Chavez supporters killed in Venezuelan clashes [Archive]

FSL

27th January 2010, 08:34

More martyrs...

CARACAS - Two students were shot dead in huge demonstrations in Venezuela after President Hugo Chavez pulled the plug on a television station critical of his government, officials said Tuesday.
The demonstrations also left 33 people injured in mountainous Merida state, authorities said, while marchers torched some buildings and vehicles, local media reported.
Yosinio Carrillo, 15, and a supporter of Chavez's socialist party, was shot dead Monday when student groups supporting and opposing the government clashed in Merida, home to one of Venezuela's main universities.
Interior Minister Tareck El Aissami told state television Carrillo was "ambushed."
A medical student, Marcos Rosales, 28, was shot three times and died of his injuries during the protests, Merida Governor Marcos Diaz Orellana said.

Chavez opponents on Monday blocked access to many universities across the oil-rich but still developing South American nation.
Authorities sent students scrambling with tear gas in Caracas on Monday. Student groups planned more protests for Tuesday.

The government ordered stations, including opposition network RCTV, to cease broadcasting midnight Saturday for refusing to air Chavez's speeches, as required under a law passed in December.
Under the measure, every broadcast station whose programming is at least 30 per cent Venezuelan-made is considered a "national" media outlet.
The measure requires national media outlets to air speeches by Chavez and other top officials, as well as government announcements.
Chavez critics however see many of those speeches, which can last for hours, as government propaganda.
Journalist and human rights groups have expressed concern over the muzzling of press freedoms and have called for peaceful protests against the law.

The United States said its embassy in Caracas had raised its concerns about the new law with Venezuelan authorities.
"Any time the government shuts down an independent network, that is an area of concern. And we will continue to voice those concerns to any government, including the government of Venezuela," said U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

http://www.canada.com/news/students+killed+huge+Venezuela+protests/2486676/story.html

IrishWorker

27th January 2010, 08:50

robbo203

27th January 2010, 09:09

The government ordered stations, including opposition network RCTV, to cease broadcasting midnight Saturday for refusing to air Chavez's speeches, as required under a law passed in December.
Under the measure, every broadcast station whose programming is at least 30 per cent Venezuelan-made is considered a "national" media outlet.
The measure requires national media outlets to air speeches by Chavez and other top officials, as well as government announcements.
Chavez critics however see many of those speeches, which can last for hours, as government propaganda.
Journalist and human rights groups have expressed concern over the muzzling of press freedoms and have called for peaceful protests against the law.

This reminds me of Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic when I was there briefly years ago. Couldnt get out of the country at the border post until we had listened to some tedious speech by that cannibal-cum-dictator (yes in the wake of his downfall it transpired that he had actually kept human corpses in his palatial residence which he dined upon Hannibal Lector style).

One certain sign of weakness in a politician is when they start insisting that you listen to them. Chavez ought to take note.

Uppercut

27th January 2010, 13:48

I'm guessing those protesting the socialist government were from the upper bourgeoise class. They surrounded universtities? I don't usually try to justify government crackdowns, but I'll make an exception for Venezuela.

Sasha

27th January 2010, 15:22

Hopefully we see swift retribution from the Chavez government, a couple of hundred arrests and a few disappeared reactionaries should suffice.
These capitalist insurgents must be dealt with immediately with an iron fist.

i dont think "disapearing" political opponents is an latin american tradtion that the left should copy from the rightwing junta's.

FSL

27th January 2010, 15:46

i dont think "disapearing" political opponents is an latin american tradtion that the left should copy from the rightwing junta's.

You're for executions in plain sight to terrorize counter-revolutionaries then? Niiiice.
Oh, no wait. Maybe you're in favour of the workers dying one after another to not be labeled authoritarian.

I don't think there is a need to make opponents disappear per se. There is a need for a workers revolution though to establish a state that won't tolerate acts like this.

Andropov

27th January 2010, 16:04

This reminds me of Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic when I was there briefly years ago. Couldnt get out of the country at the border post until we had listened to some tedious speech by that cannibal-cum-dictator (yes in the wake of his downfall it transpired that he had actually kept human corpses in his palatial residence which he dined upon Hannibal Lector style).
This is a false analogy since Chavez is not "forcing" anyone to watch his speechs.
People can choose to turn the telly off but in your comparison you were forcibly made watch the telly so as I stated it is clearly a false analogy.
He is merely giving people the opportunity to watch his speechs.

One certain sign of weakness in a politician is when they start insisting that you listen to them. Chavez ought to take note.
As I stated he is not "insisting" on anyone listening to his speechs.
He is just giving people the opportunity to watch his speechs by a medium almost exqlusively controlled and owned by private capital creating a consensus that works in the favour of private capital.
Your Liberal sensibilities never cease to amaze me.

el_chavista

27th January 2010, 17:25

There has been a provisional closure of TV channels until they comply with legal regulations: time transmission of programs unsuitable for children and mandatory transmissions of official announcements.

This is a propaganda war between the local "maquilas" (maquiladoras) of the American bourgeois means of ideological production and the Bolivarian government.

There are no public educational TV channels in Venezuela, so the "escuálido" students are defending Fox News' right to alienate the masses with anti-communist propaganda.

Intelligitimate

27th January 2010, 21:15

The restraint of the Chavez government never ceases to astound me. I recall when I first watched The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, the rage inside me boiled to the point of tears.

These petty-bourgeois white protesters need to die.

Yehuda Stern

27th January 2010, 22:56

Hopefully we see swift retribution from the Chavez government, a couple of hundred arrests and a few disappeared reactionaries should suffice.

Unlikely - Chavez is very good at "swift retribution" against workers who strike in order to get their factory nationalized (Sanitarios Maracay), but not so great at combating the reactionaries, for example, the perpetrators of the 2002 coup.

Dimentio

27th January 2010, 23:01

robbo203

28th January 2010, 08:44

This is a false analogy since Chavez is not "forcing" anyone to watch his speechs.
People can choose to turn the telly off but in your comparison you were forcibly made watch the telly so as I stated it is clearly a false analogy.
He is merely giving people the opportunity to watch his speechs.
.

Well not quite. He is insisting on people being given the opportunity to watch his speeches but yes I take your point that the analogy doesnt strictly hold. Nevertheless it is clearly not a democratic stance to pull the plug on independent TV stations critical of the regime. Or do you think it is?

Wanted Man

28th January 2010, 09:07

independent TV stations

Surely, you can't be serious.

robbo203

28th January 2010, 09:21

Surely, you can't be serious.

"Independent" as in independent oif the government. Is that incorrect or am i missing something? Nobody said they dont have their own agenda. But the question still remains - is is democratic to pull the plug on a TV station that is independent of the government. Simple question really

robbo203

28th January 2010, 09:40

Your Liberal sensibilities never cease to amaze me.#

What pisses me off about the authoritarian state capitalist Left is that by supporting transperantly undemocratic decisions by the likes of Chavez and co they actually make it easy for the bourgeois lberals to get away with claiming that they - the bourgeois liberals - are the real upholders of democracy and that "socialists" are fundemantally elitist and authortitarian and cannot stand being criticised. In fact the bourgeois liberals and the authoritarian left need each other to perpetuate this myth.

Sasha

28th January 2010, 12:42

You're for executions in plain sight to terrorize counter-revolutionaries then? Niiiice.
Oh, no wait. Maybe you're in favour of the workers dying one after another to not be labeled authoritarian.

strawmans much?

I don't think there is a need to make opponents disappear per se. There is a need for a workers revolution though to establish a state that won't tolerate acts like this.

ah, you see, are you realy suprised that i disagree with you there?

leninpuncher

28th January 2010, 12:42

Hopefully we see swift retribution from the Chavez government, a couple of hundred arrests and a few disappeared reactionaries should suffice.
These capitalist insurgents must be dealt with immediately with an iron fist.

Hahaha
You're mistaking Venezuela for one of your beloved dictatorships. Chavez is still accountable to those pesky Venezuelans, so doesn't get to organize progressive things like purges and famines just yet.

el_chavista

28th January 2010, 13:43

Unlikely - Chavez is very good at "swift retribution" against workers who strike in order to get their factory nationalized (Sanitarios Maracay), but not so great at combating the reactionaries, for example, the perpetrators of the 2002 coup.
Chávez cannot constrain that easy a regional police and the national guard in their roll of auxiliaries of the courts and local authorities. The administration of justice -and almost all the public administration- is the same old and still in force one of the bourgeois state administration at the service of the rich.
Sadly enough, the capitalists still can use the repression forces for their own sake.

Andropov

28th January 2010, 16:56

Nevertheless it is clearly not a democratic stance to pull the plug on independent TV stations critical of the regime. Or do you think it is?
I think this says it all.
Firstly he is not "pulling the plug" because it is critical of the regime, he is pulling the plug because it is not conforming to legal regulations, two totally different situations so your comparison yet again fails.
Secondly for you to have the gall to call these corporate owned TV stations as "independant" says alot about you and your political orientation and your inevitable class loyalties lie.

Andropov

28th January 2010, 17:00

#

What pisses me off about the authoritarian state capitalist Left is that by supporting transperantly undemocratic decisions by the likes of Chavez and co they actually make it easy for the bourgeois lberals to get away with claiming that they - the bourgeois liberals - are the real upholders of democracy and that "socialists" are fundemantally elitist and authortitarian and cannot stand being criticised. In fact the bourgeois liberals and the authoritarian left need each other to perpetuate this myth.
As I pointed out in my post above this was not a "transparently undemocaratic" decision, it was indeed a fully legally binding decision stemming from a breach of the law by the TV Station, so yet again your arguement fails.
And its a bit rich you refering to them as bourgeois liberals when you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast in this respect and shown you are just that, a bourgeois liberal wrapped in trendy leftist rehtorric.

IrishWorker

28th January 2010, 17:05

Hahaha
You're mistaking Venezuela for one of your beloved dictatorships. Chavez is still accountable to those pesky Venezuelans, so doesn't get to organize progressive things like purges and famines just yet.
ha ha.

RadioRaheem84

28th January 2010, 18:33

One certain sign of weakness in a politician is when they start insisting that you listen to them. Chavez ought to take note.

Oh jeez, it's clear that you fail to see the obvious class war going in Venezuela between the largely bourgeois press that refuses to give the government airtime to reach the people (because they insist it's "propaganda") and the administration which is upholding the law! It's obvious that the law was enacted because the media is largely anti-Chavez and anti-socialist and thus wants to keep any progress he's made under wraps. To pull the plug until they comply is the right thing to do.

The media is afraid to broadcast Chavez's speeches because they can run for hours (and they're seen as propaganda) but they don't mind running anti-Chavez propaganda the rest of the time?

robbo203

28th January 2010, 18:39

I think this says it all.
Firstly he is not "pulling the plug" because it is critical of the regime, he is pulling the plug because it is not conforming to legal regulations, two totally different situations so your comparison yet again fails.
Secondly for you to have the gall to call these corporate owned TV stations as "independant" says alot about you and your political orientation and your inevitable class loyalties lie.

Firstly ,I didnt say he is pulling the plug "because it is critical of the regime". I merely asked whether it is democratic to pull the plug in the first place. Slight difference. You should be more attentive in future I know full well it is "legal regulation", the question is whether the legal regulation is democratically acceptable. Secondly, I thought I had explained what is meant by "independent" - as in being independent of the government and that this does does not denote they do not have their own agenda. . And thirdly , my political oritientation is communist and my loyalties lie with the working class. Yoour political orientation on the other hand is quite state capitalist and your class loyalties lie with the state capitalist bourgeoisie. Thats pretty obvious

robbo203

28th January 2010, 18:56

As I pointed out in my post above this was not a "transparently undemocaratic" decision, it was indeed a fully legally binding decision stemming from a breach of the law by the TV Station, so yet again your arguement fails..

So becuase its a legal regulation that makes it OK then?

And its a bit rich you refering to them as bourgeois liberals when you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast in this respect and shown you are just that, a bourgeois liberal wrapped in trendy leftist rehtorric.

Nope. You obviously cant read properly. I am saying that by defending undemocratic legal regulations such as this you are playing into the hands of the liberals and that is what pisses me off. I wouldnt be pissed off by your stupidity if I was a liberal would I now? Think about it. I would be rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of being to point to yet another example of how undemocratic and elitist is "socialism". For my part I oppose both you and your bourgeois liberal buddies in your joint endeavour to pass of regimes like Chavez regime as somehow "socialist". The gulf between you and the bourgeois liberals is in fact far less than it is between me and either of you. For a start you both support one or other form of capitalism, I dont

RadioRaheem84

28th January 2010, 19:04

I am saying that by defending undemocratic legal regulations such as this you are playing into the hands of the liberals and that is what pisses me off.

Maybe we should discuss the dynamics of the law in question before you go making statements about it's validity.

robbo203

28th January 2010, 19:32

Oh jeez, it's clear that you fail to see the obvious class war going in Venezuela between the largely bourgeois press that refuses to give the government airtime to reach the people (because they insist it's "propaganda") and the administration which is upholding the law! It's obvious that the law was enacted because the media is largely anti-Chavez and anti-socialist and thus wants to keep any progress he's made under wraps. To pull the plug until they comply is the right thing to do.

The media is afraid to broadcast Chavez's speeches because they can run for hours (and they're seen as propaganda) but they don't mind running anti-Chavez propaganda the rest of the time?

All very well but two wrongs dont make a right. There is no way you can say its is "democratic" to compel the media by law to broadcast Chavez' state capitalist propaganda. Give the state an inch and it will take a yard. Of course I dont have any time for the venezuelan bourgeois press either but sorry this is not the way to go about remedying the situation by top down authortiarian diktat. Why if Chavez is so concered that his views are not getting sufficient airing does he not get together with his cronies and set up his own media outlet.

RadioRaheem84

28th January 2010, 19:52

Why if Chavez is so concered that his views are not getting sufficient airing does he not get together with his cronies and set up his own media outlet.The state has a station which is the equivalent to PBS and the administration has created along with other like minded administrations around the continent to create TeleSur.

There is no way you can say its is "democratic" to compel the media by law to broadcast Chavez' state capitalist propaganda.Radio Caracas Television Internacional did not object to the law because they felt the law was undemocratic. RCTV rejected the law because they felt that they were an international channel that wasn't subject to the same rules and regulations as the domestic ones (even though 70% of RCTV programming comes from Venezuela). They were just trying to get out of not supporting the law.

The media is owned by just 27 families like a cartel and they're insisting on using it as an instrument of class warfare. Chavez enacts a law in order to bring balance to the airwaves and he's the dictator? He's the one that's against a free press when the jackals in the media constantly broadcast anything anti-Chavez, anti-progress?

From the Article: Journalist and human rights groups have expressed concern over the muzzling of press freedoms and have called for peaceful protests against the law.I hate this crap! It seems like the whole world is in favor of a liberal establishment. As if the bourgeois represent the essence of democracy. If they're (interests) effected than somehow "democracy" is effected. :rolleyes: The mindset of this age is largely bourgeois in nature and scope and anything worker-minded is seen as vulgar, crass and grossly anti-establishment. How, just how, were the bourgeoisie able to cleverly get the masses to accept them as the proprietors of democracy?

RadioRaheem84

28th January 2010, 20:07

Give the state an inch and it will take a yard. Of course I dont have any time for the venezuelan bourgeois press either but sorry this is not the way to go about remedying the situation by top down authortiarian diktat.I understand where you're coming from. But this level of thinking is rather Hitchens-like. It compels us to ignore the realities of the situation in favor of a moral platitude that would allow rampant crime to be commited against the working class. This is a very liberal attitude and one that I understand very well as I used to be a very Hitchens-like hawk liberal-lefty. You will end up supporting the bourgeouis more times than the working class without even knowing it. The upper crust has ursurped the ideals of liberty, democracy, freedom, etc. and turned it on it's head. It has made the working masses see them and their interests as sort of the necessary recipe for a working democracy.

I remember watching the doc The Revolution Will Not be Televised, and seeing the plotters take over the Venezulean government and as all the plotters were appointed undemocratically to high offices, the crowd in the room shouted "Democracy, Democracy, Democracy". It was sick and twisted, yet the establishments of the world saw them as more legitimate than Chavez.

Andropov

29th January 2010, 09:12

Firstly ,I didnt say he is pulling the plug "because it is critical of the regime". I merely asked whether it is democratic to pull the plug in the first place. Slight difference. You should be more attentive in future I know full well it is "legal regulation", the question is whether the legal regulation is democratically acceptable.
No, what you said was this.....

Nevertheless it is clearly not a democratic stance to pull the plug on independent TV stations critical of the regime.
Clearly insinuating that Chavez pulled the plug because it is criticial of the regime.
And do I think that a telly station should be left without reprimand for a breach of the law just because it is not critical of the regime?
Of course not, it does not occupy some sacred ground that cannot be impeded on, it must conform to its legal obligations just as all the other TV stations have to do so.
Is the said legal regulation democratically acceptable?
Well that is a question open to much subjective interpretation such as what is democracy and more importantly what is democratically acceptable?
But you coming from a liberal bourgeois sense of the word I assume that this is not "democratically acceptable".
Funny how your notions of being democratically acceptable seem to always coinside with private capital, how quaint.

Secondly, I thought I had explained what is meant by "independent" - as in being independent of the government and that this does does not denote they do not have their own agenda.
You only did so when you were called out on it.
But I think this is a perfect example of your political line and your attempted distortions in this thread.
You clearly stated that....

Nevertheless it is clearly not a democratic stance to pull the plug on independent TV stations critical of the regime.
You are spinning a line that indeed totally compliments the liberal bourgeois line in that you are clearly identifying Chavez as being in some way anti-democratic and the TV station as a bastion of freedom because of its alleged "independance".
You only retracted this spurious post when called out on it but it is a brilliant little clip of your overall bourgeois liberal tendencies and sympathies.

And thirdly , my political oritientation is communist and my loyalties lie with the working class. Yoour political orientation on the other hand is quite state capitalist and your class loyalties lie with the state capitalist bourgeoisie. Thats pretty obvious
Your loyalties lie with the working class?
Id hazard a guess that the closest you have gotten to the working class was when your Butler opened the door for you in the Limo on the way to highschool.
But sure anyway thats neither here nor there since you yourself have admitted as much as being a political nobody, not lifting your arse to fart.
Just one of those liberal bourgeois trendys who snipe from the sidelines while real stalwarts of working class action actually do something productive.

Andropov

29th January 2010, 09:23

So becuase its a legal regulation that makes it OK then?
As I said before it all boils down to your own subjective interpretation of Democracy.

Nope. You obviously cant read properly.
No no I can read your liberal bourgeois rehtorric quite well.

I am saying that by defending undemocratic legal regulations such as this you are playing into the hands of the liberals and that is what pisses me off.
Its not undemocatic, you must go about proveing that it is undemocratic.
And I am playing right into the bourgeois liberals hands?
Aww here, stop your liberal bourgeois double speak and actually attack this as a marxist, dont waist my time with that drivel.

I wouldnt be pissed off by your stupidity if I was a liberal would I now? Think about it.
How can we prove you are "pissed off". Think about it.

I would be rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of being to point to yet another example of how undemocratic and elitist is "socialism".
The fact that you have come to the conclusion that attacking private capital in the way it manifests itself in a media corporation as some kind of "undemocratic" decision says alot about the class basis of your politics and where your loyalties lie.

For my part I oppose both you and your bourgeois liberal buddies in your joint endeavour to pass of regimes like Chavez regime as somehow "socialist".
I dont call it socialist but I recognise it as progressive and indeed doing alot more for the working class than a million robbo203 who is about as politically active as a bed ridden leper.

The gulf between you and the bourgeois liberals is in fact far less than it is between me and either of you.
Ya nice try there robbo.
The very fact that you are on here playing the bleeding heart for private capital says all we really need to know about the class basis of your politics.

For a start you both support one or other form of capitalism, I dont.
No I dont, prove it.

robbo203

29th January 2010, 09:50

Your loyalties lie with the working class?
Id hazard a guess that the closest you have gotten to the working class was when your Butler opened the door for you in the Limo on the way to highschool.
But sure anyway thats neither here nor there since you yourself have admitted as much as being a political nobody, not lifting your arse to fart.
Just one of those liberal bourgeois trendys who snipe from the sidelines while real stalwarts of working class action actually do something productive.

Well now, of course ,you have fully demonstrated that you are a complete fool with nothing left to fall back on but a juvenile line in ad hominens and personal insults. I would not dare to presume or "hazard a guess" what your personal background might be and infer from this, your political perspective. You know sod all about me and I know sod all about you in that respect. Only an arrogant little dickhead can presume to think otherwise.

All I am interested in here are the ideas that put people forward, not their personal backgrounds which to me is irrelevant (and your supposition about mine is about as wrong as can possibly be). Your obviously inability to deal with the charge that you are nothing more than a supporter of state capitalism except by resorting to such childish taunts is plain for all to see.

I dont need to expose you for the empty poseur that you are. You condemn yourself out of your own mouth

Andropov

29th January 2010, 09:57

Well now, of course ,you have fully demonstrated that you are a complete fool with nothing left to fall back on but a juvenile line in ad hominens and personal insults. I would not dare to presume or "hazard a guess" what your personal background might be and infer from this, your political perspective. You know sod all about me and I know sod all about you in that respect. Only an arrogant little dickhead can presume to think otherwise.

All I am interested in here are the ideas that put people forward, not their personal backgrounds which to me is irrelevant (and your supposition about mine is about as wrong as can possibly be). Your obviously inability to deal with the charge that you are nothing more than a supporter of state capitalism except by resorting to such childish taunts is plain for all to see.

I dont need to expose you for the empty poseur that you are. You condemn yourself out of your own mouth
How cute that you just refered to the end of my post and completely ignored the rest of it?
Telling some would say.

Yehuda Stern

29th January 2010, 16:20

Devrim

29th January 2010, 17:55

In Swedish mainstream newspapers, we are told that students are killed in clashes following protests against Chavez's decision to take away RCTV's cable license, indicating that the students were demonstrating against Chavez. It is really just showing off how bankcrupt mainstream media is.

I listened to a report of this on the BBC world service and got the same impression. The mainstream media often does things like this and the BBC specialised in it in Ireland.

However, I am not sure about the title of this thread either:

Chavez supporters killed in Venezuelan clashes

But then when you read through the report, it says:

Yosinio Carrillo, 15, and a supporter of Chavez's socialist party, was shot dead Monday when student groups supporting and opposing the government clashed in Merida, home to one of Venezuela's main universities.
Interior Minister Tareck El Aissami told state television Carrillo was "ambushed."
A medical student, Marcos Rosales, 28, was shot three times and died of his injuries during the protests, Merida Governor Marcos Diaz Orellana said.

No information is given about the political allegiance of the medical student. However, a little elementary research shows he was on the other side:

Two students, one a supporter of President Hugo Chavez and the other an opponent, were killed Monday as demonstrations and counter-demonstrations took place across Venezuela following a government order to suspend broadcasts by an opposition television channel.

Devrim

robbo203

29th January 2010, 18:05

I understand where you're coming from. But this level of thinking is rather Hitchens-like. It compels us to ignore the realities of the situation in favor of a moral platitude that would allow rampant crime to be commited against the working class. This is a very liberal attitude and one that I understand very well as I used to be a very Hitchens-like hawk liberal-lefty. You will end up supporting the bourgeouis more times than the working class without even knowing it. The upper crust has ursurped the ideals of liberty, democracy, freedom, etc. and turned it on it's head. It has made the working masses see them and their interests as sort of the necessary recipe for a working democracy.
.

Well , I understand where you too are coming from and your observations on the "jackals" of the Venezuelan media. All the same, I find it utterly incomprehensible that a revolutionary socialist should pat on the back what is, afterall, a state capitalist and (therefore) anti-working class regime for passing legislation which compels this media to broadcast the Chavez' state capitalist propaganda. Sorry but I just dont get this. This is squabble between the state capitalists and the private capitalists. It is absolutely not in the interests of revolutionary socialists to get involved on either side. The legislation in question is clearly undemocratic - and you cannot possibly deny this - but not for a moment am I suggesting we rally to the side of the private capitalists. To think that is a gross misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. However, the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend and in this case the Chavez regime is certainly no friend of the working class any more than any other capitalist government, despite the illusion is seeks to cultivate that it is. Weve been there before - haven't we? - in the shape of the British Labour Party, for instance, which also claimed to want to run capitalism in the interests of "working people" and look where that got us!

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 18:15

Well , I understand where you too are coming from and your observations on the "jackals" of the Venezuelan media. All the same, I find it utterly incomprehensible that a revolutionary socialist should pat on the back what is, afterall, a state capitalist and (therefore) anti-working class regime for passing legislation which compels this media to broadcast the Chavez' state capitalist propaganda. Sorry but I just dont get this. This is squabble between the state capitalists and the private capitalists. It is absolutely not in the interests of revolutionary socialists to get involved on either side. The legislation in question is clearly undemocratic - and you cannot possibly deny this - but not for a moment am I suggesting we rally to the side of the private capitalists. To think that is a gross misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. However, the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend and in this case the Chavez regime is certainly no friend of the working class any more than any other capitalist government, despite the illusion is seeks to cultivate that it is. Weve been there before - haven't we? - in the shape of the British Labour Party, for instance, which also claimed to want to run capitalism in the interests of "working people" and look where that got us!

I don't know where you're getting your info from when it comes to the Venezuelan administration. Chavez is supporting, probably one of the largest, worker co-op movements in history. The working class really feels as if they have a say in the government now when it used to be run by an oligarch. What is it that you have against his administration? It's certainly not perfect, nor 100% socialist, but it's by far one of the most progressive governments in the region.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html

el_chavista

29th January 2010, 19:00

el chavista - I find it impossible to believe that Chavez can nationalize every industry he decides to, as his supporters joyfully report every time something like that happens, but when some soldiers / cops decide to beat up striking workers, he's suddenly turned powerless. It's just a bit too convenient. What's the excuse for not having any leaders of the coup behind bars, even though their identities are well known and Chavez had quite a few years of rising popularity where he certainly had the ability to arrest them? These people, after all, are guilty not only of trying to overthrow Chavez, but also of the deaths of all of his supporters who died during the coup.
Several leaders of the military coup and implicated civilians were imprisoned. The military were acquitted by the supreme court and the civilian "managed" to escape and take refuge in embassis of countries in which they eventually sought refuge. That's the story.

Now, suppose you're a capitalist whose factory has been taken by its workers, something that is prohibited by the prevailing bourgeois laws of private property (the right to have private property). You can report this case of trespassing private property to a judge and this judge can use the local police or even the national guard to force the eviction of the workers.

This is the case, no matter that, later, the judge and the policemen are arrested and tried -if there have been violations of human rights.

robbo203

29th January 2010, 19:21

I don't know where you're getting your info from when it comes to the Venezuelan administration. Chavez is supporting, probably one of the largest, worker co-op movements in history. The working class really feels as if they have a say in the government now when it used to be run by an oligarch. What is it that you have against his administration? It's certainly not perfect, nor 100% socialist, but it's by far one of the most progressive governments in the region.

See, this basically comes down to a question of first principles. Can capitalism ever be run in the interests of wage labour? I say no it cannot. It doesnt matter how "progressive" the regime, or how well intentioned and sincere its aims, ultimately if you take on the administration of capitalism then you have to play by the rules set by capital. This is not to say that when conditions are favourable reforms cannot be granted but they will be granted only insofar as they are compatible with or do not jeopardise the need to make profit. My understanding of the Venezuelan situation is that to a large extent the sops being offered to the workers by the regime are part of an ongoing struggle between the private capitalists and the state capitalists. It is a concerted bid to get the workers on the side of the state capitalists.

I purposefully mentioned the case of the British Labour Party which in its formative years also presented itself as being "progressive" and wanting to operate capitalism in the interests of workers. Look what happened. It will be exactly the same with Chavez - you mark my words. Im not here casting any aspersions on his sincerity. I really have no idea whether he is genuine in his intentions of wanting to help the workers or not (nor does anyone else here on this list BTW). But that is besides the point. Sincere or not, well meaning or not, he can only operate capitalism in the interests of capital. And he has already in fact given examples of this. See for example http://libcom.org/news/steel-workers-strike-venezuela-attacked-chavez-state-02042008

Its not a case of his administration not being "100% socialist". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature capitalism and socialism. Its like saying you are10% pregnant and 90% not. Capitalism and socialism are two fundamentally different social systems that cannot coexist in the same space and time. Of course you can call yourself "socialist" - the British Labour Party calls itself "democratic socialist" - but that means absolutely nothing.

And as for worker coops well, again, lets not get carried away with this. Worker coops are simply capitalist businesses owned and controlled by workers competing against other businesses in the market. I gave you the example of Mondragon - the largest worker coop in the world - and its rather unsavoury labour practices in Poland. Indeed, you yourself said in a thread on that very subject

Someone pointed out a book here with the same title as this thread. It seems like there is tension between the workers and managers at Mondragon, the cooperative is using exploitative labor in Poland, and it's been known to suffer losses at the expense of the workers.

Is this more of the result of co-ops competing in a market capitalist economy or the result of the failure of co-ops themselves? I've also read that one of the factories in Argentina famously shown in the documentary The Take, has fired all of the leftist workers

That in itself should give you cause for caution before talking about worker coops.

You need to understand what the system is about and the fact that in taking on the administration of capitalism you will inevitably be obliged to follow the rules of the game that are inherent to the system itself. That applies to the Chavez government as it does to every other capitalist government

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 19:23

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 19:48

Robbo203:
From your article:

Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions.Chavez nationalized it a month later:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/chavez-nationalises-largest-steel-firm/story-0-1111116323562

In his speech on May 21, 2009, Chávez said that he is in favour of workers' control and even of the election of managers by the workers. He also gave a new impulse to the class struggle in Guayana with the nationalization of the briquette companies which are directly linked to SIDOR, Orinoco Iron, Matessi and Tassa. The workers in these factories have now taken concrete steps to organize themselves and are pushing for the implementation of workers' control.
It is no exaggeration to say that nationalization was thanks only to the heroic fight and determination of the SIDOR workers who kept struggling despite the boycott of all the media,http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-nationalization-sidor-workers-control.htm

The problems at SIDOR remain, but this is mostly due to the people in charge who are largely anti-Chavez and anti-workers control. They're left over vestiges from the private owners and have kept the conflict going on even after nationalization. Chavez supports the workers though.

Your article made it seem like the workers at SIDOR were mainly protesting the Chavez administration when they were clearly looking for workers control and nationalization. Chavez responded a month later.

The workers and their trade union SUTISS (United Trade Union of Steel Workers and Similar Industries) are demanding not only a collective contract but also the re-nationalization of the steel works, since in the last few years the Venezuelan government has talked a lot about reversing privatizations.
“If this were a Yankee company, the government would have re-nationalized it long ago”, the workers’ representatives complain. José Melendez, from the executive committee of SUTISS, argued that “what’s good for the rooster is good for the hen”, referring to the need to nationalize all multinational corporations. “In Venezuela we talk about socialism, but our leaders should tell us what socialism they mean, since the capitalists continue to do as they wish at the expense of the workers.”http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2024
April '08

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 19:53

And as for worker coops well, again, lets not get carried away with this. Worker coops are simply capitalist businesses owned and controlled by workers competing against other businesses in the market. I gave you the example of Mondragon - the largest worker coop in the world - and its rather unsavoury labour practices in Poland. Indeed, you yourself said in a thread on that very subjectRobbo, there is an entire ministry set up in Venezuela to help the co-ops not only get started but maintain even in the face of capitalist competition. This is such a major turn from the State subsidizing the losses of many private owned enterprises and reducing competition to mere favored industries of the State. The situation in Venezuela is different than one big co-op corporation like Mondragon that chose to comprise its main values due to competition.

el_chavista

29th January 2010, 20:12

El Chavista,

What are some of the major accusations of corruption directed at the Chavez administration in Venezuela? I heard something about Luis Tascon and his accusations during the '04 recall. I want to know just what is the truth going on inside Venezuela and what's bourgeois propaganda.

First bear in mind that:

Corruption has historically profound roots in the idiosyncrasy and "sub-culture" of the undeveloped countries. Bolívar himself decreed the death penalty for those who stole more than 200 pesos during the Independence war, two centuries ago.
It is no coincidence that the petty bourgeoisie in the CPSU tried to use bureaucratic power for its own benefit: it is a historic constant in all these underdeveloped countries.

I think that something that prevent the big capitalist countries from a more fast decay is it's justice system, relatively more "independent" from political and mafia corruption.

True: the chavista middle and low leadership substituted the former right wing reformists in the bureaucracy and don't have an ideological level so as to differentiate themselves much from the former. This implies that there are "pro-process entrepreneurs" profiting from contracts with the government to the point that some of them have been jailed recently.

False: you cannot blame Chávez for corruption unless you state that it is his fault not to completely overcome the bourgeois state.

By the way, Tascon himself is an opportunist and his denouncements against some members of the party leadership are mild and not that sound.

robbo203

29th January 2010, 20:52

Robbo, there is an entire ministry set up in Venezuela to help the co-ops not only get started but maintain even in the face of capitalist competition. This is such a major turn from the State subsidizing the losses of many private owned enterprises and reducing competition to mere favored industries of the State. The situation in Venezuela is different than one big co-op corporation like Mondragon that chose to comprise its main values due to competition.

You are still not seeing the wood for the trees. You are making it sound like it is some kind of qualititative shift in the underlying economic reality. Its not. Its still capitalism . Its still production for the market with a view to profit. Government subsidies may in this particular instance go beyond helping to keep loss making business going but so what? There's nothing new about that at all anyway. Its a fairly common strategy for developing fledging local industries to prop them up financially and protect them by erecting tariff barriers. The context in which Venezuelan coops may operate may be somewhat different than in the case of Mondragon but the fundamental economic pressures that arise from the capitalist system that encircles and engulfs them both is precisely the same. You said it yourself -the coops are getting help "even in the face of capitalist competition". Exactly! It is to this capitalist competition that they will have to adapt or perish.

At the end of the day capitalism will call the shots and the coops will have to follow the rules of the game. Even governments cannot escape this fate. Subsidies dont come from a bottomless pit. They derive from tax revenue which in turn is a charge on the profitability of businesses themselves. Squeeze that too hard and you risk businesses going bankrupt. No government can afford killing the goose that lays their golden eggs. If necessary, they will forcibly impose the imperative of profit upon the coops with all that this entails. Even in state capitalist Soviet Union state enterprises were compelled to keep profit and loss accounts. The whole bloated state apparatus depended upon the surplus value creamed off at the level of the state enterprises. In Venezuela the Chavez capitalist government must ensure that profits come before need and if you are administering the capitalist system you frankly have no other alternative in the long run.

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 20:54

Ah, so it's due more to the fact that low level bureaucrats in local governments are still behaving much the same way their predecessors did? Corruption is a main factor in all politics not just in the developed countries. In the developed world, we just hide it better. The justice system is so vast and disconnected from the main federal branch that corruption is little noticed.

RadioRaheem84

29th January 2010, 21:02

You said it your self . the coops are getting help "even in the face of capitalist competition". Exactly. It is to this capitalist competition that they will have to adapt or perish.

Capitalists get help from the state to counter other capitalists. Since perfect competition is a fairy tale, private owned enterprises get what they can from the public trough and coerce the state to enact policies in their favor. That is more of an engine of capitalist hegemony these days than the practices of capitalist competition itself. With a ministry solely in favor of cooperative movements, seeing their rise and sustainability, this puts them in much better position than to be out in the open to face capitalist competition. I am not seeing it as "a qualititative shift in the underlying economic reality", I see it as a shift in political influence from the capitalist class to the working class in their quest for workers self management. That is what makes Chavez's administration so progressive.