There is no legitmate government in Venezuela, says former Supreme Court Justice

[luiz]

Nah, see, you're absolutising this again. When I say that Chavez is "necessary", I mean that Chavez plays a central, structurally necessary role in the Venezuelan political order; without him, the order cannot produce itself. Things could be otherwise. But they are the way they are. The Opposition's project is to bring about such a state of otherwise-being, and they fail to get themselves elected because they've failed to produce a plausible means of doing so; if they deny this, it's because it's ideologically inconvenient to concede reliance on an opponent.

I disagree. I don't believe in this notion that "if he is, he must necessary". Chávez has been opposed from day one; once they even tried a coup against him.

I don't see why the order could not produce itself with more reasonable ruler. I actually agree that a country like Venezuela, much like Colombia or Brazil for that matter, has a latent social conflict that requires a certain degree of redistributionist policies. But if we just look at Colombia or Brazil we see that a violent clown like Chávez is not necessary for that.

I don't think that we can conflate capital with individual capitalists.

And I don't think capital has a will of its own. Basically there are two categories of capitalists in Venezuela:

-The pre-Chávez capitalists who did not align themselves with the regime and are being driven out of business or out of the country.

-The "boligarchs", Ie, former cronies from Chávez's party who amassed huge fortunes by being granted monopolies and other privileges.

 

[Traitorfish]

I disagree. I don't believe in this notion that "if he is, he must necessary". Chávez has been opposed from day one; once they even tried a coup against him.

I don't see why the order could not produce itself with more reasonable ruler. I actually agree that a country like Venezuela, much like Colombia or Brazil for that matter, has a latent social conflict that requires a certain degree of redistributionist policies. But if we just look at Colombia or Brazil we see that a violent clown like Chávez is not necessary for that.

Again, I'm not saying that Chavez is an absolute precondition of capitalism in Venezeula. I'm saying that actually-existing capitalism in Venezuela requires the mediation of the Chavist party to reproduce itself, because the alternative is uncontrollable popular revolt. Only by bringing popular dissent into official structures- or in the case of the Communal Councils, by bringing official structures into popular dissent- is this revolt made governable- and, in the tradition of classical social democracy, makes an appropriately-subsumed popular dissent the condition of government as represent by the Chavist project.
Certainly, he could be replaced, but doing so means bringing about circumstances in which he is no longer necessary. This can mean the construction of a "right-Chavism", the adoption of the social functions of Chavist project by the opposition, or by the de-necessitation of the Chavist project. But, as of yet, it has not succeeded in making any credible movement towards this end. And I don't simply mean that they haven't been elected- as you say, simply because Chavez is doesn't mean that he must be- but because there is no credible alternative. It's not like the US or the UK, where elections simply represent a choice between two (or more) different flavours of grey-faced managerialism, they're a choice between the Chavist project, and- what?
So long as the Chavist project remains the only credible mode for Venezuelan capitalism, and so long as the Chavist party remains the only credible vehicle for that project, I'd argue the Chavist party remains necessary for Venezuelan capitalism, and insofar as the Chavist party hinges on the personal charisma of Chavez himself, he remains necessary for Venezuelan capitalism.


Further, I don't think that it's simply a matter of "redistribution". The idea that popular revolt is a straightforward matter of material insufficiency, even subjective insufficiency, simply does not stand up to history; in 1848, the starving peasants of Ireland lay down in the fields and died rather than revolt, while in 1968, the well-fed workers of France conducted a wildcat general strike that brought the state to its knees and almost forced a military coup. What's important is practice: the extent to which popular dissent can practically exert itself outside of the complex of capital-and-state, and the extent to which it is forced to (and to a certain extent not insignificant extent, able to) exert itself within that complex. The success of social democracy is not simply material redistribution, but the integration of popular organisations into the capitalist complex. Without that, redistribution would be nothing but an extremely slow revolution, and as Blair demonstrated, it's possible in the right circumstances to uphold that essential order without the accompanying material redistribution.

And I don't think capital has a will of its own. Basically there are two categories of capitalists in Venezuela:

-The pre-Chávez capitalists who did not align themselves with the regime and are being driven out of business or out of the country.

-The "boligarchs", Ie, former cronies from Chávez's party who amassed huge fortunes by being granted monopolies and other privileges.

Capital doesn't have a will of its own- does not in fact exist in any form that could possess one, but as an organisational mode of human society- but it none the less makes demands of its functionaries. Most fundamental, the demand is its reproduction: capitalists do not simply chose but are compelled to reproduce capital by whatever means necessary; all other demands flow from this. In Venezuela, the reproduction of capital has necessitated the Chavist project, and if the Chavist project has necessitated the expulsion of the old bourgeoisie, then capital has demanded a purge of its own functionaries. Nothing new in that; Stalin did the same thing, turned up to 11, back in the '30s. Capital is like all great Lovecraftian horrors unburdened by even the most basic sentimentality.

 

[luiz]

Again, I'm not saying that Chavez is an absolute precondition of capitalism in Venezeula. I'm saying that actually-existing capitalism in Venezuela requires the mediation of the Chavist party to reproduce itself, because the alternative is uncontrollable popular revolt. Only by bringing popular dissent into official structures- or in the case of the Communal Councils, by bringing official structures into popular dissent- is this revolt made governable- and, in the tradition of classical social democracy, makes an appropriately-subsumed popular dissent the condition of government as represent by the Chavist project.
Certainly, he could be replaced, but doing so means bringing about circumstances in which he is no longer necessary. This can mean the construction of a "right-Chavism", the adoption of the social functions of Chavist project by the opposition, or by the de-necessitation of the Chavist project. But, as of yet, it has not succeeded in making any credible movement towards this end. And I don't simply mean that they haven't been elected- as you say, simply because Chavez is doesn't mean that he must be- but because there is no credible alternative. It's not like the US or the UK, where elections simply represent a choice between two (or more) different flavours of grey-faced managerialism, they're a choice between the Chavist project, and- what?
So long as the Chavist project remains the only credible mode for Venezuelan capitalism, and so long as the Chavist party remains the only credible vehicle for that project, I'd argue the Chavist party remains necessary for Venezuelan capitalism, and insofar as the Chavist party hinges on the personal charisma of Chavez himself, he remains necessary for Venezuelan capitalism.


Further, I don't think that it's simply a matter of "redistribution". The idea that popular revolt is a straightforward matter of material insufficiency, even subjective insufficiency, simply does not stand up to history; in 1848, the starving peasants of Ireland lay down in the fields and died rather than revolt, while in 1968, the well-fed workers of France conducted a wildcat general strike that brought the state to its knees and almost forced a military coup. What's important is practice: the extent to which popular dissent can practically exert itself outside of the complex of capital-and-state, and the extent to which it is forced to (and to a certain extent not insignificant extent, able to) exert itself within that complex. The success of social democracy is not simply material redistribution, but the integration of popular organisations into the capitalist complex. Without that, redistribution would be nothing but an extremely slow revolution, and as Blair demonstrated, it's possible in the right circumstances to uphold that essential order without the accompanying material redistribution.

I disagree that the Chavist party was needed to quell social unrest. Why wasn't it needed in poorer and more complex societies such as Colombia and Brazil? How is the Chavist project the only viable form of capitalism in Venezuela? Why would a Brazilian-style social democracy like the one Capriles proposed fail? Or even a more liberal regime like they have in Colombia?

I really don't think that the mere fact that the Chavists are in power means they were needed. As I said, they being power was the result of personal skill and pure chance. Venezuela could just as well be a "regular" democracy like most South American nations. There are no structural factors that made Chavismo a necessity.

Capital doesn't have a will of its own- does not in fact exist in any form that could possess one, but as an organisational mode of human society- but it none the less makes demands of its functionaries. Most fundamental, the demand is its reproduction: capitalists do not simply chose but are compelled to reproduce capital by whatever means necessary; all other demands flow from this. In Venezuela, the reproduction of capital has necessitated the Chavist project, and if the Chavist project has necessitated the expulsion of the old bourgeoisie, then capital has demanded a purge of its own functionaries. Nothing new in that; Stalin did the same thing, turned up to 11, back in the '30s. Capital is like all great Lovecraftian horrors unburdened by even the most basic sentimentality.

"The reproduction of capital" (commie term for people wanting to get richer) in Venezuela did not necessitate the Chavist project at all, in fact this project is an obstacle for quicker accumulation of capital (on the part of the capitalists and society as a whole).

 

[TheLastOne36]

Looks like Chavez is dead.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is he? Nothing in the news about it...

 

[luiz]

Yep, I haven't read anything either.

At any rate, the situation is now becoming creepily like a Latin American "magical realist" novel. The theoretical President, who has not swore his oath, has not uttered a word in nearly two months. The de-facto President has not been named or elected, and in fact holds no official position whatsoever.

Someday this whole situation will become a great book.

 

[TheLastOne36]

It's not official obviously but lots of PSUV leaders are flying to Cuba at the moment to have a meeting.

I don't see why they would do that if it weren't to discuss their next steps. The location in Cuba makes it all the more suspect considering the Cubans have major interest. I wouldn't be surprised that the Cubans are holding back the news of his death as well to prolong things so they can continue stealing as much of Venezuela's wealth as possible.

Also if he was alive and recovering, then he'd be talking to his pueblo on his hospital bed.

 

[luiz]

Oh, I don't believe for a second that he's alive and recovering like the Chavistas say. Best case scenario (for him), he's in coma. But he might well be dead; I agree with you that Cuba and the Chavistas have an interest in keeping it a secret as long as possible.

But we have no way to know for sure which is true. It's all surreal, and a fitting closing for the massive fraud that was Chávez.

I really don't see how anyone can support his regime now with a straight face. I'd like to see what Chomsky, Oliver Stone and co. have to say.

 

[dutchfire]

Reminds me of Sharon.

 

[Neomega]

Oh, I don't believe for a second that he's alive and recovering like the Chavistas say.

Who is the President and head of the legitimate government of Venezuela?

Hugo Chavez is.

http://www.chron.com/news/world/art...ter-2-month-absence-4281619.php#photo-4200277

Sorry Luiz.

The answer to the question of who is president of Venezuela is Hugo Chavez. It was a month ago, and it will be a month from now. And he will be giving a speech in six months, and all you and your phony attempts at stealing the will of the Venezuelan people's elections will be moot. It will not make a good book. It will not be anything, and your ex-supreme court justice has cried wolf his last time.

Looks like Chavez is dead.

Then that is a dead man reading yesterday's newspaper.

 

[luiz]

Ha, funny you bumped this thread.

I was thinking of doing it and ask for your admission that you were completely, entirely and utterly wrong, since it's been more than one month after the inauguration, Chávez hasn't shown up, and the (illegitimate) Maduro regime has not called for elections, as you said they would.

Oh, and as we speak the (illegitimate) Maduro regime is threatening and harassing the opposition, which has if anything been too docile about this white coup. They are talking of jailing conspirators (where's the conspiracy?), of cosmopolitan traitors, the whole nine yards. It's a comical, tropical version of fascism.

 

[Neomega]

Ha, funny you bumped this thread.

I was thinking of doing it and ask for your admission that you were completely, entirely and utterly wrong, since it's been more than one month after the inauguration, Chávez hasn't shown up, and the (illegitimate) Maduro regime has not called for elections, as you said they would.

More than one month after his inauguration? I never said that. I said all that matters is he is "absent" and recovering. I said that this all hinges on whether he is recovering or not, to which you assured us he isn't. You assured us this was all a coup attempt by Maduro and other such worthless nonsense.

I said he will be giving a speech again in six months. A bet you didn't want to take because you were sure he was dead or in a coma. It's been 35 days. Long time until six months.


Chavez is president. No need for medical committee. Chavez is alive and recovering. Chavez is president.

Who is president of Venezuela right now, Luiz?

Say it.

Do you believe he is alive and recovering now? Hmm?

Oh, and as we speak the (illegitimate) Maduro regime is threatening and harassing the opposition, which has if anything been too docile about this white coup. They are talking of jailing conspirators (where's the conspiracy?), of cosmopolitan traitors, the whole nine yards. It's a comical, tropical version of fascism.

You still think you have any credibility on Venezuelan politics?

 

[luiz]

The President-Dictator of Venezuela is Maduro.

I don't know if Chávez is alive and recovering because the authoritarian Venezuelan government has gone through great trouble to censor and control all information regarding the health state of the caudillo. He's been treated in that slave camp known as Cuba for this reason alone.

He may be dead. He may be in a coma. He certainly is in a dire situation or we would have heard a speech by now.

All of that is of secondary importance. What matters is that Maduro illegitimately usurped power and now seema determined to take the dictatorship one step further by jailing everyone who doesn't follow his lead. Whether he will follow his threats remains to be seen.

 

[Neomega]

The President-Dictator of Venezuela is Maduro.

I don't know if Chávez is alive and recovering because the authoritarian Venezuelan government has gone through great trouble to censor and control all information regarding the health state of the caudillo. He's been treated in that slave camp known as Cuba for this reason alone.

He may be dead. He may be in a coma. He certainly is in a dire situation or we would have heard a speech by now.

All of that is of secondary importance. What matters is that Maduro illegitimately usurped power and now seema determined to take the dictatorship one step further by jailing everyone who doesn't follow his lead. Whether he will follow his threats remains to be seen.

Another -1 to your credibility on Venezuelan politics.

Read the link I posted a few posts above, and then answer me:

Who is the president of Venezuela?*

 

[luiz]

Another -1 to your credibility on Venezuelan politics.

Read the link I posted a few posts above, and then answer me:

Who is the president of Venezuela?*

So you think the Venezuelan government isn't censoring and controlling information regarding Chávez's health state?

BTW, I don't claim any extra credibility on Venezuela besides what is published on English, Spanish and Portuguese language news outlets. The last time I've been there was almost 5 years ago and while it gave me insight on the nature of the Chávez regime, it doesn't qualify me to speak of what's going on right now.

Oh, and the President is Maduro.

 

[Neomega]

So you think the Venezuelan government isn't censoring and controlling information regarding Chávez's health state?

Who is the president of Venezuela?

 

[luiz]

Who is the president of Venezuela?

The President-Dictator of Venezuela is Maduro.

Oh, and the President is Maduro.

Anything else?

 

[Neomega]

Anything else?

Yes. Did you see the picture of President Chavez of Venezuela reading yesterday's newspaper?.

And

If Maduro is president of Venezuela, then what position does the elected, living and recovering president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, hold?

Are you trying to tell me Venezuela has two presidents now?

-1 to your credibility on Venezuelan politics.

 

[luiz]

Yes. Did you see the picture of President Chavez of Venezuela reading yesterday's newspaper?.

And

If Maduro is president of Venezuela, then what position does the elected, living and recovering president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, hold?

Are you trying to tell me Venezuela has two presidents now?

-1 to your credibility on Venezuelan politics.

That picture which may or may not be real.
What is certainly real is that we haven't heard Chávez's voice in over two months, and that information on his health state is completely censored.

Maduro is the President, Chávez, if he's alive at all, is now only important as far as he gives a slight touch of legitimacy to the present regime. Which is not to say that if he miraculously recovered he wouldn't get power back; I'm sure he would. But as of now he is not in charge even of his own body.

 

[Neomega]

That picture which may or may not be real.

As I said before. This all hinges on whether Chavez is alive and recovering or not. You were convinced he was dead or in a coma, and all your other pseudo-legal reasoning flowed from that assumption.

Now even a picture of him reading yesterday's newspaper with his daughters is not enough to convince you he is indeed living and recovering.

I will go ahead and let you say whatever else you want. I think anybody else reading this debate will now see crystal clear how your argument was nothing but ill-informed bluster from the get-go.

It all hinged on Chavez' condition. He is alive and recovering... ....if that picture is real.

I am quite confident it is real. Just like I was quite confident the silence was because he was recovering much like Castro had. High security and silent, since both have had assassination attempts on their lives via the United States government.

Chavez is and was president of Venezuela during this whole discussion. Your claims that Maduro was were as wrong as your assertions Chavez was dead or in a coma, and as wrong as your doubts as to the authenticity of the picture.

The picture is real. Chavez is alive, and Chavez is president of Venezuela. Get over it. You lost your gambits. Nobody but you thinks Maduro is president.