Chavez shelters homeless in palace [Archive]

Salvatore

2nd December 2010, 03:00

Chavez shelters homeless in palace

Thursday December 2, 2010

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has given shelter at the presidential palace to 26 families left homeless by recent heavy rains in the country.

The families had previously been staying at the Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas' main military facility, and were transferred to the Miraflores Palace. Chavez offered to let them stay for up to one year.

He toured the rooms in which his guests were to settle, including the kitchen where scores of children were having lunch.

'You will stay for as long as necessary,' he told the refugees on Wednesday.

'Unless they themselves decide otherwise, when they leave here it will be for a permanent flat or home,' he told reporters.

Chavez made it clear that he was reacting to an emergency.

'We have to set aside personal comfort and respond to the emergency that we are living through,' he said.

Heavy rains have claimed more than 30 lives in Venezuela in recent weeks, as well as destroying the property of thousands of people and causing major damage to infrastructure.
Source: Sky News Australia
skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=546759&vId=

Not long ago, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. In September 2006, a sniper with a long-range gun and a motorcycle to escape on had attempted to shoot Chavez as he exited a helicopter on a trip to western Venezuela, although the plan didn't work out.

"For sure, one walks around risking one's life ... We're being threatened with death by the empire," Chavez said.

Chavez is an altruist by nature and by deed. Once again he can be proud of what he did to help the poor people of his country.

Nanatsu Yoru

2nd December 2010, 03:26

Yes, he shelters the homeless in his palace.

His palace.

I for one see a criticism that could be made.

Reznov

2nd December 2010, 03:29

Yes, he shelters the homeless in his palace.

His palace.

I for one see a criticism that could be made.

:thumbup1:

Agreed, why is there even a palace?

Sosa

2nd December 2010, 03:32

the presidential palace is the equivalent of the White House in the U.S. Doesn't belong to Chavez, it belongs to Venezuela.

Pretty Flaco

2nd December 2010, 03:40

Bush should have sheltered all of New Orleans in the white house after Katrina

but seriously: this man has just put himself on parallel with saints.

Salvatore

2nd December 2010, 03:46

Agreed, why is there even a palace?

As the article states, "he toured the rooms in which his guests [foreign political and diplomatic visitors] were to settle".

Furthermore, it's not Hugo Chavez' fault that there is a palace. The construction of the Miraflores Palace was started 1884. ;)

Spawn of Stalin

2nd December 2010, 03:46

2nd December 2010, 03:51

Agreed, why is there even a palace?

Even better question: why are there homeless???

Sosa

2nd December 2010, 03:58

Even better question: why are there homeless???

Well, if you read the article you would've seen that part that says there was heavy rain...my guess its because they were flooded

2nd December 2010, 04:10

Well, if you read the article you would've seen that part that says there was heavy rain...my guess its because they were floodedMy question was obviously more general than that. Nice try, tho.

Robocommie

2nd December 2010, 04:12

The president of a country making some of the most progressive reforms the world over houses workers in need in his home, and what happens? People criticise him for the home he lives in...nice going people. I can think of a few things I don't like about Chavez, the fact that he has a nice house isn't one of them. Perhaps he should go live in a shack on a barrio, then he'd be a REAL revolutionary.

Good old Revleft never fails to find the cloud in the silver lining.

"That's amazing, that man just ran into that burning building and saved half a dozen kids!"
"Why was the building on fire in the first place? You call that socialism?"

2nd December 2010, 04:14

Good old Revleft never fails to find the cloud in the silver lining.

"That's amazing, that man just ran into that burning building and saved half a dozen kids!"
"Why was the building on fire in the first place? You call that socialism?"

This sort of reminds me about this time when I was speaking to a "friend" (no longer a friend obviously) who was defending China's socialism by stating how much aid money it donates to Africa. When I told him that was a completely idiotic defense, he provided the exact same response.

Salvatore

2nd December 2010, 04:22

Even better question: why are there homeless???
Following your logic, there should be two more questions:

How did the oppressing classes cause the heavy rain???

If Chavez said he wants to transform Venezuela into socialism,
why has nobody heard of paradisiacal conditions there yet???

2nd December 2010, 04:24

How did the oppressing classes cause the heavy rain???

1. There is no such thing as a natural disaster.
(http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Smith/)
2. This is a publicity stunt.

Quetzal

2nd December 2010, 04:51

My question was obviously more general than that. Nice try, tho.

Their not homeless. Their houseless.

Rakhmetov

2nd December 2010, 15:19

Yes, he shelters the homeless in his palace.

His palace.

I for one see a criticism that could be made.

Where is Chavez suppose to receive foreign dignitaries, presidents and ambassadors so that they feel safe???

Spawn of Stalin

2nd December 2010, 15:35

Don't be so naive, everybody knows socialists only congregate with workers. A real revolutionary wouldn't be seen dead with someone like Cristina Kirchner or even Raul Castro.

Cane Nero

2nd December 2010, 16:03

Where is Chavez suppose to receive foreign dignitaries, presidents and ambassadors so that they feel safe???
But of course, is entirely fair to foreign dignitaries, ambassadors and presidents staying in a palace while the Venezuelan people live in slums and tenements. / Sarcasm

These privileges is one of my problems with respect to these "socialist" regimes.

Delenda Carthago

2nd December 2010, 17:08

Chavez is the name,populism is the game.

Blackscare

2nd December 2010, 17:40

This sort of reminds me about this time when I was speaking to a "friend" (no longer a friend obviously) who was defending China's socialism by stating how much aid money it donates to Africa. When I told him that was a completely idiotic defense, he provided the exact same response.

Wait, you ceased a friendship over someone's position on China? Jesus man, get a life. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

gorillafuck

2nd December 2010, 17:47

:thumbup1:

Agreed, why is there even a palace?
Why would they tear it down?

Here is the thing I see about Venezuela. There has not been a workers revolution there, it is a capitalist state. But it's more complicated than that, because as somebody here pointed out to me, after all that has happened, Chavez would not be on the side of the right wing were there to be a workers revolution. I support Chavez and his efforts to create a democratic socialism (not social democracy, democratic socialism and social democracy are two different thing), but I am skeptical of the capabilities of the Venezuelan state.

Ligeia

2nd December 2010, 20:19

The question is not "why are there homeless/houseless/aggrieved people?" or at least this question entails many different questions.

A disaster is a disaster if it affects people.
If an erosion happens at some mountain side where nobody lives, it's not a disaster. It's a disaster if it happens at a mountain side where people live and they are negatively affected by it. Though it's a natural phenomenon.
But it's not only disaster it's a human-made disaster since somebody started to build houses there for whatever reasons without taking into account the preeminent danger everybody there is exposed to (since many natural phenomenons, especially those classified as natural disasters are predictable).

Now, it's expected that there'll be a lot of infrastructural damage and people will be negatively affected by such things but...this is especially expectable in a system (say, capitalism) where every decision concerning our environment (I mean, like housing areas,settlements..etc.) is made because of some economic reason and not for the benefit of the people or their needs. Further socio-economic differences just happen to reflect themselves spacially, as well, in the course of time, if private (profit-driven) entities are the only ones to "plan" cities,villages,regions,districts...etc.

If economic systems or at least political concepts shape spaces, you could argue that in socialism or at least in a system that promotes or is influenced by socialism, planning decisions made on those issues are made firstly and above all for the benefit of people, thus preventing any future damage that could happen due to natural phenomena.
Well, it's about planning on many different levels like at the time of construction but it's also about vigilance for possible outcomes.
Then again, old "spaces" generally prevail longer and are not immediately reactive to people's needs and wishes. New things establish themselves with the means of old or above them or in between...and so on, depending on their significance and/or usability for the population.

Broadly, I don't know how predictable these heavy rains were, if that regions are known for it, or how well equipped meteorogical stations there are around in Venezuela, or how much influence they have on decision making processes on this kind of issues,.....etc. There are a lot of factors that play roles that can diminish or prevent damages (and there are just as many factors for their implementation or their absence)which should be approached differently than in pure capitalism.
I think that's the key point if you look at "natural" disasters (no matter where they happen).

2nd December 2010, 20:25

That man knows what good PR is, I'll give him that.

Scary Monster

2nd December 2010, 20:35

My question was obviously more general than that. Nice try, tho.

Well dude, the revolution in Venezuela is still on-going. He's still in the process of nationalizing much of the industry there and venezuelan media outlets are still controlled by the capitalist class. Anyway, i dont think there is any workplace self-management...yet...?

Sosa

2nd December 2010, 20:45

That man knows what good PR is, I'll give him that.

Part of his decision might have been from a PR standpoint. regardless, I'm sure the 26 families don't really care what his intentions are, they're just really happy to have somewhere to stay.

I'm sure that he could've arranged for them to stay somewhere else like a nice 5 star hotel, but to keep them at the presidential palace does speak volumes. Maybe I'm a romantic, but I think that his intentions are sincere.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd December 2010, 20:52

Seriously? An article was made how Chavez brought those who lost their homes due to the massive floods into the Miraflores presidential palace (which if anybody looked at its pictures, as big as it is, this is no where near in comparison to a lot of homes to those of the rich ruling class here in the States, and like many have already stated, as common sense should've told you, Chavez doesn't own the palace nor is there because of Chavez). It's amazing how far you anti-Chavez posters will go to demonize him, despite every great thing he does for his people.

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 20:57

It's amazing how far you anti-Chavez posters will go to demonize him, despite every great thing he does for his people.
They are 'his' people?

Struggle

2nd December 2010, 21:02

This is precisely what one needs from Chavez.

It is a Populist strategy in order to gain support, and such strategies work very well.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd December 2010, 21:03

They are 'his' people?

Are you seriously going to try and make this argument? Yes, 'his' people, since it's the people he's fighting for and clearly protecting.

khad

2nd December 2010, 21:05

They are 'his' people?
In the sense that he directs policies of the state which affect them, they are "his" people. They certainly aren't the people of powerless sectarians living in the heart of empire who can't even lay claim to a constituency within their own countries, let alone one in another nation.

Blackscare

2nd December 2010, 21:10

God this board can get bogged down in semantic bullshit.

ellipsis

2nd December 2010, 21:10

a sniper with a long-range gun

Redundancy!

StalinFanboy

2nd December 2010, 21:11

This will certainly hasten workers' self-organization and appropriation of the means of production!

ZeroNowhere

2nd December 2010, 21:27

This will certainly hasten workers' self-organization and appropriation of the means of production!Of course, it's philantropy. As we know, nobody engages in philantropy when their real intentions and interests are not in working-class revolution.

Morgenstern

2nd December 2010, 21:30

Either this guy is a good PR guy or he is a generally good guy or he is both. Either way, while this doesn't exactly further the cause of Socialism I do approve of this action. I don't think many 'accepted Socialists' would do that. I never saw Tito do that anyway. :rolleyes:

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 22:00

Are you seriously going to try and make this argument? Yes, 'his' people, since it's the people he's fighting for and clearly protecting.
I'm making the argument against a form of discourse that has legitimised bourgeois states since their inception, justifying social contract theory and the subordination of wider populace to institutions that dominate them.

They certainly aren't the people of powerless sectarians living in the heart of empire who can't even lay claim to a constituency within their own countries, let alone one in another nation.
fapfapfapfap

khad

2nd December 2010, 22:04

I'm making the argument against a form of discourse that has legitimised bourgeois states since their inception, justifying social contract theory and the subordination of wider populace to institutions that dominate them.
I don't see your discursive games giving shelter to families who've had their homes wrecked.

But then again, I don't know. Maybe your pomo politics of "naming" is some hitherto undiscovered food source?

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 22:08

I don't see your discursive games giving shelter to families who've had their homes wrecked.
Obviously not. I don't have a palace.
But I didn't actually comment on sheltering homeless Venezuelans in the first place, just on another posters comment on it.

But then again, I don't know. Maybe your pomo politics of "naming" is some hitherto undiscovered food source?Once again obviously not. But words have connotations and language isn't just lines and dots put together.

khad

2nd December 2010, 22:10

Obviously not. I don't have a palace.
Neither does Chavez. He merely occupies it because he is the head of state. What's your point again?

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 22:14

Neither does Chavez. He merely occupies it because he is the head of state. What's your point again?
That I don't have any spare rooms.

NKVD

2nd December 2010, 22:26

Tablo

2nd December 2010, 22:30

I just love all the armchair leftists criticizing Chavez cause his model of socialism doesn't 100% match what they think socialism should be. Who cares if he is empowering the working class and creating better living standards for his people. Oh yeah I forgot, they aren't even his people. :rolleyes:
I just love when armchair leftists call other people armchair leftists for not uncritically supporting rulers that live in palaces and have not given democratic economic control to the people.

Brother No. 1

2nd December 2010, 22:36

Tell me,Tsuk, Do you know that the venezuelan people could actually veto anything Chavez might issue because of their assemblies and applying thay vote to their goverment?

NecroCommie

2nd December 2010, 22:44

It's awesome when people play the populism card. It's kind of an ad-hominem. "Yees he did a good thing, but look at the selfish motivation he had, huh?!"

gorillafuck

2nd December 2010, 22:50

Obviously not. I don't have a palace.
But I didn't actually comment on sheltering homeless Venezuelans in the first place, just on another posters comment on it.
Once again obviously not. But words have connotations and language isn't just lines and dots put together.
Should he have the palace torn down for no reason?

Robocommie

2nd December 2010, 23:05

But then again, I don't know. Maybe your pomo politics of "naming" is some hitherto undiscovered food source?

You ever have Foucault power discourse served braised? It's delightful. Particularly when served with diced Chomsky media theory and a little olive oil.

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 23:19

You ever have Foucault power discourse served braised? It's delightful. Particularly when served with diced Chomsky media theory and a little olive oil.
Don't be silly, we are all vegans.

bricolage

2nd December 2010, 23:24

Should he have the palace torn down for no reason?
Yes. That is exactly what I think should happen....
I don't give a shit about Chavez living in a palace, essentially it is irrelevant, where he lives has no relation to any political judgement on the politics of Venezuela. I was just pointing out the practical limitations preventing me personally from housing homeless people.

gorillafuck

2nd December 2010, 23:24

You ever have Foucault power discourse served braised? It's delightful. Particularly when served with diced Chomsky media theory and a little olive oil.
Chomskys writings on the media are fuckin' brilliant.

Ricardo

3rd December 2010, 00:36

I just love when armchair leftists call other people armchair leftists for not uncritically supporting rulers that live in palaces and have not given democratic economic control to the people.

What do you think would have happened if the day Chavez was elected he tried to give economic power to the workers of Venezuela? An assassination and a US backed dictator as a replacement most likely. I'm sure most on this board wish the revolution to be pure and quick but that's not the reality and people need to remember that we're talking about actual people not some fantasy, and anything making their lives better and more democratic is a step in the right direction.

As far as I know Chavez introduced many Venezuelans to the idea of socialism; and his rhetoric, even if that's all it turns out to be, has set a fire in many working class people's hearts, one that won't be extinguished if he ends up selling out, so the struggle will continue on, with a level of class consciousness not seen in many other countries. If he is a true revolutionary he will take his country as far as it can go within his means, and the working class can take over.

Ricardo

3rd December 2010, 00:47

Spawn of Stalin

3rd December 2010, 00:48

Indeed, let's not forget that revolution has become a lot more difficult since the tragedy of the Soviet Union. Relatively weak countries with left wing administrations like Venezuela have zero defences now that Russia and the rest of Europe are safely in the hands of the capitalists.

3rd December 2010, 01:49

Wait, you ceased a friendship over someone's position on China? Jesus man, get a life. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

No, it is just representative of his overall idiocy. I'd still hang out with him but he's one of those guys that's 100% politics 100% of the time and I can't stand talking politics with him because of how stupid his views are. Hence no more friendship.

Well dude, the revolution in Venezuela is still on-going. He's still in the process of nationalizing much of the industry there and venezuelan media outlets are still controlled by the capitalist class. Anyway, i dont think there is any workplace self-management...yet...?

We've been hearing this shit for a decade.

Are you seriously going to try and make this argument? Yes, 'his' people, since it's the people he's fighting for and clearly protecting.

Then why hasn't he promoted the expropriation of capitalist property generally?

I just love all the armchair leftists criticizing Chavez cause his model of socialism doesn't 100% match what they think socialism should be.

Already responded to. You're a moron, it's obvious by the name.

As far as I know Chavez introduced many Venezuelans to the idea of socialism

This is fairly representative of the idiocy of your post.

BTW this is probably my favorite thread in Politics right now, really brings me back.

Burn A Flag

3rd December 2010, 02:20

Alright comrades, despite what some of us may feel about the Chavez administration, can't we all agree it's pretty fucking cool that he invited homeless people to live in the presidential palace? Most bourgeois presidents would turn their noses up at homeless people!

Savage

3rd December 2010, 02:25

He should give them permanent residence there, that would be respectable.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 02:35

I just love all the armchair leftists criticizing Chavez cause his model of socialism doesn't 100% match what they think socialism should be. You're a moron, it's obvious by the name.
You should go to Stormfront where you belong, you cultural chauvinist, racist pig.

gorillafuck

3rd December 2010, 02:39

You should go to Stormfront where you belong, you cultural chauvinist, racist pig.
You think he's a fascist since he disagrees with you?

Are you shitting me?

theAnarch

3rd December 2010, 02:39

Id just like to point out these were some of the heavist rains to hit the nation in 40 years.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 02:48

You think he's a fascist since he disagrees with you?

Are you shitting me?

If you see through his politically correct libertarian camouflage, you will notice that he confessed to regard "brown people" and "orientals" as "less smart", i.e. inferior.

I don't think that these "anti-imperialists" were attempting to say that the white first-worlders are smarter than the brown third-worlders or whatever. In fact, I think it's the complete opposite. (...) Thus the racism inherent in the framework isn't based on "white superiority" but rather "brown mysticism" or Orientalism.
revleft.com/vb/anti-imperialism-t135580/index.html?t=135580

Ovi

3rd December 2010, 02:50

Hear! Hear! How many bourgeois leaders have given shelter to the homeless in their palaces recently?

Answer: one.
Support bourgeois leaders who give shelter to homeless people in their palace! 111!

Neither does Chavez. He merely occupies it because he is the head of state. What's your point again?
That's right. It's not his; it's only that he can solely decide what to do with the palace, who can stay, who can't and for how long. I wish I didn't have a palace like that.

theAnarch

3rd December 2010, 03:17

Ive decided this whole topic is trash....
Rather than concentrating on Chavez’s personal response shouldn’t we be looking at the response of the Unions, neighborhood committees, and worker/barrio organizations in Venezuela?

Palingenisis

3rd December 2010, 03:47

You think he's a fascist since he disagrees with you?

Are you shitting me?

Trots regularly call me a fascist in neg rep....:confused:

Palingenisis

3rd December 2010, 03:48

Here is the thing I see about Venezuela. There has not been a workers revolution there, it is a capitalist state. But it's more complicated than that, because as somebody here pointed out to me, after all that has happened, Chavez would not be on the side of the right wing were there to be a workers revolution. I support Chavez and his efforts to create a democratic socialism (not social democracy, democratic socialism and social democracy are two different thing), but I am skeptical of the capabilities of the Venezuelan state.

That is all spot on.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 03:49

Ive decided this whole topic is trash....
Why?

I just wanted to suggest a new nickname for KC to use in RevLeft:

KKK

As he does not only hold white supremacist views but also is a fierce critic of President Obama.

Palingenisis

3rd December 2010, 03:57

As he does not only hold white supremacist views but also is a fierce critic of President Obama.

Whats wrong with being a fierce critic of president Obama? The African People's Socialist Party which is the best Maoist grouping in the USA is also fiercely critical of him...He is after the head of an army waging war against the Afghani and Iraqi people. If you also look at the whole healthcare bill its corporatist as opposed to actually social democratic (which is why there are so many problems with it)...And it is that way because he refuses to go solidly against private business.

Tzonteyotl

3rd December 2010, 04:31

Chavez, as an individual, represents the national bourgeoisie, who appear "progressive" as long as they oppose the bigger foreign bourgeoisie and enforce state capitalist reforms, but whose interests are very much opposed to the proletariat, who form the sole force capable of carrying out the world communist revolution in contradistinction to state capitalist reformism carried out by bourgeois states which represent no small degree of electoralism and contribute to illusions in the bourgeois state among the proletariat while simultaneously demonstrating, as proven elsewhere in several countries of the world, the fact that when capitalism plunges into crisis, the bourgeois state tends to favour state capitalism as a means of concentrating the means of production in the state as an attempt to better manage capitalism, actions which in themselves naturally have little to do with socialism.

Not to take away from your point, but goddamn that's a long ass sentence! :lol:

Tzonteyotl

3rd December 2010, 04:35

It's cool that Chavez is helping these people out. But, what about letting people who were homeless before the flooding stay in the palace? Maybe that can be the next step!?!:)

NKVD

3rd December 2010, 04:37

To be fair, one should not focus on Chavez as a person. Individual persons do not make history as we know from Marx. Chavez, as an individual, represents the national bourgeoisie, who appear "progressive" as long as they oppose the bigger foreign bourgeoisie and enforce state capitalist reforms, but whose interests are very much opposed to the proletariat, who form the sole force capable of carrying out the world communist revolution in contradistinction to state capitalist reformism carried out by bourgeois states which represent no small degree of electoralism and contribute to illusions in the bourgeois state among the proletariat while simultaneously demonstrating, as proven elsewhere in several countries of the world, the fact that when capitalism plunges into crisis, the bourgeois state tends to favour state capitalism as a means of concentrating the means of production in the state as an attempt to better manage capitalism, actions which in themselves naturally have little to do with socialism.

Chavez is fighting for the rights of the proletariat. And his background isn't bourgeois in the least. He may not succeed because he is going about it through the Democratic system. But to say he represents the bourgeois and is simply a progressive is ridiculous.

3rd December 2010, 05:44

If you see through his politically correct libertarian camouflage, you will notice that he confessed to regard "brown people" and "orientals" as "less smart", i.e. inferior.

LOL I was obviously referring to the viewpoint held by third-worldists and the "anti-imperialist" milieu you fucking moron you just made yourself look like a complete idiot.

I don't think that these "anti-imperialists" (and there really is no better way of explaining them because they are really only concerned with "opposing imperialism," when you actually get down to the root of their belief system) were attempting to say that the white first-worlders are smarter than the brown third-worlders or whatever. In fact, I think it's the complete opposite.

The reason that anti-imperialists justify movements in developing countries through popularity, the implementation of social programs, etc... isn't because that's as good as they think the "brown people" can do, but rather because they have a very distorted world view which is based on, as I said in my earlier post, "the people" fighting "imperialism/imperialists". They define "the imperialists" for example as the US, and then in turn define "the people" or "the anti-imperialists" as anyone fighting against the US. Hence, they define the latter term negatively as those who are opposed to the US. Because of this very binary view (oppose imperialists/support anti-imperialists) they end up having to attempt to fit everyone into one box or the other.

Because not everything fits so nicely into two distinct, isolated boxes, they end up having to justify their decision to put a movement into one box or the other. "Chavez is anti-imperialist, as he is against the imperialist - the US - and therefore we should support him. We then, after the decision to support him, rationalize that decision with anything we have at our disposal." That is the thinking of the first-world "anti-imperialist".

The racism comes in only subtly, through the very framework of their belief system. "The people" will always take on an negative character, while "the imperialists" will generally mean the US or some other western country, which is generally considered "white". Thus the racism inherent in the framework isn't based on "white superiority" but rather "brown mysticism" or Orientalism.

As he does not only hold white supremacist views but also is a fierce critic of President Obama.:laugh:

20 posts, who the fuck are you a sock of anyways?

Rusty Shackleford

3rd December 2010, 08:24

why is there such a ridiculous debate/furor over this? come on, Chavez house homeless people in the presidential palace.

you NEVER hear of that anywhere else in the west.

SocialismOrBarbarism

3rd December 2010, 08:32

Maybe not from presidents but I know of a few millionaires and billionaires who have done so.

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 11:24

Support bourgeois leaders who give shelter to homeless people in their palace! 111!

That's right. It's not his; it's only that he can solely decide what to do with the palace, who can stay, who can't and for how long. I wish I didn't have a palace like that.

Yeah, well let's be honest here Ovi. I personally would sleep like a baby if Chavez was leader of the United States, rather than you. At least he's actually done something to advance towards socialism in the 21st century, instead of fap over anarcho-semantics.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 11:31

why is there such a ridiculous debate/furor over this? come on, Chavez house homeless people in the presidential palace.

you NEVER hear of that anywhere else in the west.

I agree with you was a good attitude taken by Chavez, but we should not canonize him for that.
I do not believe he is the last hope of communism.

One weird thing I noticed here is that some people here think that if we do not support someone who calls themselves "communists" or "socialist", mean that, necessarily, we support the capitalists or we are counterrevolutionaries.

Unidos Marchemos

3rd December 2010, 11:35

I find it ridiculous that people will seemingly find any possible reason for Hugo Chavez bashing to take place, way to burn your bridges guys, really.

the alternative before him. wasn't much better.

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 11:37

I agree with you was a good attitude taken by Chavez, but we should not canonize him for that.
I do not believe he is the last hope of communism.

One weird thing I noticed here is that some people here think that if we do not support someone who calls themselves "communists" or "socialist", mean that, necessarily, we support the capitalists or we are counterrevolutionaries.

I think I've seen something differently. We're supporting Chavez out of the context of him not just helping bring people into the Presidential palace, but also from how far he's brought the workers closer to power in the name of socialism. We just refuse to result ourselves into anarchist, sectarian crap, going against everything Chavez does, always concluding his actions as mere populism. Given that they show no ability of pointing out the clear class contradictions between bourgeois populism and proletarian populism.

Unidos Marchemos

3rd December 2010, 11:53

I just love when armchair leftists call other people armchair leftists for not uncritically supporting rulers that live in palaces and have not given democratic economic control to the people.

I think you're right, Tsukae.

we should immediately go back to the days of Rafael Caldera, since we all know how much better he was...at least he wasn't a "poser" ey? :rolleyes:

Palingenisis

3rd December 2010, 12:06

In Europe, there are at least the third positionists who generally have a good taste in music, nice clothes and who are well-versed in philosophy and arts.

Really?

I have a small interest in Carl Schmitt and I listened to this internet radio thing lecture on him by supposedly super duper intellectual Croat third positionist on him and it was obvious that he had barely read anything by Schmitt, that he was just waffling.

I think that our third positionists are well versed in naming dropping and thats about it.

I do have a fondness for Death in June, Sol Invictus and Burzum though :blushing:.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 12:10

I think I've seen something differently. We're supporting Chavez out of the context of him not just helping bring people into the Presidential palace, but also from how far he's brought the workers closer to power in the name of socialism.

If by socialism, you mean being ruled over ten years by a military dictator who lives in a Palace while Venezuelan workers have to live in slums and shantytowns.
Correct me if I'm wrong but socialism has to do with bringing "social justice",i.e reduce the social imbalance, right?

We just refuse to result ourselves into anarchist, sectarian crap, going against everything Chavez does, always concluding his actions as mere populism. Given that they show no ability of pointing out the clear class contradictions between bourgeois populism and proletarian populism.
I'm not against everything Chavez does, I'm not just licking his balls for what he does.
Anyway, I am against any kind of populism, because it is simply a way to alienate people, blinded by the use of a personality cult and nationalism.

Unidos Marchemos

3rd December 2010, 12:16

In Europe, there are at least the third positionists who generally have a good taste in music, nice clothes and who are well-versed in philosophy and arts.

If they are well-versed in philosophy, then why would they be third positionists?

Das war einmal

3rd December 2010, 13:01

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 14:10

you fucking moron

99% of your posts consist of trolling and are completely predictable.

You simply insult all forum members who have Russian names and show Leninist, or anti-imperialist tendencies as "fucking morons" or "idiots".

A McCarthyite chauvinist like you normally wouldn't waste his precious life time on a forum like RevLeft as the cold war is long over. So one question remains: What is wrong with your brain?

Obs

3rd December 2010, 14:29

If by socialism, you mean being ruled over ten years by a military dictator who lives in a Palace while Venezuelan workers have to live in slums and shantytowns.

This

This is it

This is the dumbest post.

I'm taking a screenshot of this post and saving it on a USB that I'll keep in a bulletproof safe, so that if anyone ever asks me, "Hey, what's the dumbest post on RevLeft?" - I'll show them this.

Congratulations.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 14:56

You should go to Stormfront where you belong, you cultural chauvinist, racist pig.

You think he's a fascist since he disagrees with you?

Are you shitting me?
Fascism does not equal racism, you dumbass.

(Nazism) was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism

"Race is a feeling, not a reality."
Benito Mussolini

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 14:57

It's cool that Chavez is helping these people out. But, what about letting people who were homeless before the flooding stay in the palace? Maybe that can be the next step!?!:)

Why not just start a development project (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5685) where thousands of homes (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5774) can be built for those who are homeless (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5736)? :thumbup1:

NKVD

3rd December 2010, 14:59

Why not just start a development project (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5685) where thousands of homes (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5774) can be built for those who are homeless (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5736)? :thumbup1:

Win!

gorillafuck

3rd December 2010, 15:05

Trots regularly call me a fascist in neg rep....:confused:
If they accused you of being in the Allman brothers Band then it wouldn't make it more accurate for you to accuse them of such. It'd still be absolute horseshit either way.

Salvatore: Stormfront is a fascist website, ya know. And what did KC say that was so racist?

That is all spot on.
Thanks :)

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 15:13

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 15:17

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5820

Chavez Supporters March in Caracas for "Radicalization" of the Revolution and Against “Imperialism and Bureaucratism

The people know what's going on. The people will not let the revolution fall to pieces.

The revolution is a good cause, we shouldn't be pissing all over it.

The potential this revolution has is probably one the best hopes for socialism today.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 15:20

Salvatore: Stormfront is a fascist website, ya know.
Stormfront was established as a website in 1995 by a former Ku Klux Klan leader. It's more racist than fascist.

And what did KC say that was so racist?
He hates everything non-American, acting like he owns the place.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 15:35

This

This is it

This is the dumbest post.

I'm taking a screenshot of this post and saving it on a USB that I'll keep in a bulletproof safe, so that if anyone ever asks me, "Hey, what's the dumbest post on RevLeft?" - I'll show them this.

Congratulations.

Thanks! You do not know how I'm flattered.

gorillafuck

3rd December 2010, 15:38

Stormfront was established as a website in 1995 by a former Ku Klux Klan leader. It's more racist than fascist.
Alright, fair enough

He hates everything non-American, acting like he owns the place.
Evidence?

DDR

3rd December 2010, 15:51

I don't uncerstand why there's so many people saying a lot of bad stuff about Chavez whiout any proof. I undertand that maybe he's not the ultimate socialist leader, nor that the bolivarian socialist revolution that he's carring is somehow slow. But looking how the world is and how the venezuelans have been and how are now, boy I surely support Cavez.

¡Patria, socialismo o muerte, venceremos!

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 15:58

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 16:07

I do not support Chavez. I support the Revolution.
The reforms implemented in Venezuela may have improved the life of the Venezuelan working class, but will not release this class.
To be honest I'm afraid that it will become the new Soviet Union of America.

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 16:15

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 16:16

People, don't even bother with Renan's idiotic posts. Not even the ultra-anarchist forum, Anti-Flag, like him, given that his rep there is -12 (http://anti-flag.com/forum/index.php?/user/1187-renan/).
OMG Now you put me down completely, I think I'll never get over it.:crying:

Since when the anti-flag forum is ultra-anarchist?
The owner of the forum is a reformist.

Now, you really want to make personal attacks or debate on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, your true love.:lol:

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 16:17

New Soviet Union of America?

Even after Chavez admitted to being a Trotskyist? Even after he said that his revolution was not looking for a Soviet style system?

If Venezuela ever even went that route it would be because of the same historical development of the past regimes; militarization due to invasion,economic blockade and sabotage.

All aside, I wish there even was a USSR like deterrent to the mad crazy neo-liberalism running rampant in this age.

Chavez has stated a lot of things actually. I don't think it's best to call him a "trotskyist". Because the Trotskyists of Venezuela have stated that Chavez needs to go on a different route in order to implement Socialism in Venezuela.

The Vegan Marxist

3rd December 2010, 16:19

OMG Now you put me down completely, I think I'll never get over it.:crying:

Since when the anti-flag forum is ultra-anarchist?
The owner of the forum is a reformist.

Now, you really want to make personal attacks or debate on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, your true love.:lol:

Yes, ultra-anarchist, because the vast majority members of that forum are anarchists, or they call themselves anarcho-communists. I don't care what the owner of the forum is.

Salvatore

3rd December 2010, 16:21

Evidence?

Constant trolling against Russian forum members, stating the reason that he doesn't like their Russian names.

Suggesting that Muslims and blacks are allegedly fond of "brown mysticism", while solidarity with Russians and Asians associates the anti-imperialists with "Orientalism".

If that isn't racial chauvinism, what is it then?

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 16:24

Chavez has stated a lot of things actually. I don't think it's best to call him a "trotskyist". Because the Trotskyists of Venezuela have stated that Chavez needs to go on a different route in order to implement Socialism in Venezuela.

I was assuming that Chavez just thinks of Trotskyism to mean "anti-Stalin", "anti-Soviet System, post-Lenin".

My point was, just to even have a viable deterrent to US global hegemony would be a great thing.

I know many comrades in here hated the USSR, but I mourn it's loss, in light of the fact that nothing seems to be holding the US or Europe back from dominating markets everywhere.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 16:26

Yes, ultra-anarchist, because the vast majority members of that forum are anarchists, or they call themselves anarcho-communists. I don't care what the owner of the forum is.
For God's sake, most people there do not want a Revolution, or simply do not care. You can count on your finger how many actually believe in a Revolution.
Now this is getting off-topic...

Palingenisis

3rd December 2010, 17:00

Even after Chavez admitted to being a Trotskyist? Even after he said that his revolution was not looking for a Soviet style system?

If Venezuela ever even went that route it would be because of the same historical development of the past regimes; militarization due to invasion,economic blockade and sabotage.
.

That is an example of why I still distrust Chavez...There is much to much of the show man about him. I mean what exactly did he mean by that? It reminds me of the whole thing of sending Obama a book by Lenin.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 17:02

My point was, just to even have a viable deterrent to US global hegemony would be a great thing.

I know many comrades in here hated the USSR, but I mourn it's loss, in light of the fact that nothing seems to be holding the US or Europe back from dominating markets everywhere.

My friend, you worry more with the interests of the working class and not with a system of government that spends more on high-tech weaponry, than in solutions to social problems.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 17:15

Constant trolling against Russian forum members, stating the reason that he doesn't like their Russian names.

Come on, in the case of the NKVD I did not like the name too, but not because it is Russian, because it is the name of Stalin's secret police.

Suggesting that Muslims and blacks are allegedly fond of "brown mysticism", while solidarity with Russians and Asians associates the anti-imperialists with "Orientalism".

If that isn't racial chauvinism, what is it then?

Wait a minute, the Muslims are one of the most highly biased people, and their culture is also mysticism.
If Muslim countries were in place in the USA and European countries, would be just as imperialistic as they are.

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 17:16

My friend, you worry more with the interests of the working class and not with a system of government that spends more on high-tech weaponry, than in solutions to social problems.

The USSR still managed to do both, what are you talking about.

With it's loss, Russia plunged back into the third world, with massive losses to the social safety net available to their citizens.

NKVD

3rd December 2010, 17:19

That is an example of why I still distrust Chavez...There is much to much of the show man about him. I mean what exactly did he mean by that? It reminds me of the whole thing of sending Obama a book by Lenin.

I think it means his reading of the history of the soviet union is affected by the decades long smear campaign against Stalin, not just by capitalists, but even by most leftists in the west. Thus, I think Hugo Chavez is simply misled, rather than untrustworthy.

Obs

3rd December 2010, 18:23

I don't care if Chavez calls what he's doing communism or socialism or Marxism-Leninism or Maoism or Trotskyism, as long as he keeps doing it.

Cane Nero

3rd December 2010, 18:25

The USSR still managed to do both, what are you talking about.

With it's loss, Russia plunged back into the third world, with massive losses to the social safety net available to their citizens.

My point is many years of "socialist" government and communism did not happen, no revolution. Without speaking of the privileges for whom it was affiliated to the Party or had relationship with it.

StalinFanboy

3rd December 2010, 21:50

Quick question: If a boss is nice to his workers, does that change the fact that he's a boss?

People, don't even bother with Renan's idiotic posts. Not even the ultra-anarchist forum, Anti-Flag, like him, given that his rep there is -12 (http://anti-flag.com/forum/index.php?/user/1187-renan/).

Really dude? Are you that far removed from reality? I mean, first of all, anyone with a functioning brain can see that the majority of the people who post on the anti-flag forum are liberal. And second, you're saying we shouldn't take him seriously because a bunch of Anti-Flag fans don't like him?

Totally sound reasoning bro.

RadioRaheem84

3rd December 2010, 23:40

Quick question: If a boss is nice to his workers, does that change the fact that he's a boss?

If that boss was providing the groundwork for his workers to run the factory, then it makes the situation a bit more nuance.

4th December 2010, 00:35

You simply insult all forum members who have Russian names and show Leninist, or anti-imperialist tendencies as "fucking morons" or "idiots".

NKVD isn't a Russian name you fucking moron idiot. Please point to one person that is named NKVD. Anyone on earth. Just one.

Shut up.

He hates everything non-American, acting like he owns the place.

LOL wtf are you even talking about.

Wait a minute, the Muslims are one of the most highly biased people, and their culture is also mysticism.
If Muslim countries were in place in the USA and European countries, would be just as imperialistic as they are.

Funny part is that I never said anything about Muslims, much less calling them "mystics".

Funnier part is that I was referring to "anti-imperialist" losers like Salvatore being "brown person" fetishists and Orientalists.

Funniest part is that he is simply proving my point by calling me a white supremacist.

People, don't even bother with Renan's idiotic posts. Not even the ultra-anarchist forum, Anti-Flag, like him, given that his rep there is -12 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://anti-flag.com/forum/index.php?/user/1187-renan/).

A fine troll post. You learn well, my son.

gorillafuck

4th December 2010, 00:51

To be honest I'm afraid that it will become the new Soviet Union of America.
:laugh: This is absurd.

For one, he has stated he does not want soviet style socialism. For two, Venezuela isn't America, so it's probably not going to become the Soviet Union of America. That's about as likely as Brazil becoming the Soviet Republic Of Australia.

Constant trolling against Russian forum members, stating the reason that he doesn't like their Russian names.
There's nobody named NKVD in the world.

Suggesting that Muslims and blacks are allegedly fond of "brown mysticism", while solidarity with Russians and Asians associates the anti-imperialists with "Orientalism".
He didn't say anything about Muslims or Blacks or Asians or Russians.

Obs

4th December 2010, 01:31

For one, he has stated he does not want soviet style socialism. For two, Venezuela isn't America
Yes it is... America is more than the US.

gorillafuck

4th December 2010, 01:36

Yes it is... America is more than the US.
Venezuela is in Latin America. But it's not America.

Venezuela is as much America as England is Europe.

scarletghoul

4th December 2010, 02:15

Venezuela is in Latin America. But it's not America.

Venezuela is as much America as England is Europe.
Not sure whats the point of this but Latin America is part of America and England is part of Europe..

RadioRaheem84

4th December 2010, 05:26

Venezuela is America too. I understand that a lot of US Americans think that America = USA.

StalinFanboy

4th December 2010, 06:09

If that boss was providing the groundwork for his workers to run the factory, then it makes the situation a bit more nuance.

So much for "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves"

RadioRaheem84

4th December 2010, 07:34

So much for "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves"

Well I see it as more cooperative. Neither would last without the other in this situation. If it wasn't for the people, Chavez would've been toast in 02. It it wasn't for Chavez, there wouldn't have been a significant change in the laws to mobilize the people to move the revolution leftward.

Amphictyonis

4th December 2010, 08:39

Even better question: why are there homeless???
Because Venezuela isn't socialist. Private property/capitalists are still doing their thing in Venezuela. If Chavez expropriated the capitalists homes and businesses the US would strike hard via Columbia.

Chavez can't build socialism in Venezuela so long as the USA is capitalist. He's doing a great job of setting the conditions for an easy transition to socialism.

RadioRaheem84

4th December 2010, 16:06

Great Post, 'nuff said. :thumbup1:

4th December 2010, 18:27

That's by far one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on RevLeft.

"Chavez can't implement socialism because they'll get attacked by the bourgeoisie!!!" :laugh:

Cane Nero

4th December 2010, 18:41

Venezuela is in Latin America. But it's not America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas
Take a look in the map and you will see that venezuela is part of AMERICA.
If you are from the USA, you are North American.
If you are from Venezuela, you are South American.
If you are from Honduras, you are Central American.
So they are all from AMERICA.

What I meant by "Soviet Union of America" is that the Venezuelan is spreading his style of government to other countries around it, just like Russia did.