>Very good article. But Chavez is not trying to " spread
>revolutionary fervor through South America." This is the thesis of
>the neo-cons at the State Dept.
He's trying to round up allies among his neighbors, no?
Gott was purged from The Guardian for being too left. There's no way he's a neo-con. Is it just that anyone who disagrees with you is a right-winger?
>Chavez, as the article points out, is hardly even a "leftist'.
>Perhaps these terms are losing meaning now. If you count the No. of
>nationalized banks, private businesses taken over, confiscated
>farms, state capital venture enterprises, gosplans, etc, they all
>equal zero.So Hugo is at most a compassionate reformist using oil
>money to advance social programs in education, health and common
>infrastructure,
He knows that that's about all he can do right now. According to Tariq Ali, who's met with Chavez, Castro has advised him to be cautious and not to antagonize the US too much. Does that make Castro a right-winger too?
Venezuela is an interesting case study for those who advocate "delinking" from the global economy. If Venezuela, with low foreign debts, huge oil income, and a leader with once-in-a-generation political skills and 70% popular support, thinks its freedom to maneuver is circumscribed, then what can poorer and weaker countries do?
>Final question is what does the US ruling elite gains from
>supporting the incompetent Venezuelan old guard? Wouldn't it be in
>their best interest to support Chavez?
You could have asked the first question about many countries at many times. On the second, Chavez is a stubborn, principled guy who's not likely to be bought off. Washington hates everything he stands for. How could they support him?
Doug