Chavez: "I thought it was possible to put a human face on capitalism... I was wrong" [Archive]

Barry Lyndon

28th June 2010, 06:42

I think Rousseau is vastly overrated... I did an essay on the Social Contract last year at uni and the whole thing is a big unsubstantiated waffle about nothing. The guy has very little to say and takes far too many words to say it.

Maybe it's because I've been reading Marx and Lenin since I was 14, but I find it very hard to respect and engage with bourgeois philosophers like Rousseau.

Well, thanks for shooting me down, comrade. I think you have to appreciate the man in the context of his era. Of course I like Marx and Lenin much more, but as bourgeois philosophers go, Rousseau is one of the best, in my view.

Adi Shankara

28th June 2010, 07:00

on a somewhat random note, I love it when conservatives tell you that Chavez is a dictator, that he wasn't elected fairly, etc.

and then you bust out this:

http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf

Almost always shuts them up. :D

Chavez is doing some good work in Venezuela, he may not be an ideal communist, but what he is doing, he is still helping strengthen the working poor of Venezuela.

Adi Shankara

28th June 2010, 07:01

Now I know I posted this before, but I think it's an important documentary for anyone who wants to see the adverse effects of real imperialism in action in Latin America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHj735t_knk

the other parts can be found if you click on the link, or I can post them all.

I think it's probably the most important documentary you can see on the state of Venezuela today.

Saorsa

28th June 2010, 07:09

Well, thanks for shooting me down, comrade. I think you have to appreciate the man in the context of his era. Of course I like Marx and Lenin much more, but as bourgeois philosophers go, Rousseau is one of the best, in my view.

Nothing personal man, I wasn't trying to shoot you down. I was just stating my opinion on Rousseau, which isn't a very high one. If nothing else, I found him incredibly boring!

Adi Shankara

28th June 2010, 07:11

Is anyone here familiar with the works of Sartre? what do you think if so?

A Revolutionary Tool

28th June 2010, 19:28

I've watched that interview before it's pretty damn good, especially the last answer he gives it's like a speech, a very good speech.

Proletarian Ultra

28th June 2010, 20:03

Nothing personal man, I wasn't trying to shoot you down. I was just stating my opinion on Rousseau, which isn't a very high one. If nothing else, I found him incredibly boring!

Hey! All that stuff in Marx about man as a social being? All Rousseau, baby. Distinction between natural and civil freedom FTW!!!

Veg_Athei_Socialist

28th June 2010, 20:48

c8JDnEH4AuA
Thank you for posting this, I would never have heard about it otherwise.

Wolf Larson

28th June 2010, 20:50

I think Rousseau is vastly overrated... I did an essay on the Social Contract last year at uni and the whole thing is a big unsubstantiated waffle about nothing. The guy has very little to say and takes far too many words to say it.

Maybe it's because I've been reading Marx and Lenin since I was 14, but I find it very hard to respect and engage with bourgeois philosophers like Rousseau.
His early critique of private property was valuable.

Subcomandante Marcos.

28th June 2010, 21:30

pol pott studied under satre in france

also, anyone who isnt extremely new to marxism knows 1000 percent you cant put a kind face on capitalism... he makes the weather underground look like marxist theoreticions.

Saorsa

29th June 2010, 08:29

^ What a brilliant critique.

29th June 2010, 13:39

I'm mostly against Chavez - as I see him as upper class and a reformist (he's a democratic socialist. Also he apparently says it's possible to have some form of capitalism within - what he calls - socialism, which is a huge contradiction IMO). But this interview was like a tremendous kick in the nuts for the western bourgeoisie. He fucking owned this guy and dismantled a lot of bullshit.

I also managed to pick up a nice quote from Chavez in part 2:
"It is difficult not to see imperialism. Those who don't see imperialism don't want to see it [like the ostrich]." What's the relevance of the ostrich, though?

bricolage

29th June 2010, 13:56

What's the relevance of the ostrich, though?

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/ostrich_head_sand2.gif

29th June 2010, 14:00

^ I really should've known that reference.

Spanishleft

29th June 2010, 17:22

Viva Chavez! I really hope he stays ahead in Venezuela, and gives the world a leading example of how to overcome capitalism! I just wished he could do it faster...:(

vyborg

29th June 2010, 17:47

As marxists always said, Chavez is not a marxist but he is fairly honest and learns from mistakes...

Robocommie

30th June 2010, 15:57

I'm mostly against Chavez - as I see him as upper class

Did you know he was born in a mud hut, to an impoverished family of part Native American and Afro-Venezuelan ancestry? He's not from the old Spanish landowning caste or anything like that. He rose up through the military.

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 16:05

Yeah, I have to agree with DNZ on this one. Chavez is no haute. He's more petit-bourgeois left-populist of the kind Marx talks about in the 18th Brumaire:

In February, 1849, banquets celebrated the reconciliation. A joint program was drafted, joint election committees were set up and joint candidates put forward. The revolutionary point was broken off and a democratic turn given to the social demands of the proletariat; the purely political form was stripped off the democratic claims of the petty bourgeoisie and their socialist point thrust forward. Thus arose social-democracy... The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony. However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie. Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided. Just as little must one imagine that the democratic representatives are indeed all shopkeepers or enthusiastic champions of shopkeepers. According to their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as heaven and earth. What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically.

He even admits it when he himself says that he is a "democrat", of course since he has no idea what class the traditional party of democracy stood for he has no clue of the implications.

Barry Lyndon

30th June 2010, 16:25

Yeah, I have to agree with DNZ on this one. Chavez is no haute. He's more petit-bourgeois left-populist of the kind Marx talks about in the 18th Brumaire:

He even admits it when he himself says that he is a "democrat", of course since he has no idea what class the traditional party of democracy stood for he has no clue of the implications.

Zanthorus, translated: OOOoooooo I get to feel so important! I get to call Chavez a 'petit-bourgeois left populist'! Look at how intellectual I am! Now I pull a long Marx quote out of my ass about the politics of 19th-century France which bear little or no relation to what is going on in Venezuela!

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 16:36

I get to call Chavez a 'petit-bourgeois left populist'! Look at how intellectual I am!

Yes, everyone who doesn't latch on opportunistically to every movement calling itself "socialist" is some kind of self-important pseudo-intellectual :rolleyes:

Now I pull a long Marx quote out of my ass about the politics of 19th-century France which bear little or no relation to what is going on in Venezuela!

The quote actually has a lot of relevance. Chavez himself in this interview is keen to make himself out to be a "democrat" and talks about "the people", on the other hand he also talks about socialism and some proletarian elements backing him. And his policies so far seem to be basically the same as those of the original social-democrats, an attempt to reconcile antagonistic classes within the framework of existing society.

Uppercut

30th June 2010, 16:39

Chavez clearly has no problem with arming the people, with Venezuela's communal militias. Isn't that enough to consider him on the side of the workers and peasants? Sure, he may not be a self-proclaimed Marxist, but that's no reason to oppose him. I'm a Maoist, and he's got my full support.

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 16:46

Chavez clearly has no problem with arming the people, with Venezuela's communal militias. Isn't that enough to consider him on the side of the workers and peasants?

I'm a little wary of anyone who claims to be on the side of the peasantry considering the counter-revolutionary role they've played historically.

Arming workers for the defence of a bourgeois state is hardly being on their side by the way.

Uppercut

30th June 2010, 17:01

I'm a little wary of anyone who claims to be on the side of the peasantry considering the counter-revolutionary role they've played historically.

Both the workers and the peasants are armed, though. Besides, I haven't seen any counter-revolutionary activity on behalf of the Venezuelan peasants so far. As I understand it, the majority of them support Chavez as well.

Arming workers for the defence of a bourgeois state is hardly being on their side by the way.

While it's true there is definately opposition for other parties, as well as the bourgeoise population, I wouldn't say these militias are there to defend them. They were created precisely for the reason to defend themselves from harassment (foreign or domestic), as well as to defend the social gains made thus far. I don't see how it's possible to arm the workers, and then expect them to forget what their purpose and defend the bourgeoisie.

HEAD ICE

30th June 2010, 17:21

reIt still amazes why people here get so up in arms when people call Chavez what HE ADMITS he is: a populist social democrat. Yes, since in office people in his country have done better, but to try to insinuate anything more is absurd. He is a populist and his actions as president attest to that. Like I said, people are doing better under him, and this is no "ultra-leftist" criticism to call him a reformist - he admits it.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2010, 17:34

Give the man credit where credit is due. He started off as a Third Way social democrat and evolved into a more left wing democratic socialist of the old variant.

But the world has shifted so drastically to the right that a reformist democratic socialist is considered revolutionary. That is how crazy to the right that politics has become since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Old Social Democracy = Socialist Revolutionary!

Third Way = New Social Democracy

Nolan

30th June 2010, 17:36

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2010, 17:39

Apparently you didn't get the memo. Chavez no longer calls himself a social democrat.

He is not a Communist. He is an old school real deal democratic socialist. Which is fine in my book, but apparently, utterly appalling to others.

Social Democrat these days is a buzz word for Third Way bullshit anyways.

Chavez is not that at all. His base is radically socialist though!

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 17:40

Besides, I haven't seen any counter-revolutionary activity on behalf of the Venezuelan peasants so far.

That's probably because there isn't much of a revolution for them to oppose anyway.

Apparently you didn't get the memo. Chavez no longer calls himself a social democrat.

What's your point?

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

30th June 2010, 17:47

Social Democrat these days is a buzz word for Third Way bullshit anyways.

I think a lot of them these days are outright neo-liberal, with some slight vestiges of welfare-state slapped on for looks (but rarely enacted in practice). Even third-way social-democracy is pretty much dead, that's how far it has gone.

RadioRaheem84

30th June 2010, 17:57

I think a lot of them these days are outright neo-liberal, with some slight vestiges of welfare-state slapped on for looks (but rarely enacted in practice). Even third-way social-democracy is pretty much dead, that's how far it has gone.

Agreed.

Barry Lyndon

30th June 2010, 18:23

What's your point?

That your a liar.

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 18:40

That your a liar.

The labour party calls itself a "democratic socialist" party even though it is not very socialist or very good at upholding democracy. People are not necessarily defined by what they label themselves as.

Uppercut

30th June 2010, 19:01

That's probably because there isn't much of a revolution for them to oppose anyway.

So establishing food stores and medical centers for the working poor, setting up co-ops, encouraging participatory democracy, launching literacy and anti-homophobic campaigns, defying a coup de tat, and arming the people aren't revolutionary to you?

The people have more power in their hands than they ever did before in Venezuela. I think that's something we should all recognize.

Sendo

30th June 2010, 19:30

This is not a thread for analyzing what Chavez calls himself or how best to categorize him. The interview is the topic. Did he defend himself competently? Was he speaking the truth? Was under a barrage of elitist, ethnocentric, imperialist, loaded questions?

The guy was funny, down-to-earth and deflected many attacks on the Venezuela of the past 12 years. For example, Stephen badgered him for having an inconsequential stand off with the one country in South America he doesn't get on with (Peru is also right-wing, but Chavez ain't butting heads there). A country, which is run by corrupt drug-runners, has a government determined to extinguish a guerrilla army which embodies the same principles as Chavez, and is a naked puppet of the US.

Chavez even swallowed some of his pride and cited Jimmy Carter to add credence to his free election system. Sad that he has to make an appeal to (white) authority.

Lyev

30th June 2010, 21:30

Yes, everyone who doesn't latch on opportunistically to every movement calling itself "socialist" is some kind of self-important pseudo-intellectual :rolleyes:

The quote actually has a lot of relevance. Chavez himself in this interview is keen to make himself out to be a "democrat" and talks about "the people", on the other hand he also talks about socialism and some proletarian elements backing him. And his policies so far seem to be basically the same as those of the original social-democrats, an attempt to reconcile antagonistic classes within the framework of existing society.What else can he do at the moment? Are the land reforms (IIRC he has at least instituted some) and nationalisations the social-democratic reforms you speak of? Within in the current global climate, politically, socially, environmentally and of course economically, what can he do? I am not asking this to be antagonistic or start a tendency war or anything, I just think it's fair if you're going to criticise him, to posit what you would do instead. And I agree, he's a left-populist social-democrat - certainly not a revolutionary.

HEAD ICE

30th June 2010, 22:49

Apparently you didn't get the memo. Chavez no longer calls himself a social democrat.

That your a liar.

First of all, he calls himself a democratic socialist in this very video. Second, calling him a reformist social-democrat is not an insult if that is what he is and that is what he says he is. Is it an insult to call Hugo Chavez a Venezuelan? Is it an insult to call Hugo Chavez a male? The man is a democratic socialist and he likes being one, stop insulting the man for getting upset over it.

People's War

30th June 2010, 23:17

Chavez is gradually nationalizing more and more industry, so with luck, Venezuela will go the way of Cuba. The wave of socialism in Latin America sweeping away the plague of neoliberalism is truly inspiring.

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 23:24

So establishing food stores and medical centers for the working poor, setting up co-ops, encouraging participatory democracy, launching literacy and anti-homophobic campaigns, defying a coup de tat, and arming the people aren't revolutionary to you?

Well those things are nice and all but I don't see how they fundamentally attack the capitalist mode of production.

What else can he do at the moment? Are the land reforms (IIRC he has at least instituted some) and nationalisations the social-democratic reforms you speak of? Within in the current global climate, politically, socially, environmentally and of course economically, what can he do? I am not asking this to be antagonistic or start a tendency war or anything, I just think it's fair if you're going to criticise him, to posit what you would do instead. And I agree, he's a left-populist social-democrat - certainly not a revolutionary.

I'm not necessarily criticising anything. I just think it's a mistake to see the current situation in Venezuela as anywhere near revolutionary or anywhere near overthrowing capitalism.

Barry Lyndon

30th June 2010, 23:25

First of all, he calls himself a democratic socialist in this very video. Second, calling him a reformist social-democrat is not an insult if that is what he is and that is what he says he is. Is it an insult to call Hugo Chavez a Venezuelan? Is it an insult to call Hugo Chavez a male? The man is a democratic socialist and he likes being one, stop insulting the man for getting upset over it.

Democratic socialist does not = social democrat.

Anarchists consider themselves democratic socialists, heck, some even call themselves libertarian socialists. So do Luxemburgists, Leninists and Maoists. So do left communists, probably. 'Democratic socialist' can mean a lot of different things. If you bothered to actually watch the interview, which you didn't, or only heard what you wanted to hear, Chavez explicitly rejects being called a social democrat. The whole purpose of social democrats is to put a "human face" on capitalism, a political/economic path Chavez now rejects. He didn't originally, but he does now.
Maybe ultra-left retards like yourselves are the ones who should let others define who they are, for once, instead of issuing labeling decrees from Left-Com Mount Olympus.

Barry Lyndon

30th June 2010, 23:29

I'm not necessarily criticising anything. I just think it's a mistake to see the current situation in Venezuela as anywhere near revolutionary or anywhere near overthrowing capitalism.

When, in your view, has there ever been a revolutionary situation that has overthrown capitalism/come close to overthrowing capitalism, by your criteria? In the real world, and not the realm of theory? I'm genuinely interested.

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 23:35

So do left communists, probably.

It's a (http://gci-icg.org/english/china89.htm) questionable (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm) assertion (http://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008) to say the least.

If you bothered to actually watch the interview, which you didn't, or only heard what you wanted to hear, Chavez explicitly rejects being called a social democrat. The whole purpose of social democrats is to put a "human face" on capitalism, a political/economic path Chavez now rejects. He didn't originally, but he does now.

Well maybe when Chavez starts talking about the destruction of commodity society we'll believe him. Until then we still have nothing to go on besides words which are meaningless without elaboration.

When, in your view, has there ever been a revolutionary situation that has overthrown capitalism/come close to overthrowing capitalism, by your criteria? In the real world, and not the realm of theory? I'm genuinely interested.

1917-1923 and 1968-77 are the two main periods I can think of.

Os Cangaceiros

30th June 2010, 23:48

It's a (http://gci-icg.org/english/china89.htm) questionable (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm) assertion (http://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008) to say the least.

My understanding of Bordiga's criticism of "democracy" is that he's critiquing democracy as a bourgeois ideal, not democracy as a method of decision-making.

(Although yeah, left communists probably don't consider themselves to be "democratic socialists".)

Zanthorus

30th June 2010, 23:52

My understanding of Bordiga's criticism of "democracy" is that he's critiquing democracy as a bourgeois ideal, not democracy as a method of decision-making.

He is criticising democracy as an abstract principle which should be followed at all times. You should check out his work on soviet councils where he distuinguishes between the "form" and "content" of the councils and basically says that councils are objectively reactionary unless they elect communist delegates.

Lyev

1st July 2010, 00:25

HEAD ICE

1st July 2010, 00:30

Democratic socialist does not = social democrat.

That's true, but I am using the terms interchangeably and I think it is pretty clear what I meant without going into a semantics game.

If you bothered to actually watch the interview, which you didn't, or only heard what you wanted to hear, Chavez explicitly rejects being called a social democrat. The whole purpose of social democrats is to put a "human face" on capitalism, a political/economic path Chavez now rejects.

Apparently I was giving too much credit to social democrats, because I assumed that they do want to get rid of capitalism but reform it away. In any case, I don't see how that refutes what I said. As for it being a "political/economic path Chavez now rejects", I fail to see how his policies differ from that of economic populism.

Maybe ultra-left retards like yourselves are the ones who should let others define who they are, for once, instead of issuing labeling decrees from Left-Com Mount Olympus.

Calm down and take a deep breath brother, everything will be okay :).

HEAD ICE

1st July 2010, 00:31

When, in your view, has there ever been a revolutionary situation that has overthrown capitalism/come close to overthrowing capitalism, by your criteria? In the real world, and not the realm of theory? I'm genuinely interested.

I can't speak for Zanthorus but the Russian Revolution of 1917 would be a good example.

the last donut of the night

1st July 2010, 00:46

the comments for the video:

"we venezuelans want peace and no tyranny"

aww, los gusanos venezuelanos

Die Neue Zeit

1st July 2010, 01:48

Zanthorus and Radio Raheem have both made excellent points, so let me elaborate on my middle-of-the-ground position here.

When Zanthorus quoted Marx's Brumaire about "Social-Democracy" in France, he meant that "the peculiar character of [French] Social-Democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony."

Given historical developments, there are broadly speaking three kinds of "social-democracy": for the bourgeoisie ("Third Way" shit and even the neoclassical synthesis / Bastard Keynesianism before), for the proletariat (before WWI when "revolutionary social democracy" = class-strugglist Marxism), and for the petit-bourgeoisie (including the Paris Commune).

One should be careful about calling Chavez an "old school real deal democratic socialist" like Radio Raheem did, since the associated policies were a more extreme form of "social-democracy" for the bourgeoisie, which preferred regular parliaments. Indeed what makes Chavez a "social-democrat" for the petit-bourgeoisie is the emergence of communal councils, peasant militias, etc.

That being said, it's not necessarily a bad thing to give critical support to the Bolivarian Revolution, and even organize within a "Social-Democratic" (keep in mind what I said above) Fifth Socialist International, so long as it doesn't have an "Anti-Imperialist" fetish (cuddling with Iran internally :rolleyes:), and so long as it has space within for independent working-class organization (workers-only tendency membership policy).

Why? Because the productive, small-business petit-bourgeoisie (not the purely self-employed jocks, who are unproductive) cannot organize internationally. In the First World, they are part of One Reactionary Mass (Lassalle) that includes the jocks, the cops, the lawyers, the judges, the private security thugs, etc. In the Third World they, and not the Maoist interpretation of the bourgeoisie, are divided into a comprador element and a left-nationalistic element. It is this latter element giving the impetus to the new International. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-maoist-class-t137353/index.html)

[Managers are part of a different, "coordinator" class.]

1st July 2010, 02:00

The obsession with the political ideology of Chavez is really strange considering this is supposed to be a bunch of Marxists participating in discussion. The reality is that Chavez's personal ideology is of little importance in the broad scope of things; historical development is determined by social forces, not individuals.

With that being said, I think it's quite obvious that Venezuela is not going to become socialist any time soon; there is absolutely no justification for that belief. What we have seen is a very typical response by the Venezuelan state: the mediation of social conflicts for its own self-preservation and in general the perpetuation of the current order. The form that this mediation has taken is certainly unique, but in essence it is nothing new.

The current state of the Venezuelan economy (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-30/greek-credit-default-swap-costs-only-beaten-by-venezuela-chart-of-the-day.html) has conclusively proven what we have all already known; it is not possible to appease both sides. "Socialist developments" destabilize the capitalist economy by their very nature. This is Economics 101.

Die Neue Zeit

1st July 2010, 02:05

But at least 30% of the banking sector is now handled by the state. That has mitigated at least some of the speculative damage.

1st July 2010, 03:35

Did you know he was born in a mud hut, to an impoverished family of part Native American and Afro-Venezuelan ancestry? He's not from the old Spanish landowning caste or anything like that. He rose up through the military.
People can move between classes, you know that, right?

Besides, as an anarchist, I use anarchist class analysis (which to me makes a lot more sense and can greatly improve an understanding of what classes people are in).

Maybe ultra-left retards like yourselves are the ones who should let others define who they are, for once, instead of issuing labeling decrees from Left-Com Mount Olympus.
I'm loving the insensitivity towards to the mentally ill, there.

Barry Lyndon

1st July 2010, 04:08

I'm loving the insensitivity towards to the mentally ill, there.

I'm sorry, it's an insult to the mentally retarded.

Zanthorus

1st July 2010, 12:40

I asked you to posit an alternative for Chavez and the Venezuelan project on a whole. Can you?

No. For the simple reason that I wouldn't have tried to take charge of a bourgeois state in the first place.

Besides, as an anarchist, I use anarchist class analysis.

You mean you view the lumpenproletariat as the only revolutionary element :p

1st July 2010, 12:53

You mean you view the lumpenproletariat as the only revolutionary element :p
Since when?

Zanthorus

1st July 2010, 13:01

Since when?

We should probably start another thread for this.

1st July 2010, 13:07

We should probably start another thread for this.
Nah, otherwise we'll get the likes of Brother No. 1 and People's War on it.

I, for one, doubt the ability of the whole lumpenproletariat to seize all the means of production and set up a resistance government.

Zanthorus

1st July 2010, 13:11

Nah, otherwise we'll get the likes of Brother No. 1 and People's War on it.

Too late :blushing: (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-and-marxist-t137841/index.html?p=1789876#post1789876)

Just put BN1 and PW on ignore if they bother you that much.

1st July 2010, 13:20

Too late :blushing: (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-and-marxist-t137841/index.html?p=1789876#post1789876)

Just put BN1 and PW on ignore if they bother you that much.
They don't bother me so much as their politics are insanely stupid.

Quote of the day (from my visitor messages):

Equality isnt a base of Socialism [...] Equality is an idealistic, utopian idea

RadioRaheem84

1st July 2010, 16:14

The Nationalization of major banks in the financial sector is a big step to avoid the speculative and financial damage caused by divestment. This is a good sign that Chavez is trying to stop the oligarchs from squeezing the country into submission.

Also, why did the idiot journalist not question Europe's and USA debt damage and reccession as a sign that capitalism doesn't work, instead of questioning the obvious damage committed by the oligarchs to the Venezuelan revolution, as a sign of a "failure of socialism"?

Apparently, it's never capitalism's fault but always "greed", yet if the economy even slightly drops in one quarter, it's a failture of "socialism". :rolleyes:

People's War

1st July 2010, 21:08

Nah, otherwise we'll get the likes of Brother No. 1 and People's War on it.

I, for one, doubt the ability of the whole lumpenproletariat to seize all the means of production and set up a resistance government.

What do you find so offensive about my posts?

2nd July 2010, 01:46

What do you find so offensive about my posts?
Your post in the Palestine thread made me facepalm.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd July 2010, 21:14

He is criticising democracy as an abstract principle which should be followed at all times. You should check out his work on soviet councils where he distuinguishes between the "form" and "content" of the councils and basically says that councils are objectively reactionary unless they elect communist delegates.

I should also note that, since ultra-left views on the Soviet Union view the ruling class there as already being bourgeois, the moreso that Chavez is deemed bourgeois, despite the petit-bourgeois democratism.