The goings on in Latin/South America!

[Cassius Clay is back]

Not sure if this is the right place to be posting this so sorry if it is not.

Anyway I was wondering on people's opinions on the current situation in Latin and South America.

I refer ofcourse to Venezuala and Bolivia. Many people and various so called Communist groups are right now calling this 'historic' and a chance for 'real social change' in those countries.

First things first. It is certainly a progressive step for South America to have it's first 'Native' elected President in a country. I have no doubt some (and I do mean some) steps will be taken to improve the living standards of the native people of Bolivar.

Fantastic!

It is also great that in Bolivar there are steps being taken to deal with the issue of U$ companies who have effectively controlled the country for the last 40 years (atleast). However at the same time it is my understanding that deals are being done with EU and Chinese firms to simply replace the existing group of Imperialists with another.

Ofcourse this pisses of the U$.

Again that's fantastic. But to let the same people in (the EU) who are currently privatising water (of all things) in Africa (of all places)?

I for one am not going to pretend that this is some sought great thing going on or keep my shout.

In Venezuala Charvez has committed the terrible crime (in the U$ view) of first saying he'd sell oil to Cuba and speaking out against the war in Iraq.

Good things but Marxist? If he actually took power away from the obligars (spell?) which is what he promised to do then we could say he was improving the situation for the masses of his country.

But they still control the media which with the help of Fox portrays him as the anti-christ.

The situation is this in my opinion. The U$ will allways overreact and criticise even the slightest hint of getting out of line, especially in what is considered 'it's own back yard' .

Obviously Charvez and co must be doing something right.

But we must remember the ideology being followed and spoken of is not Marxism or talk of class struggle and Capitalism. But following Simon Bolivar the 19th Century South American Independence leader. A Nationalist.

Tell me what do you think a united South America would look like under the control of bourgesie like Charvez?

A workers paradise or a Imperialist power itself?

For clues to which lets look at Brazil where a few years ago a 'progressive' bourgesie was elected. Any radical social change there?

[fernando]

Social democratic populist is what I would call Chavez, nothing wrong with it. He is not a Marxist and yes he is still dealing with the Imperialists, but you should realise that there is no other option, he needs to sell natural resources to finance the social programs, just now it will be under control of Venezuela instead of the US companies.


But we must remember the ideology being followed and spoken of is not Marxism or talk of class struggle and Capitalism. But following Simon Bolivar the 19th Century South American Independence leader. A Nationalist.
Chavez' "Bolivarianism" has elements of Bolivar's thinking but also of other thinkers and people. Sure its not pure Marxism...but do we really need that? Sounds more like the whining the left in the US and EU do, as in "boohoo eventhough they are trying to do something there they are not fully Marxist...ENEMY BLA BLA BLA" I know this is a very crude version of what some here would type in a more "sofisticated" manner, but its not that much different.


Tell me what do you think a united South America would look like under the control of bourgesie like Charvez?
I doubt there will occur a communist revolution which would place everything under the control of the proletariat. Hence we are using figures like Chavez to change things for the better. Similar to "Allende's route to socialism" or something.


For clues to which lets look at Brazil where a few years ago a 'progressive' bourgesie was elected. Any radical social change there?
Lula was already known to be way more moderate than Chavez, Im more curious what will happen in Peru if Ollanta would win or if the Sandinistas would return to power in Nicaragua.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by Cassius Clay is [email protected] 21 2006, 02:45 PM

It is certainly a progressive step for South America to have it's first 'Native' elected President in a country.




Morales is not the first "Native" to be come president; Todelo in Peru, Chavez in Venezuela, etc.




Tell me what do you think a united South America would look like under the control of bourgesie like Charvez?

A united south america will never take place (there are many conflicts: between Peru and Chile, Urugay and Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia, etc). It would be a total failure, especially under the leadership of Chavez-style leader.

[Cassius Clay is back]

My apologies it was my understanding that Morales was the first 'Native' to be elected.

If that's not the case then I'm mistaken so sorry.

I agree a united South America is unlikely to take place. I am not to informed of the historical geo-political events of that continent but am informed enough to realise that.

However that does not change the fact that that was Simon Bolivar's intention, and since Charvez seems to follow some sought of 'Bolivainism' and is gaining a large following that is where my problem lies.

Fernando

You say it's similar to 'Allende's route to Socialism'. Ask yourself if Allende's route ever actually acheived anything?

Apart from ending up dead in a football standium!

History suggests to me that being careful and 'trying to edge slowly' to the promised land of Socialism/Communism never works.

Infact you are far more likely to end up with a genocidal right-wing group of Colonels in charge. Ofcourse backed up by Uncle Sam.

The Bourgesie and Imperialists have allready tried killing Charvez a few times and he hasn't even done anything signifcant. So where is the harm in say getting rid of the hostile right-wing media in Venezuala which still controls 90% of TV and newspapers?

[fernando]

I agree a united South America is unlikely to take place. I am not to informed of the historical geo-political events of that continent but am informed enough to realise that.
Depends what kind of unity we are talking about. Yes there have been problems between the Latin American nations, but a similar thing has happened in Europe and they are slowly forming to become a single block because they have to.


You say it's similar to 'Allende's route to Socialism'. Ask yourself if Allende's route ever actually acheived anything?
Yes the US and Pinochet made sure of that. And you think nothing like that would happen if a direct communist revolution, which would not be "democratic" (Western standard), would happen? It would immediatly be crushed by the US.


History suggests to me that being careful and 'trying to edge slowly' to the promised land of Socialism/Communism never works
Im curious which people will massively rise up and start a communist revolution, so far its still "science fiction"


Infact you are far more likely to end up with a genocidal right-wing group of Colonels in charge. Ofcourse backed up by Uncle Sam.

Wouldnt really matter if it was a slow democratic manner or a revolution, take a look at the Sandinistas...a decade of US sponsored terrorism made sure they'd fail...


The Bourgesie and Imperialists have allready tried killing Charvez a few times and he hasn't even done anything signifcant.
Not being a Yankee puppet is already significant, I think nationalising the natural resources and starting social programs is already quite significant. Better coorporation with Cuba and the attempt to form a new economic bloc can also be called significant. Perhaps these things would be meaningless to a purist Marxist, but to every other person its something.


So where is the harm in say getting rid of the hostile right-wing media in Venezuala which still controls 90% of TV and newspapers?
What does this have to do with it? But okay...I dont mind seeing a more neutral media rise up there, however it should not be fully state controlled. The media is supposed to be critical towards a government I think without following its own political agenda.

[Cassius Clay is back]

It's just my opinion that since we seem to be in agreement that Uncle Sam will end up indirectly or directly putting a end to any 'movement' of social change it is probably better to go down fighting as the saying goes.

Infact from a historical perspective the Communist movement has allways done better in countries when it is pushing the Marxist agenda.

Socialism succeeded (briefly though) in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was taking the Marxist line and not hiding it.

Have the Nepalese Maoists not been very succesful in the last 10 years to the extent that they now control three-quarters of the country and played a very active role in the anti-monarchy demonstrations in the capital?

Now you and many others on this board may not like the Maoists. That's fine. I'm just pointing out that being what you would call 'militant' (pushing class struggle) with Communism can work just as well or perhaps better than what's going on in South America at the moment.

My problem is not directly with Charvez. To my knowledge he doesn't claim to be a Communist. Rather it's with so called 'Communists' praising him as some sought of class-warrior who is really implementing Socialism for the masses.

He's not.

Doing 'good' things I'm sure he is. As I said in my first post and I'm all for that.

But he and people like him are not the answer in the long term.

[fernando]

It's just my opinion that since we seem to be in agreement that Uncle Sam will end up indirectly or directly putting a end to any 'movement' of social change it is probably better to go down fighting as the saying goes.
Going down fighting is what would happen anyway, even in a more democratic movement. People will try to defend that certain ideal I think.


Infact from a historical perspective the Communist movement has allways done better in countries when it is pushing the Marxist agenda.
I thought this was about the better of the masses, not some communist movement...


Socialism succeeded (briefly though) in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was taking the Marxist line and not hiding it.

How very Marxist they are today...they are opening up like China now.


Have the Nepalese Maoists not been very succesful in the last 10 years to the extent that they now control three-quarters of the country and played a very active role in the anti-monarchy demonstrations in the capital?
Have the Peruvian Maoists not totally alienated themselves from the peasantry and proletariat? Have they not eventually been totally defeated by Fujimori's populism and authoritarian policies?


Now you and many others on this board may not like the Maoists. That's fine. I'm just pointing out that being what you would call 'militant' (pushing class struggle) with Communism can work just as well or perhaps better than what's going on in South America at the moment.
We had militants in Peru...wouldnt call that really succesful. While a militant movement might be effective a movement should listen to the masses. Look at how the EZLN did it in Mexico, they started out as a militant movement (while officially they still are) they havent really been waging war in Mexico anymore and try to follow a more peaceful way to improve the situation.


My problem is not directly with Charvez. To my knowledge he doesn't claim to be a Communist. Rather it's with so called 'Communists' praising him as some sought of class-warrior who is really implementing Socialism for the masses.

He's not.
Im not a communist praising him for implementing socialism for the masses. I praise him for rising up against the US (and giving them the finger) and trying to use Venezuela's resources to actually improve things there. That to me is more important that the quest to complete some ideology some guy wrote up somewhere in the 19th century.


But he and people like him are not the answer in the long term.
More direct control of the people is what is needed of course, Im all up for that...Im more curious if that will succeed or not. However I dont think it will go as some people here claim to be that the workingclasses throughout the Western world will rise up and turn it into one big communist nation, to me that sounds just as "science fictional" as us living on another planet.

[Cassius Clay is back]

Ah you see we going to end up disagreeing anyway because I'm a communist (in theory anyway, :) ) and your'e not it would seem.

Still you seem to know alot on that part of the world, are you from there?


thought this was about the better of the masses, not some communist movement...

That would be same thing in my opinion.


About Vietnam that is a seperate issue. I agree they are 'opening up' and they have been for a long time and you will note I did say 'briefly'. If you want to discuss that I'm sure there is another thread.

Peru I know to little about. But I do know the 'People's war' (as the Maoists call it) has been going on for some time so cant have alienated every peasant and proletariat.

Speak about Mexico. What is going on in Mexico at the moment. Other than Mr Fox the President being a total puppet to the U$?

[fernando]

Ah you see we going to end up disagreeing anyway because I'm a communist (in theory anyway, ) and your'e not it would seem.
I believe in some elements of communism, however I try to take a more "flexible" view on it, taking bits from various ideologies...and besides that I still have to figure out what "my" ideology is.


Still you seem to know alot on that part of the world, are you from there?
My mother is from Peru, Ive travelled around a bit in South America and I study about Latin America at university.


Peru I know to little about. But I do know the 'People's war' (as the Maoists call it) has been going on for some time so cant have alienated every peasant and proletariat.
The "People's War" is as good as over, once in a while a Shining Path figure will claim that they are still alive, or the Peruvian government will say it (to keep the people in check) but beyond that...nothing really after Abimael Guzman was arrested. The Sendero Luminoso have alienated themselves from the masses in such a way that the people even picked up weapons against them. (the so called "ronderos")


Speak about Mexico. What is going on in Mexico at the moment. Other than Mr Fox the President being a total puppet to the U$?
In 1994 the EZLN (Zapatistas) rose up against the Mexican government and the Free Trade agreement of the US which would basicly take away the rights of the people in Chiapas (a province in Mexico). The EZLN fought back, but very quickly the local Indians asked them to stop fighting since they wanted peace but still want to struggle. This mean that the EZLN has taken a more peaceful approach, they are quite known since they use the media (tv, internet, etc) a lot. You might want to check up on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation). Fox is a US puppet like we both agree on, the new candidate (I forgot his name) was a figure more along the lines of Chavez and that might be a positive thing. The EZLN however refuses to support this figure since he is still part of the "old system" which I can partly understand, but he is the only "legal" alternative for the masses.