Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Ned]

An who in Venezeula will utter, "Sic semper tyrannis?" I'd love to see Chavez moan as he falls before a statue of Castro,

"Et tu, Che?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/Operations/Refining.jsp

I read his statement in the reverse, U.S. assets in Venezuela.

[chequita guevara]

Why Aren't You in a Hurry, Comrade?
by Michael A. Lebowitz

"What's the rationale for allowing Chavez to govern by decree?" Why such a "precipitous approach"? As the apparent resident apologist (or, let's just say, on-site interpreter) for the Bolivarian Revolution, I get questions like this regularly from friends who don't know much about Venezuela but do know what they don't like (from reading the always unbiased and objective capitalist press). Of course, I'm not alone in this respect: others here get the same questions from outside: How can Chavez do this? How can you justify this? The implicit question, of course, always is -- how can I (the enquirer) continue to say (and think) nice things about the Bolivarian Revolution when HE does this? How can I (the enquirer) justify the process to my friends (colleagues)? A single party, rule by decree -- isn't this the road to Stalinism and to the gulag?

As some of the dismay over the idea of a unified party of the revolution dissipates with Chavez's stress upon the need to build it from below and to make it the most democratic party in Venezuela's history, attention now has focused upon his request to the National Assembly for an Enabling Law that would allow him to introduce laws in specific areas directly rather than taking these through the National Assembly. Reminded that designation of such time-limited special powers is nothing new in Venezuelan history, predating Chavez and also essential in his own introduction of 49 Laws in 2001 (laws on cooperatives, fisheries, hydrocarbon tax, etc), friends ask -- but why now? After all, given the opposition's brilliant manoeuvre in boycotting the National Assembly elections (once it was apparent they would be overwhelmed), there is no opposition present to delay matters in that body. So, what's the hurry?

It's a question not only posed by progressive observers outside but also by their counterparts among some Venezuelan intellectuals. Can this be democratic, they ask? Doesn't this reflect the verticalism of the military rather than democracy, authoritarianism and personalism in place of the deliberations of the National Assembly? It is the point posed recently by a well-known Venezuelan academic, Margarita Lopez Maya, when she noted that the tempo for democratic procedures is not at all the same as that for military operations. "It's not clear," she indicated (and, not surprisingly, this was the headline in the opposition newspaper, El Nacional, to which she gave the interview), "if chavista socialism will be democratic."

This concern about the tempo is an entirely legitimate question from the vantage point of a traditional intellectual. There is no question that tempo can be the enemy of democratic processes. But, this is not the only vantage point worth noting.

I had dinner last night with two friends (one a first-time visitor), who had spent a full day talking with people active in communal councils in two Caracas neighbourhoods (one extremely poor). And, they were telling me about the frustration and anger of so many with local and ministry officials who were holding back change -- and about their identification with the impatience of Chavez, whom they trusted. Not surprisingly, this led us to a discussion of the Enabling Law and of Lopez Maya's interview. No, they said, the people they saw weren't worried about that at all -- they agree with the need for speed. You mean, I asked, that the people are in a hurry? Yes, they readily assented (to my surprise), and one commented that they are less interested in democracy as process than in democracy in practice.

There should be no surprises there. After all, in a country with an enormous social debt, where people have basic needs for sewers, electricity, water, jobs, housing, etc. and where they are being encouraged to take things into their hands through communal councils, cooperatives, and other forms of collective self-activity -- and where everywhere they come up against the long-standing patterns of bureaucracy, corruption, and clientelism -- should we be surprised that the people are impatient? Should we be surprised at how few people answered the Opposition's call to demonstrate against the Enabling Law? Should we be surprised that the people are in a hurry?

The real question that needs to be posed is one to traditional Venezuelan intellectuals and their counterparts abroad: why aren't you in a hurry, comrade?

Michael A. Lebowitz Michael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class, winner of the Isaac Deutscher memorial prize for 2004, and Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, just published by Monthly Review Press.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Please show Chavez has ever held anyone back instead of simply fanboying everything and grandstanding in order to make himself more popular.

Simple, oh clueless one. Only five, count them, one two, three, four, five factories have been seized by the workers since Chavez was elected.

In comparison, in Argentina over two hundred factories have been seized by the workers.

Maybe if you actually knew something about Latin America you wouldn't seem like such a complete chump every time you open your mouth about Chavez.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Rule by decree stinks utterly.

This is the third time Chavez has received such authorization during his presidency and Chavez is the fifth Venezuelan president to take advantage of this power, which both the 1961 and the 1999 constitutions permit.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2207

While I agree with Comrade Spiffor about the odor of rule by decree, this is not, apparently, an extra-ordinary move in Venezuelan politics.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As some of the dismay over the idea of a unified party of the revolution

what comrade Guev fails to mention is what this is. Chavez is trying to force all the parties that SUPPORT him into one big party he would control. IIUC the Venezualan Communist Party, among others are resisting.

Naturally hes got apologists who will dress this up in proletarian "impatience", as if the workers of Venezuala dont have time for Chavez to propose something in the legislature, and then get the Communists and other left parties besides his own to agree on it.

I doubt this is the path to a democratic leftism.

[chequita guevara]

That would be Comrade Lebowitz.

In any event, when talking with Venezuelan comrades, that is not their complaint, that Chavez is forcing them all into one big party. They seem to be under the impression that they will still all be able to hold their current views and make their criticisms.

Their problem with Chavez is that he's holding the revolution back.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That would be Comrade Lebowitz.

In any event, when talking with Venezuelan comrades, that is not their complaint, that Chavez is forcing them all into one big party. They seem to be under the impression that they will still all be able to hold their current views and make their criticisms.

Well it will be historic irony then when they are faced with the fate of the Left SR's.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, they readily assented (to my surprise), and one commented that they are less interested in democracy as process than in democracy in practice.

That is a silly statement. If a government was about to give each and every citizen $10,000 cash, the people would like that but I don't think I would call it " democracy in practice" if the order came by decree.

be honest here. What the author means is that the people are more concerned about RESULTS than democracy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well it will be historic irony then when they are faced with the fate of the Left SR's.

The Left SRs took up arms against the revolution. They kinda brought their fate upon themselves.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
be honest here. What the author means is that the people are more concerned about RESULTS than democracy.

Perhaps. Democracy means the people rule. The purpose of process is to ensure that democracy exists in practice, but we can see in many countries that democracy has become a formal affair with little popular participation or control. Casting a vote doesn't make a democracy.

I suspect that they are impatient. For example, in America, the overwhelming majority of the people support universal health care, and yet, it will take years if we ever get it. Our formal democracy prevents the popular will from being expressed, thus making it anti-democratic.

Of course, without democratic process, democratic practice soon ceases to be, even if it existed for a short period.

[Dinner]

I'm the chump?!?

Che, you are the one still supporting Chavez. I think that makes you a chump extraordinaire when it comes to this topic.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara




Of course, without democratic process, democratic practice soon ceases to be, even if it existed for a short period.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Perhaps. Democracy means the people rule. The purpose of process is to ensure that democracy exists in practice, but we can see in many countries that democracy has become a formal affair with little popular participation or control. Casting a vote doesn't make a democracy.

I suspect that they are impatient. For example, in America, the overwhelming majority of the people support universal health care, and yet, it will take years if we ever get it. Our formal democracy prevents the popular will from being expressed, thus making it anti-democratic.

Of course, without democratic process, democratic practice soon ceases to be, even if it existed for a short period.

Undoubtedly in america the majority support universal health care, that places no limits on their existing choices (if they have fee for service plans) and that restores such choice (if they are in HMOs) and that costs less than the current system in premiums, and requires no tax funding.

When it comes to working out the compromises of actual policy, its not nearly so clear what they want, which is what gives lobbies an opportunity to shape policy. Our formal democracy is not a magical formula for achieving what the people "want", but no system I know of is. I doubt rule by decree in Venezuala will either. At the moment they can get what they want free because of the price of oil. As their wants and impatience grow, and Venezualas resources do not, they will not get everything they want. They will, however, be stuck with a govt that will determine based on its priorities, what they SHOULD want. And if they disagree, it wont be a matter of waiting till the next election, or determining which disagreement with the govt to prioritize. They will be stuck.

Withut process legality, the proletariat has given up its democratic right to rule to miltary dictator, or centralized party. It typically does not get it back.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I read his statement in the reverse, U.S. assets in Venezuela.

Strange leap to make given the topic of his post.