Chavista Club World • Page 18

Fckng typo but still lol @Dominick

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

 

Verso

 

The State of the Left in Latin America: A Disillusioned Revolution in Venezuela

Related rant:

There is a disturbing lack of analysis among leftists who've insulated themselves to the more traditional conceptions of socialism & communism in regards to their foreign policy. Support for certain regimes seems to boil down to whether a narrative of struggle against the USA exists or can be constructed. For example, I've had numerous conversations with members of the PSL (the worst iteration of this in Chicago) who, within the same conversation, prop up Assad as the "rightful democratically elected leader" fighting against ISIS and the US, and then defend the actions of the various Latin American leftist projects that have killed and imprisoned hordes of political dissidents. Narratives regarding foreign conflicts are boiled down into easily digestible binaries that contort the very real history and machinations of US imperialism into a boogeyman that deflects criticism of actors who have either committed atrocities against humanity and/or democracy. This lazy binary thinking seems to be embedded into the platform of certain left orgs like the PSL.

I believe the mechanism of this tired simplification occurs from established pillars of power (the material) taking advantage of the cognitive heuristics of human narrative-construction via a dialectical process. As with a dialectical understanding of phenomenology, so too do the narratives we employ and construct for ourselves and others come into being. Elaborating on this in order to transcend such narratives with the truer narratives they repress and conceal in order to create a better movement for emancipation is a larger project i'm working on at the moment, so I won't go too much further or else I'll rant into obilivon. Essentially in the case of Venezuela, the anti-democratic pillars of power being the imperialist capitalist forces of the far-right wing in Venezuela in conjunction with the US, and the Maduro regime with his corrupted circle that have co-opted Chavismo to plunder the country both rely on the polarity of each others' narratives to justify their own power. The opposing narratives resonate to reveal they are the same one, pitting forces of good and evil against each other. Both of those pillars control massive media structures that conjure and perpetuate this dialectical narrative. In the middle are tens of millions of Venezuelans who are suffering and having their democracy eroded. This problem needs to be addressed as it extends well beyond the border of Venezuela.

 

So there's a lot to unpack here...but you should definitely listen to those people from the PSL in Chi more. First off strictly opposing imperialism in all forms is straight up essential so instead of labeling the thought process of an org as 'lazy binary thinking' try to dig deeper into why the org maintains that platform. And keep in mind we are all always learning so a conversation you might have had may not be with someone invested into deeply educating themselves on a particular conflict. We all default to the platforms of our orgs, teachers, mentors, and peers when our own knowledge fails us. Also we tend to default to a hard line when there's not an established mutual respect in a given conversation.

My aside here is going to be at "contort the very real history and machinations of US imperialism into a boogeyman" because this is emblematic of the attitude that a lot of reactionary thought tries to enter into communist discourse with. The US is the single-most vile, evil, imperialist perpetrator of violence against working people and the global south in existence. Other examples of atrocities and violence truly pale in comparison when thinking globally. That is not to say nuance and the recognition of lesser crimes against the working class and people of the global south are to be ignored, but rather that in any conflict wherein the US is an influencing force, opposition of the US (and the US only, not including local groups which may be pressured to seek US support as the only means to support their struggle for survival) is paramount because strictly opposing imperialism is essential.

Most of the rest of this seems to take for granted the structure of Venezuela's government and buy back into the imperialist narrative. You're also taking GCM wayyy out of context as he is a staunch supporter of Maduro and the Chavistas. He's talking about how imperialism in the form of corporations seized control of Venezuela's oil industry and thereby gained control of the National Assembly. Not to say there haven't been any party members bought off by CIA proxies or whomever in favour of the oil lords, but...Maduro hasn't co-opted or plundered anything. And the US-backed, fascist opposition is burning Black Venezuelans in the streets so...i don't think we need to open up the discourse any farther.

 

I'm definitely done with PSL, at least on the foreign policy front. Yes, I understand opposing US imperialism is important, but the earth does not spin on the axis of the USA, and the insistence of every foreign conflict being interpreted as collusion or opposition to it strikes me as internalized white supremacy. This holds true even in the previous period where the USA was the dominant global power, and more so now because that is no longer the case. Through multiple meetings and conversations with this org they seem to have either erased or willfully excluded any historical trace of the true revolutionary spirit of the people of Syria to strengthen the simplified "(Democratically elected) Assad vs. ISIS & the US" narrative. The senior members have a shallow awareness of other forces in the conflict but brush them off, and the majority of members have no awareness of their existence. I vividly remember the deafening silence of certain members after hearing them defend Assad for more than I could bear when I asked if they believe the unexhaustible reports of brutality against his own people were real or if they thought it was just US propaghanda. We would not accept this of Neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust, nor of Turkish power denying their genocide, and this should not be accepted now. I can only hope a seed was planted.

The boogeyman dialectic covers up for extreme crimes in cases like Syria, or for the US in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. but it is also employed to avoid more mundane policy questions that can balloon into massive missteps by well-meaning (offering benefit of the doubt, here) governments, especially in the case of the Bolivarian project. I find it a little odd you think I'm taking GCM out of context. I encourage you to read both parts of the series I posted, because as I'm trying to elucidate here, there are a few dynamics which shield certain projects we've designated as our "darlings" from criticism that they desperately need. This goes from the Kurds to the Pink Tide.

Now gets to where we may have more fundamental disagreements, because I think you are aligning yourself along those dynamics in your last paragraph.

Firstly, and what I can't stress enough, is that Maduro IS NOT Chavez, his policies ARE NOT Chavismo, and equating the two is the most crippling part of the dialectical narrative taking hold. Chavistas, as with most venezuelans, have physically suffered as a result of Maduro's policies (and the echoes of Chavez's mistakes), and were increasingly absent in the last election which left the party with their loss last year, giving the Assembly to the opposition. It was NOT the boogeyman of imperialist oil companies "seizing control" of the Assembly. Millions of Chavistas stayed home on election day, and for good reason. More and more of the chavistas in government have protested and resigned in the face of the corruption that is strangling Venezuelans economically and politically at the hands of Maduro, his ministers, and the judiciary. Still, many ordinary Chavistas will show up for Maduro at party rallies because the narrative is painted so Maduro=Chavez, and the opposition=imperialist takeover (the growing dependency of the coops on his money and access has something to do with that, too).

[The corruption schemes are well documented, and if you are interested I can provide links and PDF's. People I am very close with have been involved with these investigations.]

Secondly, movements are the source for emancipation, NOT individuals. The people rallied behind Chavez as a symbol of themselves, organized citizens, coops, communes, labor unions, abuelita's sewing circle, etc. I would take Chavez's resurrected ghost over Maduro in less than a heartbeat, but he was not a deity, he was a man, and as such left room for improvement. Real policy changes need to be made in Venezuela, if for anything so people can eat. The effects of relying on the current corrupt regime stuck in the old model is what is bringing people into the streets, and coordinating the strikes as they did recently. The actions of mass movements reveals where the political true north is in spite of the ideological noise from the reigning dialectical narrative. These actions should expose what is obvious: Something fundamental needs to change. Yes, there are imperialist capitalist forces rubbing their hands together in the wings hoping to seize the moment. Yet, I don't see how the necessary changes can be made with this corrupt circle still in power, because they profit so heavily from the way things are. I see little difference between the two. The denial of a third way, the people's way, the revolutionary way, plays into the hands of both of these oppressors. We should do better.

 

So it's worth mentioning that if you sauntered into a chapter meeting of any org this high and mighty with your I-am-here-to-educate-you attitude I wouldn't expect any of them to give you the time of day either. Support whichever groups you want, but the fact remains that there is no organised group in either Syria or Venezuela that is capable of keeping a country from falling into perpetual civil war other than the ones that are currently under assault. So I wouldn't be so quick to throw the reigns into the hands of al-Nusra (since you'll know that the SDF has no desire to take power in Syria). No one is defending violence against innocent people, but what you're missing is pragmatism. What does it take to maintain infrastructure and meet the material needs of people? Who can provide that? Those are the two questions you need to answer to organize successfully. This is why daesh was successful for a while and this is why the opposition in Venezuela is burning food stores. So show me these hidden organised revolutionaries and I'll listen. What I don't care to listen to is criticism of the actual organised powers who are actively resisting fascism. When the fascists are dead we can talk about how to fix any corruption or w/e bullshit.

 

Um, I never go to these meetings to speak out, but to listen. I don't try to educate anyone because no one holds a monopoly on the truth. You're making an assumption about my engagement on the ground. Once in a while I bump into members at actions, and conversations inevitably ensue. Also, PSL and the destructive dialectics they subscribe to are not representative of the orgs effectively fighting fascism, or the left. For example: ISO, Refuse Fascism, BYP, BLM, progressive wings from people who fought for Bernie's campaign like People's Lobby, etc. It turns out you can fight fascism, neo-liberalism and capitalism without making excuses for people who starve or bomb their citizens.

For Syria, it may be too late, though that's been the argument for many years now. That does not mean we should pander to the narratives of a brutalizing dictator. As far as armed forces go, virtually none can offer a bright future for Syria as it stands, so support should be shifted to regional humanitarian efforts, as it should have from the beginning, instead of covering up for Assad's crimes.

Boiling down the Venezuelan opposition to those who burn down food stores is just another stark vulgarity of this dialectical narrative. Millions of people are flooding the streets. Most Venezuelans have lost almost a dozen pounds in the last year because food is hard to afford. There is a mass movement speaking to something real, and your casual dismissal of them as destructive looters is the exact same thing the right wing in this country does to black liberation movements when they take to the streets demanding justice.

 

Ah, now I understand. Purity tests really aren't my thing, but I'll leave these.

 

What exactly does Marx mean by "bourgeois property"? Is it any property that is owned by the bourgeoisie and used to generate profit? Like factories, offices, etc? I know this is Marxism 101 but I only just finished reading The Communist Manifesto yesterday so it's all fairly new to me.

Also, can anyone help me to understand the first measure which Marx lists ("abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes")? What would this involve and how would it work?

 

It means private property that exists as capital and a source of profit for the ruling class. This partially answers the other question, i.e., capitalists who own wide swaths of land that they also may rent out to other private individuals, to the exclusion of workers. Think of things like golf courses and the seizing of those to be used for the public good, according to democratic decision-making.

 

Assuming no changes in schedule, I'll be going to my first dsa meeting tonight. Excited, hopeful.

 

Coincidentally, I also went to my first ever one yesterday. I'm not a member, but thinking about it

 

Ya same. Turnout was huge like around 150 people showed up, bulk of them new. They went through a lot but then the issue of Fetonte came up and it kind of devolved.

Like, I can almost give him a bye for his involvement with the correctional officer union. But he kind of buried himself with his statement. If this were some other party that might fly but as someone correctly pointed out tonight, if the DSA is supposed to be the party for the marginalized, you can't have someone like Fetonte in the NPC.

 

My local branch is much newer/smaller, but nearly a fifth of those attending were new faces. One of the members also talked about Fetonte for a bit but didn't sound like the group knew entirely the exact procedures being carried out from here, I have my notes but don't have them on me atm

 

Can he be kicked off the NPC or does he have to resign?

 

From our discussion it's resignation and the debate was whether or not to have our dsa officially vote for resignation.

There are specificities in the bylaws stating that the NPC can remove you for malfeasance but he hasn't committed anything that would qualify.

 

It's been incredible watching DSA prove Lenin right about Democratic Centralism

 

Can you elaborate as I am unfamiliar w/ this

 

I'm being at least half tongue in cheek with that, but essentially DSA had their 2017 convention in June or July where delegates from local chapters elected 16 members of the National Political Committee. One of these elected NPC members, Danny Fetonte from Austin, was found after his election to have organized with CLEAT, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas. He did so as a member of a separate group which helped many different kinds of unions organize, but regardless, he actively organized police officers and helped their unions, and if you're reading this thread I don't think I have to explain why that's bad.

Essentially the major issue is that delegates were unaware of his work with CLEAT as he omitted it from his information which was passed around to inform delegates of who they were voting for. In 2015, the last such election, he had included it on that form or flyer or whatever it was exactly, which supports the fact that he omitted it intentionally, perhaps with the new surge of young members' strong anti-cop positions in mind.

Fetonte is supposedly well-respected as an organizer in Austin, and he has done a lot of organizing work outside of CLEAT and which has nothing to do with police. Recently, though, audio was released from an Austin DSA local meeting which took place before the NPC met a few days ago, sans Fetonte, to discuss what they could do about him. The audio from this meeting shows that Fetonte and his 'cohort' - which has been described as old, white, and less radical than the new membership surge - acted extremely fucked-up-ly at this meeting: literally shouting down opposition, not giving up the microphone (which he shouldn't have even been allowed to have in the first place given the meeting was about him), and attempting to confiscate cell phones from members before the meeting to prevent them from recording or taping the meeting. Since then it's become clear that regardless of how respected his organizing work is, he is not wanted as a leader by anyone but his 'cohort' (my word), including his own chapter. Further, the fact that he hasn't stepped down in the face of this drama and trouble it's causing, has been pointed to as evidence that he doesn't really care about the health of the organization and is concerned with keeping his power and status.

Fetonte himself is belligerent about this, his wife posted a statement on a DSA facebook group written by a third party and endorsed by him and his wife, which contended that the "internet lynch mob" was not fit to "handle a bucket of Fetonte's shit." He also was apparently holding the Austin DSA twitter account hostage during Hurricane Harvey. On the flip side, there has been some toxicity in the anti-Fetonte side, including dragging essentially anyone who spoke to him, and doxxing him by posting his personal phone number on twitter, as well as calling him an actual cop, which he wasn't, but...small distinctions.

At the recent NPC meeting, they voted to censure, but not to remove or disempower Fetonte. The vote was largely split between the DSA Praxis members led by RL Stephens and DSA Momentum members led by the guy known as Larry Website. Praxis voted to remove and to continue the process in the future once that vote failed, while Momentum members voted against removal and, afterwards, a vote which "would have set a date to bring formal complaints to Fetonte, would have sought formal, written legal advice from an attorney retained by DSA; it would have specified a timeline and team to formalize a set of complaints that a majority of the NPC could agree upon." Larry himself was the one Momentum guy who voted to remove initially, but vote nay on the second vote. Some, including the reputable DSA member @Cato_of_Utica, have claimed that NPC members lied to their co-chairs about how they voted, or have claimed to have "reluctantly" voted against removing him, while not really being very reluctant at all.

The reason they mention legal advice and a counsel is because Fetonte literally lawyered up and said he would only resolve the issue through mediation - as in legal mediation, the result of which would be untouchable by the NPC or a democratic vote in the future. DSA Momentum folks cited this worry of lawsuit as a reason they voted against, not wanting the trouble, not being sure what trouble there could or would be as a result of their vote. Their trepidation is down to not being sure what exactly the DSA bylaws allow, or what counts as the removable offense of "malfeasance" according to these bylaws. My response to which being.......the solution to that is to consult a lawyer, so why a) didn't you do that before and b) did you vote against doing that later.


Anyway, here are the majority and minority statements from the NPC:

Minority Statement on the NPC’s Failure to Remove Danny Fetonte


There's a bunch of other relevant tweets and posts but they're scattered, I'll post if I come across them again.


I made the Dem Centralism joke because of the way parliamentary procedure is hamstringing the organization from removing a guy who it is clear the vast majority of membership does not want on their leadership. Somebody (Larry, I think) is pushing for a 50%+1 plebiscite about this, so hopefully that can resolve it, although I don't know what the bylaws say about that.

 

Did anybody have strong opinions on the election between Praxis and Momentum?