Sadly thats not true. Many socialists, active ones with a sense of realism and conscience, have already abandoned support for Chavez. Not out of any basic idiological differance, but because of the fatal flaws at the heart of his plan (as I outlined in my previous post). In short, the "Bolovarian revolution" will not come to pass under the stewardship of Chavez.

Cronyism and inequality are the hallmarks of Chavez. He has tied his own hands. He cannot knock heads together to increase production in vital economic areas, because all the people with their hands on the levers of economic power are his loyalists and appointees. He cannot afford to alienate them (yet).

As he increases centralised power, he is also running out of people to blame for his won goverments meriad failures.

You will note that a great many (nearly all) of Chavez cheerleaders cannot argue the merits of Chavez without invoking some sort of external relativism. Last year this got to the stage of excusing Chavez human rights record because GW Bush did something simular. So Chavez is no better than the most reviled US president in recent history? A shakey argument to say the least and not exactly a ringing endorsement of the man or his policies.

This is most common when seeking to have a debate about the nuts and bolts of the Venezuelan revolution, ie economics - that which Chavez has made central to his power grabbing. Chavez supporters simply cannot engage on the subject - the stark and darkening reality is just too much to bare.