No. 1038
PANDEMONIUM REFERENDUM SPECIAL
No. 1038
*** La Oposición Golpista de
Venezuela; Mentiras y Manipulación
CNE emitió resultados oficiales del referendo revocatorio presidencial
El rector del CNE anunció los resultados definitivos del referendo. El
59,25 por ciento respaldó la opción del NO. Sufragaron cerca de 10
millones
El presidente del Consejo Nacional Electoral, Francisco Carrasquero
López, se dirigió al país en cadena nacional para anunciar las cifras
definitivas y oficiales del evento electoral celebrado el pasado 15 de
agosto, las cuales dan como ratificado en su cargo al Presidente de la
República, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, con un total de 5 millones 800 mil
629 votos a favor de la opción "No".]
En la contienda electoral participaron 9 millones 815 mil 631
electores, de los cuales 3.989.008 se inclinaron por la opción "Sí"
para revocar el mandato del Presidente Chávez. La totalización arrojó
que la opción "No" alcanzó el 59,25% de los votos, mientras el "Sí"
logró el 40,74% del total general, y la abstención fue del 30,02%.
Vale destacar que para estos comicios el Registro Electoral se
incrementó significativamente, alcanzando un universo de 14. 027.607 de
electores con derecho a sufragar en el RR.
Con base en la expresión de la voluntad popular, el Consejo Nacional
Electoral, este viernes 27 de agosto, ratificará en la Presidencia de
la República Bolivariana de Venezuela a Hugo Chávez Frías, quien
culminará su período constitucional en el año 2006.
http://www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=19864
*********
(Foto) CNE formalizó ratificación del presidente Hugo Chávez
Por: Prensa Presidencial
Publicado el Viernes, 27/08/04 01:36pm |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
 |
| Presidente Hugo Chavez Frias ratificado por el CNE Credito: venpres |
*************************************************
Latin America: The Historic Roots of Oligarchic Racism in Venezuela
Contributed by juttafranz on Thursday, August 26 @ 16:26:34 AST
By Franz J. T. Lee
One of the quintessential elements of the capitalist world system --
applied ideologically by the "Opposition" in the national and
international mass media, to "divide and rule" the Venezuelan people --
is social discrimination, racism. In fact, racism is the ideological
reflection of the world market, of the international division of
labour, that is, of globalization, of the vicious global class
struggle. In fact, Racism is Ideology par excellence. Its current,
concrete reality is global fascism, is globalized Apartheid.
Social discrimination, racism, is an innate characteristic of any
capitalist society, just like economic exploitation, political
domination, destructive militarization and mortal alienation. All of
them are intrinsic elements of our world system, to eradicate them, the
whole exploitative labour system has to be annihilated. As ideology,
there is no capitalism without racism, and vice versa; no matter what
excuse we may have, who favours capitalism, sows racism; to eliminate
any one of the two, we have to annihilate both. This also applies to
all five capitalist essences.
Long ago, in Venezuela, Andres Eloy Blanco, demanded that
somebody must paint "black angels" for him, indicating that the
European Conquest, that Christianity, have already painted racism into
our very sacred essence, into the very soul of Latin America.
Concerning the Bolivarian Revolution, the clarion call, the "Diana"
attack, has to be: Do not paint any angels for me, neither black angels
nor white devils!
The worst that could have happened in Venezuela was when the
oligarchs began to attack the black face - the expression of African
slavery - of the Bolivarian Revolution, when they slandered President
Chávez with racist, fascist diatribes. However, because of a colonial
education for barbarism, although they experience it daily, very few
Venezuelans know what is racism, what is social discrimination, and
what is its relation to capitalism and imperialism. Thus, we will
summarize the historical and social roots of racism here. We will
under-line its ideological functions, to indicate that the Bolivarian
Revolution does not need any ideology, or ideological education, rather
it urgently has to develop its own scientific práxis and philosophic
theory, to tell the world what is happening here in Latin America.
The Concept "Racism"
"Race", "racial prejudice", "racial discrimination" and "racism"
are very vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions, which
have caused ideological confusion and social disaster over the last
three centuries. Although Arthur J. de Gobineau published a manifesto,
The Inequality of the Races, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made
their manifesto public at about the same time, yet none of them dealt
with the crucial question, namely, the relation of the so-called "race
struggle" and the "class struggle", especially in the "Third World"
context.
However, these authors cannot be dissociated from their
intellectual environment; they are products of their epoch, no matter
how critical and revolutionary they may have been. This also applies to
us, when we kiss "Mi Negra", or make jokes about Africa: His name is
"Negro", his surname is "Mierda"; just imagine what Nelson Mandela
would think about us -- about this result of decades of "escualido",
puntofijista education. Everything is fine with "Mi Negra", from the
very heart of the Congo, however, when she is being presented to her
future parents-in-law, then the real racist drama begins.
In the epoch of "discovery", Western Europe had experienced an
unprecedented development in technology and science, which was
accompanied by a strong feeling of "white race superiority". The social
sciences bore the imprint of this arrogance, and anthropology,
ethnology or sociology attempted to legitimize scientifically the
hegemony of Europe and the supremacy of the "Aryan race". Already prior
to the French Revolution, great philosophical thinkers like Montesquieu
and Voltaire had paved the road for ascientific "racist" thoughts.
Although Karl Marx spoke about "barbarian and semi-barbarian
countries dependent on the civilized ones", and found a subject of
derision in Lassie's "negroid" features, there is no reason whatsoever
to define scientific socialism, as developed by him as being a "racist
ideology". However, we must see our teachers within their historic
context, and criticize them according to the limitations of their
personal and historic knowledge; above all, one realizes how deeply
"racism" has penetrated the very "soul" of human beings, living under
capitalism, colonialism and imperialism.
Arthur De Gobineau was of the opinion that all ancient and modern
"civilizations" and cultures were "the creation of white men, the only
history being white history." Thus, because all history of "non-white"
cultures were practically unknown before 1847 in Europe, we find the
controversial statement in the Communist Manifesto: "The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". In a
letter to A. H. Starkenburg, Engels even went so far as to state: "We
regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines
historical development. But race is itself an economic factor."
These examples raise the crucial question: not whether "races"
should be treated equally, not whether "races" are equal, but whether
the category of "race", which is the base of "racial prejudice" or
"racism", is scientifically a valid one. Now, "ghosts", "angels" or
"demons" have not been proved to exist in physical reality, but
nevertheless they exist intellectually and spiritually in the minds of
millions of Latin American human beings. Similarly, "races" and
"racism" are social realities of our epoch. The problem is not to show
that they really exist, but that they are pseudo-concepts, part and
parcel of bourgeois and oligarchic ideology, which operates with
categories which are scientifically invalid.
In Venezuela, these are all necessary to rationalize oligarchic
class rule, economic exploitation and to maintain the status quo of
"white" hegemony - and nowadays, even "black" supremacy as well. Only
when this point is clear can we analyse contemporary "racism" in all
its shades and shadows, fired from Plaza Francia.
"Race", "Racial Prejudice" and Racism
The concept "race", in its current use, appeared for the first time
in 1684. The French medical doctor and traveller Francois Bernier,
wrote about "four or five races of people, whose differences are so
obvious, that by right these should be used as the basis for a new
division of the world." The real founder of the "race" doctrine, later
developed as an ideology, was the Swedish natural scientist, Carl Von
Linné. In the tenth revised edition of his famous book, "Systema
Naturae", in 1758, he divided the human species into four major
"races", according to physical, psychological and social features:
Indians, Europeans, Asiatics, and Negroes.
Due to the contributions of Houston Chamberlain, G. V. de Lapouge
and De Gobineau, eventually the "racist" ideologues settled for three
major "race" groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. These were again
sub-divided into various groups, including, for example, the famous
"'Aryan race”.
Scientific knowledge was harnessed in support of the theory of
"white race superiority". Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of the
Species. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
(1859) , gave a great impetus to "race" doctrines; in fact, even Marx
was fascinated by Darwin's book, obviously for other reasons, and he
even wanted to dedicate the second volume of Capital to Darwin. Darwin
had connected evolutionary theory to the "race" theory, creating
"Social Darwinism ", a tendency which had applied the biological
selection theory to the historical social process. (This eventually
found its application in Nazism and apartheid, in ideas like the
"Herrenvolk" and "Aryan race").
The genetic laws of J. G. Mendel demolished the anthropological
criteria for defining "race", and the biological/genetic "racist"
scientists had to seek refuge in the field of sociology. From
discovering "gene pools", the term "sociological races" was developed,
for the mechanism of biological heredity made the anthropological
concept of "race" meaningless. From "sociological races", ''race
prejudice" was inferred, especially by the German Nazi scientists, and
later by their pupils, the South African "Afrikaner" (Boer) scientists.
"Group Antipathy" in Ancient Civilizations
"Civilization" is a concept created at the same time as "race'",
and presupposing as it does "civilized" and "uncivilized" peoples, it
has many "racial" connotations. Currently, in racist fashion, in his
"new wars", Bush is using this concept against the "Arab barbarians".
We need just to read the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, De Gobineau
or Darwin to see how this term was used against what were in fact
culturally highly developed peoples, in Africa, in Latin America, in
Venezuela.
In the case of Ancient Egypt, for instance, about a third of the
population was composed of "Negroid" peoples, some pharaohs were of
"Negro" origin, and at a time an Ethiopian dynasty reigned. The
Egyptian rulers had enslaved peoples from many countries, among them
Africans, especially from Nubia and Ethiopia. The ruling classes spoke
scornfully about these groups, but social relations in the slave-owning
society of Egypt had nothing to do with "race prejudice". We have many
accounts of how the Egyptians mixed freely with their neighbours,
whether slave or free.
In the ancient Greek civilization we find similar social patterns.
For Plato, Heracleitus or Aristotle slaves were not considered as
citizens, and throughout their works we find scornful remarks about
them, for example, calling them "speaking tools".
This also applied, however, to the white slaves from the North;
"race prejudice" was not a relevant factor. The Hellenic Greeks had a
cultural bond, and the basic division was simply Greeks and barbarians.
The latter were simply peoples who did not speak Greek or possess Greek
culture. But the Greeks founded colonies, encouraged the ''barbarians''
to participate in Greek culture, married them freely, and once they had
acquired a working knowledge of Greek culture, all the Europeans,
Asians and Africans were included in the sonorous concept "Hellas". The
pre-Columbian African travels, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the
origin of the world market, the infamous capitalist "Bermuda Triangle",
all link us here in Venezuela to this cultural African heritage, to
permanent world revolution.
At the Time of the Empire of Alexander the Great, a new
Greco-Oriental ruling class and culture came into existence, on the
basis of all the civilizations within the empire. The class distinction
between the ruling class and the un-Hellenized natives was a property,
an estate one, not a "sociological race'' division.
In the great Roman empire which followed, similarly, the slaves
did not differ in outward appearance from their masters, or from "free
men". The norm for superiority in Rome was a cultural/class attribute,
and as the empire grew, the basic distinction of Roman citizenship was
extended to all freeborn persons in the various municipalities.
In his famous book: "Caste, Class and Race", Oliver Cromwell Cox
concluded: "There seems to be no basis for imputing racial antagonism
to the Egyptians, Babylonians, or Persians." As Ina Corinne Brown
stated, "it is important to emphasize the fact that race prejudice such
as we know it did not exist before the modern age. "
Slavery And "Racism"
From the Roman Empire, to the "barbarian" invasions of Europe, the
reign of the Moslems, and until the era of domination of Roman
Catholicism, the rationalization given for slavery was not slaves'
colour, but culture or religion. Even as late as the 15th century, when
the Transatlantic Slave Trade began, Africans were not enslaved because
they were black, but because they were not-Christian, and for economic
reasons. According to the late President of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric
Williams, in his book, "Capitalism and Slavery":
"Slavery in the Caribbean has been too narrowly identified with
the Negro. A racial twist has thereby been given to what is basically
an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism
was the consequence of slavery. Unfree labour in the New World was
brown white, black and yellow; Catholic, Protestant and Pagan."
Before slavery became "big business", the readiness of an African slave
to become a Christian was sufficient to gain his emancipation. Later,
after the "race" ideology was developed, he had no possibility to
change his genes, and slave status was identical with black, and later
with "coloured" or yellow.
During the "age of discovery" and the Transatlantic Slave Trade,
the very European languages became vehicles of emerging "racism"; it
entered into children's stories, rhymes and songs. The "Ten Little
Black Niggers", the "Struwwelpeter" , the "Bimbos" , etc., all came
into existence. The word "negro" never was used in Africa before the
15th century, especially not in "Black Africa", but ever since then
"negro" and "negrero" became household words.
The "Negro", as his colonial designation indicates, was
distinguished from his white slave-master by his skin colour - black.
Over the decades the invidious connotations of the slave status were
transferred to anyone who was black, and eventually to anyone who was
"non-white". We have seen already how Bernier, de Gobineau or Linné had
then elevated "Europeans" with a white skin colour to "superiority" and
"Negroes" to "inferiority", using these as pseudo-categories in their
"race doctrines". However, "racism", like capitalism itself, had a long
historic process of development; only in the 19th century, when
capitalism had captured economic and political power, could "racism"
reach maturity as part of the general Ideology which gave
rationalizations for colonial, social discrimination, and for the
division of labour on an international scale.
Capitalism and "Racism"
Concerning the genesis of "racism" and its relation to capitalism,
we might quote from a lecture held by the author at various
universities in Germany, in October 1976:
" 'Race hatred' ... as a derivative of 'underdevelopment' of
Africa and the 'development' of Europe came into existence and became
the distinguishing mark of social relations between men of different
pigmentations. The concept 'Neger' (Negro) thus acquired its historic
discriminatory content ....
'Racism' ... is very closely knitted with the genesis of world
capitalism; it functions as a disguise, as rationalization for the
barbaric crimes of the colonial epoch .... But it also has a function
at home in the metropolitan countries; the common members of the
'master race' stand high up on the rungs of the social ladder of the
world, higher than the 'aborigines', 'Bushmen' 'Negroes', 'Red-skins',
'Coolies', 'camel-drivers', etc."
Summarizing, as stated before, "racism" and "capitalism" have a
similar genesis. There can be no "racism" without capitalism, and no
world capitalism without international "racism". "Racism" is a direct
product of the evolution of colonialism and imperialism; it is either
openly present or potentially latent in all capitalist countries.
Wherever capitalism is flourishing as "neocolonialism" in the so-called
"developing world", "racism" in modern forms, with new faces, and new
masks, is virulent and contagious.
The capitalist ideology used by the "Opposition" in Venezuela --
against the poorest classes, who support the Bolivarian Revolution --
is pure "racism". Their violent diatribes, calling for "civil
disobedience", for "social insurrection", against a legitimate,
democratic government, their racist, fascist attacks against Chávez,
demonstrate their bloodthirsty capitalist essence. They don't care
about the millions of impoverished masses in Latin America, they just
see "tin-collectors", the "scum of the earth", "speaking-tools".
For the first time in Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution has
given human dignity and worth to the impoverished multitude, enables it
to participate in its own destiny. This is too much for the fraudulent
"democratic co-ordination" of racism, for corrupt, "democratic"
Corporate America, they have to stop this by all violent means, by
means of a 10 or 20 years "ancien regime" of terror, of dictatorship.
However, they never will return, the Bolivarian Revolution has left
them behind, has crossed the Rubicon on August 15, 2004. President
Chávez does not recognize their existence anymore, the Zombies can now
decimate each other, can enjoy the "silver bullets" of revolutionary
Renaissance and of revolutionary Emancipation.
http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=764&mode=thread
&order=1&thold=5
**************************************************
La Oposición Golpista de
Venezuela; Mentiras y Manipulación
Por: Franz J.T. Lee
Cierto, hacer una revolución, crear un mundo emancipado, no sólo es un asunto académico, sino más bien es una necesidad práctica, teórica. Precisamente esto fue verificado aquí en Venezuela a través de una feroz lucha de clases – entre el 11 y 14 de abril de 2002 millones de Venezolanos han creado el “milagro” de Caracas concreto y revolucionario; y sólo después fueron alfabetizados y enseñados a leer y escribir.
Después, el 15 de agosto de 2004 ellos pintaron su “NO” arrollador en los muros de Venezuela y el mundo, es decir, las “letras sobre la pared”, el “menetekel” de Cassandra para Bush y sus políticas agresivas hacia Venezuela.
También, como el Presidente Chávez suele resaltar, estamos tratando de introducir la justicia social, precios justos del petróleo, la redistribución justa del ingreso nacional, una “sociedad justa” – sin embargo, no debemos olvidar lo que es “justicia” en una sociedad de clases; en la sociedad colonial, capitalista, imperialista y corporativa, solamente es la acumulación de capital, ganancias justas, explotación justa, dominación justa, discriminación justa, militarización justa y alienación justa. Las hambrientas madres campesinas son juzgadas por robar un pedazo de pan para sus niños muertos de hambre, los grandes tiburones quedan en libertad, viven en Miami, en ese asilo de la corrupción y conspiración.
Por los momentos vemos lo que un puño de golpistas, la “oposición”, entiende de justicia social, democrática y electoral. Y toda la galaxia de agencias internacionales de noticias – incluyendo a CNN, BBC, DPA, AP, etc. – se están sintonizando con las mentiras de esta punta de lanza de la reacción y la contrarrevolución en Venezuela tan cuidadosamente fabricada.
Como unos mocosos protegidos por la CIA, quieren esto y aquello, de repente no quieren nada, no aceptan nada – no dejan ni una chispa para establecer una sociedad justa dentro del actual status quo corporativo imperialista, no en la libre sociedad democrática de Venezuela.
Por eso resaltamos el éxodo revolucionario hacia algo completamente nuevo, original y auténtico, un nuevo modo de creatividad, creación y emancipación. El Trabajo, el proceso de producción, a través de su propia naturaleza explotadora y dominadora no son justos y nunca pueden generar sociedad justa alguna.
¿Por qué pensar, por qué teorizar, por qué filosofar sobre el futuro, sobre nuestra revolución permanente?
Simplemente porque no somos vaqueros yanquis, que primero disparan y averiguan después, primero invaden a Irak y luego buscan las armas de destrucción masiva que no se encuentran en ninguna parte de Irak, porque Bush ya los ha amontonado en casa y en Israel.
No hay pensamiento verdadero alguno, teoría verdadera alguna, que no se basa en la acción, en la práxis y vice versa.
Precisamente “las raíces del cosmopolitanismo y la sobrepoblación del planeta junto al fascismo global actual” se encuentran en la Revolución burgués democrático capitalista, el proceso entero de la Revolución Francesa. Esta revolución sólo permite la justicia de la Razón alias el Capital y ataca ferozmente cualquier “organización económica justa” del ALBA, del MERCOSUR, de una Televisora para el Sur, de un “Banco del Sur”, de un “PetroSur”, de la Unificación Revolucionaria del llamado “Tercer Mundo”.
Así que no podemos progresar dentro del “salto dialéctico” intra-sistémico y sólo queda un camino: el Éxodo del proceso de producción explotador, dominador, hacia una Creatividad, Creación y Emancipación Humana. Esto están tratando de iniciar, alcanzar y materializar actualmente las misiones y los proyectos de la Revolución Bolivariana.
Published: Thursday, August 26, 2004
Bylined to: Jutta Schmitt
Venezuela: O inventamos, o erramos ... we either invent, or we err
University de Los Andes (ULA) lecturer Jutta Schmitt writes: We thank all the readers for their valuable comments on my article "Why Venezuelans support the Bolivarian Revolution wholeheartedly."
My apologies for not responding individually to each of your emails,
but let me try to make an effort to address the most important points
and questions raised.
My article is, in the first place, a synthesis of a debate we have been conducting with supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution from the ideological spectrum of the political left, and outlines the answer to the question, what the Bolivarian Revolution is all about and where in history it stands.
Because of its summary character, my article does not include detailed reasons, why Venezuelans also support the Bolivarian Revolution, such as the fact and as correctly pointed out in one comment, that for the first time in Venezuelan history, the vast majority of the eternal, socially and racially discriminated "forgotten ones" -- the very poor and downtrodden, the dark-skinned, the "lumpen", "la chusma", "la Venezuela primitiva y bananera" -- have been actively addressed by their political representatives.
Not only have they been bestowed with political rights, but provided with concrete measures of action, that allow them to overcome their chains of misery and lethargy, recover their human dignity and participate in Venezuelan society as active players; also a decisive step in leaving behind the social and racial discrimination, where "an individuals origin and secondly his/her level of wealth and finally the color of the skin" determines the fate of millions.
I agree it is a "silent and healthy revolution," and in spite of the ferocious and relentless attacks it had to endure, that have cost the country hundreds of lives and the economy billions of dollars, it has not gone for the extermination of the adversary, but made continuous efforts of principled dialogue and effective inclusion! The Bolivarian government presided by Hugo Chavez has, in many ways, acted exactly to the contrary of the calculations of its adversaries and thus avoided falling into a sea of traps.
The Bolivarian Revolution is, indeed, a "revolution of paradigms" and furthermore contains tendencies of "building new means and gains of production," towards overcoming the existing economization of the human being and establishing the humanization of the economy.
Can we really think of and actually construct a social order, where the economy stands in the service of the human being, and not in reverse?
Can we conceive of and realize a social order, where the means and gains of production do not produce exclusion and destruction, where economic interests and profits do not walk over human beings, alive and dead alike?
|
|
Although we cannot point to "any nation in the world which is presently prospering and providing a nice standard of living for its people wherein private property does NOT exist," we can certainly point to a myriad of nations which are presently dwarfing and providing a generalization of misery for its people, wherein private property of the means and gains of production DOES exist.
However, is the negation of capitalism -- socialism -- still an alternative, "can over 75 years of experience with the communist model demonstrate one single success story on our globe?" -- It can't. I not only agree, that "capitalism has been quite successful," I dare say it has been successful to an extent, where its consequences can only disappear with the universal extinction of the entire planet earth, extinction we are actually beginning to witness.
What is at stake with regard to the Bolivarian Revolution here in Venezuela, goes definitely way beyond the question capitalism or socialism -- the two sides of the same, productive-destructive labor process, culminating in today's globalized barbarism.
We need to creatively foster each and every germ in the Bolivarian Revolution that contains the potentiality to counter the self-destruction course of homo "sapiens" on a worldwide scale. In this sense, I say with Simon Rodriguez: O inventamos, o erramos -- we either invent, or we err.
The floor is open...
Jutta Schmitt
jutta@aktionspotenzial.de
JUTTA
SCHMITT, M.A., Political Science, Philosophy & Sociology is an
Assistant Lecturer (ad honorem) in Political Science at the University
de Los Andes (ULA) in Merida.
You may email Jutta Schmitt at jutta@aktionspotenzial.de
Published: Thursday, August 26, 2004
Bylined to: Jutta Schmitt
Venezuela: O inventamos, o erramos ... we either invent, or we err
University de Los Andes (ULA) lecturer Jutta Schmitt writes: We thank all the readers for their valuable comments on my article "Why Venezuelans support the Bolivarian Revolution wholeheartedly."
My apologies for not responding individually to each of your emails,
but let me try to make an effort to address the most important points
and questions raised.
My article is, in the first place, a synthesis of a debate we have been conducting with supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution from the ideological spectrum of the political left, and outlines the answer to the question, what the Bolivarian Revolution is all about and where in history it stands.
Because of its summary character, my article does not include detailed reasons, why Venezuelans also support the Bolivarian Revolution, such as the fact and as correctly pointed out in one comment, that for the first time in Venezuelan history, the vast majority of the eternal, socially and racially discriminated "forgotten ones" -- the very poor and downtrodden, the dark-skinned, the "lumpen", "la chusma", "la Venezuela primitiva y bananera" -- have been actively addressed by their political representatives.
Not only have they been bestowed with political rights, but provided with concrete measures of action, that allow them to overcome their chains of misery and lethargy, recover their human dignity and participate in Venezuelan society as active players; also a decisive step in leaving behind the social and racial discrimination, where "an individuals origin and secondly his/her level of wealth and finally the color of the skin" determines the fate of millions.
I agree it is a "silent and healthy revolution," and in spite of the ferocious and relentless attacks it had to endure, that have cost the country hundreds of lives and the economy billions of dollars, it has not gone for the extermination of the adversary, but made continuous efforts of principled dialogue and effective inclusion! The Bolivarian government presided by Hugo Chavez has, in many ways, acted exactly to the contrary of the calculations of its adversaries and thus avoided falling into a sea of traps.
The Bolivarian Revolution is, indeed, a "revolution of paradigms" and furthermore contains tendencies of "building new means and gains of production," towards overcoming the existing economization of the human being and establishing the humanization of the economy.
Can we really think of and actually construct a social order, where the economy stands in the service of the human being, and not in reverse?
Can we conceive of and realize a social order, where the means and gains of production do not produce exclusion and destruction, where economic interests and profits do not walk over human beings, alive and dead alike?
|
|
Although we cannot point to "any nation in the world which is presently prospering and providing a nice standard of living for its people wherein private property does NOT exist," we can certainly point to a myriad of nations which are presently dwarfing and providing a generalization of misery for its people, wherein private property of the means and gains of production DOES exist.
However, is the negation of capitalism -- socialism -- still an alternative, "can over 75 years of experience with the communist model demonstrate one single success story on our globe?" -- It can't. I not only agree, that "capitalism has been quite successful," I dare say it has been successful to an extent, where its consequences can only disappear with the universal extinction of the entire planet earth, extinction we are actually beginning to witness.
What is at stake with regard to the Bolivarian Revolution here in Venezuela, goes definitely way beyond the question capitalism or socialism -- the two sides of the same, productive-destructive labor process, culminating in today's globalized barbarism.
We need to creatively foster each and every germ in the Bolivarian Revolution that contains the potentiality to counter the self-destruction course of homo "sapiens" on a worldwide scale. In this sense, I say with Simon Rodriguez: O inventamos, o erramos -- we either invent, or we err.
The floor is open...
Jutta Schmitt
jutta@aktionspotenzial.de
JUTTA
SCHMITT, M.A., Political Science, Philosophy & Sociology is an
Assistant Lecturer (ad honorem) in Political Science at the University
de Los Andes (ULA) in Merida.
You may email Jutta Schmitt at jutta@aktionspotenzial.de
--
|
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:
| ||||||
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. 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 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. 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 | ||||||
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 |
| ||||||||
| |||||||||
 |
| ||||||||
 | |||
| News | Results 1 - 4 of about 4 for Jutta Schmitt. (0.03 seconds) | ||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sorted by relevance Sort by date |
 Venezuela Electronic News | Jutta Schmitt: What's wrong with Venezuela's 1999 Bolivarian ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University de Los Andes (ULA) lecturer Jutta Schmitt writes: Once again, what is wrong with the Bolivarian Constitution ... why ... |
| Please hand the opposition the silver bullet ... so it may finally ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - 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 ... |
| Venezuela: Interview with Black Op Radio, Canada CMAQ, Canada - By Jutta Schmitt. It is imperative to recollect what happened over the last six years in Venezuela, to understand the political show-down on August 15 next. ... |
| On the eve of a continental social revolution taking place in ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - ... political dinosaurs like COPEI, AD and other degenerated relics in social decomposition. Jutta Schmitt calls them "rancid Zombies.". ... |
Franz JT Lee: Venezuela's opposition coupsters and CNN, BBC, DPA ...
Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela -
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 ...
| Franz JT Lee: Now the corporate fox is guarding our electoral ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee writes: Today, in Venezuela, as emancipatory paradigm for the world, we are all celebrating ... |
 Venezuela Electronic News | Franz JT Lee: Venezuela ... Alienation and Emancipation Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee writes: What is really behind the mass manipulation of the huge mass media in Venezuela? ... |
| Franz JT Lee: The emancipatory quintessence of the Bolivarian ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee writes: The quintessence of the Bolivarian Revolution is determined by the trans-historic reality of its ... |
Venezuela Electronic News | The bitter fruits of fraud ... they drink the hemlock of tyranny ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee writes: The Battle of Santa Ines was victorious ... in fact, we really expected ... |
| On the eve of a continental social revolution taking place in ... Venezuela Electronic News, Venezuela - University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz JT Lee writes: Once upon a time, a weird monk hurriedly rushed across the central place of Wittenberg, heading ... |
| Search Tips |
| Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google |
| Commentary |   |
 |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
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!
CNE Jorge Rodriguez
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
----- Original Message -----From: FSharaff@aol.comSent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:44 AMSubject: 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 SharaffNew York.
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
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.
CNE Jorge Rodriguez
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.
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.
Mary Pil Hernandez
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.
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.
|
|
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.
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.
President Hugo Chavez Frias
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.
David Sheegog
davidsheegog@hotmail.com
Paoli, OK
