A criticism of Chavez

[Dr Mindbender]

Someone help me rebut this- (http://ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4001.new;boardseen#new)

Freedom

The freedom of the press is seriously threatened in Venezuela according to various journalism organizations and NGOs. According to the International Press Institute, the Inter-American Press Association and Human Rights Watch, the administration of President Hugo Chávez tightened its grip on the press in 2005, while groups close to the government, including the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists’ ability to report. President Chávez’s government introduced harsher penalties for libel, defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of journalists appearing before the courts. The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and television system part of the state, which controls its schedules, programs and content.[56][57][58][59]

President Chávez announced that the operating license for RCTV — Venezuela's second largest TV channel which has been broadcasting for 53 years — will not be renewed.[60] The licence expired on 27 May 2007.[61] He publicly stated: "It runs out in March[sic]. So it's better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you're going to do in March... There will be no new operating license for this coupist TV channel called RCTV. The operating license is over... So go and turn off the equipment,"[62] RCTV supported a strike against Chávez in 2003. Reporters in Venezuela have expressed their concern to international media, stating that such a stance is a threat to freedom of speech.

Corruption

The Economist reports that "Mr. Chávez has grasped all the powers of state into his own hands, and eliminated all independent oversight of his government. The opposition argues that the inevitable result of this is graft on an increased scale." Berlin-based Transparency International, in its annual survey Corruption Perceptions Index, ranked Venezuela as one of only a dozen countries where perceived corruption had "greatly increased" in 2005, resulting in a ranking of 130th out of the 150 countries surveyed,[94] [95] to become the nation perceived as the third most corrupt in Latin America, above Paraguay and Haiti. Critics claim that rampant corruption reaches the highest levels of Venezuelan airport and security officials, that billions of dollars have been siphoned away from social programs by corrupt officials, and that leaders of the military have limited oversight, creating an environment in which impunity and corruption develop.[94][90][unreliable source?][92][91] Currently Venezuela ranks 138th out of 163 countries with a rating of 2.3.[96]

At the end of May 2007 Asdrubal Chávez, Hugo Chávez's cousin has been chosen as public company Petroleos de Venezuela's vice president. His elder brother Adan has been appointed education minister and his father Hugo de los Reyes Chávez is governor of the state of Barinas. Barinas' secretary of state is another brother of Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, Anibal Chávez is mayor of Sabaneta de Barinas and Narciso Chavez candidate for the mayorship in Bolivar.[97]

Crime

Since Chávez took office, The Economist reports that the murder rate has almost tripled, and that Venezuela's capital – Caracas – has become South America's most violent, with police implicated in some of the crimes.[74][39] The United Nations reported in 2005 that Venezuela had the highest number of deaths by gunfire per capita in the world,[98] garnering for Venezuela a claim to the title of the world's most violent crime capital.[92] Critics claim that Chávez's policies are largely responsible for these declines.[37][92]. The U.S. State Department says there is a "politicization of the judiciary, the electoral authorities, and the legal system" and a "reported 13% increase in politically motivated detentions".[4]

Socialist Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez)

[Yehuda Stern]

Why? Other than maybe the crime thing, everything there is true. Chavez is corrupt and he is preparing to position himself as a Bonapartist ruler. That the Chavistas cannot stand reality doesn't mean it's not there.

[Decolonize The Left]

While I do not endorse censorship, corruption, or violence, I imagine some of our members will argue that these are necessary steps in order to secure socialism in a capitalist world. Certainly our Stalinist/Leninist comrades will argue that a state attempting socialism while the majority of the world opposes this move will need to curb capitalist propaganda (through censorship) and eliminate reactionary voices within the nation.

- August

[Dean]

Bourgeois radio organizations which support counter-revolution should not have the right to private control of the media. I have no problem with them expressing themselves within the framework of a fair, communalized radio system. I don;t see much wrong with this specific action of Chavez's.

[Dr Mindbender]

Bourgeois radio organizations which support counter-revolution should not have the right to private control of the media. I have no problem with them expressing themselves within the framework of a fair, communalized radio system. I don;t see much wrong with this specific action of Chavez's.

thanks dean. Anyone got a juicy comeback on the issue of 'increased corruption and criminality'?

[Q]

I want to respond to this article with two counterarguments. Firstly on RCTV:

The non-renewal of the RCTV license has become the subject of worldwide debate. The question of freedom of the press, accessibility of the media and democracy is an important issue for the workers' movement and for revolutionary socialists. The action by the Chávez government is generating a lot of support amongst the left in Venezuela and internationally. Especially internationally, this is seen as a blow against a vicious reactionary media outlet, a sentiment any socialist could sympathise with as RCTV sponsored and actively cooperated with the 2002 US-backed coup against Chávez and was involved in other attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government. More generally, there is also the hypocrisy of the representatives of Imperialism who pretend to speak for democracy and press freedom whilst big business has never before had such power to stifle genuine debate and discussion, and use the media as its exclusive mouthpiece. The decision of the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting license of RCTV has been welcomed by various people on the left such as Tariq Ali and Tony Benn. The CWI stands for the taking over of the media empires currently run by big business, and for them to be put under the democratic control of the workers movement. On the basis of working-class control and democratic allocation of media resources and coverage, access to the media could be guaranteed to the overall majority of the population.

This article examines whether Chávez's actions are a step in the direction of opening up the media to democratic mass participation and the dangers posed by the counter-offensive of the Venezuelan right-wing opposition and their supporters internationally.

The issues of democracy, press freedom, freedom of opinion and expression are in today's world of such importance that they necessitate a more comprehensive approach, especially in revolutionary or semi-revolutionary situations. The opponents of the Chávez regime have been looking for a handle to strengthen their campaign against Chávez and to start rebuilding their basis in society. The decision of Chávez to revoke the license of RCTV, five years after the coup, has been jumped upon by the anti-Chávez opposition in Venezuela and the representatives of Imperialism because it is potentially an issue they hope to use to undermine support for the Bolivarian government.

...

Timing?

Why has Chávez taken the decision to revoke the license of RCTV now?

He could have done it after the defeated coup in 2002 or after the defeated bosses lock-out in 2003 or even after the defeated recall referendum in 2004. Yet unfortunately, his reaction at that time was to try and find a compromise, call for national unity and invite the representatives of the ruling class to come on board. To quote the words of the then minister for the interior, Vicente Rangel, "take up institutional political positions". In June 2004, Chávez agreed to a media cease-fire with the other main opposition channel Venevision, a deal brokered by former US President Jimmy Carter. According to reports, the owner of the station Gustavo Cisneros (a Cuban-Venezuelan media mogul, who is one of the world's richest men and owns about 70 media outlets in 39 countries) had agreed to tone his anti-Chávez propaganda down in return for Chávez's help in introducing Cisneros to Brazil's President Lula. Venevision's broadcasts did indeed become less anti-Chavista.

Timing in politics is important and in a revolutionary process it is critical. If Chávez had moved decisively against the interests of the media Tsars who supported the coup, while introducing measures to democratically organise the running of the media, millions of people would have understood and participated. The aftermath of the coup, during the employers' lock-out and the run-up to the 2004 recall referendum were points of mass participation in the Venezuelan revolutionary process.

Revolutionary socialists support the nationalisation of the resources (paper, printing press, television stations, computer producers, cable providers) and the democratic reallocation of these resources. When the media is organised democratically, political parties, pressure groups and community campaigns could be allocated resources and access to TV, radio, etc, in accordance to the support they have in society (on the basis of their membership, influence, votes received in elections, etc.). The workers' movement with its trade unions and parties would organise the mass participation in this process by democratically-elected committees. Organised along these lines, there would be genuine and free democratic access to the media for all opinions and ideas, including minority opinions in society.

Regrettably, this is not what the Chávez government has done or has put forward as a program for the future. Instead of organising and stimulating the participation of the working class and the masses in taking society out of the stranglehold of the Venezuelan ruling class and Imperialism, Chávez and his administration has seen them more as an auxiliary force to be called out when necessary. Rather than basing themselves on the active participation of the masses, Chávez and his administration took a top-down approach.

...

The broadcasting licence once owned by RCTV has been given to a new station called Tves-Venezuela Social Television. This station will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. Much is made of the fact that it is not under the direct control of the government but run by a foundation of "community members" each with one representative. The board will also include a representative of the government. Anyone that has seen state television in Venezuela will find it hard to deny that these stations are in fact as pro-government as the private channels are pro-opposition. People dread being bombarded by more government broadcasts, led by ministers and bureaucrats speaking at them for hours on end.

It would be wrong to uphold this as a more democratic pro-worker media or a model for the future. It will effectively be a vehicle for government broadcasts. Just like Telesur, the TV station jointly run by the Venezuelan, Argentinian, Cuban, Uruguayan and Bolivian governments, it is a mouthpiece for these governments in the media fight against pro-US news stations like CNN en Español. The independent voice of the mass of workers is excluded.

Under capitalism, as long as the resources are privately owned, it is not possible to guarantee a free and accessible press and media. Media laws in Venezuela might be more liberal than in other countries, it does not mean that state television and other state-run or influenced media channels offer an independent platform for workers or, to put it more generally, reflect in a genuine way the political, cultural and social life of society.

Full article (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2007/07/20venezuela.html).

Against the criminality argument:


Despite the economic growth it is clear that widespread poverty remains, along with all the other social problems, like social alienation, found in capitalist society. This is reflected in the high levels of crime and violence in Caracas and the other major cities. Jorge Martin writes that economic growth is “exacerbating all its contradictions rather than solving them”. But the main reason for this is the continuation of capitalism and the failure, so far, to defeat it. The popular reforms Chávez introduced, and his other radical policies, have brought him into collision with the interests of capitalism. Here is the classic contradiction of reformism. The crucial question is what programme and organization is necessary to resolve this clash of class interests.

Full article (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2007/10/30veneza.html).

[Yehuda Stern]

Bourgeois radio organizations which support counter-revolution should not have the right to private control of the media.

I have no sympathy for the RCTV or its policies, which are at least as reactionary and anti-worker as Chavez. But that won't lead me to support censorship in Venezuela, which is still a bourgeois state, and which will definitely use this power of censorship in the near future against the working class. That is my reason for opposing censorship of the RCTV.

[Zurdito]

Chavez´s govt. represents the collective will of the Venezuelan bourgeosie, and has therefore at times taken strong arm actions against the minority, richest, and most globally connected wing of the Venezuelan bourgeosie which doesn´t want its wealth spread amongst the whole bourgeoisie.

Any powers which strengthen the Venezuelan state are designed to strengthen the Venezuelan bourgeoise as a whole against its enemies - in some instances this might be used against those to the right of the current status quo and captialists who refuse to support the "national" (the project the project of the bourgeosie as a whole) in order to cling to special priveliges, but ultimately all measures to strenghten the bourgeois venezuelan state will strenghten it against its real enemy - the venezuelan working class.

While it´s true that the ownership of the press by a tiny minority of capitalists is in no way free speech, I don´t see how anyone can deny the fact that Chavez is often draconian against his opponents, or why we as communists should defend that.

[Brady]

I have no sympathy for the RCTV or its policies, which are at least as reactionary and anti-worker as Chavez. But that won't lead me to support censorship in Venezuela, which is still a bourgeois state, and which will definitely use this power of censorship in the near future against the working class. That is my reason for opposing censorship of the RCTV.

There is no censorship in Venezuela.

Fuck me all you have to do is pick up any paper in Caracas or turn on Venezuelan TV for 5 minutes.

I dont know any country in the world that tolerates as much 'free speech' against its elected government. Most of it racist filth at that.

[comrade stalin guevara]

people are affaraid of chavez thats understandable he is the most powerful socialist in the world [china is capitolist apparently].
just support our venzeulan comrade it will benefit us more than hateing him

we dont want chavez to turn capitolist because comrades call him kurupt

[el_chavista]

Oh come on! The mass media business is a weapon of the bourgeoisie. Don´t be confused with their silly complaining, there has never been so much of a real democracy in Venezuela before.

Now, due to the lack of really revolutionary cadres in the Bolivarian movement, they have made no changes in Venezuelan public administration, and it still at the service of the bourgeoisie, with the same corrupted police and courts.

Crime may be at the same level as ever it has been, but mass media campaign is based in overwhelming people's mind with crime news as propaganda (all day, all days).

[jake williams]

There are plenty of criticisms one could and should make of Chávez, even in the spirit of solidarity which, particularly in the light of the dim world situation generally, is appropriate, and some of them do relate to an authoritarian tendency that is part of Chávez's government. But this bit with RCTV and the general vicious, racist, reactionary tendency of the private Venezuelan media just isn't it, Brady was (mostly) right, not in any major part at least. I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to free speech and dissent so I wouldn't ultimately support doing anything to curb any media, but if you compare his actions against others he comes out the libertarian.

[el_chavista]

It seems that you don´t grasp the roll of the mass media owners in a revolution. They are the capitalistic vanguard and broadcast anticomunism like Goebbels and the nazis alienating German people against Jews.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Go away Ulster, and get that bourgeois propaganda out of our faces.

[Lost In Translation]

Thank you Ulster Socialist for bringing this article to our attention. It's nice to know what the Bourgeois are up to (not that we need further information).

@ Comrade Vasilev:

Have your posts done anything but criticize? Ulster Socialist should be thanked for bringing this Bourgeois rag to us. If we are not informed of what the capitalists are planning, how are we going to plan our revolution?

[superiority]

While I'm no fan of Chavez, the "freedom of the press" thing is bullshit. RCTV actively supported a coup: in the United States that would be sedition and possibly treason, meaning people could be executed for it. Chavez waited five years until their licence to use public resources was up for renewal and refused to renew it. Now (horror of horrors), RCTV is forced to broadcast on cable and satellite. Oh god, the censorship, make it stop. When you add to that the fact that the vast majority of Venezuelan media is privately owned and anti-Chavez, criticisms of press freedom fall apart.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Chavez is king much respect to comrade chavez

Shame on chavez haters is comrade castro wrong?

[Q]

While I'm no fan of Chavez, the "freedom of the press" thing is bullshit. RCTV actively supported a coup: in the United States that would be sedition and possibly treason, meaning people could be executed for it. Chavez waited five years until their licence to use public resources was up for renewal and refused to renew it. Now (horror of horrors), RCTV is forced to broadcast on cable and satellite. Oh god, the censorship, make it stop. When you add to that the fact that the vast majority of Venezuelan media is privately owned and anti-Chavez, criticisms of press freedom fall apart.

Well put. The mistake Chavez made is waiting for so long before taking action, meaning the population doesn't really see the need for such a move anymore and gives the imperialist forces a great stick for their smear campaign.

[bezdomni]

My criticism of Chavez would be that he is not a communist revolutionary leader, but a bourgeois reformer with populist rhetoric. If you look to real communist revolutions in history, like in the Soviet Union and China...the first things those revolutions did was revolutionize agriculture and increase production for feeding people and creating enough infrastructure for heavy industrial development. Every revolution in a backwards country has to put its emphasis on agricultural production with heavy industry in its near sight.

A socialist economy has to be based around self-sufficient production, not producing an excess of one or two commodities for export to an imperialist power while people are still starving in the street. Venezuela and oil export to the U.S. is a great example of this, as was Cuba with sugar export to the revisionist Soviet Union.

[Bakunist]

The claim that Chavez is somehow socialist is fucking ludicrous. Only an over-priveleged dimwit might somehow believe this. Everything the article Ulster quoted is what is happening currently, what is supposed to be rebutted? Every government in every segment of the world has control of their respective forms of media. This is nothing new. Only solid debate amongst populations and the further spreading of ideas has any real effect on global politics these days. Most people of the world could give a fuck less about politics, and only want some kind of brighter future for their children. The people of Venezuela surely see that Chavez is nothing more than a hired hand for imperialism in South America and abroad. honestly, why would you see him as anything than this?

[Dr Mindbender]

well i guess the question is would you rather have chavez running venezuela or an out and out reactionary like Pinochet?

He regularly ruffles the feathers of the evil empire so he must be doing something right.

[danyboy27]

he may not be perfect, he may do some mistake, but he greatly improved the live conditions of the poorest of its country, communist or not, i would shake his hand and congradulate him anyday, anytime.

[professorchaos]

It would be nice if there were genuine Marxists in power somewhere, but that is unlikely to ever be the case with an elected leader. Chavez isn't perfect, but as state leaders go, he's among the best.

[el_chavista]

Here is one of this"over-priveleged dimwit" (as Bakunist call them) Michel Lebowitz claiming at http://links.org.au/node/503 that "fucking ludicrous" Chávez made Socialism (of the 21st century) live in: Article 62 of the Bolivarian Constitution declares that participation by people in "forming, carrying out and controlling the management of public affairs is the necessary way of achieving the involvement to ensure their complete development, both individual and collective".

[superiority]

well i guess the question is would you rather have chavez running venezuela or an out and out reactionary like Pinochet?

He regularly ruffles the feathers of the evil empire so he must be doing something right.

The bourgeoisie is not a monolith. Every individual competes, and is in it for him or herself. The majority of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie have some sort of stake in the foreign control of their country, which is why they oppose Chavez, while Chavez himself represents the portion that sees greater profits in greater local control of Venezuela's resources. Bourgeois reformer with populist rhetoric. Nothing the world hasn't seen before.

[bezdomni]

He regularly ruffles the feathers of the evil empire so he must be doing something right.

So do Hamas, Bin Laden and Vladimir Putin...are they revolutionary communists or even anti-imperialist in any meaningful way? Hell no, they are parts of a contradiction within the imperialist system...but just because somebody pisses off Bush doesn't mean they are "doing something right".

The left has really watered down criteria in instances like this, and it is something that we need to oppose very strongly. I hate U.S. imperialism as much as anybody else, but I don't regard everybody who ruffles the feathers of some leaders in the U.S. as anti-imperialist or worth supporting. Supporting bourgeois reformists like Chavez will not defeat imperialism, and will only more strongly fetter Venezuela's political economy to imperialism.

[rampantuprising]

thanks dean. Anyone got a juicy comeback on the issue of 'increased corruption and criminality'?

possibly the uribe regime in colombia, as well as counterrevolutionary forces backed by the U.S. attempting to overthrow chavez

[john33155]

Comrades Im glad this is being discussed, I live in Venezuela and Ill tell you this Chavez has no intentions of taking venezuela into the roads of socialism he has no intentions of developing this country so get that out of your heads Chavez is no socialist hes not a leftist at all. His intentions are to rule to contol he and his people that includes his fellow military buddies, 4th republic polititians, and capitalist that live from the oil and corruption. Im not blind I know what goes on in my country I know who are the owners of Venezuelan media they all will support which ever system gives them bread crums from oil profits and they will be against anyone who endanger their profit and their interrest; not the venezuelan bourgeois in general but theirs in particular you see here in venezuela the rich are not united like in most capitalist countrys.The media have lied to get Chavez out of power but now they dont need to lie cause the country is truly a mess all those thing they say about killing and crime is all true they are not exagerating. The State media on the other hand lie to such a point it feels like you are watching the video screens in Big Brother. This is no radical revolution this is just inter bourgeoise struggle for power. As a revolutionary I can say to those that have brains to think which belive in revolution and are truly critical dont believe that Chavez is a revolutionary he is not this guy is the worst thing that has happened to the left movement since Stalin. I know there are some that believe cause they are being fooled and deceived so wake up and see behind the mask of this rightist megolomaniac leader.But there are two other kind of chavist the ignorant resentful fanatics kind and the one that have a lot of knowledge about socialism and proclaim themselves to be radicals but deep inside they are reactionary conservative monsters like Chavez and these are the true enemys to those who want Socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

well i guess the question is would you rather have chavez running venezuela or an out and out reactionary like Pinochet?

I could ask, in the same way, if you would rather have the Republican Party or the Nazi Party as the ruling party in the US. Just like Allende prepared his own downfall, Chavez's policies prepare the Venezuelan Pinochet.

And Amen to all that john33155 said. I would say that Chavez does reflect the pressures of the masses wanting change, but only in the sense that he seeks a way to co-opt these feelings and to later oppress them.