Hugo Chavez

[Eleftherios]

What are your thoughts on Hugo Chavez? Do you think that he is just "a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela" (Leo Uilleann) who uses socialist rhetoric to get popular support or do you think that he is taking his country on the path toward socialism?

[Connolly]

Do you think that he is just "a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela" (Leo Uilleann) who uses socialist rhetoric to get popular support

Yeah, I think id agree with that.

He is not working class. How can someone not working class have a proletarian class consciousness? :blink:

I thought "being determines consciousness"?

Also - what did the spanish banks get for their investment?

[Cult of Reason]

I agree with Leo.

Maybe you should add a poll?

[Janus]

We've discussed this topic numerous times on this forum.

Please check these threads out:
Frequent topics of discussion (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58835)
Chavez (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66282&hl=Chavez)
Chavez (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65587&hl=Chavez)
Chavez (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64309&hl=Chavez)
Chavez (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62932&hl=Chavez)
Chavez (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61929&hl=Chavez)
Chavez's Venezuela (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60875&hl=Chavez)

[Eleftherios]

sorry, I guess I should have looked more into that

[bolshevik butcher]

He is from a proletarian background actually but that attitude flies in the face of socialist history. Does that mean that Marx, Engels or Lenin or Bakunin or just about any other revolutionaries could not at all fight for a working class interst as they themselves were not working class?

Of course there is no revolution or significant moves towards socialism going on in Venezuela just now as the movemetns of class forces do not exactly correspond to the way the ultraleft thinks they should. This childish attitude leads to the actions and hopes of millions of working class people being written off and branded as "bourgoirse", because real revolutionary proccesses are not perfect and formulaic.

[sexyguy]

The naivety of many (mainly young) comrades is being deliberately exploited here to promote, at best, vulgar philistine diversionary confusion about ‘class origins’ of individual leaders and the ‘class interest’ which they act for, neither of which is the main point in all this.

The crucial measure is the extent to which the revolutionary movement in Venezuela understands the need for spreading and strengthening the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against the inevitable assaults by the local bourgeois and US imperialist intrigue and intervention.

If Venezuela is not to go the same way as Chile, El Salvador, and Grenada it must consciously and urgently get on with building the proletarian dictatorship as the best guarantee of future socialist progress.

While there are many healthy signs that this is happening there are also some worrying indications that the leadership has inherited (via Castro’s influence) some Stalinist “peaceful coexistence” blind spots towards potential threats.
Only the firmest consciously constructed proletarian dictatorships will withstand and defeat degenerate exploitative war-mongering imperialism.

Defeat US lead imperialist intervention!
Victory to the Venezuelan revolution!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by sexyguy+June 16, 2007 05:41 am--> (sexyguy @ June 16, 2007 05:41 am) The naivety of many (mainly young) comrades is being deliberately exploited here to promote, at best, vulgar philistine diversionary confusion about ‘class origins’ of individual leaders and the ‘class interest’ which they act for, neither of which is the main point in all this.

The crucial measure is the extent to which the revolutionary movement in Venezuela understands the need for spreading and strengthening the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against the inevitable assaults by the local bourgeois and US imperialist intrigue and intervention. [/b]
I'm not naive, and I don't care about the "class origin" of Hygo Chavez. Like what a poster above said, "Also - what did the Spanish banks get for their investment?" Or any other bank, for that matter? (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/12/business/venezbank.php)

As for your second paragraph, I believe you should change that to "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." ;)


If Venezuela is not to go the same way as Chile, El Salvador, and Grenada it must consciously and urgently get on with building the proletarian dictatorship as the best guarantee of future socialist progress.

While there are many healthy signs that this is happening there are also some worrying indications that the leadership has inherited (via Castro’s influence) some Stalinist “peaceful coexistence” blind spots towards potential threats.
Only the firmest consciously constructed proletarian dictatorships will withstand and defeat degenerate exploitative war-mongering imperialism.

But where&#39;s the socialist revolution that leads to the DOTP? <_<

In terms of "Stalinist peaceful coexistence" (formalized by the "Khrushchevites") and your last paragraph, I think you&#39;re sounding a wee bit too much like those advocating "socialism in one country." Perhaps Leo was/is more correct than I thought:


Leo
As for the proletariat doing this, although it would seem necessary to try to work this way with the concept of "socialism in one country" (this is why Trotsky&#39;s theory of Permanent Revolution works much better with the idea of socialism in one country) it is really not necessary world-wide and marxists, although obviously analyzing the local tensions and so forth, always analyze the development of the world from a world-wide perspective. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67601&view=findpost&p=1292333016)

[Red Tung]

The crucial measure is the extent to which the revolutionary movement in Venezuela understands the need for spreading and strengthening the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against the inevitable assaults by the local bourgeois and US imperialist intrigue and intervention.

Do you mean dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the grassroots local organizations?

We all know how dictatorship of the party turned out historically. The party members became dictators over the proletariat <_<

[Connolly]

He is from a proletarian background actually but that attitude flies in the face of socialist history.

What his "background" is dosnt make a flying difference. I know many a millionaire from working class backgrounds.

So what.

At present - and in a position to make decisions - he is not a member of the proletariat - he cannot have a proletarian consciousness.


Does that mean that Marx, Engels or Lenin or Bakunin or just about any other revolutionaries could not at all fight for a working class interst as they themselves were not working class?

IMO - Lenin, no. He&#39;s the misfit amongst that group.

How many countries was Marx, Engles and Bakuin in control of? (and therefore the labour of millions), - I last counted none. Lenin though...

Are you honestly suggesting that one can be both in such a high centralised hierarchal position making decisions on behalf of millions and still have a poletarian consciousness? Please.


This childish attitude leads to the actions and hopes of millions of working class people being written off and branded as "bourgoirse", because real revolutionary proccesses are not perfect and formulaic.

No, its just that you want to leave out the most fundamental part - class analysis.

The state is being run by a venezulan ruling class.

Are that class just going to hand that power to the proletariat? - despite class conflict? (ie. Chavez and his cronies wanting to maintain that power).

They are strenghtening the power of the state by nationalizing industries and tooling up with new weapons of war.

The problem? - the state is not a proletarian state - its actually strenghthening the power of an opposing class.

Socialism cannot possibly result from this. And when it fails, it will be another scrubby mark on the list of failed so-called socialisms. Plenty of reason to turn future prospects of support for a new and radical society down.

Not that I oppose Chavez - fair play infact. If it benefits the people through wealth distribution - so be it.

But socialism - I dont think so.





The naivety of many (mainly young) comrades is being deliberately exploited here to promote, at best, vulgar philistine diversionary confusion about ‘class origins’ of individual leaders and the ‘class interest’ which they act for, neither of which is the main point in all this.

Its not the main point because you dont want it to be the main point. It is infact - the main point.

That is - who controls the state?

It aint the proletariat - and so any attempt to say socialism can be created from this must be the most naive belief imaginable - and one which believes that the ruling class can create socialism on behalf ow the workers.


The crucial measure is the extent to which the revolutionary movement in Venezuela understands the need for spreading and strengthening the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against the inevitable assaults by the local bourgeois and US imperialist intrigue and intervention.

What dictatorship of the proletariat? - at what point did the proletariat establish this dictatorship? - when Chavez got elected through bourgeoise representative "democratic" syetems with funding from Spanish Banks (which otherwise would be criticized by socialists - but since its Chavez ehh....).

Strenghthening this DoP is, in fact, strenghthening something which is not proletarian - its the ruling class.


If Venezuela is not to go the same way as Chile, El Salvador, and Grenada it must consciously and urgently get on with building the proletarian dictatorship as the best guarantee of future socialist progress.

Consciously? - by who? - a bunch of people in an elite position of office - deciding which model of F-16 fighter jets to purchase?



"Also - what did the Spanish banks get for their investment?" Or any other bank, for that matter?

Spanish banks - not venezulan banks.

""Controversially, foreign banks—including Spain&#39;s Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) and Banco Santander (BSCH), each the owner of one of Venezuela&#39;s largest banks—illicitly funneled millions of dollars into Chávez&#39;s campaign"" wiki


So those assets are owned externally - by spain - or some spanish individuals. Thats kind of Hugo to help them out with their profiteering.

[sexyguy]

What dictatorship of the proletariat? - at what point did the proletariat establish this dictatorship?
Exactly, if they want socialism and say they are Marxist they will have to establish all-round proletarian dictatorship ’consciously’ to smash the bourgeois state, and that is the main point.

[Herman]

At present - and in a position to make decisions - he is not a member of the proletariat - he cannot have a proletarian consciousness.

Hahaha... so people who don&#39;t work in industrial factories cannot be leaders because they don&#39;t have proletarian consciousness? They won&#39;t serve proletarian interests?

It&#39;s people like you who are so close-minded that will never get socialism working.

[Connolly]

Hahaha... so people who don&#39;t work in industrial factories cannot be leaders because they don&#39;t have proletarian consciousness? They won&#39;t serve proletarian interests?

Where did I say anything of the sort?

Let me ask you. Are Chavez, and those in ministirial offices - members of the proletariat?

If so - how?

If not - how the hell can they have a proletarian consciousness if they are not members of the proletariat?

And if they are not proletarian, then you are suggesting that an opposing class can create socialism on behalf of the working class.

Why bother with the working class grass roots - why not just vote our saviours into office - as in the case with Chavez.

Its a ridiculous notion altogether.

[Herman]

Let me ask you. Are Chavez, and those in ministirial offices - members of the proletariat?

If so - how?

If not - how the hell can they have a proletarian consciousness if they are not members of the proletariat?

Does it matter if they&#39;re not working class? Is it a crime against socialism? Khruschev came from a working class background. Does that mean that the Soviet Union was a perfect socialist system under him?

[Connolly]

Does it matter if they&#39;re not working class?

Well of course it matters. Its the most important part.

If he is of the working class - he has opposing interests.

Apart from a few experiments here and there (which are probably for show), he has not given any power to the proletariat.

All his actions so-far have been to strengthen the class he represents, and his own power - not the working class in the slightest. New weapons of war, nationalization of industry, control over the media, rule by decree etc etc. all strenghten the power of the ruling class state.

Maybe he thinks he&#39;s creating socialism - I dont know. But whats in actual fact happening, due to his consciousness and class, he is strenghtening his own position.


Is it a crime against socialism?

Well, yeah, it is. Socialism is where the working class control the state, and because of their consciousness, they make decisions which benefit their class.

An opposing class will make decisions which suits them.

Nothing (at least of any great significance) about this so-called "Bolivarian Revolution" is socialist.

Nationalizing industry - while the working class do not control the state - is not socialism.

I want to see a change in the class system - not a change in wealth.


Khruschev came from a working class background.

His background dosnt matter.


Does that mean that the Soviet Union was a perfect socialist system under him?

The soviet union IMO, was never socialist. Even still, I dont think anyone on Revleft would defend post Stalinist Russia as socialist.

[Herman]

Well of course it matters. Its the most important part.

If he is of the working class - he has opposing interests.

No, it doesn&#39;t. You can be as committed to socialism as a worker even if you aren&#39;t working class.


Apart from a few experiments here and there (which are probably for show), he has not given any power to the proletariat.

Communal councils aren&#39;t enough for you?


All his actions so-far have been to strengthen the class he represents, and his own power - not the working class in the slightest.

No? Let&#39;s see.


New weapons of war,

Needed for the defense of the working class, especially from the US and the CIA.


nationalization of industry,

This isn&#39;t socialist?


control over the media,

What control? You mean the non-renewing of the license of the RCTV? Apart from the fact that it collaborated in the coup against a legitimate president, it was reactionary, slandered countless times and was completely unproductive for the working class. You do realize that most of the media is against Chavez? There are only like 3 or 4 channels on TV which are owned by the state and the national radio station. The rest are all private and mostly against Chavez. I would barely call that &#39;control over the media&#39;.

I don&#39;t think you know or understand a lot about the situation in Venezuela.


rule by decree etc etc.

Rule by decree allowed by the parliament, which could have said no. But wait, you&#39;ll come up with the excuse, &#39;The parliament is full of chavistas&#33;&#39;. Huh? Wait, weren&#39;t all those parties who are in favour of Chavez voted there? Wasn&#39;t Chavez&#39;s party voted there too with a majority every time there have been elections? Oh dear... should voted for someone else then if you they didn&#39;t like it.


all strenghten the power of the ruling class state.

Righty-ho.

[Connolly]

No, it doesn&#39;t. You can be as committed to socialism as a worker even if you aren&#39;t working class.

Maybe so, but when in a position of power, and making socialist decisions (that is, decisions which benefit the working class), they cannot possibly know "whats best".

Again, you are suggesting that another class can create socialism on behalf of the working class.

By their very consciousness, they make decisions which benefit their class. They cannot percieve anything else due to their material experience.

A person cannot come up with an idea, have certain thoughts, see the world a certain way - without material experience.

Chavez does not experience that which the working class experiences - so he cannot think like them, or take decisions on their behalf.

Its called materialism.

If you do not agree with this, then you are adding in some sort of mystical and supernatural attribute to Chavez.

It appears to me, you have lost your ability to think critically. It appears Chavez&#39;s propaganda is working.


Communal councils aren&#39;t enough for you?

No, not really.

Who created them? - from the top down I wonder?

What is the scenario whereby a bourgeois state co-exists with these "communal councils"?

Why would a bourgeois state defend these "communal councils"?

Could these communal councils be undone if a right wing coup were to occur, or if someone else got elected who did not share Chavez&#39;s charitable politics?

So many questions must be asked about these councils it dosnt bare thinking about.

Its only right to conclude that the "steam" behind this "revolution" are Chavez, his ministers and their propaganda machine.


Needed for the defense of the working class, especially from the US and the CIA.

Why would a bourgeois state defend working class interests?


This isn&#39;t socialist?

Socialism is where the working class control the economy, their labour and the means of production.

Under the Chavez regime the state - which is not working class - controls industry.

It is not socialism.

Its propaganda.

I mean - go to Gadaffi&#39;s "socialst" Libya and see your socialism. See how a country, which otherwise should be one of the richest in the world from oil revenue - is plundered by an elite cast which controls industry and oil revenue.

See how dissent is crushed. See how the ruling elite get escorts around in their mercedes benz while people are stuck in their Lada&#39;s. See how the ruling elite live in mansions. See how the ruling elite go to Paris for their medical treatment and education.

Your notion of socialism is just plain and simply wrong.

The working class should have full control of what they produce - its not for another parasitic class to decide.


What control? You mean the non-renewing of the license of the RCTV? Apart from the fact that it collaborated in the coup against a legitimate president, it was reactionary, slandered countless times and was completely unproductive for the working class. You do realize that most of the media is against Chavez? There are only like 3 or 4 channels on TV which are owned by the state and the national radio station. The rest are all private and mostly against Chavez. I would barely call that &#39;control over the media&#39;.

I don&#39;t think you know or understand a lot about the situation in Venezuela.

So, basically, its a struggle between the domestic ruling class and free market foreigners for control over the means of propaganda.

Where are the working class in all of this?

Do they have a station?

Why should Chavez get a station to propagate his bourgeois propaganda while others who are working class - and who do not have privi access to capital and power - not have their own?

Is TV only for those with money and power over the labour of others?

If you support this bourgeois elitist setup, you cant possibly believe in working class emancipation.


Rule by decree allowed by the parliament, which could have said no. But wait, you&#39;ll come up with the excuse, &#39;The parliament is full of chavistas&#33;&#39;. Huh? Wait, weren&#39;t all those parties who are in favour of Chavez voted there? Wasn&#39;t Chavez&#39;s party voted there too with a majority every time there have been elections? Oh dear... should voted for someone else then if you they didn&#39;t like it.

Its amazing the double standards.

So once a bourgeois structure of "democratic" control agree&#39;s on something - its legitimate?

If Thatcher gets elected in the UK - thanks to her privileged access to capital - socialists are up in arms calling the democratic system a fraud.

If Bush gets elected in the US - through his privi access to capital and power - he&#39;s a fascist, a dictator.

If Chavez gets elected - also through his privi access to capital (which the ordinary working man could never dream of obtaining) - "its a democracy".

So bourgeois representative systems are democratic "when you want them to be".

FFS.

The democratic structure of society is either rotten and benefits those with access to capital - or it is not.

Its either this bourgeois structure or something radical and participatory.

Representative democracy cannot be democratic and privileged to those with capital at the same time.


So you choose.

Socialism ( and the subsequent radical direct paticipatory democratic system which may form, not an ounce like what we see today anywhere in the world)

- or bourgeois representative democracy (as can be seen in Venezuala, Ireland, UK, USA, with various minor alterations) whereby all candidates are enslaved into using capital to gain a position of power, and where the ordinary man is excluded from the democratic process becaue he has no access to capital.

Its a democracy for the rich. Real democracy is open to the homeless man on the street.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 17, 2007 10:09 pm


Let me ask you. Are Chavez, and those in ministirial offices - members of the proletariat?

If so - how?

If not - how the hell can they have a proletarian consciousness if they are not members of the proletariat?

And if they are not proletarian, then you are suggesting that an opposing class can create socialism on behalf of the working class.

Why bother with the working class grass roots - why not just vote our saviours into office - as in the case with Chavez.

Its a ridiculous notion altogether.
Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Engels weren&#39;t members of the proletariat either. I do not see how this should be held against them.

Consider this: there is a revolution going on in Venezuela. This is an undeniable fact. Just as in any other revolution, one class will win and one class will lose-either the revolution succeeds or the counter-revolutionaries succeed in crushing it. For now, it is clear that Hugo Chavez is not trying to crush the revolution and he is being pushed further toward the left. Instead of complaining how Hugo Chavez is not proletarian enough, don&#39;t you think it would be more productive to advance the cause of proletarian revolution in Venezuela, even if that means being on the same side as Chavez?

[Leo]

Consider this: there is a revolution going on in Venezuela.

No, there is not.


This is an undeniable fact.

How so? A putschist army bureaucrat gets elected into the office, makes a few remarks against Bush [although of course he remains a good partner of American oil firms] and suddenly it is a revolution?

Here are links to some articles on Venezuela:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/277_venappeal.htm

http://en.internationalism.org/ICConline/2...vism_fraud.html (http://en.internationalism.org/ICConline/2006/march/chavism_fraud.html)

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/295_chavez

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/303/chavez

http://www.ibrp.org/node/1527

[Connolly]

Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Engels weren&#39;t members of the proletariat either. I do not see how this should be held against them.

But I answered this already.......

""IMO - Lenin, no. He&#39;s the misfit amongst that group.

How many countries was Marx, Engles and Bakuin in control of? (and therefore the labour of millions), - I last counted none. Lenin though...

Are you honestly suggesting that one can be both in such a high centralised hierarchal position making decisions on behalf of millions and still have a poletarian consciousness? Please."""


Consider this: there is a revolution going on in Venezuela. This is an undeniable fact. Just as in any other revolution, one class will win and one class will lose-either the revolution succeeds or the counter-revolutionaries succeed in crushing it. For now, it is clear that Hugo Chavez is not trying to crush the revolution and he is being pushed further toward the left. Instead of complaining how Hugo Chavez is not proletarian enough, don&#39;t you think it would be more productive to advance the cause of proletarian revolution in Venezuela, even if that means being on the same side as Chavez?

Look, what have the workers contributed to this so-called revolution?

Firstly - the state is in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Infact, the entire state structure is of bourgeois design and is not democratic or participatory.

Second. Who is making these "revolutionary" decisions?

So far, nearly all of the (probably and understatement) decisions have been made the state.


The whole argument rests on your ability to prove, or explain, how the venezualan state is under the control of the working class.

Cant do that? - then less of the Bolivarian propaganda.

[Robo the Hobo]

Hugo Chavez is running his nation in the right dirrection, I just hope that the left will be able to organise itself after he is gone, and hopefully continue to grow...

[Rawthentic]

He is from a proletarian background actually but that attitude flies in the face of socialist history. Does that mean that Marx, Engels or Lenin or Bakunin or just about any other revolutionaries could not at all fight for a working class interst as they themselves were not working class?
Marx and the Petty-Bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67446)

They can fight, but as Marx and Engels understood, these movements had to be led independently by the proletariat.

[bolshevik butcher]

The movement is in the hands of the working class. That doesnt mean literally that a single working class person has to be at the head of the movement&#33; It means that it has to be a movement of the working class for the intersts of the working class.

[Dominicana_1965]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 18, 2007 02:40 pm
Where are the working class in all of this?

Do they have a station?

Why should Chavez get a station to propagate his bourgeois propaganda while others who are working class - and who do not have privi access to capital and power - not have their own?

Is TV only for those with money and power over the labour of others?

If you support this bourgeois elitist setup, you cant possibly believe in working class emancipation.


The Social Television of Venezuela is runned by the public. The people decide what would be broadcasted and won&#39;t, opposition is allowed. The Social Television has also allowed for Venezuelans of all social backgrounds to come to the surface and are starting to stop the racist & sexist representation the Bourgeois media has broadcasted for decades. The "real" Venezuela is being shown, with local streets that people can recognize, with problems that people face daily.

[Connolly]

The Social Television of Venezuela is runned by the public. The people decide what would be broadcasted and won&#39;t, opposition is allowed. The Social Television has also allowed for Venezuelans of all social backgrounds to come to the surface and are starting to stop the racist & sexist representation the Bourgeois media has broadcasted for decades. The "real" Venezuela is being shown, with local streets that people can recognize, with problems that people face daily.

Why would the bourgeois state sit back and allow the proletariat to undermine its control over the means of propaganda by having such a station?


What are these worker-controlled stations broadcasting? - is it pro Chavez (a member of the venezualan ruling class)?

[VukBZ2005]

What are these worker-controlled stations broadcasting? - is it pro Chavez (a member of the venezualan ruling class)?

As Trinitario said, TVes enables the population to speak out by allowing it to broadcast anything they wish from us Communists to the poor blacks of the "barrios", and as he said, even the opposition is allowed to broadcast what they want on TVes, provided that the population wants them to broadcast it.

And, as Trinitario said, TVes is owned by the public through a foundation. The only relationship that it has to the state is solely a monetary relationship. I do not know whether or not if you would accept that, but that is the way this is set up.

In fact, once they finally set up TVes&#39; website, hopefully you would take the time out to view the live internet stream, should that be present.

[Naxal]

He is a reformist, one of the better reformist, but a reformist never the less. He is not changing the Capitalist Structure (I think I have used the term &#39;Capitalist Structure&#39; in every one of my posts...I&#39;m not as repetitive or obsessive in everyday conversation) he is simply redirecting some of the profits from the Structure into positive things such as education and healthcare.

In addition he is doing little to develop the country, in fact he is making it more dependent- if oil prices go down in any significant way or if there is some sort of disruption of supply I assure you that Hugo will be overthrown. He is not reducing dependency, he is not building and improving things like agriculture and base production (food, shelter, warmth)- he is building an almost absolute dependence on one resource.

Two questions that are rarely asked of Chavez- How much of his support is due to support of Socialist ideals? How much is simple self interest?

[VukBZ2005]

In addition he is doing little to develop the country, in fact he is making it more dependent- if oil prices go down in any significant way or if there is some sort of disruption of supply I assure you that Hugo will be overthrown.

You are either lying or you have been less informed about the things happening there, otherwise there is no way in hell that you can be making such a claim.

The first pictures that I will use will be pictures that exemplify the development of Venezuelan infrastructure, specifically of roadways, electricity plants, and transportation systems;


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/TermoZulia.jpg

This is the new phase of the thermoelectric plant in the state of Zulia that will provide energy for the western part of Venezuela, called "TermoZulia". This new phase was inaugurated on Monday.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/trollymerida1.jpg

This is the first run of the Trolley M�rida or Trolmerida. Trolmerida is meant to add more of an avenue for the movement of people in the city from one place to the next at a appropriate speed.

This is the electromagnetic project that would establish a maglev line between Caracas and La Guiara. This Maglev will be produced with Venezuelan technology, thereby encouraging the economic independence of Venezuela by emphasizing its independent development of technological materials;

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/maglev.jpg



He is not reducing dependency, he is not building and improving things like agriculture and base production (food, shelter, warmth)- he is building an almost absolute dependence on one resource.

Once again, this proves that you either lying or you have been less informed.

The first thing I want to show you are these pictures;

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1590.jpg

This house is one of the many houses being built under the Chavez government of Venezuela as a part of a public housing program. This public housing program&#39;s purpose is to move people away from the barrios and into quality housing free of charge and its purpose is to solve the problem of housing shortages, a problem that has been neglected by bastards that were in power before; that is, the Chavez government is actually taking the money that they are earning from oil and the money that they are collecting through the tax agency and putting into existence a public housing program that is built specifically with the purpose of being freely available to anyone who wants to move into it. Not only that, the government gives away basic furniture with the free public housing&#33; The house above serves as the first picture of evidence that breaks the back of your claim that Chavez is not building things like shelter.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1589.jpg

This house here has been modified by the working class people who have moved in; see, since Chavez got into power, the purchasing power of the poor has risen to at least a 120%&#33; Because of this massive increase in income, plus a drop in the unemployment ratings (yeah, how the fuck can you be making the claim that this guy is not doing what he can to industrialize the country if the unemployment ratings are dropping?), people have more disposable income on their hands, especially those that have just moved into the free public housing that Chavez has built, so they could do things like this.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1587.jpg

This is just to show you the quality of the housing he has built for free. Awesome ceiling by the way :D


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1579.jpg

Again, this is just to make the point of what Chavez is doing with the housing that he has built for free. Now tell me, would you want to use this bathroom if that was your house?


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1564.jpg

This is an educational facility that has been built in this particular complex of free public housing; a day care center for children while their parents are working. Seriously, the fact that he is doing this in addition to building free housing, is something that makes the point that this guy is dedicated to the well-being of his people.

The second thing I want to show you are these pictures of one of the government-owned Mercal supermarkets; Mercal has evolved from its humble beginnings in army barracks during the 2003 oil "strike" to becoming Venezuela&#39;s largest grocer chain with 10,000,000 Venezuelans being constantly served by them today.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1928.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1919.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1921.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1922.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1925.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1918.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/100_1916.jpg

The purpose behind the pictures are to show that Chavez does prioritize the nourishment of the Venezuelan population and to further damage your claim that Chavez is not providing food at easily accessible prices to the Venezuelan population.

On the subject of agriculture, he has actually been engaged in the development of total food sovereignty for Venezuela (right now, Venezuela imports 70% of the food that it consumes and this is because of the fact that over 80% of the population is concentrated in urban areas, thanks to the seizure of productive farmland by to greedy landowners during the early years of the 40-year Fourth Republic) by undertaking massive land reform by breaking up the landfundia system that continues to exist in the barely populated farmlands of central Venezuela by seizing land that is not being used and giving it to productive farmers and nationalizing farmland belonging to incompetent landowners if they refuse to give up their lands.

Of course there is more, but I will post them later.

[Djehuti]

I am one of the few autonomous communists who actually belive that Venezuela is going the right way. I don&#39;t support their goverment in every way, far from it, but I think there is a lot of potential in Venezuela.

The goverment will not turn Venezuela into another Cuba, I am quite sure about it.
The goverment will not centralize all power to the state, there is a lot of decentralization going on over there and more and more Venezuelan workers are joining political groups of all sorts and participate in discussions and decisionmaking. There is problems and I do have certain fears, but I think that the working class will continue to grow stronger and will learn a lot in the process. A communist revolution will not happen there today nor tomorrow, but the conditions for such change is better today than it was five years ago.

One problem is that Chavez persona (not his formal power, as bourgeoisie media claim) is to dominating. The workers over there loves him and trust him, to much. The venezuelan working class needs much more prominent figures and even more initiatives from below.

And I do not like that Chavez goverment cooperate with Iran and other foul states. Yes, I realize that he needs allies, he needs to trade etc. but Iran is still a islamist reactionary state were socialist workers are being murdered. It sends out wrong signals.

[Entrails Konfetti]

He certainly isn&#39;t leading the country to a socialist revolution. He even said that the age of proletarian revolutions is over. I&#39;d describe him as a Left-Nationalist (nationalist who has social-democrat tendencies), who got into power with a putsch and was voted in. And some Venezualans are pushing him more to the social-left.

There really isn&#39;t anything revolutionary about the Bolivarian Revolution, unless you consider new policies revolutionary. It&#39;s like hybrid cars being revolutionary to the purely combustiom ones, or a new formula for shampoo.

Nevertheless the state appartus hasn&#39;t been smashed and replaced by a worker-run society of anysort. Just new policies enacted more favourable to the workers than the bourgeosie.

This goes to show that socialism-- in the policy sense, is like peanut-butter on bread, it&#39;s variable-- it can be added with honey, marshmello fluff, bananas, bacon, jelly, nutella, ect. Though there are many types of Socialism, and Communist theory developed from socialism by taking it further through communal social relations, workers councils, abolishing class-society and smashing the state by social revolution (pretty-much it throws the slices of bread in the trash, and doesn&#39;t mingle with additives)-- it&#39;s important to understand whats meant by Socialism: The policies or the Social-Revolution, and to understand the different qualities between the former and the latter.

I can&#39;t see under the current state of things Venezuela going any further than it has. Maybe there will be more housing, and reapropriations-- but that&#39;s it.

[chebol]

It seems to be the case that every time a revolution starts to happen, there remain those who deliberately poke their own eyes out in order to ignore it.

I&#39;m not going to say anything more, just direct you all to some good reading and debates:

LeftClickBlog discussion (http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/australian-isos-response-to-new-zealand.html)
NZ Socialist Worker sets the cat amongst the IST pigeons (http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2007/05/may-day-statement-by-central-committee.html)
Venezuela after the elections (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/162)
Understanding the bolivarian revolution (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/175)
Why most people don&#39;t get the venezuelan revolution (http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24521.shtml)
SocialistUnity discussion of Ven/ IST debate (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=491)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given some of the recent posts here, I think I&#39;ll soften up to the opinions of Djehuti above. Leo talked about the Soviet experience and the existence of FOUR actual positions regarding future directions (in a 2 x 2 matrix of sorts):

Stalin: "super-industrialisation" (rapid economic development) + socialism in one country
Trotsky: "super-industrialisation" + world revolution
Bukharin: continued NEP (slower economic development) + socialism in one country
LENIN (had he lived longer): continued NEP + world revolution

Simply put, Chavez, methinks, is employing Bukharin&#39;s route. The capitalism is so obvious (as I referred to in my earlier post in regards to PRIVATE Venezuelan banks), and manufacturing isn&#39;t developing fast enough. The oil money is being pumped into too many social programmes instead of more industrialisation (thus FASTER diversification away from oil &#036;&#036;&#036;). There&#39;s the opportunity right there to develop the economy through a less painful route (instead of seizing peasants&#39; grain), but it isn&#39;t taken.



P.S. - I am NOT a Trotskyist, and in Russia&#39;s case, I would&#39;ve taken the middle road between Lenin and Trotsky on the economic front (since industrialisation was needed, but not at the expense of agriculture).

[chebol]

Without necessarily accepting such a simple formula, i would say that if it were true, then there is no basis for claiming Chavez is following the "Bukharin" route.

You&#39;d have to have scales over your eyes and ears not to see and hear the internationalist rhetoric and actions of the Chavez government.

Mision milagro
Cheap oil to countries across the hemisphere
Description of the revolution as international, not limited by the borders of venezuela
Solidarity with x, y and z groups, movements, nations
Moves towards ALBA, Unasur, Bancosur,

The list goes on.
So how exactly is Chavez trying to *keep* socialism within the bounds of Venezuela, while his actions seem to point to his enthusiasm for helping to build it everywhere?

The Bolivarian revolution is internationalist from even before it began, from Francisco de Miranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Miranda), who fought in the french and american revolutions, to Bolivar, to the higher internationalism of the current process.

On the productive processes - well, remember, Venezuela, despite all that oil wealth, (and because of it, in fact) has been severely under-developed and distorted in its growth.

The manufacturing sector is speeding up, but they can&#39;t pull a fully developed country ready to jaunt into the higher stages of socialism out of their arses overnight. It is NOT just going into social programs. Check out such things as mision vuelvan caras, and do a bit of scouting for actual news, instead of assuming that Chavez is just sitting there doling out money to the venezuelan people.

Further, those social programs help to form the basis for a literate, trained and skilled (not to mention healthy) working class, which can work in, organise and run the new indutries as they are developed - which they are being.

Sure the capitalism&#39;s obvious - it&#39;s a country with a capitalist economy. The point is to look at what actual steps are being taken to move away from that, rather than measuring it by the assumption that so long as there are obviously capitalist enterprises there then nothing is really happening.

I really recommend reading the links I posted above.

[Leo]

Given some of the recent posts here, I think I&#39;ll soften up to the opinions of Djehuti above. Leo talked about the Soviet experience and the existence of FOUR actual positions regarding future directions (in a 2 x 2 matrix of sorts):

Stalin: "super-industrialisation" (rapid economic development) + socialism in one country
Trotsky: "super-industrialisation" + world revolution
Bukharin: continued NEP (slower economic development) + socialism in one country
LENIN (had he lived longer): continued NEP + world revolution

Simply put, Chavez, methinks, is employing Bukharin&#39;s route. The capitalism is so obvious (as I referred to in my earlier post in regards to PRIVATE Venezuelan banks), and manufacturing isn&#39;t developing fast enough. The oil money is being pumped into too many social programmes instead of more industrialisation (thus FASTER diversification away from oil &#036;&#036;&#036;). There&#39;s the opportunity right there to develop the economy through a less painful route (instead of seizing peasants&#39; grain), but it isn&#39;t taken.

I don&#39;t think there is a situation where we can "apply" the positions of different Bolsheviks in Venezuela. In Venezuela, the proletariat never took power, it is the capitalist class ruling Venezuela. In Russia, the proletariat had taken power and the bourgeoisie was taking it back. Those two situations are not comparable.

[Vargha Poralli]

What everyone forgets as usual with any Discussion about Chavez is the Venezulan workers. It is crucial to see and analyse what they are doing rather than what Chavez is doing.

Chavez regime is 100% preferable to a Pinochet style Junta given the current conditions in South America. Workers of Venezula had shown it with their support to Chavez. So I support Chavez.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Question now is how much is Chavez supported now, yes he won with a big majority (68% of the votes right? What percentage of the population is this?) during last elections. However how popular is he now?


Chavez regime is 100% preferable to a Pinochet style Junta given the current conditions in South America. Workers of Venezula had shown it with their support to Chavez. So I support Chavez.
It seems like you are offering two extremes, a social democratic figure on one side and a pseudo fascist on the other. What about the figures in the middle? Just look at Brasil, Argentina, Chile and so on. Now Im not saying that Venezuela should go down those routes, however the situation in Latin America currently isnt a two way crossroad where you could pick between an almost fascist regime from the 80s or Chavez.

[Connolly]

What everyone forgets as usual with any Discussion about Chavez is the Venezulan workers. It is crucial to see and analyse what they are doing rather than what Chavez is doing.

No, I disagree.

The bourgeois state is the prime mover of this phoney revolution. All attention must be placed on class analysis. That means looking at the situation on whole.

Excuse my ignorance, but what have the workers done anyway?

And what have the bourgeois state done to counter the actions of the working class?

Unless you are suggesting that there is no class conflict :o

THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68) is a revolutionary situation - not this bourgeois constructed pile of flag waving propaganda.

[VukBZ2005]

The bourgeois state is the prime mover of this phoney revolution. All attention must be placed on class analysis. That means looking at the situation on whole.

How is the Bourgeois state the "prime mover" of this "phoney revolution"?

If that was indeed the case, then why the fuck did the Venezuelan people put Chavez back into power? Obviously they thought that he is doing something right, otherwise that would not ever had happened.

Probably, what we have seen then, due to the success of the coup of April 11 and the re-centralization of power in the hands of the reactionary Capitalist classes, would have been a massive repression of revolutionary movements in Venezuela on the scale of what happened in Chile under the Fascist bastard Pinochet. At least 10,000 + died in that shit and were "disappeared".

You must understand and realize that under Chavez, there has been an explosion of revolutionary organizations and autonomous actions, which also validates the theory that Chavez is seen by the working class of Venezuela as both a cover to protect their independent autonomous movements and as a mechanism through which the industrialization of Venezuela and its transformation into a "first world" society can be realized under the current conditions, or, at least, until the time is right for them to actually take power. There has even been a blossoming of sorts for the Venezuelan Anarchist movement because of this man&#33;

The Hungarian Workers Councils used Imre Nagy in the same way (even though that was not as successful :( ) during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

So to make up excuses is to indirectly validate the legitimacy of that coup and to indirectly validate the potentially explicit murder of thousands of our Venezuelan comrades and the destruction of autonomous movements that have grown under Chavez.

I&#39;m sure that if you were alive in Chile in the early 1970&#39;s, especially during both the "Copper Worker&#39;s Strike" and the "Truck Workers Strike", you would have said that this was an independent movement of the working class against Allende and he is nothing more than another useless Democratic Socialist who won&#39;t do anything to put power into the hands of the working class of Chile. I&#39;m also sure that if he actually called for the people and the sections of the Amry that were loyal to him to resist his overthrow and was put back into power, they would have probably stood a better chance at achieving real control over the means of production (they were already taking over factories throughout Chile during Allende&#39;s rule) than they did under Pinochet.


Excuse my ignorance, but what have the workers done anyway?

There have been an explosion of occupied factories in the past five years; from the recently nationalized Invepal, the independent occupation of the oil fields by the oil workers in support of the Chavez government during the 2003 "strike" to the occupation of the Sanitarios Maracay manufacturing plant, which is supported by both the UNT and is currently ongoing.

Even Chavez (yeah, that&#39;s right, even Chavez&#33;) has repeatedly called for the occupation of the factories by the working class (which many have taken up), which brings this into question; why in the world would a person on the level of which you are speaking of would even call for the occupation of factories? Seriously, that is like a contradiction in motion there, because I thought that Capitalist leaders do not usually call for their people to occupy of the bases of the economic power of the class thatt they are serving.


And what have the bourgeois state done to counter the actions of the working class?

Actually, the government itself has done nothing deadly and serious to the actions of the working class. In fact, they have been allowed to obtain a profound level of strategic autonomous movement at the expense of a government that you would consider a normal Capitalist government.


Unless you are suggesting that there is no class conflict :o

Of course there is, but this is mainly between the Captialist class and the working class of Venezuela.


THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68) is a revolutionary situation - not this bourgeois constructed pile of flag waving propaganda.

Yes, but you are forgetting a few things; Venezuela is an non-industrialized country with massive contradictions; it is the most urbanized country in Latin America, with over 85-90% of the population living in urban areas; it has to vast amounts of oil, nickel, iron ore, coal, bauxite and hydroelectric capabilities, but have barely used it and when it has been used, it has been used for export and France is an industrialized country that has utilized all the natural resources that it needs completely and has experienced a profound level of industrialization and social, political, and cultural development; so to compare the revolutionary movement of a working class in an industrialized country with that of an non-industrialized country on the grounds that you are comparing it with is disgusting and outrageous because you are comparing two extremely different realities.

You need to take into account the particular reality of a country and the mindset that exists in the country and how they are effected by changes in the general situation of their country. You can not judge a book by its cover because you never know what&#39;s inside that book.

And, to call what has been happening as a pile of flag waving proproganda ( XD ) just shows that you fail to grasp how high the stakes are. If Venezuela completely goes on this course, then the gates are open for all kinds of revolutionary activity in Latin America. Therefore, it is imperative for all revolutionary to support the Venezuelan working class and its autonomous movements, not just Chavez, because it may be an asset later on for us.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by chebol+June 20, 2007 08:44 pm--> (chebol &#064; June 20, 2007 08:44 pm) Without necessarily accepting such a simple formula, i would say that if it were true, then there is no basis for claiming Chavez is following the "Bukharin" route.

You&#39;d have to have scales over your eyes and ears not to see and hear the internationalist rhetoric and actions of the Chavez government.

Mision milagro
Cheap oil to countries across the hemisphere
Description of the revolution as international, not limited by the borders of venezuela
Solidarity with x, y and z groups, movements, nations
Moves towards ALBA, Unasur, Bancosur,

The list goes on.
So how exactly is Chavez trying to *keep* socialism within the bounds of Venezuela, while his actions seem to point to his enthusiasm for helping to build it everywhere? [/b]
I&#39;m well aware of his international activities, and am particularly optimistic regarding continental integration, in particular (since he&#39;s the only major figure going for such). However, if you&#39;re saying that he&#39;s as internationalist as the Bolsheviks, then you&#39;re definitely on the wrong end of the analysis (look at the Colombian dead end).


Originally posted by [email protected]
I don&#39;t think there is a situation where we can "apply" the positions of different Bolsheviks in Venezuela. In Venezuela, the proletariat never took power, it is the capitalist class ruling Venezuela. In Russia, the proletariat had taken power and the bourgeoisie was taking it back. Those two situations are not comparable.


g.ram
What everyone forgets as usual with any Discussion about Chavez is the Venezulan workers. It is crucial to see and analyse what they are doing rather than what Chavez is doing.

Chavez regime is 100% preferable to a Pinochet style Junta given the current conditions in South America. Workers of Venezula had shown it with their support to Chavez. So I support Chavez.

Seeing you two bump into each other and into me is like someone else saying, "Pot, meet kettle." :D ;)

To all three of you:

I realize that things are more complicated than the simplified matrix which I presented (agreement with chebol on the "simple formula" part).

I also realize that the Venezuelan workers have NOT taken power (agreement with Leo), otherwise there&#39;d be blood on the streets and the spreading of the revolution to the rest of the former Gran Colombia (look up that former state under Bolivar) plus Bolivia and Peru.

Last, I also realize that "it is crucial to see and analyse what [the Venezuelan workers] are doing rather than what Chavez is doing" (agreement with g.ram).

[Connolly]

If that was indeed the case, then why the fuck did the Venezuelan people put Chavez back into power? Obviously they thought that he is doing something right, otherwise that would not ever had happened.

Oh please. So bourgeois representative "democracy" is democratic now is it? - when it suits you that is.

Look how many times Thatcher was put back into power. Look at Bush and how many times he was put into power. I mean - the list is endless. That does not mean anything. Its more a competition of personality than anything else.

It is not democratic, and he was not elected democratically. He was elected because he had the money to run for election - funded by external Spanish banks.

You are trying to legitimize a structure created by the bourgeoisie to maintain their domination as "democratic". Honestly like...


Probably, what we have seen then, due to the success of the coup of April 11 and the re-centralization of power in the hands of the reactionary Capitalist classes, would have been a massive repression of revolutionary movements in Venezuela on the scale of what happened in Chile under the Fascist bastard Pinochet. At least 10,000 + died in that shit and were "disappeared".

You must understand and realize that under Chavez, there has been an explosion of revolutionary organizations and autonomous actions, which also validates the theory that Chavez is seen by the working class of Venezuela as both a cover to protect their independent autonomous movements and as a mechanism through which the industrialization of Venezuela and its transformation into a "first world" society can be realized under the current conditions, or, at least, until the time is right for them to actually take power. There has even been a blossoming of sorts for the Venezuelan Anarchist movement because of this man&#33;

The Hungarian Workers Councils used Imre Nagy in the same way (even though that was not as successful ) during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

So to make up excuses is to indirectly validate the legitimacy of that coup and to indirectly validate the potentially explicit murder of thousands of our Venezuelan comrades and the destruction of autonomous movements that have grown under Chavez.

I&#39;m sure that if you were alive in Chile in the early 1970&#39;s, especially during both the "Copper Worker&#39;s Strike" and the "Truck Workers Strike", you would have said that this was an independent movement of the working class against Allende and he is nothing more than another useless Democratic Socialist who won&#39;t do anything to put power into the hands of the working class of Chile. I&#39;m also sure that if he actually called for the people and the sections of the Amry that were loyal to him to resist his overthrow and was put back into power, they would have probably stood a better chance at achieving real control over the means of production (they were already taking over factories throughout Chile during Allende&#39;s rule) than they did under Pinochet.

This is all fine and dandy - but why would the ruling class (Chavez and his fellow hero&#39;s) do something which damages their class interests?

Chavez acts like a mop. He&#39;s sapping all the energy of the working class to be able to act independently, and instead, they are putting all their hopes into the Chavez government to "lead the way".

Thats why there is not massive repression, they have put their trust in him.

But thats not good enough seeing as he is not working class.


There have been an explosion of occupied factories in the past five years; from the recently nationalized Invepal, the independent occupation of the oil fields by the oil workers in support of the Chavez government during the 2003 "strike" to the occupation of the Sanitarios Maracay manufacturing plant, which is supported by both the UNT and is currently ongoing.

So I take it then that Chavez has no control - what-so-ever - over the oil being pumped out of these oil rigs?

I take it then that these factories are not owned or controlled by the state - but are - infact owned collectivly by the people of venezuala, and controlled by the workers?

That Chavez, a member of the ruling class, is now kicking himself having lost control over venezualas oil wealth to the working class?



Even Chavez (yeah, that&#39;s right, even Chavez&#33;) has repeatedly called for the occupation of the factories by the working class (which many have taken up), which brings this into question; why in the world would a person on the level of which you are speaking of would even call for the occupation of factories? Seriously, that is like a contradiction in motion there, because I thought that Capitalist leaders do not usually call for their people to occupy of the bases of the economic power of the class thatt they are serving.

With or without these occupations - the state still controls and owns these factories dont they?

So what difference do occupations make? - the ruliing class still have control (ie the state) - the working class have, well, the illusion of control.


Actually, the government itself has done nothing deadly and serious to the actions of the working class. In fact, they have been allowed to obtain a profound level of strategic autonomous movement at the expense of a government that you would consider a normal Capitalist government.

And you find nothing suspicious about this? - that the ruling class would sit back while their interests are damaged - despite having the army and police at hand?

Or do you put your trust in this parasitic ruling class piece of shit?


Of course there is, but this is mainly between the Captialist class and the working class of Venezuela.

So you are saying there is not class conflict between the bourgeois state and the working class?

Or is the state controlled by the working class?


Yes, but you are forgetting a few things; Venezuela is an non-industrialized country with massive contradictions; it is the most urbanized country in Latin America, with over 85-90% of the population living in urban areas; it has to vast amounts of oil, nickel, iron ore, coal, bauxite and hydroelectric capabilities, but have barely used it and when it has been used, it has been used for export and France is an industrialized country that has utilized all the natural resources that it needs completely and has experienced a profound level of industrialization and social, political, and cultural development; so to compare the revolutionary movement of a working class in an industrialized country with that of an non-industrialized country on the grounds that you are comparing it with is disgusting and outrageous because you are comparing two extremely different realities.

You need to take into account the particular reality of a country and the mindset that exists in the country and how they are effected by changes in the general situation of their country. You can not judge a book by its cover because you never know what&#39;s inside that book.

Im not talking about how advanced the country is, or what its resources are.

Im saying what a revolutionary situation looks like. A situation built from below that leaves the ruling class in fear and the state on the verge of collapse or destruction in the face of direct working class power.

This is not whats happening in Venezuala. The ruling class state is very comfortable and without challenge from the workers. Infact the workers are under the illusion that the state represents their interests.


And, to call what has been happening as a pile of flag waving proproganda ( XD ) just shows that you fail to grasp how high the stakes are. If Venezuela completely goes on this course, then the gates are open for all kinds of revolutionary activity in Latin America. Therefore, it is imperative for all revolutionary to support the Venezuelan working class and its autonomous movements, not just Chavez, because it may be an asset later on for us.

Well when you take a look at the soviet era support for "revolutions around the world" you will see that the conditions are usually, or end up, being based on the soviet model itself.

I dont see why Venezuala is any different.

Also - who gives a fuck what "revolutions" are sanctioned by the venezualan ruling class. The working class will make the revolutions - not parasitic Chavez and his cohorts.

Socialist revolution will be reliant on nobody only the working class.

[freedumb]

you have to widen the cage before you can break through it. I believe this is true of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan revolution is not the product of one man, but of the Venezuelan people. It is democratic and subject to the will of the people. It is a mixed economy at present, but who knows in the future? It is dynamic, constantly changing. Venezuelans have more and more input into the direction their country is taking, which is the critical issue here. Any movement that is truly democratic is a good one.

The question is not whether we like it, but whether Venezuelans do. They do, and they are engaged in it, so therefore we leftists are in solidarity with them.

Put it this way, it&#39;s a step in the right direction and it shows what is possible with even minor reform to a capitalist system. It&#39;s not perfect, but that&#39;s not the point.

... And fuck you to all the smug Western media and political elites who would like us to believe differently.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 21, 2007 11:21 pm
THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68) is a revolutionary situation - not this bourgeois constructed pile of flag waving propaganda.

I could say that this is only revolutionary situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October+Revolution) not the one you have mentioned.

I am wrong the same way you are. World is not a video game so that we may reload everything when we have lost and everything to came exactly as it had come before.

I agree with you to a certain extent.Situation in Venezuela is not exactly to my liking but I have little capability to do anything sitting before my computer.

But the Venezuelan workers on whom I put my faith on surely know what they are doing. They prefer Chavez he is way better than the Military regimes and Corrupt parties governments they often had in the past.

[Angry Young Man]

Too impatient to read what everyone else said, but I think he&#39;s pretty mint&#33; ;)

Right... back to chitchat then.

[Eleftherios]

I think some people here might change their minds after they watch this videp:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

[redflag32]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2007 08:40 pm

Do you think that he is just "a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela" (Leo Uilleann) who uses socialist rhetoric to get popular support

Yeah, I think id agree with that.

He is not working class. How can someone not working class have a proletarian class consciousness? :blink:

I thought "being determines consciousness"?

Also - what did the spanish banks get for their investment?
Karl Marx wasnt working class :P

[Herman]

But thats not good enough seeing as he is not working class.

He isn&#39;t part of the ruling class either.

Are you saying that he should be mining for coal or working in a blast furnace?

&#39;Being&#39; does not necessarily determine the consciousness you have. Just like a worker can have false consciousness and the most reactionary of ideas, so can a bourgeois have the most radical and progressive of ideas. This is the case of Karl Marx.

Then perhaps Karl Marx shouldn&#39;t have been one of the leaders of the first international, since he wasn&#39;t working class.

[CommunistCrusader]

I don&#39;t completely agree with the politics of Hugo Chavez but, I certainly like him a lot.
Revolutionary Venezuela is certainly a much better country than North Korea.

In fact, compare Venezuela to the stereotypical "communist countries" like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea and you&#39;ll find Venezuela is coming closest to socialism.

Plus, have any of you heard of Citizens Energy Corp. led by Joe Kennedy bringing oil from Venezuela (With Hugo&#39;s help of course) to the poor of the United States at a reduced price? And all the profits are going into Chavez&#39;s reforms.

Poverty has dropped by 25% in Venezuela&#33;

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Here&#39;s even a bourgeois article that acknowledges Chavez&#39;s efforts to wean the country away from oil and towards manufacturing:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-work...ack=3&cset=true (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-works23jun23,1,7597536.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=3&cset=true)


Chavez&#39;s social engineering has taken his predecessors&#39; plans a step further in giving worker groups a piece of the enterprises and letting them manage the businesses in concert with networks of "community councils" that are local governing modules.

...


In no area of Venezuela is the spending push more evident than here in Bolivar state, where Chavez recently completed a billion-dollar bridge over the Orinoco, and the &#036;400-million first phase of a new "Steel City."

The fifth phase of a sprawling hydroelectric project that provides the country with 70% of its electricity is under construction on the nearby Caroni River, which feeds into the Orinoco.

"This will all become an industrial zone," said Radwan Sabbagh, president of Ferromineros Orinoco, the state-owned enterprise in charge of Steel City. The project is going up in Ciudad Piar, an isolated municipality 65 miles south of here that has about 8,000 residents, most of whom work in low-paying mining and cattle jobs.

Steel City&#39;s first phase, which employs 300, is a system that concentrates iron ore to make Venezuelan steel more competitive in domestic and foreign markets. In 10 years, Sabbagh said, the area will be a heavy industry nexus that will include smelters and steel factories and be home to 10,000 steel industry workers.

"The iron factories will bring light industry and then urban growth," Sabbagh said. "It&#39;s part of our territorial development policy to generate economic and social development where now there is low population density."

Chavez plans several other industrial cities around state-owned lumber and aluminum factories and gold mines here in the four-state region called Guayana. The region has 52% of Venezuela&#39;s land mass and a preponderance of the country&#39;s nonpetroleum natural resources but only 8% of its population.

The magnificent &#036;1.2-billion Orinoco River bridge inaugurated just west of here in November is meant to spur development of Anzoategui and Monagas states to the north and increase commercial links with Brazil to the south.

Brazil, in fact, financed &#036;100 million of the bridge&#39;s cost. The Sao Paulo-based Oderbrecht construction firm was the contractor. Construction will start soon on another billion-dollar bridge spanning the Orinoco 300 miles west of here, also to be built by Oderbrecht.

[Global_Justice]

this week he is visiting the leaders of russia, then belarus then iran. wtf? why is he making friends these dictators?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Probably the same reason why Cuba turned dependent on the former Soviet Union. Venezuela needs allies and prevent isolation. Russia is a handy ally, being a former nuclear superpower (which they today sort of still are), Iran as being a fellow large oil producing country. As for Belarus...I dont know man...

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:44 am


The Bolivarian revolution is internationalist from even before it began, from Francisco de Miranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Miranda), who fought in the french and american revolutions, to Bolivar, to the higher internationalism of the current process.


Given what Russia quickly turned into, the comparison between it and Venezuela is perhaps intended as irony. The Bolivarian Revolution is the best thing to come along since Hungary 1956. Sure, it would be lots better with workers&#39; councils but the communal councils are a big step and I haven&#39;t heard any suggestions that Chavez is an obstacle to any form of democratization.

As for abolishing the state, where in hell did that ever happen? What would be the purpose of such lunacy other than making life easier for the us invasion force?

Long live the Bolivarian Revolution. And thanks for the pitchers, Firefox

[RedHal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:38 pm
this week he is visiting the leaders of russia, then belarus then iran. wtf? why is he making friends these dictators?
Because Chavez correctly sees the US as a major threat&#33; He needs to build diplomatic allies with China, Russia, Cuba, Iran etc. because they can prevent a US invasion of Venezuela. You do realize that the US regime would love to overthrow/assasinate Chavez, if they can get away with it. They&#39;ve already tried once&#33; Quit your up in arms liberal "oh my god dictators&#33;" the real world is too dangerous to play your idealists games.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2007 08:40 pm

Do you think that he is just "a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela" (Leo Uilleann) who uses socialist rhetoric to get popular support

Yeah, I think id agree with that.

He is not working class. How can someone not working class have a proletarian class consciousness? :blink:

I thought "being determines consciousness"?

Also - what did the spanish banks get for their investment?
He could be bourgeois on LSD&#33; :o

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:20 am

[QUOTE]Do you think that he is just "a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela" (Leo Uilleann) who uses socialist rhetoric to get popular support

Yeah, I think id agree with that.

He is not working class. How can someone not working class have a proletarian class consciousness? :blink:

I thought "being determines consciousness"?


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara.... none were of the working class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara.... none were of the working class.

And I suppose Chavez is a coal miner, is he?

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 04:41 am
Cornet:


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara.... none were of the working class.

And I suppose Chavez is a coal miner, is he?
Chavez as I understand, was the son of two schoolteachers, just like Bukharin. Lenin was the son of a school superintendant and a physician. Trotsky was the son of a prosperous farmer. Guevara was the son of an engineer. Castro was the son of a sugar planter.

Chavez&#39;s class roots are no less proletarian than any of the other worthies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet, yes I knew that -- but, as you will also know, class is not about what family you are born in, but your relation to the means of production, and that means that Chavez is no more working class than Engels was.

[fashbasher 5000]

My father was a lawyer, that doesn&#39;t say anything about me.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 05:05 am
Chavez is no more working class than Engels was.
So what? I said nothing about him or anybody else being workingclass (except myself).

[Eleftherios]

One of the weakest arguments against Chavez is that he is not working class and hence not worthy of our support, regardless of whether he called upon the working class to put itself at the forefront of the revolution. I am starting to think these people are running out of valid ways to criticize him and instead point out to minor details.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:22 am
One of the weakest arguments against Chavez is that he is not working class and hence not worthy of our support, regardless of whether he called upon the working class to put itself at the forefront of the revolution. I am starting to think these people are running out of valid ways to criticize him and instead point out to minor details.
As though the bolsheviks were horny-handed sons of toil. lol

[Vargha Poralli]

As though the bolsheviks were horny-handed sons of toil. lol

What is the point bringing in Bolsheviks in to this ?

Anyway yes many Bolsheviks ran and file members were indeed horney handed sons of Toil not some anarchist princes :P

[black magick hustla]

The only individual of the leading bolsheviks that was working class was perhaps, only bukharin.

the rest, zinoviev, trotsky, lenin, etc. were not.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:04 pm
The only individual of the leading bolsheviks that was working class was perhaps, only bukharin.

the rest, zinoviev, trotsky, lenin, etc. were not.
Well Lenin,Trotsky,Zinonev were not the only members of the Bolshevik party. Trotsky was not even in the party till 1917.

World do not revolve around leaders.

[Leo]

Bukharin was, similarly to Lenin, a son to a family of teachers and he studied at a university, and he spent his years before the October Revolution working for the party rather than working in a factory. Lenin had only one case as a lawyer and he lost.

Kamanev was a son to a railway worker. Kamanev never graduated from the university, he was arrested before he could graduate. Zinoviev and Trotsky were sons to peasant families.

None of the Bolsheviks lead a wealthy life before the revolution. In fact most of them did not have wealthy lives after the revolution. Lenin slept in a child-size bed all his life, when he was shot there weren&#39;t any doctors in Kremlin so Krupskaya had to send someone to get a lemon for putting on the wound&#33; The standard meal in the Kremlin kantina in 1918 was buckwheat porridge and thin vegetable soup.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 01, 2007 10:24 am
Lenin had only one case as a lawyer and he lost.
Details on this lawyer case, please&#33; :lol: :D ;)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by g.ram+July 01, 2007 04:47 pm--> (g.ram @ July 01, 2007 04:47 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:04 pm
The only individual of the leading bolsheviks that was working class was perhaps, only bukharin.

the rest, zinoviev, trotsky, lenin, etc. were not.
Well Lenin,Trotsky,Zinonev were not the only members of the Bolshevik party. Trotsky was not even in the party till 1917.

World do not revolve around leaders. [/b]
of course not.

i was just pointing out that to the bolsheviks in the board.

anyway leo uillean probably you are right. however, i heard that lenin didnt get much medical attention because he refused to go to the hospital, thinking they were going to kill him.

keep in mind that both zinoviev and trotsky were sons of wealthy peasant families. they didnt have "poor" origins.

lenin was son of a low ranking bureacrat.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Marmot+July 01, 2007 11:31 pm--> (Marmot &#064; July 01, 2007 11:31 pm)
Originally posted by g.ram+July 01, 2007 04:47 pm--> (g.ram &#064; July 01, 2007 04:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:04 pm
The only individual of the leading bolsheviks that was working class was perhaps, only bukharin.

the rest, zinoviev, trotsky, lenin, etc. were not.
Well Lenin,Trotsky,Zinonev were not the only members of the Bolshevik party. Trotsky was not even in the party till 1917.

World do not revolve around leaders. [/b]
of course not.

i was just pointing out that to the bolsheviks in the board.[/b]
Well I am a Bolshevist so i felt the necessity to reply to it.


[email protected]

anyway leo uillean probably you are right. however, i heard that lenin didnt get much medical attention because he refused to go to the hospital, thinking they were going to kill him.

Yes that was initially - on the day he was shot.

Anyway Russia didn&#39;t have skilled doctors competent at that time to remove that bullet.


Marmot
keep in mind that both zinoviev and trotsky were sons of wealthy peasant families. they didnt have "poor" origins.


lenin was son of a low ranking bureacrat.

What this has to do with anything they wrote or did ? A person&#39;s actions define what he is not his birth.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:08 pm


What this has to do with anything they wrote or did ? A person&#39;s actions define what he is not his birth.
it has nothing to do with anything. i am just addressing people who fetishize class.

[Connolly]

One of the weakest arguments against Chavez is that he is not working class and hence not worthy of our support, regardless of whether he called upon the working class to put itself at the forefront of the revolution. I am starting to think these people are running out of valid ways to criticize him and instead point out to minor details.

How is it the weakest argument against Chavez?

Its one of the most important arguments. He is not working class - and therefore he has different class interests. His being determines his consciousness, what decisions he makes, what he can percieve as the best way forward, and whether he can trust the stupid dumb masses with running things for themselves without his divine intervention.

Again - how is the venezualan state a workers state?

Prove it to me - other wise dont bother going further with this. As far as I am concerned, only the working class can create socialism - not bourgeois magicians.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Marmot+July 01, 2007 11:41 pm--> (Marmot @ July 01, 2007 11:41 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 06:08 pm


What this has to do with anything they wrote or did ? A person&#39;s actions define what he is not his birth.
it has nothing to do with anything. i am just addressing people who fetishize class. [/b]
Oh fine then.

I thought that you were saying Russian Revolution failed because of the class of some of its leaders. Sorry for that.

[CornetJoyce]

Bukharin&#39;s old man was not a farmworker: he owned the farm. Zinoviev I don&#39;t know about Of course, the bolsheviks were not wealthy&#33; Neither was Chavez. Like Castro, he wanted to be a pitcher but wasn&#39;t major league quality.
To be sure, there&#39;s no reason to discuss this crap. Chavez is as "workingclass" as the typical bolshevik leader. Even those who come from workingclass roots didn&#39;t necessarily do anything that an actual worker would regard as work; and they are no longer workingclass when they rule a state bureaucracy and supervise workers.
Chavez has his virtues and no doubt his vices but neither is related to his unworkingclassness.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 01, 2007 11:43 pm

One of the weakest arguments against Chavez is that he is not working class and hence not worthy of our support, regardless of whether he called upon the working class to put itself at the forefront of the revolution. I am starting to think these people are running out of valid ways to criticize him and instead point out to minor details.

How is it the weakest argument against Chavez?

Its one of the most important arguments. He is not working class - and therefore he has different class interests. His being determines his consciousness, what decisions he makes, what he can percieve as the best way forward, and whether he can trust the stupid dumb masses with running things for themselves without his divine intervention.

Again - how is the venezualan state a workers state?

Prove it to me - other wise dont bother going further with this. As far as I am concerned, only the working class can create socialism - not bourgeois magicians.
Are you really an Idiot ?

No one is claiming that Venezuela is a worker&#39;s state.

But refusing the workers action there really shows your arrogance. I guess nothing is a revolution for you except the one whicvh follows your blueprint. Go and sleep so that you can dream for that revolution better.

[Leo]

keep in mind that both zinoviev and trotsky were sons of wealthy peasant families. they didnt have "poor" origins.

Yeah, but they were from very small and distant villages and their parents weren&#39;t educated.


Bukharin&#39;s old man was not a farmworker: he owned the farm.

Bukharin&#39;s old man was a teacher. He had nothing to do with farms.


lenin was son of a low ranking bureacrat.

Well, Lenin&#39;s father was a teacher in the small town they lived in so he was kind of a "public figure" as well. He died when Lenin was 16.

I mean, this is not a political point, obviously, but what I am saying is that being a revolutionary meant being have to go through hard times. Well, it still does.

[Connolly]

Are you really an Idiot ?

No one is claiming that Venezuela is a worker&#39;s state.

But refusing the workers action there really shows your arrogance. I guess nothing is a revolution for you except the one whicvh follows your blueprint. Go and sleep so that you can dream for that revolution better.

Maybe you should read the posts again.

People are 1. Suggesting socialism is being created here and 2. That this is a "revolution".

Bullshit on both counts - its neither.

What workers action? - and in what way is it socialist?

I mean iv asked so many questions here - and I havnt got answers.

I dont have a "blueprint". What I can see is that the state is not proletarian. what I can see is the state nationalizing industry. What I can see is this so-called revolution being led by the state.

It has F-all to do with socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


So what? I said nothing about him or anybody else being workingclass (except myself).

You seem to be harping on about it a bit too much if this point means nothing to you....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


Prove it to me - other wise dont bother going further with this. As far as I am concerned, only the working class can create socialism - not bourgeois magicians.

I think you have bent this stick a little too far the other way; so long as the working class (democratically) dominate non-working class Bolsheviks, there need be no problem.

Problems arise when this is reversed (as it was in Russia, when the core of the working class was killed-off in the war and civil war).

In such circumstances, class does become important, and the substitutionist non-working class Bolsheviks (aka, the &#39;leaders&#39;) in the end become the new ruling class.

[Incidentally, in the 1920&#39;s they used dialectics to &#39;justify&#39; this segue, on the lines that, sure it is contradictory for the working class not to be the ruling class in a &#39;workers&#39; state&#39; (and to be exploited and oppressed, too), but what the hell, that&#39;s dialectics for you --, and if you do not like it, that proves you do not &#39;understand&#39; dialectics, so here&#39;s a bullet in the back of your head to convince you....]

But, if the working class remain the dominant material force in the party, then the mystics will not be able to control things.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2007 08:09 pm
Cornet:


So what? I said nothing about him or anybody else being workingclass (except myself).

You seem to be harping on about it a bit too much if this point means nothing to you....
By "harping" you apparently mean that I stated it. It obviously means a lot to detractors of Chavez, who are, as far as I can tell, all proponents of gulag socialism. Therefore, I simply compared what we can know about Chavez&#39;s class with those of the icons of gulag socialism. End of story except for quibbling denials.

I should mention that among the radicals I have known, there has always seemed to be a correlation between nonworkingclass origins and dilletantism; but if every nonworkingclass radical were dismissed we&#39;d have to do without most of the most useful people, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky included.

I am not uncritical of Chavez but I think the SOBs in Washington and New York can be counted on for criticism. The accusation that he hasn&#39;t immediately decreed utopia is simply infantile. It took Yahweh 7 days and he still got it all wrong.

[Connolly]

I think you have bent this stick a little too far the other way; so long as the working class (democratically) dominate non-working class Bolsheviks, there need be no problem.

Problems arise when this is reversed (as it was in Russia, when the core of the working class was killed-off in the war and civil war).

In such circumstances, class does become important, and the substitutionist non-working class Bolsheviks (aka, the &#39;leaders&#39;) in the end become the new ruling class.

[Incidentally, in the 1920&#39;s they used dialectics to &#39;justify&#39; this segue, on the lines that, sure it is contradictory for the working class not to be the ruling class in a &#39;workers&#39; state&#39; (and to be exploited and oppressed, too), but what the hell, that&#39;s dialectics for you --, and if you do not like it, that proves you do not &#39;understand&#39; dialectics, so here&#39;s a bullet in the back of your head to convince you....]

But, if the working class remain the dominant material force in the party, then the mystics will not be able to control things.

:lol: , im glad you see where im coming from.


So was Chavez elected democratically? Is the venezualan state a democratic institution?

Is it democratic when chavez gets to rule by decree?

As far as I am concerned - its far from it. The venezualan state has not been "smashed" and reconstructed, it still plays by bourgeois rules.

Who pulls the strings of the state? - and how did they get there? Your the philosopher, but I find it difficult to believe that one can stay in a position of overall control for 5 or more years and still have the ability to make decisions on behalf of the working class. I find that extremely difficult to accept, especially when their class relation has been changed for such long durations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


So was Chavez elected democratically? Is the venezualan state a democratic institution?

Well, I was addressing your general point; I wasn&#39;t at all concerned about Chavez.

However, on that, I tend to agree with you; but we should treat Chavez like we do, say, left wing trade union leaders -- use their rhetoric against them, but organise and push the revolution forward from below: land reform now, workers control...you know the rest, I am sure. This will allow socialists in Venezuela to expose Chavez&#39;s reformism, and destroy the illusions many have in him.

The question of power (i.e., class power) will arise at some point in Venezuela, and workers are going to need their own organisation to resist the coming attack, and go on the offensive, when this occurs (or even before).

But, criticising Chavez now will just line you up with the right, and alienate those who have illusions in him, defeating the purpose of your criticisms.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


By "harping" you apparently mean that I stated it. It obviously means a lot to detractors of Chavez, who are, as far as I can tell, all proponents of gulag socialism.

Some may be, but I am an unorthodox Trotskyist, and in favour of revolutions controlled only by workers, who, using the structures of an organised party (call it &#39;Bolshevik&#39;, call it &#39;Susan&#39;, I care not) will have the power to create a fully democratic workers&#39; state.

Chavez is not doing that.


Therefore, I simply compared what we can know about Chavez&#39;s class with those of the icons of gulag socialism. End of story except for quibbling denials.

Not really, since your assessment is based on the false premiss that the alternative to what you say will lead automatically to Gulags.

It will if workers do not remain the dominant force. Otherwise not.

Now, I am not lining up with Washington either; every socialist should defend the gains already made in Venezuela, but push for genuine change, and from below.

We saw the power of collective action in Venezuela in 2002; that is how to stop the US attacking: mass action.

[CornetJoyce]

I am an unorthodox Trotskyist, and in favour of revolutions controlled only by workers, who, using the structures of an organised party will have the power to create a fully democratic workers&#39; state.

Okay, but rhetoric is not control and the workers cannot control a "party" through mumbo jumbo passed down from German metaphysicians. By what means are the workers to control? By voting for Leaders as in a labor union?


Chavez is not doing that.

His initiative toward the "party of the Revolution" seems to me to be just that, and his communal council scheme looks promising. I&#39;m sure there are flaws in all this but I haven&#39;t seen any serious criticisms, just regurgitated dogmas.


Your assessment is based on the false premiss that the alternative to what you say will lead automatically to Gulags.

Your assessment is based on the false assessment that I&#39;ve said something programmatical. I have merely said- or suggested at least- that Chavez&#39;s program, gauche as it may be by the standards of Marxist professors, does not require their advice. Why bother with Chavez when they have that veteran vanguardist Putin?


It will if workers do not remain the dominant force. Otherwise not

Yep


Now, I am not lining up with Washington either; every socialist should defend the gains already made in Venezuela, but push for genuine change, and from below.

Yes, but that means admitting to the gains. Chavez has himself changed his program from the original "third way" silliness to something that has the american rulers frothing like mad dogs. He is truly not a magician and can&#39;t make a potent workers&#39; movement spring from the ground but he&#39;s certainly not an obstacle to its emergence.
For perspective- If I had been about in 1917 (I wasn&#39;t... really&#33;) I would have supported the ruling bolsheviks as I now support the Bolivarians. When they established a party monopoly I would have become apprehensive. When they banned opposition even within the monopoly party I would have given up on them. When they turned on the Revolutionaries at Kronstadt I would have felt no more allegiance to them than to the English tories in 1926.

[Connolly]

Well, I was addressing your general point; I wasn&#39;t at all concerned about Chavez.

However, on that, I tend to agree with you; but we should treat Chavez like we do, say, left wing trade union leaders -- use their rhetoric against them, but organise and push the revolution forward from below: land reform now, workers control...you know the rest, I am sure. This will allow socialists in Venezuela to expose Chavez&#39;s reformism, and destroy the illusions many have in him.

The question of power (i.e., class power) will arise at some point in Venezuela, and workers are going to need their own organisation to resist the coming attack, and go on the offensive, when this occurs (or even before).

But, criticising Chavez now will just line you up with the right, and alienate those who have illusions in him, defeating the purpose of your criticisms.

Im not necessarily against what Chavez is doing (re-distributing the wealth), and I think I said that somewhere in this thread, but I just cant understand people when they say this is a socialist revolution - thats what im against.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Okay, but rhetoric is not control and the workers cannot control a "party" through mumbo jumbo passed down from German metaphysicians.

I agree, that is why I set up my site to kill dialectics off.


By what means are the workers to control? By voting for Leaders as in a labor union

That is up to workers to decide, if they ever do.


Your assessment is based on the false assessment that I&#39;ve said something programmatical. I have merely said- or suggested at least- that Chavez&#39;s program, gauche as it may be by the standards of Marxist professors, does not require their advice. Why bother with Chavez when they have that veteran vanguardist Putin?

Look, will you leave out the comments about &#39;professors&#39;? I am not a professor (any more than you are).

And why you drag that ex-Stlalinist in beats me. What has he got to do with anything I have said?

You do not have to be a &#39;professor&#39; to learn from history -- sooner or later the ruling class are going to attack; and only a 100% workers&#39; democracy stands any chance of resisting it, and spreading this sort of revolution across S-America and beyond (as a way of defending itself).


Yes, but that means admitting to the gains.

Look, if I said we should defend them, how could we do that without admitting to them?

But, Chvaez can only go so far without challenging the class structure of Venezuela (and there is no sign he is prepared to do that), and if that happens, only a full-scale mobilisation of the working class will be able to resist the reaction. A passive working class that has everything done for it is no good. Did we learn nothing form Chile?

Your approach, it seems to me is, is the same as the &#39;vanguardist&#39; strategy you decry: the workers need this and that doing for them (by Chavez in this case, as opposed to the vanguard party, or whoever).

My approach is that workers should do all this for themselves -- in changing society they change themselves, and become a genuine ruling class. No one can do that for them.

The important thing is to push Chavez way beyond where he is prepared to go, expose his top-down approach, and and thus build a genuinely revolutionary working class movement.

We need no &#39;leaders&#39; -- not even Chavez.


When they turned on the Revolutionaries at Kronstadt

We have debated this at length many times at RevLeft: I hold to the view that by 1921 Kronstadt had changed radically (many of the original sailors had moved on), and it had become counter-revolutionary. It was necessaty to stop the rot.

If you want to debate it again, start a thread in History.

[Herman]

Im not necessarily against what Chavez is doing (re-distributing the wealth), and I think I said that somewhere in this thread, but I just cant understand people when they say this is a socialist revolution - thats what im against.

As if the worker&#39;s weren&#39;t doing anything themselves&#33;

In any case, Chavez has to play for now in the bourgeois game. He needs to kill off the false consciousness among the workers and the poor in general. That&#39;s what he is doing. There can&#39;t be a worker&#39;s revolution now. It&#39;s impossible&#33; Look at how the bourgeois is constantly attacking him. They still have the media and the cultural hegemony in their power&#33; How are you supposed to do anything with them controlling the culture and imposing their own consciousness on the workers?

No, it&#39;s not a worker&#39;s revolution... but Chavez is trying to get to that&#33; If he suddenly says, &#39;Let&#39;s destroy this bourgeois democracy and impose a direct worker&#39;s democracy&#39;, he&#39;ll have all the European and North American countries invading the country and destroying what could have been one of the few chances to achieve socialism&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, I am sorry, but there is no such thing as &#39;false consciusness&#39;; Marx never used this term, and Engels used it only once, in passing, and in a letter written near the end of his life (in which he warned his correspondent not to read too much into what he said).

More details here:

http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm

Workers ideas are changed not by people like Chavez preaching to them, but by their own activity -- learning to be the new ruling class, with the ideas that go with this, as a result of their own efforts and struggles -- their &#39;consciousness&#39; will change as they change themselves and their own social being as a result.

[Herman]

Workers ideas are changed not by people like Chavez preaching to them, but by their own activity

I do remember Lenin arguing against this and he was right. Worker&#39;s don&#39;t suddenly realize that their class interest is to conquer state power, or even find out that they have class interests. They are more likely to gain concessions through trade unions, economic objectives rather than political ones. Chavez, his political party, and the new PSUV are there to advance worker&#39;s interests and persuading them that they should organize as a class.

Apart from that, nationalization comes under worker&#39;s control rather than state control. For example, FRETECO (El Frente Revolucionario de Trabajadores de Empresas en Cogestión y Ocupadas) is a force for worker&#39;s control of factories. Further reading on this:

http://ispsoemalaga.org/2007/06/28/venezue...esa-socialista/ (http://ispsoemalaga.org/2007/06/28/venezuela-la-organizacion-de-los-trabajadores-cogestionarios-y-la-construccion-de-la-empresa-socialista-el-freteco-y-la-empresa-socialista/)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


I do remember Lenin arguing against this and he was right.

I&#39;d like to see the reference (if it is to &#39;What is to be Done?&#39;, Lenin changed his mind later, as he himself learnt from workers (in 1905)).

And whatever the &#39;theory&#39; says, it is not even factually correct to say workers cannot learn this or that; workers are capable of learning what any other human being can learn.

Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks gods, capable of learning things workers cannot?


Chavez, his political party, and the new PSUV are there to advance worker&#39;s interests and persuading them that they should organize as a class.

No problems with assisting workers, but this top-down approach to socialism cannot work, for at some point the interests of the working class will come into conflict with those of Chavez&#39;s government.

And workers&#39; control is excellent, but unless they run the state too, and spread the revolution , they will just enter into competiton with other workers elsewhere.

[bezdomni]

They are more likely to gain concessions through trade unions, economic objectives rather than political ones.

That&#39;s not true. Lenin argued that workers, even at "trade union consciousness", engage in political struggle and force the state to make concessions to them.


I&#39;d like to see the reference (if it is to &#39;What is to be Done?&#39;, Lenin changed his mind later, as he himself learnt from workers (in 1905)).

I think it was Chapters 2 and 3 of WITBD.


And whatever the &#39;theory&#39; says, it is not even factually correct to say workers cannot learn this or that; workers are capable of learning what any other human being can learn.

Human beings are all capable of learning the same things...but as a matter of epistemology, cannot all arrive at the same conclusions.

For example, the bourgeoisie genuinely believe that they are fighting "terror" by being in Iraq when all they are really doing is working in their own class interests.


Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks gods, capable of learning things workers cannot?

No, but the vanguard of the proletariat, being the most class conscious and politically advanced section of the proletariat, is capable of making analysis that has not yet been made by the masses of people and is therefore obliged to bring this analysis to the working class and unleash the proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisie.


No problems with assisting workers, but this top-down approach to socialism cannot work, for at some point the interests of the working class will come into conflict with those of Chavez&#39;s government.

Most certainly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP:


Human beings are all capable of learning the same things...but as a matter of epistemology, cannot all arrive at the same conclusions.

And who is to say that such workers would be wrong and the party &#39;right&#39;?

Or that workers could not arrive at largely the same conclusions?

And it is not a matter of epistemology that they cannot arrive at the same conclusions; but one of mere psychology. And that makes it a contingent problem, not a logical one.

There is nothing in epistemology that says workers cannot arrive at the same conclusions as one another, or as the party, or even better than the party.

But I now see you point:


For example, the bourgeoisie genuinely believe that they are fighting "terror" by being in Iraq when all they are really doing is working in their own class interests.

However, my claim above was specifically aimed at what it is that makes us Bolsheviks such superior human beings, to such an extent that the poor working class cannot learn the things we can.


No, but the vanguard of the proletariat, being the most class conscious and politically advanced section of the proletariat, is capable of making analysis that has not yet been made by the masses of people and is therefore obliged to bring this analysis to the working class and unleash the proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisie.

Well, you are just repeating a tired old formula.

Is it written in the skies that us Bolsheviks are the most class conscious on the planet, and must always remain so?

Given that we have screwed-up the workers&#39; movement this century, we have very little to feel self-satisfied about.

With our track record, the working class would be well-advised to steer clear of us for good, unless we start to learn from our mistakes.

Perhaps that is why, after over 150 years since the Communist Manifesto, few workers pay any attention to us any more.

We should be learning from them (i.e., my class), not them from us.

[As we did in 1905&#33;]

[bezdomni]

And who is to say that such workers would be wrong and the party &#39;right&#39;?

I don&#39;t think there is a big divide between the party and the workers. If the party alienates the workers, then it isn&#39;t a workers party.

I will cite the CPUSA as an example of this.


Or that workers could not arrive at largely the same conclusions?
They do. The "most class conscious section of the proletariat" is still a part of the proletariat.


There is nothing in epistemology that says workers cannot arrive at the same conclusions as one another, or as the party, or even better than the party.

The bourgeoise, however, cannot arrive at the same conclusions as the workers.

Because if they could, then they would realize that they would have to defeat themselves in order for humanity to progress.


However, my claim above was specifically aimed at what it is that makes us Bolsheviks such superior human beings, to such an extent that the poor working class cannot learn the things we can.

Nothing. That wasn&#39;t my claim at all.

The reason the entire proletariat doesn&#39;t arise simultaneously at the same level of class consciousness though is due largely to the division between mental and manual labor.

That isn&#39;t to say manual workers are incapable of making sophisticated analysis or that they are somehow "worse" than workers who do little manual labor. Simply that workers who have received more education are more likely to understand the problems of capitalism in a manner that exceeds "trade union consciousness"


Is it written in the skies that us Bolsheviks are the most class conscious on the planet, and must always remain so?

No, but it is an historical inevitability that we will overthrow capitalism.


With our track record, the working class would be well-advised to steer clear of us for good, unless we start to learn from our mistakes.


I don&#39;t think we could seriously call ourselves materialists if we didn&#39;t sum up and learn from our mistakes.


We should be learning from them (i.e., my class), not them from us.

Again, anybody who seriously calls themself a marxist and a materialist would agree with that statement.

[CornetJoyce]

Look, will you leave out the comments about &#39;professors&#39;? I am not a professor

I didn&#39;t mean to suggest that you were. Marxism, however, is mostly in academia.



You do not have to be a &#39;professor&#39; to learn from history

I haven&#39;t encountered many professors who have learned from history, which is why Marxism flourishes in academia and not in factories.



-- sooner or later the ruling class are going to attack; and only a 100% workers&#39; democracy stands any chance of resisting it, and spreading this sort of revolution across S-America and beyond (as a way of defending itself).

No doubt about it


But, Chvaez can only go so far without challenging the class structure of Venezuela (and there is no sign he is prepared The signs just happen to not be in Russian.


Did we learn nothing form Chile?

We learned that a socialist elected to the throne with a minority vote who behaves as though he has mass support will get his ass shot off. Chavez used his election to prod a serious movement into existence



Your approach, it seems to me is, is the same as the &#39;vanguardist&#39; strategy you decry: the workers need this and that doing for them (by Chavez in this case, as opposed to the vanguard party, or whoever).

My approach is that workers should do all this for themselves -- in changing society they change themselves, and become a genuine ruling class. No one can do that for them.

I&#39;m not Venezuelan and have no approach there. You predicate your approach upon a workers movement that apparently doesn&#39;t exist because they&#39;re not doing all this for themselves. How on earth is Chavez responsible for that?


The important thing is to push Chavez way beyond where he is prepared to go, expose his top-down approach, and and thus build a genuinely revolutionary working class movement.

His top down approach is hardly secret, any more than Castro&#39;s. But this binary opposition between the Evil Leader and the "masses in motion" is nonexistent. The struggle is between the Bolivarian Revolution and the Reaction. "Beyond where he is prepared to go" may appeal to the street demonstration junkies but it really isn&#39;t a political program. Where he is going is to communal and workers&#39; councils, which is to say, the necessary precondition to deeper levels of transformation.


Kronstadt

We have debated this at length many times at RevLeft... If you want to debate it again, start a thread in History.

Not me. I only debate when there&#39;s a reasonable expectation that it could lead somewhere. Allusions to the "lessons" of the bolshevik coup and the suppression of dissent range well beyond the History section, and I was just making a passing allusion to another lesson. Do you think that&#39;s unfair? My point, which I probably obscured, was that I regard the support given to the Russian Revolution in 1917 as commonsensical and support for the Bolivarian Revolution now in the same light. And Chavez hasn&#39;t turned guns on any workers yet

The quote thing somehow ain&#39;t working

Because you didn&#39;t close all of your tags. I fixed it for you.
-SovietPants

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Marxism, however, is mostly in academia.

I doubt that; have you got the figures?


Chavez used his election to prod a serious movement into existence

I hope you are right, but once more, this top down approach is little different from the substitutionist format you decry in &#39;vanguardists&#39;.


You predicate your approach upon a workers movement that apparently doesn&#39;t exist because they&#39;re not doing all this for themselves. How on earth is Chavez responsible for that?

I agree; there is no movement yet; but if the working class do not get themsleves organised, it wil be curtains.


His top down approach is hardly secret, any more than Castro&#39;s. But this binary opposition between the Evil Leader and the "masses in motion" is nonexistent. The struggle is between the Bolivarian Revolution and the Reaction. "Beyond where he is prepared to go" may appeal to the street demonstration junkies but it really isn&#39;t a political program. Where he is going is to communal and workers&#39; councils, which is to say, the necessary precondition to deeper levels of transformation.

I am no fan of Castro.

I agree, it is no program; but then that has to be worked out by the Venezuelan workers, not you or me.

But I can warn of the consequences if they fail to do this.


Allusions to the "lessons" of the bolshevik coup and the suppression of dissent range well beyond the History section

It wasn&#39;t a coup; it was an insurrection. Big difference.

[If you try to debate Kronstadt here, it will be moved; that&#39;s how we do things on this board.]

[CornetJoyce]

Marxism, however, is mostly in academia.

I doubt that; have you got the figures?


Chavez used his election to prod a serious movement into existence

I hope you are right, but once more, this top down approach is little different from the substitutionist format you decry in &#39;vanguardists&#39;.


You predicate your approach upon a workers movement that apparently doesn&#39;t exist because they&#39;re not doing all this for themselves. How on earth is Chavez responsible for that?

I agree; there is no movement yet; but if the working class do not get themsleves organised, it wil be curtains.


His top down approach is hardly secret, any more than Castro&#39;s. But this binary opposition between the Evil Leader and the "masses in motion" is nonexistent. The struggle is between the Bolivarian Revolution and the Reaction. "Beyond where he is prepared to go" may appeal to the street demonstration junkies but it really isn&#39;t a political program. Where he is going is to communal and workers&#39; councils, which is to say, the necessary precondition to deeper levels of transformation.

I am no fan of Castro.

I agree, it is no program; but then that has to be worked out by the Venezuelan workers, not you or me.

But I can warn of the consequences if they fail to do this.


No figures on Marxists and no figures on where the fish are, but I know where the fish are.

"Vanguardists" rode the councils to power and then suppressed them. The trajectory of Chavez is the opposite. I make no predictions on the outcome, of course.

Yes, we are limited to warning and cajoling. And we should especially be warning them about the Empire. This is one of the things I like about Chavez: some progressives think he&#39;s stupid to continually and brazenly clash with the Empire, but there is danger in the lulling effect, the feeling of well-being that comes from the refoms that are in place or proceeding; the confrontations may serve to remind people that the threat is very real and unrelenting.


[If you try to debate Kronstadt here, it will be moved; that&#39;s how we do things on this board.]

debate=mention
Gotcha

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


No figures on Marxists and no figures on where the fish are, but I know where the fish are.

Well, the fact that fish live in the sea is a patent truth based on their anatomy and physiology, and a wealth of human experience/testimony.

What anatomical and/or physiological aspects of Marxists mean that most live in universities? [Or, is there an ovewhelming body of testimony I have missed?]

[And, are you suggesting that there are some fish that live out of water?&#33;]

So, what evidence have you, other than this vague intuition, that (all or most) Marxists live/work in universities?

My experience (and, I would suggest, that of most of the guys at RevLeft, too) tells me the exact opposite. Indeed, my knowledge of the world-wide Marxist movement tells me this too.

So, you have much testimony and experience to overthrow here -- we are going to need those figures....


"Vanguardists" rode the councils to power and then suppressed them. The trajectory of Chavez is the opposite. I make no predictions on the outcome, of course.

Well, you are now resorting to invention to make your point.

Have you any evidence that a few Marxists could bully the united strength of the Russian soviets?

Is your (is my) class so weak that a few Bolsheviks could intimidate the majority?


This is one of the things I like about Chavez: some progressives think he&#39;s stupid to continually and brazenly clash with the Empire, but there is danger in the lulling effect, the feeling of well-being that comes from the refoms that are in place or proceeding; the confrontations may serve to remind people that the threat is very real and unrelenting.

I agree with most of that, but I think you are being lulled into a false sesne of security here.


debate=mention
Gotcha

Not so; I merely said that if you wanted to debate this (not that you did so want), then a new thread in History was suggested.

I did not mention &#39;mention&#39;.

Cornet, you are becoming worryingly inventive....

[CornetJoyce]

"Well, the fact that fish live in the sea is a patent truth based on their anatomy and physiology, and a wealth of human experience/testimony.

What anatomical and/or physiological aspects of Marxists mean that most live in universities? [Or, is there an ovewhelming body of testimony I have missed?]

[And, are you suggesting that there are some fish that live out of water?&#33;]

So, what evidence have you, other than this vague intuition, that (all or most) Marxists live/work in universities?

My experience (and, I would suggest, that of most of the guys at RevLeft, too) tells me the exact opposite. Indeed, my knowledge of the world-wide Marxist movement tells me this too.

So, you have much testimony and experience to overthrow here -- we are going to need those figures...."

Have you any evidence that a few Marxists could bully the united strength of the Russian soviets?

Is your (is my) class so weak that a few Bolsheviks could intimidate the majority?"

I said "the" fish," not "fish." The fish may be found in certain places, shoals, sandbars, shoals, depressions. I can generally find them because I&#39;ve found them before. If I want to find a Marxist, I can&#39;t find any in my neighborhood: I must go to the university area.
As it happens, though, there are fish in Florida, said to be imported from Asia, that walk from pond to pond. They&#39;re regarded as a nuisance, as Marxists generally are regarded by the workers. If I want to find a fish or a Marxist in his normal and comfortable environment, I know where to look.
I have no ambition to convince anyone of anything, and if I suddenly feel the urge I can practice on Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses.

The soviets were "united" and yet they were "rotting?" The workingclass was "strong" but somehow not strong enough to rule? Ah yes, in "marxist theory" the bolsheviks WERE the workingclass. What soft, white hands the Russian proletariat had&#33;

The Russian councils were "united" through the medium of the coordinating elites. As the jacobins were in position to control the sans-culotte in their sections, so the bolsheviks were in position to control the soviets.

To say that the workingclass was "strong" is related to the standard progressive claim that "we are empowered&#33;" We are not "empowered." We have no power at all.
If we are "strong" we are not relegated to "struggle" under the direction of Marxist adepts. If we are "strong" we have our own ideas and not the ideas of German metaphysicians or Russian politicians. If we are "strong" we are not defined by Them: we define Them. Until that is the case, we are, as Campanella says, "a beast with muddy brain."


RL: by the way, I put the passage you quoted in a box for you -- the only change I made.

Do you not know how to do quotes?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


I said "the" fish," not "fish." The fish may be found in certain places, shoals, sandbars, shoals, depressions. I can generally find them because I&#39;ve found them before. If I want to find a Marxist, I can&#39;t find any in my neighborhood: I must go to the university area.

The rhetorical difference between &#39;the fish&#39; and &#39;fish&#39; escapes me. You will need to explain it.

A couple of points, though, about your argument:

1) How is it that you can find more than enough Marxists here at RevLeft? This is not a university, and there are plenty of non-university Marxist at this site.

2) Your original assertion was this:


Marxism, however, is mostly in academia.

But, your only proof of this is your own experience.

3) How many times have you actually sought out Marxists in universities, and which ones (ie., which universities)?

4) If you live in the US, I am not surprised you can&#39;t find too many Marxists in your area. But drawing a general conclusion from that fact, based on such a limited data base, is about as sensible as me arguing that because I have never seen a US marine in my area (S London UK), but I have seen them on TV, most US marines can be found on TV.

So, we still need the figures -- or, failing that, you should consider withdrawing your unwise assertion.


I have no ambition to convince anyone of anything, and if I suddenly feel the urge I can practice on Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses.

These sorts of comments suggest you are not a serious debater, but a semi-troll.

If you do not like Marxists, I can only wonder again what you are doing here at RevLeft.

And you really must stop making stuff up:


The soviets were "united" and yet they were "rotting?" The workingclass was "strong" but somehow not strong enough to rule? Ah yes, in "marxist theory" the bolsheviks WERE the workingclass. What soft, white hands the Russian proletariat had&#33;

I&#39;d like you to quote a leading Bolshevik from the period in question (i.e., 1917) who argued this way. [And please, try not to use &#39;the fish&#39; as your only evidence, if you can.]

Sure, later (i.e., post 1928) they trended to argue like this (and especially in China after 1948); but Lenin certainly did not, and neither did Trotsky. [And neither do the many Bolsheviks I have personally known for the last 25 years.]

And the other comments you make (about &#39;rotting&#39; soviets, etc.) do not seem to be directed at anything I argued.

So what point are you addressing by saying such things?


As the jacobins were in position to control the sans-culotte in their sections, so the bolsheviks were in position to control the soviets.

Your knowledge of history is a bit wonky if you think that there is any comparison between Russia in 1917 and France in 1790.

I repeat my earlier question:


Have you any evidence that a few Marxists could bully the united strength of the Russian soviets?

Is your (is my) class so weak that a few Bolsheviks could intimidate the majority?

All you have offered in support of your earlier assertion is to remake it in a different form, and draw an analogy with France (which only works if your original assertion is correct; but we have yet to see your proof).

However, it is quite clear that you have no evidence, or you would have quoted it by now.


To say that the workingclass was "strong" is related to the standard progressive claim that "we are empowered&#33;" We are not "empowered." We have no power at all.

Not so, the working class in Russia first of all overthrew the old regime (in early 1917) with no help from the Bolsheviks, and later seized power as the soviets (and these too were invented by workers in 1905) took control later in 1917.

Now you can slander their efforts if you want, but if we are to take you seriously, you are going to need to replace all these assertions you keep making with proof.


If we are "strong" we are not relegated to "struggle" under the direction of Marxist adepts. If we are "strong" we have our own ideas and not the ideas of German metaphysicians or Russian politicians. If we are "strong" we are not defined by Them: we define Them. Until that is the case, we are, as Campanella says, "a beast with muddy brain."

Well, I for one will not disagree with that; but I have said so several times. Why you feel constrained to keep making the same basic point is beyond me. :blink:

[CornetJoyce]

I beg your pardon for this mess. I haven&#39;t used tags at all since right after html supplanted runes. What am I doing wrong? And why doesn&#39;t my chisel work on this stone?


The rhetorical difference between &#39;the fish&#39; and &#39;fish&#39; escapes me. You will need to explain it.

The definite article would make no difference in German, I suppose. In English, when a fisherman asks "where are the fish?" He is looking for specific fish, ie: those that can be found and caught. If you tell him "in the sea" and he hasn&#39;t caught a fish in ages, he may throw you into the sea to find them. "Fish" is the species. Damn, Rosa, don&#39;t Trots ever go fishing?


How is it that you can find more than enough Marxists here at RevLeft? This is not a university, and there are plenty of non-university Marxist at this site.

Actually, I&#39;ve been mildly surprised and gratified by the apparent numbers of university students on here, But at any rate, it&#39;s really not that many people out of the global population. Divide them all up proportionally and there still wouldn&#39;t be one in my neighborhood.


How many times have you actually sought out Marxists in universities, and which ones (ie., which universities)?

I&#39;ve never sought any out in universities, only in the more important educational institutions such as pubs, where they&#39;re lamentably rare.


If you live in the US, I am not surprised you can&#39;t find too many Marxists in your area. But drawing a general conclusion from that fact, based on such a limited data base, is about as sensible as me arguing that because I have never seen a US marine in my area (S London UK), but I have seen them on TV, most US marines can be found on TV.

Your experience there is more congenial, I&#39;m sure, but no more valid than my experience here, so if you have figures that prove or even suggest the contrary, you should provide them.


These sorts of comments suggest you are not a serious debater, but a semi-troll.

i.e: The only possible form of discourse here is debate. I hadn&#39;t considered that point of view, frankly, but now it makes sense.


If you do not like Marxists, I can only wonder again what you are doing here at RevLeft.

Why would I not like Marxists? Some of the most dog-eared books in my house are written by St Croix, Hill, James and other Marxists. I&#39;ve associated with Marxists all my life, and with Catholic Workers and Liberation Theologians and at least one Sufi. I just don&#39;t accept their worldview or their version of history. And none of the Marxists I know claim that Marxists are plentiful outside academia. Indeed, some complain of it with no encouragement from me. I can only wonder again why you call it the Revolutionary Left if it&#39;s limited to one doctrine. I&#39;m certainly not the only dissenter. But it&#39;s your playing field after all.


Cornet: The soviets were "united" and yet they were "rotting?" The workingclass was "strong" but somehow not strong enough to rule? Ah yes, in "marxist theory" the bolsheviks WERE the workingclass. What soft, white hands the Russian proletariat had&#33;


Rosa: I&#39;d like you to quote a leading Bolshevik from the period in question (i.e., 1917) who argued this way. [And please, try not to use &#39;the fish&#39; as your only evidence, if you can.]

You described the development at a certain naval base as "rot."


Sure, later (i.e., post 1928) they trended to argue like this (and especially in China after 1948); but Lenin certainly did not, and neither did Trotsky. [And neither do the many Bolsheviks I have personally known for the last 25 years.]

And the other comments you make (about &#39;rotting&#39; soviets, etc.) do not seem to be directed at anything I argued.

See above. I have no idea whether the rot had anything to do with the fish.


Your knowledge of history is a bit wonky if you think that there is any comparison between Russia in 1917 and France in 1790.

Your knowledge of history is limited to the marxist canon if you imagine otherwise, although I think a number of marxist historians have discussed the jacobinism of the bolsheviks.


the working class in Russia first of all overthrew the old regime (in early 1917) with no help from the Bolsheviks, and later seized power as the soviets (and these too were invented by workers in 1905) took control later in 1917.

Yes, but the subject is your assertion that the bolsheviks could not seize power from the soviets because the workers were "strong." The peasants of 1381 overthrew the old regime but then were duped and lost their victory.


Cornet: If we are "strong" we are not relegated to "struggle" under the direction of Marxist adepts. If we are "strong" we have our own ideas and not the ideas of German metaphysicians or Russian politicians. If we are "strong" we are not defined by Them: we define Them. Until that is the case, we are, as Campanella says, "a beast with muddy brain."


Rosa: Well, I for one will not disagree with that; but I have said so several times. Why you feel constrained to keep making the same basic point is beyond me. :blink:

Only because you keep forgetting what you said, and of course in hopes of getting on to a tone of solidarity rather than "debate." (Well, I&#39;m American, you know. Even our congress doesn&#39;t debate.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet, why can you not use the quote function properly?

I have edited the above to make it clearer.

I&#39;ll respond to you later today.

From my editing, I can see what the problem is; if you leave just one quote tag unclosed, or copied incorrectly, as you did (on several occasions), the quote function switches off.

What you should do is highlight the section you want to quote, and click the &#39;quote&#39; tab above.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Look, Cornet, the detail I included in my last post was aimed at asking what evidence you had, if any, that most Marxists exist in universities, not to engage in banter about fish.

So, have you any evidence (other than anecdotal) that confirms your claim that most Marxists (on this planet) reside in universities?

And, in view of your inability (or refusal) to supply your own figures, this is a bit rich:


Your experience there is more congenial, I&#39;m sure, but no more valid than my experience here, so if you have figures that prove or even suggest the contrary, you should provide them.

But, my original claim, to which the above was a &#39;response&#39;, was this:


If you live in the US, I am not surprised you can&#39;t find too many Marxists in your area. But drawing a general conclusion from that fact, based on such a limited data base, is about as sensible as me arguing that because I have never seen a US marine in my area (S London UK), but I have seen them on TV, most US marines can be found on TV.

Notice the bogus inference I deliberately included?

So, I did not claim that I had never seen a marine in my area, or on TV, only that any conclusion based on my limited experience had that been the case would be invalid.

As is yours.

And to this comment of mine:


These sorts of comments suggest you are not a serious debater, but a semi-troll.

You respond with:


i.e: The only possible form of discourse here is debate. I hadn&#39;t considered that point of view, frankly, but now it makes sense.

Not a bit of it; but this does confirm that you are not a serious debater (even if you are good at making irrelevant comments).


I can only wonder again why you call it the Revolutionary Left if it&#39;s limited to one doctrine. I&#39;m certainly not the only dissenter. But it&#39;s your playing field after all.

I did not call it this, the founders did; and there are other non-Marxists here. And why you think this board (or I myself) am limited to one doctrine I cannot fathom, but such snap judgements, as we have come to appreciate, are your forte.


You described the development at a certain naval base as "rot."

What I said was this:


We have debated this at length many times at RevLeft: I hold to the view that by 1921 Kronstadt had changed radically (many of the original sailors had moved on), and it had become counter-revolutionary. It was necessaty to stop the rot.

This has nothing to do with the situation in 1917, as well you know.

The Bolshevik leadership in 1917 could not control the soviets except they had the support of the majority of workers, which they had by late autumn.

By 1921, the core of the Russian working class (from 1917) had been killed-off in the civil war.

Then, and only then, did substitutionist forces begin to grow and become significant in the Bolshevik party (for reasons I explain at my site).

With a united and strong working class, the mystics among the Bolsheviks can be controlled, as I asserted earlier.

Then you assert this about the alleged similarities between Russia in 1917 and France in 1790:


Your knowledge of history is limited to the marxist canon if you imagine otherwise, although I think a number of marxist historians have discussed the jacobinism of the bolsheviks.

I&#39;d like to see the evidence, once more -- but of course, I was referring to the social circumstances (as my wording suggested).

But, even if you are right about the alleged &#39;Jacobinism&#39; of the Bolsheviks (which I contest until you produce the evidence), a strong working class (as I asserted) can keep this in check.

The proletariat in France in 1790 can in no way be compared with that in Russian in 1917.

Can you find anyone (other than a crazed historian) who will say so?


Yes, but the subject is your assertion that the bolsheviks could not seize power from the soviets because the workers were "strong." The peasants of 1381 overthrew the old regime but then were duped and lost their victory.

Well, this shows up your superficial knowledge of social forces; you cannot compare peasants with proletarians.

I am amazed you even came up with this one.

So, it is you who are no friend of the working class: you will think up any dodge, any excuse, any argument to malign your own (alleged) class.

I can now see why you like &#39;socialism&#39; from above.

In fact, you are a &#39;vanguardist&#39; too; only you just don&#39;t happen to like the Bolshevik/Marxist variety. With such a weak and easily controlled working class, no wonder you are scratching around for someone to hold their hand and impose socialism on them; like Chavez.

In reply to this of mine:


Well, I for one will not disagree with that; but I have said so several times. Why you feel constrained to keep making the same basic point is beyond me.

Which had in its turn been a response to this of yours:


If we are "strong" we are not relegated to "struggle" under the direction of Marxist adepts. If we are "strong" we have our own ideas and not the ideas of German metaphysicians or Russian politicians. If we are "strong" we are not defined by Them: we define Them. Until that is the case, we are, as Campanella says, "a beast with muddy brain."

We get this:


Only because you keep forgetting what you said, and of course in hopes of getting on to a tone of solidarity rather than "debate." (Well, I&#39;m American, you know. Even our congress doesn&#39;t debate.)

What do you mean I keep forgetting what I said? I set up an entire website to trash all of metaphysics not just the German strain.

And I am the one championing the working class here, sunshine, while you keep rubbishing it.

[CornetJoyce]

Rosa:



Your experience there is more congenial, I&#39;m sure, but no more valid than my experience here, so if you have figures that prove or even suggest the contrary, you should provide them.


Again, Marxism and postmodernism thrive in academia and not in the workingclass. I should be delighted to know of evidence to the contrary and thought you had implied that you knew of some.
And yes, workers are as easily duped as peasants, investors and postmodernists such as the editors of Social Text. And yes, 1917 was very much like 1793, so much so that Isaac Deutscher remarked of the Kronstadt Rebellion that Lenin "must have seen the shadow of the tumbrils that carried Robespierre to the guillotine amid the rejoicing of the Parisian mob." But if your dogmas preclude these truths by all means disregard them.
As for my humble talents in debate, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re right; but
I supplement my meager argumentation with testable hypotheses whenever possible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Again, Marxism and postmodernism thrive in academia and not in the workingclass. I should be delighted to know of evidence to the contrary and thought you had implied that you knew of some.

We know what your opinion is; you do not need to repeat it.

However, since you were the one who made the bold assertion earlier (that most Marxists can be found in universities), it is you who needs to substantiate this allegation.

I have made no claims about the relative distribution of Marxists, so there is nothing for me to prove.


And yes, workers are as easily duped as peasants, investors and postmodernists such as the editors of Social Text. And yes, 1917 was very much like 1793, so much so that Isaac Deutscher remarked of the Kronstadt Rebellion that Lenin "must have seen the shadow of the tumbrils that carried Robespierre to the guillotine amid the rejoicing of the Parisian mob." But if your dogmas preclude these truths by all means disregard them.

So, you found one Marxist (who later bent the knee to Stalinism) who makes a vague allusion to the French Revolution, and then only with respect to Kronstadt 1921.

We are still waiting for one to say that France in 1789-1795 (etc.) was in any way like Russia in 1917 (not 1921).

And I note once more the fact that you are no friend of my class.


As for my humble talents in debate, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re right; but
I supplement my meager argumentation with testable hypotheses whenever possible.

The claim that there are rabbits on Venus is testable, so your seemingly modest claim above is not all that impressive, nor to the point.

What is to the point is that you keep making these wild claims but fail to back them up (except with anecdote).

[CornetJoyce]

I have made no claims about the relative distribution of Marxists, so there is nothing for me to prove.

And so the matter is concluded.



We are still waiting for one to say that France in 1789-1795 (etc.) was in any way like Russia in 1917 (not 1921).


I gather that Deutscher, the reknowned biographer of Trotsky, is out of favor; but my knowledge of Marxist hagiography is both limited and dated and there&#39;s no point in looking beyond the Marxist version of history or in arguing about matters of doctrine. The similarities and connections between the French and Russian Revolutions are obvious.

The claim that there are rabbits on Venus is testable, but dogma is not.


And I note once more the fact that you are no friend of my class.

I am indeed no more a friend to an aspiring ruling class than to the present ruling class.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:57 pm
I am indeed no more a friend to an aspiring ruling class than to the present ruling class.
Not even if the aspiring ruling class consists of the entire working class?

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+July 07, 2007 05:58 pm--> (Matty_UK @ July 07, 2007 05:58 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:57 pm
I am indeed no more a friend to an aspiring ruling class than to the present ruling class.
Not even if the aspiring ruling class consists of the entire working class? [/b]
Good point. Now if we could only get the entire workingclass to aspire to such things.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


And so the matter is concluded.

Well, you&#39;d like it to be so, since you have been caught making claims you cannot substantiate.

I&#39;ll take this as an admission to that effect.


I gather that Deutscher, the reknowned biographer of Trotsky, is out of favor; but my knowledge of Marxist hagiography is both limited and dated and there&#39;s no point in looking beyond the Marxist version of history or in arguing about matters of doctrine. The similarities and connections between the French and Russian Revolutions are obvious.

If they are so &#39;obvious&#39; then you will find it easy to point them out -- and then substantiate each allegation.

But we already know you only do baseless assertion.


The claim that there are rabbits on Venus is testable, but dogma is not.

Once more you miss the point; your claims are testable, but you just refuse to test them.

So, for all intents and purposes they are dogma.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.


I am indeed no more a friend to an aspiring ruling class than to the present ruling class.

Oh dear, this sort of comment could be enough to have you restricted to the &#39;Opposing Ideology&#39; section. This site is all about workers&#39; power. Anyone who wants to debate that, gets sent there.


Guidelines:

Restriction

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership&#39;s vision for this site.

[Dimentio]

Hugo Chavez is just the most profound representative of a stage in history that could be called a "Latin American Renaissance", when Latin American countries are moving from being semi-colonial states into some new form of society, with more grassroot foundations. His most radical reforms is the institutions of the missiones, and he has actually accomplished more than any other socialist without using pure force. As I&#39;ll see it, one must, in some way, controlling the state before undertaking the revolution.

To just disregard him as some sort of hoax for the bourgeoisie and therefore refusing to accept the Bolivarian project is counter-productive since Hugo Chavez is apparently seen by the proletariat of Venezuela as their representative given his credentials in improving their lives.

[VukBZ2005]

Not even if the aspiring ruling class consists of the entire working class?

Matt, I think I understand what Cornet is getting at. Just by looking at the things that he has written, both here and off-forum, I can say that he does not seem to be the type to be against workers&#39; power. What I believe that he is asserting, is this; he is taking about the Leninists, whose desire is to establish a new Capitalist order in which it is THEY who control the means of production, NOT the working class, but this time, they wish to do it through the use of a state bureaucracy that pretends to be in transition to a Communist society, a real Communist society, when, in reality, they are in transition to a regular Capitalist society.

Thus, they are nothing more than reactionaries in the disguise of revolutionaries and if you are a Leninist, you are also a reactionary in disguise of a revolutionary as well.

So I can understand why he wishes to not support a aspiring ruling class just as the current ruling class.


Oh dear, this sort of comment could be enough to have you restricted to the &#39;Opposing Ideology&#39; section. This site is all about workers&#39; power. Anyone who wants to debate that, gets sent there.

Maybe you misunderstood him....?

[Dimentio]

I do not think that all leninists dream of being capitalists. There is a concept which we technocrats are talking a lot about, and that is emergent properties. If we have a price system, a system of exchange with possibility to accumulate exchange credits (or severe scarcity), then it is just a matter of time before a nominally socialist system slips back into capitalism.

[Colonello Buendia]

I consider him to be a little extreme in his rethoric but nevertheless he has a strong socialist flair and he is definetly the right thing for Venezuela. another great thing about him is that he definetlyknows how much he annoys the capitalist pigs in america by running his country like the world should be run :D :D :D

[VukBZ2005]

I do not think that all leninists dream of being capitalists.

Look Serpent, of course not all Leninists dream of becoming Capitalists, but the past speaks for itself. The way the structure of their organizations are shaped and what happens to those organizations once they actually obtain power and control over the means of production, causes a situation to develop in which the people in those organizations tend to become Capitalistic in their actions, especially if there are people in these organizations that control strategic and important positions in the new state.

So, in other words, the theory of the Leninists do not correlate to their practices and thus, we end up repeating the same situations that the U.S.S.R experienced between the years of 1917 to 1921; a state monopoly Capitalist bureaucracy develops which repeatedly attempts to crush the independent organs of working class power until the working class becomes atomized and indifferent to the general situation, accepting the state of affairs ruthlessly imposed upon them.


There is a concept which we technocrats are talking a lot about, and that is emergent properties. If we have a price system, a system of exchange with possibility to accumulate exchange credits (or severe scarcity), then it is just a matter of time before a nominally socialist system slips back into capitalism.

The price system, as it is right at this moment, is a result of the entire population not being in direct control over the means of production. If there is a "Socialist" state that happens to share the same characteristics as Leninist states, and if the price system exists as it is in Leninist states, then that state is a Capitalist state in its state bureaucratic monopoly form and thus, will become a regular Capitalist society within two generations...that is, if they do everything right.

[Dimentio]

I have started a new thread about it in Theory. It is called "Emergent properties", and discusses that very subject.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Good point. Now if we could only get the entire workingclass to aspire to such things.

What sort of response is that? When they do so, you put them down.

You argue that not only has the working class been duped at every stage in tha past, including the time they were in their ascendancy in 1917, but that you would have no regard for them as the new ruling class.

In response to my assertion about the working class:


Rosa: And I note once more the fact that you are no friend of my class.

you replied:


I am indeed no more a friend to an aspiring ruling class than to the present ruling class.

That can only mean that you do not want the working class to become the ruling class.

I think you need to clarify your position before you are accused of being a reactionary.

And the other things you say have still to be substantiated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Firefox:


Maybe you misunderstood him....?

The man asks to be misunderstood.

He is as slippery as an eel, and refuses to substantiate anything he says, and never misses a chance to put down workers when thay aspire to power.

He is his own worse PR agent.

[CornetJoyce]

Well, I didn&#39;t expect to be on a marxist board very long and my expectations are fulfilled. There&#39;s much interesting stuff on this board from various tendencies and I&#39;ll miss it. On the other hand, the days when you could shoot us are gone forever, the capitalists having reclaimed their monopoly of that privilege.

Along with the overwhelming majority of the workingclass, I do not regard Rosa&#39;s self-appointed "vanguard" as the workingclass, nor gulag socialism as the promised land, nor do I regard post-gulag fantasies of power as important, nor Marxist block diagrams of "History" as anything like history as people have lived it. The workingclass has never been guaranteed anything; the promises of Marx and his disciples and a dollar and a half are worth a cup of coffee. If the workers are to have power, they must think for themselves instead of regurgitating German and Russian metaphysics, and select their own leaders when appropriate.

I have made no assertion that would not be greeted with general assent in any workingclass venue, where the claims of "the vanguard of the proletariat" are greeted with amused stares.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cornet:


Well, I didn&#39;t expect to be on a marxist board very long and my expectations are fulfilled

You are not going to be missed.

Close your mind on the way out....

[Eleftherios]

For those who argue that Hugo Chavez can never bring about a workers&#39; state just because he is not a worker, I would like to remind them that he is neither a member of the bourgeois, so by your logic he cannot head a bourgeois regime either.

[IronColumn]

Actually a politician at the head of a capitalist state is a bourgeois, who represents the aspirations of a particular set of capitalists. It&#39;s amazing you could say something so retarded- but then again, you are one of the supporters of perhaps the tamest 8 year "revolution" in world-history.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:59 am
It&#39;s amazing you could say something so retarded
Really? Because last time I checked class is determined by one&#39;s relation to the means of production

[IronColumn]

Newsflash: the state acts as a capitalist in Venezuela, as everywhere else around the world. Chavez is at the head of the State, the state owns factories and such, workers get their wages from the state. It&#39;s the same reason why Lenin and the CP bureaucrats were capitalists.

[Herman]

Newsflash: the state acts as a capitalist in Venezuela, as everywhere else around the world. Chavez is at the head of the State, the state owns factories and such, workers get their wages from the state. It&#39;s the same reason why Lenin and the CP bureaucrats were capitalists.

"Newsflash: the state acts as a capitalist in Venezuela"....?

What the hell does that mean?

And you say it as if it was obvious that Venezuela is state capitalist and you were so obviously right&#33;

It doesn&#39;t act as a capitalist at all. The state is not a class itself. How utterly wrong you are.

In fact, the state is still in process of nationalization of industries under worker&#39;s control.

It&#39;s not the same reason why Lenin and the "CP" were "capitalists". They are totally different situations and you completely miss out so many factors.

[IronColumn]

The fact that you have a link to the PCE, whose prostitute role in the Spanish Revolution is well known, should tell us all we need to know about what type of "revolutionary" you are.

However, you seem to be delusional besides being a hopeless bureaucrat. Do you deny that the Venezuelan state owns several businesses (I can think of one of the top of my head, PDVSA) which employ proletarians as wage-slaves? Your mindless belief that the state is implementing workers&#39; control is refuted by 1)the nature of the capitalist state, which can never create socialism for the workers-only they can do that for themselves 2)the facts on the ground, not coming out of the Venezuelan embassy. Check the news section, I have posted an article precisely about how the Chavista bureaucracy is attacking its mortal foe, workers control, which will deprive those collective bureaucrats of their ownership over the state&#39;s capitalist properties.

Nationalization of industries by a capitalist state has nothing to do with socialism.

[redarmyfaction38]

i&#39;ve read my way through this entire thread.
things that strike me&#33;
the proletariat constitute 90% of the population, on that basis chavez is part of the proletyariat as were lenin, trotsky and uncle joe stalin.
chavez, unfortunately, whilst trying to improve the conditions of the working class and venezuala in general, has succumbed to the bourgeiouse notion of "democracy", having won "power" through such elections, he ignores the role played by the proletariat in securing that "electoral victory".
since becoming an "elected" "leader" of the nation, he has been part and parcel of bourgeouis "democracy"; he has listened to state buerocrats and suppressed "workers self organisation" in favour of state reforms.

don&#39;t get me wrong on any of this, i think chavez is a class fighter, i just think he is being drawn into the bourgeouis political system, accepting its values and will inevitably; either betray the working class by default or become part and parcel of the top downwards stalinist/maoist version of "socialism" that has led us nowhere in reality.

it&#39;s just my opinion by the way&#33; feel free to disagree.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:06 pm
I consider him to be a little extreme in his rethoric but nevertheless he has a strong socialist flair and he is definetly the right thing for Venezuela. another great thing about him is that he definetlyknows how much he annoys the capitalist pigs in america by running his country like the world should be run :D :D :D
A little extreme in his rhetoric? And whose mouth do you prefer to see open? Lula&#39;s? Blair&#39;s? :-P It just so happens that running a country with the truth often requires you to say some things that would sound extreme to anyone as exposed to capitalist propaganda as heavily as North Americans are.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:29 pm
don&#39;t get me wrong on any of this, i think chavez is a class fighter, i just think he is being drawn into the bourgeouis political system, accepting its values and will inevitably; either betray the working class by default or become part and parcel of the top downwards stalinist/maoist version of "socialism" that has led us nowhere in reality.


I don&#39;t really understand how you arrived at such a conclusion. If you are implying that Hugo Chavez is not being hard enough on the capitalist opposition, I completely agree. However, I don&#39;t agree with you when you say that he will either betray the working-class or instutute a "top downwards stalinist/maoist version of &#39;socialism&#39;". I would have offered more critisism, but I would first like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

[bootleg42]

Chavez is playing smart.

Yesterday on Alo Presidente (his weekly show), he talked about the constitution and he addressed the issue of private property. He was mocking his opponents who claim he&#39;ll completely eliminate private property.

Chavez said in response that he will not eliminate private property if that private property serves society well. If that private entity acts as some sort of "social" property, then he said they&#39;ll continue.

But then they switched to showing interviews and live feeds of other areas where they have the communes (which have power), it seems that the people kept hinting that private property would be abolished and they were even anticipating it.

It SEEMS TO ME that Chavez is just playing the "good private owners" until the time is right to advance socialism. Remember, you don&#39;t want all the capital of the country to just leave to Miami. Also soon the workers themselves will push for socialism and even communism. Chavez yesterday (as he always does) kept reminding everyone that Jesus was a communist and that we all should strive to be like him.

Chavez is playing political games to survive. This is a dominant capitalist world and he is doing what he has to in order to survive. He is a hero and will lead on.