Venezuelan Anarchists back the wrong guys

by Phuq Hedd Tue Apr 16, 2002 18:24

Hi "Golden Autonome",
I don't have much of a brain, but I can read (and you obviously can't), so I thought I'd share the content of the article that you posted with you:

the Venezuelan Anarchists say clearly that they don't support Chavez OR the coup-leaders!

Now, how does that translate into them supporting the coup-leaders?

You trumpet the "slum dwellers" as supporting Chavez! It is precisely because they do that instead of seizing power for themselves that they are STILL IN SLUMS after Chavez has been in power for years.

Of course, as you can't read and obviously merely pressed the "send" button this comment won't do anything to help you. *sigh*

by Harry Pollit - Movement Against All Capitalism Tue Apr 16, 2002 21:06

First of all I'd like to thank the two Trotskyists who have started to post Anarchist material to Indymedia. I think it's a great example of unity when you have members of the Socialist Party, and of the Socialist Workers Party, etc... united together posting Anarchist material to indymedia. Cause you guys are helping us out, I've decided to help ye out and make it easier for ye. Here's a bunch of links to essays, pamphlets and books pertaining to the anarchist/libertarian communist attitude to leftist regimes, 'national liberation' movements and such like. Please feel free to cut n' paste these texts on to as many indymedia sites as possible. Thanks again guys, keep up the good work! Let us know if you want any free sheets, pamphlets or magazines to distribute.

Reclaiming the Revolution
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/animalfarm.html

Worker’s Icepick
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/ice_pick.html

- Two essays on Russia.

The Anti-Colonial Movement in Vietnam
http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/vietnam.html

review of a book by a bloke who was involved in Vietnamese Trotskyist Movement
before turning to Libertarian Marxism.

Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement. By Frank Fernandez.
http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/books/cuban/front.html
This book takes in the whole history from colonial times to the exile’s struggle
against the “Communist” dictatorship.

The Cuban Revolution: A Critical Perspective by Sam Dolgoff
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/toc.html
Another book about Cuba.

Che Guevara
http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/org/issue47/che.html
A look at the reality behind every bodies favourite cuddly agent of “Communist” bloc imperialism.

As we see it and as we don’t see it
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/solie.htm
Essential statement of what revolutionary politics is (and isn’t).

The complete edition of
"Izvestiia of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee of Sailors, Soldiers and Workers of the town of Kronstadt" http://www.struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html

Third Worldism or Socialism
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/blasts/thirdworld/thirdworld.html

by Andrew Wed Apr 17, 2002 13:47

This is a pretty puzzling remark. Chevez is after all no more then a left populist, opposing the coup makes sense but going beyond this just shows the ease with which the left returns to the search for the ?strong man? This is the reason parts of the Leninist left campaigns for Slobodan Milosevic and considers North Korea worth defending. Its not surprizing they admires Chevez. In fact Chevez is your pretty typical left populist caudillo, strong on rhetoric at times but not a lot else.

For instance Denis MacShane, the Spanish-speaking British Foreign Office minister in charge of relations with Latin America who met Chavez before the coup said "He sounded positively Thatcherite in his desire to slim down the bloated Venezuelan oil industry and welcomed the bids by BP and British Gas to bring global expertise to his country?s energy sector" (for bring global expertise read ?sell to a mulitnational).

There has been a long conflict between Chavez and the oil unions whom Chavez described as "bandits and blackmailers". As elsewhere in South America the unions are tied into the political party system (as they are here, most are affiliated with the Labour Party). Chevez has been trying to remove the current leadership of the unions through what the Economist called a "a referendum on the ?unification and democratisation? of the unions that is aimed at setting up a single, pro-government confederation". Union reform is a good idea of course but a reform imposed from above by the president is not going to leave power in the hands of the rank and file.

At the same time Chavez was trying to replace the management of the (state owned) oil industry by "appointing political allies to top posts." This led to the ?strike? against him, the repression of which was to provide the excuse for the coup. Venezuela is the world?s fourth largest oil exporter, but 85% of its 24 million population live in poverty. While some might belive Chavez intended to re-distribute oil revenue to tackle poverty it appears the British government saw this process leading instead to the opening up of the industry to trans nationals.

In fact the Venezualian anarchists (writing on Friday which perhaps explained why they ?failed? to condemn the killing of 25+ people on Saturday by the new regime) seem to have got it about right. They wrote "As anarchists we are not for Chavez nor for any other president. We think that now more than ever our labour must hsow the people that the problem is not this president, or the one that will come after, but rather the vertical system of representative democracy".

The problem is, after all, that no one is very sure what Chavez intends. Like other democratically elected politicans once in power he can do as he likes. The answer must be to put the oil industry in the hands of the working class rather then moving it from the control of one set of bosses to another.

Its certainly true that the coup plotters offered no alternative. They had partly come to power around opposition to press censorship and the killing of demonstrators. In power they rapidly moved on to kill demonstrators (pro Chavez ones this time) and censor their own press (the most significant faction of the plot appears to have been Venezualas press barons). The Economist web page reveals that "In a desperate bid to hold on to power, the government?s media allies conspired to suppress all news of its difficulties. A regime that had seized power while waving the flag of press freedom spent its 36 hours in office doing its best to keep the truth from the public."
The mass demonstrations against the coup grew and this along with the attempt by the press barons to push the coup further then the army had agreed resulted in the army staging a counter coup, bringing Chavez back into power in order to stabilise the situation. Again a demonstration that the gap between the two sides was perhaps not as big as has been implied.

One positive aspect of the whole affair is that the anti-coup mobilisations may result in the growth of real grassroots organisation. Chavez is also faced with a choice. He can either head off future coups by becoming more co-operative with the US. Or he can arm the working class and create a counter balance to the army. This second course is unlikely (given a choice between an armed working class and a coup the state nearly always risks the coup - this is why Pinochet suceeded in Chile). But a movement could grow from below around this demand.

Andrew

by Confused Campenero - Anti Capitalist I guess-done a lot of Latin American Solidarity work Wed Apr 17, 2002 13:55

SO it woulb be unfair to say that Golden Autonome is in a Leninist party if he isn't. Autonomism has certain disagreements with anarchism- but I'm not a lot sure about it? Would groups like Ya Basta! be Autonomes?

But just to comment-
I think the Venezuelean anarchists here are a little ambiguous- they participated in the demonstrations against Chavez but then castigate these demos for not going forward to replace him with representative grassroot democracy. The very point is that these anti Chavez demonstrations were orchestrated by business leaders, the oligarchy and the CIA.

Anyone who thinks the oil workers union bureaucracy were on strike to protect the "meritocracy" is buying a CIA bosses strike line. Truck drivers went on strike against Allende in Chile before Pinochet's coup- but this was a right wing bosses strike trying to bring down the popularly voted democracy. And like it or not, the people in Venezuela are on the side of Chavez against the bosses federation, the oligarchy and the fucking CIA.

When fascists or a right wing coup threaten what people have democratically elected, even it is reformist or "Authoritarian Bolshevik"! (that reads like some shite you'd get from the Anti Castro rightwingers in Miami), the job of those who want to change the world is not to support them. These anarchists from Venezuela seem not to understand that when limited freedoms of liberal democracy are threatened by the right wing, we do not simply shout "A plague on both your houses" because we do not support what the people voted for.

I would be interested in hearing other people's views on this matter- especially if there is a difference between what autonomists, anarchists and leninists say on this matter

by Andrew Wed Apr 17, 2002 16:05

A few points

1. I don't think 'Golden Autonome' is an autonomist despite the name being used. From their previous posts they do appear to be a SP member (but I could be wrong).

2. More importantly how do you know the anarchists took pare in the anti-Chavez demonstration. There statement does not say this, its seems to imply that they took no side between the two.

3. IMHO it is a major weakness of the left to simply see the CIA as the movers behind all opposition to left populist leaders in Latin America. Of course as with Eastern Europe the CIA will seek to destabilise such regimes _BUT_ this does not make all internal opposition CIA created. Chavez's union 'reforms' sound like the sort of thing the left should oppose rather then support so dismissing all opposition as CIA is mistaken. There has been for instance a significant Cuban anarchist opposition to Castro for many years now which is hardly CIA inspired

4. Its pretty hard to judge any of this from Ireland except in the broadest terms. The anarchists there will have a much better idea of the context of events in Venezuala.

by Joe C - SWP Thu Apr 18, 2002 18:01

THE POOR of Venezuela defeated an attempted coup against the country's president, Hugo Chavez, last weekend. The attempt to remove Chavez was the work of the head of the employers' organisation, with the connivance of army generals, the head of the Catholic church, and even a corrupt trade union leader.

They were defeated by a popular uprising in Venezuela's capital, Caracas. From the shanty towns on the hills that surround the city, thousands of people risked their lives to take to the streets and defy the coup. Some were rioting and looting, others besieged the presidential palace and main military camp, and others seized control of the country's main TV station. The New York Times reported that those rising up in defence of Chavez were "the vendors and factory workers, the maids and truckers".

Their heroism split the army, broke the coup attempt, and saw Chavez restored to office. The coup's failure is also a serious setback for the gang around George W Bush in the US White House. The South American country is one the world's biggest oil producers, and it also supplies 15 percent of all US oil imports.

At least some of those around Bush's White House seem to have encouraged the coup plotters. The coup attempt was prepared by Venezuela's employers, who seized on Chavez's appointment of new directors to the state oil company as a pretext to organise a shutdown of industry. The corrupt leader of Venezuela's main union federation claimed the shutdown was a "strike" since it had the support of middle and upper management, and called on workers to support it.

Disgracefully, the International Federation of Free Trade Unions, to which Britain's TUC is affiliated, supported him in this. On the second day of the shutdown last week there was a mass anti-Chavez demonstration of the middle classes in Caracas. The protest clashed with a smaller demonstration of Chavez supporters, and shooting took place.

Supporters of the coup within the armed forces then intervened, claiming they were "preventing bloodshed", and declared that Chavez had resigned. Carmona, head of the employers' organisation, declared himself president, closed down the country's congress, and began mass arrests of those believed to be Chavez supporters.

What upset his plans and saw him removed from office was the reaction among the poor. The popular uprising saw sudden panic overtake many ruling class figures who had backed the coup only hours before. They feared civil war between different sections of the armed forces. They also feared a repetition of the great riots of 1989, the "Caracazo".

On that occasion a spontaneous revolt of the country's poor against a government and International Monetary Fund cuts package was only put down after more than 1,000 deaths. The mere threat of a repetition of such turmoil was enough for the heads of the armed forces to force Carmona to resign and announce Chavez's reinstatement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Struggle from below is key

BY SUNDAY the forces that had plotted to overthrow Hugo Chavez were terrified by the sight of the poor protesting on the streets. They brought Chavez back in the hope they could persuade him to bring the poor under control again.

Armed forces commanders who switched from supporting the coup to opposing it will now be putting pressure on Chavez. They are telling him the only way he can remain secure is by following policies of "moderation". In his first statement on restoration to office Chavez seemed to endorse that message himself.

He announced he was convoking a "round table of national unity" involving "the Catholic and evangelical churches, the employers, the political parties and their leaders, the unions and the mass media". To those who had risked their lives going on the streets on his behalf he said, "I hear there has been rioting and looting. Let's return home and reflect upon events."

It is a message that many who took to the streets will not want to accept. They saw how little concern the bosses' have for democracy or human rights. They are bitter at the newspapers and TV proprietors for conniving in the coup attempt.

They want to be rid of those military commanders who did not immediately move against the coup. It is up to ordinary people to take action to challenge the power of those at the top of society while their structures of control are in disarray. This cannot be done by relying, as much of the left has done for three years, on Chavez to do things using the top-down method.

It means direct struggle from below, run by workers and the poor themselves, not middle class military officers who can so easily switch sides. It also means being absolutely clear that attacking the wages and conditions of employed workers is no way to help the unemployed, the semi-employed and the rural poor.

That only plays into the hands of the rich, the multinationals and the Bush gang in the White House.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is Hugo Chavez?

HUGO CHAVEZ has upset the United States in his three years in office. He has campaigned to strengthen the OPEC organisation of oil producing countries, cultivated a friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro, and refused to support the US- backed war against left wing guerrilla groups in neighbouring Colombia.

Chavez has also upset Venezuela's rulers by promising to reduce the huge gap between rich and poor. His talk of thoroughgoing reform had led to an unexpected electoral victory for him in 1998, and massive popularity during his first year in office. His poll ratings have fallen in the last year. This is because his political method prevented him turning talk of reform into real improvements for the mass of people.

Chavez is a career military officer who tried unsuccessfully to seize power in the early 1990s. His aim was to introduce a series of top-down reforms while leaving Venezuelan capitalism intact. After a spell in prison Chavez turned to the electoral road in order to introduce the same kind of changes. After his electoral victory he insisted he was in favour of the "mixed economy", not an onslaught on capitalism.

When his reforms faced resistance he relied on the command structure of the armed forces to push them through, not a mobilisation of the mass of people. His measures antagonised the ruling class and the US government but did not produce the great social changes Chavez had promised.

His top-down approach has also led him to attack the wages and conditions of employed workers, even while talking about help to the unemployed, the semi-employed and the rural poor. It was this that enabled union leader Alfredo Ramos to back the employers' shutdown of industry. In this way, Chavez's own policies played into the hands of those who wanted to overthrow him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A defeat for the Bush gang

THE ATTEMPTED coup came after a long series of denunciations of Chavez by the US government. In February the US State Department and the CIA expressed their "worry" over his activities. A US State Department official told the Washington Post, "Venezuela is in a very dangerous position. If Chavez does not arrange things quickly he will not complete his term in office."

This suggests that at least a section of the US government encouraged the coup plotters. The New York Times spelled out Chavez's crimes in US eyes: "Visions of a united South America unshackled from the dominance of Washington's power," "Selling oil to Castro," "His not so tacit support for the Colombian rebels," and, "The potential threat he posed to thousands of American gas stations."

"Above all," the paper argued, "the US wants stability in its backyard. Mr Chavez did not fit in with President Bush's vision of the century of the Americas."

This is in line with the approach of the core group in the Bush administration, who hold that the US can do whatever it wants anywhere in the world. The Bush gang suffered a significant setback when the poor took to the streets of Caracas on Saturday. That should be good news for everyone opposed to US power.