Article 203

I've always been a big supporter of Venezuela's socialist revolution, which I'm sure is a huge load off for the people of that country. My opinion holds a lot of sway in Latin America, muchos gravitasse! One of the issues that has always worried me, however, is the possibility that Hugo Chavez may one day pursue a sort of Dictatorship of the Proletariate, ala Cuba and the Soviet Union.

I'm a socialist, as I've said before, and was once an officer in the Socialist Party USA. I'm still an "activist" in the sense that I've joined some comrades in the formation of a new party that will be less top-heavy than the SPUSA. The working title of this party is the Socialist Party of America, although that will probably change. This is what radical left-wing parties do in the USA, they splinter and break-up and work very hard at becoming as politically irrelevent as possible. But I'm still on the vanguard of this new party, as I think it has to be done. The reasons are myriad and boring.

I bring this up to show that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to grassroots political activism, and I know what change I want. Which is the elimination of corporate capitalism, the establishment of a socialized health care system, the nationalization of all utilities, and strong unions that reach across national boundaries. And I'll take that with a big, fat cherry on top. As a delegate from Massachusetts, I've traveled to places like New York City, Milwaukee and Chicago for SP National Conventions, and to participate in the Socialist Scholars' Conference. I've heard, and made, the idealistic speeches; at dinner, in a comrade's hotel room, and on the convention floor. The dreams of a socialist are very lofty, and we travel far from the political mainstream, at least in the United States. We have a lot of pseudo-socialist programs in the US, like Social Security, but it's a moon-cast shadow compared to what we want.

That brings me back to Hugo Chavez down there in Venezuela. Recently, the legislature of that country, which is dominated by Chavez' party, voted to give the president the power to pass laws by decree for the next 18 months. That power allows him to make fundamental changes to the infrastructure, national defense, taxation, and to make reforms to the judiciary. It's called Article 203, and it has precedent; it's been done four times before, and with two other presidents. So it's all lawful, although it raises concern. The Bush Administration is using this to make the argument that Chavez is a dictator. Maria Páez Victor of Hands Off Venezuela wrote an excellent article about all this. She rightly accuses Washington of hypocrisy, for supporting dictatorships that are pro-American, and for a historical lack of concern for the people of Venezuela, who suffered from abject poverty and human rights abuses long before any Bolivarian Revolution. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that Washington cares about poor people anywhere, or democracy. It's absurd. What they care about is capitalists, and a "free" market. Most of Chavez' critics in the US are concerned only about one thing: the nationalization of oil resources. That's not cynicism, it's a conclusion based on reason and a knowledge of history.

But I am concerned about Article 203. Not as much as I was about Article 66 in Star Wars, but still. However, even if Chavez does over reach his powers and Venezuela devolves into dictatorship, it will be better than what they've had under the US-supported presidents of the past 50 years. My concern over a democratically-elected leader taking too much power should be focused here at home.

Anyway, that's my take. The people in the barrios of Venezuela have seen poverty and want that I can't imagine, so who the fuck am I to criticize the one fellow who has done something to alleviate their suffering.