Chavez and his 'brother' Ahmadinejad

[dannydandy]

Very recently, Chavez visited Iran and described Ahmadinejad as his "ideological brother". It seems that they formed a strong alliance against western imperialism together.

But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state. Wouldn't it be strange for socialists to unite with reactionaries despite they do have a common enemy?

Socialists should not be compromising with reactionaries, nor religous entities as it would hinder the whole socialist process. Chavez could cetainly be considered as a traitor to the whole working class.

[dannydandy]

Very recently, Chavez visited Iran and described Ahmadinejad as his "ideological brother". It seems that they formed a strong alliance against western imperialism together.

But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state. Wouldn't it be strange for socialists to unite with reactionaries despite they do have a common enemy?

Socialists should not be compromising with reactionaries, nor religous entities as it would hinder the whole socialist process. Chavez could cetainly be considered as a traitor to the whole working class.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:29 pm
But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state.
That is all right. Chavez is an anti working class, populist, nationalist, ex-general. He should fit in well there.

Devrim

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by devrimankara+July 05, 2007 01:09 pm--> (devrimankara @ July 05, 2007 01:09 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:29 pm
But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state.
That is all right. Chavez is an anti working class, populist, nationalist, ex-general. He should fit in well there.

Devrim [/b]
That's not true. I'm not trying to excuse Cavez's actions or anything, but you have to realize that all humans make mistakes just like Chavez is making a mistake by allying with Iran. Plus, I'm sure we've all had our share of friends that we wish we had never met.

[bezdomni]

Very recently, Chaze visited Iran and described Ahmadinejad as his "ideological brother". It seems that they formed a strong alliance against western imperialism together.

But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state. Wouldn't it be strange for socialists to unite with reactionaries despite they do have a common enemy?

Socialists should not be compromising with reactionaries, nor religous entities as it would hinder the whole socialist process. Chavez could cetainly be considered as a traitor to the whole working class.

How do those two sentences make sense with eachother?

Also, can you describe "the whole socialist process", and how anti-imperialist factions temporarily siding together runs contrary to it?

[bezdomni]

Why are there two of these threads?

Merged.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:58 pm
That's not true. I'm not trying to excuse Cavez's actions or anything, but you have to realize that all humans make mistakes just like Chavez is making a mistake by allying with Iran. Plus, I'm sure we've all had our share of friends that we wish we had never met.
Is he? It seems to me that he is acting very logically. Of course, this would make sense at all if you looked at him as a socialist, and not someone who has been at the forfront of attacking workers' living standards in Venezuala.

Devrim

[dannydandy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:06 pm

Very recently, Chaze visited Iran and described Ahmadinejad as his "ideological brother". It seems that they formed a strong alliance against western imperialism together.

But then, Iran is an extreme theocracy, and moreover, a reactionary state. Wouldn't it be strange for socialists to unite with reactionaries despite they do have a common enemy?

Socialists should not be compromising with reactionaries, nor religous entities as it would hinder the whole socialist process. Chavez could cetainly be considered as a traitor to the whole working class.

How do those two sentences make sense with eachother?

Also, can you describe "the whole socialist process", and how anti-imperialist factions temporarily siding together runs contrary to it?
So according to your idea, an enemy's enemy is our friend? Do you not think that siding with religious states runs contrary to the materialistic idea of socialism? Not to mention that Iran is an reactionary state, which is more of an enemy of socialism.

Speaking of socialist process... Marx said in the early stage of class struggles, proletarians should side with the bourgeosie against the old class, such as the aristocrats and Church (or other religous entites), as only the bourgeosie can develop tghe necessary conditions for a socialist revolution.

Now, Iran is an attempt of the old forces (religous fundamentalists) against the world bourgeosie encroachment. It is necessary a reactionary movement no matter how justified it seems being anti-US anti-imperialism. Plus, I never recall any socialist element within Iran. So would you consider Iran is a friend of socialism?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:44 pm
Plus, I never recall any socialist element within Iran.
I can recall a lot of socialist elements from Iran including workmates, and personal friends. Most of them either got out, or were killed by the Iranian state. We do, however, still have some contacts there today.

Devrim

[dso79]

Both Iran and Venezuela are under threat from the US and their allies, so it makes perfect sense for them to cooperate. Besides, it’s not like Chavez has become an Islamist or something, it’s just an economic alliance.

It’s good to see that they are willing to put their ideological differences aside for the benefit of their people.

[Dimentio]

Let me see. Chávez is not instituting a dictatorship. He is creating neighborhood councils which are allowed to have more and more power during his time. He has taken control over the oil industry.

The alliance with Iran is not ideologically clean, but it is pragmatic since it could put a strategic hold on OPEC. That Chávez has aligned himself with a reactionary is not something which is positive, but he is just pragmatic in this case. If he did not hold his high profile, putting the attention of the world on him, the oligarchy would have toasted him even after the april coup 2002.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I agree with dso79 and Serpent.

[Cheung Mo]

I don't understand how opposing American imperialism can excuse stoning feminists, hanging homosexuals, and raining bullets down on leftists.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Becuase its either that or having no allies to defend oneself against the US

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 05, 2007 09:08 pm
I don't understand how opposing American imperialism can excuse stoning feminists, hanging homosexuals, and raining bullets down on leftists.
It don't. But Chávez is in the position to make strategic decisions which may not be ideologically pure but a long-term benefit to Venezuela. That does not mean that the leftist movement should rally to defend Ahmadinejad (or Arab national socialists, known as "Ba'ath" for that matter).

The world is not black and white.

If you support Chávez, you do not need to support Ahmadinejad.

If you are against the war in Iraq, you do not need to support fascists.

[Comrade_Scott]

oh no chavez has aligned himself with Ahmadinejad call the police. who cares the man chavez has done than what most of us will do in a lifetime.... and no he is not a perfect socialist but he is doing well than a ussr or vietnam or even china (modern) in its brute honesty and working for the people and actually stopping and imperialist pig-dogs god help us :unsure:

now mr Ahmadinejad is a prick for the most part but chavez is going by the enemy of my enemy is my friend kt him do it if it fails it fails and we all curse him but if it goes well then what??

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:16 am
oh no chavez has aligned himself with Ahmadinejad call the police. who cares the man chavez has done than what most of us will do in a lifetime.... and no he is not a perfect socialist but he is doing well than a ussr or vietnam or even china (modern) in its brute honesty and working for the people and actually stopping and imperialist pig-dogs god help us :unsure:

now mr Ahmadinejad is a prick for the most part but chavez is going by the enemy of my enemy is my friend kt him do it if it fails it fails and we all curse him but if it goes well then what??
If Chávez fails, it would not likely be because of his alliance with Tehran.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If one looks into the economic deals, the two aren't ideological "brothers." In fact, Chavez is USING Ahmadinejad. Heck, even a few Iranian legislators were complaining about Iran's "alliance" foreign policy awhile back.

So no, my enemy's enemy is not my friend. My enemy's enemy is, however, my useful idiot.

Case in point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2117844,00.html (Venezuela sells petrol to Iran to reinforce front against US)

All the while, Iran spends its money away in joint ventures WITHIN Venezuela, boosting the Venezuelan economy while doing nothing for its own economy.

[Cheung Mo]

It's just so very tragi-comic to see that women in Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia have made significant gains in material, freedom, and opportunity under leftist governments in those countries why allies and useful idiots in Nicaragua and Iran are doing whatever they can to repress them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 05, 2007 05:44 pm
It's just so very tragi-comic to see that women in Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia have made significant gains in material, freedom, and opportunity under leftist governments in those countries why allies and useful idiots in Nicaragua and Iran are doing whatever they can to repress them.
^^^ Indeed ( :( ), but at least you aren't naive to believe that Chavez is really seeking an alliance with Iran (although the figurehead wacko of that country might be seeking such).