Craig Brozefsky on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:45:01 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Fw: More Wilpert on Venezuela |
Ricardo Bello <aracal@well.com> writes: > Wilpert essay has a flaw, it fails to mention that April 11th march was > one of the activities of an allready three days sucessful general national > strike against Chavez and the reasons why such an strike was so sucessful > and the issues involving such a protest. I agree with him, the new regime > was more authocratic and came from the extreme right (Opus Dei members > among the new ministers and so forth) and Chavez has definetely more > legitimacy than Carmona, but I would like, in all due respect to hear his > evaluation of the strike. Wilpert mentions this in a previous article: http://www.zmag.org/content/LatinAmerica/wilpertvenez.cfm As I write this, on April 9, Venezuelas largest union federation, the Confederacisn de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) has called for a two-day general strike. Venezuelas chamber of commerce, FEDECAMERAS, has joined the strike and called on all of its affiliated businesses to close for 48 hours. This was the second time in four months that the two federations, of labor unions and of business owners, decided to join forces and strike against the leftist government of President Hugo Chavez. What is happening in Venezuela? Why are these and many other forces uniting against Chavez?" I have only second hand information available to me, but most sources I have seen, including eye witnesses such as Wilpert, are of the opinion that this "general strike" was anything but a general popular uprising. As the UK Independent tells it: "Rather than a spontaneous popular uprising to get rid of a despot, this was a carefully orchestrated effort, co-ordinating military dissidents with oil strikers and the leading business and labour organisations." I myself, considering what you have said about the events, think that the truth lies somewhere in between. I'm sure that many share your distaste for Chavez and his policies and that your involvement in such a strike was motivated by a genuine concern for your own safety and livelihood. > inefficient administration of the last fifty years. It is probably > the main cause of the civil unrest and disobedience that shook the > country last week. Bullshit. To place all of this at the feet of a single administration is ludicrous when you consider the opposition that administration is facing, who is funding and supporting that opposition, and the history of Venzuela. Let us not forget that in the last week the head of Fedecameras (the largest business lobby in Venezuela, not some right wing extremist, but a "respected business leader" in your own words) attempted to disband the national legislative and judicial bodies, which is surely at least partially responsible for the civil unrest and disobedience. Ricardo, you have consistently presented a rather biased view of this conflict, which is understandable since I am sure you have a very personal stake in it. At this point tho, I feel you have lost almost all your credibility, not because you have an opinion, but because over your last set of articles you have misrepresented recent events as well as Venezuelan history in a systematic way. You have consistently underplayed the role of Fedecameras and the CTV as well as PDVSA management in the "general strike" and subsequent failed coup, attempting to deflect it onto "extreme right wing groups" and "military top brass". Then you attempted to underplay the role of both the rank and file military and the people of Venezuela in the restoration of Chavez's administration. Most importantly you have papered over the history of class conflict in your country, the birth place of Simon Bolivar, in an attempt to lay the blame for all of the recent events upon Chavez. Your characterization of Chavez as the bringer of disharmony and hatred is ludicrous to anyone with the ability to read an encyclopedia and look at the history of Venzuela. To quote a third party: http://www.geographia.com/venezuela/history.htm "In the early 1900s, the conflict-ridden nation finally began to get on its economic feet with the discovery of oil, and by the 20s Venezuela was beginning to reap the benefits. Unfortunately, most of the wealth remained with the ruling class, and the plague of dictators continued until 1947 when Romulo Betancourt led a popular revolt and rewrote the constitution. The first president-elect in Venezuela's history took office the same year, the novelist Romulo Gallegos. Unfortunately, he was ousted by another dictator and the country did not experience a non-violent presidential succession until 1963. For the next 25 years, things went comparatively well. An oil boom in the mid-1970s saw enormous wealth pour into the country, though, as always, the vast lower class benefited little. Oil prices dropped in the late 80s and once again the country was thrown into crisis. Riots swept through Caracas and were violently repressed, and two coup attempts took place in 1992. Right now, the nation's stability and future are uncertain" In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I support a continuation of the Bolivarian Revolution and I hope that the courage of the Venezuelan people to stand up to a coup eerily similiar to others that have toppled S.A. governments over the last few decades will bring hope to people all over the world in their struggle against U.S. imperialism and the comprador states that carry out its inhuman and destructive policies. -- Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> Free Software Sociopath(tm) http://www.red-bean.com/~craig Ask me about Common Lisp Enterprise Eggplants at Red Bean! # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net