Should Hugo Chavez use force against reactionary opponents ?

[John Lenin]

http://davron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/chavezwithgun.jpg

[Charles Xavier]

Thanks for the question, captain obvious of the CIA.

[bailey_187]

Your question is too vague

To use force to stop another coup would be justified although none of the prisoners should be executed

Using force against reactionary protesters? no

[Robespierre2.0]

I don't know about the last couple of years (Chavez is trying to play it safe and bring change gradually), but I figure that since he won the referendum, he might as well take the opportunity to consolidate his power (shut down the US-puppet media already!)
Who's going to stop him? The U.S. can't afford to start another war, Russia and China probably won't give a fuck, and the Europeans would probably just write Chavez a letter telling him how angry they are.

[John Lenin]

Thanks for the question, captain obvious of the CIA.
Are you implying that I am a CIA agent ? Whose goal is to incite discussion on a RevLeft message board?





Your question is too vague
The poll only let me ask one question, I would have preferred more.





To use force to stop another coup would be justified although none of the prisoners should be executed

Why not ? You don't support the death penalty for treason against a revolutionary government ? :confused:

Do you support it for any reason? (I'm curious)

[John Lenin]

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

~ Vladimir Lenin

[bailey_187]

Are you implying that I am a CIA agent ? Whose goal is to incite discussion on a RevLeft message board?





The poll only let me ask one question, I would have preferred more.




Why not ? You don't support the death penalty for treason against a revolutionary government ? :confused:

Do you support it for any reason? (I'm curious)

Not that i particularly care for their lives, just it would look very bad to the rest of the world and would just give FOX news etc more ammo

A long prison sentence would be fine, would it not?

[John Lenin]

it would look very bad to the rest of the world and would just give FOX news etc more ammo
I'm not sure Faux News needs any more ammo really. Soon they'll be saying he bites the heads off of puppies.



A long prison sentence would be fine, would it not?
It depends ... Fidel Castro used a televised execution once to get the point across as well ... Not to mention the public hangings in Lenin's Russia (which I would argue were necessary) etc.

[Pogue]

I'll just vote in the poll officer, then I'll send you the pictures of me and the revleft gang plotting to overthrow the government in armed revolt.

:rolleyes:

Srsly.

[PRC-UTE]

yes, it should crush the oligarchs, but the problem is that the Venezuelan state is not a proletarian one. if it's empowered to repress further, it can easily turn its guns on the working class (again).

[JimmyJazz]

He should not hog all the fun. He should invite lefties from all over the world to come down, and bring their bayonets, and impale a real life bourgeois. It would be a shame if he let the Venezuelan soldiers do it, as they might not even have their hearts in it, they might just consider it a chore.

[Killfacer]

Depends on what you mean. Obviously killing protestors is way out of line, but fighting a unpopular coup would be perfectly acceptable. Just as it would be in any other country.

[apathy maybe]

Obviously Chavez is a reactionary bastard, so we should use force against him.

[Pogue]

Obviously Chavez is a reactionary bastard, so we should use force against him.

Unless you're joking, I'd suggest you re-examine your definition of 'reactionary', because by no ones standards is the man a reactionary.

[dmcauliffe09]

There is no reason to use force. In Cuba, there was a military revolution. The use of forece was necessary because of military struggle. In Venezuela, the change came through the ballot box. Were Chavez to start violently oppressing his opponents, he would just be another tyrannical South American leader, and the budding Venezuelan revolution would die.

[Revy]

He should only use violence against those that are using violence. Executing opponents sounds like a dictatorship to me.

[CommieCat]

Violence against 'reactionary' elements would most likely involve workers been drawn into defending Chavez's capitalist state against other ruling class cliques, hence would be nothing progressive.

On the other hand, I'd be fully sympathetic to any revolutionary movement which decided to use violence against Chavez.

[Devrim]

Unless you're joking, I'd suggest you re-examine your definition of 'reactionary', because by no ones standards is the man a reactionary.

He is by mine. Let's remember that the Venezuela state sent out the National Guard last spring to shoot down striking steel workers in the streets. The working class is who Chavez will use armed force against.

Devrim

[Revy]

He is by mine. Let's remember that the Venezuela state sent out the National Guard last spring to shoot down striking steel workers in the streets. The working class is who Chavez will use armed force against.

Devrim

Yep. Suppose the left want revolution now, instead of some wacked out 30 year long process where Chavez does it for them (supposedly). They would be attacked by the same "socialist" state. Chavismo seems to be social democracy from above marketed with a radical coat of paint to the working class.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I think the Chavistas should retaliate with equal force that the bourgeoisie uses.

[Davie zepeda]

Wait to train the working class so they can be less dependent of the ruling class once this is done march toward socialism then to communism Horah! Horah!

[SocialRealist]

No, Hugo Chavez should not use force. Using force in order to control all political opponent is wrong and is only a mile stone to a bloody authoritarian regime costing the lives of many. If we are to obtain the means of leadership we should lead by an example, this example should not be corrupted with authoritarianism.

I ask you this, how would you feel for a moment if you were the political opposition facing down their barrel of a gun? Politics should be debated amongst both allies and enemies, even in time of great change...

[Robespierre2.0]

No, Hugo Chavez should not use force. Using force in order to control all political opponent is wrong and is only a mile stone to a bloody authoritarian regime costing the lives of many. If we are to obtain the means of leadership we should lead by an example, this example should not be corrupted with authoritarianism.

I ask you this, how would you feel for a moment if you were the political opposition facing down their barrel of a gun? Politics should be debated amongst both allies and enemies, even in time of great change...

Bloody authoritarian regime? If it's the blood of the bourgeois and the authority of the proletariat, that's a good thing.

Anti-authoritarians are useless liberals. Progressive Venezuelans should do whatever looks to be strategically sound, depending on the material circumstances at the time, and not upon some obsolete conception of what is 'morally right'.

Sometimes we can make progress through peaceful means, and sometimes it takes a bloodbath. I'm not going to pretend I know the conditions in Venezuela better than the Venezuelans themselves, so I'm not going to suggest one over the other.

However, I still feel Chavez is going perhaps a tad bit too slow. Personally, I think he should have eliminated the opposition media outlets by now.

[Crux]

No, the workingclass should be armed.

[More Fire for the People]

"Violent" or "armed" action should be a resources of the masses, not one appointed as their dignitary.

[Cumannach]

Using force makes baby Jesus cry.

I agree with comrade mantis, the reactionaries have already tried their hand at a coup but thankfully failed and yet he's still letting them spew their propaganda for fear of offending liberals or something.

[John Lenin]

Executing opponents sounds like a dictatorship

of the proletariat.

[John Lenin]

we should lead by an example

I agree ... of Robespierre


http://www.msn4u.net/animated/brutal/MSN4U_NET%20guillotine01.gif



:hammersickle:


"We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution ... Social Democracy must recognise this mass terror and incorporate it into its tactics, organising and controlling it of course, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the working-class movement and the general revolutionary struggle."
~ Lenin

[Dóchas]

it was a choice between 2nd and last one but i went for the 2nd one for obvious reasons

[More Fire for the People]

Hey John Lenin, do you ever get tired of Stalin's cock down your throat?

[John Lenin]

Hey John Lenin, do you ever get tired of Stalin's cock down your throat?
As a point of clarification ... are posters allowed to "flame", "troll" in such a manner in reference to past ideologicial disagreements.

Not to be a $*&% ... but I have seen posters banned for insulting others and I am unsure of the options one has if another poster decides they are going to blatantly agitate/insult you. Thanks.

[John Lenin]

Stalin's
Setting the juvenile insult aside ...

Nowhere have I mentioned support of Stalin in this or any other post. I am a Leninist not a Stalinist.

Additionally, don't fool yourself that Stalin was the only leader who used executions. Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho Chin Minh, Fidel, Che, etc etc all saw the need for such practices.

[More Fire for the People]

Self-proclaimed communist executing people does not equal the dictatorship of the proletariat. And on this board it's perfectly okay to flame dumbasses.

[Cumannach]

Black Panthers also patrolled neighbourhoods with firearms. I don't think they were water pistols.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I picked maybe. I don't like to make too many blanket rules. I'm more likely to deal with individual situations as individual situations. But that's just my humble opinion.

[More Fire for the People]

How many times the Black Panthers shoot while on patrol?

[Kassad]

The only problem with reformists and state-bureacrats like Hugo Chavez is the fact that, because power is not directly in the hands of the working class, those in power could turn on the workers in a second. The state will never serve the interests of the international proletariat unless it is destroyed and rebuilt by the proletariat themselves. At the moment, Chavez is an anti-imperialist who is working towards socialist reforms which have made massive headway for the lower classes in Venezuela and I applaud him for that.

It goes without saying, really. The United States fears Chavez and his party's control of Venezuela, as that imposes an anti-American government in a resource-rich area like Venezuela. He is a thorn in the militaristic paw of the United States. Regardless, there's a very thin line between using force against bourgeoisie reactionaries and using force against the working class. If another reactionary, imperialist coup is attempted, I would hope that it would be put down with little regard for mercy. However, if Chavez is going to claim to be a socialist, he must do what is in the interests of the working class, which is revolutionary socialism. In all honesty, I don't see Chavez's reformism lasting too long before it is either completely destroyed or, hopefully, replaced by a revolutionary workers movement.

Chavez could very quickly become the bourgeoisie oppressor he consistently criticizes.

[Cumannach]

How many times the Black Panthers shoot while on patrol?

You tell me me. The point is, since they carried around loaded shotguns, they obviously thought it was neccesary to use force against reactionary opponents, like racist pigs. By all means execute a racist cop if it makes the police force think twice about intimidating and terrorizing communities and falsely imprisoning people for being the wrong colour.

[Comrade Anarchist]

No because it would make him seem facist across the world but if he doesnt have to if he can get the people to protect him and start a revolution against the large bourgeoisie population.

[Pogue]

He is by mine. Let's remember that the Venezuela state sent out the National Guard last spring to shoot down striking steel workers in the streets. The working class is who Chavez will use armed force against.

Devrim

I wasn't aware of that. Any more info and links? This changes my view on the man.

[Chapter 24]

Giving the Venezuelan state - a bourgeois state - power to use force against reactionaries is not a bad thing because the U.S. media or whoever will lash out at Chavez. It's a dangerous thing to advocate because, as others mentioned, it would give Chavez and his allies control to suppress workers (as they have done in the past). Now I will give Chavez credit where credit is due, in terms of progressiveness which compared to other Latin American leaders is extraordinary. But that's just what he amounts to, a "progressive". Not a socialist, a social-democrat. The worker's councils are great and everything, but Venezuela is controlled by the bourgeoisie and therefore should not be given any power to suppress the population. That all being said, I am in full support of Venezuela in terms of protecting it against imperialism. But the state itself should not be given this amount of power.

[Comrade B]

This would have a series of negative effects. The US and other western countries would have reason to intrude in the politics, it would damage his popularity, and it would cause his focus to be forced to shift from solving the country's problems with poverty to a military campaign, and could end up turning into a police state. Also, if he were to lose a fight, he would be replaced with a vengeful and violent opponent.

Chavez should however, in my view, send support to the PFLP to fight Israel.

[More Fire for the People]

You tell me me. The point is, since they carried around loaded shotguns, they obviously thought it was neccesary to use force against reactionary opponents, like racist pigs. By all means execute a racist cop if it makes the police force think twice about intimidating and terrorizing communities and falsely imprisoning people for being the wrong colour.
The Black Panthers were in a different position than Chavez. The Black Panther Party was a proletarian / lumpenproletarian organization defending the Black community from pigs and capitalists. Chavez is a socialist personality commanding a bourgeois state. When the Venezuelan army crushes rightists, it's a bourgeois army doing so. Smashing rightists is the job of a mass, proletarian army.

[SocialRealist]

Bloody authoritarian regime? If it's the blood of the bourgeois and the authority of the proletariat, that's a good thing.

Anti-authoritarians are useless liberals. Progressive Venezuelans should do whatever looks to be strategically sound, depending on the material circumstances at the time, and not upon some obsolete conception of what is 'morally right'.

Sometimes we can make progress through peaceful means, and sometimes it takes a bloodbath. I'm not going to pretend I know the conditions in Venezuela better than the Venezuelans themselves, so I'm not going to suggest one over the other.

However, I still feel Chavez is going perhaps a tad bit too slow. Personally, I think he should have eliminated the opposition media outlets by now.
I am attempting to say that I would rather not have thousands of dissidents murdered in a cold blooded fashion even if they are considered the enemy. Unless they raise the gun to a gun, is it okay to fight them unless that happens, I cannot support an authoritarian action of this nature.

If we don't allow a peaceful revolution to happen in civil society we will most likely be leaning at the same type of defensive actions the whole time. The actions will show that we are only some what legitimate in the times that we are under attack.

Why should he eliminate the oppositions media? Simply he should let them talk, if he is able to lead the people in a correct direction he should be able to defuse what ever they say. I fully support the oppositions right to the freedom of speech.

I will leave you on this, what is freedom if it is not shared by all? Is it truly freedom with you make it just for a single group or party? I think not.

[John Lenin]

I would rather not have thousands of dissidents murdered in a cold blooded fashion even if they are considered the enemy.
What if they aren't just "considered", but really ARE the enemy?




Why should he eliminate the oppositions media? ... I fully support the oppositions right to the freedom of speech.

So you don't believe that a government should ever shut down reactionary opposition? Foreign funded propaganda which threatens the security of the state is acceptable in your view?
... Arbenz found this out the hard way




I will leave you on this, what is freedom if it is not shared by all?

The freedom to be an oligarch is not a legitimate "freedom" in my view, nor the freedom to support an exploitive economic structure. It is the same as inciting theft. Laws are there for a reason ... and absolute "freedom" is a fairy tale (imo).

[Glenn Beck]

My opinion:

Within the current legal framework Venezuela is a bourgeois republic. Bourgeois republics I feel should stick to the rule of law and constitutional authority. The government in Venezuela should restrain itself from using force except to enforce its laws until the current system has been superseded and the working class in Venezuela is seeking to establish a worker's state, at which point it is appropriate and necessary to expropriate the exploiters. I feel that resorting to a full escalation of class war on the part of the government at this point would divide the attentions of the progressives in government and alienate those proletarians whose consciousness is not ready for all-out revolution (what proportion of the working class is ready for revolution and capable of taking over from the state is a crucial question that I not being in Venezuela right now don't feel competent to comment on). Not to speak of its consequences on foreign relations (who cares about the US right? I'm thinking more its repercussions on reformist governments elsewhere in Latin America that are currently supportive of Chavez).

It would also, at least in my opinion, crystallize the Venezuelan govt. in its current form which is NOT a worker's state and if there were a restoration of power to the oligarchy or a strong anti-democratic turn in the leadership lead to a bourgeois state with extensive powers to be used against the workers. If I were Chavez right now I would be attempting to set the stage for a transition to a workers state (meaning an end to the current constitution, his position as president though the workers may choose to retain him in another leadership capacity, and the legislature) within the next few years, if possible even before his now legal re-election bid in 2012. This is of course ultimately up to the people of Venezuela, what is on Chavez's initiative is how to expand popular democracy, likely in parallel with the existing state, and use the state power to help the process along.

That said, I do think the Venezuelan government has been far too soft on coup-plotters and oligarchs, and has enforced its own laws unevenly and inconsistently. Economically it also over-privileges the traditional constituency of the bourgeois Venezuelan state (urban middle class) while during the oil boom this may have been worthwhile to pacify their insurrection it is now an uncalled for strain on a developing economy and essentially theft from the working classes. It would be a good time to squeeze the suckers a bit and see where their loyalties lie, and all that would need to be done to get them really riled up would be to stop giving them handouts with cheap gas and favorable travelers currency exchanges.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Yes.

[Cumannach]

The Black Panthers were in a different position than Chavez. The Black Panther Party was a proletarian / lumpenproletarian organization defending the Black community from pigs and capitalists. Chavez is a socialist personality commanding a bourgeois state. When the Venezuelan army crushes rightists, it's a bourgeois army doing so. Smashing rightists is the job of a mass, proletarian army.

Well then let's not interfere with our enemies while they're making the mistake of crushing each other. Especially when it's left bourgeois crushing right bourgeois. Anything that weakens reaction in Venezuela is fine with me. If it's a bad political move, then it shouldn't be done, but there's no moral problem with repressing reactionary capitalists.

[More Fire for the People]

So you'd support the Italian fascist against the anti-modern parochial bourgeoisie in the early 1900s? No, in all national struggles the advanced group always posits the demands of the international proletariat.

[Kassad]

I think that any and all opposition to imperialism is a potential ally for the international proletariat. I'm not saying we should align ourselves with and support fascists, racists, homophobes and the like, but I don't see anything wrong with being content with an imperialist force being opposed by these groups. If you observe it in the right sense, that means it's potentially fascist/xenophobic/reactionary anti-imperialists against the imperialists, which means that both of them are tearing each other apart. That doesn't mean we support reactionaries and racists, but we merely gain from their opposition to anti-imperialism. An example would be my support of Hamas, which I see as reactionary, but realize they are a significant opposition to American and Israeli imperialism in the Middle East. It doesn't mean I support their ideology, but I'm glad to see them fighting against our enemies.

The word 'support' becomes so broad sometimes. I don't 'support' Hamas in their crusade for a theocratic state, but I 'support' their opposition to imperialism. Those who are narrow-minded will try to say that people like me are admirers of Islamic extremists and the like, but that's completely false. There's nothing wrong in solidarity with anti-imperialists.

[More Fire for the People]

While I support the banding of proletarian anti-imperialism with other forms of anti-imperialism [ in the case of Hamas, petty-bourgeois anti-imperialism ], I think this should only be an absolute policy where a proletarian organization has seized the helm of the movement and is able to control the other clases [ a kind of proletarian il principe ].

However, I have serious doubts where proletarian organizations are not at the helm and prefer to err on the side of caution.

[Devrim]

I wasn't aware of that. Any more info and links? This changes my view on the man.

There was some discussion on it on here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/steel-strike-venezuela-t74366/index.html?t=74366&highlight=steel+strike+venezuela+devrim

Devrim

[Q]

Using violence is no easy question. Timing is of the essence. After the coup attempt in 2002 Chavez could've easily arrested many dangerous opponents and for example shut down rightwing tv stations that fully backed the coup and waged a slander campaign against him and his government.

He chose not to. The fact that he didn't clearly outlines the limitations of Chavez as committed to actually end capitalism. He's not interested in doing that. Instead he never charged any of the olichargs and only shut down RCTV when its licence was expired, causing a shitstorm in the process.

[John Lenin]

"A revolution without guns, it would never work." ~ Che Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries

[Sendo]

Chavez should do whatever the fuck the people empower him to do. The Western media slams no matter what. He is restored after a coup and lets bygones be bygones (except for not renewing one of several private, right-wing TV broadcast licenses...the US does much worse every damn day). I feel now is the time to act. The CIA is too distracted, there's been no better time since before Columbus, honestly.

[Kassad]

Chavez should do whatever the fuck the people empower him to do. The Western media slams no matter what. He is restored after a coup and lets bygones be bygones (except for not renewing one of several private, right-wing TV broadcast licenses...the US does much worse every damn day). I feel now is the time to act. The CIA is too distracted, there's been no better time since before Columbus, honestly.

Really now? The people in Germany empowered Hitler to exterminate the Jews and create a master race. They empowered his militaristic colonialism, along with concentration camps and the total economic destruction of much of Europe due to military invasion, bombing and occupation. But hey, the people empowered him, so it's cool.

[elux]

he should only force aganist people who use force

[Kassad]

he should only force aganist people who use force

If a revolutionary socialism movement of the proletariat rises against him, should he use force then? Or should he support and rally with the proletariat themselves, as opposed to becoming the bourgeoisie he rejects?

[JimmyJazz]

FYI guys, Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/184766/output/print) says that "The rise of these leaders [Putin, Ahmadinejad and Chavez] was the dark side of an otherwise golden era of growth in the global economy."

Just something to keep in mind. :)

Isn't it nice to live in America, the land of independent journalism? :)

[elux]

If a revolutionary socialism movement of the proletariat rises against him, should he use force then? Or should he support and rally with the proletariat themselves, as opposed to becoming the bourgeoisie he rejects?

he should support and rally with them of course

[el_chavista]

Let's remember that the Venezuela state sent out the National Guard last spring to shoot down striking steel workers in the streets. The working class is who Chavez will use armed force against.

I wasn't aware of that. Any more info and links? This changes my view on the man.
Not the Venezuelan "State" but the regional Bolivar state. Actually, any enterprise owner can get an eviction act from a local judge that implies using the police or the national guard as auxiliaries of the court. Chávez is only the chief of the executive branch of the State.

[Dimentio]

Stupid poll which I should not even vote on.

[Devrim]

Not the Venezuelan "State" but the regional Bolivar state. Actually, any enterprise owner can get an eviction act from a local judge that implies using the police or the national guard as auxiliaries of the court. Chávez is only the chief of the executive branch of the State.

Is the regional state a part of the state or not?

Devrim