Well CC, What would you find reassuring? Handouts? Pork Barrel spending? Paying people to fill out voter registration forms for Donald Duck?

This is written by a socialist, Michael Brenyo, in the Socialist Worker Mag.

I hate to say it but I must be honest and say I agree with him:

Stop apologizing for Chávez

I CANNOT help but feel that Lee Sustar's article "What's Really Happening In Venezula?" (November 30) is a malicious lie at worst, and grossly misinformed at best.

As opposed to analyzing what Chávez is doing in Venezuela with a critical eye, Sustar has acted as an apologist for Chávez's actions. Various points made in the article are contradictory not only to socialist politics, but to the working of a basic democratic society.

Take, for example, the way Sustar describes the closure of the RCTV channel. Decried for supporting the coup that deposed Chávez and for espousing the beliefs of the opposition, it has been shut down.

Instead of being up in arms about this, we are told that it is an excusable action. Utilizing this logic, what prevents the United States from shutting down papers such as Socialist Worker? Are we not an "opposition" force as well? Aren't we trying to usher in a radical restructuring of society that would ultimately dismantle what is currently in place?

Sustar refuses to acknowledge that the bad must also be taken with the good. An opposed viewpoint, no matter how despicable, must be tolerated and not stamped into submission. We are supposed to prove our superiority through politics and organization, not by exercising the power to squelch them out.

Another example can be found in the way that Sustar supports Chávez's constitutional "reforms." Regardless of all the wonderful things Chávez is proposing, one cannot help but see his consolidation of power as a sticking point.

Someone needs to ask what the motivations are for these actions. I can recall many times throughout history in which leaders have taken it upon themselves to more accurately represent their people through "reforms." Once all of Chávez's oil wealth runs out, what is really going to remain? The massive public works projects or the constitutional power?

I also find Sustar's swipe at the U.S. Constitution a low blow as well. I don't really see how one of the most important documents in the history of the world can be considered a relic. If Bush proposed the same alterations to the Constitution that Chávez has, I'm sure there would be a multitude of protests attempting to limit his naked increase of power. But in Chávez's case, it is considered acceptable.

Lastly, does Sustar notice the irony in criticizing university students for their participation in protests? Is it not the International Socialist Organization's policy to perform a large amount of recruitment from university campuses all over the United States?

Furthermore, just because these students in Venezuela are middle class, it doesn't mean that they are conservative. Class consciousness can be mixed. Creating a broad generalization that university students are anti-Chávez simply because they are conservative is conflating the actual issue.

I sincerely hope that in the future, Sustar will analyze issues with an objective lens. Someone cannot be confused as to what is going on simply because it is couched in leftward-leaning terms. I hardly see anything superiorly democratic occurring in Venezuela.