Chavez

[Subversive Pessimist]

I practically know nothing about Chavez and his policies. What good/bad have Chavez done? What kind of ideology does his politics best identify with? Is he a socialist/Marxist?

Thanks

[redstar2000]

Chavez is a left-bourgeois populist reformer...and not any kind of socialist, much less a communist.

He's never expressed the slightest interest in changing the class nature of Venezuelan capitalism.

He does seem quite sincerely opposed to U.S. imperialism...and appears to have a vision of a Latin American "E.U." -- an economic/political union large enough to "stand up" to the American empire.

Nothing wrong with that...but it will still be capitalism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[percept¡on]

He's an old-fashioned Keynesian with a militant anti-imperialist twist.

He's probably what you'd get if you spliced Fidel Castro with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Louis Pio]

Well he's a populist but he has been forced left by the masses.
Talking about Venezuela Chavez is not the main point. The main point is the bolivarian circles, workers control and the fact that more and more see that capitalism can't provide for them.
This is what must be described as a revolutionary situation, now if Chavez becomes an obstacle he will most likely be removed by the masses.

[Revolt!]

Chavez forced left by the masses? The population is split in half by him. He gave them their constitution but the rich think he's trying to turn Venezuela communist. He also sacked all the oil chiefs on live television, funny stuff.

Look into the 'two day coup'.

[Louis Pio]

Chavez forced left by the masses? The population is split in half by him. He gave them their constitution but the rich think he's trying to turn Venezuela communist. He also sacked all the oil chiefs on live television, funny stuff.


Well it's more like split 70/30. His support has even gone up among the middleclass because his social reforms is starting to take effect. Also the behaviour of the "opposition" (gangsters is the correct word for them) has pushed people towards him.
So Chavez base is the poor and the workers and my point was that their massive support for him has pushed him left. Chavez had no intention of taking on big business at first, but he was forced too in order to carry through his reforms. If they hadn't been put in effect he would have no support. The question now is if he will take the neccessary steps to defeat the opposition, they have clearly shown they use violence and economic sabotage to get their way. Most other governments wouldn't accept such a behaviour.
Also what is crucial is what attitude he will take on the fact that dual power have started to emerge (bolivarian circles, neighborhood comitees etc) and what attitude he will take on the cases of workers seizing the factories. Also he need to carry through his promises of arming the people.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:37 AM
Chavez is a left-bourgeois populist reformer...and not any kind of socialist, much less a communist.

He's never expressed the slightest interest in changing the class nature of Venezuelan capitalism.

He does seem quite sincerely opposed to U.S. imperialism...and appears to have a vision of a Latin American "E.U." -- an economic/political union large enough to "stand up" to the American empire.

Nothing wrong with that...but it will still be capitalism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
this is a heavily simplistic analysis and one the does not stand up to scrutiny. I agree that Chavismo - in its present form - is not socialism and is not the solution for the latin american masses but it is wrong to suggest that he has never expressed the slightest interest n changing the class nature of venezuelan capialism. At a recent rally he even said that the left was wrong for having stopped talking about capitalism (which h described as a vile system or something) and talking instead about neoliberalism. I agree that his agenda does reek somewhat of wanting to build a kind of clean natioanl caitalism but as Teis said he his being pushed to the left

[redstar2000]

Well, Comrade Strawberry, here's a lesson for you...and one that might be profitably considered by others.

I've noticed over the decades that whenever a bourgeois politician begins to use "left rhetoric", a great many leftists put their critical thinking abilities on "hold" and instead begin to positively gush over "the hero of the hour" who's going to do "wonderful things" for us.

It's the "hope springs eternal" syndrome; the left may be too weak to make a revolution but "hey, this guy's going to do it for us!"

Wow, boys and girls, how about that! :huh:

No...that's not how it works. Bourgeois politicians (Chavez, Lula, Allende, Kirchner, etc.) do not "transcend" their class limitations. A paternalistic and bureaucratic social democracy that respects the rights of capitalist property is the best they can ever do...and most of the time, they don't even do that.

There may or may not be a genuine revolution in Venezuela in the near future (I wouldn't bet the rent money on it...but it's certainly not impossible). If there is such a revolution, it will be easily recognized by the fact that the working class itself seizes power and begins at once an all-out war against the bourgeoisie...smashing the bourgeois state-apparatus, expropriating capitalist property without compensation, dismantling the armed forces and forming a popular militia, etc.

We know what real revolutions look like...there's nothing like that happening yet in Venezuela.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Reuben]

I fail to see how allendes chile was a paternalistic social democracy that respected the rights of capitalist property. The key problem in chile was essentially one of method.

I agree very much that we should not accept Chavez as the hero of the hour and that trend is a very real trend particularly in the post cold war world when we are desperately looking for signs of hope ( i also think that the love affair with the zapatistas is fairly ridiculous). However i do not believe that we should have such limited expectations of the bolivarian revolution. It is worth looking at the path castro took 1959-61 to see how an initially bourgoir politician can be pushed by events and the masses

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:46 PM
No...that's not how it works. Bourgeois politicians (Chavez, Lula, Allende, Kirchner, etc.) do not "transcend" their class limitations. A paternalistic and bureaucratic social democracy that respects the rights of capitalist property is the best they can ever do...and most of the time, they don't even do that.
Whoa! Allende did transcend class limitations and certainly did not respect the Capitalist property. He used a slight loophole in the constitution to take control of US businesses, the copper industry and other businesses and re-distributed them amongst the working class. Why do you think the bourgeois hated him so much? Because his reign would ultimately destroy them. The people got a new sort of revolutionary spirit under Allende and when Fidel Castro visited Chile in 1971 he was greated with much joy and respect by the Chilean people. Allende's reforms horrified the bourgeois, the roman catholic church and all of the oppressing class.

Chavez seems to genuinly want to help the proletariat in Venezuela and seems intent on doing so. He is very anti-imperialism and pro-castro. I haven't seen his reforms go to half of the level of Allende's, but Chavez seems like a decent fellow. But, people looking for hope in the world need to look no further than the nations of Colombia, Peru, Nepal, India and Turkey where comrades are taking up arms against their oppressors.

[percept¡on]

These kids see one anti-american populist with leftist tendencies and some balls and think the guy's ushering in the revolution.


Show me one economic policy of Chavez that is further left than Franklin Roosevelt.

He is a liberal capitalist, a Keynesian, and while that may appear like hardcore leftism next to the neoliberal insanity that is plaguing the third world (esp. Latin America), it's still to the right of the welfare states of Scandinavia so don't get your hopes up. If anything Chavez's redistribution and political integration efforts will defuse the revolutionary situation. If he is recalled or tossed in a coup that's your best bet for a revolution.

I admire the guy for standing up to America but get off his nuts.

I blame Marxist.com, they've been hyping Chavez and painting him as a commie for years.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:17 PM
It is worth looking at the path castro took 1959-61 to see how an initially bourgoir politician can be pushed by events and the masses...
...into a 'socialist' dictator.

How inspiring.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 30 2004, 07:05 AM
These kids see one anti-american populist with leftist tendencies and some balls and think the guy's ushering in the revolution.


Show me one economic policy of Chavez that is further left than Franklin Roosevelt.

He is a liberal capitalist, a Keynesian, and while that may appear like hardcore leftism next to the neoliberal insanity that is plaguing the third world (esp. Latin America), it's still to the right of the welfare states of Scandinavia so don't get your hopes up. If anything Chavez's redistribution and political integration efforts will defuse the revolutionary situation. If he is recalled or tossed in a coup that's your best bet for a revolution.

I admire the guy for standing up to America but get off his nuts.

I blame Marxist.com, they've been hyping Chavez and painting him as a commie for years.
if you actually go to Marxcist.com they are not hyping chavez nor painting him as a commie. They have consistently criticized chavez for not advancing further the revolution and for leaving the ruling class in control of the economy etc.

What is sisgnificant in venezuela is not so much what chavez is doing - although as i said earlier it would be wrong to simply deride him as a nationalist and moreover i do not believe that roosevelt established agricultural co-operatives or that such moves ere simply keyensian.
What is significant is that a situation has arisen in venezuela in whcih demands are being put forward by the masses which indicate a new mood and have the pontentil to radically change venezuellan society. Witness the new trade union - far more democratic than the old whose programme contains demands for Nationalisation of the Banks. Workers' occupation of closed down factories under workers' control. No payment of the foreign debt. A 36-hour working week. Creation of new companies, under workers management.

hile these are not revolutionary demands, when such demands are made by a mass based trade union confederation it is undoubted indicative of a new mood sweeping society.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 30 2004, 07:07 AM
...into a 'socialist' dictator.

How inspiring.
I was not holding up castro as an inspiring example, i was simply responding to redstar's specific point about otensibly bourgoir social democrats never transcending their class position. While the dictatorship in cuba is far from ideal, the ituation that emerged 1959-1961 sees to contradictRedstar's anaylsis of the potential of the bolivarian revolution.

Is that ok or am i being a 'kid' who thinks chavez is a commie?

[Louis Pio]

blame Marxist.com, they've been hyping Chavez and painting him as a commie for years.

Unfortunaly for you that is not true. As Reuben has already pointed out. We however do get allot of attacks from the sects because we do work in Venezuela.
There's a new article on the subject, now the good thing about getting attacked by different sects is that you know you are on the right path then. We have always criticised and pointed a way forward. What else does people want? That we should take up the secterian way of criticising? You know scream hysterically so nobody listens?

Foxes and Grapes - Sectarian stupidity and the Venezuelan revolution (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/foxngrapeslatest.html)


There may or may not be a genuine revolution in Venezuela in the near future (I wouldn't bet the rent money on it...but it's certainly not impossible). If there is such a revolution, it will be easily recognized by the fact that the working class itself seizes power and begins at once an all-out war against the bourgeoisie...smashing the bourgeois state-apparatus, expropriating capitalist property without compensation, dismantling the armed forces and forming a popular militia, etc.


The problem here Redstar is that you for some reason don't operate with the term a revolutionary situation. What is a revolutionary situation? It is when the mass of people enter active politics and try to change their own faith activily. This is what is happening in Venezuela. For some reason many people only focus on Chavez. They fail to analyse what is going on in Venezuelan society. The bolivarian circles, neighboorhoodcomitees. And the fact that the mass of workers and poor has defeated several coups.
A good article on the subject: Marxists and the Venezuelan Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/marxists_and_venezuela.html)

And Theses on revolution and counterrevolution in Venezuela - Part One (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/theses__revolution_venezuela.html)

Theses on revolution and counterrevolution in Venezuela - Part Two (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/theses_revolution_venezuela2.html)



What is significant is that a situation has arisen in venezuela in whcih demands are being put forward by the masses which indicate a new mood and have the pontentil to radically change venezuellan society. Witness the new trade union - far more democratic than the old whose programme contains demands for Nationalisation of the Banks. Workers' occupation of closed down factories under workers' control. No payment of the foreign debt. A 36-hour working week. Creation of new companies, under workers management.


Exactly Reuben, exellent point. This is the crux of the problem.

[redstar2000]

Whoa! Allende did transcend class limitations...

Allende did not dissolve the bourgeois army and arm the Chilean working class.

Q.E.D.


It is worth looking at the path Castro took 1959-61 to see how an initially bourgeois politician can be pushed by events and the masses...

It is indeed. The open hostility of U.S. imperialism towards perfectly "ordinary" agrarian reform convinced Castro and other leading members of the 26th of July Movement that "their only hope" was material support from the USSR...and the best way to "nail down" that support was to adopt the mechanisms and rhetoric of USSR-style socialism.

The masses were never consulted on this decision...and the consequence was that Cuba became a kind of "neo-colony" of the USSR. Perhaps that was inevitable...Cuba was simply too small and too under-developed to avoid being someone's colony.

But even the use of Marxist rhetoric cannot be a substitute for proletarian revolution.

Chavez and Venezuela have no USSR to appeal to...so there's nothing to be gained by Marxist rhetoric in their case. Again, as I noted earlier, Chavez and his top advisers seem to desire a Latin American version of the E.U. -- an "economic bloc" large enough to "make a better deal" with U.S. imperialism.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that...but it's neither socialism nor communism.


The problem here, Redstar, is that you, for some reason, don't operate with the term a revolutionary situation. What is a revolutionary situation? It is when the mass of people enter active politics and try to change their own faith [fate?] actively.

The question at the beginning of the thread, if you'll recall, was about Chavez...and I answered it. From what I can tell, your Mr. Woods agrees with me so I don't see why you don't also agree with me.

I frankly do not pretend to know whether there is "a revolutionary situation" in Venezuela or not; I don't read Spanish and I don't know anyone who lives there and is active in the Bolivarian circles.

As a matter of principle, I am opposed to U.S. imperialism in all countries...so I'm not required to issue Venezuela a "certificate of socialist authenticity" in order to support their resistance to imperialism.

Apparently Mr. Woods' particular variety of Trotskyism has some degree of public influence in Venezuela, providing sufficient reason for his enthusiasm over the course of events there. That's understandable.

But, as I noted earlier, there are many examples in history of left-bourgeois populist reformers gaining the enthusiastic support of "Marxists"...only to see it all crumble into disillusionment and despair and, of course, "betrayal". I put the world "betrayal" in quotes because a bourgeois politician is not guilty of treason against a proletarian revolution he never intended to make.

My suspicion is that you have a heavy emotional investment in the outcome of events in Venezuela...but your "bonds" are not "investment grade", if you catch my meaning.

Most likely, they're "junk".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Louis Pio]

The question at the beginning of the thread, if you'll recall, was about Chavez...and I answered it. From what I can tell, your Mr. Woods agrees with me so I don't see why you don't also agree with me.


Ok I misunderstood you then. I was looking at the question from a more broad angle instead of reducing it to Chavez.


I frankly do not pretend to know whether there is "a revolutionary situation" in Venezuela or not; I don't read Spanish and I don't know anyone who lives there and is active in the Bolivarian circles.


Well you should start going to some public meetings about the situation then. Here we have had several people from Venezuela to speak on the subject. And the Venezuelans in the crowd agreed, unless they supported the rightwing.
Here's a description from a guy who went there Impressions of a Revolution (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/impressions_of_a_revolution.html)
Also you could watch the BBC documentary "The revolution will not be televised"


But, as I noted earlier, there are many examples in history of left-bourgeois populist reformers gaining the enthusiastic support of "Marxists"...only to see it all crumble into disillusionment and despair and, of course, "betrayal". I put the world "betrayal" in quotes because a bourgeois politician is not guilty of treason against a proletarian revolution he never intended to make.


Indeed. It's trap many people fall into.


My suspicion is that you have a heavy emotional investment in the outcome of events in Venezuela...but your "bonds" are not "investment grade", if you catch my meaning.


I actually don't get the meaning.
Now the reason Venezuela is so important is that what happens there will have a heavy influence on the rest of Latin America. All over Latin America people are disattisfied and has no hopes in capitalism. As a marxist I would like a socialist revolution, as should you.


Most likely, they're "junk".


Oh my...
Better than viewing things from ones easy chair.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Chavez is our average south American populist centrist/welfare/regulated capitalism/Keynesian/"centre-left" anti-imperialist nationalist semi-dictator.

Not that "revolutionary" is you ask me.

[redstar2000]

Now the reason Venezuela is so important is that what happens there will have a heavy influence on the rest of Latin America. All over Latin America people are dissatisfied and have no hopes in capitalism. As a marxist I would like a socialist revolution, as should you.

Indeed, I would "like" a proletarian revolution in Venezuela very much...or anyplace else, for that matter.

Unfortunately, history does not arrange itself according to our "likes". As Marxists, we should develop "a clear eye" and see what things really are...not just what they may "call themselves".

Revolutionaries are particularly prone, it seems to me, to "errors of unjustified optimism" -- starting with Marx and Engels themselves. It's understandable and perhaps even unavoidable...we both "want" and "expect" history to move "in our direction" that we "see" that "happening"...even when it isn't.

I think we should be exceptionally skeptical and vigilant when there are political forces that adopt leftist pretenses as verbal concessions to the masses.

One may enjoy transient gains in popularity by supporting such forces...but the political "hang-over" is awful!


Better than viewing things from one's easy chair.

At my age, alas, it's the best I can do. :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Louis Pio]

Revolutionaries are particularly prone, it seems to me, to "errors of unjustified optimism" -- starting with Marx and Engels themselves. It's understandable and perhaps even unavoidable...we both "want" and "expect" history to move "in our direction" that we "see" that "happening"...even when it isn't.

I think we should be exceptionally skeptical and vigilant when there are political forces that adopt leftist pretenses as verbal concessions to the masses.


Yes I agree. But the whole point here is that of the Venezuelan masses. The people who can make a revolution. They have defeated several coups, and have build bodies resembling Soviets. Also among the most advanced layers, wokerscontrol is being discussed as something concrete and not just something abstract. Also people are moving fast to the left, because they learn by being a part of the movement. People are picking up marxist ideas fast, this is a situation were either we will have a succesfull socialist revolution or the venezuelan masses will face grim reaction. Now in a situation like this it is a crime for people claiming to be marxists to still cling to the textbook as a substitute for revolutionary work. In Venezuela it means work in bolivarian circles, unions etc. And in the rest of the world solidarity work helping to defend venezuela gainst imperialism.

Sceptisism is ok, but when taken to the extreme it becomes defeatism.

[Palmares]

Chavez is obviously not 'communist/socialist', but his ways are certainly a step in the ... left direction.

I reccommend watching "The Revolution will not be televised" and another doco about Chavez/Venezuela which is coming out soon (which is about his policies, as opposed to the two day coup from the other doco).

[chebol]

Chavez claims NOT to be a Marxist. Nevertheless, when engaged as an officer training the venezuelan army (most of whom are from lower class and economic backgrounds), some of the texts he included in the curriculum were Marx and Engels. From the support he gathered in this time came the initial kernel of Chavez's MVR.

Chavez also claims the revolution (and whether you like it or not, what is happening in Venezuela IS a revolution- it might be more useful to bicker about what KIND of revolution it is that has such levels of popular support, input and control as are current- and evolving- in Venezuela) is not a communist one. Venezuela is not experiencing 'communism' by any means, but when Chavez says "some might call what we have here in Venezuela socialism, some might simply call it democracy, others might even call it Christianity- here in Venezuela we call it Bolivarianism" (apologies, this is a rendering from memory, rather than a direct quote); WHAT DOES HE MEAN?
Is it simply a bourgeois revolution? Then why the referenda, recall mechanisms, popular organisation into revolutionary defense groups (circulos bolivarianos), and the recent call to the venzuelan people that they learn how to use firearms in order to defend the revolution?
Rhetoric designed to shore up a power base? Perhaps. This argument is the same as that run by The Economist magazine, which accuses Chavez of "bribing" the Venezuelan people to vote for him by providing health care, housing, education, hospitals, roads, and land redistribution. Quite a valid criticism, if you are so sceptical of democracy that you cannot imagine the popular and constructive input of the majority, the working classes, in the political process.
In short, little more than cynicism.

I don't KNOW if Chavez is a Marxist or not- anyhow, the term seems to have a very broad meaning these days. I personally have very strong doubts- both ways.

But as has already been mentioned, Chavez, to an increasing extent, is ceasing to be the determining principle in the "chavista" movement or the 'bolivarian revolution'.
(While this is true, Chavez' death now would be a shattering blow to the process, and may have catastrophic effects. This is not entirely due to Chavez alone- during the "36 hour presidency", many key leaders of the revolution, at many levels, were disappeared or murdered. Unfortunately, a strong leader is still a necessary part of the process- a process which is actively working to remove such a need. If Chavez were to become a snag on the process, it is quite likely he would be removed- but it might cause a split in the movement. The levels of support for Chavez are of a differential nature- perhaps 30-40% could be said to be Chavistas, maybe 30% to be anti-chavistas, and the rest, 30-40%, are either conditional supporters of Chavez, or are "ni-ni"s - 'neither-nor's. Chavez still needs the support of this central layer to maintain his government and it's revolutionary reforms, while also supporting the organisation of the poorer and working classes.)

The organic (and government aided) organising within the working class and union movement; the gradual reawakening of the 'old', 'new' and 'middle-aged' left in Venezuela; the spontaneous yet peaceful uprisings of 2002 and 1989; the liberation of factories and warehouses from their bosses by the workers, with the aid of the army- who are in most ways another part of the working class and it's communities. All of these point toward something.

To make flippant comparisons of Chavez with a handful of present and past Latin American leaders really misses the point- and the complex nuances that make the Venezuelan society that is being born what it is. Despite even some of the close analogies that can be made, Chavez is not a Lula, nor a Peron, nor even an Allende.

Redstar seems to think we KNOW what revolutions look like. Well, which particular bits of the BOLIVARIAN revolution makes it less of a revolution (or incipient revolution) and *simply* a reform? I would humbly suggest that we think we know what revolutions OUGHT to look like, and, unless we are careful, history could catch us with a dialectical broadside. There is this horrible niggle in my mind that Chavez (at least), if not a lot of leading chavistas (those who are from the former parties of the left in Venezuela), are trying to do some kind of 'internal revolution' (they use the term inclusive a fair bit)- stretching the bourgeois democratic and economic framework as far as it will go until it snaps - rather than organising externally to the superstructure in order to 'smash' it. This might be wishful (or not) thinking, and there is no guarantee it would succeed either.
Redstar does make a useful point, however, in saying there is no use for marxist rhetoric. This is both right, and wrong. There is, of course, a use, and need, for Marxist rhetoric and analysis, if you are trying to build an explicitly marxist revolution. There is less need for it (at a presidential level at least), if you are trying to create an 'implicitly' Marxist revolution- which can then progress to an explicit, openly revolutionary stage.

Hell, I don't KNOW what Chavez thinks he's up to- I can only surmise off the evidence.

The most important point to make, then, is not to simply disregard the bolivarian experience or Chavez, but to study it, and to conditionally (at the very least) support it. If Chavez is not Marxist, then there are others in Venezuela who are, who can, and are, working with the people as they create their own revolution within venezuela. But to not support the progressive process that is in Venezuela, and, for now, it's leadership, even critically, is to fall prey to the other side of the class divide, and fight alongside Imperialism.

For soe more info, you might want to try:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.vheadline.com
just for starters.

Oh, and Castro wasn't "pushed" left. He was a convinced Marxist for years before the triumph over Batista- although this is a fact many on the left find hard to concede- or understand.

Hope some of that made sense- I've been up working since 6 am, and it is now nearly 1 am.

el chebol

[bunk]

well according to the History channel Castro was a nationalist accompanied mostly by communists ( Raul and Che ) Castro had to label his revolution communist to get help from the USSR.

[Louis Pio]

That's my impression too. I don't think he was a convinced marxist. Then he was hiding it deliberately and as marx said communists do not hide their views. Castro had meetings with bankers were he told them he was not gonna medle with their interests. Well this was offf topic.

Chebol I think your post is good, especially this is the important:

The most important point to make, then, is not to simply disregard the bolivarian experience or Chavez, but to study it, and to conditionally (at the very least) support it. If Chavez is not Marxist, then there are others in Venezuela who are, who can, and are, working with the people as they create their own revolution within venezuela. But to not support the progressive process that is in Venezuela, and, for now, it's leadership, even critically, is to fall prey to the other side of the class divide, and fight alongside Imperialism.

[redstar2000]

...this is a situation where either we will have a successful socialist revolution or the Venezuelan masses will face grim reaction. Now in a situation like this it is a crime for people claiming to be marxists to still cling to the textbook as a substitute for revolutionary work.

How do you know that the alternatives are socialist revolution or grim reaction?

Please spare me the "dialectical mysticism" -- I would like to see some real evidence of those "soviet-style" bodies and some indication of how much real power they actually have.

Thus far, it looks to me like a "neo-bourgeois" revolution (to coin a phrase)...the mobilization of mass support to overthrow the old Venezuelan elite and install a new one. If successful, the outcome would be a Latin American "Sweden"...more "colorful" if somewhat less "efficient".

I repeat again: there's nothing wrong with that.

But it's not communism.


Chavez also claims the revolution...is not a communist one.

I agree with him.


...but when Chavez says "some might call what we have here in Venezuela socialism, some might simply call it democracy, others might even call it Christianity- here in Venezuela we call it Bolivarianism"...WHAT DOES HE MEAN?

It means he wants to side-step any real questions about the class nature of Venezuelan society.


Is it simply a bourgeois revolution? Then why the referenda, recall mechanisms, popular organisation into revolutionary defense groups (Circulos Bolivarianos), and the recent call to the Venezuelan people that they learn how to use firearms in order to defend the revolution?

We forget that in the mid-19th century, the European bourgeoisie also contained its militant and radical democratic elements.

What has been missing thus far is a direct challenge to the institution of private property itself.

If that happens, then you've got something.


This argument is the same as that run by The Economist magazine, which accuses Chavez of "bribing" the Venezuelan people to vote for him by providing health care, housing, education, hospitals, roads, and land redistribution. Quite a valid criticism, if you are so sceptical of democracy that you cannot imagine the popular and constructive input of the majority, the working classes, in the political process. In short, little more than cynicism.

The Economist is worthy of close attention from Marxists -- Marx himself used it whenever he wanted to discuss serious and authoritative ruling class opinion. (I can't afford it, unfortunately, it's about $130 a year!)

They are not being "cynical" -- they understand bourgeois elections far more clearly than most lefties (unfortunately!). To the bourgeoisie, a "free election" is one that can be bought. The Economist's gripe with Chavez is that he is out-bidding the old Venezuelan elite.


I don't KNOW if Chavez is a Marxist or not...

...but you HOPE so, right?


But as has already been mentioned, Chavez, to an increasing extent, is ceasing to be the determining principle in the "chavista" movement or the 'bolivarian revolution'.

Again, this appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part. Has a Marxist understanding of class society emerged from the Bolivarian Circles? Are there significant popular demands to overthrow the bourgeois order?


Chavez still needs the support of this central layer to maintain his government and its revolutionary reforms, while also supporting the organisation of the poorer and working classes.

I don't think there is any such thing as a "revolutionary reform"...and I suspect such notions are at the root of the rather confused view of Chavez expressed in this thread.

There are such things as real proletarian revolutions and they are easy to spot...nothing in bourgeois politics looks anything like them.

It's certainly possible that one will take place in Venezuela...but I see few signs of that thus far.


The organic (and government aided) organising within the working class and union movement, etc..... All of these point toward something.

It's hard to disagree with that...everything "points towards something".

Towards what, is the question.


To make flippant comparisons of Chavez with a handful of present and past Latin American leaders really misses the point- and the complex nuances that make the Venezuelan society that is being born what it is. Despite even some of the close analogies that can be made, Chavez is not a Lula, nor a Peron, nor even an Allende.

"Complex nuances" is another one of those "universal phrases" that can stand for any meaning at any time.

No sensible person denies that every historical process has its "unique" features; but is Venezuela that unique?


Redstar seems to think we KNOW what revolutions look like. Well, which particular bits of the BOLIVARIAN revolution makes it less of a revolution (or incipient revolution) and *simply* a reform?

No organs of direct working class power have appeared; no significant dispossession of the bourgeoisie has taken place; the professional army and police forces have not been dispersed; the prisons have not been emptied; etc., etc., etc.

"Incipient revolution"? I've already agreed that such may be the case...but you guys are breaking out the champagne in the middle of the third inning.


There is this horrible niggle in my mind that Chavez (at least), if not a lot of leading chavistas (those who are from the former parties of the left in Venezuela), are trying to do some kind of 'internal revolution' (they use the term inclusive a fair bit)- stretching the bourgeois democratic and economic framework as far as it will go until it snaps...

Wouldn't that be clever of them? However, the bourgeois "framework" has already "snapped" twice -- the coup and the subsequent "general lockout" -- and the "radical chavistas" have yet to respond. Had they been serious about a revolutionary alternative, either occasion would have served to introduce "draconian" measures to smash the old ruling class.

I don't think that's a "horrible niggle"...it's just more wishful thinking.


But to not support the progressive process that is in Venezuela, and, for now, its leadership, even critically, is to fall prey to the other side of the class divide, and fight alongside imperialism.

An old and incorrect idea on the left...that we must "support" (even "critically") anybody who is an enemy of U.S. imperialism.

Our communist obligation is to oppose our own ruling class and its imperial ambitions no matter who its enemies around the world may be.

It's a negative thing, not a positive thing.

I didn't support the Taliban (not even "critically") in Afghanistan, I opposed U.S. imperialism when they invaded that country. I didn't support the Hussein despotism in Iraq, I opposed U.S. imperialism when they invaded that country.

We must oppose "our own" ruling class first.

That's fundamental!

Now, as to what we support: my view is that we should support proletarian resistance to capitalism wherever it actually exists. Marxist rhetoric (much less populist rhetoric) is not a substitute for actual existence.

Naturally, in the next wave of real proletarian revolutions, we should actively support them...or, better still, take part in one of them.

If there is a real proletarian revolution in Venezuela, terrific! If there are Marxist revolutionaries in Venezuela who work inside the bolivarian circles or the new trade unions with that perspective, then I support them.

But for the moment, "Hands Off Venezuela!" seems an appropriate response.


Oh, and Castro wasn't "pushed" left. He was a convinced Marxist for years before the triumph over Batista-although this is a fact many on the left find hard to concede-or understand.

Yes, the reason that we find that "hard to concede or understand" is that it utterly lacks credibility.

Shortly after the Cuban revolution, Castro actually visited Washington, D.C., where he was briefed on the "communist threat" in Cuba and said that he was "well aware of the danger" and would not let the Cuban revolution "be taken over".

Was he just being a really clever liar...or was he telling the simple truth? Certainly there's nothing at all "Marxist" about his famous "History Will Absolve Me" speech.

I think the evidence is pretty clear. The hostility of Washington to even modest bourgeois agrarian reform shoved Castro into the arms of the USSR.

If I'm not mistaken, Chavez visited China a short time ago. A straw in the wind?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:17 PM
It is worth looking at the path castro took 1959-61 to see how an initially bourgoir politician can be pushed by events and the masses
There's one not-so-small difference. There was a revolution in Cuba. The state had been smashed, esp the old army.

This was done under the leadership of petty-bourgeois revolutionary nationalists - not bourgeois nationalists - who were unusual in that they were consistent in carrying out their program.

The Cuban revolutionary leadership had a program of land reform, anti-imperialism, etc. which they were determined to carry out. It wasn't a socialist program. But they meant it.

The actions of the Cuban revolutionary leadership were to the left of their words...quite the opposite of most pseudo-revolutionary demagogues, including Chavez.

In contrast, Chavez has been very hesitant. In carrying out his land reform program, for example. Working people have been pushing him every step of the way, carrying out land occupations, etc.

He may be pushed farther left...by the attacks of the U.S. as well as pressure from working people. "Every revolution needs from time to time the whip of the counterrevolution to drive it forward." But there's no historical precedent for someone like Chavez becoming the opposite of what he is: a bourgeois politician.

And, I might add, one with a certain Bonapartist streak, who's taken antilabor measures in the past.

None of which diminishes in the least the importance of the mass actions and mass radicalization taking place in Venezuela today. It's just that for communists, the issue can't be Chavista vs anti-Chavista, rather workers vs bosses.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:12 AM
Thus far, it looks to me like a "neo-bourgeois" revolution (to coin a phrase)...the mobilization of mass support to overthrow the old Venezuelan elite and install a new one. If successful, the outcome would be a Latin American "Sweden"...more "colorful" if somewhat less "efficient".
That's not really an option. Capitalism can no longer afford that kind of welfare state in Sweden, let alone in Venezuela. Your error here is overestimating the progressive potential of present-day capitalism, particularly in the semi-colonial countries. Even those in this thread who have illusions in Chavez, are right against you in recognizing that Venezuela must either go the way of Cuba or of Chile (broadly speaking, not mechanical copying of models.)

Venezuela has been ruled a social-democratic party in the past, BTW...Chavez first became famous for leading an attempted coup against a social-democratic president, Carlos Andres Perez. Perez had imposed IMF policies and sent soldiers and cops to gun down large numbers of working people protesting against them. That's about as much social democracy as is possible in Latin America today. See the policies being followed by da Silva in Brazil, also.

[Louis Pio]

How do you know that the alternatives are socialist revolution or grim reaction?


That seems most plausible. Let's take Chile as an example, in order for Pinochets dictatorship to triumph they had to strike down hard on the working class. All the reforms were taken away, people put to jail and living conditions smashed.
The same thing could happen in Venezuela, when the coup against Chavez was made the new Pedro Carmona government took away all of the reforms. And Chavez supporters/leftwing people were chased in the streets with guns, I know a guy this happened for. Now the masses of workers and poor wouldn't stand for that so they actually reinstated Chavez by using mass mobilisations. The bourgiosie of Venezuela is not stupid, so they need to strike a severe blow against his supporters.


Please spare me the "dialectical mysticism" -- I would like to see some real evidence of those "soviet-style" bodies and some indication of how much real power they actually have.


And please spare me your crap. You have every oppotunity to get this knowlegde. So drop chasing cheap debating points and look into the subject. Other people can and I highly doubt you have reading problems so just go ahead.


Thus far, it looks to me like a "neo-bourgeois" revolution (to coin a phrase)...the mobilization of mass support to overthrow the old Venezuelan elite and install a new one. If successful, the outcome would be a Latin American "Sweden"...more "colorful" if somewhat less "efficient".


There is one problem with your argument here. Not even such a society would be allowed by the Venezuelan bourgiosie and oligarchs. I think they have already showed that. They use violence and economic sabotage against even the smallest reforms. This obviously has an effect on the mind of the people who supports Chavez. More and more people want him to strike a severe blow against those people. Taking their companies and nationalising them under workers control. So people are learning by experience, moreover they are open to marxist ideas. So on the one hand we have the bourgiosie that won't allow even small reforms and on the other side we have the mass of people learning by experience. The task of marxists here is to step in and raise people's consciousness. Not an impossible task in Venezuela. Also people have been involved in the process from the start. And are getting more and more tired of the reformist leaders in the top, who won't go further. So your rant about a new ruling elite seems to come from the fact that you haven't bothered to look into the situation.


I repeat again: there's nothing wrong with that.


Yes there is. I live in one of the socalled scandinavian wellfare states. And every were people is under attack, social security getting smashed and so on. Reformist states like this have to follow the logic of capitalism. Which means downsizing, working faster for less etc. Capitalism cannot afford these reforms anymore! I dunno why you have this mythical view on Sweden.


Again, this appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part. Has a Marxist understanding of class society emerged from the Bolivarian Circles? Are there significant popular demands to overthrow the bourgeois order?


Well take a look.
Revolutionary assembly prepares referendum battle (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/venez_maisanta0604.html)

The defeat of the bosses lock out and the sabotage of the oil industry deepens the revolutionary process in Venezuela (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/venezuela_JM_0203eng.html)

So we have the advanced layers drawing far reaching conclusions. The task of marxists in this situation must be to build links with these people. And this is already being done. That is obviously a good base for building on.
But I take it you have build your image on being sceptic to the point were it darkens your outlook? It seems that way

Now you will probably not even listen to me. Even though I had the oppotunity to meet both Venezuelan marxists and more ordinary Venezuelans and discussed this with them. People are moving to the left and are open to marxist ideas. That is indeed the base for a revolution. Now if you wont listen to me then fine, events in Venezuela will go on nomatter what. It's just a shame for you that you have put on your sceptisist armor.

[Louis Pio]

Redstar, to give you an impression on what kinda opposition we are dealing with. And why a deal with the bougiosie seems to be impossible I post this. So Venezuela are facing reaction if these people succed.

Violence Needed Against Chavez, Venezuela Opposition Leader Says. Dictatorship Must Follow (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1320)

[redstar2000]

That's not really an option. Capitalism can no longer afford that kind of welfare state in Sweden, let alone in Venezuela.

Given their oil reserves and the likely increase in value of those reserves, they might be able to afford it in Venezuela for quite a while.

But I'll grant you that alternative options are perhaps more likely...a "deal" is made somewheres along the line and "normality" is restored or matters escalate to the level of a real proletarian revolution.


I dunno why you have this mythical view on Sweden.

I don't know why you think I "do" have such a view. I am not "advocating" the "Swedish model" in Venezuela...it just seems to me to be one of the plausible outcomes of the situation.


Well, take a look.

Ok, I did that. The events described are not without interest but remain on a very small scale.

Meanwhile, the Chavez government continues to take "one step forward & one step backwards".

It is certainly a volatile situation...but I don't think your evidence justifies the term "revolutionary situation" -- at least not yet.

Self-directed activity by the masses remains on too small a scale.


Now you will probably not even listen to me.

I listen to lots of people...why not you? What seems to upset some people so much as that I won't necessarily "fall in line" and agree with them.

Shame on me. :P


Redstar, to give you an impression on what kinda opposition we are dealing with. And why a deal with the bourgeoisie seems to be impossible, I post this. So Venezuela is facing reaction if these people succeed.

At the moment, it appears that Chavez will win the referendum. That the opposition would much prefer a "Pinochet" is unquestionable; thus far it seems that they have been unable to find one (though not, perhaps, for lack of volunteers distinguished by their gross incompetence).

The logic of the situation suggests a back-room deal between moderate "chavistas" and moderate "oppositionists" to "restore normalcy".

Will the Venezuelan people accept that? Or will they take matters into their own hands?

That remains a question...and not a "foregone conclusion".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Louis Pio]

The logic of the situation suggests a back-room deal between moderate "chavistas" and moderate "oppositionists" to "restore normalcy".

Will the Venezuelan people accept that? Or will they take matters into their own hands?

That remains a question...and not a "foregone conclusion".


It doesn't seem that way now. Especially with the growing anger against the reformists in the Venezuelan government. The most important parts of the venezuelan working class (the oilworkers for example) wouldn't.
But of course the reformists would like a deal like that, people like that always consider themselves realists, but they are the furthest from. Anyway a government like that would only stop the process for a while. On the one hand the oligarchs would be preparing a blow and on the other hand the advanced parts of the working class would learn from the experience. A bit like the 1905 before 1917, it would just go much faster.


I don't know why you think I "do" have such a view. I am not "advocating" the "Swedish model" in Venezuela...it just seems to me to be one of the plausible outcomes of the situation.


A swedish model would have one big problem for the oligarchs. Control of the oil. Secondly the most rightwing parts of the bourgiosie wouldn't even allow that.

[antieverything]

There may or may not be a genuine revolution in Venezuela in the near future (I wouldn't bet the rent money on it...but it's certainly not impossible). If there is such a revolution, it will be easily recognized by the fact that the working class itself seizes power and begins at once an all-out war against the bourgeoisie...smashing the bourgeois state-apparatus, expropriating capitalist property without compensation, dismantling the armed forces and forming a popular militia, etc.
Gee, Redstar, you left out the part where the economy is crippled by capital flight and sanctions, the countries people are decimated by imperialist armies, and the countries people eventually develop a deep distrust of the left causing them to turn to reactionary right-wing Catholicism as happened after every other Latin American revolution with the exception of Cuba...and we know for damn sure that the Empire isn't going to let a Cuba happen again. The proved in Nicaragua that they would rather destroy an entire country than allow it to go slightly Left.

[Louis Pio]

The proved in Nicaragua that they would rather destroy an entire country than allow it to go slightly Left.


Now the point with Nicaragua was that they didn't carry their revolution through. They didn't take over the industry etc. So they allowed capitalism, which gave the reactionaries time to regroup. The point is that the same could happen in Venezuela, still I don't see it in such bleak terms as redstar.

[redstar2000]

Gee, Redstar, you left out the part where the economy is crippled by capital flight and sanctions, the country's people are decimated by imperialist armies, and the country's people eventually develop a deep distrust of the left causing them to turn to reactionary right-wing Catholicism as happened after every other Latin American revolution with the exception of Cuba...and we know for damn sure that the Empire isn't going to let a Cuba happen again.

And your point is...just accept things "as they are"? :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:34 PM
Gee, Redstar, you left out the part where the economy is crippled by capital flight and sanctions, the countries people are decimated by imperialist armies, and the countries people eventually develop a deep distrust of the left causing them to turn to reactionary right-wing Catholicism as happened after every other Latin American revolution with the exception of Cuba...and we know for damn sure that the Empire isn't going to let a Cuba happen again. The proved in Nicaragua that they would rather destroy an entire country than allow it to go slightly Left.
Revolution is impossible....because the empire won't "let" it happen? If it depended on their will, there would never have been any revolution. If the capitalists were so all-powerful as to prevent any development they disapprove of, there would never be any social change at all.

Cuba is the only example in Latin America where, after taking political power, working people went on to smash the capitalist economic system. In Nicaragua, despite an initially promising direction, the Sandinista leadership eventually adopted a course towards increasing reliance on the market and a permanent "mixed economy." This backwards course was further deepened even after the defeat of the contras.

Inevitably, with the market dominating the economy, the costs of the crisis fell heaviest on working people. The Sandinistas projected no road forward through struggle against capitalism. Their only program was increasing efforts to reconcile with and get aid from imperialism, European and if possible North American. That was the meaning of their electoral slogan, "With Daniel as president, everything will be better": that bourgeois electoral legitimacy would let them bring in aid from Europe and persuade Washington to let off the pressure. Logically enough, most people concluded the opposition could do this more effectively than the Sandinistas.

[antieverything]

And your point is...just accept things "as they are"?
My point is "don't ***** and moan because a positive social current is short of a full-fledged Marxist revolutionary movement." It isn't going to happen and it can't happen in the current international political and economic atmosphere. In fact, we shouldn't wish that fate on the people of Venezuela! The time will come...but accept the fact that--as Marx pointed out--massive reform is needed to lay the groundwork for a future revolution.


Revolution is impossible....because the empire won't "let" it happen? If it depended on their will, there would never have been any revolution. If the capitalists were so all-powerful as to prevent any development they disapprove of, there would never be any social change at all.
Well, after Cuba, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL CHANGE in Latin America. It has been tried, with spectacular results...but tens of thousands of people were killed and the revolutions (as well as the more numerous social-democratic electoral victories) were crushed! Nuns were raped, families were tortured to death, harbors were mined, peace-makers were assassinated, and the American people didn't even know it was happening! The post-cuban revolutionary period in Latin America has passed...the people got shut out and the Empire scored big! Do you suggest we just keep playing the same game on the same slanted playing field? So, basically, yeah--Revolution is impossible because the Empire won't "let" it happen.



Cuba is the only example in Latin America where, after taking political power, working people went on to smash the capitalist economic system. In Nicaragua, despite an initially promising direction, the Sandinista leadership eventually adopted a course towards increasing reliance on the market and a permanent "mixed economy." This backwards course was further deepened even after the defeat of the contras.
Why did the Sandinistas do this? Was it because they were stupid? Or, rather, was it because they had no choice? The Sandinistas were beaten before the Contras were...it was clear that they would either comply with the imperialists or be terrorized for years to come. If the Empire had taken an equally aggressive stance against Cuba during its revolution things would be much different in that country today.

On the issue of the Sandinista's electoral defeat you correctly point out that they lost because the United States made clear a Sandinista victory would be unacceptable (and when something is unacceptable to the Empire, people die...lots of people). What you don't seem to understand is that the revolution was over...the Empire had defeated it. The electoral defeat simply proved that the people had given up hope of victory. This isn't an unreasonable conclusion for them to have reached, either. Of course, many former supporters of the revolution hated the revolution because it had induced the wrath of the US, as a man I know who visited Nicaragua during the revolution made clear to me.

[Louis Pio]

My point is "don't ***** and moan because a positive social current is short of a full-fledged Marxist revolutionary movement." It isn't going to happen and it can't happen in the current international political and economic atmosphere. In fact, we shouldn't wish that fate on the people of Venezuela! The time will come...but accept the fact that--as Marx pointed out--massive reform is needed to lay the groundwork for a future revolution.


The same could be said about russia. Still a revolution occured. The point is if anybody is willing to fight for it or just accept things as they are, like it seems you are advocating.


So, basically, yeah--Revolution is impossible because the Empire won't "let" it happen.


USA is strecthed over most of the world now. They can't be everywere, the Iraq situation seems to be dragging on for years. I think you overestimate them, especially since we are facing grim recession. So they will have enogh problems as it is, especailly their own social ones.


Why did the Sandinistas do this? Was it because they were stupid? Or, rather, was it because they had no choice? The Sandinistas were beaten before the Contras were...it was clear that they would either comply with the imperialists or be terrorized for years to come. If the Empire had taken an equally aggressive stance against Cuba during its revolution things would be much different in that country today.


So the sandinistas could have done nothing? Even though they had massive support? Now that's defeatism for ya :D "oh nothing can be done, the USA is too powerfull, let's just all lie down and die".

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 06:16 PM
Well, after Cuba, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL CHANGE in Latin America. It has been tried, with spectacular results...but tens of thousands of people were killed and the revolutions (as well as the more numerous social-democratic electoral victories) were crushed! Nuns were raped, families were tortured to death, harbors were mined, peace-makers were assassinated, and the American people didn't even know it was happening! The post-cuban revolutionary period in Latin America has passed...the people got shut out and the Empire scored big! Do you suggest we just keep playing the same game on the same slanted playing field? So, basically, yeah--Revolution is impossible because the Empire won't "let" it happen.
In contrast to capitalism when it's not facing a revolutionary challenge, which never kills anyone? Crises occur whether you or I or anyone want them or not, and a failure to take revolutionary advantage of them can lead to far more bloodshed.

As you say yourself, numerous attempts to reform the system were also bloodily crushed, and Venezuela may well experience Chile's fate if it continues down Chavez' road. Chavez is quite "unacceptable" to imperialism, too.


Why did the Sandinistas do this? Was it because they were stupid? Or, rather, was it because they had no choice?

Neither. A political flaw - basically a decision to take a social-democratic course - does not necessarily imply stupidity. Its roots are in class and political perspective, not in intellectual incapacity.


The Sandinistas were beaten before the Contras were...

That's simply false, an attempt to rewrite history. The Sandinistas won the war. The contras were defeated as a military force by the end of the 80s - among other things their bases in Honduras were mostly cleaned out in '87. On the Atlantic Coast, where contra forces had enjoyed some political base, the autonomy process had largely taken that away from them. The Sandinistas were able to demobilize much of their army.

So what did they do then? Did they take the momentum of that victory, and the veterans freed up from the army, and begin a political offensive to carry forward the revolution against capitalism? No. They chose to go in the other direction.


it was clear that they would either comply with the imperialists or be terrorized for years to come. If the Empire had taken an equally aggressive stance against Cuba during its revolution things would be much different in that country today.

Gee, ya, if the Empire had attempted to organize terrorism against Cuba...get a clue. They did. They still are. They have been defeated again and again.

I'll give you another scenario: if they hadn't, if they had taken a more far-sighted and sophisticated approach similar to the French approach to post-independence Algeria, would the Cuban revolution have been derailed like the Algerian revolution? Very possibly. Most of the revolutionary steps forward taken by Cuba were in response to violent attacks by the U.S.

"Every revolution needs from time to time the whip of the counterrevolution to drive it forward" as Marx wrote long ago. Most working people are not so fatalistic and cowardly as yourself, and often respond to imperialst attack with a renewed willingness to fight back. That's evident in Venezuela again, the aftermath of the defeated coup for example.

Yes, revolution means conflict. It means sacrifice. It means bloodshed. But the outcome is not predetermined. Imperialism is not all-powerful.



On the issue of the Sandinista's electoral defeat you correctly point out that they lost because the United States made clear a Sandinista victory would be unacceptable (and when something is unacceptable to the Empire, people die...lots of people).

Actually not what I said. I said they lost because they put forward no course of action other than sucking up to imperialism, European and North American, and others can do that better.


What you don't seem to understand is that the revolution was over...

Actually I did say that. See above.


the Empire had defeated it.

False. See above.

Incidentally, another important example, the Grenadan Revolution, was also destroyed primarily thanks to misleadership - Coard's Stalinist coup. In that case also, it wasn't the U.S. who destroyed the revolution - it was dead before the first paratrooper landed.


The electoral defeat simply proved that the people had given up hope of victory. This isn't an unreasonable conclusion for them to have reached, either.

Considering that the Sandinista leadership had already reached this defeatist conclusion, and was putting forward no perspective for advancing the revolution, yes, it's not surprising that many of their supporters concluded the same.

Everything you say applies to reform as well as revolution: if you hurt the capitalists' economic interests, they will try to crush you. Heck, capital flight will happen without even the need for a political decision: capital goes where it can earn the most money i.e. where the exploitation's most brutal. See Brazil today, where da Silva's broken his promises out of fear of the market's wrath.

So either you can accept capital's unbridled rule forever, with all its famine, pestilence, war, and death - and remember, when the capitalists' ain't fighting us, they fight each other. They're doing that right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war between terrorists, remember?

Or you can fight back. The consequences of the fighting back, are uncertain, and defeat is very possible. Heck, probably more revolutions are defeated than succeed.

The consequences of not fighting are 100% certain. Ultimately, the extinction of humanity, or at least the collapse of civilization, in a nuclear war.

Fortunately, the idea of nonresistance is a utopian pipe dream. If there's one real constant in so-called human nature, it's that oppression always breeds resistance sooner or later.

[Louis Pio]

I wholeheartedly agree with Severians post.
Moreover he said it better than I could.

Anyway just remember defeatism leads to defeat, it's a hell of alot better trying to fight.

[redstar2000]

My point is "don't ***** and moan because a positive social current is short of a full-fledged Marxist revolutionary movement." It isn't going to happen and it can't happen in the current international political and economic atmosphere.

Where did I "***** and moan"? Up to this point, I have observed and evaluated.

But your assertion that proletarian revolution "isn't going to happen in the current international political and economic atmosphere" is just as dogmatic as the Chavista assertion that "it's already underway".

Where do you guys get those "crystal balls" that allow you to see the future with such remarkable clarity? Mine is always murky as hell!


In fact, we shouldn't wish that fate [proletarian revolution] on the people of Venezuela!

Because they might lose? Or because they "must lose" since the empire is "omnipotent"?

How many "Iraq's" can U.S. imperialism handle all at once, anyway?

Proletarian revolution is an option that the Venezuelan working class may or may not choose...it ain't up to our "wishes".

But if they do choose it, I will certainly support them.

What other choice would be at all consistent with a communist viewpoint?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[antieverything]

As you say yourself, numerous attempts to reform the system were also bloodily crushed, and Venezuela may well experience Chile's fate if it continues down Chavez' road. Chavez is quite "unacceptable" to imperialism, too.
I have very little doubt that Chavez will be assassinated in the near future. Still our purpose should be to see as much positive change in Venezuela without having hundreds of thousands of Chavez's countrymen see the same fate!


Neither. A political flaw - basically a decision to take a social-democratic course - does not necessarily imply stupidity. Its roots are in class and political perspective, not in intellectual incapacity.
You accuse me of rewriting history? The country was in shambles, physically and economically...taking an independant socialist course was no longer possible. It was either align with the Soviet Union and be destroyed or try to appease the other empire and hope to not be destroyed as completely!


That's simply false, an attempt to rewrite history. The Sandinistas won the war. The contras were defeated as a military force by the end of the 80s - among other things their bases in Honduras were mostly cleaned out in '87. On the Atlantic Coast, where contra forces had enjoyed some political base, the autonomy process had largely taken that away from them. The Sandinistas were able to demobilize much of their army.
And at this time, the Pentagon was discussing an outright invasion while Congress was debating whether or not we should bomb Nicaragua again! I applaud your knowledge of Nicaraguan history but you are simply mistaken here. Like I said, the revolution was dead before the Contras were finished. They no longer had the ability to strike out on an independent course. Hell, public support had plummeted over the course of the 80s, as well.


In contrast to capitalism when it's not facing a revolutionary challenge, which never kills anyone? Crises occur whether you or I or anyone want them or not, and a failure to take revolutionary advantage of them can lead to far more bloodshed.
What? Name one point in history where "failing to take revolutionary advantage" has killed as many workers as "taking revolutionary advantage" has!


Gee, ya, if the Empire had attempted to organize terrorism against Cuba...get a clue. They did. They still are. They have been defeated again and again.
Sorry, buddy, but I probably know more about the subject than you do. ;) Fact is, post-Cuba response was MUCH more brutal. Sure, we funded terrorists, bombed buildings, initiated a blockade, and killed some civilians with gunships but did we destroy Cuban civil society completely like we did in Guatamala? Not even close! Hell, we didn't even follow through with Bay of Pigs! Remember that?


Actually not what I said. I said they lost because they put forward no course of action other than sucking up to imperialism, European and North American, and others can do that better.
Well, then you are wrong! The Nicaraguan people DIDN'T WANT SOCIALISM ANYMORE! "Socialism" had killed many of their friends and family...or at least this is how they thought about it. Why do you think post-revolutionary Latin American societies have seen such a huge conservative backlashes once the revolution falls apart? The story is the same every time! Am I making this up? Hell, no...shit, I took Latin American Politics from a long-time radical professor. He almost couldn't bear teaching this stuff anymore because it was so disheartening. What I'm saying here comes from my discussions with him. The man wrote a well-recieved and widely read bood on Latin American revolutions--he KNOWS what he's talking about!


Fortunately, the idea of nonresistance is a utopian pipe dream. If there's one real constant in so-called human nature, it's that oppression always breeds resistance sooner or later.
I'm not saying that a revolution isn't going to happen or that I don't want a revolution to happen. I'm saying that there is much more work we need to do to make revolutions possible...both at home and abroad. You can either learn the lessons of history or die making the same old mistakes...like a fool!

[antieverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:27 AM

Where did I "***** and moan"? Up to this point, I have observed and evaluated.

But your assertion that proletarian revolution "isn't going to happen in the current international political and economic atmosphere" is just as dogmatic as the Chavista assertion that "it's already underway".

Where do you guys get those "crystal balls" that allow you to see the future with such remarkable clarity? Mine is always murky as hell!



Because they might lose? Or because they "must lose" since the empire is "omnipotent"?

How many "Iraq's" can U.S. imperialism handle all at once, anyway?

Proletarian revolution is an option that the Venezuelan working class may or may not choose...it ain't up to our "wishes".

But if they do choose it, I will certainly support them.

What other choice would be at all consistent with a communist viewpoint?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
You are probably correct on the "***** and moan" thing.

You can't, however, compare the invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq to the US making a coup in Venezuela. Historically, the US has been able to diffuse a revolution without a single troop...you just need the right amount of money and logistical assistance! When it comes to counter-revolution, I can assure you that money is no object!

That being said, if there is a popular revolution in Venezuela I will do my part to support it...I assure you of that!

[Louis Pio]

What? Name one point in history where "failing to take revolutionary advantage" has killed as many workers as "taking revolutionary advantage" has!


Chile in 1973 is for one a exellent example. If they had armed the people the counterrevolution could have been avoided. Just as it will be a step forward if Chavez fullfill his promise of arming the people. It is rather hard crushing a armed people.

[antieverything]

Look at the numbers killed in Chile...look at the numbers killed in Guatamala. Get back to me!

[Louis Pio]

Now what has this have to do with it. Alot of people got killed in Chile. More than would have if they had taken care of the reaction before.
Moreover people got their life's smashed, the ones not executed faced unemployment and starvation. So what are you trying to say here? That it was best not to take action against Pinochet?

[antieverything]

I'm stating a simple fact: US imperialism killed the most people in the countries where the Left adopted the strategies you proposed. Interestingly enough, there was a very large and very active guerilla opposition movement against Pinochet. It didn't accomplish much other than solidifying support for Pinochet in the name of "keeping us safe". Just some food for thought ;)

[Louis Pio]

Well for one im not uncritical against guerillas. Im aware that most of the time they don't accomplish anything. Take FARC as an example. The strategy can be used though together with mass uprisings. What im talking about is striking a severe blow against capitalism that means taking over production, jailing the reaction leaders and arming the people. In none of the countries you mentioned did they do those things. They tried to balance between the classforces or do it the soft way without using power.

[redstar2000]

Am I making this up? Hell, no...shit, I took Latin American Politics from a long-time radical professor. He almost couldn't bear teaching this stuff anymore because it was so disheartening. What I'm saying here comes from my discussions with him. The man wrote a well-received and widely read book on Latin American revolutions--he KNOWS what he's talking about!

May I suggest that there are other books and other professors...who might well offer a different interpretation of those events.

Just a thought.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:28 PM
You accuse me of rewriting history? The country was in shambles, physically and economically...taking an independant socialist course was no longer possible. It was either align with the Soviet Union and be destroyed or try to appease the other empire and hope to not be destroyed as completely!
A costly victory is different from a defeat. For example, it's generally agreed the Nazis lost WWII despite the death and devastation they inflicted on the USSR.

What's true in your statement is the contra war inflicted great destruction on Nicaragua. Whether this would make revolutionary reconstruction impossible...simply wasn't tested.

The Cuban revolution certainly had no guarantees of success, or of massive Soviet aid, when they chose the socialist course. What would the Kremlin have said if Castro had come to them, said "We're thinking of making this a socialist revolution, can we count on you?" We don't know, because he didn't ask their permission first. But their advice to everyone else in the Third World wasn't exactly to smash capitalism.

And Nicaragua had one thing Cuba didn't have....Cuba and Cuban aid.



And at this time, the Pentagon was discussing an outright invasion while Congress was debating whether or not we should bomb Nicaragua again!

Look, the U.S. adopted the contra strategy because a direct military intervention was difficult for them. Since Vietnam, they've never sent their armed forces directly against an anticapitalist revolution. It didn't become easier due to the contras' defeat.

The peak probability of direct military intervention passed in 1987, when Reagan sent troops to Honduras in response to the Sandinistas' crossing the border to destroy contra camps.

The Sandinistas got through that crisis successfully, thanks in part to the many thousands in the U.S. who turned out for emergency demonstrations against the threats of invasion.

By 1990, a direct invasion was even less of an imminent probability.


What? Name one point in history where "failing to take revolutionary advantage" has killed as many workers as "taking revolutionary advantage" has!

Indonesia 1965. Hundreds of thousands killed. Maybe more. One of the 20th century's greatest genocides. Consequence of the Indonesian Communist Party's reformist strategy.

Or the aftermath of Allende and Arbenz. You mention Guatemala...everything that's happened there since 1954 is a consequence of Arbenz' liberal weakness and reliance on the old armed forces.

Or the Vietnam War....made necessary by the betrayals of the Stalinists post-WWII and in the Geneva Accord. Thanks to their futile attempts to appease imperialism, parts of Vietnam had to be liberated 3 times.

Best of all, the Third Reich, fascist Italy and Spain, and WWII. Consequence of repeatedly missing revolutionary opportunities in those countries.

I could do more, but enough.



Sorry, buddy, but I probably know more about the subject than you do. ;) Fact is, post-Cuba response was MUCH more brutal. Sure, we funded terrorists, bombed buildings, initiated a blockade, and killed some civilians with gunships but did we destroy Cuban civil society completely like we did in Guatamala? Not even close! Hell, we didn't even follow through with Bay of Pigs! Remember that?

If they had been successful in overthrowing Castro, as they were successful in overthrowing Arbenz, the aftermath would have been similarly bloody. They failed, since Castro wasn't depending on a capitalist army to fight off imperialism.

In addition to the other examples you mention, the U.S. funded contra-like armed groups in the Escambray mountains. They were hunted down and defeated.

The U.S. did follow through on its Bay of Pigs plan. The whole point of that plan was to give the superficial appearance of a indigenous Cuban uprising, at least strong enough to hold a piece of territory for a time before open U.S. involvement would begin. More open U.S. Air Force involvement, as some have suggested, would have defeated that point. A second round of preparatory air raids, which some have criticized Kennedy for calling off, would likely have been even less effective, and more costly in CIA planes, than the first, partially surprising, round was. Probably their only real error, from a technical/military point of view, was those air strikes, which warned Cuba what was coming. But if Cuba hadn't been prepared, and those strikes had destroyed the Revolutionary Air Force...nobody would be calling them a mistake today.

It was a well-made plan. Similar plans successfully overthrew other Latin American governments. They just met a lot stronger opposition than they anticipated.

Afterwards, the U.S. escalated its terrorism with "Operation Mongoose", which was intended to set the stage for direct intervention. Cuba didn't back down or show any weakness though. After the so-called Missile Crisis, the threat of invasion receded significantly....not because Kennedy made some promise not to invade as part of a deal with Krushev. Contrary to popular myth, that promise was never made because Cuba never agreed to that deal and the UN "weapons inspections" that were part of it.

Rather, it's because Kennedy asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff how many casualties the U.S. would suffer in an invasion of Cuba and was shocked by the response. That's the same basic reason the U.S. has never directly attacked Cuba since.

For example, Clinton asked the Joint Chiefs for options on air raids against Cuba in 1993...and again backed off when he found out it couldn't be made risk-free.

Appeasement of aggressors doesn't work. Deterrence often does.

f anything, the U.S. is less able to attack revolutions now than in the years after 1959. Vietnam syndrome y'know.

Nope, you can't accurately say the U.S. was soft in its response to the revolutionary government, after it carried out the land reform and Washington began to suspect it of "going communist." You could make the case that the U.S. sent less aid to Batista than it has to similar regimes since - it didn't realize what was happening in Cuba until after the revolution - but that hasn't been your argument and it does nothing for any argument about what policies a government should follow.

It does speak to questions of revolutionary strategy - it's harder to make a revolution using the same kind of guerilla warfare. But then again, the Sandinistas showed guerilla warfare, if combined with other methods, isn't completely hopeless either despite Uncle Sam's increased counterinsurgency efforts and skills.

And there are other ways of making revolutions.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:28 PM
Hell, no...shit, I took Latin American Politics from a long-time radical professor. He almost couldn't bear teaching this stuff anymore because it was so disheartening.
Heh. Missed this first time around. So you get your perspective from a worn-out ex-radical - revolution is a hard business, it uses people up - teaching in capitalist academia. Who finances and endows universities and colleges? Government and big business for the most part. Those who pay the piper, ultimately call the tune.

Certainly I don't dispute that after the collapse of the revolution, many of its former supporters turned against it. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails like failure. You may be exagerrating the extent - the Sandinistas remain a formidable electoral force, as do the FMLN in El Salvador - but our disagreement is basically about why this happened, and whether many people might have responded differently to a leadership that hadn't already admitted defeat.

[antieverything]

The Cuban revolution certainly had no guarantees of success, or of massive Soviet aid, when they chose the socialist course. What would the Kremlin have said if Castro had come to them, said "We're thinking of making this a socialist revolution, can we count on you?" We don't know, because he didn't ask their permission first. But their advice to everyone else in the Third World wasn't exactly to smash capitalism.
What was the first thing Castro did after siezing power? If you chose "suck up to the United States for aid" you chose right! Cuba only became Communist after the US refused to support the revolution!


By 1990, a direct invasion was even less of an imminent probability.
If I can find the documents, I'll link to them later...but the fact is, there were plans for an invasion if the Sandinistas held onto power. The elections were largely an effort to maintain power without an invasion...or to discredit one if it came.

All of the examples you use on revolutionary failure focus on the policies of leaders and ignore the organizational structures of working class power at the time, especially in Guatamala.

[antieverything]

Also thoughout all of this you ignore the fact that the Sandinista government accepted the terms of the Arias agreement in 1989 even though they knew their chances of maintaining power were shaky at best. The people simply wouldn't bear more war or oppression if they saw a way out of it. Blaming the Sandinistas for being soft is offbase. It was in fact the mass of the Nicaraguan people who wished for an end to hostilities even if it meant a Right-wing government. Also, the remaining Contras laid down their arms because they were promised land, not because they were militarily defeated. The outcome of the civil war had not been decided when the elections were called.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:29 PM
What was the first thing Castro did after siezing power? If you chose "suck up to the United States for aid" you chose right! Cuba only became Communist after the US refused to support the revolution!
I had a more detailed response, but your posts have become so incoherent and irrelevant that there's little point. Really, none of that has anything to do with the course of the argument up til now. It's an attempt to change the subject, together with a lot of random thrashing around.

Which is as close to an admission of error as one usually gets in internet debates.

[antieverything]

I had a more detailed response, but your posts have become so incoherent and irrelevant that there's little point. Really, none of that has anything to do with the course of the argument up til now. It's an attempt to change the subject, together with a lot of random thrashing around.
:lol:

Nice. I'm telling truth here, Sev. If that is incoherent and irrelevant then I'm afraid I can't help you!

[antieverything]

Certainly I don't dispute that after the collapse of the revolution, many of its former supporters turned against it. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails like failure. You may be exagerrating the extent - the Sandinistas remain a formidable electoral force, as do the FMLN in El Salvador - but our disagreement is basically about why this happened, and whether many people might have responded differently to a leadership that hadn't already admitted defeat.
And here's some stuff I didn't see the first time through!

<_< After the collapse? People had been turning against the Sandinistas in greater numbers every year since the revolution happened&#33; They were still popular but their support was breaking apart...as was the support for further defiance of the United States.

I am certainly not exagerating to any extent. The Sandinistas changed their line to maintain popular support, they didn&#39;t lose it because they changed their line&#33; And while they are a "formidable" electoral force it is because there really isn&#39;t anything better out there despite the fact that the party has long since been taken over by "yuppies"--as one campesino refered to them--joined the Socialist International, and have become completely unrecognizable in reference to their former selves.