> Csenior:
>
> Could you please tell me what "long-standing assumptions- are being
> challenged by gratuitously calling Hugo Chavez a Stalinist and Leninist?
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: Calling him a Leninist is a compliment. Hopefully he is a Leninist.
--------------------------------
I also thought the comparison to Lenin was flattering, although obviously
not intended as such by the person who made it. Chavez certainly admires
Leninists like Alan Woods, the British Trotskyist, and Fidel, and and
presumably many others in and around his circle who describe themselves that
way. And if he does yet consider himself a Leninist, he may, like his good
friend Fidel four decades ago, discover through personal experience that he
is one. Chavez clearly understands the need to adapt his strategy to accord
with the evolving level of popular consciousness and the changing domestic
and international political situation - something which sometimes frustrates
his more impatient (ultra)left critics - but political realism is not
exclusive to Leninism. He also says his goal is "socialism", but that's such
an ambigious concept - everyone from New Dealers to social democrats to
Marxists have identified themselves as such -that it can't serve as a
decisive marker, either.
It seems to me that in his social reforms, revolutionary rhetoric, expropriation of unused arable land, foreign policy, and distribution of arms to the people, Chavez has advanced to the Rubicon. He crosses it into Leninist territory, IMO, if and when he and his Bolivarian movement decide to politically and economically expropriate the Venezuelan bourgeoisie (ie. ban the liberal and conservative parties and media and end large-scale private ownership). That's what the Bolsheviks and July 26th movement did, and it is what provoked armed imperialist intervention. I doubt - or at least it is very unclear to me at this stage - whether Chavez will want to, be prepared to, or (as is usually the case) be forced to go that far. But I certainly admire his domestic and foreign policy goals, his tactical ability, and what he has accomplished to date.
Having said that, I have no problem with Michael P or others challenging my assumption, which I think is generally shared on the left - to wit, that Chavez is neither a Stalinist or (presently) a Leninist. They have the right to make the assertion that he is one or the other or both, and, if it is a well reasoned argument, I want to hear it and leave myself open to changing or modifying my views on the basis of new information, as I've done many times before. If these characterizations are just presented as empty apolitical epithets, as is often the case - and not only from MP - then I quickly move on. But CSenior evidently thinks I should get as exercised at these charges as he does, as if Pugliese was an enemy of the people and the fate of the revolution depended on ripping off his mask. These kind of denunciations, frankly, strike me as just more theatrics by an enfeebled Western left which often imagines it is more consequential that it actually is and turns its frustrations in on itself.
MG