Maduro Loses Election

[The Intransigent Faction]

LSxColeGYjQ

So...now what? What's next for the left in Venezuela?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, the smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to break with the legacy of Chavism and all other forms of petro-populism (a term I heard today and am determined to strong-arm into common usage now), presenting a coherent alternative to capitalism, no matter if it's "Bolivarian" or not.

Unfortunately what will most likely happen is that the left will refuse to move on, invoking the same idealised image of the Chavez-Maduro period decades after it stops meaning anything to workers in Venezuela (see also: post war British social-democracy).

[Anatoli]

There is such a thing as COMEBACK!

[Sibotic]

A victory for populism. That aside, an interesting period of some sort for Venezuela, in terms of elections and state demographics, but there's a slightly weird isolation from any international politics that makes this seem suspect. Other than a 'they like the US' thing with the opposition, which is practically a caricature, they all seem curiously to have nothing to do with other pressing issues such as ISIS, European relations such as they are, and so on, to the extent that it practically comes across as a weird image rather than a real situation. In any case, though, it does seem like an interesting situation in Venezuela, in some manner, other than that, and if Maduro were under pressure they would probably be expected to take fairly drastic means in terms of the nation in order to reverse this situation, although obviously how such things will be reported, and which parts when, will depend. Evidently, then, things wouldn't just remain the same, in all likelihood, and things might be expected to turn against the opposition further if this were to be successful, whatever it might be expected to entail, really. You'd just have to see what's going on in Venezuela, then.

This might be the first time anyone's ever mentioned the Venezuelan congress, though, which suggests that at the least the opposition might be decent at promoting obscure tourist destinations. That part's generally an incidental aside, though, obviously it isn't the main point, here.

[Antiochus]

It means the end for Chavismo in Venezuela. Its really the only way it could have ended bar a coup by the U.S.

With a 2/3 supermajority, they can gut and block absolutely anything the Chavistas do. They will soon go after Maduro in a recall vote, which I don't see how he can win given the results of this election.

[VukBZ2005]

Those who say this is the end are speaking too soon. A lot of those who voted against Maduro did so as a protest vote, which I view as being extremely foolish given the circumstances. As soon as the reactionaries start their train rolling, a lot of those who voted against Maduro will reflexively react against them. However, to the extent that this could be reversed will now depend on whether the Venezuelan "Left" is capable enough to, as said before here, give up on "Social Democracy" in its entirety.

[Emmett Till]

It means the end for Chavismo in Venezuela. Its really the only way it could have ended bar a coup by the U.S.

With a 2/3 supermajority, they can gut and block absolutely anything the Chavistas do. They will soon go after Maduro in a recall vote, which I don't see how he can win given the results of this election.

Hm? First results I saw, no supermajority, unless the opposition can rope in all other parties in the Congress, there were lots of tiny parties which got seats which were neither part of the oppo or with Maduro.

Old info?

[Antiochus]

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11762

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, the smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to break with the legacy of Chavism and all other forms of petro-populism (a term I heard today and am determined to strong-arm into common usage now), presenting a coherent alternative to capitalism, no matter if it's "Bolivarian" or not.

Unfortunately what will most likely happen is that the left will refuse to move on, invoking the same idealised image of the Chavez-Maduro period decades after it stops meaning anything to workers in Venezuela (see also: post war British social-democracy).

Yeah, a break with the legacy of Chavism has to be examined in context...If that break is in the context of advances by outright reactionary forces, then the only way it could represent a change of the left's fortunes is through a change in tactics, i.e. abandoning social democracy for genuine revolution.

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Also, yes, a "thaw" in relations with the U.S. (between the governments, at any rate) could surely only encourage "neoliberalism".

[Emmett Till]

Yeah, a break with the legacy of Chavism has to be examined in context...If that break is in the context of advances by outright reactionary forces, then the only way it could represent a change of the left's fortunes is through a change in tactics, i.e. abandoning social democracy for genuine revolution.

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Also, yes, a "thaw" in relations with the U.S. (between the governments, at any rate) could surely only encourage "neoliberalism".

Well Xhar Xhar can certainly speak for himself, but I didn't hear him saying that Maduro's defeat in the election was a good thing to be celebrated.

He was saying that this is an opportunity for the left to realise that Maduro and Chavez were, rhetoric and petro-populism aside, just bourgeois politicians working a different and lately fairly unusual racket. Quite common a generation or two ago in Latin America, ever heard of Peron?

We have too much armchair speculating about what political developments are "good" and which "bad." The point is revolution against capitalism, not whether the rulers are leftish or rightish bourgeois politicians.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've heard petrol-peronism before.

[logfish111]

It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

[Comrade Jacob]

Many of those who voted for the opposition actually support the Bolivarian revolution but are dissatisfied with it's leadership and wish to send a message to Maduro.

[Burzhuin]

The situation in Venezuela is proving one more time how right was Lenin when he wrote that proletariat has do demolished capitalist's government as first condition of proletarian revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

Comrade Jacob
its*
And it sounds very implausible. "I support the Bolivarian revolution, so let me vote for the guys that propose to undo the Bolivarian revolution".


It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.


The situation in Venezuela is proving one more time how right was Lenin when he wrote that proletariat has do demolished capitalist's government as first condition of proletarian revolution.

Why say Lenin? As if revolutionary socialism is Lenin's invention.

[bricolage]

You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.
Yep.
The problem wasn't that they failed to diversify, seem to me it's just another victim in Saudi Arabia's war against US shale.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Unfortunately, while many on the left seem to think of times of economic crisis as prime opportunities to draw attention to the problems of capitalism and alternatives to it, that hasn't really gone anywhere in other cases, either.

Unfortunately, the left is doing everything in its power to not condemn capitalism, and to not present any coherent alternative. An entire linguistic code has developed around the soft left's attempt to pussyfoot around the main issue; "neoliberalism", "globalisation", "austerity". It's not that the left should cheer on the crises of capitalism; if nothing else they're bad for us as individuals as well. It's just that I don't buy the usual excuse that we're telling the truth but no one is listening. The left, generally, has failed to engage the workers intellectually.


It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.

But "diversifying the economy" doesn't automatically translate into improvements in the quality of life for workers. Neither does a higher GDP or more jobs. The workers in Venezuela got some crumbs that were needed to pacify them - now it's no longer necessary to pacify them, so the crumbs stop falling. As they would if Maduro had won another term.


Why say Lenin? As if revolutionary socialism is Lenin's invention.

It isn't Lenin's invention but Lenin was the one who reemphasised the Marxist perspective of smashing the bourgeois state apparatus in a period where most ostensibly socialist parties followed the falsification of Engels by the SPD, advocating parliamentarianism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well Xhar Xhar can certainly speak for himself, but I didn't hear him saying that Maduro's defeat in the election was a good thing to be celebrated.

Nor did I imply he did. It's not about "speculation"...it's about looking at the situation and asking HOW the left can foment revolution out of the conditions as they are. I've been pretty damn consistent in opposing electoralism, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the implications of a defeat of social democracy by the right for any attempts to revolt against capital. After all, it would be difficult to "engage the workers intellectually" without making some sense out of the current political trajectory as most workers understand it.

Even if the left's approach to engaging workers is flawed, though, you can't deny many people simply AREN'T listening. That's not to say we should be angry at workers for not listening to people who say we need revolution. There are concrete reasons why people aren't listening, and the left's failure to engage them is ONE of the reasons. Capitalist ideology creates barriers to understanding alternatives, with or without a group of class-conscious people trying to break those barriers.


'Foment' -- you're welcome.

:lol: Yep! Clearly I had something else on my mind...

[ckaihatsu]

A victory for populism. That aside, an interesting period of some sort for Venezuela, in terms of elections and state demographics, but there's a slightly weird isolation from any international politics that makes this seem suspect. Other than a 'they like the US' thing with the opposition, which is practically a caricature, they all seem curiously to have nothing to do with other pressing issues such as ISIS, European relations such as they are, and so on, to the extent that it practically comes across as a weird image rather than a real situation.


What?? The historically oppressed nations and ethnicities are geopolitically and socially *separatist* -- ?? Shocker.





It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.


Economic 'petro-populism', perhaps -- ? (Note the current ongoing fall of oil prices.)

[ckaihatsu]

ferment revolution


'Foment' -- you're welcome.

[Burzhuin]

Why say Lenin? As if revolutionary socialism is Lenin's invention.
Before Lenin it was theoretical postulate. Lenin implemented the postulate into reality. If Chavez really established proletariat dictatorship in Venezuela we would not have this discussion. It proves one more time you cannot sit between two chairs.

[VukBZ2005]

Before Lenin it was theoretical postulate. Lenin implemented the postulate into reality. If Chavez really established proletariat dictatorship in Venezuela we would not have this discussion. It proves one more time you cannot sit between two chairs.
Another way of saying this is that "one cannot serve two masters". This is the mistake those that foolishly advocate Social Democracy make every single time and, in revolutionary situations, often ends up getting people who are truly working class and good killed by the reactionaries. I fear that we are about to see this soon in Venezuela if Maduro and Co. can't figure out how to handle this development appropriately.

[Burzhuin]

Another way of saying this is that "one cannot serve two masters". This is the mistake those that foolishly advocate Social Democracy make every single time and, in revolutionary situations, often ends up getting people who are truly working class and good killed by the reactionaries. I fear that we are about to see this soon in Venezuela if Maduro and Co. can't figure out how to handle this development appropriately.
I am afraid that Maduro has no idea how to handle this development.

[John Nada]

What the fuck Maduro? Strike at the Helm! (http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/strike-at-the-helm/) In the last months of his life, Hugo Chavez basically called for a proletarian cultural revolution(even quoted Mao!), an intensification of the class struggle and socialist construction from below. Even told Maduro he trusted him with his life to help carry this out(okay so he died a couple months later but still). Where's the criticism-self-criticism secessions among PSUV cadre? Where's the workers storming the party headquarters and rooting out the capitalist roaders and bolibourgeoisia within the bureaucracy and the PSUV? Where's the workers smashing the counterrevolutionary guarimberos, lumpenproletarian paramilitaries and their comprador-bourgeoisie backers? Setting up communes and seizing the means of production?

Problem was Chavismo depended too much on Chavez's charisma and working within the bourgeois-democratic state structure(which under modern capitalism can only be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), and not enough on the workers and poor peasantry, the majority who really should be running things and were actually the ones on the ground implementing the positive things. Once he was assassinated;)died of cancer, that was some big shoes that were hard to fill.

The PSUV and the Bolivarian Revolution didn't have a clear proletarian character and was not fully anti-imperialist by default. Venezuela is still a semi-colony, being heavily dependent on oil sales to the US. To an extent, that's beyond anyone's control, bar a violent revolution or great advancement in productive forces.

There was a middle "national" bourgeosie and a bureaucratic bourgeoisie heavily involved who supported it for purely patriotic, perhaps for some individual ideological reasons(both derogatorily called the "bolibourgeoisia"), for a safe position within the state bureaucracy and in opposition to US imperialism. And this national-bourgeoisie is prone to corruption, wavers in the face of imperialism and obviously doesn't want some GPCR shit but mere social democracy at best. So naturally in the face of a revolting comprador-bourgeoisie allied with the middle/upper petty-bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat, as well as imperialist-capitalists launching an economic war, threatening coups and "humanitarian interventions", they're not going to allow the class war to move up a notch.

That speech Hugo Chavez gave basically calling for a cultural revolution is probably what scared the shit out of the bourgeoisie, both in Venezuela and the US. This had the US condemning every single thing, real or imagined that happened in Venezuela(while the Mexican and Honduran states continued to pile up bodies). Sad thing is more people probably died from violent crime and poverty, and likely even more will die from poverty and violent crime under MUD, than if Chavez actually helped launch a cultural revolution and civil war leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist path. But that's all the anonymous numbers under capitalism, that for some reason don't count.:(
And it sounds very implausible. "I support the Bolivarian revolution, so let me vote for the guys that propose to undo the Bolivarian revolution".Sadly this overestimates a lot of people's political literacy or grasp at current events, or assumes this support translates into votes at the ballot box. A lot of supporters of PSUV simply did not vote out of frustration. I've read various news articles of people just checking off the MUD candidates on the ballot without looking at the actual candidates, just due to their displeasure with the PSUV under Maduro.

In fact, bourgeois elections don't necessarily reflect the will of the majority, just the majority of votes cast. It rarely does, in fact. In this election, after factoring in about 74% turnout, 41.684 percent of eligible voters cast their vote for MUD vs. 30.34% PSUV. For all we know those that didn't bother to vote or cast an invalid ballot could've overwhelmingly supported/preferred either the PSUV, MUD or any other party, but didn't feel the need or desire to express it at the ballot box for whatever reason. Such is the flaw in bourgeois "democracy".

Generally higher turnout=more leftist candidates, lower turnout=more rightist but consistent electorate. But not always, and while in this Venezuelan election turnout was down from the presidential election, it was still pretty high historically and up from previous parliamentary elections. In fact, the PSUV actually got 171,525 more votes this election than in 2010(5,622,844 vs. 5,451,422), but the opposition really made serious gains, with 2,391,757 more votes(7,726,099 vs. 5,334,309).

Damn, holding the country hostage by hoarding and currency speculation really payed off for the comprador-bourgeoisie. Like John Galt's dream brought to life. I wonder if the shortages will suddenly end, or if it will continue till Maduro is overthrown/steps down under pressure? What if the opposition fails to deliver economically, or the shortages resolve but no one can afford shit anyway? With a strong president yet a supermajority in parliament completely on the opposite spectrum, I imagine there's going to be a lot of deadlock in the next few years. I wonder what will happen?

[Antiochus]

Are you seriously suggesting Chavez was assassinated?

[John Nada]

Are you seriously suggesting Chavez was assassinated?A joke:lol: Though being a leftist leader in the western hemisphere tends to greatly reduce one's life expectancy, except for :castro:.

It appears to be natural causes, though there are poisons that cause cancer. Like that Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko who got polonium poisoning, and later it was suspected that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was poisoned with polonium too. It decays rather quickly, but the damage last much longer. And there's other similar ones too that are hard to detect. It's entirely possible, but no proof so that's just useless conspiracy theories. I'd hate going into conspiracy mode, and all available info point to Chavez's death being natural causes.

TL;DR I'm fucking joking! :grin:

[Aslan]

I view Chavismo as an extension of Marxist-Leninist vanguardism and republicanism during Hugo Chavez in office (adding a little populism on top for good taste). But a revolutionary organization is still a revolutionary organization. I see America putting pressure resulting in the PSUV degrading to democratic socialism, probably Scandinavian model.

Best case scenario is Chavismo reforms and the party is able to prevail once again. That is very unrealistic since the greatest weapon is Chavez's charisma itself.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It means the end for Chavismo in Venezuela. Its really the only way it could have ended bar a coup by the U.S.

With a 2/3 supermajority, they can gut and block absolutely anything the Chavistas do. They will soon go after Maduro in a recall vote, which I don't see how he can win given the results of this election.

Saying Chavism is dead is as naive as Chavez saying the opposition was dead when it got like 1/3 of the vote. Elections are fickle mistresses.


Unfortunately, the left is doing everything in its power to not condemn capitalism, and to not present any coherent alternative.


I think Latin American social democrats do condemn capitalism and support socialism, but are always vague in what they mean by these terms.




But "diversifying the economy" doesn't automatically translate into improvements in the quality of life for workers. Neither does a higher GDP or more jobs. The workers in Venezuela got some crumbs that were needed to pacify them - now it's no longer necessary to pacify them, so the crumbs stop falling. As they would if Maduro had won another term.
It doesn't automatically lead to higher living standards, but it does lead to a more stable economy. For one thing, short an actual global revolution, the working class will rely on trade to get goods from other areas. Things like dutch disease can make the purchasing power of workers too dependent on fluctuating oil prices, as we've seen Venezuela unable to pay for sufficient imports with oil prices at $50 or less.

Of course, there are other factors too, nobody is saying diversification alone will solve the problems, however it doesn't hurt.


Well, the smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to break with the legacy of Chavism and all other forms of petro-populism (a term I heard today and am determined to strong-arm into common usage now), presenting a coherent alternative to capitalism, no matter if it's "Bolivarian" or not.


Petro-populism is a good term


I've heard petrol-peronism before.

Also a good term ...


It's pretty obvious that Venezuela became far too reliant on oil to finance its economy. Pretty sad really because the 'socialist' government since the Venezuelan revolution did actually do a lot of good for its citizens, something a lot of people on here fail to recognise. The government missed a chance to consolidate that by diversifying their economy and now the country will fall to neo-liberalism.



You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.


I agree with both of these points - Chavez and Maduro talked a lot about this, but they never really got on it. I would remember sentimental fluff stories of these lovely little Venezuelan Potemkin Coops they would set up where, say, indigenous women farmers using a Belorussian tractor to crow maize and chocolate on land that had been taken from some aristocrat or British rancher. It was nice and lovely, and the people would smile and talk about how great the future looked. 5 years later and Venezuela is still importing corn and coffee, and I'm not exactly sure what happened to those lovely women or their little coop, of it they had just built that one and spent the rest of the money on some Sukhoi fighter bombers or laptops for 5 year olds.


Yep.
The problem wasn't that they failed to diversify, seem to me it's just another victim in Saudi Arabia's war against US shale.

Well, had they diversified their economy, they would not have been as damaged by the Saudi effort to swamp the oil market.

[logfish111]

You want a cake and eat it too. That good things that the government did were financed with petroleum revenue. Had they used petroleum export revenue to diversify the economy, they wouldn't have had the finances to fund social welfare and social missions -- and vice versa of course.


Well a long-term strategy to create a more stable economy over time would have been better for EVERYBODY involved rather than the course they pursued where they wanted to give everyone everything all at once while still running a capitalist economy, thus having the economy tank along with the oil prices. It's sad because, considering all its flaws, it was still a government which actually had a desire to help the people, whereas now they will get a government who will hand all that oil over to a few barons, and it will be squandered making a few people rich instead.

[Tim Cornelis]

What you propose, though, is that PSUV should have leaned into the will of capital, go with its logic, and rule according to capitalist logic. That makes sense perhaps when you rule a bourgeois state, as they did, but as revolutionary socialists.... less so. Because a "more stable economy" means facilitating a healthier rate of capital accumulation. This is incidentally what Bolivia did under socialist comrade Morales, and have ended up relaxing regulations for investment preconditions for foreign capital, and liberalised to an extent. So basically, neo-liberalism.

[Burzhuin]

What Chavez did wrong (even after counter-revolution coup of 2002) he preserve old government system. He got stack between Social-Democracy and Communism. That what I was referring to. And now we will see how counter-revolution wave will destroy everything PSUV government created.

[Antiochus]

The notion Chavez 'got stuck' is so utterly ridiculous. Chavez was never a revolutionary.

[VukBZ2005]

The notion Chavez 'got stuck' is so utterly ridiculous. Chavez was never a revolutionary.
That's being too pure. Chavez was a man forced into a more radical position precisely because of the willingness of the Venezuelan working people to go farther than the boundaries he established with his 1999 Constitution. In that sense, he was a revolutionary. If I could say that Chavez had a problem, it was that he wasn't truly willing to create the legal and economic foundations of Socialism.

[Burzhuin]

I think we have different understanding of a meaning "revolutionary". For some to come to this forum is ULTRAREVOLUTIONARY. I do not think Chavez, if he could be still alive, would come to this forum. He would not have time for it.

Actually, what do you think about Salvador Aliende? Was he a revolutionary?

[logfish111]

What you propose, though, is that PSUV should have leaned into the will of capital, go with its logic, and rule according to capitalist logic. That makes sense perhaps when you rule a bourgeois state, as they did, but as revolutionary socialists.... less so. Because a "more stable economy" means facilitating a healthier rate of capital accumulation. This is incidentally what Bolivia did under socialist comrade Morales, and have ended up relaxing regulations for investment preconditions for foreign capital, and liberalised to an extent. So basically, neo-liberalism.

I would've much preferred a true socialist state just like everyone else on this forum but if you are not willing to do that then you have to govern from reality otherwise you will crash and hand the keys over to someone a lot more dangerous.

However, I disagree with the idea that you must fully commit to neo-liberalism when ruling a bourgeois state in order to provide a socially and economically just society for its people. I do not see the situation as so black and white. Neo-liberalism is already starting to be recognised as a failure for the west both socially and economically within the capitalist structure, and it is only a matter of time before more sustainable, reformist ideas come to the fore. Although I agree with you that the unjust nature of capitalism will still exist, I believe the conditions will get better for the majority of people in society, and that has to count for something. Sitting around expecting some kind of revolution to happen when the support for it simply isn't there is just ludicrous, first you have to convince people that the basis of these ideas have value, and surely reformism is the way to do that?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Chavez never to my knowledge actually had a real plan to "build communism". Despite being the most radical of the "pink tide" leaders, he (like the rest) used the imagery and political capital of Guevarism and other cold-war Latin American communist movements, made it amenable to a social democratic system, and sought electoral power.


What you propose, though, is that PSUV should have leaned into the will of capital, go with its logic, and rule according to capitalist logic. That makes sense perhaps when you rule a bourgeois state, as they did, but as revolutionary socialists.... less so. Because a "more stable economy" means facilitating a healthier rate of capital accumulation. This is incidentally what Bolivia did under socialist comrade Morales, and have ended up relaxing regulations for investment preconditions for foreign capital, and liberalised to an extent. So basically, neo-liberalism.

This is true, but this appears to be a fundamental dilemma for 3rd world reformist socialists. Their societies lack the productive power to sustain relative autarky and they lack major economic and political backers (like the USSR of old), so to ensure not just development but economic sustainability they need access to foreign capital.

[Antiochus]

I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so.

The fact that abolition of private property is "purist" is really telling. I mean fuck, in 1945 Clement Attlee was calling for abolition of classes; what a revolutionary he was.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think Latin American social democrats do condemn capitalism and support socialism, but are always vague in what they mean by these terms.

They're not vague. If they even mention capitalism, they mean one specific kind of capitalism, to be abolished in favour of some other kind of capitalism. But it's not about the sounds people use, but what they mean. Latin American "socialists" of the Altamirano generation opposed capitalism, perhaps. They opposed it ineffectively, but when you read their work there is still the understanding that commodity production and private ownership is to be replaced by planning and production for need. Not so with modern Latin-American sots-dems or bourgeois-nationalist figures like Chavez and Morales.


It doesn't automatically lead to higher living standards, but it does lead to a more stable economy. For one thing, short an actual global revolution, the working class will rely on trade to get goods from other areas. Things like dutch disease can make the purchasing power of workers too dependent on fluctuating oil prices, as we've seen Venezuela unable to pay for sufficient imports with oil prices at $50 or less.

I think you're conflating several very distinct situations. Obviously goods circulate on a global scale today. Until the entire world is socialist, trade between the revolutionary area and the capitalist remnant is necessary (which is part of the reason why the revolutionary area can't be socialist in isolation). But we're not talking about that. Venezuela is not a workers' state. Venezuela is a bourgeois state, which had a bourgeois-nationalist government until a few days ago. When "Venezuela" has a favourable trade balance, this means that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie are doing well. It doesn't necessarily mean that the workers in Venezuela are doing well.


Of course, there are other factors too, nobody is saying diversification alone will solve the problems, however it doesn't hurt.

It doesn't hurt but we're not a consulting company, telling the bourgeoisie how to run capitalism is not something we should do.


What Chavez did wrong (even after counter-revolution coup of 2002) he preserve old government system. He got stack between Social-Democracy and Communism. That what I was referring to. And now we will see how counter-revolution wave will destroy everything PSUV government created.

The notion that one can be "stuck" between social-democracy and communism is bizarre. A socialist revolution means the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus. Did that happen in Venezuela? No.


That's being too pure. Chavez was a man forced into a more radical position precisely because of the willingness of the Venezuelan working people to go farther than the boundaries he established with his 1999 Constitution. In that sense, he was a revolutionary.

So? "In that sense", Peron was a revolutionary, as were Vargas, Allende, Batista, anyone else? A lot of people. None of which led the working class in the overthrow of the bourgeois state.


This is true, but this appears to be a fundamental dilemma for 3rd world reformist socialists. Their societies lack the productive power to sustain relative autarky and they lack major economic and political backers (like the USSR of old), so to ensure not just development but economic sustainability they need access to foreign capital.

No society has the productive power to sustain autarky; all autarky does is bring poverty and immiseration. And yes, bourgeois regimes can't bring their countries out of neo-colonial bondage and economic backwardness. This is more to do with the nature of the "national" bourgeoisie of such states and the development of the global productive forces than difficulty in accessing capital. The pipe dream of a bourgeois or "democratic" revolution in the imperialist periphery has been shown to be wrong time and again.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

They're not vague. If they even mention capitalism, they mean one specific kind of capitalism, to be abolished in favour of some other kind of capitalism. But it's not about the sounds people use, but what they mean. Latin American "socialists" of the Altamirano generation opposed capitalism, perhaps. They opposed it ineffectively, but when you read their work there is still the understanding that commodity production and private ownership is to be replaced by planning and production for need. Not so with modern Latin-American sots-dems or bourgeois-nationalist figures like Chavez and Morales.


What I'm saying is that they don't really articulate the specifics of what they mean by capitalism and by socialism. You are right that they don't define it in terms of commodity production and private property, but they don't really define it another way, either. I think this is so they can have their cake and eat it too - they can rhetorically use people's outrage at capitalism, while not actually building a real class conscious movement.



I think you're conflating several very distinct situations. Obviously goods circulate on a global scale today. Until the entire world is socialist, trade between the revolutionary area and the capitalist remnant is necessary (which is part of the reason why the revolutionary area can't be socialist in isolation). But we're not talking about that. Venezuela is not a workers' state. Venezuela is a bourgeois state, which had a bourgeois-nationalist government until a few days ago. When "Venezuela" has a favourable trade balance, this means that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie are doing well. It doesn't necessarily mean that the workers in Venezuela are doing well.
I don't disagree that Venezuela isn't a worker's state by any reasonable definition. However, it's also true that the kinds of economic crises created by over-dependence on one commodity may to impact working class communities more acutely than the bourgeoisie.



No society has the productive power to sustain autarky; all autarky does is bring poverty and immiseration. And yes, bourgeois regimes can't bring their countries out of neo-colonial bondage and economic backwardness. This is more to do with the nature of the "national" bourgeoisie of such states and the development of the global productive forces than difficulty in accessing capital. The pipe dream of a bourgeois or "democratic" revolution in the imperialist periphery has been shown to be wrong time and again.I agree about autarky, that's certainly not the goal. However, it's also true that more productive economies are less dependent on the global economy for access to critical resources, especially those which can be utilized for development, or those which are required for basic sustenance. The less goods which can be produced at home, the less you are dependent on trade with the capitalist world, and the less you need foreign currency to sustain a basic standard of living and development.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would've much preferred a true socialist state just like everyone else on this forum but if you are not willing to do that then you have to govern from reality otherwise you will crash and hand the keys over to someone a lot more dangerous.

However, I disagree with the idea that you must fully commit to neo-liberalism when ruling a bourgeois state in order to provide a socially and economically just society for its people. I do not see the situation as so black and white. Neo-liberalism is already starting to be recognised as a failure for the west both socially and economically within the capitalist structure, and it is only a matter of time before more sustainable, reformist ideas come to the fore. Although I agree with you that the unjust nature of capitalism will still exist, I believe the conditions will get better for the majority of people in society, and that has to count for something. Sitting around expecting some kind of revolution to happen when the support for it simply isn't there is just ludicrous, first you have to convince people that the basis of these ideas have value, and surely reformism is the way to do that?

Neo-liberalism is not a political choice. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks it's good or bad idea, whether it's preferable or not, it is imposed by structural forces known as globalisation. In the 1960s, new methods of transportation were developed and applied, that allowed for larger cargo to be shipped by boat and airplane. This enhanced the mobility of capital, as it could now move around the globe in search of more favourable and profitable conditions for production. It enhanced the bargaining power of capital. If labour demands more wages, more security, or whatever else, big capital can simply get up and leave to produce in South East Asia and ship the commodities back to Europe for cheaper. Neo-liberalism is nothing more than the political accommodation of the enhanced bargaining power of capital. And unless you remove the (material) basis for the enhanced bargaining power of capital (somehow destroy the technology and knowledge for large cargo transportation I suppose), neo-liberalism is here to stay.

It is recognised as a failure is it? By whom? Some isolated born again Keynesian populists, a relatively large segment of the population with no political power, I suppose, yes. But what has been done to undo it? Impose austerity, lower government spending, liberalise, privatise, deregulate, those things were used as measured to fight the economic crises. Hardly a recognition of neo-liberalism as a failure by the important people.

Reformism isn't the same as fighting for reforms.

[Burzhuin]

The notion that one can be "stuck" between social-democracy and communism is bizarre. A socialist revolution means the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus. Did that happen in Venezuela? No.
We are talking about the same as major mistake made by Chavez.

About "stuck". Do you believe that somebody was born communist, social-democrat, liberal, etc? I do not think so. I think people political believes are evolving, sometimes from right to left, sometimes in opposite direction. I do not think you would argue that Fidel Castro WAS NOT born with Communist Manifest in his hands.

[Emmett Till]

I think we have different understanding of a meaning "revolutionary". For some to come to this forum is ULTRAREVOLUTIONARY. I do not think Chavez, if he could be still alive, would come to this forum. He would not have time for it.

Actually, what do you think about Salvador Aliende? Was he a revolutionary?

Of course not. He was a reformist, with his "peaceful road to socialism." He had bourgeois politicians in his coalition government, and tried to clamp down whenever workers took his claims of socialism too seriously. Especially on the copper miners, key to the Chilean economy, whose strikes he broke, denouncing them as "counterrevolutionary" and letting the Communist Party ministers denounce them as "trotskyites." Which some of them were, the "Trotskyist revolutionary organization" of the late Mario Munoz played a leading role in the copper mine strikes.

And, of course, he appointed one Augusto Pinochet to be the head of the Chilean army. Now there was a revolutionary act!

[Burzhuin]

Of course not. He was a reformist, with his "peaceful road to socialism." He had bourgeois politicians in his coalition government, and tried to clamp down whenever workers took his claims of socialism too seriously. Especially on the copper miners, key to the Chilean economy, whose strikes he broke, denouncing them as "counterrevolutionary" and letting the Communist Party ministers denounce them as "trotskyites." Which some of them were, the "Trotskyist revolutionary organization" of the late Mario Munoz played a leading role in the copper mine strikes.

And, of course, he appointed one Augusto Pinochet to be the head of the Chilean army. Now there was a revolutionary act!
Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

[R.Rubinelli]

Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

It's not quite that simple. The UP government was a popular front government. Within that government there were left wing forces (usually in the Allende's Socialist Party) and right wing (definitely represented by the official Communist Party). The Radicals (a bourgeois formation) were essentially bit players in the UP coalition.

Allende believed, and UP was organized, in the principle that the "national bourgeoisie" and the "smaller bourgeoisie" could be separated from the "imperial" and "monopolistic" bourgeoisie, and "won over" to socialism, if socialism was established within the framework of the constitution and by democratic processes.

He, and the UP, were wrong, as any analysis of the actions of the Chilean bourgeoisie "national" and "international" will show. The economy, still being under the control of capital, international and national, tanked, after an initial upsurge during recovery from the 1969-70 recession. As the economy tanked, workers took actions on their owns to prevent lockouts, shutdowns, and to oppose the actual "general strike" by the bourgeoisie. The cordones, workers councils, successfully defeated the lockout of the bourgeoisie-- but through "extra-democratic" "extra-constitutional" means, as is always the case in revolutionary struggle.

This was unacceptable to Allende, and in particular the Communists, who denounced the cordones as "ultra-left" and "terrorist," and proceeded to work doggedly against the expansion of the class power that the cordones represented. The bourgeoisie, emboldened , began overt appeals to the military to intervene and disperse the socialists.

Allende, thinking he could count on Pinochet's "commitment" to the constitution made him head of the army and chief of staff. He was wrong.
Clearly.

That Allende has weakened the workers class organization was all the signal the bourgeoisie needed to dispose of the entire government and not just weaken, but crush the remnants of proletarian revolution. Hence Sept 11, 1973.

"Those who make revolutions half-way, merely dig their own graves."-- Saint-Just

[Emmett Till]

Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

Because he was a social democrat who advocated bourgeois democracy.

Why the coup? Well, why did so many German capitalists support Hitler's seizure of power against a truly thoroughly right wing and utterly capitalist government? Actually I'll tell you why, because in Germany, unlike Chile, the communist Party was rapidly gaining strength during the Great Depression, and capitalists feared that if Hitler did not come to power, Thaelmann would.

In Chile? Because although Allende was a reformist not a revolutionary, to carry out the utter crushing of the Chilean workers movement that his appointee Pinochet carried out was not possible under Allende.

The stuff you have written about many German workers supporting Hitler after he took power is true but misses the point. Hitler, don't you know, was a fascist. Anybody who didn't support Hitler after he came to power was in for a world of hurt. The number of *Aryan Germans* killed by Hitler for opposition, and especially for communism, is at least in the hundreds of thousands, some say over the million mark. Not everybody is brave.

[Burzhuin]

Yes, many of my comrades communists were imprisoned, many of whom like Ernst Thälmann were killed. I know from stories of my grandfather's brother, who survived in German concentration camps. Or better to say extermination camps. Actually I studied NSDAP history. You would be surprised but workers majority in NSDAP existed BEFORE Hitler was sworn as German kanzler. But the bravery of those German workers who fought Nazi government can be only praised and should be example to ANY TRUE COMMUNIST.

But I drifted away from the topic. My apologies. According to my knowledge Aliende's government drifted towards more social reforms than local reactionary opposition could tolerate. Besides Cuba's example was too fresh and too painful for American imperialists and Chilean Capitalists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where's the workers storming the party headquarters and rooting out the capitalist roaders and bolibourgeoisia within the bureaucracy and the PSUV? Where's the workers smashing the counterrevolutionary guarimberos, lumpenproletarian paramilitaries and their comprador-bourgeoisie backers? Setting up communes and seizing the means of production?

Problem was Chavismo depended too much on Chavez's charisma and working within the bourgeois-democratic state structure(which under modern capitalism can only be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), and not enough on the workers and poor peasantry, the majority who really should be running things and were actually the ones on the ground implementing the positive things. Once he was assassinated;)died of cancer, that was some big shoes that were hard to fill.

The PSUV and the Bolivarian Revolution didn't have a clear proletarian character and was not fully anti-imperialist by default. Venezuela is still a semi-colony, being heavily dependent on oil sales to the US. To an extent, that's beyond anyone's control, bar a violent revolution or great advancement in productive forces.

There was a middle "national" bourgeosie and a bureaucratic bourgeoisie heavily involved who supported it for purely patriotic, perhaps for some individual ideological reasons

The Bolivarian Revolution needed to become a Third World Caesarean Socialist revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1008).

1) I agree that both the "capitalist roaders" and the Boliburguesia need to be cast aside. How? Consider People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups (http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html), and other means.

2) However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.

3) The Venezuelan presidency as an institution was and is not politically strong enough. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html) It does not have all of these, and unfortunately they were not brought up during the 2007 referendum:

a) Assuming weak or semi-strong veto power, and not strong veto power, from Peru’s model, an exclusively executive ability to deal with legislature-defeated bills and vetoed bills, like those dealing with questions on war and peace, by holding referenda;
b) From the models of Brazil and Chile, an exclusive legislative initiative (reserved for the executive) in policy areas beyond just budget law and international trade affairs;
c) From Ecuador’s model, the ability to force legislatures to explicitly vote down, within a certain number of days (30 in Ecuador), bills submitted by the executive that have also been declared “urgent” (otherwise that bill automatically becomes law);
d) For the purposes of direct monetary and fiscal intervention, including the specific case of avoiding a US-style budget crisis initiated by a relatively stubborn legislature (a la Gingrich), from Colombia’s model, the ability to declare “economic emergency”; and
e) From the FDR era, but more extensive, the enforcement of political accountability in those courts dealing specifically with constitutional affairs (as opposed to typical criminal and civil cases) by means of of arbitrary "judiciary reorganization" and "court packing."

4) Also, where's the managed multi-party system (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html?p=2081055)?

More: People's Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html)

[piet11111]

Ceasarian revolution ?

Why have a strong man dictator instead of a proletarian revolution ?

[VukBZ2005]

However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.

The majority of Venezuelans aren't tied to the land. Hell, the urban percentage of population is 90%. Rather, the demographic problem Venezuela has in revolutionary terms is the plurality of people who are not in the formal economy at all. If we can apply class to that, it would have to be "Lumpen-proletarian".

[John Nada]

The Bolivarian Revolution needed to become a Third World Caesarean Socialist revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1008).Most seem to think the "Caesarean" part means have a Julius Caesar-like character launch a coup and impose reforms in the third-world as a serious revolutionary strategy. Does "Caesarean" mean "like Caesar" or a caesarean section to deliver a baby? As in an emergency way to deliver revolution earlier than expected(before having a sovereign country with developed capitalism, a proletarian majority and no the vestiges of feudalism or pre-capitalism), resulting in a revolutionary democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and other oppressed classes which will move on to DotP asap? Did anyone else ever ask this? Looked like only one or two other users viewed as a c-section rather a bourgeois strongperson.
1) I agree that both the "capitalist roaders" and the Boliburguesia need to be cast aside. How? Consider People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups (http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html), and other means.No insurrection? That's probably the most popular strategy outside of the electoral path. Not always the best one, but generally the image that comes to mind.
2) However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.How can the proletariat be a minority? Agriculture only employs less than 10%, though a few big landowners disproportionally own the vast majority of land. Most of them are probably rural proletarians, even if the semi-feudal landowners remain. Unemployment's 7.9% and 21.8% work in industry. Wealth's got the typical Latin American distribution.

If anything, Venezuela has a proletarian majority, or at least plurality with a significant semi-proletariat, that can be the leading and main force of a revolution. Maybe even higher percentage than the US. The national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are demographic minority prone to supporting capitalism anyway and basically keep things the same. It makes no sense for other classes to lead something they can't and won't do without the leadership of the proletariat.

I suspect what's called the "bolibourgeoisia" is actually comprised of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, pro-government comprador-bourgeoisie, pro-governenment landowners and the middle national bourgeoisie. The middle national-bourgeoisie(who'd be better viewed as national petit-bourgeoisie less it have images of local robber barons) are like the less secure local businesses or the intelligentsia such as in the entertainment industry. Bureaucratic bourgeoisie would be capitalists tied to state-industry, the ones who would support a Juan Peron-type that's common in Latin America. The comprador-bourgeoisie are the big capitalist such as in finance and imperialist/subimperialist(including BRICS) owned/subcontracted businesses.
3) The Venezuelan presidency as an institution was and is not politically strong enough. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html) It does not have all of these, and unfortunately they were not brought up during the 2007 referendum:

a) Assuming weak or semi-strong veto power, and not strong veto power, from Peru's model, an exclusively executive ability to deal with legislature-defeated bills and vetoed bills, like those dealing with questions on war and peace, by holding referenda;
b) From the models of Brazil and Chile, an exclusive legislative initiative (reserved for the executive) in policy areas beyond just budget law and international trade affairs;
c) From Ecuador's model, the ability to force legislatures to explicitly vote down, within a certain number of days (30 in Ecuador), bills submitted by the executive that have also been declared "urgent"; (otherwise that bill automatically becomes law);
d) For the purposes of direct monetary and fiscal intervention, including the specific case of avoiding a US-style budget crisis initiated by a relatively stubborn legislature (a la Gingrich), from Colombia's model, the ability to declare "economic emergency";; and
e) From the FDR era, but more extensive, the enforcement of political accountability in those courts dealing specifically with constitutional affairs (as opposed to typical criminal and civil cases) by means of of arbitrary "judiciary reorganization" and "court packing."f) Jam through a law for workers' councils http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11773 and establish workers' power. Now here's some motorcyclists which Die Neue Zeit is fond of. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Hundreds-of-Motorcyclist-Ride-in-Solidarity-with-Nicolas-Maduro-20151216-0024.html

Venezuela's a bureaucratic capitalist semi-colony(not neo-colony), capitalism developed under imperialism. This is the base, even if Chavez or Maduro honestly wants socialism and opposes imperialism(I'd like to think more Allende and less Peron, maybe wishful thinking).

In semi-colonies, the bureaucratic, comprador, landowning and national strata of the bourgeoisie fight, claim to oppose corruption, defend democracy, restore order, protect sovereignty or enact a bunch of populists measures. It swings from state-based populism for development that really serves the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, then neoliberalism justified by anti-corruption and "democracy" when the comprador-bourgeoisie wants to reign in inflation. Tailing any side of the bourgeoisie will lead to nowhere. A merry-go-round common in the 3rd-world, Latin America in particular. Almost exactly like Peruvian Marxist Mariategui described:https://www.marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1929-ai.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most seem to think the "Caesarean" part means have a Julius Caesar-like character launch a coup and impose reforms in the third-world as a serious revolutionary strategy. Does "Caesarean" mean "like Caesar" or a caesarean section to deliver a baby?

Definitely one, and perhaps both. Michael Parenti's biographical account of Julius Caesar dared to contradict the standard historians' view of him. Antonio Gramsci wrote, mistakenly, of "progressive Caesarism" and "reactionary Caesarism," when in fact there is only ever-progressive, Julian Caesarism and ever-reactionary Bonapartism.

A breakthrough military coup (a specific form of coup that isn't a guardian coup or other usual forms of coups) is only one avenue to power. Others include People's War (Mao) and Focoism (Che).


As in an emergency way to deliver revolution earlier than expected(before having a sovereign country with developed capitalism, a proletarian majority and no the vestiges of feudalism or pre-capitalism), resulting in a revolutionary democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and other oppressed classes which will move on to DotP asap?

More or less, but in my framework the proletarian demographic minority is *not* the ruling class. Nonetheless, a Third World Caesarean Socialism (TWCS) would grant class independence for the working class, organizationally speaking.


Did anyone else ever ask this? Looked like only one or two other users viewed as a c-section rather a bourgeois strongperson.

My framework for revolutionary strategy in the Third World suggests that proletarian demographic minorities should grow thick skin towards constitutionally uber-strong executive power that makes historical caudillos look like liberal democrats (hence why I combined those comparative Latin American executive powers specifically).

Such power, based on my links above, is by no means "bourgeois strongmanism," which precludes radical democratic components. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/julius-caesar-lost-t147255/index.html) If the new Julius Caesar repeating people's history is progressive but strong enough, his leadership should incorporate both the formal presidentialism of Josip Broz Tito and the long tenure of Todor Zhivkov.


No insurrection? That's probably the most popular strategy outside of the electoral path.

Isn't Focoism a form of insurrection? :confused:


How can the proletariat be a minority?

In the countryside, the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers outnumber proper farm workers. In the cities, there are way too many shopkeepers that one could lose count.


The national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are demographic minority prone to supporting capitalism anyway and basically keep things the same. It makes no sense for other classes to lead something they can't and won't do without the leadership of the proletariat.

The "national" bourgeoisie are prone to supporting capitalism. They must be swept aside. Mao's Bloc of Four Classes is downright wrong.

Meanwhile, the "national" petit-bourgeoisie, in fact, tend to support socialistic ideas earlier than the working class. Just look at Occupy, or the Cuban revolution (the strikes came after Focoist successes), or the Russian forerunners of the left-SRs - who predated the Russian Marxists.


I suspect what's called the "bolibourgeoisia" is actually comprised of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, pro-government comprador-bourgeoisie, pro-governenment landowners and the middle national bourgeoisie. The middle national-bourgeoisie(who'd be better viewed as national petit-bourgeoisie less it have images of local robber barons) are like the less secure local businesses or the intelligentsia such as in the entertainment industry. Bureaucratic bourgeoisie would be capitalists tied to state-industry, the ones who would support a Juan Peron-type that's common in Latin America. The comprador-bourgeoisie are the big capitalist such as in finance and imperialist/subimperialist(including BRICS) owned/subcontracted businesses.

But I'm not talking about the "national" bourgeoisie. On TWCS issues I stress only the "national" petit-bourgeoisie. I used the term pequena Boliburguesia to describe the socioeconomic patriots among Venezuela's small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, shopkeepers, etc.


Jam through a law for workers' councils http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11773 and establish workers' power.

That's premature under TWCS.


Now here's some motorcyclists which Die Neue Zeit is fond of. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Hundreds-of-Motorcyclist-Ride-in-Solidarity-with-Nicolas-Maduro-20151216-0024.html

You remember my chat discussion all too well and answered your own question from back then! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lumpenbourgeoisie-vs-national-t192939/index.html) :thumbup1:

This, in fact, is a perfect illustration of the pequena Boliburguesia organizing politically, a more leftist counterpart to Russia's Night Wolves.

Recall what I also said back then: I picked biker gangs as a generic petit-bourgeois example, because the average worker doesn't have a not-so-multipurpose motorbike, much less hang out with a biker gang.

[VukBZ2005]

In the countryside, the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers outnumber proper farm workers. In the cities, there are way too many shopkeepers that one could lose count.

Concerning the countryside, what you described does not matter because, demographically speaking, they are less than 11% of the population. That means their overall impact on class relations is relatively small.

Concerning the cities, what you described is more important, but not everyone in the formal economy is a shopkeeper. There are far more people that are either not in the formal economy or are in it but only in an underemployed form.

[Fire]

They should clean up their house, polish their image, and get right back in the fight. Keep pressure on the new people as an opposition party.

https://youtu.be/_Z5OookwOoY?t=1m6s

[Luís Henrique]

Many of those who voted for the opposition actually support the Bolivarian revolution but are dissatisfied with it's leadership and wish to send a message to Maduro.

What kind of message is this?

Seriously, one guy I know once told me he was voting for a right-wing candidate to send a message to the PT that it was betraying its (att. Tim Cornelis) principles. I told him, "well, then vote for the PSTU, perhaps, because voting for the DEM, supposing that the PT could hear your "message" from the ballot box, can only mean you are not betraying your principles enough".

Luís Henrique