Anarchists and the Caracas ASF/January 2006

by iosaf Mon Dec 05, 2005 13:34

25% is 25%
75% didn't vote.
maybe they watch TV.
but they don't vote.

whose side are you on?
the government and the TV channel
or the people who don't vote?

by Reader Mon Dec 05, 2005 13:26

[extract]
Jesse Chacon, the Minister of the Interior and of Justice, also held a press conference, in which he argued that the last time parliamentary elections were held separately from presidential elections was in 1998. The party Acción Democrática (AD) won that vote, with the support of merely 11.24% of the total population registered to vote. During the 2000 parliamentary elections, Chavez’s MVR party received support from 17% of registered voters.

According to Chacon, any result in these elections where the MVR obtains support from more than 11% of those registered to vote would give the MVR greater legitimacy to control the National Assembly than AD had in 1998 and anything greater than 17% would give it greater legitimacy than the last National Assembly had. In accordance with such a calculation, the MVR coalition obtained the support of about 22% of all registered voters during this election (about 3 million votes out of 14 million registered voters).

Education Minister Aristobulo Isturiz explained on TV talk show that this type of calculation is the only calculation that makes sense for establishing a reference point because the several key opposition parties called for a boycott of today’s vote. In the course of the day, it was clear that opposition strongholds had extremely low turnout, of perhaps 10% of voters, while pro-Chavez neighborhoods saw much stronger participation.

CNE President Rodriguez cited another factor that influenced turnout today, besides the boycott, which was "severe" weather conditions in several states, including the capital, which made voting more difficult than usual.

by iosaf Mon Dec 05, 2005 13:12

yesterday's elections in Venezeula saw 75% of the electorate abstain and the largest opposition parties boycott, and the standard of "secret ballot" abandoned.

please read the earlier comment now again
with this "new information" in mind.

by Sam Lord Tue Nov 22, 2005 04:51

You just gotta support the guy ....

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11212005.html

by Thankful Mon Nov 21, 2005 18:05

Whoever posted that Red and Anarchist Action Network article, thanks. Refreshing to read something that takes a 'real world' look at things.

by Seamus Breathnach Sun Nov 20, 2005 20:12

With some 95% of the Venuelan population being members of the RC church, it is almost 'Irish' to talk about the success of an anarchist movement. Of necessity , the Venezuelans must be even more gullible than the Irish.

Seamus Breathnach

by ciaran ryan - none Sat Nov 19, 2005 19:57

The important point about Chavez is that his program, at this point, is social democratic. Mainly based on using the revenue from oil sales to fund limited re-distributive projects. So far he has not fucked with the system (except rhetorically), he knows the history of Allende and is going slowly, slowly.
Chavez the man likes to see himself as from the tradition of benevolent populist South American leader. So is he a radical nationalist, social democrat or revolutionary. I think at heart he is a top down army and state man.
The type of mild change he is leading inevitably provokes a backlash from the ruling classes, they have made several attempts to unseat him already, the more successful he is the less subtle these attempts will become. Jamaica in the 70,s under Manley, a social democrat, won an election on a reform program, he too had mass based organizations outside parliament to support him and an external window of opportunity to implement his program (much like Chavez) but as the reactionary forces up the stakes, social democrats balk at using the only force capable of delivering the process they set in motion, that force is in the mass based popular organizations. Their distrust and in some cases loathing of the poor and working classes mean they will not tolerate the locus of power slipping beyond state structures, after a little pressure they capitulate to reaction and leave the working classes to bear the brunt of the counterrevolution as in Allende’s Chile.
So I would say the working classes have much to fear from social democracy because there are many examples of where it leaves them up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Social democrats provoke a counterrevolution and leave those who supported them defenseless in its face, throwing their hands in the air they retire to their study to write their memoirs.
Ideologically social democrats and statist socialists are wedded to the state as the implementer and guarantor of social change and cannot conceive of radical change delivered directly by popular organizations. I believe this is at the heart of the anarchist critique of Chavez and all others who have tried to deliver social change through the mechanism of the state.
Where Chavez sits on this scale will become evident in the near future. As an Army General I fear he will not go with the popular route. The US is busy chewing on Iraq at the moment but with many other countries in the region wrestling with the same problems and choosing the same solutions, South America’s and Venezuela’s time will come. If he clings to state structures until it is too late Washington will have no trouble with presenting him as just another dictator that they have rid the world of. No one can say for certain but Chavez may prove the maxim that revolutionaries can make good soldiers but that soldiers don’t make good revolutionaries.

by joy Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:54

I think the alternative social forums, like beyond ESF, LSF in Paris etc are a step backwards for the anarcho/libertarian movement. Its a denial or refusal to acknowledge the existence of other movements that dont necessarily work on the same model - and a lack of willingness to engage with them in debate or find common ground. If there was some sort of revolution tomorrow (dream on) there are thousands of people out there who dont share the anarchist utopian view, but are involved in many movements, much larger than the anarcho ones, that want some sort of change in the global system. What happens with them? How do you relate to them?

The holding of concurrent ASFs I think only cements a wall/ghetto that anarchists have put up around themselves, which leads to a mindset of self-enclosure and disdain for all other political beliefs, dismissing everyone as "weak liberals" and so on.

This insistence on ideological purity above all else has effectively isolated them in parts of the Western world - a prime example of this is the G8 earlier this summer. Dissent! withdrew into itself, refusing to deal with other anti-G8 organisations it saw as not revolutionary enough. End result (along with other factors like location, weekday summit) meant that participation in direct actions and so on was the lowest its been in years.

From reports of the Stirling campsite attendance, blockades, and so on, it seems that about 3,000 people took part. This is excluding the 4,000 or so that went on the Auchterarder march, which was organised by G8 Alternatives (dismissed by Dissent! as a "trot front" etc). There was the same amount of people doing the Dissent! blockades and actions as there was at the Dublin Mayday march last year. This is in a place with ten times the population, an organisation that had (reportedly) a budget of tens of thousands of pounds, and an event with a much higher profile. Where was everyone from the UK exactly? What has happened to the supposed huge, grassroots, organic protest movement, bulging with vitality and imagination? Its gone.

by Joe Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:22

That's a bit like asking if the Irish republican movement played any part in the peace process (ie there appears to have been a range of positions). The article i posted the link to yesterday goes into some of this.

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 23:14

Does anyone know whether or not ...see when Hugo was deposed in the coup and took away ? Did the Venezuelan Anarchist movement play any part in the massprotest against this or did they have ideological differernces which prevented them from protesting ?

Serious question Id like to know the answer to .

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 22:59

The Bolivarian constitution of Venezeula upheld by Hugo Chavez guarantees them that right , and indeed encourages them to exercise it . The reason the Venezuelan government is spending such huge sums in order to acheive full adult literacy is in order to enable the Venezuelan people to safeguard their democratic , economic and sovereign rights , among which are freedom of speech , freedom of assembly and freedom to hold a political viewpoint . All Chavez demands is that the revolutionary Bolivarian constitution which guarantees these freedoms be defended and upheld .

In these very dangerous times we live in Hugo , along with anyone with a bit of sense kniows he may not be long for this world . Its important the freedom and sovereignty of Venezuela survive even if he doesnt .

This anarchist forum will not harm in any way Venezuelan freedom and in its own way adds to a democratic culture in the nation which will ultimately strengthen it . Dont see what the fuss is about .

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 21:32

In this case has achieved for the working people ....

Literacy
Access to education
Access to medical care
land reform
Improvement in status of indigenous people

etc. etc.

It may fall apart .. who knows. But I won't be assisting in the process. And until then, like I said, it will have done more for ordinary people than all its critics combined ever have or will.

Those are the facts of the matter ...

I'm done.

by already a cynic Fri Nov 18, 2005 21:08

Jeez sam, you're having so much difficulty with everyone elses position I reckon you ought to come out as an individualist and attend the mainstream wsf carrying the torch of not denouncing anyone but rather wearily bemoaning the lack of insight amongst those who can't seem to spot the right(eous) bandwagon, prefering to stay off them all out of some paranoid prudence...

Then you can look forward to a future of disillusionment when your populist bandwagon comes unhitched yet be secure in the knowledge that unlike the diehards, YOU TRIED!

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 20:02

1. Chavez has done more for the working people of Venezuela than any anarchist in Venezuela.

2. Chavex has done more for the working people of Venezuela than any anarchist in Ireland.

3. Cahvez has done more for the working people of Venezuela than all the anarchists of Venezuela and Ireland combined.

4. Chavez has done more for the working people of Venezuela than all the Anarchists in the world combined.

5. Chavez has done more for the working people of Venezuela than all the Anarchists in the world and all the Anarchists who ever existed combined.

But keep criticising ....

And as for sounding like a trot ..... I'd be surprised if the trots in Venezuela were not also boycotting. Maybe you could have a joint alternative Anarcho-trotskyite Forum. It would be sure to arouse tremendous enthusiasm in the working masses.

by Bobcat Fri Nov 18, 2005 19:35

Sam you're beginning to sound like the SWP. There are more than two viewpoints in the world not only the USA/CIA opposed by the Chavez/Bolivarian views. Anarchists have as much claim to having a social forum as the traditional left. Ever heard of "different worlds are possible"? Nobody has a monopoly on revolution

by @ Fri Nov 18, 2005 19:08

I can only (off the top of my noble and patrician head) think of one mass-consumption use of the phrase in Ireland this year, at Gleneagles (kerry not scotland) for the speech Ahern made when Lawlor had just died andhe chose not to mention him "off the cuff".
He told FF they were in FF because they didn't want to be in the ditch or hedge looking on with splendid relinquint commentaries and unsulied reputation for expertise.

You know once the match is done, and trophie are lifted and the two sides go off to do what they do, the pitch is a mess. Its a muddy, churned parody of a meadow. But in the ditch and hedge you'll still find berries, medicinal herbs, edible fungi, burnt tyres, bits of old cars and tv sets and very very old irish teachers with their schools.

It is a very good thing that people are invited to Venezuela, work out how to send them! Christ and Krusty on a rope how much does it cost to charter a gulfstream and send them in style?

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 19:03

I don't get all the pudding stuff. Maybe you could explain for those of us not in the know...

by Lorden it Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:14

Pudding by name, pudding by nature.

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:11

those who questioned the motives of Pinochets detractors. And not a few on the "far left" were financed to do this.

In response to the question ...

The difference is that this WSF is being held in Venezuela with the support of the Venezuelan government.

Finally: I didn't actually make any accusation. I posed a question.

Venceremos.

by Joe Black Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:59

Sam you have yet to explain how an alternative summit at this WSF is somehow different from the alternative summits that have happened at the last two WSF's.

Also your making a rather serious accusation there - shouldn't you be required to produce some evidence for this accusation?

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:21

Keep criticising. You're doing a great job. The poor of Venezuela really deeply appreciate your efforts.

And as for where to go to get the cheque. Try Langley Virginia .... but be warned. There will be a lengthy queue at that particular hatch.

by Chekov Fri Nov 18, 2005 16:46

What kind of mentality does somebody have who thinks that organising an alternative meeting is tantamount to taking money for the CIA?

I suppose I could try to engage you in the various arguments about why the Social Forum model is not a very realistic or desirable route towards social change, but your bizzarely rabid denunciation of people for having the temerity to ORGANISE THEIR OWN MEETING - godammit!! leaves me safe in the knowledge that you're just not worth it.

Where can us anarchists go to collect our CIA chavez criticising money by the way? I've got a nice claim to file.

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:38

Yep, always boycott everything that involves a state or government. You have been doing it for centuries and will continue to do so until Christ descends from heaven and makes everything perfect. It's a great plan for effecting social change ......

It also probably explains why there will be some 80,000 progressive people of varying degrees from around the planet talking to each other at the WSF ... and 8 anarchists in a room somewhere at the (CIA Funded?) "alternative". On a positive note however .... there is no danger of the 8 ever being wrong. If Chavez somehow transforms himself into Mugabe they can always say "we told you so".

And as for the absurd opinion that those who appreciate positions adopted by the Chavez regime are "out of touch with the reality of poverty in Latin America" .... . it is precisely the poor of Venezuela who are the most appreciative.

by Me Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:31

I'm not sure the people of the barrios go around criticising 'Lula and other reformist states of south america because their rhetoric isn't left enough and the corruption is more openly talked about..." but they do notice a material difference in their lives under Chavez.

by ?! Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:18

Of course, of course, but those who praise Chavez are also the same who criticise Lulu and the other reformist states of south america because their rhetoric isn't left enough and the corruption is more openly talked about...

& certainly the roots of the IV international Social Fora are not in venezuala, just as the roots of the 1st or 5th international anarchists aren't either...

by Joe Black Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:15

The idea of a parallel alternative social forum at the WSF is not new - it has happened at the three previous social forums. So it happening has little to do with Chavez at all although the knee jerk assumption that it must tells you something about the limits of the Irish left.

Venezulan anarchists appear to have taken a number of different approaches to Chavez ranging from critical interraction with the 'Bolarvarian revolution' to 'a plage on both houses' (the position of El Libertario). There is some quite good discussion of the issues at

by Curious Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:11

I take it you would agree that bearing in mind the recent history of South America it is worth acknowledging that this event is taking place. Chavez and his 'mildly social democratic policies' are an improvement surely on the 'ancien regime'?

by iosaf Fri Nov 18, 2005 13:05

If he is, then he ought be opposed by anarchists even if he would be in the tradition of caudillos who stretch back to Bolivar. Its an important question to ask, we know we are opposed to "his opposition" but that doesn't mean we support him.
Many on the left seem to happy and quick in their automatic support of Chavez, simply because they want to see what he appears to offer - "a unified left wing south america in the bolivarian tradition".
Certainly Chavez's popularity is "xxi century caudillo like", and no-one can deny that he has already copperfastened his future place in history as "dauphin" to the Cuban revolution. So, was Castro a cuadillo? Does Castro and his regime have the same support now amongst the left as in the early years? or the years which followed of Che? or the years of non-alignment and the UN successes? or the years of Soviet satelite and Afghanistan? or the long decline?

In short will all those who praise Chavez now continue to praise him should he remain in power another 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years?
Have they stopped to wonder how long his project needs him at the helm to suceed?
How many who jump to admire him now, also in their day admired Mugabe?
Are we so short of critical thinking, are we so removed from the reality of latin american poverty that we need "a cheeky local hero"?
Why does the idea of "hola presidente!" work for so many people who've never watched spanish language tv?
******************************************************
By adding this comment, I don't want to say I am
"chavista" or "anti-chavez". I see him as a sort of political Diego Maradona. Stand strong Diego! but the moment I know he has become a "caudillo" I will say so. & do not for a moment think that to Venezualans of both left and right, there have not been many occassions when the stunts of Chavez seem as publicity seeking and manipulative as Willie O'dea holding a 9mm to the camera.

by Chekov Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:52

Anarchists have been consistently opposed to states and governments and so on for 150 years or so - far longer than the CIA has been around - so the claim that this is a CIA-front anti-Chavez thing is pretty silly. Do you really expect anarchists to drop their politics of centuries standing just because Chavez has some mildly social democratic policies and is disliked by the yanks?

I also fail to see how having an alternative social forum is anything at all similar to assisting the CIA?

by Seamus Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:36

heres one anarchist who wont be going to your "alternative" jingo, as if any self respecting anarchist would....

by Sam Lord Fri Nov 18, 2005 01:24

Yep, boycott the "official and state sponsored" WSF of the reactionary Chavez regime. Is Uncle Sam footing the bill for your alternative Social Forum or are you just too insignificant?