There is a possibility that Venezuela might evolve into a Stalinist Dictatorship

[TrotskistMarx]

THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT VENEZUELA IS TURNING INTO A POLICE-STALINIST DICTATORSHIP. THE DAUGHTER OF A DIPLOMAT FROM CHILE, WORKING IN VENEZUELA WAS MURDERED BY THE VENEZUELAN POLICE DEPARTMENT


http://www.nation.com.pk/print_images/480/2012-03-19/chilean-diplomat-s-daughter-shot-dead-in-venezuela-1332118836-6763.jpg


Several police officers have been arrested in Venezuela after the teenage daughter of a Chilean diplomat was shot dead in the western city of Maracaibo, BBC reported on Sunday. Karen Berendique, 19, died when police opened fire on the car she was in. Police say the car - driven by the teenager’s brother - failed to stop at a police checkpoint. The officer in charge of the inquiry, Jose Humberto Ramirez, promised transparency and said a special commission had been set up.

Mr Ramirez said the shooting was an isolated incident which was not representative of the force as a whole. Police said the officers had been looking for a gang involved in robberies and car thefts. Ms Berendique’s father, Fernando Berendique, who is the Chilean consul in Maracaibo, said his son had been driving his sister to a birthday party.

He said that they came across a police patrol who pointed guns at them, instead of asking them to stop. The consul said his son panicked and the officers opened fire. Mr Berendique said the car had six bullet holes in it. His daughter was hit three times. “My God, what kind of people are they?” he asked. “It is the product of irresponsibility and the product of a lack of respect for human life here,” he said. “It was the act of some functionaries who did not have a lot of experience and these are the the consequences.”

SOURCE: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/19-Mar-2012/chilean-diplomat-s-daughter-shot-dead-in-venezuela


.

[sithsaber]

Stupid cops do not equal stalinism. If this wasn't about a diplomat's daughter, this wouldn't be a story.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

"Stalinism" cannot be achieved without a workers' revolution first.

[l'Enfermé]

Teenager gets stopped by yelling armed men in Latin America, it's only natural someone as inexperienced would panic. And assuming they thought the people in the car were in car-stealing gang, that's no reason to shoot at them. You don't shoot people for stealing cars...that's unacceptable even in the barbaric world we live in today.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the sound of heavy boots are making their way down the hallway, you can hear it from your room. with each measured step, you start to panic more and more. you break into a sweat as the figures shadow is cast under the door from the light in the hallway. you reach for the lamp and cry "WHO IS IT!?"

And the figure responds coldly from the other side of the door:
























"Stalin"

[Caj]

How does this indicate the development of a "Police-Stalinist Dictatorship" in Venezuela? This is just an instance of cops doing what they normally do in capitalist societies.

[NewLeft]

No one would give a fuck if she wasn't the daughter of some bourgeois diplomat.

[sithsaber]

It's unacceptable but doesn't mean Venezuela is stalinist

[Robespierres Neck]

I doubt that's the case. Doesn't Chavez consider himself a Trotskyist?

[Prometeo liberado]

Reaching waaay to far. Try again later, much, much later.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No....just no

[Comrade Samuel]

Nah it couldent be, I still hate them.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

No, Venezuela has huge problems with its corrupt police-force, Chavez is working to replace them with federal police for this reason.

[Leo]

"Stalinism" cannot be achieved without a workers' revolution first.

Indeed. To have a counter-revolution, one needs to have a revolution first.

[black magick hustla]

pigs have no country

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I doubt that's the case. Doesn't Chavez consider himself a Trotskyist?

Chavez isn't a Marxist. He's described himself as a 'christian socialist' which could be about a million different things. he's just a populist who uses vaguely left wing rhetoric.

[Per Levy]

Chavez isn't a Marxist. He's described himself as a 'christian socialist' which could be about a million different things. he's just a populist who uses vaguely left wing rhetoric.

and chavez also called himself a maoist at one point, so whatever. it doesnt matter, chavez is the president of a bourgeois nation that is something that matters.

@op: its a sad thing, yeah maybe she came from the upper class, still a 19 year old girl killed by pigs is pretty sad.

@TrotskistMarx: would you stop your trolling please? maybe you're genuine but what i've read from your posts makes me belive you're a troll.

[TrotskistMarx]

I am not trolling. I am just telling an opinion about what I think of the Socialism of the XXI Century of Venezuela, that it might evolve into a stalinist dictatorship. And not because of Hugo Chavez, but because of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoise burocracy within the Venezuelan government

.



and chavez also called himself a maoist at one point, so whatever. it doesnt matter, chavez is the president of a bourgeois nation that is something that matters.

@op: its a sad thing, yeah maybe she came from the upper class, still a 19 year old girl killed by pigs is pretty sad.

@TrotskistMarx: would you stop your trolling please? maybe you're genuine but what i've read from your posts makes me belive you're a troll.

[Caj]

I am not trolling. I am telling the truth that Venezuela is evolving into a police fascism

Isn't that Chavez in your avatar? Lol

"Police fascism"? That's ridiculous. This is common police behavior in any capitalist society. There's no need for hyperbole.

EDIT: You changed your avatar, nevermind.

EDIT: Okay, you changed "police fascism" to "stalinist dictatorship". It's still unecessary hyperbole.

EDIT: Aaaaannd now it's Chavez again.

[TrotskistMarx]

I am still a supporter of Hugo Chavez and the socialism of the 21st Century Revolution. According to Alan Woods, Heinz Deterirch and other thinkers, there are still counter-revolutionary bourgeoise burocrats within the Venezuelan government, that are an impediment toward 100% socialism, which is nationalization of the private corporations of Venezuela under workers-ownership. Alan Woods claimed that only about 30% to 35% of the private corporations in Venezuela have been nationalized. The other 70% are still owned by the private sector.

.



Isn't that Chavez in your avatar? Lol

"Police fascism"? That's ridiculous. This is common police behavior in any capitalist society. There's no need for hyperbole.

EDIT: You changed your avatar, nevermind.

[Caj]

I am still a supporter of Hugo Chavez and the socialism of the 21st Century Revolution. According to Alan Woods, Heinz Deterirch and other thinkers, there are still counter-revolutionary bourgeoise burocrats within the Venezuelan government, that are an impediment toward 100% socialism, which is nationalization of the private corporations of Venezuela under workers-ownership. Alan Woods claimed that only about 30% to 35% of the private corporations in Venezuela have been nationalized. The other 70% are still owned by the private sector.

So you believe socialism can exist in one country, yet you're concerned about a "Stalinist dictatorship" developing in Venezuela?

[TrotskistMarx]

By the way Hugo Chavez is correct when he claimed that Jesus Christ was the founder of socialism. And the original first christians were a socialist community. The philosopher Nietzsche wrote that socialism was born out of The New Testament of The Bible. That's what I read about the roots of socialism. Remember that the roots of socialism came from religious biblical socialism. But F. Engels and Karl Marx just converted it utopian biblical socialism, into political socialism.

If all christians of the whole world found out that socialism was founded by Jesus Christ, all christians of this world would become socialists and would hate capitalism and all oligarchic political systems

.



Chavez isn't a Marxist. He's described himself as a 'christian socialist' which could be about a million different things. he's just a populist who uses vaguely left wing rhetoric.

[TrotskistMarx]

Of course I believe that socialism can only exist globally. When I meant that i am supporter of Hugo Chavez and his socialism for the 21 century. I mean about his efforts to help Venezuela toward the path of socialism. I think that socialism of the XXI Century is really a temporary stage between the end of capitalism and the beginning of the dictatorship of the working class (full socialism)

In my last comments i mentioned that Venezuela is still a capitalist nation, because according to Alan Woods, only about 35% of the businesses of Venezuela are nationalized


.



So you believe socialism can exist in one country, yet you're concerned about a "Stalinist dictatorship" developing in Venezuela?

[eyeheartlenin]

Indeed. To have a counter-revolution, one needs to have a revolution first.

Anyone who reads the Venezuelan press available on-line, gets the impression that under chavista rule, that country is a prime example of scarcely-controlled, ultra-violent anarchy. La hampa, organized crime, "the underworld," kills a certain number of Venezuelans every weekend, reportedly. The tragic, deplorable, police murder of the diplomat's daughter, is just one example of Venezuela's descent into un-liveability and un-governability on Chávez' watch. It will be interesting to see if the Venezuelan electorate really gives Chávez another six years in which to sink their country.

[Caj]

I think that socialism of the XXI Century is really a temporary stage between the end of capitalism and the beginning of the dictatorship of the working class (full socialism)

Where does proletarian revolution fit into all of this?


In my last comments i mentioned that Venezuela is still a capitalist nation, because according to Alan Woods, only about 35% of the businesses of Venezuela are nationalized

And it would still be a capitalist nation even if 100% of the businesses were nationalized.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

A revolution from the top down that uses the bourgeois electoral system is not a proletariat revolution. It is just pathetic Bernsteinism. That is why I think "Socialism in the 21th Century" is just a bourgeois invention meant to pull attention away from real Marxism and satisfy bourgeois leftists.

[Orlov]

'Stalinism'? You mean Venezuela is actually developing from a social-democratic anti-imperialist state into a full workers state? Well I've never!

[Rusty Shackleford]

I am still a supporter of Hugo Chavez and the socialism of the 21st Century Revolution. According to Alan Woods, Heinz Deterirch and other thinkers, there are still counter-revolutionary bourgeoise burocrats within the Venezuelan government, that are an impediment toward 100% socialism, which is nationalization of the private corporations of Venezuela under workers-ownership. Alan Woods claimed that only about 30% to 35% of the private corporations in Venezuela have been nationalized. The other 70% are still owned by the private sector.

.
bourgeois opposition in Venezuela is thoroughly in the pockets of US imperialism. that being said, capitalism still exists in venezuela.

nationalization doesnt build socialism, but collectivization does.

[Amal]

REALLY? That will certainly be a very good news. I am just waiting for the day and it means the Venezuela is going in the right direction.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i'm for it

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez is not a stalinist and the very idea that he is one is a stupid notion. He is not a Maoist, a leninist, a marxist, a guevararist, a Bonapartist, a Proletarian Bonapartist, Trotskyite or a social democrat. He is a Christian Theologian Socialist who is influenced by all the strands of socialist ideology named above. Chavez is also a staunch Anti Imperialist who believes in a multi polar world and against imperialist interference and insidiousness in the world today. He is not a Stalinist because he believes in Democracy, pluralism, and true freedom of the press. He is of course a Christian who believes in God and Jesus Christ. That alone means he cant be a stalinist surely.

I am convinced Hugo chavez and the masses in Venezuela are slowly but surely building a socialist society in Venezuela but this of course depends on objective and subjective factors in Venezuela and in the world today. There is no time limit on this and just because we havent seen a socialist planned economy built yet does not mean we will not get socialism in Venezuela. Of course socialism cannot exist healthly on its own in one country (just look at cuba and its imperfections) but thats not venezuela's fault is it. If the rest of the world was further down the road then maybe revolution would have happened a lot quicker in Venezuela. As it is they will have to do what they can until socialist ideas and action spread

[Renegade Saint]

Trotskistmarx, is there a reason you always put your response above the post that you're quoting? It's maddening.

[Caj]

Trotskistmarx, is there a reason you always put your response above the post that you're quoting? It's maddening.

I was wondering about that too.

[Искра]

"Trotskiysm is 20th century Marxism-Leninism" said Raya Dunayevskaya long time ago. Change 20th to 21st century and read this topic for conclusions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

on the thing about jesus christ being the founder of socialism, id say nay.

no, im not attacking liberation theology, im just saying, if Jesus was the first guy, then what was primitive communism. does it take ideology to make a society act a way? or does society acting a way create ideology? i think the answer there is obvious.

[L.A.P.]

I doubt that's the case. Doesn't Chavez consider himself a Trotskyist?

He's a democratic socialist


By the way Hugo Chavez is correct when he claimed that Jesus Christ was the founder of socialism. And the original first christians were a socialist community. The philosopher Nietzsche wrote that socialism was born out of The New Testament of The Bible. That's what I read about the roots of socialism. Remember that the roots of socialism came from religious biblical socialism. But F. Engels and Karl Marx just converted it utopian biblical socialism, into political socialism.

No, just no.


If all christians of the whole world found out that socialism was founded by Jesus Christ, all christians of this world would become socialists and would hate capitalism and all oligarchic political systems

Can I hear a "idealism"?


In my last comments i mentioned that Venezuela is still a capitalist nation, because according to Alan Woods, only about 35% of the businesses of Venezuela are nationalized

nationalization =/= socialism

[TheGodlessUtopian]

To throw in my two cents: no, said country will not degenerate into a Stalinist dictatorship; such a thought would be on the scale of believing the same about Sweeden or any other social-democracy.

[Zealot]

By the way Hugo Chavez is correct when he claimed that Jesus Christ was the founder of socialism. And the original first christians were a socialist community. The philosopher Nietzsche wrote that socialism was born out of The New Testament of The Bible. That's what I read about the roots of socialism. Remember that the roots of socialism came from religious biblical socialism. But F. Engels and Karl Marx just converted it utopian biblical socialism, into political socialism.

If all christians of the whole world found out that socialism was founded by Jesus Christ, all christians of this world would become socialists and would hate capitalism and all oligarchic political systems

.

If Chavez has claimed this he is very wrong.

And Chavez is anything but a Stalinist, Venezuela is not going to be a "Stalinist dictatorship". How the hell do you leap from girl getting shot to Venezuela becoming a Stalinist dictatorship? This is a bourgeois, Fox news, analysis and is not anything a Marxist would say.

[eyeheartlenin]

Chavez is also a staunch Anti Imperialist who believes in a multi polar world and against imperialist interference and insidiousness in the world today....

Is that why Chávez sells 1.5 million barrels of oil daily, is it?, to US imperialism? Because he is a "staunch anti-imperialist"?


I am convinced Hugo chavez and the masses in Venezuela are slowly but surely building a socialist society in Venezuela but this of course depends on objective and subjective factors in Venezuela and in the world today. There is no time limit on this and just because we havent seen a socialist planned economy built yet does not mean we will not get socialism in Venezuela. ..... If the rest of the world was further down the road then maybe revolution would have happened a lot quicker in Venezuela. As it is they will have to do what they can until socialist ideas and action spread

With all due respect, I think the errors in the quote above are very serious. There cannot be socialist reconstruction of a society until the rule of the bourgeoisie is overthrown. In the most basic terms, that would require the end of the bourgeois "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" through a workers' revolution. Socialism is not a matter of accumulated change occurring "slowly but surely." It takes a workers' revolution.

Chávez has been in power for 13 years, without fundamental change having taken place, since Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic, with a market economy. It seems obvious that any change is going to have to come from below, and in opposition to the bourgeois republic led by Chávez, who, clearly, is never going to break with imperialism or capitalism, and that, despite the longings of the pro-Chávez fake left, means that Chávez himself is a major factor standing in the way of fundamental change in Venezuela.

[Grenzer]

bourgeois opposition in Venezuela is thoroughly in the pockets of US imperialism. that being said, capitalism still exists in venezuela.

Just felt the need to balance this statement out by adding the addendum that bourgeois loyalists in Venezuela are thoroughly in the pockets of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian imperialism; that being said, capitalism does indeed exist in Venezuela.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, I am a supporter of Hugo Chavez and his efforts to fight US and European Imperialism. However I am at the same time not mind-controlled by personal fanatism and personal affection toward Hugo Chavez. Unlike many people here in USA and in other countries, who follow and support their personal favorite political party with a deep element of emotions, personal affections. And like the followers and supporters of Bush and Obama who kept following Bush and Obama despite all the corruptions, the wars the bailout of the bankers and all that, and they still kept supporting him. I am not like that, I am loyal to goodness, to love, to honesty, and to humility. Those are my personal leaders. If i see a close family member of mine doing something wrong, I would not support him/her, because my lord is goodness, humility and honesty.

Having said all this, from a cold scientific (without emotions) point of view of the Venezuelan Experiment of Socialism of the XXI Century, I agree with your statement, that there might counter-revolutionary burocratic elements who are members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and workers of the Venezuelan Government. Who are sort of Mensheviks-Stalinists, even though Hugo Chavez and his good honest close followers working in the government of Venezuela might be bolsheviks and Leninists. I think that's what might happen.

And according to your comments, if these sort of stalinist-mensheviks elements (bad apples) are not kicked out of the venezuelan government. The venezuelan-menshevik-stalinists might takeover power and lead all the good efforts of Hugo Chavez toward a bourgeoise nationalist oligarchic state-capitalist dictatorship.


.


Anyone who reads the Venezuelan press available on-line, gets the impression that under chavista rule, that country is a prime example of scarcely-controlled, ultra-violent anarchy. La hampa, organized crime, "the underworld," kills a certain number of Venezuelans every weekend, reportedly. The tragic, deplorable, police murder of the diplomat's daughter, is just one example of Venezuela's descent into un-liveability and un-governability on Chávez' watch. It will be interesting to see if the Venezuelan electorate really gives Chávez another six years in which to sink their country.

[Zealot]

if these sort of stalinist-mensheviks elements (bad apples) are not kicked out of the venezuelan government. The venezuelan-menshevik-stalinists might takeover power and lead all the good efforts of Hugo Chavez toward a bourgeoise nationalist oligarchic state-capitalist dictatorship.
Epic.

I think you need to learn scientific socialism. Trotskyism has failed to provide you with a correct Marxist analysis of situations.

[eyeheartlenin]

... I agree with your statement, that there might counter-revolutionary burocratic elements ... members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and workers of the Venezuelan Government. Who are sort of Mensheviks-Stalinists, even though Hugo Chavez and his good honest close followers working in the government of Venezuela might be bolsheviks and Leninists....

... these sort of stalinist-mensheviks elements (bad apples) ... might takeover power and lead all the good efforts of Hugo Chavez toward a bourgeoise nationalist oligarchic state-capitalist dictatorship.

In response to TM, I really do not understand how you could have misread my post more completely. I never said that "elements" in Chávez' government are the problem. That notion is complete BS, the sort of thing that the Grantists, the most fanatical Chávez worshipers on earth, say. I believe that the problem is Chávez himself, specifically, his failure to break with imperialism and capitalism.

Furthermore, Chávez is emphatically not a Bolshevik, not a Leninist. He is merely another caudillo, a garden-variety militarist in politics, who, obviously, after 13 years in power, has no intention of bringing fundamental change to Venezuela, where the populace is suffering terribly, not least because of the existing state of violent anarchy, with the corresponding absence of safe conditions for the majority of Venezuelans. A workers' government, mobilizing the majority and defending their interests, could deal with those conditions and restore order. As is obvious, Chávez is unable to do that.

[Amal]

Sometimes I think that perhaps the "bloody Stalinists" are responsible for the sinking of the Titanic.

[Delenda Carthago]

Comrade Stalin is making your sweet litle pigs to killers from his grave.

xBILSCFMg8M

[Rafiq]

on the thing about jesus christ being the founder of socialism, id say nay.

no, im not attacking liberation theology, im just saying, if Jesus was the first guy, then what was primitive communism. does it take ideology to make a society act a way? or does society acting a way create ideology? i think the answer there is obvious.

In contrast to Communism as a movement, Spartacus is the first recorded communist. Because communism is not about everyone sitting holding hands in a commune, it's a process of emancipation and revolutionary destruction. Going from Slave hold to slave hold freeing your comrades, and in the process creating a massive army of runaway slaves is 100% more revolutionary than calling on the masses to live in communes.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Hugo Chavez is really just an anti-imperialist social democrat or 'democratic socialist'. He's implementing a lot of good changes though.

And TrotskyistMarx, why all the hate on "Stalinism"? Stalin was the one establishing the world's first socialist state while Trotsky was an opportunist trying to sabotage it.

[Bostana]

Must crush capitalism is right.

Stalin was trying to set up Communism while the opportunist Trotsky was betraying the USSR, lying about Stalin, and complaining on how he was suppose to be in charge. (Which he wasn't) Maybe instead of complaining about all this stuff, operating with Bourgeois Imperialism, and decades of organizing terrorism against the Soviet Union he could of actually helped.

Trots always say "Well he helped with the October Revolution" well even if he did that doesn't simply make him a "good guy"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lets stay on topic please.

[ColonelCossack]

Wait... I get the dictatorship part... but why is it Stalinist? :confused:

[Omsk]

The venezuelan-menshevik-stalinists
Ok let's stop making things up.

[Crux]

Must crush capitalism is right.

Stalin was trying to set up Communism while the opportunist Trotsky was betraying the USSR, lying about Stalin, and complaining on how he was suppose to be in charge. (Which he wasn't) Maybe instead of complaining about all this stuff, operating with Bourgeois Imperialism, and decades of organizing terrorism against the Soviet Union he could of actually helped.

Trots always say "Well he helped with the October Revolution" well even if he did that doesn't simply make him a "good guy"
Pure comedy. Surely you can't be serious.

Anyway TrotskistMarx, no cops is venezuela is not proof of bureaucratic counter-revolution (aka stalinism), the police force has been extremely corrupt for a long time in venezuela, and the revolutionary process is still quite slow and not very straightforward, in short, as others have said already venezuela is still a capitalist country. That said, there certainly is a problem with chavismo and the so called bolibourgeoisie.

[RedHal]

http://workers-dictatorship-solution-for-usa.blogspot.com/
.
Friend, is that your blog? Did you call Michael Moore a Marxist Activist?
http://workers-dictatorship-solution-for-usa.blogspot.ca/2012/03/watch-marxist-activist-michael-moore-at.html
:ohmy::bored::crying:

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello, haha oh yeah I gotta fix the title of that. I forgot that Michael Moore is a progressive liberal centrist. Not a socialist in favor of 100% socialism (A dictatorship of the workers)


.




Friend, is that your blog? Did you call Michael Moore a Marxist Activist?
http://workers-dictatorship-solution-for-usa.blogspot.ca/2012/03/watch-marxist-activist-michael-moore-at.html
:ohmy::bored::crying:

[Crux]

Hello, haha oh yeah I gotta fix the title of that. I forgot that Michael Moore is a progressive liberal centrist. Not a socialist in favor of 100% socialism (A dictatorship of the workers)


.
you're a bit odd. oh ok what the fuck (http://workers-dictatorship-solution-for-usa.blogspot.ca/2012/03/marxist-pastor-talks-about-coming-of.html).

[Grenzer]

Hugo Chavez is really just an anti-imperialist social democrat or 'democratic socialist'. He's implementing a lot of good changes though.

I hope you're joking.

How can someone who is presiding over a capitalist state be considered an anti-imperialist in any way? It's a contradiction in terms. Imperialism is a global system, and the only way of countering it through socialism. As the head of a capitalist state, Hugo Chavez is only perpetuating the system which causes imperialism to begin with. You also seem to be supporting reformism here. The only way for "good changes" to be lasting is through socialist revolution, not by electing left-liberals to government in the context of a bourgeois dictatorship.

[Caj]

What the fuck is with this blog? I-I don't even know what I'm reading. :blink:

[Ocean Seal]

Is America going to turn into a Stalinist dictatorship because the pigs shot Treyvon Martin? Or because they shoot someone new every week?

[redrocking]

Chavez is a comrade who the class reelect not a dictator we have to learn to trust comrades who win votes not sit on our high horses sneering at the workers win votes today to be in postion for power come the revolution

[Ostrinski]

I AM THINKING ABOUT THE NEED OF A UNITED JEFFERSONIAN SOCIALIST FRONT IN U.S.A. IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE BOLIVARIAN-REVOLUTION AND OTHER MORALIST GOOD-INTENTIONED MOVEMENTS IN THIS WORLD. i am thinking about the need in USA of a United Jeffersonian-Socialist Front composed of small socialist and alternative anti-war, anti-fascism, anti-rich people, anti-upper classes, anti-concentration of wealth, pro-workers, pro-economic democracy, pro-moralism, pro-humanism, pro-egalitarianism parties in USA.Fucking what?

[Rusty Shackleford]

In contrast to Communism as a movement, Spartacus is the first recorded communist. Because communism is not about everyone sitting holding hands in a commune, it's a process of emancipation and revolutionary destruction. Going from Slave hold to slave hold freeing your comrades, and in the process creating a massive army of runaway slaves is 100% more revolutionary than calling on the masses to live in communes.
right on man. gives credence to the argument that communism has two meanings. one, a process, and the other, a theoretical stage of human social development.

king of like the european idea of 'enlightenment' it was a movement and also a theoretical stage of social organization; liberal society. it was a movement in opposition to feudalism and in the direction of bourgeois society.

[Crux]

Fucking what?

sounds like DNZ.

[Ostrinski]

sounds like DNZ.hahaha that's exactly what I thought when I read "Jeffersonian socialism"

[Искра]

sounds like DNZ.
Chavez is 21st cenutry proletocrat.

[Geiseric]

Why is it called Jeffersonian? Are we going to own slaves, and have alot of sex with them? Doesn't sound too good mate.

I would have liked Evo Morales more than Chavez i think.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I hope you're joking.

How can someone who is presiding over a capitalist state be considered an anti-imperialist in any way? It's a contradiction in terms. Imperialism is a global system, and the only way of countering it through socialism. As the head of a capitalist state, Hugo Chavez is only perpetuating the system which causes imperialism to begin with. You also seem to be supporting reformism here. The only way for "good changes" to be lasting is through socialist revolution, not by electing left-liberals to government in the context of a bourgeois dictatorship.

Define "capitalism," though. Presiding over a bourgeois-capitalist state is definitely a dent against "anti-imperialist" credentials, but what about presiding over a state-capitalist state, let alone one where ordinary workers aren't the majority?

[I agree with you re. Chavez not following up on his post-Maoist rhetoric, though.]

[A Marxist Historian]

I am not trolling. I am just telling an opinion about what I think of the Socialism of the XXI Century of Venezuela, that it might evolve into a stalinist dictatorship. And not because of Hugo Chavez, but because of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoise burocracy within the Venezuelan government

.

So then, the reason you, as a "Chavista," are afraid of Venezuela going Stalinist is because you are under the misimpression that this populist military dictator is ruling a "socialist" Venezuela?

It's a funny kind of socialism with free market capitalism all over the place, an officer of the bourgeois military in charge and an economy dependent on selling oil to Uncle Sam to keep those drones flying into people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and filling the gastanks for the US navy patrolling the Persian gulf.

With the price of oil high, Chavez can talk radical and throw the workers and peasant a few bones. If that's the socialism of the XXI Century, then this is gonna be a real, real bad century.

That his cops blow innocent people away with abandon is as unsurprising as it is unpleasant. But I must say that I care more about Trayvon than about the daughter of a diplomat from Pinochet land.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

on the thing about jesus christ being the founder of socialism, id say nay.

no, im not attacking liberation theology, im just saying, if Jesus was the first guy, then what was primitive communism. does it take ideology to make a society act a way? or does society acting a way create ideology? i think the answer there is obvious.

So then the Pope is the true socialist leader?

Just put the Catholic Church in charge of the world and we'd have socialism in a jiffy no doubt. Chavez is a Catholic is he not?

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Just felt the need to balance this statement out by adding the addendum that bourgeois loyalists in Venezuela are thoroughly in the pockets of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian imperialism; that being said, capitalism does indeed exist in Venezuela.

The main bulk of the Venezuelan capitalists actually don't care for Chavez or for his foreign allies, but are where they always were, safely in the pocket of US imperialism.

Obama doesn't have that much against Chavez really, but he does find his rhetoric annoying, and would just as soon get rid of him. Though, unlike Bush Jr., he's not in the mood for mounting a Chile-style coup against him. So US money flows to Chavez's opposition, but Obama has more important fish to fry.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Just felt the need to balance this statement out by adding the addendum that bourgeois loyalists in Venezuela are thoroughly in the pockets of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian imperialism; that being said, capitalism does indeed exist in Venezuela.

This is even stranger than the OP.

So that's what Chavez is all about. He's gonna change his name to Xerxes the 27th, and become a Persian satrap. Better get those Athenians marching to Thermopylae before the new Persian Empire conquers the world.

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

So then the Pope is the true socialist leader?

Just put the Catholic Church in charge of the world and we'd have socialism in a jiffy no doubt. Chavez is a Catholic is he not?

-M.H.-



where the fuck did you get that conclusion from? and im serious, did you just pull it out of your ass?


and yes, chavez is catholic. oh no!

[Kyu Six]

I doubt that's the case. Doesn't Chavez consider himself a Trotskyist?

Chávez considers himself whatever will make him adored by the people. He is driven more by ego than by principle.

[A Marxist Historian]

In contrast to Communism as a movement, Spartacus is the first recorded communist. Because communism is not about everyone sitting holding hands in a commune, it's a process of emancipation and revolutionary destruction. Going from Slave hold to slave hold freeing your comrades, and in the process creating a massive army of runaway slaves is 100% more revolutionary than calling on the masses to live in communes.

Ah! A fellow Spartacist!

JC, btw, wasn't even a communist on earth, only in heaven. That's assuming such a person ever actually existed, for which there is remarkably little historical evidence.

The Christian movement arose in the aftermath of the defeat of the Maccabees, the great Jewish national insurrection vs. the Roman Empire around about AD 60. The basic point of Christianity was, originally, that revolting against Rome was a bad idea, that just got hundreds of thousands of Jews killed.

Most important line in the New Testament:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

It was the religion of the slaves all right, but the religion of those slaves who *didn't* want to end up like Spartacus or the Maccabees.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

and yes, chavez is catholic. oh no!

He is a Catholic... probably in the way most Latin Americans are: going to the church for baptisms, marriages, and burials, and little else. If the pope thought he could influence Venezolan politics because of that, he would probably be told to give Caesar what is Caesar's, and to mind his own priests, who are banging too much children these days.

BtT, police do those things everyday, whatever the regime. Venezuela isn't going Stalinist because of that. Indeed it isn't a sign of any kind of change in whatever direction, much on the contrary, it is a symptom that it is business as usual in Venezuela, at least for police officers. I hope, of course, that they are expelled from police and serve a few years in jail, but that also would not be any sign of any relevant political change.

The fact that the murdered young lady was evidently a member of the bourgeoisie isn't a reason to dismiss the incident, if for no better reason, because the cops only shot her because they didn't realise her class origin.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It was the religion of the slaves all right, but the religion of those slaves who *didn't* want to end up like Spartacus or the Maccabees.

It sounds to me more like a realisation that YHWH hadn't done a good job as a tribal god, allowing the Greeks a much more important intellectual life, and the Romans a much better army, than those of his supposedly "chosen people"...

ETA: many of those "slaves who didn't want to end up like Spartakus or the Macabees" suffered no smaller torture, and being afraid of martyrdom doesn't seem to be a distinctive trait of them. Mistaken, certainly, politically apathetical, quite probably, reactionary, maybe; physically cravenly, most likely not.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

Define "capitalism," though. Presiding over a bourgeois-capitalist state is definitely a dent against "anti-imperialist" credentials, but what about presiding over a state-capitalist state, let alone one where ordinary workers aren't the majority?

[I agree with you re. Chavez not following up on his post-Maoist rhetoric, though.]

A "state-capitalist" state is simply a bourgeois state with most of the property in the hands of the bourgeois state, run for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. The US post office is a perfectly good example of "state capitalism" on a somewhat smaller scale.

Whether or not one accepts the (IMHO thoroughly absurd) concept that the ex-USSR or current day Cuba or wherever is "state capitalist" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the attitudes a Marxist should have to parties presiding over such states. Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. So if you think that Cuba say is "state capitalist" one ought to have absolutely no different attitude to a party presiding over it than to, say, the parties in the coalition government presiding over the state of Israel, some of which claim to be "socialist."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

where the fuck did you get that conclusion from? and im serious, did you just pull it out of your ass?


and yes, chavez is catholic. oh no!

If you can manage to look at the post that post responded from, you should be able to figure out where I got that "conclusion" from.

You seem seriously deficient in the humor category.

-M.H.-

[Althusser]

Indeed. To have a counter-revolution, one needs to have a revolution first.

zing

[A Marxist Historian]

He is a Catholic... probably in the way most Latin Americans are: going to the church for baptisms, marriages, and burials, and little else. If the pope thought he could influence Venezolan politics because of that, he would probably be told to give Caesar what is Caesar's, and to mind his own priests, who are banging too much children these days...

Luís Henrique

This is not the case. That's why he called George Bush "Satan" in his famous UN speech. His Catholicism is a fundamental part of his politics, insofar as his politics aren't just whatever is convenient this week. As when he praises Trotsky or Mao or Ahmedinajad or Pol Pot or whoever he thinks he can get an applause line for from one speech to the next.

Granted, he is a dissident Catholic, who doubtless believes the current Pope is serving Satan too. Insofar as he believes anything.

Basically, he is a populist military dictator, like Peron or the fellow in Peru whose name I can't remember anymore. When the oil money runs out, he will probably start acting a lot more like other Latin American military dictators.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It sounds to me more like a realisation that YHWH hadn't done a good job as a tribal god, allowing the Greeks a much more important intellectual life, and the Romans a much better army, than those of his supposedly "chosen people"...

ETA: many of those "slaves who didn't want to end up like Spartakus or the Macabees" suffered no smaller torture, and being afraid of martyrdom doesn't seem to be a distinctive trait of them. Mistaken, certainly, politically apathetical, quite probably, reactionary, maybe; physically cravenly, most likely not.

Luís Henrique

Not *personal* fear, but fear of what happened to their entire community.

The Roman suppression of the Maccabees was utterly devastating to the entire Jewish people of the area. The Jewish proto-nation was simply destroyed, tens and maybe even hundreds of thousands of people killed, Jerusalem turned into rubble.

Those who decided, quite undrstandably, that rebelling against Rome was wrong and that the poor would get their reward for their virtue on heaven, not earth, became Christians. Personal bravery or cowardice was quite besides the point.

Then Christianity generalized from being a religion of the persecuted Jews to the religion of the biggest persecuted class of all in the Roman Empire, the slaves.

You had a similar phenomenon after the Puritan Revolution in England. The most militant Puritans, who often served as generals in Cromwell's army, were ... the Quakers. After the king came back, the Quakers returned to their Christian roots and went pacifist. Certainly not because they were cowards!

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

If you can manage to look at the post that post responded from, you should be able to figure out where I got that "conclusion" from.

You seem seriously deficient in the humor category.

-M.H.-
there was no quote in the message. therefore, signals mixed, lines crossed, and conclusions were jumped to.



as for humor, why did the chicken cross the road?


i dont care, i hate eating bananas


(audience laugh)

[Luís Henrique]

This is not the case. That's why he called George Bush "Satan" in his famous UN speech. His Catholicism is a fundamental part of his politics, insofar as his politics aren't just whatever is convenient this week. As when he praises Trotsky or Mao or Ahmedinajad or Pol Pot or whoever he thinks he can get an applause line for from one speech to the next.

I don't think so. That's rhetoric, pandering to what he believes the masses think.


Basically, he is a populist military dictator,

He isn't a dictator, except in the very general sence that any bourgeois ruler is a "dictator".


When the oil money runs out, he will probably start acting a lot more like other Latin American military dictators.

When the oil money runs out, his rule goes away with it. Yes, it is possible that he reacts to this with violence, but that is another thing.

Luís Henrique