Chavez On the Way Out?

[Bud Struggle]

Things don't seem to be going so good for Chavez these days. From the Washington Post.


How Hugo Chavez's revolution crumbled

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, January 25, 2010

While the world has been preoccupied with the crisis in Haiti, Latin America has quietly passed through a tipping point in the ideological conflict that has polarized the region -- and paralyzed U.S. diplomacy -- for most of the past decade.

The result boils down to this: Hugo Chávez's "socialism for the 21st century" has been defeated and is on its way to collapse.

During the past two weeks, just before and after the earthquake outside Port-au-Prince, the following happened: Chávez was forced to devalue the Venezuelan currency, and impose and then revoke massive power cuts in the Venezuelan capital as the country reeled from recession, double-digit inflation and the possible collapse of the national power grid. In Honduras, a seven-month crisis triggered by the attempt of a Chávez client to rupture the constitutional order quietly ended with a deal that will send him into exile even as a democratically elected moderate is sworn in as president.

Last but not least, a presidential election in Chile, the region's most successful economy, produced the first victory by a right-wing candidate since dictator Augusto Pinochet was forced from office two decades ago. Sebastián Piñera, the industrialist and champion of free markets who won, has already done something that no leader from Chile or most other Latin American nations has been willing to do in recent years: stand up to Chávez.

Venezuela is "not a democracy," Piñera said during his campaign. He also said, "Two great models have been shaped in Latin America: One of them led by people like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba and Ortega in Nicaragua. . . . I definitely think the second model is best for Chile. And that's the model we are going to follow: democracy, rule of law, freedom of expression, alternation of power without caudillismo."


Piñera was only stating the obvious -- but it was more than his Socialist predecessor, Michelle Bachelet, or Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has been willing to say openly. That silence hamstrung the Bush and the Obama administrations, which felt, rightly or wrongly, that they should not be alone in pointing out Chávez's assault on democracy. Piñera has now provided Washington an opportunity to raise its voice about Venezuelan human rights violations.

He has done it at a moment when Chávez is already reeling from diplomatic blows. Honduras is one. Though the country is tiny, the power struggle between its established political elite and Chávez acolyte Manuel Zelaya turned into a regional battle between supporters and opponents of the Chávez left -- with Brazil and other leftist democracies straddling the middle.

The outcome is a victory for the United States, which was virtually the only country that backed the democratic election that broke the impasse. Honduras is the end of Chávez's crusade to export his revolution to other countries. Bolivia and Nicaragua will remain his only sure allies. Brazil's Lula, whose tolerance of Chávez has tarnished his bid to become a global statesman, will leave office at the end of this year; polls show his party's nominee trailing a more conservative candidate.

Haiti only deepens Chávez's hole. As the world watches, the United States is directing a massive humanitarian operation, and Haitians are literally cheering the arrival of U.S. Marines. Chávez has no way to reconcile those images with his central propaganda message to Latin Americans, which is that the United States is an "empire" and an evil force in the region.

Then there is the meltdown Chávez faces at home. Despite the recovery in oil prices, the Venezuelan economy is deep in recession and continues to sink even as the rest of Latin America recovers. Economists guess inflation could rise to 60 percent in the coming months. Meanwhile, due to a drought, the country is threatened with the shutdown of a hydroelectric plant that supplies 70 percent of its electricity. And Chávez's failure to invest in new plants means there is no backup. There is also the crime epidemic -- homicides have tripled since Chávez took office, making Caracas one of the world's most dangerous cities. At a recent baseball game a sign in the crowd read: "3 Strikes-Lights-Water-Insecurity/President You Struck Out."

Chávez's thugs beat up those baseball fans. The man himself is ranting about the U.S. "occupation" of Haiti; his state television even claimed that the U.S. Navy caused the earthquake using a new secret weapon. On Sunday his government ordered cable networks to drop an opposition-minded television channel.

But Chavez's approval ratings are still sinking: They've dropped to below 50 percent in Venezuela and to 34 percent in the rest of the region. The caudillo has survived a lot of bad news before and may well survive this. But the turning point in the battle between authoritarian populism and liberal democracy in Latin America has passed -- and Chávez has lost.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402379.html

[Havet]

It would be good for him to leave. Perhaps, finally, the Venezuelan people will have a chance at governance instead of government, though i'm guessing when he leaves another idiot will just come to fill in his place.

[IcarusAngel]

Left-wing dictatorships (dictatorships that aren't based solely on free-markets, even though left-wing could technically never be a dictatorship) generally give people their basic human needs - an education, an access to some resources, libraries, and so on.

Right-wing dictators, such as Papa Doc and bay Doc, Haiti after Aristide, Branco, Videla, and the numerous other "free-market" dictatorships the US has supported, deny people even their needs as a human.

I would rather have a dictatorship that allows me to have a mind than one who allows me to have no mind at all; keep in mind that a lot of the resources he supposedly "nationalized" were always out of public hands as well.

I think the US should sponsor left-wing dictatorships, and especially left-wing Latin American countries who've begged the US to let them follow the principles of FDR, which create prosperous economies. This will make up for all the damage the right-wing marketeers did, the only good thing which came of it was the ability to point to free-markets as a failure, although 20 million dead is a high price to pay for that.

[Havet]

I think the US should sponsor left-wing dictatorships,...

Brilliant. Now that we got that cleared, can some mod please restrict IcarusAngel on the basis of supporting non-revolutionary leftism and trolling?

[IcarusAngel]

lol. I was talking about the US sponsoring left-wing command economies and dictatorships (such as Cuba) AND social democracies such as FDR economics in order to make up for the disastrous results of free-markets.

I am a humanist first, a revolutionary second. Of course I am interested in people being PREPARED for a revolution, and having the necessities of life, such as an access to an education where you can learn the damage free-markets have done to the world.

"Mods": Can you please restrict hayenmill for another four months for trying to get real leftists restricted while he continues to troll threads and quote people out of context? In fact, every time he does something stupid like this and diverts the line of discussion he should be either restricted or warned. Just some advice

Thanks.

[Havet]

...while he continues to troll threads and quote people out of context? In fact, every time he does something stupid like this and diverts the line of discussion he should be either restricted or warned. Just some advice

You've been doing a great job at describing what you've been doing in every single post of yours

[Dean]

This is an incredibly biased article, with the US and other latin americna countries "afraid to stand up to Chavez" and bring up human rights abuses? Give me a break. Venezuela is far more democratic even by western standards than the US or Chile, even though that is saying little.

The Washington Post is another in a long line of rag media.

[Demogorgon]

Those claims are a bit of a stretch, Pinera won because of sill Law and Order rhetoric, not because of support for "Democracy", which would have been a very odd thing for him to have won on given his party continues to block necessary amendments to the Constitution drafted by Pinochet to allow for fair Congressional elections (it was rigged to guarantee the right wing almost half the seats regardless of their share of the vote and because you need a two thirds vote of Congress to change the electoral system and Turkeys generally don't vote for Christmas, Chile remains stuck with it) whereas the outgoing President's party have consistently tried to change it.

As for Chavez's problems, well obviously his Government is going through trouble just now hit by both the economic crises and serious problems with the weather, but if you look at the general trend across Latin America in elections as of late, calling the left there "defeated" is absurd.

On another note, while Chavez isn't exactly unknown for heavy handed strongman tactics, some of the accusations made against him are simply absurd. I know sections of the press dislike it when anyone other than an American backed stooge wins and assumes that it must be dictatorship because who in their right minds would vote for anyone else? Trouble is, try as they might observers have been unable to find any irregularities in the elections and the opposition have never been prevented from enjoying success in a number of different votes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

LOL, what? That article misreads the situation to such an enormous degree that it's not even funny.

The only thing that's remotely accurate within it is the observation that the domestic situation in Venezuela sucks. Chavez has built a particularly odd social democracy, and shows no signs of a coherent plan to move on to socialism. This is a serious problem, and is crippling the Venezuelan economy. Oskar Lange pointed out in the 1930s that if a seriously socialist government declares its intention to build socialism and then leaves the capitalists in charge of the means of production for several more years, this will lead to economic collapse - because the capitalists will adopt a "scorched earth" policy and stop investing or making any plans for the future (they expect to be expropriated, so they stop caring about the future of their companies).

Chavez is, to my knowledge, the first leader who has confirmed Lange's prediction.

As for the international situation, the article seems to completely ignore the existence of a long-time enemy of Chavez (and American puppet) right next door to Venezuela: Colombia's Álvaro Uribe. It's not like every leader in Latin America has been in love with Chavez and the situation just recently began to change. Michelle Bachelet was pro-US and effectively counted as a right-wing leader anyway. And a leftist won the elections in Uruguay just last year.

[Skooma Addict]

Oskar Lange pointed out in the 1930s that if a seriously socialist government declares its intention to build socialism and then leaves the capitalists in charge of the means of production for several more years, this will lead to economic collapse - because the capitalists will adopt a "scorched earth" policy and stop investing or making any plans for the future (they expect to be expropriated, so they stop caring about the future of their companies).

That is actually a very interesting hypothesis.

[RGacky3]

I doubt Chavez is actually on his way out, at least socialism in Venezuela is'nt on its way out, numbers go up and down. (keep in mind this is the Washington Post, not nearly the most balanced of papers). They will play up ANY drop in leftist support, and ANY raise in right wing suppord.



Quote:
Oskar Lange pointed out in the 1930s that if a seriously socialist government declares its intention to build socialism and then leaves the capitalists in charge of the means of production for several more years, this will lead to economic collapse - because the capitalists will adopt a "scorched earth" policy and stop investing or making any plans for the future (they expect to be expropriated, so they stop caring about the future of their companies).
That is actually a very interesting hypothesis.

Its also historically true.

Also about Chaveses aleged human rights abuses, I would like to see some, and remember we are applying standards that right wingers approve of in the United States, if its good enough for the US its good enough for Venezuela.

[Dimentio]

How is a devaluation of the currency a sign of desperation? Its just sound policy, given that Venezuela has de-facto subsidised imports of cell phones and foreign cars for the last years, ensuring the country's future as a raw material provider to the west.

[ComradeMan]

Devaluation of a currency is not always a bad thing, in fact a strong currency sounds good but can be detrimental to an economic system, especially if it relies on exports.

[Bud Struggle]

Devaluation of a currency is not always a bad thing, in fact a strong currency sounds good but can be detrimental to an economic system, especially if it relies on exports.

Like oil, maybe? :)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't support Chavez or recognize him as a communist, but hasn't he improved the situation in Venezuela? Isn't the same thing true of Fidel and other dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships? I really don't understand why the West insists on judging less developed nations based on their standards. To me, it's all a matter of improving the situation. Unless Chavez has somehow done something that will harm long-term successes in the country, it seems like he's done a decent job. Again, I'm no expert on the matter.

And doesn't the United States hate people like Chavez because they nationalize industries to the benefit of their nation and its people - at the expense of exploitative industries using cheap labor for high profits? I'm reading an interesting book (old) called The Shock Doctrine. While I think the concept is a little exaggerated, the general facts are pretty illuminating.

[ComradeMan]

Like oil, maybe? :)

But isn't oil is bought with foreign currency and the price is dictated internationally isn't it? Quite complicated with minerals and natural resources. I know that Venezuela did a big, big deal with Spain recently involving oil.

Hell, I don't think Chavez is on his way, but the global crisis will ripple everywhere.

[Green Dragon]

Oskar Lange pointed out in the 1930s that if a seriously socialist government declares its intention to build socialism and then leaves the capitalists in charge of the means of production for several more years, this will lead to economic collapse - because the capitalists will adopt a "scorched earth" policy and stop investing or making any plans for the future (they expect to be expropriated, so they stop caring about the future of their companies).

Ok. So the situation facing the socialist is supporting, a sudden, quick turnover to socialism-- or face inevitable collapse.
But that solution causes all sorts of problems as well.

But is Lange correct, on his own terms? What about Cuba?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Where do these accusations of 'dictatorship' come from, relating to Chavez?

If anything, he has been more democratically elected (in the multi-party sense) than Bush or Gordon Brown. It is ridiculous to say that he is a dictator.

[Solzhenitsyn]

As long as oil stayed north of $100 bbl, Chavez looked like a economic and political genius and his recalcitrant anti-Americanism made him the toast of world diplomats. What he didn't count on was the US dragging oil to $27 bbl within the span of 5 months, so Chavez overspent, oil collapsed, the public became agitated, which led to crack downs and so on and so forth. Chavez is a totalitarian and Venezuela is rapidly becoming the pariah state par excellence of South America. Maybe he can get statecraft tips from the Jongs.

[gorillafuck]

Chavez is a totalitarian and Venezuela is rapidly becoming the pariah state par excellence of South America. Maybe he can get statecraft tips from the Jongs.
He can be authoritarian but he isn't "totalitarian" at all (especially in the sense of former regimes that were called "totalitarian" which were Italy, Nazi Germany, USSR, etc.). And also, compare him to the right-wing leaders of the region and then tell us that he's more authoritarian than those death squad regimes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As long as oil stayed north of $100 bbl, Chavez looked like a economic and political genius and his recalcitrant anti-Americanism made him the toast of world diplomats. What he didn't count on was the US dragging oil to $27 bbl within the span of 5 months, so Chavez overspent, oil collapsed, the public became agitated, which led to crack downs and so on and so forth. Chavez is a totalitarian and Venezuela is rapidly becoming the pariah state par excellence of South America. Maybe he can get statecraft tips from the Jongs.

Totalitarian in what sense? Care to offer some evidence?

He has been democratically elected several times. He has lifted some people out of poverty, has started to eliminate wealth inequalities, and has mass murdered nobody.

On the other hand you have Bush who wasn't democratically elected, who has caused the death and displacement of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention in his own country, in their very own 'pariah' - New Orleans.

[FSL]

From the Washington Post.

By Jackson Diehl

In Honduras, a seven-month crisis triggered by the attempt of a Chávez client to rupture the constitutional order quietly ended with a deal that will send him into exile even as a democratically elected moderate is sworn in as president.




Fucking hell.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Totalitarian in what sense? Care to offer some evidence?

From the article:

"The man himself is ranting about the U.S. "occupation" of Haiti; his state television even claimed that the U.S. Navy caused the earthquake using a new secret weapon. On Sunday his government ordered cable networks to drop an opposition-minded television channel. Anyone who wants to manipulate public opinion on such a scale by not only propagating such a monstrous lie but also shutting down outlets that would oppose that lie is a totalitarian. He is straight out of the Kim Il Jong school of government.


He has been democratically elected several times. He has lifted some people out of poverty, has started to eliminate wealth inequalities, and has mass murdered nobody.

Describing his election victories as "democratic" is a farce. His government overtly interfered with opposition parties and jailed dissidents. Under Chavez's, Venezuela is a de facto one party state.

The run on oil should get the credit for lifting some Venezuelans out of poverty, for a while. Very true he is eliminating wealth inequalities by making everyone poor but himself.


On the other hand you have Bush who wasn't democratically elected, who has caused the death and displacement of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention
in his own country, in their very own 'pariah' - New Orleans.In what sense was Bush responsible for Katrina hitting New Orleans?

[Nolan]

From the article:
Anyone who wants to manipulate public opinion on such a scale by not only propagating such a monstrous lie but also shutting down outlets that would oppose that lie is a totalitarian. He is straight out of the Kim Il Jong school of government.

Too bad you didnt do your fucking homework. Chavez never claimed the US caused the earthquake. And the government never shut down anyone, some were only suspended after repeatedly refusing to follow simple regulations and air presidential messages. Get your facts straight and stop trolling the forum with this right-wing bullshit.



Describing his election victories as "democratic" is a farce. His government overtly interfered with opposition parties and jailed dissidents. Under Chavez's, Venezuela is a de facto one party state.

Proof? This is a blind accusation. He is the legitimate, democratically elected president of Venezuela. Of course the "opposition" would claim this, because Chavez threatens the interests of their puppetmasters. They have yet to provide any proof.


The run on oil should get the credit for lifting some Venezuelans out of poverty, for a while. Very true he is eliminating wealth inequalities by making everyone poor but himself.

In what sense was Bush responsible for Katrina hitting New Orleans?

Since you obviously don't have the slightest fucking clue about what is going on in Venezuela, especially about the amazing progress made by the poor already, I would invite you to read Parenti and other sources about that. But since you're likely afraid of anything that might interfere with your perception of capitalism as a freedom and prosperity loving system and Socialism as tyranny, I'll guess you won't do that. So I'll tell you this: my aunt in Venezuela was recently given the opportunity to go to a hospital run by Cuban doctors and get an operation to have the cataracts in her eye removed for free. If it wasn't for Chavez, she would be blind now. Don't say stupid bullshit about my family's country.

[RGacky3]

Describing his election victories as "democratic" is a farce. His government overtly interfered with opposition parties and jailed dissidents. Under Chavez's, Venezuela is a de facto one party state.

The run on oil should get the credit for lifting some Venezuelans out of poverty, for a while. Very true he is eliminating wealth inequalities by making everyone poor but himself.

Its interesting you say that, considering all the facts and all the actual statsitics, and all the independant agencies that watched the elections to make sure they were fair compleatly disagree with you, but I'm sure you have some facts and data to back up your blabber and are not just talking out of your ass.

[Misanthrope]

It would be good for him to leave. Perhaps, finally, the Venezuelan people will have a chance at governance instead of government, though i'm guessing when he leaves another idiot will just come to fill in his place.

Yes because through out history when leaders, presidents, kings are abdicated, impeached or assassinated the people automatically start living in a peaceful anarchist utopia!:rolleyes:

If Chavez were to be removed from office, you can bet a shiny penny that the American Empire will use their influence, politically, economically and militarily to install a puppet leader or at least a right winger to make sure that America's interests are protected in South America.

[Demogorgon]

Describing his election victories as "democratic" is a farce. His government overtly interfered with opposition parties and jailed dissidents. Under Chavez's, Venezuela is a de facto one party state.

De Facto one party states do not-as a rule-have multiple State Governorships held by parties fiercely opposed to the federal Government. Nor do they have most television channels strongly opposed to the Government.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. I don't know where people get his bullshit from that Chavez is a dictator. That shows the level of propaganda Western nations sink in order to demean a foe. Chavez has won the Presidency of Venezuela in fair, free and open elections, documented in several independent agencies. The media hate him and spew their venom daily in the press and were even complicit in the attempted coup of 2002 where unelected aristocrats saw it as their "duty" to appoint themselves as leaders. The US and the West supported this notion of "democracy".

Chavez is not perfect and his attempts to instill socialism have not only been unorthodox but extremely lopsided. But overall, the man has given political clout to the once politically disenfranchised. He has started a campaign to promote workers self management and give the people the tools and skills to run their own lives. The media and the wealthy oligarchs are actively pursuing class warfare on his administration and when Chavez decides to rescind a license or shut down a station for legal reasons, then he is a "dictator". It's all about being a totalitarian Kim Jong Il for the right wingers but they totally miss the obvious class warfare going on in Venezuela by the wealthy elite.

[Havet]

Yes because through out history when leaders, presidents, kings are abdicated, impeached or assassinated the people automatically start living in a peaceful anarchist utopia!

You should have told that to the Bolsheviks prior to the revolution then.

OF COURSE building a peaceful anarchist society takes time.

[RadioRaheem84]

LOL, what? That article misreads the situation to such an enormous degree that it's not even funny.

The only thing that's remotely accurate within it is the observation that the domestic situation in Venezuela sucks. Chavez has built a particularly odd social democracy, and shows no signs of a coherent plan to move on to socialism. This is a serious problem, and is crippling the Venezuelan economy. Oskar Lange pointed out in the 1930s that if a seriously socialist government declares its intention to build socialism and then leaves the capitalists in charge of the means of production for several more years, this will lead to economic collapse - because the capitalists will adopt a "scorched earth" policy and stop investing or making any plans for the future (they expect to be expropriated, so they stop caring about the future of their companies).

Chavez is, to my knowledge, the first leader who has confirmed Lange's prediction.

As for the international situation, the article seems to completely ignore the existence of a long-time enemy of Chavez (and American puppet) right next door to Venezuela: Colombia's Álvaro Uribe. It's not like every leader in Latin America has been in love with Chavez and the situation just recently began to change. Michelle Bachelet was pro-US and effectively counted as a right-wing leader anyway. And a leftist won the elections in Uruguay just last year.


Well, not exactly. I think that period of scorched earth policy has passed or is laying dormant somewhere in a basement ready to be resurfaced once again. In the first four years of the Chávez presidency, the economy contracted, at first because of low oil prices, then because of the turmoil caused by the 2002 coup attempt and the 2002-2003 business strike. Other factors in the decline were an exodus of capital from the country, and a sudden reluctance of foreign capitalists to invest there. Gross Domestic Product was 50.0 trillion bolivares in 1998. At the bottom of the recession, 2003, it was 42.4 trillion bolivares (in constant 1998 bolivares).However, with a calmer political situation in 2004, GDP rebounded 50.1 trillion bolivares, and has risen strongly since, to 66.1 trillion bolivares in 2007 (both in constant 1998 bolivares). Particularly important in the recovery was the defeat of the oppositionist management at PdVSA after the 2002-2003 lockout/strike, which gave the government, for the first time, actual control of the state oil company and allowed the pursuit of a unified economic policy.


The rest is all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

A good and balanced article with some good sources. I think Chavez is doing pretty well with having such a (global) business opposition that would've made Allende's opposition seem like nothing.

I am telling you guys that while Venezuela isn't perfect there certainly are great things going on in the nation and we're not giving our full support because we're weary of him being a "dictator". Anarchists, you won't be seen as a Stalinist if you're cautiously optimistic about Venezuela. A lot of good has been going on for autogestion/workers self management down there.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Venezuela has turned to shit and yet people still defend chavez and his broken policies. I wish that the Venezuelan people would realize that opposing chavez is not just a bourgeoisie ploy and overthrow his ass.

[IcarusAngel]

Chavez is just an egoist. Taking what he wants by brute force. Such is the way of egoism.

[Red Commissar]

I don't think Chavez's claim of being socialist is wholly genuine. When it's all said, he seems to be more of a populist in nature with an anti-imperialist stance. That isn't all that uncommon in Latin American politics.

I just wonder who would take his place in the event of him losing. With loyalties divided between pro-Chavez socialists and anti-Chavez socialists, it can easily set up for a capitalist to come into power.

[Solzhenitsyn]

De Facto one party states do not-as a rule-have multiple State Governorships held by parties fiercely opposed to the federal Government. Nor do they have most television channels strongly opposed to the Government.

And threaten said governors with arbitrary arrest and show trials for opposing him. How many Venezuelan stations have been ordered off the air by Chavez? Four?

Chavez is an imperialist as well, threatening Honduras with invasion and occupation when his apprentice was ran out of town on rails.

[Nolan]

And threaten said governors with arbitrary arrest and show trials for opposing him. How many Venezuelan stations have been ordered off the air by Chavez? Four?

Chavez is an imperialist as well, threatening Honduras with invasion and occupation when his apprentice was ran out of town on rails.

You are such a fucking idiot. Apparently threatening to defend a democratically elected leader from deposition by imperialist backed stooges constitutes imperialism in itself. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you have proof for *anything* you say?

[Solzhenitsyn]

You are such a fucking idiot. Apparently threatening to defend a democratically elected leader from deposition by imperialist backed stooges constitutes imperialism in itself. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you have proof for *anything* you say?

What gives Venezuela the right to intervene in the internal disputes of Honduras? Zelaya was deposed in accordance with Honduras law.

[RGacky3]

Venezuela has turned to shit and yet people still defend chavez and his broken policies. I wish that the Venezuelan people would realize that opposing chavez is not just a bourgeoisie ploy and overthrow his ass.

Venezuela has turned to shit??? How so, in comparason with the rest of the world.


What gives Venezuela the right to intervene in the internal disputes of Honduras? Zelaya was deposed in accordance with Honduras law.

The same right the US, ENgland, France, Nato, China and so on and so forth give themselves all the time, to intervene wherever they damn feel like, especially the US.

Also with HOnduras law? Thats EXTREMELY debatable, it was a coup,

Supporting democracy is not interveneing, Hugo Chaves did'nt invade Honduras did he, he just supported the pro-democracy movement. But if he did, I'm pretty sure he'd have just as much, if not more, of a right than Bush did to invade Iraq.


And threaten said governors with arbitrary arrest and show trials for opposing him. How many Venezuelan stations have been ordered off the air by Chavez? Four?

Any proof of this? Also I'm pretty sure calling of a military coup and supporting an active one, is something that would get you the death sentace in the US.

[gorillafuck]

Zelaya was deposed in accordance with Honduras law.
For making popular amends to the constitution? And even if what he was doing was wrong (it wasn't), I'm sure there's probably something somewhere in the Honduras constitution forbidding murdering opposition to the government.

[Agnapostate]

Zelaya was deposed in accordance with Honduras law.

He wasn't. Zelaya did not propose the amendment of the Constitution through commission of an assembly (which would not have necessarily entailed involvement with the term limit issue anyway); he attempted to hold a non-binding poll on the prospect of such amendment rather than attempting to implement either such amendment or even a non-binding version of it when he was told he couldn't. More than that, his deportation was undoubtedly a constitutional violation itself. Thanks for proving that rightists never cease their repetition of long-discredited talking points, though.

[Bankotsu]

Analysis of the situation in Honduras:


July 15, 2009 "The Right Strikes Back!"


The presidency of George W. Bush was the moment of the greatest electoral sweep of left-of-center political parties in Latin America in the last two centuries. The presidency of Barack Obama risks being the moment of the revenge of the right in Latin America.


The reason may well be the same - the combination of the decline of American power with the continuing centrality of the United States in world politics. At one and the same time, the United States is unable to impose itself and is nonetheless expected by everyone to enter the playing field on their side.


What happened in Honduras? Honduras has long been one of the surest pillars of Latin American oligarchies - an arrogant and unrepentant ruling class, with close ties to the United States and site of a major American military base. Its own military was carefully recruited to avoid any taint of officers with populist sympathies.


In the last elections, Manuel ("Mel") Zelaya was elected president. A product of the ruling classes, he was expected to continue to play the game the way Honduran presidents always play it. Instead, he edged leftward in his policies. He undertook internal programs that actually did something for the vast majority of the population - building schools in remote rural areas, increasing the minimum wage, opening health clinics. He started his term supporting the free trade agreement with the United States. But then, after two years, he joined ALBA, the interstate organization started by President Hugo Chavez, and Honduras received as a result low-cost oil coming from Venezuela.


Then he proposed to hold an advisory referendum as to whether the population thought it a good idea to convene a body to revise the constitution. The oligarchy shouted that this was an attempt by Zelaya to change the constitution to make it possible for him to have a second term. But since the referendum was to occur on the day his successor would have been elected, this was clearly a phony reason.


Why then did the army stage a coup d'état, with the support of the Supreme Court, the Honduran legislature, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy? Two factors entered here: their view of Zelaya and their view of the United States. In the 1930s, the U.S. right attacked Franklin Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class." For the Honduran oligarchy, that's Zelaya - "a traitor to his class" - someone who had to be punished as an example to others.


What about the United States? When the coup occurred, some of the raucous left commentators in the blogosphere called it "Obama's coup." That misses the point of what happened. Neither Zelaya nor his supporters on the street, nor indeed Chavez or Fidel Castro, have such a simplistic view. They all note the difference between Obama and the U.S. right (political leaders or military figures) and have expressed repeatedly a far more nuanced analysis.


It seems quite clear that the last thing the Obama administration wanted was this coup. The coup has been an attempt to force Obama's hand. This was undoubtedly encouraged by key figures in the U.S. right like Otto Reich, the Cuban-American ex-counselor of Bush, and the International Republican Institute. This was akin to Saakashvili's attempt to force the U.S. hand in Georgia when he invaded South Ossetia. That too was done in connivance with the U.S. right. That one didn't work because Russian troops stopped it.


Obama has been wiggling ever since the Honduran coup. And as of now the Honduran and U.S. right are far from satisfied that they have succeeded in turning U.S. policy around. Witness some of their outrageous statements. The Foreign Minister of the coup government, Enrique Ortez, said that Obama was "un negrito que sabe nada de nada." There is some controversy about how pejorative "negrito" is in Spanish. I would translate this myself as saying that Obama was "a nigger who knows absolutely nothing." In any case, the U.S. Ambassador sharply protested the insult. Ortez apologized for his "unfortunate expression" and he was shifted to another job in the government. Ortez also gave an interview to a Honduran TV station saying that "I don't have racial prejudices; I like the sugar-mill nigger who is president of the United States."


The U.S. right is no doubt more polite but no less denunciatory of Obama. Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, Cuban-American Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and conservative lawyer Manuel A. Estrada have all been insisting that the coup was justified because it wasn't a coup, just a defense of the Honduran constitution. And rightwing blogger Jennifer Rubin published a piece on July 13 entitled "Obama is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong About Honduras." Her Honduran equivalent, Ramón Villeda, published an open letter to Obama on July 11, in which he said that "This is not the first time that the United States has made a mistake and abandoned, at a critical moment, an ally and a friend." Meanwhile, Chavez is calling on the State Department to "do something."


The Honduran right is playing for time, until Zelaya's term ends. If they reach that goal, they will have won. And the Guatemalan, Salvadorian, and Nicaraguan right are watching in the wings, itching to start their own coups against their no longer rightwing governments.


The Honduran coup has to be placed in the larger context of what is happening throughout Latin America. It is quite possible that the right will win the elections this year and next year in Argentina and Brazil, maybe in Uruguay as well, and most likely in Chile.



Three leading analysts from the Southern Cone have published their explanations. The least pessimistic, Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron, speaks of "the futility of the coup." Brazilian sociologist Emir Sader says that Latin America faces a choice: "the deepening of antineoliberalism or conservative restoration." Uruguayan journalist Raúl Zibechi entitles his analysis "the irresistible decadence of progressivism." Zibechi in effect thinks it may be too late for Sader's alternative. The weak economic policies of Presidents Lula, Vazquez, Kirchner, and Bachelet (of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile) have strengthened the right (which he sees adopting a Berlusconi style) and split the left.


Myself, I think there's a more straightforward explanation. The left came to power in Latin America because of U.S. distraction and good economic times. Now it faces continued distraction but bad economic times. And it's getting blamed because it's in power, even though in fact there's little the left-of-center governments can do about the world-economy.


Can the United States do something more about the coup? Well, of course it can. First of all, Obama can officially label the coup a coup. This would trigger a U.S. law, cutting off all U.S. assistance to Honduras. He can sever the Pentagon's continuing relations with the Honduran military. He can withdraw the U.S. ambassador. He can say that there's nothing to negotiate instead of insisting on "mediation" between the legitimate government and the coup leaders.


Why doesn't he do all that? It's really simple, too. He's got at least four other super-urgent items on his agenda: confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; a continuing mess in the Middle East; his need to pass health legislation this year (if not by August, then by December); and suddenly enormous pressure to open investigations of the illegal acts of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but Honduras is fifth in line,
So Obama wiggles.



And nobody will be happy. Zelaya may yet be restored to legal office, but maybe only three months from now. Too late. Keep your eye on Guatemala.

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/261en.htm

[RadioRaheem84]

Venezuela has turned to shit and yet people still defend chavez and his broken policies. I wish that the Venezuelan people would realize that opposing chavez is not just a bourgeoisie ploy and overthrow his ass.

Seriously, what is with you? Chavez is doing a lot of good things for the people of Venezuela and his administration has done more for the Venezuelan people than a host of bourgeoisie politicians have done in the past.

While we should all be cautiously optimistic, the anti-Chavez thing is getting ridiculous among leftists, especially on here. Most of it comes from dogmatic drivel that dismisses the reality on the ground. I dissected an anti-Chavez article from an anarchist on this very same forum about workers from a certain enterprise and how their strikes were suppressed by Chavez. The article also included information about the horrors of nationalization and it made it seem like the workers were against the state taking over the factory. It turned out that the strikers wanted the enterprise nationalized and taken away from the corrupt bosses. Chavez nationalized the business a month afterward and the workers are working on taking more democratic control of the enterprise. This is what the workers wanted the entire time and the article posted by an anarchist, from an anarchist website, neglected to mention the plight of the workers.

The poor is Venezuela have more political clout than any other time in recent Venezuelan history. Where the hell are people getting these ideas that the Chavez administration is totalitarian and taking over industries like the Bolsheviks? He is paying the private owners just compensation for their enterprises or the government is buying up their majority shares! Some of the one's he bought he has given to the workers!

http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0207


5 Factories takes the viewer inside factories producing aluminum, paper, cocoa, tomato sauce, and cotton. These factories, many of which had been driven into bankruptcy by their former owners, have been transformed into cooperative partnerships between the workers and the state in co-management arrangements. In many cases, the Chávez government nationalized the companies and provided the workers with loans to purchase them in this co-managent arrangement with the government. According to these agreements, the state will increasingly rescind control as the debt is repaid. State officials explain that, while the state is involved in the process, the goal is not to create a Soviet-style system, where the state owns the means of production. Such a system, it is pointed out, is not socialism at all, but rather state-capitalism, an altogether different project from that being created in Venezuela.



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5243CX20090305

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5465/http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5243CX20090305
To the cheers of the workers, Chavez announced the nationalisation of six iron briquette, ceramics and steel companies, one after the other. He said this started “a process of nationalisations” aimed at creating an integrated basic industry complex as part of building socialism.
Chavez also said it was necessary for there to be workers’ control along “the entire productive chain”. Plans for the industrial complex had to be “nourished with the ideas of the working class”.
Throughout the day, workers from local steel, aluminum and iron companies raised demands for greater worker participation in managing production, more nationalisations, and the need to sack corrupt and counterrevolutionary managers. The workers were affiliated to the Socialist Workers’ Force (FST), which organises unionists in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV — the mass revolutionary party led by Chavez).

http://links.org.au/node/1088

[RGacky3]

BTW, about Chavez, he has come through on his campain promises to the people that voted him in, he's basically done what he said he would do.

WHereas Obama? Seriously those who are yelling about democracy in Venezuela should look in their own backyard, how democratic is it, to run on a progressive platform, but rule like a corporatist. At least Chavez did'nt lie to his voters.

[Nolan]

"Comrade Anarchist" has proven he/she is a reactionary. He/she won't care for any project unless it flies a black flag with the Ayn Rand dollar sign on it, lest he/she be "enslaved" to the "collective."

[RadioRaheem84]

BTW, about Chavez, he has come through on his campain promises to the people that voted him in, he's basically done what he said he would do.

WHereas Obama? Seriously those who are yelling about democracy in Venezuela should look in their own backyard, how democratic is it, to run on a progressive platform, but rule like a corporatist. At least Chavez did'nt lie to his voters.

Ther is more democracy going on in Venezuela than in the States right now.