Non intervention

I think the primary issue for the democratic left in the U.S., and for DSA, is support for a non intervention policy by our own government. Many parts of the left have a tragic history of supporting this movement or that from afar. Usually we do not know the situation on the ground and the complexity of movements and struggles. We should – usually- not be picking from among competing factions.
This applies to Venezuela, to Brazil, to Peru, Chile, Mexico, etc.
Now, we can read about and inform ourselves but the real question is how do we support non-intervention. As in Non Intervention in Chile .
Clearly we have learned since the invasion of the Dominican Republic, and since Chile (1973) that intervention comes in several forms. At times there are direct military interventions by U.S. forces. At times proxy forces are created ( Nicaraguan Contras, Salvadoran and Guatemalan death squads. )
And, most often the intervention is by the IMF, the World Bank, and other agencies which the U.S. is very capable of steering in one direction. For a long time in Latin America the intervention was aided and abetted by AIFLD, and we need to keep an eye on current foreign policy implements of our labor movement. There were resolutions on this at the last AFL-CIO convention.

In the case of Venezuela and the non renewal of the T.V. licenses. Since private, oligarchic capital controls 95% of the air waves, having the government take over 30% of the air waves seems like a reasonable act. I would be worried if they took over 70%.
Creating a new labor federation to compete with the old corrupt labor federation seems like a reasonable act. It will of course be important to see if the new federation is democratic.

There is much to learn here. Listening to the voices on the ground is important.

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/leftturns/ (its a Canadian source,)

But, our primary task remains non-intervention. That is our responsibility.


Duane Campbell