Latest decrees by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

[Saorsa]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnrM3YUy2IWxp7qj1N4e10u-X45AD92D31F00

The mainstream media is going crazy over these new, "anti-democratic" measures. In every article you find they're giving twice as much space to opposition leaders condemning the moves as they are to representatives of the govt. Overall I think they look pretty positive.

Latest decrees by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

By The Associated Press – 1 hour ago
The decrees declared by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez:
_ Establish civilian militias critics fear will evolve into Cuban-style community groups used to monitor and prevent "counterrevolutionary" activities.
_ Give Chavez the power to expropriate goods from private business owners without approval from the National Assembly.
_ Increase state control over food production and commerce, punishing business owners who fail to comply with price controls and other regulations with fines, indefinite closure or up to 10 years in prison.
_ Give Chavez the ability to designate regional political authorities who could undermine the power of elected mayors and governors.
_ Put Chavez in charge of a social investment fund for "excess resources" from state-run enterprises — including recently nationalized telecommunications, electricity, steel and cement companies.
_ Support efforts by the Chavez government to create a socialist-style economy at the community level, providing for bartering of goods and the communal operation of "social property" businesses.
_ Change the name of Venezuela's military, now decreed to be "Bolivarian," a reference to independence hero Simon Bolivar, whom Chavez considers to be the inspiration of his socialist movement.

[spartan]

These decrees sound perfectly okay to me.

It's funny to see the complete lack of intelligence on issues in Venezuela expressed by the mainstream media in the west.

Of course deep down they know the real story but they deliberately distort facts and take things out of context so that they can present any future US attack on Venezuela as "liberating" Venezuela from a "dictator" (never mind that he is elected) and for the establishment of "democracy" (i.e. US control of Venezuela's oil) and all with the "popular support" of the brainwashed masses.

This is why i never believe a damn word the mainstream media say and never will.

[OI OI OI]

So I hope we agree that these new decrees are progressive!

because I am having a huge debate with some Anti-Chavistas on the Hugo Chavez thread,
They think that all these decrees are bourgeois!

[trivas7]

So I hope we agree that these new decrees are progressive!

because I am having a huge debate with some Anti-Chavistas on the Hugo Chavez thread,
They think that all these decrees are bourgeois!
Yes, yes, let think think that! :thumbup:

[M-L_Aussie]

I have never seen Chavez as a genuine Communist, but on that note I don't hysterically oppose him as the ultra-lefts do. I think in the environment in Venezuela because of Chavez is more beneficial towards genuine Marxist revolutionaries. Chavez is promoting an extremely radical variation of social-capitalism, and it's so radical in trying to curb the excesses of bourgeois property than the comprador bourgeois in Venezuela is terrified, and is lobbying the imperialist camp to interfere.

[Trystan]

I agree with all of those. Progressive, absolutely.

[BIG BROTHER]

The second last one seems pretty good to me. It sort of reminds me of the people's communes in China during Mao's era, except in a less radical way.

I think though, that it should be the bolivarian circles the ones in charge of the social investment funds instead of Chavez.

[M-L_Aussie]

The second last one seems pretty good to me. It sort of reminds me of the people's communes in China during Mao's era, except in a less radical way.

I think though, that it should be the bolivarian circles the ones in charge of the social investment funds instead of Chavez.
The Chinese People's Communes were run by their previous bourgeois owners who were allowed to keep managing them under the condition that they engaged in 'self-criticism', doesn't sound very radical to me.

[dirtycommiebastard]

This is a great step forward that will help embolden the masses to take action into their own hands now that they see the capitalists cannot 'legally' sabotage the economy or food supply.

It looks like Chavez has been reading our book pretty quickly :D
http://www.marxist.com/chavez-quotes-alan-woods-book-alo-presidente.htm

[redwinter]

Reading these, the decree on food production reminds me of the "new gamalismo" in Perú, where the pro-Soviet military regime nationalized agriculture in the 1970s - to consolidate the bourgeoisie's state control over agricultural production. This must have something to do with the problems in food production going on right now globally - but I think it's basically in tune with what Chávez's stated mission is, and has been: a benevolent "welfare state" where, as another of these new decrees states, a "social investment fund" will redistribute a few of the profits made from export-based production. This is in opposition to redistribution of the land to the tiller and moving towards production for local use (aiming for autarky to the furthest extent possible for necessities like food) - ramping up instead production for export. Where is the unleashing of the masses of people themselves to actually solve the problems that face the people?

This is not socialism.



As the world exists today and as people seek to change it, and particularly in terms of the socialist transformation of society, as I see it there are basically three alternatives that are possible. One is the world as it is. Enough said about that. [Laughter].

The second one is in a certain sense, almost literally and mechanically, turning the world upside down. In other words, people who are now exploited will no longer be exploited in the same way, people who now rule this society will be prevented from ruling or influencing society in a significant way. The basic economic structure of society will change, some of the social relations will change, and some of the forms of political rule will change, and some of the forms of culture and ideology will change, but fundamentally the masses of people will not be increasingly and in one leap after another drawn into the process of really transforming society. This is really a vision of a revisionist society. If you think back to the days of the Soviet Union, when it had become a revisionist society, capitalist and imperialist in essence, but still socialist in name, when they would be chided for their alleged or real violations of people’s rights, they would often answer "Who are you in the West to be talking about the violation of human rights—look at all the people in your society who are unemployed, what more basic human right is there than to have a job?"

Well, did they have a point? Yes, up to a point. But fundamentally what they were putting forward, the vision of society that they were projecting, was a social welfare kind of society in which fundamentally the role of the masses of people is no different than it is under the classical form of capitalism. The answer about the rights of the people cannot be reduced to the right to have a job and earn an income, as basic as that is. There is the question of are we really going to transform society so that in every respect, not only economically but socially, politically, ideologically, and culturally, it really is superior to capitalist society. A society that not only meets the needs of the masses of people, but really is characterized increasingly by the conscious expression and initiative of the masses of people.

This is a more fundamental transformation than simply a kind of social welfare, socialist in name but really capitalist in essence society, where the role of the masses of people is still largely reduced to being producers of wealth, but not people who thrash out all the larger questions of affairs of state, the direction of society, culture, philosophy, science, the arts, and so on. The revisionist model is a narrow, economist view of socialism. It reduces the people, in their activity, to simply the economic sphere of society, and in a limited way at that—simply their social welfare with regard to the economy. It doesn’t even think about transforming the world outlook of the people as they in turn change the world around them.

And you cannot have a new society and a new world with the same outlook that people are indoctrinated and inculcated with in this society. You cannot have a real revolutionary transformation of society and abolition of unequal social as well as economic relations and political relations if people still approach the world in the way in which they’re conditioned and limited and constrained to approach it now. How can the masses of people really take up the task of consciously changing the world if their outlook and their approach to the world remains what it is under this system? It’s impossible, and this situation will simply reproduce the great inequalities in every sphere of society that I’ve been talking about.

(Source: Bob Avakian, "Three Alternative Worlds" in Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy, http://revcom.us/a/021/avakian-three-alternative-worlds.htm)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Chavez shouldn't be issuing decrees - the change should be coming from the bottom, up.

Socialism by decree always comes to a bad end.

[spartan]

Chavez shouldn't be issuing decrees - the change should be coming from the bottom, up.

Socialism by decree always comes to a bad end.
The people voted him in to do this so technically they are issuing the decrees through the person they elected to represent them.

[Plagueround]

The people voted him in to do this so technically they are issuing the decrees through the person they elected to represent them.

This is the same logic Dick Cheney used to justify not listening to the American people's opinions, saying the people only had a right to voice their opinion every 4 years. I agree with Noxion. While some of these changes could be good, the fact that they're being implemented by decree worries me. If the people genuinely don't want these changes, things could get rough.

[RedHal]

and who are the "people" in Venezuela? Venezuela is still heavily devided, those who want to intensify the revolution, those who oppose it and those who think it's gone far enough. In a perfect world, everyone will want the revolution to go forward and decisions made from the bottom up, but it's the opposite, there are far greater forces that want to see the Chavez governmnet toppled. Know who's side you are on before going ultra leftists all the time.

[dirtycommiebastard]

This is the same logic Dick Cheney used to justify not listening to the American people's opinions, saying the people only had a right to voice their opinion every 4 years. I agree with Noxion. While some of these changes could be good, the fact that they're being implemented by decree worries me. If the people genuinely don't want these changes, things could get rough.

Its a good thing that the near entirety of the population is behind Chavez, and all he is doing is carrying out what they want.

Keep your idealism for the message boards...oh wait, nevermind....

By the way, you'll be shocked to see that even the right-wing media isn't trying to exaggerate the counter-protests.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/08/07/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html

It seems that no one but a handful of petit-bourgeois fucks are pissed about this. (Notice where it says 1000 people) The opposition is fucking pathetic infront of the revolutionary masses and the leader who they still support. I don't deny the socialist revolution must be carried out from the bottom up but this is only going to embolden the people who want socialism, who kept Chavez because at the time they still saw him as the only way to socialism...something you probably can't understand from behind your computer screen with no actual connection to what is going on in the country :)

He should have done this shit from the beginning, avoiding all the constitutional means, which we saw brought him a loss in the referendum. The people want action and change, not paper pushing.

UH! AH! Chavez no se va!

[BIG BROTHER]

The Chinese People's Communes were run by their previous bourgeois owners who were allowed to keep managing them under the condition that they engaged in 'self-criticism', doesn't sound very radical to me.

in a lot of them the people worked for free, and lived comunally. That's the radical part.

[JimmyJazz]

Chavez shouldn't be issuing decrees - the change should be coming from the bottom, up.

Socialism by decree always comes to a bad end.

Not as bad an end as capitalism by decree.

[Plagueround]

Its a good thing that the near entirety of the population is behind Chavez, and all he is doing is carrying out what they want.

Keep your idealism for the message boards...oh wait, nevermind....

By the way, you'll be shocked to see that even the right-wing media isn't trying to exaggerate the counter-protests.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/08/07/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html

It seems that no one but a handful of petit-bourgeois fucks are pissed about this. (Notice where it says 1000 people) The opposition is fucking pathetic infront of the revolutionary masses and the leader who they still support. I don't deny the socialist revolution must be carried out from the bottom up but this is only going to embolden the people who want socialism, who kept Chavez because at the time they still saw him as the only way to socialism...something you probably can't understand from behind your computer screen with no actual connection to what is going on in the country :)

He should have done this shit from the beginning, avoiding all the constitutional means, which we saw brought him a loss in the referendum. The people want action and change, not paper pushing.

UH! AH! Chavez no se va!

I don't appreciate your sarcasm or your typical "behind the computer screen" superiority bullshit.
All I'm saying is there are indeed people in Venezuela that don't want those changes. What type of pull do they have? What ties do they have to U.S. Imperialism? What has happened in the past with countries that try this that the U.S. doesn't like? You don't need but a handful of people with the right business ties for the U.S. to make up some bullshit reason to invade. You're absolutely right, I don't know the full extent of the situation, which is why I hope this doesn't end badly for the Venezuelan people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ FYI, he's repeating the IMT line on Venezuela. ;)

[dirtycommiebastard]

^^^ FYI, he's repeating the IMT line on Venezuela. ;)

What is your point. It is the only position you can possibly take.

Until Chavez becomes a reactionary counter-revolutionary I'll continue to support his reforms.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I don't appreciate your sarcasm or your typical "behind the computer screen" superiority bullshit.

I'm sorry. But its not superiority. Is just that your position was idealist. There is no perfect model for the revolution and it has not yet reached the point of the bottom-up organization yet. Until then, I will support Chavez reforms that are perfectly justified in this situation, especially because the consciousness of the people is there to support them.


All I'm saying is there are indeed people in Venezuela that don't want those changes. What type of pull do they have? What ties do they have to U.S. Imperialism? What has happened in the past with countries that try this that the U.S. doesn't like? You don't need but a handful of people with the right business ties for the U.S. to make up some bullshit reason to invade.Absolutely agreed.


You're absolutely right, I don't know the full extent of the situation, which is why I hope this doesn't end badly for the Venezuelan people.

Again, I'm sorry for the rudeness. I don't think anyone here wishes the worst for the Venezuelans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

and who are the "people" in Venezuela? Venezuela is still heavily devided, those who want to intensify the revolution, those who oppose it and those who think it's gone far enough. In a perfect world, everyone will want the revolution to go forward and decisions made from the bottom up, but it's the opposite, there are far greater forces that want to see the Chavez governmnet toppled. Know who's side you are on before going ultra leftists all the time.

I'm on the side of the Venezuelan workers and peasants (if any). Hugo Chavez is neither - he is ruling class through and through, and would shit himself if classless society were a real possibility in Venezuela, just like Mao did with the Shanghai Commune.


I'm sorry. But its not superiority. Is just that your position was idealist. There is no perfect model for the revolution and it has not yet reached the point of the bottom-up organization yet.

And if history is any guide, then it never will.