PANDEMONIUM REFERENDUM SPECIAL
DOCUMENTS
No. 1036
ORANGE ALERT!!
AUGUST 19
¡¡ALERTA NARANJA!!
*** Venezuela: Los frutos amargos del fraude
La "oposición" ahora bebe de la cicuta de su propia tiranía y dictadura.
Por Franz J.T. Lee.
*** Venezuela: Alienación y Emancipación
*** Diputado Saab calificó de fascista conducta de la oposición al cantar fraude.
*** The Importance of Hugo Chávez
Why Venezuela's Chavez Crushed the Oligarchs.
By: Tariq Ali - CounterPunch
18/08/04
Opción
del No aumentó a más de 5 millones
y medio de votos
-- a la fecha son 5 millones 553 mil 209 -- 59,06 %.
*************************************************
Venezuela: Los frutos amargos del fraude
La "oposición" ahora bebe de la cicuta de su propia tiranía y dictadura
Por Franz J.T. Lee
La Batalla de Santa Inés ha sido victoriosa, de hecho no
esperábamos otra cosa; sólo la "oposición"
todavía está gritando tenázmente "fraude". En
realidad, el referendo que ratificó la democrácia genuina
en Venezuela, igual que el Contrato Social de la Asamblea Nacional
Constituyente - del cual nació la Constitución
Bolivariana de 1999 y el cual generó la Revolución
Bolivariana - era el evento popular más auténtico de la
historia de la humanidad contemporánea.
Realmente, con todos sus altibajos, Venezuela está
enseñando al mundo una lección revolucionaria trás
la otra, está mostrándo a la humanidad lo que es una
revolución mundial y de qué se trata la
emancipación global.
La "oposición" que ha autoverificado que es un fraude en
sí, ahora vive viendo su propia mueca fraudulenta en todas
partes. Ya está más allá de cualquier remedio,
más allá de cualquier esperanza, redención y/o
salvación. ¡Miren, quien ahora está clamando:
"Lobo, lobo...!
La caricatura Venezolana oposicionista del homo homini lupus, vestida
de ovejas "coordinadas democráticamente"
patológicamente cree que el referendo era fraudulento y que
ellos lo ganaron.
Los fariseos "democráticos" y "cristianos" ahora de verdad
reciben una plena dósis de su propia disociación
sicótica, de su propia disonancia cognitiva, como lo suelen
practicar sus medios masivos a diario, cada segundo, a través
del éter, del ciberespacio y de las mentiras en tinta.
De hecho, y por más irónico que esto pareciera, ellos
están disfrutando de los frutos de sus propias mentiras; al fin
ellos mismos ahora saborean los frutos amargos de su propio fraude,
beben la cicuta de su propia "tiranía" y "dictadura". Nosotros,
como lo manifestó Chávez, solamente podemos desearles una
muerte felíz, junto a su "Cuarta República".
Sin embargo, el asunto no es tan simple como esto. La
"oposición" ha sido despedida por sus amos en Washington, pero
el fascismo global sigue en agonía, se convertirá en una
amenaza aún más violenta y peligrosa que jamás.
Ahora la Revolución Bolivariana transciende hacia su verdadera
dinámica dialéctica, hacia su verdadera negación,
hacia su verdadero proceso emancipatorio.
Tiene una negación triplemente interrelacionada, desde adentro,
a nivel nacional, desde afuera, a nivel internacional y combinada
trans-históricamente; y estas negaciones, es decir, la
profundización dialéctica de las contradicciones en el
fascismo global la van radicalizando progresivamente.
Internamente, se tiene que separar la paja del grano germinando.
La Revolución Bolivariana como resultado de condiciones
históricas específicas Venezolanas, todavía
contiene bastante arena sucia y petróleo pesado que tiene que
ser purificado, realmente refinado para lubricar los piñones y
pistones de la emancipación energética y al mismo tiempo
el movimiento Bolivariano se ve obligado de expresar este proceso en un
sentido práxico-teórico emancipador.
Después de la tormenta, muchos restos del naufragio
político de la "Cuarta República" sigue obstaculizando
los proyectos Bolivarianos. Su "Condor" transhistórico
aún no se eleva libremente a los cielos Andinos infinitos.
Como el Presidente Chávez ya ha explicado hace mucho tiempo,
algunos compatriotas nos han acompañado en este camino
revolucionario durante un tiempo y por las razones que sean, se
separarán de nosotros, sin embargo les agradeceremos su valiosa
participación. Así que la "Misión
Depuración" ahora está en el orden del día.
Externamente, su Negación que es el "Moloc" del ALCA, que a su
vez sufre una "crísis energética" dentro de su epicentro
fascista, rugiendo como un lobo ambriento por el "oro negro" y que,
destruyendo en megalomanía total cualquier cosa humana o sagrada
que llega bajo su bota beligerante janki, ahora más que nunca
odia cualquier cosa que está vinculada con Chávez o el
"Chavismo". La Batalla de Santa Inés - la pelota de beisbol que
aterrizó en el jardín de la Casa Blanca - puso las cosas
en su lugar, cambió todo y a cada uno hacia su reconocibilidad.
Sin embargo, a nivel global la Revolución Bolivariana se ha
convertido en una Revolución Mundial transhistórica, una
Revolución Permanente - esto pasa porque el capitalismo e
imperialismo corporativo mismo se ha convertido en algo global, se ha
convertido en terror brutal, en fascismo atroz concentrado,
monopolizado y centralizado, se ha convertido en la "negación"
de 6 billones de seres humanos, la negación de la humanidad
entera, de "cabezas de ganado" llevados a la carnicería del
"Cuarto Imperio" mediante el látigo nazi de las "armas de
destrucción masiva".
Finalmente cabe destacar que ahora realmente tenemos que "levantar las
armas contra un océano de problemas" que nos espera, "no en
filas aisladas sino en batallones completos" (Shakespeare), no en la
apariencia de una "oposición" decadente o de unos pocos
cadáveres puntofijistas, no en apariencia de unos zombis que
resucitaron del infierno de Dante, sino en forma de ataques que
provendrán de la NASA, del Pentágono, de las 15 CIAs, de
HAARP, de las ONDAS ELF, de las armas ABCDE... etc. Armas de
destrucción de todas las marcas y de todos los calibres. Algunos
de ellos ya fueron probados en Irak.
Así que "jacta alea est" (la suerte está echada), Santa
Inés termina de cruzar el rubicon, el punto de no regreso, ahora
enfrentando al majestuoso "Monte Éxodo", a los riscos
emancipatorios accesibles del Pico Bolívar cubiertos de nieve
eterna.
¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre!
******************************************************************
Aporrea.Org
Venezuela: Alienación y Emancipación
Por: Franz J. T. Lee
Publicado el Jueves, 19/08/04 12:47pm |
|
||||||||
![]() |
******************************************************************
Diputado Saab calificó de fascista conducta de la oposición al cantar fraude
Por: Venpres
Publicado el Jueves, 19/08/04 01:14pm |
| ||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
*****************************************************************
18-08-2004
Este
tirano inventado por los grandes medios de comunicación,
este temible demonio, acaba de dar una tremenda inyección
de vitaminas a la democracia, que en América Latina, y no
sólo en América Latina, anda enclenque y precisada
de energía.
Un mes antes, Carlos Andrés Pérez, angelito de Dios,
demócrata adorado por los grandes medios de comunicación,
anunció un golpe de Estado a los cuatro vientos. Lisa y llanamente
afirmó que “la vía violenta” era la única
posible en Venezuela, y despreció el referéndum “porque
no forma parte de la idiosincrasia latinoamericana”. La idiosincrasia
latinoamericana, o sea, nuestra preciosa herencia: el pueblo sordomudo.
Hasta hace pocos años, los venezolanos se iban a la playa cuando había elecciones. El voto no era, ni es, obligatorio. Pero el país ha pasado de la apatía total al total entusiasmo. El torrente de electores, colas enormes esperando al sol, a pie firme, durante horas y horas, desbordó todas las estructuras previstas para la votación. El aluvión democrático hizo también dificultosa la aplicación de la prevista tecnología último modelo para evitar los fraudes, en este país donde los muertos tienen la mala costumbre de votar y donde algunos vivos votan varias veces en cada elección, quizá por culpa del mal de Parkinson.
“¡Aquí
no hay libertad de expresión!”, claman con absoluta
libertad de expresión las pantallas de televisión,
las ondas de las radios y las páginas de los diarios. Chávez
no ha cerrado ni una sola de las bocas que cotidianamente escupen
insultos y mentiras. Impunemente ocurre la guerra química
destinada a envenenar a la opinión pública. El único
canal de televisión clausurado en Venezuela, el canal 8,
no fue víctima de Chávez sino de quienes usurparon
su presidencia, por un par de días, en el fugaz golpe de
Estado de abril del año 2002.
Y cuando Chávez volvió de la prisión, y recuperó
la presidencia en andas de una inmensa multitud, los grandes medios
venezolanos no se enteraron de la novedad. La televisión
privada estuvo todo el día pasando películas de Tom
y Jerry.
Esa televisión ejemplar mereció el premio que el rey
de España otorga al mejor periodismo. El rey recompensó
una filmación de esos días turbulentos de abril. La
filmación era una estafa. Mostraba a los salvajes chavistas
disparando contra una inocente manifestación de opositores
desarmados. La manifestación no existía, según
se ha demostrado con pruebas irrefutables, pero se ve que este detalle
no tenía importancia, porque el premio no fue retirado.
Hasta
ayercito nomás, en la Venezuela saudí, paraíso
petrolero, el censo reconocía oficialmente un millón
y medio de analfabetos, y había cinco millones de venezolanos
indocumentados y sin derechos cívicos.
Esos y otros muchos invisibles no están dispuestos a regresar
a Nadalandia, que es el país donde habitan los nadies. Ellos
han conquistado su país, que tan ajeno era: este referéndum
ha probado, una vez más, que allí se quedan.
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=3459
******************************************************************
The Importance of Hugo Chávez
Why Venezuela's Chavez Crushed the Oligarchs
By: Tariq Ali - CounterPunch
The turn-out in Venezuela last Sunday was huge. 94.9 percent of the electorate voted in the recall referendum.[i] Venezuela, under its new Constitution, permitted the right of the citizens to recall a President before s/he had completed their term of office. No Western democracy enshrines this right in a written or unwritten constitution. Chavez' victory will have repercussions beyond the borders of Venezuela. It is a triumph of the poor against the rich and it is a lesson that Lula in Brazil and Kirchner in Argentina should study closely. It was Fidel Castro, not Carter, whose advice to go ahead with the referendum was crucial. Chavez put his trust in the people by empowering them and they responded generously. The opposition will only discredit itself further by challenging the results.
The Venezuelan oligarchs and their parties, who had opposed this Constitution in a referendum (having earlier failed to topple Chavez via a US-backed coup and an oil-strike led by a corrupt union bureaucracy) now utilised it to try and get rid of the man who had enhanced Venezuelan democracy. They failed. However loud their cries (and those of their media apologists at home and abroad) of anguish, in reality the whole country knows what happened. Chavez defeated his opponents democratically and for the fourth time in a row. Democracy in Venezuela, under the banner of the Bolivarian revolutionaries, has broken through the corrupt two-party system favoured by the oligarchy and its friends in the West. And this has happened despite the total hostility of the privately owned media: the two daily newspapers, Universal and Nacional as well as Gustavo Cisneros' TV channels and CNN made no attempt to mask their crude support for the opposition.
Some foreign correspondents in Caracas have convinced themselves that Chavez is an oppressive caudillo and they are desperate to translate their own fantasies into reality.. They provide no evidence of political prisoners, leave alone Guantanamo-style detentions or the removal of TV executives and newspaper editors (which happened without too much of a fuss in Blair's Britain).
A few weeks ago in Caracas I had a lengthy discussion with Chavez ranging from Iraq to the most detailed minutiae of Venezuelan history and politics and the Bolivarian programme. It became clear to me that what Chavez is attempting is nothing more or less than the creation of a radical, social-democracy in Venezuela that seeks to empower the lowest strata of society. In these times of deregulation, privatisation and the Anglo-Saxon model of wealth subsuming politics, Chavez' aims are regarded as revolutionary, even though the measures proposed are no different to those of the post-war Attlee government in Britain. Some of the oil-wealth is being spent to educate and heal the poor.
Just under a million children from the shanty-towns and the poorest villages now obtain a free education; 1.2 million illiterate adults have been taught to read and write; secondary education has been made available to 250,000 children whose social status excluded them from this privilege during the ancien regime; three new university campuses were functioning by 2003 and six more are due to be completed by 2006.
As far as healthcare is concerned, the 10,000 Cuban doctors, who were sent to help the country, have transformed the situation in the poor districts, where 11,000 neighbourhood clinics have been established and the health budget has tripled. Add to this the financial support provided to small businesses, the new homes being built for the poor, an Agrarian Reform Law that was enacted and pushed through despite the resistance, legal and violent, by the landlords. By the end of last year 2,262,467 hectares has been distributed to 116,899 families. The reasons for Chavez' popularity become obvious. No previous regime had even noticed the plight of the poor.
And one can't help but notice that it is not simply a division
between the wealthy and the poor, but also one of skin-colour. The
Chavistas tend to be dark-skinned, reflecting their slave and native
ancestry. The opposition is light-skinned and some of its more
disgusting supporters denounce Chavez as a black monkey. A puppet show
to this effect with a monkey playing Chavez was even organised at the
US Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the
Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology.
The bizarre argument advanced in a hostile editorial in The Economist this week that all this was done to win votes is extraordinary. The opposite is the case. The coverage of Venezuela in The Economist and Financial Times
has consisted of pro-oligarchy apologetics. Rarely have reporters in
the field responded so uncritically to the needs of their proprietors.
The Bolivarians wanted power so that real reforms could be
implemented. All the oligarchs have to offer is more of the past and
the removal of Chavez.
It is ridiculous to suggest that Venezuela
is on the brink of a totalitarian tragedy. It is the opposition that
has attempted to take the country in that direction. The Bolivarians
have been incredibly restrained. When I asked Chavez to explain his own
philosophy, he replied:
'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labour and never forget that some of it was slave labour, then I say 'We part company'. I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said 'You must pay your taxes'. I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias.'
And that's why he won.
Tariq Ali's latest book, Bush in Babylon: The Re-colonisation of Iraq, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com
[i] Editor’s note: the percentage of ballots counted for the preliminary result was 94.9%. Turn-out, which was indeed one of the highest in Venezuela’s recent history was approximately 72%, or 10 million voters out of 14 million registered.
Original source / relevant link:
CounterPunch
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1253
*************************************************************************
It is a mistake to try and demonize or isolate Chavez Venezuela's Referendum Should Be a Wake-Up Call for the United States
By: Mark Weisbrot On a TV show in Caracas last week, supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez picked up a six foot long baseball bat, taking up their baseball-loving leader's metaphor for the "home run" he would hit in the country's recall referendum. And on Sunday the ball was indeed knocked out of the park, with voters choosing to keep their president by 58 to 42 percent. It's the third time that Chavez has won the popular vote by a large margin, and it is time for the U.S. foreign policy establishment -- including the media -- to take another look at their scorecards. The result has implications not only for Venezuela, but for the entire region. First, it shows that an anti-poverty agenda can be an electoral success in a country where the majority of people are poor -- as is true for most of Latin America. Millions of Venezuelans now have access for the first time to medical and dental care, education, literacy programs, microcredit loans, and even some land that has been redistributed in rural areas. There is no doubt that these programs, as well as a sense of political inclusion that the country's impoverished majority did not have prior to Chavez' first election in 1998, were a huge factor in this election. It is true that recent oil price increases have made it easier for the Venezuelan government to keep its promises to share the country's oil wealth with the poor. But there are many Latin American countries that could afford similar improvements in the lives of poor people, if they were willing to make it a priority. Of course social programs for the poor are not sustainable if the economy does not grow, and that has been the number one economic problem in Latin America for the past quarter-century. That is why Venezuela is just one of several countries where left-wing or populist candidates have won elections (Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador) or come very close (Bolivia) in the last few years. A long-term, unprecedented economic failure is driving these political developments. From 1960-79 the region grew by 80 percent per capita, allowing for considerable improvement in overall living standards despite the worst income inequality in the world. From 1980-99, it grew by only 11 percent, or hardly at all; and for the first half of the current decade, an abysmal one percent for the whole five years. It is hard to comprehend the magnitude of this failure, which is worse than any comparable period, even including the Great Depression. And since most of the post-1980s economic reforms -- liberalization of trade and investment flows, privatization, high interest rates and tight fiscal policies, even during recessions -- have carried "made in the USA" label, it is not surprising that the political revolt in Latin America has been against Washington's influence and the economic policies that are called "neo-liberalism" there. So it is a mistake to try and demonize or isolate Chavez. He is only the most vocal representative of a broad swath of political leaders and social movements with the same view. Indeed, President Lula's Workers Party of Brazil, along with their largest trade union confederation and leading intellectuals and artists, took the unusual step of publicly expressing support for Chavez in the referendum. And despite the disingenuous efforts of U.S. officials such as Roger Noriega and Otto Reich to paint Venezuela as another Cuba, the country is as free and democratic as any in Latin America -- as the world witnessed once again in this latest vote. Despite political polarization and class conflict, no reputable international human rights organization would argue that political rights or freedoms have deteriorated under the Chavez government, as compared with either previous governments or others in the Americas. The Bush team supported a military coup against Chavez in 2002 as well as the recall effort -- which also received U.S. taxpayer dollars from the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy. But they were unusually quiet as the vote drew near. They do not want to promote any instability that might raise the price of gasoline between now and November 2. But whatever happens in our own election, we are going to need a new foreign policy towards Venezuela -- and the rest of Latin America. Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC, USA | ||||||