[Marxism] Fwd: The tragedy of Venezuela | Michael Roberts
1999wildcat at gmail.com
Sat Aug 5 07:45:32 MDT 2017
People seem to take objection to the article by Michael Roberts on
I think it is correct to characterize the regime there as bonepartist.
Chavez rose to power based on the support of a layer of mid and lower level
military officers. He never had the support of the Venezuelan capitalist
class, but neither was he based on the organizations of the working class.
In other words, he hovered above or between the classes.
Yes, he carried through many reforms that benefited the working class and
the poor, but they were not in control. And what is so strange about that?
Didn't Peron do the same thing? Or Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico?
A typical bonepartist regime can shift its balance over time. With the
economic crisis there, according to Roberts, the Maduro regime is resting
more directly on the military, such as for example the special priviliged
stores open to the soldiers. Do people deny that?
I also agree that as far as the economy goes, Chavez went part way. He
nationalized many major industries (and gave state support to worker
cooperatives in other cases). But what wasn't developed was a planned
economy. Under democratic state planning, the economy could have been
developed in a way that would have left it less dependent on oil exports.
None of this means support for Capriles or the right wing opposition. But
it also doesn't mean socialists should uncritically support Maduro.
"No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them."
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com and //
More information about the Marxism