#-gestures at attempted fascist coup--

[bookshelfdreams]

Today is the 70th anniversary of the DDR June uprisings and I am Feeling a way about it

Feeling a way about how this has been all but forgotten, even though it was the first such uprising in the eastern bloc after 1945 and became the blueprint for how the soviet union would deal with such things later on in Czechia, in Poland

About how the DDR seems like barely a footnote, a bad dream we all woke up from in '89, not a real state with real people that did real atrocities that for the most part were never properly dealt with

If we had maybe that could have prevented - well *gestures*

Like the official narrative around June '53 was that it was the work of outside agitators, that it was an attempt at a fascist coup and not to condone the Concerned of today but..... well. Is it any wonder they react the way they do to being called right wing extremists today? (Even though the context of today is obviously very different, I'm talking about emotions. Just because I can understand where they're coming from doesn't mean I think they're right)

These were workers, farmers, who wanted a better life for themselves, the trigger to all this was a cutting of wages. They wanted a higher standard of living, and yes, pretty quickly also freedom and democracy, and end to draconic criminal law (not even just with regards to dissidents, did you know back then they would send people to jail for months over things like petty theft?) and the soviets sent in literal tanks, to shoot at unarmed civilians.

Over a hundred people died that day. People were sentenced to death over this, or sent to prisons and labour camps.

I don't have a way to end this. I'm just. Feeling a way about it.

#german stuff (ost)

[secretmellowblog]

I love seeing other people’s wip stuff so....here are some before and after Wips from the last chapter :)

#anyway yeah i was gonna post these earlier but like #-gestures at attempted fascist coup-- #:/ #the hobbit comic #retelling the hobbit #wip

[theleftycanadianradical]

“I Stand With Trudeau”, is the Rallying Cry of the Moderate

In response to two days of a trending hashtag, by Liberals applauding Justin Trudeau, I can’t help but think of Martin Luther King’s biting criticism for white moderates, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he said:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”

As someone who cares more about ACTIONS and POLICY over performance, looking back on Trudeau’s track record on policy (you know, the stuff that actually changes the material conditions of our lives?), as we approach election 44, I am unmoved by his gestures such as kneeling at Black Lives Matter, or correctly pointing out xenophobia displayed in politicians like Yves Blanchet’s coded language, for a few reasons.

First, Liberal supporters ignore that Justin Trudeau voted for S-7, also known as Stephen Harper’s Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. This controversial bill led to the infamous, “Barbaric Cultural Practices Tip-line”, and his support for it directly contradicts his disapproval for the Islamophobia he is calling out.

Liberals also excuse Trudeau’s selling of arms to Saudi Arabia, that aid in the killing of Yemeni people. Justin Trudeau has increased arms sales in HIS renegotiated weapons contract beyond what Stephen Harper had sold. Liberals will ignore how we can give the banks $750 Billion in liquidity supports, effectively creating money into existence. Then they will defend Trudeau’s arms deal, by blaming Harper, saying our hands are tied because it would cost $1 Billion to rescind this blood-contract.

In other foreign policy matters, Canada’s human rights abuses in our mining sector abroad and our support for christo-fascist regimes in coup attempts against Indigenous leaders and their Indigenous supporters in countries like Bolivia, also doesn’t seem to bother Liberals.

Domestically, Liberals have excused in the last election, Justin Trudeau’s multiple instances of minstrelesque, Brown and Blackface. Now… look, this is something by itself, that  I can forgive being in the past; however, combined with all of the other instances of racism it is part of a pattern. The evidence that there is a clear lack of antiracism and allyship on behalf of the Liberal party, and Trudeau, is piling up.

“I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." 

- Martin Luther King.

Liberals also ignore that we do not track poverty on reserves where it is some of the highest in Canada, so the claims of lifting children out of poverty last election did not actually include First Nations children. They defend the taking of First Nations children to court to appeal an award from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Liberals brush off the failure to meet 2015 promises to deliver clean drinking water to reserves as pipelines for oil move ahead. Liberals made excuses as Trudeau said, “thank you for your donation” to Indigenous protestors, demanding action on the promise to build a rehabilitation facility for Mercury Poisoning victims in Grassy Narrows.

Liberals were also silent when Trudeau’s cabinet, this past winter, voted against a motion to respect the rights of Mi’kmaq to fish when they were being harassed by white supremacists for exercising their treaty rights. Finally, Liberals have also ignored the 3 failing grades that the Liberals have gotten on the MMIWG report, or that First Nations had turned to the UN for help on this.

When it comes to criminal reforms, Liberals let slide Justin Trudeau’s broken promises to eliminate Stephen Harper’s mandatory minimum jail sentences, which impacts Indigenous and Black Canadians who are overrepresented and overpoliced in Canada. And they also ignored when the Liberals passed amendments under Bill C-75 that eliminates due process, and that the Canadian Bar Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association both said were not evidence based and systemically discriminate against Indigenous Canadians and visible minorities. Further confounding systemic racism in our justice system.

Liberals ignore that our Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair, as Chief of TPS, systematically discriminated against Black and Brown boys, violating their Charter Rights by racially targeting and carding them in the City of Toronto. And they ignore that Black people were 20 times more likely to be shot and 5 times more likely to be tased by the TPS, according to Dr. Wortley’s findings in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s report on SIU cases involving the TPS.  Or how farcical and egregious it is that someone like Bill Blair, with this kind of track record is charged with overseeing systemic racism in the RCMP in Canada!

BUT when Trudeau does something performative that doesn’t actually do anything to improve systemic racism in Canada or advance the lives of Indigenous, Black or other visible minorities in Canada, such as kneeling at BLM or taking issue with Yves Blanchet’s coded language (meanwhile supporting discriminatory legislation), or substituting representation for policy, they DO NOT IGNORE THAT.

They will tweet an “IStandWithTrudeau” hashtag, on Twitter for two days, which is more time and attention they give to holding Trudeau accountable for actually addressing these problems instead of contributing to them.

It’s tone-deaf and frustrating to watch year after year, election after election. To close, I leave you with the words of MLK, who also said:

“Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Which says it perfectly.  @allthecanadianpolitics

#Yves Blanchet #xenophobia #blacklivesmatter #indigenouslivesmatter #systemic discrimination #canadian news #canadian politics #justin trudeau #martin luther king #martin luther king day #racism

[canmom]

re the coup attempt in the us

one thing I’m struggling to understand a bit is like... what exactly was anyone who stormed the capitol building trying to achieve? was it just a symbolic gesture of like, standing around in the building and inflicting some damage as they ended up doing, to make the US state institutions seem less invincible? was it just a heat of the moment thing - they saw the police retreating and followed them?

one of the photos showed a guy with a load of zipties, suggesting he hoped to take hostages - but if they had taken hostages, what would they have demanded? the US wouldn’t overturn an election on the basis of a handful of politician hostages. did they hope to sway the army or cops? as @baeddel noted here, the military is mostly loyal to the other side, but maybe in Q-cultist-epistemology that information is less well-known and they imagined that they just had to make some sort of symbolic gesture and the true patriots would take the opportunity to back them with real military force.

of course, many of them do believe that the election has been stolen by some kind of conspiracy - that was like, the ostensible motivation for the protest. but it seems bizarre to think, if there is a conspiracy throughout the US state capable of orchestrating a stolen election, that all it would take to end it would be to show up and run around the building looking tacticool. did they imagine that their gestures would inspire further insurrectionary activity elsewhere?

to follow jackie’s thought experiment, if they had followed the suggestion of ‘kantbot’ (some kind of big name right-accelerationist i think?) and publicly declared a new government and called for arrests of the previous one... like how quickly would it become apparent they don’t have any of the apparatus in place to assume control of all the distributed machineries of a state - are all the government offices and so on really ready to turn around and answer to a bunch of fascists just like that? that seems unlikely to me - trying to make a finishing move of a game without most of the preceding ones.

as it was, it seems like they got off pretty light: one woman was shot by police, three others managed to get themselves killed (including one fascist who somehow managed to kill himself with his own taser lol), the rest were dispersed when it turned out nobody had any idea what to do or arrested in the evening by the police. people are comparing it to the Beer Hall Putsch, which was similarly a desultory gesture of violence against government institutions, albeit a more organised one. well, that’s considered significant because 1. Hitler was treated very softly, and as such able to use his trial and detention as an opportunity to propagandise 2. a decade later the fascist movement would take over the government much more successfully, but that process took several years to develop through ‘ruling party’ to ‘only party’ for people to get used to answering to the Nazis. so, hmm.

as far as taking over the government through popular uprising and military force, well, I guess we have to look to various French revolutions and, of course, the Russian ones. one thing I should research more is like, the initial stages of taking over the government once the Tsar’s family were exiled/killed - I know they ended up holding onto various Tsar-era government officials because, well, it takes a lot of work to do all the functions of a state and those guys knew how to do it. presumably it helped that in that case, the Bolsheviks were already organised in a pretty state-like manner, so they could convert their organisation into a new government relatively directly. and they also had a substantial military force answering directly to them in the Red Army, rather than a handful of proud boys with assault rifles. as it was, the Bolsheviks had to fight a civil war over the next few years in which they could get used to ruling the territory they controlled, and the populations within could get used to answering to the new guys.

(the Nazis were also less of an aggregate of various small movements and weird online cults but a party with a chain of command and a paramilitary wing and like, internal lines of coercive authority, though I don’t want to like over-egg them as some kind of well-oiled state-taking machine because a lot of them were just as much clueless dipshits as the guys who did the thing yesterday.)

there’s some argument, e.g., here, that this ‘coup’ was deliberately permitted to happen by the authorities (since the police retreated and allowed the fascists into the building). after all, the argument goes, the fascists got basically nothing that they wanted but lost a lot of legitimacy; moreover this incident can be used to justify a harsher military crackdown now they’re an outright threat to the functioning of the state. something which of course which can be equally well extended to leftists (BLM etc.).

I’m not fully sure I buy that this was intentional - it seems at least as plausible that (because of narratives around whiteness etc. and the organisation’s broad sympathies) the police completely underestimated how much disruption the fascists would cause and were taken by surprise at large-scale attempts to force their way into the building. in my experience, when a police line breaks, cops will all retreat en masse rather than allow themselves to get surrounded by the crowd as individuals, and attempt to reform the line somewhere forwards. it’s obviously total incompetence as far as ‘upholding the state’ goes but not out of character.

but in terms of likely outcome, reinforcement of the existing power structure seems about the right of it. certainly these guys have no support from capitalist industry, or any particular loyalty from the existing state institutions, nor the military strength to do more than run about in costumes. (I recall the attempted bombing of the houses of parliament by a Catholic conspiracy in the 1600s, which literally hundreds of years later there’s an annual party celebrating the execution of the conspirators! talk about a plan backfiring...)

whether that state crackdown is in any way going to like, slow down the fascist movement is another question. if the fascists’ source of ‘legitimacy’ is defence to the image of a strong authority figure (who trump makes a pretty poor approximation of), i guess the liberals’ legitimacy is about the machinery supposedly playing by its own stupid rules (symbolically more than actually), which might go some way to explaining why they reach for absolutely useless gestures like ‘try impeaching him again’. but it still seems surprising that like, the backlash has been so limited - a three day twitter ban or whatever. perhaps they figure like, they’ll force trump out once they’ve finished with all the administrative theatre of establishing a new government.

anyway. i don’t know what to make of it. i’ve been in positions (on anarchist protests not fascist ones i hope is obvious, but the tactical situation is similar) where as a protestor i’ve been near to a government building and people have considered going in and trashing the place - we didn’t in that case (the protest moved on before we recognised we were walking past the home office, so the opportunity was missed) and it would have been a symbolic gesture that could hardly be interpreted as a coup attempt, much like when the student protests trashed tory hq. had we actually gone into the building, though, i imagine many people would have just followed along, without any clear plan rather than ‘smash some shit’. but then, anarchists have a different game in mind - such a gesture would be attempting to undermine the power structure as a whole rather than bolster one faction at the expense of another. it probably wouldn’t have achieved much to stop deportations either.

solidarity to all my friends in the US and anyone who’s like, increased danger with bitter fascists running about now. i don’t know what to expect at this point - possibly the whole framing of an actor with intentions and plans is just, not relevant to a movement of sporadic violence like this, driven by a vague sense of outrage. like, the Q movement is based on an elaborate fantasy narrative discerned through mystical revelations and codes - I don’t think I get their mindset well enough to know what they’ll do.

it does really illustrate that like, creating a new state to replace an old one requires more than the ability to do damage to the old state. the same goes for, well, creating some kind of unstatelike constellation of systems for meeting peoples needs.

[moviethoughtswithkate]

Succession | S02E04: Safe Room

We watched the episode Safe Room last night and we agreed that it was the best episode of Succession yet. It was an amazing culmination of all the work they’d done in season 1 and the first few episodes of season 2 to set each character on fun and bold trajectories.

Spoilers below for everything up to and including this episode!!

The opening with the fascist news anchor and the fascist supporters and antifa protestors demonstrating and clashing outside the building made my heart race. Tom brushing off the news anchor’s very obvious fascism was so revolting and so enjoyably in character.

Tom is one of my favourite characters on this show. He’s so despicable and annoying and so lacking in any self-awareness. He thinks he’s such an alpha male for marrying someone as gorgeous and rich as Shiv, but Logan was dead right in spotting that Shiv only married Tom because he is beneath her. Shiv, like every other character on this show, is insulated in her bubble of extreme wealth, and like every other character on this show, she has a superiority complex and an easily bruised ego. She wouldn’t cope with being cheated on or betrayed by someone in her own league. Tom’s definitely the beta in the relationship. And then he turns around and acts big and masculine towards poor little Greg to reassure himself that he is, indeed, the man.

Tom and Greg’s relationship had its best scene in this episode. Their fight in the smaller panic room, shot and played like a break up, was SO FUNNY. Any other show attempting to pull off this joke with two male characters would’ve come across as cheap and vaguely homophobic, but with Tom and Greg, it just works. The dynamic between them works because Tom is so self-assured of his power over Greg that the moment that Greg tells him he doesn’t want to work for him anymore, you FEEL Tom’s distress. His whole world’s been turned upside down. It sort of works the way Tom finding out about Shiv’s infidelity worked last season. It’s deliciously satisfying to watch an arrogant man brought to his knees by cracks in his version of reality. I love watching Tom’s side adventures.

The scene in the actual safe room where Kendall, Logan and Shiv were all working on the PGN CEO (don’t remember her name - Reya?) to convince her to sell the company to them was excellent. It was such a good scene because it managed to subtly communicate so many ideas about top down corporate culture (not that I know anything about that lol), about the verbal and nonverbal language of sexism, about masculinity and how financial domination goes hand in hand with sexual domination. Logan and Kendall’s patronising looks and gestures towards Shiv. The Roys’ inability to make the pitch without using graphic sexual metaphors. The sharp contrast between the two companies represented by the people in the room and their language and treatment of Shiv.

The scene between Kendall and Shiv was also so fucking GOOD. Jeremy Strong and Sarah Snook are amazing actors. Jeremy Strong especially has done such a good job as Kendall. They both portray such despicable characters with empathy and nuance that I sometimes feel sorry for them. This was a great scene for showing their brother-sister bond and the depth of Kendall’s downfall since the last season.

Also, does Logan actually care about Kendall now that he’s no longer trying to steal Logan’s company from under him? Is it just his sexism towards Shiv that makes him look so generous towards Kendall in contrast? Does Logan suddenly care about his son’s addiction and mental health issues? It’s extremely hard to believe, but I guess it’s true that once competition is removed, people are a lot nicer to each other, even the Roy family.

Those are just my initial thoughts. This was a GREAT episode that showcased the funniest and darkest aspects of each character. I haven’t even talked very much about Greg or Roman and Gerri or Connor and Willa. Those were great subplots too.

I would highly recommend this show. They set everything up so well in season 1. They reel you in with the almost slapstick dark comedy and keep the momentum going both by staying funny and making bold decisions about where to take each character. Kendall staging a coup (twice). Kendall killing someone. Logan using that to blackmail him. Roman blowing up a spaceship. Greg keeping the papers to use as blackmail. Shiv and Tom being terrible at communicating with each other so many times but getting engaged and married anyway. Logan offering Shiv the top job. Roman nearly ruining the PGN deal. I could go on. Watch this show.

#succession #tv shows #tom wambsgans #kendall roy #shiv roy #logan roy

[millicentthecat]

Why The Last Jedi is a Reactionary Propaganda Film

I've been waiting for my thoughts to coalesce (and for the "spoiler" window to pass) to make a unifying analysis of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  This is not a position piece on whether you should or should not enjoy the movie.  It is not any kind of call to action.  It is only an analysis on how The Last Jedi works as a propaganda film.  It’s my personal interpretation based on my experience with assembling message.  This post is tagged "tlj critical" and "discourse" in hopes that will assist people in finding or blocking the content they wish to read.

To begin:   

As important as diversity in representation is, so too is balanced programming of message.  Programming message involves building value by presenting the very ideologies and mechanisms which sustain paradigms of injustice.  Will these be established as inescapable, natural, desirable, or effective?  The Last Jedi (TLJ henceforth) promotes integration with these ideologies and mechanisms.  It does not promote Resistance.

There are three central messages repeating in TLJ.  They are:

1. Respect and trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy

2. Girls like guys who Join (the military)

3. It is the work/role of women to be caretakers and educators (for men)

1. Respect and trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy

After The Force Awakens, my understanding of Poe Dameron's character was that he was designed as a classic rogue-individualist pilot--a hotheaded "flyboy," as it were.  This was not the fanon interpretation, which is understandable; The Force Awakens gave us a lot of poetic material to take in different directions.  I felt my interpretation was valid as it was supported by the visual dictionary (which calls Poe a rogue, I believe) and a line in The Force Awakens novelization about how some people are inherently more important than others.

In short, Poe Dameron was an individual who trusted his own instincts more than others and didn't believe in always playing nice.  In TLJ, this manifests in his relationship with a new character: Vice Admiral Holdo.  Now one of the only things we know FOR SURE about Poe Dameron is that he has no problem taking orders from women, respecting a female General, and trusting her experience.  This is demonstrated by his relationship to Leia, who he knows.  Holdo is a stranger who Poe has never met.  She is not just a woman, but an unknown woman.  EVEN SO, Poe is willing to trust her (at first) by sharing his assessment of the situation--essentially, submitting what he knows for her consideration, sharing his thoughts.  She responds to this by withholding information, reminding him of his recent demotion, and calling him names.  She responded to his  gesture of openness and respect with domination and authority.

This is well within her right, as established by both in-universe and our-universe rules of institutional hierarchy.  Poe, however, does not blindly trust authority figures OR institutional hierarchy more than his own instincts.  It's actually pretty unusual for a protagonist in this universe to do that, for reasons.

Later, General Leia reveals to both Poe and the audience that Holdo had information she was not willing to share.  She is strongly moralized as having been "right" about her plan: Poe takes his reprimand from Leia like a boy accepting a scolding.  Holdo is martyred and established as an example of strong leadership.  Her decision to withhold information from her subordinate is never highlighted (by a narrative authority or third party, such as Leia) as a mistake.  In our society, the rules of hierarchy dictate that "superiors" do not have to share what they have with "inferiors" or treat them with respect.  Those with more power are not beholden to those with less.  Poe is reprimanded for challenging that.

I was almost willing to overlook this deliberately moralized messaging as a botched attempt at a feminist moment before encountering the reviews about TLJ.  In general, there are a large number of reviews for this film which insinuate that most of the people who dislike this film are white male bigots, threatened by the presence of women. (a, b , c , d , e , f , g , h) .  This is not my experience.  The other thing many reviews point to is how Feminist this film is (as a selling point.)  It is an eerily unanimous opinion in mainstream, corporate media that Poe mistrusted Holdo because of her femininity--not her behaviors.  On social media where unpaid people are speaking, many young women are challenging this.  The shouting-down of women's opinions by accusing us of misogyny is a separate topic, but I did want to call attention to the discrepancy between the corporate media response and the social media response.  To me this is evidence of a deliberate misdirection.

Another story arc which enforces the position that we should trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy is in the reestablishment of the Jedi Order, via Luke, Yoda's Force Ghost, and, more significantly, Rey.  Now, much has been written (on this blog, and in many more prestigious place and by better known writers.  See Tom Carson's "Jedi Uber Alles," for instance) in the way of criticism of the Jedi.  The child abducting, the mind control, the over-extension of executive powers, the militarized cult status, the extermination of the Sith race, the monopolization of the Force; their crimes go on and on.  Moreover these are not just mistakes the Jedi made--crimes secondary to their nature--but rather these are the very nature of what their institution stood for.  The Jedi are not "the Light."  They are a specific religion with specific, inherently problematic practices and ideologies.

The Last Jedi is literally a movie about how it's ok that there are going to be more Jedi.

Luke's not on board with that, at first.  Master Yoda (from beyond the grave) reasserts the divine right of the Jedi to rule, as badly and indefinitely as they like.  Because even their failure is valuable.  Try try again, one supposes.  Whatever happened to, "there is no try?"  Oh yes, I remember.  The laws of the privileged do not apply to them.  

Last but not least, the character most overtly challenge institutional hierarchy in TLJ is Kylo Ren, when he kills Supreme Leader Snoke.  This move is not specifically negatively moralized (unless you read Kylo as the villain, which I prefer to) but it also very clearly does not result in a positive or progressive change for Kylo.  At the end of the film, he is miserable; his coup changed nothing.

2. Girls like guys who Join (the military)

"It's all a machine, brother," slurs an alcoholic loner-character known as "Don't Join," sometime after dropping the news on us that Good Guys and Bad Guys buy their weapons from the same arms dealer.  His general sense of hopelessness rubs off on Finn, who grows in his story arc from being willing to Unjoin, himself (as a deserter) to throwing himself into a suicide run for the Resistance.  What stops Finn from a kamikaze end is Rose: she saves him.  For the young viewer who agrees with DJ and sees machinery in war and capitalism, this suicide run represents the realistic (and popular trope) outcome of "joining."  War leads to death.  Capitalism leads to death.  Our generation knows this and we ask, as many before have asked, "why should I be a hero?  I'll just end up dead!"

The Last Jedi does what every great work of propaganda targeting young men does.  It gives a reason.  Why be a hero?  Because girls, that's why.

Before this pact is made, however, there needs to be a little softening-of-the-way--a little grooming.  The word "hero" has been deconstructed in the language enough that people know to associate it with self sacrifice.  We are wary of heros.  The Last Jedi substitutes the word "leader" to mean what hero once meant: a person in power whose sacrifices are gratified with moral rightness in the narrative.  This subverts any counter-programming people were able to apply towards "heroic" stories.  Leadership is presented as an inherently positive and desirable quality, linked to selflessness, sacrifice, martyrdom, and rewarded with female attention.

This same re-programming wordplay is employed in Rose Tico's call to action: "not fighting what we hate.  Saving what we love!"  Question: if the behaviors and outcome are the same, does the mental engineering matter?  Is a Rose by any other name still a Rose?

Is war still war if you call it love?

At this point I also want to call attention to the fact that there is AGAIN very little opportunity in this film where to SEE the First Order committing atrocities: abducting kids, repressing a labor uprising, etc etc.  The First Order is never called fascist (nor, if I recall, are they referred to as an actual nation.)  Their politics aren't even alluded to.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the film implies it doesn't matter which side you join, but I think there's definitely an argument that being involves with one side or the other is lauded more highly than staying neutral.

Worth mentioning: "Girls like guys who Join" is also the message of Luke's story arc.  Both Rey and Leia wanted Luke to rejoin the arena.  Rey even expresses a willingness to get closer to Kylo--while he is acting like a Joiner.  The minute he makes it clear that he wants no part in either side of the conflict (No Jedi, No Sith, no ties to the past, etc) Rey's trust is broken.  She leaves.  Her rejection IMMEDIATELY follows his insistence on leaving tribal war in the past.  It does not correspond with any immediacy to his acts of violence, nor to his stubborn declaration that she "will be the one to turn."

A brief note.  Army enrollment messaging is a necessary and functional part of maintaining an imperial state.  The in-text discourse positions an offensive/insurgent military organization against a defensive military organization, during combat.  "Join up" is therefore an aggressively interventionist and arguably imperialist position.

3. It is the work/role of women to be caretakers and educators (for men)

This is one of the oldest motifs in storytelling, so when I say it's conservative I mean really, really conservative.  Traditional gender roles and traditional family values are just that: extremely traditional.  Many people find comfort in them and are extremely threatened by their breakdown.  For this reason, storytellers are authorized to hand-wave or sexualize an inordinate amount of violence toward women in order to keep paradigms of labor as gendered as possible.

First of all, there are literal feminine-coded creatures on the island of Ahch-to called "caretakers."  These aliens watch over the island and look after the hutts where Luke Skywalker has taken up residence.

Second of all, Holdo's arc with Poe and Rose's arc with Finn are full of nods to the idea that women must teach and lead men.  Men (who are inherently dogs, apparently) will speak over us, desert us, aim guns at us, and otherwise challenge us, and it is our duty to keep them in line.  This is to be expected.  Flyboys will be flyboys.

Third, it is Rey's sacred duty to prepare Luke to return to the arena of battle.  When Luke fails to step into that role, she turns to Kylo Ren.  Rey and Leia both possess Force-related powers.  Both spend most of their time directing these powers to trying to save, protect, or heal male warriors around them.  When they do fight, rather than act themselves as subjects, they punish men who objectify them inappropriately as a corrective measure.

To be fair, Admiral Holdo and Paige Tico both act directly against the enemy.  They also both have close mentor relationships with other women.  However, Paige and Holdo both die in the course of the film.

A final personal note: in my opinion, there are many ways socially problematic and coercive content offers comfort to a population where uncomfortable traditions feel like the only option.  However, this way of life is not the only option, and this media is not comforting to everyone.

#tlj critical #the last jedi #discourse #star wars #rey star wars #poe dameron #meta #amilyn holdo #kylo ren #luke skywalker #rose tico #paige tico #hating star wars like a star wars fan #contributing to the critical community i guess #star wars: it got wars in it #a paper by me

[marymosley]

Chicago Professor Brian Leiter Removes Controversial Post That Appeared To Call For A Military Coup

Figures from Glenn Greenwald to Tucker Carlson have raised the recent posting by University of Chicago Professor Brian Leiter saying that military leaders should “depose” President Donald Trump and jail him.  The posting was either a poor attempt at  a coup or comedy. The real problem is that in today’s environment it was unclear and, worse yet, unremarkable. On Reddit, readers were directed to “Brian Leiter (UoC professor) calls for a military coup: “Trump should be deposed and jailed” Leiter removed the statement and blamed the lack of a sense of humor on those who objected.  He was not calling for a coup d’état, just musing about the possibility of a coup d’état.

On his site, Leiter discussed the criticism of Trump by General Mattis and stated that Mattis now “needs to encourage his military colleagues who share his respect for American democracy and the rule of law to do what he should have done while in office: Trump should be deposed and jailed.”

Leiter later removed the statement with an addendum reading:

“I’ve removed my little joke about a military coup in favor of VP Pence.   I have, it appears, more faith in the U.S. military, and its commitment to the rule of law, than most readers.”

The incident however raises a more concerning problem.  Many could not tell.  It is now routine for academics to make sweeping and irresponsible statements about how to deal with Trump and his Administration.  This is not a reference to the distortion of the criminal code to declare a host of criminal acts that are unsupportable under controlling case law.  It is superheated rhetoric of professors denouncing the Trump Administration as a fascist regime and even endorsing violent protests as a form of speech.

Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe retweeted a comparison of Trump to Hitler engaging in similar gestures and calling it “horrifying,”  He later took done the tweet and said “I’m not saying Trump is becoming Hitler, so don’t bother tweeting the distinctions.”  Many are still making the comparison.  Indeed, I have had other professors make the same comparison in conversations.

A professor who said that he teaches a course on fascism insisted that the comparison to fascism is apt and that violence is warranted, including the attack on journalist Andy Ngo: “I don’t have a problem with it. There are children dying of lack of medication in concentration camps in the U.S. If one fascist gets a milkshake thrown at him… And beaten up. I don’t have a problem with it.”

This is why people do not get the joke because many academics are not joking.  Indeed, we have discussed cases where faculty have been physically attacked and intimidated.

The irony is that many of these same academics (rightfully) chastise Trump for his often inflammatory and reckless rhetoric.

I am entirely convinced that Leiter honestly meant this as a joke and that he is committed to the rule of law.  I do not want to pile on him for a simple mistaken posting.  However, this controversy is occurring as such rhetoric is on the rise among academics who call Trump a Hitler-like figure and his supporters fascists.  While some say afterwards “I was just joking,” the intent is to suggest that such comparisons or counteractions to fascism are warranted.

The point is only that there remains little self-evaluation in the academic over superheated rhetoric.  Even a statement calling for a military coup is not particularly notable whether as a joke or a serious suggestion in this environment.  The effect is chilling for many Republican and conservative academics and students.  I am neither a Republican nor conservative but the level of open hostility and intolerance that I have seen in the academy is shocking and chilling.  Such outrageous statements are now treated as a virtual type of article of faith among academics.  The result is a type of socially reinforced orthodoxy among academics against those who may agree with the Administration on legal interpretations or policy choices. This is what is not funny in the slightest.

Chicago Professor Brian Leiter Removes Controversial Post That Appeared To Call For A Military Coup published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[citizentruth-blog]

Fears of US-Backed 'Coup' in Motion as Trump Recognizes Venezuela Opposition Lawmaker as 'Interim President'

In response to Trump declaration, President Nicolas Maduro gives diplomats from 'imperialist' U.S. 72 hours to leave the country. (Common Dreams) President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela officially cut off dipomatic ties with the U.S. government on Wednesday—and gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country—in response to President Donald Trump declaring formal recognition of an opposition lawmaker as the "Interim President" of Venezuela, despite not being elected by the nation's people for that position. "They intend to govern Venezuela from Washington. Do you want a puppet government controlled by Washington?" —Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro"Before the people and nations of the world, and as constitutional president," declared Maduro to a crowd of red-shirted supporters gathered outside the presidential residence in Caracas, "I've decided to break diplomatic and political relations with the imperialist U.S. government." According to the Associated Press: Maduro said in his speech the U.S. was making a "grave mistake" by trying to impose a president on Venezuela and rattled off a long list of countries — Guatemala, Brazil, Chile and Argentina—that saw leftist governments toppled or come under military rule during the Cold War with U.S. support. In a prepared White House statement earlier in the day, Trump declared he was "officially recognizing the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the Interim President of Venezuela." In addition to vowing to "use the full weight of United States economic and diplomatic power" to restore what he called "democracy" in the country, Trump also encouraged "other Western Hemisphere governments" to recognize Guaido. Shortly later, CBC News reported that Canada, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, was making plans to follow Trump's lead. In his remarks from Caracas, Maduro told his supporters "the very existence of our Bolivarian republic" was under threat and urged them to resist "at all costs" what he explicitly described as a "coup" attempt by the "interventionist gringo empire" and the "fascist right" within his own country. "They intend to govern Venezuela from Washington," Maduro declared. "Do you want a puppet government controlled by Washington?" Critics of U.S. imperialism and its long history of anti-democratic manuevers in Latin American expressed immediate alarm on Wednesday after Trump's announcement. And what Trump identified as "democracy," critics of the move instead used Maduro's description: "coup." Recognize this for what it is: Trump is declaring a US-led coup in Venezuela, from abroad Trump (who don't forget lost the popular vote) is recognizing an illegitimate unelected right-wing opposition leader as fake "president" of Venezuela This is a couphttps://t.co/UDq455Tfdj — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 23, 2019 The US is currently backing a right wing coup in Venezuela. Where is the anti-trump resistance? https://t.co/un8ZPlrUYq — Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 23, 2019 Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), called the latest moves by the Trump administration a "disgrace." "It's acceleration of the Trump administration's efforts at regime change in Venezuela," said Weisbrot. "We all know how well that strategy has worked out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria—not to mention that hundreds of thousands of people in Latin American have been killed by U.S.-sponsored regime change in Latin America since the 1970s." An absolutely classic late-imperial line. Bonus points for pretending the US’ bloody 20th century in Latin America never happened and doesn’t matter. https://t.co/BPmY9hpGme — Cori Crider (@cori_crider) January 23, 2019 The announcement by the U.S. and Canada—one also backed by the newly-elected far-right Brazilian President Jair-Balsonaro—arrived on the same day that massive street protests in Caracas and elsewhere across Venezuela were held by opposition parties and those upset with Maduro's leadership and just two days after the latest failed coup attempt by rogue military officials. Following a call for progressive U.S. lawmakers to respond, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted: Let me get this straight. The US is sanctioning Venezuela for their lack of democracy but not Saudi Arabia? Such hypocrisy. Maduro’s policies are bad and not helping his people, but crippling sanctions or pushing for regime change will only make the situation worse. https://t.co/NU6ikw0hoC — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) January 23, 2019 Considering the U.S. political class has spent the last two years up in arms over the idea that the Russian government had the audacity to interfere in the 2016 elections, it stands to reason that the U.S. government simply deciding to "recognize" an un-elected opposition lawmaker as president of a foreign nation—regardless of affinity for the actual elected president—might be viewed as problematic: I’m no expert on Venezuela but I’m pretty sure you can think Maduro is a horrible/bad/authoritarian president *and* also think it’s bad for the US to back coups or regime change there. — Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) January 23, 2019 While members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, including Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, embraced Trump's move, more progressive-minded critics pushed back: An absolutely classic late-imperial line. Bonus points for pretending the US’ bloody 20th century in Latin America never happened and doesn’t matter. https://t.co/BPmY9hpGme — Cori Crider (@cori_crider) January 23, 2019 On Tuesday, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence stirred outrage of his own by issuing a statement in support of the anti-government protest movement—a gesture critics similarly viewed as an explicit effort to undermine Maduro by fomenting the nation's right-wing to stage a coup against the socialist government. In Facebook post on Wednesday, Dr. Francisco Dominguez, secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, a U.K.-based campaign that backs the Bolivarian revolution and Venezuela's right to self-determination, voiced loud objection to the U.S. vice president's call. "This is an outrageous violation of international law and an unacceptable interference into the affairs of a sovereign nation plus a grotesque aggression by openly calling on Venezuelans to rise up to oust the democratically elected government," Dominguez said. "The U.S. has tried to oust the democratically elected government of Venezuela since 1998 and the brief April 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez had Washington fingerprints all over." Pointing to the history of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, including the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile, Dominguez said the people of the region know all too well the "horrendous results" of anti-democratic interventions by the Americans. Naming Pence, President Donald Trump, national security advisor John Bolton, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as leaders of hawkish tendencies within the U.S. government, Dominguez characterized the recent history of U.S. aggression towards Venezuela—"20 years of golpismo, economic warfare, destabilization, violence, financial blockade"—as a strategy that would allow U.S.-backed interests to get their hands on the country's "oil, gold, coltan, thorium and many other lucrative raw materials." In a tweet on Tuesday, Rubio warned the Maduro government it was "about to cross a line & trigger a response that believe me you are not prepared to face," a reference to violence predicted at Wednesday planned opposition protests. According to CEPR's Weisbrot, the economic sanction imposed on Venezuela by the U.S. and other nations are designed to destabilize the country and have helped fuel the economic anxieties that, in part, drive the street protests and social upheaval. "The Trump sanctions on Venezuela are illegal under U.S. and international law, and they have killed many people in that country," he explained. Weisbrot rejected the idea that members of the administration or others pushing for regime change in Venezuela are doing so on behalf of the Venezuelan people. "Of course it goes without saying," he concluded, "that all of these crimes and threats of violence from Pence, Trump, Rubio, etc. have nothing to do with 'democracy.'" Read the full article

#coup #LatinAmerica #Maduro #NicolasMaduro #SouthAmerica #Trump #venezuela

[omginstantpaperbouquetblr]

By Claudio Katz / Socialist Project.

The Left and Venezuela

During the last two months Venezuela has been faced with a terrible wave of violence. It has already resulted in more than 60 deaths along with looted schools, burned public buildings, destroyed public transportation and emptied hospitals. The major media, however, simply engage in a running stream of gruesome denunciations of the government. They have installed the image of a dictator in conflict with the opposition democrats.

Supporters of President Nicolás Maduro participate in a rally in Caracas in support of the national Constituent Assembly.

But the statistics do not corroborate that narrative, especially when it comes to those who have fallen. When the number had risen to 39, an initial report pointed to only four who were victims of the security forces. The remainder had died in looting or shoot-outs within the opposition mobilizations.[1] Another assessment noted that 60 per cent of those killed had absolutely nothing to do with the clashes.[2]

These characterizations are consistent with the estimates that attribute most of the murders to snipers linked with the opposition. More recent inquiries report that most of the victims lost their lives through vandalism or settlements of accounts.[3]

There are numerous denunciations as well of incursions by paramilitary groups linked to the Right. And there are indications that much of the violence enjoys local protection from municipalities governed by the opposition.[4]

Those death tolls are consistent with the fascist brutality that led to setting afire persons associated with Chavismo.[5] Burning alive a partisan of the government is a practice more closely linked to the Colombian paramilitaries or the criminal underworld than it is to the traditional political organizations. Some analysts even estimate that out of a total of 60 deaths, 27 were of sympathizers of Chavismo.[6]

Others say that within the opposition marches there are some 15,000 persons trained as shock groups. They are using balaclavas, shields and home-made weapons to create a chaotic climate and establish “liberated territories.”[7]

Assessing the Violence

The assessments presented by the opposition are diametrically opposite, but have been refuted by detailed reports on the victims.[8] Since no one acknowledges the existence of “independent” assessments, it is appropriate to judge what is happening, bearing in mind the antecedents. In the guarimba of February 2014, 43 persons died, the great majority of them unrelated to the political clashes or police repression.

Similarly, we need to assess how the opposition reacted when faced with an equivalent challenge. Its governments finished off the “Caracazo” of 1989 with hundreds of deaths and thousands of wounded.

The situation in Venezuela is dramatic but this does not explain the centrality of the country in all the news reports. Situations of greater seriousness in other countries are totally ignored by the same media.

In Colombia, since the beginning of the year, 46 social movement leaders have been assassinated and in the last 14 months 120 have perished. Between 2002 and 2016 the paramilitary forces massacred 558 mass leaders, and in the last two decades up to 2,500 tradeunionists have been murdered.[9] Why no mention by any broadcaster of repute of this ongoing bloodshed in Venezuela’s nearest neighbour?

More terrifying is the scene in Mexico. Every day some journalist is added to the long list of students, teachers and social fighters who are assassinated. In the climate of social warfare imposed by the “anti-drug trafficking actions,” 29,917 people have disappeared.[10] Should not this level of killings attract more journalistic attention than Venezuela?

Honduras is another hair-raising case. Along with Berta Cáceres 15 other militants have been murdered. Between 2002 and 2014 the number of assassinated environmental defenders has risen to 111.[11] The list of victims of the horror who are ignored by the hegemonic press could be extended to Peru’s political prisoners. Moreover, very few know of the suffering confronted by the Puerto Rican independence leader Oscar López Rivera during his 35 years of imprisonment.

The majority of the Latin American population simply does not know of the tragedies prevailing in the countries governed by the Right. The media’s double standard confirms that Venezuela’s prominence on the television screens is not due to humanitarian concerns.

Forms of a Coup

The media coverage shores up the opposition’s promotion of a coup. Since they cannot carry out classic disturbances like those that led to Pinochet’s coup, they try to remove President Maduro through the dislocation of society. They repeat what was attempted in February 2014 in order to commit an institutional coup similar to the ones carried out in Honduras (2009), Paraguay (2014) or Brazil (2016). They hope to impose through force what they will later validate in the ballot boxes.

The Right lacks the military force used in the past to return to government. But it is trying to recreate such intervention by staging skirmishes at military barracks, setting fire to police stations or marching on military headquarters.

Its plan combines sabotage of the economy with riots by armed groups which, in contrast to Colombia, act anonymously. These actions are mingled with the criminal underworld and they terrorize merchants.[12]

The actions include fascist methods sponsored by the most violent currents of anti-Chavismo. They appropriate the insurgent symbolism forged by the popular movements and present their pillage as a heroic gesture. Their leader Leopoldo López is not some innocent politician. Any court operating under the rule of law would have sentenced him to life imprisonment for his criminal liability.

The Right promotes a climate of civil war in order to demoralize the Chavista bases, affected by the lack of food and medicine. It is explicit in its call for foreign intervention and negotiates with the creditor banks an interruption in the country’s access to credit.

The opposition hopes to lynch Maduro in order to bury Chavismo. It takes its battle to the streets, in the conquest of public opinion and the collapse of the economy. It considers elections as nothing more than a simple coronation of this offensive.

But it is confronting growing obstacles. The predominance of the violence in its marches alienates the majority of those who are discontented and wears down its own demonstrators. As it did in 2014 the rebuff of the fascists undermines the entire opposition. Maduro’s steadfastness, moreover, deters attendance in the marches. They have not managed to penetrate the popular neighborhoods where they still confront the risk of an adverse armed conflict.[13]

The big bourgeoisie in Venezuela incites the coup with the regional support of Macri, Temer, Santos and Peña Nieto. For months it has been promoting a destabilizing plan in the OAS. But it has failed to get results in that area. Proposed sanctions against Venezuela have been unsuccessful because of the opposition of various foreign ministries; they have failed to achieve the unanimity with which Cuba was expelled from the OAS in the 1960s.

Notorious, as well, is the United States’ promotion of coups with the aim of regaining control over the major crude oil reserve on the continent. The State Department wants to repeat the operations it used in Iraq or Libya, in the knowledge that after overthrowing Maduro no one will remember where Venezuela is. It suffices to see how the media omit any mention in the news of the countries where the Pentagon has already intervened. Once the adversary is liquidated, the news turns to other issues.

The strategic goals of imperialism are not registered by those who highlight the flirtation of some U.S. newspaper with the Venezuelan president or the verbal ambiguities of Trump.[14] They imagine that those irrelevant facts illustrate the absence of any conflict between the United States and Chavismo. But it does not register with them that the immense majority of the press is maliciously attacking Maduro and that the multimillionaire in the White House denies each day what he said the previous day.

Trump is not indifferent or neutral. He simply delegates to the CIA and the Pentagon the implementation of a conspiracy that is designed through the Sharp and Venezuela Freedom 2plans. Those operations include espionage, troop deployment and cover for terrorism.[15] They develop in a stealthy way while the major media outlets discredit any condemnation of those preparations. They question especially the “exaggerations of the left” so that no one will disturb the conspirators.

Some analysts think the presence of Chevron in Venezuela – or PDVSA’s continued business in the United States – illustrate a tight association between the two governments.[16] They conclude from this relationship that there is no coup scenario. But those connections do not alter in the least the Empire’s decision to overthrow the Bolivarian government.

The activities of U.S. corporations in Venezuela (and of their counterparts in the United States) have persisted from the outset of the Chavista process. But Bush, Obama and Trump have sought to recover direct imperial control over the oil. They cannot get this through a strained relationship between partners or clients. They want to install the model of privatization that prevails in Mexico and to expel Russia and China from their backyard.

Attitude of the Left

If the diagnosis of a reactionary coup is correct, the position of the left should not give rise to disagreements. Our main enemies are the Right and imperialism, and to crush them is always a priority. This elementary principle must be reaffirmed at critical times when what is obvious can become confused.

Whatever our criticisms were of Salvador Allende, our central battle was against Pinochet. Similarly, we adopted a corresponding line of conduct toward the Argentine gorillas of 1955 or the saboteurs of Arbenz, Torrijos and the various anti-imperialist governments of the region. This position in Venezuela today points to the need for common action against the rightist escalation.

When a coup is on the horizon, it is indispensable to single out those who are responsible for the crisis. Those who cause a disaster are not the same as those who are powerless to resolve it.

This distinction applies in the economic field. The errors committed by Maduro are both numerous and unjustifiable, but those guilty of the present damage are the capitalists. The government is tolerant or incapable, but it does not belong on the same plane. Those who commit the monumental error of drawing a line of identity between both sectors[17] confuse responsibilities of a different nature.

The government’s mistakes have been demonstrated in the inoperative system of currency exchange rates, the unacceptable external debt, or in the lack of control over prices and smuggling. But the collapse of the economy has been caused by the affluent who manipulate the currencies, trigger inflation, handle imported goods and limit supplies of basic goods.

The Executive is unresponsive or acts mistakenly for many reasons: inefficiency, tolerance of corruption, protection of the bolibourgeoisie, connivance with millionaires disguised as Chavistas. That’s why it does not cut support to the private groups that receive cheap dollars in order to import dear. But the collapse of production has been carried out by the ruling class in order to overthrow Maduro. Not to recognize that conflict is to display an unwonted level of myopia.

This blindness prevents recognition of another key fact at this time: the resistance of Chavismo to the rightist onslaught. Albeit with methods and attitudes that are highly questionable, Maduro is not surrendering. He maintains the vertical structure of the PSUV, he favours the banning of the critical currents, and he preserves a bureaucracy that strangles responses from below. But unlike Dilma or Lugo he does not give in. His conduct is the exact opposite of the capitulation carried out by Syriza in Greece.

This stance explains the hatred of the powerful. The government has made the excellent decision to withdraw from the OAS. It has abandoned the Ministry of Colonies and carried out the rupture that the left has always demanded. This decision should arouse the overwhelming support that very few have expressed.

Like any administration under attack from the Right, the government has resorted to force in its self-defence. The establishment media denounce that reaction with unusual hysteria. Forgotten are the justifications habitually made by governments of another character when they face similar situations. But Maduro has also been challenged conversely for his relative indulgence toward the fascists. He has simply adopted guarded measures in response to the opposition savagery.

In its response the government has of course committed injustices. That’s the regrettable cost of any significant confrontation with the counter-revolution. These mishaps have been present in all battles with the reaction, from Bolívar to Fidel. There is a need to avoid self-indulgence in this delicate terrain, but without repeating the slanders propagated by the opposition.

Maduro is directing his fire against the Rightist brutality and not against the people. So it makes no sense to compare him with Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. He has not carried out any massacre of left-wing activists or participated in war-mongering adventures instigated by the United States. The analogy with Stalin is more ridiculous, but it reminds us that the spectre of Hitler hovers over many of the opposition leaders associated with Uribe or nostalgic for a Pinochet.

Social-Democratic Positions

In recent months, as well, among the adversaries of the Right there has been an increase in views that blame Maduro for Venezuela’s agony. These opinions repeat the old social- democratic posture of joining with the reaction at critical moments.

They question the legitimacy of the government, using the same arguments as the opposition. Instead of accusing the CIA, the escuálidos [the squalid ones, a Venezuelan phrase for the filthy rich], or the OAS, they concentrate their objections against Chavismo. They do this in the name of a democratic ideal that is as abstract as it is divorced from the battle to determine who will prevail in the running of the state.

This position has affected various “critical left” thinkers [pensadores del post-progresismo] linked to autonomism. Not only do they accuse Maduro for the present situation, they say he has reinforced an authoritarian leadership in order to maintain the model based on hydrocarbon rents.[18]

This characterization is very similar to the liberal thesis that attributes all of Venezuela’s problems to populist politics, implemented by tyrants who are squandering the resources of the state. Only they use language that is more diplomatic in its diagnosis.

Other views of the same order point more categorically to the responsibility of the Chavista leader. They call on us as well to avoid “the conspiratorial over-simplification of blaming the Right or imperialism” for the country’s troubles.[19] But are the conspirators of the reaction imaginary? Are the murdered, the paramilitaries and the plans of the Pentagon paranoiac Bolivarian inventions?

Without answering this elementary question, that position also dismisses any comparison with what happened in Chile in 1973. However, it does not explain why that analogy is inapplicable. It takes for granted that the two situations differ without noting the huge similarities in respect to the shortages, the conservative irritation of the middle class or the intervention of the CIA.

The disputed parallels with Allende are, however, accepted in the case of the first Peronist government, which is viewed as a direct antecedent of Chavismo. But is the resemblance located in the years of stability or in the moments prior to the coup of 1955? The preoccupation with the escalation of violence suggests that the similarity is in relation to that latter period. And in a situation of that type what was the priority? Confront Perón’s authoritarianism or resist the gorillas?

The social-democrats and “critical left” point to the authoritarian Maduro as the main cause of the current situation.[20] That’s why they downplay the danger of a coup and reject the need to prepare some defense against the Right’s provocations.

But the consequences of this attitude are demonstrated whenever the oligarchs and their bandits return to government. The recent events in Honduras, Paraguay or Brazil do not even arouse alarm among those who demonize Chavismo.

They object as well to the extractivism, indebtedness and contracts with oil companies. But they do not explain if they are demanding anticapitalist and socialist alternatives to these obvious failings of Maduro. The same applies to the shortages and the speculation. Are they urging him to act with greater firmness against the bankers and the big commercial cartels? Do they propose confiscations, nationalizations, or direct popular control?

By adopting these initiatives one could imagine building bridges with the government, but never with the opposition. The detractors of Chavismo sidestep this difference.

‘Critical Left’ Appeals

The social-democratic viewpoint characterizes the urgent call for peace signed by numerous intellectuals. This statement promotes a peace process, rejecting both the authoritarian turn of Chavismo and the violent attitude of right-wing sectors.[21]

The call favours equilibrium to overcome the polarization and resorts to a language closer to that of the foreign ministries than to the popular activists. The tone is in conformity with the implicit attachment to a theory of two evils. Against both extremes it proposes to take the middle road.

But this equidistance was immediately belied by the fundamental responsibility it assigned to the government. And not only does it overlook the harassment of the Right, but imperialism is barely mentioned in passing.

The text was met with a powerful reply sponsored by the REDH [Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity] and signed by many intellectuals. This criticism rightly objected to the fascination with conventional republicanism and noted the pre-eminent gravitation of extra-constitutional forces in critical situations.[22]

The liberal relapse of the post-progressive or “critical left” thinkers recreates what happened with the social-democratic Gramcians in the 1980s. The animosity of that group toward Leninism and the Cuban revolution is comparable to the present hostility to Chavismo. A number of those who signed the call have passed through both periods.

But the present social-democratic variant is late and lacks the political reference once contributed by the Spanish PSOE. The social-liberal turn of that party has completely demolished its initial progressive imaginary. That it is now orphaned explains, perhaps, the present re-encounter with the old liberalism.

In some cases this evolution is the culmination of the division that has affected distinct variants of autonomism. The positions taken toward the Bolivarian process have triggered this fracture. Those who chose to line up with the opposition are suspicious of those who “cling to Chavismo.”[23]

But this latter sector has thought through the previous insufficiencies and has come to understand the need to fight for the state power with socialist perspectives related to Latin American Marxism.

In contrast, the other segment continues navigating in the ambiguity of generalities about anti-patriarchism and anti-extractivism without offering any concrete example of what is proposed. Absorbed by the liberal universe, their enigmatic vagaries no longer enrich left-wing thinking. Between their forgetfulness of the class struggle and their fascination with bourgeois institutionality, their denunciations of extractivism are becoming a picturesque curiosity.

Absent-Minded Dogmatism

A discourse that is convergent with social democracy is also disseminated using sectarian arguments. In this case Maduro’s is portrayed as a corrupt government, submissive and adaptable, that is consolidating a dictatorial regime.[24] On other occasions that same illegitimacy is described with more indirect or sophisticated categories (de facto president, Bonapartist chief).

But all the variants coincide in underscoring the fundamental responsibility of an authoritarian government that is tearing apart the country. The harmony of this focus with the media narrative is striking. The main problem, however, is not in the rhetoric but in the practice.

Every day there are marches of the Right and of the government. The champions of socialist rigour have to ask themselves: Which of the two mobilizations will we join? With whom will we identify? If they think the government is the main enemy they will have to make common cause with the escuálidos of the guarimbas.

In Buenos Aires, for example, they called last May for a mobilization demanding the ouster of Maduro.[25] All the passers-by who observed this march understood clearly who would immediately occupy Venezuela’s presidency if the present head of state were overthrown. And they noted the total coincidence between this demand and the messages issued daily by the news media.

This is not the first time that sectors of the left have so clearly converged with the Right. An antecedent in Argentina under the Kirchner governments was the presence of red flags in the soy farmers’ marches and the demonstrations of the caceroleros [middle- and upper-class opponents of the government banging pots and pans]. But what was pathetic in Buenos Aires can turn to tragedy in Caracas.

Other visions compare Maduro with the opposition, arguing that under the masquerade of an apparent contraposition hide huge coincidences. So they speculate about the moment when this convergence will become explicit.[26]

This curious interpretation contrasts with the pitched battles between both sectors that everyone else sees. So it is a bit difficult to interpret the guarimbas, assassinations and Pentagon threats as a fictitious quarrel between two relatives.

The sole logic of this presentation is to downplay the seriousness of the current conflict, to interpret it as a mere inter-bourgeois fight over the appropriation of the rent. That is why Maduro’s totalitarianism is seen as a danger equivalent to (or worse than) the opposition.

The major problem in this focus is not its absent-mindedness but the implicit neutrality that it promotes. Since everyone is equal, the self-coup attributed to the government is compared with the coup promoted by the Right.

That equivalence is obviously false, however. In Venezuela there are not two reactionary variants in contention like, for example, jihadism and the dictatorships in the Middle East. Nor is it the type of competition between troglodytes that in Argentina opposed Videla to Isabel Perón.

The clash between Capriles-López and Maduro resembles the confrontation of Pinochet with Allende, of Lonardi with Perón or more recently of Temer with Dilma. Similarly the triumph of the Right over Maduro, far from an engagement between equals, would entail a terrible political regression.

Confronted with this alternative, neutrality is a synonym for passivity and represents a huge degree of impotence in the face of great events. It means renouncing participation and commitment to genuine causes.

Since this attitude takes for granted that Chavismo is finished, it limits its entire horizon to writing a balance sheet of that experience. But the biggest failure in political action never affects unfinished or frustrated processes. The worst thing is narrow-mindedness in the face of major epic events.

Whatever one’s questions about Maduro, the outcome in Venezuela will define the immediate destiny of the entire region. If the reactionaries triumph, the result will be a scenario of defeat and a feeling of impotence in the face of the Empire. The end of the progressive cycle will be a fact and not a subject for evaluation among social science thinkers.

The Right knows this and for that reason is stepping up the campaigns against the intellectuals who defend Chavismo. The recent broadside attack in Clarín is a foretaste of the assault that is being prepared for a post-Maduro regional setting.[27] The sectarians do not register that danger.

Spurious Elections

In the immediate future there are two political options at play: the Right demands that the general elections be moved forward, and the government has called a Constituent Assembly. The opposition is only willing to participate in elections that will ensure it first place.

Of the 19 elections carried out under Chavismo, the Bolivarians won 17 and immediately recognized the two that they lost. In contrast, the Right never accepted their adverse results. They always claimed there was some fraud or resorted to a boycott. When they won in by-elections they demanded the immediate fall of the government.

In December 2015 they obtained a majority in the National Assembly and proclaimed the overthrow of Maduro. Then they attempted in various ways to disregard the constitution, even by swearing in deputies illegally elected and falsifying signatures on petitions to recall Maduro.

Capriles, Borges and López are now calling for spurious elections amidst the economic war and provocation in the streets. They want elections like those in Colombia where, in one election after another, hundreds of popular activists are murdered. They hope to gain at the ballot boxes as in Honduras under the pressure of the murder of Berta. They want the kind of elections that are held in Mexico over the dead bodies of journalists, students and teachers.

It would be a terrible error to join in elections designed to prepare a Chavista cemetery. Maduro is being asked to carry out elections in a climate of civil war that would be unacceptable to any government.

Venezuela is going through a situation that bears some resemblance to the scene in Nicaragua at the end of the first Sandinista electoral term in office. The military siege and shortages wore out an exhausted population who voted for the Right out of simple fatigue. In those conditions elections have a pre-established winner.

On the other hand, comparison with the scenario that led to the fall of the Soviet Union makes no sense. Venezuela is not a big power imploding internally at the end of a lengthy divorce between the regime and the population. It is a vulnerable Latin American country under attack from the United States.

Some thinkers take for granted the oppressive role of imperialism and suggest that this is not a decisive factor in the present crisis.[28] They assume that the persistent denunciations of that domination constitute “a fact already known” or a mere ritual of the Left. But they forget that it is never pointless to emphasize the devastating impact of aggression from the North on governments that have become enemies of Washington.

The entire spectrum of ex-Chavistas who are joining in the call for general elections confuse democracy with liberal republicanism. They have lost sight of the way in which the right to self-government is systematically blocked by bourgeois institutionality.

This impediment is why the great majority of constitutional regimes have lost legitimacy. It becomes more and more evident that the ruling class uses voting systems to consolidate its power. It uses this control to run the economy, the justice system, the news media and the repressive apparatus. Real democracy can only emerge in a socialist process of transformation of society.

It is true that Maduro cancelled the recall referendum, suspended regional elections and proscribed some opposition politicians. These measures are part of a blind reaction to the harassment. But the Chavista leader is confronting the hypocrisy of greater import exhibited by the defenders of the present electoral regimes.

It suffices to see how in Brazil the impeachment was carried out by a group of outlaws with the cover of the judges and parliamentarians who manipulate the system of indirect presidential selection. It never occurred to the OAS to intervene against that vulgar violation of democratic principles.

Nor did the establishment get indignant when the Electoral College anointed Trump after he had received a few million votes less than Hilary Clinton. A ruling monarchy in Spain or England seems natural to them, as do the clumsy schemes that are used to manipulate each election in Mexico. The sacrosanct democracy they ask of Venezuela is completely absent in all capitalist countries.

Possibilities of the Constituent Assembly

Obviously, the best opportunity for a transformative Constituent Assembly was lost several years ago. The present call is purely defensive and is an attempt to contend with an exasperating situation.

But it is useless to discuss only what has not been done. There is still time left for those balance-sheets. The important thing now is to determine how this call can reopen a road for popular initiative.

Before the call for the Constituent Assembly the government was limiting itself to developing a purely bureaucratic confrontation between one state power and another. It relied on a struggle from above by the Executive or the Supreme Court against the National Assembly. Now it is finally calling on the communal power and we will have to see whether this idea translates into a real mobilization.

There are numerous signs of weariness and skepticism within Chavismo. But no one chooses the conditions in which to fight and the main dilemma turns on whether to continue or abandon the struggle. Those who have resolved to dig in their heels are calling for a revival of the popular project.

Some left currents that are very critical of Maduro’s management think this convening of a Constituent Assembly could unleash a dynamic of communes against the bureaucratic operations.[29] They see the Constituent Assembly as an imperfect instrument to disentangle the dispute with corrupt bourgeoisified and bolibourgeois Chavismo.

The Constituent Assembly could also help to break the stalemate in recent months between guarimbas and pro-government mobilizations. If it is adequately tasked it could break down the opposition front, separating the discontented from the fascists.

But it is obvious that without drastic measures on the economic and social front the Constituent Assembly will be an empty shell. If the disaster in production is not attacked through nationalization of the banks, foreign trade and the expropriation of the saboteurs, there will be no recovery in popular support.

The palliative measures attempted in order to increase participation of the base organisms in the distribution of food are insufficient. Radical measures cannot be postponed.

Whatever the alternative, it will not be easy to redirect the economy after so many mistakes in regard to the debt, the creation of special investment zones or the tolerance of capital flight.

Chávez achieved a big redistribution of the rent through new methods of popular politicization, but he never managed to lay the foundations for a process of industrialization. He clashed with the opposition capitalists but not with the internal bolibourgeoisie and he was unable to deactivate the rentist culture that undermined all attempts to build up a productive economy. The hesitation to break with the capitalist structure explains the adverse results.

The present context is more difficult because of the sharp drop in oil prices and the blockage of regional integration projects under the conservative restoration. But it should also be noted that all revolutionary processes take off in adversity and the Constituent Assembly can provide a framework for regaining the initiative.

Some critics of this call object to the sectoral and communal form of election. They say that with this format the “assembly will be tricky, corporatist or illegitimate.”[30] And here they repeat the endorsement the Right makes (when it suits them) of conventional constitutionalism. That demand is not surprising when it comes from establishment commentators but it is disturbing when it comes from enthusiasts of the Russian revolution.

After three decades of post-dictatorial regimes, many have forgotten the duplicities of bourgeois democracy. It might be remembered how Lenin and Trotsky defended in 1917 the legitimacy of the soviets and withdrew recognition of a Constituent Assembly that rivalled the revolutionary power.

The context in Venezuela today is very different. However, the Bolshevik revolution not only taught us to note the social background, the class conflicts and the interests at stake, it also indicated a path by which to go beyond the hypocrisy of bourgeois liberalism and it confirmed that acts of force against the reaction form part of the confrontation with rightist barbarism.

The Left will have to determine whether it converges with the opposition in the boycott or participates in the Constituent Assembly. There is also a third option, with a very small audience: “yes, no and the very opposite.”

In the rest of the region the need is for solidarity. As in Cuba’s special period, we have to put our shoulders to the wheel in difficult situations. Let us hope that many compañeros adopt this approach before it is too late.

Intellectual Regroupment

Venezuela is not only giving rise to intense debates. It has also brought about significant regroupments of intellectuals that endorse counterposed appeals. This positioning has been more relevant than the controversial details of the distinct declarations. It has resulted in a great division between camps.

The REDH text refuting the social-democratic call was complemented by other compelling responses.[31] The political demarcation has been very rapid.

Despite the tension created by the manifestos, a number of signatories ask that the fraternal dialogue be maintained. That respect is indispensable but the indignant reactions are explained by what is at stake. If the Right prevails, there will be plenty of time for the lamentations and the seminars investigating what happened.

Since the social-democratic statement contains an appeal for peace, many thinkers rallied to it in the spontaneous hope of slowing down the violence. Taking a closer look at the contents of the document, some withdrew their support and others maintained it with defensive arguments. They highlight their continuing solidarity with the Bolivarian process or point out their differences with other signatories.

But most significant has been the rapid and generalized reaction that the anti-Chavista document aroused and the great rejection the social-democratic statement generated. That instinctive reaction led to a sudden convergence between left-wing intellectuals and radical nationalism. If this interface were to be consolidated, Venezuela will have awakened a re-encounter of critical thinking with the revolutionary traditions of Latin America. •

Claudio Katz is an economist, researcher with Argentina’s National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), professor at the University of Buenos Aires and a member of the Economists of the Left (EDI). His web page, where this article first appeared, is at katz.lahaine.org.

Translated from the original article by Richard Fidler (with assistance from Federico Fuentes) and first published in Life on the Left.

Endnotes

1. Marco Teruggi, “Radiografía de la violencia en Venezuela,” El Telégrafo 14-5-2017.

2. Pablo Siris Seade, “Las nuevas víctimas de las guarimbas en Venezuela,” Rebelion, 20-5-2017.

3. Guillermo Cieza, “La derrota política de la derecha venezolana,” Resumen, 7-6-2017.

4. Atilio Boron, “Venezuela sumida en la guerra civil,” Jornada, 26-5-2017; “La ‘oposición democrática’ en Venezuela: peor que el fascismo,” Cuba Debate, 25-4-2017.

5. Carlos Aznárez, “La cuestión es impedir que el fascismo se adueñe de Venezuela,” Resumen, 22-5-2017.

6. Manu Pineda, “La mentira como herramienta de guerra en Venezuela,” El Diario, 29-5-2017.

7. Marco Teruggi, “Análisis del esquema de la ofensiva paramilitar,” Hastaelnocau, 24-5-2017.

8. Luigino Bracci Roa, Lista de fallecidos por las protestas violentas de la oposición venezolana, abril a junio de 2017,” Alba Ciudad, 9-6-2017.

9. Manuel Humberto Restrepo Domínguez, “46 líderes asesinados evidencian una política del horror,” America Latina en Movimiento, 22-5-2017.

10. TRIAL International, “Informe de seguimiento presentado al Comité contra la Desaparición Forzada,” 2-2-2017.

11. TelsurTV “Asesinan a Berta Cáceres, líder indígena de Honduras,” 3-3-2016.

12. Marco Teruggi, “Llegó la hora Venezuela,” Resumen, 28-5-2017.

13. Guillermo Cieza, La derrota política de la derecha venezolana,” Resumen 7-6-2017.

14. Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,” La Clase, 11-5-2017.

15. Ángel Guerra Cabrera, “Venezuela, situación de peligro,” La Pupila Insomne, 25-5-2017. Also Telma Luzzani, “El plan destituyente del Pentágono y el secretario de la OEA,” Tiempoar, 30-3-2017.

16. Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,” La Clase, 11-5-2017.

17. Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,” La Clase, 11-5-2017.

18. Edgardo Lander, “Sociólogo venezolano cuestiona la ‘solidaridad incondicional’de la izquierda latinoamericana con el chavismo,” La Diaria, 23-3-2017.

19. Maristella Svampa, “Carta Abierta al Campo Militante Prochavista de la Argentina,” La Tecla Ene, 5-6-2017.

20. Maristella Svampa and Roberto Gargarella, “El desafío de la izquierda, no callar,” Pagina 12, 8-5-2017.

21. VVAA, “Llamado Internacional Urgente a detener la escalada de violencia en Venezuela,” CETRI, 30-5-2017.

22. VVAA, “¿Quién acusará a los acusadores?,” REDH, 5-6-2017.

23. Maristella Svampa, “Carta Abierta al Campo Militante Prochavista de la Argentina,” La Tecla Ene, 5-6-2017.

24. Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,” La Clase, 11-5-2017.

25. Nuevo MAS, “Bajo la consigna “Fuera Maduro” escandaloso acto en Buenos Aires de un sector del FIT en apoyola derecha golpista venezolana.”

26. Jorge Altamira, “Constituyente ‘a la Maduro’,” 18-5-2017.

27. Gustavo Bazzan, “El reclamo de Atilio Borón a Nicolás Maduro para "aplastar" a la oposición en Venezuela,” Clarin Mundo, 30-5-2017.

28. Carlos Carcione, “Las “lecciones” de algunos intelectuales de la izquierda: ¿Quiénes son los sepultureros del proceso bolivariano?,” Question Digital, 16-5-2017.

29. Stalin Pérez Borges, “Movimiento EN LUCHAS: la convocatoria a la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente es un reto que debemos asumir,” Aporrea, 9-5-2017.

30. Gustavo Giménez, “Venezuela: una Constituyente trucha,” MST, 11-5-2017.

31. VVAA, “Declaración sobre Venezuela: Intelectuales en solidaridad con el pueblo bolivariano,” 5-6-2017. Also, “LUCHAS y otras organizaciones se pronuncian por una salida democrática, revolucionaria y socialista a la crisis venezolana.”

Additional Readings

Mazzeo, Miguel “Venezuela: sobre defecciones y oportunismos,” 11-5-2017.

Houtart, François La Venezuela de hoy y de mañana,” 24-5-2017.

Almeyra, Guillermo “Venezuela: la prioridad absoluta,” La Jornada, 21-5-2017.

Beluche, Olmedo “La Asamblea Nacional Constituyente y la lucha por una salida obrera, popular y socialista a la crisis venezolana,” 15-5-2017.

Boron, Atilio “Venezuela: no callar, pero para decir la verdad,” 17-5-2017.

Guerrero, Modesto Emilio “La prueba histórica de Maduro Por Guerrero,” 8-5-2017.

Curcio, Pasqualina “¿Entonces, dónde estaban los billetes de 100 bolívares?,” 20-12-2017.

Cieza, Guillermo “Tres hipótesis para el actual momento que vive Venezuela Bolivariana,” 23-11-2016.

Bacher, Norberto “El Imperialismo quiere acabar con Venezuela,” 23-4-2015.

Toledo, Enrique “Comentarios a la Entrevista de Eduardo Lander,” 22-4-2017.

Teruggi, Marco “The War for Power in Venezuela’s Countryside,” Green Left Weekly, 16 June 2017.

Statement “For a democratic, revolutionary and socialist solution to the Venezuelan crisis,” Links, June 2017.

Fuentes, Federico and Stalin Perez Borges “Venezuelan Grassroots Socialist on the Challenges Facing the Bolivarian Process,” Venezuela Analysis, 13 June 2017.

Sevunts, Levon “Canada’s policy in Venezuela is ‘anything but neutral,’ says national labour coalition,” Radio Canada International, 21 June 2017.

The Venezuelan Dilemma:

Progressives and the “Plague on Both Your Houses” Position

Steve Ellner

In recent weeks, a number of Venezuelan specialists on the left side of the political spectrum have published and posted pieces that place them in an anti-Chavista, “ni-ni” position that consists of “a plague on both your houses” with regard to Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition. Certainly, at this moment the Chavistas are playing hard ball; the options available to them are limited.

I consider myself a “critical Chavista.” It’s not an easy position to be in, particularly because the last thing I would want to do is to act in any way that would favor the right (that is the Venezuelan opposition and its allies abroad). On the other hand, I have always opposed (even in my writing) the position of some people on the left who feel that U.S. leftists should not publicly express criticisms of socialist governments. Criticism (including public criticism) is necessary as it is part of the process of assimilating lessons.

The recent articles that harshly attack the Maduro government have been published in Jacobin magazine by Gabriel Hetland and another by Mike Gonzalez as well as Hetland’s piece posted by NACLA: Report on the Americas in which he uses the expression “que se vayan todos.” More recently NACLA posted an interview with Alejandro Velasco that was originally published in the magazine Nueva Sociedad.

I know a number of people in Venezuela and academia in the U.S. and elsewhere who I used to see eye to eye on with regard to Chavez and I now find them expressing total rejection of and even animosity toward the government. The only thing that binds us now is our common support for the need to defend Venezuelan sovereignty, and sometimes not even that.

What are the arguments of the ni-ni position that i agree with and what are the ones i disagree with:

Agree:

1. CORRUPTION IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS PROBLEM IN VENEZUELA, which the government has not done nearly enough to combat, though some timid measures have been taken (eg. over the last 6 months in the oil industry).

2. THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED CERTAIN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES – the decision to strip Henrique Capriles of the right to participate in elections on grounds of corruption; and the delay of the gubernatorial elections; but not the decision not to hold the recall in 2016 (since the opposition didn’t have their act together on that one).

3. THE NEGATIVE ROLE OF THE “STATE APPARATUS AND THE CHAVISTA ELITE” - Velasco begins his interview with these words. I agree that the state bureaucracy and Chavista elite have stifled internal Chavista democracy and in doing so have discouraged mobilization. Nevertheless, I also recognize that this bloc (the Chavista bureaucrats) buttresses the Chavista hold on power as it has a mobilization and organizational capacity that would be lost should Maduro unleash a “revolution within the revolution.” Hastily turning power over to the rank and file would have disastrous immediate consequences. Thus, for instance, Chavez’s decision to implement the Plan Guayana Socialista in which the workers chose the presidents (known as “worker presidents”) of state companies in the Guayana region was a failure because the labour movement in those firms, almost 100 per cent Chavista, went at each other’s throats.

4. THE CHAVISTA MOVEMENT HAS LOST A LARGE NUMBER OF ITS ACTIVE SUPPORTERS. In addition to the factors named by the “ni-nis” (corruption, government bungling, etc.) there is the factor of “desgaste” (wearing down process over time) which is inevitable and doesn’t in itself reflect negatively on the Chavista leadership. Eighteen years is a long time.

Disagree:

1. THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORITARIAN OR HEADING IN AN AUTHORITARIAN DIRECTION, which at this point is my most important disagreement with the “ni-nis.” Those who make this statement never acknowledge the importance of context. They recognize, though in some cases they play down (not so in the case of Hetland’s Jacobin piece), the violent activity unleashed by the opposition, but don’t relate the state’s police actions to the challenges it is facing. Just to provide one example. A totally anti-government hostile communications media encourages the audacity and extremism of the opposition for two reasons. First the police and National Guard are held back from responding firmly and without hesitation and thus they lose their dissuasive capacity. And second, the protesters themselves feel empowered. Both factors play on each other. In the U.S. or any other country, the corporate media (and some of the alternative media) would be completely sympathetic to the actions of security forces, even their excesses, in a situation of urban paralysis and urban violence over such an extended period of time (it’s been three and a half months). Furthermore, to use the term “authoritarian” when the local media is so supportive of the opposition, is simply misleading. It is true that the national TV channels (specifically Televen, Venevision, and Globovision) are less hostile to the government than in 2002-2003 but they (perhaps with the exception of Venevision) are still more pro than anti-opposition. But almost all of the important written media both nationally and locally are vocally anti-government. And in the case of the international media, the bias has no limits.

Finally, there are valid criticisms of the Chavista-chosen methodology for the Constituent Assembly election to be held on July 30, but that doesn’t make Venezuela authoritarian. In 18 years of Chavista rule, there has never been plausible evidence of electoral fraud. Compare that with the dubious legitimacy of last month’s elections in the state of Mexico City, hardly unique for that nation.

The real elephant in the room is the gubernatorial election of December of this year, which the Maduro government is committed to holding. Those contests, to be held in just five months from now, will measure popular support. And they will put to the test the democratic commitment of both the government and the opposition. In my opinion the radical fringe of the opposition would prefer to reach power through force in order to crush the Chavista movement and impose neoliberal policies – “shock-treatment” style – rather than reach power through electoral means, in which case their options would be more limited.

2. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SINCERE ABOUT DIALOGUE, according to Velasco – there is no evidence one way of the other on this one.

3. THE CHAVISTA RANK AND FILE HAS LITTLE REASON TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE MADURO GOVERNMENT and for that reason two million of them abstained in December 2015. Although obviously disillusionment is widespread, there are many important reasons for progressives and popular sectors to support the Maduro government: nationalistic foreign policy, rejection of neoliberal type agreements with international financial institutions, social programs that involve community participation; zero-sum-game policies that favor the popular sectors (example: the Bus Rapid Transit – BRT – that in Barcelona-Puerto La Cruz reserves one of two lanes on the main drag connecting the two cities to accordion-type buses at the expense of automobile traffic); and finally Maduro (in spite of all of his shortcomings as an administrator and failure to take necessary bold decisions) has proven to be a fighter and to convince his base that he’s not going to go down without a struggle to the end. He has also attempted to mobilize his base; the failure to attempt to do so by Lula and Dilma Rousseff is a major reason why the impeachment against the latter went through.

4. VENEZUELA’S ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT ABOUT LOW OIL PRICES BUT ABOUT GOVERNMENT INEPTNESS. In fact, there are three causes of the economic crisis and they all have approximately the same weight: low oil prices, the economic war (with Julio Borges’s public campaign against multinational investments in Venezuela, the existence of an economic war is clearer to see than in the past), and erroneous government policies. With regard to the latter (and here I probably diverge somewhat from Mark Weisbrot), I believe that decisions on economic policies were necessary and urgent, but that there were no easy and obvious choices and any one that was made would have come with a price, both politically and economically.

5. GOVERNMENT INTRANSIGENCE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHAVISTA LEADERS DON’T WANT TO LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGES. This statement is misleading, even while there is undoubtedly an element of truth in it. But the statement assumes that Chavista leaders are all cynics and without any sense of idealism. Where is the scientific evidence to support this claim?

6. ATTORNEY GENERAL LUISA ORTEGA DIAZ REPRESENTS A NEUTRAL POSITION WHICH THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS UNWILLING TO TOLERATE. In fact, regardless of her motives, she has assumed an explicitly pro-opposition position. In such a critical situation in which the opposition openly proposes anarchy as a means to unseat Maduro, it makes sense that the Chavistas are attempting to remove her from office.

In short, I believe in the conclusive need to support the Venezuelan government in spite of the numerous criticisms that I have (some more profound than others). With that, I am not arguing for non-discussion of the errors. Everything to the contrary, the Venezuelan experience needs to be analyzed from a critical perspective, especially because of the plausibility of the criticisms formulated by critical progressives and the thorniness of many of the issues that have been raised. But there is a long tradition of purism on the left that runs counter to the position of “critical support” that I advocate. •

Steve Ellner has taught economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela since 1977. He is the editor of Latin America's Radical Left: Challenges and Complexities of Political Power in the Twenty-First Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014).

First published by teleSUR English, adapted and expanded for Venezuelanalysis.

from Home http://ift.tt/2u968Jo

#NEWS