[lbo-talk] Embracing Chavez Too Late (was NYT to Chávez : Drop Dead)

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Sun May 21 01:48:04 PDT 2006


On 5/20/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> In fact, you sound a lot like the ISO guy I
> was arguing Chavez with a few weeks ago - he dismissed him for taking
> the "Castro" route.

He must be the only ISO guy who doesn't care for Chavez. The Socialist Worker is as supportive of Chavez as almost all other schools of leftists: "Venezuela's Challenge to the Empire," 19 May 2006, <http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/589/589_03_Venezuela.shtml>.

Near the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution, opinions about Chavez were quite divided. Not now. Chuck and your ISO man must be the last Chavez skeptics.

That is ironic, because Chavez doesn't need US leftists' support now: his national and Latin American support is rock-solid, and Washington is too busy with the Middle East, what with campaigns for dual regime changes in Iran and Palestine -- to make a major move against Venezuela at this moment.

Most US leftists seem to me to be always a couple of years behind the revolutionary solidarity schedule: they embraced Chavez too late to give him support when he could have used it (2002, the year of the anti-Chavez coup and lockout); they committed to US withdrawal too late to prevent the death of modern Iraq. I fear that, by the time when they manage to pay attention to Iran and its leader, they will have already missed the train again.

-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list