by Gouda » Fri May 26, 2006 10:48 am
Though I really, really doubt that Chavez is a plant (a poinsettia, for example) and I do think he is the closest thing people have had to an “altruistic” leader intent on keeping his promises, this does not mean we can give Hugo a pass just because of his smashing opposition to Washington/Brussels. <br><br>As much as I like what has happened in Venezuela, Chavez does make me nervous sometimes, and I also fear that what has been accomplished might be undermined. However, it should also be recognized that he is facing SERIOUS, seasoned attempts to sabotage his government - a nonstop attack on his firewall. <br><br>If the “Bolivarian Revolution” is to be a successful alternative to the policies of rape embodied in neoliberal economics and chauvinistic, racist domination policy, how it is implemented needs to be studied even more closely and honestly. But it is simply too hard to get credible information and analysis on Chavez, free of ideology and spin. Everyone has a stake. And the stakes are high. One thing is sure: one can and must avoid the corporate media propaganda tarring of Chavez. To be fair, one should also take “left” or “progressive” analysis on Chavez with a grain of salt. What I do trust is what the majority of people in Venezuela are saying, what we see in the documentary, and they are not liars. <br><br>Unfortunately, our Irish documentarians are not able to stay down there to give us day-to-day coverage. Sigh. <br><br>*** <br><br>If it is ALL orchestrated, then Chavez and others are the ones in the pit crashing the cymbals off beat. There may be others down on hands and knees tying shoelaces together or pouring soapy water into the tubas. The conductor is surely drunk, and where are those rotten tomatoes coming from? Nope, if it is all planned and orchestrated, then all of us here are included in the Plan, and so we might as well give up and let them rape us. <br><br>dbeach, I recall you imparting to us your story of choking little grey intruders and booting them from your room, and I like that a lot. You did not consent - and neither are the majority of the people of Venezuela. They are defending themselves from the Transnational Greys and building an alternative, which does include an educated and armed firewall. <br><br>Chavez’ movement (imperfect as it has been) is a model to back - not blindly of course - but it should at least be given a chance to do its thing. All previous chances have been brutally and/or slyly quashed – why is that? <br><br>Chavez’ realism realizes that people must be educated, dignified, and empowered if they are all to survive the repeated shark attacks from those above. In the worldview of the Realist, people must necessarily be de-humanized, kept uneducated and kept ignorant for politics and “balance” to work. Up there, one is not allowed to dignify or feel sorrow, pain, compassion, empathy for anyone below threatening to disrupt the machinery of control. Like a poor woman in the street asking what happened to her vote. Like shopkeepers posting copies of their constitution on their shop walls. Like afghan people pissing uranium. <br><br>I suspect oil is not really the only thorny issue for the plutocrats and oligarchs – rather, it is people learning their rights en masse, learning to defend themselves like dbeach vs. the greys, and uniting as an alternative to the paradigm of capitalist domination that is destroying everything in its path. The people of Venezuela have surpassed “Americans” with regard to democracy. Will it become socialism? I don't think so actually. <br><br>I am personally not an adherent to one strategy over another for taking power and empowering people, for the people, by the people - Actually, I admire the Zapatista approach more than the Morales/Chavez approach because I think the Zaps are more in harmony with means and ends, whereas Chavez and Morales will be forced into contradictions and compromises as heads of state power, despite their good intentions. Chavez and Morales are thus more vulnerable to jujitsu from the sharks above; though they have different ends in mind, the Bolivarians are reliant on the same means (state power, diplomacy, backroom deals, concessions, oil, international trade) as the sharks above. Castro has survived in an unfair fight, but at what cost? I wish them all the best and I am taking notes on the relative and region-specific approaches which work best. <br><br>****<br><br>“The revolution will be live.” That’s right, and that is why I like this documentary so much. <br><br>****<br><br>One studied critique, from the left, of Chavez and Morales, by James Petras:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13149.htm">www.informationclearingho...e13149.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Latin America, the European Union and the US: The New Polarities</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, By James Petras<br><br>...In countries where the polarization between Latin American nationalism and EU/US imperialism is strongest, the class struggle, at least temporarily, is subdued. In other words: the nationalist struggle subsumes the class struggle with the promise that greater national control will result in increased state resources and subsequently to redistributive measures.<br>… <br><br>In summary the conflict is between democratically elected nationalist leaders supporting a mixed economy to finance social welfare against the US and EU empire building, interventionist policies intent on preserving the “Golden Age” of pillage of unregulated privatized economies and their privileged excessively low tax payments in exploiting energy resources.<br>...<br><br>Contrary to the euphoria of the US and Western European left, the new nationalist governments and Cuba face serious internal challenges from their very own supporters. While successfully countering imperialist pressures and increasing their tax revenues from foreign capital, they have neglected to implement social reforms of the utmost urgency to their supporters. Both Venezuela and Cuba, despite government promises, lag far behind in meeting the huge housing and transport deficit, and the efforts to diversify their economies lag far behind goals particularly in agro-industries (sugar to ethanol and local food production in Cuba; meat, poultry, fish and grains in Venezuela), manufacturing (especially arms, durables, IT and electronics) and processing of minerals. Moreover in Venezuela there are large sectors, perhaps 50%, of the labor force with improved access to free social services but which are employed in the low-paid “informal sector”…. <br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><br>Grandiose international gestures, humanitarian solidarity and anti-imperialist policies are no substitute for deepening internal structural changes and meeting essential domestic demands for housing, jobs and higher salaries.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>...<br><br>In summary, all of Morales political assumptions were based on “imagined facts” which do not correspond to the economic and political realities in which they are projected. The absence of a serious empirical analysis of structural realities has resulted in imposing an electoral strategy based on a multi-class political alliance onto a class/imperial polarized world. Morales’ reformist ideology “created” a illusory vision of the political world in which he would unite “productive capitalists”, friendly center-left regimes, workers and peasants against “unproductive landowners” and corrupt MNCs, in pursuit of a mixed economy, a balanced budget and incremental social reforms.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 5/26/06 8:56 am<br></i>
