PANDEMONIUM REFERENDUM SPECIAL
No. 1037

Sign Guestbook
View Guesbook
ESPAÑOL & ENGLISH:
*** Why we support the Bolivarian Revolution wholeheartedly
By Jutta Schmitt.
*** Venezuela Defeats the Coupmakers.
*** Beyond Populism: Venezuela and the International Left.
***
América Latina, Venezuela: Ahora el zorro corporativo
está cuidando nuestros pollitos electorales democráticos
Por: Franz J.T. Lee. Aporrea.Org.
*** Google News.
*** Please hand the opposition the silver bullet ... so it may finally rest in peace.
Jutta Schmitt.
*** MORE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING JUTTA'S "SILVER BULLET" ARTICLE.
*** Franz J. T. Lee: Venezuela's opposition coupsters and CNN, BBC, DPA, AP lies.
*** David Sheegog: The future is being written in Venezuela as we speak.
*** Venezuela: ¿Cómo hacer la democracia sin
demócratas?
Heinz Dieterich
Rebelión

Why we support the Bolivarian Revolution wholeheartedly
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:05
PM
Subject: My 'Revolution' Will Not Hurt
You, Chavez Tells Foes
What do you think of Chavez here assuring the capitalist class that all
is well?
Richard
Published on Sunday, August 22, 2004
by Reuters
My 'Revolution' Will Not Hurt
You, Chavez Tells Foes
by Pascal Fletcher
CARACAS, Venezuela
- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told his opponents on Sunday
they should not fear his left-wing "revolution" after his referendum win and
pledged to respect private wealth and fight corruption.
While he
offered a dialogue to foes who accepted his victory in the Aug. 15 recall
poll, Chavez said he would ignore opposition leaders who refused to recognize
his mandate and urged other Latin American leaders to ostracize them as
well.
In a television broadcast, the populist leader sought to dispel
fears among rich and middle-class Venezuelans that he planned to launch a
fresh ideological offensive against their status and property.
"What we
want is national unity ... this revolution should not frighten anybody,"
Chavez said during his weekly "Hello President" TV and radio
show.
Opposition leaders say Chavez won the recall vote through fraud
by rigging voting machines, but international observers found no evidence of
cheating.
Venezuela has remained calm through the referendum, but some
opposition leaders have called for protests. This has raised concerns of
renewed conflict in the world's No. 5 oil exporter, which has been bitterly
divided over Chavez's rule.
First elected in 1998, Chavez won 59
percent of the referendum vote and will now serve until 2006
elections.
"All this stuff about Chavez and his hordes coming to sweep
away the rich, it's a lie," he said. "We have no plan to hurt you. All your
rights are guaranteed, you who have large properties or luxury farms or
cars."
But he pledged to intensify social programs for the poor and
proceed with reforms of Venezuela's Supreme Court and judiciary that critics
say are squandering the country's oil resources and seek to consolidate his
personal grip on power.
He also vowed to "fight to the death against
corruption."
"GO TO MARS"
Chavez said he would no longer deal
with the opposition Democratic Coordinator coalition, which promoted the
referendum challenge and now refuses to accept his win.
"We cannot talk
with people who don't recognize this result or the constitution ... if they
want to start a rebellion in the mountains, then let them," said Chavez, who
himself led a failed coup bid six years before winning 1998
elections.
He suggested these opposition leaders fly "to Mars or Venus"
to find support for their fraud charges.
Chavez said the Democratic
Coordinator group, which he accuses of backing a short-lived 2002 coup, should
face sanctions in the Organization of American States for what he called their
anti-democratic attitude.
He added he would lobby other South American
presidents to cut all contacts with the opposition coalition.
Chavez
also appointed Jesse Chacon, a close political ally and former military
colleague, as interior minister.
Chacon replaced Gen. Lucas Rincon, who
was made interior minister early last year when Chavez was battling a grueling
opposition strike.
Chavez also named Andres Izarra, a journalist who
was press attache at Venezuela's embassy in Washington, as information
minister.
Additional reporting by Ana Isabel
Martinez
© Copyright 2004 Reuters
Ltd
###
--
Check out our website at:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
"I'd rather vote for something I want and
not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it". Eugene
Debs
Richard Mellor
Member, AFSCME Local
444
Oakland CA
**************************
Richard,
The Bolivarian Revolution here in
Venezuela is, according to our analysis and placed in the context of the even,
uneven and combined development, the effort to accomplish the pending
historical tasks of the French (bourgeois) revolution, such as the
agrarian reform introduced by Chávez´ government, the push for
industrialization beyond the oil / extractive industry sector, and
the building of a national bourgeoisie, which has been a
continuous effort of this government since 1999.
Simultaneously and facing today´s globalized
reality, the Chávez government has been strongly pushing towards Latin
American integration, in order to effectively counter the USA´s Free Trade
Area for the Americas (FTAA), which originally was going to take effect in 2005,
a plan aborted for now. Latin American Integration, however, presupposes the
existence of respective national bourgeoisies in all of the hemisphere´s
countries, yet we know, that historically and as a result of the establishment
of the world market, national, productive bourgeoisies - as we have
known them in Europe for instance - , never came to be a reality in the "Third
World" countries, where the economic structures and the capital accumulation
models were, from the very beginning, unilaterally oriented towards the
extractive industries and/or agri-monocultural production, mainly for
exportation.
Pretending to catch up with the historical
tasks of national capital accumulation, industrialization and the formation of a
national bourgeoisie inmidst of the de facto existing, globalized
corporate world, under the economic and financial dictate of
the few giga-corporations that dominate the world market, is
comparable to "fighting the hen with the egg".
Finally and given Venezuela´s specific
situation, where we have seen kind of a "rentist state model of capital
accumulation" operating through the 20th century, based on the State´s
income from the oil extractive industry, the behaviour of the economy
always stronlgy has depended on oil prices. Depending on these, we have seen
efforts in the past of a redistribution of national wealth,
favouring the lower classes of Venezuelan society, and this is what we see again
today, under Chávez´ government, which, in addition, has tried to
politically empower the lower classes to a certain
extent, which may be considered the epicentre of the Bolivarian
Revolution.
Given all these factors, can we really speak
of a "revolution" here? - Certainly not in terms of a socialist revolution, in
terms of socializing the means and gains of production. Even if the new
constitution (1999) is a comparatively progressive and innovative one, the
right to private property keeps being enshrined in it and thus
does not affect the continuity of capitalist production.
However, and given the concentration
and monopolization of capital on a global scale, the fascist face of which we
have been seeing ever since the "New American Century" has (unofficially) been
proclaimed with its merciless drive to preventively stop and
crush all remaining competitors for energy and markets on a world wide
scale, we have to support each and every effort, however obsolete in time and
limited in space, to counter the existing global barbarism, and this is
why we are supporting the "Bolivarian Revolution", especially the radical
tendencies that do exist within it, and that tend to transcend it
towards overcoming the capitalist mode of production as such.
Greetings,
Jutta.
*************************************************************************
Venezuela Defeats the Coupmakers
By: Lee Sustar - Socialist
Worker
VENEZUELA’S POOR met the news of Hugo
Chávez’s referendum victory with joy. Thousands of people from the
nearby barrio of Catia jammed the streets around Miraflores, the
presidential palace, just as they did in April 2002 to defy--and
defeat--a U.S.-backed military coup.
This time, the scene was sheer celebration, with demonstrators
dancing in the streets to the music of popular salsa bands. Young
people crammed onto the back of pickup trucks. One of the many 1970s
Chevy sedans seen around the city--kept on the road through
necessity, and by the ingenuity of Caracas’ poor--somehow crawled
along with 20 people on board, jammed inside and standing on
top.
The numbers in the streets were still growing when Chávez
addressed the crowd from the palace balcony, shortly after 4 a.m. on
August 16. Perhaps the biggest cheer came when he declared, "This is
a blow to the center of the White House."
A few hours later, Chavistas organized caravans, honking their
horns in the rhythm of the popular chant: "Uh, ah, Chávez no se va!"
(Chávez isn’t going!) "This is a victory for the people," said Maria
Luisa Delgado, a retired teacher, as she and a friend prepared to
join a celebration in the midst of opposition territory--the upper
middle class suburb of San Antonio de los Altos. "We have real
democracy in Venezuela, participatory and proactive."
Predictably, the misnamed Democratic Coordinator--the opposition
coalition funded by the U.S. government-backed National Endowment
for Democracy--made claims about fraud in the functioning of the
electronic voting system. But these charges were undercut when
international observers--including former U.S. president Jimmy
Carter--accepted the results announced by Venezuela’s National
Election Commission, with 58 percent voting "no" to the recall and
42 percent "yes."
Even the U.S. State Department went along. With 94 percent of the
votes counted, the vote count for Chávez was nearly 5 million--an
increase of more than 1 million votes over his total in the 2000
elections. The opposition had won 3.6 million "yes" votes in a
turnout initially estimated at 80 percent. The huge turnout in the
barrios made it clear that Chávez still has the backing of the 80
percent of the population that lives under the poverty line.
In a country that, according to one recent study, has more social
inequality than Brazil or South Africa, the wealthy have despised
Chávez all along for raising the expectations of the poor. Today,
they hate him even more intensely for delivering on his promises,
with a series of anti-poverty programs paid for by rising revenues
from oil exports.
The U.S., meanwhile, sees Chávez’s nationalism as a dangerous
break with the free-market "neoliberal" policies of the so-called
Washington consensus. In a period in which popular rebellions
against intolerable economic and social conditions have overturned
governments across South America, Chávez is bidding to become a
regional leader.
Plus, his regular denunciations of U.S. imperialism have always
infuriated U.S. officials--and today carry added weight because of
the crisis of the U.S. occupation in Iraq. All this is reason enough
for Washington to undermine Chávez.
And since Venezuela is the number one exporter of oil to the
U.S., the situation was even more embarrassing for Washington:
Chávez not only regularly pokes Uncle Sam in the eye, he does it
with pocketfuls of U.S. dollars. That’s why the U.S. backed the
military coup against Chávez in April 2002--euphemistically referred
to as a "temporary alteration of constitutional order" on the U.S.
State Department Web site--and immediately recognized the new
government of the coup-makers.
But the opposition immediately showed its true dictatorial
colors--provoking a popular rebellion that toppled the new regime
within two days and forced the military to allow Chávez’s triumphant
return. Now, if a report in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo is
accurate, the CIA concluded that Chávez’s victory in the recall vote
was inevitable--and that Washington’s spies had met with its Latin
American counterparts in Chile to discuss Chávez’s alleged plans to
spread his "Bolivarian revolution" to neighboring countries.
This, of course, is nonsense--but it provides a pretext for
future efforts to isolate and destabilize Venezuela. That will be
harder now, however. Chávez’s victory is the seventh in a series of
electoral successes for his movement--including his first election
win in 1998 after the collapse of Venezuela’s political parties; the
election of a constituent assembly the following year to write a new
constitution; and Chávez’s reelection in 2000 for a six-year
term.
Now Chávez has rolled up his biggest majority yet. But that won’t
bring political stability to Venezuela. Not only will the opposition
and its U.S. backers keep hammering away, but the contradictions
between Chávez’s politics and his social base are likely to come
into the open.
At a press conference prior to the election, Chávez vowed to meet
with leaders of the opposition immediately after the vote--the
latest in a series of attempts to make a deal. Given the size of his
victory, he may find some takers among some big business executives
and opposition figures--but only as they buy time until they can
challenge him again.
Behind the rise of Chavismo
CHÁVEZ’S DEALINGS with the opposition and big business highlights
the contradictory role of a man who calls himself a revolutionary,
but who runs a capitalist state dominated by a hostile bureaucracy.
Much of the government remains staffed by members of the two
traditional ruling parties of Venezuela--the center-left Democratic
Action (AD, according to its initials in Spanish) and the
conservative Social Christian Party (known as COPEI).
These two parties ruled Venezuela according to a power-sharing
pact negotiated in 1958 after the collapse of a military
dictatorship. By constitutionally mandating nationwide slates for
elections and centralizing power in the federal government--state
governors were appointed, for example--AD and COPEI were able to
exclude rival parties, such as the Communist Party, from mounting a
serious challenge.
Party cadres regularly stole elections by intimidating voters at
polling places, invalidating ballots and manipulating registration
lists. Their omnipresent political machines were funded by revenues
from the oil company, PDVSA--which was nationalized in 1976 under
President Carlos Andrés Pérez of the AD party, along with other
industries.
This state capitalism reinforced the political power of the two
ruling parties--and produced an economy and a state permeated with
corruption. During the financial crisis of the 1980s, for example,
government officials helped their cronies gain easy access to
dollars, allowing an $11 billion capital flight from the country,
while real wages for Venezuelans plunged 20 percent.
This was a symptom of a wider economic crisis of stagnation, as
the state-run industries were squeezed by competition on the world
market. Meanwhile, PDVSA, supposedly run by the state, became a
power unto itself, investing money in overseas operations to
minimize taxes.
It was in this context that Pérez was elected president again in
1988. This time, he launched an aggressive neoliberal austerity
plan, cutting government spending and allowing huge price increases
for essential goods, in accordance with an International Monetary
Fund (IMF) agreement.
This triggered a spontaneous, insurrectionary protest on February
27, 1989, in which as many as 1,500 were killed by police and the
armed forces, according to activists. The repression caused a crisis
inside the army among mid-ranking officers and soldiers, including
Chávez.
In 1992, he led a military coup against Pérez, but surrendered
and was imprisoned. Chávez wasn’t seen as a would-be military
dictator, but as a popular hero--and he was pardoned the following
year. He began to articulate the anger and aspirations of workers
and the poor, who had suffered under the government’s harsh
neoliberal policies.
The percentage of workers in the informal sector--those in day
labor, street vending and the like--grew from 34.5 percent to 53
percent by 1999. Real wages in Venezuelan industry--which includes
auto assembly plants for both General Motors and Ford--dropped by 40
percent between 1980 and the late 1990s.
This was part of a wider shift in wealth from the poor to the
rich. Between 1981 and 1997, the poorest 40 percent saw their share
of income drop from 19.1 percent to 14.7 percent in 1997, while the
richest 10 percent grabbed a third of the national income. In the
decade up to 1994, poverty rates nearly doubled, reaching 66
percent.
Over the same period, budget cuts obliterated what had been one
of the more developed welfare states among poor countries. Spending
on housing and urban development was slashed by 70 percent in the
early 1990s, health care by 37 percent, and social development by 56
percent.
All this meant that Chávez found a ready audience for his ideas
of a nationalist "Bolivarian revolution"--named for Simón Bolívar,
the leader of Venezuela’s anti-colonial struggle against Spain in
the early 19th century. Although "Bolivarian" politics were vaguely
defined, one point was clear: the poor had suffered long enough, and
their time had come.
Revolution from above?
CHÁVEZ SUPPORTERS describe the political changes in Venezuela as
"el proceso"--shorthand for the Bolivarian revolutionary process.
"El proceso"--which Chávez called a "third way" between capitalism
and "failed" communism--began haltingly when he took office in
1999.
The high-profile Plan Bolivar 2000 put the military in charge of
several anti-poverty programs, such as repair of homes, schools and
public buildings; medical aid; and food distribution. More
far-reaching was land reform.
In a country where 70 percent of agricultural land is owned by
just 3 percent of the population, Chávez’s government turned over
state-owned land to 130,000 families in 2003 (takeover of private
land has been authorized, but not implemented). Urban land reform
gave property deeds to families in poor neighborhoods where
community organizations organized to request them.
The late 1990s recession, a collapse in oil prices, and capital
flight from Venezuela soon limited funds for reform, however. With
the economy shrinking, the opposition was able to mobilize a massive
anti-Chávez march on April 11, 2002--which served as the springboard
for the failed military coup.
The next blow was the oil industry strike called by the
Venezuelan labor federation, the CTV--historically "financially
dependent on successive AD governments and politically controlled by
the AD party," as Venezuela specialist Julia Buxton wrote in a
recent book on the country. Oil workers and the military were able
to break what amounted to a lockout, but the economy was devastated,
shrinking 8.9 percent in 2002 and another 9.4 percent last year.
The Economist magazine smugly predicted Chávez’s eventual
downfall. But the spike in world oil prices--thanks in part to the
U.S. war and occupation of Iraq--has changed all that. The
Venezuelan economy is on track to grow by as much as 12 percent this
year.
This allowed Chávez to launch new reform projects, known as
"missions," to bypass the inefficient bureaucracy and shore up his
political support. The programs include subsidized food markets for
the poor; medical care in rural areas and urban slums provided by
Cuban doctors; and greater access to higher education.
The missions were key to mobilizing countless delegations from
the barrios for a mammoth pro-government rally August 8 in
Caracas--estimated at over 1 million strong. "The victory of Chávez
means that Venezuela is finally coming to use its riches for the
well-being of the people," said 70-year-old Maria Carmen.
Argelio, a young man from the Barrio Adentro anti-poverty
mission, said that Caracas "popular zones" like his were central to
Venezuela’s political change. "The barrio of Del Valle is important
to the Venezuelan revolution, to our liberty, to patriotism, to the
people of Venezuela."
The anti-poverty programs and reforms, coupled with Chávez’s
frequent denunciations of U.S. imperialism and neoliberalism, mark a
break from the free-market "Washington consensus" of privatization,
deregulation and "flexible" labor policies imposed across Latin
America. Chávez’s network of advisers includes leaders of the French
anti-globalization group ATTAC and a number of internationally known
left-wing intellectuals.
But does this constitute a "revolution?" In some respects, Chávez
is a throwback to Latin America’s nationalist and populist leaders
of the past--Lázaro Cárdenas in 1930s Mexico, and Juan Perón in
Argentina a decade later. But where these governments nationalized
key industries to develop their economies, Chávez hasn’t moved to
expropriate private industry.
Instead, he’s trying to use his control of the PDVSA oil company
to discipline Venezuelan big business and become more assertive in
trade agreements--opposing the Free Trade Area of the Americas, for
example. In this sense, Chávez is following a policy that Brazilian
President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva calls "sovereign insertion"
into the world market.
This is a policy of reasserting national initiative against
imperialism and its institutions--including the IMF, World Bank and
World Trade Organization. Yet where Lula has capitulated to those
pressures, Chávez has pushed back, using oil revenues to chart a
different course.
Even so, Chávez has continued to pay off the IMF loan sharks, and
he’s sought to reconcile with sections of Venezuelan capitalists.
The majority of workers--including those in the left-wing labor
center, the National Union of Workers (UNT)--support Chávez against
the employer-backed opposition. Many UNT affiliates pulled out of
the CTV federation following the oil industry lockout.
Still, real wages haven’t increased, and the employers’
decimation of jobs through layoffs and outsourcing hasn’t been
addressed. A strike earlier this year by the independent
steelworkers’ union at Venezuela’s steel company--half owned by the
state and half by a consortium of foreign companies--brought these
issues into the open.
For its part, the CTV accuses the UNT--which gets preferential
treatment from Chávez--of being virtually an arm of the state. The
UNT has received resources from the government--but also at times
has found itself at odds with government policy.
The Venezuelan capitalists who run the privatized companies have
their own links to the world market and are loathe to hand the
initiative to Chávez and the state. They and their backers in
Washington--which includes Republicans and Democrats alike--will
continue to undermine Venezuela’s government.
What’s next in Venezuela?
THE RESULTS of Venezuela’s referendum are a victory for everyone
opposed to neoliberalism and U.S. imperialism--in Venezuela and
around the world. But the polarization of Venezuelan society
reflected in the recall vote won’t be resolved by the election
results.
Washington’s intervention will continue. Venezuelan big business
and the wealthy may hanker for a military coup like Chile in
1973--but the armed forces remain loyal to Chávez, so they will have
to build an electoral opposition and bide their time.
Yet the often-quoted phrase of Chávez supporters that "the
Venezuelan military are on the side of the people" is no guarantee
against a future coup. Armies are inherently rigid, conservative and
hierarchical institutions, in which the chain of command is followed
unquestioningly if they are to be effective--and the top officers
are socially intertwined with the wealthy and powerful.
The military, after all, is the core of a state that reflects and
reinforces class relations in society. Chávez’s "Bolivarian
Revolution" has tried to remold and bypass that state--but hasn’t
dismantled it. That means the process of social change will be
continually impeded and undermined, if not blocked altogether.
Since the defeat of the oil lockout, activists on the left in
popular organizations and the movement have complained that "el
proceso" has been bureaucratized and "cleaned up." In an interview
after the referendum results were announced, Roland Denis, a former
vice minister for local planning in the Chávez government and an
activist with the popular organizations, said that the struggle will
intensify after the celebrations are over.
"This is a process that is immensely majoritarian, sustained
fundamentally, of course, by the popular classes, and [the election
results] show their force," said Denis, who was reportedly forced
from office for being too left wing. "It’s evident, however, that
revolutionaries can’t rely on an electoral plan to construct a new
society."
He added that there is a "big contradiction between the policy of
the process and its program"--tensions between leading elements who
want to slow down the changes, and those who want to break with all
limitations and "deepen" the process. This reflects the fact that
Chávez has so far been able to balance antagonistic
classes--business and the wealthy on one side, workers and the poor
on the other.
As in previous elections in Venezuela, the recall vote channelled
that conflict into the ballot box. Now, Chávez’s recall victory,
along with economic growth and the anti-poverty missions, will raise
popular demands for deeper change.
That can bring workers and the poor into struggle for their own
interests--faster and more extensive land reforms, rebuilding the
traditional health care system, higher wages, more jobs. Such
struggles will be met with ferocious resistance by business and the
wealthy--and force the Chávez government to choose sides.
In the midst of those battles, the debate over the nature and
direction of the revolutionary process in Venezuela will
develop--and have an enormous impact across Latin America and around
the world.
Original source / relevant link: Socialist Worker
|
2003
VenezuelAnalysis.com
Ongoing News, Views and Analysis from
Venezuela
**************************************************************************
Beyond Populism: Venezuela and the International Left
By: Jonah Gindin - Canadian Dimension
All over the world, the international
Left — including the global social justice movement — is peering
sceptically at Venezuela, unsure of what to make of President Hugo
Chávez’ alleged democratic revolution. Is Chávez the next Allende? Is
the ‘Bolivarian revolution’ really revolutionary? Is it
anti-capitalist? Or does he merely represent another chimera in a long
line of populists who rile up the masses with rousing condemnations of
US Imperialism, only to quietly cut deals with international capital?
Hesitation, wariness, doubts — these feelings are understandable; the
Left has been taken in before by Latin America’s infamous, ephemeral
caudillo. But it is wrong to merely lump Chávez in with that sordid
history of pseudo-revolutionaries. Yet placing him in Allende’s lineage
is not entirely accurate either. Chávez is, after all, not exactly
socialist. He hasn’t even nationalized anything (yet). But the
relevance of the Venezuelan experience to the Left is fundamental.
Something is happening in Venezuela that should inspire progressives
everywhere, and it is the responsibility of the Left to learn from this
experience — and more than that — to ensure that it is not extinguished
before it has a chance to catch. At this key and contested juncture in Latin American history, the
Bolivarian revolution has been leading the regional struggle against
neoliberalism, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); it
has been fomenting regional cooperation; and developing elements of a
hopeful model of participatory democracy. Venezuela’s leadership has
been based on a serious alternative model of democratic development,
backed by a politicized and well-organized alliance between grassroots
organizations and the executive of the state.
Since Venezuela’s ‘democracy’ was born in 1958 the political system
has been dominated by Accion Democratica (AD-social-democratic) and
Copei (social-christian)-essentially a two-party polyarchy that kept
oil-rents circulating in elite circles. But by the 1990s corruption and
unpopular structural adjustment programs led to a nationwide rejection
of traditional politics and opened a space for an alternative political
movement. Hugo Chávez, a former paratrooper, filled the void with a
radical critique of the old politics, and a new constitution aimed at
profoundly transforming the economic, political, and social
organization of Venezuelan society. Chávez won the presidential
elections in 1998 and again in 2000 with over 50 per cent of the vote,
and his movement has since won a series of elections, plebiscites and
referenda.
Anti-Neoliberal
Article 73 of the Constitution obliges the state to keep its
citizens informed about the implications of issues under negotiation in
the FTAA.” It states that, “International treaties, conventions, and
agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power
to supranational entities shall be submitted to referendum.” This
position on the FTAA is more than xenophobia, more than casual
resistance to US influence, more, even, than anti-neoliberal: it is
democratic.
In attempting to foster a viable challenge to US-led
neoliberalism, the Bolivarian revolution has developed a broad,
participatory democratic model that includes economic and social rights
as well as the goal of a complete redefinition of political rights.
Venezuela’s unusual combination of oil wealth and the considerable
support for the revolution within the military has allowed it to limit
the degree of its dependence on international financial institutions
and the US.
The Revolution on the Ground
Unlike the populist caudillos who promised, and occasionally
actually did things for the working poor, Chávez’ emphasis and
commitment have been to providing support and resources for developing
their organizational capacities.
One of the most interesting examples of this revolutionary
redefinition of democracy is the funding of community organizations
such as the Organizaciones Comunitario Viviendo (OCVs-Community Living
Organizations) — the most local level of a network of community,
district, and municipal organizations at the centre of the Bolivarian
revolution’s project of decentralization. These OCVs are made up of one
member from a maximum of 30 families who allocate funding received from
the municipality (and ultimately from the state oil company PDVSA)
according to their needs. Autonomous decision-making at the community
level and the broader movement towards decentralization have combined
with access to free education, childcare and health-care to politicize
many Venezuelan communities, providing them with the impetus and the
ability to lay the foundation for a more profound, long-term
revolutionary transformation.
Free educational projects now provide education from basic literacy
to university-level in classrooms located in poor areas all over the
country. Free childcare facilities are coming to more and more
communities, extending the right to education to overwhelmed parents. A
similar project known as ‘Barrio Adentro’ (Inside the Neighbourhood)
uses Cuban doctors to provide primary health-care in some of
Venezuela’s poorest and most inaccessible hillside barrios.
Yet it is difficult to completely transform political, economic and
social relations overnight — especially in a country with so much
wealth at stake. Many elements of the old state remain, and a
forty-year tradition of bureaucratic corruption will not disappear
quietly. At root is the fact that Venezuela remains a capitalist state
and state structures remain oriented towards the global economy, rather
than towards extending and applying Venezuelan democracy to the
economy. Compounding these internal limitations is the Venezuelan
opposition, at core the old elite, who remain in control of production
and of the media.
Internal and External Opposition
Domestic opposition to Chávez comes for the most part from the old
ruling elite, and their reach is considerable: many white collar
workers in the state oil company (PDVSA); media magnates controlling
all mainstream private television and most print media; and
big-business interests in oil, finance, and industry. But a key element
of the opposition also comes from the middle class-the journalists,
lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who have been turned off the
Bolívarian revolution mostly due to economic policies that have
benefited the 80 per cent of the population living in poverty, at the
expense of the middle- and upper-classes.
The same disenchantment with traditional politics that brought
Chávez to power in 1998 dealt such a blow to AD and Copei that they did
not even field candidates. Six years later they have begun to recover
and represent the foundation of the Coordinadora Democratica-a
political body lumping together the fractious, chaotic mish-mash of
‘anti-chavists’ who form a large part of ‘the opposition’.
The
political campaign to topple Chávez is being waged on several fronts:
extra-legal/violent, legal/political, and the all-important realm of
public opinion. The most striking example of the extra-legal/violent
strategy was the briefly successful coup of April 11, 2002, reversed 48
hours later by the alliance of loyal elements in the Military and the
determined support of millions of Venezuelans who gathered outside the
Presidential palace to demand Chávez’s return.
The legal/political route has only been considered recently, and in
the face of the failure of violent, extra-legal means. It centres
around a recall referendum scheduled for August 15, 2004.
Arguably
the most important, and certainly the most international, aspect of
opposition to Chávez is the battle is being waged predominantly in the
mainstream media — joined regularly by certain human rights groups —
often outweighing their commitment to objective-reporting. These news
organizations, while pretending to objectivity, actually held meetings
of the coup conspirators in news stations and private residences of
reporters and station owners prior to the coup.
International print
and television media are also guilty of employing active members of the
Venezuelan opposition as correspondents. It is on this last front that
many believe the battle for Venezuela will be lost; for, even many on
the Left appear to have been dissuaded from taking much interest in
Venezuela by the constant barrage of misreportage.
A Space for the Left
Whatever the limitations and flaws of Venezuela’s revolutionary
process, activists in the ‘North’ have a responsibility to participate,
criticize, advise, and agitate. Two main areas demand the Left’s
attention: international policies towards (against) Venezuela; and
contributions to the movement itself.
The Canadian government’s differences with the U.S. on Iraq did not
signal a fundamental break in their relationship. In fact, since the
tensions over Iraq, the Canadian government has been bending over
backwards to confirm its place within the American empire. This was
evident in Haiti, and it continues to be so as the Canadian government
toes the OAS line on Venezuela. The OAS being what it is — a cosmetic
front for U.S. meddling — Canada is partly responsible for the
reactionary role the OAS has played to date in Venezuela. It is for the
Canadian Left to make this an issue in Canada, to force the government
to defend its position and the hardly objective role of the OAS to the
Canadian public.
However, in the final analysis what is missing most in Venezuela is
the kind of international solidarity that those fighting from below
deserve. More than anything, it is up to the Left to realize that there
is a uniquely significant social, political, economic-humanist
revolution at stake in Venezuela. And it is up to us to commit to
participating, criticizing, and supporting the Venezuelan revolution in
order to ensure that it is not extinguished by the machinations of the
U.S., that it does not disappear from Left consciousness before it has
even arrived.
Jonah Gindin is a
Canadian journalist living and working in Caracas, Venezuela. He writes
regularly for www.venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1261
|
|
************************************************
Aporrea.Org
"...Esta epopeya que tenemos
delante,
la van a escribir
las masas hambrientas de indios,
de campesinos sin tierras,
de obreros explotados.
La van a escribir las masas
progresistas,
los intelectuales honestos y
brillantes
que tanto abundan
en nuestras sufridas tierras de
América Latina..."
Ernesto Che
Guevara
"Supiste cabalgar contra quien
odia
desde su torre de oro y
exterminio
pero, en mi parecer, te dió más gloria
el Alma que tallaste a tu dominio
"
- Silvio Rodríguez
América Latina, Venezuela: Ahora el zorro corporativo
está cuidando nuestros pollitos electorales democráticos
Por: Franz J.T. Lee
Publicado el Lunes, 23/08/04 07:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Ahora, después
de la "Batalla de Santa Inés" en Venezuela, como paradigma
emancipatorio para el mundo, estamos celebrando el internacionalismo y
el proletarianismo internacional, la práxis-teoría
revolucionaria de las clases obreras del mundo, de la Revolución
Bolivariana a escala global, especialmente en América Latina.
Sin embargo, ahora vale más que nunca: “¡La Lutta
continúa!” ¡Tenemos que saber qué es la
Revolución, nuestra Revolución!
Desde las Revoluciones (Norte)Americana y Francesa, y desde la Revolución
Industrial Británica, muchos estudiosos hicieron serios intentos científicos
para explicar esos cambios sociales históricos momentáneos, que tuvieron lugar
en Europa y Norteamérica durante los siglos 18 y 19, y en Asia, Africa y América
Latina en el siglo 20.
En otros de nuestros ensayos tratábamos de explicar el concepto de “revolución”
en general, y la “Revolución Bolivariana” en Venezuela y América Latina en
particular. Aquí otra vez un resumen de los conceptos fundamentales.
El Concepto de “Revolución”
Para las tareas emancipatorias, después de la victoria electoral Bolivariana del
15 de agosto de 2004, es obligatorio saber lo que se tiene que hacer en el
futuro inmediato, saber de lo que se trata con la revolución social, con el
proletarianismo internacional y la emancipación de los trabajadores a escala
mundial.
Ahora, aquí un breve resumen del origen histórico de la revolución.
Enfatizaremos las ideas y los eventos históricos pertinentes, bajo cuya
influencia y guía ideológica Bolívar, Miranda, Rodríguez y Zamora estaban
luchando para iniciar la revolución, la liberación de América Latina.
Agustín Thierry (1795-1856), el historiador y escritor romántico Francés, vio el
desarrollo nacional como una lucha entre dos “razas” principales, los invasores
y los invadidos; Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874), otro historiador
Francés, quien, entre 1829 y 1832 escribió la obra de 6 volúmenes “Historia
General de la Civilización en la Europa Moderna”, igual que Thierry, interpretó
las revoluciones sociales Europeas como luchas de clases sociales. Louis Adolphe
Thiers (1797-1877), Primer Ministro de Francia entre 1836 y 1840 y Presidente de
la Tercera República Francesa entre 1871 y 1873, un historiador Europeo
prominente de su tiempo, igual que Thierry y Guizot, formó parte de los
intelectuales respetados que inspiraron a Carlos Marx y Federico Engels en
desarrollar su teoría de la lucha de clases en la mitad del siglo 19.
Desde la “Reflexión sobre la Revolución Francesa” de Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
hasta los autores contemporáneos de la “teoría sobre el sistema” o "teoría
sistémica", “teoría de la modernización” o “teoría de la independencia” hay una
conexión histórica directa de intelectuales que habían intentado de explicar la
esencia y las leyes del desarrollo del “cambio social” o la “revolución social”.
Obviamente tenemos que estudiar este “proceso de la revolución mundial”, tenemos
que entender las raíces históricas metropolitanas de la Revolución Bolivariana.
De la manera contraria nos volvemos clavados a lo inmediato, al "carpe diem" de
la ideología y la reacción, por ejemplo, olvidamos que Jimmy Carter era un
presidente de los EE.UU. que participaba en todo tipo de conspiraciones y
sabotaje de posibles revoluciones en Haití, Nicaragua, etc. Ahora irónicamente,
el zorro corporativo está cuidando nuestros pollitos electorales democráticos
contra las intrigas golpistas de la "Coordinadora Democrática".
Los diferentes autores mencionados anteriormente, independientemente de su
ideología política específica, trataron de captar las múltiples causas,
pre-condiciones, estrategias, tácticas y consecuencias del “cambio social”
dentro de un tejido sofisticado de conceptos teóricos y categorías de la cátedra
de las “Ciencias Sociales”.
Especialmente desde el fracaso de la Comuna de París de 1871, muchas obras
radicales revolucionario-teóricas aparecieron a escala mundial. El fracaso de la
Primera Revolución Rusa de 1905 y el éxito de la Segunda Revolución Rusa de 1917
y luego el colapso de todos los “países socialistas real existentes”, había
elevado la problemática de la revolución a un lugar central dentro del campo de
la sociología política. Las diferentes revoluciones coloniales de los años 60
habían amplificado este problema y se formularon numerosas “teorías del cambio
social” por parte de los intelectuales no marxistas. Esto no quiere ser
sofistería acadámica sobre el concepto de la revolución, sino es una necesidad
práxico-teórica en función de evitar tergiverzaciones de la revolución social
real en Venezuela y América Latina.
Bien conocida es la “teoría de la revolución” de Chalmers Johnson (Revolutionary
Change, 1966) que se convirtió en el prototipo del modelo revolucionario para la
teoría “sistémica”. Intelectuales contemporáneos Marxistas como Ernest Mandel en
sus últimas obras criticaron estos modelos “burgueses”, que al fin y al cabo
intentan de mantener el status quo capitalista a escala mundial.
No obstante, la ciencia social “oficial” contemporánea igual no ayuda para
explicar los cambios sociales actuales o la Revolución en Venezuela, como
tampoco da esperanza para analizar las “nuevas guerras” de Bush, el “terrorismo”
y el evento de las “Torres Gemelas”. Aún ambas fuerzas, las revoluciones y las
guerras, pertenecen a los fenómenos históricos principales de los siglos 20 y 21.
Actualmente, como podemos testimoniar en Afganistán, Irak y Venezuela, las
guerras, revoluciones y contrarrevoluciones sacuden al mundo contemporáneo y aún
todavía no son sujetos definidos de una cátedra específica como la es la Ciencia
Política en nuestras universidades. Así que urgentemente hay que incluir la
cátedra “Revoluciones Sociales del Siglo 21” en todas las Universidades
Bolivarianas de Venezuela y de América Latina.
Actualmente esos son tratados como subordinados de varias materias “importantes”
como lo son “Relaciones Internacionales”, “Historia del Pensamiento Político” o
“Sistemas Políticos Contemporáneos”. Muchas veces, estudios en esta dirección,
por ejemplo un curso en “Práxis-Teoría Revolucionaria” serán descartados en la
mayoría de las universidades nacionales de la misma manera, que la Teología
declaró tabú a las Ciencias Naturales durante la Edad Media en Europa.
Sin embargo, conceptos como “ideología”, “práctica”, “revolución”,
“contrarrevolución”, "emancipación" y "creación", científicamente son muy
difíciles de determinar, especialmente cuando se utiliza el método de la lógica
formal, que ha dominado al mundo desde Aristóteles. Esos fenómenos poseen la
característica esencial de ser incompletos, dependientes de un proceso y
anticipatorios, siendo estos características que no son compatibles con la norma
de conceptos generalmente fijadores, asignándoles significados absolutos de
manera A = A, un árbol es un árbol para siempre, no importa los cambios que
ocurrirán. En nuestras instituciones de la educación mayor aquí en Venezuela,
tenemos que desarrollar nuevos métodos, una Nueva Lógica, para entender a
nuestra Nueva Revolución Bolivariana, una Ciencia y Filosofía que transcienden a
la Lógica Formal y la Dialéctica.
Cuando la verdadera teoría científica trata de explicar procesos mundiales como
las revoluciones, una y otra vez verifica las agudas deficiencias de las
visiones idealistas y religiosas de la historia y la vida humana en general.
Aún, a pesar de que ya al comienzo del siglo 19, hace 150 años, el filósofo
objetivo idealista alemán Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) había descubierto el
método dialéctico del razonamiento lógico, la mayoría de los académicos de la
ciencia social moderna, todavía hoy, separan la práxis científica de la teoría
filosófica, de la misma manera que lo hizo Aristóteles (384-322 A.C.)
lógico-formalmente.
La Revolución Bolivariana no necesita ideologías y prácticas obsoletas; en la
post-Batalla de Santa Inés tiene que generar su propia Ciencia y Filosofía, su
propia Práxis y Teoría, sus propios Actos y Pensamientos. Ya se hizo bastante en
esta dirección, pero todavía falta tanto por hacer, tan poco se ha hecho (esto
es una verdad fluyente, formulada por el archi-imperialista, Cesil John Rhodes,
del siglo 20).
La Génesis del Concepto de “Revolución”
Así que en Venezuela, igual que en otras partes, existen suficientes razones
sociales para re-considerar, re-evaluar y re-definir el concepto de re-volución.
Esto no es un empeño científico fácil. Recientemente la revolución es tema
central de fenómenos que conocimos como “socialismo”, “comunismo” o
“Marxismo-Leninismo”, y esos asuntos no son muy queridos en el mundo Occidental
capitalista. Han sido dibujados como Dráculas o Frankensteins. Los intelectuales
burgueses de la mitad del siglo 18 Rousseau, Voltaire o Montesquieu estaban muy
bien familiarizados con el feudalismo y el Catolicismo Romano, los entonces
archi-enemigos del capitalismo en su lucha de poder política e ideológica. Esto
es la razón del por qué la clase burguesa era revolucionaria y históricamente
podía tener éxito.
Las dos llamadas revoluciones “clásicas”, la Revolución Francesa de 1789 y la
Revolución de Octubre de 1917, ambas han introducido los primeros niveles de
nuevos modos de producción intra-sistémicos antagónicos, el capitalismo y el
socialismo respectivamente. Hoy sólo pueden explicar limitadamente las raíces de
las causas, las dinámicas sociales, las latencias históricas y las tendencias de
la revolución mundial social actual, cuya vanguardia se forma en América Latina,
en Cuba y Venezuela y por las luchas obreras heróicas en Bolivia, Argentina,
Brasil, Ecuador, etc.
Los conceptos y las categorías obtenidos de los análisis críticos de las
sociedades industrializadas modernas altamente desarrolladas no se pueden
aplicar directamente a los países en “desarrollo”; de manera similar, cum grano
salis, para nada se pueden usar conceptos clásicos Marxistas de explotación,
clase o imperialismo para explicar eficientemente las realidades “tercer
mundistas” actuales.
Esto fue demostrado mejor en el conflicto entre los autores Marxistas
latinoamericanos de la “dependencia” y los intelectuales “neo-Marxistas” de los
años 60 y 70. También la aplicación de las tácticas y estrategias de la guerra
de guerrillas obtenidas en China, Vietnam o Cuba a las condiciones
revolucionarias metropolitanas por la “Facción del Ejército Rojo” en Europa
Occidental, había resultado en situaciones emancipatorias desastrosas. Tambien
el "pez en el agua" oriental del siglo 20 no es necesariamente la misma
"merlusa" actual en las costas de Venezuela.
Desde los años 60 existe una discusión internacional apasionada, especialmente
introducida por Herbert Marcuse, en cuanto a la localidad del presente sujeto
revolucionario en la lucha mundial emancipatoria. El problema es tanto más
serio, porque – al menos durante las últimas décadas – el proletariado de países
altamente industrializados, como Alemania o los EE.UU. no había cumplido con su
tarea revolucionaria histórica, como fue originalmente anticipada y
esperanzadamente especificada por la teoría revolucionaria Marxista; tiene más
que perder que sólo sus “cadenas”, por lo menos esto lo “cree”.
Aquí en Venezuela, los Bolivarianos tienen todo que perder, en caso de que el
fascismo global intervendría y tendría éxito en instalar el cenagal beligerante
de Afganistán o Irak. La “Revolución” igual que la “Democracia” es un invento
burgués capitalista y un arma de destrucción masiva global. La emancipación, el
éxodo del modo de producción capitalista, es una necesidad proletaria global,
una conditio sine qua non para la Revolución Bolivariana.
Ahora, investigaremos la génesis de la “revolución” mundial misma. En la Edad
Media tardía, la palabra “revolución” apareció en Europa. Era la formación del
sustantivo proveniente del verbo latín, revolvere, significando “revolver”, por
ejemplo para explicar la rotación de la luna en su órbita circular. San Agustín
lo utilizaba en el sentido de “reencarnación”, en su batalla religiosa contra
los paganos que creían que el alma “rota” repetidamente a través de diferentes
“cuerpos” hasta que ésta se purifíque. Para Dante, “revolutio” es el movimiento
cambiante del sol, de las estrellas y los planetas. Así que hasta el siglo 15,
el concepto “revolutio” era en su esencia todavía un concepto pre-político
astronómico.
Después vino el descubrimiento burgués-capitalista de los científicos naturales
Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) y Sir Isaac Newton
(1642-1727), quienes dieron al concepto una connotación físico-política. Los
astrólogos del siglo 17 creían que a través de las posiciones de los cuerpos
celestes - del horóscopo - podrían predecir el destino de los príncipes
feudales, que les pidieron consejos antes de ir a una guerra. Este método
pre-científico se usa todavía en nuestro tiempo en nuestros medios masivos
nacionales e internacionales y en los horóscopos, para determinar los patrones
de conducta de los trabajadores asalariados en el capitalismo moderno.
No obstante, desde el siglo 17, la gente creía que los eventos políticos
dependían de fenómenos físicos. Pensaron que las acciones políticas estaban
encerradas dentro del campo magnético de las fuerzas de la naturaleza. Esto
claramente era un paso revolucionario burgués, fuera de la noción idealista,
religiosa, donde la Providencia determina la conducta humana.
Galileo hasta creía que las rotaciones de la tierra causan accidentes y
contingencias en la vida humana. Desde entonces, el prefijo “re-“ no sólo
significaba una simple repetición, sino también contenía la idea de la
destrucción. Actualmente, los EE.UU. nos muestran lo que es la “destrucción
masiva revolucionaria corporativa”. La revolución ahora incluyó este nuevo
elemento, que se encontró fuera del alcance de la arbitrariedad, del cálculo y
la planificación humana.
La palabra “revolución” recibió su connotación política en la génesis del
capitalismo mismo. Originó en los ciudades-estados septentrionales de Italia,
donde el capitalismo se desarrolló en forma embriónica. Palabras tales como
“rivoltura” y “rivoluzzione” fueron usadas para describir serias revueltas
sociales o descontento popular. Lo que esas palabras significaban exactamente,
se puede comparar con el entender político presente del “alboroto social” o los
“eventos turbulentos” en asuntos de carácter doméstico o extranjero. Claro, los
actuales intentos de golpe político, el sabotaje económico y la conspiración
constitucional en Venezuela involucran a la contrarrevolución global.
La Teoría Revolucionaria Marxiana
Expondremos brevemente la esencia de la teoría revolucionaria obrera marxiana,
para entender, por qué la Revolución Bolivariana no es Marxista ni es anti-Marxista.
Marx evolucionó su teoría de la revolución en los años 1840-1844 y ésta tenía la
intención de ser un programa para la revolución burgués-democrática, entonces
retrasada en Alemania. El retraso histórico alemán, comparado con sus vecinos
Occidentales burgueses (Inglaterra y Francia), le ofreció un chance histórico
único a la revolución social Alemana, no sólo para completar la “emancipación
política” que se había producido por la revolución jacobiniana en Francia, sino
hasta para sobrepasarla en una “emancipación humana”, que llegaría tan lejos
como para superar la contradicción entre citoyen y burgués. Para razones
históricas esta superación emancipatoria también vale para la Revolución
Bolivariana.
En clarificar la pregunta por el sujeto de tal revolución, Marx no sólo pasó la
línea del ideólogo burgués radical al teórico proletario de la revolución
socialista, sino también del socialismo utópico al socialismo científico, hecho
que para sí sólo es susceptible de cruzar el puente de la práxis que
necesariamente tiene que vincular la crítica del presente con la utopía concreta
del futuro, y de actuar la “alianza de los hombres pensantes y sufridos”, que
liberará la sociedad humana de las cadenas del modo de producción burgués y por
lo tanto del sistema de clases a escala mundial.
Dos partes están unidos para encontrarse en una alianza temporal impulsada por
la revolución, aunque difieren en su actitud política básica hacia esta
revolución: “una de tipo pequeño-burgués que apunta a lograr y terminarla, y una
proletaria que la empuja hacia adelante hasta que todas las clases que más o
menos poseen propiedad privada, han sido exprimidas de la autoridad, el poder
ejecutivo ha sido arrebatado por el proletariado, y las asociaciones de los
proletarios no sólo en un país sino en todos los países líderes del mundo serían
tan adelantados (...) que al menos las fuerzas de producción decisivas
estuvieran concentradas en las manos del proletariado” (Véase: Marx y Engels,
“Discurso de la Autoridad Central a la Liga”, marzo 1850).
Esta postulación de permanencia para la revolución proletaria (una idea que
luego fue profundizada por León Trotski en su “Teoría de la Revolución
Permanente”), fue al mismo tiempo la plataforma política común de la “Liga de
los Comunistas” y de los “Blanquistas”. Aquí es relevante, que la Revolución
Bolivariana históricamente está continuando esta tradición de la Revolución
Mundial Permanente.
El “Manifiesto Comunista”, Marx y Engels
En el “Manifiesto Comunista”, Marx y Engels se dirigieron al “proletariado” en
la tercera persona, por lo tanto un poquito distanciado. También, dirigiéndose a
los “comunistas” mismos, utilizaron la apelación de la conclusión del
“manifiesto”: “¡Trabajadores del Mundo, Uníos!” El Manifiesto de Marx y Engels
de 1848 no se dirigió directamente a los proletarios a escala mundial, sino fue
formulado para el proletariado Europeo. No obstante, aplicado a las condiciones
capiatlistas globales actuales del llamado "Tercer Mundo", tiene plena vigencia
revolucionaria.
Cabe destacar, que para ellos, revolución no tenía nada que ver con
conspiración, con activismo ciego o Blanquismo. Fue una transformación social
que hizo época y que se convirtió en algo históricamente necesario a nivel
mundial, y cuya tarea fue erradicar las relaciones explotadoras basadas en la
economía de las clases burguesas. La posibilidad de una revolución social
primero tiene que ser teóricamente derivada de las condiciones objetivas de la
ley de acumulación de capital, luego probada científicamente, sólo así se podían
formular correctamente las ideas en cuanto a la organización y la defensa de la
revolución. Esto significa que una teoría revolucionaria primero tiene que ser
desarrollada desde las condiciones específicas, luego tiene que ser probada
científicamente en la práxis revolucionaria a través de la organización activa
de las clases obreras. Ciertamente nosotros, los Bolivarianos, tenemos que
estudiar la lección mencionada anteriormente muy cuidadosamente.
Los Cinco Postulados Principales de la Teoría Revolucionaria Marxiana
Revoluciones Sociales sólo son posibles, cuando existe un sujeto histórico,
cuyas necesidades concretas son articuladas tan claramente, que la teoría
revolucionaria parece como la expresión más adecuada de esas necesidades. Las
revoluciones sociales son “reales” y “totales” y tienen que tener un carácter
internacional. Por eso, este sujeto histórico tiene que ser la vanguardia de la
Revolución Bolivariana actual en Venezuela.
En cuanto a la revolución social alemana de la mitad del siglo 19, sólo tendría
éxito si la “burguesía”, en alianza con el Estado, llevaría a cabo la revolución
política; esto, por un lado, haría posible la continuación de la concentración
del capital y por otro lado la pauperización del proletariado en desarrollo; por
eso el conflicto central entre las fuerzas de producción y las relaciones
productivas alemanas al fin alcanzará un nivel agudo y crítico, creando las
condiciones históricas reales para la revolución social proletaria alemana. Aquí
se ve el secreto de la lucha de clase global actual en Venezuela.
Revoluciones sociales sólo pueden ocurrir frente a una crisis económica
universal, en la cual la estructura antagónica de una sociedad de clase burguesa
se vuelve clara como el sol para cada obrero consciente. Esto fue el caso en
Venezuela después de la masacre de 27 de febrero de 1989 (El Caracaso) y
continua con la Batalla de Santa Inés. En situaciones como esta, las dos (o más)
clases principales de la sociedad capitalista se confrontan una a la otra
abiertamente. La crisis mundial de 1847, para Marx y Engels fue la verdadera
base económica de las revoluciones Europeas de “Febrero” y “Marzo” de 1848;
también el periodo de relativa prosperidad económica de 1849-50 fue la base
económica de la reacción política Europea a comienzos de los años 1850.
Una pre-condición para revoluciones sociales, es un nivel altamente desarrollado
de la revolución industrial. Esto crea un proletariado altamente organizado y
experimentado, que puede rebelarse de manera unida y disciplinada, como una
“clase para sí misma” que es capaz de superar la sociedad de clases capitalista.
Obviamente, esta tarea de la Revolución Francesa, la industrialización, es parte
del proyecto de la Revolución Bolivariana, en la cual la clase obrera petrolera
está jugando un papel revolucionario central.
En conclusión, este concepto Marxista de revolución no sólo tiene validez en
sociedades industrializadas capitalistas altamente desarrolladas. Un
prerrequisito es una teoría comprensiva del desarrollo social. Este concepto
mantiene que la revolución proletaria social es inevitable a escala mundial
histórica, y la manera cómo, cuándo o dónde ocurren las revoluciones sociales no
se puede determinar abstractamente, sino en base de unas condiciones específicas
históricas, económicas, políticas, sociales y culturales.
Ciertamente nosotros, como revolucionarios Bolivarianos, deberíamos disfrutar el
alimento emancipatorio para el pensar y la acción mencionado anteriormente.
Definitivamente, Marx era el primer pensador que describió la esencia de los
cambios sociales fundamentales como el resultado de la contradicción entre las
fuerzas de producción en desarrollo y las relaciones productivas obsoletas. En
una cierta fase del desarrollo, las fuerzas sociales materiales de producción
contradicen las existentes relaciones productivas, es decir, las relaciones de
propiedad dentro de las cuales se desarrollaron hasta entonces. Siendo
originalmente formas de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, estas relaciones
productivas ahora se convierten en las cadenas de las mismas. El resultado es
que empieza una época de revolución social. Por lo tanto se entiende que no es
posible una revolución emancipatoria proletaria dentro del sistema capitalista
burgués democrático corporativo.
Marx explicaba que un modo de producción nunca desaparece antes de que todas sus
fuerzas productivas estén desarrolladas. Nuevas y más altas relaciones
productivas nunca aparecen antes de que las condiciones materiales de
existencia, necesarias para su llegar a ser, todavía no estén presentes ya en
forma embriónica dentro del viejo modo de producción. Esto quiere decir que el
modo de producción capitalista mismo está desvaneciendo y por consiguiente ubica
al ALBA y MERCOSUR en una nueva perspectiva contemporánea global.
Revolución es caracterizada como un proceso, como una época. Generalmente se
necesita la "violencia emancipatoria", la autodefensa legítima, para romper la
vieja cáscara del huevo, en función de dar a luz a las nuevas fuerzas
productivas o creativas. Pero la violencia no es necesariamente un sine qua non
para la revolución social. Correctamente los Bolivarianos hablan del “proceso”
revolucionario hacia la "paz social" en Venezuela.
El concepto de revolución como proceso está confrontado con el concepto acción,
con la revolución política. Este acto político, en el pasado, prácticamente no
ha ocurrido exactamente en el punto, donde la concentración de las nuevas
fuerzas productivas entró en contradicción con la cáscara del huevo de las
relaciones productivas obsoletas. En este sentido, la Revolución de Octubre era
prematura y la revolución en los Estados Unidos está demasiado retrasada. En
Venezuela, la revolución política tiene que captar su revolución económica, su
base material, PdVSA.
Marx y Engels opinaban que la revolución socialista tendrá lugar simultáneamente
en todos los países “civilizados” altamente industrializados, por lo menos en
Inglaterra, EE.UU., Francia y Alemania. El mundo “no civilizado” automáticamente
será obligado a aceptar el modo de producción socialista. Sin embargo, la
Revolución Mundial, que comenzó en octubre de 1917 y que colapsó con la “caída
del muro de Berlín”, no ha tomado el rumbo pronosticado por Marx y Engels. Es
evidente que dentro de la “teoría de la revolución” Marxiana no puede haber un
modelo de revolución generalmente válido y pragmático. Tampoco existen
revoluciones “clásicas”.
Un factor común de todas las revoluciones es que las condiciones sociales
explotadoras se han vuelto tan insoportables para las masas de la gente
trabajadora, que la mayoría de ellos están dispuestos de poner en juego sus
vidas, en rebeldía contra los gobernantes, que ya no son capaces de resolver los
ardientes problemas sociales. Precisamente esto pasó en Venezuela: la lucha
obrera contra el puntofijismo y el “neo-liberalismo”, es decir, contra el
Fascismo Mundial.
El único factor claro es, que con la Revolución Bolshevique de 1917 comenzó la
época de la revolución social entre el capitalismo y el socialismo, en otras
palabras, comenzó el proceso de la revolución mundial, y que ahora este continúa
con la Revolución Bolivariana.
Esta Revolución Mundial que se refleja en la severa crisis internacional actual
del capitalismo corporativo a escala global, tiene como elementos importantes la
revolución tecnológica científica, el desarrollo rápido de los medios de
producción y de las fuerzas productivas y la lucha emancipatoria de las naciones
a escala global, las cuales han llegado a ser socialmente conscientes de los
peligros inminentes del capitalismo-imperialismo para su propia existencia y la
sobrevivencia de la humanidad.
La relevancia de lo anteriormente dicho para la Revolución Bolivariana dentro
del contexto de la Revolución Mundial, ya la había enfatizado Lenin cuando dijo:
sin teoría revolucionaria no hay revolución social. Y no dijo sin ideología, a
pesar de la temprana confusión sobre ideología “socialista” o “proletaria”. La
corrupción del mejor siempre es la peor corrupción, por eso son muy necesarios
la precisión de los conceptos científicos Marxianos y nuestra propia cosmovisión
en nuestro tiempo. Lo mismo vale para conceptos diarios como “socialismo”,
“democracia” y “revolución”.
Sin embargo hay una contradicción principal, que muchas veces se olvida con el
calor político y el polvo revolucionario de la lucha de clases, la contradicción
entre la Naturaleza y la Sociedad. Ya el “joven” Marx enfatizó la necesidad de
la verdadera naturalización del Hombre y la Humanización de la naturaleza. Si no
alcanzamos esto - que tiene que ser uno de los objetivos principales de la
Revolución Bolivariana - entonces nunca lograremos el salto dialéctico, la
transcendencia cualitativa del “reino de la necesidad” al “reino de la
libertad”, donde el homo sapiens sapiens puede volver a sí mismo, es decir, al
dios en realidad, que para tantos miles de años había sido proyectado hacia los
cielos, como una simple fantasía humana sagrada y un sueño diurno utópico.
Después del 15 de agosto de 2004, en Venezuela, la Revolución significa la
Práxis-Teoría, significa: “¡La Lutta continúa!”.
http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=9466
************************************************
 |
News | | Results 1 - 4 of about 4 for Jutta Schmitt. (0.03 seconds) | |
New! Get the latest news on Jutta Schmitt with Google News Alerts.
Franz JT Lee: Venezuela's opposition coupsters and CNN, BBC, DPA ...
Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - 14 hours ago
University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee
writes: We thank David Sheegog for his kind comments on my article
about Revolution in Venezuela in ...
The Bolivarian Revolution - An Emancipatory Paradigm
CMAQ, Canada - 1 Aug 2004
... Dr. Franz JT Lee
to the Forum convened by the Students Movement Utopía 78, titled: “The
Current Situation of the Social Economy and Alternative Media in ...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Franz+J+T+Lee%22&btnG=Search+News
©2004 Google
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=Jutta+Schmitt&btnG=Search+News

VHeadline.com
Sunday, August 22, 2004
8:01:20 PM (Caracas time
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22542
Published: Sunday, August 22, 2004
Bylined to: Jutta Schmitt
Please hand the opposition the silver bullet ... so it may finally rest in peace
University de Los Andes (ULA) lecturer Jutta Schmitt writes: In
the wake of the Presidential recall referendum and as soon as the
preliminary results had been announced by the National Elections
Council (CNE) in the early morning hours of Monday, August 16, the
four, private Venezuelan TV stations opened their first post-election
transmission round with heavy artillery fire, directed at the very
referendum outcome, the CNE and the international observer groups
including the Organization of American States (OAS) and Carter Center
... with the latter ones having testified to a free and transparent
election process and categorically having confirmed the official
referendum results as given by the CNE.
Besides the insults and defamation
that have come firing incessantly from the four television stations,
the ammunition employed by Venezuela's private mass media consisted of
countless calls for civil rebellion and insurrection against a
"dictator" that had just been ratified by 59% of the Venezuelan
population in free and transparent elections.
 Mary Pil Hernandez
|
The political "leadership" of
Venezuela's rancid "opposition" has not only torpedoed the truly unique
and historical Presidential recall referendum ... the first ever
celebrated in the entire hemisphere and promoted in the first place by
the same President, whose mandate was submitted to recall or
ratification ... but also assaulted the moods and minds of their
unfortunate supporters with the most formidable weapon they possess:
the cameras and microphones of RCTV, Venevision, Televen and
Globovision -- the outstanding and uncontested spinmeisters in
Venezuela's and perhaps even the world's communications spectrum.
The opposition's post-referendum
declarations predictably rejected each and every aspect of the
referendum process, claiming "fraud" ... after having accepted the
rules of the game prior to referendum day and in absence of another
unconstitutional perspective to effectively oust Chavez from power.
 Communications & Information Minister Jesse Chacon
|
The fraud card the opposition has
played ever since the first official results were published, is part
and parcel of their ongoing big lie strategy, spearheaded by the
private media and happily endorsed by their international counterparts
like CNN en Español.
In a series of acts that amount to political suicide (of a rotten corpse anyway),
the leading figures of the opposition (after publicly having assured
they would only accept referendum results when confirmed by the
international observers from OAS and Carter Center), retracted from
their position when, in fact, these did confirm the results.
The opposition, which prior to the referendum had participated in each and every audit of
 CNE Jorge Rodriguez
|
each
and every thinkable aspect of the referendum process, from the voting
machines' soft- and hard-ware to paper receipts and the data
transmission, then called for an additional, post-referendum audit, and
from which they retracted as soon as the CNE agreed!
Once again, hundreds of
international observers, including OAS and Carter Center watched as the
audit was realized and the results published yesterday, Saturday.
In the meantime, we keep seeing the
leading figures of the opposition ranting on TV and revealing their
strategy, that neither will they accept the referendum outcome, nor
under any circumstance acknowledge the authority of the "discredited"
CNE in the upcoming September elections for Mayors and Governors!
In the face of a final, electoral
defeat at the ballot, somebody please hand these guys the silver bullet
... so they may finally rest in peace.
Jutta Schmitt
jutta@aktionspotenzial.de

MORE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING JUTTA'S "SILVER BULLET" ARTICLE.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:56
AM
Subject: too bad
Jutta, as I read your bitter comments on the
final results of the Referendum in your country (?) Venezuela, I could see you
must be a really overwhelming lecturer, but at the same time, un implacable
contender to any one who might dare disagreeing with your own point of
view. You're probably right in your reasoning, but you are definitely missing
a great opportunity to intelligently lead the minds of your countrymen
towards an effective, peaceful start in their social and political
recovery.
Sorry, for the comments, but I think we, as
philosophers, have a higher and more responsible place in our
societies.
Best wishes,
Antonio Chusho
Peru.
******************
From: Jutta Schmitt
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004
10:30 PM
Subject: Re: too bad / thoughts on
Venezuela
Dear Antonio,
thank you for your
sincere comments, which I take as a constructive critique! You are
right; in my article, I have definitely failed in making an effort to
include those, who are on the other side of the political spectrum, and
who reject president Chávez, the new constitution and the project for
the nation.
Having witnessed and lived
through April 2002's brief and ugly coup d'état, the lock-out and
sabotage of the petroleum industry from December 2002 to January 2003,
and many another unconstitutional and brutal effort of the "opposition"
to oust a democratically elected and perfectly legitimate president,
and having witnessed the 24-hour-a-day relentless, merciless media
campaign which has caused a psychological damage of unsuspected
proportions (and yet to be analysed in its magnitude and range) to its
viewers and audience, I must admit I have been forced by
these very factors to categorically take sides, without
consideration for the other part that makes up Venezuela's
"opposition".
For the past forty years, the
vast, impoverished majority of Venezuelans have been trampled upon,
been economically exploited, politically oppressed and socially
discriminated, and have never been given a chance of recovery, neither
as far as their integrity as human beings was concerned, nor as active
participants in the economic and political decisions that affected
their very lives. The coming to political power of Hugo Chávez is but
an expression of these circumstances, and the country's economic and
political elite (today's "opposition"), backed by the private, national
and international media, has not woken up to this reality until
today. A reality, that constitutes a proper time bomb - deactivated in
Venezuela through the new, Bolivarian constitution and the
inclusive model of political participation (yet with the economic model
still waiting to be truly humanized) and still ticking in all of Latin
America and much of the world, for that matter.
I don't ignore the fact, that
many of the supporters of the Venezuelan "opposition" have been misled
by their "leadership" with lies and deceit, but when the moment
of the falling masks had come in the form of April
2002's coup d'état, their "innocence" and "ignorance" was gone with one
stroke - just as was the Bolivarian constitution, the president, the
attorney general, the ministers, the parliamentarians, the
governors, the justice court, the electoral power, the moral power and
the democratic rights of the people - that vast majority of humble
folks who never had a voice and face before they elected Chávez their
president, and who would come to his rescue, defeating the very coup.
Can you, in the name of freedom,
reconcile with exploitation? Can you, in the name of
equality, reconcile with oppression? Can you, in the name of justice,
reconcile with discrimination?
If we want to give ourselves, in
Venezuela and hopefully else- and everywhere in the world, a peaceful
and effective start for our social, political and human recovery, we
have to go well beyond Chávez and the "opposition", we have to go to
the very roots that have brought them both about: a world,
where economic interests and profit walk over human beings - dead and
alive.
By the way, my Spanish teacher at
Frankfurt University in Germany, was Juan Gamarra, from Chiclayo/Peru.
An outstanding personality, combining sharp critique of our
contemporary society with a warm and open character and a good deal of
humour, he lived for some years in an apartment of a four story
building, in one of the best quarters of Frankfurt city. The owner of
the building, a very old lady, decided to devise the building to him in
her testament, because of all the persons she knew, including her own
family, Juan was the most human, humane to her. Juan rejected the
offer, because he felt that going back to Peru, teaching his
countrymen about his experiences in the "First World" for
the equivalent of a couple of dollars monthly, was a fortune worthier
than anything else in this world.
This is the true Peruvian, the
Venezuelan, the Latin American spirit, the ALBA of which president
Chávez likes to speak, that we need to come closer to a truly human
horizon.
Warm regards,
Jutta Schmitt
Mérida / Venezuela
**********
For more, please listen to my
interview with Len Osanic on:
http://www.blackopradio.com. Go to
Archived Shows - The Archived 2004 Shows - Show Nr. 184, "Jutta Schmitt;
Venezuela Situation Update".
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:44
AM
Subject: Elections
Hello Jutta,
I have read your article in Vheadline. As someone who has traveled to
Venezuela and was actually in Caracas during the attempted coup in the early
90's I continue to be surprised by the bitter divide between the two factions
in the country and the way this divide has grown over the years. Your article
implies that the current opposition gets its support from international
institutions as well as some of the local media.
What is the main cause of the animosity and how can some of it be
reconciled?
Farhan Sharaff
New York.
***************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Elections
Dear Farhan,
thank you for your interest in my
article. The roots of the division of Venezuelan society into two radically
different factions - those who support president Chávez and those
who fiercly oppose him -, can be found in the dire reality imposed by a
model of economical, political and social exclusion, that had
been operating here for decades, leading to the impoverishment of the vast
majority of Venezuelan people, that constitute today´s supporters of
president Chávez. It is, in one word, a division along class lines,
with the current "opposition" mainly embodying the interests of Venezuela´s
former politically corrupt elite, backed by and intertwined with the
country´s economic elite.
The new, Bolivarian constitution,
written and approved in 1999, enshrines a politically protagonic and
economically more inclusive model for all social classes of Venezuelan society,
especially addressing and assisting the formerly excluded as were
the poor, the landless and the indigenous peoples, and has therewith
provoked the wrath and ire of the former political elites and the
powerful economic interest-holders of this country, who have showed themselves
to be unwilling to even cede a minimum of their obscene economic and social
privileges.
Unfortunately, the private media in
Venezuela have taken on the role of the political "opposition" and have
contributed a lot to stir up feelings of fear, hate and animosity among their
audience, directed (often in openly racist and degrading terms) against
president Chávez and the millions of mainly poor and humble people, who
support him in their common quest for social justice. In turn, president
Chávez has not been moderate in his discourse either, given the ferocity of
attacks against his government and his project for the nation, which has been
villified by his opponents.
I think if the media refrained from
painting a completely distorted picture of the president, the constitution
and the millions of people who have approved, with their vote, the new course of
the country, the level of conflict could be considerably lowered. The true
eradication of the conflict, however, can only be achieved through true,
social justice, which is a thorny path to go, conflictive per
se, because it is the very path of class struggle.
Kind regards,
Jutta
****************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:19
AM
Subject: Stand firm
Dear Jutta,
Please know that as far away as California
we are in fact watching the process of democracy in Venezuela. In fact,
your "Silver Bullet" editorial was on the top of the Google News, a good sign.
It is indeed a cynical time when communication is hijacked by powerful
media, and turned into very self-serving propaganda that incites large groups
to riot or worse.
History has shown us that when enough people are
tired of lies and self-aggrandizing elites, the masses will prevail.
Obviously, the media elite in Venezuela did not prevail. Now it is
time for the opposition to begin to question their own leaders. Some
probably will, since they didn't deliver on their promise to overthrow
Chavez.
There is no chance that Bush will tell the opposition to shut
up and take their medicine (which, as you point out, they asked for) because
he has no respect for free and independent democracies in the the western
Hemisphere, or anywhere else in the world beyond the G-7 countries. Of
course, that has been consistently US policy since the Monroe Doctrine.
We can safely predict that Bush will begin some sort of ruthless plan to
economically isolate Venezuela, perhaps along the lines of Chile and Allende.
What will make it difficult, however, is that we have that model to
refer to and we can take steps to protect Venezuela if and when it
happens.
Anyway, I am keeping my hopes alive for Venezuela's bold path
toward economic and social justice. Fortunately for Venezuela, Bush's
plans for world hegemony are faltering.
¡Arriba con Chavez y
arriba con el pueblo venezueleño! Les tengo en mis esperanzas mas
profundas. ¡Que siguen adelante!
Thank you for your
editorial,
Robert
3rd grade teacher, northern
California
Robert V. Waring
"If an administration of whatever political persuasion ignores
scientific reality, they do so at great risk to the country," said Stanford
University physicist W.H.K. Panofsky, who served on scientific advisory
councils in the Eisenhower, Johnson and Carter administrations. "There is no
clear understanding in the (Bush) administration that you cannot bend science
and technology to policy."
**************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Stand firm
Dear Robert,
thank you for your encouraging words! It is
good to know that there are people in the USA who resist to subscribe to the
unilateralist world view as imposed by the political ruling elite that has
hijacked the White House, and as hammered into the brains of millions of
North Americans through the most letal of weapons of mass destruction, that are
the world´s big media corporations.
Fortunately and thanks to president Chávez
and his conscious political leadership, the vast majority of
Venezuelans is well aware, that it is not the North American people as
such, who have been meddling in Venezuela´s internal affairs, but the
political caste married to economic, geostrategic and energy interests
in Latin America and the world.
The hearts of the Venezuelan people go out
to the people of North America, with hopes and aspirations that they will
be able to retake their destiny into their own hands, and to dare walk a path
beyond the two political faces of Corporate
America!
¡Los pueblos, unidos, jamás serán
vencidos!
Un saludo caluroso,
Jutta
Mérida / Venezuela
*******************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:50
AM
Subject: thank you for your report
Thanks for your informative report on the Venezuelan elections, "Please hand the opposition the silver bullet ... so it may
finally rest in peace" I forwarded it to many of the lists I monitor as
well as to an e mail list of my former co-workers. The media here in the U.S.
is perhaps the worst in the so-called free world. I am thankful
for the internet.
Richard Mellor.
Check out our website at: http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
"The
ones who are most prone to lose their identity in the opportunistic milieu are
yesterday's ultimatists" Leon Trotsky
Richard Mellor
Member,
AFSCME Local 444
Oakland CA
********************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: thank you for your report
Richard,
thanks for your kind words. As far as the
Venezuelan "opposition" is concerned, an international observer from Uruguay
sharply remarked, that (s)he, who is uncapable of losing, will never be
capable to win.
Best regards,
Jutta Schmitt
Mérida / Venezuela
***********
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:22
AM
Subject: Regarding your opinion
article.
Dear
Jutta,
I've just finished reading
your article entitled " Please hand the opposition the silver
bullet ... so it may finally rest in peace" . My question for you is this: What are the details
of the allegation? You state that the major news outlets are claiming
fraud yet I cannot find (in your article) the basis for their charge.
Was it intimidation at the polls? Was it tampering with the
results? Otherwise I do find your piece
interesting.
Thank-you, and have a great
day,
R. Michael Humiston
Maine,
USA
*****************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: opinion article / allegations of fraud
Dear friend,
thanks for your interest in my article. The
allegations of fraud brought forward by the Venezuelan "opposition" consisted of
pointing to the exit polls conducted by
organizations supportive of the opposition during referendum day (Penn,
Schoen & Berland in cooperation with Sumate), that showed
a 59 percent in favour of withdrawing the mandate of Chávez, and only a 41
percent favouring his ratification. The actual referendum outcome showed
these figures in reverse, that is, the no-vote in the lead with 59
percent.
Furthermore, the "opposition" claimed
that voting machines were secretly programmed in order
to establish a ceiling for the yes-to-the-recall votes, beyond which
all "yes" votes got converted into "no" votes. (For more details: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1259)
Thanks again for your interest,
kind regards,
Jutta Schmitt.

VHeadline.com
Sunday, August 22, 2004
7:46:11 PM (Caracas time)
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22545
Published: Sunday, August 22, 2004
Bylined to: Franz J. T. Lee
Franz J. T. Lee: Venezuela's opposition coupsters and CNN, BBC, DPA, AP lies
University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes: We thank David Sheegog for his kind comments
on my article about Revolution in Venezuela in particular, and, in
general, on a world scale, within the context of globalization, that
daily is unveiling itself as world fascism.
Surely, I agree that making a
revolution, creating an emancipated world, is not only an academic
issue, rather it is a practical, theoretical necessity.
Precisely this was verified here in
Venezuela, in a ferocious class struggle ... between April 11 and 14,
2002 ... millions have created the concrete revolutionary "miracle" of
Caracas; and only afterwards, they were alphabetized, were taught to
read and to write.
Furthermore, soon thereafter, on August 15, 2004, they painted
 CNE Jorge Rodriguez
|
their
overwhelming "NO" on the walls of Venezuela and the world, that is, the
"writing on the wall," the "menetekel" of Cassandra for Bush, and his
aggressive policies towards Venezuela.
Also, like how President Chávez always
underlines, we are trying to introduce social justice, just oil
prices, just redistribution of national income, "a just society," ...
however, we should not forget what "justice" is in a class society; in
colonial, capitalist, imperialist, corporate society, it is just
accumulation of capital, just profits, just exploitation, just
domination, just discrimination, just militarization, just alienation.
The hungry peasant mothers they
hang for stealing a loaf of bread for their starving kids, the big
sharks go scot-free, they live in Miami, in that haven of corruption
and conspiracy.
At the moment, we see what a few golpistas,
the opposition, understand by social, democratic and electoral justice.
And, the whole galaxy of international news agencies ... including CNN,
BBC, DPA, AP, etc. ... tune in to the lies of this carefully produced
spearhead of reaction and counter-revolution in Venezuela.
- Like CIA spoiled brats, they want
this, they want that, they don't want anything, they do not accept
anything ... they leave not a spark to establish a just society within
the current corporate imperialist status quo, not in the free
democratic society of Venezuela.
 Mary Pil Hernandez
|
This
is why we underline a revolutionary exodus towards something completely
new, original and authentic, a new mode of creativity, creation and
emancipation. Work, Labor, the process of production, by their very
exploitative and dominating nature, are not just, can never produce any
just society.
Why think, why theorize, why philosophize about the future, about our permanent revolution?
Simply, because we are not Yankee
Cowboys, who first shoot and then ask questions, first invade Iraq, and
then look for arms of mass destruction that cannot be found anywhere in
Iraq ... because Bush already has stacked them up at home, and in
Israel.
- There does not exist any real thought, any true theory, that is not based in action, in praxis, and vice versa.
Precisely, "the roots of
cosmopolitanism and the crowding of the planet" are to be found in the
bourgeois, democratic, capitalist Revolution, the whole process of the
French Revolution. This revolution only allows justice of Reason alias
Capital, it attacks fiercely any "just economic organization" of the
ALBA, of Mercosur, of a continental TV for the South, of a "South
Bank", of Petro South, of the Revolutionary Unity of the so-called
"Third World."
Hence, we cannot make progress within the intra-systemic "dialectical jump" ... there is only one way left: Exodus,
out of the exploitative, dominating production process, towards Human
Creativity, Creation and Emancipation. This the missions and projects
of the Bolivarian Revolution are currently trying to launch, to
achieve, to materialize.
Franz J. T. Lee
franzjutta@cantv.net
Franz
John Tennyson Lee, Ph. D (University of Frankfurt), Author, Professor
Titular & Chairholder of Philosophy and Political Science,
University of The Andes, Merida (Venezuela) -- http://www.franzjutta.com ; http://www.franz-lee.org ; http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/publications00001.html
David Sheegog: The future is being written in Venezuela as we speak
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:24:42 -0500
From: David Sheegog davidsheegog@hotmail.com
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: Franz Lee & Revolution
Franz J.T. Lee's nice essay on the history of revolution notwithstanding,
the task of building a just society in Venezuela will not be
accomplished within the context of any academic understanding of either
the current or historic definition of revolution.
Better to understand the roots of
cosmopolitanism and the crowding of the planet -- how those two factors
must be accounted for to achieve a just economic organization of the
world -- if we are to make progress in the "dialectical jump...from the
'reign of necessity' to the 'reign of freedom'" which Sr. Franz wishes
for "homo sapiens sapiens."
I have spent a good part of the
last 40 years, since graduating in philosophy from the University of
Oklahoma, trying to learn/find/create a way to escape the idea and
practice of markets.
It finally became apparent to me that since the
dawn of agriculture, about 8,000 years ago, that markets were
inevitable and here to stay. That understood, one can ask the question:
Is there an escape from the capitalistic organization of markets?
Perhaps, but "socialist" organization of states has not shown a way ... yet.
One country in all the world has given us a
glimmer, a hope, that such may be possible ... that would be modern
Sweden ... they have made the world's most successful adaptation of
markets to a social welfare system of any country in Earth's history.
They have done it with massive redistribution schemes that probably
dampen, but do not destroy, entrepreneurial capitalism ... they tax
greed, heavily. The Swedish system deserves more studious attention
than it gets.

President Hugo Chavez Frias
|
Does Sweden offer a lesson for Venezuela? Perhaps.
Sweden is unique in one of the same ways as
Venezuela -- rich in natural resources. This is important. A country
rich in this way has options that other countries do not. The
Nicaraguan revolution might not have failed if the Sandinistas had had
abundant oil wealth with which to build redistributive institutions of
change for their society.
There's a warning here ... several in fact ...
first that the Reagan administration did not hesitate to sponsor a
contra war to cripple, destabilize and bankrupt the revolutionary
government of impoverished Nicaragua, and secondly, that a "democratic
revolution," to be successful over the long haul, has to establish
institutions that will be self-sustaining when the mineral wealth runs
out.
 President Hugo Chavez Frias
|
An
interesting point of conjecture is whether President Chavez would have
been able to win a recall referendum in February when the opposition
first wished to have it when oil was still in the $20 dollar range and
the country was still so economically crippled by the "strike." Chavez
and his very able government have had just enough time (and luck with the price of oil) to show his constituency that he deserves their support.
The Venezuelan government has the resources to
build the institutions for permanent change that could to some extent
be a model for the southern hemisphere of the Americas.
The recall has focused the Chavez government on the immediate tasks needed, but the larger tasks are ahead.
As
I wrote on these pages over a year ago, 'The future of the western
hemisphere is perhaps being written in Venezuela as we speak.'
David Sheegog
davidsheegog@hotmail.com
Paoli, OK
