This what democracy looks like - The people in arms in Venezuela

[chebol]

http://thefutureonfire.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-what-democracy-looks-like-people-in.html


This what democracy looks like - The people in arms in Venezuela (http://thefutureonfire.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-what-democracy-looks-like-people-in.html)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-m2FIM4VI/AAAAAAAAACE/xqPmeAh_VBU/s400/ven+militia+woman+with+gun.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-m2FIM4VI/AAAAAAAAACE/xqPmeAh_VBU/s1600/ven+militia+woman+with+gun.jpg)
Venezuelan students organised in the Bolivarian Militia.


This is what democracy looks like

A common chant around the world when people take to the streets against the crimes of the global capitalist system is: "This is what democracy looks like!"

It is a statement that real democracy is on the streets, in the united action of ordinary people. It is a statement that democracy is more than passive voting once every few years, it is popular power and direct participation.

April 13, 2002 in Caracas, Venezuela was the scene of a powerful expression of popular power. The poor majority and much of the armed forces rose up and overthrew a coup-installed dictatorship. Elected President Hugo Chavez was restored to power.

In Caracas on April 13, 2010, a large demonstration occurred that gives further meaning to the slogan. What occurred on the streets of Caracas that day was indeed what democracy looks like - a march by tens of thousands of Venezuelan people organised in the Bolivarian militias.

There were battalions of workers, peasants, students, the urban poor organised in social missions - all organised from the grassroots.

This was a dramatic demonstration of the "People in Arms".

This is a crucial part of democratising a society - breaking the hold over the potential for armed violence of small, highly organised professional bodies governed with tight discipline from the top down by privileged castes in the interests of the powerful.

The monopoly over violence by the powerful gives them the permanent potential to terrorise the powerless.

A “people in arms” is a people you think twice before fucking with. A people in arms cannot be easily subdued.

You only need to look at the brutal response by large landowners in Venezuela to the government's land reform policy to see the significance of this question. Since 2001, more than 200 peasant activists have been murdered, without the existing institutions stopping the bloodshed. No one has been brought to justice for these crimes.

Now, the peasants are being organised into armed detachments - as peasant organisations themselves have been demanding (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4838).


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-nP08dpwI/AAAAAAAAACM/Di_MBMBsrOQ/s400/ven+militia+campesino+battallion.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-nP08dpwI/AAAAAAAAACM/Di_MBMBsrOQ/s1600/ven+militia+campesino+battallion.jpg)
Peasant battalion in the Bolivarian Militia, April 13.


Organising the oppressed in such a way is a defensive measure to prevent the sort of coup that occurred in 2002, in which more than 60 unarmed protesters were murdered on the streets and supporters of Chavez were hunted down.

It is also a preventative measure against a US invasion or a US-sponsored invasion by, for instance, neighbouring Colombia.

When the US imperialists and Chilean capitalists organised a military coup against the elected left-wing Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, a reign of terror was carried out with thousands slaughtered. On the back of the mass slaughter of militant workers, vicious neoliberalism was imposed.

This bloody example showed the need to do just what is happening in Venezuela - the arming of the people.

In Venezuela, there is a popular revolution that is still very much developing and seeking to advance. Capital still holds much power. It still controls significant sectors of the economy and has much power within the state.

The pro-poor policies of the Chavez government have helped raise the poor majority up and begun to create alternative structures. But much of capital’s economic power remains intact.

There are important steps forward in recuperating sections of industry. There are important experiments in popular power and ongoing attempts to strengthen these and create new institutions based directly on the organised people.

The most important are the communal councils (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4766)and the communes (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4749)(based on elected representatives from the communal councils, which are also experimenting with creating a "communal economy" in which the communes take control over production and distribution in their areas).

The struggle to implement workers' control, or other forms of workers' participation in management, in important state industries is resulting in important steps forward (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/834/42913). This is a struggle to weaken and defeat the corrupt counter-revolutionary bureaucracy that still controls much of the state and sabotages the revolution's plans.

But it is all partial and still in the realm of experiments to find a way forward. There are important sectors of the broad-based Bolivarian movement that are hostile to serious attacks on capital and frustrate attempts to develop genuine popular power. It is not possible to advance decisively without ongoing struggle within the Bolivarian movement.

An important battlefield of this internal class struggle is the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) – the mass party led by Chavez that was formed in 2007.

Will it be a revolutionary vehicle that organises the most conscious and militant sectors in the communities and workplaces to push the revolution forward (as Chavez insists it must be)?

Or will it be dominated by more moderate, bureaucratic sectors as a vehicle for their interests, for advancement of individuals and competing power blocs fighting over the spoils of power (as Chavez’s old party, the MVR, was)?

This fight is occurring now. The right-wing has a lot of organisational power within the PSUV, but the political initiative lies with Chavez, who pushes leftwards, towards strengthening the bases.

At the founding congress in 2008, which right-wing sectors largely had organisational control over, these forces argued the provisional PSUV program should limit itself to “anti-imperialism” (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/741/38355%E2%80%9D) rather than be explicitly anti-capitalist.

Delegates rejected this and adopted a draft program and declaration of principles (http://links.org.au/node/261) that calls for a thorough-going socialist revolution – in Venezuela and the world.

The problem facing the revolution is not simply from above, but also from below - in a related way. In particular, a major block is the fact that the organised workers' movement is too weak in Venezuela. It is divided, organises too little of the working class and the level of consciousness is too low.

This cannot be overcome by a government decree or a speech by Chavez. It can only be overcome through the many struggles breaking out to advance the interests of the working class.

This weakness in the revolutionary movement makes it hard to push forward decisively. Also, it leaves a vacuum within the Chavista movement that is filled by more right-wing and bureaucratic sectors.

But it is a live question, an ongoing struggle. How can you develop the working class except through the direct involvement of the working class in all aspects of the struggle to transform society?

This is the significance of the struggle for workers' control - and why it is resisted so fiercely by privileged bureaucrats. It creates a school for workers to develop, learn and transform themselves from a passive and narrowly-interested sector into active, organised, revolutionary actors.

The ongoing power of capital and bureaucratic sectors creates deep-going problems, with the government often unable to get its policies implemented. There is economic sabotage by corrupt state managers and private capitalists. This poses big struggles in the near future.

The Bolivarian militia is partial itself - it is uneven. Some communities and sectors are organised and others aren't. It is still relatively new.

But the demonstration of April 13 is a very powerful one. It shows the revolution is strengthening itself from the ground up. It shows the growing power of the oppressed.

It sends a powerful message: You don't fuck with the Venezuelan people.

This is what democracy looks like.

Below is a powerful eyewitness account by British socialist Alan Woods of this dramatic demonstration. The photos are by Kiraz Janicke, a member of the Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au/)Caracas bureau.

(http://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=6345981962769150781&widgetType=Text&widgetId=Text1&action=editWidget)

[chebol]

* * *

The People in Arms

By Alan Woods, www.marxist.com (http://www.marxist.com/)

Eight years ago something occurred that has no precedent in the history of Latin America. The reactionary coup of 11 April, in which the Venezuelan oligarchy, in collaboration with the US Embassy and the CIA, overthrew the democratically elected government, was defeated by a spontaneous uprising of the masses.

On that day history was made. Ordinary men and women came onto the streets, risking their lives to defend the Bolivarian Revolution. With no party, no leadership and no clear perspectives other than to defeat the coup, the workers, peasants, and revolutionary youth, women and men, young and old, marched in their thousands to the gates of the Miraflores Palace to demand the release of President Chávez. The soldiers went over to the side of the people, and the coup collapsed.

These heroic events can only be compared to Barcelona in July 1936, when the workers, armed with old hunting rifles, clubs and anything they could lay their hands on, stormed the barracks and smashed the fascist reactionaries. If anybody doubts that this was a genuine revolution, they have only to study the events of April 2002.

In past years these events have been turned into a celebration of the Revolution. The Bolivar Avenue in downtown Caracas was a sea of red shirts and waving banners. But this year the scene was quite different to what I remember. Instead of a sea of red, Bolivar Avenue was filled to overflowing with a sea of camouflage green. This was the Day of the People’s Militia – a demonstration of the power of a people in arms.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-rPaTILBI/AAAAAAAAAD8/7-wfG0K70xo/s400/ven+militia-7.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-rPaTILBI/AAAAAAAAAD8/7-wfG0K70xo/s1600/ven+militia-7.jpg)
The militias marching, April 13.

As you walked along the Avenue the files of militiamen and militiawomen (there were many women also in uniform) seemed to have no end. Here once again one could sense the unconquerable power of the masses. But now there was a different element. Here were thousands upon thousands of workers from the factories, peasants from the villages, and young kids from the schools and colleges, expressing their willingness to fight, arms in hand, to defend the Revolution against enemies – both external and internal.

Under a blazing sun, the people massed – the usual red shirts of the chavistas alongside the green-clad militia. Along the Avenue the loudspeakers blared out revolutionary slogans: against imperialism, against the bourgeoisie, for the Revolution, for socialism, and for Chávez: “The Right is still preparing another 11 April, but now the People have arms! Long live the Bolivarian Revolution! Long live the Armed People! Long live President Chávez!”

People climbed trees and lampposts to get a better view and to display placards with militant slogans, while some made a quick profit selling hats, tee-shirts and cold drinks (which were much in demand). There was a deafening roar of music – Latin American rhythms with revolutionary words, interrupted by chants and slogans. The militia was organized by groups that showed their origins: young teenagers from the schools and peasants with straw hats and tractors with Belarus written on the side.

To the rear, the militia was unarmed, but as one approached the head of the demonstration, everyone was holding a Russian-made AK-47, that most versatile and effective weapon, light and easy to use.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pdVQZzzI/AAAAAAAAADE/GpKMr_Jcbyk/s400/ven+militia+armed+forces+acadecmy+students.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pdVQZzzI/AAAAAAAAADE/GpKMr_Jcbyk/s1600/ven+militia+armed+forces+acadecmy+students.jpg)
Students from the national armed forces university march with AK-47s


In recent years Chávez has bought large quantities of these weapons from Russia. Washington and its hired media have made a tremendous fuss, alleging that these guns are destined for the FARC guerrillas in Colombia. Now everyone can see what they are really intended for.

As they wait for the arrival of the President, the militias stand listlessly, or sit on the ground to eat a sandwich. Some rest on their rifles, and one or two even had the muzzle of their AK-47s resting on their boot – a somewhat risky practice, one would have thought. In fact a professional drill sergeant would doubtless have a heart attack, looking at these half-trained civilians with guns.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-nmEYX8EI/AAAAAAAAACU/8AWyj5XBpSk/s400/ven+militias+relaxing+with+their+guns.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-nmEYX8EI/AAAAAAAAACU/8AWyj5XBpSk/s1600/ven+militias+relaxing+with+their+guns.jpg)
Militia members relax with their guns.


But this impression would be entirely false. These militias are the lineal descendants of the Cuban guerrillas, of the militias that fought Franco in the Spanish Civil War, of the workers´ militias that overthrew the Tsar in Russia in 1917, and if we go even further back in history, of the armies of the French Revolution and the militias of the American Revolution in the 18th century.

None of these were professional forces and they did not conform to the standards of a professional bourgeois standing army. But they did not fight any the less well for that, and in more than one case (Spain comes to mind) the attempt to force them into the format of a professional army had the most negative effects on their fighting spirit.

Late in the afternoon, a mood of expectancy can be noticed. The militia begins to form ranks. The crowd on the pavements pushes forward to catch a glimpse of their hero. Chávez appears, dressed in army uniform, riding on the back of an open vehicle – an ordinary army truck – saluting and waving to the militia and the crowd. The militia marches forward towards the tribune where Chávez is to deliver his speech.

His speech was shorter than in the past, but went straight to the point. Recalling the dramatic events of April 2002, he pulls out a magnificent sword and shows it to the multitude. It is the sword of Simon Bolivar – El Libertador (The Liberator). He tells the people that the liberation of Latin America has not been achieved for 200 years and can only be achieved through socialist revolution.

In the kind of dramatic gesture that is characteristic of him, he makes the people swear a sacred oath: that they will never rest until this task is accomplished. The militias repeat the words loudly, holding their rifles in the air. “The militia is the People, and the People is the militia,” he proclaims.

Then Chávez recounts the events of April 2002, from the fascist coup of 11 April to the popular-military uprising of 13 April. “I have been thinking a lot about this,” he says. “Ever since the 1970s, some people have been dreaming of a popular-military rebellion. But it never occurred. The 1980s was a black period that ended in the Caracazo of 1989, with a massacre of unarmed civilians.”

Chávez then recalled how he and a group of progressive army officers tried to stage a rebellion in 1992: “We failed because this was a military uprising without the People,” he concluded. After a spell in prison, he recalled the formation of a mass movement: the Bolivarian Movement, which swept to power in the 1998 elections. But the oligarchy lost no time in preparing the coup of 2002.

Chávez recalled the men and women who died in the coup, and the many more who were wounded. Contrary to the myth so assiduously spread by the media in the West about the allegedly repressive and dictatorial regime in Venezuela, nobody is in prison for these crimes, and eight years later the judicial investigations are still dragging on: “Let there be no impunity for this massacre, as there has been impunity for so many other massacres in our history!” he said.

He then went on to say that the blood of these martyrs of the Revolution acted as a spur to the Revolution. “Immediately after the 11 April there began the arrests and manhunts, the threats on television and the other media. But this aroused all the latent pent-up power of the masses that had been suppressed for so long,” he said. “This gave rise to the greatest rebellion in our history – the popular uprising we had waited so long to see.”

“This was an uprising against the bourgeoisie and imperialism. But the latter had calculated that such an uprising would be put down in blood by the army, as happened in the Caracazo. But our soldiers not only refused to fire on the People, but went over to the side of the People. The bourgeoisie and the imperialists had the surprise of their lives.”

Chávez pointed out that US imperialism was actively involved in the coup. US helicopters and spy planes were flying over Venezuelan air space, a US submarine and an aircraft carrier were in Venezuelan waters waiting to intervene. But the movement of the masses forced them to withdraw.

Ever since then the bourgeois media have tried to wipe that date out of the calendar, but the masses have kept it alive. “They cannot wipe April from the calendar, any more than they can wipe out January, February or any other month.”

Chávez observed that, if they had succeeded in crushing the Venezuelan Revolution, it would have dealt a heavy blow against the revolutionary movement throughout Latin America. “On our shoulders a heavy responsibility lies,” he said. “The peoples of Latin America are looking to us for their salvation.” Admitting that the Revolution was far from completed and that there was a colossal amount still to be done, he appealed for patience. “After its first decade, the Revolution has hardly begun,” he said.

Chávez then warned that the threat of counterrevolution had not gone away, and that there were conspiracies to assassinate him. He said that if this occurred: “Do not lose your heads, keep calm. You know what you have to do: take the power into your own hands – ALL the power! Expropriate the banks, the industries, the monopolies that remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie.”

Turning to the September elections he warned: “We cannot allow the bourgeoisie to take control of the National Assembly. If they do, they will use it to destabilize the country and create the conditions for another 11 April. We must win two thirds of the seats in order to press on with our programme.”

He warned the bourgeoisie that it was not possible to repeat what happened in April 2002, because the people were now armed and would crush any counterrevolutionary attempt. He finished with the words: Long live the National Militia!” Long live the People in Arms! Long Live the Socialist Revolution! Patria, socialism o muerte!

Caracas, 13 April, 2010


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-oCwgl9wI/AAAAAAAAACc/JqCWmMKPChs/s400/ven+militiia+education+workers+combat+corp.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-oCwgl9wI/AAAAAAAAACc/JqCWmMKPChs/s1600/ven+militiia+education+workers+combat+corp.jpg)
Education workers' combat corp.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-oZGEORYI/AAAAAAAAACk/TEX7Y2jS-eo/s400/ven+militia+mission+ribas+combat+corp.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-oZGEORYI/AAAAAAAAACk/TEX7Y2jS-eo/s1600/ven+militia+mission+ribas+combat+corp.jpg)
Mission Ribas (education social program) combat corp.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-ou0-I_fI/AAAAAAAAACs/ib4H1zmivqo/s400/ven+militia+metro+workers+combat+corp.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-ou0-I_fI/AAAAAAAAACs/ib4H1zmivqo/s1600/ven+militia+metro+workers+combat+corp.jpg)
Metro workers' combat corp.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-o_GZ5VaI/AAAAAAAAAC0/16rTWb87nJE/s400/ven+militia+student+battallion.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-o_GZ5VaI/AAAAAAAAAC0/16rTWb87nJE/s1600/ven+militia+student+battallion.jpg)
A student battallion.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pLr0-ZZI/AAAAAAAAAC8/VhMCvEOiAIs/s400/ven+militia+grandma+battallion.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pLr0-ZZI/AAAAAAAAAC8/VhMCvEOiAIs/s1600/ven+militia+grandma+battallion.jpg)
All ages have mobilised to defend the revolution.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-qsdGeL9I/AAAAAAAAADc/bDKe7cMWVx4/s400/ven+militia-3.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-qsdGeL9I/AAAAAAAAADc/bDKe7cMWVx4/s1600/ven+militia-3.jpg)
You don't fuck with the Venezuelan people.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pvsDrGPI/AAAAAAAAADM/cYHbPoLmNls/s400/Venezuela+militia.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-pvsDrGPI/AAAAAAAAADM/cYHbPoLmNls/s1600/Venezuela+militia.jpg)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-qaCW5-nI/AAAAAAAAADU/FvZsaJERww4/s400/ven+militia-2.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-qaCW5-nI/AAAAAAAAADU/FvZsaJERww4/s1600/ven+militia-2.jpg)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-q_ae3H4I/AAAAAAAAADs/sB88oWOEG0w/s400/ven+militia-5.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-q_ae3H4I/AAAAAAAAADs/sB88oWOEG0w/s1600/ven+militia-5.jpg)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-rGvdibrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/86KPPHjR78A/s400/ven+militia-6.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zc3iCoPXo3o/S8-rGvdibrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/86KPPHjR78A/s1600/ven+militia-6.jpg)

[pranabjyoti]

They have pretty much similarity with Maoist cadres of India and I myself like the similarity to be more wide and deep.:cool:

[Nolan]

Seems like capitalism's days in Venezuela are numbered. Just add right-wing coup attempt..

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I like their uniforms.

[Usui]

I just hope I can be a part of this.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I wish Venezuela could help out the EZLN though. Ya know? I know there's distance in that, but still.

[Comrade Awesome]

This is really uplifting, shows that this movement truly has the support of the people, and that ensures it's success.

[black magick hustla]

here in the US we call that the national guard

[Uppercut]

here in the US we call that the national guard

Except the National Guard isn't geared towards defending workers from corporate harassment or aiding in production.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Eh, fuck the naysayers, communists supposedly want workers control, when armed to the teeth workers and peasants roam the streets en masse, that is workers control. This is nothing like the National Guard, the National Guard are just glorified cops with bigger guns and smaller brains, the national guard serve to protect private property and the government, I can hardly see these Venezuelan militias coming out to serve a dictator who has overthrown the PSUV government, if history is anything to go by it is likely that they would just go out and kill them.

[pranabjyoti]

here in the US we call that the national guard
I think the real question is "how much class consciousness they can show in moment of attack". And I also hope that the answer will be highly affirmative.

[CartCollector]

I think the real question is "how much class consciousness they can show in moment of attack". And I also hope that the answer will be highly affirmative.
Maldoror was using the term pejoratively. The National Guard is a militia set up and controlled by the state (in the US, a political entity like a province) that it's in. It also acts as a reserve for the US military- if the US military is running short on troops it can pull some from the National Guard to fight for it. So no I don't think they'll be showing class consciousness any time soon.

[Rusty Shackleford]

how much is a ticket to venezuela form california!?

students, workers, and peasants all in the militia!!! brilliant!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Seems like capitalism's days in Venezuela are numbered.

Not sure how you can infer that. Just looks like a typical parade to me. I don't see any occupations and collectivization taking place.

Hell, they probably all went to McDonald's afterward.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Chávez then warned that the threat of counterrevolution had not gone away, and that there were conspiracies to assassinate him. He said that if this occurred: “Do not lose your heads, keep calm. You know what you have to do: take the power into your own hands – ALL the power! Expropriate the banks, the industries, the monopolies that remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie.”I hope someone assassinates Chavez.

Also, 34000 chavistas with guns =/= the Venezuelan people.

[Ismail]

In Albania pretty much the entire population was armed and paramilitary training was required starting in secondary school. In fact, a large amount of Albanian military strategy in case of an attack was to have people get their guns and head for nearby bunkers in line with overall "People's War" guerrilla tactics.

Speaking as a Hoxhaist, I would say that the people having guns does not equal socialism. "No guns = everyone is submissive to the evil government" is a right-wing view. In Albania everyone being armed interfered with nothing.

[black magick hustla]

the National Guard are just glorified cops with bigger guns and smaller brains, the national guard serve to protect private property and the government, I can hardly see these Venezuelan militias coming out to serve a dictator who has overthrown the PSUV government, if history is anything to go by it is likely that they would just go out and kill them.
:shrugs: the venezuelan state is mobilizing workers and peasants to defend it, something done by almost every country in the earth. In this sense, they are similar to the national guard.

Now then, the question is what is the nature of the venezuelan state? I think it is capitalist. But definitely, the "militias" are not good by virtue of arming workers and peasants or by the flashy imagery. the question is answered about the nature of the venezuelan state.

[zimmerwald1915]

The article in the OP was rather light on substance and seemed more dedicated to cheerleading than anything else. Above all, it dealt very little with the working class as a class: the militia is "'the people' in arms", Chavez's policies are "pro-poor". Working people are only mentioned as being made "partners" with management. This is then described as workplace control.

The article was very vague about how these militias are being organized; it always used the passive voice when talking about that subject, leaving the question open whether they were being organized by workers - or, in the terms of the article, by "the people" - or by the state. However, there are a few clues. The article makes mention of the peasant militias, which we know to have been organized by the state. It states that the creation of both militias is part of the same "revolutionary" process. Finally, it states that "[the creation of the militias] is also a preventative measure against a US invasion or a US-sponsored invasion by, for instance, neighbouring Colombia," suggesting a close cooperation between the militias and the regular army. These indications suggest that the actor here is the Venezuelan state, organizing battalions of "workers, students, and peasants" to protect itself from enemies foreign and domestic. If this analysis, based on an article not exactly abounding with evidence, is correct, then so are Cart Collector, Helix, and Maldoror.

Also interesting is the admission that the PSUV is controlled by a bourgeois leadership that is supposedly distinct from Chavez, who, in compensation, "has the initiative" and is "moving leftward", whatever that means.

P.S. Haters gotta hate.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not sure how you can infer that. Just looks like a typical parade to me. I don't see any occupations and collectivization taking place.

Hell, they probably all went to McDonald's afterward.

What kind of assumption is that? Went to McDonalds? Are you kidding me? These people have other jobs as well besides this. They're not here to live a life of normalcy to our own conditions. They're wearing those uniforms & carrying those guns for a reason, & it's not to just give the Venezuelan people a show either.

[zimmerwald1915]

I hope someone assassinates Chavez.
Assassinations are not the method of the working class.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

it's not to just give the Venezuelan people a show either.

Could have fooled me. So whats the plan? Still haven't heard anything about... ya know... that getting rid of capitalism stuff. But I guess that isn't important.

[zimmerwald1915]

So whats the plan?
Enlisting workers in each country to help kill other workers in other countries.:crying:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Could have fooled me. So whats the plan? Still haven't heard anything about... ya know... that getting rid of capitalism stuff. But I guess that isn't important.


When would you announce your going to dismantle every remnant of capitalism, and then proceed to replace the state with a working class one?

a) before you have a force to suppress and defend against reactionaries?
b) after you have prepared the working class for potential conflict?
c) why would I? im a capitalist


disclaimer: it would be impossible for chavez to dismantle capitalism and proceed to smash the state himself or on his whim, that is the task of the conscious working class. the state is being used to provide education and training for the working class, and hopefully they will use this as an opportunity to have a revolution.

[zimmerwald1915]

the state is being used to provide education and training for the working class, and hopefully they will use this as an opportunity to have a revolution.
No it isn't. First of all, the state is acting. It is not "being used". Second, it is acting in such a way as the tie the working class to itself, to eliminate the possibility of revolution by saying to the working class "hey, look, we're on your side! We give you guns, and management consulting positions, and stuff!" In other words, what is going on here is not preparation for revolution, but the political and ideological disarmament of the working class. Revolutionaries, of course, need to speak out against this kind of thing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No it isn't. First of all, the state is acting. It is not "being used". Second, it is acting in such a way as the tie the working class to itself, to eliminate the possibility of revolution by saying to the working class "hey, look, we're on your side! We give you guns, and management consulting positions, and stuff!" In other words, what is going on here is not preparation for revolution, but the political and ideological disarmament of the working class. Revolutionaries, of course, need to speak out against this kind of thing.


this looks like more than saying "hey were on your side." that sounds more like what the US state did in the 1930's.

[zimmerwald1915]

this looks like more than saying "hey we're on your side."
How so?

[Rusty Shackleford]

How so?
the creation of the CCC or the TVA are two examples of saying "hey we are on your side" by having the state act in a pseudo-socialistic way. sure it saved jobs but it disarmed the working class.

also, the FDR government didnt arm workers, nor did it support communes.

[zimmerwald1915]

the creation of the CCC or the TVA are two examples of saying "hey we are on your side" by having the state act in a pseudo-socialistic way. sure it saved jobs but it disarmed the working class.

also, the FDR government didnt arm workers, nor did it support communes.
Sorry, I wan't clear. What I meant was "how are the actions of the Venezuelan State more than saying 'hey, we're on your side'?"

[Robocommie]

All hemming and hawing aside, I'm really curious what the privately-owned media in Venezuela, the ones that call Chavez a dictator every time he sneezes, thinks about all this.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No it isn't. First of all, the state is acting. It is not "being used". Second, it is acting in such a way as the tie the working class to itself, to eliminate the possibility of revolution by saying to the working class "hey, look, we're on your side! We give you guns, and management consulting positions, and stuff!" In other words, what is going on here is not preparation for revolution, but the political and ideological disarmament of the working class. Revolutionaries, of course, need to speak out against this kind of thing.

I think telling the armed workers & peasants to dismantle the state & take it over if he gets assassinated is a little bit more than "hey, we're on your side. now listen to us!" b.s. rhetoric that you're spewing.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

When would you announce your going to dismantle every remnant of capitalism, and then proceed to replace the state with a working class one?

a) before you have a force to suppress and defend against reactionaries?
b) after you have prepared the working class for potential conflict?
c) why would I? im a capitalist


disclaimer: it would be impossible for chavez to dismantle capitalism and proceed to smash the state himself or on his whim, that is the task of the conscious working class. the state is being used to provide education and training for the working class, and hopefully they will use this as an opportunity to have a revolution.

I wasn't talking about Chavez. I was talking about the revolution. The working class starts revolutions, not the leaders already in power.

So what are they going to do? Are they going to destroy capitalism now that they have an army, or are they just going to wait for Dear Leader's approval?

If this is truly a working class army meant to protect workers from capitalists, when do they actually start doing that?

I'm just trying to get an idea of what the plan is, not bashing the Bolivarians.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think telling the armed workers & peasants to dismantle the state & take it over if he gets assassinated is a little bit more than "hey, we're on your side. now listen to us!" b.s. rhetoric that you're spewing.
Of course Chavez wants the militias to attack his political opponants within the bourgeoisie should they get into power.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think telling the armed workers & peasants to dismantle the state & take it over if he gets assassinated is a little bit more than "hey, we're on your side. now listen to us!" b.s. rhetoric that you're spewing.

The question is why he's only encouraging them to do so in the case that he's assassinated. Either he's simply trying to safeguard his own position or he actually cares about the goal of socialism but has more faith in himself than his party or the working class to achieve it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The question is why he's only encouraging them to do so in the case that he's assassinated. Either he's simply trying to safeguard his own position or he actually cares about the goal of socialism but has more faith in himself than his party or the working class to achieve it.

Well, would you call for the destruction of the bourgeoisie while you were a member of it? Obviously Chavez wants to keep his power like anyone else. He may do his best to support and arm the workers, but power corrupts and nobody wants to lose their own.

I wouldn't be surprised if he called for revolution as soon as his term is over. (They still have terms right?)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, would you call for the destruction of the bourgeoisie while you were a member of it? Obviously Chavez wants to keep his power like anyone else. He may do his best to support and arm the workers, but power corrupts and nobody wants to lose their own.

I wouldn't be surprised if he called for revolution as soon as his term is over. (They still have terms right?)

I hate it when people say that power corrupts. It's as if you're implying that there's a natural force that brings power to a corruptible stance eventually. There's no such "nature", & I'll put my money on that. But don't get me wrong, I'm not here supporting for a lifetime single-man power. The State must end eventually, but to imply things like what you're implying, you're only bringing an oppositional, paranoid, view towards certain leaders - leaders in which are bringing about great change to the working class & peasantry like President Chavez.

[zimmerwald1915]

change
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As in, bringing about a life the opposite of which the people once gone through. Venezuela use to be suffering because of Capitalist exploitation. Though, if you look at it now, Socialism is on the rise over there. That's what I mean.

[zimmerwald1915]

As in, bringing about a life the opposite of which the people once gone through. Venezuela use to be suffering because of Capitalist exploitation. Though, if you look at it now, Socialism is on the rise over there. That's what I mean.
Oh, come on, you ruined a perfectly good troll attempt by being all serious. :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

Not sure how you can infer that. Just looks like a typical parade to me. I don't see any occupations and collectivization taking place.

Hell, they probably all went to McDonald's afterward.

If you're really this clueless about what's going on in Venezuela and still have the iron balls to say shit like this in ignorance, then fuck you kool-aid man.

[Nolan]

I hope someone assassinates Chavez.


You're a fucking imbecile.

[Ligeia]

All hemming and hawing aside, I'm really curious what the privately-owned media in Venezuela, the ones that call Chavez a dictator every time he sneezes, thinks about all this.

The privately owned media e.g. Globovision says that the militias are only a tool to protect Hugo Chavez.
And they say that arming the people will cause violation of human rights. They think it's necessary to disarm the population.

[Q]

While I welcome this move to arm workers and form militia's along socialist lines and to defend the gains of the Chavez reforms so far, I also share the concerns Zimmerwald and others make about the central position of the state in all this. Chavez, even if he is genuine in his desire for socialism, is just one man surrounded by a capitalist state with a big conservative apparatus and with a PSUV which is admittedly by the OP article being dominated by the rightwing.

What is needed is a conscious political project to organise the workers under their own banner, independent from the state. What isn't needed is to cheer every time when, as someone phrased it in a previous post, Chavez sneezes.

[The Vegan Marxist]

While I welcome this move to arm workers and form militia's along socialist lines and to defend the gains of the Chavez reforms so far, I also share the concerns Zimmerwald and others make about the central position of the state in all this. Chavez, even if he is genuine in his desire for socialism, is just one man surrounded by a capitalist state with a big conservative apparatus and with a PSUV which is admittedly by the OP article being dominated by the rightwing.

What is needed is a conscious political project to organise the workers under their own banner, independent from the state. What isn't needed is to cheer every time when, as someone phrased it in a previous post, Chavez sneezes.

I don't think we're cheering every action made by Chavez. You don't hear us cheering when Chavez allies himself with the President of Iran - who is a believer that the holocaust was a hoax. You don't hear us cheering that Chavez is making deals with China. You don't hear us cheering on how Chavez is just a wee-bit paranoid when it comes to the U.S. & their alliance with Colombia - despite the fact that I don't blame him for having such thoughts. What we are cheering for is when he arms the peasants & workers & tells them to rise up if anything was to happen. What we are cheering is when over 180 communes, which are not operated by the State but still supported by Chavez, are implemented. What we are cheering is when the electrical & food markets are nationalized & are then owned completely by the workers under a new socialized model. What we are cheering is the nationalized educational system, allowing for his people to get a better education than before, in which benefits the revolution because to have a successful revolution, we need the people as educated as they can get. So to think that we're in devout faith of what Chavez does is misleading, at most. We cheer to the armed workers & peasants because this only confirms that, if Chavez was to be killed or if Chavez so happens to corrupt like the paranoid anarchists like to claim, then the workers & peasants have the weaponry & numbers to take over.

[pranabjyoti]

Problem here is that, there are too much critics but very few to show the proper way. There are too much people here who are saying "it isn't", but none so far to show "what is or what can be".

[zimmerwald1915]

IWhat we are cheering for is when he arms the peasants & workers & tells them to rise up if anything was to happen.
And here's where revolutionaries have a problem. Neither the bourgeois state, nor the semi-state of the period of transition from capitalism to communism, is a friend of the working class. In the present period, revolutionaries must devote their energies to helping the working class destroy all bourgeois states, whatever form they take, not just if a certain party gets into power. After the revolution, revolutionaries must encourage suspicion of the new state within the proletariat, and cultivate its loyalties to its own class organs of power and struggle, rather than the state. Your position is that the Bolivarian Republic is in fact a friend of the proletariat, that the proletariat should defend it while it lasts and avenge it should it fall. That is not a revolutionary position: it is, ultimately, a conservative one.


Problem here is that, there are too much critics but very few to show the proper way. There are too much people here who are saying "it isn't", but none so far to show "what is or what can be".
We have the working class, when it struggles as a class on its own terrain for its own demands, to show us "what can be". No communist could do better, or do more.

[pranabjyoti]

We have the working class, when it struggles as a class on its own terrain for its own demands, to show us "what can be". No communist could do better, or do more.
Can you show any example in real world?

[red cat]

We have the working class, when it struggles as a class on its own terrain for its own demands, to show us "what can be". No communist could do better, or do more. Then what is the point of being a communist or having a communist party ?

[zimmerwald1915]

Then what is the point of being a communist or having a communist party ?
You're being facetious. Pranabjyoti asked who shows "what can be". I gave him the answer revolutionaries have given for hundreds of years: that it is the working class itself which contains the seeds of the new world. The point of the Communist Party is not to contain or embody the seeds of the new world, but rather to cultivate the seeds, to help the working class grow, and to preserve and deepen the working class' best accomplishments when it forgets them.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And here's where revolutionaries have a problem. Neither the bourgeois state, nor the semi-state of the period of transition from capitalism to communism, is a friend of the working class. In the present period, revolutionaries must devote their energies to helping the working class destroy all bourgeois states, whatever form they take, not just if a certain party gets into power. After the revolution, revolutionaries must encourage suspicion of the new state within the proletariat, and cultivate its loyalties to its own class organs of power and struggle, rather than the state. Your position is that the Bolivarian Republic is in fact a friend of the proletariat, that the proletariat should defend it while it lasts and avenge it should it fall. That is not a revolutionary position: it is, ultimately, a conservative one.


We have the working class, when it struggles as a class on its own terrain for its own demands, to show us "what can be". No communist could do better, or do more.

I'm sorry if you feel the process being done to make sure the proletarians are armed, along with a stable country to fight off any Capitalist power - might I add this is the process that Stalin brought forth towards the CCCP & if he hadn't then we would've seen the end of Communist rule by the end of WWII -isn't revolutionary to you & rather conservative. But, to be honest, I don't care what you call it & rather care if what's being done will help. In which I do feel it will because of the points I've made above within this thread. To me, we're not ready to be "revolutionary", but rather should worry about getting the people ready & allowing them to be strong enough, with the State on their side. This is what's happening in Venezuela. We'll be revolutionary when the revolution begins.

[Robocommie]

You're being facetious. Pranabjyoti asked who shows "what can be". I gave him the answer revolutionaries have given for hundreds of years: that it is the working class itself which contains the seeds of the new world. The point of the Communist Party is not to contain or embody the seeds of the new world, but rather to cultivate the seeds, to help the working class grow, and to preserve and deepen the working class' best accomplishments when it forgets them.

Good words. But it seems like a lot of vague and meaningless poetry.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm sorry if you feel the process being done to make sure the proletarians are armed, along with a stable country to fight off any Capitalist power - might I add this is the process that Stalin brought forth towards the CCCP & if he hadn't then we would've seen the end of Communist rule by the end of WWII -isn't revolutionary to you & rather conservative.
Okay, you want examples? In 1917 the Provisional Government opened the Russian arsenals to the workers' militias, hoping to use them first to fight off Kornilov's attack against itself. The workers saw through this, and instead of expending their strength fighting Kerensky's battles for him in the countryside, made clear their power to Kornilov with a show of force. They then used the arms Kerensky had given them to overthrow the Provisional Government a couple months later. In 1936 the Spanish Republic opened its arsenals to workers who had managed to prevent, by class actions, the coup in some of the major cities. The Republican government feared that the workers would, at the height of their momentum, turn against the Republic. The opening of the arsenals was designed to tie workers to the Republic, to encourage them to form a military front line in the countryside. And this time, it worked, due to the development of anti-fascist ideology - that is, the ideology that capitalist democracy must be defended against fascism - and its penetration among the working class.

The point, however, is that when the capitalist state starts handing out guns to the working class, its goal is not simply the material armament of the working class, but always as well the ideological disarmament of the working class. Chavez has made it clear that the militias stand and fall by his government, and that they are to avenge it should it fall. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt him on this; it chimes with every other action he's taken so far.

The strengthening of the bourgeois State, the gendarme of the capitalist class, the stabilizing, counter-revolutionary force pulling society away from its development towards communism, is always conservative. Asking the proletariat to defend that state is asking that the proletariat surrender its historic mission, doom the human race to degredation and ruin. I might add that revolutionaries see nothing positive in the USSR's participation in the second imperialist blood-orgy, a participation that began in 1933 when the USSR began casting around for an imperialist bloc that would accept it, and culminated in 1939, with the material military collaboration with the German imperialist bloc.


But, to be honest, I don't care what you call it & rather care if what's being done will help. In which I do feel it will because of the points I've made above within this thread. To me, we're not ready to be "revolutionary", but rather should worry about getting the people ready & allowing them to be strong enough, with the State on their side. This is what's happening in Venezuela. We'll be revolutionary when the revolution begins.
What does it mean to be "revolutionary"? Is a revolution the armed struggle and nothing more? Hardly. For Marxists, the seeds of the revolution can be found in the independent struggle of the working class, as a class, for its own demands. A revolution doesn't develop spontaneously a few years after the state hands out guns. The revolution grows out of the struggles of the proletariat. It is the final, culminating struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (struggles by the proletariat in the period of transition are against those other than the bourgeoisie). It is an act which smashes the last refuge of bourgeois power: the bourgeois state, in whatever form. In the revolution, the state cannot take the side of the proletariat. It never has, it never will. It will, however, try to deceive the workers into believing it can and will, in order to preserve itself from attack: this is why revolutionaries must denounce all such attempts by the state, and expose it for the liar and deceiver of the working class that it is.

[zimmerwald1915]

Good words. But it seems like a lot of vague and meaningless poetry.
If people want logical rigor, they can read the published texts of some organization or another. I like poetry, and will be lyrical if I can. :D

[Ligeia]

The point, however, is that when the capitalist state starts handing out guns to the working class, its goal is not simply the material armament of the working class, but always as well the ideological disarmament of the working class. Chavez has made it clear that the militias stand and fall by his government, and that they are to avenge if should it fall.
Do you mean the ideological disarmament is caused by .... he didn't say they should avenge the government if it falls, he implied they should take the power themselves (expropriating the bourgeoisie) if it falls.
They aren't only there to defend the state, rather than the achievements made so far, other tasks include to spread comunal information, help at the organization of the comunes and comunal works and help if natural disasters occur.
Other than that, when it comes to ideologization....the media does a lot of work in that field, if you listen to radio programs or watch TV there are educative programs on various stuff such as history,politics and philosophy. Even stuff on socialism, Marx, Lenin,...and so on.
Groups like Frente Campesino Zamora also teach on theme like what's the bourgeouisie, what's capital...etc.
I don't know how far reaching these things are but there's at least an effort made.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez said that if he's murdered, they shall go against the bourgeoisie and take the power, expropriate everything, because he sees that's pretty difficult to make significant changes with a state and the bourgeoisie (or a bourgeoise/capitalist state) and would rather see something happen which would've a radicalizing effect.

[RadioRaheem84]

I hope someone assassinates Chavez.

Also, 34000 chavistas with guns =/= the Venezuelan people.

Fucking idiot.

Again, these debates are pointless. It all boils down to those that think there is a revolution in Venezuela and those who don't. Simple as that.

To those that think there is one going on in Venezuela, do not let the naysayers dictate the debate with their shallow inferences of what constitutes true revolution in their eyes. The people of Venezuela have spoken and it's overwhelmingly in favor of the Bolivarian Revolution and is totally against the reformist elements that want to keep the status quo (ironically the only thing naysayers seem to harp on).

Also, US National Guard comparisons. Fucking idiocy to the max!

[Barry Lyndon]

I hope someone assassinates Chavez.

And finally, the ultra-lefts who shit on the Bolivarian revolution come out and show their true colors, and its not red. Why don't you go crawl under a rock with your comrade-in-arms Pat Robertson, you reactionary piece of garbage. Interesting how ultra-leftism seems to nicely dovetail with right-wing opportunism and tailing of imperialism.

It's quite revealing that left communists, many Trotskyists and anarchists demand to see evidence of workers control, but when such evidence is provided they have nothing but scorn and derision, or claim without evidence that its a cynical move by a 'petty-bourgeois' politician. Yeah, like Obama or FDR would arm the workers. Gimme a break.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/04/23/en_ing_esp_the-national-assemb_23A3793131.shtml

They should join reactionary Pastora Medina.


A coordinator of the Humanist Ecological Movement, a dissident of Chávezism and an influential politician in southern Bolívar state, Pastora Medina gets into an unevenly-matched fight at the Venezuelan Parliament. There, the overwhelming majority of pro-government deputies have launched a flash offensive to enact a set of laws, in her view, aimed at the creation of a socialist state.

The moment that Chavez proves himself to on the side of the workers is surely coming. The alternative economy he has created is clashing with the old establishment.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And finally, the ultra-lefts who shit on the Bolivarian revolution come out and show their true colors, and its not red. Why don't you go crawl under a rock with your comrade-in-arms Pat Robertson, you reactionary piece of garbage. Interesting how ultra-leftism seems to nicely dovetail with right-wing opportunism and tailing of imperialism.

I was being sarcastic you fucking idiot, but even if you had knew that I doubt it would stop you from using it as an opportunity to spew this bullshit. Interesting how there isn't any argument here, just rhetoric.


It's quite revealing that left communists, many Trotskyists and anarchists demand to see evidence of workers control, but when such evidence is provided they have nothing but scorn and derision, or claim without evidence that its a cynical move by a 'petty-bourgeois' politician. Yeah, like Obama or FDR would arm the workers. Gimme a break.What evidence?

As far as I know most Venezuelan workers were already armed, just as in the US.

[Barry Lyndon]

What evidence?

As far as I know most Venezuelan workers were already armed, just as in the US.

I rest my case.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's quite revealing that left communists, many Trotskyists and anarchists demand to see evidence of workers control, but when such evidence is provided they have nothing but scorn and derision, or claim without evidence that its a cynical move by a 'petty-bourgeois' politician. Yeah, like Obama or FDR would arm the workers. Gimme a break.
Azana and Caballero armed the workers, just as cynically and self-servingly as Chavez. It did not end well for the workers.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The moment that Chavez proves himself to on the side of the workers is surely coming. The alternative economy he has created is clashing with the old establishment.

Oh please. He's nationalized mostly the same things that were nationalized by the government 30 years ago and then privatized, he's just doing it under the guise of "socialism."

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh please. He's nationalized mostly the same things that were nationalized by the government 30 years ago and then privatized, he's just doing it under the guise of "socialism."

Do you mean under Perez? This is much different.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Azana and Caballero armed the workers, just as cynically and self-servingly as Chavez. It did not end well for the workers.

I love how you attack the entirety of Chavez with merely the comparison of one certain aspect that Chavez is taking to people like Azana & Caballero. Chavez has done MUCH MORE for his people & their uplifting against the Capitalist powers & markets that use to ravage Venezuela than Azana & Caballero did for their people. So your argument is flawed, at best.

[Barry Lyndon]

I love how you attack the entirety of Chavez with merely the comparison of one certain aspect that Chavez is taking to people like Azana & Caballero. Chavez has done MUCH MORE for his people & their uplifting against the Capitalist powers & markets that use to ravage Venezuela than Azana & Caballero did for their people. So your argument is flawed, at best.

Don't expect too much from habitual liars and right-wing spin doctors. Once you expose their lies on one thing, they move on to yet another issue. It's the equivalent of a whack-a-mole game.

[zimmerwald1915]

I love how you attack the entirety of Chavez with merely the comparison of one certain aspect that Chavez is taking to people like Azana & Caballero. Chavez has done MUCH MORE for his people & their uplifting against the Capitalist powers & markets that use to ravage Venezuela than Azana & Caballero did for their people. So your argument is flawed, at best.
Barry's argument was that nobody not genuinely interested in workers' liberation from capitalism and the bourgeois state would ever arm the workers. I brought up an example, rooted in the historical fact that Azana and Caballero armed the workers in order to get them to defend the Republic instead of their own class interests, to refute that. Obviously, the refutation worked, or Barry wouldn't be calling me a habitual liar and right-wing spin doctor for pointing out something communists have known for eighty years.

[the last donut of the night]

Not sure how you can infer that. Just looks like a typical parade to me. I don't see any occupations and collectivization taking place.

Hell, they probably all went to McDonald's afterward.

I think this is an incredibly arrogant post that we see coming from some of the left. Did you even read the article?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I think this is an incredibly arrogant post that we see coming from some of the left. Did you even read the article?

Arrogant? Why? I was just pointing out that I don't see any dismantling of capitalism happening.

Parades are parades. Wake me up when the revolution finally starts.


It's quite revealing that left communists, many Trotskyists and anarchists demand to see evidence of workers control, but when such evidence is provided they have nothing but scorn and derision

Do you mind re-posting the evidence? I must have missed it. Thanks!

[Barry Lyndon]

Arrogant? Why? I was just pointing out that I don't see any dismantling of capitalism happening.

Parades are parades. Wake me up when the revolution finally starts.

If it were up to people like you, the revolution would never start.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

If it were up to people like you, the revolution would never start. Fortunately it isn't.

What? If it were up to me, the revolution would have started long ago. What makes you think I am against revolution?

[Barry Lyndon]

Do you mind re-posting the evidence? I must have missed it. Thanks!

Other comrades have posted extensive evidence. It's not their fault that your refuse to read it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Other comrades have posted extensive evidence. It's not their fault that your refuse to read it.

I don't refuse to read anything.

Like I said, I must have missed it. I was just kindly asking for you to re-post it or at least direct me towards it.

[Barry Lyndon]

What? If it were up to me, the revolution would have started long ago. What makes you think I am against revolution?

Your not against revolution. Your just against any revolution that succeeds.

[RadioRaheem84]

Barry's argument was that nobody not genuinely interested in workers' liberation from capitalism and the bourgeois state would ever arm the workers. I brought up an example, rooted in the historical fact that Azana and Caballero armed the workers in order to get them to defend the Republic instead of their own class interests, to refute that. Obviously, the refutation worked, or Barry wouldn't be calling me a habitual liar and right-wing spin doctor for pointing out something communists have known for eighty years.


Oh come on, you're comparing the liberal Republican government of Azana to the Bolivarian Revolution? They didn't exactly call for full scale socialism, and they took a lot of orders from the Comintern considering they lacked major international support. Venezuela has it's won petro-dollars to aid the missions, co-ops, collectives and communes fostering all over the country. Major support, rather than rampant sectarian fighting and an overbearing third power barking orders from afar.




I don't refuse to read anything.


No you don't. Anything that we post would be countered by an insistance that it's not enough or too little, too late or not perfect.
Like I said before, this stems from the premise that you do not believe a revolution ever took place.




Like I said, I must have missed it. I was just kindly asking for you to re-post it or at least direct me towards it.



I swear, it's as if you guys would rather have the people suffer the brunt of neo-liberalism than take part in revolution because you deem it imperfect.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What? If it were up to me, the revolution would have started long ago. What makes you think I am against revolution?

And that is why such groups like FARC have failed their revolution so far. They were arrogant enough to think that the revolution should've started immediately.

[red cat]

And that is why such groups like FARC have failed their revolution so far. They were arrogant enough to think that the revolution should've started immediately.

What has this got to do with the alleged failure of FARC ? It is the basis of the theory of peoples' war.

[Robocommie]

What has this got to do with the alleged failure of FARC ? It is the basis of the theory of peoples' war.

I would have to say that I agree, FARC hasn't failed yet, they haven't failed unless they've been destroyed.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What has this got to do with the alleged failure of FARC ? It is the basis of the theory of peoples' war.

SubcomandanteHelix was talking about how he would've started the revolution a long time ago in Venezuela, even though he probably would've failed when compared to how far Venezuela is now.

[zimmerwald1915]

Oh come on, you're comparing the liberal Republican government of Azana to the Bolivarian Revolution? They didn't exactly call for full scale socialism, and they took a lot of orders from the Comintern considering they lacked major international support. Venezuela has it's won petro-dollars to aid the missions, co-ops, collectives and communes fostering all over the country. Major support, rather than rampant sectarian fighting and an overbearing third power barking orders from afar.
I told you the argument I was making. It goes something along the lines of "providing arms to workers doesn't automatically make you a revolutionary, and here's historical examples to substantiate this proposition". This argument was made against the argument "providing arms to workers proves your sincerity as a revolutionary, even if you're running a bourgeois state". You are arguing against a straw man, which you're welcome to do, I guess. It's no skin off my back if you want to waste your energy.

[Barry Lyndon]

http://net.lib.byu.edu/%7Erdh7/wwi/memoir/RusRev/images/rr19.jpg

Just a parade. They probably went to McDonald's afterward.

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/lenin-trotsky_1920-05-20_sverdlov_square_original-jpg.jpeg

They probably went to Burger King. Maybe Subway.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/asstd/tom-mann-centuria.jpg

Defending the bourgeoisie all the way. Just look at them.

[zimmerwald1915]

-snip-
Actually, this set of pictures adds further support to my point. The workers who have, under the pressure of counter-revolution, been indoctrinated with antifascism - the ideology that capitalist democracy must be defended against equally capitalist fascism, instead of fought just as hard - have been ideologically disarmed even as they are physically armed. These workers would later be impressed into participating in imperialist war.

[RadioRaheem84]

These workers would later be impressed into participating in imperialist war.


The workers in Venezuela came out in 2002 against the fascist coup and now they're donning milita gear to keep the revolution going this time. There is no way they'd be under the scope of imperialists to impress their ideas upon. Not now nor in the future.

C'mon man get a grip on reality here.

[zimmerwald1915]

The workers in Venezuela came out in 2002 against the fascist coup and now they're donning milita gear to keep the revolution going this time. There is no way they'd be under the scope of imperialists to impress their ideas upon. Not now nor in the future.

C'mon man get a grip on reality here.
First of all, I was talking about the workers in Barry's third picture. Second of all, do you deny that the Venezuelan militias would be integrated into the army command in the case of an invasion of the country? Because statements from the Venezuelan government have indicated that such integration would proceed in that case.

EDIT: do you believe that the general strike that defeated the Kapp Putsch and reinstated the Social Democratic government in Germany was revolutionary?

[red cat]

SubcomandanteHelix was talking about how he would've started the revolution a long time ago in Venezuela, even though he probably would've failed when compared to how far Venezuela is now.

How can you say that? What would have happened to the Colombian masses if the FARC adopted the line prescribed by Chavez and gave up guerrilla warfare and surrendered ?

[Robocommie]

First of all, I was talking about the workers in Barry's third picture. Second of all, do you deny that the Venezuelan militias would be integrated into the army command in the case of an invasion of the country? Because statements from the Venezuelan government have indicated that such integration would proceed in that case.


What, you have a problem with defending the Bolivarian Revolution from foreign intervention?

[zimmerwald1915]

What, you have a problem with defending the Bolivarian Revolution from foreign intervention?
I have a problem with defending the Venezuelan state in an inter-imperialist clusterfuck, just as I have a problem defending any state in any inter-imperialist clusterfuck. It's quite a venerable position, actually.

[Robocommie]

I have a problem with defending the Venezuelan state in an inter-imperialist clusterfuck, just as I have a problem defending any state in any inter-imperialist clusterfuck. It's quite a venerable position, actually.

Fuck that ultra-leftism. Useless wankery.

[zimmerwald1915]

Fuck that ultra-leftism. Useless wankery.
*shrug* I'm not responsible for your sexual tastes.

[Obs]

*shrug* I'm not responsible for your sexual tastes.

OOOOOOHH, EPIC BURN!

In all seriousness, though, get a fucking grip. Everyone reading this thread is sick of your derailing.

[Robocommie]

*shrug* I'm not responsible for your sexual tastes.

What an idiotic, childish comment. You're completely worthless as a socialist if you're not willing to recognize the periodic need for a society to defend itself from external imperialism - which is pretty fucking convenient for you, seeing as how you don't actually have a damn thing invested in the Bolivarian Revolution. Instead, you make crude jokes.

[zimmerwald1915]

In all seriousness, though, get a fucking grip. Everyone reading this thread is sick of your derailing.
I'm glad you think the rest of the thread has given you a mandate to speak for them. However, I do take issue with your definition of "derailing". The premise of this thread is that the state sponsoring of workers' militias is revolutionary. I and a couple others in this thread are criticizing that premise in the light of the historical experience and principles of the proletariat. I don't think that's derailing.


What an idiotic, childish comment. You're completely worthless as a socialist if you're not willing to recognize the periodic need for a society to defend itself from external imperialism.
I don't recognize the right of a capitalist state to defend itself from other capitalist states by hiding behind the working class. Nor do I recognize the necessity of the working class to sacrifice itself for the good of a capitalist state. Apparently you do.

[Robocommie]

I don't recognize the right of a capitalist state to defend itself from other capitalist states by hiding behind the working class. Nor do I recognize the necessity of the working class to sacrifice itself for the good of a capitalist state. Apparently you do.

What I recognize is that colonialism and imperialism can wreak some pretty serious damage to societies and in fact sabotage revolutionary movements, and that people have the right to national self-determination. But then you probably don't give a fuck about that. Better I guess that Vietnam had remained French or that China had been under the control of Japanese imperialism, since of course, the workers have no country.

Completely worthless.

[Obs]

I'm glad you think the rest of the thread has given you a mandate to speak for them. However, I do take issue with your definition of "derailing". The premise of this thread is that the state sponsoring of workers' militias is revolutionary. I and a couple others in this thread are criticizing that premise in the light of the historical experience and principles of the proletariat. I don't think that's derailing.


I don't recognize the right of a capitalist state to defend itself from other capitalist states by hiding behind the working class. Nor do I recognize the necessity of the working class to sacrifice itself for the good of a capitalist state. Apparently you do.

Basically, you're going to discredit every move the Venezuelan government makes towards socialism because they haven't achieved a revolution yet. And when they do achieve a revolution, you're going to discredit that because "they're not socialists". And so, if that revolution is beaten down by imperialists and Venezuelan reactionaries, you're going to sit back with a smug, shit-eating grin and say they might actually be better off that way.

What you're doing is derailing because you take a serious thread about real progress happening in the real world, and shitting on it because it's not utopian progress happening in your Lefty fantasy world.


Better I guess that Vietnam had remained French or that China had been under the control of Japanese imperialism, since of course, the workers have no country.

Expect a tirade about how neither of those were proper Socialist revolutions.

[Robocommie]

Basically, you're going to discredit every move the Venezuelan government makes towards socialism because they haven't achieved a revolution yet. And when they do achieve a revolution, you're going to discredit that because "they're not socialists". And so, if that revolution is beaten down by imperialists and Venezuelan reactionaries, you're going to sit back with a smug, shit-eating grin and say they might actually be better off that way.


More fucking anti-com than the anti-coms themselves.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I would have to agree w/much of what Zimmerwald says.

I would say though that there is a revolutionary process occurring in Venezuala. Chavez however is a national bourgeouise, representing a faction of the ruling class that is breaking away from the older previously dominant US oriented comprador elite primarily connected to the oil industry. To do this he has had to appeal to and make concessions to the working class.

To be a cheerleader for Chavez is reactionary. There have been some definite gains though. There are limits to how far Chavez can go without compromising his own class interests. Perhaps he's already reached this. On the other hand Chavez will not be able to continue versus the global hegemony of the US (although power has weakened) without confronting local capitalism altogether. He's in a precarious position. Chavez is Kerensky, although in a much different historical context.

Having said this it would be a setback if he were overthrown in another rightist coup.I would fight against Kornilov, but the only way to do this is....

Well, enough strained historical metaphors.

[Robocommie]

Expect a tirade about how neither of those were proper Socialist revolutions.

Oh, I am, there's no fucking talking to some people. Furthermore, there's apparently no point to being a socialist, since it apparently never actually happens in anything but theory.

[Robocommie]

I would have to agree w/much of what Zimmerwald says.

I would say though that there is a revolutionary process occurring in Venezuala. Chavez however is a national bourgeouise, representing a faction of the ruling class that is breaking away from the older previously dominant US oriented comprador elite primarily connected to the oil industry. To do this he has had to appeal to and make concessions to the working class.

For fuck's sake, the man was born in a mud hut.

[Obs]

For fuck's sake, the man was born in a mud hut.
Did you know there are people in this world who don't have mud huts?! BOURGEOIS!!!

[zimmerwald1915]

Basically, you're going to discredit every move the Venezuelan government makes towards socialism because they haven't achieved a revolution yet. And when they do achieve a revolution, you're going to discredit that because "they're not socialists". And so, if that revolution is beaten down by imperialists and Venezuelan reactionaries, you're going to sit back with a smug, shit-eating grin and say they might actually be better off that way.
On the contrary, what I'm doing is exposing that, despite the Venezuelan government's propaganda to the contrary, the Venezuelan government isn't actually making any moves toward socialism. What it is doing is maneuvering frantically, and fairly successfully, to rope the Venezuelan working class into supporting its continued existence in spite of opposition from other factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and American imperialism. Now, it is of course necessary for the Venezuelan working class to resist those factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, and to resist American imperialism, but Chavez's government is not an ally in that task. Indeed, its ideological mystifications are a major fetter on the proletariat. All I'm calling for is that, instead of the proletariat granting one faction of the bourgeoisie special treatment because that faction masquerades as a friend of the working class while protecting capitalism, that all factions of the bourgeoisie come under assault.

No faction of the bourgeoisie is better than any other, and it is not the place of communists to support one faction of the bourgeoisie over the others. So no, if Chavez is overthrown by his enemies, communists won't be extolling that as progress. But it won't be a step backward either, except in the sense that thousands of workers will have died senselessly in the transition, in the interests of a government that was never their ally, but rather used them as human shields. Don't let my actual position get in the way of your slander though.


What you're doing is derailing because you take a serious thread about real progress happening in the real world, and shitting on it because it's not utopian progress happening in your Lefty fantasy world.
I thought Marxism subjected everything to rigorous criticism based on the principles and historical experience of the working class. Did I miss the memo that Marxists were to do nothing other than cheerlead thugs because they like their style?


Expect a tirade about how neither of those were proper Socialist revolutions.
Not even Marxist-Leninists or Maoists claim these were socialist revolutions. They were national liberation struggles; everybody knows this. The difference is that you see something progressive in national liberation struggles, whereas I don't.

[Obs]

On the contrary, what I'm doing is exposing that, despite the Venezuelan government's propaganda to the contrary, the Venezuelan government isn't actually making any moves toward socialism. What it is doing is maneuvering frantically, and fairly successfully, to rope the Venezuelan working class into supporting its continued existence in spite of opposition from other factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and American imperialism. Now, it is of course necessary for the Venezuelan working class to resist those factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, and to resist American imperialism, but Chavez's government is not an ally in that task. Indeed, its ideological mystifications are a major fetter on the proletariat. All I'm calling for is that, instead of the proletariat granting one faction of the bourgeoisie special treatment because that faction masquerades as a friend of the working class while protecting capitalism, that all factions of the bourgeoisie come under assault.
Explain to me where a government led by a man who was born in a mud hut, who has been attempting a revolution for most of his adult life, which has done nothing but disarm the bourgeoisie for as long as it's been in power, is bourgeois?


No faction of the bourgeoisie is better than any other, and it is not the place of communists to support one faction of the bourgeoisie over the others. So no, if Chavez is overthrown by his enemies, communists won't be extolling that as progress. But it won't be a step backward either, except in the sense that thousands of workers will have died senselessly in the transition, in the interests of a government that was never their ally, but rather used them as human shields. Don't let my actual position get in the way of your slander though.
But, I mean, at least the fascists are honest about it, right? A-hyuck!



I thought Marxism subjected everything to rigorous criticism based on the principles and historical experience of the working class. Did I miss the memo that Marxists were to do nothing other than cheerlead thugs because they like their style?
I'm mostly trying to cheerlead the workers', peasants', and students' militias parading in Caracas. But I'm guessing they're also bourgeois thugs to you, then.



Not even Marxist-Leninists or Maoists claim these were socialist revolutions.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Damn, son.

[9]

Fuck that ultra-leftism. Useless wankery.


OOOOOOHH, EPIC BURN!

In all seriousness, though, get a fucking grip. Everyone reading this thread is sick of your derailing.


Basically, you're going to discredit every move the Venezuelan government makes towards socialism because they haven't achieved a revolution yet. And when they do achieve a revolution, you're going to discredit that because "they're not socialists". And so, if that revolution is beaten down by imperialists and Venezuelan reactionaries, you're going to sit back with a smug, shit-eating grin and say they might actually be better off that way.

What you're doing is derailing because you take a serious thread about real progress happening in the real world, and shitting on it because it's not utopian progress happening in your Lefty fantasy world.



Expect a tirade about how neither of those were proper Socialist revolutions.


More fucking anti-com than the anti-coms themselves.


Oh, I am, there's no fucking talking to some people. Furthermore, there's apparently no point to being a socialist, since it apparently never actually happens in anything but theory.


For fuck's sake, the man was born in a mud hut.


Did you know there are people in this world who don't have mud huts?! BOURGEOIS!!!

Honestly, I think it speaks volumes that this is the only way you guys can respond to legitimate criticism of your position.

[zimmerwald1915]

But, I mean, at least the fascists are honest about it, right? A-hyuck!
You're not even trying.


I'm mostly trying to cheerlead the workers', peasants', and students' militias parading in Caracas. But I'm guessing they're also bourgeois thugs to you, then.
The militias are human shields for the bourgeois thugs. My position is quite clear, and needs if you need to muddy it in order to disagree with it, that's confirmation not only of its clarity but of its strength.

[Robocommie]

Honestly, I think it speaks volumes that this is the only way you guys can respond to legitimate criticism of your position.

Yeah, it's pretty damn frustrating to face dogmatic determinism. I feel there is a socialist movement occuring in Venezuela, and that Chavez is a force for good for Venezuela, a force which is opposed by US imperialism and by the majority of the wealthy elite, and that Chavez and these militias represent a genuine move towards improving the standards of living for poor Venezuelans. But that doesn't seem to matter a damn, because it's not in league with a very narrow theory of what has to pass, in accordance with the prophecy or what have you.

And you know what else? It's extremely easy to just quote everything we say and then carte blanche deride it as being obviously poor argumentation - because it doesn't require you to actually say anything other than that we're obviously wrong, and the only thing we can say in response, for the most part, is "Nuh uh!" But it won't matter, because it's just another coup to count, in the eyes of everyone who already agrees with you.

I mean hey, your boy Zimmerwald made a comment about my sexual tastes, does that count against your argument?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3785

The CWI has welcomed the positive steps forward taken in Venezuela. But we have also warned of the dangers facing the movement from counter revolution and reaction due to deficiencies in programme, method and the organisation of the working class. Unlike some on the left, we have avoided falling into the traps of either opportunism - of merely acting as cheerleaders and advisers of Chávez - or alternatively, of attacking Chávez in a personal and sectarian manner.

The threat of counter revolution remains because capitalism, unfortunately, has not been defeated and replaced by a democratic socialist plan of production based upon the establishment of a system of workers’ and peasants’ democracy. Now, a new and critical phase has opened up in Venezuela which poses new dangers for the struggle for socialism.

The failure to defeat capitalism is now resulting in a series of attacks on the reform programmes and the working class. The new rich elite which has ridden on the backs of the movement and an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus, riddled with corruption, is increasingly coming into conflict with the working class and the struggle to take the revolution forward. Using "socialist rhetoric" the bureaucracy and new elite which is emerging are increasingly adopting repressive measures against the working class and those who come into conflict with or criticise the regime.

The CWI has commented on many occasions that one of the most serious weaknesses of the situation in Venezuela is the lack of conscious, independent organisation of the working class, which puts itself at the head of the struggle for a socialist revolution. The Bolivarian movement has been run in a top-down manner, without a conscious check or control by the working class. As a result, bureaucratic, administrative and now, unfortunately, increasingly repressive methods have been used against the working class and those who question or challenge the regime from the left.

These two elements - the predominance of capitalism and bureaucratic repressive methods - have been strengthened during the recent period. The revolutionary process which developed, especially following the attempted coup and lock-out in 2002/3 has stalled at this conjuncture. If a revolutionary process does not advance and go forward ultimately it can begin to corrode and even rot.

Unfortunately, this threat is beginning to develop in Venezuela. As a result support for Chávez is being seriously undermined and eroded. Even the idea of socialism is beginning to be discredited amongst a layer because of a failure to take the revolution forward. There is a qualitative change underway which raises the spectre of counter revolution.

[Obs]

Honestly, I think it speaks volumes that this is the only way you guys can respond to legitimate criticism of your position.
There's legitimate criticism of my position in this thread?

Seriously, though; alright, how about this: What should the Chávez administration do, were it properly Socialist? As part of a state which is still under a bourgeois constitution, with significant bourgeois opposition. There's only so much that can be done, and I think making militias that remain connected to the revolution's leadership is a pretty good thing. The alternatives are either remaining completely passive or staging a coup.

Obviously, if you're going to claim that Chávez is a bourgeois oppressor of the people, this is all moot.


You're not even trying.
Oh, fuck, you figured me out.



The militias are human shields for the bourgeois thugs. My position is quite clear, and needs if you need to muddy it in order to disagree with it, that's confirmation not only of its clarity but of its strength.
So all those people are mindless automatons being effortlessly manipulated by the bourgeoisie. Happy to see you have so much faith in the working class, Comrade.

[zimmerwald1915]

I mean hey, your boy Zimmerwald made a comment about my sexual tastes, does that count against your argument?
Your first (second? third?) post in this thread was a simple "fuck your position". I responded with what I considered to be an equivalently substanceless post. I apologise if you feel it was inappropriate, or crossed some line; it was not my intent. My intent was to highlight what I believed to be the substanceless of your post by being similarly substanceless.


So all those people are mindless automatons being effortlessly manipulated by the bourgeoisie. Happy to see you have so much faith in the working class, Comrade.
At the moment, yes, the workers, students, and peasants organized in the militias, and a very significant portion of the Venezuelan working class, have falled for the lies of the Chavez government. It is the job of communists not to confirm these lies but to challenge them in order to break the hold of the lying government over the working class.

[Robocommie]

I do want to point out that I think the idea of criticizing people for "cheerleading" Chavez or the situation in Venezuela is fairly ridiculous, because it somehow makes it out like what we say here on Revleft can actually have an effect other than being more internet pontification.

[Robocommie]

Your first (second? third?) post in this thread was a simple "fuck your position". I responded with what I considered to be an equivalently substanceless post. I apologise if you feel it was inappropriate, or crossed some line; it was not my intent. My intent was to highlight what I believed to be the substanceless of your post by being similarly substanceless.

Generally making a crass comment about other people and their sexuality is always inappropriate, comrade.

Listen man, I recognize that you are speaking here from your convictions and that you do give a fuck, and that's why I still call you comrade. But I can't deny that I am exceptionally frustrated by what I see as your incredible closed-mindedness, and frankly, a certain level of impossibilism. There are things people believe are worth fighting for other than pure socialism or pure communism - and if the Venezuelan people are inspired to join militias to defend their homes and farms from corporate sicarios, and to defend their nation from imperialism, that is something I could both understand and respect.

I do not interpret internationalism to mean that there is no value in nations, and that defending one's homeland from foreign invasion and imperialism is always wrong, because I believe in national self-determination. To me, internationalism is about aiding others in their struggle for it, and for aiding others in their struggle for equality.

[Obs]

I do want to point out that I think the idea of criticizing people for "cheerleading" Chavez or the situation in Venezuela is fairly ridiculous, because it somehow makes it out like what we say here on Revleft can actually have an effect other than being more internet pontification.
Do try and see this in perspective - Internet pontification is one of the greatest things Left Communists can achieve.

[zimmerwald1915]

Generally making a crass comment about other people and their sexuality is always inappropriate, comrade.
And telling someone "Fuck that ultra-leftism...Useless wankery" is not crass?

[Robocommie]

And telling someone "Fuck that ultra-leftism...Useless wankery" is not crass?

That wasn't the point, but I had more to say that I edited in after. Please consider that part. Also please consider that I'm interested in toning down the argumentative tone in this thread. It's not good for my blood pressure and it's not good for the struggle.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Your not against revolution. Your just against any revolution that succeeds.

What are you even talking about?

Yes, I'm a revolutionary who hates having revolutions succeed. :rolleyes:


I swear, it's as if you guys would rather have the people suffer the brunt of neo-liberalism than take part in revolution because you deem it imperfect.

Huh? This is the opposite of what I'd rather.

I WANT revolution. I want neo-liberalism TO END. Neither of which is happening in Venezuela, which is why my criticism exists in the first place.

If there was a revolution dismantling capitalism I wouldn't have anything to complain about. What aren't you getting about this?


And that is why such groups like FARC have failed their revolution so far. They were arrogant enough to think that the revolution should've started immediately.

I didn't realize Colombia elected a "socialist" leader proving that the masses wanted an end to neo-liberalism. FARC started too early. The Bolivarians haven't even started yet but have the support of the masses.

[red cat]

I would have to agree w/much of what Zimmerwald says.

I would say though that there is a revolutionary process occurring in Venezuala. Chavez however is a national bourgeouise, representing a faction of the ruling class that is breaking away from the older previously dominant US oriented comprador elite primarily connected to the oil industry. To do this he has had to appeal to and make concessions to the working class.

I am anti-Chavez myself, but I would like to see some sources for your claim. Appealing to the masses and arming them (which is said to be happening in Venezuela )are two different things. If the masses are armed, the proletariat can seize leadership and overthrow the ruling class. This is why no bourgeois faction will arm the masses today. And if Chavez is a reactionary, why do you think is he arming the masses ? To overthrow himself ?



To be a cheerleader for Chavez is reactionary. There have been some definite gains though. There are limits to how far Chavez can go without compromising his own class interests. Perhaps he's already reached this. On the other hand Chavez will not be able to continue versus the global hegemony of the US (although power has weakened) without confronting local capitalism altogether. He's in a precarious position. Chavez is Kerensky, although in a much different historical context.When did Kerensky arm the masses ? And which crystal ball tells you whether Chavez or any other power will be able to continue against the US or not ? Illogical attempts to foresee the future often lead to abandoning revolution altogether.

[Barry Lyndon]

What are you even talking about?

Yes, I'm a revolutionary who hates having revolutions succeed. :rolleyes:

Because every real revolution, upon taking power, often makes compromises due to the difficult material circumstances that it neither desires nor wants. Since you demand nothing short of absolute purity that cannot possibly exist in the real world, you denounce and demonize existing socialist revolutions, doing the work of the capitalist state for it. So my point stands, you love every revolution except the ones that succeed.

[Barry Lyndon]

zimmerwald1915-

I guess things like national liberation don't matter very much if you are not living in a country that has been victimized by imperialism. I'm sure Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, would all love to hear that their struggle to defeat foreign invaders and occupiers is a worthless 'bourgeois' endeavor. Only a racist First World chauvinist could callously dismiss anti-imperialist struggle in that light.

[zimmerwald1915]

zimmerwald1915-

I guess things like national liberation don't matter very much if you are not living in a country that has been victimized by imperialism. I'm sure Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, would all love to hear that their struggle to defeat foreign invaders and occupiers is a worthless 'bourgeois' endeavor. Only a racist First World chauvinist could callously dismiss anti-imperialist struggle in that light.
I've already apologized once in this thread, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for being born white in the United States. I do agree with Robocommie that this thread should be about Venezuela, the relationship of the militias to the Venezuelan state, and the relationship of the Venezuelan state to the eventual proletarian revolution in that country, so forgive me for truncating my response to your concern about national liberation. Briefly, it is my position that formal political independence is not liberation from imperialism: the new state is reintegrated into the system in a different way. The only liberation from imperialism can be found in a worldwide socialist revolution that destroys the material basis for that system: the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgoisie. National liberation struggles do not inculcate in the working class of either the victim or victimized country a stronger class consciousness, nor are the states which come out of them any more amenable to working class struggle than the ones they replaced.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am anti-Chavez myself, but I would like to see some sources for your claim. Appealing to the masses and arming them (which is said to be happening in Venezuela )are two different things. If the masses are armed, the proletariat can seize leadership and overthrow the ruling class. This is why no bourgeois faction will arm the masses today. And if Chavez is a reactionary, why do you think is he arming the masses ? To overthrow himself ?

When did Kerensky arm the masses ? And which crystal ball tells you whether Chavez or any other power will be able to continue against the US or not ? Illogical attempts to foresee the future often lead to abandoning revolution altogether.

As Zimmerwald pointed out a few posts ago, the Provisional Gov't was forced to arm the workers, hoping they would fight its battles for them. A few months later they overthrew Kerensky. I do not know if Chavez is "arming the workers". He could be. The photos look like student battalions, military cadets, and elderly people.

Obviously a large part of the Venezuelan bourgeois hates Chavez. This faction seems to be grouped around the oil industry and its satellite industries. In order to develop the internal economy in a way independent of neo-liberal pressures from the US, Chavez diverted oil revenue to the working classes and rural population. This is a good thing. Vastly increased education, infrastructure improvement, food subsidies,nationalizations, and some factory takeovers, fought for by the workers themselves.

On the other hand a large corrupt business class, the "Boli-bourgeois" has developed a patronage relation w/the Chavez gov't. There are growing instances where the National Guard has been used against workers. The Sidor strike is an example. The use of scabs and thugs to surppress strikes is increasing.

There is evidence the working class is becoming increasingly demoralized. Without independent organizations to fight for the deepening of the Bolivarian Revolution the forces of the right, supported by the US, will grow stronger. As the revolution stalls, Chavez will be in an increasingly precarious position. The only way out is socialism and that must be fought for by the working class itself.

[RadioRaheem84]

Honestly, I think it speaks volumes that this is the only way you guys can respond to legitimate criticism of your position.

Legitimate criticism? It speaks volumes that you even think the claims of people who clearly do not know what they're talking are somehow serious.



To be a cheerleader for Chavez is reactionary. There have been some definite gains though.


There have been some gains? You mean with the workers having made tremendous gains in comparison to the previous Venezuelan administrations?

Yeah but to support this is "reactionary". UNREAL!



On the other hand a large corrupt business class, the "Boli-bourgeois" has developed a patronage relation w/the Chavez gov't.


They're not getting any favors from Chavez. In fact a lot of them have been dethroned.



As the revolution stalls, Chavez will be in an increasingly precarious position. The only way out is socialism and that must be fought for by the working class itself.

I don't think you've been paying much attention to our position here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't even know why we're arguing. The vast majority of Venezuelan people have stood their ground and support the Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez is merely the face of it. The working class can outlive him as he even said that they must.

I stand with the people. You guys can sit on the fence and argue how there is no revolution.

[The Vegan Marxist]

How can you say that? What would have happened to the Colombian masses if the FARC adopted the line prescribed by Chavez and gave up guerrilla warfare and surrendered ?

Not saying for them to surrender. I still support FARC & their armed revolution against the Colombian State, but they didn't go so far as they wanted it to, which is why they've found themselves under new leadership, which hopefully will bring them back up like they use to be. But I feel if they had gone down a model like Chavez, we might've seen some improvement, but who knows. I don't, that's for sure.

[AK]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.


Oh, really? Which one? Let's just see how much you don't know.

[RadioRaheem84]

Huh? This is the opposite of what I'd rather.

I WANT revolution. I want neo-liberalism TO END. Neither of which is happening in Venezuela, which is why my criticism exists in the first place.

If there was a revolution dismantling capitalism I wouldn't have anything to complain about. What aren't you getting about this?




We're going in circles with you guys. :rolleyes:

[The Vegan Marxist]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.

And comments like that remind me of U.S. mainstream media.

[Guerrilla22]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.

Yeah you're right, Chavez is pretty much on the same level as Mussolini. :rolleyes: Unbelievable.

[Palingenisis]

I am anti-Chavez myself, but I would like to see some sources for your claim. Appealing to the masses and arming them (which is said to be happening in Venezuela )are two different things. If the masses are armed, the proletariat can seize leadership and overthrow the ruling class. This is why no bourgeois faction will arm the masses today. And if Chavez is a reactionary, why do you think is he arming the masses ? To overthrow himself ?.

Im not pro-Chavez but I wouldnt say that Im anti him either, or at least not in all circumstances. I dont think he represents the working class, I think he represents the patriotic petit bourgiouse but I think in the context of Venezuela they are progressive in their struggles against the compradors and US Imperialism, not least because in their struggle with their enemies they have to rely on the power of the working class. There have been real gains for working people under him and they must be defended even though we believe in working class independence.

[vyborg]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.

Your memory needs help!!
Which one of the right wing populist you have in mind? Which one was arrested by right wing politicians? which one created a mass workers party full of revolutionary workers? which one proposed many times to destroy capitalism (even if only in words) etc etc

[Obs]

Chavez reminds me of a right-wing populist.
You are adorable.

Everything else that needs to be said about this statement has already been said. I just wanted to add this.

[RadioRaheem84]

Im not pro-Chavez but I wouldnt say that Im anti him either, or at least not in all circumstances. I dont think he represents the working class, I think he represents the patriotic petit bourgiouse but I think in the context of Venezuela they are progressive in their struggles against the compradors and US Imperialism, not least because in their struggle with their enemies they have to rely on the power of the working class. There have been real gains for working people under him and they must be defended even though we believe in working class independence.


I think this represents how I feel and probably how many of us Bolivarian Supporters feel in general (do not want to speak for all). The working class though in their support of the PSUV and the Bolivarian Revolution are usurping the movement, and this is something we should support, as reformers within the Party are trying to halt them just as much as right winge oligarchs are trying to halt the entire revolution.

[Barry Lyndon]

I have a problem with defending the Venezuelan state in an inter-imperialist clusterfuck, just as I have a problem defending any state in any inter-imperialist clusterfuck. It's quite a venerable position, actually.

Wait, so Venezuela is imperialist now??? When has Chavez invaded or occupied anybody?

It's interesting how you demand mountains of evidence from your opponents, but produce none for your own ludicrous assertions.

[Palingenisis]

Wait, so Venezuela is imperialist now??? When has Chavez invaded or occupied anybody?

It's interesting how you demand mountains of evidence from your opponents, but produce none for your own ludicrous assertions.

According to some a few lads with guns in the hills of Fermanagh are as Imperialist as the British State....;)

[Barry Lyndon]

Left-communists(and some Trotskyists) denounce the Bolivarian Revolution and other Third World revolutions(Bolivia, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.) for the following reasons:

1. Envy: They can't get a following anywhere, so as a projection of their own impotence they have to tear down any movement that is actually having an impact on the world.

2. Dogmatism/failure of imagination: Mentally stuck decades in the past, they cannot concieve of a socialist revolution occuring in a manner that is not a literal reinactment of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or the Paris Commune, or whatever it is that they idolize as some sort of leftist golden age. Although, if they were alive at the time, they no doubt would be denouncing those revolutions too and going over every imperfection with a microscope.

3. Racism/First World chauvinism: Because of their emphasis of an 'advanced' First World working classes leadership role in a world revolution, left-communists and some Trotskyists cannot conceive of workers and peasants in the Third World making revolution themselves without the guidance of a Great White Father. The fact that imperialism has made large sections of the working class in the First World essentially reactionary is utterly lost on them. They chafe at the idea that First World intellectuals like them have to learn from and accept a subordinate role to black, brown, and Asian revolutionaries who are fighting on the front lines for survival. Non-whites to them are incapable of creating emancipatory politics, so they can only be led by tyrannical demagogues who dupe illiterate, stupid peasants.

4. Arrogance: They presume themselves to be all-knowing prophets who, along with their miniscule talking shops which they grandiously call 'leagues' or 'parties', are the sole possessors of the truth, the only ones who can tell the rest of us trembling mortals how to overthrow capitalism. One often wonders why they haven't used their vast organizing genius to create a successful revolutionary movement in their own country, if they are so sure what is wrong with everyone else.

[Zanthorus]

Wait, so Venezuela is imperialist now??? When has Chavez invaded or occupied anybody?

Imperialism isn't just simply one type of foreign policy pursued by capital as a sideshow to the main goings on but an entire epoch of capitalism which began in world war one. As of 1914 every capitalist nation operates within an imperialist framework and is hence imperialist, including Venezuela and other similar left-populist regimes.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, it began well before WWI.

[Zanthorus]

Actually, it began well before WWI.

True, but it became particularly obvious with the onset of WWI.

[black magick hustla]

3. Racism/First World chauvinism: Because of their emphasis of an 'advanced' First World working classes leadership role in a world revolution, left-communists and some Trotskyists cannot conceive of workers and peasants in the Third World making revolution themselves without the guidance of a Great White Father. The fact that imperialism has made large sections of the working class in the First World essentially reactionary is utterly lost on them. They chafe at the idea that First World intellectuals like them have to learn from and accept a subordinate role to black, brown, and Asian revolutionaries who are fighting on the front lines for survival. Non-whites to them are incapable of creating emancipatory politics, so they can only be led by tyrannical demagogues who dupe illiterate, stupid peasants.


This is a crock of absolute shit. There are left communists in the third world and they write about third world class struggles. The problem with you and your gang of shit-sticks and jokerboys is that you think class struggle is the State and the way it maneouvers the populace into defending it. To us that is absurd.

[Palingenisis]

True, but it became particularly obvious with the onset of WWI.

I dont go with that....Capitalism built itself from the word go through colonial plunder and in a good few cases actual genocide. The "age of Empire and exploration" goes hand in hand with the birth of capitalism. My own country has fewer trees than other one in the European Union..Why? Because the Brits cut them all down to build ships so that they could go off and invade other places.

I dont see much difference between the artificial famine created by British Imperialism in the 1940s in Bengal and the the artifical famine they made in my own country in the 1840s.

[Barry Lyndon]

[QUOTE]This is a crock of absolute shit. There are left communists in the third world and they write about third world class struggles.[QUOTE]

Writing about them. I don't see them leading them in the Third World, or for that matter anywhere.

[Obs]

True, but it became particularly obvious with the onset of WWI.

King Leopold II, one of the important figures of WWI.

You're backpedaling hard enough to make the world spin backwards, son.


This is a crock of absolute shit. There are left communists in the third world and they write about third world class struggles. The problem with you and your gang of shit-sticks and jokerboys is that you think class struggle is the State and the way it maneouvers the populace into defending it. To us that is absurd.

Am I a shit-stick or a jokerboy?

[Robocommie]

I hate how these things tend to come down to tendency wars, frankly, because I don't hate the other groups enough to want to continue it.

[Guerrilla22]

yoyoyoyo some of the "criticisms" being thrown out here are pretty weak. Chavez is a right winger, Venezuela is imperialist, ect. A legitimate criticism is one thing, but these accusations are absolutely absurd.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE]This is a crock of absolute shit. There are left communists in the third world and they write about third world class struggles.[QUOTE]

Writing about them. I don't see them leading them in the Third World, or for that matter anywhere.

Actually, we participate in them. THe problem with your kind is that you think it is a matter of the right party with the right ideas leading. We are a minority of the class. Not outside the class. And the class can organize itself. Its not made through the will of a military hack and the bolibourgeosie.

[Zanthorus]

I dont go with that....Capitalism built itself from the word go through colonial plunder and in a good few cases actual genocide. The "age of Empire and exploration" goes hand in hand with the birth of capitalism. My own country has fewer trees than other one in the European Union..Why? Because the Brits cut them all down to build ships so that they could go off and invade other places.

Colonialism is different from Imperialism. Colonialism involved the taking over of non-capitalist territory and the colonising state beggining the process of primitive accumulation. Imperialism is war between capitalist states.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The point is not that left communists do not have a mass party, that's fine, anarchists don't have mass parties either yet they seem to be doing quite well for themselves in some parts of the world. I think the real point is that no significant portion of the working class anywhere is willing to embrace the ideals of left communists

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem with you and your gang of shit-sticks and jokerboys is that you think class struggle is the State and the way it maneouvers the populace into defending it. To us that is absurd. Class struggle is the State and the way it "brainwashes" the poor wittle masses? Is that what you mean?
You fucking leftcoms cannot even read that most of the positions in here regarding the Bolivarian Revolution involve supporting the working class maneuver the gains they've made to optimize it in their best interests. We, or at least I, don't give a rat's ass about the reformers and the people in power that do not want to take the revolution further.

I swear, the only joke here is you. Fucking idiot.

[Obs]

Colonialism is different from Imperialism. Colonialism involved the taking over of non-capitalist territory and the colonising state beggining the process of primitive accumulation. Imperialism is war between capitalist states.


im·pe·ri·al·ism

–noun

1.the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2.advocacy of imperial interests.

3.an imperial system of government.

4.imperial government.

5.British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Look, I can almost appreciate what you're trying to do, if that is making a serious argument. But you're actively misusing words to make your "argument" work. And it's not like it's even important - you're just trying to justify making a silly claim about when Imperialism started by redefining what words mean. It's dishonest argumentation, and it says a bit about your debating skills. I suggest moving on, and making some actual arguments instead of quibbling over what you think words are.

[Palingenisis]

Colonialism is different from Imperialism. Colonialism involved the taking over of non-capitalist territory and the colonising state beggining the process of primitive accumulation. Imperialism is war between capitalist states.

Was the Franco-Prussian war (thats off the top of my head) in the 1870s not a war between two capitalist states?

[Palingenisis]

Class struggle is the State and the way it "brainwashes" the poor wittle masses? Is that what you mean?
You fucking leftcoms cannot even read that most of the positions in here regarding the Bolivarian Revolution involve supporting the working class maneuver the gains they've made to optimize it in their best interests. We, or at least I, don't give a rat's ass about the reformers and the people in power that do not want to take the revolution further.

I swear, the only joke here is you. Fucking idiot.

Though I am prepared to change my mind I just dont believe for the moment what we are seeing is an actual social revolution there.

What I believe is that Chavez and his party are trying to do is to create an actual "Social Democracy"...A society run for the benefit of all classes which obviously brings them into serious conflict with out and out reactionary forces.

To me there is an "interesting" balance of class forces in that country but not a social revolution as such...Of course I hope I am proved wrong.

[Palingenisis]

I swear, the only joke here is you. Fucking idiot.

I know this isnt true but honestly you would think from some of their posts that all Left-Coms are first world middle class students. Having food on your table and having your kids learn how to read and write are extremely important issues to most working class people globally. For all my reservations the gains that have come in Venezula are very real and important...The struggle must be to increase and secure them. There is a thin line between criticizing Chavez legitimately and playing into the hands of Imperialism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Obviously it would be absurd for a leftist to reject the Bolivarian Revolution. I'm not "anti-Chavez". There have been tremendous gains. I overstated my position.


To be a cheerleader for Chavez is reactionary

Its important to look at things dialectically.Chavez is creating space for capitalist economic development outside of US hegemony. This has opened a big space for the working class. Factory takeovers have been initiated by the workers, not the state.The 'special body of armed men" is increasing their repression and rollback of working class gains.

From roughly the mid 50s to the late 70s the Third World non-aligned movement tried to create a space for development outside of metropolitan hegemony. "Socialist" leaders from Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Nasser, Ben Bella, Nkrumah, Zulqifar Bhutto, and many others used fierce anti-imperialist rhetoric. Some of these leaders called themselves "Marxist-Leninist", others "Arab socialists" or nationalists. Greater resources were diverted to the population and there were attempts to gain leverage vis a vis the West though resource cartels.

Within a few decades this movement failed. Some of the anti-imperialists-Jerry Rawlings and others, emerged as the "star pupils" of the IMF's neo-liberalism.

I think its important to analyze why this happened. Why did Third World project fail? Its very complicated but essentially its because the regimes did not or could not dismantle the capitalist power structures in their countries. For example in Algeria, as I understand, Ben Bella moved away from working class socialism before he himself was overthrown.The revolutionary processes had reached a dead end and these countries were "ready" for neo-liberalism to be imposed.

"The Darker Nations" by Vijay Prashad and "The End of The third World" by Nigel Harris explain how this happened.

Chavez, Morales, ALBA are positive developments but I hope they will not end up as "Bandung 2.0"

[RadioRaheem84]

Though I am prepared to change my mind I just dont believe for that moment what we are seeing is an actual social revolution there.

What I believe is that Chavez and his party are trying to do is to create an actual "Social Democracy"...A society run for the benefit of all classes which obviously brings them into serious conflict with out and out reactionary forces.

To me there is an "interesting" balance of class forces in that country but not a social revolution as such...Of course I hope I am proved wrong.

You're not all off there Palingenesis. I feel mixed as to what sort of Social Democracy they're trying to build. At first I assumed that Chavez was just a real deal old school social democrat and that while preferable to a neo-liberal state, his reforms were only going to lead to inevitable confrontation with the old establishment. But he does go back and forth with his rhetoric that hovers between actual socialism and social democracy, i.e. his "Socialism for the 21st Century".

But again, this is all discussing Chavez, which while I do not mind doing, I would prefer to talk about the working class interests which are trying to thrust the Bolivarian Revolution to go toward a more socialist direction, rather than reformist social democracy. What they've been doing with the gains they've made under Chavez's administration I think is great and should be supported. This is the real revolution, in my eyes; the mass mobilization of people once without a voice now trying to establish an real lasting alternative to the neo-liberal order.



I swear, the only joke here is you. Fucking idiot. I know this isnt true but honestly you would think from some of their posts that all Left-Coms are first world middle class students. Having food on your table and having your kids learn how to read and write are extremely important issues to most working class people globally. For all my reservations the gains that have come in Venezula are very real and important...The struggle must be to increase and secure them. There is a thin line between criticizing Chavez legitimately and playing into the hands of Imperialism.

Right on the money, Palingenesis.

[Robocommie]

Actually, we participate in them. THe problem with your kind is that you think it is a matter of the right party with the right ideas leading. We are a minority of the class. Not outside the class. And the class can organize itself. Its not made through the will of a military hack and the bolibourgeosie.

I don't think it has anything to do with the right party or the right ideas, it's just that you guys never seem willing to work with groups that aren't perfectly in line with your ideological expectations. I don't give a fuck about parties, and I don't think you guys are bad Communists or bad Socialists or what have you. I'd be happy to work with you and whomever, but do you feel the same?

[El Rojo]

pro-con Bolivarian revolution debate aside, could people stop going on about the Bolivarian militia relying on AK's? the only weapon on those pictures is the FN FAL.

[human strike]

People are right to scrutinise Chavez. We should scrutinise all authority, all revolutionary leaders. But that isn't to say he's corrupt, just that we should be always wary of corruption. Personally, I have seen no evidence that he is corrupted or what not. We should support him as long as we have faith in him, but we should never depend on him or be satisified with his leadership. You feel me?

[bricolage]

The point is not that left communists do not have a mass party, that's fine, anarchists don't have mass parties either yet they seem to be doing quite well for themselves in some parts of the world.

I don't think anarchism is any more popular than left communism to be honest.


I think the real point is that no significant portion of the working class anywhere is willing to embrace the ideals of left communists

And a significant portion of the working class in most places is willing to embrace capitalism. Your point being?

[Spawn of Stalin]

My point is that the bulk of class concious workers in ANY given country are either Leninists (Trots, MLs) or parliamentary "democratic" socialists.

[Barry Lyndon]

I know this isnt true but honestly you would think from some of their posts that all Left-Coms are first world middle class students. Having food on your table and having your kids learn how to read and write are extremely important issues to most working class people globally. For all my reservations the gains that have come in Venezula are very real and important...The struggle must be to increase and secure them. There is a thin line between criticizing Chavez legitimately and playing into the hands of Imperialism.

The thing that left-coms and other ultra-lefts don't seem to be able to understand is that there is a qualitative difference between the nature of such reforms in the Third World and in First World social democratic countries. In Third World countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, reforms that provide greatly expanded public access to food, healthcare, education, housing, employment are often revolutionary in nature because they drastically upset the much more blatantly oligarchic class structure that exists in those countries, and also undermine imperialism because they rob foreign corporations of the illiterate pool of cheap foreign labor struggling to survive without a political consciousness that it needs. To me, that is one of the most important and humanizing things that socialism is able to achieve, and it is a concrete way that socialism improves desperately poor people's lives, something that proponents of socialism can point to. People who dismiss such progress as 'economistic' and 'social democratic' basically don't give a shit about the poor.

[bricolage]

My point is that the bulk of class concious workers in ANY given country are either Leninists (Trots, MLs) or parliamentary "democratic" socialists.

I don't thin that real means anything, it seems natural that people would be more drawn to ideals that propose less of a break with existing society. Hence 'democratic socialism'.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Indeed, most moderates are of course going to support left-of-Labour groups, but that doesn't explain why MLs and even Trots have much larger spheres of influence than left coms do. Generally speaking, only radical socialists are even allowed into Leninist organisations, same as groups like the ICC, the only difference is the Leninists have huge followings of class conscious workers, union organisers, etc.

[Robocommie]

People are right to scrutinise Chavez. We should scrutinise all authority, all revolutionary leaders. But that isn't to say he's corrupt, just that we should be always wary of corruption. Personally, I have seen no evidence that he is corrupted or what not. We should support him as long as we have faith in him, but we should never depend on him or be satisified with his leadership. You feel me?

This is precisely how I feel. I feel that Chavez has comported himself very well and shown a lot of support for the working class, but that doesn't mean I believe he's above reproach, and that doesn't mean I think he's some kind of Messiah.

[bricolage]

but that doesn't explain why MLs and even Trots have much larger spheres of influence than left coms do.

It's what I said before, I think 'MLs and even Trots' propose less of a break with existing society than left communists do.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That's up for debate, what isn't is the question of who has/can achieve A break with existing society. Look, I don't want to be debating ideological strands any more than the next guy, but left communism first came to prominence like a century ago, and has been lying dormant ever since, with the possible exception of 1910s/20s Italy. I think that this is the reason why so few workers identify as left coms, or indeed have even heard of, much less know what left communism is all about.

Regardless I think that anyone who seriously thinks that Leninism doesn't offer a huge break from existing society is delusional, Hugo Chavez and his PSUV government have turned Venezuela around over the last 10 years, lifted thousands of people out of extreme poverty, built communes, and armed the people who have typically been oppressed in a country like Venezuela. All that, and they're not even Leninists, they are moderates of the highest calibre.

[Palingenisis]

I think until 1923/1924 the KAPD (the Left Communists) in Germany was bigger than the KPD to be fair and as you said Left Communism was pretty influential in Italy (also after WWII aswell as in the revolutionary period that followed WWI). Italy and Germany I think are probably the two most important countries in Europe. A lot of the criticisms the Left Coms made of Lenin were I think correct for the time and place they found themselves in...The problemn as I see it is that they made these often legitimate principles into principles applying to all future times and places, this a along with a basically eurocentric vision (and yes I know there are Left Coms from the third world) has I think made Left Communism into an interesting historical relic (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

[RadioRaheem84]

To add to that notion, motionless, people should have realized by now that the world since the fall of Wall has made a sharp turn to the right at warp speed. Any movement, even a real deal Social Democratic one in Venezuela, is obviously going to be seen as akin to the Bolshevik Revolution by the international media and elite. While this doesn't make it so, listen to their criticism; it basically amounts to the poor and working class having a say in realms where they were overwhelmingly excluded from in the past!

[Zanthorus]

Look, I can almost appreciate what you're trying to do, if that is making a serious argument. But you're actively misusing words to make your "argument" work. And it's not like it's even important - you're just trying to justify making a silly claim about when Imperialism started by redefining what words mean. It's dishonest argumentation, and it says a bit about your debating skills. I suggest moving on, and making some actual arguments instead of quibbling over what you think words are.

I'm not doing anything besides asserting what the anti-imperialist sections of the second international asserted.


...this very widespread ‘theory' of imperialism defines it as the policy of conquest in general. From this point of view one can speak with equal right of Alexander the Macedonian's and the Spanish conqueror's imperialism, of the imperialism of Carthage and Ivan III, of ancient Rome and modern America, of Napoleon and Hindenburg.

Simple as this theory may be, it is absolutely untrue. It is untrue because it ‘explains' everything, i.e. it explains absolutely nothing... the same can be said about war. War serves to reproduce those relations on a wider scale. Simply to define war, however, as conquest, is entirely insufficient, for the simple reason that in doing so we fail to indicate the main thing, namely, what production relations are strengthened and extended by the war, what basis is widened by a given ‘policy of conquest'.

For Lenin "Imperialism" was synonymous with Monopoly capitalism and could only come about at a developed stage of capitalism:


1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital', of a financial oligarchy;

3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves;

5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed

The one thing you'll find in most Marxist theories of Imperialism is the belief that Imperialism is a world epoch. And according to Luxemburg Imperialism is a world epoch which no capitalist state can escape from.


Imperialism is not the creation of any one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.

The original post I was defending was by a Left-Communist with a Luxemburg quote in there signature who apparently defends the positions of the International Communist Current. So I assume that they hold to Luxemburgs definition of Imperialism. In that case it's not totally absurd for them to claim that Venezuela is Imperialist. It is after all a capitalist state which is attempting to defend it's own national interests and is arming workers in order to defend itself. I would not consider it totally absurd to think of that as Imperialism.

Also the question of when Imperialism became a proper world epoch was merely an aside in my original post. The point was that currently all capitalist states are part of an Imperialist system. It's interesting that people picked up on the question of when it started rather than addressing the real point though.

[vyborg]

I think until 1923/1924 the KAPD (the Left Communists) in Germany was bigger than the KPD to be fair and as you said Left Communism was pretty influential in Italy (also after WWII aswell as in the revolutionary period that followed WWI). Italy and Germany I think are probably the two most important countries in Europe. A lot of the criticisms the Left Coms made of Lenin were I think correct ---.

In 1945 left communism in Italy was irrelevant as the CP was stalinist. In the 60s and 70s left communist was irrelevant as most of the groups were stalinist or maoist.

In the XX century Italy was not one of the two most important country in Europe (not even western Europe). France and UK were by far more important

[Palingenisis]

In 1945 left communism in Italy was irrelevant as the CP was stalinist. In the 60s and 70s left communist was irrelevant as most of the groups were stalinist or maoist.

In the XX century Italy was not one of the two most important country in Europe (not even western Europe). France and UK were by far more important

The 1970s in Italy were very important in terms of class struggle and served as an inspiration for many elsewhere. Also a lot of the work carried out by the Italian "autonomists" is of lasting value in my opinion even if the likes of Negri went very off centre later on.

A very large Left Communist/"Bordigist" Party emerged after WWII.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think made Left Communism into an interesting historical relic (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).
It's okay. We've all heard left communists say pretty much the same thing about the IWW (more crassly and less contritely, too).


To add to that notion, motionless, people should have realized by now that the world since the fall of Wall has made a sharp turn to the right at warp speed. Any movement, even a real deal Social Democratic one in Venezuela, is obviously going to be seen as akin to the Bolshevik Revolution by the international media and elite. While this doesn't make it so, listen to their criticism; it basically amounts to the poor and working class having a say in realms where they were overwhelmingly excluded from in the past!
I'm not sure which "people" you're admonishing to "realize" that the end of the Cold War was bound to strengthen illusions in bourgeois democracy, nationalism, and its own social powerlessness within the working class. Left Communists recognized as much in 1989 (see point 22 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/60/collapse_eastern_bloc)).

[chegitz guevara]

[stuff ... after quoting the dictionary]

Please, please, please, do not quote the dictionary in order to define complex social phenomena. For something like imperialism, the dictionary definition is about as useful as saying a star is a point of light in the sky.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm not sure which "people" you're admonishing to "realize" that the end of the Cold War was bound to strengthen illusions in bourgeois democracy, nationalism, and its own social powerlessness within the working class. Left Communists recognized as much in 1989

Well then you should know why then Chavez (or his opponents at home or abroad for that matter) thinks of himself as a socialist. Yet, the working class has a much better understanding of it and it's clashing head first with the reformists in the higher ranks. It's these people who are utilizing the gains of the Bolivarian Revolution to their betterment and who I fundamentally support way before Chavez.

Look, the gains have been tremendous for the working class in Venezuela, but they know that it won't amount to a hill of beans if the revolution remains in the hands of the reformers because they only see interests from their social standing, much like Chavez does with his new "rendition" of socialism.

[Palingenisis]

Look, the gains have been tremendous for the working class in Venezuela, but they know that it won't amount to a hill of beans if the revolution remains in the hands of the reformers because they only see interests from their social standing, much like Chavez does with his new "rendition" of socialism.


I think we are basically on the same page...But where I would be in sympathy with the ultra-lefts so to speak is that socialism is more than a matter of these gains (very important as I know they are) but a fundamental change in the relationship of humans to their activity...I just dont see that we can talk about a social revolution (yet)....Though the "ultra-lefts" just seem to be repeating slogans and ignoring the nuances that the support for Chavez has here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think we are basically on the same page...But where I would be in sympathy with the ultra-lefts so to speak is that socialism is more than a matter of these gains (very important as I know they are) but a fundamental change in the relationship of humans to their activity...I just dont see that we can talk about a social revolution (yet)....Though the "ultra-lefts" just seem to be repeating slogans and ignoring the nuances that the support for Chavez has here.

Agreed. No fundamental change in the society has occurred except for monumental gains only in comparison to the previous administrations. By Revolution though, I think that it entails something ongoing and not yet complete.