Death of Chavez
- This topic has 25 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I've said for years the best thing Chavez could do for Venezuela was to go. Now, it seems, he has gone and done it. For all the sound and fury surrounding him and his movement, it appears that basically it was a mobilising reformist movement that was, more or less, democratic (for all the claims of election rigging, they sound, to me, like the fundamentals were in place, even if the opposition was subject to some harrasment). Certainly, his reign has seen an improvement for some of Venezuela's poor, even if the right claim it was all squandered petro-dollars. It will be inetresting to see if anything survives him personally, and a democratic movement without a charismatic head can continue onwards. One thing we know is, he wasn't building socialism, just state run capitalism.
I've always maintained that Chavez is not the issue in Venezuela but the Venezuelan workers themselves are. In my opinion there isn't a more progressive working class anywhere in the world. Chavez's government unlike the Bolsheviks and their clones actually turned workplaces over to the control of workers. I first came across the Grafitos movement a couple of years ago when they marched in their hundreds of thousands, for the workers control reforms which Chavez agreed to in 2008. They were marching because Chavez had not been implementing them fast enough. So what does this say about Chavez? Well the fact that he agreed to the demands of workers to turn the control of nationalized industries over to them says a lot. I'm not saying he was a socialist, not by a long shot. But while in government the Venezuelan workers movement has flourished with a level of democracy in workplaces unseen anywhere else and a working class with the desire not only to defend but expand this concept. There's still abject poverty in the slums of Caracas, with one of the highest homicide rates of any city in the world, a ridiculously corrupt prison system and probably plenty more very bad stuff. But it comes down to the old question, what happens if a radical leader comes to power before the rest of the world is ready for socialism? Engels answer was that he would be "irrevocably lost" and that has certainly been the case in every instance since. However, Chavez has done better than most in this impossible situation. If you can't abolish capitalism what's the least you can do? Increase workers democracy and foster a strong independent workers movement. So for me Chavez is worthy of respect but certainly not emulation. There's also something I found very endearing about his unreserved attitude towards the USA and others. In the end I'm hard pressed to think of another social democrat who was more successful than Chavez.
The BBC World Service has phoned to ask if we would like to contribute to their World Have Your Say programme at 6 o'clock this evening on "Are You Mourning President Chavez?". What would happen is that you would be contacted by phone to give your view for a minute or so.If there is a volunteer out there (for instance, someone who has contributed to this thread and is on the media committee) could they contact spgb.co [at] worldsocialism.org as soon as possible.
I listened to this programme. I don't know if anyone else did. When we got back to them they said that the "socialist" slot had been filled but said we could send an email.They had indicated that a third of the programme would be devoted to whether or not Chavez was a socialist. As it happens, only the last 5 or so more minutes was. Before that, the only mention of the word was by some Venezuelan exile who said Chavez was practising "petrol socialism" by which he meant using oil revenues to bribe the poor to vote for him.The "socialist" slot was filled by Mike Gonzalez of the SWP. It could have been worse (for instance Alan Woods of "Socialist Appeal"), as the SWP does not think that Venezuela is socialist or even on the way to socialism. He avoided a direct question as to whether Chavez was a socialist by saying the Chavism represented a new form of resistance to global capitalism promoting participation from below but faced with a hostile capitalist world. Similar to what he says in this article (which, actually, is not too bad).We sent an email saying:
Quote:I don't think that Chavez could be called a socialist in the proper sense of the term. He was a populist (and popular) nationalist leader who tried to improve the lot of the poor but circumstances meant that he could not go beyond state capitalism and social reforms.Ironic that we should seem to be saying something similar to the SWP. The SWP's more orthodox trotskyist critics would say that it's the other way round and that that's a consequence of holding that Russia was state capitalist.
I think even the SOYMB post couldn't have been more jaundiced in its obituary than this one."Chavez invested Venezuela's oil wealth into social programs including state-run food markets, cash benefits for poor families, free health clinics and education programs. But those gains were meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world's tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=173521347That's right…Chavez would have been better investing oil revenue in skyscrapers and museums rather than schools and hospitals for the poor !!In blog comment i said he was anti-American…i should retract that as it makes him out as a bit of a racist. I meant anti- American government. It should be recalled that he sent cheap heating oil to help poor Americans and offered humanitarian assistance when Hurricane Katrina hit (which help was declined) He also provided funds for various charities in America, including homeless shelters.
"I don’t believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don’t accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don’t think so. But if I’m told that because of that reality you can’t do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labour – and never forget that some of it was slave labour – then I say: ‘We part company.’ I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don’t even like paying taxes. That’s one reason they hate me. We said: ‘You must pay your taxes.’ I believe it’s better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing … That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse … Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it’s only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias."http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/07/hugo-chavez-and-me/
Here's another perspective:"…Hugo Chávez’s presidency (1999-2013) was characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees. After enacting a new constitution with ample human rights protections in 1999 – and surviving a short-lived coup d’état in 2002 – Chávez and his followers moved to concentrate power. They seized control of the Supreme Court and undercut the ability of journalists, human rights defenders, and other Venezuelans to exercise fundamental rights. By his second full term in office, the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. In recent years, the president and his followers used these powers in a wide range of prominent cases, whose damaging impact was felt by entire sectors of Venezuelan society. Many Venezuelans continued to criticize the government. But the prospect of reprisals – in the form of arbitrary or abusive state action – forced journalists and human rights defenders to weigh the consequences of disseminating information and opinions critical of the government, and undercut the ability of judges to adjudicate politically sensitive cases…"Venezuela: Chavez's Authoritarian LegacyHuman Rights Watch
Interesting contrasts from writers, depending on where they're coming from politically or where they are published.Alan Johnstone's Counterpunch quote is from Tariq Ali – we know his background and can make our own individual judgement call.Hallblithe's is from Human Rights Watch which is funded by such as George Soros. It's worth looking at Wikipedia's entry for HumanRights Watch, especially near the bottom, under 'criticisms' where one specified criticism is that of US's interference in Latin America.Love him, hate him or remain indifferent, it's certainly got many different figures writing and talking and no doubt it will continue as the election nears.
To offer a more sympathetic obituary to Dick Donnelly's I posted this on Socialist Courier. A quick re-edit summary of comments from here.http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/03/where-now-venezuela.htmlI am treating Tariq Ali's version of what Chavez said as more or less accurate even if second hand. I also have big reservations about HRW impartiality but the fact is that Chavez did place a judge in jail for making a legal decision that went against him and I believe Amnesty International has the judge on their list of political prisoners.Several obituaries often pro-Chavez reminds us that he was an army officer with the same authoritarian personality and expected to be obeyed.Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky reckoned he was a genuine guy and all round good egg rather than a revolutionary poser and sloganeer but how can we (and they) forget the support he has offered to Gaddaffi, the Ayatollahs, Hezbullah and Assad.
alanjjohnstone wrote:but how can we (and they) forget the support he has offered to Gaddaffi, the Ayatollahs, Hezbullah and Assad.Wasn't this just one more sign of Chavez's anti-imperialist stance? Gadaffi's Libya, Iran, Hezbullah's declared opposition to Israel's (earlier) occupation of Lebanon and currently Syria have all been subject to outside interference by various 'imperialist' nations in the guise of promotion of democracy, human rights etc, attempted destabilisation from agents within, funding for opposition parties sympathetic to those outside powers (US, UK, Israel, NATO and institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the American Enterprise Institute).The uprising in Libya was instigated by 'the west'; Iran's 'colour' revolution (like the other 'colour' revolutions) was orchestrated and financed to a degree by 'the west'; the chaos now in Syria was largely brought on by those same western interests bent on shaping the world in their own interest.Remember Libya, Iran and Syria were, some years ago, declared to be part of 'the axis of evil' which had to be dealt with.
I would qualify your use of the word "instigated". In all those countries there existed a genuine democracy/workers movement but of course I accept that their political enemies took advantage to turn them into their favour by militarising them and directing aid to particular exile groups. We also have the shameful experience of the Bahrain protests being ignored since it is a West ally. But it is the same as Iran does in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, channel support to its proxies. Most physical support for the Syrian rebel army comes from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their agenda may appear the same as the west but they also have their own, being monarchies against Ba-ath republicans in Syria and Sunni Arabs against non-Arab Persian Shi-tes in Iran.Chavez had a choice of supporting workers or supporting their repression, he chose the latter for "real politik" purposes. He accepted the maxim, my enemies enemy is my friend instead of taking an independent third way of extending his support for Venezuelan workers democracy to the international arena.As for Hezbullah its importance is now determined by its domestic Lebanese political position and its anti-Israeli stance is now merely a cover for maintaining a military to exert pressure on Beirut. The justification for it is the occupation of about 10 square miles of Lebanon territory by Israel, Sheebaa Farms, which in their unique custom, Israel interprets under their version of international law, to be part of Syria.So the same can be said for Iran's support for Hezbullah "bent on shaping the world in their own interest."As we say, one person's anti-imperialist is another's imperialist.
We're pretty much in agreement then, Alan.As for 'one person's anti-imperialist is another's imperialist' – that's how it goes.To return specifically to Chavez, as that's what this thread is supposed to be, he publicly admitted that Venezuela was not 'socialist' – it couldn't be, in isolation, but he promoted it as the Bolivarian revolution to emulate what Simon Bolivar had tried to do, and called it socialism for the 21st century (as everyone knows) as a work in progress. Now, whatever has been achieved for some sections of the people it still has a very long way to go but at the risk of being labelled an apologist for the Chavistas it strikes me that huge numbers of Venezuelans show greater signs of true democratic awareness – they certainly have more chance to actively participate than before.Lets wish the people the conditions to progress and the will to push further up to and following the upcoming election.
There's a breakdown of some of the statistics favourable to Chavez (or perhaps "Venezuelan workers" living standards) herehttp://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/1a112x/why_was_hugo_chavez_so_popular_a_look_at_the/
There is no doubt that in domestic politics he was an earnest reformer bringing many benefits to Venezuelans but on the international stage he has to be viewed as a reactionary supporter of dictatorships. I have mentioned his support for Gadaffi (during Qaddafi's visit to Venezuela in 2009 Chavez said "What Símon Bolívar is to the Venezuelan people, Qaddafi is to the Libyan people," awarding him the "Order of the Liberator" medal) and Assad (“How can I not support Assad?”.) Chávez, however, also gave his support for Mugabe. And for Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko.Even the supportive Zcom published an appeal from Iranian Leftists.http://www.zcommunications.org/open-letter-to-the-workers-of-venezuela-on-hugo-ch-and-aacute-vezs-support-for-ahmadinejad-by-maziar-raziOn Chavez and Iran seehttps://nacla.org/article/problematic-brothers-iranian-reaction-ch%C3%A1vez-and-ahmadinejad
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.