Bolivarian Revolution

[Peoples' War]

Was this a proletarian revolution? Why is it an "incomplete" revolution?

Basically, I want information and opinions. Anyone?

[The Douche]

Do you mean chavez's bolivarian revolution, or Simon bolivar's?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Chavez isn't really anything more than an anti-imperialist social democrat.

[Peoples' War]

Do you mean chavez's bolivarian revolution, or Simon bolivar's?
Chavez, sorry.

[Peoples' War]

Chavez isn't really anything more than an anti-imperialist social democrat.
In times of economic crisis, social democrats bend to the will of capital, and introduce austerity. We are in a global capitalist crisis, in which "social democrats" around the world are introducing austerity, and capitulating to capital.

Chavez has not done this.

[sixdollarchampagne]

In response to the cleverly-named Hailtothethief, there is *a lot* Chávez has not done in, what is it, 13 years as President, at least, including, nationalizing the means of production, even though Chávez enjoys mass adulation in Venezuela. An objective view of Chávez and his totally-b.s. "revolution" is that Venezuela remains a bourgeois republic, with a market economy; that means that an exceptionally favorable situation, that lasted for years, in which Venezuelan workers could have – and would have – expropriated the exploiting class, if Chávez just gave the word, has passed, without a socialist transformation of the country, which is why it is terribly misleading for anyone to talk about a chavista "revolution." History is not going to be kind to Chávez and his criminal inaction, during nearly a decade and a half.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Didn't he possess the power to rule by decree for a few years and do diddly squat?

Legit question, I'm not familiar with the situation in Venezuela.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He's just another example of the populist surge that has been happening in South America for the past decade or so.

[officer nugz]

it is not an incomplete revolution, it is a non-revolution.

[Prometeo liberado]

In response to the cleverly-named Hailtothethief, there is *a lot* Chávez has not done in, what is it, 13 years as President, at least, including, nationalizing the means of production, even though Chávez enjoys mass adulation in Venezuela. An objective view of Chávez and his totally-b.s. "revolution" is that Venezuela remains a bourgeois republic, with a market economy; that means that an exceptionally favorable situation, that lasted for years, in which Venezuelan workers could have – and would have – expropriated the exploiting class, if Chávez just gave the word, has passed, without a socialist transformation of the country, which is why it is terribly misleading for anyone to talk about a chavista "revolution." History is not going to be kind to Chávez and his criminal inaction, during nearly a decade and a half.

I am by no means a Chavez fan but do you really think that if he were to attempt to unleash the workers upon the bourgeois that the U.S. would stand idly by? Did I miss something? Does the name Salvador Allende ring a bell here? Shit Allende was butchered in a CIA sponsored "coup" for merely acting like a socialist. What do you think would happen to Venezuela if they actually attempted systemic change? Bloody massacre or total isolation. It would make the Cuban embargo look like kids not sharing candy. Maybe Chavez knows something you don't. Pretty sure.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I am by no means a Chavez fan but do you really think that if he were to attempt to unleash the workers upon the bourgeois that the U.S. would stand idly by? Did I miss something? Does the name Salvador Allende ring a bell here? Shit Allende was butchered in a CIA sponsored "coup" for merely acting like a socialist. What do you think would happen to Venezuela if they actually attempted systemic change? Bloody massacre or total isolation. It would make the Cuban embargo look like kids not sharing candy. Maybe Chavez knows something you don't. Pretty sure.

If one extends what jbeard wrote, by just a little, the conclusion is that real change, a change in the relationship between exploiters and the exploited, is not possible in this hemisphere because of US domination and military strength.

In response, it seems US power, which is obviously in sharp decline, is not up to stamping out popular movements elsewhere in this hemisphere. If the US government tried to stop fundamental change in Venezuela, resistance would break out in many places in Latin America, I bet, and I doubt the US rulers want that to happen. Besides, there *was* a revolution in Cuba, that smashed the bourgeois state there, at a time when the US was much stronger than now, so fundamental change remains an option in this hemisphere, I believe.

I don't think Chávez deserves a pass. He really is nothing other than a bunch of flatulant, misleading rhetoric, and his admirers should not use the fine old socialist idea of a "revolution," that is, the overthrow of a ruling class by plebeians, in their own interest, to describe a lack, an absence, of fundamental change, which is what currently exists in Venezuela, thanks to 13 years of Chávez in power; how people can enthuse over that guy – what a phony he is! – is beyond me.

[DasFapital]

He is going into his third term and 70% of the country's economy is still privatized. At this point he is barely more of a revolutionary than Obama.

[Zealot]

Besides, there *was* a revolution in Cuba, that smashed the bourgeois state there, at a time when the US was much stronger than now, so fundamental change remains an option in this hemisphere, I believe.

And after the Cuban revolution the US sent in their army of stooges. They failed, ultimately, but the reason they didn't try again is because the Russians planted nuclear missiles in Cuba.


I don't think Chávez deserves a pass. He really is nothing other than a bunch of flatulant, misleading rhetoric, and his admirers should not use the fine old socialist idea of a "revolution," that is, the overthrow of a ruling class by plebeians, in their own interest, to describe a lack, an absence, of fundamental change, which is what currently exists in Venezuela, thanks to 13 years of Chávez in power; how people can enthuse over that guy – what a phony he is! – is beyond me.

People talk as if Chavez was a dictator with the power to do almost anything but this is not the case. He is attempting to introduce Socialism within a bourgeois political system, which severely hampers revolutionary change. In fact, I'm quite surprised with what Chavez has actually managed to achieve doing it this way. He has survived a capitalist coup, consistently wins the elections, and has introduced massive change in Venezuela.