Hugo Chavez cs: Leaning to dictatorship?

[maxham]

My fellow leftists, a few days ago, I had read several news & articles from my country's top newspaper, about the neo-socialism in Latin America. There're some opinions which said that Chavez, Ortega, Correa, & Morales as the socialist leader in their countries are turning to be authoritarian as they tried & succeded to extend their presidential term, in which this action was seriously protested by the opposition (of course) & some of the people which "says big no to dictatorship".

In other words, these guys' actions are described as "potential threat towards democracy & human rights" (by the articles). I also put serious concern about these issues, because if their actions/regimes turn into dictatorship or even authoritarian, this will be a serious nightmare for socialism-communism itself.

:crying::(

Fellas, what do you think about these issues?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Extending term limits has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism or dictatorships, in fact it is extremely anti-authoritarian. If people want to vote for the same person in every election, let them do so.

[LeninistKing]

Dont' worry about it !! You have to explain your friends, that *all states* (all governments of all countries) in the history of humankind are dictatorships. The thing is that the Bolivarian-Socialist government is moving toward a dictatorship of the proletariat. Right now Venezuela is not a dictatorship of the workers (Socialism). It is a welfare-state capitalist system in transition toward 100%-socialism. (A bourgeoise-dictatorship in transition toward a workers-dictatorship)

Venezuela is not socialist, it cannot be socialist right now, because socialism in 1, 2, or 3 countries is almost impossible. For 1 country to be socialist all countries have to be socialists.

But all governments are dictatorships (USA, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela etc) the only differences are that the capitalist-dictatorships of USA, Mexico deffend the business-owners. While the populist-dictatorships of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Uruguay etc. are populist-dictatorships deffending the lower classes

.



My fellow leftists, a few days ago, I had read several news & articles from my country's top newspaper, about the neo-socialism in Latin America. There're some opinions which said that Chavez, Ortega, Correa, & Morales as the socialist leader in their countries are turning to be authoritarian as they tried & succeded to extend their presidential term, in which this action was seriously protested by the opposition (of course) & some of the people which "says big no to dictatorship".

In other words, these guys' actions are described as "potential threat towards democracy & human rights" (by the articles). I also put serious concern about these issues, because if their actions/regimes turn into dictatorship or even authoritarian, this will be a serious nightmare for socialism-communism itself.

:crying::(

Fellas, what do you think about these issues?

[RedSonRising]

Theoretically, I support the move, as term limits are undemocratic. In this context, however, It is not a move I would make as it discredits their declared belief in selfless service to the cause and only reinforces the bourgeois-propagated image that they are dangerous dictators threatening their sovereignty. If I were them, I'd propose the change, put it up to vote, and then step the fuck down when appropriately possible and remove myself from the situation. I'm not exactly sure to what extent they are doing this, but creating a system dependent on a specific leader hasn't proven too sturdy, and the structure should depend on a more systemic and institutional change. I'm still more or less ambivalent about these characters with the greatly progressive reforms one day and the series of backwards power-tripping the next; we'll wait and see what happens.

[Ernest Valdemar]

Anyone who thinks that being a dictator means repeatedly running for office in free elections needs to get themselves a good dictionary.

Or even a mediocre one will do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Chavez has some demagogic tendencies and there are problems with these reformers that were elected at a time of social struggle during the early part of the decade. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these reformers gave themselves more power in order to "hold their 'revolutions' together".

However, when the US press or the opposition (pro neo-liberal) press talks about Chavez's "undemocratic" tendencies - it's really BS. First of all, the US and its Latin American allies supported all sorts of severe crack-downs on democratic rights in Latin America; the US also installed leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq and supported Karzi's rigged election so talk of what is democratic vs. undemocratic needs to be seen in context.

The legacy of so-called socialism in the 20th century and very real living memories of dictatorships in Latin America basically allows them to use "dictatorship" fears to bully and threaten governments not playing along - essentially.

[Artemis3]

Hmm lets see... So if the people of those countries change their constitution/laws by popular vote, to allow re-election of authorities, that is dictatorship? By the proletariat i would assume...

In Venezuela you can also call a referendum at mid term for any elected authority for revoking of mandate. The opposition did this to Chavez in 2004 and lost, soon they will do it again (and lose again), it is the same with local authorities, national assembly, etc. Thats one of the reasons "Authocratic" Venezuela has had 14 electoral process in the last 10 years, with "Chavez" or "Chavism" winning 13 of them.

As for the USA, history teaches us their government only raises the flag of "Democracy" when it fits their interests. Today you can see Honduras and Pakistan, and in the past countless regimes with zero tolerance for dissidence supported and in many cases installed by USA. Latin America was especially hurt badly in the last century; and we want nothing of their BS and their corporate media lies.

No we don't have Socialism, not yet, but at least we openly declare the intent to. This in countries where just mentioning that word, 30 years ago, would make you tortured to death, by those USA puppet regimes and their CIA torturers and killers.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If people want to vote for the same person in every election, let them do so.

Scratch a Stalinist and you find a liberal.

[MarxSchmarx]

Hugo Chavez is the leader of a still capitalist country. He runs a government that every day faces a coup from the oligarchs, is a thorn in the side of America and Europe, and is reaching out to the scum of the earth like Mugabe for apparent survival. All of which can make his Bolivarian revolution fail. Although he is trying to encourage alternative institutions in these environments, it's hard to be optimistic about the long term prospects without similar changes in the global north.

Chavez is no worse than any other bourgeois head of state. But that doesn't say much, and whatever one thinks of his vision, he must invariably be a tepid capitalist ruler in such environments.

What is the cs in the title in reference to?

[pranabjyoti]

Without any kind of class support, there shouldn't be any kind of dictatorship at all. I clearly want to know which class(es) of the Venezuelan people is/are supporting Chavez at present. Until he is supported by the working class and the peasantry and he isn't doing harm to the working class and oppressed people of any other country, I will extend my support for him without caring about what steps he is taking and want to take.