Maduro Loses Election

[The Intransigent Faction]

+ YouTube Video

So...now what? What's next for the left in Venezuela?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, the smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to break with the legacy of Chavism and all other forms of petro-populism (a term I heard today and am determined to strong-arm into common usage now), presenting a coherent alternative to capitalism, no matter if it's "Bolivarian" or not.

Unfortunately what will most likely happen is that the left will refuse to move on, invoking the same idealised image of the Chavez-Maduro period decades after it stops meaning anything to workers in Venezuela (see also: post war British social-democracy).

[Anatoli]

There is such a thing as COMEBACK!

[Sibotic]

A victory for populism. That aside, an interesting period of some sort for Venezuela, in terms of elections and state demographics, but there's a slightly weird isolation from any international politics that makes this seem suspect. Other than a 'they like the US' thing with the opposition, which is practically a caricature, they all seem curiously to have nothing to do with other pressing issues such as ISIS, European relations such as they are, and so on, to the extent that it practically comes across as a weird image rather than a real situation. In any case, though, it does seem like an interesting situation in Venezuela, in some manner, other than that, and if Maduro were under pressure they would probably be expected to take fairly drastic means in terms of the nation in order to reverse this situation, although obviously how such things will be reported, and which parts when, will depend. Evidently, then, things wouldn't just remain the same, in all likelihood, and things might be expected to turn against the opposition further if this were to be successful, whatever it might be expected to entail, really. You'd just have to see what's going on in Venezuela, then.

This might be the first time anyone's ever mentioned the Venezuelan congress, though, which suggests that at the least the opposition might be decent at promoting obscure tourist destinations. That part's generally an incidental aside, though, obviously it isn't the main point, here.

[Antiochus]

It means the end for Chavismo in Venezuela. Its really the only way it could have ended bar a coup by the U.S.

With a 2/3 supermajority, they can gut and block absolutely anything the Chavistas do. They will soon go after Maduro in a recall vote, which I don't see how he can win given the results of this election.

[VukBZ2005]

Those who say this is the end are speaking too soon. A lot of those who voted against Maduro did so as a protest vote, which I view as being extremely foolish given the circumstances. As soon as the reactionaries start their train rolling, a lot of those who voted against Maduro will reflexively react against them. However, to the extent that this could be reversed will now depend on whether the Venezuelan "Left" is capable enough to, as said before here, give up on "Social Democracy" in its entirety.

[Emmett Till]

It means the end for Chavismo in Venezuela. Its really the only way it could have ended bar a coup by the U.S.

With a 2/3 supermajority, they can gut and block absolutely anything the Chavistas do. They will soon go after Maduro in a recall vote, which I don't see how he can win given the results of this election.

Hm? First results I saw, no supermajority, unless the opposition can rope in all other parties in the Congress, there were lots of tiny parties which got seats which were neither part of the oppo or with Maduro.

Old info?

[Antiochus]

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11762

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, the smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to break with the legacy of Chavism and all other forms of petro-populism (a term I heard today and am determined to strong-arm into common usage now), presenting a coherent alternative to capitalism, no matter if it's "Bolivarian" or not.

Unfortunately what will most likely happen is that the left will refuse to move on, invoking the same idealised image of the Chavez-Maduro period decades after it stops meaning anything to workers in Venezuela (see also: post war British social-democracy).

Yeah, a break with the legacy of Chavism has to be examined in context...If that break is in the context of advances by outright reactionary forces, then the only way it could represent a change of the left's fortunes is through a change in tactics, i.e. abandoning social democracy for genuine revolution.

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Also, yes, a "thaw" in relations with the U.S. (between the governments, at any rate) could surely only encourage "neoliberalism".

[Emmett Till]

Yeah, a break with the legacy of Chavism has to be examined in context...If that break is in the context of advances by outright reactionary forces, then the only way it could represent a change of the left's fortunes is through a change in tactics, i.e. abandoning social democracy for genuine revolution.

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Also, yes, a "thaw" in relations with the U.S. (between the governments, at any rate) could surely only encourage "neoliberalism".

Well Xhar Xhar can certainly speak for himself, but I didn't hear him saying that Maduro's defeat in the election was a good thing to be celebrated.

He was saying that this is an opportunity for the left to realise that Maduro and Chavez were, rhetoric and petro-populism aside, just bourgeois politicians working a different and lately fairly unusual racket. Quite common a generation or two ago in Latin America, ever heard of Peron?

We have too much armchair speculating about what political developments are "good" and which "bad." The point is revolution against capitalism, not whether the rulers are leftish or rightish bourgeois politicians.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've heard petrol-peronism before.

[logfish111]

It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

[Comrade Jacob]

Many of those who voted for the opposition actually support the Bolivarian revolution but are dissatisfied with it's leadership and wish to send a message to Maduro.

[Burzhuin]

The situation in Venezuela is proving one more time how right was Lenin when he wrote that proletariat has do demolished capitalist's government as first condition of proletarian revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

Comrade Jacob
its*
And it sounds very implausible. "I support the Bolivarian revolution, so let me vote for the guys that propose to undo the Bolivarian revolution".

It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.

The situation in Venezuela is proving one more time how right was Lenin when he wrote that proletariat has do demolished capitalist's government as first condition of proletarian revolution.

Why say Lenin? As if revolutionary socialism is Lenin's invention.

[bricolage]

You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.

Yep.
The problem wasn't that they failed to diversify, seem to me it's just another victim in Saudi Arabia's war against US shale.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Unfortunately, the left is doing everything in its power to not condemn capitalism, and to not present any coherent alternative. An entire linguistic code has developed around the soft left's attempt to pussyfoot around the main issue; "neoliberalism", "globalisation", "austerity". It's not that the left should cheer on the crises of capitalism; if nothing else they're bad for us as individuals as well. It's just that I don't buy the usual excuse that we're telling the truth but no one is listening. The left, generally, has failed to engage the workers intellectually.

It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

But "diversifying the economy" doesn't automatically translate into improvements in the quality of life for workers. Neither does a higher GDP or more jobs. The workers in Venezuela got some crumbs that were needed to pacify them - now it's no longer necessary to pacify them, so the crumbs stop falling. As they would if Maduro had won another term.

Why say Lenin? As if revolutionary socialism is Lenin's invention.

It isn't Lenin's invention but Lenin was the one who reemphasised the Marxist perspective of smashing the bourgeois state apparatus in a period where most ostensibly socialist parties followed the falsification of Engels by the SPD, advocating parliamentarianism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well Xhar Xhar can certainly speak for himself, but I didn't hear him saying that Maduro's defeat in the election was a good thing to be celebrated.

Nor did I imply he did. It's not about "speculation"...it's about looking at the situation and asking HOW the left can foment revolution out of the conditions as they are. I've been pretty damn consistent in opposing electoralism, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the implications of a defeat of social democracy by the right for any attempts to revolt against capital. After all, it would be difficult to "engage the workers intellectually" without making some sense out of the current political trajectory as most workers understand it.

Even if the left's approach to engaging workers is flawed, though, you can't deny many people simply AREN'T listening. That's not to say we should be angry at workers for not listening to people who say we need revolution. There are concrete reasons why people aren't listening, and the left's failure to engage them is ONE of the reasons. Capitalist ideology creates barriers to understanding alternatives, with or without a group of class-conscious people trying to break those barriers.

'Foment' -- you're welcome.

Yep! Clearly I had something else on my mind...

[ckaihatsu]

A victory for populism. That aside, an interesting period of some sort for Venezuela, in terms of elections and state demographics, but there's a slightly weird isolation from any international politics that makes this seem suspect. Other than a 'they like the US' thing with the opposition, which is practically a caricature, they all seem curiously to have nothing to do with other pressing issues such as ISIS, European relations such as they are, and so on, to the extent that it practically comes across as a weird image rather than a real situation.

What?? The historically oppressed nations and ethnicities are geopolitically and socially *separatist* -- ?? Shocker.

It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

Economic 'petro-populism', perhaps -- ? (Note the current ongoing fall of oil prices.)

[ckaihatsu]

ferment revolution

'Foment' -- you're welcome.