Chavez shuts down Venezuelan TV station

[R_P_A_S]

Obviously we all are caught on with what's going on...Radio-Caracas TV (RCTV) is a private TV station that we all know supported and broadcasted false information during and after the brief coup of President Chavez in 2002.

President Chavez also blames RCTV of constant anti-socialism propaganda and there for he says its information are violating the country's constitution. this among other things.

RCTV is own and funded by the country's elite. obviously ANTI-Chaves to the core. So any more support for Chavez and for his "Bolivarian Revolution" is a threat to them and their live styles.

The media is having a field day with this. saying how its so horrible to close down this TV station. and that he is denying them of Freedom of Speech... There have been people in Venezuela taking to the streets to protest the presidents decision to close down the TV station.

They always there "thousands of supporters" and they show average people yelling and holding signs. So who are these people? and are people really that bent of of shape that they wont see their soap operas no more? or what?

Is this fair do you think? I KNOW IS HARD FOR THE BOURGEOISIE MEDIA to understand this. that when you have a revolution in progress you can't have these kind of people reporting distorted facts and reactionary statements, etc etc.

But is this even a real revolution? should Chavez let them keep their TV station. to keep the press "fair and balanced" is this really necessary? I wonder what most Venezuelan's think.

Im sort of lost on this one. i have mixed feelings. So I would like to get some discussion going.

thanks

[sexyguy]

“...I KNOW IS HARD FOR THE BOURGEOISIE MEDIA... “

Nationalise the station with support of journalists, printers, and distributors unions etc. Give the people, youth, women, unions, peasants, and unemployed workers a chance to run the station. Trash the exclusive “...BOURGEOISIE MEDIA... “ the state should let revolutionary workers take it over the station.
And shut them down as soon as the CIA get involved, again!

[Cheung Mo]

To anyone familiar with the concepts of uneven development, it should not be difficult to discern why certain segements of the Venezuelan proletariat would be siding with reactionaries.

[sexyguy]

To anyone familiar with the concepts of uneven development, it should not be difficult to discern why certain segements of the Venezuelan proletariat would be siding with reactionaries.
This seems a bit harsh comrade.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:05 pm

To anyone familiar with the concepts of uneven development, it should not be difficult to discern why certain segements of the Venezuelan proletariat would be siding with reactionaries.
This seems a bit harsh comrade.
I'm not saying that Venezuelan workers who support a reactionary course are irredeemable counter-revolutionary sinners: I'm simply saying that it is inevitable that not everyone is going to be in a material circumstances where revolution seems desirable or even possible.

[Brekisonphilous]

Ah, so this is what it is like?

The road to authoritarianism.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:23 pm
Ah, so this is what it is like?

The road to authoritarianism.
Will you say this when we shut down Fox as well?

[sexyguy]

Cheung Mo,

Ok, good enough.

Brekisonphilious,


Ah, so this is what it is like?

The road to authoritarianism.

Another riveting egalitarian contribution. Why not let every CIA operatives in the region have their democratic right to destabilise an already perilous situation. Better still give them their own station for “balance” so they can better prepare another mass slaughter provocation. You can go and tell the mothers of the ’ 'disappeared' why it happened and spend the rest of your life whingeing about wadical reform.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh no! Chavez is following the law against the wishes of a TV station that supported an anti-democratic military coup! How dare he actually use his constitutional powers! Doesn't he know that the whims of the bourgeoisie supersede all that "rule of law" and "democracy" nonsense?

[/sarcasm]

[chebol]

To be fair, and to,in fact, be precise, Chavez is not "closing" the station.

He is simply not renewing the licence held by RCTV for the channel, something that he should have done a long time ago, and could have done by law immediately after the coup which they supported took place. But he was on the back-foot then, not sure how to move forward. And he made concessions to the Right.

The problem in Venezuela, which 'left' critics don't seem to get, is that despite the *formal* powers to do various things, the *actual* power to carry them out depends upon the general mobilising power of the working class, something that has historically been relatively weak in Venezuela. And not only general, but *ongoing* mobilisation. This is only really taking off now.

This weakness, combined with the time they (the media) had to regain some "legitimacy" is part of the reason why many Chavistas are a little trepidatious in the confrontation with RCTV, and that gives the opposition hope and confidence.

110% with the non-renewal of the licence!

Viva Venezuela! Rumbo al socialismo!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What chebol said.

It is fine to criticize Chavez, but this is not one of those points I think that can be criticized in any meaningful way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm siding with the majority opinion so far (as of this post), with this business perspective to add:

The BOTTOM LINE is that the blatantly anti-Chavez RCTV can still go to cable. NOTHING is preventing it from doing so. Why aren&#39;t they, though? Though it is true that Venezuela has a struggling cable TV market (bourgeois opinion link here (http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2007/DA_spring_07/Venezuela_07/venezuela_07.html)), isn&#39;t it the job of capitalist businesses to be "innovative" compared to the "bureaucratic" state? <_<

Oh yeah, so much for that myth. :lol:

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The decision to muzzle the pro-imperialist media is correct.

Here in Pakistan, we have seen the ability of media organizations to challenge the policies of the state.

A bourgeois source which attacks a workers&#39; state is by definition reactionary. Hence it is a correct decision to shut them up.

Having said that, I think President Chavez should hand over control of the TV station to students and workers. They will do a better job of criticizing the regime when it does something wrong, and celebrating its achievements when it is doing the right thing.

Long Live socialism&#33;

[metalero]

The Venezuela Govmnt. didn&#39;t renew the license to a media that was sponsoring violence and actually participated in the coup, that fact made them no longer legitimate to hold the permit to acces the radio-electrical sphere of a sovereign nation. But certainly the mass communications are being democratized in Venezuala, as seen in the creation of dozens of community radio and some tv stations run democratically, let alone other hundreds of bourgeois media that keep spiting at the revolutionary process.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Having said that, I think President Chavez should hand over control of the TV station to students and workers. They will do a better job of criticizing the regime when it does something wrong, and celebrating its achievements when it is doing the right thing.

The signal used by the channel is being turned over to a public access channel.

[chebol]

For more on this debate, visit:

Red Squirrel (http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.com/2007/05/venezuela-freedom-what-would-lenin-do.html)

Scoialist Unity Blog (http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2007/05/chavez-defends-revolution.html)

LeftClickBlog (http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-venezuelan-tv-channel-rctv-being.html)

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

We believe that the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcasting licence of RCTV when it expires on May 27 (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23; Comment and Letters, May 25) is legitimate given that RCTV has used its access to the public airwaves to repeatedly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez. RCTV gave vital practical support to the overthrow of Venezuela&#39;s elected government in April 2002 in which at least 13 people were killed. In the 47 hours that the coup plotters held power, they overturned much of Venezuela&#39;s democratic constitution - closing down the elected national assembly, the supreme court and other state institutions.

Article continues
RCTV exhorted the public to take to the streets and overthrow the government and also colluded with the coup by deliberately misrepresenting what was taking place, and then conducting a news blackout. Its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice.

This is not a case of censorship. In Venezuela more than 90% of the media is privately owned and virulently opposed to the Chávez government. RCTV, far from being silenced, is being allowed to continue broadcasting by satellite and cable. In Venezuela, as in Britain, TV stations must adhere to laws and regulations governing what they can broadcast. Imagine the consequences if the BBC or ITV were found to be part of a coup against the government. Venezuela deserves the same consideration.

this was a letter in the guardian today, signed by Tony Benn and John Pilger amongst others... makes sense to me.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

This is not a case of censorship. In Venezuela more than 90% of the media is privately owned and virulently opposed to the Chávez government. RCTV, far from being silenced, is being allowed to continue broadcasting by satellite and cable. In Venezuela, as in Britain, TV stations must adhere to laws and regulations governing what they can broadcast. Imagine the consequences if the BBC or ITV were found to be part of a coup against the government. Venezuela deserves the same consideration.

Precisely.

[sexyguy]

This is not a case of censorship. In Venezuela more than 90% of the media is privately owned and virulently opposed to the Chávez government. RCTV, far from being silenced, is being allowed to continue broadcasting by satellite and cable. In Venezuela, as in Britain, TV stations must adhere to laws and regulations governing what they can broadcast. Imagine the consequences if the BBC or ITV were found to be part of a coup against the government. Venezuela deserves the same consideration.

Rewrite:

This is not a case of censorship, regrettably. In Venezuela more than 90% of the media is privately owned and virulently opposed to the Chávez government. While this is 90% to much, it is hoped that in the near future all broadcasting will fall under the direct control of the working people. Again regrettably, RCTV, far from being silenced, is being allowed to continue broadcasting by satellite and cable. In Venezuela, as in Britain, TV stations must adhere to antiquated and reactionary ‘free enterprise’ laws and regulations governing what they can and cannot broadcast. Imagine the revolutionary consequences if the BBC or ITV were found to be part of a coup against a popular socialist government. Venezuela deserves the same consideration.

[Brekisonphilous]

and what if the imperialist government decided to also outlaw all media challenging the stance of the state, just as you all are encouraging in Venezuela? You could say goodbye to this site&#33;
You don&#39;t like it when the tables are turned, now do you? Only when the stance taken sides with your opinion do you believe it is correct, or the appropriate measure to take. In psychology, this would be called the "confirmation bias" phenomenon.

If Socialist policies are so fragile that they cannot withstand crticism from the media on the right, maybe it doesn&#39;t deserve to survive the political climate at all? Perhaps Venezuela is not even ready, especially if the minds of the working class are so easily persuaded by such trifles as the mainstream media.

[bolshevik butcher]

No, we wouldnt like being shut down but that&#39;s class war and I wouldnt put it past them at somepoint if this site in some way became somekind of threat and mass way of spreading ideas (hey you never know&#33;). The problem is not that this is a right wing station anyway, the main thing is that this television station was used to plan a military coup and was a danger to the revolutionary proccess in Venezuela as a result.

But beyond this, in Venezuela increasingly there are community media projects, community radio and other forms of community media are becoming the communicators of revolutionary ideas. The media does need to be expropriated though, like the rest of the major functions of society in a socialist revolution it needs to be put under the control of the working class.

[sexyguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:35 pm
and what if the imperialist government decided to also outlaw all media challenging the stance of the state, just as you all are encouraging in Venezuela? You could say goodbye to this site&#33;
You don&#39;t like it when the tables are turned, now do you? Only when the stance taken sides with your opinion do you believe it is correct, or the appropriate measure to take. In psychology, this would be called the "confirmation bias" phenomenon.

If Socialist policies are so fragile that they cannot withstand crticism from the media on the right, maybe it doesn&#39;t deserve to survive the political climate at all? Perhaps Venezuela is not even ready, especially if the minds of the working class are so easily persuaded by such trifles as the mainstream media.


But beyond this, in Venezuela increasingly there are community media projects, community radio and other forms of community media are becoming the communicators of revolutionary ideas. The media does need to be expropriated though, like th rest of the major functions of society in a socialist revolution it needs to be put under the control of the working class.



In psychology, this would be called the "confirmation bias" phenomenon.
Viva "confirmation bias" phenomenon.&#33; whatever fucking bourgeois mind control phoney science that is. If we ever we get a chance to “turn the tables” we will put a hammer through them, make no mistake. You must think we are bourgeois democrats. If you want even handedness in the class war, try another planet.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by sexyguy+May 27, 2007 09:24 pm--> (sexyguy @ May 27, 2007 09:24 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 06:35 pm
and what if the imperialist government decided to also outlaw all media challenging the stance of the state, just as you all are encouraging in Venezuela? You could say goodbye to this site&#33;
You don&#39;t like it when the tables are turned, now do you? Only when the stance taken sides with your opinion do you believe it is correct, or the appropriate measure to take. In psychology, this would be called the "confirmation bias" phenomenon.

If Socialist policies are so fragile that they cannot withstand crticism from the media on the right, maybe it doesn&#39;t deserve to survive the political climate at all? Perhaps Venezuela is not even ready, especially if the minds of the working class are so easily persuaded by such trifles as the mainstream media.


But beyond this, in Venezuela increasingly there are community media projects, community radio and other forms of community media are becoming the communicators of revolutionary ideas. The media does need to be expropriated though, like th rest of the major functions of society in a socialist revolution it needs to be put under the control of the working class.



In psychology, this would be called the "confirmation bias" phenomenon.
Viva "confirmation bias" phenomenon.&#33; whatever fucking bourgeois mind control phoney science that is. If we ever we get a chance to “turn the tables” we will put a hammer through them, make no mistake. You must think we are bourgeois democrats. If you want even handedness in the class war, try another planet. [/b]
oh give me a break, you sound almost religiously reactionary, comrade.
Of course I don&#39;t think this is a liberal site, we are beyond the political-socio-economic systems of the state and come together to share our ideas and criticisms, and that is exactly what I am doing. we just saw things a little bit differently on this subject.

However, i wasn&#39;t really taking the military coup into account, I was ignorant of that fact and that is grounds for taking action as it is a threat to the well being of the working class movement and mentality.
In order to be truely socialist, chavez should hold a vote on things like this, or else venezuela is just going to be passed off as another authoritarian dictatorship in the eyes of many people.

"death to communism", they&#39;ll say&#33;

[sexyguy]

Sort yourself out and come back to tell us about “"confirmation bias" phenomenon.”

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This is great news. RCTV SUPPORTED a counter-revolution&#33; a damn coup&#33; RCTV is lucky it lasted this long. The fact that the news is so bias, so reactionary, so unobjective and filled with distortions is however a good enough excuse to turn this station into a public service station, a station where the people have taken charge. I think this might be the first step into the socialist civil war.

[sexyguy]

This is great news. RCTV SUPPORTED a counter-revolution&#33; a damn coup&#33; RCTV is lucky it lasted this long.

Yes, it is ’lucky’ it lasted this long. Lucky like the ‘peaceful coexistence’ crap in Grenada or the final days of the USSR .

When will the communist movement wakes up and stop being so passive, only then it will be able to organise credible leadership and guarantee that the workers (by hand and brain) together with the rural masses, a future without capitalist interference.

Slap hard, the starvation organising, war mongering, genocide promoting, lying reactionary scum.

[R_P_A_S]

damn.. chavez looking like umm. some stalin wannabee. look at the giant self portrait of him at this speech... <_<

Chavez video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUN8o00k9Zc)

[sexyguy]

RPSA,
Thanks for that clip. I can&#39;t read or understand spoken Spanish. wish I could. What was he saying?
If his leadership is crap explain why it is crap. Don&#39;t just go no, like some demagogue hinting, nodding and winking at your complaint, say what it is. Stop expecting socialist perfection from others, join in and help develop it.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:07 am
RPSA,
Thanks for that clip. I can&#39;t read or understand spoken Spanish. wish I could. What was he saying?
If his leadership is crap explain why it is crap. Don&#39;t just go no, like some demagogue hinting, nodding and winking at your complaint, say what it is. Stop expecting socialist perfection from others, join in and help develop it.
must know my stand on chavez. Im just pointing out the giant self portraits of him at that assembly.. yikes.

[sexyguy]

Go fuck yourself and your “stand on chavez“ . Have you got any politics that gets beneath the surface appetence of what is happening?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 am
Go fuck yourself and your “stand on chavez“ . Have you got any politics that gets beneath the surface appetence of what is happening?
go kick rocks. fuck you talking about?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:07 am
RPSA,
Thanks for that clip. I can&#39;t read or understand spoken Spanish. wish I could. What was he saying?
If his leadership is crap explain why it is crap. Don&#39;t just go no, like some demagogue hinting, nodding and winking at your complaint, say what it is. Stop expecting socialist perfection from others, join in and help develop it.
i never said his leader ship was crap. stop making shit up. ALL I WAS FUCKING DOING WAS SHOWING THE VIDEO SO PEOPLE COULD SEE THAT GIANG PICTURE OF HIM SELF. thats it. fuck out of here.

[Rawthentic]

Don&#39;t trip RPAS, Uglyguy has problems.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 28, 2007 02:32 am
Don&#39;t trip RPAS, Uglyguy has problems.
man.. i know.. he reminds me of when i used to get drunk and went around trying to spark political arguments by being obnoxious and at the most inappropriate times.

fuck...mawfakas need to stop jerking off to the manifesto. and kick back for a min.

[Rawthentic]

Hes not gettin&#39; anything out o&#39; da Manifesto, its more like cryto-othrodox Leninism.

[sexyguy]

So what was he saying? To who and why?

[Tommy-K]

Story on the news this morning.

Hugo Chavez has closed down an opposition TV station for &#39;undermining his government&#39; and replaced it with a state-sponsored station. This sparked riots in which protesters were subdued with water cannons and tear gas.

I used to have a lot of respect for Chavez, but is this not a Stalinist curb on people&#39;s rights to free speech?

What are your views?

[Vargha Poralli]

Already discussed Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66715).



I used to have a lot of respect for Chavez, but is this not a Stalinist curb on people&#39;s rights to free speech?

Well this TV station supported the coup against him some 5 years back. Stalin usually didn&#39;t wait to silence the opposition. Chavez waited for 5 years and just didn&#39;t renew the license.



What are your views?

I think he is right in doing this. IMO he should have done it long before given the actions of that station.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:45 am
Already discussed Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66715).



I used to have a lot of respect for Chavez, but is this not a Stalinist curb on people&#39;s rights to free speech?

Well this TV station supported the coup against him some 5 years back. Stalin usually didn&#39;t wait to silence the opposition. Chavez waited for 5 years and just didn&#39;t renew the license.



What are your views?

I think he is right in doing this. IMO he should have done it long before given the actions of that station.
Thanks for the info :)

I didn&#39;t really know too much about the story, only saw the BBC&#39;s spin on it (which obviously made Chavez look like a Stalinist fool) and I myself feel foolish for being &#39;brainwashed&#39; into thinking this may be true by the BBC

Now that I know more about the station that was closed down, I do agree that Chavez was right in his actions.

Thanks again :D

[VukBZ2005]

It was not a riot. Nor it was a bunch of riots. The disturbances were caused by a few protesters who threw rocks, bricks, sticks and stones at the police. The police responded by blasting water cannons at the crowd and some backup came in to assist them in controlling the situation. When I was watching the live stream, it seem like it was the Caracas Metropolitan Police SWAT team that served as the backup. The protesters then shot at four officers at the same spot over two times, which landed the injured officers into the hospital after the police broke up the protests.

On the right-wing media stations (from what I hear), such as Globovision, when the cameramen were obviously showing the audiences at home the protesters who were shooting at the police, the reporters said that no shooting was going on behind them when there was. That, in and of itself, says a lot about the opposition and the need to revoke all of their licenses.

So don&#39;t believe the international media. They are just exaggerating things to make it look like there was some heavy disorder.

[VukBZ2005]

I must also say that I support Chavez&#39;s non-renewal of the RCTV license. Now that piece of shit is off the air, I hope that the new television station that has replaced RCTV (TVes - Venezuelan Social Television) would show programing that is both healthy to the psychological development of the population (especially youngsters) and comprehensive, as to to meet the needs of all age groups.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

RPAS why don&#39;t you answer his question rather than masterdebating with hasta about how dumb sexyguy is or w/e???

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Fight&#045;For&#045;Revolutionary&#045;War&#33;@May 28, 2007 04:18 pm
RPAS why don&#39;t you answer his question rather than masterdebating with hasta about how dumb sexyguy is or w/e???
i am not going to translate the entire video.

[Rawthentic]

Henry, because sexyguy has some obnoxious problems, its so hard to understand what he says and just sounds stupid.

[Comrade Castro]

Just thought I&#39;d give some updates.....

RCTV closed at 12:00 AM, and 15 minutes later, the new government station Tves came up. It will now replace that garbage right-wing shithole with some quality programming, independent producers, history, science, etc. :D

The kind of disinformation that RCTV and friends (Globovision, CNN, Venevision, etc.) carry out was all too evident last night. RCTV pretty much made a bunch of ill-disguised calls for rebellion. Around 9:00 PM, Globovision showed the police dispersing the march with water cannons. They did not mention that 11 unarmed policemen had been shot already. Later, some guys on motocycles did a drive-by on the police and thats when they put on body armor and took out their 9mm&#39;s. Interesting how they showed only the armed police evacuating people (they called "dispersing the demonstrators") and only made passing reference to the wounded officers once or twice. CNN en Espanol showed a march in Cancun, Mexico and claimed it was a protest in Caracas&#33; Globovision even more pathetically showed cut scenes from a gathering to see the Pope some years ago, since everyone was wearing white like the rightwingers in Venezuela do&#33; :wacko:

The attacks on the police were the only incidents of violence last night, though of course in Miami the radio stations hosted by self-exiled millionaires reported a civil war&#33; The shooters were probably inspired by the fascist website ruedalo.org, who behind their facade of "nonviolent resistance" have a rather lengthy plan for a violent civil war right on their site. These disgusting constant lies have many otherwise good people on the side of the fascists. That is why RCTV had to be shut down, and I can&#39;t wait until they take down Globovision, which is far worse than RCTV.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:40 am
damn.. chavez looking like umm. some stalin wannabee. look at the giant self portrait of him at this speech... <_<

Chavez video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUN8o00k9Zc)
I doubt Chavez had any say in the design of that stage or the portrait of him being used, he is a popular man though.

Once he starts renaming cities after himself and murdering fellow revolutionaries we can compare him to Stalin.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:24 am
So what was he saying? To who and why?
He is talking to students, and he is explaining to them a US Senate resolution and an EU Parliament motion condemning the cancelling of RCTV&#39;s concession. There isn&#39;t really too much political content to it, except, telling the US government that they should be concerned about human rights violations in America and Iraq, citing numbers to show that the European resolution was taken by a small number of representatives, characterizing the European Popular party as "the European far-right, allied to Venezolan far-right, and obeying orders from the American far-right", and finally thanking representatives from the Socialist block, the Green parties and European Unified Left for not cooperating with the right-wingers.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Thanks for the synopsis, Luís.

[sexyguy]

Ye, thanks for that. Sounds as though he was exposing and countering any further international escalation of the provocation. Seems like a healthy response.

[BreadBros]

The coverage on Univision here in the States is so biased it&#39;s absurd. Practically no mention of RCTV&#39;s obvious anti-Chavez bias. No mention of RCTV&#39;s news blackout during the anti-Chavez coup. Little mention of the fact that the frequency will still be on the air as a public-service station. Sadly, a great deal of people with no access to the internet or the inability to hear slightly less-biased English-language news are probably swallowing this junk "news" hook, line and sinker.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:47 am
The coverage on Univision here in the States is so biased it&#39;s absurd. Practically no mention of RCTV&#39;s obvious anti-Chavez bias. No mention of RCTV&#39;s news blackout during the anti-Chavez coup. Little mention of the fact that the frequency will still be on the air as a public-service station. Sadly, a great deal of people with no access to the internet or the inability to hear slightly less-biased English-language news are probably swallowing this junk "news" hook, line and sinker.
FOR FUCK SAKE&#33; I&#39;m here watching TV AZTECA-America and its so fucking biased...
they are making it seem like Venezuela is headed towards a brutal dictatorship.
Its pissing me off. how fucking unbalanced the report is. it just makes me sick. Im sitting here watching this shit. the anchor is a fucking tool and he is misleading so many people.

FOR THE FIRST TIME. ITS CLEAR.... ITS CLEAR WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN TELLING ME FOR A YEAR. ABOUT THE BOURGEOISIE MEDIA... AND HOW THEY MANIPULATE AND TWIST THE TRUTH. I SAW IT TO DAY FOR THE 1ST TIME WITH MY OWN EYE.. BUT VERY VERY OBVIOUS.

its scary how people watch this shit.. and believe it.

THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT WHY RCTV IS BEING CLOSE NOTHING. JUST HOW WRONG IT IS.

im sorry im just too pissed.

[VukBZ2005]

The Society of the Spectacle makes people think that way because it needs them to think that way. If people learned the truth of what is going on in places like Venezuela, trust me, you would see them become more and more sympathetic towards our ideas, because it is the action of people like us that are accelerating the threat of the end of Capitalism. This is the reason why they are going out of their way to distort Venezuela&#39;s situation.

[The Author]

Looks like this made it to the front page of Yahoo:


Venezuelans protest as TV station shuts

By FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Associated Press Writer 52 minutes ago

Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas&#39; Plaza Brion chanting "freedom&#33;" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

It was the largest of several protests that broke out across Caracas hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight Sunday and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV&#39;s broadcast license, accusing it of "subversive" activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

Interior Minister Pedro Carreno told state-run television that four students were wounded by gunfire during a pro-RCTV protest staged near a university in the city of Valencia, located 150 kilometers (93 miles) west of Caracas. It was not immediately clear who the assailants were or if they were arrested.

At least three protesters and one police officer were injured in the Caracas skirmishes. Some protesters were seen in television footage hurling spent tear gas canisters back at police.

Office workers poured out of buildings to join student protesters, while organizers called for the demonstration to remain peaceful. RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez led the crowd in chants of, "They will not silence us&#33;"

Separately, Information Minister Willian Lara accused the private Globovision TV channel of encouraging an attempt on Chavez&#39;s life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune — "Have faith, this doesn&#39;t end here" — along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in St. Peter&#39;s Square.

"They incite the assassination of Venezuela&#39;s president," he said.

Globovision director Alberto Federico Ravell denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations "ridiculous." He also accused U.S. network CNN of coverage biased against Chavez.

The new public channel, TVES, launched its transmissions early Monday with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, "Now Venezuela belongs to everyone."

Thousands of government supporters reveled in the streets as they watched the midnight changeover on large TV screens, seeing RCTV&#39;s signal go black and then be replaced by a TVES logo. Others launched fireworks and danced in the streets.

Inside the studios of RCTV — the sole opposition-aligned TV station with nationwide reach — disheartened actors and comedians wept and embraced in the final minutes on the air.

Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network&#39;s signal over to public use.

The socialist president accused the network of helping to incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and "poisoning" Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism. RCTV&#39;s managers deny wrongdoing.

Founded in 1953, RCTV was the nation&#39;s oldest private channel and regularly topped viewer ratings with its talk shows, sports, soap operas and comedy programs.

Some protesters on Monday blocked roads with rocks and burning trash, saying they fear for the future of free speech. Police used tear gas to break up at least two protests, and were seen handcuffing and detaining one man.

The group Reporters Without Borders called for international condemnation of the RCTV decision as "a major setback to democracy and pluralism."

Robert Menard, the Paris-based group&#39;s secretary-general, called the measure Chavez&#39;s "first serious international political error."

Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, officially declared its concern that Venezuela let RCTV&#39;s license expire "without holding an open competition for the successor license."

[VukBZ2005]

More distorted news.. *sighs*

[Janus]

Merged.

[Luís Henrique]

Judging from that video... if he is a dictator, he is a dictator with a sence of humour. Would he be the first? As far as I know, dictators use to be grumpy guys.

Luís Henrique

[Coggeh]

Should have been shut down a long time ago in my view .

Also a note on Chavez saw a video of him on Al jazzera pedaling alot of anti-bush stuff (which as one would and should) but he seems to be standing by types like Iran and Robert Mugabe , just going in for the sake of being anti-bush its damn right ridiculous now i stand by all that Chavez has done in nationalization and the like but siding with the mullahs of Iran and freedom violator Mugabe is stupid , he should be doing more to promote socialism and religious rhetoric.

[anomee]

Just going to jump in with this:

I believe this unrest in Venezuela has been fomented by operatives under the instructions of the Bush administration of US.

Bush himself has this little thing called Plausible Deniability so -- theoretically -- he can never be blamed for any wrong-doing.

Now Chavez is and has been a thorn in the Bush administration&#39;s side, especially in their drive to takeover the world one country at a time.

Let me say here that not all Americans are like Bush and the right-wing fascists running the US government at this time.

Seriously, this is how the wealthy corporate interests in concert with the government they own -- for all intents and purposes -- do it: They send agents into the target country and get the people worked up little by little, until they tip the government of the target country over -- the people thinking they will get something better, and then comes the big surprise, that they are not going to get anything better and that they could end up with a "K-hole" mess like Iraq.

If anybody here is living in Venezuela, the best thing they could do is get the protesters against Chavez to settle down and work with Chavez, if at all possible.

In actuality, Chavez should have allowed the owners of the station to keep it an keep broadcasting their BS and just have the pro-Chavez stations show what the actual truth was at the same place and point in time -- if for no other reason than keeping a good perception.

Of course -- with regard to the opposition station -- every foot in the door is wedge, and enough wedges in the door are a door-breaker and when the door breaks, anybody including mob of enemies can get in.

In the US, working with "conservative" right-wingers inside the US, Rupert Murdoch has been able to buy up most of the major media outlets in the US and is largely helping control US politics with puppet-strings from Australia or wherever he is located at any moment.

The danger of even the one station pumping the lies on the dark side, is that little by little -- especially with outside help -- the others fall to the opposition one by one and then you have a really bad situation.

One sad thing is that people seem willing to do anything for money, including betraying their own country, and family.

The protestors in Venezuela are probably being paid by outside interests -- US / Pentagon / CIA operatives -- cannot say for sure -- but there are skilled hands working in all of this.

If anyone here can influence the protesters or get word to them that they are being used and their lives will not be better for what they are doing.

Of all the world leaders at this point, Chavez has been pretty good to his people.

I see that some individuals in here would like to see a world without government, but for now, you have to work with what you have -- to keep your skins if nothing else -- you know?

[sexyguy]

Good thinking&#33;

[RedHal]

So this is the station that was feautured in the documentary "Revolution will not be televised" right? Those muthaphukaz should&#39;ve been off the air long time ago&#33; THey were a willing participant of the &#39;02 coup attempt, they were&#39;nt just another one of the many privately owned stations criticizing Chavez.

As for the comment about, what if it was turned around and this site was shut down. Right now this site is small scale and not a threat to the ruling class. THere are a million times more users on gaming sites than this site. If this site actally becomes a threat you can be sure his site will have major problems from the state. You have way too much faith in this "freedom of speach" that the bourgeous loves to spew every second.

[Jae iLL]

so the people in the streets protesting this move who are being gassed and shot at with rubber bullets, what does everyone have to say about that? Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting. I think everyone agrees that that RCTV shouldn&#39;t have had their license renewed, but what&#39;s everyone&#39;s opinions on the protestors and the reaction by the police?

[sexyguy]

Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting.

Their were plenty of “regular people” protesting at Nuremberg. Doesn’t make them right.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Jae [email protected] 30, 2007 04:16 am
so the people in the streets protesting this move who are being gassed and shot at with rubber bullets, what does everyone have to say about that? Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting. I think everyone agrees that that RCTV shouldn&#39;t have had their license renewed, but what&#39;s everyone&#39;s opinions on the protestors and the reaction by the police?
I can&#39;t fucking believe im defending the cops LOL> but did you hear about the 9 un armed police officers that where shot at?

did you see the thousands of Chavez supporters who were also there, cheering the license revoked of this station.????

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://64.191.57.43/news.php?newsno=2313

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Venezuela, RCTV, And Media Freedom: Just The Facts, Please
By: James Jordan

Lessons In Curtailing Media Freedom

There are a number of ways to curtail press freedom. You can charge a journalist with murder and put him on death row-Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. You can grant special favors, privileges, and access to corporate media giants while raiding and shutting down low-power, independent radio stations, which the FCC does with some regularity. You could arrest independent journalists at anti-war demonstrations-again, a regular occurrence. For instance, I recall my friend and Indy journalist, Jeff Imig, who has been repeatedly threatened with arrest, while recording anti-war demonstrations in Tucson, Arizona, for violating the statute against filming federal buildings. Jeff finally got arrested-for jaywalking&#33; Corporate press, on the other hand, seems to have free reign to jaywalk and film federal buildings at these same events-behavior I and countless others have witnessed&#33;

And then there is the Mother of All Media Manipulations: the blackout engineered by the Bush administration which blocks media from showing the arrival of body bags and coffins of newly dead soldiers "coming home" from Iraq.

Those are some pretty good ways of curtailing freedom of speech. And they&#39;re each and everyone home grown right here in the good ol&#39; United States of America.

So what&#39;s the deal with Venezuela, anyway?

So, pardon me if I&#39;m just a little astounded by all this noise in the media, the Bush administration, the Senate and the House, about how Venezuela is "attacking" free speech and independent media by not renewing the broadcasting license of RCTV. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this ridiculous assertion is being repeated even among some persons on the Left.

Just last week the Senate passed a condemnation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez&#39; refusal to renew the license. Senate Resolution 211 was sponsored by Richard Lugar, (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), with vocal, and disappointing, support from presidential contenders Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barak Obama (D-IL). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) has introduced similar legislation into the House. Puerto Rico&#39;s delegate to the House, Republican Luis Fortuno has outspokenly supported this legislation, which is surprising, considering his complete lack of action or outcry when the FBI was harassing Puerto Rican journalists in 2006.

Anyway, who says bipartisanship is dead?

Joining in these condemnations are a whole host of so-called "press freedom" advocates, lead by the National Endowment for Democracy funded Reporters Without Borders. One would think that the iron hand has fallen and the crackdown has begun in Venezuela.

The facts, please?

Corporate media seems to regularly forget that along with freedom of press is the responsibility of presenting facts to back up their news reporting. Well, dear reader, you are in for a rare treat-a discussion of some actual facts.

The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela&#39;s electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.

Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country&#39;s social and economic stability.

What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn&#39;t be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is.you don&#39;t get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems.

When RCTV&#39;s broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV&#39;s participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV&#39;s problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.

Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target.

What, then, are the facts behind the charges made by the Chavez administration?

On the morning of April 11th, 2002, the first day of the coup, the anti-Bolivarian opposition had started a march from the headquarters of the state owned oil company. Across town, supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution were gathered outside the presidential palace. Breaking with its previously announced plan, the opposition changed directions and headed to the presidential palace, greatly increasing the chances of a violent confrontation between the two opposing sides.

During the midst of this confusion, shots rang out from the rooftops, where snipers were firing on both crowds, resulting in the deaths of 18 persons, with 150 wounded. Reports on the opposition&#39;s four largest TV stations indicated the violence was the result of pro-Bolivarian gunmen, and this became the immediate catalyst "justifying" the coup.

However, the testimony of eyewitnesses and videos taken from other angles show that a much different scenario was actually taking place. The following transcript is excerpted from the video documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was produced for television in Ireland. It sheds important light on the sequence of events. Note particularly the quotation included from RCTV News Correspondent, Andre Cesara.

NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups. [shouting]

NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started. [sirens]

NARRATOR: We couldn&#39;t tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head. [gunshots]

NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.

WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.

ANDRE CESARA, RCTV journalist (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below.

NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn&#39;t broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.

There is no doubt, and no dispute, that RCTV and the three other largest corporate television stations (Globovision, Venevision, and Televen) aided and abetted the ensuing coup throughout the three day period it was being carried out. They knowingly broadcast false and manipulated information, including the lies that Bolivarian supporters instigated violence against demonstrators, and that Pres. Chavez, as a result, had willingly resigned and left the country. Pres. Chavez had not resigned. He had been kidnapped and was being held prisoner by traitors within the Venezuelan military.

During all this, RCTV hosted coup plotters, including co-leader Carlos Ortega of the corrupt and US government supported labor union, the CTV, and had broadcast Ortega&#39;s appeal rallying demonstrators to march on the presidential palace.

RCTV and its partners undertook a complete blackout on reporting any news relating to the more than a million citizens who had taken to the street and surrounded the presidential palace in defense of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Rather than broadcasting this news, RCTV treated its viewers to reruns of Tom and Jerry cartoons and the movie Pretty Woman. Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez spoke for all his fellow coup plotters when told a Venevision reporter, "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." His congratulations were premature, however, as multitudes of people in the street, with the aid of truly independent, community based media and patriots within the Venezuelan military were able to defeat this coup without firing a shot, returning Pres. Chavez to his rightful office on April 13, 2002.

On the Job at RCTV-Eyewitness, Andres Izarra Speaks

If any doubts remain as to RCTV&#39;s complicity in this coup, the voice of one of its own producers should lay them all to rest. Andres Izarra had worked as the assignment editor in charge of Latin America for CNN before being hired by RCTV as news production manager for Venezuela&#39;s highest ranked newscast, El Observador. Izarra says, quite clearly, "We were told no pro-Chavez material was to be screened". Later, RCTV officials would maintain that they could not film pro-Bolivarian demonstrations for security reasons. Even if that were true, Izarra notes, footage of these demonstrations was available from sources such as CNN. RCTV also continued broadcasting reports that President Chavez had willfully resigned and left the country, even though Izarra notes that they were receiving news to the contrary, and that Mexico, Argentina, and France had all issued statements condemning the coup and refusing to recognize the new government. Conversely, the United States welcomed this illegal government.

Izarra says the last straw came for him when, "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chavistas.[but] the information blackout stood. That&#39;s when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave". Asked what he thought the response should be to this level of disinformation, Izarra replied, "I think their licenses should be revoked". Having had enough of corporate media&#39;s complicity in blocking news reportage, Izarra now serves as head of Telesur, the joint news channel broadcast by the nations of Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba.

As Patrick McElwee, of Just Foreign Policy, points out: "It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chavez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Despite their participation in the coup, the Chavez administration entered into repeated negotiations with RCTV and its partners, Venevision, Globovision, and Television to make sure that such crass manipulation of the news would not occur again, and about other infractions. RCTV refused to reach any agreements.

Despite the nonrenewal of its broadcasting license, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be available to RCTV; moreover they will continue to broadcast through their two radio stations in Venezuela. The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. TVes also hopes to reach into some of the most remote areas of the nation, not covered before by RCTV.

The coup government and media freedom-an alternative?

There is, indeed, an example that shows a real alternative to how Pres. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement deals with freedom of the media and freedom of speech. The two-day coup government of Pedro Carmona revealed that alternative.

But, first, let&#39;s quickly review the general state of media freedom in Venezuela under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. Shortly after Chavez became president, media law was reformed so that it became legal for anyone who could broadcast to do so. In the United States, many fans of underground and independent radio speak fondly of "pirate" radio-low powered, but illegal stations broadcast from small, "renegade" transmitters. There are no "pirate" radio stations in Venezuela, because such stations are legal. Rather, there is a significant Community Media movement-community based and non-profit media production centers run locally by community volunteers.

Corporate and opposition media also have great freedom in Venezuela. In fact, the radio and television airwaves, and the print media as well, continue to be dominated by corporations which support the opposition. There is no shortage of negative opinions and portrayals of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution-in fact, these remain the standard among the for-profit news and entertainment industry. This concept is strange to those of us in the United States, where official party lines and major news sources are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

But while corporate and community media both retain enormous freedoms in Venezuela, the April 11-13th, 2002 coup, and the two day coup government, provide a much different example. Once interloper Pedro Carmona had declared himself President of Venezuela, among the very first actions taken by the coup government involved the suppression of Venezuela&#39;s non-corporate media. Police troops answering to Carmona raided and shut down Channel 8, the government TV station. They ordered the Catholic Church&#39;s Radio Fe y Alegria to play only music and not report national events, lest they also be shut down. Carmona&#39;s raiders also hit a number of Community Media centers, closing down, among others, TV Caricua, Catia TV, and Radio Perola. Fortunately, reporters from Catia TV and Radio Perola were able to escape and recapture their transmitters. Because of this, they were able to provide mobile broadcasts to the people of Venezuela of the news that RCTV and its partners were blacking out.

Another action taken by the Carmona government was to release the persons who had been arrested in connection with the sniper attacks that instigated the coup. Instead, coup forces arrested independent journalist Nicolas Rivera and accused him of participating in these attacks. The only weapon Rivera had had with him during these demonstrations was a tape recorder-obviously considered a threat by coup plotters. Rivera was freed after the two-day coup was defeated and democratic government was reestablished. However, the scars of his detention remained, with his face disfigured by the torture he had endured while incarcerated. Rivera&#39;s wife said that the forces that raided their home planted a sack of bullets on Rivera, beat both of them, and threatened to kill their children. Yet despite these attacks and threats to this journalist and his family, not one, single international organization in "defense" of press freedoms spoke out on behalf of Rivera. Perhaps it was in this case that Reporters Without Borders found its border.

Also silent about these attacks on freedom of speech and press were both houses of the US Congress, both parties, the Bush administration..no, there was no resolution of any kind condemning the attacks by the coup government on these freedoms. Could that be because coup leaders were funded by Congress, via USAID and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, and were aided, abetted, and advised by the Bush Administration, the State Department, and the US military? Just maybe these factors were an influence.

Again: the Facts

While Representatives and Senators weep bipartisan crocodile tears about supposed threats to media rights in Venezuela; while US and Venezuelan corporate press crow about the "unfair" targeting of RCTV; while even some segments of the US Left express "concern" about press freedoms in Venezuela; an examination of the facts leads one to this clear conclusion: these folks are full of a substance that emanates from the hind end of a male bovine.

Fact: not renewing the broadcasting license of coup plotters, lawbreakers, and liars like RCTV is the kind of thing it takes to defend Venezuela and make it the haven of free speech, free media, and participatory democracy that it is today.

[anomee]

so the people in the streets protesting this move who are being gassed and shot at with rubber bullets, what does everyone have to say about that? Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting. I think everyone agrees that that RCTV shouldn&#39;t have had their license renewed, but what&#39;s everyone&#39;s opinions on the protestors and the reaction by the police?

This type of crowd control is nothing the Right-Wing administrations of US have not done to protesting college students and other protestors, except back during Kent State, the police used real bullets.

I&#39;m not justifying any kind of force against PEACEFUL protestors, but for the ones who are not peaceful, rubber bullets sting and bruise but they don&#39;t kill.

Recently during Hispanic protests in the US, the police used batons, tear gas and rubber bullets and then later apologized to the members of the news media who got injured by them... for what that was worth one way or the other...

But here&#39;s something I noticed about one of the still images from the protests in Venezuela, and that was a young man in a gas mask throwing rocks at the police... and I wondered where someone as poor as the citizen protestors were supposed to be, that at least one of them managed to scrape together the money to buy a gas mask which one cannot get for less than &#036;50.00 old and used by the Israeli army on eBay?&#33;

I still say someone from the outside is helping fund and fuel the upheaval.

BTW thank you to Companero De Libertad for the video links and the informative posts.

[sexyguy]

Could everyone just step back and see this in its entire geopolitical context, and not keep banging on about the ‘minutia’ as important as it all is.

[Herman]

I&#39;m glad that station got closed. Still, Chavez needs to be careful from now on. One small step in the wrong direction can get him killed politically.

[anomee]

Not sure what you are calling minutia, sg, but this clip, despite the fact it is from CNN, and CNN is being frowned on -- though it is one of the least affected by the right-wing take over of US media -- still manages to give a picture of some of the geopolitical context:

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/1FxzKlsFreqy4dazf

You realize that the Bush family and the Cheneys and Rumsfelds have purchased a least 300,000 acres in Paraguay on South America&#39;s biggest aquifer -- one of the biggest in the world -- near a military air base that was built there 20 some odd years ago and still in pristine condition and too big for Paraguay&#39;s air force and planes -- and that Venezuela is connected to Paraguay through an oil deal they made in 2004 -- and that the two nations are part of a group that refused to allow their extradition policies to be manipulated by the threat of financial aid withdrawal by the US in 2005.

The bigger context is that one by one the fascist entities within the US government under the Bush administration are going to go after any country that stands in the way of their larger global ambitions and no detail is too small to ignore.

If the people within the countries they are after -- for their resources including not only oil but water and other useable resources -- if the people in those countries do not band together to work as a unit and stop it, they will end up like the Sunnis & Shia in Iraq, fighting and killing each other while being killed by US forces.

People need to get their head out of their posterior anatomies, or they will end up being enslaved and without hope of anything remotely resembling freedom in the future.

[Jae iLL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:59 pm

so the people in the streets protesting this move who are being gassed and shot at with rubber bullets, what does everyone have to say about that? Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting. I think everyone agrees that that RCTV shouldn&#39;t have had their license renewed, but what&#39;s everyone&#39;s opinions on the protestors and the reaction by the police?

This type of crowd control is nothing the Right-Wing administrations of US have not done to protesting college students and other protestors, except back during Kent State, the police used real bullets.

I&#39;m not justifying any kind of force against PEACEFUL protestors, but for the ones who are not peaceful, rubber bullets sting and bruise but they don&#39;t kill.

Recently during Hispanic protests in the US, the police used batons, tear gas and rubber bullets and then later apologized to the members of the news media who got injured by them... for what that was worth one way or the other...

But here&#39;s something I noticed about one of the still images from the protests in Venezuela, and that was a young man in a gas mask throwing rocks at the police... and I wondered where someone as poor as the citizen protestors were supposed to be, that at least one of them managed to scrape together the money to buy a gas mask which one cannot get for less than &#036;50.00 old and used by the Israeli army on eBay?&#33;

I still say someone from the outside is helping fund and fuel the upheaval.

BTW thank you to Companero De Libertad for the video links and the informative posts.
Im not saying I oppose RCTV&#39;s not getting their license renewed or the actions of the police against the violent protestors. Im just curious why so many Venezuelans are against the non-renewal of RCTVs license.

I would imagine that they know the reasons behind Chavez&#39;s decision, and that it was a decision made within the scope of his rights as president. I&#39;m just still wondering why so many Venezuelans oppose it, enough to attack the police.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Jae iLL+May 31, 2007 05:45 am--> (Jae iLL @ May 31, 2007 05:45 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 07:59 pm

so the people in the streets protesting this move who are being gassed and shot at with rubber bullets, what does everyone have to say about that? Im just curious, as far as I know Chavez is popular with the Venezuelans, but I saw regular people in those clips protesting. I think everyone agrees that that RCTV shouldn&#39;t have had their license renewed, but what&#39;s everyone&#39;s opinions on the protestors and the reaction by the police?

This type of crowd control is nothing the Right-Wing administrations of US have not done to protesting college students and other protestors, except back during Kent State, the police used real bullets.

I&#39;m not justifying any kind of force against PEACEFUL protestors, but for the ones who are not peaceful, rubber bullets sting and bruise but they don&#39;t kill.

Recently during Hispanic protests in the US, the police used batons, tear gas and rubber bullets and then later apologized to the members of the news media who got injured by them... for what that was worth one way or the other...

But here&#39;s something I noticed about one of the still images from the protests in Venezuela, and that was a young man in a gas mask throwing rocks at the police... and I wondered where someone as poor as the citizen protestors were supposed to be, that at least one of them managed to scrape together the money to buy a gas mask which one cannot get for less than &#036;50.00 old and used by the Israeli army on eBay?&#33;

I still say someone from the outside is helping fund and fuel the upheaval.

BTW thank you to Companero De Libertad for the video links and the informative posts.
Im not saying I oppose RCTV&#39;s not getting their license renewed or the actions of the police against the violent protestors. Im just curious why so many Venezuelans are against the non-renewal of RCTVs license.

I would imagine that they know the reasons behind Chavez&#39;s decision, and that it was a decision made within the scope of his rights as president. I&#39;m just still wondering why so many Venezuelans oppose it, enough to attack the police. [/b]
whats sooo many Venezuelans to you?

"100"?
"1000"?

[Jae iLL]

I think in the thousands is considerable, although there are many supporting his moves, Im just wondering why there are many against it. Perhaps there&#39;s outside factors making it look like "everyday people" are protesting this move, perhaps these people actually think Chavez is attacking their freedom to information, I don&#39;t know. Im just curious why there&#39;s people who oppose it so strongly that they&#39;d take to the streets and attack the police.

[anomee]

I think in the thousands is considerable, although there are many supporting his moves, Im just wondering why there are many against it. Perhaps there&#39;s outside factors making it look like "everyday people" are protesting this move, perhaps these people actually think Chavez is attacking their freedom to information, I don&#39;t know. Im just curious why there&#39;s people who oppose it so strongly that they&#39;d take to the streets and attack the police.

You answered your own question Jae iLL when you said: "Perhaps there&#39;s outside factors making it look like &#39;everyday people&#39; are protesting this move"

And it wasn&#39;t thousands, it was at most a couple of hundred -- if that -- photo-ed from all different angels to bulk up the look of the numbers.

When you are desperately poor a few bucks to show up and protest look pretty good.

And not only foreign oil interests -- foreign to Venezuela, ie -- are willing to pay, so are the news organizations who get the benefits all the way around including getting their cut from those same interests.

But in the long run those dupes lose just like everybody else in that country who fell for it, and unwittingly sold out their country and leader for a little money.

To keep from playing into the hands of outside interests hypocritically claiming that Chavez is abridging freedom of speech, he should probably have just renewed their license and let them spew.

[bolshevik butcher]

Were they all everyday working people anyway. They were likely from the welathy areas of Caracass. The same people that regularly have rallies to protests against anything done by the Bolivarian movement. They are so terrified and reactionary it&#39;s funny at times. For instance on the film the revolution will not be televised there&#39;s a scene in which during an anti-bolivarian meeting one of the men gets up and warns the crowd that they need to be prepaired incase their servants attack them.

Also I see that these reports don&#39;t seem to mention that there was a march in favour of the decision to shut down the station.

[Herman]

I believe our curious poster refers to the statistical evidence provided by some organization called Datanalisis which states that 70% of Venezuelans oppose the move done by Chavez.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_ame...000/6598159.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_6598000/6598159.stm)

However, the director of Datanalisis is very wealthy and is part of the wealthy elite in Venezuela. The Los Angeles Times said as much.

[cubist]

not at all surprised, this will continue to happen all the way round the world, The internet has freed the media a bit

with things like undercurrents.TV (Mark Thomas has alot to do with this for the brits in here)

It is true that if the truth was shown there would be more sympathizers for the cause.
part of the capitalist machine is the media,
Originally posted by 1984
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. &#39;Who controls the past&#39; ran the Party slogan, &#39;controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.&#39;"

i know we are getting way past 1984 but controlling the media is very well explained in there for those who haven&#39;t read it/seen it if your lazy

[YSR]

Cubist, you are totally misinterpreting 1984 by attempting to apply it to the capitalist media. It was written against the state. I think, actually, that another George Orwell quote might be more relevant here:


Originally posted by Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia" Chap. 10
I have no particular love for the idealized &#39;worker&#39; as he appears in the bourgeois Communist&#39;s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.

Any of you Chavistas should be ashamed of Chavez&#39;s actions. Of course, by this point if you&#39;re still Chavistas, you probably have no more shame. I don&#39;t really care about his shutting down of this television station (something which, like all coercive actions, should come from below or not at all) but I think that his police forces repressing proletarians is absolutely unconscionable. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter what the color of the flag is.

It blows my mind that the left (and RevLeft.com in particular) can simply hand Chavez another pass on his increasingly repressive actions. We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own. "Revolutionary leaders" like Chavez only lead to "revolutionary dictatorships".

Call me a bourgeois apologist or an ultraleftist, as I suppose you keyboard warriors already are. But I am deeply disconcerted when I see any national leader shutting down the media. Humanity won&#39;t be happy &#39;till the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist, and that&#39;s that. All that this action does is gear up the imperialist powers to hurt the Venezuelan working class more than they already are: by turning the workers in other countries against them.

Someone earlier in this thread asked if we would complain if Fox News was shut down. I answer: If the government shuts it down, it is exactly the same as them shutting down this website. If the people occupy the place, if workers demolish it, if the oppressed throw bricks at its windows, I will be the first the plant a garden where it used to be.

All power to the working class.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Call me a bourgeois apologist or an ultraleftist, as I suppose you keyboard warriors already are.

Do we all know each other well enough to assume that the other is just a "keyboard warrior"?


But I am deeply disconcerted when I see any national leader shutting down the media. Humanity won&#39;t be happy &#39;till the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist, and that&#39;s that. All that this action does is gear up the imperialist powers to hurt the Venezuelan working class more than they already are: by turning the workers in other countries against them.

Someone earlier in this thread asked if we would complain if Fox News was shut down. I answer: If the government shuts it down, it is exactly the same as them shutting down this website. If the people occupy the place, if workers demolish it, if the oppressed throw bricks at its windows, I will be the first the plant a garden where it used to be.


Pardon me, comrade, but while I was reading this, I had the distinct impression that you were placing a workers&#39; state and a bourgeois state on the same moral pedestal.

I mean, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I thought repression from bourgies aimed at workers is REACTIONARY, while repression aimed by workers at bourgies is REVOLUTIONARY.

I hate to say it, but if you disagree with this principle, perhaps you should reconsider your entire political stance.



All power to the working class.

And yet, when the time comes, you criticize the working-class simply because it used its power to act against proven reactionaries like RCTV.

Are you sure you understand what you&#39;re saying here? Are you sure you realize what it means to give "all power" to the working-class?

[YSR]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 31, 2007 10:18 am
Do we all know each other well enough to assume that the other is just a "keyboard warrior"?
Here? Pretty much most people are. Not that that&#39;s necessarily a bad thing, but it is a rather accurate descriptor for a lot of folks.


I mean, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I thought repression from bourgies aimed at workers is REACTIONARY, while repression aimed by workers at bourgies is REVOLUTIONARY.

You&#39;re not wrong at all. Where you are incorrect is implying that Hugo Chavez is a worker. He&#39;s the President. Professional police officers are technically workers, but have been routinely illustrated to be anti-worker in their actions, this case being another example.

I have yet to see that workers were the ones who wanted this one, and by the (admittedly biased) polls I have seen, an overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan people did not approve of Chavez&#39;s actions. Call me a stickler for rules, but if the people you ostensibly represent don&#39;t agree with you, you shouldn&#39;t be doing things in their name. Don&#39;t we make that complaint about bourgeois legislators in our respective countries all the time? Why is Chavez some sacred cow?


I hate to say it, but if you disagree with this principle, perhaps you should reconsider your entire political stance.

Don&#39;t patronize me.


And yet, when the time comes, you criticize the working-class simply because it used its power to act against proven reactionaries like RCTV.

Again, the burden of proof is on you Chavistas to prove this is anything other than a government trying to stamp out opposition in the name of socialism. The Soviet Union did that through most of its existence and ultimately failed workers. I don&#39;t believe this is "the working-class," it is people ruling, who use the working class to justify their rule.


Are you sure you understand what you&#39;re saying here? Are you sure you realize what it means to give "all power" to the working-class?

Quite so. It means the working class takes the reins of society and demolishes the bourgeois power structure, with all of its associated reactionary trappings. Something which Hugo Chavez and his social democracy dressed up in authoritarianism does not represent.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

i am not going to translate the entire video.

not necessary all you needed was to do this:


He is talking to students, and he is explaining to them a US Senate resolution and an EU Parliament motion condemning the cancelling of RCTV&#39;s concession. There isn&#39;t really too much political content to it, except, telling the US government that they should be concerned about human rights violations in America and Iraq, citing numbers to show that the European resolution was taken by a small number of representatives, characterizing the European Popular party as "the European far-right, allied to Venezolan far-right, and obeying orders from the American far-right", and finally thanking representatives from the Socialist block, the Green parties and European Unified Left for not cooperating with the right-wingers.

Luís Henrique

and you would&#39;ve avoided having to flame a comrade


Henry, because sexyguy has some obnoxious problems, its so hard to understand what he says and just sounds stupid.

Now I haven&#39;t read much of Sexyguy&#39;s posts, and so I&#39;m not going to say anything, but I think the way you would prove that your opinion is the objective truth is by pointing to posts where he&#39;s said unnecessarily obnoxious shit and by refuting any arguements he puts forward. no?

[anomee]

The US Government would never shut down Fox "News" or the Fox network because Fox works for the Bush administration.

[Rawthentic]

Now I haven&#39;t read much of Sexyguy&#39;s posts, and so I&#39;m not going to say anything, but I think the way you would prove that your opinion is the objective truth is by pointing to posts where he&#39;s said unnecessarily obnoxious shit and by refuting any arguements he puts forward. no?
You&#39;ve got yourself a point there. Since you admit you haven&#39;t read his posts, I shall pardon you.

In other threads, I, along with Miles and others, have patiently and consciously refuted his lines over and over again.

He seems like the internet r-r-revolutionary types that just wants to find ways to attack the CL politically. I&#39;ll show you the threads if you&#39;d like.

[R_P_A_S]

YOUNG STUPID RADICAL

I agree with your argument bro. about the proletariat, the workers, the people being the ones not allowing for RCTV to renew its license to close down and them being the ones making it not happen. as opposed to Chavez.

But news flash. Venezuela is not controlled by the proletariat. its run by the Chavez government and the Venezuelan proletariat support this government. and they have 3 times in a row by a land slide.

YES&#33; this is not text book revolution underway as must socialist and communist would agree. BUT it&#39;s a good move. It&#39;s a move much needed by these Chavez government and a move supported by the vast proletariat.

I just hope.. that this goes far. and that Chavez knows how to hand over control and the power back to the people of venezuela once the revolution is in full swing

[BreadBros]

I don&#39;t really care about his shutting down of this television station (something which, like all coercive actions, should come from below or not at all) but I think that his police forces repressing proletarians is absolutely unconscionable.

The problem with this viewpoint is that you judge political actions not by their content but by their point of societal origin. What makes a coercive action from below any more valid from a leftist point of view than one from above? For example, its no secret that in many places hardline reactionary policies have been strongly supported from below and opposed from above. Would you say that a capitalist government enforcing unpopular anti-racism laws (a coercive action from above) is more authoritarian or less valid than a mob of people lynching someone (a coercive action from below)?


Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter what the color of the flag is.


You sound worse than many capitalists. Shutting down a privately owned commercial television station and replacing it with a publicly owned television station that mainly airs culture and science programming and attempts to represent the racial diversity of the nation (something RCTV clearly did not do with its completely-white telenovelas) based on the European model of television ownership is authoritarianism? Shouldn&#39;t you be out in the streets right now rioting and demanding that PBS is shut down or something? :D Public television is already widely employed in most of Europe and Asia, why the hell do you oppose it in Venezuela? How dare someone try to replace crass commercialism with informative television based on a model already employed in most of the rest of the world&#33; EVIL STALINISTS&#33; RIOT&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:


We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own. "Revolutionary leaders" like Chavez only lead to "revolutionary dictatorships".

How exactly are people supposed to suddenly take control of a massive multinational corporation with huge assets and the ability to purchase security? When given a choice between having the state rather smoothly take control of the station you&#39;d rather have people risk their life in the face of anti-Chavez police/army forces by violating the law to forcefully seize it? Geez, I wonder why people didn&#39;t try that before. For someone who claims to support "flesh and blood" workers you sure do have a highly unrealistic view of people and society.


All that this action does is gear up the imperialist powers to hurt the Venezuelan working class more than they already are: by turning the workers in other countries against them.

What non-Venezuelan workers are turning against the Venezuelan working class? The only real activity relating to this whole thing that I&#39;ve seen reported (on Univision, no less) is a rally/protest in FAVOR of this shutdown/transfer by workers in San Salvador, El Salvador. Also, all pro-working class actions will alarm and possibly provoke actions from imperialist powers. You honestly think if Venezuelan workers rioted and forcefully seized RCTV in the streets that the United States wouldn&#39;t be alarmed? Uhm, it seems to me that not only would it be even more alarmed and it would be far easier for it to declare some sort of state of emergency and act via insertion of forces or something. So thats quite a bizarre reasoning to bust out considering your previous statements.


Someone earlier in this thread asked if we would complain if Fox News was shut down. I answer: If the government shuts it down, it is exactly the same as them shutting down this website.

Its impossible to really tackle this statement without getting into a huge discussion on the nature of the state (it seems you consider the state to be a bigger evil than private capital, which I would disagree with). However, we can debate quite simply on real-life examples. This website is hosted in Germany. In Germany its illegal to display swastikas and pro-Nazi sentiments (to my understanding). Obviously, in a very real material sense, in Germany the state&#39;s attack on the right-wing has not led to this site being shutdown nor (to the best of my knowledge) any kind of shutdown or repression of left-wing speech or groups. So your argument would seem to rest on some kind of vague moral equivalence which I would say is nothing but pure mysticism.


If the people occupy the place, if workers demolish it, if the oppressed throw bricks at its windows, I will be the first the plant a garden where it used to be.

Great, I wonder why the Venezuelans haven&#39;t contact you already for your services :rolleyes: . Presumably the Venezuelan working class isn&#39;t in any shortage of vegetables or attractive gardens and they would still like television services to be continued, albeit without a reactionary bias implicit. So instead of burning down a TV station and building a garden, the task at hand is to transfer or rebuild this television service to represent a new viewpoint...can you do that? Could the working class in Venezuela do that without some kind of centralization? Considering that running a television station requires a great deal of funding, a great deal of technicians and technical experts as well as large and complex facilities, I think the answer is no. Regardless, private capital media investment is still legal in Venezuela (this was merley a license non-renewal) so if you&#39;re really so up in a bunch that telenovelas are being replaced by boring nature programming and you really think establishing a TV station is so easy, then feel free to go to Caracas and establish a new one, its the capitalist way&#33; :D

[ShyFox]

This is quite the popular topic on a few sites, lately. I&#39;m all in favour of free speech, but I I were in Chavez&#39;s position, I&#39;d get it shut down, too. I mean, I might hold a vote first or something, but I seriously think that the space RCTV was taking up would be better served by public radio. Venezuela has plenty of other private stations that haven&#39;t been shut down, but this one is different because they had the stupidity to get involved in a planned coup. I can&#39;t think of any country where they could legally do that, regardless any arguments against the president&#39;s decision.
By the way, I don&#39;t understand what problem anyone has with public stations. If properly funded they can be perfectly fine. They also have no commercials. Last time I checked, that was a good thing.

[Herman]

Any of you Chavistas should be ashamed of Chavez&#39;s actions. Of course, by this point if you&#39;re still Chavistas, you probably have no more shame. I don&#39;t really care about his shutting down of this television station (something which, like all coercive actions, should come from below or not at all) but I think that his police forces repressing proletarians is absolutely unconscionable. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter what the color of the flag is.

It blows my mind that the left (and RevLeft.com in particular) can simply hand Chavez another pass on his increasingly repressive actions. We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own. "Revolutionary leaders" like Chavez only lead to "revolutionary dictatorships".

Call me a bourgeois apologist or an ultraleftist, as I suppose you keyboard warriors already are. But I am deeply disconcerted when I see any national leader shutting down the media. Humanity won&#39;t be happy &#39;till the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist, and that&#39;s that. All that this action does is gear up the imperialist powers to hurt the Venezuelan working class more than they already are: by turning the workers in other countries against them.

Someone earlier in this thread asked if we would complain if Fox News was shut down. I answer: If the government shuts it down, it is exactly the same as them shutting down this website. If the people occupy the place, if workers demolish it, if the oppressed throw bricks at its windows, I will be the first the plant a garden where it used to be.

All power to the working class.

Ugh... please, we&#39;re not living in 1936 Catalonian Spain or 1917 revolutionary Russia. I seriously doubt you would bother going anywhere to defend working class interests.


Again, the burden of proof is on you Chavistas to prove this is anything other than a government trying to stamp out opposition in the name of socialism. The Soviet Union did that through most of its existence and ultimately failed workers. I don&#39;t believe this is "the working-class," it is people ruling, who use the working class to justify their rule.

Why is the burden of proof on us &#39;Chavistas&#39; as you like to say? You&#39;re the one accusing Chavez of tyranny. It&#39;s not &#39;He&#39;s guilty until proven innocent&#39;. On the contrary, it&#39;s &#39;innocent until proven guilty&#39;.

[Punkerslut]

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell, Animal Farm

I disagree with Chavez&#39; decision to shut down the television station for a variety of reasons. First, if the television station truly took part in the coup, then let them take punishment only after it&#39;s been proven. According to "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the television stations lambasted followers of Chavez, publishing misinformation and lies about them that contributed to the degrading situation. That&#39;s correct, but they didn&#39;t go much further than that.

Second. If, in a Capitalist society, someone throws a brick through a StarBucks window, must we shut down every single Communist and Socialist Party, every labor union and trade union, just because the things they said contributed to the violence of a different other individuals? After all, nobody will doubt that many crimes have been committed because of the ideas of Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and the labor movement. What each of these movements learned was that the people have no obligation to follow a law established by the bourgeoisie. Are we valid targets of any judicial system, just because our ideas inculcate a situation?

If you agree with the shutdown of this station, then you&#39;re already saying yes. Remember, Lenin butchered the Anarchists and the left Socialist revolutionaries.

[Ultra-Violence]

every one brought up good and valid points here but even tho i belive in free speech im goanna go with waht rs2k said about this and thats if the capitalist assholes were in power they wouldouve shut us down the moment they had a chance so in that case yeah shut the shit down....but on the other hand its like fuck we talk about freedom and liberty and shit so wouldnt this make us hypocritical by saying freedom of speech but only for poeple who think like us?

[YSR]

The problem with this viewpoint is that you judge political actions not by their content but by their point of societal origin.

You&#39;re right. Me, I&#39;m an unabashed leftist.


Could you say that a capitalist government enforcing unpopular anti-racism laws (a coercive action from above) is more authoritarian or less valid than a mob of people lynching someone (a coercive action from below)?

A ridiculous comparison, because it leaves out the fact that lynching, and ultimately the attitudes that created it -racism and race itself- originated as bourgeois projects to control the populace.


Shutting down a privately owned commercial television station and replacing it with a publicly owned television station that mainly airs culture and science programming and attempts to represent the racial diversity of the nation (something RCTV clearly did not do with its completely-white telenovelas) based on the European model of television ownership is authoritarianism?

I didn&#39;t say that, if you&#39;d read my post. As I indicated, my problem was not his takeover of the station, which I think it was dumb, since it was government and not popular action. My problem was his use of the police force against protesters. In that regard, yes, this is textbook authoritarianism. If this happened in any other country (except that other blessed utopia, Cuba) we would be cheering on the protesters for fighting the police and swearing vengeance against the cops who beat people.


How exactly are people supposed to suddenly take control of a massive multinational corporation with huge assets and the ability to purchase security?

Following your logic: assuming that they "took control" when they elected Chavez, it seems to me that the entire bureaucratic apparatus of the State should be more difficult to take over than a single company, and the working class managed to do that. Workers have all the power in the world.


You honestly think if Venezuelan workers rioted and forcefully seized RCTV in the streets that the United States wouldn&#39;t be alarmed?

Of course they would. But, from a practical standpoint, it sure would be a lot harder to spin. Chavez&#39;s actions smack of authoritarianism, something that anyone can recognize is harmful when they see it on Fox News, CNN or BBC. Popular takeover can be dismissed as a riot, but a purposeful, targeting, leftist riot? That&#39;s a powerful challenge to the ideology of global capital, regardless of your spin.


Its impossible to really tackle this statement without getting into a huge discussion on the nature of the state (it seems you consider the state to be a bigger evil than private capital, which I would disagree with).

"It seems" incorrectly. Last capitalist with the guts of the last bureaucrat, like I said.


This website is hosted in Germany. In Germany its illegal to display swastikas and pro-Nazi sentiments (to my understanding). Obviously, in a very real material sense, in Germany the state&#39;s attack on the right-wing has not led to this site being shutdown nor (to the best of my knowledge) any kind of shutdown or repression of left-wing speech or groups.

That&#39;s not at all what I am arguing and seems very confused.


So instead of burning down a TV station and building a garden, the task at hand is to transfer or rebuild this television service to represent a new viewpoint...can you do that? Could the working class in Venezuela do that without some kind of centralization?

Oh calm down, I was being metaphoric.

And yes, I absolutely believe that the Venezuelan working class could do that if they wanted to. You make grand statements that TV requires centralization. I worked a local public access channel one summer. Let me tell you, decentralization was the name of the game. Production was almost totally exclusive autonomous, with the exception of station censorship before a program was aired.

Now you&#39;re going to say, "But that&#39;s what Chavez wants to create, a public access channel&#33;" And I&#39;ll reply again that my problem is not with exactly what Chavez did. I think it&#39;s great. But it&#39;s coming from the wrong people. The State can rule in the name of the people, but it is not the people and by the nature of its bureaucratic nature, it cannot truly represent them all. This isn&#39;t Marx&#39;s capitalism we&#39;re fighting anymore. The working class must outmaneuver the owners, and the vanguardist strategy, whether it&#39;s Leninist or, like Chavez, social democratic in origin cannot do that.


Originally posted by RPAS+--> (RPAS)But news flash. Venezuela is not controlled by the proletariat. its run by the Chavez government and the Venezuelan proletariat support this government. and they have 3 times in a row by a land slide.[/b]

Much is their mistake, I think. Thank you for being honest though, most people won&#39;t admit what you just did.


I just hope.. that this goes far. and that Chavez knows how to hand over control and the power back to the people of venezuela once the revolution is in full swing

I think if we look at history, we can see that this has never happened. Leaders never voluntarily give up their power to the people, just like capitalists never voluntarily give up their control to the workers. Chavez, despite his intentions and the imagined ones that Marxists the world over are projecting upon him, is in the way of revolution.


RedHerman
Ugh... please, we&#39;re not living in 1936 Catalonian Spain or 1917 revolutionary Russia. I seriously doubt you would bother going anywhere to defend working class interests.

Go fuck yourself. I&#39;m busy organizing in my own community.


Why is the burden of proof on us &#39;Chavistas&#39; as you like to say? You&#39;re the one accusing Chavez of tyranny. It&#39;s not &#39;He&#39;s guilty until proven innocent&#39;. On the contrary, it&#39;s &#39;innocent until proven guilty&#39;.

Eh, you&#39;re right. I&#39;m an American, that&#39;s the problem. We have this irritating trait in our character where we instinctively don&#39;t trust leaders.

After all, after the revolutionary purges and the crackdowns, when the regime falls and wretched capitalism takes total control again, we can examine the documents concretely and shake our heads, saying "If only we&#39;d known."

[Karl Marx's Camel]

We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own.

You do have a point here&#33;

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell, Animal Farm

Great, your quote from one of the best known anti-communist propaganda pieces of all time shows were you lie.. allied with the bloody capitalist rulers.

Things thing "democracy" and "liberty" have absolutely no meaning when used in an abstract form, i.e. seperated from the reality that is class divided society. The same goes for that favorite word of ultra-leftists and rightists alike: "authoritarianism," because, who in their right mind would say they&#39;re for "authoritarianism." It&#39;s a loaded word with little content, but tons of impact (forget the fact the question of who is holding what authority over whom and for what reason is never mentioned, because for these folks, it really doesn&#39;t matter).

There is no country in the world where a television station can continually advocate, and event assist attempts at, the violent overthrow of the president and continue broadcasting with impunity.

Indeed, the problem here for any serious leftists with half a brain should not be that a U.S.-backed capitalist media giant did not have its license renewed, rather, the issue should be that the station was not seized and put under workers&#39; control, and that the station is allowed to continue to broadcast at all&#33;

In this thread we can see perfectly why liberal illusions are so dangerous.. folks who have abstract ideas about "freedom of the press" and "democracy" (without really understanding the meaning of either in class society) inevitable come down on the side imperialism and the most reactionary sections of the Venezuelan capitalist class when push comes to shove. Now the ultra-left says the same thing as the rightists, and that&#39;s no coincidence.


You do have a point here&#33;

No he doesn&#39;t. He made a broad, meaningless statement. What does it mean to say something should be done by the working class on its own? The "working class" is not a monolithic body that unites in its entirety to carry out expropriations.

Things can be done by sections of the working class, representatives and bodies of the working class.. and there are even times that things can be done in the interests of the working class without their direct involvement.

Surely, not allowing a capitalist media giant with ties to Washington to broadcast its lies and actively campaign for the destruction of the popular Chavez government is a gain for workers.

Would you trash the creation of universal healthcare system in the U.S. if its creation was not carried out by every single member of the working class?

[syndicat]

All power to the working class.




And yet, when the time comes, you criticize the working-class simply because it used its power to act against proven reactionaries like RCTV.

Are you sure you understand what you&#39;re saying here? Are you sure you realize what it means to give "all power" to the working-class?

Well, I think it&#39;s more complicated. The state in Venezuela is not the power of the working class since the working class doesn&#39;t run it. The cadres of professional/managerial or coordinator class run it.

That said, it is true that RCTV was a supporter of the illegal attempted coup against the elected government, calling people to come to the main rally supporting the coup. This is the basis for not renewing RCTV&#39;s license.

Not renewing TV station licenses has occasionally happened in countries like the USA and UK. In these cases it&#39;s true that it usually involves some sort of "due process" such as a hearing. Not that I&#39;d place too much emphasis on these hearings as they can be stacked decks.

Some journalist organizations have expressed concern for the 3,000 employees of RCTV. However, RCTV still can broadcast via cable, sattelite, and the Internet. Also the bourgeois opposition in Venezuela still controls most of the print media and other broadcast outlets. So the accusation of "totalitarianism" seems off the mark.

I would be more concerned about protecting diversity of opinion among the working class and the mass of the poor in Venezuela, not the privileged (predominantly white) elite.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

No he doesn&#39;t. He made a broad, meaningless statement. What does it mean to say something should be done by the working class on its own? The "working class" is not a monolithic body that unites in its entirety to carry out expropriations.

That the Venezuelan working class, if it is really did have some level class consciousness back in 2002, the people in the streets, ordinary people like you and me should have taken action and crushed the TV channel.


Surely, not allowing a capitalist media giant with ties to Washington to broadcast its lies and actively campaign for the destruction of the popular Chavez government is a gain for workers.


Absolutely, I agree 100 percent. I just think some kind of action (ousting the channel) should have been done sooner. In 2002 and not in 2007, and not through bourgeois lisences or whatever in order to make it look "legal". The working class doesn&#39;t (or at least shouldn&#39;t feel the) need of "legality" (since "legality" in our world is defined by the bourgeois) in order to wipe out its threats.

I did not mean to say that we should only accept actions executed by the proletariat, but rather that the people should have reacted. Why did the people not react?

But now, what has happened has happened, and we should be behind the act of not renewing the lisence. But I think we should also encourage further action against this channel and hope that (a section of?) the working class will act and remove them.

The working class shouldn&#39;t be waiting for what is, when it comes down to it, a bourgeois state taking care of a section of the bourgeois posing a threat.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:41 pm
First, if the television station truly took part in the coup, then let them take punishment only after it&#39;s been proven. According to "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the television stations lambasted followers of Chavez, publishing misinformation and lies about them that contributed to the degrading situation. That&#39;s correct, but they didn&#39;t go much further than that.
It is quite difficult to bring anyone to justice for the 2002 coup in Venezuela. The Venezuelan Supreme Court first ruled that no coup had taken place when they brought the first charges against the conspirators. By the time that decision was overturned, the people charged had fled the country. The prosecutor leading the case was about to charge 400 more people, but then was assassinated. It is extremely difficult to bring the powerful elite to justice in any country.

What the major TV stations did, and this includes RCTV, was collude with the coup plotters and illegally led their anti-Chavez protesters into the gunsights of pre-placed snipers, then blamed it on the pro-Chavez crowd. They laughed and congratulated themselves on a job well done the next day, on live TV. Generally, TV stations aren&#39;t allowed to incite violence and try to overthrow the government in any country.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:16 pm
I did not mean to say that we should only accept actions executed by the proletariat, but rather that the people should have reacted. Why did the people not react?
Maybe because the people in Venezuela kept winning despite the corrupt news media doing everything in it&#39;s power to stifle them. They also, according to the one poll I&#39;ve seen, liked RCTV&#39;s entertainment programming.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

They also, according to the one poll I&#39;ve seen, liked RCTV&#39;s entertainment programming.

Thanks for the explanation.

That&#39;s quite the class conscious proletariat. Not destroying a TV channel that tries to destroy the people because their entertainment is "cool".


I am not bashing the Venezuelan people but rather those who seem to believe the working class in Venezuela is class conscious.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Again, it is not monolithic. There are many class conscious workers, some that are just awakening, and others that are completely reactionary.

And I do agree with you that something should have done in 2002, back when the coup was first smashed and the people were in the streets. Workers should have been mobilized to seize the station, among other things. But, you have to remember, that Chavez is the leader of a bourgeois state, and that capitalism has not been overthrown in Venezuela.

All of this points to the need for genuine socialist revolution in Venezuela.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+May 31, 2007 03:47 pm--> (Young Stupid Radical @ May 31, 2007 03:47 pm) Cubist, you are totally misinterpreting 1984 by attempting to apply it to the capitalist media. It was written against the state. I think, actually, that another George Orwell quote might be more relevant here:


Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia" Chap. 10
I have no particular love for the idealized &#39;worker&#39; as he appears in the bourgeois Communist&#39;s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.

Any of you Chavistas should be ashamed of Chavez&#39;s actions. Of course, by this point if you&#39;re still Chavistas, you probably have no more shame. I don&#39;t really care about his shutting down of this television station (something which, like all coercive actions, should come from below or not at all) but I think that his police forces repressing proletarians is absolutely unconscionable. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter what the color of the flag is.

It blows my mind that the left (and RevLeft.com in particular) can simply hand Chavez another pass on his increasingly repressive actions. We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own. "Revolutionary leaders" like Chavez only lead to "revolutionary dictatorships".

Call me a bourgeois apologist or an ultraleftist, as I suppose you keyboard warriors already are. But I am deeply disconcerted when I see any national leader shutting down the media. Humanity won&#39;t be happy &#39;till the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist, and that&#39;s that. All that this action does is gear up the imperialist powers to hurt the Venezuelan working class more than they already are: by turning the workers in other countries against them.

Someone earlier in this thread asked if we would complain if Fox News was shut down. I answer: If the government shuts it down, it is exactly the same as them shutting down this website. If the people occupy the place, if workers demolish it, if the oppressed throw bricks at its windows, I will be the first the plant a garden where it used to be.

All power to the working class. [/b]
Alright, someone in this thread who knows what they are talking about.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:15 pm
That&#39;s quite the class conscious proletariat. Not destroying a TV channel that tries to destroy the people because their entertainment is "cool".
I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve thought through the political ramifications of an angry Pro-Chavez mob illegally overrunning all the opposition TV stations involved in the coup, and why that might want to be avoided if possible.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+June 01, 2007 04:32 pm--> (Young Stupid Radical @ June 01, 2007 04:32 pm)
RPAS
But news flash. Venezuela is not controlled by the proletariat. its run by the Chavez government and the Venezuelan proletariat support this government. and they have 3 times in a row by a land slide.

Much is their mistake, I think. Thank you for being honest though, most people won&#39;t admit what you just did.


I just hope.. that this goes far. and that Chavez knows how to hand over control and the power back to the people of venezuela once the revolution is in full swing

I think if we look at history, we can see that this has never happened. Leaders never voluntarily give up their power to the people, just like capitalists never voluntarily give up their control to the workers. Chavez, despite his intentions and the imagined ones that Marxists the world over are projecting upon him, is in the way of revolution.

[/b]
History not always repeats it self.

If Chavez does decide to follow in foot steps of a Stalin like.. well i hope this just makes it easier for the working class to kick his ass. now that he got them all "going".

The people will not stand for anymore lies.

[R_P_A_S]

YOUNG STUPID RADICAL

I&#39;m reading your post bro.. and you make many valid points. I enjoy reading stuff like yours because for one it gets me thinking and it kicks me back in gear.

what you made me realize is that I think many people here probably don&#39;t realize. The vast mayority of us are by NO MEANS want to conform with some reform or some liberal "action" we believe in a revolution, we want a revolution and a legitimate socialist revolution. How we are going to get there? is what always brings us to the debate table. and what we mostly disagree on.

The objective seems so far fetch at times. specially in the times we are living that we "let our guard down", (sort of speak) and cheer or support any reform any move by a "democratic-socialist" government like Chavez&#39;s that does something out of the ordinary governments but that is in favor of socialist views, and a benefit for the working class.
despite us, the working class not getting it done for our selves, on our own.

I understand and I&#39;m positive that everyone else here that is an advocate for a socialist revolution does not fully support or agree with the procedures and tactics of the "Bolivarian Revolution" but we are watching closely and are very skeptical of what&#39; to come.

An other thing. I wanted to ask is I never hear anything bad about Salvador Allende. wasn&#39;t he pretty much trying to do what Hugo Chavez is doing now?

It seems only when the guy was disposed and shot himself that the left praises him. was he praised too back then? even though he was trying to achieve socialism, the way Chavez is now?
through the presidency?

[Herman]

Go fuck yourself. I&#39;m busy organizing in my own community.

Preparing your barricades, are you? Setting up those nice little cooperatives, eh? Having a jolly good time with that raising of class consciousness?

The problem is that we have those ultra-leftists who oppose Chavez because he&#39;s &#39;bourgeois&#39; and is using reforms as a means to increase public power. Those who believe that the working class must do everything themselves to gain power are pure idealists. Unfortunately it takes a political party to mobilize the working class, to radicalize it and that&#39;s what Chavez&#39;s doing. He has to have his ideals in mind, yes, but he must also be realistic.

Proposing a &#39;violent&#39; or &#39;peaceful&#39; revolution in Venezuela is madness.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by bobroberts+June 01, 2007 08:46 pm--> (bobroberts @ June 01, 2007 08:46 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 03:41 pm
First, if the television station truly took part in the coup, then let them take punishment only after it&#39;s been proven. According to "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the television stations lambasted followers of Chavez, publishing misinformation and lies about them that contributed to the degrading situation. That&#39;s correct, but they didn&#39;t go much further than that.
It is quite difficult to bring anyone to justice for the 2002 coup in Venezuela. The Venezuelan Supreme Court first ruled that no coup had taken place when they brought the first charges against the conspirators. By the time that decision was overturned, the people charged had fled the country. The prosecutor leading the case was about to charge 400 more people, but then was assassinated. It is extremely difficult to bring the powerful elite to justice in any country.

What the major TV stations did, and this includes RCTV, was collude with the coup plotters and illegally led their anti-Chavez protesters into the gunsights of pre-placed snipers, then blamed it on the pro-Chavez crowd. They laughed and congratulated themselves on a job well done the next day, on live TV. Generally, TV stations aren&#39;t allowed to incite violence and try to overthrow the government in any country. [/b]
Was the RCTV channel involved in the sniper killings? I&#39;m not so sure about that. Chavez would&#39;ve mentioned that in his film.

Yes, they did laugh and congratulate themselves for a job well done. It&#39;s free speech. Wouldn&#39;t the United States military have justification to imprison and otherwise harass anti-war protestors, because their published ideas and opinions give moral support to the enemy? It seems rather elementary that a double standard is simply not being met here.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:17 am

Go fuck yourself. I&#39;m busy organizing in my own community.

Preparing your barricades, are you? Setting up those nice little cooperatives, eh? Having a jolly good time with that raising of class consciousness?

The problem is that we have those ultra-leftists who oppose Chavez because he&#39;s &#39;bourgeois&#39; and is using reforms as a means to increase public power. Those who believe that the working class must do everything themselves to gain power are pure idealists. Unfortunately it takes a political party to mobilize the working class, to radicalize it and that&#39;s what Chavez&#39;s doing. He has to have his ideals in mind, yes, but he must also be realistic.

Proposing a &#39;violent&#39; or &#39;peaceful&#39; revolution in Venezuela is madness.
Political partying, especially for working class interests, hasn&#39;t achieved much but the hopelessness of the worker. The moderate Labor Party in britain to the Socialist Parties of France and all Eurocommunist Parties, to the extreme statists like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and to a lesser extent Castro and Tito -- these parties meant the death of the worker and all potential radical changes. Did the Bolshevik Party achieve communism when they decollectivized land in Spain, or sent thousands of Socialists and Anarchists to Siberia? Did the British Labor Party establish a no-war-between-nations policy when siding with the American invasion of Iraq? Political parties, and their hierarchical structure, compulsory-opinion status, their domination structure, and their authoritarian reigns; everything necessary to demobilize the working class from genuine action is there. The fruits of history do not lie.

All things considered, I am not completely opposed to the use of electioneering in defending the interests of the working class. A legislative founded on the consent of the people is a valuable tool for democratic and socialist struggle. Where the party considers its ends and itself superior to the cause of Democracy, there they will have neither their liberty nor collectivization. Chavez&#39; blatant act of biased censorship here should raise more than just an eyebrow. It&#39;s not so much an act of addressing those who wronged him in the coup as it is a matter of silencing opposition. And if rights like those disappear, what advantages could the Chavez government really offer the Venezuelan people?

[bobroberts]

Was the RCTV channel involved in the sniper killings? I&#39;m not so sure about that. Chavez would&#39;ve mentioned that in his film.

They encouraged an anti-Chavez protest to march upon the presidential palace, where pro-Chavez protesters had gathered. This was illegal, and denounced by the government because it was obviously intended to stir up violence and use that as a pretext for military takeover of Miraflores, however state TV was shortly sabotaged and taken off the air so only voices of Chavez opposition could be seen on television.

The snipers were obviously placed there in advance as part of the plan.


Top secret documents recently obtained and posted on www.venezuelafoia.info show that in the weeks prior to the April 2002 coup against President Chávez, the CIA had full knowledge of the events to occur and, in fact, even had the detailed plans in their possession. An April 6, 2002 top secret intelligence brief headlining “Venezuela: Conditions Ripening for Coup Attempt”, states, “Dissident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez, possible as early as this month, [CENSORED]. The level of detail in the reported plans – [CENSORED] targets Chávez and 10 other senior officers for arrest…” The document further states, “To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month…”

http://venezuelafoia.info/evaenglish.html

After the violence ensued, they quickly manipulated footage of people being shot to lay the blame directly at Chavez. This wasn&#39;t crass opportunism, it was premeditated.


Yes, they did laugh and congratulate themselves for a job well done. It&#39;s free speech.

It showed their involvement in the coup. One of the stations involved was even a staging area for Carmona. He was seen leaving the station in a limo heading toward Miraflores after Chavez had "resigned". This was followed by complete censoring of the airwaves to any news unfavorable to the coup. It was clearly done in collusion with the leaders of the coup.

That a media channel, controlled by the ruling elite who had just been kicked out of power by democratic elections, who incited violence and agitated for the overthrow of the government, who colluded with other major media channels to do the same thing while blacking out any news that didn&#39;t follow the script, who celebrated with the leaders of the plot smugly and openly when it seemed they were victorious, that these people are being held up as martyrs of the free press because their license to use the public airwaves was not renewed is ridiculous.

It&#39;s also interesting that one of the stations, Venevision, came to an agreement with Chavez, during the 2004 recall election, on the tone of their broadcasts (a meeting that was initiated by the Carter Center, apparently) and are now being used as an example of Chavez "threatening the media into submission". I guess they don&#39;t broadcast enough death threats and racial epithets now.

[Herman]

Political partying, especially for working class interests, hasn&#39;t achieved much but the hopelessness of the worker. The moderate Labor Party in britain to the Socialist Parties of France and all Eurocommunist Parties, to the extreme statists like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and to a lesser extent Castro and Tito -- these parties meant the death of the worker and all potential radical changes. Did the Bolshevik Party achieve communism when they decollectivized land in Spain, or sent thousands of Socialists and Anarchists to Siberia? Did the British Labor Party establish a no-war-between-nations policy when siding with the American invasion of Iraq? Political parties, and their hierarchical structure, compulsory-opinion status, their domination structure, and their authoritarian reigns; everything necessary to demobilize the working class from genuine action is there. The fruits of history do not lie.

The fruits of history are debatable, so that argument falls flat.

I don&#39;t recall being in favour of political parties which do not advocate the radical transformation of society, like the British Labour party.

And what does the Bolshevik Party have to do with Spain?

[BreadBros]

The problem with this viewpoint is that you judge political actions not by their content but by their point of societal origin.
You&#39;re right. Me, I&#39;m an unabashed leftist.

I suppose its possible we have differing views on what leftism constitutes. To me when I say leftist I usually mean someone geared towards class-based politics, with support for the working class and all that entails. I don&#39;t really see how judging actions by their point of societal origin in any way makes you "an unabashed leftist". It seems like even most of the traditional anarchist writers would be opposed to reactionary actions that originated amongst the populace.


A ridiculous comparison, because it leaves out the fact that lynching, and ultimately the attitudes that created it -racism and race itself- originated as bourgeois projects to control the populace.

I disagree strongly. For starters, it seems to me that racism and xenophobia have been around far longer than the bourgeoisie has, so I doubt it being their creation, especially a conscious one. Secondly, I&#39;m suspicious of any theory that seems to posit that the bourgeoisie has some kind of magical control over people&#39;s consciousness. They definitely have been able in the past to stoke racist fires amongst the populace. However, the basis for that (the kindling for the fire if you will) seems to often lie in real material conflicts between population groups. In that vein, there existed some economic conflict between, say, established white laborers and new black laborers in the reconstruction South. Its true that in the wider-scope their economic allegiances lie together since their both being exploited by the same system, however in the shorter-term/closer-sense their was often competition between the two over jobs and wages and the such. While the bourgeoisie may have been able to exploit this to their advantage I definitely do not think it was in any way their "project" or creation, but rather points at the fact that one of the major impediments towards a revolution is differing levels of development and the (often racially-tinged) conflicts that can emerge from integration. Its not always to their advantage either, if racial disorder threatens society and particularly economic production then it quickly becomes the imperative of the bourgeoisie and the state to smooth over those racial or class tensions to restore productive order.

So, I do not think the question is ridiculous at all. If you would like a more contemporary example, I&#39;d offer the issue of illegal immigration. It seems to be in the stated interest of the bourgeoisie (particularly the BIG, monopolist bourgeoisie) to either create a more liquid system of labor migration or at the least keep the system we have now which more or less allows quite a lot of unchecked migration into the US. Significant parts of the petty-bourgeoisie and the white working class oppose this, in some parts of the Southwest in particular this makes up a significant % of the populace. Thus its not surprising to see big business corporations backing up behind recent efforts at creating some kind of (at least) temporary worker program while middle-class groups like Save Our State and the notorious Minutemen play up the racism/cultural issues. So which would you support? Would you be rioting in the streets if the state passed a legalization act against the wishes of the populace?


I didn&#39;t say that, if you&#39;d read my post. As I indicated, my problem was not his takeover of the station, which I think it was dumb, since it was government and not popular action. My problem was his use of the police force against protesters. In that regard, yes, this is textbook authoritarianism. If this happened in any other country (except that other blessed utopia, Cuba) we would be cheering on the protesters for fighting the police and swearing vengeance against the cops who beat people.

Duh, thats because Cuba and Venezuela are both ruled by governments that are at least ostensibly geared towards being on the side of the working class and at the very least implementing progressive social-democratic reforms. If this happened in any other country its likely that the rioter would be acting against some kind of reactionary act and in favor of a leftist or progressive one. The opposite would seem to be the case in countries like Cuba or Venezuela. You place more emphasis on the form rather than the content, the fact that its police vs. protester rather than what each side is fighting for/over. I personally disagree, I don&#39;t think there is any equivalence at all between someone who is protesting in favor of reactionary reforms and someone who is protesting in favor of progressive ones. I personally think that makes ME a leftist and you more akin to a liberal, but that brings into question our very basic political views which are probably too complex to debate in this thread.


Following your logic: assuming that they "took control" when they elected Chavez, it seems to me that the entire bureaucratic apparatus of the State should be more difficult to take over than a single company, and the working class managed to do that.
Workers have all the power in the world.


I don&#39;t think workers took control of the state when they elected Chavez. I dont think I have to enumerate the numerous critiques of him that have already been had on this site for one. For two, Chavez doesn&#39;t even have monolithic control over society by any stretch of the imagination, various elements within the government and armed forces are opposed to him, so even if Chavez did represent some kind of "worker&#39;s candidate" his control over society is not complete. I do think the working class has managed to successfully influence his actions to a substantial degree, at least moreso than pretty much any other reformist politician in the world right now. With that being said, I disagree with your statement.

Workers have the most power in the world in the sense that by forming the basis of production they have the most capability to monumentally change the foundations of society. Within our current capitalist society however, most workers (especially in the third world) are severely powerless. If we&#39;re to compare influencing a politician and taking over a large corporation, I think there is no question which is easier. While the road of government may not lead to revolution, it certainly offers the channels and capabilities of influencing government to a great degree. In order to influence Chavez the workers of Venezuela merely have to use the social ties between them that are already in existence along with the reformist governmental channels already in existence. We saw all that, the mass marches, the protests, the coup and reversal, the elections, etc. Those were (relatively) bloodless because they fell within the scope of legality in the Venezuelan state. Trying to forcefully take over one of the biggest media corporations in Venezuela would&#39;ve required arms and physically raiding the studios and headquarters. It would&#39;ve probably at the least been met with physical violence from certain police units and at worst triggered a civil war (and god forbid people start getting killed, then the peaceniks on this board would really be up in arms about Hugo "Stalin" Chavez). So yes, we can debate about what method of transitioning the station would&#39;ve been best. I MIGHT agree with you that a popular takeover would be best. I&#39;m inclined to disagree because it does not seem that a revolution is possible in Venezuela at the moment, so that course of action might have only been suicide for the working-class movement there. Regardless, this seems to form a pretty poor basis for arguing that Chavez is some kind of tyrant. I see this action as good and bad. Bad because it shows that maybe the working class movement in Venezuela is not as strong as we all seemed to have think it was, good because I agree with the content of it even if it occurred in a reformist manner.


Of course they would. But, from a practical standpoint, it sure would be a lot harder to spin. Chavez&#39;s actions smack of authoritarianism, something that anyone can recognize is harmful when they see it on Fox News, CNN or BBC. Popular takeover can be dismissed as a riot, but a purposeful, targeting, leftist riot? That&#39;s a powerful challenge to the ideology of global capital, regardless of your spin.

Judging by historical measure, its not that hard to spin and sometimes you dont have to spin it at all&#33; What of the massive popular marches in Venezuela when Chavez was coming to power or the events in Argentina in 2001? Mostly ignored by the American media, sometimes spun to be seen as foreboding events presaging an evil totalitarian dictatorship (populism is only popular if its from the right, apparently) or, more often than not, represented as pure chaos, anarchy and the destruction of private property (which in the USA is often basis enough for condemnation, no spin needed)&#33; Would we all prefer it if everything was done in some peaceful mass-movement kind of way straight out of the movies? DUH. But get real, the fact that things dont materialize that way should not provoke knee-jerk reactions from anyone who seriously considers themselves a leftist.

Furthermore, I&#39;m not exactly convinced I should give a damn about how FN, CNN or BBC spin anything. Seems to me like a sizable and growing # of people everywhere see these news channels for what they are: an okay place to get some semblance of what the hell is going on in the world (along with sports and the weather) but obviously an incomplete view and a pretty piss-poor place to get any kind of opinion or evaluation. Not to mention, the opinion of the American people is also INCREASINGLY worth zero currency to the people who run this country. Their decision to take action in Venezuela has little to nothing to do with what you or I or Joe Schmo in Montana thinks, it has to do with a weighing of costs vs benefits, the risk of losing their economic ventures and geopolitical stature vs the cost of action. Furthermore, if you&#39;re really worried about how the world sees Venezuela you certainly aren&#39;t helping by alleging authoritarianism and totalitarianism. You would risk de-railing a movement that has been widely supported by the working class, has raised class conscious to a higher degree than in most of the world and has made significant advances on any road towards socialism because a private commercial TV station was turned into a public educational TV station (and yes, I know you "dont care about the issue" but I really dont think it can be abstracted from the matter)? Puh-leaze, I assure you that if you ever take part in any future anarchist commune it will FAIL at the first hard decision to be made with you around.



Its impossible to really tackle this statement without getting into a huge discussion on the nature of the state (it seems you consider the state to be a bigger evil than private capital, which I would disagree with).

"It seems" incorrectly. Last capitalist with the guts of the last bureaucrat, like I said.

Great quote for a movie/book, but thats pretty damn vague if we&#39;re discussing politics. In nearly every revolution that has happened, from the Russian to even the Spanish, the state has NOT been destroyed along with capitalism at the same time. It has instead often been used as a tool in the destruction of capitalism. I would suppose that even Bakunin would agree that the state is to some degree a product of class society and not the origin point of class society as the production method (i.e. capitalism) is. In fact, it seems as if in the Spanish revolution the liberal state persisted as a tool of the left far longer than it did even in the Russian revolution (where the state was essentially destroyed and rebuilt in a new fashion). So are you saying that you would only accept/support the CONCURRENT destruction of capitalism and the state, because historical experience seems to point to that being unlikely.


That&#39;s not at all what I am arguing and seems very confused.

Well, what were you arguing then? I interpreted you as saying that a state action against the right should be condemned by the left because it means the same will happen to us somehow. My argument is that the state will attack any threat to its stability regardless of existing laws, so us helping or siding with the right was not only pointless but somewhat mystical in thinking because it entails looking at things through some kind of moralistic viewpoint rather than a strategic class-based viewpoint.


And yes, I absolutely believe that the Venezuelan working class could do that if they wanted to. You make grand statements that TV requires centralization. I worked a local public access channel one summer. Let me tell you, decentralization was the name of the game. Production was almost totally exclusive autonomous, with the exception of station censorship before a program was aired.

No offense but a public access station is not in the same league as a major nationwide network such as TVes. For one, technology wise its far more complex running a nationwide chain compared to a local station. Secondly, as a nation-wide chain (especially one oriented towards education) it will necessarily have higher production values that require more particular knowledge.


Now you&#39;re going to say, "But that&#39;s what Chavez wants to create, a public access channel&#33;" And I&#39;ll reply again that my problem is not with exactly what Chavez did. I think it&#39;s great. But it&#39;s coming from the wrong people.

Well, this is where I disagree with you to begin with. If this were a revolution we were talking about, I&#39;d agree with you that certainly no action of a state can constitute a communist revolution. However, this is the transition of the license of a TV frequency, gimme a break. What you said reminds me of the people in some leftist groups who use the parliamentary procedure and hold votes on every bureacratic issue in the meeting even when its clear it doesnt matter. TV license, theyre a bureacratic function. I would agree with you that maybe we should change all that by having a revolution, but as long as we&#39;re in a capitalist society I dont see why it matters if the populace does this or if Chavez does. I&#39;ve got some bad news for you, the control systems in most of the power plants in Venezuela are run by a small group of bureacrats/technicians, maybe you should go out and riot and demand that the populace control those control boards through popular mass action and until then death to that electrical system :ph34r: :lol: . This is a ludicrous issue, used by the bourgeoisie/right-wing as a salvo in the increasingly polarizing class-conflict in Venezuela. Unfortunately you are one leftist that bought the right wing bullshit.


The State can rule in the name of the people, but it is not the people and by the nature of its bureaucratic nature, it cannot truly represent them all.

This is totally besides the point, but thats a pretty crappy reason to oppose the state. Just the fact that its bad at representation due to bureaucracy? The Green Party and various social-democratic groups already deal with that issue and have come up with a variety of alternative voting systems. Would you support the existence of the state if it were better at popular representation, regardless of the relation to capitalism that it had?


This isn&#39;t Marx&#39;s capitalism we&#39;re fighting anymore.

What would be the differences between capitalism in his period and now? I would say certain classes are fairly irrelevant or non-existent (like the lumpenproletariat), the petty-bourgeois is on decline and monopolist capitalists are doing better than ever, but I dont really see those contradicting with Marx&#39;s analysis as much as being matured capitalism and in some cases changes predicted by him.


The working class must outmaneuver the owners, and the vanguardist strategy, whether it&#39;s Leninist or, like Chavez, social democratic in origin cannot do that.

But Chavez just did "outmaneuver the owners" via social-democratic means. Thats why their pissed the fuck off and have their supporters in the streets, they just had a radical social-democrat disturb their existing production. Its not revolution but I think its a hole in your theory that advancement cant come from social-democratic means, I would argue that social-democracy is often the infancy of any working class movement.

[Luís Henrique]

I think there is an element of analysis that is missing.

The RCTV has always been a State television. It was private in the sence that it is a private means of making profit. But it operated under a concession of the State. The State allowed them a certain wavelenght, which they never owned, in exchange for them being an ideological instrument at the disposal of the State. And that RCTV was for half a century, always cooperating with the Venezolan bourgeois State to ensure the political submission of the masses.

It happens the State changed, not RCTV. And the State, now, does no longer believe that RCTV is an adequate tool for its own ends (whatever those ends may be). So, using law passed long ago, at a time that Chavez still licked lollypops, the State has now revocated RCTV&#39;s concession, as it has always been allowed to do, exactly at the time the law said it could, etc.

It was a perfectly legal act. If the law is bad, then blame the escuálidos, who passed it.

I think the issue concerning freedom of speech has to do with small, non-profit and non statal broadcasting, rather than with RCTV. This was much adressed in CdL&#39;s post. If that post is an accurate description of Venezolan reality, I cannot know, but if it is, then there is more press freedom in Venezuela than in the United States.

Luís Henrique

[Karl Marx's Camel]

On May 27, 2007, Carmona was in attendance at the farewell party for RCTV, a privately-owned broadcasting station whose frequency was taken over by the state-run TVes later that night [12]. It is the first known time that Carmona has traveled back into Venezuela since the 2002 coup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Carmona

Why the hell isn&#39;t he arrested??? :ph34r: :ph34r:

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:21 am
[QUOTE]I don&#39;t recall being in favour of political parties which do not advocate the radical transformation of society, like the British Labour party.

And what does the Bolshevik Party have to do with Spain?
It&#39;s not a matter of simply being a "revolutionary-enough" political party. I pointed to the Labor party as a moderate leftist group that ran with the idea of party-campaigning... and it got them nowhere.

And the Bolshevik Party had everything to do with the collapse and destruction of the Second Spanish Republic and the collectivized lands of Catalonia. It&#39;s a pretty big story; probably what sealed the rife between the Anarchists and State Communists.

[YSR]

Okay, I&#39;ve earned a lot of ire through this thread and unfortunately I only have access to RevLeft through the end of this weekend and I&#39;m busy for most of it, so I&#39;ll try to be brief and respond to as many comments as possible.


Originally posted by RPAS+--> (RPAS)&#39;m reading your post bro.. and you make many valid points. I enjoy reading stuff like yours because for one it gets me thinking and it kicks me back in gear.[/b]

Word, thanks comrade. If we don&#39;t question our every political position, we risk becoming ideologues.


The objective seems so far fetch at times. specially in the times we are living that we "let our guard down", (sort of speak) and cheer or support any reform any move by a "democratic-socialist" government like Chavez&#39;s that does something out of the ordinary governments but that is in favor of socialist views, and a benefit for the working class.

I think it&#39;s important to keep in mind though, comrade, that reform is not incompatible with revolutionary aims. The question is where does the reform come from.

For instance, in the United States, we have two different models for reform. One is asserting your demands and finding ways to concretely carry those demands out. This model is best exemplified by the Young Lords, Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, the Industrial Workers of the World, Earth First&#33;, and other direct action-based groups.

The other is asking the government for help. This model is best exemplified by the "yellow socialists" of the AFL-CIO, liberal feminists, and the bourgeois elements of the Civil Rights Movement.

Chavez is a perfect example of the second kind of reform. He gives the people reforms, he is a "revolutionary leader," he is kind and generous to working people. He assures people that if they follow him he will lead them to a happier place. Essentially, he&#39;s an anti-imperialist FDR with less nukes.

I don&#39;t want to totally shit on the guy, he&#39;s done good work. But power comes from below, and Chavez is a president and therefore stands in the way of the working class acting out all of its demands. The State can help facilitate working class demands in the short term, but in the long term, it becomes an obstacle. There are a million examples of this and its subsequent return to capitalism (with varying degrees of revolutionary rhetoric) : Lenin, Mao, UK Labour Party, etc.


I wanted to ask is I never hear anything bad about Salvador Allende. wasn&#39;t he pretty much trying to do what Hugo Chavez is doing now?

As I understand it, yes. Allende was killed before we could really find out what he was going to do, though.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Preparing your barricades, are you? Setting up those nice little cooperatives, eh? Having a jolly good time with that raising of class consciousness?

Sure, I&#39;ll play the "my dick is more revolutionary than yours" game if you want. I work with my IWW branch, which is experiencing an explosion of union members in several industries, I teach classes about revolution and class at my local Free School, I&#39;m helping prepare for the RNC in 2008.

Or maybe I just made that all up. How does this prove anything? I&#39;m a worker/student, my views are just as valid as yours.


The problem is that we have those ultra-leftists who oppose Chavez because he&#39;s &#39;bourgeois&#39; and is using reforms as a means to increase public power. Those who believe that the working class must do everything themselves to gain power are pure idealists.

You mean idealists in the sense of outlook, not epistemology, right? I&#39;m a materialist, as are all "ultra-leftists".

Personally, I don&#39;t have a problem with the outlook of "idealism." Both Marx (in his early days, at least) and Kropotkin are idealists. I think the revolutionary left needs a little more idealism, or else we just become boring vanguardists so far out "in front" of the masses that we become useless. If people don&#39;t thirst for a better world, then there&#39;s no reason for them to be part of the revolution.


Unfortunately it takes a political party to mobilize the working class, to radicalize it and that&#39;s what Chavez&#39;s doing.

Oh, cough. The most successful revolutionary communist movement in my country was/is the Industrial Workers of the World, a decentralized industrial union. Our communist parties have all been jokes, in terms of getting popular support OR getting tangible benefits for the working class.

Obviously, we all want revolution. But in the meantime, the question seems to be "what to do with reform?" Reform from above, in the style of Chavez, is bullshit. Reform from below, like what the IWW did, is working class power.


BreadBros
It seems like even most of the traditional anarchist writers would be opposed to reactionary actions that originated amongst the populace.

For starters, it seems to me that racism and xenophobia have been around far longer than the bourgeoisie has, so I doubt it being their creation, especially a conscious one.

They did (except Proudhon and Bakunin, who are justly castigated for it).

But you&#39;re wrong about the second point. Scholars have linked the rise of capitalism with the creation of the racism, the white race, and other racial essentialisms. I link you to http://racetraitor.org/ and suggest that there&#39;s a wide range of new abolitionist/critical race theory material out there (the vast majority of which is written by communist or communist-sympathetic authors).

Okay, shit, I have to go. I will try to respond to your larger points later, BreadBros. Thank you for being (mostly) civil in this discussion, which is more than can be said about others. (Myself included, I guess. ^_^ )

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:06 pm
Why the hell isn&#39;t he arrested??? :ph34r: :ph34r:
Because Venezuela is a totalitarian dictatorship in which the poor President of the Republic cannot jail his enemies without due process. And then the President&#39;s enemies take advantage of that unbearable oppression of which the President is victim to flee. To Miami, of course.

Luís Henrique

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:04 pm
An other thing. I wanted to ask is I never hear anything bad about Salvador Allende. wasn&#39;t he pretty much trying to do what Hugo Chavez is doing now?

There&#39;s a trend in the left to glorify leaders of revolutionary movements
when fallen. I hope we don&#39;t wait until the popular government in venezuela is overthrown and the working class crushed, to support Chavez and the working class organizations along him

[anomee]

There&#39;s a trend in the left to glorify leaders of revolutionary movements
when fallen. I hope we don&#39;t wait until the popular government in venezuela is overthrown and the working class crushed, to support Chavez and the working class organizations along him

Bingo&#33;

Chavez is NOT an enemy to the people.

He is and enemy to the global power elite who are trying to grind him under, and who will crush the real people of Venezuela like they do the real people of the rest of the world.

Support Chavez against the real enemies of human kind, now, and if he screws up later, that would be cause for another revolution at that point.

Chavez is NOT an enemy to the people.

He should probably have let the station renew its license, he didn&#39;t. Get over it. It&#39;s NO huge crime against the rights of man, it&#39;s a piffle in this case.

And at risk of being accused of flaming -- which I&#39;m not, I&#39;m just observing this -- But I think "Young Stupid Radical" is exactly what he calls himself in terms of the rhetoric he lays down, at best, and possibly here, at worst, to put down Chavez for a... cause that may have a reason, perhaps, but not a good reason, if you&#39;ll pardon me for saying so....

Unless he&#39;s just young and dumb and full of... rhetoric... :rolleyes:

[BreadBros]

But you&#39;re wrong about the second point. Scholars have linked the rise of capitalism with the creation of the racism, the white race, and other racial essentialisms. I link you to http://racetraitor.org/ and suggest that there&#39;s a wide range of new abolitionist/critical race theory material out there (the vast majority of which is written by communist or communist-sympathetic authors).

While I&#39;m not a scholar, I&#39;m somewhat familiar with some of the stuff you&#39;re talking about. I&#39;ll check out that link BUT I wasn&#39;t necessarily arguing that racism or xenophobia was completely separate from capitalism. I do think some forms of prejudice are "baggage" carried over from feudal times. For example, anti-Semitism by eastern European peasants in past centuries. However, I would agree that many much of race-based views in society ARE based in capitalism. However, I personally feel that they are more organic and based in actual material differences between population groups, rather than being some sort of conscious creation of the bourgeoisie or state. I also think that Marx was right when he wrote that capitalism to some degree diminishes national or ethnic differences between people and can often be progressive in that manner. It seems to me that often writers on the left (especially people in Ethnic Studies and the such) overlook these points because they dont comfortably fit into an easy good-and-bad view of economic development.


Okay, shit, I have to go. I will try to respond to your larger points later, BreadBros. Thank you for being (mostly) civil in this discussion, which is more than can be said about others. (Myself included, I guess. ^_^ )

Meh, in hindsight I thought I was being a bit of a jackass, I was kinda caught up in other personal stuff, but so goes it. Interested in reading any future posts in this thread. (>^_^)>

[Guerrilla22]

The Chavez administration has decided not to renew the their license based on the fact the channel in question is notorious for sprrading anti government propaganda and disinformation. A "media outlet" was not closed, a tool for opposition propaganda was shut down.

[chebol]

For a good solid dose of reality from Venezuela:

http://gringo-venezolano.blogspot.com/

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:52 pm
Support Chavez against the real enemies of human kind, now, and if he screws up later, that would be cause for another revolution at that point.
Yeah, it&#39;s not like any dictator has maintained an iron control of their nation until their deaths. Venezuela is an extremely polarized environment. With the prevailing attitudes of both sides, how easy do you think it would be to recognize the point where democracy is on the real decline, and the people find themselves with no rights? Better than recognizing, how easy do you think it would be to dislodge Chavez at that point?

I&#39;m not suggesting that Chavez is a dictator or leaning towards any of those tendencies. In fact, I think that much of his work is quite honorable, such as Mission Identidad that provided some five million citizens with the credentials to vote, among innumerable other educational and worker programs. But, this shutting down of the news station was clearly a bad idea, and in many of these news articles I&#39;m reading, the polarization of attitudes continue. Either you&#39;re for Chavez and Democratic Socialism, or against both. This kind of obedience to the partyline is a socially unhealthy.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:08 pm
innumerable other educational and worker programs. But, this shutting down of the news station was clearly a bad idea, and in many of these news articles I&#39;m reading, the polarization of attitudes continue.
Punkerslut, RCTV was not "shut down" by Hugo Chavez and to assert such a thing would indicate clearly that you have fallen for the rhetoric of the international Capitalist mass media. It just had its concession taken away from the government of Venezuela, a concession of a public frequency. Just because it just had its public frequency license taken away by the government of Venezuela, that does not mean that it its cable and satellite operations have been taken away as well.

And also Punkerslut, the non-renewal of RCTV&#39;s public frequency license was a good idea. It was RCTV who helped to accelerate the events that led to the coup of April 11-13 by calling the "Anti-Chavistas" who were marching to make an illegal turn toward Miraflores (the presidential palace) as opposed to staying in the marching path that they were permitted to go through and it was RCTV who helped to proliferate and disseminate the manipulation of broadcast images that allowed the coup-plotters to declare their mutiny. They have violated the constitution and they have consistently promoted the dissemination of behavior that goes against the positive psychological development of both children and adults, so they had to come off one way or another.

The thing that bothers me about this situation is how is it that there are many out there who actually think that keeping such a channel on the air was a good thing for Venezuela and the Venezuelan people. This channel had the ability to psychologically manipulate and indoctrinate those who watched it to believe that President Chavez is this or is that or that the programs that he is carrying out is this or is that. By taking it off the air, it helped to accelerate the isolation of the opposition from the rest of the means of communication and it would eventually increase the reach of community television throughout the entire territory of the nation, because the channel that has taken its place, TVes (Venezuelan Social Television), is mostly broadcasting programs produced by community television networks and because TVes is control of the best public frequency in Venezuela by far.

[Punkerslut]

Punkerslut, RCTV was not "shut down" by Hugo Chavez and to assert such a thing would indicate clearly that you have fallen for the rhetoric of the international Capitalist mass media. It just had its concession taken away from the government of Venezuela, a concession of a public frequency. Just because it just had its public frequency license taken away by the government of Venezuela, that does not mean that it its cable and satellite operations have been taken away as well.

The change of the word does not alter the matter. To deny a man air to breath must not be the same thing as to kill him.


And also Punkerslut, the non-renewal of RCTV&#39;s public frequency license was a good idea. It was RCTV who helped to accelerate the events that led to the coup of April 11-13 by calling the "Anti-Chavistas" who were marching to make an illegal turn toward Miraflores (the presidential palace) as opposed to staying in the marching path that they were permitted to go through and it was RCTV who helped to proliferate and disseminate the manipulation of broadcast images that allowed the coup-plotters to declare their mutiny. They have violated the constitution and they have consistently promoted the dissemination of behavior that goes against the positive psychological development of both children and adults, so they had to come off one way or another.

You know how many illegal turns I&#39;ve made in protests? Have you ever made any? Have you ever stated something that could be described as "inculcating a situation of unrest," or "fomenting the revolution"? Then you&#39;re just as guilty as those you want to silence. That&#39;s the point of freedom of speech, and that&#39;s why it is LEGAL in the United States to burn an American flag. Because each person is responsible for the actions they themselves take. If you react on someone else&#39;s misinformation, it&#39;s just as bad as saying "I was only following orders." But RCTV is just right-wing propaganda, not those in power to give orders. They supported the enemy of the state, sure, but would you then give the same condemnation to every American who resisted and opposed the Vietnam conflict in the United States?

I can&#39;t get over this dichotomy. Someone please help me. =)


The thing that bothers me about this situation is how is it that there are many out there who actually think that keeping such a channel on the air was a good thing for Venezuela and the Venezuelan people. This channel had the ability to psychologically manipulate and indoctrinate those who watched it to believe that President Chavez is this or is that or that the programs that he is carrying out is this or is that. By taking it off the air, it helped to accelerate the isolation of the opposition from the rest of the means of communication and it would eventually increase the reach of community television throughout the entire territory of the nation, because the channel that has taken its place, TVes (Venezuelan Social Television), is mostly broadcasting programs produced by community television networks and because TVes is control of the best public frequency in Venezuela by far.

I would have been in favor of a socialized ownership of the television stations, but only insomuch that it proceeded upon the most democratic guidelines; and if it&#39;s done correctly, then you would still be hearing the right-wing voices of the RCTV.

[metalero]

The change of the word does not alter the matter. To deny a man air to breath must not be the same thing as to kill him.

Every man needs total access to fresh air in order to live, that&#39;s a fundamental human right. Capitalists are not entitled to have infinite access to liscences to operate a determinate public service (radio electrical spectre), not even in a buorgeois society. In that terms, this measure had nothing of illegal, much less tyrannical, but you keep insisting this is a violation of free speech. What will be the next outcry? a violation of the sacred and undeniable "natural" right to private property over the means of production? :rolleyes: in anycase, we are not liberals. get over it.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:08 am
For a good solid dose of reality from Venezuela:

http://gringo-venezolano.blogspot.com/
exellent first hand account of the events in venezuela&#33; this was so hilarious:


Globovision for its part has come under fire from the government for making veiled calls for Chávez to be assassinated (using an oh-so-crafty photo-montage of the 1981 assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II and a Ruben Blades singing ‘have faith, this doesn’t end here’) while CNN en Español has had the subtlety to place pictures of Chávez next to photos of Al Qaeda militants and leaders. In a second ‘oopsie daisie that sort of thing just happens in journalism’ CNN played footage of a protest against the killing of a journalist in Cancun, Mexico, and claimed it was footage of Venezuelans protesting RCTV.

(I guess either: 1. CNN sucks; 2. They couldn’t get any State Department-prepackaged footage of Venezuela; or 3. They just think all them dern LAHteeenohs look alike anyway – [I mean, Venezuelans are just another type of Mexican, right?)

[Pawn Power]

I don&#39;t know if anyone posted this yet...


May 30, 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker Pelosi,

I am writing in the opportunity to respond to your May 30 statement on Venezuela’s decision not to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). In it, you accused President Hugo Chávez of engaging in efforts to “suppress the media.” I would like to assure you that the decision was made in full accordance with Venezuela’s laws and does not represent a threat to the country’s vibrant media or the ability of the Venezuelan people to receive information and opinion that is critical of the government. Equally, and as many observers have pointed out, since President Chavez came to power the government has tried to democratize the media to foster a diversity of voices to combat the historical monopoly on the broadcasting of information that causes so much harm to any democracy.

The decision not to renew RCTV’s broadcast license was a simple regulatory matter that was made according to the country’s constitution, laws and public interest standards. It was not made based on RCTV’s critical editorial stance against the government, nor was it directed at silencing criticism of the government. The Venezuelan media has enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy the right to report and offer opinions, whether or not they agree with President Chávez. This has also been recognized by numerous observers. As Bart Jones, a longtime correspondent for the Associated Press wrote in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times on May 30, “Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chávez.”

It is also important to note that while RCTV enjoyed access to the public spectrum, it far exceeded its prescribed role as a media outlet in a democracy. In April 2002, RCTV promoted a coup against the democratically elected government of President Chávez. After that, it participated and encouraged the sabotage of the oil industry of Venezuela, causing tremendous suffering on the Venezuelan people.

In both instances, RCTV went beyond taking a critical editorial stance against the government. It used its privileged position as a media outlet to help subvert Venezuela’s constitutional order. In no other country would a media outlet be allowed to play such an overtly undemocratic role, much less using a public broadcast spectrum. Again, in so doing, RCTV single-handedly subverted Venezuela’s democracy. I wonder how the FCC would have responded had such events taken place in the United States.

The decision to not renew RCTV’s license will not affect Venezuela’s longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of information as your statement suggests. In fact, the majority of Venezuela’s media outlets remain in private hands – of the 81 television stations, 709 radio broadcasters and 118 newspapers throughout Venezuela, 79, 706 and 118, respectively, are privately owned and operated. More importantly, they all exercise their rights freely, often criticizing the government in strident terms reflecting the vitality of Venezuela’s democracy. Since the non renewal took effect, the great majority of media outlets in Venezuela have openly reported on and offered their opinions on the decision.

If you have any questions or concerns about Venezuela or the Venezuelan media, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter. Most importantly, I invite you to visit Venezuela and judge for yourself the vibrant state of the media and freedom of thought and expression enjoyed by all Venezuelans.

Respectfully,

Bernardo Alvarez Herrera
Ambassador


30 de mayo de 2007

Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Presidenta
Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos
Washington, D.C.

Sra. Presidenta Pelosi,

Le escribo en la oportunidad de responder a su comunicado del 30 de mayo sobre la decisión de Venezuela de no renovar la licencia de transmisión de Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV). En ella, usted acusa al Presidente Hugo Chávez de participar en esfuerzos por “suprimir a los medios de comunicación”. Quiero asegurarle que la decisión fue tomada en plena concordancia con las leyes venezolanas y no representa una amenaza a los medios de comunicación vibrantes del país o la habilidad del pueblo venezolano de recibir información y opiniones que son críticas del gobierno. De la misma forma, y como muchos observadores han indicado, desde que el presidente Chávez llegó al poder ha tratado de democratizar los medios de comunicación para promover la diversidad de las voces para combatir el monopolio histórico sobre la transmisión de la información que causa tanto daño a cualquier democracia.

La decisión de no renovar la licencia de transmisión de RCTV, fue una simple medida regulatoria que fue hecha de acuerdo a la constitución del país, las leyes y los estándares del interés público. No fue tomada basándose en la línea editorial crítica de RCTV en contra del gobierno, y no fue dirigida a silenciar el criticismo del gobierno. Los medios de comunicación venezolanos han gozado, y continuarán gozando del derecho de reportar y ofrecer opiniones, así estén de acuerdo o no con el Presidente Chávez. Esto también ha sido reconocido por numerosos observadores. Como Bart Jones, un corresponsal de larga trayectoria en Associated Press, quien escribió en un editorial, publicado en “Los Angeles Times” el 30 de mayo, que “la radio, la televisión y los periódicos continúan trabajando sin censura, constricciones o amenazas por parte del gobierno. La mayoría de los medios de comunicación venezolanos todavía son controlados por una vieja oligarquía y siguen siendo incondicionalmente opositores a Chávez.”

Es también importante señalar, que mientras RCTV ha gozado del acceso al espectro público, excedió sobremanera su rol preescrito como un medio de comunicación dentro de una democracia. En abril de 2002, RCTV promovió un golpe de estado en contra del gobierno democráticamente elegido del Presidente Chávez. Luego de eso, participó y promovió el sabotaje de la industria petrolera en Venezuela, causando un tremendo sufrimiento al pueblo venezolano.

En ambas instancias, RCTV fue más allá de tomar una línea editorial crítica en contra del gobierno. Utilizó su posición privilegiada como un medio de comunicación, para ayudar a subvertir el orden constitucional venezolano. En ningún otro país se hubiera permitido que un medio de comunicación juegue un rol tan antidemocrático, ni mucho menos que utilice el espectro de transmisión público. Una vez más, al hacerlo, RCTV trastornó unilateralmente la democracia venezolana. Me pregunto cómo el FCC hubiese respondido si tales eventos se hubieran llevado a cabo en Estados Unidos.

La decisión de no renovar la licencia de RCTV, no afectará el largo compromiso de Venezuela con la libertad de expresión, la libertad de prensa y la libertad de información como su comunicado sugiere. De hecho la mayoría de los medios de comunicación venezolanos permanecen en manos privadas—de las 81 estaciones de televisión, 709 estaciones de radio y 118 diarios a lo largo de Venezuela, 79, 706 y 118, respectivamente, son controlados y operados por el sector privado. Lo que es más importante es que todos ejercen sus derechos libremente, a menudo criticando al gobierno en términos estridentes reflejando la vitalidad de la democracia de Venezuela. Desde que la no renovación entró en efecto, la gran mayoría de los medios de comunicación en Venezuela han ofrecido abiertamente sus opiniones sobre la decisión.

Si tuviera preguntas o preocupaciones sobre Venezuela, o los medios de comunicación venezolanos, por favor no dude en contactarme. Le daría la bienvenida a la oportunidad de reunirme con usted cuanto antes para discutir este asunto. Mejor aun, la invito a que visite Venezuela y juzgue por usted el vibrante estado de los medios de comunicación y la libertad de expresión disfrutada por todos los venezolanos.

Respetuosamente,

Bernardo Álvarez Herrera
Embajador

[Punkerslut]

Every man needs total access to fresh air in order to live, that&#39;s a fundamental human right. Capitalists are not entitled to have infinite access to liscences to operate a determinate public service (radio electrical spectre), not even in a buorgeois society. In that terms, this measure had nothing of illegal, much less tyrannical, but you keep insisting this is a violation of free speech.

I wasn&#39;t actually arguing about the right to air. I was demonstrating a point. In any case, I would like it if you could tell me why left-wing individuals, who oppose the state&#39;s decisions and offer support to the state&#39;s enemies, should not be punished thusly by the state? Afterall, if the logic applies here in Venezuela, it must apply everywhere else.


What will be the next outcry? a violation of the sacred and undeniable "natural" right to private property over the means of production? :rolleyes: in anycase, we are not liberals. get over it.

"You want freedom of speech&#33; YOU MUST BE THE FASCIST BOURGEOISIE&#33;" I&#39;m sorry, is Stalinism a part of the revolutionaryleft.com?

[Rawthentic]

I&#39;m sorry, is Stalinism a part of the revolutionaryleft.com?

Too bad huh?

[chebol]

Punkerslut wrote:

The change of the word does not alter the matter. To deny a man air to breath must not be the same thing as to kill him.

Let&#39;s address a couple of things here.

1. Words do not make the world, the world makes words.
So, while changing the word does not matter, it seem to for you. The words "shut down" are not those of Venezuela, thjey are those of opponents of Chavez, the revolution, and socialism. Why do they use them? Because they want to appeal to the very concern you are expressing - freedom of speech, the easy equation in the West between this and dictatorship.

The "matter" is that the licence was up for renewal. The government chose not to renew it for RCTV, and to give the licence instead to a different boradcaster. Don&#39;t think that by changing the word to "shut down" you have somehow changed the matter.

2. &#39;Breathing room&#39;
Try this: &#39;To deny a man "air to breath", or to pollute it, or to do both, so that only the rich can "breath" unpolluted air, and everyone else has to breath their pollution....&#39;
Now, change the references to "breathing" into "right to free speech and media expression". Now, who&#39;s doing the suffocating (and has been for decades)? What proportion of the media do the bourgeoisie own, and what proportion allow popular/ democratic involvement?

3. Killing the bourgeois press?
Not bloody likely, as the can afford to go to cable. Which your average Venezuelan cannot, which is another reason why they should have more input in a media system almost entirely controlled by the rich.

Which is why we describe the switch from RCTV to TVes as "democratising (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/712/36966)" the media.

[Andy Bowden]

Given that this was the deadline for RCTV&#39;s extension or suspension of its licence, and was not accelerated or hastened, do the critics of Chavez think that he should have actually renewed the licence of RCTV?

Because those are the two options, renew it or cancel it.

[Punkerslut]

Let&#39;s address a couple of things here.

1. Words do not make the world, the world makes words.
So, while changing the word does not matter, it seem to for you. The words "shut down" are not those of Venezuela, thjey are those of opponents of Chavez, the revolution, and socialism. Why do they use them? Because they want to appeal to the very concern you are expressing - freedom of speech, the easy equation in the West between this and dictatorship.

The "matter" is that the licence was up for renewal. The government chose not to renew it for RCTV, and to give the licence instead to a different boradcaster. Don&#39;t think that by changing the word to "shut down" you have somehow changed the matter.

At the same time, every American&#39;s rights are up for renewal against the Constitution&#39;s elastic clause. The Communist Party of America was never censored or outlawed; the government simply didn&#39;t want to renew their license to freedom of associatoin, as per the US government&#39;s elastic clause. That was the argument of many of them. Redefine it how you want.

These people, by their democratic rights, have been doing something for a long time, and now because of a state decision, that behavior is prohibited. Communist Party of America or RCTV.


2. &#39;Breathing room&#39;
Try this: &#39;To deny a man "air to breath", or to pollute it, or to do both, so that only the rich can "breath" unpolluted air, and everyone else has to breath their pollution....&#39;
Now, change the references to "breathing" into "right to free speech and media expression". Now, who&#39;s doing the suffocating (and has been for decades)? What proportion of the media do the bourgeoisie own, and what proportion allow popular/ democratic involvement?

3. Killing the bourgeois press?
Not bloody likely, as the can afford to go to cable. Which your average Venezuelan cannot, which is another reason why they should have more input in a media system almost entirely controlled by the rich.

That is why the left is pro-collectivization. Like I said, I would have been in favor of a program for regional, autonomous control the media; but the only way to know that it is democratically functioning and providing a voice for each person, is if you&#39;re still hearing those right-wing voices after the socialization project. Far from a socialized project, Chavez actions here were pro-party, pro-state, and pro-Chavez, but not pro-Democracy.


Which is why we describe the switch from RCTV to TVes as "democratising" the media.

Yes, and Mao called his absolute dictatorship "democratic," because it represented the interests of the people. Democracy is not defined according to what is best for the people, according to any person&#39;s model, except for the people themselves. Where those rights to participation in the public forum are restricted on anyone, then Democracy is at risk.

If RCTV isn&#39;t revolutionary enough for the Venezualan people, anyone may soon find themselves in that group, if only for disagreement with the policy of the party.

Also... I&#39;m still looking for an answer to this, if anyone wants to volunteer it:


I would like it if you could tell me why left-wing individuals, who oppose the state&#39;s decisions and offer support to the state&#39;s enemies, should not be punished thusly by the state? Afterall, if the logic applies here in Venezuela, it must apply everywhere else.

[sexyguy]

Posted: June 02, 2007 04:46 pm


Guerrillero


Group: Member*
Posts: 278
Member No.: 20867
Joined: March 10, 2007




QUOTE
The move has galvanised opposition to the rule of Gen Musharraf, who is the head of the army.
Meanwhile, two TV channels have had their live broadcasts suspended.



Let’s see if there is an outcry from the international press on this one&#33;

This post has been edited by sexyguy on June 02, 2007 08:43 pm

[chebol]

Punkerslut,
let me try this in simpler language, as you seem determined to try to spin this into a web of equivocating nonsense.

1. The channel broke the regulations, law, etc, etc.
2. It was not taken off air then, as it could have been.
3. Its licence was up for renewal, and the Government decided that there were others who could and would use the licence better and more repsonsibly.
4. RCTV is still wealthy enough that it can broadacast via a different medium, one that isn&#39;t paid for and owned by the government, and through them, the people. IE the drivel they want to show is still *not prohibited*, people still hear the right-wing voices in Venezuele BECAUSE THEY STILL OWN ALMOST ALL OF THE MEDIA; they just won&#39;t get subsidised to do it anymore.
5. Comparing the prohibition of the CPUSA and the non-renewal of the RCTV licence is disingebuous, at best, and downright misleading. Might I suggest, before you make any more silly comparisons, that you read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm).
6. I suggest you have a good hard think about "democratic rights", what they are, who has them, and how they are *actually* used.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:18 pm
The Communist Party of America was never censored or outlawed;
Neither have Venezuelan political parties been outlawed. And there&#39;s no renewal clause on the First Amendment. What a specious argument.

As for why leftists shouldn&#39;t be similarly punished? Tell ya what.

Show me a country where leftists own a majority of the means of mass communication. Where, as a result, the media is totally out of step with the majority of the population. Then I won&#39;t oppose any effort to redistribute media resources there.

[cubist]

i think you mis understood how i intended to relate to it YSR

i know very well it was written against the state but the actual content of the film shows you down side of the capitalist state and its media machine which is what i was trying to get at.

It itself is applying a view to statemedia but this is for another thread.

the point is that The media machine since before the 1st world and the rise of lenin has been used to regulate and control the people, divert attention when necassary and certainly prevent the truth from getting out.



Originally posted by Yound stupid Radica

It blows my mind that the left (and RevLeft.com in particular) can simply hand Chavez another pass on his increasingly repressive actions. We&#39;re supposed to be supporting the Venezuelan working class. If they had wanted to destroy this horrid corporation, they could have and should have done it on their own. "Revolutionary leaders" like Chavez only lead to "revolutionary dictatorships".

this is the problem with socialsim trying to exist inside a capitalist world, and my major bug about communism but what is better? A capitalist pig like in columbia who ar eturning a blind eye to the paramilitary detahsquads, or in mexico where the now presidente was a ceo of coca cola mexico how are the masses helped there?

Chavez is one of the only nations buying sugar from cuba since the collapse of the soviet empire sugar being a huge source of income with the Embargos placed on cuba.


a revolution is no bed of roses you will have to divert peoples attention using the media during a revolution to get what is necassary Done if you wish to maintain the socialist movement.

im not supporting it or against it chavez has done as much good as bad, kinda like what happens in england you pic the one that hurts you as aperson the least and we all no that would be chavez

[Punkerslut]

As for why leftists shouldn&#39;t be similarly punished? Tell ya what.

Show me a country where leftists own a majority of the means of mass communication. Where, as a result, the media is totally out of step with the majority of the population. Then I won&#39;t oppose any effort to redistribute media resources there.

The USSR in Stalin&#39;s hayday, maybe?

[metalero]

I wasn&#39;t actually arguing about the right to air. I was demonstrating a point
what point? equating basic human rights with billionaire corporation&#39;s monopoly over the media?

In any case, I would like it if you could tell me why left-wing individuals, who oppose the state&#39;s decisions and offer support to the state&#39;s enemies
We are not against "the state" for it is only an instrument of opression of one class by another. The problem is when we have a rich minority using it to oppress a majority who produce the wealth.

"You want freedom of speech&#33; YOU MUST BE THE FASCIST BOURGEOISIE&#33;"
I used the irony to point out your hilarious comparisson between basic human rights and corporate interests, a fallacy you used again, when you assumed that I meant you were a fascist rather than a petty-bourgeois liberal.

[Cheung Mo]

Can there come a point where even if they know that an action is the right thing, people will oppose it because they feel it attacks some nonsensical liberal or Christian sensibilities? And if that&#39;s what&#39;s going on, what can be done to rectify the reactionary conditioning?

[Dr Mindbender]

Maybe I&#39;m missing something but how are christian or reactionary sensibilities related to TV licensing?

[Comrade Castro]

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE dont believe the utter bullsh*t that the bourgeosie media says that their movement has grown in any way after RCTV was closed. Its just a bunch a rich kids from private universities protesting because the media tells them that "the communists are destroying our democracy, blah blah blah". its so pathetic. During their pathetic little marches, they go up to unarmed policemen who are just standing there and bow down to the confused officers "in surrender", putting on a nice little show for the watching cameras who then "tell the world about the dictatorship crushing the massive student movement..." this upper class, right wing reactionary scum has actually had to cancel many marches for lack of attendance. They even went to the point of shooting policemen who were just standing there, on orders to actually PROTECT the marches, in order to get pictures of the tear gas response. What bullsh*t. Back in the day when leftist students would protest against the previous governments (the "democracy"), the police would respond with MUSTARD GAS AND LIVE AMMUNITION&#33; None of it made the news, much less international attention because back then, the government was "a healthy capitalist democracy". Its disgusting that these misinformed fools protest to bring that back. But not to worry, the majority of the Venezuelan people are not idiots, and are well aware of the media&#39;s lies. If anything, the opposition movement has shrunk seeing the idiocy of the capitalists. Another example: they kept asking for a student debate about the ongoing events, then refusing most of the invitations by chavista students (the real majority). Finally, the government offers them the chance to debate in the National Assembly (like the Parliament). They read the generic "communists removing our liberty of expresion, blah blah blah, democracy in crisis, blah blah blah" then walk out, refusing to debate. It turns out the paper they read from was sent from MIAMI by cuban "exile" rightwingers, and then on their way out, they dont forget their little show and again pretend to be getting arrested in front of international reporters. Of course, with all the witnesses, all they did was confirm their idiocy to the world. All thats happening is that the capitalists who own the media are losing their investments, and acting like victims after they tried to overthrow Chavez and led to who knows how many deaths on April 11-12 2002. They pay some ignorant right wing students and put on their little show for the CNN, FOX, and Globovisions of the world.

[CornetJoyce]

Thanks for the encouragement, Comrade.

The Nation Magazine, which was so loyal to gulag socialism for all those years, has enlisted in the Venezuelan counterrevolution, decrying the loss to the poor of "their favorite soap operas." How touching.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 am
Another example: they kept asking for a student debate about the ongoing events, then refusing most of the invitations by chavista students (the real majority). Finally, the government offers them the chance to debate in the National Assembly (like the Parliament). They read the generic "communists removing our liberty of expresion, blah blah blah, democracy in crisis, blah blah blah" then walk out, refusing to debate. It turns out the paper they read from was sent from MIAMI by cuban "exile" rightwingers, and then on their way out, they dont forget their little show and again pretend to be getting arrested in front of international reporters. Of course, with all the witnesses, all they did was confirm their idiocy to the world. All thats happening is that the capitalists who own the media are losing their investments, and acting like victims after they tried to overthrow Chavez and led to who knows how many deaths on April 11-12 2002. They pay some ignorant right wing students and put on their little show for the CNN, FOX, and Globovisions of the world.
I remember here in NYC how Telemundo was portrying that event. They were making it seem like Chavez was a monarch. In fact, the national telemundo news has a separate segment everyday dedicated to showing how "evil" chavez is. They ONLY show the smaller protests by oppositions but they rarely show the even bigger rallies that have been pro-chavez or chavista.

Que viva Chavez carajo&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 27, 2007 11:59 pm
Can there come a point where even if they know that an action is the right thing, people will oppose it because they feel it attacks some nonsensical liberal or Christian sensibilities? And if that&#39;s what&#39;s going on, what can be done to rectify the reactionary conditioning?
Good topic comrade.

It&#39;s an example of bourgeois democratic prejudice that will have to be overcome by argument.

[southernmissfan]

I&#39;m no expert on the history behind the issue, but it&#39;s my understanding that the right-wing station in question supported the coup attempt a few years back. Right?

If CBS or ABC supported a coup in D.C., not getting their FCC license renewed would be the least of their troubles.

[praxis1966]

It&#39;s true. They were also the ones behind the failed recall.