jose mujica is the only real socialist head-of-state.

[Logical seal]

Why, For a list of simple reasons below that everysingle *socialist* head of state does not do.

1)He Is piss poor, and lives like the AVERDAGE CITIZEN, Thats somthing I can't say about Jose, Eduardo dos santos, Fucking faker.

2)He doesen't privitize goverment industry, like jakaya kilwete.

3)Actually wins the elections, Rather then stimutainously wining for a 15 year killing spree lik-Do I even to need state one?

4)For that little money he gets, He donates around half to charity, does Enrique Pena Nieto donate anything, At all.

5)Has made singicant progress in socialism, Includeing the latest legalization of marijuana.

[Yuppie Grinder]

1) Being poor doesn't make you a revolutionary.
2) Socialism isn't just nationalized industry. If that were true every state on earth would be at least partially socialist.
3) Cool.
4) Donating to charity does not make you a revolutionary. Warren Buffet donates to charity.
5) Lol dog weed is cool but it has nothing to do with revolution.

[Remus Bleys]

Uh a proletarian dictatorship shouldn't have heads of states
and a socialist shouldnt be the head of a bourgeois state

[Logical seal]

Remus, I don't regard uruguay as being *bourgeoise* seeing as the rich are getting slighty torn down and the poor getting slighty better.


If anything, Its on the path to socialism.

[Remus Bleys]

Was there a workers revolution that I had missed?

[Bala Perdida]

I never regarded Peña Nieto as a socialist so that just makes your point stronger. Also, I am a big fan of Mujica but I don't know what he's done to better the lives of the average Uruguayan, disregarding the weed of course. All I know is he's very charismatic and did some hard time for combating the military dictatorship.

[Remus Bleys]

I never regarded Peña Nieto as a socialist so that just makes your point stronger. Also, I am a big fan of Mujica but I don't know what he's done to better the lives of the average Uruguayan, disregarding the weed of course. All I know is he's very charismatic and did some hard time for combating the military dictatorship.
yeah, hes just a nice face for the bourgoeis and some of the lower and petty bourgeois.
Honestly, hes as anti-worker as the next guy, he is simply a nice face for capitalism, so full of democracy, as compared to the military dictatorship.

[Logical seal]

yeah, hes just a nice face for the bourgoeis and some of the lower and petty bourgeois.
Honestly, hes as anti-worker as the next guy, he is simply a nice face for capitalism, so full of democracy, as compared to the military dictatorship.


orly?

Alright minster conspiracy theorist, Tell me one instance where mujica did somthing that did somthing postive to the higher-class and middle-class.

Also, Can we stop useing *Boureagise* It litterly means middle-class, The middle-class are enforcers, Like millitary and police, There not the management heads, Like computer software companies and oli companies.

And did somthing negative to the lower-class and proletarian.

[Remus Bleys]

orly?

Alright minster conspiracy theorist, Tell me one instance where mujica did somthing that did somthing postive to the higher-class and middle-class.

Also, Can we stop useing *Boureagise* It litterly means middle-class, The middle-class are enforcers, Like millitary and police, There not the management heads, Like computer software companies and oli companies.

And did somthing negative to the lower-class and proletarian.
oh my god. you are very clearly confused.
bourgeois means the ones who own the means of production. they are only middle class compared to the feudal lord.
these enforcers are tools of the bourgeois

i fail to see my conspiracy theory.

[Logical seal]

Thats hes a secret capitalist like nieno.

And I dont see him putting uruguay into the stock market market or whatever the main buissness of capitalism is.

[Remus Bleys]

Thats hes a secret capitalist like nieno.
He probably isn't conscious of this role, nor the people defending him. But thats what it is.


And I dont see him putting uruguay into the stock market market or whatever the main buissness of capitalism is.
oh my god dude

[Bala Perdida]

Thats hes a secret capitalist like nieno.

And I dont see him putting uruguay into the stock market market or whatever the main buissness of capitalism is.
Nieto isn't a secret capitalist, he is very clearly a decorated capitalist piece of shit. He recently privatized Mexico's oil industry undemocratically. The PRI has never been regarded as socialist, much less their corrupt presidents.

[Logical seal]

He probably isn't conscious of this role, nor the people defending him. But thats what it is.


oh my god dude


Are you suggesting hes being....Maniuplated?

If so, Then let me tell you, There horrible at it since hes only weakening capitalism :)

[Remus Bleys]

You haven't given any explanation as to why he is "weakening capitalism"

[Zukunftsmusik]

Are you suggesting hes being....Maniuplated?

That someone isn't conscious about what process they are part of, doesn't mean they're manipulated. The owl of Minerva and all that.


If so, Then let me tell you, There horrible at it since hes only weakening capitalism :)

How is he weakening capitalism?

[Logical seal]

Key energy and telecommunications industries are nationalised. Under Mujica's predecessor, Uruguay led the world in moves to restrict tobacco consumption. Earlier this week, it passed the world's most sweeping marijuana regulation law, which will give the state a major role in the legal production, distribution and sale of the drug.

chaka laka boom

nationalization, Socialism, Oppostion to capitalism, Thus weakening capitalism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

How does centralising capital in the hands of the state oppose capitalism in any way?

[Logical seal]

Becuse, Zuka, Capitalism survives on private buissness and money, Take away there buissness, They die.

Push them out, They lose profit, And thus are hurt.

[Remus Bleys]

i do not think you understand what you are saying.
trotsky is rolling over ... well maybe he isn't, but marx is.

Tell me, what theoretical work have you read? Fuck, what trotskyist stuff have you read?

[Rafiko Bingo]

Becuse, Zuka, Capitalism survives on private buissness and money, Take away there buissness, They die.

Push them out, They lose profit, And thus are hurt.

Have you ever heard of state-capitalism ?

To be brief, even if the private business has less power (or not at all) within the state, there's still presence of wages and lead directly to the necessity of profit. Since the state owns the means of production, obtains profit from the commodities made from the workers, therefore, the bourgeoisie here is the state. If he was true revolutionary in anyway, he would destroy this capital's social relation.


i do not think you understand what you are saying.
trotsky is rolling over ... well maybe he isn't, but marx is.

Tell me, what theoretical work have you read? Fuck, what trotskyist stuff have you read?

If you've nothing interesting to say except unnecessary sectarian stuff, quit posting.

[DaringMehring]

Whatever his personal details, Mujica governs to the right of Chavez/Maduro, and even Correa. He attacks the unions in Uruguay -- check it out: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=138696

[Remus Bleys]

If you've nothing interesting to say except unnecessary sectarian stuff, quit posting.
he has his tendency listed as trotskyist but he doesn't sound trotksyist at all.
The way he writes this stuff, it is quite clear he hasn't read theory. That's not really okay now is it? And saying "maybe you should read this stuff before you post/ call yourself a trotskyist/assert this" isn't really sectarian, is it?

[Per Levy]

Alright minster conspiracy theorist, Tell me one instance where mujica did somthing that did somthing postive to the higher-class and middle-class.

invting foreign investors to uruguay, as DaringMehring shows he attacks unions and lets be honest he stabalizes the capitalist system by being a bit more social democratic.


Also, Can we stop useing *Boureagise* It litterly means middle-class, The middle-class are enforcers, Like millitary and police, There not the management heads, Like computer software companies and oli companies.

the bourgeoisie are the capitalists, the owners of the means of production, the bosses. the middle class or petit-bourgeoisie are small buisness owners mostly. that is kinda basic marxism, its fine if you are still learning but try to learn something about the words you are missusing first.


Thats hes a secret capitalist like nieno.

what is secret about it? he is the head of a capitalist state. what you need to realize is that there are several ways of how can capitalism opperate and social democracy is one of those ways. it usually has a stabalising effect on the capitalist system.


And I dont see him putting uruguay into the stock market market or whatever the main buissness of capitalism is.

ok...

seriously though, i had to write so much to this one sentence that i wouldnt be able to do what i need to right now.


chaka laka boom

nationalization, Socialism, Oppostion to capitalism, Thus weakening capitalism.

nationalization isnt socialism or if that was the case pretty much any state would be socialist in one way or another. being verbally against capitalism while in praxis strengthening and stabalizing it isnt socialism. and about weakening capitalism, the only way capitalism can be weakend is by a class concious proletariat that takes over the means of prodcutions. that isnt happening in uruguay at all.

[newdayrising]

There's absolutely zero about Mujica that is socialist.
He's not even a reformist, in that he doesn't claim to be reforming capitalism in order to achieve a socialist goal somewhere in the future, like old school social democrats used to claim.
He's what Americans like to call a liberal, that's all. A center-left bourgeois politician that's all. Nothing new.

[Tim Cornelis]

Nationalised property is not the antithesis of private property:


Let me first address the issue of state ownership and control.
Of course, Marx called for the abolition of private property. But what makes property private, in his view, is not individual ownership, but the separation of the direct producers, workers, from the property they produce. Thus, in the German Ideology, he and Frederick Engels noted that “ancient communal and State ownership … is still accompanied by slavery,” and they referred to the communal ownership of slaves as “communal private property” (emphasis added).
In volume 2 of Capital, Marx wrote, “The social capital is equal to the sum of the individual capitals (including … state capital, in so far as governments employ productive wage-labour in mines, railways, etc. and function as industrial capitalists.” Similarly, in his notes on Adolph Wagner’s critique of Capital, Marx wrote that “[w]here the state itself is a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a ‘commodity’ and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity.”
Most importantly, in volume 1 of Capital, he implicitly addressed the issue of what would happen if the state’s role as capitalist producer expanded to such a point that it completely crowded out other capitalists. He argued that the tendency toward monopoly, the process of centralization of capitals, “would reach its extreme limit … [i]n a given society … only when the entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single capitalist or a single capitalist company.” As Raya Dunayevskaya noted, Marx’s text implies that such a society “would remain capitalist[;] … this extreme development would in no way change the law of motion of that society.” Engels thus seems to have been stating Marx’s view as well as his own when he wrote, in Anti-Dühring,
“state ownership … does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. … The more [of them the state takes over], 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.”

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html



He's not even a reformist, in that he doesn't claim to be reforming capitalism in order to achieve a socialist goal somewhere in the future, like old school social democrats used to claim.

That's gradualism.
Gradualism = reforming yourself out of capitalism.
Reformism = reforming capitalism.

[La Guaneña]

I would just like to state that I am very stoned, but this conversation makes no sense at all. I think the OP is trolling, nothing could actually be this funny on accident.

[Tenka]

chaka laka boom

nationalization, Socialism, Oppostion to capitalism, Thus weakening capitalism.

State's selling weed. Socialism bro.

P.S. Not really.

[newdayrising]

That's gradualism.
Gradualism = reforming yourself out of capitalism.
Reformism = reforming capitalism.

That's correct, but a bit nitpicky, isn't it?
Rosa Luxemburg wrote Reform Or Revolution against Bernstein and his group of what she called "reformists" who claimed that reforms would eventually bring about socialism in the far away future.

There are tons of social democratic parties that mention "socialism" in their programs even if it actually means very little practically and they're commonly referred to as reformists, not "gradualists". It's not like you need to not believe in socialism in order to be a "reformist" as opposed to a "gradualist". A gradualist is a kind of reformist.

[Sam_b]

State's selling weed. Socialism bro.

P.S. Not really.


If you're not going to contribute anything of substance to this thread then you shouldn't be posting in it.

[Red Commissar]

It's useful to go read interviews with him to understand his viewpoint(s). It comes off more as an environmental concern coupled with calls for people to live within their means. While some of his views are progressive, in terms of radical changes he's been more reserved, especially compared to some of the other "left" leaders in South America.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica

There's also an al-Jazeera interview of him floating around, but it's region blocked for me.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

It's useful to go read interviews with him to understand his viewpoint(s). It comes off more as an environmental concern coupled with calls for people to live within their means. While some of his views are progressive, in terms of radical changes he's been more reserved, especially compared to some of the other "left" leaders in South America.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica

There's also an al-Jazeera interview of him floating around, but it's region blocked for me.

Shame, he fought with the Tupamaros in the 1960s-1970s. He had real potential unlike most of Latin America's left-wing leaders (save Daniel Ortega and Dilma Rousseff) who have never participated in real revolutionary struggle. For those of you who may ask, the 1992 coup by Chavez was a coup not a revolutionary struggle.