"Other than this, I largely agree with Prof Chomsky\'s analysis, I don\'t believe Chavez is any exemplar of humility: he is an egoist and teetering on becoming another victim of his own innitial popularity."

So what? Yeah, idolizing the dude is a problem, but he is the head of the most popular and authentically progressive and democratic state in Latin America, and vying for the title in the globe. His egoism didn\'t stop him from gracefully accepting defeat.

The amazing thing about the referendum was that it was taken as some great sign that the Venezuelans are waking up to their leader\'s domination. Never mind that the failure proves that Chavez isn\'t a dictator. The hilarious thing is that, by their reasoning, the fact that Bush lost, say, a battle on Social Security privatization, or that Schwarzy lost some of the special election initiatives he wanted, means that they\'re dictators.

"I\'m ashamed, Chomsky.  You have been right on in the past about a Nation holding itself to the same principles it holds other nations to.  Why would this Constitutional referendum had been any different? "

...Noam didn\'t express support or disagreement with the referendum. He simply said it was too complex and bundled together. Looking at it, I have the same response. There were some interesting proposals, some things that may have given too much power to the executive branch, some progressive victories, some compromises. As a lump, I wouldn\'t want it. Put me in the 50% negative. Does that mean the referendum was some attempt to dominate the people? Please.

Of course it is possible, wasn\'t this Dex Conaway doing just that?

And I don\'t think it follows that just because someone considers Chomsky a "voice of sanity" that means they are a "doctrinal follower" of his.  That\'s a bit of a non sequitur.  Chomsky is obviously not infallible, but when he\'s right about something, it\'s not a crime to agree with him.

I don\'t think we should suppose that the "Bolivarian State" will disolve.  I don\'t see where anyone said that though.  What I said was merely that one of the unfortunate parts of the Bolivarian Revolution is that it is largely tied up with Chavez, and when he leaves it could be jeopardized.  Therefore it is essential for grassroot institutions like the coops and councils to strengthen.

If the constitutional changes had been approved through the referendum in a fair and free vote, why wouldn\'t that have been democratic?

And I don\'t understand why you are "ashamed" of Chomsky considering he was opposed on the whole to the consitutional changes anyway.

It\'s amazing, as Chomsky points out, that Chavez is still called a dictator in the US press despite instantly accepting the results of this close referednum, and having democratic election after democratic election.  If Chavez is such a tyrant, why didn\'t he rig this latest referendum considering what a critical political defeat it was, especially if he\'s allegedly already rigged all the other contests he\'s won anyway?

And I quite agree with you Rufus that the key now is ultimately the Community Councils and Cooperatives.  In his remaining 6 years - the Chavistas best hope in protecting and expanding the Bolivarian Revolution into the post-Chavez era is by constructing a grassroots popular movement that is independent, radically-democratic, socialist, and not tied up and centered around any one individual.  I really hope that becomes a high-priority focus.

Noam Chomsky is a great man

I follow Venezuelan issues quite a bit; I pretty much agree with Mr. Chomsky on this one.  As to the broader question of whether the situation "looks like a one man revolution", I\'d have to say no.  Indeed, if it did start looking that way it would be a sobering indictment of the ability of the people to take control of their destiny.

There are a lot of things going on in Venezuela, social programs and redistribution and new political parties and whatnot, but ultimately the key for me is in the Communal Councils and the explosion in the number of co-operatives under Chavez\'s strong incentives for their creation.  Chavez isn\'t just giving money to the people, he\'s giving power to the people--political and economic power.  He is accompanying this with a strong attempt at education in how to take and use that power.  While there is still plenty for the Chavez administration to do, in many ways I feel the ball is in the Venezuelan people\'s court.  Can they take and use the power they\'ve been handed?

If they can\'t, that\'s something to worry about for any socialist project.  But I think they are doing so.  Certainly there are problems with the co-operatives; some seem to be fake, just put together to scam money and tax breaks while they operate as normal hierarchical firms.  Others are ill conceived.  But lots are for real, and going in a few years from basically zero employment in co-ops to 6% of the workforce is not peanuts.  And the Communal Councils are growing rapidly in numbers and beginning to take hold and get things done.  As to "one man", I believe in Venezuela there is more talk of "el proceso" and less of Chavez himself than we see in the media.