Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution

[redcannon]

From the BBC:

President [Hugo] Chavez has vowed to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution"
Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months.

Mr Chavez said he wants to approve "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.

He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.

Mr Chavez began his third term in office last week after a landslide election victory in December.

The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval easily in the assembly next week on its second reading.

'Bolivarian revolution'

Venezuela's political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.

Mr Chavez has said he wants to see major Venezuelan power and telecoms companies come under state control.

He also called for an end to foreign ownership of lucrative crude oil refineries in the Orinoco region.

Critics of Mr Chavez say he is trying to build a totalitarian dictatorship with all institutional powers consolidated into his own hands.

National Assembly President Cilia Flores said "there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution".

Mr Chavez has said he wants to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution", named after the 19th Century Latin American independence fighter.




I'm a little confused on this.

[Clarksist]

It is either his final try for socialism, or his rise to "President for life" over the United Soviet Socialist Republics of Venezuela.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:46 am
From the BBC:

President [Hugo] Chavez has vowed to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution"
Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months.

Mr Chavez said he wants to approve "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.

He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.

Mr Chavez began his third term in office last week after a landslide election victory in December.

The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval easily in the assembly next week on its second reading.

'Bolivarian revolution'

Venezuela's political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.

Mr Chavez has said he wants to see major Venezuelan power and telecoms companies come under state control.

He also called for an end to foreign ownership of lucrative crude oil refineries in the Orinoco region.

Critics of Mr Chavez say he is trying to build a totalitarian dictatorship with all institutional powers consolidated into his own hands.

National Assembly President Cilia Flores said "there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution".

Mr Chavez has said he wants to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution", named after the 19th Century Latin American independence fighter.




I'm a little confused on this.
this doesnt sound like any kind of revolution, it sounds more like just what the opposers said, chavez trying to become the totalitarian ruler of venezuela

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

How is he a totalitarian ruler?

The power to rule by decree is somthing many western democratic nations have.

It is a fast and effective way of passing laws, which is neccessary on a continent where coup attempts are common.

What chavez is planning is radical, people are going to be out to get him.

The British media not suprisingly will criticise him.

However, we got to look at the real facts, and understand the complex issues surrounding venezuela.

I may just remind you, chavez has won more democratic elections, referendums, recalls and was even brought back from a coup, please, he is less totalitarian than tony or george, but the BBC article would not ever put it in perspective.

[Louis Pio]

How can you people somehow always manage to to not look at the role of the workingclass in this and repeatingly seing the whole situation as to Chavez personality. Amazes me quite alot...
Chavez in power cause of them, if he don't deliver soon he wont. So let's look at the situations instead of getting caught in the "denounce Chavez" shit, some people seem to think should be the sole parole in Venezuela (which is again the sole reason why they are not present there).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah, Teis is right.

Rule by decree, just so you know, is used in France and Mexico and the USA. Although there its known as an executive order.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:29 am
How is he a totalitarian ruler?

The power to rule by decree is somthing many western democratic nations have.

It is a fast and effective way of passing laws, which is neccessary on a continent where coup attempts are common.

What chavez is planning is radical, people are going to be out to get him.

The British media not suprisingly will criticise him.

However, we got to look at the real facts, and understand the complex issues surrounding venezuela.

I may just remind you, chavez has won more democratic elections, referendums, recalls and was even brought back from a coup, please, he is less totalitarian than tony or george, but the BBC article would not ever put it in perspective.
well I agree with you that he is less totalitarian than blair or that ***** bush but changing how many terms a president can serve and a bill that enables him to create laws sounds a lot like the bullshit patriot act here in the states, even the best of presidents shouldnt serve term after term, that becomes a monarchy and who the fuck needs a president anyway? let the people make the laws, build up defenses etc etc why should chavez get to decide what the laws are? Dont get me wrong I dont mind chavez, I like how he has the balls to speak out against bush and brings up amerikkka's crimes to the UN but this all just sounds fishy

[Louis Pio]

I agree with presidents not serving to many terms.
Then again as I see the situation unfolding that question will soon loose importance.

AHAB, I hope you agree we need to use power against those who wanna take everything back. Like the euscalidos in Venezuela

[Guerrilla22]

Rule by decree, just so you know, is used in France and Mexico and the USA. Although there its known as an executive order.

Thank you for pointing this out, I've been trying to get this point across for some time now. In Venezuela the rule by decree can only be used when approved by congress and is limited in scope, unlike the US.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:52 am
I agree with presidents not serving to many terms.
Then again as I see the situation unfolding that question will soon loose importance.

AHAB, I hope you agree we need to use power against those who wanna take everything back. Like the euscalidos in Venezuela
well I cant say otherwise because I dont know to much about the euscalidos and their politics, but from what I've heard they are rebels fighting the far segregated rich stealing back wealthy resources, correct me if im wrong but that doesnt sound so bad to me....however from what a lot of people in venezuela say they appreciate what chavez is doing, I was simply stating it sounds like bad news, but who knows, chavez hasnt been all evil, he has his flaws, but noones perfect.

[Louis Pio]

Nah the euscalidos the rich people who ruled Venezuela for too long.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:37 am
Nah the euscalidos the rich people who ruled Venezuela for too long.
all right than I had it backwards, if their the rich than fuck them lol but I still cant see how giving a president supreme power can be good, and is it chavez's intention to get rid of the rather large class division? to create equality for everyone? If thats his intention and sole purpose for his action of becoming the primary decision maker than I back him up.

[Louis Pio]

Well that was Chavez says, alot of people here don't believe him, but then agan none of thems really involved in the struggle.
Then again main point is what his base puts in it, and his base are the workers and peasants plus the people from the "unofficial" sector (people who sell various things on the street).
There's a growing movement of factory occupations in Venezuela, an act that in itself puts the questions as to who controls the economy on the agenda. And that movement are forming links with the occupied factories and mines in Brazil and Bolivia.
The actions of the working class is the key, untill now they been supporting Chavez, but of course if he's done nothing in say a year (or more, or less) they will loose patience. But giving my knowlegde of him I don't think so.
Then again a lot of middle class europeans and americans don't like him since his way toward reading the marxists classics are different from theirs. That is, he didn't pick it up in a nice cosy highschool but was introduced during his army years, fighting guerillas. Some people claim he will turn and repress the working class, I don't think so, but that's of course my subjegtive reasoning. I just don't think people should try to act clever and put themselves of as psychics as some members here tend to, that is they claim to know everything that's going on in this or that persons head.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So, if you guys dont like presidents serving too many terms, then arnt you against democracy, because the people should have the option of voting in who they wish.

so far as a representative system is understood as a democracy anyway.



all right than I had it backwards, if their the rich than fuck them lol but I still cant see how giving a president supreme power can be good

He doesnt have supreme power.

not anymore than any western democratic leaders anyway.



If thats his intention and sole purpose for his action of becoming the primary decision maker than I back him up.

While im sure chavez knows what he's on about, i doubt he is the "man in control".

Like all governments, it takes groups of people to work out ideas, plans and strategies.

For a third world country, its very risky business, and the situation is always more complex than it appears.

Its good you back him though. I used to think he was some form of social democrat, but now i think he is genuine socialist.

[Louis Pio]

Its good you back him though.

Of course he should be backed. I ran into a few groups who thought they could go on without backing him, that is they wanted to reap the benefits without "tainting their ivory hands", like the "league for a 5 international" (very small sect I know) or my excomrades in CWI. Lots of other examples I know, point is tactics not static, they should be applied to the situation.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:12 am
Well that was Chavez says, alot of people here don't believe him, but then agan none of thems really involved in the struggle.
Then again main point is what his base puts in it, and his base are the workers and peasants plus the people from the "unofficial" sector (people who sell various things on the street).
There's a growing movement of factory occupations in Venezuela, an act that in itself puts the questions as to who controls the economy on the agenda. And that movement are forming links with the occupied factories and mines in Brazil and Bolivia.
The actions of the working class is the key, untill now they been supporting Chavez, but of course if he's done nothing in say a year (or more, or less) they will loose patience. But giving my knowlegde of him I don't think so.
Then again a lot of middle class europeans and americans don't like him since his way toward reading the marxists classics are different from theirs. That is, he didn't pick it up in a nice cosy highschool but was introduced during his army years, fighting guerillas. Some people claim he will turn and repress the working class, I don't think so, but that's of course my subjegtive reasoning. I just don't think people should try to act clever and put themselves of as psychics as some members here tend to, that is they claim to know everything that's going on in this or that persons head.
Well I can understand better now the reasoning for what he is trying to do but I still dont think that the avenue they are taking is the right one, but then again I am an 18 year old middle class american wh doesnt know much about political and economic strategies and if he really is just trying to end the class struggle thats not an easy task so maybe it is a good thing.



He doesnt have supreme power.

not anymore than any western democratic leaders anyway.

well maybe it was extreme to say supreme power, but if your going to compare his power to that of lets say president asshole bush's power than that still frightens me, because I myself have already been threatened by my own government simply for going to protests, Bush to me is a dictator, maybe not just bush, but his whole cabinet, so saying chavez is a supreme as a western president than thats still a bad thing...




For a third world country, its very risky business, and the situation is always more complex than it appears.

Its good you back him though. I used to think he was some form of social democrat, but now i think he is genuine socialist.

on a seperate subject do you think chavez would support a revolution in another country? like lets say amerikkka? do you think he would send aid to guerillas here if something started?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well maybe it was extreme to say supreme power, but if your going to compare his power to that of lets say president asshole bush's power than that still frightens me, because I myself have already been threatened by my own government simply for going to protests, Bush to me is a dictator, maybe not just bush, but his whole cabinet, so saying chavez is a supreme as a western president than thats still a bad thing...


Thing is, i agree with you.

But, so long as he is subject to recall at any time. And is elected democratically, then he is legit.

Also, having an impotent state official, would be pointless.





on a seperate subject do you think chavez would support a revolution in another country? like lets say amerikkka? do you think he would send aid to guerillas here if something started?

Yes i think he would. If he is indeed a marxist, or further a trotskyist, then he will oppose capitalist america because of its authoritarian class relations. He will oppose the USA for its imperialism too.

So, any movement that sought to bring socialism (or anarchism) to america im sure he would support. any marxist would.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 am

well maybe it was extreme to say supreme power, but if your going to compare his power to that of lets say president asshole bush's power than that still frightens me, because I myself have already been threatened by my own government simply for going to protests, Bush to me is a dictator, maybe not just bush, but his whole cabinet, so saying chavez is a supreme as a western president than thats still a bad thing...


Thing is, i agree with you.

But, so long as he is subject to recall at any time. And is elected democratically, then he is legit.

Also, having an impotent state official, would be pointless.





on a seperate subject do you think chavez would support a revolution in another country? like lets say amerikkka? do you think he would send aid to guerillas here if something started?

Yes i think he would. If he is indeed a marxist, or further a trotskyist, then he will oppose capitalist america because of its authoritarian class relations. He will oppose the USA for its imperialism too.

So, any movement that sought to bring socialism (or anarchism) to america im sure he would support. any marxist would.
well shit I didnt know he could be taken out of power whenever, I thought he had 18 months to do whatever he wanted with the country lol that makes a lot more sense



Yes i think he would. If he is indeed a marxist, or further a trotskyist, then he will oppose capitalist america because of its authoritarian class relations. He will oppose the USA for its imperialism too.

So, any movement that sought to bring socialism (or anarchism) to america im sure he would support. any marxist would.

thats good to know, what about other organizations like modern day black panthers and brown panthers or other more radical organizations, do you think if one group or city started something like lets say robbed a local armory and took control of a city, do you think those other organizations would aid them?

Also does anyone know of any extremist organizations in the US or at least radical ones that are actually working towards a revolution? I know its a bit childish to ask and the topic of 'starting a revolution' often appears on this site by young comrades, but im talking about actual, practical organizations working for change.

[Luís Henrique]

euscalidos

escuálidos.

Better to call them gusanos, though, due to the racial overtones of the word.

Luís Henrique

[dogwoodlover]

I think that the only people that will ever be able to successfully lead the transformation of capitalist society is the proletariat themselves, NOT some charged visionary with political clout.