BlogWonks

So the grabbing of power was a surprise, though anything that is unexpected is a surprise. By that truth, if Sean doesnt expect the inevitable, it will be a surprise (to him, but not everyone else). For more than 14 years things didnt go Hitlers way, then Hitler WAS elected in a fashion, but also didn’t have the majority. That like Chavez, he was put up as the person of choice to make the changes to the state. For us that know our history, we do not doubt that if chavez had won outright, that he would have floored the pedal to socialist changes, as it is, it only caused him to slow down, but not stop.

To quote Hess in the same speech “My fellow German citizens! You will vote yes for Adolf Hitler!”

So not only were the Nazi’s elected in some fashion, they were also leftist, and socialist. Which is why Stalin and Hitler colluded to start WWII (birds of a feather. Both were cannibals that thought that after the work was done one could devour the other). Socialists are cut from the same cloth; ALL of them wish to steal money from some to redistribute it to others. ALL of them desire to use the monopoly power of the state to change things as they wish, and with little regard for what the public wants (socialism dictates). The major difference is that Fascists allow private property and controlled ownership of business, and full socialism allows none of that and puts ultimate power in the hands of an elite feudal few. (Anyone care to expand on the National Socialist Green Party?)

Anyway, Hitler was not the only one that rose to power through the ballot box. We could go through the history of Charles Taylor of Liberia. Liberia, was established as a United States colony to be a homeland for freed slaves (Sierra Leone was established by Britain for the same purpose), became independent in 1847. a small number of African Americans held power till 1980, when Samuel Doe led a VERY bloody coupe.

Doe pretty much executed any rivals, and then recruited Charles to his administration. Charles wanted more, and so he made alliances with other countries, even as far away as Taiwan. On Christmas eve he launched his insurrection. His group split and a part lead by Prince Johnson, caught up with Doe, and basically pulped him. for more than five years there was serious back and forth killings and more.

Here is the key part. In 1994, the Abuja peace accords happened, things settled. Taylor became defacto ruler, and in 1997 he held elections. Which were considered nominally free and fair, but distorted it with actions. In any rate, Taylor won, and for a long time had rule.

The US helped create a war there, they froze tailors assets in 2004 (George Bush did), and his friends and family. He was eventually brought to trial for war crimes and such. Eventually he was out and a woman was elected into office.

There are others too. Julius Caesar was an elected dictator, and in a way so was Napoleon. The key that Sean and others miss is that a monarch or dictator CAN be elected. Chavez’s democracy is like the neo-soviets democracy, its sovereign democracy, not a federalist republic like the US. Though I would suspect that such distinctions are lost on someone like Sean who is now a journalist because he has access through his fame, and not access through his knowledge and journalistic abilities.

Sean only has to look at a dictionary to find out that how a dictator gets into office is not a key part to the definition of a dictator.

Let’s take out a dictionary and see if Chavez fits the description, or if Chavez current actions are ones that would lead to a final situation that matches the definition.

dic•ta•tor a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Bout the only point that leans towards Sean is that he doesn’t yet have “unrestricted control”, but that’s just a temporary situation as its existence depends on the changing of things in the state from what they were to what they need to be.

Technically that definition would make Kim Jong II not a dictator but a kind of administrative monarch, but it does not absolve Chavez, who has showed that he can dissolve and take over any entities he wants, like oil or banking.

The key here is that Sean didn’t do his homework. Sean doesn’t know his history, not even the history of the man and the country he is writing about (that makes what kind of journalist?). Does he remember that Chavez first tried to take over in a coupe in 1992? When that didn’t work, he went about stealing the country through manipulation elections and public opinion. This coupe failed, and then he spent a few years in prison (like Hitler, like the communist revolutionaries, like napoleon, etc). Trying to take the country militarily through a coupe is not the actions of a person wishing to be an elected official. He became an elected official after prison, just as Hitler became an elected official after his first coupe failed.

In early 2007 Venezuelans parliament (national assembly) handed Chavez such power in the “enabling act”. Once parliament did that, Chavez did have complete control, which is a defining point of a dictator, and which elections are not. What he wanted was the people to side with that control, and so a vote was called to create the semblance of desire. However, there was actually no need to call that vote other than political games (which ended up backfiring).

To quote wiki on the act:

In Venezuela, enabling laws allowing the President to rule by decree in selected matters have been granted to Carlos Andrés Pérez (1974),[1] Jaime Lusinchi (1984)[2] and Ramón José Velásquez (1993)[3]. In mid 2000 a similar law enabled Hugo Chávez to legislate on issues related to the economy, reorganization of government ministries, and crime for one year. Chávez did not take advantage of this act until shortly before its expiration, when he passed 49 decrees in rapid succession, many of them highly controversial

What is rule by decree? Why it’s dictatorial rule and his 49 decrees is what allowed him to cement his power. Now his work is towards making it last permanently.

It was Chavez SECOND attempt to get such a law passed again that Sean looks to as proof that he is not a despot. But that shows a complete naiveté. What looks to Sean as a state working and Chavez obeying can also be seen easily as a person full of themselves (like a dictator) thinking that the people are on their side. It’s a miscalculation, not an example of a “system that works”.

Reading the words from socialist workers party in the UK:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13919

“Fatherland, socialism, or death.” With these words, Hugo Chavez just over a year ago took the oath as president of Venezuela following a triumphant re-election campaign.

By the logic of this oath, Chavez’s announcement last week that he was slowing the pace of his “Bolivarian revolution” is cause for alarm. “I’m forced to reduce the speed of march,” he said.

This move follows the government’s defeat in the referendum of 2 December on its proposed new constitution.

So Chavez is recognizing that when one is starting a dictatorship, which if one moves too fast, then one can lose the dictatorship they are creating. That taking votes when the results are not truly known, are too dangerous as they give fuel to the citizens to realize what’s at stake (something that winning an election lets the air out of).

The fact that the people might just revolt if they figure out what Chavez is actually doing, or what the end result would be, is a real concern.

But listen to what the socialists themselves say as to the result of the vote:

The referendum result wasn’t really a triumph for the right. The No vote was only 200,000 votes more than those received by their defeated candidate in the last presidential election.

The real problem was that the Yes vote was three million lower than Chavez had won in those elections.

Stephanie Blankenburg, an adviser to the Venezuelan government, writes in the New Statesman, “The result of 2 December was essentially a protest vote by the ‘Chavista street’ against the ‘Chavista elite’.” Discontent at food shortages, inflation, and corruption led a large section of Chavez’s base to stay away from the polls.

His U-turn is intended to acknowledge this discontent.

So Chavez barely lost (and if he didnt lose, I am sure that Sean would have a different false rule to extend). It’s also intended to make sure that those who are backing him in taking control continue to do so. After all, building a dictatorship like his heroes, is not at all easy or the same as being elected, then working the lecture circuit and books.

One only needs to read the article from Reuters on Jan 11 2008 to see what the intentions are: Venezuela’s Chavez mulls 2010 vote to keep power

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday floated the idea of calling a new referendum in 2010 on allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely after he lost a similar vote in December.

In an unprecedented defeat for Chavez, Venezuelans narrowly rejected on December 2 a constitutional overhaul that included enshrining socialism as a state goal and granting him the right to stay in power as long as he kept winning elections.

In a state-of-the-nation speech on Friday, he said he might call another referendum in two years specifically on whether he can run to stay in office beyond his current term that ends in 2013.

So basically he will wait two years… consolidate his power… create the networks to insure the outcome, and then do it again.

I guess only Sean Penn is confident that the outcome will not be a dictatorship. If he doesn’t win, he stays in office. If he wins, he stays in office forever. he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to restructure the state to allow him permanent power and complete rule by decree. Am I missing something?