Quotations from the El Libertario website

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 14 2007 19:29
Quotations from the El Libertario website

Because the other thread was getting exhaustive and going in circles, I've decided to wade through the filth on the CRA website and present everyone here with a broad spectrum of quotations, with links to the original articles, from the CRA website. Although I believe the original selection I offered was enough, hopefully this new selection will dispel any idea that these quotes somehow misrepresent the organization.

The English section of El Libertario can be found here:
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm

In the introduction, they state that "On this section of the website we will be posting english articles based around the anarchists perspective on issues in Venezuela and around Latin America."

So here we go....

Article #1: "Anarchism in Venezuela"
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm#iana

Quote:
"chavez based his political position and gained popularity by talking about helping the poor. Its this that makes it confusing to hear the opposition talk about helping the poor. After all if they want to help the poor why would they be opposed to chavez. The truth is, and this is said with the realization that equality doesn’t always happen over night, poverty in venezuela is the same if not worse than when chavez took power."

Commentary:

Here the author is making an outright falsehood - that poverty is the same if not worse in Venezuela. Statistics show that poverty has in fact drastically decreased [and is still obviously a huge problem], that infant mortality is down, that illiteracy has all but been eliminated, that access to universal healthcare has improved drastically, and so on. Even if you don't believe this, the very fact that there are thousands of doctors being sent into rural areas, that massive stores have been opened that sell food and basic necessities at low rates to the poor, that there are huge literacy campaigns underway, that land has been redistributed to the campesinos - all of this should demonstrate the outright lie of the statement in this article.

Quote:
"Many anarchist feel that the people who support both sides can be worked with, and should be, but that the leaders are just no good."

Commentary:

This statement, as with the rest of the article, draws a parallel between the Chavezistas and the opposition, which is entirely false and ignores class analysis. The elite of Venezuela comprise the opposition - them and them alone, backed by the CIA and foreign capital. To draw an equation between the two is to implicitly support the right-wing coup plotters, and to pretend the vast class differences that mark the two sides don't exist.

Article #2: "COMUNIQUE OF ANARCHISTS IN VENEZUELA (April 11, 2002)"
[link: use above link and scroll down three articles]

Quote:
"As is usual, the mean and miserable darkness of power scorns any respect for life and freedom. This never-ending crime of the State and of all vertical systems is revealing itself here and now in the demonstrations which are demanding the resignation of the president of Venezuela."

Commentary:

This statement is an illusion to the accusations of the right-wing coup plotters that Chavez supporters fired on the unarmed supporters of an opposition march that was re-directed to confront a Bolivarian march. As footage proved later, this was a fabrication designed to discredit the Bolivarian movement. In fact, it was opposition snipers who opened fire on the Bolivarian march, and Bolivarians who fired back at the snipers. THe right-wing media took the footage from an angle just showing them shooting back, and claimed they were shooting into a crowd - which they weren't. The film "The revolution will not be televised" is available in eight parts on YouTube, and I suggest anyone who doubts this check out the great footage they have. Anyway, here El Libertario is spreading right-wing lies used to justify a coup.

Quote:
"The political scene got tense a few days ago when [workers of] the oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela - PDVSA, went on strike, showing its difference with the
decisions the president had taken with regards to personnel. They demanded the
return of the sacked workers and the validity of meritocracia (2) in the company."

Commentary:

Here they are claiming the right-wing lockout - instigated and lead by the management of the foreign-owned oil companies, was a "strike". The demand for "validity of meritocracy" was a demand to maintain the foreign-owned status of the cmpanies - a status which saw profits funelled out of Venezuela to the US. The demand of the people of Venezuela was that the profits from the oil companies go into social programs, which is what the right-wing lockout was protesting.

Quote:
"The results so far are nine dead (according to the bourgeois press) and dozens of injured by snipers on the rooftops of nearby buildings and by national guards who are trying to break up the demonstration, and also by a few civil friends (3) of the president, who are taking part in the officalist demo, unloading their pistols against the demonstrators as if they were playing a video game."

Commentary:

Here they repeat the right-wing coup plotters lie, which has been fully discredited, that the Chavez supporters were emtpying rounds into the opposition march.

Quote:
"Sadly, amongst the people who are taking part in this march, we have not found
any form of an answer. While the opposition wishes to kick out the current president, it does not seem to have in mind what should come after."

Commentary:

Here they imply that they themselves have taken part in the right-wing march, and are lamenting that they do not have an alternative to the present system. In fact they did have a very clear alternative - they wanted a reversion to the pre-Chavez constitution, the instalation of a pro-US businessman [in this case, Pedro Carmona] to the presidency, the re-privatization of public assets, and the abolition of social programs. All of which El Libertario members supported by taking part in the march.

Article #3: "HOW VENEZUELAN ANARCHISTS VIEW THE CHAVEZ CRISIS"
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm#interview

Quote:
"Some food is getting scarce and petrol too. All the anarchists are well, because we are not directly part of the sectors in conflict, although we are on the list of counterrevolutionaries that the Chavez supporters circulate on the Internet."

Commentary:

This statement was made during a tense period where oil and food supplies to the poor of Caracas were being cut off by the right-wing businesses, who had declared a lockout. This interview is with CRA members. They state that they are well, because they are "not part of the sectors in conflict" - ie, they do not reside in any of the poor neighbourhoods of Caracas. Basically, this means they reside in the wealthy areas [there is a stark polarization of wealth in the country, far greater than that of north america], and are being marked as amongst the wealthy elite by Chavez supporters. No wonder.

Quote:
"The alternative media are circulating the version that it was a set-up of the opposition. And although that might be a hypothesis, it is very different of assuring that "that's the way it is", without proof. For me this is something very serious."

Commentary:

Here they are again repeating the lie that Chavez supporters fired on the opposition march, and they are referencing the alternative media, that is the media of people who reside in the poor neighbourhoods, which ahd rightly claimed that this was a fabrication. Here the CRA are actively deniying this was a fabrication, again siding with the right-wing coup plotters, against the working class.

Quote:
"nothing is known about what happened on April 11th ... because it is in the interest of the Chavez bureaucracy to have the "phantom" of a coup to be able to deviate attention from the important things; the fiscal and economic crisis. "

Commentary:

Here they claim the well-documented right-wing coup may not have happened, and might just be an illusion set up to distract from Chavez's nefarious internal domestic policies!

Quote:
"There is no self-criticism. Someone else is always to blame: the supporters of a coup d'etat, Carlos Andres Perez, the FMI, imperialism, the Martians.... "

Commentary:

Here the CRA equates pinning the economic crisis on the right-wing lockout of businesses led by business interests and imperiaism, with believing in Martians. They try and discredit this as a theory and expose it to ridicule - despite the very real effects of a right-wing lockout and the devastating impact on the economy.

Quote:
"The administration of the Chavez government has been very, very bad, but the economic crisis has been overlapped by the political crisis.. The extra income due to the rise in the price of the petroleum has filled the arks of the State several times, which they then empty in populist plans and expenses."

Commentary:

Here they repeat the right-wing coup plotters line that there was an "economic crisis" in Venezuela as a direct result of the state using oil revenues in "populist plans and expenses". Those "populiste expenses" were social programs designed to raise the living conditions of the poorest Venezuelans. So here the CRA are criticizing social programs for poor people.

Article #4: "Editorial: Venezuela today: the anarchist perspective"
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm#perspective

Quote:
"In spite of the government's leftist discourse and its strident struggle against the local businessmen and the foreign diplomats, its business deals favor the true puppet masters of the world: the foreign banks, telecommunication and multinational companies allied to the energy sector."

Commentary:

Here they claim that the siezure of foreign-owned assets, and the use of their profits to fund social programs, is a smokescreen to benefit multinational companies! The irony of this statement can be seen especially today, when just recently the Venezuelan government announced they were going to privatize the telecommunications company, which sent the stock of the owner company diving by 14% on the NYSE.

Quote:
"For its part, the opposition is as diverse as chavismo, but with the clear difference of not following a single leader."

Commentary:

Here they claim the opposition, which consists solely of the right-wing elite of the country, is "diverse" and further, "doesn't follow a single leader", as if disunity amongst right wing forces makes them more appealing!

Article #5: "In These Times of Scoundrels"
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm#scoundrels

Quote:
"Besides that, we have witnessed, in relation to these norms during the most recent
rounds of this struggle for power, how both have not spared the ways to cheat
each other and us, to the extreme that the president of the National Electoral
Council accurately described when he said that this was a process characterized
more by its deceptions ("tramparencia") than by its transparency ("transparencia")."

Commentary:

Here they repeat the claim that the referendum was marked by "deceptions", an attempt to discredit the popular mandate endorsed by the people to distribute wealth into social programs and raise living conditions for the poor.

Quote:
"In this picture, we the anarchists reaffirm the proposals we have been insisting
upon that are winning acceptance among Venezuelans already sick and tired of the
cheating games of such scoundrels."

Commentary:

Here they claim their position is rapidly winning popular support, but to date have been unable to provide any evidence of that.

...

I could go on and keep quoting dozens of articles, but I won't. Anyone is free to wade through them, but they clearly and consistently show the odious nature of the anti-working class stance taken by teh CRA, and their moutpiece "El Libertario".

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 14 2007 23:43

I'm going to comment point-by-point on this ...

rise wrote:
Article #1: "Anarchism in Venezuela" (…) Here the author is making an outright falsehood - that poverty is the same if not worse in Venezuela. Statistics show that poverty has in fact drastically decreased [and is still obviously a huge problem], that infant mortality is down, that illiteracy has all but been eliminated, that access to universal healthcare has improved drastically, and so on. Even if you don't believe this, the very fact that there are thousands of doctors being sent into rural areas, that massive stores have been opened that sell food and basic necessities at low rates to the poor, that there are huge literacy campaigns underway, that land has been redistributed to the campesinos - all of this should demonstrate the outright lie of the statement in this article.

I can believe poverty has fallen under Chavez – anti-poverty is after all the basis of his popularity – but do you have any sources? Otherwise it’s your word against ‘Jack’ – the (apparently American) visitor you’re quoting, who is quite possibly wrong. Should this mistake/lie be mistaken for a pro-rightist/opposition view, Jack continues:

Quote:
Now I am in no way claiming that the opposition will deliver on the things that chavez has failed on, in fact it is true that the opposition leaders are scattered with people just dying to be the next dictator, I am simply saying that chavez may not be all he’s cracked up to be.

moving on ...

rise wrote:
This statement, as with the rest of the article, draws a parallel between the Chavezistas and the opposition, which is entirely false and ignores class analysis. The elite of Venezuela comprise the opposition - them and them alone, backed by the CIA and foreign capital. To draw an equation between the two is to implicitly support the right-wing coup plotters, and to pretend the vast class differences that mark the two sides don't exist.

In the most recent election (Chavez’s biggest victory?), his closest rival Manuel Rosales polled 4,266,974 votes (37%) from a turnout of 74.75% from 15,691,181 registered voters (reference) – i.e. 27% of the registered voting-age population. On the other thread you claimed the opposition were the top 2% of the population – this is plainly false. Many workers vote Bush, many voted Thatcher – do you have any proof for your claim that “the elite of Venezuela comprise the opposition - them and them alone” – are the elite 27% of the population? (I know the opposition represents (factions of) the elite, but we’re talking about grassroots supporters here). If some workers vote against Chavez, it is a principled class position to try and unite workers as workers regardless of party allegiance.

rise wrote:
This statement is an illusion to the accusations of the right-wing coup plotters that Chavez supporters fired on the unarmed supporters of an opposition march that was re-directed to confront a Bolivarian march. As footage proved later, this was a fabrication designed to discredit the Bolivarian movement. In fact, it was opposition snipers who opened fire on the Bolivarian march, and Bolivarians who fired back at the snipers. THe right-wing media took the footage from an angle just showing them shooting back, and claimed they were shooting into a crowd - which they weren't. The film "The revolution will not be televised" is available in eight parts on YouTube, and I suggest anyone who doubts this check out the great footage they have. Anyway, here El Libertario is spreading right-wing lies used to justify a coup.

This looks pretty bad – though bear in mind that (according to ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’) the media was broadcasting footage all day supporting the right-wing version of events, and contrary facts only emerged later – this statement is dated April 11th – the day of the coup. This can be read as support for the coup plotters, but the following passage suggests against this reading:

COMUNIQUE OF ANARCHISTS IN VENEZUELA (April 11, 2002) wrote:
Sadly, amongst the people who are taking part in this march, we have not found any form of an answer. While the opposition wishes to kick out the current president, it does not seem to have in mind what should come after.
The only solution it seems to offer is a return to the old game of you-go-away-and-I-take-over, which makes any sort of change difficult. It is depressing to see how human beings can die in a struggle for power which will only serve to keep them under control (…)
Neither the army nor right-wing businessmen!
Free and self-managed grassroots rebellion and organisation!

This perhaps suggests – consistent with the overzealous nazi comparisons of Pat Robertson elsewhere and the general tone – anarchists rushing to blame the state for bloodshed on a demonstration, and parroting what they saw on TV (”unloading their pistols against the demonstrators as if they were playing a video game.”) Fucking sloppy, at best. There is apparently no later correction either, which is bad (could be sinister, could be sloppiness updating the English section …)

rise wrote:
Here they are claiming the right-wing lockout - instigated and lead by the management of the foreign-owned oil companies, was a "strike". The demand for "validity of meritocracy" was a demand to maintain the foreign-owned status of the cmpanies - a status which saw profits funelled out of Venezuela to the US. The demand of the people of Venezuela was that the profits from the oil companies go into social programs, which is what the right-wing lockout was protesting.

As far as I can ascertain, the sacked ‘workers’ were anti-Chavista management – supporting them would clearly be siding with one faction of the bourgeoisie at best, and outright anti-worker at worst. However, as already quoted, the authors state ”sadly, amongst the people who are taking part in this march, we have not found any form of an answer (…) Neither the army nor right-wing businessmen!” – which imho suggests an excitability about any large anti-government protest with scant class analysis, but not support for the opposition. The authors’ summary of the march does repeat rightist premises, but it is explicitly stated they don’t support them.

rise wrote:
Here they repeat the right-wing coup plotters lie, which has been fully discredited, that the Chavez supporters were emtpying rounds into the opposition march.

see answer above, the claim was discredited later (by TRWNBT), the statement was written on the day of the shootings. There is no correction or erratum note.

rise wrote:
Here they imply that they themselves have taken part in the right-wing march, and are lamenting that they do not have an alternative to the present system. In fact they did have a very clear alternative - they wanted a reversion to the pre-Chavez constitution, the instalation of a pro-US businessman [in this case, Pedro Carmona] to the presidency, the re-privatization of public assets, and the abolition of social programs. All of which El Libertario members supported by taking part in the march.

This is pretty disingenuous, I’d want to read the original Spanish before reading in such an implication – and my Spanish isn’t up to that kind of nuance … However, they explicitly state they are against “right-wing businessmen” and that the march offers no solutions, which they see as being “free and self-managed grassroots rebellion and organisation.” It is pretty disingenuous to read explicit rejections of the march’s agenda and standard anarcho calls for free, grassroots rebellion against army and bosses as support for Carmona.

rise wrote:
This statement was made during a tense period where oil and food supplies to the poor of Caracas were being cut off by the right-wing businesses, who had declared a lockout. This interview is with CRA members. They state that they are well, because they are "not part of the sectors in conflict" - ie, they do not reside in any of the poor neighbourhoods of Caracas. Basically, this means they reside in the wealthy areas [there is a stark polarization of wealth in the country, far greater than that of north america], and are being marked as amongst the wealthy elite by Chavez supporters. No wonder.

The use of the word ‘sectors’ is ambiguous. It could mean, as you say, that they don’t live in the geographical sectors affected by the opposition action. Or it could mean that they don’t work in the sectors affected by the layoffs/opposition action. I’ve searched quite thoroughly and I can’t find the original Spanish text on their site which would help clear this up. I’m unsure of the relevance of the accusation that the CRA live in well-off areas, given as class analysis isn’t a system of individual classification – but I’d be interested to see the original Spanish and decipher it (I read ‘sector’ to mean employment sector, given the context (discussion of “the strike called by the bosses” etc).

rise wrote:
Here they are again repeating the lie that Chavez supporters fired on the opposition march, and they are referencing the alternative media, that is the media of people who reside in the poor neighbourhoods, which ahd rightly claimed that this was a fabrication. Here the CRA are actively deniying this was a fabrication, again siding with the right-wing coup plotters, against the working class.

The statement in bold is categorically false. The interview takes place on December 10th, and refers to “the lamentable deaths last Friday” [i.e. the 6th December]. I don’t know what incident they refer to, but it is definitely not the shootings on the April march. Subsequently, I don’t know what incident the coverage of which is being questioned, but again opposition to the right is restated explicitly:

”a libertarian comrade of the CRA” wrote:
I can summarize our position: the strike called by the bosses and the CTV is not worthy, by any means, of our trust. But rejection of the strike doesn't mean, in any way, that I support to the regime, which has fallen into the errors, bad habits

moving on ...

rise wrote:
Here they claim the well-documented right-wing coup may not have happened, and might just be an illusion set up to distract from Chavez's nefarious internal domestic policies!

I don’t think they’re saying it didn’t happen, but that it was odd that “none of the corrupt are in prison, nor is any "golpista" [participant in the coup] behind bars”, while the failure of the coup benefited the radical wing of Chavismo. Conspiratorial speculation it seems … (Lucas Rincón Romero, who participated as head of the military during the coup was even promoted by Chavez afterwards [source] – keep your enemies closer, or conspiracy? I’m not into speculation).

rise wrote:
Here the CRA equates pinning the economic crisis on the right-wing lockout of businesses led by business interests and imperiaism, with believing in Martians. They try and discredit this as a theory and expose it to ridicule - despite the very real effects of a right-wing lockout and the devastating impact on the economy.

actually, they are commenting on the biased reporting of the pro- and anti-chavista media. The quote in full:

Quote:
There is no self-criticism. Someone else is always to blame: the supporters of a coup d'etat, Carlos Andres Perez, the FMI, imperialism, the Martians.... If we eliminate the other side, everything will magically fall in place. For example: the private media, it is certain, have carried out a very slanted news campaign, but The Chavez movement has been unable to mount their own sources of information that are not a replica of what they criticize. So watching Channel 8 (the State Channel), it like watching Globovision [the anti-Chavez channel] but with everything changed around. For Channel 8, "everything's calm and cool", the "the strike has flopped," etc.


Summary for those skipping to the end:

right, i've spent rather too much time on this already, but i might comment further if i'm bored at work tomorrow. So far at least i think we've seen the CRA/El Libertario have flakey synthesist politics and are somewhat prone to speculation, but certainly not that they have an "odious nature of the anti-working class stance" or that their writings are "filth" (unless you're an uncritical supporter of Chavez?) - still less that they are assets of the US State Dept - your previous, unretracted claim.

JK.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 15 2007 10:06

for clarity rise - have you retracted your claim that the CRA/El Libertario are "black propaganda for the US State Department"?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 15 2007 10:24

rise - this is serious. libcom.org is not a site for people with bees in their bonnet to spread outright lies against other anarchist groups. I and other people have pointed out and listed the lies and smears you have told, which you have attempted to prove by quotations which were mostly not even written by the CRA. Particularly your accusations that they are "US-backed" or that they are "black propaganda for the US State Department".

You either provide evidence for these lies, or retract them and apologise, or else you will be banned from this site until you do so.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jan 15 2007 18:58

Rise:

I spent countless hours debating with Maoists when I was younger, and they had a much more compelling version of Maoism than you do. I wasn't convinced then, though my politics were much vaguer...

Now, you want me to 'refute some of your claims'? Well, you say that the oil workers strike was a lockout enforced by the ruling class. If this was the case, why do you state that anarchists should have been on the front lines attacking the oil workers? Also, how do you explain that Chavez then fired 19,000 oil workers? Were these simply 19,000 upper exectuives? OR are you saying that sometimes anarchists should side with the state against sections of the working class?

Any relevant revolutionary group in colombia would be stating that the working class needs to be prepared to fight against both Uribe's government and Las FARC. Presumably you think that they would also be part of the US's black propaganda apparatus... (and your claim that the anarchist movement in the first world is against these thugster leninists because we are 'decadent' is abhorrent.)

How about Bolivia? Do you support the government sending troops against workers in the airport? Would anarchists have been on the front lines attacking these workers?

You've told me that you support the "revolution in Nepal". Should revolutionaries in Nepal support the Maoists in the civil war which has brought them into the government coalition on the back of 60,000 proletarians and peasants?

For that matter, how about the Shining Path? Should revolutionaries have also supported these butchers of the working-class?

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 15 2007 20:47
Joseph K. wrote:
for clarity rise - have you retracted your claim that the CRA/El Libertario are "black propaganda for the US State Department"?

Intentionally or otherwise, the english language documents on the El Libertario website are anti-working class propaganda. If that rubs you the wrong way, too bad - that's reality. Saying they are "synthesist" and have "bad politics" may be an excuse in the countries your used to, where revolutionary poltiics aren't a life and death matter, but it's not something you shrug off in South America, where death squads are prevalent and bad propaganda endangers lives and helps support brutal and fascist regimes.

Frankly your position in support of El Libertario is disgusting, and shows that you place theoretical purism above the interests and needs of real working people.

I've quoted very extensively, and there's tons more garbage to dig through on that website. The fact that Rata has stated they came under criticism from other latin american anarchist groups should give you a hint.

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 15 2007 21:05

I've tried to be patient with the naivety of your politics but this is just over the top...

Quote:
I spent countless hours debating with Maoists when I was younger, and they had a much more compelling version of Maoism than you do. I wasn't convinced then, though my politics were much vaguer...

That might be because I'm not a maoist. Although I'm curious as to why you think I'm a maoist, as I've done as much as anyone else in the north american anarchist movement to publicly refute maoism. I even had a publicized debate polemizing against the RCP USA.

I know lots of maoists, and they would burst into fits of laughter at the suggestion I shared their MLM ideology.

Maybe you can back up your assertion with something substantial? I think closer to reality is that your politics are very far from anarchism, and closer to anarchyism, or the "new wave" of anarchism that has taken hold in North America and abroad since the 60's, and which bears little in resemblance to its historical counterpart.

Quote:
Now, you want me to 'refute some of your claims'? Well, you say that the oil workers strike was a lockout enforced by the ruling class. If this was the case, why do you state that anarchists should have been on the front lines attacking the oil workers? Also, how do you explain that Chavez then fired 19,000 oil workers? Were these simply 19,000 upper exectuives? OR are you saying that sometimes anarchists should side with the state against sections of the working class?

The oil workers, as others on this thread have clearly stated, were siding with the foreign owned companies and against the Venezuelan working class. Their position was that they wanted to retain foreign-owned management of the companies, and were against nationalization. They were also against the distribution of oil revenues into social programs.

When the management of the private oil companies called for a lockout in support of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce plan to destabilize civil society leading up to the attempted coup, the oil workers "union" heartily agreed and called it a strike, pulling their members to support the right-wing demonstration.

Oliver, the world is a lot more complex than you'd like to believe. Just because someone is "a worker", does not make them radical, and does not even place their interests automatically with the majority of "the working class". I suspect you have a very shallow idea of what constitutes the working class in the first place. In a country like Venezuela, these oil workers were part of the wealthy elite. Paid far above the salaries of ordinary workers, living in separate neighbourhoods, and with very different goals and interests. And when push came to shove, they sided emphatically with the right-wing fascists and businessmen.

In every major revolutionary conflict, there have been large sections of what we could call "workers", farmers, and peasents who have sided with the ruling class, either out of fear and intimidation or out of active support. I suggest you spend some time thinking about why that is, about what different motivations exist for this, and how you deal with it and how you analyze which sections of the working class are "progressive", and which have the potential to be extremely reactionary. Remember it was the Junkers who backed Prussian militarism for so long, even during the Franco-Prussian war in which the proto-social revolutionary movement took arms against both the invading "workers" and the French state. Think about it.

In this context, anarchists should have been on the front lines opposing these corrupt oil workers

I know little about the FARC/EP and I won't get drawn into a sicussion about them, because they have little connection to the issues I'm addressing.

Quote:
You've told me that you support the "revolution in Nepal". Should revolutionaries in Nepal support the Maoists in the civil war which has brought them into the government coalition on the back of 60,000 proletarians and peasants?

I support the revolution in Nepal despite the fact the revolutionaries are predominantly Maoists. I have keenly followed developments in Nepal, and personal friends of mine have gone and confirmed the facts I read about on a weekly basis.

Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about in terms of "on the back of 60,000 proletarians and peasents", but the rural population emphatically supports the revolution for the following reasons:

- the rebels abolished the practice of child sex slavery, which was very widespread. this is huge in a country like Nepal. this reason alone is enough for my support for the revolution there.

- almost half of the frontline troops and senior commanders in the Nepalese People's Liberation Army are women. This is a staggering figure, especially in a former British and Indian colony where a regressive interpretation of the Hindu caste system was rigidly implemented.

- the reels have brought food, hospitals, schools, and popular community assemblies to areas before where there was only starvation, desperation, rape, death squads, and a very low life expectancy.

It's all well and good to sit in an ivory tower and throw stones because you don't like how people are doing it in another country. But the reality is that whether or not I agree with the driving force of the ideology liberating Nepal right now, and what that means for the long term, at the moment the rebels have done good. very good. and there are tens of thousands of children not in sex slavery as a result of that.

I think you will find the purist nature of your poltics will paralyze you into inaction, and prevent you from taking any realistic stance on any position where you could effect a kind of meaningful change, or strategy that would benefit the cause of anarchism even in the long term.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 15 2007 22:43
rise wrote:
Frankly your position in support of El Libertario is disgusting, and shows that you place theoretical purism above the interests and needs of real working people.

repetition of smears doesn't make them true. you can scream 'purist' all you like but i'm not the one insisting you're either with Chavez or you're a US stooge. And last time i checked i was a real working person :?

rise wrote:
I've quoted very extensively, and there's tons more garbage to dig through on that website. The fact that Rata has stated they came under criticism from other latin american anarchist groups should give you a hint.

you've quoted very extensively, and i've responded very extensively showing to anyone without a binary 'with us or against us' world view that you're misrepresenting the CRA - who explicitly oppose Chavez and the right-wing opposition. Rata said they were criticised by some groups - they've been criticised by me too, though your binary thought seems immune to nuance or subtlty.

Your need to side with one bourgeois faction or another in the name of 'action' is fallacious - it assumes another binary; join an existing bourgeois faction or do nothing. This isn't pragmatism, it's shameless leftism that has nothing to do with class analysis and leads to tail-ending all sorts of anti-working class movements. Presumably if we don't vote Kerry we're just stooges for Bush? ffs roll eyes

On the CRA, your argument seems to boil down to they don't uncritically support Chavez, so they are imperialist stooges. even though they repeatedly and explicitly denounce the US and the right-wing opposition too. i really don't need to refute this 'logic' (aren't you into analytic philosophy? :?), and i've already spent too much time doing so since it's what's known in the trade as autocritique.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 16 2007 00:15
rise wrote:
- almost half of the frontline troops and senior commanders in the Nepalese People's Liberation Army are women. This is a staggering figure, especially in a former British and Indian colony where a regressive interpretation of the Hindu caste system was rigidly implemented.

Wow you just don't stop do you.

As I said before, and this is serious in Latin America - as you pointed out - back up your claims that the CRA are US-backed or you will be banned from this site. And the rest of your statements which I pointed out were lies.

You can then support your equal opportunies Maoist guerrillas on other sites.

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 16 2007 01:00
Joseph K. wrote:
repetition of smears doesn't make them true. you can scream 'purist' all you like but i'm not the one insisting you're either with Chavez or you're a US stooge. And last time i checked i was a real working person :?

Again, you're trying to misrepresent my position. Try responding to my points instead. What I'm saying is that you can be with the progressive sectors of the working class, with the opposition, or in a neutral position. In this case, a neutral position takes you pretty much out of the realm of action and influence.

When El Libertario repeated the right-wing and fascist slander during and after the coup attempt, the same slander that helped justify and propel that coup, and translated that to the english-speaking community and spread that around to try and justify the coup, they were essentially siding against the working class of Venezuela, who opposed that coup. When they took part in a right-wing march of the Venezuelan elites against the Bolivarian movement, they were siding against the working class.

Quote:
you've quoted very extensively, and i've responded very extensively showing to anyone without a binary 'with us or against us' world view that you're misrepresenting the CRA - who explicitly oppose Chavez and the right-wing opposition. Rata said they were criticised by some groups - they've been criticised by me too, though your binary thought seems immune to nuance or subtlty.

You're "response" was hardly a refutation or rejoinder of my points, or of any of the points I've made previously regarding this issue.

Additionally, you misrepresent my position yet again. I have never said the CRA do not oppose both Chavez and the right-wing opposition. It is clear to anyone reading their writing that they denounce all sides that play any kind of meaningful role in the conflict, thus rendering themselves supporting a non-existent movement with slogans that have little semblance of reality attached to them.

That being said, we need to dig deeper into their criticism of the Venezeulan regime and the Bolivarian movement on one hand, and the opposition coup-plotters on the other. Because they're criticism is not "equal" as you imply in your posts. Far from it, El Libertario has stated that a right-wing fascist regime would be "preferable" to Chavez, because they believe the centralization of power under Chavez is greater, and so on - essentially repeating the same line the right-wing uses against Chavez.

So while technically yes, they claim to oppose both sides, their opposition is not equal, and they are parroting the right-wing line against Chavez and against the Venezuelan working class.

Quote:
Your need to side with one bourgeois faction or another in the name of 'action' is fallacious - it assumes another binary; join an existing bourgeois faction or do nothing. This isn't pragmatism, it's shameless leftism that has nothing to do with class analysis and leads to tail-ending all sorts of anti-working class movements. Presumably if we don't vote Kerry we're just stooges for Bush? ffs roll eyes

At no point have I sided with any bourgeois faction. I'm not even sure you understand what the word "bourgeois" means in its historical and materialist concept.

I have clearly stated the working class movements in Venezuela that I theoretically [since I cannot be said ti support any faction materialy, nor do I have the means at my disposal] support. Please state for us which Venezuelan working class movement you support. my suspicion is it doesn't exist.

Further, your denunciation of working class ideologies as "leftist" really highlights your position, and where you stand. Reminds me of Blair's "Third Way" retorich, claiming there is another path between the elite and the working class movements -- neither of which can be painted with the same brush, so don't even try that "the stalinists are representative of the entire political left" bullshit.

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 16 2007 01:04
John. wrote:
rise - this is serious. libcom.org is not a site for people with bees in their bonnet to spread outright lies against other anarchist groups. I and other people have pointed out and listed the lies and smears you have told, which you have attempted to prove by quotations which were mostly not even written by the CRA. Particularly your accusations that they are "US-backed" or that they are "black propaganda for the US State Department".

Wow, not a shred of honesty to your post.

I have explicitly backed up every single comment I've made with exntensive quotes, which ahve not been properly refuted in the least.

In any case, you may have a problem with the title of my thread, but frankly, as another poster has stated previously: if the CRA aren't getting paid to spread their anti-working class bullshit, they're the only ones. Do I think they are "US-backed"? No. Do i think it's black propaganda that's sabotaging the working class movements in Venezuela? Yes.

I have less respect for the CRA because they're probably not getting paid to spread these slanders - which means they're not only against the Venezuelan working class, they're idiots.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 16 2007 01:33
rise wrote:
Further, your denunciation of working class ideologies as "leftist" really highlights your position, and where you stand. Reminds me of Blair's "Third Way" retorich, claiming there is another path between the elite and the working class movements -- neither of which can be painted with the same brush, so don't even try that "the stalinists are representative of the entire political left" bullshit.

If you didn't spend all your time spouting Mao-oid rubbish you might have realised that opposition to the left has a history of over 80 years within the workers movement, starting with some of the original WW1 era left-commies. It certainly has nothing to do with the defanged social democratic Third Way wankfest.

The left, including your hero Colonel Chavez, seek to reform capitalism in a manner ostensibly favourable to the working class. This necessarily means that they oppose actual workers struggles that threaten to go beyond capital. Sometimes these reforms are quite radical - for eg the Soviet Union and other 'Communist' countries - but capitalism is still maintained.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jan 16 2007 02:27
Peter wrote:
If you didn't spend all your time spouting Mao-oid rubbish you might have realised that opposition to the left has a history of over 80 years within the workers movement, starting with some of the original WW1 era left-commies. It certainly has nothing to do with the defanged social democratic Third Way wankfest.

The left, including your hero Colonel Chavez, seek to reform capitalism in a manner ostensibly favourable to the working class. This necessarily means that they oppose actual workers struggles that threaten to go beyond capital. Sometimes these reforms are quite radical - for eg the Soviet Union and other 'Communist' countries - but capitalism is still maintained.

In fact this is just a postmodernist understanding of what left wing is. As for the classical anarchists, libertarian communists, we allways understood ourselves as the left of the left wing.

As Kropotkin says in his explanation of what Anarchism is for Britannica (1910):

"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility."

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Jan 16 2007 05:07

Oliver: Any relevant revolutionary group in colombia would be stating that the working class needs to be prepared to fight against both Uribe's government and Las FARC.

Oliver, whoever have you been reading? And when you wanna talk FARC-EP, talk to ME ME ME!!Columbian history features armed movements (liberal, conservative and revolutionary). Any notion of a "civil society" caught between a war between left ands right does not resonate with the history. The FARC-EP is what your movement would be if you were born in Columbia. Born in the jungle. Your government is a big drug player. Paramilitaries are auxilliaries of and co-ordinate with the state security forces. Coca farmers make 2 dollars a day, a kilo of processed cocaine costs $1000. Although there are a few big rollers supplying dealers who sell to the American market, money made on cocaine is overwhelmingly whitey's money. FARC-EP imposes a revolutionary tax upon all businesses, legal or no, with assets of 1 million dollars or more. The government-linked drug cartels who pay the tax do not do so willingly or happily, nor are the FARC their "employees". The FARC wants Columbia to be a good place to raise kids, or be a kid. The US kicks HUGE cash down to Uribe for counter0insurgency. The FARC and smaller groups have overwhelming public support, which is the only way they could still exist. (and one of the reasons why none of the armed US leftist groups of the 60's do).
When you get close to taking a fixed target, such as a government torture center, then US-supplied air support bombs your positions. But you saw what happened when other movements gave up (El Salvadore, Nicaragua, etc) so that's not an option. In the 80's, FARC tried an electoral strategy thru the party Patriotic Union. 4000 party members were assassinated. The electoral door is clearly closed to the FARC. FARC is composed of indigenous, peasants, men, women, union members, teachers, etc.
The US has sic'd their pets Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders on the FARC many times, to great effect throughout the Anglo-American empire. The term narco-terrorist has been printed hundreds of thousands of times. Oliver, I understand how it works, and nobody could blame you for believing that the FARC-EP was politically beneath your support. That's the very reason why the FARC are slagged so much in the media. The strongest, largest, best organized, most successful rev group gets the most bad PR.
Awaiting your reply,

Jonny

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 16 2007 06:54

just to clarify, i'm using 'leftist' to mean 'the left wing of capital' - reformist recuperators; unions, the SWP (uk), 'progressive' NLMs. Jonny/rise, since you give support to the FARC/Nepalese Maoists respectively - do either of you support the IRA?

(got to go to work now ...)

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 16 2007 06:55

Joseph,

Although I believe you haven't sincerely addressed the weight and depth of my points, or the quotes and their overarching context, I'll address some of the specific points you raise.

Quote:
I can believe poverty has fallen under Chavez – anti-poverty is after all the basis of his popularity – but do you have any sources? Otherwise it’s your word against ‘Jack’ – the (apparently American) visitor you’re quoting, who is quite possibly wrong. Should this mistake/lie be mistaken for a pro-rightist/opposition view,

I thought the knowledge about Venezuela's socail programs improving conditions was obvious and common knowledge, but ok. Lets bring out some sources

For starters, we'll go with the UNICEF figures:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/venezuela_statistics.html

Highlights include: a significant drop in the under 5 mortality rate, likewise for infant mortality. improvements in... drinking water, immunization of the population, santitation, the adult literacy rate, etc. etc.

Even the World Bank has some good stats:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/idg/IDGProfile.asp?CCODE=VEN&CNAME=Venezuel...

You get the idea.

I could go on, but I think this is really a mute point.

Quote:
In the most recent election (Chavez’s biggest victory?), his closest rival Manuel Rosales polled 4,266,974 votes (37%) from a turnout of 74.75% from 15,691,181 registered voters (reference) – i.e. 27% of the registered voting-age population. On the other thread you claimed the opposition were the top 2% of the population – this is plainly false. Many workers vote Bush, many voted Thatcher – do you have any proof for your claim that “the elite of Venezuela comprise the opposition - them and them alone” – are the elite 27% of the population? (I know the opposition represents (factions of) the elite, but we’re talking about grassroots supporters here). If some workers vote against Chavez, it is a principled class position to try and unite workers as workers regardless of party allegiance.

This was kind of surprising to see. I think anarchist class analysis is really clear and simple on understanding why "the oppressed" are consistently roped into legitemizing the rule of their oppressors.

The opposition is the elite. And they, like every other right-wing political movement in the history of humanity, try and build mass support from whatever sectors of society are amenable to that, using a variety of methods. This thread is understandably too short to explain this process in its entirety, but if you were up on class struggle theory this shouldn't be a problem.

And no, trying to unite working people is not, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing. Plenty of right wing movements seek to unite groups of workers together to support their interests. The question is not whether it is working people being united, but what they are being united to support.

To date I have seen nothing to indicate that the CRA have anything resembling a mass following, or even a credible ideological pole with any kind of tangible support from working people. And that's not a surprise, given that they've tactitly participated in right-wing demonstrations.

Think about it, would you take part in an ultra-conservative demonstration, in order to "win over" working people to your ideas? This is just bizarre.

Quote:
This looks pretty bad – though bear in mind that (according to ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’) the media was broadcasting footage all day supporting the right-wing version of events, and contrary facts only emerged later – this statement is dated April 11th – the day of the coup.

Yeah, it is pretty bad. But you need to read into this further... why are anarchists uncritically accepting the proclamations of the right-wing media, who are openly hostile to the Venezuelan class, and who openly support US interests in the country. Why would they not only uncritically accept that shit, but promote it? And not only promote it to other Venezuelans, but fucking translate it into english and pump that line abroad? Pretty suspect.

Quote:
anarchists rushing to blame the state for bloodshed on a demonstration, and parroting what they saw on TV (”unloading their pistols against the demonstrators as if they were playing a video game.”) Fucking sloppy, at best. There is apparently no later correction either, which is bad (could be sinister, could be sloppiness updating the English section …)

Actually the media only partially blamed the bloodshed on the state. They primarily blamed Chavez's working class supporters, from the march of all the people who came out of the ghettos and barrios of Caracas to support the progressive moves of the regime.

Essentially they blamed the Bolivarian circles, of which the alleged gunmen were members. Btw there is this great line in the "revolution will not be televised" video where they're filming this right wing meeting in an upscale Caracas neighbourhood, and the guy chairing the meeting warns everyone to be on guard "around domestic servants" because they might be Bolivarian spies. Doesn't get any more obvious than that.

I would say this is more than "sloppy". And the lack of a correction is telling as well.

Quote:
which imho suggests an excitability about any large anti-government protest with scant class analysis, but not support for the opposition. The authors’ summary of the march does repeat rightist premises, but it is explicitly stated they don’t support them.

There is no question that they explicitly state that they don't support anyone. at all. They don't support Chavez, they don't support the right-wing opposition, and they certainly don't support the progressive sectors of the working class who are going out of their way to back Chavez. The only people they do seem to support is right-wing oil workers, and some sectors of the media.

The question is then: if they don't support anyone, what levels of dissaproval do they give to the people they don't support? Well, they have clearly stated they think a regime backed by the coup-plotters, led by the Chambers of Commerce and fascist military officers, is preferable to the Chavez regime. So while they claim that both are bad, they also explicitly give their "preference", which in this case, combined with their participation in opposition demos and the opposition lines they are repeating, pretty much affirms implicit support for the right-wing opposition.

Quote:
This is pretty disingenuous, I’d want to read the original Spanish before reading in such an implication – and my Spanish isn’t up to that kind of nuance … However, they explicitly state they are against “right-wing businessmen” and that the march offers no solutions, which they see as being “free and self-managed grassroots rebellion and organisation.” It is pretty disingenuous to read explicit rejections of the march’s agenda and standard anarcho calls for free, grassroots rebellion against army and bosses as support for Carmona.

Well, I read Castillano (The main Spanish dialect that comprises "Espanol" as most people know it) pretty well, and this seemed to be bang on.

They can call for "free and self managed grassoots rebellion and organizations" all they want, but if there is no evidence they are participating in any such thing, it's just talk, and they're stating their preference for the right-wing opposition, both explicitly and implicitly... well, there's your answer.

Quote:
The use of the word ‘sectors’ is ambiguous. It could mean, as you say, that they don’t live in the geographical sectors affected by the opposition action. Or it could mean that they don’t work in the sectors affected by the layoffs/opposition action. I’ve searched quite thoroughly and I can’t find the original Spanish text on their site which would help clear this up. I’m unsure of the relevance of the accusation that the CRA live in well-off areas, given as class analysis isn’t a system of individual classification – but I’d be interested to see the original Spanish and decipher it (I read ‘sector’ to mean employment sector, given the context (discussion of “the strike called by the bosses” etc).

Wow. One of my entire points is that "class analysis is not a system of individual classification". You seem to have missed the entire premise of what I was saying there, and then stated the a common theme and premise that is evident in everything I've posted so far.

But yes, it is relevent if larger sectors of the CRA live in upscale Venezuelan neighbourhoods, where the elite live, and are taking part in their demonstrations and marches. It gives us a broader idea of their political orientation and itnerests in all this.

Quote:
The statement in bold is categorically false. The interview takes place on December 10th, and refers to “the lamentable deaths last Friday” [i.e. the 6th December]. I don’t know what incident they refer to, but it is definitely not the shootings on the April march.

Well, seeing as we have established the prior disinformation on the mass media hysteria whipped up around the coup, I'm not going to contend this one, as its totally immaterial to my point.

Quote:
I can summarize our position: the strike called by the bosses and the CTV is not worthy, by any means, of our trust. But rejection of the strike doesn't mean, in any way, that I support to the regime, which has fallen into the errors, bad habits

Well, if the strike called by the bosses and CTV wasn't worth their support, why did they support in it by marching with them, against the working class demo, and then spreading lies about the working class demo attacking their march?

Quote:
I don’t think they’re saying it didn’t happen, but that it was odd that “none of the corrupt are in prison, nor is any "golpista"

There could be a variety of reasons for this. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think the CIA tried to pull this off as a show to prop up Chavez. I think they are genuinely opposed to his regime and the working class movement that now exerts considerable infelunce both over the regime and in Venezuelan society as a whole.

Quote:
actually, they are commenting on the biased reporting of the pro- and anti-chavista media.

Yes, and this really speaks to my point that they are continually equating the pro-Chavez, Bolivarian working class movement, a movement which is certainly critical of Chavez as well and is not some blind personality cult, but a nuanced one with a deep history in Venezuela -- they are equating that movement with the disrortions and misinformation of the right-wing propagandists. So when they put those two in the same category, I think they are actually trashing the working class movement.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 16 2007 08:56

OK the goalposts seem to have moved somewhat - you seem to concede you have no evidence the CRA are "black propaganda for the US State Dept" - but insist they have anti-working class politics. is that a fair summation? (i don't want to misrepresent you, arguing at-crossed-purposes is pointless)

rise wrote:
What I'm saying is that you can be with the progressive sectors of the working class, with the opposition, or in a neutral position. In this case, a neutral position takes you pretty much out of the realm of action and influence.

like i say my spanish is pretty rudimentary, but i'm pretty sure the spanish for "progressive sectors of the working class" isn't "Chavez". For example - i'm fucking glad we have the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK. Millions of workers supported the Atlee Labour government which founded it. That doesn't make the labour government part of 'the progressive sectors of the working class', but something held hostage by them. And it was for anarchists/communists to be building such grassroots working class power, without excluding workers who didn't vote Atlee. You can't conflate the working class with the state, just because a charismatic leader wears a red hat. elementary anarchism. Now I don’t know if the CRA are actually doing anything to this effect, but this is what they say they are in favour of. If you want a real world example of this ‘neither, nor’ working class politics, I would suggest reading Danny Burns’ ‘Poll Tax Rebellion’ (AK Press), which charts its success in defeating Thatcher’s Tax, vs the calls of leftists (Militant Tendency mostly) to vote Labour i.e. support one bourgeois faction against another.

rise wrote:
Well, they have clearly stated they think a regime backed by the coup-plotters, led by the Chambers of Commerce and fascist military officers, is preferable to the Chavez regime.

a lie you keep repeating - Michael Staudenmaier, an american visitor, said a minority in the CRA thought Chavez was worse because he could get away with more privatizations etc on account of his leftist credibility and the deference which many of the poor hold for him. Some examples are listed in this article.

rise wrote:
I thought the knowledge about Venezuela's socail programs improving conditions was obvious and common knowledge ... I could go on, but I think this is really a mute point.

indeed, i don't contest it i just hadn't actually seen any links on the subject, cheers.

rise wrote:
This was kind of surprising to see. I think anarchist class analysis is really clear and simple on understanding why "the oppressed" are consistently roped into legitemizing the rule of their oppressors.

The opposition is the elite. And they, like every other right-wing political movement in the history of humanity, try and build mass support from whatever sectors of society are amenable to that, using a variety of methods. This thread is understandably too short to explain this process in its entirety, but if you were up on class struggle theory this shouldn't be a problem.

which is precisely my point - working class organisation - anarchist/libertarian communist organisation - therefore requires engaging with workers as workers, regardless of party affiliation, which seemed to be what the CRA were advocating - on the old thread you said that working with working class opposition supporters to build autonomous grassroots power was akin to supporting fascist coup plots, which it isn't.

rise wrote:
So when they put those two in the same category, I think they are actually trashing the working class movement.

Have you watched Globovision or Channel 8? from what little i've seen of Alo Presidente it does seem like Chavista propaganda ... i mean, that's its purpose isn't it?

rise wrote:
But yes, it is relevent if larger sectors of the CRA live in upscale Venezuelan neighbourhoods, where the elite live, and are taking part in their demonstrations and marches.

like I say I’m not at all convinced that is what they were saying by ‘sectors’, but it could have relevance (if they’re not squatting, to pay those kinda rents implies some a non-workers income if nothing else). However since the only source for this is a dubious reading of the word ‘sector’ in a discussion of a lockout in different employment sectors to mean ‘location’, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that the CRA all live in bourgeois areas.

rise wrote:
Well, if the strike called by the bosses and CTV wasn't worth their support, why did they support in it by marching with them

they explicitly stated they found no answers on the march, and restated their opposition to the "right-wing businessmen." I don't support the Liberal Democrats (UK's 3rd party) or the SWP, or George Galloway, but i've still gone on anti-war marches with them as the principle speakers, because it's an opportunity to talk to other politicised workers, distribute prop etc ... however 'i found no answers on the march.' like i say it's not clear that the CRA were on the demo, and if they were that there weren't also members on the chavista one.

rise wrote:
I think they [the CIA] are genuinely opposed to his regime and the working class movement that now exerts considerable infelunce both over the regime

this is crucial, and i'm glad we both recognise it (and both reject conspiracy theorising, which along with paranoia seems a minor CRA penchant) - the changes are being forced by the desires of a militant working class. i want to see the working class exercise it's power autonomously of the state - for example being willing in principle to strike under Chavez's government to get their demands met. i don't know how much this is the case, because i've read various things saying that for many Chavez is second only to Bolivar, who is only second to God.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 16 2007 11:06
rise wrote:
John. wrote:
rise - this is serious. libcom.org is not a site for people with bees in their bonnet to spread outright lies against other anarchist groups. I and other people have pointed out and listed the lies and smears you have told, which you have attempted to prove by quotations which were mostly not even written by the CRA. Particularly your accusations that they are "US-backed" or that they are "black propaganda for the US State Department".

Wow, not a shred of honesty to your post.

This statement doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
I have explicitly backed up every single comment I've made with exntensive quotes, which ahve not been properly refuted in the least.

No you haven't - on the other thread most quotes you made were not even written by the CRA, they were from articles written by Americans visiting, and some of the quotes were by these visitors about minority positions within CRA.

Quote:
In any case, you may have a problem with the title of my thread, but frankly, as another poster has stated previously: if the CRA aren't getting paid to spread their anti-working class bullshit, they're the only ones.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you still implying they are being paid by the US?

Quote:
Do I think they are "US-backed"? No.

Then why did you state on the other thread that they were? At least you admit you're a fucking liar.

Quote:
Do i think it's black propaganda that's sabotaging the working class movements in Venezuela? Yes.

You are also continuing your lies that:

Quote:
who openly support US interests in the country

Even when you also have to admit that they actually oppose them:

Quote:
I have never said the CRA do not oppose both Chavez and the right-wing opposition. It is clear to anyone reading their writing that they denounce all sides that play any kind of meaningful role in the conflict

Not only have you not "never said the CRA do not oppose... the right-wing opposition" you keep on and on repeating the lie that they do. Even though by some bizarre doublethink it appears you know you are lying.

Quote:
Well, they have clearly stated they think a regime backed by the coup-plotters, led by the Chambers of Commerce and fascist military officers, is preferable to the Chavez regime

No they haven't you lying cunt. As has been pointed out to you several times this was said by two american visitors, not in the CRA, about a minority position within CRA which stated that a right-wing government would not have had mass support to centralise political power. Here you go with this lie again:

Quote:
Far from it, El Libertario has stated that a right-wing fascist regime would be "preferable" to Chavez

And then an embellishment to the lie

Quote:
because they believe the centralization of power under Chavez is greater

As I said, this wasn't written by the CRA, it certainly didn't appear in El Libertario, and that's not what the article even said, as I outline above.

You obviously have no intention of arguing in any honest way. You will not be permitted to continue these baseless slanders. If you want to make a full retraction of all your lies in the next few hours then you can stay here, if not, you will be banned.

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jan 16 2007 11:17

John -

You're out to lunch.

Perhaps you should try addressing points, instead of making hysterical denuncations and calling people "lying cunts". Maybe that's what passes for debate for you.

Anyways, congratulations on standing up for a group of McAnarchyists in Venezuela who participate in right-wing demonstrations (apparently looking for solutions? but they find none!) and spread right-wing lies about working class movements.

I could care less If I get banned off an internet message board by some pomo individualist high on self-righteous zeal. Frankly, between my job, my union positions, and my political work, I could stand to spend less time wasting away on a discussion board.

I suggest you develop a class analysis. It might help.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 16 2007 11:21
rise wrote:
my union positions

ahh, now i see why my disdain for leftism touched a nerve

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 16 2007 13:54

Rise you’re on a discussion board filled entirely with class struggle types. If you and you alone are arguing your position, and have only managed to persuade everyone on this board that you are in the wrong (through your own words no less), perhaps it is time to rethink your position in light of this development, rather than trying to justify your failure by saying no-one else understands the concept of class.

Just a suggestion like.

Edit: Though John I know you’re in a bad mood with the guy but less catcalling yeah?

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 16 2007 14:48

aye, i agree, the discussion has been most informative and as one of the peeps originally suspicious of CRA line its been good to see their positions to be dissected.

So if you guys could stay away from eachothers throaths it would be great to see this discussion continue.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 16 2007 15:08
JDMF wrote:
So if you guys could stay away from eachothers throaths it would be great to see this discussion continue.

two suggestions for that to happen:

1. rise retracts the baseless claims that the CRA "support the fascist opposition", "openly support US interests" etc (he already contradicts himself on these)
2. we pick an article actually written by the CRA (they're mostly pretty short) and work through it as a whole, together, thus eliminating the possibility for misrepresentation.

but since rise has seems to have no intention of doing 1, we might just have to do 2 on our own. any ideas for an article? the interview with a CRA member was controversial, how about that?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 16 2007 16:02
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
my union positions

What would those be then?

Also what organisation are you in per chance?

He's a Platformist, was involved in the attempts to set up western NEFAC-style groups - FNAC and NAF.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 16 2007 16:07
Quote:
attempts to set up western NEFAC-style groups

How much cooler would a revolutionary group be if they all wore cowboy hats?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 16 2007 16:18
revol68 wrote:
cooler than if they were nationalist sympathising leftist hacks.

But not as cool as do-nothing internet bigmouth, right?

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 16 2007 16:21
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
revol68 wrote:
cooler than if they were nationalist sympathising leftist hacks.

But not as cool as do-nothing internet bigmouth, right?

Quick! Someone post the "Do Summat!" gorilla!

Michael
Offline
Joined: 9-01-07
Jan 16 2007 16:28

Hello everyone,

This is kind of late in the thread, but I just started reading it, and I couldn't let the following stand without some response:

Quote:
Article #3: "HOW VENEZUELAN ANARCHISTS VIEW THE CHAVEZ CRISIS"
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/seccioningles.htm#interview

Quote:
"Some food is getting scarce and petrol too. All the anarchists are well, because we are not directly part of the sectors in conflict, although we are on the list of counterrevolutionaries that the Chavez supporters circulate on the Internet."

Commentary:

This statement was made during a tense period where oil and food supplies to the poor of Caracas were being cut off by the right-wing businesses, who had declared a lockout. This interview is with CRA members. They state that they are well, because they are "not part of the sectors in conflict" - ie, they do not reside in any of the poor neighbourhoods of Caracas. Basically, this means they reside in the wealthy areas [there is a stark polarization of wealth in the country, far greater than that of north america], and are being marked as amongst the wealthy elite by Chavez supporters. No wonder.

First, I think Joseph K's analysis of the meaning of the word sector is correct, and that Rise's inference is improper. More importantly, however, having been to Caracas and having stayed in a few homes of CRA members, I can state with some authority that they live in pretty classically working class communities, poor but not destitute. My impression is that the CRA doesn't have much presence in the slums that line the hillsides of Caracas, but they also have no presence in the wealthy areas. Despite Rise's generalization about the "stark polarization of wealth in the country," Caracas in particular has a fairly complex set of economic strata, largely as a result of income generated over the decades by the oil industry, so that a significant portion of the city's population lives in neighborhoods that resemble the inner city of Chicago more than they resemble the favelas of Sao Paolo.

Of course, this minor factual question has little real bearing on the class analysis of the CRA, which I will be the first to admit is one of their weaknesses. Still, I couldn't let this silly attempt to smear them go unchallenged.

Solidarity,
Michael

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 16 2007 16:34
Jack wrote:
No one has it anymore I don't think. sad

SRB - serious question, is that based on a briefing from the WSM, or you just assume that anyone who posts on the internet and is critical of Platformists is a "do-nothing"?

No, just that guy. Based solely on his own 'so-above-it/been-there-done-that/can't-be-bothered' arguments in another thread. I don't mind principled criticism from anyone, but I don't have a lot of tolerance for talking head politicos and role play anarchists.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 16 2007 17:02
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Jack wrote:
No one has it anymore I don't think. sad

SRB - serious question, is that based on a briefing from the WSM, or you just assume that anyone who posts on the internet and is critical of Platformists is a "do-nothing"?

No, just that guy. Based solely on his own 'so-above-it/been-there-done-that/can't-be-bothered' arguments in another thread. I don't mind principled criticism from anyone, but I don't have a lot of tolerance for talking head politicos and role play anarchists.

I'm as pretty far from a role playing anarchist as you can get.

You're probably right about a certain "soo above it/been there/can't be bothered" attitude but it's something that's hard to resist when there is a lack of real struggle and in which anarchists seek to substitute this lack with leftist poupulism.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 16 2007 17:16
revol68 wrote:
nah i'm perfectly capable of working with people i have political disagreements but when it's around an actual proper struggle.

Maybe you or your international comrades in the WSM would like to give an example of how defending the IRA and calling for the end of partition was actually engaging with real working class concerns, or rather is it not a case of actually meeting other leftists and republicans where they are?

I also think there is something fundamentally patronising and dishonest in a tradition that believes:

Quote:
The only approach which can lead to a solution of the general organizational problem is, as we see it, the recruitment of anarchism's active militants on the basis of specific theoretic, tactical and organizational positions, which is to say on the basis of a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme .

claiming to meet people where they are, when actual fact it's just a typical simplistic mechanical leftist concept of consciousness raising.

Edit In a revisionist manoveure typical of the Platformist tradition Smash Rich Bastards has editted his earlier post and now I look like a loon. ;)

My bad. I sent it too quick and meant to write a bit more, but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort. Basically, whatever, generally I think your posts are entertaining. I just don't think you should have too much of an inflated ego about yourself or your positions when most of the people you debate on here see right through your 'online big idea man' front and can recognize a talking head for what it is.