We have to overcome the poverty of language whenever US leftists listen to talks about poorer nations that do no reduce them to yellow journalism caricatures: "But they are not admirable"; "Do you think they are models for us?" Such statements and questions are silly. Venezuela can't be a model for the United States, given large differences in the level of economic development, the nature of relations of production at home, and external relations with foreign nations.
Venezuela, however, can be a model for Iran, both in its domestic and foreign policy. After all, both are oil producer nations and price hawks ("Venezuela's Minister of Energy and Petroleum Rafael Ramirez said on Monday that Venezuela supports the idea of an oil production cut at the next meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)" ["Venezuela Supports OPEC Production Cut: Minister," 23 May 2006, Xinhua, <http://english.people.com.cn/200605/23/eng20060523_267909.html>]), both have relatively well educated populations, both have managed to industrialize, and their per capita incomes are in the same league: Venezuela's GDP Per Capita: $5,800; and Iran's GDP Per Capita: $7,700.
Both wish to lead masses of the other nations in their respective regions under their respective leaderships. No doubt Chavez and Ahmadinejad have thought about these similarities, beyond the fact that they are both under pressures from Washington, though incomparably more so in the case of Iran than that of Venezuela.
Tariq Ali noted: "The mullah–bazaari nexus behind Rafsanjani has already thwarted Ahmadinejad's efforts to clean up the Oil Ministry, and remains entrenched in the Expediency Council" (at <http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR27201.shtml>). Ahmadinejad doesn't have to lose on this and other fights against the ruling class and clerical gerontocrats, if he could cultivate the sort of mass following in Iran, including its military and militias, in the fashion that Chavez has. I'm sure both men have thought about that.
The Chavez and Ahmadinejad administrations also have the same shortcoming: fondness for grandstanding. Washington just slapped a ban on weapons sales to Venezuela, and what does Caracas say? It might sell F-16s to Iran. That's more a gesture than anything else: after all, Iran doesn't need hard-to-maintain F-16s; but such a statement allows the Chavez government to assert its defiance of Washington to the max and plays well in the international gallery in Latin America and the Middle East. This shortcoming probably won't go away -- it's ingrained in the temperament of both leaders.
> Incidentally I'm pretty sure large number of leftists supported Chavez
> before the coup. Just about everyone was initially suspicious; lots
> of leaders are elected on a populist platform and then govern as
> neoliberals. Do you honestly think that no-one who supported Chavez
> inside Venezuela feared that? But I can give examples form Znet of
> support for Chavez in the time leading up to the coup. Since Znet
> is essentially a content aggregator not an opinion former, I'd
> consider that a good indicator. Examples:
>
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=1606 (2000)
> http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-08/02weisbrot.htm (Aug 2000 )
> http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/hallinanchavez.cfm (Dec 2001)
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=1607 (Feb 2002)
> http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2002-03/13pilger.cfm (March 2002)
Four articles in two years appear to me to be a skinny output, and one of them, by Marquez, ends thus: "While he [Chavez] moved off among his military escort and old friends, I shuddered at the thrill of having gladly traveled and talked with two contrary men. One to whom inveterate luck has offered the opportunity to save his country. And the other, a conjurer who could go down in history as one more despot" (at <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=1606>).
Besides, solidarity surely goes far beyond writing articles. There was no large mobilization against the anti-Chavez coup in the US during or after it, though Washington clearly had a hand in it. I'm afraid US leftists will do even less for Iran -- after all, there are now more people writing about Venezuela than Iran, more leftists have traveled to Venezuela than Iran, etc.
Stan Goff wrote recently: "If they DID drop a nuke on Iran, and if we didn't immediately start an open revolt that shut the whole f**king country down, we would deserve everything we get right until the next Zhukov walked his artillery across our own Berlin" (at <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/get-real-on-iran_b_20106.html?view=print>).
Well, Washington is not gonna nuke Iran, so that's a moot question, but I would not even count on people pouring into the streets against even that, if that happened.
On 5/22/06, BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Dennis writes:
>
> >You should definitely read the Goytisolo . . .
>
> . . . over and over again. He is the great queer
> secularist who keeps everyone honest.
>
> Even the NY Times just did a piece on him a few weeks
> back though they rarely ever reviewed him. It was in
> the context of promoting his secular vision (not because
> they suddenly loved him. Anything to bash Islam with).
I wont' have the time to read his novels any time soon, but I shall begin to translate some of his relatively recent politico-cultural essays for MRZine: e.g., "La defensa de las culturas amenazadas," "Entre manipulaciones y fetuas," and "Voltaire y el islam."
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>