Venezuelan Communist Party Warns of Possible Foreign Intervention

[jdhoch]

Venezuelan Communist Party Warns of Opposition Destabilisation Plans, Possible Foreign Intervention

Caracas, April 5th 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The National Secretary of Venezuela’s Communist Party, Pedro Eusse, has warned that the opposition coalition, the Roundtable of Democratic Unity (MUD), is laying the foundations to dispute the results of this year’s presidential elections in October, as well as to possibly incite violence.
In a press conference yesterday, Eusse stated that the MUD’s plan was to secure a “Syrian style” international intervention following the elections by inciting criminal and armed groups to act against the government. He also added that the coalition was currently using political opinion polls predicting the popularity of each candidate to create a “fictitious” reflection of Venezuela’s political reality in the run up to elections in order to be able to “cry fraud” in October.


MORE...


venezuelanalysis .com /news/6911

[sithsaber]

This alongside the inevitable passing of Chavez might make Venezuela an interesting subject throughout 2012-2013

[Homo Songun]

Wait for the RevLeft posters saying they don't support Chavez nor the US, but that somehow they magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist. It's going to happen, I just know it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think the Imperialists are too tired up with their plans in regards to China, Iran, North Korea and various African states to do a real intervention in Venezuela; last I checked Venezuela had a history of warning against interventions which never happened.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

No one is going to do shit to Venezuela. The United States is not that stupid. If they did do something, they would lose all their Latin American allies and trading slaves, Canada and Mexico will get scared and leave their relationship with the US, as would probably the rest of the world. Also, everyone knows Venezuela has not committed an real "human rights" abuses, so no one is going to accept US excuses about democracy, unlike what happened with Iraq, when some ignorant people around the world accepted US military actions due to the "evil nation" factor. Also, just like TheGodlessUtopian said, the US has other nations and peoples to terrorize. They most likely do not give a real fuck about Venezuela.

[roy]

Wait for the RevLeft posters saying they don't support Chavez nor the US, but that somehow they magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist. It's going to happen, I just know it.

Supporting workers is magical? I guess communists are wizards, then. So what does a self-confessed supporter of the bourgeoisie like yourself count as?

[Amal]

In that case, it's better to build international consortium and if possible, an international group of volunteers who can work in case of an imperialist attack or intervention. Why aren't they taking any steps in this regard?

[Railyon]

We don't support Chavez nor the US, but we somehow magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist.

[honest john's firing squad]

Wait for the RevLeft posters saying they don't support Chavez nor the US, but that somehow they magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist. It's going to happen, I just know it.
I understand the very idea that the workers shouldn't abandon their own class struggle in favour of collaborating with the polyhedral bourgeoisie in its own intra-class conflicts is a bit too much to take in for you. Please, allow me to extend my deepest sympathies.

[Amal]

I understand the very idea that the workers shouldn't abandon their own class struggle in favour of collaborating with the polyhedral bourgeoisie in its own intra-class conflicts is a bit too much to take in for you. Please, allow me to extend my deepest sympathies.
KINDLY come down to the real world from your ideological heaven. Do you know about a class named "petty-bourgeoisie"? What is your definition about being bourgeoisie.
And last but not the least, in which case you can count Chavez as "proletarian"?

[honest john's firing squad]

KINDLY come down to the real world from your ideological heaven. Do you know about a class named "petty-bourgeoisie"? What is your definition about being bourgeoisie.
And last but not the least, in which case you can count Chavez as "proletarian"?
Your posts are so incomprehensible that I don't know what position you are even arguing, or what you are asking of me.

As for my definition of the bourgeoisie, I can only quote Engels:

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.

[Amal]

Your posts are so incomprehensible that I don't know what position you are even arguing, or what you are asking of me.
I want to be in real world, not in some kind of fools heaven and denouncing everything around. You can only understand when you come down to the real world and face some real issues that the workers and people of the world are facing.

As for my definition of the bourgeoisie, I can only quote Engels:
Most of us here know that. But, Chavez, Qaddafi are leaders doesn't possess their own industries i.e. they don't engage wage labor (I hope you are able to understand the sarcasm).
And even I can't call them pro-bourgeoisie as there are worst kind of pro-imperialist rulers in the world. Instead, Chavez is now nationalizing industries and decreased the maximum legal working hours, which can't be pro-bourgeoisie by any sense. Then why are you howling "capitalist"?

[honest john's firing squad]

I want to be in real world, not in some kind of fools heaven and denouncing everything around. You can only understand when you come down to the real world and face some real issues that the workers and people of the world are facing.
Class collaboration with the "anti-imperialist" (lol) governments of Venezuela and the former Jamahiriya is not going to resolve these issues.

I think you're the one in "fools' heaven", buddy.


Most of us here know that. But, Chavez, Qaddafi are leaders doesn't possess their own industries i.e. they don't engage wage labor (I hope you are able to understand the sarcasm).
Chavez and Qaddafi are/were political leaders representing the interests of some sectors of the Venezuelan and Libyan bourgeoisie who want foreign businesses out of their countries.


And even I can't call them pro-bourgeoisie as there are worst kind of pro-imperialist rulers in the world.
So being in opposition to the "worst kind of pro-imperialist rulers" (i.e. the US) automatically rid Venezuela and the former Jamahiriya of their bourgeois character?


Instead, Chavez is now nationalizing industries and decreased the maximum legal working hours, which can't be pro-bourgeoisie by any sense. Then why are you howling "capitalist"?
Nationalisation of industries is certainly not in accordance with the class-interests of the proletariat, either. And bourgeois states have nationalised countless industries and enterprises throughout history, yet it didn't make them any more communist. Engels commented on this:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.

[Amal]

Class collaboration with the "anti-imperialist" (lol) governments of Venezuela and the former Jamahiriya is not going to resolve these issues.
Then can be capable to resolve the issue? Most probably a "workers uprising", but at least I haven't seen such probability in near future. I want to assure you that if there is a real workers uprising in Syria will occur against Chavez, I will certainly support that. But, at present, what I can say is that most of the workers of Venezuela is behind him.

I think you're the one in "fools' heaven", buddy.
As far as I know, I am in hell. Why are you so eager to send me to heaven. I can feel my reality at my skin and want to take all measures to change that. If I really was in fools heaven, I will start searching for "capitalist assholes" with a magnifying glass in my hand. Instead, improving my own condition and of my class is my first priority.

Chavez and Qaddafi are/were political leaders representing the interests of some sectors of the Venezuelan and Libyan bourgeoisie who want foreign businesses out of their countries.
In most of the third world countries, bourgeoisie nationalization is a progressive force. But, those who are actually there can understand that. After all, putting workers before foreign MNC is a much worse step.

So being in opposition to the "worst kind of pro-imperialist rulers" (i.e. the US) automatically rid Venezuela and the former Jamahiriya of their bourgeois character?
At least that put them a little REAL progressive position than the bastards in different countries who are eager to sell their own country (including workers) to the foreign capital.

Nationalisation of industries is certainly not in accordance with the class-interests of the proletariat, either. And bourgeois states have nationalised countless industries and enterprises throughout history, yet it didn't make them any more communist. Engels commented on this:
I know Engelses comments. But, I live in reality and know that nationalization is the first step to set workers control. Bourgeoisie has also done "nationalization" and therefore all nationalization can be "bourgeoisie" are just a simple logical fallacy.

[black magick hustla]

Wait for the RevLeft posters saying they don't support Chavez nor the US, but that somehow they magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist. It's going to happen, I just know it.

it doesn't matter if you support socialist aliens from the constellation draconis, your "support" is irrelevant too. i don't get why a bunch of isolated wingnuts feel compelled to give their moral support to every geopolitical dispute as if the state gives a fuck about what they say

[honest john's firing squad]

Then can be capable to resolve the issue? Most probably a "workers uprising", but at least I haven't seen such probability in near future. I want to assure you that if there is a real workers uprising in Syria will occur against Chavez, I will certainly support that. But, at present, what I can say is that most of the workers of Venezuela is behind him.
I don't believe there will be a workers uprising in Venezuela in the foreseeable future, either. My point is that the working class should not rally behind the heads of capitalist states, or otherwise collaborate with the ruling class in any conceivable manner.

As for most Venezuelan workers standing behind Chavez, consider the same scenario concerning a different issue in a different country: Here where I live, the vast majority of workers stand behind both of the major political parties in their tough stance on "illegal" immigrants. By your logic I should support the mandatory imprisonment which all refugees who arrive by boat face.

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
--Anatole France


In most of the third world countries, bourgeoisie nationalization is a progressive force. But, those who are actually there can understand that. After all, putting workers before foreign MNC is a much worse step.

At least that put them a little REAL progressive position than the bastards in different countries who are eager to sell their own country (including workers) to the foreign capital.

I live in reality and know that nationalization is the first step to set workers control.
For the word 'progressive' to mean anything to us communists, it must be understood as being synonymous to 'revolutionary' -- and the bourgeoisie have not been capable of revolutionary tasks in a long time. Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie today is not progressive, it is not revolutionary; nationalisation is simply the process of taking private property into state ownership, and continuing to operate it within the capitalist mode of production. Nationalisation does not abolish value, nor does it abolish the presently-existing class relations in our society. If you use the word 'progressive' to mean anything other than 'revolutionary', then stop saying it at all -- otherwise you distort its meaning and it simply becomes another meaningless catchphrase used to drum up popular support for the "democratic" bourgeoisie and their actions.

Entire industries may be nationalised by the bourgeoisie, and nationalised enterprises may even be put under democratic "workers' control", but that doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing -- because as long as that enterprise or that industry operates under the capitalist mode of production (as is the case in Venezuela) of buying and selling commodities (including wage labour), then this nationalisation can never be called revolutionary or "progressive".


Bourgeoisie has also done "nationalization" and therefore all nationalization can be "bourgeoisie" are just a simple logical fallacy.
See above. Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary or "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Amal]

I don't believe there will be a workers uprising in Venezuela in the foreseeable future, either. My point is that the working class should not rally behind the heads of capitalist states, or otherwise collaborate with the ruling class in any conceivable manner.
In that case, Chavez is the best option for the workers of Venezuela. Anybody with a little commonsense can understand that. Though for that, one should have to stay in reality.

As for most Venezuelan workers standing behind Chavez, consider the same scenario concerning a different issue in a different country: Here where I live, the vast majority of workers stand behind both of the major political parties in their tough stance on "illegal" immigrants. By your logic I should support the mandatory imprisonment which all refugees who arrive by boat face.

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
--Anatole France
At present, most of the workers around the world are followers of bourgeoisie parties. In imperialist countries, they follow imperialist parties with pro-imperialist notions just because they can have a share of the imperialist exploitation of the big part of the world. But, at least Venezuela is not a country that's importing capital to other countries. Therefore, how can Chavez be compared to imperialist leaders.

For the word 'progressive' to mean anything to us communists, it must be understood as being synonymous to 'revolutionary' -- and the bourgeoisie have not been capable of revolutionary tasks in a long time. Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie today is not progressive, it is not revolutionary; nationalisation is simply the process of taking private property into state ownership, and continuing to operate it within the capitalist mode of production. Nationalisation does not abolish value, nor does it abolish the presently-existing class relations in our society. If you use the word 'progressive' to mean anything other than 'revolutionary', then stop saying it at all -- otherwise you distort its meaning and it simply becomes another meaningless catchphrase used to drum up popular support for the "democratic" bourgeoisie and their actions.
That's where you lack of understanding of most third world countries and the world in general come into being. Nepal, where 90% of population lives in villages and workers consist just a fraction of the rest 10%. Anyone with a common sense would recommend nationalization of the little amount of industries first and then building more with government effort just to build the proletariat capable enough to do anything. In that scenario, bourgeoisie nationalization is certainly progressive because that can help to uproot the feudal remains in the country.

Entire industries may be nationalised by the bourgeoisie, and nationalised enterprises may even be put under democratic workers' control, but that doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing -- because as long as that enterprise or that industry operates under the capitalist mode of production (as is the case in Venezuela) of buying and selling commodities (including wage labour), then this nationalisation can never be called revolutionary or "progressive".
If you ask me, what will make the living condition of worker and people in general is progressive. I am not that idiot to think about reaching Everest from the beach with a single jump. It's long way and every step forward is progressive.

See above. Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary or "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.
I have given some example above, and first you haven't said any point how the nationalization continued in Venezuela is "Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie".

[honest john's firing squad]

In that case, Chavez is the best option for the workers of Venezuela.
Yes, life is better under Chavez. I don't see the point in denying this simple fact.

What I'm arguing against is the proposition that workers should take the side of, or lend actual material support to Chavez's government (or to any other bourgeois state) in what is fundamentally a conflict between rival bourgeois factions which both seek to dominate and exploit our class, because that is diametrically opposed to our inherent class-interests as proletarians (i.e. the abolition of capitalism and class society itself) and is completely opposed to proletarian internationalism. My position is not about giving imperialists free reign to rape and plunder the land and the people who reside there or anything, but it's about workers having no countries and having no sides to take in a bourgeois conflict. If you don't understand this, then you probably don't belong on this site.


At present, most of the workers around the world are followers of bourgeoisie parties. In imperialist countries, they follow imperialist parties with pro-imperialist notions just because they can have a share of the imperialist exploitation of the big part of the world. But, at least Venezuela is not a country that's importing capital to other countries. Therefore, how can Chavez be compared to imperialist leaders.
I'm fairly sure most first world workers don't vote in order to "have a share of the imperialist exploitation of the big part of the world". That particular aspect scarcely crosses their minds, if at all. The votes of most people I know are influenced by domestic policy (taxes, labour policy, immigration policy, etc.) rather than foreign policy.

Chavez can be compared to imperialist leaders because they all represent the interests of the the ruling captialist class in their own countries. I'm not going to make concessions for Chavez because just Venezuela is not an imperialist power; standing behind and lending actual material support to the head of a bourgeois state is antithetical to your class-interests as a worker no matter what country you reside in.


In that scenario, bourgeoisie nationalization is certainly progressive because that can help to uproot the feudal remains in the country.
I'm not 100% sure on whether or not feudalism clearly and demonstrably exists in Nepal, or anywhere in the world actually. If it is indeed the case that feudalism clearly and demonstrably exists in Nepal (a claim I expect you to back up with accurate and reliable sources -- although I highly doubt this since the bourgeoisie hasn't acted revolutionary in a looong time), then perhaps one might consider this to be a revolutionary act. However, that's only within the context of Nepal. It certainly doesn't apply to Venezuela so don't go around claiming nationalisation is a "progressive" thing there.


you haven't said any point how the nationalization continued in Venezuela is "Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie".
Are you for real? It's being carried out by a bourgeois state. I didn't think that needed explaining at all.

[Amal]

Yes, life is better under Chavez. I don't see the point in denying this simple fact.

What I'm arguing against is the proposition that workers should take the side of, or lend actual material support to Chavez's government (or to any other bourgeois state) in what is fundamentally a conflict between rival bourgeois factions which both seek to dominate and exploit our class, because that is diametrically opposed to our inherent class-interests as proletarians (i.e. the abolition of capitalism and class society itself) and is completely opposed to proletarian internationalism. My position is not about giving imperialists free reign to rape and plunder the land and the people who reside there or anything, but it's about workers having no countries and having no sides to take in a bourgeois conflict. If you don't understand this, then you probably don't belong on this site.
At least Chavez introduced a less working hour law and anybody on ground should take his side just for that reason. After, this step makes him better than the others.

I'm fairly sure most first world workers don't vote in order to "have a share of the imperialist exploitation of the big part of the world". That particular aspect scarcely crosses their minds, if at all. The votes of most people I know are influenced by domestic policy (taxes, labour policy, immigration policy, etc.) rather than foreign policy.
In short their inability to organize a party that can reflect their class interest.

Chavez can be compared to imperialist leaders because they all represent the interests of the the ruling captialist class in their own countries. I'm not going to make concessions for Chavez because just Venezuela is not an imperialist power; standing behind and lending actual material support to the head of a bourgeois state is antithetical to your class-interests as a worker no matter what country you reside in.
Neither of us are Venezuelan worker here and I want to better leave it to them. Problem with you, what may be the conclusion is your starting point.

I'm not 100% sure on whether or not feudalism clearly and demonstrably exists in Nepal, or anywhere in the world actually. If it is indeed the case that feudalism clearly and demonstrably exists in Nepal (a claim I expect you to back up with accurate and reliable sources -- although I highly doubt this since the bourgeoisie hasn't acted revolutionary in a looong time), then perhaps one might consider this to be a revolutionary act. However, that's only within the context of Nepal. It certainly doesn't apply to Venezuela so don't go around claiming nationalisation is a "progressive" thing there.
To know that, you should have some idea about the ground reality in most third world countries, specifically Asian countries. Otherwise, arguing with you in this regard is just waste of time.

Are you for real? It's being carried out by a bourgeois state. I didn't think that needed explaining at all.
Again the same fault, the conclusion become the starting point.

[honest john's firing squad]

Chavez introduced a less working hour law and anybody on ground should take his side just for that reason.
Chavez is a populist bourgeois politician and all his actions should be viewed with that in mind. These actions are generally attempts to curry favour with the workers so he can come out on top of the current tense political situation in Venezuela whilst maintaining a stable bourgeois class dictatorship.


In short their inability to organize a party that can reflect their class interest.
No mass parties exist anywhere in the world that reflect the working class' interest.


Neither of us are Venezuelan worker here and I want to better leave it to them.
So I shouldn't be concerned at all when members of my class jump to the defense of a state whose primary function is the maintenance of the ruling class' dictatorship over the workers?

Given that the ideal scenario of a working class uprising in Venezuela is probably many decades away, the important thing to take out of what I say is that both the Venezuelan government, as well as foreign imperial powers and their proxy opposition movement in Venezuela, seek to actively subjugate and dominate the working class for their own interests, and that the working class has nothing to gain but everything to lose by taking sides in a bourgeois squabble. This is internationalism 101 and if you don't agree with it, you probably aren't a communist.

Oh well, neither of us have any influence on Venezuelan workers anyway, but I'm particularly glad that you certainly don't.


To know that, you should have some idea about the ground reality in most third world countries, specifically Asian countries. Otherwise, arguing with you in this regard is just waste of time.
I like how you've defended your claims that feudalism exists in Nepal.


Again the same fault, the conclusion become the starting point.
...except you literally asked me to prove that (in your words) "the nationalization continued in Venezuela is "Nationalisation by the bourgeoisie"". The proof lies in the fact that the Venezuelan state is the one carrying these nationalisations out, and no other class' interests except the ruling bourgeoisie's are represented by the Venezuelan state. Feel free to prove me wrong about any of that, though :rolleyes:

[Leftsolidarity]

You can not like Chavez but still be against imperialist intervention.

Are the left communists here saying that they are supportive/indifferent to intervention?

[honest john's firing squad]

Are the left communists here saying that they are supportive/indifferent to intervention?
No, where are you even getting this from?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nationalisation of industries is certainly not in accordance with the class-interests of the proletariat, either. And bourgeois states have nationalised countless industries and enterprises throughout history, yet it didn't make them any more communist. Engels commented on this:

Engels also stated that nationalizations by the capitalist state contained elements of the solution or something like that. What's your point?

Engels never said that nationalizations by the capitalist state were detrimental to the workers. Historically, at worst, they're neutral.

[TrotskistMarx]

WIkOVe0MF1k
There is no perfect world. Hugo Chavez is not perfect, The Venezuelan Government is not perfect, and we are all imperfect, and full of mistakes. We are supposed to make mistakes all the time !!

Dear friend, I am a very realist, and an observer of societies, of the whole world as a whole, of humans. And outside of any politics debate and socialist marxist analysis debate of Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is one of the most honest humans that has ever existed on this earth, like Che Guevara. The thing is that there are too many perfectionists, rationalists, legalists, squared minded thinkers in this world. And they think that politics are an exact science like math. So they don't forgive that Hugo Chavez hasn't been able to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship of the working class (100% socialism). They don't believe in the "lesser evil" options of choosing the lesser evil of all evil imperfect *realist* options in this world. They have a black and white world view, of either pure evil or a perfect saint. But they should listen to that Huey Lewis song: "Ain't no living in a perfect world"


.



Wait for the RevLeft posters saying they don't support Chavez nor the US, but that somehow they magically support the "workers" instead; after all, Chavez isn't a left communist. It's going to happen, I just know it.

[TrotskistMarx]

Miss Marple: In my last post I said that Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Government are not perfect because they haven't been able to turn the ownership of the businesses of Venezuela into a workers-ownership system of ownership. Which is what socialism and "the dictatorship of the workers" (100% socialism should be about)

So, I agree with your point of view which is right indeed in the notion that nationalization and statetization of businesses under government-ownership is not socialism, but state-capitalism. And if the Venezuelan Government doesn't pass the ownership of the state-owned Venezuelan corporations to the workers of those corporations, there won't be a transition toward 100% socialism.

Besides, according to Alan Woods, president of International Marxist Tendency (IMT http://www.marxist.com) only about 35% of the businesses of the country of Venezuela are owned by the Venezuela Government. So I think that the Venezuelan Government would need to nationalize 100% of the businesses of Venezuela to be owned by the Venezuelan Government. And then after some time, in order for Venezuela to become a *dictatorship of the Venezuelan Workers*, the 100% of the state-owned businesses would need to be owned by the workers of all of those state-owned corporations.

So, we will just have to pray to God for all the cancer cells of Hugo Chavez to be destroyed. Because I have great faith that God will completely cure Hugo Chavez and lead the Venezuela country toward 100% socialism


.


.



No, where are you even getting this from?

[honest john's firing squad]

Historically, at worst, they're neutral.
I've never said they were detrimental to the working class, only that they're certainly not the manifestation of a communist/socialist mode of production, as many on the "left" seem to think.

TrotskistMarx: I personally don't consider it worth my time to debate or otherwise converse with someone who ceaselessly praises Chavez for his personal qualities and urges me to pray for his well-being to no end, and whose posts are largely devoid of content.

[Amal]

WIkOVe0MF1k
There is no perfect world. Hugo Chavez is not perfect, The Venezuelan Government is not perfect, and we are all imperfect, and full of mistakes. We are supposed to make mistakes all the time !!

Dear friend, I am a very realist, and an observer of societies, of the whole world as a whole, of humans. And outside of any politics debate and socialist marxist analysis debate of Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is one of the most honest humans that has ever existed on this earth, like Che Guevara. The thing is that there are too many perfectionists, rationalists, legalists, squared minded thinkers in this world. And they think that politics are an exact science like math. So they don't forgive that Hugo Chavez hasn't been able to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship of the working class (100% socialism). They don't believe in the "lesser evil" options of choosing the lesser evil of all evil imperfect *realist* options in this world. They have a black and white world view, of either pure evil or a perfect saint. But they should listen to that Huey Lewis song: "Ain't no living in a perfect world".
You are beating drums to deaf years. Actually, what I suspect is that most here have good standard of living and therefore, they just pass their leisure time by searching the "ideal" here and there with a magnifying glass to find out "why it's not ideal". I guess that you are from Latin America i.e. from third world like me, they just don't understand that it's a question of life and death for us, not something like passing leisure time by "finding faults".

[The Jay]

You are beating drums to deaf years. Actually, what I suspect is that most here have good standard of living and therefore, they just pass their leisure time by searching the "ideal" here and there with a magnifying glass to find out "why it's not ideal". I guess that you are from Latin America i.e. from third world like me, they just don't understand that it's a question of life and death for us, not something like passing leisure time by "finding faults".

Sure, Chavez may be helping the poor, but he's not a Marxist. Things may be better, but there's still a bourgeoisie. Chavez is lying when he calls himself a revolutionary and that is what is being addressed. No-one is above criticism.

[Amal]

Sure, Chavez may be helping the poor, but he's not a Marxist. Things may be better, but there's still a bourgeoisie. Chavez is lying when he calls himself a revolutionary and that is what is being addressed. No-one is above criticism.
So better start "criticism" and stop everything else, that will be firs priority. After all, posting criticism on net is the supreme act to uphold the interest of working class.

[el_chavista]

Venezuela is "more capitalist" now than before Chávez:


The private sector participation in the gross domestic product raised from 68% in 1999 to 71% in 2010
while the public participation lowered from 32 % to 29% of the GDP
The private imports raised from 15 billion $ in 2002 to 30 billion $ in 2010
While private non oil exports lowered from 5 billion $ to less of half this figure in 2010.

But when it comes for an "unAmerican threat," nationalism or even rhetorical "participatory democracy" will do for the Washingtonian neoliberal defenders. And it is like this since the 1950s when John Foster Dulles said "nationalism is a communist tool".

Now, I think that the 4th fleet will wait while the local neoliberal defenders has an electoral or otherwise opportunity to topple Chávez.

[The Jay]

So better start "criticism" and stop everything else, that will be firs priority. After all, posting criticism on net is the supreme act to uphold the interest of working class.

By debating online we can consolidate and sharpen our collective knowledge. This allows us to make better decisions. Even if you were right in saying that what we are doing is useless, what the hell are you doing here then? If you're going to mock us for wasting our time then so are you.

[Homo Songun]

I am perplexed by the debate over the class nature of the Venezuelan state or its leaders. It is completely secondary in nature. We know the class nature of Venezuelan state's enemies. How is that not enough to know that the decline of said enemies cannot be bad for Venezuelan workers? If the Venezuelan state is under attack by them, you can either be in favor of that or not. Preferring to appeal to the (always unstated!) interests of some unpredicated mass of "workers" is about as much of an answer to that question as is appealing to the interests of magical autonomist ponies. That is to say, not at all.

This isn't the 1840's anymore, imperialism is a world system, and events in Venezuela have practical consequences for the class struggle elsewhere. Note that the word "events" in the previous sentence signifies a set of things including but not limited to Total Communist Revolution led by the glorious (non-)party of one's choice. Why is this hard for people to grasp?

[Amal]

I am perplexed by the debate over the class nature of the Venezuelan state or its leaders. It is completely secondary in nature. We know the class nature of Venezuelan state's enemies. How is that not enough to know that the decline of said enemies cannot be bad for Venezuelan workers? If the Venezuelan state is under attack by them, you can either be in favor of that or not. Preferring to appeal to the (always unstated!) interests of some unpredicated mass of "workers" is about as much of an answer to that question as is appealing to the interests of magical autonomist ponies. That is to say, not at all.

This isn't the 1840's anymore, imperialism is a world system, and events in Venezuela have practical consequences for the class struggle elsewhere. Note that the word "events" in the previous sentence signifies a set of things including but not limited to Total Communist Revolution led by the glorious (non-)party of one's choice. Why is this hard for people to grasp?
The answer is pretty simple. To grasp that, you have to have touch with reality. If instead, you live in some kind of "ideological paradise" and judge everything from that perspective, everything will seem "capitalist" to you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Venezuela is "more capitalist" now than before Chávez:


The private sector participation in the gross domestic product raised from 68% in 1999 to 71% in 2010
while the public participation lowered from 32 % to 29% of the GDP


Comrade, I think that's very misleading. Assuming a period of growth, if a government were to expropriate all its land and all its banks overnight, private consumption and private investment would still grow.

One of the problems with even the most well-meaning past social democracies is that they focused too much on government spending relative to GDP, ignoring the role of economic rent.

[Atsushi]

MSo, we will just have to pray to God for all the cancer cells of Hugo Chavez to be destroyed. Because I have great faith that God will completely cure Hugo Chavez and lead the Venezuela country toward 100% socialism


God will lead us to socialism, sure ... God is an invention of the bourgeoisie to prevent a proletarian revolution. That is the only way to socialism: not Chavez but the working class should own the means of production.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

God will lead us to socialism, sure ... God is an invention of the bourgeoisie to prevent a proletarian revolution. That is the only way to socialism: not Chavez but the working class should own the means of production.

Religion existed long before the bourgeoisie...

[Atsushi]

Religion yes, but monotheism is not. The first signs of a creator are in Egypt. The idea continued to exist in Persia and Israel, were it was promoted by the priests which hold the power.

And excuse me for my bad english.

[Tim Finnegan]

I am perplexed by the debate over the class nature of the Venezuelan state or its leaders. It is completely secondary in nature. We know the class nature of Venezuelan state's enemies. How is that not enough to know that the decline of said enemies cannot be bad for Venezuelan workers? If the Venezuelan state is under attack by them, you can either be in favor of that or not.
Whatever happened to "revolutionary defeatism"?

[Blanquist]

Whatever happened to "revolutionary defeatism"?

That applies to wars between imperialists, like a Franco-German war or a Sino-US war. Not a war of an imperialist country against a small backward country/

[black magick hustla]

I am perplexed by the debate over the class nature of the Venezuelan state or its leaders. It is completely secondary in nature. We know the class nature of Venezuelan state's enemies. How is that not enough to know that the decline of said enemies cannot be bad for Venezuelan workers? If the Venezuelan state is under attack by them, you can either be in favor of that or not. Preferring to appeal to the (always unstated!) interests of some unpredicated mass of "workers" is about as much of an answer to that question as is appealing to the interests of magical autonomist ponies. That is to say, not at all.


actually, in concrete terms, it seems most of the voting base of chavez are the urban poor, not the working class. chavez has had a lot of trouble with strikes in general. i think it is funny when you think our position is abstracted and make really lame jokes like "magical autonomist ponies" ("autonomists" dont actually exist in this forum in general). the bourgeosie is divided in factions and there are certainly some factions that support chavez, including what people call the "boliburguesia".






This isn't the 1840's anymore, imperialism is a world system, and events in Venezuela have practical consequences for the class struggle elsewhere. Note that the word "events" in the previous sentence signifies a set of things including but not limited to Total Communist Revolution led by the glorious (non-)party of one's choice. Why is this hard for people to grasp?

actually, because imperialism is a "world system" is more complicated than the yappings of leftists dinousaurs trapped in the 60s, who claim yankee bad, third world strongman good.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whatever happened to "revolutionary defeatism"?


That applies to wars between imperialists, like a Franco-German war or a Sino-US war. Not a war of an imperialist country against a small backward country/

That applies specifically to an inter-imperialist war during a genuine revolutionary period for the working class.


actually, in concrete terms, it seems most of the voting base of chavez are the urban poor, not the working class. chavez has had a lot of trouble with strikes in general.

I don't know whether to elaborate to you once more on who the working class is, or whether to congratulate you for also asserting that Venezuela has only a proletarian demographic minority.

[honest john's firing squad]

Religion yes, but monotheism is not.
No, I'm 100% sure monotheism had existed long before the bourgeoisie's ascendance as well.

[Tim Finnegan]

Are you saying that Oliver Cromwell didn't worship the Hellenic pantheon? :confused:

[Luís Henrique]

Religion yes, but monotheism is not. The first signs of a creator are in Egypt. The idea continued to exist in Persia and Israel, were it was promoted by the priests which hold the power.

Monotheism is 2,000 years old, capitalism is 200.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The National Secretary of Venezuela’s Communist Party, Pedro Eusse, has warned that the opposition coalition, the Roundtable of Democratic Unity (MUD), is laying the foundations to dispute the results of this year’s presidential elections in October, as well as to possibly incite violence.

This is quite probable; the Venezolan opposition has done it in the past, and there are no signs that it has changed its course of action.


In a press conference yesterday, Eusse stated that the MUD’s plan was to secure a “Syrian style” international intervention following the elections by inciting criminal and armed groups to act against the government.

Unless said government responds by actually shelling the civilian population -as the Syrian government does -, the pretext would be quite weak.

And so...


Venezuelan Communist Party Warns of Opposition Destabilisation Plans, Possible Foreign Intervention

Seems a bit of a fantasy. The US is already involved in two messes, in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the saber rattling with Iran. To respond to the Libyan crisis, it had to put itself behind France and the UK, and up to the moment, not even that has made it possible any intervention against Syria beyond diplomatic resolutions.

The European Union has no interest in acting against Chavez's government; on the contrary, action against it will probably put the European powers again at odds with Washington.

Venezuela isn't a dictatorship like Libya was or Syria is.

So while it is probably wise from the point of view of those who support Chavez to preempt the opposition's usual stance that it is democracy only if they win the elections, the international situation does not support the claims of the PCV.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I understand the very idea that the workers shouldn't abandon their own class struggle in favour of collaborating with the polyhedral bourgeoisie in its own intra-class conflicts is a bit too much to take in for you. Please, allow me to extend my deepest sympathies.

The problem however is that the communist left substitutes declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations.

... And when it tries to do otherwise, it actually does a worse job than Stalinists, as for instance in Venezuela itself, where the ICC supported right wing reaction against Chavez, mistaking it for a movement of the working class.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Double post, sorry.

[black magick hustla]

The problem however is that the communist left substitutes declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations.

... And when it tries to do otherwise, it actually does a worse job than Stalinists, as for instance in Venezuela itself, where the ICC supported right wing reaction against Chavez, mistaking it for a movement of the working class.

Luís Henrique

the icc is not the whole communist left. i agree sometimes some of the "orthodox" communist left groups get tiresome with their comintern style sloganeering but tbh, i think you are being a little dishonest here. honestly, i think you are going on their throat about this because the cl doesn't support democratism and democratic demands in the same way you do.

[Rocky Rococo]

In the current world, most "nationalization" of various industries that takes place in bourgeois regimes is for the purpose of wringing out debts and losses to be picked up by working-class taxpayers, while the cleaned-up, retooled company freed of such debts as pension obligations to its retired workers, is then returned to its capitalist owners in conditions allowing for maximum profitability. I fail to see how this is "progressive".

[Homo Songun]

In the current world, most "nationalization" of various industries that takes place in bourgeois regimes is for the purpose of wringing out debts and losses to be picked up by working-class taxpayers, while the cleaned-up, retooled company freed of such debts as pension obligations to its retired workers, is then returned to its capitalist owners in conditions allowing for maximum profitability. I fail to see how this is "progressive".

And so what of the foreign intervention referred to by OP, also done for the sake of maximizing profitability, only for a separate set of capitalists? The difference is that this other set of capitalists is much more capable and much more malignant. This is the point I keep referring to. I refuse to accept that having either party in the drivers seat is a wash as far as Venezuelan workers are concerned. Or US workers for that matter.

[Luís Henrique]

the icc is not the whole communist left.

I know that. The Bordigist International Communist Party has a much more dignified response to that issue, including a devastating critique of the ICC's "petty bourgeois opportunist line". Unhappily it falls under what I call "substituting declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations".


i agree sometimes some of the "orthodox" communist left groups get tiresome with their comintern style sloganeering but tbh, i think you are being a little dishonest here. honestly, i think you are going on their throat about this because the cl doesn't support democratism and democratic demands in the same way you do.

I am going "on their throat" because they deny everybody else the right to be wrong, and, in doing so, they deny such right for themselves also. As they judge others, they shall be judged. The only difference being that I call what they did there a "mistake", while they always call other tendencies mistakes "treason".

Yes, I disagree with them and they disagree with me. One important issue in our mutual disagreement is the importance of democratic rights for the working class struggle. They have no problems telling me what they think of my disagreements with them, and I have no problems telling them what I think of their disagreements with me. As long as this does not involve personal attacks, I don't see why it should be different.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

I know that. The Bordigist International Communist Party has a much more dignified response to that issue, including a devastating critique of the ICC's "petty bourgeois opportunist line". Unhappily it falls under what I call "substituting declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations".

again, you are going on about the groups endnotes calls "atavistic sects". most of the communist left are informal circles, not centralized political organizations.





I am going "on their throat" because they deny everybody else the right to be wrong, and, in doing so, they deny such right for themselves also. As they judge others, they shall be judged. The only difference being that I call what they did there a "mistake", while they always call other tendencies mistakes "treason".


marxist polemics are traditionally very poisonous.



Yes, I disagree with them and they disagree with me. One important issue in our mutual disagreement is the importance of democratic rights for the working class struggle. They have no problems telling me what they think of my disagreements with them, and I have no problems telling them what I think of their disagreements with me. As long as this does not involve personal attacks, I don't see why it should be different.


its not really about you. i am just clarifying to the readers that the whole CL is not the icc, nor it is the "most important" group which seems to be a confusion among internet denizens. so its weird to generalize criticisms about the icc to the whole communist left.

[Luís Henrique]

its not really about you. i am just clarifying to the readers that the whole CL is not the icc, nor it is the "most important" group which seems to be a confusion among internet denizens. so its weird to generalize criticisms about the icc to the whole communist left.

So, to be completely clear, what I am saying is that the communist left usually substitutes declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations. In the rare occasion that one of the left communist organisations, the ICC, tried to do otherwise, it actually did a worse job than Stalinists, supporting right wing reaction against Chavez, mistaking it for a movement of the working class. Other left communist organisations that not the ICC are innocent from the latter and only guilty of the former.


marxist polemics are traditionally very poisonous.

That's hardly my fault, and I try to avoid it, but it is not always possible to do it without conceding in questions of principle, which I have no intent of doing.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

So, to be completely clear, what I am saying is that the communist left usually substitutes declarations of principle for actual analyses of situations. In the rare occasion that one of the left communist organisations, the ICC, tried to do otherwise, it actually did a worse job than Stalinists, as for instance the ICC about the Venezolan "White Hands" movement

not true, at all. you just seem to be obsessed by that example.


http://libcom.org/library/understanding-period-class-analysis-events-arab-world

this was written by the turkish section of the icc. it might not not concede to that weird, melancholic democratism you attach yourself to but its very analytic and cut and dry.

or there is also tptg, which to be honest are responsible for the best analysis of any situation in general,

http://libcom.org/library/burdened-debt-tptg

and of course, most of loren goldners stuff is commentaries about present situations and he hardly sloganeers at all.

i don't really believe you are giving a honest assessment of the communist left. you generally have a tendency to opine about things you don't know about due to some weird vendetta you hold (with analytic philosophy it was cuz of rosa lichenstein, with the cl it probably has to do with the icc), no offense. this is not the first time.

[Rocky Rococo]

And so what of the foreign intervention referred to by OP, also done for the sake of maximizing profitability, only for a separate set of capitalists? The difference is that this other set of capitalists is much more capable and much more malignant. This is the point I keep referring to. I refuse to accept that having either party in the drivers seat is a wash as far as Venezuelan workers are concerned. Or US workers for that matter.

OK, but following the underlying logic of that argument I assume that later on this year we'll be hearing calls from you as to how we all must be rushing off to vote for Obama in November. Would I be right in that assessment?

[Luís Henrique]

you generally have a tendency to opine about things you don't know about due to some weird vendetta you hold (with analytic philosophy it was cuz of rosa lichenstein, with the cl it probably has to do with the icc)

So, in short, you are telling me to shut up, lest your stupid diagnosis about myself be confirmed. Authoritarian shit, if I ever saw it.


no offense.

Off course there is offence there.

Luís Henrique

[Homo Songun]

And so what of the foreign intervention referred to by OP, also done for the sake of maximizing profitability, only for a separate set of capitalists? The difference is that this other set of capitalists is much more capable and much more malignant. This is the point I keep referring to. I refuse to accept that having either party in the drivers seat is a wash as far as Venezuelan workers are concerned. Or US workers for that matter.
OK, but following the underlying logic of that argument I assume that later on this year we'll be hearing calls from you as to how we all must be rushing off to vote for Obama in November. Would I be right in that assessment?

I can appreciate the rhetorical strategy you are employing here. It goes like this: I am supposed to answer your question with a yes or no. If I say yes, "vote for Obama/NDP/Socialists as the lesser of two evils", the force of my prior argument is diminished, since, after all, if I am a reformist domestically, I must be one abroad also. If I say no, this introduces a possible contradiction in my thinking, thereby also diminishing my argument, since I am not being consistent.

As a matter of fact I lean towards "no", but not as a general rule. However, I don't think it has the ramifications you might think it has. In the first place, up until this point we have been discussing the interests of ruling classes as a whole, but in no sense can either of the two main parties in the USA be considered to be not wholly owned subsidiaries of the US ruling class. More importantly though, the analogy falls apart due to the fact that there is no real difference between the two parties with regards to foreign wars and interventions. In fact, the case for Democrats being more meddlesome than the Republicans is easily made.

WW1 - Democrat
WW2 - Democrat
Korean war - Democrat
Vietnam - Democrat
Yemen, Pakistan, etc. - largely Democrat

versus

Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq - Republican
Panama - Republican
Grenada - Republican

Surely there are more interventions than listed here, on both sides of the aisle, since war is a consistent requirement for the ongoing health of imperialist capitalism. That said, the Democrat-instigated bloodshed of the Vietnam era alone dwarfs anything the Republicans are "responsible" for in this sense.

I think my point stands.

[black magick hustla]

So, in short, you are telling me to shut up, lest your stupid diagnosis about myself be confirmed. Authoritarian shit, if I ever saw it.

Luís Henrique

nah you can yap about whatever you want. don't get all pissy when someone calls you out on your valiant ignorance though

[gorillafuck]

this sounds like propaganda to stir up national unity feelings. which is very good for a state that faces a lot of strikes.

on the other hand, while this is probably propaganda with a purpose, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there actually are plans for an invasion of Venezuela (regardless of whether or not there are serious considerations of acting upon them).

[Luís Henrique]

nah you can yap about whatever you want. don't get all pissy when someone calls you out on your valiant ignorance though

The valiant ignorance you cannot muster rational arguments to counter?

Seriously, guy. You disagree with my posts, you dislike them, whatever. There is no problem with that. If you can, and think it is worth the pain, put up your own arguments against them. Otherwise stop complaining about them.

And please refrain to make "psychological" theories about why I do post what I post, where I post, when I post. I don't do that to you, do I?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

The valiant ignorance you cannot muster rational arguments to counter?


that whole post was filled with evidence and links on why you were wrong. idk if thats not "rational" or whatever, maybe i am a bourgeois empiricist. i am sorry i was offensive about it, i don't reallly care about whether i agree or disagree with you, thats not my problem, but you are really dishonest in panting things you dislike and you tend to do really vapid generalizations about them and i find that really annoying.

[Tim Finnegan]

So, in short, you are telling me to shut up, lest your stupid diagnosis about myself be confirmed. Authoritarian shit, if I ever saw it.
Ha ha, what?

[Luís Henrique]

that whole post was filled with evidence and links on why you were wrong. idk if thats not "rational" or whatever, maybe i am a bourgeois empiricist. i am sorry i was offensive about it, i don't reallly care about whether i agree or disagree with you, thats not my problem, but you are really dishonest in panting things you dislike and you tend to do really vapid generalizations about them and i find that really annoying.

Don't read my posts them. I am certainly not changing my posting style for the benefit of your sensibilities.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Ha ha, what?

Like this. If I insist in discussing the subjects black magic hustla wants me to be silent about, it is evidence that I am indeed "obsessed" which such subjects; otherwise why would I insist in discussing them?

It is a rhetoric trap to silence dissent.

Luís Henrique