Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Interesting article. I agree that Michelleti and his cohort have succedded in polarizing the left and right positions in Honduras, just as Chavez has done in Venezuela. Why, though, does Professor Grandin believe that there is no progressive left alternative? Such an assertion seems to reify the polarization that politicans construct to help advance their positions. Funes in El Salvador and Lula in Brazil have articulated more measured approaches to the Honduras situation, in concert with their progressive but unradical governance programs. Are their positions not representative of a progressive, left alternative? If so, then what are they representative of? Moreover, on issues besides Honduras, Grandin seems to imply that one must be either with or against "the left." Is that posture based on an assertion that there ought not to exist different currents of thinking on the left when it comes to political struggle or an empirical observation that the two left camps (lead by Lula and Chávez) are in fact one force?

Michael McCarthy

Baltimore, MD

Oct 13 2009 - 3:38pm

Web Letter

The best way to overthrow the coup government and weaken the power of the Honduran oligarchy is through the creation of soviets, or councils, of workers, peasants and, crucially, soldiers. Including the latter in such soviets is the best, perhaps the only, way to break the hold of the elite on the army through the officer corps. And if such soviets lead to a dual power situation and ultimately to a proletarian revolution, including supporting peasant expropriation of the land, that's all to the good.

Charles K. Alexander II

Albany, NY

Oct 13 2009 - 9:47am