too were
bonapartist governments.

What's happened is that all too much of the left has gotten caught up in
this view that whoever appears to oppose US imperialism must be supported.

John Reimann

-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, 3:13 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/04/venezuela-on-the-brink
>
> According to Gonzalez, it's just an inter-imperialist struggle. But these
> imperialisms seem to be on opposite sides, so can we at least take a
> position
> between sides? No, “there is nothing to choose between Guaidó and Maduro.”
> Nor
> should the Venezuelan army defend the country's territorial sovereignty:
> “for
> the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Venezuela’s border.” Also,
> support
> for the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution’s call for a
> referendum,
> which (not mentioned) they asked Guaidó to approve, in a meeting with him.
> And
> the international left is to be condemned for “supporting” Maduro – no
> evidence
> presented, the distinction between “defence” (against imperialism) and
> political
> support being lost on Gonzalez. Not to mention various misstatements of
> facts,
> hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.
>
> Richard
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

I have my criticisms of Mike on Latin America, but there needs to be a
clearer statement by the left of what is going wrong in Venezuela.

This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a revolution deformed.
That deformation, in part, is a result of pressure from the outside. One of
the results of that pressure is anti-democratic forces inside the
revolutionary movement became dominant.

Tim N

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, 3:13 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/04/venezuela-on-the-brink
>
> According to Gonzalez, it's just an inter-imperialist struggle. But these
> imperialisms seem to be on opposite sides, so can we at least take a
> position
> between sides? No, “there is nothing to choose between Guaidó and Maduro.”
> Nor
> should the Venezuelan army defend the country's territorial sovereignty:
> “for
> the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Venezuela’s border.” Also,
> support
> for the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution’s call for a
> referendum,
> which (not mentioned) they asked Guaidó to approve, in a meeting with him.
> And
> the international left is to be condemned for “supporting” Maduro – no
> evidence
> presented, the distinction between “defence” (against imperialism) and
> political
> support being lost on Gonzalez. Not to mention various misstatements of
> facts,
> hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.
>
> Richard
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 3/5/19 9:12 AM, Richard Fidler via Marxism wrote:

Not to mention various misstatements of facts,
hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.


Well, at least we have been spared Sam Farber's analysis. I guess 
Gonzalez is his understudy--the show must go on. I hope the professor 
emeritus is not ill or something. I always enjoyed reading his crap. It 
was like the "smell of napalm in the morning to me". It got my juices 
flowing.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/04/venezuela-on-the-brink

According to Gonzalez, it's just an inter-imperialist struggle. But these
imperialisms seem to be on opposite sides, so can we at least take a position
between sides? No, “there is nothing to choose between Guaidó and Maduro.” Nor
should the Venezuelan army defend the country's territorial sovereignty: “for
the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Venezuela’s border.” Also, support
for the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution’s call for a referendum,
which (not mentioned) they asked Guaidó to approve, in a meeting with him. And
the international left is to be condemned for “supporting” Maduro – no evidence
presented, the distinction between “defence” (against imperialism) and political
support being lost on Gonzalez. Not to mention various misstatements of facts,
hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.

Richard


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com