Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez...

[R_P_A_S]

What's you guys' take on this guy?

As some of you may know I'm rather new and I'm still learning. But from what I know and what I've watched, and read about him. It just seems natural that a man who loves and cares for his people and country would try to help them.
To me it seems that he is doing the right thing. But there's always people who say different. The guy gets lots of bad rep from the US media. I can understand that. But do you guys believe he is heading Venezuela down the wrong path?

[R_P_A_S]

no one has anything to say about this guy?

[KC]

So far, so good.

That's all that can really be said. I haven't heard about him doing anything bad, but really it all depends if in the future he continues to do good.

[Zingu]

EDIT- Gah, wrong thread, sorry.

[McLeft]

Put it this way:

He is the peoples' president.

[drain.you]

I like him. I think he's doing what could be expected of him.
he is allied with Castro. He's spreading his countries' oil wealth with other countries. he's nationalising. he's training his people for guerrilla warfare and putting good money into the military.
the only thing i am concerned about is what is he going to do when he has finished upgrading his army.

[The Feral Underclass]

He definetly isn't Salvador Allende. Although I have allot of issues with Allende, in comparison to Castro and Chavez he was a shining light.

Chavez seems to be yet another democratically elected statist who will ultimately achieve very little in the way of real working class liberation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I think Chavez could be fairly compared to one Gamal Abdel Nasser....he's essentially a left-bourgeois Nationalist who's mainly interested in booting out the Imperialists, which will then lead to the space being created in which Venezuela can develop a modern infrastructure.

Whether he Nationalises a few Industries in the process in no way makes Venezuela a "workers' state". After all, many modern-capitalist nations used both Protectionism and Nationalisations during their period of development....and this method, has certainly proven to be the best method to develop a modern-capitalist economy.


Originally posted by McLeft
He is the peoples' president.

Most populists are.

[Comrade_Clare]

I have a copy of the Hands Off Venezuela magazine which has some interesting statistics about before the Bolivarian government came into power and after seven years of their rule. Essentially, it's all win-win for the people.

The Hands Off Venezuela website is pretty interesting, too.

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/

[Fidel Follower]

Hey, i think he is a great leader, and an inspiration for socialism. I have read that he is taking the money of the rich, oil owners, and giving the moeny back to the pople. He has taken on lots of projects like single mothers get something like $150 a week. And the country has almost 100% litracy rates, which was almost unheard of in Latin-America.
The US is calling it the biggest threat to the world since the USSR and Communism! I think what he is doing is insrirational, and we should be behind him 100% of the way! :D

[Fidel Follower]

Oh i forgot that a film called &#39;This Revolution will not be Telivised&#39; Is very very good, and is about the military coop that chavs got hit with, but then there was another coop, and the palace guards got chavz back into power. It is very interesting how the private TV companie, edidit voilent clips to look like he had orderd very nasty shootings. <_< :angry: But the people love him&#33; :D

[LoneRed]

that movie is quite good and it can be found on Google video if anyones interested

[Cloud]

I will say that Chavez has done an excellent job in leading his people so far, and has an amazing reputation in venezuela. US media is against this because 1) Hes not a right wing holocaust bastard and 2) There&#39;s oil in Venezuela.

Im not sure what Chavez could be doing secretly..but as of what i know and have read, hes doing a great job.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+May 13 2006, 01:51 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ May 13 2006, 01:51 PM) I think Chavez could be fairly compared to one Gamal Abdel Nasser....he&#39;s essentially a left-bourgeois Nationalist who&#39;s mainly interested in booting out the Imperialists, which will then lead to the space being created in which Venezuela can develop a modern infrastructure.

Whether he Nationalises a few Industries in the process in no way makes Venezuela a "workers&#39; state". After all, many modern-capitalist nations used both Protectionism and Nationalisations during their period of development....and this method, has certainly proven to be the best method to develop a modern-capitalist economy.


McLeft
He is the peoples&#39; president.

Most populists are. [/b]
Have you heard about the factory take overs by the workers?

I agree with you that Chavez is not creating a worker&#39;s state, but that&#39;s becuase no one person can create a worker&#39;s state. However, the election of Chavez shows the anti-imperialist sentiments of the Venezuelan working class, and their desire for socialism.

[Kurt Crover]

I like him. He&#39;s taken his country in the definite right direction. The US don&#39;t like him, mainly because he&#39;s got the oil that the US thinks it deserves to go to them, simply because they are a richer country. Chavez seems to be making his country a lot better for the future.

[McLeft]

He is not a POPULIST. There is a lot of difference between a POPULIST and a POPULAR&#33;

People love him, get over it.

EDIT: btw, I went to see him in London and he made me cry :blush: , I felt this air of fight for justice and equality, I simply adore the man, he will become a legend like Che and Mao in the future, I can only hope that the CIA don&#39;t take him away from us like they did to Allende.


Long May He Serve :)


Que Viva Hugo&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that to dismiss the bolivarian movment as just a latin american version of Arab Socialism is completley unfair. There have been factory takeovers, encouraged by the state, nationalised industries are run with workers involvment. Chavez is the leader of a movment hta has swung to the left over recent months.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 PM
He definetly isn&#39;t Salvador Allende. Although I have allot of issues with Allende, in comparison to Castro and Chavez he was a shining light.

Chavez seems to be yet another democratically elected statist who will ultimately achieve very little in the way of real working class liberation.
I second this.

BUT, for the time being he is better than say...a right-wing president.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by cpa+--> (cpa)Have you heard about the factory take overs by the workers?[/b]

I vaguely remember something about it....though, as far as I know, there are no Soviets in Venezuela. And generally speaking, workers, when they rise, have a tendency to set up some form of Workers Council.

What will be relatively telling about the "workers factories", is how they treat new workers. Again, generally speaking, workers owned factories, tend to treat newcomers like shit....and within a few decades, they revert back to "run of the mill" capitalism.


Originally posted by [email protected]
However, the election of Chavez shows the anti-imperialist sentiments of the Venezuelan working class, and their desire for socialism.

I won&#39;t argue with that....of course, I&#39;d probably argue with your definition of "socialism". Chavez&#39;s "socialism", is, essentially, the "socialism" of the British Labour Party in, say, the 1920&#39;s. Of course, there are those, like Grandpa Ted, that think British Labour represented a "real" workers party....and that it still represents a "real" workers party.

But, quite frankly, social-democrats do tend to talk bollocks. <_<

Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, Alan Woods, when speaking in public at least, does think Venezuela is a "workers state". Chavez, according to him, is implementing "socialism" and "socialism, unlike communism, is the democratic version of the dictatorship of the proletariat".

Chavez&#39;s will likely Nationalise some stuff, develop the Venezuelan economy and, at some point, set the Police on striking workers....that&#39;s what social-democracy tends to do.


McLeft
He is not a POPULIST. There is a lot of difference between a POPULIST and a POPULAR&#33;

He&#39;s a rhetorically radical politician who, whilst deploring "elite society", aims to perpetuate it by getting his own fat arse into "elite society"....ticks all the boxes for populism as far as I can see.

McDoughnut, call when the the social revolution begins....until then, I&#39;m gonna&#39; take a nap&#33; :D

[bezdomni]

I vaguely remember something about it....though, as far as I know, there are no Soviets in Venezuela. And generally speaking, workers, when they rise, have a tendency to set up some form of Workers Council.

What will be relatively telling about the "workers factories", is how they treat new workers. Again, generally speaking, workers owned factories, tend to treat newcomers like shit....and within a few decades, they revert back to "run of the mill" capitalism.

I&#39;ll try to find out how the Worker&#39;s factories are functioning. I haven&#39;t heard much from them, but then again, I haven&#39;t been looking for a ton of information about them either.


Of course, there are those, like Grandpa Ted, that think British Labour represented a "real" workers party....and that it still represents a "real" workers party.

I strongly doubt that "Grandpa Ted" has ever said that the Labour Party is a worker&#39;s party. I know during the 1920s, Grant and other communists tried to turn the Labour Party into a revolutionary party by using entryism...but they failed and were expelled from the Party.


But, quite frankly, social-democrats do tend to talk bollocks.
Preaching to the choir, comrade.

Believe it or not, Trotskyists (as in, those who agree with the guy who led the Red Army during the Bolshevik Revolution) support proletariat insurrection, not petty bourgeois democracy and reformism. ;)


Chavez&#39;s will likely Nationalise some stuff, develop the Venezuelan economy and, at some point, set the Police on striking workers....that&#39;s what social-democracy tends to do.

So far, he&#39;s been pretty supportive of the workers in Venezuela; and the workers have been supportive of him. Some industry has been Nationalized, and Venezuela&#39;s economy is developing pretty well.

[Revulero]

I like him because so far he is the only one out of all Latin American leaders to criticize the US and the fact that he isnt scared of the US he even deployed many troops (not exact on how many), bought some jet fighters in Russia, and improved defenses in Venezuela for the war he predicts with the US.

Also he is a socialist: a step towards Communism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by cpa+--> (cpa)I strongly doubt that "Grandpa Ted" has ever said that the Labour Party is a worker&#39;s party.[/b]


Originally posted by Grant+--> (Grant)This perspective was shown to be correct by future developments. But many did not understand it. They could not understand the real way in which the working class develops – which can only be through the mass organisations. In Britain this means the Labour party and the trade unions.[/b]


Originally posted by Grant
The witch-hunt was a nuisance, of course, an irritant, but nothing more. Don’t forget we had thousands of supporters and tens of thousands of sympathisers. The witch-hunt really failed in its objective, which was to separate the Marxists from the Labour Party. Nothing can separate us from the Labour Party: we are part and parcel of the Labour Movement&#33;

Full interview; reading that, it&#39;s hard to conclude that Grant doesn&#39;t view the British Labour Party as a "workers party"....heck, that interview makes the SWP (UK) look like a revolutionary organisation when compared to Grant and co. (http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant-militant101004.htm)


Originally posted by cpa
I know during the 1920s, Grant and other communists tried to turn the Labour Party into a revolutionary party by using entryism...but they failed and were expelled from the Party.

They entered, if memory serves me correctly, at some point in the 60&#39;s during the rise of British Trotskyism....they were booted out in the late 80&#39;s early 90&#39;s. I doubt a Militant controlled Council, Liverpool, threatening workers with the sack won them many supporters within the Labour Party rank and file. And after certain Militant leaders offered to "grass up" working class militants to the Police during the Poll Tax Riots, they really didn&#39;t have many friends in revolutionary circles.

The Militant, as far as I can tell, is loathed by just about everyone....bar ex-Militant members of course. <_<


Originally posted by cpa
Believe it or not, Trotskyists [....] support proletariat insurrection, not petty bourgeois democracy and reformism.

I don&#39;t doubt that you personally seek revolutionary solutions to present day conditions. Rather, I doubt that the leadership of your organisation, and perhaps some of its rank and file, favour the revolutionary option....where they do mention it, just seems like rhetorical posturing to me.

As far as I can tell, the "plan" seems to be to re-enter the British Labour Party and, in America, to try and create a Social-Democratic Party....if that&#39;s revolutionary, then fuck knows what is actually reformist&#33;


[email protected]
So far, he&#39;s been pretty supportive of the workers in Venezuela; and the workers have been supportive of him.

Neal Kinnock was, on occasions, "supportive of the workers"....but he was still a reformist windbag.

As I said, when the working class in Venezuela overthrows the bourgeois and sets up organs of working class control, then I&#39;ll take notice. As long as some populist just talks about "revolution" even though the fundamental features of bourgeois society remain in place, my attention will not be drawn towards Venezuela.


Revulero
Also he is a socialist: a step towards Communism.

Like in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and....

If State Monopoly Capitalism is a "step" towards "Communism", then I&#39;m the Fairy Godmother....and cpa is tinkabell&#33; :lol:

[bezdomni]

Full interview; reading that, it&#39;s hard to conclude that Grant doesn&#39;t view the British Labour Party as a "workers party"....heck, that interview makes the SWP (UK) look like a revolutionary organisation when compared to Grant and co.
He isn&#39;t saying the Labour Party is a revolutionary organization...he wants to hijack and transform the Labour Party into a worker&#39;s party.

I think it is a good idea, but only half of the battle. Entryism should be used to direct the workers who are exploited by the big parties into the revolutionary party. The original party should not be the revolutionary party, but the parlimentarian representation of the revolutionary party. There should be revolutionaries in the parliament, but more importantly, in the streets.

The ends and the means are still revolutionary, it just uses the Labour Party as one of the organs or the revolutionary movement.


I don&#39;t doubt that you personally seek revolutionary solutions to present day conditions. Rather, I doubt that the leadership of your organisation, and perhaps some of its rank and file, favour the revolutionary option....where they do mention it, just seems like rhetorical posturing to me.

As far as I can tell, the "plan" seems to be to re-enter the British Labour Party and, in America, to try and create a Social-Democratic Party....if that&#39;s revolutionary, then fuck knows what is actually reformist&#33;
The goal is pretty openly to create a revolutionary worker&#39;s party.

The Worker&#39;s International League and the Committee for a Marxist International are both revolutionary communist groups. Some Pseudo-Trotskyists might be reformist, but real Trotskyism is revolutionary.


Neal Kinnock was, on occasions, "supportive of the workers"....but he was still a reformist windbag.

As I said, when the working class in Venezuela overthrows the bourgeois and sets up organs of working class control, then I&#39;ll take notice. As long as some populist just talks about "revolution" even though the fundamental features of bourgeois society remain in place, my attention will not be drawn towards Venezuela.
:P

They&#39;re getting there. The Tsar wasn&#39;t toppled in a day. ;)