Chavez calls himself a social democrat?

[Revy]

This is from Sean Penn's The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081215/penn) article.



Hitchens sits quietly, taking notes throughout the conversation. Chávez recognizes a flicker of skepticism in his eye. "CREES-to-fer, ask me a question. Ask me the hardest question." They share a smile. Hitchens asks, "What's the difference between you and Fidel?" Chávez says, "Fidel is a communist. I am not. I am a social democrat. Fidel is a Marxist-Leninist. I am not. Fidel is an atheist. I am not. One day we discussed God and Christ. I told Castro, I am a Christian. I believe in the Social Gospels of Christ. He doesn't. Just doesn't. More than once, Castro told me that Venezuela is not Cuba, and we are not in the 1960s.



"You see," Chávez says, "Venezuela must have democratic socialism. Castro has been a teacher for me. A master. Not on ideology but on strategy." Perhaps ironically, John F. Kennedy is Chávez's favorite US president. "I was a boy," he says. "Kennedy was the driving force of reform in America." Surprised by Chávez's affinity for Kennedy, Hitch chimes in, referring to Kennedy's counter-Cuba economic plan for Latin America: "The Alliance for Progress was a good thing?" "Yes," says Chávez. "The Alliance for Progress was a political proposal to improve conditions. It was aimed at lowering the social difference between cultures."

Comments?;)

[spartan]

Well that certainly explains alot.

Though he says social democrat I think that what he probably meant was democratic socialist as democratic socialism is what he says he wants to build in Venezuela.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wasn't he calling himself a Maoist before?

What an opportunist.

[Red October]

The man calls himself something new every few months. He's made claims of being a marxist-leninist, trotskyist, maoist, and now a social democrat. He's a complete opportunist and it's a wonder that all sorts of leftists still support him. Workers deserve better than him.

[spartan]

Wasn't he calling himself a Maoist before?

What an opportunist.

Well he is a stereotypical Populist.

It kind of goes with the territory I am afraid.

[Revy]

Wasn't he calling himself a Maoist before?

What an opportunist.

A Trotskyist, actually.

[spice756]

Well that certainly explain alot.

May be his was lying .

[Die Neue Zeit]

The man calls himself something new every few months. He's made claims of being a marxist-leninist, trotskyist, maoist, and now a social democrat. He's a complete opportunist and it's a wonder that all sorts of leftists still support him. Workers deserve better than him.


A Trotskyist, actually.

I don't recall Chavez calling himself a "Marxist-Leninist," considering his stance agains the DOTP. I do remember him calling himself a Trot, though (and then a Maoist during either a post-referendum visit to China or a visit by some Chinese official).

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.marxist.com/chavez-orders-investigation-killing-trade-unionists.htm

Venezuela: President Chavez orders investigation into killing of trade unionists, calls for expropriation of companies

By Jorge Martín
Tuesday, 02 December 2008

Speaking during the swearing in of the newly elected PSUV governor of Aragua, Rafael Isea, Venezuelan president Chávez ordered a full investigation into the killing of three trade union leaders in the state and threatened to nationalise any companies which violate workers' rights.

Chavez (photo by 'Inmigrante a media jornada' on flickr) He insisted that "no crime should be left unpunished, neither this one nor any other one" and explained that the killings of trade union leaders Richard Gallardo, Carlos Requena and Luis Hernandez were an action of sicariato, a political assassination.

Referring to the Colombian owned dairy plant Alpina, he said that "a certain company needs to be investigated. It is a foreign-owned company where they were fighting against the attacks of the company. I have ordered an investigation into the actions of this company," he added "because there are companies in other parts of the world which have even used contract killings against workers' and peasant leaders, and now they want to bring these practices here. We cannot allow this in Venezuela! And we must fight strongly against it."

In a reference to the use of the Aragua police force against the workers by the former opposition governor Didalco Bolivar he said: "Isea, you have all my support to radically transform the police and the security forces of the Aragua state"

Later on in the same speech, Chavez mentioned the social and economic conflicts in Aragua and asked to be updated about the struggle of the Sanitarios Maracay workers. "All those companies where there are problems with the workers, where workers are not paid their wages, where the employers exploit the workers, or where a company closes down and does not pay its workers, or where it has become indebted and cannot pay its workers, well, they have to be recovered, nationalised, taken over". Adding that "this is what socialism is, the social ownership of the means of production".

President Chávez also stressed that in this (the take over and nationalisation of companies), "the working class has a key role to play" and made an appeal to the "workers of Aragua, the working class".

This is not the first time that Chavez makes a clear appeal to the working class to take over factories to be nationalised. However in the past, the leaders of the UNT trade unions (either because they oppose workers' control or because of a sectarian approach towards the government) had not used this opportunity to launch a serious campaign of factory occupations and a nation-wide struggle for workers' control.

Only one organisation in Venezuela, the Revolutionary Front of Occupied Factories (Freteco) has made an effort to put these appeals into practice, but with limited forces. In some cases, like the struggle of Sanitarios Maracay, in Aragua, the workers did occupy the factory and actually started producing under workers' control. But the then Minister of Labour Ramon Rivero publicly refused to nationalise the company and sabotaged the struggle of the workers. The different wings in the leadership of the UNT also played a dreadful role in this struggle, some openly supporting the strike breaking role of the Minister of Labour, others (like Orlando Chirino) opposing the idea of nationalisation under workers' control and even proposing that the workers should negotiate with a different set of capitalist owners.

The struggle of the workers' at Sanitarios Maracay encapsulates the main problems of the Venezuelan revolution: the sabotage of the right wing bureaucracy in the leadership of the Bolivarian movement, the fact that the old capitalist state apparatus is still in place and was used against the workers, and the lack of a serious alternative at the head of the workers' movement.

All this is in contrast with the revolutionary spirit of struggle of the Venezuelan workers, which in the early hours of Tuesday, December 2nd, organised mass workplace meetings, rallies, road blockades and work stoppages in Aragua, as part of the regional day of protest against the killing of the three trade union leaders. The first reports of the protests talk about workers in the following companies being involved: Produvisa, Cervecería Regional, Vasos Selva, Cativen, Remavenca, HV Envases, Industrias Iberia, Alconca, Plumrose, Titán, Diablitos Underwood, Pepsio-Cola, Toronocas, Venezolana de Riego, Serviquim, Sindicato de la Alcaldía del municipio Zamora, Nestlé, Vasos Dixie, Tupaca, Manpa Higiénico, Sanitarios Maracay, Mom, Aluminios Reynolds, Galletera Puig, Central El Palmar, Cebra, Inica. Rallies and road blockades were organised in Villa de Cura, Cagua and Maracay, paralysing the whole of the state.

The only way to put an end to the reactionary provocations and killings is by taking away economic and political power from the bosses, the bankers and the landlords. This is the task of the working class of Venezuela and the only way to guarantee the victory of the Bolivarian revolution.
See also:

* Venezuela: three trade union leaders killed, wave of counter-revolutionary threats and intimidation by Jorge Martín (December 1, 2008)
* Venezuelan elections: a victory for the PSUV, but a warning for the revolution by Jorge Martín, Yonnie Moreno and William Sanabria (November 27, 2008)
* Venezuela: A first balance sheet of the elections by Patrick Larsen (November 24, 2008)
* The elections in Venezuela by Alan Woods (November 21, 2008)
* Venezuela: Successful CMR trade union conference held at crucial moment of the revolution by our correspondent in Caracas (November 13, 2008)
* Venezuela: New clashes between revolution and counter-revolution are being prepared by Patrick Larsen (October 30, 2008)

[REDSOX]

Hugo Chavez is a socialist, his party is the United Socialist Party. He is not and has never claimed to be a trotskyist, a maoist, a populist, a bonapartist, a proletarian bonapartist or a social democrat. He is undoubtedly influenced by maoism trotskyism gramsci and marxism, but i happen to think he is from the christian theologian tradition combining democratic socialism and the teachings of jesus christ who was himself a kind of socialist

[Red October]

Hugo Chavez is a socialist, his party is the United Socialist Party. He is not and has never claimed to be a trotskyist, a maoist, a populist, a bonapartist, a proletarian bonapartist or a social democrat. He is undoubtedly influenced by maoism trotskyism gramsci and marxism, but i happen to think he is from the christian theologian tradition combining democratic socialism and the teachings of jesus christ who was himself a kind of socialist

"I am a Maoist"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/117/story/52959.html

Trotskyist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6246219.stm

[Yehuda Stern]

Chavez is just a bourgeois populist and as such will say that he is whatever is popular. His cheerleaders from the Maoist / pseudo-Trot groups are more than welcome to try to explain the situation otherwise. However, they'll be like the theologians who try to explain the contradictions in the bible so as not to acknowledge that it is the work of different authors.

[REDSOX]

Red october Chavez is influenced by maoism trotskyism and marxit leninism but is a christian theologian socialist. If he has said otherwise, then he is a liar which i do not believe he is, or its said in the context of something else, ie a joke or getting carried away with rhetoric

[chegitz guevara]

No, Chavez has claimed to be a Trotskyist. He has claimed to be a social democrats also. I think he claims to be whatever he thinks will get him support, so he's a social democrat to American do-gooder types from Hollywood, a Trotskyist to Alan Woods, a Maoist to the Chinese, etc. What Chavez really is, though, is a Chavista.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

As long as he's fighting for the right team, I don't care what he claims to be.

[chegitz guevara]

That's the great debate, isn't it? Whose side is Chavez really on?

[Red October]

Red october Chavez is influenced by maoism trotskyism and marxit leninism but is a christian theologian socialist. If he has said otherwise, then he is a liar which i do not believe he is, or its said in the context of something else, ie a joke or getting carried away with rhetoric

You don't say "I am a Maoist" as a joke on a state visit to China, and I don't see how that can really be taken out of context. It's pretty straight forward. So he's a liar.

[Faceless]

Chavez is just a bourgeois populist and as such will say that he is whatever is popular. His cheerleaders from the Maoist / pseudo-Trot groups are more than welcome to try to explain the situation otherwise. However, they'll be like the theologians who try to explain the contradictions in the bible so as not to acknowledge that it is the work of different authors.

YS, the reasons that there are contradictions in the bible is because this started as a Jewish, anti-Roman, proletarian, semi-communistic sect and was transformed into an anti-semitic, anti-communistic state religion of the ruling class. Doubtless the individual gospels were twisted over time. In spite of that they probably were the product largely of individual authors who made very crass attempts to twist the teachings of jesus (which were previously passed down by oral tradition) to suit specific class interests. Likewise Chavez's contradictory opinions represent the contradictory class pressures that are placed on him. On the one side there is the proletariat which overwhelmingly urges him forward and on the other corrupt bureaucrats who's interests are aligned with the oligarchy. People who dismiss him as a purely "bourgeois" politician and scream loudest about the "cheerleaders" of Chavez rarely ever offer up any real analysis of the genuine class base of "Chavismo". You've really made quite a transformation in the short months since you were a member of the IMT. I wonder if your political evolution has some distance to go yet? I wish you the best of luck on your journey :thumbup:

[Comrade B]

Perhaps we should judge the leaders by their positions rather than their labels. I think Chavez has done a lot for his country and I am willing to defend most of his actions. I think though, that it is time for another election in which Chavez throws his support behind a new radical leader with fresh ideas for the country, as to continue Venezuela's movement to the left.

[el_chavista]

Don´t forget the idiosyncrasy aspect. A LatinAmerican joke may be meaningless for an advanced country dweller and vice versa.
Actually, Washington wants to get rid of Chávez. So Chávez is an antiimperialist. "Private property is not sacred" he says. So he is more than a reformist. A "revolutionary" reformist may be?

[SEKT]

So this joker has something else to say???
I´m really tired of Chavez´ shit but what i´m going to say that he can call himself God if he wants, the truth is that is a Stalin's mockery.

[el_chavista]

So this joker has something else to say???
I´m really tired of Chavez´ shit but what i´m going to say that he can call himself God if he wants, the truth is that is a Stalin's mockery.
Have Mexican revolutionaries some other better way to show on "how to do" a revolution?

[Yehuda Stern]

Faceless: the problem with your reasoning is that the contradictions I'm talking about happen even within the books themselves. The misunderstanding might have to do with the fact that in my mind, having been taught Bible at an Israeli school, the bible is just the old testament, not the new.

At any rate, there's no doubt Chavez presents himself as all sorts of things to appeal to all sorts of layers. But that exactly exposes his populist character. In fact it is the task of Marxists to expose the class essence of political leaders and movements behind the labels and rhetoric they cover themselves with. The IMT doesn't do this, but instead strengthens the illusions in the said leaders.

As for your condescending musings on my political evolution, they are probably best kept to yourself.

[SEKT]

Have Mexican revolutionaries some other better way to show on "how to do" a revolution?
Do you know about 68, EZLN, Liga 23 de septiembre???

Yes we know "how to" and thr fact of not having our personal Stalin here doesn't mean we don't know "how to do revolution"; certainly what we clearly know how to not do is to became a semi Stalinist regime.

[ZeroNowhere]

He's a populist. So?
Also, was I reading it wrong, or did I see somebody just argue that Chavez is a socialist because his Party is called socialist?
...Really, now?