Saturday, November 24, 2007

Taking it to the empire?

The Venezuelan government has long decried the use of U.S. government money to fund opposition within the country. It is political intervention, an attack on sovereignty and therefore unacceptable. So now Hugo Chávez figures he might as well do it too.

Posted by Greg Weeks at 8:46 AM
Labels:

9 comments:

Justin Delacour,  3:49 PM  

I'm not sure that's a good idea. It's one thing if you have the long-term capacity to compete with the United States and Europe in financing political groups in the region. If you don't have the long-term capacity, however, the superior strategy is to hold to a principled position of opposing any such funding arrangements. I'm not sure Venezuela can compete in this realm over the long haul.

Anonymous,  7:38 PM  

Is there not something in the reformas that says it will no longer be allowed?

Bosque,  8:04 PM  

Governments look for those in other countries with a similar ideology and provide support. No, it does not make it right and yes, it has caused problems the world over.

I think it would be sound to only provide support in the form of food, medicine, and education. Sometimes monetary depending on whether or not the persons were being marginalized from regular society.

One should never provide armas.

Anonymous,  12:08 AM  

Chavez is an internationalist, like his mentor Castro.
It doesn't matter if this is a good or a bad idea, he will do it anyways. He wants to export the "revolution" that is what an internationalist does.

Justin Delacour,  2:14 PM  

Chavez is an internationalist, like his mentor Castro. It doesn't matter if this is a good or a bad idea, he will do it anyways. He wants to export the "revolution" that is what an internationalist does.

I think that's rather simplistic. Castro is a realist. A realist doesn't make decisions on the basis of abstract principles such as "internationalism." A realist's "internationalism" extends only so far as he or she considers such a project to have the prospect of achieving its objectives.

From the perpective of a revolutionary realist, it makes sense to try to "spread the revolution" only if the objective conditions exist for such a campaign to succeed.

My only concern, once again, is that such a campaign could backfire if Venezuela is not able to effectively compete with the United States and Europe in financing political groups in the region over the long term.

Anonymous,  10:48 PM  

Came on Justin, You can do betterr than that, you do know about Marxism and internationalism.

Castro a realist? That's good. Think Congo, Bolivia, Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela (not now camarada but in the sixties). He didn't achieve any of those (Nicaragua almost I guess).

Castro is the definition of failed internationalism.

I thought you were a scholar but not even that. You are just a naive propagandist or a blind fanatic.

Anonymous,  11:17 PM  

by the way, I meant Angola no Congo

Justin Delacour,  1:56 AM  

Came on Justin, You can do betterr than that, you do know about Marxism and internationalism.

There are so many varieties of Marxism that to speak in such generalities will never get one very far. Trotskyist "internationalism" is only one conception of Marxism. "Internationalism" is an abstract principle, not a guide to revolutionary practice that holds independently of the actual conditions that exist in the world.

A realist approach would suggest that the Chavez government seeks to extend its international influence at this particular juncture because it currently wields the economic power to do so, not because it adheres unconditionally to some abstract principle of "internationalism."

Castro a realist? That's good. Think Congo, Bolivia, Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela (not now camarada but in the sixties). He didn't achieve any of those (Nicaragua almost I guess).

I wouldn't venture to say that Castro has always been a realist. "In the sixties" is the key phrase here. (And some of the failures to which you point provide insights into why it isn't always wise for revolutionaries to adhere unconditionally to the abstract principle of "internationalism"). The Cubans' approach is quite pragmatic today. Notice that Cuba hasn't supported any guerrilla movements in the region since the '80s.

Anonymous,  8:07 AM  

You can do a lot better in such a basic basic leftist subject. Who said this?
"The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP