Poll: Do you like this kind of actions of Chavez

[pranabjyoti]

Yes or no.
1) Supporting the fascist Rajapakshe Regime of SriLanka.
2) Close ties with worst kind of parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(Marxist) of India and such kind of parties on other part of the world.

[Crux]

It shows his political weakness, but it doesn't make him a fascist or anything.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Do you like this kind of actions of Chavez?

180 communes implemented
Nationalized Oil industries
Peasant Militias
Socialized Food Market
Commune Court Parliaments
Nationalized Education
Willing to give away thousands of doctors to help out dying third world countries.
etc.; etc.

How about not being so one-sided about Venezuela & it's president & start looking at everything that's gone down over there, instead of the presidents' personal "friends"!?

[Crux]

The foreign politics of Venezuela is hardly just Chavez "personal friends".

[Jacobinist]

Do you like this kind of actions of Chavez?

180 communes implemented
Nationalized Oil industries
Peasant Militias
Socialized Food Market
Commune Court Parliaments
Nationalized Education
Willing to give away thousands of doctors to help out dying third world countries.
etc.; etc.

How about not being so one-sided about Venezuela & it's president & start looking at everything that's gone down over there, instead of the presidents' personal "friends"!?

And yet Venezuela relies on Kapitalist markets, dependence on the dollar, American (international) investment, dependence on foreign markets, little has changed to the overall heirarchial structure of the country, the whole scheme is dependent on a resource that is finite; what happens when the petro party is over? etc.

Nationalized does not = socialism. I cant stress this enough. Socialism is democracy in the work place, some of which is present in Venezuela.

And about medics from venezuela, Chavez's is actually IMPORTING Cuban medics.

Again, I like Chavez, and I think he's got a good heart. But his revolution is misguided, and to put it bluntly, he IS the revolution. The revolution has not been institutionalized, if Chavez dies, so does the democratic revolution. I also think that Chavez could easily commit the same mistakes and follow the likes of Stalin, hopefully he doesnt. Hopefully he does head the country right, and hopefully, peopld do support ALBA and a united Latin America. In other words, I wish Chavez luck. Thats my opinion.

[pranabjyoti]

Do you like this kind of actions of Chavez?

180 communes implemented
Nationalized Oil industries
Peasant Militias
Socialized Food Market
Commune Court Parliaments
Nationalized Education
Willing to give away thousands of doctors to help out dying third world countries.
etc.; etc.

How about not being so one-sided about Venezuela & it's president & start looking at everything that's gone down over there, instead of the presidents' personal "friends"!?
I personally support most of the actions of Chavez. But, the actions that I have mentioned does not tally with his IMAGE. I personally will be the happiest man in the world, if he condemns some of his own actions like those that I have stated above.

[Robocommie]

There is no ideal revolutionary, and there is no ideal revolution.


And yet Venezuela relies on Kapitalist markets

Why do you spell that with a K? It looks silly.

[Jacobinist]

There is no ideal revolutionary, and there is no ideal revolution.



Why do you spell that with a K? It looks silly.


Oh, silly huh?

http://judicalsophie.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/das-kapital-bank.jpg

I'll consider changing that, no promise.

[red cat]

Yes or no.
1) Supporting the fascist Rajapakshe Regime of SriLanka.
2) Close ties with worst kind of parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(Marxist) of India and such kind of parties on other part of the world.

I strongly oppose these actions of Chavez. Given that he has not communicated with the genuine communist parties of these countries implies that he has clearly chosen a side: the fascist side.

[iskrabronstein]

Chavez faces the same difficulty that the Soviet Union did - in foreign policy, he must compromise between revolutionary politics and realistic policy.

"The major exportable items of the country are petroleum, bauxite and aluminum, chemicals, steel, agricultural products, basic manufactures. The exports partners of the country are US, Colombia, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Netherland and Italy.

The important importable items are raw materials, machinery and equipment, construction materials and transport equipments. The imports partners of the country are US, Japan, Italy, Colombia, Germany, France and Canada. " (emphasis added)

Chavez cannot realistically support actual revolutionary movements around the world without politically compromising the economic base that has allowed Venezuela to progress thus far. Yet at the same time, in domestic policy he is forced to artificially maintain revolutionary fervor in order to paper over the weaknesses of "21st century socialism".

It is all well and good for a revolutionary cell to call for no compromise, no surrender, unending war against the capitalist states - but a revolutionary state, especially an incompletely revolutionary state like Chavez' Venezuela, cannot be seriously asked to make the same sacrifices for the sake only of principle and theory.

[Robocommie]

Oh, silly huh?

You know it's funny, I knew you were going to say that. Problem is, that's German. If you want to be consistent you could say "Kapitalismus" but saying Kapitalism is just silly.

[Jacobinist]

German? So? Isnt that like me telling 'gringos' to spell Los Angeles in english and thus, The Angels? I dont think so.


As I recently told another member here on Revleft. I like spelling capitalism with a k. Also, sometimes, I spell America with an Amerikkka. Its just minor things I do. I hope it doesnt detract from any argument being made, being that its only personal preference.

Also, I think Im pretty proficient with my spelling and grammar. I've seen MUCH worse here surfing the site, so maybe we should focus on that.

[Das war einmal]

Oh, silly huh?

http://judicalsophie.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/das-kapital-bank.jpg

I'll consider changing that, no promise.

LOL to the max, thats a piggy bank. Look at the top, you can see the hole where to put the money. I know, I got one as a gift myself. Are you considering using language used 150 years ago?

[Robocommie]

German? So? Isnt that like me telling 'gringos' to spell Los Angeles in english and thus, The Angels? I dont think so.

As I recently told another member here on Revleft. I like spelling capitalism with a k. Also, sometimes, I spell America with an Amerikkka. Its just minor things I do. I hope it doesnt detract from any argument being made, being that its only personal preference.


It's silly though. And really, the comparison would be calling it, "The Angeles."

It's not like I think you should be restricted for it, I just think it's silly and I decided to give you some crap over it. Life goes on.

[Robocommie]

LOL to the max, thats a piggy bank. Look at the top, you can see the hole where to put the money. I know, I got one as a gift myself. Are you considering using language used 150 years ago?

Piggy bank? That's awesome. And ironic!

[RadioRaheem84]

I strongly oppose these actions of Chavez. Given that he has not communicated with the genuine communist parties of these countries implies that he has clearly chosen a side: the fascist side.

Fascist? I don't know about that. That's a bit of a stretch.

[red cat]

Fascist? I don't know about that. That's a bit of a stretch.

The CPI, CPI(M) and CPC are nothing less than fascists. Are you aware of the massacres that the CPI(M) conducted in the last few years?

[RadioRaheem84]

The CPI, CPI(M) and CPC are nothing less than fascists. Are you aware of the massacres that the CPI(M) conducted in the last few years?

I am not talking about the CPI(M) but Chavez.

[Mumbles]

I saw a thing in the news a few weeks ago talking about him "banning the internet" or something (this was a scroll on Fox btw). I'm pretty sure that's not the entire story, so I was wondering if you guys knew what all was going on behind it.

[Robocommie]

The CPI, CPI(M) and CPC are nothing less than fascists. Are you aware of the massacres that the CPI(M) conducted in the last few years?

I've not heard of this, but am genuinely interested. Could you summarize what happened?

[RadioRaheem84]

Honestly, if there was a fascist right wing corporatist coup in Venezuela, how many of you would support the Bolivarian Republic?

Edit: granted we don't have to worry about this much as the army is on Chavez's side but a proxy war funded by Columbia and the US.

[Comrade B]

No one is going to pretend that Chavez is a revolutionary hero, but he is a hell of a lot better than most politicians these days.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is amazing that Socialists, of all people, attack the man simply because he is not 'revolutionary enough'.

Granted. internal debate within the movement is crucial to Socialism, and clearly there are things Mr. Chavez could do better - the actual democratisation of workplaces, the infusion of revolutionary fervour into the people rather than leading the revolution throguh himself - but he has been in power for several years now and has not, so far, led the country in anything other but a Democratic Socialist direction. Not perfect, no. But something to be supported at least, for being well meaning and having the working people of Venezuela at heart, rather than something to be derided for not fitting the intellectual dogma of Marxism.

[AK]

I'm sorry, how is that Sri Lankan guy fascist?

[Jacobinist]

Los Angeles is Spanish for The Angels, at least when translated literally. Again, Im pretty fluent in spanish, so I think I got that down. I understand, Im just pointing out hypocrisy that is apparent.

And lolz, I didnt know that was a piggy bank, or shall I say, book bank.

[AK]

Los Angeles is Spanish for The Angels, at least when translated literally. Again, Im pretty fluent in spanish, so I think I got that down. I understand, Im just pointing out hypocrisy that is apparent.
Isn't it meant to be City of Angels?

[Jacobinist]

Nope. City of Angels could be used, but translated literally, Los angeles is The Angels. Not The Angeles. Now if you said Ciudad de Los Angeles, maybe then you could translate it into City of Angels. Get it?

[pranabjyoti]

I'm sorry, how is that Sri Lankan guy fascist?
The way it is behaving with Tamil people of Sri Lanka in the recent years.

[pranabjyoti]

I've not heard of this, but am genuinely interested. Could you summarize what happened?
I hope you know about "operation green hunt" launched by the Indian state to uproot poor peoples resistance. You can get better idea on this website; www.icawpi.org. Just search the net with the word "Nandigram", an area of the State of West Bengal in India, where this parties are in power and you can see their actions. In this area, a very fertile one, both from land and fishery perspective, a chemical hub has to be set by an industrialist. For that reason, huge amount of peasants and poor people uprooting programme had been launched but that programme faced a fierce resistance from the people of that area. So, on 14th March, 2007, huge number of police and party cadre of CPI(Marxist) with firing weapons attacked the area and bring insurmountable torture to the local people. They killed children, raped women, burnt houses and destroyed food stocks. But, the fire of resistance spread all over the state and soon they had to step back.
At present, they are staunch supporters of "operation green hunt" and they themselves are torturing poor people in Lalgar region of the same state, where mainly adivasis (Indian aboriginal people) live.
It seems to me that you have very little idea about the actions of those parties. I better suggest you read articles on www.southasiarev.wordpress.com and such other sites. You can also go through the thread "India is losing Maoist battle" in this website in this Politics section.

[Comrade Akai]

I think Chavez is a pretty cool guy. Eh actually takes care of his country unlike other world leaders and doesn't afraid of anything.:D

Seriously though, I think Chavez is doing the best he can under the circumstances.

[AK]

I think Chavez is a pretty cool guy. Eh actually takes care of his country unlike other world leaders and doesn't afraid of anything.:D

Seriously though, I think Chavez is doing the best he can under the circumstances.
The working class could do better...

[The Vegan Marxist]

The working class could do better...

Should that really be any reason to go against Chavez now, though, given that he's in office right now & bringing them closer to socialism than ever before, or are we going to stay in fantasy world & pretend that Chavez is a ruthless dictator who's supporters shoot at innocent crowds of people? I think I'll stick to reality here for the moment thank you. :thumbup1:

[vyborg]

...granted we don't have to worry about this much as the army is on Chavez's side but a proxy war funded by Columbia and the US.

This is too optimistic I'm afraid...the bolivarian revolution has not broken, yet, the burgeois state. capitalists have a loose control on it, this is not like US or Germany, of course, but the army is still non reliable.

Chavez should purge it and merge it with a workers' militia

[AK]

Should that really be any reason to go against Chavez now, though, given that he's in office right now & bringing them closer to socialism than ever before, or are we going to stay in fantasy world & pretend that Chavez is a ruthless dictator who's supporters shoot at innocent crowds of people? I think I'll stick to reality here for the moment thank you. :thumbup1:
When did I say that? Stop exagerrating.

[Comrade Akai]

The working class could do better...

That's right, I very much agree. Still, I think Chavez is trying. I do think he should give more power to the proletariat and advance quicker into socialism, and eventually communism.

[The Grey Blur]

It's funny how supposed Marxists still hold onto the idealist conception of 'great men' that Marx destroyed 100+ years ago. Chavez and the masses of Venezuela have a dialectical relationship, he has come far but the revolution isn't one man.

[La Comédie Noire]

Latin America has a long tradition of military leaders implementing reform from above, in that regard Chavez is not unique. Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.

Or as Robocommie so eloquently put it:


There is no ideal revolutionary, and there is no ideal revolution.

Chavez has to ally himself with assholes, that's the reality.



The working class could do better...

Of course, Chavez or one of his successors will find themselves to the right of the working class. Right now the phrase goes beyond the content, soon the content will go beyond the phrase.

[AK]

That's right, I very much agree. Still, I think Chavez is trying. I do think he should give more power to the proletariat and advance quicker into socialism, and eventually communism.

The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class itself.
It shouldn't be up to a minority - such as a centralised government. Don't you agree, Akai?

[bricolage]

1) Supporting the fascist Rajapakshe Regime of SriLanka.

Fascism is a very specific political current predominantly formed in opposition to the humanist legacy of the Enlightenment(*) but largely definable through corporatism, nationalism, dictatorial rule. I have a very boring book on political ideologies that defines it as these five key themes; statism, racialism, imperialism, elitism and National Socialism. I'd say to a large degree this is accurate although does vary slightly.

Fascism is not just defined by massacres, ethnic cleansing or genocide. That the Sri Lankan state has pursued a policy of mass murder against the Tamil people, that it has brutally bombed civilian areas, that it has put Tamils in concentration camps, none of this makes it fascist just as the UK or USA is not fascist for invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and the Israeli state is not fascist for its systematic brutalising of the Palestinian people.

I understand that when faced with these horrendous actions it is tempting to declare them fascist as a knee jerk reaction but I think doing so undermines the importance of fascism, as a specific form of rule pitted against popular struggle.

(*)- Mussolini; "We stand for... sheer categorical definitive antithesis to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789"
- Goebbels; "The year 1789 is hereby eradicated from history".

[Nosotros]

Any kind of alliance with Fascism of any kind is totally unacceptable. This does not suprise me though. I don't like Chavez and heres why http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/english.html

[Nosotros]

Ernesto Guevarra was an admirer of Juan Peron, Fascist dictator who smashed the unions in Argentina. Guevarra and Castro smashed the Libertarian movement in Cuba. Mussolini was a fan of Lenin who considered an alliance with Fascists when he planned to sweep the Red Army through Europe. Stalin had his pact with The Third Reich and Chiang Kai Shek, aswell as reinstating Nazi collaberators in Eastern Europe after the War. Also Mao Tse Tung was good friends with Imelda Marcos. Bringing it full circle, Karl Marx engineered the International to eject the Anarchists.
Chavez is a kind of National Socialist as he has combined Socialism with Patriotism. Even from a Marxist perspective he has made too many compromises and mistakes in his political career. I have also witnessed members of the SWP in Britain say that if the Anarchists took over in Russia instead of the Bolsheviks then Fascism would have had to be impemented to keep order. And btw in the UK, fellow 'Democratic Socialist' Michael Foot was pro Falklands War, approved of the bombing of Serbia and backed Tony Blair. So thats why I'm not suprised about Chavez. Despite all this though I don't have a problem working with Marxists regarding Antifascism, in the past even Liberals and Conservatives have joined the Antifascist struggle and ofcourse I'm reffering here to real Antifascism not that pseudo UAF type bullshit.

[red cat]

Ernesto Guevarra was an admirer of Juan Peron, Fascist dictator who smashed the unions in Argentina. Guevarra and Castro smashed the Libertarian movement in Cuba. Mussolini was a fan of Lenin who considered an alliance with Fascists when he planned to sweep the red army through Europe. Stalin had his pact with The Third Reich and Chiang Kai Shek, aswell as reinstating nazi collaberators in Eastern Europe after the War. Also Mao Tse Tung was good friends with Imelda Marcos. Bringing it full circle, Karl Marx engineered the International to eject the Anarchists.
Chavez is a kind of National Socialist as he has combined Socialism with Patriotism. Even from a Marxist perspective he has made too many compromises and mistakes in his political career. I have also witnessed members of the SWP in Britain say that if the Anarchists took over in Russia instaed of the Bolsheviks then Fascism would have had to be impemented to keep order. And btw in the UK, fellow 'Democratic Socialist' Michael Foot was pro Falklands War, approved of the bombing of Serbia and backed Tony Blair. So thats why I'm not suprised about Chavez. Despite all this though I don't have a problem working with Marxists regarding Antifascism, in the past even Liberals and Conservatives havejoined the Antifascist struggle and ofcourse I'm reffering here to real Antifascism not that pseudo UAF type bullshit.

You are making a mistake in comparing Chavez with the others you mention; they never ignored the undoubtedly dominant revolutionary currents of their time.

[Nosotros]

You seem to be making a mistake in that you are ignoring the fact that Chavez is like those people when he creates an alliance with Fascist scum.

[Jacobinist]

^ Hey Nos, dont even try to talk these Stalinist trolls. (hint, ^ up there).

It'll only get you on the road to suppression and censorship/banned.

[red cat]

You seem to be making a mistake in that you are ignoring the fact that Chavez is like those people when he creates an alliance with Fascist scum.

An alliance with imperialist forces is sometimes necessary for setting imperialist blocs against each other and defending and spreading revolution in the meantime. The correct way of criticizing Chavez is to point out that Chavez's international line is completely incorrect, and he is allying with the fascist powers that are involved in suppressing the biggest revolutions of today.

[Nosotros]

Whatever mate, I'll criticise someone in whatever way I see fit. But as someone has said already, massacres don't necessarily equals Fascism although you still have not denied that these are Fascists we're talking about, still don't mean I like Chavez though.

[red cat]

But as someone has said already, massacres don't necessarily equals Fascism although you still have not denied that these are Fascists we're talking about, still don't mean I like Chavez though.

Sure, but in rural India, in places where the CPI(M) is the dominant political party, they silence even all parliamentary opposition in a very military manner. This is something that can be compared to nothing other than fascism.

[Jacobinist]

^ Lol, coming from the guy who defends Stalinist massacres.

Idiot.

[red cat]

^ Lol, coming from the guy who defends Stalinist massacres.

Idiot.

Since you said this, I will assume that you are fully aware of what goes on in rural India or South Asia in general. Please explain how you compare the main practical features of the Indian caste system with any actions of Stalin. You will answer to the point if you are anything better than an ignorant troll fantasizing himself to be a revolutionary.

[Jacobinist]

"they silence even all parliamentary opposition in a very military manner. This is something that can be compared to nothing other than fascism." - RedKat

Lolz. When I said the same thing about Stalin, you said : 'thats not fascism, read about it you troll."

But funny, you now use the same argument? Hmmm, interesting to say the least.

[red cat]

"they silence even all parliamentary opposition in a very military manner. This is something that can be compared to nothing other than fascism." - RedKat

Lolz. When I said the same thing about Stalin, you said : 'thats not fascism, read about it you troll."

But funny, you now use the same argument? Hmmm, interesting to say the least.

Don't try to change the topic. Compare Stalin's actions with Indian fascism if you want to prove that you are not trying to turn the thread into a tendency war.

[Jacobinist]

Don't try to change the topic. Compare Stalin's actions with Indian fascism if you want to prove that you are not trying to turn the thread into a tendency war.


Lolz, Im turning this into a tendency war? Look at the title buddy, its about Chavez, and personal views about him. Not about the kapitalist/fascist government of India, whom is 'moving the country foward' as dictated by international powers and the IMF.

So the CPI (an anti-stalinist group) wants to 'break away' or better put, do as the Chinese attempted and form revolutionary communities based on Maoist strategy, blah blah blah.

Point said, the CPI (fighting an honorable fight). The funny thing is that Stalin thought the Indians were full of shit.

[red cat]

Lolz, Im turning this into a tendency war? Look at the title buddy, its about Chavez, and personal views about him. Not about the kapitalist/fascist government of India, whom is 'moving the country foward' as dictated by international powers and the IMF.

My post:


Sure, but in rural India, in places where the CPI(M) is the dominant political party, they silence even all parliamentary opposition in a very military manner. This is something that can be compared to nothing other than fascism.

Your reply:


^ Lol, coming from the guy who defends Stalinist massacres.

Idiot.

From this, the natural conclusion is that you are comparing Stalin's actions with Indian fascism. So I would like to see you either compare the two in details or admit that you know nothing about what you post.




So the CPI (an anti-stalinist group) wants to 'break away' or better put, do as the Chinese attempted and form revolutionary communities based on Maoist strategy, blah blah blah.

No revolutionary Maoist parties are anti-Stalinist.



Point said, the CPI (fighting an honorable fight). The funny thing is that Stalin thought the Indians were full of shit.Please explain.

[AK]

^ Lol, coming from the guy who defends Stalinist massacres.

Idiot.
...wut? :confused:

Explain, the both of you.

[The Red Next Door]

Oh, silly huh?

http://judicalsophie.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/das-kapital-bank.jpg

I'll consider changing that, no promise.

We are not speaking in German. so need to spell c words with a k

[AK]

We are not speaking in German. so need to spell c words with a k
However, if we are referring to the book specifically, then use Das Kapital all you want :lol:

[Jacobinist]

Again, thats like saying 'ok guys, from now on, Los Angeles will become The Angels. San Francisco will be Saint Frank. And Oklahoma will be land of the red people. I see you're from St. Louis, Im not familiar with that region, but in the southwest US, countless cities, streets, rivers, mountain ranges, are named in Spanish. And when people pronounce these names, they inadvertantly speak spanish/native indian. Yes, we are speaking english, but you also speak spanish. Now this has little to do with using 3 k's in Amerikkka! Its just to point out that we all speak various languages on a daily basis.

"No revolutionary Maoist parties are anti-Stalinist." - Red

The sino-soviet split that came in the 1960's can trace its roots back to the 1930's in the Chinese civil war.The significance of Stalin's 'socialism in one country' for Communist Parties outside of the USSR was that they were obliged to subordinate their own interests to those of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union; in order to defend and build socialism in the USSR. Thus, for Communist Parties outside the USSR, 'socialism in one country' was an expression of servitude and subjudgation to Mr. Stalin. So while leaders of the Chinese Revolution were trained in the Comintern during the fight against Trotskyism' and the purging of the Chinese Left Opposition, and thus never questioned the fundamental 'correctness' of Stalin’s line. Yet they were entirely separate and independent.


"please explain" - Red

The aim is to usher in ‘new democracy’, a transitional stage in which capitalism is moulded to render it more compatible with democracy, thereby aiding the transition to socialism, all under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. Economic policies of the West Bengal government were brought to the fore in the Nandigram disputein which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to mandate a compulsory purchase of land to make way for a 'economic zone.'

[AK]

Again, thats like saying 'ok guys, from now on, Los Angeles will become The Angels. San Francisco will be Saint Frank. And Oklahoma will be land of the red people. I see you're from St. Louis, Im not familiar with that region, but in the southwest US, countless cities, streets, rivers, mountain ranges, are named in Spanish. And when people pronounce these names, they inadvertantly speak spanish/native indian. Yes, we are speaking english, but you also speak spanish. Now this has little to do with using 3 k's in Amerikkka! Its just to point out that we all speak various languages on a daily basis.

"No revolutionary Maoist parties are anti-Stalinist." - Red

The sino-soviet split that came in the 1960's can trace its roots back to the 1930's in the Chinese civil war.The significance of Stalin's 'socialism in one country' for Communist Parties outside of the USSR was that they were obliged to subordinate their own interests to those of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union; in order to defend and build socialism in the USSR. Thus, for Communist Parties outside the USSR, 'socialism in one country' was an expression of servitude and subjudgation to Mr. Stalin. So while leaders of the Chinese Revolution were trained in the Comintern during the fight against Trotskyism' and the purging of the Chinese Left Opposition, and thus never questioned the fundamental 'correctness' of Stalin’s line. Yet they were entirely separate and independent.


"please explain" - Red

The aim is to usher in ‘new democracy’, a transitional stage in which capitalism is moulded to render it more compatible with democracy, thereby aiding the transition to socialism, all under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. Economic policies of the West Bengal government were brought to the fore in the Nandigram disputein which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to mandate a compulsory purchase of land to make way for a 'economic zone.'

By the way, do you know that there's a "quote" function? It's in the bottom right hand corner of each post...

[red cat]

"No revolutionary Maoist parties are anti-Stalinist." - Red

The sino-soviet split that came in the 1960's can trace its roots back to the 1930's in the Chinese civil war.The significance of Stalin's 'socialism in one country' for Communist Parties outside of the USSR was that they were obliged to subordinate their own interests to those of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union; in order to defend and build socialism in the USSR. Thus, for Communist Parties outside the USSR, 'socialism in one country' was an expression of servitude and subjudgation to Mr. Stalin. So while leaders of the Chinese Revolution were trained in the Comintern during the fight against Trotskyism' and the purging of the Chinese Left Opposition, and thus never questioned the fundamental 'correctness' of Stalin’s line. Yet they were entirely separate and independent.
How does that make them "anti-Stalinist" ?



"please explain" - Red

The aim is to usher in ‘new democracy’, a transitional stage in which capitalism is moulded to render it more compatible with democracy, thereby aiding the transition to socialism, all under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. Economic policies of the West Bengal government were brought to the fore in the Nandigram disputein which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to mandate a compulsory purchase of land to make way for a 'economic zone.'

Your earlier statement (emphasis mine):


Point said, the CPI (fighting an honorable fight). The funny thing is that Stalin thought the Indians were full of shit.

How is what you wrote above an explanation of this ?

And you still have not compared Stalin's actions with Indian fascism.

[Jacobinist]

How does that make them "anti-Stalinist" ?



Your earlier statement (emphasis mine):


How is what you wrote above an explanation of this ?

And you still have not compared Stalin's actions with Indian fascism.


You're an idiot. Stalin felt that India, being more developed than China during their civil war, should follow the Soviet frame work and model of organizing the state bureaucracy, and thus not Mao's theory of peasant rural revolution.

[red cat]

You're an idiot. Stalin felt that India, being more developed than China during their civil war, should follow the Soviet frame work and model of organizing the state bureaucracy, and thus not Mao's theory of peasant rural revolution.

How is this equivalent to Stalin thinking that the Indians "were full of shit" ?

And you are yet to

1) Prove that the CPC was "anti-Stalinist".

2) Compare Indian fascism with Stalin's actions.

[vyborg]

It is not completely linked to the topic but the way Chavez welcomes Putin in Venezuela is absolutely inacceptable

[Guerrilla22]

It is not completely linked to the topic but the way Chavez welcomes Putin in Venezuela is absolutely inacceptable

Yeah Chavez should definitely try to isolate his country internationally as much as possible, great idea.

[The Red Next Door]

However, if we are referring to the book specifically, then use Das Kapital all you want :lol:
right.

[VILemon]

Fascist? I don't know about that. That's a bit of a stretch.

I was thinking the same thing. Well, no, I was thinking "oh, brother." But your comment was a pretty good paraphrase.

I guess you only align yourself with the most righteous parties in existence, albeit unknown, or you're a fascist.

[Saorsa]

I'm uncomfortable with all those things Chavez did. I'm very uncomfortable with his support for Ahmadinejad even during the protests last year. But none of that changes the fact that Chavez is the leading figure in a mass workers and peasants movement which has made inroads into the capitalist power structure, is arming the people (in my opinion the crucial dividing line between reformism and revolution) and is gradually increasing workers power in the economy. We should be critical, but supportive.


So the CPI (an anti-stalinist group) wants to 'break away' or better put, do as the Chinese attempted and form revolutionary communities based on Maoist strategy, blah blah blah.

Point said, the CPI (fighting an honorable fight). The funny thing is that Stalin thought the Indians were full of shit.

What? :confused:

The Communist Party of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India), or CPI, is not an 'anti-stalinist' group. It has historically been a Moscow line party, so it was pro-Stalin til 1956 and then Kruschevite etc afterwards. It toed the line from moscow until that line stopped coming.

The CPI explicitly denounces armed struggle as 'left adventurism'. While like all Indian parties it was armed goons to back it up, it does not in any way whatsoever take a 'Maoist strategy'. The CPI last led a major armed struggle in Telangana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telangana_Rebellion) between 1946 and 1951. After that peasant uprising was crushed, the CPI has opposed all forms of armed struggle. It is a capitalist party integrated firmly, deeply and happily into the capitalist state.

You may possibly be thinking of the CPI (Maoist), which as the name suggests is leading a People's War against the Indian state and is definitely trying to apply a Maoist strategy.

[Nosotros]

Sure, but in rural India, in places where the CPI(M) is the dominant political party, they silence even all parliamentary opposition in a very military manner. This is something that can be compared to nothing other than fascism.So basically you are openly promoting an alliance with Fascism, atleast you are honest- although you do talk in riddless like a businessman or politician.

[red cat]

So basically you are openly promoting an alliance with Fascism, atleast you are honest- although you do talk in riddless like a businessman or politician.

How on earth does my statement imply that ?

[Nosotros]

How on earth does my statement imply that ?You said that it is necessary to get in bed with imperialists sometimes and play one side against the other.

[red cat]

You said that it is necessary to get in bed with imperialists sometimes and play one side against the other.

So ? This does not mean that for example, where the CPI or CPI(M) have imposed their fascist rule, revolutionaries should ally with them.

[AK]

right.
That's one hell of a post, Midwest.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Ernesto Guevarra was an admirer of Juan Peron, Fascist dictator who smashed the unions in Argentina.

???

Juan Domingo Peron will have a lot of crimes to answer for when he faces the Great Show Trial in The Sky, but I don't think union-busting will be one of them.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Yes or no.
1) Supporting the fascist Rajapakshe Regime of SriLanka.
2) Close ties with worst kind of parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(Marxist) of India and such kind of parties on other part of the world.

China: PRC is a major energy importer. Venezuela is a major energy exporter. He would be guilty of gross malpractice if he didn't make nice with the CPC.

Rajapakse: Venezuela has a surplus of hydrocarbons but a shortage of agricultural commodities. Sri Lanka has a surplus of agricultural commodities but a shortage of hydrocarbons, and of foreign exchange to buy hydrocarbons with. You do the math. Maybe Chavez should just suddenly drop price controls and/or let his people go without cooking oil?

CPI(M): If the Nandigram massacre was the only thing CPI(M) ever did, this would be inexcusable. But it's not. The three states governed by CPI(M) have very high rates of literacy, public health and economic equality despite being poor even by Indian standards. Chavez would be a fool not to learn from them.

Geopolitics ain't beanbag.

[red cat]

China: PRC is a major energy importer. Venezuela is a major energy exporter. He would be guilty of gross malpractice if he didn't make nice with the CPC.

Rajapakse: Venezuela has a surplus of hydrocarbons but a shortage of agricultural commodities. Sri Lanka has a surplus of agricultural commodities but a shortage of hydrocarbons, and of foreign exchange to buy hydrocarbons with. You do the math. Maybe Chavez should just suddenly drop price controls and/or let his people go without cooking oil?



Venezuela could always trade or even forge tactical alliance with them while exposing and attacking their politics.




CPI(M): If the Nandigram massacre was the only thing CPI(M) ever did, this would be inexcusable. But it's not. The three states governed by CPI(M) have very high rates of literacy, public health and economic equality despite being poor even by Indian standards. Chavez would be a fool not to learn from them.

Geopolitics ain't beanbag.Firstly, the two states other than West Bengal which are governed by the CPI(M) regularly change their governments so that the CPI(M) is not continuously in power and has to compete with other parties, so that it cannot show its true face.

Secondly, the CPI(M) is an expert in distorting facts. West Bengal is probably near the bottom of the Indian list with respect to the three criteria you mentioned. Here is what I could find in Wikipedia for 2001. It is worthwhile to note that before the CPI(M) came to power, West Bengal had been among the top three Indian states in literacy rate. Moreover, presently the notion of literacy has been purposefully reduced to knowing how to "draw" one's name.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Literacy_Bar_Chart.jpg

Thirdly, Nandigram isn't the only thing that the CPI(M) has done. It has engaged in many other massacres and mass murdering schemes, those in Singhur or Lalgarh for example. From 1977 to 2008 the CPI(M) has been responsible for 48,000 political murders in West Bengal alone.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Venezuela could always trade or even forge tactical alliance with them while exposing and attacking their politics.


Firstly, the two states other than West Bengal which are governed by the CPI(M) regularly change their governments so that the CPI(M) is not continuously in power and has to compete with other parties, so that it cannot show its true face.

Secondly, the CPI(M) is an expert in distorting facts. West Bengal is probably near the bottom of the Indian list with respect to the three criteria you mentioned. Here is what I could find in Wikipedia for 2001. It is worthwhile to note that before the CPI(M) came to power, West Bengal had been among the top three Indian states in literacy rate. Moreover, presently the notion of literacy has been purposefully reduced to knowing how to "draw" one's name.

Thirdly, Nandigram isn't the only thing that the CPI(M) has done. It has engaged in many other massacres and mass murdering schemes, those in Singhur or Lalgarh for example. From 1977 to 2008 the CPI(M) has been responsible for 48,000 political murders in West Bengal alone.

I'll concede your point on CPI(M). But I find it hard to fault a leader for playing realpolitik to maximize the revenue available for his people.

[red cat]

I'll concede your point on CPI(M). But I find it hard to fault a leader for playing realpolitik to maximize the revenue available for his people.

What bothers me most is that Chavez never tries to negate the politics of these fascists, and never even mentions the communist revolutionaries who are engaged in war with them. This might have been excusable for smaller movements due to possible lack of information, but one of them is the largest communist movement in the world !

[pranabjyoti]

I'll concede your point on CPI(M). But I find it hard to fault a leader for playing realpolitik to maximize the revenue available for his people.
Playing on too much realpolitik will pay very hard at the end. If you are a revolutionary personality, then you must know how to balance between realpolitik and revolutionary activity. Too much emphasis on one and there is high chance you will loose the balance. Moreover, realpolitik is a double edged sword, which many people will understand too late.

[el_chavista]

Antiimperialism is the main relationship among Venezuela, Iran and Sri Lanka:


Sri Lanka’s Diplomatic Prostitution

By: Ehalaivan
Courtesy: TamilCanadian - December 3, 2007

Part 1 - The Unholy Alliance: Iran and Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s relationship with Iran, even in the face of strong opposition from the USA, goes back to several years. Iran signed a preferential trade agreement and several memoranda of understanding with Sri Lanka in November 2004. This was when Chandrika Kumaratunge was at the helm in Sri Lanka. The political climate in which those agreements were signed, the Iranian aid given to Sri Lanka, and how Sri Lanka reciprocated gives one a very interesting insight into how Sri Lanka prostitutes itself in the diplomatic arena.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was constituted in 1957. Sri Lanka is a founder member of the IAEA and continues to be a member. Currently there are 144 member states. The IAEA’s functions are guided by a Board of Governors. The B of G is composed of 35 member states. IAEA programs and budgets are set through decisions of its policymaking bodies - the 35-member B of G and the General Conference of all Member States.

There is concrete evidence as to how Sri Lanka has performed at the IAEA to act on behalf of Iran. There is also tangible evidence as to why Sri Lanka thus acted. And more importantly, what Sri Lanka received in return. Let me outline a few series of incidents to grasp the nature of this “unholy” alliance.

8. 24 September 2005 – Sri Lanka is again elected to the B of G and Votes against the IAEA resolution on the implementation of safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran. “The resolution finds that Iran´s failures and breaches constitute non-compliance and calls on Iran to return to the negotiating process. It was adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, 1 against and 12 abstentions.” The resolution was supported by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Equador, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, USA and was opposed by Venezuela, which voted against it. source: http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=133&id=5309

[Crux]

I really don't think there is any excuse for going into alliance with the murderous Rajapakse regime though. Not only are they interning and ethnically cleansing Tamils, they also do a good job murdering Sinhalese oppositionist as well, not hesitating to use ultra-nationalists (who would definitively qualify as fascist) as their foot soldiers, even against other establishment parties.

For more details: http://www.lankasocialist.com/ (http://www.lankasocialist.com/)
http://www.tamilsolidarity.org/
(http://www.lankasocialist.com/)

[pranabjyoti]

Antiimperialism is the main relationship among Venezuela, Iran and Sri Lanka:

source: http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=133&id=5309
That can certainly be true, but that's not enough reason to support the torture of Tamil people in Sri Lanka.