Chávez wins again - Whither Venezuela?

[In Bloom]

Okay so Chavez has achieved the trifling feat of winning the Venezuelan elections with a landslide. But the real contest is now on. It's Time Magazine Person of the Year Award 2006!

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

He's already a couple of points ahead of Bush, but currently lagging someway behind Ahmadinehad.

Vote now - democratic socialism over clericism!

Does this mean you're going to continue ignoring my reply to your post?

Don't you have an answer?

 

[JoePolitix]

I've had an attempt at responding to JHEs question but I realised when writting it that it would take a fucking Phd thesis to give it proper justice! There's no way I could cover all the relevant points in one post. Here's some initial thoughts that hopefully can be used as a springboard for further discussion on this issue.

The polls have closed. Exit polls suggest that Hugo Chávez has won again.

Off and on since 1998, I have tried to find out where Chavismo is going. I have failed. I don't know.

Some people think they know. Many of the opponents of Chávez believe that the Bolivarian Revolution is taking his country towards a set up similar to Castro's Cuba. Some of his supporters hope his opponents are right. Others disagree.

I invite anyone who claims to know what the real programme is to tell me.

Is the Bolivarian Revolution:

• a process towards Cuban-style socialism?
• another case of Latin American populism, a Venezuelan Peronism?
• a muscular social democracy, funded by oil revenues and led by a beret-wearing strongman, but safe for capital?
• something else? What?

Like all revolutions, the Bolivarian model has its own peculiarities and unique characteristics, so much so in fact that comparisons usually tend to obscure more than they clarify.

Venezuela at present most resembles a left wing social democracy: whilst there has been a huge increase in social spending for the poor there have also been no major nationalisations of industry or expropriations of capital.

However, the Bolivarian model differs from classical social democracy in a number of ways. Firstly one of the forces behind it – Chavez’s MVR - are not a union based party like those of the lead post war social democracies. The MVR were rather a party founded to represent the broad mass of the Venezuelan population who were excluded and disenfranchised by the oligarchic system that prevailed before Chavez.

Secondly whereas social democratic governments have tended to contain and quell radical elements under Chavez radicalism amongst the population is on the rise and is being encouraged. See:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lebowitz241005.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2143
http://blog.zmag.org/node/2839
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1931483,00.html

Where the revolution is going is of course a matter of speculation, the outcome depends on how far the mass movements go and are prepared to fight. The signs are encouraging though: the poor in the barrios are beginning to taste political power for the first time and like it. They’re showing no signs of letting up anytime soon.

 

[JoePolitix]

Does this mean you're going to continue ignoring my reply to your post?

Don't you have an answer?

The inescapable logic of your position, like others who argue that the Bolivarian Revolution is a populist project, is that Chavez’s supporters are dupes.

I stand by my original remarks.

 

[JoePolitix]

That TIME MAGAZINE thing must be rigged.
I've voted for Chavez 30 times and he is still on 22%

23% now

Last time I checked a couple of days ago he was on 13%, Bush was on 14% and Ah ma dinner jacket was on 27%. Now there's only 2% between Chavez and the Iranian hardliner.

We're getting there...

 

[In Bloom]

The inescapable logic of your position, like others who argue that the Bolivarian Revolution is a populist project, is that Chavez’s supporters are dupes.

I stand by my original remarks.

Despite the fact that they bare no relation to my argument?

Would you care to explain how "Chavez's supporters are dupes" follows from:

Clearly Chavez's supporters know what they want, whether Chavez will be able or willing to deliver all of it is what I am questioning.

?

Edit: bearing in mind that I haven't said that Chavez's supporters are necessarily unaware of the nature of Chavez's populism.

 

[JoePolitix]

Despite the fact that they bare no relation to my argument?

Would you care to explain how "Chavez's supporters are dupes" follows from:

?

Edit: bearing in mind that I haven't said that Chavez's supporters are necessarily unaware of the nature of Chavez's populism.

If Chavez is a populist then how come the poor in the barrios continue to vote for him time and time again? Could it be that Chavez, far from failing to come up with the goods, has managed to deliver many meaningful reforms for the people?

 

[In Bloom]

If Chavez is a populist then how come the poor in the barrios continue to vote for him time and time again? Could it be that Chavez, far from failing to come up with the goods, has managed to deliver many meaningful reforms for the people?

I didn't say he has failed to provide what he has promised so far, the point is that he is likely to stop short of an actual revolution, which is where conflict between his government and his supporters comes to the fore.

It's not a question of what he has delivered so far, but what history shows leaders like him tend to do eventually. And it's certainly not a question of if Chavez a populist, it's a fact that Chavez is a populist.

 

[JoePolitix]

I didn't say he has failed to provide what he has promised so far, the point is that he is likely to stop short of an actual revolution, which is where conflict between his government and his supporters comes to the fore.

Well, I'm sure you'll agree with me on this point: a social revolution as opposed to a capitalist transfer of formal ownership can only be carried out by a mass movement of working people who have become convinced through experience that there is no alternative and who are ready to assume revolutionary control.

Neither you nor I are in a position to bring about such a change. But we can analysis what the best available conditions are to bring about such a necessary shift in consiousness, and then respond accordingly. I think any honest assessment of Venezuela would have to conclude that the conditions created by the Bolivarian Revolution, in terms of the material reduction of poverty, the advances in protaganist democracy and the social space opened up to the grass roots organisations has created a politicisation of the masses that has enabled them to become conscious actors in the revolution.

To be honest I think many self styled "revolutionaries" in the UK could learn a hell of a lot more from the Venezuelan social movements than the latter could learn from the former.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, I'm sure you'll agree with me on this point: a social revolution as opposed to a capitalist transfer of formal ownership can only be carried out by a mass movement of working people who have become convinced through experience that there is no alternative and who are ready to assume revolutionary control.

Except for your edit from management to control, yeah, though workers' management vs. workers' control is best left for another thread atm, I reckon.

Neither you nor I are in a position to bring about such a change. But we can analysis what the best available conditions are to bring about such a necessary shift in consiousness, and then respond accordingly. I think any honest assessment of Venezuela would have to conclude that the conditions created by the Bolivarian Revolution, in terms of the material reduction of poverty, the advances in protaganist democracy and the social space opened up to the grass roots organisations has created a politicisation of the masses that has enabled them to become conscious actors in the revolution.

I'd argue that the pre-existing politicisation of the Venezuelan working class led to Chavez getting into power, which has a reciprocal relationship with further politicisation and material improvements, this is the central point I'm trying to get across here.

To be honest I think many self styled "revolutionaries" in the UK could learn a hell of a lot more from the Venezuelan social movements than the latter could learn from the former.

Hmm, I'm not so sure what you mean by this. The situation in Venezuela and the situation in the UK are very different.

 

[JoePolitix]

I'd argue that the pre-existing politicisation of the Venezuelan working class led to Chavez getting into power, which has a reciprocal relationship with further politicisation and material improvements, this is the central point I'm trying to get across here.

I largely agree, though I think it’s a not just the politicisation of the working class but rather the elements of Venezuelan society that were hitherto marginalised and excluded including the campasenios, women, black and indigenous peoples.

The roots of the new movement lie in the 1989 Caracazo: the spontaneous uprising against the intolerable corrupt neo-liberal tyranny. But the politicisation lacked any shape and had no direction - hence the void filled by the MVR. Prior to Chavez there hadn’t been any meaningful working class organisation since the 1970s - the unions were tied to the political parties and served as little more than transmission belts for government dictates.

Since 1998, the masses have been electrified by Chavez’s clashes with the oligarchs and the imperialists and loads of social movements have sprung up all over the place and communities are getting organised. This in turn is impacting on Chavez, after all following the defeat of the 2002 coup and the subsequent bosses lock outs he is acutely aware that his most loyal base of support is among the poor.

So forgive me for sounding a little old fashioned but there is a “dialectical relationship” between the grassroots and the leadership in the Bolivarian Revolution, which is why your “populism” jibes are so wide off the mark. I guarantee you, you’d have a tough time trying to spin that line in your average Venezuelan barrio. Despite your intentions I think a lot of people would find it immensely patronising.

 

[In Bloom]

I largely agree, though I think it’s a not just the politicisation of the working class but rather the elements of Venezuelan society that were hitherto marginalised and excluded including the campasenios, women, black and indigenous peoples.

Fairly true, but doesn't Chavez have a somewhat rocky relationship with indigenous people in Venezuela? Something about mining operations, IIRC.

So forgive me for sounding a little old fashioned but there is a “dialectical relationship” between the grassroots and the leadership in the Bolivarian Revolution, which is why your “populism” jibes are so wide off the mark

It's not intended as a jibe, just an accurate use of terminology. Chavez is a populist, and populism has its limits.

 

[JoePolitix]

The forward march of socialism in Venezuela

Politically, the old oligarchy are completely defeated in Venezuela. The Bolivarians are now turning on enemies closer to home: the "revolutionary" bureaucrats within the Bolivarian movement. Chavez's solution? He calls for a revolutionary united socialist party to be built from the grass roots up to replace the ineffecient parties, including his own MVR:

Last night Chavez offered some surprises. The MVR is history, he said. The new party (provisionally called the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) will be there for all the parties to join or, alternatively, to separate themselves from the government. But this, he stressed, will not be a party that combines the existing parties. Rather, it will be a party that can only be built from the base. In your communities, in your patrols, battalions, squadrons, identify your neighbours who are supporters of the Revolution -- you know who they are, he proposed. Do a census, build the party from below. Make it a party that is not built for electoral purposes (although able to engage in electoral battles); make it a party that can fight the Battle of Ideas, one that can fight for the socialist project, one that allows us to read and discuss the way forward. Make this party the most democratic in the history of Venezuela.

And, choose your true leaders, which only the base can do. There's been too much anointing of people from above with a pointing finger (especially mine). Choose the people you have faith in, whom you know -- not the thieves, the corrupt, the irresponsible, the drunkards. The bad boys must be kept outside. We need to stress socialist morals, socialist ethics.
All this was bad news enough for the politicians accustomed to the practices of the 4th Republic and those who had adopted them to succeed. But, the real dagger came with a message which summed it all up succinctly: "The new party cannot be the sum of old faces. That would be a deceit."

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lebowitz171206.html

 

[Idris2002]

Fairly true, but doesn't Chavez have a somewhat rocky relationship with indigenous people in Venezuela? Something about mining operations, IIRC.

A friend of mine did his doctoral work on just that subject - Venezuelan indigenous people and the revolution. And he's never mentioned anything like that to me.

 

[JoePolitix]

A friend of mine did his doctoral work on just that subject - Venezuelan indigenous people and the revolution. And he's never mentioned anything like that to me.

I think IB is referring to the incident in which the Venezuelan army fired on people engaged in illegal mining operations in La Paragua in Venezuela’s southeast, killing six. See:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34889

From that article:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said in a news briefing Tuesday that the preliminary investigations indicate that the military was responsible for the killings, and said the soldiers involved would be brought to justice.

"We know at the very least there was an excessive use of firearms by a group of soldiers. This government is not covering up, nor will it cover up any abuse. This government respects human rights."

Also see:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2090

 

[Idris2002]

Thanks for that, very interesting.

The link says that only two of those shot by the troops were indigenous people. It certainly won't do the govt's rep with the IP any good, but I didn't get the impression that it was a straight govt/indigenous people fight.

Which is not to say that we should be blasé about troops killing civilians (just ask anyone in Derry). Let's hope that Chavez keeps his word on that one. I mean, with regard to the last quote in your post.

 

[JoePolitix]

Wither Venezuelan capitalism?

Exciting stuff...

Caracas, December 18, 2006 — In an event to celebrate the successful reelection of President Chavez, Chavez called on his followers to dissolve their existing parties and to form a new “Socialist Unity Party of Venezuela.” Chavez also explained that the main project for the next term is to “construct socialism from below,” via this new party...

Aside from the creation of a single party of the revolution and the construction of 21st century socialism, Chavez said that the other main issue for the coming year would be constitutional reform. With regard to the construction of 21st century socialism, Chavez said, “The transformation of the economic model is fundamental if we want to construct a true socialism.” “We have barely begun visualizing all of this,” he added.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2177

 

[Idris2002]

I got the Morning Star today, and it talks about how the USPV is intended to replace the alphabet soup of different parties, but would also be internally pluralist (I'm paraphrasing).

The Star quoted one of the opposition newspapers accusing Chavez of planning to hand pick party leaders. Is there any realistic chance of that happening?

 

[JoePolitix]

The Star quoted one of the opposition newspapers accusing Chavez of planning to hand pick party leaders. Is there any realistic chance of that happening?

Given the rather strained relationship between the Venezuelan opposition and the truth I think the onus is on them these days to prove they're *not* lying whenever they open their increasingly bitter gobs.

Judging by the speech Chavez delivered and I cited a couple of posts up, his reasons for setting up the new party are the *exact opposite* of what the opposition say he's doing:

Do a census, build the party from below... Make this party the most democratic in the history of Venezuela....And, choose your true leaders, which only the base can do. There's been too much anointing of people from above with a pointing finger (especially mine).