Problems with Chavez

[PostAnarchy]

I believe that the biggest problems with Venezuelan President Chavez is that he went too far left too soon before the people were ready to support it. This has been a recurring problem here for radicals. Thus the loss in the referendum.

[The Something]

I believe that the biggest problems with Venezuelan President Chavez is that he went too far left too soon before the people were ready to support it. This has been a recurring problem here for radicals. Thus the loss in the referendum.

No why he lost the referendum was because it was basically the patriot act on steriods. Now I can see why he would want to have such powers being that there was a coup against him espoused by the western powers and rightests in his country, but concetrating power in one position is a bad idea.

Think of it this way(if the referendum passed) Chavez might be an awesome leader, but lets say after him comes some right wing asshole who has all this power thanks to chavez and his "good intentions" and well as the saying goes: "the road to hell is paved with...."

It sets up future governments with way to much power.

[Yehuda Stern]

Comrade, it's best to ignore this guy - it's just an Obama bot (see his last thread, it was something like "revolution, YES! But meanwhile vote Obama for HOPE"

[Trystan]

The problem with Chavez is that he can attract unnecessary attention at times.

[Sendo]

The problem is that he still owes me five bucks.

[Lenin's Law]

It is really exactly the opposite of what the OP has stated. The comments here have been pretty superficial with some repeating bourgeois claptrap about him being a power-hungry tyrant and what not. The real reason why the referendum failed is because 2 million people who voted for Chavez in the last election stayed home. The opposition barely increased their total vote from last time; this despite the massive media propaganda campaign with their usual racism and outright lies and the intentional economic sabotage by the bourgeoisie in lieu of the election. Abstention was the real winner here.

So now the question becomes why? It is because the masses are tired of the spectacle of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois elections and what to enact some of what Chavez has done or hinted about. In other words, they are tired of talk and desire action. They want workers control and the opportunity to destroy the power of the oligarchy once and for all. Chavez is a leader in contradiction as he has 1 foot in revolution and the other in capitalism; he feels the pressure from both the right (oligarchy) and the left (the desires of the masses) So he has lately been trying to walk this middle route, half-way between both although there have been some signs he's been leaning more towards the left however it has not been good enough.

The working class in Venezuela must be armed with the right tactics and the correct leadership to advance their interests further beyond what the structure of bourgeois democracy and capitalism can offer. If not crushed, the oligarchy, which has lost all legitamacy to rule through their perverse and thoroughly anti-democratic actions (bosses' lock out, coup, setting up an outright dictatorship, intentionally disrupting the economy particularly with oil, etc) will inevitably mount an attempt to return to power with disastrous consequences for the progressive left and the working class.

[el_chavista]

I believe that the biggest problems with Venezuelan President Chavez is that he went too far left too soon before the people were ready to support it. This has been a recurring problem here for radicals. Thus the loss in the referendum.
I'm afraid it's the opposite. People were ready to support him anywhere until 2006. It's the lack of real marxist-leninist cadres and the sabotage of inner opportunists what slow down the revolutionary process.
The referendum episode shows that sometimes the Venezuelan revolutionaries don't know how to keep moving together with the masses.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that he is a blowhard and a charlatan.

No meaningful change will ever come through the Venezuelan government or legislation. The social revolution can never come through political revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You should reword your usage of the term "political revolution." The social revolution can only be brought about through political revolution (from below).

[Os Cangaceiros]

If by "political revolution" you mean progressive action taken by the state, then I'm going to have to disagree with you there (for obvious ideological reasons).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not at all (you said "progressive" - so that implies no overthrow).

[PRC-UTE]

The problem is that he still owes me five bucks.

here I thought I was the only one he owed a few quid to!

[SEKT]

The problem with Chavez is that he wants to be a copy of Stalin, Mao, Castro and other "saint" leaders beatified by the "carismatic" sociology of Weber.

[Holden Caulfield]

the problem with Chavez is the opposit of what the OP states, after the 2002 coup he could have led a revolution however he did not,

[OI OI OI]

I believe that the biggest problems with Venezuelan President Chavez is that he went too far left too soon before the people were ready to support it. This has been a recurring problem here for radicals. Thus the loss in the referendum

The referendum was lost because people don't want referendum after referendum.

They want to see some real change.

And the fact is that the revolution is moving too slow so the people are losing faith and the backward layers of the proletariat are becoming apathetic.

It is a fact that 2 000 000 people that voted for Chavez in the last election did not vote at all in the referendum.

So it was not the opossition that got strengthened but the PSUV that lost votes due to the
"slowness " of the changes.




after the 2002 coup he could have led a revolution however he did not,

Holden you can't expect such things from a non-marxist left-populist like Chavez.

Chavez is an honest revolutionary that wants to change the lives of the people but lets face it, he is not a revolutionary marxist.


The best thing to do now is to work inside the PSUV and especialy PSUV-Youth which is very influenced by the CMR and expose the bureaucracy of the PSUV who acts as a fifth column.

[OI OI OI]

The problem with Chavez is that he wants to be a copy of Stalin, Mao, Castro and other "saint" leaders beatified by the "carismatic" sociology of Weber

although Chavez said in china that he is a Maoist , in fact he has denounced Stalinism in several occasions and he has realized that the soviet union was a degenerated workers state.

Besides he is not even a Stalinist, he is just a left-populist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Which is in line with New Democracy and its notion of a "national bourgeoisie," no? :glare:

[redwinter]

I want to post a few words and links on the nature of what is going on Venezuela under the leadership of Hugo Chávez.

The editors of Revolution newspaper (www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us)) wrote this salient introduction to a critique of Chávez written by Raymond Lotta:



The nature of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution” is a highly important and widely discussed issue among progressive and radical-minded people. Chavez has carried out a host of social and economic measures whose stated aim is to empower and improve the lives of the poor and politically disenfranchised in Venezuelan society; he has condemned the U.S. as an imperialist and bullying power; and in 2005 he announced that Venezuela was embarking on a project of ”21st Century Socialism.” At a time when the U.S. is waging its “war on the world” and at a time when the U.S. has been spearheading a pounding and brutalizing neoliberal economic agenda for the countries of the Third World—developments in Venezuela have attracted great interest.

But what is the actual program and outlook of Hugo Chavez, what is the character of the process unfolding in Venezuela, and where is it heading? Does Chavez’s program represent a real alternative to imperialist-led exploitation, a viable road to liberation in today’s world? And what is the meaning of socialism in today’s globalized world?

Our view is that the “Bolivarian revolution” does not represent a fundamental break with imperialism, nor embody a vision or path to truly radical societal transformation. But understanding why this is so is a complex matter requiring close analysis. In the full analysis soon to be published, we discuss the historical factors shaping Venezuela’s development, the economic model that Hugo Chavez has been bringing forward, the role of the army and new popular institutions in the “Bolivarian revolution,” the social and class forces involved in and leading this movement, and the larger debate about “21st-century socialism” and the real challenges of making revolution in today’s world.

While we offer this critique of the Chavez project , it in no way cuts against our stand with the Venezuelan people and our total opposition to any attempts by U.S. imperialism to undermine or openly commit aggression against the Chavez regime.


Two important articles by Raymond Lotta analyzing what's been going on in Venezuela:

* Hugo Chávez has an Oil Strategy...But Can This Lead to Liberation? (http://rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html)
* Referendum in Venezuela: U.S. Intrigue and the Limitations and Contradictions of Hugo Chávez's Project (http://rwor.org/a/112/venezuela-en.html)

Also very pertinent to this discussion is the RCP,USA's recent manifesto aimed at the international communist movement as a whole which engages many related questions raised by those upholding Chávez as a revolutionary role model (among many others), and pointing to another path forward to communism in the 21st century:

* Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html)