If the ESF wasn't bad enuff in trying to re-order what has largely been described as the 'anti-globalisation' movement into a sterile talking shop and recuitment ground for lenist/statist projects, the hype around Chavez seems to have given a boost to this old movement the same way that the Zapatista uprising gave to the anti-statist movements.

Looking at this collective histeria, and at the chavistas around the world you see the same corrupt politics of third worldism, anti-imperialism and leninism. This movement has grown because of the lack of critique given to it by anti-statists - it is after all the job of the chavistas to prove empirically that a state can be subverted. History shows different and for those who see power relations, vertical structures and representations as contridictory to human liberation have a wealth of experience and knowledge in criticism this bolshevik movement.

So lets get some things straight, ignoring the political bias of the left and right propaganda of chavez seen on indymedia, Chavez is a military man, head of a state and like all states seeks to monopolise life. Venezeula has a rising prison population, a secret service, an army, a police force, laws (if we reject all laws, then we are against them no matter 'how progressive they are') and the economy is a typical capitalist economy). The idea of representation also serves the interests of capitalism, a hierarchical system, and however US imperialism sees chavez - a leader, any leader is better than a self-organised revolutionary movement.

Again, lets anaylses the role of Chavez and his so-called progressive movement. During a times of social upheavel and growing mobilisation of peasants and working class, the statist system tries to recuperat this conflict by institutionalising social reforms - look at the poll tax movement in the UK and further back the immergence of the social democratic state. This is how the state and capitalism manage to control their grip on society - rarely by milititary force but other forms of social appeasement. Chavez himself has managed to been seen by many as the movement in government, a contridicory situation that always leads to the government in the movement - russian revolution anyone?!

But anyway the left has always defended the bolshevik take-over of movements (indeed that is its social role in capitalism - see ESF) and doesn't come as no surprise at it's excitement of Chavez.

So how can we see this situation developing? Well I think there will come a time, when people see chavez as a barrier to realising revolution and would want to go further. And it will be the army as well as the consensus that chavez has created over his presidency among the poor that anyone who is against chavez is sponsored by the US and the middle-classes (kronstadt anyone?!). This is already happening now in venezeula - rising prison populations and the work of the secret service (creating files on anti-cahvez dissents).

Finally, the hardcore support of chavez in the UK comes from those who also defend Cuba in the same way and where you see a clear divergence of the politics of people. If you seen states, cops, laws, prisons, wage labour as the enemy of human liberation then you will be seen as an enemy of the cuban regime and venezeualan regime and any other corput leftist/statist project. But if you love cuba, you'll love venezeula.

Some anarchist from the Occupied Social Centre, Tufnel Park, London