Is Chavez Rich? [Archive]

grove street

20th February 2007, 11:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:21 am
He was an officer in the army before he was President. So no, your history teacher is full of shit.
This is the only reason why he has an university education in the first place. During the 70's the government handed out free university scholarships to people that would enroll in the military. For the many blacks and indians like Chavez this was their only hope of getting a university education.

Chavez came from a modest/poor background, he is the first non White President in Venezula, a country where white people only make up to 10% of the population, yet own almost 90% of the wealth. Both his parents were teachers, which gave him an educational head start in life, in a country even up until today were illeteracy is very common in black/indian adults.

He was exposed to Marxist views while at university, which greatly influenced him and other soliders from poor backgrounds.

Chavez is a clear example to Bougeroise why it's important to stear underprivilaged people as far away from Marxism as possible and just leave it to coffe shop revolutanaries, who have no real desire or need to rebel and take action.

Demogorgon

20th February 2007, 12:59

When would he have gotten rich? As a colonel in the army we would have been able to live fairly comfortably, but would hardly have been well off.

As President he will receive a reasonable salary on par with senior professionals and won't have to worry too much about money, but at the same time that is still just well off, not fantastically rich. The trapping sof being a head of state naturally mean he will obviously have certain things most people don't (Presidential jet for example) but those things are not his own and he has to have them in order to lead a mdoern government.

So in short, these days, thanks to his presidential salary he will be comfortably well off, but he is by no means rich.

20th February 2007, 17:16

no of course he's not rich. thats just ridiculous. he's a half indigenous half black working class officer in a nation that was ruled by a white oil industry oligarchy.

Marsella

20th February 2007, 17:43

Just because Chavez is championing the cause of the working class and attacking US imperialism doesn't mean he's not rich.

Whilst under Chavez poverty levels have decreased, poverty is still a serious issue:

The poverty index in Venezuela dropped in 2005 to 37 percent of the national population, which totals 26.5 million, President Hugo Chávez announced. Extreme poverty affects 13 percent of all Venezuelans, the president said.
http://www.rprogreso.com/index.php?progres...week=1138341600 (http://www.rprogreso.com/index.php?progreso=Voltairenet&otherweek=1138341600)

The minimum wage is still low (relatively):

Other actions in the social sphere highlighted in the presidential speech are the increase in the minimum wage, which rose in 2005 to 405,000 Bolivares per month (188 dollars per month).

Overall, do you really think that Chavez earns around 188 dollars per month?

Wouldn't it be more likely that he earns 1888 per month or more? (Based on the exchange rate in Australia, I earn the minimum Ven. wage (monthly) in about 19 hours...and I work in Mac Donalds.)

I'm not doing this to attack Chavez but simply denying he is well off is silly. You can be well off and not be a capitalist...

20th February 2007, 17:51

I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.

Coggeh

20th February 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 20, 2007 05:51 pm
I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.
I agree .... Should that matter ?

Marsella

20th February 2007, 18:04

Would it matter if Bill Gates turned commie and led the Communist Party of America? :D I'm only joking.

Honggweilo

20th February 2007, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:04 pm
Would it matter if Bill Gates turned commie and led the Communist Party of America? :D I'm only joking.
That would open "windows" of oppertunity :lol:

Marsella

20th February 2007, 18:15

Vista la revolution!

Oh we're lame :ph34r:

Poum_1936

20th February 2007, 20:02

I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.

Couldnt agree more.

However, there are certain sectarian groups that would jump all over Chavez and point accusing fingers at the slightest chance of linking him with the bourgeois.

I dont particulary see Chavez as the Trotskyist as he claimed, but I definitly wouldnt lump him in with the bourgeois camp.

Clarksist

20th February 2007, 20:21

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 20, 2007 11:51 am
I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.
Suggested reading: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)

Whitten

20th February 2007, 20:25

Originally posted by Clarksist+February 20, 2007 08:21 pm--> (Clarksist @ February 20, 2007 08:21 pm)
Zampanò@February 20, 2007 11:51 am
I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.
Suggested reading: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm) [/b]
Rich=/=Bourgeois

Connolly

20th February 2007, 20:26

Sorry to bring this offcourse.

just have some questions that I need answering.

Where did Chavez get the money for his election campaign?

Whitten

20th February 2007, 20:40

I seem to remember some Spanish bank supposidly sending the Fifth republican party millions of dollars.

grove street

20th February 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by Whitten+February 20, 2007 08:25 pm--> (Whitten @ February 20, 2007 08:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:21 pm

Zampanò@February 20, 2007 11:51 am
I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.
Suggested reading: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)
Rich=/=Bourgeois [/b]
Engels was rich.

Blue Collar Bohemian

21st February 2007, 00:38

You can not be rich and be revolutionary, because being rich is a symptom of Capitalism. If you still have mountains of money, you're still holding on to the capitalist ideals in some way, shape, or form.

black magick hustla

21st February 2007, 04:03

sorry if people found this as an attack

i just thought it was an interesting thing he said and i wanted to verify it.

21st February 2007, 04:40

Wow. Pretty much everyone here misinterpreted what I wrote. Not surprising.

I agree .... Should that matter ?

Would it matter if Bill Gates turned commie and led the Communist Party of America?

Couldnt agree more.

However, there are certain sectarian groups that would jump all over Chavez and point accusing fingers at the slightest chance of linking him with the bourgeois.

I dont particulary see Chavez as the Trotskyist as he claimed, but I definitly wouldnt lump him in with the bourgeois camp.

Suggested reading: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm

To everyone above: you're all idiots.

Whitten got it right. Good job, Whitten. I said that because people are attempting to say "No he's not rich, so he's able to be proletarianized!" That's obviously bullshit. He served as a colonel in the army and now he's a populist politician. I don't know how much more obvious it could be that he's petty-bourgeois, and whether or not he's "rich" is completely irrelevant to his class affiliation.

grove street

21st February 2007, 08:55

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 21, 2007 04:40 am
Wow. Pretty much everyone here misinterpreted what I wrote. Not surprising.

I agree .... Should that matter ?

Would it matter if Bill Gates turned commie and led the Communist Party of America?

Couldnt agree more.

However, there are certain sectarian groups that would jump all over Chavez and point accusing fingers at the slightest chance of linking him with the bourgeois.

I dont particulary see Chavez as the Trotskyist as he claimed, but I definitly wouldnt lump him in with the bourgeois camp.

Suggested reading: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm

To everyone above: you're all idiots.

Whitten got it right. Good job, Whitten. I said that because people are attempting to say "No he's not rich, so he's able to be proletarianized!" That's obviously bullshit. He served as a colonel in the army and now he's a populist politician. I don't know how much more obvious it could be that he's petty-bourgeois, and whether or not he's "rich" is completely irrelevant to his class affiliation.
He was in the army. Big deal. If you knew anything about Venezula you would know that for many years the army was the only way for non-whites from poor backgrounds to get a decent education and job.

Demogorgon

21st February 2007, 13:17

And at any rate, in Venezuala you have to join the army for a year (like in may European countries). If you do that and are for the first time earning reasonable money, you are going to be tempted to stay, aren't you?

21st February 2007, 14:51

He was in the army. Big deal. If you knew anything about Venezula you would know that for many years the army was the only way for non-whites from poor backgrounds to get a decent education and job.

And it's the same in many countries (the US, for example). What's your point? Do you think that this justifies those people joining the army and becoming an appendage of imperialism or of the bourgeoisie in general? Secondly, he was a colonel. That's not some random bottom of the barrel GI; that's a significant position in the hierarchy of the army. In other words, he helped run it.

And at any rate, in Venezuala you have to join the army for a year (like in may European countries). If you do that and are for the first time earning reasonable money, you are going to be tempted to stay, aren't you?

Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that he isn't proletarian. You're just trying to justify the fact that he isn't, which doesn't really matter (and is somewhat odd in my opinion).

Demogorgon

21st February 2007, 16:06

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 21, 2007 02:51 pm
Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that he isn't proletarian. You're just trying to justify the fact that he isn't, which doesn't really matter (and is somewhat odd in my opinion).
I don't care where he comes from. It's what he does now that's important. But come on, do you really think the Venezualan army pays very well? Even to it's officers?

As President he will obviously be well off now. But he is not exactly in the ranks of the rich.

Marsella

21st February 2007, 16:49

He served as a colonel in the army and now he's a populist politician. I don't know how much more obvious it could be that he's petty-bourgeois, and whether or not he's "rich" is completely irrelevant to his class affiliation.

How the fuck could Chavez be petty-bourgeois?

Petty bourgeois: (wiki)

Though the petty bourgeois do buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the bourgeoisie they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.

But your right, he's a populist politician with a brand of social justice. And of course its fucking relevant about his wealth, because you can't claim to be for communism when your profiting off surplus labor. Don't give me that shit about Engels, its completely different because Engels didn't run a country and significant amounts of his money went to revolutionary practice & Marx. Chavez isn't revolutionary. The only thing I like about him is his anti-imperialism.

21st February 2007, 17:22

I don't care where he comes from. It's what he does now that's important.

Quite an anti-materialist position you hold there.

But come on, do you really think the Venezualan army pays very well? Even to it's officers?

Again, that's completely irrelevant.

How the fuck could Chavez be petty-bourgeois?

Originally posted by marxists.org
1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.

This group has been disappearing since the industrial revolution, as large factories or retail outlets can produce and distribute commodities faster, better, and for a cheaper price than the small proprietors. While this class is most abundant in the least industrialized regions of the world, only dwindling remnants remain in more industrialized areas.

These people are the foundation of the capitalist dream (aka “the American dream”): to start a small buisness and expand it into an empire. Much of capitalist growth and development comes from these people, while at the same time capitalism stamps out these people more and more with bigger and better industries that no small proprieter can compete against. Thus for the past few decades in the U.S., petty-bourgeois are given an enourmous variety of incentives, tax breaks, grants, loans, and ways to escape unscathed from a failed business.

2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.

While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Chavez served as a manager in the military. Now he's a manager in a bourgeois state. He's petty-bourgeois.

And of course its fucking relevant about his wealth, because you can't claim to be for communism when your profiting off surplus labor.

Wealth doesn't determine whether or not you do that. ;)

Chavez isn't revolutionary. The only thing I like about him is his anti-imperialism.

He's not anti-imperialist. He's anti-American-imperialism. The only way to be anti-imperialist is to be anti-capitalist because imperialism is a necessary development of capitalism. The only way to get rid of imperialism is to overthrow capitalism. The only way to be "anti-imperialist" is to want to get rid of imperialism. Hence, the only way to be anti-imperialist is to be anti-capitalist.

Marsella

21st February 2007, 17:33

He's not anti-imperialist. He's anti-American-imperialism. The only way to be anti-imperialist is to be anti-capitalist because imperialism is a necessary development of capitalism. The only way to get rid of imperialism is to overthrow capitalism. The only way to be "anti-imperialist" is to want to get rid of imperialism. Hence, the only way to be anti-imperialist is to be anti-capitalist.

Skip the lecture, I already understand how imperialism works. Chavez isn't just anti-American imperialism- what about his remarks on Israel, UK? And I wouldn't say imperialism is a necessary development of capitalism, but it is a development. Various capitalist countries have no record of imperialism (Luxembourg, which I think also has the highest GDP, doesn't have an imperialist past but I'm thinking off the top of my head)

Karl Marx's Camel

21st February 2007, 17:37

Originally posted by Coggy+February 20, 2007 05:59 pm--> (Coggy @ February 20, 2007 05:59 pm)
Zampanò@February 20, 2007 05:51 pm
I don't see how whether or not he's "rich" is relevant.
I agree .... Should that matter ? [/b]
Is this revleft or hippielibs.com?

Leo

21st February 2007, 18:06

To everyone above: you're all idiots.

Thanks to that quote, I am going to spend my entire evening with a grim smile on my face :lol:

As for our friends attached to the Chavez cult;

I don't care where he comes from. It's what he does now that's important. But come on, do you really think the Venezualan army pays very well? Even to it's officers?

Colonels always get paid well and Chavez must have been pretty well fed, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to make a coup. Also, it is important to note that Venezuelan military has a tradition of putting it's own rule, as they ruled Venezuela 1935 and 1958, that's a pretty long time.

Skip the lecture, I already understand how imperialism works.

Doubtful...

Chavez isn't just anti-American imperialism- what about his remarks on Israel, UK?

They are allies of the USA. I haven't heard Chavez say anything bad about China, Russia and Iran, he's also been pretty friendly with some European leaders. Lastly, it is important to note that he has a very special relationship with international oil companies.

And I wouldn't say imperialism is a necessary development of capitalism, but it is a development. Various capitalist countries have no record of imperialism (Luxembourg, which I think also has the highest GDP, doesn't have an imperialist past but I'm thinking off the top of my head)

Imperialism is a world epoch and "national" boundaries have nothing to do with it, contrary to what you seem to be believing in. Of course, by saying that imperialism is a 'choice', you will come to a position where you say Venezuelan (bourgeoisie) is good and American (proletariat) is bad. Just like Chavez, rather than being really anti-imperialist, your position is pro-imperialism.

Real anti-imperialism is defending the interests of all proletarians against all bourgeois factions.

Lenin's Law

21st February 2007, 19:19

Don't give me that shit about Engels, its completely different because Engels didn't run a country and significant amounts of his money went to revolutionary practice & Marx.

Yea...Engels ran a business and came from a upper-middle class background and lived pretty well-off most of his life, how is that better?

As for giving "significant amounts of his money", well, many middle class persons and even upper middle class persons can say the same; that they gave money to revolutionary, left wing, socialist, etc organizations, again, what exactly are you proving here?

And you have no idea where Chavez spends his money, however if you do, please provide the sources and let us know.

I don't see how studying or memorizing by what certain personalities and certain "important" individuals do or don't do in their lives really matters. Chavez is a certain leftist/populist politicians but much more importantly, it has been shown that he can be influenced by the working class majority who support him. Real revolutionaries, instead of being sectarian and doing a background check on "important" people should take the opportunity to support and encourage the working class in Venezuela to look towards socialism and the abolition of capitalism as their goal. It's not about being in love with Chavez as recognizing that the fall of the traditional bourgeois parties has allowed an opening, a potential for much more important revolutionary work among the masses and this is where socialists of all stripes should be focusing on.

And of course its fucking relevant about his wealth, because you can't claim to be for communism when your profiting off surplus labor.

Really? That's exactly what Engels did. To name but one of the many well known communists and socialists who were part of the bourgeoisie.

The Grey Blur

21st February 2007, 20:03

Nice to see all the sectarians missing the point - that the working class (not Chavez) in Venezuala is creating a revolution.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

21st February 2007, 21:05

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 21, 2007 02:51 pm

He was in the army. Big deal. If you knew anything about Venezula you would know that for many years the army was the only way for non-whites from poor backgrounds to get a decent education and job.

And it's the same in many countries (the US, for example). What's your point? Do you think that this justifies those people joining the army and becoming an appendage of imperialism or of the bourgeoisie in general? Secondly, he was a colonel. That's not some random bottom of the barrel GI; that's a significant position in the hierarchy of the army. In other words, he helped run it.

And at any rate, in Venezuala you have to join the army for a year (like in may European countries). If you do that and are for the first time earning reasonable money, you are going to be tempted to stay, aren't you?

Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that he isn't proletarian. You're just trying to justify the fact that he isn't, which doesn't really matter (and is somewhat odd in my opinion).
You seem to be forgetting that there are stark differences between the U.S. and Venezuelan armies. The Venezuelan army is not an offensive force and while it isn't the most benevolent force imaginable, it is certainly moreso than it's North American counterpart. Any comparision between the two lacks any ounce of credibility based on the complete absence of imperalist action on the part of Venezuela. There was a significant left-wing faction in the Venezuelan army as noticeable from the 1992 coup attempt, so I don't see where your criticism lies. I'm sure you wouldn't give the same criticism to somebody who rose out of the ranks of the Soviet Army (a significantly more reactionary force than the Venezuelan army), so what's your point?

Some of you need to stop being so fucking dogmatic. Not every Communist or Socialist in the world is or comes from the Proletariat, GET OVER IT. What's next, are we going to start questioning Atheists who associate with Cathoics or who were born into a Muslim family? We shouldn't alienate people because of this. We can't change the class that we were born into, we can only change the class we choose to represent and serve, and it is fairly obvious that Chavez is doing what he can, given the Capitalist tendency of the rest of the world, to benefit the proletarian and peasant majority of Venezuela. He joined the military, got opportunities to move up, and took them. If you needed money for your family's subsistence, I'm sure you would do the same. Obviously this isn't ideal, but as we see from 1992, Chavez was hardly being a lackey of "the man" in such position.

Comrade Castro

21st February 2007, 21:14

<_< CHAVEZ HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING CLOSE TO RICH! No, in Venezuela a colonel gets paid an extremely low sum, probably less than a waiter at a restaurant in the United States (until recently...now soldiers are getting decent pay.... in Chavez's army days a colonel did not have any power at all and he did not 'run' anything.) In the present day, the only thing he really owns is the old red volkswagen beetle his friends fixed up for him.... using the recently passed laws, he has reduced the salary of government employees to that of anyone else, and is rapidly purging the bureaucrats of the old regime. Unlike the previous presidents my country suffered through, he does not have a mansion, a boat, a plane, an expensive car, or anything of the like. He doesn't even have time for those things..... he is literally working ALL day. He himself has said that the only time he can relax is when he disguises himself to go fishing, to the beach, a movie, etc. And of course it is my people who are making the revolution, but you have to give credit to Chavez for waking us up.....before him no one give a shit about improving their lives. It was all......"I hate my life. Just let me work enough to retire" Complete mental lethargy. No one cared about anythingm, even though we all hated the government. And Chavez's first campaign was not funded at all. He got out of jail and spent 2 years campaigning by travelling around the country, living in the barrios with the poor...sleeping on the floors at night....that's how he got popular enough to win the 1998 elections. The rest is an ongoing story...

Karl Marx's Camel

21st February 2007, 22:15

Interesting information. You are from Venezuela? :)

21st February 2007, 23:17

Nice to see all the sectarians missing the point - that the working class (not Chavez) in Venezuala is creating a revolution.

Maybe on a local level things are changing, but on the national level the bourgeois state apparatus still exists. That's hardly "revolutionary" in communist terms.

You seem to be forgetting that there are stark differences between the U.S. and Venezuelan armies. The Venezuelan army is not an offensive force and while it isn't the most benevolent force imaginable, it is certainly moreso than it's North American counterpart. Any comparision between the two lacks any ounce of credibility based on the complete absence of imperalist action on the part of Venezuela. There was a significant left-wing faction in the Venezuelan army as noticeable from the 1992 coup attempt, so I don't see where your criticism lies. I'm sure you wouldn't give the same criticism to somebody who rose out of the ranks of the Soviet Army (a significantly more reactionary force than the Venezuelan army), so what's your point?

The only thing I was saying was similar between the two armies is that they both are composed of people from "poor backgrounds". Of course, all armies are appendages of the bourgeois state apparatus, regardless of whether or not it's manipulated by imperialism.

Some of you need to stop being so fucking dogmatic. Not every Communist or Socialist in the world is or comes from the Proletariat, GET OVER IT. What's next, are we going to start questioning Atheists who associate with Cathoics or who were born into a Muslim family?

Slippery slope.

We shouldn't alienate people because of this.

Liberal.

We can't change the class that we were born into, we can only change the class we choose to represent and serve, and it is fairly obvious that Chavez is doing what he can, given the Capitalist tendency of the rest of the world, to benefit the proletarian and peasant majority of Venezuela.

You're missing something important here. While you can't change the class you're born into, you can change the class you are in. Of course, you're the type of person that thinks that as long as he "wants to help" his class background doesn't matter. That's probably the most anti-materialist, unmarxist thing to say. Marxism shows us that the superstructure is developed from the infrastructure; namely, that ideology is developed from your position in society. Of course, you deny this. Why aren't you in OI?

He joined the military, got opportunities to move up, and took them. If you needed money for your family's subsistence, I'm sure you would do the same.

And here you're trying to justify the fact that he's petty-bourgeois. Again, completely irrelevant. Read the thread next time before you post.

Comrade Castro

22nd February 2007, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:15 pm
Interesting information. You are from Venezuela? :)
Yes! :D

Louis Pio

22nd February 2007, 16:24

Maybe on a local level things are changing, but on the national level the bourgeois state apparatus still exists. That's hardly "revolutionary" in communist terms.

The point is to look at the social forces at work and the actions of the working class, poor peasants and urban poor.
The people who spend all their time complaining about Chavez is missing the point and are only showing their complete distrust in the working class.

22nd February 2007, 18:12

The point is to look at the social forces at work and the actions of the working class, poor peasants and urban poor.
The people who spend all their time complaining about Chavez is missing the point and are only showing their complete distrust in the working class.

I don't think anyone's complained about Chavez in here. I think that Chavez's "bolivarian revolution" is laying the groundwork for a possible proletarian revolution later. The problem, of course, with this is that Chavez's "bolivarian revolution" isn't creating class consciousness, but mass consciousness, as any populist "revolution" does. So while the act of proletarian revolution itself would be much easier, and could even take the form of being "voted in," chances are that it won't because the working class doesn't see itself as a class in itself, but rather as part of the "oppressed masses"; nor do they see those petty-bourgeois bureaucrats that run the state as a class against their own, for two important reasons:

1. They don't see themselves as a class. This was covered above.
2. Those in power are passing reforms that improve the lives of the working class, and therefore are seen as "allies" or even members of the same group (which is obviously based on ideology and not class). This is also the line taken by those supporting the Venezuelan state in the name of "bolivarian socialism" such as yourself and others worldwide. They believe that the state will bring about "proletarian revolution" through means of reforms, and that the reforms already passed are an indicator that this is what is happening.

Obviously I disagree with this position. I was initially optimistic about what was happening in Venezuela, and believed that it would hopefully become socialist in nature through the process described above. However, over the years since Chavez has been in office, I've lost that hope. Why? Because if he was going to institute any radical changes (to the effect of implementing socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat) he would have done so by now. Hell, the bourgeois state hasn't even been destroyed, but simply slightly altered.