Welcome scenes on CNN of the return of Chavez to the Presidential Palace. The situation obviously still remains dangerous. In terms of how the risk of such coups against radical democratic governments should be avoided, I note that
An "Imminent Coup in Venezuela" written by Gregory Wilpert on 10th April argued Chavez' greatest failure, from a progressive point of view, probably lies in his relatively autocratic style, which is why many of his former supporters have become alienated from his government. Whenever someone opposed his policies he has tended to reject them and cast them out of his government circle. The result has been a consistent loss of a relatively broad political spectrum of government leadership and a significant turn-over in his cabinet, making stable and consistent policy implementation quite difficult. This loss of broad-based support has made itself felt particularly strongly during the recent crises, making Chavez look more isolated than he might otherwise be. Other than his party supporters, who are quite significant in number and come mostly from the poor "barrios," the progressive sectors of civil society have been neglected by Chavez and have thus not been active. Instead, the conservative sectors of civil society, such as the chamber of commerce and the old guard union leadership are among the main mobilizers of civil society. There is now talk of "middle class" leaving Venzuela, and presumably capital is fleeing even more rapidly out of the country. On the other hand it was the determination of his supporters who demonstrated outside the presidential palace yesterday, and the determination of the presidential guard not to give up without a fight to the death, that probably led to the resignation of the imposed president Carmona within one day. These are traditional qualities of the "proletariat", courage and resolution in crisis. The situation is a contradiction, and should be analysed as a contradiction. The forces of Chavez would have every right now to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, hopefully nuanced in the way Hal Draper has argued, as emergency dicatatorial powers. There are already reports that the events of the last few days have exposed who is a true friend of Chavez and who is not. There must be scores to settle. At the same time the return to the palace must have been the result of some deals and compromises. It may be a good sign that Chavez resisted the temptation to make an immediate revolutionary statement outside the palace. I agree with Louis Proyect's reservations about the concept of civil society. It too is a contradiction. Originally used in a somewhat negative sense by Marx, it has been used by Gramscian supporters as a potentially positive arena for struggle. IMO Wilpert uses it in a dialectical sense referring to progressive and conservative attitudes to civil society. The good news of this year is that militant street demonstations in Argentina and Venezuela can force the fall of a government. The bad news is that the balance of forces in the world overwhelmingly favours finance capital and its supporters in each country. A progressive regime needs both a resolute core of supporters, and the ability to defuse the opposition, if not win over the great majority of the population. That IMO opinion points to the need for an agenda that is not exclusively socialist, but is "new democratic", embracing civil rights issues but from a progressive social perspective. Let us hope Chavez can stay and this has an impact on the global balance of forces. Chris Burford _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
