RE: [Marxism] Chávez Plans to Take More Control Of O il Away From Foreign Firms
lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Apr 24 13:04:40 MDT 2006
>RICARDO ALARCON explains 21st Century Socialism this way:
>It seems to me that Chávez provides the right contribution through
>his formulation of 21st Century Socialism, which is not just any kind
>of socialism, for its features are similar to Venezuelas.
Rebelion: Can there be a Cuban social movement linked with any Argentinean
piquetero movement opposed to Kirchner so that they state their support for
those movements when Kirchner sends them to prison or to trial in order to
neutralize their protests?
Ricardo Alarcon: I dont see any contradiction therein. (clip)
Our FEU [Federation of University Students] would certainly have to make
many statements different from those the Chancellery would have to make for
reasons of solidarity. Im sure they did in the old days. Expressions of
solidarity were immediately aired at the time when Mexico voted in the OAE
or when something big happened regarding the Mexican students. And of
course, whenever there was a discussion or a voting within the IUS
[International Union of Students, Prague], the most complicated issue then,
they acted autonomously.
Well, that's an interesting question. The Castro Speech Database is at:
Out of curiosity, I tried to find condemnation of the Mexican government in
1968 after the army opened fire on student protestors. I couldn't find any
I can understand this, since at the time Mexico was one of the few OAS
countries that tried to pursue normal relations with Cuba. In a way,
Castro's rather ambivalent declarations on the Soviet army's intervention
into Czechoslovakia revealed the same kind of limited options when it comes
to foreign policy.
And today, the Cuban press has far fewer articles pointing out the class
injustices of China than does the NY Times. If Cuba was as large and as
powerful as China, I am sure that it would spare no words in condemning the
crimes of an ally even that ally was ruled by a nominally Communist Party.
Those are the realities of an isolated socialist government trying to make
its way in a capitalist world.
If you read the first volume of E.H. Carr's history of the early Soviet
state, you'll discover that it occasionally violated socialist principles
in the interests of self-preservation. For example, it hammered out a trade
and diplomatic treaty with Turkey at the expense of the Armenians despite
the fact that the Armenians were far more sympathetic to the cause of
socialism than the Turks at the time.
At any rate, socialists in the USA and elsewhere are not operating under
similar restrictions. We have no need to mute our criticisms of Brazil,
China or South Africa even if they are favorably disposed to trade with
Cuba. At least, that's what I think.
More information about the Marxism