A Critique of the Current Situation in Venezuela

[barista.marxista]

Taken from The Civil War in Venezuela: Socialism to the Highest Bidder (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/civilwarinvenezuela.html)
Presented by the Red & Anarchist Action Network
===============================================

"The Comandante may shout whatever insults he likes against Bush, but that loud-mouthed anti-imperialism means nothing as long as he continues giving Chevron, Conoco-Phillips or Repsol the control of our reserves of oil and natural gas, continues giving Telefonica our communications, giving Grupo Santander and BBV our bank sector, giving Crystallex our gold mines and to Vale do Rio Doce or Peabody our coal reserves." - Comision de Relaciones Anarquistas (CRA), Venezuela

Hugo Chávez is a pragmatist who on more than one occasion has said that he does "not believe we are living in an age of proletarian revolutions". So the question becomes, just where the hell is this "Socialismo Bolivariano" supposed to come from, then?

Criticizing the current Venezuelan regime, particularly from within the North American movement, is a tricky proposition. There are more than enough people out there wearing red berets and ready to denounce any "attack" against Chávez as tacit support for a US coup. This tendency is of course quite prevalent in Venezuela, and in fact is really quite analogous to the Bush doctrine of either being "with us or against us" - a comparison that needs to be made as much as possible. To those who say that criticizing Chávez hands weapons to the enemy, we must be firm in saying that to not do so is infinitely more dangerous. Those who speak at any time of a "revolutionary government" have, to recall Vaneigem, "a corpse in their mouth".

The Venezuela issue is so interesting, so very germane to the Red & Anarchist Action Network, because to understand it fully one needs a synthesis of both classical anarchist and Marxist critiques.

From the anarchist side, we have a rejection of all power structures and particularly the vertical implementation of aid or development. So no, of course it's not "bad" that Chávez is setting up free health care clinics, and of course it's not "bad" that people are learning how to read and write for the first time, but the extreme rigidity of these programs breeds a direct dependence on state structures that harkens back directly to the paternalism of the 1970's. Thus when the leftists exclaim that Chávez has gotten rid of school fees (allowing 600,000 more children to attend class) and RAAN (with its principles calling for the abolition of institutional schooling) is hopelessly "bourgeois" and cannot understand the importance of that in a "Third World" nation, we must explain that Chávez has bought his way through the revolution with frequent "gifts" (such as free school uniforms) and that not only was free schooling already available during the populist years, but it was abandoned due to the unsustainability of the oil-centric economic dependency that Chávez has not only refused to confront, but has in fact deepened exponentially.

We envision self-managed communities with the ability to independently educate themselves according to their local custom via a free access to information and resources. The vertical implementation of government programs seeks to "push through" a revolution that in many cases doesn't actually exist at the level of grassroots consciousness, or at least not in the format specified by the government decrees. This culture of "charity" and dependency is ultimately counter-revolutionary since it ossifies the state bureaucracy and makes it nearly impossible for the people to defend themselves or carry through the revolution in the absence of a "friendly" central government or armed forces - conditions that simply cannot be taken as given!

There are of course exceptions to this - for instance in the autonomous community of La Vega, (a historically combative settlement 40 minutes outside of Caracas, from where the police have been expelled) Mision Ribas and other social programs are directly run by the most active community organizers, without much interference by the state. The problem is, La Vega is not a representative community in Venezuela. Hugo Chávez continually calls, day and night, for the people to organize themselves. Repeatedly he states that the revolution can only go through if the people are organized enough to really make it happen. Such comments as these are always pointed to by those who would insist that Chávez is sincere in his project. I would respond that it really doesn't matter, and that "with" him or "against" him, the task remains to organize autonomous communities capable of breaking all dependence on Chávez or the guy who comes after him, even if having to utilize government handouts along the way. The problem is, this isn't what's happening.

Chávez will decree that by such and such a date, some odd number of localized "cooperatives" will be ready to extend whatever the new project for that month is into a like number of communities across Venezuela. When the deadline comes, less than a third of these cooperatives have actually gotten themselves together, and the project is just dropped from above onto the remaining communities. It is very important to note, these misiones do not surpass the token level of care already provided for during previous oil bonanzas. Barrio Adentro, for instance, has three levels. The first are the preventative care clinics directly in the neighborhoods that we hear so much about, which aren't good for much more than a band-aid. The second level encompasses the specialized trauma centers, which only exist in select communities, anyway. And the third level is supposedly the public central hospitals of Venezuela, which remain completely inadequate and will be so for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, food consumption is up while actual nutrition is down, and "tropical" diseases like Malaria and Tuberculosis are shockingly on the rise. But none of this matters, because all Chávez needs to do is build another Barrio Adentro and the international Left will shower praise on him like he saved the world. With such tactics he actually spends less on the social programs than he would on any media campaign necessary to promote them, and draws attention away from the fact that all of this is still based on one thing - oil.

This is where the Marxist analysis comes in. In the rush to support an emerging "revolutionary" situation in South America, many radicals have completely forgotten that capitalism is not just some form of government, but a mode of production that is not isolated in one nation, class, or done away with simply by having the workers run "their" own factories. Chávez very skillfully keeps the attention on policy differences with the US government so as to throw up a smokescreen with which to hide the fact that he is actually marching right in step with neo-liberal globalization's grand scheme for the region.

What possible use is it to go on and on about how unjust the war in Iraq is, for instance, when Halliburton remains the chief services contractor for PDVSA? How enormously distracting is it for Chávez to play verbal war games with Condoleezza Rice while welcoming Chevron - the company she once directed - into the country with open arms, even calling them "great friends of the revolutionary process"?

On the one hand, Venezuela's oil nationalization left much of the industry's infrastructure undeveloped, and building relationships with the transnationals is the only way to overcome this without immediately bankrupting the country. Chávez certainly can't hope to go from relying solely on oil and importing up to 80% of Venezuela's food, to a completely "sovereign" and self-sufficient nation overnight... but on the other hand there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is doing anything other than trying to deepen this dependency. Under the banner of socialism and with slogans of "development", Chávez has presided over the biggest handover of national resources in Venezuela's history.

And how else could they possibly hope to do it? In late 2003 Bolivia nearly went through a revolution just at the suggestion of privitization. Chávez, on the other hand, is such a "revolutionary" that he can sign over the rights to the massive offshore Deltana Platform - which will create a "dead zone" in the ocean and have access to more gas reserves than ALL of Bolivia combined - and nobody will even realize that it just happened!

For Chávez, anything that brings in money from the country's energy reserves (combined, the largest in the world) is positive. His single driving goal is to convert Venezuela into the number one energy producing country on earth - and for this to happen he relies not only on the transnationals, but the continuity of the capitalist system that consumes that energy. Despite scattered references to "the environment" he has absolutely no intention of developing alternative energy solutions, some of the rights to which have already been handed over to China. In fact, the only type of energy Chávez seems to be interested in that doesn't come from gas, oil, or coal... is nuclear.

But that's probably a long way off. After all, he recently declared that under his government the integration of South America will become reality, and that Venezuela can provide for the region's energy needs for the next 200 years - as if the ecosystem could possibly survive that much more sustained consumption! To match the global South's level of "development" with that of the North (because of course, that's what a prosperous socialist society should look like) is not only an ecological catastrophe, it's exactly what international capital demands! Moreover, it's a path completely removed from the national reality, as Venezuela already receives 60% of its energy from hydroelectric sources and hardly needs a massive expansion in its oil production.

Chávez won big brownie points with the anti-globalization movement by coming out strong against the Free Trade Area of the Americas, (FTAA, or ALCA in Spanish) and never stopped his tirade against it until it was clear that it was not going through. He even had the brilliant idea of creating "ALBA", the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The only problem is, ALBA didn't even really exist until Evo Morales signed on in late April, and unless Daniel Ortega becomes president of Nicaragua it is unclear if any other countries will be willing to sign up. In theory it's a wonderful ideal of mutual aid whereby countries trade the services they specialize in without any emphasis on profit, with examples being the literacy, oil-for-doctors, and spinoff programs with Cuba. Chávez pushes the issue whenever he can and throws out oil gifts across the Caribbean, defiant that ALBA (which spells out "dawn") will be the future. In fact, there seems to be no public framework to define ALBA aside from some of Chávez' own essays, which make sure to state that the project could never serve as "a barrier to the development of technology" in the participating countries. While ALBA shows a lot of potential and hopefully one day could even redefine international trade, at this point it does not pass for more than a distraction when compared to Venezuela's much larger economic integration ventures under IIRSA.

[R_P_A_S]

i want to take my time and read this later. it sounds interesting. just wanted to post on it so i can find it easier later.

[YSR]

Fascinating.

I find that my liberal friends tend to support Chavez rather unquestioningly and are shocked when I say that I am ambivalent about his policies. This piece adds more to my concern. I suppose it just goes to further illustrate that top-down implementation of social welfare programs simply doesn't address the fundamental problem: capitalism.

[barista.marxista]

Exactly. The entire article Civil War in Venezuela deals with this issue; I only posted a short segment from it here. It's an engaging read. I'd also recommend, if you're interested in this, the documentary Nuestro Petroleo y Otros Cuentos (http://ouroil.org), which explores the issues through the life experiences of the indigenous populations of Venezuela, as well as focusing on the environmental consequences of Chávez's neoliberal petro-populism. If you wanted, I could burn you a copy and send it to you, since it's hard to find in the US except from that site.

I also have a lot of experiences working with groups like Hands Off Venezuela!, which are overrun by self-righteous liberals and Trotskyists (sorry to be redundant), who swallow Chávez's rhetoric like it's candy, and never look into the real economic situation in Venezuela. ;) One thing we do as RAAN in Philly is organize showings of that documentary around the city, in an attempt to counter the influence of HOV-esque groups, which are big here.

[The Grey Blur]

Right I haven't read this article but to address the comment above - Venezuala is hardly "Social welfare from above" - the working class organised themselves to bring about Chavez's rule and now he is even arming them

[Nachie]

This is only a single segment of a much larger text and like the larger text, has not yet been edited or revised.

[IronColumn]

Chiapas is where to look for the future, not Venezuela or Bolivia.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+Jun 6 2006, 07:36 AM--> (Permanent Revolution @ Jun 6 2006, 07:36 AM)Right I haven't read this article but to address the comment above - Venezuala is hardly "Social welfare from above" - the working class organised themselves to bring about Chavez's rule and now he is even arming them[/b]
Actually, there is little working-class initiative in the Barrio programs that did not exist before Chávez came to power. And the programs themselves are administered and ran by government workers.

Chávez wasn't brought to power by the workers themselves, but came to power amidst a political vacuum, really. Yes, he is arming some of the workers, but at the same time it is reinforcing the workers' confidence in: 1) a centralized, authoritarian state, and 2) a neoliberal capitalist economy. Is that what we want to support as revolutionary leftists?

I'd suggest you check out the article to see who exactly Chávez's administration are supporting, and who they are repressing.


[email protected] 6 2006, 11:37 AM
Chiapas is where to look for the future, not Venezuela or Bolivia.
I fully agree with you there, buddy.

[barista.marxista]

C'mon, no one has anything to say about this? We have a billion fuckin' Chavistas on this board, and no one has the nerve to step up to this?

[The Grey Blur]

We're all too busy trying to set up our repressive vanguards to comment on the situation

Viva Chavez

[McLeft]

Chavez's 21st century socialism is unique! a whole new ideology and it works better than anyhting that's ever been tried before.

as the one above me said Viva Chavez!

[Jesus Christ!]

I feel like leftists are so accustomend to criticizing that no matter how much good something or someone is doing if they are not exactly what ever party or group or ideollogy that a person represents then that person will not support it.

[Danforth]

I couldn't agree more. Chavez is implementing policies which are actually working for him and his people, and you criticise him because he doesn't strictly fall in step with conventional Marxism? He has found a way to make the ideology work, and obviously he is not finished yet. We will see more progress in Venezuela yet.

Furthermore, I am tired of Leftists preaching revolution but always criticising those who can make it a success. Chavez has actually done what so many of us would like to do. In the interests of the International ideal we should throw our full support behind him. That way he will be more inclined to move ever more to the Left.

[barista.marxista]

I'd like to congratulate the last four posters for not reading the fucking article before you posted your inane responses. Since when did it become un-Marxist to critique revolutionary processes? You may all return to sucking Chávez' neoliberal cock.

[R_P_A_S]

this is so freaking over my head. it depressed me to try to read it. the vocab, and other speech on it its like foreign language to me! I like Chavez. but I am also aware that is not "all good" obviously there are issues that need attention that he is failing to comply. :blink:

[YSR]

Oh gosh...you mean we're allowed to disagree with "revolutionary" progression? Alright, I guess I'll take down the shrines to Stalin and Mao in my closet now.

[Danforth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:35 AM
Since when did it become un-Marxist to critique revolutionary processes?
Probably since Marxism was blackened in the eyes of the international proletariat by all manner of pacifist cowards and revisionists. A critic is of no use to the movement.

Granted, Chavez is not really very Marxist, except in rhetoric. But he represents a shift in history. No matter what he does to antagonise the US, they do nothing. They have turned their attention on international Islamist revolution, even though communists are steadily gaining power in Latin America, in France and Italy, in Nepal and elsewhere. Marxism is being given a rare chance now to regroup and revive. We have a chance to start over.

Chavez knows that ideological idealism will win him nothing but scorn. Pragmatism must drive the new revolution. All we need take from history are the lessons learned in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Small, professional revolutionary parties are more effective than so-called "grass roots" nonsense. Despite what the anarchists and idealists preach, there is really no possibility of a general workers' uprising. The revolution must be sudden, timely and organised. From there it can be expanded. But most importantly, the revolution must use the power of the bourgeoisie as leverage. Until the bourgeois world is shattered, it remains the most powerful, almost insurmountable.

Chavez is a prudent leader whose country walks a fine line. If he perseveres, opportunities will open up for Venezuela and Latin America. Marxism needs to take the efficiency of Leninist revolution and couple it with Chavez's realism.

[Severian]

Obviously the Venezuelan government is a bourgeois government. But this critique is profoundly ignorant, utopian, and semi-primitivist, and has nothing to do with the concrete class struggle in Venezuela. That class struggle seems invisible to the author of the article; it makes no appearance anywhere in it.

Oh! Apparently this article's by Nachie. (I followed the link.) No wonder then.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:38 PM
We envision self-managed communities with the ability to independently educate themselves according to their local custom via a free access to information and resources.

You & Nachie can "envision" any utopia you want; the real-world class struggle finds its own path.


the task remains to organize autonomous communities capable of breaking all dependence on Chávez or the guy who comes after him, even if having to utilize government handouts along the way. The problem is, this isn't what's happening.

On the contrary. Some examples:
Peasants occupy El Charcote ranch (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6930/693003.html)

Workers occupy plants, fight to restart production (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6931/693159.html)

I could give more.

Nachie's opposition to "government handouts" is of course Reaganesque. The truth is that literacy and medical care can only be provided on a mass scale with the resources of a government. Neither the market nor charity will provide.

Working people and youth are, however, mobilizing to help carry out these "misiones"; Volunteers aid literacy program (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6739/673902.html) ---- Clinics operated by Cuban doctors expand in Venezuela (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6927/692704.html)

The role of Cuban volunteers is also invisible in the RAAN article.


Chávez very skillfully keeps the attention on policy differences with the US government so as to throw up a smokescreen with which to hide the fact that he is actually marching right in step with neo-liberal globalization's grand scheme for the region.

Nonsense. His economic policies are capitalist but nationalist, not "neoliberal".


On the one hand, Venezuela's oil nationalization left much of the industry's infrastructure undeveloped, and building relationships with the transnationals is the only way to overcome this without immediately bankrupting the country. Chávez certainly can't hope to go from relying solely on oil and importing up to 80% of Venezuela's food, to a completely "sovereign" and self-sufficient nation overnight...

And with that, all the rhetoric about how awful that Chavez welcomes Chevron....evaporates.


but on the other hand there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is doing anything other than trying to deepen this dependency. Under the banner of socialism and with slogans of "development", Chávez has presided over the biggest handover of national resources in Venezuela's history.

BS. Venezuela takes over some oil fields. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7016/701604.html)

The takeover of the two oil fields operated by Total and Eni came about after the National Assembly voted at the end of March that PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, will take a 60 percent stake in all joint ventures with foreign investors, which account for a fifth of the country’s oil production. Some 16 foreign companies accepted the new terms, but Total and Eni demanded a larger stake.

ExxonMobil has refused to abide by these rules and sold its stake at one of the disputed fields to Repsol of Spain. But Exxon still holds a 42 percent stake in a much larger heavy-oil project.

Last year, Caracas increased royalties foreign investors had to pay from 1 percent to 16.6 percent. In early April, the government said it plans to increase taxes for investors in oil to 50 percent from 34 percent.


His single driving goal is to convert Venezuela into the number one energy producing country on earth - and for this to happen he relies not only on the transnationals, but the continuity of the capitalist system that consumes that energy.

Tacitly primitivist. Any system more progressive than capitalism will definitely consume energy; probably even more energy if, for example, electricity is going to be brought to all the people of the world!

Opposition to capitalism's energy consumption implies a reactionary opposition to capitalism.


But that's probably a long way off. After all, he recently declared that under his government the integration of South America will become reality, and that Venezuela can provide for the region's energy needs for the next 200 years - as if the ecosystem could possibly survive that much more sustained consumption!

More of the same.


To match the global South's level of "development" with that of the North (because of course, that's what a prosperous socialist society should look like) is not only an ecological catastrophe, it's exactly what international capital demands!

And there you have it. The "global South" is supposed to remain underdeveloped, and this is passed off as anti-imperialist!' And, apparently, a prosperous socialist society does not need an advanced level of development. So much for the facade of Marxism!

In fact, the persistent underdevelopment and dependency of the semicolonial world is precisely the product of imperialism; the imperialist-dominated capitalist system is incapable of reversing that.

In contrast to Western primitivists with their noble savage complexes, people in the "Third World" are fighting against imperialist domination precisely in order to gain the economic development it denies them.


Moreover, it's a path completely removed from the national reality, as Venezuela already receives 60% of its energy from hydroelectric sources and hardly needs a massive expansion in its oil production.

So much for Chavez being uninteresting in anything besides fossil fuels and nuclear, as claimed earlier! But it's not clear what the argument is here, unless Nachie's condemning efforts to increase exports and advocating a reactionary program of national self-sufficiency.


In fact, there seems to be no public framework to define ALBA aside from some of Chávez' own essays, which make sure to state that the project could never serve as "a barrier to the development of technology" in the participating countries.

More primitivist crap.

The Chavez government should be opposed from a progressive, class-struggle oriented direction, not a reactionary primitivist direction.

Additionally, revolutionaries are defined by joining the class struggle, like the land and factory occupations described in the links I gave earlier. Not by criticizing from the sidelines.

Cuban communists have joined the battle to defend Venezuela from imperialism and strengthen the situation of working people there. Communists in the U.S. and other countries should do the same, including by opposing U.S. imperialist intervention there.

In that framework, it's important to be clear that Chavez' government is not a workers' government - and that working people will need to take power as the class struggle deepens. But that framework of starting from the concrete struggles working people are engaging in today - is completely absent in the article. The real class struggle is invisible to RAAN's utopian masters of rhetoric.

[Louis Pio]

I agree with severian.

Also we in a revolutionary situation we have to look at the workingclass independent action. As it is now the working class is rapidly on the move. Recently an organisation for the occupied factories was set up Freteco (http://freteco.elmilitante.org/) this is of course a giant step forward. Especially to counter the influence of some of the reformist elements in the top of the bolivarian movement. Also the actions of the working class will decide what will happen in Venezuela, as any marxist should know.

[Nachie]

yawn

I say again, this is only a tiiiiiiiiiiny part of the much larger unfinished, unpublished work. Much of what you see above is also subject to revision. I personally would not have supported the posting of this segment at this time but hey, whatever. Much of what you claim is "invisible" in the RAAN analysis is actually just covered elsewhere in the text. In fact the bulk of research is done on groups considering themselves part of the process but nevertheless raising contradictions within it, "revolution in the revolution", etc.

As for calling me a primitivist, woohoo. Isn't the first time and won't be the last. Call me whatever you want, how shocking that I should think mining and fossil fuel consumption are bad things!

You might as well start up another poll in the CC to confine me to Opposing Ideologies - maybe this time it'll actually work.

[Severian]

Heh. So first Barista goes off complaining about people who responded without reading it.

Then when I respond in detail, reading it more carefully than it deserves...that response gets dismissed with a yawn.

Apparently, y'all aren't interested in any kind of response or discussion.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:43 AM
Apparently, y'all aren't interested in any kind of response or discussion.
I'm sorry, I didn't think your "detailed response" was really all that spectacular. But if you insist:


Obviously the Venezuelan government is a bourgeois government. But this critique is profoundly ignorant, utopian, and semi-primitivist, and has nothing to do with the concrete class struggle in Venezuela. That class struggle seems invisible to the author of the article; it makes no appearance anywhere in it.
I will refer you to the whole text as opposed to this tiny fragment.


You & Nachie can "envision" any utopia you want; the real-world class struggle finds its own path.
Oddly enough this is what we say to those who seek to institutionalize "revolution" through state bureaucracy.


On the contrary. Some examples...

I could give more.
Yes, so could I. And in fact I give plenty in the full text. I also don't seek to tokenize those examples and turn them into justifications for Chavez.


The truth is that literacy and medical care can only be provided on a mass scale with the resources of a government.
Lack of imagination on your part. Or just overabundance of statism, who knows. The "resources" of a government, yes. But would this necessarily mean a government? Again, a deeper analysis and appreciation of the literacy and medical programs is available in the full text.


Working people and youth are, however, mobilizing to help carry out these "misiones"; Volunteers aid literacy program (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6739/673902.html) ---- Clinics operated by Cuban doctors expand in Venezuela (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6927/692704.html)

The role of Cuban volunteers is also invisible in the RAAN article.
In some areas yes, in others not so much. Funny how the Cuban doctors fall into the "working people and youth" category for you. Many Venezuelans who see these "volunteers" running around with two cellphones and three pagers will tell you differently.


Nonsense. His economic policies are capitalist but nationalist, not "neoliberal".
The whole magic trick is to call neoliberal policies nationalist, then promote "energy integration" rather than "globalization", and get away with it. Wow!


And with that, all the rhetoric about how awful that Chavez welcomes Chevron....evaporates.
Why? Because you say it does?


BS. Venezuela takes over some oil fields. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7016/701604.html)
Venezuelan and general South American prices remain a steal compared to some other parts of the world. Also it's not so much about ownership over the fields as it is about the projects that are to go ahead on that land, and who they benefit. The 49% stake ownership foreign companies are allowed now is actually much better for them than the contractual agreements of the past. Again, you should explore the whole text.


Opposition to capitalism's energy consumption implies a reactionary opposition to capitalism.
"Opposition to Chavez implies a reactionary opposition to socialism"


More of the same.
Ditto. This is where that "yawn" comes in.


And there you have it. The "global South" is supposed to remain underdeveloped, and this is passed off as anti-imperialist!' And, apparently, a prosperous socialist society does not need an advanced level of development. So much for the facade of Marxism!
So much for your goddamn facade of Marxism! Is communist development supposed to look exactly like capitalist development? Is the only alternative to capitalist development a perpetual "underdevelopment", which you accuse me of promoting? Does not this line of thinking imply that you yourself cannot escape the capitalist paradigm?


In fact, the persistent underdevelopment and dependency of the semicolonial world is precisely the product of imperialism; the imperialist-dominated capitalist system is incapable of reversing that.
Shocking.


In contrast to Western primitivists with their noble savage complexes, people in the "Third World" are fighting against imperialist domination precisely in order to gain the economic development it denies them.
Are you telling them what they want? Chavez wants Venezuela to be a first world nation. Many people both in support of and against him insist that a different yardstick must be found with which to measure "success". The brunt of Venezuela's economic development has to do with offering up more accessible energy reserves to the capitalist model of consumption. Revolutionary.

Are you calling me a "Western primitivist" and a racist, by any chance? If anything falls back on outdated concepts, it's your economic determinism.


So much for Chavez being uninteresting in anything besides fossil fuels and nuclear, as claimed earlier!
Oh noes!


But it's not clear what the argument is here, unless Nachie's condemning efforts to increase exports and advocating a reactionary program of national self-sufficiency.
The argument is that keeping Venezuela a mono-economy is only going to lead to the same collapse populism faced in the 80's. I'm all for increasing exports, but fuck! find something else to export!


More primitivist crap.
Yes, ooga booga.


The Chavez government should be opposed from a progressive, class-struggle oriented direction, not a reactionary primitivist direction.
No argument here.


Additionally, revolutionaries are defined by joining the class struggle, like the land and factory occupations described in the links I gave earlier. Not by criticizing from the sidelines.
Well thank you for that charming piece of wisdom, immersed as it is in your deep knowledge of what RAAN has actually done on the issue.


Cuban communists
Huh? Oh you mean the people Castro sent over.


Communists in the U.S. and other countries should do the same, including by opposing U.S. imperialist intervention there.
This is true.


In that framework, it's important to be clear that Chavez' government is not a workers' government - and that working people will need to take power as the class struggle deepens.
It's important to be clear that there is no such thing as a workers' "government", but other than that I agree. Thing is, building working class power in the long term does not mean submitting it to the bureaucracy in the short term.


But that framework of starting from the concrete struggles working people are engaging in today - is completely absent in the article. The real class struggle is invisible to RAAN's utopian masters of rhetoric.
The rest of this article is invisible to Severian's utopian mastery of rhetoric.

I think you would find my interview with Oswaldo Kanica, president of the Tupamaros, to be particularly interesting. This is just a guess based on what you've said so far, though. I really do encourage you to read the whole thing, or better yet wait until the final product and then I will be more than happy to discuss it at length. For right now you'll have to excuse me if I'm not terribly interested in debating this as I repeat, it is not finished.

Also, just a heads up to the Trotskyists: Freteco is not the working class.

EDIT ADD: Sorry for the long edit, but I just realized I wanted to clarify something further: Up there where I say that "there is absolutely nothing to suggest that [Chavez] is doing anything other than trying to deepen this [oil] dependency", I'm not talking about simply "who" owns the fields, but what production is geared towards and where it's ending up. China is investing heavily into Venezuela, but the oil itself still goes straight to the US. Get the picture? There is an entire infrastructure project in the West of the country geared entirely towards giving Colombian coal an easy port into American and European markets. Venezuela itself is set to triple it's own coal production. See what I mean?

Chavez is doing nothing other than "deepen" his reliance not on the US per se, but the global capitalist energy market itself. Energy is in fact the US' only concern in Venezuela, so truth be told they're sometimes happy that he's gotten away with so much. All they want is the global energy investment and infrastructure locked down, and they could give a fuck what happens in the rest of the country.

[barista.marxista]

Too add onto Nachie's response to Severian's initial post:

1) I'd recommend you learn what the word "neoliberal" means, as you obviously have no idea since you commented that Chávez is more "nationalist" than neoliberal; and 2) I'd recommend you take the time to read something else besides the Militant, which is merely SWP propagandistic bullshit.

I think your Militant posts reinforce what is discussed elsewhere in Nachie's essay, specifically that suddenly all kinds of Trotskyist groups have jumped on the bandwagen to support Chávez. It seems like before Jack Barnes commanded that everyone focus on supporting and attending the decrepit Stalinist World Festival of Youth and Students, the SWP was dismissive of Chávez as being reformist (which, coming from the SWP, is bloody fuckin' ironic) and, as one SWP member told me, comparable to Allende. The fact that all of those articles on the Bolivarian process are from after July 2005 (except the one about literacy from Cuban volunteers, but that's because the SWP glorifies the fuck out of Cuba), just reinforces this fact.


Originally posted by Danforth
No matter what he does to antagonise the US, they do nothing.
Hmm, maybe it's because Chávez provides more oil to the US than before he came into power? Despite his anti-imperialist rhetoric, Chávez has deepened the exporting of energy resources, namely coal and oil, to the largest transnationals in the world. That he sells 80% of Venezuela's oil production to the US is probably why the US doesn't give a fuck what he says on TV, but rather what he does. This analysis is called being a Marxist, whereby one, instead of taking things at face-value, looks into the material, economic reasons for things.

Also: if you'd like to actually investigate your assertion that "grassroots" movements are "nonsense", I can recommend some reading material for you. Otherwise, here is a comic to entertain your simplistic mind:

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/marxleninmusic.gif

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 7 2006, 09:50 PM
We're all too busy trying to set up our repressive vanguards to comment on the situation
:lol:

I think a very important thing that this article demonstrates is the necessity, as marxist and materialist thinkers, to look beneath rhetoric and find out what's really going on.

In this case, Chavez is spouting a bunch of anti-imperialist rhetoric, all the while cutting deals with various multi-nationals (instead of nationalizing the various industries or, better yet, putting them under workers' control).

My liberal history teacher actually came to class once with a t-shirt that said "Viva Chavez" with a picture of the Venezuelan flag on it. It sure made me feel queasy, although I didn't have the heart to argue with her right then. Just full of leader-worship and nationalism, though.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 8 2006, 11:24 PM
Just full of leader-worship and nationalism, though.
Exactly! And these are the qualities that most "Chavistas" want to see instituted into the Venezuelan solidarity movement world-wide, no doubt so as to make it easy to turn it into a Trotskyist party at a later date.

[Comrade-Z]

Exactly! And these are the qualities that most "Chavistas" want to see instituted into the Venezuelan solidarity movement world-wide, no doubt so as to make it easy to turn it into a Trotskyist party at a later date.

To be honest I haven't seen any evidence that the Chavistas would prefer a turn towards Trotskyism. Maybe if the rank-and-file starts getting "too radical" and needs to be channelled and co-opted, the Chavistas will present Trotskyism as "The Revolutionary Alternative." But right now I think the Chavistas would prefer to settle down into good ol' social-democratic reformism.

[Nachie]

Well let's look at three types of Chavistas:

"International" Chavistas - To a large degree, Trots and Castro-apologists. Their organizing for Venezuela solidarity campaigns is definitely being done with an eye toward future recruitment of the vanguard. These include most of the leadership of these solidarity movements but not necessarily the rank and file.

Bureaucratic Chavistas (those in the National Assembly) - Mostly social-democrats as you mentioned, but they provide only the political and not ideological backing for Chavismo.

Street-level Chavistas - Too diverse a group to pigeonhole on this one.

And finally,

Chavez himself - Definitely instituting a weird nationalist Bolshevism thing. We don't see it very much, but that's because the full extent of this program is only just now taking shape within the Bolivarian universities, and we won't see a "full radicalization" until later. To some degree this is being done with the cooperation of the same groups that make up the "international" Chavistas.

At any rate what I meant was not necessarily that Venezuela itself is going Trotskyist, but that international Venezuela solidarity groups, most notably "Hands Off Venezuela" are Trot fronts and are being managed as such, specifically as regards to a no tolerance policy for criticism against Chavez.

[Nachie]

Also: The rank and file is already too radical, hence they're bringing in the Trotskyism :lol:

[Louis Pio]

Just to put things in context


In this case, Chavez is spouting a bunch of anti-imperialist rhetoric, all the while cutting deals with various multi-nationals (instead of nationalizing the various industries or, better yet, putting them under workers' control).


Actually Chavez proposed a list to the UNT with 1000 companies they could take over. The UNT leadership has done nothing in regards to it which is of course insane. I mean the head of the bourgious state asks you to take the companies and you don't act, that's just plain stupid.

As it is now people has almost no trust in the leadership, except for Chavez and a very few others. So what should we do? We could do as Nachie and whine and ***** about Chavez role and then confine ourselves to secterian pontificating from the sidelines. Or we could act and push for workers control every time it's possible and organise the factories under workers control plus the occupied one. Thereby strenhgtening the workers role in this whole process.
Once again: Organising these factories and building a independent working class representation is the only safeguard against any derailing. Parts of the top would be happy to put an end to this whole process, probably by deals with the "opposition" or the US.


Exactly! And these are the qualities that most "Chavistas" want to see instituted into the Venezuelan solidarity movement world-wide, (in regards to leaderworship and nationalism)

Hmm the rank and file wants and end to poverty and real national independence from imperialism. This can of course not be done in a capitalist framework. What's your point? It seems you think this whole process will be determined by the leadership and not by the involvement of the "masses". Very "anarchist"....

Anyway quite complex situation at this point which at one hand derives from the inability of the Venezuelan bourgiosie in the last 200 years to carry out the most basic tasks of a "national democratic" revolution. And on the other hand the failure of guerillaism on all levels.
Main point is stop the whining start strenghtening the workers independent role in all of this.
The strategists of capital from especially the US is well aware of the problems this process pose, especially with the workers on the move. It's strange how some "left" is blind as a mole in that regards.

Venezuela: For a united and revolutionary UNT prepared to struggle for socialism (http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-united-unt-socialism010606.htm)
Venezuela: second march of the Revolutionary Front of Workers of Factories Occupied and under Workers' Control (http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-revolutionary-front-workers070406.htm)
Nearly one thousand Venezuelan trade unionists meet: Towards the second national congress of the UNT (http://www.marxist.com/second-national-congress-unt040406.htm)

And of course FRETECO which is more than just "trotskyists" FRETECO (http://freteco.elmilitante.org/)

[bayano]

Here's the outcome of the UNT Congress you speak of. (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1746)

as a supporter of the 'bolivarian process' im utterly disappointed at this, but such is life at staking bets simplistically on much too complex situations.

as for the factory takeovers (and other permanent occupations as well), i really hope that this one of the longest lasting elements of the process. if the 'bolivarian revolution' falters or stalls, gains speed, things get violent, whatever, i hope this is one of the most sustainable elements of it all. real socialism, period

[Louis Pio]

Yeah I know about the difficaulties, I think the article I posted also mentions it. It's a problem when different sides of the top thinks more about personal prestige than anything else. As far as I know the majority of the shop stewards walked out from this congress because they didn't wan't to participate in that kind insanity, so the majority sees this with utter disgust which is of course positive and something to build on.

In regards to the factory occupations I think these will form the most fierce resistence against any form of coup or derailing. In themselves they pose the question of power which is taking people's counsciousness quite further. In pracsis these workers can see how they don't really need the bosses.
But of course even they will be destroyed if capitalism isn't eventually destroyed. But then so will all the gains already made in other fields.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:57 AM
Also: The rank and file is already too radical, hence they're bringing in the Trotskyism :lol:
Just for clarity's sake, could you explain what you mean by this - particularly how you designate 'Trotskyism'?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:50 AM
Actually Chavez proposed a list to the UNT with 1000 companies they could take over. The UNT leadership has done nothing in regards to it which is of course insane. I mean the head of the bourgious state asks you to take the companies and you don't act, that's just plain stupid.
A perfect example as to why vertically-mandated "revolution" doesn't work!

Plus 1000 companies does not a revolution make, especially when those industries were abandonned or failing or acting outside of the law in the first place, the "workers' control" proposed by Chavez is in fact just a fancy nationalization, and the energy industry, which is the only thing imperialism cares about, remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Though I'm sure you believe this stuff about PDVSA "now being the people's".


We could do as Nachie and whine and ***** about Chavez role and then confine ourselves to secterian pontificating from the sidelines.
Shut up! Just shut up! You know nothing about me or what I've done. Why the fuck is it so en vogue right now to reply to this text with utterly dismissive comments like "all you do is whine and *****". Chavismo is intolerant of criticism; make note.

Also I believe the word "*****" is considered sexist in just about all contexts on these forums, but I'm not going to report you because a bigger warn rating wouldn't make you any smarter. Just a heads up in the future: watch what you type.


Once again: Organising these factories and building a independent working class representation is the only safeguard against any derailing.
Over 50% of the working class in Venezuela is in fact made up of street vendors in the informal economy.


Hmm the rank and file wants and end to poverty and real national independence from imperialism. This can of course not be done in a capitalist framework. What's your point? It seems you think this whole process will be determined by the leadership and not by the involvement of the "masses". Very "anarchist"....
First off, if you want to keep up with the discussion here, I was talking about the international Chavista tendency, which is largely headed up by Trots like yourself. If you truly think the "leadership" is who I support, then you need to go back and read the full text you didn't in the first place. It's fools like Alan Woods who are doing nothing to stop the process' consolidation into Chavez' single persona, IE the state.


Main point is stop the whining start strenghtening the workers independent role in all of this.
"Stop whining" is Trotskyist jargon for "unquestioning obedience". The workers' independent role in all of this involves their continuing to push for self-valorization outside of the capitalist economy, as the majority of them have been forced to do via their informal economy. Bolivarian Socialism actually seeks to absorb these people into the capitalist process.

Just in case you claim to not be a Trotskyist, I would then say "good for you" and suggest that in future you try to get your analysis from more people than just Trot ideologues like the IMT.


And of course FRETECO which is more than just "trotskyists"
Do you even read what I write? I didn't say FRETECO was "Trotskyist" but that the Trots have fetishized them into the ultimate revolutionary group, quite at odds with the tiny role they play in reality.


Just for clarity's sake, could you explain what you mean by this - particularly how you designate 'Trotskyism'?
Really not functionally different from any other form of Bolshevism, though of course the peculiarity is use of Trotsky's name and image. Check out the kind of line towed by In Defense of Marxism (http://www.marxist.com) for some examples. For our purposes here it focuses on the construction of a vanguard workers' party to lead the revolution, a culture of "democratic centralism" in said party, (being cultivated at this point by Chavez-worship) and an obsession with the industrial proletariat and capitalist "progress" that makes no sense in the Venezuelan national context.

[Comrade-Z]

As it is now people has almost no trust in the leadership, except for Chavez and a very few others.

If that's the case, then that's definitely a good thing. It will force Chavez to enact more radical measures than he would otherwise if he faces a struggle in winning the masses' support.


Or we could act and push for workers control every time it's possible and organise the factories under workers control plus the occupied one. Thereby strenhgtening the workers role in this whole process.

I definitely support that, insofar as it is genuine workers' control and not just some dumbed-down "co-management" scheme or some other institutionalized arrangement used to placate the working class.


Hmm the rank and file wants and end to poverty and real national independence from imperialism. This can of course not be done in a capitalist framework.

Pretty much. Which means that they have no reason to stick with bourgeois politics and Chavez. All that stuff would be superfluous. If they want real, systemic change, they will have to rely on their own self-initiative (meaning, direct action outside of the framework of bourgeois legality).

From what I've heard, some peasants have taken things into their own hands and appropriated portions of large estates. That's what I'm talking about. Worker-directed seizures of factories would be another example. (And in both bases Chavez is likely to label such actions as "adventurist" or whatnot and try to restrain them).


In regards to the factory occupations I think these will form the most fierce resistence against any form of coup or derailing. In themselves they pose the question of power which is taking people's counsciousness quite further. In pracsis these workers can see how they don't really need the bosses.

I agree. Interestingly enough, Chavez's best chances for fending off a coup lie with those same forces that pose the most of a threat to him in terms of radicalizing out of his control.

[Louis Pio]

A perfect example as to why vertically-mandated "revolution" doesn't work!

Plus 1000 companies does not a revolution make, especially when those industries were abandonned or failing or acting outside of the law in the first place, the "workers' control" proposed by Chavez is in fact just a fancy nationalization, and the energy industry, which is the only thing imperialism cares about, remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Though I'm sure you believe this stuff about PDVSA "now being the people's".


First off, everybody needs to start somewere. It's still a huge step forward, show me anywere else in any bourgious countries were you have the same situation. The existence of doubble power has been a part of every revolution, and having control over parts of the industry is indeed doubble power (dual power) now it just needs to be expanded. It's not about what Chavez want's, but about what direction the mass of the people want to go. And the reason why Chavez has gone to the left is precisely because of the pressure from below. Also they even have political classes in these companies plus many more, discussing everything from Marx, Trotskij, Luxemburg to empire theories and so on. Quite impressive.


Shut up! Just shut up! You know nothing about me or what I've done. Why the fuck is it so en vogue right now to reply to this text with utterly dismissive comments like "all you do is whine and *****". Chavismo is intolerant of criticism; make note.


Well you said it yourself in another thread, your group seems mostly to focus on attacking the "leninist" left, even physically sometimes, if that isn't intolerant well then what is...


Also I believe the word "*****" is considered sexist in just about all contexts on these forums, but I'm not going to report you because a bigger warn rating wouldn't make you any smarter. Just a heads up in the future: watch what you type.


Don't go PC'ing, it's just pathetic. Calling a woman a ***** is sexist, saying people ***** ain't, everybody can *****; man, woman and neuther for that matter.


Over 50% of the working class in Venezuela is in fact made up of street vendors in the informal economy.


Indeed and they live under quite horrible conditions, and have quite a objective interrest in socialism. Still the part of the working class who controls the economy is the most important from a revolutionary point of view since they can halt production. A important step would be now to work for the unification of these sectors.


First off, if you want to keep up with the discussion here, I was talking about the international Chavista tendency, which is largely headed up by Trots like yourself. If you truly think the "leadership" is who I support, then you need to go back and read the full text you didn't in the first place. It's fools like Alan Woods who are doing nothing to stop the process' consolidation into Chavez' single persona, IE the state.


So what should we do? Chavez stands as an example because he stood up against the USA and internal reaction and implemented progressive reforms. Which is also why he's so popular, as you saw in the elections to the national assembly the rightwing elements in the bolivarian top don't hold much support. Secondly it's a bit simplistic to call Chavez the state. The biggest criticism against Chavez is that he hasn't gone far enough yet, but there's no reason to criticise the positive things he's done. Which secondly would have no echo in Venezuela. And may I point out, I doubt you posses any supernatural gifts enabling you to look into Chavez mind and tell exactly everything he will do.
Moreover it's even outright reactionary not to defend Venezuela publicly against the pressure from imperialism. If the old regime come back, well then we know for sure what will happen, workers, unions and activists will be drowned in a pool of blood.
As I said before (and it can't be stressed enough) the only safeguard is to build the workers as an independent part in all of this, consolidating their strongholds in occupied factories and so on.


"Stop whining" is Trotskyist jargon for "unquestioning obedience". The workers' independent role in all of this involves their continuing to push for self-valorization outside of the capitalist economy, as the majority of them have been forced to do via their informal economy. Bolivarian Socialism actually seeks to absorb these people into the capitalist process.


And here we disagree, probably because you take a anarchist standpoint. Having people forced to works as streetvendors under horrible conditions is not very progressive, furthermore they are still a part of the capitalist system even though the economy is "informal" it change nothing fundamental and they are still affected by the ups and downs of capitalism. The idea that you can live "outside of capitalism" has no grounds. Personally I find it to be extremely pettybourgious.


Just in case you claim to not be a Trotskyist, I would then say "good for you" and suggest that in future you try to get your analysis from more people than just Trot ideologues like the IMT.


Which I do, I just couldn't use your text for anything because it's startingpoint is wrong. Your whole approach is top-down, expecially in your posts


Do you even read what I write? I didn't say FRETECO was "Trotskyist" but that the Trots have fetishized them into the ultimate revolutionary group, quite at odds with the tiny role they play in reality.


Well I just wanted to beat you to it, you throw around trot like some trotskyists throw around stalinist (and some anarchists throw around leninist for that matter) Indeed it's not as big, but everything has to start somewere and in the current situation it could rapidly grow. It seems you imply that it's not possible or important to independently organise factories under workers control (occupied as well). Hmmm on the one hand you criticise the process for just being a "tool" Chavez uses and then when theirs actually starting to be independent organisation for these workplaces then it's just insignificant.


Really not functionally different from any other form of Bolshevism, though of course the peculiarity is use of Trotsky's name and image. Check out the kind of line towed by In Defense of Marxism for some examples. For our purposes here it focuses on the construction of a vanguard workers' party to lead the revolution, a culture of "democratic centralism" in said party, (being cultivated at this point by Chavez-worship) and an obsession with the industrial proletariat and capitalist "progress" that makes no sense in the Venezuelan national context.

Yes indeed we should all live in "selfsustainable" villages. Just a shame we need to kill of most people in the world then...
I think I see the fundamental difference now, I see socialism as progress. Which it has to be if it will triumph over capitalism. I dunno what you see it as, some vague phrases about idengnious rights or something I reckon. The proletariat is still the force that can change society, because they can halt society and bring capitalism to it's knees.


Reply to comrade z

If that's the case, then that's definitely a good thing. It will force Chavez to enact more radical measures than he would otherwise if he faces a struggle in winning the masses' support.


Indeed and in the end he will have to pick sides. There's a slogan from the start of the process that holds even more significance today "with or without Chavez".


I definitely support that, insofar as it is genuine workers' control and not just some dumbed-down "co-management" scheme or some other institutionalized arrangement used to placate the working class.


I agree co-management is not really progressive. I think both things exist, but the most important is of course that you have cases of genuine workers control, in itself it puts the whole question of power on the agenda.


Pretty much. Which means that they have no reason to stick with bourgeois politics and Chavez. All that stuff would be superfluous. If they want real, systemic change, they will have to rely on their own self-initiative (meaning, direct action outside of the framework of bourgeois legality).


I agree to a certain extent, point being that unions and parties can also be used as well as parliament and tv as a revolutionary platform to get out as wide as possible.


From what I've heard, some peasants have taken things into their own hands and appropriated portions of large estates. That's what I'm talking about. Worker-directed seizures of factories would be another example. (And in both bases Chavez is likely to label such actions as "adventurist" or whatnot and try to restrain them).

Indeed that's the way forward. Btw Chavez actually legalised the occupations and seizing of factories when the workers campaigned for it. Yet another example of why he is so popular.


I agree. Interestingly enough, Chavez's best chances for fending off a coup lie with those same forces that pose the most of a threat to him in terms of radicalizing out of his control.

Indeed, it will be extremely interesting to see what will happen. And as I said he will have to pick sides.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:09 PM
the SWP was dismissive of Chávez as being reformist (which, coming from the SWP, is bloody fuckin' ironic) and, as one SWP member told me, comparable to Allende. The fact that all of those articles on the Bolivarian process are from after July 2005 (except the one about literacy from Cuban volunteers, but that's because the SWP glorifies the fuck out of Cuba), just reinforces this fact.
Doy! I coulda given plenty of earlier articles - but for obvious reasons I thought more recent information was better. So I went out of my way to pick the more recent stuff.

There's been no change of line, heck I just said Chavez' government was bourgeois in my earlier post.

And there's nothing in those Militant articles "glorifying" Chavez's government - but rather reporting on the concrete class struggle in Venezuela. Glorifying, if you like that word, the land and factory occupations carried out by Venezuelan workers and peasants.

Which are invisible to Nachie, I repeat. It's not just that they aren't mentioned in this part of the article. The article denies that anything of the sort is going on. "The vertical implementation of government programs seeks to "push through" a revolution that in many cases doesn't actually exist at the level of grassroots consciousness, or at least not in the format specified by the government decrees." For example.

And then you read them only for information about the Militant - not for information about Venezuela!

It's a profoundly sectarian criticism - at best - not an opposition to Chavez from a class-struggle direction.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:50 AM
As it is now people has almost no trust in the leadership, except for Chavez and a very few others. So what should we do? We could do as Nachie and whine and ***** about Chavez role and then confine ourselves to secterian pontificating from the sidelines. Or we could act and push for workers control every time it's possible and organise the factories under workers control plus the occupied one. Thereby strenhgtening the workers role in this whole process.
Exactly. That's the job: to push the revolutionary process forward, not claim that there isn't one!

[kaaos_af]

I feel the occurances in Venezuela should be brought into context somewhat. Venezuela is a country which has been dominated by US puppets for decades, is in possession of the western hemisphere's largest concentrations of oil and was, shortly before the 'revolution', described by the [Stalinist] Communist Party of Venezuela, as most likely being the last country on the continent to have a revolution.

The Venezuelan masses do not have a long tradition of struggle. This must be taken into account. Most Venezuelans are feeling their class strength for the first time in their lives. To them, Chavez represents an entirely new way of of life, in which the people are actually beginning to directly participate in politics. There is no such thing as apathy in Venezuela, this is a positive thing.

As a country in posession of so much oil, Venezuela runs the risk of being attacked by the USA. I'm inclined to think that if Chavez is doing what he says he is, he is doing it very slowly, getting the masses on the same step as he is before stepping up one and again rising the consciousness of the people to his level. By doing this, he is preventing an Allende-style coup, as the people are not isolated from the political process. While this is 'revolution from above', we should at the very least look at this as a positive step in wrestling the USA government's control of the continent away.

The thing that most interested me about the Morales government in Bolivia is the fact that Morales was not just making reforms like *that, but was actually being pushed along by the Bolivian people to further the progressive change in that country.

I believe that in Venezuela, a similar thing will eventually happen. Chavez is making deeply progressive change in the fact that he is politicising the people of Venezuela. He is giving them a taste of their own power, and they love it. Venezuela's government is challenging the USA government's dominance in the region. It is not, however, challenging USA capitalism. Eventually, Chavez will hit a brick wall. I do not believe Chavez will be able to challenge US capitalism. The people, however, will want to go further, I believe. This is where the real Venezuelan revolution will kick in, leaving the Bolivarian rhetoric behind.

Simon Bolivar himself was strongly criticised by Karl Marx, look into it- he has some interesting things to say.

[kaaos_af]

I also don't see any problem with foreign solidarity, as long as it doesn't descend into leader worship.

We should be in solidarity with Venezuela and with the Bolivarian Revolution and Chavez, but we must always be prepared to challenge his movement and point out its discrepencies. I hate seeing all the university post-Trotskyists running around with red berets, Chavez t-shirts, Venezuela flag necklaces and bracelets and 100% ignoring important local issues.

I know I'll be out there in the protests if the US attacks Venezuela, just as I would be if the US attacked some shitty country like the DPRK, Zimbabwe, Sudan or Syria.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I agree with Severin's post.

To have a guy like Chavez around is rare, because you do not often get figures who would bravely stand against imperialism in the way that he is. The degree to which loans, credit, and foreign investment are available to stock holders depends a great deal on the degree to which the United States dominates the global capitalist economy, and as so, even the slightest offense to imperialism can only be interpreted by the imperialists as the most unforgivable resistance. The anti-imperialist character of his presidency should be supported.

The political tendencies of more revolutionary social forces are taking form — the communal councils are morphing into organs of dual power, assuming the role of the security of local factories, the maintenance of the food supply, local cultural events, and of health and safety facilities. But as far as we are concerned, there is no sizable alternative yet to 'Chavismo'. Chavez will eventually exhaust his efforts, and there will be more attempts by local landowners, industrialists, and oil executives to overthrow him — at that point, there will either be the appropriation of the means of production and the formation of a revolutionary worker's government to combat them, or Chavez would be overthrown, the country will be subjected to the will of foreign capital again.