Log in

View Full Version : Venezuela's Chavez Embraces Socialism



herr_Nosferatu
26th February 2005, 01:51
This may seem as old news to us all, but Hugo Chavez finally placed official labels on his movement. Venezuela is Socialist. Hopefully this will bring forth new governements in the southern hemisphere to to do the same and build the strong socialist alliance Che Guevara dreamt of for the people of South America...

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE !

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday embraced socialism as his ideology of choice in a political statement that sharpened his antagonism against the United States.

Chavez, a firebrand nationalist who has governed the world's No. 5 oil exporter for six years, has persistently declined to define the precise ideology of his self-styled "revolution."

But, addressing an international meeting on poverty in Caracas, he said Western-style capitalism was incapable of solving global economic and social problems.

"So, if not capitalism, then what? I have no doubt, it's socialism," said Chavez, who also rebuffed U.S. criticism of his left-wing rule in Venezuela and denounced President Bush as the "great destabilizer of the world."

Since coming to power, he has irritated Washington by developing alliances with China, Russia and Iran and flaunting a close personal friendship with Cuba's Communist President Fidel Castro, a longtime foe of the United States.

Chavez's public support for socialism recalled Castro's defining announcement in the early 1960s that his 1959 Cuban Revolution was "socialist."

Chavez said he had up to now avoided labeling his political program in Venezuela as "socialist."

But he added his personal experience in power, which included surviving a brief coup in 2002, had convinced him that socialism was the answer. "But what kind?"

Chavez, who won a referendum in August ratifying his rule until early 2007, said previous experiences of socialism in the world -- an apparent reference to the former Soviet Union -- might not be the example to follow.

"We have to invent the socialism of the 21st century," he added.

Venezuela's 1999 constitution promoted by Chavez enshrines a multi-party political system and he has denied he is a communist. But he has intensified state intervention in the economy, encouraged the formation of cooperatives and is pursuing land reforms critics say threaten private property.

Chavez resumed his aggressive stance just a day after his vice president, Jose Vicente Rangel, called for talks with the United States and said Caracas was ready to help fight terrorism and drug-trafficking and keep oil flowing to the United States.
But Rangel had also echoed Chavez's anti-U.S. criticisms, and U.S. diplomats here complain their requests for meetings with government ministers are turned down.

WHO IS DESTABILIZING?

While Venezuela remains a key oil supplier to the U.S., Chavez has this year stepped up a war of words with the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called him a "destabilizing influence" in Latin America.

A former paratroop officer, Chavez was first elected in a 1998 election, six years after leading a botched coup bid.

Opponents of the Venezuelan leader, whom Chavez dismisses as puppets of the United States, accuse him of ruling like a dictator and dragging the country toward Cuba-style communism.

In what Caracas calls "impertinent" meddling, U.S. officials are also opposing Venezuela's purchase of Russian helicopters and automatic rifles for its armed forces.

"The only destabilizer here is George W. Bush, he's the big destabilizer in the world, he's the threat," Chavez said. He has condemned the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Chavez also repeated charges that the increased U.S. criticism was preparing the ground for an attack against Venezuela and included a plan to assassinate him. U.S. officials have rejected this as "ridiculous."

:hammer:

Iepilei
26th February 2005, 02:11
I have high hopes in nations moving towards socialism, as opposed to the "other" option. Alot of people here discredit the ability of government to help direct change. Though I don't believe that the fall of capitalism will be because of choices made in the "three ring circus" known as politics, I see these nations as standing firm against the ideology which has made there life in Latin America a living hell.

redstar2000
26th February 2005, 02:54
I caution folks to leave the champaign on ice a little longer and see what Chavez does.

A verbal commitment to socialism is not socialism "any more than a menu is a meal" (as Gene Debs put it).

Watch and see what he does about the capitalist class in Venezuela!!!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian
26th February 2005, 09:20
Yeah, really. A rose by any any other name...or a capitalist.

Chavez is a capitalist politician, who represent a section of Venezuela's capitalists and landowners who want a bigger share of the wealth produced by Venezuelan working people....meaning imperialism would get less.

Yes, a section of Venezuelan capitalists and landowners do support Chavez.

At the same time, Chavez leans for support on working people. In order to maintain that support, and under pressure from workers and farmers, his government's had to take a whole number of actions that our progressive. He's very much worth defending against imperialism, and those Venezuelan capitalists allied with imperialism.

But the important factor in Venezuela, is the workers and farmers, their organizations and struggles.

Daymare17
26th February 2005, 10:47
Yes, a section of Venezuelan capitalists and landowners do support Chavez.

Name one.

I thought you were a Trotskyist? Yet here we have the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of stages in a pure form.

Bolivariano
26th February 2005, 12:14
Hola, leí ese comentario sobre el Presidente Hugo Rafael Chavez, que es un capitalista que representa a los intereses oligarcas, y yo, siendo Venezolano, no puedo sino solo expresarle mi desacuerdo a esa idea. Creo que debe conocerce bien sus origenes, la lucha de Chavez no inicia desde las elecciones del 98, inicia desde mucho antes, incluso antes del fallido intento de golpe de estado en 1992 contra el gobierno asesino y corrupto del presidente Carlos Andres Perez. Creo que siempre habra personas que queriendo saber mucho mas que los demas lleguen a cuestionar la labor social de un lider. Aqui en Venezuela hay una lucha, no solo contra la pobreza, sino contra el imperialismo, no podemos permitir que el gobierno americano pretenda manejar a toda la america latina como su hacienda, y Venezuela a dado el paso que debia de dar, al desafiar al gobierno americano y desirle que aqui hay un gobierno soberano, no dependiente; y la lucha de Chavez se extiende por latinoamerica al mostrar a los demas pueblos, que no necesitamos del gobierno americano para salir adelante. El ha sido muy especifico, sus relaciones se han enfocado con otros paises como China, Rusia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. Creo que en vez de criticar (por criticar), la america toda debe mantenerse unida, en la lucha contra el imperialismo (sea de donde viniere). Mi llamado es a la union, a la de unir las fuerzas, en la de unir los pueblos, en la de unir sacrificios y voluntades, porque para mi el socialismo se resume en amor por la patria, amor por el hombre y la mujer de la patria y la lucha por su bienestar, porque ademas, si la lucha por la libertad se dispersa, no habra victoria popular en el combate.

bolshevik butcher
26th February 2005, 13:12
It's great to hear, now lets see what he actually does.

Severian
1st March 2005, 00:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:14 AM
Hola, leí ese comentario sobre el Presidente Hugo Rafael Chavez, que es un capitalista que representa a los intereses oligarcas, y yo, siendo Venezolano, no puedo sino solo expresarle mi desacuerdo a esa idea. Creo que debe conocerce bien sus origenes, la lucha de Chavez no inicia desde las elecciones del 98, inicia desde mucho antes, incluso antes del fallido intento de golpe de estado en 1992 contra el gobierno asesino y corrupto del presidente Carlos Andres Perez.
Un golpe de estado no hace un socialista.

Si, los origenes de Chavez son importante. Los origenes como oficial del ejercito burgues. Un ejercito que todavia tiene los armas en Venezuela, y en que los trabajadores no deben tener demasiado confianza.


Aqui en Venezuela hay una lucha, no solo contra la pobreza, sino contra el imperialismo, no podemos permitir que el gobierno americano pretenda manejar a toda la america latina como su hacienda, y Venezuela a dado el paso que debia de dar, al desafiar al gobierno americano y desirle que aqui hay un gobierno soberano, no dependiente; y la lucha de Chavez se extiende por latinoamerica al mostrar a los demas pueblos, que no necesitamos del gobierno americano para salir adelante.

Precisamente mi punto: es un gobierno anti-imperialista, pero no anticapitalista.


El ha sido muy especifico, sus relaciones se han enfocado con otros paises como China, Rusia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. Creo que en vez de criticar (por criticar), la america toda debe mantenerse unida, en la lucha contra el imperialismo (sea de donde viniere). Mi llamado es a la union, a la de unir las fuerzas, en la de unir los pueblos, en la de unir sacrificios y voluntades, porque para mi el socialismo se resume en amor por la patria, amor por el hombre y la mujer de la patria y la lucha por su bienestar, porque ademas, si la lucha por la libertad se dispersa, no habra victoria popular en el combate.

La unidad? Bien. Y como yo dije es necesario defender el gobierno Chavez contra el imperialismo y contra la oposition pro-imperialista.

Pero quien dice que no podemos tener criticismo adentro una unidad de accion? Quien impuse el condicion de bocas cerrado antes del unidad del accion?

Si hay alguien quien impuse tan condicion, creo que ellos son los enemigos de accion unido. No los criticos.

Creo que la processa revolutionario en Bolivia no habia advancado tanto, sino que los trabajadores son empujando Chavez a la izquierda. Quien sabe, posiblemente, no habia sobrevivido tanto.

Y como el Moviemiento 26 Julio descubrio tantos anos pasado, para derrocar el dominio imperial, es necessario enfrentar el capitalismo.

Eso es todavia verdad. Chavez, en sus palabras, acabo de reconocerlo.

Al fin, tarde or temprano, Venezuela necesita advancer hasta el poder de los trabajadores...o Chavez encontrara el destino de Allende y Arbenz. Tarde o temprano.

Soy seguro que usted sabe el situacion concreto en Venezuela mejor que yo. Pero son unas realidades universales en el mundo, y uno es que "solo los trabajadores y campesinos van al fin" en la lucha contra imperialsimo (como dijo Sandino.)

Severian
1st March 2005, 01:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:47 AM

Yes, a section of Venezuelan capitalists and landowners do support Chavez.

Name one.
Ediczon Izarra, who's probably not such a bad guy in some ways, but his family pays their workers about half the minimum wage.
link (http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6815/681503.html)

More about Chavista landowners (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6903/690301.html)

En espanol (http://www.perspectivamundial.com/2004/2808/280804.shtml)


I thought you were a Trotskyist?

No, I'm a communist. But then, so was Trotsky, and he once said "If that is Trotskyism, then I at least am no Trotskyist." He'd have a lot more provocation today.


Yet here we have the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of stages in a pure form.

What? To recognize the existence of a bourgeois nationalist regime is Menshevik? Huh?

No, to support that regime, and preach that the workers shouldn't take power, that is Menshevik.