Chavez defending Idi Amin & Mugabe..? WTF?

[Yazman]

Source (original source from the Associated Press): http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/8025d754e62d4f8d8999637293e441d5/21-11-2009-10-12/Chavez_defends_Mugabe,_Jackal

Snippet from source (click link for whole story):


Caracas - Hugo Chavez has defended the alleged terrorist mastermind Carlos the Jackal, saying the Venezuelan imprisoned in France was an important "revolutionary fighter" who supported the cause of the Palestinians.

The Venezuelan president praised Carlos - whose real name is Ilich Sanchez Ramirez - during a speech on Friday night saying: "I defend him. It doesn't matter to me what they say tomorrow in Europe."

Ramirez gained international notoriety during the 1970s and 80s as the alleged mastermind of a series of bombings, killings and hostage dramas. He is serving a life sentence in France for the 1975 murders of two French secret agents and an alleged informant.

"They accuse him of being a terrorist, but Carlos really was a revolutionary fighter," Chavez said during a televised speech to socialist politicians from various countries, who applauded.

In his speech, Chavez also sought to defend other leaders he said are wrongly labelled "bad guys", including Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

'Was Idi Amin that bad?'

Chavez called both of them brothers and said he now wonders whether Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be.

"We thought he was a cannibal," Chavez said, referring to Amin, whose regime was notorious for torturing and killing suspected opponents in the 1970s. "I have doubts. ... I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot."

The thing about Carlos the Jackal doesn't really bother me. Its the fact that he has been praising Mugabe and fucking Idi Amin though that bothers me.

What does everybody think of this?

[Das war einmal]

Thats not cool

[Dimentio]

The thing about Chàvez is that he seems to have a very weak grasp of history and of ideology in general. That's fine, he was elected to be a populist strongman. But in his foreign policy, I think he has aligned himself too close together with anyone who is against the West for whatever reason. That would just hurt Venezuela's interests in the long run, since Zimbabwe doesn't have anything to offer Venezuela.

[Sasha]

authoritarian idiot feels the need to defend other authoritarian idiots....

whats the news...

[Spawn of Stalin]

I agree with him, although far from perfect, these people are not the bad guys we have been taught about, Chávez isn't praising Idi Amin, but questioning his portrayal by the establishment, and rightly so, I think you would be a fool not to. The most important thing to remember is that Carlos the Jackal is a great revolutionary.

[Yazman]

I agree with him, although far from perfect, these people are not the bad guys we have been taught about, Chávez isn't praising Idi Amin, but questioning his portrayal by the establishment, and rightly so, I think you would be a fool not to. The most important thing to remember is that Carlos the Jackal is a great revolutionary.

Well, like I said. The bit about Carlos the Jackal is the part I take exception to, because I don't really have a problem with that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

classifiying Chavez and his allies as "authoritarian" is meaningless and makes you look like you're spewing evil Western propaganda
he's a nationalist anti-imperialist and defending other nationalist anti-imperialists
authoritarianism has nothing to do with it
in fact, his regime is far less authoritarian than Venezuela's alternative: letting transnational corporations and Washington do as they please

[Sasha]

my apologies, populist idiot with depotist tendencys defends authoritarian tyrants... better?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Chavez has despotist tendencies? You really are spewing the western propaganda!
As far as I can tell, this is a mayor fault of his but also his only fault: he alignes himselve with anyone anti-usa.
He's not even nationalist! He is the driving force in forming close cooperations in south america, even if he's constantly fighting with fucking Uribe.

[Sasha]

Chavez has despotist tendencies? You really are spewing the western propaganda!


http://libcom.org/library/refuting-deaf-chavism-anarchism-venezuela
http://libcom.org/library/venezuelas-anarchists-three-way-fight
http://libcom.org/library/talking-about-venezuelan-situation-interview-with-cra
http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9688

to start....

dont be an simplistic anti-impie idiot, there can be more sides than two in a conflict.

[Guerrilla22]

I would like to read the actual interview in Spanish to see what he ACTUALLY said rather than take the word of some obscure news source from South Africa. That said, Chavez has had some stupid positions made stupid statements in the past the guy isn't perfect obviously.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

my apologies, populist idiot with depotist tendencys defends authoritarian tyrants... better?

how is it useful in any way to characterize Chavez ths way?
he's certainly among the least authoritarian leaders in Venezula's history and in the region
furthermore, what is wrong with authoritarianism?
this is a revolutionary leftist community, fyi

comrade gwydion is correct: he's not a nationalist

[pranabjyoti]

Well, he is better than most of the "half-prostitute, half-beggar" leaders of most of the third world.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I kind of feel like if Chávez was authoritarian he would be able to get a lot more done. Chávez gets a lot of shit thrown at him by revolutionaries who accuse him of being a bourgeois reformist, but if you look at some of the things he says, it's pretty clear that he wants a single-party socialist state, given half the chance he would turn Venezuela into something a not so different from Castro's Cuba. So yeah, bring on the authoritarianism!

[Patchd]

I agree with him, although far from perfect, these people are not the bad guys we have been taught about, Chávez isn't praising Idi Amin, but questioning his portrayal by the establishment, and rightly so, I think you would be a fool not to. The most important thing to remember is that Carlos the Jackal is a great revolutionary.
On the contrary, Chavez did praise Idi Amin, if not praise, then likened him to himself, see here:

"In his speech, Chavez also sought to defend other leaders he said are wrongly labelled "bad guys", including Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

'Was Idi Amin that bad?'

Chavez called both of them brothers and said he now wonders whether Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be."


So yeah, bring on the authoritarianism!

Ah, so you're not a socialist?

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, I'm not a libertarian, there is a difference.

[Patchd]

No, I'm not a libertarian, there is a difference.
Do you believe in the workers controlling society through democratic means, and by this I mean direct control?

[Intelligitimate]

The only place where you can find equal levels of screeching about Mugabe as the pseudo-Left does here is the bourgeois mass media and Storm Front.

[RedSonRising]

I think his opinion stems from history's bias resulting from the capitalist west's influence and control of information and propaganda. He is similarly (not equally, but similarly) demonized by the western media and is thus associating third-world nationalist leaders with anti-imperialist, semi-proletarian aspirations. He is using an overly emotional appeal to express the mere inclination that "just maybe he wasn't as bad as they make him out to be."

We've seen too many times (even here on revleft) that if a leader says they're socialist, anti-imperialist, etc., and the western media bashes them, leftists conclude that they must be infallibly revolutionary and that they are to be defended tooth and nail from the bourgeois lies, even if they're true. Unfortunately the false associations seem to be leading Chavez to form his opinions in a similar fashion, and this is seen throughout his foreign policy as well, however I don't think this affects his leadership policies in Venezuela and the opportunity the proletariat has through his election within the country.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Do you believe in the workers controlling society through democratic means, and by this I mean direct control?
What do you mean by direct control? I believe in the state, I believe the state should serve the proletariat's interests and that it should shape society to fit those interests. So by your reckoning, no I am not a socialist, but I do not care for labels, I am what I am and I am a socialist, more importantly what I propose has been successfully put into action many times over. To me at least, that is far more important than being known as a socialist.

[The Douche]

What do you mean by direct control? I believe in the state, I believe the state should serve the proletariat's interests and that it should shape society to fit those interests. So by your reckoning, no I am not a socialist, but I do not care for labels, I am what I am and I am a socialist, more importantly what I propose has been successfully put into action many times over. To me at least, that is far more important than being known as a socialist.

I think you should probably take a break from playing red alert.



Can we ban this troll yet?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

He's not even nationalist! He is the driving force in forming close cooperations in south america, even if he's constantly fighting with fucking Uribe.
And the German, English, and French governments, among others, are forming close co-operations in Europe. Does that mean they can't be nationalist? :confused: What about the G20?


furthermore, what is wrong with authoritarianism?

Where do you even start?

Well, he is better than most of the "half-prostitute, half-beggar" leaders of most of the third world.
True. And Obama is better than Bush, and Brown is better than Mussolini. Does that mean we should support them as well?

The only place where you can find equal levels of screeching about Mugabe as the pseudo-Left does here is the bourgeois mass media and Storm Front.
And a few other places. For instance, in the publications of revolutionary socialists facing brutal state oppression from Mugabe's "progressive" government (http://voiceoftheturtle.org/iso/resources/index.html).

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think you should probably take a break from playing red alert.



Can we ban this troll yet?
What does playing Red Alert have to do with the state? Idiot. Back up your statements or don't make them. Maybe we should ban all non-anarchists? There are people of many tendencies here, and a great many of them believe in the role of the state, learn to love it because we're not going anywhere.

[Sasha]

There are people of many tendencies here, and a great many of them believe in the role of the state,

but only six are insane enough to list an tankie oxymoron as "authoritarian socialist" as their primary tendency.

[The Douche]

What does playing Red Alert have to do with the state? Idiot. Back up your statements or don't make them. Maybe we should ban all non-anarchists? There are people of many tendencies here, and a great many of them believe in the role of the state, learn to love it because we're not going anywhere.

Because you're not a legitimate socialist, you're a nerd who likes the imagery. There are lots of intelligent people here who are not anarchists, I even think some of the anti-revisionists and the maoists make good points some times. But you are a moron, fuck off to soviet-empire.com.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah mate, and you're a Class War anarchist who shoots brown people for cold hard cash, what makes you think I give a shit what you think?

[The Douche]

Yeah mate, and you're a Class War anarchist who shoots brown people for cold hard cash, what makes you think I give a shit what you think?

First of all, I am not a "class war anarchist", I'm not even sure what you mean by that. My organization is the "Class War Syndicate", syndicate referring to an organized crime family, it is a tongue in cheek name because we don't act as a traditional revolutionary group, but as a revolutionary "gang".

Second, I could give two shits what you think. This is not about having a discussion with you, its about outing you as the obvious troll that you are.

Also:


who shoots brown people for cold hard cash

Flase.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Okay then mate, keep up the good work. Maybe you should make a separate topic to expose me as a troll though. Because this one is about Hugo Chávez.

[KurtFF8]

I agree with him, although far from perfect, these people are not the bad guys we have been taught about, Chávez isn't praising Idi Amin, but questioning his portrayal by the establishment, and rightly so, I think you would be a fool not to. The most important thing to remember is that Carlos the Jackal is a great revolutionary.

I know Wikipedia isn't the best source but...



Carlos is reported to have converted to Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam). In June 2003, Revolutionary Islam, a book "compiled and edited by a French journalist, Jean-Michel Vernochet, on the basis of letters, interviews and texts" by Carlos, went on sale.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal#cite_note-bbc-16) In it Carlos praises Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) and the September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) and advocates Revolutionary Islam as a "new, post-Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist)terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) is going to be more or less a daily part of the landscape of your rotting democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)." answer to what he calls US `totalitarianism`", telling readers "from now on
However some have questioned the authenticity of the book in light of the fact that "the French prison system is supposed to strictly control all correspondence between inmates and the outside world."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal#cite_note-bbc-16) Another observer has questioned the depth of Carlos's Muslim faith, claiming "his knowledge of Islamic doctrine, theology, history, and political philosophy is almost nonexistent." Carlos mistakenly refers to the first four caliphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph) (known as the Rashidun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun), or "rightly guided" caliphs) who were only distantly related to each other, as members of a "dynasty known as the `Rashidis.`" He also "confuses Hajjaj Ibn Yussef (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajjaj_Ibn_Yussef&action=edit&redlink=1), the brutal governor of Kufa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa), with Mansur Al-Hallaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj), the mystic who was crucified for blasphemy."[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal#cite_note-17)


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal#Revolutionary_Islam_book)

So perhaps saying he is a great revolutionary isn't something we should get behind, but even reading about his earlier actions, I'm not sure I'd agree with that he really ever was.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am confused as to how Carlos the Jackal is some revolutionary hero? Did he not convert to Islam and is now stating that Islamic terrorists are the new vanguard against globalization? I fail to see how that somehow makes him a left wing crusader.

Secondly, Chavez is probably a super cynical man and a bit loony because of it in my opinion. He hates, and rightly so, the American propaganda that paints everyone that wants to help their people an evil person, but how can he be so blind as to accept that Idi Amin, Mugabe and the Iranian leader are people that helped their nations.

Chavez is looking more like a wannabe caudillo than a populist reformer.

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez seems to have good words for every leader past and present who could be considered anti imperialist at least in rhetoric. So although he praises communists like Fidel castro, Che guevara, Kim il sung, Mao tse tung, Lenin, Trotsky, etc though not Stalin, he also praises or at least has sympathy for others like Simon bolivar, Robert mugabe, Idi amin, Saddam hussein, Ahmadinejad, Colonel Gaddafi, Maurice bishop, Thomas sankara, Michael manley, Carlos the jackel, Yasser arafat Vladimir putin etc. An eclectic mix if ever there was one. Who next i wonder The Weathermen, The angry brigade, Beiner manhof, Black panthers. Great if he praises them Not so great if he praises Hamas, the burmese junta leader General Than shwe, or the late and not lamented Khmer rouge despot pol pot. Interesting fellow this Hugo chavez, he comes over as either a communist, trotskyist, socialist, nationalist, populist, bonarpartist, proletarian bonarpartist, social democrat,etc depending on who he meets or who he is speaking to. A political kamelion indeed, but fascinating nevertheless. The revolutionary process there still needs supporting however because there is more at stake there than one man's views but i do just wish the real Hugo chavez to use Eminem's words would please stand up please stand up.!!!! :confused:

[leninpuncher]

Little wonder Chavez is losing so much of his support. The man is an idiot.



furthermore, what is wrong with authoritarianism?

Are you a masochist or something?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I am confused as to how Carlos the Jackal is some revolutionary hero? Did he not convert to Islam and is now stating that Islamic terrorists are the new vanguard against globalization? I fail to see how that somehow makes him a left wing crusader.
He was involved with PFLP and George Habash's party, hardly Islamic terrorists. Although I must admit I am not too read on his activities in the the Middle East so maybe I am missing something.

[Patchd]

What do you mean by direct control? I believe in the state, I believe the state should serve the proletariat's interests and that it should shape society to fit those interests.

Well that's not what I mean by direct control, surely it does what it says on the label, it's direct control for the workers, control over their communities, workplaces, places of education and recreation. Something which the state does not offer, until people have control over their own lives, they are not masters of it, and therefore they have not been emancipated. Surely as a socialist you seek to emancipate humans, more specifically the working class?


So by your reckoning, no I am not a socialist, but I do not care for labels, I am what I am and I am a socialist, more importantly what I propose has been successfully put into action many times over. To me at least, that is far more important than being known as a socialist.

Where? Cuba and China? Are the workers still living under a wage system here? Are they still run and 'looked after' by the state, as opposed to collectively running society themselves? Has the state in all these nations not capitulated to capital, arguably from the very beginning by not smashing it entirely, which has led to the return of a more dastardly form of capitalism as can be seen in Russia and other Eastern European states. Where are the success stories here? Rather than having workers lead themselves, you would have a party, running the workers through the state? That is not abolishing capital, that is managing it.

[Dimentio]

I agree with him, although far from perfect, these people are not the bad guys we have been taught about, Chávez isn't praising Idi Amin, but questioning his portrayal by the establishment, and rightly so, I think you would be a fool not to. The most important thing to remember is that Carlos the Jackal is a great revolutionary.

Idi Amin began as a British-supported coup general who overthrew the Pro-Soviet Milton Obote (who also turned out to be a power-crazed dictator). Then, he started to lose control over Uganda and used anti-western and anti-Indian chauvinism to try to rally supporters around himself. Idi Amin has about the same relationship with any genuine progressive anti-imperialism that Franco had with socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

He was involved with PFLP and George Habash's party, hardly Islamic terrorists. Although I must admit I am not too read on his activities in the the Middle East so maybe I am missing something.

No I meant after he was arrested he began saying stuff like I mentioned. After 9/11, he became radically Islamist. Or so I hear.

[Intelligitimate]

And a few other places. For instance, in the publications of revolutionary socialists facing brutal state oppression from Mugabe's "progressive" government (http://voiceoftheturtle.org/iso/resources/index.html).

The ISO knowingly formed an open alliance with Western imperialism in Zimbabwe, and deserve everything they get.

This is the proof that even today, Trotskyism is a completely counter-revolutionary ideology. Trotskyites, especially of the despicable ISO variety (which I have more than a passing familiarity with) are most certainly not revolutionary. Not in the slightest. The ISO in America is basically a cult centered around selling newspapers and books to promote the petty-bourgeois lifestyles of worthless pieces of shit like Paul D'Amato.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

authoritarianism should be a pre requisite for revleft members
after all, a revolution is essentially authoritarian
authoritarianism means use of force
that is precisely what a revolution entails
we are all authoritarians here, I hope

It's disheartening to see so many leftists buy into imperialist propaganda
lemme let you in on a little secret: "authoritarianism" for them is any regime that doesn't do what they say

[Pogue]

authoritarianism should be a pre requisite for revleft members
after all, a revolution is essentially authoritarian
authoritarianism means use of force
that is precisely what a revolution entails
we are all authoritarians here, I hope

But thats not what we're talking about, we're talking about whether we're for working class democracy and autonomy or for a state adminstrating 'on behalf of the class', the libertarian-authoritarian divide.

[scarletghoul]

I don't have a big problem with Chavez's statement. Carlos the Jackal was cool. Mugabe is villified to a ridiculous level by the imperialist bourgeois media, especially in the UK, due to his anti-imperialism. The colonialist white establishment is still butthurt over him taking their land and giving it back to the black Zimbabweans. I'm by no means a fan of Mugabe, but the portrayal of him and his regime by the BBC and others is completely ridiculous and something that every leftist should try to see past. The imperialists completely fuck up Zimbabwe with economic sabotage and disruption of their politics, and then blame it on Mugabe. Of course, Mugabe the villain is just a figurehead for the imperialist racism-tinted campaign against Zimbabwean self-determination.

Leftists should not be gobbling up this line.

And Chavez wasn't 'defending Idi Amin'. He was merely speculating that the image of him being an evil cannibal savage might be incorrect or slightly distorted.

[scarletghoul]

The libertarian-authoritarian dispute seems to stem from the libertarians' misunderstanding of what authority actually is, and the fact that a revolution must be authoritarian if it is to survive. Someone should make a thread on it in theory or something. It would be cool.

[Patchd]

The ISO knowingly formed an open alliance with Western imperialism in Zimbabwe, and deserve everything they get.

This is the proof that even today, Trotskyism is a completely counter-revolutionary ideology. Trotskyites, especially of the despicable ISO variety (which I have more than a passing familiarity with) are most certainly not revolutionary. Not in the slightest. The ISO in America is basically a cult centered around selling newspapers and books to promote the petty-bourgeois lifestyles of worthless pieces of shit like Paul D'Amato.
Okay, please provide this proof, because I am curious. All this post contains is slander and an attempt to base an argument on it. Trotskyism this, trotskyism that. Simply because you deem their US section to be a 'cult' centred around selling newspapers (aren't all Marxist parties like that anyway?) and promoting a lifestyle, doesn't warrant your members being attacked when they hold meetings or sell newspapers, and then falsely accused of something and prosecuted for that accusation.

There are also other examples:

Report of union leaders being released after getting arrested for having a meeting without police permission. (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15000)
Or the story of two Zimbabwe libertarians perhaps. (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=9306)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

furthermore, what's wrong with authoritarianism?


Are you a masochist or something?

yes, scarletghoul, you are absolutely correct

hey, leninpuncher, have you actually read any Lenin?
he explains the authoritarian nature of workers' revolutions quite well
instead of punching him in a non authoritarian manner, try reading his books

[Pogue]

I don't have a big problem with Chavez's statement. Carlos the Jackal was cool. Mugabe is villified to a ridiculous level by the imperialist bourgeois media, especially in the UK, due to his anti-imperialism. The colonialist white establishment is still butthurt over him taking their land and giving it back to the black Zimbabweans. I'm by no means a fan of Mugabe, but the portrayal of him and his regime by the BBC and others is completely ridiculous and something that every leftist should try to see past. The imperialists completely fuck up Zimbabwe with economic sabotage and disruption of their politics, and then blame it on Mugabe. Of course, Mugabe the villain is just a figurehead for the imperialist racism-tinted campaign against Zimbabwean self-determination.

Leftists should not be gobbling up this line.

And Chavez wasn't 'defending Idi Amin'. He was merely speculating that the image of him being an evil cannibal savage might be incorrect or slightly distorted.

But why is it you immediately label any criticism of Mugabe as reactionary? Its not. He wasn't a good anti-imperialist leader, he cosied up to the British following independence and ruined perhaps the greatest chance an African nation had for developement, he is corrupt, he has ordered for working class Zimbabweans to be raped and tortured on a mass scale by soldiers in order to put up a facade of democracy. He is a disgusting cretin. If the bourgeoisie press say this too its irrelevant, because we're attacking him for all the things he did that are bad, not because he's black, African and once was involved in anti-imperialist struggle.

Same goes for Idi Amin. Typical example of an African dictator, a symbol of everything thats holding the continent and its people back, and a cause of suffering for millions of his people. Do you not think thats a just reason for me to criticise him?

I don't like these double standards. It seems that western imperialist leaders can't do anything right - even if they do something progressive, they are slated on here, because of their role, their nature their atrocities, but as soon as the corrupt, murdering leader is African or Asian (or called their country socialist) everything he does it 'exagerated' or 'not his fault' according to a number of people here. Double standards much.

And before I get a tirade of 'western bourgeoisie lies' I've already explained I am an anti-imperialist, but I'm saying that the ruling class is international, anti-imperialist struggles have been hijacked or their gians lost by these people, so my criticism of these 'leaders' is valid, I'm offering a genuine, class absed criticism, even a Marxist one, in place of bourgeoisie rhetoric.

[Pogue]

The libertarian-authoritarian dispute seems to stem from the libertarians' misunderstanding of what authority actually is, and the fact that a revolution must be authoritarian if it is to survive. Someone should make a thread on it in theory or something. It would be cool.

We don't misunderstand authority. We oppose state structures and the resulting crushing of working class power. Don't try and paint us as idiots, we learnt these lessons from struggle, bitter lessons, thats how they come about. We oppose anything which says a state can acton the behalf of the working class.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3665/ohshiv.jpg

[proudcomrade]

Chavez' intellect is not the strongest; never has been. He is a slow and limited thinker who idolizes Castro like a needy little kid idolizes Daddy. Furthermore, much of his foreign policy consists of Piss off the "yanquis" at any cost; and if it means stooping to anti-Semitism, homophobia, sexism, religious opportunism, endless international meddling with the oil trade, or warmongering, his logic simply goes, "Oh, well!" Every single political summit that he attends ends up utterly thwarted by his juvenile, inflammatory behavior. Every potential step towards increased understanding between conflicting national powers ends up flung backward if he is present at the discussion in question.

He is neither socialist nor revolutionary, and deserves no more respect beyond the most basic amount of it due to human beings in general. I have no use for him.

[Dimentio]

authoritarianism should be a pre requisite for revleft members
after all, a revolution is essentially authoritarian
authoritarianism means use of force
that is precisely what a revolution entails
we are all authoritarians here, I hope

It's disheartening to see so many leftists buy into imperialist propaganda
lemme let you in on a little secret: "authoritarianism" for them is any regime that doesn't do what they say

Authoritarianism doesn't mean the use of force, comrade. :laugh:

It means having a leader or a group of leaders who are pointing with the whole arms and using fear as a methodology to control people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

a class or a party cannot use authority?
of course it can

[Pogue]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3665/ohshiv.jpg

For fucks sake, her we are having a genuinely good discussion, have you noticed scarletghoul et all have all managed to avoid the sectarian bullshit that these threads have, maybe we could have a meaningful discussion on this, and all you can do is post fucking un funny pictures. if your not going to contribute, fuck off.

[Pogue]

a class or a party cannot use authority?
of course it can

And obviously we believe the class should impose its authority using democratic structures, this is called a revolution. If you think a party should do it for the class, yuor authoritarian.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

we mobilized workers who belong to political parties are just really upset you think we're all authoritarians
you've truly shaken the foundations of socialism
:lol:

[Pogue]

ok mate

[scarletghoul]

But why is it you immediately label any criticism of Mugabe as reactionary?
Not all criticism of him is reactionary, and my personal view of him is that he fucked up what was originally a great socialist revolution, but much of the criticism against Mugabe is double-standard or wrongly attributed to him, and comes straight from the bourgeoisie (this is not just a coincidence btw). We're always being told about murders and such happening in Zimbabwe on Mugabe's side, but hear nothing of the murders committed by the imperialist-funded opposition, let alone the imperialist wars that our country is involved in. Here we are under a government that has killed millions of innocent people, but a lot of us spend more time criticising foreign third world governments than our own (which is vastly more barbaric and murderous). We are also constantly told how baad the Zimbabwe economy is, without a word on the economic situation of black Zimbabweans under white/british rule (and, again, the fact that the economic crisis now going on there is caused and maintained by the imperialist countries)

If the bourgeoisie press say this too its irrelevant, because we're attacking him for all the things he did that are bad, not because he's black, African and once was involved in anti-imperialist struggle.
But that's why the bourgeois press is attacking him, and it is very relevent. Sure, criticise the man, but don't do it in exactly the same manner as the UK bourgeoisie are doing. It means you adopt their view of things, which involves looking out for white ruling class interests as well as ignoring the vastly more severe atrocities commited by the uk bourgeoisie


, but as soon as the corrupt, murdering leader is African or Asian (or called their country socialist) everything he does it 'exagerated' or 'not his fault'
Think about it, the bourgeois media are invariably gonna demonize anything anti-imperialist. Just like they demonise the workers' movement. No one's saying that these people are perfect, or even good, but you should be constantly aware that the bourgeois media are going to distort the image of them to suit their own ends. Do not trust them. You wouldn't trust a BBC report on the Anarchist movement, why trust them on the anti-imperialist movement? It's not about defending Mugabe, it's about trying to get a clear picture of what's happening (something that cannot be done by looking through the lens of the bourgeois media)

Typical example of an African dictator, a symbol of everything thats holding the continent and its people back, and a cause of suffering for millions of his people.
Yeah its the africans' fault, they cant manage their own countries right, nothing to do with the imperialism that has raped the continent for hundreds of years :rolleyes:

[Intelligitimate]

Okay, please provide this proof, because I am curious. All this post contains is slander and an attempt to base an argument on it. Trotskyism this, trotskyism that. Simply because you deem their US section to be a 'cult' centred around selling newspapers (aren't all Marxist parties like that anyway?) and promoting a lifestyle, doesn't warrant your members being attacked when they hold meetings or sell newspapers, and then falsely accused of something and prosecuted for that accusation.

lol, the very publication is proof enough of that the ISO in Zimbabwe serves as a lapdog to Western imperialism. They are a founding member of the MDC, which is openly funded by the West. They actively work with the MDC and Western imperialism in order to install a comprador regime suitable to Britain and the US. To quote Stephen Gowans:



ISO’s Latest Silliness


Here’s what wrong with the MDC, according to the Zimbabwe section of the International Socialist Organization: “The increasing domination of the party leadership by capitalist and Western elites and the marginalization of workers and radicals…will lead to its likely pursuing a neoliberal capitalist agenda if it assumes power to the detriment of the working people.” [10]



Funny that it has taken this long for the ISO to figure this out. Here’s then MDC spokesman Eddie Cross, formerly vice-chairman of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, in advance of 2000 elections – eight years ago!


“We are going to fast track privatization. All 50 government parastatals will be privatized within a two-year time-frame, but we are going to go beyond that. We are going to privatize many of the functions of government. We are going to privatize the central statistical office. We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery system. And you know, we have looked at the numbers and we think we can get government employment down from about 300,000 at the present time to about 75,000 in five years.” [11]



Moreover, the principal role in the formation of the party played by the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, whose patrons are former British foreign secretaries Douglas Hurd, Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind and whose chair is Lord Renwick of Clifton, should have provided more than an inkling of what was ahead.


So now that the ISO has belatedly figured out that the MDC is dominated by “capitalist and Western elites” and will likely pursue “a neoliberal capitalist agenda,” what does it recommend radicals and working people in Zimbabwe do?



Unconditionally support Tsvangirai. Yes, that’s right. “The ISO…has now modified its position to call for unconditional but fraternally critical support to Tsvangirai.” [12]


Report of union leaders being released after getting arrested for having a meeting without police permission. (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15000)

The ZCTU is openly affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which has always played a reactionary helpmate to US imperialism, and recieves funding from the NED. The imperialist West is trying again the same strategy they did in Poland with Solidarnosc. They also deserve everything they get.


Or the story of two Zimbabwe libertarians perhaps. (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=9306)

lol, same pro-imperialist bullshit, this time under the label of anarchism. The interview is fucking ridiculous, and these clowns deserve what they get for openly siding with US imperialism.

[Dimentio]

And Chavez wasn't 'defending Idi Amin'. He was merely speculating that the image of him being an evil cannibal savage might be incorrect or slightly distorted.

It is probably not true that Idi Amin was a cannibal. But he spread out that rumour himself in order to evoke fear in the minds of the political opposition.

[scarletghoul]

And obviously we believe the class should impose its authority using democratic structures, this is called a revolution.
This means that you are authoritarian. What you consider to be 'authoritarianism' is simply this working class authority applied through democratic state apparatus.

Maybe a 'libertarian' would think that the leninist model is not democratic, whereas an 'authoritarian' would think that it is. But this is a dispute over the workability of leninist democracy. It's not a dispute over the use of authority (authoritarianism).


Chavez' intellect is not the strongest; never has been. He is a slow and limited thinker who idolizes Castro like a needy little kid idolizes Daddy. Furthermore, much of his foreign policy consists of Piss off the "yanquis" at any cost; and if it means stooping to anti-Semitism, homophobia, sexism, religious opportunism, endless international meddling with the oil trade, or warmongering, his logic simply goes, "Oh, well!" Every single political summit that he attends ends up utterly thwarted by his juvenile, inflammatory behavior. Every potential step towards increased understanding between conflicting national powers ends up flung backward if he is present at the discussion in question.
I'm pretty sure Chavez is more intelligent than he lets on. He didn't rise to power just by boneheaded brute force. His image is that of a man of the people, so his intellect isn't totally exposed.

[Patchd]

lol, the very publication is proof enough of that the ISO in Zimbabwe serves as a lapdog to Western imperialism. They are a founding member of the MDC, which is openly funded by the West. They actively work with the MDC and Western imperialism in order to install a comprador regime suitable to Britain and the US. To quote Stephen Gowans: [TEXT]

When was this written, in the article written by the ISO in Zimbabwe, they state:


There is also some danger for us from the MDC [the Movement for Democratic Change, the main opposition party]. We live in the urban areas where the MDC has most of its support, so, with ZANU-PF and the MDC, we are between a rock and a hard place. Most of the people in the top positions in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions are toeing the MDC line. A few toe the ZANU-PF line. But on the whole the ZCTU has fallen hook, line and sinker for the MDC line, which is that we must have peace before the election; the MDC will win the election, but there should be no action before the election.

The MDC's economic policy - "The Bridge" - is neo-liberal, pro-privatisation, but it has not been publicised or debated much. The great tragedy is that most workers are not aware of the MDC's policies. They do not have an understanding of the MDC's policies. They just see the MDC as representing the hope of more jobs.
Obviously I'm not surprised to see trade union officials working with mainstream bourgeois parties, it happens virtually everywhere. But for them to be arrested for meeting?


[URL="http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=9306"]

lol, same pro-imperialist bullshit, this time under the label of anarchism. The interview is fucking ridiculous, and these clowns deserve what they get for openly siding with US imperialism.Prove it, prove that these people were 'siding with US imperialism'. Politics to you is a fucking game, all you ever do is slander people as 'imperialists' whenever they take a position that opposes both the imperialists and your oppressive bureaucrats. You openly support the use of torture, beatings, exile and prosecution for these people, as you state 'these clowns deserve what they get'.

[Pogue]

Not all criticism of him is reactionary, and my personal view of him is that he fucked up what was originally a great socialist revolution, but much of the criticism against Mugabe is double-standard or wrongly attributed to him, and comes straight from the bourgeoisie (this is not just a coincidence btw). We're always being told about murders and such happening in Zimbabwe on Mugabe's side, but hear nothing of the murders committed by the imperialist-funded opposition, let alone the imperialist wars that our country is involved in. Here we are under a government that has killed millions of innocent people, but a lot of us spend more time criticising foreign third world governments than our own (which is vastly more barbaric and murderous). We are also constantly told how baad the Zimbabwe economy is, without a word on the economic situation of black Zimbabweans under white/british rule (and, again, the fact that the economic crisis now going on there is caused and maintained by the imperialist countries)

But your still recognising he has brutally assulted the working class. Nothing else matters, we criticise him for being an enemy of the class.



But that's why the bourgeois press is attacking him, and it is very relevent. Sure, criticise the man, but don't do it in exactly the same manner as the UK bourgeoisie are doing. It means you adopt their view of things, which involves looking out for white ruling class interests as well as ignoring the vastly more severe atrocities commited by the uk bourgeoisie


I criticise him for being anti-working class, the bourgeoisie press don't. I also criticise the UK bourgeoisie. The ruling class is worldwide.


Think about it, the bourgeois media are invariably gonna demonize anything anti-imperialist. Just like they demonise the workers' movement. No one's saying that these people are perfect, or even good, but you should be constantly aware that the bourgeois media are going to distort the image of them to suit their own ends. Do not trust them. You wouldn't trust a BBC report on the Anarchist movement, why trust them on the anti-imperialist movement? It's not about defending Mugabe, it's about trying to get a clear picture of what's happening (something that cannot be done by looking through the lens of the bourgeois media)

I have a clear picture, I have done alot of research. He has blood on his hands.


Yeah its the africans' fault, they cant manage their own countries right, nothing to do with the imperialism that has raped the continent for hundreds of years http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-defending-idi-t123056/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

So when an African leader takes power as part of a political movement based on ethnicity, builds himself a mansion, channels all aid into private accounts and buys himself 3 ferraris, its not his fault?

[leninpuncher]

yes, scarletghoul, you are absolutely correct

hey, leninpuncher, have you actually read any Lenin?
he explains the authoritarian nature of workers' revolutions quite well
instead of punching him in a non authoritarian manner, try reading his books

A violent socialist revolution is not an aggressive act, and hence not an authoritarian act. It's a defensive act. Would you say someone who defends himself from an assault using violence is an aggressor?

I don't particularly care what Lenin wrote about. I've read a bit of it, and I didn't find it particularly original or compelling. If he hadn't been at the head of the coup in Russia, nobody would remember him. His actions are much more relevant.

[bcbm]

Carlos the Jackal was cool.

yeah, grenade attacks on restaurants, attempting to blow up commercial airliners full of passengers, car bombs outside newspaper offices, bombing passenger trains... what a fucking hero.

[leninpuncher]

yeah, grenade attacks on restaurants, attempting to blow up commercial airliners full of passengers, car bombs outside newspaper offices, bombing passenger trains... what a fucking hero.
you fucking liberal.
of course we cant have a workers revolution without a large-scale massacre of workers.

[Raúl Duke]

yeah, grenade attacks on restaurants, attempting to blow up commercial airliners full of passengers, car bombs outside newspaper offices, bombing passenger trains... what a fucking hero.


you fucking liberal.
of course we cant have a workers revolution without a large-scale massacre of workers.

It's funny because when anarchists did similar things ("the propaganda of deed" era) they were insulted (and in a sense rightly so; depending if the insult and criticism were valid and thought-out) by statist socialists for being utopian, ineffectual, etc but anarchists point out a self-claimed Leninist does it they're called "liberal" and perhaps could have also been called "petit-bourgeois" or holding petit-bourgeois sentimentality or whatever.

Stop the hypocrisy. This thread is sickening

[bcbm]

i think leninpuncher was being facetious.

[leninpuncher]

It's funny because when anarchists did similar things ("the propaganda of deed" era) they were insulted (and in a sense rightly so; depending if the insult and criticism were valid and thought-out) by statist socialists for being utopian, ineffectual, etc but anarchists point out a self-claimed Leninist does it they're called "liberal" and perhaps could have also been called "petit-bourgeois" or holding petit-bourgeois sentimentality or whatever.

Stop the hypocrisy. This thread is sickening
what.
Where is my hypocrisy again?
Edit: Come to think of it, the last bit probably wasnt directed at me.
nvm

[Dimentio]

you fucking liberal.
of course we cant have a workers revolution without a large-scale massacre of workers.

I smells troll0rz.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

authoritarianism should be a pre requisite for revleft members
after all, a revolution is essentially authoritarian
authoritarianism means use of force
that is precisely what a revolution entails
we are all authoritarians here, I hope

It's disheartening to see so many leftists buy into imperialist propaganda
lemme let you in on a little secret: "authoritarianism" for them is any regime that doesn't do what they say

Actually, taking part in a revolution dedicated to overthrowing the state is about as far as you can get from being a pro-state authoritarian.

This horrible bit of "logic" has been paraded around here before by self proclaimed "authoritarians" and it still makes no sense, sorry.

What kind of revolutionary leftists who want to see the destruction of the state go around supporting state leaders from around the world? It doesn't matter who they are, they're authoritarians because they aren't on our side.

[ComradeMan]

Chavez is an idiot who ought to learn when to keep his mouth shut. Either that or he is doing it on purpose to provoke the hell out of people. He may have good intentions and he may do well at home but he when it comes to his rhetoric it's embarrassing. I am not going to defend someone on the old basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend all the time.

Chavez may be represented negatively in the West, Chavez may do many good things in his own country, but making statements about Idi Amin who was a racist, murderer and cannibalistic tyrant responsible for the deaths of at least 300,000 Ugandans and driving the ONLY completely self-sufficient African state at independence into the ground is complete idiocy. Along with that other one, Mugabe- the fourth biggest food producer at independence run into the ground in one generation....

When will people start to recognise that people who "spout" ideologies do not necessarily equate with those ideologies, hell, Western governments always spout the word democracy all over the place--- doesn't make them democratic!!! :)

[Robocommie]

I have long defended Chavez against capitalists in certain other social circles and forums I have participated in elsewhere on the internet, and in front of capitalists I will not raise many words against the man except to point out where we differ ideologically.

However, I feel that Chavez, for all of his strengths, is beginning to become a bit of a cautionary tale. I am not so concerned with his connections with Mugabe, I have reservations about the man, but Zimbabwe's economic situation is not simple and after reading a fascinating article on the subject (Land Reform in Zimbabwe by Neil H. Thomas, I highly recommend it) I have a newfound appreciation for the extent to which Zimbabwe has been completely fucked over by the UK in it's attempts to redistribute land through compensation.

But I do believe he's too eager to befriend people who are opposed to the US and to imperialism regardless of their personal character or politics, in this sense I refer to people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is not popular even in Iran. Furthermore, we can argue over whether he was defending Idi Amin or not, but the truth is that Idi Amin is one of the most hated names in history, and even if he's been completely smeared by capitalism, the fact remains that Hugo Chavez was throwing supporting words in his direction. There's a lot more worthwhile windmills that you can tip at. For example, would it have been hard to make a mention of all the leaders of the African National Congress who were smeared as dangerous revolutionaries, the people who called Nelson Mandela a thug and criminal? It would have made his point excellently and it would not have been controversial at all.

I think Chavez at times shows very poor judgement in seeking allies, to some extent I can't blame him. Wanting to build as many diplomatic ties against the US as possible is very understandable for a left-wing South American leader. But the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

[Dimentio]

Another reason to criticise Chávez is his recent policies of subsidising imports of cellphones, cars and toys just to keep the middle class content. It is like trying to warm oneself up in winter by pissing the pants. It seems like the Bolivarian revolution needs to be steered up towards more worker control.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Chavez is an idiot who ought to learn when to keep his mouth shut.

Don't actually have any objection to the rest of your post, but I think thats the closest revleft has come to maury povich:lol:

[The Red Next Door]

what is wrong with authoritarianism?

There is a lot what is wrong with authoritarianism

[The Red Next Door]

Fucking idiot

[chebol]

Engels on authority:


Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)

[Das war einmal]

Now to be serious, who cares? There was something more important going on at the Bolivarian camp: http://www.marxist.com/first-extraordinary-congress-psuv.htm

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Engels on authority:



[/thread]

[cb9's_unity]

I feel like this is a group session of playing dumb. Yes, Engels described class control of society as authoritarian (thus making proletarian revolution of any sort 'authoritarian'). However authoritarianism has developed other connotations. I think a clear distinction of the two uses of the word authoritarianism must be made, one for Engels use of the term, and one for the more contemporary use of the term.

The use of the word authoritarianism today means the limiting of democracy and certain freedoms. And while in the former sense socialists should be authoritarian (supporting proletarian revolution) and in the latter sense they should be, imo, libertarian (supporting workers democracy, freedoms of speech and press, and the supporting the right to organize, etc..).

None of this should be new to anyone. How about we define what exactly we are talking about, and then just stop playing dumb.

[Intelligitimate]

Obviously I'm not surprised to see trade union officials working with mainstream bourgeois parties, it happens virtually everywhere. But for them to be arrested for meeting?


Here you attempt to change the reality of what the actual situation is. This is not anything akin to trade union bureaucrats meeting with bourgeois politicians in some Western country. This is literally a Western-backed and financed “union” trying to further the imperialist interests of the Western bourgeoisie. The ZANU-PF, not being composed of stupid white pseudo-Left children that inhabit this board, know history and understand it. They know the lessons of places like Poland and its totally reactionary “union” Solidarnosc quite well.


That you would actually advocate allowing such an organization to operate freely either shows what a naïve person you are, or it shows you actively support Western imperialism in Zimbabwe. Given the nature of the petty-bourgeois “radicalism” found on this site, it is undoubtedly the latter.



rove it, prove that these people were 'siding with US imperialism'.


There is no need to prove it. It is manifestly true, and they do not hide it in the interview. They want to work with the MDC and Western imperialism to overthrow Mugabe. They admit this and speak freely about the true nature of the MDC, just as the ISO does, and support their program of ousting Mugabe anyway. Their idiotic rhetoric about socialism doesn't mean shit: they are active agents of Western imperialism! They deserve a fate much worse than what they whine about.



Politics to you is a fucking game


lol, this coming from someone who joined the fucking IWW, a god damn historical society that doesn't do shit. Anarchists treat politics as a game, hence why never actually do shit anymore. You'll pass through your angsty teenage “I hate my parents” phase in a few years, and rejoin the ranks of your petty-bourgeois friends and family, after you realize your stupid shit ideology doesn't fly with the working class and no one cares what you have to say because you advocate eating out of dumpsters and don't shower.



You openly support the use of torture, beatings, exile and prosecution for these people, as you state 'these clowns deserve what they get'.


That's right, I openly advocate all agents of Western imperialism be eradicated, no matter what rhetoric they cloak themselves under. I could care less if these clowns lived or died. They are the worst sorts of traitors and scoundrels.

[bcbm]

you advocate eating out of dumpsters and don't showeryou forgot to mention something about drugs.




:rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I feel like this is a group session of playing dumb. Yes, Engels described class control of society as authoritarian (thus making proletarian revolution of any sort 'authoritarian'). However authoritarianism has developed other connotations. I think a clear distinction of the two uses of the word authoritarianism must be made, one for Engels use of the term, and one for the more contemporary use of the term.

The use of the word authoritarianism today means the limiting of democracy and certain freedoms. And while in the former sense socialists should be authoritarian (supporting proletarian revolution) and in the latter sense they should be, imo, libertarian (supporting workers democracy, freedoms of speech and press, and the supporting the right to organize, etc..).

None of this should be new to anyone. How about we define what exactly we are talking about, and then just stop playing dumb.

authoritarianism is the practice of using authority
all other definitions are totally worthless

this attempt to fabricate a dichotomy between liberty and authority is the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever seen in my entire fucking life
you assholes should be ashamed

[RHIZOMES]

Typical example of an African dictator, a symbol of everything thats holding the continent and its people back, and a cause of suffering for millions of his people. Do you not think thats a just reason for me to criticise him?

Yes because everything wrong with Africa, the crushing poverty, etc is all due to the dictators :rolleyes:

[cb9's_unity]

authoritarianism is the practice of using authority
all other definitions are totally worthless

this attempt to fabricate a dichotomy between liberty and authority is the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever seen in my entire fucking life
you assholes should be ashamed

Authoritarianism has developed new widely used connotations. You'd have to be living under a political rock not to recognize that. And instead of being a pretentious jackass, you could have clarified the use of the word authoritarianism and then actually weighed in about the discussion concerning workers control and socialism.

How about trying to avoid intellectual baiting that serves nothing but your own ego?

[pranabjyoti]

Those, the critics of "authoritarianism" just fail to understand that the root of this evil, like all other is the class based society. Until and unless, a classless society will be established, there should be some kind of "authoritarianism" in any form. And to go to a classless society phase, you have to go through a "dictatorship of proletariat" phase, YOU JUST CAN'T AVOID THIS AUTHORITARIAN PHASE.

[Artemis3]

yeah, grenade attacks on restaurants, attempting to blow up commercial airliners full of passengers, car bombs outside newspaper offices, bombing passenger trains... what a fucking hero. Just like CIA backed anti-Cuba terrorists Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, happily living their gold "exile" in USA; while those attempting to thwart their plans get sentenced to prison for life. Oh must i remind you who backed and supported Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein against "evil commies" in the first place? Oh, did you know about Zionists blowing up King David Hotel and stuff in British controlled Palestine? I could go on, but i'd rather leave it at that. Think what you will, the guy is already in prison for life, the US terrorists are living free.

[Artemis3]

Another reason to criticise Chávez is his recent policies of subsidising imports of cellphones, cars and toys just to keep the middle class content.

Could you please elaborate on this a little? You know, living here and all, if you talked about how the gasoline is, i would certainly agree, but what Cellphones, Cars and Toys are you talking about? We started a very small assembly line for chinese cellphones, iranian cars and tractors, could you possibly be referring to that? Because otherwise i don't know wtf are you talking about my country again.

[pranabjyoti]

Problem with armchair revolutionaries is that, they always speak the "right" words, but rarely tried to do anything other than the "right" criticism.

[bcbm]

Just like CIA backed anti-Cuba terrorists Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, happily living their gold "exile" in USA; while those attempting to thwart their plans get sentenced to prison for life.

sorry, how is this related to carlos bombing workers, exactly?


Oh must i remind you who backed and supported Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein against "evil commies" in the first place?

questioning the relevance, again and i'm going to go out on a limb and bet it wasn't the passengers on the tgv train that carlos bombed.


Oh, did you know about Zionists blowing up King David Hotel and stuff in British controlled Palestine?

yes. i'm not sure why this means some people eating in a restaurant in france, or the passengers on an el al flight need to die.


I could go on, but i'd rather leave it at that.

thank god.


Think what you will, the guy is already in prison for life, the US terrorists are living free.

because by opposing a leftist terrorist murdering workers i must support those assholes? where the fuck do you morons come from, honestly

[Pogue]

Yes because everything wrong with Africa, the crushing poverty, etc is all due to the dictators :rolleyes:

This is whats wrong with this forum. Rather than read what I said, you have read what you wanted me to say. You people are fucking morons who understand nothing about Africa, typical patronising white western kids.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Authoritarianism has developed new widely used connotations. You'd have to be living under a political rock not to recognize that.

"New widely used connotations" is a euphemism for tool of imperialist propaganda.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If I was a moderator, I'd restrict motionless and Rosenpenis. Just to see whether they'd make hypocrites out of themselves by trying to appeal against it, thus challenging my authority and completely betraying their authoritarian principles.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

defending the use of authority doesn't mean being against challenging authority

[cb9's_unity]

"New widely used connotations" is a euphemism for tool of imperialist propaganda.

And the best way to fight imperialist tools of propaganda!?

Smugly ignore what the debate is actually about in order to serve your own inflated ego.:glare:

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Engels on authority:



yes, rising up and fighting the bourgeoisie (THE AUTHORITY) is so very very authoritarian. Engels was a dumbass.

It'd be nice if the cult followers here would stop justifying their absurdity with horrible quotes from people nobody cares about.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3665/ohshiv.jpg x1000

[Honggweilo]

Engels was a dumbass.

It'd be nice if the cult followers here would stop justifying their absurdity with horrible quotes from people nobody cares about.
i lol'd

[Honggweilo]

Don't actually have any objection to the rest of your post, but I think thats the closest revleft has come to maury povich:lol:
or Juan Carlos

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

many years ago the forum administration was highly concerned with the presence of ignorant Stalin-worshipping tweens
the problem has evidently shifted radically from Stalinists to alienated, brain dead, mouth-breathing anarchist shitheads

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

As usual, discussions about Chávez on Revleft have a shocking title with claims for which there is no proof tio be found in the quoted article or anywhere else.

Praising Idi Amin? Not in the slightest! Chávez just has doubts with the official story, 'cause, let's face it, all information we have about Amin, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe etcetera come from Western imperialist sources only. Chávez rightly claims that we should look for the real story (even if that reality is probably as bad as the official imperialist version) before we judge.

Personally I hate Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, but still I agree we should examine their rule as objective as possible, without simply accepting what the official media say.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

many years ago the forum adminsitration was highly concerned with the presence of ignorant Stalin-worshipping tweens
the problem has evidently shifted radically from Stalinists to alienated, brain dead, mouth-breathing anarchist shitheads
Of course, alienated anarchist shitheads, as opposed to all those people who aren't alienated under capitalism. :mellow:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

obviously I'm referring to willing alienation and not the disenfranchisement to which we are all subject as workers

[Honggweilo]

As usual, discussions about Chávez on Revleft have a shocking title with claims for which there is no proof tio be found in the quoted article or anywhere else.

Praising Idi Amin? Not in the slightest! Chávez just has doubts with the official story, 'cause, let's face it, all information we have about Amin, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe etcetera come from Western imperialist sources only. Chávez rightly claims that we should look for the real story (even if that reality is probably as bad as the official imperialist version) before we judge.

Personally I hate Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, but still I agree we should examine their rule as objective as possible, without simply accepting what the official media say.

ok so, Mugabe was a progressive figure in the time during the war of independence and the Rodhesian civil war. Back in the 80's he was widely mentioned in one sentence with Mandela in leftist circles.

Like Chavez however, Mugabe was a bonafide smoochola and was pragmatic as hell, in contrast to the genuine communist and leftwing factions of the ZANU-PF. After the fall of the Soviet Union he didnt hesitate one second to drop marxism-leninism from their program, became a massive reformist, and immediately started to take in IMF loans.. which forced some privatisations. When that backfired, both bourgeois, former colonials and the masses started to complain about the the worsening economy. right-wing bourgeois movements like the MDC, directly supported by rich white landownersand british intelligence, took exactly the same tactic as Solidarnosc did in Poland.. claiming to be a workers movement and pretending to care about the growing povery which they would solve through market-reform (which like with solidarnosc and their reactionairy anti-semite mouthpiece, Lech Walesa, were supported by euphoric trots believing it to be a true workers movement). In direct response, Mugabe, who realized his major blunder in taking in IMF loans, suddenly jumped the "anti-imperialist" bandwagon and moved in against former colonial landowners, disowning them, and redistributing it to small farmers, and thus gaining support from the national bourgeoisie and the peasantry. This redistribution however caused inexperienced and often uneducated farmers to operate large agricultural complexes which stagnated the economy, and also due to corruption and mismanagement of the national bourgeoisie. the MDC and their allies saw this as the ideal oppertunity to rage on about the economy, corruption, human rights, ect, for their own gain.. ofcourse backed by western financial interests. This led to economic boycotts, slander campaigns and fabrications.

I am absolutely not a fan of Mugabe, but any serious objective marxists should see through the web of slander in order the get a scientific historical view on the situation in Zimbabwe to judge it.

[Das war einmal]

ok so, Mugabe was a progressive figure in the time during the war of independence and the Rodhesian civil war. Back in the 80's he was widely mentioned in one sentence with Mandela in leftist circles.

Like Chavez however, Mugabe was a bonafide smoochola and was pragmatic as hell, in contrast to the genuine communist and leftwing factions of the ZANU-PF. After the fall of the Soviet Union he didnt hesitate one second to drop marxism-leninism from their program, became a massive reformist, and immediately started to take in IMF loans.. which forced some privatisations. When that backfired, both bourgeois, former colonials and the masses started to complain about the the worsening economy. right-wing bourgeois movements like the MDC, directly supported by rich white landownersand british intelligence, took exactly the same tactic as Solidarnosc did in Poland.. claiming to be a workers movement and pretending to care about the growing povery which they would solve through market-reform (which like with solidarnosc and their reactionairy anti-semite mouthpiece, Lech Walesa, were supported by euphoric trots believing it to be a true workers movement). In direct response, Mugabe, who realized his major blunder in taking in IMF loans, suddenly jumped the "anti-imperialist" bandwagon and moved in against former colonial landowners, disowning them, and redistributing it to small farmers, and thus gaining support from the national bourgeoisie and the peasantry. This redistribution however caused inexperienced and often uneducated farmers to operate large agricultural complexes which stagnated the economy, and also due to corruption and mismanagement of the national bourgeoisie. the MDC and their allies saw this as the ideal oppertunity to rage on about the economy, corruption, human rights, ect, for their own gain.. ofcourse backed by western financial interests. This led to economic boycotts, slander campaigns and fabrications.

I am absolutely not a fan of Mugabe, but any serious objective marxists should see through the web of slander in order the get a scientific historical view on the situation in Zimbabwe to judge it.

I don't see these facts as a valid point to defend Mugabe, it only explains why Zimbabwe is doing so terrible at the moment.

[Artemis3]

because by opposing a leftist terrorist murdering workers i must support those assholes? where the fuck do you morons come from, honestly

I don't care you oppose Carlos, I'm merely showing your double standard; quick to pull the trigger because Chavez showed his support, but remain conveniently silent about Posada killing students and workers flying in a civilian plane, and workers killed in a Cuban Hotel, innumerable tortures and disappearances of students and workers in Venezuela, mass murder of students and workers attempt in Panama, etc; not to mention THAT guy is still free living happily in USA, whereas Carlos is already paying for his deeds in a French prison.

So what if Chavez gave him some words of support? he fought for a cause and used the means available at his disposal. If you are against terrorism, then demand justice with USA backed terrorists, instead of wasting time with an already convicted (kidnapped from Sudan) and sentenced for life individual.

Where are YOUR words demanding prison for Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch? You know the later was given presidential pardon? And its likely the first will too, as he was in the CIA payroll and gets their protection for life, he was doing their dirty job after all...

So, the right can use terrorism, but they are freedom fighters, yet the leftism ones are always horrible mass murderer criminals. And YOU are reproducing that corporate media bias here.

[bcbm]

I don't care you oppose Carlos, I'm merely showing your double standard; quick to pull the trigger because Chavez showed his support

i didn't say anything about chavez. i quoted another user saying "carlos was cool" and pointing out that carlos was, in fact, not cool.


but remain conveniently silent about Posada killing students and workers flying in a civilian plane, and workers killed in a Cuban Hotel, innumerable tortures and disappearances of students and workers in Venezuela, mass murder of students and workers attempt in Panama, etc;yeah, strange i would "remain conveniently silent" about shit that doesn't have any relevance to the comment i was responding to or really much of anything in this entire fucking thread. clearly i must support those things, or at least not be concerned about bourgeois terrorism. since apparently when one points out the flaws of a leftist, they need to also point out the flaws of every bourgeois terrorist ever to absolve the sin, let me explicitly state i don't support any of the things you mention and would certainly like to see the responsible parties punished. its fucking asinine i even need to say that, of course.


he fought for a cause and used the means available at his disposal.if the only means you can come up with to fight for communism is bombing workers who are on a train, then you should stick a pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger because you're not helping anybody.


If you are against terrorism, then demand justice with USA backed terrorists, instead of wasting time with an already convicted (kidnapped from Sudan) and sentenced for life individual.all communists should be against terrorism, because we believe in the struggle of our class as a mass to destroy capitalism, not armed attacks against members of our class by playboy terrorists who wrap themselves in a red flag. and anyway, my only intention was to point out that carlos was not "cool," and acted against the interests of our class. pointing out that reactionaries use terrorist methods (duh) as well doesn't change the fact that individual terrorism does nothing to help our struggle and we should avoid the hero worship of such people.


Where are YOUR words demanding prison for Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch?probably in a thread about them?


You know the later was given presidential pardon? And its likely the first will too, as he was in the CIA payroll and gets their protection for life, he was doing their dirty job after all...oh fuck, that totally changes the fact that carlos attacked workers.

oh, wait, no it doesn't.


So, the right can use terrorism, but they are freedom fighters, yet the leftism ones are always horrible mass murderer criminals.yes, exactly the point i was trying to make! i'm glad somebody got it.


And YOU are reproducing that corporate media bias here.no, i'm pointing out that we shouldn't support people who fucking kill workers.

[Dimentio]

I don't care you oppose Carlos, I'm merely showing your double standard; quick to pull the trigger because Chavez showed his support, but remain conveniently silent about Posada killing students and workers flying in a civilian plane, and workers killed in a Cuban Hotel, innumerable tortures and disappearances of students and workers in Venezuela, mass murder of students and workers attempt in Panama, etc; not to mention THAT guy is still free living happily in USA, whereas Carlos is already paying for his deeds in a French prison.

So what if Chavez gave him some words of support? he fought for a cause and used the means available at his disposal. If you are against terrorism, then demand justice with USA backed terrorists, instead of wasting time with an already convicted (kidnapped from Sudan) and sentenced for life individual.

Where are YOUR words demanding prison for Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch? You know the later was given presidential pardon? And its likely the first will too, as he was in the CIA payroll and gets their protection for life, he was doing their dirty job after all...

So, the right can use terrorism, but they are freedom fighters, yet the leftism ones are always horrible mass murderer criminals. And YOU are reproducing that corporate media bias here.

Anyone could use terrorism. But there isn't anything heroic about it.

[Honggweilo]

I don't see these facts as a valid point to defend Mugabe, it only explains why Zimbabwe is doing so terrible at the moment.
did i say i defend mugabe? i'm saying zimbabwe will be in a worse state under the MDC. i rather have social bourgeois nationalists over neo-colonial exploitation

[chebol]

SubcomandanteHelix wrote:


yes, rising up and fighting the bourgeoisie (THE AUTHORITY) is so very very authoritarian. Engels was a dumbass.

It'd be nice if the cult followers here would stop justifying their absurdity with horrible quotes from people nobody cares about.

Yes, numbskull, rising up against the bourgeoisie (the current authority) IS, and WILL HAVE TO BE authoritarian if you want to succeed - ie, impose the authority of the democratically self-organised working class.

The bourgeoisie is willing, prepared, and practised in fighting back and crushing revolutions, so if the working class wants to remove the bourgeoisie from power and overthrow capitalism, it's going to HAVE to be able to be authoritarian.

What you apparently can't understand is that (genuine, working class, proletarian) democracy and authority are not counterposed, but are very much intertwined.

You can either accept that fact, or return to your cult of ignorance and garden liberalism. Dumbass.

[chebol]

Wakizashi the Bolshevik wrote:


let's face it, all information we have about Amin, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe etcetera come from Western imperialist sources only.

Well, no, actually. Much of the information we have is from working class organisations and individuals inside Zimbabwe (and Uganda, and Iran), under constant persecution and attack, which information just happens to support most (not all) of the claims made from the outside.

The difference is in which forces are using the truth for their own sectoral interests.


Chávez rightly claims that we should look for the real story (even if that reality is probably as bad as the official imperialist version) before we judge.

True, and that's the rub. The facts are there, but have been ignored by many anti-imperialists (especially from the Third World) under the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and out of a misplaced sympathy or nostalgia for the days of national liberation.

Tactically, this can be correct sometimes. But the facts on Zimbabwe, in particular, have been ignored by much of the non-aligned movement (especially African nations) in an often bloody-minded manner.

Chavez is not simply defending the anti-imperialist camp in this circumstance - he is just plain wrong. The jury's in on Mugabe. He's no longer (if he ever was) a friend of national-liberationists or socialists.

The same goes for Ahmedinejad, even if the geopolitical situation makes an alliance with Iran more important, and therefore demands a more nuanced approach...

[The Ungovernable Farce]

obviously I'm referring to willing alienation and not the disenfranchisement to which we are all subject as workers
Oh, obviously, willing alienation, that concept that it's obvious you're referring to because everyone knows what it means and it completely makes sense. What am I even willingly alienated from? Where does this concept of willing alienation come from?

[Robocommie]

lol, this coming from someone who joined the fucking IWW, a god damn historical society that doesn't do shit. Anarchists treat politics as a game, hence why never actually do shit anymore. You'll pass through your angsty teenage “I hate my parents” phase in a few years, and rejoin the ranks of your petty-bourgeois friends and family, after you realize your stupid shit ideology doesn't fly with the working class and no one cares what you have to say because you advocate eating out of dumpsters and don't shower.


Haha, whooaa! I'm beginning to think the reason global Marxism hasn't yet triumphed is because we Marxists hate each other more than we hate capitalists! :D

[Intelligitimate]

Well, no, actually. Much of the information we have is from working class organisations and individuals inside Zimbabwe

This is simply a lie. There are no independent "progressive" organizations that attack Mugabe that are not, in same fashion, in the pay of Western imperialism. The trade unions are an arm of the AFL-CIO and receive funding from the NED. They are imperialist tools, and openly advocate the privatization of the economy. Here's a fucking clue: real working class organizations don't do that.


Chavez is not simply defending the anti-imperialist camp in this circumstance - he is just plain wrong. The jury's in on Mugabe. He's no longer (if he ever was) a friend of national-liberationists or socialists.

This is yet another lie, and the fact that so many pseudo-Left pieces of shit on this forum believe crap like this shows just how far bourgeois ideology has infiltrated the so-called Left.

[leninpuncher]

If anyone wants a laugh: A few pages back; Dr. Rosenpenis and Arizona Bay (Bill Hicks rolls over in his grave every time you post with that name) thanked a post that's spaced out as if it were attacking me. If either of them had paid the slightest attention to it's contents, they would have realized that it was an agreement with my position, and an attack of theirs.

The group's M-L-M circlejerk reaches the point of self-parody.

[The Something]

Haha, whooaa! I'm beginning to think the reason global Marxism hasn't yet triumphed is because we Marxists hate each other more than we hate capitalists! :D


Historically this is also true. :\

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If anyone wants a laugh: A few pages back; Dr. Rosenpenis and Arizona Bay (Bill Hicks rolls over in his grave every time you post with that name) thanked a post that's spaced out as if it were attacking me. If either of them had paid the slightest attention to it's contents, they would have realized that it was an agreement with my position, and an attack of theirs.

The group's M-L-M circlejerk reaches the point of self-parody.

perhaps it's because raul duke made a good point, what you have not managed to do

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, obviously, willing alienation, that concept that it's obvious you're referring to because everyone knows what it means and it completely makes sense. What am I even willingly alienated from? Where does this concept of willing alienation come from?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alienation
number 4