Venezuela post Chavez

[sithsaber]

If Chavez succumbs to cancer is there anyone on the left designated to and popular enough to replace him?

[Grenzer]

No, probably not. I'd imagine that Venezuela will move immediately into the influence of neo-liberalism, though their status in OPEC might move them more into the sphere of the Russian-Chinese imperialist bloc. Of course new neo-liberal leadership of venezuela might choose to repudiate the rather one sided "strategic partnership" it really won't make a difference either way. They'll end up squarely into the camp of said imperialism, or western imperialism.

If you're talking about more of a single figure who has the charisma to replace Chavez, then I doubt it.

[Yefim Zverev]

If Chavez succumbs to cancer is there anyone on the left designated to and popular enough to replace him?

Stalin Reincarnation kid called Diego

[daft punk]

Venezuela's revolution is doomed anyway, it will be full blown capitalism soon.

http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2012-02-24Grafik1691331614815596160.jpg
Chavez and right winger HCR who did well in recent elections.

[Yefim Zverev]

Venezuela's revolution is doomed anyway, it will be full blown capitalism soon.

http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2012-02-24Grafik1691331614815596160.jpg
Chavez and right winger HCR who did well in recent elections.

Omg look at the guy right to Hugo Chavez... You can read neo-liberalism from his face :D That guy looks like neo-liberalism has taken human form.

[l'Enfermé]

The whole party is based on cashing in on the personality cult they built around Chavez. If he drops dead PSUV won't even win the Presidential elections this October.

[9]

Venezuela's revolution is doomed anyway, it will be full blown capitalism soon.

Hahaha, do people in the CWI actually believe that Venezuela isn't presently "full blown capitalism"?

[daft punk]

Hahaha, do people in the CWI actually believe that Venezuela isn't presently "full blown capitalism"?

Well, it is mainly capitalist, but it has, or did have, a sort of left wing government. Chavez was talking about socialism. However it's not gone far enough and could get reversed.

[el_chavista]

Populism can't be knocked out that easy. It would have been the lethal weaponfor Latin American communists to seize power have they not been misguided by the anti-fascist front and the "stageist" strategy of Soviet Marxism during and after World War 2 (the 1940s and 1950s) and the national liberation success of the Cuban guerrilla in the 1960s.
It would take several more presidential periods for the poor masses of Venezuela to loose their hopes on the demagogic populism of the Bolivarian movement.

[eyeheartlenin]

Hahaha, do people in the CWI actually believe that Venezuela isn't presently "full blown capitalism"?


Well, it is mainly capitalist, but it has, or did have, a sort of left wing government. Chavez was talking about socialism. However it's not gone far enough and could get reversed.

It's very clear that the Grantists, of the Int'l "Marxist" Tendency (who are so "Marxist" that they deny Chávez is a Bonapartist, when he is, in fact, the embodiment of Bonapartist mediation between classes, in the interests of the survival of capitalist rule) believe that socialism can come from a bourgeois politician like Chávez and from a bourgeois state, like the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic.

Now, 9's jibe at CWI suggests that CWI also has illusions in Chávez. If 9 is right, that means both tendencies coming from Ted Grant hold that socialism can come from bourgeois politics, without a revolutionary party, and without the revolutionary destruction of the bosses' state, which I was not aware of before now.

[el_chavista]

It's very clear that the Grantists, of the Int'l "Marxist" Tendency (who are so "Marxist" that they deny Chávez is a Bonapartist, when he is, in fact, the embodiment of Bonapartist mediation between classes, in the interests of the survival of capitalist rule) believe that socialism can come from a bourgeois politician like Chávez and from a bourgeois state, like the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic.

Now, 9's jibe at CWI suggests that CWI also has illusions in Chávez. If 9 is right, that means both tendencies coming from Ted Grant hold that socialism can come from bourgeois politics, without a revolutionary party, and without the revolutionary destruction of the bosses' state, which I was not aware of before now.
Needless to say, but meanwhile we're able to seize power you got to do an analysis of the different political forces correlation. I read this Morenoist claiming that Trotsky statement about a "progressive sui generis bonapartism", that is, when the bonapartist strongman governor looks for the workers' supporting due to the right wing attacks, just as Chávez did thru 2002-2008. It's a good moment for the left to advance.

[ABMarx]

If Chavez dies the West will definitely jump on it and push for a neoliberal, right-wing candidate. The U.S. would love to bleed Venezuela for some of that potential oil-money.

[TrotskistMarx]

I am a realist, not an orthodox Trotskist, nor a perfectionist marxist-leninist. What I mean is that in this world we should always choose the lesser evil of all possibles options that we have in this world. And as imperfect, as capitalist as Venezuela is right now, not supporting Hugo Chavez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), literally means that you are supporting the neoliberal option which is Capriles.

Many leftists should get out of their perfectionism world view and look at politics and societies for what it is. Politics is not like the books written by Marx and Trotsky claim. I support Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, Raul Castro, Fernando Lugo, The President of Brazil, Mario Funes, Daniel Ortega, Putin and Amanidejad and many other populist anti-imperialist reformists, because let's get real, it is almost impossible for the working class alone to rise to political power in any country of this world, without the helping hand of strong leaders.

.

[9]

Because such leaders have been so helpful to the working class :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

I am a realist, not an orthodox Trotskist, nor a perfectionist marxist-leninist. What I mean is that in this world we should always choose the lesser evil of all possibles options that we have in this world. And as imperfect, as capitalist as Venezuela is right now, not supporting Hugo Chavez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), literally means that you are supporting the neoliberal option which is Capriles.

Many leftists should get out of their perfectionism world view and look at politics and societies for what it is. Politics is not like the books written by Marx and Trotsky claim. I support Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, Raul Castro, Fernando Lugo, The President of Brazil, Mario Funes, Daniel Ortega, Putin and Amanidejad and many other populist anti-imperialist reformists, because let's get real, it is almost impossible for the working class alone to rise to political power in any country of this world, without the helping hand of strong leaders.

.Such defeatism makes my heart bleed

[Amal]

I am a realist, not an orthodox Trotskist, nor a perfectionist marxist-leninist. What I mean is that in this world we should always choose the lesser evil of all possibles options that we have in this world. And as imperfect, as capitalist as Venezuela is right now, not supporting Hugo Chavez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), literally means that you are supporting the neoliberal option which is Capriles.

Many leftists should get out of their perfectionism world view and look at politics and societies for what it is. Politics is not like the books written by Marx and Trotsky claim. I support Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, Raul Castro, Fernando Lugo, The President of Brazil, Mario Funes, Daniel Ortega, Putin and Amanidejad and many other populist anti-imperialist reformists, because let's get real, it is almost impossible for the working class alone to rise to political power in any country of this world, without the helping hand of strong leaders.
True upto a degree. In fact, the above mentioned leaders can be supported upto a level they are anti-imperialist. To be honest. we have to depend on them. But, still, I can not support Chavez, Morales and others when they denounce armed struggle.

[Amal]

Populism can't be knocked out that easy. It would have been the lethal weaponfor Latin American communists to seize power have they not been misguided by the anti-fascist front and the "stageist" strategy of Soviet Marxism during and after World War 2 (the 1940s and 1950s) and the national liberation success of the Cuban guerrilla in the 1960s.
It would take several more presidential periods for the poor masses of Venezuela to loose their hopes on the demagogic populism of the Bolivarian movement.
Words like "populism" are basically callous IMO. If the actions favor working class and improve their living condition, why denounce it in the name of "populism"? That's simply stupid.