Chomsky as Chavez's clown

[Comrade Anarchist]

A very interesting and important article about noam chomsky's recent praise of chavez's dictatorship. I agree with most of it, in that everything chavez and castro represents is against the base of chomsky's beliefs. Hopefully he won't turn on anarchism for totalitarianism just b/c it isnt capitalism.

http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/international/149-chomsky-as-chavezs-clown.html

[Dimentio]

Chàvez is semi-authoritarian, I concur. But he is hardly a dictator - yet. He's not even the most authoritarian ruler in Latin America.

There are progressive elements of what is going on in Venezuela, like the partial empowerment of the working class. But also a lot of worthless policies like the subventionism of imported goods (cars, cellphones, etc).

[ls]

Good to see anarchists speaking out against Chomsky, really.

[Glenn Beck]

The only clowns I see are the imbecilic ultra-leftist who wrote that article, the British 'radicals' who don't stop and wonder why the rhetoric coming out of El Libertario coincides so perfectly with the rhetoric used by their own imperialist news media such as the BBC (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5003) with regards to Venezuela, and finally the naive gentleman who refers to the government of Venezuela as 'totalitarian' and 'a dictatorship' without the slightest hesitation.

[cb9's_unity]

Good to see anarchists speaking out against Chomsky, really.

I barely see anarchists stop criticizing Chomsky. For a guy who is probably the most prominent american dissident he has surprisingly few friends on the left.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The only clowns I see are the imbecilic ultra-leftist who wrote that article, the British 'radicals' who don't stop and wonder why the rhetoric coming out of El Libertario coincides so perfectly with the rhetoric used by their own imperialist news media such as the BBC (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5003) with regards to Venezuela, and finally the naive gentleman who refers to the government of Venezuela as 'totalitarian' and 'a dictatorship' without the slightest hesitation.

El Libertario are agents of imperalism?

Really? Are you that stupid, go on, humour me.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I fail to see Chavez as any kind of dictator. I know he has some authoritarian leanings, but truth of the matter is that he's been fighting for his people for quite a while now & has been fighting for the workers of Venezuela. As an anarchist, I might find myself going against some of his ideas on how to implement a socialist economy, but as a communist, I come to agree with a lot of what Chavez has done, knowing that he can't just become leader & say, "Okay, we're all communists now. So let's get to work!". This idea is detrimental to known facts that communist ideology is far from an overnight's work, but rather a long-term struggle for not only the workers, but of the entire populace. I think Chavez is doing a pretty damn good job, especially at making sure that the imperialists don't overthrow him. 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' showed exactly what's been tried by U.S. supported coups on the possible takeovers in Venezuela. I'm not showing loyalty to Chavez, but rather support in this revolutionary movement that's taking place in, not only Venezuela, but in Bolivia as well, & at one time Honduras, though I'm still hoping a revolution takes place in bringing Zelaya back in power.

[Glenn Beck]

El Libertario are agents of imperalism?

Really? Are you that stupid, go on, humour me.

Homoreactionary, you've proven your astounding ignorance of imperialism time and time again, and here you demonstrate you don't even know how to spell it. I greatly doubt that El Libertario are significant enough to get on any imperialist payroll, but I've read my share of articles by them and their picture of the political situation in Venezuela (as well as Latin America generally) parallels the line of the bourgeois media within Venezuela as well as the international imperialist media to an uncanny degree.

I don't bother attributing to malice what can just as easily be explained by ignorance. And given the abysmal ignorance of El Libertario's ideological compatriots on this forum, it doesn't exactly stretch my imagination to imagine that Venezuelan anarchists can be just as dense as British ones.

[ls]

My annoyance at Chomsky mostly comes from his praise of Turkey, this is just an aside, but basically I think he's a complete and utter bourgeiosie stooge from top to bottom. He definitely isn't an anarchist and that's a fact.


I barely see anarchists stop criticizing Chomsky. For a guy who is probably the most prominent american dissident he has surprisingly few friends on the left.Gosh, what an American dissident in his little office in MIT, OK so he's said some good things before, but overall let's be honest, he definitely isn't an anarchist and he probably isn't in actuality, for revolution.

[Glenn Beck]

My annoyance at Chomsky mostly comes from his praise of Turkey, this is just an aside, but basically I think he's a complete and utter bourgeiosie stooge from top to bottom. He definitely isn't an anarchist and that's a fact.



Gosh, what an American dissident his little office in MIT, OK so he's said some good things before, but overall let's be honest, he definitely isn't an anarchist and he probably isn't in actuality, for revolution.

Maybe, maybe not. I think he's a good writer but his overall politics strike me as ever so slightly left of social-democratic. As for his praise of Turkey, I've only heard this alluded to and never heard it substantiated. Do you have any more information on this? Keep in mind that a lot of stupid shit gets said about Chomsky, for instance his actual writings at the time of the US bombing of Cambodia said something like "it's impossible at this time to verify the accuracy of refugee reports coming out of Cambodia" (a fact), reactionary critics later used this stance, taken out of context, to paint Chomsky as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge and a genocide denier. There have been other cases of the same thing happening with him, so I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth before I go believing that Chomsky is a supporter of the Turkish bourgeoisie.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Homoreactionary

Clever boy ;)


you've proven your astounding ignorance of imperialism time and time again, and here you demonstrate you don't even know how to spell it.

If you want to critique left-commie/anarcho analysis of imperialism, go ahead. But don't pretend your analysis had any more authority.
And umm, typo, idiot.



I greatly doubt that El Libertario are significant enough to get on any imperialist payroll, but I've read my share of articles by them and their picture of the political situation in Venezuela (as well as Latin America generally) parallels the line of the bourgeois media within Venezuela as well as the international imperialist media to an uncanny degree.

Sometimes imperialist media exaggerates, often it lies and sometimes it invents stories to discredit a regime. But sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't have to invent things, the regimes hostility to right of association, freedom of assembly and press, speak do the discrediting by themselves.


I don't bother attributing to malice what can just as easily be explained by ignorance. And given the abysmal ignorance of El Libertario's ideological compatriots on this forum, it doesn't exactly stretch my imagination to imagine that Venezuelan anarchists can be just as dense as British ones.

So we and El Libertario aren't genuinely interested in workers control in Venezuela, furthering the revolution and implementing something other than state-sanctioned socialism, we're just doing the job of the bourgeoisie?

[Nolan]

I love it how some on Revleft are so quick to condemn progressive leaders. Obviously some of Chavez's policies are authoritarianish, but it has to be that way. If they weren't, Venezuela would turn into a capitalist banana republic within the month. The "opposition" is funded by the US goverment and corporate interests. I know, because my family is from Venezuela. Any idiot can smell the American manipulation there. I want a free, classless, and stateless society as much as any Anarchist, but it's just not going to happen while there are corporatist superpowers that sabotage everything. Reactionary sentiments are too easy to take advantage of. My cousin thinks that the American corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in Venezuela because capitalism works so well for the American middle-class (I'm not kidding, many seriously believe that). Useful idiots like him in the opposition that wank to US imperialism will bring down the revolution once the corporate media plays the sensationalist card. That's what they do to Cuba everytime they make up a tear jerking story of someone escaping the baby-eating totalitarian hellhole that they allege Cuba to be. They'll find something to demonize Chavez, mark my words.

I used to just dismiss it, but the idea that Anarchism is really a counterrevolutionary, petit-bourgeois ideology makes more and more sense every time I read something like this. Why do you insist on dividing the revolutionary movement instead of supporting Venezuela and Cuba and working to formulate serious solutions to capitalist exploitation? By joining with capitalist-apologists in bashing current and former Socialist goverments, you only weaken the revolutionary left. Chomsky is doing the right thing. You don't get the movement anywhere by insisting that Cuba and Venezuela are somehow "state-capitalist," because it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny.

Go Chomsky, you finally saw the light. :)

[REDSOX]

How the hell is Hugo chavez a dictator!!!. He has won more elections than anyone else in the world in these past 10 years. Freedom of the press has been maintained and extended. Freedom of expression and religion is guaranteed in the constitution. These dictator comments which some people including sadly a few on the far left go in for, are the most ridiculous accusations that i have ever come across. Anarchists disagree with Chavez quite markedly but most to my knowledge have never called him a dictator or tyrant. One such group who apparently seems to are El libertario an anarchist organisation who are critical of every progressive movement going. I also notice that this group like the self styled maoist sect Bandera roja are always demonstrating against chavez by marching with the opposition on the streets!!. So there we have it a group who are anti chavez because he is a tyrant and is allegedly anti socialist linking up with neo liberal nutters and fruitcakes to try to get rid of him!!!. AND THEY THINK THAT WILL BRINK ABOUT SOCIALISM!!!!! You couldnt make it up

[ls]

Maybe, maybe not. I think he's a good writer but his overall politics strike me as ever so slightly left of social-democratic. As for his praise of Turkey, I've only heard this alluded to and never heard it substantiated. Do you have any more information on this? Keep in mind that a lot of stupid shit gets said about Chomsky, for instance his actual writings at the time of the US bombing of Cambodia said something like "it's impossible at this time to verify the accuracy of refugee reports coming out of Cambodia" (a fact), reactionary critics later used this stance, taken out of context, to paint Chomsky as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge and a genocide denier. There have been other cases of the same thing happening with him, so I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth before I go believing that Chomsky is a supporter of the Turkish bourgeoisie.

I really don't think he is a genocide denier at all, he did say some idiotic things on that though if I remember correctly. On Turkey though, other marxist-leninists on this forum have correctly identified that he is an absolute hypocrite as well, there was one thread in OI for example where me pointing out the popular Turkish newspaper, hurriyet, posting this got an angry response from some of our more idiotic 'anarchists' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hardtalk-tries-rip-t123847/index.html).





Chomsky lauds Turkey’s ’independent’ actions (http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/chomsky-lauds-turkey%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%99independent%e2%80%99-actions/)

November 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm | In Turkmens (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/turkmens/) | Leave a Comment (http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/chomsky-lauds-turkey%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%99independent%e2%80%99-actions/#respond)
Tags: Noam Chomsky (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/noam-chomsky/), Turkey (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/turkey/)
Chomsky lauds Turkey’s ’independent’ actions

ISTANBUL – Daily News with wires
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

American intellectual Noam Chomsky praised Turkey’s progress toward becoming a “significant independent actor” and urged the country to make crucial decisions that will direct the course of its diplomacy, The Palestinian Chronicle reported Tuesday.
During two lectures organized by the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, he also blamed Israel for the conflict that erupted in the Gaza Strip earlier this year, accusing the Israelis of resorting to military force before “exhausting peaceful means.”
Chomsky said that Turkey could become a “significant independent actor,” if it chooses to.
“Turkey has to make some internal decisions: Is it going to face West and try to get accepted by the European Union, or is it going to face reality and recognize that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?” Chomsky said.
The Europeans “keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU,” he explained.
But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.
But “New Europe” was led by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who rejected the views of their populations – which strongly objected to the Iraq war – and preferred to follow former U.S. President George W. Bush, Chomsky said.
In that sense, Turkey was more democratic than countries that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the United States.
Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in U.S.-Israeli military exercises.
Goldstone report
In his speech, Chomsky also appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was biased, only he saw it as biased in favor of Israel.
Named after former South African judge Richard Goldstone, who headed the inquiry committee, the U.N. report accuses Israel and Hamas militants of war crimes during the 22-day conflict that ended in January, killing some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. The report acknowledges Israel’s right to self-defense, although it denounces the method this was conducted.
Chomsky said that the right to self-defense does not mean resorting to military force before “exhausting peaceful means,” something Israel did not even contemplate doing.
On Tuesday, Agence France-Presse reported that Arab delegates to the United Nations were floating a draft resolution that would require UN chief Ban Ki-moon to bring the report on the Gaza war before the Security Council.
The United Nations General Assembly is scheduled to take up the Goldstone report on Wednesday, a day after the U.S. House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution calling on President Barack Obama to reject its findings.
The draft resolution circulated Monday by Arab delegates, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, said the 192-nation assembly calls on Israel and the Palestinians to undertake investigations “that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards” into the alleged war crimes.
It also requests that Ban monitor the implementation of the draft resolution and report back to the General Assembly within three months.
© 2009 Hurriyet Daily News
URL: www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=chomsky-lauds-turkeys-independent-actions-2009-11 (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=chomsky-lauds-turkeys-independent-actions-2009-11)-

[h0m0revolutionary]

So there we have it a group who are anti chavez because he is a tyrant and is anti socialist linking up with neo liberal nutters and fruitcakes to try to get rid of him!!! You couldnt make it up

Did you read past the first sentence?

El Libertario are not allying with any reactionary or bourgeois forces with the aim of ousting Chavez, nor is any other anarchist.

We want rid of Chavez because he is a Bonaparte figure, he is innately a roadblock of furthering gains in Venezuala. The fact he has consolidated power around himself and his party aside, he is a reformist and doesn't act in wayway to the contreary.

I applaud the gains of Venezuala, but Chavez and the Venezualan state are incapable of taking those gains to the conclusion fo socialism. Nationalisation of key industry for example is all well and good, but it's a shame that it's viewed as an end in itself by self-proclaimed revolutionaries.

[Glenn Beck]

Clever boy ;)
I give as well as I get.



Sometimes imperialist media exaggerates, often it lies and sometimes it invents stories to discredit a regime. But sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't have to invent things, the regimes hostility to right of association, freedom of assembly and press, speak do the discrediting by themselves.
While that is a superficially appealing explanation, it is invalidated by the facts. A bit of research on the net should land you a considerable amount of verified occasions where the bourgeois media has significantly distorted events in Venezuela. If interested you could start with the link in my previous post which discusses a study done of the BBC's coverage over the past decade.



So we and El Libertario aren't genuinely interested in workers control in Venezuela, furthering the revolution and implementing something other than state-sanctioned socialism, we're just doing the job of the bourgeoisie?

I can't say whether you or El Libertario are sincere as I am not a mind reader. I'd say YOU at least probably are, though I'm not always sure about El Libertario. Regardless of your sincerity you are proliferating imperialist distortions and strengthening the ideological hegemony of a liberal discourse, which in a small but significant way helps do the job of the bourgeoisie.

[REDSOX]

How is Chavez a bonapartist figure, or do you mean a proletarian bonapartist:) Hugo chavez is a socialist but admitedly not a marxist leninist let alone a guevaraist

[The Vegan Marxist]

I love it how some on Revleft are so quick to condemn progressive leaders. Obviously some of Chavez's policies are authoritarianish, but it has to be that way. If they weren't, Venezuela would turn into a capitalist banana republic within the month. The "opposition" is funded by the US goverment and corporate interests. I know, because my family is from Venezuela. Any idiot can smell the American manipulation there. I want a free, classless, and stateless society as much as any Anarchist, but it's just not going to happen while there are corporatist superpowers that sabotage everything. Reactionary sentiments are too easy to take advantage of. My cousin thinks that the American corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in Venezuela because capitalism works so well for the American middle-class (I'm not kidding, many seriously believe that). Useful idiots like him in the opposition that wank to US imperialism will bring down the revolution once the corporate media plays the sensationalist card. That's what they do to Cuba everytime they make up a tear jerking story of someone escaping the baby-eating totalitarian hellhole that they allege Cuba to be. They'll find something to demonize Chavez, mark my words.

I used to just dismiss it, but the idea that Anarchism is really a counterrevolutionary, petit-bourgeois ideology makes more and more sense every time I read something like this. Why do you insist on dividing the revolutionary movement instead of supporting Venezuela and Cuba and working to formulate serious solutions to capitalist exploitation? By joining with capitalist-apologists in bashing current and former Socialist goverments, you only weaken the revolutionary left. Chomsky is doing the right thing. You don't get the movement anywhere by insisting that Cuba and Venezuela are somehow "state-capitalist," because it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny.

Go Chomsky, you finally saw the light. :)

Thank you. For once, I see another real anarcho-communist that understands that anarchy cannot just form up over night & then all will be well. If there are certain powers within the midst, then the actions that are being taken in Venezuela by Chavez are justifiable. The end goal is a stateless, classless world, but right now the socialist push needs to continue. There will be struggles, but nothing will ever be easy.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Chavez is a dictator. He controls the military and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism. Lenin and Stalin said they were fighting for the working class but instead they were just using them to gain power and came to oppress the working class and chavez is going down the same path. His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace. How can any of you say that this is a bourgeoisie ploy when it is easy to tell that they praise Chomsky and his work and that they are criticizing him for turning on his principals nothing more. He is helping his people in some ways but that makes him no lesser of an evil.

[RadioRaheem84]

So much fighting over Hugo Chavez! The man is no dictator no matter how you slice it. He may have some authoritarian leanings but its no more than any other leader in Latin America, even less so than American darling Alvaro Uribe. The only thing I have against him is some of the man's nutty behavior that makes his whole movement look bad.

And what is with this Chomsky bashing? Chomsky is one the best intellectuals we have on the left and he's constantly hounded by people within the left, especially anarchists! How ironic is that?

Chomsky has said that he doesn't support state power but will support certain movements if it brings about a better environment for the workers. He's been questioned about his stances in the book Understanding Power. He explains his reasoning there. Jeez, I have never seen a man's words be so twisted out of context than Noam Chomsky, by both the right and the left. If you were to actually read his writings some of the comments he makes out in public make sense.

[Nolan]

Chavez is a dictator. He controls the military and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism. Lenin and Stalin said they were fighting for the working class but instead they were just using them to gain power and came to oppress the working class and chavez is going down the same path. His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace. How can any of you say that this is a bourgeoisie ploy when it is easy to tell that they praise Chomsky and his work and that they are criticizing him for turning on his principals nothing more. He is helping his people in some ways but that makes him no lesser of an evil.

Classic reactionary ignorance. Go to Youtube and search "Michael Parenti Venezuela." I suspect it will be most enlightening.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Chavez is a dictator. He controls the military and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism. Lenin and Stalin said they were fighting for the working class but instead they were just using them to gain power and came to oppress the working class and chavez is going down the same path. His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace. How can any of you say that this is a bourgeoisie ploy when it is easy to tell that they praise Chomsky and his work and that they are criticizing him for turning on his principals nothing more. He is helping his people in some ways but that makes him no lesser of an evil.

You do know that fascism is state-controlled capitalism right? Which is far from what Venezuela, or Chavez's principle derive from. And yes, Stalin & Lenin did claim that they were fighting for the workers, but what's happening in Venezuela, which something I did not see happen during Stalin's time was that workers rights were being brought forth. If Chavez becomes eliminated, then you might as well say goodbye to any communist or anarchist dream in Latin America, because the capitalists will then take over, & you'll then soon see a true fascist state take form.

[REDSOX]

I am afraid Comrade anarchist is dead wrong. Far from lowering the standard of living he has raised it massively for the poor. Thats why unemployment and poverty has fallen massively since 1999 as stastistics show. And as for the implicit criticism of chavez nationalisation programme, well what the hell is wrong with nationalisation. Without nationalisation there is no development, without nationalisation there is no socialism. The key of course is to make sure it is nationalisation under working class control and not bureaucratic nationalisation which although better than privatisation is not a long term solution. Comrade anarchist you need to get educated

[RadioRaheem84]

You do know that fascism is state-controlled capitalism right? Which is far from what Venezuela, or Chavez's principle derive from. And yes, Stalin & Lenin did claim that they were fighting for the workers, but what's happening in Venezuela, which something I did not see happen during Stalin's time was that workers rights were being brought forth. If Chavez becomes eliminated, then you might as well say goodbye to any communist or anarchist dream in Latin America, because the capitalists will then take over, & you'll then soon see a true fascist state take form.

Exactly, while Chavez may not be the ideal socialist leader for Venezuela or Latin America, can you guys imagine the alternative? The opposition in Venezuela is scary and extremely reactionary, racist and classicist. Chavez is hated in Venezuela because he brought forth the plea of working class to the forefront of Venezuelan politics. The upper classes hate this MORE so than any accusations of consolidating state power.

[gorillafuck]

Chavez is a dictator. He controls the military and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism.
No, that does not historically lead to fascism.


Lenin and Stalin said they were fighting for the working class but instead they were just using them to gain power and came to oppress the working class and chavez is going down the same path.I'm not a fan of Lenin but I hate these ideas that he was trying to manipulate people to gain control. The Russian Revolution wasn't a conspiracy to gain power.


His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace. Overall standard of living in Venezuela has not dropped, it has increased.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm not a fan of Lenin but I hate these ideas that he was trying to manipulate people to gain control. The Russian Revolution wasn't a conspiracy to gain power.


I would have to agree with this, despite my opposition against Lenin & the Bolshevik party for what they did to the anarchist community. Definitely not some conspiracy to gain power, but rather the power got to him, at least that's how I've perceived it to be. Just another lost comrade in history.

[Wanted Man]

Interesting and important? It doesn't even contain any serious political content. It's just a protracted exercise in name-calling, even if these names happen to be very big words in this case. It's basically just a whiny rant full of assertions and no evidence of Chomsky's position, nor any argument that this position is wrong.

Of course, that's hardly needed when you're preaching to the converted. Such as people who believe this:


Chavez is a dictator. He controls the military and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism. Lenin and Stalin said they were fighting for the working class but instead they were just using them to gain power and came to oppress the working class and chavez is going down the same path. His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace. How can any of you say that this is a bourgeoisie ploy when it is easy to tell that they praise Chomsky and his work and that they are criticizing him for turning on his principals nothing more. He is helping his people in some ways but that makes him no lesser of an evil.

Clowns. :lol:

[robbo203]

I love it how some on Revleft are so quick to condemn progressive leaders. Obviously some of Chavez's policies are authoritarianish, but it has to be that way. If they weren't, Venezuela would turn into a capitalist banana republic within the month. The "opposition" is funded by the US goverment and corporate interests. I know, because my family is from Venezuela. Any idiot can smell the American manipulation there. I want a free, classless, and stateless society as much as any Anarchist, but it's just not going to happen while there are corporatist superpowers that sabotage everything. Reactionary sentiments are too easy to take advantage of. My cousin thinks that the American corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in Venezuela because capitalism works so well for the American middle-class (I'm not kidding, many seriously believe that). Useful idiots like him in the opposition that wank to US imperialism will bring down the revolution once the corporate media plays the sensationalist card. That's what they do to Cuba everytime they make up a tear jerking story of someone escaping the baby-eating totalitarian hellhole that they allege Cuba to be. They'll find something to demonize Chavez, mark my words.

I used to just dismiss it, but the idea that Anarchism is really a counterrevolutionary, petit-bourgeois ideology makes more and more sense every time I read something like this. Why do you insist on dividing the revolutionary movement instead of supporting Venezuela and Cuba and working to formulate serious solutions to capitalist exploitation? By joining with capitalist-apologists in bashing current and former Socialist goverments, you only weaken the revolutionary left. Chomsky is doing the right thing. You don't get the movement anywhere by insisting that Cuba and Venezuela are somehow "state-capitalist," because it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny.

Go Chomsky, you finally saw the light. :)

You dont have to accuse Chavez of being baby-eating tyrant to see that the regime he presides over is a clearly state capitalist. I mean what sort of argument is this? - that by calling Cuba and Venezuela state capitalist "it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny". Bullshit. The exact opposite is true. I dont see the "bourgeois elements" falling over themselves to call these regimes "state capitalist". On the contrary they call them "communist" or "socialist" and the gullible left obligingly as ever confirms and reinforces these bourgeois prejudices.

When will the left ever learn - there is nothing "progressive" about state capitalism and it will never lead to anything else except more of the same. Sometimes I despair when I read such muddleheaded thinking as this

[The Vegan Marxist]

You dont have to accuse Chavez of being baby-eating tyrant to see that the regime he presides over is a clearly state capitalist. I mean what sort of argument is this? - that by calling Cuba and Venezuela state capitalist "it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny". Bullshit. The exact opposite is true. I dont see the "bourgeois elements" falling over themselves to call these regimes "state capitalist". On the contrary they call them "communist" or "socialist" and the gullible left obligingly as ever confirms and reinforces these bourgeois prejudices.

When will the left ever learn - there is nothing "progressive" about state capitalism and it will never lead to anything else except more of the same. Sometimes I despair when I read such muddleheaded thinking as this

These are the same people that called close to half the population of America 'communist' during the 50's. Doesn't mean that they were, nor they weren't. It was an attack against what is the opposite of them, & really a threat to them. Glenn Beck is known to call anyone that oppose his views as a 'commie'. The idea that you're bringing here that there's a conspiracy to make people blindly worship a man by calling him a communist is rather misleading & illogical. I believe you need to think this one over again.

[robbo203]

I am afraid Comrade anarchist is dead wrong. Far from lowering the standard of living he has raised it massively for the poor. Thats why unemployment and poverty has fallen massively since 1999 as stastistics show. And as for the implicit criticism of chavez nationalisation programme, well what the hell is wrong with nationalisation. Without nationalisation there is no development, without nationalisation there is no socialism. The key of course is to make sure it is nationalisation under working class control and not bureaucratic nationalisation which although better than privatisation is not a long term solution. Comrade anarchist you need to get educated


Nationalisation has got sod all to do with socialism. Nationalisation is state capitalism. A point that Engels spelt out in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution

The last point here about state capitalism bringing about the "technical conditions that form the elements of that solution" is a reference to promotion of large scale industry and the "socialisation" of the production process which has pretty much been achieved anyway and long ago at that. There is now no exuse whatsoever for socialists in the 21st century to still prattle on about nationalisation having some progressive role , let alone declare that it has something to do with "socialism"

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nationalisation has got sod all to do with socialism. Nationalisation is state capitalism. A point that Engels spelt out in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution

The last point here about state capitalism bringing about the "technical conditions that form the elements of that solution" is a reference to promotion of large scale industry and the "socialisation" of the production process which has pretty much been achieved anyway and long ago at that. There is now no exuse whatsoever for socialists in the 21st century to still prattle on about nationalisation having some progressive role , let alone declare that it has something to do with "socialism"

And of course, you mislead the view of Engels by making it out to seem like he was against the nationalization of industry. Here, I'll quote Engels using the second article of Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 184:


Far from starting futile quarrels with the democrats, in the present circumstances, the Communists for the time being rather take the field as democrats themselves in all practical party matters. In all civilised countries, democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the proletariat is the first condition for all communist measures. As long as democracy has not been achieved, thus long do Communists and democrats fight side by side, thus long are the interests of the democrats at the same time those of the Communists. Until that time, the differences between the two parties are of a purely theoretical nature and can perfectly well be debated on a theoretical level without common action being thereby in any way prejudiced. Indeed, understandings will be possible concerning many measures which are to be carried out in the interests of the previously oppressed classes immediately after democracy has been achieved, e.g. the running of large-scale industry and the railways by the state, the education of all children at state expense, etc.

[Luisrah]

When will the left ever learn - there is nothing "progressive" about state capitalism and it will never lead to anything else except more of the same. Sometimes I despair when I read such muddleheaded thinking as this

When will some comrades learn, that just because there's a president, that has to oppose a giant empire trying to infiltrate the country at every turn, that has diminished the poverty by making the minimum salary one of the highest of latin america, that made the day work of 6 hours instead of 8, that turned the percentage of 20.1% extreme poors into 9.5%, and reduced poverty to one third of it's former size, it means that the country is state capitalist?

He doubled the money that goes into education, and because of that 99.6% of the adult population knows how to read and write. There is a free health system for any Venezuelan. Child mortality went from 21.4 per thousand to 13.7 per thousand.

Agrarian reform, nationalisations. Putting the oil in service of the people.

Really, I still can't see the progressiveness of this state capitalist dictatorship. Perhaps ''true socialism'' is much, much better, but I don't remember the last time it was ever on Earth.

Maybe ''true socialism'' has happened somewhere, but that would be a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away :)

[robbo203]

These are the same people that called close to half the population of America 'communist' during the 50's. Doesn't mean that they were, nor they weren't. It was an attack against what is the opposite of them, & really a threat to them. Glenn Beck is known to call anyone that oppose his views as a 'commie'. The idea that you're bringing here that there's a conspiracy to make people blindly worship a man by calling him a communist is rather misleading & illogical. I believe you need to think this one over again.

Did I say anything about a conspiracy? No. My point is simply this. It is ridiculous to suggest that you are somehow aiding the "bourgeois elements" (whatever that might mean) by rejecting their assessement of the Chavez and Castro regimes as "socialist" or "communist" and by declaring them to be, instead, state capitalist. In fact if anyone is aiding the "bourgeois elements" it is those naive leftists who imagine there is something socialistic or communistic about these regimes in the first place. Say it often enough and loudly enough - preferably with a huge amplifier from a raised platform bedecked in red flags and party slogans visible to the world's press - and sooner or later some mug out there is going to be carried away with the exitement and believe it all.


Besides, I am not particularly interested in what the "bourgeois elements" have to say on the matter. I analyse the situation as I see it from a marxian perspective, employing marxian categories of political economy to reach a conclusion that what exists in these regimes is state capitalism, not socialism. And if the "bourgeois elements" or their fellow travellers on the Left dont like that well then, tough.

[Zanthorus]

Nationalisation has got sod all to do with socialism. Nationalisation is state capitalism. A point that Engels spelt out in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution

The last point here about state capitalism bringing about the "technical conditions that form the elements of that solution" is a reference to promotion of large scale industry and the "socialisation" of the production process which has pretty much been achieved anyway and long ago at that. There is now no exuse whatsoever for socialists in the 21st century to still prattle on about nationalisation having some progressive role , let alone declare that it has something to do with "socialism"

To play devils advocate for a minute here - Notice that Engels starts off by saying the "modern" state. If I recall correctly the Marxist position is that a state is an instrument of class struggle. Engels could simply be making a point about nationalisation not being a solution here because the class character of the current state is bourgeois. Talk about it concealing the technical conditions of that solution could be talking about the workers state taking over the reigns.

Off topic but slightly relevant aside here - I've never actually seen a quote from either Marx or Engels explicitly advocating worker control (Apart from Engels on the Paris Commune being the dictatorship of the proletariat which is only useful after explaining what the Paris Commune was) if you could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. It would help debating conservatives how go on about socialism being totalitarian state control of everything. :)

[robbo203]

And of course, you mislead the view of Engels by making it out to seem like he was against the nationalization of industry. Here, I'll quote Engels using the second article of Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 184:

Not at all. What I said was that Engels clearly said that nationalisation was not socialism but capitalism. I did not say Engels said he was opposed to nationalisation. He advocated it precisely for the reason I spelt out - that it (allegedly) smoothed the way for socialism. Even if that was true then it is certainly not true now and at least Engels had the good sense not to confuse state capitalism with socalism unlike so many of our modern day leftists

[The Vegan Marxist]

Did I say anything about a conspiracy? No. My point is simply this. It is ridiculous to suggest that you are somehow aiding the "bourgeois elements" (whatever that might mean) by rejecting their assessement of the Chavez and Castro regimes as "socialist" or "communist" and by declaring them to be, instead, state capitalist. In fact if anyone is aiding the "bourgeois elements" it is those naive leftists who imagine there is something socialistic or communistic about these regimes in the first place. Say it often enough and loudly enough - preferably with a huge amplifier from a raised platform bedecked in red flags and party slogans visible to the world's press - and sooner or later some mug out there is going to be carried away with the exitement and believe it all.


Besides, I am not particularly interested in what the "bourgeois elements" have to say on the matter. I analyse the situation as I see it from a marxian perspective, employing marxian categories of political economy to reach a conclusion that what exists in these regimes is state capitalism, not socialism. And if the "bourgeois elements" or their fellow travellers on the Left dont like that well then, tough.

Yet, you've given no critique on why either Chavez or Castro are of the "bourgeois elements", as you like to put it. You brought forth a misleading statement made by Engels, & that's about it. We're all showing reasoning on why Chavez is doing the logical thing in the goals in mind for the implementation of a socialist economy, that within the past was struggling far worse by the capitalist exploiters that once ruled the land.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not at all. What I said was that Engels clearly said that nationalisation was not socialism but capitalism. I did not say Engels said he was opposed to nationalisation. He advocated it precisely for the reason I spelt out - that it (allegedly) smoothed the way for socialism. Even if that was true then it is certainly not true now and at least Engels had the good sense not to confuse state capitalism with socalism unlike so many of our modern day leftists

and exactly why would it not work now?

[robbo203]

To play devils advocate for a minute here - Notice that Engels starts off by saying the "modern" state. If I recall correctly the Marxist position is that a state is an instrument of class struggle. Engels could simply be making a point about nationalisation not being a solution here because the class character of the current state is bourgeois. Talk about it concealing the technical conditions of that solution could be talking about the workers state taking over the reigns.

Off topic but slightly relevant aside here - I've never actually seen a quote from either Marx or Engels explicitly advocating worker control (Apart from Engels on the Paris Commune being the dictatorship of the proletariat which is only useful after explaining what the Paris Commune was) if you could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. It would help debating conservatives how go on about socialism being totalitarian state control of everything. :)

I think these two quotes from Engels might put the matter in perspective ;)

All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear.

1875 Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm)


The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage.

We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.
Frederick Engels ; Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

[robbo203]

Yet, you've given no critique on why either Chavez or Castro are of the "bourgeois elements", as you like to put it. You brought forth a misleading statement made by Engels, & that's about it. We're all showing reasoning on why Chavez is doing the logical thing in the goals in mind for the implementation of a socialist economy, that within the past was struggling far worse by the capitalist exploiters that once ruled the land.

I didnt introduce the expression "bourgeois elements" - it was Comandante135 who did when s/he said "because it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny"

The statement from Engels was hardly misleading and I have already corrected your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.

Chavez is not trying to implement a "socialist economy" and if you seriously think this then you dont know the first thing about a socialist economy which like the quote from Engels suggests, has nothing to do with nationalisation.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think these two quotes from Engels might put the matter in perspective ;)

All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear.

1875 Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau

The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage.

We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.
Frederick Engels ; Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State


This concept is of every communist, for the end goal is a stateless, classless society/world. That's no secret whatsoever. And Zanthorus, it was Marx that made the statement you are asking about. It was never clearly stated on how the dictatorship of the proletariat would take form, but it was then shown an idea of how it could work to where Marx pointed out that the Paris Commune is the best example that shows similar elements of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Zanthorus]

And Zanthorus, it was Marx that made the statement you are asking about.

No, It was Engels in the 91' Postscript to CWF -

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

[The Vegan Marxist]

I didnt introduce the expression "bourgeois elements" - it was Comandante135 who did when s/he said "because it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny"

The statement from Engels was hardly misleading and I have already corrected your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.

Chavez is not trying to implement a "socialist economy" and if you seriously think this then you dont know the first thing about a socialist economy which like the quote from Engels suggests, has nothing to do with nationalisation.

Engels has clearly stated that the nationalization of industry is an element of which progresses the long-term goal of a socialist economy & true democracy. Which is exactly what Chavez is doing. If you're going to blame him for leading his policies based on Marx/Engels interpretations then by all means do so, but it's the most logical thing to do right now, & I'm on Chavez's side with how Latin America is leading the post-21st century socialist movement.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, It was Engels in the 91' Postscript to CWF -

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Engels clarified it as well, but it was Marx that indicated the Paris Commune as a very model of it's transition:

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

[robbo203]

Engels has clearly stated that the nationalization of industry is an element of which progresses the long-term goal of a socialist economy & true democracy. Which is exactly what Chavez is doing. If you're going to blame him for leading his policies based on Marx/Engels interpretations then by all means do so, but it's the most logical thing to do right now, & I'm on Chavez's side with how Latin America is leading the post-21st century socialist movement.


Engels is saying what I said he was saying - that nationalisation would smooth the way for socialism. He was not saying that nationalisastion was socialism. On the contrary, he was saying that the more the state takes over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist. Nationalisation may or may not have been progressive 150 years ago. Today it is utterly absurd to promote it as somehow "progressive". Its only purpose is to reinforce and bolster capitalism. Even the American state is prepared to embrace limited state capitalism at ties of crisis


You claimed that Chavez is implementing a socialist economy. This is total nonsense. If you said Chavez was implementing state capitalism in order to smooth the way for socialism this might have been slightly more understandable though still incorrect. But thats not what you said. Instead what you seem to be promoting here is the fallacious idea that state capitalism or nationalisation is in some sense socialist. Which goes to show that you dont really understand what is meant by socialism in that case.

[FreeFocus]

I really don't think he is a genocide denier at all, he did say some idiotic things on that though if I remember correctly. On Turkey though, other marxist-leninists on this forum have correctly identified that he is an absolute hypocrite as well, there was one thread in OI for example where me pointing out the popular Turkish newspaper, hurriyet, posting this got an angry response from some of our more idiotic 'anarchists' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hardtalk-tries-rip-t123847/index.html).

Well, I mean what the hell. The article you posted didn't show that Chomsky was "endorsing" Turkey, he was giving a correct geopolitical analysis. Yes, actually, Turkey did display some independence by not fully backing the war against Iraq. Keep in mind that Turkey is a client state. An action like this can do significant harm to the bilateral relationship between Turkey and the US - the US could cut aid to Turkey, for example, and Turkey wouldn't be able to keep killing Kurds. Turkey could become a real significant actor if it pursued an independent path. Geopolitically, it would pose real problems for Israel in particular, which would be threatened by both Iran and Turkey for regional dominance.

Chomsky isn't perfect, but even I like some things Venezuela is doing right now. Chavez is hardly a dictator. There's more democracy in Venezuela than there is in the US.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Engels is saying what I said he was saying - that nationalisation would smooth the way for socialism. He was not saying that nationalisastion was socialism. On the contrary, he was saying that the more the state takes over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist. Nationalisation may or may not have been progressive 150 years ago. Today it is utterly absurd to promote it as somehow "progressive". Its only purpose is to reinforce and bolster capitalism. Even the American state is prepared to embrace limited state capitalism at ties of crisis


You claimed that Chavez is implementing a socialist economy. This is total nonsense. If you said Chavez was implementing state capitalism in order to smooth the way for socialism this might have been slightly more understandable though still incorrect. But thats not what you said. Instead what you seem to be promoting here is the fallacious idea that state capitalism or nationalisation is in some sense socialist. Which goes to show that you dont really understand what is meant by socialism in that case.

And I never said that nationalization is socialism, but rather an element that brings forth socialism. And yes, Chavez is implementing a Socialist economy, doesn't mean that's what it is right now, but rather doing what he can so that such an economy can actually take form. State-controlled capitalism is fascism, which is absolutely not what is taking shape here.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is all this talk about Chavez being authoritarian but what exactly has he done that so authoritarian? I assumed the nationalization of certain sectors was for the benefit of the Venezuelan people? While this is not socialism, does it not still help the workers? Besides, Chavez is taking his economic advice from economists who proclaim they're "reinventing socialism" for the 21st century.

[FreeFocus]

There is all this talk about Chavez being authoritarian but what exactly has he done that so authoritarian? I assumed the nationalization of certain sectors was for the benefit of the Venezuelan people? While this is not socialism, does it not still help the workers? Besides, Chavez is taking his economic advice from economists who proclaim they're "reinventing socialism" for the 21st century.

There have been some free speech issues in Venezuela, and Chavez has also gone against workers in certain sectors in the past.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There have been some free speech issues in Venezuela, and Chavez has also gone against workers in certain sectors in the past.

can you back this up, please?

[RadioRaheem84]

There have been some free speech issues in Venezuela, and Chavez has also gone against workers in certain sectors in the past.

Ah. Yeah that's a problem. But overall, is his movement worth giving moral support?

Any move toward worker owned enterprises in Venezuela?

[robbo203]

And I never said that nationalization is socialism, but rather an element that brings forth socialism. And yes, Chavez is implementing a Socialist economy, doesn't mean that's what it is right now, but rather doing what he can so that such an economy can actually take form. State-controlled capitalism is fascism, which is absolutely not what is taking shape here.

Fascism is state controlled capitalism but state controlled capitalism is not necessarily fascism

You say Chavez is implementing a socialist economy but you seem to agree that nationalisation is not socialism. Which begs the question - what is Chavez implementing if it is not nationalisation? Bismarck as Engels remarked, implemented nationalisation but did that make Bismarck a socialist. Of course not. No more than it makes Chavez a socialist.

Give me one shred of evidence that the Venezuelan state capitalist regime is seriously interested in establishing a classless stateless commonwealth without wage labour or commodity production and I will eat my hat. Seriously.

[Communist]

One big problem with Chavez is his inability to censor himself. Every so often he comes out and says stupid, incoherent drivel that makes him look like a total fool. But he is a progressive leader and we on the Left should acknowledge this. I see no benefit in echoing the cries of the imperialist media by calling him a dictator etc.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Fascism is state controlled capitalism but state controlled capitalism is not necessarily fascism

You say Chavez is implementing a socialist economy but you seem to agree that nationalisation is not socialism. Which begs the question - what is Chavez implementing if it is not nationalisation? Bismarck as Engels remarked, implemented nationalisation but did that make Bismarck a socialist. Of course not. No more than it makes Chavez a socialist.

Give me one shred of evidence that the Venezuelan state capitalist regime is seriously interested in establishing a classless stateless commonwealth without wage labour or commodity production and I will eat my hat. Seriously.

The ideal of bringing forth the end goal wouldn't be present as of yet. If it was then he's going too fast for his own good & will eventually fall due to impatiance. And I don't think I've ever heard of a state-capitalist regime calling forth a Fifth International.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fascism is state controlled capitalism but state controlled capitalism is not necessarily fascism

You say Chavez is implementing a socialist economy but you seem to agree that nationalisation is not socialism. Which begs the question - what is Chavez implementing if it is not nationalisation? Bismarck as Engels remarked, implemented nationalisation but did that make Bismarck a socialist. Of course not. No more than it makes Chavez a socialist.

Give me one shred of evidence that the Venezuelan state capitalist regime is seriously interested in establishing a classless stateless commonwealth without wage labour or commodity production and I will eat my hat. Seriously.

Chavez is not what I would call a socialist leader in the sense that we advocate. He is more of a progressive. His team is into radically different socialist ideals i.e. socialism for the 21st century. Chavez implements nationalization for the sake of the profits going to the working class. He has done nothing to really change the social relations in the workplace but he has surely brought the working class into the forefront of Venezuelan society.

[robbo203]

The ideal of bringing forth the end goal wouldn't be present as of yet. If it was then he's going too fast for his own good & will eventually fall due to impatiance. And I don't think I've ever heard of a state-capitalist regime calling forth a Fifth International.

Yes but even if the "end goal" isnt present yet what I want to know from you is what evidence do you have that the venezuelan regime is even remotely interested in the end goal. Or do you think that just becuase it calls itself "socialist" that is evidence enough?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes but even if the "end goal" isnt present yet what I want to know from you is what evidence do you have that the venezuelan regime is even remotely interested in the end goal. Or do you think that just becuase it calls itself "socialist" that is evidence enough?

he has brought more power to the working class, & has given them more of a voice than ever in Latin America. This is far from what any capitalist leader would do, & is a sign, small but a sign at the least, that shows he is pushing for socialist leanings.

[Ismail]

Chávez is undeniably progressive.


He controls the militaryIndeed. This is quite a difference between him and other regimes of the past who were controlled by the military. All progressive states must have the military under control, yes. The military is generally the reservoir of reaction.


and is attempting to nationalize everything which thanks to history we can see leads to fascism.Not really, no. In both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy the bourgeoisie pretty much retained their industries, etc. The "nationalization" in these cases were really just attempts to merge the interests of the bourgeoisie and the state together. I don't really see any corporatism going on in Venezuela to any significant extent to call it Fascism.


His policies are lowering the standard of living in Venezuela while he lives in a presidential palace.As opposed to former regimes which murdered leftists and sabotaged workers organizations.


He is helping his people in some ways but that makes him no lesser of an evil.Until a viable Communist movement emerges in Venezuela, and so long as Chávez remains good in the eyes of the workers until then, I'd say it'd be expedient to support him against those who would no doubt be far more reactionary.

[Glenn Beck]

Fascism is state controlled capitalism but state controlled capitalism is not necessarily fascism

You say Chavez is implementing a socialist economy but you seem to agree that nationalisation is not socialism. Which begs the question - what is Chavez implementing if it is not nationalisation? Bismarck as Engels remarked, implemented nationalisation but did that make Bismarck a socialist. Of course not. No more than it makes Chavez a socialist.

If you can differentiate between fascist state-capitalism and non-fascist state-capitalism then why is it that you seem unable to differentiate between nationalization for reactionary purposes and nationalization for progressive purposes? The fact that nationalization can be reactionary, bourgeois, etc. does not prove that this necessarily is the case in any particular instance. Elementary logic, really.


Give me one shred of evidence that the Venezuelan state capitalist regime is seriously interested in establishing a classless stateless commonwealth without wage labour or commodity production and I will eat my hat. Seriously.

How would they go about doing that? I thought only the workers can institute socialism :rolleyes:. Which incidentally is Chavez's official line on Venezuela: a capitalist state with a progressive regime in government taking transitional measures until the working class is able to seize power.

Also, do you seriously believe that a moneyless gift economy or whatever you want to call it is realistically feasible in Venezuela right now without transitional measures? Call me state-capitalist all you want, I do not shy away from the term. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination but I don't see a realistic prospect for socialism outside of transitional period that consists economically of production of commodities supervised by a state that is democratically accountable to the working class. What is your practical alternative that can be implemented at once and allows us to enjoy the fruits of a moneyless economy right here and now? Both I and I'm sure all the many socialists in Venezuela would love to hear it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Off topic but slightly relevant aside here - I've never actually seen a quote from either Marx or Engels explicitly advocating worker control (Apart from Engels on the Paris Commune being the dictatorship of the proletariat which is only useful after explaining what the Paris Commune was) if you could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. It would help debating conservatives how go on about socialism being totalitarian state control of everything. :)
"Possession of the Means of Work —
Raw Material, Factories, Machinery —
By the Working People Themselves."
-Engels, 1881 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/07.htm).

You don't get much more clear than that.

Marx did it quite often, but I ran by this example while looking through other things, so:

"Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism! Why, those members of the ruling classes who are intelligent enough to perceive the impossibility of continuing the present system – and they are many – have become the obtrusive and full-mouthed apostles of co-operative production. If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?"


The last point here about state capitalism bringing about the "technical conditions that form the elements of that solution" is a reference to promotion of large scale industry and the "socialisation" of the production process which has pretty much been achieved anyway and long ago at that.It's a reference to Marx's observation on the development of capitalism leading to the "abolition of capital as private property within the limits of the capitalist mode of production itself" (note that I quoted this from Chattopadhyay's book on the USSR, so the version on marxists.org may not be the exact same in translation), where capital takes a directly social form in, for example, joint stock companies and state ownership. Which isn't necessarily different from what you said, I just felt it worth clarifying.

"The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other."

[Nolan]

You dont have to accuse Chavez of being baby-eating tyrant to see that the regime he presides over is a clearly state capitalist. I mean what sort of argument is this? - that by calling Cuba and Venezuela state capitalist "it makes it easier for bourgeois elements to claim that any attempt to empower the working class will result in tyranny". Bullshit. The exact opposite is true. I dont see the "bourgeois elements" falling over themselves to call these regimes "state capitalist". On the contrary they call them "communist" or "socialist" and the gullible left obligingly as ever confirms and reinforces these bourgeois prejudices.

When will the left ever learn - there is nothing "progressive" about state capitalism and it will never lead to anything else except more of the same. Sometimes I despair when I read such muddleheaded thinking as this

:rolleyes:


Here's my point (pay attention, please):

Condemning progressive states as "state-capitalist" opens us up even more to the good ol' "Animal Farm" argument. Examine the context and situations of every Socialist state in history, and you'll see the Anarchist fantasy of instant Communism was impossible. Their choices were 1:be authoritarian or 2: be destroyed. As long as the bourgeoisie are running free, We'll have to settle for "state capitalism." I honestly don't see why that's so hard for revisionists to understand. Wake up and realize that you've swallowed the bourgeois propaganda-hook, line, and sinker. And for the sake of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop shooting your comrades in the foot.

[ZeroNowhere]

I honestly don't see why that's so hard for revisionists to understand. Wake up and realize that you've swallowed the bourgeois propaganda-hook, line, and sinker.Indeed, just yesterday I was watching CNN and they were pointing out that the Soviet Union was state capitalist and not socialist or communist, while interviewing Paresh Chattopadhyay. And the New York Times had a front page article on the existence of generalized commodity production in Venezuela!

[Ismail]

Condemning progressive states as "state-capitalist" opens us up even more to the good ol' "Animal Farm" argument.Not really, no. Condemning them as "OMG TOTALITARIAN NIGHTMARES MUCH LIKE GEORGE ORWELL SAID" is.

Unless Mao Zedong and Enver Hoxha advanced "Animal Farm arguments" for characterizing the post-50's USSR as state-capitalist.

[robbo203]

If you can differentiate between fascist state-capitalism and non-fascist state-capitalism then why is it that you seem unable to differentiate between nationalization for reactionary purposes and nationalization for progressive purposes? The fact that nationalization can be reactionary, bourgeois, etc. does not prove that this necessarily is the case in any particular instance. Elementary logic, really.
.

Well lets apply your "elementary logic" shall we? What do fascist state capitalism and non fascist state capitalism have in common? Ah yes, state capitalism. What does state capitalism have in common with any other form of capitalism. Er..the fact that it is a form of capitalism? Correct. Now can capitalism be run in the interests of workers? Are the interests of wage labour compatible with those of capital? Nope. The Engels quote I provided, which suggested that the more the state takes over mean of production the more workers does it exploit, hits the nail on the head. So what is all this crap about nationalisation being "progressive" about then? The very most you can say is that nationalisation is less reactionary than other forms of capitalism, and I personally doubt that, in much the same way as you might choose to seek employment with company X rather than company Y because the terms and conditions of employment are slightly less restricting.


How would they go about doing that? I thought only the workers can institute socialism :rolleyes:. Which incidentally is Chavez's official line on Venezuela: a capitalist state with a progressive regime in government taking transitional measures until the working class is able to seize power.

.

Yes exactly only the workers can establish socialism! Not some friggin left wing capitalist governent. So why the hell are people like you forevever pinning your hopes on the latter and acting as cheerleaders on its behalf?. And as for saying that Chavez official line is to run a capitalist state taking "transitional measures until the working class is able to seize power" well you've got to be incredibly naive if you fall for that one. CPSU in the Soviet Union was saying exactly the same for donkeys years. It was even written into the constitution that they were working towards a classless communist society. Meanwhile the Soviet ruling class - the nomenklatura - were cynically using their position for their own gain, forging links with the Soviet mafia and so on. It was the red bourgeoisie who spearheaded a "revolution from above" to ditch state capitalism for corporate capitalism. And yet gullible people like you think that what we need to do is trust in the vanguard , in a government like Chavez's, to deliver socialism for us, to emancipate the workers when the only people who can do that are the workers themselves. You have just fallen for the salesman's patter, Im afraid.



Also, do you seriously believe that a moneyless gift economy or whatever you want to call it is realistically feasible in Venezuela right now without transitional measures? Call me state-capitalist all you want, I do not shy away from the term. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination but I don't see a realistic prospect for socialism outside of transitional period that consists economically of production of commodities supervised by a state that is democratically accountable to the working class. What is your practical alternative that can be implemented at once and allows us to enjoy the fruits of a moneyless economy right here and now? Both I and I'm sure all the many socialists in Venezuela would love to hear it.

But you miss the whole point - that these so called transitional measures are not transitional measures at all. They do not - cannot- lead to socialism in any sense of the word. They are simply a way of managing capitalism and once you get involved with managing capitalism, you are lumbered with it.

Look, go back in history. Consider the case of the Second International and the parties that comprised it. The German SDP the largest of them has a minimim and maximum goal. a reform programme and a revolutionary programme. So did other social democratic parties. What happened? In ever single case the maximum programme disappeared from sight like the cheshire cats grin. Its the same with the so called communist parties throughout the world. They can put the goal of a communist society in their constitution for all they like, they can emboss iot in goldleaf on national monuments through the land, but it means absolutely nothing. Its just a form of words to convey the impression that they are on some progressive mission, realising their historic destiny and all that jazz. But it is all a load of bollocks and the historical record proves it. If you decide to take on the administration of capitalism - no matter what you intentions - that is where you will remain however much you pretend to be implementing "transitional measures" as a so called exit strategy out of capitalism. The dynamics of capitalism will ensnare you utterly.

Is socialism possible in venezuela now? No, obviously not. You cant have socialism in one country anyway and the mass of the population have little or no idea of what genuine socialism is or the desire to implement. But that doesnot mean socialists can do nothing just because we are a tiny minority. does it? We just have to be realistic about the situation as it exists and not pretend it doesnt exist. There is no short cut to socialism and pretending there is actually helping to prolong capitalism

You are asking me to choose between waving a magic wand and supporting a capitalist regime. Frankly I decline to chose either. The sooner workers wake up to magnitude of the task that needs to be accomplished, the sooner we will have genuine socialism

[The Vegan Marxist]

And as soon, whether the capitalists take Chavez out themselves or the workers take him out, the capitalists will initially take over & all will be lost. Unless the people of Venezuela rise up like the Cuban revolution & overthrow any elitist power that's in their way through guerrilla warfare.

[Glenn Beck]

Is socialism possible in venezuela now? No, obviously not. You cant have socialism in one country anyway and the mass of the population have little or no idea of what genuine socialism is or the desire to implement. But that doesnot mean socialists can do nothing just because we are a tiny minority. does it? We just have to be realistic about the situation as it exists and not pretend it doesnt exist. There is no short cut to socialism and pretending there is actually helping to prolong capitalism

You are asking me to choose between waving a magic wand and supporting a capitalist regime. Frankly I decline to chose either. The sooner workers wake up to magnitude of the task that needs to be accomplished, the sooner we will have genuine socialism

So, no concrete answer then? I mean you seem to have been implying that socialists (I originally wrote 'we' but I figure you would take offense to that) can do something despite being a tiny minority, but you don't answer my original question, which is: what? If socialism is impossible in one country, specifically impossible in Venezuela right now, then what are socialists in Venezuela (and other countries) to do in order to get us closer to socialism?

Also you seem to be implying that progressive regimes you consider to be state-capitalist prolong capitalism. Naturally if they do this they do so by easing the contradictions of capitalism perhaps by decreasing the rate of exploitation of the working classes. If this is the case, then do you oppose all measures to increase the living conditions of the working class on the basis that this is a diversion that lengthens the capitalist system? Does a greater rate of exploitation increase class consciousness?

You seem to be arguing that socialism is only possible once a significant majority of all workers, not in one country, but the entire world reach what you consider socialist consciousness, which you define very narrowly as a desire to immediately implement a moneyless, stateless gift economy. This is a tall order and we've had Marxist theory for like..150 years now, so we better get going on that. Let me ask one more time: say I'm a socialist, defined however you'd like, in Venezuela: what do I do?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This sort of crass sectarianism makes me think that no Socialist entity will ever be embraced, in a united way, by the left. Thus, Socialism will be doomed to failure.

Of all the criticisms that could be levelled at Chavez, being a 'dictator' is simply not a legitimate one. By nobody's definition is he a dictator. He is not a bourgoies class dictator, he is not a dictator even from a 'liberal democratic' viewpoint, in that he holds multi-party elections. As a military man, of course he is going to have some authoritarian instincts. This authoritarian style of his though - and I challenge anybody to refute this - has not resulted in mass murder of political enemies, the petty bourgeoisie, purging of party members or even the mass executions of Capitalists as happened in the USSR under Stalin, for example. In any case, opposing the likes of Chavez goes against logic. His revolutionary movement is still in it's beginnings, it has a long road to follow. Whether it succeeds or not, we cannot know yet. However, what is certain is that opposing a Socialist movement in its spring, for some misconceived perception of a weakness, or for petty partisan reasons, is sure to condemn this and any other Socialist movement.

We all have our own view of what Socialism should be. However, we should not shoot down what is clearly a genuinely leftist movement simply because it is not made 'in our image'. We, and our own ideological underpinnings, should not be treated as god-like dogma. That is where some on the left - in this particular case I would identify the anarchist tendency and it's analysis of Chavez - fall down, and it affects all Socialists.

[Glenn Beck]

This sort of crass sectarianism makes me think that no Socialist entity will ever be embraced, in a united way, by the left. Thus, Socialism will be doomed to failure.

Sectarianism is doomed to failure, fortunately socialism doesn't rely on sectarians, they are rather more of a historical curiosity and footnote than anything else.

[robbo203]

So, no concrete answer then? I mean you seem to have been implying that socialists (I originally wrote 'we' but I figure you would take offense to that) can do something despite being a tiny minority, but you don't answer my original question, which is: what? If socialism is impossible in one country, specifically impossible in Venezuela right now, then what are socialists in Venezuela (and other countries) to do in order to get us closer to socialism

Yes of course we "can" do something as socialists, despite being a tiny minority. Politically we can do what we can to propagate socialist ideas and the case for a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism. As workers , there is much we can do to foster militant class consciousness. We can also engage in and lend support to activities that seek to transcend the commodity relationship - from intentional communities to mutual aid projects - to build confidence in the idea of a communist gift economy. But youve got to be realistic here. Socialism at the moment is not on the cards, not in Venezuela, not anywhere at present because you cannot have the genuine thing without the mass socialist consciousness that alone will bring it about. And that simply does not exist yet - anywhere. Pinning your hopes on governments however left wing and apparently socialist minded, to usher in socialism through the backdoor via so called transitional measures while they are busily trying to grapple with capitalism is an utterly hopeless delusion. However sincere and well meaning your endeavours, you will be sucked in by the system. it will grind you down. Instead of modifying the system the system will modify you. That has been the fate of every single left wing reformist goverment. Given time, if they have not been booted out of office by a disgruntled electorate, they tend to move to the right and adopt chamelionlike the rhetoric and the outlook of their more overtly pro-capitalist opponents.



Also you seem to be implying that progressive regimes you consider to be state-capitalist prolong capitalism. Naturally if they do this they do so by easing the contradictions of capitalism perhaps by decreasing the rate of exploitation of the working classes. If this is the case, then do you oppose all measures to increase the living conditions of the working class on the basis that this is a diversion that lengthens the capitalist system? Does a greater rate of exploitation increase class consciousness? That is far too crude and mechanistic a way of looking at things


Sorry but so called "progressive" regimes do prolong capitalism and one of the ways in which they do it is to pretend that the system that they are attempting to administer is no longer capitalism simply by virtue of the fact that it is administered by a government that claims it want to introduce "socialism". You suggest that such regimes might ease the "contradictions of capitalism perhaps by decreasing the rate of exploitation of the working classes". You overlook the central dynamic of capitalism - the competitive accumulatiuon of capital out of surplus value. This is what drives businesses - state and private - to seek to intensify the exploitation of workers. Not to do so handicaps them in the market and may eventually over time push them out of the market altogether into bankruptcy. The industrialisation of the Soviet Union - would you have called it a "progressive" regime at the time? - through rapid capital accumulation was actually accompanied by very significant increases in the rate of exploitation, without which it is doubtful whether the SU would have achieved such rapid industrialisation. In part this industrialisation programme was assisted by foreigh investment lured by extremely high rates of profit. So you can see you are kind of caught in a cleft stick if you think that a leftist government would decrease the rate of exploitation. It might but would the workers necessarily be better off as a result

Of course I dont oppose reforms that might inadvertently benefit the workers. The point is that I do not advocate reforms or trying to reform capitalism. What I oppose is reformism not reforms. There is a big difference you now. Nor do I believe that increasing the rate of exploitation increases class consciousness - that is a far too crude and mechanistic way of looking at things



You seem to be arguing that socialism is only possible once a significant majority of all workers, not in one country, but the entire world reach what you consider socialist consciousness, which you define very narrowly as a desire to immediately implement a moneyless, stateless gift economy. This is a tall order and we've had Marxist theory for like..150 years now, so we better get going on that. Let me ask one more time: say I'm a socialist, defined however you'd like, in Venezuela: what do I do?

Yes I know its a tall order but that is the only way you are ever going to get socialism - if a majority of workers want and understand it. How else are you ever going to get it. Sooner or later we are going to have grab this particular bull by the horns and accept this fact. Its quite true that we have had 150 years of Marxist theory insisting that this is the case but equally we have had 150 years of attempts to humanise and reform capitalism in an utterly futile bid to somehow bring us closer to the goal of socialism. Back in the 19th century the Fabians used to call it stepping stones to socialism. Well it hasnt worked. As I said in a previous post all of the Social Democratic parties of yesteryear without exception. have effectively abandoned even the pretence of paying lip service to the maximum programme of the revolutiuonary transformation of society. Why was this? You need to ask yourself this question again and again.

There are no shortcuts to socialism, no transitional programmes that would seamlessly lead us into a socialist society. Even if only a small fraction of the huge amount of well meant and sincere political activity carried out by leftists over the years had been directed instead towards promoting a genuine socialist alternative rather than wasted on reformism and trying to get the capitalist leopard to change its spots, I would suggest we would be quite a bit closer to a genuine society than we are now

So a good part of the answer to your question "what do i do" is that you should stop giving your support to capitalist regimes including so called "progressive" capitalist regimes because all the baggage that goes with that support amounts to one huge and formidable impediment to the goal of building up a class conscious and socialist-minded global working class.

[redflag32]

I fail to see Chavez as any kind of dictator. I know he has some authoritarian leanings, but truth of the matter is that he's been fighting for his people for quite a while now & has been fighting for the workers of Venezuela. As an anarchist, I might find myself going against some of his ideas on how to implement a socialist economy, but as a communist, I come to agree with a lot of what Chavez has done, knowing that he can't just become leader & say, "Okay, we're all communists now. So let's get to work!". This idea is detrimental to known facts that communist ideology is far from an overnight's work, but rather a long-term struggle for not only the workers, but of the entire populace. I think Chavez is doing a pretty damn good job, especially at making sure that the imperialists don't overthrow him. 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' showed exactly what's been tried by U.S. supported coups on the possible takeovers in Venezuela. I'm not showing loyalty to Chavez, but rather support in this revolutionary movement that's taking place in, not only Venezuela, but in Bolivia as well, & at one time Honduras, though I'm still hoping a revolution takes place in bringing Zelaya back in power.

Sounds to me like you're a Marxist not an anarchist :)

[RadioRaheem84]

The point of the matter should be if the working class is favorable toward Chavez and if his policies have helped their struggle. We can disagree with the methods he's employed to carry out reform but it's pretty clear he's been more of a relief for the working class than a detriment.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sounds to me like you're a Marxist not an anarchist :)

To me, every true communist is an anarchist as well, but are more aware of what needs to be done beforehand. We understand the end goal is anarchy, but we're not as impatient as a lot of straight-forward anarchists are. This is why I support Chomsky because he understands this process, & reason be why he's shown support in Chavez. I'm an anarchist by heart, but a communist by force.

[RadioRaheem84]

To me, every true communist is an anarchist as well, but are more aware of what needs to be done beforehand. We understand the end goal is anarchy, but we're not as impatient as a lot of straight-forward anarchists are. This is why I support Chomsky because he understands this process, & reason be why he's shown support in Chavez. I'm an anarchist by heart, but a communist by force.

Agreed.

[Nolan]

To me, every true communist is an anarchist as well, but are more aware of what needs to be done beforehand. We understand the end goal is anarchy, but we're not as impatient as a lot of straight-forward anarchists are. This is why I support Chomsky because he understands this process, & reason be why he's shown support in Chavez. I'm an anarchist by heart, but a communist by force.

If every anarchist were like you, we wouldn't have all the bullshit.

[ls]

Well, I mean what the hell. The article you posted didn't show that Chomsky was "endorsing" Turkey, he was giving a correct geopolitical analysis.

Ha, Turkey has since and beforehand done all kinds of things that are in no way 'independent', so calling it an independent actor is beyond moronic.

As for not endorsing Turkey, well it was hardly an attack on Turkey was it? The very fact it was featured in the extremely nationalist and racist hurriyet newspaper itself should be enough proof.


To me, every true communist is an anarchist as well, but are more aware of what needs to be done beforehand. We understand the end goal is anarchy, but we're not as impatient as a lot of straight-forward anarchists are. This is why I support Chomsky because he understands this process, & reason be why he's shown support in Chavez. I'm an anarchist by heart, but a communist by force.

Right, so part of this 'process' includes the Turkish state bourgeois exercising benevolence?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ha, Turkey has since and beforehand done all kinds of things that are in no way 'independent', so calling it an independent actor is beyond moronic.

As for not endorsing Turkey, well it was hardly an attack on Turkey was it? The very fact it was featured in the extremely nationalist and racist hurriyet newspaper itself should be enough proof.



Right, so part of this 'process' includes the Turkish state bourgeois exercising benevolence?

Okay, let me reiterate what I meant in a different manner. I support Chomsky's understanding of why Chavez's revolutionary movement is in need of as much support as possible. But let me clarify that not everything Chomsky says or does is within my support. I don't know a single person that I support 100%, for I can't have such loyalty to one person, but rather my equal support for many revolutionary thinkers, as I have unsupport for as well.

[ComradeRed22'91]

I would have to agree with this, despite my opposition against Lenin & the Bolshevik party for what they did to the anarchist community. Definitely not some conspiracy to gain power, but rather the power got to him, at least that's how I've perceived it to be. Just another lost comrade in history.

i dont mean to stir up the same thing that's been said here weekly since like, what is it, 1999? but i think his supression of anarchists were because they had unrealistic demands and were a liability against the Whites.

i JUST HAD TO DO iT!!! :lol:

[robbo203]

We all have our own view of what Socialism should be. However, we should not shoot down what is clearly a genuinely leftist movement simply because it is not made 'in our image'. We, and our own ideological underpinnings, should not be treated as god-like dogma. That is where some on the left - in this particular case I would identify the anarchist tendency and it's analysis of Chavez - fall down, and it affects all Socialists.

Certainly Chavez is not some totalitarian dictator - authoritarian yes as you say. but you can hardly call someone who holds multiparty elections, totalitarian. Neverthless neither this nor the fact that he spouts left wing rhetoric is a reason for socialists to give him support. One thing is certain is that whatever the rhetoric he employs, Chavez is adminstering a system of capitalism and is thus his is unequivocally a capitalist regime.

The idea that some capitalist regimes are more favourably disposed towards socialism than others and that by some process akin to artificial selection, aiding these regimes will somehow bring us closer to socialism is a fatal flaw in left thinking.There is no possible way in which you can , having captured political power with the declared aim of eventually introducing socialism, ever reach that aim while you continue to administer capitalism. It is absolutely certain that the very process of administering capitalism will more and more transform your outlook into one that is more and more congruent with the needs of capital. "Betrayal" is absolutely inevitable under the circumstances

You can prolong the deception of progress by inventing still more transitional stages between where you are at the moment and the declared aim of socialism but it will be in vain. It took 80 years for the pseudo "communist" party vanguard in the Soviet Union to show its true colours, ditch state capitalism and opt for corporate capitalism in its "revolution from above" as a way of further consolidating it ruling class position. I predict it will take far less time than this for Chavez and all the other so called socialist regimes to unmistakably show their own bourgeois colours. They will betray their working class constituents becuase they operating a system that can only be administered in the interests of capital and against wage labour.

By constantly pinning its hope on some government, some vanguard, to introduce socialism gradually by decree from above, the left is making a monumental mistake. It has learnt nothing from history from the wholesale drift away by the Social Democratic parties from revolutionary posturing to so called pragmatic reformism and in due course their unconditional acceptance of capitalism as permanent and inevitable. As long as the left continues to embrace this fatal illusion it is foredoomed to repeat over and over again the mistakes of the past and to remain politically irrelevant

[Antiks72]

And what is with this Chomsky bashing? Chomsky is one the best intellectuals we have on the left and he's constantly hounded by people within the left, especially anarchists! How ironic is that?



And they wonder why nobody takes them (anarchists) seriously. :D

[el_chavista]

By Venezuelan standards, there hasn't been a more democratic government than Chavez's. No "mind-prisoners", absolute free of speech, no anti-communist policies.

There is an anti-chavista tiny leftist group: the 4th International Trotskyist Fraction (Argentine originated). There also is Bandera Roja (former guerrilla supporters that betrayed their left origin and were rejected from the International of Marxist Leninist Parties).

Also, there are anti-chavista individuals -I know an Avakianite in the Aporrea forum. I think this is the case of the supposedly Venezuelan anarchists that collaborate with El Libertario. El Libertario just reprints others' anti-chavista documents.