By definition, anarchists are not in solidarity with any government, anywhere.

A very interesting situation has been developing over the past few months between the Pentagon, the media and Hugo Chavez, beneath the smokescreen of the Afghanistan war.

For those who wish to understand how Chile was demonised by the CIA and US press before the murderous Pincochet was installed to overthrow the democratically elected Salvadore Allende, I recommend you all become surveillance watchdogs to the behaviour of the US media, the CIA and the Bush administration, toward the Venezuelan president elect, Chavez.

Recent offerings published in the international media about Chavez have included his acceptance speech as new leader of the G70 countries at the United Nations, exhorting delegates to take the sufferings of the third world poor as seriously as terrorism, and his noteworthy speeches as the leader of OPEC.

But articles published by CNN and MSNBC in the United States, have on the other hand set about seriously undermining Chavez. Colin Powell has in the last week been quoted abusing Chavez. George Tenet, the head of the CIA is lavishly cited defaming both Venezuela and Hugo Chavez; while every trivial incident involving Chavez's political opponents in Venezuela are blown up out of all proportion to their newsworthy value.

We are watching the CIA, the American administration and corporate media making history here, just as they did in past in Korea, Chile, Argentina Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia, Haiiti, Guatamalea, and Panama.

The Americans are busily laying the groundwork for another butchering right-wing military coup in Latin America and the overthrow - and probably the murder -of the democratically elected leader in oil-rich Venezuela.

I've no doubt there is a conspiracy between the Acción Demcratica, Copei, the US and sections of the Venezuelan military to overthrow Chávez. That does not mean Chávez deserves support. He is an old-style corrupt, militaristic caudillo, a kind of Perón figure, championing a police state ostensibly on behalf of the poor and backing foreign fascist governments, like Saddam Hussein's regime.

Don't have any illusions about the man. He has interferred in the election of trade union leaders, given himself the right to rule by decree (ie without consent from Congress), appointed his friends in the military to lead state-owned companies and banned foreign journalists based in Venezuela from criticising him. His popularity has slumped from 60 per cent in the 2000 elections to around 30 per cent. Even his own Movimiento V República is being side-lined as he resurrects his old MBR-200 military junta. Venezuelan campesinos, who form his main constituency, are also miffed at his land reform programme, which redistributes marginal land that commercial farmers cannot use due to its poor quality.

Chávez is also a hypocrite. He claims to be crusading against poverty, but it's largely due to his regime that oil prices rocketed. He secured a deal with other OPEC countries to restrict oil production which has hurt the developing world. In El Salvador, for instance, the jump in oil prices and the fall in coffee prices have hit the country's terms of trade, with a 46kg sack of coffee buying only 2.5 barrels of oil in 2000 compared to 11 barrels in 1997. Imagine how Salvadorean peasants, who rely on coffee for income, feel at the receiving end of Chávez's oil policies.

Just because Chávez makes the right noises doesn't mean he is right. In fact, he is very, very wrong. He is a populist dictator and he will kill to stay in power. If the left sides with him, they will be siding with a man who is not a socialist but a state capitalist autocrat. However, I think it's important to keep the events in Venezuela in mind, for I believe that very soon Bush will install a US puppet government.

Revolution doesn't come from strong-men or strong governments, but a strong body of people united for a truly revolutionary cause to smash capitalism and all forms of the state.

Venezuela is surely a member of the U.N. If 'external'pressures are being applied to thwart democracy can their ambassador not raise the matter in public?

Ron

Daniel Brett - I'm curious as to what your experience is in implementing actual concrete change of the sort that Hugo Chavez and his 5th Republic Movement have. Perhaps you have led a better revolutiuon somewhere else under a different name? If not, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

First, Hugo Chavez is aligning himself not only against the most powerful people within his own nation but against the most powerful nation in the world. In the course of this struggle his movement will not always be able to encapsulate the ideal society which they seek to build. Sitting comfortably in the first world it is easy (effortless even) to find fault with some tactics of the movement. I would suggest that until you have achieved (or even imagined) a similar level of success and progress you might think twice before condemning the landless masses of Venezuelans to further poverty by refusing to support the only leader who has managed to win anything for them.

Second, Chavez has met with Hussein as well as Castro as well as Northern European leaders. He has always explicitly stated that he seeks to develop a multi-polar world order - that is a planet where not all decisions are made by the U.S. State Department. Is Hussein an ideal ally? Probably not. But Chavez has decided (I think quite rightly) that allegiances have to be constructed where they can be. While some of us are blinded by racism - those who can past society's anti-Arab bias realize that much of the world's oil supply is controlled by a group of nations not entirely under U.S. control (the OPEC nations) and that that is not an entirely bad thing.

Third, Chavez did take on the trade unions. He forced them to become democratic and accountable. Shown in numerous opinion polls to be among the least credible and least respected institutions in the nation, the old-guard trade union leadership was dealt a serious blow in December 2000, when 67 percent of voters passed a referendum mandating the direct election of union leaders by the rank and file. Explain again how this is anti-democratic?

Fourth, Chavez implemented some laws without a vote in Congress because Congress voted to give him that right. And a majority within Congress STILL are within his party.

Fifth, OPEC is trying to stabilize oil prices not increase them. This was their consensus coming out of their 2nd summit. OPEC no longer sets crude prices and hasn't done so since the 70s - their stated goal is to keep prices stable and not totally subject to the whims and fluctuations of the market. It's fascinating how when you combine a rise in oil prices with a fall in coffee prices the net worth of coffee goes down. I find that when the price of coffee falls and the price of maple syrup rises the net worth of coffee falls too! Canadian conspiracy? While useless in making your point, your anecdote about El Salvador illustrates exactly why a ntaion like Venezuela needs to exert control over the price of their primary commodities - without that control nations are subject to the damning whims of the market.
Chavez has also, it should be noted, supplied oil to nations like Cuba when other buyers would clearly pay more making this accusation of opportunistic exploitation of other Latin Americans all the more ridiculous.

Sixth, Chavez has followed the constitution thus far so it is simply factually wrong (and damned ignorant) to call him a dictator. End of story.

Only the CIA delights in your empty rhetoric. If you think Chavez's revolution is impure start your own. Keep us informed. I'll be very interested.

If only the frecking Gringos would mind their own G.d. business!