Hugo Chaves

[Redhead]

Quick question: what do you think of Hugo Chavez?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Bourgeois, populist nationalist who managed to swindle a large section of "the left" into supporting his "Bolivarian revolution", primarily because the left wants to be swindled. A latter-day Peron or Ben Bella.

[RedWorker]

He was a socialdemocrat who enabled very positive changes. And "populist" is a meaningless bourgeois propaganda word for everyone they dislike. It may have the meaning of "someone who does not have a clear ideology but speaks of acting in favor of the masses" but how does that not apply to just every other socialdemocrat?

[Brutus]

Wave a few red flags, improve the conditions of the poor a bit, and say a few r-r-revolutionary things and you'll get the support of a sizeable amount of fools who call themselves socialists.

Generalised wage labour and commodity production, capitalist control of the means of production, and all done under a bourgeois state. "B-b-but he took the oil from the Americans..."

[Lensky]

Chavez created the space for increased working class mobilization and the suppression of bourgeois hegemony. He started a revolution, but it is up to the workers to finish it.

[Creative Destruction]

r-r-revolutionary

i can't wait for the day when leftists grow up and realize that this kind of word play (if you can call it that?) is really dumb, even if used in a joking manner.

[consuming negativity]

He wasn't [favorite old bolshevik here], but he wasn't Pinochet, either. The lives of normal people in Venezuela got a little bit better, and it wasn't at the expense of people outside of Venezuela. Additionally, he tried to reclaim "socialism" as a positive word and did so at a time when the left is weaker than it has been for 100 years. While he's not my favorite guy in the world, he's good publicity and certainly wasn't an asshole. People ITT will crucify or deify him based on what side of the 2edgy4u argument they want to take, but I feel as though I've come up with a fair and reasonable opinion of him here.

[Bala Perdida]

He was born in a mud hut, suffered poverty and tried to overthrow a corrupt bourgeois regime. He won the heart of the Venezuelan poor, and of the weak left. He enjoyed the wealth of the position, and increased authority that came with it. He was a bourgeois nationalist waving a red flag. I basically see him as a more active Nelson Mandela in power. I used to think he was awesome, now.... not so much.
He sucked, but it's annoying as hell when liberals try to capitalize on that. Just as everything else liberals do. Also the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. They didn't recognize the regime of 92' as oppressive, but all of a sudden Maduro is a dictator? Some confused ass people.

[hatzel]

He was a socialdemocrat who enabled very positive changes. And "populist" is a meaningless bourgeois propaganda word for everyone they dislike. It may have the meaning of "someone who does not have a clear ideology but speaks of acting in favor of the masses" but how does that not apply to just every other socialdemocrat?

So one minute the word is 'meaningless,' the next you tell us 'the meaning' (though I feel its meaning is a little more complex than you give it credit for, perhaps explaining how it's possible for people to write books on the matter)? It's an interesting take on consistency, I'll give you that. But what's the actual argument here? That because every other social-democrat can be accurately described by that word (according to you, at least, though I would myself argue that there are plenty of social-democrats who cannot be described as populists, either by your definition or any I would favour), using it in reference to a particular social-democrat (your own characterisation) is somehow illegitimate, with the word rendered meaningless due to the sheer volume of people who fit its definition? I'm not sure I quite understand the logical progression here, sorry, I wonder if perhaps you would like to explain it to me...

[Art Vandelay]

"I am not a Marxist, but I am not anti-Marxist. I am not communist, but I am not anti-communist." - Chavez.


"I am a Marxist to the same degree as the followers of the ideas of Jesus Christ and the liberator of America, Simon Bolivar." - Chavez.


"I am also a Trotskyist! I follow Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution.." - Chavez.

Dude was a confused bourgeois statesman, who failed to expropriate the bourgeoisie and nationalize the means of production during his 14 years as the head of the Venezuelan state.

[sixdollarchampagne]

As I remember, Chávez served as President for about a decade and a half. If memory serves, the means of production in his country were never nationalized during that period, so that Venezuela remains what it was pre-Chávez, a bourgeois republic with a market economy. Given all that, it was difficult to understand all the hoopla and hero worship he inspired from the left. I spent a few years in a tendency that absolutely worshipped Chávez, the IMT, aka "Grantism," even as President Chávez refrained from breaking the power of the bourgeoisie in his country by mobilizing the workers to seize and run their enterprises. I think that Chávez' presidency will be seen as a decade and a half of lost opportunities, that could have turned out well for the workers of Venezuela.

[RedWorker]

.

It's a word that the bourgeoisie uses against anyone who favors advancing the interests of the majority rather than the minority, and that is arbitrarily used by most people for whoever leader or whichever party they dislike. That is all.

[bropasaran]

Quick question: what do you think of Hugo Chavez?
A social democrat, although probably one of the the most progressive ones. AFAIK, Venezuela had (and probably still has) an economy following the standard social-democratic model of a mix between nationalized and private sectors*, but also an interesting addition of a "socal sector" with worker controlled firms, public service and mutual aid institutions. Also, what is incredible if true, they started forming local assemblies and councils functioning in the political sphere, like municipalities, which are self-managed ([directly] democratic), with the pretty much the purpose of gradually replacing the state. I've heard e.g. Hahnel talk about this:

rb-kPP1qLzg

* which would mean- mix of state-capitalism and market capitalism, not "a mix socialism and capitalism", nationalizition is not socialism. Just to point out.

Also, on the demonization of Chavez as some sort of tyrant, it's gross exagerations and basically just a standard USA ploy against anyone who resists neoliberalism. The thing he was most maligned for is curtailment of free speech, and on that "scandal" I would suggest taking a look at this:

te9FMvLmJhU

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, Venezuela has workers' cooperatives and communal councils. These supplement the state more than they replace it. Incredibly, the opposition and others accuse it of undermining democracy because the institutions are relatively autonomous from the liberal democratic institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

However, these types of organs are less unique than you might think. The Labour Party in the Netherlands had plans for establishing these in Amsterdam in the 1950s, and now this concept has been reincarnated as 'community's' (communities in English, of course) where citizens can give input about community projects in their neihgbourhood. India has decentralised planning, and Cambodia has participation in municipalities and communes as well. Venezuela's communal councils are more advanced in their power, but I wouldn't say unique.

Workers' cooperatives are also not quite unique.


he tried to reclaim "socialism" as a positive word

I'm guessing you're from the USA, but in Europe and Latin America socialism is not necessarily a negative or dirty word. So there wasn't really much to reclaim.

[RedWorker]

I'm guessing you're from the USA, but in Europe and Latin America socialism is not necessarily a negative or dirty word. So there wasn't really much to reclaim.

Was not the case in Venezuela as far as I know. He said he was not a socialist in an early interview, then started claiming so a few years after getting elected.

I think that the IMT was right in saying that when the president of a state can claim to be a Marxist and a Trotskyist and nobody gives a fuck a lot must have changed socially. Or maybe people are just desperate for someone who isn't a far-right neoliberal.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think that the IMT was right in saying that when the president of a state can claim to be a Marxist and a Trotskyist and nobody gives a fuck a lot must have changed.

Maybe nobody gives a fuck because nothing has changed.

[Five Year Plan]

Dude was a confused bourgeois statesman, who failed to expropriate the bourgeoisie and nationalize the means of production during his 14 years as the head of the Venezuelan state.

It's a shame, right? Because then he could have gone down in "Trotskyist" lore as a creator of a (deformed) workers' state.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Dude was a confused bourgeois statesman, who failed to expropriate the bourgeoisie and nationalize the means of production during his 14 years as the head of the Venezuelan state.

Was this ever his aim, though?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe nobody gives a fuck because nothing has changed.

Well that's just ridiculous. Lot's has changed, within the logic of the capitalist system, but also 'outside' it. The government has attempted, in some ways, to prioritise social needs over private profits. The result of this was, as capital has not been abolished, a sub-optimal rate of capital accumulation (for instance as a result of oil revenues not used for economic growth but for social projects) and frequent shortages of basic consumer goods (as a result of maximum prices that were meant to ensure availability of those consumer goods to poorer Venezuelans; but lead to lower profit margins for capitalists whom consequently scaled down production rates).

So yes, things have changed quite a lot and people do give a fuck. And this is why 'capital' would rather see Bolivarianism disappear.

[DOOM]

He was a socialdemocrat who enabled very positive changes. And "populist" is a meaningless bourgeois propaganda word for everyone they dislike. It may have the meaning of "someone who does not have a clear ideology but speaks of acting in favor of the masses" but how does that not apply to just every other socialdemocrat?

It does. Social-Democracy is populism. It appeals (apparently) to the working class while reinforcing bourgeois society.

[DOOM]

Wave a few red flags, improve the conditions of the poor a bit, and say a few r-r-revolutionary things and you'll get the support of a sizeable amount of fools who call themselves socialists.

Generalised wage labour and commodity production, capitalist control of the means of production, and all done under a bourgeois state. "B-b-but he took the oil from the Americans..."

It really depresses me how the motivation of some leftists really boils down to just this.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It really depresses me how the motivation of some leftists really boils down to just this.
Says the guy who supports Israel and South Korea

[DOOM]

Says the guy who supports Israel and South Korea

Wow, epic diss m8, hope ur happy with the rep u get

http://memecreator.eu/media/created/8izj60.jpg

[Zukunftsmusik]

Wow, epic diss m8, hope ur happy with the rep u get

And I hope you're happy with that signature. I mean I guess it's trolling, but it's nowhere near funny, especially in light of what's going on right now.

[DOOM]

And I hope you're happy with that signature. I mean I guess it's trolling, but it's nowhere near funny, especially in light of what's going on right now.

I was not trolling; I made this signature on Yom HaShoah, in memory of all jews who died during the Holocaust. But really, do you want this discussion to turn into polemics against me?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I was not trolling; I made this signature on Yom HaShoah, in memory of all jews who died during the Holocaust. But really, do you want this discussion to turn into polemics against me?

Well no offense, but I think they kinda have a point. You can't really criticize leftists for supporting Venezuela if you support Israel and South Korea… And then the meme was sort of to stop you from having to defend yourself.

No hostility here, but I agree with them. :lol:

[Siant]

Well, I do not know how to start. So, let's go.

Hugo Chávez, was a great man to us. Here in Venezuela, he was like a light in middle of darkness and fear. He was like a father to the venezuelan people, after decades of the bad call "democracy", represented by Carlos Andrés Pérez, Rafael Caldera, Rómulo Betancourt, and so on. However, he was still being a man. We do not consider Chávez as a perfect man. He was a human been like us, with strengths and weaknesses. He had great successes and big defeats. One of those defeats, was not achieving food sovereignty at time. We're still depending of the oil prices to live, because here, we don't produce anything more that oil. Now, our president, Nicolás Maduro, it's trying to improve the situation of our country, but the capitalist will not cooperate to improve our country. They're improving their political weapons to attack us and take the political & economic power again.

Regards.