Rural Deaths in Venezuela Politically Motivated, Linked to Paramilitaries,
Rights Group Says

Oct 3rd 2013, by Ryan Mallett-Outtrim
[image: Venezuela's land disputes have claimed over 300 lives,
according to unofficial figures from community groups (Archive)]

Venezuela's land disputes have claimed over 300 lives, according to
unofficial figures from community groups (Archive)

Mérida, 3rd October 2013 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The alleged murder of a
rural worker in Lara state is the latest in a series of killings allegedly
linked to paramilitaries in the far north of the Andes, according to a
local human rights group.

On Monday night, 24 year old Jose Perez was en route to the rural community
of Cerro Negro when he was reportedly killed.

According to the Association for Campesino (rural worker) Human Rights
(APDHC), Perez may have been murdered by individuals associated with the El
Fernandito gang- a group with alleged links to paramilitaries operating out
of Lara and neighbouring Portuguesa state.

So far, gangs in the mountainous region between Lara and Portuguesa may be
responsible for the deaths of between 10-12 campesinos in the area this
year.

Perez's death follows from the alleged killing of another rural worker, 20
year old Jose Silvestre Perez, from the community of El Flaco on 16
September. This small rural area is part of the El Maizal commune, which
straddles the border of the two states.

According to APDHC, on 18 September gangs struck again in El Flaco,
allegedly seizing control of the local community school and stealing
vehicles.

“The community school [was made] into an operations centre to evict farmers
from their lands and recruit children and prevent their return to classes,”
APDHC stated <http://www.aporrea.org/desalambrar/n236539.html>.

Community radio Antena Libre 96.3 fm presenter Jose Gomez has argued that
the violence is politically motivated; targeting the commune, and linked to
Colombian criminal organisations.

“The peoples' struggle has historically been repressed by the bourgeoisie,
the struggle for the emancipation of land and rural sectors has been no
exception,” Gomez stated <http://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/a173812.html>.

Since 2001, conflicts between landless campesinos and large land holders
have been reported in many rural communities. The 2001 Land Law empowered
the government to redistribute unused land from ranchers and other large
land owners to landless rural workers. Land holders who lost out under the
law reform have long been accused<http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5941> of
hiring gangs and paramilitaries to intimidate communities into giving up
their new holdings, though rancher arrests are rare. According to unofficial
figures <http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5941>, at least 300
campesinos have been assassinated in relation to these disputes.

“Today a village was taken, but tomorrow could be a national operation that
would allow imperialism to end the Bolivarian revolution,” Gomez said last
month.

Venezuela's western states have long struggled with crime proportedly
linked to paramilitary groups that operate along the country's border with
Colombia.

In 2010, Colombian authorities reported that paramilitary violence had
intensified in the border region of Norte de Santander. Then Colombian
Ombudsman Volmar Perez Ortiz told the press that paramilitaries were targeting
civilians<http://colombiareports.co/paramilitaries-displace-population-near-venezuela-border/>
.

Earlier this year, the Venezuelan government announced it had captured two
paramilitary groups that had crossed the border, and allegedly planned a
terrorist attack on Venezuelan soil.

“These two groups that were captured in our territory belong to two
well-known Colombian paramilitary gangs, and one of the groups is linked to
one of Colombia’s most wanted criminals, El Chepe Barrera,” said the
minister of internal affairs Miguel Rodriguez.

The latest attacks came less than two months after the Maduro
administration stated in August that it would renew efforts to counter
cross-border violence.

“I want to tell the people of Tachira, Zulia, Apure, Amazonas, Bolivar and
all areas bordering these states, we are setting up a new strategy to
strengthen governance... at the border, President Nicolas Maduro stated,
when he announced a new joint civil-military taskforce would crack down on
criminal gangs and paramilitaries.


------------------------------
*Source URL (retrieved on 03/10/2013 - 10:56pm):*
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/10067

Reviewing George Ciccariello-Maher’s “We Created Chavez: A People’s History
of the Venezuelan Revolution”

Oct 4th 2013, by Joe Emersberger
[image: Hugo Chavez and supporters at Chavez’s final campaign rally in
Caracas on 4 October, 3 days before his reelection as president]

Hugo Chavez and supporters at Chavez’s final campaign rally in Caracas on 4
October, 3 days before his reelection as president on 7 October (AVN)
[image: The cover of “We Created Chavez: A People’s History of the
Venezuelan Revolution” (Duke University Press)]

The cover of “We Created Chavez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan
Revolution” (Duke University Press)

In 1958, a dictatorship was overthrown in Venezuela but, unfortunately,
replaced by a corrupt “democracy” dominated by an elite. “We Created
Chavez” is Ciccariello-Maher’s account of how political movements in
Venezuela have fought since 1958 to add substance to that hollowed out
democracy. The past 15 years, since Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998,
have brought huge success to those movements. Predictably, that success has
been continuously lied about and caricatured by the international media. In
one 
variant<http://www.zcommunications.org/on-john-lee-andersons-slumlord-article-on-venezuela-by-joe-emersberger.html>
of
the caricatures, Venezuelans were hypnotized by a charismatic thug and
tricked into voting for their own ruin and oppression. Ciccariello-Maher
refutes the caricatures by providing a detailed history the “Chavista”
movements that long predated Chavez. I’ll outline the story
Ciccariello-Maher tells, and which he sums up as "a history of failure, of
defeat, but one in which those very defeats provide fodder for subsequent
victories"

Inspired by the Cuban revolution of 1959 and disastrously misled by foreign
analyses of it (particularly the one offered by former French radical Regis
Debray), Small groups of Venezuelan leftists attempted to ignite an armed
revolution in the 1960s. They took to rural areas in the mountains where it
was theorized they would have the best chance. After all, didn't Che and
Fidel start off in the Cuban countryside? The Venezuelan rebels didn't join
battles in which the peasants were already engaged. They assumed the
peasants would follow their lead. By the mid-1960s the rebels were
thoroughly isolated from the people they wished to inspire and well on
their way to defeat.

One of the lessons that Douglas Bravo, a rebel leader, took from the
failure was the importance of developing secret allies within the military.
Venezuela's armed forces - unlike most in Latin America – offered
significant potential in that way. In a bigger way, rebels like Bravo
concluded that they didn't know their own terrain and their own history
well enough. Bravo was expelled from the Venezuelan Communist party in
1966, and quickly founded another party, the PRV. Its leaders intensely
studied Venezuelan history, the history of Afro-Venezuelan and indigenous
struggles, and dabbled in Liberation Theology. One PRV leader, Adan Chavez,
would prove very well positioned to recruit secret allies though his
younger brother Hugo who was in the military. Anyone familiar with Hugo
Chavez speeches will immediately recognize his PRV roots as
Ciccariello-Maher points out.

In the 1970s armed rebels shifted to doing urban operations which seemed to
make sense given the torrid pace at which Venezuela was urbanizing. The
most famous of these operations was the kidnapping of US business executive
William Niehous in 1976. Along with Niehous, the rebels seized documents
from Niehous' employer (Owens Illinois) revealing corruption at the highest
levels of the Venezuelan government. The kidnappers made three demands:

1) Owens-Illinois was to pay each of its 1600 Venezuelan workers a $116
bonus

2) Distribute 18,000 packages of food to poor families

3) Buy newspaper space so that the rebels could address the public

Government retaliation for the kidnapping was fierce. Rather than draw
recruits to the rebels, it alienated them from the urban poor who were
victimized by the government’s response, especially groups that had tried
to organize legally. The rebels' strategy of working with legal groups to
overcome the isolation that had crippled them in 1960s was undermined. One
of the kidnappers, Carlos Lanz, now concedes that he and his comrades
hadn't really learned the lessons of the 1960s as they thought they had.
Nevertheless, during his trial, Lanz stated that "I have faith that the
future is ours". Three decades later, Lanz was Vice Minister of Higher
Education in the Chavez government. In fact, the Niehous kidnapping was
inspired by a similar action in Brazil by the group to which current
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff once belonged.

The 1980s brought a devastating and very prolonged economic collapse
(largely due to falling oil prices) and increased government violence
against those who protested, however legally, for relief. The urban poor,
independent of armed rebels who sought to lead them, began to organize
themselves for self-help and armed self-defense in the 1970s. These groups
became more important as conditions worsened in the1980s. Responding to
immediate community concerns, they became preoccupied with eradicating the
drug trade in their neighborhoods which pitted them against both drug
traffickers and police. The emergence of these groups marked the beginning
of the popular militia movement that would partially characterize the
Chavez government years later.

By the late 1980s, despite the government’s tactic of targeted
assassinations, leftist students won control of many elected bodies in the
universities. Carlos Lanz, recently released from prison for the Niehous
kidnapping, was among those who led a successful push for close ties
between the leftist students and the urban poor. Many student activists
like Roland Denis became so enthusiastic about organizing in poor
neighborhoods that they abandoned the universities altogether – something
Denis and others would later regard as a big mistake. Voluntary withdrawal
helped the government purge the universities of leftists during the 1990s
through the use of many tactics such as privatization.

*The Caracazo Uprisings – 1989*

Carlos Andres Perez won the Venezuelan presidency through the use of
flamboyant anti-IMF rhetoric. He immediately exposed himself, and the
entire political system, as a fraud by implementing a vicious IMF-style
austerity package. Uprisings took place all over Venezuela, not only in
Caracas. Estimates of the death toll from government violence range from
three hundred to three thousand. They have often been called “spontaneous”
uprisings, but Ciccarielllo-Maher shows that while that word is accurate,
it can be very misleading. The uprisings were not unorganized and
leaderless outbursts of rage.

There were no “big names”, no prominent leaders directing the revolt.
However, Ciccariello-Maher argues that a multitude of organizers active
among the urban poor for many years facilitated the revolt and ensured that
its impact was sustained.[1] The old political order staggered on for
several more years before being finished off during the Chavez era.

However, soon after the Caracazo, the Barrio Assembly of Caracas had
quickly become, as Roland Denis put it, "a coordinating agent for popular
struggles". This was before Chavez first became famous in 1992 due to his
failed coup attempt (which was prompted by the Caracazo) and many years
before the Bolivarian Circles and communal councils that were formed under
the Chavez government.

*The Defeat of the 2002 Coup*

The defeat of the 2002 coup - thanks to another "spontaneous" uprising -
not only buried the old order, it ultimately forced the Chavez government
into a much more radical direction. Much has been made in the corporate
media about how Chavez was lucky to have been elected just as oil prices
began a period of sustained increase in 1998. However, his government could
not deliver big economic
gains<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/venezuelan-economic-and-social-performance-under-hugo-chavez-in-graphs>
until
after the defeat of the coup (and a management led oil industry lockout
that quickly followed).

For two days in April of 2002 Chavez was ousted. As in 1989, it was the
urban based informal workers - street vendors. motorcycle-riding couriers,
and myriad odd job doers – who carried out a massive revolt but this time
in support of a deposed government and a new constitution that had just
been written and ratified through a very democratic process. It is very
unlikely that a Chavista sector of the military would have acted to reverse
the coup had this spontaneous revolt not taken place. In fact, the leader
of the military action against the coup, Raul Baduel, would switch to the
opposition‘s side in 2007. Ciccariello–Maher points to a lengthy list of
high level Chavistas who jumped ship over the years and it bolsters his
point that informal workers are the ones who really rescued Chavismo in
2002.

Informal workers in the cities, Ciccariello-Maher observes, are not only
one of the groups with "the most chains", they also have the most numbers
among those victimized by the old order. The proportion of informal workers
rose from 34.5% to 53% between 1980 to 1999.[2] The relative size of the
peasantry, in the same period,  had been greatly reduced by urbanization.
Industrial workers also declined and had been by led by union leaders
corrupted during the pre-Chavista era. Though greatly reformed since 2002,
the labor movement is still been hobbled by internal problems. [3]
Ciccariello-Maher notes that there are no big employers to target in order
to improve the situation of the informal workers. That makes their demands,
he argues, "more political than economic". When organized, the entire
political system tends to become their target.

He does not idealize this class of people. He discusses how life in poor
urban neighborhoods has features that push residents towards progressive
political organizing and altruistic behavior. He also describes features
that push in the opposite direction – towards profiting from the drug
trade, for example, instead of fighting it - and he issues a blunt warning
to Chavistas that “mafias will happily fill the void left by political
exclusion”.

*Contradictions, Defiance and Self Criticism within Chavismo*

Afro-Venezuelan leaders were disappointed that the new constitution did not
include much greater recognition of racism in Venezuela. They were
criticized for calling out prominent Chavistas at the time like Caracas
mayor Alfredo Peña as being responsible for their disappointment. They
would be fully vindicated by 2002 when Peña, who led the Caracas
Metropolitan police, had not only jumped to the oppositions' side but also
played a very key role in support of the 2002 coup. From then on Chavista
leaders, including Chavez himself, would confront racism far more
aggressively.  This illustrates what Nora Castañeda, a veteran activist and
head of the Woman’s Development Bank of Venezuela, said in reply to fears
that involvement with government must inevitably lead to movements losing
autonomy: “Why don’t they say Chavez is losing autonomy to us?”

Unfortunately, the process of radicalization prompted by the dramatic
events of 2002 has been far from complete. In the countryside, peasants
have endured hundreds of assassinations perpetrated by gunmen hired by big
landowners. In part, corruption within government ranks has undermined any
really effective action to end the impunity.

On another front, large scale experiments in workplace democracy have
produced mixed results. Worker control, even if effectively implemented,
does not necessarily undermine elitism – for example if workers feels they
deserve more simply because they work in a highly lucrative industry
compared to other workers, who may work just as hard or harder, in one that
it is not.[3]

Many Chavistas blamed the shortcomings of the government on the people
around Hugo Chavez (and perhaps now the people around Nicolas Maduro).
Ciccariello-Maher remarks that "...this argument reaches the level of
self-delusion among many Chavistas, allowing them to reconcile
psychologically the radical rhetoric of the Bolivarian Revolution with the
often disappointing continuities of daily reality". Delusion or not, it
also helps rationalize disobedience and very aggressive pressure on the
government to deliver to its constituents.[4]

Had Nicolas Maduro not prevailed, just barely, in the election that
followed Chavez’s death, then this book might have been especially
susceptible to the criticism that it went too far in de-emphasizing Hugo
Chavez. The next several years will probably clarify the extent to which
diverse movements united around a political program rather than a person.
Regardless, in its endeavor to look beyond Chavez, the book offers
invaluable lessons to people anywhere in the world who wish to contribute
to democratic revolutions.

NOTES

[1] It is worth noting, since Ciccarielo-Maher very frequently refers to
C.L. R. James’ analysis of the Haitian slave revolution, that during the
late stages of that revolution, while the prominent rebel slave generals
were engaged in disastrous deal-making with the French, a “spontaneous”
uprising led by numerous "little local leaders" (C.L.R. James stresses
their role) finally snapped the big names out of their stupor. See The
Black Jacobins, Chapter 13, pg 338-355

[2] Today the proportion is roughly 43%.

[3] Unions have greatly reformed under Chavez. They’ve certainly come a
very long way since the days when the, now withered, CTV union federation
could openly join big business in support of the 2002 coup. However, in
chapter  7 of his book Ciccariello-Maher discusses the limitations of the
UNT, which was formed in 2003.

[4] See Chapter 7, subsection entitled "The Comanagement Debate" for
discussion of cooperatives and other experiments in worker self-management.
------------------------------
*Source URL (retrieved on 04/10/2013 - 10:06am):*
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10068

Reply via email to