Hard to be be Left in Venezuela
It's already quite hard to be Left in Venezuela given that much of what is debated strictly follows what Chávez' Government/Party puts forward. But something that makes it even harder to back, support, criticise and debate with peers and compañeros within our Left Government, is the quantity of entirely apologetic stuff put forward and written by supporters within the country and beyond its borders.
Solidarity is a tricky thing. On this point, see the latest in the 'solidarity genre' by the likes of Federico Fuentes in the Australian Green Left Weekly here. To respond to this would involve articulating the logic and limits of solidarity. How does one do solidarity? Solidarity with whom? How does your solidarity 'over there' engage with our struggles over here...
The point is that so much that would have to be acknowledged and questioned, is simply too intricate to be voiced in the work of solidarity, due to the way in which we usually carry out this practice. This is, I think, the problem with working exclusively under such a sign, and when privileging it, allowing both theoretical debate and everyday experiences to fall by the wayside.
But not only are theory and critique made subaltern to a somewhat problematic notion of identity (my solidarity is, in some sense not equal to, but a party to, your struggles); but the need to be rigourous and "hold accountable" those you are in solidarity with, to hold them accountable to their/our very own concept of the political or the revolution, so that the Venezuelan experience/revolution moves forward, is also excused.
And who are they who you are in solidarity with? Solidarity work, paradoxically, constitutes the political subject, the Venezuelan people, the chavistas, the socialists. It is this side of solidarity that needs to also be engaged with, brought itself into critique.
Solidarity is a tricky thing. On this point, see the latest in the 'solidarity genre' by the likes of Federico Fuentes in the Australian Green Left Weekly here. To respond to this would involve articulating the logic and limits of solidarity. How does one do solidarity? Solidarity with whom? How does your solidarity 'over there' engage with our struggles over here...
The point is that so much that would have to be acknowledged and questioned, is simply too intricate to be voiced in the work of solidarity, due to the way in which we usually carry out this practice. This is, I think, the problem with working exclusively under such a sign, and when privileging it, allowing both theoretical debate and everyday experiences to fall by the wayside.
But not only are theory and critique made subaltern to a somewhat problematic notion of identity (my solidarity is, in some sense not equal to, but a party to, your struggles); but the need to be rigourous and "hold accountable" those you are in solidarity with, to hold them accountable to their/our very own concept of the political or the revolution, so that the Venezuelan experience/revolution moves forward, is also excused.
And who are they who you are in solidarity with? Solidarity work, paradoxically, constitutes the political subject, the Venezuelan people, the chavistas, the socialists. It is this side of solidarity that needs to also be engaged with, brought itself into critique.
Comments
Post a Comment