Photo 6 of 6 from Third World Caesarean Socialism

of course the difference between the two is that chavez is leading a dynamic process to undermine and replace his own state

The two of them each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Unlike Chavez's rhetoric, Lukashenko already fulfills all of the above criteria, but these are the problems:

1) Conditions which do not allow politico-ideological independence for the working class; and
2) The attempt at Caesarism and not Bonapartism is based on ultra-presidentialism (certainly of an anti-party type) and not a managed party system with presidential absolutism limited to intra-executive matters.

And now, for some self-deprecating humour:

=====
And what a stage--he only left out Louis Bonaparte, Juan Peron, and various Ayatollahs from his central committee of goons, clowns, and thugs.
=====

=====
Yeah... and when he's using all those goons and thugs to do all those things... and then those unimpressed proletarian workers--you know, the ones losing their jobs in the auto plants, or the ones whose kids are growing up next to lead and nickel smelters... when those workers go on strike, and those same goons and thugs get turned against them...

Then what do you say? Do you give the old mantra about Caesarism, managed democracy, focoism (!), coops, circuses, and coupons for cut rate cigarettes?
=====

=====
It doesn't work like that. You don't get to any "second stage" once you've hitched your wagon to the horse with the man on its back, even if he's in a chariot rather than on the horse directly.
=====

=====
Right on both counts-- you propose a 4th party, one that is capable of, and engages in, cheerleading support for the little Caesar.
=====

=====
Bet on it. And therefore we get pseudo-Marxists reliving and repeating the stupidity, the arrogance, the capitulation, and the enforcement of capitalist accumulation of their long-gone "Marxist" heroes.

It's enough to gag a maggot.
=====

=====
DNZ= Doesn't Know Zhit
=====

=====
Now I know all of that is irrelevant. I know that there's nothing that makes your heart go pitty-pat like a man in uniform all dressed up and looking for his horse, but you know what?

[...]

Don't take this personally, but I really don't like you.
=====

=====
And saying the petit-bourgeois are not going to "March on Rome" or Brussels, or New York to hail Caesar is not contempt.
=====

=====
That's enough to gag a maggot-- a so called socialist, proletariocrat or whatever the fuck he calls himself, the horse's ass, the big admirer of Kautsky, the flogger of "Marches on Rome" and "petit-bourgeois" anti-everything, comes out, and I do mean comes out of his little neutralist closet all dressed up in jackboots and riding crop [...]

Yeah slave labor is a real plus.
=====

=====
My only comment to you is "fuck you, asshole. You have no idea what you are talking about."
=====

=====
<<<<<I'd add that special emphasis should be put on what DNZ counts as big negative - popular front.>>>>>

I think special emphasis should be put on DNZ as a big negative
=====

=====
He thinks he's talking about utility, when he's really talking about value-- he's getting the surplus labor at below subsistence costs, Die Neue Dr. Mengele is. Of course that he doesn't grasp the distinction between use value and value here is totally consistent with the rest of his vicious idiocy.

Slow and painful deaths as lab rats? Who the fuck let this fucking Nazi in the room?

[...]

Given conditions in the markets, much more value could be obtained in exchange if the [state] killed these worthless dregs, these parasites, outright and then simply harvested their organs. Hey 15,000 people in the US alone die each year awaiting kidney transplants. Christ our Kautskyshite could corner the whole damn market.

"Strip 'em and Rip 'em" could replace "Arbeit Macht Frei" on Die Alte Zeit's labor camps.

And then, after harvesting the organs, we could knock the gold out of their teeth, render the fat from their bodies, use their hair to soak up oil spills, and don't forget what cool lampshades their skin will make.
=====

=====
No, that's you, asshole. Fuck off, Dr. Mengele and take your slow painful death with you.
=====

=====
I'm sorry, did I say Dr. Mengele? I should have said Dr. I.G. Farben. In either case, fuck off.
=====

=====
Here's a thought. I'm not flame-baiting anyone. You've got a clown here who pretends he's a socialist and finding of slave labor, and painfully working people to death because of their non-conformity to the demands of property a "positive."

[...]

Why don't you get rid of Nazi creep?

[...]

And if that bothers you too much, you can ban me from this place [...] I would be honored to be disqualified from participating in what is obviously a circle jerk of those eagerly awaiting the opportunity to be goons and thugs.

The problem isn't that I told this strutting little Beria wannabe to fuck-off
=====

=====
But in any case, you don't argue rationally with someone who disavows reality with statements like that creep's. You identify him, or her, as a thug, goon, slug.
=====

=====
I responded to DNZ in this thread because he made the claim in his little sing-song, "On the one hand" "On the other hand" cost benefit pseudo analysis.

See, it's really not that complicated. A smug, pontificating, pseudo-Marxist jerk who stacks his CV with absurdities steps out his "Kautskyshite" closet to say slave labor, working people to a slow and painful death, is a "good thing." So I tell this Martha Stewart of the Gulag to fuck off. What part of that is so complicated it needs further explanation?

[...]

And it's pure bullshit in thinking that such a system can be enforced without including the rest of DNZ's little homage to Arbeit Macht Frei-- slow and painful death, starvation, inadequate medical care, torture, beatings... etc.
=====

=====
This jerk is the true class enemy, the serious counterrevolutionary, the would-be mass murderer, and capital defender.
=====

=====
All of this pining and whining for a Caesar is just another refraction of the antipathy of petty-bourgeois poseurs to the proletariat's revolution.
=====

=====
No, that's not the "transitional consensus," since the point of transition is transformation, that is to say actions taken by organs of workers power; class-specific power, not your hodge-podge petty-bourgeois horse on manback junk populist neo-Stalinism.
=====

=====
You can't make this up.

Yeah lighten up. Quit being so serious about this stuff of dictatorship and authoritarian wished for little Caesars who, along with Bismarck, Peron, Vargas, Mugabe, Nasser, Cardenas, blahblahblahblah will do for the working class what the working class "could never do for itself."

[...]

If DNZ could find a third side to his mouth, he'd talk out of that one too.
=====

=====
Opportunism-- sums it all up. Hey, would you like a Bismarck with your Caesar Salad?
=====

=====
Wonderful. Ferdinand Lassalle shake hands with Father Gapon. What this has to do with the working class-for-itself that DNZ so proudly attributed to his little Caesar Lassalle is a bit obscure, but I'm sure DNZ has a rather unique interpretation of class-for-itself that fits in quite nicely with paternalist peoples' monarchy.
=====

=====
Your ridiculous tub-thumping for pseudo "state-socialists" is in reality nothing but flogging for capitalist corporatism.
=====

=====
Hey schmuck [...] You don't think that the expropriation without compensation; confinement to region, territory, and specific farm amount to a form of slavery-- right, I forgot, that's primitive socialist accumulation.
=====

=====
<<<<<It's all about protection from shepherds and their flocks gone astray, marauders, etc. They want to be left alone, but since the shepherds and marauders may be more heavily armed, they need to resort to some central authority for protection. In exchange, there's absolutism and a cult of personality regarding the central authority.>>>>>

Listen to this fucking arrogant ignorance-- it's all about shepherds and flocks. What a crock. Right they resort to some central authority for protection. Like the Czar. Like the King. Don't forget the Madonna.

[...]

First, let's try and not retreat from what the French and Russian Revolutions demonstrated about the differentiation of the peasantry; about the class divisions being introduced into the peasantry in the very midst of the "benign" protection offered by the little father.

[...]

And let's not forget what social relations were "being protected" by those great advocates of "socialism at a snail's pace" and "love for the peasantry,"-- those relations of petty capitalism, which proved incapable of sustaining agricultural productivity and industrial growth and thus led itself into being forcibly and violently expropriated by those who just a minute ago where professing such uncontempt for the peasantry.
=====

=====
All peasants protected by the great-Russian father from such nasty business.

You are just so full of shit..............
=====

=====
I think those are perfect examples of exactly where your fantasy of the "best of Putin, Bismarck, Lassalle.....etc" gets a revolution-- which is, best case, exactly nowhere; most cases, backwards.
=====

=====
Look who's shown up? And with his standard distorted attacks, while not a world offered about the actual history of international revolutions, the actual undermining of those struggles by those he would love to attach his tattered, square-wheeled Caesarean chariot to.
=====

=====
Yeah, you got some real comprehensive solutions-- hooking up with state capitalists, so-called radicals, and dreams of Julius Caesar. Genius at comprehensive solutions you are. Back on your chariot, Julius and roll the fuck out of here.
=====

=====
Down goes Frazier! I mean Caesar.
=====

=====
I just think one or two people who think there is anything "progressive" about Lukashenko's mini-Brezhnevism might be interested in the fact that this micro-emperor has no olive leaves.
=====

"of course the difference between the two is that chavez is leading a dynamic process to undermine and replace his own state"

That's some pretty seriously delusional thinking. Chavez is bourgeois and his policies are tailored to fit the needs of capital. Like many under-industrialized countries, the urban proletariat needs subsidies to live at a (relatively) comfortable level. That's all it is, to conflate this for some desire on Chavez's part to achieve a genuine socialist mode of production is beyond dumb. Chavez's support is contingent on pleasing the urban proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie it seems.

The reason DNZ has him on here is that the conditions in Venezuela and the policies of Chavez are favorable to conditions for the socio-political independence of the working class and the development of that class. They will achieve power in spite of Chavez, or whatever social-democratic or neo-liberal successors have replaced him; not because of him.

Indeed, but I would have stronger reasons for having Chavez there if he had won the 2007 referendum and if he moved against RCTV earlier.