Why are so many people so quick to call Hugo Chavez a "dictator"?

[Adi Shankara]

Truth is, Hugo Chavez has never cheated in an election, EVER. in the last election, held in 2006, Hugo Chavez won fair in square, in election proceedings that were observed by the EU, OAS, and other bodies. Is it just because the United States didn't get invited to watch the elections, that we consider him a dictator here?




The EU's Final Election Report for Venezuela, 2006 (http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf[/URL)


see? according to the final report from the EU, Hugo Chavez won fair in square. so why are people so quick to call him a dictator? is it because he ACTUALLY helps the poor? because he shuns capitalist interests and his only special interest group is the proletariat? because he doesn't tolerate the US pedaling it's filth in Venezuela?

why do so many people believe in this myth?

(P.S: if you want to see a GREAT documentary from John Pilger on Venezuela, that is so interesting, you'll watch the whole thing in one sitting, watch this:))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTZmC9RJw1E

sub-sequential parts are available if you click on the vid link.

[Obs]

Only liberals and other rightists call Chávez a dictator, iirc. Most leftists who oppose him call him a bourgeois parliamentary reformist.

[28350]

I prefer the term cock-spud.

[Adi Shankara]

I prefer the term cock-spud.

Why? what has he done that hasn't been in the interest of the people?

[Weezer]

It's because he's a communist.

All communist leaders are dictators, obviously. They don't not believe in amurican democracy.

[Adi Shankara]

Only liberals and other rightists call Chávez a dictator, iirc. Most leftists who oppose him call him a bourgeois parliamentary reformist.

Personally, I can't wait for the Fifth International to be held--this year's topic is to be a part of the natural succession of socialism, into what he calls "21st century socialism". I don't know why more people don't give the man's policies credit, they are showing results:

Povert Reduction in Venezuela: a reality based view (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8172174/Poverty-Reduction-in-Venezuela-A-Reality-Based-View)

Poverty Decreased by 22.6% over past decade (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4702)
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/che.gif)

[28350]

Why? what has he done that hasn't been in the interest of the people?

cock-spud = dick-tater
sorry. bad joke.

[Guerrilla22]

It's great rhetoric. When you can't you can't come up with a valid argument against political opposition resort to calling them a dictator.

[Sankofa]

Meh, it's your bread and butter bourgeois slander against any leader they disapprove of.

The United States had no problem attempting to remove Chavez from power and replace him with a dictator of their own choosing back during the U.S. funded coup d'état in 2002.

And even after that failed, they still tried to oust him through a referendum through the puppet Súmate organization--and again failed horribly.

No doubt, if Chavez was a right-wing imperial stooge on the U.S. payroll, the bourgeoisie would be praising his government and not seeking to delegitimize it.

[it_ain't_me]

for the same reason that leftists call everyone to the right of center a fascist?

[Obs]

for the same reason that leftists call everyone to the right of center a fascist?
We like "liberal" and "fucking idiot", too.

[it_ain't_me]

i mostly reserve those for other leftists. :)

[maskerade]

If you don't do what USA wants you to do, you're undemocratic and a dictator. If you follow the will of the people who elected you, in a free and fair election, you're a dictator and undemocratic. If you decide to privatize natural resources to foreign corporations, "liberate" the market, and pretty much shit on poor people, you're a hope for peace, prosperity and democracy.

A good example is when Evo Morales nationalized the natural gases in Bolivia, and the move was called undemocratic by America. Yet it had the support of 95% of the population (or something like that, might've been 90%).

When America calls someone a terrorist or undemocratic, just think back to 1984 and the wonderful doublespeak. it's sort of like that

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez is carrying out radical progressive politics in venezuela which are challenging the concrete interests of the venezuelan bourgeoisie and their imperialist friends. That is why he is a dictator:) Nelson mandela on the other hand is eulogised by the bourgeoisie because he made no efforts to challenge the economic power of the imperialists and the white south african bourgeoisie. Therefore he is a nice old man who brought south africans together in peace and reconcilliation:) By the way dont miss steven sackur's interview with hugo chavez on hardtalk tommorow night on bbc news 24. By all accounts its quite a clash

[NecroCommie]

Personally, I can't wait for the Fifth International to be held--this year's topic is to be a part of the natural succession of socialism, into what he calls "21st century socialism". I don't know why more people don't give the man's policies credit, they are showing results:

Povert Reduction in Venezuela: a reality based view (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8172174/Poverty-Reduction-in-Venezuela-A-Reality-Based-View)

Poverty Decreased by 22.6% over past decade (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4702)
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/che.gif)
What exactly is "21st century socialism"? If I have a beef with Chavez (which is rare), it is because his approach to socialism is not entirely "scientific" as some socialists put it.

[ContrarianLemming]

Why are so many people so quick to call Hugo Chavez a "dictator"?

Does the pope protect child molestors?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Does the pope protect child molestors?

Well! You've certainly convinced me! :rolleyes:

[RATM-Eubie]

Because people are tards that believe everything they read on FOX

[Agnapostate]

Essentially. Independent analysis (as opposed to being spoon-fed by the mass media), is extremely rare in the country, though I like to think that the advent of the Internet has put a slight dent in this. Most members of the media also don't even attempt to hide their bias towards "official enemies" of the ruling U.S. government. Hugo Chavez, while a populist with excessive authoritarian inclinations (a problem with any head of state, actually), was democratically elected on numerous occasions, survived a recall effort, and spearheaded the installation of a new constitution with extended provisions for national referendums. Neither provisions for recall of the head of state or national referendums exist here in the "freest country in the world," though it's extremely unlikely that George Bush would have survived a recall attempt by the middle of his second term. There was no mechanism for public removal of him, though.

[Dimentio]

Truth is, Hugo Chavez has never cheated in an election, EVER. in the last election, held in 2006, Hugo Chavez won fair in square, in election proceedings that were observed by the EU, OAS, and other bodies. Is it just because the United States didn't get invited to watch the elections, that we consider him a dictator here?




(http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf[/URL)The EU's Final Election Report for Venezuela, 2006 (http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf)


see? according to the final report from the EU, Hugo Chavez won fair in square. so why are people so quick to call him a dictator? is it because he ACTUALLY helps the poor? because he shuns capitalist interests and his only special interest group is the proletariat? because he doesn't tolerate the US pedaling it's filth in Venezuela?

why do so many people believe in this myth?

(P.S: if you want to see a GREAT documentary from John Pilger on Venezuela, that is so interesting, you'll watch the whole thing in one sitting, watch this:))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTZmC9RJw1E

sub-sequential parts are available if you click on the vid link.

Because of fear I think.

Most leftists who call Chàvez a dictator do so because liberals are doing it, and because they are afraid that Chàvez might try to become a dictator in the future and then they would have to hear "told you so" from the liberals.

[this is an invasion]

Well! You've certainly convinced me! :rolleyes:

that was easy

[Barry Lyndon]

Because of fear I think.

Most leftists who call Chàvez a dictator do so because liberals are doing it, and because they are afraid that Chàvez might try to become a dictator in the future and then they would have to hear "told you so" from the liberals.

This.

The irony is that Obama has provided radical leftists with so many 'I told you so' moments its not even funny.

[pdcrofts]

I think you'll find it's only the 'international community' who call Chavez a dictator. As we all know, the 'international community' comprises only the pre-eminent capitalist states. But hey, who else's opinion matters anyway???

[Crux]

I think you'll find it's only the 'international community' who call Chavez a dictator. As we all know, the 'international community' comprises only the pre-eminent capitalist states. But hey, who else's opinion matters anyway???
Do even "they" go that far?

[Madvillainy]

yea I think using words like totalitarian or dictator is mainly something you hear from liberals, the main problem communists have with Chavez is that he is the head of a capitalist state.

[4 Leaf Clover]

i think because he relies on army , for which you cant blame him

liberal business

[Animal Farm Pig]

Fuck it, I wish he were a dictator. I'm worried about what will happen when he has to step down as head of state.

He's considered "undemocratic" by the world bourgeoisie because he puts the freedom of the people from hunger and oppression before the "freedom" of bourgeoisie to accumulate more wealth.

Liberals don't like him, because they're liberals. They support every revolution except those that succeed.

[kneero]

contrary to international beliefs he doesnt have the majority of the population behind him, just the majority of the wealth, ironic isnt it, those reports on the elections fail to go in depth in the venezuelan election process where opposers to chavez while shot at when voting and blacklisted when they signed the referendum, every day more and more of the lower class turn against him but they cant do much because he uses and abuses his power and money to keep them oppressed, i am more socialist than the next guy, but what he did is far from that, not only is he uneducated but he is a liar, if latin america were to ever become the latin america that Simon Bolivar once aspired to creat, we have to start by getting rid of incompetent selfish leaders like chavez

[Obs]

contrary to international beliefs he doesnt have the majority of the population behind him, just the majority of the wealth, ironic isnt it, those reports on the elections fail to go in depth in the venezuelan election process where opposers to chavez while shot at when voting and blacklisted when they signed the referendum, every day more and more of the lower class turn against him but they cant do much because he uses and abuses his power and money to keep them oppressed, i am more socialist than the next guy, but what he did is far from that, not only is he uneducated but he is a liar, if latin america were to ever become the latin america that Simon Bolivar once aspired to creat, we have to start by getting rid of incompetent selfish leaders like chavez
:rolleyes:

[kneero]

hes got all the tools to do the right thing too, but the impression he gives to the rest of the world is different than the reality of the people living there every day

[Comrade Gwydion]

contrary to international beliefs he doesnt have the majority of the population behind him, just the majority of the wealth, ironic isnt it, those reports on the elections fail to go in depth in the venezuelan election process where opposers to chavez while shot at when voting and blacklisted when they signed the referendum, every day more and more of the lower class turn against him but they cant do much because he uses and abuses his power and money to keep them oppressed, i am more socialist than the next guy, but what he did is far from that, not only is he uneducated but he is a liar, if latin america were to ever become the latin america that Simon Bolivar once aspired to creat, we have to start by getting rid of incompetent selfish leaders like chavez

Give me one source, for any one of your claims.




Didn't think so.

[kneero]

Give me one source, for any one of your claims.




Didn't think so.
uhh yea my family and friends in venezuela, i think thats more valid than a report published by the people working for chavez

[Obs]

The EU is working for Chavez?

[vyborg]

contrary to international beliefs he doesnt have the majority of the population behind him

Do you mean he cheated at the election? The international observers always stated the venezuelan election were fair and correct. do you have some evidence of the contrary?

[kneero]

first hand accounts on what happens on election days, did the internaitonal observers actually go into the public and witness the fair and correct elections take place? or were they supervising the officials in charge of it?

[el_chavista]

first hand accounts on what happens on election days, did the internaitonal observers actually go into the public and witness the fair and correct elections take place? or were they supervising the officials in charge of it?
Still beating about the bush with this bull shit? The escuálidos even complain about the National Assembly being totally "red". They don't mention they were not interested and didn't participated in the election contest in 2005 due to their subversive tactics.
For the mass media, the only good election is that with a rightist winner.

[GreenCommunism]

seriously opposition to chavez from venezuela is heavily linked to income. anyone from venezuela that opposes chavez must provide proof that his income is less than 40 000$ us dollar. though that might be too much.

your family and friends are first hand account and not science, and i bet a million dollar you believe that so called shooting on protesters video which was in fact pro chavez supporter defending themselves from shooters.

[chegitz guevara]

One of my comrades spent three years in Venezuela and has just returned. He is rather disillusioned with the revolution. Red rhetoric, but the same old corruption.

[Zoster]

Who cares what some moron in the SP-USA thinks?

[kneero]

the revolution is a failure, funny how all the pro chavez politicians are filthy rich with money they hide out in the U.S. buying houses and private jets. all those chavez supporters are the ones with over 40k a year. and to respond to your bet i bet you a million dollars that you have never spent any time down there. the red revolution is a fucking cover up to all that corruption that goes unsaid, they are just as bad as the us government when it comes to lies, cheating and stealing. the separation of classes in venezuela is ridiculous, the living conditions are atrocious, and dont mistake me for a right wing chavez hater, because i hate american right wingers just as much as i hate los chavistas who think that chavez is the second coming of christ. its because of people like him that socialism and any sort of stateless entity will never be acheived in latin america and that is very unfortunate,

[The Intransigent Faction]

uhh yea my family and friends in venezuela, i think thats more valid than a report published by the people working for chavez

Anecdotal evidence.


One of my comrades spent three years in Venezuela and has just returned.

More anecdotal evidence.

Maybe you're right, and maybe not, but um...facts and sources, please?

[vyborg]

first hand accounts on what happens on election days, did the internaitonal observers actually go into the public and witness the fair and correct elections take place? or were they supervising the officials in charge of it?

The international observers are quite expert in this issue and certainly more affordable than "first hand accounts" from somewhere. Not even the USA dared to say Chavez cheated. It is uncommon to be more anti-chavez than Bush..and pretending to be a leftist...still..

[GreenCommunism]

One of my comrades spent three years in Venezuela and has just returned. He is rather disillusioned with the revolution. Red rhetoric, but the same old corruption.
same as cuba. will anyone ever get it, no communist system will ever exist with an hostile and more powerful capitalist state. how about we just stop waiting for a messianic state that will be different from all the others and focus on the madness of world domination.

the revolution is a failure, funny how all the pro chavez politicians are filthy rich with money they hide out in the U.S. buying houses and private jets. all those chavez supporters are the ones with over 40k a year. and to respond to your bet i bet you a million dollars that you have never spent any time down there. the red revolution is a fucking cover up to all that corruption that goes unsaid, they are just as bad as the us government when it comes to lies, cheating and stealing. the separation of classes in venezuela is ridiculous, the living conditions are atrocious, and dont mistake me for a right wing chavez hater, because i hate american right wingers just as much as i hate los chavistas who think that chavez is the second coming of christ. its because of people like him that socialism and any sort of stateless entity will never be acheived in latin america and that is very unfortunate,

it's funny because i heard that a shitload of people opposed to chavez are actually high income people scared of losing their advantages.

[Obs]

it's funny because i heard that a shitload of people opposed to chavez are actually high income people scared of losing their advantages.
No, obviously the rich profit massively from nationalisation of businesses. :rolleyes:

[TheSamsquatch]

Because people are tards that believe everything they read on FOX

The media really is to blame, for the most part.

[kneero]

not all of his opposers fallinto the same income bracket, it is very diverse, from the rich, to the extremely poor

[GreenCommunism]

i dont care about all, we are talking about those who are the most opposed to him. also why would a extremely poor person be in favor of a neoliberal politician that will directly harm him? perhaps he is mislead and listens to too much fox news? or venezuela's media for that matter.

[Atlee]

Truth is, Hugo Chavez has never cheated in an election, EVER. in the last election, held in 2006, Hugo Chavez won fair in square, in election proceedings that were observed by the EU, OAS, and other bodies. Is it just because the United States didn't get invited to watch the elections, that we consider him a dictator here?

In the original context of ancient Rome, "dictator" was also duly elected. It was not a matter of fairness or honesty. A dictator in this context was a person who had a high degree of control and access over or equal to the Senate body. This allows for rapid change in times of crisis that would otherwise take weeks or months of debate. A dictator is not a pejorative term except when right-wingers use it.

[vyborg]

The Roman dictator only lasted some months anyway...
in the modern time this is not the case

[REDSOX]

Kneero your not a member of Bandera roja by any chance are you? because you just come over to me as an ultra left moron. Your not an opposition infiltrator are you:) As for cheglitz guevara and his disallusioned friend i would say this. Chavez is cracking down corruption massively from within his party and from without. There is hardly a day that goes by without people being arrested for corruption in venezuela like isias baduel former defense minister who trousered 3 million dollers which were supposed to go on wages to the armed forces or the former head of pdval who was responsible for hoarding food at the ports or the head of the federal bank who has fucked off to miami because he has been caught redhanded with his fingers in the till or the latest case of zuloaga head of globovision who has done a runner because of his failure to respond to a warrant put out for his alleged crimes of usury and fraud. Chavez is going after these bastards and a good thing to. Its a fact that should have every socialist rejoicing

[Crux]

No, obviously the rich profit massively from nationalisation of businesses. :rolleyes:
Being the boss of the state owned oil company, as far as I can tell, is obviously not a bad gig. There is a reason some people talk about a "boli-bourgeoisie" a "bolivarian bourgeoisie", those who profit from the nationalized or semi-nationalized industry. I am not "anti-Chavez" and I think kneero is wrong in supposing chavez cheated in the elections, but that does not mean everything is going all that awesome either.

[REDSOX]

No there are big problems in venezuela as well as big achievements. Anybody who thinks dismantling the bourgeois state is easy well it aint. But slowly and systamatically, taking into account the objective and subjective conditions in venezuela and in the world today they are doing just that.

[Crux]

No there are big problems in venezuela as well as big achievements. Anybody who thinks dismantling the bourgeois state is easy well it aint. But slowly and systamatically, taking into account the objective and subjective conditions in venezuela and in the world today they are doing just that.
So it's "difficult" but "they" can do no wrong? Who do you serve with this unthinking sycophancy? Certianly not the working class or the struggle for socialism.

[REDSOX]

And who are you to come on here just to bash chavez and criticise the bad things in venezuela and not welcome the good things in venezuela. You just play into the hands of the bourgeois thats what you do. I repeat for the umpteeth time there are good things in venezuela and there are bad things going off in venezuela but the answer is not gobbing off against chavez which will isolate you from the masses and make you even more irrelevant than what you are now. You should follow the example of alan woods and others like him in venezuela who work within the movement to change it. A form of entryism if you like something i thought the CWI used to practise i believe in the UK. Oh and stop suggesting i know little about the reality in venezuela, i know quite a lot thank you good and bad

[Barry Lyndon]

So it's "difficult" but "they" can do no wrong? Who do you serve with this unthinking sycophancy? Certianly not the working class or the struggle for socialism.

And people like you think that they can do no right. Please shut up and learn a goddamned thing about the situation before you throw your political tantrums.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've noticed that a lot of the critics of the Bolivarian Revolution know little of the facts on the ground. The other half knows a lot of misinformation or distortions of the facts.

The administration is not perfect by a long shot, there are a lot of reformers amidst the PSUV but there is a lot of progress that cannot be negated.

[Ovi]

Fuck it, I wish he were a dictator. I'm worried about what will happen when he has to step down as head of state.

Ain't socialism lovely?

[el_chavista]

-funny how all the pro chavez politicians are filthy rich with money they hide out in the U.S. buying houses and private jets.
-Lenin also complained about the "Tsarist bureaucracy daubed in red".

-the separation of classes in venezuela is ridiculous, the living conditions are atrocious
-your "separation of classes" rightist verbosity has no support from statistics.

-i hate los chavistas who think that chavez is the second coming of christ
-The majority of the Venezuela's people are catholic.
Not all the old guerrillas support Chávez. There is Bandera Roja (Red Banner) for instance. You should know that historically, the defeat of the Venezuelan left in the 1970's and 1980's, plus the political repression of the right governments and the alienation from the mass media got the Venezuelan youth almost depoliticized out. The PSUV's youth is tiny but it's the most radicalized section of the party.
How can a "socialist-by-constitutional-reforms" possibly be undemocratic? When it comes to anti-communism, the right wing even criticizes social justice and despises winning elections.

[Adi Shankara]

i think because he relies on army , for which you cant blame him

liberal business

There is nothing wrong with relying on the army for support. Thomas Sankara was a military leader (he gained power in a popularly supported coup d'etat) and he never abused the power of the military--sure, bourgeousie refusing to part with unearned land were arrested, but it wasn't like they were executed, or even exiled; unfortunately, that may have cost him his life, as it gave Blaise Compoare a base of supporters on which to operate.

[Adi Shankara]

-funny how all the pro chavez politicians are filthy rich with money they hide out in the U.S. buying houses and private jets.
-Lenin also complained about the "Tsarist bureaucracy daubed in red".

-the separation of classes in venezuela is ridiculous, the living conditions are atrocious
-your "separation of classes" rightist verbosity has no support from statistics.

-i hate los chavistas who think that chavez is the second coming of christ
-The majority of the Venezuela's people are catholic.
Not all the old guerrillas support Chávez. There is Bandera Roja (Red Banner) for instance. You should know that historically, the defeat of the Venezuelan left in the 1970's and 1980's, plus the political repression of the right governments and the alienation from the mass media got the Venezuelan youth almost depoliticized out. The PSUV's youth is tiny but it's the most radicalized section of the party.
How can a "socialist-by-constitutional-reforms" possibly be undemocratic? When it comes to anti-communism, the right wing even criticizes social justice and despises winning elections.

hey, yeah! have you seen "War against Democracy"? the Right wing USA-backed Junta that overthrew him for a day sure as hell wasn't democratic! neither was the assassin they sent to kill him :mad:

[Crux]

And who are you to come on here just to bash chavez and criticise the bad things in venezuela and not welcome the good things in venezuela. You just play into the hands of the bourgeois thats what you do. I repeat for the umpteeth time there are good things in venezuela and there are bad things going off in venezuela but the answer is not gobbing off against chavez which will isolate you from the masses and make you even more irrelevant than what you are now. You should follow the example of alan woods and others like him in venezuela who work within the movement to change it. A form of entryism if you like something i thought the CWI used to practise i believe in the UK. Oh and stop suggesting i know little about the reality in venezuela, i know quite a lot thank you good and bad
Have I, or the CWI, "bashed" Chavez? Have I, or the CWI, denied that the bolivarian revolution is progressive? Please show me where before you continue on your little self-absorbed rant. And we have worked within the PSUV (being expelled undemocratically by local party buerucrats, incerdibly, claiming trotskyism was "forbidden") and still work towards the PSUV.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Have I, or the CWI, "bashed" Chavez? Have I, or the CWI, denied that the bolivarian revolution is progressive? Please show me where before you continue on your little self-absorbed rant. And we have worked within the PSUV (being expelled undemocratically by local party buerucrats, incerdibly, claiming trotskyism was "forbidden") and still work towards the PSUV.

Can I say both?

[Crux]

Can I say both?
Of course you can. But that would make you a liar, comrade.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Of course you can. But that would make you a liar, comrade.

Both of you have criticized dually on Chavez. How would I be a liar?

[Crux]

Both of you have criticized dually on Chavez. How would I be a liar?
:rolleyes: I guess it would too much to suppose that you can read.

Originally Posted by REDSOX http://www.revleft.org/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1777394#post1777394)
And who are you to come on here just to bash chavez and criticise the bad things in venezuela and not welcome the good things in venezuela. You just play into the hands of the bourgeois thats what you do. I repeat for the umpteeth time there are good things in venezuela and there are bad things going off in venezuela but the answer is not gobbing off against chavez which will isolate you from the masses and make you even more irrelevant than what you are now. You should follow the example of alan woods and others like him in venezuela who work within the movement to change it. A form of entryism if you like something i thought the CWI used to practise i believe in the UK. Oh and stop suggesting i know little about the reality in venezuela, i know quite a lot thank you good and bad
Have I, or the CWI, "bashed" Chavez? Have I, or the CWI, denied that the bolivarian revolution is progressive? Please show me where before you continue on your little self-absorbed rant. And we have worked within the PSUV (being expelled undemocratically by local party buerucrats, incerdibly, claiming trotskyism was "forbidden") and still work towards the PSUV.

[automattick]

He brought himself into power through a military coup, not a large-scale working class movement, after which he begins to nationalize the economy--not to bring resources to the people--but in order to compete on the international oil exchange market.

Actual communists, and not bourgeois, opportunistic state capitalists, would recognize this and understand that the following must be totally absent in order to have actual communism:

- an end to capital accumulation
- an end to the nation-state
- an end to profit extraction (abandonment of surplus value)
- democracy (Marx said that "the way to socialism was through democracy", not for democracy to be an end in itself; power concentrated in the hands of councils, not leaders or parliamentarians.

[Crux]

He brought himself into power through a military coup, not a large-scale working class movement, after which he begins to nationalize the economy--not to bring resources to the people--but in order to compete on the international oil exchange market.

Actual communists, and not bourgeois, opportunistic state capitalists, would recognize this and understand that the following must be totally absent in order to have actual communism:

- an end to capital accumulation
- an end to the nation-state
- an end to profit extraction (abandonment of surplus value)
- democracy (Marx said that "the way to socialism was through democracy", not for democracy to be an end in itself; power concentrated in the hands of councils, not leaders or parliamentarians.
True in the abstract, comrade, but you are fetischizing councils as an organizatory form (just as your namesake Mattick), further more there exists a mass movement, of the working class, in venezuela. The worker's rarely go into battle fully prepared, and it was this movement, not a coup that brought Chavez to power, after years of openly neo-liberal presidents. The bolivarian revolution has opened up many great oppurtunities to be sure, and you should know that communism does not come ready-made, it is these windows of opportunities we must use.

[automattick]

True in the abstract, comrade, but you are fetischizing councils as an organizatory form (just as your namesake Mattick), further more there exists a mass movement, of the working class, in venezuela. The worker's rarely go into battle fully prepared, and it was this movement, not a coup that brought Chavez to power, after years of openly neo-liberal presidents. The bolivarian revolution has opened up many great oppurtunities to be sure, and you should know that communism does not come ready-made, it is these windows of opportunities we must use.

You've got to be joking! Let me take each of your points on one-by-one and engage in some good old criticism:

1)
[...]fetischizing councils as an organizatory form (just as your namesake Mattick)

First, councils, as Marx, as even your precious Lenin and Trotsky have argued, are the basic organizational unit in which workers may participate in and exercise their full control over their means of production. Anything short of this is not Marxist, but opportunistic. You also misuse the term "fetishize" according to Marx. If I were fetishizing councils, I would be mystifying their importance and how they work and how they evolve.

2)
further more there exists a mass movement, of the working class, in venezuela.

Really? Then why would they need a leader who extract surplus value from them and sells it to make a profit on the international commodities market? Absolutely nonsense!


The worker's rarely go into battle fully prepared, and it was this movement, not a coup that brought Chavez to power, after years of openly neo-liberal presidents.

Workers, by their own accord, prepare themselves, they need not people like Chavez and his opportunistic schemes to do it for them. Please cite exactly how it was a mass, working class revolution. He was brought to power by a small cadre of armed men like himself.


The bolivarian revolution has opened up many great oppurtunities to be sure, and you should know that communism does not come ready-made, it is these windows of opportunities we must use.

The Bolivarian revolution is simply revamped Bonapartism. Communism does not come through single leaders, it comes through a series of self-reflective, external stimuli of the events which surround and impact a worker. Their need to understand where this is going is where militants come into play, to elucidate the situation, not to take it over and guide it according to some technocratic measures.

Go back and read Marx, comrade.

[Barry Lyndon]

He brought himself into power through a military coup, not a large-scale working class movement, after which he begins to nationalize the economy--not to bring resources to the people--but in order to compete on the international oil exchange market.

Actual communists, and not bourgeois, opportunistic state capitalists, would recognize this and understand that the following must be totally absent in order to have actual communism:

- an end to capital accumulation
- an end to the nation-state
- an end to profit extraction (abandonment of surplus value)
- democracy (Marx said that "the way to socialism was through democracy", not for democracy to be an end in itself; power concentrated in the hands of councils, not leaders or parliamentarians.

Except he never took power in a military coup, but through elections. Fail.

[automattick]

Except he never took power in a military coup, but through elections. Fail.

Bourgeois elections, idiot.

[automattick]

In fact, the same elections which brought into power the preceding right-wing presidents. Hitler also came to power through elections. As Bordiga points out, democracy is just as dangerous as fascism in that sense.

Try reading Marx, it might help.

[Crux]

You've got to be joking! Let me take each of your points on one-by-one and engage in some good old criticism:

1)

First, councils, as Marx, as even your precious Lenin and Trotsky have argued, are the basic organizational unit in which workers may participate in and exercise their full control over their means of production. Anything short of this is not Marxist, but opportunistic. You also misuse the term "fetishize" according to Marx. If I were fetishizing councils, I would be mystifying their importance and how they work and how they evolve.
I am hardly opposed to worker's councils, but what they represent is a question of essence, not of form.



2)

Really? Then why would they need a leader who extract surplus value from them and sells it to make a profit on the international commodities market? Absolutely nonsense!
"Need"? The world is a bit more complicated than that, comrade.




Workers, by their own accord, prepare themselves, they need not people like Chavez and his opportunistic schemes to do it for them. Please cite exactly how it was a mass, working class revolution. He was brought to power by a small cadre of armed men like himself.
I did not say it was a working class revolution, I said it was a mass-movement. You seem to be making the inverse mistake of some Chavistas, the commonality being you bothh focus on Chavez and ignore the role of the masses in this movement.




The Bolivarian revolution is simply revamped Bonapartism. Communism does not come through single leaders, it comes through a series of self-reflective, external stimuli of the events which surround and impact a worker. Their need to understand where this is going is where militants come into play, to elucidate the situation, not to take it over and guide it according to some technocratic measures.
Nothing is "simply", comrade, when the masses come into to motion they change thing's, just as the mass movement of 02 that stopped the coup against Chavez pushed him to the left, although arguably not far enough.


Go back and read Marx, comrade.
To paraphrase my nicknamesake, We learn Das Kapital not through opening books, but through opening our window. But I know my Marx fairly well, and I think your dogmatism comes from a rather selective reading. I alsohave a fairly good overview of council communism, after all I used to be one myself. So what specifically from Marx is it you want to discuss?

[Crux]

In fact, the same elections which brought into power the preceding right-wing presidents. Hitler also came to power through elections. As Bordiga points out, democracy is just as dangerous as fascism in that sense.

Try reading Marx, it might help.
Try reading some Marx yourself.

[automattick]

Sorry, but I fail to see (whether by coup or by elections) you even attempting to justify Chavez's rise to power.

The onus is on you to prove to me and every other communist that Chavez's revolution was one built from extra-parliamentarian means (i.e., not reformist or bougeois measures) and how he was able to destroy much of the artiface of a bourgeois capitalist democracy. He nationalizes in order to compete globally, to make profits that are in the party's hands, not the people. Communism is an entire negation of existing society, with only a small resemblance of what the former once looked like.

Councils, by their essence and their form, are the embryos of what the future holds. There are no nation-states, there are no national economies in communism. We know this because Marx's critique was a critique and therefore not positively-conceived.

Surplus value extraction still occurs in Venezual, capital accumulation still occurs in Venezuela, bourgeois elections still occur in Venezuela, the bourgeoisie still exists in Venezuela.

Venezuela under Chavez is not socialist, but left of capital.

Challenge any of these points, by all means.

[The Ben G]

Because he resists American Imperialist Capitalism. He embodies what the US hates: Standing up for the Poor, Workers, Farmers, etc. Hopefully he will begin to transform Venezuela and stop talking about it.

[automattick]

Because he resists American Imperialist Capitalism. He embodies what the US hates: Standing up for the Poor, Workers, Farmers, etc. Hopefully he will begin to transform Venezuela and stop talking about it.

How does he? Venezuela is still one of the top importers to the US for oil, regardless of the amount of times Chavez has "threatened" to cut off America's supply. He isn't a socialist, but perhaps the biggest capitalist in Venezuela, one who uses it to further his own plans for nationalization, which is just code for international market competition.

So it isn't really a question, comrade, of "when he will begin" but of "was he ever" in terms of supporting the working class. He's a state capitalist.

[Barry Lyndon]

Sorry, but I fail to see (whether by coup or by elections) you even attempting to justify Chavez's rise to power.

The onus is on you to prove to me and every other communist that Chavez's revolution was one built from extra-parliamentarian means (i.e., not reformist or bougeois measures) and how he was able to destroy much of the artiface of a bourgeois capitalist democracy. He nationalizes in order to compete globally, to make profits that are in the party's hands, not the people. Communism is an entire negation of existing society, with only a small resemblance of what the former once looked like.

Councils, by their essence and their form, are the embryos of what the future holds. There are no nation-states, there are no national economies in communism. We know this because Marx's critique was a critique and therefore not positively-conceived.

Surplus value extraction still occurs in Venezual, capital accumulation still occurs in Venezuela, bourgeois elections still occur in Venezuela, the bourgeoisie still exists in Venezuela.

Venezuela under Chavez is not socialist, but left of capital.

Challenge any of these points, by all means.

Lots of people have posted and discussed tons of stuff that flat out contradicts what you say, but you obviously are too busy watching Fox News, because your a reactionary liar. Don't sneer at others that we 'have to read Marx', you snob.

[AntinoiteBolshevik]

I used to support him but I don't support him any longer. I cannot support a man who sides with arab terrorists and the Iranian dictator.

[automattick]

Lots of people have posted and discussed tons of stuff that flat out contradicts what you say, but you obviously are too busy watching Fox News, because your a reactionary liar. Don't sneer at others that we 'have to read Marx', you snob.

Can't do it yourself? By all means, challenge my points. Seems like nobody can give me a straight answer. Even the Maoists and Leninists won't support Chavez. You're alone in your own tendency, comrade.

[Angry Young Man]

Does the pope protect child molestors?

That doesn't really work: that kind of rhetorical question is for "is this so" questions, not "why" questions. My philosophy's a bit rusty, but that sounds like a naturalistic fallacy. A better example is:
"Is David Cameron going to trample us into a mire of blood?"
"Is the Pope a paedophile?"

You could have asked why bears shit in woods, but bears don't have ulterior motives for shitting in woods. Unless they're conspiring against hiking boots.

[GreenCommunism]

I used to support him but I don't support him any longer. I cannot support a man who sides with arab terrorists and the Iranian dictator.
he should be fucking alone your right, all out internationalism is a crazy dream by the way. what arab terrorist is he siding with by the way? you mean people resisting foreign occupation?


The onus is on you to prove to me and every other communist that Chavez's revolution was one built from extra-parliamentarian means (i.e., not reformist or bougeois measures) and how he was able to destroy much of the artiface of a bourgeois capitalist democracy. He nationalizes in order to compete globally, to make profits that are in the party's hands, not the people. Communism is an entire negation of existing society, with only a small resemblance of what the former once looked like.
such profit he has doesnt go in his swiss bank account. there is always surplus value even in communism, the difference is that this surplus value is used for the common good like healthcare and education. also some surplus value might be sacrificed to better satisfy people's need

[Ocean Seal]

As any good American will tell you, if you don't like America you're a commy nazi dictator of the worst kind. I suppose that makes even the most democratically elected representatives of the people dictators.

[automattick]

such profit he has doesnt go in his swiss bank account. there is always surplus value even in communism, the difference is that this surplus value is used for the common good like healthcare and education. also some surplus value might be sacrificed to better satisfy people's need

No, you're wrong. The abolition of capital means ipso facto the abolition of surplus value. Capital is a social relation, one that's gone, so is surplus value as a form of extracted labor value taken from worker to the employer.

[Adi Shankara]

He brought himself into power through a military coup, not a large-scale working class movement, after which he begins to nationalize the economy--not to bring resources to the people--but in order to compete on the international oil exchange market.

Refer to my original link where poverty is falling fastly in Venezuela, at unprecedented rates; he is taking a different approach to the situation, but he still has the people's interests at heart.


Actual communists, and not bourgeois, opportunistic state capitalists, would recognize this and understand that the following must be totally absent in order to have actual communism:

Unfortunately, we live in world today where this fast demolition of the Bourgeoisie state isn't as possible, seeing as what happened to the last few nations that tried to do such a thing.

[automattick]

Refer to my original link where poverty is falling fastly in Venezuela, at unprecedented rates; he is taking a different approach to the situation, but he still has the people's interests at heart.

The point is that Chavez is still extracting a profit off of them, that he is taking their surplus labor and using it to further his own goals in a state capitalist model. I don't think you quite get what communism or socialism is.


Unfortunately, we live in world today where this fast demolition of the Bourgeoisie state isn't as possible, seeing as what happened to the last few nations that tried to do such a thing.

And unfortunately we live in a world today where impatience and false consciousness has led to horrific catastrophes in the 20th and 21st centuries. Electing a person into office, or riding off the wave of some military coup--in either of those cases, proves that not only were they not working class movements, but their result will be some form of capitalism. The bourgeois state is overcome not by creating another bourgeois state with socialist rhetoric--but negating of capital itself.

Until that happens, you will just have more nationalistic, state capitalistic "anti-imperialist" governments that will one way or another adopt to the international market and subject their own people to horrors. Even Maoists like Raymond Lotta have vociferously argued against calling any of the Latin American Bolivarian republics as socialist. And that says something from a hardcore ML!

[AntinoiteBolshevik]

what arab terrorist is he siding with by the way? you mean people resisting foreign occupation?

No I mean Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations. Those groups don't help the muslim world, they just further stigmatize them from the West and cause us to hate and fear them more. If the muslim world could conduct politics without violence they'd be seen in a better light by the rest of the world.

[Starport]

No I mean Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations. Those groups don't help the muslim world, they just further stigmatize them from the West and cause us to hate and fear them more. If the muslim world could conduct politics without violence they'd be seen in a better light by the rest of the world.
What utter moronic backwardness is displayed in this post. The poor pacifist liberals are being embarrassed again by the 100% justified resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah against 100% unjustified land grabbing Nazi Zionism and their US imperialist paymasters. If the Chavez government is supporting them, good on the Chavez government!

[Slavoj Zizzle]

No I mean Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations. Those groups don't help the muslim world, they just further stigmatize them from the West and cause us to hate and fear them more. If the muslim world could conduct politics without violence they'd be seen in a better light by the rest of the world.

This is why. Even for a leftist, it is extremely difficult to escape the western-centric worldview he/she has been brought up in and which is constantly reinforced by all media. Many western leftists think the fundamentals of the U.S./Europe are good, even though they've been perverted by capital, or that U.S. imperialism is bad but it beats out theocracies. The day one realizes the west and everything it stands for are fundamentally based on capitalism and exploitation is the day one becomes a true leftist. And yes, this includes western feminism, gay rights, legalized drugs, and other "liberal" causes.

Chavez is of course a great leader and democratically elected president, just like Hamas was democratically elected. Btw thats a real democratic election, not the show we put on in the U.S. which comes down to who has more corporate backing. Whether Chavez is a socialist or not is a matter of debate, but everyone should support the real-world good work he is doing in Venezuela.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No I mean Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations. Those groups don't help the muslim world, they just further stigmatize them from the West and cause us to hate and fear them more. If the muslim world could conduct politics without violence they'd be seen in a better light by the rest of the world.

Alright, say Russia, China, or Britain invades the US. They come in & start calling the shots, in which puts people in a position where their lives are under the control of said coups. Please explain to me what exactly would you do? I'm not trying to show any support to the Hamas or Hezbollah, but if imperial forces came into the States & tried making life even more difficult, don't think that I wouldn't gather up arms & fight back. When put into a state of survival, what other choice do you have than to join with certain groups to fight against imperialism. That's why the support of anti-imperialists is a necessary move in order to relinquish any major threat to the proletarian struggle & relieve ourselves from an almost detrimental livelihood of our own future in the struggle. If Chavez is willing to support the anti-imperialists, then I say good on him. We should all put our part in such a movement. Because until imperialism is demolished & democracy isn't restored, good luck in achieving Socialism or Communism.

[Adi Shankara]

The point is that Chavez is still extracting a profit off of them, that he is taking their surplus labor and using it to further his own goals in a state capitalist model. I don't think you quite get what communism or socialism is.


I very well do understand what Communism is, hence why I didn't call it communism. I simply said he has the people's interests at heart, which he does, and that Venezuela isn't state capitalist, though it certainly has a private sector that needs to be nationalized...but even some of the hardcore marxists believed that capitalism could be used to develop infrastructure prior to a total communist revolution--that's the problem with so many "marxists" these days; they're so impatient, and refusing to use the tools of capitalism to further the aims of Marxism (which can be done, even though there are no examples as of yet); In Das Kapital, Marx gives examples of where the markets CAN be exploited to further the aims of the people, so as to grow into socialism, so as to grow into Communism--this is the problem surrounding the former USSR and China--they wanted to jump to socialism immediately, when they haven't even properly dismantled the previous state. socialism, like communism, takes time, at least, according to Trotsky, Bakunin, Engels, and Marx.

Further more, I don't recall Hugo Chavez claiming to be communist; he is just socialist, and as I'd hope you would know, there is a clearcut difference in implementation. whereas in communism, all businesses are owned by the people, in Marxist Socialism, it's still possible for private enterprise to exist, even as a heavy levy is instituted over the private enterprise to fund the development of projects for the impoverished; that, and non-renewable resources are almost always nationalized.



And unfortunately we live in a world today where impatience and false consciousness has led to horrific catastrophes in the 20th and 21st centuries. Electing a person into office, or riding off the wave of some military coup--in either of those cases, proves that not only were they not working class movements, but their result will be some form of capitalism. The bourgeois state is overcome not by creating another bourgeois state with socialist rhetoric--but negating of capital itself.

This is where it defers, though; Hugo Chavez submits most new laws and rules into popular referendums, and thus the people truly do rule, as it's less of a republic (which in my opinion, is pure class tyranny) and more of a direct democracy in a trotskyist fashion (ruling by popularly imposed decree)


Until that happens, you will just have more nationalistic, state capitalistic "anti-imperialist" governments that will one way or another adopt to the international market and subject their own people to horrors. Even Maoists like Raymond Lotta have vociferously argued against calling any of the Latin American Bolivarian republics as socialist. And that says something from a hardcore ML!

I have learned to disregard almost all Maoists completely, as they often are the biggest hypocrites of all, blindly supporting and worshiping a man who has imposed colonialism over the people of Tibet.

---

In the end, I'll say this: I don't agree with all of Hugo Chavez's policies so far, but they are a world better than the previous incumbent; however, that doesn't' mean he has no integrity, that he isn't committed to ending poverty amongst Venezolanos, even if that means at times, as now, he has to perpetuate the capitalist system by exporting oil to consumer countries, but the path to socialism is never easy, so we have to wait and see what becomes of this experiment in Venezuela.

personally, I'd like to see Hugo Chavez push further left in the future towards a more sustainable, less capitalist dependent state of socialism, but again, we'll just have to wait and see.

[automattick]

I very well do understand what Communism is, hence why I didn't call it communism. I simply said he has the people's interests at heart, which he does, and that Venezuela isn't state capitalist, though it certainly has a private sector that needs to be nationalized...but even some of the hardcore marxists believed that capitalism could be used to develop infrastructure prior to a total communist revolution--that's the problem with so many "marxists" these days; they're so impatient, and refusing to use the tools of capitalism to further the aims of Marxism (which can be done, even though there are no examples as of yet); In Das Kapital, Marx gives examples of where the markets CAN be exploited to further the aims of the people, so as to grow into socialism, so as to grow into Communism--this is the problem surrounding the former USSR and China--they wanted to jump to socialism immediately, when they haven't even properly dismantled the previous state. socialism, like communism, takes time, at least, according to Trotsky, Bakunin, Engels, and Marx.

Marx didn't spend any significant time at all dealing with socialism as a stage of historical materialism insofar that it would be a violent separation from capitalism and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism, as you know, is maximizing capital's rotting corpse for the betterment of the majority of people/working class. However, it was still a transcendence of capital as a social relation. That, I think, is the main problem. This is the paradox at hand: Chavez (elected) still uses the machinery of the state in order to somehow attempt purge capitalism from his country (which is hard, because capitalism is not some virus but implicated in everything).

This problem was exactly the one Marx referred to in his critique of Proudhon, when he said that the problem is that Proudhon tries to analyze using bourgeois categories. You can't do this, because capital is inherent in the entire process, in fact political relations stem from and are articulations of capital, if you want to make the whole base-superstructure argument. Proudhon's fallacy is that he ends up praising bourgeois liberalism thereby concludes wrongly that the system itself can get rid of the unwanted effects of capital (similar of how some in the Green Party think that elections will drive a stake through corporations). The system can't change destroy (and does not want to) itself, only the working class can do that. Elections, therefore, only exist to substantiate bourgeois power in society. Chavez, therefore, is a bourgeois politician.


Further more, I don't recall Hugo Chavez claiming to be communist; he is just socialist,

Yes, you're right there. My concern isn't about whether he's a communist or a socialist, but that he is even consider as a force of anti-capitalism to begin with.


and as I'd hope you would know, there is a clearcut difference in implementation. whereas in communism, all businesses are owned by the people, in Marxist Socialism, it's still possible for private enterprise to exist, even as a heavy levy is instituted over the private enterprise to fund the development of projects for the impoverished; that, and non-renewable resources are almost always nationalized.

OK, stop. Again, where is/was the violent overthrow of bourgeois power in Venezuela? Furthermore, Marx wasn't really concerned with how it operates within a nation-state, but as a holistic system. Nationalization schemes are really just ways for a state to compete on the global market. Again, I think you should consider looking at capital the way Marx does--as a social relation and not simply a wild beast to be tamed and used for the good of all. Russia 1917 was an attempt to break from capital, from an entire order. So with Spain in 1935/6. They were not mustering the crowds as politicians do in Canada, America or the nations of Europe.


This is where it defers, though; Hugo Chavez submits most new laws and rules into popular referendums, and thus the people truly do rule, as it's less of a republic (which in my opinion, is pure class tyranny) and more of a direct democracy in a trotskyist fashion (ruling by popularly imposed decree)

I didn't realize that Marxists were advocates of top-down, Jacobin reforms.


I have learned to disregard almost all Maoists completely, as they often are the biggest hypocrites of all, blindly supporting and worshiping a man who has imposed colonialism over the people of Tibet.

Well amen to that!:)

---

I share you concerns Chavez, but I think it will be impossible for Venezuela under his rule to do the kinds of things you expect of him. Let's go back to the roots of supporting factory councils and insurrections; those are sites of true revolutionary potential.

[Crux]

Sorry, but I fail to see (whether by coup or by elections) you even attempting to justify Chavez's rise to power. Well, as oppsed to world revolution, sure a left-populist like Chavez is a bad deal, but have to appreciate and asess the actual existing movements. Chavez represents a radicalization in bourguise society.


The onus is on you to prove to me and every other communist that Chavez's revolution was one built from extra-parliamentarian means (i.e., not reformist or bougeois measures) and how he was able to destroy much of the artiface of a bourgeois capitalist democracy. He nationalizes in order to compete globally, to make profits that are in the party's hands, not the people. Communism is an entire negation of existing society, with only a small resemblance of what the former once looked like.
The mass-protests in defence of Chavez in 02, under the whip of the reaction, certainly proves Chavez has something of a popular base.
Capitalist society is not static, bolvarianismo and chavismo represents an, admittedly vague, counter-current to this. I do not intend to be an apolgist for the limitations of chavismo, that it is progressive is good but it is not enough.


Councils, by their essence and their form, are the embryos of what the future holds. There are no nation-states, there are no national economies in communism. We know this because Marx's critique was a critique and therefore not positively-conceived.
I think this discussion warrants a thread of it's own. We could discuss it further in the Theory-forum if you like?


Surplus value extraction still occurs in Venezual, capital accumulation still occurs in Venezuela, bourgeois elections still occur in Venezuela, the bourgeoisie still exists in Venezuela.
Yes?


Venezuela under Chavez is not socialist, but left of capital. Yes, again, but we cannot have a mechanic view of the xisting movements. That is my point.

[chegitz guevara]

Who cares what some moron in the SP-USA thinks?

I can see that you're banned, but it might interest comrades to know that I consider people outside the SPUSA my comrades also, and there are some people in the SPUSA I do not consider to be comrades. The comrade in question is not a member of the SPUSA.

[automattick]

Well, as oppsed to world revolution, sure a left-populist like Chavez is a bad deal, but have to appreciate and asess the actual existing movements. Chavez represents a radicalization in bourguise society.

One can appreciate the rhetoric, which becomes emptier as actions speak louder than words. He represents a radicalization of bourgeois society which he himself is unable to overcome, since it is one man, not an entire country, which ultimately directs economic policy.


The mass-protests in defence of Chavez in 02, under the whip of the reaction, certainly proves Chavez has something of a popular base.
Capitalist society is not static, bolvarianismo and chavismo represents an, admittedly vague, counter-current to this. I do not intend to be an apolgist for the limitations of chavismo, that it is progressive is good but it is not enough.

Just as another person said in a different threat, one can be a populist, an anti-imperialist, but they inherently do not have socialistic value to them. The working class may see value in an expanding welfare state, but it has limits. State capitalism is unable to sustain itself. And without petrodollars, Venezuela is screwed. The limitations you speak of could already be seen in his intent on making a revolutionary republic which operates under a different guise of capitalism--state capitalism.


I think this discussion warrants a thread of it's own. We could discuss it further in the Theory-forum if you like?

Sure, start it up and we can discuss.


Yes?

Well, that pretty much says it all--socialism isn't there.


Yes, again, but we cannot have a mechanic view of the xisting movements. That is my point.

Critiques are what keeps Marxism from being dogmatic. Praise of welfare states was not what Marxism was set up for. Why else did Marx journey, from backwards, semi-feudal, pre-industrial Germany and launch the most scathing of critiques against bourgeois France and the rapidly industrializing England? We really do fetishize these projects of grandeur, but have little patience for the actual movements of anti-capital such as sweatshop protests, council movements, factory sit-ins, etc.

[REDSOX]

It really does make me laugh when the ultras come on to these boards trying to describe what is happening in venezuela. They really are confused. On one hand he is described as a populist, or a left populist, or a nationalist imposing state capitalism, or a bonarpartist or even a proleterian bonarpartist. These people think that because socialism hasent come about yet then chavez can not be a socialist full stop. Never mind the fact that building socialism is a process with no time limit on how long it will take or with one model of doing it. Building socialism is not just chavez,s task either it is the masses of venezuela who will also build it. Ultimately building socialism in venezuela (and make no mistake because that is what is happening) is dependent on subjective and objective factors within venezuela and from without not on whether he has done this or has not done this. GET WITH IT

[automattick]

It really does make me laugh when the ultras come on to these boards trying to describe what is happening in venezuela. They really are confused. On one hand he is described as a populist, or a left populist, or a nationalist imposing state capitalism, or a bonarpartist or even a proleterian bonarpartist. These people think that because socialism hasent come about yet then chavez can not be a socialist full stop. Never mind the fact that building socialism is a process with no time limit on how long it will take or with one model of doing it. Building socialism is not just chavez,s task either it is the masses of venezuela who will also build it. Ultimately building socialism in venezuela (and make no mistake because that is what is happening) is dependent on subjective and objective factors within venezuela and from without not on whether he has done this or has not done this. GET WITH IT
And as an "ultra" I think the opportunists betray their own bourgeois pessimism when they try to latch on to whatever sounds socialist in word, but not deed. Venezuela competes on the world market in oil sales and production, the state-owned enterprises he is establishing are in no-way worker owned, let alone managed. Their surplus labor is still being appropriated by Chavezista managers who then try to redirect profits to other sectors of society. This is not socialism. Socialism isn't about robbing the workers and then funneling off the values which they have created.

Socialism is an overcoming of the theory of value. Socialism doesn't come about with popular, bourgeois elections or military coups; it violently overthrows the system and negates bourgeois democracy and economic theory and practice. Anti-imperialism is not enough to justify it as socialist, since many Third World nationalist movements often use it as a banner. Worker movements, be they small or large, are the true material force which will overcome all forms of bourgeois economic law which posit themselves as a given.

With perhaps the exception of one user on this entire board, I have yet to meet a Leninist, who, without resorting to childish flaming or commissar-like antics, to prove that Chavez, Morales, Correa et al are in fact nothing more than state capitalists. Until then, I expect a lot of howling and hysterics.

[Barry Lyndon]

With perhaps the exception of one user on this entire board, I have yet to meet a Leninist, who, without resorting to childish flaming or commissar-like antics, to prove that Chavez, Morales, Correa et al are in fact nothing more than state capitalists. Until then, I expect a lot of howling and hysterics.

Well according to you, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi minh, and Castro were/are also state capitalists. Basically, no one is a true socialist except those mythical ones that reside in your ass.

[automattick]

:laugh: Brilliant analysis, must have taken you hours!

[FallsRdClan]

I’m thinking you’re asking more about why the general population without deep political views thinks of Chavez as a dictator and not so much the heavy politicals.

I’ve talked to quite a few people from the general population and pretty much been able to pin point their anxieties as rooted in viewing Chavez through the lens of representative democracy. Their trigger is mostly concerned with Chavez removing presidential term limits from the Venezuelan constitution. They don’t understand that he’s shifting things in the direction of a PARTICIPATORY democracy giving the people the ability to operate on their own councils and on their own accord. They more or less superimpose a representative scenario onto Chavez and assume he’s making moves to become “the sole decider” with TOP powers as though he’s affectively running a representative “democracy” (which he is not). Once they realize the people there are given MORE power to govern their lives than even in the USA and elsewhere their [rightful] knee jerk reactions ease up.

As far as explaining to the general population that Chavez’s move to end term limits as being a move to stabilize the country against neo-liberal re-infestation, well that takes further insights that they may not have not knowing the history of Venezuela and how the wealthy operate down there.

[REDSOX]

Automattik socialism can come about in many different ways. Who are you to say how it has to come about, each revolution in history is different. What they are trying to do in venezuela is bring it about gradually and as peacefully as possible and if you know anything about the history of the americas you can understand why!!!. No revolutionary process is perfect and venezuela shows that, and the idea that you will ever get one is fantasy automattik. There are no time limits on this process either Automattik, it will either suceed or fail depending upon subjective and objective factors within venezuela. By the way i call you guys ultras not because i disagree with your vision of society (ie a democratically planned economy run by the working class) but because the ultras proposed METHODS AND TACTICS are politically cretinous. By constantly criticising Chavez ALL THE TIME instead of praising the good he has done as well as criticising the bad is to divorce yourself from the masses and create confusion within the masses which can only help the bourgeois. The alternative strategy if you like is to engage with the mass movements within the PSUV, the pesants movements, the workers movements in ther factories(which you claim erroneously there is no workers control) and other mass movements in venezuela to influence the direction the movement is going in. This is what a lot of marxists in venezuela are doing including marea socialista, freteco etc and is what CWI and others should be doing not posturing on the sidelines repeating bourgeois media lies which inevitably dovetails with their own fantasies or spouting off ultra left soundbites which the masses do not understand. Really i sometimes think that the ultras are as much a danger to the revolution as the bourgeois sometimes.

[Glenn Beck]

He brought himself into power through a military coup, not a large-scale working class movement


Bourgeois elections, idiot.


In fact, the same elections which brought into power the preceding right-wing presidents. Hitler also came to power through elections.

Holy shit, a glaring factual inaccuracy followed by a petulant comeback and a Godwin. You're on some kind of hot streak

In any case, no amount of platitudes about how all the bourgeois governments are the same blah blah really does anything to negate the fact that you've essentially outed yourself as someone who quite literally has no idea what in the hell they are talking about. Why should anyone listen to you bloviate about things you don't even have the barest factual understanding of? More importantly, why are you even opening your mouth about it? Couldn't you at the very least read the Wikipedia on Hugo Chavez before coming out and embarrassing yourself?

[Obs]

automattick, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[automattick]

What, is there no one who can give me a good response? Keep trying!

[Glenn Beck]

What, is there no one who can give me a good response? Keep trying!

Oh lord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[Obs]

Bourgeois elections, idiot.


In fact, the same elections which brought into power the preceding right-wing presidents. Hitler also came to power through elections. As Bordiga points out, democracy is just as dangerous as fascism in that sense.

Try reading Marx, it might help.


:laugh: Brilliant analysis, must have taken you hours!


What, is there no one who can give me a good response? Keep trying!


Group Memberships: Respectful Discussion Activists

:mellow:

[Wanted Man]

Hitler also came to power through elections.

A common misconception, not supported by facts. The main point about the Nazis and bourgeois elections is not that they ever won an absolute majority. Rather, they won a plurality repeatedly, and then used political power-brokering and plain old intimidation to grab power. All this took place within the confines of bourgeois democracy, even when the Nazis were just about to lose their electoral gains. A big lesson from Hitler's rise to power is that the confines of bourgeois democracy allowed for this to happen.

Of course, a lot of people don't understand what lessons to learn from this, and simply say, "Democracy is always bad; Hitler was elected!!!" And of course, all this is remarkably different compared to Chávez, who won several elections and repeatedly consulted the population in mid-term to ask if he should stay president. Not that Chávez is suddenly perfect, or that bourgeois democracy is good because he won, but this is just to highlight how incredibly dumb the Hitler parallel is.


I used to support him but I don't support him any longer. I cannot support a man who sides with arab terrorists and the Iranian dictator.

Arab terrorists, as opposed to regular, non-Arab terrorists? A bit of racism is always nice.

[Dimentio]

A common misconception, not supported by facts. The main point about the Nazis and bourgeois elections is not that they ever won an absolute majority. Rather, they won a plurality repeatedly, and then used political power-brokering and plain old intimidation to grab power. All this took place within the confines of bourgeois democracy, even when the Nazis were just about to lose their electoral gains. A big lesson from Hitler's rise to power is that the confines of bourgeois democracy allowed for this to happen.

Of course, a lot of people don't understand what lessons to learn from this, and simply say, "Democracy is always bad; Hitler was elected!!!" And of course, all this is remarkably different compared to Chávez, who won several elections and repeatedly consulted the population in mid-term to ask if he should stay president. Not that Chávez is suddenly perfect, or that bourgeois democracy is good because he won, but this is just to highlight how incredibly dumb the Hitler parallel is.

Well, it is reminiscent of the anti-Obama Tea Party crowd.

Obama won an election. Hitler won an election. Obama = Hitler.

Obama held amazing speeches. Nicholae Carpathia held amazing speeches. Obama = Antichrist.

[Robocommie]

Well, it is reminiscent of the anti-Obama Tea Party crowd.

Obama won an election. Hitler won an election. Obama = Hitler.

Obama held amazing speeches. Nicholae Carpathia held amazing speeches. Obama = Antichrist.

Yeah it's amazing the incredibly high standards one would have to meet to be like Hitler for these people.

"HITLER OWNED A PET DOG TOO."