Prospect of War in South America

[Sentinel]

Chavez closes Venezuelan embassy in Colombia (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/chavez-closes-venezuelan-embassy-colombia)

War brewing as Colombia raids Ecuador (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23309142-23109,00.html)

Since the FARC leader Raul Reyes was killed on Equadorian territory by a Colombian missile strike, tension is mounting fast in the region. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has ordered the evacuation of the Venezuelan embassy in Bogota, mobilized the armed forces and started moving troops to the Colombian border.

President Correa of Ecuador has given the same orders. Full scale war with the two leftist governments -- Venezuela and Ecuador -- on one side, and the reactionary Colombian one on the other is now a reasonable possibility.

Or is it? What are the odds? How will the US react? What do you think of the situation in general?

I think that unless the US intervenes forcefully, there might be a reasonable chance of Colombian defeat -- should this come to war. After all Chavez has been bulking up the military, and we must not forget that the FARC is quite powerful as well and can potentially perform important guerilla actions. I lack more detailed information however, and am hoping for comrades more aware of the situation to provide that.

[spartan]

The US doesnt have the resources right now to send thousands of troops to Colombia, but they will definately increase the numbers of "advisors" which they already have in Colombia right now.

They will also help in intelligence and in an air and sea situation, but when you consider that it would be three (Ecuador, FARC and Venezuela) against one (Colombia) i think Colombia would do well to defuse this situation for her own sake (Especially when you factor in that Chavez can cut off oil supplies to the US).

Venezuela alone could beat Colombia in a fair fight (i.e. without American involvment) as it has air (Better aircraft and better trained pilots) and ground (More troops) superiority over Colombia.

Good to see that those brand new AK-103 and SU-30's of Venezuela should come in handy:D

[Red_or_Dead]

If the US reacts, there is no doubt at all as to which side will it support.

I do hope that it wont happen, if it does it will most likely become just another imperialistic war, with the US standing in the shadow of Colombia.

Does anyone know what is the power ratio here (if that is the correct expresion)? Which side is stronger in military terms?

[Die Neue Zeit]

A greater Bolivarian republic, I think, would be in the best interests of Latin America (should Colombia make a misstep).

[Dimentio]

Uribe is not crazy, but the question is how much control he really has over his own army, to not speak about remaining local AUC militias.

[Dimentio]

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-chavez-seeking-war-with-colombia.html

Here is one analysis from a O.I style guy.

[Sankofa]

I'm really interested about the potential roles Bolivia and Cuba could play in this conflict. Think they will get involved in any way?

I'm not certified to make military analysis, but from the way I look at it, Uribe would be finsihed. He'd be fighting a three front war: From the north, Venezuela, From the south, Ecuador, and inside the country itself is Las FARC.

As far as what the U.S. can do, not much of anything. They definately aren't going to start a draft....

What about America's Blackwater mercenaries? They're already being used in Iraq; any possibility they could get a contract for this potential conflict?

[Red_or_Dead]

I'm really interested about the potential roles Bolivia and Cuba could play in this conflict. Think they will get involved in any way?


Dunno about Bolivia, but Im guessing that there isnt much that Cuba can do.


What about America's Blackwater mercenaries? They've already being used in Iraq; any possibility they could get a contract for this potential conflict?

Possibly. The US army is not going in, not in present condition anyway. Military aid and blackwater are the only possibilities that come to mind.

[Bright Banana Beard]

There is also National Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Colombia%29) & Popular Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Liberation_Army). They ranged 3000-10,000 according to wikipedia.

[Dominicana_1965]

I wouldn't expect any more tensions than the one we have just witnessed.

In my opinion, it'll most likely die down in the coming days and everything will be back to "business-as-usual" (this includes the Colombian state offensives & repression).


Of course this will most likely amount to new targets for the capitalist press against Venezuela though.
.

[Red_or_Dead]

There is also National Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Colombia%29) & Popular Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Liberation_Army). They ranged 3000-10,000 according to wikipedia.


Thats three organizations, together with the FARC. Looking good...

[Geronimo Pratt]

Possibly. The US army is not going in, not in present condition anyway. Military aid and blackwater are the only possibilities that come to mind.

Dyncorp, Blackwater's main competition for mercenary contractors, has been in Columbia for quite some time now. Their particular job is to eradicate coca crops on the border of Ecuador and Columbia, funny because they have been violating Ecuador's sovereignty for the duration of their contract. So its far from unreasonable to assume an axis of paramilitaries from the U.S. and the Columbia collaborating with the Columbian military. Support from Mexico is very likely as well. The axis of Chavez will include Ecuador and people's militias from Venezuela collaborating with the Venezuela military. Support from Cuba and Bolivia are very likely as well.

I don't know what to think of this situation, a continental war has both negative possibilites (i.e. rollback of gains made in Latin America from the past decade, many dead civilians, a continental arms race, etc.) and good possibilities (i.e. breaking the Columbia state to create revolutionary conditions for the FARC, defeat of U.S. imperialism, etc.).

[вор в законе]

The USA can still hit Venezuela and Ecuador through aerial attacks in case of war.

[Faux Real]

What does either side have to gain by going to war? I hope this doesn't happen for the reason pointed out, namely the gains of the Venezuelan working class will be at risk.

[spartan]

What does either side have to gain by going to war?

The defeat of the other.

What we are seeing in Latin America is progressive left wing politics gaining mass appeal (Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela) and an Imperialist reaction to this threat (US Propping up a corrupt anti-left Conservative regime in Colombia).


I hope this doesn't happen for the reason pointed out, namely the gains of the Venezuelan working class will be at risk.

They have been at risk since Chavez was elected President.

All this war will be doing is seeing who will gain the upper hand in regional affairs for the next few decades.

The US has alot to lose by openly helping Colombia (Venezuelan oil) and it is tied down anyway with troops in the middle east and Asia, so any US help to Colombia wont amount to anything more than upping the amount of "advisors" to the Colombian army and helping them with intelligence and air (Reconnaissance and bombing missions) and sea operations.

Add to that the looming economic crises with the falling rate of the Dollar, and i cant realistically see the US getting involved in what could potentially become a long drawn out affair (FARC have not given up after half a century in the jungle so it is unlikely that Chavez would either).

On another note perhaps Russia will get involved and we could have a "Venezuelan missle crises":D

[last_angry_man]

Military aid and blackwater are the only possibilities that come to mind.

"Military aid" used to be a simple concept: depending on the USA's relations with the country, the 'aid' might consist of several thousand M16s on up to a 'buy now, pay later' deal on several wings of jet fighters. At either extreme, it was basically a big box of hardware.

But technology has changed everything. Our government can now supply unmanned drones capable of everything from intelligence gathering to very serious offensive capabilities. And it can all be led, monitored and controlled from an anonymous looking office building somewhere in Florida. The 'advisors' this time won't be Green Berets, but rather computer geeks who dreamed of a career designing video games, but found more dependable employment programming real violence instead.

Just because the USA is in no position to put 'boots on the ground' that doesn't mean that they are incapable of really screwing things up, almost anywhere on earth.

I think that the real wildcard will come into play if the conflict grows beyond the 3 countries already mentioned into a more regional war. That wildcard is Brazil: the South American country that has sucked up more capitalist investment in the last few years than the rest of SA combined. Brazil became the investment choice of the 'smart money' on Wall Street a few years ago after China and India's markets reached crazy valuation levels. If the conflict remains localized, it might play out without much involvement from the rest of the world, but if it grows to draw in the neighbors (Brazil), the western economies can no longer sit idly by.

[spartan]

Another unforseen consequence to this escalation is that it will drive the price of oil up even further:D

Fuck the US and their economic Imperialism!

[dez]

Military aid and blackwater are the only possibilities that come to mind.

I think that the real wildcard will come into play if the conflict grows beyond the 3 countries already mentioned into a more regional war. That wildcard is Brazil: the South American country that has sucked up more capitalist investment in the last few years than the rest of SA combined. Brazil became the investment choice of the 'smart money' on Wall Street a few years ago after China and India's markets reached crazy valuation levels. If the conflict remains localized, it might play out without much involvement from the rest of the world, but if it grows to draw in the neighbors (Brazil), the western economies can no longer sit idly by.

We also have a strong leftist basis, but a even stronger "white elite". And they see Uribe as the 21st century US-Made Gorilla, that means, huge monkey they want to suck up to. They perceive chavez as someone who is trying to dispute regionally for political power.
Yet you have forgotten that Brazil has a strong tradition of solving things diplomatically and staying out of other people's conflicts. We had a warmongering side when we were an empire, but that's long gone. Even during both world wars, we barely joined the allies in it. I do not see Brazil joining any sides if there is a war there, although a lot of brazilians would gladly do so.

But yeah, who knows what the fuck will happen.

[Sentinel]

Here's BBC's article on this:

Venezuela 'sends tanks to border' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7274038.stm)

I would say that it's now up to the Colombian governments actions. Chavez has after all said that he 'doesn't want war', but that violations of Venezuelan territory will lead to that. I'd bet Ecuador has a similar position. This movement of troops is likely meant as a warning for the Colombian government, that any further violations will have consequences.

I'd say it's quite likely that they will be wise enough to get the hint..

[Zurdito]

I can't see any possibility of a war over this. in whose interests would that be? No-one will go to war over FARC, they are a spent force, defunct, history.

Now you can say that they would be "just using" FARC as a n excuse to settle other scores. But really, there's been no "march to war", no popular pressure on either side - in fact I think the war would be highly unpopular in both countries. Finally, a country uses war as a diversion from other problems when they don't calculate the other side can effectively fight back (ie the Junta in Argentina only liberated the Malvinas based on those grounds, if they knew Britain would fight, they'd never have done it). But, Colombia and Venezuela are pretty evenly matched, both would suffer heavily (economically and militarilly) neither really stands much to gain, and neither can count on the other backing down, so...I really can't see what stakes are currently high enough for them to go to war over. :s

[dez]

Colombia and venezuela aren't evenly leveled, venezuela has more military might.

And although war is unlikely, there was troop reallocation.

[spartan]

I was just watching BBC news 24 and they said that the Colombian President has apologised over the incident, but Chavez responded by saying that an apology is insufficient for a massacre.

[Comrade Castro]

Yup, even the most fascist Colombian military sources admit Venezuela beats Colombia in every military field. Venezuela= 250 artillery pieces, Colombia 50, Venezuela= ~150 tanks, Colombia 0, Venezuela's SU-30's beat any airplane in the world except the F-22 hands down, AK-103's versus plain M-16's, our navies are about equal (but the SU-30's have anti-ship missiles!) and they have about 10,000 more soldiers (V:200,000, C:210,000), but ideologically Venezuelan soldiers are far more willing to fight (and well-equipped) against the fascist Colombian government than poor Colombian conscripts who wouldn't even know what they were fighting for--we could expect mass desertions and even mutinies on the Colombian side. Plus aid from FARC, ELN, EPL, and the Ecuadorian military on the other side! :cool: Of course, no one expects an all-out war like this, but if we're having little video-game fantasies---Colombia doesn't stand a chance unless the USA mass-bombs or even invades us.... If we were to win---the next global superpower would be a socialist south america!

[manic expression]

I was just watching BBC news 24 and they said that the Colombian President has apologised over the incident, but Chavez responded by saying that an apology is insuffucuent for a massacre.

Good. It's high time for Uribe and his cronies to be held accountable.

[Sankofa]

Exactly, Fuck Uribe.

It's the same old scenario in Latin America.

He and other rich, white Colombians are living the good life while the indigenous and afro-colombians live in shit conditions; they couldn't care less.

Without the United States showering his regime with billions, Las FARC would have won decades ago.

[spartan]

Yup, even the most fascist Colombian military sources admit Venezuela beats Colombia in every military field. Venezuela= 250 artillery pieces, Colombia 50, Venezuela= ~150 tanks, Colombia 0, Venezuela's SU-30's beat any airplane in the world except the F-22 hands down, AK-103's versus plain M-16's, our navies are about equal (but the SU-30's have anti-ship missiles!) and they have about 10,000 more soldiers (V:200,000, C:210,000), but ideologically Venezuelan soldiers are far more willing to fight (and well-equipped) against the fascist Colombian government than poor Colombian conscripts who wouldn't even know what they were fighting for--we could expect mass desertions and even mutinies on the Colombian side. Plus aid from FARC, ELN, EPL, and the Ecuadorian military on the other side! :cool: Of course, no one expects an all-out war like this, but if we're having little video-game fantasies---Colombia doesn't stand a chance unless the USA mass-bombs or even invades us.... If we were to win---the next global superpower would be a socialist south america!
Just thought that i would add that though Venezuela's military has superior equipment and more personal than Colombia, Colombia has decades of experience in counter-insurgency warfare, whilst Venezuela has little to no experience in warfare on a large scale.

Though three against one is a safe bet in anyone's mind:D

[Xiao Banfa]

A comrade of mine reckons this could turn into a international brigade-level situation.

[manic expression]

Just thought that i would add that though Venezuela's military has superior equipment and more personal than Colombia, Colombia has decades of experience in counter-insurgency warfare, whilst Venezuela has little to no experience in warfare on a large scale.

Though three against one is a safe bet in anyone's mind:D

I hate armchair strategy with a passion, but let me say one thing here. Colombia's military has been experienced with counter-insurgency, but that has no use when you're faced with a larger, better equipped conventional army. Las FARC have no air support, no artillery, no armor; Venezuela does. If anything, Colombia's experience would be a disadvantage, being too accustomed to a war that is no longer being fought.

OK, that's my last post on this whole thing. Moving on....


A comrade of mine reckons this could turn into a international brigade-level situation.

How would that happen today? In the 1930's, the Comintern was able to mobilize and train the International Brigades, but I don't think a similar organization exists today. Just out of curiosity, does anyone think even a small international effort could happen now?

[Wanted Man]

Contrary to most people in this thread, I'm not very excited by the prospect of a war. I think it's sad that some people find it very easy to let go of anti-militarism when Venezuela's involved. Take it easy, armchair generals.

I think Chavez and Uribe would both agree with me. Withdrawing ambassadors and moving troops to the border is more of a last diplomatic measure. It's good that Venezuela is doing this, because it should stop the Colombian army from violating the sovereignty of Ecuador and Venezuela.

[Xiao Banfa]

Contrary to most people in this thread, I'm not very excited by the prospect of a war.


Yeah that's right. I think it would outstip the energy of the masses, discredit socialism further and Chavez is in a shitty position now, he doesn't need to make it worse.



Just out of curiosity, does anyone think even a small international effort could happen now?


I don't know, but it would be very interesting when the volunteers came back.



In the 1930's, the Comintern was able to mobilize and train the International Brigades, but I don't think a similar organization exists today.


Alan fucking Woods would do it. We could bottle his hot air and use against the enemy. Or maybe we could sell copies of the Militant to fundraise (after Barnesie takes his cut, of course).

We could order all the boring, old flatulent leaders pizza and they could watch the battle on venezuelan TV via satellite.

[manic expression]

Contrary to most people in this thread, I'm not very excited by the prospect of a war. I think it's sad that some people find it very easy to let go of anti-militarism when Venezuela's involved. Take it easy, armchair generals.

I think Chavez and Uribe would both agree with me. Withdrawing ambassadors and moving troops to the border is more of a last diplomatic measure. It's good that Venezuela is doing this, because it should stop the Colombian army from violating the sovereignty of Ecuador and Venezuela.

I agree with you: war is never a good thing. However, part of me feels that a conflict between progressives and reactionaries in Latin America is almost inevitable. I don't know what will happen, but this is about A LOT more than just an offense against Ecuadorian borders.

Chavez and Uribe would agree on nothing. Coincidentally, Colombia just made a claim that they found documents linking Correa to FARC. I don't think either side has very much faith in the other. Whether moving troops and withdrawing ambassadors is a last measure or a first step remains to be seen, but regardless, this represents a very acute development in the politics of the region.


Alan fucking Woods would do it. We could bottle his hot air and use against the enemy. Or maybe we could sell copies of the Militant to fundraise (after Barnesie takes his cut, of course).

We could order all the boring, old flatulent leaders pizza and they could watch the battle on venezuelan TV via satellite.

Is there something you want to say?

[Wanted Man]

I meant that they would agree that (open) war is not desirable. The world doesn't work that way anymore.

Besides that, I see your point. Eventually, the reactionaries will have to be kicked out of Latin America, and Uribe is definitely the big fish. But I don't think there is really the capability or the desire to launch a war at the moment. Consider the very long border between Venezuela and Colombia, and Venezuela's economic interests just a short distance away that border (oil fields, if I recall correctly). I think it would be a risky endeavour.

[Xiao Banfa]

Is there something you want to say?


Not anymore. I satisfied myself just then. Just in case you didn't pick up on it: the western left is largely pathetic. Except the Alliance Party and a few others.

Maybe getting talked down to by Mary-Alice Waters will cure me.

[Wanted Man]

Hehe. As fun as it may be to dream about "international brigades", Xiao is essentially right: the movement is so feeble, such a thing would never happen. The international "climate" doesn't really allow for that kind of thing, either. It's just completely disconnected from reality.

[Herman]

It should not come to war, but Colombia should be held accountable for what it has done for decades and what it continues to do.

War discredits the idea of a "greater Colombia". It also serves as ammo for the bourgeois opposition in Venezuela.

[BobKKKindle$]

I meant that they would agree that (open) war is not desirable. The world doesn't work that way anymore.We should support a defensive war to defend the sovereignty of Venezuela and Ecuador, but should certainly not delight in the prospect of workers being killed - I hope both countries will be able to find to find a peaceful solution to this crisis, particularly because Venezuela would probably lose if a war occurred, which to the installation of a government friendly to the interests of the United States and thus the collapse of all the gains that have been made so far in favour of market liberalization. Although, on its own, Colombia has a weaker military, they would be able to rely on the support of the United States in any conflict with Venezuela, even if the support is only in the form of funding and/or equipment, not the full deployment of troops. This support could give Colombia the strength it needs to defeat Venezuela.

[VukBZ2005]

We should support a defensive war to defend the sovereignty of Venezuela and Ecuador, but should certainly not delight in the prospect of workers being killed - I hope both countries will be able to find to find a peaceful solution to this crisis, particularly because Venezuela would probably lose if a war occurred.

It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the fact that, in this case, it would not just be Venezuela that would be involved in a conflict with Colombia, Ecuador and Colombia's internal guerrillas would also be involved, due to the actual dynamics of the situation, making this kind of potential war a four-way war; a four-way war that would make it nearly impossible for Colombia's army to focus on just Venezuela; they would also have to focus on fighting the FARC, the ELN, the EPL, and, of course, the Ecuadorian army.

[Guerrilla22]

I honestly think this whole thing will blow over. This isn't the first time tensions have been high between Venezuela and Colombia. Going to war is extrmely expensive both financially and socially.

It would be detrimental to all parties involved to engage in a military conflict. Colombia needs to concentrate its resources on fighting FARC and ELN. I doubt they even have the capacity to fight on three different fronts. Plus, the US is preoccupied in Iraq and wouldn't be able to or willing to contribute troops or hardware to aid Colombia.

[Tekun]

Although I do believe that in a drawn out conflict, without American intervention, Venezuela would eventually defeat Colombia....the repercussions and possibilities that such a conflict can give rise to worries me. Consider the number of casualties (made up mostly of working class people) on both sides, not only militarily but civilian as well. In addition, let's contemplate that Colombia aided by the US defeats Venezuela, South America's political map would once again be made up of puppet governments. Consider the possible actors who could be involved and the losses that could be incurred if the progressive side is defeated. Will the US involve itself, to what degree? If Cuba participates, how would the US react to their role in the conflict, invasion, attack? How would Venezuela, as a nation, react or subsist during or after the conflict? Could oversea's nations become involved? Thus sparking an international conflict?

Am I the only one who is convinced that the US had a role in Colombia's course of actions over the last 48hrs? Im sure that Colombia got American approval-intelligence-and support b4 breaching Ecuador's borders. I hope for everyone in South America and for those of us who to a certain degree admire Chavez and Correa that there isn't a conflict, but as of right now its hard to predict or hope for anything.

[darkened day 92]

God bless chavez he is a good man

[Comerade Ted Grant]

One does not have to be a genius to smell the skunk precense of U.S. imperialism behind this mess. It will be very interesting to know what that wise man Alan Woods has to say about this situation.

[manic expression]

Not anymore. I satisfied myself just then. Just in case you didn't pick up on it: the western left is largely pathetic. Except the Alliance Party and a few others.

Maybe getting talked down to by Mary-Alice Waters will cure me.

Yeah, I think we all know that the left is weak. Thanks, you really saved the day by pointing that out. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I thought you were above mindless sectarianism, but I guess not. Funny how I never heard about the Alliance Party outside of your signature, and I probably never will. Have fun insulting and slandering revolutionaries just because you disagree with them, just make sure you avoid thinking about improvement or progress or anything else that's remotely constructive.

[Zurdito]

further to what I said earlier: it would be an extremely odd war in that it wouldn't "unite the nation" as most wars do. No way would the anti-Chavez Venezuelans back him on this, and there's a huge proportion of the Colombian working class and peasantry that wouldn't back their government. It would be like a war between two states in which support was divided along class (and to some extent politica) lines, not national lines.

It's ahrd to really think fo an example of a war between two states where national feeling against the other state would be so low. Perhaps it would be more a case of pro-US elitism vs anti-US nationalism?

anyway, this is just one of the reasons why I can't envisage this. No government would really want to go into a war that divided. And ;let's be honest, there are no grounds for war on either side, it would be over-reaction of the century (last 100 years). Like someone else said, both Uribe and chavez's opponents would use the opportunity to mobilise against their governments. Hell it could well have been be the one time where "defeat to both sides" would be the most likely outcome. :D

[Bright Banana Beard]

If there social anarchism city or region like of CNT/FAI in 1930's Spain, I will fight for them. :)

[Herman]

The Colombian government has accused Chavez of financing the FARC with 300 million dollars and accused Correa of having relations with the FARC.

Their proof? Some documents they found on a computer, so they say.

[Red_or_Dead]

Hehe. As fun as it may be to dream about "international brigades", Xiao is essentially right: the movement is so feeble, such a thing would never happen. The international "climate" doesn't really allow for that kind of thing, either. It's just completely disconnected from reality.

Too true. Im guessing the only thing close to it would be individual volounteers. And they wont make any difference, thats for sure.

I agree with what most said, the war is highly unlikely, and I for one am moraly against it.

There is one thing tho: in a situation such as this, where Colombia cannot count on massive US support (as the US is too busy right now), wouldnt it be good that Venezuela, Ecuador, possibly even Cuba and Bolivia join forces with the guerrillas inside Colombia, and get rid of the puppet Colombian government once and for all? I mean, the insurgency in Colombia has been dragging for decades, it would be a good time to stop it, now that they are basicly on their own, and liberate another S. American country. Feel free to tear me apart on this one, Im not an expert on the situation, just some of my thoughts.

[Comrade_Scott]

man if the shit hits the fan it would be interesting to see how this side of the world would react, see whos a friend and who is just a puppet, if it does hit the fan i hope i could help out venezuela in some way:)

[Devrim]

Bourgeois state threatens war against another bourgeois state, and the left runs to its support. Not a trace of class politics or internationalism in sight.

Devrim

[spartan]

I was watching BBC news 24 this morning and they said that Chavez has expelled the Colombian ambassador to Venezuela and that Ecuador has broken off diplomatic relations with Colombia.

Also all sides have moved troops to their respective borders!

[Sankofa]

Pfft. Good luck forming an international brigade on Revleft, where people constantly bash real revolutionaries because they aren't perfect and don't fit into their petty idealist wetdream guidelines.

On the edit: Blah, that sounds really jaded. Don't worry, folks. I'm not that bitter :lol:

[anti-authoritarian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7277313.stm Uribe seems pretty serious about getting up Venezuela's nose.

[Sankofa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7277313.stm Uribe seems pretty serious about getting up Venezuela's nose.

Geez, how fucking arrogant can one guy be? This reinforces Chebol's theory on this whole thing, I think.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

jeez, Uribe seems like he wants to get his ass kicked, what kind of a moron asks to be invaded? right, lets get that International Brigade everyone is talking about set up.

[AGITprop]

Columbia Assassinates FARC Leader, Violating Ecuador's Sovereignty
Written by Luis ******* **** - HOV Canada
http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/349/1/
Monday, 03 March 2008

In an early morning attack on March 1, 2008 Colombian military forces made an incursion into Ecuadorian territory and murdered several FARC-EP guerrillas, including spokesperson Raúl Reyes. President Correa of Ecuador reported that the guerrillas had not been killed in military confrontation as reported by Colombian officials; rather they were murdered in their sleep, as they were found in their pyjamas. This cowardly act by the Uribe government Colombia of constitutes a very severe violation of international norms and laws and most seriously, the sovereignty of Ecuador.

As a result both Ecuador and Venezuela have recalled their Ambassadors from Bogotá and Ecuador has expelled the Colombian Ambassador from their territory. All three nations have now built up their military presence on their borders. The day after the attack Chávez remarked on “Álo Presidente” that if Colombia were ever to do the same in Venezuelan territory that it would constitute an act of war. This is a dramatic departure from Chávez’s tone in the past with respect to Colombia and the Uribe government and is cause for concern.

The U.S. frequently accuses Chávez of attempting to destabilize the region, this act by the Empire and its puppet President Uribe is proof that the real aggressor in the region in the U.S. The goal of this operation was to undermine the progress that had been made with Colombia’s government and the FARC-EP as a result of Chávez’s mediation efforts. As such, it is clear that this military act was as much as message to Chávez as it was to the FARC-EP. Effectively what is being said is that the U.S. will not tolerate political solutions. Instead, what the U.S. desires is an escalation and an internationalization of the military conflict in Colombia. This would give them the pretext to increase military funding and operations in the region, putting Venezuela clear in its sights.

A war between Venezuela and Colombia would be disastrous for the people of those countries and particularly so for the Venezuelan Revolution. Venezuela would be forced to divert its attention toward the war and away from building socialism, the lessons from the Contra War in Nicaragua tell us how devastating this can be. Accordingly, we must be prepared to resist any imperialist aggression in the region by the Empire and its allies in the region.

[Herman]

Venezuelan government has just closed its borders to Colombia, including trade.

[manic expression]

Bourgeois state threatens war against another bourgeois state, and the left runs to its support. Not a trace of class politics or internationalism in sight.

Devrim

A progressive country with revolutionary ideas confronts a reactionary tool of American imperialism, and the ultra-lefts are still utterly irrelevant.

Just as they always were.

And always will be.

[Entrails Konfetti]

All Chavez is doing is acting like his ailing idol. He's going to fight even if that means that the temple crumbles over their bodies. Nothing but penis flexing and saber rattling of the bourgeoisie.

[spartan]

A progressive country with revolutionary ideas confronts a reactionary tool of American imperialism, and the ultra-lefts are still utterly irrelevant.

Just as they always were.

And always will be.

One of the rare occassions where i have to agree 100% with what you say (Except maybe the last two sentences).

I cant for the life of me understand why people on a forum called "REVOLUTIONARY Left" suddenly get turned off and turn into quasi-Pacifists when a progressive state, headed by a self descibed Socialist, wants to defend itself from a puppet of American Capitalist Imperialism?

I can understand when people say "But working class people are going to die" but guess what, working class people are already dying because of tools of Capitalist Imperialism like Colombia and Israel!

And yet when a progressive anti-Imperialist state like Venezuela comes along and says that we arent going to stand for this shit anymore, you all start crying that it isnt worth it because people are going to die!

Working class people are always going to die in a revolution, so should we stop supporting people advocating revolution now?

Hell with that attitude we might as well scrap the whole idea of Communism because people are going to die when we attempt to implement it:rolleyes:

Rant over:D

[AGITprop]

One of the rare occassions where i have to agree 100% with what you say (Except maybe the last two sentences).

I cant for the life of me understand why people on a forum called "REVOLUTIONARY Left" suddenly get turned off and turn into quasi-Pacifists when a progressive state, headed by a self descibed Socialist, wants to defend itself from a puppet of American Capitalist Imperialism?

I can understand when people say "But working class people are going to die" but guess what, working class people are already dying because of tools of Capitalist Imperialism like Colombia and Israel!

And yet when a progressive anti-Imperialist state like Venezuela comes along and says that we arent going to stand for this shit anymore, you all start crying that it isnt worth it because people are going to die!

Working class people are always going to die in a revolution, so should we stop supporting people advocating revolution now?

Hell with that attitude we might as well scrap the whole idea of Communism because people are going to die when we attempt to implement it.

I must agree with you Spartan. Chavez is no Marxist. He is a Chavista. The fact of the matter is, he does believe in Socialism but is kind of confused. We must remember that he is under alot of pressure from the PSUV and from the surrounding bureaucracy. I am not advocating a revolution through Chavez, only the fact that the proletariat will come to the conclusion of revolution through Chavez's mistakes.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Heh, the Marxist-Leninists are looking at their crystal balls saying the proletariat will arrive at the conclusion, after Chavez organizations them in artificial "working-class" institutions to enact government policy on businesses, pick up trash, and build things.

Gee, I hope Russia comes to his aid-- as if this penis flexing will escalate into war. If it does, I hope they win. Then the world can be under some new progressive Imperialism.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Actually sratch "new" for "different".;)

[Devrim]

A progressive country with revolutionary ideas confronts a reactionary tool of American imperialism, and the ultra-lefts are still utterly irrelevant.

Just as they always were.

And always will be.

Ultra-left is nothing but an insult. It has no political meaning. It was also an insult that was often thrown at Lenin.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Ultra-left is nothing but an insult. It has no political meaning. It was also an insult that was often thrown at Lenin.

Devrim

Ultra-left describes the ideas I was addressing.

[Devrim]

Yes, in 1914 as today it was an insult thrown at those who opposed the idea of national defence.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

I must agree with you Spartan. Chavez is no Marxist. He is a Chavista. The fact of the matter is, he does believe in Socialism but is kind of confused. We must remember that he is under alot of pressure from the PSUV and from the surrounding bureaucracy. I am not advocating a revolution through Chavez, only the fact that the proletariat will come to the conclusion of revolution through Chavez's mistakes.

The working class will not neccessarilly come to gain a revolutionary conclusion just because their illusions in Chavez are destroyed. That will only happen if a vanguard leads the struggle against any errors by Chavez, and consciously fights to break the workers from him. Otherwise, the whole thing will simply collapse into disillusionment: we voted for a socialist, he didn't deliver, so let's give up on politics altogether.

[manic expression]

Yes, in 1914 as today it was an insult thrown at those who opposed the idea of national defence.

Devrim

Devrim, it's not my fault you're so ignorant that you can't distinguish between imperialist forces and progressive ones. You're an ultra-left puritan because you embrace fantastical misconceptions of "imperialism" that simply don't exist. Chavez doesn't think exactly like you, obviously, but that doesn't make him imperialist at all; it doesn't even make him a capitalist. I guess that whole thing about reality doesn't matter too much when you're hell-bent on opposing everything under the sun for the sake of your own purity.

Let me reiterate: everyone who maintains such mistaken ideas has always been irrelevant and will always be irrelevant.

[metalero]

Most people killed in Colombia in this war against FARC are not rebels, but civilians, including labor activist, peasants, leftists community leaders and on. I despise the colombian government with enough reasons you already know, but I believe an open confrontation with other countries would only keep fostering cheap patriotism in colombia and that would serve as an excuse for all-out attack on colombian workers and the growing democratic leftist movement, let alone the innecesary killing that wouldn't end the terror state in colombia, and would affect Venezuelan revolution. As for FARC they no longer represent an alternative workers movement, despite their existence is grounded on economical and social disparities. I hope Chavez be more clever not to be provoked and go to an unncessary armed confrontation. At the end, this would be just another crisis, bush has no means of openly supporting Uribe in a multiple front war and Chavez is not stupid enough to go into war and put at risk much of what he's accomplished and much left do in venezuela.

This is an analysis from CIP (http://cipcol.org/):

It is not hard to imagine the Colombian military’s calculation, if indeed there was any.
Their intelligence had located top FARC leader “Raúl Reyes” about a mile inside Ecuador’s national territory. “Should we clear this with Ecuador before we act?” someone may or may not have asked.
Had there been a response, it would have probably run along the lines of, “No, we can’t trust the Ecuadorians not to alert the FARC. It’s better to strike now and deal with the consequences later. What is Ecuador going to do, send us an angry diplomatic note? We can live with that if it means killing ‘Raúl Reyes.’”
The response, of course, has gone well beyond a diplomatic note.

The governments of both Venezuela and Ecuador have sent troops to their borders with Colombia and recalled their ambassadors (or in the case of Venezuela, they’ve closed their embassy in Bogotá).
Yesterday Chávez, after observing a minute of silence in Reyes’ honor, made clear that if Colombia carried out a similar raid on Venezuelan soil it would mean “war.”
Colombia, for its part, released guerrilla communications captured at the site of Reyes’s killing indicating that the FARC had been in contact with high Ecuadorian government officials. This afternoon, Colombian Police Chief Gen. Óscar Naranjo released further documents hinting that the FARC received, or was to receive, $300 million from Venezuela. Events continue to unfold. The question people have been asking us all day runs along the lines of, as one reporter put it hyperbolically, “is World War III is about to start in the Andes?”
No, war is not imminent. What is happening right now is saber-rattling. Venezuela and Ecuador are determined to increase the consequences for Colombia of its incursion into Ecuador’s territory. Those consequences have already gone well beyond what Colombia probably expected. But they are highly unlikely to include inter-state armed conflict.
Inter-state wars in Latin America are exceedingly rare. This crisis is not likely to be an exception; conflict can easily be averted.

Trade ties between Colombia and Venezuela are very close, and neither leader wants to jeopardize them. Venezuela in particular has begun to rely increasingly on food imports from Colombia, while a breakdown in trade would mean tens of thousands of lost jobs on both sides of the border.
Neither country’s military is enthusiastic about a cross-border war. Being ordered to engage in combat with Colombia would sorely test the “Bolivarian” commitment of Venezuelan officers who began their careers well before Chávez was first elected. Colombia’s armed forces, meanwhile, would no doubt prefer to continue concentrating on fighting guerrillas at home, rather than opening up a new external battle front.
Neither country’s population appears to be consumed by “war fever.” Colombians may be deeply angry with Chávez, but most would rather not see Colombians die fighting Venezuela. While the escalating war of words may appeal to the Chavista base in Venezuela, most Venezuelans - including even many ardent Chavistas - are no doubt unenthusiastic about either war with Colombia or allying with a militarily declining, chronically abusive force like the FARC.

[R_P_A_S]

here is what troubles me. and it does because I feel this whole thing is being misunderstood and working class people will draw conclusions heavily influenced by their corporate media and in Colombia's case right-wing, neoconservative assholes like Uribe.

and like the comrade above me mention, with this Colombia will manipulate most of their people with silly patriotism.

the majority of the Colombian and population in general see the FARC as "the bad guys" How do you think this makes the Chavez government and his "socialism of the 21st century" when he seems to back 100% "the terrorist" no one sees the mistake in this?

[spartan]

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Bush was on saying that America stands with Colombia against "criminals" and "terrorists".

Also Ecuador has called for other Latin American nations to condemn Colombia's cross border killing of a top FARC official.

[Sankofa]

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Bush was on saying that America stands with Colombia against "criminals" and "terrorists".



That, comrades, is the definition of irony.

[spartan]

A newspaper website article headline said "Ecuador ready for "ultimate consequences" in regional crises" and it also said that the President of Ecuador said that Ecuador will defend itself from any Colombian aggression, and wanted all members of the OAS to condemn Colombia's actions.

[Devrim]

Devrim, it's not my fault you're so ignorant that you can't distinguish between imperialist forces and progressive ones.

It is the same line as was used at the time of the First World War when people were calling Lenin 'ultra-left'. Then it was the 'monstrous Hun', or the 'Russian Asiatic hoards', that democracy had to be protected from.

No factions of the bourgeoisie are progressive today.


Let me reiterate: everyone who maintains such mistaken ideas has always been irrelevant and will always be irrelevant.

Which is why the ideas that I am putting forward were in the majority in the German, and Italian parties (the two western countries closest to revolution) during the revolutionary wave.

Devrim

[Herman]

No factions of the bourgeoisie are progressive today.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is bourgeoisie. Any oppressed nation which rises against the US is "bourgeoisie", any small efforts done by workers in some factories of a certain country are "bourgeoisie"... to you anything is bourgeoisie if it doesn't fit in the left-communist schematic of "workers have no country".

While marxists attempt to educate, agitate and organize, left-communists dream of their organs of worker's power moving in the capital of the country and taking it over. Unfortunately, they do not recognize the fact that such organs are already being constructed, but since it does not fit with their dreams, they scream in outrage, "No, the workers must do it themselves!" they say. So they try to discredit the attempts of radicalizing the movement by calling for a "NO" to a constitutional reform which would have allowed to officialize communal councils as organs of a participatory democracy.

They continue to exclaim, "Bourgeois, bourgeois!". And as the country moves forward, the left-communists move backwards. They even join the opposition and sing in their chorus too, "Dictator, we don't want a Cuba here!". So they join the same train which the opposition is in. Instead of radicalizing the bolivarian revolution by organizing events, meetings and such, they opt to stay out of the movement and criticize everything that it does. Nothing new or productive comes from them. They discredit the bolivarian revolution on the basis that it is "bourgeois"! But it all stems from their dislike of trade unions and "leninist" political parties, which they see as organs of "bourgeois" power or the left of "bourgeois" politics. They do not understand that their nonsense has never had any relevance, and is in "the dustheap of history". They do not even bother to adapt to circumstances, merely spout what Marx said, "Worker's have no country", like a religious fanatic who quotes the bible.


Which is why the ideas that I am putting forward were in the majority in the German, and Italian parties (the two western countries closest to revolution) during the revolutionary wave.

...and which never became more than that unfortunately. If left-communists had actually won in some way... well, perhaps I would take them seriously.

[Devrim]

It is quite amazing how much bile can be directed against those who are intransigent about communist principles.

As for this idea that we do nothing, to me it seems quite bizarre for leftist teenagers to be throwing it around at workers who have been members of strike committees. I suppose what Herman means is that we don't run around supporting various states, or movements that claim to be socialist even though they are attacking the working class and mobilising for wars of national defence.

Devrim

[manic expression]

It is the same line as was used at the time of the First World War when people were calling Lenin 'ultra-left'. Then it was the 'monstrous Hun', or the 'Russian Asiatic hoards', that democracy had to be protected from.

No factions of the bourgeoisie are progressive today.

Comparing this to WWI is absolutely ludicrous. First, one country is imperialistic, and that is Colombia; the American imperialists oppose Venezuela and Ecuador because those countries are struggling against imperialist interests. Furthermore, Venezuela in particular has seen an incredible amount of working class mobilization, which has undeniably influenced the direction of the country. The Venezuelan ruling class has been displaced from power, and yet you are oblivious to this fact.

No factions of the ultra-lefts are progressive or sentient.


Which is why the ideas that I am putting forward were in the majority in the German, and Italian parties (the two western countries closest to revolution) during the revolutionary wave.

On the other hand, the ideas that I am putting forward are intrinsic to revolutionary thought:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm


It is quite amazing how much bile can be directed against those who are intransigent about communist principles.

As for this idea that we do nothing, to me it seems quite bizarre for leftist teenagers to be throwing it around at workers who have been members of strike committees. I suppose what Herman means is that we don't run around supporting various states, or movements that claim to be socialist even though they are attacking the working class and mobilising for wars of national defence.

Devrim

Devrim, your line is nothing more than immature fallacy. Communists support the fight against imperialism, communists support the progress of the working class; had you been paying attention to the world instead of being blinded by your infantile ideology, you would have noticed that the Venezuelan working class has made enormous amounts of progress, whereas the Colombian working class is being actively suppressed. You, in your infinite ignorance, claim that these two countries are the same! You, in your infinite ignorance, cannot bring yourself to oppose imperialism (largely because you're too stupid to know what imperialism actually is).

Face it: the ultra-lefts like yourself have always been impotent and irrelevant. That won't change.

[black magick hustla]

A progressive country with revolutionary ideas confronts a reactionary tool of American imperialism, and the ultra-lefts are still utterly irrelevant.

Just as they always were.

And always will be.

I'd rather be "irrelevant" (although you "don't get" because it has nothing to do with having big organizations, rather to be part of the proletarian struggle itself) than to support the murder of workers in the name of a bourgeois faction. I hope you don't ever experience what it feels to be a poor indian, either forced by conscription or economic background to be sent to the slaughterhouse. You people don't understand the horror of war, you think it is just a battle of ideas between "progressives" and "reactionaries", rather than understanding that it is just a battle fought by workers of flesh and blood, with families, in the name of certain slave-masters.

[black magick hustla]

damn you marmotyou dont understand uribe is white and chqavez is brown doesnt that tells you anything?????????????????????????????

*waves plastic ak47*

fuvck amerikkka and the imperialists longlive allbrowns of the world

[spartan]

I'd rather be "irrelevant" (although you "don't get" because it has nothing to do with having big organizations, rather to be part of the proletarian struggle itself) than to support the murder of workers in the name of a bourgeois faction.

I dont understand what you mean exactly?

Who or what is this Bourgeois faction?

Chavez is a progressive left wing anti-Imperialist standing up to a tool of American Capitalist Imperialism, so what or where exactly is the problem here?

The Bourgeois of Chavez's country hate him and have openly conspired with America to defeat him (Even at one time overthrowing him in a coup before they were forced to release him due to huge protests by the Venezuelan people).


I hope you don't ever experience what it feels to be a poor indian, either forced by conscription or economic background to be sent to the slaughterhouse. You people don't understand the horror of war, you think it is just a battle of ideas between "progressives" and "reactionaries", rather than understanding that it is just a battle fought by workers of flesh and blood, with families, in the name of certain slave-masters.

War is horrible i agree, but it is sometimes necessary to beat back the forces of oppression and advance the progressive ideas of the progressive side.

Chavez has said that he doesnt want war, but Colombia crossed over into Ecuadorian territory, who just happen to be Venezuela's ally, to kill a top official of a Marxist guerrilla army (FARC), right after this same Marxist guerrilla army had cooperated for the first time in years to release prisoners of theirs!

If we took the attitude of some of the people on revleft oppossed to this escalation, then no one would have stood up the Fascists during the Spanish civil war or Hitler in WW2!

Sure Venezuela might not fit into your perfect ideal of a left wing state or movement, but it sure as hell is better than nothing (Which is exactly what we in the left have right now) and at least it stands up to injustice on the part of the Imperialists from a progressive standpoint (Unlike some of the resistance groups in the middle east).

[Herman]

As for this idea that we do nothing, to me it seems quite bizarre for leftist teenagers to be throwing it around at workers who have been members of strike committees.Notice the use of "teenager", as if indicating that the opinion of teenagers is worth less than his own.


I suppose what Herman means is that we don't run around supporting various states, or movements that claim to be socialist even though they are attacking the working class and mobilising for wars of national defence.

DevrimThat is what I mean, yes, except that those "states" are not attacking the working class. On the contrary, they are being empowered to levels which no Venezuelan could dream of. As for the national defence, it's a correct measure, since Uribe has decided to go rogue by invading other countries.


I'd rather be "irrelevant" (although you "don't get" because it has nothing to do with having big organizations, rather to be part of the proletarian struggle itself) than to support the murder of workers in the name of a bourgeois faction. I hope you don't ever experience what it feels to be a poor indian, either forced by conscription or economic background to be sent to the slaughterhouse. You people don't understand the horror of war, you think it is just a battle of ideas between "progressives" and "reactionaries", rather than understanding that it is just a battle fought by workers of flesh and blood, with families, in the name of certain slave-masters.No one here is advocating a war between Venezuela/Ecuador and Colombia. It's not even likely to happen. As former secretary general of the Communist Party of Spain Julio Anguita said, "Damn all the wars and those who support them."

[manic expression]

I'd rather be "irrelevant" (although you "don't get" because it has nothing to do with having big organizations, rather to be part of the proletarian struggle itself) than to support the murder of workers in the name of a bourgeois faction. I hope you don't ever experience what it feels to be a poor indian, either forced by conscription or economic background to be sent to the slaughterhouse. You people don't understand the horror of war, you think it is just a battle of ideas between "progressives" and "reactionaries", rather than understanding that it is just a battle fought by workers of flesh and blood, with families, in the name of certain slave-masters.

I'm not talking about being in a big organization, I'm talking about having a line that is relevant to the working class. The ultra-lefts don't.

I'm not rooting for war here. Far from it (although I see that didn't stop you from trying to misrepresent my argument). What I DO support, however, is the progress of the working class in Venezuela, as well as the collective opposition to Uribe and his imperialist goons. That means joining the outcry against this latest imperialist outrage perpetrated by the Colombian regime. In the end, whether you want to admit it or not, this is a conflict between progressive forces and imperialists; which side are you on?

But, on the other hand...you're right! No Marxist would EVER support a war, especially if it involved the conscription of working people and horrific combat:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Enjoy your irrelevant puritanism.

[black magick hustla]

I'm not rooting for war here. Far from it (although I see that didn't stop you from trying to misrepresent my argument). What I DO support, however, is the progress of the working class in Venezuela, as well as the collective opposition to Uribe and his imperialist goons. That means joining the outcry against this latest imperialist outrage perpetrated by the Colombian regime. In the end, whether you want to admit it or not, this is a conflict between progressive forces and imperialists; which side are you on?


Yeah, that old chestnut. I do not support war but anyway I will still back up a certain bourgeois faction over the other. There is no difference, as there wasn't a difference in 1914 or 1939 when leftists said they didnt like "war", but they still ended supporting a faction of slave-masters over the others. Conscription armies and/or poor folk forced by economic conditions as soldiers will be forced by their masters to kill each other. Should I choose a side just because one seems more "progressive" than the other? Or should I, as a communist, choose communist opposition to war?

I don't understand why such a basic thing like socialist opposition to war is "puritan".

If I was so worried about playing stupid, capitalist realpolitik I might as well become a paying member of the DSA.

Also about that letter:

1) Marx supported the american side in the Mexican-American War because we mexicans were "lazy folk" (yeah that was what exactly Marx said) and we needed a kick in the butt by the civilized whiteys. So your stupid bible-thumping doesn't has an effect on me.

2) That letter was written in 1865 when capital hadn't stretched to its fullest and imperialism wasn't a world system.

[manic expression]

Yeah, that old chestnut. I do not support war but anyway I will still back up a certain bourgeois faction over the other. There is no difference, as there wasn't a difference in 1914 or 1939 when leftists said they didnt like "war", but they still ended supporting a faction of slave-masters over the others. Conscription armies and/or poor folk forced by economic conditions as soldiers will be forced by their masters to kill each other. Should I choose a side just because one seems more "progressive" than the other? Or should I, as a communist, choose communist opposition to war?

I don't understand why such a basic thing like socialist opposition to war is "puritan".

If I was so worried about playing stupid, capitalist realpolitik I might as well become a paying member of the DSA.

You

Unfortunately, all that hot air has nothing to do with the real world. Imperialism, at present, is trying to roll back working class progress in Venezuela; your position is fundamentally uncommunist, as you ignore the realities of bourgeois aggression. Had you been paying attention, you would have seen the pattern: the imperialists have been threatening and trying to undermine Venezuela precisely because Venezuela has displaced the capitalists from power. Ultra-left puritans don't realize this, and instead blindly embrace their fantasies of "socialist opposition". Sorry, but you do not present a socialist opposition, you present neutrality and impotence in the face of imperialist aggression.

If I was worried about some misconception of purity, I would be a "left-communist". Instead, I support the progress of the working class, so I'm most definitely not an ultra-left puritan, just like every other revolutionary movement.

[manic expression]

Also about that letter:

1) Marx supported the american side in the Mexican-American War because we mexicans were "lazy folk" (yeah that was what exactly Marx said) and we needed a kick in the butt by the civilized whiteys. So your stupid bible-thumping doesn't has an effect on me.

2) That letter was written in 1865 when capital hadn't stretched to its fullest and imperialism wasn't a world system.

If you concentrated on reading and addressing the letter, perhaps you would have come up with a meaningful argument. Whatever Marx said or didn't say about the Mexican-American War means nothing here, because he did not give that as a reason for his support of the Anti-Slavery Cause (still following me?). Now that we've established the futility of your first point (because it has nothing to do with the letter I cited), let's move on.

The letter was written in support of capital's stretch. Marx wanted to see capitalist social relations established in the south. The development of imperialism is very important here, but not in the way you claim. You hold that both sides are "bourgeois", and thus cannot be supported. However, it is the imperialist character of Uribe's regime that has informed the entirety of this conflict. You might have noticed that the last few years have created a conflict between Colombia and Venezuela not seen between the two countries prior to Chavez. Why is this? It is nonsensical to think that Venezuela, being bourgeois, would suddenly turn against another bourgeois country. Venezuela and Ecuador is defending itself from imperialism.

So, your second point illustrates what everyone else already sees: that imperialism is a key part of this conflict, one that the ultra-lefts ignore.

Your continual comparisons to WWI are all the more ridiculous when you see the comparative histories. Venezuela has seen increased working class mobilization and the displacement of capitalists from power (no, Chavez is not bourgeois, it would be silly to say he is). Colombia has seen increased ruling class suppression of the working class. There is no Imperial Germany against Great Britain and France here, there is Colombia, the staunch ally of the American capitalists, against two countries that have defied imperialist interests in the region.

However, the reason I pulled up the letter is that despite capitalist conscription of working men and despite the horrific nature of the American Civil War, Marx supported it. I am glad, however, that this has brought to light imperialism and its effects on this conflict (effects you ignore).

[Entrails Konfetti]

And the Socialist Opposition will be small thanks to the likes of you who see the world as a chess tournament.

Countless time have we explained that imperialism is a world epoch, not a level of development for this or that country.

[black magick hustla]

[Quote]Unfortunately, all that hot air has nothing to do with the real world. Imperialism, at present, is trying to roll back working class progress in Venezuela; your position is fundamentally uncommunist, as you ignore the realities of bourgeois aggression. Had you been paying attention, you would have seen the pattern: the imperialists have been threatening and trying to undermine Venezuela precisely because Venezuela has displaced the capitalists from power.

I am sure the "capitalists where displaced from power" when the Chavistas cracked down on oil worker strikers.:lol:

Even if Venezuela wasn't flirting with socialist slogans, I am sure you would find your way to worm through the stupid, nonexistant "imperialism-anti-imperialism" dichonomy and create a magnificent argument to support latin american states forcing workers to die against american mercenaries. I still remember the debate in a Cuba thread we had once where you implied that it would be better for Cuba to be destroyed by a nuclear holocaust rather than for cuban workers to be under the submission of american imperialists:lol:



Ultra-left puritans don't realize this, and instead blindly embrace their fantasies of "socialist opposition". Sorry, but you do not present a socialist opposition, you present neutrality and impotence in the face of imperialist aggression.

This kind of bankrupt pontificating has no merit at all. You are not the one with a rifle in your hands, forced to fight. You are just probably some kid in the west that has a stupid fetish with violence. Again. if "neutrality and i9mpotence" is encouraging workers to either flee from the battleground, or turn their rifles against their masters, I would rather be neutral than rally behind those who send working youth to die. In fact, talking about real impotence, I think hippies are better than you people. I dislike hippies a lot, but they at least dont encourage the murder of workers in the name of realpolitik.



If I was worried about some misconception of purity, I would be a "left-communist". Instead, I support the progress of the working class, so I'm most definitely not an ultra-left puritan, just like every other revolutionary movement.

Again, if "purity" is good old internationalism, and opposition to forced slaughtering of workers, I embrace that. Funny thing that a lot of us are somewhat involved (obviousl in differing degrees), and that Devrim has probably much more experience with working class actions, like strikes, than you will ever have, but you still love to gloat about our "irrelevance".

[manic expression]

And the Socialist Opposition will be small thanks to the likes of you who see the world as a chess tournament.

Countless time have we explained that imperialism is a world epoch, not a level of development for this or that country.

The socialist opposition is what the ultra-lefts are refusing to join. It's this kind of lunacy that would sit back and encourage an isolated "socialist opposition" while Allende was overthrown. Imperialism seeks to push back all progress made by the working class, and communists must fight this at every step. That's every step, not the steps that seem most palatable to your purity. To refuse the fight at ANY ONE step is unacceptable, and that is exactly what you are proposing.

Imperialism is an epoch, yes. However, does this mean every country in the imperialist epoch is automatically imperialist? No, it certainly doesn't, and only a decided idiot would claim as much. That basically sums up the situation here.

Stick with checkers, we'll stick with the real world.

[black magick hustla]

also i think its funny that an IMT supporter pontificates about relevance lol

[black magick hustla]

If you concentrated on reading and addressing the letter, perhaps you would have come up with a meaningful argument. Whatever Marx said or didn't say about the Mexican-American War means nothing here, because he did not give that as a reason for his support of the Anti-Slavery Cause (still following me?). Now that we've established the futility of your first point (because it has nothing to do with the letter I cited), let's move on.

The letter was written in support of capital's stretch. Marx wanted to see capitalist social relations established in the south. The development of imperialism is very important here, but not in the way you claim. You hold that both sides are "bourgeois", and thus cannot be supported. However, it is the imperialist character of Uribe's regime that has informed the entirety of this conflict. You might have noticed that the last few years have created a conflict between Colombia and Venezuela not seen between the two countries prior to Chavez. Why is this? It is nonsensical to think that Venezuela, being bourgeois, would suddenly turn against another bourgeois country. Venezuela and Ecuador is defending itself from imperialism.

You are the one that misunderstood my position.

I read that letter a while ago, so I know what it is about. 1865 was when capital was in ascendancy, and still represented a progressive force. Imperialism wasn't also a world system.

[Devrim]

Notice the use of "teenager", as if indicating that the opinion of teenagers is worth less than his own.

Yes, the vast majority of people on here are teenagers playing at socialist politics, who will be get bored of it in a couple of years. Normally, I don't comment on it, but when they start accusing others of sitting in ivory towers and having no activity, it gets a little irritating.


That is what I mean, yes, except that those "states" are not attacking the working class. On the contrary, they are being empowered to levels which no Venezuelan could dream of.

Just like the oil workers have been.


As for the national defence, it's a correct measure, since Uribe has decided to go rogue by invading other countries.

This is a complete disavowal of internationalism.


No one here is advocating a war between Venezuela/Ecuador and Colombia. It's not even likely to happen. As former secretary general of the Communist Party of Spain Julio Anguita said, "Damn all the wars and those who support them."

People are fantasising on here about sending an international brigage to fight in the war.

Devrim

[manic expression]

I am sure the "capitalists where displaced from power" when the Chavistas cracked down on oil worker strikers.

So Chavez is now bourgeois? Hardly. Why do you think they tried to remove him from power? The ruling class of Venezuela is WHOLLY opposed to Chavez, and yet you claim him to be part of that very class. Pathetic.


Even if Venezuela wasn't flirting with socialist slogans, I am sure you would find your way to worm through the stupid, nonexistant "imperialism-anti-imperialism" dichonomy and create a magnificent argument to support latin american states forcing workers to die against american mercenaries. I still remember the debate in a Cuba thread we had once where you implied that it would be better for Cuba to be destroyed by a nuclear holocaust rather than for cuban workers to be under the submission of american imperialists

Not that it matters to an ultra-left, but the workers ARE being forced to die for American interests in Colombia as we speak. Colombia is ACTIVELY trying to not only suppress its own working class, but force those of Ecuador and Venezuela to submit as well. The entire region is rejecting these imperialist actions, and so too should communists. You, on the other hand, try to force a square peg into a circular hole by equating American imperialism with opposition to American imperialism. But go ahead, don't let reality get in the way of your narrow-minded fantasies.

And I supported the ability of Cuba to defend itself from American oppression. You, in typical fashion, opposed the defense of socialism in favor of impotent myth-making.


This kind of bankrupt pontificating has no merit at all. You are not the one with a rifle in your hands, forced to fight. You are just probably some kid in the west that has a stupid fetish with violence. Again. if "neutrality and i9mpotence" is encouraging workers to either flee from the battleground, or turn their rifles against their masters, I would rather be neutral than rally behind those who send working youth to die. In fact, talking about real impotence, I think hippies are better than you people. I dislike hippies a lot, but they at least dont encourage the murder of workers in the name of realpolitik.

Go ahead, try to misrepresent my argument, it's all you have left.

I am not rooting for war, I am rooting for the confrontation of imperialism. You're rooting against the progress of the working class by choosing isolated "opposition" above solidarity.

And Marx wasn't the one with the rifle in his hands, either. But I guess he wasn't a communist either. Right?

Oh, it's fitting that you would like hippies above someone like me, because hippies and left-communists have accomplished about the same: NOTHING.


Again, if "purity" is good old internationalism, and opposition to forced slaughtering of workers, I embrace that. Funny thing that a lot of us are somewhat involved (obviousl in differing degrees), and that Devrim has probably much more experience with working class actions, like strikes, than you will ever have, but you still love to gloat about our "irrelevance".

No, "purity" is your insistence with supporting nothing. You say you support the working class, but do you oppose imperialism when it threatens its gains? No. You say you are an internationalist, but do you stand with the struggle of Latin American workers against American-backed Colombian capitalists? No. You stand for nothing because it would threaten just one thing: your purity.

Now you're promoting Devrim's "credentials"? That's rich. A poster child for the relevance of the ultra-lefts. Listen, when you're done basking in the dimmed glory of Devrim, of all people, we'll talk about what the party I support has done and has been doing. Until then, put on another layer of shine for him.

[black magick hustla]

i was just using devrim as an example, obviously i cannot ever know how active he really is. However, if you want to talk about historical left communist militants and their "activity" in working class circles, I am sure we can dedicate a thread to it. I just was jabbing at your stupid concept of "relevance", whjich is rooted on taking sides in geopolitical issues rather than class warfare.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The socialist opposition is what the ultra-lefts are refusing to join. It's this kind of lunacy that would sit back and encourage an isolated "socialist opposition" while Allende was overthrown.

Theres nothing socialist in sending the police after striking oil workers. Venezuela is not a part of the socialist opposition, it cannot be made by politicians. It has to be made by the workers, not by some hot-head politician manipulating the workers for his own benefit.


Imperialism seeks to push back all progress made by the working class, and communists must fight this at every step. That's every step, not the steps that seem most palatable to your purity. To refuse the fight at ANY ONE step is unacceptable, and that is exactly what you are proposing.

Fighting for the bourgeoisie has never worked. It is insanity that after 90 years, you still make the claim it can work.


Imperialism is an epoch, yes. However, does this mean every country in the imperialist epoch is automatically imperialist? No, it certainly doesn't, and only a decided idiot would claim as much. That basically sums up the situation here.

Every country wants to dominate, every country forms blocks for their own advantage. Countless examples have been given on here.


Stick with checkers, we'll stick with the real world.
You root on the sidelines for the deaths of workers. And when its your turn, you allow yourself to be a pawn, and tell everyone else that they must be a pawn. Again, you view the real world like chess.

[manic expression]

You are the one that misunderstood my position.

I read that letter a while ago, so I know what it is about. 1865 was when capital was in ascendancy, and still represented a progressive force. Imperialism wasn't also a world system.

Good job avoiding what I wrote. Tell you what, you go back and address my response, and I'll respond to that.


also i think its funny that an IMT supporter pontificates about relevance lol

Are you talking about me? If so, you're mistaken.

[manic expression]

i was just using devrim as an example, obviously i cannot ever know how active he really is. However, if you want to talk about historical left communist militants and their "activity" in working class circles, I am sure we can dedicate a thread to it. I just was jabbing at your stupid concept of "relevance", whjich is rooted on taking sides in geopolitical issues rather than class warfare.

That example added nothing to the argument. Likewise, the ultra-left position of calling everything "bourgeois" and refusing to side with anti-imperialist forces adds nothing to the fight of the working class.

Let's get to the bottom of your misconceptions: is confronting imperialism bourgeois? Just give me a yes or no answer.

[manic expression]

Theres nothing socialist in sending the police after striking oil workers. Venezuela is not a part of the socialist opposition, it cannot be made by politicians. It has to be made by the workers, not by some hot-head politician manipulating the workers for his own benefit.

The fact stands: Chavez is not bourgeois. Unless you have a shred of evidence supporting the assertion that he is, you have nothing here.


Fighting for the bourgeoisie has never worked. It is insanity that after 90 years, you still make the claim it can work.

Fighting imperialism, on the other hand, has worked. Supporting anti-imperialist forces, similarly, has worked. Trying to be neutral and isolating oneself from class struggle, clearly, does not work, and that is a cornerstone of the left-communist tradition (not working).


Every country wants to dominate, every country forms blocks for their own advantage. Countless examples have been given on here.

What a simplistic argument. Countries are driven by the class which controls them, not just by being a country. The capitalist class in Venezuela does not hold state power at the moment, but they are allied with US imperialists and are trying to roll back working class gains. The capitalist class in Colombia has allied itself with US imperialists and is trying to suppress the working class in the region. What is happening is not a country "wanting to dominate", but the dynamics of imperialism playing out. Venezuela and Ecuador and opposing imperialism, while Colombia is perpetrating it. Were you vaguely familiar with any of these concepts, I wouldn't have to spell it out to you like I would a child.


You root on the sidelines for the deaths of workers. And when its your turn, you allow yourself to be a pawn, and tell everyone else that they must be a pawn. Again, you view the real world like chess.

I root for the fight against imperialism, which you are intent on mindlessly bad-mouthing to your last breath. Working in the real world means supporting the working class, even when your "purity" might get in the way; ultra-lefts need to get used to this fact.

[Entrails Konfetti]

That example added nothing to the argument. Likewise, the ultra-left position of calling everything "bourgeois" and refusing to side with anti-imperialist forces adds nothing to the fight of the working class.

Let's get to the bottom of your misconceptions: is confronting imperialism bourgeois? Just give me a yes or no answer.

You're not confromting imperialism, you're supporting a rival in the world of imperialism, whose wishing to donimate.

So, is supporting a rival in imperialism, revolutionary?

[Leo]

So Chavez is now bourgeois?
The fact stands: Chavez is not bourgeois.He is the head of a bourgeois state and was a high-ranking army leader, what do you think dimwit, that he is a proletarian and that he works in a factory all day?


The ruling class of Venezuela is WHOLLY opposed to Chavez, and yet you claim him to be part of that very class.Only a faction of the ruling class is opposed to Chavez, and the other faction, the 'Boliburguesía" and bureaucrats totally supports Chavez.


I am not rooting for warNo, let's be very clear here: you are rooting for war, you, someone to whom no war has ever touched, are rooting rooting for workers in places you haver never seen tearing up the stomachs and livers of each other for the interests their rulers. You are nothing but a cheerleader for imperialism, rooting from your distant comfortable chair for workers to kill each other.

[manic expression]

You're not confromting imperialism, you're supporting a rival in the world of imperialism, whose wishing to donimate.

So, is supporting a rival in imperialism, revolutionary?

You didn't answer the question.

Is confronting imperialism bourgeois? Yes or no?

[manic expression]

He is the head of a bourgeois state and was a high-ranking army leader, what do you think dimwit, that he is a proletarian and that he works in a factory all day?

What a pathetic analysis. He is not the head of a bourgeois state, the entire state was restructured, much to the dismay of the entire bourgeoisie. Sorry, but Chavez is not bourgeois.

You'll need to do better than "he's bourgeois because he's bourgeois". You won't, however, because you can't.


Only a faction of the ruling class is opposed to Chavez, and the other faction, the 'Boliburguesía" and bureaucrats totally supports Chavez.

No, the majority of the capitalists are against Chavez; the capitalists didn't put Chavez back in office after the coup, the working class did.

Good to know you're completely oblivious to the reality in Venezuela. Then again, ultra-lefts don't care about facts and reality all that much, anyway.


No, let's be very clear here: you are rooting for war, you, someone to whom no war has ever touched, are rooting rooting for workers in places you haver never seen tearing up the stomachs and livers of each other for the interests their rulers. You are nothing but a cheerleader for imperialism, rooting from your distant comfortable chair for workers to kill each other.

Let me be very clear: putting words in my mouth and deliberately lying about what I've said (yes, the only conclusion I can make is that you are lying) does not help your position. What I am rooting for is the rejection of imperialism, which happening right now in Latin America. Ultra-lefts cannot bring themselves to join this cause, this cause in the interests of the working class, because they are impotent and irrelevant puritans.

Impotent and irrelevant. And lying. That sums up your position quite accurately.

Oh, and Marx rooted for war. I guess he's just a bourgeois cheeleader, too, right? In your little world, you think you support the working class, but you end up supporting NOTHING out of your insipid fallacies. Don't be a cheerleader for war, not even class war! It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so pretentious.

[Herman]

Yes, the vast majority of people on here are teenagers playing at socialist politics, who will be get bored of it in a couple of years. Normally, I don't comment on it, but when they start accusing others of sitting in ivory towers and having no activity, it gets a little irritating.

Except that I didn't accuse you of "sitting in ivory towers and having no activity". I accused left-communists in general of doing the wrong activities.


Just like the oil workers have been.

Ah, and this is where you are wrong.

"One of the most inspiring and emotional stories is that of Tania Suarez, a contract worker in the oil industry for 14 years, who highlights the leading role that women have played in the revolutionary movement. The documentary shows how workers’ control and democracy can function. In 2003, workers set up the PDVSA guide committee, to unify workers across the sector and help them manage it. These committees play an important role in limiting the bureaucratic methods of management.
According to Jesus Montilla, during the bosses’ strike, more than 18,000 workers left the industry, including 10,000-12,000 managers. They took with them vital and crippling know-how, codes, “the brains” of the oil industry. However through the tireless efforts of the oil workers (many of whom worked 22 hours a day) and the massive support of the broader community, which also engaged engineers, lawyers etc, oil production was able to recommence after only two months.
The PDVSA guide committees work in conjunction with the new trade union confederation UNT (National Union of Workers) and the community-based Bolivarian circles. The activists in the guide committees are only too aware that fossil-fuel dependence is a double-edged sword. That's why Jose Bodas says that oil-producing countries have a moral obligation to their poorer brothers and sisters in Third World countries to use this resource to create a more humane and just world. “We say no more blood for oil. We must use this energy not to destroy the planet, but so that all of us can live.”


http://allwomencount.net/BooksVideos/workers_control_in_venezuela_fro.htm

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I like that if a leftist wins a election he isn't a leftists but becomes a member of the bourgeois. Very nice, if I win an election in college will I be overcome with the sudden urge to join the Conservative party?

[Entrails Konfetti]

The fact stands: Chavez is not bourgeois. Unless you have a shred of evidence supporting the assertion that he is, you have nothing here.

We've already shown it to you. :rolleyes:


Fighting imperialism, on the other hand, has worked. Supporting anti-imperialist forces, similarly, has worked.

Sure, anti-westerners have won, but it didn't help the workers one bit.


Trying to be neutral and isolating oneself from class struggle, clearly, does not work, and that is a cornerstone of the left-communist tradition (not working).

You're just trying so hard to be provacative. God your like that Ben Stiller character in Dodgeball. Anyways, no we aren't about being "neutral" or indifferent, we oppose all capital. Not say, "well, you know, it's just imperialism, so like whatever. I'm for whatever you fellas are for".



What a simplistic argument. Countries are driven by the class which controls them, not just by being a country.

Naturally. Oh you're so clever.

Look Mr. He-who-uses-workers-blood-as-masturbating-lotion, because imperialism is a world system; within every region someone has to make trade agreements and contracts with other regions.Within regions are boards of business people. Which brings the corrollary; that genuine workers-power can only last so long unless it spreads into other regions.
It takes a world system: Communism, to end a world system: Imperialism. Otherwise a ruling-class arises, which must structure itself to imperialism.


The capitalist class in Venezuela does not hold state power at the moment, but they are allied with US imperialists and are trying to roll back working class gains.

Yes it does, it's only taking about nationalization. Venezuela has been talking to Argentina and Bolivia to form their own block of finance. Venezuela structures workers organs in a top down manner, these have to be under government regulation. When the ruling-class of Venezuela feels threatened they send in the guard. (Man, I hope the National Guard
soon seens through the BS, and moves the otherway, like the Paris Commune). The state lives off the wealth created by workers.


The capitalist class in Colombia has allied itself with US imperialists and is trying to suppress the working class in the region. What is happening is not a country "wanting to dominate", but the dynamics of imperialism playing out. Venezuela and Ecuador and opposing imperialism, while Colombia is perpetrating it.

It makes no sense for a state to spread workers revolution. A state full of bureaucrats living off of workers, a state trying to set up its own finance block. The state under imperialism is totally alien to workers, it cannot represent their interests.


Were you vaguely familiar with any of these concepts, I wouldn't have to spell it out to you like I would a child.

Yeah, I heard all that crap from Chairman Mao.


I root for the fight against imperialism, which you are intent on mindlessly bad-mouthing to your last breath.

You root for the fight against a block of imperialism.


Working in the real world means supporting the working class, even when your "purity" might get in the way; ultra-lefts need to get used to this fact.

I do support them, I just don't believe in demoralizing, and demobilizing them with nationalism. You need to get used to the fact that the evolution of Capitalism is Imperialism.

[manic expression]

We've already shown it to you.

No, it hasn't. You've only made empty claims with no real support. Furthermore, your only shred of "evidence" was decisively refuted. Translation: you haven't shown anything (and you won't, because you can't).


Sure, anti-westerners have won, but it didn't help the workers one bit.

It's not an anti-western movement, it's a movement that has, for the moment, defeated the capitalist class politically. The "west" has been supporting the Venezuelan bourgeoisie at every step, and the working class has guarded its gains against this aggression. The ultra-lefts, unfortunately, can't see this.


You're just trying so hard to be provacative. God your like that Ben Stiller character in Dodgeball. Anyways, no we aren't about being "neutral" or indifferent, we oppose all capital. Not say, "well, you know, it's just imperialism, so like whatever. I'm for whatever you fellas are for".

Allusions to Dodgeball? Are you really that desperate?


Naturally. Oh you're so clever.

Just stating facts that you ignore.


Look Mr. He-who-uses-workers-blood-as-masturbating-lotion, because imperialism is a world system; within every region someone has to make trade agreements and contracts with other regions.Within regions are boards of business people. Which brings the corrollary; that genuine workers-power can only last so long unless it spreads into other regions.
It takes a world system: Communism, to end a world system: Imperialism. Otherwise a ruling-class arises, which must structure itself to imperialism.

Vintage absurdity. While you put quite a bit of effort into dishonestly slandering my position (with immature insults), you put no effort into a materialist analysis. Working class power exists whenever the workers establish socialism and defends these gains against world capital. The workers of Cuba, for instance, have maintained a socialist society against the American imperialists. The workers are either making progress or being pushed back, and in South America, progress is being made today. When this comes to a head, you call it imperialism!

Imperialism is a system that is dependent on monopoly capitalism. The imperialists in the US have been using proxy wars as a method of further solidifying capitalism in the region for decades. When imperialism is defeated, as it was temporarily in Chile (for instance), the imperialists do all they can to roll back working class gains. Communists defend these gains against imperialism; ultra-lefts act in blind ignorance and refuse to see these developments.


Yes it does, it's only taking about nationalization. Venezuela has been talking to Argentina and Bolivia to form their own block of finance. Venezuela structures workers organs in a top down manner, these have to be under government regulation. When the ruling-class of Venezuela feels threatened they send in the guard. (Man, I hope the National Guard
soon seens through the BS, and moves the otherway, like the Paris Commune). The state lives off the wealth created by workers.

No, it really doesn't, and the attempted coup against Chavez shows how antagonistic the capitalists are against the government. The capitalist class has been forced into trying lock-outs in order to destabilize the government, they do not control the guard. All the evidence points to one conclusion: the state is not controlled by the capitalists.


It makes no sense for a state to spread workers revolution. A state full of bureaucrats living off of workers, a state trying to set up its own finance block. The state under imperialism is totally alien to workers, it cannot represent their interests.

It makes sense for an anti-imperialist state to oppose imperialism. It makes sense for that same state to mobilize the working class. Both of these things have happened in Venezuela, and meanwhile the ultra-lefts are entirely irrevelant to these working class gains.


Yeah, I heard all that crap from Chairman Mao.

Try Lenin when he refuted "left-communism".


You root for the fight against a block of imperialism.

No, I root for the fight against imperialism. You root for your purity, ignoring the struggles of the working class.


I do support them, I just don't believe in demoralizing, and demobilizing them with nationalism. You need to get used to the fact that the evolution of Capitalism is Imperialism.

No, you don't, because you refuse to support anti-imperialist efforts. Furthermore, you belittle working class gains with vapid slogans and unsubstantiated claims.

You need to learn about the dynamics of imperialism. And oppose it.

[Devrim]

Except that I didn't accuse you of "sitting in ivory towers and having no activity". I accused left-communists in general of doing the wrong activities.


While marxists attempt to educate, agitate and organize, left-communists dream...

Devrim

[Herman]

Nice, selective quotation now, eh? Let me quote the whole thing.


While marxists attempt to educate, agitate and organize, left-communists dream of their organs of worker's power moving in the capital of the country and taking it over. Unfortunately, they do not recognize the fact that such organs are already being constructed, but since it does not fit with their dreams, they scream in outrage, "No, the workers must do it themselves!" they say. So they try to discredit the attempts of radicalizing the movement by calling for a "NO" to a constitutional reform which would have allowed to officialize communal councils as organs of a participatory democracy.

So clearly what i'm saying is that left-communists are doing the wrong activities.

But nevermind that. You'd rather take a small portion of the whole thing and use that of "proof" that i'm contradicting myself.

[Devrim]

It implies that 'left communists don't 'educate, agitate and organize', and only dream.

The rest in nonsense. Please give one instance of a left communist calling for a 'no vote' in any referendum.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

Fox News just reported that Venezuelan soldiers had crosses over the border and fired shots, haven't heard any other reports come through yet, so maybe this is just Fox making up news as usual, maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

[Herman]

It implies that 'left communists don't 'educate, agitate and organize', and only dream.

No, no it doesn't. You can't snip one line out and show that as "proof". You have to read the whole thing in order to understand that i'm not saying that left-communists do nothing.


The rest in nonsense. Please give one instance of a left communist calling for a 'no vote' in any referendum.

Orlando Chirino.

[Wanted Man]

It implies that 'left communists don't 'educate, agitate and organize', and only dream.

The rest in nonsense. Please give one instance of a left communist calling for a 'no vote' in any referendum.

Devrim
I'm not sure who voted for what. But I do remember this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963), where you guys supported some rich kid "student movement". Luis Enrique later found a website with some "interesting pictures" of Spanish flags and "no to communism" banners from them.

[Entrails Konfetti]

No, it hasn't. You've only made empty claims with no real support. Furthermore, your only shred of "evidence" was decisively refuted. Translation: you haven't shown anything (and you won't, because you can't).

Chavez isn't bourgeois, the bourgeoisie got kicked out of power?

Then why the hell are strugling workers being attacked!

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/3234
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/dec/ven-oil-struggles



It's not an anti-western movement, it's a movement that has, for the moment, defeated the capitalist class politically.

I was talking about all these nationalist revolutions, like Iran. Which wouldn't surprize me if you gave it "critical support". I'll conlude how these nationalist revolutions are an impossiblity to defeating imperialism later.


The "west" has been supporting the Venezuelan bourgeoisie at every step, and the working class has guarded its gains against this aggression. The ultra-lefts, unfortunately, can't see this.

And the "east" has been supporting the Chavist bourgeosie.
What "gains" are they defending? When this student movement arrose, which you concluded it consististed entirely of oppositionists; Chavez called on the Barios to counter demonstrate. His call was ineffective.
Their living standards have declined; despite that wages rose, inflation made these increased wages ineffective-- workers aren't even being paid enough to keep up with inflation.



Allusions to Dodgeball? Are you really that desperate?


You're dragging your knuckles, acting like you've seen everything and I "should do this". Where do you get off talking to me like I'm some subordinate to you, that I'm some idiot.



Vintage absurdity. While you put quite a bit of effort into dishonestly slandering my position (with immature insults), you put no effort into a materialist analysis.

There is nothing materialist in your analysis of "oppressed" and "oppresser nations". No one tries to make the world into colonies anymore, most of the conflicts are about trying to redistribute the spoils. What new foreign prospects there are for introducing capitalism to its society: They are insignificant.

At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries we saw the end of independence movements from Colonies. The mother countries decolonized because colonialsation was too costly. Few countries were able to break away. Most of the former colonies had production apparatuses so weak that they had to align to a block. Lenin thought these movements would shake the foundations of colonialisation to collapse, but that did not happen, instead we have rival blocks in imperialism. Much like Venezuela aligning with China, Russia, Iran, ect. Less developed countries stick with powerful ones for their own ambitions, and benefits.

The millitarization, the fight over redistribution of the spoils is the result of the end of finding new prospects. Imperialism is the way how the world market prolongs its life. War makes money and new technologies, and these are just putting more and more bandaids on an open gash.
Inshort Imperialism is the way of survival. Not a policy.

The only way to end imperialism, isn't by the pragmatist conception of making these temporary alliances, competing in the worldwide market; thereby changing the movement character, and compromising it into tranformation of something alien to proletarian revolution. The end is by the proletariat taking control of society through their own means, and ending market relations.


Working class power exists whenever the workers establish socialism and defends these gains against world capital.

The state wasn't smashed, only the factions of the bourgeoisie changed sides. Chavistas havent challenged the market, the workers havent established their own organs to weild power and run society. Instead the government builds these sandcastles in the sky, and tells the workers they must get in them, and use them in accordance to the government.


The workers of Cuba, for instance, have maintained a socialist society against the American imperialists.

Workers didn't not lead that revolution in their own organizations. That was lead by nationalist-guerillas, who when couldn't get the support of the USA, they went to the USSR and claimed Marxist-Leninism. See my paragraph above.


The workers are either making progress or being pushed back, and in South America, progress is being made today. When this comes to a head, you call it imperialism!

Where are the workers own organs challanging imperialism? Theres nothing of the sort. It's "we've got dogs in our yard too, so if your dog comes over here and bites one of ours, we'll release our dogs in your yard and mangle your dogs, cats and bunnies".

Before you hit the ceiling, I'm not saying Venezuelans are nothing but animals, it's an analogy. I'm saying they're being treated like animals, why the ruling-class acts like the humans who tell the animals what to do.


Imperialism is a system that is dependent on monopoly capitalism.
That's reductionist to say that imperialism is based around finance capital without looking at all the dynamics in its relations. Its the way how the world market survives. Again, its not a policy.


The imperialists in the US have been using proxy wars as a method of further solidifying capitalism in the region for decades.

Who doesn't try to beef up their economy temporarily by millitarization.


When imperialism is defeated, as it was temporarily in Chile (for instance), the imperialists do all they can to roll back working class gains

What, so I'm not supposed to believe that State Capitalism can't be apart of the Imperialist market relations? Just because institutions are nationalised and theres no competition at home, doesn't mean there aren't a ruling class living off the surplus, part of a finance block, and competing in the world-wide market. I'm not supposed to believe that the Sandinistas were apart of some financed opperation by Eastern countries and Castro.



Communists defend these gains against imperialism; ultra-lefts act in blind ignorance and refuse to see these developments.


Left-of-capitals always compromise their positions by being "pragmatic".


No, it really doesn't, and the attempted coup against Chavez shows how antagonistic the capitalists are against the government.

For one thing the rich are the only ones making gains. Second, the small turn-out of voters for Chavez re-election show that Venezuelans are sick of Chavistas and the opposition.



The capitalist class has been forced into trying lock-outs in order to destabilize the government, they do not control the guard. All the evidence points to one conclusion: the state is not controlled by the capitalists.


That's been dealt with at length, I don't need to repeat anything.



It makes sense for an anti-imperialist state to oppose imperialism It makes sense for that same state to mobilize the working class. Both of these things have happened in Venezuela,

That workers organs should not get caught up in the machinations of the state under imperialism. Just as the proletariat is a world-class, so is the bourgeoisie. Workers of the world must join hands before anyone can talk about suppressing the bourgeoisie, otherwize theres all this talk of joining alliances, trade deals and such. Under imperialism, the state must be struggled against.


and meanwhile the ultra-lefts are entirely irrevelant to these working class gains.

You mean roll-backs.



Try Lenin when he refuted "left-communism".

Again, you're trying to be provacative.
No thanks I read Herman Gorters "Open Letter to Comrade Lenin"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm



No, I root for the fight against imperialism. You root for your purity, ignoring the struggles of the working class.

You root for nationalism, and workers slaying eachother.



No, you don't, because you refuse to support anti-imperialist efforts. Furthermore, you belittle working class gains with vapid slogans and unsubstantiated claims.

No I don't. And I belittle State Capitalism. You belittle the workers by not believing they can do things themselves and cheering for bloodshed between them.


You need to learn about the dynamics of imperialism. And oppose it.
You need to stop telling me what I need to do like you're somebody. Typical of you lot, telling workers what they need to do, and what they can't do.

[Sentinel]

The presidents of Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia have shaken hands at a regional summit, marking the end of a diplomatic crisis in the Andean region. The crisis had been triggered by a cross-border raid by Colombian troops into Ecuador to attack Farc rebels.
Earlier there had been heated exchanges between the heads of state at the Rio Group summit in the Dominican Republic.
The summit of Latin American leaders had originally been planned to discuss energy and other issues.
But the crisis, which started with the raid last Saturday, had erupted into the worst political spat in the region for years.
Venezuela and Ecuador cut diplomatic ties with Bogota and sent troops to their borders after the Colombian operation which left 20 Farc rebels dead, including a senior Farc commander, Raul Reyes.
As the summit debate unfolded, Colombia's defence minister announced that another rebel leader, Ivan Rios, had been killed - this time on Colombian soil and at the hands of his own men.
Verbal sparring
Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega, who had also broken off diplomatic ties with Colombia, said they would be re-established after the presidents shook hands.
The handshakes were broadcast live on television across Latin America in response to a special request from the summit's host, Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44475000/gif/_44475856_colombia_ecuvene_0203.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Pride fuels tensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7281955.stm)
Borders a sensitive issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7276308.stm)
In quotes: Summit sparring (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7284661.stm)


Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and his Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe had clashed at the opening of the summit.
Mr Correa condemned Colombia's "aggression", while Mr Uribe accused his opposite number of having links with the Farc rebels.
The Colombian president said he had not warned Ecuador before the raid because Mr Correa had not co-operated in the fight against terrorism.
He also claimed material seized in the operation proved links between Mr Correa's government and the rebels.
Mr Correa rejected the claims, saying his hands were not "stained with blood".
He admitted there had been communications with Farc, but only because his government was trying to secure the release of hostages held by the rebels, including former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt.
But before shaking hands, to applause from the summit delegates, Mr Correa said: "With the commitment of never attacking a brother country again and by asking forgiveness, we can consider this very serious incident resolved."
The BBC's Jeremy McDermott says President Uribe's huge gamble in ordering the air strike that killed Reyes appears to have paid off.
He said Mr Uribe knew it would lead to a diplomatic incident with Ecuador, but perhaps did not realise that Venezuela and Nicaragua would also break off diplomatic relations.

Leaders say Colombia crisis over (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7284597.stm)

Looks like the all the presidents are friends again. :rolleyes:

[Eleftherios]

Looks like the all the presidents are friends again. :rolleyes:Not really. I don't think anybody wanted war, but I think that the situation now after this incident is much better than it was before. Think about it- this has strengthened the solidarity among the Latin American leftist governments and seriously isolated the Colombian puppet regime from its neighbors and weakened it. That can't in any way be a bad thing.

[black magick hustla]

I'm not sure who voted for what. But I do remember this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963), where you guys supported some rich kid "student movement". Luis Enrique later found a website with some "interesting pictures" of Spanish flags and "no to communism" banners from them.

that was only "one" of us, and it was probably due to misinformation.

i dont like chavez but i hate more the goddamn white student anti-chavistas.

[manic expression]

Chavez isn't bourgeois, the bourgeoisie got kicked out of power?

Then why the hell are strugling workers being attacked!

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/3234
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/dec/ven-oil-struggles


Try to explain the attempted coup and the lock-outs, made with the full support of the Venezuelan capitalist class. Chavez has been pushing against the bourgeoisie, that much is something you HAVEN'T refuted because it's simply undeniable. The point stands, Chavez is not bourgeois. Sorry.


I was talking about all these nationalist revolutions, like Iran. Which wouldn't surprize me if you gave it "critical support". I'll conlude how these nationalist revolutions are an impossiblity to defeating imperialism later.

We're talking about Venezuela. Stay on topic.


And the "east" has been supporting the Chavist bourgeosie.
What "gains" are they defending? When this student movement arrose, which you concluded it consististed entirely of oppositionists; Chavez called on the Barios to counter demonstrate. His call was ineffective.
Their living standards have declined; despite that wages rose, inflation made these increased wages ineffective-- workers aren't even being paid enough to keep up with inflation.

No, they've been trading with them. Big difference.

Oh, yeah, nothing's changed since Chavez came to power. Nada. Get real, there have been momentous changes in Venezuela: forms of community control are being used, nationalizations have been carried out, revenue is being used to alleviate poverty, etc. Living standards have increased, don't buy into capitalist slander.


You're dragging your knuckles, acting like you've seen everything and I "should do this". Where do you get off talking to me like I'm some subordinate to you, that I'm some idiot.

You just made a reference to a Ben Stiller movie, and now you're accusing me of "dragging my knuckles". How ironic.


There is nothing materialist in your analysis of "oppressed" and "oppresser nations". No one tries to make the world into colonies anymore, most of the conflicts are about trying to redistribute the spoils. What new foreign prospects there are for introducing capitalism to its society: They are insignificant.

You're missing the point in a big way. It's a matter of capitalist aggression against weaker countries, which provides for increased profit for the imperialists. If you'd been paying attention to the last century, capitalism has begun to forcibly acquire markets and subjugate the international working class for greater exploitation. When there is a setback for the imperialists, there is a setback for capitalism; when there is a setback for capitalism, the working class can make gains. That is what has happened in Venezuela, just as in Chile. Ultra-left puritanism, however, refuses to understand reality.


At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries we saw the end of independence movements from Colonies. The mother countries decolonized because colonialsation was too costly. Few countries were able to break away. Most of the former colonies had production apparatuses so weak that they had to align to a block. Lenin thought these movements would shake the foundations of colonialisation to collapse, but that did not happen, instead we have rival blocks in imperialism. Much like Venezuela aligning with China, Russia, Iran, ect. Less developed countries stick with powerful ones for their own ambitions, and benefits.

Are you kidding me? Read up on some history. Struggles for colonial independence really wound up in the 70's. At any rate, Venezuela's relations with China, Russia and Iran are part of the opposition to American imperialism. China and Russia, since the reestablishment of capitalist relations, have been trying to enforce their own imperialist projects, and thus oppose the US imperialists; Venezuela and Iran, however, are not. The fundamental difference is that Venezuela is not driven by capitalists, and therefore cannot be imperialist. There are vastly different motives for these alignments. Even then, Venezuela still sells tons of oil to the US, so your thesis is basically flawed anyway.

It's not a faceless "rival block of imperialism", it's a multi-faceted development that goes beyond your simple-minded worldview.


The millitarization, the fight over redistribution of the spoils is the result of the end of finding new prospects. Imperialism is the way how the world market prolongs its life. War makes money and new technologies, and these are just putting more and more bandaids on an open gash.
Inshort Imperialism is the way of survival. Not a policy.

Imperialism is not merely how the market "prolongues" its life, it's the logical conclusion of the capitalist system. Imperialism is a system, not a way of survival. In fact, I would argue, like any other Marxist, that all forms of capitalism are inherently self-destructive, and so it is irrational to say that imperialism is a "form of survival".


The only way to end imperialism, isn't by the pragmatist conception of making these temporary alliances, competing in the worldwide market; thereby changing the movement character, and compromising it into tranformation of something alien to proletarian revolution. The end is by the proletariat taking control of society through their own means, and ending market relations.

And that is precisely what the ultra-left puritans will never do. Why? They are unable to support the gains of the working class, as reality does not fit their imagination. The road to revolution is made by many steps: supporting the defeat of imperialism and self-determination is one of them. While revolutionaries everywhere are struggling along this path, the ultra-lefts are standing still.


The state wasn't smashed, only the factions of the bourgeoisie changed sides. Chavistas havent challenged the market, the workers havent established their own organs to weild power and run society. Instead the government builds these sandcastles in the sky, and tells the workers they must get in them, and use them in accordance to the government.

The government was fundamentally changed, and this sparked the attempted bourgeois coup against Chavez. Nationalization of industry has challenged capitalist control, the workers HAVE established community organizations (the Bolivarian Circles are one good example). Much remains to be done, all revolutionaries recognize that much, but much has been done.


Workers didn't not lead that revolution in their own organizations. That was lead by nationalist-guerillas, who when couldn't get the support of the USA, they went to the USSR and claimed Marxist-Leninism. See my paragraph above.

That's rich. The revolution was led by a vanguard of working-class revolutionaries against the capitalists of Cuba. Without the support of the peasantry, the guerrillas would have been crushed in weeks; as it turned out, they grew and gained the unfailing support of the entire Cuban working class. Secondly, the Cuban revolutionaries went to the USSR after the American imperialists tried to destroy the progress of the working class; the Soviet Union was willing to fight imperialism as well. As I said, read some history.

Oh, and you use "nationalist" as an insult, but you ignore that they established socialist relations and smashed capitalism.

Which is exactly what the ultra-lefts have never done and will never do.


Where are the workers own organs challanging imperialism? Theres nothing of the sort. It's "we've got dogs in our yard too, so if your dog comes over here and bites one of ours, we'll release our dogs in your yard and mangle your dogs, cats and bunnies".

Please make that into a coherent point. Anyway, on the one hand, the workers have been forming anti-imperialist organs, and on the other, the fight is not so black-and-white. Chavez has challenged imperialism directly on multiple occassions, mostly because the workers pushed him in that direction. It is a direction, not an end; that is what you are missing.


Before you hit the ceiling, I'm not saying Venezuelans are nothing but animals, it's an analogy. I'm saying they're being treated like animals, why the ruling-class acts like the humans who tell the animals what to do.

I understand that part, but I disagree. The workers are not being treated like animals, they're finding their voice in a big way. Chavez has facilitated (whether by choice or by necessity) working class mobilization, which goes hand-in-hand with working class power. That is something to defend.


That's reductionist to say that imperialism is based around finance capital without looking at all the dynamics in its relations. Its the way how the world market survives. Again, its not a policy.

It's materialist. Imperialism is "gigantic usury capital", to quote Lenin.


Who doesn't try to beef up their economy temporarily by millitarization.

Socialists? The point was that these recent events are part of a larger history of imperialist aggression against the Latin American working class. That states are now beginning to challenge that imperialism is a victory for the working class.


What, so I'm not supposed to believe that State Capitalism can't be apart of the Imperialist market relations? Just because institutions are nationalised and theres no competition at home, doesn't mean there aren't a ruling class living off the surplus, part of a finance block, and competing in the world-wide market. I'm not supposed to believe that the Sandinistas were apart of some financed opperation by Eastern countries and Castro.

State capitalism is a fallacy and a myth. So no, you're not supposed to "believe" that the Sandinistas were backed by Soviet and Cuban imperialism, because that would be an unforgivably stupid thing to "believe".


Left-of-capitals always compromise their positions by being "pragmatic".

Translation: people who analyze the real world change it; people who deal with imagined fantasies do nothing.


For one thing the rich are the only ones making gains. Second, the small turn-out of voters for Chavez re-election show that Venezuelans are sick of Chavistas and the opposition.

No, the rich aren't really making gains, they're fighting for their lives.


That's been dealt with at length, I don't need to repeat anything.

And the fact that it's wrong has also been dealt with at length.


That workers organs should not get caught up in the machinations of the state under imperialism. Just as the proletariat is a world-class, so is the bourgeoisie. Workers of the world must join hands before anyone can talk about suppressing the bourgeoisie, otherwize theres all this talk of joining alliances, trade deals and such. Under imperialism, the state must be struggled against.

So the workers shouldn't take state power? Good to know you're not a Marxist.


You mean roll-backs.

I mean victories for the working class, something you apparently have no interest in defending.


Again, you're trying to be provacative.
No thanks I read Herman Gorters "Open Letter to Comrade Lenin"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm


Herman Gorter and his pamphlet were both insignificant. Lenin's refutation of left-wing communism endures because he hit the nail on the head: it's an infantile position.


You root for nationalism, and workers slaying eachother.

And you, evidently, root for strawmen. Don't blame me for your incapacity to comprehend imperialism and the importance of working class gains.


No I don't. And I belittle State Capitalism. You belittle the workers by not believing they can do things themselves and cheering for bloodshed between them.

You belittle rational thought by believing the myth of state capitalism, which is a clear contradiction.

Back to your slanderous claims, I belittle the idea that working class gains should not be defended, but should be discarded in favor of the immature dreams of ultra-lefts.


You need to stop telling me what I need to do like you're somebody. Typical of you lot, telling workers what they need to do, and what they can't do.

How terrible of me, telling you to support the working class against imperialism!

I'm telling you to comprehend reality and work to change it. If you're not willing to do that, then perhaps you belong in the ultra-left camp afterall.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Fuck it, i wanted a nice war, FIRE ZE MISSILES!

[Entrails Konfetti]

You're taking each little part of a post as individual arguments, and each post by us as seperate entities. You don't take our information as a whole. When something theoretical is brought up you don't read into and envision how it moves. And you do alot of these "you're wrong" "you're lying" claims without backing anything up. I bet this thread is going to turn into you saying such things. So I just see no point in giving you a well thought out reply.


Try to explain the attempted coup and the lock-outs, made with the full support of the Venezuelan capitalist class. Chavez has been pushing against the bourgeoisie, that much is something you HAVEN'T refuted because it's simply undeniable. The point stands, Chavez is not bourgeois. Sorry.

The ruling-classes have factions themselves. Leo already pointed out that only one faction doesn't support Chavez. Ruling-classes don't always support eachother on actions and issues, sometime factions stand alone.



We're talking about Venezuela. Stay on topic.


I was talking about national-liberation as a whole.


No, they've been trading with them. Big difference.
If you payed attention to all the information being brought up, you would see that they aren't just merely trading with them.


Oh, yeah, nothing's changed since Chavez came to power. Nada. Get real, there have been momentous changes in Venezuela: forms of community control are being used, nationalizations have been carried out, revenue is being used to alleviate poverty, etc. Living standards have increased, don't buy into capitalist slander.

You're response to me in summary, I'm saying "Lies, lies, lies".
I've said what these new forms of community control really are: Government manfuctured organs to be pushed ontyo workers.


You just made a reference to a Ben Stiller movie, and now you're accusing me of "dragging my knuckles". How ironic.

Your tone is disrespectful, and you're trying to act like your some badass.


You're missing the point in a big way. It's a matter of capitalist aggression against weaker countries, which provides for increased profit for the imperialists. If you'd been paying attention to the last century, capitalism has begun to forcibly acquire markets and subjugate the international working class for greater exploitation.

Again, imperialism today isn't about introducing capitalism to areas non-capitalist. The markets are saturated. Its about reshuffling the deck, so the competitors can drive their rivals out of everywhere. Capitalism is in crisis. Competition survives by war.


When there is a setback for the imperialists, there is a setback for capitalism; when there is a setback for capitalism, the working class can make gains. That is what has happened in Venezuela, just as in Chile. Ultra-left puritanism, however, refuses to understand reality.

You, again "You're wrong, it did happen, it did! You puritan!"


The fundamental difference is that Venezuela is not driven by capitalists, and therefore cannot be imperialist.

It's driven by making profit.



There are vastly different motives for these alignments.

I'm just supposed to take your word for it.


It's not a faceless "rival block of imperialism", it's a multi-faceted development that goes beyond your simple-minded worldview

For godsake don't tell me how it is, just say I'm wrong and simple-minded.


Imperialism is not merely how the market "prolongues" its life, it's the logical conclusion of the capitalist system.

Finance capitals cannot find different parts of the globe to exploit, so the world is driven into war to redistribute the spoils. Hence war is the temporary measure of dealing with saturation.


Imperialism is a system, not a way of survival.

For the market it is.



In fact, I would argue, like any other Marxist, that all forms of capitalism are inherently self-destructive, and so it is irrational to say that imperialism is a "form of survival".

Not just a form, its how the market survives.

Its irrational to say that the rule of capital will be ended without proletarian revolution.


And that is precisely what the ultra-left puritans will never do. Why? They are unable to support the gains of the working class, as reality does not fit their imagination. The road to revolution is made by many steps: supporting the defeat of imperialism and self-determination is one of them. While revolutionaries everywhere are struggling along this path, the ultra-lefts are standing still.

Just repeat yourself, without backing anything up. And say Left-Communists are jokes, when you have already been reponded to on that sentiment on the "Which side to support thread".



The government was fundamentally changed, and this sparked the attempted bourgeois coup against Chavez. Nationalization of industry has challenged capitalist control, the workers HAVE established community organizations (the Bolivarian Circles are one good example). Much remains to be done, all revolutionaries recognize that much, but much has been done.

Profit is still being made through nationalizations. In some parts of the world, these are used for the government trying to regulate sectors of the economy out of crisis, or plunging into crisis.

Furthermore you're just repeating yourself. Bolivarian circles just spread Chavista ideology, and those who do not partake in those circles are told that they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the "gains" made by the "revolution". I've already said what these mass organs really are.


That's rich. The revolution was led by a vanguard of working-class revolutionaries against the capitalists of Cuba

It was against dah gangstas, and the guerrillas had support of bourgeois factions, that weren't gangsta.


Without the support of the peasantry, the guerrillas would have been crushed in weeks; as it turned out, they grew and gained the unfailing support of the entire Cuban working class.

Yeah, so what. Bourgeois revolutions have always needed the support of the lowest sectors of the economy. And then they turn around and slay'em when they get too "uppity".


Secondly, the Cuban revolutionaries went to the USSR after the American imperialists tried to destroy the progress of the working class; the Soviet Union was willing to fight imperialism as well. As I said, read some history.

Yes, they were willing to fight American Imperialism, good ol' Red imperialism! Care to say how Russia didn't try to destroy progress of the working-class?



Oh, and you use "nationalist" as an insult, but you ignore that they established socialist relations and smashed capitalism.

Oh looks like I'm wrong again, without any explaination why.


Which is exactly what the ultra-lefts have never done and will never do.
:lol:




Please make that into a coherent point. Anyway, on the one hand, the workers have been forming anti-imperialist organs, and on the other, the fight is not so black-and-white. Chavez has challenged imperialism directly on multiple occassions, mostly because the workers pushed him in that direction. It is a direction, not an end; that is what you are missing.

Howcome if Chavez has been pushed so hard, he still arrests struggling workers?



I understand that part, but I disagree. The workers are not being treated like animals, they're finding their voice in a big way. Chavez has facilitated (whether by choice or by necessity) working class mobilization, which goes hand-in-hand with working class power. That is something to defend.

I've already said why its nonsensical for a government to create working-class organs. You still haven't replied and said it isn't.



It's materialist. Imperialism is "gigantic usury capital", to quote Lenin.


You just say those with finance capital are "bad,bad'bad", without looking at how national-bourgeois' gain from it.



Socialists? The point was that these recent events are part of a larger history of imperialist aggression against the Latin American working class. That states are now beginning to challenge that imperialism is a victory for the working class.

Yes so-called "socialists"did try to beef up their economy through millitary spending and War. Like the arms race and WW2.





State capitalism is a fallacy and a myth. So no, you're not supposed to "believe" that the Sandinistas were backed by Soviet and Cuban imperialism, because that would be an unforgivably stupid thing to "believe".


"It's a myth I tells ya! A myth!', "And that's stupid!"
Whatever you say.



Translation: people who analyze the real world change it; people who deal with imagined fantasies do nothing.

Yes, they do nothing because they root on the sidelines.

Because bourgeois ideology is so strong, a Communist-organization will hjave a very hard time wrenching workers away from this disease of bourgeois ideology. You insist being with the workers always, even when they are sick with bourgeois ideology, thereby changing your movements character and getting sick. Before the revolution, Lenin was told by Stalin and Kamenev that they should support their own national-bourgeois in the war. After arguing Lenin got the Bolsheviks to accept internationalism, if that never happened, there wouldn't have been a revolution.





No, the rich aren't really making gains, they're fighting for their lives.



And the fact that it's wrong has also been dealt with at length.

Back your claims.


So the workers shouldn't take state power? Good to know you're not a Marxist.

They should seize power of their country, or area. But their influence is limited until its spreads to other locations. Thereby the limits are lessened.
Even if they have seized power in a country, their state is part of the world order in the process of capital accumulation, their state isn't fully theirs yet, until the world orde rof capital is suppressed.
The workers must struggle against the state, for better wages, better ways to reorganize production by themselves, ect. But if they get up in world trade with capitalists, they have neccesistate capital-- their whole reason for production will once again be for capital accumulation.
The characteristics of capitalism will reappear in the region once the goal is for production is accumulation.


I mean victories for the working class, something you apparently have no interest in defending.


Herman Gorter and his pamphlet were both insignificant. Lenin's refutation of left-wing communism endures because he hit the nail on the head: it's an infantile position.



And you, evidently, root for strawmen. Don't blame me for your incapacity to comprehend imperialism and the importance of working class gains.



You belittle rational thought by believing the myth of state capitalism, which is a clear contradiction.

Back to your slanderous claims, I belittle the idea that working class gains should not be defended, but should be discarded in favor of the immature dreams of ultra-lefts.



How terrible of me, telling you to support the working class against imperialism!

I'm telling you to comprehend reality and work to change it. If you're not willing to do that, then perhaps you belong in the ultra-left camp afterall.

"my grandfather is bigger than yours". :rolleyes: