John Thornton wrote:
>
> The problem seems to be that they aren't poor enough to get the
> benefits intended for the truly poor but also not wealthy enough or
> situated socially to have the power to demand wage hikes. Venezuela
> knows this is a problem and is working on it.
"Consideration of the general historical patterns that characterize the twenbtieth century, then, calls into question the post-strucutralist understanding of history as essentially contingent. This does not, however, necessarily involve ignorning the critical insight that attempts to deal with history contingently -- namely, that history, understood as the uhfolding of immanent necessity, should be understood as marking a form of un-freedom." Moishe Postone, "Theorizing the Contemporary World: Robert Brenner, Giovanni Arrighi, David Harvey," in Robert Albritton, Roberet Jessop and Richard Westra, eds., _Political Economy and Global Capitalism: The 21st Century, Present and Future_ (London & New York: Anthem Press, 200u), p. 8
Put more crudely, scientific knowledge is not and cannot be democratic, and IF there were a Science of Socialism _or_ a Science of Revolution, then there could be no freedom in either. But these attempts to judge the Venezuelan Revolution from afar, to state where it is going correctly, where it is somehow failing, make no sense except on the assumption of a General Theory (or Science) of What Revolution Is and What Are the Parameters by which it can be recognized and judged. Bull Shit.
Revolution, except for certain banalities, is a wholly contingent process, and most of the events which occur within _any_ revolution will turn out in retrospect to have been in error or even criminal. That is how contingent processes work out. We do know that the Venezuelan Revolution is in general an anti-imperialist struggle, that it is a process of struggle at least in part involving the Venezuelan people.
Carrol