Nearly 1 Million acres of Land Expropriated

[Reuben]

From the BBC: 'Venezuela's government has seized more than 330,000 hectares (815,450 acres) of land to redistribute them under an agrarian reform programme.'

Click here for the full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6494843.stm)

The interesting thing is that Land Reform has often been justified by progressive bourgoies governemtns on the grounds of efficiency. Although these arguments have been deployed by havez he has also justified the move in terms of the relations of production .Thus according to the BBC Chavez stated 'His government was moving towards a "collective property" policy as part of its "drive towards socialism", '

No wonder the elites are emigrating on mass. They are shitting themselves that the game is up!

[Reuben]

sorry the title was meant to say 1m acres not one million hectares

[Goatse]

How is 815,450 nearly 1,000,000? But anyway, good news.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

This is actually wonderful news.

[MarxistFuture]

While the critics are quick to demonise him (both on the left and elsewhere in the political spectrum,), Chavez continues with things like this.

Excellnet news.

[bolshevik butcher]

Excellent news. Glad the natioanlisations are picking up pace, excellent news for the venezuelan workers and peasants, food production is a vital resource that needs to lie in their hands in any socialist state.

[TC]

This thread hasn't had any cynical anti-communist reactions yet so i'd like to provide balance:

Chavez is just a petty bourgeois left bonapartist reformer because you can't have revolution from above (whatever that abstract slogan means), the workers have not emancipated themselves (if they had they'd join my trotskyist international), real revolutionaries don't participate in bourgeois parliament (selective amnesia on lenin and trotsky doing just that), he's been in power for years and didn't have socialism immediately (again selective amnesia with lenin and trotsky). His popularism stands 'above class' and tries to be all things to all people (despite the fact that both capitalists and workers seem convinced that he's for the working class to the exclusion of the capitalists). Additionally there is no vanguard party of the proletariat (and no the socialist unity party doesn't count because it's not part of my international and probably doesn't agree with the views expressed in my party paper).

In conclusion, Chavez, for reasons that i can't articulate in any materialist terms, simply cannot possibly lead a socialist revolution. However I urge comrades to "critically support" the left-bonapartist regime against US imperialism while calling for the workers to break with chavez and revolt against the parasitic stalinist beurocracy which i presume must exist in Venezuela, since all revolutions can be 'analyzed' by generalizing interpretations of the russian revolution.

We should give no support to chavez, instead we should be supporting the venezuelan working class in breaking with him, despite the fact that the vast majority of them support chavez as their leader and one of their own.

[Reuben]

satire at its most beautiful

[RaptorJesus]

But TragicClown, such notions are fooli- Oh you, I see what you did there.

Almost 2 million hectares expropriated with more coming? Good on Chavez, I say.

[Moshehess]

While I agree Chavez has done many good things you need to be aware of one very important thing...............POWER CORRUPTS.

Power corrupts everyone even the most noble. It is just a question of time before he starts to become bad for the Venezualan people. It might be 5 or 50 years but a question of time anyway.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:46 pm
While I agree Chavez has done many good things you need to be aware of one very important thing...............POWER CORRUPTS.

Power corrupts everyone even the most noble. It is just a question of time before he starts to become bad for the Venezualan people. It might be 5 or 50 years but a question of time anyway.
That would depened on how much power he has as an individual, rather than the power his government has as a political entity.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:07 pm
This thread hasn't had any cynical anti-communist reactions yet so i'd like to provide balance:

Chavez is just a petty bourgeois left bonapartist reformer because you can't have revolution from above (whatever that abstract slogan means), the workers have not emancipated themselves (if they had they'd join my trotskyist international), real revolutionaries don't participate in bourgeois parliament (selective amnesia on lenin and trotsky doing just that), he's been in power for years and didn't have socialism immediately (again selective amnesia with lenin and trotsky). His popularism stands 'above class' and tries to be all things to all people (despite the fact that both capitalists and workers seem convinced that he's for the working class to the exclusion of the capitalists). Additionally there is no vanguard party of the proletariat (and no the socialist unity party doesn't count because it's not part of my international and probably doesn't agree with the views expressed in my party paper).

In conclusion, Chavez, for reasons that i can't articulate in any materialist terms, simply cannot possibly lead a socialist revolution. However I urge comrades to "critically support" the left-bonapartist regime against US imperialism while calling for the workers to break with chavez and revolt against the parasitic stalinist beurocracy which i presume must exist in Venezuela, since all revolutions can be 'analyzed' by generalizing interpretations of the russian revolution.

We should give no support to chavez, instead we should be supporting the venezuelan working class in breaking with him, despite the fact that the vast majority of them support chavez as their leader and one of their own.
<_<

You should emigrate to England and join the British labour party like all true trotskyites.

[The Author]

She&#39;s not a Trot. She&#39;s parodying the Trots (at least those who denounce the Bolivarian Revolution anyway and not those who claim it as their own) and their "criticisms."

Anyway, this is excellent news. A progressive step forward towards the negation of the remaining capitalist property relations and the coming into being of the socialist property relations.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by A.J.+March 29, 2007 03:41 pm--> (A.J. @ March 29, 2007 03:41 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 07:07 pm
This thread hasn&#39;t had any cynical anti-communist reactions yet so i&#39;d like to provide balance:

Chavez is just a petty bourgeois left bonapartist reformer because you can&#39;t have revolution from above (whatever that abstract slogan means), the workers have not emancipated themselves (if they had they&#39;d join my trotskyist international), real revolutionaries don&#39;t participate in bourgeois parliament (selective amnesia on lenin and trotsky doing just that), he&#39;s been in power for years and didn&#39;t have socialism immediately (again selective amnesia with lenin and trotsky). His popularism stands &#39;above class&#39; and tries to be all things to all people (despite the fact that both capitalists and workers seem convinced that he&#39;s for the working class to the exclusion of the capitalists). Additionally there is no vanguard party of the proletariat (and no the socialist unity party doesn&#39;t count because it&#39;s not part of my international and probably doesn&#39;t agree with the views expressed in my party paper).

In conclusion, Chavez, for reasons that i can&#39;t articulate in any materialist terms, simply cannot possibly lead a socialist revolution. However I urge comrades to "critically support" the left-bonapartist regime against US imperialism while calling for the workers to break with chavez and revolt against the parasitic stalinist beurocracy which i presume must exist in Venezuela, since all revolutions can be &#39;analyzed&#39; by generalizing interpretations of the russian revolution.

We should give no support to chavez, instead we should be supporting the venezuelan working class in breaking with him, despite the fact that the vast majority of them support chavez as their leader and one of their own.
<_<

You should emigrate to England and join the British labour party like all true trotskyites. [/b]
Ironic comment considering the main trotskyist group in the Labour Party (IMT) is leading the major international solidarity campaign for the Venezuelan revolution. Hands Off Venezuela www.handsoffvenezuela.org , we have faced a sectarian backlashed from some groups but it&#39;s to be expected.

[Jude]

What about the fact that Chavez has spent more on Venezuela&#39;s military than any other Country in the world for 2006?

What does anyone have to say about that? :ph34r:

[Spirit of Spartacus]

It looks like some people here can&#39;t recognize satire if its an anvil that falls on them.

I mean, TC clearly stated that she was parodying a cynical, infantile, ultra-leftist stance from sectarian isolated intellectuals.

And some people still missed the joke?&#33; :D

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Foxhole [email protected] 29, 2007 04:59 pm
What about the fact that Chavez has spent more on Venezuela&#39;s military than any other Country in the world for 2006?

What does anyone have to say about that? :ph34r:
Last I checked, the US outspends the entire world combined on military expenses. So, really, I have to say that your figure is beyond wrong (aka BS). Where&#39;d you get that from?

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Foxhole [email protected] 29, 2007 04:59 pm
What about the fact that Chavez has spent more on Venezuela&#39;s military than any other Country in the world for 2006?

What does anyone have to say about that? :ph34r:
seriously, is it too much to expect for people to spend about 10 seconds thinking about the plausability of things they are posting as facts, and maybe even look through a few figures to determine the validity of such &#39;facts&#39;.
Doing some pretty rudimentary research I ahve found that even in a new york times article expressing concern about the highl level of venezuelan military spending , the figure for 2005 and 2006 put together was 4.3 Billion - this is a little over 1 per cent of what the US spent in 2006 alone.

If anybody has trouble understanding why Chavez is spednign 4.3 billion on the military rather than putting the money into building some kind of unarmed pacific paradise i suggest they look at this extensive chronology of US intervention. http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Right on, Reuben.

[Louis Pio]

Chavez would be a fool not to spend money on guns and other military equipment. I dunno if some people here think that the bourgiosie would react to even the smallest threat towards private property with a "jolly good ol&#39; chap" or that Bush don&#39;t have problems with diminishing US control over Latin America.

Btw at least good that some of the appologists of Uncle Joe here at least sees the need to not limit it to a merely bourgios revolution (which has no place in this day and age) a shame the Venezuelan Communist Party still sticks to the old discredited menshevic two stage theory.

[TC]

Originally posted by Foxhole [email protected] 29, 2007 04:59 pm
What about the fact that Chavez has spent more on Venezuela&#39;s military than any other Country in the world for 2006?

What does anyone have to say about that? :ph34r:
:lol:


I would say that is truely excellent news, i&#39;d much rather Chavez in command of 650 billion+ USD per year army than Bush.

I&#39;d also say it would be a literal economic miracle to come up with that sort of money considering that the entire Venezuelan economies GDP is only 176 billion USD, or about a quarter the size of the US military budget.

:lol:

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by Foxhole [email protected] 29, 2007 04:59 pm
What about the fact that Chavez has spent more on Venezuela&#39;s military than any other Country in the world for 2006?

What does anyone have to say about that? :ph34r:
Part of that cost has to do with Venezuela replacing their meager force of F-16&#39;s with newer Russian fighter jets, because the US has basically banned replacement parts from being sold to the "Chavez Regime".

[ComradeR]

If anybody has trouble understanding why Chavez is spednign 4.3 billion on the military rather than putting the money into building some kind of unarmed pacific paradise i suggest they look at this extensive chronology of US intervention. http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm
The Venezuelan people would be absolute fools if they didn&#39;t beef up their military right now, because with the way the US for 08 is shaping up leaves one with a sick feeling that the US will aggressivly try and reassert it&#39;s total imperial donimance over the western hemisphere, cold war style.

[Louis Pio]

Btw if a democrat enters the white house I think we would start witnessing more aggression towards Venezuela. A possible scenario could be: troops out of Iraq and more focus on regaining USA authority over Latin America