How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?

[☭World Views]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?

In your belief, is the current situation too "top-down" too "bottom-up", perfect, or not worth defending from USA aggression from revolutionary leftist point of view?

[JohnnyC]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?
One person cannot develop socialism.The only way for that to happen, is if workers, collectively as a class overthrow international bourgeois, and socialize means of production.



In your belief, is the current situation too "top-down" too "bottom-up", perfect, or not worth defending from USA aggression from revolutionary leftist point of view?
No capitalist state deserve support from communists.

[Tzadikim]

I wouldn't. I'd develop socialism on an international level first, and then work out the particularities needed to administer it in Venezuela.

[willdw79]

I wouldn't. I'd develop socialism on an international level first, and then work out the particularities needed to administer it in Venezuela.
I support your point of view somewhat. The best case scenarior for Venezolanas is if they have a communist revolution and then export it like a capitalist does goods.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't have enough information to find the solution to that problem.

[Tzadikim]

I support your point of view somewhat. The best case scenarior for Venezolanas is if they have a communist revolution and then export it like a capitalist does goods.

The primary goal for socialists today has to be internationalism. It does no good, as we've seen, for one or two isolated nations to catch the fever; especially when its surrounding nations, which have always been naturally suspicious of it, are now given a reason to reject its newly-established order. I strongly believe that if the Russian Revolution had not simply tried to lay socialism on top of the pre-existing Russian boundaries and borders, but had instead been a dedicated pan-national movement, our society today would be a socialistic one.

I see communism as a movement that literally pays no heed to national boundaries: the border dividing us does not exist to me, and I do not acknowledge it. Workers living on the Texas/Mexican border, for instance, have more to gain in establishing a mutual communist Party together than in creating one Texan Communist Party and one Mexican Communist Party.

This must be our highest priority - to overcome the national chauvinism and xenophobia so often used by the bourgeoisie as a distraction from the real economic issues of importance. And with the Internet and instant telecommunications available to us today, there is no excuse in not rendering direct assistance to our foreign comrades.

[Radical]

I dont see any other way of reaching Socialism in Venezuela's current status, without the proletariat turning to Armed Struggle. We need to remember that the Oppressors shall not vote away their property and money. Every second that Capitalism is in place, a innocent person is suffering because of it. We need Revolution to happen as soon as possible.

- Once a Socialist Revolution occurs, we can then Internationalise it as the Soviet Union did. It's much more likely to happen and work this way, compared to trying to educate the masses and wait for the entire working class to unite and start a Revolution.

This was the whole idea of Che starting Armed Struggle in Bolivia. Though it failed, his aim was to trigger Armed Revolution throughout the whole of Latin America.

[Axle]

An international revolution is the only way socialism will develop anywhere in the world right now.

Developing socialism the way Chavez has been going on about is insane and will no doubt be a failure. Nothing he's said about turning Venezuela socialist is in anyway how socialism could ever develop.

There will be no organized proleitariat or revolution, much less an international one, leaving Venezuela isolated at a time when the world's biggest capitalist powerhouse is breathing down their necks...it would be a disaster.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there are good chances of building a revolutionary socialist movement for comrades in Venezuela. Chavez's talk of 21st century socialism may be mixed and confused and is undoubtedly ultimately reformist, but it opens a huge window for revolutionaries on the ground there. This is especially true as Chavez has to cut back on some of his programs for the poor due to fluctuation in oil prices.

Looking at the history of Allende we see both the potential for further revolutionary developments as well as the potential for horrible reaction. Allende was also a reformist social-democrat, but his calls for socialism helped create an atmosphere where workers on the ground felt empowered to take over their workplaces during strikes and push the worker movement there further ahead.

It's deadly important to recognize that ultimately people like Chavez or Allende are not going to create the revolution and may not even be on the worker's side when push comes to shove, but often their election is a signal in society for the worker's movement to go full steam ahead and radicals need to intervene in that and develop revolutionary socialist politics in the worker's movement otherwise it may be crushed by forces of reaction as in Chile.

[bailey_187]

lets all just throw around ultra-revolutionary phrases

I WOULD DEVELOP SOCIALISM IN THE WORRRLD!!!

[bailey_187]

An international revolution is the only way socialism will develop anywhere in the world right now.

we may as well give up then. there are 195 countries in the world, do you honestly expect revolutions to happen in all of these at once?

[Outinleftfield]

we may as well give up then. there are 195 countries in the world, do you honestly expect revolutions to happen in all of these at once?

Good point.

What about the Vatican? That's a country. How is there going to be a socialist revolution there? All the people who live there are devout Catholics that believe in the right of the Pope to rule the Vatican. Even when the rest of the world is socialist the Vatican will still be a mini-theocratic state.

People in different places have different cultures, customs, and beliefs and changing them all at the same time is impossible. If socialist ideas spread in one group of people its not going to spread in all other people at the same time, because of the cultural barrier between different groups. It might spread into other groups slowly but its not going all at once.

[willdw79]

The primary goal for socialists today has to be internationalism. It does no good, as we've seen, for one or two isolated nations to catch the fever; especially when its surrounding nations, which have always been naturally suspicious of it, are now given a reason to reject its newly-established order. I strongly believe that if the Russian Revolution had not simply tried to lay socialism on top of the pre-existing Russian boundaries and borders, but had instead been a dedicated pan-national movement, our society today would be a socialistic one.

I see communism as a movement that literally pays no heed to national boundaries: the border dividing us does not exist to me, and I do not acknowledge it. Workers living on the Texas/Mexican border, for instance, have more to gain in establishing a mutual communist Party together than in creating one Texan Communist Party and one Mexican Communist Party.

This must be our highest priority - to overcome the national chauvinism and xenophobia so often used by the bourgeoisie as a distraction from the real economic issues of importance. And with the Internet and instant telecommunications available to us today, there is no excuse in not rendering direct assistance to our foreign comrades.
Yes I agree. By "export [communism] like a capitalist does goods" I mean they should try to cause revolution in other countries.

I say it in the context of a world that appears to be carved up into nations. Although we don't observe/respect borders, I was just saying in the context of the rest of the world that does.

I agree totally that any revolution should strive to be international.

[rebelmouse]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?
In your belief, is the current situation too "top-down" too "bottom-up", perfect, or not worth defending from USA aggression from revolutionary leftist point of view?

I would develope there abolishing of the state:
- armed resistance against private companies and against government (occupations of military objects, taking arms and get soldiers on our side and occupations of corporations and of authorities)
- distribution of wealth to all people in venezuela and in the same time organizing of production.
the end of the state: present would be society without authority in which all people are economic equal, they work how much they can and they get how much they need, although in the beginning there would be one period waiting list until production is organized.

[bailey_187]

I would develope there abolishing of the state:
- armed resistance against private companies and against government (occupations of military objects, taking arms and get soldiers on our side and occupations of corporations and of authorities)
- distribution of wealth to all people in venezuela and in the same time organizing of production.
the end of the state: present would be society without authority in which all people are economic equal, they work how much they can and they get how much they need, although in the beginning there would be one period waiting list until production is organized.

so basically what you want to do in all of the world.

[Axle]

we may as well give up then. there are 195 countries in the world, do you honestly expect revolutions to happen in all of these at once?

You're kidding, right?

This has to be sarcasm because I really shouldn't have to tell you that socialism is supposed to be based on international revolution, and isolated socialist countries are going to face problems from the more influential capitalist ones.

And "international" doesn't necessarily mean "world-wide", although a world-wide revolution is something we should all be striving for.

[mreyda]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?
In your belief, is the current situation too "top-down" too "bottom-up", perfect, or not worth defending from USA aggression from revolutionary leftist point of view?
We should defend ALL nations against US aggression, regardless of the virtues of their poltical structures or leaders. We defend the rights of oppressed nations to self-determination first and foremost, even if we disagree with the course they take. Even when they do terrible things, we still do not support imperialism as the solution.
Take for example the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was clearly an enemy to communists. He personally had a lot to do with beating, killing, and imprisoning communists in Iraq and dismantling any workers movement there once was there. But that did not stop communists from opposing the American and British invasion. We oppose it because we oppose imperialism, not because we approve of the structure or policy of the Iraqi government.
While there are likely many opinions here regarding the nature of the revolutionary potential in Venezuela, I hope we all at least agree that we must oppose imperialis aggression against Venezuela.

[Tzadikim]

Tell me this: is the culture and, more importantly, the objective material conditions of Venezuela so vastly different from that of its surrounding South American neighbors that a revolutionary programme would have to be formulated for it specifically? Or might a "Socialism In One Continent" approach work better?

[robbo203]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?




Well the first and absolutely necessary step is to clearly recognise that Chavez and his cronies have sod all to do wih socialism and to recognise that state capitalism is actually a barrier to the establishment of socialism. Then we might just begin to be making some progress....

[Luisrah]

Yes, I think Chavez is doing a good job. I don't know what are his true intentions, but as communists, I'd say we should all approve of anything that isn't super Capitalist 1st world.

Because a socialist country may still be a ways off, I atleast am happy about the country that Chavez is running, it may not be perfect, but it's better than the rest.

There aren't many ''pro-socialist'' or for that matter ''anti-capitalist'' or ''anti-imperialist'' countries in the world, so it gets difficult for them.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Socialism cannot be made by a government that are sharing power with bourgeoisie. Chavez is only doing something that will strengthen his party and his ideas, thinking that mass must do it and not himself. He understands he cannot make socialism as it can only comes by the dictatorship of the proletarian. There is no better alternative beside the socialist proletarian revolution.

[Stormshield]

I think that the way it's headed now, it's more of a single party dictatorship than a way to socialism. It is, however, an improvement, which sadly also has the "potential" to devolve quickly.

The best thing about what's happening in Venezela right now IMO is that it actualizes leftist ideas again in the world press, and serves as a bit of a reminder that the working class still has something to say, whether it's true in Venezuela at the moment or not.

[Eat the Rich]

I think that the way it's headed now, it's more of a single party dictatorship than a way to socialism. It is, however, an improvement, which sadly also has the "potential" to devolve quickly.

It is sad to see leftists buying into the propaganda of the imperialists and the Venezuelan oligarchy. Quite the opposite is happening. Chavez is not doing anything to counter the reactionaries, which have killed many trade unionists, workers and revolutionaries in the past year. Also, by having let the capitalist state almost intact, the traditional organs of the bourgeoisie (cops, judges etc), play a counter-revolutionary role.

Also remember that almost all the reactionaries who were involved in the 2001 coup against the democratically elected government, are still free to pursue their activities. What is needed is a clampdown on the right wing, an expropriation of the landowners and the oligarchy in order to eliminate their political and economic sabotage and the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy under workers control. Of course all this ideally will happen through another mass movement. Less ideally it will happen through the state bureaucracy, alarmed by the effects of the economic crisis, which might create another Cuba-like socialism.

The worst case scenario is that Chavez will take the road of Allende and will end up dead, along with thousands of workers and poor who supported the revolution, because of the inability (or them not wanting to) of Chavez and the PSUV to move to socialism quicker.

[Q]

How would you develop socialism in Venezuela?
Just like I play a good game of Hearts of Iron or Red Alert 2, of course.

Seriously though, socialism begins with the taking over of power by the working class and the building of society striving to eradicate any forms of shortage, genuinely freeing humanity. This has not happened at all in Venezuela. What we have there is a semi-progressive left populist as a president of a capitalist state, carrying out some reforms paid by petro-dollars.

[Eat the Rich]

What we have there is a semi-progressive left populist as a president of a capitalist state, carrying out some reforms paid by petro-dollars.

Uh-oh. I think you are a bit too harsh in your description. What you are missing is the mass movement(s), the awakening of peoples' consiousness and the fact that discussions on socialism are in the order of the day among the general population. It is a revolutionary process and it can go either way. To a full revolution or to reaction.

[Stormshield]

It is sad to see leftists buying into the propaganda of the imperialists and the Venezuelan oligarchy. Quite the opposite is happening. Chavez is not doing anything to counter the reactionaries, which have killed many trade unionists, workers and revolutionaries in the past year. Also, by having let the capitalist state almost intact, the traditional organs of the bourgeoisie (cops, judges etc), play a counter-revolutionary role.

Also remember that almost all the reactionaries who were involved in the 2001 coup against the democratically elected government, are still free to pursue their activities. What is needed is a clampdown on the right wing, an expropriation of the landowners and the oligarchy in order to eliminate their political and economic sabotage and the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy under workers control. Of course all this ideally will happen through another mass movement. Less ideally it will happen through the state bureaucracy, alarmed by the effects of the economic crisis, which might create another Cuba-like socialism.

The worst case scenario is that Chavez will take the road of Allende and will end up dead, along with thousands of workers and poor who supported the revolution, because of the inability (or them not wanting to) of Chavez and the PSUV to move to socialism quicker.

Yes, you're quite right. What I meant is not that they are necessarily striving for a single party dictatorship as the end goal, just that it's the way it is (and should) be headed at the moment - I really don't see a way to bypass that. And during that stage, there is a real danger present of losing focus, and the means turning into an end.