Posts Tagged ‘Bolivarian revolution’

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10891

Excellent article by George Ciccariello-Maher who was a guest of our show last year (check out the podcast): 

https://punkonomics.org/2013/07/09/show-40-george-ciccariello-maher-on-the-peoples-history-of-the-venezuelan-revolution/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/02/is-venezuela-burning/ 

jacobinmag.com

Is Venezuela Burning?

2.25.14

Only a deepening of the Bolivarian Revolution can save it.

Screen Shot 2014-02-25 at 9.13.18 AM

Flickr / Gaz

For over a week now, the world’s press and media have carried images of a Venezuela in flames. Burning buses, angry demonstrations, public buildings under siege. But the pictures are rarely explained or placed in any kind of context, and people are left to assume that this is just one more urban riot, one more youth rebellion against the crisis, like those in Greece and Spain.

The reality is both very different and far more complex. Venezuela, after all, is a society that declared war on neoliberalism fifteen years ago.

Caracas, where this series of events began, is a divided city. Its eastern part is middle class and prosperous; to the west, the population is poorer. The political divide reflects exactly the social division. Leopoldo Lopez, who has been a leader of this new phase of violent opposition to the government of Nicolas Maduro, was mayor of one of the eastern districts. Together with another prominent right wing anti-chavista, Maria Corina Machado, he had issued a call for an open public meeting the previous Sunday to demand the fall of the government. Youth Day, on February 12, provided an opportunity to bring out students to march, demonstrate, and occupy the streets.

The majority of the burning barricades, however, were built in middle class areas. And the students building them came from either the private universities or the state university which had largely excluded poorer students in recent times. There was almost nothing happening in the poorer areas to the west.

In more recent days, the class character of the demonstrations has become clearer. The government’s new bus system, offering clean and safe travel at low prices, has been attacked, 50 of them on Friday alone. The Bolivarian University, offering higher education to people excluded from the university system, was besieged Friday — though the demonstrators failed to get in to wreck it. And in several places Cuban medical personnel, who run the Barrio Adentro health system, have been viciously attacked. In one very curious development, a wonderful sculpture in the city of Barquisimeto by the communist architect Fruto Vivas, is now being defended by Chavistas after an attempt to destroy it.

Maduro and his cabinet have responded by denouncing the increasingly violent confrontations as organized by fascists and financed and supported by the United States. And there are certainly extreme elements involved, actively engaged in trying to destabilize the situation. They include paramilitaries linked to the drug trade, whose presence has grown in this overly-weaponized country.

But why has the Right chosen this particular moment to take to the streets? In part, it is a response to what is seen as the weakness of the Maduro government, and specifically of Maduro himself. It is no secret that behind the façade of unity, there is a struggle for power between extremely wealthy and influential groups within government — a struggle that began to intensify in the months before Chavez’s death. The military presence in government has grown dramatically, and they are largely controlled by the group around Diosdado Cabello. The head of the oil corporation and Vice President for the Economy, Rafael Rodriguez, has enormous economic power in his hands.

At the same time, there is a battle for power within the Right. All of the prominent leaders, including Leopoldo Lopez, Cristina Machado, and Capriles, come from the wealthiest sections of the bourgeoisie. But they are competing. Lopez and Machado are pursuing what some call (referring to Chile 1972-3) “a soft coup”: economic destabilization plus a continuous mobilization on the streets to deepen the government’s weakness.

Capriles, however, has been hesitant to support the demonstrations and instead argues for a “government of national unity,” which Maduro seems increasingly wedded to. Just a few weeks ago, Maduro had talks with one of Venezuela’s wealthiest capitalists, Mendoza, and other sections of the bourgeoisie have expressed support for him. And that strategy has the backing of important figures in and around government.

Against this background, the position of the Chavista government has been to call for “peace” — a slogan echoed by the huge numbers of ordinary Venezuelans who have rallied behind Maduro. Their chant “they will never come back” is very significant. They recognise in the leaders of the current unrest the same people who implemented the devastating economic programmes of the 1990s, before Chavez, and who attempted to destroy his government twice before. At the same time, that”‘peace” has yet to be defined. Does it mean addressing the real problems that people face, and driving a wedge between an anxious lower middle class and its self-proclaimed bourgeois leaders? Or will it be achieved by consensus with other sections of that same class, perhaps represented by Capriles, who have no commitment at all to socialism, 21st century or otherwise?

The Venezuelan Right is no stranger to violence. On 11 April 2002, it launched a coup against Chavez and assumed power. Calls in the media for leading Chavistas to be killed gave the measure of what they were prepared to do. The coup had the support of sections of the army, the Church, the employers federation, the corrupt national trade union organization, and the U.S. Embassy. But it failed because the mass of Venezuela’s poor and working class took to the streets and brought Chavez back.

Nine months later, the attempt to destroy the oil industry, and with it the economy as a whole, was foiled again by the mass mobilization of the majority of Venezuelans — the very people whose votes had carried Chavez to power.

Is the present situation a repeat of April? Between 2002 and 2014, the Right failed to dislodge Chavez; on the contrary, Chavez’s electoral support rose consistently until his death early last year. After that, his nominated successor, Maduro, won the presidential elections in April 2013. But this time the right-wing candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, came within 250,000 votes (under one percent) of winning.

It was a clear expression of the growing frustration and anger among Chavez supporters. 2012 had seen inflation rates hovering around fifty percent (officially) and the level has risen inexorably throughout the last year. Today the basic basket of goods costs 30% more than the minimum wage — and that is if the goods are to be found on the increasingly empty shelves of shops and supermarkets. The shortages are explained partly by speculation on the part of capitalists — just as happened in Chile in 1972 — and partly by the rising cost of imports, which make up a growing proportion of what is consumed in Venezuela. And that means not luxuries, but food, basic technology, and even gasoline.

All of this is an expression of an economic crisis vigorously denied by the Maduro government but obvious to everyone else. Inflation is caused by the declining value of the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency, itself the result of economic paralysis. The truth is that production of anything other than oil has ground to a virtual halt. The car industry employs 80,000 workers, yet since the beginning of 2014 it has produced 200 vehicles — what would normally be produced in half a day.

How is it possible that a country with the world’s largest proven reserves of oil (and possibly of gas, too) should now be deeply in debt to China and unable to finance the industrial development that Chavez promised in his first economic plan?

The answer is political rather than economic: corruption on an almost unimaginable scale, combined with inefficiency and a total absence of any kind of economic strategy. In recent weeks, there have been very public denunciations of speculators, hoarders, and the smugglers taking oil and almost everything else across the Colombian border. And there have been horrified reports of the “discovery” of thousands of containers of rotting food. But all of this has been common knowledge for years. Equally well known is the involvement of sectors of the state and government in all these activities.

Chavez promised popular power and the investment of the country’s oil wealth in new social programs. Quite rightly, his new health and education programs were a source of great pride and a guarantee of continued support for him among the majority of Venezuelans. Today, those funds are drying up as Venezuela’s oil income is diverted to paying for increasingly expensive imports.

What has emerged in Venezuela is a new bureaucratic class who are themselves the speculators and owners of this new and failing economy. Today, as the violence increases, they are to be seen delivering fierce speeches against corruption and wearing the obligatory red shirt and cap of Chavismo.

But the literally billions of dollars that have “disappeared” in recent years, and the extraordinary wealth accumulated by leading Chavistas, are the clearest signs that their interests have prevailed. At the same time, the institutions of popular power have largely withered on the vine. The promises of community control, of control from below, of a socialism that benefited the whole population, have proved to be hollow.

The Right has hoped to trade on that disillusionment. That it has not yet managed to mobilize significant numbers of working class people is testimony to their intense loyalty to the Chavista project, if not to his self-appointed successors — though they are unimpressed by those successors’ overnight conversion to transparency and honesty in government.

The solution is not in unprincipled alliances with the opponents of Chavismo, nor in inviting in multinationals like Samsung to enjoy cheap Venezuelan labour in assembling their equipment. What can save the Bolivarian project, and the hope it inspired in so many, is for the speculators and bureaucrats to be removed, and for popular power to be built, from the ground up, on the basis of a genuine socialism — participatory, democratic, and exemplary in refusing to reproduce the values and methods of a capitalism which has been unmasked by the revolutionary youth of Greece, Spain and the Middle East.

Roland Denis, a leading grassroots Venezuelan activist over many years, summed it up this way: “Either we turn this moment into a creative opportunity to reactivate our collective revolutionary will, or we can begin to say our farewells to the beautiful, traumatic history we have lived out over the last twenty-five years.”

 

After a long time off the air with only blogging and social net to vent our outrage and banter, we’ve finally launched ourselves on YouTube!

… yeah, we know, we’re considering calling these long segments: 2 Fat Old Guys and a Dog lol

We did what we used to do on the radio/podcasts and chewed on some current ugly fat for over an hour (no station manager to shut us up).

AUDIO (right click Punkonomics2014-2-23 and “save as” to download):

Topic: The Post-Occupy/Post-Arab Spring Co-opting of Media and Social Media for the Ends of Destroying Democracy and Promoting the Interests of the Upper Class/1%

This is based on a recent blog post: We are STILL being PLAYED! Venezuela and Ukraine in context
__________________________
Collection of links:

1966695_780730285289579_1013551254_nWhere does one even start to answer the question everybody is asking: What is going on in Venezuela and Ukraine?!? So in the spirit of punk (and French postmodernism), I’ll just stick a bunch of things together (bricolage). I provide a number of good sources at the bottom for you to get a fuller picture.

So is it a bunch of democracy-loving students engaged in non-violent resistance being violently oppressed by totalitarian governments? No it is not. But it is hard to see the big picture without getting into the long history of Venezuela and Ukraine and many other places. Hell, you need to look at the past 500+ years to really get the picture–oh yeah, that is why education is important but a good real-world education is almost impossible to get and requires many years.

I’ve been having lots of arguments with relatively rich and some very rich ex-students and their friends from Venezuela and have been trying very hard to be as civil as I can because I’m honestly trying to be open and understanding. Knowing that the Venezuela has eradicated hunger while here in the US 20% of kids are hungry today, it breaks my heart and makes me both sad and angry to hear a Venezuelan blogger complain about not being able to bake a cake due to milk shortages!? The economic problems in Venezuela are also not what they seem but on that later. I guess I’ll get some hate for this but the truth is ugly and complicated.

Disclaimer: let’s put Ukraine aside for a moment–I know less about it’s internal politics and will make a special post about it soon. Watch this for now.

In attempting to be “fair and balanced” (pun intended), I tried to watch the mainstream media and anti-government Venezuelan rhetoric too to see if perhaps I’m the one being misled… no, it was BS propaganda to anybody aware of the long and medium term facts of economics and politics–sorry.

I watched Jehane Noujaim’s documentary The Square (2013) about the revolutionary struggles in Egypt in order to catch the current romantic feel of heroic youth uprisings that seem to motivate all the Web 2.0 gushing about Venezuela and Ukraine. Well the Egyptians really did have a genuine uprising against a US supported dictator by poor and rich, secular, and religious youth and they lost their heroic battle, were successfully played by the military, and crushed with the continued support of the US. In the film, an exiled father of one of the revolutionary tells him: “The rich don’t need freedom. The rich are already free.” Now stop for a second and ask yourself: how does this fit into the “struggle for freedom” in the streets of Caracas these past days? It doesn’t!

Why? Because it is entirely orchestrated and run by rich Venezuelans. The majority poor aren’t involved in this at all. A significant minority in Venezuela are critical of their democratically elected government and have been exercising their right of expression and political participation but have not been able to gain power by legal means though Henrique Capriles came close in the previous presidential elections. His moderate minority is also overwhelmingly rich and upper middle-class urban people and he deserves credit for NOT supporting the radical right-wing takeover of the opposition by, most notably Leopoldo Lopez, a billionaire from an old power-family who has been taking violent actions against the Chavez government since the previous CIA backed coup against democracy in 2002. He is and continues to be a rich oligarch thug who deeply resents not being able to rule over his domain like his ancestors before him. Despite his wealth, US support, global financial support, and a sophisticated propaganda machine, he only won the hearts of rich people and it looks like all he accomplished is to break up the legitimate opposition. The violent clashes were rather small and mostly located in their rich neighborhoods and private schools and much of the violence came from Lopez’s followers themselves. Oh yeah, and more innocent civilians are murdered by the government of Colombia (a close ally of the US and Lopez and friends) every week than have died in Venezuela’s riots–double standards?

YES Venezuela has some serious economic problems. These are complex issues I’ll try to tackle in a future post but let’s say that at the very least, we should know that over the past decade, Venezuela has accomplished a tremendous feat of poverty-reduction never seen anywhere in recent times. The lives of a vast majority of the poor population have improved dramatically while everywhere else on Earth over the same time, the opposite has happened–even in China. Furthermore, they accomplished this despite aggressively hostile global economic players who have been funding coups and radical groups and even engaging in direct economic sabotage that are, at least in part, responsible for Venezuela’s economic woes. So whatever legitimate problems they have with street violence, food-prices, and inflation, the Bolivarian democratic regimes in South America have been the first good thing to happen to the vast majority of the people there since the European conquest 500+ years ago and would not have been possible without the leadership of the Venezuelan people and Chavismo–something for Venezuelans to be very proud about!

The Postmodern Twist:

People in supposedly free countries not knowing what is being done in their name is not new: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky should be required reading (here’s a very short intro about their Propaganda Model). BUT I think it has gotten more dominant especially in the current media coverage of Venezuela and Ukraine. Today, there even is a twist within a twist in that people are posting their outrage about how “the media” is not “covering” the situation. They then post blatant propaganda in support of a what is in actuality a well-engineered propaganda campaign by oligarchic elites to undermine democracy (wow! despite my training in postmodern philosophy, my head spins).

But it gets crazier! The power-elites (aka the 1%) and the military-financial-complex (more on this soon–check this out) are using the well-meaning non-violent work of liberals such as Gene Sharp to execute their coups. No need to send death squads (trained at School of the Americas in Georgia), or militarily support nasty dictators and juntas (like in Egypt among numerous examples). Today they can use well-meaning naive and propagandized students to spark the process of post-colonial oppression: it’s colonizing version 3.0!

Question: ok ok we get it, but what IS going on in the Venezuela?

Answer: An attempted “Soft Coup”:

I’ve adapted this from TeleSUR which is funded by the left governments of America including Venezuela and even Cuba! Not disinterested and independent but a good summary of work by the (IMHO well-meaning) philosopher and political scientist Gene Sharp. Also, consider my previous bla bla, history, provided links (see below), history (yes; again), and judge for yourself if this is not a damn good model for the current goings on:

How to overthrow a government through non-violent methods
(in this context, non-violent implies not organizing guerrillas or invading from abroad):

  1. “Softening”

    • creating climate of opinion focusing on deficiencies

    • disseminate discontent

    • promote shortages, criminality, internal fractures, sabotage

  2. “Delegitimization”

    • ethical and political fracture

    • media campaigns accusing government of being totalitarian (and/or communist) and contrasting opposition as fighting for freedom and human rights

  3. “Street heating”

    • promote conflict and street mobilization

    • promote struggle for globalized political and social demands

    • create state reaction and consequently public discontent in order to radicalize the confrontation

  4. Reaction:

    • Armed actions to justify repressive measures and create climate of ungovernability

    • Smear campaign among state forces to demoralize security forces

  5. “Institutional Fracture”

    • Increased street actions

    • Occupation of institutions

    • Force resignation of government (especially figure -head)

In case of failure to overthrow government, rinse and repeat:

  • escalate stage 3, 4, and 5

  • seek international intervention: sanctions and/or military

  • develop prolonged civil war

Tell me this doesn’t sound awfully familiar!?!

__________________________________________________________
Collection of links:

Excellent analysis from http://venezuelanalysis.com/ specifically addressing the media coverage:

What’s going on in Venezuela?

By LEE SALTER, PHD, February 21st 2014

UK academic Lee Salter, an expert on media coverage of Venezuela, gives his view on the reasons behind and aims of the current opposition protests.

What’s going on in Venezuela?

It’s difficult to briefly explain the situation in Venezuela right now. The difficulty lies in the fact that it is complicated, like most things. No matter how various political protagonists, human rights groups and news media would like to paint things as simple, black and white, they are not. To understand one has to dig down, deep.

A particularly galling video on YouTube explains that millions of students took to the street to protest about crime and the security situation. The comments by Venezuelans on said video are telling. In fact, what English-speakers hear about Venezuela is one of the biggest problems – if a Venezuelan speaks English, chances are that they are part of the small minority of the (relatively) ultra-rich who’ve been fighting to overthrow democracy since 1998. The curious thing about them is that they know what to say to whom and when.

They know to say “communism”, “Cuba”, “democracy” and “human rights”. They know when to say these words and they know who to say them to. Crucially their cultural networks of communicative power allow them to do so. On one level it is as simple as this – the Venezuelan news media has traditionally been controlled by the ultra-rich minority (of around 5-10% of the population). Traditionally there has been no real alternative to this media dominance, beside the odd under-funded community radio station. Moreover, in order to become a journalist one needs the sort of training and contacts afforded only to the ultra-rich, alongside the cultural associations and linguistic ability.

As the U.S. political scientists Ronald Sylvia and Constantine Danopoulos explain, the availability of such cultural capital is restricted: ‘Weekend shopping trips to Miami were the order of the day for the bourgeois classes. The oil riches, however, did not trickle down to the bottom of Venezuelan society. A sizeable portion of Venezuela’s population remained desperately poor’.

The ultra-rich have historically been well connected to Miami, the US more generally as well as to the international jet-set. They have media interests and media contacts and they dominate international communications about Venezuela. So, when a story needs to get out about the dramatic abuse of journalists (in one occasion I noted a human rights group release a story about such an abuse, which I investigated to find the original footage of a camera operator being jostled on a picket line), the lines of communication are open, and a primed international media is ready to accept anything that conforms to expectations.

The international diaspora of Venezuelans is largely on message. To be in another country, chances are they are part of the ultra-rich, or at least the middle class. Given the on-going relative poverty experienced by the majority of Venezuelans (which means they can’t afford the expensive plane tickets out), you’re not likely to ever hear the “other side”. It is thus that I heard from an “exile”, a really cool, funky hippie-type whose plight had caught the sympathy of everyone in her wide network of English friends: (paraphrased) “Chavez hates the people, he hates anyone with money. He is trying to stop the dams from producing electricity so that rich people can’t have televisions and things. In Caracas they only have 4 hours of electricity per day”. My response: I’ve just come back from ten days in Venezuela, and there was one power cut of about 20 minutes.

Another time I was stuck with rather scary English-speaking Venezuelan in a cable car in Caracas. She and her partner began talking to me and my friend about lightbulbs: “you know anything about Venezuela, about Chavez? He’s a communist you know? He’s trying to destroy the country. He’s trying to force everybody to have energy saving lightbulbs…but this isn’t Cuba”. After 5 minutes of ranting, my friend in his inimitable Irish accent gently explained that they have energy saving lightbulbs in Ireland and he doesn’t feel particularly oppressed by them.

I was baffled by the aggression and fury about electricity and lightbulbs. To a reasonable mind the explanation is as follows: Venezuela was experiencing a long, extended drought. Because of this, water levels in the hydro-electric dams were low so power generation was low. At the same time there were not enough engineers with the right expertise working on the dams and rivers for proper maintenance. The big problem, however, was the increase in the sales of consumer electrical items, such as refrigerators, encouraged by the government to improve the quality of life. So, drought + lack of care for hydroelectric plants + increase demand on electricity = power cuts. The short-term solution: energy saving items.

When quizzing Thomas Muhr, a researcher on Venezuela at the University of Bristol, about the mania over lightbulbs, he told me that it was all led by a rumour that Chavez was placing video cameras in in them so he could spy on them in their homes. Quite.

<EDIT: I’ll add this as it came through as a comment: “ there is not even food and if, you got killed trying to buy it milk on the corner of you house”. So here we have it – the Venezuelan government kills people for buying milk too>

The stories go on and on and on. One of the most striking things, however, is that when one gets to corruption and crime there is general agreement among most Venezuelans. Almost everyone I’ve ever spoken to in and around the Venezuelan government says the same – there’s too much corruption, we don’t seem to be able to do anything about crime, the revolution isn’t fast enough, the people don’t seem to realise what they can do and so on. That is to say, there’s no apparent wall of agreement around the government or the Bolivarian movement more generally that blinds them or others to shortcomings.

The other big problem is the one that is certainly not shared by the ultra-rich: how to stop the CIA and reactionary forces inside Venezuela from overthrowing the democratically elected government. This is the story through which the situation in Venezuela must be understood.

Most of the coverage of Venezuela in the Western corporate media plays on what is called the “exceptionalism thesis”. This is the idea that Venezuela is historically different to the rest of Latin America, insofar as it was stable and democratic. The thesis has been challenged by Steve Ellner and Miguel Salas, who, alongside an array of Latin American scholars point to the fact that prior to Chavez ‘Venezuela marked by extreme poverty set against a narrowly constituted elite of 5-10% of the population’ according to Princeton University’s Kelly Hoffman and Miguel Centeno. According to Julia Buxton of Bradford University, between 1975 and 1995 poverty increased dramatically, with the percentage of persons living in poverty rising from 33% to 70% during that period, the number of households in poverty increased from 15% to 45% between 1975 and 1995, by 2000 wages had dropped 40% from their 1980 levels, and by 1997 67% of Venezuelans earned less than $2 a day. There’s very little in the data that distinguishes Venezuela. Add to that the historically airbrushed atrocity of the Caracazo Massacre, where thousands of poor people were slaughtered in the same year as Tiananmen Square, for protesting IMF dictats, and there’s very little if anything for the poor to hark back to.

Such an understanding is lost on the international media who are more than encouraged to reflect back on an imagined era prior to Chavez, when the country was “unified” (one presumes happy in poverty and oppression) and “stable”. For example, my own research has outlined the narrative that the BBC inadvertently plays on (I say “inadvertently” because one of the correspondents whose work makes up the bulk of the sample we analysed is a committed Chavista), which masks the history of the majority.

The BBC’s narrative begins way back in 1998, before Chavez had been able to do anything. In December 1998 it told us that “Venezuela is proud of its democratic record”, that “many” see Chavez as a kind of autocratic military leader (remember he’d hardly done anything by then), and that in the good old days a high proportion of government spending went on social programmes. Amazing, really, that so many were still in poverty or voted for this demon from hell.

It took less than a year for the Beeb to mind us that “There is a dictatorship” in Venezuela. And for those idiots who think the fact that he was elected gives him legitimacy, remember that “Adolph Hitler was elected too”.

This framing of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution went on for the next ten years – Chavez came from nowhere, he’s a grave danger for Venezuela and the world, and … oh wow, how did he get elected again?!

By 2002 the emboldened “opposition”, a term which cannot but bestow legitimacy, had used the vast private media to launch a bloody coup. That they did this with their allies in the private media is incontestable given the arrogance of right-wing reactionaries in Venezuela – they told us so on air.

Yet for the BBC Chavez had “quit” due to his “mishandling” of “strikes” (actually a management lockout) and a demonstration in which Chavez decide to murder his own supporters. Fortunately “Venezuela … looked not to an existing politician but to the head of the business leaders’ association”, Pedro Carmona. In the world of the BBC (which, to be fair to the BBC was dependent on the international news agencies, which in turn depended on local journalists, who in the main work for the private media that helped launch the coup… and so on), the coup was actually “Venezuela” forming a transitional government and “restoring democracy”. On this account, democracy appears to be something that involves the ultra-rich shooting people and seizing power.

The situation never changed. No matter how many democratic elections Chavez, the movement he led or the party he helped form won, no matter what level of electoral legitimacy Venezuelans (rather than the BBC’s “Venezuela”) bestowed on Chavez, the government could not stand, and the implacable reactionaries would not cease until the Old Order was restored (unless they are talking to the rest of the world, in which case the line tends to be, “oh I’m sure they’re well-meaning and the social programmes are good, but there are too many bad people around and too much mismanagement”).

The most recent protests are indeed about a lot of things, and no doubt reflect a plethora of voices, just as there’s a variety of voices within the movement. Indeed, Venezuela still has problems, a lot of problems. Yet the “opposition” is as concerned with poverty as its leaders were when they presided over massive levels of poverty. They are as concerned with human rights as they were during the Caracazo Massacre. They are as concerned with democracy as they were when there was de facto exclusion of most of the population from political life. The big fear is the change in this latter. And it is this fear of the “plebs” that drives the “opposition”.

There’s a familiar story about states that sit outside the sphere of US hegemony – they tend to face campaigns of destabilisation, coups and invasions where necessary. The invariable response to such threats is to “clamp down” on previously enjoyed freedoms. The notion of a “strategy of tension” demands that a government is put in a defensive position, a “state of emergency” as it’s called in a friendly state. It is also this reaction, the context of which is rarely mediated, that motivates a number of the protesters.

It is worth reflecting how other states of emergency are mediated. After the 2011 riots in the UK, 3000 young people were swept up in a dragnet and sent to kangaroo courts for what would no doubt be called in Venezuela, a protest against an out of touch and corrupt government. The repressive clampdown was cheered on by the British media. Yet if the current President Maduro or Chavez before him had received as small a proportion of the vote as Cameron, Venezuela would probably have been invaded by now.

Contrast the conduct of broadcast media in the UK with that of Venezuela. It’s not simply that the private media in Venezuela have been “biased” in their coverage of politics, which British broadcasters are forbidden by law to be, it’s that they actively initiated an coup against democracy in 2002 that lead to the deaths of hundreds. Should Trevor Phillips appear on ITV News and council the army and navy to rise up against the government he’d be gone in the blink of an eye. Should his bosses support his position and continue to encourage such action on a daily basis for years it’s hardly outlandish to suggest that the ITV licence would not be renewed, as happened in Venezuela

In a sense the Venezuelan government is playing into the hands of the reactionaries and their supporters in the US. Some of the measures taken to ward off coup threats and enable a government that’s never garnered less than 50% of the vote to carry out its mandate have been clunky to put it mildly. Yet at the same time, it is difficult to see how else, other than emergency measures, the will of the people could be fulfilled.

Indeed, it is this that is the crux of the situation in Venezuela. It is not about a sudden emergence of economic problems, corruption or crime. It is about the ultra-rich and their supporters, especially among the middle class who for 15 years have spent their time, energy and resources trying every measure possible to overthrow the will of the people. Again, there are problems a plenty in Venezuela but the trick is to understand these in the context of the bigger picture.

Source: Lee Salter


Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela – YouTube.

George Ciccariello-Maher is the author of We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution (2013)

ciccariello-maher_cover

There’s a complete bio on my prior post announcing the show here, and more info as well as a wealth of other writing on George’s website.

Directly below is an outline of the main questions we asked in the interview but you’ll have to listen to the podcast for his fascinating answers. And then you should read the book too. We hope very much to have the opportunity to talk to him again about the developments in this dynamic and part of the world. At a time when most of the globe is going from bad to worse, the Bolivarian republics of Latin America seem to be a beacon of hope–not perfect but showing clear measurable improvement in the standard of living of the majority of their population. This is more than almost all other countries can say for themselves…

Question outline:

> We had a show defending Chavez’s political and economic record right after he died in March

> You have a special point of view:

>> You see Chavez as a chapter in a larger story

>> The book displaces the debate from the man himself to looking at the Venezuelan people instead of their leaders: A people’s history like Howard Zinn‘s A people’s History of the US.

> Where did your personal interest come from?

> Book starts from fall of dictatorship in 58 and the beginning of “democracy”  Why?

> Chavez is not the focus: What then IS his contribution/importance?

> Is Venezuela special in S. America? in the world? How so?

> Jesse Velez asked about the recent developments now that Chavez is dead?

> Explain the structure of the opposition to Chavez and now Maduro:

>> from the radical left

>> from the right

>> how did they get so many votes in the last election?

> Any lessons for the US in all this?

  • Foreign policy (vis-a-vis global people’s movements)
  • Domestic: horizontal/vertical reforms
  • #occupy?

> Jesse Velez asked about popular movements in his native Puerto Rico.

> Finally: On a different local issue we touched upon the Zimmerman trial and the critical importance of understanding the historical context behind such divisive painful issues in order to develop empathy which is what makes us human.