PANDEMONIUM  REVOLUTIONARY
   REVIEW

No. 1046

N                    

FULL SPECTRUM EMANCIPATION IN VENEZUELA


 

LARGE WEEK-END EDITION
ESPAÑOL -- ENGLISH:


*** Old School U.S. Intervention Model Used in Venezuela

By: Eva Golinger - Venezuelafoia.info.


*** Allanada la Zona Educativa de Mérida.

*** Mérida: arrancó con todo éxito la Misión Cultura.

*** How to Prevent Revolution from Degenerating into Government.
Venezuelanalisis.Com.

*** Venezuela -- Karl Marx versus the Degeneration of Social Revolution

By  Franz J. T. Lee,
South Africa.Indymedia.Org. Trinicenter.Com.

*** Venezuela: ¿Quién y qué es el Proletariado Revolucionario?

Por Franz J.T. Lee,
Aporrea.Org.


*** Address by President Mugabe on the occasion of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, on Wednesday.

*** Enamorar a los Chavistas.

*** Venezuela: En cuanto al Destino, HAARP y otras Armas de Destrucción Masiva.

<> Por:  Franz J.T. Lee.

*** Franz J. T. Lee -- Venezuela: Who and what is the revolutionary proletariat?
VHeadline.Com - Narconews.Com.

*** USA's FCC raids KFAR 90.9FM half-hour after 'Axis of Good' premiere...

*** Opposition Supporter Zamora Resigns in Protest from Venezuela’s Electoral Council.


*** No se producirá ninguna crisis institucional por la renuncia de Zamora, opina Willian Lara.
Por: Venpres.

*** Presidente Chávez: mire en su entorno. No todo lo que brilla es oro.



Old School U.S. Intervention Model Used in Venezuela

Friday, Oct 01, 2004 Print format
  Send by email

 

By: Eva Golinger - Venezuelafoia.info

During the 1980s, the U.S. Government was heavily involved in Nicaragua. More than $100 million was invested into removing the Sandinistas from power, first through armed struggle and later through electoral intervention. The National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency shared terrain in that small Central American nation and these entities applied a series of methodologies that had been successful in prior interventions in Chile, the Philippines and Panama, to name a few.

A glance at some of the tactics applied in Nicaragua, Chile, the Philippines and Panama caught my attention. Reading through the history of these struggles and forced regime changes all too often seemed like reading contemporary Venezuelan affairs. For example, in Nicaragua in the late 1980s, the U.S. applied a strategy known as “Chileanization”, which was successfully utilized in Chile against Allende and involved organizing internal right-wing forces to destabilize an elected government. This concept ensured that as opposition forces incited violent confrontations with the government, international scandals and reactions would form over “Sandinista Crackdowns”, the nation would spiral into civil disorder and instability and the government would be labeled a “human rights violator” or international pariah.

Sound familiar? Those following Venezuela events might remember the date February 27, 2004, when the infamous “Guarimba” was launched. The “Guarimba”, a plan allegedly formed by opposition guru Robert Alonso, intended for right-wing forces to engage in widespread civil disobedience and violence in the streets of Caracas and other metropolitan areas, provoking repressive reactions from State forces that would then justify cries of human rights violations and lack of constitutional order. The “Guarimba” lasted from February 27 to March 1, 2004, and during that period, numerous Venezuelan citizens were injured and arrested for violations of law. The opposition-controlled media in Venezuela quickly broadcast to the world a prepared version of events that cited the government as the “repressor” and continues to date to portray claims of those arrested during that period for breaking the law as “victims of torture and unlawful arrest.”

The “Guarimba” was no new invention of Mr. Alonso, it was an old school spook tactic given a new name. Yet in many instances, the intervention model doesn’t even go so far as to change its name. For example, the U.S. financed and created “democratic opposition” movements in Chile, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua and Haiti, that all carried similar names and characteristics. In Panama, the opposition coalition group was known as the “Civil Crusade” and was a loose anti-Noriega coalition of conservative Panamanian and business groups. In Nicaragua, the anti-Sandinista opposition went by the name “Coordinadora Democrática Nicaragüense” and was comprised of four conservative political parties, two trade union groupings affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and a private business organization, COSEP. Haiti’s U.S.-financed opposition to Aristide was given the name “Democratic Convergence” and again was comprised of a right-wing coalition that included business organizations, wealthier citizens and conservative parties.

In the Philippines, a “democratic opposition” dominated by moderate, pro-U.S. elites was formed to oppose Ferdinand Marcos, despite initial U.S. support for the dictator. The U.S. played a key role in polarizing the Philippine elections into two camps: the “democratic opposition”, supported by the U.S. and the “dictator”. Known later as the “Philippine Technique”, this model was again applied in Chile to remove another U.S. imposed dictator from office, Augustus Pinochet, once he no longer served U.S. interests.

In Chile, the U.S. intervention that had begun pre-Pinochet, continued throughout the brutal dictator’s seventeen-year reign. But it wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the U.S. decided it was time to finance and supports efforts to remove Pinochet. Despite a strong leftist opposition movement in Chile, the U.S. focused its energies and finances on supporting a moderate opposition and marginalizing the leftist movement. In fact, U.S. assistance, through the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Agency for International Development, was made contingent on the unity of the sixteen principal opposition parties in Chile. As similar in Venezuela, an unlikely grouping of political parties and social organizations was formed to serve U.S. interests and their very existence depended upon U.S. support.

It is evident today, as we witness the fall of the Coordindora Democrática (“CD”) in Venezuela (note the similarity in name), also known in press circles as the “democratic opposition”, that this coalition of unlikely partners was never a Venezuelan creation. Rather, the U.S., which has supplied the members of this coalition with more than $30 million in financing since 2001 utilizing the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development as conduits, forced these groups to come together to create a “solid” opposition movement. Evidence shows that the establishment of the coalition was probably conditional to receiving U.S. financing and political support. From their initial formation post-coup in 2002, the members of the CD have consistently bickered and fought amongst themselves.  One of the principal reasons attributed to their failure in each attempt to remove President Chávez from office (the April 2002 coup, the December 2002 crippling strike and the August 2004 referendum) has been their lack of unity and cohesion. The CD could never agree on just one candidate or party to oppose Chávez or to represent the coalition, and they were never able to come to a consensus on a political platform that could offer an alternative to the Venezuelan voting public. Their dissolution after losing the August 15th recall referendum is merely evidence of the failure of this old school U.S. tactic – it may have worked in Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines and Haiti, but it has failed in Venezuela. 

But the U.S. has many other strategies up its sleeve. Present U.S. intervention in Venezuela has been implemented in three stages, each adapting to the circumstances presented by the failure of the previous attempt to garner any success. The U.S. strategy in Venezuela has followed a textbook outline of previous interventions in Latin America.  The tactics used in Venezuela are a metamorphosed version of those previously applied in Chile (1970s), Nicaragua (1980s) and Haiti (1990s), which all resulted in the ouster of democratically elected presidents, either through coup d’etats (Chile and Haiti) or heavily influenced electoral processes (Nicaragua). Within each separate stage, a similar methodology has been utilized that involves the following key strategies intended to justify the final result; removing Chávez from power:

  • Isolating Chávez from the International Community
  • Exploiting the tensions between government, political parties and civil society
  • Exploiting the problems faced by the nation to place blame on the Chávez government
  • Nurturing the opposition to Chávez to build a solid anti-Chávez movement
  • Financing and politically encouraging and enabling the opposition to Chávez
  • Conducting a media campaign to discredit Chávez’s image and empower the opposition
  • Imposing a war psychosis on the greater population through mass media overplaying conflict scenarios
  • Charging the Chávez government with human rights abuses and denouncing such alleged abuses in the international community without providing real evidence to support claims
  • Attempting to associate the Chávez government with supporting terrorist groups and networks
  • Discrediting and destroying the image of President Chávez
  • Threatening the Chávez Administration with potential “hostile” treatment from the U.S. Government.

In the case of Venezuela, the U.S. has utilized its successful model of “democratic intervention”, which involves the funneling of funds into opposition groups and political parties and the essential political training that enables its counterparts to successfully obtain their objective. However, despite adapting to new realities in Venezuela and an unexpectedly strong populace that supports its government, the U.S. line of attack has been staved off each time it has been launched.  Thus far, the three stages of intervention: the Coup, the Strike and the Referendum, have been unsuccessful, but the tactical and methodological undermining of the Chávez Administration, as outlined in the above strategies, has evolved and adapted each time to its new setting. It is without doubt that a fourth intervention will occur before President Chávez completes his term in 2006.

*Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney based in New York. She is currently writing a book about the results of her investigation of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. See also: www.venezuelafoia.info.

  http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1286
*************************************

Allanada la Zona Educativa de Mérida
Por: Guillermo Altamar
Publicado el Jueves, 30/09/04 09:17am








La Zona Educativa del estado Mérida fue allanada por la policía para desalojar a los educadores en huelga de hambre desde hace más de 72 horas.
Alas 5 de la mañana de hoy se presentaron piquetes de la policía del estado y desalojaron a los huelguistas con atropellos y secuestraron a un militante de nombre Cesar que apareció horas después.
Los huelguistas siguen las acciones en las afueras de la Zona Educativa y exigen la destitución de Oda Núñez, así como la presencia de una representación del Ministro Aristóbulo Isturiz.
Grupos solidarios con los educadores huelguistas preparan acciones de protesta en toda la ciudad.
http://www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=51019

Mérida: arrancó con todo éxito la Misión Cultura
Por: Edwin Aguirre M.
Publicado el Jueves, 30/09/04 09:14am








En horas de la tarde de ayer 29 se reunieron más de 1200 personas en el auditorio del centro cultural Tulio Febres Cordero para escuchar las palabras del Gerente General del Ince Lic. Pedro Álvarez y a los representantes de la Universidad Experimental Simón Rodríguez de El Vigía, quienes presentaron la Misión Cultura.

Explicó el Lic. Pedro Álvarez que la Misión Cultura busca romper los lazos con la cultura neo colonial y pro imperialista para rescatar la cultura popular.

http://www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=51018

************************************** How to Prevent Revolution from Degenerating into Government
Wednesday, Sep 29, 2004 Print format
  Send by email

 

By: Roberto Hernandez Montoya - Alia2.net

Once upon a time a general of the Mexican Revolution declared, dispirited, “Revolution degenerated into government.”

All revolutions have faced the same danger: either they fail, like Béla Kun in Hungary in 1919 or they degenerate into government as did Joseph Stalin or like the Institutional Revolutionary Party in Mexico. How can one be revolutionary and institutional if revolutions are made against institutions?

The war waged by the reaction, always out of proportion, brutal and barbarous, forces revolution, if it is genuine, to military discipline. The Soviet Revolution had to face invasions and internal uprisings, like the tragic one by the revolutionary mariners of Cronstadt.

Lenin had to write his pamphlet Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. [1] During WWI the Revolutionary Socialists placed a bomb at the German Embassy in Moscow. Vladimir Ilich and the Political Bureau had to present their condolences to the Chargé d’Affaires, because the Ambassador himself had been killed by the blast.

In Chile, Salvador Allende had not only to confront the conspiracy of imperialism, but the lack of discipline of the extreme left, that only harmonized with the discourse of the extreme right.

After the August 15th Referendum, some revolutionaries, right or wrong, reject the candidates backed by Hugo Chávez and Chávez summons them to run along with the opposition. Then the dissidents say they do not accept arbitrary impositions. That is where the confrontation might escalate.

This curious version of the “revolution within revolution” becomes doubtful when it shows up only during elections. Every revolution is defied by the Danton/Robespierre dilemma, brilliantly described by the film Danton by the Polish Andrzej Wajda [2] , though obviously biased against Robespierre.

In a memorable moment, Danton takes the hand of Robespierre and places it on his own neck and says something like,“This is the very concrete neck you are going to sever; not any of your abstractions!”It is also the dilemma of Che Guevara in his farewell letter to Fidel [3]: knowing how to evaluate “the dangers and the principles.” I.e. the abstractions and the realities.

Venezuelan revolutionaries have hoped during more than 40 years of resistance that one day the majority would conquer power, not only a few privileged few, who are highly corruptible because an infinity capability for arbitration easily leads to arbitrariness. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as Lord Acton said.

The mystic believes while the hypocrite pretends to believe, even more than the mystic, in order to step up the power echelons. He feigns to be more revolutionary than everybody. Curiously enough, left-wing pretenders almost always jump into the wagon of the extreme right. Ethic-and-savior doctrines like Stalinism tend to create this dilemma. It makes impossible to prevent the Pharisees to control the State, the church, the party, etc.

It is hard to stop them, because they know the innards of what Otto von Bismarck called Realpolitik, so many times invoked by Henry Kissinger. The mystic, on the other hand, as an unarmed prophet, Robespierre, only sees the principles, disdaining the dangers and usually spoils everything. Or immolates to avoid any concession to dangers. It was illustrated by the dramatic phone call from Fidel Castro to Chávez at 00:05 on April 12 during the coup d’État: “Look, let me tell you something, save your people and save yourself, do whatever you have to do, negotiate with dignity, do not immolate yourself, Chávez, because this does not end here. Do not immolate yourself.”

This Venezuelan revolutionary experience is as singular as any other is, because every revolution is singular, but at the same time it shares characteristics with others. We have overcome in Venezuela the dangers of Stalinism or the tragedy of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, led by Pol Pot. And also, on the other side of hubris, we have overcome the poltroonery of social democracy, as in Venezuela’s Acción Democrática and Felipe González.

Venezuelan revolution has been pacific. It is opposition that has produced violence. This assertion does not pretend to omit a few non-systematic trigger-happy revolutionaries. This claim can seem strange to some opposers indoctrinated by media, especially those who were once leftists and miss in this revolution, or attribute to it, the Stalinism they would have set up if they had won when they were as extremist as they are now, but on the left.

The proof is in the events on April 13rd 2002 when people reinstated Chávez in power after the coup d’État: if this revolution had been violent it would not have recovered power pacifically. There were no armed groups, and in any case if there were they did not act as such. It was not necessary. That was the perfect occasion for a violent revolution to act as such. In fact, Venezuelans have innovated in revolutionary matters. There have been favorable circumstances for that, which are subject matter for another, long, article.

But we must innovate also in another equally hard and decisive aspect: effective power for the majority. The formula, sadly, is not either in Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustin, Thomas More, Campanella, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Bolívar, Marx, Lenin or in any other theoretician of political science. We have to either invent or err, as Simón Rodríguez said. There are the Bolivarian Circles, the Electoral Battle Units and the Patrols, grassroots organizations created for the Referendum that confirmed Chávez on the Presidency on August 15th.

They have worked very well when they have been so required, but they exclude opponents and they much less educate opponents to live in democracy. One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the Venezuelan opposition is the self-indulgence of spoiled children: if you do not give them what they ask they mutiny and trigger every kind of barbarian behavior.

Fortunately, for most of the opponent mass, overthrowing a government is a “rave” party in a five-star hotel. It is a bourgeoisie so lazy, because of its rental nature, that it did not even pervade the military high ranks, as the Chilean bourgeoisie did, controlling even the firefighters’ command.

It is necessary to include and educate this intolerant and fundamentalist sector of opponents, that simply refuses not only legitimacy but also humanity and even existence to the poor majority. So much that they still do not understand that it lost the August 15th Referendum and are not content even with the very favorable fact that four out of 10 Venezuelans support them.

Like self-centered brats, they want everything right now. This traumatic event left them disoriented and depressed, in a convulsive screaming of “fraud!” in a professional ineptitude that borders insanity, when all national and international powers tell them to abandon that litany because it is boring and causes a dull laughter. It is necessary also, beyond the electoral fever, to develop tools for preventing any regional authority or parliamentary representative to seize a representation that has been only temporarily delegated to them, after they were elected in the Chávez platform, as many so called “fence jumpers” have done.

If this popular power is good only to run “correct” candidates, it leaves the battlefield open for a succession of abuses. We cannot count only with honest people, because then we cannot fight scoundrels when they deceive us. The ideal situation is that the citizens are empowered to prevent that the elected delegates disobey its will, so that the elected individuals and even their political penchant becomes strategically unimportant.

Chávez must not be Venezuela’s mayor, as Fidel said. In some cases a burned bulb is not replaced because Chávez himself does not do it and there is no one else to carry out the job. We must go beyond mere denunciation to an effective exercise of power by the citizens. The “oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely” are normal because the State has been designed for that during thousands of years, and because in the Venezuelan public administration the extraordinary is not still daily life, as Che said was revolution. That is why the revolution bypasses the State to carry out the special massive missions of health and education.

The country in revolution is debating this subject, inventing and erring, because success does not exist without failure. The next months are decisive to overthrow, with “patience and more patience, with work and more work” (Bolívar), both the corrupt Danton and the incorruptible Robespierre.


Roberto Hernández Montoya
Writer, President of the Rómulo Gallegos Center for Latin American Studies (CELARG).

 

[1] www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

[2] www.unilibro.it/find_buy/product.asp?sku=12010240

[3] www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/che/carta_a_fidel.asp

Original source / relevant link:
Alia2/Question

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1285

************************************
South Africa.Indymedia.Org, Trinicenter.Com
Venezuela -- Karl Marx versus the Degeneration of Social Revolution

by Franz J. T. Lee Friday October 01, 2004 at 08:42 AM

franzjutta@cantv.net Mérida, Venezuela.

            


Roberto Hernández Montoya, in his excellent and most timely article, "How to Prevent Revolution from Degenerating into Government", among other important revolutionary reflections, observed the following: "The proof is in the events on April 13rd 2002 when people reinstated Chávez in power after the coup d’État: if this revolution had been violent it would not have recovered power pacifically. There were no armed groups, and in any case if there were they did not act as such. It was not necessary. That was the perfect occasion for a violent revolution to act as such. In fact, Venezuelans have innovated in revolutionary matters. There have been favourable circumstances for that ... ." (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1285 )

It is true that "Venezuelans have innovated in revolutionary matters", that violent self-defence is not always necessary. Even Marx and Engels hoped for a non-violent transition from capitalism to socialism in their life-time.
In spite of the brutal, violent situations, caused by North American corporate imperialism in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Colombia and elsewhere, ... and there is no guarantee that this open fascism will not spread to other countries, like Iran, North Korea, or even Venezuela ... Marx and Engels, the fathers of modern revolutionary práxis and theory, have taught us how to preserve a human, humane, humanist face, how to defend the very existence of the human beings on this planet. They also taught us what degenerates any social revolution, and how to prevent such a social catastrophe.

Surely, as historical products of their epoch, sometimes, even they made Eurocentric "racist" remarks about us, even told us, living in "barbarous and semi-barbarous countries", to foresee our future in the mirror of the advanced European industrialized countries. Nonetheless, across the globe, practically all serious social revolutions of the 20th century were inspired by the revolutionary endeavours of socialists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, Fidel, Che, etc., against economic exploitation, political domination, social discrimination, genocidal militarism and total corporeal and mental alienation. Why their revolutions have been endangered by "government" surely necessitates serious studies, that cannot be dealt with here.

Forty years of the McCarthy type of "Cold War" mentality and indoctrination, during the epoch of "Puntofijismo" in Venezuela, also here the masses did not escape virile anti-communist manipulation. Like elsewhere, even in academic circles, the notion that Religion, Roman Catholicism, and Marxism do not match was simply drilled into the hearts and minds of the American peoples. In fact many believed ... and many still do ... that Communists are monsters, that they will devour our children.

The fact of the matter is that we could learn wonderful things from real, true Marxists with reference to preventing that the Bolivarian Revolution degenerates into bourgeois, democratic, capitalist government. For example, Lenin told us with scientific precision what should be an authentic revolutionary party, the vanguard of the revolutionary masses, how to fight against bureaucracy, and how to arm the revolution. Including Bakunin, Marx and Engels explained to us how the "Government", how the bourgeois "State" should wither away. Trotsky explained the basic elements of Bolivarian Permanent World Revolution.

But, because very few people were ever told the above-mentioned, let us see, in general, what Marx understood by the "human being", by the human species, what he thought about us, about the emancipatory human essence of our Bolivarian Revolution. What was the concrete revolutionary program of Marx? In how far can the Bolivarian projects benefit from this? His point of departure was "Beduerfnis", human need. The interpretation of the human being begins with human need. In his "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", he stated:

"Man is first of all a natural being. As a natural being
and a living natural being, he is endowed on the one
hand with natural powers, vital powers . . . ; these powers
exist in him as aptitudes, instincts. On the other hand,
as an objective, natural, physical, sensitive being, he is a
suffering, dependent and limited being . . . , that is, the
objects of his instincts exist outside him, independent of
him, but are the objects of his need, indispensable and
essential for the realization and confirmation of his
substantial powers".

As can be seen above, Marx confirmed that the "human being"
is a "living natural being", which is endowed with "natural, vital powers". Scientifically completely correct and stringent! In us, Venezuelans, Latin-Americans, these "powers" exist; they exist in Man, exist in her/him , that is, they constitute her/his Existence. We just have to activate all these powerful arms of emancipation. Philosophically totally precise! Thus, Human Activity, Free Labour, humanizes Man, emancipates us. By means of his creative activity, the Human Being identifies itself, becomes an entity, an identity. According to Marx, by mastering Nature, Man realizes his identity with Nature, that is, he achieves free consciousness, he develops his own thinking. Exactly this creative nature, this co-operative spirit, is essential for revolutionary transformation, for the success of the Bolivarian Revolution.

In his conception of the Human Being, Marx argued that, the aurora of "human consciousness" cannot be separated from the dawn of the "human being" itself, with its "struggle against Nature" (later, in the social sphere, the "class struggle" will be added). The consciousness about the struggle against Nature, gives Man the powers, the conditions, for his self-realization, for the fulfilment of the whole Human Being.

Marx explained that what the "Human Being" across his own history, eventually will discover:

" ... all that is called history is nothing else than the process
of creating man through human labour, the becoming of
nature for man. Man has thus evident and irrefutable proof
of his own creation by himself .... for man, man is the supreme being."

Precisely at this point, religious belief and scientific socialism part from each other. However, Marx was very clear about Religion and God; he had a famous tutor: Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. What very few people know is what Marx lovingly has explained about religion. He identified Religion as "the heart of a heartless world", ... like the current world in Iraq ... as the "soul of soulless conditions", ... like the sub-human conditions in which people vegetate in Africa ... as the "sigh of the oppressed creature", ... as the sighs of millions and millions of impoverished masses, sighing under the yoke of world corporate imperialism, and who believe that only in the Hereafter they could find some solace and succour.


The Marxian "Human Being" in Modern Capitalist Society

Now, let us highlight Marxian jewels that could pave the revolutionary path of Venezuela and Latin America towards an emancipatory future. Concerning Revolution, the possession of private property of the means of production and communication plays a central role. It indicates the emancipatory trend of any revolutionary mass movement. Let us summarize some of Marx's major deliberations and postulates.

Across the historical process, no Man, no Human Being, had really acquired the fulfilment of all his labour dreams, of his human needs. Few members of the species homo sapiens sapiens had enjoyed heaven on earth, but this is not what Marx understood by human emancipation. Let us see how Marx explains this historical phenomenon.

Marx himself, living in a capitalist society, came to the conclusion that Man is not really free. Adopting the concept of alienation of Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx was convinced that modern Man ... that is, across the globe ... is estranged, that he is not at home in his earthly labouring world: "Man is made alien to man." But Labour cannot be blamed; it is sacred, it is human. Hence, Labour was alienated across the ages. Hence, the central problem is alienated Labour. Urgently Labour must be disalienated! But, how, and why, did Labour become alienated, and consequently, why is Man an alienated Being, an alienated Human Being?

The Encyclopædia Britannica gives us an excellent summary of Marx's views in "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" :

"In the 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts' the alienation
of labour is seen to spring from the fact that the more the worker
produces the less he has to consume, and the more values he creates the more he devalues himself, because his product and his labour are estranged from him. The life of the worker depends on things that he has created but that are not his, so that, instead of finding his rightful existence through his labour, he loses it in this world of things that are external to him: no work, no pay. Under these conditions, labour denies the fullness of concrete man."

Concerning intellectual alienation, that directly concerns the current 2% of the total global labour force, the "intellectual workers", that produce the lion's share of expensive global products on the world market, Marx stated:

"The generic being (Gattungswesen) of man, nature as well as his intellectual faculties, is transformed into a being which is alien to him, into a means of his individual existence." Nature, his body, his spiritual essence become alien to him. "Man is made alien to man." When carried to its highest stage of development, private property becomes "the product of alienated labour . . . the means by which labour alienates itself (and) the realization of this alienation." It is also at the same time "the tangible material expression of alienated human life.""

Essentially, Marx saw alienated labour as the historic result of the exploitation and domination of Man by Man, of market production, of the division of labour, into manual and intellectual labour, of the division of society into antagonistic classes. The Encyclopaedia Britannica continues with the Marxian explanation:

"As producers in society, men create goods only by their labour.
These goods are exchangeable. Their value is the average amount
of social labour spent to produce them. The alienation of the worker
takes on its full dimension in that system of market production in
which part of the value of the goods produced by the worker is
taken away from him and transformed into surplus value, which
the capitalist privately appropriates. Market production also
intensifies the alienation of labour by encouraging specialization,
piecework, and the setting up of large enterprises.

How workers become "goods", to be bought in capitalist society, to be treated like "mad cows", Marx explained:

"Thus the labour power of the worker is used along with that of others in a
combination whose significance he is ignorant of, both individually
and socially. In thus losing their quality as human products, the
products of labour become fetishes, that is, alien and oppressive
realities to which both the man who possesses them privately and
the man who is deprived of them submit themselves. In the market economy, this submission to things is obscured by the fact that the exchange of goods is expressed in money."

In Venezuela, in Latin America, this economic alienation causes political, social and human alienation; this estrangement results in distorted human relations. The alienated economic base distorts the ideological superstructure, thus creating perverted, metaphysical, philosophical, legal, political and moral ideas and notions. If we do not grasp these problems of alienation at their very capitalist roots, the very future of the revolution will be in danger.


But let Marx himself explain the alienation and disalienation process:

"The act of making representations, of thinking,
the spiritual intercourse of men, seem to be the
direct emanation of their material relations."

"Men produce their representations and their ideas,
but it is as living men, men acting as they are
determined by a definite development of their powers
of production."

"Men developing their material
production modify together with their real existence
their ways of thinking and the products of their ways
of thinking."

"It is not consciousness
which determines existence,
it is existence which
determines consciousness."

This brief commentary about central Marxian issues should encourage us to have a second look at scientific and philosophic socialism, to learn more about our own equal, unequal and combined development, to transcend Marxism, by enriching it with trans-historic "Bolivarianism", forever to nurture "Bolivarianism" with ever-green Marxism.

http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/6697.php
http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=791&mode=thre
ad&order=1&thold=5
**************************************
APORREA.ORG

Venezuela: ¿Quién y qué es el Proletariado Revolucionario?
Por: Franz J.T. Lee
Publicado el Miércoles, 29/09/04 10:11pm







En Venezuela, América Latina y El Caribe, actualmente, por causa del periodismo independiente y auténtico, en el proceso diario de la profundización de la Revolución Bolivariana y de nuestra educación, la precisión práxica y la incisión teórica dentro de nuestras “misiones” populares y universidades se convirtieron en máximas prioridades.



Siempre lo Nuevo, lo Original y lo Auténtico, lógicamente necesita unos conceptos e ideas correspondientes. Además, en una atmósfera revolucionaria virulenta, como existe actualmente en Venezuela, los contenidos sociales de conceptos como los “trabajadores”, las “clases obreras”, “revolución”, “proletariado”, “proceso”, “democracia” o “ideología”, “paz social” y “soberano” cambian permanentemente.



Por ejemplo, en la segunda mitad del siglo 19, Marx, Engels, Lenin y Trotski, todos eran “Socialdemócratas”, de hecho, la Democracia Social era un sinónimo para el Socialismo o Comunismo. Claro que el uso actual de este término ha cambiado por completo, especialmente en Venezuela durante los últimos 6 años. Muchos Adecos y Socialdemócratas eran golpistas; junto con otros dirigieron la “Coordinadora Democrática” contra el legítimo gobierno democrático de Chávez. Además, lo que significaba “ideología” durante las guerras napoleónicas comparado con lo que significa hoy día en las “Nuevas Guerras” de Bush, definitivamente son dos cosas muy distintas. De hecho, el pensamiento “revolución” y la palabra escrita “revolución” no son idénticos.



Desde las revoluciones de 1848 en Europa, todos los Marxistas, incluyendo a aquellos que no eran anti-Marxistas, hablaban de la Lucha de Clase del Proletariado contra la Burguesía a nivel global. Hoy por hoy, al rededor del globo somos testigos de luchas de clase contra el imperialismo corporativo y contra el “Cuarto Imperio”, incluso de la “Guerra de Clase” (Lula) de países o continentes “proletarios” contra el globo fascismo metropolitano burgués.



Así que ¿Cómo hay que entender el “proletariado mundial”? ¿Quienes son los trabajadores y las clases obreras? ¿Hasta dónde juegan un papel emancipatorio dentro de la Revolución Bolivariana? ¿Son obsoletos esos conceptos? ¿Hay que reemplazarlos por conceptos como “nación”, “pueblo”, “pobres” o “soberano”? Esto ciertamente son asuntos “ideológicos” centrales que tocan directamente a la Revolución Latinoamericana.



Este breve comentario no nos permite ir a las profundidades de las turbulentas aguas práxicas y teóricas del internacionalismo proletario y del proletarianismo internacional; sin embargo, nuestros camaradas Bolivarianos deberían pensar seriamente en elaborar análisis científicos sobre estos temas pertinentes. Sólo así logramos transcender la “ideología” burguesa y entrar en los dominios fértiles de la práxis y teoría revolucionaria.



Ahora ¿Qué o quién es el “proletariado”, aquella locomotora moderna de la revolución social? Sólo iluminemos un poco sus orígenes históricos, para indicar, que el contenido social de este concepto ha cambiado dramáticamente durante los últimos siglos y que tenemos que encontrar nuevas connotaciones revolucionarias para este sujeto de emancipación a nivel mundial. Tenemos que identificar el verdadero sujeto revolucionario en Venezuela y América Latina. Tenemos que introducirle al mundo los verdaderos Bolivarianos auténticos. Se ha hecho bastante, sin embargo hace falta mucho más.



Obviamente, con unas herramientas revolucionarias ya gastadas y con palabras vacías que no conducen a ninguna parte, podemos solamente acuñar nociones e ideas raras, que a su vez terminarán en triunfalismo y activismo miope. Durante los últimos años, hemos visto en Venezuela en los medios masivos dominantes nacionales e internacionales, cómo la “oposición” a través de su “guerra de las ideas” y sus campañas de desinformación, ha utilizado formulaciones extrañas y banales para asesinar el carácter de Chávez y de esta manera diabolizar la propia Revolución Bolivariana.



Así que históricamente, ¿quién en la Europa feudalista y capitalista acuñó conceptos tales como el “proletariado” o el “lumpen proletariado”? ¿Esos existen en América Latina?



El hombre común, el empollón, el ideólogo inmediatamente diría: Este concepto lo inventaron los “Comunistas” Marx y Engels. Bueno, nos arrodillamos humildemente ante tal ignorancia implantada; es realmente una beatitud.



A partir del siglo 16, aparecieron en uno y otro escrito Europeo los conceptos “proletariado” o “proletario”; luego y mucho antes del nacimiento de Marx, en vísperas de la Revolución Francesa, especialmente en los “clubes de trabajadores” como la “Liga de los Justos”, el concepto adaptó gradualmente un contenido obrero.



En 1837 el economista Suiza Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi finalmente adoptó este término. Sólo en 1842 Lorenz von Stein introdujo el concepto a la lengua alemana; entonces el famoso poeta revolucionario alemán Ferdinand von Freiligrath pasó el concepto a Friedrich Engels, que lo utilizó en la primera obra científico-socialista, en su libro “La Condición de la Clase Obrera en Inglaterra en 1844”.



Como curiosidad científica y filosófica, ¿por qué los padres del socialismo científico utilizaron este concepto específico en sus obras?



Después de todo, conceptos como “las clases obreras”, “hombres trabajando”, “clases laborando” eran prevalentes en aquella época. Ciertamente, sabemos que Marx y Engels eran lingüistas por excelencia. Así que veamos lo que revela el significado etimológico de estos conceptos.



En la Roma antigua, el proletarius perteneció a los desvalidos, a la sección más baja de la población. En Latín, la palabra pro-olescere simplemente significa “brotar”, en el sentido de los hongos que “brotan del suelo”. Así que el proletarius era de naturaleza derivativa, artificial y sintética. Marx y Engels lo introdujeron en el Manifiesto Comunista así:



“La Burguesía... ha originado a aquellos hombres que tienen que manejar esas armas (revolucionarias) – los obreros modernos – los proletarios. ...el proletariado se recluta de todas las clases de la población”.



Desde un punto de vista arrogante Europeo, esto significa que el proletariado no es primordial, no es “natural”; es más bien un “sancocho” social amorfo, un excremento social, carente de raíces “culturales” y “civilizadas”.



De hecho, las actuales ideas “globalizadas” y “civilizadas” de Bush y Rumsfeld en cuanto a los “Árabes”, explican mejor esta concepción discriminadora original del primer proletariado.



De acuerdo a Marx y Engels, el nuevo proletarius adoptó las relaciones capitalistas producidas por la burguesía victoriosa y el nexo entre los miembros del proletariado y la burguesía se convirtió en puro “interés egoísta, en pago calloso en efectivo”.



Aquí se ve el creciente antagonismo de clase, la relación alienadora entre la burguesía rica y socialmente en auge y la naturaleza pauperizada del futuro proletariado.



Sin embargo, por el otro extremo pauperizado encontramos a otra clase, al “lumpen proletariado”. ¿Por qué Marx y Engels utilizaron este concepto? ¿Existen tambien grupos sociales como una “lumpen burguesía” o “lumpen intelectuales”?



En aquel entonces, el diccionario de Grimm describió los miembros de esta clase de desterrados sociales en su totalidad como chusma: “un populacho desaliñado, una horda de sinvergüenzas, de malvados, vagabundos”.



Aparte de la similitud semántica, estas masas podridas, expulsadas de los sectores más bajos de la “sociedad moderna”, el “lumpen proletariado”, en la terminología marxiana, es exactamente la negación del proletariado. Aquí nos damos cuenta de que el análisis de clase social marxiano no era normativo, no era basado en “pobre y rico”, ni siquiera era un asunto de “blanco y negro”, de la “teoría de raza” o de la “lucha de razas”.



En 1845 el concepto del “lumpen proletariado” apareció en la obra de Marx y Engels, “La Ideología Alemana”. Además, en aquella época, la obra burgués-capitalista de mucha influencia de Cassagnac explicó, que el concepto generalizado del “proletariado” se compuso de “trabajadores, mendigos, ladrones y prostitutas”. Por ejemplo, esto es lo que el filósofo alemán Hegel entendió bajo su concepto “Pöbel” (populacho, chusma).



Por otro lado, en este mismo espíritu de la Ilustración, incluso para Marx el lumpen proletariado incluyó a los “mendigos, ladrones y prostitutas”, el sector no-productivo de las clases más bajas.



En “Lucha de Clase en Francia” describió esta clase como “gens sans feu et sans aveu”. Sin embargo, según Marx, ambas clases, el Proletariado y el Lumpen Proletariado, tenían en común lo siguiente: ambas eran “libres” y ambas eran “comprables” o “corruptibles”. Sin embargo, la diferencia específica era, que los lumpen proletarios eran “déclassés”; que carecen de un “interés de clase”; que no logran desarrollar una “conciencia de clase”; en otras palabras, no se pueden concientizar para ninguna cosa en absoluto. Para ser más preciso, el capitalismo ya ha destruido su propio cuerpo y alma. Bien, ¿existen tales clases sociales en nuestro mundo moderno? Y ¿Se pueden revolucionar, concientizar y organizar? ¿Qué hay del “hombre blanco estúpido” en EE.UU.?



Ahora sabemos lo qué Marx y Engels, los padres del socialismo científico y filosófico, originalmente entendieron del proletariado, que “se recluta de todas las clases de la población”, es decir, objetivamente como clase-en-sí.



En sus obras tardías explicaron, que para convertirse en clase-en-y-para-sí, en clase revolucionaria, es necesario de adquirir una conciencia de clase, entrar a la lucha de clase a nivel global; Lenin nos dio la llave maestra: Sin teoría no hay revolución. Y Trotski, en el espíritu revolucionario de dum spiro spero (mientras respiro espero), nos formulaba con la revolución mundial permanente el dominio infinito de la Revolución Bolivariana, es decir, nuestra tarea invencible, emancipatoria y transhistórica. Finalmente, Ché Guevara resaltó la esencia verdadera de esta inmensa responsabilidad: “El deber de un revolucionario es hacer la revolución”.
 
http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=9930 .


**************************************************


The Herald (Harare)
DOCUMENT
September 24, 2004


Address by President Mugabe on the occasion of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, on Wednesday.

MR PRESIDENT, I am delighted to congratulate you (Mr Jean Ping), a distinguished son of Africa, upon your election as President of the 59th Session of the General Assembly. Indeed, at a time when the community of nations has committed itself to paying due attention to issues that relate to development in Africa, through support for Nepad and other mechanisms, your Presidency gives us the hope and confidence that our concerns and aspirations and those of others will remain high on the agenda of this august body.

Let me also express our sincere appreciation to your predecessor, Mr Julian Hunte, for the efficient and exemplary manner in which he conducted the business of the 58th Session.

Mr President, at the 58th Session, alongside others, I spoke about the need to reform the United Nations and its related bodies so as to make them more democratic. I stressed the perils inherent in the status quo, particularly, with regard to the dominance of global politics by one superpower and its closest allies.

While we welcome the current debate on enhancing the authority and role of the United Nations, we wish to stress the need to address the core issue of democratisation of international governance. Debate on the reform of the Security Council has been too long-drawn because of attempts calculated to protect those whose interests are best served by the status quo.

Ironically, it is some of the same forces that, since last year, have been raining bombs and hellfire on innocent Iraqis purportedly in the name of democracy.

Iraq today has become a vast inferno created by blatant and completely illegal and defiant acts of aggression by the United States, Britain and their allies, in the full trail of which the world has witnessed mass destruction of both human lives and property, and with them our human rights, values, morality and the norms of international law as enshrined in our Charter.

We are now being coerced to accept and believe that a new political-cum-religious doctrine has arisen, namely that "There is but one political god, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair is his prophet". Mr President, the UN Charter remains the only most sacred document and proponent of the relations of our nations. Anything else is political heresy!

Mr President, we note that the Secretary-General has placed before the General Assembly, the Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons of the United Nations Civil Society Relations. While civil society makes a significant contribution to the work of the United Nations, we hope any arrangements that will eventually be agreed upon will recognise that the United Nations remains an inter-state and inter-governmental body. It is also our expectation that the conclusions of the debate will recognise the different levels of development of civil society in different parts of the world.

Mr President, as we prepare for the mid-term review of the implementation of the Millennium Declaration in September 2005, it is apparent that many developing countries, including my own country, Zimbabwe, may be unable to meet goals and targets set, as our sub-region of Southern Africa has over recent years experienced extended and successive periods of inclement weather, principally droughts, that wreaked havoc upon our economies and, accordingly, diminished our capacity to achieve the Millennium Declaration targets.

The situation, particularly with regards to the health and education sectors, has also been worsened by the brain drain and the devastating effects of the HIV and Aids pandemic.

Mr President, in this regard, Zimbabwe welcomes the continuing efforts by this community of nations to find solutions to the scourge of HIV and Aids that has ravaged our people and economies. At the national level, we have taken measures, within our limited means, to combat the pandemic. We are also co-ordinating our efforts at the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) level.

Regrettably, we continue to see the unfortunate and futile tendency to use assistance in this area as reward for political compliance and malleability, making it unavailable to countries whose governments are deemed "inconvenient". Let it be realised that the pandemic does not respect boundaries, and these self-serving, selective approaches will have little or no meaningful results.

Zimbabwe has also had to withstand unprovoked, declared and undeclared sanctions, imposed by Britain and its allies who are bent on bringing down our legitimately elected Government.

Mr Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, has arrogantly and unashamedly announced in his Parliament that his government was working with Zimbabwe's opposition party to bring about regime change. Once again, the lawless nature of this man who, along his Washington master, believes he is God-ordained to rule our world, has shown itself.

Regime change is an inalienable right of our Zimbabwean people who, through their sovereign vote, can make and unmake our governments. In any case, we reject completely the pretended assertions of democracy by our former colonial masters, whose undemocratic regimes we taught the lesson of one man or one woman one vote through our armed liberation struggles.

Here in the United States, as we look at the situation from Africa, we remain aware of the plight of the Black, that is Afro-American of both yesterday and today and of the semi-slave and half-citizen status that has been his burden. Have the Black in the USA got equal political, social and economic rights and status as their white counterparts? When shall we ever have a Black, Afro-American President of the United States? Never, ever, why?

I wish to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of my Government and that of the people of Zimbabwe for the humanitarian assistance we received from the international community during our period of need. Without such support, we would not have been able to avert a major catastrophe.

I am pleased to inform you Mr President that we have, in spite of the sanctions and evil wishes of Britain and its allies, now emerged from that difficult phase.

We had a relatively good agricultural season this year and our Land Reform Programme has begun to make a significant contribution towards the turnaround of our economy.

Despite the partial drought at the beginning of the season, we have managed this year to realise a good harvest, certainly, one good enough to ensure that we meet our food requirements until the next season.

We plead with the IMF to stop its strange political mouthings, lies and fabrications about our situation. Our own regional organisations know the truth about Zimbabwe and can the IMF listen to them, please and be for once clean.

Mr President, my Government is determined to eliminate corruption and its corrosive effects on national development efforts. After signing the International Convention against Corruption in November last year, we have put in place legal and administrative measures that have already arrested a growing and deliberate tendency to circumvent normal business practices, particularly in the financial services sector.

Our efforts have, however, experienced some setbacks as some countries, particularly in the developed West, provide safe havens for fugitive economic saboteurs from our country.

Mr President, in March next year, Zimbabwe will be holding its sixth democratic parliamentary elections since Independence in 1980. These elections, like others before them, will be conducted in accordance with our national laws, and the Sadc Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections recently adopted by our sub-region.

We do not need any lessons from the Netherlands and its imperial allies in the European Union. Zimbabwe will, indeed, welcome to these elections those observers whose sole and undivided purpose will be to observe the process and not to meddle in the politics of the country.

Mr President, the fight against international terrorism has exposed the duplicity and insincerity of erstwhile leading democracies and human rights monitors with regard to the question of the observance of human rights. We have seen established international conventions being thrown to the dogs, and resolutions of the General Assembly and other UN bodies on this issue come to naught.

We are seriously concerned that the United Nations, the pre-eminent instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security, watched helplessly while Iraq was being unlawfully attacked and plundered by the US and UK-led so-called coalition of the willing. Such belligerent gun-slinging diplomacy and illegitimate territorial occupation of the State of Iraq are blemishes on the fair play image of the UN.

While the sadistic scenes from Abu Ghraib remain vivid in our minds, other places in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay have provided useful samples of the Western concept of respect for human rights. Let me say once again that the West should spare us their lessons on human rights. They do not have the moral authority to speak about anyway, let alone, parade themselves, as torchbearers of human rights.

Mr President, Zimbabwe remains deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East. We continue to be revulsed by a situation where the collective decisions and authority of the United Nations are disregarded with impunity on account of big brother support.

We demand an immediate lifting of all restrictions illegally imposed on the Palestinian people, which have seen President Yasser Arafat remain a virtual prisoner of foreign occupation.

We welcome the recent opinion given by the International Court of Justice that found the construction of the Israeli wall to be in contravention of international law, and the subsequent General Assembly Resolution that demanded the immediate halt to that monstrosity.

Mr President, as you are aware, the African Union earlier this year established its own Peace and Security Council to seek and promote African solutions to African problems.

Already, the Council is seized with the matter of the crisis in western Sudan. These efforts need the support of the international community.

Let me conclude, Mr President, by assuring you of my country's support during the period you will preside over the work of this Session of the General Assembly.

I also wish to reiterate my country's commitment to positively contribute to the fulfilment of the aims and purpose of the United Nations.

I thank you. 

http://www.trinicenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=787&mode=threa
d&order=1&thold=5


***************************************************

Enamorar a los Chavistas
Por: Roberto Malaver
Publicado el Miércoles, 29/09/04 11:04am






Parecía que los chavistas habían nacido sin corazón en el pecho, así decían los que diariamente aparecían en los medios de comunicación, y los llamaban chusma, esdientaos, pataenelsuelo, hordas, marginales y vienen a las marchas por su carterita de ron y su bollo de pan.

Ocurre que ahora Julio Borges, de Justicia hasta las últimas consecuencias, después de llamar tanto a la guerra, y apoyar guarimbas y golpistas en la Plaza Altamira y allanamientos a la embajada de Cuba y aceptar contribuciones de la vieja PDVSA para la fundación de Primero Justicia, ha salido a decir que “...hay que tener las antenas puestas, tanto en el mundo que votó Sí, como en el que votó No. Hacer un trabajo cuerpo a cuerpo con este último sector para enamorarlo de un proyecto alternativo que para nosotros es la Venezuela de la justicia”.

Esto lo dijo el lunes 27 de septiembre en El Universal en una entrevista que le hizo Roberto Giusti.

Es interesante la propuesta amorosa de Borges. Además, dice que hay que hacerlo cuerpo a cuerpo. Y es lógico, esa hasta ahora es la única manera de hacer el amor: Cuerpo a cuerpo. Hay otra manera de hacer el amor pero así no se conoce gente.

Es decir, está gente viene de hacer la guerra y ahora propone la vieja frase de los hippies: Haz el amor no la guerra.

Ayer mismo me encontré con una de las pavas de Primero Justicia que se me acercó y me dijo: “ Primero Justicia te ama”. Y yo le contesté: “Yo prefiero que primero me ames tú”.

Quedamos de acuerdo en seguir viéndonos, lo que pasa es que cada vez que la invito a salir tiene que pedirle permiso a Julio Borges. Y cada vez que salimos, ella llama al teléfono 800- AMORES y da un número clave. Después, da mi número de cédula y le dicen que hasta cuándo vas a seguir saliendo con ese tipo, ese se está aprovechando. Ella insiste en que está a punto de convencerme y entonces le dan el permiso.

Le pregunté cómo entró a Primero Justicia y me dijo que fue amor a primera vista. Se nota que es una pava apasionada. Ya está escribiendo el Manual para levantarse a un chavista. Y me habla de Aló Presidente. De la Misión Barrio Adentro. La Misión Robinson. Es decir, tiene un puñal de todo lo que está haciendo el gobierno.

Todavía no hemos llegado al cuerpo a cuerpo, pero ya estoy a punto de llenar la planilla de Primero Justicia.
Robertomalaver@cantv.net

http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=9919

**************************************************

Venezuela: En cuanto al Destino, HAARP y otras Armas de Destrucción Masiva

 

Por:  Franz J.T. Lee

 

Los extraños caminos de Anánke, del Destino, de la Necesidad

 

Muchos de nosotros, especialmente aquí en Venezuela, nos preguntamos ¿qué está pasando en este planeta y en el universo? Cada uno tiene sus propias respuestas; muchas veces tomamos la vía de menos resistencia. En un mundo Católico Romano ponemos nuestro destino, nuestro futuro en manos de Dios y de esta manera, el problema está parcialmente resuelto para siempre.

 

¿Por qué unos son ricos y viven en Altamira y otros son pobres, son “recoge-latas” y viven en Campo de Oro? ¿Son condenados los pobres diablos? ¿Son un “pueblo elegido” los ricos y poderosos de Plaza Francia o de Beverly Hills? ¿Son perezosos los pobres, y los ricos más concientes? ¿Son Chávez, Castro o Hussein pupilos del Anticristo que trajeron las siete plagas a Venezuela, Cuba e Irak? ¿Nos castiga Dios por renegar tanto? ¿Por qué temerle a la muerte si de todos modos, todos nosotros, incluso los hijos de nuestros hijos, pereceremos algún día, como resultado de la “guerra atómica de baja intensidad”? ¿Para qué todas las dificultades, si al fin y al cabo incluso el propio sistema solar colapsará?

 

Miles de años atrás, ya Anaximandro nos advirtió sobre los extraños caminos de la diosa Anánke:

 

“Fuera de la necesidad, el perecer de las cosas se dirige hacia el lugar desde donde llegaron a existir, porque pagan penitencia el uno al otro por su injusticia, de acuerdo a las órdenes del tiempo”. (La versión original en Alemán se encuentra en: Ernst Bloch, Gesamtausgabe, Band 12, Zwischenwelten in der Philosophiegeschichte, edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1977, S. 23)

 

Muchos de nosotros hablamos de la necesidad, del destino, del karma, de la voluntad de Dios; pero ¿de dónde vinieron estas brillantes ideas? ¿Las formulamos, las reflexionamos nosotros? Como tantos benditos conceptos generales como la unidad, la justicia, la paz o la democracia, casi todos fueron “Hecho en Europa” y generados principalmente en el fons et origo de la acumulación de dinero, capital, avaricia, vicio y poder.

 

Durante siglos y como parte del Holocausto Mental a nivel global, a través del colonialismo, del Cristianismo y de la desocialización – incluyendo sus respectivas morales, tradiciones y educación – fueron exportados de Europa y de Grecia Antigua creencias ajenas y alienadoras hacia las Américas, hacia Africa, Asia y otras partes. A través de un gigantesco y brutal genocidio mental, con el tiempo destruyeron inexorablemente casi todos los sagrados valores humanos no-europeos, dejando a billones como presa inocente para los buitres internacionales, para los medios de comunicación nacionales e internacionales.

 

Casi todos estos conceptos ideológicos dominantes recibieron una aureola religiosa y a través de los milenios fueron sicológicamente implantados como Temor y Terror en los propios corazones y mentes de billones de parias, ilotas y creyentes firmes, de manera autoritaria y totalitaria.

 

Transhistóricamente, no respetando barreras lógico-formales y espacial-temporales algunas, vamos a  encontrarnos con la Diosa del Destino de Grecia Antigua, que finalmente se convertirá en la voluntad de Dios.

 

En el simposio de Platón (195C, 197B), Anánke aparece como una Divinidad del Destino. A veces también la llaman Adrásteia, (Plato, Phaedros 248 C; Plotin, Enn. III 2, 13. A.), la Inevitable.

 

Según Homero y Hesiodo, pero también Archilochos, en tiempos mitológicos, los Griegos temían al Destino, a la furia de sus dioses, pero al mismo tiempo también eran víctimas de la “mala suerte”, de su propia impotencia mortal; le temían a la muerte, a Moira, a Daemon, a Anánke. En tiempos filosóficos, en Ionia, en Miletus, la cuna del capitalismo y en otras partes, el Destino, Anánke obtuvieron una connotación más actualizada.

 

Ahora con hybris, con prepotencia, los Griegos – los ricos, las clases dominantes aristocráticas y democráticas poseedoras de esclavos – podían determinar sus vidas ellos mismos, a pesar de las amenazas del Destino. Gracias a Anaximandro, la Anánke femenina fue transformada en la Necesidad masculina; el Orden Cósmico, el Nuevo Orden Mundial, garantizado por Zeus directamente desde el Olimpo, ahora también incluyó a los destinos individuales. La contradicción “Necesidad Fatal versus Libre Voluntad Humana” – más tarde llamado “La Voluntad de Dios versus el Arbitrium Liberum Individual” – entraron a la escena de la filosofía, la sobreestructura del capitalismo e imperialismo germinando.

 

Así que en tiempos de Miletus, Anánke ya había adquirido características masculinas, determinantes, necesarias y de la Patria. Es simplemente imposible interpretar el fragmento preservado anterior, porque cada palabra griega antigua original tenía un significado filosófico específico, que hoy día solamente lo podemos adivinar inteligentemente o deducir lógicamente. De “mal” en “peor”, “Anánke” no sólo significaba “destino”, una fuerza divina, necesidad; también incluyó otros significados como un “patrón estricto y generalmente aceptado del comportamiento”, “de acuerdo al hábito”, “a la costumbre”, etc. Aquí entendemos, por qué es nuestro destino el de preservar nuestros ritos y rituales, costumbres, tradiciones y cultura.

 

Además, leyendo el texto anterior, “de acuerdo a la orden del tiempo”, no sólo significa “de acuerdo a la historia” en un sentido moderno. Esta frase tiene un tono cosmogónico y mitológico, denota autoridad. El autoritarismo y el fascismo provienen del Olimpo, de donde hablaba, ordenaba y disponía Papá Cronos (el dios del tiempo). La frase principal, la esencia filosófica de este fragmento es difícil de explicar.

 

El filósofo alemán, Ernst Bloch, intentó de interpretar su significado y según él, en el Apeiron, en el proceso de Ser-Llegar a ser, las cosas, en su agon (lucha), (...), se desprenden y esto pasa de acuerdo a las “ordenes del tiempo”, de acuerdo a las ordenanzas de Cronos. Sin embargo, lo que es decisivo es, que las cosas no pagan penitencia al Apeiron o a Cronos, sino más bien el uno al otro, a sí mismo. Esto es un tipo de auto-sacrificio a causa de su propio llegar a ser y suena mucho a Hegel: “Todo lo que llega a existir, merece perecer”.

 

En este fragmento también se generaron las futuras ideas patriarcales de la justicia y la injusticia. En el texto, el término “por su injusticia” tiene otra connotación. “Injusticia” es determinado por agon, por Lucha, por Guerra, no por Cruzadas o “Nuevas Guerras”. Las cosas se mueven, luchan, están en conflicto, en contradicción.

 

Más tarde este concepto violento surgirá de nuevo en la filosofía de Heráclito, incluso en la Teoría Política de Thomas Hobbes. En el Apeiron, en el Llegar-a-ser, las cosas se encuentran en una permanente lucha violenta mutua, están en guerra, batallan a favor y en contra del lugar donde se encuentran, de acuerdo a las ordenes del tiempo. De esta manera, permanentemente generan “nuevas guerras”, introducen el imperialismo geográfico geopolítico y geocéntrico. El mejor ejemplo actual de todo esto es la “ruptura”, el conflicto de clase en Venezuela.

 

Claro que en su batalla final se liberan de sus contradicciones, se vuelven pacíficos con ellos mismos, se vuelven unificados, se unen con ellos mismos. Se vuelven democráticos, pacíficos y justos, es decir, reposan, perecen.

 

Este dolor de parto, este nacer agonizante de lo nuevo y este pudrir brutal de lo obsoleto, del cual hablan Gramsci y Chávez, incluso lo dramatizó Shakespeare en Hamlet:

 

“Busque en el polvo a tu noble padre: sabes que es común, todo lo que vive tiene que morir, traspasando la naturaleza hacia la eternidad”. (La Reina)

 

“Ay, Señora, es común”. (Hamlet)

 

Sin embargo, Shakespeare nos hace recordar de otras cosas, no sólo de la Vida y Muerte, la Justicia y la Paz, la Democracia y el Fascismo en el universo:

 

“Hay más cosas en el cielo y en la tierra, Horacio, de las que tú puedes soñar en tu filosofía”. (Hamlet)

 

En tiempos más recientes, en “Noche Espacial”, el físico contemporáneo Harald Lesch también nos cuenta:

 

“Nuestra ciencia natural contemporánea solamente araña la superficie de la realidad. No tenemos ni la más mínima idea de lo que está debajo”.

 

Ahora, vamos a dejar nuestra conciencia social limitada, nuestra realidad virtual universal, anclada en el pasado y transcender hacia el “presente” y “futuro” multi-mensional transhistórico galáctico, a la profundización de la revolución, a la revolución dentro de la revolución, a la Práxis y Teoría Nueva. Veamos en un sentido militar lo que significa la globalización para Venezuela, para América. Después de todo, la Revolución Bolivariana es un producto del “neoliberalismo salvaje”, del globofascismo, es decir, de la verdadera cara del capitalismo corporativo transicional. Vamos a identificar el poder globofascista y algunas de las armas de destrucción masiva Orwelianas inescrupulosas, que esperan por nosotros.

 

El 9 de octubre de 2003, una noticia  del “Proyecto Sunshine” (proyecto “solano”, “sol brillante”) nos advirtió sobre:

 

“Un Virus Letal de 1918 Reconstruido Genéticamente; Científicos del Ejército Estadounidense Crean el Virus de la “Gripe Española” en Laboratorio –  Beneficio Médico Cuestionable

 

(Austin y Hamburgo, 9 de octubre de 2003) – El virus de la “Gripe Española”, que mató 20 a 40 millones de personas en 1918 se está reconstruyendo actualmente. Varios genes del extraordinario virus letal de gripe de 1918 fueron aislados e introducidos en ADN de gripe contemporánea. Esta fue comprobada letal para ratones mientras constructos de virus con genes de un tipo actual de virus gripal no mostraron efectos. Estos efectos se pueden abusar fácilmente para fines militares, pero proveen muy poco beneficio desde un punto de vista médico o de salud pública”.

 

En cuanto a la Gripe Española de 1918, este artículo nos informa que “era altamente infecciosa y – comparada con virus gripales contemporáneos – mataba un gran porcentaje de aquellos que eran infectados, incluyendo a mucha gente joven. En 1918, únicamente la Gripe Española causó la caída de la esperanza de vida en EE.UU. por 10 años. Así que hoy día se consideran los virus gripales como una seria amenaza de guerra biológica. Sólo hace 2 semanas atrás, en EE.UU. fueron otorgados 15 millones de dólares para propósitos investigativos para desarrollar medidas preventivas especialmente contra un ataque bioterrorista con virus gripales”. (Véase: http://www.sunshine-project.org/)

 

Lo anterior es sólo uno de muchos ejemplos de las espantosas armas ABC de destrucción masiva, actualmente producidas por EE.UU.

 

Las Ondas ELF en acción

 

Pronto no será necesario más orar en voz alta en la Iglesia; instantáneamente, vía ondas escalares, podríamos transmitir nuestros pensamientos directamente a Dios más allá del universo. Claro, también de manera inversa, El podría leer nuestros pensamientos inmediatamente, decidir nuestro destino y perfectamente controlar nuestra “libre voluntad”. ¿Sabemos, que no sólo los protones existen sino también los gravitones? ¿Sabemos, cómo defendernos contra los mecanismos de control mental a través de las ondas ELF (Extra Low Frecuency, frecuencia extremadamente baja) y contra HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, programa para la investigación de la aurora a traves de altas frecuencias)?

 

¿Que pasaría, si el Hermano Mayor suministraría a los “Cuatro Jinetes del Apocalipsis” nazi y a la “Banda de los Carlos” o sus futuros equivalentes con esas armas electromagnéticas? Podrían manipular, dirigir y controlar la propia salud del Presidente, del Soberano, de la gente, atacando sus propios cerebros con una frecuencia saboteadora bajo los 10 hertzios. Medido en su daño social total, esto podría resultar peor que cualquier sabotaje económico. En este caso, el destino o la fe ya no querrán o podrán defendernos.

 

En cuanto a los proyectos de HAARP del Pentágono, de la NASA y de la OTAN cabe destacar que, a través de una gigantesca catapulta energética, la maquinaria de guerra de Rumsfeld puede calentar la ionosfera, convertirla en un espejo electromagnético gigante y de esta manera dirigir las ondas ELF a cualquier lugar o persona, a donde les da la gana, manipulando todo sistema vital, incluyendo la conciencia humana, induciendo epidemias, cambiando el clima, originando terremotos, moviendo los polos de la tierra, etc. Aparte de esas instalaciones del ejército estadounidense hay muchas más en Berlín Tempelhof, Arecibo, Dushanbe, Gork City, Tromso, Monchegorsk, Sura y quien sabe donde más.

 

Estas ondas ELF logran penetrar en cualquier lugar, incluso en la tierra y los océanos. Además afectan a las bandas de las ondas cerebrales, científicamente bien conocidas como:

 

- Delta (1-3 hertzios)... sueño profundo, coma

- Theta (4-7 hertzios)... hipnosis, trance, sueño

- Alpha (8-13 hertzios)... meditación, oración, relax

- Beta (14-40 hertzios)... estado despierto.

 

Las ondas ELF son capaces de mover nuestro estado consciente hacia las regiones Delta y Theta, causando cansancio y hacia un estado de falta de energía y motivación. Disminuye o daña nuestro sistema inmunológico; la persona adopta un estilo de vida tipo carpe diem. A través de esas señales de ELF se pueden convertir a las masas en animales, en el sentido de que son capaces de trabajar muy duro incluso hasta su muerte, o en enjambres de consumidores patológicos. Pierden todo fervor revolucionario y optimismo social; adquieren un síndrome de disociación psicótica; su mente está controlada y se convierten en autómatas. El resultado es que nadie más es capaz de pensar, sencillamente por falta de motivación, energía y tiempo. Masas así se pueden indoctrinar y manipular muy fácilmente.

 

Concluyendo, mucho de lo que ahora está pasando en la tierra tiene muy poco que ver con la fe, el destino, la “libre voluntad” o la “voluntad de Dios”; al contrario, es dirigido directamente desde el Pentágono, a través de los medios de comunicación masivos, de la música, los comerciales, los aparatos electrónicos o directamente desde los satélites.

 

Por los momentos América Latina, Venezuela, Afganistán e Irak sirven para experimentos con todos estos dispositivos de control mental, se convierten en conejillos de india para probar todas las armas mortales genocidas estadounidenses, así que ¡Cuidado Venezuela! Hay más que sólo cuatro “Jineteras del Apocalipsis”. Los perros cazadores de la CIA, los hombres lobos moribundos, “coordinados democráticamente” están en todas partes, en la Iglesia, en nuestras camas, en el Kinder, en las aulas de clase, en nuestros proyectos de desarrollo, en nuestros propios gobiernos, en nuestros partidos políticos y en nuestros propios cerebros.

 

Así que ¡la Revolución Bolivariana tiene tareas inmensas que resolver! ¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre!

*******************************************************************

Commentary  

Published: Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Bylined to: Franz J. T. Lee

Franz J. T. Lee -- Venezuela: Who and what is the revolutionary proletariat?

 University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes: Currently -- in Venezuela, in Latin America and in the Caribbean, and for the sake of independent, authentic journalism -- in the daily process of deepening the Bolivarian Revolution, of educating ourselves, and our compatriots, practical precision and theoretical incision in our popular "missions" and universities have become top priorities.

Always the New, the Original and the Authentic logically necessitate corresponding concepts and notions.

Furthermore, in a virulent revolutionary atmosphere, the social contents of concepts like the "workers," the "working classes," "revolution," "proletariat," "process," "democracy" or "ideology" permanently change.

For example, in the second half of the 19th century, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, all were "Social Democrats" ... in fact, Social Democracy was a synonym for Socialism or Communism.

Of course, the current usage of this term has changed completely over the last six years. A lot of Adecos, of Social Democrats, were golpistas; with others, directed the "Coordinadora Democratica" against Chavez' legitimate, democratic government.

Furthermore, what "ideology" meant during the Napoleonic Wars, and what it connotes nowadays in Bush's "New Wars" is definitely not the very same thing. In fact, the thought "revolution" and the written word "revolution" are not identical.

Since the 1848 revolutions in Europe, all Marxists, also those that were not anti-Marxists, spoke about the global Class Struggle of the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. Till today, across the globe, we witness class struggles against corporate imperialism, against the "Fourth Empire," even the "Class War" (Lula) of "proletarian" countries or continents against "bourgeois," global, metropolitan fascism.

Hence, what is to be understood by the "world proletariat"?

Who are the workers, the working classes?

In how far do they play an emancipatory role in the Bolivarian Revolution?

Are these concepts obsolete?

Are they to be replaced by concepts like the "nation," "people," "poor" or the "sovereign"?

Surely, these are central "ideological" issues that directly concern the Latin American Revolution.

In this short commentary we cannot dive deeply into the turbulent, profound, practical and theoretical waters of proletarian internationalism and international proletarianism; however, our Bolivarian comrades should think seriously and write scientific analyses about these pertinent issues. Only as such we could transcend bourgeois "ideology," and enter the fertile realms of revolutionary theory.

Now, what or who is the "proletariat", the modern locomotive of social revolution?

Let us just throw some light on its historical origins, to indicate that the social content of this concept has changed dramatically over the last centuries, and that we have to find new revolutionary connotations for this world subject of emancipation.

We have to identify the real, true revolutionary subject in Venezuela and Latin America. We have to introduce the real, true, authentic Bolivarians to the world. Much has been done, however, much more is necessary.

  • Obviously, with shabby, revolutionary tools, with empty words, that lead nowhere, we can only coin weird notions and bizarre ideas, that will end up with myopic triumphalism and activism.

Over the last years, in the dominant national and international mass media, we have seen how the "opposition," in its "war of ideas," in its disinformation campaigns, has utilized uncanny and banausic formulations to assassinate Chavez´ character, and therewith, to bedevil the very Bolivarian Revolution itself.

Hence, historically, in feudalist and capitalist Europe, who coined such concepts like the "proletariat" or the "lumpen-proletariat"?

Do they exist in Latin America?

Immediately, the layman, the nerd, the ideologue, would say: This concept was invented by the "Communists," by Marx and Engels. Well, we humbly genuflect confronted by such implanted ignorance; really, it's bliss.

From the 16th century onwards, here and there, in European writings, the concepts "proletariat" or "proletary" appeared; later, long before the birth of Marx, at the eve of the French Revolution, especially in "workers' clubs," like the "League of the Just," the concept gradually acquired a worker's content.

In 1837, the Swiss economist Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi finally adopted this term. Only in 1842, Lorenz von Stein introduced the concept into German; then the famous German revolutionary poet, Ferdinand von Freiligrath passed the concept on to Friedrich Engels, who used it in the first scientific socialist work, in his book, The Condition of The Working Class in England in 1844.

As a matter of scientific-philosophic curiosity, why did the fathers of scientific socialism use this specific term in their works?

After all, concepts like the "working classes," "working men," "laboring classes" were prevalent in that epoch. Surely, we know that Marx and Engels were linguists par excellence. Hence, let's see what the etymological meaning of this concept reveals.

In Ancient Rome, the proletarius belonged to the under-dogs, to the lowest section of the population. In Latin, pro-olescere simply means "growing out of"; in the sense of mushrooms "sprouting out of the ground," "shooting up." Hence, the proletarius had a derivative, an artificial, a synthetic nature. Marx and Engels introduced him as follows in the Communist Manifesto:

"The bourgeoisie ... has ... begotten the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern workers -- the proletarians. ... the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

Seen from an arrogant European standpoint, this means that the proletariat is not primordial, not "naturwüchsig"; it is an amorphous social concoction, a social excrement, lacking "cultural" and "civilized" roots.

In fact, the current "globalized" and "civilized" ideas of Bush and Rumsfeld with reference to the "Arabs" at best explain this original, discriminatory conception of the early proletariat.

According to Marx and Engels the new proletarius adopted the capitalist relations produced by the victorious bourgeoisie, and the nexus between the members of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became "naked self-interest, callous cash payment."

Here we see the growing class antagonism, the alienating relation between the socially rising, wealthy bourgeoisie and the pauperized nature of the future proletariat.

However, on the other pauperized extreme, we find another class, the "Lumpenproletariat." Why did Marx and Engels use this concept?

Grimm's Wörterbuch described the members of this class of social outcasts, as Lumpengesindel: "a slovenly mob, a pack of scoundrels, a godless pack, vagabonds."

Apart from the semantic similarity, this colluvies vagabundorum, that is, this rotting mass thrown off by the lowest sectors of "modern society," the Lumpenproletariat, in Marxian terminology, is exactly the negation of the proletariat. Here we see that the Marxian social class analysis was not normative, was not based on "rich and poor," was not even an issue of "white and black," of "race theory" of "race struggle."

In 1845, the concept of the "lumpen-proletariat" appeared in their work, Marx & Engels, The German Ideology. Furthermore, in that age, the influential, bourgeois, capitalist work, De Cassagnac, explained, that the general concept "proletariat" was composed of "workers, beggars, thieves and prostitutes." For example, this is what the German philosopher Hegel understood by his concept, the Pöbel.

On the other hand, in this same spirit of the European Enlightenment, even for Marx, the Lumpenproletariat comprised the "beggars, thieves and prostitutes," the non-productive sector of the lowest classes.

In Class Struggle in France, he described this class as "gens sans feu et sans aveu." However, according to Marx, both classes, the Proletariat and the Lumpenproletariat, had the following in common: both were "free" and both could be "bought" or "bribed." However, the differentia especifica was, that the lumpenproletarians are declasses; that they lack a "class interest"; that they can't develop a "class consciousness"; in other words, they can't be conscientized for anything whatsoever. More precisely, capitalism has already destroyed their very body and soul.

Well, do such social classes exist in our modern world?

And can they be revolutionized, conscientized, organized?

What about the "stupid, white man" in North America?

Now, we know what Marx and Engels, the fathers of scientific and philosophic socialism, originally understood by the proletariat, that is, objectively as a class-in-itself.

In their later works, they explained, that to become a class-in-and-for-itself, a revolutionary class, it is necessary to acquire class consciousness, to enter the global class struggle, Lenin gave us the master-key: without theory, no revolution.

And, Trotsky, in the revolutionary spirit of dum spiro spero -- as long as I breathe, I hope -- as permanent world revolution, formulated for us the infinite realm of the Bolivarian Revolution, that is, our invincible, emancipatory, trans-historic task.

Finally, Che Guevara underlined the true, real essence of this immense responsibility: The duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution.

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=22934

ALSO SEE:
http://www.franz-lee.org(venezuela00001.html
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/9/27/95616/5474

**************************************************
Opposition Supporter Zamora Resigns in Protest from Venezuela’s Electoral Council

Monday, Sep 27, 2004 Print format
  Send by email

 

By: Jonah Gindin – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, September 27, 2004—Ezequiel Zamora, Vice-President of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), declared his ‘irrevocable’ resignation today, citing unsurpassable differences of opinion with the council’s majority.  Citing various reasons for his decision, Zamora declared that the CNE should have accepted the Venezuelan opposition’s challenge to the results of last August’s referendum.

Last month the CNE ruled that Chávez won a controversial referendum by a margin of 59% to 41%.  The CNE’s results were later corroborated by both the Atlanta-based Carter Center headed by former-US President Jimmy Carter, and the Organization of American States (OAS) headed by former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria.

Despite both the Carter Center and the OAS’ repeated statements corroborating the results of the CNE, including the results of an audit conducted three days following the referendum, the Democratic Coordinator has maintained their accusations of fraud.  Earlier this month they presented a 70-page report to the CNE outlining the basis of their claims of fraud.

On Thursday, September 23rd, President of the National Electoral Directorate (an arm of the National Electoral Council), Jorge Rodriguez, responded to the arguments presented by the Democratic Coordinator.  According to Rodriquez, the CD’s report “did not contain one single concrete proof that certified the accusation that they have made.”

In response to the CNE’s rejection of the Democratic Coordinator’s report, opposition lawyer Tulio Alvarez declared that the electoral institution no longer had any credibility.  In a public statement made on Saturday, September 25, Alvarez called on Zamora and Sobello Mejías (both identified as opposition-sympathizers) to resign in protest.

In his statement of resignation, Zamora noted that he strongly disagreed with what he described as the “celebration of the fact that Venezuelans had to wait in line for 13 hours just to vote,” and reaffirmed earlier statements criticizing the CNE, the Carter Center, and the OAS for only conducting the audit on the referendum results in a small statistical selection of voting centres, instead of in all of them.

Zamora further criticized the divisions within the CNE that have resulted in a regular 3-2 split, with CNE President Francisco Carrasquero, and Directors Jorge Rodriguez and Oscar Battaglini opposing Zamora and Sobella Mejías.  The consistency of split has led many to characterize Carrasquero, Rodríguez, and Battaglini as pro-government, and Zamora and Mejías as pro-opposition.

Shortly after Ezequiel Zamora’s resignation, Sobella Mejías made a public statement lamenting Zamora’s decision, but affirmed her determination to remain a board member of the organization, saying “we will not give up ground.”

Zamora is expected to be replaced by his primary substitute Miriam Kornblith.  Her appointment to the CNE would likely maintain the current balance of forces, since Kornblith is a member of an advisory committee organized by Venezuelan opposition group Súmate, that is funded through grants from the US Agency for International Development and the US-government funded National Endowment for Democracy.

According to documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), at the request of the US-based Venezuela Solidarity Committee (www.VenezuelaFOIA.info), the NED provided a grant to Súmate, part of which was used to establish an advisory committee on election matters.  According to Eva Golinger of VenezuelaFOIA, Miriam Kornblith’s presence on this committee “clearly represents a conflict of interest,” since the CNE is an “official government body and its members should not receive funding from foreign governments.” In public statements to the press she has supported the opposition’s fraud hypothesis with regard to the presidential recall referendum.

See also:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1371

*******************************************************************

Subject: FCC raids First Amendment Radio
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:27:58 +0000

BREAKING NEWS:

USA's FCC raids KFAR 90.9FM half-hour after 'Axis of Good' premiere...

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22910

Dawn Gable reports: Knoxville First Amendment Radio KFAR 90.9FM. has
been raided and equipment confiscated only 30 minutes after the
premier of a scheduled weekly 'The Axis of Good' broadcast that
discusses the Venezuelan democratization process and its relevance at
the Latin American and International levels.

Bolivarian Circles International member Jesus Rivas had introduced his
program saying that "many progressive and liberal minded people ask
about the (Venezuelan) process ... reliable information on topics or
interest regarding the process is difficult to obtain in the United
States of America ... especially in English ... so the radio show in
English aimed to discuss all types of alternates with Venezuelan
music."

Jesus Rivas' show, which admittedly has a modest audience, is exactly
the kind of grassroots communication that the current US Bush 2
administration does not want between the citizens of the US and
Venezuela. But, in a curious pretext, US FCC authorities acted
precipitously on a spurious claim that KFAR 90.9FM was interfering
with other frequencies and alleged that the radio station was
broadcasting a higher wattage than permitted.

Radio KFAR has denied the accusation and instead draws attention to
the fact that the raiding order was signed by an FBI operative known
to broadcast personnel and it is possible that the FBI was monitoring
KFAR's broadcast when they decided to take prevent transmission.

"If the Bush administration wants to 'go Iraq' on Venezuela and
fabricate a war with some made up excuse to invade it to loot the
country from their wealth, they'll need to make sure they can construe
Chavez as an evil dictator with no popular support ... they do have a
lot of media paid PR working on that."

Radio KFAR executives are trying to obtain the return of their
transmission gear back but so there is no information available from
the authorities as to when or if this will happen.
--


****************************************************************


No se producirá ninguna crisis institucional por la renuncia de Zamora, opina Willian Lara
Por: Venpres
Publicado el Lunes, 27/09/04 05:20pm








Caracas, 27 Sep.Venpres (Xavier de la Rosa).- En opinión del diputado
Willian Lara, la renuncia del vicepresidente del Consejo Nacional Electoral,
Ezequiel Zamora, busca crear un crisis institucional en ese organismo
electoral, objetivo que no lograrán porque desde el punto de vista legal, el
ente comicial para operar requiere a tres de sus integrantes y hasta el
momento hay cuatro.

La información la suministró el parlamentario y dirigente del
Movimiento Quinta República (MVR), al término de la reunión de todos los
lunes del Comando Táctico Nacional, donde por otra parte señaló que el
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, en su Sala Constitucional, tiene la facultad
de proveer el mecanismo y la forma en que van a suplir la vacante generada
por esta renuncia, "respetatremos la decisión del TSJ".

Igualmente el dirigente y miembro del Comando Maisanta, manifestó
que desde hace varios días, tenían conocimiento de esa renuncia, "la cual se
inscribe en el marco de una campaña contra el organismo electoral", y al
mismo tiempo descartó de plano la posibilidad que se produzca alguna crisis
CNE por esta renuncia y sean postergadas las elecciones.

Lara dijo que los comicios se desarrollarán en forma normal y se
producirá en estas un efecto de cascada como el que ocurrió en el país en
1979 cuando se eligieron por primera vez, en forma directa concejales en
Venezuela, "pero con mayor magnitud", cuando Luis Herrera Campins le gano la
Presidencia de la República derrotando a Luis Piñerúa Ordaz.

"Seis meses después se convocaron elecciones para concejales, y el
partido Copei, por ese efecto de cascada sacó el 82 por ciento de esas
concejalías; ahora en este proceso, los candidatos opositores saben que
tienen las gobernaciones, las alcaldías, y la mayoría de los concejos
perdidos y quieren impedir entonces que el pueblo se exprese".

Reiteró el apoyo del Movimiento Quinta República y de las demás
fuerzas del cambio al Consejo Nacional Electoral, "tenemos confianza en que
las elecciones del 31 de octubre, los preparativos y el cronograma para esas
elecciones marchan en forma adecuada y se ajusta a los lapsos previstos por
el ente comicial".

- Tenemos confianza total que en Venezuela habrá elecciones el 31 de
octubre en sana paz y en consecuencia tendremos gobernadores, alcaldes,
diputados regionales, concejales electos en todo el país y no tendrá éxito
esa campaña de impedir los comicios - añadió Lara.

Ratificó que ganarán 22 gobernaciones, cerca de 300 alcaldías y la
mayoría de los concejos municipales y que la oposición perderá el chivo y el
mecate, como son las gobernaciones que aún controlan y la casi la totalidad
de las alcaldías que en este momento tienen bajo su control.

Durante la rueda de prensa el parlamentario del MVR, presentó el
famoso Kino-Chávez 2004 y dijo que pronto se estará distribuyendo en todo el
país.

Con respecto a las declaraciones del dirigente de Primero Justicia,
Julio Borges, quien manifestó que los gobernadores y alcaldes de la
oposición eran unos cobardes, porque no atacaban con decisión y valentía los
planteamientos del presidente Chávez y de los dirigentes de las fuerzas del
Cambio, dijo que eso formaba parte de la misma estrategia para abortar el
proceso electoral.

"En ese sentido, se inscribe el recurso introducido por esa
organización política ante la Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de
Justicia, para que las elecciones sean aplazadas hasta diciembre, lo cual
refleja el temor y el mido que le tienen a ese proceso".



La fuente original de este documento es:
Venpres (http://www.venpres.gov.ve)

http://www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=50914

**************************************************

Presidente Chávez: mire en su entorno. No todo lo que brilla es oro
Por: Roberto Jiménez Maggiolo
Publicado el Lunes, 27/09/04 09:37am





Cuando estuve representando al Estado Zulia en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, i por primera vez me vi fuera de mi ambiente universitario, de docente en Medicina i Filosofía i de mi profesiones de médico, de filósofo o profesor de filosofía, de escritor i de artista pintor, la experiencia me hizo calibrar mui bien la calidad humana de los hombres que, con un entusiasmo político “tradicional” (político consideraban solamente a quien pertenecía a un partido i estaba entre los dirigentes) i un fingido espíritu de cambio revolucionario. Desde la Universidad conocí a muchos “izquierdosos” que se iniciaron, incluso, en el partido comunista, o en nuevas agrupaciones ya casi anarquistas como Causa R, Bandera Roja i otras. Recuerdo que un amigo “adeco” una vez me buscó para que le diera clases de Filosofía de la Historia (que es en gran parte análisis filosófico de la historia i las ideas políticas) a la juventud de su partido. Les dicté creo que solamente dos clases; aquellos muchachos no querían estudiar i comprender la realidad del mundo i de la historia. Querían hacerse notar, repetir lemas (“slogans” dicen) tomados de frases del Ché Guevara o de Mao o Fidel; las escribían en las paredes o vociferaban con ellas, pero ninguno se atrevía a imitar la valentía, la vocación i la grandeza del Ché que era su icono joven, i menos estudiar Ciencias Políticas. Querían irse haciendo “visibles” i como le sucedió a muchos del MAS (partido que tuvo un ejemplar humano admirable como Luis Hómez Martínez)i dos contrapartidas en la Constituyente (Tablante i Puchi) la gran mayoría, esporulados del partido comunista, deseaban solamente cargos en los gobiernos (algunos ya maduros como Pompeyo i Petkoff). Algunos de ellos llegaron a la Constituyente o antes, se asomaron a la revolución i buscaron firmas para participar en ella; a muchos los conocía bien el pueblo, i no votó por ellos; esos son de los peores detractores de todo el proceso.

De los que conocí en la Constituyente (en mi página WEB tenía ya abocetados a muchos) voi a citar dos ejemplos precisos, a quienes nunca toleré internamente, porque su fenotipo, sus actuaciones, sus intereses ocultos i su cultura inmaterial deficiente, me hacían desconfiar de ellos i saber que solamente le interesaba lo que les convenía; su vocación revolucionaria falsa, se transparentaba sin que lo quisieran: ellos son Luis Miquilena i Herman Escarrá. Al primero lo he “biografiado” en un extenso artículo, como El Traidor Mayor. El hombre en el cual Chávez confió igual que en un padre i decía que era “un viejo primaveral” i…¡Cómo lo traicionó! Sin embargo después de un tiempo, estimo que el Presidente debió intuir o presentir algo, porque pasándolo por varios cargos desde Presidente de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (para mí sin méritos para eso, a no ser su ayuda económica en la campaña electoral) no lo colocó en la Vice-presidencia (i uno de los motivos para desertar del proceso). De haber estado allí en vez de Diosdado Cabello, el golpe fascista hubiese triunfado, ya que encargado de la Primera Magistratura, su cargo era constitucional i su salto de talanquera lo mismo. Por eso será que luego ha hecho apariciones, con cara pálida de muerto en vida i con un traje negro que parece un “fúnebre engasolinado” de terciopelo.

De Herman Escarrá, la contrapartida de su hermano Carlos, ambos abogados, tengo que decir que lo conocí en conferencias que venía a dar en Maracaibo, justificando i exaltando la campaña electoral de Hugo Chávez i el proceso revolucionario que se gestaba, porque ya era intolerable el estado de desgobierno, corrupción i atraso de todos los gobiernos de la llamada IV República. Empero, sus gestos, su mirada i su aire de “magíster”, de superioridad, características que exageró en la Constituyente con un rimbombante protocolo, me hacían desconfiar i, cuando allá se tocaron temas como el aborto, la eutanasia, los derechos de la mujer, el inicio de la vida, etc., en ciertos artículos, Escarrá como Olavarría i otros exhibieron lo que yo llamo i sostengo es, deshonestidad intelectual: hablar de lo que no se sabe, por lo que tuve un serio altercado con Jorge Olavaria, otro abogado que, al sacarlo de “lo suyo”, es bastante ignorante, pero quería deslumbrarnos como “historiador”, dándose como se dice aquí “un puñal de historia la noche anterior”, para venir al otro día a deslumbrar hasta con fechas de acontecimientos históricos. Sé que no saben ni quien fue Ludwing Wittgenstein, menos de su frase: “de lo que no se puede hablar, mejor es callar”. Escarrá me acuso de “partidario de la cultura de la muerte” i yo fui el único constituyente que escribió sobre sus intervenciones i las ideas que defendía, tres folletos que repartí a quienes estaban interesados en esos problemas, incluyendo naturalmente a doctor Herman, quien, a cada paso, alardeaba de sus veinte años de docencia. Yo estuve en 33 años de docencia universitaria, en tres Facultades, seis escuelas, nunca tomé un Año Sabático, i fundé tres cátedras universitarias i nunca lo proclamé.

Por estos ejemplos, i muchos otros, el Presidente Hugo Chávez Frías, hombre que demuestra leer mucho i comprender a cabalidad lo que estudia, tiene las mejores ideas, intenciones i proyectos porque, como nuestros libertadores, tiene un sueño de patria grande que ningún presidente de los que se han calificado de democráticos lo han tenido. Sé que a veces, algunos colaboradores son gente de experiencia pero la mayoría jóvenes que han resultado eficientes i leales, hombres íntegros que demuestran con su labor, su capacidad i su identificación con el proceso como por ejemplo José Vicente Rangel, Diosdado Cabello, Héctor Navarro, Aristóbulo Izturiz, Blanco La Cruz, Vielma Mora, Freddy Bernal, Otaiza, etc., o periodistas como William Lara, Elías Jaua, Vladimir Villegas, Juan Barreto i muchos otros que perdonen los olvide de momento, o gobernadores leales i eficientes, o ministros, profesionales i diputados de primera calidad como Tobías Nóbrega, Rafael Ramírez, María Cristina Iglesias Tarek William Saab, Rodrigo Cabeza, Calixto Ortega i otros que han demostrado estar verdaderamente identificados con una monumental tarea de cambio social radical, teniendo por norte la Constitución i siendo el pueblo el principal protagonista. Democracia participativa que otorga poder al pueblo i que unidos se va a una titánica lucha contra la marginidad i la pobreza. Se trata de afirmar las bases de la soberanía plena del pueblo de Venezuela i el rescate de las etnias indígenas, su cultura i convertir a su gente en verdaderos ciudadanos. Una indígena, inteligente i leal, es Vice-presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional. Por eso la brillante i eficiente idea de las Misiones que, indudablemente, son un ejemplo para América i el mundo. La labor i los logros de la Misión Robinsón la Misión Barrio Adentro, son cosas maravillosas. Solamente estar acabando con el analfabetismo, es una proeza nunca vista, por su eficiencia i rapidez.

Mas, las cosas no se realizan solamente con las intenciones o deseos. I para que los preceptos de la revolución pacífica (que empezamos a ver sus resultados, pese a todos los tropiezos i tragedias que ha puesto en el camino la oposición fascista) necesita de hombres compenetrados con ese sublime ideal. I una de las cosas que noto es, señor Presidente, que de todas maneras a usted lo rodean muchas personas que en el momento menos pensado, se harán desertores o que viendo el proceso como un cambio de gobierno que propicia nuevos cargos i oportunidades, le hacen a muchas personas como quien escribe, una muralla a su alrededor, como si uno les fuera a quitar oportunidades o a buscar cargos. Durante una vida profesional i pública de más de medio siglo, nadie puede ni presumir que he buscado un cargo (mis cátedras i cargos los gané por concursos, la mayoría de las veces), menos ahora que mi tiempo es oro, para escribir, crear i pintar. Por ejemplo, para buscar hacer justicia con el caso de una profesional amiga, recurrí en ocasiones a hombres como Vielma Mora, Nóbrega, Alejandro Montes i los abogados i otros profesionales de su entorno, i la recepción fue cordial i de puertas abiertas; empero, tengo dos años por acercarme a usted para cosas como el rescate i cuido del patrimonio científico i cultural del Dr. Humberto Fernández Moran, el más grande científico venezolano de nuestra historia; o aportes a los problemas del Zulia, sin poder lograr ni por cartas, correo electrónico, faxes, petición de audiencia en Miraflores personalmente i con mi abogada al lado, carpetas con documentos i mensajeros especiales o hasta recados de diputados amigos, que usted me pueda responder; no porque no me tome en cuenta, sino porque mis envíos no los hacen llegar a usted. Aquí en Maracaibo, los medios de comunicación me tienen vetado (ignoro la causa oculta, i la otra es la de ser “chavista”), pese a que para muchos de mis amigos, les parece soi si no el primero, uno de los primeros intelectuales del Zulia i escritor de amplia trayectoria. Desde la Asamblea Constituyente vengo escribiendo sobre el proceso revolucionario (tengo recopilado material para un libro) i, es últimamente, gracias a APORREA i a una distinguida dama que esta vinculada con esa magnífica página, que me están leyendo desde los Estados Unidos hasta la Argentina (me lo escriben desde esos destinos), cuando he podido exteriorizar mis ideas que, expuse en la prensa local por más de 46 años. Por estas cosas, presidente, fíjese bien en el entorno; no todo lo que brilla es oro. En la delegación del Zulia a la ANC, fui como el abanderado i asesor de todos; luego, cuando unos se han ido a la oposición, los que han quedado con usted, me olvidan, por no decir me ignoran, i como no estoi buscando ningún cargo, sino que me entusiasma este proceso revolucionario i soi bolivariano de toda la vida, he seguido defendiendo lo que pauta la más bella i completa de las Constituciones que conozco: la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
 
http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=9885

**************************************************************************