PANDEMONIUM POST-REFERENDUM SPECIAL
No. 1039
Venezuela y lecciones históricas de la Revolución Sudafricana
Por: Franz J.T. Lee:
A la vuelta del tercer milenio, entre otros intentos globales emancipatorios, dos revoluciones sociales sobresalientes marcan la época actual globalizada: las Revoluciones Sudafricana y Bolivariana. Cada una de ellas es pionera en cuanto a las lecciones transhistóricas, las cuales tienen que ser tomadas en cuenta urgentemente, por todos los emancipadores y revolucionarios permanentes.
(Véase: http://www.geocities.com/maymartin2001/einband.html).
(Véase: http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/4973_comment.php)
Friday, Sep 03, 2004 | ![]() | Print format |
![]() | Send by email |
By: Jennifer McCoy - The Economist
OPPONENTS of President Hugo Chávez have claimed that fraud thwarted their recent attempt to remove him from office in a recall referendum. Venezuela's election agency declared that Mr Chávez won the referendum by 59% to 41%. How can we assess these competing claims?
The opposition's suspicions are based on three things. First, an exit poll supervised by Penn, Schoen, and Berland Associates (PSB), an American polling firm, and conducted by volunteers from Súmate, an opposition civic group, showed the opposition winning by 18 points. Second, there was a pattern of polling stations where several electronic voting machines returned an identical result, in what looked like a pre-programmed “cap” on the number of opposition votes. Third, in some places the “Yes” votes to recall the president were fewer than the number of signatures on a recall petition last year.
I was there directing the Carter Center's election-monitoring efforts. I was concerned when I heard from both sides during the vote that their exit polls each showed them winning by 18 points. In my experience, competing exit polls are normal. But I was concerned about the size of the discrepancy (36 points), knowing that both sides in this deeply polarised country expected to win. Many in Venezuela and in the United States have called into question the referendum's result, as well as the ability of international monitors from the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center to detect fraud. Others have raised the spectre of electronic fraud in the American presidential election, citing the Venezuelan experience with new touch-screen voting machines.
Prior to the vote, Venezuela's National Election Council (CNE) threatened to limit the number of observers, and access to voting sites and some technical aspects of the vote. This generated suspicion among Venezuelans. The Carter Center urged the CNE to lift these restrictions, which it largely did. In the end, we received authorisation for all of the observers we requested, access to many of the technical components we asked for, and freedom of movement on election day. Both the OAS and the Carter Center had been mediating in Venezuela for two years and had already observed the signature collection and verification process. We observed all of the prior simulations conducted on the new electronic voting machines.
We planned three tests of the new electronic voting system. First, with the OAS, we conducted a “quick count” in which our observers at a random sample of polling stations (mesas) called results in to mission headquarters. This was to check the official results that were transmitted from the machines to CNE headquarters. Second, we drew a larger sample of poll results from those received electronically at CNE headquarters, to test the accuracy of tabulation by the CNE's computers. These tests confirmed there was no manipulation of the software or data transmission.
Missing from those tests was what happened within the black box of the voting machines. Fortunately, the Venezuelan machines were programmed to produce a paper trail: after each vote, a paper ballot was printed, inspected by the voter, and deposited in a cardboard ballot box. We had urged a “hot audit”, an immediate count of the paper ballots. At the last minute, the CNE approved an audit of 1% of the voting machines. But this was only half completed, because of the high turnout, late closing of the polls (some as late as 3am) and poor instructions to CNE auditors. We were only able to observe a few of these “hot audits”, as we needed to be at other mesas for our own quick count.
We therefore proposed to the CNE a second audit, three days after the vote, to check the paper slips. We agreed a methodology with the opposition's technical advisors, but its political leaders decided not to participate (they had wanted to negotiate directly with the CNE). We tested and verified the CNE's computer programme to draw a new random sample of 150 mesas, comprising 334 voting machines, and observed the drawing of the sample. We put observers in the main military garrisons where the boxes of paper receipts were stored, before the sample was drawn, to avoid any tampering with the chosen boxes. The observers accompanied the boxes to Caracas, and then watched over a meticulous count in which each slip was compared with the electronic result.
The only way the boxes could have been altered would be for the military—historically the custodians of election material in Venezuela—to have reprogrammed 19,200 voting machines to print out new paper receipts with the proper date, time and serial code and in the proper number of Yes and No votes to match the electronic result, and to have reinserted these into the proper ballot boxes. All of this in garrisons spread across 22 states, between Monday and Wednesday, with nobody revealing the fraud. We considered this to be supremely implausible.
This second audit showed that the machines were very accurate. We found a variation of only 0.1% between the paper receipts and the electronic results. This could be explained by voters putting the slips in the wrong ballot box. An additional piece of corroborating evidence was the result from the 15% of polling stations that used the old-fashioned manual ballot. These stations (in mostly rural areas without telephones) were even more favourable to the president, voting 70:30 against recall.
If the machines were accurate, how do we explain the three suspicious factors noted by the opposition? First, the mysterious “tied” results or “caps” on the machines. We found that 402 of 8,100 mesas (each with one to three machines) had two or three machines with the same result for the Yes vote; and 311 mesas had the same results for the No vote. So the phenomenon affected both sides. We consulted Jonathan Taylor, a statistician from Stanford University. Using various mathematical models, he predicted that 379 mesas would have ties (of two or three machines) in the Yes votes, and 336 mesas would have ties in the No votes. The error range would be plus or minus 36 mesas. So the actual results fell within the range of probability, and do not provide evidence of fraud.
The second oddity was the opposition's exit poll. In countries as polarised as Venezuela, exit polls are risky. They require those conducting them to avoid bias in choosing whom to query, to avoid socio-economic bias in their dress and speech, and to work in a wide variety of neighbourhoods. They also require voters to tell the truth—despite intimidation and strong peer pressure on both sides. Any of these elements could have been lacking.
Puzzles and explanations
The third puzzle was places with fewer Yes voters than signers of the recall petition. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some people who were expected to vote Yes in fact voted No. Overall, more people (almost 4m) voted to recall the president than signed the petition last November (3.4m). But some of the signers might have supported a recall as a democratic right, while themselves not wanting to remove the president. Some may have changed their minds since November. And some may have decided that Chavismo in government was more likely to preserve the peace than Chavismo in opposition.
Two other factors help to explain the result. First, reputable polls showed Mr Chávez climbing in the months before the vote; three weeks before, he had a nine-point lead among likely voters. Opposition leaders and pollsters told me before-hand that a high turn-out was expected to favour Mr Chávez. The turn-out was a high 70%, compared with an average in previous elections of 55%.
The second factor (which helps to explain the first) was that delays in the collection and verification of signatures gave time for the economy to recover from the previous year's devastating strike. Mr Chávez campaigned tirelessly and spent large sums from record oil revenues on social programmes for the poor. The government also naturalised long-waiting immigrants and registered up to 2m new voters. In contrast, the opposition ran a lacklustre campaign, did not present a clear alternative leader, and could not compete with the government's resources.
In conclusion, the vote itself was secret and free, but the CNE's lack of openness, last-minute changes and internal divisions harmed public confidence in that vital institution both before and after the vote. Divisive rhetoric and intimidating tactics from Chavistas, and the opposition's still-unsubstantiated claims of fraud, have exacerbated Venezuelans' cynicism toward elections. It will take a huge effort by both sides to restore trust in this fundamental democratic right before next month's election for governors and mayors.
Jennifer McCoy directed the Carter Center's observer mission in Venezuela and is a Latin America expert at Georgia State University in Atlanta.
Original source / relevant link:
The Economist
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1271
Friday, Sep 03, 2004 | ![]() | Print format |
![]() | Send by email |
By: Robin Nieto - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas, Sep.3, 2004--After long debates, the Venezuela's national electoral council (CNE) has chosen October 31 as the date for state and municipal elections, despite a legal challenge by the government ruling party that is protesting the extension of the election date.
Jorge Rodriguez, president of the National Electoral Directorate, announced that CNE directors unanimously agreed to the change of date for the regional, municipal and local council elections. According to the approved elections schedule, political campaigning is set to begin on September 18 and to continue until October 28.
The CNE also approved the opening of the voter registry from September 4 to 8, so that citizens who reach the voting age by October 31 may register in time for the upcoming elections. Also, Rodriguez explained that new nominations could not be made, but that substitutions could be made according to the country's voter law.
Immediately after the CNE announced the election date, National Assembly representative for the ruling government party (MVR), William Lara, announced that his party will consult with their legal advisors to protest the CNE decision at the supreme court level.
Lara said that the CNE decision to postpone the elections based on technical reasons is "insufficient" to justify prolonging the date, adding that the mandates for governors and mayors have already expired. "The CNE is acting improperly in the sense that it is prolonging periods of public office and that is not the constitutional function of those organizations," Lara said.
According to Lara, the mandate of governors and mayors, as well as
representatives in local Legislative Councils among others, "has
expired and that already in two occasions the electoral authority
extended their mandate. Today they are doing it again."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1356
Andrés Izarra: La nueva etapa que comienza es de profundización de la revolución
Por: Venpres
Publicado el Sábado, 04/09/04 06:03am |
| ||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
Traducido para Rebelión por J. A. Julián |
Mito nº 1 – Chávez es un presidente impopular al que puede derrotar en un referéndum la oposición de derechas.
Realidad – La derecha y sus patrocinadores de Washington realizaron un cálculo equivocado en varios sentidos. En primer lugar, el momento de máxima debilidad del Gobierno chavista fue después del lock-out ejecutivo de la compañía petrolera estatal PVDS, que duró desde diciembre de 2002 hasta febrero de 2003, en un momento en que los precios del petróleo eran mucho más bajos que ahora, la economía venezolana estaba devastada, los programas de bienestar social del Gobierno no contaban con los fondos necesarios y las organizaciones políticas de base eran débiles. Un año y medio más tarde, en agosto de 2004, en el momento de la celebración del referéndum, las condiciones socioeconómicas y políticas habían cambiado drásticamente. El ritmo de crecimiento de la economía era del 12%, los precios del barril de petróleo eran los más altos en muchísimo tiempo, las inversiones en servicios sociales crecían y su impacto social era visible y afectaba a amplias capas de la población, a la vez que las organizaciones sociales de masas se hallaban profundamente implantadas en las barriadas más populares de todo el país. Claramente, la iniciativa había pasado de la derecha a la izquierda, pero tanto Estados Unidos como sus colaboradores de la oposición estaban ciegos ante esta realidad. Después de haber perdido el control de la industria petrolera estatal y los recursos del petróleo con el lock-out fallido del 2003, y después de haber perdido también influencia en los medios militares tras el golpe de 2002, la oposición disponía de pocos recursos para neutralizar la campaña gubernamental del referéndum y no tenía ningún punto de apoyo para lanzar un golpe "cívico-militar" posterior a la votación.
Mito nº 2 – Según los analistas derechas, el elemento central del referéndum era la "popularidad", el "carisma" y el "estilo autocrático" de Chávez.
En realidad, el referéndum se basó principalmente en una clara división de clase y de raza. Líderes sindicales no vinculados a la oposición señalaron que más del 85% de la clase trabajadora y de los trabajadores pobres votaba por el presidente, a la vez que los primeros informes sobre la votación en las circunscripciones y los barrios ricos mostraban una situación inversa en un porcentaje del 80%. Un proceso similar de polarización por clases y razas era evidente en la extraordinaria asistencia a las urnas y en el porcentaje de votación entre los afro-venezolanos pobres: cuanto más alta era la asistencia, mayor era el voto favorable a Chávez (votó un 71% del electorado, cifra inaudita). No hay duda de que el presidente tuvo éxito en la vinculación de los programas de asistencia social y la identidad de clase al comportamiento electoral.
Mito nº 3 – Tanto en la derecha como en izquierda se cree que los medios de comunicación de masas controlan el comportamiento masivo a la hora de votar, limitan las agendas políticas y conducen necesariamente a la victoria de la derecha y a la domesticación de la izquierda.
En Venezuela, la derecha controla el 90% de las principales cadenas de televisión y medios de prensa, y la mayor parte de las principales estaciones de radio. No obstante, Chávez ganó el referéndum con un margen del 18% (59% contra 41%). Los resultados del referéndum demuestran que unas organizaciones de masas potentes organizadas en torno a luchas exitosas por las reformas sociales pueden crear una conciencia política y social en las masas que permita rechazar con fácilidad la manipulación mediática. El optimismo de las élites, basado en su "poder estructural" –dinero, monopolio de los medios de comunicación y respaldo de Washington–, las cegó ante el hecho de que la organización colectiva consciente puede ser un contrapeso formidable a los recursos de que disponen los más favorecidos. Del mismo modo, los resultados del referéndum refutan el argumento del centro-izquierda de que pierde las elecciones por culpa de los medios de comunicación de masas. El centro-izquierda justifica su adopción del neoliberalismo como un medio para "neutralizar" los medios de comunicación de masas durante las elecciones. El centro-izquierda sigue sin reconocer que las elecciones se pueden ganar a pesar de la oposición de los grandes medios de comunicación si antes la organización y la lucha de las masas han creado una conciencia social apropiada.
Mito nº 4 – Según muchos periodistas de izquierda, la victoria de Chávez refleja una nueva ola de nacionalismos populistas en América Latina.
Existen abundantes pruebas en contra de esta opinión. Brasil, bajo la presidencia de Lula, ha adjudicado a las corporaciones trasnacionales estadounidenses y europeas derechos para realizar sondeos petrolíferos, y ha proporcionado un contingente de 1.500 soldados (junto a Argentina y Chile, entre otros) destinado a Haití, para estabilizar el régimen títere impuesto por Washington tras el secuestro del presidente elegido Aristide. Del mismo modo, en los restantes países andinos (Ecuador, Perú, Bolivia y Colombia) los gobiernos elegidos proponen privatizar las compañías petroleras públicas, apoyan el ALCA y el Plan Colombia y pagan religiosamente la deuda externa. Por su parte, el Frente Amplio de Uruguay propone seguir las políticas neoliberales de Brasil. A la vez que Venezuela promueve el bloque comercial regional Mercosur, los principales miembros de éste, Brasil y Argentina, incrementan sus relaciones comerciales fuera de esta región. En realidad, hay un bloque de regímenes neoliberales opuesto a Chávez, a sus políticas antiimperialistas y a los movimientos sociales de masas. Mientras el presidente venezolano mantenga su política exterior independiente, sus principales aliados serán los movimientos sociales de masas y Cuba.
Mito nº 5 – La derrota en el referéndum ha sido una derrota táctica importante del imperialismo estadounidense y de sus vasallos locales.
Sin embargo, una derrota del imperialismo ni significa necesariamente una transformación revolucionaria, ni conduce a ella, como lo demuestran las declaraciones postelectorales de Chávez dirigidas tanto a Washington como al gran capital. Un elemento más indicativo de las políticas chavistas es el próximo acuerdo de inversión de 5.000 millones de dólares celebrado con Texaco-Mobil y Exxon para explotar los campos petrolíferos y de gas del Orinoco. La euforia de la izquierda le impide ver las oscilaciones del discurso de Chávez y del modelo heterodoxo de asistencia social y de políticas económicas neoliberales que práctica constantemente.
Las políticas del presidente han perseguido siempre un cuidadoso equilibrio entre el rechazo al vasallaje respecto a Estados Unidos y la oligarquía rentista nacional, por una parte, y el intento de forjar una coalición de inversores nacionales y extranjeros y pobres urbanos y rurales defensores de un capitalismo del bienestar. Chávez está más cerca del "New Deal" de Franklin D. Roosevelt que de la revolución socialista de Castro. Tras las tres crisis políticas –el fallido golpe militar, la derrota del lock-out ejecutivo, y la derrota de la oposición en el referéndum– el presidente ha ofrecido diálogo y ha propuesto alcanzar un consenso con los principales "barones" de los medios de comunicación y los autócratas de las grandes empresas y del Gobierno estadounidense, consenso basado en las actuales relaciones de propiedad, la propiedad de los medios de comunicación y la ampliación de las relaciones con Washington.
El compromiso de Chávez con las políticas centristas-reformistas explica por qué no llevó ante los tribunales a los propietarios de los medios de comunicación que en su momento hicieron llamamientos al derrocamiento violento de su Gobierno, y también por qué no ha tomado medidas judiciales contra la asociación patronal Fedecámaras, que ha incitado a la rebelión militar y a realizar ataques violentos contra el orden constitucional. En Europa, América del Norte y muchos otros lugares, unos gobiernos democráticamente elegidos hubieran arrestado y llevado ante la justicia a éstas elites por actos de subversión violenta. El presidente Chávez, en cambio, ha reiterado constantemente que sus propiedades, privilegios y riquezas no corren peligro. Además, el hecho de que estas élites hayan estado implicadas en tres intentos anticonstitucionales de derrocar al Gobierno y puedan seguir manteniendo sus posiciones de clase, muestra sin lugar a dudas que el presidente sigue pensando que dichas clases sociales tienen un papel importante que desarrollar en su visión de una asociación entre el sector público y el privado basada en el desarrollo y en un alto nivel de bienestar social. Tras cinco años gobernando y tres importantes "confrontaciones de clase" es evidente que, al menos a escala del Gobierno, no ha habido ruptura en lo que respecta a las relaciones de propiedad o de clase, como tampoco la ha habido con los acreedores extranjeros, los inversores y los clientes del petróleo venezolano. Dentro del mismo marco fiscal de los pagos de la deuda exterior, los subsidios a los exportadores particulares y los préstamos con bajas tasas de interés a los industriales, el Gobierno ha incrementado la asignación de gasto estatal destinada a los programas sociales en materia de salud, educación, vivienda, microempresas y reforma agraria. El Gobierno venezolano puede mantener este equilibrio entre los intereses de la gran empresa y los de los pobres debido al alto precios del barril de petróleo y a los grandes ingresos que proporciona esta materia prima. Igual que los del presidente Roosevelt, los programas chavistas de bienestar social atraen a millones de votantes de bajos ingresos, pero no afectan los niveles de ingreso salarial ni crean proyectos de empleo a gran escala. El desempleo sigue estando en torno al 20% y los niveles de pobreza alrededor del 50%. El gasto social generalizado ha mejorado la existencia de los pobres pero no su posición de clase. Chávez reacciona, alternativamente, de un modo combativo y radical cuando su liderazgo se encuentra en peligro, y de un modo conciliador y moderado una vez que ha conseguido superar las amenazas.
Mito nº 6 – Ni la derecha ni la izquierda han sabido reconocer las diferentes tácticas empleadas, de una parte, por un Washington dominado por la ideología y, de otra parte, por un Wall Street pragmático. La clase política estadounidense (tanto los republicanos como los demócratas, tanto la Presidencia como el Congreso) ha estado activamente implicada en las amenazas, las intervenciones y el apoyo al destructivo lock-out, en el golpe violento, y ha buscado el fraude en el referéndum, a fin de expulsar a Chávez. Contrariamente, las principales compañías petroleras y los bancos estadounidenses y europeos han seguido manteniendo relaciones económicas estables y provechosas con el Gobierno venezolano. Los acreedores extranjeros han recibido puntualmente unos pagos de miles de millones de dólares y no han hecho nada por interrumpir estas lucrativas transacciones. Las principales compañías petroleras transnacionales de Estados Unidos proyectan invertir entre 5.000 millones y 20.000 millones de dólares en nuevas inversiones de exploración y explotación petrolífera. No cabe duda de que esas compañías hubieran visto con buenos ojos la victoria del golpe militar, y con ello la posibilidad de monopolizar todos los ingresos del petróleo venezolano, pero al percibir los errores de Washington están satisfechas de compartir la riqueza petrolera con el Gobierno de Chávez. Las divergencias tácticas entre Washington y Wall Street probablemente se reducirán a medida que el Gobierno de Venezuela entre en una nueva fase de conciliación con Fedecámaras y Washington. Teniendo cuenta la derrota de Washington en el referéndum y los grandes contratos petroleros con las principales transnacionales estadounidenses, Washington buscará probablemente una "tregua" hasta que vuelvan a surgir nuevas circunstancias, más favorables. Será interesante observar el modo en que esta posible "tregua" afecte a la política exterior de Venezuela, tan significativa.
Mito nº 7 – El principal impulso de la actual fase de la revolución de Chávez es una cruzada moral contra la corrupción gubernamental y contra un sistema judicial altamente politizado y alineado con la desacreditada oposición política.
Para muchas personas de la izquierda, el contenido del "no" de la pasada campaña se enmarca en la proliferación de organizaciones comunitarias de base, la movilización de las asambleas sindicales y el proceso de descentralización democrática de participación de los votantes, basado en promesas de futuros cambios sociales en materia de en medio, ingresó y poder político popular.
Por su parte, las campañas moralizadoras (anticorrupción) están asociadas generalmente con las políticas de clases medias destinadas a crear una "unidad nacional", y tienden a debilitan la solidaridad de clase. La creencia de la izquierda de que las organizaciones de base movilizadas para el referéndum se convertirán necesariamente en la base de una "nueva democracia popular" tienen poco fundamento si atendemos al pasado reciente (movilizaciones similares tuvieron lugar antes del fallido golpe de estado y durante el lock-out de los ejecutivos). Del mismo modo, las campañas moralizadoras patrocinadas por el Gobierno tampoco suscitan mucho interés entre los pobres de Venezuela o de otros lugares. Además, el objetivo de los líderes políticos chavistas son las próximas elecciones parlamentarias, no la creación de formas alternativas de gobernancia. La fácil proyección que realiza la izquierda de movilización popular en el periodo posterior al referéndum crea una mitología política que no puede reconocer las contradicciones internas del político proceso político de Venezuela.
La
masiva victoria popular del "no" en el referéndum
venezolano dio esperanzas e inspiración a cientos de millones
de personas en América Latina y otros lugares, al mostrar que
las oligarquías respaldadas por Estados Unidos pueden ser
vencidas en las urnas. El hecho de que los resultados favorables de
la votación fuesen reconocidos por la OEA, el Centro Carter y
Washington hace honor a los cambios estratégicos realizados
por el presidente Chávez en el Ejército, que han
garantizado el respeto constitucional. En otro nivel de análisis,
más profundo, las concepciones y percepciones de los
principales antagonistas de la izquierda y la derecha son sin embargo
mucho más criticables: la derecha, por haber superestimado el
apoyo político institucional a Chávez en la actual
coyuntura; la izquierda, por proyectar una visión claramente
radical en la dirección de las políticas en el periodo
posterior al referéndum. Desde una posición
"realista", se puede llegar la conclusión de que el
Gobierno venezolano continuará con sus programas de bienestar
social tipo “New Deal” a la vez que profundiza sus vínculos
con los principales inversores nacionales y extranjeros. Su
capacidad para alcanzar un equilibrio entre las clases sociales,
apoyándose en una u otra, dependerá de la continuidad
de los altos ingresos que proporciona el petróleo venezolano.
Si los precios del petróleo caen, será preciso tomar
importantes decisiones: decisiones de clase.
*************************************************
Franz J. T. Lee: Venezuela and historic lessons of the South African Revolution
University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes:
At the turn of the Third Millennium, among other global emancipatory
attempts, two outstanding social revolutions mark the current
globalized epoch: The South African and the Bolivarian Revolutions.
Each one of them blazes the trail for trans-historic lessons that have
to be dealt with urgently, by all permanent revolutionaries and
emancipators.
Concentrating on the South African Revolution, we will just spotlight the main social revolutionary issues at stake.
Let us commence with the South African Revolution. Firstly, we have to unveil a few myths that surround Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and the African National Congress of South Africa, in order to place the South African Revolution in its real, true historic context. Precisely, like in the case of Venezuela, the national and international mass media have painted a picture of the dynamics of the anti-Apartheid struggle in a totally distorted and manipulated fashion. In reality, the victory of the ANC is at the same time the victory of corporate imperialism in Africa. No true, social revolution has taken place there, on the contrary, it has thoroughly been "nipped in the bud".
As a result of the major ideological, political currents that swept across Africa during the 20th Century -- African nationalism, Pan-Africanism, African Socialism and Reconciliatory Democracy ("Savage Neo-liberalism") -- the ANC is "nationalistic", is "anti-imperialist," (whatever is to be understood by this wishy-washy, generalized concept) but -- as can be witnessed by Nelson Mandela in his famous defence speech before the fascist South African Court -- "I am prepared to Die" -- all along its struggle it was never really anti-capitalist.
In spite of the fact that the originally Stalinist Communist Party of South Africa had accompanied the ANC, practically, in the current sell-out and privatization of the means of production, we see how little was studied and understood concerning scientific and philosophic socialism. Nowhere a social emancipation is possible without the knowledge of the basics of revolutionary Marxism. This also applies to the Bolivarian Revolution.
The international mass media have carefully fabricated "Nelson Mandela, the myth" -- the political, anti-Apartheid icon of the late 20th century.
We do not intend to "downsize" the heroic battles and the personal sufferings of the great South African leader, what we are underlining here is an international picture that has been drawn of the man, and of the ANC, that stands in stark contrast to the ransacking of the wealth of the South African people by the corporate companies, under their silent acceptance. Hence, we have to be very careful with messianic, charismatic, "populist" figures, created by CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.
A little while ago, when the charismatic figure, Nelson Mandela retired, it was clear that he was more of a reformist than a revolutionary, and the hungry hopes of millions of "Black" South Africans were already dimmed, because South Africa, as the result of the economic sell-out to corporate imperialism, was already mired in unprecedented misery, starvation, epidemics, illiteracy, poverty and criminality. Even the World Bank had to admit that the distribution of national income was chronically abysmal and that on a global scale, this social inequality is only being surpassed by Brazil. For example, today still, in the post-Apartheid society, the monthly household incomes for Africans average R757 compared to R4,695 for the so-called "whites" ... not even this reformist endeavor bore any fruits.
The ANC did everything to foster a wealthy, parasitic "Black" middle class, to replace the British and Boer ruling classes, but the gaping gulf between the wealthy and the impoverished classes in South Africa is increasing daily by leaps and bounds. The original social reform projects have been scrapped, and replaced by a scramble for wealth by this very "Black" middle class, whose core is formed by the previous ANC "freedom fighters."
Thus, an important lesson for us is: beware of the "middle class"! It is the social base, the epicenter for virulent social discrimination -- racism (no matter if black or white) and fascism.
However, all this that is happening currently, nearly three decades ago, I have already predicted in my book, "Südafrika am Vorabend der Revolution" (South Africa at the Eve of Revolution, ISP-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1976):
Because my book was placed on the index of censorship in Apartheid South Africa, and therefore its explosive contents are not known internationally, hence, below we will cite extensively from this work. Its warnings are more valid than ever, and it indicates which errors any revolutionary movement should avoid at all costs.
Concerning the above, the central aim of world capitalism in Southern Africa, that is, to create a black, capitalist middle class, the ANC has adhered to it with religious fire. The truth of the matter is that Mandela and his ANC never were and still are not anti-capitalist, as can be seen in their main program, that is, in the "Freedom Charter" of 1955; all along, their ambition was to conquer the opportunity for "Blacks" to become capitalists. They were not, are not revolutionaries, at best, they are social reformers, that do not even keep their words. Mandela himself confirmed that the program of the ANC is to establish a bourgeois democracy within the current global corporate capitalist world order, and thus to maintain the capitalist system in South Africa. This is precisely what the current South African government has accomplished. Hence, the South African Revolution is being postponed for better times to come. We have to study capitalism very carefully in Latin America, not to fall into the quagmire of South Africa.
Decades ago, I warned:
"The social, political, economical and international situation has changed greatly since 1960. Now as ever it is certain that neither the ruling white settler class nor international capital will peacefully bid farewell to their drone-like existence. They will defend their riches, their privileges and profits by main force as they have done before. Only by emancipatory counter-violence will the oppressed Africans be able to obtain their freedom." (Ibid. p. 168-9.)
This surely is valid for the Bolivarian Revolution. Again and again, the oligarchic "opposition" and the Washington administration, will try to topple the Bolivarian Government by all sorts of violent "democratic" means. Furthermore, we explained that "guarimbas," "sabotage acts," "liberalism," Christianity and "Gandhism" will not free the millions of "Blacks", suffering under global capitalism and globalized imperialist terror in South Africa:
"In the face of the massive power of the present State a conventional war or the type of guerrilla warfare that has been practiced in South Africa up till now do not, however, offer any chance of success.
"They rather must seize political and economic power by means of a revolutionary theory of their own and a guerrilla praxis geared to the South African situation. This involves long-term planning and co-ordination. Consequently the first task of a proletarian revolutionary party must be to find ways and means of forming cadres in the key areas, i.e. in the mining and industrial centers. They must be as mobile as African migrants themselves: nine months in the city and three months in these reservoirs of labor known as Bantustans. All crucial events in the life of an African occur at his place of work -- obviously situated in White South Africa -- which thus becomes co-extensive with his area of political activity." (ibid.)
Much of this, in embryonic form, is already accomplished in Venezuela. Concerning the "paramilitary" forces and the "Policia Metropolitana," I described the main weapon of emancipation as follows:
"His strongest revolutionary weapon is his productive, creative capacity. Besides this, of course, those weapons are also needed which will enable him to offer effective resistance to the para-military police force. Therefore the problem of military training inside the country and the arming of the combatants at the decisive moment must likewise be solved by the Marxist party." (Ibid.)
Concerning the South African Revolution itself, I stated:
"There are many indications that South Africa finds itself in a pre-revolutionary phase, although this does not necessarily mean that the last show-down is just around the corner. A revolutionary situation requires certain historical and international factors. A detailed analysis of what they are and whether they exist at all in South Africa would exceed the scope of this book. We have seen at any rate that there are compelling reasons, both of an objective and subjective nature, for social change." (Ibid., p. 165)
Concerning the construction of a revolutionary party, of the vanguard of social revolution, of "being neither Marxist nor Anti-Marxist," I commented:
"The South African revolutionaries cannot, and must not, lose touch with such a highly explosive situation, even though at present it can only be latently sensed. A revolutionary party must not be Marxist by definition. We only have to mention in this context the original core of Fidel Castro's guerrilla movement and the West African PAIGC (Partido Africano da Independencia da Guine e Cabo Verde). When a party really represents the needs and interests of the oppressed, it will of necessity veer to revolutionary Marxism in the course of the armed struggle." (P. 166)
Criminality and Genocide
South
Africa is the paradigm to demonstrate that within the capitalist world
system, within corporate democracy, there is no chance of liberation
whatsoever; on the contrary, by applying the measures of the World
Bank, of the International Monetary Fund, of the ALCA, of
"neo-liberalism," of "revolutionary" reformism, of "reconciliatory
democracy," of "dialogues with Zombies," the oppressed classes in the
"Third World" are digging their very own graves.
Finally, let us just highlight one of the most heinous results of a "Revolution Betrayed," of political reformism: Criminality and Genocide.
As is obvious in the case of Venezuela, we ought to be very careful with statements and statistics of the "United Nations," of the "World Bank," of "Human Rights Watch," of "Amnesty International," etc. ... yet sometimes, reading between the lines, they do give us a notion of what is really happening in the world.
After the massacres in Ruanda, due to the obsolescence of manual labor, billions of workers are in danger of extinction, to be annihilated by the machinations of globalized terror. What the system cannot exploit anymore, it just dumps. This happened to Mobutu, Pinochet, Bin Laden, Hussein, and the Boers in South Africa -- they have become free prey to any "death squads," mercenaries or blood-thirsty maniacs. Historically, the Boers, the previous ruling class of South Africa, had tasted the bitter fruits of British Imperialism during the "Boer Wars," during which they were massacred like flies, now the South African Government of Thabo Mbeki casts a blind eye at the "black" future of the "Whites" in Southern Africa.
Apart from his own "racist" remarks, six months ago, a pro-white priest reported the following from current South Africa:
"Unbelievably horrific torture-deaths are happening daily in the South African farmlands, writes New Zimbabwe -- yet, the media in the West say almost nothing about it, while wailing endlessly about a single drug-crazed Black criminal who died while attacking police in Cincinnati. 'South African farmers and their families are being slaughtered. The murders are accompanied by torture and rape. The sadism of the attacks suggests either dark perversion or systematic terror. Dr Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch has even suggested that the killing could be classified as genocide.' "
Stanton further reports:
“In South Africa, in the nine years following the end of Apartheid and the ‘miracle’ of South Africa's democratic election in 1994, more than 1,000 farmers have been killed. The death rate by murder for South African farmers is 313 per 100,000, perhaps the highest for any group of people on earth who are not at war."
The following indicates why we should be very careful with our concept of "Revolution":
To conclude, it is not necessary to spotlight this gruesome reality even more. As the Africans say: There is no smoke without a fire. We saw it coming, and we warned about the horrendous results of a social revolution in South Africa that could possibly fail:
"The violence, inhumanity and cruelty perpetrated by the white colonial overlords against the South African people have built up in the latter such a degree of aggressions, fury, and thirst for revenge that a revolution initially conceived as a class-struggle could easily degenerate into a race war pregnant with catastrophe. It will therefore be one of the most difficult tasks of a South African revolutionary party to design its program of political enlightenment in such a way as to prevent the race struggle in South Africa from superseding the class struggle and to vouchsafe their dialectic interconnection.
It will, however, be impossible to wipe from the consciousness of the Africans, apart from the dignity of man being daily crushed underfoot, the murders which count by the hundreds of thousands, the terror, the tortures by the Apartheid regime, the executions and banishments, the deaths without number of babies due to undernourishment and lack of medical care, and the ruined psychic as well as physical existence of thousands, all of which make up the history of South Africa. Let us hope that the revolution will succeed in proving that colonialism in league with capitalism and their related institutions are responsible for these enormous crimes. This road of history in South Africa has been chosen by the white masters and capital." (P. 168-9.)
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
Las Raíces Históricas del Racismo Oligárquico en Venezuela | |
Franz J. T. Lee, Lunes, Agosto 30, 2004 - 15:00 | |
Uno
de los elementos quintaesenciales del sistema mundial capitalista –
ideológicamente aplicado por la “oposición” en los medios masivos
nacionales e internacionales, para “dividir y gobernar” el pueblo
venezolano – es la discriminación social, es el racismo. En realidad,
el racismo es el reflejo ideológico del mercado mundial, de la división
internacional del trabajo, es decir, de la globalización y la viciosa
lucha de clases a nivel global. En realidad, Racismo es Ideología por
excelencia. Su realidad actual concreta es el fascismo global, es el
Apartheid globalizado. La discriminación social, el racismo, es una característica intrínseca de cualquier sociedad capitalista, igual que la explotación económica, la dominación política, la militarización destructiva y la alienación mortal. Todos ellos son elementos intrínsecos de nuestro sistema mundial y para erradicarlos se tiene que aniquilar el sistema laboral explotador entero. Como ideología no hay capitalismo sin racismo y vice versa; no importa la excusa que tengamos, el que favorece al capitalismo, siembra racismo; para eliminar cualquiera de los dos, tenemos que aniquilar los dos. Esto vale también para todas las cinco esencias capitalistas. Hace mucho tiempo, en Venezuela, Andrés Eloy Blanco quiso que alguien le pintara “ángeles negros”, indicando que la Conquista Europea y la Cristiandad ya han pintado el racismo en nuestra propia esencia sagrada, en el propio alma de América Latina. En cuanto a la Revolución Bolivariana, la llamada del clarín, el toque de Diana tiene que ser: no me pintes ángel ninguno, ¡ni ángeles negros ni diablos blancos! Lo peor que ha podido pasar en Venezuela fue que los oligarcas han comenzado a atacar la cara negra – la expresión de la esclavitud africana – de la Revolución Bolivariana, cuando han difamado con sus diatribas racistas y fascistas al Presidente Chávez. Sin embargo, a causa de una educación colonial para la barbarie y a pesar de experimentarlo a diario, muy pocos Venezolanos saben, qué es el racismo, qué es la discriminación social y qué son sus relaciones al capitalismo e imperialismo. Por eso resumiremos aquí las raíces históricas y sociales del racismo. Resaltaremos sus funciones ideológicas, para demostrar que la Revolución Bolivariana no necesita ideología o educación ideológica ninguna, más bien tiene que desarrollar urgentemente su propia práxis científica y teoría filosófica, para contarle al mundo lo que está pasando aquí en América Latina. El Concepto de “Racismo” „Raza“, „prejuicio racial“, „discriminación“ y „racismo“, o incluso „racialismo“, son conceptos no-científicos, polidimensionales, muy vagos, que han causado muchas confusiones ideológicas y desastres sociales en los últimos tres siglos. Aunque Arthur J. de Gobineau publicó un manifiesto, “The inequality of the races“, (La desigualdad de las razas) (1) y Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels publicaron “The communist manifesto“, (El manifiesto comunista), (2) casi al mismo tiempo, a mediados del siglo 19, ninguno de ellos ha tratado una de las cuestiones cruciales, es decir, la relación entre la denominada “lucha racial“ y la lucha de clases, especialmente en el contexto del llamado „Tercer Mundo“. (3) Sin embargo, no podemos disociar a estos autores de su contexto intelectual; ellos son productos de su época, no importa cuan críticos y revolucionarios hubieran podido ser. Esto vale también para nosotros, cuando besamos a “mi negra” o contamos chistes sobre Africa: Su nombre es “Negro” y su apellido “Mierda”; sólo nos imaginemos qué pensaría Nelson Mandela de nosotros – sobre este resultado de la educación “escuálida” puntofijista de décadas. Todo está bien con “mi negra” del propio corazón del Congo, sin embargo, cuando ella se presenta a sus futuros suegros, entonces empieza el verdadero drama racista. En la época del “descubrimiento”, Europa occidental tuvo un desarrollo tecnológico y científico sin precedentes, acompañado por un fuerte sentimiento de „superioridad de la raza blanca“. Las ciencias sociales llevan el sello de esta arrogancia del hombre, y la antropología, etnología y sociología trataron de legitimar científicamente la hegemonía de Europa y la supremacía de la „raza aria“. Ya antes de la Revolución Francesa, grandes filósofos como Montesquieu y Voltaire habían echado las bases del „pensamiento racista científico“. A pesar de que Carlos Marx hablaba de los “países bárbaros y semi-bárbaros dependientes de los países civilizados” (4) y descubrió un objeto de discordia en los rasgos “negroides” de su yerno Lasalle, no hay razón en absoluto para definir el socialismo científico, según fue desarrollado por él, como “ideología racista”. Sin embargo, tenemos que ver nuestros maestros dentro de su contexto histórico y criticarlos según las limitaciones de su conocimiento personal y histórico; sobre todo, uno se da cuenta de lo profundo que el “racismo” ha penetrado el propia “alma” de los seres humanos, viviendo bajo el capitalismo e imperialismo. Arthur De Gobineau contribuyó mucho a la formulación del concepto del „arianismo“; para él, todas las „civilizaciones“ y culturas antiguas y modernas eran „la creación del hombre blanco, la única historia era la historia del hombre blanco“. (5) Ahora bien, la historia de las culturas „no blancas“ era prácticamente desconocida en Europa antes de 1847, y a partir de este momento, nos encontramos con una afirmación controversial en el Manifiesto Comunista: „La historia de todas las sociedades pasadas es la historia de la lucha de clases“. (6) En una carta a A.H. Starkenburg, Engels llegó al punto de afirmar: „Consideramos, que las condiciones económicas son el factor que, en última instancia, determina el desarrollo histórico. Pero, la raza es en si, un factor económico“. (7) Estos ejemplos promueven la pregunta crucial: La cuestión no es, si se debe tratar las “razas” de manera igual o no, o si las “razas” son iguales o no, sino la verdadera pregunta es, si la categoría “raza”, que es la base del “prejuicio racial” o del “racismo”, es científicamente válida. Ahora, la existencia de los “fantasmas”, “ángeles” o “demonios” no se ha verificado en la realidad física, sin embargo ellos existen intelectual y espiritualmente en las mentes de millones de seres humanos latinoamericanos. De manera similar, las “razas” y el “racismo” son realidades sociales de nuestra época. El problema no consiste en demostrar, que realmente existen, sino que son seudo-conceptos, parte intrínseca de la ideología burguesa y oligárquica, que opera con categorías científicamente no válidas. En Venezuela, todas estas categorías son necesarias para racionalizar el dominio oligárquico, es decir, la explotación económica, y para mantener el status quo de la hegemonía “blanca”. Conste, que en nuestros tiempos, podemos encontrar el fenómeno al revés, por ejemplo la constitución de una supremacía “negra” en la Guyana de Forbes Burnham sobre la mayoría indo-guyanés, y parcialmente en la Sudáfrica de hoy, sobre la anterior clase dominante “blanca”. Solamente teniendo este punto bien claro, podemos analizar el “racismo” contemporáneo en todas sus facetas, disparado desde la Plaza Francia. “Raza”, “Prejuicio Racial” y “Racismo” El concepto „raza“, en su uso actual, apareció por primera vez en 1684. El médico y viajero francés, Francois Bernier, quien escribió sobre „cuatro o cinco razas de pueblos, cuyas diferencias son tan obvias, que por lógica deberían ser usadas como base para una nueva división del mundo“. (8) El verdadero fundador de la doctrina de la „raza“, posteriormente desarrollada como ideología, fue el científico natural sueco, Carl von Linné. En la décima edición revisada de su famoso libro, “Systema Naturae”, en 1758, dividió la especie humana en cuatro „razas“ principales, según sus características físicas, psicológicas y sociales: Indios, Europeos, Asiáticos y Negros. (9) Debido a las contribuciones de Houston Chamberlain, G.V. de Lapouge y de Gobineau, con el tiempo, una serie de ideólogos „racistas“ enunciaron tres grupos de „raza“ principales: caucasoide, mongoloide y negroide. Estos, a su vez, se subdividieron en varios grupos; la famosa „raza aria“, por ejemplo, es sólo una subdivisión. (10) Los descubrimientos científicos fueron aprovechados para respaldar la teoría de la „superioridad de la raza blanca“. El libro de Charles Darwin “El origen de las especies. La preservación de razas privilegiadas en la lucha por la existencia” (1859), dio un gran ímpetu a las doctrinas de „raza“; hasta Marx quedó fascinado con este libro de Charles Darwin, obviamente por otras razones, e incluso quiso dedicarle el segundo volumen de El Capital. Darwin y Herbert Spencer relacionaron la teoría de la evolución con la teoría de la „raza“, lo que dio lugar al „darwinismo social“, tendencia que aplica la teoría de la selección biológica al proceso histórico-social y que posteriormente encontró aplicación en el nazismo y el apartheid, en ideas como el „herrenvolk“ (raza superior), „raza aria“ o „pureza de raza“. (11) Cuando las leyes de la genética de Mendel demolieron los criterios antropológicos de la definición de „raza“, los científicos „racistas“ biologo/geneticistas, tuvieron que buscar refugio en el campo de la sociología. Con el descubrimiento de los ‘pools’ de genes, se extendió el término „razas sociológicas“, (12) debido a que el mecanismo de herencia biológica hizo insignificante el concepto antropológico de „raza“. Del término „razas sociológicas“, fue inferido „prejuicio racial“, especialmente por los científicos alemanes nazi, y luego por sus pupilos, los científicos sudafricanos „afrikaner“ (boers). „Antipatía de grupo“ en las Antiguas Civilizaciones „Civilización“ es un concepto que fue creado al mismo tiempo que el de „raza“. Tiene muchas connotaciones „raciales“ porque presupone la existencia de pueblos „civilizados“ e „incivilizados“. Actualmente, de manera racista, en sus “nuevas guerras”, Bush usa este concepto contra los “bárbaros árabes”. Basta con leer las obras de Hegel, Marx, Engels, De Gobineau o Darwin para comprender la manera de cómo fue utilizado este término contra pueblos realmente altamente desarrollados en Africa, en América Latina y en Venezuela. En el caso de Egipto por ejemplo, una tercera parte de la población egipcia estaba integrada por pueblos „negroides“, algunos faraones eran de origen „negro“ y en una época reinó en Egipto una dinastía etíope. Los gobernantes egipcios habían esclavizado pueblos de muchos otros países, entre ellos, Africanos del Sur, Nubios y Etíopes. Las clases dominantes hablaban muy despectivamente de estos últimos, pero las relaciones sociales en la sociedad de amos de Egipto no tenían nada que ver con “prejuicio racial”. Tenemos muchos testimonios de cómo los egipcios se mezclaron libremente con sus vecinos, esclavos o hombres libres. En las antiguas civilizaciones griegas también encontramos patrones sociales similares. Para Platón, Heráclito o Aristóteles, los esclavos no eran ciudadanos de las ciudades-estados, (polis) y en todos sus trabajos encontramos referencias despreciativas respecto a ellos, por ejemplo, los llamaron “herramientas que hablan”. Esto valía, sin embargo, para los esclavos blancos proveniente del Norte; el “prejuicio racial” no fue un factor relevante. Los griegos helénicos constituían una mezcla cultural, y la división básica era simplemente: griegos y bárbaros. Estos últimos eran los que ni hablaban griego ni poseían una cultura griega. Pero los Griegos fundaron colonias, animaron a los “bárbaros” a participar en la cultura griega, los casaron libremente y una vez que adquirieron un conocimiento laboral de la cultura griega, todos los Europeos, Asiáticos y Africanos fueron incluidos en el sonoro concepto de “Hellas”. Los viajes africanos pre-colombinos, el comercio trasatlántico de esclavos, el origen del mercado mundial, el infamoso “Triángulo de Bermuda” capitalista, todos nos vinculan aquí en Venezuela con esta herencia cultural africana, con la revolución mundial permanente. En la época del Imperio de Alejandro Magno, surgió una nueva cultura y clase dominante Greco-Oriental, en base de todas las civilizaciones dentro del imperio. La distinción de clase entre la clase gobernante y los nativos no-helenizados era una propiedad, un tipo de herencia, no una división “sociológico-racial”. En el gran Imperio Romano que seguía, de manera similar, los esclavos no diferían en apariencia de sus amos, o de los “hombres libres”. En Roma, la norma de la superioridad era un atributo cultural o de clase, y con el crecimiento del imperio, la distinción básica de la ciudadanía Romana fue extendida a toda persona nacida libre en los diferentes municipalidades. En su famoso libro “Casta, Clase y Raza”, Oliver Cromwell Cox concluyó: “Al parecer no existe una base para imputar un antagonismo racial hacia los Egipcios, Babilonios y Persas”. Según manifestó Corinne Brown, “es importante resaltar el hecho de que el prejuicio racial, tal como nosotros lo conocemos, no existía antes de la época moderna”. Esclavitud y “Racismo” Desde el Imperio Romano, a través de las invasiones “bárbaras” de Europa, el reino de los musulmanes y hasta la época del dominio del Catolicismo Romano, la racionalización dada a la esclavitud no era el color del esclavo, sino su cultura o religión. Incluso en el siglo 15, cuando comenzó el Comercio de Esclavos trasatlántico, los Africanos no fueron esclavizados por ser negros, sino porque no eran Cristianos, y por razones económicos. Según el entonces Presidente de Trinidad y Tobago, Eric Williams, en su libro “Capitalismo y Esclavitud”: “En el Caribe la esclavitud ha sido identificada demasiado estrechamente con “lo negro”. Por consiguiente, se le ha dado una tergiversación racial a algo que básicamente es un fenómeno económico. La esclavitud no nació del racismo: más bien el racismo era la consecuencia de la esclavitud. El trabajo no libre en el Nuevo Mundo era de color marrón, blanco, negro y amarrillo; católico, protestante y pagano”. (13) Antes de que la esclavitud se convirtió en el “gran negocio”, la buena voluntad de un esclavo Africano en convertirse en Cristiano, fue suficiente para lograr su emancipación. Después del desarrollo de la ideología “racial”, (el esclavo) no tenía ninguna posibilidad de cambiar sus genes, y el estado de esclavo era idéntico con ser negro, y luego con ser “de color” o amarrillo. Durante la “época del descubrimiento” y el Comercio de Esclavos trasatlántico, los mismos lenguajes Europeos se convirtieron en vehículos del “racismo” emergente; entró en cuentos, rimas y canciones para niños. Surgieron los “Diez Negritos”, el “Struwwelpeter”, los “Bimbos”, etc. La palabra “negro” nunca se utilizó en Africa antes del siglo 15, especialmente en la “Africa Negra”, pero desde entonces “negro” y “negrero” se convirtieron en palabras comunes y corrientes. El “Negro”, como indica su designación colonial, se diferenciaba de su amo blanco por el color de su piel – negro. A través de las décadas, las injustas connotaciones del estado de esclavo fueron transferidas a cualquier persona negra y finalmente a cualquier persona “no blanca”. Ya hemos visto, cómo Bernier, de Gobineau o Linné en aquél entonces habían elevado a los “Europeos” de piel blanca a la “superioridad” y degradado los “Negros” a la “inferioridad”, usando éstas como seudo-categorías en sus “doctrinas raciales”. Sin embargo, el “racismo”, igual que el capitalismo mismo, tenía un largo proceso de desarrollo histórico; sólo en el siglo 19, cuando el capitalismo había ganado poder económico y político, el “racismo” alcanzó madurez como parte de la ideología general, que dio las racionalizaciones para la discriminación social colonial y para la división del trabajo a nivel internacional. (14) Capitalismo y “Racismo” En cuanto a la génesis del “racismo” y su relación al capitalismo, citaremos de un discurso del autor (Franz J.T. Lee), celebrado en varias universidades de Alemania en octubre de 1976: “El ‘odio de raza’ ...como derivado del ‘subdesarrollo’ de Africa y del ‘desarrollo’ de Europa surgió y se convirtió en la marca de distinción de las relaciones sociales entre hombres de diferente pigmentación. Por eso, el concepto ‘Negro’ adquirió su contenido histórico discriminatorio... El ‘Racismo’ está vinculado estrechamente con la génesis del capitalismo mundial; funciona como disfraz, como racionalización para los crímenes bárbaros de la época colonial... Pero también tiene una función en casa, en los países metropolitanos; los miembros comunes de la ‘raza mayor’ se encuentran en los escalones sociales más altos del mundo, más alto que los ‘aborígenes’, los ‘bosquimanos’, los ‘Negros’, los ‘Pieles Rojas’, etc.” (15) En resumen y como expresado anteriormente, el “racismo” y el “capitalismo” poseen una génesis similar. No puede haber “racismo” sin “capitalismo” y no puede haber capitalismo mundial sin “racismo” internacional. El “racismo” es producto directo de la evolución del colonialismo e imperialismo; o está abiertamente presente o potencialmente latente en todos los países capitalistas. Por dondequiera que el capitalismo florece como “neocolonialismo” en el llamado “mundo en desarrollo”, el “racismo” en sus formas modernas, con nuevas caras y disfraces es virulento y contagioso. La ideología capitalista usada por la “oposición” en Venezuela – contra las clases desposeídas, que apoyan a la Revolución Bolivariana – es “racismo” puro. Sus diatribas violentas, donde llama a la “desobediencia civil” o a la “insurrección social” contra un gobierno legítimo y democrático, sus ataques racistas y fascistas contra Chávez, demuestran su esencia capitalista sanguinaria. No les importa los millones de las masas empobrecidas de América Latina, sólo ve “recogelatas”, la “chusma del mundo”, “herramientas que hablan”. Por primera vez en Venezuela, la Revolución Bolivariana le ha dado dignidad y valor humano a la multitud empobrecida, le habilita una participación en su propio destino. Esto es demasiado para la “coordinación democrática” fraudulenta del racismo, para la Norteamérica Corporativa corrupta “democrática”; ellos tienen que parar esto por todos los medios violentos, por medio de un “ancien regime” de 10 o 20 años de terror, de dictadura. Sin embargo, no volverán, la Revolución Bolivariana los ha dejado atrás, ha pasado el Rubicon el 15 de agosto de 2004. El Presidente Chávez ya no reconoce su existencia, ahora los zombis pueden diezmarse uno al otro, pueden disfrutar las “balas de plata” del Renacimiento y de la Emancipación revolucionarios. (Si es necesario, se pueden solicitar todas las citas de este artículo a través del correo electrónico.) Notas (1) A. J. de Gobineau. The Inequality of the Races, traducido por Adrian Collins, Noontide Press, Los Angeles, 1969. (2) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969. (3) Véase Carlos Moore, Were Marx and Engels White Racists?, An IPE Publication, Chicago, 1972. (4) Marx and Engels, op. Cit., p. 47. (5) De Gobineau, op. cit., pp. 210-212. (6) Marx and Engels, op. cit., p. 40. (7) Tomado de Marx y Engels, Oeuvres Choisies, edition du Progres, Moscow, 1955, Vol. Il, p. 554 (traducción del autor). En nuevas ediciones y las obras traducidas de Marx y Engels, especialmente la famosa Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW) muchas de las alusiones „raciales“ o „racistas“ originales han sido omitidas. (8) Michael Traber. Rassismus und weiße Vorherrschaft, Laetare/Imba, Nürnberg/ Freiburg i. Ue., 1971. p. 14. (9) Ibid., p. 15. (10) Ibid, pp. 187-215. Otros antropólogos que describieron las diversas „razas“, fueron Desmoulin (1826), Bory de St. Vincent (1827), J.B. Fischer (1829), Deniker (1899), von Eickstedt (1934) y Biasutti (1943). (11) Antropologie op. cit.. pp. 189-190. dtv-Lexikon zur Geschichte und Politlk Im 20. Jahrhundert, Band 3, dtv, München, 1974, pp. 666-667. Ver también Georg Lukács, El asalto a la razón, Barcelona, Grijalbo, pp. 538-617. (12) No Sizwe, One Azania, One Nation, Zed Press, London,1979, pp.132-136. (13) Eric Williams. Capitalism and Slavery, André Deutsch. London, 1975. p.7. (14) Breitman, op. cit., nos brinda una descripción detallada del proceso durante el cual el estatus del esclavo se transformó en ser „negro“. (15) Franz J. T. Lee. Das Südliche Afrika auf dem Weg zur Befreiung, eine ASTA Broschüre, Technische Universität Hannover, 1976. p.6. Conferencia del autor en varias Universidades de la República Federal Alemana. |
Un día antes los efectivos destituidos habían denunciado corrupción interna
Botados miembros de seguridad presidencial
Por: Ultimas Noticias
Publicado el Miércoles, 01/09/04 07:04am |
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
Tuesday, Aug 31, 2004 | ![]() | Print format |
![]() | Send by email |
By: Aram Aharonian - Alia2
There is no doubt that the Chávez model of “revolution without revolution”, of structural changes for democracy and peace, while strictly Venezuelan, nevertheless is a thermometer for Latin American countries. It demonstrates that there is no one who can stop us from dreaming of a future of popular activism, of justice and equity, of regional horizontal integration, without tutelage. This is why the president insisted that victory in the referendum transcends the Venezuelan frontiers because it is also a victory for Latin America.
The Bolivarian project is a bad example, an anti-hegemonic example. Because, for the first time in Latin America there is an agreement for a strategically offensive initiative towards a participatory, active, post-capitalist democracy (perhaps this expression will have to be further defined), and leaves behind the defensive models such as those straitjackets of the “No” forces; No to FTTA and No to dollarization.
This is why it should not be a surprise to hear what Chávez said about his new triumph: “We continue unbeaten”, he said, “they have informed me that the ball (of this enormous swing of the bat) has fallen right in the middle of the White House—it fell in the middle of the garden…a gift for Bush.” Then, very seriously, Chávez expressed his expectation that the government of the United States cease their interference, that they respect internal sovereignty, without meddling of any kind, in the issues that are of exclusive competence of Venezuelans.
To the foreign press he pointed out that, “We have no plans to take Washington by assault, of attacking the United States…but here we are prepared to be free, to defend sovereignty. Venezuela will not be a colony again; only we Venezuelans govern here. We want to have at least a relationship such as we had with President Clinton; with him one could debate and discuss things.”
Is a confrontation with the United States and its Monroe Doctrine inevitable? Everything seems to indicate that it is not. Therefore, it will all depend on the force of the actors. A lone Venezuela logically will not be able to confront it, but an integrated Caribbean- Latin America perhaps will. And it is time that our dear intellectuals stop talking of other things, of throwing the ball outside the court; it is about integration and within it, sovereign military integration, which is indispensable.
You can count the votes, but the passion, the responsibility, cannot be quantified. Chávez, disillusioned by the mid-level official leadership, bet on popular passion to carry out the campaign for the referendum, unleashing the strength of the brigades, electoral teams that today are an organized social force. They are an organizational model that is not a party, not a national front, but a mobilized people, an organized mass, “a moral force” that occupies a place in the entire geography of the country.
This electoral triumph, his eighth consecutive one, creates a new situation in the national political map because it represents the harshest reversal that his adversaries have ever had and it is the most convincing popular support given by the people to the Bolivarian process. This is why it is not strange that even days after the referendum the opposition continues to talk about fraud and incites to disobedience and rebellion.
The people that stood up to ten hours in line to exercise their right to participate, assumed that their future depended on this vote, because it was more than just about the rejection of or support for a president. The alternatives were between two models of a country, two models of the world, between a dream of the future, consolidation of a political, economic, and social project, or to block it.
Six out of every ten Venezuelans voted for the model of a Bolivarian country that seeks to overcome the political, economic and social exclusion of the great majority with an articulate social policy focused on the “missions,” which have managed to substantially improve the health and education indicators of the country.
There can be no popular activism without political consciousness and that is one of the great advances that Venezuela displays today. Today, Venezuelans want to be makers of their own destiny. August 15th was a triumph of the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution – of its referendum that ratifies a participative, activist model of democracy that guarantees a country for all, without exclusions or discriminations of any sort.
Is the destabilization over? To almost the whole world, it is clear that many did not understand participative democracy. It is clear that Venezuelans came to understand that they are subjects of politics,—not just its object—that they had been condemned by the elites and that they have the capacity and the need to be the makers of their own destiny.
As it turned out, the dynamics of the situation was greater than that of the individual actors. The point of no return was reached. This “rule of law and justice” project was re-legitimated, re-affirmed and now has to continue to deepen strategically in order to really leave behind 40 years of discredited, formal, representative democracy. “The Fourth Republic has died; its death was slow and difficult; may it rest in peace. With the referendum the Fifth Republic is definitively born,” Chavez affirmed. If the transition is over, then what now?
Chávez knows that he has to end with the integral transformation of state institutions, among them, Justice, which hides many acts of corruption and guarantees impunity to the powerful. Such as when it declared that there was no coup d’état on April 11, 2002, only a vacuum of power…
The false dilemma of—to revoke the president or to face civil war—was avoided, and no one has any doubts about that. The Venezuelan people, with a home run, with a beating, bet on the future and refused to go back into the past, in front of the lost looks of Jimmy Carter and César Gaviria, who took about ten hours to ratify the official figures, and the smile of a many European, North American and Latin American international observers.
The electoral results of August 15 were practically announced beforehand because all of the opinion polls reflected the triumph of the NO option, but the Venezuelan media and their foreign multipliers systematically refused to publish these polls. The opposition stated with great emphasis that they considered the opinion of the observers absolutely fundamental.
According to the Vice-President, José Vicente Rangel, “this was also a polemical issue because North American officials who were here in Venezuela and officials who made statements in the United States said that for them the opinion of the Carter Centre and of the Organization of American States were more important than that of the National Electoral Council. I say this with absolute knowledge because I had a discussion with Mr. DeShazo, high official of the Department of State, who let me know this opinion, and which I immediately rejected for reasons of national sovereignty.”
What was feared finally occurred. Immediately after the announcement of the CNE, downcast leaders of the opposition affirmed that they would not recognized the results and accused the government of fraud. Their faces showed not only weariness but also lack of credible responses. The referendum that they assumed would revoke President Chávez, had ended in revoking them, placing in doubt the possibility of keeping—in next month’s elections—more than one hundred mayoralties and half of the state governors that their parties control.
“I believe that the great victory of the Venezuelan opposition—and I hope at least some of their leaders recognize the great victory of the opposition—is that they have triumphed over violence, over coups, over fascism, and have joined us on the democratic and constitutional road,” the president said, inviting the leaders of the opposing Democratic Coordinator to a dialogue.
At lunch the next day, Chávez was left waiting for them. He extended his hand to them but… “I still hope that those leaders of the opposition listen to this call to dialogue. I invite them again to re-think and to accept this call. But if they do not do so and again do not come, we are going to extend this dialogue to opposition governors and mayors, to opposition economic leaders, even to Fedecámaras [the coup plotting business leaders], and the owners of the media, with an agenda on which Vice-president José Vicente Rangel is working on.”
Venezuela has changed forever, he reminded the international press. There is no return. “Any dialogue is to go forward, to get the Constitution to go forward.”
The results do not mean that desperate people will not attempt to kill Chávez, urged by pseudo-democratic ex-presidents who call for the President to be killed “like a dog,” who count on idle hands—or not so idle—such as paramilitary killers. They have tried to unleash snipers, with new tragic events, repeating old schemes.
Vice-president José Vicente Rangel insists that “one cannot commit the political stupidity of saying there is fraud, five minutes after the CNE has given its figures, knowing that these are supported by the Carter Centre and the OAS… This happens for a simple reason, because the democratic sectors of the opposition, that do exist, unfortunately, are inhibited in moments of conflict.”
He added that these sectors are paralyzed by the fear of blackmail from an extremely radicalized membership, largely situated in the east of Caracas. The vacuum they leave is then filled by the radical, coup plotting, terrorist sectors of the opposition. “To this is added the fact that the media only provides an outlet to the strident attitudes of the opposition. The voices that could lessen radical attitudes are excluded or silenced”, Rangel added.
Rangel also pointed out that “this is an announced defeat for the upcoming governors and mayors’ elections. If this is a catastrophe for them, there will be an even bigger catastrophe in a month’s time,” when the elections to renew 23 governors and 336 mayors, half of which are in hands of the opposition, take place. The government only lost in one state, and by a very small margin. Undoubtedly, the government is not interested in squashing the opposition because the country should have other alternatives apart from Chavismo.
Rangel indicated that “if we did not have a sense of Country, we would be happy with the opposition making so many mistakes, but this is not about taking electoral advantage of the opposition, it is about giving a sense of serenity to Venezuelans, of normalizing the democratic process in this country.”
Teodoro Petkoff, who from being a communist and a guerrilla fighter, ended up as Minister of Planning for the (ultra) rightist Rafael Caldera, and is now an ideologue of the Coordinadora Democrática, tried to reason with his fellow opposition members in an editorial he wrote in his newspaper “TalCual”: “We were saying that the manual voting results that are ratified in the voting documents by the witnesses for the opposition, could show what the national trend was. Well, we now know them; the correlation is 70 to 30 in favor of NO. This is too meaningful; it was said repeatedly by the Coordinadora that the opposition had witnesses in the voting tables, and if that is so, the manual results cannot be placed in doubt. A document can only nullify a vote when a party does not have a witness on the table, which was what happened to the MAS[1] and the Communist Party in the history of Venezuela.”
A lesson in Democracy
Venezuela, which has set an unprecedented lesson in democracy and popular participation, lives today in a democratic bonanza and also in a time of economic bonanza and sustainable growth.
Hugo Chávez won his eighth election in five years and again, his tactical and strategic ability came out winning. He bet that he would demonstrate once and for all that the great majority of the people backed the structural changes developed since he was elected to govern in February 1999 and in 2002, after the frustrated coup d’état.
A dictator and autocrat? That is how the media campaign waged by the local media and its transnational multipliers wished to sell him as…and it was buried in a torrent of votes.
Chávez’ ratification means a step towards implementing the Constitution. Therein lies a model for a country. One that seeks a participative democracy, that has given dignity back to a people, that has incorporated them into the political agenda, and that puts forward a model of endogenous development—warts and all—in order to depend less on imports and on oil production and exploitation.
For the first time, oil income is reaching the great majority. For more than 40 years, the thieving Venezuelan elites got away with more than 300 billion dollars, leaving 80% of the population in poverty and an external debt of more than 24 billion dollars.
“As of today, a new phase of the Bolivarian Revolution has begun, until December 2006, that will mean intensifying the fight against poverty by building a new endogenous, productive and diversified economic model that will meet the basic needs of all the population,” Chávez said to thousands of his supporters, a happy and calm Chávez, under a persistent rain in the early morning of Monday, August 16.
Chávez took the opportunity to express his satisfaction in being the first head of state that has been evaluated by the people. “Even though I have passed the exam, believe me that as of now, I will continue working with greater effort, with greater devotion, with greater efficiency”, he stated.
Has Venezuela changed forever?
The Grassroots Take Control
There is an aggregated value at the end of this referendum campaign: the political machinery that mobilized the mass of 900 thousand volunteers and, which is now converted into a social and economic machinery, defending the process of national change. It is not there for the purpose of guaranteeing Chávez a referendum victory; its brigades aim to use the same logistics to conquer the social challenge of assisting the dispossessed masses.
The work of the communities is a social audit and perhaps this is something the governors and mayors do not like. It is a structural defense of the Bolivarian Revolution that goes beyond the Bolivarian Circles[2] that did not quite set in, and this perhaps does not sit well with those in high and medium political levels. This is a horizontal structure for mobilization.
For now.[3]
Chávez himself headed the referendum campaign and called it called Campaign Maisanta, in honour of General Pedro Pérez Delgado, an independence hero who fought for popular mobilization from the ground up. His teams worked the shantytowns and city blocks.[4]
“In Venezuela, democracy of the elites is finished, that anti-patriotic democracy of surrender. And, I call upon all to make every effort and put all our will towards victory, because we will not allow them to rob us of our future and of the dream of a new country,” Chávez said.
One thing that was left behind was the acute failure of the government leadership in the political-partisan arena.
Just as on the 13th of April 2002, the grassroots were the ones that ran out to defend the Constitution and demand the return of Chávez, so again the grassroots displaced a dithering, unrepresentative leadership, and took control of the defense of the Bolivarian process. The Popular Bolivarian Command (PBC) assumed a double role: to defend the process and to be a unifying platform linking all the sectors that approved of the government.
The PBC organized communities within a specific geographic area, according to its reach and operative capacity. It had two components: the Centre of Operations (COP) and the Basic Units of Action (BUA). These later were in charge of registering, mobilizing, getting IDs, observation, and management of the electoral population of each community, and to supply, process and distribute information to help in decision making and to accomplish the mission of the PBC.
María Cristina Iglesias, the Minister of Labor, confirmed the new strategy, saying that Units of Electoral Battle (UBE) teams would remain as a social organization. “The BUAs will now be a powerful social machinery supporting the organized population in all their strategies for the better development of the country.”
The Carrot or the Stick
The Venezuelan ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Jorge Valero, commented to other ambassadors that with this electoral process the interventionist strategy had failed in Venezuela. He was referring to the formula that overthrew the ex-president of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide and which opposition forces tried to apply to Venezuela. “Plan Haiti for Venezuela failed. The plan to apply the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to convert the government into a puppet tutored by international entities, that plan has failed,” he said emphatically.
He pointed out that the international repercussion of this process is a strengthening of the democratic, revolutionary, and progressive characteristics of Venezuela, and that now the nation will be able to act in the international field with greater vigor.
Valero praised the behavior of the head of the OAS referendum observation mission, the Brazilian ambassador to the OAS, Valter Pecly Moreira. He pointed out that, contrary to the Columbian Fernando Jaramillo, he is “a civil servant of noble attitude, responsible, dignified and of high professional competence.” This time, the mission was not financed by the United States and the officials were, mostly, Brazilian. The attitude, without a doubt, was also very different.
And, perhaps because of the failure of Plan Haiti, the Carter Centre and the OAS backed the triumph of president Hugo Chávez in the referendum, despite the accusations of fraud that were thrown about by the opposition. And, right after, the US Department of State came to the same conclusion.
Apparently, Washington was inaugurating in Venezuela a new era of “governance accords” and of “national reconciliation,” combined with old coup d’état tactics. The old anti-Castroites of the US Department of State were left out, beginning with Roger Noriega, who heads them.
According to analysts who back this interpretation of the behavior of the United States, this position was viable because the mogul, Gustavo Cisneros, who has a strong hand in the Coordinadora Democrática, followed the directives of the US Department of State. It is good to remember that up to now, Cisneros and his minions put all their eggs in one basket, that is, to turn Chávez around, but got only losses, frustrations and failures.
Heinz Dieterich, for example, maintained that the experts of the Coordinadora Democrática who are identified with the Cisneros camp, are working on a scheme to oppose the Bolivarian government democratically and to de-stabilize it in social and economic fields. This is why they no longer accuse Chávez of being a dictator or a drug trafficker, but will now base their criticism on poverty and unemployment, trying to capture votes among the poor sectors of the population.
A question is obvious. Will it be more profitable to support a process of political negotiation with Chávez than to overturn him with a coup d’état or an electoral fraud? What is certain is that there is a tendency towards dialogue in the Department of State, perhaps due to Colin Powell, and against Noriega and his people.
If this interpretation is right, Venezuela and the Chávez government will cease to be an “external enemy” of the United States and will become another theatre of operations for hawks and doves in the war to control the White House.
Without doubt, a “governance accord” with Chávez has some insurmountable contradictions for the Bush crowd since for his re-election campaign the anti-Chavez and anti-Castro votes in the United States (not only in Florida) are very important. And, a position of dialogue with Chávez could work against Bush with respect to Kerry who, after the Democratic Convention, stressed militarist language to appear to be stronger and more bellicose than Bush.
Nobody in the United States believes that Washington will support a process of national reconciliation around Chávez, but the change of language was necessary after failing at the referendum and it can be changed at any moment and with any excuse in order to continue with the de-stabilizing agenda that the USA has carried on these last four years.
Nevertheless, today the “intelligentsia” analyzes two subversive scenarios. One, a rare mix of dialogue (via Carter-Cisneros-Powell?) and socio-economic de-stabilization aimed at isolating the Chavista popular sectors. The other, violent street provocation and even political murders, promoted by the fascist components of the Coordinadora Democrática, which has already used the idle hands of the Colombian paramilitary.
These are not mutually exclusive scenarios and could, indeed, converge, throwing the country into chaos and bringing in the intervention of the multinational peace forces of the US Marines. We should remember that up to now the call for a surgical military coup d’état and political assassination have been the two “pre-emptive” options preferred by the CIA boys. This is the scenario within which move Condoleezza Rice, Roger Noriega, Otto Reich, and their minions throughout the entire Hemisphere.
Maybe we should begin to get used to this duplicitous discourse of the US State Department, that of the carrot and the stick. And, not only in Venezuela, right?
Aram Aharonian is director of the Latin American monthly Question, and of the agency Alia 2.
Translated by María Páez Victor
[1] MAS; Movimiento al Socialismo, a socialist party in Venezuela
[2] Bolivarian Circles are small groups people who come together regularly to learn about Simon Bolívar’s ideals, to discuss community needs and to mobilize to attain these.
[3] “For now” – This is a phrase made famous by Chávez after his failed attempted coup d’état in 1992, as he was publicly giving himself up, and taking full responsibility for the coup, he stated that the attempt to bring down the government had failed – for now.
[4] Maisanta also was Chavez’ great-grand father.
Original source / relevant link:
Agencia Latinoamericana de Información y Análisis 2 (Alia2)
THE SHADOW CONFEDERACY
Quotations DRAGONRIDER: Pretty bizarre take on things...
| ||
Tututkamen |
Posted: Aug 20 2004, 10:40 AM
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-April 04 ![]() |
Oh hell it does not stop there, apparently folks in Central and South
America have a real attitude. I think we should put the 70,000 troops
from Germany on our southern border, quickly. Either that or defect. If more South American Nations feel this way it sounds like hell to pay. Tut However, globally, the Bolivarian Revolution has become trans-historic World Revolution, Permanent Revolution ... this is happening because corporate capitalism and imperialism themselves have become global, have become concentrated, monopolized, centralized brutal terror, heinous fascism, have become the "negation" of six billion human beings, of humanity, of "cattle" that are being driven to the slaughterhouse of the "Fourth Reich" with the Nazi whip of "arms of mass destruction." Finally, now really we have "to pick up arms" against "a sea of troubles" that will come, not in single file, but in "battalions" ... not in the appearance forms of a decadent opposition -- of a few Puntofijista corpses ... of Zombies resurrected from Dante's Inferno or Behemoth's Hell ... but attacks that will come from the NASA, Pentagon, the fifteen CIA's, HAARP, ELF-Waves, from ABCDE... Weapons of Mass Destruction of all brands and calibers. Some were tested in Iraq already... Thus jacta alea est (the die is cast) ... Santa Ines has crossed the Rubicon ... she is now facing the majestic Mount Exodus, the accessible emancipatory cliffs of snow-capped Pico Bolivar. Hasta la Victoria Siempre! Franz J. T. Lee franzjutta@cantv.net http://www.franz-lee.org/files/pandemonium01034.html I'll agree a very Bizare Take :? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:bTf14N pnEQIJ:www.pdjkeelan.co.uk/tsc/index.php%3F showtopic%3D90%26view%3Dgetnewpost+% 22Franz+J.+T.+Lee%22&hl=en |