Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/02 04:22AM 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. Charles: Evidently , this is petit bourgeois misreading of democratic centralism, the working class form of rule , which these events seem to reveal has been established in Venezuela. ^^^ 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 Charles : Evidently, Chavez's broad-based support, i.e. real mass support was and is very much maintained and alive and active in the crunch, when it counts , in defense of the revolution. All these lying bourgeois news outlets are busted, exposed for what they are. ^^^ 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 Charles: This is exposed as lying , false bourgeois propaganda. Most of the population is in the poor barrios , and they are not quiet , but active, and controlling the government. All goddamn power to the People !!! 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. CB: And moving where ? To Miami, with all the fascist trash kicked out by Latin American revolutions ? 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. ^^ Charles: The qualitative leap is that mass, militant street demonstrations can PROTECT AND SAVE a truly democratic government. This is historic. 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 ___ Marxism-Thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
On 14 Apr 2002 at 9:22, Chris Burford wrote: 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. What are you talking about Chris. Chavez styles himself as a 'Bolivarian' i.e. he wants to finish the bourgeois revolution only. And as you suggest he will do a deal with imperialism rather than fight for this goal consistently. His supporters do not yet understand that and oppose the undemocratic coup full of illusions in democracy. The dicatorship of the proletariat requires a mass consciousness of workers and poor peasants sufficient to take power. 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. Whenever you hear the term civil society fear for your life. 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. So are you saying that the great majority can be mobilised by a left bourgeois leader like Chavez to win against global capital, or does a revolutionary party and program need to intervene to call for the building of soviets and a workers militia? 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. 'Not exclusively socialist' can only mean part bourgeois. That is the class confusion of the popular front. The communist program embraces bourgeois civil rights but it recognises that workers have to overthrow the bourgeois state to realise any real workers democracy. Let us hope Chavez can stay and this has an impact on the global balance of forces. It will take more than hope. The lessons of similar regimes, the Popular Unity in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the popular revolution in Ecuador in 2000, all show that if there is no worker and poor peasant seizure of power, the right will regroup and stage a counter-revolution against the masses. Dave B [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
Dave wrote: On 14 Apr 2002 at 9:22, Chris Burford wrote: 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. What are you talking about Chris. Chavez styles himself as a 'Bolivarian' i.e. he wants to finish the bourgeois revolution only. And as you suggest he will do a deal with imperialism rather than fight for this goal consistently. His supporters do not yet understand that and oppose the undemocratic coup full of illusions in democracy. The dicatorship of the proletariat requires a mass consciousness of workers and poor peasants sufficient to take power. What seems clear is that this weekend will lead to a shift of policy of some kind -- and presumably unless Chavez is suicidal it will have to be in the direction of making things better for his core constituency. Which might mean a reluctant move towards a Cuban style solution of more nationalization and more openly anti-bourgeois, anti-imperialist policies. The key might well be the land question. If Chavez pushes through a real land reform and even (which is most unlikely) nationalizes the land, then all hell will break loose all over the continent. The problem here is that Cuba got support from the USSR, a workers' state. Since the restoration (partial and unsuccessful in a lot of ways) of capitalism there and in most other workers' states, this support won't be forthcoming. Venezuela is not Cuba, however, and it has a lot more clout of its own (oil??), so it could carry this off if it ignites similar mass popular uprisings, specifically on the land question, in neighbouring states. It's symptomatic that even the yellowest scum governments in Latin America (Duhalde, Toledo, Fox) refused to give their backing to the coup. That must be giving Bush and his cronies food for thought. Now if Chavez only got to grips with a campaign to revoke the foreign debt... Anyway, the real mass political base has shown itself more behind Chavez than the pro-imperialist running dogs, which is better than a kick up the arse. 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. Whenever you hear the term civil society fear for your life. Whenever you hear the words Louis Proyect, ditto. 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. So are you saying that the great majority can be mobilised by a left bourgeois leader like Chavez to win against global capital, or does a revolutionary party and program need to intervene to call for the building of soviets and a workers militia? Dave, you're going over Chris's head here. ;-) He doesn't know what you're on about, not in terms of revolution, party, programme, soviets or class. 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. 'Not exclusively socialist' can only mean part bourgeois. That is the class confusion of the popular front. The communist program embraces bourgeois civil rights but it recognises that workers have to overthrow the bourgeois state to realise any real workers democracy. Yup, the only guarantee for even the most minimal democratic rights lies in a workers' state with a regime of socialist democracy. Without this minimal democratic rights might exist, but they're not guaranteed. Just think of the land question... Let us hope Chavez can stay and this has an impact on the global balance of forces. It will take more than hope. The lessons of similar regimes, the Popular Unity in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the popular revolution in Ecuador in 2000, all show that if there is no worker and poor peasant seizure of power, the right will regroup and stage a counter-revolution against the masses. Poor imperialism -- revolutionary situations everywhere in Latin America! The masses developing organs of dual power in Argentina, governments toppled in Ecuador and Peru, Brazil seething as always, the Cochabamba commune in Bolivia a couple of
