Anarchism in Venezuela, another perspective about the Bolivarian revolution

Some anarchists will denounce every revolutionary leader in the world, from Fidel Castro to Julia Butterfly. While they are correct that government is essentially an evil, they refuse to recognize anyone as a revolutionary who doesn't share their ideology. I am not saying this about all anarchists, and they are definitely heavily represented on the front lines. however, few anarchists will raise objections to CIA/CFR led coup-d'etats against people like Aristide and Zelaya, as they see the overthrow of any government as a step forward. This is a simplistic and uneducated perspective. Hugo Chavez is himself indigenous, and the worst thing to happen to the British-American money empire in decades.

if your main point is "some anarchists will denounce all leaders (revolutionary or non-revolutionary" (ie. the folks putting on the event
or the folks who run subrosa) then it is false given that the event is a fundraiser for an INDIGENOUS LEADER in prison.

also, if you're solely claiming to make a point in a non-linear fashion (not in any way related to this event or this indybay post)
then i agree. we are human beings. human beings perceive the world differently from each other. Thus, with ideas (ideology) we take
them and adopt them unto ourselves as we see fit. Therefore you will find anarchists denouncing all leaders regardless of their skill, talent, what they do, how they in fact "function" as a "leader", and whether they claim to be revolutionary or not.

"the true behind the ..."? It seems anarchy and education are mutually exclusive.

I love Sub Rosa, and I consider myself (more or less) an anarchist with an extremely flexible ideology. I'm (as they love to call me) a "Person of Color" and have been involved in social justice struggles almost 15 years locally in SC. That being said, there's something about the local anarchist communities that love radical indigenous people and are always seeking to show solidarity with them and other radical peoples of color. Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. However, I feel like sometimes we as indigenous people and people of color are a bit commodified and fetishized by the local radicals. This leads (sometimes) to weird situations where one indigenous person or leader will be denouced as not being radical enough for the radical whites, and they will latch onto other radical people of color as some sort of spokes-person for that particular community even when they may or may not represent that community (or country) accurately. But again, there is so much diversity in most communities these days, that hardly anyone could accurately represent them.

In this particular instance, it seems that one poor indigenous leader is elevated and respected for facing repression and another is torn down and vilified for being president, albeit also one that is facing repression from foreign powers. Is Chavez perfect? No of course not, no one is. But he does come from a very poor working class background and somehow despite it all rose to the highest office in the land. Is he as the previous commenter said, the worst thing to happen to the monied American and British ruling castes in a long time? I would argue yes.

I'm really curious to see the film and its critiques of Chavez and his time in office. No one should be above reproach and by all means criticize to your hearts content. But I also feel that people who live in houses shouldn't throw (too many) stones. As citizens (or non citizens) of this country, we have much more credibility when we focus on our own mad-man gangster capitalist government. I feel that without having been somewhere and experienced first hand a "revolutionary" government or society, we must be very careful of the criticisms we launch at them lest we play into the hands of the CIA and/or National Security Agenda. One example of this was the Misquito indigenous in Nicaragua during the Sandinista era. The Contras, backed by the CIA, paid poor Misquito individuals and used Miquito lands to launch attacks on Nicaraguan citizens and properties. When the Sandinistas retaliated and went into those communities to seek those responsible, an international media blitz demonized and criticized the Sandinistas as being anti-indigenous and genocidal to their own peoples. This is of course a gross mis-representation of the complex situation at the time, but thousands if not millions were hesitant to support the Sandinistas because of the supposed mis-treatment of the Misquitos.

Now that is just a brief and incomplete summary of all that history, but the important thing to recognize is that the CIA is always trying to discredit radical communities, movements, and countries through various techniques and media campaigns. Let us go into this event with a willingness to believe, but with the common sense to think about what we're seeing/hearing in a larger context than our own ideology or projections about how a particular government is or isn't acting. Whatever one thinks about Chavez, it would be hard to argue that the average Venezuelan has suffered under his rule. It would seem just the opposite in fact. In 2002 the vast majority of people in the country and in particular the capital of Caracas stopped a coup de tat by business and army officials. It was Chavez's immense popular support that returned him to office. Again, not saying Chavez is perfect, but if he was so bad, don't you think the people would have removed him in a REAL popular uprising like we saw in Bolivia??? I'm sure the CIA would have been happy to help.

PS. And speaking of Bolivia, I'd be curious what anyone thought of Evo Morales, indigenous president of Bolivia? Anyone care to offer a anarchist critique of that particular leader?

You could at least Wikipedia anarchy or anarchism before expounding such an ignorant remark.

dear un@ amig@,

i normally would never do this, but i really found your comments thoughtful and interesting. you clearly know your radical latin american history and that really turns me on. i too am a "person of color" w/ anarcho leanings and it's so refreshing to read something here that's measured and intelligent. coffee/window smashing?

-amigo

agreement: amig@ you speak well and yes refreshing critique of local anarchist latchings and things to beware of. much much needed angle in mi opinion humble...

interesting discussion upon the role of the uprisings in south america and how we anarchists are to react to these supposedly despised socialist, yet oops they are also from the impoverished and people of color populations. there is definite change going on in the south and venezuela is at the front, with chavez front and center. like marx and his critiques of capitalism, chavez presents a clear critiquer of the capitalist hegemony. he challenges imperial america like castro before him did, reappropriating the land once held by the wealthy few. for this he should be while maybe not friend, at least ally....
also wondering if indeed those who fetishize the indigenous could consider moving to such communities? not saying "if ya don't like it, then get out," but coming close. can we remake american civilization to be like the indigenous structurally? or, shall we give up, face the music, that somewhere in their way we must find our way and america shall never learn to change, be like them. "head south young anarchist!" live in the villages of the indigenous, be as they are, live as they do, embody the change we know in our hearts to be closer to a deeper way....ack, but do they really want us? can we make the vital connections out of the comfort zone? or, is it just the obvious and most stark contrast to the society we have become fed up with and impatient to have change, this land we call amerika? ay, the mexicans, guatemalans, salvadorans have come here in droves to make money, can't we go there and learn peace, connection, rhythm? or, this just one more imperial venture we are all too known for white man?

""head south young anarchist!" live in the villages of the indigenous, be as they are, live as they do, embody the change we know in our hearts to be closer to a deeper way....ack, but do they really want us? "

-Of course they want you! Traditional indigenous societies are also more tolerant of gays, women, and transgendered folk and are sure to embrace those from the North. Pack your bags, enjoy the trip!

"This leads (sometimes) to weird situations where one indigenous person or leader will be denouced as not being radical enough for the radical whites, and they will latch onto other radical people of color as some sort of spokes-person for that particular community even when they may or may not represent that community (or country) accurately."

Though what you are saying may be the case in other situations, in this instance, the Venezuelan anarchist has been on a speaking tour not only speaking on behalf of the anarchists in Venezuela, but on behalf of the growing trend of resistance towards the Chavez government's policies.

The Venezuelan anarchist sought out SubRosa to give his presentation. SubRosa did not seek him out, he just happened to be on a speaking tour.

So, at least in this situation, it's not the radical whites doing denouncing, it's anarchists in Venezuela and those who've they've seen, communicated, visited, and talked to around Venezuela who are also suffering under the Chavez government policies, even though (supposedly) to the rest of the world, "things are changing in Venezuela".

The Venezuelan anarchist makes it clear that there have been a couple reforms that were positive, but encouraged us in the audience to visit Venezuela for ourselves, talk to the people, and stay with the people to find out the truth.

Traditional indigenous societies were largely destroyed by the Spanish and what exists now is not that much like what existed before the 1500s. Some societies went from farming and dense populations to hunter gatherer groups before the Spanish even arrived in their regions due to the massive numbers of deaths due to European diseases. Some aspects of pre-existing cultures obviously remain but both positives and negatives of such cultures came from outside influences as well as the civilizational collapse itself (a move towards a more egalitarian society can be both caused by a move away from dense urban living as well as uniting against common outside enemies).

"interesting discussion upon the role of the uprisings in south america and how we anarchists are to react to these supposedly despised socialist, yet oops they are also from the impoverished and people of color populations."

so...just because someone was poor and either indigenous or a "person of color" it's okay for them essentially take
over and run the country under the guise of "socialism" and "participatory democracy". That's fucked up.

That also might be like saying 'cuz Obama's black it's alright that he's president and okay for him to continue
fucked up policies.


And you're an anarchist?...

If you're a ruler or dictator, I don't care what ideology you be spousin', it's not fucking anarchist. PERIOD.
Sure there may be semi-positive things that have happened under Chavez just like most other governments
but that doesn't change the fact that shit is fucked up and that he's still a fucking RULER.

Real anarchists don't back a government "out of convenience". They stick to their principles. Also, real anarchists don't support those like Chavez who make deals with theocratic/fascist regimes like that in Iran.

If you claim to be an anarchist, be an anarchist, and don't just fall for the "Che chic" leftist authoritarian of the moment. Che, for example, rounded up dissenters and executed them, yet I see wannabes wearing his shirt. Opposing colonialism and theocracy shouldn't mean jumping in bed with authoritarian stalinists and jihadist religious fanatics.

am becoming swiftly convinced that the most damning thing a person can call themself in an anarchist. rarely do i see the kind of ideological conformity and narrowmindedness this side of the taliban. like the previous poster, yeah, go look up anarchism on wikipedia. i did. wow, there was like 20 different kinds of anarchists, including "social anarchists," some kind of a cross between socialism and anarchy. oh no, oh dear! but that runs contrary to my dogmatic anarchist ideology! oh heavens! but i'm the only real anarchist! ME! ME! ME! and i don't love nor like the government, but i can see that some are doing better than others and moving us in good directions long enough to pull my head out of my arse/anarchist ideology. all i ask is see beyond these simplistic labels, these fundamentalist frameworks...i'll see you in the indigenous village, grizzly man. i'll be the one telepathically sending my next indymedia post...

Use some basic logic, my friend.

The above post, encouraging "Otto" to, at the very least, Wikipedia anarchism or anarchy before commenting
in such a manner ("seems anarchy and education are mutually exclusive") is to shed some light on the fact that...

well...anarchy and anarchism pretty much go hand in hand with some form of "education" on any number of levels (obviously this can be defined in a number of ways besides the North American institutional form of "education")

As to the "dogmaticness" of anarchism that you talk about in your above comment...

There are some pretty basic principles of anarchism that most (if not all..) folks who self-identify as "anarchists" can
agree upon. in fact, i've yet to meet an "anarchist" who doesn't identify with these principles. some of which are:
freedom, self-determination, mutual aid, solidarity, free association, liberty, love, autonomy, consensus, direct democracy, etc etc...

The differences come in how folks apply these principles.

As far as the Chavez government goes...though they may talk somewhat of the talk of being "socialist" or a "participatory democracy"...as witnessed in the films of that night, the facts presented, and the experiences of the Venezuelan anarchist and his comrades....the Chavez government is full of contradictions and is really not anti-imperialist
or causing too much a "ruckus" against US hegemony.

(okay, maybe the US isn't physically there exploiting the oil or coal, but they are paying the Venezuelan government bank to do that. meanwhile, the venezuelan government is not giving back to the majority of the people, is contributing to the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and is displacing what indigenous people remained in venezuela. given these facts...the venezuelan constitution and the fact that chavez is a "person of color" or "indigenous" doesn't mean shit. it's all a facade. okay, don't believe me. hell, don't even believe people from venezuela, including the countless people from venezeula who speak in the films. go there and talk to the people yourself!)

ok, you make sense and hereby hate all anarchists except you and the next one that makes sense and don't come off as a damn fool.

Given that you haven't responded to any of the points or claims I'm making...

I feel like this "conversation" is done reaching any point of actual meaningful dialogue or discussion.

the point of differential in the dialogue is when the "rubber hits the road," so to speak for anarchists. sure, it's all clever to mock Che for his executions here on Indymedia Santa Cruz, tm, but he was engaged in a war. i don't wear Che paraphenalia, but have extensively researched him. most anarchists posting on this site don't deserve to lick the dust off his boots. he gave up a life of privilege, a doctor, to help the poor and oppressed, first in Guatemala, then in Cuba. he was a master tactician at guerilla warfare, with fidel. in such an operation, they saw that people leaving the troupe were giving away information to the enemy. to stop this, deserters began being executed. nice? no. understandable in the situation? yes. he also did eat meat and smoked cigars, so he wasn't straight-edged, but he risked and did a hell of a lot more than most, eventually dying the martyr's death on the battlefield, his position probably given to the enemy by the CIA. this is the kind of enemy faced then and now, a brutal and very powerful one. do you not see this? do you see the enemy and his tactics? can you not see che and fidel replaced people far worse and brutal them theirs? they and cuba and venezuela by extension are not perfect, but they are putting up a good fight, surviving and winning, the first 2 rules on the battlefield, right before providing vegie burgers for the masses.