Washington Post on Castro's "legitimacy"

In the front page blurb for this article, the WaPo asks, "Does Hugo Chávez really have what it takes to assume Fidel Castro's place as the leader of Latin American anti-imperialism?" Just what you were asking yourself, right? Does Chávez really have what it takes to stand up to imperialist running-dog lackeys of the bourgeoisie. Here is part of the answer:

. . . Chávez is the piper leading the most strident anti-Americanism to parade through Latin America since the Bay of Pigs invasion, and his ascent has done much to shape the popular belief that radical left-wing governments modeled after his own will soon dominate the region. But does Chávez really have what it takes to assume Castro's place as the leader of Latin American anti-imperialism? Will he become a permanent pebble in Washington's shoe, as persistent and vexing as Castro, for decades to come?

Certainly, Chávez seems to believe so. However, he is missing much more than the charisma of the receding Cuban leader. He lacks the essential ingredient to take Fidel's place: legitimacy. Castro, for all his faults, earned his anti-American and anti-imperialist stripes. Chávez, awash in petrodollars, is too embedded in the very global system he purports to reject.

Are you catching the tone of that? The Soviet Union wasn't imperialist. Castro was not once "awash" in kopeks. No, he was an idealist who led the struggle against imperialism.

Tags: Castro, Chavez, anti-imperialism, Latin America, WaPo