Pro-Chavez gangs tolerated, rule turf in Venezuela

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-chavez-gangs-tolerated-rule-turf-venezuela-122301808.html



CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Closed-circuit cameras stare down from lampposts, allowing a heavily armed gang to keep watch over those who dare to enter one of Caracas' most violent slums. At night, the gunmen cover their faces with ski masks and set up checkpoints, brandishing pistols and ordering residents to identify themselves as they enter the neighborhood.

Here in the 23 de Enero slum, several gangs that pledge allegiance to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez are effectively the law, ruling over fiefdoms where police seldom venture. Chavez has occasionally criticized the groups, but the authorities have largely left them alone, stoking accusations by critics that the government is tolerating an armed wing that could prove dangerous in a critical election year in Venezuela.

One of the biggest gangs calls itself "La Piedrita," or "Little Rock." In its neighborhood turf, murals are painted with slogans such as "For the defense of the revolution, vote for Chavez. La Piedrita." One of the murals depicts Jesus and the Virgin Mary holding assault rifles.

Nearby, young men wearing olive green caps guard the barred gate of an apartment building that the gang uses as a command center. They don't welcome visitors, especially journalists.

"Please leave peacefully," one of the young men said cordially to a team of AP journalists. "From the high-ranking commanders to the low-ranking ones, no one is going to make any statements because you're going to distort the information."

As he spoke, another man pointed a 9-mm pistol at an AP photographer, ordering him and a driver to get off their motorcycle, and then demanding they get back on it and leave.

Some of Chavez's opponents say the government tolerates such groups to use them when convenient to intimidate adversaries, and that it's hard to predict how they would react if opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles were to defeat Chavez in the October presidential vote. Also unknown is how the gangs would react if Chavez were to succumb to his nearly yearlong fight with cancer.

What's clear is that the gangs wield serious firepower, toting assault rifles that only security forces are legally permitted to carry in Venezuela.

"These illegally armed groups could at some point use those weapons to commit crimes or to destabilize any government," said Luis Izquiel, who leads a security committee for the opposition. He said if Chavez is defeated and a new government takes over, "the authorities would have to go get those illegal weapons."

Chavez, who is undergoing cancer treatment, is leading in the polls and has warned his opponents not to try to stir up violence. He has said previously that his socialist movement is "peaceful but armed."

Chavez has also created a Bolivarian Militia, named after independence hero Simon Bolivar, with tens of thousands of civilian volunteers who participate in occasional boot camp training led by military officers.

Nearly a dozen armed gangs, however, appear to maintain looser ties to the government while controlling their neighborhoods in slums located less than a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the presidential palace.

Opposition politicians estimate about 300 people belong to armed pro-Chavez gangs, many of them young men. There is no evidence, however, that they have received weapons or training directly from the government as some Chavez opponents suspect.

Armed groups such as the "Tupamaros" and La Piedrita have existed for years in western Caracas, even before Chavez took office in 1999. But since then they have expanded, and new groups have emerged.

In rare public appearances, some leaders of the groups have vowed to zealously back Chavez's socialist movement. Many of the groups call themselves "collectives," and residents say some, such as La Piedrita, carry out service work including running a community kitchen for the poor. But in photos and videos posted on the Internet, gang members also show off weapons including pistols, AK-47s and R-15 rifles.

Members of La Piedrita have also held menacing protests at the offices of opposition newspapers and anti-Chavez television channel Globovision, hurling tear gas canisters at the buildings. Chavez has publicly disavowed the group in recent years, and in 2009 urged the authorities to detain La Piedrita's leader, Valentin Santana.

Despite arrest warrants for homicide and other crimes, Santana remains free, and it's unclear why he hasn't been captured. Earlier this year, Santana even appeared on state television at a church event.

Wearing a camouflage cap with the bill turned up, he questioned the commitment of some government officials to socialist ideals and pledged "loyalty to our friend Chavez."

Miguel Dao, a former police chief, criticized the authorities' failure to act against such groups. "If you have the power and ... you don't do anything, you become an accomplice of these groups," he said.

Dao said he doesn't think the gangs would represent a major security risk if Chavez were to be forced from office either by illness or electoral defeat. But for now, he said, "I think these irregular groups are better armed than the police."

The Justice Ministry did not respond to requests to ask Minister Tareck El Aissami about the government's stance toward the pro-Chavez groups and the actions that authorities have taken in Santana's case.

During the first half of his presidency, Chavez had publicly praised Lina Ron, a radical supporter with bleached blond hair who led one armed group.

When Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup, Ron and others took to the streets in protests that helped usher his return to the presidency. In subsequent years, armed gangs of "Chavistas" on motorcycles regularly circled opposition protests brandishing weapons and displaying the flags of their groups. Sometimes, they were spotted firing shots in the air for intimidation.

Such incidents had become less frequent in the past few years, and by the time Ron died in 2011, Chavez had distanced himself from her brash tactics, which included the protests outside opposition news media buildings.

But on March 4, gunfire erupted during an event where Chavez's rival Capriles was visiting the traditionally pro-government neighborhood of Cotiza. Both political camps traded blame for the violence, in which one Capriles supporter was wounded. Members of the opposition said they saw some Chavez supporters with guns. No arrests have been made.

In January, La Piedrita found itself at the center of a national controversy when photos circulated on the Internet showing children posing with assault rifles at a ceremony organized by the group. After a public outcry, Chavez condemned the group and demanded the authorities take action.

"This hurts the revolution," Chavez said.

Prosecutors responded by ordering two women to appear in court as suspects for posing the children with guns. Venezuelan law calls for prison terms of one to five years for adults who provide weapons to children.

The authorities also arrested three members of La Piedrita as suspects in the killing of a bodyguard who had been working for the Justice Ministry.

Criminologist Fermin Marmol Garcia said police and other security forces typically don't enter 23 de Enero without notifying the armed groups. He said that shows the thugs effectively run a "micro-state" and operate like paramilitary groups, controlling their turf.

People who live in the slum have learned to cope with the pro-Chavez gunmen, some of whom claim to keep the neighborhoods safe from common criminals.

"After 10, 11 at night, you can't be in the area of 23 de Enero because there are times when they put up checkpoints and stop cars," said Manuel Mir, a community leader who has lived in the neighborhood all of his life. "They order anyone who isn't from the area to get out. They're masked and armed people. It's unacceptable that groups of this sort are guaranteeing us security."

[Tabarnack]

There was this case recently where red shirted chavez supporters were brandishing weapons threatening opposition demonstrators and politicians, it turns out that those individuals were identified and were part of the opposition group...

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friends, humans have this tendency to be group-narcissists and see the world like a sort of baseball series of professional baseball. What I mean by this is that people think that humans behave in a different way if they are a church member, or if they wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, they will automatically be 100% pure, and many leftists have this mistake of thinking that just because a person is a member of a socialist leftist political party, that they are 100% pure as water.

But the truth is that right-wingers are greedy, anti-social, classist, abusive and oligarchic. But like anarchists have stated concentrated state-power tends to give people feelings of narcissism and feelings of superiority over others. And feelings that they are superior species and that they have the moral right to destroy others, to trash others.

I am a loyal support of Hugo Chavez and of his Bolivarian Socialism for the XXI Century. But however I don't have this human tendency that people have to worship celebrities. What I mean is that i am above all a support of morality, goodness and honesty more than the figure of Hugo Chavez himself. I am a supporter of Hugo Chavez and his revolution, but i am flexible, in the way that if i see any level of immoralism, abuses and un-humane behaviour in the Venezuelan Government, I would turn into a harsh opponent of the Bolivarian Revolution.

What i really mean is that I don't get emotionally attached to leaders of the left, like many people tend to do. I do get emotionally attached to them if they at least follow the marxist trotskist and democratic goals of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky which was really a government of the working class, poor peasants and poor citizens of nations of this world.

But if i see that a left-leaning government turns into a welfare state-capitalist system and does not at least try to move forward toward a couple of state-owned corporations to be under workers-ownership, I would critisize them for not trying to move, to advance from state-capitalism toward a workers-government (The dictatorship of the workers and peasants)

I wrote in another article that many loyal followers of the Hugo Chavez government are having a Stalinist behaviour (except Hugo Chavez and some of the best pure apples of his government). But from some critics I've read like Alan Woods, Heinz Deterich and others. If the Venezuelan Government does not try to advance toward a workers-ownership government, along with the economic crisis that they have. People might become disilusioned and will vote for Capriles in the coming October elections.

Being a socialist activist is not easy, it requires lots of will power, lots of self-control of the narcissism, selfishness, unfriendliness and lack of love that people naturally have. It requires humility, generosity, and goodness. Because it is humility and not pride that leads to great power.


.



http://news.yahoo.com/pro-chavez-gangs-tolerated-rule-turf-venezuela-122301808.html



CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Closed-circuit cameras stare down from lampposts, allowing a heavily armed gang to keep watch over those who dare to enter one of Caracas' most violent slums. At night, the gunmen cover their faces with ski masks and set up checkpoints, brandishing pistols and ordering residents to identify themselves as they enter the neighborhood.

Here in the 23 de Enero slum, several gangs that pledge allegiance to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez are effectively the law, ruling over fiefdoms where police seldom venture. Chavez has occasionally criticized the groups, but the authorities have largely left them alone, stoking accusations by critics that the government is tolerating an armed wing that could prove dangerous in a critical election year in Venezuela.

One of the biggest gangs calls itself "La Piedrita," or "Little Rock." In its neighborhood turf, murals are painted with slogans such as "For the defense of the revolution, vote for Chavez. La Piedrita." One of the murals depicts Jesus and the Virgin Mary holding assault rifles.

Nearby, young men wearing olive green caps guard the barred gate of an apartment building that the gang uses as a command center. They don't welcome visitors, especially journalists.

"Please leave peacefully," one of the young men said cordially to a team of AP journalists. "From the high-ranking commanders to the low-ranking ones, no one is going to make any statements because you're going to distort the information."

As he spoke, another man pointed a 9-mm pistol at an AP photographer, ordering him and a driver to get off their motorcycle, and then demanding they get back on it and leave.

Some of Chavez's opponents say the government tolerates such groups to use them when convenient to intimidate adversaries, and that it's hard to predict how they would react if opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles were to defeat Chavez in the October presidential vote. Also unknown is how the gangs would react if Chavez were to succumb to his nearly yearlong fight with cancer.

What's clear is that the gangs wield serious firepower, toting assault rifles that only security forces are legally permitted to carry in Venezuela.

"These illegally armed groups could at some point use those weapons to commit crimes or to destabilize any government," said Luis Izquiel, who leads a security committee for the opposition. He said if Chavez is defeated and a new government takes over, "the authorities would have to go get those illegal weapons."

Chavez, who is undergoing cancer treatment, is leading in the polls and has warned his opponents not to try to stir up violence. He has said previously that his socialist movement is "peaceful but armed."

Chavez has also created a Bolivarian Militia, named after independence hero Simon Bolivar, with tens of thousands of civilian volunteers who participate in occasional boot camp training led by military officers.

Nearly a dozen armed gangs, however, appear to maintain looser ties to the government while controlling their neighborhoods in slums located less than a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the presidential palace.

Opposition politicians estimate about 300 people belong to armed pro-Chavez gangs, many of them young men. There is no evidence, however, that they have received weapons or training directly from the government as some Chavez opponents suspect.

Armed groups such as the "Tupamaros" and La Piedrita have existed for years in western Caracas, even before Chavez took office in 1999. But since then they have expanded, and new groups have emerged.

In rare public appearances, some leaders of the groups have vowed to zealously back Chavez's socialist movement. Many of the groups call themselves "collectives," and residents say some, such as La Piedrita, carry out service work including running a community kitchen for the poor. But in photos and videos posted on the Internet, gang members also show off weapons including pistols, AK-47s and R-15 rifles.

Members of La Piedrita have also held menacing protests at the offices of opposition newspapers and anti-Chavez television channel Globovision, hurling tear gas canisters at the buildings. Chavez has publicly disavowed the group in recent years, and in 2009 urged the authorities to detain La Piedrita's leader, Valentin Santana.

Despite arrest warrants for homicide and other crimes, Santana remains free, and it's unclear why he hasn't been captured. Earlier this year, Santana even appeared on state television at a church event.

Wearing a camouflage cap with the bill turned up, he questioned the commitment of some government officials to socialist ideals and pledged "loyalty to our friend Chavez."

Miguel Dao, a former police chief, criticized the authorities' failure to act against such groups. "If you have the power and ... you don't do anything, you become an accomplice of these groups," he said.

Dao said he doesn't think the gangs would represent a major security risk if Chavez were to be forced from office either by illness or electoral defeat. But for now, he said, "I think these irregular groups are better armed than the police."

The Justice Ministry did not respond to requests to ask Minister Tareck El Aissami about the government's stance toward the pro-Chavez groups and the actions that authorities have taken in Santana's case.

During the first half of his presidency, Chavez had publicly praised Lina Ron, a radical supporter with bleached blond hair who led one armed group.

When Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup, Ron and others took to the streets in protests that helped usher his return to the presidency. In subsequent years, armed gangs of "Chavistas" on motorcycles regularly circled opposition protests brandishing weapons and displaying the flags of their groups. Sometimes, they were spotted firing shots in the air for intimidation.

Such incidents had become less frequent in the past few years, and by the time Ron died in 2011, Chavez had distanced himself from her brash tactics, which included the protests outside opposition news media buildings.

But on March 4, gunfire erupted during an event where Chavez's rival Capriles was visiting the traditionally pro-government neighborhood of Cotiza. Both political camps traded blame for the violence, in which one Capriles supporter was wounded. Members of the opposition said they saw some Chavez supporters with guns. No arrests have been made.

In January, La Piedrita found itself at the center of a national controversy when photos circulated on the Internet showing children posing with assault rifles at a ceremony organized by the group. After a public outcry, Chavez condemned the group and demanded the authorities take action.

"This hurts the revolution," Chavez said.

Prosecutors responded by ordering two women to appear in court as suspects for posing the children with guns. Venezuelan law calls for prison terms of one to five years for adults who provide weapons to children.

The authorities also arrested three members of La Piedrita as suspects in the killing of a bodyguard who had been working for the Justice Ministry.

Criminologist Fermin Marmol Garcia said police and other security forces typically don't enter 23 de Enero without notifying the armed groups. He said that shows the thugs effectively run a "micro-state" and operate like paramilitary groups, controlling their turf.

People who live in the slum have learned to cope with the pro-Chavez gunmen, some of whom claim to keep the neighborhoods safe from common criminals.

"After 10, 11 at night, you can't be in the area of 23 de Enero because there are times when they put up checkpoints and stop cars," said Manuel Mir, a community leader who has lived in the neighborhood all of his life. "They order anyone who isn't from the area to get out. They're masked and armed people. It's unacceptable that groups of this sort are guaranteeing us security."

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Criminologist Fermin Marmol Garcia said police and other security forces typically don't enter 23 de Enero without notifying the armed groups. He said that shows the thugs effectively run a "micro-state" and operate like paramilitary groups, controlling their turf.

Lol, as opposed to the police that effectively run a "macro-state" and operate like military groups controlling their turf. ;)

Chavez isn't a socialist in any form that I agree with and I don't support him anymore than I support any other bourgeoise state but if these groups are indeed setting up communal kitchens for the poor and protesting against right-wing opposition then I say fuck it, why not. However, if they're simply gangs exploiting the residents of certain neighbourhoods then fuck them with a rusty guillotine.

[Yuppie Grinder]

That's very interesting and sort of hard to understand from an American perspective.

Chavez is absolutely not a Socialist and his government is not proletarian. If you buy into the "bolivarian revolution" jargon I don't get you.

[El Oso Rojo]

That's very interesting and sort of hard to understand from an American perspective.

Chavez is absolutely not a Socialist and his government is not proletarian. If you buy into the "bolivarian revolution" jargon I don't get you.


Because you are American, that why for them. Even though it might not be socialist is the best thing for them. People are not always ideologically picky.

[bcbm]

sounds like raan

[eyeheartlenin]

Chávez is such a joke: thirteen years in power, and Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic, with a market economy. What criminal incompetence in the Presidential Palace! What a waste of precious time! History is not going to look kindly on the chavista "revolution," that, curiously, left capitalist rule untouched.

It will be fascinating to see how the Chávez sycophants explain away the total failure of the Comandante to make fundamental change, even when he enjoyed the power of decree for 18 months, and, at one point, complete, 100%, support in the National Assembly!

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Chavez's law enforcement policies have been pretty terrible in general. The murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world. A friend down in Mérida has told me that one of the main reasons he's afraid of coming out of the closet is that there's a high chance he'd get murdered for it.

[Homo Songun]

Chávez is such a joke: thirteen years in power, and Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic, with a market economy. What criminal incompetence in the Presidential Palace! What a waste of precious time! History is not going to look kindly on the chavista "revolution," that, curiously, left capitalist rule untouched.

It will be fascinating to see how the Chávez sycophants explain away the total failure of the Comandante to make fundamental change, even when he enjoyed the power of decree for 18 months, and, at one point, complete, 100%, support in the National Assembly!

I am far from being a Chávez sycophant, but I can appreciate the fact that, having led a traditional coup already and failing at it, he and his movement might want to try an alternative approach. Especially in light of the Latin American experience of the 1980s-1990s with its guerrilla wars and counter-revolutionary bloodbaths. This point can be conceded without necessarily agreeing with him or his strategy. Particularly from our respective armchairs I should think.

[eyeheartlenin]

In a real revolution, like the one that took place in Cuba, 80% of Cuban industry was nationalized within 24 months of the rebels' victory, laying the basis for a planned economy (see Eddie Boorstein's wonderful book The Economic Transformation of Cuba) That's what revolutionaries do; they make fundamental changes.

chavismo, in contrast, is all sizzle and no steak. The results of thirteen freaking years of the chavista regime in power make the unfortunate Allende look like a Leninist, in comparison. It's really unforgivable for Chávez never to have used, during more than a decade in office, the popular adulation he enjoyed, to mobilize the workers and their allies, the majority of the population, I bet, to seize their enterprises massively and transform Venezuela. That would have been a profoundly democratic movement, that might have electrified the masses throughout Latin America. What a waste!

L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!

[Delenda Carthago]

That is a discusting article. In the country in which there have been 2 pro-imperialist bourgeois coups, where Media and the Army have been used, to label those collectives as "gangs" is insulting- to say the least. Fuck Yahoo! for that.

[Delenda Carthago]

But I guess, they would prefere it if that militias were unarmed, like the case of Aliende huh? That would be so convinient for the US Capital.

[Homo Songun]

In a real revolution, like the one that took place in Cuba, 80% of Cuban industry was nationalized within 24 months of the rebels' victory, laying the basis for a planned economy (see Eddie Boorstein's wonderful book The Economic Transformation of Cuba) That's what revolutionaries do; they make fundamental changes.

chavismo, in contrast, is all sizzle and no steak. The results of thirteen freaking years of the chavista regime in power make the unfortunate Allende look like a Leninist, in comparison. It's really unforgivable for Chávez never to have used, during more than a decade in office, the popular adulation he enjoyed, to mobilize the workers and their allies, the majority of the population, I bet, to seize their enterprises massively and transform Venezuela. That would have been a profoundly democratic movement, that might have electrified the masses throughout Latin America. What a waste!

L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!

Chavez is Chavez, he is no Leninist and we should appreciate that. But last I checked, Chavez has electrified the masses throughout Latin America. One thing he's done better than Allende is in distributing arms to his supporters, as this article takes pains to point out. Anyways, there is a long history of "audacious" caudillos in Latin America, it usually ends up badly.

[Franz Fanonipants]

itt - browns form gangs, terrify others

[Tabarnack]

But on March 4, gunfire erupted during an event where Chavez's rival Capriles was visiting the traditionally pro-government neighborhood of Cotiza. Both political camps traded blame for the violence, in which one Capriles supporter was wounded. Members of the opposition said they saw some Chavez supporters with guns. No arrests have been made.

Venezuelan Opposition Uses “Violent Methods” to Begin its Campaign


Mérida, March 6th 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – On Sunday six people were injured during violent and armed attacks by opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski’s bodyguards as he lead a campaign march in one of Caracas’ poorer areas, Cotiza. The government and Cotiza community members have said the incident is part of the opposition’s strategy, whereas the opposition blamed pro-Chavez forces for it.


Capriles lead a small march and car parade into Cotiza on Sunday morning at the same time as United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) members in the area were conducting a door knocking campaign.


Witnesses say there were verbal attacks by both sides, but then a man in a red shirt, as well as Capriles’ body guards, fired shots, causing minor injuries.


One resident, who in talking to local press asked to remain anonymous, said his son went out into the street to see what was happening and was hit by a bullet in the arm. PSUV members took him to a Mission Barrio Adentro hospital.


Opposition legislator Ismael Gracia’s adult son was also slightly injured, and he is accusing PSUV members of shooting at him.


Many community members shot videos and photos of the situation and through them it has become clear that the bodyguards, who were riding motorbikes without number plates, were Miranda state police.


Capriles is the governor of Miranda state, which covers the eastern part of greater Caracas. Cotiza, however, is in the centre is in the centre-north of Caracas, in the Capital District, also known as the Libertador municipality, which is a federal entity. The mayor of Libertador is a member of the PSUV.
According to the minister for internal affairs, Tareck El Aissami, Miranda state police entered Libertador without authorisation, and wielding firearms. He accused them of going into the area with a “violent agenda” and the intention to “create a show... create news”.


One of the police at Capriles’ march was Humberto Duque Cardenas, intelligence chief of the Miranda police, according to journalist Mario Silva. AVN reports that Duque participated in illegally detaining the minister for justice and internal affairs during the 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez.


“We’re investigating and identifying [those responsible], those with guns have to be taken to court,” El Aissami said. He explained that the constitution guarantees the right for public and private meetings, but not with weapons, and that the Police Service Law says that police should only carry out their functions within their specified territory.


El Aissami also encouraged the legislator’s injured son to go to court with proof of who was responsible.


An “infiltration”

One Cotiza community member, Dominga Ramos, told press she saw men who were accompanying Capriles change their shirts from yellow to red just before their march neared the area where PSUV activists were.


Journalist Oswaldo Rivero, who was covering the PSUV campaign in the area and was witness to the events, said Capriles’ men “infiltrated” the area by wearing the red t-shirts. Various videos have captured the man in the red t-shirt firing into the air.


The PSUV house visits are done by members of those communities, yet witnesses say they hadn’t seen the people in red t-shirts before.
According to other PSUV activists, Capriles’ security attacked various activists in an attempt to provoke a reaction, before the main incident occurred.


Video footage also shows one of Capriles’ body guards with a handmade grenade, which he later stored in one of the cars in Capriles campaign car parade.


Rivero also criticised the opposition’s coverage of the event for only mentioning Garcia’s son, and not the five local residents who were injured “by his agents”.


“The neighbourhood was calm until [Capriles and his crew] arrived,” said Rivero.


One resident, Madeleine Ortiz, told Ciudad Caracas, “They tried to repeat what happened on Llaguno bridge [during the 2002 coup], making Chavez supporters look like the criminals, like the violent ones. Nothing happened though because no one in Cotiza fell for their games”.


PSUV member and community leader Ismenia Coronado also argued that the event was premeditated, “Look, Capriles’ people came armed, it’s not true what they [the opposition] are saying, that it was us. They came here firing into the air and the people reacted”.


Opposition claims

After the events Capriles claimed that, “Some PSUV men used shots to try to stop the visit to Cotiza. Even so, the people came out to welcome us”. Video footage however shows the man in the red t-shirt aiming towards community members, not towards Radonski’s team, and many community members have told various press agencies that the “violence came from Capriles’ body guards” and “they were dressed in red to confuse us”.


Garcia also went to the public prosecutor’s office yesterday to request an investigation into the national government, accusing it of “financing” “violent groups”.


Some private Venezuelan press have portrayed the event as an attack against Capriles. Most have quoted Garcia, who told press that “the bullet that hurt my son ... was close to killing the presidential candidate who will confront Chavez in October”. El Nacional headlined today with “Capriles is the first presidential candidate attacked since 1978” and argued that the events were designed to stop the “free movement” of Capriles so he could “present his proposals”.


Tal Cual said the “political criminals in red t-shirts “attacked Capriles’ march and said Chavez’s supporters are “aggressive” and the situation was “probably arranged by the PSUV leadership” without explaining how such violence could help its campaign.


http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6856

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, even though I am a harsh critisizer of anybody, even of myself, my parents, my family. We as anti-capitalists, as people who hate the way of life that we have in America, a life of being taxed to death, taxes all over. Billed to death. A life where you can't even join a gym, join a university, a life of physical pain for millions of americans. Because of the fact that millions of americans when they have a tooth-ache, they just can't afford a dentist.

I mean I realize and I am aware of the bad apples within the Hugo Chavez government. But let's at the same time compare the evils of left-leaning governments of Venezuela and Ecuador with the worse evils of neoliberal-capitalist governments of Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, Dominican Republic, Haiti. Countries where the people literally starve and have zero universal health care services covered by their states. In those 100% neoliberalism nations there are zero government helps.

I am mentioning those countries because they are third-world countries. And it is more rational to compare a left-leaning third-world country with a neoliberal capitalist third world-country. Than comparing an imperialist-capitalist first-world country, with a left-leaning third-world country like Venezuela and Ecuador. Because capitalist-neoliberal imperialist first world countries of the G-8, are a lot wealthier (As a result of Imperialism), than non-aligned poorer neoliberal-capitalist nations and left-leaning welfare nations.

So having said all this about pro-Chavez gangs operating in Venezuela. We must also mention the evils of capitalist-neoliberal nations, with real gangs killing and raping people.

For example look at here in USA, how George Zimmerman murdered a person. And you know what is happening to George Zimmerman? He is getting thousands of dollars in donations.

And look at George W. Bush, who blew up the twin towers, killed 1 million people, and he is a hero.

So I think we should choose the lesser evil in this world, instead of looking for a perfect world. Because like the song of Huey Lewis says: "There ain't no living in a perfect world". So we must support the lesser evils of the all possible evils in our imperfect evil immoral world.

PS: However even though we support Hugo Chavez a lot more than Felipe Calderon, Obama, Santos and neoliberal-capitalist presidents of region. At the same time we as marxist should be in a permanent state of critisism against the government of Hugo Chavez in trying to push them toward the dictatorship of the workers of Venezuela, and pushing for nationalization of the large businesses of Venezuela, first to be state-owned and then after an educational stage of its employees. To be owned by all of its employees. And of course critisizing those abusive measures and superiority-complex and lack of humility traits in the Chaviztas followers. Hugo Chavez himself said that socialists should be humble and full of generosity.

PS2: But some times I am a little big agnostic about the Hugo Chavez revolution. Because I remember hearing of Hugo Chavez saying that Karl Marx critisized Bolivar and didn't like Bolivar so much. And that's why Chavez is a lot more Bolivarian than Marxist. Maybe because Chavez has more feelings of nationalism and love for his own nation, than a radical change toward a marxism economic system which is a workers-dictatorship, and then state-less communism.

.



That is a discusting article. In the country in which there have been 2 pro-imperialist bourgeois coups, where Media and the Army have been used, to label those collectives as "gangs" is insulting- to say the least. Fuck Yahoo! for that.

[TrotskistMarx]

Yeah and remember the cold-blooded murder of a Chilean young girl, at a very young age, i think 19 years old. She was the daughter of a Chilean diplomat working in Venezuela. I mean what the hell is happening with the Venezuelan police which is supposed to be humane, humanist. I mean you just don't murder a person, you just can't take away the life of on an unarmed person, specially by a left-leaning police. It is ok for capitalist right-wing police to kill people. But it is not permissible for a government which is supposed to be pro-people, to murder a person.

.



Chavez's law enforcement policies have been pretty terrible in general. The murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world. A friend down in Mérida has told me that one of the main reasons he's afraid of coming out of the closet is that there's a high chance he'd get murdered for it.

[Zulu]

The murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world
Happens during revolutions.

Never forget: all (or ~90% anyway) criminals under capitalism are people who have no other option in life. That's why criminals - at least until the dictatorship of the proletariat is established and the new order must decisively assert itself - are considered "socially close element" by communist revolutionaries. The worst thugs usually sit up top and never brandish anything heavier than their golden Parker pens.

[Homo Songun]

Its a well known fact that the police in Caracas are a main center of the opposition to Chavez. They were one of the main players in the 2002 coup. Perhaps not uncoincidentally, also a center of corruption and human rights abuses. I believe that the government went so far as to disband the existing Caracas Metropolitan Police last year and replace it with a new "Bolivarian" police force controlled directly by the federal government. Google it if you care.

[Ostrinski]

The real question is: Is Chavez a Third-World Caesarian Socialist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The real question is: Is Chavez a Third-World Caesarian Socialist?

No he isn't, unfortunately, but he is another precedent for TWCS potential re. revolution or regime change. His explicitly post-Maoist rhetoric of being outright anti-bourgeois is just that, though he scores better marks on the class independence question.

Venezuela really needs a combination of Communitarian Populist managed democracy, on the one hand, and on the other a socially radical but politically revolutionary people's elected, non-hereditary, de facto "monarchy" (Lassalle and Aristotle).

[Leftsolidarity]

This sounds pretty cool. Sounds pretty distorted as well. Doesn't sound like they are doing anything but protecting the neighborhood, setting up communal kitchens, and opposing capitalist politicans. I don't see a problem with that.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah what an odd article. Like a story describing some bizzarre ritualistic torture involving the removal of teeth and then revealing at the end that it's just a dentist appointment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This sounds pretty cool. Sounds pretty distorted as well. Doesn't sound like they are doing anything but protecting the neighborhood, setting up communal kitchens, and opposing capitalist politicans. I don't see a problem with that.

It's like throwing a brick while living in a glass house. I mean, what about the neighbourhood watch groups in Detroit, with its high crime rate?

[Luc]

sounds like raan

it very well could be...
http://www.redanarchist.org/images/photos/venezuelacamp.jpg

:unsure:

[pastradamus]

Chavez runs the army, police, intelligence services and others. Why would he need to run armed gangs?

Seems like the CIA have sent in the jackals once again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Pro-government armed gangs typically aren't CIA-supported, comrade. :confused:

The country's crime rates are high. So much for the police.

[black magick hustla]

armed gangs that are partisan in nature are a staple of latin american street politics. nothing new under the sun. its just bizarre to the US because of how sterilized are american politics.

[Crux]

I've always wanted to see a debate between "trotskistmarx" and DNZ. This thread might be it.

[Yuppie Grinder]

what the fuck is "third-world casearen socialism"

[Grenzer]

I see that many people do not understand what Third World Caesarean Socialism is, which is by itself not surprising since it's a rather strange concept in my opinion.

The first thing to realize is that it's not technically socialism, no one pretends otherwise. The second key part of the thesis behind TWCS is that the capitalist phase of development cannot be skipped. Many Stalinists, and some Trotskyists, define the "tasks" of the "bourgeois-democratic" phase of development as simply being the bourgeoisie have taken political power. This ignores the necessary development of industry, infrastructure, and the conversion of the peasants into proletarians. Part of the reason the Soviet Union was never able to surpass Capital, aside from socialism in one country being impossible, is that it still needed to carry out the tasks of the capitalist phase of development. This necessitated the capitalist mode of production. Socialism cannot be built before this has been completed. In addition, a proletarian dictatorship is untenable while the proletariat is a demographic minority. What occurred in Russia was a proletarian dictatorship, but what it established was not purely a proletarian dictatorship. Lenin referred to it as the "join-dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry". The programme of the proletariat could not be properly carried out because of their status as a demographic minority; they had to make considerable concessions to the peasantry.

So if a country has to go through a capitalist phase of development, does this mean that we should simply abandon it to the liberalism? Third World Caesarean Socialism is an attempt to find an alternative to the liberal capitalist order which typifies countries in the capitalist phase of development; unlike this order, TWCS attempts to be a credible alternative which leaves the proletariat in a position of political strength when the country has industrialized and they are in a demographic majority.

I mean, you can just keep calling for an ordinary proletarian revolution in under-industrialized countries, but what you will end up with is capitalism anyway. Even in the event of the mythical international revolution, the fact remains that a mode of production cannot be spontaneously abolished. In under-industrialized countries, the capitalist mode of production will have to subsist in some form. You can call them proletarian dictatorships or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that their minority status will necessitate considerable concessions, and that it will technically not be a proletarian dictatorship since it's not exclusively the class interests of the proletariat which are being reflected in the state's decisions.


Chavez runs the army, police, intelligence services and others. Why would he need to run armed gangs?

Seems like the CIA have sent in the jackals once again.

Why would the CIA care to support an anti-american, pro-Iranian bourgeois dictator?

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to exactly what is going on in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is a bourgeois dictator, make no mistake, but how he maintains his power is by supporting and mobilizing the peasantry, segments of the petit-bourgeoisie, and proletariat against the liberal bourgeois opposition.

[Crux]

I may be critical of Chavez left populist nationalism but even I wouldn't describe him as a dictator. Is that where the "caesarian" part comes in? As far as I am concerned it's just a fancy word invented by dnz to describe his very own peculiar and obscurantist reformism. Like "social proletocracy" etc. Because apparently marxist jargon is too accessible. Anyway dnz-ism is a pretty irrelevant subject to discuss. I'd rather discuss more relevant things.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I may be critical of Chavez left populist nationalism but even I wouldn't describe him as a dictator. Is that where the "caesarian" part comes in?

TWCS combines independent worker-class political organization (for proletarian demographic minorities), Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism, and Peasant Patrimonialism. Strong one-man power over the executive (and courts of constitution affairs) is but one part of that broader third element (that's what peasant organization is typically for).

Maybe the comrade above is mischaracterizing Chavez, since not every strongman is a "dictator." Had Chavez won the 2007 referendum, whereby various amendments would have strengthened La Presidencia, then perhaps a case could be made for Venezuela having a sort of "Left Putinism" with a popularly elected "El Presidente" strongman a la Putin or Lukashenko.

[I guess I'm questioning here if Chavez is a non-"dictatorial" strongman.]


As far as I am concerned it's just a fancy word invented by dnz to describe his very own peculiar and obscurantist reformism.

I'm not a reformist, despite your usual defamation, but you certainly are an economist here.

Trotskyism is irrelevant in Venezuela because of what comrade Enver said above.

[Grenzer]

I may be critical of Chavez left populist nationalism but even I wouldn't describe him as a dictator. I'd rather discuss more relevant things.

Fair enough, but how isn't Chavez a dictator? From the Marxist view, all capitalist states tend to be bourgeois dictatorships. Of course, this refers to class rule, but I don't see how Chavez isn't a manifestation of bourgeois dictatorship via a sectional interest of the bourgeoisie. Failing to acknowledge that he is illegitimate from the proletarian point of view seems to be an implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of bourgeois legalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Dictator" in the mainstream sense, comrade, and of course not every strongman is a "dictator" (though every "dictator" is a strongman).

[Grenzer]

I guess I was being overly technical; from the mainstream bourgeois POV, I would agree that Chavez is the legitimate, democratically elected President of Venezuela. However, it seems like the tide is rapidly beginning to turn against him.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm not being an asshole or a child, it just sounded like a very strange thing to me.

[Grenzer]

I'm not being an asshole or a child, it just sounded like a very strange thing to me.

Oh, that wasn't really aimed at you. Or anyone in particular, I had just come from another thread on the same subject at the time of making that post, and didn't realize it wasn't the same case here. Usually when DNZ brings up anything having to do with "Caesar" or "Caesarism", shit flies out the window fast. I will change it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I guess I was being overly technical; from the mainstream bourgeois POV, I would agree that Chavez is the legitimate, democratically elected President of Venezuela. However, it seems like the tide is rapidly beginning to turn against him.

And if I recall, comrade, you yourself said in the Labour Law thread that "a combination of the systems of Russia's managed democracy, Belarus' anti-liberal repression, and the 'thuggery' and pro-worker policies of Venezuela seem to be a good combination."

[Which, alas, Venezuela doesn't have :( ]

[Grenzer]

And if I recall, comrade, you yourself said in the Labour Law thread that "a combination of the systems of Russia's managed democracy, Belarus' anti-liberal repression, and the 'thuggery' and pro-worker policies of Venezuela seem to be a good combination."

However, he is not really clamping down on the opposition nearly as much as he could. He's more or less letting them have their way with only minor harassment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actions speak louder than rhetoric. :(

[SpiritiualMarxist]

The Bolivarian socialist plans are a decent step. But one thing I've learned about people is that you have to separate what they write about from what they do. And with Chavez, its 2 things. How he deals with opposition and how he deals with crime. Which are in direct relation with one another.

I've considered moving to south america so I studied how the crime works in Venezuela a bit. Its true that it seems like much of it is perpetuated by the opposition both internally and around the borders. However, I think its because of an actual gang-like mentality where its pro-chavez vs anti-chavez, which doesn't need to be if WORKERS ran society instead of establishing budding-cult of personality. I actually think a huge mistake of many good willed socialistic states is establishing that central figure.

Secondly, with the crime rate, much of it is street level crime which is partially a result of the lack of an aggressive education system which I believe is the biggest thing missing in the Bolivarian plan. Coupled with the fact that there is no rehabilitation system.

The only way you can have a good quality of life that is shared amongst everyone in the post industrial world is if you have a highly skilled labor. Most non-first world countries are just too poor to even try really but I think Venezuela is in a unique position to parlay their oil resources into better stuff. Hopefully Bolivarian socialism can work and they become allies if over throwing this world system of capitalism.

[Crux]

TWCS combines independent worker-class political organization (for proletarian demographic minorities), Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism, and Peasant Patrimonialism. Strong one-man power over the executive (and courts of constitution affairs) is but one part of that broader third element (that's what peasant organization is typically for).

Maybe the comrade above is mischaracterizing Chavez, since not every strongman is a "dictator." Had Chavez won the 2007 referendum, whereby various amendments would have strengthened La Presidencia, then perhaps a case could be made for Venezuela having a sort of "Left Putinism" with a popularly elected "El Presidente" strongman a la Putin or Lukashenko.

[I guess I'm questioning here if Chavez is a non-"dictatorial" strongman.]



I'm not a reformist, despite your usual defamation, but you certainly are an economist here.

Trotskyism is irrelevant in Venezuela because of what comrade Enver said above.
again with this obscurantist bullshit. So essentially you advocate caudilloism, bonapartism and reformism. No news there. Oh and it's called working class. Pray tell where did you get your "marxist", sorry "social-proletocrat" schooling? What made you deicide to invent your own vocabulary other than to give an "intellectual" cover for your reformism? And I can safely say trotskyism is more relevant in venezuela than your own home made "ideology".

[Die Neue Zeit]

So essentially you advocate caudilloism, bonapartism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/managed-democracy-ancient-t158688/index.html


http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/julius-caesar-lost-t147255/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html



Continuing from some of the past discussions in the above links, I read parts of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks this weekend:

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Antonio%20Gramsci/prison_notebooks/state_civil/ch02.htm


There can be both progressive and reactionary forms of Caesarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by means of any sociological rule of thumb. Caesarism is progressive when its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its victory tempered by certain compromises and limitations. It is reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph – in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have, however, a different value, extent, and significance than in the former. Caesar and Napoleon I are examples of progressive Caesarism, Napoleon III and Bismarck of reactionary Caesarism.

[...]

The Caesarism of Caesar and Napoleon I was, so to speak, of a quantitative/qualitative character; in other words it represented the historical phase of the passage from one type of State to another type – a passage in which the innovations were so numerous, and of such a nature, that they represented a complete revolution. The Caesarism of Napoleon III was merely, and in a limited fashion, quantitative; there was no passage from one type of State to another, but only "evolution" of the same type along unbroken lines.

In the modern world, Caesarist phenomena are quite different, both from those of the Napoleon III type – although they tend towards the latter.

And thus Gramsci was the first Marxist to reconsider the political legacy of Julius Caesar, paving the way for people's history and contemporary implications decades later. However, I'm skeptical about Gramsci's characterization of the true Napoleon's regime.

I'd correct Gramsci only by saying that there's no such thing as a "reactionary Caesarism," and that Napoleon's was not of "progressive Caesarism." There's only ever-reactionary Bonapartism (your insult is again off the mark) and ever-progressive Caesarism.


What made you deicide to invent your own vocabulary other than to give an "intellectual" cover for your reformism?

My position on Third World politics is way to the left of Mao's "New Democracy" and other Popular Front forms, but stops short of anti-peasantry lunacy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskys-permanent-revolution-t149111/index.html). :rolleyes:

[Crux]

There's only ever-reactionary Bonapartism (your insult is again off the mark) and ever-progressive Caesarism.



My position on Third World politics is way to the left of Mao's "New Democracy" and other Popular Front forms, but stops short of anti-peasantry lunacy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskys-permanent-revolution-t149111/index.html). :rolleyes:
so sorry if I implied you invent your own terms. Of course not, you appropriate them from other sources and then turn them into your own nonsense. My statement stands and when you claim to reject it you actually confirm it. Perhaps even you have a problem understanding what you are actually saying, just as you have an apparent problem to understand your source material. You're cute when you're trying to be snarky. Yeah you are quite the stalinoid too except the stalinists who come here that match your position re open support for bonapartism in the form of say lukashenko or putin tend to get themselfes banned.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please stay on topic, whose broader implication is that of an armed populace.

[Crux]

Oh I am more than willing to get to the concrete issues if you just start cutting the bullshit. And no, in response to your negrep I do not see what you are saying in any way shape or from as different form popular frontism, aside from your choi9ce of words. But whatever, as black magick hustla pointed out politicized gangs isn't exactly something unique to venezuela.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh I am more than willing to get to the concrete issues if you just start cutting the bullshit. And no, in response to your negrep I do not see what you are saying in any way shape or from as different from popular frontism, aside from your choice of words.

Don't throw bricks while in a glass house. By saying that what I'm saying is merely the same as Popular Frontism, you yourself are not "cutting the bullshit."

Where's the bourgeoisie in the proposed Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National/Pan-Pational Petit-Bourgeoisie (the underlying class structure of Third World Caesarean Socialism)? Nowhere.

[Grenzer]

While I can understand your skepticism towards DNZ's unique political positions, your hostility seems a bit unwarranted. His politics are to the left of Trotskyism, which at times urges collaboration with social-democratic parties and labor bureaucracy. It's certainly no more "popular frontist" than Trotskyism is. In addition, it would seem prudent to remind you that Lenin urged compromising the interests of the proletariat in order to forge an "alliance" with the peasantry.

[Crux]

the only thing unique about DNZ's politics is his pretentions. But please do go on and tell me about "Left Putinism" and what have you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But please do go on and tell me about "Left Putinism" and what have you.

"Shock jock" tactics can be useful in discussions for driving home some key points with all the fine print, but this needn't be another thread discussing the "merits" or fundamental problems with Trotsky's position on "Permanent Revolution."

[Crux]

Thank you for again making my point for me. A reformist stalinist by any other name, even "social proletocrat" is still just as bankrupt. So chavez isn't dictatorial enough for you, "shock jock"? I mean to get to a more concrete issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So chavez isn't dictatorial enough for you, "shock jock"? I mean to get to a more concrete issue.

If Chavez were "dictatorial," these scattered gangs warranting political sympathy wouldn't exist, being a potential grassroots threat to actual presidential power.

[TrotskistMarx]

You know lots of things cause crime, murder, robberies, etc. I think crime is not only caused by economic factors. Crime might also be caused by an excess of boredom, (sensory deprivation), lack of instant gratifications, lack of beauty around you, lack of external-motivators, lack of stimulation. Humans are very complicated creatures that need a permanent state of many types of motivations. Economic motivation, love, affection, hugs, social contact, sense of belonging, I mean not being and living alone. Because an excess of loneliness is not a walk in the park, it is not a piece of cake to spend your days from morning till night without any eye-contact, any human contact, any social contact.

And I think that here in USA the extreme loneliness of the ultra-libertarian architecture, urban planning and ultra-narcissistical paradigm of way of living in America, where most people feel like if they are in a boxing match, or in the middle of a dystopian world where everybody outside of your family is a potential enemy. So I think here in USA and in many other corporate neoliberal societies, crime is also caused by the extreme lonely way of life of most people. Along with lack of love, and lack of belonging.

But in many Latin American nations, Africa, India, Pakistan and in many other poor countries, crime, robberies are caused by the low buying power of the people of those poor nations. Along with their access to cable-tv, and all the propaganda they get on a daily basis of luxury SUVs, brand new computers, etc. and all that can desperate poor people to comit crimes.

Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico are other very very dangerous countries. Humans are still too barbaric today, there is lots of evil, lots of abductions of people, murder and crime in this world


.




The Bolivarian socialist plans are a decent step. But one thing I've learned about people is that you have to separate what they write about from what they do. And with Chavez, its 2 things. How he deals with opposition and how he deals with crime. Which are in direct relation with one another.

I've considered moving to south america so I studied how the crime works in Venezuela a bit. Its true that it seems like much of it is perpetuated by the opposition both internally and around the borders. However, I think its because of an actual gang-like mentality where its pro-chavez vs anti-chavez, which doesn't need to be if WORKERS ran society instead of establishing budding-cult of personality. I actually think a huge mistake of many good willed socialistic states is establishing that central figure.

Secondly, with the crime rate, much of it is street level crime which is partially a result of the lack of an aggressive education system which I believe is the biggest thing missing in the Bolivarian plan. Coupled with the fact that there is no rehabilitation system.

The only way you can have a good quality of life that is shared amongst everyone in the post industrial world is if you have a highly skilled labor. Most non-first world countries are just too poor to even try really but I think Venezuela is in a unique position to parlay their oil resources into better stuff. Hopefully Bolivarian socialism can work and they become allies if over throwing this world system of capitalism.

[TrotskistMarx]

True, there is even FOX news in Venezuela. The world today is a lot different than the world of the Bolshevik Revolution. Today there are these very very powerful right-wing counter-revolutionary institutions like NATO, UN, Humans Rights Watch that prevent a hardcore radical revolution from capitalism to socialism real quick.



If Chavez were "dictatorial," these scattered gangs warranting political sympathy wouldn't exist, being a potential grassroots threat to actual presidential power.

[the last donut of the night]

armed gangs that are partisan in nature are a staple of latin american street politics. nothing new under the sun. its just bizarre to the US because of how sterilized are american politics.

these gangs also usually take up the state's powers and responsibilities in areas where the state is historically absent. a prime example are rio's favelas, where the gangs provided some sort of social services, took up neighborhood complaints and suggestions, provided electricity and cable, etc

[Die Neue Zeit]

these gangs also usually take up the state's powers and responsibilities in areas where the state is historically absent. a prime example are rio's favelas, where the gangs provided some sort of social services, took up neighborhood complaints and suggestions, provided electricity and cable, etc

The big plus is that they're capable of doing this in spite of personalized executive power.

[pastradamus]

Thank you for again making my point for me. A reformist stalinist by any other name, even "social proletocrat" is still just as bankrupt. So chavez isn't dictatorial enough for you, "shock jock"? I mean to get to a more concrete issue.

He's won eleven elections that were all monitored and declared free by the UN. What do you need to prove that he is not a dictator? Free Taxis, Free Health Care, Free Buses....what do you want here?

[wsg1991]

no aggressive education system. that what happens when you are a personal friend with Gaddafi