Comments on: Bolivar Reborn

By: rumple stiltskin

rumple stiltskin — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:04:34 +0000

A Fair result all round , the People showed great sophistication and have got the balance right.

On a grander level out with Marx and in with neo-Bolivar is the way forward for the international community and especially the dogmatic euro-left.

By: Jairo Lugo

Jairo Lugo — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:28:54 +0000

Sorry rumple_stiltskin24 for not answering earluier. I was too embeded watching the results of the referendum. As you can see this was a defeat for the government by all means. Evenmore since now the control the Supreme Court, the Electoral Comission and the have neutralise the main opposition media. So by any standards this was a defeat to the refeorm plans. Saying that, not all who voted against the reform will vote against the Chavismo in the next elections.

By: rumple_stiltskin24

rumple_stiltskin24 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:31:09 +0000

Well the results are in and democracy has won.

The fact that Bolivar opposed life time rule is fair , but you have to remember the change in mandate is only the changing of the constitution to allow him to stand as far as he keeps winning elections.

Alas , in the real world US interference and expansion is a very real threat and does need measures to be effectively countered.

It should be remembered that we are dealing with a referendum and not an imposed state of emergency without the consent of the electorate.

Bolivar may not be perfect but his undestanding of the true endeavour of community and state self-determination is a far more valid method to follow than the euro-left that amounts to nothing more than an elite-change using a template that was suspect to the aspirations of the late 19th century , yet alone the challenges of the 21st.

By: Jairo Lugo

Jairo Lugo — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:43:23 +0000

I think you are making a good point about the idological basics of The Bolivarian Revolution. However, this revolution has little to do with the Bolivarian doctrine. Simon Bolivar was instead inspire by the French Revolution and the British political system -which not only he admire but ask for help to fight Sapnish. Further more, he betrayed and surrender Francisco de Miranda to the Spanish; the initial ideologue of Venezuela’s independce in 1811; who was more committed to social equality than Bolivar (who against common widsom died still being the richest man in Venezuela in1830). Bolivar’s thinking and aspirations for South America went by all means beyond his times. But lets not kid ourselves, have little to do with Hugo Chavez project, except the us eof his name. By the way, in his letters to Andres Bello in 1919 Bolivar was very clear in opposing the presidents and leaders who wanted to stay in power for ever. “The leader -he said- gets use to order, and the people get use to obey”.

By: rumple stiltskin

rumple stiltskin — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:25:36 +0000

Chavez amendments are a counter to the current; developing and active Monroe Doctrine , it is the Monroe doctrine and its backers within the US and South America that are enforcing the stance of Chavez , rather than Chavez becoming more authoritarian.

The democratic referendum mandate to forever rest the sovereignty of the continent from corporate/colonial/military industrial from the North to the People of the Americas themselves is very much Bolivar outlook compatible.

Also ,One thing that euro-leftists must get a grip of is that the Bolivar revolution took place a full century before the bolshevik and if they are to become relevant then they must study Bolivar more and Marx less , rather than using a superiorist analysis trying to portray Chavez as a person that may eventually become a “real” marxist rather than accepting that Bolivar is the way forward for South America and the Mid-East and Asia.

By: Jairo Lugo

Jairo Lugo — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:24:43 +0000

By those standards, you could say that there is no socialism either in Cuba. Chavez himself has been very explicit –in many occasions- in saying that this constitutional reform will allow the revolution to develop into a truly socialist project (http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n105653.html).
Let me by the way clarify something. I do not agree with Baduel because I do believe that the only way of achieving redistribution is by nationalising a series of industries/services, unifying the national health system and creating a educational system in which rich and poor share the same classroom. I, in other words, do believe that it is necessary to apply some socialist principles. However, Baduel is by all standards a man to be respected and heard. Not sure why you interpret a Cold War discourse in his article, would like to hear your arguments on this.

Best
Jairo

By: m.idrees

m.idrees — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:02:30 +0000

No. What I am saying is someone who lies about events (there is no socialism in Venezuela, and no one is bringing it either, but saying that gets to NYT column space) and then tries to revive cold-war rhetoric for the benefit of the (U.S) audience is neither progressive, nor honest.

And what kind of silly logic is this: “The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela”.

Louis Bonaparte wanted to abolish presidential term limits. I never heard anyone accuse him of establishing a ‘socialist state’.

By: Jairo Lugo

Jairo Lugo — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:25:45 +0000

So basically what you are saying is that there are only two kind of people who can be consider to be progressiove; those who believe in socialism and/or those who do not write for the New York Times?

By: m.idrees

m.idrees — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:37:37 +0000

Baduel deserves to be congratulated in that case for being the first clean, honest and progressive man to be given platform by the New York Times, a paper which, incidentally, editorially backed the 2002 coup d’etat. And I’m afraid I don’t find anything particularly progressive or persuasive about the following statement:
The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs.

By: Jairo Lugo

Jairo Lugo — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:53:12 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01baduel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin