ISN Article: The way forward for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution

international | anti-capitalism | other press

Tuesday April 24, 2007 15:37

by Apparat - Irish Socialist Network

irishsocialistnetwork at dublin dot ie

http://irishsocialist.net/contact.html

irishsocialist.net

There’s one useful bench-mark for judging the progress of the Bolivarian revolution over the coming years – how much does the role played by Chavez himself diminish, and how rapidly? You can’t assess what’s happened in Venezuela over the last eight years realistically without recognising that Hugo Chavez has played a positive role. But an asset can become a liability, and the commanding position of Chavez could be an obstacle to the emergence of popular democracy in Venezuela. To succeed, the Bolivarian revolution will have to go beyond its dependence on Hugo Chavez.

The way forward for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution

http://irishsocialist.net/publications_chavismo_the_way_forward.html

save preference

Comments (8 of 8)

Sectarianism

by Celia S

Wed Apr 25, 2007 14:33

"There’s one useful bench-mark for judging the progress of the Bolivarian revolution over the coming years – how much does the role played by Chavez himself diminish, and how rapidly?"

Here we go again.... 'Dictator', 'cliques', 'anti-democratic'....' etc. etc. ad infinitum, an nauseum

I can think of a lot more useful bench-marks to assess the success or otherwise of the Bolivarian Revolution (social change - empowerment, utilisation of natural resources for the betterment of society, deepening participation in political processes, analyses of election results, trade union activism, expropriations, 'alternative voices', Bolivarian constitution, lack of 'revenge-seeking' etc, etc. etc.).

CS

Critical thought is not sectarian - it's what socialists are meant to do

by ISNer

Wed Apr 25, 2007 15:03

Did you actually read the article, "Celia S", or just compose a rant about "sectarianism" without taking the trouble? Here are the four paragraphs preceding the one quoted above, if you're too busy to read the whole thing:

"Judged by the standards of western capitalist democracy, the Chavez government has a healthy record. The recent decision to cancel the broadcasting licence of an opposition TV station was greeted with predictable hysteria – but if any private broadcaster in Europe or the United States had supported a failed coup against the elected government and helped to organise that coup, it would have been shut down the next day, not five years later.

In the same way, when Chavez suggested that the constitution could be changed to allow him to run for another term as president, it was considered proof by some that the former paratrooper wants to be a tyrannical president-for-life. Britain has seen two prime ministers serve three terms in office in the last thirty years, and Bertie Ahern will be seeking his third spell as Taoiseach later this year. Whatever you might say about Ahern, Maggie Thatcher or Tony Blair, none of them belongs in the same company as Kim Il Sung or General Pinochet.

It’s telling that few of the people expressing concern about the future of democracy in Venezuela were heard voicing their fears when the conservative bloc in Mexico fixed the presidential election last year to keep out a moderate left-winger. When Colombia’s president Alvaro Uribe is doing his best to legitimise the role of drug-dealing paramilitaries as a pillar of Colombian society, it’s hard not to be sickened when you hear claims that Chavez and Evo Morales are the biggest danger facing the region.

Having said all that, we shouldn’t spend too much time dwelling on the hypocrisy of right-wing commentators – that’s the sort of thinking that leads some left-wingers to make excuses for political repression in Cuba, because Castro hasn’t terrorised his people in the style of the death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. Chavez may come out smelling of roses when compared to Colombia’s Uribe or Mexico’s Calderon (or Brazil’s Lula for that matter), but socialists should judge his government by higher standards."

And the final paragraph might even have been written for you:

"Socialists outside Venezuela will be able to do more good and provide more useful forms of solidarity, the more they reject the one-dimensional style of thought that has often crippled the Left. We don’t have to choose between cheer-leading and condemnation – we can acknowledge the positive contribution made by Chavez without blinding ourselves to his flaws, and the flaws of his movement."

If you have any criticisms of the specific points made in the article, by all means make them. But don't tell us we have to be completely uncritical cheer-leaders of everything Hugo Chavez says and does, or else we belong in the same camp as right-wing reaction.

reply to ISNer

Wed Apr 25, 2007 18:21

ISNer

You are absolutely correct. I did not read the whole article. I tried to but could not access it from the location was in. It is never a good policy to respond to something that has not been analyzed and absorbed. Apologies in that regard. From the few additional paragraphs you have posted it is clear that you identify many, many positive aspects of the Bolivarian process.

However, it is curious that the only paragraph you chose to include in your initial blurb was that which most detractors usually note first - that of the potential 'cult of personality', and all the implications and connotations that that has - 'dictator' etc.

The corollary of this is why you chose to elevate this as a more distinct (important ?) bench-mark against which to judge the Bolivarian Revolution.

Lest it be forgotten, Hugo Chavez has presented himself, his movement and their political program to the electorate and 'won' more times in the last decade than anyone'any group has done anywhere else in the world.

May I add that most of your analyses I have read are usually quite well considered and communicated.

Maybe it was an error with editing??

Lastly, for what it is worth, I withdraw the allegation of 'sectarianism'. Of the ISN, it is an unjustified comment

CS

Fair enough

Thu Apr 26, 2007 13:10

As you can see, the article doesn't argue that Hugo Chavez is a dictator, or anything of the sort, and it doesn't refer to any "cult of personality". If you check out elsewhere on the ISN site, you'll find an article refuting the standard arguments used to "prove" that Chavez is setting up a dictatorship in Venezuela: http://www.irishsocialist.net/publications_hugo_chavez_....html. But the latest article was trying to identify potential problems that will have to be overcome, and the huge role that Chavez plays could be a problem. Very simply, what happens if he suddenly drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow? Pointing out this problem doesn't mean denouncing Chavez as some kind of power-hungry wannabe tyrant. If he means what he said about the new party being launched, he seems to recognise the problem himself.

The article does say that this is "one useful bench-mark" for judging progress: in other words, there are several other bench-marks, like the ones you mentioned, that all have to be taken into account. But it'd be worrying if in five or six years time, Chavez was still as central to the whole process as he is now. Fidel Castro has been the dominant personality in Cuba for nearly half a century now, and the problems with that should be obvious.

wouldn't it just be easier to talk about the bolivarian revolution without mentioning him?

by socialist - "the special one"

Thu Apr 26, 2007 13:34

It's been at least four years since the lamentable inclusion of the calque Chavista in the highly formulated discourse of english speaking socialists. It's been at least two years since most socialists who translate and work in the langauge the calque originated in - moved on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque

You were given ample opportunity to observe this development on this site. It is in every socialists interest to talk about the Bolivarian revolution and its achievements (one of the most recent was the nationalisation of the Orinoco river area c/f http://indymedia.ie/article/81239 ) You've also been given examples of how in real Spanish speaking Socialist and Bolivarian circles Chavez is spoken of.
With humour, affection and genuine admiration. It would be a very great mistake were you in the highly formulated and intelligent sphere of international english speaking socialism to under-estimate the wisdom in that humour.

Hugo Chavez needs a partner or a wife, he needs attention, he needs to be credited with helping the grand old man Fidel recover. He also needs the opposition of Bachelet and Lulu & to be quite honest he needs an indymedia. His project and the project of his people need to be linked to the progress made in Bolivia both by Morales and Álvaro García Linera. In other words - should Hugo drop dead tomorrow - the Bolivarian revolution will continue in Venezuela as beyond - but I suspect world english speaking Socialism would go into a flap having lost their latest "leader". The fixation with "strong leadership" is a horribly flawed analysis or way to shepherd english speaking socialists. We have long ago passed the need or function of such. & in the Socialist tradition they have a horrible habit of ending up on plinths as bronze statues or lapel badges.

Socialist revolution is not a dour humourless project which allows the enemy and propagandists of capitalism to use the same weapons as before. Bolivar was a caudillo. & a very popular one.
Chavez too is a caudillo. & a very popular one. He is "our man" who says the right things at the right times. But he is not the only architect of socialism in either his state or the continent. He is also a "larger than life character", a "rascal", an "egotist" & just one important player on the team.

It would be a great step forward by english-speaking Socialists if they learnt lessons from their own local regimes and opponents. The people no matter where they are found love rascals. They love "the man". He is "the peoples' Caudillo" & yes at times he oversteps - but mostly he gets it just right.

even the White House laugh with Hugo

by anarchist

Thu Apr 26, 2007 14:10

Hugo is a funny man. His sense of humour brought Fidel back. How many international socialists noticed that Fidel started joking again in the last 3 years? How many of the intellectuals who hate him being called a caudillo or talk of his lack of wife - or the mentioning of the 65% abstention or the future of a socieity so changed it won't need to reverse rule by decree - actually laugh at his jokes or notice them?

I suspect too many people in the English speaking world take him far too seriously & this could become a problem if it isn't already. You're boxing in your own understanding of revolutionary change.

Why do you prefer the idea of him being in the crosshairs of the CIA or the heavyweight of global revolution than actually being the quite loveable man he is? Did you salute him in his miliary cap warning the Brits to evacuate the Malvinas or just split your sides laughing? Do you reach for sandbags every time he reminds us the pentagon want him dead or throw your eyes up and groan? Did you run around your neighbourhood telling the capitalists Hugo was sending food aid to the poor of the USA after Katrina? or just clap your hands and say Maestro! Did you really fall for the "here's Fidel with a yoghurt, orange juice, cocktail, cigar!" routine and not see the news headlines squeezed & the people laughing? Do you know who produces his Telly?
Who is the real hero? the producer? the director? the script writer? Who has sold you this revolution?

Learn about humanity please!

+Look at his photos on this website for starters - look at the affect he has on people of all political backgrounds. That is not marxism - it has as little to do with marxism as most of his reforms - it's about personality. Really intelligent revolutionaries laugh. Only dour fanatics stare seriously across their steering comittee tables trying to seem weighty.

If Hugo goes - his replacement will be even funnier. estamos tomando el pelo ya. por eso venceremos. you really don't get it.

Nice Analysis

by G Timony

Mon Aug 06, 2007 16:50

Nice Analysis.
As for 'anarchist' above, s/he seemingly contradicts her/himself when criticisiing Hugo for his lack of marxism. A marxist anarchist eh? Now that's a new one for me. Personally I don't take marxism too seriously. As for Hugo's effect on some of the old leftist elitists (several of who supported the coup) one suspects a large element of pique is involved here as their egos have been somewhat dented by his practical success. As the analysis correctly points out there is a danger of relying too much on one man. We have to hope though that the 'Bolivarian revolution' develops deep enough roots to be able to survive without him when the inevitable backlash comes.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

ISN Article: The way forward for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution

Comments (8 of 8)