Luis Tascón Expelled from PSUV

[KC]

Luis Tascon, a fairly well known Chavista, was kicked out (http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/02/15/pol_art_expulsan-a-tascon-po_714289.shtml) of Chavez's PSUV for attempting to denounce the corruption of another presidential ally.

Both Quico (http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-low-can-you-go_15.html) and OW (http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2008/02/real-enemy.html) have commentary up that I think analyzes this situation well. Two additional comments:
1. Successful political parties tend to work to expand their support, not contract it to only the ideologically "pure." They also tend to benefit by kicking out the corrupt members, not by expelling those who denounce corruption.
2. Corruption is clearly a major problem in Chavismo, but the president seems to be doing nothing about it. There are three possible explanations: he may be ignorant of it, he may be ignoring it to focus on other things or he may be a part of it. I'm not sure which of the three it is, but there is little doubt that corruption is creating some major divides within the PSUV that are only going to grow unless some leadership steps in.

Due to those two reasons, among others, there are growing ranks of former Chavez supporters who are now moving away from him. Rather than try to bring them back into the fold, the president writes them off as traitors and opposition. If Chavez can't stop the ideological purges nor the corruption, the failing PSUV may actually succeed in creating what Chavez and some in the opposition have worked so hard to destroy: a moderate political force that can win elections.
http://bloggingsbyboz.blogspot.com/2008/02/tascon-kicked-out-of-psuv.html
______________________________________

I realize this is somewhat of a shoddy source, but I really couldn't find an article on this that was in English that was better. Anyways, corruption is clearly a problem in the Venezuelan government and their political parties (including PSUV) that is openly recognized by everyone in the country, including Chavez himself.

Yet when evidence by Tascón, a Chavista who became infamous after the Tascón List incident, is presented that José David Cabello was responsible for corruption during his time at the Infrastructure Ministry, he is expelled. Now, I'm not really sure what to make of this, as I'm not sure what this evidence is or if Tascón has gone to the right on this issue, but I really highly doubt it, and it seems to me to be more accurate to say that he was expelled for exposing (or attempting to expose) the corruption of one of Chavez's closer associates.

Does anyone else have any more info on this?

[BIG BROTHER]

sorry that i don't have any info. But what i can tell you is, is that in latin america we pretty much asociate the wordcorruption with politicians right away so as progresive as chavez seems, i ain't surprised if he's just like the rest of them. So yea i think he's probably corrupt and his party too. it aint much surprise if its true.

this remainds me a little of back in the 80s or somewhere around that time in mexico when a presidential candidate of the political party of PRI said he wanted to end corruption and stuff. but he didn't just get kicked out, he got killed.

[chebol]

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3247

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/744/38505

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/741/38355

[el_chavista]

If Chávez himself is an eclectic politician that take ideas from here and there, what do you expect from his buddy troopers who accompanied him in that political adventure called 'Bolivarian movement'? There are no ideologized 'cadres' nor vanguard.
On one hand the public administration is the same old corrupted one at the bourgeoisie's service. On the other hand the president's men substituted the previous bureaucrats and they act by their own criteria.
But still Chávez behaviour and speech keep some big mass willingly. He still is free from corruption denounces for the oppositionists' dismay.
Tascón's denounces against Cabello were actually not that sound. Although rumor has it Cabello represents the 'inner' right in the sense he doesn't like changes.

[chebol]

Actually, Tascon's denunciations of Cabello were very sound (the Cabello family itself is a hot-bed of corruption).

The problem is the existence of an "endogenous right" within the Chavista movement (of which Cabello is an example), and the parallel problem of the weakness of the far-left within chavismo (as underscored by the PSUV elections).

There should be no doubt that Tascon was right. The problem is that he has allowed himself to be painted as an "oppositionist" - a tag it is difficult to overcome without organised backing to break through the cotiery of thieves that is tryin to attach itself to Chavez. This is the current weakness of the revolution (and a challenge it is taking up).

[el_chavista]

Last year Cabello's brother budgeted the adquisition of some vehicles. Now he need more money to buy them because the prices' rising. That's all to it.
IMHO there is no "endogenous right" as apportunist bureaucrats have no ideology.

[Guerrilla22]

It appears that Chavez isn't above making political appointments based on favors to political allies, which means Chavez is no different than any other politician in the world.

[el_chavista]

It appears that Chavez isn't above making political appointments based on favors to political allies, which means Chavez is no different than any other politician in the world.He thinks he still depends on his fellow-troopers. Elections will demonstrate who's not serving the people. If we remember Allende, for less than what Chávez has done, Allende was overthrown to death.

[chebol]

http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/caracas-on-line-fred-fuentes-on-rumbles.html
(http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/caracas-on-line-fred-fuentes-on-rumbles.html)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well Chavez has sent military troops to attack striking workers. Usually that's a good sign that the person in question is not down with the liberation of the working class. Though being a politician is also a very good sign as well.

[KC]

When did Chavez do this?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

At the Steelmaker Sidor. The national guard was called in to repress striking workers and they didn't shy from using guns. I'd post a link but I can't till I'm at 25 posts. Of course sidor has since been nationalized under "comanagement", but comanagement hasn't really been much of an equal partnership these days.

[Herman]

At the Steelmaker Sidor. The national guard was called in to repress striking workers and they didn't shy from using guns. I'd post a link but I can't till I'm at 25 posts. Of course sidor has since been nationalized under "comanagement", but comanagement hasn't really been much of an equal partnership these days.

No, he didn't. That was the governor of that particular region who called the National Guard, and his incompetent minister who supported such a move (he was replaced by a communist minister).

I suggest you check these sites out before you make accusations such as:


but comanagement hasn't really been much of an equal partnership these days.

http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/

http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/n113981.html

http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/n113748.html

[KC]

At the Steelmaker Sidor.

"In fact, I think the Sidor example is a great one in that it really showed the role that Chavez is playing. Chavez has stated before that the people aren't "ready" for socialism, citing the referendum loss as a good indicator of this. What he doesn't realize, however, is that the workers are more than ready to take control of the means of production and that they want to do it on their terms.

The renationalization of Sidor was a concession made by Chavez at a point when the situation escalated to a point where he was forced to act; his two options were either to renationalize the company, throw in some populist rhetoric and maintain support for his "revolution" or to not do so and openly go to the side of the reaction. It effectively showed that Chavez's position is not that of support of the working class and representation of the working and oppressed people of Venezuela, but as an attempt to mediate the differences between the capitalists and exploited in Venezuela in order to try to reconcile these differences. When he is pushed, he has so far taken the side of the workers in these struggles against the capitalists (although even in many of these cases he still plays the role of the mediator, nationalizing companies by buying them out instead of just doing it outright), but it has to make us wonder how far the working and oppressed people of Venezuela can push Chavez and his government before they turn to the side of reaction.

Chavez has stated that he does not want to become another Allende, but that's really the best outcome I see out of this. I don't think Chavez will be able to be pushed any further than Allende was, and I think that will ultimately be damaging to the movement in Venezuela (maybe not to the extent that it was in Chile, but damaging nonetheless)."
Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1148941&postcount=25)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Herman- Aporrea is a website that shills for the Venezuelan government, trusting them as the proper beacons of truth in regards to comanagement is like talking to nike if it thinks its workers like their sweatshops.

Of course Chavez wasn't the one who called in the troops directly, that doesn't happen too often in any nation. However the actions of his government are accountable to him as he heads it. When push came to shove he had to come down against the national guard, cuz he needs more popular support these days and attacking strikers won't get it. But if you look at more marginalized groups like the indigenous in amazon regions, the government happily represses them in order to exploit their local hydrocarbons.

Zampano- I would agree, nationalization is essentially just chavez trying to mediate the actions of the workers. The man is very powerful, and obviously isn't anxious to cede the direction of the revolution to groups outside his control. I think PSUV showed that rather well.

[KC]

Herman- Aporrea is a website that shills for the Venezuelan government, trusting them as the proper beacons of truth in regards to comanagement is like talking to nike if it thinks its workers like their sweatshops.

This is not true; Aporrea has similar relations to the Chavez administration as Venezuelanalysis.com I would say; both are mostly supportive, but not completely, and offer insightful analysis regardless.


Of course Chavez wasn't the one who called in the troops directly, that doesn't happen too often in any nation.

That's because it's not his job to do so, and if it were I don't think he would have done so.


But if you look at more marginalized groups like the indigenous in amazon regions, the government happily represses them in order to exploit their local hydrocarbons.

I don't know what you're talking about.

"Plans for new coal mining in the Sierra de Perijá, the northwestern region of the state of Zulia, Venezuela, were suspended by President Hugo Chávez last year following anti-coal declarations by Chávez and several ministers."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3503

Yes it is certainly possible to continue in the future, but I don't believe it is happening right now and so your statement is incorrect.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This is not true; Aporrea has similar relations to the Chavez administration as Venezuelanalysis.com I would say; both are mostly supportive, but not completely, and offer insightful analysis regardless.

And venezuelaanalysis also shills for the Chavista government. Hell it works with Venezuela's office of information. I always think its funny how Chavez supporters seem to think the main sites brining forth his gospel are somehow to be trusted. But what do you expect from a political grouping that promotes free concerts as a way to boondogle folks into listening to a long ass panel on venezuela.




I don't know what you're talking about.

"Plans for new coal mining in the Sierra de Perijá, the northwestern region of the state of Zulia, Venezuela, were suspended by President Hugo Chávez last year following anti-coal declarations by Chávez and several ministers."

Yes it is certainly possible to continue in the future, but I don't believe it is happening right now and so your statement is incorrect.All that article claims is that the state is trending towards not coal mining, hardly a ringing endorsement of anti coal politics on the part of chavez. Of course after years of repression and environmental degradation perhaps he's let up. Even so he''ll move on to Orinico and tar up that zone with heavy crude. What wondrous things he brings.

[KC]

And venezuelaanalysis also shills for the Chavista government. Hell it works with Venezuela's office of information. I always think its funny how Chavez supporters seem to think the main sites brining forth his gospel are somehow to be trusted.

You obviously haven't read Venezuelanalysis that much if you're making such a claim. Many of their articles are biased towards Chavez, but I haven't seen any factual inaccuraices at all, and there are plenty of criticisms of the movement itself and of other leaders in the movement.


All that article claims is that the state is trending towards not coal mining, hardly a ringing endorsement of anti coal politics on the part of chavez. Of course after years of repression and environmental degradation perhaps he's let up. Even so he''ll move on to Orinico and tar up that zone with heavy crude. What wondrous things he brings.

You could be right in the end. But of course that's all speculation, which is exactly what I was saying.

[Cheung Mo]

sorry that i don't have any info. But what i can tell you is, is that in latin america we pretty much asociate the wordcorruption with politicians right away so as progresive as chavez seems, i ain't surprised if he's just like the rest of them. So yea i think he's probably corrupt and his party too. it aint much surprise if its true.

this remainds me a little of back in the 80s or somewhere around that time in mexico when a presidential candidate of the political party of PRI said he wanted to end corruption and stuff. but he didn't just get kicked out, he got killed.

Ironically, PRI is a Socialist International affiliate...So is that party in Egypt that tortures atheists.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You obviously haven't read Venezuelanalysis that much if you're making such a claim. Many of their articles are biased towards Chavez, but I haven't seen any factual inaccuraices at all, and there are plenty of criticisms of the movement itself and of other leaders in the movement.

I've read Vanalysis ever since I picked up a copy of "the Best Democracy money can buy" by Greg Palast, back in 2003. Its biased towards chavez and has connections to his government. Of course its not full on propaganda, that would be rather silly in this day and age. But its heavily biased and unreliable for any views outside of the neocon "I hate chavez" vs. statist "Chavez is good and only has minor problems" paradigm. They skirt over most of the messy issues and when they do address them its always not Chvez's fault or Chavez is now suddenly "fixing" the problem. For example, you won't see them covering Chavez calling for "revolutionary discipline" against the anarchists.