[p2p-research] interview about venezuela - nterview with William I. Robinson:

Tue Feb 23 16:16:33 CET 2010

just a quick note, from my old love of world music (now inactive), I
remember clearly the usage of afro-carribean is quite general when speaking
about countries such as venezuela and even as far as Peru, who are
recognized to have at least such a musical tradition ... a quick search in
both google and bing shows the term is quite generally used in that context,
irrespective of what the people call themselves in Spanish

given the U.S. role and support of the anti-democratic coup, I think
nervousness about the military bases is understandable, and the role as a
drug repressor seems doubtful, since I recently heard that Columbia is still
the primary supplier for U.S. drugs; but in any case, even Robinson plays
that effective threat down

I personally find Chavez alliances, with iran, north korea and the
despicable tactics of the FARC, distasteful and wrong headed, sending many
bad signs about human rights,

what clinched my opnion of Chavez as a power-hungry and manipulative
character, was the way he treated an otherwise progressive and left-wing
Guardian journalist,

nevertheless, the situation of the poor has immensely improved, as well as
extraordinary economic results until the meltdown of 2008, must be counted
in the equation of formal human rights

concerning human rights, here's a summary of HRW:
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/2, showing there are real problems
on that front:

It has been 10 years since Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela
and set out to overhaul the country's largely discredited political system.
His first major achievement, the enactment of a new constitution in 1999,
offered an extraordinary opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of
law and strengthen the protection of human rights. The 1999 Constitution
significantly expanded human rights guarantees by, among other things,
granting Venezuela's international rights obligations precedence over
domestic law. It also created a new Supreme Court and sought to provide this
court with the institutional independence it would need to serve as the
ultimate guarantor of these fundamental rights.

But this historic opportunity has since been largely squandered. The most
dramatic setback came in April 2002 when a coup d'état temporarily removed
Chávez from office and replaced him with an unelected president who, in his
first official act, dissolved the country's democratic institutions,
suspending the legislature and disbanding the Supreme Court. Within 40
hours, the coup unraveled, Chávez returned to office, and the constitutional
order was restored. But while this derailment of Venezuelan democracy lasted
less than two days, it has haunted Venezuelan politics ever since, providing
a pretext for a wide range of government policies that have undercut the
human rights protections established in the 1999 Constitution.

Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the
Chávez presidency. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts
of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged his subordinates to
engage in discrimination by routinely denouncing his critics as
anti-democratic conspirators and coup-mongers-regardless of whether or not
they had any connection to the 2002 coup.

Another defining feature of the Chávez presidency has been an open disregard
for the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the 1999
Constitution-and, specifically, the notion that an independent judiciary is
indispensable for protecting fundamental rights. After the 2002 coup, the
most damaging blow to the rule of law in Venezuela was the political
takeover of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his supporters in 2004.

In the absence of credible judicial oversight, the Chávez government has
engaged in often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists'
freedom of expression, workers' freedom of association, and civil society's
ability to promote human rights in Venezuela.

This book examines the current state of Venezuelan democracy from a human
rights perspective.It does not address all the pressing human rights issues
facing the country today, many of which pre-date the Chávez presidency.
Rather, it focuses on the impact that the Chávez government's policies have
had on institutions that play key roles in ensuring that human rights are
respected: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just a quick point or two...no one in V. or C. would call themselves
> "Afro-Caribbean."  First, the term they would use...if they used one...is
> Mestizo which translates roughly to mixed race.  Second, they aren't part of
> the Caribbean to people from the Caribbean.  There is a language barrier, a
> historical barrier, and a cultural barrier.  They would be called "Latin
> American."  Indeed, the African portion of both countries (V. and C.) is
> historically rather small.  They did not grow sugar much so there wasn't as
> much slavery there as, say, Brazil or Cuba.
>
> Second, Bolivar would have no idea what Chavez is doing.  He was a great
> fan of individual liberties...though he had to be convinced slavery was a
> problem...he mostly admired the US revolution and has many writings saying
> so.  See more here on the misuse of his name...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism
>
> Third, it is well know that US presence in Colombia is anti-drug related.
> They are nearly all on the other side of the country...not near to V where
> the lands are pastoral and not suited to Coca.  The population of lands in
> C. near V. is low.  Most people live in the West of C.
>
> Fourth, Colombia is well admired for finally breaking free of their civil
> war which lasted 40 years killing 10s of thousands.  They did it with
> democratic institutions that regularly change power through elections.
> Their courts frequently are at odds with their executive branch and their
> legislature is notoriously independent (like the US).  Both armies use
> sophisticated weaponry bought in the US and Europe, mostly.  Most of the
> recent conflicts have been seen to have been precipitated and escalated by
> V. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia%E2%80%93Venezuela_relations  It
> is clear that V. was arming FARC insurgeants and weapons have been traced by
> independent authorities to the V. government.  The history and status of
> FARC is well understood.  They are denounced by the US, Mexico, Spain and
> Brazil as a terrorist organization.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC
> Indeed, Chavez's argument that they be unlabeled as such was based on the
> idea that they would stop rogue practices (e.g. kidnapping students and NGO
> workers for ransome).
>
> I'm all for the good professor being an activist.  I wish more academics
> followed his lead.  It would be good if he could base his talks on some
> relevant facts rather than his own political ideals.
>
>
>
>
> On 2/23/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   *Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" has been very popular with the poor.
>> Could you describe out how the Venezuelan society has changed since Chavez
>> came to power?*
>>
>> First of all, let us acknowledge that the Bolivarian revolution has placed
>> democratic socialism back on the worldwide agenda. We went through a period
>> in the 1990s where most were scared to even talk of socialism, when it
>> seemed that global capitalism had reached the apex of its hegemony and when
>> some on the left even bought into the "end of history" thesis.
>>
>> The Bolivarian revolution has given the poor and largely Afro-Caribbean
>> masses their voice for the first time since the war of independence from
>> Spanish colonialism. The Chavez government has reoriented priorities to the
>> poor majority. It has been able to use oil revenues, in particular, to
>> develop health, education and other social programs that have had dramatic
>> results in reducing poverty, virtually eliminating illiteracy, and improving
>> the health of the population. International organisations and
>> data-collecting agencies have recognised these remarkable social
>> achievements.
>>
>> However, as someone who visits Venezuela regularly, I would say that the
>> more fundamental change since Chavez came to power is not these social
>> indicators but the political and socio-psychological awakening of the poor
>> majority -- a broad process of popular, grassroots mobilisation, cultural
>> expression, political participation and empowerment. The old elite and the
>> bourgeoisie have been partially replaced from the state and from formal
>> political power -- although not entirely.
>>
>> But the real fear and resentment of the old dominant groups, the panic and
>> their hatred for Chavez, is because they have felt slip from their grip the
>> ability to exercise cultural and socio-psychological domination over the
>> popular classes as they have done for decades, nay centuries. Of course,
>> there still plenty of other mechanisms through which the bourgeoisie and the
>> political agents of the *ancien regime* are able to wield their
>> influence, particularly through the mass media that is still largely in
>> their hands ... and this is why the "media battles" in Venezuela play such a
>> prominent role.
>>
>> That said, there are all kinds of problems and contradictions internal to
>> the Bolivarian revolution.
>>
>> *How widespread are nationalisation plans under Chavez and is there any
>> evidence so far that they bring the desired results? *
>>
>> The obvious major economic change has been the recovery of the country's
>> oil for a popular project -- and even at that there is still a PDVSA [state
>> oil company] bureaucratic oligarchy. Other key enterprises, such as steel,
>> have been nationalised. And the cooperative sector -- with all its problems
>> -- has spread. Nonetheless, let's be clear: economic power is still largely
>> in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
>>
>> Let us recall that the Venezuelan revolution is unique in that the old
>> reactionary state was not "smashed" as it was in other revolutions. The
>> strategy of the revolution has been to set up new parallel institutions and
>> to also try to "colonise" the old state. But the Venezuelan state is still
>> largely a capitalist state. The key question is how can a transformative
>> project move forward while operating through a corrupt, clientalist,
>> bureaucratic and often inert state bequeathed by the ancient regime?
>>
>> If revolutionary and socialist forces come to power within a capitalist
>> political process how do you confront the capitalist state and the brakes it
>> places on transformative processes? In fact, in Venezuela, and also in
>> Bolivia and elsewhere, prevailing state institutions often act to constrain,
>> dilute and coopt mass struggles from below.
>>
>> In my view, in Venezuela the biggest threat to the revolution does not
>> come from the right-wing political opposition but from the so-called
>> "endogenous" or "Chavista" right wing, in that chunks of the revolutionary
>> bloc, including state elites and party officials, will develop a deeper
>> stake in defending global capitalism over socialist transformation.
>>
>> *The revolution has been going on for over a decade now. Is it maturing
>> or is it reaching a stage of decline and deformation?*
>>
>> I would not say that the revolution is in "decline" or "deformation".
>> Rather, we need to be more expansive in our historical analysis and even
>> theoretical reflection on what is going on at this historical juncture of
>> 21st century global capitalism and its crisis. The turn to the left in Latin
>> America started out as a rebellion against neoliberalism. The
>> post-neoliberal regimes undertook mild redistributive reform and limited
>> nationalisations, particularly of energy resources and public services that
>> had previously been privatised. They were able to reactive accumulation. But
>> post-neoliberalism that does not now move towards a deeper socialist
>> transformation runs up against limits.
>>
>> The Bolivarian process faces contradictions, problems and limitations, as
>> do all historic projects! I would say that both the Venezuelan revolution
>> and also the Bolivian and Ecuadoran processes, may be coming up against the
>> limits of redistributive reform within the logic of global capitalism,
>> especially given the crisis of global capitalism. Anti-neoliberalism that
>> does not challenge more fundamentally the very logic of capitalism runs up
>> against limitations that may now have been reached.
>>
>> It may be that the best or the only defence of the revolution is to
>> radicalise and deepen the revolutionary process, to push forward structural
>> transformations that go beyond redistribution. The fact is that the
>> Venezuelan bourgeoisie may have been displaced in part from political power
>> but it is still very much in economic control. Breaking that economic
>> control implies a more significant change in property and class relations.
>> This in turn means breaking the domination of capital, of global capital and
>> its local agents. Naturally this is a Herculean task. There is no clear way
>> forward and each step generates complex new contradictions and Gordian
>> knots. Of course these are matters the whole global left must contemplate.
>>
>> Let us recall the lessons of the Nicaraguan and other revolutions.
>> Multiclass alliances generate contradictions once the honeymoon stage of
>> easy redistributive reform and social programs reach their limit. Then
>> multiclass alliances begin to collapse because there are fundamental
>> contradictions between distinct class projects and interests. At that point
>> a revolution must more clearly define its class project; not just in
>> discourse or in politics but in actual structural transformation.
>>
>> At a more technical level, we could say that the contradictions generated
>> by trying to break the domination of global capital are not the fault of the
>> revolution. Venezuela is still a capitalist country in which the law of
>> value, of capital accumulation, is operative. Efforts to establish a
>> contrary logic -- a logic of social need and social distribution -- run up
>> against the law of value. But in a capitalist society violating the law of
>> value throws everything haywire, generating many problems and new
>> disequilibria that the counterrevolution is able to take advantage of. This
>> is the challenge for any socialist-oriented revolution within global
>> capitalism.
>>
>> Venezuela: Epicenter of Counter-Hegemonic Bloc<http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2010/02/08/venezuela-epicenter-of-counter-hegemonic-bloc/>
>>
>> Posted: 08 Feb 2010 05:57 AM PST
>> Interview with William I. Robinson: The challenges facing 21st century
>> socialism in Venezuela
>>
>>
>> *``In Venezuela the biggest threat to the revolution does not come from
>> the right-wing political opposition but from the so-called `endogenous' or
>> `Chavista' right wing, in that chunks of the revolutionary bloc, including
>> state elites and party officials, will develop a deeper stake in defending
>> global capitalism over socialist transformation''' -- William I. Robinson
>> *
>>
>> Interview with *William I. Robinson*, professor of sociology, University
>> of California at Santa Barbara, by *Chronis Polychroniou*, editor of the
>> Greek daily newspaper *Eleftherotypia *
>>
>> February 1, 2010 -- *ZNet* <http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23797>
>>
>> *Chronis Polychroniou: **There are scare stories coming from Venezuela.
>> The border is heating up, infiltration is taking place, a new Colombian
>> military base near the border, US access to several new bases on Colombia
>> and constant subversion. Is the regime concerned about a possible invasion?
>> If yes, who is going to intervene?*
>>
>> *William I. Robinson: *The Venezuelan government is concerned about a
>> possible US invasion and certainly an outright invasion cannot be ruled out.
>> However I think the US is pursuing a more sophisticated strategy of
>> intervention that we could call a war of attrition.
>>
>> We have seen this strategy in other countries, such as in Nicaragua in the
>> 1980s, or even Chile under Allende. It is what in CIA lexicon is known as
>> destabilisation, and in the Pentagon's language is called political warfare
>> -- which does not mean there is not a military component. This is a
>> counterrevolutionary strategy that combines military threats and hostilities
>> with psychological operations, disinformation campaigns, black propaganda,
>> economic sabotage, diplomatic pressures, the mobilisation of political
>> opposition forces inside the country, carrying out provocations and sparking
>> violent confrontations in the cities, manipulation of disaffected sectors
>> and the exploitation of legitimate grievances among the population.
>>
>> The strategy is deft at taking advantage of the revolution's own mistakes
>> and limitations, such as corruption, clientalism and opportunism, which we
>> must acknowledge are serious problems in Venezuela. It is also deft at
>> aggravating and manipulating material problems, such as shortages, price
>> inflation and so forth.
>>
>> The goal is to destroy the revolution by making it unworkable, by
>> exhausting the population's will to continue to struggle to forge a new
>> society, and in this way to undermine the revolution's mass social base.
>> According to the US strategy the revolution must be destroyed by having it
>> collapse it in on itself, by undermining the remarkable hegemony that *
>> Chavismo* and *Bolivarianismo* has been able to achieve within Venezuelan
>> civil society over the past decade.
>>
>> US strategists hope to provoke Chavez into a crackdown that transforms the
>> democratic socialist process into an authoritarian one. In the view of these
>> strategists, Chavez will eventually be removed from power through any number
>> of scenarios brought about by constant war of attribution -- whether through
>> elections, a military putsch from within, an uprising, mass defections from
>> the revolutionary camp, or a combination of factors that can not be
>> foretold.
>>
>> In this context the military bases in Colombia provide a crucial platform
>> for intelligence and reconnaissance operations against Venezuela and also
>> for the infiltration of counterrevolutionary military, economic sabotage,
>> and terrorist groups. These infiltrating groups are meant to harass, but
>> more specifically, to provoke reactions from the revolutionary government
>> and to synchronise armed provocation with the whole gamut of political,
>> diplomatic, psychological, economic and ideological aggressions that are
>> part of the war of attrition.
>>
>> Moreover, the mere threat of US military aggression that the bases
>> represent in itself constitutes a powerful US psychological operation
>> intended to heighten tensions inside Venezuela, force the government into
>> extremist positions or into "crying wolf", and to embolden internal
>> anti-Chavista and counterrevolutionary forces.
>>
>> However, it is important to see that the military bases are part of the
>> larger US strategy towards all of Latin America. The US and the right wing
>> in Latin America have launched a counteroffensive to reverse the turn to the
>> left or the so-called "pink tide". Venezuela is the epicentre of an emergent
>> counter-hegemonic bloc in Latin America. But Bolivia and Ecuador and more
>> generally the region's burgeoning social movements and left political forces
>> are as much targets of this counteroffensive as is Venezuela.
>>
>> The coup in Honduras has provided impetus to this counteroffensive and
>> emboldened the right and counterrevolutionary forces. Colombia has become
>> the epicentre regional counterrevolution -- really a bastion of 21st century
>> fascism.
>>
>> --
>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
>> thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100223/d664d351/attachment-0001.html>