Batista funeral inoted states4/11/2023 ![]() But cut him out and there will be a demand for such a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found.” (Engels Letter to Borgius, 25 January 1894, Marx and Engels Correspondence, pp.467-68) That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particular time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. This is where the so-called great men come in for treatment. The necessity which here asserts itself athwart all accident is again ultimately economic necessity. Their aspirations clash, and for that very reason all such societies are governed by necessity, the complement and form of appearance of which is accident. “Men make their history themselves, but not as yet with a collective will according to a collective plan or even a definite, delimited given society. Towards the end of his life, in Fredrick Engels wrote: He acted as a catalyst, which, when all the conditions are present, produces a dramatic change. ![]() The personal role of Chávez was decisive. Venezuelan society and politics would have returned to that monotonous routine determined by tradition and the inertia of habit. Without his actions, it is also possible that those tragic events would have passed into history as a mere footnote. Without the Caracazo in February 1989, it is not impossible that Hugo Chávez might have remained an army officer pursuing a normal military career unknown to the public.īut there is another side to the question. ![]() Yet these same two men for most of their lives found themselves in a tiny minority, isolated from the masses and unable to influence events in a decisive way. Without two men, Lenin and Trotsky, the Russian Revolution of 1917 would never have succeeded. But when a particular concatenation of circumstances arises, it requires men and women of a certain type to take advantage of them to move millions of people into action. Their role is always limited and conditioned by circumstances beyond their control. It merely asserts that individuals, no matter how capable, are never free agents. Marxism does not deny the role of the individual in history. But that is democracy! The opposition, if it is to be truly democratic, must begin by respecting the will of the majority of the people and not to use its economic levers and control of the media to sabotage the democratic will of the people. Nobody has prevented the opposition from standing in elections. But if the government had not called elections, as it had the duty to do according to the Constitution, they would be complaining of dictatorship. In Venezuela it took over four years for action to be taken against any of them, when RCTV was denied the renewal of its open to air licence, but allowed to continue to broadcast over cable.Įven so, the opposition has complained that the Presidential election of April 14 has been called too soon. ![]() If any British television channel had done one tenth of the things they did, it would have its license withdrawn before it could say “David Cameron” and its owners would find themselves on trial under the Anti-Terrorist Laws. Do you think that would be permitted in the United States? RCTV, Globovisión, Venevisión, all the privately owned TV channels played a very active role in organizing the 2002 coup. They seem to complain a lot about alleged ill treatment, but I see no basis for these complaints.įor years the pro-opposition media was allowed to slander the President in the most scandalous way, to call for his overthrow and even assassination. In fact, the Bolivarian revolution has been extraordinarily lenient with its opponents who, do not forget, organized an illegal coup against a democratically elected government in 2002. He won more elections and other electoral processes than any other political leader in the world. Whatever you think about Hugo Chávez, he was certainly no dictator. The spiteful arguments of the enemies of the Revolution to the effect that Chávez is a dictator were always ironic. And the avalanche of filth keeps pouring out. Never has the so-called free press resorted to so many distortions, falsifications and outright lies. Never has there been such an outpouring of hatred, malice, bile and poison. I cannot remember a campaign of such ferocity in the media as that which was unleashed against Hugo Chávez during his lifetime. If anything, it grew steadily in intensity until his death, and after it. It reflected the fundamental class division of society. ![]() Behind this hatred there was fear – fear for the loss of their wealth, power and privileges. The hatred the ruling class showed towards Chavez was the hatred of the rich for the poor, of the exploiter for the exploited. Following excerpts adapted from the author’s article originally published in ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |