World Bank Chief: Chavez’s ‘Days Are Numbered’

[el_chavista]

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s “days are numbered” economically and politically and that the region should prepare to move into a new era of democracy on his eventual exit...

“Chavez’s days are numbered,” Zoellick said. “If his subsidies to Cuba and Nicaragua are cut, those regimes will be in trouble. There will be an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere. Not a place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine -- but of democracy, development, and dignity.”

Chavez sends Cuba about 100,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for more than 20,000 doctors who work in state-run Venezuelan clinics. Nicaragua also receives oil from Venezuela, through the Petrocaribe agreement, which is repaid over as many as 25 years and can include food and textiles as payment.

Chavez often criticizes the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for being instruments of what he calls the U.S. “empire” and for dictating market-friendly policies that fail to improve the lives of the region’s poor.

Chavez said in January that he’s pulling Venezuela from the World Bank’s arbitration court -- the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, known as ICSID -- this year as investment dispute cases have mounted against the South American country after a wave of nationalizations. He also threatened to withdraw from the IMF in 2007.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-08/world-bank-chief-zoellick-says-chavez-s-days-are-numbered

[RedAnarchist]

“Chavez’s days are numbered,” Zoellick said. “If his subsidies to Cuba and Nicaragua are cut, those regimes will be in trouble. There will be an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere. Not a place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine -- but of democracy, development, and dignity.”

I think Zoellick should be looking a bit further to the north if he wants such a hemisphere.

[wsg1991]

Not a place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine -- but of democracy, development, and dignity ,
the most hypocrite , bullshit words i heard in month now

[pastradamus]

Chavez is the key to the whole region. He helped get Argentina out of financial difficulty by giving them €6bn in loans without interest.

But my favourite story is how he convinced Lula Da Silva to get out of the crippling IMF debt in Brazil. Brazil were $150bn in debt. Chavez advised him to nationalize a number of industries and also set up new national industries in order to beat the IMF. When Lula finally sat down with the cash to pay off these goons they said they wanted to extend the load for another 10 years saying "its no problem, you can keep the money lula". Lula paid them off there and then, preventing them from racking up a further $45bn in interest over the 10 years. The following year Brazil turned over a National Surplus of $300bn making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Socialism works.

[wsg1991]

i think Brazil should include a law in it's constitution that forbade taking loans without consulting the general population .

[DrZaiu5]

I never understand why people claim that the Chavez regime is undemocratic. He was elected by the people and the people still want him to stay in power. In short, calling Venezuela a dictatorship is simply right-wing propaganda and has no basis in fact.

Screw the World Bank and screw the IMF. They're only in place to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[ed miliband]

Chavez is the key to the whole region. He helped get Argentina out of financial difficulty by giving them €6bn in loans without interest.

But my favourite story is how he convinced Lula Da Silva to get out of the crippling IMF debt in Brazil. Brazil were $150bn in debt. Chavez advised him to nationalize a number of industries and also set up new national industries in order to beat the IMF. When Lula finally sat down with the cash to pay off these goons they said they wanted to extend the load for another 10 years saying "its no problem, you can keep the money lula". Lula paid them off there and then, preventing them from racking up a further $45bn in interest over the 10 years. The following year Brazil turned over a National Surplus of $300bn making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Socialism works.

yeah, that doesn't sound very much like socialism to me...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yeah, that doesn't sound very much like socialism to me...

Perhaps not, but it certainly shows the value of refusing to go along with the neo-liberal program...

[ed miliband]

Perhaps not, but it certainly shows the value of refusing to go along with the neo-liberal program...

i don't think there's any "perhaps" about it, nothing in pastradamus' post said anything about the socialism or its viability.

and as if lula's brazil wasn't/isn't neoliberal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i don't think there's any "perhaps" about it, nothing in pastradamus' post said anything about the socialism or its viability.

and as if lula's brazil wasn't/isn't neoliberal.

If it ain't perfect it's worthless, right? :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

If it ain't socialism it ain't socialism.

[Ismail]

Chávez is an opportunist though he is, on the whole, progressive. His ideology is not Marxist; he goes from being quasi-Maoist one day to praising Trotsky and calling for a "Fifth International" the next, to saying that the era of proletarians revolutions is not here to calling on the petty-bourgeois strata to support the government, from praising the "socialism" of Jesus to praising the governments of Russia and Iran.

The problem is that the communists in Venezuela do not enjoy much support. Those "socialist" groups which have some presence just tend to tail Chávez rather than organize independently of his government and thus put actual pressure on him to continue with genuinely progressive reforms. Instead Chávez is able to present himself as "the left" and the alternative is reactionary.

[ed miliband]

If it ain't perfect it's worthless, right? :rolleyes:

as a communist what am i possibly meant to take from that post other than brazilian capitalism flourished under lula with a little help from chavez?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

as a communist what am i possibly meant to take from that post other than brazilian capitalism flourished under lula with a little help from chavez?

No, the Brazilian economy flourished. Capitalism's a worldwide thing, remember? That's why there are bodies like IMF in the first place. An improving Brazilian economy hardly represents a resurgence of capitalism if most of the rest of the world is still in a hole.

[Omsk]

The national-bourgeois are not capable of holding political and state power in the general sense, as Lenin himself said, so the demise of Chavez and his "socialists" is something which will happen, sooner or later.

[Zealot]

“Chavez’s days are numbered,” Zoellick said. “If his subsidies to Cuba and Nicaragua are cut, those regimes will be in trouble. There will be an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere. Not a place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine -- but of democracy, development, and dignity.”

Because people there really like all the coups and drug lords, right? God, what a fucking tool.

[ed miliband]

No, the Brazilian economy flourished. Capitalism's a worldwide thing, remember? That's why there are bodies like IMF in the first place. An improving Brazilian economy hardly represents a resurgence of capitalism if most of the rest of the world is still in a hole.

i don't think you could draw from my post that i deny capitalism is a global system, or that an improving brazilian economy "represents a resurgence of capitalism".

i'll rephrase the question in your terms however: what, as a communist, can i take from a flourishing brazilian economy?

[Hit The North]

The chief of the World Bank can go and fuck himself :glare:

[Robocommie]

The World Bank and the IMF are basically global loan sharks. They truly are disgustingly shameless when it comes to talking about global development and democracy.

[jookyle]

“Chavez’s days are numbered,” Zoellick said. “If his subsidies to Cuba and Nicaragua are cut, those regimes will be in trouble. There will be an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere. Not a place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine -- but of democracy, development, and dignity.”

I guess the historical fact of democratic governments being overthrown time and time again by CIA coups are simply anecdotal stories to this guy. ಠ_ಠ

I love how all these financial big wigs act like works such as , "Globalization and It's Discontent" haven't been written and expose the inside workings and detrimental effect these organizations have the world.

[wsg1991]

there is an interesting movie for John pilger war on democracy
http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy


this movie alone can simply show you how hypocrite , and degenerate Robert Zoellick is

such individual cannot be taken seriously

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The World Bank really are arrogant - do they think the people of Latin America have just forgotten Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba?

Whilst Chavez may not be everyone on the left's cup of tea, there's no denying that, whilst not a revolutionary as such, he has genuine popular support, has had that for nearly 2 decades and has not been afraid to take this popularity to elections, where he has mostly won convincingly, something that other politicians, left and right, don't really do unless resorting to authoritarian measures or other underhand tactics.

The World Bank and the IMF are dreaming if they think they can get a 'democratic' foot in the door in Latin America (Colombia et al. aside). I don't think the same people that sold Latin America down the shithole barely 20-30 years ago can really call for 'dignity and development'. Dreaming.

[pastradamus]

yeah, that doesn't sound very much like socialism to me...

I think you forgot to read the post in its entirety. The nationalisation of private Industries (socialist economics) is what got Lula out of that mess. Thats why I said socialism works. Beating Neo-liberalism will come one step at a time and is a progressive strategy. It dosent happen over night. Socialism is an ongoing struggle in those countries and is the only cure to the cancer spread by the IMF and World Bank. You cant just click your fingers and expect everything all at once. Its a marathon, not a sprint.

[pastradamus]

there is an interesting movie for John pilger war on democracy
http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy

this movie alone can simply show you how hypocrite , and degenerate this man is

such individual cannot be taken seriously

What do you mean?

Are you calling Chavez or Pilger a hypocrite?

[pastradamus]

The World Bank really are arrogant - do they think the people of Latin America have just forgotten Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba?

Whilst Chavez may not be everyone on the left's cup of tea, there's no denying that, whilst not a revolutionary as such, he has genuine popular support, has had that for nearly 2 decades and has not been afraid to take this popularity to elections, where he has mostly won convincingly, something that other politicians, left and right, don't really do unless resorting to authoritarian measures or other underhand tactics.

The World Bank and the IMF are dreaming if they think they can get a 'democratic' foot in the door in Latin America (Colombia et al. aside). I don't think the same people that sold Latin America down the shithole barely 20-30 years ago can really call for 'dignity and development'. Dreaming.

Now that sir, is a brilliant post. You stole my mind right there. Agreeing, concuring and thanking you for this.

[Rafiq]

Democratic development, i.e. Pinochet.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[wsg1991]

What do you mean?

Are you calling Chavez or Pilger a hypocrite?

no that IMF guy ( and i did edit my post )

[Yuppie Grinder]

Lol at people thinking Venezuela is socialist.

[L.A.P.]

Lol at people thinking Venezuela is socialist

No one in this thread has claimed Venezuela is under proletarian rule.

[Grenzer]

No one in this thread has claimed Venezuela is under proletarian rule.

No, but they do seem to imply that it somehow can be turned to the advantage of the proletariat. In the absence of independent working class political organization, no advance can be made. Such organization is notably lacking in Venezuela. This is just left-nationalist populism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think you forgot to read the post in its entirety. The nationalisation of private Industries (socialist economics) is what got Lula out of that mess. Thats why I said socialism works. Beating Neo-liberalism will come one step at a time and is a progressive strategy. It dosent happen over night. Socialism is an ongoing struggle in those countries and is the only cure to the cancer spread by the IMF and World Bank. You cant just click your fingers and expect everything all at once. Its a marathon, not a sprint.

Forgive me, but do you not think that we are slightly playing fast and loose with the terminology 'revolution', to suggest that revolution can be an ongoing, 10-15 year+ event, even when little fruit has been borne in terms of actual proletarian rule.

I'm all for Socialism being a process, but the very terminology 'revolution', implies that there must be some seminal event that is central to a break in one system and the start of a new one, even if it is not as cut-as-dry as 'today: Capitalism, tomorrow: Socialism'.

To me, it seems as though Venezuela represents a process of reforms by a left-bourgeois government. To me, Chavez genuinely believes in Socialism, but that's not really the issue, that's a moral issue. The issue is class. I've yet to see evidence of full proletarian rule in Venezuela. Likeable guy for sure, and his heart's in the right place and a lot of good things have happened to living standards in the past decade or so, but I fail to see where revolution has happened/is happening.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No one in this thread has claimed Venezuela is under proletarian rule.

Yes they are.


Chavez is the key to the whole region. He helped get Argentina out of financial difficulty by giving them €6bn in loans without interest.

But my favourite story is how he convinced Lula Da Silva to get out of the crippling IMF debt in Brazil. Brazil were $150bn in debt. Chavez advised him to nationalize a number of industries and also set up new national industries in order to beat the IMF. When Lula finally sat down with the cash to pay off these goons they said they wanted to extend the load for another 10 years saying "its no problem, you can keep the money lula". Lula paid them off there and then, preventing them from racking up a further $45bn in interest over the 10 years. The following year Brazil turned over a National Surplus of $300bn making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Socialism works.

[Paul Cockshott]

Brazil is achieving rapid economic growth whilst increasing the wage share of national product and increasing health and welfare expenditure.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is clear that Chavez days are numbered. All of our days are numbered, but Chavez has cancer and probably has a shorter time left him than most of us. But the more general question is whether the period of advance by left governments is at an end in la Patria Grande.


Forgive me, but do you not think that we are slightly playing fast and loose with the terminology 'revolution', to suggest that revolution can be an ongoing, 10-15 year+ event, even when little fruit has been borne in terms of actual proletarian rule.

I'm all for Socialism being a process, but the very terminology 'revolution', implies that there must be some seminal event that is central to a break in one system and the start of a new one, even if it is not as cut-as-dry as 'today: Capitalism, tomorrow: Socialism'.

To me, it seems as though Venezuela represents a process of reforms by a left-bourgeois government. To me, Chavez genuinely believes in Socialism, but that's not really the issue, that's a moral issue. The issue is class. I've yet to see evidence of full proletarian rule in Venezuela. Likeable guy for sure, and his heart's in the right place and a lot of good things have happened to living standards in the past decade or so, but I fail to see where revolution has happened/is happening.

It is clear that neither Brazil nor Venezuela are socialist economies yet in any very strict sense of the term. They are still predominantly capitalist with large sections of petty commodity production and even tiny elements of independent tribal communities.

But the term socialist has always had an ambiguity : does it mean a definite economic system or does it refer to a political movement. In the latter sense, we do have, certainly in Brazil, a worker's party with a broadly socialist ideology in government, and the polcies that it follows are significantly different from what would have been followed by parties representing other classes.

The Brazilian Worker's Party is not Communist, but it would be a mistake for communists to take a sectarian attitude towards it. Remember how the Manifesto of the Communist Party says
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

[Rafiq]

Paul, what matters is not the policies deployed, i.e. Or those policies being comparable to policies deployed by a proletarian state.

The point is to ask this question: In whose interest are these policies made in?

Surly, in Brazil's case, the Bourgeois class. The Bourgeois state goes through several "progressive" policies, and after industrialization, where rapid growth is no longer a problem, we end up with systemic contradictions at hand, on par with the rapid growth previously. And, of course, we end up with something like Neoliberalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

If it ain't perfect it's worthless, right? :rolleyes:
No, but maybe this: self-described communists ought to refrain from praising bourgeois nationalist regimes and proceed to conclude that socialism has been proven to work?

[Paul Cockshott]

In whose interest are the policies?

I would say that the growth model that Brazil now has as a result of the PT is certainly more in the interest of the working class than that say in Argentina, which is just a nationalist response to Neo Liberalism. In Argentina the working class share of national income and the real wage have still not recovered to what they were in the days of Peronism. This is due to the existence of a mass social democratic party in Brazil.

[ed miliband]

I think you forgot to read the post in its entirety. The nationalisation of private Industries (socialist economics) is what got Lula out of that mess. Thats why I said socialism works. Beating Neo-liberalism will come one step at a time and is a progressive strategy. It dosent happen over night. Socialism is an ongoing struggle in those countries and is the only cure to the cancer spread by the IMF and World Bank. You cant just click your fingers and expect everything all at once. Its a marathon, not a sprint.

nope, didn't misread it, and your clarification proves my point further. nationalisation is not "socialist economics". lula might have proved that nationalisation can work, but not socialism.

[pastradamus]

Forgive me, but do you not think that we are slightly playing fast and loose with the terminology 'revolution', to suggest that revolution can be an ongoing, 10-15 year+ event, even when little fruit has been borne in terms of actual proletarian rule.

I didn't use the term "revolution" in that quote. I understand the difference. I wouldn't go off calling Chavez's process a "revolution", though it has some aspects of such. I also dismiss his "Bolivarian revolution". Though much of what Símon Bolivar was in the best interest of the South American people, In my opinion all he did was change the name of the landlords and the colour of the flags. Also, the so-called "boliviarian" members are mostly not Leftist.

If Socialism is to be achieved through the ballot box then it is by its very nature going to be a long drawn-out process due to some form of opposition. Revolution is different to this. A government is overthrow in a Revolution, a Government is replaced through the voting system.


To me, it seems as though Venezuela represents a process of reforms by a left-bourgeois government. To me, Chavez genuinely believes in Socialism, but that's not really the issue, that's a moral issue. The issue is class. I've yet to see evidence of full proletarian rule in Venezuela. Likeable guy for sure, and his heart's in the right place and a lot of good things have happened to living standards in the past decade or so, but I fail to see where revolution has happened/is happening.

Yeah, I mean you basically summed up my own opinion here. Is Venezuela truely under the control of the proletarian? NO. But it has made leaps and bounds towards this through Hugo Chavez' policies. The cooperative movement in Venezuela is booming at the moment and the government has even handed out grants to certain Industries. I do have some big issues with Chavez but overall "his heart's in the right place" as you have said, correctly, in my opinion.

[pastradamus]

Yes they are.

Neither suggested nor stated.

[pastradamus]

nope, didn't misread it, and your clarification proves my point further. nationalisation is not "socialist economics". lula might have proved that nationalisation can work, but not socialism.

Nationalisation is an economic policy of state Socialism. Just because the Government isn't Socialist (which Brazil is not) does not mean that the policy derived from this faucet. Lula is a trade unionist after all.

[pastradamus]

No, but maybe this: self-described communists ought to refrain from praising bourgeois nationalist regimes and proceed to conclude that socialism has been proven to work?

Again, it was the individual State Socialist element that I was talking about. I was not stating that the overall picture was a Socialist one.

One phrase and the whole anti-Chavez brigade come crashing down on me.

[DrZaiu5]

I guess the historical fact of democratic governments being overthrown time and time again by CIA coups are simply anecdotal stories to this guy. ಠ_ಠ

I love how all these financial big wigs act like works such as , "Globalization and It's Discontent" haven't been written and expose the inside workings and detrimental effect these organizations have the world.

Wall Street tends only think in it's own best interest. It generally ignores anything that puts it in an awkward position, Stiglitz's book is a prime example. Economic theory doesn't matter to these people, what's important is profit.

[Robocommie]

One phrase and the whole anti-Chavez brigade come crashing down on me.

They're a pretty implacable lot.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think Pastradamus is causing confusion by using the term Socialism as a blanket political term, rather than the rather more niche/exclusive way that many Marxists use the term: to describe an economic system that is fundamentally a break from Capitalist economic relations.

Chavez represents the former: politically in the 'Soicalist' tradition, but in no way Marxist, nor revolutionary, and represents only a pin prick in the side of Capitalism, not a serious threat to its demise.

If people realised this, they might be more advised to stop putting words in others' mouth. I don't think Pastradamus has once in this thread said that Chavez is a Marxist revolutionary worthy of our praise.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nationalisation is an economic policy of state Socialism.

Otto van Bismarck already proved long before Lula that the "socialism" you're refering to worked. ;)

[ed miliband]

I think Pastradamus is causing confusion by using the term Socialism as a blanket political term, rather than the rather more niche/exclusive way that many Marxists use the term: to describe an economic system that is fundamentally a break from Capitalist economic relations.

Chavez represents the former: politically in the 'Soicalist' tradition, but in no way Marxist, nor revolutionary, and represents only a pin prick in the side of Capitalism, not a serious threat to its demise.

If people realised this, they might be more advised to stop putting words in others' mouth. I don't think Pastradamus has once in this thread said that Chavez is a Marxist revolutionary worthy of our praise.

he approvingly said that chavez and lula showed that "socialism works". it isn't rocket science and we aren't putting words in his mouth.

[REDSOX]

Robert Zoellick is a left over from the bush mark 2 administration and is a fanatical neo liberal imperialist/neocon. His remarks shows the great fear that these people have about the developments in Latin america over the last few years from neo liberal backwaters under the thumb of The Greatest tyranny in the world ie The United snakes of america to a point today where these countries are more independent from imperialism than ever. Zoellick and his bourgeois friends are losing the battle to dominate latin america especially, and that is why they hate Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia Argentina etc and their independent foreign policy and socially progressive policies so much.

[doesn't even make sense]

That wave of democratization in Latin America already happened...Chávez et. al. are the result. And other than the big man's cancer what sign of the impending collapse of all the left of center populist governments in Latin America is this guy citing? Truly bizarre quote.

[GPDP]

I'm reminded of that bit in I think Pilger's War on Democracy where right after the coup in Venezuela had overthrown Chavez and the bourgeois pieces of shit sworn in a new president, the new president and his cohorts were in a room congratulating themselves, and began to chant "viva la democracia" (long live democracy). At least, I believe that's how it went; I may have to revisit that scene.

In any case, no one should be surprised to hear reactionary neo-liberals and anti-communists try to paint the "regimes" they hate as being opposed to democracy, freedom, and a myriad other things. When they use these words, they use them as code words. It is a "democracy" when the government in question works in the interests of corporations and capitalists in general, and the country has "freedom" when "the people" are free to invest and exploit without nary a regulation or safety net.

Sometimes, however, such assholes have their heads so far up their asses that they actually believe their own bullshit. This may be such a case.

[vagrantmoralist]

As an honest question - while Chavez's policies have been slightly effective in combating the global-imperial capitalist order, is there any truly support for a man who systematically suppresses individual rights? Or, again, as an honest question, is that simply capitalist lies? If so, where does one go to find non-lying news?

While I understand that most media is corporate, ie, owned by corporations, I also know that many news outlets are run by good people interested in reporting the truth, and they do a decent job of it most of the time. Those outlets have given evidence that Chavez is no more than your typical wannabe-dictator who quite happily represses political opposition. If that is true, then why does the left support him, if they in fact do? If that is not true, then where does one get that information?

Now, I do not mean that in the 'CHAVEZ R EVIL, YOU R EVIL B/C YOU SUPPORT CHAVEZ' sense, but as an actual question. As a committed leftist, I place individual rights over populist economics always, and thus supporting Chavez is as alien to me as supporting Fidel Castro.

[Robocommie]

As a committed leftist, I place individual rights over populist economics always

The rights of the individual always comes first? How, as a self-identified leftist, do you reconcile that with the appropriation of private property to the workers? Property is a classic example of those sacrosanct individual rights.

[Omsk]

Marxism has a focus on the collective,and you sound just like a liberal.

[Luís Henrique]

As an honest question - while Chavez's policies have been slightly effective in combating the global-imperial capitalist order, is there any truly support for a man who systematically suppresses individual rights?

Does he? When, and how?

Chávez has many problems, but being a bloodthirsty dictator is not one of them.


I also know that many news outlets are run by good people interested in reporting the truth, and they do a decent job of it most of the time. Those outlets have given evidence that Chavez is no more than your typical wannabe-dictator who quite happily represses political opposition.

What outlets would be those, and what evidence have they given that Chávez is a wannabe dictator?


If that is not true, then where does one get that information?

That's a good question. Perhaps a look at the Aporrea forum? Seriously, I have never seen any "evidence" of actual restrictions of individual rights in Venezuela (other than the "right" of media moguls to blatantly lie and slander people without consequences or the "right" of right-wing politicians to perform coups d'Etat), so I haven't wondered on where to find better information on Venezuela. Could do an internet search for that... but I suppose you can too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

As a committed leftist, I place individual rights over populist economics always

To make it clear, so do I. These bourgeois ideas that "the collective" must be above "the individual" are just right-wing Fichtean fantasies. But my main concern with Chávez is his apparent inability to put up any economics, populist or not, that confront the imperialist order. Venezuela under Chávez remains an oil producer and seller, deindustrialisation has not been reversed, dependence on foreign capital continues as usual, etc.

Other than that, the opposition organises and expresses itself at will, trade unions function as in any democracy, the press is free, people aren't jailed for thought crimes, courts decide against the State when necessary, etc, etc, etc. It seems to me that if Venezuela is a dictatorship, then the United States is a worse one (at least in Venezuela people's right to bail doesn't seem to be decided on their skin colour, as the cases of Trayvon Martin, Cece McDonalds and Marissa Alexander seem to show is the case in the United States), and I would be hard pressed to name a single country that can be actually considered a democracy.

Luís Henrique

[Paul Cockshott]

Otto van Bismarck already proved long before Lula that the "socialism" you're refering to worked. ;)

That is an interesting claim, I did not know that Bismark had followed a policy of nationalising industries. Which industries did the state take over under his Chancellorship?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Tobacco, I think. Hardly "industry" enough.

[el_chavista]

Oddly enough, Chávez is a president that plays the roll of a "leftist cadre": educate, organize, agitate :lol:

Why can't he go further and overthrow the bourgeoisie? After all, the bourgeoisie overthrew him for 2 days on april 11, 2002. The petty bourgeois social-democrat and bonapartist-policlassist ruler can't see beyond a government "for all".

[workerist]

i've heard chavez joked many times one of the biggest problem in venezuela is there no serious opposition..the people that run against the 'bolivarians' are still very much linked to fascist elements and want to return to the past. if chavez continues enacting progressive policies and the old "fourth republic" parties are finally consigned to the dustbin of history, maybe more left-wing or marxist movements will take power. right now i think chavez is doing a good job though. i think critical support is better than being a sectarian and judging him against an alternative leftist position that doesn't exist under the current conditions.

[GPDP]

What I'm worried about is what path Venezuela and its working class will take if Chavez were to retire or die (be it from cancer or assassination). Chavez has done quite a bit of good, but the movement for socialism cannot begin and end with him. The Venezuelan working class should hopefully have enough sense to avoid making a cult of personality around Chavez, and become more independent so as to carry the torch upon his exit, so to say.

If indeed Chavez's days are numbered, I would hope that doesn't mean the days for the prospect of socialism are also numbered. The more the Venezuelan working class works toward making sure the path to socialism is not equated with Chavez at every turn, the smaller the likelihood of this.

[Paul Cockshott]

The problem is that the existing state structure is based on presidential rule, which is fine with a left president, but there is no apparent plausible person to replace Chavez. Unless the role of president were phased out and replaced by some more democratic form, the problem will remain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is that the existing state structure is based on presidential rule, which is fine with a left president, but there is no apparent plausible person to replace Chavez. Unless the role of president were phased out and replaced by some more democratic form, the problem will remain.

In Third World countries, comrade, there needs to be a politically reliable mechanism to replace the president. This, I think, should be left to the ruling party's out-of-legislature central/executive committee, definitely not "legislative confidence" (party caucus /= executive committee), and preferrably not direct popular mandate, either.

Nonetheless, Third World countries need nothing less than presidents (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html) to head their executives.

[workerist]

check out this youtube vid, edited together by a pro-chavez supporter.
/watch?v=9cfHAMFKATw

it's entertaining and instructive, you don't even have to understand spanish to get something from it. it's the campaign speeches of chavez and capriles radonski compared side by side. notice the difference. chavez quotes bolivar, talks about capitalism, says what his program is, etc. capriles looks shifty,nervous and mouths empty slogans and platitudes ("i will not be a president of one sector, but of everyone!","i love all of you venezuela!", "yes we can!"(gag). the oligarchic media is selling this guy as a serious contender haha

/watch?v=9cfHAMFKATw