Chomsky's full turn to liberalism: attacking Chavez [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

3rd July 2011, 02:30

Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy)

Renowned American intellectual accuses the Venezuelan leader of concentrating too much power in his own hands

Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar's praise for Venezuela's socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism.

Venezuela's president, who hasrevealed that he has had surgery in Cuba to remove a cancerous tumour, turned one of Chomsky's books into an overnight bestseller after brandishing it during a UN speech. He hosted Chomsky in Caracas with smiles and pomp. Earlier this year Chávez even suggested Washington make Chomsky the US ambassador to Venezuela.

The president may be about to have second thoughts about that, because his favourite intellectual has now turned his guns on Chávez.

Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an "assault" on Venezuela's democracy.

"Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that's a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not."

Chomsky, a linguistics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke on the eve of publishing an open letter (see below) that accuses Venezuela's authorities of "cruelty" in the case of a jailed judge.

The self-described libertarian socialist says the plight of María Lourdes Afiuni is a "glaring exception" in a time of worldwide cries for freedom. He urges Chávez to release her in "a gesture of clemency" for the sake of justice and human rights.

Chomsky reveals he has lobbied Venezuela's government behind the scenes since late last year after being approached by the Carr centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Afiuni earned Chávez's ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges. Cedeño promptly fled the country.

In a televised broadcast the president, who had taken a close interest in the case, called the judge a criminal and demanded she be jailed for 30 years. "That judge has to pay for what she has done."

Afiuni, 47, a single mother with cancer, spent just over a year in jail, where she was assaulted by other prisoners. In January, authorities softened her confinement to house arrest pending trial for corruption, which she denies.

"Judge Afiuni has suffered enough," states Chomsky's letter. "She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free."

Amnesty International and the European parliament, among others, have condemned the judge's treatment but the intervention of a scholar considered a friend of the Bolivarian revolution, which is named after the hero of Venezuelan independence, Simón Bolívar, is likely to sting even more.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. "I'm sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It's striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation."

He also faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. "Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don't think is a healthy development."

Chomsky expressed concern over Chávez's cancer and wished the president a full and prompt recovery.

Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance became a publishing sensation after Chávez waved a copy during a UN address in 2006 famous for his denunciation of President George W Bush as a devil.

Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a "vicious, unremitting" campaign against Venezuela.

The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity, Chomsky said. "It's hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world."

Leonardo Vivas, co-ordinator of Latin American initiatives at the Carr Centre, said that Afiuni's case was the most prominent example of the erosion of justice in several Latin American countries. The centre hoped that Caracas would now heed Chomsky.

"He is one of the most important public intellectuals in the US and is respected by the Venezuelan government."

The decision to lobby publicly was taken because quiet diplomacy had limits, said Vivas.

Chávez, who is convalescing in Cuba, has a reputation for lashing back at criticism, raising the risk that the Afiuni initative could backfire.

"That could happen," said Vivas. "But that would mean recognition of the problem."

Liberi

3rd July 2011, 02:49

It is as we have feared. A Were-Chomsky.

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 03:00

Chomsky's full step to liberalism: attacking Chavez...Pardon? :confused:

Die Neue Zeit

3rd July 2011, 03:02

That's my title, not the Guardian's. ;)

MarxSchmarx

3rd July 2011, 03:10

Admittedly there is something self-serving about Chomsky's choice of cause celebre. There is a legitimate leftist critique of Chavez that focuses on his authoritarian tendencies, not least of which is his nationalism. But at the same time, I have no real reason to doubt that Afiani moves in comparable circles as Chomsky - intellectuals, largely people who know how to survive quite well under capitalism for themselves, and other "comfortable" folk - and I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that Chomsky, who has thrown his lot for the last decade in Chavez's project, speaks out only when someone who could very well be his blood relative in a similar situation in America, only now finds a reason to come out against the Chavez regime. Nevermind the litany of denunciations our working class comrades have levied against Chavez for not being leftist enough, or the destitute people who have been suffering in Venezuelan jails or otherwise, and for whom Chavez's promises are violently disconnected from their reality. But a rather well-to-do judge who lived a rather comfortable life before all this came down gets some of the wrath of the regime and Chomsky does a 180. Chavez has done a lot of good things, but I don't think we should ever forget that he is at the end of the day just another ruler of another capitalist country.

At least he has the decency to point out that this is a "glaring exception". Sigh.

Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame

3rd July 2011, 03:14

That is to be expected... :lol:

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 03:15

Chomsky's full step to liberalism: attacking Chavez Chomsky admits to being completely in line with the great Bourgeois tradition of the early critics of capitalism such as Adam Smith and Alexander von Humboldt. Don't think "liberalism" is anything new for him.

thesadmafioso

3rd July 2011, 03:15

He still seems to provide tenuous support for Chavez and his social achievements, so I think your choice in topic title may be a bit hyperbolic. It would also appear that he doesn't take much of a stance on the cause for her detainment so much as he does the physical conditions she was subjected to, a position largely devoid of politics and more one in defense of basic human rights.

Revy

3rd July 2011, 03:21

I once emailed him about him voting for Kerry. I was surprised when he actually answered. He said he didn't vote for him, he said he voted socialist in his state (didn't specify what party).

His point was that he wanted people in "swing states" to vote for Kerry. People in Democrat-leaning states like himself could vote any way they wish, but the rest of us had to vote for John Kerry.

Even if he didn't vote for Kerry, that was the person he was endorsing and telling people to vote for. He didn't say anything about any socialist candidate. I believe he also endorsed Obama too in 2008.

I mean, I can understand more if you support the Greens, or even Nader, although it's obviously not ideal....but to support the Democratic Party's candidate, while claiming to be radical or revolutionary, I think it's quite the contradiction, if you can't even get beyond the two-party system, especially someone so critical of US imperialism, should know better....

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 03:23

That's my title, not the Guardian's. ;)
I got that, yeah. I'm just trying to figure out how you managed to draw that conclusion.

Chomsky admits to being completely in line with the great Bourgeois tradition of the early critics of capitalism such as Adam Smith and Alexander von Humboldt. Don't think "liberalism" is anything new for him.
There's a distinction between "liberal" and "not a Marxist", surely? I'll grant you that Chomsky has a tendency to place rather too much weight on the Enlightenment heritage of his politics, but does that mean that such a heritage excludes him from the category of "socialism"?

Die Neue Zeit

3rd July 2011, 03:34

There is a legitimate leftist critique of Chavez that focuses on his authoritarian tendencies, not least of which is his nationalism.

[...]

But a rather well-to-do judge who lived a rather comfortable life before all this came down gets some of the wrath of the regime and Chomsky does a 180. Chavez has done a lot of good things, but I don't think we should ever forget that he is at the end of the day just another ruler of another capitalist country.

A combined head-of-state-and-government having the sole power of appointing cabinet officials, leading military and security officials, and those leading national judges not dealing with criminal law (not just "constitutional" judges) isn't necessarily a bad thing... so long as this is before the DOTP (particularly in the Third World) and the head is recallable by some legislative authority.

Princess Luna

3rd July 2011, 03:39

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 04:27

Oh look, DNZ is trying to curry favor with the MLs this week.

A combined head-of-state-and-government having the sole power of appointing cabinet officials, leading military and security officials, and those leading national judges not dealing with criminal law (not just "constitutional" judges) i't necessarily a bad thing... so long as this is before the DOTP (particularly in the Third World) and the head is recallable by some legislative authority.

Derp derp.

Because you say so? You'll forgive me if I'd rather seek the advice of this cracker I found this morning that looks vaguely like Jesus. No one takes that "Caesarian" bilge seriously. I think you'd be a happier person if you realized this.

In any case, this is actually a step forward for Chomsky, in my view, because in the last 10-15 years his biggest weakness has been a kind of fatalism toward the working class (though this was hardly limited to him through the 90s and early 00s) and advocating this-or-that tailism of this-or-that "progressive" bourgeois politician. His backing of the Latin American populists in the case of Chavez and Morales (though one could make the case he was often pointing out merely that the kind of OMFG OBAMA IS BLACK WE GOT DEMOCRACY BACK might have half the credibility alleged if maybe he was half the "out of the club" demographically and sociologically as Morales and Chavez). So I am actually glad he's stopped reflexively tailing the Bonaparte of Caracas.

Rafiq

3rd July 2011, 04:32

Chomsky was a Liberal way before Chavez even heard the word socialism.

∞

3rd July 2011, 04:32

Do we have to call Chomsky on every single thread? For fuck's sake, stop it.

Rafiq

3rd July 2011, 04:33

I am no fan of Chavez, but him "Having too much power" is the least of my criticisms

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 04:52

criticizing Chavez doesn't make anyone a "liberal" and certainly criticizing concentrated state power does not make anyone a "liberal". revolutionary socialists are supposed to be for the elimination of the state in favor of direct popular power.

Chavez is basically a strong man, a caudillo, in the Latin American populist tradition. like earlier forms of populism, Chavez is quite capable of co-existing with capitalists, such as the big oil companies who he does deals with. Chavez has in fact brought about the partial privatization of the Venezuela's energy resources which were nationalized in 1976. he has done so by entering into deals for public-private companies to exploit energy resources...companies such as Chevron, who are bullish on Venezuela.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 04:54

Sadly the "left intellectuals" in the local activist community actively apologize for those private-public partnerships to "attract capital"; I don't know why that's supposed to be a revolutionary socialist goal.

RadioRaheem84

3rd July 2011, 05:36

So in other words, Chomsky is turning on Chavez when he is most unpopular, yeah that sounds about right for him.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 05:43

Is Chavez at his least popular domestically, or do you mean among the broad left?

RadioRaheem84

3rd July 2011, 05:47

Is Chavez at his least popular domestically, or do you mean among the broad left?

Both.

Point is, the whole him assuming total power and being authoritarian is a ridiculous ploy by the media. I cannot believe Chomsky just gave in like that.

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 05:59

There's a distinction between "liberal" and "not a Marxist", surely? I'll grant you that Chomsky has a tendency to place rather too much weight on the Enlightenment heritage of his politics, but does that mean that such a heritage excludes him from the category of "socialism"?

He's a radical Liberal in the grand tradition of the Enlightenment, those who felt a need to criticise this emerging social relation, but also conceived of it as a necessity at the same time. Chomsky is basically a Proudhonist. I've never heard him call for the abolition of exchange value, just "workers' control"--another way of preserving power by managing it. I know he's influenced by council communism, particularly by the works of Paul Mattick, Sr. and Anton Pannekoek, but he must have skipped over large sections of their works.

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 06:03

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 06:07

Any wonder that Chomsky is a proponent of the World Social Forum?

I meant standard PSL/FRSO type "anti-imperialists," actually.

Both.

Point is, the whole him assuming total power and being authoritarian is a ridiculous ploy by the media. I cannot believe Chomsky just gave in like that.

I must say, my problem with Chomsky here is the exact opposite. His opportunism in supporting the Caracas Bonaparte and fatalism toward working-class struggle.

CynicalIdealist

3rd July 2011, 06:31

Chomsky is a very committed anarchist, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he was upset at Chavez's latest maneuver. I myself don't care that much.

EDIT: I thought that this topic was about Chavez's brief period of rule by decree. I read about this case of imprisoning a judge, and it's pretty bad. Chavez should release her.

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 07:08

Chomsky is a very committed anarchist, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he was upset at Chavez's latest maneuver. I myself don't care that much.
1. How can one be a "committed anarchist" and at the same time support the leader of a state?

2. The point is that Chomsky was supporting Chavez all along until the character of his regime became more authoritarian. Hence "Chomsky's full step to liberalism" is another way of saying that he supports the capitalist state, just one with a human face.

3. I don't care much either in so far as I knew from the start that Chavez and his ilk were capitalists long before Chomsky did.

All of this points to why Chomsky has been comfortable in the left-wing of the reformist movement in the United States ("left-liberals") whose origins can be traced back to the earliest of critics among the Liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries. He's really old school in that sense. In my own personal correspondences with him, Chomsky refuses to cede not one bit to Marx's analysis, which is the only body of theory and critique I find capable of defrocking the mystifying categories of bourgeois society.

Psy

3rd July 2011, 16:20

EDIT: I thought that this topic was about Chavez's brief period of rule by decree. I read about this case of imprisoning a judge, and it's pretty bad. Chavez should release her.
Why? The judge is part of the bureaucracy trying to defend its privileged position. Sure Chavez imprisoned the judge for not carrying out the wishes of the executive body of the state but the judge still acted against the interest of the working class.

NewSocialist

3rd July 2011, 18:39

Chomsky is basically a Proudhonist. I've never heard him call for the abolition of exchange value, just "workers' control"--another way of preserving power by managing it. I know he's influenced by council communism, particularly by the works of Paul Mattick, Sr. and Anton Pannekoek, but he must have skipped over large sections of their works.

I disagree. He identifies with the anarcho-syndicalist tradition, and is very supportive of Albert & Hahnel's 'parecon' alternative to capitalism.

Chomsky does frequently call for workers' control of the means of production—presumably because it's a practical method for production which has already been empirically proven to work—but 'market socialism' (or 'Proudhonism') isn't the best he thinks humanity can achieve.

NoOneIsIllegal

3rd July 2011, 18:51

Yeah, he "identifies" with anarcho-syndicalism, but I wouldn't call him anywhere close to a "committed anarchist." His foreign policy and anti-imperialist work is fantastic, but I don't think he bothers with the class struggle often. When he does, it's basic, elementary stuff that would only enlighten his liberal readers.

I wish people would stop calling him an "anarchist thinker" and stuff.

Sensible Socialist

3rd July 2011, 19:58

People here seem to have a fetish over anything and everything Chomsky says. If the consensus is that he's not too important when it comes to revolutionary politics, he certainly gets more attention that people who are legitmately commited to any kind of struggle.

Come on folks. He's easy to bash on the internet. But let's think: how many senior citizens do you know that are out in the streets agitating for revolution? He's an older intellectual who isn't completely commited to a socialist revolution. So what? Does it make him a living Satan? I think not. Let's end Chomsky-watch and get on with our lives. It's not the end of the world when a professor criticises the policy of a foreign leader.

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 20:42

Why is it, whenever we have a discussion about Chomsky, I am reminded of my teenage experiences of hearing people blether on about how Slipknot "weren't real metal"? http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/miscellaneous/smile_280.gif

1. How can one be a "committed anarchist" and at the same time support the leader of a state?
Presumably on the same basis that most British anarchists have spent the last year trying to defend state-provided public services and demand an increase in the taxation of the wealthy by the state? :confused: I mean, I get that you can quite easily criticise Chomsky's position on Chavez, Morales, et al. but this honestly strikes me as being over-simplistic.

I wish people would stop calling him an "anarchist thinker" and stuff.
To be fair, he has publicly denied such a label.

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 21:10

Presumably on the same basis that most British anarchists have spent the last year trying to defend state-provided public services and demand an increase in the taxation of the wealthy by the state? :confused: I mean, I get that you can quite easily criticise Chomsky's position on Chavez, Morales, et al. but this honestly strikes me as being over-simplistic.

Chomsky's analysis itself is over-simplistic. Chomsky's critique of capitalism barely makes it past Wealth of Nations Book I, Chapter 8 "Of the wages of Labour" in which Smith notes the tendency of the working class to resist wage-gouging and the combination of the masters. Every video, text and talk I've seen and read by Chomsky drips with the kind of kind of nonsense even J. Proudhon would gasp at, let alone a social anarchist.

Where is his idea of value? Where is his understanding of the competition of capitals? Does he not realise that leaders in the Third World are more interested in protecting their own bourgeoisie against its foreign relatives then attempting to promote proletarian internationalism?

ZeroNowhere

3rd July 2011, 21:13

Why is it, whenever we have a discussion about Chomsky, I am reminded of my teenage experiences of hearing people blether on about how Slipknot "weren't real metal"? Perhaps because Slipknot are not, in fact, a heavy metal band, and in that aspect the discussions are similar.

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 21:22

Chomsky's analysis itself is over-simplistic. Chomsky's critique of capitalism barely makes it past Wealth of Nations Book I, Chapter 8 "Of the wages of Labour" in which Smith notes the tendency of the working class to resist wage-gouging and the combination of the masters. Every video, text and talk I've seen and read by Chomsky drips with the kind of kind of nonsense even J. Proudhon would gasp at, let alone a social anarchist.

Where is his idea of value? Where is his understanding of the competition of capitals? Does he not realise that leaders in the Third World are more interested in protecting their own bourgeoisie against its foreign relatives then attempting to promote proletarian internationalism?
I don't disagree, but I also don't see how that refutes my previous comment. My observation was that anarchism does not entail making a bee-line for a stateless society, and that it is both possible and relatively common for an anarchist- or libertarian socialists more generally- to support any given leader, action or institution as a means to an end. I certainly agree that Chomsky is lacking in both attention to class struggle and a decent theoretical framework of class struggle, but that wasn't a comment which I actually quoted.

Perhaps because Slipknot are not, in fact, a heavy metal band, and in that aspect the discussions are similar.
That honestly is not a discussion which I meant to provoke. :rolleyes:

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 21:31

You had stated:

Presumably on the same basis that most British anarchists have spent the last year trying to defend state-provided public services and demand an increase in the taxation of the wealthy by the state? :confused: I mean, I get that you can quite easily criticise Chomsky's position on Chavez, Morales, et al. but this honestly strikes me as being over-simplistic.

To which I responded that his ideas are in line with the more critical vein of classical Liberalism then social anarchism. Since his analysis does not often get past this view, his understanding of capitalism is, in my opinion, seriously flawed. I therefore reject his analysis on the grounds that it is too simplistic. Sure, I could have went on a tangent about exchange-value and valorisation, but I would prefer to just recognise Chomsky for what he is--a left-liberal--and reject him out of hand.

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 21:37

You had stated:

To which I responded that his ideas are in line with the more critical vein of classical Liberalism then social anarchism. Since his analysis does not often get past this view, his understanding of capitalism is, in my opinion, seriously flawed. I therefore reject his analysis on the grounds that it is too simplistic. Sure, I could have went on a tangent about exchange-value and valorisation, but I would prefer to just recognise Chomsky for what he is--a left-liberal--and reject him out of hand.
I get that, yes, I'm just saying that your criticism "How can one be a "committed anarchist" and at the same time support the leader of a state?", was over-simplistic. The question of whether Chomsky is or is not a liberal- one which I'm not actually convinced is of any use to anyone- is not one which I have made any attempt to answer.

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 21:47

My criticism is over-simplistic because the logic which Chomsky uses is simplistic. You've correctly stated that there are some among the libertarian left who will support certain leaders because of their purported potential at fostering or embodying revolutionary socialism, a "means to an end". I find this simplistic and rather than entertain the idea that he is a social anarchist (I have yet to hear of a serious, committed social anarchist support such a leader as Chavez) I just think of him as a popular critic of "capitalism".

wunderbar

3rd July 2011, 22:14

From Chomsky:

"The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The
report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of
relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms
from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be
taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of
the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one, which is
much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else."

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1309706956.html

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 22:24

My criticism is over-simplistic because the logic which Chomsky uses is simplistic.
Mate, that is not an excuse. :huh:

Kadir Ateş

3rd July 2011, 23:26

Mate, that is not an excuse. :huh:Kindly point me in the direction where he develops a coherent analysis of capitalism and the categories of bourgeois society, where he attempts to at least historicise "anarcho-syndicalism" and vanguardism, without deferring to some orthodox Cartesian reasoning. He treats each subject simplistically, and I think there is enough in the works of Marx and Engels and the Marxists to summon in order to blast through such nonsense.

But why not take a crack at it, sure:

First in many venues both in print and in speech NC says that reacting against capitalist social relations is "natural" and "common sense". He then contradicts himself by saying that the education system, the state, etc. are all responsible for promoting ideology. You can't claim that people know capitalism is bad, but then state that are certain ideological forces at play which suppress "common sense". It's either one or the other, and Chomsky "knows" this yet still argues that in spite of ideology, we know it's bad. Perhaps we know that our lives are shitty, yes, but then ideology doesn't work as a mystifying force. If it did, then all it would take is reading a book and then plotting out what our future world would look like. No, ideology, as articulated by Marx, is the expressions/beliefs/thoughts which shape the minds and behaviors of people in society as they relate to our material conditions. Chomsky is still trapped in a bourgeois world where the production of knowledge and our material circumstances can be easily separated from one another.

Tim Finnegan

4th July 2011, 00:03

Again, I'm not taking issue with your criticisms of Chomsky, I'm saying that the particular criticism which I quoted, that strategic support of a particular state entity removes from the category of "anarchist", is a simplistic one. That is all.

Kadir Ateş

4th July 2011, 00:15

...And I've only attempted to address the underlying logic of Chomsky's support of Chavez and his state, the likes of which would baffle many on the left-wing of the socialist movement, particularly the anarchists. In light of this, I don't see why Chomsky or anyone calling themselves anarchists could support a the leader of a state such as Chavez and his Venezuela. Simplistic? Sure, I accept this criticism, and feel that it is entirely valid.

Tim Finnegan

4th July 2011, 00:18

Right. Good. Thank you. That's settled then.

Jose Gracchus

4th July 2011, 00:46

I used to be a real huge Chomsky partisan, and I still have a soft spot for the old man, whose works were basically my introduction to the left. But I do think his affinity for the "best of liberalism," uncritical approach to fundamentally bourgeois categories, and his lack of a substantive approach to economic topics has caused me to seriously break from him and those politics.

Hence my sig, where Paul Mattick, Jr. has replaced Chomsky for the quote line.

PhoenixAsh

4th July 2011, 01:31

Why? The judge is part of the bureaucracy trying to defend its privileged position. Sure Chavez imprisoned the judge for not carrying out the wishes of the executive body of the state but the judge still acted against the interest of the working class.

Right...well...the judicial system has been completely overhauled in 1999 with the ministry of justice overseeing the training and education of judges since then. Judge Afiuni has been appointed in 2002. 3 years after these reforms.

As a judge she makes ruling according to the limits of the laws...which are made by the government and approved by parliament. As such she uses the interpretations of the laws and the room which are granted to her by these laws because she is a judge.

She has been arrested for corruption because she ordered the conditional release of the businessman indicted for currency fraud who subsequently fled. Whom, by the way, has been held LONGER than Venuzuelan law allows without a verdict. So she corrected a miscarriage of justice. Period.

the rest of this is not directed at you specifically

His continued detention was a violation of law....Venuzuelan law

And I don't care of he is guilty or not...if you can't make a fucking case within three years....THREE FUCKING YEARS...your system is FUCKED UP. Let this sink in for a minute there people...the business man had been in jail...WITHOUT a sentencing for THREE YEARS.

So let that sink in...

Because quite obviously the prosecution could not be bothered with...you know...upholding the law....and actually protect the interests of the working class. Now...was it an ongoing investigation?

NO...the prosecuter did not...I REPEAT...he did not show for several courtdates...everytime the court date had to be rescheduled because he did not show up. That went on for three fucking years.

So the judge followed the law in letting the guy go. In fact...she was OBLIGATED to let him out of jail. And she gave him a conditional release....again...there was nobody to argue the contrary because AGAIN the prosecution did NOT show up. Quite obviously...the prosecution was acting in the best interest of the working class in getting this dangerous enemy of the state locked up...o...wait...

Now...after Cedeno had fled...she was naturally arrested. Because quite obviously when Venezuela is held to its own laws the judge must be acting contrary to the inetersts of the working class and must be corrupt :rolleyes:

So she was charged with corruption; aiding in an escape; criminal conspiracy and abuse of power. She was denied a lawyer and has been held without trial...how ironic...and without legal representation.

Now...quite clearly...there is indeed serious abuse of power. Its not by the judge. Its by the Prosecution and the Venuzuelan government.

The judicial system should be independent from the government. And these two cases quite clearly indicate why.

Chavez has intervened personally. And his intervention shows where his true allegiance lies: political arse covering.

Because it is nothing more...and nothing less.

If the trial of Cedeno truly mattered to Chavez he would have intervened against that prosecuter. If the law would have truely mattered for Chavez...he would have intervened several years sooner.

So now you know the details. Every revolutionary leftist would be in arms if the US courtsystem did this. But oh noes...now its a state capitalist mockery of socialism...and obviously then can do anything as long as they do it under the pretence of "the best ineterest of the working class".

Its a fucking sham! That is what it is.

Orange Juche

4th July 2011, 02:16

Psy

4th July 2011, 02:23

Right...well...the judicial system has been completely overhauled in 1999 with the ministry of justice overseeing the training and education of judges since then. Judge Afiuni has been appointed in 2002. 3 years after these reforms.

As a judge she makes ruling according to the limits of the laws...which are made by the government and approved by parliament. As such she uses the interpretations of the laws and the room which are granted to her by these laws because she is a judge.

You can't reform the bourgeoisie insinuations engineered to defend the ruling class like the judicial system, this is why the revolution is suppose to destroy such institutions to make way for the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie to make way for a classless society.

She has been arrested for corruption because she ordered the conditional release of the businessman indicted for currency fraud who subsequently fled. Whom, by the way, has been held LONGER than Venuzuelan law allows without a verdict. So she corrected a miscarriage of justice. Period.

So? We are talking about a capitalist, she didn't correct a miscarriage of justice as she didn't address his crime of being a capitalist.

the rest of this is not directed at you specifically

His continued detention was a violation of law....Venuzuelan law

And I don't care of he is guilty or not...if you can't make a fucking case within three years....THREE FUCKING YEARS...your system is FUCKED UP. Let this sink in for a minute there people...the business man had been in jail...WITHOUT a sentencing for THREE YEARS.

So let that sink in...

Because quite obviously the prosecution could not be bothered with...you know...upholding the law....and actually protect the interests of the working class. Now...was it an ongoing investigation?

NO...the prosecuter did not...I REPEAT...he did not show for several courtdates...everytime the court date had to be rescheduled because he did not show up. That went on for three fucking years.

So the judge followed the law in letting the guy go. In fact...she was OBLIGATED to let him out of jail. And she gave him a conditional release....again...there was nobody to argue the contrary because AGAIN the prosecution did NOT show up. Quite obviously...the prosecution was acting in the best interest of the working class in getting this dangerous enemy of the state locked up...o...wait...

Now...after Cedeno had fled...she was naturally arrested. Because quite obviously when Venezuela is held to its own laws the judge must be acting contrary to the inetersts of the working class and must be corrupt :rolleyes:

So she was charged with corruption; aiding in an escape; criminal conspiracy and abuse of power. She was denied a lawyer and has been held without trial...how ironic...and without legal representation.

Now...quite clearly...there is indeed serious abuse of power. Its not by the judge. Its by the Prosecution and the Venuzuelan government.

The judicial system should be independent from the government. And these two cases quite clearly indicate why.

Chavez has intervened personally. And his intervention shows where his true allegiance lies: political arse covering.

Because it is nothing more...and nothing less.

If the trial of Cedeno truly mattered to Chavez he would have intervened against that prosecuter. If the law would have truely mattered for Chavez...he would have intervened several years sooner.

So now you know the details. Every revolutionary leftist would be in arms if the US courtsystem did this. But oh noes...now its a state capitalist mockery of socialism...and obviously then can do anything as long as they do it under the pretence of "the best ineterest of the working class".

Its a fucking sham! That is what it is.
No we don't care about capitalists being denied their rights as they are our oppressors.

Jose Gracchus

4th July 2011, 02:32

PhoenixAsh

4th July 2011, 02:35

You can't reform the bourgeoisie insinuations engineered to defend the ruling class like the judicial system, this is why the revolution is suppose to destroy such institutions to make way for the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie to make way for a classless society. p

Well....that should give you a clue as to the nature of the Chavez government.

So? We are talking about a capitalist, she didn't correct a miscarriage of justice as she didn't address his crime of being a capitalist. Yes...she did. She corrected a fucked up prosecution and a fucked up government who could not be arsed to actually PROOF a case and provide evidence to build a case which, you know, would actually HELP and be EFFECTIVE in pointing out the crimes of capitalism.

But more to the point...socialism is still bound by rules and social agreements.
And simply locking up people without trial and NOT DOING YOUR JOB as a prosecuter should be stamped out even in socialism. It is also exactly the argument the US government uses to detain people indefinately. Just so you know.

Good to know you agree with them and their practices...

But just for your information...it isn ;t a crime to be a capitalist in Venezuela. That should really get you pissed off...no? That good old Chavez actually DOESN'T make it a crime nor in any way shape or form ever proposed such a law to parliament. Now...go cry in a corner.

No we don't care about capitalists being denied their rights as they are our oppressors.Ah... so according to you socialism and communism is not bound by any laws and can do what it wants. Check...

You realise how ridiculous your arguments are don't you?

Psy

4th July 2011, 02:45

Ah yes, Marxism-Leninism, where the problem of capital isn't one of fundamental social relations, to be overturned under the weight of that driver of history - class struggle - but the identification of individual persons as enemies "so they might be made to be to suffer and be destroyed."

Thanks for that one, caramelpence.

That wasn't my point, my point was that you can't reform bourgeoisie institutions that sole purpose is to defend the bourgeois class order. Also that the plight of the capitalist class is one that we shouldn't concern with. Also the very fact there are capitalist institutions in Venezuela run by capitalist prove that Venezuela is no workers state.

Psy

4th July 2011, 02:55

Yes...she did. She corrected a fucked up prosecution and a fucked up government who could not be arsed to actually PROOF a case and provide evidence to build a case which, you know, would actually HELP and be EFFECTIVE in pointing out the crimes of capitalism.

No she didn't she didn't pressure the state to send over a replacement and offer to bend the rules for the executive branch to take over for the prosecution.

But more to the point...socialism is still bound by rules and social agreements.

Not by bourgeoisie rules and social agreements.

And simply locking up people without trial and NOT DOING YOUR JOB as a prosecuter should be stamped out even in socialism. It is also exactly the argument the US government uses to detain people indefinately. Just so you know.

Letting the bourgeoisie just go is no doing ones job as a revolutionary.

But just for your information...it isn ;t a crime to be a capitalist in Venezuela. That should really get you pissed off...no? That good old Chavez actually DOESN'T make it a crime nor in any way shape or form ever proposed such a law to parliament. Now...go cry in a corner.

True but the judge did the working class no favor but refusing to take matters into her own hands.

Ah... so according to you socialism and communism is not bound by any laws and can do what it wants. Check...

No, that we don't concern our selfs with the plight of the capitalist class.

x359594

4th July 2011, 03:35

∞

4th July 2011, 03:58

Now can we stop calling him a fucking liberal?

Tabarnack

4th July 2011, 17:30

Chomsky Says UK Guardian Article "Quite Deceptive" about his Chavez Criticism

By Joe Emersberger - Znet, July 4th 201

Article can be found at venezuelanalysis dot com

Jimmie Higgins

4th July 2011, 18:04

Obs

4th July 2011, 18:13

Ah... so according to you socialism and communism is not bound by any laws and can do what it wants. Check...

Yes, the ends justify the means in class war. Why do you disagree?

Lucretia

4th July 2011, 18:40

I have criticisms of Chomsky, but CHRIST, save some of that venom for the real apologists for the system! The US has one prominent left-wing academic, Chomsky, and one prominent kinda populist reformist, Michael Moore, but some of these RevLeft threads make it sound like these two guys are leading the worker's movement off a cliff. Sorry, the left is small and marginal here and at this stage of the game, these guys help bring people closer to us and have no influence over the practically non-existant worker's movement anyway. Criticize when they make weird statements, for sure, but have some perspective about it.

Let's build a left so then there will be lots of room for left-wing academics and nutty pseudo-populist filmmakers and then we can have many more targets that we can agonize over :D

I understand the gist of what you're saying. I'm not that person with an "all power to the soviets" banner underneath the hammer and sickle symbol, wondering why other people won't join me in the rally.

With that being said, I am curious as to why you think we should lay off making strident criticisms of Chomsky, Moore, and other prominent "leftists" just because they happen to be the most prominent representatives for what passes as the left in the U.S. If anything, doesn't their prominence and visibility make it all the more important to underscore the areas where they are just parroting liberal cliches? Otherwise, how for instance will working people be introduced to a basic class analysis of capitalism? Chomsky, as good as he is on imperialism, rarely touches on capitalism in his non-academic statements. And Moore still thinks we can reform capitalism away by voting for people like Obama.

I think it smacks of opportunism to withhold or dampen our criticisms just because we don't want to offend people, or because we want to hitch our wagon to a media personality. Certainly every Marxian leftist political movement requires careful judgments balancing the presentation of views that are not currently in the mainstream, with the need not to sacrifice those views for the sake of being accepted by lots of people - as if the goal of the movement is to have lots of people involved for the sake of having lots of people involved.

The importance of criticizing people like Chomsky and Moore is to demonstrate that they do not represent the terminus of left critique. People who tend to read, and agree with, their views are the very people who would be most open to a systemic critique of capitalism from a revolutionary perspective. If they were only exposed to it. Criticisms of Moore and Chomsky are one way of exposing people to it.

Jose Gracchus

4th July 2011, 19:46

Chomsky, as good as he is on imperialism, rarely touches on capitalism in his non-academic statements. And Moore still thinks we can reform capitalism away by voting for people like Obama.

Actually, I think he was much more overtly anti-liberal and anti-capitalist prior to the 1980s. Like a lot of leftists and left academics, the neoliberal era has led to a lot of fatalism toward working-class struggle, and therefore the tailing of various species of reformism (Chomsky, etc.) or populism (Brezhnevite activists, Chavismo) in the name of opposing "the West" or "imperialism" or whatever. Its a broad spectrum problem, the fatalism toward working-class struggle, not a problem of personalities.

PhoenixAsh

4th July 2011, 20:04

No she didn't she didn't pressure the state to send over a replacement and offer to bend the rules for the executive branch to take over for the prosecution.

Who knows what she did and if she is even allowed to do that. Because here...judges are not allowed to say anything on the function of lawyers and the DA as long as it does not pertain conduct in trail within the context of conduct in that trial. So if they do not show up then thats simply what happens.

Not by bourgeoisie rules and social agreements.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FREAKING COFFFEE....

what does this say about Chavez that he has not made any attempt to change this.

Letting the bourgeoisie just go is no doing ones job as a revolutionary.

I think she did exactly the right thing. And I think any revolutionary should criticize what is happening to her now. Because when push comes top shove...this is no better than wqhat is happening in the US, its no better than the show trials in Russia and its no better than the show trails in a specific other system.

Its a complete mocjery and a sham...and your blind following of blanket cop out statements tells me you have a hell of a lot to learn.

True but the judge did the working class no favor but refusing to take matters into her own hands.

Not in her own hands....she followed the law of Venezuela...you know...that country which pretends to be socialist. So there is no "own hands"....the law prescribes.

No, that we don't concern our selfs with the plight of the capitalist class.

We concern ourselves how society functions. Simple as that. And when this wanton disregard for social conventions and rules then its simply not a socialist country at all....so now its a bussiness men...next its a woman, a black guy, a homosexual, a worker.

Back to you....so you can legitimiose the complete capitalist and burgeoisie way of doing things some more. Because that is in fact all that your arguments amount to.

PhoenixAsh

4th July 2011, 20:05

Yes, the ends justify the means in class war. Why do you disagree?

Because it is fucking insane.

...and there is no revolution in Venezuela. Wake up. Smell the freaking coffee.

That guy is president since 1999....and he couldn't be arsed to change the laws? In a country which is overwhelmingly in his controll or in controll of his political allies. So no...there is no revolution and Chavez is no socialist.

The Vegan Marxist

4th July 2011, 20:30

Obs

4th July 2011, 22:13

Because it is fucking insane.
This is not an argument.

...and there is no revolution in Venezuela. Wake up. Smell the freaking coffee.

That guy is president since 1999....and he couldn't be arsed to change the laws? In a country which is overwhelmingly in his controll or in controll of his political allies. So no...there is no revolution and Chavez is no socialist.
Chavez hasn't changed any laws? I think you'll find the PSUV has actually worked tirelessly to empower the working class, having expropriated lots of land and businesses and handed them over to the workers. There are many criticisms to be made of the PSUV government, but lack of political freedom (for workers, at least) is not one of them.

One thing I was thinking when Chavez was ill in Cuba was that, if he should die (which I don't hope in the current state of affairs), it could allow a more radical wing of the PSUV to perhaps seize a greater share of power. With the political climate among Venezuelans as it is, I doubt more attacks on capital would be unwelcome.

Psy

4th July 2011, 22:27

Who knows what she did and if she is even allowed to do that. Because here...judges are not allowed to say anything on the function of lawyers and the DA as long as it does not pertain conduct in trail within the context of conduct in that trial. So if they do not show up then thats simply what happens.

By bourgeoisie standards.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FREAKING COFFFEE....

what does this say about Chavez that he has not made any attempt to change this.

Right but the solution is for people to take the revolution farther then Chavez is willing to take it regardless of Chavez.

I think she did exactly the right thing. And I think any revolutionary should criticize what is happening to her now. Because when push comes top shove...this is no better than wqhat is happening in the US, its no better than the show trials in Russia and its no better than the show trails in a specific other system.

The correct thing would have been dissolving the prosecution and creating a new prosecution that is not counter-revolutionary. For the judge could have just sending a letter to the Venezuela army to take the prosecution into military custody and escort them into court under military custody (meaning the prosecution would be forced into the court room at gun point). Of course this is only a stop gap, the very fact you have such a counter-revolutionary prosecution means they need to be disbanded and rebuild from scratch.

Not in her own hands....she followed the law of Venezuela...you know...that country which pretends to be socialist. So there is no "own hands"....the law prescribes.

Right she followed reformist laws not revolutionary laws.

We concern ourselves how society functions. Simple as that. And when this wanton disregard for social conventions and rules then its simply not a socialist country at all....so now its a bussiness men...next its a woman, a black guy, a homosexual, a worker.

That is not the point, the point is capitalists are out oppressor, we are in class war with them thus why the hell would we care about their plight when they are the enemy? Are we suppose to be concerned about capitalists when we the workers are shooting the capitalist class in a revolutionary war?

Back to you....so you can legitimiose the complete capitalist and burgeoisie way of doing things some more. Because that is in fact all that your arguments amount to.
You are the one demanding we play by bourgeoisie rules as your argument revolves around the same set of laws that protects the means of productions from workers seizing them. If a true revolutionary was in front of the judge that was guilty of braking all the property laws in Venezuela would you suggest the judge enforces the legal right of capitalists to exploit workers?

HEAD ICE

4th July 2011, 22:29

It might be worth establishing the context of liberalism in the USA so that we can see where Chomsky fits. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are liberal newspapers. The Nation, The New Republic, and Newsweek are liberal magazines.

Public liberals who had platforms during the time when Chomsky started writing about politics include Anthony Lewis, Arthur Scheslinger Jr., Bill Moyers, Max Lerner from the 1960s, all of whom were apologists for US imperialism. They were also pro-Israel. From the 1980s on the principal public liberal commentators include Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, E.J. Dionne, Jesse Jackson, Rachel Maddow, George Soros, Arianna Huffington, and Keith Olberman.

Against this background Chomsky is a radical. His criticism of US imperialism and Israeli imperialism have been uncompromising, and the above named have all attacked him at one time or another.

In his prime, Chomsky provided useful information about US foreign policy and a theory of media manipulation that stands the test of application. His anti-imperialist works, media criticism and analysis, and criticism of Israel are still valuable.

Noam Chomsky's criticisms of American and Israeli foreign policy are not "uncompromising" at all. Just because the USA is wildly pro-Israel doesn't mean that because Chomsky levels "criticism" against Israel makes him a 'radical'. Noam Chomsky is for a two state settlement based on 1967 borders, which is to use Chomsky-speak the "international consensus" on the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is hardly "radical."

His criticisms of US imperialism aren't "radical" either. If you read anything he writes, his criticism of US imperialism is that America (and Israel as well) is violating so-and-so United Nations resolution number whogivesafuck. A radical critique would be noting how all these wars and America's foreign policy are governed by the mechanics of the capitalist system. Chomsky will mention "corporations" as the Big Bad but never capitalism itself.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th July 2011, 23:00

Yes, the ends justify the means in class war. Why do you disagree?

Because it's a ridiculous thing to say, considering the widely varying opinions among the left as to what constitutes a suitable means.

That's why we should be taking an empirical approach rather than parroting thought-terminating cliches.

Belleraphone

5th July 2011, 00:44

So in other words, Chomsky is turning on Chavez when he is most unpopular, yeah that sounds about right for him.

Chavez has always been unpopular in American media. He is losing popularity among the left because he is concentrating large amounts of power into his hands. That tends to make people unpopular. If Chomsky wanted pure popularity and to feed his ego, he'd be a neoconservative "intellectual" that would sing the praises of the US government.

As a Venezuelan living in America, I have traveled back to my country of origin in the past. Chavez does a lot for the poor, but he is seizing a lot of power. Chavez even called people who opposed him "unpatriotic."

PhoenixAsh

5th July 2011, 01:49

This is not an argument.

Yes...it absolutely is.

But let me expand on that...the idea that anything goes and the end justifies the means is something which will be self destructive. In the end its this exact same notion which killed the Russian revolution and led to brutal repression. Nothing will start a counter revolution faster than wanton and random violence and abuse of authority over people. Because now its the capitalist...next its the democratic socialists, the left communists, the council communists and then the anarachists....if they don't get the MLs first. So any revolution that puts aside notions of social contracts and agreements and keeps to certain rules will always collapse on itself.

Chavez hasn't changed any laws? I think you'll find the PSUV has actually worked tirelessly to empower the working class, having expropriated lots of land and businesses and handed them over to the workers. There are many criticisms to be made of the PSUV government, but lack of political freedom (for workers, at least) is not one of them.

Chavez changed the legal system in 1999. Enacted the very same law which does not allow imprissonment after three years without a trial. Apparantly he set up most of the legal constructs for which now the judge is held without legal council.

So no...he did not change what Psy is calling burgeoisie laws...he enacted them....and in the course of his 12 year rule he did not change these laws.

One thing I was thinking when Chavez was ill in Cuba was that, if he should die (which I don't hope in the current state of affairs), it could allow a more radical wing of the PSUV to perhaps seize a greater share of power. With the political climate among Venezuelans as it is, I doubt more attacks on capital would be unwelcome.

Since 1999 he has not enacted or enabled a revolution. Chavez is not a socialist. He is a political chauvinist with Marxist tendencies. 12 years to enact and enable a revolution. 10 years of complete and utter failure to do so. I think its about fucking time the real revolutionaries took over and did away with this embarassment.

In 2008 he refused the oil companies to strike after the unions called for a general strike for better working conditions. Mind you...these companies are nationalised. He refused their demands time after time again. This guy is NOT a socialist.

So yes...we agree on this...

syndicat

5th July 2011, 01:59

A combined head-of-state-and-government having the sole power of appointing cabinet officials, leading military and security officials, and those leading national judges not dealing with criminal law (not just "constitutional" judges) isn't necessarily a bad thing.of course it's a bad thing, from a working class point of view. you're simply exhibiting your preference for authoritarian state socialism.

PhoenixAsh

5th July 2011, 02:03

By bourgeoisie standards.

Since Chavez changed the legal system into this...I guess you have got your answer on which side Chavez's bread is buttered.

Right but the solution is for people to take the revolution farther then Chavez is willing to take it regardless of Chavez.

And Chavez is standing in their way. So why do you keep defending Chavez on what obviously is something of a political ass covering instead of sturctured ideological policy?

The correct thing would have been dissolving the prosecution and creating a new prosecution that is not counter-revolutionary. For the judge could have just sending a letter to the Venezuela army to take the prosecution into military custody and escort them into court under military custody (meaning the prosecution would be forced into the court room at gun point).

Think about the consequences of what you are saying here. Both legal council and the prosecution should be independent from political posturing. There is no room in communism for political show trials and random gladiatorial punishment based on public opinion to placate the electorate. Obviously and for obvious reasons. Otherwise we should reintroduce the practice of lynchmobs...because quite clearly...that is the logical consequence of your arguments.

And your idea of army intervention...is laughable. There should be no army. The conseuqence of the prosecution not doing their job is that suspects go free. Not that you try, try again until your get it right. If the prosecution did not do their jobs...why the hell did Chavez not intervene earlier? Because he had no interest in doing so, because they could not find any evidence to make a case, and because they couln't be arsed to change the law which he introduced in the first place in 12 years time.

[quite]
Of course this is only a stop gap, the very fact you have such a counter-revolutionary prosecution means they need to be disbanded and rebuild from scratch.[/quote]

Chavez did that in 1999.

Right she followed reformist laws not revolutionary laws.

Which Chavez enacted in 1999 after he took office and "repaired" the system in which it was common place to keep people in prison indefinately without a trail....12 years...12 fucking years.

wale up and smell the coffee...the guy you are defending...is NOT a socialist.

That is not the point, the point is capitalists are out oppressor, we are in class war with them thus why the hell would we care about their plight when they are the enemy? Are we suppose to be concerned about capitalists when we the workers are shooting the capitalist class in a revolutionary war?

Because genius...if those laws are violated with just one person...why the hell would they not be violated for anybody else the system doesn't like?

And there is no revolution in Venezuela.

You are the one demanding we play by bourgeoisie rules as your argument revolves around the same set of laws that protects the means of productions from workers seizing them. If a true revolutionary was in front of the judge that was guilty of braking all the property laws in Venezuela would you suggest the judge enforces the legal right of capitalists to exploit workers?

I would expect the judge to let him go after three years if they could not make the case. I expect revolutionaries to see to it that prosecution does their job and I would expect revolutionaries to make laws which do not allow fucked up loopholes or prosecute cases for which they can not find evidence.

But your whole argument hinges on the fact that these are burgeoisie rules. Rules Chavez introduced. So make the connection already and stop your measuring with two measurements....and most of all your backtracking

The system you endorse is no more and no less of the same reactionary shit applied to a different group.

PhoenixAsh

5th July 2011, 02:08

I'll admit that I fell for the media's deceptive article on Chomsky. Though, even when Chomsky explains himself where he actually stands, it's still something I'll have to disagree with him on when it comes to that corrupted judge and his unconditional support in what Amnesty International says of democratic govt's. like Venezuela.

Here's Chomsky explaining what he really meant:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6323

There is no corrupt judge. THere is no evidence of corruption. The judge followed the law...as opposed to the prosecution who did not and the state who wanted to force her to violate the very laws they themselves enacted...and did not bother to change in 12 years time.

What is however happening here is the result of political ass covering in which a judge is sacrificed...held without any form of legal council or representation...because the system is failing and incompetent to build a case.

The only crime being committed here is that some revolutionaries support a regime and a head of state which is openly counter revolutionary and has utterly failed to enable a revolution.

Psy

5th July 2011, 02:10

Yes...it absolutely is.

But let me expand on that...the idea that anything goes and the end justifies the means is something which will be self destructive. In the end its this exact same notion which killed the Russian revolution and led to brutal repression. Nothing will start a counter revolution faster than wanton and random violence and abuse of authority over people. Because now its the capitalist...next its the democratic socialists, the left communists, the council communists and then the anarachists....if they don't get the MLs first. So any revolution that puts aside notions of social contracts and agreements and keeps to certain rules will always collapse on itself.

What killed the Russian revolution was isolation from the revolution not spreading.

Regardless how benevolent we are towards the capitalists won't effect the counter-revolution as the bourgeoisie will call us monsters regardless of how humane we are towards capitalists. Thus there is no logical benefit for the revolutionary to go out of its way to defend capitalist rights, for example if workers started to publicly hang capitalists out of anger the most logical act of the revolutionary army is not get involved as why should a revolutionary army risk casualties fighting fellow proletariat to just save the lives of capitalists? Also workers demanding the blood of capitalists is far better then the workers looking for peaceful co-existence through reforms to capitalism.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th July 2011, 02:41

Regardless how benevolent we are towards the capitalists won't effect the counter-revolution as the bourgeoisie will call us monsters regardless of how humane we are towards capitalists.

Just because one is called a monster does not mean one has to behave like one.

Thus there is no logical benefit for the revolutionary to go out of its way to defend capitalist rights, for example if workers started to publicly hang capitalists out of anger the most logical act of the revolutionary army is not get involved as why should a revolutionary army risk casualties fighting fellow proletariat to just save the lives of capitalists?

So that they can be put on trial for their crimes. I mean good grief, in this hypothetical why isn't the revolutionary army already on the hunt for them?

Also workers demanding the blood of capitalists is far better then the workers looking for peaceful co-existence through reforms to capitalism.

If we're going to be killing people, we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so, because if we make a mistake then it's irreversible. You don't find much reason in a blood-crazed mob, and frankly there seems to be this patronising insinuation that workers are unable to collectively work together in an organised and empirical fashion that ensures we get who we want.

Die Neue Zeit

5th July 2011, 02:41

Actually, I think he was much more overtly anti-liberal and anti-capitalist prior to the 1980s. Like a lot of leftists and left academics, the neoliberal era has led to a lot of fatalism toward working-class struggle, and therefore the tailing of various species of reformism (Chomsky, etc.) or populism (Brezhnevite activists, Chavismo) in the name of opposing "the West" or "imperialism" or whatever. Its a broad spectrum problem, the fatalism toward working-class struggle, not a problem of personalities.

On the other hand, we must be cautious about "blind faith" re. class agency, especially in the Third World.

Psy

5th July 2011, 03:01

Just because one is called a monster does not mean one has to behave like one.

I said go out of our way.

So that they can be put on trial for their crimes.

For most their crime would be self-event as it would be the crime of being a capitalist and getting in the way of the workers seizing property.

I mean good grief, in this hypothetical why isn't the revolutionary army already on the hunt for them?

Do you expect the revolutionary army to round up all the capitalists? Their primary role would be defending the revolution, even if capitalists picked up arms alone they would pose a insignificant risk, the real risk would be capitalist states.

If we're going to be killing people, we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so, because if we make a mistake then it's irreversible. You don't find much reason in a blood-crazed mob, and frankly there seems to be this patronising insinuation that workers are unable to collectively work together in an organised and empirical fashion that ensures we get who we want.

Is it that hard to tell who is a capitalist? Did the French revolution have a problem telling who was part of the French ruling class?

Jimmie Higgins

5th July 2011, 03:07

The importance of criticizing people like Chomsky and Moore is to demonstrate that they do not represent the terminus of left critique. People who tend to read, and agree with, their views are the very people who would be most open to a systemic critique of capitalism from a revolutionary perspective. If they were only exposed to it. Criticisms of Moore and Chomsky are one way of exposing people to it.

No I just think we need to lay off denouncing people as "liberals" when the stakes are relatively low. I think it's much more problematic when Chomsky gives a pass to Obama during an election because that will influence people's thinking. Something like in the OP is just an opportunity to have a discussion with someone - Oh you like Chomsky, yeah he's really good at exposing XYZ, what do you think about his statement about Chavez. Chomsky also criticized Lenin for being like Stalin, I disagree that the Bolsheviks were always going to be the cause of a new kind of class rule after the Revolution, but the balance sheet is still positive I'd still rather have a Chomsky out there than not. Also I think that such heavy internal criticisms of someone like this make the Left seem insular. I'm not saying don't criticize, I'm saying do it with perspective, he's not a liberal, he's an academic and I think that causes him to become disconnected from time to time because he's not involved with movements directly.

PhoenixAsh

5th July 2011, 05:08

What killed the Russian revolution was isolation from the revolution not spreading.

What killed the revolution was killing the revolutionaries. Basically by the same process you are suggesting here. You denounce sombody as being capitalist/reactionary and then you do not have to actually do anything except for whatever you want. Basically what you seem to be advocating.

Regardless how benevolent we are towards the capitalists won't effect the counter-revolution as the bourgeoisie will call us monsters regardless of how humane we are towards capitalists.Simply put...more people think like me than like you. So all those people are going to get fed up with a government who willingly violates principles of habeas corpus and due process and most of all most people will not stand for chaotic and unknown laws being pushed and enforced on them because of some revolutionary principle that anything goes.

Thus there is no logical benefit for the revolutionary to go out of its way to defend capitalist rights, for example if workers started to publicly hang capitalists out of anger the most logical act of the revolutionary army is not get involved as why should a revolutionary army risk casualties fighting fellow proletariat to just save the lives of capitalists?There should be no revolutionary army. Period. And lynch mobs should be fought tooth and nail....you know the reason why. criminals are put on trial. Capitalists are either taken from power. Its not our job nor our goal to kill every one of them. Nor is it revolutionary to do so.

Also workers demanding the blood of capitalists is far better then the workers looking for peaceful co-existence through reforms to capitalism.Like Chavez is doing? Because throughout this you have been 100% behind the guy who is doing just that. Because for all your posturing and really stupid arguments you seem to ignore the basic fact that this guy and his goverment put tis very same law in place....and failed, and were utterly unwilling to enact in the 12 years they are in power to bring about revolution. You are defending the acts of a nationalist, chauvinist proto-dictator.

PhoenixAsh

5th July 2011, 05:16

I said go out of our way.

Thats backpeddling...because you were advocating a system in which anything goes.

For most their crime would be self-event as it would be the crime of being a capitalist and getting in the way of the workers seizing property.

Who said they all are getting in the way? Thats a pretty big assumption.

Do you expect the revolutionary army to round up all the capitalists? Their primary role would be defending the revolution, even if capitalists picked up arms alone they would pose a insignificant risk, the real risk would be capitalist states.

And why then do yo want to kill without trail or detain without trail capitalists?

Is it that hard to tell who is a capitalist? Did the French revolution have a problem telling who was part of the French ruling class?

As you might remember the French Revolution was an utter failure and a whole lot of people were fucking glad to get rid of the terror which was spinning out of controll....

And for much the same reason you are actually advocating. Because anything went. As long as you were identified and designated as an enemy then there was no limit to what they could do.

So define capitalist for me. Because what I seem to remember is that everybody who owns a company and has an employee is a capitalist. Should we all kill them or put them away indefinately without trial?

Belleraphone

5th July 2011, 06:19

Chomsky will mention "corporations" as the Big Bad but never capitalism itself.

HAHAHAHAHA OH WOW.

youtube. com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
youtube. com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM
youtube. com/watch?v=el1CdxiDo6M
youtube. com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Psy

5th July 2011, 11:38

Thats backpeddling...because you were advocating a system in which anything goes.

I never said that. I said that revolutions are not bound by bourgeoisie laws or social arrangements.

Who said they all are getting in the way? Thats a pretty big assumption.

No it is not, capitalists defend their class interests thus always get in the way of workers defending theirs.

And why then do yo want to kill without trail or detain without trail capitalists?

They are the oppressors, it is like saying slaves should go out of their way to bring their masters to trail during a slave revolt and that slaves should shred a single tear if other slaves burn down their master's home alone with their master, instead of felling liberated now that their oppressor is dead.

As you might remember the French Revolution was an utter failure and a whole lot of people were fucking glad to get rid of the terror which was spinning out of controll....

Not due to violence, it failed as the revolution became bourgeoisie in nature as the artisans and peasants failed to fill the power vacuum (and had no intention to collectivize the means of production)

And for much the same reason you are actually advocating. Because anything went. As long as you were identified and designated as an enemy then there was no limit to what they could do.

You are talking like capitalists are hard to define. That it would take a long drawn out trial to determine if a someone is a capitalist.

So define capitalist for me. Because what I seem to remember is that everybody who owns a company and has an employee is a capitalist.
Capitalists are those that means of making a living comes from owning means of production and using that to exploit the labor of the proletariat.

Should we all kill them or put them away indefinately without trial?

What we want is irrelevant as I'm talking about a workers state defending capitalist rights, the point of dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is the capitalists have no rights under a workers state they are effectively prisoners of (class) war.

agnixie

5th July 2011, 11:53

I never said that. I said that revolutions are not bound by bourgeoisie laws or social arrangements.
That law was instated by the Chavez administration.

No it is not, capitalists defend their class interests thus always get in the way of workers defending theirs.
A rather interesting assumption. Would you say a government passing bourgeois laws is defending class interests of workers?

They are the oppressors, it is like saying slaves should go out of their way to bring their masters to trail during a slave revolt and that slaves should shred a single tear if other slaves burn down their master's home alone with their master, instead of felling liberated now that their oppressor is dead.
Different contexts. It was a trial, not a revolt.

Not due to violence, it failed as the revolution became bourgeoisie in nature as the artisans and peasants failed to fill the power vacuum (and had no intention to collectivize the means of production)
The french revolution was bourgeois from day one, you twit.

You are talking like capitalists are hard to define. That it would take a long drawn out trial to determine if a someone is a capitalist.

That's not the problem

Capitalists are those that means of making a living comes from owning means of production and using that to exploit the labor of the proletariat.

In your own words, now, so we know you know what this means. Because as is, without qualifications or source, it's rather vague and extends to a rather vast class.

What we want is irrelevant as I'm talking about a workers state defending capitalist rights, the point of dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is the capitalists have no rights under a workers state they are effectively prisoners of (class) war.
Make your mind up, is Chavezist Venezuela a workers' state, or is it a bourgeois state enacting bourgeois laws?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th July 2011, 16:09

I said go out of our way.

Capitalists are human beings as well, so they deserve that basic level of respect whatever it is they've done. That means that we give them a fair trial for any crimes that they have committed.

Aren't we supposed be better than them?

For most their crime would be self-event as it would be the crime of being a capitalist and getting in the way of the workers seizing property.

Then the trial won't be that long or complicated, will it?

I'm also extremely wary of making simply being a capitalist an offence worthy of death. Sure, a particular capitalist may be responsible for the deaths of workers, or they may just be an inheritor of daddy's money.

That's why we should be having trials - to make sure we do not, in our righteous anger, confuse the murderous with the simply indolent.

Do you expect the revolutionary army to round up all the capitalists? Their primary role would be defending the revolution, even if capitalists picked up arms alone they would pose a insignificant risk, the real risk would be capitalist states.

So your hypothetical revolutinary army is incapable of doing more than one thing at a time? If individual capitalists are not worth using the resources of the revolutionary army to capture and be put on trial, then they are not worth the fallout from letting them be torn apart by some random mob.

Is it that hard to tell who is a capitalist? Did the French revolution have a problem telling who was part of the French ruling class?

Except for the issue as I mentioned just before that being a capitalist alone is not good enough to warrant death, or more specifically, being torn apart in an orgy of arbitrary mob "justice".

x359594

5th July 2011, 16:25

...I'm also extremely wary of making simply being a capitalist an offence worthy of death. Sure, a particular capitalist may be responsible for the deaths of workers, or they may just be an inheritor of daddy's money...That's why we should be having trials - to make sure we do not, in our righteous anger, confuse the murderous with the simply indolent...

The historian of the Spanish Civil War Gabriel Jackson (accused by Chomsky of counter-revolutionary subordination, and certainly no friend of the revolutrion) wrote: "...the anarchists made a constant effort to separate active political enemies from from those who were simply bourgeois by birth or ideology or economic function. Anarchist political committees wanted to know what accused monarchists or conservatives had done, not simply what they thought or how they voted. The Durruti Column executed far fewer persons than did the Carlist and Falangist firing squads in the National zone..."

Lucretia

5th July 2011, 17:34

No I just think we need to lay off denouncing people as "liberals" when the stakes are relatively low.

I would go even further and say that denouncing people as liberals can easily lapse into an anti-intellectual labeling game. I am more interested in discussing people's positions, which can sometimes straddle the divide between liberalism and radical leftism, than in slapping neat labels on people's ideologies to designate them the good guys or the bad guys.

I'd still rather have a Chomsky out there than not. Also I think that such heavy internal criticisms of someone like this make the Left seem insular. I'm not saying don't criticize, I'm saying do it with perspective, he's not a liberal, he's an academic and I think that causes him to become disconnected from time to time because he's not involved with movements directly.

The trick is determining the right balance. I disagree with the OP that Chomsky is a liberal just because he has problems with a supposedly "socialist" leader's hoarding and centralization of power. That kind of criticism entails an overly simplistic reduction of an entire social process and social transformation with a single personality. Chavez = socialism, so if you criticize Chavez, you're a liberal who's criticizing socialism.

But let's be honest and say that we have problems with the criticism because the criticism is stupid, not because we have principled objections to criticizing people on the left who happen to be wrong from time to time (or sometimes more often than that!).

Book O'Dead

5th July 2011, 20:48

Admittedly there is something self-serving about Chomsky's choice of cause celebre. There is a legitimate leftist critique of Chavez that focuses on his authoritarian tendencies, not least of which is his nationalism.

What makes a "critique" of Chavez, or anyone else "legitima[tedly] leftist"? Sounds dogmatic. Or perhaps you meant say genuinely ?

As to the article itself. Isn't it inaccurate to characterize Chomsky and Chavez as "old friends"? I never knew of any friendship between the two, let alone of any that could be described as "old".

I think that Chavez, who is in control or actual state power should be criticized mercilessly and the Bolivarian revolution (if such a thing is actually taking place in Venezuela) should be examined without any illusion. Chomsky does that.

Psy

5th July 2011, 22:30

That law was instated by the Chavez administration.

And? The laws of Venezuela still defends capitalist right to exploit workers.

A rather interesting assumption. Would you say a government passing bourgeois laws is defending class interests of workers?

Of course not.

Different contexts. It was a trial, not a revolt.

And if it was a revolution? If before the judge was revolutionary army officers that seized capitalist property and handed them over to worker cooperatives? Would we demand the judge judge the revolutionaries by bourgeoisie law?

The french revolution was bourgeois from day one, you twit.

Artisans and peasants are not bourgeois, as that would make the Luddite rebellion the bourgeois rebelling against capitalism rather then artisans rebelling against capitalism.

Make your mind up, is Chavezist Venezuela a workers' state, or is it a bourgeois state enacting bourgeois laws?
It is a Keynesian bourgeois state with a socialist facade.

Capitalists are human beings as well, so they deserve that basic level of respect whatever it is they've done. That means that we give them a fair trial for any crimes that they have committed.

Aren't we supposed be better than them?

So we have to hold trails now to liberate the means of production for the capitalist class?

Then the trial won't be that long or complicated, will it?

Would workers need a hold trails to prove capitalists are capitalists?

I'm also extremely wary of making simply being a capitalist an offence worthy of death. Sure, a particular capitalist may be responsible for the deaths of workers, or they may just be an inheritor of daddy's money.

That's why we should be having trials - to make sure we do not, in our righteous anger, confuse the murderous with the simply indolent.

I'm not suggesting that, I'm stating unless you want to empower the workers state even more then necessary then the workers state wouldn't be able to defend the capitalist class even if it wanted to. If the workers are rioting in capitalist gated communities the workers state wouldn't really have much options other then sending in the tanks and crushing the workers with the revolutionary army, that would probably have huge sympathies to the rioting workers.

So your hypothetical revolutinary army is incapable of doing more than one thing at a time? If individual capitalists are not worth using the resources of the revolutionary army to capture and be put on trial, then they are not worth the fallout from letting them be torn apart by some random mob.

So you want a massive revolutionary army with the man power to also deal with capitalists after their property has been seized and act as their body guards so the masses don't take out their anger on them?

Except for the issue as I mentioned just before that being a capitalist alone is not good enough to warrant death, or more specifically, being torn apart in an orgy of arbitrary mob "justice".
And is this issue a big enough concern to pull soldiers away from front lines in a revolutionary war? Would battle hardened revolutionary troops want to protect capitalists, I mean if there is a revolutionary war these troops would have gone through losses at the hands of capitalists armies then all of sudden the workers state pulls them off the front lines and tells them to protect the capitalists in worker run territories from workers. Odds are the revolutionary army would just frag capitalists they were ordered to protect as they probably would not exactly like capitalists after having to fight their armies.

agnixie

5th July 2011, 22:34

Artisans and peasants are not bourgeois, as that would make the Luddite rebellion the bourgeois rebelling against capitalism rather then artisans rebelling against capitalism.

Artisans are petty bourgeoisie and the luddites have nothing to do with the french revolution, which was led from the cities, by the bourgeois, while a lot of the counterrevolutionary impulses came from the peasantry. It was not a jacquerie.

And is this issue a big enough concern to pull soldiers away from front lines in a revolutionary war? Would battle hardened revolutionary troops want to protect capitalists, I mean if there is a revolutionary war these troops would have gone through losses at the hands of capitalists armies then all of sudden the workers state pulls them off the front lines and tells them to protect the capitalists in worker run territories from workers. Odds are the revolutionary army would just frag capitalists they were ordered to protect as they probably would not exactly like capitalists after having to fight their armies.

Let me guess - you're a tanker? Your analysis is disappointingly elementary.

CornetJoyce

5th July 2011, 22:37

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/noam-chomsky-venezuelaNoam Chomsky on Venezuela – the transcript

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/7/4/1309779120558/Noam-Chomsky-007.jpg

We reported on Sunday that Noam Chomsky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/noam-chomsky) had accused Hugo Chávez (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hugo-chavez) of amassing too much power and making an "assault" on Venezuela (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/venezuela)'s democracy.
The article was based on a telephone interview with the scholar on the eve of Chomsky publishing an open letter which criticised the jailing of a Venezuelan judge, Maria Lourdes Afiuni, after she made a ruling which angered Chávez.
Chomsky subsequently told a blogger (http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/) that the article was "dishonest" and "deceptive", an accusation that has been reported elsewhere.

Psy

5th July 2011, 23:07

Artisans are petty bourgeoisie and the luddites have nothing to do with the french revolution, which was led from the cities, by the bourgeois, while a lot of the counterrevolutionary impulses came from the peasantry. It was not a jacquerie.

Artisans evolved into pettie-bourgeoisie also the peasantry played key role in the French revolution.

Let me guess - you're a tanker? Your analysis is disappointingly elementary.
No I am not, I'm point out that the workers state would not have the power to protect the capitalists from workers.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 00:37

...the peasantry played key role in the French revolution.
Some did, some didn't; the War in the Vendee, for example, although lead by aristocrats, was waged mostly by peasant militias. The peasantry, as Marx was at pains to make clear, have no steady or unified orientation in regards to capitalism, and have historically proved particularly susceptible to feudal ideology. (Even when they were revolutionary, or at least insurrectionary, their leadership was very often comprised of small-town artisans, a pattern established as early as the 1381 Peasants Revolt in England.)

PhoenixAsh

6th July 2011, 01:05

I never said that. I said that revolutions are not bound by bourgeoisie laws or social arrangements.

Then why are you defending somebody who institutionalised these laws, then educated and swore in the judge and then put her away indefinately because she followed the exact same laws without any form of trial and any form of defence. Because you are defending somebody over some concept which is NOT taking place in Venzuela...and that person actively works to obstruct.

No it is not, capitalists defend their class interests thus always get in the way of workers defending theirs.

No...they really don't. Just like not all workers will defend their class or will even work against it.

They are the oppressors, it is like saying slaves should go out of their way to bring their masters to trail during a slave revolt and that slaves should shred a single tear if other slaves burn down their master's home alone with their master, instead of felling liberated now that their oppressor is dead.

Just like there is no slave revolt there is no revolution in Venezuela.

Not due to violence, it failed as the revolution became bourgeoisie in nature as the artisans and peasants failed to fill the power vacuum (and had no intention to collectivize the means of production)

No it failed because nobody was there to support the revolution and defend it....but the violence was indeed what ended the revolution in the Thermodorian reaction...which ultimately le to the decay of the revolutionary era. They reacted with the help of those in the revolutionary groups against the revolutionary group itself...then failed and were themselves replaced. So yes...violence is exactly what lead to the end of the French Revolution.

You are talking like capitalists are hard to define. That it would take a long drawn out trial to determine if a someone is a capitalist. Capitalists are those that means of making a living comes from owning means of production and using that to exploit the labor of the proletariat.

So we have to execute the grover at the corner of the street; buthcher the butcher....see....that is the logical consequence of what you are saying.

What we want is irrelevant as I'm talking about a workers state defending capitalist rights, the point of dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is the capitalists have no rights under a workers state they are effectively prisoners of (class) war.

And seeing that Venezuela is not a workersstate and Chavez, whom you defend here, is not a revolutionary....:rolleyes:

Psy

6th July 2011, 01:24

Then why are you defending somebody who institutionalised these laws, then educated and swore in the judge and then put her away indefinately because she followed the exact same laws without any form of trial and any form of defence. Because you are defending somebody over some concept which is NOT taking place in Venzuela...and that person actively works to obstruct.

I'm not defending Chavez, I'm attacking the Judge for defending the status-quo.

No...they really don't. Just like not all workers will defend their class or will even work against it.

Yes they will, at the point capitalists stop they will exiled to the proletariat class through market forces.

Just like there is no slave revolt there is no revolution in Venezuela.

And?

No it failed because nobody was there to support the revolution and defend it....but the violence was indeed what ended the revolution in the Thermodorian reaction...which ultimately le to the decay of the revolutionary era. They reacted with the help of those in the revolutionary groups against the revolutionary group itself...then failed and were themselves replaced. So yes...violence is exactly what lead to the end of the French Revolution.

Violence had nothing to do with the failure of the French Revolution, or the Russian revolution or other revolutions. All revolutions are violent by definition as the point is the seize control from the ruling class by force that will result in the ruling class to counter-attack the revolution and take it back by force, the end result always being a slugging match between the revolution and capitalism.

So we have to execute the grover at the corner of the street; buthcher the butcher....see....that is the logical consequence of what you are saying.

Yet those people have to sell their labor as well so are intermediate class between the capitalist class and proletariat (petite-bourgeoisie), they don't truly make a living on just owning the means of production.

Also my point was that capitalists don't have rights, meaning the workers state won't go out of its way to harm capitalists but it won't go out of its way to defend them either. The goal of the workers state is to eliminate capitalists as a class this will eliminate the proletariat as a class.

And seeing that Venezuela is not a workersstate and Chavez, whom you defend here, is not a revolutionary....:rolleyes:
I don't view Chavez as a revolutionary but a reformist.

agnixie

6th July 2011, 01:50

Yet those people have to sell their labor as well so are intermediate class between the capitalist class and proletariat (petite-bourgeoisie), they don't truly make a living on just owning the means of production.

Except the petite bourgeoisie is not part of the proletariat.

I don't view Chavez as a revolutionary but a reformist.
Yes, we see, but the mental contortions you make to defend the whole thing are rather entertaining. If he's a reformist, what does either outcome change?

Psy

6th July 2011, 02:27

Except the petite bourgeoisie is not part of the proletariat.

Yet it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat against all other classes but a dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Yes, we see, but the mental contortions you make to defend the whole thing are rather entertaining. If he's a reformist, what does either outcome change?
What difference does Chavez being a reformist make in this case? The banker still is a banker and the judge still let the banker go.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 02:40

Yet it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat against all other classes but a dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
Even on a semantic level, that doesn't make sense. A dictatorship isn't "against" anything, it just is. :confused:

PhoenixAsh

6th July 2011, 02:50

I'm not defending Chavez, I'm attacking the Judge for defending the status-quo.

She isn't she is defending due process. Which means: make a case or gtfo my court room. As it should be. Anywhere anytime.

Yes they will, at the point capitalists stop they will exiled to the proletariat class through market forces. That does not make sense...could you clarify this?

And?you are arguing a situation which is not part of the topic of debate.

Violence had nothing to do with the failure of the French Revolution, or the Russian revolution or other revolutions. All revolutions are violent by definition as the point is the seize control from the ruling class by force that will result in the ruling class to counter-attack the revolution and take it back by force, the end result always being a slugging match between the revolution and capitalism. You should do some serious reading up on the thermodorian reaction and the causes of it. Because one of the mian factors was the reign of terror by the Jacobines...who themsleves split over the issue of repressive violence.

Yet those people have to sell their labor as well so are intermediate class between the capitalist class and proletariat (petite-bourgeoisie), they don't truly make a living on just owning the means of production. But they exploit others. Lets be sure and hang them. K. After all anything goes. After all Marx himself told us they could go either way....so...meh...I think we can't be taking any chances.

Also my point was that capitalists don't have rights, meaning the workers state won't go out of its way to harm capitalists but it won't go out of its way to defend them either. The goal of the workers state is to eliminate capitalists as a class this will eliminate the proletariat as a class. Yes...and if that is being done over the bodies of induviduals because we can't be arsed to make sure that whom ever we get is the right one....we should clearly think up another way. Your way sound like complete shit to me and will fail utterly.

I don't view Chavez as a revolutionary but a reformist.I tend to view him as a political chauvinist with a Marxist streak...imo...he is one we should put on trial....not some judge who only did what she is supposed to do.

Psy

6th July 2011, 03:19

She isn't she is defending due process. Which means: make a case or gtfo my court room. As it should be. Anywhere anytime.

No she is letting one corrupt faction of the state get away with defending the bourgeoisie by not putting forth a case against the defendant. It shouldn't be make a case of get out of my court room but make a case or you'd fell the wrath of the revolution instead of banker.

That does not make sense...could you clarify this?

Capitalists don't exploit because they are bad people but cause if they stopped exploiting workers they will be driven out of business and become a proletariat having to sell their labor.

you are arguing a situation which is not part of the topic of debate.

You think the judge would be revolutionary in a revolutionary?

You should do some serious reading up on the thermodorian reaction and the causes of it. Because one of the mian factors was the reign of terror by the Jacobines...who themsleves split over the issue of repressive violence.

The violence had no context to the masses. For example the execution of Benito Mussolini didn't no alienate the uprisings it helped them grow. The public desecration of the corpses of fascists caused the Italian working class to come together in their hatred towards fascists.

But they exploit others. Lets be sure and hang them. K. After all anything goes. After all Marx himself told us they could go either way....so...meh...I think we can't be taking any chances.

They don't exploit anyone on the same scale as capitalists.

Yes...and if that is being done over the bodies of induviduals because we can't be arsed to make sure that whom ever we get is the right one....we should clearly think up another way. Your way sound like complete shit to me and will fail utterly.

Getting rid of class has nothing to do with individual capitalists thus why a workers state would find it cumbersome to bother with individual capitalists. It is much more effecting to just seize the means of production and crush everyone that gets in the way of worker control of production. For example you don't go after the Walton's you go after Wal-Mart.

I tend to view him as a political chauvinist with a Marxist streak...imo...he is one we should put on trial....not some judge who only did what she is supposed to do.
The Judge didn't show any revolutionary ideas.

Even on a semantic level, that doesn't make sense. A dictatorship isn't "against" anything, it just is. :confused:
Yes it is, bourgeoisie democracy is a democracy among the bourgeoisie and a dictatorship against the proletariat. Dictatorship against the bourgeoisie means from the bourgeoisie point of view it is a dictatorship from the proletariat's view it is a democracy.

PhoenixAsh

6th July 2011, 03:29

No she is letting one corrupt faction of the state get away with defending the bourgeoisie by not putting forth a case against the defendant. It shouldn't be make a case of get out of my court room but make a case or you'd fell the wrath of the revolution instead of banker.

Thats not the job of a judge. The job of a judge is to apply the laws to the case being put foreward. If there is no case...then the law which states the maximum time limit for a case to be brought foreward applies. Its very simple.

Capitalists don't exploit because they are bad people but cause if they stopped exploiting workers they will be driven out of business and become a proletariat having to sell their labor. No...capitalists exploit people because its an opportunity and an expectation of the system. They are not inherrently evil or criminals.

You think the judge would be revolutionary in a revolutionary?I think that is besides the issue.

The violence had no context to the masses. For example the execution of Benito Mussolini didn't no alienate the uprisings it helped them grow. The public desecration of the corpses of fascists caused the Italian working class to come together in their hatred towards fascists.Quite right...and who is leading the government now? O..yes,...right...

They don't exploit anyone on the same scale as capitalists. Nevertheless...exploitation is exploitation.

Getting rid of class has nothing to do with individual capitalists thus why a workers state would find it cumbersome to bother with individual capitalists. It is much more effecting to just seize the means of production and crush everyone that gets in the way of worker control of production. For example you don't go after the Walton's you go after Wal-Mart.Then why do we bother with individual workers? Because after all the induvidual doesn;t matter.

The Judge didn't show any revolutionary ideas.Nor was it her job to do so.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 03:46

Yes it is, bourgeoisie democracy is a democracy among the bourgeoisie and a dictatorship against the proletariat. Dictatorship against the bourgeoisie means from the bourgeoisie point of view it is a dictatorship from the proletariat's view it is a democracy.
I think you've got things a bit muddled here; the bourgeois dictatorship is defence of capitalist social relations, first and foremost, rather than "against the proletariat" as such. That's simply the necessary application of political power in defence of those social relations, as dictate by the inevitability of class struggle. A small distinction, but, I think, an important one.

And, no, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a dictatorship from the proletarian perspective as well; it would simply be a dictatorship with the proletariat, collectively, in the driving seat. I think that, in this, you retreat into a liberal-tinged use of the language, trying to water down proletarian class-dictatorship as something which is only applied against some set of "bad guys", rather than acknowledging it for the what it is, the firm, even ruthless enforcement of of working class political power. "Democratic dictatorship" is not, for us, an oxymoron.

Psy

6th July 2011, 03:55

Thats not the job of a judge. The job of a judge is to apply the laws to the case being put foreward. If there is no case...then the law which states the maximum time limit for a case to be brought foreward applies. Its very simple.

Right but we are talking about laws set up as a bourgeois institution.

No...capitalists exploit people because its an opportunity and an expectation of the system. They are not inherrently evil or criminals.

You missed the point, if a capitalist for some reason stopped exploiting workers they would be unable to accumulate surplus value, without surplus value the market will proletarianize them. Thus capitalists it is more then a opportunity and exception, hell this is part of Communist Manifesto

It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production;

This is not only true for nations but capitalists.

I think that is besides the issue.

Well the same laws would hinder a revolution.

Quite right...and who is leading the government now? O..yes,...right...

Besides the point, the USSR and USA aborted the Italian revolution.

Nevertheless...exploitation is exploitation.

No it is not.

Then why do we bother with individual workers? Because after all the induvidual doesn;t matter.

Both with individual workers in what way? Anyway individual capitalists are irrelevant if the workers occupy all the means of production as capitalists without means of production have no power. As long as the revolution can hold onto all the means of property eventually the capitalist class would wither away.

Nor was it her job to do so.
So we should support her for following the logic of the bourgeois institution that employs her?

Psy

6th July 2011, 04:01

I think you've got things a bit muddled here; the bourgeois dictatorship is defence of capitalist social relations, first and foremost, rather than "against the proletariat" as such. That's simply the necessary application of political power in defence of those social relations, as dictate by the inevitability of class struggle. A small distinction, but, I think, an important one.

And, no, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a dictatorship from the proletarian perspective as well; it would simply be a dictatorship with the proletariat, collectively, in the driving seat. I think that, in this, you retreat into a liberal-tinged use of the language, trying to water down proletarian class-dictatorship as something which is only applied against some set of "bad guys", rather than acknowledging it for the what it is, the firm, even ruthless enforcement of of working class political power. "Democratic dictatorship" is not, for us, an oxymoron.
Okay how is the proletariat democratically governing a dictatorship from the proletariat's perspective? It is you that is using modern definition of the term rather then what existed in Marx's time, what Marx meant was a societal class holds political and economic control over another, in other words the proletariat governs over the bourgeoisie democratically among the proletariat with no input from the capitalist class.

This is what I meant by dictatorship against the capitalists as the it is not a dictatorship among the proletariat. If you read Marx he was against such a setup.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 04:26

Okay how is the proletariat democratically governing a dictatorship from the proletariat's perspective? It is you that is using modern definition of the term rather then what existed in Marx's time, what Marx meant was a societal class holds political and economic control over another, in other words the proletariat governs over the bourgeoisie democratically among the proletariat with no input from the capitalist class.

This is what I meant by dictatorship against the capitalists as the it is not a dictatorship among the proletariat. If you read Marx he was against such a setup.
I know that, and said as much. My point is that the proletarian dictatorship will not merely be a dictatorship from the outside, but also from the inside; that the proletariat will pursue political power ruthlessly, and will be concious of the ruthlessness of this pursuit, because it is the necessity of class struggle. To claim that it will be a dictatorship only from the outside, but a liberal democracy from within, denies its true form as a democratic class-dictatorship.

After all, democracy means "the rule of the people", and thus implies the wielding of political power. It is only through the liberal mystification of political reality that we have come to understand democracy as the absence of any political power whatsoever; we, as socialists, seek not simply to remove power from the state and from capitalists, but for the working class to seize political power it for itself, and, with the dissolution of class, to generalise it in the form of individual and social autonomy. Communism, you might say, is not an absence of political dictatorship, but rather a dictatorship so generalised as to be invisible.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th July 2011, 07:41

Would workers need a hold trails to prove capitalists are capitalists?

No, their names would be all over the paperwork. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether the capitalist has been complicit in actively anti-worker activities, which could be anything from stipulating "no-strike" clauses in employment contracts to ordering the deaths of workers.

If guilt has been determined, then we move on to the matter of penalties.

I'm not suggesting that, I'm stating unless you want to empower the workers state even more then necessary then the workers state wouldn't be able to defend the capitalist class even if it wanted to. If the workers are rioting in capitalist gated communities the workers state wouldn't really have much options other then sending in the tanks and crushing the workers with the revolutionary army, that would probably have huge sympathies to the rioting workers.

Why are the workers "rioting in capitalist gated communities"? Is it over a genuine grievance? Then why the fuck isn't the army involved? In fact, shouldn't they be first on the scene if there's a bunch of capitalist scumbags ripe and ready to be captured and dragged off to a much-deserved trial?

So you want a massive revolutionary army with the man power to also deal with capitalists after their property has been seized and act as their body guards so the masses don't take out their anger on them?

If they're no longer controlling the means of production and have not been found guilty of an offence in a trial, then they deserve the same level of protection as anyone else, and that includes protection from being torn apart by a mob simply for being an ex-capitalist.

If they're still controlling the means of production, then the workers' army should be working to change that if they are not already.

And is this issue a big enough concern to pull soldiers away from front lines in a revolutionary war? Would battle hardened revolutionary troops want to protect capitalists, I mean if there is a revolutionary war these troops would have gone through losses at the hands of capitalists armies then all of sudden the workers state pulls them off the front lines and tells them to protect the capitalists in worker run territories from workers. Odds are the revolutionary army would just frag capitalists they were ordered to protect as they probably would not exactly like capitalists after having to fight their armies.

Having an ex-capitalist heiress torn to pieces by a baying mob is what the capitalists would call a "PR disaster" - and that is assuming that the crowd got it right and didn't just pull apart some poor innocent in their unthinking thirst for the blood of the oppressor.

Sure, they can accuse our trials of being rigged kangaroo courts, but that does not mean we have to make it so - in fact, for the more prominent defendants it may be worthwhile to broadcast the trial live and make all proceedings publicly available - so that the whole world can see that justice can be done by the workers for the workers.

Even if a transnational revolutionary war requiring large amounts of manpower is going on, that would simply mean we would be busy - circumstances may make it difficult or impossible to bring certain capitalists to justice, but that does not mean we shouldn't be trying to do the right thing.

Because the more situations in which one justifies suspending the rules and acting according to whim and fancy, the easier one finds it to walk further down the path of tyranny.

Hebrew Hammer

6th July 2011, 07:45

YAwn

Psy

6th July 2011, 22:35

I know that, and said as much. My point is that the proletarian dictatorship will not merely be a dictatorship from the outside, but also from the inside; that the proletariat will pursue political power ruthlessly, and will be concious of the ruthlessness of this pursuit, because it is the necessity of class struggle. To claim that it will be a dictatorship only from the outside, but a liberal democracy from within, denies its true form as a democratic class-dictatorship.
My point is that the workers state won't dictate over the proletariat.

[
No, their names would be all over the paperwork. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether the capitalist has been complicit in actively anti-worker activities, which could be anything from stipulating "no-strike" clauses in employment contracts to ordering the deaths of workers.

Getting all the grieving together along with prove will take some time as you are talking about a life-time of oppression caused by the entire capitalist ruling class against the entire proletariat.

If guilt has been determined, then we move on to the matter of penalties.

Uprisings don't work like that. In uprisings the grievances has accumulated to the point the oppressed lashes out violently against their oppressors and anyone that gets in their way. Imagine if the great railway strike of 1877 lead to the formation of a workers state, with the streets still filled with explosions and fires as workers still locking horns with the US Army, in that environment where are you going to find anyone willing to defend the rights of the capitalists?

Why are the workers "rioting in capitalist gated communities"? Is it over a genuine grievance? Then why the fuck isn't the army involved? In fact, shouldn't they be first on the scene if there's a bunch of capitalist scumbags ripe and ready to be captured and dragged off to a much-deserved trial?

Workers would be taking out their anger against the capitalists as they know where their class lives geographically, thus you can say very accurately that everyone that is not hired help in that gated community is a capitalist as only capitalists can afford to live there.

As for why wouldn't the army be involved, beating up a bunch of rich asses won't really help the revolution push forward it would just make the proletariat feel good.

If they're no longer controlling the means of production and have not been found guilty of an offence in a trial, then they deserve the same level of protection as anyone else, and that includes protection from being torn apart by a mob simply for being an ex-capitalist.

If they're still controlling the means of production, then the workers' army should be working to change that if they are not already.

Again going through all the grievance take time, you talking about talking about basically taking statements from everybody over the life time of the capitalist as capitalist exploitation reaches far.

Having an ex-capitalist heiress torn to pieces by a baying mob is what the capitalists would call a "PR disaster" - and that is assuming that the crowd got it right and didn't just pull apart some poor innocent in their unthinking thirst for the blood of the oppressor.

Depends on the class consciousness around the world, it could spark violent uprisings against capitalists outside the territory controlled by revolution since workers around the world see it as a great way to vent their anger against their oppressors.

Sure, they can accuse our trials of being rigged kangaroo courts, but that does not mean we have to make it so - in fact, for the more prominent defendants it may be worthwhile to broadcast the trial live and make all proceedings publicly available - so that the whole world can see that justice can be done by the workers for the workers.

Workers would be far more interested in justice for workers.

Even if a transnational revolutionary war requiring large amounts of manpower is going on, that would simply mean we would be busy - circumstances may make it difficult or impossible to bring certain capitalists to justice, but that does not mean we shouldn't be trying to do the right thing.

So how would one go about brining them to justice in say the Spanish civil-war when the entire revolutionary body is mobilized for war?

Because the more situations in which one justifies suspending the rules and acting according to whim and fancy, the easier one finds it to walk further down the path of tyranny.
The think is if you read Marx only the workers would have a democracy, the workers would govern over the capitalist through a proletarian dictatorship

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 22:57

My point is that the workers state won't dictate over the proletariat.
I know that, yes, but I'm saying that trying to "soften" the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat by posing it as simply being a "dictatorship against the bourgeoisie" is either dishonest or inaccurate. The DotP is to be experienced as a dictatorship by the proletariat themselves, as the collective-democratic dictator. Otherwise nothing will actually be achieved.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th July 2011, 08:20

Getting all the grieving together along with prove will take some time as you are talking about a life-time of oppression caused by the entire capitalist ruling class against the entire proletariat.

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing it right. This means that we carefully document our own actions as much as those of the capitalists - so that in the event of inevitable fuckups the responsible parties can be properly identified.

Uprisings don't work like that. In uprisings the grievances has accumulated to the point the oppressed lashes out violently against their oppressors and anyone that gets in their way. Imagine if the great railway strike of 1877 lead to the formation of a workers state, with the streets still filled with explosions and fires as workers still locking horns with the US Army, in that environment where are you going to find anyone willing to defend the rights of the capitalists?

I don't know, but I'd like to imagine that you would find more than a few people willing to defend the rights of fellow human beings, which is what the capitalists will be once divested of the means of production.

The fact that initially tempers will be running high and people won't exactly be in a rational mood is an explanation for a lack of fair trials, but is nowhere near a justification for same.

Workers would be taking out their anger against the capitalists as they know where their class lives geographically, thus you can say very accurately that everyone that is not hired help in that gated community is a capitalist as only capitalists can afford to live there.

As for why wouldn't the army be involved, beating up a bunch of rich asses won't really help the revolution push forward it would just make the proletariat feel good.

Hang on, you would seriously condone the assault and possible murder of people "just [to] make the proletariat feel good"?

Fuck that!

Again going through all the grievance take time, you talking about talking about basically taking statements from everybody over the life time of the capitalist as capitalist exploitation reaches far.

If time really is a pressing issue, concentrate on the largest and/or most recent offences. That's different from simply throwing out the idea of empirical and rational justice.

Depends on the class consciousness around the world, it could spark violent uprisings against capitalists outside the territory controlled by revolution since workers around the world see it as a great way to vent their anger against their oppressors.

We should be playing it safe. Leaving aside the massive problems associated with leaving justice to untrained self-selected crowd members, it's much harder to paint the workers' movement as demons in human form if we actually behave like human beings should.

Workers would be far more interested in justice for workers.

"Justice for workers" is exactly what I'm talking about, but you won't get any justice from an emotionally-driven mob, no matter how righteous their cause or genuine their grievances.

So how would one go about brining them to justice in say the Spanish civil-war when the entire revolutionary body is mobilized for war?

The same way one brings anyone to justice - by capturing them and bringing them to a trial. Like I said, circumstances may complicate such tasks, but it is the right thing to do and we should be doing it.

The think is if you read Marx only the workers would have a democracy, the workers would govern over the capitalist through a proletarian dictatorship

If the capitalists no longer control the means of production - if the proletariat is in any kind of situation in which they could be said to be dictating - then they are capitalists no more, and citizens like the rest of us.

Psy

7th July 2011, 10:12

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing it right. This means that we carefully document our own actions as much as those of the capitalists - so that in the event of inevitable fuckups the responsible parties can be properly identified.

There is no such things as a perfect revolution.

I don't know, but I'd like to imagine that you would find more than a few people willing to defend the rights of fellow human beings, which is what the capitalists will be once divested of the means of production.

The revolution will not be done when we take the means of production as there will be the inevitable counter-revolution thus every capitalists will be a potential fascist at that point.

The fact that initially tempers will be running high and people won't exactly be in a rational mood is an explanation for a lack of fair trials, but is nowhere near a justification for same.

It is a justification as the revolution lacks the means to fair trails for the capitalists that it is in a fight to death over. Especially if like in the Spanish civil war the capitalists forces commit huge atrocities against not the revolutionary army but the workers like carpet bombing worker run cities.

Hang on, you would seriously condone the assault and possible murder of people "just [to] make the proletariat feel good"?

It is not just that it will make the proletariat feel good, it is that the proletariat will tear apart anyone that got in its way even the revolutionary army.

If time really is a pressing issue, concentrate on the largest and/or most recent offences. That's different from simply throwing out the idea of empirical and rational justice.

It is more of a problem of lacking resources and it being a low priority due to the revolution far more concerned with actually succeeding.

We should be playing it safe. Leaving aside the massive problems associated with leaving justice to untrained self-selected crowd members, it's much harder to paint the workers' movement as demons in human form if we actually behave like human beings should.

No it won't as the bourgeoisie simply lies.

"Justice for workers" is exactly what I'm talking about, but you won't get any justice from an emotionally-driven mob, no matter how righteous their cause or genuine their grievances.

How so? If the mob knows its oppressors then attacking them would be them getting justice through armed force.

The same way one brings anyone to justice - by capturing them and bringing them to a trial. Like I said, circumstances may complicate such tasks, but it is the right thing to do and we should be doing it.

Capturing people alive is not easy in a war when both sides are armed and at war. Capitalists that are not armed wouldn't exactly be hight priority targets for a revolutionary army.

If the capitalists no longer control the means of production - if the proletariat is in any kind of situation in which they could be said to be dictating - then they are capitalists no more, and citizens like the rest of us.
Wrong! The capitalists would not control the means of production at the center of the revolution yet still control means of production on the periphery of the revolution. You can't snap your fingers and have a successful world revolution it will take time for a world workers uprisings to conquer global capitalism.

PhoenixAsh

7th July 2011, 10:45

Right but we are talking about laws set up as a bourgeois institution.

You keep debating what should happen in a revolution. As I pointed out time and time again...we are not having a revolution in Venezuela. So everything you say on that subject in the light of OP is moot.

But even in a revolution. Keeping somebody locked up for three years without being able to make a case is ridiculous; it is inhumane and it serves no purpose. Just for thoughs: who the hell do you think is paying for that?

You arrest somebody on the grounds of evidence. Not on a hunch. You limit their authonomy for the purpose of judgement based on evidence. Not on lust for vengeance. And most of all everybody has a right to legal representation against the accusations because we do not convict in a popularity contest but based on real crimes, real evidence and in accordance with procedures which are the same for every human being...not because somebody felt the person deserved it and some kind of vengeance should be extracted. And you most definately do not arrest a judge or somebody who is supposed to make a ruling for not making the one you think is right...unless there is some serious evidence of wrong doing other than somebody you don't like getting off or getting something you do not think they deserve.

The system of mob mentality you advocate is anti-Marxist and no better than just another brand of mindless and purposeless violence.

You try to argue this away because you claim that being a capitalist in itself is a crime. So simply being part of the capitalist class should be enough to throw all reason and reasonability out of the window to extract the vengeance of the working class. This is based on your assessment that being part of the class makes you an enemy devoid of rights.

Now...change your word into any minority or repressed majority group out there...and what do you have? Exactly! So thats not a path we travel.

You missed the point, if a capitalist for some reason stopped exploiting workers they would be unable to accumulate surplus value, without surplus value the market will proletarianize them. Thus capitalists it is more then a opportunity and exception, hell this is part of Communist Manifesto

It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production;

This is not only true for nations but capitalists.This does not disprove what I stated. You are describing an objective mechanism here.

Well the same laws would hinder a revolution. You weren't talking about the laws. You were musing IF the judge would be a revolutionary in a revolution.

No it is not.Offcourse it is. Remember...anything goes in a revolution. So who are you to deny workers their vengeance on whom even they think deserves it. Because that is what you have been arguing all along. We should not let the revolution be bothered by some technicalities like...actually equating which expliotation if worse than other exploitation...right? Because...gulp...that would imply that we should actually weigh evidence in a court/trial...with...perish the though...procedures. So no...you can't have it both ways. I saythat we should have every petit-burgeoisie member executed just for the sake of being absolutely damned sure they wouldn't turn on us later. That is just as much a valid statement as your argument....we don't need evidence, we don't even need to be right...we are revolutionaries and we can do as we damned well please and designate everybody as an enemy we don't like. Are you going against my wisdom of being part of the mob who knows its oppressors?

If you do not like it...then admit your arguments are wrong because I am simply applying them.

Both with individual workers in what way? Anyway individual capitalists are irrelevant if the workers occupy all the means of production as capitalists without means of production have no power. As long as the revolution can hold onto all the means of property eventually the capitalist class would wither away.So there would be no need for vengeance.

So we should support her for following the logic of the bourgeois institution that employs her?No...we should support her because no human being should be denied legal representation or be accused of something they did not do.

PhoenixAsh

7th July 2011, 10:53

Capturing people alive is not easy in a war when both sides are armed and at war. Capitalists that are not armed wouldn't exactly be hight priority targets for a revolutionary army.

:lol::laugh:

I don't know what you have been swallowing...but it hasn't run its course yet. Because arresting people in war is extremely easy...apparantly its more easy than when you are NOT at war.

In Holland during WWII we managed to during the 5 days our country was rapidly being overrun by Germans to round up most of te citizens of German descent and lock them in schools, public buildings or what not.

German nazi's...managed to march millions through war torn Europe...and arrest millions during a war. The Soviets managed to arrest the top of the Polish state during their invasion of Poland

In Spain...during full revolutionary and civil war thousands were managed to be arrested.

What the hell do you expect? That everybody goes around armed to the teeth and that it is armageddon out there and nobody knows what the hell is going on?

And why would unarmed civilians even be targets for a revolutionary...or any army for that matter?

el_chavista

7th July 2011, 16:24

Venezuelan young chavista and free software activist Luigino Bracci asked Chomsky via e-mail about and Chomsky responded that The Guardian's version was very deceptive. NY Times was more accurate. Both omitted that "USA's government criticism or from any person supporting that government can't be taken seriously. Soldier Bradley's case is much worse than Afiuni's case"

Eva Golinger twitted (http://twitter.com/#%21/evagolinger/status/87375632400523265) that she talked to Chomsky and that his declarations were manipulated by the media and the Carr Center which has convinced him to write the letter. "Nobody escapes from the manipulation of the media."

chegitz guevara

7th July 2011, 21:26

Chavez has in fact brought about the partial privatization of the Venezuela's energy resources which were nationalized in 1976. he has done so by entering into deals for public-private companies to exploit energy resources...companies such as Chevron, who are bullish on Venezuela.

The oil was privatized at bargain basement prices in the 90s, before Chavez was elected. Many of the American criticisms of Chavez were because he partially renationalized them without giving the companies "fair market value" compensation. In fact, two major American oil corporations tried to sue Venezuela over it.

Psy

7th July 2011, 23:30

:lol::laugh:

I don't know what you have been swallowing...but it hasn't run its course yet. Because arresting people in war is extremely easy...apparantly its more easy than when you are NOT at war.

In Holland during WWII we managed to during the 5 days our country was rapidly being overrun by Germans to round up most of te citizens of German descent and lock them in schools, public buildings or what not.

German nazi's...managed to march millions through war torn Europe...and arrest millions during a war. The Soviets managed to arrest the top of the Polish state during their invasion of Poland

In Spain...during full revolutionary and civil war thousands were managed to be arrested.

What the hell do you expect? That everybody goes around armed to the teeth and that it is armageddon out there and nobody knows what the hell is going on?

That the revolutionary army physically will be on the on the periphery of the revolution not the center. Why would the revolutionary army be deployed in the heart of the revolution, the heart of the revolution can look after itself it is the periphery that needs to defended by a revolutionary army.

And why would unarmed civilians even be targets for a revolutionary...or any army for that matter?[/QUOTE]

You keep debating what should happen in a revolution. As I pointed out time and time again...we are not having a revolution in Venezuela. So everything you say on that subject in the light of OP is moot.

Yes we are not talking about a revolution but some day there will be.

But even in a revolution. Keeping somebody locked up for three years without being able to make a case is ridiculous; it is inhumane and it serves no purpose. Just for thoughs: who the hell do you think is paying for that?

Yes a case should have been made, yet that does not excuse a enemy of the proletariat being let go.

You arrest somebody on the grounds of evidence. Not on a hunch. You limit their authonomy for the purpose of judgement based on evidence. Not on lust for vengeance. And most of all everybody has a right to legal representation against the accusations because we do not convict in a popularity contest but based on real crimes, real evidence and in accordance with procedures which are the same for every human being...not because somebody felt the person deserved it and some kind of vengeance should be extracted. And you most definately do not arrest a judge or somebody who is supposed to make a ruling for not making the one you think is right...unless there is some serious evidence of wrong doing other than somebody you don't like getting off or getting something you do not think they deserve.

There is evidence, he was a capitalists, he was the head of a number of financial companies.

The system of mob mentality you advocate is anti-Marxist and no better than just another brand of mindless and purposeless violence.

Oh it has a purpose the destruction of world capitalism. You are too soft, by our logic the demonstrators in Greece were anti-Marxist with mindless and purposeless violence as they beat up riot police through mob rule over their distaste for austerity measures.

You try to argue this away because you claim that being a capitalist in itself is a crime. So simply being part of the capitalist class should be enough to throw all reason and reasonability out of the window to extract the vengeance of the working class. This is based on your assessment that being part of the class makes you an enemy devoid of rights.

If we support class war then yes of course they are the enemy and they would keep being the enemy till they stop being capitalists.

Now...change your word into any minority or repressed majority group out there...and what do you have? Exactly! So thats not a path we travel.

The difference is we are talking about class war, we are not going to nicely ask the capitalists for their property we going to take it by force and defend it by armed force. This falls under might makes right, the revolution will only be right if it has the might to crush the capitalists.

This does not disprove what I stated. You are describing an objective mechanism here.

Yes it does. The difference is that even capitalists wanted to they can't stop being the enemy of the proletariat without becoming part of the proletariat.

You weren't talking about the laws. You were musing IF the judge would be a revolutionary in a revolution.

The law surely won't help the judge gain class consciousness.

Offcourse it is. Remember...anything goes in a revolution. So who are you to deny workers their vengeance on whom even they think deserves it. Because that is what you have been arguing all along. We should not let the revolution be bothered by some technicalities like...actually equating which expliotation if worse than other exploitation...right? Because...gulp...that would imply that we should actually weigh evidence in a court/trial...with...perish the though...procedures. So no...you can't have it both ways. I saythat we should have every petit-burgeoisie member executed just for the sake of being absolutely damned sure they wouldn't turn on us later. That is just as much a valid statement as your argument....we don't need evidence, we don't even need to be right...we are revolutionaries and we can do as we damned well please and designate everybody as an enemy we don't like. Are you going against my wisdom of being part of the mob who knows its oppressors?

It is not the same, the petit-bourgeoisie has no real power and can only be pawns, they also lack the large number of workers to be much of a mob. I mean a corner store has what half a dozen workers can you even call that a mob? Compare that to say Wal-Mart that has over a million workers and you can see what the a workers state defending the Waltons might be a lost cause as it might mean a million man army chasing after them.

So there would be no need for vengeance.

Sweeping away the anger from capitalist oppression is not something you can declare.

No...we should support her because no human being should be denied legal representation or be accused of something they did not do.
Why should workers care about capitalist on capitalist oppression?

PhoenixAsh

8th July 2011, 00:35

That the revolutionary army physically will be on the on the periphery of the revolution not the center. Why would the revolutionary army be deployed in the heart of the revolution, the heart of the revolution can look after itself it is the periphery that needs to defended by a revolutionary army.

I think the idea of a revolutionary army instead of workers militia is preposterous to begin with. Its something you brought up and it is a notion I despise. The workers militia will hold the revolution and they can behave to certain rules and standards. Its plain and simple.

You forgot to answer this question:

And why would unarmed civilians even be targets for a revolutionary...or any army for that matter?

Yes we are not talking about a revolution but some day there will be.
But untill that day your mistaken notions have no purpose in the debate about wether or not this was a justified action by Chavez. The answer is to all accounts: no.

Yes a case should have been made, yet that does not excuse a enemy of the proletariat being let go. Yes...that gives every excuse. Proof he is an enemy of the proletariat....other than the idiotic notion that he is a capitalist. Things don't work that way in the real world.

There is evidence, he was a capitalists, he was the head of a number of financial companies. And?

Oh it has a purpose the destruction of world capitalism. You are too soft, by our logic the demonstrators in Greece were anti-Marxist with mindless and purposeless violence as they beat up riot police through mob rule over their distaste for austerity measures. No. THey were not. And your logic? Give me a fucking break and don't make me piss my pants laughing. Your logic is flawed beyond believe. Not to mention the fact that you are using and enormous strawman to deflect the fact that we you are trying to change the subject from attacking the police and equating that with your pittifull statement that the proletarian revolutionaries should be limitless and completely wanton in the amount of violence and retribution they can dish out against everybody they do not like and suspects of being the oppressing class. You are applying things which are totally different. Because to my knoweledge the Greeks did not go murdering and butchering through the streets and killing and lynching everybody who was suspected of being a capitalist or who looked wealthy. Now correct me if I am wrong...but that didn't happen now did it?

If we support class war then yes of course they are the enemy and they would keep being the enemy till they stop being capitalists.The difference is we are talking about class war, we are not going to nicely ask the capitalists for their property we going to take it by force and defend it by armed force. This falls under might makes right, the revolution will only be right if it has the might to crush the capitalists.Yes and that is a completely different thing from what you are advocating: wanton and indiscriminate violence, retribution and sheer bloody lynching against capitalists. But I think you do not understand that.

Yes it does. The difference is that even capitalists wanted to they can't stop being the enemy of the proletariat without becoming part of the proletariat.If they can't stop then there is no crime. Make up your mind.

The law surely won't help the judge gain class consciousness.And again that is not relevant. There will be scores of workers who will not reach class consciousness in the revolution.

It is not the same, the petit-bourgeoisie has no real power and can only be pawns, they also lack the large number of workers to be much of a mob. I mean a corner store has what half a dozen workers can you even call that a mob? Compare that to say Wal-Mart that has over a million workers and you can see what the a workers state defending the Waltons might be a lost cause as it might mean a million man army chasing after them.Ah...so your argument is that if the capitalist has enough workers he is a criminal? Because oppression and exploitation of workers is only relevant if it happens to large groups of them? What a bullshit notion that is. And again...this is exactly WHY we need a trial. Because you can't even hold a consistent arument other than "hurrdurr minless violence justified against class enemies, hurrdurr" But you can't even manage to indicate legitimate targets other than a handfull.

Sweeping away the anger from capitalist oppression is not something you can declare. Well...you did...just a few lines above....by declaring petit-burgeoisie has no real power and their exploitative ways are not something which are relevant. So again a huge inconsistance in your argument.

Why should workers care about capitalist on capitalist oppression?Proof that the judge is a capitalist....

And I just sted why workers and evrrybody else should care. So do not pretend I did not answer the question.

On a completely related note to this debate....I am beginning to completely understand the RAAN pamphlet.

Psy

8th July 2011, 01:29

I think the idea of a revolutionary army instead of workers militia is preposterous to begin with. Its something you brought up and it is a notion I despise. The workers militia will hold the revolution and they can behave to certain rules and standards. Its plain and simple.

Bullets do nothing against armor, RPGs do nothing against jets thus you need a mechanized fighting force possibly with nuclear capabilities depending how the revolutionary war unfolds. I doubt workers militias can be trusted with tactical nukes, and even if the revolutionary army sees this as a line not to cross I doubt workers militias can be trusted with thermobaric warheads, and then there is a huge issue of workers militias working abroad.

You forgot to answer this question:

And why would unarmed civilians even be targets for a revolutionary...or any army for that matter?

They won't and that is the problem, of the workers state focus elsewhere and has much bigger things to worry about like rushing to secure or nuke nuclear missile silos. Do you honestly think where capitalists are will be top priority of revolutionary armies?

But untill that day your mistaken notions have no purpose in the debate about wether or not this was a justified action by Chavez. The answer is to all accounts: no.

That is irrelevant we are still talking about defending bourgeoisie insinuations

Yes...that gives every excuse. Proof he is an enemy of the proletariat....other than the idiotic notion that he is a capitalist. Things don't work that way in the real world.

In a war that is how it works, the capitalists is a enemy thus a enemy of the proletariat, sure not all capitalists will be hostile but they all will be the enemy of the revolution.

And?

A capitalist.

No. THey were not. And your logic? Give me a fucking break and don't make me piss my pants laughing. Your logic is flawed beyond believe. Not to mention the fact that you are using and enormous strawman to deflect the fact that we you are trying to change the subject from attacking the police and equating that with your pittifull statement that the proletarian revolutionaries should be limitless and completely wanton in the amount of violence and retribution they can dish out against everybody they do not like and suspects of being the oppressing class. You are applying things which are totally different. Because to my knoweledge the Greeks did not go murdering and butchering through the streets and killing and lynching everybody who was suspected of being a capitalist or who looked wealthy. Now correct me if I am wrong...but that didn't happen now did it?

Not suspects of being the oppressing class but is actually part of the oppressing class. And the police are more innocent then the capitalists as the police are just guns for hire and there have been times where police have joined a workers revolution. We just fight them because they are in our way, it nothing personal and has nothing to do with justice, it just class war.

Yes and that is a completely different thing from what you are advocating: wanton and indiscriminate violence, retribution and sheer bloody lynching against capitalists. But I think you do not understand that.

I'm not advocating that, I just don't condemn it either and the revolution should just be free to deal with muck of ages in its own manner. As lets face that part of the revolution would just be a footnote in history books anyway due to massive benefits of post-revolutionary society.

If they can't stop then there is no crime. Make up your mind.

Even the insane commit crimes it is just the law treats them differently.

And again that is not relevant. There will be scores of workers who will not reach class consciousness in the revolution.

Then the revolution will fail as the vast majority has to reach class consciousness for a global revolution to succeed.

Ah...so your argument is that if the capitalist has enough workers he is a criminal? Because oppression and exploitation of workers is only relevant if it happens to large groups of them? What a bullshit notion that is. And again...this is exactly WHY we need a trial. Because you can't even hold a consistent arument other than "hurrdurr minless violence justified against class enemies, hurrdurr" But you can't even manage to indicate legitimate targets other than a handfull.

No, I'm just point out that the large capitalists pissed off large groups of workers while small shop keepers are mostly unknown by the vast majority.

Well...you did...just a few lines above....by declaring petit-burgeoisie has no real power and their exploitative ways are not something which are relevant. So again a huge inconsistance in your argument.

No there is not, workers going after peiti-bourgeoisie is a huge waste of time, they are not worth it and a workers state can drive this message home. The same can not be said about large capitalists.

Proof that the judge is a capitalist....

And I just sted why workers and evrrybody else should care. So do not pretend I did not answer the question.

I meant the Venezuelan bourgeois state oppressed a Venezuelan banker over bourgeois regulations of capitalist markets.

Workers have no class interested in the manner as it doesn't really effect them either way.

Forward Union

8th July 2011, 07:47

So it turns out Chomsky didn't say these things in the way that was reported and has responded to the "dishonesty" of the piece;

http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/07/482006.html

andyx1205

10th July 2011, 01:46

Yes, the ends justify the means in class war. Why do you disagree?

The ends justify the means? That ideology is why we've had authoritarian maniacs ruining the credibility of socialism. The ideology of Marxist-Leninism, whose predecessor was Blanquism (socialist revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators), have been anything but real socialism or even real Marxism. Real socialism is about change from the people, the bottom, not from top to below.

"An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end."
Citation: Karl Marx, On Freedom of the Press, May 15th 1842, Rheinische Zeitung No. 135.

x359594

10th July 2011, 21:30

The ends justify the means?..."An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end."
Citation: Karl Marx, On Freedom of the Press, May 15th 1842, Rheinische Zeitung No. 135.

The idea that the ends justifies the means dates back to the Society of Jesus founded in the 16th century by Ignatius Loyola, and sanctioned by Pope Paul III. Loyola had received a military training, and when he later became an extreme religious enthusiast, he conceived the idea of forming a spiritual militia, to be placed at the service of the pope. "Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita" (when the end is lawful, the means also are lawful.)

It seems we will always have Jesuits of the Revolution with us.

Decommissioner

10th July 2011, 22:52

What killed the Russian revolution was isolation from the revolution not spreading.

Regardless how benevolent we are towards the capitalists won't effect the counter-revolution as the bourgeoisie will call us monsters regardless of how humane we are towards capitalists. Thus there is no logical benefit for the revolutionary to go out of its way to defend capitalist rights, for example if workers started to publicly hang capitalists out of anger the most logical act of the revolutionary army is not get involved as why should a revolutionary army risk casualties fighting fellow proletariat to just save the lives of capitalists? Also workers demanding the blood of capitalists is far better then the workers looking for peaceful co-existence through reforms to capitalism.

I would hope that revolutionary army would stop the hangings in any way possible, and detain those doing the hangings as that should be a crime. We will smash capitalism...we will not make it a crime to have been a capitalist before the revolution. After the revolution it is a moot point, as there will be no "workers" and "capitalists."

Die Neue Zeit

11th July 2011, 14:40

Bullets do nothing against armor, RPGs do nothing against jets thus you need a mechanized fighting force possibly with nuclear capabilities depending how the revolutionary war unfolds. I doubt workers militias can be trusted with tactical nukes, and even if the revolutionary army sees this as a line not to cross I doubt workers militias can be trusted with thermobaric warheads, and then there is a huge issue of workers militias working abroad.

Ah, the Mother and Father of all Bombs :D

There's a difference between your run-of-the-mill standing armed forces (and professional officer corps), standing armed forces with elected/selected and recallable commanding officers at all levels (minimal levels of professional officers, left to engineers and non-command specialists) but with non-commanding political commissars (zampolit) and security agents from outside, and mere militias.

Psy

11th July 2011, 22:40

Ah, the Mother and Father of all Bombs :D

There's a difference between your run-of-the-mill standing armed forces (and professional officer corps), standing armed forces with elected/selected and recallable commanding officers at all levels (minimal levels of professional officers, left to engineers and non-command specialists) but with non-commanding political commissars (zampolit) and security agents from outside, and mere militias.
True, my point is that you are going to need military professionalism when it comes down to armed conflict with bourgeoisie states just out of the fact we are going to be inheriting WMDs and might be pres sued to make hard calls of when to use them.

I would hope that revolutionary army would stop the hangings in any way possible, and detain those doing the hangings as that should be a crime. We will smash capitalism...we will not make it a crime to have been a capitalist before the revolution. After the revolution it is a moot point, as there will be no "workers" and "capitalists."
Again the revolutionary army most likely will be deployed along the periphery of the revolution acting as the revolution abroad, so if the heart of the revolution goes against capitalists the revolutionary army most likely will not be physically there in any significant numbers. For example if the USA became a workers state in 1935 it wouldn't be long before the American revolutionary Army would be fighting in Europe, Africa and Asia against fascism and there be no revolutionary army in the USA.