An exchange on Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution relative to the concept of participatory democracy and the role of economic and political empowerment of the poor. Although not anarchist, the Bolivarian government of Venezuela is taking minute but significant steps in the right direction. Ultimately of course ALL STATES should be dissolved, inclusive ''Bolivarian'' ones... but first it is necessary to arrive at the historical juncture that would permit that happy moment without danger of reversion to political and ecónomic despotism ...
The original polemic on Chavez and Bolivarianism was posted here:http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/860/venezuela.html
This exchange was originally posted at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/ AND http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Working_Class_News/
***
The government of the Bolivarian revolution aims to create theconditions that will allow for the emergence of socialism.
>>''Chávez's principal concern upon coming to power was to "solve the problem" of the country's faltering oil profits, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. He moved immediately to discipline the oil workers union and to otherwise increase the efficiency of the state- owned oil industry, while pressing the OPEC oil cartel to jack up prices...''
This is not true. The principal concern of the Bolivarian government upon taking power after the 1998 elections was Constitutional reform aimed at creating the political and institutional conditions that would allow for democratic progress in the social and economic sphere.
The Bolivarian government did not take full control of PDVSA until after the 2003 oil lockout. The-so called ''oil workers union'' was actually a subset of the old CTV labor federation which is linked to the US funded opposition. The CTV recieves funding from the AFL-CIO ''free labor institute'' project - an instrument of the US capitalist elite that for decades has acted to undermine anti-capitalist labor organising efforts in Latin America.
The members of OPEC have a right to recieve a fair market price for their oil. The Bolivarian government uses funds from oil revenues to fund expansion of social services: housing, food, healthcare and infrastructure modernisation.The aim of the Bolivarian Revolution is to end poverty by empowering the poor.
>>''As oil prices climbed, Chávez did siphon off some of the enormous profits to finance a series of social measures: tripling the budget for education, setting up free health clinics and free food distribution programs for the poor, etc. But the aim of such measures is not to effect, but rather to deflect, a social revolution—by binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state.''
These measures are actually the incipient stages of the social revolution appropriate to the Venezuelan context. It is not just mere provision of services from the State to the poor - in the process of being economically empowered by recieving a share of the wealth derived from oil revenues; the poor are encouraged to organise themselves. Take the example of the Misiones like ''Barrio Adentro'' where clinics and community kitchens are set up in poor neighborhoods and residents participate in the upkeep, management and project development process. This element of participation is what differentiates the Bolivarian road from others. The poor are not idle expectators; they are active participants in the process. The same is true of peasants involved in land reform and workers involved in the creation of cooperatives in recuperated factories.
The Venezuelan State of 2005 is the one established by the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. Its institutions are by far the most democratic in the Americas - Indigenous people have direct representation as such in the National Assembly for example. The Venezuelan state is corporative in composition and participatory in its dynamic. It is not a ''representative democracy'' in the Burgeoise sense - it is rather a participatory democracy. The Venezuelan state belongs to the people - not to an elite of oligarchs as was the case before. In this context, ''binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state'' is in fact advancing the social revolution. This is socialism in the 21st Century.
***
Subject: Re: Venezuelan vote: Washington paves road to intervention
>>''And here it was I thought that the masses stayed awaybecause they thought their vote would be "meaningless''
I think that it is important, first of all, to point out that theturnout in the Venezuelan legislative election was higher than theturnout for the last European Parliament elections and the averageU.S. mid-term. The reason there was low turnout in Venezuela wasthat people felt there was not going to be any sort of meaningfulcontest because the opposition opted out. In truth; the Bolivarianparties should have done a better job of movilising people to voteregardless - perhaps portray the vote as a repudiation of theopposition boycott.
The ''Sumate'' opposition think-thank recieved millions of dollars from the U.S. government to do ''democracy promotion'' - actually voter supression. It was an orchestrated media campaign to delegitimise the political system established by the Constitution of 1999.
***
The two-thirds margin would provide the government's supporters with the power to amend the constitution, including the repeal of a statute that would deny Chavez the ability to run for a third term.
>>''It would be a complete mistake -- and demonstrate the weakness of the Revolution -- to alter the Constitution merely to accomodate a leader. Any lider. If Venezuela can't come up with an acceptable bolivarian candidate to succeed Chavez by the time his constitutional term-limit is reached,then the Revolution will have been in trouble for a long time...''
We agree here. I think the idea that the Bolivarian parties were aiming to amend the Constitution in this manner is an invention of the opposition linked media. The insinuation is ''would provide''. This is sophisticated propaganda. Chavez has stated already in response that he will not probably run again. The likely candidate would be Jesse Chacon - the former Information Minister, now Minister of the Interior.
>>''They should be concentrating all their constitutional thinking on expropriating the oligarchs and advancing the Revolution...''
The process of land reform and the process of handing over to workersidle factories and industrial facilities is well under way.
-Chavista.
> - -- grok.
>>''Chávez's principal concern upon coming to power was to "solve the problem" of the country's faltering oil profits, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. He moved immediately to discipline the oil workers union and to otherwise increase the efficiency of the state- owned oil industry, while pressing the OPEC oil cartel to jack up prices...''
This is not true. The principal concern of the Bolivarian government upon taking power after the 1998 elections was Constitutional reform aimed at creating the political and institutional conditions that would allow for democratic progress in the social and economic sphere.
The Bolivarian government did not take full control of PDVSA until after the 2003 oil lockout. The-so called ''oil workers union'' was actually a subset of the old CTV labor federation which is linked to the US funded opposition. The CTV recieves funding from the AFL-CIO ''free labor institute'' project - an instrument of the US capitalist elite that for decades has acted to undermine anti-capitalist labor organising efforts in Latin America.
The members of OPEC have a right to recieve a fair market price for their oil. The Bolivarian government uses funds from oil revenues to fund expansion of social services: housing, food, healthcare and infrastructure modernisation.The aim of the Bolivarian Revolution is to end poverty by empowering the poor.
>>''As oil prices climbed, Chávez did siphon off some of the enormous profits to finance a series of social measures: tripling the budget for education, setting up free health clinics and free food distribution programs for the poor, etc. But the aim of such measures is not to effect, but rather to deflect, a social revolution—by binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state.''
These measures are actually the incipient stages of the social revolution appropriate to the Venezuelan context. It is not just mere provision of services from the State to the poor - in the process of being economically empowered by recieving a share of the wealth derived from oil revenues; the poor are encouraged to organise themselves. Take the example of the Misiones like ''Barrio Adentro'' where clinics and community kitchens are set up in poor neighborhoods and residents participate in the upkeep, management and project development process. This element of participation is what differentiates the Bolivarian road from others. The poor are not idle expectators; they are active participants in the process. The same is true of peasants involved in land reform and workers involved in the creation of cooperatives in recuperated factories.
The Venezuelan State of 2005 is the one established by the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. Its institutions are by far the most democratic in the Americas - Indigenous people have direct representation as such in the National Assembly for example. The Venezuelan state is corporative in composition and participatory in its dynamic. It is not a ''representative democracy'' in the Burgeoise sense - it is rather a participatory democracy. The Venezuelan state belongs to the people - not to an elite of oligarchs as was the case before. In this context, ''binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state'' is in fact advancing the social revolution. This is socialism in the 21st Century.
***
Subject: Re: Venezuelan vote: Washington paves road to intervention
>>''And here it was I thought that the masses stayed awaybecause they thought their vote would be "meaningless''
I think that it is important, first of all, to point out that theturnout in the Venezuelan legislative election was higher than theturnout for the last European Parliament elections and the averageU.S. mid-term. The reason there was low turnout in Venezuela wasthat people felt there was not going to be any sort of meaningfulcontest because the opposition opted out. In truth; the Bolivarianparties should have done a better job of movilising people to voteregardless - perhaps portray the vote as a repudiation of theopposition boycott.
The ''Sumate'' opposition think-thank recieved millions of dollars from the U.S. government to do ''democracy promotion'' - actually voter supression. It was an orchestrated media campaign to delegitimise the political system established by the Constitution of 1999.
***
The two-thirds margin would provide the government's supporters with the power to amend the constitution, including the repeal of a statute that would deny Chavez the ability to run for a third term.
>>''It would be a complete mistake -- and demonstrate the weakness of the Revolution -- to alter the Constitution merely to accomodate a leader. Any lider. If Venezuela can't come up with an acceptable bolivarian candidate to succeed Chavez by the time his constitutional term-limit is reached,then the Revolution will have been in trouble for a long time...''
We agree here. I think the idea that the Bolivarian parties were aiming to amend the Constitution in this manner is an invention of the opposition linked media. The insinuation is ''would provide''. This is sophisticated propaganda. Chavez has stated already in response that he will not probably run again. The likely candidate would be Jesse Chacon - the former Information Minister, now Minister of the Interior.
>>''They should be concentrating all their constitutional thinking on expropriating the oligarchs and advancing the Revolution...''
The process of land reform and the process of handing over to workersidle factories and industrial facilities is well under way.
-Chavista.
> - -- grok.
