Pro-Chavez Capitalists

[Severian]

Thought I'd post this, among other reasons because there's been some dispute over whether part of the Venezuelan upper class supports Chavez.

From the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com% 2Farticle%2FSB116494538377737773.html%3Fmod%3Dgoog lenews_wsj) (Unfortunately they're stingy about letting people access the full article, but I'm getting the paper version thanks to infrequent flyer miles. I'll type some in.)

Venezuelan High Life: Bulletproof BMW And a Vote for Chávez
By José de Córdoba
Word Count: 1,121

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Most of Hugo Chávez's supporters live in shantytowns and count on subsidies from the government. Most of his opponents live in middle-class apartment buildings and mansions in leafy neighborhoods and are horrified by the likelihood of a Chávez victory in Sunday's presidential election.

Then there are people like shipping tycoon Wilmer Ruperti, who tools around town in a chauffeur-driven bulletproof BMW and who owes much of his fortune to the Chávez government. Along with other, well-connected businessmen, known as Boliburgueses -- Bolivarian bourgeoisie -- Mr. Ruperti is rooting for Chávez's re-election.
....
As an oil trader, Mr. Ruperti hit the big time in 2003 when he came to the rescue of Mr. Chavez's government, which was then fighting to survive a strike that had shut down the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA. With the country running out of gasoline, Mr. Ruperti used his fleet of tankers to unload fuel oil in Venezuelan ports, showing frightened insurers that they were secure. That opened the way for other tankers to bring i gasoline, which Mr. Ruperti bought and then resold to PDVSA, breaking the back of the strike. A grateful Mr. Chavez decorated Mr. Ruperti with the army's Star of Carabobo medal.

Now Mr. Ruperti embodies the contradictions of Chavez-era Venezuela - a country that is dedicated to socialst distribution of wealth, but which is also enjoying an oil-backed capitalist boom that is further dividing rich and poor. Eighteen-year-old whiskeys are the rage, and Hummers and top-of-the-line SUVs clog the streets of Caracas, while four out of 10 Venezuelans survive on $2 a day or less.
.....
Last year, a congressional commission dominated by members of Mr. Chavez's party looked into allegations that Mr. Ruperti made millions from double-billing the state oil company for gasoline shipments during the strike at PDVSA when the company's accounting system broke down...The commission cleared the oil trader....
But the saga continues.
....
For many Venezuelans, Caracas's Dolce Vita of premium wines, premium whiskeys and premium cars brings to mind Venezuela's first big oil boom during the 1970s, a time remembered as the years of "Saudi Venezuela."

[BreadBros]

Great post. I think this goes a long way in showing how Chavez is a reformer of capitalism ultimately. Of course he does signify a break with the traditional neo-liberal foreign-dominated bourgeoisie. Yet we already see the infancy of a nationalist bourgeoisie in individuals such as Ruperti.

[Cheung Mo]

Besides working with Ruperti and nationalistic capitalists, was there any other option for Chavez other than caving and surrendering power to the the old oligrachy and their imperialist backers?

Yes it sucks, but it's a case of "If I speak, I am condemned; if I stay silent, I am damned."

The worst that this proves is that Chavez and his allies are radical social democrat who -- unlike the factions of the old elite that paid lipped service to social democratic and radical values while selling out workers and peasants to the neo-liberal aristocracy -- are making important strides towards lifting the Venezuelan people out of poverty and hunger and towards building a Latin America that acts in unity and solidarity to put the quality of life life of its people above the greed of foreign elites and their local agents.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 06, 2006 03:25 pm
Besides working with Ruperti and nationalistic capitalists, was there any other option for Chavez other than caving and surrendering power to the the old oligrachy and their imperialist backers?
I don't know "for Chavez", but there's another course for working people in Venezuela and everywhere. To take power into their own hands, and take the means of production away from all the capitalists, including the "Bolivarian" ones.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Severian+December 08, 2006 04:43 am--> (Severian @ December 08, 2006 04:43 am)
Cheung [email protected] 06, 2006 03:25 pm
Besides working with Ruperti and nationalistic capitalists, was there any other option for Chavez other than caving and surrendering power to the the old oligrachy and their imperialist backers?
I don't know "for Chavez", but there's another course for working people in Venezuela and everywhere. To take power into their own hands, and take the means of production away from all the capitalists, including the "Bolivarian" ones. [/b]
The Venezuelan proletariat will not abandon Chavez unless he proves to be as pathetic as the old order.

[Xiao Banfa]

QUOTE (Cheung Mo @ December 06, 2006 03:25 pm)
Besides working with Ruperti and nationalistic capitalists, was there any other option for Chavez other than caving and surrendering power to the the old oligrachy and their imperialist backers?

I don't know "for Chavez", but there's another course for working people in Venezuela and everywhere. To take power into their own hands, and take the means of production away from all the capitalists, including the "Bolivarian" ones.

That sounds like spartoid ultra-leftism to me.

When the security of a socialist state is threatened, economic or othewise, we can't afford to be dogmatic. NEP-type measures are acceptable because socialism is constructed and defended in stages.
Not that we must pull the claws off the Tiger one at a time like social-democrats.
But two or three stages inevitably are needed before we are on a secure road to communism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 08, 2006 02:39 am
When the security of a socialist state is threatened, economic or othewise, we can't afford to be dogmatic.
Are you saying Venezuela is a socialist state? When did that happen? The same, capitalist state machinery is still in place. There has been no revolution.


NEP-type measures are acceptable because socialism is constructed and defended in stages.

Since there has been no revolution, the NEP analogy is obviously false. The Bolsheviks took power, smashed the old state machine, organized a new one, including a new army, nationalized all capitalist industry, smashed feudal property in the countryside.

Only then did they conduct the NEP retreat of allowing some capitalist trade in the countryside!

Clearly, that does not describe the actions of the Chavez government. This could:

Not that we must pull the claws off the Tiger one at a time like social-democrats.

Now, a workers and farmers government under other circumstances might proceed more slowly than the Bolsheviks...speed is not the issue.

The issue is direction - are you aiming for the development of national capitalism, or are you aiming for a workers' revolution?

Chavez's course is the former. IMO the latter is needed.

[shadowed by the secret police]

It has to be only a few weasle cappies that are benefiting from the Chavez government. The majority are not!

[Rawthentic]

What I find interesting is that some radical cheerleaders on this board keep calling the happenings in Venezuela as a revolution, and something that should be tied together with Evo and MAS so as to spread this revolution throughout the continent.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

What I find interesting is that some radical cheerleaders on this board keep calling the happenings in Venezuela as a revolution, and something that should be tied together with Evo and MAS so as to spread this revolution throughout the continent.


There is more than one way to look at the events in Venezuela, and in all ways, its a revolution.

You could say that Chavez is a member of the national bourgeoisie, who will develop the means of production within Venezuela while at the same time fighting the influx of finance capital from the First world. In this case, the oil tycoon mentioned by the comrade who started this thread would also be a member of the national bourgeoisie.

On the other hand, you may say that Chavez himself represents the socialist current, and represents the working-class. In that case, he is having to ally with the national bourgeoisie, to build a People's Democratic Revolution, as Chairman Mao had to do.

Either way, its a "revolution", and its benefiting the Venezuelan proletariat immensely.

They're getting state-funded social welfare programs for the first time. They're getting employment, subsidized food at 1/3rd of the market price, subsidized utilities, subsidized infrastructure programs for the barrios, things of that sort. And above all, they're being protected from the rapacious super-exploitation by finance capital from the First World. Any foreign investment that now enters Venezuela does so on Venezuelan terms.

None of this progress would have been possible without the tactical alliance with the national bourgeoisie of Venezuela.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

It is also important to keep in mind that Chavez has been pushing forward at the pace that the majority of Venezuelans are themselves moving forward. A full on Socialist state still does not have majority support in Venezuela from official polls, but for the first time, it has become the plurality opinion of the majority of Venezuelans, which is very exciting to me. Not to mention, Chavez has done a fantastic job of moving the entire political spectrum in Venezuela, where what was previously "radical left" is today considered much more moderate. Chavez understands that any quick, radical push is going to alienate a large part of his supporters that haven't YET come to support the Socialist idea, but with positive progress in that direction, more people are jumping on the bandwagon, so to speak. If Chavez begins a rapid restructuring of the country before having popular approval to do so, you can say goodbye to the MVR and hello to the return of the traditional parties. Of course, the situation isn't ideal, but I believe Chavez to be sincere in his push for 21st Century Socialism (though I think he can afford to pick up the pace a little). Latin American unity will be necessary before the quick, radical change that was able to take place in Russia and China will be feasible in the region. And if you all have been reading the news, there is a growing movement for an EU equivalent for Latin America being headed by comrades Hugo and Evo for specifically this reason!

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am personally not a fan of Chavez, for the obvious reason that was already stated in this topic. His "Bolivarian Missions", which have aims of improving educational standards, building housing units for the poor, restore communal land titles and human rights to Venezuela's numerous indigenous communities, provide access to high-quality produce, grains, dairy, and meat at discounted prices, and to overally increase the average standards of living for all Venezuelans, have been underfunded and mismanaged at the best, with conditions for most of the impoverished and downtrodden hardly statistically changing. We have seen that ever since his electoral victory, there is an increase in the strength of the union and state bureaucracy. In case most of you didn't know, McDonalds still reigns supreme in Venezuela, and a sort of corporate welfare still exists, in which the central government has promoted the development of private enterprise in the country.

But nevertheless, Chavez has still played a progressive role. I would love to see the workers of Venezuela appropriating the means of production from that of the appropriaters and the ultimate destruction of the state, but it's obvious that there is not a level of class consciousness that makes such a thing possible. Chavez has pushed the proletariat farther to the left, and the proletariat has done likewise to him during the course of his administration. We should still seek to "support" Chavez on the basis of his anti-imperialism and progressivism, rather than degenerate to ultra-leftism, in order to eventually reach our ultimate objective of socialism.

[Folk The System]

i live in Curacao, an island that is about 30 miles off the coast of Venezuela and part of the Netherland Antilles. theres allllllottttt of venezuelans that have moved here, and it's definently not the poor ones.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+December 10, 2006 03:41 am--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ December 10, 2006 03:41 am) There is more than one way to look at the events in Venezuela, and in all ways, its a revolution.

You could say that Chavez is a member of the national bourgeoisie, who will develop the means of production within Venezuela while at the same time fighting the influx of finance capital from the First world. In this case, the oil tycoon mentioned by the comrade who started this thread would also be a member of the national bourgeoisie.
.....
Either way, its a "revolution", and its benefiting the Venezuelan proletariat immensely. [/b]
How is that a revolution? It's not nearly so thorough as the historic bourgeois revolutions - which are not going to be repeated in the modern world. A merely "National Democratic Revolution" is a mirage. The capitalist cannot lead the lower classes in revolution anymore - they're too scared the lower classes will go on to overthrow capitalism, too.


They're getting state-funded social welfare programs for the first time. They're getting employment, subsidized food at 1/3rd of the market price, subsidized utilities, subsidized infrastructure programs for the barrios, things of that sort. And above all, they're being protected from the rapacious super-exploitation by finance capital from the First World.

That's a peculiar "above all". For communists, no concession granted by the bourgeoisie can be "above all". "Above all" is increasing the class consciousness and organization of the workers. Only our own strength can make further gains, and preserve what we've already won.

In this, Chicorazon has a much better method of approaching the problem. He's right at least partly: "Above all" the gain in Venezuela is that it's created better conditions for workers and peasants to organize and fight. They are doing so, and workers' consciousness in Venezuela has made major improvements.


None of this progress would have been possible without the tactical alliance with the national bourgeoisie of Venezuela.

But is it a tactical alliance? For that, workers would have to be clear that's what it is, nothing more. Workers would need to be organized independently, preferably with their own party concluding whatever alliances with Chavez's. Instead, there's tremendous unclarity - for one example you just said yourself that "you may say that Chavez himself represents the socialist current, and represents the working-class."


Originally posted by [email protected]
It is also important to keep in mind that Chavez has been pushing forward at the pace that the majority of Venezuelans are themselves moving forward.

I gotta disagree with you: Chavez is lagging behind, and working people are dragging him along. For example, peasants have been occupying land and demanding the government grant title to it. The government's sometimes responded, but slowly.


Chicorazon
Not to mention, Chavez has done a fantastic job of moving the entire political spectrum in Venezuela, where what was previously "radical left" is today considered much more moderate.

On this, your approach has more merit than some others, as I indicated above in replying to SoS. Yes, Chavez's government has created better conditions for working people to move forward, including moving past him. For this reason, it's important to defend his government against imperialism and the pro-imperialist opposition - as working people in Venezuela have correctly realized.


Latin American unity will be necessary before the quick, radical change that was able to take place in Russia and China will be feasible in the region

Latin American unity is a fine thing, whether in the form of regional trade blocs or anything else. But as a precondition for revolution? I gotta say that smacks of rationalization...upper and middle-class "socialist" leaders will always come up with some excuse why revolution is impossible now. Tomorrow, you bet! Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today....

And of course there will never be conditions where revolution is easy or without sacrifice....