My theory on why Chavez support went down

[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?

I mean wouldn'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'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

READ THIS ARTICLE, ON THE TACTICS OF DECEPTIONS USED BY TV:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/techniques.html


1. ½ a Story = Complete Lie: I have decided to bluntly call “deception” by these Networks and by the White House, LIES. When adults knowingly imply things that are not true, they are lies. Simple, end of story.

Here is an example of what is going on;

NEWS ALERT: A man survived a jump from a plane this afternoon. He was not wearing a parachute and he credits his new Nike Plane Jumpers with cushioning his fall.
Now let’s say that story is completely true. All the networks and printed media pick up the story. Front page, lead story. Well, what they forgot to tell you was that the plane was a 2 seater plane, and it was on the runway, stopped, and the jump was from 3 feet off the ground. Now the full story was available to all the media, but Fox News does not feel that those details are important.

In the past I would say that technically there are no lies being told, but when I factor in the responsibility of a journalist, I must indeed call this story a blatant lie. I hold journalists to a higher standard that I would hold a school child.

Now take that practice and apply it to almost every action the Bush Administration has taken since its grabbing control of the White House. The result is a public so misinformed that it will never to be able to comprehend or accept the level of deception that has taken place since the late 90s, which is when I feel that this problem started to get out of control. This is a fairly accurate description of the current state of the Union, so to speak.

2. Whoops, My Bad!: I refer to the technique, used with frequency of rain drops in a storm, of reporting, or blurting out unsubstantiated stories that turn out to be incorrect.

The Pentagon is currently using this technique almost every time they hold a press briefing. This is effective in that a person hearing a news story may tell others about that story. On the other hand a person who hears the correction is not going to contact everyone he or she originally told the incorrect story. Taking that into account every person who was told the original story has told others the original incorrect story. This is basically creating urban legends. It works. Just your friends about Mikey, the kid on the Life commercial, and I bet they tell you that he died from eating Pop Rocks!

3. Critics are Communists!: Why is it if anyone criticizes the Bush administration or their actions, we are labeled as communists or anti-American? I have heard the “C” word lately. Each time I have asked the person calling the name to explain the principles of Communism and why they are evil. I have yet to find anyone who can answer even part of that question. Labels and name calling; this is what right wingers are good at. Ask them to elaborate and they are stuck. Those who keep preaching democracy forget that the beauty of our system is that is has checks and balances built in. Bush, or should I say Cheney and Ashcroft have all but eliminated this. Congress took a powder all together. Not only is it is NOT anti-American to question the actions of the government, it is that very right that separated us from the very communists that we are now being called. It amazes me how unintelligent the right wing is. They repeat what is told to them without having any foundation for their opinions. They are human lemmings following their leader into a sea of doom; asking not one question, demanding not one iota of evidence. They are told that Saddam gasses his own people and they will repeat that ad infinitum; but if you ask them about the details or history of the events, or for any facts to substantiate their repeated mantra they just call you a name. Bravo Sean Hannity, you and your pied pipers of propaganda are succeeding in hypnotizing a nation of weak minded Americans. Amazing and sad! Continued...click next.

[LOTFW]

My theory is the same reason Congree rejected FDR's attempt to "pack the U.S. Supreme Court."

He simply attempted to grab too much power.

I don't think it's a media conspiracy. He's very popular. He just wanted too much.

In the USA we are currently experiencing a president who is, using our expression for this type of thing, "overreaching". That's because there is always a tension between how far a U.S. President attempts to go versus Congress's express authorization to create law.

But I dare say if President Bush proposed the abolition of the 22nd amendment, or the ability to create law, these proposed amendments would also see defeat.

[Reuben]

The problem with this theory is that Chavez has won resounding victories in venezuelan elections in the past in spite of massive = asnd probabbly more significant - media casmpaigns against him by the venezuelan private media.

[Zurdito]

Obviously the bourgeois media played a part, but it's not just that, there is a whole campaign of economic destabilisation and propaganda. Google "Operation Pincer" or look at the threads on here about it.

However, Chavez clearly wanted to give himself more power. I can also understand leftists opposing that. The Chilinos faction of C-Cura, a Venezuelan classist group of unions and party, spoke for the No campaign...which I oppose btw. However this shows that Chavez alienated workers this way. Also, why was it necessarry to increase from 6 to 7 years the term? Scrapping limits I can understand but this was clearly anti-democratic. Add to this the levels of inflation which must be eating into workers livelihoods, and you have a recipe for people wanting to give him a bloody nose.

Now I will be called idealistic and sectarian, but tell me, aren't those of you who expect workers to have endless patience actually the idealistic ones? Without any serious assault on the bourgeoisie, they were always going to use their monopolisation of the MOP to hit workers pockets int he event of wage rises. As a preliminary tactic I can accept Chavez's reformist approach, but after 10 years of struggle and uncertainty, workers will need real material gains or else they won't stay on board forever. Yes, more nationalisations and redistribution may have brought a very strong reaction, and foreign intervention, but Chavez as we saw in 2002 had the support to defeat that. Now, I wonder if he does: he seems to lack a mandate for any radicalr eform now.

However all is not lost. 50% of the population voted for the constitution, and a number of people to the left of Chavez did not vote for it: therefore the revolutionary left is still huge in Venezuela (the reforms were revolutionary in a bureaucratic sense) and outnumbers the right still. The PSUV now needs to assert itself as an independent voice. I fail to see how the workers are going to walk away quietly and give up the idea of a new democracy just because of losing one highly complex vote tainted by persoanlism: the majority of the Venezuelan public WANTS a Soviet style democracy, we saw that yesterday. So while I am disappointed by the result, let's not for one moment think the right has won in Venezuela: the struggle may only just be beginning.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:15 pm
My theory is the same reason Congree rejected FDR's attempt to "pack the U.S. Supreme Court."

He simply attempted to grab too much power.

I don't think it's a media conspiracy. He's very popular. He just wanted too much.

In the USA we are currently experiencing a president who is, using our expression for this type of thing, "overreaching". That's because there is always a tension between how far a U.S. President attempts to go versus Congress's express authorization to create law.

But I dare say if President Bush proposed the abolition of the 22nd amendment, or the ability to create law, these proposed amendments would also see defeat.

I am sorry comrade, friend to tell you that your judgements about Hugo Chavez and the Venezuela revolution are a bit wrong.

Let me explain you why? Venezuela's 21st Century Socialism might seem to the average joe brainwashed by CNN and TV like "power grabbing", but i think you have to be more informed about what really is happening in Venezuela.

Venezuela under Chavez is the complete negation of USA. Chavez is doing the opposite of our corporate satanic gulag of the White House!!

Chavez is de-centralizing Venezuela, not "power grabbing" like the US media says !!


In fact the new constitution was gonna de-centralize MONEY and POWER a lot more, even more than it was already decentralization !!


Wouldn't you think that workers-ownership of corporations is de-centralization of wealth?

As opposed to American way of corporations which are owned by CEOs and BIG STOCK OWNERS? And workers are just slaves?

I don't think you can compare the de-centralization of Venezuela, the $$$ being spread among the masses thru a new way of socialist economics with the USA concentration of $$ in Wall Street, NY City, Hollywood, Banks and Simi Valley

Another thing is the political decentralization, where the average joe in Veneuzela has the power to decide !!


Another thing u have to realize is that Venezuela is in a transitional-stage between capitalism and communism. This transitorial stage needs some sort of centralization [but not economic and fascist centralization like Bush] in order to change Venezuela from capitalism to communism. Read Lenin, Marx, Trotsky about the transition from capitalism to communism (State-Socialism)

marxist_god

[LOTFW]

marxist god:

I fail to see how your rebuttle to my argument challenges my overall premise that Chavez wanted more power than the people of Venezuela were willing to grant to him, from a constitutional point of view.

I don't think the people of Venezuela run around arguing to themselves, "We can't vote for this because we're in the mezo-level of Marxist change", or any nonsense like that.

First, remember he got 49%. So that's something.

In this particular case, my view on this matter is being echoed by many others: an attempt to increase power that failed. My reading or not reading a particular theoriest won't change any of that.

So what, anyway. People have lost politically and "come back" to be more powerful. Jackson, Lincoln, and Clinton come to mind.

[Ander]

As I said in the "CHAVEZ LOST" thread:

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'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'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'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's representative, who is currently Chavez, but we should never idolize the man and come to believe that all will fail without him. Let'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'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.

[Guerrilla Manila]

.... The problem is not that the Revolution has limited the democratic rights of the opposition and trampled on "press freedom".

---> The problem is that the Revolution has been far too generous with its opponents, far too tolerant, far too patient, far too gentlemanly. It has left too much power in the hands of the oligarchy and its agents. It has placed a weapon in their hands which they are using very effectively to sabotage the revolution, halt it in its tracks and ultimately destroy it.


You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and you cannot win a fight with one arm tied behind your back. A revolution is not a game of chess with clearly defined rules. It is a fight between mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable class interests. Decisive measures are necessary to defend the Revolution and disarm the Counterrevolution.

Chavez needs to purge some of the filth.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

At first I felt like it was a massive blow to Chavez

Who cares about his loss?

This is turning into a personality festival.

[LOTFW]

Guerrilla Manila hits it right on the head:

If Chavez wants to truely solve the problems of Venezuela, he needs to simply abandon the constitution, declare himself the People's Dictator of the Proletariat, and not worry about how long his "term in office" will be.

Unlike many here, I actually believe he will one day do this. I think the world is waiting for him to do so. (Well, perhaps not the world, but you get the idea.)

The big questions will be:

1. Will the army support him? This question has to be approached in a way that is usually uncomfortable for leftists to comprehend: That the military officer corp of any army sees itself as a professional organization fighting for the best interests of the nation. (Very few armed forces people get out of bed and say to themselves, "Goin to work today to make sure people are oppressed.") The Venezuelan Army's Captains, Majors, and the like need to believe their purpose they serve is professional. Many commies can't handle the word, "professional". It bugs them somehow. If the army's new job becomes passing out the collectively produced cornmeal, and insuring everyone is working, that's 1/2 the world toward what Venezuela can be.

2. Will Chavez support a system that eventually replaces him with someone who is not his kin, or the like. Will he avoid feudal-like" state socialism?

3. Will he resist the temptation of creating a party class that has a far different life than those of the common people.

"Marxist" states always blow it on these three biggies.

What will Chavez's eventual decisions in these areas become?

[Ander]

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 03, 2007 06:56 pm

At first I felt like it was a massive blow to Chavez

Who cares about his loss?

This is turning into a personality festival.
Did you even read the rest of my post or do you just enjoy taking things out of context?


At first I felt like it was a massive blow to Chavez and the movement growing over there.

If you had actually taken the time to read what I said, it becomes quite clear that I do not support a personality cult at all.

Please refrain from shit-disturbing. If you're not going to contribute, than don't post anything at all.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:26 pm
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't. This movement needs to be decentralized and so does the Venezuelan state. This referendum looks to me as some kind of power grab.




This isn't the case at all, but this is what the rotten media kept repeating. And in all honestly, I think the revolutionaries, including, Chavez, have been far too kind to the opposition and should take power for once and for all.


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'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.

I agree with Che y Marijuana in another thread when he wrote that the idea of splitting up the referendum is ridiculous because the people would have been much more time-consuming and wastful. Why not just get it over woth and put them all together?


Chavez needs to purge some of the filth.

Exactly

[Zurdito]

I agree with Che y Marijuana in another thread when he wrote that the idea of splitting up the referendum is ridiculous because the people would have been much more time-consuming and wastful. Why not just get it over woth and put them all together?

They would vote on the same day, just with one bloc on the social reforms and one on the political. Why would this be hard to understand? As it is, the vote was split in two anyway, one for the NA proposals and one for the executive proposals.

you can scoff at criticism, yet the referendum lost, and it's pretty clear that it was the lengthening of the terms and scrapping of limits which made it lose.


Chavez needs to purge some of the filth.

You are really happy to give those powers to a bourgeois state? Do you not think they could be used against independent working class organisations?

Those who want chavez to take power in a bureaucratic revolution are just repeating mistakes made time and time again. why not read some history about where this leads?

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:01 pm
Guerrilla Manila hits it right on the head:

If Chavez wants to truely solve the problems of Venezuela, he needs to simply abandon the constitution, declare himself the People's Dictator of the Proletariat, and not worry about how long his "term in office" will be.

Unlike many here, I actually believe he will one day do this. I think the world is waiting for him to do so. (Well, perhaps not the world, but you get the idea.)

The big questions will be:

1. Will the army support him? This question has to be approached in a way that is usually uncomfortable for leftists to comprehend: That the military officer corp of any army sees itself as a professional organization fighting for the best interests of the nation. (Very few armed forces people get out of bed and say to themselves, "Goin to work today to make sure people are oppressed.") The Venezuelan Army's Captains, Majors, and the like need to believe their purpose they serve is professional. Many commies can't handle the word, "professional". It bugs them somehow. If the army's new job becomes passing out the collectively produced cornmeal, and insuring everyone is working, that's 1/2 the world toward what Venezuela can be.

2. Will Chavez support a system that eventually replaces him with someone who is not his kin, or the like. Will he avoid feudal-like" state socialism?

3. Will he resist the temptation of creating a party class that has a far different life than those of the common people.

"Marxist" states always blow it on these three biggies.

What will Chavez's eventual decisions in these areas become?
Chavez will not create a DOTP. He and Castro (according to Chavez) have had differences about that topic and that's where they're different. (though I think Castro is right, I mean this crap does NOT happen in Cuba nor do "golovisions" or "RCTV's" exist in Cuba).

Chavez will go where the people go. If the workers finally had enough, they'll move radical and (as history's been telling us) so will he.

The problem is now, this is a huge political blowback and it's up to the leftists forces to educate the people and to not allow them to fall into tricks that the bureaucrats and social democrats of the PSUV are making them fall into.

[Ander]

This isn't the case at all, but this is what the rotten media kept repeating. And in all honestly, I think the revolutionaries, including, Chavez, have been far too kind to the opposition and should take power for once and for all.

Yes, one man should take over once and for all. Cause that's what socialism is all about, right? Well, according to gentlemen like Stalin and Mao, of course.


I agree with Che y Marijuana in another thread when he wrote that the idea of splitting up the referendum is ridiculous because the people would have been much more time-consuming and wastful. Why not just get it over woth and put them all together?

Um...because he lost?

What you are suggesting occurred, and look at what happened. I don't understand why you would argue for something that clearly did not work.



Chavez needs to purge some of the filth.

Exactly

What are you even talking about? Purge the filth? LMAO, this isn't a video game, buddy. Chavez is the leader of a capitalist, bourgeois state in the backyard of the most imperialist nation on the planet. Do you understand the concept of strategy?

Please never lead a revolution, the last thing we need is gung-ho revolutionaries.

[LOTFW]

bootleg,

I believe it's about example. Venezuela wishes itself to be a full member of the nation of worlds, which is one that has a constitution, and elections, and limitations on the executive. And nearly everyone living below the standard they deserve. If Chavez trades for them their constitutional scheme for ending capital exploitation, they'll get used to it nearly immediately, when the wealth of the resources denied to them begin working for them.

When that happens, they'll all have a new example, and will fight for that one to be maintained.

[Eleftherios]

Yes, one man should take over once and for all. Cause that's what socialism is all about, right? Well, according to gentlemen like Stalin and Mao, of course.

So you're suggesting that Chavez should take it slowly like the reformists?


Um...because he lost?

What you are suggesting occurred, and look at what happened. I don't understand why you would argue for something that clearly did not work.


They would vote on the same day, just with one bloc on the social reforms and one on the political. Why would this be hard to understand? As it is, the vote was split in two anyway, one for the NA proposals and one for the executive proposals.

you can scoff at criticism, yet the referendum lost, and it's pretty clear that it was the lengthening of the terms and scrapping of limits which made it lose.

That's not why the referendum lost though. I suggest you both take a look at this:

http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-referendum-defeat031207.htm


What are you even talking about? Purge the filth? LMAO, this isn't a video game, buddy. Chavez is the leader of a capitalist, bourgeois state in the backyard of the most imperialist nation on the planet. Do you understand the concept of strategy?

Lol, when I first saw it, I thought it said fifth, meaning the fifth column, but I guess filth works too

Seriously, though, it's nothing to get worked up about


Please never lead a revolution

Request denied


LMAO, this isn't a video game

Don't use Mao's name in vain

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Guerrilla [email protected] 03, 2007 09:32 pm
.... The problem is not that the Revolution has limited the democratic rights of the opposition and trampled on "press freedom".

---> The problem is that the Revolution has been far too generous with its opponents, far too tolerant, far too patient, far too gentlemanly. It has left too much power in the hands of the oligarchy and its agents. It has placed a weapon in their hands which they are using very effectively to sabotage the revolution, halt it in its tracks and ultimately destroy it.


You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and you cannot win a fight with one arm tied behind your back. A revolution is not a game of chess with clearly defined rules. It is a fight between mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable class interests. Decisive measures are necessary to defend the Revolution and disarm the Counterrevolution.

Chavez needs to purge some of the filth.

Guerrilla Manila is right on the money !!! I agree totally. Given that Chavez is a christian, moralist, honest, and well intentioned, his goodness has gone too far (I am christian too), however, the right-wing oligarchies in Venezuela are still too strong !!


However, we could be wrong, remember that we are not presidents, nor rulers, so we really cannot know exactly how to rule a nation, it is hard to rule a nation my friend

it is hard to apply socialism in 1 country

Don't blame Chavez, or the masses, it is too complex

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 03, 2007 10:32 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 03, 2007 10:32 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:01 pm
Guerrilla Manila hits it right on the head:

If Chavez wants to truely solve the problems of Venezuela, he needs to simply abandon the constitution, declare himself the People's Dictator of the Proletariat, and not worry about how long his "term in office" will be.

Unlike many here, I actually believe he will one day do this. I think the world is waiting for him to do so. (Well, perhaps not the world, but you get the idea.)

The big questions will be:

1. Will the army support him? This question has to be approached in a way that is usually uncomfortable for leftists to comprehend: That the military officer corp of any army sees itself as a professional organization fighting for the best interests of the nation. (Very few armed forces people get out of bed and say to themselves, "Goin to work today to make sure people are oppressed.") The Venezuelan Army's Captains, Majors, and the like need to believe their purpose they serve is professional. Many commies can't handle the word, "professional". It bugs them somehow. If the army's new job becomes passing out the collectively produced cornmeal, and insuring everyone is working, that's 1/2 the world toward what Venezuela can be.

2. Will Chavez support a system that eventually replaces him with someone who is not his kin, or the like. Will he avoid feudal-like" state socialism?

3. Will he resist the temptation of creating a party class that has a far different life than those of the common people.

"Marxist" states always blow it on these three biggies.

What will Chavez's eventual decisions in these areas become?
Chavez will not create a DOTP. He and Castro (according to Chavez) have had differences about that topic and that's where they're different. (though I think Castro is right, I mean this crap does NOT happen in Cuba nor do "golovisions" or "RCTV's" exist in Cuba).

Chavez will go where the people go. If the workers finally had enough, they'll move radical and (as history's been telling us) so will he.

The problem is now, this is a huge political blowback and it's up to the leftists forces to educate the people and to not allow them to fall into tricks that the bureaucrats and social democrats of the PSUV are making them fall into. [/b]

The poors of Cuba, are a lot better than the poors of Guatemala

marxist_god

[Ander]

So you're suggesting that Chavez should take it slowly like the reformists?

Well, if one agrees with Marxism and the idea of class struggle, one would believe that it should be the working class who acts, not the figurehead of a bourgeois state, right?

Chavez is just the representative of a socialistic movement currently in power in Venezuela. Unless he is willing to launch a violent revolution (which I highly doubt, especially right now) than yes, he has to "take it slowly." Although, some of the terms in the referendum can hardly be labeled as taking it slowly.

We should support the efforts of the Chavez administration to guide the Venezuelan people towards a more egalitarian society, but in the end we can't put all of our hope into either Chavez or the government.


That's not why the referendum list though.

Of course it is! Who the hell was not going to vote for a 6 hour work week, social security benefits, etc?

Obviously there were other factors, such as the influence of the media, Church, and other reactionaries, but it cannot be denied that a large number of moderate Chavistas were dissuaded from voting "Si" due to the political manuevres attempted by Chavez in this referendum.


Seriously, though, it's nothing to get worked up about

I'm not worked up, but this is pretty important in terms of global politics.

[La Comédie Noire]

I mean wouldn'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's why a lot of Chavez-Supporters quit, and became capitalists.

I don't think they turned capitalist. I just think they where made hesitant by the opposing media, as you and others have said.

Whether these fears have any ground will be determined by what Chavez does in the future.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:17 am

So you're suggesting that Chavez should take it slowly like the reformists?

Well, if one agrees with Marxism and the idea of class struggle, one would believe that it should be the working class who acts, not the figurehead of a bourgeois state, right?

Chavez is just the representative of a socialistic movement currently in power in Venezuela. Unless he is willing to launch a violent revolution (which I highly doubt, especially right now) than yes, he has to "take it slowly." Although, some of the terms in the referendum can hardly be labeled as taking it slowly.

We should support the efforts of the Chavez administration to guide the Venezuelan people towards a more egalitarian society, but in the end we can't put all of our hope into either Chavez or the government.


That's not why the referendum list though.

Of course it is! Who the hell was not going to vote for a 6 hour work week, social security benefits, etc?

Obviously there were other factors, such as the influence of the media, Church, and other reactionaries, but it cannot be denied that a large number of moderate Chavistas were dissuaded from voting "Si" due to the political manuevres attempted by Chavez in this referendum.


Seriously, though, it's nothing to get worked up about

I'm not worked up, but this is pretty important in terms of global politics.

"There are no good men, only God in his heaven is good-Jesus

I am not saying to completely, unconditionally trust, idolize and praise Chavez like if he is a messiah. Even Che Guevara said that he didn't come to liberate anybody, but to teach us how to liberate ourselves. I think that Chavez is trying to do the same, he is trying to help us get awake. Like Neo in the movie The Matrix.

Remember that most people are sleeping in a delirium, and we as revolutionaries, as liberators, as neo, must try to do the same.

And you are right, we shouldn't praise and idolize Chavez, but i think we should support the Bolivarian Movement and his efforts

marxist_god

[Faux Real]

You're not convincing anyone by invoking religious imagery.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:33 am
You're not convincing anyone by invoking religious imagery.


Well all i am saying is that Chavez is no God, and no 100% perfect. There are no perfect men on earth, and we shouldn't unconditionally follow people like cults. And note that i am a fervent Chavez supporter. I wish that this country (USA) had a president and a Social Revolution like the Bolivarian Revolution, but that doesnt mean i blindly believe in every thing Chavez says or do

marxist_god

[Ander]

I am not saying to completely, unconditionally trust, idolize and praise Chavez like if he is a messiah. Even Che Guevara said that he didn't come to liberate anybody, but to teach us how to liberate ourselves. I think that Chavez is trying to do the same, he is trying to help us get awake. Like Neo in the movie The Matrix.

Remember that most people are sleeping in a delirium, and we as revolutionaries, as liberators, as neo, must try to do the same.

And you are right, we shouldn't praise and idolize Chavez, but i think we should support the Bolivarian Movement and his efforts

I never disagreed. In fact, my posts show that I believe pretty much the same thing.

[metalero]

For me, the main reason, is to find out to what happened to that 30% who had supported chavez in last elections, who just made part of the abstention this time (44%). Doubts? fears? lack of communication? perhaps. Chavez spent too much time lately as a mediator between paramilitary scum Uribe and FARC, and I think didn't put too much effort to communicate to the working class the important aspects of the reform to refute the manipulation of the media. Yet, this is also a victory; he managed to make the opposition recognize his government and the constitution, defeating the efforts of the extreme right of creating violence and chaos to justify another coup. There's still plenty of time ahead, and I hope next time the initiative for radical change comes directly from the working class organizations.

Could someone merge the two threads on the subject?