An Assessment of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution at Twelve Years

[Peace Patriot]

An Assessment of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution at Twelve Years

By GREGORY WILPERT - VENEZUELANALYSIS.COM, February 2nd 2011

On the 12th anniversary of Chavez’s first oath of office as president of Venezuela on February 2, 1999, one can easily get the impression from the international mainstream media that Venezuela is trapped in a terminal spiral towards becoming a state socialist dictatorship. One reads about a failing economy, presidential authoritarianism, rampant crime and corruption, arbitrary nationalizations of companies, and persecution of the private media and of opposition leaders. If all of this is true, then why does President Chavez continue to enjoy widespread support within Venezuela, according to polls? True, recent electoral successes have been relatively narrow for Chavez, but he and his supporters continue to maintain the support of approximately half the country’s population.<1>(*see my note, below) More importantly, opinion polls regularly show that Venezuelans say their political system is more democratic and their economy is functioning better than the polities and economies of most other countries in the region.....how can it be explained that Chavez and his government continue to enjoy this much support when Venezuela is supposedly a nightmare of crime, repression, and a failing economy?

....there is substantial evidence that just the opposite is the case. Venezuela has made significant progress in the past 12 years of Chavez’s presidency towards creating a more egalitarian, inclusive, and participatory society. Indeed, these advances explain the government’s ongoing popularity. At the same time, though, one must recognize that there are significant shortcomings that have either persisted throughout Chavez’s presidency or in some cases are new. This helps to explain why the Chavez government’s popularity seems to have peaked with Chavez’s 2006 reelection (winning 62.8% of the vote in December of that year) and has gradually declined since.

--
(SNIP)
(Wilpert explains that he is going to discuss the elements of Chavez's popularity first, then discuss the Chavez government's shortcomings. The first element of success he discusses is the election system (an issue that I am very interested in, in itself, and by comparison to our broken system.)
--

Many of the political changes that have taken place in Venezuela in the past 12 years have involved an increase in political inclusion of previously excluded sectors of society. This has taken place in a wide variety of areas. For example, the percentage of the voting age population that is registered to vote rose from 79% in 1998 to 92% in 2010. Also, Voter participation in presidential elections increased from 65.5% in 1998 to 74.6% in 2006. The combination of increased participation rate and of increased registration means that the participation rate of the voting age population increased from 51% to 69% between 1998 and 2006.<2> Since most Venezuelans are poor and previously tended not to vote, most of the new voters come from poor backgrounds. Compare this to the United States, where in one of the highest turnouts in recent decades only 57.4% of the voting age population voted in 2008.<3>

Further bolstering Venezuela’s democratic credentials is the fact that as a result of the new 1999 constitution that was passed under Chavez, Venezuela instituted one of the most fraud-proof electoral systems in the world, with dual electronic and paper ballots – a system that has been praised by election observers from around the world.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971
(My emphasis)

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

(*) 54% Chavez approval, up 1.6% from last October, with 80% approval of Chavez on response to the catastrophic rains and flooding. See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x47805

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

This is the sort of analysis that I love at www.venezuelanalysis.com--sympathetic to the rise of democracy in Venezuela and in Latin America, and to the poor majority which has been so brutally excluded in the past, but critical of the Chavez government's short-comings, failures and blind spots, with the criticism aimed--NOT at "drowning government in the bathtub," NOT at promoting rightwing/corporate power, NOT at promulgating USAID-CIA "talking points," NOT at toppling an elected government--but aimed at IMPROVEMENT. Criticism with a positive intention. Criticism that can prompt reasonable, thoughtful discussion. The hysteria of the corpo-fascist press about Chavez--and of its promulgators here at DU--makes useful discussion nearly impossible. You have to keep educating people as to WHY the Chavez government has been so popular, WHY it has won so many clean elections and WHAT is really happening in Venezuela and the region, before you can ever get to how Venezuelan democracy, or our own, can be improved.

I will comment further, below, about other points that Wilpert makes.

[Bacchus39]

1. Wilpert is married to a Chavez official, Venezuela General Consul in NY

and previously other Chavez administration positions.

Venanalysis is a propaganda instrument of the Ven goverment.

[Peace Patriot]

3. You questioning any specific point? nt

[Bacchus39]

5. no, the whole article actually. what percentage of funding of Venanalysis is from the Ven gov?

I'd be curious to know

[social_critic]

10. Why this government financed propaganda doesn't really work:

This propaganda is prepared by individuals who are paid for by the Venezuelans. They are all part of Eva Golinger's agitprop network. It's set up to convince leftists abroad Chavez is a nice guy.

It bothers people in Venezuela is to see money go to polish Chavez' reputation abroad, at the same time they are going without medical care or have housing needs, etc. But the reality is much worse than the rosy picture these guys try so desperately to paint. There are huge gaps everywhere, and the government is just too corrupt and incompetent to do much about it.

For example, Chavez is trying to get the housing crisis solved by asking for expert help from places such as Iran:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/147514.html

Or Belarus:

http://news.belta.by/en/news/econom?id=610100

These are countries well known for their efficiency in the construction business (smirk), and they do have the right political climate, being ruled by tyrants who are "democratically elected" in rigged elections. This is one reason why Chavez has become so unpopular - people see these crap agreements being made, which provide jobs for foreigners, and leave Venezuelans unemployed.

The health system is also in poor shape, and this makes people wish for change. The majority has had enough of Chavez:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/08/venezuelas-collapsing-health-care-system/

He tries to make up for it with bs and cash handouts, but the money is running out as the economy continues to collapse.

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=382910&CategoryId=10717

[Peace Patriot]

2. Advances in political rights and participation

...the indigenous population now enjoys many new rights, such as the right to their own languages, cultures, and territories, as well as three guaranteed representatives in the National Assembly.

...women are now explicitly included in every aspect of the 1999 constitution and housework is supposed to be considered as wage-earning work for the purpose of calculating pension benefits (but not implemented yet)

...women and indigenous peoples are given affirmative action opportunities for loans, land reform, and access to social programs such as public education and poverty alleviation.

...the right of citizens to initiate referenda to recall any elected official, to approve of laws, and to repeal laws.

...community self-organization, via citizen assemblies, which since 2006 have resulted in the creation of more than 30,000 communal councils and dozens of agglomerations of community councils...(to create) community improvement projects for which they receive substantial funding from the government.

...civil society participation ... in the nomination of members to three independent branches of government (judiciary, prosecutorial, and electoral branches).

...ordinary Venezuelans now participate in the creation of hundreds of new and independent community radio and television stations across the country. Previous governments persecuted community media, but state institutions now actively support them - not with ongoing financing, but with training and start-up equipment.

(all this had led to...)

--greater acceptance of Venezuela’s democratic political system, according to the annual Latinobarometro opinion polls....more Venezuelans believe in democracy than citizens of any other country in Latin America (84%--while the average in the region is 61%)

--Forty-nine percent of Venezuelans says that they are satisfied with their democracy, which is 5 points above the regional average of 44% and 14 points higher than it was in 1998

---only 25% of Venezuelans say that the president controls the mass media, which is 4 points lower than the regional average of 29%.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971
(all quoted from Wilpert's analysis, a footnoted study; my emphasis in the above quotations)

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

I am particularly struck (as you can tell) by the fact that only 25% of Venezuelans believe that Chavez "controls the mass media." Don't they read the Associated Pukes, the Miami Hairball, the New York Slimes, Rotters, the Wall Street Urinal, et al? Guess not. Guess most Venezuelans make up their own minds about things. They can SEE every day, on their TV, that Chavez does NOT "control" the media. Only the far rightwing nutballs (25%) believe this, and they showed their hand, in their 2002 coup attempt when they suspended the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights, and their favorite broadcaster, RCTV, forbade any member of the Chavez government from appearing on TV during the coup. The far right "sees red" when ANYBODY gets air time whom they don't agree with. When they see Chavez speaking to a 5% audience share in his weekly TV show, it fills their minds completely, it balloons out and takes the place of reality. They can't see anything else. This little bit of government news becomes "Chavez 'controls' the media." They must stop it. Like the corporate media moguls, here and there, they want "free speech" ONLY for THEMSELVES.

And THAT view--that Chavez should never be on TV, that the Left should have NO say at all--that crazy, tyrannical view--is reflected in virtually every corporate 'news' outlook in the U.S. and the western world. The government not putting up with a corporate TV coup d'etat, and trying to make a little space for other viewpoints, is portrayed as "dictatorship" and anti-free speech, when it is actually the opposite. The Chavez government has ENHANCED free speech!

I also want to comment on the government's support of community radio stations, ending the prior governments' policy of persecuting community radio stations and providing citizens with technical assistance and training. I'm a beneficiary of local community radio where I live. It is so totally wonderful and so ESSENTIAL to democracy to have local news, presented by local people, an avenue of mass media with which to strengthen local communities (promote all our community activities, etc.), an open forum for political opinion, access to alternative news/opinion from around the country and the world, access to local knowledge and expertise, and promotion of and access to locally chosen music! It should be considered an essential public service, like the fire department, to have local community radio. Of all the things that the Chavez government has done to improve democracy, THIS is one of the best, topped only by transparent elections.

And THIS is why 75% of Venezuelans know that it is crap that Chavez "controls the media"--besides the plain evidence on TV. In THEIR communities, THEY control one part of the media--which previous governments didn't allow them to do.

One other aspect of local community radio that I've read about--the Chavez government promotes the creation of Venezuelan music--rather than the canned music from abroad (corporate music). They have helped recover the careers of older Venezuelan musicians and older musical styles and instruments and are promoting new ones. Venezuelan and local community arts are now important, while everything used to be imported and imitative. This, too, is vital to democracy--encouraging creativity and empowering people and helping to free the culture from DICTATION by corporations. Think about this the next time you go into a shopping mall with its canned music. How many local musicians have been put out of work? How many local creations have been suppressed? How impoverished has your cultural enjoyment become, when it could have been enriched and diversified?

[social_critic]

11. The indigenous population is opposed to Chavez

During the last elections, Amazonas state, which is largely indigenous, voted for the opposition - all their national assembly representatives are anti-Chavez.

[bitchkitty]

22. It was a very narrow defeat.

But I'm quite sure that you already know that.

[social_critic]

25. yes it was, very narrow indeed

But the Chavez regime did get defeated. And they did deny the people the right to enjoy their victory, because the National Assembly's power to legislate was gutted by the so called "enabling law".

I believe that, as the economy continues to go down the tubes, and crime continues to rise, the Chavistas will find it more and more difficult to get more than say 40-45 % support. And when you consider the opposition is heavily middle class, educated, and the people who contribute the most to society, then the picture looks very murky indeed for the Chavistas.

I don't think Chavez will give up power. Like Lina Ron said recently, if Chavez loses the elections they'll throw lead. So for the intelligent and the middle class, this has become more of an issue of how to leave Venezuela with as much as possible, and abandon the country to the Chavistas, who will ruin it until they're left like a bunch of cavemen screaming in the dark. I don't think Venezuela can be saved.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Democratizing the economy

The conclusion of this section of the Wilpert analysis states that:

"...more Venezuelans are satisfied with Venezuela’s economy—despite two years of recession (2009 and 2010)—than most Latin Americans are of their respective economies. That is, in 2010, 38% of Venezuelans said they are satisfied with their economy, while the Latin American average is 30%.<11>

------

And I want to add (since Wilpert doesn't mention it) that Venezuela was just designated "THE most equal country in Latin America," on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. This success has been comprised of the following elements (from Wilpert):

------

...(by) increasing state control over the economy and by dismantling neo-liberalism in Venezuela.

...regained state control over the previously quasi-independent national oil industry.

...partially nationalized transnational oil company operations so that they control no more than 40% of any given oil production site.

...the government increased royalties from oil production from as low as 1% to a minimum of 33%.

...nationalized key (previously privatized) industries, such as: steel production (Sidor), telecommunications (Cantv), electricity distribution (production was already in state hands), cement production (Cemex), banking (Banco de Venezuela), and food distribution (Éxito).

...promoting workplace democracy.

...creation of more than 100,000 cooperatives with low-interest loans and free training (a 100-fold increase from pre-Chavez days).

...where factories were idle the government has allowed former workers to take them over so that dozens of worker co-managed factories were created.

...rural land reform has benefited more than a million Venezuelans, not just with tracts of land, but also with training, credits, technology, and access to markets.

--

(these and other measures have resulted in...)

--

--a 50% drop in the poverty rate (1998-2009)

--the extreme poverty rate dropped more than two-thirds

--dramatic drop in unemployment, which fell by nearly half, from 14.5% in early 1999 to around 7% in late 2010

--“Gini coefficient,” dropped from 0.49 in 1998 to 0.39 in 2010,<10> one of the lowest levels in Latin America.*

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971
(These are all Wilpert's points; my emphasis)


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

The significance of the big increase in Venezuela's share of the oil profits--which the Chavez government negotiated with the multinationals--from a low of only 1% to at least 33%, is that this government revenue is mostly devoted to social programs--education, health care, etc. This is one of the main reasons that the Chavez government is so hated by our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers. They want all those profits for themselves and their rich investors. Venezuela's rightwing oil elite used to be able to rake some off the top for themselves, while giving the rest away and utterly neglecting the development of their own country, living in rich enclaves in Caracas, importing luxury goods--even importing machine parts for the oil industry, rather than creating local jobs--and simply ignoring the massive poverty around them.

The Chavez government's turnaround of these policies and their dramatic effect as to alleviating poverty was achieved despite the attempted coup d'etat in 2002, a crippling oil bosses' lockout in 2003, a USAID-funded recall election in 2004 (which Chavez won handily), and more U.S./rightwing plots, dirty tricks and non-stop badmouthing to this day. You don't cross Exxon Mobil and get away without bruises.

Venezuela took a hit from the Bush Junta-induced worldwide Depression, like just about every other country in the western world, but, according to another study, 67.8%** of Venezuelans believe that the economy is going to improve this year. They went into the Bankster Meltdown in a strong position, after 5 straight years of sizzling (10%) growth and vast reductions in poverty, all due to Chavez government policies. They are optimistic--VERY optimistic--compared to our people and most of the western world, because they know their government is with them, and for them, and not with and for the super-rich.

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

*The Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution, a value of 0 expressing total equality and a value of 1 maximal inequality. It has found application in the study of inequalities in disciplines as diverse as economics, health science, ecology, chemistry and engineering. // It is commonly used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth.<3> Worldwide, Gini coefficients for income range from approximately 0.23 (Sweden) to 0.70 (Namibia) although not every country has been assessed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

--

**http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x47805

[social_critic]

12. The economy has not been democratized

The government has been working hard to eliminate independent unions. Earning power is lower due to high inflation. Those comunes you like to talk about don't produce anything. Nationalized industries produce a lot less or have been shut down. This is why cement, steel, and oil production are a lot lower.

You put a lot of emphasis on the poor - but Venezuela has a very large middle class. And the government has made it clear they hate the middle class. Which is the reason why the middle class is fleeing in large numbers. And this means intelligent educated people are not around in the numbers needed to run a modern country (which Venezuela used to be). Everything is breaking down, and misery is increasing. I wouldn't call this democratizing the economy.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Social/Educational improvements

From the Wilpert report...

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

...the government has almost tripled the rate of university attendance... 50% increase in the enrollment rate in primary education ...and increased by 30% the percentage of GDP dedicated to education....

...universal health coverage

...a drop in the infant mortality rate from 19.0 per 1,000 live births in 1999 to 13.9 per 1,000 in 2008

...1.5 year increase in Venezuelans’ life expectancy

...doubling of resources dedicated to social security (pensions)...increased from 20.3% of those over 60 years old in the year 2000, to 43.3% in 2009.

Venezuelans report to have an exceptionally high level of general well-being... 84% of Venezuelans say that they are satisfied with life, which is the second highest level in Latin America and well above the average of 71% for all of Latin America.

Venezuela’s Human Development Index (HDI)... (social indicators)...increased from 0.78 in 1998 to 0.84 in 2008 (the world’s HDI hardly changed at all during this time).<19>

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971
(all quoted from Wilpert; my emphasis)

[social_critic]

13. Some of these numbers are signs of a poorly managed system

For example, you say university education has tripled. But the quality in those "universities" is terrible. It makes more sense to improve education at the primary and secondary level, rather than blow illiterates through the system, put them in college, and end up educating illiterates to do nothing useful.

The doubling of resources dedicated to social security is another example of populism and demamoguery run amok. The retirement age is too early, and the supposed payoffs are too high. Lucky for them, the inflation is running at 30 % so they can take corrective measures by not increasing the social security payments with the cost of living. But this means people are making plans to retire, and retiring, and they will be facing starvation later.

I don't know where you get this satisfaction level figure. All the data I see shows people are very disastisfied with the government, they are very scared because of crime, they think the government is behaving erratically, they see corruption as a huge problem, and the more prevalent mood is depression and fear. I guess you must be discussing Venezuela in an alternate reality.

1984.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Venezeula's International Relations

Venezeula's International Relations

Wilpert's report contains a succinct summary of the goals of the Chavez government's foreign policy. I have never read a better summary. It contains three main points....

1. The Chavez government... seeks to create a “multi-polar” world, in which there are no superpowers that would dominate global politics, as is currently the case. Such a multi-polar world would allow for a better balance of national and regional interests and would create a more level playing field in international affairs.

2. The Chavez government has focused on regional Latin American and Caribbean integration. Regional integration not only supports the effort to create a multi-polar world, but it is also based on the recognition that Third World countries will have a better chance for economic and political development if they join forces and integrate regionally instead of competing against each other or individually against countries of the North.

3. Chavez has embedded these foreign policy objectives firmly within an anti-imperialist framework that tries to challenge U.S. hegemony at every turn, whether with regard to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, or efforts to impose neo-liberalism via the World Bank and IMF.

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

Particulars...

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

...creation of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which brings together all of South America’s nations in a new political and economic project, with a view towards creating a South American currency, among other things. While this is a joint project of all South American nations, Venezuela has been one of its main promoters.

...launched a different kind of integration project, the Bolivarian Alliance for our Americas (ALBA), to which Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda belong. This regional alliance establishes new forms of trade relations that are based on solidarity and fair exchange instead of on free trade.

...creation of PetroCaribe, through which Venezuela provides oil and technical support to Caribbean nations at generous financing rates, so that they are less exposed to the ups and downs of the world price of oil and less dependent on transnational oil companies.

...a program that offers free eye operations to the poor in all countries of the Americas (including the U.S.), with the help of Cuban doctors. (and)...the U.S. Heating Oil Program, which provides heavily discounted heating oil to poor communities and particularly to Native American communities throughout the U.S., via Venezuela’s U.S.-based oil company Citgo.

-----------

Wilpert concludes this section with....

----------

(Venezuela) has made significant advances in reversing and alleviating the negative effects of capitalism, via greater political inclusion and participation, greater social justice and economic democracy, and by promoting a foreign policy that emphasizes South-South cooperation and integration against U.S. hegemony.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971

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

I approve of all of these goals. Latin America will never end massive poverty and reach its potential as a region if it continues to allow U.S. and other "first world" corporations to ravage its resources, grossly exploit its workers and undermine, sabotage and destroy its democratic governments. It must go its own way, according to the will of its people.

I'm convinced that that is what Chavez is doing. It is the will of the people of Venezuela to assert their sovereignty, protect and improve their democracy, use their oil and other resources for their own betterment and the good of the region, support labor rights, work cooperatively with other Latin American countries in particular for mutual benefit and strength and create their own independent foreign policy in the world, apart from U.S. corporate/war profiteer dictates. I believe that most Latin Americans share these goals and that their ability to elect leaders who are pursuing them is a momentous and historic development.

Venezuela has one of the best election systems in the world, and if Chavez is going somewhere the people don't want him to go, they can remove him by recall or in the next election.

I will comment further on this section--international relations--later. First, Wilpert's criticisms....

[Peace Patriot]

8. Wlpert's criticisms of the Chavez government (they are stinging)

I'm going to quote Wilpert's criticisms of the Chavez government almost in their entirety. Mods, this is a Creative Commons document, which can be quoted in full with attribution.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971

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

Political

In Venezuela the judiciary system continues to be a politicized institution, despite various efforts to reform it and the creation of an independent prosecutorial branch of government, which includes the Attorney General’s office, the Comptroller General’s office, and the Human Rights Ombudsperson’s office. This politicized judicial system has led to some questionable prosecutions of opposition spokespeople. It is this politicized judiciary, which is independent of the executive, but is strongly influenced by its pro-Chavez outlook, that has often led to accusations that Venezuela violates human rights. This pro-Chavez slant within the judiciary would almost definitely not have been as pronounced, though, had the opposition not boycotted the 2005 National Assembly elections, as they then might have had a chance to prevent the appointment of an almost entirely pro-Chavez Supreme Court.

Another key shortcoming in the political realm is the persistence of an inefficient public administration that tends to be extremely bureaucratic and has become more so over the past few years. This inefficiency gives rise to many opportunities for low-level corruption, where officials offer to solve bureaucratic problems for a bribe. More than that, the bureaucracy also stifles the government’s efforts to create a participatory democracy (more on that later).

Social

According the accounts of most ordinary Venezuelans, crime has surged in the past few years, making it the most serious problem Venezuelans face. Latinobarometro, for example, reports that 64% of Venezuelans say that crime is the country’s most serious problem. This is the region’s highest percentage of people who say that crime is the country’s main problem and more than double the Latin American average of 27%.<21> Oddly, even though the perception of crime is extremely high in Venezuela, the incidence of crime appears to be lower than the Latin American average, with only 26% of Venezuelans reporting to have been a victim or have a family member who was a victim in the previous 12 months. This is 5 points lower than the Latin American average and is by far the greatest gap between incidence and perception.<22>

The second most important social shortcoming in Venezuela is perhaps the persistent housing crisis. Venezuela’s housing shortage is reported to have doubled, increasing from 1 million to 2 million homes in the past 12 years. While the Chavez government has dedicated many resources to this problem, including nationalizing the cement industry and producing cheap PVC plastic housing materials to help resolve it, the state housing sector has not been able to alleviate this problem due its chronic inefficiency.

International

In its pursuit to create a multi-polar world and to support South-South cooperation against U.S. hegemony, the Chavez government has established extremely close relations with numerous authoritarian governments around the world. This, by itself, is generally legitimate if it serves Venezuela’s national interests. However, in the process of establishing exceptionally close ties with these countries, Chavez has given legitimacy and personal support to the authoritarian rulers of Iran, Belarus, China, Zimbabwe, and Syria, among others. Such strong personal ties not only affect Chavez’s personal credibility in the human rights arena, but also make the struggles of the oppressed in these countries more difficult.
While the Chavez government’s advances are far more significant than the shortcomings, both in terms of quantity and of quality, it is important to be aware of the shortcomings if one is to have a full understanding of what is happening in Venezuela today. An analysis of the reasons these shortcomings persist will further deepen this understanding.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5971
(Creative Commons license. My emphasis.)

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

I'm going to comment further in a moment. I want to read Wilpert's last section, discussing obstacles to solving these problems, to get a full understanding of the problems. And he has 22 footnotes that I want to peruse.

I think that Bacchus's accusation that this is a production of the Chavez government is laughable in view of these blistering criticisms. The CIA and Venezuela's "rightwing opposition" and Rupbert Murdock couldn't have done better. The difference may be that Wilpert believes in democracy and wants it work right and they don't.

[social_critic]

9. Pro-government propaganda

The crime rate is a serious problem, Caracas has the highest crime rate for a capital city in the whole world. Inflation is 30 %, GDP is dropping, unemployment is going up, the infrastructure is crumbling, nationalizations are indeed arbitrary, lawless, and execrable. Most Human Rights NGOs have a negative opinion about human rights in Venezuela. The health system is deteriorating rapidly. Chavez is rapidly becoming a petty tyrant.

The election results showed his party lost it 48 % to 52 %.

They can pay Wilpert to put this bs together. And maybe the Chavista groupies here will cheer and enjoy their pablum. But reality bites. All I got to say is: Mubarak.

[Peace Patriot]

14. "Obstacles/Reasons for the persistence of problems" (Wilpert)

Well, the main obstacle to solving the listed problems, according to Wilpert, in this section, is Chavez himself--or rather dependence of Venezuela's leftist movement on Chavez's leadership and the top down style of that leadership, as opposed to its stated ideal of participatory democracy.

After reading this section, I have the feeling that Wilpert does NOT want Chavez to run for a third term (although he doesn't say so).

This, too, makes Bacchus'/social_critic's implication that this is a Venezuelan government propaganda document absurd.

It is a fact-based, well-reasoned analysis of the Bolivarian Revolution, 12 years on. I don't agree with some of the criticisms, nor with the overall impression of the criticism section--that Chavez's leadership is the chief obstacle to further reform and progress--but I respect the critic and I don't think he's lying to me, which I feel is the case with ALL of what I read in the corpo-fascist press and from the U.S. State Department, from Venezuela's USAID-tutored "rightwing opposition" and from their echo chamber here at DU.

If Wilpert says the Chavez government is too top-down, the bureaucracy is rotten, the judiciary is too pro-Chavez and the economic recovery was retarded by the government, I have to pay attention. I have read contrary opinions and I have my own opinions on many of these matters, so I will have to sort it out--think, analyze, reason, research, reconsider, and revise or reconfirm my views. I am not a kneejerk thinker. I constantly think about everything, in broad contexts and in particular contexts. I will do this in further posts, below.

[social_critic]

17. It's not fact based, it's biased, it picks off data

He may criticize Chavez in it. But heck, like you say, he doesn't call for the guy to stop running. So t me he's a paid lackey of imperialism - anybody who knows the score would want Chavez not to run so the country can return to a semblance of normalcy. What these guys want is for Chavez to stay, ruin the country, so Castro falls. Sharp operators they are.

We've been telling you the government is too top down. It's a shame you don't watch Alo Presidente to see how it's done, what he says, and the scurrying around of obsequious courtesans as he either puts the blame on them or gives them orders.

The bureaucracy is corrupt. But this is not something he'll be able to do anything about. Highly regulated regimes in which the court system doesn't work (meaning there's no independent judiciary one can go to and complain about a bureaucrat's petty abuse) usually have a lot of corruption. This is why the Chinese haul a few guys every month and shoot them for corruption. And why corruption is still endemic in China and the working class is restless.

The judiciary is too pro Chavez because judges don't have much of a chance. After Judge Afiuni was ordered put in jail by Chavez on national TV for obeying a UN body declaration (which happened to be the right thing to do), no judge will make any decision unless it involves doing what they think is going to please Herr Fuerher. And this is why some people here get tried several times - until the judge du jour decides to throw the poor sucker in a dungeon for life. Hell, the jail system is dantesque, there are riots by inmates all the times, they get shot by the dozen, and of course there are no investigations. Attica? Venezuela sees Attica once a month.

Economic recovery retarded by the government? Venezuelans might as well bend over and kiss their behinds goodbye, economic recovery just isn't possible. I wrote you a piece about who is in charge of the Venezuelan oil industry. You told me it went over your head. Well, I suggest you try to read it again, because the oil industry is live or die here.

I think anybody who understands foreign exchange moves realizes what these guys have been doing with the currency exchange controls has been abominable, it promotes corruption, and it is like driving a knife into the economy's liver. Hell, oil prices are $100 a barrel and this country has NEGATIVE growth AND 30 % inflation? What do you think Chavez needs to pull out of the nose dive? $120 a barrel? Why do you think I keep telling you he shouldn't be giving money away? The country's going broke - the government is to blame for it.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Wilpert on Chavez/ international relations

First, I want to address Wilpert's comments on the Chavez government's international relations because it is perhaps the issue on which I most disagree with Wilpert.

Wilpert criticizes Chavez for his association with authoritarian foreign leaders. I don't agree with this objection to Chavez. FDR had Stalin as an ally, for instance. Nixon visited Russia and China, breaking two decades of dangerous isolation (one of the few things I agreed with Nixon about). And the list of scumbags that our presidents hang out with is appalling (not to mention some of the presidents themselves being appalling scumbags and fascists).

I therefore offer this alternative view (my view) in opposition to this particular Wilpert criticism:

1. It is the SOVEREIGN right of elected leaders (if they are actually elected) to attend to the interests of the country they represent amongst people whom you wouldn't invite into your home. And until this international system changes dramatically, that will continue to be the case. Chavez may dally with Iran's president but he also dallies with Lula da Silva and Evo Morales. He is doing what he thinks best. I can't fault him for that. And Lula da Silva (Brazil) ALSO invited Iran's president to his country.


2. I don't agree with U.S. policy on Iran. I think it's warlike and counter-productive, and I am GLAD that Chavez and de Silva have taken their own path on this matter.

Iran is far less heinous than the U.S. on human rights. Who has Iran invaded? And, who slaughtered a hundred thousand innocent people in the first weeks of bombing alone, in Iraq, to steal their oil? It is the U.S. who should be sanctioned by the UN for what we did in Iraq, what we are doing in Afghanistan and for blatantly violating laws against torture. And in all relations with all countries, it is best to MAKE PEACE. Accusations of human rights violations are used to make war. We just saw it happen--callously coldly slaughtering a million people, all told, and smashing their country to bits, on the excuse that their LEADER violated human rights. The hypocrisy is staggering. And what has Iran done to deserve being isolated and targeted for war?


3. Who is to say that Chavez and da Silva helping to de-isolate Iran won't have a positive effect--reduce their fear, lessen the chance of their taking pre-emptive action to defend themselves, provide a little bulwark against paranoia, create openings for cultural exchange with a western democracy? It's called diplomacy. Nixon did it. Carter did it. Why not Chavez and da Silva? They are supposed to stay out of world affairs why? Are their countries not affected--even gravely affected--by world affairs?


4. I would apply this diplomacy suggestion to all the "authoritarian" foreign leaders that Wilpert mentions. Diplomacy should be aimed at preventing war, not starting it. There is almost nothing worse than war, for any people. Millions die. The social fabric is utterly torn asunder. Virtually no alleviation of human rights violations or other suffering is worth it. The remedy is worse than the problem, in almost all cases. Peace first; peace to the nth degree, before war. Don't provoke war. Don't instigate it. Don't push people to it. Don't romanticize it. Don't DO it, unless you absolutely, totally must, and there is no other option. The U.S. attitude toward Iran is very like its attitude toward Cuba-- wrong, unfair, hypocritical and dangerous. Chavez and da Silva have shown a better way.


5. It is perhaps the best outcome of WW II that the whole world acknowledged the necessity of the world's countries to work cooperatively to prevent war and, of course, this means also to prevent or mitigate unfairness--because unfairness (and greed) lead to grievances that lead to war. This worldwide recognition and effort to prevent war and to prevent or mitigate unfairness was formalized in the United Nations and many treaties.

The U.S. hasn't taken this seriously, of late (and elements within the U.S. never did), but Chavez and his government ARE taking it seriously, and they are not alone. This is the general thrust of the entire leftist democracy movement in Latin America--not just in Venezuela, but in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala--where leftist governments have been elected--and in the leftist movements in countries currently suffering under U.S.-supported rightwing rule (such as Mexico, Colombia and Honduras).

It is the general desire of the region, on a massive basis, to prevent/mitigate unfairness and to prevent war, both in individual countries' foreign and domestic policies and in their collective efforts. This is why BOTH Venezuela and Brazil invited Iran's president to their countries and opened trade relations with them. They have no ulterior motive (such as stealing Iran's oil) to NOT try every effort at peace. Venezuela and other countries have the sovereign right to make that judgment, and it is a very positive thing that they are asserting their right to do so.


6. A policy of cutting off diplomatic relations with, or "sanctioning," a country because of its government's human rights violations is generally counter-productive (produces the opposite result--more human rights violations)--if not downright idiotic--and the egregious hypocrisy of it, as a U.S. policy, is demonstrated every day, in its friendly relations with China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Colombia, Honduras, Egypt and numerous other serious human rights violators, while "sanctioning" Cuba or Iran (or, as foaming-at-the-mouth fascist, Connie Mack, now wants to do, Venezuela).

Very unfortunately, the U.S.--with its upper class/corporate wealth and war machine--has largely converted the collective efforts of the UN toward peace and the mitigation of unfairness, into U.S. upper class wealth enhancement and a weapons proliferation bazaar. Countries that commit truly grave human rights violations get off scot free, and get billions of dollars in U.S. military aid, if they are U.S. corporate trade partners--and the U.S. itself never gets sanctioned--while countries that commit relatively minor human rights violations get scorchingly criticized and severely punished.

The "third world" needs to, and has sometimes tried to, rise up against this U.S. tyranny and great imbalance. Latin America's new resistance, pioneered by the Chavez government, is a very positive development, in this regard, and if they make political mistakes in the course of it (for instance, friendliness with Mugabe) these need to be criticized but PUT IN PERSPECTIVE--in the overall effort to assert Latin Americans' sovereign right to their own foreign policy.
I've seen rightwing DU posts that basically equate Chavez with Mugabe--that say that Chavez is becoming Mugabe. This is absurdly wrong. There is absolutely nothing to support this--no fact, no action, nothing.

And do the same rightwing parties condemn U.S. friendliness with the slaughter of thousands of trade unionists and others in Colombia, or the U.S. horrors in Iraq? Never. Mugabe may be a murderous, corrupt shit-head. This does not make Chavez a murderous, corrupt shit-head. He is NOT. And he is not even close to being and he never will be--no matter how much FDR-like power he exerts on behalf of Venezuela's poor majority.

THAT is the appropriate comparison--FDR. THAT is what the facts support. Did FDR's alliance with Stalin turn FDR into a savage represser of his own people? It did not. Chavez is wholly committed to lawful, constitutional government, peace, democracy and social justice--just as FDR was--and he has not done a single thing, during 12 years of ELECTED power, that says otherwise.

This sort of "Mad Tea Party" crap, which exaggerates a political mistake into a murderous dictatorship is reflected throughout the corpo-fascist press, and it is a deliberate and malicious distortion of reality. And, frankly, I fault Wilpert for promoting it in any way.


7. Finally, I think Wilpert is reacting to Chavez being criticized for these diplomatic contacts rather than presenting any reasonable objection to these contacts. This is the weakest point in his article. Why object to these contacts? Because the U.S. says so? Why does the biggest warmonger and inflicter of suffering in the world have any right to tell others what to do? (--which is one of Chavez's--and da Silva's--points, I believe.)

Should Chavez shun such foreign diplomatic contacts because they add fodder to an entirely negative, biased anti-Chavez press? This is the only objection that makes any sense--that Chavez's relations with Iran, etc., are politically unwise in a hostile, anti-Chavez media environment. But Wilpert wasn't elected to make that judgment. Chavez was. If Chavez wants to take the heat for it, and thinks peace is worth that price, he and he alone has the right to make that judgment for Venezuela (and, not unimportantly, in collaboration with Brazil).

[Judi Lynn]

16. Really thought Wilpert was clearer headed than this. Very surprising.

Thank you for thoughtfully mentioning your ideas on his unexpected statements.

Will have to see which way he's headed. Hope he's not being coerced for one reason or another. He has invested too much of his time and effort to suddenly start disintergrating! Blackmail? You never know.

Maybe he wasn't as strong as we assumed, to start with, or as bright.

FDR had some insane right-wing enemies in the U.S. who passed their flawed grasp of him on to their own progeny. No matter how much the current right-wingers rage against him and his amazing impact on U.S. history, he maintains his place as one of greatest U.S. presidents, if not THE greatest, in the entire span of history of the U.S. government.

[social_critic]

18. I'm sure he's being coerced.

I sent my mini me to visit him, and the little thing is sitting on his lap holding a little sign that says: "Stop fibbing".

[Peace Patriot]

19. More on Chavez and international relations

The point that Chavez is making--about a multi-lateral world, a level playing field and no super-powers dictating to everyone else--is vitally important to world peace. Its corollaries are social justice and preservation and restoration of our planetary habitat.

Why/how do "dictatorships" or authoritarian/repressive governments arise? Well, I will tell you, I think that the No. 1 cause of them is the USA and the overweaning power of its transglobal corporations and war machine, and its devious as well as overt actions in the world that undermine and sabotage democracy and impoverish millions of people.
I will cite just one example, from long ago, and one recent example--but there are many to point to:

IRAN

Mid-1950s, the U.S. and the U.K. destroyed Iran's democracy at its inception, because the president whom Iranians elected wanted to nationalize the oil. Then they inflicted the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and repression under the horrible Shah of Iran. This led to the revolution against the Shah (a peaceful revolution) and the Ayatollah's return. Why is Iran--one of the potentially most progressive countries in the Middle East--run by religious fundamentalists and anti-U.S.? Because we grossly interfered!

COLOMBIA/HONDURAS

The U.S. has larded $7 BILLION in military aid on Colombia, which has one of the worst human rights records on earth--a dreadful human rights record that has been actively supported by U.S. tax dollars. While the U.S. hypocritically mouths criticisms of Colombia's human rights violations, it never stops giving them money--billions!

According the Amnesty International, most (92%) of the murders of trade unionists in Colombia have been committed by the Colombian military itself (about half) and by its closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads (the other half). And thousands of others have been murdered as well--community activists, teachers, human rights workers, journalists, political leftists, peasant farmers. In addition, five MILLION peasant farmers have been displaced from their lands, by state terror.

This is happening NOW, present tense, and has been going on for a decade, in preparation for U.S. 'free trade for the rich.' It IS the preparation--decapitating the labor and other leftist (majorityist) leadership in the country and terrifying the survivors.

Not only this, but the U.S. has now actively prevented the prosecution of the main perps in Colombia, by the sneaky extradition of death squad witnesses to the U.S.--out of the reach of Colombian prosecutors and over their objections--and the burial of these witnesses in the U.S. federal prison system, by completely sealing their cases in U.S. federal court in Washington DC. The U.S. has furthermore facilitated the flight and asylum in another client state (Panama) of witnesses against U.S. puppet and former 'president' of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.

This kind of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since the reign of terror of the Shah of Iran. It is the same M.O. in service to U.S. corporate interests. And the types of corporate entities that it has served--big oil companies and other transglobal operators, and war profiteers--have now turned against us, the people of the U.S., who allowed these monsters to be spawned here and launched from our shores (Exxon Mobil, Blackwater, Dyncorp, Monsanto, et al) or merged/conglomerated here (BP, Murdock, et al). They are now ravaging our shores with vast pollution and they and their allied banksters are looting and plundering us without mercy.

On top of all this, the U.S. has now taken down Honduras' democracy. And you know what one of the Honduran coup generals said (whom the U.S. never stopped giving our money to)? He said that their coup was "to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States" (--quoted in a report by Zelaya's government-in-exile). This, after the worst ravages imaginable against the Honduran people and their neighbors, by U.S.-funded death squads, back during the Reagan reign of terror in Latin America.

This has NOTHING to do with "communism." It has to do with DEMOCRACY. It is democracy that is not allowed--wherever U.S. corporate interests are at issue and the U.S. can get a boot in the door, with the U.S. "war on drugs" or by whatever mechanism (--or have a boot in the door here, because their corporate charters are granted in Delaware or Texas or some other state, and their executives and some of their big investors speak English and claim to be Americans). (If anybody's citizenship should be questioned, it's that of multinational corporate executives who have not one iota of loyalty to the people of the U.S., yet run our government.)

The MAIN reason that Honduran democracy was taken down is that its president, Mel Zelaya, had arranged for Honduras to join ALBA, the Venezuela-Cuba initiated barter trade group for small countries in the Central America/Caribbean region. Honduras DARE NOT freely trade with other countries, on its own terms, and associate with other countries in its own interests! The U.S. forbids it! One of the other reasons was that Zelaya had raised the minimum wage, in opposition to U.S. corporate interests. This is what the Honduran general meant by "communism"--fairness, sovereignty, freedom of association, democracy!

Now, I have no illusions about China, or Russia, or a number of other actual or potential threats to world peace, including Arab terrorists. I don't want THEM disturbing world peace, violating human rights or looting everybody EITHER. I am focusing the U.S. because I live here, was born here, have voted here all my life, and have seen it from the inside, as our people's rights--including even our right to vote (with the cancerous spread of the corporatized 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines)--have been taken away, our "commons" looted and destroyed (our schools, our infrastructure, our local governments), and our desire for a fair and peaceful world continually ignored and violated.

I don't know how to solve the problems in China, or Russia, or in Arab countries. I don't understand their problems very well, and it's not up to me to solve them. But one thing I do know, from hard experience here, is that creating an armed fortress to protect the interests of the rich, is not the answer--and it is hellishly dangerous. Driving other countries into self-protective reaction, whereby their resources are drained by vast expenditures on armaments, is the worst foreign policy imaginable.

Our current "world order"--which U.S. corporate interests and war profiteers have largely created-- is so like the pre-WW I period--which resulted in that vast, senseless conflagration--as to send shudders down my spine. Only now there is no confining the collateral damage of major war. It will drift in the clouds to all of us. It will inflict the final blow on the earth itself and all of its life.

This is NOT the answer. It is THE problem--faced by everyone, including those of us here in the U.S. who are being looted to pay for it.

The development of Latin American foreign policy aimed at multi-lateral power, a level playing field and the curtailment of super-powers is one of the few rays of light on the current world scene. Chavez, his government and the Venezuelan people have been especially courageous and far-thinking in pioneering these ideas, and deserve great praise for doing so.

Maybe the "mice" will "bell the cat"--not just the U.S. "cat" but other potential predators--that is, maybe all the "little countries" of the world will at last pull together and collectively provide a counter-balance, which could, in turn, encourage the U.S. to return to a democratic path (as it entered upon with the "New Deal" in the 1930s, and seemed to be aimed at, in the immediate post-WW II period), and, if this happens, it might well help change things for the better in countries that aspire to be super-powers (China, Russia) or that feel they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves (Iran, Israel) or countries where egomania, paranoia and corruption rule (Zimbabwe), and so on.

Has "U.S., the Superpower" led to a just world, a peaceful world? It has not. It has led to a tinderbox world, with vast injustice simmering everywhere, including here. That hope is gone, that the U.S. would create a U.S. "Pax Romana" to advance human civilization. Greed took over. The Bush Junta took over, for what possibly were the final blows. Instead of a world of equality and respect, we have a world on the brink of doing itself in--in oh so many possible ways--and a Scumbag Congress in Washington (thanks to ES&S/Diebold) that is bound to make things worse.

The "little countries" of the world have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by pulling together to create that counter-balance, and I'm glad that that spark has been struck, initially by Venezuela, now spreading far and wide.

[Peace Patriot]

20. The U.S. vs Venezuela--the media war

The list is long and terrible of U.S. instigation of war, mayhem and reaction. Its history of outright support of dictators--the Shah and many others back then, numerous heinous dictators in Latin America over the last half century, support of dictators today in the Middle East--Mubarak and others--and on-going support for brutal rightwing/fascist governments in Latin America (Colombia, Honduras) and elsewhere, is argument enough that Chavez is right: U.S. power is dangerous, destabilizing and extremely unfair. And the world desperately needs a peaceful counter-force. I agree with him totally on this.

I will discuss the other problems that Wilpert mentions in my next post. They are mostly internal problems, in Venezuela. But one of Wilpert's foreign relations points--I can't remember right now where he makes it--is about U.S. actions and policy harming the Chavez government's ability to solve certain problems, vs the Chavez government and Chavez himself retarding progress on those problems. Wilpert downplays U.S. interference and stresses flaws in the Chavez government.

I think Wilpert greatly underestimates the overwhelming power of the U.S. government--its resources, its banksters, its spying, its bribery and bullying, its "black operations," its war machine, et al--and those of its corporate/war profiteer rulers and allies, combined with the worldwide corpo-fascist press and Venezuela's and other Latin American rich elites and fascist cabals, to sabotage the Chavez government's best goals in Venezuela and, indeed, to undermine, sabotage and prevent democracy, social justice and independence throughout the region.

THE CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT VS CORPORATE MEDIA

Reform of the broadcast media in Venezuela--along lines of the "Fairness Doctrine" that we once had here--is a good example. Corporations have no "right" to control the public airwaves. They are regulated throughout the world, in the public interest--but some governments do a better job of it than others.

The U.S. used to require politically neutral news coverage, balanced political opinion and public service as conditions of broadcast licenses. These excellent regulations influenced the entire press corps to separate corporate profit interests from the provision of vital information to the citizenry. The Reaganites got rid of most of this and the result is the lying, scumbag, corporate propaganda media of today in the U.S. and spread by transglobal corporations worldwide.

The Chavez government's effort to achieve some media balance, some fairness, in Venezuela, have been met with the screams and screeches of the corporate press about "free speech." They have used it to paint Chavez as a "dictator," when, in fact, those accusing Chavez of being a "dictator" ARE the dictators. Every day they DICTATE an exclusively and highly distorted rightwing/corporate view of the world, and ban Leftist viewpoints that reflect the interests of the poor majority.

During the rightwing coup in Venezuela, corporate broadcasters not only banned any news of the vast opposition to the coup, they banned members of the legitimate, elected government--Chavez's vice president and members of his cabinet--from the PUBLIC airwaves. And they actively colluded in the coup's suspension of the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights, with RCTV being the worst of the lot.

When the Chavez government was restored to power by the Venezuelan people, after the coup attempt, they really should have shut down, not just RCTV, but every corporate broadcaster that supported the coup, and should have distributed those PUBLIC airwaves to small independent broadcasters--for profit, non-profit, doesn't matter--some adequate mix of private or state-sponsored, and profit or non-profit, broadcasters.

The hypocritical screeches of the U.S., the corporate media and Venezuela's rightwing about "free speech" prevented this and retarded progress on true free speech, which allows EVERYONE to speak--all view points. This is what media policy SHOULD BE, in a democracy. It should be aimed at free speech for EVERYONE. It should NOT depend on having billions of dollars to buy up and control all media. It should NOT just be corporate speech--which they have NO inherent human right to, anyway.

The U.S. Supreme Court (when it was still into justice) allowed only one restriction on free speech: "crying fire in a crowded theater." This is exactly what the corporate media in Venezuela did--fomenting a violent coup d'etat, including, specifically, putting out hit lists on the members of Chavez's government, so rightwing mobs could find them. They "cried fire in a crowded theater" and thus lost any claim they make about their "right" of "free speech," and any claim to licensed use of the public airwaves.

No country in the world would permit RCTV (the worst of the lot) to get away with what they did--yet Chavez and his government were supposed to eat it. This WAS the harm to "free speech" in Venezuela, until they corrected it, some years later, when RCTV's license came up for renewal and they denied the license. THAT was an enhancement of free speech, not the other way around.

This distortion--this intense and unfair pressure on the Chavez government--by the U.S. and its allied interests--must be taken into consideration when evaluating the Chavez's government's shortcomings, failures or unsolved problems. Venezuela does not exist in a vacuum. It is a major target of the U.S. government, corporations and war profiteers.

And the lying, hypocritical, scumbag "free speech" campaign against the Chavez government is the least of it. There are also the crippling oil bosses' strike (Exxon Mobil & Venezuela's rich oil elite), a USAID-funded recall election (which Chavez won handily but which took much time and energy), the elaborate plot against Chavez via the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador, the secretly negotiated and signed U.S./Colombia military agreement, the CIA's "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami, the false poll plot around the 2006 Venezuela presidential election...

It has been non-stop and I'm sure we don't know the half of it. And it ain't over yet.

You simply cannot put all this aside, and say that the Chavez government's failure to solve the housing problem, or failure to curb street crime, or economic mistakes as the Bushwhacks' Great Depression spread worldwide, are all Chavez's fault or even largely Chavez's fault, especially considering what he and his government HAVE accomplished, against great odds. Also, Chavez has been entirely without a "loyal opposition"--he can't trust them, and they won't help him--and this can be directly attributed to USAID and other U.S. support of rightwing groups. They know what they have to do to earn my tax dollars. They have to bring Chavez down, at any cost.

Again, Venezuela's democracy is NOT operating in a vacuum. It is operating in a context of dire plotting against the elected government by the world's biggest-ever super-power. The anti-Chavez--and also anti-Left--campaign in the corporate media is just one aspect of this general context. I think that Venezuela's democracy has performed admirably--far better than anyone could have expected--in these circumstances.

And THIS is the proper context in which to evaluate the Chavez government's shortcomings, failures and mistakes. I will discuss the internal ones--housing, crime, the judiciary, etc., sometime this weekend. Now I need to go out and enjoy the sunshine and work in my garden, during our current spell of good weather.

I hope these comments have been helpful to folks who want to understand the leftist democracy movement in Venezuela and Latin America.

To my two rightwing tweety birds in this thread, I suggest that you read Wilpert's article. It is obvious that you did not. You were against it from the beginning, because it starts with the Chavez government's accomplishments and you share the corporate press' M.O. of "black-holing" those accomplishments. The second half of the article contains a lot of anti-Chavez quotes for you to pull out of context and repeat elsewhere, despite Wilpert's care and fairness in including, and starting with, the Chavez government's impressive accomplishments. It could be useful to you in your efforts to destroy Venezuela's "New Deal" and to keep me and other U.S. taxpayers enslaved as the funders of rightwing causes in Venezuela and Latin America, and of the war machine behind it all.

[social_critic]

21. This isn't about the US versus Venezuela

This is really sickening. I am witnessing a structured propaganda campaign designed to lick the boots of a man who is destroying his country. There's no justice in this world, but for humanity's sake, don't cooperate with this monstrosity.

It seems some people see everything through a filter which says "the US has to be involved in everything". But there's a deeper truth here. There ARE Venezuelans in Venezuela who don't like Chavez. This is a fact, I keep bringing up the election results because it gives a number: In september 2010, 52 % of the voters voted for opposition candidates in the National Assembly elections. And the results of these elections were negated by gerrymandering and an obscene move to give Chavez dictatorial powers, given to him by the lame duck Assembly of outgoing chavista lap dogs.

What happens in Venezuela is about government actions, or lack of actions. People judge their performance, and weigh what they say they want to do.

And the majority is sick and tired of the buffoonery on TV, the crime, the high inflation, the lousy economy, the corruption, the dirty streets, the power cuts, the lousy health services, the food shortages, the arbitrary theft by government officials, the insults, and all the other perversions and injustices which have become routine in their lives.

The tyrant in Miraflores pals around with dictators and human rights abusers, ponders on the fate of Egypt and Idi Amin, deigns to reveal to us when he has a bowel movement, and sends Venezuela's money to be distributed overseas, all to enhance his glory and create the cult of personality we see so evident in these pages.

[bitchkitty]

23. Structured propaganda campaign?

LMAO!!!!

And down the rabbit hole we go!

[social_critic]

24. Very structured

The Cuban government has seminars for their cyber warriors to engage in propaganda campaign in blogs. I've seen one of the seminars (you can find it on the net, somebody filmed it and posted it).

The Venezuelan government has a very active structure, and of course they have a lot of cash, so they can buy people to sign letters, write articles, and of course post in blogs with profusion. Eva Golinger is one of the main drivers behind the cadres writing in English blogs.

[bitchkitty]

26. LOL! Project much?

I mean, you could be talking about yourself, and a few others here. It's like when someone types the word "Chavez" or "Venezuela" an alarm goes off and here y'all come, toting the same old warn out anti-Chavez bullshit.

You're funny, honey! ;)

[Peace Patriot]

27. Thanks, bitchkitty! social_critic often gives herself/himself away to the perceptive reader.

Wilpert actually reams Chavez in this article--so much so that I wondered about Wilpert having an "agenda"--but he saves his blistering criticism for the latter half of the article (which the RW posters here didn't read) after he fairly and objectively lays out Chavez's impressive accomplishments. This is what social-critic, other RW posters at DU and the corpo-fascist press NEVER do--acknowledge WHY Chavez has had a 60% approval rating and 60% electoral victories for ten years. Venezuelan voters have had numerous chances to throw him out--one of them provided by the USAID (the recall)--and have resoundingly endorsed him. Does a dip in his numbers--in the recent by-elections--down to the 50% range--mean anything? Many popular U.S. presidents have also had by-election dips. It seems to be a hazard of being in office for a while. So it's tricky to evaluate it. But you simply can't do a useful assessment, or do an educated guess at trends, or understand ANYTHING happening in Venezuela or in the leftist democracy movement in the Latin America, if you DON'T start from a position of REALITY: how bad things were when Chavez was first elected and how much better things are now, which is why he has had such high numbers all along.

A vote for legislators is NOT a predictor of a presidential vote. In fact, now that there is a rightwing faction in the national assembly (because the rightwing coupsters, tutored by the USAID, decided to participate in the by-election, after boycotting them before) the voters could well re-elect Chavez in 2012 by his biggest margin ever, to balance out the RW influence.

I doubt that Venezuelans will give up their "New Deal" (vote Chavez out in 2012). There is no good alternative. Any given RW leader will start dismantling Venezuela's "New Deal" the moment they take office. And I think THAT reality will give Chavez a third term. But something depends upon how much the Bush Junta-induced worldwide Depression squeezes Venezuela (especially on oil prices) and how much Venezuelans blame that on Chavez. The corpo-fascist press, and its echo chamber here at DU, have been relentless in their propaganda campaign which "black holes" all of Chavez's accomplishments and then blames him for the economic downturn in Venezuela, which had less to do with Chavez government policy than it did with the economic meltdown here and in Europe. But it's just one of a number of hammers they use to beat on him. Chavez is blamed for Venezuela not being perfect (for still having a street crimes problem, etc.). But will the great advances in Venezuela's society and democracy outweigh the imperfections, when it comes to re-electing Chavez?

Wilpert's main criticism of Chavez is something that Chavez can hardly help--that he's Chavez. He is a strong leader--and although it may be too early to make an historical judgement, he is probably a great one. He has certainly been the key to the transformation of the political landscape in Latin America and a dramatic turn for the better in many countries, as to both social and economic conditions and democracy. What would have happened, early on, if Venezuela hadn't helped bail Argentina out of ruinous World Bank/IMF debt? Possibly another fascist junta, retarding Argentina's democracy for decades. Numerous Venezuelan actions like that, in support of democracy and of economic revolution, rallied the continent and inspired Lula da Silva, for instance, to join in the "raise all boats" effort--South America exercising its collective strength in preventing RW coups, fighting poverty and repelling U.S./multinational corporate/war profiteer bullying and interference. Although the Venezuelan people are due much credit for these and other accomplishments, it's difficult to imagine it all happening without Chavez's leadership.

Wilpert's criticism seems to me aimed at an ideal democracy--the participatory democracy that the Chavistas talk about (and that some programs have been aimed at implementing)--but it's bit unrealistic, and may be a big misread of human nature, to expect millions of people to run a rather large country, or to accomplish the things that have been accomplished through local grass roots community groups. Wilpert's criticism isn't very realistic, in the end--in my opinion. He seems to want Chavez to stop leading or to step down. Will that not result in destructive in-fighting in the notoriously fractious left and yet more difficulty in governing? Chavez, in my opinion, is no more of a "dictator" than FDR was and, if FDR had stepped back from a third term, the "New Deal" would not have lasted long. That's just the nature of the beast--representative democracy. That is Venezuela's system and until the people write a new constitution, changing that system, it requires strong leadership to fight off "organized money" (as FDR put it) on behalf of the poor majority.

Anyway, social_critic's absurd opinions and projections are no help at all, as to analysis, except to alert us to how "Alice in Wonderlandish" the corporate press propaganda is, and how "Mad Tea Party-ish" the rightwing Venezuelan "opposition" is. "Structured propaganda," indeed! LOL! (I'll bet that phrase is floating around at USAID seminars these days.)

[Mika]

28. Next thing you know, SC will be comparing Ven's indigenous to Nazi internment camp victims.

As he/she did w/Cubans in Cuba. :crazy:

---