Small detail


Our old friend Henry Ramos Allup is at it again, claiming that ideological differences within the opposition’s MUD are not a big deal, because Chile’s Concertación was made up of socialists, marxists, and Christian Democrats.

Only … that’s not what the Concertación was about at all.

Marxists were specifically excluded from the Concertación, and to this day they do not belong to the alliance. In fact, the Concertación has always been reluctant to be identified with the Communists, because this would mean losing the political center. The only parties that were members were the center-left Socialist, PPD, and Radical parties, and the Christian Democrats, who were center or center-left, but certainly not center-right. Ideological differences within the Concertación were relatively minor.

I hope that this is just a case of a journalist misquoting a politician. The alternative is that either Ramos Allup doesn’t understand the basics of the example he is citing, or that he’s lying.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.


  1. Maybe. But the Venezuelan Marxists who are in the MUD are not comparable to, say, the PCV. The Chilean PS did have a number of Marxists who had to eventually renounce -if not Marxism as a means of analysing society- at least any notions of dictatorship by the proletariat. Take PS-Almeyda, who had pursued a policy of anti-government strikes witht the Communist Party during the Pinochet era, and ultimately became a signing member of the original Concertacion por el No in the late eighties.

    Moreover, there are just as many vocal Marxists groups in the MUD than in the Concertación, and yet they all agreed on the 2009 parliamentary program, and they all work for the same goal and, so far, through the same means. And all this without the mutual contempt and alacrity of the Chilean DC and PS.

    So I think Henry Ramos has a point: we have less baggage, and we have pretty much the same discipline and goals.

  2. A fundamental difference is that Chilean concertacion had an instrumental goal in excluding the commies: Appeal to the center of the political spectrum while fighting a right-wing dictatorship. So what do you do when facing a far left-wing dictatorship to appeal to the center? IMHO, it is of utterly strategic importance to encourage and nourish the left-wing side of the MUD. Ismael and Henry Falcon have an importance way way beyond the share of the votes of their micro parties. They are the living example that life after CH would be possible. They are el otro lado de la talanquera….

    • “Ismael and Henry Falcon have an importance way way beyond the share of the votes of their micro parties. They are the living example that life after CH would be possible. They are el otro lado de la talanquera….”

      Which is why I think that Henry Falcon would be a great candidate. Seems to me that he would be able to pull votes from many places that Chavez is counting on. However, I don’t see him winning the primaries, so there goes that thought. As to whether he would make a great president, that’s another story……

    • Thanks Roberto for the link.

      So it seems that the presidential elections will be advanced, and that the MUD will not have enough time to organize primaries.

      But who needs primaries! After all, we have HRA to pick the candidate that will guarantee Chavez-AD survival for the following 6 years.

      • Isn’t HRA himsalef saying that the MUD would bring up the primarias if needed…? Hasn-t the MUD said they have a B Plan…?

  3. He is right that ideological differences are not compromising MUD’s unity. What is compromising MUD’s unity are the conflicts of interests, being HRA the perfect example of that.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here