Pat Robertson vs Socialist International

[Cheung Mo]

Pat Robertson supports the assassination of Hugo Chavez, as does former SI VP Carlos Perez and SI affiliates Accion Democratica and Movimento al Socialismo.

Nicaragua's affiliate, the FSLN, and its leader supports giving the state and the church control over a woman's body, a position shared by former SI President Antonio Guterres (1999 - 2005) and by Mr. Robertson.

Canada's New Democratic Party supports NORAD and opposing taxing the estates of the ultra-rich upon their deaths. Pat Robertson shares these positions.

Among others, the NDP, Germany's Social Democratic Party, and New Labour support NATO and American hegemony. Obviously, so does Mr. Robertson.

Jamaica's SI affiliate, the People's National Party, is complicit in the political persecution and extrajudicial execution of sexual and gender minorities in Jamaica. So to is Pat Robertson.

So what's the difference? You fucking tell me.

[praxicoide]

Let's not forget that Mexico's PRI is in the Socialist International, this horrid party with a long and sordid history is not even left leaning in rhetoric.

There are a whole bunch of neo-liberal parties as well.

The whole thing is a joke.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 23, 2007 06:03 pm
So what's the difference? You fucking tell me.
One is a clerical fascist while the other is social democratic (which today translates as neo-liberal). Is there a difference? Of course.

[Cheung Mo]

Correa, Chavez, and Morales are social democrats. Most of the SI -- once you strip away the rhetoric and the gloss -- is barely left of Stephen Harper.

Hell...

I would place AD to his right. Given a choice between Harper and Rosales, I'd take my chances with Little Stevie Blunder.

[Comrade Castro]

"Pat Robertson supports the assassination of Hugo Chavez, as does former SI VP Carlos Perez and SI affiliates Accion Democratica and Movimento al Socialismo."

Well no wonder. Carlos Andres Perez, ex leader of AD, was Venezuela's president...twice. In the seventies his bloody rule was marked by the importation of all sorts of American torture agents as part of the anti-guerrilla campaign. Then from 1988-1994 he was President again. He introduced the neoliberal reforms which destroyed Venezuela's economy, and during 1989's "Caracazo" uprising, murdered up to 3000 people in Caracas. My parents remember it. Sadistic murderers of the State "security forces", with automatic weapons, torturing and killing at will IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREETS. Going into a neighborhood and machine gunning the houses for fun. Shooting at passing cars at random (they almost got my parents once like that). He ordered these terror campaigns again in later years of his presidency but on smaller scales. Now he dares to call these times "democracy" and Chavez a "tyrant". And of course he wants Chavez assassinated, Chavez is the one who almost overthrew him in 1992.

[ComradeR]

Now he dares to call these times "democracy" and Chavez a "tyrant".
Don't you know the fundamental rule of Democracy? It's only a "free and democratic" nation when the US imperialists and their puppets say it is, otherwise it's a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. :rolleyes:

As for the SI it's a joke, it's nothing more then a neo-liberal organization that supports imperialism.

[Cheung Mo]

Its membership in the SI is one of the main reasons I've abandoned the NDP. For all Layton's rhetoric, Chavez has housed more homeless people in a day than he will in a lifetime.

Fuck...I need to create on of those Fascist Watch-style blogs and target social democrats.

[Cheung Mo]

So how is FSLN better than SRM anyways?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:26 pm
Let's not forget that Mexico's PRI is in the Socialist International, this horrid party with a long and sordid history is not even left leaning in rhetoric.

There are a whole bunch of neo-liberal parties as well.

The whole thing is a joke.
actually that is not true.

the PRD IS in the socialist international however

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Marmot+July 25, 2007 02:38 am--> (Marmot @ July 25, 2007 02:38 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 06:26 pm
Let's not forget that Mexico's PRI is in the Socialist International, this horrid party with a long and sordid history is not even left leaning in rhetoric.

There are a whole bunch of neo-liberal parties as well.

The whole thing is a joke.
actually that is not true.

the PRD IS in the socialist international however [/b]
Yes it is actually...

http://www.socialistinternational.org/2Members/who.html#full

Mexico Party of Democratic Revolution, PRD
Mexico Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI

I almost puked the first time I saw PRI there...Accion Democracia and Egypt's National Democratic Party were equally revolting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hopefully some people around here will now grudgingly admit the historical correctness of that soundbite regarding social democracy and fascism being twins (albeit NON-identical twins).

Cheung Mo, you as a Trotskyist may not like the fact that the soundbite came from Stalin himself, but as an ex to both "historicals," I can say that he was damningly correct in more ways than one on that one (going back to Social-Democrats and the Freikorps).

[Cheung Mo]

Few people understand fascism, social democracy, and personality cults better than Stalin did.

[Hit The North]

Hopefully some people around here will now grudgingly admit the historical correctness of that soundbite regarding social democracy and fascism being twins (albeit NON-identical twins).

So there's no political difference (or only at a cosmetic level) between Tony Blair and Hitler?

Are you arguing that in a straight contest between say, a New Labour candidate and a BNP candidate, we should either toss a coin to decide or just abstain?

[peaccenicked]

Are you arguing that in a straight contest between say, a New Labour candidate and a BNP candidate, we should either toss a coin to decide or just abstain?
Abstain. It is not a straight contest. It would be criminal to vote for any war criminal party. At least the BNP is not in charge of the British army and have little likelyhood. I think in a 'straight' contest, I would tactically vote BNP, If I voted, but abstention would be my duty.

[Cheung Mo]

I agree supporting the BNP would be a wretched thing to do, even tacticly...But why rest our loyalties with an agent of the very system that has created the material conditions that allow the BNP to thrive?

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 23, 2007 12:03 pm
Jamaica's SI affiliate, the People's National Party, is complicit in the political persecution and extrajudicial execution of sexual and gender minorities in Jamaica. So to is Pat Robertson.

So what's the difference? You fucking tell me.
well i dont know about the others but the pnp is so far off from the left that its not funny (thanks pj) so it comes as no suprise that they agree with the stuff you stated, just ignore and oppose and things will fall into place

[Cheung Mo]

Apparently being left of the opposition is enough...

[Cheung Mo]

So when will the followers of Stalin and Hoxha stop colluding with capitalists, reactionaries, and social democrats to subvert the aspirations of Venezuela's toiling masses?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:52 pm

Are you arguing that in a straight contest between say, a New Labour candidate and a BNP candidate, we should either toss a coin to decide or just abstain?
Abstain. It is not a straight contest. It would be criminal to vote for any war criminal party. At least the BNP is not in charge of the British army and have little likelyhood. I think in a 'straight' contest, I would tactically vote BNP, If I voted,
So you'd consider voting for an avowedly racist, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, nationalistic and authoritarian party, full of holocaust deniers, on the basis of a "tactic"? Astonishing.

What possible "tactic" do you have in mind?


but abstention would be my duty.

Actually, if you're a principled anti-fascist, engagement should be your duty.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 09:02 pm
I agree supporting the BNP would be a wretched thing to do, even tacticly...But why rest our loyalties with an agent of the very system that has created the material conditions that allow the BNP to thrive?
I'm not suggesting that we throw our loyalties into social democracy. Nevertheless, it would be pure opportunism for socialists to not support social democracy against fascism.

The main assertion of this thread is that Stalin was correct in identifying the twinning of social democracy with Nazism. But, as history can testify, he was dead wrong.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+July 29, 2007 11:51 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ July 29, 2007 11:51 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 09:02 pm
I agree supporting the BNP would be a wretched thing to do, even tacticly...But why rest our loyalties with an agent of the very system that has created the material conditions that allow the BNP to thrive?
I'm not suggesting that we throw our loyalties into social democracy. Nevertheless, it would be pure opportunism for socialists to not support social democracy against fascism. [/b]
I defy you to say those words to a Venezuelan who lost a friend or a loved one in one of Perez's mass graves.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+July 30, 2007 12:00 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ July 30, 2007 12:00 pm)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 29, 2007 11:51 pm

Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 09:02 pm
I agree supporting the BNP would be a wretched thing to do, even tacticly...But why rest our loyalties with an agent of the very system that has created the material conditions that allow the BNP to thrive?
I'm not suggesting that we throw our loyalties into social democracy. Nevertheless, it would be pure opportunism for socialists to not support social democracy against fascism.
I defy you to say those words to a Venezuelan who lost a friend or a loved one in one of Perez's mass graves. [/b]
Comrade, I wouldn't. But then surely Perez cannot be held typical of social democracy, even if the title was loosely applicable to him, which I severely doubt.

A man who is installed as President on the back of a military coup and then holds dictatorial office on the basis of murder, extortion and fraud is politically closer to fascist than social democrat.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+July 30, 2007 12:14 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ July 30, 2007 12:14 pm)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 30, 2007 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 29, 2007 11:51 pm

Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 09:02 pm
I agree supporting the BNP would be a wretched thing to do, even tacticly...But why rest our loyalties with an agent of the very system that has created the material conditions that allow the BNP to thrive?
I'm not suggesting that we throw our loyalties into social democracy. Nevertheless, it would be pure opportunism for socialists to not support social democracy against fascism.
I defy you to say those words to a Venezuelan who lost a friend or a loved one in one of Perez's mass graves.
Comrade, I wouldn't. But then surely Perez cannot be held typical of social democracy, even if the title was loosely applicable to him, which I severely doubt.

A man who is installed as President on the back of a military coup and then holds dictatorial office on the basis of murder, extortion and fraud is politically closer to fascist than social democrat. [/b]
He was the 2nd highest ranking person within the Socialist International for years...I think he's a more than adequate representation of what higher-ups within social democratic organisations think of workers.

[Hit The North]

Cheung Mo:

He was the 2nd highest ranking person within the Socialist International for years...I think he's a more than adequate representation of what higher-ups within social democratic organisations think of workers.

Sorry, I'm confusing President Carlos Andrés Pérez (the social democrat you're referring to) with President Marcos Pérez (the earlier dictator). Apologies.

Certainly the chronic corruption and murderous reaction to the Caracazo of Carlos Andrés Pérez's government is a stark illustration of how social democrats become the willing agents of capitalist reaction in times of crisis.

Nevertheless, as a general rule, social democratic parties are nominally committed to peaceful reform and some notion of social justice, no matter how delusional or tenuous their claims may prove to be in the end. Fascists, on the other hand, declare open war on the workers movement and represent the most authoritarian, reactionary and bigoted ideas in society. The preferred state of affairs for the social democrat is relatively stable class collaboration under the leadership of capital. The preferred state of affairs for the fascist is dictatorship and oppression.

Thus in the situation of Venezuela under Perez, during the riots and protests, any fascist party to his right would have been offering a more stringent, more complete and more murderous alternative to Perez. So, even in this crisis situation when social democracy can reveal itself in its true wretchedness, there would be little to gain from supporting a fascist party against a social democratic one - as peacenicked claimed he might.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 08:43 am
Few people understand fascism, social democracy, and personality cults better than Stalin did.
Are you being sarcastic here? ;)

What I meant was that Stalin exhibited a Freudian attitude towards the "twins." He correctly said such, but was VERY accommodating, as well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 28, 2007 11:05 am

Hopefully some people around here will now grudgingly admit the historical correctness of that soundbite regarding social democracy and fascism being twins (albeit NON-identical twins).

So there's no political difference (or only at a cosmetic level) between Tony Blair and Hitler?

Are you arguing that in a straight contest between say, a New Labour candidate and a BNP candidate, we should either toss a coin to decide or just abstain?
Well, there certainly isn't much difference between Tony Blair and Russia's banned NBP folks (especially since the National Bolsheviks aren't as hysterically anti-communist as the rest of their structurally fascist brethren). Both of them (as well as ordinary fascists) share a "third position" of sorts. The only thing lacking on the part of both (and merely a superstructural feature, might I add) is the hysterical anti-communism that is shared between the Christian Right and Europe's neo-Nazis.