RE: Re: Re: Chavez?

["michael pugliese" <debsian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Message: 10
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:22:47 +0100
To: marxism-thaxis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
Reply-To: marxism-thaxis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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





--__--__--

Message: 11
From: davidb@xxxxxx
To: marxism-thaxis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:54:06 +1200
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez returns
Reply-To: marxism-thaxis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

> Marxism-Thaxis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



>--- Original Message ---
>From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: 4/14/02 9:04:03 AM
>

>On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:17:16 -0700, michael pugliese wrote:
>>
>>Hugo Chávez, who has won a new mandate at the
>>July elections, has engaged in a series of
>>sweeping reforms since his triumphant election
>>as president of Venezuela in 1998: Congress has
>>been dissolved and a new constitution approved.
>>But despite a spectacular increase in oil
>>revenue, he has failed to remedy serious
>>economic and social problems, and observers
>>wonder if his current populism may not
>>degenerate into despotism.
>>
>>by GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ
>
>
>Actually, the conflict with the oil union arose over Chavez's

>determination to clean house at the state-owned company. He
accused
>executives of owning luxurious chalets in the Venezuelan Andes
and
>other excesses and has said the company's costs must be cut
and its
>benefits spread to the 80 percent of Venezuelans who live in
poverty.
>
>On April 7th the Washington Post reported that Chavez had installed
a
>board of directors loyal to him and named a leftist economist,
Gaston
>Parra, as president. Parra had criticized company policies for
two
>decades. Company executives were outraged by the moves. Hundreds
of
>managers demanded that the appointments be rescinded, arguing
that
>Chavez's changes were based on politics rather than merit.
>
>Of course they were based on politics. He is a left-populist
friendly
>to Marxism, while the oil union and teachers union spearheading
the
>CIA-backed coup are rightwing social democrats.
>
>Here's how an energy trade publication sized things up. Much
more
>reliable an assessment than that coming from magical realism

>quarters:
>
>Energy Day, February 14, 2002
>Venezuela oil fears as Chavez ousts Lameda
>
>By Amy McLellan
>
>Fears that Venezuelan oil policy could make a further swing
to the
>political left grew at the weekend with news that state-run
Petroleos
>de Venezuela has a new boss - the fourth in just over three
years.
>
>President Hugo Chavez ousted General Guaicaipuro Lameda - regarded
as
>a capable manager by many in the industry and a critic of the
new and
>unpopular hydrocarbons law - and replaced him with central bank

>economist Gaston Parra.
>
>"Mr Parra has no oil industry experience," said Alejandro Bertuol,
a
>New York-based analyst with ratings agency Fitch. "He helped
draft
>the nationalisation law in the 1970s and he has followed the
industry
>from an academic point of view but he has no operational experience."

>The move came amid deepening political uncertainty in the country,

>forcing Mr Chavez to deny any risk of a military coup after
Colonel
>Pedro Soto last week called on the army to defy the president
and his
>"tyrannical government".
>
>"This generates additional uncertainty for the oil industry,"
said Mr
>Bertuol. "PdVSA needs continuity to reinforce confidence in
its
>operations and long-term strategies, given the overall uncertainty
in
>the wider Venezuelan environment. This high rotation at the
top does
>not help."
>
>Foreign oil companies have made multi-billion dollar investments
in
>Venezuela in partnership with PdVSA, with the likes of Conoco

>investing Dollars 2.5bn in the Petrozuato heavy oil project.

>
>TotalFinaElf, Statoil, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco are also
big
>dollar investors in the country.
>
>Declan Ryan, regional analyst with oil and gas consultancy Wood

>Mackenzie, said: "Stability at the top of PdVSA is a key issue,
given
>that there is already a lot of political instability in Venezuela
at
>the moment.
>
>"A stable political environment is critical for these guys (the

>foreign oil companies) because they have invested billions of
dollars
>for the long term."
>
>--
>Louis Proyect, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx on 04/14/2002
>
>Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>