Chilean Communist Leader Camila Vallejo

[Red Terror Dr.]

I learned that Comrade Vallejo is now in the Chilean Congress. Wow, she is poised to be her country's future president soon. That could spell doom for Amerikan imperialism in South America.

[Q]

Yes, that worked out so well in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat).

[tuwix]

I learned that Comrade Vallejo is now in the Chilean Congress. Wow, she is poised to be her country's future president soon. That could spell doom for Amerikan imperialism in South America.

It's very unlikely that any communist will become a president of Chile even if it's a one of prettiest communist in the world who is Camila Vallejo in next 10 years.

But USA have enough problems with Venezuelan block of countries called ALBA. However, Chile isn't going to join them soon.

[Lower Case S]

I'm not sure I'm quite as optimistic as you, but there's certainly good reason to feel positive about the direction Latin America is headed in as a whole. And Camila's in a good position to play a very active part in the revolutionary transformation of the continent in the coming years and decades. She's already achieved a lot for a 26 year old--to say the least.

[RedWorker]

Isn't she a half-Stalinist half-mainstream socialdemocrat?

[Rosa Partizan]

I knew that even revleft would mention her looks, cause this is no. 1 topic when you talk about female politicians. So goddamn sick of it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Isn't she a half-Stalinist half-mainstream socialdemocrat?

Yes, she is a Stalinist, which disqualifies her from the label communist. She said she supports Cuba and its developments, which implies the liberalising of the economy as well. OP is apparently a 'half-Stalinist half-mainstream socialdemocrat', since he believes presidency will further communism.

[Hrafn]

I knew that even revleft would mention her looks, cause this is no. 1 topic when you talk about female politicians. So goddamn sick of it.

:crying:

[Per Levy]

I learned that Comrade Vallejo is now in the Chilean Congress. Wow, she is poised to be her country's future president soon. That could spell doom for Amerikan imperialism in South America.

i wont quote marx here on that issue and just say that history has shown that when "radicals" or "revolutionarys" take over the bourgeois state that it is not the state that changes. or in other words, the bourgeois state is a tool for one class and one class only, the bourgeoisie, it aint a tool for workers.


It's very unlikely that any communist will become a president of Chile even if it's a one of prettiest communist in the world who is Camila Vallejo in next 10 years.

very, very unnecessary to say at least.

[Red Terror Dr.]

Yes, she is a Stalinist, which disqualifies her from the label communist. She said she supports Cuba and its developments, which implies the liberalising of the economy as well. OP is apparently a 'half-Stalinist half-mainstream socialdemocrat', since he believes presidency will further communism.

This is BS. When Allende took over Chile in 1970 the capitalists reactionaries in the U.S. were not slow in learning that capitalism was being seriously threatened by PRESIDENT Allende and that their corporate interests were going to be nationalized. :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

This is BS. When Allende took over Chile in 1970 the capitalists reactionaries in the U.S. were not slow in learning that capitalism was being seriously threatened by PRESIDENT Allende and that their corporate interests were going to be nationalized. :rolleyes:

Why are you emphasising PRESIDENT?

This is BS. If you think nationalisation in and of itself is a socialist measure in and of itself, then you are not a communist. Pure and simple. Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production, not state property. As long as the direct producers continue to confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, there is private property. Private property is not confined to individual ownership, or ownership by private individuals. Private property can take the form of state private property, collective private property, individual private property, or private property under association. Allende's measures, and nationalisation under the bourgeois state, did not and does not challenge or abolish capitalism.

"the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. 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. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."
(Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)

The workers remain wage-workers are they neither own nor control the means of production, which is under state control, they remain dispossessed, and therefore confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property. Such state ownership is private class property.

Of course, expropriation/nationalisation by a bourgeois state of corporations or businesses undermine the interests of the specific owners if they are removed from their access to capital. But the social relationship of capital is not abolished through state ownership in and of itself. It merely changes the faces of the personalised representatives of Capital (vs. Labour). This is different from social revolution which threatens the interests of the general owners, the capitalist class as a whole, by removing them from their access to capital, by undermining capital itself.
Therefore, nationalisation can trigger a reaction to it similar to a threat of socialisation (as socialisation too removes their access to capital).

Marxism 101.

If nationalisation, as you seem to claim, is a socialist measure as the corporate interests of (multi)national states is undermined, then where do you draw the line? Iran, India, Western Europe, Burma, Saudi Arabia, all have or had extensive state ownership, planning, and control over the 'commanding heights' of the economy.