PANDEMONIUM REVOLUTIONARY
REVIEW
No. 1045
N
FULL SPECTRUM EMANCIPATION IN
VENEZUELA
Published:
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Bylined to: Franz J. T. Lee
Revised and Corrected Version.
Franz J. T. Lee: Fate, HAARP, and other WMD
University
of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes:
Many of us, especially in Venezuela, ask ourselves what is happening on this planet, in the universe. Everyone has his/her own answers; very often, we follow the road of least resistance.
In a Roman Catholic world, we place our fate, our future, in God, in his hands, and therewith the problem is partially solved for ever more.
Why are some rich, living in Altamira, and others are paupers, "tin-collectors" in Campo de Oro? Are the poor devils cursed? Are the wealthy and mighty of Plaza Francia, of Beverly Hills, a "chosen people"?
Are the poor lazy and the rich conscientious? Are Chavez, Castro or Hussein disciples of the anti-Christ that brought the seven plagues on Venezuela, Cuba and Iraq?
Is God punishing us for cursing so much?
Why be afraid of death if, in any case, all of us, including our children's children, all will perish some day, as a result of "low intensiy atomic warfare"?
Why all the trouble, when, in the final analysis, even the very solar system will collapse?
Thousands of years ago, Anaximander already made us aware of the strange ways of the goddess Ananke:
"Out of Necessity (Anánke), into that from which things come-into-existence, they pass away, for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice, according to the order of time."
(Our Free Translation)
Here is the German version:
"Woraus aber die Dinge ihr Entstehen haben, dahin geht auch ihr Vergehen nach der Notwendigkeit, denn sie zahlen einander Strafe und Buße für ihre Ruchlosigkeit nach der festgesetzten Zeit."
(Ernst Bloch, Gesamtausgabe, Band 12, Zwischenwelten in der Philosophiegeschichte, edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1977, S. 23)
Many of us speak about necessity, fate, karma, god's will; but, where did these brilliant ideas come from?
Did we formulate them, think about them?
Like so many blessed, reigning concepts, like unity, justice, peace or democracy, nearly all were "Made in Europe", generated mainly in the fons et origo of the accumulation of money, capital, greed, vice and power.
For centuries, as part of the Global Mental Holocaust, from Europe, from Ancient Greece, via colonialism, Christianity and dissocialization ... including their corresponding morals, traditions and education ... strange, alienating beliefs were exported to the Americas, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. By means of a huge, brutal, mental genocide, as time passed by, inexorably they destroyed nearly all the extra-European sacred human values, leaving billions as innocent prey for the international vultures, for the national and international mass media of communication.
Nearly all these dominating, ideological concepts received a religious aureola and across the millennia in an authoritarian, totalitarian manner, as Fear and Dread, they were psychologically implanted into the very hearts and minds of billions of pariahs, helots, "kaffirs", of staunch religious believers.
Trans-historically, not respecting any formal-logical, spatial-temporal barriers, let us meet the Ancient Greek Goddess Fate, that eventually will become God's Will.
In Plato's Symposium (195C, 197 B), Ananke appears as a Divinity of Fate, as a Schicksalsgöttin, as a Goddess of Fortune. Sometimes she is also called Adrasteia, (Plato, Phaedros 248 C; Plotin, Enn. III 2, 13. A.), die Unentrinnbare, the Inescapable.
According to Homer and Hesiod, but also Archilochos, in mythological times, the Greeks feared Fate, the wrath of their gods, but, at the same time, they were also victims of "bad fortune", of their own mortal impotence; they feared Death, the Moira, the Daemon, Anánke. In philosophic times, in Ionia, in the birth place of capitalism, in Miletus, and elsewhere, Fate, Anánke, acquired a more updated connotation.
Now, with hybris, with pride (Hochmut), the Greeks -- the rich, the ruling slave-owning aristocratic and democratic classes -- could determine their lives themselves, in spite of the pangs and fangs of Fate. Thanks to Anaximander, feminine Anánke was transformed into Masculine Necessity; the Cosmic Order, the New World Order, which was guaranteed by Zeus, directly from Olympus, now also included individual fates. The contradiction "Fateful Necessity -- Human Free Will" -- later called "God's Will versus Individual "arbitrium liberum" -- entered the scene of philosophy, the superstructure of germinating capitalism and imperialism.
Hence, in Milesian times, Ananke had already acquired masculine, deterministic, necessary, Patrian features. To interpret the above preserved fragment is well-nigh impossible, because every original ancient Greek word had a specific philosophic meaning, which today we can just intelligently guess or deduce logically. From "bad" to "worse", "Ananke" not only meant fate, a divine force, necessity; it also included other meanings like "a strict, generally accepted, behaviour pattern", "according to habit", "to custom", etc. Here we see why it is our fate to preserve our rites, rituals, customs, traditions and culture.
Furthermore, reading the text above, "according to the order of time", "nach der festgesetzten Zeit", does not simply mean "according to history", in a modern sense. This phrase has a cosmogonic, mythological tone; it denotes authority, authoritarianism, fascism, it comes from the Olympus, from where Father Chronos spoke, ordered and ordained. The main clause, the philosophic gist of this fragment, is hard to explain.
The German philosopher, Ernst Bloch, attempted to interpret its meaning, and according to him, in the Apeiron, in the process of Being-Becoming, the things, in their individual agon (strife), file themselves away, slough themselves off, and this occurs, according to the "order of time", according to the ordinances of Chronos. However, what is decisive, is that the things do not pay reparation or make satisfaction to the Apeiron or to Chronos, but rather to one another, to themselves. This is a kind of self-sacrifice for their own coming-into-being; this sounds very Hegelian.
"Everything that comes into existence, merits to pass away."
(Hegel)
Also in this fragment, the future patriarchal ideas of justice and injustice were generated. The term in the text, "for their injustice", acquires another connotation. "Injustice" is determined by agon, by Strife, by War, but, not by Crusades or "New Wars". Things move, strive, are in conflict, in contradiction.
Later this virulent concept will come up again in the philosophy of Heracleitus, even in the Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. In the Apeiron, in Becoming-Being, the things are in permanent violent strife with one another, they are at war, they battle for and against the location where they find themselves according to the order of time. In this way, they permanently generate "new wars", they launch geographic, geopolitical, geocentric imperialism. The best current example of all this is the "Ruptura", the Class Conflict in Venezuela.
Of course, in the final battle, they get rid of their contradictions, they become pacified, peaceful with themselves, become unified, become one with themselves. They become democratic, peaceful and just, that is, they rest in peace, they perish.
This labour pain, this agonizing naissance of the new, and this brutal rotting away of the obsolete, of which Gramsci and Chávez speak, even Shakespeare dramatized in Hamlet:
"Seek for thy noble father in the dust:
Thou know'st 'tis common, -- all that live must die,
Passing through nature to eternity."
(The Queen)"Ay, madam, it is common."
(Hamlet)
However, Shakespeare reminds us of other things, not only of universal Life and Death, of Justice and Peace, of Democracy and Fascism:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
(Hamlet)
And, in more recent times, in "Space Night", the contemporary physicist Harald Lesch, also tells us:
"Our contemporary natural science just scratches the surface of reality. Of what is below, we do not have the foggiest idea."
Now, let us leave our limited social consciousness, our universal virtual reality, anchored in the past, and transcend towards the multi-mensional, transhistoric, galactic "present" and "future", to the deepening of the revolution, to the revolution in the revolution, to New Praxis and Theory. Let us see in a military sense what globalization means for Venezuela, for America. After all, the Bolivarian Revolution is a product of "savage neo-liberalism", of global fascism, that is, of the real, true face of corporate, transitional capitalism. Let us identify the global fascist power, some of the unscrupulous Orwellian weapons of mass destruction that await us.
On October 9, 2003, a News Release of the "Sunshine Project" warned us:
"Lethal Virus from 1918 Genetically Reconstructed
US Army scientists create "Spanish Flu" virus in laboratory - medical benefit questionable (Austin and Hamburg, 9 October 2003) The 'Spanish Flu' influenza virus that killed 20-40 million people in 1918 is currently under reconstruction. Several genes of the extraordinarily lethal 1918 flu virus have been isolated and introduced into contemporary flu strains. These proved to be lethal for mice, while virus constructs with genes from a current flu virus types had hardly any effect. These experiments may easily be abused for military purposes, but provide little benefit from a medical or public health point of view."
Concerning the Spanish Flu of 1918, this article informs us that it "was highly infectious and in comparison to contemporary flu viruses killed a very high percentage of those infected, including many younger people. The Spanish Flu alone caused the medium life expectancy in the US in 1918 to drop by 10 years. Hence, flu viruses are perceived today as a serious biological warfare threat. Just two weeks ago, a 15 million dollar research grant was awarded in the US to develop protective measures especially against a bioterrorist attack with flu viruses."
The above is just one of the many examples of dreadful ABC arms of mass destruction, produced currently by the USA.
The ELF-waves in action
Soon, we need not pray aloud in Church anymore; instantaneously, via scalar waves, we could transmit our thoughts directly to God in the hereafter, beyond the Universe. Of course, vice versa, he could immediately read our thoughts, decide our fate, and perfectly control our "free will".
Do we know that not only protons exist, but also gravitons?
Do we know how to defend ourselves against extra low frequency (ELF) mind and thought control mechanisms?
Against HAARP?
What could happen if Big Brother would supply the four Nazi "stormtroopers of the apocalypse", the "Carlos Gang", or their future equivalents, with these E-weapons? They could influence, direct and control the very health of the president, of the sovereign, of the people, by attacking their very brains with a sabotage frequency below 10 Hz. In its over-all social damage, this could be worse than any economic sabotage. In this case, fate or faith will or cannot defend us anymore.
Concerning the HAARP projects of the Pentagon, NASA and NATO, by means of a gigantic, energetic slingshot, the Rumsfeld war machine could heat up the ionospere, convert it into a huge electro-magnetic mirror, and would thus be able to direct the ELF-waves to any place or person, to anywhere, to where they wish, hence influencing all life systems, including human consciousness, inducing pests, changing the weather, bringing about earthquakes, moving the poles of the earth, etc. Apart from these installations of the US Army, there are many more in Berlin Tempelhof, Arecibo, Dushanbe, Gork City, Tromso, Monchegorsk, Sura and who knows where else.
These ELF-waves penetrate everywhere, even the earth and the oceans. They affect the scientifically well-known brain wave bands:
-Delta (1-3 Hz.)... deep sleep. coma;
-Theta (4-7 Hz.)... Hypnosis, Trance, Dream;
-Alpha (8-13 Hz.)... Meditation, Prayer, Relaxation;
-Beta (14-40 Hz)... Condition of Awakedness.
The ELF-Waves force our awareness and consciousness towards the delta and theta regions, causing tiredness, towards a lack of power, motivations and drives. It lowers or damages the immune system; one adopts a carpe diem life style. By means of these ELF-signals masses are converted into pack animals, working themselves to death, and into pathological consumer bees. They lose all revolutionary fervour and social optimism; they acquire a psychotic disassociation syndrome; as automatons, their minds and thoughts are being controlled. The result is that nobody thinks anymore, simply because there is no drive, no motivation, no power, no time to think any more. Such masses can be indoctrinated, manipulated very easily.
In conclusion, much of what is happening now on earth has very little to do with faith, fate, with "free will" or "divine will"; it is directed directly from the Pentagon, across the international mass media, music, commercials, electronic gadgets, or even directly from satellites.
At the moment,
Latin America, Venezuela,
Afghanistan and Iraq are experiment stations for all these mind and
thought control devices, are guinea-pigs to test all the deadly,
genocidal weapons of the USA, hence, Venezuela, beware!
There are more than four "jíneteras del apocalípsis". The CIA hound-dogs, the moribund "coordinated, democratic" werewolves are everywhere, in church, in our beds, in the kindergarten, in class, in our development projects, in our very governments, in our political parties, in our very brains.
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
http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid
=785&mode=thread&order=1&thold=5
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22912
http://www.cmaq.net/en/node.php?id=18280
******************************************************************
Venezuela: De
la Revolución a la Emancipación
Por Franz J.T. Lee
En Venezuela se hace y se dice mucho para profundizar, para
intensificar la revolución social, para llevar a cabo la
“revolución dentro de la revolución”. Aunque esto es
indispensable, implica también navegar en aguas humanas
revueltas desconocidas, encima de las cuales se desencadenan poderosos
huracanes práxicos y en cuyas oscuras profundidades acechan todo
tipo de rocas ideológicas y caníbales fascistas.
Referente a lo anteriormente mencionado, en revoluciones sociales
latinoamericanas anteriores, en la turbulenta época
revolucionaria de Fidel Castro, Ché Guevara y Régis
Debray, una situación similar había generado unas
preguntas muy complejas, que aún quedan por resolver y por
contestar hoy día. Sin embargo, lo que debemos evitar en
Venezuela, es que todo termina en una total confusión
táctica, estratégica e “ideológica”. Para
nosotros, por ahora, el concepto de “revolución”
deberíamos tenerlo claro como un cristal. Después de
todo, lo habíamos venido estudiando, actuando y pensando, desde
el siglo 12 en Italia del Norte.
También un gran número de intelectuales lo han estudiado
con más precisión desde la Revolución “Francesa”,
“Industrial”, “(Norte)Americana”, “de Octubre” y “Cubana”, y aún
nosotros, los Latinoamericanos, Africanos, Asiáticos etc.,
todavía tenemos severas dificultades científicas y
filosóficas para captar este fenómeno
trans-histórico. A través de los últimos
años, en varios libros y artículos, publicados en
Internet, hemos tratado de iluminar un poco el significado, la esencia,
existencia y transcendencia de la Revolución.
(Véase: <http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/publications00001.html>).
Marxistas como Bertolt Brecht, siempre enfatizaron que “el trabajo de
liberación es el trabajo de los trabajadores mismos”. La
vanguardia revolucionaria coordina, pero no puede hacerlo todo, no
debería hacerlo todo, no debería organizar y dictar todas
las actividades políticas regionales y locales, de modo
contrario puede resultar un serio conflicto político perjudicial
entre el liderazgo y las masas, entre el gobierno central
revolucionario y los trabajadores comunales. Sin embargo, las
contradicciones revolucionarias dentro del movimiento político
representan los pistones poderosos del “proceso” libertador; con las
contradicciones dialécticas la revolución está en
su elemento, llega a ser existente, se radicaliza.
Ché Guevara tocó el centro de este asunto: “El deber de
un revolucionario es hacer la revolución”. Mientras cada
revolucionario sabe qué es la “revolución”, no
surgirá ninguna confusión dentro del movimiento de
liberación. Esto significa que cada revolucionario tiene que
conocer la práxis y teoría de la Revolución
Bolivariana, porque de modo contrario no logra revolucionar la
revolución, no la puede profundizar ni radicalizar.
Ciertamente, la responsabilidad de la Revolución Bolivariana
está puesta en las manos de todos los Bolivarianos al rededor
del globo, no sólo se trata de un asunto meramente venezolano o
latinoamericano. De acuerdo a las leyes de Venezuela y de su
Constitución, esta revolución no les prohíbe a los
“extranjeros” la participación directa en los asuntos sagrados
de la emancipación humana a nivel global. Por eso, y en este
espíritu revolucionario, propondremos las siguientes notas y
observaciones.
Sin embargo, hasta en los círculos académicos, a causa
del uso de conceptos sociológicos de carácter
propagandístico, “políticamente correctos” ya osificados
y además generalizados, como lo son “la Nación”, “el
Pueblo”, “todos los Seres Humanos”, “los Americanos”, “el Soberano”,
“la oposición” - todos aquellos que se supone que hacen la
revolución o la contrarrevolución - la propia esencia
dialéctica social e histórica de la Revolución
desvanece en el aire. El peligro está en que se oculta la feroz
lucha de clase en Venezuela y América Latina, que se declara
irrelevante, obsoleta, como si no fuese un elemento quinta-esencial de
la revolución social a nivel global. Esto es la razón de
por qué en Brasil podía surgir una absurdidad tal como la
de una “Alianza nacional entre el trabajo y el capital”; para las masas
trabajadoras, esta “Guerra de Clases” (Lula) ahora ya está dando
resultados fatales. De todos modos, si la conocemos o no la
reconocemos, la lucha de clase existe en la misma Revolución
Bolivariana, y se mostrará en el futuro.
El fons et origo de todas las revoluciones sociales, la matriz del
“cambio social” moderno, del “proceso”, fue la combinación de
las Revoluciones Francesa e Industrial en Europa y sus subsidiarias en
América del Norte. La revolución misma es un invento de
las clases sociales, un “descubrimiento”
burgués-democrático-capitalista que creció en el
útero de un modo de producción específico, que es
el feudalismo, basado en un tipo de energía específica
también y todo dentro del proceso trans-histórico del
Trabajo, de la Historia.
Duró más de 500 años para reconocerse socialmente
a sí mismo, para materializarse y capitalizar a su base
económica, para conquistar el poder político. De hecho,
la revolución misma era el telos trans-histórico, la meta
original de la acumulación de capital, extendiéndose
desde la “República” de Platón hasta el “Leviatán”
de Hobbes, hacia “1984” de Orwell, desde la Antigua Europa hasta la
“Vieja Europa” (Rumsfeld). La victoria revolucionaria final de las
clases sociales burgués-democrático-capitalistas de los
siglos 18 a 20, era el resultado de dos milenios de una lucha de clase
feroz en el continente europeo. Cada guerra - y habían
centenares de guerras - cada invasión, cada cruzada, cada
violación y cada saqueo tenía que ver con la
acumulación de capital, con poder, con riqueza. Todas eran
violentas luchas de clase, de vez en cuando interrumpidas por “Alianzas
Sagradas”, “Alianzas para el Progreso”, por diálogos,
reconciliaciones, “conversaciones de paz”, etc. Todas las revoluciones
modernas, incluyendo la Revolución Bolivariana, poseen estos
lunares trans-históricos.
Cerca del comienzo del siglo 19, la lucha de clase
trans-histórica en Europa, es decir la Revolución, se
concentraba al rededor de dos contradicciones de clase, que a su vez se
contradecían mutuamente: el “ancien regime”
aristocrático-absolutista versus el “reino del terror”
burgués-capitalista. El anterior, la “nobleza versus el clero”
quería reformas pacíficas, diálogo y
reconciliación; el último, la “burguesía versus el
proletariado” prefería la revolución violenta, la
guillotina. Las dos contradicciones formaban la Revolución
completa, formaban las diferentes caras y lados de la misma
“Revolución Francesa”.
Todo lo que vino después de esto, solamente reflejaba los
desarrollos iguales, desiguales y combinados de esta misma
revolución social, del Imperialismo, que hoy día se llama
“Globalización”. Ciertamente, sin duda, la intención
social de las revoluciones coloniales del siglo 20 era la de mejorar
las condiciones de vida de las masas empobrecidas, de introducir
reformas y proyectos para minimizar la miseria, pobreza y el
sufrimiento de los pueblos - todo esto dentro del sistema capitalista
mundial, dentro del proceso de trabajo alienador, dentro de los
límites de la revolución
burgués-democrática.
Históricamente siempre eran los pobres, los desterrados, los
ilotas, las clases trabajadoras que se encontraban en la primera
línea del sacrificio, del bombardeo, de la masacre y la
aniquilación, y no obstante - con pocas excepciones como por
ejemplo la Revolución Cubana - al final fueron traicionados por
sus “libertadores”, por sus propios “guerreros de la libertad” de
años pasados, como pasó por ejemplo en Rusia estalinista
y en Sudáfrica del arco iris. A esta traición se puede
detectar en la misma Revolución Francesa, esto es la
razón de por qué nació su negación, la
izquierda Hegeliana, el Marxismo, que quería completar la
revolución.
Así que ¿qué fue lo que le pasó a la gran
Revolución de Octubre en Rusia, cuántos millones de
trabajadores y campesinos fueron sacrificados bajo Stalin,
especialmente durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial? ¿Qué hay
de las revoluciones magníficas china, vietnamita, argelina y
yugoeslava? ¿Qué fue lo que pasó con 3 siglos de
lucha heroica contra la esclavitud, el feudalismo, el liberalismo, el
Apartheid capitalista, el fascismo y el imperialismo en
Sudáfrica? En sus esfuerzos para llevar a cabo “cambios dentro
del sistema”, para introducir las mismas metas históricas de la
revolución burgués-democrático-capitalista, a
todos los devoró el Leviatán de la Globalización,
los devoró la realización imperialista de la
Revolución Francesa, construyendo el Estado omnipotente,
llevando a cabo reformas agrarias, soberanía,
industrialización, la construcción de una
burguesía nacional, capitalismo nacional, desarrollo de la
nación, partidos políticos, sociedad civil, nacionalismo,
etc. ¡Cuidado América Latina!
Más de 200 años de experiencia revolucionaria
deberían ser suficientes para enseñarnos, que a
través de las reformas sociales, la industrialización, la
diversificación económica capitalista, los proyectos
agrícolas feudalistas obsoletos, no logramos liberarnos de la
hegemonía euro-yanqui dentro del actual sistema mundial
imperialista corporativo. También deberíamos saber por
ahora, que, no importa cuan necesarios parecen actualmente, las
concesiones, las oraciones, la impunidad, las alianzas, los
diálogos y la reconciliación con las clases opresoras
nacionales e internacionales jamás nunca emanciparán a
los billones de esclavos asalariados manuales e intelectuales en el
planeta. Como medidas inmediatas a corto plazo, para introducir la
revolución, podrían ser aplicables, pero ¡no se
deberían convertir en la regla de oro! No existe una receta
segura para la revolución social, tenemos que hacer y pensar y
transcender nuestra propia revolución; pero el sistema global,
el “nuevo orden mundial”, la “civilización” funciona bajo
ciertas leyes de desarrollo, y hay que tomarlas en cuenta en cualquier
lucha de clase dentro de cualquier revolución.
No hay razón en absoluto para ignorar la naturaleza clasista de
una sociedad capitalista moderna. Ni siquiera el temor a que la
“oposición” o Washington nos llaman “Castro-Comunistas” nos debe
detener; de todos modos ya lo están haciendo, e incluso esto en
realidad debe representar un orgullo revolucionario para nosotros, como
Castro lo dijo a Chávez: “¡Excelente!”
Las clases sociales, la lucha de clase, hasta el socialismo y el
comunismo no fueron descubiertos por los Marxistas. Los primeros
Cristianos originales, que fueron aterrorizados por Nerón y
Calígula, eran comunistas; historiadores famosos franceses
hablaban de la lucha de clase mucho antes de que nació Marx,
incluso el Obispo Kingsley de Gran Bretaña habló de la
religión como “el opio del pueblo” mucho antes del Manifiesto
Comunista. La misma burguesía había introducido el
“terrorismo”, un reino del terror, directamente dentro de la
Revolución Francesa. En su lucha de clase era despiadada; sus
enemigos de clase perdieron la cabeza bajo la guillotina, incluso sus
propios líderes como Dantón y Robbespierre tenían
que creer en ella.
Para hablar claro, históricamente no hay nada pacífico,
cristiano o gandista en revoluciones sociales de los trabajadores o sea
en luchas de clase. Son las clases dominantes, los conquistadores, la
Conquista, la “oposición” (véase el 11 de abril de 2002
en Caracas), que a causa de su megalomanía eterna deciden las
vías y medidas violentas de una lucha de clase auténtica.
El que resiste el dominio de la clase opresora, no es el que origina la
violencia y el terror; como Sorel resaltó: no inventamos la
violencia sino nacimos en ella, somos asesinados por orden social.
Somos eliminados por los poderosos amos, por la CIA, por los
“escuadrones de la muerte” de los paramilitares, por golpes militares,
por conspiración y sabotaje. Venezuela y su gobierno del
Presidente Chávez ya tenía su buena porción de
esas maquinaciones violentas. Así que ignorar la lucha de clase,
es ignorar la práxis y teoría revolucionaria, la
práxis y teoría de clase, la auto-defensa emancipatoria,
es hacer una “revolución” miope, hacer solamente una reforma
social inmediata, es ser devorado por el Moloch de la
Globalización. Peor aún, negar la lucha de clase
desencadenada es extremadamente peligroso, porque en su ausencia, la
revolución social perderá su apoyo de las masas, su
verdadera base popular. Bajo ningunas circunstancias la
Revolución Bolivariana se puede dar el lujo de permitir esta
situación, sería suicidio, sería igual a botar sus
beneficios de clase latinoamericanos tan difícilmente ganados,
al cenagal corporativo imperialista del ALCA, a los tentáculos
abiertos del calamar sanguinario globo-fascista de Washington.
“Profundizar la Revolución” sólo puede significar
“radicalizar la revolución”, es decir, captar los problemas
latinoamericanos en su propia radix, en sus raíces capitalistas
imperialistas corporativas y fascistas. Esto es un asunto muy serio ya
que significa la declaración de guerra de clase, puede costar
centenares de miles de vidas, significa intervención extranjera,
ocupación y genocidio. Pero esto pasa todo el tiempo ya desde
hace medio milenio y actualmente pasa a diario en Colombia, Irak,
Afganistán y Palestina. Bush y Kerry, de acuerdo a los planes de
la Norteamérica Corporativa, están bien decididos de
ocupar y militarizar completamente a América Latina en el futuro
cercano.
En la historia, en ninguna parte el capitalismo y los capitalistas han
dejado sus tronos privilegiados pacíficamente, ni en Rusia, ni
en China, ni en Cuba, ni en Vietnam, ni en Chile, ni en
Centro-América y a pesar de temporales marchas atrás,
siempre regresan, más violentos que nunca. El 11 de abril de
2002 nosotros, aquí en Venezuela, obtuvimos una idea de esta
mueca fascista.
Profundizar la revolución significa armarnos con las medidas que
sean necesarias - a largo plazo la impunidad, los diálogos, la
reconciliación y las concesiones no son precisamente las armas
revolucionarias más efectivas. En vez de eliminar al enemigo de
clase, solo aniquilan la base popular de la propia revolución
social. Ciertamente, a través de los últimos 6
años, a pesar de algunos errores menores, la Revolución
Bolivariana ha obtenido (y aún sigue ganando) notables
victorias; es precisamente esta fuerza emancipatoria, este momento
global que hay que defender a toda costa.
Actualmente la Revolución no se encuentra en peligro, pero no
debemos bajar la guardia, ahora más que nunca. En
términos generales, la victoria revolucionaria más
grande, de manera dialéctica, muchas veces se convierte en el
talón de Aquiles de la misma revolución. ¡Veamos lo
que pasó con la victoria de Dien Bien Phu ( http://www.franz-lee.org/files/marxengels24.html
) contra el imperialismo euro-americano! Así que, camaradas,
¡tengan cuidado! Las deliberaciones anteriormente mencionadas
solo quieren explicar algunos factores fundamentales en cuanto a la
profundización o radicalización de cualquier
revolución social. Queda mucho más que explicar, pero lo
anterior es suficiente como para servir de alimento serio para el
pensar y el actuar revolucionario, para la práxis y la
teoría revolucionaria.
El carácter emancipador de la Revolución Bolivariana es
original, es auténtico, es nuevo. Por esta misma razón es
vulnerable, y no obstante invencible. En cuestiones centrales como lo
son la estrategia y la táctica, precisamente actuaba de la
manera menos esperada por parte de sus enemigos nacionales e
internacionales. Dentro de muy poco tiempo, logró politizar
millones de Venezolanos y Latinoamericanos, cosa que no había
pasado desde la propia Revolución Francesa. Armaba al pueblo y
popularizó al ejército. Levanta serias esperanzas dentro
del pueblo, que ya desde hace siglos anhelan por su realización,
especialmente para los indígenas de América Latina. Esto
es una tremenda victoria, pero al mismo tiempo representa una gran
responsabilidad, la cual hay que manejar con sumo cuidado y con esmero
cariñoso.
Igual que en el caso de Fidel Castro o de Lenin, los desterrados de la
sociedad burguesa han elevado a su presidente Chávez a una
figura nacional e internacional, a una realidad social. Desde los
días de Simón Bolívar, jamás nunca un
individuo fue tan socializado, y nunca la sociedad venezolana fue tan
individualizada; nunca una revolución - la primera, que
jamás ocurrió en la historia de Venezuela - fue tan
“transcendentalizada”, tan cerca de un éxodo emancipatorio,
fuera del sistema capitalista cerrado. Es esta latencia y tendencia
emancipatoria, esta verdadera posibilidad de liberación a
última hora, esta punta venezolana del iceberg revolucionario,
que fascina a aquel mundo, que todavía tiene sueños
diurnos de la felicidad humana, del humanismo, de la belleza, la
verdad, el amor, la solidaridad y de un futuro.
*******************************************************************
Published:
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Bylined to: Vanessa C. Marcano
Interior & Justice (MIJ) ministry seeks new security technologies for Venezuela
Venpres reports: Minister of Interior & Justice (MIJ), Jesse Chacon has started contacting and exchanging ideas with friendly governments, with the purpose of improving crime rates and increase security for all Venezuelans, as well as to acquire experience and technology that may help in this issue.
Click here for the original Spanish text
The information was announced by deputy minister Alcides Rondon, welcoming Austrian ambassador, Marianne Dacosta, accompanied by Trade Consultant Dr. Andreas J. Schmidt and the general director of the Steyr-Dailer-Puch SSF of Venezuela.
The deputy minister said the MIJ is seeking cooperation between the Venezuelan government and Austrian industries, particularly in matters of fighting crime. Rondon stated that Austria builds vehicles and weapons for the National Armed Forces, the National Guard ... "and we could integrate that modern equipment to National Police, including police gear nationwide."
Concerning the supply of vehicles, Rondon stated that they are about to receive the first lot of Land Rovers in October, destined to go to the police and the penitentiary system; the second lot of 400 vehicles should be arriving in December, completing 820 vehicles total.
"There is a good supply of parts for the vehicles, training for the technicians and the installation of a car shop by part of them here, which afterwards would be the base of a logistics, mechanic system for all the vehicular resources of MIJ in the areas of civil protection, penitentiary system and of course, local police forces."
With this conversation, a round of contacts with several ambassadors begins ... "we are very interested in establishing official contacts with friendly governments that could provide us with some supplies, and that they could help us to try to achieve the minister's goals and objectives."
Translated by Vanessa Carolina del Valle Marcano
MIJ busca tecnologias de seguridad para aplicarlas en Venezuela
Venpres: El ministro del Interior y Justicia, Jesse Chacón Escamillo, en el objetivo de mejorar la Seguridad Ciudadana a todos los venezolanos, comenzó una serie de contactos e intercambio de ideas con gobiernos amigos, a fin de adquirir experiencias y tecnologías que ayuden en esta tarea.
Así lo comentó el viceministro de Seguridad Ciudadana, Alcides Rondón, quien conjuntamente con el titular del MIJ recibió a la embajadora de Austria, Marianne Dacosta, que fue acompañada por el Consejero Comercial Dr Andreas J Schmid y el director general de la Steyr-Dailer-Puch SSF de Venezuela.
En general, dijo el viceministro, que de lo que se trata es buscar una cooperación entre el gobierno venezolano y los industriales de Austria, particularmente en materia de Seguridad Ciudadana. Rondón pidió recordar que Austria construye vehículos y armamento de uso normal por la Fuerza Armada Nacional, la Guardia Nacional y "pudiéramos nosotros integrar esos equipos modernos a la policía nacional, inclusive a la dotación de las policías a nivel nacional".
Refiriéndose al evento con la plenipotenciaria de Austria, el viceministro de Seguridad Ciudadana aseguró que se había hablado sobre las posibilidades de cooperación de financiamiento y también en hacer unos contactos directos con ellos en otras materias aparte de lo policial.
Con respecto al tema de la dotación de vehículos, dijo Rondón que en este momento están por recibir la primera fase , unos de tipo Land Rover para el sistema penitenciario y para la policía, que se deben estar recibiendo a finales del mes de octubre, y la segunda fase de 400 aproximadamente, a finales de diciembre para completar los 820
"Tecnología pero en materia de estos vehículos. Hay una buena dotación de repuestos, el adiestramiento de los mecánicos, y la instalación de un taller por parte de ellos aquí, que posteriormente sería el fundamento del sistema logístico, mecánico, para todo lo que sería el parque automotriz del Ministerio del Interior y Justicia, en las áreas de protección civil, áreas de sistema penitenciario y por supuesto policía local".
Con esta
conversación comienza un ciclo de
contacto con varios embajadores, "nosotros estamos muy interesados en
tener contactos oficiales con gobiernos amigos, que nos puedan suplir
algunos insumos, sobre todo que nos puedan dar asesorías para
tratar de
lograr, en la medida de lo posible, los objetivos y las metas que se
propone alcanzar el señor ministro, concluyo diciendo el
viceministro
de Seguridad Ciudadana del MIJ, Alcides Rondón.
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22905
Los estados latinoamericanos han dado marcha atrás en el proceso privatizador de la década de los Noventa. Ahora están dispuestos a intervenir en sectores como las telecomunicaciones, la energía o la televisión mediante la creación de empresas públicas, desafiando a los actuales líderes en el negocio como Telefónica, Verizon, Telmex, Grupo Cisneros o Televisa.
Si Kirchner decidió crear una petrolera pública en Argentina para competir con Repsol YPF, Hugo Chávez ha puesto en marcha una operadora estatal de telecomunicaciones en Venezuela que amenaza al resto de compañías privadas. Y hay prisas porque el proyecto del mandatario venezolano estará en funcionamiento en el primer semestre del año 2005: incluso antes. “Chávez quiere impulsar el papel del Estado en todas las áreas” aseguran economistas locales.
La empresa se llamará CVG-Telecomunicaciones y contará con un capital social de cinco millones de dólares. Su dirección prevé una inversión inicial de 35 millones. La empresa ofrecerá telefonía fija y datos, aunque, en Venezuela no descartan que reciba una licencia de móviles.
El proyecto ha generado tensiones puesto que la operadora va a nacer una década después de la privatización de CANTV. Una compañía controlada por Verizon, que ve ahora como le surge un inesperado rival. Y no es la única. Telecom Italia y Telefónica, que va a comprar Telcel, pueden ser otras de las afectadas.
Algunos representantes de CANTV han llegado a decir que el Gobierno concederá privilegios a CVG-Telecomunicaciones a través de exenciones fiscales. Por ahora, la presión no ha afectado al antiguo monopolio público aunque algunos analistas de Caracas no descartan la huída de Verizon.
La incertidumbre para las operadoras se cierne en saber si otros presidentes se suman a la moda. Alejandro Toledo, Lula da Silva y Néstor Kirchner parecen los más proclives. La tendencia esta extendida.
Televisión. Hace pocos días, Lula y Chávez firmaron en Manaos una carta de intención para crear la Televisora del Sur (Telesur), una gran cadena de televisión regional. El acuerdo ha venido apenas dos meses después de que Chávez firmase otro pacto similar con Kirchner.
El ministro venezolano de Información, Andrés Izarra, aseguró que van a trabajar para tener un instrumento “para afianzar nuestra soberanía y ayudar a divulgar un pensamiento alternativo frente a los imperios del norte”. Izarra señaló que el objetivo de este nuevo canal es llegar también al mercado hispano de EEUU.
Telesur, que contará con el respaldo económico de Bancoex (entidad controlada por el Ministerio de Finanzas) comprará contenidos a productoras independientes y no descarta que canales privados se sumen proyecto.
Lula, Chávez y Kirchner han venido a retar a los grandes grupos latinoamericanos, Televisa, Telmex, Grupo Cisneros (que ha mantenido un duro enfrentamiento con Chávez), O’Globo y Clarín, y a compañías como News Corp, el holding de Rupert Murdoch, y Liberty Media.
Cambios en las tarifas. El cambio en las reglas del juego
también ha venido por la presión de muchos gobiernos
latinoamericanos
al cambiar las fórmulas para subir las tarifas. Y otros como
Perú ya
han advertido que no prorrogarán el contrato de licencia.
Thursday, Sep 23, 2004 | ![]() |
Print format |
![]() |
Send by email |
By: Robin Nieto - Venezuelanalysis.com
“This situation marks the beginning of the concept, strategic and integral, for the defense of the nation, to fortify the military component,” Chavez said last night in the Venzuela-Colombia border town of Guasdalito, in Apure State, where last week's atttack occurred.
Dressed in combat uniform, Chavez explained that the new national defense plan will be humanitarian-based, in order to increase morale. “In the end it will not be the side with the most arms that wins the war, but the side with the most morale,” Chavez said quoting Chinese revolutionary leader, Mao Tse Tung.
Chavez became philosophical when he said that in order for the new national defense plan to work, people have to ask themselves the proverbial question of “why am I here?”, to clarify the purpose of the mission of national defense.
Chavez said the new plan will be based on taking care of the human being first. “We are also human beings of flesh and bones, we feel, we have families and for all those who are in command in the army or in business, should be attentive to their people, up to the last detail,” Chavez said illustrating the new path of command he envisions to take care of “the human being in all its dimensions,” with the expressed goal of increasing morale.
Colombia should take responsibility for armed groups
Chavez also zeroed in on Colombian authorities who accused Venezuela of supporting the armed attackers. “Colombia should take its responsibility. And we are taking ours. We are not avoiding it. Because it’s from there that they come here, paramilitaries, hired assassins, narco-traffickers. It is Colombia’s responsibility. We are victims of Colombia’s internal conflict,” Chavez said.
Chavez also rejected proposals from Colombian authorities to join armies from both sides of the border to wage war on the armed groups. “There will be no alliance with Colombia to declare war. We will join with other armies only for peace. If there will be an alliance of armies to help one human being, even if it is just one human being, we will be there for that.” Chavez said.
The president said that Venezuelan troops have been sent to the Caribbean to help in disaster relief efforts and said the country’s army will continue with these humanitarian missions. “We have a team in Haiti. We will go there. But for war and more bloodshed, never.” Chavez said.
Theories of who is behind the attacks
Chavez explained his own theory of who is behind increased conflict in Colombia and Venezuela. “From Washington they have tried to divide us.” Chavez said. “They have tried to impose a war agenda on us. All of this was elaborated in Washington.” “Behind all of these conflicts are the large transnationals that make millions and millions selling armaments. Instead of combating poverty and hunger, they dedicate themselves to building arms so that we can kill ourselves so they can sell lots of arms,” Chavez said.
Chavez addressed all the theories of who could have been behind the attacks, including the Colombian guerrilla, Colombian paramilitaries and a group called the Bolivarian Liberation Front (FBL) which claims to be an armed Venezuelan guerrilla troop that supports the Chavez government. To the first groups, he said they are not enemies except once they enter Venezuelan territory.
“The actors of the internal conflict in Colombia only become enemies of Venezuela when they enter our territory, paramilitaries, and guerillas from any group that enter Venezuelan territory become enemies of the state to be dealt with by an overwhelming response,” Chavez said. He noted Colombian paramilitaries have threatened his life. “The paramilitaries have on various occasions threatened to assassinate this Christian,” Chavez said of himself. “Because, according to them, Chavez supports the guerilla.” Chavez reminded the country that Colombian paramilitaries were captured several months ago in an attempt to destabilize the government of Venezuela.
As for the FBL, Chavez said he doubts they are Venezuelans, saying they can belong to any nationality and he also found it hard to believe the group supports the government saying that it would be the only guerilla group in the world that organized itself to support a government. But Chavez said if they are Venezuelans, they should lay down their arms and come to the presidential palace if they support the Bolivarian government.
The President visited an army camp in Apure state for inspection. “We have come here today to take on a responsibility and to inspect problems”, Chavez said. And during last night’s speech said he went to Apure, “moved by the pain” caused by the killings.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1370 |
Wednesday, Sep 22, 2004 | ![]() |
Print format |
![]() |
Send by email |
By: Justin Podur - Znet
When the management of the state oil company, PdVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela, Sociedad Autonoma), locked out the company's employees during the 'national strike' of 2002-2003. The lockout was an attempt to cripple the country and drive Chavez out of office by punishing the population. The government retaliated by firing the managers (as many commentators have noted, this move was not unlike Ronald Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers during their attempt to strike in the US in the 1980s.). In the process, the government ended up with several massive, furnished office buildings that had been playhouses for unproductive managers for decades. These buildings became the campuses for the new universities. On August 17, 2004, two days after Chavez won the recall referendum the opposition had intended to use to throw him out, I interviewed Maria Ejilda Castellano, the rector of the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, on the Caracas campus.
Podur: Can you talk briefly about the history of the UBV?
Castellano: Hugo Chavez won the presidential elections in 1998. In 1999, there were fundamental political changes in the country that followed: a Constitutional Assembly was created to promulgate a new constitution, which was approved by a majority that year. The Constitution required a refounding of the state: to transform state institutions, including the education ministry. The Ministry of Education was changed to the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. There were 4 Vice-Ministers, two of whom were education ministers. It was the first time there was a special Vice Minister of Higher Education, in addition to the other Vice-Ministers (of Culture, Sports, and Educational Affairs).
I am a sociologist of education: I had worked in research and in various advisory bodies on the topic of higher education, and I was asked to become the Vice Minister of Higher Education. At the ministry, we worked on policies and strategies of higher education.
Podur: What did you want to do differently in higher education?
Castellano: Our suggested policies were first published in 2001. We spent the entire year of 2002 in explicit debate about our suggested policies: what we wanted was to create something new: a national system of higher education. From the diverse set of private and public educational institutions, universities and technical institutes, we felt we needed to create a national system.
Our strategy for this was to create networks, 8 networks, corresponding to different regions of the country (Oriente, Llanos, Zulia, Centro-oeste, Nor-oeste, Guayana, Central, and Capital). We wanted to link the higher-educational institutions, create a culture of sharing, of shared projects, and experiences. We wanted greater national integration.
For the second phase of the strategy, we wanted to institute changes in curriculum. We wanted a curriculum that was more flexible and more integrated. We wanted to revise the social relevance of degrees and offer new programs, programs that were innovative and adapted to the country. We wanted to change the nature of technical education: to make it less fragmented, to involve the student in practice from the beginning, and to involve the student in projects from the start, rather than to fill a student with years of reading before they got a chance to actually do something, which was the model until then. We also wanted the institutes and universities to accept more students, to ensure that students could get in who wanted to study.
We wanted to deal seriously with the dropout rate. We found that educational institutions assume that dropout is going to be high. They are not treating students as people. They see student dropout as a failure by the student, and were not thinking about the institution's responsibility for dropouts. It's true that students can fail: but it is also true that the school can fail.
We wanted to address the vertical nature of the relationship between professors and students, and the educational model more generally. Our educational institutions fill students with rote material for no reason. You have a case where a graduating student who has passed all his medical entry exams and practical tests only to discover that he forgot to take a certain course in university and therefore can't become a doctor until he passes it: well, that case makes it clear that he did not need the course, and that calls the whole education into question.
These were the things we wanted to fight for in our Vice Ministry of Higher Education. We tried to get the educational institutions to sign on, and we failed. We fought, and failed. The fight was taken up for a Ministry of Higher Education instead of a Vice-Ministry, which would give us more power to try to bring about our changes. That Ministry was created in 2002. At the same time, President Chavez floated the idea of a new university.
This would be the fourth new university created since 1998. The first was the Maritime University of the Caribbean, which was created by a merger of a technical institute and a post-graduate research institute. Second was the Armed Forces University, which was also a fusion of the existing Army college with new elements. The Universidad Sur del Lago in Maracaibo was a semi-private university that was abandoned by the private owners and was living on government subsidy without any public input or public service element. So the existing private school was closed and the project was started over as an experimental university. And last is our university, the Bolivarian University of Venezuela.
I was commissioned by the new Minister of Higher Education to work on the project. We had an expert on curriculum, an expert on academic policy and the dropout issue, and two other education experts on the commission. We worked from January to March of 2002 and made our preliminary report in March.
Our objectives were to break with the fragmentation of knowledge and the university structure of faculties, schools, and departments. We wanted to pay attention to the holistic development of students. Traditional universities produce depoliticized professionals who see themselves as using technical skills but do not have any sense of social responsibility. We want to contribute to the reconstruction of our society. We want to create professionals with a sense of public service.
In terms of disciplines, we wanted to consider disciplines that have been neglected and are urgent priorities for the country. The three main disciplines are environmental management, social management (which is not just sociology or social work, but a complete formation including anthropology, sociology, and psychology), and social communication (including journalism and mass communication).
2002 was a very difficult year. The military coup happened in April. It was immediately followed by the 'national strike' and the economic sabotage. We had beaten these attacks by March 2003. But that period slowed our work down.
Podur: How did the University come to be located at the PDVSA offices?
Castellano: Over that period there were debates about where the University would be located. The original plan was to have it in Miraflores, in the Presidential palace itself. When we had first conceived of the university, the idea of having a university there seemed like a good way to reclaim what used to be a very remote, sealed off place. But after the coup, Miraflores became a very public space. Any time there was any threat or uncertainty, the people would gather at Miraflores. There was no way to have a university there. The next proposal was to have it in the interior of the country, to try to fight the centrality of Caracas. But in 2003, when we won the PDVSA battle, there was a cleanup of PDVSA. We discovered there were these huge office buildings where there was nothing going on. The Minister of Mines and the Minister of Education decided to give the buildings to us. When we got here, we discovered all these offices. It's been some time since these buildings were cleared out, and PDVSA has recovered. What were the doing in here?
So once we had the buildings, we finalized the project in 2003. In July the National Council of Universities was approved. The Council consists of the rectors of all the universities of the country, though the public institutions have a full vote and the private institutions have a consultative vote. There is also Ministry, National Assembly (Congress), and student representation. Under the classification of the National Council, our school is classified as an 'experimental and autonomous' university. Personally, I think all schools should be experimental and autonomous. The 'autonomy' of universities has to do with the old rules of classification into faculties and schools: but 'experimental' schools are allowed the flexibility to propose their own organization to the council. Because we are 'experimental and autonomous' we have our own structure, which was approved by the council in July 2003. The university was inagurated on July 22 2003. In October, the Maracaibo campus was inagurated (housed in what used to be a private university), and in November a third campus was inagurated in the Ciudad Bolivar (in buildings formerly used by the Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana).
Podur: Can you expand on the educational philosophy behind UBV?
Castellano: It is founded on the constitution. The fundamental principles are the same as the constitution: social justice, participatory democracy, solidarity, diversity, and Latin American integration. We also talk about the '5 equilibria': economic, social, political, international, and territorial. But our work is also founded on international principles.
In 1998, UNESCO published documents in Havana with principles for educational transformation. These were reiterated in Paris in 1999, and ratified again in 2003. The principles are equity, quality, relevance, internationalization, and contribution to society. UNESCO's principles are based on a body of academic work in anthropology and the sociology of knowledge. They show the need for modern universities to change their thinking, to recognize the cross-disciplinary nature of work, and advance to trans-disciplinary work. This implies new forms of organization, alternatives to the 'faculty' mode, that enable encounters between sciences and the humanities, that recognize the human center of education. When a professional acts, her actions have an effect on human beings. So professionals must come to understand the human consequences of their decisions. This implies a change in the process of learning, and some really fundamental questions: why teach? Why are we trying to form professionals? What does a professional in this country or in this world, need to know?
We've answered some of these questions in our curricular models. We will prove that you can have quality and equity in education. We will form holistic professionals who are citizens. They will learn ethics, social responsibility, respect for a Latin American and Caribbean identity, solidarity, respect. The professional produced by this institution will work for the transformation of society. She will be a critical thinker who can stimulate others and generate questions. Our curriculum is based on 'axes' of education. Any plan or program of study - say an engineering or teaching professional program - is your 'professional axis'. But you also have a cultural axis, a political axis, ethical axis, aesthetics axis, a social-community interaction axis where you work directly with sectors of society outside of the university from the start. That's the curriculum. We have a 4-year bachelor's degree program, with an option of exit with a diploma after 2-years as a technician with concrete skills and practical experience as well as an academic background suitable for continuing study later on. We have a 5-year medical degree program with no such exit option.
As mentioned before, the dropout problem is one we pay serious attention to, with a full department dedicated to working with professors and students to watch for potential problems. This requires a new model of what professors are supposed to do: a professor is not just someone who gives classes. She is the motivator for a student to learn. She should help the student find his talents, abilities, and limitations. She should give the student options. Remember our doors are open: 77% of our students come from poor backgrounds, 17% from the lower middle class. These are students who have a lot of barriers in front of them: family problems, violence, difficult lives. Our mission is to give them tools and help them become citizens who can listen, speak, ask, read, understand, and solve problems as citizens, without violence. We are already making major advances in these spheres.
Podur: How do you incorporate this educational philosophy into the structures of the institution and the decision-making process?
Castellano: We are different from most universities in that most of the people on campus are professors and students. There are relatively few administrative and other staff. One way we try to help students from popular backgrounds stay in school is by providing food, transportation, and health services - doctors, psychologists, social workers, vocational guidance services, are at the students' disposal. We have a system of scholarships. We have a whole department of sports and athletics, to enable students to study and do sports. We still need a lot of investment: we inherited the buildings and the furniture but these were office buildings - we are still equipping the laboratories.
In terms of organization, we have an executive council for day-to-day administration - we have a rector, a vice-rector, an academic director, a general secretary. We do not have faculties, but we have 'academic fields' with directors. The highest authority is the directive council, which will have professors, staff, students, and government representatives. There are also academic councils, with academic directors, campus councils for each campus, and an off-campus advisory council with people from the community.
Podur: Some questions for comparison with the North American university experience. In North America, academics are under strong institutional pressure to adopt a research emphasis. The result is that there are universities that have 'good reputations' because they have good researchers, and universities that are lower-prestige because they concentrate on teaching. The situation is the same for professors: prestigious professors spend most of their time on research. Those who spend time and energy teaching are less respected. Will UBV be more of a teaching university than a research university?
Castellano: We are designed to be a center of higher education, including research. We have post-graduate programs and research. But we also want to integrate research into the undergraduate program. Professors in the 'academic fields' should be producing research that nourishes their teaching. Research and publishing is definitely part of a professor's work here, and research nuclei should include students. Undergraduate students will be linked to advanced research centres as part of their undergraduate education. We do not want that separation between the professor who publishes and the one who teaches.
Podur: Another issue in North America is the distance between professionals and workers, between the university-educated and those who are not university-educated. Educational access is important, but how do you avoid just creating a bigger elite that is separated from and above the population? How do you break down the distance between the university and the community?
Castellano: Of course it cannot just be the university that does this. But the explicit goal of Mission Sucre is to provide access to higher education to the whole population. Obviously this cannot be done simply by creating more and more universities - that is why we want an integrated national system.
Speaking just of UBV, one of our programs is called the 'Universidad Para Todos' (University for All). Under this program we open the university up to the community, who can attend talks, courses, and events. We have open courses and tracks of courses.
In 2002, I wrote a paper where I argued that the third world countries, the 'developing countries', have a competitive advantage in the global economy, and that is our youth. Our populations are very young. The first world countries have old populations. We have a competitive advantage with a very young population. The question is, how can we develop this advantage? If we can get the majority of these youth higher education, we will have a huge advantage over this small, old, educated minority in the first world.
Podur: Now there is a thought that professionals in the first world would find very threatening!
Castellano: Not just in the first world! Here, too!
Podur: I can imagine the counter-argument immediately. The first one that a first world professional would provide is this: there aren't enough resources to educate the majority of third world people, but even if there were, you would just be preparing them for educated unemployment, because there certainly are not enough professional jobs to employ the masses of the third world.
Castellano: Is the point of a university education to prepare a youth for a job? No. It is to teach a student to think. It is, moreover, to teach a student to learn and to use that learning in the world.
We have always said that education is not just to create professionals. Education is much more than that. Knowledge is power, and more people with knowledge empowers the whole population. Educating women empowers not only the women educated, but the whole population. Creating critical thinkers, a population of intellectuals, is a much more profound project than just preparing people for jobs.
This country, this world, is changing and will continue to change. Your counterargument about 'jobs' assumes a static world. We have a model of development in this country that demands a new kind of professional. If the government is trying to diversify the economy, these new professionals will have a place in the development of the country. And I am willing to bet that there will be plenty of work for the professionals we create. I am not talking about jobs. I am talking about work. Those are two different things.
Maria Ejilda Castellano is the rector of the Bolivarian University of Venezuela. Justin Podur is a writer and activist. He visited Venezuela in August 2004 to cover the recall referendum and social movements.
Original source / relevant
link:
ZNet
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1282
Visita a
Teatro de Operaciones en Guasdalito
Presidente Chávez: "Venezuela sólo hará alianzas para lograr la paz" Por: RNV
Publicado el Jueves, 23/09/04 04:45am |
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
********************************************************************
Published: Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Bylined to: Franz J. T. Lee
Franz J. T. Lee -- Venezuela: From Revolution to Emancipation
University of Los
Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes:
In Venezuela, very much is being done ... and said ... to deepen, to
intensify the social revolution ... to perform the "revolution in the
revolution."
Although this is imperative, it implies sailing into unknown, stormy, human seas, over whose surface mighty, practical hurricanes sweep, and in whose dark, profound waters are lurking all kinds of ideological rocks and fascist man-eaters.
Concerning the above, in previous Latin American social revolutions ... in the turbulent revolutionary epoch of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Regis Debray ... a similar situation had generated very complex questions, still unresolved, unanswered till today.
To us, by now, the concept of "Revolution" should be crystal clear. After all, we have been studying, acting and thinking it ever since the 12th Century in Northern Italy.
Also numerous erudite scholars have studied it more precisely since the "French," "Industrial," "American," "October" and "Cuban" Revolutions ... yet we, the majority of Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, etc., still have severe scientific and philosophic difficulties to grasp this trans-historic phenomenon.
Marxists, like Bertolt Brecht, always underlined that "the work of liberation is the work of the workers themselves." The revolutionary vanguard co-ordinates, but it cannot do everything, should not do everything, should not organize and dictate all regional and local political activities, else a serious, detrimental, political conflict may result between the leadership and the masses, between the central revolutionary government and the community workers. However, revolutionary contradictions within the political movement are the powerful pistons of the liberatory "process"; with dialectical contradictions the revolution is in its element, comes into existence, radicalizes itself.
Che Guevara touched the core of this matter: "The duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution." As long as every revolutionary knows what the "revolution" is, no confusion will rage within the liberation movement.
This means that every revolutionary must know the practice and theory of the Bolivarian Revolution, without this, s/he cannot revolutionize the revolution, cannot deepen it, cannot radicalize it.
Surely, the responsibility of the Bolivarian Revolution lies in the hands of all Bolivarians across the globe, it is not mainly a Venezuelan or Latin American issue. Respecting the laws of Venezuela ... its 1999 Constitution ... this revolution does not prohibit "extranjeros" to participate directly in the sacred matters of global, human emancipation. Thus, in this revolutionary spirit, we will make the following general remarks and observations.
However, even in academic circles, because of the usage of "politically correct," of ossified, generalized, propagandistic, sociological concepts, like the "nation," the "people," "all human beings," the "Americans," the "sovereign," the "Opposition" ... all who are supposed to make the revolution or the counter-revolution ... the very dialectical social, historic essence of Revolution vanishes into thin air. The danger is that the furious class struggle in Venezuela and Latin America is being veiled, declared irrelevant, obsolete, as not being a quintessential element of global, social revolution. This is why such absurdities like a national "Alliance between Labor and Capital" could occur in Brazil; for the working masses, this "Class War" (Lula) now already is bearing fatal results.
The fons et origo of all social revolutions, the matrix of modern "social change", of the "process," was the combined French and Industrial Revolution in Europe, and its subsidiary in North America.
Revolution itself is a social class invention, a bourgeois, democratic, capitalist "discovery," was produced in the womb of a specific mode of production, feudalism, based on a specific types of material energy, within the trans-historic process of Labor, of History.
It took over 500 years to socially recognize itself, to materialize itself, to capitalize its economic base, to conquer political power. In fact, the revolution itself was the trans-historical, logical telos, the aim, of the original accumulation of capital, reaching from Plato's "Republic" to Hobbes' "Leviathan," towards Orwell's "1984," from Ancient Europe to "Old Europe" (Rumsfeld).
The eventual, final, revolutionary victory of the bourgeois, democratic, capitalist, social classes in the 18th to the 20th centuries, was the result of two millennia of fierce class struggles on the European continent. Every single war, and there were hundreds of them, every invasion, every crusade, every rape and plunder, concerned the accumulation of capital, of power, of wealth. All were violent class struggles, now and then, interrupted by "Holy Alliances," "Alliances for Progress," dialogues, reconciliation, "peace talks," etc. All modern revolutions, including the Bolivarian Revolution, have these trans-historic birthmarks.
Around the beginning of the 19th century, the trans-historic class struggle in Europe, the Revolution, concentrated itself around two class contradictions, which again contradicted each other: the aristocratic-absolutist "ancien regime" versus the bourgeois-capitalist "reign of terror." The former, the "nobility versus clergy" wanted peaceful reform, dialogue and reconciliation; the latter, the "bourgeoisie versus proletariat," preferred violent revolution, the guillotine. Both contradictions composed the total Revolution, they formed the various faces, the various sides of the one and same "French Revolution."
Everything that came thereafter just reflected the equal, unequal and combined developments of this very same world revolution, of Imperialism, nowadays called "Globalization." Surely, beyond doubt, the social intention of the colonial revolutions of the 20th century was to improve the life conditions of the impoverished masses, to introduce reforms, to launch projects to minimize the misery, poverty and suffering of the peoples ... all these within the world capitalist system, within the alienating labor process, within the limits of the bourgeois, democratic revolution.
Historically, the poor, the outcasts, the helots, the laboring classes were in the front line of sacrifice, of being bombarded, massacred and annihilated, and yet ... with few exceptions, for example, the Cuban revolution ... in the end they were betrayed by their "liberators," by the very "freedom fighters" of yesteryear, for example, in Stalinist Russia, in Rain-Bow South Africa. This betrayal can be detected in the very French Revolution, that is why its Negation, the Hegelian Left, Marxism was born, wanted to complete the revolution.
Thus, what happened to the Great October Revolution in Russia, how many millions of workers and peasants were sacrificed under Stalin, especially during the Second World War?
What became of the magnificent Chinese, Vietnamese, Algerian, Yugoslavian Revolutions?
What happened to the three centuries of heroic struggle against slavery, feudalism, liberalism, capitalism Apartheid, fascism and imperialism in South Africa?
In their efforts to bring about "change within the system," to introduce the very historic goals of the bourgeois, democratic, capitalist revolution, they were all devoured by the Leviathan of Globalization, by the imperialist realization of the French Revolution. constructing the omnipotent State, bringing about agrarian reform, sovereignty, industrialization, building a national bourgeoisie, national capitalism, developing the nation, political parties, a civil society, nationalism, etc.
Venezuela, Latin America, Beware!
More than 200 years of revolutionary experience should be sufficient to teach us, that by means of social reforms, industrialization, capitalist economic diversification, obsolete feudalist agricultural projects, we cannot liberate ourselves from Euro-Yankee hegemony within the current world, imperialist, corporate system. Also, we should know by now, no matter how necessary they may be currently, that concessions, prayers, impunity, alliances, dialogues and reconciliation with the oppressing national and international classes will never ever emancipate the billions of manual and intellectual wage slaves on the planet. As immediate, short term measures, to launch the revolution, they may be }applicable, but they should not become the golden rule.
There is no recipe for social revolution, we have to make and think, and to transcend, our own revolution, but the global system, the "new world order," "civilization," function under certain developmental laws, and they have to be taken into consideration in any class struggle, within any revolution.
There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the class nature of modern capitalist society. Not even the fear that the "Opposition" or Washington would nominate us as "Castro-Communists" should stop us; in any case, they are already doing it, and even then, this should be a revolutionary honor, as Castro has said it to Chavez: "Excelente!"
Social classes, the class struggle, even socialism and communism, were not discovered by Marxists. The early, original Christians, terrorized by Nero and Caligula, were communists; famous French historians spoke about the class struggle long before Marx was born, even Bishop Kingsley of Britain spoke about religion as "the opium of the people," long before the Communist Manifesto was written. Even the very bourgeoisie had introduced "terrorism," a reign of terror, directly within the very French Revolution. In its class struggle it was merciless; its class enemies lost their heads under the guillotine, even its own leaders like Danton and Robespierre had to believe in it.
Let us get things straight, historically, there is nothing pacific, Christian or Ghandhist about workers' social revolutions, about class struggles. Because of their eternal megalomania, the conquerors, the Conquest, the "Opposition" (see April 11, 2002, in Caracas), the ruling classes decide the violent ways and means of authentic class struggles. Who resists class rule is not the originator of violence and terror; as Sorel pointed out: we did not invent violence, we are born in violence, we are being killed by social order.
We are being eliminated by the mighty overlords, by the CIA, by paramilitary "death squads," by military coups, by conspiracy and sabotage.
Venezuela, the government of President Chavez already had its fair share of these violent machinations. Hence, to ignore the class struggle, is to ignore revolutionary practice and theory, class practice and theory, emancipatory self-defense, is to make a myopic "revolution," only immediate social reform, is to be swallowed up by the Moloch of Globalization.
Worse even, negating the raging class struggle is extremely dangerous, because in its absence, the social revolution will lose its mass support, its true, real popular base.
This situation the Bolivarian Revolution by no means can afford, it would be suicide ... it would be equivalent to throwing its very hard won Latin American class gains into the imperialist corporate quagmire of the ALCA, into the open blood-sucking tentacles of the Washington global, fascist octopus.
"Profundizar la Revolución" can only mean "to radicalize the revolution," that is, to grasp the Latin American problems at their very primary source ... at their capitalist, imperialist, corporate, fascist roots.
This is a very serious issue, it is the declaration of class war, it could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, it means foreign intervention, occupation and genocide. But, this is happening all the time, since half a millennium already, and it is currently happening daily in Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
Nowhere in history, capitalism and capitalists ever have stepped down from their privileged thrones peacefully ... not in Russia, not in China, not in Cuba, not in Vietnam, not in Chile, not in Central America, and ... in spite of temporal reverses ... they always come back, more violent than ever.
On April 11, 2002, we, here in Venezuela, had a glimpse of this fascist grimace.
Deepening the revolution means to arm ourselves with whatever means necessary ... in the long run ... impunity, dialogues, reconciliation, concessions, are not precisely the most effective revolutionary arms. Instead of eliminating the class enemy, they annihilate the popular base of the very social revolution.
Certainly, over the last six years, in spite of minor errors, the Bolivarian Revolution has accomplished (and is still realizing) remarkable victories; precisely this emancipatory force, this global momentum should be defended at all costs.
Presently, the revolution is not in danger, but we have to be on guard more than ever.
Generally, the greatest revolutionary victory, dialectically, very often turns out to be the Achilles' Heel of the very Revolution. Look what happened to the victory of Dien Bien Phu against Euro-American imperialism! Hence, comrades, beware!
The deliberations made above are only intended to explain some fundamental factors that concern deepening or radicalization of any social revolution. There is much more to explain, but the above suffice as serious food for revolutionary thought and action, for emancipatory practice and theory.
The emancipatory character of the Bolivarian Revolution is that it is original, authentic and new ... for this very reason it is vulnerable, and yet invincible.
In central issues, strategy and tactics, it acted precisely in a way that national and international enemies least have expected. In a very short period of time, it politicized millions of Venezuelans and Latin Americans, as had not happened since the very French Revolution itself.
It armed the people and it popularized the army ... it awakens genuine popular hopes that yearn for realization already since centuries, especially of the indigenous peoples of Latin America. This is a tremendous victory, but, at the same time, a huge responsibility, that has to be treated with ultra-care, with loving carefulness.
Like in the case of Fidel Castro ... or of Lenin ... the outcasts of bourgeois society have elevated their President Chavez to a national and international figure ... to a social reality.
Since the days of Simon Bolivar, never ever was an individual so socialized ... and never was Venezuelan society so individualized, never was a revolution ... the first one ever to occur in Venezuelan history, so "transcendentalized," so near to an emancipatory exodus, out of the closed capitalist system.
This emancipatory latency and tendency, this real possibility of liberation at the eleventh hour, this Venezuelan tip of the revolutionary iceberg, is that what fascinates the world that still daydreams about human happiness, humanism, beauty, truth, love, solidarity and the future.
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
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22861
***************************************************************************
Venezuela: ¿Cuál es el problema con el Capitalismo?
Por: Franz J.T. Lee
Después de la gloriosa victoria de la Batalla de Santa Inés, con esfuerzos anti-imperialistas, ahora Venezuela está profundizando la revolución. Una teoría y práxis profunda involucra medidas radicales, haciendo cosas nunca antes hecho y reflexionando sobre procesos sociales nunca antes aparecidos en nuestro horizonte intelectual. Los cambios y procesos profundos tocan a lo Nuevo, lo Original, lo Auténtico. Lo siguiente quiere ayudar a germinar la semilla del alimento para el pensar revolucionario y para la acción emancipatoria.
¿Cuál
es el problema
con el capitalismo, con el capital, con el dinero,
las ganancias y el poder?
Claro que a través de los tiempos, centenares de miles de autores seriamente han intentado de explicar esta bendición o este azote planetario. Hasta la Sagrada Biblia del Cristianismo resalta que “el dinero es la raíz de todo Mal”. También muchos intelectuales han advertido que el capitalismo se está desarrollando actualmente de “mal en peor”.
Algunos atacan directamente a Bush, otros prefieren atacar al “Cuarto Imperio”. Los marxistas explican la esencia económicamente explotadora de formas más altas del capitalismo, “neocolonialismo”, “neo-capitalismo”, “neoliberalismo” y “capitalismo corporativo”.
¿Pero que está pasando realmente en este planeta?
Claro que una persona individual, un brillante intelectual a solas nunca podría comprender la múltiple totalidad de este proceso complicado, complejo e intra-galáctico. Sin embargo, como una vez lo hizo Hegel, seguramente podemos aproximarnos a la eterna y fluyente fenomenología de la esencia histórica de la existencia planetaria. Así que en honor a la Revolución Bolivariana, presentamos aquí nuestra aproximación trialógica científica y filosófica.
(Véase también: HARRY SHUTT, “The Trouble with Capitalism: An Enquiry into the Causes of Global Economic Failure”, (“El Problema con el Capitalismo: Una Investigación de las Causas del Fracaso Económico Global”); Londres, Nueva York: Zed Books/St. Martin's Press, 1998; 230 páginas).
Para resolver los problemas sociales de la Grecia Antigua, donde se originó la acumulación de capital a nivel primitivo, ya en Miletus, la cuna de la filosofía y del capitalismo, Tales estaba buscando un valor de intercambio único, que expresa el “arché” o “hýle” de todas las cosas, en lo que toda cosa se podría transformar y lo que produce todas las cosas. Obviamente el centro del comercio, el Mar Mediterráneo, dio la solución filosófica-aristocrática: “aristón men hydor” – lo mejor es el agua.
Este descubrimiento dramático – formando la sobre-estructura social de Europa para los próximos milenios – filosóficamente fue expresado a través del apeiron, air, logos, nous, fuego, deus, etc. geocéntricos. Parménides de Elea expresó esta cosmovisión ptolomeica lo más eficientemente; cosmovisión, que gobernó a Europa hasta el siglo 16, cuando la ciencia burgués-capitalista introdujo el heliocentrismo. Esta partida de un postulado único, que refleja un sistema cerrado, un orden mundial único, la llamó hen kai pan, el unomnia, el “Uno y Todo”. Heráclito de Ephesus explicó el movimiento interno, la evolución de este Uno, como pánta rhei, como “todo fluye”.
La Lógica Formal se encargó en asegurar que el unomnia nunca cambiaba, que estaba en reposo y la Dialéctica garantizaba su auto-dinamismo, sus cambios y desarrollos internos. Cualquier otro postulado fue bloqueado a través de la Tercera Ley de la Lógica Formal, a través de la “Nada” y a través del Dios Cristiano y Filosófico, el intellectus o ratio.
La dialéctica burguesa, un resultado de la cosmovisión heliocéntrica, refinada por Kant y Hegel, introdujo el dinamismo social de la Sobre-Estructura, de la Sociedad, del Espíritu del Mundo, del Orden Mundial, de la Razón, del Capital.
Finalmente, generado por la “Revolución Industrial”, la producción, la tecnología, los mercados extranjeros, el intercambio desigual en el mercado mundial, produjo la base imperialista global económicamente explotadora correspondiente. Esto aceleraba la Revolución burgués-democrático-capitalista, desatando todos los poderes “malignos” del infierno, que hoy día ya nada ni nadie logra controlar.
Ningún éxodo, ninguna transvolución, ninguna emancipación, ningunos otros postulados independientes, ningunos otros mundos, ningunos otros órdenes o esferas fueron permitidos. Toda la especie humana fue reducida a unos meros “seres humanos”, ignorando su existencia, su transcendencia, su “Santísima Trinidad” propia. Ab ovo, unos eran honorables ciudadanos de la polis, otros eran “herramientas que hablan” de tercera categoría; unos eran amos, otros esclavos; unos eran civilizados, otros salvajes; unos eran Cristianos, otros paganos.
No hay nada normativo o apocalíptico en este estado de cosas, esta realidad planetaria simplemente es el resultado lógico de una no-relación unilateral y perversa entre Naturaleza y Sociedad – eufemísticamente llamado “Historia” – es el resultado lógico del proceso de producción, del Trabajo, de la Revolución intra-sistémica evolutiva, de su actual grado de desarrollo industrial y tecnológico, es decir, del Capital, del Capitalismo, cuya negación interna es “No-A”, es el Socialismo.
La contradicción global trans-histórica, el orden mundial, el “Capitalismo-Socialismo” es la Revolución, es la Globalización de la Revolución Francesa burgués-democrática. A raíz de esto surge la verdadera pregunta lógica: ¿Cuál es el problema con el Capitalismo y Socialismo?
Estudiando muy cuidadosamente las realidades ocultas y visibles del actual sistema mundial, transcendiendo las barreras de los desarrollos intra-sistémicos iguales, desiguales y combinados, también superando nuestros propios niveles, grados y mensiones diferentes de la autoconciencia, de la conciencia social, de la conciencia de clase, de la conciencia histórica, nos daremos cuenta que están ocurriendo transformaciones radicales y fundamentales.
Las “verdades” de las cosmovisiones geocéntricos y heliocéntricos, incluyendo sus prácticas y teorías, están desvaneciendo en el olvido galáctico. Aparece algo nuevo y realmente “triferente” en la Vía Láctea, ni capitalismo ni socialismo; ni cielo ni infierno – esto es lo que amanece en el horizonte humano. La Producción tiene heridas mortales, el Trabajo entra en dolores de parto y el Capitalismo se encuentra en agonía de muerte.
Para verificar todo aquello, solamente hay que leer entre líneas en nuestros diarios, solamente hay que tomar nota de las “Ciencias de la Vida”, de la ingeniería genética, de la nano-tecnología, de la decodificación del genoma humano, de la exploración espacial, de los “extraterrestres” del Pentágono, de los platillos voladores estadounidenses volando encima de los Andes y de Irán, de las ondas ELF y escalares, de HAARP, de operaciones militares de alta tecnología, como la de volar a las Torres Gemelas, de la “energía libre” de Tesla, del “ORGON” de Reich, etc., etc.
Así que Venezuela y América Latina, al comienzo fue la producción, ahora la Creación está en la aurora.
Todo esto hay que tomar en consideración en nuestra Teoría y Práxis diaria, en nuestros proyectos revolucionarios, en nuestros esfuerzos emancipatorios. Con una Ciencia y Filosofía obsoleta no logramos captar esos eventos globales trans-revolucionarios.
El Marxismo auténtico explica muchas de las realidades actuales, pero igual que en cualquier otra Ciencia y Filosofía, tiene que renovar su postulado fundamental, sus conceptos, sus leyes, su método, su lógica, sus perspectivas, para ser la vanguardia de la emancipación mundial.
Artículo leido 454 veces.
Mercados energéticos atentos a
reservas estadounidenses de crudo
Por: Venpres
Publicado el Miércoles, 22/09/04 10:57am |
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
ABP's Ledezma leaves Coordinadora Democratica ... beginning of end?
Opposition Alianza Bravo Pueblo (ABP) leader,
Antonio Ledezma has injected a dose of realism into the opposition by
announcing his withdrawal from the Coordinadora Democratica (CD).
The former Accion Democratica (AD) Libertador Mayor dropped the bombshell at a forum in the Caracas Ateneo, saying he will not return to CD but asking people not to interpret his move as dividing the opposition or criticism.
"What is needed in the opposition is to give Venezuela a coherent leadership ... it is time to stop sweeping the rubbish under the carpet ... it's time to exercise some self criticism and admit that there can't be a correct direction amid contradictory positions."
The leader criticized the opposition's political policy of accusing the National Elections Council (CNE), while attempting to enter elections with the same arbiter it accuses of irregularities ... "how can they say we were robbed of the recall referendum and at the same time, enter the regional elections?"
Causa R leader, Andres Velasquez, who attended the meeting, says he agrees with Ledezma but would not go so far as
to follow his
example.
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22885
*******************************************************************