Venezuela - too good to be true?

[Stormshield]

Read some pages from the Amnesty International 2005 report today, and these are some things today's Venezuela apparently suffers from:

- Police brutality

- Trying to undermine international inspectors' work

- Oppresion of people with differing political views than Chavez and his supporters

- A large amount of demonstrations against the government (not 100% sure on this one, might have been earlier, but pretty sure it occured under Chavez)

umm... well, that's all I can remember for now, will try to get more tomorrow. Any comments, opinions, opposing views?

[bolshevik butcher]

Right, well i dont tust amnesty over venezuela, they said that seizing beugoirse land was a violation of humna rights.

As for demonstrations, they are largley far smaller than the pro government ones an focused in upper middle class areas.

Police brutalalaty is actaully often due to reactionary bueraucrats that still run teh police force.

The venezuelan election last year was the most monitiered in history and pro Chavez won a huge majoraty.

[travisdandy2000]

Read some eyewitness accounts, and not the foaming at the mouth of the delerious Western Media. All major media outlets in Venezuala are owned by sworn anti-Chavez corporations, as well.

[Yazman]

I really don't like Amnesty International, a lot of their information and criticism is heavily biased.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:28 AM
Oppresion of people with differing political views than Chavez and his supporters
Details?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Why is this suprising? Chavez is not some "communist savior", he's not a socialist. What he is good for however, is making his country independent of western imperialism, which might catch on in the rest of south america.

[RNK]

- Police brutality

Imperialist police are never brutal.

- Trying to undermine international inspectors' work

3,000 ready-and-waiting nuclear weapons, anyone?

- Oppresion of people with differing political views than Chavez and his supporters

Communist witch-hunts of 1950s and 1960s USA; US embargo on Cuba, et al.

- A large amount of demonstrations against the government (not 100% sure on this one, might have been earlier, but pretty sure it occured under Chavez)

Like nobody has ever demonstrated against President Bush.


Jesus, the US should be a complete terrorist dictatorship under Amnesty's definitions.

[metalero]

we have discussed it here and I am not going to details; I've been to Venezuela, I have friends who live there, I live in neighbouring Colombia, and from all that the bolivarian government is doing I can deduce that this has been certainly the most democratic and participative government in the history of Latin America.

[rebelworker]

I dont think that anybody is saying the US is beyond criticism, and amnesty dose condemn them for many things, but lets get beyond liberal "human rights groups".

It would be extreemly nieve to think that chavez has brought in some kind of new paradise society free from all the things they are acused of.

As Nate said, this was no cummunist revolution, just a burgeoise political victory of a socialist leaning Party.

I have a friend who just got back from the World social forum in Caracas and in a few weeks she saw some pretty startling problems.

One Most of the social movments that existed before have been devowerd by the govt beurocracy. There is little or no room for independant political action "you are either with the state or with the reactionaries".

Police Brutality is a particular problem because the groups that used to deal with it dodnt really exist anymore.

Second, more and more the army runs everything, they were largely in charge of organising the social forum.
This is never good. The army should never have that much power.

In an effort to bolster the economy chavez is sighning lots of tade agreements, many in the country say they are no different from the old ones, now they just dont include america, much of the oil in particualr is just funneled through third countries.

Oil production has become a major focus of the govt. Chavez wans to become the worlds largest oil exporter. This has had serrious negative effects on the mostly poor native communities that live around the oil piplines and refineries.
There are more and more cases of serrious birth defects and major envyromnetal destruction. Now if the govt wants to put an oil pipeline through a small community "its for the people" so they cant protest.

There was one efort to have a protest by indigenous people against this dirring the summet. My frind said they were litterally surrounded by thousands of pro chavez activists who just swallowed up the demo soyou couldnt tell what it was for anymore.

This i think is largely how the political controll amd marginalisation works, oppoition groups are just swallowed up.

Some people organised an alternative summit to hve an independant voice and speak of marginalised struggles,it shared some of the smae speakers as the main summit. It was well attended thousands of people came to talks, but half way through the week Chvez openly called the organisers traitors.

This monopoly ofpolitical expression is very dangerous.

Another problem is that the well funded right wing press is trying to use left wing dissendents to attack the govt. They regularly publish info on anarchists meetings for example. The anarchists dont want them too and try and publish statments against it but they have no were near the ability to counter the right wing press.

Chavez will then use this as an excuse to attack the left.

Chavez and his Govt are still a ruling class, and with the decline of any independant peoples orgs this could lead to real demobilisation of the working class. This will lead to corruption and abuse of power. It culd also mean real problems when chavez finally leaves office(he wont last for ever) and a right wing govt comes in to power.
The working class will now be totally defenceless.

Never put faith in leaders to save you. Communism can only be acheived by the self activity of the working class.

In Solidarity,
Rebelworker

PS there were even death threats made by chavistas against an 80 year old cuban anarchist who was critical of Fidel regiem during a talk at the forum. Surely this is not the best we can do.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:34 PM
Chavez and his Govt are still a ruling class, and with the decline of any independant peoples orgs this could lead to real demobilisation of the working class. This will lead to corruption and abuse of power. It culd also mean real problems when chavez finally leaves office(he wont last for ever) and a right wing govt comes in to power.
The working class will now be totally defenceless.
Well, yes. For these and many other reasons, the political independence of the working class is essential.

But this isn't mostly a matter of repression, it's more a matter of political co-option and illusions.

I think since propaganda about "democracy" is such a mainstay of imperialism, it's necessary to be very specific about any criticism of Chavez along these lines. And very clear that we're demanding more space for working people and the oppressed, not more space for the pro-imperialist oppostion. Your specific example about the indigenous protest against the oil pipelines is good, for example.

I think just "Amnesty International says he's repressive", like at the beginning of this thread, is not so useful. It's not that I think AI is lying, necessarily. I just want to know: what do they say, exactly? For example, who if anyone has been jailed for their political statements?

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Read some pages from the Amnesty International 2005 report today, and these are some things today's Venezuela apparently suffers from:

Amnesty International, despite being a leftist-leaning group, is still a bourgeois group that basis its evaluation on bourgeois values, thus using it as some sort of objective measurement of human rights is incompatible with a socialist framework.


- Police brutality

This is bad, however I am almost a hundred percent sure that this is a remnant of the previous political era that Venezuela existed in. From what I have read, Chavez has gone to measures to curb this this just means it hasn't been 100% eliminated.


- Trying to undermine international inspectors' work

Umm, Venezuela trying to stop international inspectors who are doing the bidding of capitalist countries and capitalist agencies is a GOOD thing.


- Oppresion of people with differing political views than Chavez and his supporters

Are you a liberal or a socialist? Post-revolution, the world will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, this inherently means that the bourgeoisie (who hold different political values) will be deprived of any political power. Venezuela hasnt gone through a socialist revolution, but the fact that bourgeois interests are being suppressed, is not surprising or a bad thing.


- A large amount of demonstrations against the government (not 100% sure on this one, might have been earlier, but pretty sure it occured under Chavez)

Yes, the bourgeois opposition (which consists of the upper class, the largest TV network operations, certain elements of the armed forces, etc) do hold frequent protests to object to Chavez. The protests in SUPPORT of Chavez are even larger and more frequent however. I'm not sure how I feel about Chavez overall, he is a reformer and not a Socialist, but he has allowed himself to be moved further and further to the left and has allowed the working class to take increasing power, that it is exciting, but regardless, these criticisms are pretty pathetic...

[More Fire for the People]

I am not very trustful of amnesty international but I have to say that Venezuela is ‘too good to be true’ if you’re expecting it to be a socialist utopia. The ‘socialism’ of Venezuela is coupled with police brutality and oppression because it is ‘socialist with the state’ or top-down socialism.

Now as to ‘undermining’ international inspections, the people of Venezuela have every right to undermine bourgeois inspectors who have no interests other than that of the capitalists at heart.

[chebol]

No, the police brutality has nothing to do with the government or socialism of any kind.

This has been said before and I'll say it again- the Caracas police, for example (which are the most brutal) are part of the OPPOSITION to the revolution, not a part of it.... This is the case across much of the country.

[More Fire for the People]

The police exist to defend the state and to defend private property. In a ‘socialist’ society, they would ‘protect’ the state and state property.

[chebol]

Yes, but the current reality in Venezuela is that the police, for the greater part, are protecting the property of the bourgeoisie, FROM the government and the people.

In contrast, Barrio 23 de Enero, the most radical neighbourhood in Caracas, has driven out the police, the thieves and the narcos, and has set up it's own "people's police". They have applied to the Govt to get official recognition for this force (and have received it), and have turned the local police station into a community media and arts centre, with full governmental backing.

The police in Venezuela, especially in Caracas, are an example of the dual power in Venezuelan society. They remain loyal to the opposition, or remain corrupt for their own ends, and in doing so are coming into conflict with the goals of the people and govt. The 'state' they are defending is the ancien regime. The 'state' they are in conflict with is one which is increasingly under the direct control of the people.

[Pax]

This is what I don't understand about socialists. It is always all roses. Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people?

If these things are taking place, they are wrong. I don't understand a system that protects oneself to the point of being crazy. I mean, there are things that Stalin did that were wrong, isn' there? There are things that the communists in China have done wrong? And Fidel has done a lot of things wrong as well?

I am not saying that capitalism is the answer and that it is right. I just think that forcing people into a system against their will, or using force as a tool of helping the very people you are using force against, is wrong. That is my opinion.

I honestly don't understand that way of thinking. Che thought that hate was the way to help the people as well. How do you help a people by hate?

I just desire to understand more, I am not trying to argue a point as such. This is just how I see it.

[chebol]

"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, all true revolutionaries are guided by great feelings of love"- Che Guevara

[Pax]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:26 AM
"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, all true revolutionaries are guided by great feelings of love"- Che Guevara
That is in complete conflict with:


"Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."
– Che Guevara, message to the Tricontinental, 1967

And this one I find personally troubling:


“In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm”


Wether you believe in Christ or not, He is the perfect image of love, at least to me. I am not preaching, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I see how great His love was/is, and I see a quote by Che (well, 2 I guess) which are in complete conflict with what I have read Christ say. That along with the conflicting posts, confuses me as to the true nature of socialists.

I am not saying that socialists are evil, that is wrong. I know a lot of people say that. I don't think that is the case. It is like anything, it depends on the person. If you are a socialist who is bent on murder, that makes you no different then a capitalist bent on murder. I suppose the difference would be the motives, but the end result is the same.

The point I was trying to make with my last post is that I have never read a post here that says, "now hold on. Stalin, or Che, or -put name here- is wrong on this point." I am new, and that might be part of the reason why I haven't seen that, so I am not saying it doesn't exist.

I suppose I am looking for an objective view on socialism. I see lots of disagreement with capitalism, and that is understandable. But what about other ideaologies like communism?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:55 AM
This is what I don't understand about socialists. It is always all roses. Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people?


Except that some historical socialist supposedly killing XX million people, does not mean that the ideology is bad, or can't be viewed in a positive light. Even if Stalin did kill the 15-90 million people he is frequently accused of killing, it is still only a fraction of the many deaths caused by capitalism.


If these things are taking place, they are wrong. I don't understand a system that protects oneself to the point of being crazy. I mean, there are things that Stalin did that were wrong, isn' there? There are things that the communists in China have done wrong? And Fidel has done a lot of things wrong as well?
Does that necessarily mean the moral bankruptcy of communism? No.


I am not saying that capitalism is the answer and that it is right. I just think that forcing people into a system against their will, or using force as a tool of helping the very people you are using force against, is wrong. That is my opinion.
Because you are a liberal. If it is in the interest of a class to oppose social revolution, it will do so. The bourgeoisie certainly won't give up on its profits without a fight. Besides, revolutionary change does not necessarily mean endless killings. The October Revolution went by virtually bloodless.


I honestly don't understand that way of thinking. Che thought that hate was the way to help the people as well. How do you help a people by hate?
How not? Hate against those who exploit you and try to divide you. That's pretty much the point, right?


That is in complete conflict with:
No, it makes perfect sense. While there should be a feeling of hate towards those reactionaries who can't accept social change, it should also be coupled with love for the people resisting them. Besides, the quote clearly says: "A SELECTIVE killing machine". I don't see anything wrong with that statement.




And this one I find personally troubling:


“In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm”
Wether you believe in Christ or not, He is the perfect image of love, at least to me. I am not preaching, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I see how great His love was/is, and I see a quote by Che (well, 2 I guess) which are in complete conflict with what I have read Christ say. That along with the conflicting posts, confuses me as to the true nature of socialists.
True nature? Well, I suppose there are some Christians who support some form of socialism because their religious ideas have contributed to them having an altruistic way of thinking. Which is cute, but a Christian can not be a Marxist, only an idealistic, utopian socialist.


I am not saying that socialists are evil, that is wrong. I know a lot of people say that. I don't think that is the case. It is like anything, it depends on the person. If you are a socialist who is bent on murder, that makes you no different then a capitalist bent on murder. I suppose the difference would be the motives, but the end result is the same.
And of course, we shouldn't be "bent" on killing just for the sake of killing. But we should not maintain capitalism just because a cop standing in the way could die.


The point I was trying to make with my last post is that I have never read a post here that says, "now hold on. Stalin, or Che, or -put name here- is wrong on this point." I am new, and that might be part of the reason why I haven't seen that, so I am not saying it doesn't exist.
I disagree. The amount of bias against Lenin, Stalin, and Fidel Castro exists on a monstrously high level, including in the administration of the board. "Stalinists"(I wonder who judges who is a "Stalinist" and why...) are subject to special rules, for example, when they use "trot" as a pejorative, they can get some form of punishment(while "Stalinist" is used in a pejorative sense here all the time). Compared to the aforementioned bias, so-called Stalinists are saints.


I suppose I am looking for an objective view on socialism. I see lots of disagreement with capitalism, and that is understandable. But what about other ideaologies like communism?
What about them? I see it as a solution much better than any kind of social-democratic attempts to somehow make life acceptable for all, while still maintaining the capitalist mode of production.

[Atlas Swallowed]

The pro-Chavez rallies were much larger than the anti-Chavez rallies were but the mainstream media failed to give them equal or any coverage. Those responsible for years of exploitation of the Venezulan people are probably getting alot less than they deserve :angry: No sympathy here.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, but the current reality in Venezuela is that the police, for the greater part, are protecting the property of the bourgeoisie, FROM the government and the people.
Some axioms:
If there is capitalism, in some form the capitalists control the government.
The police protect the interests of the capitalists.
The police protect the government.

Thus, Venezuela is a capitalist state with ‘socialistic’ elements. Police brutality against the people is natural in this situation. Just because a country’s president is socialist it doesn’t make the whole country socialist.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Some axioms:
If there is capitalism, in some form the capitalists control the government.

Not an 'axiom' in the slightest. Look at many of the supposed 'Communist' revolutions that have occurred in the past for evidence. In most of these some sort of new government, beauracratic collectivist group, etc. took power. In these situations, neither the workers nor the capitalists were in control. Did the new ruling class in these societies ever develop into a capitalist class? Yes. But in most of these nations for a very long time the capitalist class was battling against the revolutionaries, not because they were genuine socialists, but because they represented a threat to their power. I do not consider Venezuela or Chavez socialist, but I find it hard to see how anyone can look at the situation in Venezuela and not see that the current capitalist class is in direct opposition to the government.


The police protect the interests of the capitalists.

Yes, that is why, as someone noted before, the Caracas Police Dept. is very anti-Chavez and particularly brutal against the working class, who are the base of Chavez's support.


The police protect the government.


Nope, not always, read above, the capitalist class and the government can (and often have historically) come into opposition.


Thus, Venezuela is a capitalist state with ‘socialistic’ elements.

True, however, the 'socialist elements' lie in the state, bringing the state into opposition with the capitalist class, which doesn't prove your argument at all.

There are a lot of arguments against Chavez, however, the idea that he is somehow leading the police to be more brutal is not one.

[Fidelbrand]

too bad if it is true (old stuff):

video (click) (http://www.vheadline.com/audio/chavez_english.wmv)