viernes, 17 de abril de 2009

A Revolutionary logic exposed in 4 principles

(About the image: the principles described in this entry can't explain why I found this sign at the supermarket a few weeks ago: "Only four packages of toilet paper per person" and why when I took the picture, there was only a few packages left).

How can I explain all the latest state abuses in Venezuela under one single entry? Where do I start? There are so many that I’ve already lost count. The abuse is just everywhere and it seems sometimes way too obvious to even take the time to report it to the world. But since the common sense is the least common of all senses, I have made the determination to try approach to this very grave issue from the unique perspective this blog provides: a personal one.

The only way I can explain it, the only way I can show to people how this does affect me as a regular Venezuelan citizen, is by making the exercise of putting my self in their shoes. I don’t know if this will prove anything to you, I just have the duty to present you the facts just as the way they look to me.

So from this line forward, turn on the sarcasm. Thank you very much.

If you are a true revolutionary, then, prior to following the logic (fallacy?) that it will be presented in the next lines, you must get rid of all previous existent structures that rule your mind. All those concepts of what it should be and what it shouldn’t. This includes things like Constitution, laws, Institutions, what to do with the election results, democracy in general and a long list of etceteras. After all, those structures are nothing but the agonizing parts of an agonizing system: capitalism; aren’t they?

Once you have done that, you are ready to understand the logic behind the new system: socialism (our socialism, the Bolivarian one, that’s how we call it but we don’t really know what it is) as I will expose it to you in a few principles. Please keep in mind that those principles (as in any revolution) can change without notice or warning on special occasions (meaning, anytime). Without any further introduction, here we go.

1. Always, always remember this: Chavez = people. Chavez = Revolution. Chavez =Politics. Chavez =election results. Chavez = Institutions. Now in Revolutionary math, the symbol = what it really means if we put it next to “Chavez” is this ≥ (meaning, for us, equal, and above). If Chavez says “ah”, we say “ah”. If Chavez jumps, we jump. This is the first and foremost of all principles.

2. Election results, if and only if they truly respect the power of the people (meaning, if we, the revolutionaries win) should only be considered by their symbolic meaning.
I know this might sound complicated for you, with a capitalist logic still f… your brain, to understand but let me give you an example that it will make it all clear and might even sound slightly familiar to you.
Let’s say we propose an amendment to the Constitution, ok? The focus of the Amendment is to allow to any president, governor or mayor in Venezuela to present his candidacy on re-election for as many times as they wish. Now, let’s say that we did this because our leader, face, reason, meaning, Alpha, Omega and Beta and Gamma of our Revolution: Chavez wants to rule for a few more years. So it’s easy: if people vote “yes” they are not voting for the possibility of re-election of any candidate but symbolically, for Chavez to rule forever and ever. If people vote “no”, they (are f… crazy, capitalist, imperialist, blind, oligarchs…) don’t like Chavez.
Lets suppose the “yes” wins on this election, meaning we won but we not only won a Constitutional Amendment only but a blank check which allows Chavez to do what he pleases (is that legal?). Why do we do that? Because we consider that the real election results are the symbolic one. If this is a symbolic victory for Chavez we take it as being real. And if Chavez wons, that means that a Chavez victory is equal and above at the same time of everything else.

3. A recent Chavez victory will erase all previous – if any – (oligarch, traitors, lackeys of the empire) opposition victories; even if they are not related at all with the issues which have been voted on each election.
Again, I should explain this with an example. Let’s keep with the story presented in principle number 2 (because it was like fun). Let’s pretend that just a couple of months before Chavez won on the Constitutional Amendment referendum we just talked about; a regional elections were held in the country where we choose governors and mayors (yep, it has nothing to do with referendums and Constitutional Amendment). Let's pretend we did not win there, or not totally because the (cheaters, corrupt people, imperialist) opposition won in a few key states and municipalities.
So after that, a referendum comes, Chavez comes out with a victory and then he can make a few moves: such as asking to his assembly to approve a new de-centralization (meaning, centralization) law that will reduce the powers and incomes the opposition mayors and governors have. He can take away a few airports and ports and highways. He can also, for example, open investigations based on corruption charges (or any, it doesn’t matter) to get rid of a certain mayor from office. He can also ask for yet one more law to put a new authority, a new mayor(let's call it “chief” for keeping the appearances ok?) to rule in Caracas over the one who actually won in the regional elections just a few months ago.
(What about the people who voted for those governors and mayors?). Never mind, every time Chavez wins, the (manipulated, antipatriotic, blind) opposition's previous victories can be easily erased. No regrets. No looking back. (note aside, you don't necessarily need a new Chavez victory to erase a previous opposition one, but that is material for another entry)

4. Last but not least, I will explain a principle that should be obvious by now but you can’t trust yourself since you have been raised with the use of a capitalist way of thinking… so who knows? It takes time to become the new man our system wants. But it will take me just one simple formula to explain this to you, if you don’t know it already.
I always knew that math could be very helpful to understand the intricate revolutionary logic. So, in the first principle we propose a formula for understanding what Chavez is. For the (put a long list of senseless insults here) so- called opposition we can also propose a formula. If Chavez is equal (means, equal and above) to all, then the opposition will be equal to the result of the number one divided by zero (yes, I’m not kidding). Always. I hope there is no further explanation needed. No justifications. No dialogue (Dialogue? Really? Does that exist?). Nothing.

PS: Any similarities with the reality are mere coincidences...

Susan Boyle

This has nothing to do with this blog but I just had to put it. She made my day.
Click here and watch it all and she will make yours.
This is it. There is no rest.

miércoles, 8 de abril de 2009

Presidents and diapers

Someone I know put this as a Facebook status: "The presidents should be changed frequently, just like diapers... and because of the same reason"... (don't click on the next link, because there is no rest).

Not yet

One of the latest Caracas Chronicles post: "The dictatorship canard" got me thinking. The post speaks about the language some opposition speakers uses by calling president Chavez a dictator when in the strict sense of the word, he is not, not yet.

After reading it, I googled the word "dictator" and "dictatorship" in my blog, trying to find an ocassion when I explicitally reffered to the president as an actual dictator. But I couldn't find it. According to Google, I only mentioned the word in four entries (out of 111, without counting this one, that I have wrote so far): in one I spoke about "clear dictatorial tendencies" (means, Chavez is tending to become a dictator, I did not say he already is), on another I quoted a chant I heard at one demonstration that said "People! Grow up! This is a dictatorship!" but never made a stance on that quote; and the other two I use the word to refer to past dictatorship such as the Pérez- Jiménez one.

My conscience is clear. I did not fall in the tramp of calling something for what is not. Even counting that my blog is far more sentimental than analytical, this quick evaluation of its contents says that sometimes unknownly, I have done my best to speak in the name of the truth.

When you live here you are exposed to radical situations, and radical opinions on those situation and its quite hard to keep it real, to keep a stance that does not comes from Globo- paranoia (Globovision is the only opposition TV Channel that remains with an open signal) or from the equaly distorted and violent speech praised by the president.

But beyond those dangers I truly think that Chavez is not a dictator but he is not a democrat either. Time will only tell if Venezuela will stop being what it is: a some sort of democracy corrupted to become what some people want and others fear: an actual dictatorship. Chavez is not a dictator... yet.

And while we are all living inside this "yet", while are all warning others about the proximity of that "yet", while we are acussing others of claiming that this "yet" is coming sooner than when its actually coming; it seems to me that we might need to stop considering dictatorships with the model of the Soviet Union or the Cono Sur. The enemies of a democratic system can come under new signals, under new tools, under new ways to attempt against civil rights. They might don't use the same open horrible extreme tools to preserve a regime, as their predecessors had. What I fear the most is that they might don't even need those tools. But they hold the same intentions.

At the end the language can be tricky in two ways: one, to speak using the word starting with a D can make us fall in a lie, in a paranoid speech that make us loss credibility but if we avoid the D word we might lose it, when its meaning stops being the "no.. yet" and will finally come, as everyone warned but no one really prevent it, to slap us in our faces.

viernes, 3 de abril de 2009

Dear justice

Where are you? You were always a beautiful word, even for me – always sceptical and never even flirted with law school. But you still sounded hopeful: if the things didn’t work out the way they should, it is ok because I can wait for your word, a wise word of a fair agreement and that would be enough to redeem at least most of the previous sufferings. But I waited and waited in the same way they did. In the same way many people do. Some people wait in their houses, with tears in their eyes and fear in their veins. Some others wait behind bars, behind actual bars without knowing what exactly put them there. Some people are willing to see you. Some people would rather wait longer for your arrival. But we all wait. And sometimes I don’t know what we are really waiting for. I wonder if things are just the way they should be and we have no other choice but to adjust to that. I fear about the consequences if we keep looking for you and making others feel uncomfortable about our constant search. You should know that they threat and in worse cases put in jail, who knows what else, to the ones who looks for you. I think it is because they are hiding you, somewhere. I think it is because they have restricted all access we could have to get to you. But maybe you don't really exist or neither of us have a clue about who you are, no matter how many times we use your name. Either way, I often ask that to myself: Where are you? Am I ever going to be able to find you? Please excuse me if I get way too over dramatic. Is just that today was a horrible day and you were terribly missed. I feel so sad because you are not around. I really wish you were here. And if you ever were, do not hesitate about at least trying to come back. (The picture was taking in February, during the last political campaign)


(I took this picture at a protest that was demanding the freedom of the political prissioners back in January, 2008. It is more than suitable for this moment)

They waited six years or so, behind bars, in a very long trial filled with vices. And it finally happened today. The judge made her sentence: to be against "the process", to be an useful goverment scapegoat in order to make the whole story about a coup d' etat fit, will cost them 30 years even. in jail. The only version of the April 11, 2002 events is the one the government holds and it looks more like propaganda than actual facts. In the meantime a major and a very important Chavez' rival, Rosales is next in line to hear from a judge the word the president has put in its mouth. Baduel, old Chavez friend who stood against him a couple of years ago has just reached to prison without a trial. My parents are talking non stop about how worried they are. The lunch conversation was mostly about visa and oportunities abroad. My boyfriend and I made the decision of taking the exams we need on this year and leave as soon as we are accepted somewhere. I wish there were something I could do, instead of making those plans but I'm not sure about anything anymore. I feel lost. I just know that the Revolution will bookmark this day as the day "justice was made with the imperialist and the coupers". But I will remember this day as the day Venezuela lost any track of justice until futher notice.

PS: I promise to write a better entry on this and other topics. Right now I'm tired and out of time. Its been said that you can write out of different part of your body: sometimes you write from your head, from your heart, from your soul... today - forgive me - I wrote from my stomach so excuses about all the mistakes you might find. By the way, there is not rest, don't click on the next link.