Chávez' death: Neither in mourning nor celebration, time for social struggles to become autonomous!

nevermind

"Crumbs" to the poor?

What You Won’t Hear About Hugo #Chavez in the Establishment Press By JOHN E. JONES ,

http://bit.ly/W3txrz

Why is Hugo Chavez called a Dictator?
by Rania Khalek on March 5, 2013

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5966

NannerNannerNannerNannerNanner

nevermind

I'm really love-hate with a lot of your comments a lot of the time, nanners. I wish you would have left this one up till I could actually sit down and read the whole the thing. I got to read the the first paragraph before rushing to work, and I think I hated it, or was confused. But I was looking forward to reading the rest as you usually give us something salvageable or even pretty good, imo.

I've been quite surprised by a few people who should have known better sooking about Chavez on my Facebook feed.

Laborbund

hey... there was a post here...

First of all, I was pretty shocked by the death of Hugo Chavez. While it's perfectly reasonable to hate politicians, I believe Hugo Chavez represented the long overdue death of a very old type of politicking - social democracy

I wrote, in pretty melodramatic fashion on reflection, that the death of Hugo Chavez represented the "absolute last page of history" as Venezuala under Chavez, despite everything, was on a trajectory to "[social] justice".

I say that he was a social reformer who's principles ran up against the expectations of a decadent elite used to wrenching the people dry, and I assert that Chavez mobilized the working classes to defend his ruler - I say that the role of all of these grand social programs was not tether an agitated populace to a welfare state but to tether the people to Chavez himself. (In what I hope is prophetic, I say that Chavez's establishment of civil society, which was integral to protecting his reign from a completely parasitical bourgeoisie, has created a "united" poor and that shits gon' go nuts in the next year or so)

And finally, I say that, with the death of Chavez, social democracy is finally dead and an entire epoch of history is over. I say that neoliberalism has been dominating history since its' ostensible "end" (Fukuyama, you know) but also say that the future is unwritten.

I don't think I said anything I disagree with. The reason I got rid of it wasn't because five people read it and was like "this is terrible", It was because it was like 11 when I should have been at 3. I got rid of it because I could pretty much detect that CNN currently gives more of a shit about Chavez than libcom does. I found the comment was so cartoonish and theatrical when the current consensus seems to be an aggressive "meh".

I think it was great, basically, but that the tone was apocalyptic when it should have been "well that sure was a thing huh". I agree with everything I wrote in it, I just got rid of it because people didn't see much of anything in thebsituation. I was under the assumption that this was going to be like a 15 page comment thread and that going full Jünger was appropriate.

If you can wayback and see the comment I wrote, more power to ya! I only deleted it because it was way to dramatic for the discussion being generated, which is just not there.

In spanish:
http://el-radical-libre.blogspot.com/2013/03/cuando-un-gobernante-muere-lo-ultimo.html

Libertarian reflections on the death of Hugo Chávez

The Venezuelan people are not the same as they were under the Fourth Republic. They are more politicized and organized. They are aware of how much they have gained in recent years and, therefore, of what can be lost. Neo-liberalism and its champions are no longer the political centre, which has shifted markedly to the left. The axis on which the public agenda turns is no longer the same - this can be seen in the fact that even the opposition candidate, a rich kid with a clearly right-wing past, had to dress up for the occasion as a social democrat and compared himself with Lula in order not to obtain ridiculous results at the polls.

The best cadres of the Bolivarian process are among those from below who helped to trigger everything, its greatest asset are these mixed-race people, rebellious, creative, who express themselves in a multitude of ways, inside and outside the "Chavista" structures, in the Corriente Revolucionaria Bolívar y Zamora, in the poor townships, in the alternative media, in the class-struggle trade unions, in the people in arms, in the struggle for public spaces, for the oil surplus, for national sovereignty, for culture, water, land, for health, for a decent life and Popular Power. With or without Chávez they will go on, because the struggle of the Venezuelan people did not begin or end with his death.

Edit: this image would seem to show a red and black flag (directly above Chavez' head).

Contradictory legacy of Hugo Chávez (WW4 Report)

How revolutionary is the Bolivarian Revolution? There has been no forcible upheaval of Venezuela's traditional oligarchy, but a gradual imposing of discipline over it. And the (admittedly small) left opposition has warned of a new boli-bourgeoisie, or "Bolivarian bourgeoisie," around the state industries and loyal sectors. Chávez's program was (and is) populist and anti-imperialist, but his "21st century socialism" looked a lot more like 20th century corporatism. And by that we don't mean rule by the big corporations, as the term is too frequently used today, but the older definition: a system characterized by "incorporation" of popular institutions such as trade unions and mass organizations into the apparatus of the state or ruling party. This system entails populist content to the reigning program, but also an ethic of class collaboration rather than class struggle.

http://marxist.cloudaccess.net/latam/453-chavez-legacy.html

Then in July 2006 Chávez visited Iran Khodro, the biggest car and vehicle manufacturing plant in the Middle East. The Iran Khodro workers had heard many positive things about Chávez and were excited to meet him in person. To begin with the workers were pleasantly surprised at the President of a country shaking hands with workers and even kissing them on the cheek. They were about read out a statement in his honour, welcoming this revolutionary leader to their factory. But before they could read it Chávez began praising Ahmadinejad, calling him his brother, calling the Iranian regime a revolutionary government and so on. The workers were totally disgusted by him. They tore up the statement and left the hall.

An interesting critical analysis by Sergio Lopez of the background to, and early phase, of Chavez 'Bolivarian Revolution' including the 'contradictory' function of the various 'missions' can be seen in two parts here:

http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_51-52_venezuela.html

It seems that some things may have improved and some have got worse since that was written but it is not too difficult to trace a certain continuity with subsequent years up to the present.

Statement from the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (Google translated).

Edit: Statement from Alternative Libertaire (ditto)

thanks to everyone for the links, this thread is a resource.

Cuba customs chief confirms seizure [of El Libertario]

VENEZUELA'S DEBT TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: What the Boliviarian Revolution Owes the Yukpa and Bari

You mention problems with inflation, unemployment, electricity and water provision, education and health systems, housing, and public works, yet you do not inform your readers that all of these things were even worse before Chavez was first elected – in some cases significantly worse.

He deserves a bit more credit than this article gives him.