Venezuela: Activists, including CWI members, arrested and detained by state forces

[Crux]

Activists, including CWI members, arrested and detained by state forces

www.socialistworld.net, 03/09/2010
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Repression and criminalisation of struggle is not socialism!
Socialismo Revolucionario (CWI in Venezuela)
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20100903Grafik367746775204003864.jpg
Last Thursday night, 2 September, 8 comrades of the “National Committee against the criminalisation of social protest and for the liberation of social and revolutionary activists”, including two members of Socialismo Revolucionario - Johan Rivas and Joseph Alvarado - were arrested by the state forces of the ‘Bolivarian National Guard’
They were putting up posters in Caracas city centre in solidarity with workers’ leader, Rubén González, indigenous leader, Sabino Romero, and Williams Sanguino, a student leader, all of whom have been imprisoned for defending their fundamental right to protest. They were picked up and taken to a “secure” area, where they were held for over one hour and a half under no charges, justified only by the allegation that they were ‘disseminating political propaganda in prohibited areas’, despite the fact that their posters had been placed in publicly visible places, where there were also other posters of various social, political and commercial organisations.
The comrades immediately contacted the various networks, organisations, movements and collectives which support the campaign, to alert them to the situation, and of the possibility of more serious such actions by the state forces.
All organisations contacted were put on alert and vigilantly monitored the situation, which ended with the 8 comrades being freed, after their details were recorded, with no justification given.
This action was nothing more than a test in repression and intimidation of the independent social, popular and revolutionary movements, who try to raise their voices in protest against what is taking place in the name of the “Bolivarian Revolution”, where the authorities have adopted force as a method of resolving social and political conflicts; criminalise social protest and arrest leading activists.
Of the eight comrades arrested, two were members of Socialismo Revolucionario (CWI in Venezuela). We reject and repudiate every attempt at intimidation and repression against the popular and revolutionary movement.
We demand:



The voice of the people and the working class will not be silenced! Repression and criminalisation of struggle is not socialism!
Freedom for all prisoners from the social, popular and revolutionary movements, locked up for defending their rights!
No more criminalisation of social protest!
An end to the impunity of the bureaucrats! For democratic control of the judiciary!
For the building of a revolutionary, democratic socialist alternative!

[Who?]

How much support do the Trots have in Venezuela, are they really that popular?

I mean, judging from this picture the Chavez regime is the popular movement.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2004/08/marcha_por_la_victoria_248.jpg

[Q]

How much support do the Trots have in Venezuela, are they really that popular?

I mean, judging by this picture the Chavez regime is the popular movement.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2004/08/marcha_por_la_victoria_248.jpg

Wait a sec, are you apologising for the criminalisation of political activity of socialist workers by the Chavez, supposedly socialist, government?

[Kiev Communard]

How much support do the Trots have in Venezuela, are they really that popular?

I mean, judging from this picture the Chavez regime is the popular movement.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2004/08/marcha_por_la_victoria_248.jpg

This is obviously a false analogy, but the Right is more popular in many European countries than the Left at the moment. Does this popularity make them somehow justified in their policies, or not?

[Who?]

Wait a sec, are you apologising for the criminalisation of political activity of socialist workers by the Chavez, supposedly socialist, government?

My post was primarily in response to this:



... This action was nothing more than a test in repression and intimidation of the independent social, popular and revolutionary movements, who try to raise their voices in protest against what is taking place in the name of the “Bolivarian Revolution”...


That being said I do indeed support the Chavez regime as well as freedom of speech and would rather they not lock up the sporadic Trotskyite, I can't imagine they're much of a threat anyway.

[Q]

That being said I do indeed support the Chavez regime as well as freedom of speech and would rather they not lock up the sporadic Trotskyite, I can't imagine they're much of a threat anyway.
So, if Trotskyists were, as you say, a "threat" (in what way?), you would actually support the repression of workers political activists?

[Palingenisis]

So, if Trotskyists were, as you say, a "threat" (in what way?), you would actually support the repression of workers political activists?

Lenin and Trotsky for that matter did so under certain circumstances ( anarchists are only to happy to bring this up).

[Who?]

So, if Trotskyists were, as you say, a "threat" (in what way?), you would actually support the repression of workers political activists?

Threat as in posing a danger to Chavez and his socialist government.

The answer is no, I would still grant them freedom of speech (to a certain extent...). I thought I made that clear in my previous post.

[Soviet dude]

Sounds like someone might be missing out on a paycheck from Uncle Sam, or are they?

[durhamleft]

Ah yes, Chavez, that "socialist". Nice.

[Q]

Sounds like someone might be missing out on a paycheck from Uncle Sam, or are they?

Could you clarify what you say here? It appears to me as if you were implying CWI members being CIA agents. Which would of course be ludicrous trolling, so I'm just asking to be certain.

[Queercommie Girl]

Didn't people used to say that the Sparticist League is a CIA front organisation?

Not to disrespect genuine Trotskyists in any way, but historically the banner of Trotsky was indeed used occasionally for counter-revolutionary activity.

I really don't think the CWI would be such an organisation though. I actually think it is one of better Western Trot organisations at the moment, which is why I'm a critical supporter.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

How much support do the Trots have in Venezuela, are they really that popular?

I mean, judging from this picture the Chavez regime is the popular movement.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2004/08/marcha_por_la_victoria_248.jpg

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/08/30/alg_glenn-beck_crowd.jpg

Hey look it's the picture of the "popular movement" in the US!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously folks, populism is an enemy of communism

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/08/30/alg_glenn-beck_crowd.jpg

Hey look it's the picture of the "popular movement" in the US!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously folks, populism is an enemy of communism

Populist, yes. But you're completely disregarding the contradiction between the populist movement in Venezuela & the populist movement in the US. The majority of American's are reactionary, while the majority of Venezuelan's are not, & rather engage in socialist politics. So please don't be a troll & make baseless comments such as the one you made above.

[Kiev Communard]

If Trotskyists (and other Leftists critical of Chavez) in Venezuela are so lacking in popular support as has been argued here, why not just ignore and let them organize? If they are truly insignificant marginal forces, surely, no harm would be of this.

Currently, it seems, though, that they were harassed for "illegal agitation", while the right-wing forces' propaganda that is far more anti-Chavez than that of CWI and other organizations of the far left ever was is given free rein. I find it quite short-sighted.

[Crux]

Lenin and Trotsky for that matter did so under certain circumstances ( anarchists are only to happy to bring this up).
Chavez is not Lenin and Trotsky. PSUV is not a consistently socialist party nor is the government, progressive, yes, but comparing them to the Bolsheviks is quite a bit more than bordering on the ridiculous.
As someone has noted, the Chavez government have been far more straightforward to the right in many instances than to the left, which only shows the vacillating role of the government. Sooner or later the government will have to choose sides. Those who would see curtailing the right for worker's protests as a part of this clearly show on which side they themselves stand on.

[chegitz guevara]

It remains to be seen how high up the order for this goes. We've seen, time an again, lower levels of the state engage in certain types of behavior that are then countermanded higher up.

[Rafiq]

Don't you all think that Venezuela's enemies would support any anti-government activity against the state? Come on, do you really think the UK and US care about Ideologies?

I think you know where I am going with this....

[ZeroNowhere]

Don't you all think that Venezuela's enemies would support any anti-government activity against the state? Come on, do you really think the UK and US care about Ideologies?

I think you know where I am going with this....
Of course, because there's not a larger right-wing opposition in Venezuela or anything...

"But there's already a larger right-wing opposition, sir!"
"Perhaps, but if we really want to stir shit up, we've got to go with the Trots."
"But Obama-!"
"No objections, just Trots."
"You really are a closet communist, aren't you?"
"It's too late to stop me now, Hillary."

[Rafiq]

Of course, because there's not a larger right-wing opposition in Venezuela or anything...

"But there's already a larger right-wing opposition, sir!"
"Perhaps, but if we really want to stir shit up, we've got to go with the Trots."
"But Obama-!"
"No objections, just Trots."
"You really are a closet communist, aren't you?"
"It's too late to stop me now, Hillary."


Or both..

[RadioRaheem84]

Venezuela is such a complex situation that I am still amazed at how many of our anarchist comrades can expect such a black and white situation. We have everything in the mix from true blue socialists in the PSUV base, soc dem bourgeoisie in the leadership, right wing oligarch opposition along with working class and unions that were bought off, to Communists trying to help tilt the reforms to outright violent revolution.

The situation is tense and could implode at any time especially with the US breathing down Venezueal's neck via Colombia.

There are a lot of things to support and a lot of things to oppose. The whole movement though shouldn't be just tossed aside.

[Nolan]

This is the final proof guiz: Chavez is a secret anarcho-stalinist who will summon the kraken and destroy the world

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Or both..

Their interests are mutually exclusive though.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

The majority of American's are reactionary, while the majority of Venezuelan's are not

This is racist romanticism. There is rampant machismo, anti-Semitism, and Venezuelan nationalism among Chavez's base.


rather engage in socialist politics.Fascism is also a daughter of "socialist politics".

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is racist romanticism. There is rampant machismo, anti-Semitism, and Venezuelan nationalism among Chavez's base.

Fascism is also a daughter of "socialist politics".

You're completely delusional. How about presenting evidence to such accusations.

Also, fascism is in no way connected to Socialism. Again, present evidence to such accusations.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is racist romanticism. There is rampant machismo, anti-Semitism, and Venezuelan nationalism among Chavez's base.

Fascism is also a daughter of "socialist politics".

The only racist is you, who presumes every negative falsehood spouted by the bourgeois media about Venezuela as truth, because you don't believe that brown people can make revolution.

Fascism is a monster fed and pampered by Capital to fight the Reds. Nice to see Glenn Beck's poison seeping into your weak little mind.

Shut up, troll.

[Nachie]

Also, fascism is in no way connected to Socialism. Again, present evidence to such accusations.

Hmm, let's see:

Mussolini was originally a Socialist.

"Nazi" comes from the acronym for National Socialist German Workers' Party

Ever seen Evita? lol.

The ideas of the syndicalist Georges Sorel were very successfully commandeered by fascist movements in the first half of the last century.

anyway...

This gets posted often in threads about Venezuela, but for anyone who hasn't seen it, it is worth checking out my essay The Civil War in Venezuela (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/civilwarinvenezuela.html). Though it was written in 2006, I still haven't seen a better English-language analysis of what's going on down there.

Conclusions: The bureaucracy is winning. Even if you trust Chavez as a person (and I myself am often tempted to) you have to admit that the state and economy are still in the hands of the bourgeoisie and it is looking less and less likely that anything along the lines of the current "process" will be capable of rupturing with capitalism. The state has successfully used the Bolivarian movement to pull back into politics the various social movements that had been completely at odds with bourgeois democracy since the uprising of 1989, and systematically criminalizes anyone who persists in organizing outside of it.

EDIT ADD: Barry Lyndon, you are an idiot.

[Barry Lyndon]

EDIT ADD: Barry Lyndon, you are an idiot.

Not as stupid as someone who thinks that the Nazis were socialist and then cites himself as a reliable source on Venezuela.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Not as stupid as someone who thinks that the Nazis were socialist

Fascism emerged as an an internal, co-opting enemy of the socialist movement, much like social-democracy.

[Nachie]

I'm going to have to stand by my previous statement.

[Nolan]

Fascism emerged as an an internal, co-opting enemy of the socialist movement, much like social-democracy.

This is partly true, but it was also created as a response to socialism, unlike social democracy. That's part of the essence of fascism.

[Nolan]

Hmm, let's see:

Mussolini was originally a Socialist.

And then he stopped being one. I was a libertarian at one time. Does that mean propertarianism and socialism are connected? I've seen fascists argue that they are.


"Nazi" comes from the acronym for National Socialist German Workers' Party

Peanut Butter




The ideas of the syndicalist Georges Sorel were very successfully commandeered by fascist movements in the first half of the last century.

By this logic, a pig is the same thing as an American football since they're both covered in pig skin.


anyway...

This gets posted often in threads about Venezuela, but for anyone who hasn't seen it, it is worth checking out my essay The Civil War in Venezuela (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/civilwarinvenezuela.html). Though it was written in 2006, I still haven't seen a better English-language analysis of what's going on down there.

Conclusions: The bureaucracy is winning. Even if you trust Chavez as a person (and I myself am often tempted to) you have to admit that the state and economy are still in the hands of the bourgeoisie and it is looking less and less likely that anything along the lines of the current "process" will be capable of rupturing with capitalism. The state has successfully used the Bolivarian movement to pull back into politics the various social movements that had been completely at odds with bourgeois democracy since the uprising of 1989, and systematically criminalizes anyone who persists in organizing outside of it.

Agreed. I recently saw a report on the new "Bolivarian oligarchy." They compared it to the post-Soviet oligarchy in Russia.


Like all reformist leaders, Chavez ultimately has to answer to capital.

[AK]

The only racist is you, who presumes every negative falsehood spouted by the bourgeois media about Venezuela as truth, because you don't believe that brown people can make revolution.
Talk about strawmen. I don't believe the user you were referring to ever implied anything of the sort. So get off your high horse, Mr. Self-Righteous.

[Barry Lyndon]

Talk about strawmen. I don't believe the user you were referring to ever implied anything of the sort. So get off your high horse, Mr. Self-Righteous.

You haven't seen this joker's other posts.

[AK]

You haven't seen this joker's other posts.
Go on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Venezuela is such a complex situation that I am still amazed at how many of our anarchist comrades can expect such a black and white situation. We have everything in the mix from true blue socialists in the PSUV base, soc dem bourgeoisie in the leadership, right wing oligarch opposition along with working class and unions that were bought off, to Communists trying to help tilt the reforms to outright violent revolution.

The situation is tense and could implode at any time especially with the US breathing down Venezueal's neck via Colombia.

There are a lot of things to support and a lot of things to oppose. The whole movement though shouldn't be just tossed aside.

I know there's a 'Thanks' tool and though i've already utilised that, I just wanted to quote and highlight this post as a model of common sense and sensible analysis.

It stands out as simple and straightforward in a thread dominated by chauvinistic ideological posturing from across the left spectrum.

[Obs]

Communists trying to help tilt the reforms to outright violent revolution.
Not sure how this is a bad thing?

[Crux]

Or both..
So who benefits from portraying a left opposition as "US spies"?

RAdioRaheem: Last I heard there will be some kind of military deal between Venezuela and Colombia to "combat terrorism". But yes, I am in no way trying to downplay the complexity of the situation.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Go on.

In case you're curious, here's what I've actually said:


White supremacy still exists in Venezuela and the Chavez regime is doing nothing to change that.


None of this has occured thanks to Chavez, only the continual brutalization of women, prisoners, youths, Indians and Jews


The right-wing official 'opposition' stood with el Aissami and Cabello in their October 2009 decision to attack Yukpa workers who opposed land demarcation.

Clearly I am a blatant racist.

[Rafiq]

Their interests are mutually exclusive though.


Not to the Good 'Ol US and it's allies.

[Rafiq]

So who benefits from portraying a left opposition as "US spies"?

RAdioRaheem: Last I heard there will be some kind of military deal between Venezuela and Colombia to "combat terrorism". But yes, I am in no way trying to downplay the complexity of the situation.



Hey hey no one is portraying them as "US spies". But the US would openly support them... I don't know if they are, but the America WOULD support them, regardless of their Ideology.

Once you know the US would support the Taliban, then they would probably support Trotskyists too. I'm not saying they are but they would if they needed to.

[Barry Lyndon]

In case you're curious, here's what I've actually said:

Clearly I am a blatant racist.

Like a right-winger, Omnia Sunt Communia tries to extricate himself from the charge of racism by creating the narrowest definition of racism possible- apparently as long as he doesnt have David Duke as his revleft avatar, and is approvingly posting clips from Birth of a Nation, he's not a racist.

The charge is not that your consciously racist.

The charge is that you and other ultra-lefts have an extremely condescending attitude towards revolutions in the global South. When you look at given revolutionary movement in a Third World country, you do not engage in internationalism and work with the existing revolutionary organizations on the ground, that the people's in those countries have themselves painstakingly created. Instead, because such organizations don't adhere to your specific ideological tendency, you decide that they are 'counterrevolutionary' and 'Left of Capital' enemies that must be destroyed, as bad as the capitalists and the reactionaries they are fighting, regardless of the facts.

Furthermore, you demand that for any revolution to succeed the people of these countries must abandon their own organizations and join tiny Left Communist/anarchist/Trotskyist/whateverist groups or start their own from scratch. Having no roots in their own society, such a course of action would inevitably mean that they would have to accept the leadership of white upper middle class intellectual 'revolutionaries' in the Global North. It is the leftist version of the right-wing demands that minorities 'assimilate'- a demand that is not racist on the surface but is racist in that it is all too often the demand of the hegemonic culture to the colonized to dissolve their identity into the "mainstream"-a mainstream that is dominated by themselves.

In much the same way ultra-lefts insist that their objection to the PSUV, the Naxalites, the Nepali Maoists, the PFLP etc is their ideas, not their race/ethnicity. But in realistic terms, the practical outcome of people abandoning indigenous revolutionary organizations would be them accepting the leadership of Western socialist intellectuals, who are overwhelmingly white and upper middle class.

I am not denying that the PSUV is infested with corrupt and reformist elements-but doesn't it make sense for the revolutionary elements within the party to struggle against them, instead of abandoning the party altogether and totally writing it off as reactionary?

[Crux]

So political critique from the left against movements in the third world is (if unconsciously) racist? Quit clutching for straws.


I am not denying that the PSUV is infested with corrupt and reformist elements-but doesn't it make sense for the revolutionary elements within the party to struggle against them, instead of abandoning the party altogether and totally writing it off as reactionary?
Yet you're writing off criticism as racism, so what is your view on the initial article? After all the CWI comrades, as well as the others being persecuted by the state are venezuelans, so you can't pull the racist card. And, by the way, we do not write off the PSUV, of course I can't speak for everyone on here only my own grouping, but I felt it worth noting.

Shiraiti: Why would they need to? And uh, yes you are. Just what are you fishing for?

[Rafiq]

Shiraiti: Why would they need to? And uh, yes you are. Just what are you fishing for?


Dear God, see, this is why people don't like some of the Trotskyists...

They're annoying as hell.

Okay, let me form a hypothetical situation for your happy pappy rainbow sunshine mind....

Venezuela is run by a Trotskyist Regime... Who oppose the policies of the US, and are a serious threat to US Imperialism..


The United Socialist Party(Chavez Party).... Is in opposition to the Regime..

They currently protest and denounce the Trotskyist government, because they claim that Everybody in the world who isn't a Trotskyist *Ehem* I mean United Socialist Party member is wrong and they are right, no matter how much of a difference the regime is making...

So on to my point...


IF the United States needed to, They would support the United Socialist party against the System, regardless of the political agenda of Hugo Chavez or his supporters.

"Because the enemy of their enemy is their friend"

[Devrim]

The charge is that you and other ultra-lefts have an extremely condescending attitude towards revolutions in the global South. When you look at given revolutionary movement in a Third World country, you do not engage in internationalism and work with the existing revolutionary organizations on the ground, that the people's in those countries have themselves painstakingly created. Instead, because such organizations don't adhere to your specific ideological tendency, you decide that they are 'counterrevolutionary' and 'Left of Capital' enemies that must be destroyed, as bad as the capitalists and the reactionaries they are fighting, regardless of the facts.

One could say the same thing about countries in the West. We are equally critical of things like the UK Labour Party. I think that the main point is, that in our opinion, these organisations are not revolutionary.


Furthermore, you demand that for any revolution to succeed the people of these countries must abandon their own organizations and join tiny Left Communist/anarchist/Trotskyist/whateverist groups or start their own from scratch. Having no roots in their own society, such a course of action would inevitably mean that they would have to accept the leadership of white upper middle class intellectual 'revolutionaries' in the Global North.

There are no communist movements anywhere in the world today. All there are are small political groups.

More to the point though I think that the idea that this means "accept the leadership of white upper middle class intellectual 'revolutionaries' in the Global North" probably says more about your own experience than others.

If you look at our organisation the ICC, there are people on our International Bureau' from India, Venezuela, Mexico, Turkey, and the Philippines.

Similarly on the class thing. I can't think of anybody on our IB who isn't a worker. There maybe a few too many school teachers in our organisation for my liking, but hardly '[I]upper-middle class'.

Interestingly enough, this argument that opposition to so-called revolutionary movements in the 'global South' is racist is one that comes from the 'global North' itself, particularly the US.

I have certainly never heard it in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon, or on picket lines in Turkey.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

So political critique from the left against movements in the third world is (if unconsciously) racist? Quit clutching for straws.


Yet you're writing off criticism as racism, so what is your view on the initial article? After all the CWI comrades, as well as the others being persecuted by the state are venezuelans, so you can't pull the racist card. And, by the way, we do not write off the PSUV, of course I can't speak for everyone on here only my own grouping, but I felt it worth noting.

Shiraiti: Why would they need to? And uh, yes you are. Just what are you fishing for?


Another thing, it is not up to YOU To choose which movements are "true" leftists are not....

Barry explained it perfectly... People like you condemn every Revolutionary movement, because they aren't Trotskyists... Hell, I am still only a Marxist, but do I condemn Maoist Movements? NO! They are better than the Capitalist movements! But no, Majakovskij rather supports either the minority of Trotskyists who don't have the peoples support in Revolutionary Socialism, or the Capitalists...

It's easy for you to criticize every Socialist Nation, because there has not been a Trotskyist Government yet for anyone to criticize...

It's so troll-like..

[Crux]

It's so troll-like..
I know something else that is.

[Rafiq]

I know something else that is.


Wonderful response... You chose the spotlight of my post to quote from :laugh:

[Crux]

Dear God, see, this is why people don't like some of the Trotskyists...

They're annoying as hell.

Okay, let me form a hypothetical situation for your happy pappy rainbow sunshine mind....

Venezuela is run by a Trotskyist Regime... Who oppose the policies of the US, and are a serious threat to US Imperialism..


The United Socialist Party(Chavez Party).... Is in opposition to the Regime..

They currently protest and denounce the Trotskyist government, because they claim that Everybody in the world who isn't a Trotskyist *Ehem* I mean United Socialist Party member is wrong and they are right, no matter how much of a difference the regime is making...

So on to my point...


IF the United States needed to, They would support the United Socialist party against the System, regardless of the political agenda of Hugo Chavez or his supporters.

"Because the enemy of their enemy is their friend"
So a bunch of nonsense you say? How surprising.
Again, what are you fishing for? And do try to say something that is not "hypothetical" but has a least a semblance of something to do with the world the rest of us live in. Here's a hint, actually reading what your opponent in a debate writes actually helpes. Somehow I suspect you'll just troll on though.

[Rafiq]

So a bunch of nonsense you say? How surprising.
Again, what are you fishing for? And do try to say something that is not "hypothetical" but has a least a semblance of something to do with the world the rest of us live in. Here's a hint, actually reading what your opponent in a debate writes actually helpes. Somehow I suspect you'll just troll on though.

I read everything you wrote.. That's why I replied to it.

And dismissing everything I just said as nonsense, isn't very helpful either...

And my whole point was that the United States would support the Trotskyists if they needed too... That doesn't make them spies or agents, it just means the US will fund them / support them in the Media...

I'm not saying they are funding them, but if they needed to, which, lol, obviously they don't need to, (considering their numbers), but back to my point, the US would support them if they were to overthrow the Chavez Government...


"Because the Enemy of their enemy is their friend"

[Crux]

I read everything you wrote.. That's why I replied to it.

And dismissing everything I just said as nonsense, isn't very helpful either...

And my whole point was that the United States would support the Trotskyists if they needed too... That doesn't make them spies or agents, it just means the US will fund them / support them in the Media...

I'm not saying they are funding them, but if they needed to, which, lol, obviously they don't need to, (considering their numbers), but back to my point, the US would support them if they were to overthrow the Chavez Government...


"Because the Enemy of their enemy is their friend"
Well, lol, you're a real bright one aren't you? The U.S would support Chavez if there was a serious threat from the left of the PSUV and if he was approachable for that kind of support. So?

You're like someone talking to a guy studying to become a catholic priest bursting out on how about celibacy inevitably leads to pedophilia while insisting you're not implying anything about they guy in question. It's incredibly dishonest. But then again that seems to be the "level" you're at.

So let me explain it to you in small words.

We support socialism.
We support the PSUV in so far as they further this goal, which they do to some extent.
We openly oppose the bureacracy and attacks against social protests.

Your response is "they could be funded by the US lol. uh if the US wanted, I mean. Not that I am saying they do."

If you fail to see the similarity you're about as daft as you seem. It's also possible you are extremely young and new to the movement in which case your behaviour is, although not much, a little bit more excusable.

[Rafiq]

Your response is "they could be funded by the US lol. uh if the US wanted, I mean. Not that I am saying they do."


No, I am not saying their is a huge possibility that they are funded by the US. I am clearly stating that the US has the option to fund them if necessary.. And so what If I'm young? That doesn't mean much... As far as this debate goes.


What is wrong with saying that?

What kind of propaganda are you using? You are just taking my words, and making my statements seem less advanced...

It's like me saying..

In Einsteins case.. "Uh education is good, kinda lol because it is good for the brain, but if u dont use it u will regret it".

That just made him sound really stupid.. But it made perfect sense. Because when he said something similar, he said it using proper English.. Or German... I really don't know much about Einstein, I am just using him as an example.

By the way, what do you mean "we". I am just talking about you. Not all Trotskyists are like you.

[Rafiq]

Well, lol, you're a real bright one aren't you? The U.S would support Chavez if there was a serious threat from the left of the PSUV and if he was approachable for that kind of support. So?

You're like someone talking to a guy studying to become a catholic priest bursting out on how about celibacy inevitably leads to pedophilia while insisting you're not implying anything about they guy in question. It's incredibly dishonest. But then again that seems to be the "level" you're at.

So let me explain it to you in small words.

We support socialism.
We support the PSUV in so far as they further this goal, which they do to some extent.
We openly oppose the bureacracy and attacks against social protests.

Your response is "they could be funded by the US lol. uh if the US wanted, I mean. Not that I am saying they do."

If you fail to see the similarity you're about as daft as you seem. It's also possible you are extremely young and new to the movement in which case your behaviour is, although not much, a little bit more excusable.


America supported Shia Islamists against Saddam Husein's Regime. Why would they take supporting Trotskyists, "Out of the Question because they aren't Capitalists".

[Crux]

Oh trust me, I'm not the one making you sound stupid.

The Islamists took the U.S money didn't they? Shit, you're still not reading.
This is beginning to look quite pointless. Maybe because you didn't have a point other than "trots are annoying lol" to begin with. And yeah, before you go there again, I trust my comrades are not a CIA-funded project. Since you somehow, like so many other thing's, missed I was a member of the CWI, I am going to go ahead and spell it out for you. I am a member of the Committee for a Worker's International. As is two of the arrested.

[Rafiq]

Oh trust me, I'm not the one making you sound stupid.

The Islamists took the U.S money didn't they? Shit, you're still not reading.


So you are implying that the Trotskyists would not take the U.S. money out of self-righteousness and dignity?

Yeah, no.

They would gladly take the money. And than possibly back-stab the U.S. And then the U.S. would have to support another "leftist" opposition.

[Rafiq]

Oh trust me, I'm not the one making you sound stupid.

The Islamists took the U.S money didn't they? Shit, you're still not reading.
This is beginning to look quite pointless. Maybe because you didn't have a point other than "trots are annoying lol" to begin with. And yeah, before you go there again, I trust my comrades are not a CIA-funded project. Since you somehow, like so many other thing's, missed I was a member of the CWI, I am going to go ahead and spell it out for you. I am a member of the Committee for a Worker's International. As is two of the arrested.


It is out of the question your "comrades" are a CIA project, however, that doesn't mean they wouldn't except money from the US to clash with the Chavez government.

[Crux]

So you are implying that the Trotskyists would not take the U.S. money out of self-righteousness and dignity?

Yeah, no.

They would gladly take the money. And than possibly back-stab the U.S. And then the U.S. would have to support another "leftist" opposition.

Hahaha. You're plainly obvious in you intentions, "comrade".


You aren't taking money from the CIA are you? Because, admit it, you would.
You're such a waste of time.

[Crux]

It is out of the question your "comrades" are a CIA project, however, that doesn't mean they wouldn't except money from the US to clash with the Chavez government.

Actually....it does. But yeah nice try, "comrade".

[Rafiq]

Oh trust me, I'm not the one making you sound stupid.

The Islamists took the U.S money didn't they? Shit, you're still not reading.
This is beginning to look quite pointless. Maybe because you didn't have a point other than "trots are annoying lol" to begin with. And yeah, before you go there again, I trust my comrades are not a CIA-funded project. Since you somehow, like so many other thing's, missed I was a member of the CWI, I am going to go ahead and spell it out for you. I am a member of the Committee for a Worker's International. As is two of the arrested.

I can't read all of your comments unless I hit the "quote" button. For some reason, it only shows 1/3 of your comment and than it shows up as a whole on the reply box.. Weird glitch.. So that would be why I am Not Reading. Because it only shows PART of your reply.

[Crux]

I can't read all of your comments unless I hit the "quote" button. For some reason, it only shows 1/3 of your comment and than it shows up as a whole on the reply box.. Weird glitch.. So that would be why I am Not Reading. Because it only shows PART of your reply.

Then I suggest you'd take that problem elsewhere, "comrade".

[Rafiq]

Actually....it does. But yeah nice try, "comrade".


OH so according to you, whoever accepts money from the US is a CIA project? Oh that makes PERFECT sense!

You just can't realize that there are other corrupt Trots out there...

[Rafiq]

Then I suggest you'd take that problem elsewhere, "comrade".


Okay, I am sorry I am not a Trotskyist because only Trotskyists are right and everyone else is wrong....


I would love to see the day the US Media attacks Trotskyists, because they always attack Maoists, Stalinists, Guevarists, Castroists, and the gullible Trots go along with it and say.. "Yeah, but we are Trotskyists, so we can just say all of those types of Communist Ideals are false and Trotskyists are the good guys because we haven't pissed off the US yet.

[Crux]

OH so according to you, whoever accepts money from the US is a CIA project? Oh that makes PERFECT sense!

You just can't realize that there are other corrupt Trots out there...

And yet you're not implying anything, are you? :laugh:

No, taking money from the US does not automatically make you a CIA project, it is however not acceptable. But, "comrade", rational debating is not your forte it seems.

[Crux]

Okay, I am sorry I am not a Trotskyist because only Trotskyists are right and everyone else is wrong....


I would love to see the day the US Media attacks Trotskyists, because they always attack Maoists, Stalinists, Guevarists, Castroists, and the gullible Trots go along with it and say.. "Yeah, but we are Trotskyists, so we can just say all of those types of Communist Ideals are false and Trotskyists are the good guys because we haven't pissed off the US yet.
:laugh:

As I suspected you're completely clueless and oblivious to both historical and present political situations. I suggest you'll spend some time, well not some, a long time in "learning", or even better yet read up some on your own or with a friend, before you make any similar assumptions again.

[Rafiq]

:laugh:

As I suspected you're completely clueless and oblivious to both historical and present political situations. I suggest you'll spend some time, well not some, a long time in "learning", or even better yet read up some on your own or with a friend, before you make any similar assumptions again.


Well I notice it in your case...



Tell me, when has a Trotskyist Movement (Do not include the Bolshevik Revolution or the Civil War) Pissed off the US on a massive scale to the point where they Go on a huge propaganda campaign.

Can you please just debate with me? Instead of insulting me..

It would be much better to Insult you rather than to debate with you..

And please, Rational Debating is my life, "ass-hole"

[Rafiq]

:laugh:

I suggest you'll spend some time, well not some, a long time in "learning", or even better yet read up some on your own .

Oh don't get me wrong, their are a lot of Sick Maoists and Stalinists, and Horrible people out their that call themselves Maoists and Stalinists,

But at least Maoists and Stalinists actually took huge action, and gained the support of many people.. No, I don't support Stalin, but Stalinists aren't that bad personally...

See some trots aren't horribly bad when it comes to political views, rather than views on Global conflicts, but one thing I know about some is that they have a HORRIBLE type of personality.

[Crux]

Oh don't get me wrong, their are a lot of Sick Maoists and Stalinists, and Horrible people out their that call themselves Maoists and Stalinists,

But at least Maoists and Stalinists actually took huge action, and gained the support of many people.. No, I don't support Stalin, but Stalinists aren't that bad personally...

See some trots aren't horribly bad when it comes to political views, rather than views on Global conflicts, but one thing I know about some is that they have a HORRIBLE type of personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_Trials#1941:_Minneapolis_offender_-_Communism_on_Trial

Views on global issues are separate from views on political issues?
and, yeah, spend some time in learning. Stop being an dishonest douchebag. Or, you know, just leave.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

The charge is that you and other ultra-lefts have an extremely condescending attitude towards revolutions in the global South.

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communique-arson-attacks-t141060/index.html?p=1855966#post1855966) is a conversation where I defend the liberatory potential of the Naxalite revolution against a fellow "ultra-left".

Also the region I reside in is part of the "global south", in so far as that term is useful in describing variations in economic valorization between different regions of the global capitalist world.


regardless of the facts.The facts:

-The Chavez administration has created oil contracts with ChevronTexaco, BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. (In Chavez's own words to ChevronTexaco officials, "Somos buenos amigos, buenos socios y buenos aliados de muchas empresas estadounidenses que trabajan con nosotros y cada dia estamos mas alineados en el trabajo")
-Chavez and Lula have merged Petrobas and PetroVenezuela to make PetroAmerica. Petrobas previously drilled for oil in the Yasuni national park in Ecuador, in which Huaorani, Tagaeri, Taromenane workers live alongside an uncounted number of unique tree species.
-Chavez went along with 11 other capitalist states in Latin America in signing the IIRSA to build "development corridors" of superhighways, military bases, petroleum pipelines, and hydroelectric dams, to facilitate the further valorization of Latin America's natural resources by energy and mining interests. (In Alo Presidente episode #155, Chavez described this quite honestly as "the promotion of productive commercial models")
-Chavez has expanded coal-mining in Zulia, obviously mostly on parkland and Wayuu, Bari, and Yukpa land.
-Chavez has gotten investments from the World Bank to build the Puerto America megaport on a bird sanctuary on the island of Los Olivitos, whose indigenous inhabitants object to the project.
-On May 23rd of this year, six Caracas inmates were gunned down by the Venezuelan National Guard (of course those are just the "reactionary" elements of the "progressive" Venezuelan state)
-Interior Minister El-Aissami admitted himself in October of 2009 that Venezuelan police commit 20% of the crimes in the country. The Chavez administration's proposed solution to the problem is to set up a national police force. As one Venezuelan police bureaucrat put it, "we need to transform the police, we need to standardise them and make them professional.”
-In September of 2009, Venezuela borrowed $2 billion from Russia to buy fighter jets, T-72 tanks, and surface to air missiles, purchased submarines from France, and invested hundreds of millions in a nuclear submarine project. (Of course Chavez's good buddy Lula defended these actions as any capitalist would)
-Venezuela's closest ally in Asia is Iran, an openly anti-Semitic regime, and the Venezuelan police have conducted semi-legal raids on multiple synagogues.


white upper middle class intellectual 'revolutionaries' in the Global NorthOh, I see, it's a game: How many broiler-plate leftist ad hominems can you jam into one sentence? Well you're a revisionist pacifist adventurist agent provocateur! ;)


but doesn't it make sense for the revolutionary elements within the party to struggle against them, instead of abandoning the party altogether and totally writing it off as reactionary?No.

[Rafiq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_Trials#1941:_Minneapolis_offender_-_Communism_on_Trial

Views on global issues are separate from views on political issues?
and, yeah, spend some time in learning. Stop being an dishonest douchebag. Or, you know, just leave.


That doesn't count, Trialing a Trotskyists during a time where the US was Allied with Stalinist Russia... Isn't enough to piss them off on a Massive scale.. I'm talking armed guerrilla movements, Revolutionary Resistance in time of Invasion, Rise to power in a Nation to challenge the US...

Those piss off the Capitalists a lot... Rioting sometimes will work...

But complaining doesn't piss anyone off except fellow Communists.

[Rafiq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_Trials#1941:_Minneapolis_offender_-_Communism_on_Trial

Views on global issues are separate from views on political issues?
and, yeah, spend some time in learning. Stop being an dishonest douchebag. Or, you know, just leave.


Yeah, views on ways to Run a Communist society can be different than choosing whether or not to support Communist Movements.. Yes.

[Crux]

That doesn't count, Trialing a Trotskyists during a time where the US was Allied with Stalinist Russia... Isn't enough to piss them off on a Massive scale.. I'm talking armed guerrilla movements, Revolutionary Resistance in time of Invasion, Rise to power in a Nation to challenge the US...

Those piss off the Capitalists a lot... Rioting sometimes will work...

But complaining doesn't piss anyone off except fellow Communists.
Go play elsewhere, troll.

[Rafiq]

Go play elsewhere, troll.


Or what... You going to complain some more?

[Crux]

Or what... You gonna complain some more?

It's good to see you admit you're trolling. Hopefully there is a ban in your future.

[Rafiq]

It's good to see you admit you're trolling. Hopefully there is a ban in your future.


You aren't very popular on this forum, are you.

This would truly be a messed up forum if I get banned for telling Majakovskij to stop complaining..

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well I notice it in your case...



Tell me, when has a Trotskyist Movement (Do not include the Bolshevik Revolution or the Civil War) Pissed off the US on a massive scale to the point where they Go on a huge propaganda campaign.

Sri Lanka, Bolivia




And please, Rational Debating is my life, "ass-hole"

I think we have the next Peter the Painter here

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sri Lanka, Bolivia




I think we have the next Peter the Painter here

Bolivia embraces things Trotsky said, but they don't uphold a Trotskyist line. I'm a Maoist & I tend to read some of Trotsky's work. That doesn't mean I'm a Trotskyist.

[KC]

This is a silly argument, and one which is common among Stalinists and "anti-imperialists" alike, which has led to the deaths of countless millions of dedicated communists and worker activists throughout history.

Did you know that the Bolsheviks were lauded in the German press because of how destabilizing they were to the Russian regime and therefore the war effort? Where do you think the myth that Lenin was a German agent came from? This is opportunism at its most blatant.

Moreover, it's completely unmarxist. The collapse of a regime doesn't happen simply because the US supports it; regime change only happens in a particular stage in the movement which brings about the possibility of such a change. So to say, for example, that the Venezuelan activists who are fighting against bureaucratism or (another recent example) that the Iranian movement for democracy against the dictatorship, are "aiding imperialism" is nonsense on its face.

A strong, mass popular movement that permeates the whole of society is not stoppable by simply assassinating this or that political figure, and to suggest that one must quell the "domestic" struggle in favor of a "struggle against imperialism" is actually dooming the movement to failure, as tailing the domestic bourgeoisie/petit-bourgeoisie inevitably leads to such. Moreover, it's a complete perversion of imperialism as a globally integrated system and not simply the actions of this or that country. It's a complete perversion of Marxism.

[28350]

This thread is like an
untended bonsai leaning
off to one side. Trim.

Unrelated, can I

have David Duke as [my] revleft avatar?

Also, have there been any updates as to this particular situation in Venezuela?

[zimmerwald1915]

This thread is like an
untended bonsai leaning
off to one side. Trim.
It is also absolutely hilarious from page 3 on.

[Rafiq]

This is a silly argument, and one which is common among Stalinists and "anti-imperialists" alike, which has led to the deaths of countless millions of dedicated communists and worker activists throughout history.

Did you know that the Bolsheviks were lauded in the German press because of how destabilizing they were to the Russian regime and therefore the war effort? Where do you think the myth that Lenin was a German agent came from? This is opportunism at its most blatant.

Moreover, it's completely unmarxist. The collapse of a regime doesn't happen simply because the US supports it; regime change only happens in a particular stage in the movement which brings about the possibility of such a change. So to say, for example, that the Venezuelan activists who are fighting against bureaucratism or (another recent example) that the Iranian movement for democracy against the dictatorship, are "aiding imperialism" is nonsense on its face.

A strong, mass popular movement that permeates the whole of society is not stoppable by simply assassinating this or that political figure, and to suggest that one must quell the "domestic" struggle in favor of a "struggle against imperialism" is actually dooming the movement to failure, as tailing the domestic bourgeoisie/petit-bourgeoisie inevitably leads to such. Moreover, it's a complete perversion of imperialism as a globally integrated system and not simply the actions of this or that country. It's a complete perversion of Marxism.



This isn't a case between two superpowers, so you can't use the germany-Russia example...

The fact is Germany doesn't have a history of deploying agents to overthrow regimes...

The US does..

And the Iranian situation is quite different, although the US probably is going to be happy if the Regime is overthrown, they don't directly support the opposition..

But in that case, let's make sure the opposition shifts into the hands of the more Socialist and Leftists...

Not the Monarchists/ corrupt Clerical Rasfanjani Mousavi deal. No, I'm talking Socialist opposition..

So as far as I can tell, I don't support the Regime or the Rolayists and Corrupt Rasfanjani supporters..

I do in fact, support Socialists in the movement.

[Rafiq]

This is a silly argument, and one which is common among Stalinists and "anti-imperialists" alike


Funny, because I'm not a Stalinist... Of course, criticizing some Trotskyists makes me the opposite of one.. Because remember, everyone who's not a Trotskyist is wrong and should become one immediately.


It makes sense for the US to fund Opposition to it's enemy's in third world Country's, But it doesn't make sense in the case of Germany, because, Germany didn't have such a reputation in WWI. Especially toward another superpower.

[Crux]

Now, now there's no need to offend any stalinists byt comparing them to this person. S/He's fully deserving of a category of his/her own. I vote for mindless troll.


or "Rational Debating is My Life"-guy. Oh the hilarity.

[RadioRaheem84]

Not sure how this is a bad thing?

Oh I didn't try to say this was bad thing. I was just highlighting the many major forces vying for power.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Bolivia embraces things Trotsky said, but they don't uphold a Trotskyist line. I'm a Maoist & I tend to read some of Trotsky's work. That doesn't mean I'm a Trotskyist.

I know a fair number of people who combine Trotskyism and Maoism.

I should have been more clear in my post. I was referring to Trotskyists playing a leading role in the MNR in Bolivia in its revolutionary phase in the early 50s.

In Sri Lanka the LSSP was Trotskyist and Trots played a leading role in revolutionary struggle.

[KC]

This isn't a case between two superpowers, so you can't use the germany-Russia example... This is irrelevant. The point is that to claim that class struggle inherently furthers US interests due to its destabilizing nature is blatantly reactionary.


The fact is Germany doesn't have a history of deploying agents to overthrow regimes...This again is irrelevant. The fact that there could be US agents operating inside of the revolutionary movement is no reason to discount this or that section of that revolutionary movement, especially if all you have is speculation, which is all you have.

Also, this is simply delusional nonsense. I was originally responding to a claim that such a movement "furthers US interests" but to claim without any proof whatsoever that dedicated comrades are CIA operatives because they disagree with your own or various other views is absolutely sickening.

That determination cannot in any reasonable sense be made by you; that must be made by those on the ground actually involved in the struggle in Venezuela. One cannot determine if one is a CIA operative from thousands of miles away based on what they read about in this or that newspaper or what publications said group releases. To claim as such is not only an attack on those whom you are claiming to be operatives but it is also an attack on both the idea of freedom of discussion/association as well as a belittling of the comrades on the ground in Venezuela who supposedly don't have your superior wisdom to determine that these people are in fact CIA operatives and to arrest/murder them.



And the Iranian situation is quite different, although the US probably is going to be happy if the Regime is overthrown, they don't directly support the opposition.. How do you know that one is and not the other?



Funny, because I'm not a Stalinist... Of course, criticizing some Trotskyists makes me the opposite of one.. Because remember, everyone who's not a Trotskyist is wrong and should become one immediately. I never called you a Stalinist, nor did I limit the position to Stalinism, although that is historically from where such a position derives.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This isn't a case between two superpowers, so you can't use the germany-Russia example...
Why can't you? Venezuela is in the US's front lawn, literally. The US wants to bring Chavez down, obviously. Supporting an independent stand for the Venezuelan working class is not playing into the hands of US imperialism, in fact its doing the exact opposite.

The same with Iran. Achmainajad and Mousavi are both shit. They are different factions of the Iranian ruling class. No one on the left should support either one.There is a lively, highly aware Iranian left. They are aware that some western leftists, at least tacitly, support Achmanijad. They view this as a mockery of their struggle.


The fact is Germany doesn't have a history of deploying agents to overthrow regimes... From Bismarck to Hitler and after Germany has done this. The modern Bundesrepublik has certainly aided US imperialism-the destruction of former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc..




And the Iranian situation is quite different, although the US probably is going to be happy if the Regime is overthrown, they don't directly support the opposition..

But in that case, let's make sure the opposition shifts into the hands of the more Socialist and Leftists...

Not the Monarchists/ corrupt Clerical Rasfanjani Mousavi deal. No, I'm talking Socialist opposition..

I'm sure the US has more than a little involvement in Iran. The thing is though the US/Soros "color revolutions" in Ukraine, Kirghistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere were superficial. The represented middle class elements. The working class can be the only real motor of revolution. For obvious reasons the US cannot appeal to this.Within 5 years the "colors" had faded.


So as far as I can tell, I don't support the Regime or the Rolayists and Corrupt Rasfanjani supporters..

I do in fact, support Socialists in the movement.

I certainly hope so.

[AK]

The charge is that you and other ultra-lefts have an extremely condescending attitude towards revolutions in the global South.
Yeah, fuck the global South!

Location: Melbourne, Australia

troll harder

[AK]

Another thing, it is not up to YOU To choose which movements are "true" leftists are not....
What about we say that all the movements that seek to end class-based society and all social and economic inequality are "leftist" movements - sounds fair, no?

[Saorsa]

Yeah, fuck the global South!

Location: Melbourne, Australia

troll harder

The Global South/the Third World refers to the neo-colonial countries subjugated and oppressed by the imperialist bloc.

The imperialist bloc is commonly referred to as the West, and Australia and NZ (where I was born and where I live respectively) are part of that bloc. The fact that our nations are in the Pacific below South-East Asia is irrelevant... we are economically, diplomatically, militarily and culturally a part of the ruling group of nations.

You're fully aware this is what Barry Lyndon meant when he said the Global South - stop trolling yourself.

[Crux]

This thread is like an
untended bonsai leaning
off to one side. Trim.

Unrelated, can I
?

Also, have there been any updates as to this particular situation in Venezuela?
Nothing new yet, although as the article states they were freed and have not been further charged.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lol, the idiotic Trots and Marxist-Leninists who spend their time sparking flame wars on here are going to enact world revolution? Give me a break.:lol:

Sometimes, I think that there are a large number of partisans on this board who are actually useless to our Socialist world movement.

It's funny that Trots and Marxist-Leninists (the ones who continually argue with each other) think that their continual flogging of dead horses and largely irrelevant historical issues is important to anyone but themselves and their self-inflated egos. The world is ignoring you people and you're doing none of us non-ideologues (in the sense that we are Socialists who are not grounded in tribalism and partisanship) any favours.

[The Vegan Marxist]

lol, the idiotic Trots and Marxist-Leninists who spend their time sparking flame wars on here are going to enact world revolution? Give me a break.:lol:

Sometimes, I think that there are a large number of partisans on this board who are actually useless to our Socialist world movement.

It's funny that Trots and Marxist-Leninists (the ones who continually argue with each other) think that their continual flogging of dead horses and largely irrelevant historical issues is important to anyone but themselves and their self-inflated egos. The world is ignoring you people and you're doing none of us non-ideologues (in the sense that we are Socialists who are not grounded in tribalism and partisanship) any favours.

So what's your theoretical plan to help eliminate Capitalism, uphold Socialism, & achieve Communism?

[Crux]

lol, the idiotic Trots and Marxist-Leninists who spend their time sparking flame wars on here are going to enact world revolution? Give me a break.:lol:

Sometimes, I think that there are a large number of partisans on this board who are actually useless to our Socialist world movement.

It's funny that Trots and Marxist-Leninists (the ones who continually argue with each other) think that their continual flogging of dead horses and largely irrelevant historical issues is important to anyone but themselves and their self-inflated egos. The world is ignoring you people and you're doing none of us non-ideologues (in the sense that we are Socialists who are not grounded in tribalism and partisanship) any favours.
You may think police repression in Venezuela is an irrelevant issue, but I do not.

[el_chavista]

Don't laugh at me, but I see a parallelism between the communist's strategy from the 3er period of the Kommintern in Germany :confused: and the CWI in Venezuela: The Prussian autocracy (Chávez) is the enemy, so who cares doing alliances with the Nazis (right wing ONGs and left reformists in Venezuela, funded by the USA)? :lol:

[Q]

Don't laugh at me, but I see a parallelism between the communist's strategy from the 3er period of the Kommintern in Germany :confused: and the CWI in Venezuela: The Prussian autocracy (Chávez) is the enemy, so who cares doing alliances with the Nazis (left wing ONGs and left reformists in Venezuela, funded by the USA)? :lol:

Please don't deal with the troll that the CWI is dealing with the USA as if it was an established fact.

This thread really has gone way off topic. The troll Shariati really has done a masterful job on going from the Venezuelan state harrassing revolutinary workers, to focusing whether or not the CWI is getting funds from the US.

I propose to go back on topic.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So what's your theoretical plan to help eliminate Capitalism, uphold Socialism, & achieve Communism?

It's not like those of us who don't participate in useless flaming/partisan-ideological wars don't have any ideas rooted in Marxist theory ourselves.

In any case, it is clear that when it looks like a duck and continues to quack like a duck, it probably is a duck. The revolutionary Socialists who continue to spend a lifetime indulging in partisan battles (probably most typified by the continuing trot/m-l disagreements) will probably never change. It gets to the stage where I don't give a shit any more.

So many of you are completely irrelevant to the real world, in all honesty. You don't affect anything apart from your own egos. If that's what you want, keep arguing over how many people Stalin killed or whether the USSR was a 'degenerative workers' state' or 'State Capitalist'. The reality is that most workers in this country (I won't presume to speak for the workers of other countries) have never even heard of many of the little sects that operate here, never mind their unnecessarily elaborate theories concerning all manner of things which do not really affect the day-to-day lives of workers here.

I am fairly sure that, in its current iconoclastic state, the Socialist tradition as it has been since Marx will start to die out soon in this part of the world, and I lay the blame solely at the feet of the ideologues who would rather see the downfall of another tendency, than that tendency succeeding for Socialism. It's pathetic. Whatever.

[Rafiq]

Why can't you? Venezuela is in the US's front lawn, literally. The US wants to bring Chavez down, obviously. Supporting an independent stand for the Venezuelan working class is not playing into the hands of US imperialism, in fact its doing the exact opposite.

The same with Iran. Achmainajad and Mousavi are both shit. They are different factions of the Iranian ruling class. No one on the left should support either one.There is a lively, highly aware Iranian left. They are aware that some western leftists, at least tacitly, support Achmanijad. They view this as a mockery of their struggle.
From Bismarck to Hitler and after Germany has done this. The modern Bundesrepublik has certainly aided US imperialism-the destruction of former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc..




I'm sure the US has more than a little involvement in Iran. The thing is though the US/Soros "color revolutions" in Ukraine, Kirghistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere were superficial. The represented middle class elements. The working class can be the only real motor of revolution. For obvious reasons the US cannot appeal to this.Within 5 years the "colors" had faded.


I certainly hope so.
\

Hitler was in power in WWI? No. So Germany did not have a history of Overthrowing superpowers...

America did...

It's like the boy who cried wolf.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Yeah, fuck the global South!

Location: Melbourne, Australia

troll harder

Indeed, I live in Appalachia, an impoverished internal colony of the US. However, third worldist reductionists love to erroneously assume that US internal colonies such as Appalachia, the Deep South, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Alaska, and the Southwest/Four Corners are part of the "global north". Hell, some of the northern-most territories (Northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Greenland, Hokkaido) are among the poorest. Iceland and Scandinavia were also late additions to the "global north" and were the first to suffer from the recent economic collapse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't laugh at me, but I see a parallelism between the communist's strategy from the 3er period of the Kommintern in Germany :confused: and the CWI in Venezuela: The Prussian autocracy (Chávez) is the enemy, so who cares doing alliances with the Nazis (right wing ONGs and left reformists in Venezuela, funded by the USA)? :lol:

I have yet to see the CWI in Venezuela exchange political smooches with scabs like Orlando Chirino. Chavez is more like Bismarck than the Weimar government, but with more left-wing colours.

The more accurate parallel for the CWI is Bebel and Liebknecht's fledgling Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany, which competed with Lassalle's Bismarck-smooching ADAV.

The question is: is blanket opposition appropriate at this time, or are coalitions necessary at least at more local levels (for something like ease of working relationships with communal councils)?

[Crux]

Don't laugh at me, but I see a parallelism between the communist's strategy from the 3er period of the Kommintern in Germany :confused: and the CWI in Venezuela: The Prussian autocracy (Chávez) is the enemy, so who cares doing alliances with the Nazis (right wing ONGs and left reformists in Venezuela, funded by the USA)? :lol:
I'm not laughing. And no.

DNZ: I am not aware of any "blanket opposition" to the PSUV, in fact we have members and supporters in the PSUV.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I never said the comparison was totally accurate. ;)

Unless the PCV is already in this next role, there has yet to even be a Lassallean party, a separate and workers-only party-movement but one in coalition with the PSUV.

[Artemis3]

The facts:

-The Chavez administration has created oil contracts with ChevronTexaco, BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. (In Chavez's own words to ChevronTexaco officials, "Somos buenos amigos, buenos socios y buenos aliados de muchas empresas estadounidenses que trabajan con nosotros y cada dia estamos mas alineados en el trabajo")
-Chavez and Lula have merged Petrobas and PetroVenezuela to make PetroAmerica. Petrobas previously drilled for oil in the Yasuni national park in Ecuador, in which Huaorani, Tagaeri, Taromenane workers live alongside an uncounted number of unique tree species.
-Chavez went along with 11 other capitalist states in Latin America in signing the IIRSA to build "development corridors" of superhighways, military bases, petroleum pipelines, and hydroelectric dams, to facilitate the further valorization of Latin America's natural resources by energy and mining interests. (In Alo Presidente episode #155, Chavez described this quite honestly as "the promotion of productive commercial models")
-Chavez has expanded coal-mining in Zulia, obviously mostly on parkland and Wayuu, Bari, and Yukpa land.
-Chavez has gotten investments from the World Bank to build the Puerto America megaport on a bird sanctuary on the island of Los Olivitos, whose indigenous inhabitants object to the project.
-On May 23rd of this year, six Caracas inmates were gunned down by the Venezuelan National Guard (of course those are just the "reactionary" elements of the "progressive" Venezuelan state)
-Interior Minister El-Aissami admitted himself in October of 2009 that Venezuelan police commit 20% of the crimes in the country. The Chavez administration's proposed solution to the problem is to set up a national police force. As one Venezuelan police bureaucrat put it, "we need to transform the police, we need to standardise them and make them professional.”
-In September of 2009, Venezuela borrowed $2 billion from Russia to buy fighter jets, T-72 tanks, and surface to air missiles, purchased submarines from France, and invested hundreds of millions in a nuclear submarine project. (Of course Chavez's good buddy Lula defended these actions as any capitalist would)
-Venezuela's closest ally in Asia is Iran, an openly anti-Semitic regime, and the Venezuelan police have conducted semi-legal raids on multiple synagogues.

Here is a fact for you: You are full of bullshit, and your essay too. Your stay here was short and it seems you learned nothing and went to write your illusion of reality. You did not go to Zulia to a farc camp, because thats absolute bullshit like the rest of your "facts", which only a few are half lies you twisted to your convenience. It is only curious why you waste your time spreading shit about a country you never intend to visit again.

Now you are calling us racists, how lame. We don't have a kkk, or white supremacy groups, and if some idiot claims to be, the day he puts a feet on the street claiming so he will be spitted upon if not beaten for being stupid, not by cops but by any passerby. Venezuela is a heavy mixed country, we don't have black ghettos and white ghettos, everyone is mixed and the only visible separation is class status, and even that is quite mixed or pretty near each other in large cities like Caracas.

We do not have anything against jews, or muslims, or any other religion, everyone is freely practicing theirs as long as they don't infringe any law. Chavez and his supporters are openly against Zionism (Israel), because of the massacre in Gaza among other atrocities, not against jews or judaism. Did you not see the Mosque in Caracas? The Synagogue is a but few steps away, and so is a Catholic church. Last time there was an attack against that Synagogue, some stupids (perhaps you) were blaming it on Chavez. It turned out to be ex-watchmen who worked for the Rabin in the past (and knew how to disable the security systems), the case was cleared and it was a case of petty crime not connected to any political or religious group. There was no raid, just the normal investigation after the crime.

If you think Chavez has something against trots, you are in for a HUGE surprise. If some injustice happened to occur to someone, it wasn't because of their ideology, and to imply it demonstrates your absolute ignorance of my country. You have good points about bureaucracy and corruption, but you are also full of shit, i think you spent too much time with opposition groups instead of perceiving reality directly by yourself.

The people like Chavez because he is transferring them power to do things by themselves and pushing them from the previous paternalist model you accurately describe, but you foolishly think he is a mere continuation of. You think the same people who made Caracazo wouldn't do it again if Chavez were the same? People is used to paternalism, so this transition has been slow and bad sometimes, but to compare it to the same policies of the past, thats the worst mistake you can ever make.

Venezuela is not socialist, and perhaps its still to far from being so, but compared to neo-liberalism, you can be sure we are doing far better. We destroyed the FTAA and replaced it with ALBA, which goes beyond capitalist relations, and its in fact more about solidarity and internationalism. And so what if we want to connect our countries together?

If you actually believe Chavez gives in to capital, its curious all the wealthy and rich are involved one way or another in getting rid of him, and yet most of the workers keep defending him even after a decade. So what will your explanation be of the coming election for the national assembly results? I'm sure the opposition wont reach majority, again to your dismay...

Oh lets see... The megaport will stop the pollution to the entire Maracaibo Lake, as ships (especially oil tankers) won't need to go inside anymore; and no conditioned funding is accepted, we broke with the WB and IMF policies long ago. The indigenous habitants are getting social investments like never before, with infrastructure, health, education reaching their rural communities, along with the power to manage them.

Nuclear submarine? France? WTF are you smoking? I can imagine the imperialists having a field day with that... There were negotiations for 5 DIESEL submarines with RUSSIA, and even that got downsized to 2, so, along with the other 2 submarines, that would increase our almighty fleet of submarines to patrol our part of the Caribbean sea to 4. The rest of the military spending is along these line, replacing obsolete equipment, and filling gaping holes, such as Chinese radars to detect narco-planes, and Russian helicopters and planes to intercept them (The US gov. banned selling of military equipment to Venezuela, so all the aging American systems are being replaced, sold or even given away to ALBA members).

Our relations with Iran are of mutual benefit, they provide us tractors, cars, industrial plants, and farming equipment including the transfer of their technology to us so we can build them on our own, and we export them various goods and things they need, mostly food. The russians too are transfering their technology, which is why we are building or own AK rifles plant, apart the million units ordered for our defense (both regular and militia), and the Belorussians, with similar industrial and farming equipment, etc.

Back to the topic... they were held up just 1 hour and a half, and you are making all this fuzz? We defend their right, and the people who detained them were wrong, but this is way too far from Chavez ordering a trot purge as you want to make it look... We are in fact supporting their cause too, and even State media has covered the issue about the injustice of the indigenous leader and the psuv member imprisoned (the content of the "illegal" poster). Again, the justice of Venezuela is not handled by the executive power, as you also want to imply, Chavez has no control of what the judiciary branch does, he can only comment on the issue and thats it. And justice in Venezuela is very corrupt, which is why you often see opposition criminals released right away, but "chavists" remaining behind bars...

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

You did not go to Zulia to a farc camp

I don't understand, and I apologize. I assume this is due to some sort of linguistic barrier, could you please elaborate?

My reference to the region of Zulia was in regards to ecocidal campaigns of the Venezuelan coal industry, I made no reference to FARC, but now that you mention it, FARC are a bunch of oppressive, murderous drug-dealing sellouts and petty capitalists-in-red who are causing irreparable damage to the reputation of Marxism. (And also allies of Chavez, unsurprisingly)


like the rest of your "facts", which only a few are half lies you twisted to your convenience.You have not provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion.


Now you are calling us racists, how lame. We don't have a kkk, or white supremacy groupsThere are plenty of white supremacist groups scattered throughout Latin America.

Chavism is more akin to integralism, however...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism


Venezuela is a heavy mixed country, we don't have black ghettos and white ghettos, everyone is mixed and the only visible separation is class statusRacial lines are not as rigidly defined as in the US, it's true, but the bourgeoisie in Venezuela is still primarily white. (With the exception of tokens such as Chavez)


Last time there was an attack against that Synagogue, some stupids (perhaps you) were blaming it on Chavez. It turned out to be ex-watchmen who worked for the Rabin in the past (and knew how to disable the security systems), the case was cleared and it was a case of petty crime not connected to any political or religious group. There was no raid, just the normal investigation after the crime.Venezuelan law-enforcement under the Chavez administration has a history of harassing the Jewish population as part of its inter-imperialist rivalry against Israel. (For example the Caracas school in 2004) The horrible atrocities committed against the Palestinian people by Israeli imperialists in no way justifies the harassment of Jews by the Venezuelan state.


The people like Chavez because he is transferring them power to do things by themselves and pushing them from the previous paternalist model you accurately describeThat may be, however the total emancipation of the working-class will only be achieved by the workers themselves, not by bureaucrats of the capitalist state.


Venezuela is not socialist, and perhaps its still to far from being so, but compared to neo-liberalism, you can be sure we are doing far better.This is a prisoner's dilemma. I choose communism!


ALBA, which goes beyond capitalist relationsIn order to "go beyond capitalist relations", wage labor, commodity production, and capital must be smashed. ALBA is just another imperialist bloc.


And so what if we want to connect our countries together?They're not "your countries", any more so than the US is "my country". They are the political organs of the bourgeoisie. A Yukpa worker has as much to gain from identifying with the Venezuelan nation-state as a New African or Euro-Appalachian worker has to gain from identifying with the US nation-state.


If you actually believe Chavez gives in to capital, its curious all the wealthy and rich are involved one way or another in getting rid of him

Chavez himself is "wealthy and rich", factions of capital engage in rivalries all the time.


most of the workers keep defending him even after a decade.

The workers don't always act in their own interests, it's called bourgeois cultural hegemony.


I'm sure the opposition wont reach majority, again to your dismay...

I don't give a fuck about the right-wing gangster "opposition".


The megaport will stop the pollutionThe only thing that will stop pollution is the capitalist mode of production.


infrastructure, [...] educationI don't give a fuck about capitalist "infrastructure" or "education".

The rest of the military spending is along these line, replacing obsolete equipment, and filling gaping holes, such as Chinese radars to detect narco-planes, and Russian helicopters and planes to intercept them (The US gov. banned selling of military equipment to Venezuela, so all the aging American systems are being replaced, sold or even given away to ALBA members).And none of this is of any benefit to the working-class. Time to smash the military-industrial complex


Our relations with Iran are of mutual benefitTo the bourgeoisie...


they provide us tractors, cars, industrial plants, and farming equipment"Us" = the Venezuelan bourgeoisie.

Venezuelan workers don't need factories, cars, and industrial plants. They need freedom from the system of capitalism!


we export them various goods and things they need, mostly food.And of course the Iranian bourgeoisie is totally in charge of how that food will be distributed. Yay!

[Crux]

Back to the topic... they were held up just 1 hour and a half, and you are making all this fuzz? We defend their right, and the people who detained them were wrong, but this is way too far from Chavez ordering a trot purge as you want to make it look... We are in fact supporting their cause too, and even State media has covered the issue about the injustice of the indigenous leader and the psuv member imprisoned (the content of the "illegal" poster). Again, the justice of Venezuela is not handled by the executive power, as you also want to imply, Chavez has no control of what the judiciary branch does, he can only comment on the issue and thats it. And justice in Venezuela is very corrupt, which is why you often see opposition criminals released right away, but "chavists" remaining behind bars...
It is desering of a "fuzz" as you say, again I am hardly trying to over-simplify into some kind of "anti-Chavez" position (Colectivo Socialismo Revolucionario, CWI in Venezuela are not "anti-Chavez"). In fact the comrades wrote a longer piece on the situation in Venezuela a while ago:
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3785 or you can read it in spanish, search for it at the venezuelan comrades website, which is linked at socialistworld.net under venezuela.

[Barry Lyndon]

a) I don't understand, and I apologize. I assume this is due to some sort of linguistic barrier, could you please elaborate?

b) My reference to the region of Zulia was in regards to ecocidal campaigns of the Venezuelan coal industry, I made no reference to FARC, but now that you mention it, FARC are a bunch of oppressive, murderous drug-dealing sellouts and petty capitalists-in-red who are causing irreparable damage to the reputation of Marxism. (And also allies of Chavez, unsurprisingly)

c) You have not provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion.

d) There are plenty of white supremacist groups scattered throughout Latin America.

Chavism is more akin to integralism, however...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism

e) Racial lines are not as rigidly defined as in the US, it's true, but the bourgeoisie in Venezuela is still primarily white. (With the exception of tokens such as Chavez)

f) Venezuelan law-enforcement under the Chavez administration has a history of harassing the Jewish population as part of its inter-imperialist rivalry against Israel. (For example the Caracas school in 2004) The horrible atrocities committed against the Palestinian people by Israeli imperialists in no way justifies the harassment of Jews by the Venezuelan state.

g) That may be, however the total emancipation of the working-class will only be achieved by the workers themselves, not by bureaucrats of the capitalist state.

h) This is a prisoner's dilemma. I choose communism!

i) In order to "go beyond capitalist relations", wage labor, commodity production, and capital must be smashed. ALBA is just another imperialist bloc.

j) They're not "your countries", any more so than the US is "my country". They are the political organs of the bourgeoisie. A Yukpa worker has as much to gain from identifying with the Venezuelan nation-state as a New African or Euro-Appalachian worker has to gain from identifying with the US nation-state.

k) Chavez himself is "wealthy and rich", factions of capital engage in rivalries all the time.

l) The workers don't always act in their own interests, it's called bourgeois cultural hegemony.

m) I don't give a fuck about the right-wing gangster "opposition".

n) The only thing that will stop pollution is the capitalist mode of production.

o) I don't give a fuck about capitalist "infrastructure" or "education".
And none of this is of any benefit to the working-class. Time to smash the military-industrial complex

p) Venezuelan workers don't need factories, cars, and industrial plants. They need freedom from the system of capitalism!

a) Artemis3 seems to write and understand English quite well, its not a linguistic misunderstanding. It's clear as day to just about anyone that you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.

b) There is not a shred of evidence that Chavez is supporting the FARC. It is an allegation that has been repeatedly made by the Colombian government, whose evidence comes from a single 'labtop' computer that they claim they captured in 2008- the full contents of which they have refused to release, except for a few photographs that are widely suspected to have been doctored.
https://nacla.org/node/5184
This is the same government that when a mass grave was discovered of 450-2,000 bodies, mostly trade unionists(right next to a military base, so it couldn't have been the work of the FARC), then-President Uribe took a special trip there and called the families of the victims liars for blaming the murders on government-backed paramilitaries.
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/08/colombia%E2%80%99s-uribe-in-swansong-over-mass-grave/
Nice to see that you take your cues from a fascist death squad state. Shows your true colors.

c) Unlike you of course:lol:.

d) Linking to a wikipedia article is not evidence that Chavez supports that kind of politics. I can make stuff up too-
'Omnia Sunt Communia is a Nazi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism'

e) That must be why the right-wing bourgeois Venezuelan 'opposition' media launches racist attacks against Chavez on a daily basis, comparing him to an ape, among other charming comparisons.

f) Because the police investigating an act of arson against a synagogue is remotely comparable to burning hundreds of children alive with white posphorus. What a disgusting trivialization of the suffering of the Palestinians, but given your lack of empathy with oppressed people in general, not surprising.
There is no 'inter-imperialist' competition between Israel and Venezuela. Venezuela is not engaging in imperialism. Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

g) And not ultra-left liars and sabatoeurs like you either.

h) So do I. But unlike you, I don't think collaborating with imperialism is the way to do it.

i) ALBA stands for the independence of Latin America from US economic control. That is anti-imperialist. Naturally, you hate that.

j) Except that in Venezuela the workers and peasants are building up alternative organs to oppose the bourgeois state and are joining popular militias to defend their gains. The underdogs in Venezuelan society-indigenous people included-do have a stake in that.

k) Chavez is not 'wealthy and rich'. He was born in a mud hut and rose through the ranks of the military. Not even his enemies alledge that he has used his position to enrich himself. Get your head out of your ass.

l) That perfectly describes the wreckers 'workers opposition' in Venezuela that you cheer on.

m) They don't care if you 'give a fuck about' them, as long as you share their immediate goals. When their through with Chavez and the PSUV with your help, they'll treat you like 'a orange squeezed dry by imperialism'(to quote Che Guevara).

n) The capitalist mode of production will stop pollution? Ladies and gentleman, you just seen a pro-capitalist Freudian slip!

o) 'You don't give a fuck' about whether workers are employed or are educated. Some socialist you are.

p) Yeah! Workers don't need jobs, transportation, or electricity. Bourgeois primitivism FTW!

[Crux]

Barry Lyndon: While I think omnia comparing Chavez with Integralism (a brazilian school of fascism) is absurd and ignores the material role of respective movements, your response is just lame strawmanning.

[Artemis3]

Venezuelan law-enforcement under the Chavez administration has a history of harassing the Jewish population as part of its inter-imperialist rivalry against Israel. (For example the Caracas school in 2004) The horrible atrocities committed against the Palestinian people by Israeli imperialists in no way justifies the harassment of Jews by the Venezuelan state. Again you make it sound as if Venezuela was Nazi Germany, with jews getting cornered and beaten everyday by fascist chavistas or something. Fact: one raid to the school in 2004, another to a club in 2007, nothing else.

Apparently the cops were searching for hidden weapons or such, a wrong lead perhaps. In 2004 there was a guy in Miami giving orders on live TV to assassinate Chavez, preferably by an Israeli commando; it seems this was the reason they decided to investigate. But searching a school or a club, and not detaining anyone, could hardly be considered "harassing". And in fact, I'm sure you won't like stuff like this: Chavez To Talk With Jewish Leaders In Venezuela (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/ap/latinamerica/main6847272.shtml)

Ok, blame it on Castro if you like, but as far as i know, Chavez has always respected and appreciated the jews the same as everyone else. It is the Zionist political movement he (and we) have issues with, not judaism or any other religion/race in particular. We have class struggle, not racial, not religious, just social class, and even that is not absolute, as some of the upper classes are willing to join the worker's cause and leave the class society behind.

Smashing capitalism is now a permanent part of Chavez speeches, just hours ago he proclaimed: "Damn capitalism! It must be destroyed!", and such. Perhaps if you cared to explain him and the people the way to do it, and less attack everything and everyone, some progress could be achieved.

The way i see it some Anarchists have a very hard time transmitting their message, and all the people see is guys hating and destroying everything for no particular reason, even when there is a valid and legitimate ideology behind it. And you seem to be a typical example of this.

[Barry Lyndon]

Barry Lyndon: While I think omnia comparing Chavez with Integralism (a brazilian school of fascism) is absurd and ignores the material role of respective movements, your response is just lame strawmanning.

Its just lame strawmanning to demonstrate that he is parroting Colombian government falsehoods?
I know you hate Chavez and hate the Bolivarian revolution, and you have long since made up your mind to do so, but can't you see what an obvious hack Omnia Sunt Communia is? Or do fellow ultra-lefts have to be sided with at all costs?

[Crux]

Its just lame strawmanning to demonstrate that he is parroting Colombian government falsehoods?
I know you hate Chavez and hate the Bolivarian revolution, and you have long since made up your mind to do so, but can't you see what an obvious hack Omnia Sunt Communia is? Or do fellow ultra-lefts have to be sided with at all costs?
Straw man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strawman&redirect=no))
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#p-search)
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28disambiguation%29).
"Man of straw" redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Untertan).
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0) To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-files-1)
Contents

[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#)]


1 Origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Origin)
2 Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Reasoning)
3 Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Example)
4 Debating around a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Debating_around_a_straw_man)
5 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#See_also)
6 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#References)
7 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#External_links)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straw_man&action=edit&section=1)] Origin

The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology) given is that it originated with men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness, but it is unlikely that individuals would publicly declare their willingness to commit a crime outside a courthouse.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-idioms-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-brewer-3) Another more popular origin is a human figure made of straw, such as practice dummies used in military training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28dummy%29). Such a dummy is supposed to represent the enemy, but it is considerably easier to attack because it neither moves, nor fights back.
In the UK, the adversary is sometimes called Aunt Sally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally), with reference to a traditional fairground game.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straw_man&action=edit&section=2)] Reasoning

The straw man fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) occurs in the following pattern of argument:


Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0)
Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy) and quote mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-files-1)
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0)
Inventing a fictitious persona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona) with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.


Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straw_man&action=edit&section=3)] Example

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition) debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer).Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification. The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, ie, "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#cite_note-book-0)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straw_man&action=edit&section=4)] Debating around a straw man

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png
This section may contain original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Please improve it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straw_man&action=edit) by verifying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) the claims made and adding references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References). Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Straw_man). (August 2010) Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup in a debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate):


Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself. (Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).
Clarifying the original theory. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man. In the example above, such a response might be: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants.
Questioning the disputation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why can't the man (Chavez) and his revolution ever be enough for ultra left ideologues and anarchists? Here is man who is an admitted Trostskyite and uses phrases like "State Capitalism", is encouraging the development of worker owned enterprises, chides bureaucracy, insists that he does not want to duplicate the Soviet Model, and allows for freedom of speech on a level that most other heads of state would not allow.

Yet, he cannot win when it comes to ultra lefts and anarchists. Yes, there are problems with his administration, too much talk against bureaucracy but not much action, allowing bourgeoisie to still flourish and operate, etc.

The man has literally tip toed all over the place to not upset the international bourgeoisie, the imperialist North, and avoid media scrutiny for attempting to set up another "Leninist" hell hole. This is the whole reason for why there are complaints, real complaints I may add, from leftists; because he has been waiting too long to finally cut off the bourgeoisie from the economy.

There are great things happening in Venezuela and bad things happening as well, but overall the situation looks promising for any leftist to support.

[Barry Lyndon]

The man has literally tip toed all over the place to not upset the international bourgeoisie, the imperialist North, and avoid media scrutiny for attempting to set up another "Leninist" hell hole.

I wouldn't say he has exactly 'tip-toed'- the nationalizations and expropriations of major industries and banks, land reform, and the workers militias have been pretty aggressive attacks on the capitalist's power-base. Moreover, the 2002 coup de tat, the 2003 oil strike, the multiple assassination plots against Chavez and the recent construction of new US military bases in Colombia near the border with Venezuela indicates that he is seen as a serious threat by the capitalist class in both Caracas and Wall Street.

But I do agree with you that he has gone to great lengths to show that he is 'democratic' to the West and has been remarkably lenient on the right-wing opposition(which doesnt work, because he's called dictator anyway no matter what he does). This is a huge problem because he effectively allows a fifth column to operate within the country, which would prove disastrous if Colombia decided to attack at Washington's behest.
Eventually, the decision must be made to destroy the power of the capitalist class entirely, and the time to decide may not be of the PSUV's choosing.

[Crux]

Why can't the man (Chavez) and his revolution ever be enough for ultra left ideologues and anarchists? Here is man who is an admitted Trostskyite and uses phrases like "State Capitalism", is encouraging the development of worker owned enterprises, chides bureaucracy, insists that he does not want to duplicate the Soviet Model, and allows for freedom of speech on a level that most other heads of state would not allow.

Yet, he cannot win when it comes to ultra lefts and anarchists. Yes, there are problems with his administration, too much talk against bureaucracy but not much action, allowing bourgeoisie to still flourish and operate, etc.

The man has literally tip toed all over the place to not upset the international bourgeoisie, the imperialist North, and avoid media scrutiny for attempting to set up another "Leninist" hell hole. This is the whole reason for why there are complaints, real complaints I may add, from leftists; because he has been waiting too long to finally cut off the bourgeoisie from the economy.

There are great things happening in Venezuela and bad things happening as well, but overall the situation looks promising for any leftist to support.
What specifically are you arguing against? I think I have been quite plain in my posts. Also, maybe you should read my previous post. Maybe this isn't directed against me, but if it is against Omnia Sunt Communia's points you should argue against them specifically. As I stated, I think he's comparison between Chavez and integralism is wrong and absurd, because Chavez, while vacillating, is hardly the last line of defence of capital, as fascism is.

[RadioRaheem84]

It was more against all the threads ever made trying to defame the Bolivarian Revolution in the sense that it's a sham. It's not and real gain have been made and trying to be made by the workers.

[KC]

It was more against all the threads ever made trying to defame the Bolivarian Revolution in the sense that it's a sham. It's not and real gain have been made and trying to be made by the workers.

I think the more important question is regarding the role that the PSUV, Chavez and the "Bolivarian" state play in this movement. I don't think you will find many that will deny there is a real grassroots movement in Venezuela; positions towards the aforementioned subjects are merely what is up for debate.

[Crux]

It was more against all the threads ever made trying to defame the Bolivarian Revolution in the sense that it's a sham. It's not and real gain have been made and trying to be made by the workers.
Are you implying the OP in this thread is "defaming" the bolivarian revolution?

[Yehuda Stern]

Workers in Venezuela have made some gains, but always by pressuring the Chavez government. We're talking about a bourgeois politician who found out in 2002 that socialism makes good rhetoric, but instead of trying to smash capitalism in Venezuela, he is keeping it alive and demands the workers to keep making sacrifices, while they are the ones persecuted and murdered by the state's armed forces. What leader of the 2002 coup has been punished for his violence against the working class so far? All this hogwash about "socialism" and "gains" is just a lame attempt to justify tailing Chavez.

[Crux]

Workers in Venezuela have made some gains, but always by pressuring the Chavez government. [...] All this hogwash about "socialism" and "gains" is just a lame attempt to justify tailing Chavez.
You're contradicting yourself.

[Barry Lyndon]

Workers in Venezuela have made some gains, but always by pressuring the Chavez government. We're talking about a bourgeois politician who found out in 2002 that socialism makes good rhetoric, but instead of trying to smash capitalism in Venezuela, he is keeping it alive and demands the workers to keep making sacrifices, while they are the ones persecuted and murdered by the state's armed forces. What leader of the 2002 coup has been punished for his violence against the working class so far? All this hogwash about "socialism" and "gains" is just a lame attempt to justify tailing Chavez.

Your organization is so ultra-sectarian it won't even work with the PFLP, yet 'critically supports' Hamas. If that's your political judgement with regards to the region of the world you reside in, then why should I care at all what you have to say about Venezuela?

And the right-wing has been punished on a number of occasions for violence against workers. Recently 15 cops were sentenced to prison for killing two unionists at a Mitsubishi plant.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5561

One would be hard pressed to find such examples elsewhere in the Third World(or the First), where police routinely abuse and kill workers and the poor without any punishment.

[vyborg]

are these guys still in prisons? does the state formalised the accusation? did someone called these guys to know how the government is treating them in prison?

[Yehuda Stern]

Majakovskij, that workers have made some gains doesn't mean that left groups don't try to use this gain to justify tailing Chavez. We're for gains and for reforms, but that doesn't mean that if a reformist politician passes a reform we'll use that as an excuse to support him politically.

Barry Lyndon, you don't have to care for what I have to say, but at least don't try to pretend that you understand the difference between support for a military struggle and political support. Or that you understand what sectarianism is, for that matter: it's not the same as having principles.

[Crux]

Yehuda: The contradiction lies in you claiming that stating support for the gains means "tailing" Chavez. It does not, as yourself state just in the beggining of that post. You're position seems rather muddled, to be honest.

Vyborg: as the article says: "All organisations contacted were put on alert and vigilantly monitored the situation, which ended with the 8 comrades being freed, after their details were recorded, with no justification given." This is also the last I've heard.

[Q]

Yehuda: The contradiction lies in you claiming that stating support for the gains means "tailing" Chavez. It does not, as yourself state just in the beggining of that post. You're position seems rather muddled, to be honest.
His formulation may not have been very clear, but I think Yehuda (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) was talking first about the working class pressuring Chavez to force concessions and in his last sentence about the pro-Chavez revolutionary left. If this is the case, his post makes perfect sense to me.

Let me take the liberty to rephrase his post:



Workers in Venezuela have made some gains, but always by pressuring the Chavez government [as a mass movement]. We're talking about a bourgeois politician who found out in 2002 that socialism makes good rhetoric, but instead of trying to smash capitalism in Venezuela, he is keeping it alive and demands the workers to keep making sacrifices, while they are the ones persecuted and murdered by the state's armed forces. What leader of the 2002 coup has been punished for his violence against the working class so far? All this hogwash [from the pro-Chavez revolutionaries] about "socialism" and "gains" is just a lame attempt to justify tailing Chavez.

In this case, he is just stating that the working class has a more correct understanding (be it on an instictive and spontanic level) of the Chavez government than the pro-Chavez revolutionary left.

[Queercommie Girl]

One shouldn't just make a random accusation of the CWI being funded by the US. This is a very serious accusation and cannot be considered lightly at all, nor can it just be pinned on anyone without some kind of concrete evidence, which is completely lacking in this case.

[Barry Lyndon]

Barry Lyndon, you don't have to care for what I have to say, but at least don't try to pretend that you understand the difference between support for a military struggle and political support. Or that you understand what sectarianism is, for that matter: it's not the same as having principles.

Well, I'm sorry, but it's a bullshit concept, a distinction without a difference. Military support is for all intents and purposes political support-if you wish for the military victory of a organization, you also to some degree or another support its politics.

And since you don't have a section in the Gaza Strip, and aren't sending some Trotskyist brigade to Gaza to fight alongside Hamas, what your reduced to is spreading propaganda that leftists should verbally support Hamas, while trashing the PFLP because their allegedly 'Stalinist'.

You support Islamic fundamentalists and then you have the nerve to attack Chavez because he not a 'true leftist'(translation: not a member of your tiny Trotskyist cell).

'Having principles'? What is principled about splintering the left over stupid academic historical questions such as whether the Soviet Union was 'state-capitalist' or a 'degenerated workers state', something virtually no workers in the real world give a shit about?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I'm sorry, but it's a bullshit concept, a distinction without a difference. Military support is for all intents and purposes political support-if you wish for the military victory of a organization, you also to some degree or another support its politics.

And since you don't have a section in the Gaza Strip, and aren't sending some Trotskyist brigade to Gaza to fight alongside Hamas, what your reduced to is spreading propaganda that leftists should verbally support Hamas, while trashing the PFLP because their allegedly 'Stalinist'.

You support Islamic fundamentalists and then you have the nerve to attack Chavez because he not a 'true leftist'(translation: not a member of your tiny Trotskyist cell).

'Having principles'? What is principled about splintering the left over stupid academic historical questions such as whether the Soviet Union was 'state-capitalist' or a 'degenerated workers state', something virtually no workers in the real world give a shit about?

Although Chavez certainly has a lot of problems (for one thing he doesn't break with capitalism enough, some say Mao was too lenient on the "national capitalists" of China in the early 50s, but Chavez is far more cozier to them in comparison), anyone who thinks the terrorist Hamas who likes to blow up innocent proletarian civilians is more "socialist" than Chavez is clearly out of his/her fucking mind.

Just like I'd much rather co-operate with Tony Benn than with Hamas, I'd also much rather co-operate with Chavez than with Hamas.

[Artemis3]

You support Islamic fundamentalists and then you have the nerve to attack Chavez because he not a 'true leftist'(translation: not a member of your tiny Trotskyist cell).

And yet, here is another fact: Chavez is well respected and appreciated in the Arab region:

http://radioislam.org/eng/gaza2_fichiers/gaza5151.jpg
http://radioislam.org/eng/gaza2_fichiers/gaza5389.jpg
http://radioislam.org/eng/gaza2_fichiers/gaza5147.jpg
http://radioislam.org/eng/gaza2_fichiers/gaza5358.jpg
http://observers.france24.com/files/images/Sanaa_Chavez.jpg
http://observers.france24.com/files/images/Picture%20041.jpg

Not to mention http://www.marxist.com/venezuela/ but i guess Alan Woods is not a true Trotskyist or something, and Chavez is no different than Obama, blah blah blah.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Alanwoodsconhugochavez.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow. That is awesome. I had no idea he was that popular in the Arab world, at least among comrades! Good to know. :thumbup1:

[Queercommie Girl]

Not all instances of political movements in the Islamic world are automatically progressive or even partially progressive.

National liberation is not the central element in Marxism, class struggle is. Certain sections of Islamic politics are more representative of national bourgeois interests than real working class interests.

Generally speaking, I'd still prefer to side with Western proletarians than national capitalists in the Third World. The class line is the over-riding factor in almost everything.

As for Chavez, my criticism of him isn't the same as the standard Trotskyist critique, but he needs to hit the capitalists harder and move more to the left economically.

[RadioRaheem84]

I assumed those pics were off socialist rallies.

[Crux]

I assumed those pics were off socialist rallies.
Why? It is true Chavez is popular in the middle east, though.

[Devrim]

Why? It is true Chavez is popular in the middle east, though.

Erdoğan is 'popular' in Palestine too. I have seen pictures of demonstrations on TV with people with his portrait. I even saw one with David Cameron after he made a few 'anti-Israel' remarks last month. It doesn't really say much.

Devrim

[BrazilianTrotskyist]

I really thought that it was not necessary to discuss solidarity with socialist militants in this forum...
Anyway I am suprised to know that so many people knows about the integralism in Brazil. They still exist here... but are very rare and small. And no, Chavez is not an Integralist!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although Chavez certainly has a lot of problems (for one thing he doesn't break with capitalism enough, some say Mao was too lenient on the "national capitalists" of China in the early 50s, but Chavez is far more cozier to them in comparison)

Are you sure? At least rhetorically speaking, Chavez doesn't like the "national bourgeoisie" at all, and has called for their overthrow if physical harm comes to him.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are you sure? At least rhetorically speaking, Chavez doesn't like the "national bourgeoisie" at all, and has called for their overthrow if physical harm comes to him.

Who cares about rhetorics?

Fact is, he hasn't nationalised enough of the economy. I don't see why he can't just force every single capitalist out in a single day and nationalise the entire economy of the country.

[Q]

Who cares about rhetorics?

Fact is, he hasn't nationalised enough of the economy. I don't see why he can't just force every single capitalist out in a single day and nationalise the entire economy of the country.

This raises a fundamental question: What is the character of the socialist revolution?

I don't think that nationalising x percent (whether that is 20% or 100%) of the economy has any relevance to the question of moving towards a transitionary phase towards communism. Such views would put Burma, Egypt (during Nasser), Lybia and many other third world dictatorships on the road of "socialism", a fundamentally wrong view. Such schema's from above rather disable the working class to take matters into their own hands, which is in my view a fundamental part of the socialist revolution: the self-liberation and self-emancipation of the working class.

This is why I think the CWI is correct to pose Chavez as a leftwing-populist, rather than a socialist. It can only be the Venezuelan masses that can complete the Bolivarian revolution in a socialist conclusion.

[Queercommie Girl]

This raises a fundamental question: What is the character of the socialist revolution?

I don't think that nationalising x percent (whether that is 20% or 100%) of the economy has any relevance to the question of moving towards a transitionary phase towards communism. Such schema's from above rather disable the working class to take matters into their own hands, which is in my view a fundamental part of the socialist revolution: the self-liberation and self-emancipation of the working class.

This is why I think the CWI is correct to pose Chavez as a leftwing-populist, rather than a socialist. It can only be the Venezuelan masses that can complete the Bolivarian revolution in a socialist conclusion.

Nationalisation without worker's direct control isn't as good as nationalisation with worker's control, true, but this doesn't change the fact that complete nationalisation is better than partial nationalisation. This is why the CWI in the past critically supported nationalisation schemes proposed by the Labour Party left in the UK.

Are you saying that you'd rather stand on the side of the capitalists against wholesale nationalisation by Chavez in the name of "freedom"? That would be the wrong line to take. Economic base is primary relative to political superstructure.

[OriginalGumby]

Populist, yes. But you're completely disregarding the contradiction between the populist movement in Venezuela & the populist movement in the US. The majority of American's are reactionary, while the majority of Venezuelan's are not, & rather engage in socialist politics. So please don't be a troll & make baseless comments such as the one you made above.

Actually it is not true that the majority of American's are reactionary.
http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/07/right-wing-country
Most people are still on the left end of basically every social issue. The situation with the Tea Party and the Republicans poised for victory has more to do with the lack of enthusiasm for the Dems from their base because they have not delivered on those progressive reforms they ran on. Also the media is fond of exaggerating the right wing events. Check out the comparison of coverage of the US Social Forum and the Tea Party conference http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4143

It is true however that in the economic crisis the rightwing ideas can gain a following so we need to confront them and build the left and the socialist movement. http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/01/the-right-calling-the-shots

[Q]

Are you saying that you'd rather stand on the side of the capitalists against wholesale nationalisation by Chavez in the name of "freedom"? That would be the wrong line to take. Economic base is primary relative to political superstructure.

This is not what I said nor implied. I am saying that workers' own action is vital if any revolution is to succeed in a socialist positive outcome. In the last analysis nationalisation helps along the way, but does not bring socialism. For socialism to begin, the working class has to take political power first and this is a conscious act of the class.

I'm not saying Chavez has done no good. Undoubtedly the PSUV represents a major step forward in building a class party which in turn is a vital instrument of building working class political awareness. Chavez however, despite his progressive politics, cannot bring socialism.

[Barry Lyndon]

This raises a fundamental question: What is the character of the socialist revolution?

I don't think that nationalising x percent (whether that is 20% or 100%) of the economy has any relevance to the question of moving towards a transitionary phase towards communism. Such views would put Burma, Egypt (during Nasser), Lybia and many other third world dictatorships on the road of "socialism", a fundamentally wrong view. Such schema's from above rather disable the working class to take matters into their own hands, which is in my view a fundamental part of the socialist revolution: the self-liberation and self-emancipation of the working class.

This is why I think the CWI is correct to pose Chavez as a leftwing-populist, rather than a socialist. It can only be the Venezuelan masses that can complete the Bolivarian revolution in a socialist conclusion.

You forget that unlike Nasser, or Qaddafi, or Peron for that matter, the nationalizations have been accompanied by the creation of factories under workers management, community councils in the barrios, and workers and peasants militias to defend the organs of workers power.
If you choose to only compare one aspect of Venezuela, then you are misrepresenting the whole process.

[Q]

You forget that unlike Nasser, or Qaddafi, or Peron for that matter, the nationalizations have been accompanied by the creation of factories under workers management, community councils in the barrios, and workers and peasants militias to defend the organs of workers power.
If you choose to only compare one aspect of Venezuela, then you are misrepresenting the whole process.

In that post I was replying specifically to Iseul's post in which he said that "[Chavez] hasn't nationalised enough of the economy. I don't see why he can't just force every single capitalist out in a single day and nationalise the entire economy of the country". I emphasised the need for workers own action and in this I do welcome the forms of workers' control that exist in Venezuela (although in a limited form and subservient to the existing state) and accept this as a progressive feature that distinguishes Chavez from Nasser, et al.

[Rafiq]

Although Chavez certainly has a lot of problems (for one thing he doesn't break with capitalism enough, some say Mao was too lenient on the "national capitalists" of China in the early 50s, but Chavez is far more cozier to them in comparison), anyone who thinks the terrorist Hamas who likes to blow up innocent proletarian civilians is more "socialist" than Chavez is clearly out of his/her fucking mind.

Just like I'd much rather co-operate with Tony Benn than with Hamas, I'd also much rather co-operate with Chavez than with Hamas.


Think what you want about Hamas, but they are NOT terrorists in any way. Hamas are not terrorists, although you may have huge disagreements that's one thing, but to call them terrorists is just ridiculous.

[Rafiq]

Erdoğan is 'popular' in Palestine too. I have seen pictures of demonstrations on TV with people with his portrait. I even saw one with David Cameron after he made a few 'anti-Israel' remarks last month. It doesn't really say much.

Devrim


Well you can tell because I know many people who hang Chavez pictures in their own houses...

Chavez is extremely popular throughout the arab world, more than James Cameron or Erdogan.

[Queercommie Girl]

Think what you want about Hamas, but they are NOT terrorists in any way. Hamas are not terrorists, although you may have huge disagreements that's one thing, but to call them terrorists is just ridiculous.

If they killed any innocent Israeli proletarians, then that's "terrorist" in my dictionary.

Just like the so-called "Eastern Turkestan" pro-independence activists in China's Xinjiang region are also terrorists because they killed innocent Han Chinese proletarians living in the region. That makes them reactionary.

I don't support national rights unconditionally. I think people have the right to migrate to wherever they wish, be it Israeli workers to Palestine or Han workers to Xinjiang. Racism and oppression is caused by capitalism and socio-economic inequality, not by workers of different nationalities migrating to various regions. The fact that pro-independence movements like Hamas and the ones in Eastern Turkestan prefer to ally with their own national bourgeois rather than Israeli and Han Chinese workers is also clearly a wrong policy from a Marxist perspective.

Bottom line is: One does not just go around killing workers from other ethnicities in the name of "national independence", and still expect to be treated as "progressive".

[Rafiq]

If they killed any innocent Israeli proletarians, then that's "terrorist" in my dictionary.

Just like the so-called "Eastern Turkestan" pro-independence activists in China's Xinjiang region are also terrorists because they killed innocent Han Chinese proletarians living in the region. That makes them reactionary.

I don't support national rights unconditionally. I think people have the right to migrate to wherever they wish, be it Israeli workers to Palestine or Han workers to Xinjiang. Racism and oppression is caused by capitalism and socio-economic inequality, not by workers of different nationalities migrating to various regions. The fact that pro-independence movements like Hamas and the ones in Eastern Turkestan prefer to ally with their own national bourgeois rather than Israeli and Han Chinese workers is also clearly a wrong policy from a Marxist perspective.

Bottom line is: One does not just go around killing workers from other ethnicities in the name of "national independence", and still expect to be treated as "progressive".




What the hell is wrong with you? How many Israelis were killed by Hamas? Little to none!

Israel goes into Gaza, starts a blood bath, and what are the Palestinians going to do, launch roses into Israel?

No, they are going to retaliate against them!


Surely you believe people have the right to resist against Imperialists, especially Israeli Fascists!



Were the Partisans in WWII Terrorists? Were the Jewish, Albanian, French ect. Partisans Terrorists resisting Nazi rule, because they may have launched a few rockets?

Or do you think that Israeli's are somewhat racially superior, that if they murder thousands of Palestinians, but one Israeli dies, the Palestinians are terrorists?

Disgusting.

[Rafiq]

If they killed any innocent Israeli proletarians, then that's "terrorist" in my dictionary.

Just like the so-called "Eastern Turkestan" pro-independence activists in China's Xinjiang region are also terrorists because they killed innocent Han Chinese proletarians living in the region. That makes them reactionary.

I don't support national rights unconditionally. I think people have the right to migrate to wherever they wish, be it Israeli workers to Palestine or Han workers to Xinjiang. Racism and oppression is caused by capitalism and socio-economic inequality, not by workers of different nationalities migrating to various regions. The fact that pro-independence movements like Hamas and the ones in Eastern Turkestan prefer to ally with their own national bourgeois rather than Israeli and Han Chinese workers is also clearly a wrong policy from a Marxist perspective.

Bottom line is: One does not just go around killing workers from other ethnicities in the name of "national independence", and still expect to be treated as "progressive".



As if the Palestinians were launching rockets to kill workers.. Pathetic.


The rockets being fired weren't damaging Proletariant, but Israeli Bourgeoisie

[Queercommie Girl]

What the hell is wrong with you? How many Israelis were killed by Hamas? Little to none!

Israel goes into Gaza, starts a blood bath, and what are the Palestinians going to do, launch roses into Israel?

No, they are going to retaliate against them!


Surely you believe people have the right to resist against Imperialists, especially Israeli Fascists!



Were the Partisans in WWII Terrorists? Were the Jewish, Albanian, French ect. Partisans Terrorists resisting Nazi rule, because they may have launched a few rockets?

Or do you think that Israeli's are somewhat racially superior, that if they murder thousands of Palestinians, but one Israeli dies, the Palestinians are terrorists?

Disgusting.

Do you deny that innocent Israeli workers have been killed?

Obviously I am not apologising for imperialism but Marxism does not believe terrorist actions that target civilians would be productive at all. In fact, objectively they would only make things worse.

What is lacking is a political movement that attempts to genuinely unite workers from both nationalities against capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

As if the Palestinians were launching rockets to kill workers.. Pathetic.


The rockets being fired weren't damaging Proletariant, but Israeli Bourgeoisie

I haven't heard of any big Israeli capitalists being killed, just innocent Israeli men, women and children.

They haven't even done what the 9-11 terrorists tried when they directly went for the Pentagon.

Speak to me again when those big reactionary right-wing politicians in the Israeli government are assassinated.

[Rafiq]

Do you deny that innocent Israeli workers have been killed?

Obviously I am not apologising for imperialism but Marxism does not believe terrorist actions that target civilians would be productive at all. In fact, objectively they would only make things worse.

What is lacking is a political movement that attempts to genuinely unite workers from both nationalities against capitalism.


Israel doesn't have the right to exist, so your Nationality Idea fails.

But that doesn't mean Jews cannot join the Palestinians to fight against the Fascist Israelis.

And yes, I do deny that innocent workers were killed by Hamas Rockets...

So?

[Rafiq]

I haven't heard of any big Israeli capitalists being killed, just innocent Israeli men, women and children.

They haven't even done what the 9-11 terrorists tried when they directly went for the Pentagon.

Speak to me again when those big reactionary right-wing politicians in the Israeli government are assassinated.


Their have been several attempts to assasinate and blow them up.

And, under your definition, isn't Israel 1000% times more of a Terrorist than Hamas?

At least Hamas aims for Israeli Soldiers, Israelis just Knock on the doors of Palestinian homes, Line up the family, kill the father in front of them, and have Israeli snipers kill the children (When wanting to).

Israel put up a holocaust in Gaza, killing anything that moves.

It isn't very wise to talk about the few Israeli's killed..

It's like talking about the German civilians killed by the Partisans.. It isn't wise.

[chegitz guevara]

Who cares about rhetorics?

Fact is, he hasn't nationalised enough of the economy. I don't see why he can't just force every single capitalist out in a single day and nationalise the entire economy of the country.

Nationalizing the economy overnight hasn't worked out very well for us historically speaking. When Lenin wrote about it, he seemed to indicate it was a process that needed to take years, possibly even decades to complete. War communism was a necessity in order to fight the civil war, but once that was over, he agued they needed to roll back to state controlled capitalism, i.e., the NEP.

Workers simply do not have the experience to take control of the economy overnight, and need to go through a period of learning and culturalization in order to abolish the role of the capitalist. Every time the economy was nationalized rapidly, the result was economic disaster.

THis is not to say Chavez is deliberately moving slowly to try another way. I think he realizes he's too weak to force things quickly. So what we have is an experiment in Venezuela with a different method. Let's see what happens, since no one's done it before.

[Queercommie Girl]

Nationalizing the economy overnight hasn't worked out very well for us historically speaking. When Lenin wrote about it, he seemed to indicate it was a process that needed to take years, possibly even decades to complete. War communism was a necessity in order to fight the civil war, but once that was over, he agued they needed to roll back to state controlled capitalism, i.e., the NEP.

Workers simply do not have the experience to take control of the economy overnight, and need to go through a period of learning and culturalization in order to abolish the role of the capitalist. Every time the economy was nationalized rapidly, the result was economic disaster.

THis is not to say Chavez is deliberately moving slowly to try another way. I think he realizes he's too weak to force things quickly. So what we have is an experiment in Venezuela with a different method. Let's see what happens, since no one's done it before.

Lenin had to introduce the NEP out of the economic necessity in the post-Civil War era. Venezuela today is not in a war, I don't think the situation in Venezuela today is that desperate.

I am somewhat concerned by the fact that the private sector in Venezuela is still more significant than say during the early 1950s in China under Mao.

[chegitz guevara]

If there had been no civil war, there would have been no war communism, and thus no need to "return" to capitalism. Rapid nationalization was not Lenin's plan.

I'm not so concerned by the amount of the private sector in Venezuela. China had a revolution, which broken the back of the capitalists politically. There has been no revolution in Venezuela ... though the popular reversal of the 2002 coup could be considered a revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

Israel doesn't have the right to exist,


Shouldn't Israeli workers have a say in that too?



But that doesn't mean Jews cannot join the Palestinians to fight against the Fascist Israelis.
I agree, but in practice there lacks a united Jews-Palestinians movement at the moment.



And yes, I do deny that innocent workers were killed by Hamas Rockets...

So?
You are not being objective. Don't let anti-imperialist sentiments cloud your judgement.

Also, I'm not happy about the fact that you are mis-representing me: Just because I disagree with any kind of violent action against civilians doesn't mean you can label me as someone who is pro-imperialist.

Just out of interest, what is your opinion of the "East Turkestan" independence movement? Do you see any kind of parallel between China-East Turkestan and Isreal-Palestine? If not, what do you think the difference is?

[Queercommie Girl]

If there had been no civil war, there would have been no war communism, and thus no need to "return" to capitalism. Rapid nationalization was not Lenin's plan.

I'm not so concerned by the amount of the private sector in Venezuela. China had a revolution, which broken the back of the capitalists politically. There has been no revolution in Venezuela ... though the popular reversal of the 2002 coup could be considered a revolution.

Yes. That is the problem.

[RedTrackWorker]

Well, I'm sorry, but it's a bullshit concept, a distinction without a difference. Military support is for all intents and purposes political support-if you wish for the military victory of a organization, you also to some degree or another support its politics.

And since you don't have a section in the Gaza Strip, and aren't sending some Trotskyist brigade to Gaza to fight alongside Hamas, what your reduced to is spreading propaganda that leftists should verbally support Hamas, while trashing the PFLP because their allegedly 'Stalinist'.

You support Islamic fundamentalists and then you have the nerve to attack Chavez because he not a 'true leftist'(translation: not a member of your tiny Trotskyist cell).

'Having principles'? What is principled about splintering the left over stupid academic historical questions such as whether the Soviet Union was 'state-capitalist' or a 'degenerated workers state', something virtually no workers in the real world give a shit about?

Barry Lyndon would make Yehuda out to be a sectarian nitpicker who supports reactionary Hamas but not progressive Chavez, thankfully for Barry, paper will take anything you write on it. But the fact remains that by abstaining from defending Hamas against Fatah's coup he is supporting U.S. and Israeli imperialism which were backing the coup. In other words, it's alright with him, nothing to do about it because they're Islamic fundamentalists, fuck the masses that support them, we'll just stand on the sidelines and criticize rather than winning them from Hamas in a common struggle. Wait, what, Barry standing on the sidelines to academically criticize, no it can't be!

But Chavez, he's not a perfect but so what? Who are we "academics" to criticize? I could defend the shared LRP and ISL position on Chavez with reference to Chavez, but instead I'll refer to Allende. Allende's politics lead to the Chilean workers' struggles being drowned in blood, but up to that point, many leftists were saying just what Barry is saying about Chavez. I for one do not want to take political responsibility for major class defeats--I'll let Barry keep that up himself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Barry Lyndon would make Yehuda out to be a sectarian nitpicker who supports reactionary Hamas but not progressive Chavez, thankfully for Barry, paper will take anything you write on it. But the fact remains that by abstaining from defending Hamas against Fatah's coup he is supporting U.S. and Israeli imperialism which were backing the coup. In other words, it's alright with him, nothing to do about it because they're Islamic fundamentalists, fuck the masses that support them, we'll just stand on the sidelines and criticize rather than winning them from Hamas in a common struggle. Wait, what, Barry standing on the sidelines to academically criticize, no it can't be!


I don't think Yehuda had that in mind though.

And what about the risk of alienating Israeli workers? So just because they are workers from an imperialist nation, does that mean they are somehow "less working class" and less deserving of our support?

[chegitz guevara]

Yes. That is the problem.

It's not like Chavez can make it happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

THis is not to say Chavez is deliberately moving slowly to try another way. I think he realizes he's too weak to force things quickly. So what we have is an experiment in Venezuela with a different method. Let's see what happens, since no one's done it before.

Let's see if he pulls a rabbit out of the late Rudolf Meidner's hat. He really should. :(


Lenin had to introduce the NEP out of the economic necessity in the post-Civil War era.


If there had been no civil war, there would have been no war communism, and thus no need to "return" to capitalism. Rapid nationalization was not Lenin's plan.

There was overenthusiasm about improving economic conditions through gradual transition. Then the civil war kicked in, and despite the labels "war communism" and "class struggle in the countryside," reality hit the Bolsheviks in their heads like a bullet. When NEP came around, ironically, there was enthusiasm about gradual transition once again, since the financial system and foreign trade remained under state ownership.

[Rafiq]

Shouldn't Israeli workers have a say in that too?

I agree, but in practice there lacks a united Jews-Palestinians movement at the moment.

You are not being objective. Don't let anti-imperialist sentiments cloud your judgement.

Also, I'm not happy about the fact that you are mis-representing me: Just because I disagree with any kind of violent action against civilians doesn't mean you can label me as someone who is pro-imperialist.

Just out of interest, what is your opinion of the "East Turkestan" independence movement? Do you see any kind of parallel between China-East Turkestan and Isreal-Palestine? If not, what do you think the difference is?


The Jews and Palestinians will unite soon. Just look at the Israeli Communist Party.

And Israel has just as much of a right to exist as Nazi Germany did. And I'm sure Israeli workers without the influence of propaganda would agree.

Israel needs a new Government, and perhaps a New name. Palestine? Maybe.

[Barry Lyndon]

The Jews and Palestinians will unite soon. Just look at the Israeli Communist Party.

Wow. You are naive.......

[Jayshin_JTTH]

The Jews and Palestinians will unite soon.
Unite how? The nationalism of the Jews and Palestinians is currently much greater than their class consciousness.

[RedTrackWorker]

I don't think Yehuda had that in mind though.

And what about the risk of alienating Israeli workers? So just because they are workers from an imperialist nation, does that mean they are somehow "less working class" and less deserving of our support?

I'm not clear what Yehuda didn't have in mind? If you mean he didn't have winning them from Hamas politically--I think you're definitely wrong as that is the whole point of the "military-technical defense" is a tactic to politically defeat one enemy by defending them in an immediate tactical situation from a more immediate enemy (Kornilov and Kerensky, Franco and the Republic, now Fatah/U.S. & Israeli imperialism and Hamas), because really one's not for defending those bourgeois groupings per se but see defending them as part of defending the masses as certain junctions.

As for your question, the point isn't a moral stance that Israeli workers are "less working class" or deserving of support just because formally they're from an imperialist nation. The point is a strategic evaluation of how to bring about the socialist revolution. The shared evaluation of the ISL and LRP is that only an uncomprising commitment to the self-determination of the Palestinian nation and the goal of the destruction of the Zionist imperialist state can lead to workers' socialist revolution there. One does not want to unnecessarily "alienate" Israeli workers--and the ISL and LRP both have some specific criticisms of tactics in the Palestinian solidarity movement that do so, but in general, because of the nature of the imperialist privileges the Israeli working class enjoys, a focus on Palestinian self-determination does "alienate" them just as a necessary focus in the U.S. south on fighting racism alienated and alienates some white workers--while at the same time laying the real foundation for ending their true "alienation" (exploitation).
The privileges of the Israeli working class are tied--more than in almost any other imperialist nation--to the imperialism of its nation. U.S. workers indirectly benefit from the nation's superpower status, whereas an Israeli worker can look down the hill at a refugee camp and now that their house and water and job are all based on "those people" (he's progressive if he considers them people) not having those things.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm not clear what Yehuda didn't have in mind? If you mean he didn't have winning them from Hamas politically--I think you're definitely wrong as that is the whole point of the "military-technical defense" is a tactic to politically defeat one enemy by defending them in an immediate tactical situation from a more immediate enemy (Kornilov and Kerensky, Franco and the Republic, now Fatah/U.S. & Israeli imperialism and Hamas), because really one's not for defending those bourgeois groupings per se but see defending them as part of defending the masses as certain junctions.

As for your question, the point isn't a moral stance that Israeli workers are "less working class" or deserving of support just because formally they're from an imperialist nation. The point is a strategic evaluation of how to bring about the socialist revolution. The shared evaluation of the ISL and LRP is that only an uncomprising commitment to the self-determination of the Palestinian nation and the goal of the destruction of the Zionist imperialist state can lead to workers' socialist revolution there. One does not want to unnecessarily "alienate" Israeli workers--and the ISL and LRP both have some specific criticisms of tactics in the Palestinian solidarity movement that do so, but in general, because of the nature of the imperialist privileges the Israeli working class enjoys, a focus on Palestinian self-determination does "alienate" them just as a necessary focus in the U.S. south on fighting racism alienated and alienates some white workers--while at the same time laying the real foundation for ending their true "alienation" (exploitation).
The privileges of the Israeli working class are tied--more than in almost any other imperialist nation--to the imperialism of its nation. U.S. workers indirectly benefit from the nation's superpower status, whereas an Israeli worker can look down the hill at a refugee camp and now that their house and water and job are all based on "those people" (he's progressive if he considers them people) not having those things.

I actually agree with what you say- the Israeli workers directly benefit from the colonization of the Palestinians, and all talk of 'alienating' them is bunk. I know several people who have been to and lived in Israel-it is one of the most racist societies imaginable.

But why don't you work with and support the PFLP, a secular, revolutionary socialist organization with solid roots in the Palestinian resistance? Why support an organization like Hamas, which even if it were to succeed, would establish a Islamic theocracy, in which leftists, womens rights activists, and trade unionists would be the first to die? Leftists aligning with Islamic fundamentalists has not worked well in the past-look at Iran in 1979.

[Devrim]

But why don't you work with and support the PFLP, a secular, revolutionary socialist organization with solid roots in the Palestinian resistance? Why support an organization like Hamas, which even if it were to succeed, would establish a Islamic theocracy, in which leftists, womens rights activists, and trade unionists would be the first to die? Leftists aligning with Islamic fundamentalists has not worked well in the past-look at Iran in 1979.

I can understand, if not agree with Yehuda's point. The PLFP basically tails HAMAS on a military level, with a bit of added left wing rhetoric. If you are going to support Palestinian nationalism, it makes as much sense to support the organ grinder as the monkey.

Devrim

[RedTrackWorker]

But why don't you work with and support the PFLP, a secular, revolutionary socialist organization with solid roots in the Palestinian resistance? Why support an organization like Hamas, which even if it were to succeed, would establish a Islamic theocracy, in which leftists, womens rights activists, and trade unionists would be the first to die? Leftists aligning with Islamic fundamentalists has not worked well in the past-look at Iran in 1979.

1. We don't support Hamas! We call for defending Hamas from U.S. and Iraeli imperialism-backed attacks (via the Palestinian Authority). You know U.S. generals are training PA forces right? You know the U.S. orchestrated the coup against the elected Hamas government right?

2. Yehuda would have to take up the detailed arguments about the PFLP. I can say this: the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, which are one of those classic great betrayals like the Good Friday Accords in Ireland, and in 1993, it was accepted by Isreal as the official representative of the Palestinians. And the PFLP criticizes this stuff (not sure how much though?) but criticizes it as a "loyal opposition" which means shared responsibility for what the majority of the PLO does. See now it is "suspending" working on the PLO executive.
But the main point is that they do not have a revolutionary strategy. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything because it's hard for me to be concrete about the PFLP but have you read the LRP and ISL stuff on Palestine and you still think PFLP can lead the needed revolution there?