CHAVEZ LOST

[R_P_A_S]

yup... now what?

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:44 am
yup... now what?

Damn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The Mainstream Media is responsable for The new referendum's not being able to win !!

Damn man !!!


But don't worry all is not lost, we are warriors in this criminal world

marxist_god

[R_P_A_S]

this is kinda wack. im a lil depress. but this shows them that there's democracy there. people can vote. oh well. whats next in the agenda?

[Axel1917]

Not all is lost, but the opposition is going to emerge emboldened from this. The masses need to take to the streets in the future. There was not enough countering of the bourgeois lies, and that is due to the sabotage of the Fifth Column, the enemies of the revolution within it, the state bureaucracy.

The revolutionaries cannot falter, they cannot waver. The opposition emerges emboldened from their victory, and they must be on their guard. The opposition will become more daring and attempt more sabotage. We must be ready, and the revolution must be carried out through to the end or we must die trying.

A comrade just translated Chavez, a statement depicted that only fake soldiers run away after the first shots, thinking that all is lost. We must endure through the hard times. We have lost the battle, but the war is far from over.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat Monday in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and solidify his bid to transform this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.

Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.

She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.

"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people's will.

It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.

"Don't feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez's opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.

Chavez's supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela's oil wealth.

The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.

Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.

Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.

The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.

All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.

At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here!" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.

Opponents — including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.

Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez's power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.

"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.

Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday's vote.

He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.

Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.

Lucena called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."

[SocialistMilitant]

I knew he was going to lose. It's amazing how many Chavez supporters actually opposed this.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:02 am
I knew he was going to lose. It's amazing how many Chavez supporters actually opposed this.
This was probably due to internal sabotage, with the state media not really doing much to counter the bourgeois lies.

The Venezuelan workers need to remain firm, as I have stated before. If Venezuela falls, it will be a major setback for the world revolution. Cuba would fall into further isolation, and I feel that Cuba and Venezuela will stand or fall together. The choice is socialism or barbarism.

[RedAnarchist]

Its a shame he lost, but he still has quite a few years left yet.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:07 am
Its a shame he lost, but he still has quite a few years left yet.
Another referendum?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+December 03, 2007 06:09 am--> (SocialistMilitant @ December 03, 2007 06:09 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:07 am
Its a shame he lost, but he still has quite a few years left yet.
Another referendum? [/b]
I was thinking about his term, which runs out in 2012. Maybe he could have more referendums,but perhaps cut down the number of amendments in each one? 69 amendments sounds like a lot for one vote.

[black magick hustla]

I hope this defeat would enrage workers to take over the streets and to cause a real revolution.

[black magick hustla]

Also his defeat doesn't means the majority of "workers" didnt vote for him--it just means that the bourgeosie and the middle class also had a voice in the votes.

I don't think Chavez is a socialist but this is an example on how Bordiga was correct about how "democracy" in the modern sense is flawed.

[Guerrilla Manila]

I can't believe all the Reich Wing Propaganda regarding the elimination of "term limits".



the US Senate = NO TERM LIMITS

the US Congress = NO TERM LIMITS



Other executive branch "dictatorships" WITH NO TERM LIMITS ...


Australian Prime Minister = No term limits

Japanese Prime Minister = No term limits

French President = No term limits

Italian President = No term limits

Canadian Prime Minister = No term limits

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+December 03, 2007 06:12 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ December 03, 2007 06:12 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:07 am
Its a shame he lost, but he still has quite a few years left yet.
Another referendum?
I was thinking about his term, which runs out in 2012. Maybe he could have more referendums,but perhaps cut down the number of amendments in each one? 69 amendments sounds like a lot for one vote.[/b]
Many complained of not getting enough time to review the amendments.

[email protected] 03, 2007 06:15 am
I hope this defeat would enrage workers to take over the streets and to cause a real revolution.
It was clearly the workers themselves who voted against it though, along with the opposition of course.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+December 03, 2007 06:26 am--> (SocialistMilitant @ December 03, 2007 06:26 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:12 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:07 am
Its a shame he lost, but he still has quite a few years left yet.
Another referendum?
I was thinking about his term, which runs out in 2012. Maybe he could have more referendums,but perhaps cut down the number of amendments in each one? 69 amendments sounds like a lot for one vote.
Many complained of not getting enough time to review the amendments.

[email protected] 03, 2007 06:15 am
I hope this defeat would enrage workers to take over the streets and to cause a real revolution.
It was clearly the workers themselves who voted against it though, along with the opposition of course. [/b]
It seems more likely the majority of workers voted for this. The percentage that won had probably most, if not all, of the middle class and the bourgeosie, which probably accounts for atleast the ten percent of the population.

[Demogorgon]

He shouldn't have tried to tie up Socialist reforms and Presidential term limits in one vote. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.

I would like to see a new referendum just asking voters to back the progresive reforms without any change to the Presidency.

[Xiao Banfa]

Are you sure this is final? Not all the vote has been counted.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:15 am
I hope this defeat would enrage workers to take over the streets and to cause a real revolution.


Damn man this reminds me of US elections, where people don't know how to vote, and workers, blacks and US oppressed vote for capitalist oppressors. I mean where was the 60% of poors of Venezuela? I thought that the poors of Venezuela were in favor of Chavez.

What the heck is going on

This is like USA where workers and oppressed vote for capitalist parties


This is like a baseball game in which you sit in the side of the opposite team, i mean workers and oppressed voting for oppressors

marxist_god

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 03, 2007 06:30 am
Are you sure this is final. Not all the vote has been counted.
True, but results tend to become clear before the count is finished.

[marxist_god]

"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

(The Will to Power, p 481)


"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
(Beyond Good and Evil, p 225 )


"I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been."
Friedrich Nietzsche
(1844-1900)




T H E C O U N T D O W N H A S B E G U N

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:35 am
"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

(The Will to Power, p 481)


"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
(Beyond Good and Evil, p 225 )


"I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been."
Friedrich Nietzsche
(1844-1900)




T H E C O U N T D O W N H A S B E G U N
I don't get it? Whats the meaning of your post?

[bootleg42]

Marx and Lenin were right after all...........you can't change anything with a liberal democracy....................now the workers need to get pissed and take it by force. Its a sad day.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:37 am
Marx and Lenin were right after all...........you can't change anything with a liberal democracy....................now the workers need to get pissed and take it by force. Its a sad day.
The saddest part of all this, is not that Chavez lost, but that Bush and his cronies will get stronger, and more aggressive against Venezuela

marxist_god

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 03, 2007 06:41 am--> (marxist_god @ December 03, 2007 06:41 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:37 am
Marx and Lenin were right after all...........you can't change anything with a liberal democracy....................now the workers need to get pissed and take it by force. Its a sad day.
The saddest part of all this, is not that Chavez lost, but that Bush and his cronies will get stronger, and more aggressive against Venezuela

marxist_god [/b]
I dunno about that - they may have actually hoped for a Chavez win, because it would have made his opponnets angry, it would have made Chavez get too excited and he would start to rush things even more. Now Chavez has tasted defeat, he may be more careful in the future, so this defeat may be good for him and Venezuela in the long term.

[Lenin's Law]

The amazing thing is that the exit polls (owned by anti Chavez polling agencies) were so incredibly off the mark. They had the referendums passing by 6-12 points; very unusual for exit polls to be that wrong.

Furthermore, this is truly a razor close margin, I understand that over 118,000 ballots were left "spoiled" taking into consideration this and the votes still left to be counted, I don't see why Chavez couldn't have at least asked for the process to be completed before conceding.

If this is truly the result however, it only means that the socialist and progressive forces need to re double their efforts at educating and mobilizing the masses for future victories. 44% abstention is way too high over something of this importance. I agree with several of the comrades here over splitting the term limits and the other proposed changes.

No matter what, all is not lost.

[Xiao Banfa]

If this is the final result. It really sucks. I'm completely demoralised by this.

Obviously the "dictator" Chavez used his complete control of the airwaves, television to make sure people vote yes. <_<

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 03, 2007 06:44 am
The amazing thing is that the exit polls (owned by anti Chavez polling agencies) were so incredibly off the mark. They had the referendums passing by 6-12 points; very unusual for exit polls to be that wrong.

Furthermore, this is truly a razor close margin, I understand that over 118,000 ballots were left "spoiled" taking into consideration this and the votes still left to be counted, I don&#39;t see why Chavez couldn&#39;t have at least asked for the process to be completed before conceding.

If this is truly the result however, it only means that the socialist and progressive forces need to re double their efforts at educating and mobilizing the masses for future victories. 44% abstention is way too high over something of this importance. I agree with several of the comrades here over splitting the term limits and the other proposed changes.

No matter what, all is not lost.

Hello, yeah you are completely right, however like you said, more socialist information has to be spread, what i don&#39;t understand what happened to the almost 60% of Chavez supporters that he enjoyed, and the venezuelan economy is well, people are better economically, standards of living are better. I don&#39;t know what happened.

Well it is good to remember this quote by Jim Morrison of The Doors

"Did you know that we are ruled by TV." -Jim Morrison, The Doors


I think that TV mainstream media ruled the mind of people like that quote says, into voting against Chavez. TV controlled even the mind of pro-Chavez forces


marxist_god

[bootleg42]

I&#39;d say that all is lost (read everything before saying something):

What was happening in Venezuela was Chavez and the people trying to prove to us all that capitalism can be defeated even within the system without violent revolution and civil wars. They were doing a good job.

But the state did EXACTLY what the state is MEANT to do..........preserve the capitalist state at all costs. Chavez is NOT the bad guy here. He was moving along so well and he was doing what he had to do.........but the state and system slapped him back.

The revolutionary leftist forces in the country must (and I mean must) explain to workers who was really responsible.....the state and the bureaucracy of it. This must be a lesson to us all................revolution is what creates the change.

Comrades...............i guess we&#39;re just WAY ahead of our times. But still........we can&#39;t give up.

[Lenin's Law]

Yea but the mainstream media ALWAYS hated Chavez and that didn&#39;t stop him from winning election after election beforehand. He won 63% just last year. While we should never let the bourgeois media off the hook, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s the real reason Chavez lost.

[bootleg42]

I stated this in another thread:

Something here doesn&#39;t seem right......................

The social democrats of the United Socialist party at work???

So now Chavez till 2013 and then what???? The bureaucrats taking over.........

I guess this teaches us a lesson.......Marx, Lenin, etc WERE RIGHT.

You can&#39;t overturn it all using the system......there must be REVOLUTION.

The question now is............what will the proletariat of Venezuela do?????

The REVOLUTIONARY LEFT forces of Venezuela must prepare the people and make them realize that if THEY don&#39;t act, the BUREAUCRATS of the current government will take over.

It&#39;s true that the old ruling class may never be back in power....but the bureaucracy of the current government (which Chavez himself warned about to the people and he has been fighting them personally) will become the new ruling class and they will just create a capitalism that may not be AS friendly to the U.S............that is unless the democrats take the white house from the republicans.

[RedAnarchist]

Why would the end of Chavezs rule be the end of the road? He must have people who can replace him.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:58 am
I&#39;d say that all is lost (read everything before saying something):

What was happening in Venezuela was Chavez and the people trying to prove to us all that capitalism can be defeated even within the system without violent revolution and civil wars. They were doing a good job.

But the state did EXACTLY what the state is MEANT to do..........preserve the capitalist state at all costs. Chavez is NOT the bad guy here. He was moving along so well and he was doing what he had to do.........but the state and system slapped him back.

The revolutionary leftist forces in the country must (and I mean must) explain to workers who was really responsible.....the state and the bureaucracy of it. This must be a lesson to us all................revolution is what creates the change.

Comrades...............i guess we&#39;re just WAY ahead of our times. But still........we can&#39;t give up.


Another reason from my personal point of view is that Socialism in 1 country is almost impossible or impossible. I mean i&#39;ve heard the theory that for a 100% socialist system (workers ownership of businesses) to be real, the whole world would have to be socialist. It is almost impossible for 2, 3-5 nations to be socialist and the whole world neoliberal capitalist

world_god

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is a major propaganda and social victory.

Most of what was entailed in the referendum were very popular among the population. The Venezuelans feared of state centralism.

What is the opposition going to say now that Chavez has suffered a defeat? This is the icing on the cake: Chavez is a devoted democrat. His heart is with the people&#39;s opinion. I don&#39;t doubt the mainstream media will continue to refer to him as a dictator, but now the people at home are thinking, but what dictator concedes an election without a recount?

Continue on&#33;

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:01 am
I stated this in another thread:

Something here doesn&#39;t seem right......................

The social democrats of the United Socialist party at work???

So now Chavez till 2013 and then what???? The bureaucrats taking over.........

I guess this teaches us a lesson.......Marx, Lenin, etc WERE RIGHT.

You can&#39;t overturn it all using the system......there must be REVOLUTION.

The question now is............what will the proletariat of Venezuela do?????

The REVOLUTIONARY LEFT forces of Venezuela must prepare the people and make them realize that if THEY don&#39;t act, the BUREAUCRATS of the current government will take over.

It&#39;s true that the old ruling class may never be back in power....but the bureaucracy of the current government (which Chavez himself warned about to the people and he has been fighting them personally) will become the new ruling class and they will just create a capitalism that may not be AS friendly to the U.S............that is unless the democrats take the white house from the republicans.


Hey i have good news, all is not lost. Chavez can still propose another referendum, after of course more knowledge, information and socialist propaganda is spread among the masses

marxist_god

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 03, 2007 07:07 am--> (marxist_god @ December 03, 2007 07:07 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:01 am
I stated this in another thread:

Something here doesn&#39;t seem right......................

The social democrats of the United Socialist party at work???

So now Chavez till 2013 and then what???? The bureaucrats taking over.........

I guess this teaches us a lesson.......Marx, Lenin, etc WERE RIGHT.

You can&#39;t overturn it all using the system......there must be REVOLUTION.

The question now is............what will the proletariat of Venezuela do?????

The REVOLUTIONARY LEFT forces of Venezuela must prepare the people and make them realize that if THEY don&#39;t act, the BUREAUCRATS of the current government will take over.

It&#39;s true that the old ruling class may never be back in power....but the bureaucracy of the current government (which Chavez himself warned about to the people and he has been fighting them personally) will become the new ruling class and they will just create a capitalism that may not be AS friendly to the U.S............that is unless the democrats take the white house from the republicans.


Hey i have good news, all is not lost. Chavez can still propose another referendum, after of course more knowledge, information and socialist propaganda is spread among the masses

marxist_god [/b]
Yeah, but he has to let the people understand the consquences of voting yes first. Whilst the reforms may be good for them, they have to understand what exactly is being reformed and why.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The corporate media is going to twist and turn in trying to spin out the regular "Chavez is a dictator" line now that he&#39;s lost. Even worse, he accepted the defeat with grace.

Good. That&#39;s what they get for besmirching a man who has to worry for his life just because he doesn&#39;t support American imperialism. I hope this example of democracy and socialism being compatible ideologies continues to spread. 21st century socialism indeed&#33;

[Revolution Until Victory]

no problem, Chavez have declared he will launch another one again "when Venzeuela is ready".

[bootleg42]

I hope this is more of evidence that the only way to defeat capitalism is by revolution and not through liberal democracy.

[Marsella]

Sad that the 6 hour day was not carried.

That would have made a material difference to the position of the working class.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 am
I hope this is more of evidence that the only way to defeat capitalism is by revolution and not through liberal democracy.
Whilst I agree with you, its good to see it being tried out in Venezuela. Chavez obviously has the support of the people and he is some sort of socialist. Maybe his experiment, when proven correct, will encourage less parliamentary ways of abolishing capitalism.

[R_P_A_S]

Why do most of you talk as if Venezuelan working class needs Hugo Chavez in order to fight? Seriously many of you here all caught up with a huge Chavez personality cult. Never under estimate the people. I&#39;m not a future teller.. but man.. something is gonna go down.

[ComradeR]

God damn it this is depressing first I get laid off today and now this, what a perfect end to a perfect fucking day.
Looks like Operation "Pliers" had some success, I pretty much guarantee those bastards are going to try and take this further. The Venezuelan workers need to be on their guard.

This is a major propaganda and social victory.

Most of what was entailed in the referendum were very popular among the population. The Venezuelans feared of state centralism.

What is the opposition going to say now that Chavez has suffered a defeat? This is the icing on the cake: Chavez is a devoted democrat. His heart is with the people&#39;s opinion. I don&#39;t doubt the mainstream media will continue to refer to him as a dictator, but now the people at home are thinking, but what dictator concedes an election without a recount?

Continue on&#33;
Agreed, all is not lost. It&#39;s not like this was a coup that closed the door to revolution for good (though the US and the opposition would love to see this happen). Unless the US backed opposition does something there is a very good chance that Socialism will take hold in Venezuela.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 am
I hope this is more of evidence that the only way to defeat capitalism is by revolution and not through liberal democracy.
well yes. but lets wait and see. Im sure there are ways and events that are yet to take place, that we dont know about that willl teach us more and more about new methods and such.

I AGREE with some of you here that the fucking changes for the constitution were too many&#33;. he should of cut it to like 1/4 for now, of all the shit he wanted to change..

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:34 am
Why do most of you talk as if Venezuelan working class needs Hugo Chavez in order to fight? Seriously many of you here all caught up with a huge Chavez personality cult. Never under estimate the people. I&#39;m not a future teller.. but man.. something is gonna go down.
Couldn&#39;t agree more.

[Herman]

Alright, everybody don&#39;t worry.

This is a small setback, yes. The are many reasons why the reform did not make it.

Firstly, three months is not enough to discuss properly the constitution and its effects. Chavez had proposed this in August and it seems clear that it was too little time for anyone to really understand fully what the changes were.

Second, the opposition has not increased its number of votes, but rather Chavez supporters abstained from voting. Notice how in the last general elections Chavez got more than 7 million votes. This time, 3,000,000 voters abstained. A better thing would have been to vote individually for each article.

Thirdly, like many have said bourgeois and general privately-owned media lies and slander (including CNN and Spanish media) have done their work well. Distorting the constitution reforms, they have sown doubt and insecurity.

Fourthly, Chavez is also to blame partially. This last month he committed a series of blunders which internationally lost him respect. Hopefully, this referendum will prove that democracy in Venezuela is alive and healthy, and perhaps Chavez might regain some international prestige.

I say, do not be sad or disillusioned by this. If anything, this must serve as a warning and a lesson&#33; The same mistake cannot be made again&#33; It is important to tackle bureaucracy and corruption wherever they are&#33;

[Lenin's Law]

Remember that Chavez didn&#39;t originally advocate for 69 changes, he only wanted 28 or so but then the Assembly went ahead and added some more to make it higher

That&#39;s why they split the referendum into 2 Blocks: the 1st one which was Chavez&#39; original proposed changes and Block 2 including the ones added by the Assembly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

One or two of you have rather naive illusions in electoralism, as well as in Chavez

This is the lowest form of the class struggle comrades.

The working class needs to organise independently of Chavez, or face the consequences.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 07:46 am
One or two of you have rather naive illusions in electoralism, as well as in Chavez

This is the lowest form of the class struggle comrades.

The working class needs to organise independently of Chavez, or face the consequences.
would you say that with a president like Chavez its easier for th working class to get organized? as they are now included more, and they are being shown how democracy could work and how "sky&#39;s the limit" as opposed to some neo-con, U.S. puppet president that supresses that kind of organization by people?

I personaly never felt Chavez was the answer to the entire working class and the solution for class struggle, yet more of a spring board for these type of organization and consciousness. it will oout live him and surpass it.

if like you said.. working people organize, despite their president and set backs like these one.

ADELANTE VENEZUELA&#33;&#33;&#33;

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:41 am
Alright, everybody don&#39;t worry.

This is a small setback, yes. The are many reasons why the reform did not make it.

Firstly, three months is not enough to discuss properly the constitution and its effects. Chavez had proposed this in August and it seems clear that it was too little time for anyone to really understand fully what the changes were.

Second, the opposition has not increased its number of votes, but rather Chavez supporters abstained from voting. Notice how in the last general elections Chavez got more than 7 million votes. This time, 3,000,000 voters abstained. A better thing would have been to vote individually for each article.

Thirdly, like many have said bourgeois and general privately-owned media lies and slander (including CNN and Spanish media) have done their work well. Distorting the constitution reforms, they have sown doubt and insecurity.

Fourthly, Chavez is also to blame partially. This last month he committed a series of blunders which internationally lost him respect. Hopefully, this referendum will prove that democracy in Venezuela is alive and healthy, and perhaps Chavez might regain some international prestige.

I say, do not be sad or disillusioned by this. If anything, this must serve as a warning and a lesson&#33; The same mistake cannot be made again&#33; It is important to tackle bureaucracy and corruption wherever they are&#33;
hmm. interesting points. thank homie&#33;

[Herman]

One or two of you have rather naive illusions in electoralism, as well as in Chavez

This is the lowest form of the class struggle comrades.

The working class needs to organise independently of Chavez, or face the consequences.

The working class does organize independently of Chavez. Whenever they occupy factories, it is their decision. They only ask Chavez to help them by nationalizing their factory, so that they can set up a cooperative.

Class struggle in Venezuela has taken the form of two camps: The opposition (the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the US and the old traditional oligarchy) and the PSUV (the middle class intellectuals, the workers, the peasants, the poor) and its allies. Realistically, supporting the PSUV is currently the only way to support worker&#39;s interests. If you want to set up your own sectarian ultra-leftist group however, be my guest. Not much you&#39;re going to do with that.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:53 am

One or two of you have rather naive illusions in electoralism, as well as in Chavez

This is the lowest form of the class struggle comrades.

The working class needs to organise independently of Chavez, or face the consequences.

The working class does organize independently of Chavez. Whenever they occupy factories, it is their decision. They only ask Chavez to help them by nationalizing their factory, so that they can set up a cooperative.

Class struggle in Venezuela has taken the form of two camps: The opposition (the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the US and the old traditional oligarchy) and the PSUV (the middle class intellectuals, the workers, the peasants, the poor) and its allies. Realistically, supporting the PSUV is currently the only way to support worker&#39;s interests. If you want to set up your own sectarian ultra-leftist group however, be my guest. Not much you&#39;re going to do with that.
Well said comrade.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s Law+December 03, 2007 08:04 am--> (Lenin&#39;s Law @ December 03, 2007 08:04 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:53 am

One or two of you have rather naive illusions in electoralism, as well as in Chavez

This is the lowest form of the class struggle comrades.

The working class needs to organise independently of Chavez, or face the consequences.

The working class does organize independently of Chavez. Whenever they occupy factories, it is their decision. They only ask Chavez to help them by nationalizing their factory, so that they can set up a cooperative.

Class struggle in Venezuela has taken the form of two camps: The opposition (the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the US and the old traditional oligarchy) and the PSUV (the middle class intellectuals, the workers, the peasants, the poor) and its allies. Realistically, supporting the PSUV is currently the only way to support worker&#39;s interests. If you want to set up your own sectarian ultra-leftist group however, be my guest. Not much you&#39;re going to do with that.
Well said comrade. [/b]
an other thing is, some people just want others to follow their own recipe for "the best way towards socialism"..

seems like everyone is an expert at this at times.

[#FF0000]

Well, that messed up my day. I just finished reading the thing, and I was all excited about it, just to find out that it didn&#39;t pass.

And my friend was so excited to see some form of socialism come around without violence.

Oh well. Things will be different next time, I&#39;m sure. Just have to keep moving forward.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:19 am
Well, that messed up my day. I just finished reading the thing, and I was all excited about it, just to find out that it didn&#39;t pass.

And my friend was so excited to see some form of socialism come around without violence.

Oh well. Things will be different next time, I&#39;m sure. Just have to keep moving forward.
i dunno man. i just can&#39;t picture any type pf social change coming around with out some sort of fight or violence?

[#FF0000]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 03, 2007 08:21 am--> (R_P_A_S &#064; December 03, 2007 08:21 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:19 am
Well, that messed up my day. I just finished reading the thing, and I was all excited about it, just to find out that it didn&#39;t pass.

And my friend was so excited to see some form of socialism come around without violence.

Oh well. Things will be different next time, I&#39;m sure. Just have to keep moving forward.
i dunno man. i just can&#39;t picture any type pf social change coming around with out some sort of fight or violence? [/b]
I&#39;m sure there&#39;d always be some kind of turbulence but I don&#39;t think a full-blown bloody insurrection is always necessary. At least I like to think that.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rorschach+December 03, 2007 08:29 am--> (Rorschach @ December 03, 2007 08:29 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:21 am

[email protected] 03, 2007 08:19 am
Well, that messed up my day. I just finished reading the thing, and I was all excited about it, just to find out that it didn&#39;t pass.

And my friend was so excited to see some form of socialism come around without violence.

Oh well. Things will be different next time, I&#39;m sure. Just have to keep moving forward.
i dunno man. i just can&#39;t picture any type pf social change coming around with out some sort of fight or violence?
I&#39;m sure there&#39;d always be some kind of turbulence but I don&#39;t think a full-blown bloody insurrection is always necessary. At least I like to think that. [/b]
i dont understand why anyone thinks there wont be a fight or violence. think about it. think about what we are fighting for and who we are going against? what makes you think they will back down, wither away with words or just agree with us... c&#39;mon on now.

[#FF0000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:30 am
I dont understand why anyone thinks there wont be a fight or violence. think about it. think about what we are fighting for and who we are going against? what makes you think they will back down, wither away with words or just agree with us... c&#39;mon on now.
I&#39;m sure there&#39;d be a fight no matter what I&#39;m just saying it wouldn&#39;t always need to be a very big or dramatic one, depending on the situation.

[Herman]

i dont understand why anyone thinks there wont be a fight or violence. think about it. think about what we are fighting for and who we are going against? what makes you think they will back down, wither away with words or just agree with us... c&#39;mon on now.

Of course, violent actions will most likely happen in the future. However, attempting a peaceful change is always a positive thing.

A socialist above all else is a moral man or woman. He recognizes, just like Marx and Engels did, that peace is always wanted and violence is always detested.

We picture blood in the streets and shrapnel right behind us, as the torn city crumbles by the many explosions. Understand that whether this happens or not, the most important thing is to be moral. Debating, argumentation and charismatic words can win a war before it even begins. If the war however should begin, the socialist will stand firm and side with the oppressed, but only if the circumstances force him to do so.

[R_P_A_S]

I was gonna say. lets stick to the subject of the thread and I contributed to steering it into a whole other subject... lets go back to the Chavez thing...

[Herman]

So yes, we learn more from defeat than from victory. It is important for anyone who hoped for the "YES" to win to not be sad. Like a famous British saying tells us, "Wait and see...".

[Wanted Man]

Well, I&#39;m glad I went to bed at a slightly normal time instead of staying up in expectation of a "yes" vote. Some people here appear to be a bit shook up. Bless. Sadly, it seems that a lot of people are mostly grieving about the personal political defeat for Chávez. I&#39;m much more sad that there will be no socialist state, no 6-hour work day, no lowering of the voting age, etc. I really hope that there will be other ways to introduce these.


Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 03, 2007 07:44 am
44% abstention is way too high over something of this importance.
Could this have been some kind of tactic? I don&#39;t know too much about this electoral thing, but perhaps someone else?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Err, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but none of the proposed reforms said anything about public property over the means of production; indeed, looking at the list of reforms, I don&#39;t even see anything that would be aimed at making it easier to nationalize industries in the future.

In other words, yes, this was a defeat, but don&#39;t imagine for a second that socialism was the thing that got defeated. Rather, what got defeated was a package of progressive measures that would have improved the condition of the working class within a still-capitalist economy and may have facilitated the introduction of socialism at a later date.

All is not even close to being lost.

And personally, I&#39;m glad to see Chavez is taking it so well. This was his first defeat in years; I was really worried that he had grown so used to victory that he would get completely demoralized and crumble at the first defeat. Instead, he went out there to console his supporters, lift their spirits and tell them the fight goes on. This proves he can handle defeat well.

And, of course, this also proves that he really is committed to democracy - we must use it as ammunition against anyone who ever tries to call Chavez a dictator in the future.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 05:42 am
Err, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but none of the proposed reforms said anything about public property over the means of production; indeed, looking at the list of reforms, I don&#39;t even see anything that would be aimed at making it easier to nationalize industries in the future.
Uhh... there&#39;s a section that allows for expropriations without court order, there&#39;s a section on factory councils, a section on collective, communal, social property, etc...

Community councils were to overtake the functions of much of the state as well, hand in hand with the workers&#39; and peasants&#39; councils.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 03, 2007 11:45 am
Uhh... there&#39;s a section that allows for expropriations without court order, there&#39;s a section on factory councils, a section on collective, communal, social property, etc...

Community councils were to overtake the functions of much of the state as well, hand in hand with the workers&#39; and peasants&#39; councils.
Hmmm, serves me right for getting my information from second-hand sources, then. Is there a website where I could actually read the text of the reforms word-for-word in English?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Well, look on the bright side.

This electoral defeat can be a propaganda victory. If Chavez concedes defeat, as he appears to be doing, it is a serious blow to the propaganda about how the socialist movement is turning Venezuela into an autocratic hell-hole.

And as for all those comrades who don&#39;t believe in struggle by the ballot, they&#39;re being too hasty. The working-class cannot afford to let go of any weapons in its struggle.

If they can win a few concessions through the ballot box, does it mean they&#39;ll give up their struggle? Hell no.

Bhagat Singh wrote about such situations:



...

The thing that I wanted to point out was that compromise is an essential weapon which has to be wielded every now and then as the struggle develops. But the thing that we must keep always before us is the idea of the movement. We must always maintain a clear notion as to the aim for the achievement of which we are fighting. That helps us to verify the success and failures of our movements and we can easily formulate the future programme.

....

You are fighting to get sixteen annas from your enemy, you get only one anna. Pocket it and fight for the rest.

...

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1931/02/02.htm

(Note: an "anna" was a unit of currency in South Asia)


The revolution lives, comrades...

[Guerrilla22]

Although this is a major set back, it does however prove that democracy is alive and well in Venezuela and that it is the people making the decisions rather than a dictator, which is how the US media has been trying to frame it.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+December 03, 2007 09:25 am--> (Van Binsbergen @ December 03, 2007 09:25 am)
Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 03, 2007 07:44 am
44% abstention is way too high over something of this importance.
Could this have been some kind of tactic? I don&#39;t know too much about this electoral thing, but perhaps someone else? [/b]
It appears that there was a high turnout in Caracas (where most of the opposition and wealthier sectors of the population lie) but not so high in the traditional strongholds of Chavez in poor barrios and shantytowns.

Look at it this way: the opposition only gained about 100,000 votes from their total numbers last years when Chavez won a landslide victory of 63%. Chavez lost 2.3 million total votes last night compared to last year&#39;s victory.

In other words, the opposition didn&#39;t really win; abstention did.

[La Comédie Noire]

Sucks to be Venezuelan right now, but it isn&#39;t like the entire working class movement depended on it. If anything it will just serve to piss them off more. I like what someone else said in another thread "they should&#39;ve split the referendum up into the different articles."

[Guest1]

Yes, because less people would have abstained if they had to vote on sixty nine different referendum questions rather than two, right?

That suggestion just boggles the mind.

The problem was the campaign wasn&#39;t waged enough on the actual content of the reforms, due mostly to the bureaucrats who rarely mentioned the 6 hour day, or the communal councils.

Chavez himself seems to have made some mistakes in that respect, attempting to turn it into a referendum on him instead of on the content.

But the PSUV rank and file will have learned from this experience. Next step, establishing that party and organizing the workingclass in preparation for workers&#39; factory occupations. Constitution or no constitution, Chavez can decree nationalizations for one more year, without the approval of the courts or the national assembly in some cases ;)

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 05:57 am
Hmmm, serves me right for getting my information from second-hand sources, then. Is there a website where I could actually read the text of the reforms word-for-word in English?
I&#39;m looking for a direct translation, but this will have to do for now:

Venezuela’s Constitutional Reform: An Article-by-Article Summary (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2889/)

[La Comédie Noire]

Yes, because less people would have abstained if they had to vote on sixty nine different referendum questions rather than two, right?

That suggestion just boggles the mind.

The problem was the campaign wasn&#39;t waged enough on the actual content of the reforms, due mostly to the bureaucrats who rarely mentioned the 6 hour day, or the communal councils.

Well I would&#39;ve thought splitting up the referendum would force people to focus on the actual content of the referendum. In any case some of the reforms could&#39;ve actually been passed without some of the shit.

But you&#39;re right Venezeulans could never read for themselves, it&#39;s our fault for not instructing them properly&#33;

Sorry to be a jack ass but you just act as though the abstenation(about 3 million correct?) couldn&#39;t of been an informed distaste for some of the articles.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 01:00 am
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat Monday in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and solidify his bid to transform this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.

Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.

She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.

"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people&#39;s will.

It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.

"Don&#39;t feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez&#39;s opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.

Chavez&#39;s supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela&#39;s oil wealth.

The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.

Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.

Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.

The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.

All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.

At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here&#33;" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.

Opponents — including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.

Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez&#39;s power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.

"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.

Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday&#39;s vote.

He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.

Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.

Lucena called the vote "the calmest we&#39;ve had in the last 10 years."
My reasons for not supporting this bid.

[Guest1]

The plan was to have the communal councils declare communes, municipalities, socialist cities, then provinces. Then they would have the power to appoint governors who are recallable, and directly responsible to the communal assemblies. Chavez also had the power to appoint an unlimited number of vice-presidents. Which really demotes them to glorified ministers. Again, something blown out of proportion. Oh no&#33; Too many vice presidents&#33;

This, in media speak, was "handpick", because it took away power from regular governors, mayors, etc... and replaced them with ones picked by the parallel state.

As for civil liberties during states of emergency, none were to be suspended except the right to information. In other words, the media can be blacked out at a moments&#39; notice if it attempts to launch another coup. Contrary to the US in regular times, the right to fair trial, lawyers and not being tortured would remain.


But you&#39;re right Venezeulans could never read for themselves, it&#39;s our fault for not instructing them properly&#33;
Not a joke. Illiteracy is serious, and was over 9% in Venezuela until the Chavez free education programs. While illiteracy has pretty much been eliminated now, the reading level is still not very high, many adults only learned to read in the past ten years.

Once again though, 69 different referendum questions? If you skimmed through it, it would still take you 20 minutes to finish that&#33; Wonderful way to ensure more people would have relished waiting in line for 5 hours to be voting for something they clearly didn&#39;t all know enough about.

And don&#39;t be ridiculously sectarian, this constitution was a massive step forward. Had the majority of workers actually received the message, it would have won.

Every worker would vote yes for a 6 hour day, workers&#39; councils, returning milk to the shelves by expropriating capitalists who hoard (milk disappeared months ago), etc...

Some might stay home if it&#39;s just about "supporting Chavez". And that&#39;s exactly the message that the bureaucratic wing wishing to water the movement down gave.

[spartan]

I cant believe that the changes were defeated&#33; :(

What are we going to do now?

This is like a vote of no confidence for Chavez and all the Bourgeoisie world leaders will be having a field day&#33;

Fuck Democracy Chavez should have mobilized the militia forces and crushed the opposition :angry:

[La Comédie Noire]

And don&#39;t be ridiculously sectarian, this constitution was a massive step forward. Had the majority of workers actually received the message, it would have won.

Like I said I see the constitution and the majority of it&#39;s amendments as a positive thing. I&#39;m just not so sure about Chavez holding excecutive powers, the hammer of the state, next to a movement still in it&#39;s infancy.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:03 pm
What are we going to do now?
The same as we did yesterday, Pinky&#33;

Luís Henrique

[blackstone]

Try to take over the world&#33;

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 10:04 am
Like I said I see the constitution and the majority of it&#39;s amendments as a positive thing. I&#39;m just not so sure about Chavez holding excecutive powers, the hammer of the state, next to a movement still in it&#39;s infancy.
He&#39;s recallable.

As far as I know, he&#39;s one of the few Presidents on earth who are.

[spartan]

Considering that it is only a two percent margin i am sure that Chavez can contest the results and add to that the fact that the anti-Chavez opposition is obviously foreign funded and backed, which was going to be made illegal if these reforms had been passed, he could accuse them of corruption?

All is not lost comrades we can still win&#33;

All he needs to do is mobilize the loyal militia forces, dissolve the Government and give the MOP over to the control of the workers.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Also his defeat doesn&#39;t means the majority of "workers" didnt vote for him--it just means that the bourgeosie and the middle class also had a voice in the votes.


And the "bourgeosie and the middle class" constitute 51 percent of the population?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:35 pm
Considering that it is only a two percent margin i am sure that Chavez can contest the results and add to that the fact that the anti-Chavez opposition is obviously foreign funded and backed, which was going to be made illegal if these reforms had been passed, he could accuse them of corruption?

All is not lost comrades we can still win&#33;

All he needs to do is mobilize the loyal militia forces, dissolve the Government and give the MOP over to the control of the workers.
I think a better idea would be for Chavez to start a public campaign, educating people about the 69 amendments. A new referendum can take place in a few months time, when Chavez is confident that the people of Venezuela understand the amendments.

[spartan]

And the "bourgeosie and the middle class" constitute 51 percent of the population?
They may have threatened to sack their workers if they didnt vote against Chavez? (That is what is being claimed in the Russian elections where Putin won a huge majority).

Some voters may have been bribed to vote against Chavez?

The anti-Chavez Bourgoeoisie and US backed opposition could certainly afford to do this and poor Venezuelans would be more than willing to get a quick fix of money over Chavez&#39;s reforms.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Karl Marx&#39;s [email protected] 03, 2007 10:45 am
And the "bourgeosie and the middle class" constitute 51 percent of the population?
No, the workers constitute almost 60% of the population. But almost 40% of the population didn&#39;t vote, and that certainly was not the upper middle class and the bourgeoisie.

Most likely, we&#39;re looking at at least one third of the working class having not voted at all. But the opposition gained little to no votes.

Keep in mind that this "disappointing turnout" is higher than that of most western elections, way higher.

[Luís Henrique]

He lost, he accepted his defeat.

What an incredibly awful dictator&#33; His wickedness knows no limits...

Luís Henrique

[RedAnarchist]

By accepting defeat gracefully, hes proven himself to be bigger than the opposition. This loss will make him stronger.

[spartan]

By accepting defeat gracefully, hes proven himself to be bigger than the opposition. This loss will make him stronger.
I hope that you are right RA.

I think that this result serves as a perfect example of why Socialists shouldnt be apart of a Bourgeoisie Democracy with their elections and referendums etc.

[Marxist Napoleon]

Well, at this point, we lost, because Chavez conceded defeat. But, an important thing to remember is that we did not really lose anything, we just didn&#39;t win. I think the most disappointing thing is that 10% of venezuelans who once voted for Chavez voted against him here (he won with 63% last election, but only got 49% in the referendum). A lot more had to be done to counter the right-wing lies. Also, Chavez could have been a little more reasonable with this new Constitution. We&#39;re talking about a country where maybe 40% believe he&#39;s an "evil commi dictator." Why would he allow them to work on that opinion by making amendments that increase his power? He should have just focused on the social measures and restructuring the economy, and then the good old united Chavistas would have voted for it.

On a side note, didn&#39;t Chavez say he would begin to look for a successor if this didn&#39;t pass? Maybe Venezuela needs a bolder socialist leader, but I don&#39;t think anyone could replace Chavez&#39;s charisma. Viva Chavez&#33;

[Led Zeppelin]

The problem with Chavez is that he clings on to bourgeois democracy while he should be utilizing proletarian democracy, if he wants to move ahead to socialism.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 03, 2007 03:01 pm
Well, at this point, we lost, because Chavez conceded defeat. But, an important thing to remember is that we did not really lose anything, we just didn&#39;t win. I think the most disappointing thing is that 10% of venezuelans who once voted for Chavez voted against him here (he won with 63% last election, but only got 49% in the referendum). A lot more had to be done to counter the right-wing lies. Also, Chavez could have been a little more reasonable with this new Constitution. We&#39;re talking about a country where maybe 40% believe he&#39;s an "evil commi dictator." Why would he allow them to work on that opinion by making amendments that increase his power? He should have just focused on the social measures and restructuring the economy, and then the good old united Chavistas would have voted for it.

On a side note, didn&#39;t Chavez say he would begin to look for a successor if this didn&#39;t pass? Maybe Venezuela needs a bolder socialist leader, but I don&#39;t think anyone could replace Chavez&#39;s charisma. Viva Chavez&#33;
I think the Right were more powerful this time because the Americans are starting to see him as more of a threat.

[spartan]

Why doesnt Chavez just abolish "Democracy" in Venezuela?

It doesnt serve the peoples intrests only the Bourgeoisie.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:06 pm
Why doesnt Chavez just abolish "Democracy" in Venezuela?

It doesnt serve the peoples intrests only the Bourgeoisie.
That&#39;s because it&#39;s a bourgeois democratic system that is in place there, not a proletarian democratic system.

First private property has to be expropriated and the bourgeoisie has to be crushed with the use of progressive taxing.

Then the political system of proletarian democracy can begin to flourish, with workers&#39; councils taking over the means of production and controlling them democratically.

[Ander]

I felt very depressed when I saw this thread. At first I felt like it was a massive blow to Chavez and the movement growing over there. On second thoughts, I&#39;m realising that there is definitely some benefits to this loss.

I know many of us want to see Chavez and his "21st Century Socialism" succeed, but we have to remember a few things. Firstly, do we really want one man with such excessive executive power? No, we don&#39;t. This movement needs to be decentralized and so does the Venezuelan state. This referendum looks to me as some kind of power grab.

The referendum should not have bundled up social and political reforms. Instead, it should have been separated. It was the term limit and power issues that made this referendum fail, not the social aspect. If they had been separated, I&#39;m certain that the social reforms would have been passed for sure and maybe the political reforms as well. The reason why this was done is clear however; Chavez tried to bury the political aspects under social benefits like a shorter working week, worker councils, etc. Of course your average worker is going to vote for a decrease in working hours. Chavez tried to tie up a tight little package with icing on top and get it passed; unfortunately for him it failed.

We should look at this somewhat postively, however. We should support the Bolivarian Revolution and its ideals, and we should critically support the movement&#39;s representative, who is currently Chavez, but we should never idolize the man and come to believe that all will fail without him. Let&#39;s not turn Chavez into some kind of Fidel Castro, who basically is "socialist" Cuba.

Besides, do you really think Chavez & co. are going to see this defeat and just sit there? He is an intelligent man, I&#39;m sure he is already cooking up new ideas to continue the fight. This setback will make Chavez realise he is not invincible and that there are still obstacles to be overcome. At a time where the Bolivarian Revolution is winning all of its struggles and the possibility of overconfidence (maybe demonstrated by this referendum?) is very real, this serves as an important reality check.

Hopefully Chavez will realise that the reformist path can only go so far and he will begin to employ some revolutionary methods. The loss for social reform should also serve to agitate the working class somewhat.

Overall, as an anti-imperialist Chavez is good. As a socialistic helping hand to the people he is quite good as well. As an answer to the oppression by capitalism in Venezuela, I do not believe he is it.

[spartan]

Though this loss and Chavez&#39;s acceptance of it proves that he isnt a dictator to all the west the fact is it is still hugely demoralising and i think that the workers seeing the failure of this might just regress to pre Chavez conditions&#33; :(

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 03, 2007 03:11 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 03, 2007 03:11 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 03:06 pm
Why doesnt Chavez just abolish "Democracy" in Venezuela?

It doesnt serve the peoples intrests only the Bourgeoisie.
That&#39;s because it&#39;s a bourgeois democratic system that is in place there, not a proletarian democratic system.

First private property has to be expropriated and the bourgeoisie has to be crushed with the use of progressive taxing.

Then the political system of proletarian democracy can begin to flourish, with workers&#39; councils taking over the means of production and controlling them democratically. [/b]


Do you think that TV, Media and Anti-Constitutional Reforms Propaganda thru CNN, Telemundo, Univision, Globovision and international TV stations was the culpable guilty one for Chavez to decrease his support from 60% to 49% in this last Referendum Election?

I mean wouldn&#39;t you guys think and suspect the Massive, monstrous TV propaganda worldwide against Chavez was so Pervasive, so violent, so aggresive, so GREAT and STRONG, that it was almost impossible for Chavez to maintain a 60% support and that&#39;s why a lot of Chavez-Supporters quit, and became capitalists.

It is good to ponder this quote from Jim Morrison, The Doors:

"Did you know that we are ruled by T.V.?" -Jim Morrison, The Doors

marxist_god

[AGITprop]

damnit.
reALLY i am sad.
but this is ok. chavez still has power he can still fuck with the US.
hopefully the workers will react to this. maybe thgis was all chaez plan after all? lol but no seriously this sucks. I was out all day in negative 20 celsius at the veenzuelan consulate chanting " HU, HA, CHAVEZ NO SE VA&#33;" for four hours&#33;. in all honesty though, the turnout in montreal was pretty bad. only 438 people voted here. and only 50 voted SI&#33; though you have to realize that the people who are here are the rich who managed to escape venezuela. the chavistas here though are really great people. all very humble and friendly,i spent the whole day with them at the demo and at the Bolivarian Cultural Center ( funded by Chavez btw lol)
i was showing solidarity with venezuela and the communists with my soviet flag waving in the cold winter winds.

this is very dissapointing but again, it will take workers revolution to change the world, not bureaucratic reform.

[VukBZ2005]

It must be said again that although the Opposition won, they won with a small increase in their voting power. Thus, the lost can only be attributed to the 56% abstention rate.

[Davie zepeda]

people do not be depressed .i was sad at first then i remember something the cia&#33; there was plan to make the people organize against Chavez if he won so he had to lose or lose power in the system it would of been a major battle which he would of lost
and his image around the world would of been ruined.
now we all know he can do this again the Constitutional Referendum. i think Hugo is gonna just try to hold on intell the dems come in power really the world lays in are hands we must get a real candidate of the people in power truly we are the true battle field we must organize we must help reform the system to give are systems a fighting chance .

chavez is smarter than he looks . He has to prove he is a good president by improving the poors situation more. i saw him not doing his presidential duty this year.
so thats probably what lost his votes .so now he has to work even harder to improve the quality of life to show his system is better .

[bezdomni]

He shouldn&#39;t have tried to tie up Socialist reforms and Presidential term limits in one vote.

lol

I agree, but probably in a very different way.


First private property has to be expropriated and the bourgeoisie has to be crushed with the use of progressive taxing.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

The proletariat can&#39;t seize the bourgeois state apparatus for their own purposes.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Do anyone have a article what can happen if the "Si" Vote passed?

[Marxist Napoleon]

Actually, a lot of the issue was that the right-wing media manipulated the social issues as well. Many people claimed that this Constitution would destroy religion and bring about state ownership of children, and many innocent Venezuelans believed it&#33; The main lesson we can draw from this is that the Chavista media has to be stronger, more vibrant, and more trustworthy.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 03, 2007 03:01 pm
Well, at this point, we lost, because Chavez conceded defeat. But, an important thing to remember is that we did not really lose anything, we just didn&#39;t win. I think the most disappointing thing is that 10% of venezuelans who once voted for Chavez voted against him here (he won with 63% last election, but only got 49% in the referendum). A lot more had to be done to counter the right-wing lies. Also, Chavez could have been a little more reasonable with this new Constitution. We&#39;re talking about a country where maybe 40% believe he&#39;s an "evil commi dictator." Why would he allow them to work on that opinion by making amendments that increase his power? He should have just focused on the social measures and restructuring the economy, and then the good old united Chavistas would have voted for it.

On a side note, didn&#39;t Chavez say he would begin to look for a successor if this didn&#39;t pass? Maybe Venezuela needs a bolder socialist leader, but I don&#39;t think anyone could replace Chavez&#39;s charisma. Viva Chavez&#33;
i dont think your percentages are accurate. I believe many more people refrain from voting so is not like all the people who voted for him voted again yesterday.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 03, 2007 06:40 pm
Actually, a lot of the issue was that the right-wing media manipulated the social issues as well. Many people claimed that this Constitution would destroy religion and bring about state ownership of children, and many innocent Venezuelans believed it&#33; The main lesson we can draw from this is that the Chavista media has to be stronger, more vibrant, and more trustworthy.
i highlight doubt the pro chavez people believed this lies. they know better after 2002

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:44 pm
i highlight doubt the pro chavez people believed this lies. they know better after 2002
You think so? Look, there were people that said that they actually believed that Chavez was going to destroy religion and take away their children, until somebody told them that these things were a bunch of lies. The problem is that means of communication have not been appropriated by revolutionary forces and thus, this lack of appropriation still allows the Capitalists and Small Capitalists the chance to project their power unto the working class psychologically.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+December 03, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Communist FireFox @ December 03, 2007 06:59 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 01:44 pm
i highlight doubt the pro chavez people believed this lies. they know better after 2002
You think so? Look, there were people that said that they actually believed that Chavez was going to destroy religion and take away their children, until somebody told them that these things were a bunch of lies. The problem is that means of communication have not been appropriated by revolutionary forces and thus, this lack of appropriation still allows the Capitalists and Small Capitalists the chance to project their power unto the working class psychologically. [/b]

"Did you know that we are controlled by TV" -Jim Morrison, The Doors

marxist_god

[Axel1917]

I think that the article at http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-referendum-defeat031207.htm is a good one on the issue at hand. I have to get to work, so I don&#39;t have time to discuss it now. Definitely read it, though.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 03, 2007 06:41 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ December 03, 2007 06:41 pm)
Marxist [email protected] 03, 2007 03:01 pm
Well, at this point, we lost, because Chavez conceded defeat. But, an important thing to remember is that we did not really lose anything, we just didn&#39;t win. I think the most disappointing thing is that 10% of venezuelans who once voted for Chavez voted against him here (he won with 63% last election, but only got 49% in the referendum). A lot more had to be done to counter the right-wing lies. Also, Chavez could have been a little more reasonable with this new Constitution. We&#39;re talking about a country where maybe 40% believe he&#39;s an "evil commi dictator." Why would he allow them to work on that opinion by making amendments that increase his power? He should have just focused on the social measures and restructuring the economy, and then the good old united Chavistas would have voted for it.

On a side note, didn&#39;t Chavez say he would begin to look for a successor if this didn&#39;t pass? Maybe Venezuela needs a bolder socialist leader, but I don&#39;t think anyone could replace Chavez&#39;s charisma. Viva Chavez&#33;
i dont think your percentages are accurate. I believe many more people refrain from voting so is not like all the people who voted for him voted again yesterday. [/b]


Hello, well about what you said that the pro-Chavez supporters who abstained from voting. I think that if your leader is in an election, and you abstained from voting, that literally means not supporting your leader.

If Lenin or Karl Marx came back to be alive and he ran for president of USA, and leftists abstained from voting, it means not supporting him.

Remember that Chavez&#39;s voters are just voters at a given time, it doesn&#39;t mean that they are his family.

You can be marxist today and capitalist tomorrow, things change in this world, nobody is has to be leftist or marxist forever, they have the right to quit being leftist, that&#39;s what i think happened. many chavez voters were mind manipulated, indoctrinated, and mind-controlled by anti-Chavez tv adds

marxist_god

[Goatse]

Check out Conservapedia&#39;s spin on this :rolleyes:


Hugo Chavez pushes socialism, pushed constitutional reforms that would make him dictator for life, expected the people to vote for it while calling those who wouldn&#39;t traitors...and now he has to take NO for an answer:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 03, 2007 07:17 pm--> (marxist_god @ December 03, 2007 07:17 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:41 pm

Marxist [email protected] 03, 2007 03:01 pm
Well, at this point, we lost, because Chavez conceded defeat. But, an important thing to remember is that we did not really lose anything, we just didn&#39;t win. I think the most disappointing thing is that 10% of venezuelans who once voted for Chavez voted against him here (he won with 63% last election, but only got 49% in the referendum). A lot more had to be done to counter the right-wing lies. Also, Chavez could have been a little more reasonable with this new Constitution. We&#39;re talking about a country where maybe 40% believe he&#39;s an "evil commi dictator." Why would he allow them to work on that opinion by making amendments that increase his power? He should have just focused on the social measures and restructuring the economy, and then the good old united Chavistas would have voted for it.

On a side note, didn&#39;t Chavez say he would begin to look for a successor if this didn&#39;t pass? Maybe Venezuela needs a bolder socialist leader, but I don&#39;t think anyone could replace Chavez&#39;s charisma. Viva Chavez&#33;
i dont think your percentages are accurate. I believe many more people refrain from voting so is not like all the people who voted for him voted again yesterday.


Hello, well about what you said that the pro-Chavez supporters who abstained from voting. I think that if your leader is in an election, and you abstained from voting, that literally means not supporting your leader.

If Lenin or Karl Marx came back to be alive and he ran for president of USA, and leftists abstained from voting, it means not supporting him.

Remember that Chavez&#39;s voters are just voters at a given time, it doesn&#39;t mean that they are his family.

You can be marxist today and capitalist tomorrow, things change in this world, nobody is has to be leftist or marxist forever, they have the right to quit being leftist, that&#39;s what i think happened. many chavez voters were mind manipulated, indoctrinated, and mind-controlled by anti-Chavez tv adds

marxist_god [/b]
ok? well is the whole Marx/Lenin coming back from the death necessary? lol. I can&#39;t help to laugh

[bootleg42]

lol, yea, marxist_god you sound like a little kid who hasn&#39;t read the works of Marx to begin with. Have you???

And Axel1917, that article was excellent.

[piet11111]

the reason chavez lost is because he is not pushing hard enough for revolutionary change.

the poeple of venezuela realise this and probably know chavez is only willing to go so far and because of that they abstained from voting in favor of removing the term limit to ensure a more revolutionary person will be able to continue the revolution chavez started.

in a few years i expect chavez to become an obstacle to his own revolution and he will need to stand aside for the mass movement.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:46 pm
the reason chavez lost is because he is not pushing hard enough for revolutionary change.

the poeple of venezuela realise this and probably know chavez is only willing to go so far and because of that they abstained from voting in favor of removing the term limit to ensure a more revolutionary person will be able to continue the revolution chavez started.

in a few years i expect chavez to become an obstacle to his own revolution and he will need to stand aside for the mass movement.
I have been around the marxist/trotskyist left for a long time and this appears to be the motif w=thich they apply to any given situation. Namely that the masses naturally and inevitably desire and the political leaders who, being leaders and being somewhat ingrained in the system, are not pushing things far enough and hence losing the support of the masses

This approach is sometimes useful - however it is not necessarily universally applicable. Sometime ago aI saw the results of a poll that suggested that the number of people who supported Chavez - around 70% - greatly exceeded the number who supported his desire to implement 21st century socialism in Venezuela.

This could of coursse be read in a number of ways. Piet, I believe, would suggest that people opposed the project of 21st socialism because it was an overly watered down vision of socialism. On the other hand - and this is slghtly less comfortable for us to get our heads around - it is possible that many Chavistas support the reforms without supporting his most radical plans. From this perspective Chavez has - to some extent represented a radicalising force within the broad Bolivarian movement.

It is worth rememebering that when Chavez was first elected, he was voted in on an anti-corruptoin ticket. Chavez is, in no small part, responsible for injecting the discouse of &#39;socialism&#39; into the bolivarian movement. In my honest opinion the role chavez has played has varied over time - sometimes a radicalising force and sometimes bending the movement towards reformism, nationalism and &#39;nationasl reconciliation&#39;. This is to be expected. Chavez is not somebody who comes from a marxist background. More generally, just as the consciousness of the masses can change back and forth over time, so too can the ideas and attitudes of key political leaders - chavez included.

Theidea that Chavez would need only to radicalise his policy and this would energise and expand his support base represents aa comforting solution to the situation currently facing venezuela. It tells us that the policies that we wish to see implemented would also be those that would make chavismo more popular, and victory victory against those who want to destroy the bolivarian revolution. This is a belief which i am in qualified agreement with. However it is crucial not to underestimate the complexity of the political situation in Venezuela.

[La Comédie Noire]

QUOTE (Comrade Floyd @ December 03, 2007 10:04 am)
Like I said I see the constitution and the majority of it&#39;s amendments as a positive thing. I&#39;m just not so sure about Chavez holding excecutive powers, the hammer of the state, next to a movement still in it&#39;s infancy.


He&#39;s recallable.

As far as I know, he&#39;s one of the few Presidents on earth who are.

Sorry for not being specific in my last post my ride came as I was typing.

Like that would stop him&#33; Referendum is a long and costly process whether it be for issuing reforms or recalling public officials. You have to remeber Chavez has the military in his control. He could mobilize the military a lot faster then he could get thrown out.

Speaking of the military. I find it Interesting he wanted councils for everything but the military. I mean you could argue the 2002 coup had made him hesitant but that still doesn&#39;t stop him from letting ordinary soldiers organize, due to the fact it was mostly officers who led the revolt.

What is the A block and B block business? Cause if it&#39;s what I think it is my argument on the articles may have a glaring hole in it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Block A refers to the proposals set by Chavez himself (including unlimited reelection).

Block B refers to the proposals set by the National Assembly (including the suspension of civil liberties during an emergency).

[Herman]

No one can say it was only because of "one reason". There were many factors unfortunately and they all lead to the narrow "NO".

[Guest1]

Reuban makes a very good point. It&#39;s important not to look at Chavez from a simplistic point of view as "just holding things back". There is no doubt that he has given the movement enormous forward momentum that could have been wasted in blind alleys through complete reformism.

Instead, Chavez takes on the role of honest non-Marxist revolutionary. He reflects a contradictory situation, where the masses are on their feet, but not quite sure of their own strength. And he himself is contradictory, sometimes calling for conciliation, sometimes coming down hard on the side of expropriation.

This expresses the contradictions inherent in the situation. This is a situation that is not permanently tenable, with the classes at loggerheads while there are mass shortages, mass inflation and constant political chaos. In the past 10 years, there have been almost yearly elections of some kind. At a certain point, the working class tires. We&#39;re beginning to see this in this referendum, they don&#39;t want talk and elections anymore, they want the food shortages to end and the revolution to make massive gains for them.

If the working class is not to be completely burned out, giving the bosses the opportunity to go on the offensive and slash and burn the workers back into their cages, factory occupations must become a general movement with the support of Chavez. Time is almost up. Bolivia&#39;s fate awaits Venezuela if the revolution continues wasting it. Civil war with Fascism is just around the corner.

[Marsella]

But would it make a major difference if Chavez was a communist?

[Guest1]

He would actively lead campaigns to occupy then nationalize the top companies, all the banks, etc...

In otherwords, capitalism could be extinguished pretty quickly if he took the lead and stopped asking for the right to take that lead.

He should have taken his massive support during the last election, where he called for socialism, as a mandate to launch aggressive expropriations.

Anyways, I think he is an honest revolutionary, unsure about the will of the working class. When he sees them surpass expectations, he is right there leading the charge. When they fall back, he assumes he pushed too far, and doubts the chances if he pushes further.

This is the confusion of his isolation, the PSUV should give the working class a more direct route to express their will. It should also give him a clearer picture, uninhibited by the rose tints of sycophants in the offices, through the decisions of mass congresses.

The PSUV is essential to the survival of the revolution. His isolation can only lead to mistakes. When the class is looking for a rallying cry, muffling the sounds of his will to expropriate because of a fear of being too radical, could destroy the revolution. It could convince workers that things don&#39;t change.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by SovietPants+December 03, 2007 06:31 pm--> (SovietPants &#064; December 03, 2007 06:31 pm)
First private property has to be expropriated and the bourgeoisie has to be crushed with the use of progressive taxing.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

The proletariat can&#39;t seize the bourgeois state apparatus for their own purposes. [/b]
No shit Stalinist sherlock.

That&#39;s why he can&#39;t do those things I mentioned, because the bourgeois state apparatus wouldn&#39;t allow it.

As for the progressive tax:


Originally posted by [email protected]
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.


marxist_god
Do you think that TV, Media and Anti-Constitutional Reforms Propaganda thru CNN, Telemundo, Univision, Globovision and international TV stations was the culpable guilty one for Chavez to decrease his support from 60% to 49% in this last Referendum Election?

Of course the media had a major part to play in the result of the vote, that&#39;s why I said that private property has to be expropriated; the private media is the private property of the bourgeoisie.

[bezdomni]

Why can&#39;t you ever reply to anything I say without referring to Stalin or Mao?

Lenin also noted the importance of armed proletarian insurrection and the establishment of a socialist state based around the axoim "from each, according to their ability; to each, according to their work", something Chavez hasn&#39;t called for, and something the IMT seems to rarely discuss.

[Herman]

Lenin also noted the importance of armed proletarian insurrection

That&#39;s because an armed insurrection isn&#39;t necessary - yet.


and the establishment of a socialist state based around the axoim "from each, according to their ability; to each, according to their work", something Chavez hasn&#39;t called for, and something the IMT seems to rarely discuss.

The fact that Chavez has already said that if you want to know what kind of socialism he wants to build, just read Marx and Lenin. This implies that the socialist society he wants to help create is based around that principle.

[Louis Pio]

"from each, according to their ability; to each, according to their work", something Chavez hasn&#39;t called for, and something the IMT seems to rarely discuss.


Which is not really true, which you of course know, read all the articles on the www.marxist.com on Venezuela from the last years and http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/ . Of course if you want it to be in some mudled form ala Avakianlanguage you wont find it of course.
Or is it the use of transitional demands you are against? We should just anounce the "people&#39;s war" maybe?

[bezdomni]

That&#39;s because an armed insurrection isn&#39;t necessary - yet.

Proletarian revolution isn&#39;t necessary? Since when?



The fact that Chavez has already said that if you want to know what kind of socialism he wants to build, just read Marx and Lenin. This implies that the socialist society he wants to help create is based around that principle.

People can read Marx and Lenin all they&#39;d like...It&#39;s when they start taking them seriously and applying the Marxist method that trouble gets made for the oppressor.

Is there even a vanguard party in Venezuela? Is Chavez the leader of the Venezuelan proletariat? Why is he not calling for the masses to arm themselves and seize state power against the bourgeoisie?

Oh right, because he is in charge of the bourgeois state&#33; :lol:


Which is not really true, which you of course know, read all the articles on the www.marxist.com on Venezuela from the last years and http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/ . Of course if you want it to be in some mudled form ala Avakianlanguage you wont find it of course.

:blink:

If you aren&#39;t going to respond to my argument, you could at least link me to a specific article.


Or is it the use of transitional demands you are against?

Yes, I oppose Trotskyite economism. Good observation.


We should just anounce the "people&#39;s war" maybe?

Woah&#33; Don&#39;t go too far&#33; Since when did communists advocate revolution&#33;&#33;&#33;?&#33;?&#33;&#33;?

:rolleyes:

[Herman]

Proletarian revolution isn&#39;t necessary? Since when?

A proletarian revolution is not made - it comes by its own accord. When the situation really warrants for an armed insurrection, then it is acceptable and entirely desirable.


People can read Marx and Lenin all they&#39;d like...It&#39;s when they start taking them seriously and applying the Marxist method that trouble gets made for the oppressor.

Trouble is already being made to the oppressor. The old elite and oligarchy is being pushed back. Little by little their influence weakens and so does their power. Chavez might no be applying the marxist "method", but that does not mean it is any less effective.


Is there even a vanguard party in Venezuela? Is Chavez the leader of the Venezuelan proletariat? Why is he not calling for the masses to arm themselves and seize state power against the bourgeoisie?

The "vanguard" as you call it, is the PSUV. It draws the masses and mobilizes them with ease. It can move millions and the workers support that party (which is also made up of workers and the poor) and Chavez. No other organization can replace it currently. Not the CMR and definitely not any ultra-leftist group. Look at the other parties: Patria Para Todos is a social-democratic/democratic socialist party and the communist party of Venezuela is a joke. What other organization could be the vanguard? Why don&#39;t you tell us?

[bezdomni]

A proletarian revolution is not made - it comes by its own accord.

That&#39;s like...a textbook example of economism.

A proletarian revolution is made by the vanguard of the proletariat. That&#39;s why a revolutionary party has to engage with the masses. The bolshevik revolution didn&#39;t just appear out of thin air, it took years of publishing Pravda, agitating in factories, in the fields and on the front lines of the war, along with lots of propaganda and organization on various levels.

A revolutionary newspaper plays a key role. To paraphrase Lenin from "What is to be Done?"; a revolutionary newspaper is a collective agitator, propagandist and political organizer.


Trouble is already being made to the oppressor. The old elite and oligarchy is being pushed back. Little by little their influence weakens and so does their power. Chavez might no be applying the marxist "method", but that does not mean it is any less effective.

Yeah, actually, it does. It means he&#39;s just another reformist politician that uses Marxist rhetoric to keep the masses from actually making revolution.


The "vanguard" as you call it, is the PSUV. It draws the masses and mobilizes them with ease. It can move millions and the workers support that party (which is also made up of workers and the poor) and Chavez. No other organization can replace it currently. Not the CMR and definitely not any ultra-leftist group. Look at the other parties: Patria Para Todos is a social-democratic/democratic socialist party and the communist party of Venezuela is a joke. What other organization could be the vanguard? Why don&#39;t you tell us?

How about an actual party of revolutionary communists who function as the vanguard of the proletariat, rather than a radical trade union?

Radical trade unions are great...but they won&#39;t lead to liberation.

[Herman]

That&#39;s like...a textbook example of economism.

A proletarian revolution is made by the vanguard of the proletariat. That&#39;s why a revolutionary party has to engage with the masses. The bolshevik revolution didn&#39;t just appear out of thin air, it took years of publishing Pravda, agitating in factories, in the fields and on the front lines of the war, along with lots of propaganda and organization on various levels.

A revolutionary newspaper plays a key role. To paraphrase Lenin from "What is to be Done?"; a revolutionary newspaper is a collective agitator, propagandist and political organizer.

What I meant was that until the material conditions call for an armed insurrection, there should be none. Taking your example, the Bolsheviks prematurely supported the revolts during the July Days. What happened? Many got arrested and Lenin was accused of being a German spy, forcing him to flee.


Yeah, actually, it does. It means he&#39;s just another reformist politician that uses Marxist rhetoric to keep the masses from actually making revolution.

The masses are making revolution. It&#39;s just not the way you dreamed about it in your wildest fantasies. This isn&#39;t Russia. These aren&#39;t the same conditions. You will have no blood or violent overthrow. The best way to do it now is peacefully and slowly, destroying the cultural hegemony that has enslaved the people for so long.


How about an actual party of revolutionary communists who function as the vanguard of the proletariat, rather than a radical trade union?

Radical trade unions are great...but they won&#39;t lead to liberation.

Radical trade union? The PSUV is a political party. It stands for "Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela".

If you&#39;re so keen in a revolutionary communist party, then why don&#39;t you go there and make it? We&#39;ll see what happens then. Since the people are so aware of their class and position, they will inmedietly support you, won&#39;t they?

[dty06]

They need to scale down the number of amendments on each vote. If you strongly disagree with just one of them but agree with the rest, you might vote no, or simply abstain.
That said, it&#39;s a shame that this was voted down. While I don&#39;t agree with everything in it, it would have done a lot to bring Venezuela closer to socialism and done a lot to help the poor. Chavez might not be a socialist or communist or anything like that, but I&#39;ll take him over damn near any other national leader in the world (if not all other national leaders).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Herman+--> (Herman)A proletarian revolution is not made - it comes by its own accord. When the situation really warrants for an armed insurrection, then it is acceptable and entirely desirable.[/b]
Revolution doesn&#39;t just fall out of the sky.

The bolshevik revolution would have never happened if there wasn&#39;t effort taken towards it. It took many years for there to be the possibility of a successful revolution. Lenin understood this; as should most revolutionaries, if there is to be revolution at all.


Herman
The masses are making revolution. It&#39;s just not the way you dreamed about it in your wildest fantasies. This isn&#39;t Russia. These aren&#39;t the same conditions. You will have no blood or violent overthrow. The best way to do it now is peacefully and slowly, destroying the cultural hegemony that has enslaved the people for so long.

You can&#39;t just sit around waiting for it, effort has to be taken towards it. The bolshevik revolution indeed did not come about without any effort taken toward it.

SovietPants made the point that of how long it took for it to happen and how the publishing of Pravda impacted the revolutionary movement. Efforts of this nature greatly increase the progress of revolutionary movement. As SovietPants also stated above, the purpose of these efforts are to form a strong proletarian movement and strengthen the vanguard- to bring about a successful revolution.

Just as revolution cannot somehow drop down from the sky and happen without any effort, a successful revolution requires organization, just as it requires this type of effort. i.e. there must be a vanguard and there must be actions taken of great enough provocative nature for the proletarian to become enraged at a great enough extent for revolution to occur.

You also can&#39;t make over-generalized statements that "there will be no blood or violent overthrow" as it can&#39;t be known whether or not it will be needed- part of revolution is recognizing that what must be done has to be done- regardless of if you personally "planned" on it or not- and it doesn&#39;t have to be "ideal". Revolution isn&#39;t all green grass and roses.

[JWG]

It&#39;s in history, that shows when a reform is placed to the people with an overwhelming amount of reforms, the people generally reject it.

But, as many have said, if you scale it down and put it in smaller pieces, the reforms have more chance to get a &#39;yes&#39; vote. The thing is, people see a lot of reforms they would vote for, but vote &#39;no&#39; because another reform in the same poll is not in their opinion as good so they will vote all of them down. Good and bad.

That is our dilemma. Hopefully Chavez will realize this and put them in on a more individualized scale. Fingers crossed.

[bezdomni]

What I meant was that until the material conditions call for an armed insurrection, there should be none.
And what I mean is you&#39;re an economist.

Armed insurrection will never happen if people aren&#39;t organizing for it. I agree, the time to arm the proletariat is not today...but everything we do should be about revolution, and we have to work with the knowledge that if we&#39;re successful, we can and must have an armed proletarian revolution.



The masses are making revolution. It&#39;s just not the way you dreamed about it in your wildest fantasies. This isn&#39;t Russia. These aren&#39;t the same conditions. You will have no blood or violent overthrow. The best way to do it now is peacefully and slowly, destroying the cultural hegemony that has enslaved the people for so long.

Sorry, but if it ain&#39;t a violent overthrow...it ain&#39;t an overthrow.

You think the bourgeoisie will just sit around while the proletariat expropriates their capital? Have you even read Lenin? Or Marx for that matter?

The best way to do it is by forming an organized party of revolutionary communists who raise the consciousness of the masses and lead them to revolution. That&#39;s just how revolutions get made&#33;

I think you also have some really idealist notions about the political economy of Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez has an Oil Strategy...but can this Lead to Liberation? (http://rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Excellent posts Herman.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Sorry, but if it ain&#39;t a violent overthrow...it ain&#39;t an overthrow.

Marx and Mao repeatedly said that communists wish for nothing more than a peaceful revolution, the reality is that it is not possible because the bourgeois won&#39;t just give up power.

In Venezuela, every gain has come through struggle and organization. Things have been peaceful because its been more of a process and its been against a national ruling class which was weak because it was dominated by the US bourgeoisie. I think you only need to look at the recent "No" campaign funded by the bourgeois to see that the bourgeois are not quitely going away. They are fighting back. During this election they were able to keep 2 million chavistas at home by going door-to-door and threatening families sometimes physically but usually spreading misinformation claiming that if the reforms were passed the government would take everything away from people their car, house, and children. Bourgeois newspapers ran vicious editorials and ads which claimed Venezuela woud be turned into Cuba&#39;s empty butcher shop. Shit like that. The bourgeois is viciously resisting. Just because it hasn&#39;t been outright civil war doesn&#39;t mean that this isn&#39;t a revolution.


The best way to do it is by forming an organized party of revolutionary communists who raise the consciousness of the masses and lead them to revolution. That&#39;s just how revolutions get made&#33;

That&#39;s why the PSUV was formed comrade


Hugo Chavez has an Oil Strategy...but can this Lead to Liberation?

The only real arguement being made here is that Venezuela isn&#39;t socialist because it sells oil to the US. The RCPs vision of socialism is one where the country doesn&#39;t trade with capitalist countries. The reality of the material conditions is that Venezuela is forced to trade with capitalists because we live in a capitalist dominated world. The fact is that Venezuela is turning to oppressed nations more and more to trade with, and working together with other anti-imperialist nations to break free of all its chains to the US. That&#39;s what the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America is all about

[Herman]

Revolution doesn&#39;t just fall out of the sky.

The bolshevik revolution would have never happened if there wasn&#39;t effort taken towards it. It took many years for there to be the possibility of a successful revolution. Lenin understood this; as should most revolutionaries, if there is to be revolution at all.

I agree, but as you have rightly said, "it took many years for there to be the possibility of a succesful revolution". Also, it was only possible when the moment was right. Lenin understood this; as should most revolutionaries, if there is to be revolution at all (yes, i&#39;m copying you).


You can&#39;t just sit around waiting for it, effort has to be taken towards it. The bolshevik revolution indeed did not come about without any effort taken toward it.

No. No, you can&#39;t just sit around waiting for it, which is not what i&#39;m saying.


SovietPants made the point that of how long it took for it to happen and how the publishing of Pravda impacted the revolutionary movement. Efforts of this nature greatly increase the progress of revolutionary movement. As SovietPants also stated above, the purpose of these efforts are to form a strong proletarian movement and strengthen the vanguard- to bring about a successful revolution.

Just as revolution cannot somehow drop down from the sky and happen without any effort, a successful revolution requires organization, just as it requires this type of effort. i.e. there must be a vanguard and there must be actions taken of great enough provocative nature for the proletarian to become enraged at a great enough extent for revolution to occur.

Of course, that&#39;s all nice and dandy, and I agree with you. The PSUV is currently the vanguard of the worker&#39;s and the poor. It is well organized and it can move the masses. They are also doing all they can to denounce capitalists and the US, so as to get workers to become more radical. What, do you think all the anti-imperialist and marxist rethoric is just for show? It&#39;s to get the people to start believing that capitalism is not the answer and that they have to be revolutionary and radical in order to bring about real change.


You also can&#39;t make over-generalized statements that "there will be no blood or violent overthrow" as it can&#39;t be known whether or not it will be needed- part of revolution is recognizing that what must be done has to be done- regardless of if you personally "planned" on it or not- and it doesn&#39;t have to be "ideal". Revolution isn&#39;t all green grass and roses.

Read the word in BOLD.


You will have no blood or violent overthrow. The best way to do it now is peacefully and slowly, destroying the cultural hegemony that has enslaved the people for so long.

But I also should have rewritten that. What I mean is that currently, an armed insurrection is not needed. For now, a peaceful process is good enough.

Since you&#39;re so strict with your ideas, you should know that Marx and Engels too favoured a peaceful transition to socialism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:22 am
I agree, but as you have rightly said, "it took many years for there to be the possibility of a succesful revolution". Also, it was only possible when the moment was right. Lenin understood this; as should most revolutionaries, if there is to be revolution at all (yes, i&#39;m copying you).
Yes, it took many years of great effort. What you suggest could take many years without actually leading to revolution.


Of course, that&#39;s all nice and dandy, and I agree with you. The PSUV is currently the vanguard of the worker&#39;s and the poor. It is well organized and it can move the masses. They are also doing all they can to denounce capitalists and the US, so as to get workers to become more radical. What, do you think all the anti-imperialist and marxist rethoric is just for show? It&#39;s to get the people to start believing that capitalism is not the answer and that they have to be revolutionary and radical in order to bring about real change.
Avoiding revolutionary acts and violence which need to be taken does not lead to revolution, as it can not always be avoided.

Aside from that, I tend to agree that this type of thing isn&#39;t exactly an opposition to imperialism. Venezuela can&#39;t break from the ties with imperialism in this way. Imperialism cannot be crushed by driving its economy.


Read the word in BOLD.


You will have no blood or violent overthrow. The best way to do it now is peacefully and slowly, destroying the cultural hegemony that has enslaved the people for so long.
The problem is that what may ultimately be the best way or the most ideal, for that matter, can&#39;t always be done. That is something needing to be kept out of revolutionary movement, as it can not always allow for situations and acts said not to be "ideal" to be avoided. i.e. even if it is attempted, more many be needed. You can&#39;t just make a statement that violence will never be needed- it likely will be. What is needed for revolution to occur and be secured cannot be known ahead of time- the point is to prepare for what must be done, as there is no alternative. You can&#39;t possibly make a judgment of what must be done during the time of revolution. Ideals don&#39;t fit with revolutionary movement because they are distractions and they take away from the necessary acts to be taken for the revolution to move forward.


But I also should have rewritten that. What I mean is that currently, an armed insurrection is not needed. For now, a peaceful process is good enough.
"Good enough"?

Imperialism isn&#39;t going to merely "wither away". Imperialism must be crushed with force, avoiding the use of this force will ultimately only prolong its existence and increase its power.


Since you&#39;re so strict with your ideas, you should know that Marx and Engels too favoured a peaceful transition to socialism.
They may have favored it, but most revolutionaries recognize that favorable circumstances are often absent from revolution. Basing a course of movement on "favorable" circumstances is quite idealist; it can&#39;t possibly be determined what will need to be done, the acts to be carried out- as far as revolutionary movement is concerned- ideals must be absent. Most acts taken towards revolution are not ideal.