stoush.net

While I don’t disagree, we should keep this kind of thing in perspective. Chavez defeated a military coup sponsored by the USA/CIA, so his militarisation is a rational response to international aggression from America, the most militarised nation in the world.

Chavez’s attacks against capitalists is also a rational response to their flagrant disregard of democratic elections.

Whether his reforms and his regime are socialist or not… well, I doubt it.

Are they carrying little red books as well? “To get rid of the gun, one must take up the gun”.
Both sides have their nuts at the end. The Left have the Green Left Weekly and the Right has the Young Liberals.

…And Young Labor.

Same shit and the same smell there….

You reckon?

This is what Noam Chomsky says:

What’s happening is something completely new in the history of the hemisphere. Since the Spanish conquest the countries of Latin America have been pretty much separated from one another and oriented toward the imperial power. There are also very sharp splits between the tiny wealthy elite and the huge suffering population. The elites sent their capital, took their trips, had their second homes, sent their children to study in whatever European country their country was closely connected with. I mean, even their transportation systems were oriented toward the outside for export of resources and so on.

For the first time, they are beginning to integrate and in quite a few different ways. Venezuela and Cuba is one case. MERCOSUR, which is still not functioning very much, is another case. Venezuela, of course, just joined MERCOSUR, which is a big step forward for it and it was greatly welcomed by the presidents of Argentina, Brazil.

For the first time the Indian population is becoming politically quite active. They just won an election in Bolivia which is pretty remarkable. There is a huge Indian population in Ecuador, even in Peru, and some of them are calling for an Indian nation. Now they want to control their own resources. In fact, many don’t even want their resources developed. Many don’t see any particular point in having their culture and lifestyle destroyed so that people can sit in traffic jams in New York.

more via this post:

Big difference, no?

Liam, Labor policy up until the Great War was for compulsory military training (and, as far as possible, the provision of military equipment), so that workers could defend themselves in the event of a general strike. That’s not so different from Chavez’s call for a large army reserve while the threat of a coup or secession is very real, is it?

But Chavez is a dictator, and no Labor government has been a dictatorship – yet.

I’d also point out that while Labor supported compulsory military service, Chavez is calling for volunteers.

Rob, Labor’s policy of citizen military training was also based in their appeal to radical Australian nationalism and republicanism. They wanted also to strengthen a supposedly class-independent and representative State.
You can’t strengthen the democratic process by increasing the political power of the regular army, which, if I may point out, would still be under control of the same old officer class. If Chávez really wanted to prevent coups, he could do as the rest of the world’s repressive Governments do and co-opt the opposition through a tame Parliament: instead the Congreso has representatives of only one Party. Let’s face it, we all know who the potential targets of paramilitaries are, they’re not the US Marines, they’re strikers and demonstrators.
I’m sympathetic to the leftward swing in South America but I’ve far more time for leaders like Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lula in Brasil, who don’t base their governments on heavying internal dissent.

Yes, Evo certainly looks more promising.

I’d be interested in a detailed post on Venezuela, Liam. I don’t have time to sift throught he highly polarised reporting, and would welcome your perspective.

You can’t strengthen the democratic process by increasing the political power of the regular army,

I thought this was a new territorial guard that was separate from the professional army? That’s the impression I got from the Guardian article you linked to, but I could be wrong.

which, if I may point out, would still be under control of the same old officer class.

Nominally, perhaps, but I suspect that should any of those officers push for a coup they might find that their actual control over 2 million civilians is substantially less than they expected.

I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that it’s a bit more complicated. (For instance, I don’t support compulsory military service, but I can understand why they have it in Israel.)

Labor’s compulsory national service would have empowered every citizen. It’s still a good idea today.

Chavez’s “voluntary” military service will empower only his cronies and supporters. Its real purpose is not to defend against external aggression, but to suppress internal dissent.

You guys keep missing the “elephant in the room” ie. the effin Yanks!

Chavez isn’t popular with them because he’s sidelined their cronies - simple. The threat of a military coup backed by the US is very real and very much according to their past form…

And, no Chavez is not a dictator, he is a popularly elected leader. As the results as posted on his wiki show he won with a convincing majority in 1998 - with 56.2% of the vote to his opponent’s 39.97% with 36.24% abstaining. And if that is a bad turn-out well, we shouyld be worrying more about the voter turn-out of more powerful “democracies” such as the US or UK. He has won every following election and referendum since if you care to look at the facts.

How many dictators do you know who run elections?

I’m sorry, mate, the more I read your comments on foreign politics the more naive you seem to be. Do you swallow everything you see and read in the news uncritically?

Here’s a quote from an article reprinted on the Third World Traveller site originally from the Guardian:

The people of Venezuela have gone to the polls 11 times in seven years. Almost a superfluity of democracy, some might think, and signs of electoral fatigue could be detected in Sunday’s elections for the National Assembly when only 30% of the electorate bothered to vote. The rest perceived the result as a foregone conclusion since in earlier elections President Hugo Chávez, or the candidates he backed, had stacked up substantial majorities.

…

The opposition then turned turtle and announced its withdrawal. It was not acting alone. In the background, at private meetings on the island of Aruba in the Dutch Antilles and in public declarations by Thomas Shannon, the US secretary of state for Latin American affairs, the opposition had been elaborating a strategy to overthrow Chávez. Its plan was to make people believe that “democracy in Venezuela is in grave peril”, as Shannon put it to a Washington subcommittee two weeks ago.

It is indeed in peril, threatened by a tiny ragbag of opposition groups given disproportionate international influence through the support of the US. By their irresponsible electoral abstention, they hoped to undermine the credibility of the parliamentary system.

Christo,

I’m sorry, mate, the more I read your comments on foreign politics the more naive you seem to be. Do you swallow everything you see and read in the news uncritically?

Do you mean me or Evil Pundit? I never read uncritically, on the contrary I compulsively try to read between the lines.

I don’t believe either that Chávez is an outright dictator, or that the economic and social reforms he’s implementing are dangerous. I’m fully in favour of smashing a few oligarchies and stuffing the Yanquis’ interests.

What I’m not prepared to do is abandon concern about the path of democracy. Just because the opposition is backed by the US and represents the worst parts of crony capitalism doesn’t mean they have no part in the democratic process. It’s the business of any Government to maintain and protect internal dissent.

Consider the Spanish, who after the death of Franco in ‘75 had a similar transition: one with a powerful, politicised, pro-Fascist military and the keen ‘interest’ of the US State Department. Despite a number of coup attempts, including one in which soldiers stormed the Parliament shouting ‘todos al suelo’ (everybody on the floor) the Socialists recognised that a viable electoral opposition was vital not only to the survival of democracy but to their own legitimacy.

Just arguing that a dominant majority was elected and re-elected in scrutinised elections doesn’t make that dominant majority any nicer. Vladimir Putin also enjoys one. The tired old argument:

By their irresponsible electoral abstention, they hoped to undermine the credibility of the parliamentary system.

Is as worn and used as ‘he pushed himself down the station stairs, your Honour’, and the article’s citation of the 30% turnout indicates some amount of deliberate political abstention, as well as electoral fatigue.

Liam, I tried posting the rest of that article, expecting that no-one would be bothered actually clicking on the link and actually reading it, but it got blocked somehow by your new anti-spam filter no doubt..

Because if you had read it and if what it says is true, then you will understand that the militarisation has a wider political context:

Almost everyone in Venezuela - including Chávez - recognises that the government would benefit from an intelligent and constructive opposition, and some within that opposition were once anxious to provide the electorate with a choice. Others, now in a majority, look towards an insurrectionary or violent outcome.

Those others of course, are the other factions in the opposition.

You do remember those calls for Chavez to be assassinated?

What’s happened to Pat Robertson since?

Here’s another article from the excellent Third World Traveller site:

In studying the opinion pages of the top 25 circulation newspapers in the United States during the first six months of 2005, Extra! found that 95 percent of the nearly 100 press commentaries that examined Venezuelan politics expressed clear hostility to the country’s democratically elected president.

Consistent with the U.S. media’s habit of personalizing international political disputes, commentaries frequently disparaged Chavez as a political “strongman,” treating him as if he were the country’s sole and all-powerful political actor. U.S. op-ed pages scarcely mentioned the existence of Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly, much less its independent legislative role. Commentaries almost invariably omitted the Venezuelan government’s extensive popular support, as evidenced by Chavez’s resounding victory in the August 2004 referendum on his presidency.

Mainstream newspapers rarely publish commentaries by political analysts who sympathize with the Chavez government’s policies of extending education, healthcare, subsidized food and micro-credits to the country’s poor. It’s nearly impossible to find a U.S. op-ed page with commentary like that of Julia Buxton, the British scholar of Venezuelan politics, who argues (Venezuelanalysis.com, 4/23/05) that the Chavez government “has brought marginalized and excluded people into the political process and democratized power.”

You’re going to have to try a lot harder to convince me of Chavez’ “evil”.

Here’s an article on the Venezuelan military’s revolutionary heritage. Quote:

Edgardo Lander, a noted Venezuelan political scientist, says that one reason could be that compared to other Latin American armies, there is a much higher proportion of “people of humble origins in the Venezuelan officer corps.” Unlike in many other Latin American countries, he contends, “the upper classes have really looked at a military career with scorn here.”

Richard Gott, one of the leading authorities on the American left, adds another factor, the mingling of officers with civilians in the country’s educational system. “Beginning in the seventies, under a government program called the Andres Bello program, officers were sent to the universities in significant numbers, and there they rubbed elbows with other students studying, say, economics or political science.”

This “immersion” in civilian life had fateful consequences. One, the officers were exposed to progressive ideas at a time that “the left dominated the universities.” Two, it resulted in a deeper integration of the officer corps with civilian society than in most other countries in Latin America

Probably also critical, says Gott, was that for some reason Venezuela appears to have sent far fewer officers than many other Latin American countries to the US Army-run School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, which is the main conduit of counterinsurgency training to the western hemisphere’s military forces.

How does it compare, say, to the Philippine military?

First of all, unlike the Venezuelan military, the Philippine military does not have a revolutionary nationalist heritage. It is not a direct descendant of the Katipuneros and the Army of the Philippine Revolution. It was formed by the US, initially to act an auxiliary force to support US occupation troops, then to maintain public order during the colonial period, and finally to back up US forces fighting the Japanese during the Second World War. Since the granting of independence in 1946, the Philippine Armed Forces have maintained very close links to the US military via aid and training programs.

…

Finally, if there is a military that is so thoroughly permeated by the dominant social relationships of civilian society, it is the Philippine military. From top to bottom, the military is enmeshed in patron-client relationships with local and national elites. Competing civilian elites have cultivated and manipulated their factions within the military. Even military reform groups have often ended up in unhealthy relationships of dependency with traditional politicians and economic elites. The godfather relationship between the traditional politician Juan Ponce Enrile and the military rebel Gringo Honasan, for instance, was probably the key factor that stood in the way of RAM becoming a truly autonomous and progressive force.

It is good to see Chavez arm, long overdue.

This eleven elections impasse(I remember when it was 5 elections in three years or something like that) has to stop if Chavez is going to do his thing.

Opposition to Chavez are rogues looking to exploit the oil.

I wonder what he might use this army to do?

With the Americans caught up in Iraq and possibly Iran, it is not inconcievable that the army could be used to unite Spanish South America along with a political process.

Christo, I’m not trying to convince you of Chávez’s evil. I’m trying to convince you of the general evil of politicised militaries and partisan States. From your article, citing:

political analysts who sympathize with the Chavez government’s policies of extending education, healthcare, subsidized food and micro-credits to the country’s poor.

Sign me up to be one of those.

I’m not suspicious of Chávez—in principle—but I am eternally suspicious of politicised militaries anywhere, and the States which rely on them for internal support. The last thing any Revolution needs is the dependency of the support of an armed elite.

I don’t know, call me counter-revolutionary, but the most radical and anti-imperialist outcome for South America might just be the spread of electoral democracy and disarmament.

With the Americans caught up in Iraq and possibly Iran, it is not inconcievable that the army could be used to unite Spanish South America along with a political process.

Communist imperialism has been tried before.

How many dictators do you know who run elections?

Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe and the old Soviet Union and Communist China, just for starters. What a silly question.

Elections are meaningless when the population is subject to armed intimidation and oppositions are harrassed, imprisoned or nonexistent.

Of course, as an old-school Marxist, Christo is against democracy anyway, so I wouldn’t expect him to understand it.

Liam, what you say is true but I think you’re missing the point that most countries, esp. in South America, that are under pressure from the US are not very far from seeing US sponsored violence in their streets. Nietzsche would argue that this kind of state militarisation is hypocritical but I feel in this case, given the US’ past form on military/CIA intervientions in South America, the danger is very real (see eg. Colombia, Grenada, El Salvador, Chile).

Also I think your argument is far too simplistic. You have not given any consideration to the different political background to military participation in Venezuela.

Why aren’t you complaining about the militarisation of Israel whose imperialist activities and objectives are hardly secret?

EP, good points but as usual you never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

If you actually read the sources you’ll find that elections are actually fair according to the relevant authorities, that more than one candidate is standing and that there is a fair deal of media freedom there - as the articles I quoted above the most of the media is controlled by the right-wing opposition.

And no, I’d argue for more democracy in our society not less, despite what some scholars, such as AJP Taylor, would argue convincingly as the essentially reactionary nature of some democratic institutions. If you think we live in a truly democratic society then by all means: pass the dutchie!

Christo, if your sources are Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez, of course you will find that all the elections in those countries are free and fair.

I’d even go so far as to say that Chavez’ first election was free and fair. But since then, he has banned dissent in the media and started harrassing his political opponents. That was the end of democracy in Venezuela; he is now a dictator.

This is sadly a typical course for communist or extreme socialist regimes. In fact, it is inevitable, because far-left ideology requires totalitarian government, and the two can never be separated.

he has banned dissent in the media

That’s simply not true. Venezuelan media is strongly critical of the left-wing Government, as it’s owned as in Australia by a small number of large conglomerates.

Christo, I do happen to think the militarisation of civil societies is going to be one of the least pleasant features of the twenty-first century. Not just in Israel, it’s a trend across the world that moral and ethical virtues are being imagined more and more as soldierly ones. The essential concomitant of armies involving themselves in the political process is something to watch in any nation.

As a side matter, Christo, this tactic of ‘why don’t you condemn X’ is usually employed by right-wing commentators. I do condemn the militarisation of Israeli society—but that’s a matter for a future stoush. :)

I stand corrected. Dissent in the media has not been criminalised – yet.

But it soon will be.

The latest draft of Chávez’s proposed Media Content Law spells it out in detail. The bill bans broadcasting contents that “promote, condone or incite disrespect for the legitimate authorities and institutions, such as: members of the National Assembly, President of the Republic, Vicepresident, ministers, Supreme Tribunal Magistrates, Attorney General, Ombudsman, Comptroller General, CNE and Military authorities.”

Zo-wee! They sure didn’t leave anyone out!

The opposite of freedom

The statute basically criminalizes criticism of the government, defining violations of the above rule as “very grave infractions.” Other new infractions include promoting, condoning or inciting war, altering public order, committing crimes or doing anything against the security of the nation. These very broadly defined “violations” can justify a punitive 48 hour closure of institutions that break the rules. Two such closures within 3 years are grounds for the final suspension of the broadcaster’s concession, effectively shutting down the TV or radio station.