Chavez slams "horrible repression" of U.S. protests

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/08/us-venezuela-usa-idUSTRE79726120111008



(Reuters) - Socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez condemned on Saturday the "horrible repression" of anti-Wall Street protesters and termed a Republican presidential candidate "crazy" for his criticism of Cuba and Venezuela.

Although still convalescing from cancer surgery in June followed by four rounds of chemotherapy, the 57-year-old Venezuelan president is quickly returning to the tough rhetoric and strong views that have made him famous worldwide.

Not surprisingly, Chavez expressed solidarity with American activists who have been staging rallies and marches against what they view as corporate greed by Wall Street.

The U.S. protests, which began last month in New York and have spread to Tampa, Florida, Seattle and other cities, have mostly been peaceful but sometimes resulted in confrontations. Dozens were arrested and police used pepper spray in New York earlier this week.

"This movement of popular outrage is expanding to 10 cities and the repression is horrible, I don't know how many are in prison now," Chavez said in comments at a political meeting in his Caracas presidential palace shown on state TV.

Chavez, who runs for re-election in a year's time and traditionally ramps up his anti-capitalist rhetoric to try and rally supporters before a vote, also let rip at Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who referred to the "malign socialism" of Cuba and Venezuela in a speech on Friday.

"He's been attacking Venezuela and Cuba, and talking about the malign government of Hugo Chavez. And he has the arrogance to say that God created the United States so the United States can rule the world," Chavez said.

"And that crazy man might be the president of the United States, in elections that are just after ours."

Venezuela's presidential vote is in October 2012, before the U.S. vote in November.

Chavez said again he was sure he would be given a clean bill of health in time to run a vigorous campaign for re-election in the South American OPEC member nation.

He would return to Cuba, where he was operated on in June to remove a malignant tumor, in a few days for final checks, Chavez said. "We're going to do all the examinations to confirm what we think up to now, that there are no malignant cells left in my body," he told the meeting.

Since coming to power in 1999, Chavez has sought to project himself as a leader of a global "anti-imperialist" movement.

He and allies in the ruling Socialist Party have been gloating over economic and social problems in the United States and Europe as evidence of capitalism's impending downfall.

"Poverty's growing, the misery is getting worse," he said, referring to the causes of the U.S. protests. "But that empire is still there, still a threat ... (President Barack) Obama is on his way down, for lots of reasons. He was a big fraud."

(Writing by Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Paul Simao)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Know what's horrible repression? Getting shot in the face by a sniper while you're out protesting. You didn't hear a peep out of el caudillo when that was happening during the earliest days of the Libya protests, though.

Pigs act like pigs everywhere there's class society, even in glorious 21st century socialist beacons like Bolivia, as we've seen recently. And even in places like Belarus and Zimbabwe, where I'm sure that repression would never be visited upon by anyone opposing those regimes. :cool:

Chavez is such a boob.

[KurtFF8]

Not sure how your last sentence is relevant to those other countries.

I think it's actually a smart move on Chavez part. The US is always quick to criticize other countries for "repressive measures" when it's also happening in "heart of" capitalism (financial district of NYC). Statements like this are meant to point out the hypocrisy of the US, and I would say are successful in doing so.

I don't see why folks, even those who are critical of Chavez, would read this and attack him for it. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Not sure how your last sentence is relevant to those other countries.

I think it's actually a smart move on Chavez part. The US is always quick to criticize other countries for "repressive measures" when it's also happening in "heart of" capitalism (financial district of NYC). Statements like this are meant to point out the hypocrisy of the US, and I would say are successful in doing so.

I don't see why folks, even those who are critical of Chavez, would read this and attack him for it. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed, and it's no secret that I'm a big fan of Chavez.

[manic expression]

Good on Chavez...calling out US imperialism for domestic repression of peaceful protests, and pointing out the causes that make such demonstrations an urgent necessity for the workers.


Pigs act like pigs everywhere there's class society, even in glorious 21st century socialist beacons like Bolivia, as we've seen recently. And even in places like Belarus and Zimbabwe, where I'm sure that repression would never be visited upon by anyone opposing those regimes. :cool:
Yeah, like anarchists have never repressed any opposition. :rolleyes: Take the "kinder, gentler" act somewhere else.

[Iron Felix]

I love the guy, he seems like fun. But his leadership is not very effective, if only he had more power that could be changed. But you know what Bakunin said, give absolute power to the most ardent revolutionary for a year and he will transform into someone not unlike the most repressive Czar. Of course, I am paraphrasing.

[Sugarnotch]

While I agree with his sentiment, I'm not sure it's good for the protesters. They're already getting slandered by the right-wing political elite with buzzphrases such as "anti-American," and having a freedom hating, baby eating commie like Chávez supporting the marches might give wingnuts more ammo.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Chavez's support is welcome and seems overdue. It's important to keep in mind that he's a bourgeoisie leader himself.

[KurtFF8]

It's important to keep in mind that he's a bourgeoisie leader himself.

How does that matter in terms of his criticism of the NYPD's handling of the protests?

Also I'm not sure that he's bourgeois himself. From what I understand he was actually born into poverty and spent much of his time before the presidency in the military. I'm not sure of what means of production or finance capital he owned prior to taking on the role of head of state for Venezuela.

Regardless, I'm not sure how that makes his statements any more or less valid, that would simply be an ad hominem

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It would be nice if Mr Chavez directed some of his solidarity to the men and women getting shot in Syria and Iran too, and for the protesters gunned down by Gaddafi on Feb 17th, though he probably won't. If he condemns violence against American protesters while being silent about repression in "allied" states then he is being no less opportunistic than when Obama or Sarkozy criticize the human rights records of repressive regimes like Syria, Iran and Libya.

I think every leader in the world should stand in solidarity with all the protests everywhere and against police violence used against them. None do so right now, Chavez's administration included. Every state out there only criticizes the human rights records of states which they have international disputes with. That said, the problem isn't with Chavez criticizing the US response, it's with his hypocritical decision not to extend that criticism to countries like Syria. In of itself, the treatment of protesters by the police has been more than worthy of criticism.


Not sure how your last sentence is relevant to those other countries.I'm guessing because Robert Mugabe and Mr Lukashenko are Chavez "buddies" who used police and state violence against opposition which is more brutal than anything used thus far against protesters in NYC.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not sure how your last sentence is relevant to those other countries.

I think it's actually a smart move on Chavez part. The US is always quick to criticize other countries for "repressive measures" when it's also happening in "heart of" capitalism (financial district of NYC). Statements like this are meant to point out the hypocrisy of the US, and I would say are successful in doing so.

I don't see why folks, even those who are critical of Chavez, would read this and attack him for it. That just doesn't make sense to me.

It was relevant because he and the leaders of aforementioned nations are "best bros".

Admittedly some of my commentary was semi-trolling, just because Chavez annoys me. But also, who cares? What's the difference if a head of state of a capitalist nation condemns the repression that another state visits upon it's dissidents? This statement is going to have zero practical impact on anything. But of course there's another thing that really annoys me, and that's the fact that some of Chavez's buddies have cracked down HARD on protesters in the past, and his "righteous" denunciations were conspicuously absent then. He's just another leading figure in an opposition trade bloc that's hindering the USA's interests, nothing more, nothing less. For example, when someone is shot dead in the streets, followed by their funeral being attacked and their grave desecrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan), I think that qualifies as "harsh repression", but not when Iranian and Venezuelan firms are preoccupied with such lucrative trade deals.


Yeah, like anarchists have never repressed any opposition. Take the "kinder, gentler" act somewhere else.

Oh, I'm sorry...am I supposed to go to the mat for the conduct of all anarchists now?

There's a LOT about anarchism that I criticize.

[Seth]

His words would carry twice the weight if he didn't side with every single regime on the planet that doesn't like the US.

[socialistjustin]

All politics. If our leader was Gaddafi he would be defending the police or staying quiet.

[KurtFF8]

It would be nice if Mr Chavez directed some of his solidarity to the men and women getting shot in Syria and Iran too, and for the protesters gunned down by Gaddafi on Feb 17th, though he probably won't. If he condemns violence against American protesters while being silent about repression in "allied" states then he is being no less opportunistic than when Obama or Sarkozy criticize the human rights records of repressive regimes like Syria, Iran and Libya.

Should Chavez have supported the NATO bombing of Libya then?


I think every leader in the world should stand in solidarity with all the protests everywhere and against police violence used against them. None do so right now, Chavez's administration included. Every state out there only criticizes the human rights records of states which they have international disputes with. That said, the problem isn't with Chavez criticizing the US response, it's with his hypocritical decision not to extend that criticism to countries like Syria. In of itself, the treatment of protesters by the police has been more than worthy of criticism.Wait, so protests should be supported no matter what? This seems to be a liberal notion "freedom of expression" here.

This can lead to problematic conclusions: if we just accept "people are opposing their particular government!" and support them no matter what: we ignore the very real possibility that the US and Western powers do sometimes agitate these kinds of things. That doesn't mean that we have to be "anti-imperialists and fully support those regimes" but not all protest movements are created equal. For example, I would imagine that most folks here do not support the Tea Party, which is an anti-government protest movement.

[Seth]

Should Chavez have supported the NATO bombing of Libya then?
Is this kind of convoluted logic common on this forum? How does opposing Gaddafi turn into supporting NATO?

[KurtFF8]

Is this kind of convoluted logic common on this forum? How does opposing Gaddafi turn into supporting NATO?

Because there was a civil war. One side had called for NATO to support it and NATO joined that side. The other side was opposed to NATO's intervention and fought NATO.

There was not a third side that was a workers army attempting to establish Communism. That "third position" of "opposing both sides" translates to refraining from taking a stance on the situation at all.

Chavez, as a head of state, decided to oppose the NATO side.

[Seth]

There was not a third side that was a workers army attempting to establish Communism. That "third position" of "opposing both sides" translates to refraining from taking a stance on the situation at all.


And that's bad why? Neither side will benefit the workers.

[KurtFF8]

And that's bad why? Neither side will benefit the workers.

So what position do you think Chavez should have taken during that conflict?

[Seth]

So what position do you think Chavez should have taken during that conflict?

Chavez should have called on Libyan workers to reject the TNC and Gaddafi and form their own organizations. This call would have been echoed by the international left given Chavez' position as head of state.

But Chavez is a head of state, and principles do not apply when you have made political connections with other ruling classes, as Chavez has done.

[KurtFF8]

Chavez should have called on Libyan workers to reject the TNC and Gaddafi and form their own organizations. This call would have been echoed by the international left given Chavez' position as head of state.

But Chavez is a head of state, and principles do not apply when you have made political connections with other ruling classes, as Chavez has done.

Do you think that would have been a realistic call while a civil war was brewing?

And do you think that Libyan workers would have seen Hugo Chavez calling on them to reject both sides and essentially just become Communists and rejected the war itself in that situation?

You're pretty much saying that a third position should have just developed in Libya. And it would have been nice if a strong Communist movement existed there and won. But the reality of the situation is that such a third position was not existent, and Hugo Chavez calling for one would not have changed that. What Chavez could have (and did) done/do was to oppose NATO intervention in that country.

In Iraq and Afghanistan: there is virtually no Left (or at least the Left in both of those countries is so weak that they are insignificant), yet we still oppose US domination of those countries. Why should Libya be any different? (Of course Yugoslavia/Serbia would be more comparable in this situation, where NATO bombing should have been opposed as well)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Should Chavez have supported the NATO bombing of Libya then?



http://www.clker.com/cliparts/b/b/e/5/11970857951547845327johnny_automatic_straw_man.svg .hi.png


Wait, so protests should be supported no matter what? This seems to be a liberal notion "freedom of expression" here.

This can lead to problematic conclusions: if we just accept "people are opposing their particular government!" and support them no matter what: we ignore the very real possibility that the US and Western powers do sometimes agitate these kinds of things. That doesn't mean that we have to be "anti-imperialists and fully support those regimes" but not all protest movements are created equal. For example, I would imagine that most folks here do not support the Tea Party, which is an anti-government protest movement.

Who said anything about supporting protests? This has everything to condemning brutal and inhuman crackdowns on protests. You don't need to support protesters to recognize that any government which fucking murders them and murders anyone who mourns their deaths is repressive.

Anyways, even if the USA/NATO is trying to exploit the protest movements, it does not mean that the protesters don't have legitimate complaints. Do you really think Syria and Libya were so nice that nobody would ever legitimately protest ?? :confused: and if the protests are over legitimate issues then why play "guilt by association" just because opportunists abroad try to exploit them?


Because there was a civil war. One side had called for NATO to support it and NATO joined that side. The other side was opposed to NATO's intervention and fought NATO.

There was not a third side that was a workers army attempting to establish Communism. That "third position" of "opposing both sides" translates to refraining from taking a stance on the situation at all.

Chavez, as a head of state, decided to oppose the NATO side.

Yeah, because Gaddafi totally didn't order his men to shoot up the protesters before the civil war. :rolleyes: The "civil war" was the natural outcome of Gaddafi's harsh crackdown, a fact that Mr Chavez has never mentioned.

[KurtFF8]

Okay had he condemned the crackdown (which I'm of course not denying happened), and then opposed NATO would you still be making those same criticisms though?

I feel as if a lot of the folks who were opposed to the NATO bombing were also straw manned into being "Gaddafi supporters." As if opposing the rebels made one instantly okay with how Libya was run up until that point. As a matter of fact many folks opposed to the intervention said that it was up to the Libyan people to end the conflict, not the West.

And there's of course the serious problems with the rebels, etc. that also seems ritualistically necessary, on top of the ritualistic necessity of saying "well I don't support Gadaffi but I oppose NATO"

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Chavez was right to oppose NATO intervention but he was not right to support Qaddaffi.It would not be realistic for Chavez to call for a "third option" for Libya but then it is not realistic for socialists in the US to call to put the banks under public ownership, close down Wall Street, and socialize the economy.

Chavez didn't have to call for Libyan and African workers to become communists overnight but he could have helped created some space for an independent working class position.

Of course I vehemently oppose US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan but I also opposed Saddam and the Taliban.

Like Libya the Left in the US is also virtually non-existent but that doesn't we should support the Dems.Socialism isn't "the lesser of two evilism" or the "politics of the possible", let's leave that for the liberals.

I don't hate on Chavez, many positive things have come from him but the Bolivarian Revolution has stalled, there is increasing authoritarianism and Chavez is more and more a "left Bonapartist".In politics like everything else the best defence is a good offence. Chavez supporting Qaddaffi is not offencive move.

A position against imperialism and against kleptocratic oligarchies and for the working class, no matter how unrealistic it may seem, no matter how quixotic is the only way which will ultimately succeed.

[Seth]

Could you give some examples of increasing authoritarianism in Venezuela?

[KurtFF8]

Well I don't know how much Chavez could have promoted a Communist workers movement in Libya. He did what his arena was able to do: oppose imperialism.

Just like activists in the US. Supporting or opposing Gadaffi should have been seen as a secondary question even while opposing imperialism should have been seen as the prime responsibility for that situation. This is because the US government was bombing Libya: so it should have been clear to oppose that. That doesn't imply support for Gadaffi necessarily, but in that particular conflict, it's clear that NATO winning has lead Libya down the path of complete client state once more.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Could you give some examples of increasing authoritarianism in Venezuela?

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/04/29/18591799.php

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4490

http://libcom.org/news/venezuela-all-detainees-released-charges-dropped-following-union-march-maracay-13032010

There are more.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Okay had he condemned the crackdown (which I'm of course not denying happened), and then opposed NATO would you still be making those same criticisms though?


Of course not, at least he would be consistent in standing with protesters against state violence.

But his government has gone a lot further than just criticizing NATO in justifying Syrian and Libyan tyranny.



I feel as if a lot of the folks who were opposed to the NATO bombing were also straw manned into being "Gaddafi supporters." As if opposing the rebels made one instantly okay with how Libya was run up until that point. As a matter of fact many folks opposed to the intervention said that it was up to the Libyan people to end the conflict, not the West.

And there's of course the serious problems with the rebels, etc. that also seems ritualistically necessary, on top of the ritualistic necessity of saying "well I don't support Gadaffi but I oppose NATO"I agree that it is too easy to straw-man any critic of NATO's actions into a supporter of Gaddafi. But this isn't one of those cases, Chavez said opposition in Syria was Imperialist meddling and venezuelan state media implies that the government crackdown is justified.


Well I don't know how much Chavez could have promoted a Communist workers movement in Libya. He did what his arena was able to do: oppose imperialism.

Just like activists in the US. Supporting or opposing Gadaffi should have been seen as a secondary question even while opposing imperialism should have been seen as the prime responsibility for that situation. This is because the US government was bombing Libya: so it should have been clear to oppose that. That doesn't imply support for Gadaffi necessarily, but in that particular conflict, it's clear that NATO winning has lead Libya down the path of complete client state once more.

I don't see how his statements are any more helpful in opposing Imperialism than they would have been in creating space for socialism. No matter what view he took, be it anti-NATO or pro-protester or both, it wouldn't have had any short-term material effect on the conflict. However, if "Socialists" internationally are perceived as backing Gaddafi by Libyans, it does act to discredit the ideology. It makes socialists look like opportunists instead of principled advocates for universal rights.

[manic expression]

All politics. If our leader was Gaddafi he would be defending the police or staying quiet.
And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle.

It's a completely different situation you're bringing up. The conflict in Libya wasn't a protest against Wall St and the capitalist system...and imperialist forces didn't suppress the Libyan rebels, they actually took their side.


I agree that it is too easy to straw-man any critic of NATO's actions into a supporter of Gaddafi. But this isn't one of those cases, Chavez said opposition in Syria was Imperialist meddling and venezuelan state media implies that the government crackdown is justified.
Show me the exact words he used, with the original Spanish, and then we can look at this.


I don't see how his statements are any more helpful in opposing Imperialism than they would have been in creating space for socialism. No matter what view he took, be it anti-NATO or pro-protester or both, it wouldn't have had any short-term material effect on the conflict. However, if "Socialists" internationally are perceived as backing Gaddafi by Libyans, it does act to discredit the ideology. It makes socialists look like opportunists instead of principled advocates for universal rights.Oh for crying out loud, there's nothing more frustrating than leftists fretting over how they're perceived in the bourgeois media. "Oh no! CNN might call us names!" :rolleyes: Look, I don't mean to be flippant, but it just annoys me.

[the last donut of the night]

Yeah, like anarchists have never repressed any opposition. :rolleyes: Take the "kinder, gentler" act somewhere else.

yeah i don't really feel how this is connected to the larger theme of the thread

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Show me the exact words he used, with the original Spanish, and then we can look at this.

It's not the spanish but this is one story from just last week...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/02/us-venezuela-chavez-idUSTRE7901QW20111002


(Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Saturday he was praying for Libya's deposed leader Muammar Gaddafi and also sent a message of solidarity to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against "Yankee" aggression.
Chavez -- who has inherited Fidel Castro's mantle as Washington's main irritant in Latin America -- views the wave of uprisings in the Arab world as Western-led destabilization and has been a strong ally of Gaddafi.
"The Libyans are resisting the invasion and aggression. I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi. They're hunting him down to kill him," he said.
"No one knows where Gaddafi is, I think he went off to the desert ... to lead the resistance. What else can he do?"
With a presidential vote looming for Venezuela in 2012, Chavez's opponents have leapt on his support for Arab strongmen -- and friendship with Gaddafi -- as a sign of autocratic tendencies. But he has been undeterred and also sent support to the government of Syria (http://www.reuters.com/places/syria), which is fighting street protests.
"I spoke yesterday with the president of Syria, our brother President Bashar al-Assad," Chavez said in a televised ceremony to present low-cost household appliances for Venezuelans.
"From here, we send our solidarity to the Syrian people, to President Bashar. They are resisting imperial aggression, the attacks of the Yankee empire and its European allies."
CAPITALISM "SINKING WORLD"
Latin America's ALBA block of leftist nations would soon send a mediation team to Syria to try and help promote a negotiated solution to the unrest, Chavez added. "This warlike madness is intended by (U.S.) President (Barack) Obama and his imperial allies to destroy the Syrian people," he said.
The 57-year-old Chavez, who has led his South American OPEC member nation since 1999, spoke at length in several public appearances Saturday that were a further sign of vitality despite four sessions of chemotherapy for cancer treatment.
Earlier in the week, Chavez, who has shaved his hair and seen his face swell during chemotherapy, tossed a baseball in front of TV cameras to mock a U.S. media report that he was having emergency treatment in hospital.
"I have quite a surprise for those who want me dead and go round saying I'm in hospital, I'm paralyzed, I can't talk," he said. "I keep getting better, I'm stronger every day."
As usual, Chavez could not resist a pop at a growing group of opposition leaders planning to fight a February primary among their coalition to pick a unity candidate to fight him at the presidential election on October 7, 2012.
The socialist leader seeks to depict them as pro-U.S. representatives of Venezuela's rich elite who are out of touch with the poor majority in the nation of 29 million people.
"They are all capitalists, defending the system that his sinking the world."
Critics say Chavez's anti-U.S. diatribes and constant comments about his health are conveniently obscuring a litany of problems in Venezuela (http://www.reuters.com/places/venezuela) ranging from housing shortages and power-cuts to runaway inflation and untamed crime.
"All this talk about cancer seems intended to attract votes, at least of the sympathy variety, and perhaps distract attention from serious problems in governance," wrote U.S.-based political scientist Javier Corrales.


He's just an inversion of the US in who he condemns/ignores as far as state repression is concerned. The "solidarity" is completely contingent on his foreign policy.



Oh for crying out loud, there's nothing more frustrating than leftists fretting over how they're perceived in the bourgeois media. "Oh no! CNN might call us names!" :rolleyes: Look, I don't mean to be flippant, but it just annoys me.

Who the fuck said anything about perceptions in the bourgeois media? If you're going to just make stuff up im not going to bother having a debate. This has to do with solidarity with workers in authoritarian (and Capitalist) regimes who are attacked for resisting authority.

[KurtFF8]

I guess the moral of this thread is: never miss an opportunity to express your disapproval of another leftist.

[Catma]

Im kinda surprised that nobody has pointed out that there really isn't "Horrible repression" going on. During the more militant marches there was some thuggish shit pulled by the cops, but the numbers were small and it could have been much worse. Some marchers were tackled, some were maced or beaten. Barricades have been deployed Large numbers were arrested, but released the next day.

Yes it's fucking terrible, but really this is kid gloves compared to what they could be doing.

It's great that the movement has been able to control the message so thoroughly, and much of the exaggeration has been accepted so far. If anyone in the mainstream took Chavez seriously, he could damage his credibility, and the occupy movement's. We need to leave some criticism and rhetoric to escalate to, for if and when the cops start REALLY repressing the movement. Specifically I mean things like tear gas, sound/heat/water cannons, and serious decapitating maneuvers like clearing the occupied spaces or arresting organizers and holding them for a long time. There would be a huge opportunity if they really took any of these actions, and we should be well positioned to take advantage of it.

[KurtFF8]

I think that Chavez's point is simply to point out hypocrisy of the US. I doubt he really believes its the same thing that has been seen in Bahrain, Yemen or Egypt

[Jose Gracchus]

Only Brezhnevites who want some 'power' to side with give a damn what Chavez thinks. Since when has anything he's said made any substantial contribution to struggles?

Who gives a fuck what he says?


I guess the moral of this thread is: never miss an opportunity to express your disapproval of another leftist.

Take a look at MIA sometimes. You might be surprised how Marx talks about his fellow 'leftists'.

[KurtFF8]

Only Brezhnevites who want some 'power' to side with give a damn what Chavez thinks. Since when has anything he's said made any substantial contribution to struggles?

Who gives a fuck what he says?

I'm interested to hear how Brezhnev or "Brezchnevites" are relevant to this news story (or the 21st century in general)


Take a look at MIA sometimes. You might be surprised how Marx talks about his fellow 'leftists'.

I'm very familiar with the fact that the Left has a rich history of sectarianism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I guess the moral of this thread is: never miss an opportunity to express your disapproval of another leftist.

I agree with a lot of policies in Venezuela, and I disagree with some too. I think we should be able to be critical of other leftwing movements as long as the criticisms are rational.

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm interested to hear how Brezhnev or "Brezchnevites" are relevant to this news story (or the 21st century in general)

Brezhnevism is a description for "tail the self-styled socialist/anti-imperialist camp" politics (optionally comes with a totally uncritical look at 'centrally administered economies' and state nationalization), since it was the foreign policy line adopted under Brezhnev in the USSR.

If one does not in some part subscribe to these politics, and sees Chavez as just a bourgeois populist, than what meaning are his statements? Its been established he is in no place to judge a bourgeois state's repression toward resistance.


I'm very familiar with the fact that the Left has a rich history of sectarianism.

That's not what sectarianism means. Sectarianism does not mean "talking shit about left groups and thinking your politics is better". Sectarianism means elevating the shibboleths of one's particular sect and declaring it the sine qua non of the 'proper' movement of the class at large. Hence The Manifesto's remark that the communists have no other party than that of the proletariat. Again, might want to check M&E.

[manic expression]

yeah i don't really feel how this is connected to the larger theme of the thread
The "Chavez supports some states in some cases which utilize some forms of repression therefore he can't speak out against the repression of anti-Wall St protests" logic is silly...I thought that was important to point out.


It's not the spanish but this is one story from just last week...
It says "Yankee aggression" right there. Standing with Syria as imperialism closes in around it is hardly what you charged.


He's just an inversion of the US in who he condemns/ignores as far as state repression is concerned. The "solidarity" is completely contingent on his foreign policy.
And his foreign policy is contingent upon progressive opposition to imperialism...


Who the fuck said anything about perceptions in the bourgeois media?
However, if "Socialists" internationally are perceived as backing Gaddafi by Libyans, it does act to discredit the ideology.


Only Brezhnevites who want some 'power' to side with give a damn what Chavez thinks. Since when has anything he's said made any substantial contribution to struggles?
Or, you know, progressives who promote the cause of the workers.

Nice to know your mindset is still stuck in 1976.


Take a look at MIA sometimes. You might be surprised how Marx talks about his fellow 'leftists'.
A little different from your method.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I spoke yesterday with the president of Syria, our brother President Bashar al-Assad," Chavez said in a televised ceremony to present low-cost household appliances for Venezuelans.

"From here, we send our solidarity to the Syrian people, to President Bashar. They are resisting imperial aggression, the attacks of the Yankee empire and its European allies."

Oh wow. I wasn't aware that he'd said this in regards to Assad. Hilarious. :lol:


In an unprecedented move over the past several days, Syrians in Syria and abroad have been calling for Syrians to take up arms, or for international military intervention. This call comes five and a half months of the Syrian regime’s systematic abuse of the Syrian people, whereby tens of thousands of peaceful protesters have been detained and tortured, and more than 2,500 killed. The regime has given every indication that it will continue its brutal approach, while the majority of Syrians feel they are unprotected in their own homeland in the face of the regime’s crimes.

While we understand the motivation to take up arms or call for military intervention, we specifically reject this position as we find it unacceptable politically, nationally, and ethically. Militarizing the revolution would minimize popular support and participation in the revolution. Moreover, militarization would undermine the gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe involved in a confrontation with the regime.

Militarization would put the Revolution in an arena where the regime has a distinct advantage, and would erode the moral superiority that has characterized the Revolution since its beginning.

The National Committee For Democratic Change (a "broad left" group of mostly Arab nationalists and Marxists) have also rejected any sort of intervention, despite being firmly against Assad and the regime in Syria.

Complexities such as a divided opposition are lost on Chavez, though, who's too intoxicated on all the hot air that spews from his mouth.

[Jose Gracchus]

Or, you know, progressives who promote the cause of the workers.

It is Brezhnev's foreign policy. I also didn't realize Chavez = workers. You might want to tell the public sanitation workers whose strikes he crushes that.


Nice to know your mindset is still stuck in 1976.

As a Marcyite you should know your political principles haven't changed much since 1956, except now you don't even have a plausibly "socialist camp" to support in a Marx-illiterate "global class war" narrative.


A little different from your method.

Marx defines sectarianism as raising the slogans and shibboleths of your particular sect over the real movement of the class, and demanding the class meet the sect, rather than vice versa. Not "you're talking shit about other leftists!1!!shift+one!!!!" See Marx on Lassalle, for more.

Incidentally Marx also demands the communists not form blocs with bourgeois populists, cranks, socialists, and the like, and also suggests that empty activism is no virtue, once writing that he was happy to be removed from the soup of sects in a non-revolutionary period. I don't think you care much for that though, since it doesn't build PSL's cadre...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx defines sectarianism as raising the slogans and shibboleths of your particular sect over the real movement of the class, and demanding the class meet the sect, rather than vice versa. Not "you're talking shit about other leftists!1!!shift+one!!!!" See Marx on Lassalle, for more.

The ADAV was very much at least part of the real movement of the class, though. :confused:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It says "Yankee aggression" right there. Standing with Syria as imperialism closes in around it is hardly what you charged.


He's endorsing the viewpoint that the Syrian protests are a foreign conspiracy.



And his foreign policy is contingent upon progressive opposition to imperialism...
Supporting Assad isn't progressive opposition to Imperialism; Baathism is a crypto-fascist ideology which is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions and Chavez gives thugs like that legitimacy when they try to spin a web of "western conspiracy" theories. This is no different than when Obama and the US State Dept apologize for Bahraini violence because of some absurd dark "Iranian conspiracy". Is Iran conspiring to influence Bahrain protests? Probably. Are they the cause of the protests? Of course not. This is Red McCarthyism at its worst.



However, if "Socialists" internationally are perceived as backing Gaddafi by Libyans, it does act to discredit the ideology.
That has nothing to do with the bourgeois press (except insofar as they are one of many vectors of information) and more to do with working class people around the world looking for an alternative. Should Syrian workers really ignore their hardship and illegitimate state violence against them simply because some people in the CIA and MI6 might also be conspiring to overthrow that regime? If so, a hypothetical, does that extent to workers who fought Mussolini?

[Jose Gracchus]

The ADAV was very much at least part of the real movement of the class, though. :confused:
Stop trying to redirect discussion to your little sacred cows. The definition of sectarianism was a seperate issue from the content of ADAV, and the Marx's criticism of Lassalle is simply a point to illustrate "unity"-fetishists penchant for whining that those who engage in polemic (here of all places) has nothing in common with Marx, who felt quite free to engage in the nastiest attacks on Lassalle and others.

EDIT - Here ya go on sects:

"The sect seeks its raison d'être and its point d'honneur not in what it has in common with the class movement, but in the particular shibboleth distinguishing it from that movement."
(Karl Marx, Letter to Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, 13 Oct. 1868.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Somehow I don't like where the tone of this discussion is going. I think that criticism of Chavez's silence or "anti-imperialist" support is better made in threads on the situation in Syria, Libya, and so on, or in threads where El Presidente speaks without much expertise.

I guess Lenina popped in here a few posts late when she wrote, "Chavez's support is welcome and seems overdue. It's important to keep in mind that he's a bourgeoisie leader himself."

[That last part should be "that he himself is the leader of a bourgeois state" so as not to associate him with the wrong class background.]


His words would carry twice the weight if he didn't side with every single regime on the planet that doesn't like the US.

The US tried to oust him in 2002.

[manic expression]

He's endorsing the viewpoint that the Syrian protests are a foreign conspiracy.
Nowhere in your article is that even vaguely asserted. It's about opposing imperialist meddling in Syria, which every progressive would comfortably agree with.


Supporting Assad isn't progressive opposition to Imperialism; Baathism is a crypto-fascist ideology which is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions and Chavez gives thugs like that legitimacy when they try to spin a web of "western conspiracy" theories. This is no different than when Obama and the US State Dept apologize for Bahraini violence because of some absurd dark "Iranian conspiracy". Is Iran conspiring to influence Bahrain protests? Probably. Are they the cause of the protests? Of course not. This is Red McCarthyism at its worst.
Holy exaggeration batman. Baathism isn't fascist...if it was, then you'd have a hard time explaining why Syria hasn't been acting like a fascist state all this time. At any rate, no, it's not like when Obama blames Bahraini unrest on Iran, because Obama is out for the profit of his masters on Wall St and nothing more. Chavez's position is that of any progressive: opposing and denouncing imperialist aggression wherever it may be.

Your fallacy is in reversing the dynamic. You say Syria is the aggressor, when current events tell us otherwise. Unless you take a principled anti-imperialist line, you're missing the point in a big way.


That has nothing to do with the bourgeois press (except insofar as they are one of many vectors of information) and more to do with working class people around the world looking for an alternative. Should Syrian workers really ignore their hardship and illegitimate state violence against them simply because some people in the CIA and MI6 might also be conspiring to overthrow that regime? If so, a hypothetical, does that extent to workers who fought Mussolini?
It has everything to do with the bourgeois press. When you say that socialism won't "look good" internationally, what could you possibly be referring to? Indymedia? Your local anarchist zine? Please.

Syrian workers should self-organize and promote their interests as a class. They shouldn't appeal to imperialism to help them (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9e735f18-bd22-11e0-9d5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1aYShNYrF). I guess imperialist involvement isn't so much "paranoia" after all, hm?

Your terrible habit is in siding with anyone who is against the "mean guy", no matter what their intentions. I thought Libya would have taught your tendency a valuable lesson in real-world politics, but I guess I was wrong.

[manic expression]

Somehow I don't like where the tone of this discussion is going. I think that criticism of Chavez's silence or "anti-imperialist" support is better made in threads on the situation in Syria, Libya, and so on
Honestly, the Pavlovian response is borderline comical. No matter what the issue, the anti-Chavez chorus falls over itself to repeat the same exact stuff. We could have a thread about Chavez's appreciation for hip hop music and the thread would look about the same as this one from page 2 on.

[el_chavista]

Know what's horrible repression? Getting shot in the face by a sniper while you're out protesting. You didn't hear a peep out of el caudillo when that was happening during the earliest days of the Libya protests, though....
Déjà vu? This was exactly what happened in the 04/11/2002 coup d'état to Chávez, snipers killed 19 innocent people so that there were "a reason" for the military intervening and overthrowing of the bolivarian government.
That's why we Venezuelans don't believe what the mass media business informed about Libya.

[Ocean Seal]

Know what's horrible repression? Getting shot in the face by a sniper while you're out protesting. You didn't hear a peep out of el caudillo when that was happening during the earliest days of the Libya protests, though.

Pigs act like pigs everywhere there's class society, even in glorious 21st century socialist beacons like Bolivia, as we've seen recently. And even in places like Belarus and Zimbabwe, where I'm sure that repression would never be visited upon by anyone opposing those regimes. :cool:

Chavez is such a boob.
Now my friend, I believe that you've fallen for a bourgeois trap. In response to the actions of the left-wing nationalists you've chosen to defend bourgeois imperialists. You regard the imperialists as benign capitalists whereas you see the bourgeois nationalists as the brutal tin pot dictators. This mistake is acceptable coming from a liberal, but not from a leftist. The US is a bourgeois nation, it is a repressive nation, and is probably guilty of more violence than Qaddafi's Libya, Chavez's Venezuela, Assad's Syria, and all of the bourgeois nationalists combined. *By the way this isn't to defend any of those regimes.