Has Chavez betrayed Venezuela's workers?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not too long ago, Hugo Chavez sarcastically lauded "Comrade Bush" for the US government's "nationalization" through preferred shares in the financial services industry. However, in Venezuela, the Boliburgesa are still having a field day, especially in the financial services industry. Thoughts?

[zimmerwald1915]

This is neither new or a surprise.

[Yehuda Stern]

No, Chavez betraying the workers? But he is such a great revolutionary!

[Charles Xavier]

Whats the Alternative? Roll over and die? I mean Chavez isn't a communist but he sure is the best President Venezuela has ever had.

[Yehuda Stern]

He's not the best. He's just as bad as any president who did not rule through a dictatorship, with the added danger that he is using workers' trust of him to increase his power, which might translate into a dictatorship in the future - either by him, or by the ruling class when it overthrows him.

[Leo]

I don't think Chavez betrayed the Venezuelan workers at all.

After all to be able to betray them, he would have to have been on their side at a certain period.


Whats the Alternative?Proletarian revolution?

[Bilan]

Whats the Alternative? Roll over and die? I mean Chavez isn't a communist but he sure is the best President Venezuela has ever had.

what a shock you'd support bourgeois politicians.

[Herman]

Enough with the "he wants to increase his own power" crap. It's not true, and you know it. Stop listening baseless US lies and actually start reading the appropriate documents.

[Charles Xavier]

what a shock you'd support bourgeois politicians.
I hardly see how he represents bourgeioisie interests when he is nationalizing industries, and improving living conditions for the vast majority at the expense of the bourgeioisie.

And Proletarian Revolution? I think you overestimate the conditions in Venezuela right now, doesn't mean the situation could change to lead to that.

And he isn't trying to make a dictatorship he is the most democratic government in South America right now.

[zimmerwald1915]

I hardly see how he represents bourgeioisie interests when he is nationalizing industries, and improving living conditions for the vast majority at the expense of the bourgeioisie.
And the Brown government was acting against the interests of the bourgeoisie when it nationalized a third of the British banking system? The United States Congress was acting against the interests of the bourgeoisie when it bought a controlling share in its banking system? On the contrary, these actions, like the nationalizations in Venezuela, were carried out with the tacit, and sometimes explicit approval of the majority of the bourgeoisie. Nationalizations aren't automatically progressive, and must be analyzed in the context of the balance of class forces. In fact, these particular nationalizations are necessary for the extension of the class rule of the bourgeoisie, for the strengthening of imperialism, and in particular for the luring in of the working class and at least some of its supposed revolutionary militants to the support of the bourgeois state.

Apparently it's worked.


And Proletarian Revolution? I think you overestimate the conditions in Venezuela right now, doesn't mean the situation could change to lead to that.
Way to misinterpret a statement. At the moment, to be sure, the workers have either been duped into supporting the Chavez regime or are cowed by either the impossibility of mass action (due to this splitting of the class) or the threat of violence from a revivified Venezuelan state, army, and police. Of course, if Chavez manages to alienate those workers he's convinced to support him, and if revolutionary militants get their act together and stop supporting thuggish regimes because they like their style, that could indeed change.


And he isn't trying to make a dictatorship he is the most democratic government in South America right now.
So? Bourgeois democracy still means the class rule of the bourgeoisie.

[Yehuda Stern]

After all to be able to betray them, he would have to have been on their side at a certain period.

Not necessarily - it's enough to have the trust of most of them, and lying to them about what he really is. So even though Chavez was never on the side of the workers, many of them saw him as their man, and he allowed that impression to persist although he knew well it is otherwise.


Enough with the "he wants to increase his own power" crap. It's not true, and you know it.


Sorry, only reformists can "know" stuff like that - you know, stuff that isn't true. I don't know if you're lying to yourself or just to everyone listening to you, but please don't assume that everyone is as capable of twisting the truth as you are.


Enough with the "he wants to increase his own power" crap. It's not true, and you know it. Stop listening baseless US lies and actually start reading the appropriate documents.



"Stop listening to imperialist propaganda, Stalin is the leader of a socialist paradise! You should read Pravda instead!"

[Leo]

Not necessarily - it's enough to have the trust of most of them, and lying to them about what he really is. So even though Chavez was never on the side of the workers, many of them saw him as their man, and he allowed that impression to persist although he knew well it is otherwise.That of course is the case with all bourgeois leaders with regards to the section of the working class that supports them: are we to say, for instance, Obama "betrayed" when the proles who supported him start getting disillusioned?

[Organic Revolution]

Chavez has always betrayed the Venezuelan workers. Plain and simple, if there is a state, there is a betrayal of workers power.

[Yehuda Stern]

are we to say, for instance, Obama "betrayed" when the proles who supported him start getting disillusioned?

Obama never claimed to be leading the move towards socialism, or used any other 'revolutionary' rhetoric like that which Chavez borrowed from his cheerleaders.

[Herman]

Sorry, only reformists can "know" stuff like that - you know, stuff that isn't true. I don't know if you're lying to yourself or just to everyone listening to you, but please don't assume that everyone is as capable of twisting the truth as you are.

If you actually read the changes in the constitutional reform (which is what I assume one of the things you're referring to), you would see that there is no such thing as "increasing his own power". On the contrary, communal council power is vastly increased.


"Stop listening to imperialist propaganda, Stalin is the leader of a socialist paradise! You should read Pravda instead!"

Because 21 century Venezuela is exactly the same as 1920's/30's USSR, right?

[Leo]

Obama never claimed to be leading the move towards socialism, or used any other 'revolutionary' rhetoric like that which Chavez borrowed from his cheerleaders.OK, are we going to say that Gorbachev betrayed then? He too claimed to be a "socialist" and used "revolutionary" rhetoric?

Anyway, i went through some self-questioning and decided that i don't really wanna keep discussing the semantics of the term "betrayal" if that's ok for you.

[PostAnarchy]

Chavez is a bourgeois puppet but has brough some reforms to the workers. He is a reformist nothing more.

[Yehuda Stern]

If you actually read the changes in the constitutional reform (which is what I assume one of the things you're referring to), you would see that there is no such thing as "increasing his own power".

There were some moves to that effect in the referendum, but luckily Venezuelan workers rejected it despite whatever meager promises Chavez made.


Because 21 century Venezuela is exactly the same as 1920's/30's USSR, right?

No, but a shameless apologist is a shameless apologist, whether in Russia of 1920s or Venezuela of the 21st century. This is no assumption, either - your post is a prime example of it.


Anyway, i went through some self-questioning and decided that i don't really wanna keep discussing the semantics of the term "betrayal" if that's ok for you.

Gasp, not self-questioning.
Alright, alright.

[Herman]

There were some moves to that effect in the referendum, but luckily Venezuelan workers rejected it despite whatever meager promises Chavez made.

What moves? Describe them.


No, but a shameless apologist is a shameless apologist, whether in Russia of 1920s or Venezuela of the 21st century. This is no assumption, either - your post is a prime example of it.

There is nothing to apologize about. The fact is that he's not "increasing his own power". If you had read the aforementioned document, you would have seen that.

[PostAnarchy]

Chavez is a reformist but I think that he has made some incrementally small positive steps on behalf of Venzuelan's working people. The propaganda to make him out to be some demagogue is just that. Snuff.

[skki]

Chavez should be praised for not allowing the American economic hit-men to force a privatization of industries in Venezuela, as they did in so many other places in South America. But the mass censorship, the rigging, the secret deals with western oil companies.... Not acceptable. Chavez is just as bad as any American politician.

[benhur]

To the people who attack Chavez:

Can you please tell me why, and what he must do to prove his socialist credentials? And whether it's possible at all, considering Venezuela's third-world status, US pressure etc. etc.?

I am asking this to learn, so please don't take this as a rebuttal.

[Yehuda Stern]

1. It would have allowed Chavez to be elected continually, or to be more precise it would allow the president and only the president to do that.
2. It would allow Chavez to declare unlimited states of emergency.
3. During these states, people could be detained by the state indefinitely.

But hey, actually coming to think of it, that's very socialist! Didn't Stalin have all these 'rights'?

[Herman]

1. It would have allowed Chavez to be elected continually, or to be more precise it would allow the president and only the president to do that.
2. It would allow Chavez to declare unlimited states of emergency.
3. During these states, people could be detained by the state indefinitely.

1. That's not undemocratic. Spain, France, Germany, even the US before Nixon, have the same system. If the workers can't vote continually for a candidate who's been doing in their view a good job, then it's not democratic.

2. Pretty much the same everywhere, even in the USSR (wasn't Trotsky given great power during the civil war, which is a state of emergency?)

3. Same with early Bolshevik Russia.

[Charles Xavier]

I don't think someone can be considered a socialist and not support Hugo Chavez(at least the essense) and the Venezuelan Government at this point in time. He is leading a national liberation movement in order to throw off the yoke of imperialism. This is revolutionary, the fact that Venezuela is moving from semi-colony to independent political state and economy is revolutionary. Regardless if it is socialist or not. Further it is next to impossible to do such a task without socialism, which is exactly what Venezuela is leading towards, under a different path, things are not cut and dried, but yes this is reforms which improved the living standards of the vast majority of working people for the past 10 years. But it is also liberation from being a semi-colony of the first world. Which is revolutionary, and yes many mistakes were made. But regardless of all the mistake this is overwhelmingly positive. Its a huge democratic victory for the people accross the Americas. Hugo Chavez's election and defeat of the coup in 2002 was a catalyst for similar national liberation governments in all accross south America. If you don't support this you are a loud mouth and not a socialist. Socialism is not cut or dried. The amalgation of the peoples into a singular south american republic would also be a huge victory for the peoples of Latin America. So take a look at the whole and not the stupid mistakes made.

And to complain about Hugo Chavez being undemocratic is bizarre beyond belief, and I believe you are saying undemocratic as a philistine because you are not taking into account the economically or the international situation, but rather politically which means you think hes not being elected fairly. To this you fall into the hands of the opposition, who prefere US diplomancy to Venezuelan Democracy, politically the government is elected on a proportional representative basis, the rule by decree is given to him by the congress who vote to give him these powers by various alliance parties. The elections are fair and transparent. And Hugo Chavez has been through more elections in the last 10 years than any other countries in the world. From the recall referendum to the Constitutional referendum to congress elections, presidental elections, etc etc. So even being a philistine and considering only politics this is also false.

Yehuda Stern (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=16872)

1. It would have allowed Chavez to be elected continually, or to be more precise it would allow the president and only the president to do that.
2. It would allow Chavez to declare unlimited states of emergency.
3. During these states, people could be detained by the state indefinitely.

1. Yes, i don't see how having a good leader elected continiously is a bad thing. I mean Lenin, Fidel Castro et al are all re-elected continiously into leadership positions.
2. Whats wrong with that? I mean even trotsky himself declared states of emergency.
3.Same as almost any emerging revolutionary government. Defending the Revolution is paramount. Even your buddy Trotsky recongized this.

[PostAnarchy]

I don't think someone can be considered a socialist and not support Hugo Chavez(at least the essense) and the Venezuelan Government at this point in time. He is leading a national liberation movement in order to throw off the yoke of imperialism. This is revolutionary, the fact that Venezuela is moving from semi-colony to independent political state and economy is revolutionary. Regardless if it is socialist or not. Further it is next to impossible to do such a task without socialism, which is exactly what Venezuela is leading towards, under a different path, things are not cut and dried, but yes this is reforms which improved the living standards of the vast majority of working people for the past 10 years. But it is also liberation from being a semi-colony of the first world. Which is revolutionary, and yes many mistakes were made. But regardless of all the mistake this is overwhelmingly positive. Its a huge democratic victory for the people accross the Americas. Hugo Chavez's election and defeat of the coup in 2002 was a catalyst for similar national liberation governments in all accross south America. If you don't support this you are a loud mouth and not a socialist. Socialism is not cut or dried. The amalgation of the peoples into a singular south american republic would also be a huge victory for the peoples of Latin America. So take a look at the whole and not the stupid mistakes made.

And to complain about Hugo Chavez being undemocratic is bizarre beyond belief, and I believe you are saying undemocratic as a philistine because you are not taking into account the economically or the international situation, but rather politically which means you think hes not being elected fairly. To this you fall into the hands of the opposition, who prefere US diplomancy to Venezuelan Democracy, politically the government is elected on a proportional representative basis, the rule by decree is given to him by the congress who vote to give him these powers by various alliance parties. The elections are fair and transparent.

1. It would have allowed Chavez to be elected continually, or to be more precise it would allow the president and only the president to do that.
2. It would allow Chavez to declare unlimited states of emergency.
3. During these states, people could be detained by the state indefinitely.

1. Yes, i don't see how having a good leader elected continiously is a bad thing. I mean Lenin, Fidel Castro et al are all re-elected continiously into leadership positions.
2. Whats wrong with that? I mean even trotsky himself declared states of emergency.
3.Same as almost any emerging revolutionary government. Defending the Revolution is paramount. Even your buddy Trotsky recongized this.

Talk to Yehuda! :lol::tt2:

[Yehuda Stern]

1. That's not undemocratic. Spain, France, Germany, even the US before Nixon, have the same system. If the workers can't vote continually for a candidate who's been doing in their view a good job, then it's not democratic.

2. Pretty much the same everywhere, even in the USSR (wasn't Trotsky given great power during the civil war, which is a state of emergency?)

3. Same with early Bolshevik Russia.1. I agree - but the problem is that it applies only to the president. Other positions still have term limitations.

2,3. But Venezuela is a capitalist state, and revolutionaries should certainly oppose a capitalist state's increase of its own power.

(This applies to both Herman and Georgi)


Talk to Yehuda!Well, that's what he's doing, isn't it? No one, though, was talking to you.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, that's what he's doing, isn't it? No one, though, was talking to you.
Some people just have the need to make irrelevant posts. It makes them feel important.

Oh wai--

[Psy]

Really the problem with Venezuela is there has been enough of a revolution that the bourgeoisie is hostile towards the state yet no path for Venezuela to complete the revolution on its own. All attempts would bring up the problem of socialism in one country, were Venezuela would need to be armed camp using most of resources in defending against capitalist invasion.

This makes Chavez betraying the revolution irrelevant as the revolution in Venezuela can't survive indefinitely with revolution spreading outside of Venezuela.

[genstrike]

Chavez isn't really a revolutionary, more of a reformist left-populist. Although I do have to say that he has taken some steps in the right direction, but on the other hand there is an increase in state power which is something that we should be wary about.

I wrote a paper on worker coops in Venezuela recently, and one thing I am very concerned about in Venezuela is that a lot of expropriations are done with compensation to the bourgeoisie or foreign capitalists, leaving the working class with massive debt from essentially buying their own freedom. In recognition of the historical expropriation of surplus vale, these expropriations should ideally be taken without compensation to the bourgeoisie. Buying out your own factory isn't revolutionary. Taking it over is.

[redarmyfaction38]

Not too long ago, Hugo Chavez sarcastically lauded "Comrade Bush" for the US government's "nationalization" through preferred shares in the financial services industry. However, in Venezuela, the Boliburgesa are still having a field day, especially in the financial services industry. Thoughts?
chavez has failed to carry through the workers revolution, he has held back the natural desire of the working class to seize control of the nation and its rescources.
this has resulted in the "separatist" movement of the rich capitalists and the violence conducted against workers and peasants in that region.
there is no third way, no new road to socialism, it's workers revolution and political/economic control or defeat.