As recession deepens, Chavez sees transition

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1269117&lang=eng_news&cate_img=35.jpg&cate_rss=news_Business



By FABIOLA SANCHEZ
Associated Press



A day after the Central Bank reported Venezuela's recession has deepened, President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday that it's a natural part of transforming the country from a capitalist to a socialist economy.

"The economy that's falling in Venezuela is the capitalist economy," Chavez said in a televised speech, referring to the bank's report that the economy shrank 5.8 percent in the first quarter after a 3.3 percent contraction lasts year.

Critics say the Chavez government's price controls and expropriations of private companies are responsible for Venezuelans facing shortages of some foods and struggling with 30 percent inflation _ a rate among the highest in the world.

Economist Orlando Ochoa said a key factor in the downturn is also a decline in the amount of oil industry earnings being injected into the economy.

"The controls don't work anymore because there is an underlying economic problem, which is the fall in the flow of oil income," Ochoa said in a telephone interview.

Official figures say the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA, turned over to the Central Bank less than 43 percent of the dollars it earned from oil sales in the first quarter. Ochoa noted that percentage has been decreasing in recent years, and said the resulting shortage of dollars led to a drop of 39.7 percent in imports.

The oil-exporting country remains largely reliant on imported food and manufactured goods. Economists say government price controls and currency exchange controls have contributed to shortages of some foods.

Shopper Josefina Perez, a 74-year-old retiree, complained that the Caracas market she visited Wednesday didn't have sugar, butter or fat-free milk _ so she has to turn to street vendors who charge "sky-high" prices.

"There are many things that can't be found, like sugar, vegetable oil, butter, corn meal," said another shopper, Joselina Santeliz, a 60-year-old teacher who said she is forced to buy other items instead to make do.

A Central Bank survey in April found shortages of basic food items at more than 14 percent of supermarkets and other sellers visited, a slight rise from 13 percent the previous month.

Chavez's government has nationalized food companies along with others in sectors from electricity to steel. The government now controls 75 percent of coffee production, 52 percent of sugar, 42 percent of corn meal and 40 percent of rice.

Carlos Larrazabal, who heads Venezuela's largest industrial business chamber, said Wednesday that as long as the government continues economic controls and expropriations "there won't be a climate" for investment.

Chavez predicted at an event with farmers in the countryside that agricultural output will keep growing. "What does it matter to me if imports of vehicles fall?" he said.

The president said that due to the economic decline, his opponents are "celebrating but they don't realize that what they're celebrating is the wake of capitalism."

"Let them continue celebrating. Put out candles at the funeral because we're going to bury Venezuelan capitalism," Chavez added. "And of course the sinking of capitalism and the rise of socialism has to bring contradictions, difficulties."

[REDSOX]

As the private sector declines the state sector grows, hopefully increasingly under working class control. Viva chavez

[RED DAVE]

If he keeps up this bullshit, he will have an uprising on his hands like Chile under Allende, and, of course, the US will be behind it. An impoverished middle-class is extremely dangerous and is perfectly capable of supporting a right-wing coup.

RED DAVE

[eyedrop]

Chavez predicted at an event with farmers in the countryside that agricultural output will keep growing. "What does it matter to me if imports of vehicles fall?" he said.I'd like to know the context behind this part. It sounds incredible rude to say to agricultural workers who are reliant on vehicles.

A search on the phrase just reveals that all newspapers just copypaste the major news agencies and have exactly the same information. Anyone who knows spanish better than me that would be willing to look it up?

[REDSOX]

Chavez is not talking about the agricultural workers and their vehicles. He is talking about the bourgeois and their vehicles!!!

[Q]

As the private sector declines the state sector grows, hopefully increasingly under working class control. Viva chavez
Yes, hopefully the state will do that. Let us pray.

(I know this translates badly on the internet, so yes, this is sarcasm).

[REDSOX]

Better the state under control of the working class than neo liberalism surely????? I believe that is where the process in venezuela is slowly and surely heading all being well

[RED DAVE]

Doesn't anyone around here see the danger of a crisis of capitalism in the absence of a strong working class movement towards socialism? If this crisis continues, without the working class seizing control of the country and moving towards a socialized economy, there is going to be a right-wing backlash, with the US lurking in the background.

Chavez is running a bourgeois state, and its time is running out. Venezuela will either move forwards towards socialism or backwards towards some form of fascism. Chavez is slogan-mongering while a very nasty set of consequences is extremely possible.

RED DAVE

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez red dave is dismantling the bourgeois state and replacing it with a revolutionary state run by the working class. If you cannot see this dave the i will quote an old saying. "There are none so blind as those that will not see" Can anyone honestly say that hugo chavez is guilty of just sloganeering, just look at the things that have been achieved in venezuela so far and as chavez has said this is only the beginning of the process. Dont confuse reformism with gradualism dave. Yes they have to step on the accelerator and go up a gear or two but they must be careful of whats in the road ahead!!

[Proletarian Ultra]

Doesn't anyone around here see the danger of a crisis of capitalism in the absence of a strong working class movement towards socialism?

Of course it's dangerous. This is a global economic crisis, not Chuck E. Cheese.

And we'll see how strong the working class movement towards socialism is.

[RadioRaheem84]

If he keeps up this bullshit, he will have an uprising on his hands like Chile under Allende, and, of course, the US will be behind it. An impoverished middle-class is extremely dangerous and is perfectly capable of supporting a right-wing coup.

RED DAVE

The situation is very similar to Allende and the business community is engaging in what is obviously an economic class war to shrink the economy and make Chavez look bad, although this is also the natural way it was going to be considering the capitalist class wasn't going to go down with a fight.

I wouldn't call it bullshit though. Jeez, is everything he does just that radically absurd to the critics here?

[Q]

Better the state under control of the working class than neo liberalism surely????? I believe that is where the process in venezuela is slowly and surely heading all being well
The working class cannot take over the capitalist state and use it for its own purposes. History has this shown time and again. Chavez, even if he would be genuine in his aims for a socialist Venezuela, is now walking up to the limits of his policies. His talk about the economic crisis being a "natural part" of the transition towards socialism is quite frankly ridiculous.

[RadioRaheem84]

I mean, the moment has pretty much arrived. It's now or never. It was inevitable. The alternative economy Chavez was trying to grow is now meeting up with the old establishment. You're going to expect major divestment and slowing of growth and of course the media is going to portray this as the fault of "socialism", not realizing that the bourgeoisie control their enterprises too and can cause havoc, but for some reason all the blame is on the government and its policies.

We will have to watch out for the right wing as they may make a sudden appearance yet again after being rather silent in comparison to their frothing at the mouth era in 02.

[RadioRaheem84]

The working class cannot take over the capitalist state and use it for its own purposes. History has this shown time and again. Chavez, even if he would be genuine in his aims for a socialist Venezuela, is now walking up to the limits of his policies. His talk about the economic crisis being a "natural part" of the transition towards socialism is quite frankly ridiculous.


No it's not.

[Q]

No it's not.
Solid argument there.

[RadioRaheem84]

Solid argument there.

I explained why in earlier posts.

[REDSOX]

Chavez is not trying to run the bourgeois state in the interests of the workers. The chavistas are creating their own state which will eventually transcend and crush the bourgeois state sooner hopefully than later because the bourgeois must be destroyed and this process finished in the only way it can be finished!!

[eyedrop]

Chavez is not talking about the agricultural workers and their vehicles. He is talking about the bourgeois and their vehicles!!! I reckon the capitalists there can still afford the cars.

While I can understand the restrictions on car import to boost the currency, it isn't very much of an attack on the bourgeoisie. It's just a standard protectionist measure and protection of the national industry.
To boost domestic manufacturers, which accounted for 30% of new cars, the government slashed import licences for luxury vehicles such as Hummers and mid-range cars such as Fiats. Venezuela has no national car brand but hosts assembly plants for the likes of Ford, GM, Hyundai and Toyota.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/venezuela-car-industry-problems)

Is the Venezuelan Auto industry owned by capitalists or owned by the state BTW? If it's owned by capitalists it's just siding with one faction of the bourgeoisie against another.

[REDSOX]

The auto industry is owned by the state and multinationals. The state owned car and truck company is called Venirauto. The multinationals present in venezuela are ford, general motors, mitsubishi, toyota, chrysler. They should be nationalised under workers control asap. Over to you hugo.

[eyedrop]

The auto industry is owned by the state and multinationals. The state owned car and truck company is called Venirauto. The multinationals present in venezuela are ford, general motors, mitsubishi, toyota, chrysler. They should be nationalised under workers control asap. Over to you hugo.
Got any source? I would be interested in finding out the percentages of the market.

[REDSOX]

No specific source comes to mind. Just google it all in and go from there is all i can suggest unless someone else knows anything else!!. I got my info from a venezuelan i met in london some time ago

[eyedrop]

The law also prohibits the importation of passenger cars with engines larger than three liters, thus discriminating against companies selling predominantly larger cars.

Link (http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/2009/NTE/asset_upload_file940_15513.pdf)Haha, those poor discriminated car companies.

I could only find some source that said that: "United States automobile companies assembled 85 percent of the country's vehicles, and European and Japanese companies produced 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively." (In the 70 from what I could understand) No modern numbers though.

Link (http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/33.htm)

Anyway it isn't all that important what I think or don't think of Venezuela.

[Davie zepeda]

The window for socialism in Venezuela is closing, but i don't fear it failing, it is possible for the revolution to fail if 1) no working class unity 2) corruption of the revolutionaries 3) lose of international solidarity. if they have these key components the revolution will survive, if they lose these components then they will head towards defeat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

His talk about the economic crisis being a "natural part" of the transition towards socialism is quite frankly ridiculous.

I think the truth is somewhere in between what the two of you are debating.

What I am sure is that no transition towards socialism (talks of capitalist state machineries aside for a moment) is a bed of roses.

Chavez could be right within the Venezuelan context, but he is wrong if he's trying to generalize. "Building socialism in a single country" was triggered in part by the Scissors Crisis, but no economic crisis negatively impacting the Soviet Union followed.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"Building socialism in a single country" was triggered in part by the Scissors Crisis, but no economic crisis negatively impacting the Soviet Union followed.

The mixing of state controlled prices and industry and the floating price market almost universally leads to high inflation, especially if the bourgeoisie starts resisting and meddling in things.

The economy should be restructured from the ground up, and active fight against the bourgeois must be taken. Chávez has not shown any indication that is willing to allow this step to be taken.

This sort of slow attempted at altering the economic order by a long sequence of various reforms has a tendency to get lost along the way, one way or the other. It's obviously very open to potential attacks and sabotage from the U.S. and such, as the Venezuelan bourgeoisie is still large and strong;

On this note, in a staunchly anti-Chávez article, state news this week reported that Chávez was threatening to nationalise a large warehouse and distributing firm, "Polar" or something, accusing them of hoarding goods and food to increase prices and general subversion, but that the "workers" of the company said they were prepared to "fight" for the company. Any details on this?

[Red]

I think a lot of people here underestimate what Chavez is doing there. It seems to me that a lot of us are referring to Venezuela as if it's a global pariah, left on it's own to accomplish the struggle. Does anyone realize that Chavez has many trading partner states in South America? He's not stupid by any means, and based on papers and books I've read he's got a huge support base all through the continent. Sure there are enemies, but are they as powerful as his revolution?

[#FF0000]

I think a lot of people here underestimate what Chavez is doing there. It seems to me that a lot of us are referring to Venezuela as if it's a global pariah, left on it's own to accomplish the struggle. Does anyone realize that Chavez has many trading partner states in South America? He's not stupid by any means, and based on papers and books I've read he's got a huge support base all through the continent. Sure there are enemies, but are they as powerful as his revolution?

Well the United States is pretty fucking powerful.

[pranabjyoti]

The "Stalinist USSR" i.e. the USSR under Stalin had overwhelming increase and progress in both economy and technology. Chavez here at least fall behind Stalin in this case.

[chegitz guevara]

Uhm, the USSR covered 1/6th of the globe and had hundreds of millions of people.

Also, millions were killed in order to make that growth happen.

[el_chavista]

The economic crisis is showing Chávez that no "nationalist" bourgeoisie will ever support the Bolivarian national liberation movement. On the contrary, The "Polar" industry, controlling a 70% of the food offert, is again playing the shortage-of-food game (like in the 2002-2003 coup d'etat/oil strike).

Or Chávez seizes the Polar and other big industries related to food or he would face the worst conditions to win an election ever. It is "the whip of the reaction" of the bourgeoisie that radicalizes Chávez, not his socialist ideas.


The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm)
Famine Is Approaching

Unavoidable catastrophe is threatening Russia...

[Dimentio]

"If you want to hurt someone, play nice with them before you do anything"

[S.Artesian]

I think a lot of people here underestimate what Chavez is doing there. It seems to me that a lot of us are referring to Venezuela as if it's a global pariah, left on it's own to accomplish the struggle. Does anyone realize that Chavez has many trading partner states in South America? He's not stupid by any means, and based on papers and books I've read he's got a huge support base all through the continent. Sure there are enemies, but are they as powerful as his revolution?


Well his allies are not in exactly the best shape themselves... and allies they might be, revolutionists they sure are not-- Kirchner-Fernandez, the Peronist Hill and Billary of Argentina are in a world of trouble as she tries to figure out a way to get back into the world's capital markets, which she probably will do just as those markets dry up; Correa in Ecuador, who of course has given the indigenous peoples their choice of cancer or polio, bringing in Canadian mining corporations to replace the oil interests who have literally poisoned thousands of acres; Morales... whose government is just beginning to feel the impacts of the collapse in natural gas prices; and then of course there's Lula in Brazil who is no ally at all of Chavez and actually maneuvers against Chavez whenever possible. Wasn't Lula who blocked Venezuela's entry into Mercosul?

Chavez does have the ALBA countries, but none of those are real economic powerhouses, are they? Actually, Chavez has Venezuela pretty much subsidizing those countries.

No, Chavez is no dummy, and you know what? Capitalism, the dynamics of capitalism, don't give a rat's ass how smart or non-smart he is. Class struggle doesn't demur in front of smart guys, tough guys, big dick guys, tough women, smart women-- not to anybody.

The recent, and persistent, debacle with electricity generation is one of the things that is, and will continue, to piss a lot of people off and as class struggle intensifies, those right-wing, centrist, and even left elements in Chavez's own coalition will do all they can, in their different manners, to keep the working class from taking independent action.

Chavez's support is not written in stone; his popularity with the military is not a permanent thing.

[S.Artesian]

Uhm, the USSR covered 1/6th of the globe and had hundreds of millions of people.

Also, millions were killed in order to make that growth happen.


Yep, and in the end... all that "economic progress" was more than undone by the result of purchasing that progress at the expense of international revolution, as capital scorched hundreds of thousands of square miles of Soviet territory in WW 2.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The economic crisis is showing Chávez that no "nationalist" bourgeoisie will ever support the Bolivarian national liberation movement.

And there's the bankruptcy of Maoist "New Democracy" in a nutshell right there.

I'm OK with Third World class alliances with the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) formed by an inner alliance of proletarians, unproductive workers (butlers, housemaids), proper lumpenproletarians, and coordinators (mid-level managers, bureaucratic spetsy, etc.), though... even if the five classes are on equal terms (i.e., the proletariat isn't the leading class for Trotskyist dogmatists).

[pranabjyoti]

Uhm, the USSR covered 1/6th of the globe and had hundreds of millions of people.

Also, millions were killed in order to make that growth happen.
Killed by whom? By the counter revolutionary imperialist agents and their created sabotages.

[Nolan]

Uhm, the USSR covered 1/6th of the globe and had hundreds of millions of people.

Also, millions were killed in order to make that growth happen.


At the time it didn't have "hundreds of millions of people."

No, not in order to. "Despite the growth" would be much more appropriate considering the cause of deaths around the USSR was mostly natural.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Chavez Says He’s Working to Control Land, Finances and Commerce (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aNlNQ1rPg.EE)


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he’s working to take state control over land, finances and trade in order to consolidate socialism in the South American country.

Chavez, speaking on state television, said that the “capitalist oligarchy” has held control over the economy and that his government needs to boost production and pare imports.

[AK]

I think a lot of people here underestimate what Chavez is doing there. It seems to me that a lot of us are referring to Venezuela as if it's a global pariah, left on it's own to accomplish the struggle. Does anyone realize that Chavez has many trading partner states in South America? He's not stupid by any means, and based on papers and books I've read he's got a huge support base all through the continent. Sure there are enemies, but are they as powerful as his revolution?
He's trading with the Bourgeoisie? What a man to look up to :rolleyes:

And there's the bankruptcy of Maoist "New Democracy" in a nutshell right there.

I'm OK with Third World class alliances with the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) formed by an inner alliance of proletarians, unproductive workers (butlers, housemaids), proper lumpenproletarians, and coordinators (mid-level managers, bureaucratic spetsy, etc.), though... even if the five classes are on equal terms (i.e., the proletariat isn't the leading class for Trotskyist dogmatists).
Gosh golly. That was a little unprovoked to any Trotskyists out there.

[chebol]

Q wrote:

His talk about the economic crisis being a "natural part" of the transition towards socialism is quite frankly ridiculous.

No it' not. Chavez openly recognises that Venezuela is a capitalist state. I see nothing contradictory or "ridiculous" about the effects of both the world capitalist economy and local economic effects being a "natural part" of the struggle towards socialism in contemporary Venezuela, given the actual reality on the ground in that country.

If you want to assert the primacy of century old theory over it's application in present day reality, I suggest you look elsewhere - or at least try to be consistent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Gosh golly. That was a little unprovoked to any Trotskyists out there.

It was a two-front polemic against both Trotskyists and Maoists.

[pranabjyoti]

In this case, I suggest Chavez must follow Stalin.

[chegitz guevara]

At the time it didn't have "hundreds of millions of people."

No, not in order to. "Despite the growth" would be much more appropriate considering the cause of deaths around the USSR was mostly natural.

The USSR had just short of two hundred million people before WWII (198 million) which went to 170 million by the end of the war. One in eight people were killed, almost 80% of the men born in 1923. We can debate Stalin's culpability in the mess that was WWII (whether his policies led to the victory of fascism in Germany, Spain, and whether he damaged the ability of the USSR to defend itself via the purges and ineffective military positioning, etc).

Three million people died in the Holodomor, entirely because of the policy of grain requisitioning during a drought. In addition, this was "necessary" because of the need for grain in the rapidly re-industrializing cities. In addition, millions were deported East, to build new cities, mines, railways, etc. and that process killed a lot of people. In addition, nearly a million people lost their lives in political purges.

So, I'd say because of, not in spite of.

[pranabjyoti]

the ussr had just short of two hundred million people before wwii (198 million) which went to 170 million by the end of the war. One in eight people were killed, almost 80% of the men born in 1923. We can debate stalin's culpability in the mess that was wwii (whether his policies led to the victory of fascism in germany, spain, and whether he damaged the ability of the ussr to defend itself via the purges and ineffective military positioning, etc).

Three million people died in the holodomor, entirely because of the policy of grain requisitioning during a drought. In addition, this was "necessary" because of the need for grain in the rapidly re-industrializing cities. In addition, millions were deported east, to build new cities, mines, railways, etc. And that process killed a lot of people. In addition, nearly a million people lost their lives in political purges.

So, i'd say because of, not in spite of.
just worthless imperialist bs.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

just worthless imperialist bs.

Typical Kasamaproject/libcom crap.

[Ovi]

In this case, I suggest Chavez must follow Stalin.
Into his grave?

[GreenCommunism]

Three million people died in the Holodomor, entirely because of the policy of grain requisitioning during a drought. In addition, this was "necessary" because of the need for grain in the rapidly re-industrializing cities
the people in the ussr should starve because ukraine has more food than the ussr. let's be nationalistic.

[Q]

the people in the ussr should starve because ukraine has more food than the ussr. let's be nationalistic.

Interesting reasoning, because that is exactly what happened. Be it that it was the Ukranian people that starved. Who here is nationalistic?

[~Spectre]

He's trading with the Bourgeoisie? What a man to look up to :rolleyes:



Everyone has to do this. There is no socialist block ready to support them should they choose to arbitrarily boycott the entire world.

[GreenCommunism]

Interesting reasoning, because that is exactly what happened. Be it that it was the Ukranian people that starved. Who here is nationalistic?

they starved equally just like the rest of the country.though i might be wrong. i just countered the argument that glenn beck said on his show. that ukraine farmed more grain than it needed.

[pranabjyoti]

Into his grave?
If he could send that level of reactionaries into grave before going to grave.;)

[Agnapostate]

It's very typical for the mass media to attribute any economic problem in Venezuela to underlying deficiencies of socialism, even if clearly unreasonable. Venezuela, as with any other country that lacks abundant natural resources, cannot be autarkic, and the crises of global capitalism and effects on international trade are probably partially at fault. Declines in oil income certainly wouldn't be averted if Chavez's administration had adhered to the Washington Consensus, so how is domestic economic policy to blame?

It seems intuitive that this global economic instability is at least partially at fault. The Chavez government's attempts to manage trade relations through devaluation of the bolivar would naturally lead to higher inflation levels. But on that note, employment is presumably still high, and since higher prices are correlated with higher wages, we'd need to see what's happened to real price levels, i.e. purchasing power.

I do frown at the nature of Venezuela's capitalist economy and smile on the influence of labor cooperatives at the same time, though if there weren't a mild cult of personality around Chavez, as there is with any populist politician, he might be compelled to get things done more quickly with the threat of recall or opponents' election victories.

[GreenCommunism]

It's very typical for the mass media to attribute any economic problem in Venezuela to underlying deficiencies of socialism
yes when was capitalism ever guilty of any economic problem.

[Charles Xavier]

If he keeps up this bullshit, he will have an uprising on his hands like Chile under Allende, and, of course, the US will be behind it. An impoverished middle-class is extremely dangerous and is perfectly capable of supporting a right-wing coup.

RED DAVE


Completely different situation, military was already purged of disloyal elements.

[chegitz guevara]

they starved equally just like the rest of the country.though i might be wrong. i just countered the argument that glenn beck said on his show. that ukraine farmed more grain than it needed.

You're very wrong. The vast majority of starvation was in Eastern Ukraine and the Donbas. Despite Ukrainian propaganda, these areas were mostly inhabited by Russians, and most of the people who died in the Holodomor were, in fact, of Russian ethnicity.

Yes, the Ukraine farmed more grain than they needed, but not enough. It was a drought. They barely had what they needed to eat, plus seed grain for the next season, plus a little extra.

This is what's in the Soviet archives. If anything, the archives probably understate the severity of the famine, but they are the only hard numbers we have.

[chegitz guevara]

the people in the ussr should starve because ukraine has more food than the ussr. let's be nationalistic.

They could have bought grain on the world market or called for relief aid, due to the severity of the crisis, like they did in 1922.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Or pursue a sovkhoz farming policy and abandon the kolkhozy mania. At least the "business risk" would fall on the state and its red directors, thereby inducing more productivity in the long-term.

[Palingenisis]

Typical Kasamaproject/libcom crap.

Libcom is infamous for its racism and sexism...I have concerns about Kasama but to compare them to Libcom is going to far.

[Robocommie]

Or pursue a sovkhoz farming policy and abandon the kolkhozy mania. At least the "business risk" would fall on the state and its red directors, thereby inducing more productivity in the long-term.

Reading about the kolkhozes disturbed me, by the way they mirrored the structures of western manorialism, such as in medieval England. The kolkhozniks pool their land into a single large estate, like a lord's demesne but at the disposal of the state instead of a feudal landlord, and then they're allowed their own private plot of land, much as serfs were, and then they're also expected to put in "week work" on the common field, in addition to paying out taxes. Awful.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Say what you will about the likes of Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, but I laud his past career as red director of the Gorodets sovkhoz which, among other sovkhozy, didn't have private plots (my personal political benefit of pre-vertical state farming, in addition to economies of scale and increased productivity). ;)

[Martin Blank]

In this case, I suggest Chavez must follow Stalin.

I think he is, to a certain extent. I mean, this "21st Century Socialism" is increasingly looking a lot like "20th Century 'Really-Existing' Socialism" to me. As much as I have been a defender of the Bolivarian Revolution over the years, I'm very much of the opinion at this point that either the Revolution moves beyond Chavez and Bolivarianism, or it dies (either by its own hand, or by the hand of imperialism).

[Devrim]

Libcom is infamous for its racism and sexism...I have concerns about Kasama but to compare them to Libcom is going to far.

I think that calling Libcom racist is pretty slanderous. As for sexism, yes it does have a bit of a 'boys club' atmosphere in its equivalent of chit-chat, just like here in fact.

Devrim

[vyborg]

Completely different situation, military was already purged of disloyal elements.

I'm afraid this is too optimistic...but if someone has data about this I think it would be useful to discuss them (how many general and top officers have been removed in the mast years etc)

[pranabjyoti]

Reading about the kolkhozes disturbed me, by the way they mirrored the structures of western manorialism, such as in medieval England. The kolkhozniks pool their land into a single large estate, like a lord's demesne but at the disposal of the state instead of a feudal landlord, and then they're allowed their own private plot of land, much as serfs were, and then they're also expected to put in "week work" on the common field, in addition to paying out taxes. Awful.
JUST A FEW BIG DIFFERENCES. Kolkhozes have division of labor, is didn't exist in feudal England/Europe. Perhaps in nowhere in the medieval world, division of labor in modern form exists. Secondly, the production of Kolkhozes will go to the state and mostly will be distributed among people at the end, NOT LIKE MEDIEVAL ENGLAND/EUROPE, WHERE THIS WILL BE USED FOR LUXURY OF LANDLORDS AND OTHER UPPER CLASS. IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT ACCUMULATION OF BIG LAND AND FARMING BY GROUP METHOD, WITH DIVISION OF LABOR WORKS WELL EVEN WITH LESS SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION. Kolkhozes and Sovkhozes were the main reasons behind the increased production in the agricultural sector of the USSR.
Another big difference is in medieval England/Europe, supplying of water, seed and fertilizers and machinery were the responsibility of the peasants, while in the Kolkhozes, it was the responsibility of the state. So the right of the state on the production of Kolkhozes is much more than landlords of medieval England/Europe.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think he is, to a certain extent. I mean, this "21st Century Socialism" is increasingly looking a lot like "20th Century 'Really-Existing' Socialism" to me. As much as I have been a defender of the Bolivarian Revolution over the years, I'm very much of the opinion at this point that either the Revolution moves beyond Chavez and Bolivarianism, or it dies (either by its own hand, or by the hand of imperialism).

I'm sure you were of that position as early as just before the 2007 referendum. I was of that position already.

P.S. - In case you were confused about my Lukashenko remark, "red directors" in the Soviet era couldn't hire or fire. I was also contrasting his "red director" stint with his earlier career as a kolkhoz head.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

P.S. - In case you were confused about my Lukashenko remark, "red directors" in the Soviet era couldn't hire or fire. I was also contrasting his "red director" stint with his earlier career as a kolkhoz head.

Sorry to be so off-topic but - any documents regarding organisation of sovkhozy?