******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Yes, it's true that there was a mass uprising in 2002 that restored Chavez to power, but that was not the basis of his power. That basis was the mid level military officers. Chris writes, "This uprising did not destroy the old state apparatus, but it did provide an impetus for attempts to build alternatives, including the social missions and the communal councils. " Nobody denied there was a revolutionary impulse. But impulse or desire is not identical with what actually happened. And even Chris comes close to admitting this when he says that the reforms were "only partially successful". As far as the social missions, such as the low cost food stores for the poor and the health clinics - of course they should be defended. Nobody ever implied anything different. Both Peron and Lazaro Cardenas instituted reforms that should be defended. The latter, for example, carried out the nationalization of the oil industry. But that didn't change the nature of his regime, nor does it change the nature of the Chavez/Maduro regime. Chris refers to the community councils. According to several people, these were always a means of the Chavez regime exerting its influence on the communities, and if the one that I attended was any example, it certainly wasn't a venue for workers to exert their power. We cannot see bonapartism as always and everywhere being the same thing. For a time a bonapartist regime can balance on the working class. That's what Chavez did. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting Guaido or US imperialist influence in Venezuela, or anywhere else. John Reimann On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:45 PM Chris Slee <chris_w_s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > John Reimann says: > > "I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a > mass > uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power > based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign > apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class > voters voted for him doesn't change this." > > Chavez came to power through an election, but after the coup on 2002 he > was restored to power through a combination of the mass mobilisation of the > urban poor and a rebellion in the army against the coup plotters. This > could be considered as a "a mass uprising from below". > > This uprising did not destroy the old state apparatus, but it did provide > an impetus for attempts to build alternatives, including the social > missions and the communal councils. These attempts have been only > partially successful, but they reflect a revolutionary impulse that should > be defended against the counter-revolution. > > Chris Slee > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Marxism <marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu> on behalf of John > Reimann via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 March 2019 6:00 AM > *To:* Chris Slee > *Subject:* Re: [Marxism] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela > > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > Rim Nelson writes: "This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a > revolution deformed." > > I don't think it ever was a revolution. At least not in the sense of a mass > uprising from below that topples a regime. In fact, Chavez came to power > based on a layer of middle level military officers. That was his campaign > apparatus for when he first was elected. That the majority of working class > voters voted for him doesn't change this. > > I also agree with Gonzalez's analysis of the PSUV. It never was a working > class party. I saw the forerunner to it when I was in Venezuela in 2005. At > that time, you could see that the community meetings were not centers of > mobilization for the working class. If the one I attended was any example > (and I believe it was), they were gatherings where different elements got > together to compete for the fruits of power. Also, even then, every > opportunist mainstream politician around suddenly became a "chavista". As > various socialists, including Simon Rodriguez, report, from the start the > leadership of the PSUV was selected from the top down, with the real > fighters being excluded. > > A few weeks ago, the Wall St. Journal reported on how the military command > backs Maduro, and the WSJ is certainly no opponent of military governments! > > So, what do we call a government that lacks the support of the mainstream > of its capitalist class and also isn't based on the working class? What do > we call a government that balances between the classes, resting in the main > on the military? Nothing but a bonapartist regime. That for a time this > regime balanced on the working class, that it introduced major reforms for > the working class, that it had the popular support of the working class for > a time, does not change this. All that could have been said about Peron > too, after all, although he and a similar figure - Lazaro Cardenas in > Mexico - didn't rest on the military so much. But theirs too were > bonapartist governments. > > What's happened is that all too much of the left has gotten caught up in > this view that whoever appears to oppose US imperialism must be supported. > > John Reimann > > -- > *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black > Jacobins" by C. L. R. James > Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com > -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
