Chavez- friend of the left or not?

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm quite ignorant about the situation in Venezuela and i'm humble enough admit that i should learn more about it. This thread is made on the coat tails of a documentary i watched last night called 'red oil'. From the outset, this documentary didnt seem that too anti-chavez which made me suspicious (why would a liberal tv channel be portraying him in a positive light). It did of course, feature many of his homegrown critics. Mainly CEO's of the formerly privatised oil company complaining about alledged corruption on the part of Chavez's party members and spending billions of dollars on social development projects. There was also another guy living out in the slums who criticised the government for not doing more to help. This was the only working class critic they had on though, which made me think there wasnt too many of them.

From an outsiders perspective, especially a leftist like myself it difficult to find reason to criticise what Chavez is doing which is why i'm often puzzled when i read anti-chavez sentiment on revleft. He successfully nationalised the oil, is forging a leftist network of friends across South America and has established a prescence in North America which produces cheap services to give impoverished americans access to central heating during the cold months. The way in which Venezuela has managed to help america's own people and produce television adverts critical of US policy in it's own back yard is an enormous embarressment to the US government.

So what is your opinion of Chavez, and should we at revleft offer our solidarity to today's Venezuela or not?

[Charles Xavier]

Hugo Chavez has made many mistakes during his presidency but has lead an left-wing anti-imperialist government which has reduced poverty immensely and brought more control to working people.

It is the class forces which put these governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting them into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition which has millions more to spend on advertisement and owns almost all the media? I am not saying these are revolutionaries, they do however represent an elevated class consciousness of working people, especially in regards to imperialism.

It is without a doubt while this is not a communist government, it is one of of the most progressive governments in the history of Latin America. In this regard we should support the government of Venezuela.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No

[Dr Mindbender]

No

Based on what?

Please don't post monosyllabic answers, i want to learn.

I thought the thread was of political value though which is why i refrained from posting it in learning.

[Cumannach]

ulster socialist there's a really amazing documentary, maybe you've seen it already but if not;

"the revolution will not be televised"

it's a documentary about the failed right wing coup to overthrow Chavez, it's fly on the wall stuff. You can see it on Google Video.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Based on what?

Please don't post monosyllabic answers, i want to learn.

I thought the thread was of political value though which is why i refrained from posting it in learning.

He is a left leaning reformist who is head of a capitalist state.

[Dr Mindbender]

He is a left leaning reformist who is head of a capitalist state.

His slogan is ''My country, socialism or death''.

Do you not trust him when he says that he has plans of installing socialism for venezuela? I think even Chavez admits that socialism hasnt been acheived which is why he speaks so much in the future tense.

Perhaps he is wary of violent foreign opposition and is trying to dismantle capitalism gradually. It is a clever method i dont think has been tried before. If he succeeds it could be very big.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Do you not trust him when he says that he has plans of installing socialism for venezuela?

No of course not. I dont trust heads of capitalist states no matter how many red flags they wave.

[Crux]

His slogan is ''My country, socialism or death''.

Do you not trust him when he says that he has plans of installing socialism for venezuela? I think even Chavez admits that socialism hasnt been acheived which is why he speaks so much in the future tense.

Perhaps he is wary of violent foreign opposition and is trying to dismantle capitalism gradually. It is a clever method i dont think has been tried before. If he succeeds it could be very big.
How about the chilean goverment in the 70's?

[Iowa656]

Any man that calls George W. Bush the Devil at a UN meeting gets praise from me.
[ Search youtube for "chavez bush devil".]

Yes, he is not perfect, I don't think anyone is. However he has revived the socialist movement in Latin America, and the whole world in the 21st century. He creates a huge division in Venezuela, generalising a whole lot, the poor majority loves him while the rich and middle class despise him.

Positive Points:
1. Nationalisation of Oil companies
2. Massive increase in social spending
3. Massive increase in litracy rate
4. Put a doctor in every town. Many people had never seen a doctor before this.
5. Increased the rights and wealth of the poor indigenous population.
6. Is hated by America (surely that's a good point?). Several Americans have even called him to be assassinated and labelled him a dictator. Quite ironic really, given the CIA funded a failed military coup that in 2002, (for more info I really recommend the previously mentioned "The Revolution will not be Televised".)
7. He is continually DEMOCRATICALLY elected.
8. Has a huge following of loyal supporters.
9. Is friendly with the Castro's. They have an Oil for doctor programme.
10. Allows anti-Chavez Tv channels to broadcast in the Country.

Negative Points:
1. He seems to be power hungry. This may be a disputed statement by some. He wants the constitution amended so that he can remain President for as long as he is elected (Currently limited for 2 terms). These amendments were rejected by national referendum a while back, he has pushed for another referendum in the next few weeks.
2. There is still huge levels of poverty and malnourishment in Venezuela, has his policies worked?
3. In the recent local elections he lost control on the two biggest cities in Venezuela. Could it be that the bourgeois gather in cities?
4. Comes from a (debatable) middle class family, Does he really understand class war?
5. Comes from a military background. Is he likely to use force against opponents?
6. He is a devote Christian. Can class war ever reconcile with religion?
7. Allows huge private companies for function in the Country.


And so on...
I could go on for hours, but there is some brief points.
Hope that helps.

[KC]

This is not a simple question; therefore, you cannot give a simple "yes/no" answer (unless of course you're an ultra-leftist like Joe here). As has already been said, there are good and bad things about Chavez and the movement there, and they must be taken and analyzed as a whole and not made simplistic judgements upon.

Chavez - good or bad? This is not a valid question, as he is both good and bad.

[Q]

I agree with KC, but in the form of the question I have to answer No. I do not support a single individual. Also, I support the workers movement and its revolutionary leadership. Chavez however is not a revolutionary.

[Comrade Anarchist]

He is doing good for the poor of his country but hopefully he doesnt become power hungry like most south american politicians.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I support Chávez and the Bolivarian Socialist Revolution he stands for with all my heart.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Any man that calls George W. Bush the Devil at a UN meeting gets praise from me.
[ Search youtube for "chavez bush devil".]

Negative Points:
1. He seems to be power hungry. This may be a disputed statement by some. He wants the constitution amended so that he can remain President for as long as he is elected (Currently limited for 2 terms). These amendments were rejected by national referendum a while back, he has pushed for another referendum in the next few weeks.
2. There is still huge levels of poverty and malnourishment in Venezuela, has his policies worked?
3. In the recent local elections he lost control on the two biggest cities in Venezuela. Could it be that the bourgeois gather in cities?
4. Comes from a (debatable) middle class family, Does he really understand class war?
5. Comes from a military background. Is he likely to use force against opponents?
6. He is a devote Christian. Can class war ever reconcile with religion?
7. Allows huge private companies for function in the Country.


And so on...
I could go on for hours, but there is some brief points.
Hope that helps.

1) As long as he serves Socialism he should indeed be in power, I think.
2) It is working, remember that Socialism needs its time. The USSR wasn't made a great Socialist power in a few years either. Give him some time, he's working on it.
3) It's just a bourgeois plot against him and his policies. As long as the Lower Class supports him he has nothing to fear.
4) I am from the middle class too, and a hardline Communist nonetheless.
5) Sometimes force is necessary to defend Socialism against its enemies.
6) He belong to Liberation Theology, a Socialist form of christianity.
7) Didn't know that, but I'm sure he'll change that some time in the near future.

[Pogue]

It depends on what perspective you have on people like him. I'll outline these thus:

a) Socialism from above is impossible, and so we do not support Chavez because he is doomed to fail, either by his movement becoming corrupt or simply coming up against the brick wall of global capitalism. Socialism must be by the workers themselves - a total, international change of society. This is the revolutionary perspective. It would essentially argue that Chavez is a genuine socialist, but his tactics are unworkable, as he aims to work within a bourgeois state. The capitalist reactionaries will oppose him, and because Chavez is building socialism within the framework of capitalism in a democratic socialist manner, and thus the bourgeois has not been dsetroyed and there is not class rule, he will be destroyed by the bourgeoisie.

b) Chavez is a member of the bourgeoisie, or at least, is a representative of them. He is merely using populism to appeal to people and win them over, before he betrays them, or is corrupted. This is the more cynical view, and would suggest Chavez is not a genuine socialist, instead just a very clever member of the bourgeoisie.

You have to assess these views. If you look at his history and what he's done, you'll see how he has been open about his convictions, and risked his life upon them. In the 2002 coup, he had a handful of loyal troops with him when he made a telephone call to Fidel Castro, whilst under bulletfire, saying he and his troops were ready to die resisting that coup, which was, and this is a truth, a coup organised by the bourgeoisie against the socialist reforms he had introduced, regardless of what the participants in the coup might say.

We'd have to say, Chavez would have to be a very, very clever and dedicated bourgeoise infiltrator to take such risks, make such an effort, risk so much (arrest for his socialist coup, being shot in the 2002 coup, being assasinated by the US or reacitonaries, etc). I think in light of the evidence, its clear he is a genuine socialist. He's risked too much and done too much that has pissed off and undermined the bourgeoisie to be one of them, to have their interests at heart, and what he has done has shown that he is clearly socialist, that he has the interests of the working class at heart. Thus, my criticism of him, and those of many people on this board, except maybe some very cynical types, is that his methods, although well meaning, are doomed to fail. Although I have some optimism, as it certainly seems he has popular support.

My problem with people and supporting him is that I don't want to see many genuine socialists, especially revolutionary ones, throwing themselves behind a movement which could be destroyed in an instant from within or from the outside. If Chavez was murdered by reactionaries, or reactionaries took control of his movement somehow, or, if he merely failed to win an election and a less radical party took control, all the gains he has made would quickly be lost.

The nature of a revolution is that it completely destroys the capitalist system by giving workers direct control, and removing bourgeois sham democracy, utterly destroying the bourgeoisie and safeguarding socialism against reactionaries. Nationalisation and a left wing government keeps the bourgeois state and fundamental structures in place, it merely 'buils upon them', instead of completly replacing them, with revolutionaries do.

However when I say criticism I mean it has to be a good criticism. As an Anarchist, I think one of the key aspects of the historical and present day Anarchist movement is that it doesn't comprimise, it doesn't take 'bullshit', it doesn't accept even the most left leaning 'reformists'. I see this as a good thing, it prevents us selling out by becoming reformist or class collaborationist. However, I get annoyed when this leads to attitudes such as Comrade Joe's (don't take this as ad hominem because its not), where there is outright and bitter rejection of a man and his movement merely because he doesn't have the same methods as us, because he hasn't given direct workers control or revolution. Yes, we cant accept reformist movements as the answer, but that doesnt mean we must completely reject them. It'd be insane, for example, for us not to be pleased if we found out Chavez had nationalised a major idnustry, driving prices down, creating good jobs, generally improving the standard of living. Yes, its not enough, but its going to benefit our class dramatically.

That doesn't mean we join his movement (although revolutionaries influencing it is a brilliant idea, this contradicts anarchist thought, and some other revolutionary socialist strand's ideologies), but simply that we udnerstand he is good, he is very good, he is very radical, doing alot that benefits our class, and so seeing him as 'another head of a bourgeois state' and leaving it at that is immature and counter-productive.

From a UK perspective, for example, if a democratic socialist movement kicked off over here that gained mass support that called for internationalism, an end to imperialism and imperialist wars, a huge rise in the minimum wage, mass job creation/employment in good jobs, naitonalising, etc, I'd think it incredibly stupid for me to criticise it jsut because it isn't following the same exact ideology as me. Hell, if this democratic socialism came udner attack I'd willingly defend it, because it represents a radical change. I'd still think its not enough, but hell yes I'd help it if I could, rather than stay on the fringe criticising it meaninglessly.

I think this is what we should do with Chavez and his movement too. If I was in Venezuela I'd get involved in some of his community based intitiatives (community councils have given greater working class control of their areas), and try to spur on the working class to even bigger and better things, i.e. revolution and full direct control, because I know a good thing when I see it, I can see when something is worth defending, and because dogmatic sectarianism is never good.

Basically, I'd be on the side of the working class and be with them. You can sum it up as thus: "Support Chavez as long as he supports the working class." or, for the more cynical types "Support the working class." With the latter, we'll be supporting them at the same time Chavez is supporting them, for alot of the time, until he sells out, if he does.

Just be on the side of the working class, support them. This may mean you're on the side of Chavez, and also ensures you can build up a movement which can go beyond and without the man himself.

[Blackscare]

How about the chilean goverment in the 70's?


CYBERSYN!!! *wets self*

[Blackscare]

Also, I voted "yes", though I'm not too enthusiastic. He seems too much of a charismatic leader type, and you know how those guys can create personality cults around themselves in socialistic states (as has happened many times). I'd rather have a council of elected, uncharismatic people who were best qualified to lead, if there's going to be a government at least.

I don't trust any leader who's not satisfied with term limits either. I can just feel this turning bad in a few years. Also, when "socialist" leaders speak about socialism in the future tense too much, I get uneasy as well.

[Charles Xavier]

It depends on what perspective you have on people like him. I'll outline these thus:

a) Socialism from above is impossible, and so we do not support Chavez because he is doomed to fail, either by his movement becoming corrupt or simply coming up against the brick wall of global capitalism. Socialism must be by the workers themselves - a total, international change of society. This is the revolutionary perspective. It would essentially argue that Chavez is a genuine socialist, but his tactics are unworkable, as he aims to work within a bourgeois state. The capitalist reactionaries will oppose him, and because Chavez is building socialism within the framework of capitalism in a democratic socialist manner, and thus the bourgeois has not been dsetroyed and there is not class rule, he will be destroyed by the bourgeoisie.

b) Chavez is a member of the bourgeoisie, or at least, is a representative of them. He is merely using populism to appeal to people and win them over, before he betrays them, or is corrupted. This is the more cynical view, and would suggest Chavez is not a genuine socialist, instead just a very clever member of the bourgeoisie.

You have to assess these views. If you look at his history and what he's done, you'll see how he has been open about his convictions, and risked his life upon them. In the 2002 coup, he had a handful of loyal troops with him when he made a telephone call to Fidel Castro, whilst under bulletfire, saying he and his troops were ready to die resisting that coup, which was, and this is a truth, a coup organised by the bourgeoisie against the socialist reforms he had introduced, regardless of what the participants in the coup might say.

We'd have to say, Chavez would have to be a very, very clever and dedicated bourgeoise infiltrator to take such risks, make such an effort, risk so much (arrest for his socialist coup, being shot in the 2002 coup, being assasinated by the US or reacitonaries, etc). I think in light of the evidence, its clear he is a genuine socialist. He's risked too much and done too much that has pissed off and undermined the bourgeoisie to be one of them, to have their interests at heart, and what he has done has shown that he is clearly socialist, that he has the interests of the working class at heart. Thus, my criticism of him, and those of many people on this board, except maybe some very cynical types, is that his methods, although well meaning, are doomed to fail. Although I have some optimism, as it certainly seems he has popular support.

My problem with people and supporting him is that I don't want to see many genuine socialists, especially revolutionary ones, throwing themselves behind a movement which could be destroyed in an instant from within or from the outside. If Chavez was murdered by reactionaries, or reactionaries took control of his movement somehow, or, if he merely failed to win an election and a less radical party took control, all the gains he has made would quickly be lost.

The nature of a revolution is that it completely destroys the capitalist system by giving workers direct control, and removing bourgeois sham democracy, utterly destroying the bourgeoisie and safeguarding socialism against reactionaries. Nationalisation and a left wing government keeps the bourgeois state and fundamental structures in place, it merely 'buils upon them', instead of completly replacing them, with revolutionaries do.

However when I say criticism I mean it has to be a good criticism. As an Anarchist, I think one of the key aspects of the historical and present day Anarchist movement is that it doesn't comprimise, it doesn't take 'bullshit', it doesn't accept even the most left leaning 'reformists'. I see this as a good thing, it prevents us selling out by becoming reformist or class collaborationist. However, I get annoyed when this leads to attitudes such as Comrade Joe's (don't take this as ad hominem because its not), where there is outright and bitter rejection of a man and his movement merely because he doesn't have the same methods as us, because he hasn't given direct workers control or revolution. Yes, we cant accept reformist movements as the answer, but that doesnt mean we must completely reject them. It'd be insane, for example, for us not to be pleased if we found out Chavez had nationalised a major idnustry, driving prices down, creating good jobs, generally improving the standard of living. Yes, its not enough, but its going to benefit our class dramatically.

That doesn't mean we join his movement (although revolutionaries influencing it is a brilliant idea, this contradicts anarchist thought, and some other revolutionary socialist strand's ideologies), but simply that we udnerstand he is good, he is very good, he is very radical, doing alot that benefits our class, and so seeing him as 'another head of a bourgeois state' and leaving it at that is immature and counter-productive.

From a UK perspective, for example, if a democratic socialist movement kicked off over here that gained mass support that called for internationalism, an end to imperialism and imperialist wars, a huge rise in the minimum wage, mass job creation/employment in good jobs, naitonalising, etc, I'd think it incredibly stupid for me to criticise it jsut because it isn't following the same exact ideology as me. Hell, if this democratic socialism came udner attack I'd willingly defend it, because it represents a radical change. I'd still think its not enough, but hell yes I'd help it if I could, rather than stay on the fringe criticising it meaninglessly.

I think this is what we should do with Chavez and his movement too. If I was in Venezuela I'd get involved in some of his community based intitiatives (community councils have given greater working class control of their areas), and try to spur on the working class to even bigger and better things, i.e. revolution and full direct control, because I know a good thing when I see it, I can see when something is worth defending, and because dogmatic sectarianism is never good.

Basically, I'd be on the side of the working class and be with them. You can sum it up as thus: "Support Chavez as long as he supports the working class." or, for the more cynical types "Support the working class." With the latter, we'll be supporting them at the same time Chavez is supporting them, for alot of the time, until he sells out, if he does.

Just be on the side of the working class, support them. This may mean you're on the side of Chavez, and also ensures you can build up a movement which can go beyond and without the man himself.

a) This isn't socialism from above, its mass movements and trade unions that have pushed for this, not simply Hugo Chavez, if you'd actually just looked at the Movement for the Fifth republic, it was a coalition of many many groups including the communist party of Venezuela

b) Hugo Chavez isn't apart of the bourgeioisie. He was born into the working class and lead a revolutionary movement in 1992 against the government. He is merely a representative of the working class, who on all sides support him. The oligarchs and the bourgeoisie despise him and have tried to overthrow him several times. But from the sheer will of the people they were defeated. To be a representative of the bourgeoisie he would have had to have supported the bourgeoisie. He doesn't.

And then you complain that revolutionaries support him. Of course we support him, we support everyone who will bring us closer to the gates of socialism. We will throw ourselves into coalitions with whoever is willing to fight for working people. We will march forward always. We must fight to go further and further. But we recognize it is the working class itself, the proletariat who will be the only one who will march until the end.


The rest of the post you don't make sense.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah! Go Chavez! Death to America! Woo!

Chavez is pretty cool, for reasons already mentioned.

[Pogue]

a) This isn't socialism from above, its mass movements and trade unions that have pushed for this, not simply Hugo Chavez, if you'd actually just looked at the Movement for the Fifth republic, it was a coalition of many many groups including the communist party of Venezuela

b) Hugo Chavez isn't apart of the bourgeioisie. He was born into the working class and lead a revolutionary movement in 1992 against the government. He is merely a representative of the working class, who on all sides support him. The oligarchs and the bourgeoisie despise him and have tried to overthrow him several times. But from the sheer will of the people they were defeated. To be a representative of the bourgeoisie he would have had to have supported the bourgeoisie. He doesn't.

The rest of the post you don't make sense.

Why are you so thick and confrontational? I just wrote a long post outlining two possible views on Chavez, and made my view on him perfectly clear. You're just folliowing your normal antagonistic arseholish path which has got you so unpopular on this forum, and simply whining like a child about something someone else has said because presumably, you're so much more intelligent than the rest of us.

[Crux]

CYBERSYN!!! *wets self*
Well, yeah. But I was more thinking of that pesky fascist coup d'etat.

[bailey_187]

.
Negative Points:
1. He seems to be power hungry. This may be a disputed statement by some. He wants the constitution amended so that he can remain President for as long as he is elected (Currently limited for 2 terms). These amendments were rejected by national referendum a while back, he has pushed for another referendum in the next few weeks.
2. There is still huge levels of poverty and malnourishment in Venezuela, has his policies worked?
3. In the recent local elections he lost control on the two biggest cities in Venezuela. Could it be that the bourgeois gather in cities?
4. Comes from a (debatable) middle class family, Does he really understand class war?
5. Comes from a military background. Is he likely to use force against opponents?
6. He is a devote Christian. Can class war ever reconcile with religion?
7. Allows huge private companies for function in the Country.

1. Oh well
2. Poverty has dropped from aprox 40% to 30% since he gained power (it spiked to 50% circa 2002 due to the oil strikes), he has also (according to DATOS) increaed the lowest 52% of Venezuelans incomes by 138%
3. Hardly his negative, leaders loose support sometimes
4. MIDDLE CLASS? what is middle class about a mud hut? what is middle class about not being able to afford shoes?
5. No, no he isn't.
6. Yes. The mans religion is his own business.
7. He is slowly nationalizing and setting up coops. I suppose you want him to just nationalize everything and everything will be ok?

[bailey_187]

a) This isn't socialism from above, its mass movements and trade unions that have pushed for this, not simply Hugo Chavez, if you'd actually just looked at the Movement for the Fifth republic, it was a coalition of many many groups including the communist party of Venezuela

b) Hugo Chavez isn't apart of the bourgeioisie. He was born into the working class and lead a revolutionary movement in 1992 against the government. He is merely a representative of the working class, who on all sides support him. The oligarchs and the bourgeoisie despise him and have tried to overthrow him several times. But from the sheer will of the people they were defeated. To be a representative of the bourgeoisie he would have had to have supported the bourgeoisie. He doesn't.

And then you complain that revolutionaries support him. Of course we support him, we support everyone who will bring us closer to the gates of socialism. We will throw ourselves into coalitions with whoever is willing to fight for working people. We will march forward always. We must fight to go further and further. But we recognize it is the working class itself, the proletariat who will be the only one who will march until the end.


The rest of the post you don't make sense.

Quoted for TROOTH

[brigadista]

the revolution will not be televised is a documentary of the attempted coup in 2003 I think[engineered with the help of Colin Powell] it was filmed by a very lucky Irish film crew whop happenned to be in the right place at the right time.
It gives a good background to the control of the media in venezuala by the historical elite who had historically"governed " Venezuala.

In hindsight it puts into context Chavez daily tv programme in order to counter the disinformation of the elite, put out in their media .

Imho it is worth watching just to see them put in their place.
It is also amazing to see the coup unfold and the reaction of the Venezualan people.

I support Chavez any time over those puffed up overblown pigs that ruled the country adn ripped of teh poor of venezual for so many years... same goes for Eva Morales in Bolivia

[Pogue]

Quoted for TROOTH

Rather than parroting an idiot, would you like to explain what your objection was, or would that be asking too much of your brain for one evening?

[bailey_187]

Rather than parroting an idiot, would you like to explain what your objection was, or would that be asking too much of your brain for one evening?

Yeah too much for one evening fam, maybe tomorrow


I quoted for truth his point "a" and "b", why do i need to explain that?

[Crux]

As others have said, this really isn't a yes or no question. I, for one, think Chavez is relatively progressive. that doesn't mean I think the top down structure of the PSUV, for example, is much to cheer for. The mass movement needs to come to power.

[rosie]

I agree with that statement. Applying moralistic values to something or someone makes your point benign.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Yes I support Chavez, but I give critical support that is. I am not blind to the limitations of him and the currents that support him, but he seems genuine in his attempts to build socialism in Venezuela. It doesn't mean one should support him forever, but let's judge him by the results, criticise him when he's wrong, and encourage him in the things he does correctly.

[Pogue]

Yeah too much for one evening fam, maybe tomorrow


I quoted for truth his point "a" and "b", why do i need to explain that?

What part of me looks like your fam?

[Pogue]

Yes I support Chavez, but I give critical support that is. I am not blind to the limitations of him and the currents that support him, but he seems genuine in his attempts to build socialism in Venezuela. It doesn't mean one should support him forever, but let's judge him by the results, criticise him when he's wrong, and encourage him in the things he does correctly.

A CPB member! Hi! :D

[bailey_187]

What part of me looks like your fam?

cool of, rudegirl

[Pogue]

cool of, rudegirl

Oh, you're one of those internet lurkers, I get it.

You live in an affluent suburb, don't you?

[bailey_187]

Oh, you're one of those internet lurkers, I get it.

You live in an affluent suburb, don't you?

no and no

on a real, why are you getting so angry?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

b) Hugo Chavez isn't apart of the bourgeioisie. He was born into the working class and lead a revolutionary movement in 1992 against the government.


Class is defined by your relationship to the means of production not whose **** you popped out of.

Even an anti-working class reactionary turd such as yourself must be able to grasp this.

[Pogue]

no and no

on a real, why are you getting so angry?

I'm not really angry, just annoyed with bullshit from people like you.

[Cumannach]

lovely

When making judgements on Chavez remember he's not omnipotent. He can only do what the material conditions allow. If he goes too far too fast, the whole thing may fall over.

Oh and I forgot to say, if he does too little, and goes too slowly, the whole thing might starting rolling backwards

[bailey_187]

I'm not really angry, just annoyed with bullshit from people like you.

What do you mean "people like me"?

People who support Chavez? People who say "fam"?

[Pogue]

What do you mean "people like me"?

People who support Chavez? People who say "fam"?

People who think they're so ghetto.

[Blackscare]

People who think they're so ghetto.

Chill out man

[scarletghoul]

When making judgements on Chavez remember he's not omnipotent. He can only do what the material conditions allow. If he goes too far too fast, the whole thing may fall over.
This is true
I think he's learnt lesson from the Allende story

He is a socialist, so we should support him.

[Pogue]

Ok

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

He is a socialist, so we should support him.


He's a reformist.

This is not refleft

[bailey_187]

People who think they're so ghetto.

lmao

[Pogue]

He's a reformist.

This is not refleft

It should be dev(vo)left

"you fooking dickhead"

[Blackscare]

This is not refleft
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It should be dev(vo)left

"you fooking dickhead"

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6227/devvo3xm.jpg

[Decolonize The Left]

Chavez is, indeed, a friend of the left.

He is a reformist and deserves credit for the reforms he has helped bring about which have led to advantages for the Venezuelan working class.

He is not a revolutionary and so deserves critique for his many shortcomings.

- August

[Pogue]

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6227/devvo3xm.jpg

takin e's with bob marleys

[bailey_187]

It should be dev(vo)left

"you fooking dickhead"

funny

are you from an affluent suburb?

[Pogue]

funny

are you from an affluent suburb?

Yes, I attend private school and am in charge of Conservative Youth.

[Mala Tha Testa]

I agree with August.

[Q]

Could we remain ontopic? This isn't chit-chat. Kthx.

[KC]

I think he's learnt lesson from the Allende story

Allende fell because he didn't go far enough.

[Comrade B]

Chavez is our friend, though he is not one of us. He supports our ideology, but I believe he is restrained by his society from bringing about everything he wishes to bring about.
I dislike some of his populist tendencies, but I believe that he is well intentioned, and facing the correct direction.
The next step for Chavez to take for the improvement of Venezuela is endorsing a new candidate with similar hopes as him, but fresh ideas, someone who will not just set the foundation for socialism, but begin the construction as well. Once this person has set the scaffolding they must do the same, else the process will become too caught on one small step.

Forgive me, but I think this "refleft" "revleft" stuff is ridiculous. Reform can be revolutionary, a revolution does not need guns and violence, it simply needs a throwing out of all the old garbage that has been holding the people down over the years. Often reform simply tries to work around this (Obama setting CEO salary caps but doing little to fix the harm already made) or just to walk through it, however this walk will often end still inside the mess that they intended to escape from, and their society will just fall back into it.

If someone has the balls to throw out their old constitution, ignore the ridiculous rules previously blocking them, they can create "revolutionary reform"

[Kassad]

I feel slightly uncomfortable voting 'yes', as it makes me appear uncritical. Chavez is a perfect example of reformist socialism in a state with more revolutionary class consciousness than you find in most places. Before stating any kind of opinion, it is necessary to realize that the United States media, along with their Western partners, are attempting to continue a demonization campaign of nations that they wish to justify imperialism and potential colonialism in.

Chavez stands defiant in the face of American imperialism and threats. He has done an outstanding job at attempting to promote workers right, though there are a few examples I've heard of him failing to do what is always in the interest of the working class. Chavez is leading a revolutionary movement, but his attempt to become virtual emperor of Venezuela is totally wrong, as social change is not about Hugo Chavez. It is about the proletariat of Venezuela and the world.

Venezuela is an outstanding example, along with Cuba, of the potential success of socialism, whether it be through reform or revolution. I will never totally condone the reformist ideology of people like Chavez who will always cripple the working class by creating state-based bureacracy instead of returning power to the working class. Still, the Bolivarian Revolution and its gains are preferable to bourgeoisie enterprise and manipulation and I hope to see the resources of Venezuela stay in the hands of the people.

[Angry Young Man]

I support Chavez, but turning to the programme US watched, I'm five minutes into it and it is fucking awful. What is it about Americans and documentary making? Watch some Louis Theroux, America!

[Angry Young Man]

Also, the ad-break came rather rudely. The program stopped mid-sentence and WHAM! Disney advert.

[el_chavista]

To make a long story short:

Chávez is not a Marxist. He just created a big movement for the national defense from imperialist looting. So he is an antiimperialist.

He claims to continue Bolívar's internationalism. A point a Marxist will apreciate.

Plus, his government has a much more democratic way than any one ever before, there are not anti-communist policies (believe me, that's a must in a LatinAmerican country).

The 2002 rightwing coup radicalized him ("the reactionary whip of counterrevolution") so he moved towards the left.

The 2007 referendum's lost stagnated his leftism.

[bailey_187]

To make a long story short:

Chávez is not a Marxist. He just created a big movement for the national defense from imperialist looting. So he is an antiimperialist.

He claims to continue Bolívar's internationalism. A point a Marxist will apreciate.

Plus, his government has a much more democratic way than any one ever before, there are not anti-communist policies (believe me, that's a must in a LatinAmerican country).

The 2002 rightwing coup radicalized him ("the reactionary whip of counterrevolution") so he moved towards the left.

The 2007 referendum's lost stagnated his leftism.

In the 07 referendum, one of the proposals with to name venezuela a socialist country in its constitution right? Is that still a proposal in the upcoming referendum?

Could you expand of what you mean by "stagnated his leftism"? (im not doubting it, just want to know more)

I read in Bart Jones' biography of Chavez that too much emphasis on Che Guevara put many Venezuelans of Chavez, would you agree?

[el_chavista]

In the 07 referendum, one of the proposals with to name venezuela a socialist country in its constitution right? Is that still a proposal in the upcoming referendum?The proposals (a socialist name, more forms of property besides the private one, etc.) were reduce to one, consecutive postulations permitted.


Could you expand of what you mean by "stagnated his leftism"? (im not doubting it, just want to know more)
the old counting on "national" bourgeoisie to participate in the development of capitalism first (class collaboration).


I read in Bart Jones' biography of Chavez that too much emphasis on Che Guevara put many Venezuelans of Chavez, would you agree?Is there a missing 'f' in off Chávez? Not at all. People from "low" classes accepts his continuing reffering to Castro and Ché like a good advice or a cute quotation.

[Tatarin]

On the other hand, once Chavez leaves office, maybe people won't be so quick to drop the reforms that Chavez made during his administration? I'd rather have him than having the Venezuelan people live in a client-state for imperialists.

Also, why are people so quick to chop down Chavez's "leftism-isms"? Nepal had recently a "communist takeover", but there we also see reforms. Numerous parties in Europe hold high themselves as Communists, some even coming to power, yet we don't see any worker's states there.

[Kassad]

On the other hand, once Chavez leaves office, maybe people won't be so quick to drop the reforms that Chavez made during his administration? I'd rather have him than having the Venezuelan people live in a client-state for imperialists.

Also, why are people so quick to chop down Chavez's "leftism-isms"? Nepal had recently a "communist takeover", but there we also see reforms. Numerous parties in Europe hold high themselves as Communists, some even coming to power, yet we don't see any worker's states there.

I don't think anyone here is going to criticize Hugo Chavez for attempting to use Venezuelan resources for the benefit of the people. I think the ideological divisions between revolutionary socialists and reformists like Chavez is that we realize that as long as there is a state and a ruling class, there will always be power detracted from the workers.

I'm sure Chavez has the workers in mind. His nationalization of industry and resources for the good of the people has gained significant ground in the ongoing battle against imperialism. Regardless, when you choose reform over revolution, you venture deep into potentially authoritarian territory. The less control the workers have directly, the less likely a stable revolutionary socialist state will develop.

[GPDP]

What about allegations of populism and "buying the people out"? Are such criticisms based in reality?

I ask because, fresh off watching "The War on Democracy" at the uni, I got into an argument with my mother regarding Chavez. She called him a power-hungry populist dictator that takes advantage of the naivete of the poor and uneducated that make up his base to win elections. Well, I got her to concede that calling him a dictator despite the fact that he is democratically elected makes absolutely no sense, so she dropped that, but she holds that he has so much support because he basically bribes the people with all the social programs and such. She also brought up the fact that he shut down a TV station, and used that as evidence of a supposed contempt of freedom of the press. Of course, I then told her that this station was complicit in his overthrow, and that otherwise, all the other anti-Chavez stations are left alone to slander him at will, but she said that one example was more than enough.

Of course, her cynical view of politicians, especially ones that use rhetoric like that of Chavez, is borne out of her experiences living in Mexico, under the "perfect dictatorship" of the PRI, where one could always expect to be deceived by promises of prosperity and democracy, only to be robbed outright. And of course, I do acknowledge that Chavez can only do so much, and there are certainly things to criticize about his approach and his policies. But much of what she said to me sounded reactionary as fuck, and she is not, on the whole, a reactionary person. She believes in the people having power over their destinies, and without subjugation from the US. It just seems that she is inherently biased against left-wing Latin American politicians because of the things she went through for decades, and dismisses them as populists bent of taking advantage of the poor and uneducated people. It's pretty frustrating, especially because I don't fully support him in every way (seeing as I'm an anarchist and all). I just think such accusations are unfair.

Thoughts?

[el_chavista]

-she holds that he has so much support because he basically bribes the people with all the social programs and such.

Actually, every capitalist in Venezuela has taken advantage of dealing with the differents governments in Venezuela's oil history to become wealthier.

-She also brought up the fact that he shut down a TV station, and used that as evidence of a supposed contempt of freedom of the press.

What is "freedom of press" if not the hegemony of the mass media owners' ideology? That TV is "out of the air" but has never stopped transmitting by cable. In Venezuela there isn't a big oppositional party, there is a big oppositional mass media front.

[Charles Xavier]

That TV station is owned by people who help organized the overthrow of the government and continually lies about the situation.

Yet they are still broadcasting on cable. And other opposition media stations are still broadcasting over the air.

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course, her cynical view of politicians, especially ones that use rhetoric like that of Chavez, is borne out of her experiences living in Mexico, under the "perfect dictatorship" of the PRI, where one could always expect to be deceived by promises of prosperity and democracy, only to be robbed outright. And of course, I do acknowledge that Chavez can only do so much, and there are certainly things to criticize about his approach and his policies. But much of what she said to me sounded reactionary as fuck, and she is not, on the whole, a reactionary person. She believes in the people having power over their destinies, and without subjugation from the US. It just seems that she is inherently biased against left-wing Latin American politicians because of the things she went through for decades, and dismisses them as populists bent of taking advantage of the poor and uneducated people. It's pretty frustrating, especially because I don't fully support him in every way (seeing as I'm an anarchist and all). I just think such accusations are unfair.


I agree with your basic view that given the context she is coming from, and experience with the PRI, this is not terribly surprising. The way I would try to approach the topic with her is that she isn`t a poor person living in Venezuela. From the outside, it appears that Chavez`s talking points are just the same as any other Latin American populist demagogue. The press raises a real stink about the decision not to renew CANTV`s license and Chavez`s constitutional reforms. I think this is because it fits nicely into the general narrative of populists that get corrupted.

But for people living in the shanty-towns in Caracas and the neglected rural communities like the llanos and Andean foothillls, Chavez`s reforms have made a concrete difference. Besides bringing in things like schools and clinics, the Chavez government has given people a sense of control over their lives that they didn`t have until then.

Although there are legitimate criticisms of Chavez from the far left, such as the Bolivarian nationalist crap and his absurd dependence on oil revenue, for the majority of Venezuelan people for whom capitalism has so spectacularly failed them, Chavez has made a well-intentioned effort to change their lives.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Chavez is an opportunist. He's called himself a Trot, Maoist, and social democrat.

51 votes of support? So much for the "revolutionary" left.

[scarletghoul]

If there was a revolutionary uprising in Venezuela that he was actively opposing, that would be differant, but thats not what is happen

[Kassad]

Chavez is an opportunist. He's called himself a Trot, Maoist, and social democrat.

51 votes of support? So much for the "revolutionary" left.

Are you kidding me? I support Dennis Kucinich, since he's an all-around great guy, a workers advocate and someone who stands by the revolutionary left on many issues. Does that mean that I think he'd be the best person to lead a proletariat revolution against the ruling bourgeoise elite? No.

I support Hugo Chavez. He's a workers advocate and someone who stands with the revolutionary left on many issues. Does that mean I think he'd be the best person to lead a proletariat revolution against the ruling bourgeoise elite? No.

Regardless, he is someone who has brought socialist reforms to Venezuela and he is consistently working to use their resources for the Venezuelan people, not for some trans-national corporation that wants to have a monopoly on oil production. Chavez is opposed to American imperialism and he is a friend of the working class. Why do you see it wrong to support him? There is a massive amount of class consciousness formulating in Venezuela and Chavez has done an outstanding job of directing that energy in a positive manner. He is not revolutionary, but be is definitely working with the workers in mind. That is more than can be said about most politicians, rulers and leaders of nations across the globe.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah I do believe Chavez has done some things to help advance Venezuela towards socialism. However, people do need to realize that socialism can ultimately only be obtained through actions by the workers themselves, not by various constitutional amendments and social spending alone.

[Akim]

I do support his policies pretty much , exept the closure of CNTV. (anti-chavez channel which is now re-opened in cable)
Also I dont understand why his wants to stay in power longer then currently allowed by Venezuelan law. Another dictator in the making?

[bailey_187]

I do support his policies pretty much , exept the closure of CNTV. (anti-chavez channel which is now re-opened in cable)
Also I dont understand why his wants to stay in power longer then currently allowed by Venezuelan law. Another dictator in the making?

No.

[ZeroNowhere]

socialist reforms
"Socialist reforms"? What the hell is a 'socialist reform'? The term doesn't even make sense, really.

[Crux]

I do support his policies pretty much , exept the closure of CNTV. (anti-chavez channel which is now re-opened in cable)
Also I dont understand why his wants to stay in power longer then currently allowed by Venezuelan law. Another dictator in the making?
Yes closure of CNTV should have come sooner after the coupattempt and should aslo have been coupled with the closedown of the other newsmedia actively backing the military coup.

[Wanted Man]

I don't know if Chávez is a friend of "the left". There are a lot of people on the left who would say no. But I somehow don't think that Chávez is interested in being friends with marginal utopians. So I don't envisage too much of a problem there. Certainly, Venezuela is not socialist, but for these leftists, the Bolivarian project is doomed from the start and irredeemable.

Unfortunately, US policymakers don't view the world through utopian socialist glasses. For them, Chávez's Venezuela is "socialist" enough to viciously oppose it at every turn, to spread lies about Chávez the "dictator" (which the utopian socialists eagerly repeat) and to attempt to overthrow it whenever opportunity knocks. There should be no illusions about Venezuela being "socialist", or the ultimately reformist character of the Bolivarian process, even though it is carried by mass action from the bottom up. It should be supported for what it is, and what it fights against, while also looking for a revolutionary way ahead.

Besides the aforementioned dogmatics, most of the left realises that this is much more important than whether Chávez is a friend, a dictator, a reformist or a "****" (yargh, internet rage), so we can move on to real issues: how to maintain these economic reforms in the crisis? How to deal with the fact that fascist scum now hold important mayoral positions? What about the fact that the PSUV is not a workers' party, and may represent the national bourgeoisie and their henchmen as well? What of Chávez's threats against supporting left parties who do not want to be absorbed into his party?


Class is defined by your relationship to the means of production not whose **** you popped out of.

Even an anti-working class reactionary turd such as yourself must be able to grasp this.
So how much capital does Chávez own? :rolleyes:


She also brought up the fact that he shut down a TV station, and used that as evidence of a supposed contempt of freedom of the press. Of course, I then told her that this station was complicit in his overthrow, and that otherwise, all the other anti-Chavez stations are left alone to slander him at will, but she said that one example was more than enough.
It's a lie, anyway. The station is still on cable, it's just not public broadcasting anymore. Which is generous, considering that the station paved the way for a bloody military putsch attempt and then covered up for it by showing old soap operas while the transition was underway. The government refused to license and subsidise fascism. Simple enough.

The fascists and their useful idiots in the western media turned it into a battle of free speech, and the overwhelming majority of these media deliberately lied about it with the direct intent of increasing the public sympathy for Venezuelan fascism.

If, on 7 July 2005, the BBC had supported the terrorist attacks on the London subway and/or called for Tony Blair to be unseated by the army, what do you think would have happened? That they would still be a state-supported public broadcasting network? Of course not.

[Kassad]

"Socialist reforms"? What the hell is a 'socialist reform'? The term doesn't even make sense, really.

Um, okay? A socialist reform, as opposed to a revolutionary implementation of socialism, would be socializing aspects of society through use of the political system and the current scenario, as opposed to a revolutionary emancipation from that system and the subsequent destuction of it. Hugo Chavez is implementing socialist reforms, or at least attempting to, in a reformist manner. He is attempting to warp capitalism to such an extent that it ceases to exist and a socialist system will take its place.

[communick]

...CRITICAL support.

A saying I heard repeatedly in Venezuela:

Revolution, With or without Chavez!

[John Lenin]

:thumbup:
pixmegZcdlk
"Go to Hell, fucking yanquis!"
:star3:

[Revy]

His slogan is ''My country, socialism or death''.

Do you not trust him when he says that he has plans of installing socialism for venezuela? I think even Chavez admits that socialism hasnt been acheived which is why he speaks so much in the future tense.

Perhaps he is wary of violent foreign opposition and is trying to dismantle capitalism gradually. It is a clever method i dont think has been tried before. If he succeeds it could be very big.
The people of Venezuela need more than slogans. When Chavez is going around calling himself a "social democrat", saying that he wants to be re-elected President for decades, only shows his strategy is not for a revolutionary transformation but a very slow one.

[apathy maybe]

Good points made here.

Please don't quote very long posts and then just make a very short post as you did here. There is a button at the bottom left of each post which allows you to "thank" a poster, and also indicate support for the post. Please use it in the future.

----

Anyway, as I said in another post, in another thread, people who believe that Chavez can make things all wonderful and rosy fall into two traps. The first is the "great men of history" trap, and the second is believing that reformism can bring about long lasting meaningful change.

If there truly is a move towards socialism in Venezuela, Chavez isn't needed. If there isn't, the government can't bring it about. Oh, but the government couldn't and wouldn't bring it about anyway. Because socialism is about equality, and the people in government think that they know what is best for the people, and think that the people need to be lead.

No they don't. People don't need governments, governments need people!

[dmcauliffe09]

Please don't quote very long posts and then just make a very short post as you did here. There is a button at the bottom left of each post which allows you to "thank" a poster, and also indicate support for the post. Please use it in the future.


I posted more than that but my computer kept messing up.

Full post:

"Good points made here.

It is indeed true that a revolution must start with the people, but if the people have a leader whom they support, a leader who comes from the people, then said leader could potentially be a great start of an even greater revolution. The problem is that under such a watchful and critical capitalist world, even with a socialist being elected democratically (democracy in socialism? no way!) will automatically be deemed 'undemocratic' if he or she tries to instigate the dictatorship of the proletariat."

[RedScare]

Honestly, I support Chavez. I'm well aware of the limitations and the fact that he'll probably fail, but I still have a little hope he just might succeed. He's made massive gains for the working class and poor in Venezuela, and he'll continue to do so. Now if only he could be more of an internationalist.....

[robbo203]

He is a left leaning reformist who is head of a capitalist state.

Correct. State capitalism is still capitalism and should be uncompromisingly opposed

[Cheung Mo]

Regardless of how we perceive Chavez, the last thing any of us should be willing to do is take the perspective of certain sects (many of which had gone as far as to back the failed coup of 2002) and stand openly with his reactionary opponents, who have spent decades proving themselves bankrupt of morals, ideas, humanity, and of any sense of social justice, simply because of personal or sectarian disagreements with Chavez. At minimum, the programme of Bolivarian internationalism is a progressive one that has far more potential to wrest control of Latin America's destiny from the hands of multi-nationals and imperialists and into the hands of its own people than anything else that is currently occurring in Latin America (which is why even the liberal-bourgeois interests in the USA have, through Nancy Pelosi and their other mouthpieces, been so quick to nail Chavez to the cross). As such, it ought to be deepened and pushed forward as part and parcel to the process of permanent revolution. To deny this reality is akin to denying the nobility and inherent justice of the Russian Revolution out of a dislike for Stalinism, to denigrate the accomplishments of Militant and of the people of Merseyside because of a contempt for New Labour, or to say that the Cuban Revolution was somehow unnecessary or wrong because of dissatisfaction with Fidel Castro or out of disagreement with some subsequent development in regards to Cuba's material conditions.

[Charles Xavier]

We communists should stand in as much equal solidarity as we did with Allende or Juan Velasco... wel in fact more so since hes learned from their mistakes.

[RedSonRising]

I think we should not criticize reformism for being reformist....though we are revolutionary in our approach and thinking, one must adapt to their situation in calculating the most viable and popular approach to a working-class movement. Latin America is honestly tired of violence, and while many advocate direct action nonetheless, Chavez capitalized on a situation in which state power could be channeled through a representative of the working class and the people, albeit through the guise of a bourgoise government. We cannot dismiss successful ends (or processes) simply because of ideologically different means.

I do not agree with all of his methods, but generally I think he is a refreshing leader who has allowed Socialism to enter the minds of every-day Latin Americans again.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

He is a practical ally.
We mustn't focus on theory but cooperate with anyone opposing capitalism.

[Patchd]

Wow, I'm surprised at the amount of people voting to support him. The guy's an absolute prick, he puts down strikes and harasses trade unions, he uses the state and his Chavista loyalists to attack Anarchists, he is a military man himself, having gained his power through his military status, thus his first attempt at a coup using the military.

Suddenly, he puts on a red cape, calls himself a Trotskyist, oh wait, he recently called himself a Maoist now while on a visit to China, nationalises some industries, what social democrats like to do, and then the left starts climaxing all over him? :confused:

... and he doesn't oppose Capitalism, he supports it, still is, using his most powerful tool; the army! Yeah sure, I used to cum over his videos back when I was 14 too, but come to look at it, that's all he does; calls George Bush a donkey and says America is bad.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I thought we all agreed on him? He has said many things against Anarchists anyway.

Here's a good LibCom article about it:
http://libcom.org/library/revolution-delayed-10-years-hugo-ch%C3%A1vez%E2%80%99s-rule-charles-reeve-el-libertario

[Stranger Than Paradise]

... and he doesn't oppose Capitalism, he supports it, still is, using his most powerful tool; the army! Yeah sure, I used to cum over his videos back when I was 14 too, but come to look at it, that's all he does; calls George Bush a donkey and says America is bad.

So did I

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

He was a friend of the proleteriat and a friend of the proleteriat is a friend of mine.

[Patchd]

He was a friend of the proleteriat and a friend of the proleteriat is a friend of mine.

I'm sorry but attacking trade unionists and anarchists does not make him a friend of the proletariat. You don't even have to take a Libertarian's word for it:



After the attack on Sanitarios Maracay workers recently in Aragua state in Venezuela, more evidence of anti-union activity by the Chavistas.
According to Greg Wilpert on the Venezuelanalysis (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2287) website:
The UNT-Aragua issued a statement with ten points yesterday, in which it called for union autonomy, denounced the actions of the state security forces, and called for the governor’s resignation. It also stated that the UNT-Aragua is “concerned” about Chavez’s recent statements that questioned union autonomy, when he called for the unions that support the government to join the newly forming Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).
Similarly, the UNT faction headed by Orlando Chirino, known as C-CURA (Classist Current, Unitary, Revolutionary, and Autonomous), sent an open letter to Chavez for May 1st, that insisted on the importance of union autonomy. Chavez had stated in early April, during a PSUV event, that “unions should not be autonomous, one must put an end to that.”
^ http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8344


http://www.americasnet.net/Commentators/Bruce_Jay/jay_12.pdf

And this notion of upholding one person solely responsible for bringing greatness to the working class is a lot of bull, lets stop the idolatry of social democrats now pwease.:thumbup1:

[Das war einmal]

He revived the socialist spirit admits the worst time for the left in general and withstood the US aggression. Next to that he improved the living standard of the poor significantly and supports the Cuban cause. I dont want to be romanticizing things but he is one of the lights in these dark decades

[Patchd]

He revived the socialist spirit

Yeah, and turned it to social democratic reformism, which is counter to our goals of achieving a workers' revolution. Not only that, but I'm sure the striking workers, and the workers laid off by his government aren't very convinced of Chavez's Socialism.


admits the worst time for the left in general and withstood the US aggression.So has the Iranian state, but they're still a bunch of homophobic, religious, racist and anti-worker bureaucrats.


Next to that he improved the living standard of the poor significantlyHe's done so marginally, but even with that, there are still many workers living in great poverty, with no jobs, no means to pay bills and so forth. I don't think that's a good sign of Socialism to me.


I dont want to be romanticizing things but he is one of the lights in these dark decadesNo, the occupied factories and universities, the insurrection in different regions of the world, the willingness of the Trade Unions in Guadalope to come out in general strike and a call for workers' control over the means of production, the anti-war, LGBTQ, Feminist and climate change movements, those are our beacons of light, not some ranting fat militaristic buffoon playing Socialism for the 14 year olds to wank over.

[MikeSC]

Aren't the trade unions in Venezuela led by far-right figures of the old guard, unelected by the workers?

Why attack Chavez for being a reformist in a country that has little other socialist presence? My opinion of Chavez is that of a leftist restrained by circumstance- if we had a few other revolutions I can see that causing him to shift further left, rather than him opposing them.

[Patchd]

In the past electoral fraud has been practiced in the unions yes, however, we're still not taking into account that there have been many Wildcat strikes by workers, which have been crushed by Chavistas, or even directly by the state. In addition, there are unions who's executives have been elected and are left wing unions.

... and the attacking of Anarchists.


Why attack Chavez for being a reformist in a country that has little other socialist presence?Because what we're fighting for isn't for a society which is "a little bit orite", we're fighting for a completely free and egalitarian society, a non-hierarchical one, based on workers' control over the means of production. As revolutionaries, putting your faith in Chavez says to many workers and activists, like it has been shown to do so, that although Chavez isn't nearly good enough, other revolutionaries are taking up his cause and therefore he must be orite. Simply no, from his actions, even the refusal to cave into demands for better wages for oil refinery workers, he's shown us that he is not a Socialist in reality.

I see no restraints on Chavez, he is the head of the state, pretty much in charge of the military (where he derives his power from in the first place) and is able to implement workers' control over the means of production if he so wishes. Of course, that will threaten his comfortable lifestyle, I doubt he'll be able to keep his palace if he did implement a real socio-economic change.

In addition, may I add that I'm not a "Socialist" in the same sense that many others here are.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, there is at least one problem I have with Chavez.

Every regime in Latin America (at least, the longstanding ones) have a stabilization fund, which is made up so that in the event of recession the govt can spend it's way out of it and people don't start shooting people. Chavez inherited a huge stabilization fund, but instead of using it for that rainy day when oil prices inevitably went down, he now appears spent it all.

Now, with the world economy in the shitter and oil prices very low due to it, Mr Chavez is going to have to make big cuts which will be exacerbated by rapidly rising inflation.

He may be a friend of the working class, but he's also just another short-sighted politician running for political office, giving away quick concessions without considering the long-term.

[Das war einmal]

Yeah, and turned it to social democratic reformism, which is counter to our goals of achieving a workers' revolution. Not only that, but I'm sure the striking workers, and the workers laid off by his government aren't very convinced of Chavez's Socialism.

So has the Iranian state, but they're still a bunch of homophobic, religious, racist and anti-worker bureaucrats.

He's done so marginally, but even with that, there are still many workers living in great poverty, with no jobs, no means to pay bills and so forth. I don't think that's a good sign of Socialism to me.

No, the occupied factories and universities, the insurrection in different regions of the world, the willingness of the Trade Unions in Guadalope to come out in general strike and a call for workers' control over the means of production, the anti-war, LGBTQ, Feminist and climate change movements, those are our beacons of light, not some ranting fat militaristic buffoon playing Socialism for the 14 year olds to wank over.

Hmm I dont know what turns you on, but your whole statement is again based on the common hatred an anarchist has against state based socialism. Its clear cause you have to make childish comments like '14 your olds wank on buffoon' are you an complete idiot? Do you have the figures which say that the working class situation has increased 'only marginally' or are you just taking over the bourgeois press lies that also make a hobby in smearing the bolivarian revolution?

And what the fuck are you talking about with your 'beacons of light'? We have all those movements here too but their influence is nihil. The whole European continent has turned into a fucking police state and people are numb and ignorant about this while all you people seem to do is complain about (former) socialists states who are 'holding back the workers revolution' , guess what thats what the mensheviks and social-democrats allready said about the bolsheviks in 1917

[h0m0revolutionary]

Hmm I dont know what turns you on, but your whole statement is again based on the common hatred an anarchist has against state based socialism. Its clear cause you have to make childish comments like '14 your olds wank on buffoon' are you an complete idiot? Do you have the figures which say that the working class situation has increased 'only marginally' or are you just taking over the bourgeois press lies that also make a hobby in smearing the bolivarian revolution?

And what the fuck are you talking about with your 'beacons of light'? We have all those movements here too but their influence is nihil. The whole European continent has turned into a fucking police state and people are numb and ignorant about this while all you people seem to do is complain about (former) socialists states who are 'holding back the workers revolution' , guess what thats what the mensheviks and social-democrats allready said about the bolsheviks in 1917

Well it's hardly surprsing such criticism coming from a Stalinist *sigh*

I can only assume for yourself apologising for state tyranny and supporting miltary dictators like Chavez is second nature.

What remains most striking in Venezuela after ten years of the “Bolivarian revolution” (and four years of “21st century socialism”) is how little the structure of the state and the economy has been transformed. The degree of obstruction to popular initiatives within the state bureaucracy, including by government ministers, is a constant refrain.

The Chavista movement is noteable yes and Chavez has alot of support, but the worst thing we could do as revolutionaries is let the working class in and around Caracus keep their faith in the man who will offer then nothing. Chevez isn't a revolutionary, he offers nothing to the international working class, his vision for socialism dosn't come very far past the Soulth Atlantic Ocean and his 'anti-imperialist' alliances with depots, theorcrats and reactionary rulers in Russia, Iran and elsewhere show this most clearly.

It's very clear that for Chavez and his ilk "21st Century Socialism" means little more than the developemnt of strong national capitalism, characterised by a huge welfare state - who's only aim it seems is to develop a Latin America that is outside of the reach of the imperialism of the United States.

[Das war einmal]

Well it's hardly surprsing such criticism coming from a Stalinist *sigh*

Its hardly surprising you call me a Stalinist, while you dont know shit about my opinions about Stalin, but I suppose its easy that way. Btw there are also Trotskyists supporting Chavez


I can only assume for yourself apologising for state tyranny and supporting miltary dictators like Chavez is second nature.

There is however no excuse to be found for this straight dumb quote, now you are simply taking over the words used by right wing media (gee that are much better comrades than us 'stalinists' right). So far as I am informed, Chavez is chosen democratically.


What remains most striking in Venezuela after ten years of the “Bolivarian revolution” (and four years of “21st century socialism”) is how little the structure of the state and the economy has been transformed. The degree of obstruction to popular initiatives within the state bureaucracy, including by government ministers, is a constant refrain.

The Chavista movement is noteable yes and Chavez has alot of support, but the worst thing we could do as revolutionaries is let the working class in and around Caracus keep their faith in the man who will offer then nothing. Chevez isn't a revolutionary, he offers nothing to the international working class, his vision for socialism dosn't come very far past the Soulth Atlantic Ocean and his 'anti-imperialist' alliances with depots, theorcrats and reactionary rulers in Russia, Iran and elsewhere show this most clearly.

It's very clear that for Chavez and his ilk "21st Century Socialism" means little more than the developemnt of strong national capitalism, characterised by a huge welfare state - who's only aim it seems is to develop a Latin America that is outside of the reach of the imperialism of the United States.

Oh no we shouldnt give the working class keep faith in a president who has done more for the working class than any other president, movement or labour union. That would be what, counter revolutionary? Now dont get me wrong, Chavez is far from perfect, maybe he isnt revolutionary, but right now there are no better left alternatives which are capable of leading the country

[Patchd]

Hmm I dont know what turns you on, but your whole statement is again based on the common hatred an anarchist has against state based socialism.

Not at all, I would offer my criticisms of "Anarchist" movements if I didn't agree with it, just as I would criticise the platform of Anarchist organisations if I disagreed with them too.

In addition, was my bringing up of the trade union repression completely void because I have a dislike for the state? It appears you have provided no counter to what I actually said here, rather attack me in a personal capacity. Doesn't bother me really, but just to point out, you didn't really anything substantial in your post.


Its clear cause you have to make childish comments like '14 your olds wank on buffoon' are you an complete idiot? Do you have the figures which say that the working class situation has increased 'only marginally' or are you just taking over the bourgeois press lies that also make a hobby in smearing the bolivarian revolution?Yes, because the whole bourgeois press constantly lies and uses no real facts or figures ever, amirite? Here's a link to The Guardian (one of the more sympathetic, yet liberal, bourgeois papers in Britain which have been extremely sympathetic to the recent G20 protests): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/hugo-chavez-venezuela

Yes, it's a bourgeois news source, and this article is full of a lot of liberal shit, but I'll be very surprised if the statistics given aren't factually correct.


And the average share of the budget devoted to health, education and housing under Chávez (25%) is identical to that in the last eight years before his election, and even lower than under Carlos Andrés Pérez, the "neoliberal" president against whom Chávez attempted a coup in 1992.


A study conducted by Francisco Rodríguez (former chief economist of the Venezuelan national assembly) and Daniel Ortega (of Venezuela's IESA business school) found that at the end of 2005 there were more than 1 million illiterate Venezuelans, not significantly down from the 1.1 million in the first half of 2003

Of course, ITS ALL BOURGEOIS LIEZ!!!! Get real, sometimes the right doesn't have to lie to back up their points.


And what the fuck are you talking about with your 'beacons of light'? We have all those movements here too but their influence is nihil.Yes, because a lot of Socialists would prefer to highlight the successes of Chavez rather than devoting most of their time to reporting and educating others about these (a lot of which are grassroots) movements rather than party "led" ones, and actually taking part in them, or agitating for them to occur.

In addition, I think you're even quite wrong on that, in this political climate anyway, anecdotally, I've seen more and more support for causes which the left generally support; occupation movement, anti-war movement, climate change, animal rights, anti-Capitalism in general as well.


The whole European continent has turned into a fucking police state and people are numb and ignorant about this while all you people seem to do is complain about (former) socialists states who are 'holding back the workers revolution' , guess what thats what the mensheviks and social-democrats allready said about the bolsheviks in 1917Indeed, that's all we do eh! You know nothing about me, and despite your quick-to-criticism of h0m0revolutionary for calling you a Stalinist on the grounds that he didn't know anything about you, I think this is two faced of you.

In fact, criticism of former "Socialist" states is not all I ever do. I've begun to get a lot more active, especially in the past number of months and I focus on other issues too, in fact I've done extremely little for Chavez cheerleading.


simply taking over the words used by right wing media (gee that are much better comrades than us 'stalinists' right). ... and the left have never been known to lie or distort facts and figures either eh? :rolleyes: Pravda anyone?


Oh no we shouldnt give the working class keep faith in a president who has done more for the working class than any other president, movement or labour union.Finally, it seems like you're getting it! No, we shouldn't, we should advocate the working class take up a real struggle against their ruling class, which Chavez is still defending by being in a position of authority within the state.

Now now, I thought you were a revolutionary at the very least! Are you saying we should stop all revolutionary language and agitation towards Venezualan workers, to the point where you would defend him, for the sake of keeping a "progressive", non-Socialist President in power? Very workerist and revolutionary of you ;)

[Mike Morin]

Yeah! Go Chavez! Death to America! Woo!

Chavez is pretty cool, for reasons already mentioned.


No, not death to America, America is the land and it includes Central and South.

Death to the people of the USA, if they don't clean up their act, and SOON!!!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

LoL I guarantee Chavez is praying we start burning a lot more oil, and soon.

[Patchd]

Death to the people of the USA, if they don't clean up their act, and SOON!!!

No, even that isn't correct. Marxists still oppose the bourgeois state, it is the working class who we support, whether they "clean up their act" or not.

[Hoxhaist]

Chavez should be careful. Allende was betrayed in Chile by fascist elements in his military acting on orders from CIA masterminds. Chavez ought to take ever opportunity to crush the counter-revolutionary potential to undermine his actions. Once he has eliminated that potential then he ought to bring his party line more into correct Marxism-Leninism

[Hoxhaist]

one of the best ways to help Chavez might be to buy alot of Citgo gas to shore up the Venezuelan state-run PDVSA that owns Citgo

[AntinoiteBolshevik]

Comandante Chavez is a shining example of Communism in practice.He is beloved of all the proletariat in Venezuela. He follows the shining example of Comrade Castro, who follows the Great Lenin.

Long live the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. May the Red Flag fly over all Latin America!

[Patchd]

Comandante Chavez is a shining example of Communism in practice.He is beloved of all the proletariat in Venezuela. He follows the shining example of Comrade Castro, who follows the Great Lenin.

Long live the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. May the Red Flag fly over all Latin America!
Commandante Chavez? Comrade Castro? The Great Lenin???? :confused:
... and no, Venezuala is not a shining beacon of example of Communism, and neither do all the workers in Venezuala support him. :D

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I have mixed views of him.It realy depends on what you think is support.If I was a leader wouldn't associate because a neo-liberalist that doesn't support armed struggle.But the fact is does he support us?He has though done alot for the venezuelan people but he seams more reformist than revolutionary.