Social Democracy.

[The Red Next Door]

What is your take on social Democracy?

[MetJeBrood]

Social democrats are the most dangerous kind of policitians, they talk left but stab you in the back

Kinda says it all, they have bin one of the biggest party in my country for the last 30 years but have brought nothing else then lies and misery..

[MortyMingledon]

Social democrats are the most dangerous kind of policitians

wow. huge exaggeration. Surely fascists are more dangerous :laugh:

I believe Social democrats have their hearts in the right place, they are just too feeble to actually take a real stand against capitalism. They are capitalist-appeasers, but as far as politicians go, they're not the worst of the worst.

[Demogorgon]

To give a more realistic depiction than what you will get from others, social democracy at its best (at its worst it is just neoliberals using some old catch phrases) was an attempt to tame capitalism and create a more civilised society. In doing so they carried out some good policies and definitely improved the quality of life for many people, of course they also left a whole load of stuff untouched which both meant they didn't solve a lot of problems and also planted the seeds for the undoing of what good they did do.

See Capitalists don't much like having to treat their workers in a slightly less awful way than usual, they dislike having to pay for social welfare provisions, they dislike having to deal with Unions that have the strength to stand up to them and so on. So what do they do? They stage an investment strike to destabilise the economy and use their dominance of the media to tell the public that this was a flaw in social democracy itself and end up getting enough members of the public to support getting rid of the very programmes that help them.

The only way Social Democracy can truly survive is to take away the power of capitlaists to do that. But if they do that they cease to be social democrats any more. They become full blown socialists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Social Democracy is a progressive but misled and deluded ideology. It believes in reforms within capitalism rather than revolution. They either believe this is viable in creating an equal society or they believe that revolution is not possible and reforming Capitalism as far left as we can is the only thing that can be done to create a fair society. The problem I have with Social Democrats I have come across is a very naive position on the nature of Capitalism and a negative view of Communism and revolution. I think most of all they are the most well-meaning non revolutionary ideology, I don't think they are conspiratorial Capitalists out to dupe the proletariat into believing that Capitalism can be reformed, I think they genuinely believe it can. Social Democrats need to be confronted with logical arguments which prove the illogical idea of capitalism working in the interests of the Working class.

[The Red Next Door]

Social Democracy is a progressive but misled and deluded ideology. It believes in reforms within capitalism rather than revolution. They either believe this is viable in creating an equal society or they believe that revolution is not possible and reforming Capitalism as far left as we can is the only thing that can be done to create a fair society. The problem I have with Social Democrats I have come across is a very naive position on the nature of Capitalism and a negative view of Communism and revolution. I think most of all they are the most well-meaning non revolutionary ideology, I don't think they are conspiratorial Capitalists out to dupe the proletariat into believing that Capitalism can be reformed, I think they genuinely believe it can. Social Democrats need to be confronted with logical arguments which prove the illogical idea of capitalism working in the interests of the Working class.
Is there a country, that can be a good example of how social democracy does not work?

[which doctor]

There's a big difference between what social democracy is now, and what it used to be. For instance, a 'social-democratic' party used to indicate a Marxist political party, which it no longer does now. The German Social Democratic party was once the largest mass-labor marxist political party in the world, and had a majority of parliamentary seats. And the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks split from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. This was all during the Second Internationale (1889-1914). When World War I broke out, these social-democratic parties were revealed for what they were, social-chauvinists, when they voted their own countries war efforts, and this is when the shift leftward towards communist parties occurred.

[CartCollector]

Is there a country, that can be a good example of how social democracy does not work?Yup. Chile from 1970-1973. Salvador Allende, a socialist, was voted in as the leader of Chile in 1970. So what happens? The CIA spreads "freedom and democracy" by destabilizing Chile's economy, then blaming the destabilization on socialism, and then backing a fascist overthrow of the government by Pinochet.

Also, this sums up my feelings on social democrats:
http://www.iww.org/graphics/cartoons/mrblock/block17.jpg

[The Red Next Door]

There's a big difference between what social democracy is now, and what it used to be. For instance, a 'social-democratic' party used to indicate a Marxist political party, which it no longer does now. The German Social Democratic party was once the largest mass-labor marxist political party in the world, and had a majority of parliamentary seats. And the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks split from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. This was all during the Second Internationale (1889-1914). When World War I broke out, these social-democratic parties were revealed for what they were, social-chauvinists, when they voted their own countries war efforts, and this is when the shift leftward towards communist parties occurred.

Where can i find this information?

[A.R.Amistad]

Social democrats are usually the ones that us communists have to overthrow. We can get along with other elements of a united front against the blatant reactionaries, but when the Social Democrats are in power, they are the breaks of the revolution, and they expose the greatest contradictions between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. It was the Social Democrats who had to be ousted by the masses in October 1917.

[which doctor]

Where can i find this information?
I would recommend James Joll's short book The Second International (1889-1914)
http://www.amazon.com/SECOND-INTERNATIONAL-1889-1914-JAMES-JOLL/dp/B0027W8I0S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270401156&sr=8-2A shorter read is JP Nettl's The German Social Democratic Party as a Political Model 1890-1914, which I've included below as an attachment.

And after reading that, you can read up on the German Revolution and learn about the SPD stabbed the German workers in the back!

[The Red Next Door]

I would recommend James Joll's short book The Second International (1889-1914)
http://www.amazon.com/SECOND-INTERNATIONAL-1889-1914-JAMES-JOLL/dp/B0027W8I0S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270401156&sr=8-2A shorter read is JP Nettl's The German Social Democratic Party as a Political Model 1890-1914, which I've included below as an attachment.

And after reading that, you can read up on the German Revolution and learn about the SPD stabbed the German workers in the back!
can you tell me, how? because my sister deleted the program for the pdf download.

[Ismail]

Enver Hoxha in 1964:

Let us dwell even briefly on the activity of the French Socialist Party and its leader Guy Mollet, who has more than once taken part in and even headed the French government, and whom the revisionists consider a left-wing element and conduct hearty talks with. When at the head of the government, the French socialists set the dogs loose on workers on strike, incited the outbreak of the dirty war in Indo-China, undertook police repressions against the people of other colonies, carried on the fighting against the Algerian people with more ferocity, approved the North Atlantic Pact and the re-arming of Western Germany. Guy Mollet's government signed the agreements for "the European Common Market" and "Euratom", it was one of the organizers of the military aggression on Egypt, Guy Mollet's betrayal paved the way for personal rule in France and so on and so forth. Speaking of Guy Mollet's activity even the labourite weekly "Tribune" wrote at the beginning of 1957 that "Mollet is a disgrace to France as well as to socialism".

These are the true features of social-democracy today. Many representatives of the bourgeoisie have not been wrong in stressing the great role of the social-democratic parties in suppressing the revolutionary movement of workers and in defending the capitalist order, they have not been wrong in singing their praises. Thus, for instance, T. Junilla, director of a capitalist bank in Finland, has said: "In the struggle to win over industrial workers spiritually only the social-democrats can serve as a powerful force against the communists. If the social democrats lose this battle, it may very well be the end of democracy in Finland. This is why, being a bourgeois member of the conservative party, I feel obliged to state that we need a united, militant, social-democratic party which firmly upholds northern democracy". The English bourgeois newspaper Financial Times wrote in the same vein on June 28, 1963: ". . . the industrialists are scared less by the Labourites, and some of them cherish the opinion that a Labour government would open up better perspectives for development than the Tories."Hoxha, speaking of social-democracy in 1980, states:

The development of the economy in the West after the war also exerted a great influence on the spread of opportunist and revisionist ideas in the communist parties. True, Western Europe was devastated by the war but its recovery was carried out relatively quickly. The American capital which poured into Europe through the "Marshall Plan" made it possible to reconstruct the factories, plants, transport and agriculture so that their production extended rapidly. This development opened up many jobs and for a long period, not only absorbed all the free labour force but even created a certain shortage of labour.

This situation, which brought the bourgeoisie great superprofits, allowed it to loosen its pursestrings a little and soften the labour conflicts to some degree. In the social field, in such matters as social insurance, health, education, labour legislation etc., it took some measures for which the working class had fought hard. The obvious improvement of the standard of living of the working people in comparison with that of the time of the war and even before the war, the rapid growth of production, which came as a result of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture and the beginning of the technical and scientific revolution, and the full employment of the work force, opened the way to the flowering amongst the unformed opportunist element of views about the development of capitalism without class conflicts, about its ability to avoid crises, the elimination of the phenomenon of unemployment etc. That major teaching of Marxism-Leninism, that the periods of peaceful development of capitalism becomes a source for the spread of opportunism, was confirmed once again. The new stratum of the worker aristocracy, which increased considerably during this period, began to exert an ever more negative influence in the ranks of the parties and their leaderships by introducing reformist and opportunist views and ideas.

Under pressure of these circumstances, the programs of these communist parties were reduced more and more to democratic and reformist minimum programs, while the idea of the revolution and socialism became ever more remote. The major strategy of the revolutionary transformation of society gave way to the minor strategy about current problems of the day which was absolutized and became the general political and ideological line.And finally, a quote from Lenin:

"They [Social-Democrats] are just as much traitors to socialism... They represent that top section of workers who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie, those whom we Bolsheviks called 'agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement,' and to whom the best socialists in America gave the magnificently expressive and very fitting title: 'labour lieutenants of the capitalist class.' They represent the latest, 'modern,' type of socialist treachery, for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting 'gain' from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of 'their own' country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution."
(V.I. Lenin, "Letter to the Workers of Europe and America," Pravda; No. 16, January 24, 1919.)

[Red Commissar]

can you tell me, how? because my sister deleted the program for the pdf download.

To put it simply the SPD, being a ruling party in the government, suppressed the November Revolution. Leading up to this event the SPD already started to have issues, as the careerist leaders had been pro-war and had the party vote for war credits. Friedrich Ebert, the leader and later first president of the Weimar Republic, essentially purged the Spartacists and even the reformists and later "centrists" out of the group due to their stances on the war and labor. Once this SPD assumed control they turned the apparatus of the state and the right-wing Freikorps to crush socialist uprisings in November.

Though the right-wing groups was not in favor of this social democratic party. The Kapp Putsch demonstrated as much. In response to the Kapp Putch some left-wing groups attempted another uprising in response to the Kapp Putcsh in the Ruhr region, and once again the state deployed force to put them down and once again utilized the Freikrops.

What which doctor is getting at is social democrat(ic) used to be prefixed to parties that were a catch all for all sorts of socialists, and the SPD in its birth had been a Marxist party. During and after WWI, social democratic parties lost their Marxist wings. The party lines at this point was to achieve socialism through reforms of capitalism in government participation, so-termed "democratic socialism". They had though abandoned the Marxist conception of getting to a communist society.

This old party-line resulted in social democrats referring to themselves as socialists, and being referred to as such by other political parties. I think this lasted even into our times but it's becoming a term they don't want to use.

After awhile this party line began to run into issues. Getting into the 1960s social democratic parties began to develop two increasingly polarized factions. On one end was the more orthodox social democrats who wanted to maintain their stance of democratic socialism, on the other a group that wanted to settle for regulated capitalism to advance progressive social goals. Beginning in the 1970s, continuing through the 1980s and ending in the 1990s, social democratic parties under went changes that moved them more to the centre of their political spectrum.

The left-wing elements of these social democrat parties gradually left and formed their own parties and groups, leaving the right wing of social democrats in control. Ultimately by the 1990s social democracy had completed its drift and became an ideology which felt that regulated capitalism could achieve a fairer society.

Ignoring the careerists in social democrat parties, I think they have their hearts in the right place but are too confident that they can enact change through capitalism while the same powers maintain control over it. There is a quote I remember, not exactly, but something along the lines of political participation in a bourgeoisie society being like a whirlpool. They may enter in with noble goals, but over time they'll be spun and spun around, lose their goals, and eventually become a part of the system. Same case with social democrats.

[Antifa94]

Social Democrats are quasi-leftists with capitalist yearnings. Social Democracy has existed in nations, and absolutely NOTHING revolutionary has occurred. One example of this is Weimar Germany, in which the there was a SDP majority. What did they do? they suppressed the proletarian revolutions of 1918-19, 1923, and the May Day protests of 1929. Their bourgeois pacifism allowed Hitler to come to power. Under their government, "humane" capitalism is implemented. Their existence serves to steer votes away from genuine Communist parties.

[chegitz guevara]

Social democrats are neither socialists nor democrats.

At best, they are naive, well-intentioned people who will lead the worker class to disaster. By attempting to create socialism, without arming the worker class and overthrowing the bourgeois state, they leave the class defenseless and unable to fight off the inevitable coup d'etat. We've seen this in Finland, Chile, etc.

Otherwise, the social democrats betray the workers themselves, by promising socialism but never delivering. This can take the form of the French Socialist Party in 1980, which actually seemed to intend to use the capitalist state to try to implement socialism, but which backed down in the face of capitalist threats to sink the economy (if that hadn't worked, it is likely the military would have overthrown them). More often, however, they simply never intent to carry out their promises, and often even lead the neo-liberal assault on the welfare states they created. It is the Socialist Parties of Greece, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, etc., that are cutting services and jobs and implementing austerity measures.

Even in countries like the United States, where socialism isn't even on the agenda, social democrats seek to try and limit protest to "responsible" channels and tame the militancy of the people. Don't say revolution, you'll scare people away. We have to support sanctions in order to oppose the war, etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A very quick post:

Social Democracy is it mostly exists today (i.e. the Labour Party in Britain) is not true Social Democracy. It is SD in word only - in reality it is quite clear neo-liberalism.

Traditional Social Democracy, however, was what one might call right-reform Socialism. It carried out the big government policies that we all know are a well intentioned halfway house between economic liberalism and collectivism.

There seems to be a range of Social Democrat types - those who are really Capitalists seeking slight reforms, perhaps out of guilt or whatever, and there are those Social Democrats who have been members of the working class, and are for the working class, but simply do not believe in the revolution.

Personally, I believe the nature of the USSR, GDR and PRC have led to the death of what you might call Left-Social Democracy.

[Common_Means]

Social democrats are the most dangerous kind of policitians, they talk left but stab you in the back

Kinda says it all, they have bin one of the biggest party in my country for the last 30 years but have brought nothing else then lies and misery..


This post brought Malcolm X to mind:

"I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil."

[danyboy27]

Social democracy is not an option not beccause evil capitalist will try to sabotage it, but beccause profits and welfare of people are not compatible.

Even if the system would do a verry good job, it would drain all the profit, driving it to a certain bankrupcy.

In order to have excelent public service, Profit and money must be abolished.

[RadioRaheem84]

wow. huge exaggeration. Surely fascists are more dangerous :laugh:

I believe Social democrats have their hearts in the right place, they are just too feeble to actually take a real stand against capitalism. They are capitalist-appeasers, but as far as politicians go, they're not the worst of the worst.

It was a Social Democratic politician that paid some German Freikorps to take out Rosa Luxembourg.

Social Democrats can be good and allies with us when they're not in power. But when they are they can be just as vicious as right wingers as they believe themselves to be the most morally centered out of anyone in the room. They pride themselves, like liberals in the US, as not being captivated by "extremes".

[RadioRaheem84]

Most Social Democrats are full blown neo-liberals by this point anyways. They're enemies.

Hugo Chavez is probably the only example of an old school real social democrat and even then he has his share of major problems.

[ZombieGrits]

Social-democrats inefficiency is pretty well explained in "Ten Days That Shook the World"


Moderate socialists needed the bourgeosie. But the bourgeosie did not need the moderate socialists. So it resulted in the Socialist Ministers being obliged to give way, little by little, on their entire program, while the propertied classes grew more and more insistent. And at the end, when the Bolsheviks upset the whole hollow compromise, the Mensheviks and Esers found themselves fighting on the side of the propertied classes.

He's referring to the Mensheviks support for the bourgeois Provisional Government before a progression into socialism, but the same thing applies today to reformists of capitalism that are forced to work at a pace dictated by capitalists

[RadioRaheem84]

Social-democrats inefficiency is pretty well explained in "Ten Days That Shook the World"



He's referring to the Mensheviks support for the bourgeois Provisional Government before a progression into socialism, but the same thing applies today to reformists of capitalism that are forced to work at a pace dictated by capitalists

Why have they always had that attitude though? They were always willing to fight with us against reactionaries but then always fought us after the victory? Why do they have this belief that they are so right and more capable, rational of governing because they're not captivated by "extremes"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a big difference between what social democracy is now, and what it used to be. For instance, a 'social-democratic' party used to indicate a Marxist political party

Actually, there was a brief Social-Democracy (note the hyphen) that existed before the 1850s: in France (Marx's Brumaire).

This was a class-collaborationist experiment between not-so-radical workers and "radical" petit-bourgeoisie, for "radical" democracy plus key "social" (but not socialist) demands.

The Paris Commune had radical democracy and implemented key social demands, but it nevertheless descended from this brief Social-Democracy because the French "working classes" were not fully differentiated yet between the proletariat, the lumpenproletariat, the small-business petit-bourgeoisie, and artisans (to say nothing about the emergence of the coordinator class in the 20th century).

That's why Marx didn't like Bebel and Liebknecht using that label.

[ZombieGrits]

Why have they always had that attitude though? They were always willing to fight with us against reactionaries but then always fought us after the victory? Why do they have this belief that they are so right and more capable, rational of governing because they're not captivated by "extremes"?

I don't know their position that well, I was never a social-democrat myself. From my understanding, they see revolution as a sort of "jumping the gun" and think that the best way to achieve a socialist society is little by little so nobody notices :D
The reason they side with the bourgeosie so often is because inorder to exist, they need the bourgeosie. Now the reason they need the bourgeosie is because the bourgeosie is the dominant class and without their concession, the social-democrats cannot even begin to reform capitalism. And due to their need to have that concession from the bourgeosie, they can't really propose any real sort of reform of the capitalist system, which defeats the purpose of social-democracy in the first place. As for why they think that doing this is better than an alternative system is beyond me

[The Red Next Door]

It was a Social Democratic politician that paid some German Freikorps to take out Rosa Luxembourg.

Social Democrats can be good and allies with us when they're not in power. But when they are they can be just as vicious as right wingers as they believe themselves to be the most morally centered out of anyone in the room. They pride themselves, like liberals in the US, as not being captivated by "extremes".
wow, really?

[Red Commissar]

wow, really?

The SPD was in control of the government at the time, and they viewed the socialist uprisings as a threat to their power. Consequently they utilized the full force of the state and also deployed the Freikorps, who put down the rebellion and executed many of the movement's leaders and members, among them Liebknecht and Luxemburg.

I mentioned in a post earlier there was already a lot of internal problems within the SPD, and the Spartacists were purged out of the party for continuing to make anti-war statements. If I'm not mistaken even Bernstein, representing reformist trends in socialism, and Karl Kautsky were shoved out as well and both went on to form the Independent Social Democratic Party with their followers later on.

For the most part social democrat parties transformed from their original Marxist roots, to democratic socialism, to what we see now as "social democracy", and now even further to Third Way politics. Along the way they discarded the left wing of their parties at each step, and currently they've embraced more pro-capitalist stances in order to try and appeal to the middle-class.

[Wolf Larson]

Illusions that the Democrat party is the party of the people have made us irrelevant over the years, even centuries. For generations the Democrat party has positioned itself as a populist peoples party in opposition to the conservative [obviously] crony capitalist [Republican] party. Both parties are tied to the hip of capitalism and the Democrat party or social Democrats, in the end, garner more consent for the capitalist system than the Republicans.

Throughout history Democrats have been there when workers have had enough....there to take our hands like pied pipers and lead us to the slaughter albeit through a different path. The two party system has been successful in preventing any revolutionary movements, they know what they're doing. Case in point is the Democrat party back in 1896. There was a strong revolutionary tendency amongst the people and the Democrats knew it- as they have just done with Obama today they pushed William Jennings Bryan as their candidate of "change"- the peoples presidential candidate. This was because a "populist" socialist leaning party received 1.4 million votes in the 1894 mid term elections so Bryant was pushed by Democrats- a man who was a great orator and criticized the railroads, banks and trusts or corporations. Bryan also positioned himself as anti-imperialist [as Obama euphemistically achieved during his rise to power]. The campaign of Bryan succeeded in quieting and melding the more revolutionary citizen with the Democrat party. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The New Deal is also held up as some social democrat success story when in reality Roosevelt existed for the same purpose. The revolutionary potential had grown in the early 1900's after the false hope Democrats threw at the people with Bryan. There were actual revolutionary movements in America threatening the established capitalist order. At this time in history we saw the most potential for revolutionary socialism. Roosevelt was introduced as the new and improved Bryan and he won office with teh goal of saving capitalism. He succeeded. Roosevelt wrote the supreme court saying "Those who have property fail to realize that I am the best friend the profit system ever had". He was correct- he did in fact save capitalism from revolutionary socialism.

The populist rhetoric of the Democrat party is meant to take the gumption out of any revolutionary potential the nation has. We can see this manifest throughout history up unto the present day with the capitalist swine Obama. Engels said [and it sound like he wrote it yesterday]" The formation of a workers party in the United States is hindered by a force which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties - the two great gangs of speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends".

I make no distinction between the social Democrats of Europe, the Democrats of the early 20'th century and the Keynesian Democrats today. They all serve to preserve private property/capitalist privilege because capitalists will never let themselves be voted out of power. Who was it that said "you can't skin a live tiger by it's paw"? I'd also like to point out the absurd irrelevance of Bernie Sanders and his latest move to apologize for this new corporate health law. The end result of parliamentary "social Democrats" in a capitalist system is the strengthening of the capitalist state both structurally and by gaining left wing support for the capitalist state.

Speaking of outward socialist social Democrats look at what happened in Chile, in the 1970's. The socialist party won electoral victories and President Salvador Allende preached a peaceful "constitutional" path to socialism. He restrained mass movements so the bourgeoisie wouldn't be alarmed while outright disarming the socialist workers by sending in police/military to take weapons away. The capitalist class in Chile was threatened and so was the US. Socialism was indeed taking hold via parliamentary measures and the end result was violent suppression after the capitalists representative Pinochet murdered president Allende he turned his attention to the workers movement. Socialism was crushed because of the idiotic and naive fantasies of social Democrats.

Social Democrats also are of the Fabian ilk who see themselves as the "enlightened" saviors of mankind. They think they can appeal to capitalists morals to have them willingly turn over their wealth and privilege while not offending the bourgeoisie. They're elitists and do not want to put power in the peoples hands even if they could [same goes for the Technocracy people]. Both Marx and Engels were very critical of Social Democrats- they called it parliamentary centrism. They scorned parliamentary "socialists" [they called them revisionists] who saw their goal as getting the "educated" men elected so as to lead the people from above- to form and dictate workers interests from a elite position. Marx strongly opposed the German social Democrats men who, as he said- "say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and middle class". The entire point of socialism [which is lost on many posters, even moderators in this forum] is the abolition of privilege and class [hierarchy] facilitated and continued [perpetuated] by the proletariat. Self rule of by and for the working class. The creation of one class, the working class, ruled from below by a democratic worker controlled economy.

Anything from Technocrats [Technocracy] to social democrats to liberals must be opposed by the people. We don't ant to perpetuate capitalism, class society or rule from above. Just because some people claim to represent the people and the goal of equal abundance doesn't make them the allies of the people.

[Wolf Larson]

Most Social Democrats are full blown neo-liberals by this point anyways. They're enemies.

Hugo Chavez is probably the only example of an old school real social democrat and even then he has his share of major problems.

Whether they are outward democratic socialists or just plain old liberals it makes no difference. I wouldn't put Chavez completely in the social Democrat category as it's up to the people to stamp out capitalist privilege in Venezuela. If Chavez pushes any harder the US will have him assassinated. We've learned from Chile. The only thing keeping Chavez from advocating all out socialist revolution is the US intelligence/military complex [or perhaps he doesn't want to give up power to the people seeing this is the nature of power]. In any event why do you think Obama has surrounded Venezuela with US bases? Whats needed in Venezuela is a stronger movement from below in order to expropriate capitalist privilege [abolish private property]. The US is funding all sorts of propaganda/military campaigns in South America which has been responsible for the retardation of socialism in the region. It's complicated. If the US didn't exist Venezuela would in fact be a post socialist/advanced communist nation.