Chavez: we have to make the economic revolution

[REDSOX]

An article for those who have doubts about where venezuela is headed
www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/6894 (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/6894)

[l'Enfermé]

It's headed towards state-capitalism and populism?

[REDSOX]

Tell me Borz Have you read the article or is your response a typical knee jerk reaction by SOME leftists to anything that Chavez says or does?. Where on earth is there a suggestion of state capitalism and populism in that article?

[Amal]

It's headed towards state-capitalism and populism?
REALLY? That's a wonderful sign. Wahhhhh.....................

[ckaihatsu]

It's increased nationalizations / socialization -- all positive steps.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

That's nice, but to say that Venezuela is socialist or becoming socialist is absurd. Socialism requires a proletariat revolution, not a top-down overhaul of the system using the same reformist, bourgeois democratic methods as before.

[el_chavista]

"Nationalism is a communist tool": John Foster Dulles (Eisenhower's Dept. of State sec in the 1950s) :lol:

[Positivist]

Socialism can be achieved through reforms just not reforms made within the framework of a capitalist economy.

[eyeheartlenin]

In the story from Venezuelanalysis, Chávez claims, "We have made the political revolution." That's not true: after 13 years of Chávez in power, Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic, with a market economy and a bourgeoisie that can legally exploit working people.

I'm sure the "economic revolution" Chávez is talking about will be just as imaginary, just as phony, as the non-existent "political revolution" Chávez claims to have made.

Chavista Venezuela, with its 26.1% inflation, is the embodiment, the proof, of Marx and Engels' statement in the Manifesto, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the bourgeois state and wield that state in its own interests.

Obviously, everything in Venezuela depends on Chávez' being reelected forever, and few things could be further from Marx' insistence that the emancipation of the workers is the task of the workers themselves. There's a lot of Latin American history that shows that the personal rule of a caudillo like Chávez is no solution for working people. To overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute workers' rule in society, i.e., "socialism," you have to have a workers' revolution. There is no substitute!

[Cheung Mo]

Tell me Borz Have you read the article or is your response a typical knee jerk reaction by SOME leftists to anything that Chavez says or does?. Where on earth is there a suggestion of state capitalism and populism in that article?

Anti-Chavista leftists can't be trusted. In Venezuela they have almost unanimously sided with the rightist opposition. If they were truly leftist and truly believed that Chavez's path is the wrong one, they'd have formed a 3rd front.

[Tukhachevsky]

Chávez- a populist dictator in the classical latin american style, heading a classical latin american banana republic oil exporter.

After- more unstable banana republic.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Chávez- a populist dictator in the classical latin american style, heading a classical latin american banana republic oil exporter.

After- more unstable banana republic.

How is he a dictator? This is utter crap.

[cynicles]

I don't like Chavez much either but he's hardly a dictator. And since when is being an oil-exporting banana replubic in latin america a 'thing'? Banana republic yes but oil exporting?

[Rodrigo]

In the story from Venezuelanalysis, Chávez claims, "We have made the political revolution." That's not true: after 13 years of Chávez in power, Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic, with a market economy and a bourgeoisie that can legally exploit working people.

I'm sure the "economic revolution" Chávez is talking about will be just as imaginary, just as phony, as the non-existent "political revolution" Chávez claims to have made.

Chavista Venezuela, with its 26.1% inflation, is the embodiment, the proof, of Marx and Engels' statement in the Manifesto, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the bourgeois state and wield that state in its own interests.

Obviously, everything in Venezuela depends on Chávez' being reelected forever, and few things could be further from Marx' insistence that the emancipation of the workers is the task of the workers themselves. There's a lot of Latin American history that shows that the personal rule of a caudillo like Chávez is no solution for working people. To overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute workers' rule in society, i.e., "socialism," you have to have a workers' revolution. There is no substitute!

Sadly that's not Bolivarianists objective, being social-democrats. I'm sad many left-wing people and so called communists can't see the limitations in Chavez's government. Like here in Brazil, many prefer to be the good dogs of the Worker's Party. Good and old excuse for supporting reformism: "a tactical move". Supporting the bourgeois State? When we talk about revolution, they say: "OH, YOU FILTHY RADICAL LEFTISTS!" Not even Freud could explain that...

[agnixie]

I'm amazed how so many leftists willingly pull the wool over their own eyes with Chavez. Everything about him screams "populist bourgeois nationalist". Even down to the ideology he claims to follow, Bolivarianism, named for the father and posterboy of latin american bourgeois liberalism. If you seriously expect more than the New Deal out of that then you're an idiot.

[MarxSchmarx]

Sadly that's not Bolivarianists objective, being social-democrats. I'm sad many left-wing people and so called communists can't see the limitations in Chavez's government. Like here in Brazil, many prefer to be the good dogs of the Worker's Party. Good and old excuse for supporting reformism: "a tactical move". Supporting the bourgeois State? When we talk about revolution, they say: "OH, YOU FILTHY RADICAL LEFTISTS!" Not even Freud could explain that...


I'm amazed how so many leftists willingly pull the wool over their own eyes with Chavez. Everything about him screams "populist bourgeois nationalist". Even down to the ideology he claims to follow, Bolivarianism, named for the father and posterboy of latin american bourgeois liberalism. If you seriously expect more than the New Deal out of that then you're an idiot.

I agree, and I think it is because chavez is basically the only large scale example anywhere in the world where teh capitalist ruling class has not been able to get its way always since the fall of the ussr. Everywhere the left is in retreat and the capitalist class has free reign like never before. The left has been suffering serious defeat after defeat for almost two generations in a row. Chavez, however inadequate and doomed his nationalism, is seen by many particularly on the left as a reminder that neoliberalism can be defeated at least temporarily on a large scale.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Chavez could learn a lot personally from SYRIZA.

[RedHammer]

Chavez's initiatives are simply soft socialism, but at least under Chavez, the Venezuelan people have largely broken free of American imperialism and are beginning (read: first steps) to think about a different future.

I don't hate Chavez. He's not radical enough, true, but he is a good first step for a region that has long been dominated by foreign capitalists.

[agnixie]

can be defeated at least temporarily on a large scale

And it will do like the new deal and amount to absolutely fuck all in 50 years.

[maskerade]

That's nice, but to say that Venezuela is socialist or becoming socialist is absurd. Socialism requires a proletariat revolution, not a top-down overhaul of the system using the same reformist, bourgeois democratic methods as before.

this is the common fallacy leftists fall into when trying to understand what's happening in Venezuela. They, like the bourgeoisie press, only ever think of the Venezuelan revolution in terms of the state and its main actor, Chavez. But this is to misunderstand the entire process - there is a multitude of groups organizing within the space that has opened up thanks to the election of Chavez. And while Chavez has been instrumental in shifting the interest of the state away from the interests of the capitalist class, one still has to understand that there is an uneasy alliance struck between the current form of the state and the movement - both of them, in some ways, relying on the success of the other.

The state can't keep making concessions to the movement unless the movement itself keeps making demands of the state. There is a very intricate relationship between the various groups that have proliferated in Venezuela and the state that attempts to regulate and institutionalize their demands. To think of 'Chavez' as just Chavez is to fall in to a 'great man of history' fallacy that ultimately disregards the organization of the working class and the role it has and continues to play in Venezuela.