I actually think that Eric, with whom I disagree about almost everything, may have a point here.
--- On Thu, 6/18/09, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please. The U.S. stance toward Venezuela, except for the
> 2002 coup and
> especially since then--and even that, as Arbenz and Allende
> could tell
> you, was a pretty halfassed effort--has been marked more by
> tolerance
> than anything else. That is, when it hasn't been
> indifferent to the
> developments there. There are probably many reasons for
> this--other
> priorities, inability to pull off a counterrevolution
> because of
> diplomatic constraints, etc.--but at least part of the
> reason is that
> the U.S. realizes its "interests" are not threatened by
> Venezuela. The
> occasional mildly belligerent statement by U.S. officials
> only acts as
> a reminder that the U.S. has been relatively unconcerned
> with Chavez.
>
> But this has done nothing to relieve Chavez--and when I say
> "Chavez,"
> I don't of course just mean the person--of the feeling that
> the U.S.
> is out to get him. It's as if every moment of silence from
> the U.S. is
> a provocation, more evidence of subterfuge. You can see
> this most
> obviously in his louder and more frequent statements,
> especially since
> 2004, about U.S. imperialism and the like. But the fear
> that he will
> be overthrown is evidenced in his actions: the increasing
> importance
> of the military to the revolution, his desire to become
> president for
> life, his dissolving of independent unions in the name of
> "cooperatives," the unification of parties, etc. All while
> the U.S.
> ignores him.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>