[Marxism] Chavez was right [was: RE: Chávez and Holocaust indifference]

nada dwaltersMIA at gmail.com
Mon Sep 28 19:40:21 MDT 2009


"What is dismissed as an "alliance" with Ahmedinejad
which is not "something to celebrate" is instead the confluence of the
national interests of Venezuela and Iran, two countries that are special
targets of imperialism."

I thought this was an interesting comment by Joaquin. I would say there 
is an "alliance" (as Chavez himself has pointed to often enough) but it 
is based on a real "confluence" of national interests. It is a 
governmental alliance based on trade, science and a generally defined 
anti-American Imperialism. On the level of *actions* I don't have a 
problem with this. But part of this is a political abstensionism by 
Chavez, his government, the PSUV and others on actual motions on the 
ground, such as in Iran, of the class struggle and a movement for 
democracy. Chavez, at the level of rhetoric, often hyperbolic, like his 
comments about how "good" the Kaddafi speech was (maybe he was joking?), 
seems to have no audience whatsoever. Who is he speaking too? Certainly 
not anybody in the belly of the beast.

I was jumped on three years ago when I thought Chavez was a complete 
fool to criticize Bush the way he did at the UN. Joaquin jumped in with 
a "how much I like that guy because of it" sort of comment. I thought 
Chavez's speech was buffoonery, because he came off like that and 
allowed the US media to personalize the politics as one between Chavez 
and Bush. That was Chavez's fault (because in fact, that's exactly what 
Chavez did with overdrawn metaphors), not the capitalist anti-socialist 
media in the US. He opened the door for all the crap thrown his way 
since, IMO. It's clear Joaquin must of been one of this advisers because 
Joaquin doesn't really care how much Chavez comes off HERE in the U.S., 
as if the population of the US, their opinions, their education on what 
is going on in Venezuela and the role Venezuela really plays, is of no 
importance to Chavez, or his advisers and speech writers, or to Venezuela.

Chavez came off SO much better this time, not so much in his speech, but 
because he took the media seriously, with long extended interviews. You 
know how one knows  this is true? Because it got almost NO mention 
generally except the notice that "Chavez spoke to Larry King" or this or 
that reporter. Virtually nothing he stated in the media here was 
replayed on commented on, except the Kaddafi nonsense. So it's our job, 
in a real way, to publicize those parts of Chavez's intervention at the 
UN to draw down the propaganda war against the Revolution there. A lot 
easier this time than last.

But Chavez makes a lot of assumptions about his gov't support to various 
diplomatic initiatives and about his "friends". Clearly, if I were an 
Iranian revolutionary, I wouldn't count, couldn't count, on Venezuela 
for support, not even rhetorically because Chavez has wedded the 
Venezuelan revolution to the fate of the Iranian *government*...as 
opposed to Iranian national sovereignty alone, the real issue. To bad 
it's more the former than the latter.

David




More information about the Marxism mailing list