Why all the Chavez bashing?

[CheLover]

I don'y understand, I did a search on venezuela and all you see is posters bashing chavez. I thought he was one of the good guys. :o

[Tower of Bebel]

Uhm, well you have the different types of critque:
He's a bourgeois leader
He lacks some revolutionary theory
He's a ruler
He's not advancing fast enough

There are some who support him or his "21st century socialism". I personally think he needs some more revolutionary theory. It's of course easy to criticize someone if your not there yourself.
He twice said he read Lenin and Trotsky, yet I'm not fully convinced that he will safe the Venezuelan workers from the bourgeoisie. We applaud his latest steps forward though.

[Djehuti]

I don't bash Chavez. I think that he is generally progressive, but not revolutionary.


An interesting article, "Workers struggle betrayed by State and union in Venezuela"
http://libcom.org/news/workers-struggle-be...ezuela-20082007 (http://libcom.org/news/workers-struggle-betrayed-hands-state-union-venezuela-20082007)

[Philosophical Materialist]

Constructive criticism on Chavez is a good thing. Communists will oppose Chavez on things where he is wrong and will support him on issues when he's right.

[bootleg42]

I love him for starting boliviarian revolution. Now the people in the country are awake.

Plus he is trying to move towards socialism and he's not rushing things. I think he is radical but he's not showing it for good political game and for not screwing up. He's not rushing anything.

He did the most important thing though, he woke the people up so now even if Chavez was to die (hopefully he won't anytime soon), they can continue and go further. In the boliviarian circles, the people study Marx. Also remember that El Che is an idol there and the people will become familiar with his works and they'll push the revolution more and more radical.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by raccoon

* He's a bourgeois leader
* He lacks some revolutionary theory
* He's a ruler
* He's not advancing fast enough


Let's not forget him bowing to the Catholic Church....fuck that noise.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 28, 2007 10:13 pm
Constructive criticism on Chavez is a good thing. Communists will oppose Chavez on things where he is wrong and will support him on issues when he's right.
That's the right position to take. Some people simply want to oppose him on everything however. It is as if they secretly fear progress.

Generally speaking he is a force for good in the region and ultimately internationally.

Some people will reject anything that isn't perfect, but you won't get far with that attitude.

[which doctor]

Until he forfeits his power to the proletariat of Venezuela, I will continue to bash him.

[Random Precision]

Here's some good articles on the nature of Chavez and 21st century socialism:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/641/...06_Chavez.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/641/641_06_Chavez.shtml)

http://www.isreview.org/issues/54/venezuela.shtml

From a strictly revolutionary standpoint, I mostly support the things he's been doing. But he has not gone nearly far enough yet (and believe me, he could if he wanted) and right now he seems to be the "patrón" of the Venezuelan Revolution, if you will. It is far too dependent on Chavez as it stands right now, and that is not a good thing for its survival. It also seems like he's trying to avoid a confrontation with the bourgeoisie, which will happen no matter how much he wishes it wouldn't.

But I agree, I think constructive criticism is the order of the day.

[Saint Street Revolution]

He is generally a progressive leader, but he definitely lacks Revolutionary qualities. I do remain a supporter, though not fervently.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:02 pm
He's a bourgeois leader

I don't see why being "Bourgeoise" automatically labels one an enemy of Socialism.

Engels was bourgeoise. But he stood up for the Proletariat. Would you bash him, despite his philosophy? As far as I know, Marx was Bourgeoise as well.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Scribe+August 29, 2007 02:22 am--> (Scribe @ August 29, 2007 02:22 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 10:02 pm

He's a bourgeois leader


I don't see why being "Bourgeoise" automatically labels one an enemy of Socialism.

Engels was bourgeoise. But he stood up for the Proletariat. Would you bash him, despite his philosophy? As far as I know, Marx was Bourgeoise as well. [/b]
Yeah, and how many capitalists out there end up being like Engels?

They are the private owners of the means of production, therefore, their class interests are opposed to the democratic control and ownership of the means of production by the working class.

[Cheung Mo]

Exactly Scribe. I mean, the framers of our ideas were essentially Europe's most impoverished intellectual and Europe's most treasonous industrialist.

But they recgonised that the role of the leadership is not to carry out the tasks of the revolution; it's to educate the proletariat about the better world that is possible and to motivate the proletariat, the class in a position to effectuate the revolutionary social changes necessary to build this better world, into carrying out these tasks. As unintuitive as it may appear, it is not necessary that the leadership be proletarian (although as Venezuela's revolution proceeds, it is acquiring and will inevitably continue to acquire an increasingly proletarian character, a process being accelerated by the Missions)...As long as the proletarian is carrying out the revolutionary tasks and the leadership ensures that the revolution is not isolated (nigh-impossible under certain material conditions), it is possible to prevent it from either being smothered by bourgeois forces, rotting from within (dictatorship of the bureaucracy), or both.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by RedDali
Yeah, and how many capitalists out there end up being like Engels?

Many, probably. Just because the bourgeoise on TV and in newspaper seem to be the exploiters we criticise (and I agree that they exist), does not mean every bourgeoise on Earth is an exploitive, snoody twit.

You are simply making a generalization.

[CheLover]

well its nice to know he is taking things gradually

[bolshevik butcher]

Chavez is not "a bourgeois". Not in the sense of Engels anyway his parents were poor teachers......

We should defend the gains of the Venezuelan revolution, the movement of which Chavez is currently at the forefront of. However that does not mean that we should not constructively criticise it and try to move it forward.

The reason you find all these anti-Chavez posters etc is that impeiralism and the Venezuelan ruling class are terrified of the implications that recent devlopments in Venezuela and Latin America as a whole could have.

[settlefornothin]

"Ni Bush, Ni Chavez"

The slogan of some anarchist groups/collectives in Venezuela. I'll have to admit that I love the theater that Chavez supplies via his bush/america bashing and his humanitarian efforts in the region (even providing low cost heating fuel to poor Americans). I like how he pushes forward "socialism" but I have many concerns about Chavez. First, he is an authoritarian and it will be interesting to see how much power really trickles down to local councils as has been proposed in recent legislation. I think all of us have to be skeptical of any movement that is being pushed forward by such a recognizable, heavy handed individual such as Chavez. There is a lot of potential for the situation in Venezuela to be reduced to something similar to Bolshevism (Stalin and the rest of them) which would lead to nothing more than an Authoritarian State (not my idea of communism or socialism). Secondly, with Chavez centering Venezuela's power and the country's ability to institute socialism on oil revenue there are many issues dealing with the environment and world markets. By world Markets I mean that Venezuela's power is being based on the strength of oil, thus the power to induce socialism is based on oil. This presents a dilemma in pursuing two paramount goals of the revolutionary left/anti-capitalist movement: 1) Venezuela's dependence on the world market only strengthens the world market and this relationship has the potential, contrary to smashing the market, to reify it in a new, perhaps even more, authoritarian way. 2) With the environment and ecological concerns reaching critical mass, is a country using oil to implement socialism doing anything to stop capitalisms pillaging of the earth? These are very important concerns.

In another way, Chavez may offer hope for a truly proletarian, non-authoritarian revolution that would have the state wither away. Those familiar with Allende and Chile in the early 70s know that for much of his administration, Allende was handcuffed between the Chilean workers who wanted more radical action (taking over their factories, seizing land, and creating money-free systems of exchange amongst themselves independent of the state) and the bourgeoisie who started demonstrating against Allende's nationalization programs. Perhaps it would be important to see this as an example that the state, as it exists in the bourgeois-capitalist form (representative democracy), can never work for revolution and in fact only stagnates it because that state can do no more than preserve the irreconcilable differences between classes (The State and Revolution - Lenin). What was interesting in the Chilean example was that the workers, peasants and other radicals were frustrated with Allende dragging his feet and not implementing radical change fast enough. Because of this, they began to takeover factories, form exchange networks, create civilian and worker defense committees, and essentially work outside the state in a way that was on the verge of resembling the Spanish Civil War. If the people of Venezuela take Chavez's initiative further and begin to move at a more radical pace and thus negate and void the state altogether, then and only then can Venezuela be seen as truly revolutionary.


*Anyone interesting on learning more about the Chilean revolution should read the book "Weavers of Revolution: The Yarur Workers and Chile's Road to Socialism" by Peter Winn, great book.

[Tower of Bebel]

I just summed up some critiques. I didn't elaborate any of those. The only one I (might) support is: he lacks revolutionary qualities/theories.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Scribe+August 28, 2007 09:22 pm--> (Scribe @ August 28, 2007 09:22 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 10:02 pm

He's a bourgeois leader


I don't see why being "Bourgeoise" automatically labels one an enemy of Socialism. [/b]
The entire nature of communism is the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie. Of course they are enemies of a genuine workers' movement.


As far as I know, Marx was Bourgeoise as well.
Marx was not bourgeoisie at all. He lived most of his live quite poor, only surviving off what little money Engels could afford to spare him.

[CheLover]

At this stage though venezuela isn't a capitalist country and it is not a capitalist economy it seems more mixed.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:46 pm
"Ni Bush, Ni Chavez"

The slogan of some anarchist groups/collectives in Venezuela. I'll have to admit that I love the theater that Chavez supplies via his bush/america bashing and his humanitarian efforts in the region (even providing low cost heating fuel to poor Americans). I like how he pushes forward "socialism" but I have many concerns about Chavez. First, he is an authoritarian and it will be interesting to see how much power really trickles down to local councils as has been proposed in recent legislation. I think all of us have to be skeptical of any movement that is being pushed forward by such a recognizable, heavy handed individual such as Chavez. There is a lot of potential for the situation in Venezuela to be reduced to something similar to Bolshevism (Stalin and the rest of them) which would lead to nothing more than an Authoritarian State (not my idea of communism or socialism). Secondly, with Chavez centering Venezuela's power and the country's ability to institute socialism on oil revenue there are many issues dealing with the environment and world markets. By world Markets I mean that Venezuela's power is being based on the strength of oil, thus the power to induce socialism is based on oil. This presents a dilemma in pursuing two paramount goals of the revolutionary left/anti-capitalist movement: 1) Venezuela's dependence on the world market only strengthens the world market and this relationship has the potential, contrary to smashing the market, to reify it in a new, perhaps even more, authoritarian way. 2) With the environment and ecological concerns reaching critical mass, is a country using oil to implement socialism doing anything to stop capitalisms pillaging of the earth? These are very important concerns.

In another way, Chavez may offer hope for a truly proletarian, non-authoritarian revolution that would have the state wither away. Those familiar with Allende and Chile in the early 70s know that for much of his administration, Allende was handcuffed between the Chilean workers who wanted more radical action (taking over their factories, seizing land, and creating money-free systems of exchange amongst themselves independent of the state) and the bourgeoisie who started demonstrating against Allende's nationalization programs. Perhaps it would be important to see this as an example that the state, as it exists in the bourgeois-capitalist form (representative democracy), can never work for revolution and in fact only stagnates it because that state can do no more than preserve the irreconcilable differences between classes (The State and Revolution - Lenin). What was interesting in the Chilean example was that the workers, peasants and other radicals were frustrated with Allende dragging his feet and not implementing radical change fast enough. Because of this, they began to takeover factories, form exchange networks, create civilian and worker defense committees, and essentially work outside the state in a way that was on the verge of resembling the Spanish Civil War. If the people of Venezuela take Chavez's initiative further and begin to move at a more radical pace and thus negate and void the state altogether, then and only then can Venezuela be seen as truly revolutionary.
Well put.

Look, I have some family back in Venezuela and they tell me the people feel empowered and that they are learning more and more. In Boliviarian circles, the people now read Marx thanks to the fact that both Chavez and Fidel gave free literacy programs to the poor. Chavez himself always says that the revolution is not about him and that it's up to the people to carry it on and I believe that such complete revolution will happen when the opposition strikes again (via coup or something, they're planning, I mean it's rare that they don't take part in elections). If the U.S. doesn't directly bomb the shit out of the place, the people will take up arms and they'll do what must be done.

Que viva Chavez, Que viva Fidel, Que viva El Che carajo!!!!!!

P.S. I have CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism. His stance on abortion. That'll change. Fidel also had the same thing and well he changed. Also the fact that he will keep SOME private property in the new constitution really hits me as weird. Still, Venezuela will move on and socialism will strive.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 28, 2007 11:04 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 28, 2007 11:04 pm)
raccoon

* He's a bourgeois leader
* He lacks some revolutionary theory
* He's a ruler
* He's not advancing fast enough


Let's not forget him bowing to the Catholic Church....fuck that noise. [/b]
Actually, most Venezolans like the catholic church. Be a little bit pragmatic.

Why this obsession with atheism?

[CheLover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:04 pm
Actually, most Venezolans like the catholic church. Be a little bit pragmatic.

Why this obsession with atheism?
The catholic church needs to go if Venezuela is to suceed as a communist nation. There can no room for the catholic church and their leaning toward capitalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

Chavez may offer hope for a truly proletarian, non-authoritarian revolution that would have the state wither away

I hope you're right, comrade.

I give basically all heads of state an F in liberating humanity. Mr. Chavez gets a D.

Apart from the good reasons brought up by other posters, unfortunately I think Chavez and his supporters take this pseudo-nationalist Bolivarian crap to heart. Simon Bolivar was a bourgeois revolutionary a la Robespierre or Franklin. I don't get the sense Chavez's just "wrapping himself in the flag." The guy was a career military officer and seems to genuinely love his country.

How can we go about whithering the state away if a generation grows up believing how awesome and unique and priveledged it is to be Venezolano?

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by Serpent+August 29, 2007 09:04 pm--> (Serpent @ August 29, 2007 09:04 pm)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 28, 2007 11:04 pm

raccoon

* He's a bourgeois leader
* He lacks some revolutionary theory
* He's a ruler
* He's not advancing fast enough


Let's not forget him bowing to the Catholic Church....fuck that noise.
Actually, most Venezolans like the catholic church. Be a little bit pragmatic.

Why this obsession with atheism? [/b]
it's not necasarily an obsession with athiesm why catholicism has to go in south america, it's because of their right-wing stance on many issues, like womens rights, abortion, gay rights etc and the fact that the catholic church always tries to assert it's authority about these issues by threatening excommunication and stuff, the vatican has alot of power over the opinions people form on these issues and it will always be an enemy of the revolution.

[CheLover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:45 pm
it's not necasarily an obsession with athiesm why catholicism has to go in south america, it's because of their right-wing stance on many issues, like womens rights, abortion, gay rights etc and the fact that the catholic church always tries to assert it's authority about these issues by threatening excommunication and stuff, the vatican has alot of power over the opinions people form on these issues and it will always be an enemy of the revolution.
I don't think the vatican has that much power.

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by CheLover+August 30, 2007 03:06 pm--> (CheLover @ August 30, 2007 03:06 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 12:45 pm
it's not necasarily an obsession with athiesm why catholicism has to go in south america, it's because of their right-wing stance on many issues, like womens rights, abortion, gay rights etc and the fact that the catholic church always tries to assert it's authority about these issues by threatening excommunication and stuff, the vatican has alot of power over the opinions people form on these issues and it will always be an enemy of the revolution.
I don't think the vatican has that much power. [/b]
it doesnt have alot of real power but i think it has a big influence over catholics opinions

[settlefornothin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:05 am

Chavez may offer hope for a truly proletarian, non-authoritarian revolution that would have the state wither away

I hope you're right, comrade.

I give basically all heads of state an F in liberating humanity. Mr. Chavez gets a D.

Apart from the good reasons brought up by other posters, unfortunately I think Chavez and his supporters take this pseudo-nationalist Bolivarian crap to heart. Simon Bolivar was a bourgeois revolutionary a la Robespierre or Franklin. I don't get the sense Chavez's just "wrapping himself in the flag." The guy was a career military officer and seems to genuinely love his country.

How can we go about whithering the state away if a generation grows up believing how awesome and unique and priveledged it is to be Venezolano?
I said Chavez may lead to a non-authoritarian revolution if and only if the Venezuelan people start taking matters into their own hands push for more radical change and thus make the state unnecessary

[settlefornothin]

As for the Catholic church, all religions based on a hierarchical arrangement of clergy with an authoritarian at the top are counter revolutionary no matter what they preach or what their ideology is. Hierarchy has always and will always try and maintain its power, so all religions that utilize it, even if they don't have a patriarch (if they still give a priest, rabbi, whatever power over another) will have to be abolished if there were to be a truly communist society.

Don't just separate church and state, smash them both!

[Comrade Rage]

Most Communists will constructively criticize him. The only people I have encountered who emotionally thrash the guy are cappies and anarchists.

I wholeheartedly agree the guy is not revolutionary enough, but he is leading a united latin-american front against US imperialism-and doing a fine job of it.

[MarxSchmarx]

I said Chavez may lead to a non-authoritarian revolution if and only if the Venezuelan people start taking matters into their own hands push for more radical change and thus make the state unnecessary

And my point was that this nationalist "Bolivarian" crap that extols the state and works AGAINST this trend.

Why would patriotic people ever think the state unnecessary?

[Cheung Mo]

Could one not argue that given the strength of American imperialism and its collaboration with the discredited local bourgeoisie create a situation in which the masses need a vehicle through which they collectively repel this grave threat? This vehicle is Bolivarian Internationalism, led by the collective strength of the Venezuelan people and Chavez's willingness to be used as a conduit for their collective strength. There is revolution throughout Latin America, and Venezuela's toiling masses represent its most advanced component and must -- in conjunction with Chavez -- be offered strong support and constructive criticism.

I hate the fucking Church, but I don't think OMFG he said a few polite words to Kidblow Useless Cardinal Thumpy really serves as the sort criticism that provides useful assistance to the revolution.

[Mkultra]

Chavez is simply demonized b/c Chavez refused to die or be overthrown by the neocon oil terrorists who are trying to steal his oil the same way theyre now looting Iraqi oil after Saddam pissed them off by switching to the Euro