Is Socialism for the 21st Century merely real Social Democracy?

[RadioRaheem84]

It seems like the more I read about Venezuela and it's efforts to implement socialism, the system looks like real deal old school Social Democracy. First of the Clement Attlee variant, and then coupled with the first Marxist attempts at Social Democracy in the very early period of the twentieth century.

It seems like really a Democratic Socialist revolution, not a Communist one.

I am not knocking it, by all means, I just think that at this point the world has shifted so far to the right, that even a mere Soc Dem/Democratic Socialist revolution looks like a Maoist/Marxist Leninist Communist uprising to the capitalists and leaders of the capitalist world.

I see elements of Clement Attlee, Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende in Chavez and elements of the Second Spanish Republic in the Bolivarian Revolution.

Now as far as I want to know, is this the future of Socialism in the 21st Century?

Has Democratic Socialism itself become a revolutionary force, especially in Latin America?

[Manic Impressive]

I think there is a large distinction between a social democrat and a democratic socialist. Soc Dems don't want an end to capitalism and Dem Socs want and end to capitalism through democratic means, at least that's how I understand it.

But I'm glad you posted this because I've been thinking about this today. Specifically that the tactic of non participation is not working at this time. Political parties that don't participate in their parliamentary systems will never get noticed. Here in the UK the small right wing parties that do well in an election get plenty of media coverage which brings them more members and supporters. Until a few years ago (before I got the internet) I had never heard of a single far left party in the UK. And why would I? they are very rarely covered by the media and as much as we can blame a completely biased media we can't complain too much as we have no public figures to put in the media. Participating in the parliamentary system has it's dangers which lead to corruption and compromise and Soc-Demary but what we are doing now isn't working. A party could even take the line that Sinn Fein took and get elected but not actually take their seats in parliament then when we have people paying attention pull out and say "screw your bourgeois parliament" and state the reasons why. At least that way people would know they exist, waiting in the political black hole of non participation while honourable does nothing to progress the movement. People are used to democratic parliamentary systems, it is the status quo unfortunately the only way to change the status quo quickly is to infiltrate it and fuck it up from the inside.

The most important thing is for the workers to seize the means of production by any means necessary. If that means democratically without beheading people that's just something we're going to have to live with :(

sorry for the rambling nature of this post

[RadioRaheem84]

Comrade, I really think that the Chavistas have opened up an avenue for at least a 'revolutionary' style Democratic Socialism to take hold in other nations. It's not as militant as I would have wanted it to be but at the moment in this particular age of historical development, Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution seems like the best example so far with how to deal with the sharp as hell turn to the right the world has taken.

A real deal Soc Dem/Democratic Socialist like Chavez is seen as the second coming of Lenin for some reason. But that is how vastly far right the idiots in the media and the bourgeois world has become.

They thought it finally did away with this specter of socialism and here comes Chavez ready to throw it back in their face. It may not be Marxist-Leninism to the core but it's enough to piss off the establishments of the world.

I think movements like these could be the next stage in our development.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think the situation in Venezuela is so black and white.

The problem is that within the Chavista movement, there seems to be everyone from right-Soc Dems to bona fide Communists. Chavez himself seems to be somewhere in between, walking a tight rope between moderate state ownership and all out workers' control of the means of production.

I guess the result is something which is quite unique. It's certainly to the right of what Lord Attlee did here in the UK, i'm absolutely sure of that. Having said that it's clearly not a revolution that is being led from the front with a Marxist-Leninist spirit, but then, not all of us are Leninists so that doesn't really bother me.

The key question - i'm sure i'm not the first person to identify this - is whether the right-wing bureaucrats in the Chavez government or the workers on the ground seize political control. Chavez doesn't seem to want to tilt either way, or if he does want to tilt left then it seems something is holding him back.

For sure, a revolution has begun in Venezuela. I'm not, though, sure whether, with Chavez at it's head, it will ever have a fully Marxian character. Only time will tell, really.

Perhaps people who have a more detailed knowledge of events there (i.e. people who are witnessing events, not just those who want to have their say...!) can come forward and explain what things are like on the ground there, that'd be helpful tbh.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think movements like these could be the next stage in our development.
I don't think there is a need for a generalization of this form of political activity.
In my opinion, the character of the movement in Venezuela is tied up with international events and movements. In other words, I do think there is a good possibility of things really heating up, up to a point of establishing a revolutionary government (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) if there were to be a strong South American movement. It really all depends on the international complex of power, and if the situation would become better, we may witness a change in this Socialism of the 21st century model - it may very well become a revolutionary movement of the working class and peasant workers establishing their own institutions of class power and rule.

But the question of North America and Europe remains. How would such a series of events (described above) influence the workers' movements in these parts of the world? It is a tough one.
But it seems to me that democratic socialism, as the organizational and programmatic model, can only get us a bit further (by us I mean North American and European proletarians). We all know what happened to social democracy, and there is no reason to believe that this platform could successfully pull of a revolutionary transformation of society. So, in my opinion, real militancy is needed, and something other than democratic socialism, and that something may very well be the supposedly outmoded communism.

[pranabjyoti]

I think there is a large distinction between a social democrat and a democratic socialist. Soc Dems don't want an end to capitalism and Dem Socs want and end to capitalism through democratic means, at least that's how I understand it.

But I'm glad you posted this because I've been thinking about this today. Specifically that the tactic of non participation is not working at this time. Political parties that don't participate in their parliamentary systems will never get noticed. Here in the UK the small right wing parties that do well in an election get plenty of media coverage which brings them more members and supporters. Until a few years ago (before I got the internet) I had never heard of a single far left party in the UK. And why would I? they are very rarely covered by the media and as much as we can blame a completely biased media we can't complain too much as we have no public figures to put in the media. Participating in the parliamentary system has it's dangers which lead to corruption and compromise and Soc-Demary but what we are doing now isn't working. A party could even take the line that Sinn Fein took and get elected but not actually take their seats in parliament then when we have people paying attention pull out and say "screw your bourgeois parliament" and state the reasons why. At least that way people would know they exist, waiting in the political black hole of non participation while honourable does nothing to progress the movement. People are used to democratic parliamentary systems, it is the status quo unfortunately the only way to change the status quo quickly is to infiltrate it and fuck it up from the inside.

The most important thing is for the workers to seize the means of production by any means necessary. If that means democratically without beheading people that's just something we're going to have to live with :(

sorry for the rambling nature of this post
Basically, social democracy or revisionism started from the point that ARMED AND OTHER KIND OF STRUGGLE ISN'T NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT OR SOCIALISM. It can be achieved by taking part in bourgeoisie democratic process and by forming government and thus slowly changing the society from bourgeoisie democracy to socialism. What you have defined in your writing has basically no difference at all. And in my opinion, by denying the need of dictatorship of proletariat and by saying that socialism can be gained by taking part in bourgeoisie democratic process, we are probably giving the both bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie democracy an upper-hand over proletariat and dictatorship of proletariat.

[REDSOX]

21ST century socialism is simply going back to what socialism should have been ie state ownership with workers/farmers/community management, not the caricature of socialism what existed in the USSR, East germany etc. Hugo chavez has said repeatedly that the socialism they are building in Venezuela is not the soviet model ie The bureacratic centralist leviathan model but a grassrooots socialism where ultimately the state owns the vast majority of the means of production but the working class self manage according to a democratic plan drawn up between the state and the workers. The Final ultimate goal if all goes well is to spread the revolution worldwide and eventually do away with money the state etc. The 21st century socialism is not social democracy revamped its socialism without the bureaucratic centralist socialist caricature

[Thirsty Crow]

21ST century socialism is simply going back to what socialism should have been ie state ownership with workers/farmers/community management, not the caricature of socialism what existed in the USSR, East germany etc. Hugo chavez has said repeatedly that the socialism they are building in Venezuela is not the soviet model ie The bureacratic centralist leviathan model but a grassrooots socialism where ultimately the state owns the vast majority of the means of production but the working class self manage according to a democratic plan drawn up between the state and the workers. The Final ultimate goal if all goes well is to spread the revolution worldwide and eventually do away with money the state etc. The 21st century socialism is not social democracy revamped its socialism without the bureaucratic centralist socialist caricature
If the Chavistas think that the socialism they are building will be achieved without at least a continental (South America) revolution, i.e. international building of socialism, they are deluded completely.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's certainly to the right of what Lord Attlee did here in the UK

To the right? You mean Attlee did more?

[TheGeekySocialist]

the best way to look at it is that Social Democracy is the most immediate target for the Left, once this has been acheived, then we can look to go further

[RadioRaheem84]

That is what I am thinking too.

Social Democracy is the immediate goal. Socialism the lasting goal.

The crisis in the late 70s was that when social democracy was introduced in Europe and to some small degree in the States, the people wanted more and knew that things could change for the better.

The establishment did not want that and rolled back the clock.

Under social democracy people know that things could be better and want more. The same way under conservative free market dogmatic governments the upper classes want more.

In Europe there is hardly a soc dem society to really speak of. They've all been reformed to some extent.

[pranabjyoti]

That is what I am thinking too.

Social Democracy is the immediate goal. Socialism the lasting goal.

The crisis in the late 70s was that when social democracy was introduced in Europe and to some small degree in the States, the people wanted more and knew that things could change for the better.

The establishment did not want that and rolled back the clock.

Under social democracy people know that things could be better and want more. The same way under conservative free market dogmatic governments the upper classes want more.

In Europe there is hardly a soc dem society to really speak of. They've all been reformed to some extent.
I want to add some more. If social democracy is our initial goal, then the next should certainly be DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT. Without that, socialism can not be achieved.
More, you all should remember that the Latin American i.e. Venezuelan model can not be EXACTLY applied everywhere in the world. In Latin America, there are countries, where armed resistance and uprising is necessary and no progress without that is possible.

[red cat]

I want to add some more. If social democracy is our initial goal, then the next should certainly be DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT. Without that, socialism can not be achieved.
More, you all should remember that the Latin American i.e. Venezuelan model can not be EXACTLY applied everywhere in the world. In Latin America, there are countries, where armed resistance and uprising is necessary and no progress without that is possible.

Shouldn't social democrats express solidarity towards these armed movements in Latin America or South Asia ?

[RadioRaheem84]

Social Democrats, where? Real Soc Dems died out in the 70s. Most "soc dems" are Third Way positionists now.

Johann Hari described Hugo Chavez as a real deal Soc Dem of the old school variant. He said that this is the main reason why the establishments of the world hate him; because he is actually doing something to help the poor unlike the supposed soc dems and democratic socialists in Europe.

[Nolan]

I've come to the conclusion Chavez is a fascist. You have nationalization, populism, strong nationalism and appeal to historical figures, and scapegoating of foreigners. Venezuela is going down the path of Cuba and North Korea.

[RadioRaheem84]

:rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've come to the conclusion Chavez is a fascist. You have nationalization, populism, strong nationalism and appeal to historical figures, and scapegoating of foreigners. Venezuela is going down the path of Cuba and North Korea.

I wasn't aware that Cuba shared a political heritage with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. Care to back up that vicious claim?

Also, Raheem, I meant that what is happening in Venezuela is far to the left of what Attlee did here, in the sense that Labour nationalisation, price controls etc. of 1945-51 was a great example of Parliamentary Socialism from above. There was no grassroots movement, to the best of my knowledge, that was driving the Attlee government, as there is in Venezuela, where the workers seem to be carrying the Chavistas along with them down the path of workers' democracy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent. So this is even further to the left of what European Social Democracy started.

Even further to the left than Olaf Palme in Sweden?

I still think that movement is very much Democratic Socialist in nature.

[red cat]

I wasn't aware that Cuba shared a political heritage with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. Care to back up that vicious claim?

Also, Raheem, I meant that what is happening in Venezuela is far to the left of what Attlee did here, in the sense that Labour nationalisation, price controls etc. of 1945-51 was a great example of Parliamentary Socialism from above. There was no grassroots movement, to the best of my knowledge, that was driving the Attlee government, as there is in Venezuela, where the workers seem to be carrying the Chavistas along with them down the path of workers' democracy.

Any non-imperialist government, let alone socialist, has to be to the left of the Atlee government. In 1945 Britain was still committing massive atrocities in its direct-colonies.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, I stand corrected.

[chegitz guevara]

I've been thinking about this myself, mulling it over the past several years.

I think, in the end, it doesn't matter whether he's a real social democrat or a revolutionary. What matters are the class forces in Venezuela. Broadly, you have the old capitalist class and land owners, the middle classes and new capitalist class, and the workers and peasants. Chavez' position is something of a Bonapartist. He is only able to remain in power because no one class is powerful enough to defeat the others.

The middle layers need the old ruling class out of the way for their own material development, and so they needed to mobilize the workers, and keep them mobilized, but not so much that they become independent of the middle classes. This group is in the driver's seat of the revolution. Should the workers look like they are going to take control, almost certainly they will leap into the arms of reaction, find an accommodation that works for them with the old ruling classes.

Chavez' politics matter only in as much as he is useful to the middle classes in order to mobilize the proletariat and peasantry to keep the old ruling class down. When he tries to do more, they interfere, via their control of the state or by dealing him an electoral defeat.

[Nolan]

:rolleyes:

Nah he's a left social democrat. He does seem like Peron though.

[RadioRaheem84]

Prachanda has said as much too about Chavez being for the middle class.

What do you guys mean by the idea that he is for the middle class?

[Manic Impressive]

Basically, social democracy or revisionism started from the point that ARMED AND OTHER KIND OF STRUGGLE ISN'T NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT OR SOCIALISM. It can be achieved by taking part in bourgeoisie democratic process and by forming government and thus slowly changing the society from bourgeoisie democracy to socialism. What you have defined in your writing has basically no difference at all. And in my opinion, by denying the need of dictatorship of proletariat and by saying that socialism can be gained by taking part in bourgeoisie democratic process, we are probably giving the both bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie democracy an upper-hand over proletariat and dictatorship of proletariat.

Where did I deny the dictatorship of the proletariat? To me the term means the dictatorship of the whole class. How can this be achieved without direct democracy? Through a small group of elites controlling everything on behalf of everyone else, that's been tried and proven a miserable failure it's also not a million miles away from fascism.

Socialism can be achieved through democracy although this carries a totally different set of potential perils and most likely there would be a an armed conflict through a reactionary counter revolution or possible foreign invasion. It's also a lot slower and has the added dangers of compromise. Compromise is what really kills the revolutionary spirit and transforms democratic socialists into social democrats.

If you live in a country with a few parties all not participating in elections like I do take a look around and ask yourself is this working? Then ask yourself if the majority of the proletariat in your country even if they decided something needed to be done would pick up an AK-47 and fight the army and the police?

It's not working and it's not going to work any time soon.

edit: Obviously different circumstances call for different reactions, in some countries armed revolutions are more possible and more likely but near impossible where I live. If you can't see that then your fantasising.

[pranabjyoti]

Where did I deny the dictatorship of the proletariat? To me the term means the dictatorship of the whole class. How can this be achieved without direct democracy? Through a small group of elites controlling everything on behalf of everyone else, that's been tried and proven a miserable failure it's also not a million miles away from fascism.

Socialism can be achieved through democracy although this carries a totally different set of potential perils and most likely there would be a an armed conflict through a reactionary counter revolution or possible foreign invasion. It's also a lot slower and has the added dangers of compromise. Compromise is what really kills the revolutionary spirit and transforms democratic socialists into social democrats.

If you live in a country with a few parties all not participating in elections like I do take a look around and ask yourself is this working? Then ask yourself if the majority of the proletariat in your country even if they decided something needed to be done would pick up an AK-47 and fight the army and the police?

It's not working and it's not going to work any time soon.

edit: Obviously different circumstances call for different reactions, in some countries armed revolutions are more possible and more likely but near impossible where I live. If you can't see that then your fantasising.
So, as per you, socialism can be achieved by DIRECT DEMOCRACY i.e. present bourgeoisie democracy (at least I don't any worldwide accepted "so-called" democratic model) and also as per you, USSR and PRC under Mao is MISERABLE FAILURE. They have contributed nothing but other than some social system not far from fascism.
Basically, it seems that your idea about USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao originated from imperialist propaganda, which entered deep into your mind. Kindly try to understand that if there was no Stalin, Mao; there can not be any BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION.
Please educate yourself about USSR from after 1917 to 1953 and PRC from 1949 to 1977.
I don't know where you live and you also probably don't know where I live. So, everybody comes to a decision based on his/her own experiences.

[red cat]

Prachanda has said as much too about Chavez being for the middle class.

What do you guys mean by the idea that he is for the middle class?

Usually that is how Maoists politely accuse someone of having non-proletarian politics. :lol:

[Manic Impressive]

So, as per you, socialism can be achieved by DIRECT DEMOCRACY i.e. present bourgeoisie democracy
No direct Democracy is not the current bourgeois democracy :rolleyes:

(at least I don't any worldwide accepted "so-called" democratic model)
I'm sorry I don't understand

and also as per you, USSR and PRC under Mao is MISERABLE FAILURE. They have contributed nothing but other than some social system not far from fascism.
Ah yeah sorry you're right that's why they both achieved communism, right? Fascism has a group of elites controlling everything with little chance of anyone joining them except the next generation of elites. No Democracy = no workers control

Basically, it seems that your idea about USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao originated from imperialist propaganda, which entered deep into your mind. Kindly try to understand that if there was no Stalin, Mao; there can not be any BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION.
Please educate yourself about USSR from after 1917 to 1953 and PRC from 1949 to 1977.
Don't assume anything about me, both movements achieved a lot and helped the people of their country. The ultimate goal of all these movements was to implement communism they have all failed in their application of socialism.

I don't know where you live and you also probably don't know where I live. So, everybody comes to a decision based on his/her own experiences.
This I agree with 100% if you are in Nepal or maybe in India then you have more of a chance at a armed overthrow of the government. I live in the UK possibly the least likely country to have a violent revolution. Firstly proletarian opinion is highly against violent overthrow of government. We have very few arms available for mass distribution due to some of the strictest gun laws in the world guns those which are owned legally are mainly in the hands of the bourgeois who can afford to join gun clubs the rest are in the hands of the lumpen which would mean giving them a leading role in any armed revolution. There are plenty more reasons why it would not work here because the circumstances are not right. Personally I don't want the workers or the far-left movement to wait sitting on their arses arguing amongst themselves on the off chance that society radically evolves until an armed revolution is possible. If revolution here means joining bourgeois democracy and gathering support that way then I'll support it, it's better than waiting for something that may never come.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with everything in Manic's above post aside from the comparison of the systems in the USSR with Fascism. Clearly they were not. They failed in their application of Socialism, for a myriad of reasons. Fascism, however, was not one.

[Thirsty Crow]

The middle layers need the old ruling class out of the way for their own material development, and so they needed to mobilize the workers, and keep them mobilized, but not so much that they become independent of the middle classes. This group is in the driver's seat of the revolution. Should the workers look like they are going to take control, almost certainly they will leap into the arms of reaction, find an accommodation that works for them with the old ruling classes.

Can you elaborate on these middle classes? Do you mean the petite bourgeois or bourgeois?
Could you also write a brief historical overview of the formation of these classes you are talking about?


So, as per you, socialism can be achieved by DIRECT DEMOCRACY i.e. present bourgeoisie democracyYou keep failing over and over again. Remarkable. Educate yourself.


Usually that is how Maoists politely accuse someone of having non-proletarian politics. :lol:
Very ironic, that Maoists accuse people of such a thing.

[red cat]

Very ironic, that Maoists accuse people of such a thing.

The battle-fields of South Asia speak for Maoists.

[Thirsty Crow]

The battle-fields of South Asia speak for Maoists.
OK, sorry, I went overboard with that one. I apologize.

[gorillafuck]

Democratic socialism and social democracy aren't the same thing (though the term democratic socialism is misused to mean social democracy).

[pranabjyoti]

Ah yeah sorry you're right that's why they both achieved communism, right? Fascism has a group of elites controlling everything with little chance of anyone joining them except the next generation of elites. No Democracy = no workers control
Sorry to say, you lack the very basic understanding of Marxism. The term "elite" only refers to an elite class and throughout the history (after establishment of class based society), it's nothing other than class struggle and class dictatorship.
Fascism is expression of bourgeoisie capitalist-imperialism, bourgeoisie class dictatorship at its worst. Without that and by saying baseless words like "elites controlling everything" is just stupidity and expression of lack of understanding of human history from a Marxist viewpoint.
By this logic, nearly all countries (including Cuba and Venezuela) are also fascist. When do people like you understand that it's always some few persons that take the decisions, but the most important question is how much control common people have over their activities.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sorry to say, you lack the very basic understanding of Marxism. The term "elite" only refers to an elite class and throughout the history (after establishment of class based society), it's nothing other than class struggle and class dictatorship.

However, it perfectly encapsulates the separate class, that the state bureaucracy had become, with its own mechanisms of reproduction as a class.
And don't justify your ramblings by referring to someone's supposed lack of knowledge in Marxism. It's pathetic.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry to say, you lack the very basic understanding of Marxism. The term "elite" only refers to an elite class and throughout the history (after establishment of class based society), it's nothing other than class struggle and class dictatorship.
Fascism is expression of bourgeoisie capitalist-imperialism, bourgeoisie class dictatorship at its worst. Without that and by saying baseless words like "elites controlling everything" is just stupidity and expression of lack of understanding of human history from a Marxist viewpoint.
By this logic, nearly all countries (including Cuba and Venezuela) are also fascist. When do people like you understand that it's always some few persons that take the decisions, but the most important question is how much control common people have over their activities.

I never said the USSR was fascist I said they have some factors that are not all that dissimilar but I'm so bored of debating fascism I regret saying it. No the term elite does not only refer to an elite class but can be used to describe any small group that is dominant within a large society.

When will you people learn that a one size fits all plan for socialism will not work in every case. A revolution must be adaptable and face different challenges all we can do is learn from the mistakes of the past of which there have been many and try not to make them again. The soviet model for revolution has proved time and time again that it does not work, I'm not saying it will never work but would need the right set of circumstances to work. Unless you are one of these people that think things need to get worse before they can get better?

[chegitz guevara]

Can you elaborate on these middle classes? Do you mean the petite bourgeois or bourgeois?
Could you also write a brief historical overview of the formation of these classes you are talking about?

Basically, the petite bourgeoisie. We're talking mostly about the professional classes, people who need a modern state to develop in Venezuela, who are tired of seeing their country be a third world nation. They want a modern, developed country, and the comprador classes have no interest in seeing that happen. Of course, people who work for the state have an interest in seeing the state developed as well.

There is a new capitalist class as well, capitalists who have hitched their cars to Chavez' train and done quite well for it. For example, one new billionaire got his wealth by helping break the oil lockout, buying oil outside Venezuela and bringing it in. He was well rewarded with state contracts and is now a very wealth man.

Really, I think what we're seeing in Venezuela is not Socialism for the 21st Century, but a bourgeois nationalist revolution and the overthrow of semi-feudal conditions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Really, I think what we're seeing in Venezuela is not Socialism for the 21st Century, but a bourgeois nationalist revolution and the overthrow of semi-feudal conditions.So what would you make of the socialist rhetoric in combination of some persuasive actions which tend towards workers' management of business? Also, what would you make of the more or less steady rhythm of nationalization?
As far as I'm concerned, these phenomena do not reflect a typical situation of primitive accumulation of capital within the context of bourgeois national liberation. Maybe you could provide further insights.

[REDSOX]

The situation in venezuela is very fluid with contradictions all over the place but the unmistakable direction that chavez and his supporters want to go in is the socialist direction ie the state owning most of the means of production/land and the workers and peasents managing/having title to them. To do this chavez will have to seize the wealth of the top 5% of society because they own the vast majority of the wealth and leave the other 95% alone because that belongs to the middle and working class. He will have to go after the elite. Also chavez is not the following like some have described him on these boards

A fascist:)
A Bonapartist
A Proletarian Bonapartist
A Left Nationalist
A Populist
A Social Democrat

He is a socialist though not a marxist he is a theologian socialist who is influenced by marxism but also christianity and maoism as well.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also chavez is not the following like some have described him on these boards

A fascist:)
A Bonapartist
A Proletarian Bonapartist
A Left Nationalist
A Populist
A Social Democrat

He is a socialist though not a marxist he is a theologian socialist who is influenced by marxism but also christianity and maoism as well.

How is he not a "leftist nationalist"?
Nationalist in the sense of "defensive nationalism" - defensive against imperialism and the semi-colonial (though I would say "neo-colonial") character of Venezuelan society. He is most clearly a leftist.
Moreover, his personal religious beliefs and support for Liberation Theology do not make the term "theologian socialist" meaningful.
And socialism does not entail state ownership over the means of production. The actual ownership should be exercised through institutions of direct proletarian control over production.

[red cat]

Really, I think what we're seeing in Venezuela is not Socialism for the 21st Century, but a bourgeois nationalist revolution and the overthrow of semi-feudal conditions.

Bourgeois nationalist revolutions are not possible nowadays. An anti-imperialist movement that is not defeated in its initial stage either leads to socialism or surrenders to imperialism to become a comprador regime.




He is a socialist though not a marxist he is a theologian socialist who is influenced by marxism but also christianity and maoism as well.

Chavez cannot be associated with Maoism in any way. The term Maoism was coined by the PCP as a qualitative development over Marxism-Leninism. Chavez is in no way linked to the revolutionary Maoists who follow the PCP's political line. Instead, he has cheered for the principal enemies of the Maoists in South Asia, and proved his position against Maoism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Democratic socialism and social democracy aren't the same thing (though the term democratic socialism is misused to mean social democracy).

I figured there would be similarities between old school real social democrats and democratic socialists.

I was definitely not referring to the soc dems today.

[Thirsty Crow]

Bourgeois nationalist revolutions are not possible nowadays.

Why is that so?
Oh, and not to forget this: socialism is a socio-economic formation distinct from capitalism in that it abolishes generalized commodity production. Have those isolated countries, or "socialist" blocs managed to accomplish that?

[red cat]

Why is that so?

Because the national bourgeoisie will prefer to be a comprador regime than to lose everything in the proletarian revolution that is supposed to succeed a complete bourgeois revolution.



Oh, and not to forget this: socialism is a socio-economic formation distinct from capitalism in that it abolishes generalized commodity production. Have those isolated countries, or "socialist" blocs managed to accomplish that?

Other MLs here should answer your question in details, because I am not very knowledgeable about the history of USSR or PRC. However, instead of directly studying the economic conditions of these blocs, we often study the relationship of these blocs with other movements, or the condition of the movements that resulted in these blocs, and when they show characteristics that wouldn't have been possible if these blocs had been anything other than socialist, then we can safely come to the conclusion that these were in fact socialist.

[Thirsty Crow]

However, instead of directly studying the economic conditions of these blocs, we often study the relationship of these blocs with other movements, or the condition of the movements that resulted in these blocs...

So, in other words, you are abandoning the quintessential methodological tool of historical materialism, a toll which works well when it comes to a critique of capitalism, and instead focus on "relationship of these blocs with other movements"?
Wow, this does not even resemble a Marxist proper analysis.
Congrats, you might as well come up with an elaborate argument which would explain why the study of economic conditions is no longer a necessity when it comes to Marxist revolutionary politics.



...and when they show characteristics that wouldn't have been possible if these blocs had been anything other than socialist, then we can safely come to the conclusion that these were in fact socialist.

And you can easily reach this conclusion despite the fact that socio-economic analysis is the primary focus of any kind of revolutionary theory and praxis, be it Marxist or anarchist? Also, you can just ignore the fact that generalized commodity production, which is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism, did in fact exist within this bloc, as well as in Cuban economy for instance?

And I would not advise you to jump to the conclusion and announce that I'm and advocate of the state capitalist theory. Because I'm not.

[red cat]

So, in other words, you are abandoning the quintessential methodological tool of historical materialism, a toll which works well when it comes to a critique of capitalism, and instead focus on "relationship of these blocs with other movements"?
Wow, this does not even resemble a Marxist proper analysis.
Congrats, you might as well come up with an elaborate argument which would explain why the study of economic conditions is no longer a necessity when it comes to Marxist revolutionary politics.

Basing one's analysis on some work that is written by any self-proclaimed communist is anything but Marxist. The tool you mention is fully reliable when we have access to unbiased history and we are somehow sure that it is unbiased. In this case, the only way to do so is to engage in practice with people who can trace their direct political ancestry to these socialist blocs. Otherwise we will be quite lost in the tonnes of volumes that many so-called communist scholars have written down describing how these blocs were not socialist.

The only practical way of reaching a conclusion, is to study a movement that we are somehow familiar with. In the course of studying that movement, many accounts of these blocs pop up, which are due to direct interaction. A thorough analysis of the associated facts can then be done to reveal the characteristics of these blocs.



And you can easily reach this conclusion despite the fact that socio-economic analysis is the primary focus of any kind of revolutionary theory and praxis, be it Marxist or anarchist? Also, you can just ignore the fact that generalized commodity production, which is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism, did in fact exist within this bloc, as well as in Cuban economy for instance?

And I would not advise you to jump to the conclusion and announce that I'm and advocate of the state capitalist theory. Because I'm not.Again, I cannot be totally sure that the facts I receive about any country or movement that are far from me, are true. But when their relationship with the movements that I am well-informed about contradicts the common facts and analyses I receive about them, I can be sure that those facts and analyses are wrong.

[pranabjyoti]

However, it perfectly encapsulates the separate class, that the state bureaucracy had become, with its own mechanisms of reproduction as a class.
And don't justify your ramblings by referring to someone's supposed lack of knowledge in Marxism. It's pathetic.
Bureaucracy existed throughout the history of class based society EVEN AT THE TIME OF MARX. But, Marx never mentioned bureaucracy as a separate class. But, you (and many other like you) always try to mention the bureaucracy of USSR as a separate class. IS IT SOME KIND OF CREATIVE ADDITION TO MARXISM?

[Thirsty Crow]

Basing one's analysis on some work that is written by any self-proclaimed communist is anything but Marxist.Wait a minute, do youn intend to proclaim that it is intellectually honest to employ a radically different approach to one that Marxist organizations have most often taken, and still claim to be Marxist? Fabulous, just fabulous.


The tool you mention is fully reliable when we have access to unbiased history and we are somehow sure that it is unbiased. It seems to me that you do not know what "generalized commodity production means. Which is, again, striking and just fabulous since it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_production

The paragraph under the heading "Marxian usage" may be of interest to you.

And then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism)

But maybe you will decide that upholding an intellectual position such as this one is outmoded since basing one's analysis on some work that is written by any self-proclaimed communist is anything but Marxist.

In this case, the only way to do so is to engage in practice with people who can trace their direct political ancestry to these socialist blocs. Otherwise we will be quite lost in the tonnes of volumes that many so-called communist scholars have written down describing how these blocs were not socialist.Maybe you should take a look at those "so called" communists who have covered empirical data available from Soviet documents. Political ancestry is a phenomenon of the superstructure, if you uphold this another basic methodological position of Marxism, and not of the economic base. You're just refusing to engage in empirically grounded arguments.


The only practical way of reaching a conclusion, is to study a movement that we are somehow familiar with. In the course of studying that movement, many accounts of these blocs pop up, which are due to direct interaction. A thorough analysis of the associated facts can then be done to reveal the characteristics of these blocs.
And which facts would that be?
Maybe the unbiased facts brought up by these movements which are sympathetic, or even fervent supporters, towards/of the so called socialist bloc?
And it was not I who brought up the subject of "unbiased history", that is, clear facts.
Get a grip.


Bureaucracy existed throughout the history of class based society EVEN AT THE TIME OF MARX. But, Marx never mentioned bureaucracy as a separate class. But, you (and many other like you) always try to mention the bureaucracy of USSR as a separate class. IS IT SOME KIND OF CREATIVE ADDITION TO MARXISM?

According to Marxist orthodoxy, one's class position is based on the person's relationship to the means of production - the right question is does an individual own his/her means of production, and therefore is not forced to perform labour, or does he/she not own these - and is, therefore, forced to sell his/her labour.

In USSR, there was state ownership, and certain groups of people were in charge of extracting surplus value out of workers' labour, which was in turn reinvested in the form of capital within the next cycle of capital accumulation. How that does not make a class, even though there is no private appropriation of surplus value?
Just as in capitalist societies there are and were established means of acquiring this position which enables one to command other's labour and fruits of their labour, USSR also had these means and social functions.

You can call it a creative addition or anything you like, but from my perspective - this is just common sense.

[red cat]

Wait a minute, do youn intend to proclaim that it is intellectually honest to employ a radically different approach to one that Marxist organizations have most often taken, and still claim to be Marxist? Fabulous, just fabulous.

It seems to me that you do not know what "generalized commodity production means. Which is, again, striking and just fabulous since it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_production

The paragraph under the heading "Marxian usage" may be of interest to you.

And then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_%28Marxism%29)

But maybe you will decide that upholding an intellectual position such as this one is outmoded since basing one's analysis on some work that is written by any self-proclaimed communist is anything but Marxist.
Maybe you should take a look at those "so called" communists who have covered empirical data available from Soviet documents. Political ancestry is a phenomenon of the superstructure, if you uphold this another basic methodological position of Marxism, and not of the economic base. You're just refusing to engage in empirically grounded arguments.


I repeat, I entirely agree with your method of analysis, except that you base it on facts that might well as be wrong. When someone says that he has analyzed Soviet documents and even shows the associated documents, it might be very unwise to believe him. Such "documents" about the ongoing revolutions pop up every now and then, though on a rather local scale. However, they always contradict the experience of the masses and after some time even the ruling classes never mention these documents.




And which facts would that be?
Maybe the unbiased facts brought up by these movements which are sympathetic, or even fervent supporters, towards/of the so called socialist bloc?
And it was not I who brought up the subject of "unbiased history", that is, clear facts.
Get a grip.I am giving a very simple example that proves the counter-revolutionary nature of a regime. The examples that prove the revolutionary nature of a regime are more complex, but if you want we can discuss them too.

We often hear about how Hugo Chavez is building socialism etc etc. He has been in a very close relationship with the CPI(Marxist), the party that rules among a few other provinces in India, the province of West Bengal. Anyone who is even a bit aware of the CPI(Marxist), will know the countless atrocities that it has been committing since it came to power. It engages in a total suppression of the masses and maintains a semi-feudal power-structure everywhere, most prominently in the villages. Even in the cities, about 25% of the population lives in the slums and streets, is barely clothed and visibly malnourished. Anyone who visits these cities can see all this. When Chavez visited India, the military confrontation of the CPI(Maoist) and CPI(Marxist) had already paced up, and the masses in many rural areas were being liberated. In the cities, working class members of the CPI(Maoist) who would plan urban movements and even go to participate in the peoples' wars, were being ruthlessly tortured, raped and murdered by the CPI(Marxist) controlled mercenaries and state-apparatus. Even then, when Chavez visited, he spent the whole of his time in West Bengal with CPI(Marxist) leaders, took part in the mockeries of the slum-feeding programmes they had organized for a day, never spoke a word about the revolutionary movement, never spoke a word about the reactionary nature of the CPI(Marxist) even after seeing so many malnourished, hungry faces right in the provincial capital after three decades of "communist rule". Instead, he cheered the pseudo-communist leaders and continued his journey. What does this say about Chavez ? It says that he is no better than the CPI(Marxist) leaders themselves and the news about Venezuela that we receive is tremendously twisted or totally fabricated.

[Thirsty Crow]

I repeat, I entirely agree with your method of analysis, except that you base it on facts that might well as be wrong.
Did the workers in USSR produce goods for sale? In other words, weren't all goods that were produced, meant to be sold on the market (the fact that the state was in effective control of the market - its conditions of being functional - does not matter) by means of the universal commodity - money?
This fact is very simple, and indeed a fact.
Now let's stop derailing the thread.

[L.A.P.]

I've said this before and I'll say this again, Hugo Chavez is not a marxist/communist/anarchist he's just a socialist. No one ever said Hugo Chavez was going to start revolutions for the proletariat and we're constantly talking about him as if that's what he intended to do. Of course Chavez has more revolutionary tendencies compared to most democratic socialists but by no means is he a revolutionary socialist. Also, it is true that the standards of the political spectrum has moved farther to the right for example; if you think capitalism should have some restrictions then you are considered center-left when in reality it should really be center-right and democratic socialists and non-revolutionary socialists should be considered center-left but they're considered far left. I think this is more of American standards of the political spectrum though because the Labour Party of the United Kingdom is a democratic socialist group but they're considered only center-left but if it was the Labour Party of the United Sates it would most likely be considered a far left group.

[red cat]

Did the workers in USSR produce goods for sale? In other words, weren't all goods that were produced, meant to be sold on the market (the fact that the state was in effective control of the market - its conditions of being functional - does not matter) by means of the universal commodity - money?
This fact is very simple, and indeed a fact.
Now let's stop derailing the thread.

I am not derailing the thread, I am just engaging in a practical method of analysis. I will not be able to defend any regime if you exclude its relations with the South Asian revolutionary movements, so if you want a discussion solely on the economy of the USSR, then I am not the best person whom you'd want to discuss with.

Anyways, socialism is the phase were the society is supposed to be moving to communism. It might retain many features of the old society for a long time. I don't really know whether Soviet goods were sold in the market or not. Were they ?

[red cat]

I've said this before and I'll say this again, Hugo Chavez is not a marxist/communist/anarchist he's just a socialist. No one ever said Hugo Chavez was going to start revolutions for the proletariat and we're constantly talking about him as if that's what he intended to do. Of course Chavez has more revolutionary tendencies compared to most democratic socialists but by no means is he a revolutionary socialist. Also, it is true that the standards of the political spectrum has moved farther to the right for example; if you think capitalism should have some restrictions then you are considered center-left when in reality it should really be center-right and democratic socialists and non-revolutionary socialists should be considered center-left but they're considered far left. I think this is more of American standards of the political spectrum though because the Labour Party of the United Kingdom is a democratic socialist group but they're considered only center-left but if it was the Labour Party of the United Sates it would most likely be considered a far left group.

Socialism is an interphase between capitalism and communism. How can one be socialist without being communist ?

[Manic Impressive]

I've said this before and I'll say this again, Hugo Chavez is not a marxist/communist/anarchist he's just a socialist. No one ever said Hugo Chavez was going to start revolutions for the proletariat and we're constantly talking about him as if that's what he intended to do. Of course Chavez has more revolutionary tendencies compared to most democratic socialists but by no means is he a revolutionary socialist. Also, it is true that the standards of the political spectrum has moved farther to the right for example; if you think capitalism should have some restrictions then you are considered center-left when in reality it should really be center-right and democratic socialists and non-revolutionary socialists should be considered center-left but they're considered far left. I think this is more of American standards of the political spectrum though because the Labour Party of the United Kingdom is a democratic socialist group but they're considered only center-left but if it was the Labour Party of the United Sates it would most likely be considered a far left group.
I think you've got democratic socialists and social democrats mixed up. For example Gordon Brown considered himself a social democrat that's why they're restricted here and democratic socialists aren't ;). The old Labour party had it's moments for instance in the 60's there was a large section of the party who wanted the abolition of the monarchy but generrally it's always been firmly Soc-Dem which has been one of the biggest hindrances to the workers movement here. When Tony Blair took over he reshaped the party in the image of the (US) Democrats which I guess some in the states would call a communist party :D.

[RadioRaheem84]

The point is that in the beginning, soc dem parties at least acknowledged Marxism in the their Party constitutions.

There is some merit in the old school social dems like of the German variety before WWI. Then once in power they switched over and dropped Marxism.

Soc Dems of the currenty variety should not only be banned but totally ridiculed for being so absurd.

[chegitz guevara]

Bourgeois nationalist revolutions are not possible nowadays. An anti-imperialist movement that is not defeated in its initial stage either leads to socialism or surrenders to imperialism to become a comprador regime.

That's an assertion without evidence. I reject your religious belief that the Russian Revolution magically ended the period of the possibility of bourgeois revolutions. You have completely misinterpreted Lenin, and have changed it into a religion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I figured there would be similarities between old school real social democrats and democratic socialists.

I was definitely not referring to the soc dems today.

Old-school real social democrats after 1914 and at least into the post-war boom still wanted to maintain capitalism, while old-school democratic socialists merely harboured illusions in parliamentarism. Your point about pre-WWI stands, though.


The point is that in the beginning, soc dem parties at least acknowledged Marxism in the their Party constitutions.

There is some merit in the old school social dems like of the German variety before WWI. Then once in power they switched over and dropped Marxism.

Soc Dems of the currenty variety should not only be banned but totally ridiculed for being so absurd.

Not quite. Many did switch over, but others did harbour parliamentary illusions. For example, Hilferding remained committed to "Marxian economics" but went so far as to suggest "economic parliaments."

[pranabjyoti]

In USSR, there was state ownership, and certain groups of people were in charge of extracting surplus value out of workers' labour, which was in turn reinvested in the form of capital within the next cycle of capital accumulation. How that does not make a class, even though there is no private appropriation of surplus value?
Just as in capitalist societies there are and were established means of acquiring this position which enables one to command other's labour and fruits of their labour, USSR also had these means and social functions.

You can call it a creative addition or anything you like, but from my perspective - this is just common sense.
JUST ONE PROBLEM. In capitalist society, a single capitalist or the management board has the full liberty to invest this accumulated capital anywhere they wish, does the same was true in USSR? More, in a capitalist society, those mentioned above have full right to close or shut down an industry by sucking capital out of it, if that industry is running on loss, does that too is also true about USSR? Again, in a capitalist society, capitalists aren't liable to anybody, does that was also true about USSR?

[Crux]

It says that he is no better than the CPI(Marxist) leaders themselves and the news about Venezuela that we receive is tremendously twisted or totally fabricated.
Actually it doesn't, I am critical of Chavez, but you are missing the key point here, the masses. They have pushed the revolution along and for now Chavez seems to be on their side. I wouldn't say he is as bad as the regimes in Iran, Belarus and Sri Lanka, yet he is allied with all three. You cannot make a judgement on the venezuelan situation solely based on Chavez international alliances, there is great, if not always straightforward, progress being made in Sri Lanka. You are making the same mistake that some m-l's make in regards to Iran and their alliance with Chavez, only they try to paint the iranian regime as progressive. It is oversimplified geo-politics not taking the class struggle and the masses into account.

[red cat]

Actually it doesn't, I am critical of Chavez, but you are missing the key point here, the masses. They have pushed the revolution along and for now Chavez seems to be on their side. I wouldn't say he is as bad as the regimes in Iran, Belarus and Sri Lanka, yet he is allied with all three. You cannot make a judgement on the venezuelan situation solely based on Chavez international alliances, there is great, if not always straightforward, progress being made in Sri Lanka. You are making the same mistake that some m-l's make in regards to Iran and their alliance with Chavez, only they try to paint the iranian regime as progressive. It is oversimplified geo-politics not taking the class struggle and the masses into account.

Every movement, every individual in politics represents a class. Chavez either represents the proletariat, or the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in between. If it had been the proletariat, then he would have obviously supported the militant movements of South Asia. But he has chosen to take the side of revisionists. Also, he has remained silent about every other ongoing revolution, and has come to totally reactionary conclusions like guerrilla warfare having no future in Latin America, even though two communist parties in the area are expanding their movements through the same. So, Chavez's international line consists of totally siding with the revisionists in each case, and either keeping silent about or indirectly opposing the biggest revolutionary movements.

It could be that the mass movements have become powerful enough to force Chavez to their side. But there is something very unusual about these mass-movements, which I will discuss now. If the masses try to seize power or even press for big reforms, usually the bourgeoisie reacts with violence. If the mass movement is strong enough this inevitably results in battles in which representatives of the bourgeoisie are killed. On the other hand, when the objective conditions for revolution have ripened, if an option of a legal, seemingly militant mass-movement is kept before the masses, then they tend to choose that option if true revolutionaries are organizationally weak and cannot educate them politically. These movements are then used to neutralize the masses who gain nothing but a few reforms. Along with this, various false propaganda about the "revolutionary" nature of these so-called mass movements is spread, so that revisionists of other countries can also organize similar ones. One very important feature of these mass movements is that the bourgeoisie does not allow them to kill any of its major representatives. If the mass-movement in Venezuela is big enough to even bring Chavez to their side, then why aren't there any real violent clashes in which at least some local capitalist, bureaucrat or police officer is killed ?

These type of pseudo mass-movements have also been organized in South Asia by the ruling classes. When they were organized in the 60s and 70s, the revolutionary forces were unable to successfully counter them and as a result they successfully diverted the masses. The most recent initiative, however, to create such pseudo mass-movements around the anti-SEZ movement, has been largely defeated by revolutionary communists.

The Venezuelan mass movement shows all the tell-tale features of such pseudo mass-movement. Even the nationalization part, can be actually keeping the means of production under the same ruling class through a bureaucracy that has placed itself at the head of the masses. There is a very good revolutionary situation in Latin America now, an ideal one to use such pseudo mass-movements against the masses. And that is exactly when it is popping up, complete with its alliance with established revisionists and its opposition to ongoing revolutionary movements. It shows exactly the characteristics which the ruling classes can imitate, and misses exactly the one that they cannot. All these facts very strongly indicate what the true nature of the Chavez regime is.

Also, about Sri Lanka, no gain has been made there. If you are talking about some reforms supposed to be introduced by the ruling class, then I suggest you study them in more details. These reforms usually don't exist outside papers. The main revolutionary movements in Sri Lanka have been largely crushed. The LTTE remains only as very small guerrilla bands and the Maoists are still very weak.

[Crux]

Every movement, every individual in politics represents a class. Chavez either represents the proletariat, or the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in between.
There is Bonaparte, but Chavez has progressed left, not right, over the years.


If it had been the proletariat, then he would have obviously supported the militant movements of South Asia.
That's a tautological argument, "He does not support the militant movements in South Asia because he is not on the side of the proletariat and he is not on the side of the proletariat because he does not support the militant movements in South Asia".


But he has chosen to take the side of revisionists. Also, he has remained silent about every other ongoing revolution, and has come to totally reactionary conclusions like guerrilla warfare having no future in Latin America, even though two communist parties in the area are expanding their movements through the same. So, Chavez's international line consists of totally siding with the revisionists in each case, and either keeping silent about or indirectly opposing the biggest revolutionary movements.
Again your violence fetishism is showing, guerillaism alone is not the path to revolution. Besides he cannot openly support FARC/ELN, it's not politically possible, he has however supported peace in Colombia.
Peace is more than a call for status quo in colombia, as it is well-known who the aggressor is.


It could be that the mass movements have become powerful enough to force Chavez to their side. But there is something very unusual about these mass-movements, which I will discuss now. If the masses try to seize power or even press for big reforms, usually the bourgeoisie reacts with violence. If the mass movement is strong enough this inevitably results in battles in which representatives of the bourgeoisie are killed. On the other hand, when the objective conditions for revolution have ripened, if an option of a legal, seemingly militant mass-movement is kept before the masses, then they tend to choose that option if true revolutionaries are organizationally weak and cannot educate them politically. These movements are then used to neutralize the masses who gain nothing but a few reforms. Along with this, various false propaganda about the "revolutionary" nature of these so-called mass movements is spread, so that revisionists of other countries can also organize similar ones. One very important feature of these mass movements is that the bourgeoisie does not allow them to kill any of its major representatives.
No, it's not unusual, and in 02 the face of violent reaction showed it face in the coup attempt. And no, communist politics is not individual terrorism or putschism. A progressive left movement may come to power in a capitalist state, as has happened in venezuela, however there is always a threat of reaction, if the movement is stalling or does not move forward fast enough. This can take two main expressions, the revolution becomes bureaucratized or it is overthrown from the right. In such instances the tasks of communists is the move the revolution forward faster. And this does not mean physically eliminating the capitalist class, but politically, expropriations, worker's control. A violent reaction from the bourgeoisie is likely, why the worker's must also be armed and ready to defeat reaction that way. When the coup of 02 was defeated by mass resistance it moved the government and mass movement distinctively to the left, although not to the left enough since Chavez has still refused or been unable to to completely break with capitalism, yet.


If the mass-movement in Venezuela is big enough to even bring Chavez to their side, then why aren't there any real violent clashes in which at least some local capitalist, bureaucrat or police officer is killed ?
Uh there are clashes. But revolution is not a scoreboard on how many killed. You can not use that as measurement. In the october revolution hardly anyone was killed, it was the Whites that started the civil war.


These type of pseudo mass-movements have also been organized in South Asia by the ruling classes. When they were organized in the 60s and 70s, the revolutionary forces were unable to successfully counter them and as a result they successfully diverted the masses. The most recent initiative, however, to create such pseudo mass-movements around the anti-SEZ movement, has been largely defeated by revolutionary communists.
You mean they've shot anti-SEZ organizers as revisionists?


The Venezuelan mass movement shows all the tell-tale features of such pseudo mass-movement. Even the nationalization part, can be actually keeping the means of production under the same ruling class through a bureaucracy that has placed itself at the head of the masses. There is a very good revolutionary situation in Latin America now, an ideal one to use such pseudo mass-movements against the masses. And that is exactly when it is popping up, complete with its alliance with established revisionists and its opposition to ongoing revolutionary movements. It shows exactly the characteristics which the ruling classes can imitate, and misses exactly the one that they cannot. All these facts very strongly indicate what the true nature of the Chavez regime is.
This is pure ultraleftism. You must move together with the masses and lead them when there are mass-movements. That is how every truly revolutionary movement has been made, not by armed men in the jungle.
Not that guerilla war can't act as an auxiliary.


Also, about Sri Lanka, no gain has been made there. If you are talking about some reforms supposed to be introduced by the ruling class, then I suggest you study them in more details. These reforms usually don't exist outside papers. The main revolutionary movements in Sri Lanka have been largely crushed. The LTTE remains only as very small guerrilla bands and the Maoists are still very weak.
Sri Lanka is on the way to a military dictatorship, in fact it's almost there already. What are you referring to?

[red cat]

There is Bonaparte, but Chavez has progressed left, not right, over the years.


That's a tautological argument, "He does not support the militant movements in South Asia because he is not on the side of the proletariat and he is not on the side of the proletariat because he does not support the militant movements in South Asia".


Or rather, if someone is not proletarian he will not support any revolutionary movement, and if someone does not support a large number of revolutionary movements then he is not proletarian. Do you see why ?



Again your violence fetishism is showing, guerillaism alone is not the path to revolution. Besides he cannot openly support FARC/ELN, it's not politically possible, he has however supported peace in Colombia.
Peace is more than a call for status quo in colombia, as it is well-known who the aggressor is.

Armed resistance is not the only component of a revolution, but it is a necessary one nevertheless. Without armed resistance it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class. Chavez's statements opposing guerrilla warfare and urging for "peace" can lead to only one conclusion: abandoning of the revolutionary armed movement and hence the revolution itself. Fortunately the FARC has been wise enough to choose the correct revolutionary line for Colombia.


No, it's not unusual, and in 02 the face of violent reaction showed it face in the coup attempt. And no, communist politics is not individual terrorism or putschism. A progressive left movement may come to power in a capitalist state, as has happened in venezuela, however there is always a threat of reaction, if the movement is stalling or does not move forward fast enough. This can take two main expressions, the revolution becomes bureaucratized or it is overthrown from the right. In such instances the tasks of communists is the move the revolution forward faster. And this does not mean physically eliminating the capitalist class, but politically, expropriations, worker's control. A violent reaction from the bourgeoisie is likely, why the worker's must also be armed and ready to defeat reaction that way. When the coup of 02 was defeated by mass resistance it moved the government and mass movement distinctively to the left, although not to the left enough since Chavez has still refused or been unable to to completely break with capitalism, yet.

Since political, economic and military struggles are inter-linked, any fundamental change in relations of productions is impossible without violent struggles. Whether the masses use individual annihilation as one of the methods of class struggle or not, bourgeois representatives are supposed to die in their battle with the masses, and some of them, even though might be only a few, should be major representatives. Can you list at least some such deaths due to the Venezuelan mass movement ?


Uh there are clashes. But revolution is not a scoreboard on how many killed. You can not use that as measurement. In the october revolution hardly anyone was killed, it was the Whites that started the civil war.

How many were killed when the urban-insurrections in Russia took place ? Where is the Venezuelan civil-war ?


You mean they've shot anti-SEZ organizers as revisionists?

In short, the same parliamentary parties that passed the SEZ Act created some pseudo mass movements. These in practice mostly negotiated between the feudal-lord and big peasants and offered nothing to the small peasants and agricultural labourers, and even forcefully took whatever land they had. So parallel revolutionary mass-movements were formed in many areas and gradually the pseudo mass movements either disappeared or turned into smaller armed mercenary groups ( composed of the revisionists who were leading it previously ) after the masses abandoned them. Revolutionary armed operations against a movement can be undertaken only after the masses abandon it, at least locally.



This is pure ultraleftism. You must move together with the masses and lead them when there are mass-movements. That is how every truly revolutionary movement has been made, not by armed men in the jungle.
Not that guerilla war can't act as an auxiliary.

When the mass movement is politically directed towards revisionism, then revolutionaries can either practice inside the mass movement and take over its leadership or can create a parallel movement to keep a better option before the masses. When the revolutionaries are not organized well enough, any attempt to take over the leadership of a revisionist mass movement is almost always suicidal.

Coming back to the point, there is no evidence of any armed struggle supporting this mass movement, without which any substancial stand, let alone a revolution against the ruling class, is impossible.



Sri Lanka is on the way to a military dictatorship, in fact it's almost there already. What are you referring to?

What gains in Sri Lanka were you talking about then ?

[pranabjyoti]

Every movement, every individual in politics represents a class. Chavez either represents the proletariat, or the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in between.
Comrade, sorry, I disagree with you in this point. There is the petty-bourgeoisie class in between. Probably Chavez rose with petty-bourgeoisie ideology and mentality, but for specific condition of Venezuela and perhaps of all Latin America.
In my opinion, the reason is US, I don't think it would even tolerate the flourishing of capitalism in Latin America and it want the whole continent just as its kept and market, nothing more than that. This specific condition of Latin America probably give rise Chavez, Kristiner, Morales and others. US itself probably unknowingly and totally against its will giving birth its biggest antidote. A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HISTORICAL DIALECTIC MATERIALISM.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still have yet to see what it petit bougie about the Bolivarian Revolution.

Is it the values that it is instilling in the working class? The values of self management?

[red cat]

Comrade, sorry, I disagree with you in this point. There is the petty-bourgeoisie class in between. Probably Chavez rose with petty-bourgeoisie ideology and mentality, but for specific condition of Venezuela and perhaps of all Latin America.
In my opinion, the reason is US, I don't think it would even tolerate the flourishing of capitalism in Latin America and it want the whole continent just as its kept and market, nothing more than that. This specific condition of Latin America probably give rise Chavez, Kristiner, Morales and others. US itself probably unknowingly and totally against its will giving birth its biggest antidote. A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HISTORICAL DIALECTIC MATERIALISM.

True, but the petite-bourgeoisie by itself cannot be the sole motive force behind any revolution. Sections of it can only align themselves behind the proletariat or the bourgeoisie in a revolution.

Yes, the US will not tolerate anything that challenges its authority in Latin America; not even native capitalism, let alone socialism.

Let's assume that the Leninist theory of bourgeois revolutions being impossible in the era of proletarian revolutions is somehow wrong. Even then I don't see how a revolution can take place without some of the key-defendants of the old ruling class being killed in the process.

[Crux]

Or rather, if someone is not proletarian he will not support any revolutionary movement, and if someone does not support a large number of revolutionary movements then he is not proletarian. Do you see why ?
That is not the defintion of proletarian, and it is not necessarily as simple as that, although foreign politics is a continuation of internal politics. Chavez alliances is a sign of his limitations. But I don't really use the naxalites as arbiters on whetever any given group or movement is revolutionary or not.



Armed resistance is not the only component of a revolution, but it is a necessary one nevertheless. Without armed resistance it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class. Chavez's statements opposing guerrilla warfare and urging for "peace" can lead to only one conclusion: abandoning of the revolutionary armed movement and hence the revolution itself. Fortunately the FARC has been wise enough to choose the correct revolutionary line for Colombia.
I have met representatives from Colombianos y colombianas por la Paz, they are on good terms with the guerillas, and their demands are progressive. Peace is not merely an absence of war. Chavez statements are for an ending of state military agression and an end to the conflict. You are blind to the context here.



Since political, economic and military struggles are inter-linked, any fundamental change in relations of productions is impossible without violent struggles. Whether the masses use individual annihilation as one of the methods of class struggle or not, bourgeois representatives are supposed to die in their battle with the masses, and some of them, even though might be only a few, should be major representatives. Can you list at least some such deaths due to the Venezuelan mass movement ?
I am sorry but political processes do not follow your model, who seems almost reminiscent of some apocalypse scenario. On the final day etc...Supposed to die? Supposed by who? And why? Fundamental change in the production relations is something made by class power, which may take violent forms if needed, but not necessarily the "let's shoot down cops and politicians" forms you are talking about. Violence has never been and should not be the first principle of someone considering themselves a marxist.


How many were killed when the urban-insurrections in Russia took place ? Where is the Venezuelan civil-war ?
A handfull when the winter palace was stormed. Otherwise the coming to power was almost completly bloodless. Of course there were some agrarian guerilla like groups that had failed to carry out any revolution in russia for some 50 years, they even killed the tsar at one point, but still they could not succeed. Maybe you should take a lesson from that.
Well, there was the 02 coup attempt, and the country is in some respects very divided. However the bourgeoisie has chosen other ways to try and destabilize the government for now.


In short, the same parliamentary parties that passed the SEZ Act created some pseudo mass movements. These in practice mostly negotiated between the feudal-lord and big peasants and offered nothing to the small peasants and agricultural labourers, and even forcefully took whatever land they had. So parallel revolutionary mass-movements were formed in many areas and gradually the pseudo mass movements either disappeared or turned into smaller armed mercenary groups ( composed of the revisionists who were leading it previously ) after the masses abandoned them. Revolutionary armed operations against a movement can be undertaken only after the masses abandon it, at least locally.
Ok.




When the mass movement is politically directed towards revisionism, then revolutionaries can either practice inside the mass movement and take over its leadership or can create a parallel movement to keep a better option before the masses. When the revolutionaries are not organized well enough, any attempt to take over the leadership of a revisionist mass movement is almost always suicidal.
If the revolutionaires are not well organized enough I don't really see what the alternative is. You must always start from the base, and that's my point, you cannot jump ahead simpling by shooting up some local cops and the landlord.


Coming back to the point, there is no evidence of any armed struggle supporting this mass movement, without which any substancial stand, let alone a revolution against the ruling class, is impossible.FARC certainly does. They too speak of bolivarianismo. And there are armed groups in Venezuela, not to mention the peasant and worker's militias founded by the government. I too believe the people should be armed, but I think you keep over-focusing on that. Revolution is not primary a military matter.




What gains in Sri Lanka were you talking about then ?
As far as I know I was only talking about gains in Venezuela.

[Dimentio]

I think there is a large distinction between a social democrat and a democratic socialist. Soc Dems don't want an end to capitalism and Dem Socs want and end to capitalism through democratic means, at least that's how I understand it.

Actually, no.

Within social democratic parties, there has generally been a strong democratic socialist tradition which first in the 1970's/1980's started to be supplanted with social liberalism.

"To be a social democrat, is to be a democratic socialist" ~ Olof Palme, 1970's

"To be a social democrat is to be social... and a democrat" ~ Mona Sahlin, 1990's

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah I didn't say that democratic socialists would not ever join soc-dem parties and try and change them from the inside but democratic socialists would strongly object to being called soc-dems. As the primary difference is Soc-Dems want the reform of capitalism Democratic socialists want an end to it. I think the wiki definition explains it quite well.



Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) movements and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)', but many self-identified democratic socialists oppose contemporary social democracy because social democracy retains the capitalist mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialist#cite_note-sdvrds-0)
Democratic socialism is often used in contrast to the Communist movement (Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism)), opposing democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) and the concept of the revolutionary vanguard, instead advocating for the creation of economic democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) by and for the working class.


So it's not no, there can be a fine line between the two and they may have originated similarly but there is a distinct difference.

[Dimentio]

Yeah I didn't say that democratic socialists would not ever join soc-dem parties and try and change them from the inside but democratic socialists would strongly object to being called soc-dems. As the primary difference is Soc-Dems want the reform of capitalism Democratic socialists want an end to it. I think the wiki definition explains it quite well.

So it's not no, there can be a fine line between the two and they may have originated similarly but there is a distinct difference.

The early social democratic parties wanted to end capitalism by reform.

[Crux]

The early social democratic parties wanted to end capitalism by reform.
Not true, the early social democratic parties were all, in name at least, revolutionary.

[Manic Impressive]

I acknowledge that the earliest Soc-Dems and Dem-Soc came from the same place but that definition of a social democrat is defunct and should only be used in a historical context. I'd bet modern Soc-Dems would be ashamed of it's roots.

I don't know enough about the Swedish politicians you mentioned to comment effectively, but from what I hear about Sweden it is a country which has effected many Soc-Dem reforms. Correct me if I'm wrong but they are not trying to eradicate capitalism where as Chavez might.

[red cat]

That is not the defintion of proletarian, and it is not necessarily as simple as that, although foreign politics is a continuation of internal politics. Chavez alliances is a sign of his limitations. But I don't really use the naxalites as arbiters on whetever any given group or movement is revolutionary or not.

As someone who has been to West Bengal, seen what goes on there, and allied with its rulers, Chavez has identified himself as an enemy of the South Asian working class. This cannot be forgiven or skipped while analyzing the true class character of Chavez.



I have met representatives from Colombianos y colombianas por la Paz, they are on good terms with the guerillas, and their demands are progressive. Peace is not merely an absence of war. Chavez statements are for an ending of state military agression and an end to the conflict. You are blind to the context here.

When did the PCCC or FARC last print any document supporting Chavez ? When did Chavez last support the struggle of the FARC ?



I am sorry but political processes do not follow your model, who seems almost reminiscent of some apocalypse scenario. On the final day etc...Supposed to die? Supposed by who? And why? Fundamental change in the production relations is something made by class power, which may take violent forms if needed, but not necessarily the "let's shoot down cops and politicians" forms you are talking about. Violence has never been and should not be the first principle of someone considering themselves a marxist. Practically such things are not possible on a large scale without violence. If the workers and peasants take control of one or two factories and fields, they might do it non-violently. For a dozen such actions they might have to beat up someone. But when transfer of power takes place in fields and factories by the hundreds, there will inevitably be at least a few deaths.



A handfull when the winter palace was stormed. Otherwise the coming to power was almost completly bloodless. Of course there were some agrarian guerilla like groups that had failed to carry out any revolution in russia for some 50 years, they even killed the tsar at one point, but still they could not succeed. Maybe you should take a lesson from that.
Well, there was the 02 coup attempt, and the country is in some respects very divided. However the bourgeoisie has chosen other ways to try and destabilize the government for now.

But the storming of the winter palace was immediately followed by a civil war, in which many perished. If Chavez is really doing anything revolutionary, then why aren't the bourgeoisie retaliating violently ?

What does the failure of the Narodniks imply ?



Ok.




If the revolutionaires are not well organized enough I don't really see what the alternative is. You must always start from the base, and that's my point, you cannot jump ahead simpling by shooting up some local cops and the landlord.

Right. But in the course of building the organization within the masses, armed conflicts with cops and landlords is inevitable.


FARC certainly does. They too speak of bolivarianismo. And there are armed groups in Venezuela, not to mention the peasant and worker's militias founded by the government. I too believe the people should be armed, but I think you keep over-focusing on that. Revolution is not primary a military matter.

Has the FARC released anything in favour of Chavez after he said that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America ? As far as I see, the Bolivarianism of FARC is way different than Chavez's one.

Yes, all of us have been informed that there are armed groups in Venezuela. But till now they have not engaged in any act that would prove that they are indeed overthrowing a system, that is, they have not killed representatives of the ruling class. Until I see this being done, I refuse to believe that they are actually fighting the ruling class.



As far as I know I was only talking about gains in Venezuela.

Okay, I made a mistake in understanding your point there.

[pranabjyoti]

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) movements and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)', but many self-identified democratic socialists oppose contemporary social democracy because social democracy retains the capitalist mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialist#cite_note-sdvrds-0)
Democratic socialism is often used in contrast to the Communist movement (Leninism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism)), opposing democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) and the concept of the revolutionary vanguard, instead advocating for the creation of economic democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) by and for the working class.
This clearly shows the true of character of democratic socialism, THE PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CHARACTER. How much you will try to differentiate between democratic socialism and social-democracy, YOU CAN NOT HIDE THE FACT THAT BOTH ARE PETTY-BOURGEOISIE IDEOLOGY.
Basically, Leninism is actual expression of dictatorship of proletariat. I can only call those people Marxist those who say that THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. I want to ask to whom we have to show our "democratic nature"? To the proletariat or other classes? At present, talking about "democracy" clearly means collaboration with petty-bourgeoisie and ultimately being overwhelmed by them and their ideology. Kindly remember that petty-bourgeoisie has a bigger population than proletariat and applying present day democratic method, proletariat can be easily overwhelmed and set aside by petty-bourgeoisie. In short, talking about democracy in present scenario is just surrendering to shear numbers than ideology i.e. putting quantity over quality. THE DECLINE OF THE MOVEMENT IN 20TH CENTURY STARTED WITH THIS, WHY DO WE REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN?

[pranabjyoti]

True, but the petite-bourgeoisie by itself cannot be the sole motive force behind any revolution. Sections of it can only align themselves behind the proletariat or the bourgeoisie in a revolution.

Yes, the US will not tolerate anything that challenges its authority in Latin America; not even native capitalism, let alone socialism.

Let's assume that the Leninist theory of bourgeois revolutions being impossible in the era of proletarian revolutions is somehow wrong. Even then I don't see how a revolution can take place without some of the key-defendants of the old ruling class being killed in the process.
I agree with you, but the problem is in most countries, the population of petty-bourgeoisie is higher than proletariat and after revolution, they can easily overwhelm proletariat by just their shear number. We should also be aware of their coward character, which tend to change side with first signs of defeat or their own inherent hidden nature of taking the place of the bourgeoisie after that class had been uprooted.

[Thirsty Crow]

This clearly shows the true of character of democratic socialism, THE PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CHARACTER.
So, proletarian democracy, i.e. economic democracy by and for the working class is a sign of the petite bourgeois character of this political ideology??
You are truly one dogmatic, reactionary fuckwit.
But not only that.

Kindly remember that petty-bourgeoisie has a bigger population than proletariat
This sounds like complete bullshit.
Care to back it up with some evidence?

[pranabjyoti]

So, proletarian democracy, i.e. economic democracy by and for the working class is a sign of the petite bourgeois character of this political ideology??
You are truly one dogmatic, reactionary fuckwit.
But not only that.
Proletarian democracy isn't in contrast with Dictatorship of Proletariat. Proletarian democracy is applicable only to the member of the proletariat class, not to the people outside that boundary. THAT DON'T NEED TO STAND AGAINST LENINISM. By those stupid words like by and for the working class do and others like you want to mean?

This sounds like complete bullshit.
Care to back it up with some evidence?
Do you have any idea of your society surrounding you? Just count the number of people who are working in organized sector as worker and those who are either self-employed or have small business. You can understand easily. I hope you know that the peasants has been counted as petty-bourgeoisie by proper Marxist terminology. In my country, India. just the peasant population overwhelmed the workers population by ratio 15:1 (probably more). This is true for most of countries of world, specially third world countries.

[chegitz guevara]

I still have yet to see what it petit bougie about the Bolivarian Revolution.

Is it the values that it is instilling in the working class? The values of self management?

Look at what class is in the drivers seat. Is it the workers? No. Is it the peasantry? No. Is it the professional and managerial classes? Yes.

[Manic Impressive]

Firstly stop using caps lock it doesn't look good and makes you come across as deranged.


Basically, Leninism is actual expression of dictatorship of proletariat. I can only call those people Marxist those who say that THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY.
While I agree that the only true democracy is in a classless society I don't think Leninism or the soviet model is the only one that can and will work, it was built to suit a specific need in a vast and underdeveloped country. It also conforms to other factors of its day.

I want to ask to whom we have to show our "democratic nature"? To the proletariat or other classes?
We have to show our democratic nature to the proletariat of course as their opinion of socialism/communism is the one of a bureaucratic totalitarian Soviet system.

At present, talking about "democracy" clearly means collaboration with petty-bourgeoisie and ultimately being overwhelmed by them and their ideology. Kindly remember that petty-bourgeoisie has a bigger population than proletariat and applying present day democratic method, proletariat can be easily overwhelmed and set aside by petty-bourgeoisie.
Wait what? the petit bourgeois is larger than the proletariat? Then why are we trying to bring about a minority revolution? It's absurd of course to say the petit bourgeois are larger than the proletariat. Social Democrats changed their nature through corruption of their original goals and the worst of all compromise. They had a little taste of power and wanted more so they made concessions to the bourgeoisie. Surely you don't believe that if something failed in the past it should never be done again, if you did you clearly would not be advocating the Soviet model.

In short, talking about democracy in present scenario is just surrendering to shear numbers than ideology i.e. putting quantity over quality.

There are more proletarians than the other classes put together never forget it. But I don't see a revolution happening without the support of some of the petit bourgeois. At this time we should be building for the future and I do not see this happening in fact it's getting further away. Many people have wondered where the left is during this current recession. I can tell you they have absolutely no profile with which to spread the message. Why? because they refuse to use the bourgeois system to suit there needs basically cutting off their nose to spite their face.


THE DECLINE OF THE MOVEMENT IN 20TH CENTURY STARTED WITH THIS, WHY DO WE REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN?
IF THERE WAS A MOVEMENT NOW WORTH SPEAKING OF THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT

[pranabjyoti]

Firstly stop using caps lock it doesn't look good and makes you come across as deranged.
It's an old way putting stress on parts of writing, Marx to Mao and many others had used this process.

While I agree that the only true democracy is in a classless society I don't think Leninism or the soviet model is the only one that can and will work, it was built to suit a specific need in a vast and underdeveloped country. It also conforms to other factors of its day.
Which factors? You are right in the first part and PRC under Mao isn't a Chinese replication of USSR. There is nothing new in it. But, USSR and Leninism are two different matters. By being Leninist, you don't need to follow the methods used in Russian Revolution and later word by word. Marxism is a science and Leninism is a level of flourish of it. Denying the teachings of Lenin is basically denying Marx and Marxism.

We have to show our democratic nature to the proletariat of course as their opinion of socialism/communism is the one of a bureaucratic totalitarian Soviet system.
This kind of words are often used by imperialist and their brainwashed gobbets. Actually, they don't have any idea of political and social system of USSR from November, 1917 to 1953 onwards. During that period, USSR wasn't less democratic than Chavez's Venezuela or Castro's Cuba. Kindly read the book by Anne Louis Strong and other Western European writers who visited USSR themselves. USSR was the best flourished workers state of that time and its achievements are achievements of world proletariat. It may have some shortcomings, but in my opinion, it's just impossible to overcome those at that time.

Wait what? the petit bourgeois is larger than the proletariat? Then why are we trying to bring about a minority revolution? It's absurd of course to say the petit bourgeois are larger than the proletariat. Social Democrats changed their nature through corruption of their original goals and the worst of all compromise. They had a little taste of power and wanted more so they made concessions to the bourgeoisie. Surely you don't believe that if something failed in the past it should never be done again, if you did you clearly would not be advocating the Soviet model.
Who said that revolution is always for the majority? Marx take the stand beside proletariat because as per his analysis, this class can be able to hold the future NOT THE REASON THAT THIS CLASS CONSISTS OF THE BIGGEST PART OF POPULATION. During the time of Marx, proletariat was a minority even smaller than today. But, unlike other intellectuals of his time, he didn't take the side of the "oppressed majority" i.e. the peasants and other middle class but take more scientific approach and take the side of the proletariat. That's why he still remain necessary while his contemporary intellectuals are thrown in history. Kindly note that progress rarely means staying with majority, but more often opposing the majority.
What you have said about Social Democrats is actually petty-bourgeoisie class character. This character of social democracy in inherent in their petty-bourgeoisie origin.
Nobody will recommend the exact replication of Soviet model, but that doesn't mean denying its achievements. We have to take it and improve it to fit out modern needs. As for example, the Collective farm model is practiced in Maoist areas of India. But, with developments of new technology like hydroponics or areoponics, why do we still stuck to old method of Collectivization. Collectivization is something related with old method of agriculture. With new method it's just become unnecessary.

There are more proletarians than the other classes put together never forget it. But I don't see a revolution happening without the support of some of the petit bourgeois. At this time we should be building for the future and I do not see this happening in fact it's getting further away. Many people have wondered where the left is during this current recession. I can tell you they have absolutely no profile with which to spread the message. Why? because they refuse to use the bourgeois system to suit there needs basically cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Totally wrong. Do you think that the recession is over?

IF THERE WAS A MOVEMENT NOW WORTH SPEAKING OF THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT
DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT MEANS ASSIMILATING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE OLD AND ADDING NEW IMPROVEMENTS TO IT. NOT DENYING IT.

[L.A.P.]

Socialism is an interphase between capitalism and communism. How can one be socialist without being communist ?

That's just in Marxist theory believe it or not the idea of socialism existed before communism, communism is just a form of socialism. There are plenty of socialists who aren't, disregard, or flat out reject marxism/communism. Karl Marx didn't create the idea of socialism therefore his theories on socialism are not the absolute way like it is for communism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do you have any idea of your society surrounding you? ...
So you have no evidence whatsoever to support that claim of yours. Thought so. Pure assumption and speculation.
So long.

[red cat]

That's just in Marxist theory believe it or not the idea of socialism existed before communism, communism is just a form of socialism. There are plenty of socialists who aren't, disregard, or flat out reject marxism/communism. Karl Marx didn't create the idea of socialism therefore his theories on socialism are not the absolute way like it is for communism.

Early socialist ideas had stemmed from the natural desires of the masses to be liberated, but they were heavily influenced by idealism which dominated the philosophical spectrum during those times. Later Marx and his contemporary revolutionaries started analyzing social conditions in a scientific manner and created the theory of what we now know as communism, or more precisely, Marxist communism.

Early socialism/communism had many models, even a model that would consist of a philanthropic capitalist taking care of the working class, and communes which would settle disputes between themselves through wars. However, when we talk of socialism/communism in this forum, we always refer to a system with the working class controlling, or in the process of taking control of, the means of production.

Having said this, it is easy to see why a struggle to establish communism must always be violent, or rather why the bourgeoisie will always force it to be violent, at least until the working class has achieved a clear military superiority over capitalists in a global level.

[pranabjyoti]

So you have no evidence whatsoever to support that claim of yours. Thought so. Pure assumption and speculation.
So long.
I have read this data on reports of population survey in India. Speculation, you may call it, but based on experience and knowledge.

[REDSOX]

Looks like a lot of people on this thread are trying to come up with explanations as to what chavez is and what the process in venezuela is about. Its simple Chavez is a non marxist theologian socialist who believes in a form of socialism where the peasentry and the working/middle class rules not the bourgeois.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chavez claims to be a Marxist.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100116/157569985.html



Chavez said that humanity would only find salvation after "finishing with capitalism." He also revealed that he had begun studying Mark's Das Kapital again, and that the 19th century social philosopher's work gave him "the answers to many questions."




"I am a Marxist to the same degree as the followers of the ideas of Jesus Christ and the liberator of America, Simon Bolivar," he said in a televised speech on the government's work in 2009 to the national assembly.