Backward countries' "socialism"

[el_chavista]

Nationalist movements in the 3rd world are egalitarian by its own nature, hence they claim to be "socialist" as a rhetoric stance.
So it is the case of the "African socialism" -Tanzanian Nyerere's "Ujamaa" (family-hood), Egyptian Nasser "Panarabism", Ugandan Obote's "The common man's charter", Libyan Gaddafi's "Islamic socialism"-, or, the case of the new nationalist movements of South America -Venezuelan Chávez's "Bolivarian socialism", Bolivian Morales' "indian socialism", Paraguayan "Tekojoja" (egalitarian life).
Then the question is -in the absence of real Marxist mass parties- what object can possibly has a Marxist analysis to demonstrate that those political movements are not really "scientifically" socialist?

[the last donut of the night]

Nationalist movements in the 3rd world are egalitarian by its own nature, hence they claim to be "socialist" as a rhetoric stance.
So it is the case of the "African socialism" -Tanzanian Nyerere's "Ujamaa" (family-hood), Egyptian Nasser "Panarabism", Ugandan Obote's "The common man's charter", Libyan Gaddafi's "Islamic socialism"-, or, the case of the new nationalist movements of South America -Venezuelan Chávez's "Bolivarian socialism", Bolivian Morales' "indian socialism", Paraguayan "Tekojoja" (egalitarian life).
Then the question is -in the absence of real Marxist mass parties- what object can possibly has a Marxist analysis to demonstrate that those political movements are not really "scientifically" socialist?

I think one has to fully analyze whether the movement is ultimately tied to strengthening the national bourgeoisie -- which in some cases can be progressive -- or just tied to the goal of proletarian democracy.

[Kléber]

Very few "socialist" countries have fully nationalized the economy. And when they do, it is in line with any nationalized industry of a bourgeois state: the pay scales are exploitative, and the workers are politically repressed.

It is hard to analyze anything from afar though. Ultimately the task falls upon the vanguard of the proletariat in every country to expose and overthrow its local oppressors, foreign and local.

[el_chavista]

What I mean is that it is easy to characterize the Bolivarian movement, for instance, as a political movement for the defense of the national interests, led by some petty bourgeoisies aiming a non proletarian revolution.
Whether you "crtically support" it or not is a political tactic, no matters that you accompany this supporting or not with it respective Marxist analysis.

[zein al-abdeen]

First, I don’t think you did a good job putting Arab nationalists (Nasserites) in the category of socialists, for example.
Not everyone calls himself a socialist is a socialist, and if you want it from another point of view everyone define socialism in their own way, whether they are for a socialist state in the mean of the state ownership of means of production, or in the mean of moving toward the communist society and sometimes doing as best as we can in a capitalist society-like the French socialists.

Second, whether we call it socialism or not, it’s very interesting to notice that most parts of the world are living under bourgeoisie democracy, in developed countries mainly in Western Europe and North America it’s doing just fine for the majority-until now. In the rest of the world it doesn’t. So at least at this time for the third world it’s not enough, it’s not good enough to satisfy the basic needs.

It would be good if the national bourgeoisie could grow to provide the basic needs, then the socialist call-without considering climate change-wouldn’t make much sense. But the world is “the world” there isn’t enough space for new Europe nor another north America, coz you can’t have on both sides in the international capitalist relationship just exploiters, if there is an exploiter their should be an exploited.

What’s going on in Venezuela-without considering the Chavez element-is a society has matured enough to push toward more democracy in order to fulfill more basic needs, and to do that you need to have more political power and to get it you need to have more economical power, and the opposite.

Understanding that scientifically, would make it easier and faster, to move forward without wasting time, blood and more pain. Here comes the part of the distinguish individual, the vanguard, the consciousness in the society-The accumulation of historical experiences, like the Caracazo.

It’s not just bout what you think you’re doing, it’s about what you are doing.

The way I see it, whether president Chavez is a scientific socialist or not, whether the movement is or not in their heads, I don’t care, I judge them based on what’s happening in reality and it’s telling: more political power + more economical power to the majority = moving toward a socialist society.

[Dimentio]

I think the large inflation of socialist parties in - what we often call - the Third World, is owing to the fact that openly bourgeoisie and right-wing movements have no ideological basis there since the emerging national bourgeoisie was forced to organise themselves in progressive movements to combat colonialism and form the foundation for independent nationhood. It is very usual with third world countries where almost all parties are calling themselves socialist, while few of them actually are socialist. I believe that is due to the fact that it is maybe politically impossible to not be a socialist there and expect to get votes, due to the popular perception of socialists as being on the side of the people.

[Wolf Larson]

Nationalist movements in the 3rd world are egalitarian by its own nature, hence they claim to be "socialist" as a rhetoric stance.
So it is the case of the "African socialism" -Tanzanian Nyerere's "Ujamaa" (family-hood), Egyptian Nasser "Panarabism", Ugandan Obote's "The common man's charter", Libyan Gaddafi's "Islamic socialism"-, or, the case of the new nationalist movements of South America -Venezuelan Chávez's "Bolivarian socialism", Bolivian Morales' "indian socialism", Paraguayan "Tekojoja" (egalitarian life).
Then the question is -in the absence of real Marxist mass parties- what object can possibly has a Marxist analysis to demonstrate that those political movements are not really "scientifically" socialist?

Most current so called socialist nations are put in place by western powers/IMF/World Bank/USA in order to subjugate labor/provide cheap industrial and agricultural labor for capitalists and thus cheap products for westerners and massive profits for capitalists. What [actual] socialist nation in South America would house United Fruit? What actual communist nation in the East [China] would house US and other multinational corporations? The capitalists have basically "contained" socialism to Cuba and Venezuela and even those [and other nations] are tainted by capitalism. You cannot have islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism. The cold war continues but it's being won by capitalists even to the point where they set up quasi socialist [fascist] governments. Other than the obvious collectivization of the means of production IMF/World Bank and other tools of capitalist expropriation/globalization need to be abolished. Land reform is needed but I'm not sure what Americans can do even if we were class conscience seeing we no longer have an industrial economy. Socialism needs to be set up globally almost simultaneously. This can't be done parliamentary. Capitalists will never vote themselves out of power. You already know these things :) I've come to realize long ago we Americans are the root cause or main reason capitalism has flourished. Our greed, apathy and ignorance. Before a revolution takes place people must first give a shit then attain class consciousness and a basic understanding of our system- then and only then can a revolution take place but look at whats happening in the middle of a capitalist crisis. Tea Parties! It's absurd. These Tea Parties should be leftist movements NOT movements seeking to perpetuate capitalism. These self hating white working class don't even know what to rebel against. They've been brainwashed. It's quite Orwellian. On a different but related note- As 'Winston Smith' said: -Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.....But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet.....- We don't unite because too many of us [not on RevLeft of course] have been drafted into consumer culture at birth. Americans enjoy the privilege of which global parasitic capitalism affords us. We have been bought off with concessions, welfare, credit cards and access to an abundance of cheap printed textiles and plastic gadgets at our but mostly the third words expense. We worship ourselves. We worship at the alter of greed, selfishness, materialism and apathy. We [as a nation] also blindly accept our wage slavery. The TV has created a ignorant, passive, misinformed monoculture fixated on the self.