Best venezuelan history books according to redditors

Venezuela likely has the most mobilized and organized population in the world aside from perhaps Rojava. Each group within this kaleidoscope of social movements maintains varying degrees of autonomy from the state.

We should seek out and support those leftist organizations which advocate keeping the revolution independent from the government. We can be critical of the Chavez/Maduro-run state without throwing away all the legitimate progress made by millions of people there. And of course we must totally oppose US imperialism.

A great book on this subject (though a bit dated now) is We Created Chavez. Another good one is Venezuela Speaks! Voices from the Grassroots.

I question the judgment of anyone who voluntarily immigrated to Venezuela to work for Hugo Chavez. I would not want them responsible for making any decisions that involve people's rights. The Venezuelan government regularly authorized extrajudicial killings. Chavistas have no business running a prosecutors office.

You can read some of his book on Amazon. It strikes me as someone who has a profound misunderstanding of how the world works. And as someone who advocates for heavy-handed authortarianism.

Hola. Soy un Dominicano criado en los Estados Unidos, y tambien estaba interesado en la situacion en Venezuela hace unos meses. Era una des las cosas que me compelo a estudiar el socialismo.

It will take time to understand. If you read each day little by little, you will understand. I will not simplify this for you. To have knowledge of the situation takes an understanding of Venezuelan history, the capitalist global economy, and the political atmosphere of Venezuela. But I will give you the tools to learn about Venezuela.

First and foremost, read this article. It should be enlightening.

http://roarmag.org/2013/03/chavez-death-venezuela-bolivarian-revolution/

Here is a documentary about Chavez, the political atmosphere of Venezuela, and the coup attempt of 2002:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--ZFtjR5c

Here are books about Venezuela:

Changing Venezuela by Taking Power
Venezuela Speaks: Voices from the Grassroots

This is a website for news on Venezuela:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/

Bolivia is also a country allied with Venezuela that you should be interested in. Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, and Chile are also fairly leftist, and should attract your attention in the future. Here is a book on Bolivia:

The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia

Here is a documentary about an Argentinian workers movement:

The Take

Here is a legendary book that details the history of the Latin American continent has had with imperialism and capitalism:

The Open Veins of Latin America

Here is a book about the Latin American left of the 21st century:

Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America

Here are websites for the Latin American left in general:

http://www.nacla.org/
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/

Here are organizations of the Latin America countries that you should know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unasur

Finally, here is just a list of documentaries (mostly about issues in the US, but still useful):

http://www.filmsforaction.org/walloffilms/

Also...is your name from the Japanese video game Ikaruga?

>People in venezuela are tired while people like you say those protesting are agents of the US government, it's disgusting.

I am not claiming people in venezuela are agents of the US government.

I am claiming that the US government has a long history of interference in Venezuela and that it has a well documented history of funding opposition groups, and running ops.

Gollinger made that clear more than a decade ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Chavez-Code-Cracking-Intervention-Venezuela/dp/1566566479/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524456961&sr=8-1&keywords=chavez+code

But keep on ignoring the complexity of the situation on 'muh socialism does not work'.

I'm not so interested in trying to go back and forth on whether the major political party leadership is socialist or not. What I'm more interested, and what I think socialists should be more interested in, is the underlying social and political movements that produced and is producing "Bolivarian Socialism". These movements are diverse and multi-faceted--they can include everybody from liberal-progressives to members of the old military dictatorships to revolutionary communists.

Judging from books like We Created Chavez: A People's History of the Venezuelan Revolution, revolutionary communists and socialists do have a very strong presence in Latin America, so I'm hopeful for the future. I'm also hoping that infrastructure gets developed to import their movements into North America.

> A lot of you guys are falling for the alternate conspiracy theories being pushed by shills being paid by the Venezuelan government. They are on a Frenzy right now online. The 2002 coup for example, mostly came from our side, the CIA barely had anything to do with it.

The US funded the opposition to the tunes of millions.

And the CIA were involved in the 2002 coup, Eve Gollinger's book has xeroxes of official documents confirming it.

https://www.amazon.com/We-Created-Ch%C3%A1vez-Venezuelan-Revolution/dp/0822354527

ignore the low stars rating, its from the various times GCM ended up in the news for saying shit like kill whitey fuck the troops

The recent book "The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela" by Brian Nelson is a great place to start. The Economist review summarises the key points:

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13813460

Book deatils and other reviews here:

http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568584180/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250549874&sr=8-1

SI quieres entender un evento crucial, el golpe de estado del 2002, leete "El Silencio y el Escorpion":

http://www.amazon.com/The-Silence-Scorpion-Against-Venezuela/dp/1568586868

You're thinking about the Yanomamö. Their culture has been described for example by Kenneth Good in his book Into the Heart: One Man’s Pursuit of Love and Knowledge Among the Yanomamo.

He is a somewhat controversial anthropologist who visited a Yanomami tribe for years, often living with them for months at a time. He ended up absorbing a lot of their lifestyle and married a Yanomami teenager.

The Yanomamo do not have a similar concept for privacy as westerners do. They eat/live/sleep/copulate/laugh/cry/talk/defecate/rape pretty much openly. If others see them then they just happen to see them. Sex was basically done in a hammock and everyone could hear them and see them in the campfire light if they wanted to look. Apparently no one really cared. It was just stuff that happened with married people.

They don't really understand the whole concept of setting up appearances. They lie about other Yanomamo for social/political gain but they don't understand why westerners do the opposite of what they want to.

The Dig (Jacobin podcast) had historian Alejandro Velasco on just last week. He's a historian at NYU (also did an AMA on askhistorians) who has studied the urban popular politics of the country (also recommend the book) from the bottom up. He's as 'neutral' as they get because he's an academic, not a partisan, but he comes at it from the angle that most mainstream news usually completely dismisses - the lived experiences and politics of the poor, based on ethnographic research.

You don't know enough about Venezuela, comrade. Here's where to start.

Always watch critically, and I doubt their coverage of Syria will be all that great, but there is some serious horseshit going on in the US about Venezuela. Fucking nobody knows anything and the state supports the violent reactionaries.

It's amusing to hear the pro-Chavez moustache guy explaining that businesses close because they don't want to sell at lower regulated prices, as if it is the fault of the businesses.

Of course they don't want to operate if if it involves losing money. Businesses are created to make money. Similarily to him writing a book and then selling it. He is not giving it away, is he? Would he be ok if I post a link here with a pirated PDF of the book?

Do these guys intentionally blind themselves to these very simple concepts?

bad infrastructure, horrible poverty gap, no acess to schools, all that and they still had a corrupt government. At least chavez was elected. source

but keep going, you are doing great with all your talking.

I don't think we can agree. The most radical democratic, libertarian projects in the world we/are being carried out in Venezuela. 99.9% of the stuff you read about the country is misleading, at best. Even the liberal/progressive press is guilty of this; one libertarian socialist, Michael Albert, has recently written about it. ( I would point out that since his article, progressive news outlets have been much better)

One good book from a Libertarian left perspective, which goes ino the positives and negatives of the socialist party in Venezuela is We created Chavez: a people's history of the Venezuelan Revolution by George Ciccarello-Maher

Ok? Don't you want to know how these numbers break down? You're afraid they will actually break down I think.

Here, read a book about how Venezuela actually works.

https://www.amazon.com/Caf%C3%A9-leche-Class-National-Venezuela/dp/0292790805
Café con leche: Race, Class, and National Image in Venezuela ...

> Rarely do true believers stop to consider that there may be something wrong with the logic of socialism itself. In his 1993 book Post-Liberalism: Studies in Political Thought, the English philosopher John Gray wrote that Soviet socialism forced its subjects into a “vast Prisoner’s Dilemma, with each being constrained to act against his own interest and, thereby, directly or indirectly, to reproduce the order (or chaos) in which he is imprisoned. Thus Soviet subjects are compelled to compete with each other in climbing the rungs of the nomenklatura, pursuing the ordinary goods of life by party activism or, in extremis, by informing or denouncing one another, and so renewing daily the system that keeps them all captive.” These are not exactly optimal conditions for building community.
>
> By 2004, I was already well aware of what Marxist-Leninist socialism had done to the twentieth century. So why did I fall for the socialism that Hugo Chávez proposed in Venezuela? The reasons were part push, part pull. The push came from the American invasion of Iraq less than two years earlier. After a rapid battlefield victory, the news from the Middle East seemed to be growing more dire by the day. A little over a month before I left for Venezuela, allegations began to emerge that the US military were committing war crimes in Fallujah. Surely a better way than this remained possible? As I wandered around Venezuela that December I was desperate for an alternative I could believe in, no matter how fragile.
>
> The pull was what Hugo Chávez was proposing. He acknowledged the problems of twentieth century socialism, and claimed to be offering something different—the Bolivarian version of “twenty-first century socialism.” This would be the “socialism with a human face” and quite unlike the repressive, totalitarian bureaucratic behemoth of Marxist-Leninism. As Chavista Gregory Wilpert insisted in his 2007 book Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, under Bolivarian socialism “ownership and control of the means of production must be collective and democratic.” Cooperatives were to play a large part in this and, after 2006, so would the local communal councils.
>
> The money from the 2004 oil boom had saved Chávez from a recall referendum as he distributed the revenue flooding into the country among his followers. In this way, Chávez was able to fund his “revolution” from 2005 onwards. He ensured that the oil wealth would bypass the government, which he characterized as “corrupt” and (naturally) “counter-revolutionary.” Instead, money would be funnelled directly into a non-state-controlled corporate entity known as Fonden, the National Development Fund, over which, of course, Chávez personally presided. Fonden then parceled money out to cooperatives and the so-called “Missions” to the poor. During the oil boom, petroleum prices went from $10 a barrel to $100 and peaked at around $150 over the course of a decade. Given the astonishing amount of wealth generated, Chávez had a lot of money to throw at his pet projects. And, predictably, as the wealth trickled down, corruption increased since everyone had to get his or her piece of the patronage.
>
> The cooperatives and community councils were among the many promising and inspiring initiatives dreamed up by Chávez in the early years of the boom. I witnessed these developments and documented them in my feature film, _Venezuela: Revolution from the Inside Out. There really did appear to be great enthusiasm for these initiatives at the grassroots, especially as Hugo Chávez pushed them forward with massive funding. I quickly joined the chorus of supporters, first as invited poet to the Second World Poetry Festival of Venezuela in July 2005, then as a freelance (that is, unpaid) journalist for various left-leaning websites. When Chávez appeared on the scene, there were under 2000 cooperatives in the country. Once he came to power, that number skyrocketed to nearly 200,000, and I was there to document their ups and downs. I attended a few community council meetings and “political formation” training sessions, as well as a number of oil-funded projects like community kitchens, cultural events, and community development programs. It felt like something was really happening and that a fairer society was being built.
>
> After the year I spent living in Venezuela (2005-2006), I returned as frequently as my schedule would allow, sometimes twice a year. Between 2008 and 2011, however, I became preoccupied with traveling across Latin America and conducting interviews with social movement activists for a book entitled Until the Rulers Obey_ that would be published in 2014. During that time, I was forced to become a “generalist” and didn’t have much time available to keep a close eye on what was happening in Venezuela. Nevertheless, from people who were watching, and from what I saw on my two visits there in 2011, I gathered that the situation was taking a bad turn. As even supporters were pointing out a few years later, by 2007 only about 15 percent of the 184,000 remaining cooperatives were active. If the distinction between earlier socialism and the Bolivarian version was that in the latter the “ownership and control of the means of production must be collective and democratic,” the new version wasn’t faring well at all.
>
> Image
>
> Nicolás Maduro Moros, 46th President of Venezuela
>
>
>
> Big questions began to arise about the financing of the community councils. Critics charged that these organizations were simply instruments that Chávez (and then Maduro) used to fund their supporters while denying access to the opposition. It was classic populism in the style of the Mexican PRI, which Mario Vargas Llosa once called “the perfect dictatorship.” By 2008, Chávez had suffered his first electoral defeat in a referendum that he had hoped would drive his socialist agenda forward. In response, he adopted a new approach to building twenty-first century socialism, and it looked very much like the twentieth century variety: nationalization of industries followed by the expropriation and redistribution of wealth and property. The “Bolivarian Revolution” was starting to look like any other rentier or petro-state—burgeoning corruption, a politics of clientelism, and a growing gap between the elite in control of the state (and, of course, the oil revenues) and the increasingly desperate mass of people at the bottom.
>
> When the Arab Spring swept Gaddafi from power, I argued with my Venezuelan friends and felt the beginnings of a great divide opening up between us. I didn’t like the company Chávez was keeping—Gaddafi, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.—but neither was I ready to denounce him and his project as a fraud. Meanwhile, as my wife and I compiled the interviews with the social movement activists in Latin America, we began to notice themes and threads that confirmed what Raul Zibechi had told us when we visited him in Montevideo, Uruguay in the spring of 2012.
>
> Zibechi was an astute analyst of Latin American politics with a focus on social movements. He explained that the so-called “Pink Tide” of leftwing governments that had risen to power on the wave of the commodities boom were in fact following the prescription of Robert McNamara, the former president of the World Bank and architect of the Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson. In this scenario, moderately progressive governments were far more useful than their rightwing homologues to the world elite, because they provided a buffer between the transnational corporations and the social movements protesting the impact of resource extraction on communities and the environment. The testimony of our interviewees seemed to bear out Zibechi’s thesis. But surely this couldn’t be true of the more “radical” processes, like the one unfolding in Venezuela?
>

> (continues in next comment)

[Edit: removed "simple-minded" before global left; unnecessary insult, irrespective of my feelings about the individuals who have cheered Venezuela's disaster on for the past 17 years.]

This is an important film, one not too many persons outside of those with a personal connection to Venezuela have paid much attention to. It was a lot easier for the ideological global left to believe in Chavez' propaganda, buy a Che Guevara t-shirts and think of themselves as radical, arguing that Venezuela was a utopia which the US was hellbent on destroying.

Chavez is gone, and he knew he was leaving behind a train wreck. He chose Nicolas Maduro for the sole purpose of making things so bad that he'll comparatively look like a hero in 50 or 100 years, possibly inspiring the next "Chavez."

Unfortunately, the majority of global media still believes that the United States supported the events leading to Chavez' brief ouster, and the film helps to expose that this assumption is untrue. A deeper inspection of the spontaneous uprising against Chavez is the topic of the book "The Silence and the Scorpion," http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568584180 which I highly recommend to anyone seeking to learn the truth which contradicts the propaganda.

In 2002 the United States tried to eliminate Hugo Chavez through a coup.

There is proof of direct american involvement.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/29/venezuela.duncancampbell

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568586868