News: Chavez urges military to be prepared for conflict

[Communist]

Chavez urges military to be prepared for conflict (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/world/latinamerica/APNews/LatinAmerica/20090810/U_LT-Venezuela-Colombia?pageid=1)

AP - Sunday, August 09, 2009 5:42:37 PM By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER http://ll.vimg.net/imagesoa/cms/images/APNews/LatinAmerica/20090810/LT-Venezuela-Colombia-2f39e0bd-eb7f-4860-9887-a3b824f70443.jpg?width=300&height=2048&type=fm&watermark=&detectface=1&faceratio=&watermarkloc= (http://www.mail.com/mediaplayerp.aspx/world/latinamerica/APNews/LatinAmerica/20090810/U_LT-Venezuela-Colombia?pageid=1&guid=20090810014237:LT-Venezuela-Colombia) Photo By AP

President Hugo Chavez told his military on Sunday to be prepared for a possible confrontation with Colombia, warning that Bogota's plans to increase the U.S. military presence at its bases poses a threat to Venezuela.

Chavez has issued near daily warnings that Washington could use bases in Colombia to destabilize the region since learning of negotiations to lease seven Colombian military bases to the United States.

"The threat against us is growing," Chavez said. "I call on the people and the armed forces, let's go, ready for combat!"

The former paratroop commander said Colombian soldiers were recently spotted crossing the porous 1,400-mile (2,300-kilometer) border that separates the two countries and suggested that Colombia may have been trying to provoke Venezuela's military.

"They crossed the Orinoco River in a boat and entered Venezuelan territory," Chavez said. "When our troops arrived, they'd already left."
Chavez said Venezuela's foreign ministry would file a formal complaint and warned Colombia that "Venezuela's military will respond if there's an attack against Venezuela."

Chavez said he would attend this week's summit of the Union of South American Nations in Quito, Ecuador, to urge his Latin American allies to pressure Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to reconsider plans to increase the U.S. military presence.

"We cannot ignore this threat," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello President."

Chavez also halted shipments of subsidized fuel to Colombia, saying Venezuela should not be sending cheap gasoline to an antagonistic neighbor.
"Let them buy it at the real price. How are we going to favor Uribe's government in this manner?" he said.

Colombian officials say Venezuela has no reason to be concerned, and that the U.S. forces would help fight drug trafficking. The proposed 10-year agreement, they claim, would not push the number of American troops and civilian military contractors beyond 1,400 -- the maximum currently permitted by U.S. law.

Tensions between the neighboring South American nations also have been heightened over Colombia's disclosure that three Swedish-made anti-tank weapons found at a rebel camp last year had been purchased by Venezuela's military.

Chavez has accused Colombia of acting irresponsibly in its accusation that the anti-tank rocket launchers sold to Venezuela in 1988 were obtained by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Sweden confirmed the weapons were originally sold to Venezuela's military.

Chavez denies aiding the FARC. He claims the United States is using Colombia as part of a broader plan to portray him as a supporter of terrorist groups to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Chavez said Sunday that diplomatic relations with Uribe's government "remain frozen" even though he ordered Venezuela's ambassador to return to Colombia more than a week after he was recalled.

[JimmyJazz]

So is there any organized socialist resistance within Venezuela to this kind of rhetoric? Any actual war with Colombia would be the occasion for a complete break between Chavez and any principled socialists in Venezuela. Nothing this man has done is even remotely worth sending working class people to die and kill for.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

If the Colombian fascists dare to even touch the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, I hope all of their mercenary hordes will be destroyed and their system of opression and tyranny will be overthrown.
This could be a great occasion for a united Socialist front against the Colombian fascist government. Imagine a Revolution of FARC and ELN together with a liberation by Venezuelan forces.

[JimmyJazz]

And you consider yourself a follower of Lenin? :lol:


If the Prussian monarchists dare to even touch the democratic French Republic, I hope all of their mercenary hordes will be destroyed and their system of opression and tyranny will be overthrown.

fixed that for you.

Nah, you're not a Leninist, just an exceptionally militant social democrat (as Chavez is).

[Gravedigger01]

South America will certainly go to war sooner or later and left-wing states such s Cuba,Venzuela and Brazil WILL prevail over Columbia.

[JimmyJazz]

left-wing states such as...Brazil

It gets better and better.

[Yehuda Stern]

This could be a great occasion for a united Socialist front against the Colombian fascist government. Imagine a Revolution of FARC and ELN together with a liberation by Venezuelan forces.

Chavez seems more interested in being the "fascist government" representative in discussions with the FARC - how terrible for delusional reformists like yourself.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Chavez seems more interested in being the "fascist government" representative in discussions with the FARC - how terrible for delusional reformists like yourself.
Yeah, because giving the weapon to the factory workers, giving the community to coordinate their effort and production, giving the community to have their radio, putting the de-facto union in many industry, cutting down the private industry, giving the local community to have their own patrols is fascist.
Wait, you are right because Trotskyist is the only true communism ideology and anything else is "Stalinism." :rolleyes:

[The Author]

So is there any organized socialist resistance within Venezuela to this kind of rhetoric? Any actual war with Colombia would be the occasion for a complete break between Chavez and any principled socialists in Venezuela. Nothing this man has done is even remotely worth sending working class people to die and kill for.

I'm not exactly a fan of Chavez, but what sort of "socialist resistance" are we talking about here? The kind funded by the CIA? You do realize that this potential conflict is the logical result of Yankee imperialism using the Colombian puppet government as a pawn in its chess game against Venezuela, and that if they go to war and Chavez is overthrown, his replacement will be another Banana Republic dictator doing 100% of the bidding of the US government and business interests. That's not exactly a welcoming prospect. It's a huge step backwards.


And you consider yourself a follower of Lenin?

This isn't Russia, 1917 in the midst of the First World War. If you people can't think in terms of materialist analysis and stick merely to historical analogies, then what kind of socialist are you?

[JimmyJazz]

This isn't Russia, 1917 in the midst of the First World War. If you people can't think in terms of materialist analysis and stick merely to historical analogies, then what kind of socialist are you?

You're right, internationalism and anti-opportunism are a thing of the past. Today's socialists know that reformist nationalism is where it's at.

Same for working class revolution - what an absurd and outdated dogma that is. Today we realize that "liberation by Venezuelan forces" is what the Colombian workers really need.


Yeah, because giving the weapon to the factory workers, giving the community to coordinate their effort and production, giving the community to have their radio, putting the de-facto union in many industry, cutting down the private industry, giving the local community to have their own patrols is fascist.

He's talking about how Chavez has negotiated with FARC on behalf of the Colombian government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7084347.stm).

Hence he put "fascist government" in quotes, because he was not using that phrase himself, only noting that a previous poster had used it in reference to the Colombian government.

[Mather]

Meh, this type of talk is nothing to be overly concerned about.

Chavez, like all charismatic orators, says what he knows will make the headlines, hence his talk of a possible war with Colombia.

It would not be in the interests of either the Colombian or Venezuelan state to go to war. Both states would lose a great deal more than they could gain from any possible war and the military forces of both Colombia and Venezuela are evenly matched.

[JimmyJazz]

Meh, this type of talk is nothing to be overly concerned about.

Chavez, like all charismatic orators, says what he knows will make the headlines, hence his talk of a possible war with Colombia.

It would not be in the interests of either the Colombian or Venezuelan state to go to war. Both states would lose a great deal more than they could gain from any possible war and the military forces of both Colombia and Venezuela are evenly matched.

I agree, it probably won't ever happen. And I also thank you for pointing out that the determining factor in it not happening is that it is against the interests of two states, not that it is against the interests of the working class. I agree on that point too.

Chavez is a reformist leader of a capitalist state. I'm not against reforms, but I won't die or kill for a capitalist state no matter who is at the helm, and neither should any conscious worker. Marxism doesn't get any more basic than this principle.


what sort of "socialist resistance" are we talking about here? The kind funded by the CIA?

We're talking about socialists explaining basic Marxism to the Venezuelan working class, including the principles of internationalism and working class independence from capitalist states, and hoping that it sticks.


You do realize that this potential conflict is the logical result of Yankee imperialism using the Colombian puppet government as a pawn in its chess game against Venezuela

You do realize that the reformist Chavez is talking openly about using the working class as a pawn in his chess game against Yanqui imperialism? (Much like he did with the Iranian people when he congratulated another populist bourgeois politician, Ahmadinejad, on winning a bourgeois election).


and that if they go to war and Chavez is overthrown, his replacement will be another Banana Republic dictator doing 100% of the bidding of the US government and business interests. That's not exactly a welcoming prospect. It's a huge step backwards.

Before Chavez started talking about sending the working class to die in conflicts between one capitalist state and another, more "progressive" capitalist state, I might have believed that it would be a huge step backwards. Lately, however, Chavez has given me every reason to believe that he would likely as not crush any genuine working class movement that set itself in opposition to his policies, much as he congratulates Ahmadinejad for doing.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Chavez also halted shipments of subsidized fuel to Colombia, saying Venezuela should not be sending cheap gasoline to an antagonistic neighbor.
"Let them buy it at the real price. How are we going to favor Uribe's government in this manner?" he said.

This is also a bad move. The poor Columbian masses will suffer most from this decision and Uribe's government will not be hindered in the slightest.

[JimmyJazz]

This is also a bad move. The poor Columbian masses will suffer most from this decision and Uribe's government will not be hindered in the slightest.

Yep. The Colombian government does not need Venezuelan oil subsidies when it is fully subsidized by the United States; it will not suffer at all.

And the same people that will defend Chavez here are probably the "hardline" anti-imperialists who more often than anyone else remind us (and rightly so) about the horrible effects of American sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990's.

[cb9's_unity]

This is quite a bad scenario for Venezuelans. In some ways I sympathize with Chavez in that I would not want a hostile state building up bases in Columbia. The idea of going to war against Venezuela and reaffirming the United States dominance of South America is something we should be worried about, even if the threat is not immediate. On the other hand any offensive military action by Chavez at this point would be inexcusable. The only appropriate action he could take right now is to avoid war at almost all costs.

As for the socialists in Venezuela, they should do what socialists everywhere should do. Fight imperialism, whether it takes form in an invasion of Venezuela by Columbia or an invasion of Columbia by Venezuela.

[Radical]

Chavez seems more interested in being the "fascist government" representative in discussions with the FARC - how terrible for delusional reformists like yourself.

I expected this to come from a Trotskyist.

I guess 80% of Communists are now Fascists according to you.

[n0thing]

Chavez has really solidified my belief in revolutionary socialism. There is no better advertisement against state reformism.

[Bankotsu]

It seems that USA is stepping up its efforts to destroy the leftwing forces in latin america.

First Honduras coup, now building bases in Colombia to put pressure on those left wing states like Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia.

The USA and their right wing allies must not be allowed to succeed.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, because giving the weapon to the factory workers, giving the community to coordinate their effort and production, giving the community to have their radio, putting the de-facto union in many industry, cutting down the private industry, giving the local community to have their own patrols is fascist.

Setting aside the question of whether you are twisting my words or just plain stupid, "fascist" refers to the Colombian government. I don't believe that it is a fascist government, but was referring to something someone else said earlier. Either way, what you said isn't fascist, but not necessarily revolutionary either; in this case, it's just moves by a bourgeois Bonapartist to consolidate his control over the masses.


I expected this to come from a Trotskyist.

You should.


I guess 80% of Communists are now Fascists according to you.

See my response to the genius before you, esp. that question I mistakenly set aside - clearing that up would've helped me here, I see.

[Comrade B]

I can't see anything good really coming out of a war between Columbia and Venezuela. What would Chavez do if he were to win the fight? Enstate a new leader with little support of the people?

The only reason that fighting would really break out is if Columbia or the US invades Venezuela, there would be no offense.

[cyu]

These are stats from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html for 2007 of the top 5 countries getting US foreign aid:

$7262 million Afghanistan
$6102 million Iraq
$2373 million Israel
$1761 million Egypt
$ 771 million Colombia

Haiti is at a distant second in the Western Hemisphere, getting $164 million. Colombia is the nation with the most murders of union members in the world. Thus one might say that the US is trying its hardest to prop up the most right-wing regime in Latin America.

[politics student]

These are stats from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html for 2007 of the top 5 countries getting US foreign aid:

$7262 million Afghanistan
$6102 million Iraq
$2373 million Israel
$1761 million Egypt
$ 771 million Colombia

Haiti is at a distant second in the Western Hemisphere, getting $164 million. Colombia is the nation with the most murders of union members in the world. Thus one might say that the US is trying its hardest to prop up the most right-wing regime in Latin America.

Yep not shocking. Considering the USA has just taken over the old colonial countries and these countries now work with wage slaves instead of slaves, in the production of cash crops for the West. Hmmm maybe a book on Colombia history will be on my next book order.:thumbup1:

I have been reading "Open Veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano. Its amazing how far Cuba has come from the revolution. Considering it only produced sugar. Since the revolution it has been the target of USA economic terrorism, as well as terrorism by Cuban Exiles who have been trained by the CIA.

The USA is interested in its external economic industry. So funding military coups, military action and terrorism has been a method in keeping, as well as expanding its economic power.

I am just glad that they have at least taken steps to prepare. This may discourage any invasion plans. Hopefully.....

[The Author]

You're right, internationalism and anti-opportunism are a thing of the past. Today's socialists know that reformist nationalism is where it's at.

Same for working class revolution - what an absurd and outdated dogma that is. Today we realize that "liberation by Venezuelan forces" is what the Colombian workers really need.

Funny, according to that same dogma, the working class of one socialist country can invade another country and liberate the working class from the bourgeois dictatorship and institute another new socialist country. Ah, but then, internationalism doesn't count. The working class of separate countries should fend for themselves.


We're talking about socialists explaining basic Marxism to the Venezuelan working class, including the principles of internationalism and working class independence from capitalist states, and hoping that it sticks.What socialists? Where are they in Venezuela? What is the true character of the Venezuelan nation? Are these "socialists" the intellectual phonies who sit on the sidelines and judge but never perform any true actions for the working class? I wonder who is sponsoring them, I wonder if these "socialists" are truly genuine. There are so many socialists out there who are really frauds, how can I be expected to believe the sincerity of their slogans.

How do we know the Venezuelan working class will be fully persuaded by the ideas of Marxism by said socialists? What if they refuse to acknowledge these ideas, what then?


You do realize that the reformist Chavez is talking openly about using the working class as a pawn in his chess game against Yanqui imperialism? (Much like he did with the Iranian people when he congratulated another populist bourgeois politician, Ahmadinejad, on winning a bourgeois election).Oh, so now the small country of Venezuela is at fault for defending itself against the superpower? How do we really know he is using the working class as pawns? Because of slogans? Need a little bit more convincing than that.

Plus, Chavez is head of state for Venezuela, not Iran. It's not like he actually can control the forces of the theocracy, he only deals with foreign relations with that country. We can criticize those relations and we sure as hell don't have to like them, but when looking at the international picture, with the superpower taking advantage of the smaller states, in this regard the foreign relations are understandable.


Before Chavez started talking about sending the working class to die in conflicts between one capitalist state and another, more "progressive" capitalist state, I might have believed that it would be a huge step backwards. Lately, however, Chavez has given me every reason to believe that he would likely as not crush any genuine working class movement that set itself in opposition to his policies, much as he congratulates Ahmadinejad for doing.Again, take Iran out of the equation and what do we have? How do we judge: well, we can look at his faults, we can look at the fact that he has done fuck all to seriously implement socialism, that he has the resources and the allies in China and Russia to balance against the United States while implementing socialism, yet stumbles and staggers on purpose. These conditions we can look at. And then we can look at the potential future scenario where Chavez is absent from the picture: we have another piece of shit dictator doing everything the United States compels him to do, just like in neighboring Colombia, we have a state that went from misery to extreme misery, we have foreign finance capital going to the extreme more than under the current situation, and we have petroleum resources under even greater exploitation and abuse than currently. Yeah, that's a great future.

If war comes, I'd put my support behind the Venezuelan state first since I very much doubt the power of the "socialist" organizations currently in Venezuela to actually liberate the working class there. But if the working class really does take the lead and really does seize power, I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Then the war comes and the Venezuelan working class invades Colombia and liberates the Colombian working class from dictatorship.

[JimmyJazz]

Funny, according to that same dogma, the working class of one socialist country can invade another country and liberate the working class from the bourgeois dictatorship and institute another new socialist country.

You may be a socialist, but you are plainly not a Marxist. I'm saying this as a statement of fact, not as a sectarian cheap shot (I don't uphold any particular sect, myself).

Although the third section of the Manifesto really needs to be updated with a description of "Stalinist socialists", who believe that socialism properly comes about as a result of tanks rolling on the working class, for now this section (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#c) comes closest to describing you:

"Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

"In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them."


How do we know the Venezuelan working class will be fully persuaded by the ideas of Marxism by said socialists?

We don't know that they will. The example of you shows quite clearly that not all socialists will accept the most central Marxist idea, that of working class self-emancipation.


What if they refuse to acknowledge these ideas, what then?

Then we should establish a dictatorship over the working class, LOLZ!

I am astounded by your contempt for even workers' democracy.


Plus, Chavez is head of state for Venezuela, not Iran. It's not like he actually can control the forces of the theocracy, he only deals with foreign relations with that country. We can criticize those relations and we sure as hell don't have to like them, but when looking at the international picture, with the superpower taking advantage of the smaller states, in this regard the foreign relations are understandable.

Utter crap. Materially speaking Venezuela got nothing from Chavez' decision to run around praising the figurehead of a theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela and Iran were already allies and would have remained so without Chavez stroking a dictator's ego.


If war comes, I'd put my support behind the Venezuelan state

Right, the Venezuelan state, a capitalist democracy with (at present) a populist figurehead. You have no principles.

I just want to note, as a final point, that a genuine Marxist's opposition to U.S. militarism is far more thoroughgoing than your own. You only oppose U.S. militarism because the U.S. is "the big guy". Genuine Marxists oppose it because they are internationalists and do not send to working class to fight in wars between capitalist liberal democracies because one of them is more "progressive". If all that we needed to do to justify capitalist wars was to find some talking points that demonstrate how one of the belligerents is more "progressive" than the other, there isn't a war in all human history that we couldn't succeed in justifying.

[Revy]

From the early period of his presidency beginning in 1999, Chavez had an aggressive stance toward Guyana on the issue of Essequibo (or Guayana Esequiba), which is about half of Guyana's territory and it is what Venezuela has claimed as its own since the 1960's.

in fact, and oddly enough, Article 10 of the 1999 Constitution establishes Venezuelan territory as that existing before 1810 (before independence). Guess where the eastern border ended at that time? The Essequibo river. If a Venezuelan court were to rule on the legality of a potential annexation of the Essequibo region, they would find it constitutional.:ohmy:

[el_chavista]

So is there any organized socialist resistance within Venezuela to this kind of rhetoric? The military reserve is now called the popular militia and this, eventually, might convert into an irregular army for the popular defense.

Any actual war with Colombia would be the occasion for a complete break between Chavez and any principled socialists in Venezuela. Nothing this man has done is even remotely worth sending working class people to die and kill for.All the ranting is about a possible attack from the Colombian army with the support of the Gringo army to Venezuela. Not conversely.

[Glenn Beck]

So is there any organized socialist resistance within Venezuela to this kind of rhetoric? Any actual war with Colombia would be the occasion for a complete break between Chavez and any principled socialists in Venezuela. Nothing this man has done is even remotely worth sending working class people to die and kill for.

Your hysterics have no basis in reality and your unwillingness to do even basic research as to the situation exudes an astounding arrogance and sense of entitlement.

The government of Colombia boycotts international meetings and announces the construction of 7 military bases on Colombian land, within hours flight of a high speed bomber from Venezuelan land and people, violates Venezuelan borders, and harbors Israeli soldiers, and Venezuela is the aggressor? I understand all this 1920s rhetoric gets you hot and bothered, and using it makes you feel oh so clever, but your terrifying brown bogeyman, the militaristic populist tyrant in the red beret leading the workers astray bears no semblance to reality. At least any reality outside of the fevered imaginations of the monkeys that man the typewriters at the international desk at Reuters.

[JimmyJazz]

Your hysterics have no basis in reality...no semblance to reality. At least any reality

I've already admitted that my position is based on principles and not on bourgeois realpolitik, which you evidently uphold as an unquestionable part of objective reality. You are completely out of touch with the original values and principles of the socialist movement and the whole reason that it once succeeded in spreading as a mass movement. And you also, despite your poetic lambasting of Reuters, buy into every last bourgeois lie about the natural and inevitable existence of bourgeois 'international relations'.

Again, not just Debs and Luxemburg, but Lenin, Trotsky, and all the original Bolsheviks, would have verbally torn a new one for any socialist advocating that the workers take up arms to defend a capitalist state. Demonstrate that this isn't the case, or else stop claiming to uphold those people when you depart on something so absolutely fundamental to their outlook.

[Ismail]

Again, not just Debs and Luxemburg, but Lenin, Trotsky, and all the original Bolsheviks, would have verbally torn a new one for any socialist advocating that the workers take up arms to defend a capitalist state.Luxemburg yeah, but Lenin and Trotsky (and Stalin, he was a Bolshevik since 1905) no. You're confusing inter-imperialist wars (like World War I) with wars wherein one side is progressive and anti-imperialist and the other is reactionary and backed by imperialism, such as anti-colonial wars. You cannot compare battles between European superpowers who sought to redraw the maps, with third-world wars of defense against imperialism.

[JimmyJazz]

Luxemburg yeah, but Lenin and Trotsky (and Stalin, he was a Bolshevik since 1905) no. You're confusing inter-imperialist wars (like World War I) with wars wherein one side is progressive and anti-imperialist and the other is reactionary and backed by imperialism, such as anti-colonial wars.

I've already pointed out earlier that every inter-imperialist war ever waged has involved at least one ruling class, if not both, trying to portray itself to the working masses as more "progressive" than the "enemy". So-called "progressiveness" is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the working class shall be sent to fight for it's own ruling class.

So here's a simple question: does Venezuela have a ruling class?

[Ismail]

Does Venezuela have a ruling class?Yes. So were the anti-colonial movements an expression of the national bourgeoisie of those areas against colonialism. So long as one does not have illusions about Chávez (e.g. "he wants to move towards socialism") then I don't see how this is particularly relevant in the context of Chávez obviously being a thorn on the side of the US-backed Colombian paramilitary deathsquads.

If Chávez were on the offensive and calling for the annexation of Colombian territory or something, then yeah it'd be different.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, we seem to agree: a war between Venezuela and Colombia would be workers dying to defend a mere "thorn in the side" of the foreign policy ambitions of a single imperialist state (America) out of many imperialist states, in a single region of the world (Latin America, or arguably just Colombia), temporarily (Chavez is merely an elected leader, he won't be in office forever). We have reached a new low of diminishing returns for the working class if that is what socialists now believe workers should be dying for.

[Ismail]

Well, we seem to agree: a war between Venezuela and Colombia would be workers dying to defend a mere "thorn in the side"Well yeah, that's what happens when a country invades another.


of the foreign policy ambitions of a single imperialist state (America) out of many imperialist states,"Here we see Chávez epically rail against Russian and Chinese imperialism, which is so obviously relevant to the Venezuelan-Colombian conflict."


in a single region of the world (Latin America, or arguably just Colombia),Sorta like how Russia had to defend against an invasion by the Entente, Poland, etc. during the Russian Civil War.


temporarily (Chavez is merely an elected leader, he won't be in office forever).What's your point? If Chávez were immortal this wouldn't be an issue?


We have reached a new low of diminishing returns for the working class if that is what socialists now believe workers should be dying for.They shouldn't be dying for Venezuelan nationalism, they should be dying to defend against a US-backed invasion. Once again, if Venezuela wants to go on the offensive, just show me. Besides, maybe Colombia will still crush Venezuela and the Communists will lead the way against foreign aggression with the Venezuelan bourgeois government no longer being around. :lol:

[The Author]

You may be a socialist, but you are plainly not a Marxist. I'm saying this as a statement of fact, not as a sectarian cheap shot (I don't uphold any particular sect, myself).

Although the third section of the Manifesto really needs to be updated with a description of "Stalinist socialists", who believe that socialism properly comes about as a result of tanks rolling on the working class, for now this section (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#c) comes closest to describing you:


It's not fact, it's your opinion.

The Manifesto is not the Holy fucking Bible of Marxism. I can't take seriously people who judge others on politics based merely on one political work alone.

And I'm not a "tankie," genius. You should think before you write.


We don't know that they will. The example of you shows quite clearly that not all socialists will accept the most central Marxist idea, that of working class self-emancipation.

That's the problem, we don't know. That means alternatives have to be devised.


Then we should establish a dictatorship over the working class, LOLZ!

I am astounded by your contempt for even workers' democracy.

Contempt? Where did you get that idea? I'm asking you what would happen if the working class doesn't shine to the ideas of Marxism, how do you respond to that? Can you tell me?

[el_chavista]

So here's a simple question: does Venezuela have a ruling class?
In the Venezuelan situation it's not a simple question:


The Venezuelan State manages the key oil industry, the source of money from where the capitalists get the credits for their investments and the dollars for their buying abroad/local reselling business.
The army is not under the capitalists' absolute control. The chief of the all mighty executive branch of the State (the branch that manages de national budget) -Chávez- is not a puppet administrator for the only capitalists' sake.

[JimmyJazz]

Well yeah, that's what happens when a country invades another.

A communist who makes no effort to cut through bourgeois modes of thought about militarism and nationalism. Congratulations, you're very radical. I feel silly now for saying workers should align with their class over their country.

As for the rest of your post, Colombia isn't going to invade Venezuela of course. You had to move the goalposts about a mile in order to justify Chavez' rhetoric, even from the standpoint of bourgeois militarism. The U.S. isn't going to bomb Venezuela either (not without a major pretext), but if they did decide to, they wouldn't need the bases in Colombia to do it, and Chavez talking hard against the Colombian government wouldn't do a thing to hamper their ability to do whatever they want. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing, except the fact that Chavez the capitalist military officer has not changed his ways of thinking about the world so very much from his good old days in the military. He's still a firm nationalist and militarist.

When, any day now, the Venezuelan workers disband Chavez' military in favor of the "self-acting armed organization of the population" (Engels, qtd. by Lenin), I'm sure they'll find no resistance from Chavez. Right?

[Ismail]

A communist who makes no effort to cut through bourgeois modes of thought about militarism and nationalism.What's your point? Yes nationalism is bad, particularly when it's used to a chauvinistic effect. Nationalism is just fine however when it comes to, say, national liberation or being a good defense against imperialism. When Nazi Germany invaded France, the PCF took part in the resistance against the Nazi occupiers. They didn't condemn "both" (read: French) forces in the conflict, they sided with all other movements against the German occupation and called for the unity of the working class against Nazism, while also expanding their own base of support through doing this and organizing a strong resistance to said occupation.

The same thing happened in Albania, Yugoslavia, Spain (with the Fascist rebellion), etc. The leftist forces in these areas were not blind to class struggle, they noted it and brought workers to Communism, and brought a far more wider segment of the population—a critical amount—to side with them in doing so.

In Albania for example the Communists managed to monopolize the resistance pretty well. Eventually it got to the point where the national bourgeoisie (Balli Kombëtar) began siding with the Nazis against the Communists because they hated the prospect of Socialism more than Nazism. The national bourgeoisie was thus discredited in doing so, and the Communists had smooth sailing from there.


You had to move the goalposts about a mile in order to justify Chavez' rhetoric, even from the standpoint of bourgeois militarism.It isn't militarism, it's defense. Tell me if Hoxha being a militarist in a 1968 speech to the PCMLE:

"At all times, but especially in the situations we are living through, our country consistently has enhanced and will enhance its unity and vigilance. To this end, as always, we have taken ideological, political, economic and military measures. All our people are armed in the full meaning of the word. Every Albanian city-dweller or villager, has his weapon at home. Our army itself, the army of a soldier people, is ready at any moment to strike at any enemy or coalition of enemies. The youth, too, have risen to their feet. Combat readiness does not in any way interfere with our work of socialist construction. On the contrary, it has given a greater boost to the development of the economy and culture in our country."

Once again, give me examples of Chávez being the aggressor in this situation.


The U.S. isn't going to bomb Venezuela either (not without a major pretext), but if they did decide to, they wouldn't need the bases in Colombia to do itSo let's see, the US has two options:
A. Conduct a Cambodia-style bombing campaign against Venezuela, which would be utterly disastrous or;
B. Have Colombia, a neighboring nation, invade Venezuela.

Obviously the US sending troops to Venezuela would probably not occur simply due to the amount of outrage it would cause. Bombing is also pretty much out unless stuff goes significantly down hill.


It's sound and fury, signifying nothing, except the fact that Chavez the capitalist military officer has not changed his ways of thinking about the world so very much from his good old days in the military. He's still a firm nationalist and militarist.Yes, Chávez is just some dumb guy who is clearly not as civilized as the sensible Colombian government, which kills leftists and is essentially run by paramilitaries. Clearly Uribe is the rational person in this scenario, what with accusing the Venezuelan government of being an outpost of evil and all.


When, any day now, the Venezuelan workers disband Chavez' military in favor of the "self-acting armed organization of the population" (Engels, qtd. by Lenin), I'm sure they'll find no resistance from Chavez. Right?They probably will, because Chávez is national bourgeoisie.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes nationalism is bad, particularly when it's used to a chauvinistic effect. Nationalism is just fine however when it comes to, say, national liberation or being a good defense against imperialism. When Nazi Germany invaded France, the PCF took part in the resistance against the Nazi occupiers. They didn't condemn "both" (read: French) forces in the conflict, they sided with all other movements against the German occupation and called for the unity of the working class against Nazism, while also expanding their own base of support through doing this and organizing a strong resistance to said occupation.


Well, nationalism can have a revolutionary potential in a third world country where it implies the struggle against imperialism. In an imperialist country, it implies the defense of imperialism and its domination of the third world. In France, nationalism meant the reasserting of French imperialist control of its colonies - Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Moreover, the revolutionary party, while recognizing the potential of nationalists in the third world to become revolutionaries, must never allow them within its ranks.

You're right that the correct position was to fight the Nazi occupier. However, the role of a revolutionary party would have been to fight for the class independence of the working class and promote internationalism. The PCF instead fought in alliance with the bourgeois De-Gaullists and promoted anti-German nationalism.

[willdw79]

Well, nationalism can have a revolutionary potential in a third world country where it implies the struggle against imperialism. In an imperialist country, it implies the defense of imperialism and its domination of the third world. In France, nationalism meant the reasserting of French imperialist control of its colonies - Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Moreover, the revolutionary party, while recognizing the potential of nationalists in the third world to become revolutionaries, must never allow them within its ranks.

You're right that the correct position was to fight the Nazi occupier. However, the role of a revolutionary party would have been to fight for the class independence of the working class and promote internationalism. The PCF instead fought in alliance with the bourgeois De-Gaullists and promoted anti-German nationalism.
You have referred to the Cuban revolution as a "defeat" for the working class. Why do you not express the same hardline against the revolutions in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, etc.

You say something inconsistent with your former stance toward revolution when you say, "Well, nationalism can have a revolutionary potential in a third world country where it implies the struggle against imperialism." Unless you are saying, "yes they have revolutionary potential that will also result in a defeat of the working class", you may want to re-evaluate your rationale on Cuban defeat. Conversely you could re-tool your analysis on other third world countries to bring them in line with your Cuba analysis. But to have it both ways is to contradict yourself.

[Yehuda Stern]

I see no contradiction. You simply have a problem, like many leftists, in telling rank and file from leadership. The ranks of the nationalist groups in the third world can becpme attracted to Marxist ideas under the correct conditions; this is obviously not the case with the BNP. That was what I was referring to. The coming to power of a nationalist regime is still a defeat for the workers.

Also, there has been no revolution in any of the countries that you mention except for perhaps Algeria. At any rate, our position on all these democratic revolutions is the same - that the masses have made important gains but that the only way to defend them is by struggling against the state capitalist regimes and fighting for a socialist revolution. History has vindicated this position, as all these regimes turned later on to destroy the gains of the masses.