your opinion on hugo chavez? [Archive]

View Full Version : your opinion on hugo chavez?

The Red Next Door

25th November 2009, 02:27

what do you think about chavez? is he good for the cause?

red cat

25th November 2009, 02:36

No.

proudcomrade

25th November 2009, 02:40

Another No vote here. There is another recent Chavez thread with my opinion on p. 3 if you are interested.

La ComÃ©die Noire

25th November 2009, 03:47

Why does it have to be a straight "yes" or "no."? I think he is doing great things for his country and the struggle against imperialism, but either him or a successor will openly display the nature of the current (Bourgeois) state.

Hopefully it falls during his current reign so people don't get the idea that the "right" personalities make history. Which is already a problem, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Red Next Door

25th November 2009, 04:12

I think i had read it already

KlÃ©ber

25th November 2009, 04:13

Support politically, no, maybe for his initiatives or in a second round vote against neoliberals. Support militarily if he was attacked by imperialists, yes.

Dr. Rosenpenis

25th November 2009, 04:22

support some things... not others

I do believe that his party represents Venezuelan workers to a certain degree

Tatarin

25th November 2009, 04:59

Absolutely yes. An independent Venezuela is much better than an invisibly occupied one.

RedSonRising

25th November 2009, 05:05

Although he is displaying some authoritarian tendencies that advocates of Latin American Socialism should attempt to diminish in policy, his restructuring of the legislative system is a more democratic one. His staunch stance against neo-liberalism is reminding the working class of Latin America that it is possible for their class to organize, mobilize, and overcome their submissive position in society. While he isn't seizing the means of production and handing them over to worker councils overnight, his political agenda has empowered the proletariat in a way that will have lasting positive effects on class struggle in Venezuela. I don't like the news of non-conformist unions being oppressed by the sate, and there is not socialism in Venezuela yet, but the organs formed in the wake of the Bolivarian project have done much to improve the condition and political vigor of the people.

He isn't doing things the way I would and there are plenty of things I've shaken my head over in reading news on his decision-making and media babble, but that doesn't mean he isn't a valuable figure to the struggle. I voted Yes.

pierrotlefou

25th November 2009, 07:41

dread...

25th November 2009, 11:38

I support the Venezuelan working class, if he does things in their interests (and he clearly has done some things) then good, but if he works against their interests and if he hasn't yet he will, then I will oppose him.

But we do need to be clear - that whatever replaces him, will not be an improvement, he is the least bad they can hope for in the current situation. That's not enough to support him without question though.

Comrade Anarchist

26th November 2009, 01:41

the last donut of the night

26th November 2009, 01:49

i think he is helping his people but he wants power and wants to keep it and i believe that he is going down the path of fascism. The fact he met with the Iranian president scares me b/c socialism and theocracies are very different. He is just trying to muster anti u.s. support to strengthen his anti u.s. cause, not a socialist cause.

Fascism? I doubt it. His own class interests wouldn't really lead him there, and he has indeed brought forth many good things to Venezuela. Whether he will become a nationalistic anti-imperialist, I am not too sure. Maybe some other members could analyze the Bolivarian movement better than I.

However, I don't think the vote should be a straight 'yes' or 'no'. Hugo's, and Venezuela's, situation is more complicated.

Chavez is really not like the mainstream media portrays him to be. He is not as authoritarian as most say. However, his action towards some unions worry me. Also, it's not like Venezuela is socialist just yet. However, Chavez's recent call for a Fith International, in a very revolutionary speech, seems to indicate that there may be more radical tendencies surging to the top of the government.

Then again, other members can tell you more.

gorillafuck

26th November 2009, 01:59

i think he is helping his people but he wants power and wants to keep it and i believe that he is going down the path of fascism.
Fascism doesn't mean authoritarianism. And even if it did, he still wouldn't be at all comparable to Fascism despite some of his governments recent moves.

I critically support Chavez. He's done some very great things for Venezuela, despite his shortcomings.

proudcomrade

26th November 2009, 03:32

i think he is helping his people but he wants power and wants to keep it and i believe that he is going down the path of fascism. The fact he met with the Iranian president scares me b/c socialism and theocracies are very different. He is just trying to muster anti u.s. support to strengthen his anti u.s. cause, not a socialist cause.

First time that I've ever repped an anarchist in my entire tenure here. You rule, comrade:lol:

Bucket of Cows, perhaps "fascist" was not the most precise word; but I think that the main gist of the argument still stands. He is playing footsie with an Islamist theocrat and anti-Semite, rattling swords at Colombia while simultaneously throwing the bull about pan-Latino solidarity, and disrupting practically every political summit at which he is present, summits that would have helped to bring many conflicts to an end. This guy is not good news for comrades and never has been.

His low intelligence is little more help to his credibility. It's like watching a petulant little Castro spawn put on his big-boy cargo pants and hat and parade around the kitchen making believe he's Papi. Trust me, as a Spanish speaker who has seen one too many broadcasts of Alo, Presidente on Youtube...

Artemis3

26th November 2009, 07:12

He is playing footsie with an Islamist theocrat and anti-Semite, rattling swords at Colombia while simultaneously throwing the bull about pan-Latino solidarity, and disrupting practically every political summit at which he is present, summits that would have helped to bring many conflicts to an end.

So, USA installs 7 military bases everyone in the continent is opposed to, yet it is Chavez rattling swords, not the boots licking Uribe... Oh, and you don't like Chavez tone at summits, where things hadn't moved for decades. If it were for you, the continent would have had the FTAA and imperial rule established by 2005. No thanks, we like Chavez to go there and make a mess in those stupid events, if thats what it takes to wake up those bastards.

Our relationship with Iran is our right, and has been very productive in the past 11 years. Iran has transfered their technology, something other "powers" would never do. Technology which enables _workers_ to build things we didn't have access to.

Iran is what its people want it to be, and for all i know, Ahmadinejad won the elections by landslide. I find it too convenient for Zionism for you to back up US twisted views, when its US occupied Afghanistan the one with massive fraud. Iran has done nothing but help our revolution, and we are not going to obey what USA/Israel dictates, for all we care these governments are the main imperialist force and enemies of the world.

If the Iranians want to revolt, its the iranians, not USA incites. But knowing how "news" reach out completely distorted and washed by corporate media, i won't be surprised the majority there want their theocratic state the way it is.

Iran has had nuclear power for decades and they want to keep running their power plants, just like many other countries in the world. They complied with all international standards, and yet USA forbids this and Israel threatens with bombing... So you expect Iran to keep passive if they get attacked? Iran has all the right to defend from USA/Israel aggressions, in the same way Venezuela has all the right to defend from USA/Colombia aggressions.

Perhaps if Iran actually detonates a bomb underground the same way DPRK, Pakistan and others did, that would force the Zionists to stay the fuck quiet and leave them alone in peace. What stopped USA from anexing Cuba by force?, soviet nukes. It is the only language those imperialist monsters understand, and it is the reason Israel made their nukes in the first place, to practice that logic, Samson or something they call it.

So if Venezuela also wants to build a nuclear power plant, with Iranian technology (you can bet not the US Three Mile Island leaking one) we suddenly become a major threat and Chavez must be hanged because USA says so, to hell what the people of Venezuela think, workers and all...

Sorry if you don't get our international policy, i believe Chavez is correct.

syndicat

26th November 2009, 07:31

He seems to be building a political machine, for his party. If a community council is dominated by anarchists or Trotskyists, it will lose its funding. Same for cooperatives. The radical left is strong in the oil workers union but the government will not allow new elections of delegates...this has been petitioned 5 times and denied...because the current Chavista leadership would be defeated.

I would say I neither support him nor oppose him. As an anarchist from Venezuela told me, "We can't support the opposition because we won't support our enemies" but he was not a supporter of Chavez.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

26th November 2009, 12:07

Yes, absolutely.

26th November 2009, 12:09

what do you think about chavez? is he good for the cause?

Cause what cause?
If i support him though, of course and not.Im not giving my support to any state leader, any ruler, even if he decided to wear the "communist" mask.

Delenda Carthago

26th November 2009, 13:15

The only thing I dont like about Chavez is the fact that he dont let the criticism from the left to be heard.If you are a true socialist revolutionary,you have to leave the marxist and anarchist voices be heard.

The thing I dont like generally about the "revolutionary" goverments,is that they take the society movements and they make it a goverment's thing,which is killing the peoples movements.

proudcomrade

26th November 2009, 15:06

So, USA installs 7 military bases everyone in the continent is opposed to, yet it is Chavez rattling swords, not the boots licking Uribe... Oh, and you don't like Chavez tone at summits, where things hadn't moved for decades. If it were for you, the continent would have had the FTAA and imperial rule established by 2005. No thanks, we like Chavez to go there and make a mess in those stupid events, if thats what it takes to wake up those bastards.

Our relationship with Iran is our right, and has been very productive in the past 11 years. Iran has transfered their technology, something other "powers" would never do. Technology which enables _workers_ to build things we didn't have access to.

Iran is what its people want it to be, and for all i know, Ahmadinejad won the elections by landslide. I find it too convenient for Zionism for you to back up US twisted views, when its US occupied Afghanistan the one with massive fraud. Iran has done nothing but help our revolution, and we are not going to obey what USA/Israel dictates, for all we care these governments are the main imperialist force and enemies of the world.

If the Iranians want to revolt, its the iranians, not USA incites. But knowing how "news" reach out completely distorted and washed by corporate media, i won't be surprised the majority there want their theocratic state the way it is.

Iran has had nuclear power for decades and they want to keep running their power plants, just like many other countries in the world. They complied with all international standards, and yet USA forbids this and Israel threatens with bombing... So you expect Iran to keep passive if they get attacked? Iran has all the right to defend from USA/Israel aggressions, in the same way Venezuela has all the right to defend from USA/Colombia aggressions.

Perhaps if Iran actually detonates a bomb underground the same way DPRK, Pakistan and others did, that would force the Zionists to stay the fuck quiet and leave them alone in peace. What stopped USA from anexing Cuba by force?, soviet nukes. It is the only language those imperialist monsters understand, and it is the reason Israel made their nukes in the first place, to practice that logic, Samson or something they call it.

So if Venezuela also wants to build a nuclear power plant, with Iranian technology (you can bet not the US Three Mile Island leaking one) we suddenly become a major threat and Chavez must be hanged because USA says so, to hell what the people of Venezuela think, workers and all...

Sorry if you don't get our international policy, i believe Chavez is correct.

Hi,

It would appear that you are conflating all criticism against Chavez with automatic support of US and Israeli aggression. The thing is, I never said, nor implied, any of that. One does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with the other. What I did say was that I oppose the Iranian regime, Chavez' opportunistic strategies with it, and Chavez' international behavior in general. There are specific examples that I did not know whether to mention or not, for brevity's sake, from certain summit speeches, and appearances on Alo Presidente, which make him come across as a belligerent fool by his own words and actions, not some second-hand US media reports of the events. I opted, however, to keep my criticisms more brief and succint, rather than come across as bashing him up and down mercilessly. But, no, for the record, opposing him is not meant to imply that I condone capitalist aggression against Venezuela; that is simply incorrect logic, no offense. I simply consider him the wrong man for his job, in many ways.

Bloody Kalashnikov

26th November 2009, 15:21

He is a socialist, therefor we must support him, to do otherwise for petty reasons would be counter revolutionary and bourgeois in the extreme.

Red_Xan

27th November 2009, 02:29

While for the most part I agree with Chavez, and have seen some great things he's done for his country, I do think he could be a little more open to Leftist criticism.

RotStern

27th November 2009, 03:12

Actions speak louder than words.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

27th November 2009, 04:21

I voted yes. He does have some obvious flaws in terms of a lack of reception of criticism (but not nearly to the extent that it is portrayed in the capitalist media) and a slightly worrying interest in power, not to mention participation in the movement of rag tag anti-imperialists.

However, he is a socialist, he is enacting revolution at his own pace, and he is democratically supported - elections would suggest, I am not too knowledgeable on his relationship with the labour movement - it would seem. It is our duty to support somebody who is really advancing the cause of socialism, even if we would individually 'do things slightly differently.'

RaÃºl Duke

27th November 2009, 04:46

My opinion is more complex then just "yes" or "no."

Chavez is good at putting some reforms out there for Venezuela and for his anti-imperialist stance/view for Latin-America but he's a dunce at a few things and his anti-imperialist stance seems more like a silly "the enemy of my enemy, the U.S., is my friend" (leading him to support reactionary regimes like Ahmedinejad's theocratic Iran) one then a principled anti-imperialist stance.

Artemis3

27th November 2009, 19:11

He seems to be building a political machine, for his party. If a community council is dominated by anarchists or Trotskyists, it will lose its funding. Same for cooperatives. I can assure you this is absolutely not true. There are even councils dominated by the opposition right getting funds, as long as they stay within the law.

Chavez is more friendly to Trotskyists than Anarchists, yet you won't see purges or anything of the sort. They might not be in the Socialist Party (not like they want to), but thats about it. I know some anarchists will fight against the fascists should the time come, and some are well armed, mind you, and have very good reasons to. A Honduras style Coup in Venezuela? Think again... And, there is the state backed militias, which is why everyone should be trained to use the weapons, should the time come.

The factories that have been taken by workers control, they choose if they want to have collective ownership, usually co-ops, or if they want state ownership, or some mix of, with state aids if needed. We don't go in there asking each worker if they are part of the socialist party to get or not get funds, that is a practice that has been purged from our society a decade ago. All people have the same rights and there is no discrimination of any sort.

As for reformists getting power, i say many that were exposed have already jumped ship (we say "jumped the fence" here), and the ones that remain will be exposed by social audit.

Chavez openly calls for healthy criticism all the time, but you must be a little careful not to fuel the enemy. I say a good approach is simply make it in private meetings, otherwise it is seen as an attack, and responded in accordance. We are getting bombarded by the international right all the time, so you have to understand its not always easy to distinguish friend or foe. That say we made good friendships with many groups and movements and even States, some might not even share our ideology, but that doesn't mean we can't work as allies in common goals.

pranabjyoti

28th November 2009, 07:35

If what Artemis3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=26668) has been describing here is true, then I must say it's very good and I am extending my support to these steps. But, I am curious to know, what steps he is taking for scientific and technological advancement of Venezuela.
I think everybody will agree that Socialism isn't just a matter of politics and political and social decisions. It also means scientific and technological advancement too. Just workers control isn't sufficient to run a factory, up gradation of the production process is also necessary. It is a must for any factory to upgrade its machinery, make the production process less wasteful and increase of productivity of the work force. Without proper planning and proper execution of the plans, I don't think just "workers control" is sufficient to go to the future i.e. socialism. But, so far, sorry to say, I haven't noticed any concrete steps has been taken anywhere, even in Venezuela, so far in this regard.
There are two possible ways for that, the Chinese way i.e. going straight to capitalist-imperialist for improved technology and surrender the workers on their feet in the name of "development". Another way is developing present product and technologies by own effort. But, with the human resource available in a single country, I think it is very very tough to bring real improvement in the scientific and technological field. In that case, brains and human resources around the world in my opinion is necessary.
USA and other capitalist countries always had and still have a good supply of human resources from the third world countries. Without that, I strongly doubt that the present progress of USA and other capitalist countries would be possible or not (if you as me, I will always say NOT). There is also a huge amount of human resource lay idle in the third world countries. Why not use them on a worldwide effort for moving towards "future and socialism".
My post may seem out of context, but it is not so. The problem of the present world is that the imperialist-capitalist don't have sufficient power to DIGEST the scientific and technological progress while the socialist don't get sufficient boost of nourishment of "scientific and technological progress". But, annoyingly, I have observed very little consciousness even among the socialist and progressive groups regarding that matter.
I hope I will get a good reply from Artemis3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=26668) in this regard.

scarletghoul

28th November 2009, 09:26

The thing I dont like generally about the "revolutionary" goverments,is that they take the society movements and they make it a goverment's thing,which is killing the peoples movements.
But don't you think state power can offer a huge boost to the revolutionary movements? I think that a mass peoples' movement, with state backing, is the most powerful and efficient model for a revolutionary movement. As long as the revolutionary state doesnt take away the peoples' power, but instead supports it, then I think a revolutionary state is a great thing.

zimmerwald1915

28th November 2009, 10:17

he is enacting revolution at his own pace
Revolutions are not "enacted" by one man, at whatever pace.

Artemis3

28th November 2009, 20:07

The society movements remain society movements even if they decide to support a government, and in any case its their choice.

As for technology, all i can say is there is a mix. The state has increased funds to education, research and invention. At the same time, Chavez is making deals everywhere he goes around the globe, these deals must ALWAYS have tranfer of technology. So if we buy 1 million Russian AK rifles, we are also building a factory here so we can build our own after own. The same is with Iranian Milk processing plants, Japanese/Brazil Digital TV, Cuban medicine, Belarussian large rock trucks, Uruguayan Software, Chinese satellite building and operation, and a long etcetera.

Farmers that were given land, either individual or collective, and workers now in control of factories, aside from State funds they also receive technical advise, and most of the time its the workers that give advise and their technical expertise to other workers in similar condition. We have a number of new universities created, one of them being for and by workers, which is doing the same in the academic level, so workers can graduate or study different careers which the State now recognize.

el_chavista

28th November 2009, 20:40

Hi there, Artemis3! You should know Marxists are not "escuálidos". There have been many other middle class revolutions in Latino América, even Castro's.

It is not enough to be an antiimperialist to understand Chávez's cons and pros. You got to be a communist to analyzed why some people here in RevLeft got their doubts whether a movement for the sole defense of the national interest may do a real socialist revolution.

KurtFF8

28th November 2009, 23:28

Looks like Chavez has won reelection at RevLeft... he's becoming a dictator!

the last donut of the night

28th November 2009, 23:48

But don't you think state power can offer a huge boost to the revolutionary movements? I think that a mass peoples' movement, with state backing, is the most powerful and efficient model for a revolutionary movement. As long as the revolutionary state doesnt take away the peoples' power, but instead supports it, then I think a revolutionary state is a great thing.

Well, how often do those happen?

Charles Xavier

29th November 2009, 00:47

blank

FSL

29th November 2009, 01:36

Hugo Chavez and the left doesn't have 100% state power, they are fighting for it, but it doesn't mean the workers are in control yet. If the left and hugo chavez did control everything, some of these criticisms make sense. The reason he is not going as fast as lightning on the revolution is because there is also a counter revolution.

When there is a counter revolution, revolutions tend to put it down, not treat it gently. Easing on the struggle makes sense when the biggest dangers are behind you like Russia after the civil war.

PSUV isn't a working class party. It's working class among other things. 21st century Socialism is ill-defined. Workers in Venezuela who want a real change -and there are quite a few- can't just look the other way.

Charles Xavier

29th November 2009, 01:51

blank

mosfeld

29th November 2009, 01:54

There have been many other middle class revolutions in Latino América, even Castro's. "Middle class" is not a marxist class analysis.

FSL

29th November 2009, 02:23

The PSUV is not a unitary movement of opinion. They are in coalition with a number of other parties, and yes the PSUV is a working class party.

It is in a loose coalition with only 2 parties I think at this time. These parties support their own candidates in local and parliament elections and Chavez as president. The coalition of a number of parties that supported Chavez dissolved and formed PSUV which is by no means a working class party. That there are tendencies, factions and that members of government were in need of a quick removal tells us as much.

pranabjyoti

29th November 2009, 03:44

robbo203

29th November 2009, 08:46

what do you think about chavez? is he good for the cause?

What cause? The only cause Chavez espouses is left wing state run capitalism. No thanks

Artemis3

29th November 2009, 21:35

That's about assimilating technologies of other countries. What about making something totally new, which the world has never seen before and about which, we can call "this is the future". Is there any kind of institution, where new ideas can be submitted for evaluation and further progress?

I suppose IVIC ivic.ve and IDEA idea.gob.ve to name two, there should be more, and the State Universities, etc. The Ministry of Science and Technology mct.gob.ve should have the info.

Artemis3

29th November 2009, 21:45

What cause? The only cause Chavez espouses is left wing state run capitalism. No thanks

As opposed to, Spain? We don't have capitalism because we wanted to, we have it because thats the current reality; what we are doing is changing it. If by espousing, you mean things like:

Chavez pointed out that the state in Venezuela remained a capitalist state and this was a central problem for the revolution. Waving a copy of Lenin’s State and Revolution (which he recommended all the delegates to read), he said that he accepted Lenin's view that it was necessary to destroy the bourgeois state and replace it with a revolutionary state, and this task remained to be carried out. then all my support.

For the people who believe the fantasy corporate media makes of Chavez, he just said moments ago something like: "Scientific Socialism, or it is no Socialism". Take that as you will.

robbo203

29th November 2009, 22:21

As opposed to, Spain? We don't have capitalism because we wanted to, we have it because thats the current reality; what we are doing is changing it. .

Spain is capitalist certainly but so is Venezuela and the Chavez regime is certainly not interested in changing that - only in modifying the type of capitalism it administers and nothing more. Show me any evidence of an serious interest on the regime's part in the notion of a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism (aka socialism/communism) let alone the intent to bring it about . Until then, Ill stick with the Marxist view that the Chavez regime is nothing more than a bourgeois state capitalist one and a rather unsavoury one at that.

For the people who believe the fantasy corporate media makes of Chavez, he just said moments ago something like: "Scientific Socialism, or it is no Socialism". Take that as you will.

There are plenty of pseudo-socialists who will spout on about scientific socialism but where's the beef as Mondale used to say. Where is the revolutionary desire to seek the abolition of the wages system which is the acid test for anyone purporting to be a socialist. What Chavez wants is state capitalism and nothing else

robbo203

29th November 2009, 22:38

A rather good and damming article of the strutting ambitions of Chavez can be found here http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/hugo-chavez-and-venezuela-a-leader-s-destiny

Artemis3

29th November 2009, 23:32

A rather good and damming article
Especially the very first comment by GGabriel... Here, i'll save you the trouble:
GGabriel
2 May 2009 - 5:35am

This piece is undoubtedly masterfully crafted, drenched in ably handled philosophy, and so far divorced from the Venezuelan reality that it leaves the reader not only exhausted but seeing Hitler's spectre dressed in red.Chavez is undoubtedly in love with the dream of the great man. This is undoubtedly dangerous, its Nietzschean prioritization of greatness over goodness, indeed over the human, is a powerful (a)moral logic. Albert Camus exposed this phenomenon in his seminal work "The Rebel": a cry of anguish at human suffering subsequently divorced from this same humanist content in a flurry of romanticism and rage.

Yet Latin America does not share the deep Western nihilist tradition, that emptied these cries entirely leaving efficacy, in other words power, as the only guiding principle. Krauze must recognise that indeed some leaders are better than others, precisely because they refuse to relinquish their humanism. Deeper contact with the Venezuelan reality would teach Krauze the truth of this, his lack of it is revealed in the caricatured narrative of recent events he provides. It would teach him of a powerful Venezuelan moral discourse of participation and social inclusion that is indeed the goodness that those of Nietzschean decent will see as constraining Chavez's greatness. The reality of this discourse is transforming the country, for the better.Picking just a handful of factual inadequacies we can see how they give flesh to Krauze's Nazi fantasy:

1) Fearsome Fiction - "Having closed, harassed, or fined the few media outlets that opposed him, Chávez devoted the impressive media network that he has assembled (300 radio stations, subsidised papers, five TV stations in the capital alone) to relentless propaganda for him and his regime. The opposition, barred from these outlets and slandered in them, was left with only a single television station and another cable station (which Chávez in all likelihood will soon shutdown)."

Contact with Venezuela - Human Rights Watch observes, in its recently damming report on the Chávez regime, that even after moving to cable in 2008, to which only a quarter of Venezuelan’s have access (having had its public airwaves liscense witheld), RCTV received an audience share of 13% in comparison with the largest state channel, VTV’s meagre 4%.

2) Fearsome Fiction - The Jews of Venezuela have been denounced as the instigators of the coup attempt against Chávez in 2002. The theory of a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" has become a common place in Venezuela. In the weeks leading up to the February 2009 referendum, the old Mariperez synagogue in Caracas was violently assaulted

Contact with Venezuela - First a touch of context: Venezuelan anti-imperialism leads naturally to anti zionism given the 8 billion provided to Israel each year from the US in military aid and the continuing annexation of the West Bank byIsraeli settlers. Is anti-zionism anti-semetic? In response to mass murder in Gaza Chavez expelled the Israeli ambassador and launched a scathing critic of Israeli actions that received plaudits around the world. Some poorly educated elements of society denounced the actions in abhorrent anti-semetic terms. What was the response of the "fascist" president? Chavez stated publicly, repeatedly, that anti-zionism should not be confused with or a cause of anti-semitism in efforts recognised by the Venezuelan Israeli Association sourced as evidence of Chavez's denunciation of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy (the word scapegoat). The text, criticising the ownership of over 50% of the world's resources by less than 10 % of its population reads - "unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo crucificaron a su manera" - "some minorities, the decendents of those who killed Christ, the decendents of those who in their own way here crucified Bolivar".The first two words are crucial "unas minorias", they are plural, they refer to multiple minorities though the translators at the reliable source "The Devil's Excrement" translate it to read "a minority". Thus a statement that should be understood as condemning inequality all over the world with a worrying anti-semetic note is twisted to evidence Chavez's denunciation of global Jewish conspiracy.On such an important topic statements such as this must be criticised; forcing Chavez to be consistent in his separation of Anti-Zionism from Anti-Semeticism, but done with clarity - avoiding manipulative translations and sweeping statements. This one statement, given Chavez's anti-imperialism and his recent repeated differentiation between anti-semitism and anti-zionism (the latter of which alone follows from his anti-imperialism) is simply not sufficient the huge allegation launched by Krauze - "And this brings us to another element of classical fascism that Hugo Chávez has not hesitated to exploit: anti-semitism".

3) Fearsome Fiction - "On the "corruption perceptions index" released in 2008 by Transparency International, Venezuela was rated 158 out of 180."

Contact with Venezuela - Latinobarometro found the percentage of Venezuelans who personally knew of an act of corruption declined from 27% in 2001 to 16% in2005, 42% feel progress has been made fighting corruption from 2003-5 compared to a regional average of 34%.

4) Fearsome Fiction - "On the subject of liberal democracy, his opinions have always been sweeping: "Liberal democracy is no good, its time has passed, new models must be invented, new formulas.... Democracy is like a rotten mango"

Contact with Venezuela - Chavez does denounce the Western liberal institutional structure, largely because under Venezuela's Punto Fijo pact its price was massive social and political exclusion that, compelled by its own moral logic and falling oil prices led it to massacre Caracas slum dwellers in their homes in the Caracazo of 1989 for daring to protest at the introduction of a neoliberal reform package. Yet this state extermination of the poor proves insufficient to stop Krauze describing Punto Fijismo as "against all odds had been working quite well since 1959".Krauze also overlooks the entire positive agenda of the Bolivarian (wow, how daring) Project - the creation of a "participatory democracy", an agenda that has seen the creation of around 24000 communal councils and unprecedented mechanisms of popular empowerment. Fascists were not ones to be subjected to popular control, yet Venezuela's constitution includes a mechanism by which the population can initiate a recall referendum on President's mandate. If 20% sign a petition such a referendum is called, and indeed was called in 2004! Hitler, Mussolini and Franco rolled into one! And yes, the signatures were released by Luis Tascon, an individual clearly outside Chavez's control, and subsequently used to discriminate against opposition members, just as not being a member of an opposition party has often disqualified one from a job in the private sector. But really, no one has carried out any kind of remotely rigorous study into the extent of this discrimination (Have we stumbled onto fearsome fiction number

5?). Human Rights Watch declared in their recent report that political discrimination has become the norm in the Venezuelan work place. Their evidence? One case in 5 years and a population of over 25 million people where some young man reported that his grandmother had allegedly once been denied medication because of her presence on the list.

To conclude, Krauze's immense disconnection from what is an important and contestable Venezuelan reality that should be subjected to rational debate, and not fantasies of fascism, leads him to overlook Latin America's enduring moral fabric, never fully assaulted by modern Western nihilism, and the extent to which it both binds and determines some great men.

PS: Chavez wants Socialism, and is transferring the power to the working class. You who do not live here and have absolutely no idea of whats going on.

pranabjyoti

30th November 2009, 05:00

I suppose IVIC ivic.ve and IDEA idea.gob.ve to name two, there should be more, and the State Universities, etc. The Ministry of Science and Technology mct.gob.ve should have the info.
The problem with the websites so far, those are related to Venezuela, is that they are not in English and so, we people, who don't know Spanish of Portuguese can't get any information from that. Is it too tough to make English versions of the sites?
If you want to involve people around the world with you through Internet, websites in English or other popular languages are very much necessary.

Artemis3

5th December 2009, 01:19

Here are some links:[/URL] [url]http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/links (http://www.vheadline.com/)

chegitz guevara

5th December 2009, 04:00

invalid poll.

Patchd

5th December 2009, 14:20

For the people who believe the fantasy corporate media makes of Chavez, he just said moments ago something like: "Scientific Socialism, or it is no Socialism". Take that as you will.Chavez is against greater autonomy for unions, and thus the workers represented by them;

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
^ More on Chavez's union busting tactics, keep in mind that the author is not from the revolutionary left, and acknowledges that a number of unions are linked with the corrupt and formerly stronger parties. Chavez's strategy seems to be similar to Allende's setting up of 'popular assembelies' (http://libcom.org/library/strange-defeat-chilean-revolution-1973-pointblank) which were pretty much controlled by the state, in an effort to diminish organic forms of workers' organisation. In Chavez's case, it would minimise the effectiveness of dissident unions, which are more dangerous to his position in power than any right wing party.

A liberal bourgeois news source, The Guardian, produced this article, keep in mind that the author will be biased and that their motive behind producing this is different to revolutionaries who oppose Chavez:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/hugo-chavez-venezuela

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.

Or perhaps a critique from the point of view of an Anarchist from Venezuala, a member of El Libertario (http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/index.html):

Venezuala behind the smokescreen (http://libcom.org/library/venezuela-behind-smokescreen)
The revolution delayed: 10 years of Hugo Chavez's rule - Charles Reeve and El Libertario (http://libcom.org/library/revolution-delayed-10-years-hugo-ch%C3%A1vez%E2%80%99s-rule-charles-reeve-el-libertario)

But while some on the left see this Chavista movement as the new “socialism for the 21st century”, A more radical critique has argued that it is actually more like an old-fashioned attempt at modernisation by a technocratic élite (including an ex-situationist as second-in-command of the ministry of information and propaganda); that increased bureaucratic power over capital is not inherently progressive; and that the “revolution” in Venezuela allows for very little working-class control or initiative from below.

Charles Xavier

5th December 2009, 15:47

blank

ComradeMan

5th December 2009, 15:57

The problem with these polls is that yes-no is too cut and dried.
Chavez has done some good things, but on other things he has been severely criticised from "our" side too. I do tend to feel he is a bit of an El Che "wannabee" which in turn tends to colour my view of him- porche non ti callas? He was made a fool of by the King of Spain for crying out loud....!!!!

I am not South American but I suspect it's quite easy for a popularist to put on a Che T-shirt and start attacking the "gringo imperialists" and gain support without there being a lot of substance to their actual policies. I hope I am wrong, but I have that feeling about Chavez....

Artemis3

5th December 2009, 19:31

Chavez is against greater autonomy for unions, and thus the workers represented by them

http://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/n146540.html

Perhaps this news will never make it in english, (and certainly not in El Libertario) so I'll do a little translation, almost literal, since I'm not good interpreting or translating for that matter...

Three policemen sentenced in Anzoategui for the killing of two workers from the Mitsubishi plant

Upon the accusation made by the Public Prosecution Office, three State employees from the police of Anzoategui State were sentenced, with penalties oscilating 1 to 16 years of prison, for the killing of workers from the Mitsubishi Motor Company of Barcelona and Macusa, José Javier Marcano and Pedro Suárez, and the wounds done to Alexander García, event occured past January 29 in that jurisdiction to the east of the country.

...

Its opportune to remember the incident occurred when approximately 1200 operators from the Mitsubishi Motor Company assembly had taken the plant, demanding working benefits and rejecting a court order for the working and commercial protection in favor of the company.

Judges 1 and 2 of Execution Measures showed on site accompanied by policemen, then ordered to cut a chain in the company's gate, which caused a public disorder. In this situation, occurred the deaths of José Javier Marcano and Pedro Suárez, as a consequence of bullet wounds; Alexander García was also wounded.

Valid to mention that for the next December 11, were cited judges Diana Vásquez y Lourdes Villaroel, as accused.Now i don't know El Libertario, but knowing their lies i can guess, if they covered this event at all, they blamed it on Chavez. When in fact, the private owners (against Chavez) of MMC gave money to these judges to act above the law.

It would be important for you, to stop believing El Libertario for a moment, and attempt to directly contact the Unions on their view of these events, and their view on Chavez and the Revolution.

Things here are not pretty roses, and there is plenty of valid criticism to Chavez and the Revolution, but not to the extent of helping the bourgeois oligarchy gain back power. El Libertario is doing this when they blindly (or purposely) repeat right wing (fascist) media lies, so i am asking you to dump these middlemen and find the truth yourself. Thats why i urge you to come and find the truth, you are being lied and misled by a group who call themselves "Anarchists". Come to Caracas and talk with the real Anarchist groups so you can get the real stuff to criticize Chavez and our Revolution for, and at the same time learn why these groups will never aid the fascists like El Libertario is doing.

I won't even waste time with international corporate media, most of the time they pick "news" from the local (private) media and assume it as valid, when in fact most of the time it isn't. You might forget most of them are getting paid by the USA institutions to lie (with your tax paid money), if you don't believe it, read the FOIA declassified documents for the coup in Chile 1973, and the more recent documents on Venezuela and Latin America. It's been official policy for decades. Don't be surprised if El Libertario is involved getting some financial "aids" as well...

Artemis3

5th December 2009, 19:41

I am not South American but I suspect it's quite easy for a popularist to put on a Che T-shirt and start attacking the "gringo imperialists" and gain support without there being a lot of substance to their actual policies. I hope I am wrong, but I have that feeling about Chavez.... You might just come and put that theory of yours for the test... If you think of us that low, you are coming for a huge shock. In the meantime, we try and build socialism, with those willing to help.

BTW: The king of Spain speaks Spanish, the phrase was "¿Porqué no te callas?", and we replied, we are not your vassals anymore, go back to your country for that. What can people from a place still supporting and maintaining monarchies can tell us? Or why do we even care for that matter? No, we want Chavez to speak even louder than before, were you love to remain silent and complacent, we are going to tell them right in their face. I know some of you love diplomacy, we grew tired of it, we grew tired of endless waiting, we want Socialism NOW and we are building it with or without you. Its your choice.

Chavez is doing now what others didn't do for decades. Of course its way too slow and maybe even reformist looking for some, but it keeps moving forward where others failed. Chavez is no saint or indispensable, but simple the leader the masses choose to, and continue supporting after 11 years of steady change, very unlike many other parts of the world... So yes, Latin America might well be the difference.

Pogue

5th December 2009, 19:43

ComradeMan

5th December 2009, 20:37

You might just come and put that theory of yours for the test... If you think of us that low, you are coming for a huge shock. In the meantime, we try and build socialism, with those willing to help.

BTW: The king of Spain speaks Spanish, the phrase was "¿Porqué no te callas?", and we replied, we are not your vassals anymore, go back to your country for that. What can people from a place still supporting and maintaining monarchies can tell us? Or why do we even care for that matter? No, we want Chavez to speak even louder than before, were you love to remain silent and complacent, we are going to tell them right in their face. I know some of you love diplomacy, we grew tired of it, we grew tired of endless waiting, we want Socialism NOW and we are building it with or without you. Its your choice.

Chavez is doing now what others didn't do for decades. Of course its way too slow and maybe even reformist looking for some, but it keeps moving forward where others failed. Chavez is no saint or indispensable, but simple the leader the masses choose to, and continue supporting after 11 years of steady change, very unlike many other parts of the world... So yes, Latin America might well be the difference.

Hello, I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment as no offence was meant. I also thank you for correcting my Italianate Spanish. I do hope you notice that I stated "I hope I am wrong.." and by saying that I was not South American I conceded not to be an expert. Perhaps it was taken the wrong way.

Re the King of Spain comment. I don't care who made the comment, on that occasion Chavez was being an arrogant and pigheaded lout on and most probably anyone would have told him to shut up! If Chavez was so sincere in his hatred of the ex-oppressor and former members of the Spanish government why did he go in the first place? Even Zapatero tried to tell him "politely" to calm down.

Now if he hated monarchies so much how come he was laughing and joking with the King of Spain in September whilst on a visit to a hated ex-colonial oppressor of whom Venezuela is no longer a vassal? Or was it that the 1.37 million barrels of oil in exchange for a $2 billion power plant from Spain are enough to forgive and forget and tell the King of Spain his beard makes him look like Fidel Castro? :)

Now, I have stated elsewhere that I believe Chavez may be doing very worthy things in his country that does not mean he is without criticism and beyond reproach- especially in light of yet more recent outbursts about highly dubious leaders.

When you are on a global stage you cannot afford to come out with rubbish, it harms any good work you might be doing- especially so if you also have a lot of enemies waiting to pounce on your every move.

Patchd

7th December 2009, 12:26

http://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/n146540.html

Perhaps this news will never make it in english, (and certainly not in El Libertario) so I'll do a little translation, almost literal, since I'm not good interpreting or translating for that matter...

Many states will prosecute those in the police force for committing 'unlawful' acts (especially that of killing), what's your point? In addition, it has to be said as well that the role of the state in prosecuting those police officers, doesn't overshadow it's role in providing "a court order for the working and commercial protection in favor of the company" which arguably led to the police force using weapons in the first place, as well as the state's role in attempting to dismantle the occupation, as you stated, in favour of the company (over the workers).

I wonder, were you attempting to discredit my argument that Chavez opposes union autonomy by providing this as an example? Perhaps I should suggest it to El Libertario to write about, they may talk of the role that the state had to play in (not only prosecuting it's own members for doing what they were asked of) bringing in a court injunction against the workers, and then utilising the police force to defeat them. Chavez was as much a socialist as Allende, not very much.

Now i don't know El Libertario, but knowing their lies i can guess, if they covered this event at all, they blamed it on Chavez. When in fact, the private owners (against Chavez) of MMC gave money to these judges to act above the law.Can I have proof of this (of El Libertario's lying, and of the MMC giving money to the judges)? In addition, are you suggesting that the Venezualan state has laws permitting workers to take/occupy their workplaces?

It would be important for you, to stop believing El Libertario for a moment, and attempt to directly contact the Unions on their view of these events, and their view on Chavez and the Revolution.I could do, and I may well do, but I can safely say that if I do I'll receive an 'official' viewpoint of a state supporting union. I would receive as much ridiculous support for authority from them, as I would with Thai trade unions on the former, corrupt, right-wing Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin. Thaksin, like Chavez was seen to 'help the poor' in Thailand, nationalising certain industries, and initiating certain programmes to alleviate some of Thailand's poor out of subsistence living. Recently removed from power in a coup, in office he was responsible for widespread political and economic corruption, the execution of thousands of drug dealers (or those on suspicion of dealing/smuggling), and was generally right-wing, but the unions supported him.

Things here are not pretty roses, and there is plenty of valid criticism to Chavez and the Revolution, but not to the extent of helping the bourgeois oligarchy gain back power. El Libertario is doing this when they blindly (or purposely) repeat right wing (fascist) media lies, so i am asking you to dump these middlemen and find the truth yourself.Where is your proof for this claim? So far all you have done is stated, but not backed up. I realise things aren't "pretty roses" in Venezuala, nor is it good in any other country, and worse in others, including one which I have lived in, but I won't suggest otherwise, or dumb down my politics in favour of another careerist politician who's about as similar as any other social democrat, attempting to make themselves a name and wealth, whilst appealing to the masses for that support.

Thats why i urge you to come and find the truth, you are being lied and misled by a group who call themselves "Anarchists". Come to Caracas and talk with the real Anarchist groups so you can get the real stuff to criticize Chavez and our Revolution for, and at the same time learn why these groups will never aid the fascists like El Libertario is doing.Calling an organisation 'fascist' doesn't make it so, in addition, I've had friends and comrades (Anarchists and not) go to Venezuala, talk to workers in struggles, talk to campaign organisations, and Anarchist ones, and their reports are the same. Yes, Chavez has introduced a number of reforms which have helped, in material terms, the working and living conditions of Venezualan workers, but that doesn't make him worthwhile of support from revolutionary leftists. Many politicians have introduced reforms before, in all of these cases it has done nothing but dumb down the workers' movement.

Stop your revolutionary talk when we have a leader as great as Chavez in power! He can do everything for us, amirite?

I won't even waste time with international corporate media, most of the time they pick "news" from the local (private) media and assume it as valid, when in fact most of the time it isn't.Hey, don't get me wrong, I understand completely the corruption and subjectiveness of the bourgeois media, in South America and elsewhere, but simply, the capitalist class do not have to lie all the time in order to propagate their ideas, especially if they've taken statistical data from Venezuala itself, statistical data which simply can not lie.

pranabjyoti

7th December 2009, 15:03

Here are some links: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/links
It certainly have some information, but not sufficient. I myself (and I hope many others) want English version of the websites that you have previously mentioned.

pastradamus

7th December 2009, 15:10

Voted Yes. Some policies I dont agree with but overall, a leftist president of a South American State is a good thing. An Openly anti-Imperialist President is Even Better.

Artemis3

9th December 2009, 07:12

Patchd

10th December 2009, 03:37

Oops! Double post. Sorry.

Patchd

10th December 2009, 03:38

To analyze El Libertario, it would take reading each one of their articles, and do the proper research to show you the facts. That takes tremendous effort, and some people actually do this (with the more visible corporate media) on a daily basis; but I don't think I'll have the time and patience to do it, or even consider it worthy. I might do you the favor occasionally though.
So what you are saying is that, essentially, you've slandered El Libertario as this bourgeois, full of lies, and corrupt organisation, when you cannot even provide any evidence for this, and your other basis for the claim is that others have apparently done the "proper research" into the organisation, and without experiencing enough/any proof of this (because you can't even provide me with any) you have taken that position.

On that case, the Judges went out of their way and gave illegal orders (the Cops were not supposed to obey them either), and the negotiations were still going with the Ministry of Work and the Company at the time of the events, IIRC. The Executive branch (Ministry of Work), depends of Chavez; the (regional) police and judges do not. Since my words seem to confuse you, lets say the Police can decide to go against the workers, only to find the National Guard there by Chavez orders to prevent it. If an Union ever does something the government does not agree with, it is always treated by negotiation with full respect of human rights. This is also done in unplanned land occupations and demonstrations.But this is exactly the point. We oppose Chavez because he is the head of the Venezualan state, the state which has been seen to shoot at wildcat strikers, refuse pay rises for oil drilling workers, attack and support attacks on Anarchists, pay lip service to the idea of a [capitalist] war with Colombia, as well as many other things. We oppose him because we realise that even the most benevolent person who attempts to better the lives of the working class, through reforms, and winning parliamentary seats through bourgeois democracy will be limited by the inherent restrictions within the system.

Even if Chavez is the kindest man in the world (which I doubt since he derived his power from the military in the first place, hardly a 'kind' institution) and wanted to do everything for the Venezualan oppressed, he will not be able to. As you have said, the state even has restrictions on the powers of officials, but in addition, in their positions, state bureuacrats are complicit in the oppression and exploitation of the working class, if workers are suffering at the hands of the capitalist class, through the state and the media among other institutions, then you don't join the enemy in an attempt to better the conditions of your own. Chavez is not a revolutionary, he doesn't belong on this board.

May I also remind people of Chavez's dislike for "union autonomy" as well, as I pointed out in a quote a few posts up (if not, on the page before), unions should be state run and centralised, right?

I personally would like the Franco appointed puppet king and his rule put to an end, the Spaniards should have their 3rd republic, or divide their country into smaller nation states if they see fit, then move to the next stage.Why do you feel that the struggle for Socialism/Communism is a struggle progressing through stages of states? How does a Republic prepare the working class for a classless, stateless society more so than a constitutional monarchy for example?

About lack of information in English, i can't agree more; but English is not our main language and many people here do not speak it. Also consider Internet penetration is low, like 30% at most, the majority of which are the wealthy, not exactly supporters of Chavez class... It is one of the biggest obstacles our revolution needs to solve (after surviving the bourgeoisie, the reformists and the counter-revolutionaries).That's fair enough, there's the same problem in Thailand as well, although it is worsened by the state censorship of material and sites which are deemed dangerous to national security or that puts the monarchy into disrepute.

I see in many parts of the world you have been fed with this distorted illusion of Chavez being some sort of Stupid strong man of sorts, and being permanenly reinforced with misleading information, when the reality is complete opposite. Chavez is not very different from Evo Morales, yet you seem to have a much better view of him.No, I don't actually.
But thanks for the links, I'll check them out :)

Artemis3

10th December 2009, 06:44

So what you are saying is that, essentially, you've slandered El Libertario as this bourgeois, full of lies, and corrupt organisation, when you cannot even provide any evidence for this, and your other basis for the claim is that others have apparently done the "proper research" into the organisation, and without experiencing enough/any proof of this (because you can't even provide me with any) you have taken that position.

You don't seem to get it, but ok, trust them blindly, its your problem.

We oppose Chavez because he is the head of the Venezualan state, true

the state which has been seen to shoot at wildcat strikers, lie, if someone did, it was on their own and when found they get punished. Chavez has given explicit orders against any shootings from National State forces, but he doesn't control the regional ones, and some corrupt pigs would disobey orders anyway and its those acting on their own who have caused kills and they got prosecuted and put in prison, along with anyone involved in their crimes.

refuse pay rises for oil drilling workers, lie, And I'll give you hand on this one. Rises? Thats c... You know whats worth fighting for? Workers control. PDVSA was in fact under the worker's in the year 2003, when the management decided to go against Chavez and force a lock out, the workers didn't wish and were threatened (not by the state), yet they decided to go anyway and after a couple of months put the industry back to production. Couple of years later, some of these traitor managers were put back in place... Thats, an example of something worth. You could have found this if you talked with the workers instead of trusting opposition fascist media. Btw: Oil workers have one of the highest salaries of the country, and gasoline is the most subsidized (socialized) product in the country.

attack and support attacks on Anarchists, lie, he criticizes anarchists, especially when they help bourgeois interests, but would never support, and in fact would punish any violence or acts above law against individuals or organizations; even if they break the law, they would get prosecuted and their human rights respected. Anarchists here usually remain low and grassroot community oriented, and most do support this process so its rarely an issue. Chavez is simply the lesser evil, the enemy is the bourgeois and Chavez is not seen bourgeois, he is anti-capitalist and anti-(US)imperialism.

pay lip service to the idea of a [capitalist] war with Colombia, lie. Everyone in this sub-continent is against foreign military US bases. Chavez announcements are a simple deterrent, the people in arms mean many more potential belligerent forces should the US decide to invade, making the effort expensive in the long run. Colombia has defacto lost its sovereignty to the USA, and any war would involve them. Is not like we can bomb Colombia without having thousands of US soldiers invading us next, yet, Colombia has already bombed Ecuador because uncle Sam lives there and no one can touch them...

as well as many other things. Slandering Chavez is fine, but El Libertario are saints, i see...

We oppose him because we realise that even the most benevolent person who attempts to better the lives of the working class, through reforms, and winning parliamentary seats through bourgeois democracy will be limited by the inherent restrictions within the system. This shows your ignorance of the Venezuelan process. Thanks to Chavez proposals, Venezuela is the first country in the continent to move from representative "democracy" to participatory democracy, and its heading towards direct democracy. The current constitution was the result of popular assemblies and popular vote, which is the stuff behind the recent move in neighboring countries to fight for Popular Constituent Assemblies, as a way to tear down bourgeois Constitutions and their laws (the whole state is demolished when a popular constituent assembly is called, and then rebuilt as the people see fit).

Even if Chavez is the kindest man in the world (which I doubt since he derived his power from the military in the first place So Chavez never won elections by landslide, he came to power by force and threats, and we keep voting for him because we are idiots or something...

state bureuacrats are complicit in the oppression and exploitation of the working class, if workers are suffering at the hands of the capitalist class, through the state and the media among other institutions, then you don't join the enemy in an attempt to better the conditions of your own. Chavez is not a revolutionary, he doesn't belong on this board. That doesn't seem to stop El Libertario and certain forum member from joining hands with fascism to overthrown Chavez, only because in your minds, he is the enemy, not the fascists who speak ills of him. I don't share your opinion though. Chavez IS a revolutionary and is pushing a whole continent towards the left like no one else did in decades. But i don't think he has an account here, so if i were you, i wouldn't worry much.

May I also remind people of Chavez's dislike for "union autonomy" as well, as I pointed out in a quote a few posts up (if not, on the page before), unions should be state run and centralised, right? I wonder where the f... do you guys get these lies from.., no wait, i know, El Libertario... You know, Unions can demand things and be refused, and keep their struggle. Most Unions support Chavez and the Revolutionary process, and a few don't, yet all operate fine and keep doing things on their own (Such as supporting Chavez, the vast majority). The state does not meddle with them, at most they get criticized, for example when they don't decide things by assembly and its a couple of "leaders" who keep imposing their own agenda; then the workers leave and form another Union, and because they choose to support Chavez its happily labeled "State" controlled, by those who were authoritative against the workers in the first place. In the long run, we are supposed to become state, and the state become us, thus dissolving the division. This State is transferring power as fast as the remnants of "bourgeois democracy" allows, when it promotes and support workers councils, community councils, transfer funds to them and even push for their autonomy in parallel to elected authorities in the old system which are slowly losing their function when the communities organize and start handling directly what the old authorities where supposed to. The large constitutional reform we lost to the opposition a couple years ago, was in fact consolidating this, but fascist media lies and lack of conscience or political maturity, probably didn't caught with the masses (used to capitalism), just yet.

Why do you feel that the struggle for Socialism/Communism is a struggle progressing through stages of states? How does a Republic prepare the working class for a classless, stateless society more so than a constitutional monarchy for example? Umm there was this Marx guy, but nevermind him and his boring theories. If you can "somehow" make communism NOW, be my guest. I have yet to see a viable solution from your camp yet, tho we do get the ideas we can use.

That's fair enough, there's the same problem in Thailand as well, although it is worsened by the state censorship of material and sites which are deemed dangerous to national security or that puts the monarchy into disrepute. Cool, Venezuela and Thailand are the same?, Wonder why we don't have solid relations with them yet? Are they US backed? That would explain it...

No, I don't actually.
But thanks for the links, I'll check them out :)
Enjoy, watch and comment :)

Artemis3

10th December 2009, 08:09

It certainly have some information, but not sufficient. I myself (and I hope many others) want English version of the websites that you have previously mentioned.

Just found this: http://www.pdxvenezuela.org
http://www.pdxvenezuela.org/our-trip-to-caracas-video-page

Patchd

10th December 2009, 12:02

You don't seem to get it, but ok, trust them blindly, its your problem.

lie, if someone did, it was on their own and when found they get punished. Chavez has given explicit orders against any shootings from National State forces, but he doesn't control the regional ones, and some corrupt pigs would disobey orders anyway and its those acting on their own who have caused kills and they got prosecuted and put in prison, along with anyone involved in their crimes.Okay, could you provide concrete proof for the two claims, that El Libertario have provided lies and that the police officers have been jailed, because something like this would remain in the news. I'm actually interested.

Because, from reading this article (http://www.workersliberty.org/blogs/paulhampton/2009/02/04/two-workers-killed-during-factory-occupation-venezuela), I understand that the state has claimed that they were not responsible for the shooting because:

"Vegas said that since 2005 Tarek Saab, current pro-Chavez governor of Anzoategui, had prohibited the police from using arms in protests and such worker removals. Further, he said he was sure the shots hadn’t come from the police and called on the Body of Scientific and Criminal investigations (CICPC) to open an investigation.

Gonzalo Gomez, who manages worker related news for aporrea.org, spoke unofficially to the Anzoategui state government and said the police used in the operation were guilty of “misconduct” and their actions had nothing to do with the work of the state government."

But it goes on:

"Saab confirmed today that the police who participated in the violence have been suspended and that he has contacted the families of the murdered workers to organize compensation payments. He also requested that a commission made up of the ministries of work and of light industry mediate a solution to the conflict. He said both the police as well as a private security company operating at the Mitsubishi plant, which has been found to fire weapons, would be investigated."

Now, I'm certainly not an advocate of the prison system, but it seems a little unfair to me that in a country where civilians receive a maximum of 30 years in prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Overview_by_jurisdiction) for murder, police officers are punished with suspension from the force and further investigation. It seems like the Venezualan state has as much sympathy with it's own armed wings as any other capitalist state does. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. There are other examples of where the government had done nothing to condemn repression of workers by state forces (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/04/14/venezuelan-steel-workers-fight-repression).

There was also the repression of the Sanitarios Maracay occupation (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2555). Question is, for those socialists who support Chavez and regards the state as being necessary for the transformation of society from capitalism into communism, as it is the tool of oppression which the workers must utilise in order to crush the capitalists, why is Chavez not doing so? He is the head of the state, as you agreed with me, he has apparent support from the military, why is he not implementing directly workers' controlled industry, expropriating private enterprises and handing it down to those who work in them, and remove the permanent armed forces and police force? If he cannot pursue this right now, why is he not arming the workers?

lie, And I'll give you hand on this one. Rises? Thats c... You know whats worth fighting for? Workers control. PDVSA was in fact under the worker's in the year 2003, when the management decided to go against Chavez and force a lock out, the workers didn't wish and were threatened (not by the state), yet they decided to go anyway and after a couple of months put the industry back to production. Couple of years later, some of these traitor managers were put back in place... Thats, an example of something worth. You could have found this if you talked with the workers instead of trusting opposition fascist media. Btw: Oil workers have one of the highest salaries of the country, and gasoline is the most subsidized (socialized) product in the country.Hey, I argue for workers' control on a daily basis, but splitting ownership of plants between "workers" and the Venezuelan state, and instigating so-called grassroots councils which are tied in with the state, and rely on it's support in order to function, and so naturally the leaders in these communities and workplaces cosy up to Chavez and espouse the same line to their fellows is not workers' control.

In addition, if that were the case, we would not have seen examples of victimisation of workers, old-time socialist ones, by the PDVSA and the Chavistas. Such is the case of Orlando Chirino (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/22/reinstate-orlando-chirino) who had "a long record as a socialist and trade union militant, leading the C-CURA rank and file grouping", he was fired because of his opposition to Chavez's referendum.

Not to mention the repression that the oil workers faced in the same state as that which was responsible for this year's killing of the two workers in the workplace occupation;

"THE JIR repudiates the violent repression against the oil workers of Puerto La Cruz, carried out Thursday 27 September at the CVP (Corporación Venezolana de Petróleo) in Anzoátegui."

"The workers were mobilising over the Collective Petroleum Contract in the morning, to deliver a document about the situation to the PDVSA President and Minister Rafael Ramírez, but the answer they got was brutal repression by the Anzoátegui state police, who attacked the peacefully protesting oil workers ... Three workers suffered bullet wounds."

That was in this article (http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/119.pdf) from the AWL's paper. Perhaps a lesson was not learnt by the (pro-Chavez, may I add) state officials of Anzoátegui in 2007, so much so that by 2009 workers were still being shot by police officers.

To add to that workers in other sectors have also faced the backlash of the Venezualan state's Chavism, in this article (http://libcom.org/library/revolution-delayed-10-years-hugo-ch%C3%A1vez%E2%80%99s-rule-charles-reeve-el-libertario), El Libertario, which I know you don't believe to be a credible source (but you have yet to prove otherwise), has stated that;

"After more than six years, 425 collective bargaining agreements for public sector workers are still waiting to be renegotiated! So there you go: a so-called socialist and revolutionary government which refuses to negotiate the collective deals for its own employees. They don’t give a damn about these workers’ needs! And here we are talking about sectors which are fundamental to the functioning of the state, such as hospital workers and firefighters."

"You will not be recruited if you do not show Chavista sympathies, and you could even lose your job. The 2004 presidential recall referendum came about after a national petition, which is a constitutional right. Thirty percent of registered voters can demand a referendum. Oppositionists went around collecting signatures, and - we don’t know how - they were posted on a web page “Here are the people who signed against Chávez”! So what was meant to be private and confidential became public. There were numerous lay-offs on the basis of this list, and a significant degree of administrative harassment."

"A few months ago the president of the Institute for Consumer Protection, INDECO, publicly stated that if a supermarket refused to sell products under the pretext of problems with their inventory, in fact they were hiding attempts at monopoly. This was a lie, since there is a real lack of goods ... he was replaced by a representative of a harder Chavista bent. This individual had a number of ministerial posts and had purged everywhere he had worked! Upon his arrival at INDECO he started again - service directors, although mostly Chavistas - were dragged out of their offices by heavies and were only allowed to take away their personal possessions. My sister works for this body. Although not a Chavista, she had never had any problems at work before. But in the mix of this re-organisation of the institution, they forced her as well as her colleagues to participate in the 27th March 2007 march in support of Chávez. The pressure became so unbearable that my sister ended up resigning."

Is this again, a lie? This is information coming from Venezualan workers agitating for communism, not from bourgeois media sources.

lie, he criticizes anarchists, especially when they help bourgeois interests, but would never support, and in fact would punish any violence or acts above law against individuals or organizations; even if they break the law, they would get prosecuted and their human rights respected. Anarchists here usually remain low and grassroot community oriented, and most do support this process so its rarely an issue. Chavez is simply the lesser evil, the enemy is the bourgeois and Chavez is not seen bourgeois, he is anti-capitalist and anti-(US)imperialism.http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos23355.html

"On the morning of 26/11/2009, Mijail Martínez – 24 years old – was assassinated in the city of Barquisimeto, Lara state. Martínez was a cameraman and activist with the Victims’ Committee Against Impunity in Lara state."

"The victim was an audiovisual producer who worked on the television programme of his father, Victor Martínez, a longtime Bolivarian militant and former representative on the region’s Legislative Council.

Demonstrating the contradictions within the so called “Bolivarian process”, Victor had recently been making a series of official complaints in which he had implicated a whole host of important, high up governmental and police figures in corruption and human rights violations ... 'Chávez, I helped you when you were imprisoned and abandoned and noone gave you the time of day,' he said, 'yet you are clearly responsible for the death of my son and many other crimes' ... "

Not necessarily the case of an anarchist (although I am unaware of the victim's personal politics), but of a grassroots activist. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, nor is it the friend of any worker.

Slandering Chavez is fine, but El Libertario are saints, i see...No, not at all, but I have provided you with evidence as to why I believe Chavez is anti-worker and not a socialist, and why I do not support him.

This shows your ignorance of the Venezuelan process. Thanks to Chavez proposals, Venezuela is the first country in the continent to move from representative "democracy" to participatory democracy, and its heading towards direct democracy. The current constitution was the result of popular assemblies and popular vote, which is the stuff behind the recent move in neighboring countries to fight for Popular Constituent Assemblies, as a way to tear down bourgeois Constitutions and their laws (the whole state is demolished when a popular constituent assembly is called, and then rebuilt as the people see fit).What about his referendum in 2007 (http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/chavez.not.socialist.20071226.htm) which attempted to further consolidate his own power, adding in parts which may appeal to the workers, but which would essentially come hand in hand with an increase in power. His attempt at so-called grassroots popular councils are akin to that of Allende's attempts, the same Allende whose state sponsored popular councils were inefficient to the point where workers took it upon themselves to organise and remove corruption and state control from their class struggle. Chavez is another Allende, another failed social democrat, his version of democracy is still a bourgeois one, coupled with his support of so-called 'anti-imperialist', and anti-worker forces like Iran and Zimbabwe does not show his democratic nature.

So Chavez never won elections by landslide, he came to power by force and threats, and we keep voting for him because we are idiots or something...No, many workers in Britain in the past had been unhappy with the Labour party and their policies whilst in government, as many are now, but those many who have suffered under the hands of that party, may well choose to vote for it still with the same mentality as you have, 'the candidate may be a dick, but he/she is the better of two evils'. Workers will often vote for someone/a party they do not agree with under the pretext that it is the lesser of two evils.

That doesn't seem to stop El Libertario and certain forum member from joining hands with fascism to overthrown Chavez, only because in your minds, he is the enemy, not the fascists who speak ills of him. I don't share your opinion though. Chavez IS a revolutionary and is pushing a whole continent towards the left like no one else did in decades. But i don't think he has an account here, so if i were you, i wouldn't worry much.Where has El Libertario joined hands with fascists? If your critique only goes insofar as to slander El Libertario with ridiculously unbased claims then there's no point in you posting, this is a forum for learning, not to see who can make the wildest unbased claims.

In addition, Chavez's use of the current bourgeois electoral system, his position within the state, and his repression of workers, makes him anything but a revolutionary. He is a reformist social democrat at best.

I wonder where the f... do you guys get these lies from.., no wait, i know, El Libertario... You know, Unions can demand things and be refused, and keep their struggle. Most Unions support Chavez and the Revolutionary process, and a few don't, yet all operate fine and keep doing things on their own (Such as supporting Chavez, the vast majority). The state does not meddle with them, at most they get criticized, for example when they don't decide things by assembly and its a couple of "leaders" who keep imposing their own agenda; then the workers leave and form another Union, and because they choose to support Chavez its happily labeled "State" controlled, by those who were authoritative against the workers in the first place.I've already shown you Chavez's opposition to "union autonomy", what do you think this means? Allowing unions to decide matters freely without having to refer to the government? I realise that most unions support Chavez, and a few do not, I also realise that the role of the trade unions is to act as a mere mediating role within society, and not as a revolutionary role, as such, the bureaucrats are largely less sincere and act in the interests of themselves, bargaining with the business owners on behalf of the workers, but always essentially selling out the workers in order to maintain their own position. This is why, in many countries, the majority of unions support the largest social democratic party, such as the case in Britain.

In the long run, we are supposed to become state, and the state become us, thus dissolving the division. This State is transferring power as fast as the remnants of "bourgeois democracy" allows, when it promotes and support workers councils, community councils, transfer funds to them and even push for their autonomy in parallel to elected authorities in the old system which are slowly losing their function when the communities organize and start handling directly what the old authorities where supposed to. The large constitutional reform we lost to the opposition a couple years ago, was in fact consolidating this, but fascist media lies and lack of conscience or political maturity, probably didn't caught with the masses (used to capitalism), just yet.That's funny, because it is in my opinion that you can never become part of the state, and the state become you, unless you leave your role as a worker and participate within the oppressive structures, that of the bureaucracy and officialdom, something which state union rank-and-file members are not. You can only be the state insofar as the state is (increasingly) controlling you, or you become a part of the state mechanism of oppression.

Umm there was this Marx guy, but nevermind him and his boring theories. If you can "somehow" make communism NOW, be my guest. I have yet to see a viable solution from your camp yet, tho we do get the ideas we can use. ... and I have yet to see a viable solution from yours also.

Also may I also light up these nice quotes from Chavez (http://www.socialistaction.org/foley89.htm) proclaiming his view on Marxism:

" ... an independent left website that supports the Chavez government in an interview with Stalin Perez Borges, a leader of the radical trade-union federation, the CUT, who has joined Chavez's new party, the United Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV) : "Well, the president said in the last 'Alo Presidente,' the Venezuelan Socialist Party will not take up the banners of Marxism-Leninism, because this is a dogmatic thesis whose time is past and it does not suit today's reality .... Moreover, in relation to the role of the working class, he said: 'The theses that the working class is the motor force of socialism and revolution are obsolete. ... Work today is different, it is the information and telecommunications industry. Karl Marx could not even dream of these things.'"

... as well as ...

"We are committed to constructing a socialist model that is very different from what Karl Marx imagined in the 18th century. Our model is to count on petroleum wealth."

So it seems like Chavez is still complicit in the use of accumulating capital and of wage labour, through the petroleum wealth that is. It doesn't matter how much the oil workers are being paid, it matters that they are still being exploited and oppressed. Not much of a marxist Marxist is he? More of a Marxist who's a Marxist when it can help someone in a debate.

Enjoy, watch and comment :)I'll have to download it another day.

el_chavista

11th December 2009, 20:30

could you provide concrete proof... that El Libertario have provided lies
El Libertario only has provided articles from "Radar de los barrios" and Orlando Chirino -an ONG and a labor unionist- both proved to receive funds from the USAID.

Patchd

12th December 2009, 00:09

El Libertario only has provided articles from "Radar de los barrios" and Orlando Chirino -an ONG and a labor unionist- both proved to receive funds from the USAID.
1) This is an interesting claim, can you provide sources for these? I had a look on google for the first and found material on it, however on Chirino, all I got were generally favourable articles including some from the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign.

2) El Libertario write for themselves also, the use of different sources doesn't mean they lie. Bourgeois news sources don't always have to lie in order to propogate their ideas.

3) This is irrelevant, whether or not the "Radar de los barrios" and Orlando Chirino get funding from USAID, to the question of how exactly does El Libertario lie. It is not proof of their lying, so my question is still unanswered.

Charles Xavier

12th December 2009, 01:34

blank

h0m0revolutionary

12th December 2009, 01:47

Welcome Anarchist meet right-winger, right-winger meet anarchist.

wow, good contribution.

Coggeh

12th December 2009, 03:51

Voted Yes.

Support him critically if an attempt by the political elite in South America or by imperialist nations (US , EU etc) I would defend Chavez and the will of the Venezualan people .

But if their was a political revolution by the working class of Venezuala in favour of a more radical approach to chavez i.e an actual revolutionary approach I would support that.

I think Chavez is good and progressive but he doesn't go far enough in the sense of developing socialism in Venezuala because he can't . It is impossible to create socialism without workers democracy and by doing away with all forms of major private control and replacing it by democratic workers control.Which he will never do.

Patchd

12th December 2009, 11:05

Welcome Anarchist meet right-winger, right-winger meet anarchist.
No sorry, this isn't an argument, just your attempt at gaining rep points without actually saying anything substantial, try again.

I seem to have A LOT of points in my last big post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1620334&postcount=65) which have not been dealt with by supporters of Chavez yet, the only one seemed to be to prove that El Libertario produces lies, which I have already repudiated.

el_chavista

12th December 2009, 14:02

This is irrelevant, whether or not the "Radar de los barrios" and Orlando Chirino get funding from USAID
How come? One thing is that some anarchists and some sectarian trotskists be adversaries of Chavez's bonapartism, and another thing is that they get right-wing allies to confront Chávez.

Patchd

12th December 2009, 14:06

How come? One thing is that some anarchists and some sectarian trotskists be adversaries of Chavez's bonapartism, and another thing is that they get right-wing allies to confront Chávez.
How come? Simple, simply because a group or person gets funding from a state, doesn't mean that they endorse that state, take Israel's past funding of Hamas as an example, or of US CIA agents operating alongside the Khmer Rouge, hardly allies are they?

Also, Orlando Chirino, do you have proof he is sponsored by USAID? Genuine question, as I couldn't find anything about it after searching google.

Charles Xavier

12th December 2009, 21:58

blank

Patchd

13th December 2009, 02:17

The CIA, Israel funds groups that either further their interests or disrupt the interest of their enemies. So they may be "Anarchists" in a vulgar sense, but they being used as tools. Hamas was there to disrupt and divide the Palestinians originally before they became a political force that fought back against Israel. The Khmer Rouge were funded to counteract both the Vietnamese and the Soviet Union.
Actually, there was no assertion that El Libertario were funded by imperialists, even from the pro-Chavez members here. Their claim was that El Libertario uses sources from organisations, and/or people, that are supposedly funded by the US. I realise that imperialists only support those they believe can act in the interests of themselves. However, that does not mean that what is being said is irrelevent either, for the US, a right wing Venezuela means easier exploitation of the workers, as well as a greater share of Venezuela's industrial wealth, for revolutionaries on the other hand, exposing Chavez and his state for what it is, is done in order to further the class struggle, and attempt to draw people away from the concept of letting some 'representative' in charge of the state (an oppressive institution, even Marxists will agree with this, because even a socialist state, in theory, is supposed to oppress the bourgeoisie) improve their lives, through reforming capitalism, and bring them to the idea of workers taking struggle into their own hands.

el_chavista

13th December 2009, 03:36

...for revolutionaries on the other hand, exposing Chavez and his state for what it is, is done in order to further the class struggle, and attempt to draw people away from the concept of letting some 'representative' in charge of the state...So true, generally speaking. Now, in practice we want to move along with the Chavista masses. It's not enough to blame on Chávez's narrow antiimperialist nationalism to get the masses leaving the PSUV for a Marxist organization.

For realizing who is getting advantage of USAID fundings just check Eva Golinger's investigations (an American-Venezuelan advocate-journalist). If you happen to deal with "Radar de los barrios" or the CTV (a labor union Chirino allied to), your working with organizations funded by the USAID.

Patchd

14th December 2009, 12:15

For realizing who is getting advantage of USAID fundings just check Eva Golinger's investigations (an American-Venezuelan advocate-journalist). If you happen to deal with "Radar de los barrios" or the CTV (a labor union Chirino allied to), your working with organizations funded by the USAID.
Thanks, I've had a look at that. Still however, I fail to understand your leap of logic, firstly El Libertario used sources from those two organisations, as you mentioned earlier, there is nothing to suggest that El Libertario actually works alongside these organisations. If I happen to use figures or claims made in other sources, that does not mean I endorse them. There's a big difference, now will someone please get back to me on the other points as well.